Europe is willing to defy the U.S. on Nordstream to the point of forcing the U.S. to openly and nakedly destroy its reputation
with European contractors and governments to stop one pipeline in a place where multiple gas pipelines will be needed for future
growth.
This is the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option. And the neocons in the Senate just pushed the button. Europe understands
what this is really about, the U.S. retaining its imperial position as the policy setter for all the world. If it can set energy
policy for Europe then it can set everything else.
And it's clear that the leadership in Europe is done with that status quo. The Trump administration from the beginning has used
NATO as an excuse to mask its real intentions towards Europe, which is continued domination of its policies. Trump complains that
the U.S. pays into NATO to protect Europe from Russia but then Europe buys its energy from Russia. That's unfair, Donald complains,
like a little bitch, frankly, even though he right on the surface. But if the recent NATO summit is any indication, Europe is no
longer interested in NATO performing that function. French President Emmanuel Macron wants NATO re-purposed to fight global terror,
a terrible idea. NATO should just be ended.
But you'll notice how Trump doesn't talk about that anymore. He wants more billions pumped into NATO while the U.S. still sets
its policies. This is not a boondoggle for the MIC as much as it's a Sword of Damocles to hold over Europe's head. The U.S.'s involvement
in should be ended immediately, the troops brought home and the billions of dollars spent here as opposed to occupying most of Europe
to point missiles at a Russia wholly uninterested in imperial ambitions no less harboring any of them.
And Trump also knows this but thinks stopping Nordstream 2 is the price Europe has to pay him for this privilege. It's insane.
The time has come for Europe to act independently from the U.S. As much as I despise the EU, to untangle it from the U.S. on energy
policy is the means by which for it to then deal with its problems internally. It can't do that while the U.S. is threatening it.
Circling the wagons against the immediate threat, as it were.
And that means protecting its companies and citizens from the economic depredations of power-mad neoconservatives in the U.S.
Senate like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
Allseas, the Swiss company laying the pipe for Nordstream 2,
has halted construction for now
, awaiting instructions from the U.S. Gazprom will likely step in to finish the job and Germany will green light any of the necessary
permits to get the pipeline done. Those people will be put out of work just in time for Christmas, turning thousands of people against
the U.S. Commerce drives people together, politics drives them apart.
But, at the same time, the urgency to finish Nordstream 2 on time is wholly irrelevant now because Ukraine and Russia came to
terms on a new five-year gas transit contract. This ensures Gazprom can meet its contractual deliveries to Europe that no one thought
could be done on time. But when the Nazi threat to Zelensky meeting with Merkel, Macron and Putin in Paris failed to materialize,
a gas deal was on the horizon.
And, guess what? U.S. LNG will still not have the marginal lever over Europe's energy policy because of that. Putin and Zelensky
outmaneuvered Cruz, Graham and Trump on this. Because that's what this boils down to. By keeping Russian gas out of Europe, it was
supposed to constrain not only Russia's growth but also Europe's. Because then the U.S. government can control who and how much energy
can make it into European markets at critical junctures politically.
That was the Bolton Doctrine to National Security. And that doctrine brought nothing but misery to millions.
And if you look back over the past five years of U.S./EU relations you will see this gambit clearly for what it was, a way to
continue European vassalage at the hands of the U.S. by forcing market share of U.S. providers into European markets.
Again, it gets back to Trump's ideas about Emergy Dominance
and becoming the supplier of the marginal erg of energy to important economies around the world.
The smart play for the EU now that the gas transit deal is in place is to threaten counter-sanctions against the U.S. and bar
all LNG shipments into Europe. Gas prices are at historic lows, gas supplies are overflowing thanks to fears of a deal not being
in place.
So, a three to six month embargo of U.S. LNG into Europe to bleed off excess supply while Nordstream 2 is completed would be the
right play politically.
But, in reality, they won't need to, because the U.S. won't be able to import much into Europe under current prices and market
conditions. And once Nordstream 2 is complete, LNG sales to Europe should crater.
In the end, I guess it's too bad for Ted Cruz that economics and basic human ingenuity are more powerful than legislatures. Because
Nordstream 2 will be completed. Turkstream's other trains into Europe will be built. Venezuela will continue rebuilding its energy
sector with Russian and Chinese help.
There is no place for U.S. LNG in Europe outside of the Poles literally burning money virtue signaling their Russophobia. Nordstream 2 was a response to the revolt in Ukraine, to replace any potential losses in market share to Europe. Now Russia will
have what it had before passing through Ukraine along with Nordstream 2. By 2024 there will be at least two trains from Turkstream
coming into Europe.
Iran will keep expanding exports, settling its oil and gas trade through Russian banks. And the U.S. will continue to fulminate
and make itself even more irrelevant over time. What men like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump refuse to understand is that when you go nuclear you can't ever go back. If you threaten
the nuclear option, there's no fall back position.
And when those that you threaten with annihilation survive they are made all the stronger for passing through the eye of the needle. Looking at Gazprom's balance sheet right now, that's my take.
Turkey, since 2011, has been waging a pro-Sunni proxy war in Syria, in the hope of one day
establishing in Damascus a pro-Turkey, Islamist regime. This ambition has failed, costing
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Turkey violent political turmoil on both sides of
Turkey's 911-km border with Syria and billions of dollars spent on more than 4 million Syrian
refugees scattered across the Turkish soil.
In Egypt, in 2011-2012, Erdoğan aggressively supported the failed Muslim Brotherhood
government and deeply antagonized the incumbent -- then-general but now president -- Abdel
Fattah al-Sisi. Since Erdoğan's efforts in Syria and Egypt failed, his Sunni Islamist
ambitions have found a new proxy-war theater: Libya.
On December 10,
Erdoğan said he could deploy troops in Libya if the UN-backed Government of National
Accord (GNA) in Tripoli (which Turkey supports) requested it. Erdoğan's talks with GNA's
head, Fayez al-Sarraj, who is fighting a war against the Libyan National Army (LNA) of General
Khalifa Haftar, produced two ostensibly strategic agreements: a memorandum of understanding on
providing the GNA with arms, military training and personnel; and a maritime agreement
delineating exclusive economic zones in the Mediterranean waters.
Greece and Egypt protested immediately while the European Council unequivocally condemned
the controversial accords. Meanwhile, the deals apparently escalated a proxy competition
between Turkey's old (Greece) and new (Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) rivals.
With the al-Sarraj handshake, Erdoğan is apparently aiming to:
minimize Turkey's isolation in the Mediterranean, one which has gradually worsened since
2010, following one diplomatic crisis after another with Israel;
counter strategic cooperation between Cyprus, Greece, Egypt and Israel, including joint
diplomatic, energy and military initiatives;
cut into the emerging Cypriot-Greek-Egyptian-Israeli maritime bloc;
push back against Arab (Egyptian and UAE) pressure on al-Sarraj;
fill the European vacuum in Libya; and
emerge as a deal-breaker in the Mediterranean rather than a deal-maker.
All that ambition requires military hardware as well as diplomatic software. Since 2011, a
year after the Mavi Marmara incident ruptured relations with Israel, Turkey has been investing
billions of dollars in naval technologies, in an apparent effort to build up the hardware it
would one day require.
In the eight years since then, Turkey has built
four Ada-class corvettes; two Landing Ship Tank (LST) vessels; eight fast Landing Craft Tank
(LCT) vessels; 16 military patrol ships; two deep-sea rescue ships; one submarine rescue ship;
and four assault boats.
The jewel in the naval treasury box is a $1 billion Landing Platform Dock (LPD), now being
built under license from Spain's Navantia shipyards, to be operational in 2021. The TCG
Anadolu , Turkey's first amphibious assault ship, will carry a battalion-sized unit of
1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles; it
also will transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks. It also may be able to deploy short
takeoff and vertical landing STOVL F-35 fighter jets. Turkey will be the third operator in the
world of this ship type, after Spain and Australia.
Erdoğan's naval ambitions, however, are not limited just to an emerging fleet of
conventional vessels. In 2016, he said
that the LPD program would hopefully be the first step toward producing a "most elite" aircraft
carrier. He also said he "sees it as a major deficiency that we still do not have a nuclear
vessel."
On December 22, Turkey's first Type 214 class submarine, the TCG Piri Reis , hit the seas
with a ceremony attended by Erdoğan. "Today,"
he said , "we gathered here for the docking of Piri Reis . As of 2020, a submarine will go
into service each year. By 2027, all six of our submarines will be at our seas for
service."
Unsurprisingly the docking ceremony reminded Erdoğan of his Libyan gambit: "We will
evaluate every opportunity in land, sea and air. If needed, we will increase military support
in Libya."
Erdoğan seems to think that his best defense in the Mediterranean power game is an
offense. On December 15, Turkish Naval Forces
intercepted an Israeli research ship, the Bat Galim , in Cypriot waters and escorted it
away, as tension over natural resource exploration continued to rise in the region.
On December 16, Turkey dispatched a surveillance and reconnaissance drone to the
Turkish-controlled north of the divided island of Cyprus. A week before the drone deployment,
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said that Ankara could use its
military forces to halt gas drilling in waters off Cyprus that it claims as its own.
Libya is another risky proxy war theater for Turkey. Its deals with the al-Sarraj government
over troop deployment and maritime borders will become null and void if the Libyan civil war,
begun in 2014, ends with Gen. Haftar's victory. The chief of staff of the LNA, Farag
Al-Mahdawi,
announced that his forces would sink any Turkish ship approaching the Libyan coast. "I have
an order; as soon as the Turkish research vessels arrive, I will have a solution. I will sink
them myself," Al-Mahdawi warned, noting that the order was coming from Haftar. On December 21,
Haftar's forces seized
a Grenada-flagged ship with Turkish crew aboard, on the suspicion that it was carrying arms.
The ship was later released.
The European Union is another factor why Erdoğan, once again, is probably betting on
the wrong horse. Technically speaking, Turkey is a candidate for full EU membership, but it is
an open secret that accession talks have not moved an inch during the past several years, and
with no prospects of progress in sight. Making membership prospects even gloomier, EU foreign
ministers in November
agreed on economic sanctions for Ankara for violating Cyprus' maritime economic zone by
drilling off the island.
The Mediterranean chess game leaves Turkey in alliance with the breakaway Turkish Cypriot
statelet and one of the warring factions in Libya, versus a strategic grouping of Greece,
Cyprus, Egypt (and the UAE), Israel, and the other warring Libyan group.
One emerging power in Libya, however, is not a Western state actor. After controlling Syria
in favor of President Bashar al-Assad and establishing permanent military bases inside and off
the coast of the country, Russia has the potential to step into the Libyan theater with a
bigger proxy and direct force, to establish its second permanent Mediterranean military
presence. As in Syria, where divergent interests did not stop Turkey from becoming a
remote-controlled Russian player, Moscow can once again make use of the Turkish card to
undermine Western interests in Libya.
Also as in Syria, Turkey's Islamist agenda will probably fail in Libya, but by the time
Erdoğan understands that, it might be too late to get out of Moscow's orbit.
Instead of finding the real culprits - ISIS remnants, disgruntled locals, Kurds who want
to regain control over Kirkuk - the U.S. decided that Kata'ib Hizbullah was the group guilty
of the attack....
Yesterday's attacks guarantee that all U.S. troops will have to leave Iraq and will
thereby also lose their supply lines to Syria.
One wonders if that was the real intend of those strikes.
Just like with 9/11 and Iraq where the US government immediately pushed its pre-existing
agenda, so the US doesn't care who really launches attacks on US and US-client positions in
Iraq and Syria but automatically assigns them to Hezbollah and thus to Iran, in accord with
the pre-existing neocon wet dream of provoking a full-scale war with Iran.
If that's the US intent, to escalate against Iran, and if conversely the Iraq government
is serious about kicking out the US military, we'll have the confrontation discussed in the
open thread.
As for the idea that Trump was briar-patching here, wanting a good legalistic pretext to
withdraw troops from Iraq (which would then trigger the practical supply-based pretext to
withdraw them from Syria and not "take the oil" after all), well even if he had such confused
thoughts, we've already seen how spineless he is about trying to assert his will over that of
the neocon bureaucracies, civilian and military. Do we really expect them to agree to vacate
Iraq merely because the legally constituted supposedly sovereign government told them to? It
seems more likely they'll tell the government they're not going anywhere and demand that the
government help them suppress non-governmental resistance to their ongoing presence, or else.
(I don't know if there's yet been a formal order to leave from the Iraqi government, or just
rhetoric in an attempt to save face.)
"... "Today I say to Mr. Putin: We will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world," Sanders said. "In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win." ..."
"... And yet, Warren too seems in thrall to the idea that the world order is shaping up to be one in which the white hats (Western democracies) must face off against the black hats (Eurasian authoritarians). Warren says that the "combination of authoritarianism and corrupt capitalism" of Putin's Russia and Xi's China "is a fundamental threat to democracy, both here in the United States and around the world." ..."
"... The Cold War echoes here are as unmistakable as they are worrying. As Princeton and NYU professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen has written, during the first Cold War, a "totalitarian school" of Soviet studies grew up around the idea "that a totalitarian 'quest for absolute power' at home always led to the 'dynamism' in Soviet behavior abroad was a fundamental axiom of cold-war Soviet studies and of American foreign policy." ..."
"... Cold warriors in both parties frequently mistook communism as a monolithic global movement. Neoprogressives are making this mistake today when they gloss over national context, history, and culture in favor of an all-encompassing theory that puts the "authoritarian" nature of the governments they are criticizing at the center of their diagnosis. ..."
"... By citing the threat to Western democracies posed by a global authoritarian axis, the neoprogressives are repeating the same mistake made by liberal interventionists and neoconservatives. They buy into the democratic peace theory, which holds without much evidence that a world order populated by democracies is likely to be a peaceful one because democracies allegedly don't fight wars against one another. ..."
"... George McGovern once observed that U.S. foreign policy "has been based on an obsession with an international Communist conspiracy that existed more in our minds than in reality." So too the current obsession with the global authoritarians. Communism wasn't a global monolith and neither is this. By portraying it as such, neoprogressives are midwifing bad policy. ..."
"... Some of these elected figures, like Trump and Farage, are symptoms of the failure of the neoliberal economic order. Others, like Orban and Kaczyński, are responses to anti-European Union sentiment and the migrant crises that resulted from the Western interventions in Libya and Syria. Many have more to do with conditions and histories specific to their own countries. Targeting them by painting them with the same broad brush is a mistake. ..."
"... "Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these days," writes neoconservative-turned-Hillary Clinton surrogate Robert Kagan, "the one for which we are least prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism." Max Boot also finds cause for concern. Boot, a modern-day reincarnation (minus the pedigree and war record) of the hawkish Cold War-era columnist Joe Alsop, believes that "the rise of populist authoritarianism is perhaps the greatest threat we face as a world right now." ..."
You can hear echoes of progressive realism in the statements of leading progressive
lawmakers such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Ro Khanna. They have put ending
America's support for the Saudi war on Yemen near the top of the progressive foreign policy
agenda. On the stump, Sanders now singles out the military-industrial complex and the runaway
defense budget for criticism. He promises, among other things, that "we will not continue to
spend $700 billion a year on the military." These are welcome developments. Yet since November
of 2016, something else has emerged alongside the antiwar component of progressive foreign
policy that is not so welcome. Let's call it neoprogressive internationalism, or
neoprogressivism for short.
Trump's administration brought with it the Russia scandal. To attack the president and his
administration, critics revived Cold War attitudes. This is now part of the neoprogressive
foreign policy critique. It places an "authoritarian axis" at its center. Now countries ruled
by authoritarians, nationalists, and kleptocrats can and must be checked by an American-led
crusade to make the world safe for progressive values. The problem with this neoprogressive
narrative of a world divided between an authoritarian axis and the liberal West is what it will
lead to: ever spiraling defense budgets, more foreign adventures, more Cold Wars -- and hot
ones too.
Unfortunately, Senators Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have adopted elements of the
neoprogressive program. At a much remarked upon address at Westminster College in Fulton,
Missouri, the site of Churchill's 1946 address, Sanders put forth a vision of a Manichean
world. Instead of a world divided by the "Iron Curtain" of Soviet Communism, Sanders sees a
world divided between right-wing authoritarians and the forces of progress embodied by American
and Western European progressive values.
"Today I say to Mr. Putin: We will not allow you to undermine American democracy or
democracies around the world," Sanders said. "In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen
American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe,
including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to
win."
A year later, Sanders warned that the battle between the West and an "authoritarian axis"
which is "committed to tearing down a post-Second World War global order that they see as
limiting their access to power and wealth." Sanders calls this "a global struggle of enormous
consequence. Nothing less than the future of the -- economically, socially and environmentally
-- is at stake."
Sanders's focus on this authoritarian axis is one that is shared with his intraparty rivals
at the Center for American Progress (a think-tank long funded by some of the least progressive
regimes on the planet), which he has pointedly criticized for smearing progressive Democrats
like himself. CAP issued a report last September about "the threat presented by opportunist
authoritarian regimes" which "urgently requires a rapid response."
The preoccupation with the authoritarian menace is one Sanders and CAP share with prominent
progressive activists who warn about the creeping influence of what some have cynically hyped
as an "authoritarian Internationale."
Cold War Calling
Senator Warren spelled out her foreign policy vision in a speech at American University in
November 2018. Admirably, she criticized Saudi Arabia's savage war on Yemen, the defense
industry, and neoliberal free trade agreements that have beggared the American working and
middle classes.
"Foreign policy," Warren has said, "should not be run exclusively by the Pentagon." In the
second round of the Democratic primary debates, Warren also called for a nuclear "no first use"
policy.
And yet, Warren too seems in thrall to the idea that the world order is shaping up to be
one in which the white hats (Western democracies) must face off against the black hats
(Eurasian authoritarians). Warren says that the "combination of authoritarianism and corrupt
capitalism" of Putin's Russia and Xi's China "is a fundamental threat to democracy, both here
in the United States and around the world."
Warren also sees a rising tide of corrupt authoritarians "from Hungary to Turkey, from the
Philippines to Brazil," where "wealthy elites work together to grow the state's power while the
state works to grow the wealth of those who remain loyal to the leader."
The concern with the emerging authoritarian tide has become a central concern of progressive
writers and thinkers. "Today, around the world," write progressive foreign policy activists
Kate Kinzer and Stephen Miles, "growing authoritarianism and hate are fueled by oligarchies
preying on economic, gender, and racial inequality."
Daniel Nexon, a progressive scholar of international relations, believes that "progressives
must recognize that we are in a moment of fundamental crisis, featuring coordination among
right-wing movements throughout the West and with the Russian government as a sponsor and
supporter."
Likewise, The Nation 's Jeet Heer lays the blame for the rise of global
authoritarianism at the feet of Vladimir Putin, who "seems to be pushing for an international
alt-right, an informal alliance of right-wing parties held together by a shared
xenophobia."
Blithely waving away concerns over sparking a new and more dangerous Cold War between the
world's two nuclear superpowers, Heer advises that "the dovish left shouldn't let Cold War
nightmares prevent them [from] speaking out about it." He concludes: "Leftists have to be ready
to battle [Putinism] in all its forms, at home and abroad."
The Cold War echoes here are as unmistakable as they are worrying. As Princeton and NYU
professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen has written, during the first Cold War, a "totalitarian
school" of Soviet studies grew up around the idea "that a totalitarian 'quest for absolute
power' at home always led to the 'dynamism' in Soviet behavior abroad was a fundamental axiom
of cold-war Soviet studies and of American foreign policy."
Likewise, we are seeing the emergence of an "authoritarian school" which posits that the
internal political dynamics of regimes such as Putin's cause them, ineffably, to follow
revanchist, expansionist foreign policies.
Cold warriors in both parties frequently mistook communism as a monolithic global
movement. Neoprogressives are making this mistake today when they gloss over national context,
history, and culture in favor of an all-encompassing theory that puts the "authoritarian"
nature of the governments they are criticizing at the center of their diagnosis.
By citing the threat to Western democracies posed by a global authoritarian axis, the
neoprogressives are repeating the same mistake made by liberal interventionists and
neoconservatives. They buy into the democratic peace theory, which holds without much evidence
that a world order populated by democracies is likely to be a peaceful one because democracies
allegedly don't fight wars against one another.
Yet as Richard Sakwa, a British scholar of Russia and Eastern Europe, writes, "it is often
assumed that Russia is critical of the West because of its authoritarian character, but it
cannot be taken for granted that a change of regime would automatically make the country align
with the West."
George McGovern once observed that U.S. foreign policy "has been based on an obsession
with an international Communist conspiracy that existed more in our minds than in reality." So
too the current obsession with the global authoritarians. Communism wasn't a global monolith
and neither is this. By portraying it as such, neoprogressives are midwifing bad
policy.
True, some of the economic trends voters in Europe and South America are reacting to are
global, but a diagnosis that links together the rise of Putin and Xi, the elections of Trump in
the U.S., Bolsonaro in Brazil, Orban in Hungary, and Kaczyński in Poland with the
right-wing insurgency movements of the Le Pens in France and Farage in the UK makes little
sense.
Some of these elected figures, like Trump and Farage, are symptoms of the failure of the
neoliberal economic order. Others, like Orban and Kaczyński, are responses to
anti-European Union sentiment and the migrant crises that resulted from the Western
interventions in Libya and Syria. Many have more to do with conditions and histories specific
to their own countries. Targeting them by painting them with the same broad brush is a
mistake.
Echoes of Neoconservatism
The progressive foreign policy organization Win Without War includes among its 10 foreign
policy goals "ending economic, racial and gender inequality around the world." The U.S.,
according to WWW, "must safeguard universal human rights to dignity, equality, migration and
refuge."
Is it a noble sentiment? Sure. But it's every bit as unrealistic as the crusade envisioned
by George W. Bush in his second inaugural address, in which he declared, "The survival of
liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best
hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
We know full well where appeals to "universal values" have taken us in the past. Such
appeals are not reliable guides for progressives if they seek to reverse the tide of unchecked
American intervention abroad. But maybe we should consider whether it's a policy of realism and
restraint that they actually seek. Some progressive thinkers are at least honest enough
to admit as much that it is not. Nexon admits that "abandoning the infrastructure of American
international influence because of its many minuses and abuses will hamstring progressives for
decades to come." In other words, America's hegemonic ambitions aren't in and of themselves
objectionable or self-defeating, as long as we achieve our kind of hegemony. Progressive
values crusades bear more than a passing resemblance to the neoconservative crusades to remake
the world in the American self-image.
"Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these
days," writes neoconservative-turned-Hillary Clinton surrogate Robert Kagan, "the one for which
we are least prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism." Max
Boot also finds cause for concern. Boot, a modern-day reincarnation (minus the pedigree and war
record) of the hawkish Cold War-era columnist Joe Alsop, believes that "the rise of populist
authoritarianism is perhaps the greatest threat we face as a world right now."
Neoprogressivism, like neoconservatism, risks catering to the U.S. establishment's worst
impulses by playing on a belief in American exceptionalism to embark upon yet another global
crusade. This raises some questions, including whether a neoprogressive approach to the crises
in Ukraine, Syria, or Libya would be substantively different from the liberal interventionist
approach of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. Does a neoprogressive foreign policy
organized around the concept of an "authoritarian axis" adequately address the concerns of
voters in the American heartland who disproportionately suffer from the consequences of our
wars and neoliberal economic policies? It was these voters, after all, who won the election for
Trump.
Donald Trump's failure to keep his campaign promise to bring the forever wars to a close
while fashioning a new foreign policy oriented around core U.S. national security interests
provides Democrats with an opportunity. By repeatedly intervening in Syria, keeping troops in
Afghanistan, kowtowing to the Israelis and Saudis, ratcheting up tensions with Venezuela, Iran,
Russia, and China, Trump has ceded the anti-interventionist ground he occupied when he ran for
office. He can no longer claim the mantle of restraint, a position that found support among
six-in-ten Americans in 2016.
Yet with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, for the most part the Democratic field is offering
voters a foreign policy that amounts to "Trump minus belligerence." A truly progressive foreign
policy must put questions of war and peace front and center. Addressing America's post 9/11
failures, military overextension, grotesquely bloated defense budget, and the ingrained
militarism of our political-media establishment are the proper concerns of a progressive U.S.
foreign policy.
But it is one that would place the welfare of our own citizens above all. As such, what is
urgently required is the long-delayed realization of a peace dividend. The post-Cold War peace
dividend that was envisioned in the early 1990s never materialized. Clinton's secretary of
defense Les Aspin strangled the peace dividend in its crib by keeping the U.S. military on a
footing that would allow it to fight and win two regional wars simultaneously. Unipolar
fantasies of "full spectrum dominance" would come later in the decade.
One might have reasonably expected an effort by the Obama administration to realize a
post-bin Laden peace dividend, but the forever wars dragged on and on. In a New Yorker profile
from earlier this year, Sanders asked the right question: "Do we really need to spend more than
the next ten nations combined on the military, when our infrastructure is collapsing and kids
can't afford to go to college?"
The answer is obvious. And yet, how likely is it that progressives will be able realize
their vision of a more just, more equal American society if we have to mobilize to face a
global authoritarian axis led by Russia and China?
FDR's Good Neighbor Policy
The unipolar world of the first post-Cold War decade is well behind us now. As the world
becomes more and more multipolar, powers like China, Russia, Iran, India, and the U.S. will
find increasing occasion to clash. A peaceful multipolar world requires stability. And
stability requires balance.
In the absence of stability, none of the goods progressives see as desirable can take root.
This world order would put a premium on stability and security rather than any specific set of
values. An ethical, progressive foreign policy is one which understands that great powers have
security interests of their own. "Spheres of influence" are not 19th century anachronisms, but
essential to regional security: in Europe, the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere.
It is a policy that would reject crusades to spread American values the world over. "The
greatest thing America can do for the rest of the world," George Kennan once observed, "is to
make a success of what it is doing here on this continent and to bring itself to a point where
its own internal life is one of harmony, stability and self-assurance."
Progressive realism doesn't call for global crusades that seek to conquer the hearts and
minds of others. It is not bound up in the hoary self-mythology of American Exceptionalism. It
is boring. It puts a premium on the value of human life. It foreswears doing harm so that good
may come. It is not a clarion call in the manner of John F. Kennedy who pledged to "to pay any
price, bear any burden." It does not lend itself to the cheap moralizing of celebrity
presidential speechwriters. In ordinary language, a summation of such a policy would go
something like: "we will bear a reasonable price as long as identifiable U.S. security
interests are at stake."
A policy that seeks to wind down the global war on terror, slash the defense budget, and
shrink our global footprint won't inspire. It will, however, save lives. Such a policy has its
roots in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first inaugural address. "In the field of World policy,"
said Roosevelt, "I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor, the neighbor
who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others, the
neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a
World of neighbors."
What came to be known as the "Good Neighbor" policy was further explicated by FDR's
Secretary of State Cordell Hull at the Montevideo Conference in 1933, when he stated that "No
country has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another." Historian
David C. Hendrickson sees this as an example of FDR's principles of "liberal pluralism," which
included "respect for the integrity and importance of other states" and "non-intervention in
the domestic affairs of neighboring states."
These ought to serve as the foundations on which to build a truly progressive foreign
policy. They represent a return to the best traditions of the Democratic Party and would likely
resonate with those very same blocs of voters that made up the New Deal coalition that the
neoliberal iteration of the Democratic Party has largely shunned but will sorely need in order
to unseat Trump. And yet, proponents of a neoprogressive foreign policy seem intent on running
away from a popular policy of realism and restraint on which Trump has failed to deliver.
James W. Carden is contributing writer for foreign affairs at The Nation and a
member of the Board of the Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy.
The other possible replacements include Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, Deputy Secretary of
State Biegun, U.S. ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, Trump's Iran envoy Brian Hook, and two
hard-liners from the Senate, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton. Most of these names inspire some
mixture of loathing and dread, and of the seven men being considered Biegun is the only one
remotely qualified to take the job. Hook has
disqualified himself , and he shouldn't even be working at the State Department right now
much less running it. Grenell functions as little more than an international
troll , and he has done a terrible job representing the U.S. in Berlin, so promoting him
would be an equally terrible mistake.
Rubio and Cotton are fanatics with the most toxic foreign policy views, and they would also
likely be very poor managers of the department. In that respect, they are very much like
Pompeo. Mnuchin would likely have great difficulty getting confirmed, and replacing one
sanctions-happy Secretary with the Treasury Secretary who has been enforcing those sanctions is
no improvement at all. As for O'Brien, he was a
bad choice for National Security Advisor , he has done nothing since he took over from
Bolton to suggest otherwise, and so it makes absolutely no sense to promote him. Biegun clearly
has the confidence of the Senate following his overwhelming confirmation vote to be Deputy
Secretary, so having him take over the department for whatever time is left in Trump's term
seems the best available choice.
It is a measure of how chaotic and unsuccessful Trump's foreign policy is that we are
talking about the possible nomination of a third Secretary of State in less than three years.
Pompeo has outlasted many of his administration colleagues to become one of the longest-serving
Cabinet officials under this president, and his tenure is not even two years old. It is no
wonder that the list of likely replacements is so weak. Who would want to join a scandal-ridden
administration with a failed foreign policy?
Pompeo's departure will be good news for the State Department, and the sooner it comes the
better. There has rarely been a Secretary of State as dishonest and political as Pompeo, and
his brief time running the department has been one of the low points in its history.
Considering the damage that Pompeo has done along with the harm done by Tillerson, the next
Secretary of State will have a lot of work to do to rebuild and not much time to do it in.
Pompeo should clear the way for the next Secretary and resign as soon as possible.
Congress' constitutional duty is putting Israel first!
House Dems Unanimously Vote to Condemn Withdrawal From Syria - Oct 16, 2019
In a Wednesday vote, the House overwhelmingly backed a resolution expressing opposition to
the end of the US war in Syria, and calling on the US to protect the Syrian Kurds from
Turkey. The vote was 354-60, with the majority of Republicans supporting it, and unanimous
support from Democrats who cast votes .
Positions from Democrat leaders suggested an unconditional opposition to Trump ending
any war and withdrawing any troops under any circumstances. They also objected to the
notion that a president could end a war without their permission .
The other possible replacements include Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, Deputy Secretary of
State Biegun, U.S. ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, Trump's Iran envoy Brian Hook, and two
hard-liners from the Senate, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton. Most of these names inspire some
mixture of loathing and dread, and of the seven men being considered Biegun is the only one
remotely qualified to take the job. Hook has
disqualified himself , and he shouldn't even be working at the State Department right now
much less running it. Grenell functions as little more than an international
troll , and he has done a terrible job representing the U.S. in Berlin, so promoting him
would be an equally terrible mistake.
Rubio and Cotton are fanatics with the most toxic foreign policy views, and they would also
likely be very poor managers of the department. In that respect, they are very much like
Pompeo. Mnuchin would likely have great difficulty getting confirmed, and replacing one
sanctions-happy Secretary with the Treasury Secretary who has been enforcing those sanctions is
no improvement at all. As for O'Brien, he was a
bad choice for National Security Advisor , he has done nothing since he took over from
Bolton to suggest otherwise, and so it makes absolutely no sense to promote him. Biegun clearly
has the confidence of the Senate following his overwhelming confirmation vote to be Deputy
Secretary, so having him take over the department for whatever time is left in Trump's term
seems the best available choice.
It is a measure of how chaotic and unsuccessful Trump's foreign policy is that we are
talking about the possible nomination of a third Secretary of State in less than three years.
Pompeo has outlasted many of his administration colleagues to become one of the longest-serving
Cabinet officials under this president, and his tenure is not even two years old. It is no
wonder that the list of likely replacements is so weak. Who would want to join a scandal-ridden
administration with a failed foreign policy?
Pompeo's departure will be good news for the State Department, and the sooner it comes the
better. There has rarely been a Secretary of State as dishonest and political as Pompeo, and
his brief time running the department has been one of the low points in its history.
Considering the damage that Pompeo has done along with the harm done by Tillerson, the next
Secretary of State will have a lot of work to do to rebuild and not much time to do it in.
Pompeo should clear the way for the next Secretary and resign as soon as possible.
Lyttennburgh, I can think of a couple of reasons for Erdogan's Libyan adventure. First, he'd
rather have those battle tested jihadis in Libya than on his border or in his country.
Second, he may have his eyes on Mediterranean oil. Lastly, he may see a friendly Libyan
government as an ally or province of his Ottoman Empire dream. No matter what the reason,
he's setting himself up for another confrontation with Russia.
Combating the scourge of US-supported terrorists in Syria at the behest of its government
aside, Russia's involvement elsewhere is diplomatic, including in Libya.
Obama regime-led aggression in 2011 transformed Africa's most developed nation into a
charnel house, a dystopian failed state, endless war raging with no resolution in prospect.
Wherever wars rage, chances are US dirty hands are involved, clearly the case in multiple
countries, including Libya.
Russia is not involved in the country militarily. Claims otherwise are fabricated. Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov strongly denied them, saying:
"I categorically refute speculations of this kind. We are acting in the interest of the
Libyan settlement," adding:
"We are supporting the existing effort, including through the United Nations. We maintain a
dialogue with those who somehow influence the situation."
"We do not think that there is any grounds for such statements, such fiction, but this is
not the first time that US media spread different speculations, wicked rumors, falsehoods
targeting us."
"We have already gotten used to this, and we take it in stride. However, I have to
acknowledge that recurrent hoaxes of this kind exercise a negative influence on the sentiment
of the US domestic public, and the general atmosphere in the United States."
"Unfortunately it does not promote normalization of our ties, although we strive for
it."
A November NYT propaganda piece falsely accused Russia of involvement militarily in Libya --
instead of focusing on how the Obama regime raped and destroyed the country.
Trump hardliners support warlord Khalifa Haftar, a longtime CIA asset, a former US resident,
commander of the so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) -- waging war on the UN-backed
Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA).
Since US-led aggression toppled Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011 and sodomized him to death,
the US continued to wage secret drone war on the country, conducting hundreds of strikes,
continuing since Trump took office.
The Times falsely claimed "Russian mercenaries (and) snipers" are involved in Libya -- no
evidence cited proving what's not so, adding:
Hundreds of "Russian fighters (are) part of a broad campaign by the Kremlin to reassert its
influence across the Middle East and Africa (sic)."
"It has introduced advanced Sukhoi jets, coordinated missile strikes, and precision-guided
artillery, as well as the snipers -- the same playbook that made Moscow a kingmaker in the
Syrian civil war (sic)."
There's nothing remotely "civil" about US aggression in Syria. No evidence suggests Russia
is involved militarily in Libya with heavy or other weapons.
The Kremlin didn't intervene in the country on behalf of anyone. Its involvement is
diplomatic to try resolving the mess US aggression created -- what the Times and other
establishment media cheerled.
Days earlier, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed false claims
about Kremlin involvement in Libya militarily, saying:
Moscow officials maintain diplomatic contact "with all current Libyan political forces,"
adding:
Congressional hardliners drafted the so-called Libya Stabilization Act -- imposing sanctions
on Russia for its "imaginary military presence in" the country.
The measure falsely accuses Moscow of "military intervention," blaming what doesn't exist on
destabilizing the country, ignoring how US-led NATO smashed Libya, massacring countless
thousands, displacing many more, destroying their livelihoods and well-being
"I wonder how US lawmakers describe the illegal US armed forces presence in Syria or the
reckless actions of the (Obama regime) in Libya to their voters," Zakharova stressed.
The Times propaganda piece barely acknowledged Trump regime support for Haftar, mentioning
it buried well into its article, ignoring its April 2019 piece, headlined:
Imbecilization is a normal historical process where intellectual declines follows the
economic decline of a given empire. There's growing evidence the West is going through the
same process.
A with any composite, complex historical process, imbecilization doesn't happen in a
uniform and linear way. Economics was the first science that descended into pseudo-science in
the capitalist world (after Marx dismantled Classic Economics). Philosophy followed. Erudite
art degenerated after the fall of Modernism somewhere in the 1950s. Human sciences in general
became fragmented and little more than a constelation of esoterism and pseudo-sciences - a
condition they still enjoy today (e.g. the dismembering of History into Sociology, Behavioral
Economics and others).
Meanwhile, the so-called STEM or "Hard Sciences" continued to prosper for some decades,
until they also hit a ceiling in the 1990s. The fall of the profitability of the capitalist
world led it to resort to "financialization" to keep the system going, which resulted in the
most brilliant capitalist mathematicians to be hosed to Wall Street instead to the likes of
NASA. Those MIT mathematicians and rocket scientists created the algorithms Wall Street still
uses today, but they did not stop the 2008 meltdown.
Nowadays, those brilliant STEM minds are nothing more than fraudsters who keep their
careers going by creating meaningless experiments (because they need the funding) only to
publish articles and keep their production quotas or self-censuring bootlickers for Wall
Street and Big Pharma. When they get to work for a big corporation, they are mere architects
of planned obsolescence or patent renewing. There's a new book I strongly recommend all of
you to read:
"... Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power. ..."
"... This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids. ..."
"... Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets. ..."
"... Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. ..."
"... Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to influence us. ..."
"... If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists – now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information reaching the press. ..."
"... Instead of these pieces concentrating on the whistleblower how about putting a little heat on the 50 lying bastards who initiated the coverup? ..."
"... The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more likely to be destroyed faster. No offense. ..."
"... And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis, hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying Christians. How interesting, why such zeal. ..."
"... According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence," Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn't report something like this." ..."
"... New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and excluded. ..."
Wikileaks has released their fourth set of leaks from the OPCW's Douma investigation,
revealing new details about the alleged deletion of important information regarding the
fact-finding mission.
RELEASE: OPCW-Douma Docs 4. Four leaked documents from the OPCW reveal that toxicologists
ruled out deaths from chlorine exposure and a senior official ordered the deletion of the
dissenting engineering report from OPCW's internal repository of documents. https://t.co/ndK4sRikNk
"One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the
fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes
an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW , where he instructs that an
engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the
organisation," WikiLeaks writes. Included in the email is the following directive:
" Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive] And please remove all
traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA.'"
According to Wikileaks, the main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma, was
that two of the cylinders were most likely manually placed at the site, rather than
dropped.
"The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were
found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there
than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted
from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident," the Wikileaks report said.
It must be remembered that the U.S. launched an attack on Damascus, Syria on April 14, 2018
over alleged chemical weapons usage by pro-Assad forces at Douma.
Another document released Friday is minutes from a meeting on 6 June 2018 where four staff
members of the OPCW had discussions with "three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one
bioanalytical and toxicological chemist" (all specialists in chemical weapons, according to the
minutes).
Minutes from an OPCW meeting with toxicologists specialized in chemical weapons: "the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was
no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure". https://t.co/j5Jgjiz8UY pic.twitter.com/vgPaTtsdQN
The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. The first objective was "to solicit expert advice
on the value of exhuming suspected victims of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April
2018". According to the minutes, the OPCW team was advised by the experts that there would be
little use in conducting exhumations. The second point was "To elicit expert opinions from the
forensic toxicologists regarding the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged
victims."
More specifically, " whether the symptoms observed in victims were consistent with exposure
to chlorine or other reactive chlorine gas."
According to the minutes leaked Friday: "With respect to the consistency of the observed and
reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and
chlorine exposure ."
The OPCW team members wrote that the key "take-away message" from the meeting was "that the
symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate
chemical causing the symptoms could be identified".
The isisrahell have such long hand to pull the plug any stories implicating their crime in
progress otherwise they can put out some bs spins as bombshell reporting about US lies in
Afghanistan war on their wapo for public for those who read it was nothing important revealed
except being a misdirected na
If you want to pay off that student loan you're going to print what they tell you to
print. You're going to inject kids with what they tell you to inject them with. You're going
to think what they tell you to think or you're going to spend your days in a Prole bar
drinking Blatz.
yes, an attack was launched, 50 missiles I believe, after loud warnings that it was
coming, and none of them actually hit anything significant ... this is the way the game is
played .... the good news is that the missiles cost $50 million, and now they will have to be
replaced, by the Pentagon, first borrowing the money through the US Treasury offerings, and
then paying for them from new money printed by the Federal Reserve. capische?
That`s the way it`s always been, it`s the eternal war of good against evil.
And when one evil enemy is defeated, it`s necessary to create a new evil enemy, how else
can the Establishment Elite make money from war, death and destruction.
It's really very awkward & telling how ***** these bunch of western nations are
looking tough on taking out poor defenceless country like Syria on ******** & at the
satried to ease real kickass Russian as you described when they launch the attacks
I kind wish the US & their Zionist clown launch such huge attacks on Iran based on
false flag
I really wanted these evil aggressive powers to taste what it is like to get bombed back
even one they used to throw on multiple weaker nations freely with nothing to fear as
retribution etc
This organisations are all set up in Europe and US run by the filthiest filth on earth who
still think they have God given right to imperial rule over the world.
Your military-industrial-intelligence complex at work, creating justification for more
funding, like always - and who cares if people die as a result? Like Soros said, if they
didn't do it, someone else would. (do I need /sarc?).
They don't like to be shown to be in charge, just to be in charge. And if you think this
is a function of the current admin, you've been slow in the head and deaf and blind for quite
some time.
I've watched since Eisenhower, and "it's always something". Doesn't matter what color the
clown in chief's tie is.
Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved
in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow
overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power.
This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids.
Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done
by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets.
Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war
crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do
whatever the f*ck you want. Why do we even follow the law, then? Given the precedent that is
being set, we might as well not have any.
Well, they are looking forward to using all those Israeli weapons, er, uh, products, that
local law enforcement has purchased...so watch out for Co-Intel Pro elicitation going
forward....?
Everybody knows the Golem (USA) does Isn'treal's bidding in Syria and elsewhere in the
Near East. Hopefully they keep hammering in the fact that this "gas attack" was an obvious
set-up to use as a pretext (flimsy itself on the face of it) to brutalize Assad and Syria on
behalf of Isn'treal.
The whole thing is built on ******* lies. Worst part about it is, nothing will happen.
Only official news is to believed. You see it and it is a lie. they tell you to believe
it. A lot of people casually believe whatever is spoken on TV. They become teachers and are
taught in college what is right and wrong. We only have a few years before all the brain dead
are in charge and robotically following the message like zombies with no brain
Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have
seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to
influence us.
It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW.
In a response to the conservative author Peter Hitchens, who also writes for the Mail on
Sunday – he is of course the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens – the
OPCW admits that its so-called technical secretariat "is conducting an internal
investigation about the unauthorised [sic] release of the document".
Then it adds: "At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate [sic] requests for interviews". It's a tactic that until
now seems to have worked: not a single news media which reported the OPCW's official
conclusions has followed up the story of the report which the OPCW suppressed.
And you bet the OPCW is not going to "accommodate" interviews. For here is an
institution investigating a war crime in a conflict which has cost hundreds of thousands of
lives – yet its only response to an enquiry about the engineers' "secret" assessment
is to concentrate on its own witch-hunt for the source of the document it wished to keep
secret from the world.
If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than
a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists
– now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information
reaching the press.
The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant
ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its
foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the
Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to
defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something
in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of
stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more
likely to be destroyed faster. No offense.
And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis,
hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the
Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United
States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the
American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying
Christians. How interesting, why such zeal.
According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm
about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian
government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's
editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another
position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence,"
Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job
knowing that I couldn't report something like this."
New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical
weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony
from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government
committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW
information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number
of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials
voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and
excluded.
This is, without a doubt, a major global scandal: the OPCW, under reported US pressure,
suppressing vital evidence about allegations of chemical weapons. But that very fact exposes
another global scandal: with the exception of small outlets like The Grayzone, the mass media
has widely ignored or whitewashed this story. And this widespread censorship of the OPCW
scandal has just led one journalist to resign. Up until recently, Tareq Haddad was a reporter
at Newsweek. But in early December, Tareq announced that he had quit his position after
Newsweek refused to publish his story about the OPCW cover up over Syria.
So Turkey goes against Uncle Sam and Egypt. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed . ..."
"... In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict . ..."
"... Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to topple Assad? ..."
"... The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world. More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. ..."
Bloomberg has confirmed on Friday the prior rumors that Turkey will be sending mercenaries
to Libya -- where it is propping up the UN-backed government in Tripoli (the GNA) -- are true.
"Turkey is preparing to deploy troops and naval forces to support the
internationally-recognized Libyan government, joining a planned push by Ankara-backed Syrian
rebels to defeat strongman Khalifa Haftar,"
reports Bloomberg .
Though Ankara has yet to confirm or deny the new reports, Erdogan's Turkey has for years
overseen a Libya-to-Turkey-to-Syria arms
"rat line" which saw both heavy weaponry and jihadists fighters transported for the purpose
of toppling Assad. But now with Erdogan's eyes set on defeating Benghazi-based General Khalifa
Haftar, it appears this arms and jihadist rat line has conveniently been reversed
.
This also as President Erdogan
in a speech on Thursday presented plans to send Turkish national troops bolster Tripoli as
well .
Possibly thousands from among the so-called Turkish Free Syrian Army (formerly the FSA),
with most of its fighters currently attacking Syrian Kurds in the ongoing 'Operation Peace
Spring', will now be sent into Libya.
There are reports suggesting Turkey is ready to pay $2,000 a month for each Syrian 'rebel'
willing to go to Libya .
TFSA source told me Turkey will be offering fighters from all TFSA factions $2,000/month
to go to Libya.
And akin to the current proxy war which has seen both the US, Kurds, and Sunni Islamists
backed by Turkey wrangle over Syria's oil rich eastern region, Libya is heating up to be the
latest 'oil and gas prize' -- but with immensely more at stake. As Bloomberg notes:
In a deepening proxy war, Turkey aims to send its Navy to protect Tripoli, while its
troops train and coordinate forces of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, according to a senior
Turkish official. Turkey recently signed a critical maritime deal with oil-rich Libya that
serves energy interests of both countries and aims to salvage billions of dollars of business
contracts thrown into limbo by the conflict .
As we
predicted earlier , Libya and the southern Mediterranean is on its way to becoming the next
big Middle East conflict of 2020 , also with Egypt and even Russia warning of further
involvement to block Turkey's increasing role on the ground.
And as the mainstream media finally stops ignoring the looming catastrophe for north Africa
and the region (still in denial as to the fruits of US-NATO "liberated" Libya after Gaddafi was
overthrown and killed), it
must be remembered that in another ironic plot twist, the CIA trained the very FSA 'rebel'
fighters now on their way to Libya .
Gee who would have ever predicted? It's the foreign fighter 'rat line' in reverse.
Remember when the CIA thought it was a good idea to train and fund jihadists in Syria to
topple Assad? Via a 2015
military study :
The conflict in Syria has become a rallying point for jihadists from around the world.
More than 20,000 foreign fighters are fighting or have fought in Syria, and most are part of
jihadist groups, including Jubhat al Nusra (JAN) and Islamic State (IS). North Africa has provided a large portion of these
foreign fighters, from countries as diverse as Morocco and Libya. Who are these North African fighters, and why are they
going to Syria? What do they hope to accomplish there, and do they want to return to their home countries?
Considering the tens of thousands of foreign fighters which poured into Syria starting in
2011 and 2012 in the first place, many of them from Libya, perhaps many are now simply headed
"home" -- ready to further the proxy war chaos at Erdogan's bidding.
NATO IS NOTHING more than an extension of George Soros' arm as it is also an extension
of the Rothschild arm! Most should have gleaned this by now, particularly recognizing the
radical Wahhabism that was included in this band of merry global thugs (Saudi Arabia) to do
the bidding of the globalist satanic cabal. Kind of sad hearing this kind of neive
responses from the gallery...sorry Mr. teolawki but you missed the forest for the
trees.
What is naive is not understanding that Turkey is the current NATO nations gateway for
all manner of illicit and illegitimat activity to foment and perpetuate the forever wars in
the ME. This has been going on since well before Benghazi and has only gotten worse under
Erdogan.
If you have a way to snap your fingers and solve every problem simultaneously, then
please do so. Otherwise it must be undertaken one step at a time. Closing that Turkish
gateway permanently is an excellent start.
"... Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in the US of A. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Washington's Unmasked Imperialism Towards
Europe And Russia by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/28/2019 - 07:00 0
SHARES
Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own politicians are.
Its passing into law – signed by President Trump this week – of sanctions to halt
the Nord Stream-2 and Turk Stream gas supply projects is a naked imperialist move to bludgeon
the European energy market for its own economic advantage.
US sanctions are planned to hit European companies involved with Russia's Gazprom in the
construction of the 1,225-kilometer pipeline under the Baltic Sea which will deliver natural
gas from Russia to Germany and elsewhere across the European Union. The €9.5 billion
($11bn) project is 80 per cent complete and is due to be finished early next year.
It is quite clear – because US politicians have openly acknowledged it – that
Washington's aim is to oust Russia as the main natural gas exporter to the giant EU market, and
to replace with more expensive American-produced gas.
What's hilarious is the way American politicians, diplomats and news media are portraying
this US assault on market principles and the sovereignty of nations as an act of chivalry.
Washington claims that the sanctions are "pro-European" because they are "saving Europe from
dependency on Russia for its energy". The American hypocrisy crescendoes with the further claim
that by stopping Russia earning lucrative export revenues, then Moscow will be constrained from
"interfering" in European nations. As if Washington's own actions are not interference on a
massive scale.
European politicians and businesses are not buying this American claptrap. The vast
overstepping by Washington into European affairs has prompted EU governments to question the
nature of the trans-Atlantic relation. About time too. Thus, Washington's hubris and bullying
are undermining its objective of dominating Europe for its own selfish interests.
Russia, Germany and others have defiantly
told Washington its weaponizing of economic sanctions will not halt the Nord Stream nor the
Turk Stream projects.
As German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
said earlier this month, "it is unacceptable" for the US to brazenly interfere in European
and Russian energy trade. The American pretext of supposedly "protecting" the national security
of its purported European allies is frankly laughable.
The American agenda is a blatantly imperialistic reordering of the energy market to benefit
US economic interests. To pull off this audacious scam, Washington, by necessity, has to
demonize and isolate Russia, while also trampling roughshod over its European allies. Europe
has partly aided this American stitch-up of its own interests because it has foolishly indulged
in the US antagonism towards Russia with sanctions due to the Ukraine conflict, Crimea and
other anti-Russia smears.
The legislation being whistled through the American Congress by both Republicans and
Democrats (collectively dubbed the War Party) is recklessly fueling tensions between the US and
Russia. In trying to gain economic advantages over Europe's energy, Washington is wantonly
ramping up animus towards Moscow.
Apart from the sanctions against Russian and European companies partnering on Nord Stream,
the US Congress passed separate legislation which seeks to boost American oil and gas
production in the East Mediterranean.
A Radio Free Europe
report this week was headlined: 'Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's
Energy Grip On Europe'.
The headline should more accurately have been worded: 'Congress Passes More Legislation
Aimed At Bolstering America's Energy Grip On Europe'.
The RFE report states: "The bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership
Act, which was approved on December 19, is the latest piece of US legislation passed this year
that aims to diversify [sic] Europe's energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled
companies."
Again, the American double-think is jaw-dropping. Such is the arrogance of a flailing,
delusional empire when it can publicly justify with a straight face an energy-market-grab with
a veneer of virtue.
US oil and gas giants are moving into the East Mediterranean. Exxon Mobil
announced the discovery of a major natural gas field off Cyprus in February this year.
American firms are also
partnering with Israeli companies to begin gas production in the Leviathan Field located
off the coast at Haifa.
There is no doubt that the US sanctions targeting Nord Stream and Turk Stream are part of a
bigger concerted pincer movement by Washington to corner the EU energy market of 500 million
consumers (more than double the US population).
Colin Cavell, a US professor of political science, commented to Strategic Culture
Foundation: "What should be hammered down in this continuing debate over which country will be
able to deliver oil and natural gas to Europe is the fact that neither the United States nor,
and especially, the Republican Party, stand for so-called free trade."
Free-trade capitalism is supposed to be an ideological pillar of the US. In this ideology,
governments should not interfere with market supply and demand. But paradoxically as far as
US-imposed sanctions on Russian-European energy companies are concerned the American Congress
is "quintessentially anti-free market", notes Cavell.
In its shameless profiteering, Washington is acting aggressively towards Russia and Europe
while flouting its own supposed economic principles and relying on brute force to win its
arguments. America's imperialist agenda towards Europe and Russia is how world wars are
instigated.
"You will buy our more expensive, less efficient, non-market solution, you will pay for it
with King Dollars, and by gawd, YOU WILL LIKE IT, now shuddup, Vassals!" -- Uncle Scam and
the Reloonicans
I live in Denmark, a country Nord Stream 2 is going through. We are (used to be?) one of
the strongest allies to the US. But recent developments have alienated a lot of danes to the
US.
First Trump publicly announced he wanted to buy the isle of Greenland from Denmark.
Greenland is the largest isle in the world and of strategic importance. But you don't just
buy a part of another country, and this offer was firmly refused. As response to the refusal
Trump cancelled a previously planned official visit to Denmark. This was seen by most danes
as an insult.
Denmark was the last country holding out on permissions needed to build Nord Stream 2, but
after this incident we allowed the project to go forward. I believe the Greenland incident
caused the change making Denmark approve Nord Stream 2.
After this we have had other incidents. One is on the Faroe Islands (a part of Denmark),
where both US and Chinese ambassadors interfered in our internal affairs trying to influence
if Huawei could be used for 5G in this self-governing part of our country. Another is a
follow-up to the Greenland incident mentioned, where the US now wants to open a diplomatic
mission on the island, probably in an attempt to influence the local government to accept
that the US buys the island.
During the last year I have seen sentiment among my fellow citizens going from "the US is
great, let us support and follow them" to "we have to be careful of these guys, they
interfere in our internal affairs and try to break up our country".
I believe the US government is underestimating how much they are alienating the Europeans
with this line of foreing policy.
Its a guess but I think there are other hidden issues here nobody wants to talk about. Of
course, Trump idea of buying the island was stupid but I believe it arouse out of
frustration. You see, US wants to build huge military base there. Danes won't permit that.
The reason US wants to do it is because sea between Iceland and England/Norway is a
chokepoint aimed against Russian subs. This is the only place where they can be reasonably
stopped. It is nothing new, the same thing happened during WWII war at so called "war of
Atlantic" where the most of the fighting happened between German U-boats and alliance
marines.
You most certainly can buy land from other countries. Thomas Jefferson purchased the
entire center of N. America from the French and for pennies. We also purchased Alaska from
the Russians for next to nothing as well. Both land masses are much larger than all of
Europe.
You guys don't need Greenland so give it to us for pennies.
Russia has the largest proven reserves of easily recoverable oil and natural gas on Earth.
The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. Economic sanctions, regime change, cyber
attacks...whatever it takes. If the US doesn't utterly break Russia soon, Russia will become
the next, (and last) empire on Earth. NeoConThink.
"The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. "
Actually you are absolutely wrong on this. It is the other way around. Russia has to get
out of US chokefold NOW or it will likely disintegrate.
Why? In short, economy, geogaphy and even more importantly demographics.
Today there are about 110 million native Russians there. Next to them are about 40 million
muslims living there. Muslims have about twice as big reproduction rate as Russians do. It is
estimated that in 30 years if current trends stand it will be 50/50. Worse, in ten years
there will be only about 90 million Russians living there.
There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube.
Another problem is soldier materiel. It is estimated that only about 30 percent of males
between the age of 18-25 are healthy enough to join military. As of today it is barely
sufficient to fill the ranks. In 10 years Russian military will have to shrink by 20 percent.
From that perspective it is do or die for Russia right now. This is most likely the peak of
their military power, then it will slowly deteriorate. Putin knows that, hence he lashes out
at its neighbours, most notably Poland. Economy shrinks, military is on vane, hence he needs
an enemy to rally his people around. Or else!
Then there is China. Make your best bet what they will do in the far east when Russia lies
prostate.Remember, Russia took over a lot of Chinese territory in late XIX century there.
Yep, the area around Vladivostok and other nearby territories, the size close to that of
today's France..There are millions of Chinese already living there.In the Asian south Chinese already took controll of the former
Russian stans. They rule there, not Putin. You didn't know that?
"There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal
thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live
longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in
the US of A.
" Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own
politicians are"
No, washington thinks no such thing. It doesnt really understand how stupid its own
politicians are. Nor DOES IT CARE!.
Did anyone watch the impeachment proceedings? Now, THAT was stupid, stupid for the
whole world to watch. And then there is the chocoate cake diplomacy of Trump, the elegance
and sophistication of Pompeo, Bolton, and the digniity of Nikki Haley. Putting Raytheon to
run our Pentagon is a magical touch.
Comment from a friend of mine concerning the statement below. He has excellent security
credentials:
"Our President has made the world far more dangerous by withdrawing from treaties without
attempting to negotiate new ones. No country is well served by this. The situation is very
destabilizing."
The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu:
- I hope that a full-scale war is not a question today. And all the risks and consequences
that such a full-scale war entails are obvious to everyone.
Regarding the third world war, there are a very large number of different statements. The
most accurate and adequate of them seems to me: "I do not know exactly what the third world
war will be. But I know for sure that she will be the last. "
However, if we talk about the number of threats to our country, then they do not become
less. The United States has already withdrawn from two important nuclear arms control
treaties. So far, the START-3 treaty remains, which is also under discussion in the USA: to
renew it or not to renew it?
As a result of this approach, the world is becoming more unpredictable and less secure. At
the current level of informatization and automation, there is a high probability of errors in
the weapons control system.
That is why recently issues of ensuring information security have come to the fore. When
you are aware of your vulnerability and are interested in maintaining balance and universal
equal security, it makes you turn on your head.
And when you think how the United States continues to believe by inertia that a balance of
power has developed in your favor, a variety of ideas may come to your head, including not
the most reasonable ones. It is in this situation that I see the main threat now, and not
only for Russia, "the minister replied.
It's good cop/bad cop nonsense. Europe is occupied territory, and American huffing and
puffing at Russia is just meant to get Europe "better deals" for their projects with Russia.
The only ones who don't get it are spooks and Neo-Libs/Cons
What is not expected is rational discussion on what I have described here. But since facts
contrary to my expose here are missing I doubt it will happen.
" But remember also that todays Russia is ruled by a Tsar named Putin"
Im amazed at how long this silly meme can be maintained.
Putin is NOT and autocrat, he has to struggle with a delicate balance. between the Atlantic integrationists and Eurasiaon soveriigntists. The oligarchy installed by the US is still strong in Russian. They have not won their
soveriignty yet.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Lord Palmerston stated what he thought was obvious,
that "England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only
eternal and perpetual interests." Palmerston was saying that national interests should drive
the relationships with foreigners. A nation will have amicable relations most of the time with
some countries and difficult relations with some others, but the bottom line should always be
what is beneficial for one's own country and people.
If Palmerston were alive today and observing the relationship of the United States of
America with the rest of the world, he might well find Washington to be an exception to his
rule. The U.S., to be sure, has been adept at turning adversaries into enemies and
disappointing friends, and it is all done with a glib assurance that doing so will somehow
bring democracy and freedom to all. Indeed, either neoliberal democracy promotion or the
neoconservative version of the same have been seen as an overriding and compelling interest
during the past twenty years even though the policies themselves have been disastrous and have
only damaged the real interests of the American people.
The U.S. relationship with Israel is, for example, driven by a powerful and wealthy domestic
lobby rather than by any common interests at all yet it is regularly falsely touted as being
between two "close allies" and "best friends." It has cost Americans hundreds of billions of
dollars in subsidies for the Jewish state and Israeli influence over U.S. policy in the Middle
East region has led to catastrophic military interventions in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq,
Syria, Mogadishu and Libya. Currently, Israel is agitating for U.S. action against the
nonexistent Iranian "threat" while also unleashing its lobby in the United States to make
illegal criticism of any of its war crimes, effectively curtailing freedom of speech and
association for all Americans.
Far more dangerous is the continued excoriation of the Kremlin over the largely mythical
Russiagate narrative. Congress has
recently approved a bill that would give to Ukraine $300 million in supplementary military
assistance to use against Russia. The money and authorization appear in the House of
Representatives version of the national defense authorization act (NDAA) that passed last
week.
The bill is a renewal of the controversial Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative that Donald Trump allegedly manipulated to bring about an
investigation of Joe Biden's son Hunter. The new version expands on the former assistance
package to include coastal defense cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles as offensive weapons
that are acceptable for export to Kiev. It also authorizes an additional $50 million in
military assistance on top of the $250 million congress had granted in last year's bill, "of
which $100 million would be available only for lethal assistance."
Ukraine sought the money and arms to counter Russian naval dominance in the Black Sea
through its base at Sevastopol in the Crimea. One year ago the Russian navy
captured three Ukrainian warships and Kiev was unable to push back against Moscow because
it lacked weapons designed to attack ships. Now it will have them and presumably it will use
them. How Russia will react is unknowable.
Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration,
has been in Washington lobbying for the additional military assistance. He has had considerable
success, particularly as there is bipartisan support in Congress for aid to Kiev and also
because the Trump Departments of Defense and State as well as the National Security Council are
all on board in countering the "Russian threat" in the Black Sea. President Trump signed the
NDAA last week, which completed the process.
Far more ominously, Kuleba and his interlocutors in the administration and congress have
been revisiting a proposal first surfaced under Bill Clinton, that Ukraine and Georgia should
be admitted to the NATO alliance. Like the $300 million in military aid, there appears to be
considerable bipartisan support for such a move. NATO already has a major presence on the Black
Sea with Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey all members. Adding Ukraine and Georgia would completely
isolate the Russian presence and Moscow would undoubtedly see it as an existential threat.
The NDAA also provides seed money to initiate the so-called Space Force ,
which President Trump inaugurated by describing it as "the world's newest war-fighting domain.
Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in space is absolutely vital.
We're leading, but we're not leading by enough, but very shortly we'll be leading by a lot. The
Space Force will help us deter aggression and control the ultimate high ground."
If that isn't bad enough, the new defense budget ominously also requires the Trump
administration to impose sanctions "with respect to provision of certain vessels for the
construction of certain Russian energy export pipelines." Last week the House of
Representatives and Senate
approved specific sanctions relating to the companies and governments that are
collaborating on the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will cross the Baltic Sea
from Vyborg to Greifswald to connect Germany with Russian natural gas. President Trump has
signed off on the legislation.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
The United States has opposed the project ever since it was first mooted, claiming that it
will make Europe "hostage" to Russian energy, will enrich the Russian government, and will also
empower Russian President Vladimir Putin to be more aggressive. Engineering companies that will
be providing services such as pipe-laying will be targeted by Washington as the Trump
administration tries to halt the completion of the $10.5 billion project.
Now that the NDAA has been signed, the Trump administration has 60 days to identify
companies, individuals and even foreign governments that have in some way provided services or
assistance to the pipeline project. Sanctions would block individuals from travel to the United
States and would freeze bank accounts and other tangible property that would be identified by
the U.S. Treasury. One company that will definitely be targeted for sanctions is the
Switzerland-based Allseas, which has been contracted with by Russia's Gazprom to build the
offshore section of pipeline. It has suspended work on the project while it examines the
implications of the sanctions.
Bear in mind that Nord Stream 2 is a peaceful commercial project between two countries that
have friendly relations, making the threats implicit in the U.S. reaction more than somewhat
inappropriate. Increased U.S. sanctions against Russia itself are also believed to be a
possibility and there has even been some suggestion that the German government and its energy
ministry might be sanctioned. This has predictably resulted in pushback from Germany, normally
a country that is inclined to go along with any and all American initiatives. Last week German
Foreign Minister Heiko Maas asked Congress not to meddle in European energy policy, saying "We
think this is unacceptable, because it is ultimately a move to influence autonomous decisions
that are made in Europe. European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S."
German Bundestag member Andreas Nick warned that "It's an issue of national sovereignty,
and it is potentially a liability for trans-Atlantic relations." That Trump is needlessly
alienating important countries like Germany that are genuine allies, unlike Israel and Saudi
Arabia, over an issue that is not an actual American interest is unfortunate. It makes one
think that the wheels have definitely come off the cart in Washington.
The point is that Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence and Mike Esper (admittedly too
many Mikes) wouldn't know a national interest if it hit them in the face. Their
politicization of policy to "win in 2020" promoting apocalyptic nonsense like war in space has
also reinforced an existing tunnel vision on what Russia under Vladimir Putin is all about that
is extremely dangerous. Admittedly, Team Trump throws out sanctions in all directions with
reckless abandon, mostly aimed at Russia, Iran, North Korea and, the current favorite,
Venezuela. No one is immune. But the escalation going from sanctions to arming the Kremlin's
enemies is both reckless and pointless. Russia will definitely strike back if it is attacked,
make no mistake about that, and war could easily escalate with tragic consequences for all of
us. That war is perhaps becoming thinkable is in itself deplorable, with Business
Insiderrunning a recent
piece on surviving a nuclear attack. New homes in target America will likely soon come
equipped with bomb shelters, just like in the 1950s. Tags Politics
O nce in a blue moon an indispensable book comes out making a clear case for sanity in what
is now a post-MAD world. That's the responsibility carried by " The (Real)
Revolution in Military Affairs ," by Andrei Martyanov (Clarity Press), arguably the most
important book of 2019.
Martyanov is the total package -- and he comes with extra special attributes as a top-flight
Russian military analyst, born in Baku in those Back in the U.S.S.R. days, living and working
in the U.S., and writing and blogging in English.
Right from the start, Martyanov wastes no time destroying not only Fukuyama's and
Huntington's ravings but especially Graham Allison's childish and meaningless Thucydides Trap
argument -- as if the power equation between the U.S. and China in the 21stcentury could be
easily interpreted in parallel to Athens and Sparta slouching towards the Peloponnesian War
over 2,400 years ago. What next? Xi Jinping as the new Genghis Khan?
(By the way, the best current essay on Thucydides is in Italian, by Luciano Canfora ("
Tucidide: La Menzogna, La Colpa, L'Esilio" ). No Trap. Martyanov visibly relishes defining the
Trap as a "figment of the imagination" of people who "have a very vague understanding of real
warfare in the 21st century." No wonder Xi explicitly said the Trap does not exist.)
Martyanov had already detailed in his splendid, previous book, "Losing Military Supremacy:
The Myopia of American Strategic Planning," how "American lack of historic experience with
continental warfare" ended up "planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of the American
military mythology of the 20thand 21stcenturies which is foundational to the American decline,
due to hubris and detachment of reality." Throughout the book, he unceasingly provides solid
evidence about the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a possible, future war against
real armies (not the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's), air forces, air defenses and naval
power.
Do the Math
One of the key takeaways is the failure of U.S. mathematical models: and readers of the book
do need to digest quite a few mathematical equations. The key point is that this failure led
the U.S. "on a continuous downward spiral of diminishing military capabilities against the
nation [Russia] she thought she defeated in the Cold War."
In the U.S., Revolution in Military
Affairs (RMA) was introduced by the late Andrew Marshall, a.k.a. Yoda, the former head of
Net Assessment at the Pentagon and the de facto inventor of the "pivot to Asia" concept. Yet
Martyanov tells us that RMA actually started as MTR (Military-Technological Revolution),
introduced by Soviet military theoreticians back in the 1970s.
One of the staples of RMA concerns nations capable of producing land-attack cruise missiles,
a.k.a. TLAMs. As it stands, only the U.S., Russia, China and France can do it. And there are
only two global systems providing satellite guidance to cruise missiles: the American GPS and
the Russian GLONASS. Neither China's BeiDou nor the European Galileo qualify – yet
– as global GPS systems.
Then there's Net-Centric Warfare (NCW). The term itself was coined by the late Admiral
Arthur Cebrowski in 1998 in an
article he co-wrote with John Garstka's titled, "Network-Centric Warfare – Its Origin and
Future."
Deploying his mathematical equations, Martyanov soon tells us that "the era of subsonic
anti-shipping missiles is over." NATO, that brain-dead organism (copyright Emmanuel Macron)
now has to face the supersonic Russian P-800 Onyx and the Kalibr-class M54 in a "highly hostile
Electronic Warfare environment." Every developed modern military today applies Net-Centric Warfare
(NCW), developed by the Pentagon in the 1990s.
Rendering of a future combat systems network. (soldiersmediacenter/Flickr, CC BY 2.0,
Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov
mentions in his new book something that I learned on my visit to Donbass in March 2015: how
NCW principles, "based on Russia's C4ISR capabilities made available by the Russian military to
numerically inferior armed forces of the Donbass Republics (LDNR), were used to devastating
effect both at the battles of Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo, when attacking the cumbersome Soviet-era
Ukrainian Armed Forces military."
No Escape From the Kinzhal
Martyanov provides ample information on Russia's latest missile – the hypersonic
Mach-10 aero-ballistic Kinzhal, recently tested in the Arctic.
Crucially, as he explains, "no existing anti-missile defense in the U.S. Navy is capable of
shooting [it] down even in the case of the detection of this missile." Kinzhal has a range of
2,000 km, which leaves its carriers, MiG-31K and TU-22M3M, "invulnerable to the only defense a
U.S. Carrier Battle Group, a main pillar of U.S. naval power, can mount – carrier fighter
aircraft." These fighters simply don't have the range.
The Kinzhal was one of the weapons announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin's
game-changing March
1, 2018 speech at the Federal Assembly. That's the day, Martyanov stresses, when the real
RMA arrived, and "changed completely the face of peer-peer warfare, competition and global
power balance dramatically."
Top Pentagon officials such as General
John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have admitted on the record there are "no
existing countermeasures" against, for instance, the hypersonic, Mach 27 glide vehicle Avangard
(which renders anti-ballistic missile systems useless), telling the U.S. Senate Armed Services
Committee the only way out would be "a nuclear deterrent." There are also no existing
counter-measures against anti-shipping missiles such as the Zircon and Kinzhal.
Any military analyst knows very well how the Kinzhal destroyed a land target the size of a
Toyota Corolla in Syria after being launched 1,000 km away in adverse weather conditions. The
corollary is the stuff of NATO nightmares: NATO's command and control installations in Europe
are de facto indefensible.
Martyanov gets straight to the point: "The introduction of hypersonic weapons surely pours
some serious cold water on the American obsession with securing the North American continent
from retaliatory strikes."
Kh-47M2 Kinzhal; 2018 Moscow Victory Day Parade. (Kremilin via Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov is thus unforgiving on U.S. policymakers who "lack the necessary tool-kit for
grasping the unfolding geostrategic reality in which the real revolution in military affairs
had dramatically downgraded the always inflated American military capabilities and continues to
redefine U.S. geopolitical status away from its self-declared hegemony."
And it gets worse: "Such weapons ensure a guaranteed retaliation [Martyanov's italics] on
the U.S. proper." Even the existing Russian nuclear deterrents – and to a lesser degree
Chinese, as paraded recently -- "are capable of overcoming the existing U.S. anti-ballistic
systems and destroying the United States," no matter what crude propaganda the Pentagon is
peddling.
In February 2019, Moscow announced the completion of tests of a nuclear-powered engine for
the Petrel cruise missile. This is a subsonic cruise missile with nuclear propulsion that can
remain in air for quite a long time, covering intercontinental distances, and able to attack
from the most unexpected directions. Martyanov mischievously characterizes the Petrel as "a
vengeance weapon in case some among American decision-makers who may help precipitate a new
world war might try to hide from the effects of what they have unleashed in the relative safety
of the Southern Hemisphere."
Hybrid War Gone Berserk
A section of the book expands on China's military progress, and the fruits of the
Russia-China strategic partnership, such as Beijing buying $3 billion-worth of S-400 Triumph
anti-aircraft missiles -- "ideally suited to deal with the exact type of strike assets the
United States would use in case of a conventional conflict with China."
Beijing parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic, October 2019.
(YouTube screenshot)
Because of the timing, the analysis does not even take into consideration the arsenal
presented in early October at the Beijing parade celebrating the 70thanniversary of the
People's Republic.
That includes, among other things, the "carrier-killer" DF-21D, designed to hit warships at
sea at a range of up to 1,500 km; the intermediate range "Guam Killer" DF-26; the DF-17
hypersonic missile; and the long-range submarine-launched and ship-launched YJ-18A anti-ship
cruise missiles. Not to mention the DF-41 ICBM – the backbone of China's nuclear
deterrent, capable of reaching the U.S. mainland carrying multiple warheads.
Martyanov could not escape addressing the RAND Corporation, whose reason to exist is to
relentlessly push for more money for the Pentagon – blaming Russia for "hybrid war" (an
American invention) even as it moans about the U.S.'s incapacity of defeating Russia in each
and every war game. RAND's war games pitting the U.S. and allies against Russia and China
invariably ended in a "catastrophe" for the "finest fighting force in the world."
Martyanov also addresses the S-500s, capable of reaching AWACS planes and possibly even
capable of intercepting hypersonic non-ballistic targets. The S-500 and its latest middle-range
state of the art air-defense system S-350 Vityaz will be operational in 2020.
His key takeway: "There is no parity between Russia and the United States in such fields as
air-defense, hypersonic weapons and, in general, missile development, to name just a few fields
– the United States lags behind in these fields, not just in years but in generations
[italics mine]."
All across the Global South, scores of nations are very much aware that the U.S. economic
"order" – rather disorder – is on the brink of collapse. In contrast, a
cooperative, connected, rule-based, foreign relations between sovereign nations model is being
advanced in Eurasia – symbolized by the merging of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the NDB (the BRICS bank).
The key guarantors of the new model are Russia and China. And Beijing and Moscow harbor no
illusion whatsoever about the toxic dynamics in Washington. My recent conversations with top
analysts in Kazakhstan last month and in Moscow last week once again stressed the futility of
negotiating with people described – with overlapping shades of sarcasm – as
exceptionalist fanatics. Russia, China and many corners of Eurasia have figured out there are
no possible, meaningful deals with a nation bent on breaking every deal.
Indispensable?
No: Vulnerable
Martyanov cannot but evoke Putin's speech to the Federal Assembly in February 2019, after
the unilateral Washington abandonment of the INF treaty, clearing the way for U.S. deployment
of intermediate and close range missiles stationed in Europe and pointed at Russia:
"Russia will be forced to create and deploy those types of weapons against those regions
from where we will face a direct threat, but also against those regions hosting the centers
where decisions are taken on using those missile systems threatening us."
Translation: American Invulnerability is over – for good.
In the short term, things can always get worse. At his traditional, year-end presser in
Moscow, lasting almost four and a half hours, Putin stated that Russia is more than ready to
"simply renew the existing New START agreement", which is bound to expire in early 2021: "They
[the U.S.] can send us the agreement tomorrow, or we can sign and send it to Washington." And
yet, "so far our proposals have been left unanswered. If the New START ceases to exist, nothing
in the world will hold back an arms race. I believe this is bad."
"Bad" is quite the euphemism. Martyanov prefers to stress how "most of the American elites,
at least for now, still reside in a state of Orwellian cognitive dissonance" even as the real
RMA "blew the myth of American conventional invincibility out of the water."
Martyanov is one of the very few analysts – always from different parts of Eurasia --
who have warned about the danger of the U.S. "accidentally stumbling" into a war against
Russia, China, or both which is impossible to be won conventionally, "let alone through the
nightmare of a global nuclear catastrophe."
Is that enough to instill at least a modicum of sense into those who lord over that massive
cash cow, the industrial-military-security complex? Don't count on it.
* * *
Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong
Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is
"
2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .
If the British were the ones to organise an independence referendum in Crimea, they would
probably push as many people as possible into postal voting and reduce the number of polling
stations as part of this strategy.
"... My hunch is that a lot of Pentagon defence spending already props up communities throughout the US. Private defence companies set up factories in towns that would otherwise be ghost towns to manufacture armaments or parts for planes or ships in programs funded by the US Department of Defense, in states across the country ..."
"... Part of the reason is to lobby politicians representing the electorates where their factories are located for more Pentagon funding to finance more contracts. Politicians willingly support more defense funding because they know these companies provide jobs and keep unemployment down. ..."
My hunch is that a lot of Pentagon defence spending already props up communities
throughout the US. Private defence companies set up factories in towns that would otherwise
be ghost towns to manufacture armaments or parts for planes or ships in programs funded by
the US Department of Defense, in states across the country .
Part of the reason is to lobby politicians representing the electorates where their
factories are located for more Pentagon funding to finance more contracts. Politicians
willingly support more defense funding because they know these companies provide jobs and
keep unemployment down.
The issue then is how to keep those jobs and keep those factories but change what
engineers are designing and workers are making from machines of destruction into machines
that sustain life and communities.
Yes, the absolute truth. Defense spending is spread over as many states and regions as
possible to keep strong political support. It seems every month the state is sponsoring
seminars aimed at educating small/medium manufacturers on how to bid on defense contracts.
Even small mom-and-pop machine shops get their share of defense business. One small shop in
our region makes compressor blades for cruise missiles. Every time the US fires off a barrage
of missiles, they probably get an order; everybody is happy except those in the target area.
Many American communities also depend on the Military-Industrial Complex to educate their
children. I personally know several families who had children enlist in the military in order
to get a free college education; one that their families could otherwise not afford. The
parents put their kids in the army and navy, and then just cross their fingers and hope they
won't be deployed to a war zone.
The system is actually perfect. The odds of any one of these young people actually getting
killed in a war, is actually quite low. The vast majority get a good education with lots of
perks, all expenses paid including housing, they do their time, and never see a bullet. All
at the taxpayers expense.
"... Overwhelming Power was the stated war goal in 1942. When that failed because of the Soviets, the Red Victories, and the Red bomb, it become essential to create a false reality where "Everything the American Public believes is false (Casey/Honegger) ..."
Overwhelming Power was the stated war goal in 1942. When that failed because of the
Soviets, the Red Victories, and the Red bomb, it become essential to create a false reality
where "Everything the American Public believes is false (Casey/Honegger)
Stimson said in '42>
"We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle our flag will be
recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of
overwhelming power on the other." (Capra Why We Fight")
If Power is overwhelming, then Power defines freedom. Stimson's rhetoric presents a
false equality. A deception. Essentially a lie.
The "Reds" are onto this, however, see VVP's informal disquisition at
"Dan Crenshaw did not serve his country. Dan Crenshaw is not a hero. Dan Crenshaw
participated in a military occupation that after 18 years and counting has claimed tens of
thousands of lives for no benefit to any ordinary American at all. All he served during his
time in that country was the geostrategic imperialist agendas of unaccountable government
agencies and the profit margins of war plutocrats, yet upon returning home he's been able to
convert his stint as a glorified hired thug into social collateral which got him elected to
the US House of Representatives and secured him a punditry platform from which he can spout
war propaganda. All because people agree to play along with the completely nonsensical
narrative that US war veterans are heroes."
("glorified hired thug" LOL!!!)
"I'm not saying to be mean to veterans, and I'm not saying veterans are bad people, in
fact, one of the most heinous injustices about these corporate wars is that they turn many of
our finest and bravest young people toward the very most toxic and pernicious ends possible.
Many of them sincerely enlisted due to an impulse to help make the world a better place; it's
the same impulse which led Julian Assange to set up a leaking outlet to help expose
unaccountable power structures, the only difference is that Assange saw clearly through the
fog of propaganda and they did not. But the reverence and fairy tales have got to go.
There are no war heroes. There are only war victims. It's time to grow up and stop pretending
otherwise."
Damn!!!! Caitlin is Spot F'n On !!!
BTW Notice how these war 'heroes' seem to bear a striking family resemblance.
Who does that pix of Crenshaw bring to mind??? LOL!!! Weird huh!!!
So we go to THEIR homeland as if they had come here to our homeland-which they
haven't.
Maybe that's what Dan would have said if he were a straightforward truthful kinda guy
which of course he isn't.
Be careful. Playing upon her military service is a big part of Tulsi Gabbard's gravitas and
authenticity. It's quite true that she uses it to argue against regime-change wars, but a
position that military records only mean you served as a dupe for war profiteers and enabled
their plundering will not do her any good at all, and Caitlin has set it up so there is
little wiggle room for intentions.
I'd always argue the Romans were the most effective in ancient times. Even they struggled
to control Gaul it was still ahead of it's time technologically and administratively. The
British were exceptional at extracting resources in modern times but couldnt even control the
Irish and Scottish. Great philosophical discussion at the end of the day with no clear
winner. I'd say the Mongols were amateur at best compared to the afore mentioned
The British Empire never really fell. It simply mutated into Anglo-American empire. Teddy
Roosevelt and Edward VII should be credited for forging the coalition (With Redshield pulling
the strings from behind).
You can thank these three entities for total takeover of USA and for warming the seat for
Woodrow Wilson (the patsy who ushered in Income Tax, Federal Reserve and America's entry in
WW-1).
Yes. I don't know why the US Empire isn't counted. After all, what is an empire? It's a
central government that controls other countries. By that measure - and I think it's a fair
one - the US Empire includes most of the world that isn't controlled (one way or another) by
China and Russia. What does it not control? A few squabbling little places that
struggle for independence - but every empire has those. Remember that the US of A began as an
empire, in 1789. ( See link below for a brief summary I wrote a few years ago .) Just
because America's is not ordinarily referred to as an empire doesn't deny the reality. When
the USSR existed, we didn't deny its status as an empire; we didn't pretend that Poland and
Bulgaria weren't controlled from Moscow.
After this fraudulent news story received wide coverage, it was followed by "reports" from
the Washington-based Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders. This group receives most of its
funds from U.S. government grants, primarily from the CIA-linked National Endowment for
Democracy, a major source of funding for U.S. "regime change" operations around the world.
The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders shares the same Washington address as Human
Rights Watch. The HRW has been a major source of attacks on governments targeted by the U.S.,
such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Syria and China. The network has long called for sanctions
against China.
The CHRD's sources include Radio Free Asia, a news agency funded for decades by the U.S.
government. The World Uighur Congress, another source of sensationalized reports, is also
funded by NED. The same U.S. government funding is behind the International Uyghur Human Rights
and Democracy Foundation and the Uyghur American Association.
The authors of the Grayzone article cite years of detailed IRS filing forms to back up their
claim. They list millions of dollars in generous government funding -- to generate false
reports.
This whole network of supposedly impartial civil society groups, nongovernmental
organizations, think tanks and news sources operates under the cover of "human rights" to
promote sanctions and war.
CIA-funded terror
Central Asia has experienced the worst forms of U.S. military power.
Beginning in 1979, the CIA, operating with the ISI Pakistani Intelligence Service and
Saudi money, funded and equipped reactionary Mujahedeen forces in Afghanistan to bring down a
revolutionary government there. The U.S. cultivated and promoted extreme religious fanaticism,
based in Saudi Arabia, against progressive secular regimes in the region. This reactionary
force was also weaponized against the Soviet Union and an anti-imperialist Islamic current
represented by the Iranian Revolution.
For four decades, the CIA and secret Pakistan ISI forces (Pakistan Military, Inter
Services Intelligence) in Afghanistan sought to recruit and train Uyghur mercenaries, planning
to use them as a future terror force in China. Chechnyans from Russia's Caucasus region were
recruited for the same reason. Both groups were funneled into Syria in the U.S. regime-change
operation there. These fanatical religious forces, along with other small ethnic groups, formed
the backbone of the Islamic State group (IS) and Al-Qaida.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center bombing, the very forces that U.S. secret
operations had helped to create became the enemy.
Uyghurs from Xinjiang were among the Al-Qaida prisoners captured in Afghanistan and held in
the U.S. prison at Guantanamo for years without charges. Legal appeals exposed that the Uyghur
prisoners were being held there under some of the worst conditions in solitary confinement.
U.S. wars dislocate region
The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and the massive U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 created
shockwaves of dislocation. Social progress, education, health care and infrastructure were
destroyed. Sectarian and ethnic division was encouraged to divide opposition to U.S.
occupations. Despite promises of great progress, the U.S. occupations sowed only
destruction.
In this long war, U.S. prisons in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq were notorious. The CIA
used "enhanced interrogation" techniques -- torture -- and secret rendition to Guantanamo,
Bagram and the Salt Pit in Afghanistan. These secret prisons have since been the source of many
legal suits.
According to U.N. investigations, by 2010 the U.S. held more than 27,000 prisoners in over
100 secret facilities around the world. Searing images and reports of systematic torture and
prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Bagram airbase in Afghanistan surfaced.
Exposing coverup of war crimes
In July 2010 WikiLeaks published more than 75,000 classified U.S./NATO reports on the war in
Afghanistan.
In October of that year, a massive leak of 400,000 military videos, photos and documents
exposed, in harrowing detai,l torture, summary executions and other war crimes. Army
intelligence analyst former Private Chelsea Manning released this damning material to
WikiLeaks.
Based on the leaked documents, the U.N. chief investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, called
on U.S. President Barack Obama to order a full investigation of these crimes, including abuse,
torture, rape and murder committed against the Iraqi people following the U.S. invasion and
occupation.
The leaked reports provided documentary proof of 109,000 deaths -- including 66,000
civilians. This is seldom mentioned in the media, in contrast to the highly publicized and
unsourced charges now raised against China.
Prosecuting whistle blowers
The CIA's National Endowment for Democracy pays handsomely for unsourced documents making
claims of torture against China, while those who provided documentary proof of U.S. torture
have been treated as criminals.
John Kiriakou, who worked for the CIA between 1990 and 2004 and confirmed widespread use of
systematic torture, was prosecuted by the Obama administration for revealing classified
information and sentenced to 30 months in prison.
Chelsea Manning's release of tens of thousands of government documents confirming torture
and abuse, in addition to horrific photos of mass killings, have led to her continued
incarceration. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is imprisoned in Britain and faces deportation to
the U.S. for his role in disseminating these documents.
Rewriting history
How much of the coverage of Xinjiang is intended to deflect world attention from the
continuing crimes of U.S. wars -- from Afghanistan to Syria?
In 2014 a Senate CIA Torture Report confirmed that a torture program, called "Detention and
Interrogation Program," had been approved by top U.S. officials. Only a 525-page Executive
Summary of its 6,000 pages was released, but it was enough to confirm that the CIA program was
far more brutal and extensive than had previously been released.
Mercenaries flood into Syria
The U.S. regime-change effort to overturn the government of Syria funneled more than
100,000 foreign mercenaries and fanatical religious forces into the war. They were
well-equipped with advanced weapons, military gear, provisions and paychecks.
One-third of the Syrian population was uprooted in the war. Millions of refugees flooded
into Europe and neighboring countries.
Beginning in 2013, thousands of Uyghur fighters were smuggled into Syria to train with
the extremist Uyghur group known as the Turkistan Islamic Party. Fighting alongside Al-Qaida
and Al-Nusra terror units, these forces played key roles in several battles.
Reuters, Associated Press and Newsweek all reported that up to 5,000 Turkic-speaking Muslim
Uyghurs from Xinjiang were fighting in various "militant" groups in Syria.
According to Syrian media, a transplanted Uyghur colony transformed the city of al
Zanbaka (on the Turkish border) into an entrenched camp of 18,000 people. Many of the Uyghur
fighters were smuggled to the Turkish-Syrian border area with their families. Speaking Turkish,
rather than Chinese, they relied on the support of the Turkish secret services.
China follows a different path
China is determined to follow a different path in dealing with fanatical groups that are
weaponized by religious extremism. China's action comes after terror attacks and explosives
have killed hundreds of civilians in busy shopping areas and crowded train and bus stations
since the 1990s.
China has dealt with the problem of religious extremism by setting up large-scale vocational
education and training centers. Rather than creating worse underdevelopment through bombing
campaigns, it is seeking to engage the population in education, skill development and rapid
economic and infrastructure development.
Terrorist attacks in Xinjiang have stopped since the reeducation campaigns began in
2017.
Two worldviews of Xinjiang
In July of this year, 22 countries, most in Europe plus Canada, Japan, Australia and New
Zealand, sent a letter to the U.N. Human Rights Council criticizing China for mass arbitrary
detentions and other violations against Muslims in China's Xinjiang region. The statement did
not include a single signature from a Muslim-majority state.
Days later, a far larger group of 34 countries -- now expanded to 54 from Asia, Africa and
Latin America -- submitted a letter in defense of China's policies. These countries expressed
their firm support of China's counterterrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang.
More than a dozen member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the U.N.
signed the statement.
A further statement on Oct. 31 to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly explained
that a number of diplomats, international organizations, officials and journalists had traveled
to Xinjiang to witness the progress of the human rights cause and the outcomes of
counterterrorism and deradicalization.
"What they saw and heard in Xinjiang completely contradicted what was reported in the
[Western] media," said the statement.
The President of the USofA has no power to turn this ship around. The seat of power is no
longer residing in the hands of civilian/political actors prime ministers or presidents though
they may be.
Candidate Trump indicated very early on that he intended to withdraw from Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, he soon succumbed to his advisors and generals advice of increasing troop
strength in 2017 as part of a surge strategy. This makes him no better or worse than his two
predecessors who succumbed to the same kind of advice.
However Trump has recently restarted negotiations with the Taliban and has renewed his
pledged to remove several thousand troops. "We're going down to 8,600 [from the 12,000 and
13,000 US troops now there] and then we make a determination from there as to what happens,"
Trump told Fox last August. "We're bringing it down." Of course the drawdown will be seen by
the neocons as a unilateral concession to the Taliban. That shouldn't phase Trump. I think he
plans to reannounce this withdrawal next month. DoD officials have said that the smaller US
military presence will be largely focused on counterterrorism operations against groups like
al Qaeda and IS, and that the military's ability to train and advise local Afghan forces will
be reduced considerably. Sounds like they're still looking for a reason to stay.
Trump can break the cycle. He holds no ideological conviction for staying in Afghanistan.
If he could get over his BDS (Bezos derangement syndrome), he could seize this Washington
Post series, or at least the SIGAR lessons learned reports, and trumpet them through his
twitter feed and helicopter talks. I believe he alone can generate a public cry for getting
the hell out of Afghanistan and carry through with that action no matter how much his
generals scream about it. But without a loud public outcry, especially from his base, Trump
has no incentive to break the cycle. So all you deplorables better start hootin' and
hollerin'. Hopefully enough SJWs will join you to pump up the volume.
Excellent, right up to the last sentence. SJWs are mere tools of people like George Soros
and have zero anti-war agenda nor do they care about America's manufacturing base ect.. In
fact, many are chomping at the bit to join, what was once termed in the SST comments, the
LGBTQ-C4ISR sect. I refer you to mayor Pete's exchange with Tulsi on the matter; he even
invoked our sacred honor as a reason to stay the course in Afghanistan.
TTG,
It's a shrinking cohort. For some of these types, their TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is
actually causing them to side with the CIA and military. Enemy of my enemy.....and since
there's no draft, they have no skin in that game.
For the past 2-3 years many generals and politicians have been using the threat of ISKP as
the new bogeyman for staying in Afghanistan. This threat is not wholly unfounded, a
disproportionately large number of US airstrikes since 2015-2016 have been against ISKP in
Nangarhar(remember the MOAB?) rather than against the Taliban. If my memory serves me
correctly ISKP was responsible for every single US casualty in 2016-2017. In the past two
months however ISKP has been collapsing in its erstwhile stronghold of Nangarhar,
surrendering to the ANA rather than fall into the hands of the Taliba,à la Jowzjan
in summer 2018. I was very surprised by the number of foreign fighters and their families
to come out of there. We have the Taliban to thank for these two collapses.
IMO American "exceptionalism" doomed our effort in Afghanistan Very few of us are set up
mentally to accept the notion that other peoples are legitimately different from us and
that they don't want to be like us and do things our way. I attribute this deformation on
our part to the puritan heritage that you much admire. In your case your recent immigrant
past seems to have immunized you from this deformation. As SF men we rightly fear and dread
the attitudes of The Big Army, but, truth be told, it is we who are the outlier freaks in
the context of American culture with its steamroller approach to just about everything.
Ah yes, all that shining city on the hill stuff biting us in the ass once again. Like the
Puritans, we seem to believe we alone are His chosen people and are utterly shocked that
all others don't see this. In truth, Jesus probably sees our self righteous selves and our
pilgrim forefathers much as he saw the Pharisees... a bunch of douche nozzles.
"... Some, such as General David Petraeus , seem to sincerely believe that the U.S. was on the right track and could have made progress if only those pesky civilians in the Beltway hadn't pulled the rug out from under them by announcing a premature withdrawal. ..."
When Will the Afghan War Architects Be Held Accountable?
Even after the release of the Afghanistan Papers, our elites are still determined to escape
without blame. CERNOBBIO, ITALY - SEPTEMBER 06: Chairman of the KKR Global Institute David
Howell Petraeus attends the Ambrosetti International Economic Forum 2019 "Lo scenario
dell'Economia e della Finanza" on September 6, 2019 in Cernobbio, Italy. (Photo by Pier Marco
Tacca/Getty Images)
Almost two weeks after the Washington Post 's Craig Whitlock published his six-part
series on the trials, tribulations, and blunders of Washington's 19-year-long social science
experiment in Afghanistan, those involved in the war effort are desperately pointing fingers as
to who is to blame. An alternative narrative has emerged among this crop of elite policymakers,
military officers, and advisers that while American policy in Afghanistan has been horrible,
the people responsible for it really did believe it would all work out in the end. Call it the
"we were stupid" defense.
There were no lies or myths propagated by senior U.S. officials, we are told, just honest
assessments that later proved to be wrong. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, who
has advised U.S. commanders on Afghanistan war policy, wrote that "no, there has not been a
campaign of disinformation, intentional or subliminal." Former defense secretary Jim Mattis,
who led CENTCOM during part of the war effort, called the Post 's reporting "not really
news" and was mystified that the unpublished interviews from the U.S. special inspector general
were generating such shock. Others have faulted the Post for publishing the material to
begin with, claiming that public disclosure would scare future witnesses from cooperating and
threaten other fact-finding inquiries (the fact that the newspaper was legally permitted to
publish the transcripts after winning a court case against the government is apparently
irrelevant in the minds of those making this argument).
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
All of these claims and counter-claims should be seen for what they truly are: the flailings
of a policymaking class so arrogant and unaccountable that it can't see straight. That they're
blaming the outrage engendered by the Afghanistan Papers on anything other than themselves is
Exhibit A that our narcissistic policy elite is cocooned in their own reality.
Analysts have been pouring over the Afghanistan interview transcripts for over a week in
order to determine how the war went wrong. Some of the main lessons learned have long been
evident. The decision to impose a top-down democratic political order on a country that
operated on a system of patronage and tribal systems from the bottom-up was bound to be
problematic. Throwing tens of billions of dollars of reconstruction assistance into a nation
that had no experience managing that kind of money -- or spending it properly -- helped fuel
the very nationwide corruption Washington would come to regret. Paying off warlords to fight
the Taliban and keep order while pressuring those very same warlords into following the rules
was contradictory. The mistakes go on and on and on: as Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said,
"We didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking."
One of the most salient findings about this ghastly two-decade-long misadventure surfaced
after the Afghanistan Papers were released: the commentariat will stop at nothing to absolve
themselves of the slightest responsibility for the disaster they supported. The outright
refusal of the pundit class to own up to its errors is as disturbing as it is infuriating. And
even when they do acknowledge that errors were committed, they tend to minimize their own role
in those mistakes, explaining them away as unfortunate consequences of fixed withdrawal
deadlines, inter-agency tussling, Afghanistan's poor foundational state, or the inability of
the Afghans to capitalize on the opportunities Washington provided them. Some,
such as General David Petraeus , seem to sincerely believe that the U.S. was on the right
track and could have made progress if only those pesky civilians in the Beltway hadn't pulled
the rug out from under them by announcing a premature withdrawal.
It's always somebody else's fault.
Whether out of arrogance, ego, or fear of not being taken seriously in Washington's foreign
policy discussions, the architects of the war refuse to admit even the most obvious mistakes.
Instead they duck and weave like a quarterback escaping a full-on defensive rush, attempting
yet again to fool the American public.
But the public has nothing to apologize for. It is those who are making excuses who have
exercised disastrous judgment on Afghanistan. And they owe the country an apology.
Daniel R. DePetris is a columnist for the Washington Examiner and a contributor
to The American Conservative.
On September 27, 2018, Yale's Program in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, and
the Poynter Fellowship for Journalism hosted Vladimir Pozner, the acclaimed Russian-American
journalist and broadcaster. Pozner spoke on the impact of US foreign policy towards Russia
after the Soviet Union has been disbanded, and shared his opinions on a range of issues raised
by the audience, from the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections,
to Skripal poisoning, to the state of independent media in Russia and the US.
It turns out that the US military hires more shills and clowns and runs more "news"
worldwide than all the real news agencies, combined.
For Soetoro to turn this $hit loose on us exposes his truly sinister intent. Here you all
are, thinking the bull$hit on TV is remotely relevant other than exposing the gangsters who
direct it and rob us to pay for it against our will.
All these High Crimes on Pelosi and Schumer's watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness
was shut down in 2003 by Congress after dinosaur exposed mass surveillance abuses
establishing "Total Information Awareness" over all US citizens. The program was continued in
overt defiance of Congress through Trillions in black funding.
Or you could just point to the massive expansion of debt and reduction of freedoms signed
by Trump last night while the whole government was telling you "nothing up my sleeve!"
"... The problem with an unseen stimulus is that no one thinks it's helping them. Obama provided tax relief for nearly every working American, but instead of sending citizens a check, as George W. Bush had done, his economists decided to structure it as a payroll tax cut, subtly increasing the size of everyone's paycheck. The administration then intentionally did not advertise the fact that it had given nearly every working American a tax cut , in the hopes that people would be nudged into spending, rather than saving, that extra cash. Predictably, in 2010, one poll showed that only 12 percent of Americans believed they'd received a tax cut; 24 percent thought Obama had raised their taxes. ..."
"... A program that was supposed to help underwater homeowners turned down 70 percent of those applying for permanent loan modifications , even as over six million families lost their homes. The point of the program was never actually to help people stay in their homes, of course; it was to preserve the finance industry by spacing out foreclosures. In the end, it achieved its aim: The banks today are as profitable as ever, while more households are renting than in 50 years . ..."
"... The individual mandate, similarly designed to force the healthiest young invincibles to enter the market to bring down costs, is equally dead. And a decade into the ACA, it has become more apparent than ever that the best way to reduce America's absurd health care costs would simply be a single-payer program. ..."
"... The political scientist Suzanne Mettler coined the term "the submerged state" in 2010 to refer to the jungle of hidden government "programs" designed not to call attention to themselves, often perpetuated not because they are still helping the neediest, but because they are lucrative to the finance, insurance, and/or real estate industries. ..."
Welcome to The Decade From Hell , our look
back at an arbitrary 10-year period that began with a great outpouring of hope and ended in a cavalcade of despair.
As 2009 ended, the editors of this magazine at the time
took their measure of the first year of Barack Obama's
presidency and declared it, with some reservations, a modest success. "All of this might not exactly place him in the pantheon next
to Franklin Roosevelt," they said of his major domestic achievements (the stimulus package, primarily, as the Affordable Care Act
had not yet been signed). "But it's not a bad start, given all the constraints of the political system (and global order) in which
he works."
That was the broad consensus of American liberals at the time, ranging from nearly the most progressive to nearly the most neoliberal.
Over the ensuing years, that consensus would crack and eventually shatter under the weight of one disappointment after another. The
story of American politics over the past decade is that of a political party on the cusp of enduring power and world-historical social
reform, and how these once imaginable outcomes were methodically squandered.
The bulk of that unsigned New Republic editorial in 2009 was dedicated to Obama's foreign policy, specifically the question
of whether he was waging enough war. The conclusion: He was. The editors praised "the escalation of the war in Afghanistan" as "the
most consequential action of the first year of his presidency," even though it
offended the base of his party and possibly injured his future political prospects. On strategic grounds, we believe he made
the right choice. But the thoroughness and logic of the process by which he arrived at this decision double our confidence in
that choice. The is exactly the type of pragmatism and non-ideological policymaking that sentient humans have craved after the
Bush years.
(Sure, escalate the endless wars -- but for God's sake, please do it non-ideologically .)
In December of this year, The Washington Post
obtained thousands of pages of documents from a government oversight project called "Lessons Learned," which included interviews
with more than 600 people involved in the war in Afghanistan at some point over its 18-year history. An interview with a National
Security Council official described, according to the Post , "constant pressure from the Obama White House and Pentagon to
produce figures to show the troop surge of 2009 to 2011 was working, despite hard evidence to the contrary." Nearly every piece of
data used over the last decade to try to convince Americans that the war was going well, or even going according to any sort of coherent
logic or reason, was phony or meaningless.
"I don't want to be going to Walter Reed for another eight years," Obama
reportedly said in 2009 , as he struggled
with the decision to escalate the war. The president and his closest advisers were determined to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam. Since
then, overwhelmed by billions
in U.S. "aid," the country has sunk into kleptocracy. Last year, according to the United Nations, was the single deadliest year
of the war for Afghan civilians. Today, around 13,000 American service members remain in Afghanistan. The Trump administration is
attempting to negotiate a peace with the Taliban that would leave it in charge of the country, just as it was prior to America's
invasion. The war in Afghanistan may finally end, but not before the close of this decade that began with that oh-so-carefully considered
decision to escalate it.
"We Are All Socialists Now," Newsweek declared on its cover in early 2009, when
it was still part of the prestige press (it is currently run by
a different sort of cult ).
Editor Jon Meacham, evincing the usual historical and political amnesia of airport bookstore historians, justified the claim by writing
that "for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether
we should have one." A mixed economy run according to Keynesian principles was, you may recall from reading slightly more rigorous
historians, the primary alternative to socialism on offer in the West throughout the twentieth century. The stimulus had been
large (if not large
enough ), but with $288 billion of it dedicated to tax credits and incentives for individuals and businesses, it scarcely resembled
socialism. Indeed, rather than giving Americans a greater hand in managing the economy, much of it was designed to be almost invisible.
This was intentional. In the May 6, 2009, issue of The New Republic , Franklin Foer and Noam Scheiber
described Obama's "Nudge-ocracy," a belief, inspired
by behavioral economics, that the best way for the government to create good outcomes for the people was not through "heavy-handed
market interventions" but via technocratic attempts to change the behavior of individuals and the incentives of market actors.
The problem with an unseen stimulus is that no one thinks it's helping them. Obama provided tax relief for nearly every working
American, but instead of sending citizens a check, as George W. Bush had done, his economists decided to structure it as a payroll
tax cut, subtly increasing the size of everyone's paycheck. The administration then
intentionally did not advertise the fact that
it had given nearly every working American a tax cut , in the hopes that people would be nudged into spending, rather than saving,
that extra cash. Predictably, in 2010,
one poll showed
that only 12 percent of Americans believed they'd received a tax cut; 24 percent thought Obama had raised their taxes.
The flaw in this strategy was apparent to another author at this magazine. In late 2009, John B. Judis
foresaw a presidency in serious political trouble, because
Obama's fortunes were tied not just to the state of the economy, or even economic trends, but to people's perceptions of the
state of the economy. Noting how Roosevelt "dramatized the New Deal's contribution to the economy" by creating "colorful new agencies,"
thereby "ensuring that Roosevelt was given credit for the rise in employment," Judis called on Obama to "introduce programs that
provide jobs and capture the public's imagination." He also suggested the president
turn a deaf ear to those who are calling for fiscal responsibility. He should keep pouring money into jobs and into the pockets
of people who will spend until the unemployment rate begins going down and wages begin going up.... And, whatever he does to try
to mend the economy, Obama should never stop loudly trumpeting his efforts -- so that he is able to reap the credit when improvements
occur.
Roosevelt liked to wrestle his enemies in public, and Team Obama preferred to be above it all.
What Judis didn't consider, though, was that Obama didn't want to do any of those things. The president, along with economists
who worked for him such as Austan Goolsbee and Tim Geithner,
all pointedly rejected comparisons to
Roosevelt , based in part on a seemingly inaccurate understanding of the history of his first term but also seemingly based on
aesthetics: Roosevelt liked to wrestle his enemies in public, and Team Obama preferred to be above it all. It's hard to remember
now how wise everyone made it sound that the president and his team intentionally avoided doing things they worried would be too
popular, but there would not be another New Deal. Indeed, instead of ostentatious acts of helping people, the administration almost
preferred being seen standing athwart attempts to provide relief. A program that was supposed to help underwater homeowners
turned
down 70 percent of those applying for permanent loan modifications , even as over six million families lost their homes. The
point of the program was never actually to help people stay in their homes, of course; it was to
preserve the
finance industry by spacing out foreclosures. In the end, it achieved its aim: The banks today are as profitable as ever, while
more households are renting than in 50 years .
By far the most effective part of the Affordable Care Act, in terms of helping Americans get care, was simply expanding Medicaid.
But what many Democrats and liberals were most excited about was the bill's many experimental and technocratic attempts to "bend
the cost curve" -- reduce costs without price controls -- and "improve quality," mainly by encouraging insurers, with incentives,
to strive for outcomes that market forces alone weren't incentivizing them to aim for. The signature example of this may be the "Cadillac
tax," which was designed to nudge companies to force employees onto cheaper insurance plans with greater cost sharing -- a tax built
on the belief that one of the primary drivers of health care cost inflation was people taking advantage of their too-generous employers
and greedily consuming more health care than they needed. The tax never went into effect.
The individual mandate, similarly designed to force the healthiest
young invincibles to enter the market to bring down
costs, is equally dead. And a decade into the ACA, it has become more apparent than ever that the best way to reduce America's absurd
health care costs would simply be a single-payer program.
That is not to say that the ACA did not end up having the significant long-term political ramifications its drafters promised
it would. The primary non-Medicaid structure of the ACA, with its means-tested subsidies to purchase private insurance, had the predictable
effect of convincing some of its beneficiaries
that Obama and the Democratic Party had nothing to do with the government assistance they weren't sure they were getting. Then, as
costs rose and rose over the decade, that structure also
had the predictable effect of making people
who receive partially subsidized private care resentful of those poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.
Much of the decade we have just endured has shown how the Democratic addiction to dispensing benefits through the tax code in
complicated, indirect ways -- combined with the usual insufficiency of these benefits -- was nearly perfectly designed to foment
mass resentment of others, imagined or not, who might secretly be getting the Good Benefits.
The political scientist Suzanne Mettler coined the term "the submerged state" in 2010 to refer to the jungle of hidden government
"programs" designed not to call attention to themselves, often perpetuated not because they are still helping the neediest, but because
they are lucrative to the finance, insurance, and/or real estate industries.
One of her illustrations
of the effect of the submerged state is a graph showing how many people who used particular government programs admitted so only
after first telling researchers they'd received no assistance. That nearly 40 percent of people on Medicare claimed this is likely
attributable to ideology (and the fact that Medicare, like Social Security, was designed to make retirees feel like they had "paid
into it").
But when 60 percent of people who used tax-advantaged higher education savings accounts claim they received no government benefits,
as they did in Mettler's study, it's probably because tax-advantaged savings accounts are wholly inadequate to the problem of higher
education costs. Now combine this with a persistent belief (memorably
described by Ashley C. Ford a few years ago) that minorities -- black kids in particular -- get to go to college for free by
default, and stir in the rise of tuition costs and other expenses due to cutbacks in state investment in education. The result of
this cocktail of ignorant biases and inadequate solutions might look something like the year 2019.
The new US defense bill, agreed on by both parties, includes sanctions on executives of companies involved in the completion
of Nordstream 2. This is companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around
the arrival point.
This could include arrest of the executives of those companies, who might travel to the United States. One of the companies
is Royal Dutch Shell, who have 80,000 employees in the United States.
Some people believe 'the market' for crude oil is a fair and effective arbiter of the industry supply and demand.
But if we step back an inch or two, we all can see it has been a severely broken mechanism during this up phase in oil.
For example, there has been long lags between market signals of shortage or surplus.
Disruptive policies and mechanisms such as tariffs, embargo's, and sanctions, trade bloc quotas, military coups and popular revolutions,
socialist agendas, industry lobbying, multinational corporate McCarthyism, and massively obese debt financing, are all examples
of forces that have trumped an efficient and transparent oil market.
And yet, the problems with the oil market during this time of upslope will look placid in retrospect, as we enter the time beyond
peak.
I see no reason why it won't turn into a mad chaotic scramble.
We had a small hint of what this can look like in the last mid-century. The USA responded to military expansionism of Japan by
enacting an oil embargo against them. The response was Pearl Harbor. This is just one example of many.
How long before Iran lashes out in response to their restricted access to the market?
People generally don't respond very calmly to involuntary restriction on food, or energy, or access to the markets for these things.
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are
part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from
the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but
can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and
he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and
integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy
of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor
and messianic in its language.
The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of
globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that
globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization
could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap,
may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global
depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking
the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.
The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle
yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States
and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals
cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in
North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood
of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows
all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because
global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had
no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life
are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing
globalization.
After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next
places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells
us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of
such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation
of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the
actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation
of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this
rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S.
now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end
international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle
East), but a condition (disconnectedness).
Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it
occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs.
individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states
or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with
evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many
government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."
Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything
else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not
likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea,
Syria or Iran.
Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization
as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies
and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly
discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future,
system-wide dangers to globalization.
At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore
never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited
some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by
claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard
wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem,"
yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion
that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.
Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like
links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon
its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there
is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand
strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory
is built.
What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely
as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying
that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are)
the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination
of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global
insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are,
leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance
on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.
Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in
the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian
states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."
Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies
worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world
is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics
claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should
have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes
the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put
in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen
18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael
Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting
economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.
The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction
strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security
in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims
that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?
Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?
Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned
us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too
many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid
overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the
ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history
as Barnett councils; heed it.
Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet.
Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the
U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America
needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and
leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly
debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride.
Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.
I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend
it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the
military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.
It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the
New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.
I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization,
which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely.
Neither is guaranteed.
I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well
argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire
gets its hands on.
For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama
(but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse
and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender
war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing
"The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking
and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.
"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate
name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.
Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful,
guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets
---- quite yet!
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding
wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem,
or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or ....
ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.
"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but
a Global Empire only posing as your former country."
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
"... The American people and most of the world bought into the lies and half-truths because they wanted to believe the fiction they were being spoon fed by the White House, but is there a whole lot of difference between what the US government did against Iraq in 2003 and what Hitler's government did in 1939 when it falsely claimed that Polish troops had attacked Germany? Was subsequent torture by the Gestapo any different than torture by a contractor working for Washington? ..."
"... A friend of mine recently commented that honest men who were formerly part of the United States government do not subsequently get hired by lobbying firms or obtain television contracts and "teaching" positions at prestigious universities. ..."
"... If the marketplace is anything to go by Feith and Tenet are running neck-and-neck on secondary book exchanges as George also can be had for $.01. ..."
"... The historian Livy summed up the significance of his act, writing "It is worthwhile for those who disdain all human things for money, and who suppose that there is no room either for great honor or virtue, except where wealth is found, to listen to his story." ..."
"... "Power is always dangerous. Power attracts the worst and corrupts the best." ..."
"... senior government officials and politicians routinely expect to be generously rewarded for their service and never held accountable for their failures and misdeeds ..."
"... One thing for sure about the Washington elite, you never have to say you're sorry. ..."
The United States already has by far the per capita largest prison population of any developed country but I am probably one of
the few Americans who on this Independence Day would like to see a lot more people in prison, mostly drawn from politicians and senior
bureaucrats who have long believed that their status makes them untouchable, giving them license to steal and even to kill. The sad
fact is that while whistleblowers have been imprisoned for revealing government criminality, no one in the federal bureaucracy has
ever actually been punished for the crimes of torture, kidnapping and assassination committed during the George W. Bush and Barack
H. Obama presidencies.
Why is accountability important? After the Second World War, the victorious allies believed it was important to establish responsibility
for the crimes that had been committed by officials of the Axis powers. The judges at the Nuremberg Trials called the initiation
of a war of aggression the ultimate war crime because it inevitably unleashed so many other evils. Ten leading Nazis were executed
at Nuremberg and ninety-three Japanese officials at similar trials staged in Asia, including several guilty of waterboarding. Those
who were not executed for being complicit in the actual launching of war were tried for torture of both military personnel and civilians
and crimes against humanity, including the mass killing of civilians as well as of soldiers who had surrendered or been captured.
No matter how one tries to avoid making comparisons between 1939 and 2015, the American invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression,
precisely the type of conflict that the framework of accountability provided by Nuremberg was supposed to prevent in the years after
1946. High level US government officials knew that Iraq represented no threat to the United States but they nevertheless described
an imminent danger posed by Saddam Hussein in the most graphic terms, replete with weapons of mass destruction, armed drones flying
across the Atlantic, terrorists being unleashed against the homeland, and mushroom clouds on the horizon. The precedent of Iraq,
even though it was an abject failure, has led to further military action against Libya and Syria to bring about "regime change" as
well as a continuing conflict in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the US has been waging a largely secret "long war" against terrorists employing torture and secret prisons. The
American people and most of the world bought into the lies and half-truths because they wanted to believe the fiction they were being
spoon fed by the White House, but is there a whole lot of difference between what the US government did against Iraq in 2003 and
what Hitler's government did in 1939 when it falsely claimed that Polish troops had attacked Germany? Was subsequent torture by the
Gestapo any different than torture by a contractor working for Washington?
Many Americans would now consider the leading figures in the Bush Administration aided and abetted by many enablers in congress
from both political parties to be unindicted war criminals. Together they ignited a global conflict that is still running strong
fourteen years later with a tally of more than 7,000 dead Americans and a minimum of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Afghans,
Libyans, Somalis and Syrians.
War breeds more war, due largely to the fact that guilty parties in Washington who piggyback on the prevailing narrative move
onward and upward, rewarded in this life even if not necessarily so in the hereafter. A friend of mine recently commented that
honest men who were formerly part of the United States government do not subsequently get hired by lobbying firms or obtain television
contracts and "teaching" positions at prestigious universities. Though not 100% accurate as I know at least a couple of honorable
former senior officials who wound up teaching, it would seem to be a generalization that has considerable validity. The implication
is that many senior government officials ascend to their positions based on being accommodating and "political" rather than being
honest and they continue to do the same when they switch over to corporate America or the equally corrupted world of academia.
I thought of my friend's comment when I turned on the television a week ago to be confronted by the serious, somewhat intense
gaze of Michael Morell,
warning about the danger that ISIS will strike the US over the Fourth of July weekend. Morell, a former senior CIA official,
is in the terror business. He had no evidence whatsoever that terrorists were planning an attack and should have realized that maneuvering
the United States into constantly going on alert based on empty threats is precisely what militant groups tend to do.
When not fronting as a handsomely paid national security consultant for the CBS television network Morell is employed by Beacon
Global Strategies as a Senior Counselor, presumably warning well-heeled clients to watch out for terrorists. His lifestyle and substantial
emoluments depend on people being afraid of terrorism so they will turn to an expert like him and ask serious questions that he will
answer in a serious way suggesting that Islamic militants could potentially bring about some kind of global apocalypse.
Morell, a torture apologist, also has a book out that he wants to sell, positing somewhat ridiculously that he and his former
employer had been fighting The Great War of Our Time against Islamic terrorists, something comparable to the World Wars of the past
century, hence the title. Morell needs to take some valium and relax. He would also benefit from a little introspection regarding
the bad guys versus good guys narrative that he is peddling. His credentials as a warrior are somewhat suspect in any event as he
never did any military service and his combat in the world of intelligence consisted largely of sitting behind a desk in Washington
and providing briefings to George W. Bush and Barack Obama in which he presumably told them what they wanted to hear.
Morell is one of a host of pundits who are successful in selling the military-industrial-lobbyist-congressional-intelligence community
line of BS on the war on terror. Throw in the neocons as the in-your-face agents provocateurs who provide instant intellectual and
media credibility for developments and you have large groups of engaged individuals with good access who are on the receiving end
of the seemingly unending cash pipeline that began with 9/11. Frances Townsend, who was the Bush Homeland Security adviser and who
is now a consultant with CNN, is another such creature as is Michael Chertoff, formerly Director of the Department of Homeland Security,
who has successfully marketed his
defective airport
scanners to his former employer.
But the guys and gals who are out feathering their own nests are at least comprehensible given our predatory capitalist system
of government. More to the point, the gang that ordered or carried out torture and assassination are the ones who should be doing
some hard time in the slammer but instead they too are riding the gravy train and cashing in. To name only a few of those who knew
about the torture and ordered it carried out I would cite George Tenet, James Pavitt, Cofer Black and Jose Rodriguez from the intelligence
community. The assassination program meanwhile is accredited to John Brennan, currently CIA Director, during his tenure as Obama's
Deputy National Security Advisor. And then there are Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon together with John Yoo at Justice
and Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice at the White House, all of whom outright lied, dissimulated and conspired their way
to bring about a war of aggression against Iraq.
There are plenty of nameless others who were "only carrying out orders" and who should be included in any reckoning of America's
crimes over the past fifteen years, particularly if one also considers the illegal NSA spying program headed by Michael Hayden, who
defended the practice and has also
referred to those who oppose enhanced interrogation torture as "interrogation deniers." And then there are Presidents Bush and
Obama who certainly knew what was going on in the name of the American people as well as John Brennan, who was involved in both the
torture and renditions programs as well as the more recent assassinations by drone.
So where are they now? Living in obscurity ashamed of what they did? Hardly. Not only have they not been vilified or marginalized,
they have, in most cases, been rewarded. George W. Bush lives in Dallas near his Presidential Library and eponymous Think (sic) Tank.
Cheney lives in semi-retirement in McLean Virginia with a multi-million dollar waterfront weekend retreat in St. Michaels Maryland,
not too far from Donald Rumsfeld's similar digs.
George Tenet, the CIA Director notorious for his "slam-dunk" comment, a man who cooked the intelligence to make the Iraq war possible
to curry favor with the White House, has generously remunerated positions on the boards of Allen & Company merchant bank, QinetiQ,
and L-1 Identity Solutions. He sold his memoir At the Center of the Storm, which has been
described
as a "self-justifying apologia," in 2007 for a reported advance of $4 million. His book, ironically, admits that the US invaded
Iraq for no good reason.
James Pavitt, who was the point man responsible for the "enhanced interrogation" program as Tenet's Deputy Director for Operations,
is currently a principal with The Scowcroft Group and also serves on several boards. Cofer Black, who headed the Counter-Terrorism
Center, which actually carried out renditions and "enhanced interrogations," was vice chairman of Blackwater Worldwide (now called
Xe) and chairman of Total Intelligence Solutions, a Blackwater spin-off. He is now vice president of Blackbird Technologies, a defense
and intelligence contractor. Rodriguez, who succeeded Black and in 2005 illegally destroyed video tapes made of Agency interrogations
to avoid possible repercussions, is a senior vice president with Edge Consulting, a defense contractor currently owned by IBM that
is located in Virginia.
John Yoo is a Professor of Law at the University of California Berkeley while Condoleezza Rice, who spoke of mushroom clouds and
is widely regarded as the worst National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in history, has returned to Stanford University.
She is a professor at the Graduate School
of Business and a director of its Global Center for Business and the Economy as well as a fellow at the Hoover Institution. She
is occasionally spoken of as either a possible GOP presidential candidate or as a future Commissioner of the National Football League.
Her interaction with students is limited, but when challenged on her record she has responded that it was a difficult situation post
9/11, something that everyone understands, though few would have come to her conclusion that attacking Iraq might be a good way to
destroy al-Qaeda.
Paul Wolfowitz, the Bush Deputy Secretary of Defense, is seen by many as the "intellectual" driving force behind the invasion
of Iraq. He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and advises Jeb Bush on foreign policy. A bid to
reward Wolfie for his zeal by giving him a huge golden parachute as President of the World Bank at a salary of $391,000 tax free
failed when, after 23 months in the position, he was ousted over promoting a subordinate with whom he was having an affair. His chief
deputy at the Pentagon Doug Feith left the Defense Department to take up a visiting professorship at the school of Foreign Service
at Georgetown University, which was subsequently not renewed. He is reported to be again practicing law and thinking deep thoughts
about his hero Edmund Burke, who no doubt would have been appalled to make Feith's acquaintance. Feith is a senior fellow at the
neoconservative Hudson Institute and the Director of the Center for National Security Strategies. His memoir War and Decision did
not make the best seller list and is now available used on Amazon for $.01 plus shipping. If the marketplace is anything to go
by Feith and Tenet are running neck-and-neck on secondary book exchanges as George also can be had for $.01.
The over-rewarding of former officials who have in reality done great harm to the United States and its interests might well seem
inexplicable, but it is all part of a style of bureaucracy that cannot admit failure and truly believes that all its actions are
ipso facto legitimate because the executive and its minions can do no wrong. It is also a symptom of the classic American character
flaw that all things are of necessity measured by money. Does anyone remember the ancient Roman symbol of republican virtue Lucius
Quinctius Cincinnatus, who left his farm after being named Dictator in order to defeat Rome's enemies? He then handed power back
to the Senate before returning to his plowing after the job was done. The historian Livy summed up the significance of his act,
writing "It is worthwhile for those who disdain all human things for money, and who suppose that there is no room either for great
honor or virtue, except where wealth is found, to listen to his story." George Washington was America's Cincinnatus and it is
not a coincidence that officers of the continental army founded the Cincinnati Society, the nation's oldest patriotic organization,
in 1783. It is also reported that Edward Snowden used the alias "Cincinnatus."
Lord Acton once observed that "Power tends
to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." More recently essayist Edward Abbey
put it in an American context, noting
"Power is always dangerous. Power attracts the worst and corrupts the best." That senior government officials and politicians
routinely expect to be generously rewarded for their service and never held accountable for their failures and misdeeds is a
fault that is perhaps not unique to the United States but it is nevertheless unacceptable. Handing out a couple of exemplary prison
sentences for the caste that believes itself untouchable would be a good place to start. An opportunity was missed with David Petraeus,
who was fined and avoided jail time, and it will be interesting to see how the Dennis Hastert case develops. Hastert will no doubt
be slapped on the wrist for the crime of moving around his own money while the corruption that was the source of that money, both
as a legislator and lobbyist, will be ignored. As will his molestation of at least one and possibly several young boys. One thing
for sure about the Washington elite, you never have to say you're sorry.
"... oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all. ..."
Long ago (1968) after returning from Vietnam with a bullet hole in my leg (my 90 wonder, post-ROTC officer shot me when he
panicked) I wondered off to a down-at-the-heel cow college. There I took a class and C Wright Mills 'The Power Elite' was required
reading.
I had just finished 'War is a fraud' and read an article by Paul Ehrlich an then 'The Population Bomb' shortly thereafter.
The three books created an interesting fusion in my mind:
More or less after the year 2000 the world would be plagued by resource wars;
The primary role of the military is to enforce what capitalists want; and
Behind the alleged scenes of our form of government hovered oligarchs who would demand more and more.
I recently found a paper I had written long ago. It wasn't very well written, but even then the handwriting was on the wall:
oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton
began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the
hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all.
I guess the point of all of this is (except for the details) Ehrlich, Mills and Butler warned us. As did Huxley and Orwell
... we were just too damned dumb (or distracted) to see it.
Maybe with the Queen of Chaos, the above will result in either annihilation or in a severe reduction in the numbers of people
... (hopefully including all of the oligarchic class) and the chance to start over?
Nah ... we'll just fuck it up again ... as a species we refuse to learn. Sigh ...
On Thursday, police in Hong Kong announced the arrests of several individuals whom they
described as leaders of the Hong Kong protests movement. But these individuals (their
identities have not been released) were not simply collared out in the street.
Instead, police described the four as leaders of Spark Alliance, a mysterious organization
that has been one of the main financiers of the protest movement, including by bailing
protesters out of jail and helping to defray their legal fees.
Police seized HK$70 million ($9 million) in bank deposits and personal insurance products
from Spark, claiming that the group broke laws about money laundering.
In a response posted to its FB group, Spark blasted the police, accusing them of
deliberately trying to cut off one of the most important avenues of financing in the protest
movement.
On Thursday evening, police announced the arrests of four people connected with Spark
Alliance for suspected money laundering, the first cases brought over financing the
demonstrations after six months of protests against China's tightening grip over Hong Kong.
Authorities froze HK$70 million of bank deposits and personal insurance products linked to
the fund, while also seizing HK$130,000 in cash.
"The police attempted, through false statements, to distort the work of Spark Alliance as
money laundering for malicious uses," the group said in a statement on Facebook. " Spark
Alliance condemns this kind of defamatory action."
The arrests and seizures, as
Bloomberg explains, shed light on the innerworkings of the Hong Kong protest movement.
Millions of Americans who have read the news reports about the protests have probably been left
wondering how the protesters became so organized.
Well, this is how: Since the beginning of the movement, wealthy working HKers have observed
their duty to help those battling it out on the front lines in any way possible. Mostly, they
do it through donations to groups that purport to help bail out protesters after they've been
arrested, or groups that simply provide food and shelter for the demonstrators, many of whom
are teenagers, or in their early 20s.
This division of responsibilities is part of what's allowed the movement to continue on for
as long as it has.
But by cracking down on the money, HK police are essentially pulling the rug out from under
Hong Kongers facing criminal charges for protest-related activities.
Because Spark Alliance and another, more transparent, fund called the 612 Humanitarian Fund
are responsible for financing the protest movement: According to BBG, the two funds account for
70% of the money raised by the protest movement.
The impact of this crackdown is two-fold: not only will protesters counting on these funds
to pay their legal fees be left out in the cold, but the renewed police scrutiny could deter
some working Hong Kongers who have been supporting the movement with donations.
The crackdown deals a major blow to demonstrators as they face ever-mounting legal bills,
with more than 6,000 people arrested since June. Spark Alliance, one of the largest
crowd-funding campaigns supporting the protests, plays a crucial behind-the-scenes role -
often sending anonymous representatives to bail protesters out of jail in the middle of the
night.
The latest arrests risk deterring Hong Kong's professional class from giving more cash,
potentially curbing a substantial source of funds that have helped sustain the protests
longer than anyone had expected. They also show the limits of the leaderless movement's
ability to manage tens of millions of dollars with little oversight outside of a formal
financial system.
Funds bankrolling the protests have collectively raised at least HK$254 million ($33
million) since June, with 70% coming from just two groups, Spark Alliance and the 612
Humanitarian Fund, according to a tally based on disclosures from the groups and an analysis
of publicly available documents. That figure doesn't reflect all the money raised related to
the protests, only the funds Bloomberg News could verify.
Before the arrests, most Hong Kongers didn't know the identities of anyone behind Spark
Alliance. Its website and bank accounts (before they were shut down) all forwarded to a Pest
Control company.
But Spark proved its reliability early on by helping bail protesters out of jail. But the
group has been under scrutiny even before the police got involved. Last month, HSBC shut down
the group's account, saying they had detected activity that differed from the stated purpose of
the account.
"Spark is probably less transparent but people tend to believe them," said Jason, a
protester in his 30s who asked to be identified by his English name. He said he memorized the
group's phone number and called the group after he was arrested in August. Seven hours later,
two lawyers helped arrange HK$4,000 in bail money.
"Everyone knows the cost to fight for this movement and not everyone can afford lawyer
fees," he said. "We need protection."
Over the past few months he's raised half a million dollars for Spark Alliance and other
charities through the sale of Hong Kong-themed figurines, including a miniature Carrie Lam
and a masked protester. Asked on Thursday night if he would still give the money to Spark
Alliance, Jason said he wanted more information on the arrests.
The shadowy nature of some of these organizations has helped the Chinese government portray
the protests as having been financed by foreign powers like the US. Of course, these
accusations aren't entirely without merit. Beijing threatened sanctions this month against the
National Endowment for Democracy, a US-based group which donated $686,000 to various Hong Kong
nonprofits in 2019.
Meanwhile, the June 12 fund has already spent roughly a quarter of the money it has raised
since June, mostly on legal expenses and bail.
For many of the thousands of protesters who have been arrested, the criminal penalties that
they could face without adequate legal representation could land them in prison for years.
Without having the support of knowing their bail will be paid in the event of an arrest,
many demonstrators wouldn't be so eager to fight their way past police barricades and take
other risks like that.
But many members of the protest movement believe the 612 fund is too stodgy in how it
operates. Most see organizations like Spark Alliance as being closer to the true ideals of the
movement.
The 612 fund has been chided in online forums for deploying only 24% of the money it
raised while asking protesters to first apply for legal aid from the city. Other critics see
the 612 fund as part of an older political establishment in Hong Kong that has failed the
younger generation of democracy advocates, and they believe Spark Alliance is closer to
protesters in the trenches.
"The younger generation doesn't trust in any institutions, not even those that advocate
for democracy," said Patrick Poon, a researcher at Amnesty International in Hong Kong. "It's
an irrational decision to trust in a group believed to be closer to the people on the ground
even if they don't know who is behind the fund."
Ng, a 612 fund trustee, said the group is supported by "members of the public that are
incensed by what is being done by police and government."
"The movement is ongoing and we are using the funds for the stated purpose of humanitarian
aid," she said. "We don't have any obligation to spend all the money immediately."
Now that police have set their sights on Spark, we imagine a new group will need to come
forward and take up the mantle of the protest movement, or risk allowing it to fizzle out.
I keep wondering why ZH seems to be supporting the HK protestors when that 'color
revolution' too seems to be supported by the same elements promoting promoting the overthrow
of Trump and the overthrow of the elected government in Bolivia.
"Now that police have set their sights on Spark, we imagine a new group will need to come
forward and take up the mantle of the protest movement, or risk allowing it to fizzle
out."
Aww too bad. Looks like the CIA got their funds seized. No worries Soros will just add
more funding
In the six months riots and terrorisms, Hong Kong police did not kill anyone but gathering
information and evidence to dismantle foreign meddling in the city. During 7 days of protests
against religious discrimination in India the police already killed more than 20 people. IQ
does matter.
Wonder how many Muslims died in the past one year as victims of ZioNazi and Evil Empire
terrorism and mass murder.
100,000s? Yes, it's true, nobody in the world is as violent, evil, malicious and
belligerent as the ZioNazis and Evil Empire. Nobody is remotely close. Certainly not
China.
Chim Choms are BRUTAL so far 21 CIA clowns have gone MISSING and never HEARD or SEEN.. At
least Russia keeps these SPYS and do SWAPS Your agent for mine. TRADE OFF.. Not with CHIM
CHOMS God only KNOWS where CIA spys go I can IMAGINE Naturally they are ORGAN donors. Chim
choms don't **** around
The arrests and seizures, as
Bloomberg explains, shed light on the innerworkings of the Hong Kong protest movement.
Millions of Americans who have read the news reports about the protests have probably been
left wondering how the protesters became so organized.
Well, this is how: Since the beginning of the movement, wealthy working HKers have
observed their duty to help those battling it out on the front lines in any way possible.
Mostly, they do it through donations to groups that purport to help bail out protesters
after they've been arrested, or groups that simply provide food and shelter for the
demonstrators, many of whom are teenagers, or in their early 20s.
Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g.,
political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it
originates from and is supported by grassroots participants.
merican money is made from nothing... this allows for use in other nations to do evil
works... best to ban merican dollars others than individuals holding small amounts of it...
do not take it for exchange
There will be NO DEAL. China is not going to surrender their financial sovereignty to
the zionist bankers again after the communist party kicked them and their puppet (the
Nationalist KMT currently settled in Taiwan, China) out in 1949 :)
Told ya :) Still don't get it? Good :)
China is just being nice to Trump and let him save face and give him a ladder to
climb down :)
China already started cleaning up operation in Hong Kong by freezing the Zionist terrorist
slush fund :P When the funding stop no mercenaries will work for free to destroy Hong Kong.
Operation Yellowbird 2 just begins and you'll see them roaming in USA and Taiwan, then appear
on CNN, Fox News and all Zionist media as eyewitness to Hong Kong police brutality and how
communist China violates human rights :)
A man who fired a live round at officers in Tai Po on Friday night was involved in another
case centred on the seizure of bombs and firearms linked to anti-government protests, a
police source has said, adding that more suspects could be at large.
The force also warned that an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle seized in a follow-up flat raid
was the same model used in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting which
killed 58 people, adding that the weapon could cause severe casualties as it had a range of
up to 800 metres.
(Bloomberg) -- Glancing at bags of cash stuffed to the brim earlier this month, Gary Fan
simply wanted someone to remove them from an office in Hong Kong used by his political
party.
The former pro-democracy lawmaker had collected HK$2.7 million ($345,000) during an
anti-government protest the day before, and was waiting for someone to pick it up from a
mysterious group known as Spark Alliance that helps bail protesters out of jail. The next day,
a person whom he knew and trusted came to collect the cash, even though Fan says he doesn't
know who exactly is behind the group or where the money ends up.
"We just work by an honor system now, trusting them with a good cause," Fan said in a Dec.
11 interview, adding that Spark Alliance has "earned credibility with real work" like getting
legal assistance for protesters. Still, he said, "I absolutely agree there should be more
disclosure, transparency and accountability when you take money from the public."
On Thursday evening, police announced the arrests of four people connected with Spark
Alliance for suspected money laundering, the first cases brought over financing the
demonstrations after six months of protests against China's tightening grip over Hong Kong.
Authorities froze HK$70 million of bank deposits and personal insurance products linked to the
fund, while also seizing HK$130,000 in cash.
"The police attempted, through false statements, to distort the work of Spark Alliance as
money laundering for malicious uses," the group said in a statement on Facebook. "Spark
Alliance condemns this kind of defamatory action."
The crackdown deals a major blow to demonstrators as they face ever-mounting legal
bills, with more than 6,000 people arrested since June. Spark Alliance, one of the largest
crowd-funding campaigns supporting the protests, plays a crucial behind-the-scenes role --
often sending anonymous representatives to bail protesters out of jail in the middle of the
night.
The latest arrests risk deterring Hong Kong's professional class from giving more cash,
potentially curbing a substantial source of funds that have helped sustain the protests longer
than anyone had expected. They also show the limits of the leaderless movement's ability to
manage tens of millions of dollars with little oversight outside of a formal financial
system.
Funds bankrolling the protests have collectively raised at least HK$254 million ($33
million) since June, with 70% coming from just two groups, Spark Alliance and the 612
Humanitarian Fund, according to a tally based on disclosures from the groups and an analysis of
publicly available documents. That figure doesn't reflect all the money raised related to the
protests, only the funds Bloomberg News could verify.
The $33 million alone amounts to a third of the money the city has spent in overtime pay to
11,000 police officers since June, and would be able to purchase some 300,000 gas masks. But
the largest costs faced by protesters are legal fees that may stretch out for years.
Nearly 1,000 people have been charged for offenses like rioting, which carries a jail
sentence of as much as a decade, according to police. The 612 Fund says it can cost up to
HK$1.8 million per person for a 60-day legal defense, and many trials last far longer. Some
proceedings related to Hong Kong's 2014 Occupy protests are still ongoing.
Among dozens of groups, Spark Alliance is one of the most secretive: Even some donors and
lawyers who assist the group say they don't know who runs it, while the bank account listed on
its website belongs to a firm that owns a pest control company. A person who picked up Spark
Alliance's hotline last week said the number was only for protester requests. The group didn't
respond to requests for comment via Facebook, Whatsapp or Telegram.
'We Need Protection'
"Spark is probably less transparent but people tend to believe them," said Jason, a
protester in his 30s who asked to be identified by his English name. He said he memorized the
group's phone number and called the group after he was arrested in August. Seven hours later,
two lawyers helped arrange HK$4,000 in bail money.
"Everyone knows the cost to fight for this movement and not everyone can afford lawyer
fees," he said. "We need protection."
"... Since 2001, America has increasingly turned global economic and financial networks into weapons that can be used against adversaries. As we showed in earlier research, financial networks such as the "dollar clearing system" and the SWIFT messaging service, which provide foundations for the global financial system, have been used by the United States to gather intelligence and to isolate entire economies, such as Iran, from the global financial system. ..."
"... As we discuss in a new article in Foreign Affairs , other countries are beginning to think about how they can best respond: by threatening retaliation, by creating their own networks, or by insulating themselves from U.S. pressure. ..."
"America weaponized the global financial system. Now other states are fighting back." [
WaPo ].
" Since 2001, America has increasingly turned global economic and financial networks
into weapons that can be used against adversaries. As we showed in earlier research, financial
networks such as the "dollar clearing system" and the SWIFT messaging service, which provide
foundations for the global financial system, have been used by the United States to gather
intelligence and to isolate entire economies, such as Iran, from the global financial
system.
Control of these networks allows the United States to issue "secondary sanctions" against
countries, businesses or individuals that it wants to target, obliging non-U.S. actors to
adhere to the sanctions or risk substantial penalties.
Now, these tools are leading to backlash and reaction. As we discuss in a new
article in Foreign Affairs , other countries are beginning to think about how they can best
respond: by threatening retaliation, by creating their own networks, or by insulating
themselves from U.S. pressure.
"... Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the wealthy. ..."
"... America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla. ..."
"... Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die. Never. ..."
Idealistic Realist , Apr 27, 2019 1:24:45 PM |
link
Best analysis by a candidate for POTUS ever:
American foreign policy is not a failure. To comfort themselves, observers often say that our leaders -- presidents, advisors,
generals -- don't know what they're doing. They do know. Their agenda just isn't what we like to imagine it is.
To quote Michael Parenti: "US policy is not filled with contradictions and inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly
and steadily in the service of those who own most of the world and who want to own all of it."
The vision of our leaders as bunglers, while more accurate than the image of them as valiant public servants, is less accurate
and more rose-tinted than the closest approximation of the truth, which is that they are servants of their class interest.
That is why we go to war.
Those who buy the elite class's foreign policy BS, about the Emmanuel Goldsteins they conjure up every three years, are
fools. Obviously Hussein and Milošević were bad; but "government bad" does not mean we must invade. Wars occur for economic,
not humanitarian, reasons.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, is a kleptocrat, murderer, and alleged cannibal. This is
him and his wife with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, was said to have boiled political prisoners to death, massacred hundreds
of prisoners, and made torture an institution. This is him with John Kerry.
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has been involved in the assassination of political opponents, perpetrated obvious
election fraud, and had his term extended until 2034. This is him with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious.
It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest
of the wealthy.
America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian
reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support
Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla.
Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators;
it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending
your kids to die. Never.
March 12, 2019 at 5:25
pm GMT • 200 Words @AnonFromTN
Superfluously impossible, AnonfromTN said: "It is simple, really. The US needs a law
prohibiting anyone with dual citizenship to hold public office."
Hi AnonfromTN.
Hard to comprehend how you persist to deny how the "US law" is Zionized. (Zigh) Israeli
"dual citizenship and holding "Homeland" public office is an irretractable endowment lawlessly
given to US Jews by ruling international Jewry.
They barged into our Constitution like a cancer and feast upon The Bill of Rights.
What's worse now is how livin' the "American dream" has reversed, and at present, President
t-Rump demands huge increases in war funding.
No one gets informed that future wars converge with Israel's will.
Please consider looking at the Wikileaks video linked below? It illustrates a barbaric type
of war crime-free & unaccountability to "international law," including a lawless US
military Rules of Engagement modus operandi, which governed the serial killing activity of an
Apache attack chopper crew in the Baghdad sky. Look close at the posed threat!
Tell me AnonfromTN? As you likely know, Bradley Chelsea Manning is, and under "Homeland"
law, in-the-klink for exposing the war crimes to America. Is their one (1) US Congressman
raising objection to the imprisonment? Fyi, you can look at the brave writing of Kathy Kelly on
the Manning case, and which appears at Counterpunch.org.
@ChuckOrloski I
can only agree. The patient (the US political system) is too far gone to hope for recovery.
As comment #69 rightly points out, our political system is based on bribery. Lobbyism and
donations to political campaigns and PACs are perfectly legal in the US, while all of these
should be criminal offenses punished by jail time, like in most countries. Naturally,
desperate Empires losing their dominant position resort to any war crimes imaginable, and
severely punish those who expose these crimes.
I can add only one thing: you are right that greedy Jews are evil, but greedy people of
any nationality are just as evil as greedy Jews. Not all greedy globalists and MIC thieves
are Jews, but they are all scum. I watch with dismay the US Empire heading to its crash.
Lemmings running to the cliff are about as rational as our degenerate elites. Israel
influence is toxic, but that's not the only poison the Empire will die from.
Information from local sources said that US army helicopters have already transported the gold bullions under cover of darkness
on Sunday [February 24th], before transporting them to the United States.
The sources said that tens of tons that Daesh had been keeping in their last hotbed in al-Baghouz area in Deir Ezzor countryside
have been handed to the Americans, adding up to other tons of gold that Americans have found in other hideouts for Daesh, making
the total amount of gold taken by the Americans to the US around 50 tons, leaving only scraps for the SDF [Kurdish] militias that
serve them [the US operation].
Recently, sources said that the area where Daesh leaders and members have barricaded themselves in, contains around 40 tons
of gold and tens of millions of dollars.
Allegedly, "US occupation forces in the Syrian al-Jazeera area made a deal with Daesh terrorists, by which Washington gets tens
of tons of gold that the terror organization had stolen, in exchange for providing safe passage for the terrorists and their leaders
from the areas in Deir Ezzor where they are located."
ISIS was financing its operations largely by the theft of oil from the oil wells in the Deir Ezzor area, Syria's oil-producing
region, and they transported and sold this stolen oil via their allied forces, through Turkey, which was one of those US allies trying
to overthrow Syria's secular Government
and install a Sunni fundamentalist regime that would be ruled from Riyadh (i.e., controlled by the Saud family) . This gold is
the property of the Syrian Government, which owns all that oil and the oil wells, which ISIS had captured (stolen), and then sold.
Thus, this gold is from sale of that stolen black-market oil, which was Syria's property.
The US Government evidently thinks that the public are fools, idiots. America's allies seem to be constantly amazed at how successful
that approach turns out to be.
Jihadists were recruited from throughout the world to fight against Syria's secular Government. Whereas ISIS was funded mainly
by black-market sales of oil from conquered areas, the Al-Qaeda-led groups were mainly funded by the Sauds and other Arab royal families
and their retinues, the rest of their aristocracy. On 13 December 2013, BBC headlined
"Guide to the Syrian rebels" and opened "There are
believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters." Except in the Kurdish
areas in Syria's northeast, almost all of those fighters were being led by Al Qaeda's Syrian Branch, al-Nusra. Britain's Center on
Religion & Politics headlined on 21 December 2015,
"Ideology
and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion" and reported: "If ISIS is defeated, there are at least 65,000 fighters belonging to other
Salafi-jihadi groups ready to take its place." Almost all of those 65,000 were trained and are led by Syria's Al Qaeda (Nusra), which
was protected by
the US
In September 2016 a UK official
"FINAL REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON COMBATING TERRORIST AND FOREIGN FIGHTER TRAVEL" asserted that, "Over 25,000 foreign fighters have traveled to the battlefield
to enlist with Islamist terrorist groups, including at least 4,500 Westerners. More than 250 individuals from the United States have
also joined." Even just 25,000 (that official lowest estimate) was a sizable US proxy-army of religious fanatics to overthrow Syria's
Government.
On 26 November 2015, the first of Russia's videos of Russia's bombing ISIS oil trucks headed into Turkey was bannered at a US
military website
"Russia Airstrike on ISIS Oil Tankers" , and exactly a month later, on 26 December 2015, Britain's Daily Express headlined
"WATCH: Russian fighter jets smash ISIS oil tankers after spotting 12,000 at Turkish border" . This article, reporting around
twelve thousand ISIS oil-tanker trucks heading into Turkey, opened: "The latest video, released by the Russian defence ministry,
shows the tankers bunched together as they make their way along the road. They are then blasted by the fighter jet." The US military
had nothing comparable to offer to its 'news'-media. Britain's Financial Times headlined on 14 October 2015,
"Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists" . Only America's allies were
involved in this commerce with ISIS -- no nation that supported Syria's Government was participating in this black market of stolen
Syrian goods. So, it's now clear that a lot of that stolen oil was sold for gold as Syria's enemy-nations' means of buying that oil
from ISIS. They'd purchase it from ISIS, but not from Syria's Government, the actual owner.
An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit
for the terrorist organization. The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish
city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city
and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq
and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man
in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto
other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
The US had done the same thing when it took over Ukraine by
a brutal coup in February 2014
: It grabbed the gold. Iskra News in Russian
reported, on 7 March 2014 , that "At 2 a.m. this morning ... an unmarked transport plane was on the runway at Borosipol Airport"
near Kiev in the west, and that, "According to airport staff, before the plane came to the airport, four trucks and two Volkswagen
minibuses arrived, all the truck license plates missing." This was as translated by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research headlining
on 14 March,
"Ukraine's Gold Reserves Secretly Flown Out and Confiscated by the New York Federal Reserve?" in which he noted that, when asked,
"A spokesman for the New York Fed said simply, 'Any inquiry regarding gold accounts should be directed to the account holder.'" The
load was said to be "more than 40 heavy boxes." Chossudovsky noted that, "The National Bank of Ukraine (Central Bank) estimated Ukraine's
gold reserves in February to be worth $1.8 billion dollars." It was allegedly 36 tons. The US, according to Victoria Nuland (
Obama's detail-person
overseeing the coup ) had invested around $5 billion in the coup. Was her installed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
cleaning out the nation's gold reserves in order to strip the nation so that the nation's steep indebtedness for Russian gas would
never be repaid to Russia's oligarchs? Or was he doing it as a payoff for Nuland's having installed him? Or both? In any case: Russia
was being squeezed by this fascist
Ukrainian-American ploy.
The Syria operation was about oil, gold, and guns. However, most of America's support was to Al-Qaeda-led jihadists, not to ISIS-jihadists.
As the great independent investigative journalist Dilyana
Gaytandzhieva reported on 2 July 2017 :
"In December of last year while reporting on the battle of Aleppo as a correspondent for Bulgarian media I found and filmed
9 underground warehouses full of heavy weapons with Bulgaria as their country of origin. They were used by Al Nusra Front (Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria designated as a terrorist organization by the UN)."
Furthermore, On
8 March 2013, Richard Spenser of Britain's Telegraph reported that Croatia's Jutarnji List newspaper had reported that "3,000
tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via
Jordan since November. The airlift of dated but effective Yugoslav-made weapons meets key concerns of the West, and especially Turkey
and the United States, who want the rebels to be better armed to drive out the Assad regime."
Also, a September 2014 study by Conflict Armaments Research (CAR), titled
"Islamic State Weapons
in Iraq and Syria" , reported that not only east-European, but even US-made, weapons were being "captured from Islamic State
forces" by Kurds who were working for the Americans, and that this was very puzzling and disturbing to those Kurds, who were risking
their lives to fight against those jihadists.
In December 2017, CAR headlined
"Weapons of the Islamic State"
and reported that "this materiel was rapidly captured by IS forces, only to be deployed by the group against international coalition
forces." The assumption made there was that the transfer of weapons to ISIS was all unintentional.
That report ignored contrary evidence, which I summed up on 2 September 2017 headlining
"Russian TV
Reports US Secretly Backing ISIS in Syria" , and reporting there also from the Turkish Government an admission that the US was
working with Turkey to funnel surviving members of Iraq's ISIS into the Deir Ezzor part of Syria to help defeat Syria's Government
in that crucial oil-producing region. Moreover, at least one member of the 'rebels' that the US was training at Al Tanf on Syria's
Jordanian border had quit because his American trainers were secretly diverting some of their weapons to ISIS. Furthermore: why hadn't
the US bombed Syrian ISIS before Russia entered the Syrian war on 30 September 2015? America talked lots about its supposed effort
against ISIS, but why did US wait till 16 November 2015 before taking action,
"'Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away': US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes" ?
So, regardless of whether the US Government uses jihadists as its proxy-forces, or uses fascists as its proxy-forces, it grabs
the gold -- and grabs the oil, and takes whatever else it can.
This is today's form of imperialism.
Grab what you can, and run. And call it 'fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption'. And the
imperial regime's allies watch in amazement, as they take their respective cuts of the loot. That's the deal, and they call it 'fighting
for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption around the world'. That's the way it works. International gangland.
That's the reality, while most of the public think it's instead really "fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against
corruption around the world." For example, as
RT reported on Sunday , March 3rd,
about John Bolton's effort at regime-change in Venezuela, Bolton said: "I'd like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together
to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime,' Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper." Trump's regime wants to bring clean and
democratic government to the poor Venezuelans, just like Bush's did to the Iraqis, and Obama's did to the Libyans and to the Syrians
and to the Ukrainians. And Trump, who pretends to oppose Obama's regime-change policies, alternately expands them and shrinks them.
Though he's slightly different from Obama on domestic policies, he never, as the US President, condemns any of his predecessors'
many coups and invasions, all of which were disasters for everybody except America's and allies' billionaires. They're all in on
the take.
The American public were suckered into destroying Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-now, and so many other countries,
and still haven't learned anything, other than to keep trusting the allegations of this lying and psychopathically vicious and super-aggressive
Government and of its stenographic 'news'-media. When is enough finally enough ? Never? If not never, then when ? Or do most people
never learn? Or maybe they don't really care. Perhaps that's the problem.
Back on 21 December 2018, one of the US regime's top 'news'-media, the Washington Post, had headlined
"Retreating ISIS army smuggled a fortune in cash and gold out of Iraq and Syria" and reported that "the Islamic State is sitting
on a mountain of stolen cash and gold that its leaders stashed away to finance terrorist operations." So, it's not as if there hadn't
been prior reason to believe that some day some of the gold would be found after America's defeat in Syria. Maybe they just hadn't
expected this to happen quite so soon. But the regime will find ways to hoodwink its public, in the future, just as it has in the
past. Unless the public wises-up (if that's even possible).
"... The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. ..."
"... Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional "war" it's pretty cheap ..."
In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military
bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term,
but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.
Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called
defense contractors, and the " emergency
men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the
national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some
quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits,
promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course,
that's part of the problem.
Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they
come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service
rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this:
in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they
have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation,
they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning
hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and
departing after a couple years to
make way for someone else to give it a try.
... ... ...
Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election
already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to
declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white,
that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.
Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.
No doubt Saudi and Israeli leaders will cheer, Europeans who remember their Great War will
scratch their heads in wonder, and the Chinese will laugh themselves silly. Meanwhile, issues
of genuinely strategic importance -- climate change offers one obvious example -- will continue
to be treated like an afterthought. As for the gravy train, it will roll on.
1. WW1 had total casualties (civilian and military) of around 40M. WW2 had total
casualties of 60M. So yes WW2 was more deadly but "pales in comparison" is hardly justified,
especially relative to population.
2. Marshal Foch, 28 June, 1919: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20
years."
WW1 inevitably led to WW2.
The only politician with a modest national stage to have said that (and meant it) in the
last 50 years was Ron Paul, who was booed and mocked as crazy. Trump made noises in that
direction, but almost as soon as the last words of his oath echoed off into the brisk January
afternoon, he seemed to change his tune. Whether he never meant it, or decided to avoid the
JFK treatment, who knows.
No, as I believe Will Rogers said, democracy is that form of government where the people
get what they want, good and hard.
I supported Ron Paul in 2012. But after his candidacy was crookedly subverted by the
Establishment (cf., Trump's) I vowed never to vote again for anyone that I believe unworthy
of the power wielded through the public office. I haven't voted since, and don't expect to
until the Empire collapses.
Kirk Douglas starred in a great film about fighting in World War I: "Paths of Glory." I
highly recommend the film for its accuracy, best described in Wiki by the reaction of
governments:
Controversy
On its release, the film's anti-military tone was subject to criticism and censorship.
In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently
criticized the film -- and its portrayal of the French Army -- after it was released in
Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European
distributor) to not release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in
1975 when social attitudes had changed.[17]
In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining
relations with France;[18] it was not shown for two years until after its release.
In Spain, Spain's right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was
first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.
In Switzerland, the film was censored, at the request of the Swiss Army, until
1970.[18]
At American bases in Europe, the American military banned it from being shown.[18]
No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they
supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders.
I'd say both. The generals have greatly assisted in stringing along the trusting public,
always promising that victory is just around the corner, provided the public supports this or
that final effort. Petraeus in particular willingly played his part in misleading the public
about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His career would be a great case study for illuminating what
is wrong with the U.S. today.
As to the apparent failure of the Afghanistan war – one must be careful to separate
stated goals from real ones. What kind of "lasting success" can the U.S. possibly hope for
there? If they managed to defeat the Taliban, pacify the country, install a puppet regime to
govern it, and then leave, what would that achieve? The puppet regime would find itself
surrounded by powers antagonistic to the U.S., and the puppets would either cooperate with
them or be overthrown in no time. The U.S. are not interested in winning and leaving –
they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia.
Afghanistan is ideally placed for this purpose, and so the U.S. are quite content with
dragging out that war, as a pretext for their continued presence in the region.
I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to
propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are
indifferent to its very existence."
This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of
dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be
better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and
the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention
something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we
throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was
attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about
it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably
be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't
like the status quo.
After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises – and he was quickly
beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry
chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.
No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are
simply being ignored.
When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this Boy's State civics crap?
You're calling on political leaders to stop war, like they don't remember what CIA did to
JFK, RFK, Daschle, or Leahy. Or Paul Wellstone.
Your national command structure, CIA, has impunity for universal jurisdiction crime. They
can kill or torture anyone they want and get away with it. That is what put them in charge.
CIA kills anybody who gets in their way. You fail to comprehend Lenin's lesson: first destroy
the regime, then you can refrain from use of force. Until you're ready to take on CIA, your
bold phrases are silent and odorless farts of feckless self-absorption. Sack up and imprison
CIA SIS or GTFO.
Since Spain was smart enough to stay out of both World Wars (as was Switzerland, of
course), I wonder what Franco was thinking when he banned the film. Anyway, the final scene
may be the best final scene in the history of movies.
This writer, a retired military officer whose son died in service to the yankee imperium
seems to have as good a grasp as any if not a better grasp than any about the nature of the
yankee system of permanent war.
While I agree the slave-American is ignored, I think the elected, salaried members of the
elected government are also ignored.. The persons in charge are Pharaohs and massively
powerful global in scope corporations.
Abe Lincoln, McKinnley, Kennedy discovered that fact in their fate.
Organized Zionism was copted by the London bankers and their corporations 1897, since then
a string of events have emerged.. that like a Submarine, seeking a far off target, it must
divert to avoid being discovered, but soon, Red October returns to its intended path. here
the path is to take the oil from the Arabs.. and the people driving that submarine are
extremely wealthy Pharaohs and very well known major corporations.
I suggest to quit talking about the nation states and their leaders as if either could
beat their way out of a wet paper sack. instead starting talking about the corporations and
Pharaohs because they are global.
The yawning silence accompanying the centennial of the Great War is baffling to me. It was
the pivotal event of the 20th century. It was the beginning of the unmanning, the
demoralization of Western Civilization. It was the calamity that created the World we inhabit
today.
I've heard nary a peep about it in the U.S. over the last four years. It's as if it were
as remote in people's consciousness as the Punic Wars.
The World Wars (I and II) can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading
British Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, with the material, human,
and moral cost of the wars actually accelerating the empire's demise.
Likewise, the current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate
attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again
with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.
But in the meantime, in both examples, the Bankers and the MIC just keep reaping their
profits, even at the expense of the empires they purportedly support and defend.
In a traditional sense the author is right. Strategy is the attainment of political goals,
within existing constraints. (diplomatic, political, resources etc)
"Goals" traditionally means "victories". (WWI is a great example of the sometimes dubious
idea of victory)
Has the US ceased to have a strategy ? No. (Their strategy is myopic & self destructive
– ie it's not a "good" strategy)
The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony
over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. Afghanistan,
at (relatively) minimal cost, US controls key land mass (& with possible future access to
fantastic resources). Threaten, mess up Russian – Chinese ambitions in this area. Iraq:
Israeli enemy, strategic location, resource extraction. Syria: Israeli enemy, strategic
location, key location for resource transfer to markets (EU esp). Deny Russia an ally. Libya:
who cares ? Gaddafi was a pain in the arse. Iran: Israeli enemy, fantastic resources, hate
them regardless.
Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that
it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional
"war" it's pretty cheap ( which is funny, because it's such a yummy gravy train for the
1% sorry, actually, forgot the FIRST core principle of US strategy: enrich all the "right"
people)
'There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one–on the part of the
instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so
many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for
the war. The pulpit will– warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great,
big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be
a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is
no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side
will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing
and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently
the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long you will see this
curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of
furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as
earlier– but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and
all– will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who
ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen
will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man
will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and
refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that
the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of
grotesque self-deception'.
- Satan, in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" (1908)
European politicians, the war on terror, and the triumph of Bankers United: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/06/12/europe-brainwashed-normalize-relations-russia/
"Europe has not had an independent existence for 75 years. European countries do not know
what it means to be a sovereign state. Without Washington European politicians feel lost, so
they are likely to stick with Washington .
Russian hopes to unite with the West in a war against terrorism overlook that terrorism is
the West's weapon for destabilizing independent countries that do not accept a unipolar
world."
The world is ripe for barter exchange. Screw the money changers.
"... In a society often bereft of historical memory and in thrall to the propaganda of its "exceptionalism", Burns' "entirely new" Vietnam war is presented as "epic, historic work". Its lavish advertising campaign promotes its biggest backer, Bank of America, which in 1971 was burned down by students in Santa Barbara, California, as a symbol of the hated war in Vietnam. ..."
"... The cynical fabrication of "false flags" that led to the invasion of Vietnam is a matter of record – the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in 1964, which Burns promotes as true, was just one. The lies litter a multitude of official documents, notably the Pentagon Papers ..."
"... Today, according to secret Nato documents obtained by the German newspaper, Suddeutsche Zetung, this vital treaty is likely to be abandoned as "nuclear targeting planning is increased". The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has warned against "repeating the worst mistakes of the Cold War All the good treaties on disarmament and arms control from Gorbachev and Reagan are in acute peril. Europe is threatened again with becoming a military training ground for nuclear weapons. We must raise our voice against this." ..."
"... Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record, including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama's overthrow of Ukraine's elected government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia's western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941. ..."
In a society often bereft of historical memory and in thrall to the propaganda of its
"exceptionalism", Burns' "entirely new" Vietnam war is presented as "epic, historic work". Its
lavish advertising campaign promotes its biggest backer, Bank of America, which in 1971 was
burned down by students in Santa Barbara, California, as a symbol of the hated war in
Vietnam.
Burns says he is grateful to "the entire Bank of America family" which "has long supported
our country's veterans". Bank of America was a corporate prop to an invasion that killed
perhaps as many as four million Vietnamese and ravaged and poisoned a once bountiful land. More
than 58,000 American soldiers were killed, and around the same number are estimated to have
taken their own lives.
I watched the first episode in New York. It leaves you in no doubt of its intentions right
from the start. The narrator says the war "was begun in good faith by decent people out of
fateful misunderstandings, American overconfidence and Cold War misunderstandings".
The dishonesty of this statement is not surprising. The cynical fabrication of "false flags"
that led to the invasion of Vietnam is a matter of record – the Gulf of Tonkin "incident"
in 1964, which Burns promotes as true, was just one. The lies litter a multitude of official
documents, notably the Pentagon Papers , which the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg
released in 1971.
There was no good faith. The faith was rotten and cancerous. For me – as it must be
for many Americans ! it is difficult to watch the film's jumble of "red peril" maps,
unexplained interviewees, ineptly cut archive and maudlin American battlefield sequences.
... ... ...
The sheer energy and moral persistence of these great movements largely succeeded; by 1987
Reagan had negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)
that effectively ended the Cold War.
Today, according to secret Nato documents obtained by the German newspaper, Suddeutsche
Zetung, this vital treaty is likely to be abandoned as "nuclear targeting planning is
increased". The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has warned against "repeating the worst
mistakes of the Cold War All the good treaties on disarmament and arms control from Gorbachev
and Reagan are in acute peril. Europe is threatened again with becoming a military training
ground for nuclear weapons. We must raise our voice against this."
But not in America. The thousands who turned out for Senator Bernie Sanders' "revolution" in
last year's presidential campaign are collectively mute on these dangers. That most of
America's violence across the world has been perpetrated not by Republicans, or mutants like
Trump, but by liberal Democrats, remains a taboo.
Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record,
including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama's overthrow of Ukraine's elected
government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia's
western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941.
According to some commenters at MoA the US neocons can be viewed as a flavor of political psychopaths: "Linear thinking is precisely
how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation.
It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking
because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates
think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone
straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced
and banished from the Washington tribe."
and " the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath
manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops
in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things
to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create
our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single
time. "
Notable quotes:
"... Provided the gross flaws of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying. ..."
"... Barack CIA 0bama. ..."
"... It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. ..."
"... Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit? ..."
"... Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives. ..."
"... you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals? ..."
"... it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion. ..."
"... the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him. ..."
"... Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP. ..."
"... There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade. ..."
"... My only gripe with his work is that he always describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc. ..."
"... Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe. ..."
"... the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told, break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed. ..."
"... Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but who cares, the cash keeps flowing. ..."
"... It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end - but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that. ..."
"... Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them! ..."
"... Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic damage. ..."
"... America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road to destruction. ..."
"... the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single time. ..."
"... The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression. ..."
"... Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization is the embodiment of that propaganda. ..."
"... The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored. The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated. The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story. ..."
"... Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is often quite noticeable in comments at SST. ..."
"... The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality. The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane. If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it. ..."
"linear"?, I would say amateurish and often stupid! It seems that the USA cannot see far enough as it's submitted to regime changes
every 5 years and decisions are finally left to powerful lobbies that have a better continuity.
Provided the gross flaws
of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive
universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying.
"Linear" and all that is the mushy feel-good stuff on top of your arrogance. Kleptocracy only NOW putting down its roots? Come
on. Let's get back to the 90's where it started. Vengeance for 9/11? Cover?
It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. All's well in the world with
them as long as the USSA is grinding away on some near helpless ME country. Drugs and other natural resources flow from and death
and destruction flow to the unsuspecting Muslim targets.
With America, you're our friend, (or at least we tolerate you) until you're not (or we don't), then God help you and your innocent
hoards.
The organized and well scripted chaos has been just one act in the larger play of destroying western civilization with throngs
of Muslims now flooding western Europe and to a lesser degree, USA. Of course, the Deep State had felt confident in allowing Latinos
to destroy America...Trump has put a large crimp in the pipeline--one of the reasons he is hated so badly by the destructive PTB.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
It is entirely possible that the underlying objective of, for instance, invading Iraq was to win a war and bring democracy.
Subsequent behaviour in Iraq (and Afghanistan) indicates that there might be (likely is) a hidden but central other objective.
I do not want to state that I know what that is because I am not "in the know". However, much that you attribute to failure from
linear thinking just as easily can be explained by the complexity of realizing a "hidden agenda".
Perhaps we can learn from history. Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a
game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power
and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having
sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit?
Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted
by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as
partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make
them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives.
Russia learnt a huge lesson from their experience in Afghanistan. There they retreated in the face of a violent Wahabist insurgency
and paid the price. The Soviet union collapsed and became vulnerable to western free-market gangsterism as well as suffering the
blowback of terrorism in Chechnya, where they decided to play it very differently. A bit more like how Assad senior dealt with
the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980's.
Russia knew that if ISIS and friends were allowed to destroy Syria like the Mujahadeen
had done in Afghanistan, then it would only be a matter of time before blowback would come again to Russia.
Russia's involvement is entirely rational and in their national interest. It should never have come as a surprise to the US,
and the US should shake off their cold war propaganda and be grateful that people are willing to put their lives on the line to
defeat Wahabist terrorism. Russia has played a focused line with integrity. Many Syrians love them for this, and many more in
the Middle East will likewise adopt a similar line.
In other words, the linear mindset blocks out all non-conforming realities in the present and those contingent elements
which might arise in the future
you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals?
i kinda skimmed this piece, but it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy
without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion.
Brenner: Washington never really had a plan in Syria.
Really? Firstly, the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on
a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the
strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him.
Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in
this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP.
The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities
has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic
to Al Qaeda.
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January [2007], Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
that there is "a new strategic alignment in the Middle East," separating "reformers" and "extremists"; she pointed to the Sunni
states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were "on the other side of that divide."
Lastly, Brenner's complaint that Obama has been "scape-goated" as having created ISIS conveniently ignores Obama's allowing ISIS
to grow by down-playing the threat that it represented. Obama's called ISIS al Queda's "JV team" and senior intelligence analysts
dutifully distorted intelligence to down-play the threat (see below). This was one of many deceptions that Obama took part in
- if not orchestrated (others: "moderate rebels", Benghazi, the "Fiscal Cliff", bank bailouts).
After months of investigation, this much is very clear: from the middle of 2014 to the middle of 2015, the United States
Central Command's most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command's intelligence products to downplay the threat from
ISIS in Iraq" . . .
The Joint Task Force can find no justifiable reason why operational reporting was repeatedly used as a rationale to change
the analytic product, particularly when the changes only appeared to be made in a more optimistic direction . . .
There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's
break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade.
Russia has also benefited through the non-linear analysis of US diplomacy failures of the last two decades. Russia has created
a coalition backing up their military entry into the Middle East that allows achievement of tangible objectives at a sustainable
cost.
But b's article is about the US's dismal diplomacy that is exacerbating its rapid empire decline and it does very well to help
explain the rigid lack of thought that hastens the deterioration of US influence.
This article makes a lot of good points, but I didn't really grasp exactly what "linear" thinking is. OK. Venezuela very well
may be turning into a situation. What is the "linear" approach? What, instead, would be the "non-linear" approach? This article
cites many "linear" failures. It would be helpful also to learn of some non-linear successes. If not by the United States then
by somebody else.
Let me clarify my prior posting. This article seems to be asserting that the United States has attempted to pound the square peg
of its policy objectives into the round hole of the Middle East. I pretty much agree with that idea. But how is this "linear,"
as opposed to "bull-headed"? How does being "non-linear" help with the pounding? Would not adapting our policies to pound a round
peg instead be just as "linear" but more clever?
Thanks for posting these great observations by Michael Brenner, b.
The link to his bio on University of Pitsburg site is broken and the page is gone, but it still exists for now in Google's
cache from Aug. 1st
here . His bio can also be found under this ">https://www.theglobalist.com/united-states-common-man-forgotten-by-elites/">this
article from The Globalist
Everything I've read of Dr. Brenner that I've stumbled across is brilliant. My only gripe with his work is that he always
describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never
goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy
infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc.
While he is quite accurate in describing the symptoms, one is left with the impression that they are the things to be
fixed. Linear thinking in a U.S. foreign policy of aggression? Absolutely, but it's pointless to 'fix' that without understanding
the cause.
Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population
for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money,
guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear
thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters
will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels
that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe.
Does anyone in Washington REALLY want to 'save' the Persians and 'rebuild' Iran as they imagine America did post WWII to German
and Japan? Or is the more overriding intent to punish and destroy a leadership that will not submit to the political and commercial
interests in the US? Of course the U.S. fails to deliver any benefits to the 'little people' after destroying their country and
government - they are incapable of understanding what the 'little people' want (same goes for domestic issues in the U.S.).
The U.S. government and leadership do not need lessons to modify their techniques or 'thinking' - they are incapable of doing
so. You can't 'talk a psychopath into having empathy' any more than you can talk them out of having smallpox. 'The law' and voting
were intentionally broken in the U.S. to make them all but useless to fix Washington, yet a zombified American public will continue
to use the religiously (or sit back and watch others use them religiously) with little result. Because we're a democracy and a
nation of laws - the government will fix anything broken with those tools.
In a certain sense, I'm glad Brennan does NOT go on about psychopathy in his articles. He would sound as tedious and nutty
as I do here and would never be allowed near Washington. I'll just be grateful for his thorough illustration of the symptoms for
now.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
First, this is more an analysis of military failure to "do the job" that Washington "strategic thinkers" tell them to do, and
the reasons why it's such a futile game. In our system of government, the military does tactics, not strategy. And the above article,
which should be passed out to every politician in this country, isn't really about "the objective".
For example, the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors
and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected
strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told,
break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency
gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever
dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed.
Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from
reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and
breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers
and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling
arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to
keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but
who cares, the cash keeps flowing.
And if you want to know why the Borg State got firmly behind Hillary Clinton, it's because they could see her supporting this
agenda wholeheartedly, especially after Libya. Here's a comment she wrote to Podesta on 2014-08-19, a long 'strategy piece' ending
with this note:
Note: It is important to keep in mind that as a result of this policy there probably will be concern in the Sunni regions of
Iraq and the Central Government regarding the possible expansion of KRG controlled territory. With advisors in the Peshmerga
command we can reassure the concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not exclude the Iraqi Government
from participation in the management of the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility. At the same
time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with
FSA troops who can move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad does not gain an advantage from
these operations. Finally, as it now appears the U.S. is considering a plan to offer contractors as advisors to the Iraqi Ministry
of Defense, we will be in a position to coordinate more effectively between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.
It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end
- but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation
between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead
on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that.
Regardless, it looks like end times for the American empire, very similar to how the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s, and
the last days of the French and British empires in the 1950s. And good riddance, it's become a dead weight dragging down the standard
of living for most American citizens who aren't on that gravy train.
Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems
is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power
to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such
a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them!
Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there
are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such
policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic
damage.
America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down
on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on
committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that
raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road
to destruction.
There's a lot in both this piece and the comments. In a sense, I wonder if the core issue behind the Neocon/Imperial mindset isn't
a complete inability to see the other side's point of view. Psychopathy, short-termism (a common fault in businesspeople), divorce
from reality and hubris are likely a good part of it, as somebody, Paveway IV, Makutwa and nonsense factory put it, but the
Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to
fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the
troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way
of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly,
that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to
disaster every single time.
I would paraphrase critics of b that he (she?) has fallen into linearity trap: one point is the resources spent by USA on wars
of 21-st century (a lot), the second points are positive results (hardly any), and an intellectual charge proceeds from A to B.
However between A and B there can be diversity of problems. We can stock enough gasoline, run out of potable water. And indeed,
you can encounter pesky terrain. I recall a family vacation trip where we visited Natural Bridges National Monument and we proceeded
to Arizona on an extremely straight highway through pretty flat plateau. Then the pavement end, and the acrophobic designated
driver has to negotiate several 180* hairpins to get down on a cliff flanking Monument Valley. After second inspection, the map
had tiny letters "switchbacks" and a tiny fragment of the road not marked with the pavement. Still better than discovering "bridge
out" annotation on your map only when you gaze at the water flowing between two bridge heads. (If I recall, during late 20-th
century Balkan intervention, US military needed a lot of time to cross Danube river that unexpectedly had no functioning bridge
where they wanted to operate. Landscape changes during a war.)
That said, military usually has an appreciation for terrain. But there are also humans. On domestic side, the number of experts
on those distant societies is small, and qualified experts, minuscule. Because the qualified ones were disproportionally naysayers,
the mere whiff if expertise was treated as treason, and we had a purge of "Arabists". And it was of course worse in the lands
to charm and conquer. Effective rule requires local hands to follow our wishes, people who can be trusted. And, preferably, not
intensely hated by the locals they are supposed to administer. And like with gasoline, water, food, etc. on a vacation trip (who
forgot mosquito repellent!), the list of needed traits is surprisingly long. Like viewing collaboration with Israel supporting
infidels as a mortal sin that can be perpetrated to spare the family from starvation (you can recruit them, success!), but it
has to be atoned through backstabbing (local cadres are disappointing).
Great analysis! This is an excellent example for why I read MOA at least once a day and most of the comments! There's something
of a sad irony that Trump has made at least some kind of effort to thwart the neocons and their relentless rush toward armageddon,
seeing as how lacking in any real intellectual capcity they all seem and with Trump at the helm?
Mostly tptb, our political class, and the pundits for the masses, seem all to exhibit an astonishingly dull witted lack of
true concern or humanity for anybody anywhere, and in my years on earth so far, at least in America, they have inculcated in the
population very dubious ethical chioces, which you would think were tragic, and decisions, which you would believe were doomed,
from the wars being waged, to the lifestyles of the citizenry especially toward the top of the economic ladder, and I don't know
about others here but I for one have been confronting and dealing with these problems both in family and aquaintances for my entire
adult life! Like the battle at Kurushetra. At least they say they "have a plan," scoffingly.
Where is chipnik to weigh in on this with his poetic observations, or I think long ago it was "slthrop" who may have been bannned
for foul language as he or she raged on at the absurdities that keep heaping up exponentially? I do miss them!
Oh well, life is relatively short and we will all be gone at some point and our presense here will be one and all less than
an iota. An awareness of this one fact and its implications you would think would pierce the consciousness of every human being
well before drawing their final breath, but I guess every McCain fails to realize until too late that the jig is up?
Justin Glyn@20 "but the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda."
The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate
their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression.
Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession
with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization
is the embodiment of that propaganda.
The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing
Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored.
The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated.
The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story.
Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in
US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is
often quite noticeable in comments at SST.
That it why the US in its arrogance has failed in Syria, and Russia with its tiny force has been so successful.
The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality.
The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such
a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The
country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial
designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading
to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually
incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like
John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane.
If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime
change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to
decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it.
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.
A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating,
if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature,
is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to
teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it;
of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.
For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans,
living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism:
two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.
If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often
blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration.
What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw
severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly,
with no human backstory.)
Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them
face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which
is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown
up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy)
are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.
Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As
Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at
TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are
so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?
Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole,
is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military
in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's
classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.
So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of
lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to
support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!
My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least
in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the
ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.
As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up
your own brush and compose away in the comments section.
P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at
[email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a
Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.
"... It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. ..."
"JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has two big pronouncements as the Trump administration starts reshaping
the government: "The United States of America is truly an exceptional country," and "it is clear that something is wrong."
Dimon, leader of world's most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders
on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that
he said was "upsetting" to write.
Here's the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students,
forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies
for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.
Dimon, who sits on Donald Trump's business forum aimed at boosting job growth, is renowned for his optimism and has been voicing
support this year for parts of the president's business agenda. In February, Dimon predicted the U.S. would have a bright economic
future if the new administration carries out plans to overhaul taxes, rein in rules and boost infrastructure investment. In an
interview last month, he credited Trump with boosting consumer and business confidence in growth, and reawakening "animal spirits."
But on Tuesday, reasons for concern kept coming. Labor market participation is low, Dimon wrote. Inner-city schools are failing
poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending
is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital
and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive.
" It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and
governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free
enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. "...
"Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure
planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous
it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive."
Let's unpack his list. The 4th (last) sentence is his hope that his bank can back to the unregulated regime that brought us
the Great Recession. His 3rd sentence is a call for more tax cuts for the rich.
We may like his first 2 sentences here but who is going to pay for this? Not Jamie Dimon. See sentence #3.
Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more
demand for labor produced goods.
"... As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice. ..."
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous.
Seven years later, it seems grotesque.
As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror"
into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.
ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY
(Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
"... Although the bill has not said which specific Russians, the nature of the bill means that there will be inevitable sanctions against Russia as it is a top weapon exporter to Syria, which will unlikely change despite of the new sanctions. Those in the eventual sanction list will face an American blacklist, which means a ban on entry, freezing of assets in the United States, a ban on doing business with this person for American citizens or companies. At the same time, the bill allows that the US President can consider each case separately and refuse to impose sanctions. ..."
"... Washington is frustrated that European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S., which calls into question the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe. It is a very risky measure and Europe would need to have a blunt attitude of rejection of these measures imposed by the U.S., because its own economy is at risk. ..."
"... Effectively, the "Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act," which strangely targets Russia who had a greater role than the U.S. in defeating ISIS terrorists, is just another way for Washington to warn other countries not to buy the S-400 or Russian military equipment or engage in energy diplomacy with Moscow. It is unlikely that this will deter states from conducting arms and energy deals with Russia as Moscow has been pioneering anti-sanction measures to protect financial transactions without punishment, and rather it demonstrates a Washington that is becoming increasingly desperate in the Era of Multipolarity. ..."
Washington's Proposed New Sanctions Against Turkey also Aimed Against Russia
December 18, 2019 A Opinion Leave a commentWith the world fixated on Turkish actions
against Syria, Greece and Libya at the moment, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate
of the United States Congress approved a bill, "Promoting American National Security and
Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS Act," spearheaded and thoroughly promoted by staunch
anti-Syria/Venezuela/Iran/Russia Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who celebrated the bills
passing
on his Twitter . The Republican-led Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 18-4 to send
the bill for a vote in the full Senate.
The approval of the bill was widely reported in the mainstream media as an "anti-Turkey
bill." Senator Jim Risch, the panel's Republican chairman, a fellow endorser of the bill with
Menendez, said that the approval of this bill is because of the "drift by this country, Turkey,
to go in an entirely different direction than what they have in the past. They've thumbed their
nose at us, and they've thumbed their nose at their other NATO allies."
According to
the draft bill , the Turkish acquisition of the powerful S-400 missile defense system gives
grounds to impose sanctions against this country, under the Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). In particular, the document restricts the sale of U.S. weapons
to Turkey and imposes sanctions on Turkish officials responsible for supplying weapons towards
their
illegal military operation in Syria.
Turkey signed in December 2017 the first contract with Russia for the purchase of the S-400
for a value of $2.5 billion, which caused tension in relations between Ankara and Washington.
The U.S. demanded that Ankara renounce that transaction and buy U.S. Patriot systems, and
threatened to delay or cancel the sale of the F-35 fighters to Turkey. Ankara refused to make
concessions and assured that its purpose of acquiring Russian systems remains firm.
What was missed, perhaps intentionally by the majority of the mainstream media is that this
bill has a heavy anti-Russian/Syrian component to it. Although not as detailed and expansive as
the Turkish section of the bill, it claims that "the Russian Federation and Iran continue to
exploit a security vacuum in Syria and continue to pose a threat to vital United States
national security interests," without explaining what these security interests are, exactly as
we have become accustomed to.
According to the bill, there will be a
"list of each Russian person that, on or after such date of enactment, knowingly exports,
transfers, or otherwise provides to Syria significant financial, material, or technological
support that contributes materially to the ability of the Government of Syria to acquire
defense articles, defense services, and related information."
Although the bill has not said which specific Russians, the nature of the bill means that
there will be inevitable sanctions against Russia as it is a top weapon exporter to Syria,
which will unlikely change despite of the new sanctions. Those in the eventual sanction list
will face an American blacklist, which means a ban on entry, freezing of assets in the United
States, a ban on doing business with this person for American citizens or companies. At the
same time, the bill allows that the US President can consider each case separately and refuse
to impose sanctions.
These proposed new sanctions that will have to pass the House of Representatives, which
passed its own anti-Turkish sanctions bill by an overwhelming 403-16 vote in October, is part
of a wider effort for the U.S. to keep pressurizing Russia's economy. On December 9, the
committees of both chambers of the U.S. Congress previously agreed on the military budget for
2020, which includes restrictions against the Nord Stream 2 and Turk Stream pipelines to bring
Russian energy to Europe, infrastructures designed to raise Europe's energy security. The U.S.
bill that provides sanctions against companies participating in the laying of the Nord Stream 2
gas pipeline aims to obtain unilateral advantages in the gas area to the detriment of the
interests of the countries of Europe. This prompted the chairman of the Board of Directors of
the Russian-German Foreign Chamber of Commerce, Matthias Schepp, to explain that the new
measures against Nord Stream 2 affect not only Russia, but, above all, European companies and
Germany's energy interests.
Washington is frustrated that European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S.,
which calls into question the cooperation between the U.S. and Europe. It is a very risky
measure and Europe would need to have a blunt attitude of rejection of these measures imposed
by the U.S., because its own economy is at risk.
Effectively, the "Promoting American National Security and Preventing the Resurgence of ISIS
Act," which strangely targets Russia who had a greater role than the U.S. in defeating ISIS
terrorists, is just another way for Washington to warn other countries not to buy the S-400 or
Russian military equipment or engage in energy diplomacy with Moscow. It is unlikely that this
will deter states from conducting arms and energy deals with Russia as Moscow has been
pioneering anti-sanction
measures to protect financial transactions without punishment, and rather it demonstrates a
Washington that is becoming increasingly desperate in the Era of Multipolarity.
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
> alliances like NATO, and ultimately the loss of our democracy
Changes might be coming, but Republicans and Clinton faction of Dems are now fully
prepared to resist those changes tooth and nail.
Neoliberal Dems just invented the template for deposing or, at least, paralyzing any
future antiwar president. Via vote of non-confidence mechanism, which essentially what
House impeachment "investigation" was about.
You can always find another Fiona Hill, or Alexander Vindman or a half-dozen State
Department neocon hawks (where in some cases it was unclear who is their real employee )
, or find another jingoistic and complexly detached from reality professor like Karlan,
to support this action. Neocons feed from threat inflation. And money from MIC doesn't
smell.
The problems with the current impeachment goes far deeper then Trump. It is a change
of the constitutional system converting it closer to the UK model.
One last item I'll copy/paste from Putin's presser is his answer to questions from China's
CCTV bearing in mind what has occurred since the UNGA Debate speeches in September.
Questions:
"The first question is about Chinese-Russian relations. This year marks 70 years since the
establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. We can say that our bilateral
ties have entered a new era. And my question is this: which results of our partnership do you
see as the most significant, and what future cooperation potential do you see between our
countries?
"The other question is about international affairs. The global situation today is full of
uncertainty and instability. Obviously, some countries pursue a policy to maintain a unipolar
world and protectionism, undermining the foundations of international law and free trade,
while China and Russia are both supporters of a multipolar world. So what steps do you think
China and Russia could take to support the original principles of a multipolar system and
free trade, and how could they effectively respond to external challenges?"
Putin's answers:
"The most important thing that we have achieved in recent years, between Russia and the
People's Republic of China The most important thing is not even the figures I will cite in a
moment, or the industries in which we cooperate – the most important achievement is
the unprecedented level of trust that has developed between our countries . [My
Emphasis]
"This is what forms the basis for our accomplishments in the economy (our bilateral trade
has topped 100 billion, and we will certainly attain even 200 billion, we will reach that
mark), and for our successful high-tech projects – in space exploration, the aircraft
industry, and transport in general, and in many other areas.
"Russian-Chinese cooperation is undoubtedly a major factor of international stability,
including the strengthening of international law and the creation of a multipolar world.
"As a matter of fact, it has already been created; a unipolar world no longer exists.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was an illusion that this system was possible
and that it would last for a long time, but it was only an illusion. I always said so. The
most recent events have indicated just that. When you say 'some countries,' you, first of
all, mean the United States. The world's multipolarity is a derivative of economic
relations.
"After World War II, the US share in world GDP was 50 percent. And now China's share is
higher than the US's share, I may be mistaken, but China is ahead of the United States in its
share of global GDP. And also in many other indicators. In terms of purchasing power parity,
the Chinese economy has become larger than the American one.
"This inevitably leads to changes in many other areas. And apart from that, the world
simply cannot have a unipolar structure, with a single centre that governs the entire
international community.
"The role of our interaction with China is very important here. We will continue to
strengthen our multilateral strategic ties. I am sure that this will benefit the people of
China and the Russian Federation alike."
Trust, one of the most difficult, fragile yet most important aspect of all relations. It
is something the Outlaw US Empire neither has nor seems to value whatsoever as we see no
attempts at trying to build trust with any nation. Everything is framed in
Zero-sum terms. Do please take a moment to compare that very well observed mindset with that
expressed in the US Declaration of Independence's opening paragraph:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the
earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation ." [My Emphasis]
The smallminded men and women holding power in the Outlaw US Empire are mental midgets in
comparison. They are holding their compatriots hostage in their allegiance to the corruption
in which they wallow and cause many deaths globally on a daily basis because they essentially
trust nothing, for to have trust in anything you must first care about that thing. There's no
Love, no Trust, no Kindness, not even Kindred Spirit--they are like an alien organism, a
cancer, requiring removal just like the financial parasites that are their only allies. Such
a vast, sad waste.
"The CIA was the central protagonist in Russiagate. The origins of the New Cold War are found
in Bill Clinton's first term, when administration neo-cons looted, plundered and moved NATO
against a prostrate Russia in
contradiction to explicit guarantees not to do so made by the George H.W. Bush
administration. Vladimir Putin's apparent crime was to oust the Clintonites from Russia and
restore Russian sovereignty." CounterPunch.org
"Russiagate was a declaration of war by the 'intelligence community' against a duly elected
President. As argued below, the CIA's motive is to move its own foreign policy agenda forward
without even the illusion of democratic consent." CounterPunch.org
Notable quotes:
"... Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the problem, never part of the solution. ..."
Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US
war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and
abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the
problem, never part of the solution.
Her long disturbing congressional record shows she exclusively serves wealth and power
interests at the expense of the vast majority of Americans she disdains, proving it time and
again.
Her deplorable voting record speaks for itself, backing:
the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Blily Act repeal of Glass-Steagall, permitting some of the most
egregious financial abuses in the modern era;
the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), permitting endless
wars of aggression in multiple theaters, raging endlessly;
annual National Defense Authorization Acts and US wars of aggression;
Obama's neoliberal harshness, continuing under Trump, along with tax cuts for the rich,
benefitting her and her husband enormously, without admitting it;
increasingly unaffordable marketplace medicine, ripping off consumers for profit, leaving
millions uninsured, most Americans way underinsured;
the USA Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Act and other police state law;
the 9/11 whitewash Commission Recommendation Act;
the FISA Amendments Act -- permitting warrantless spying post-9/11, Big Brother watching
everyone;
NAFTA and other anti-consumer/corporate coup d'etat trade bills;
the repressive US gulag prison system, the world's largest by far; incarcerating
millions by federal, state, and local authorities, it includes global torture prisons;
unapologetic support for Israeli apartheid viciousness;
fierce opposition to Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and other
nonbelligerent sovereign states threatening no one;
the Russiagate witch hunt and Ukrainegate scams.
Calling exploitive/predatory "free market (capitalism) our greatest asset" shows her
contempt for equity and justice.
Her support for the military, industrial, security, media complex is all about backing
endless wars of aggression against invented enemies. No real ones exist.
Pelosi represents what belligerent, plutocratic, oligarchic, increasingly totalitarian rule
is all about, notably contemptuous of nations on the US target list for regime change --
Russia, China and Iran topping the list.
On Friday, she falsely accused Russia of involvement in Ukrainegate, a failed Russiagate
scam spinoff with no legitimacy, supported by undemocratic Dems and their echo-chamber
media.
Repeating the long ago debunked Russian US election meddling Big Lie that won't die, she
falsely accused Moscow of "ha(ving) a hand in this."
Referring to the Ukrainegate scam, she offered no evidence backing her accusation because
none exists.
During a Friday press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York,
Sergey Lavrov slammed Pelosi's Big Lie, saying:
"Russia's been accused of all the deadly sins, and then some. It's paranoia, and I think
it's obvious to everyone."
It's unacceptable anti-Russia hate-mongering, what goes on endlessly, Cold War 2.0
raging.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the following on her facebook
page:
"Speaker of the lower house of Congress Nancy Pelosi believes that Russia is involved in the
scandal over July telephone conversation between us and Ukraine Presidents Donald Trump and
Vladimir Zelensky."
"This (baseless) assumption was made on Friday Pelosi (not) explaining what it means, and
without providing evidence of her words."
"Considering that it was Nancy Pelosi who caused the 'Scandal around the telephone
conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine,' then, according to the
speaker's logic, Russia attached the hand to her."
What's going on is continuation of the most shameful political chapter in US history,
ongoing since Trump took office, along with railroading Richard Nixon.
Both episodes represent McCarthyism on steroids – supported by establishment media,
furious about Trump's triumph over Hillary, targeting him largely for the wrong reasons,
ignoring plenty of right ones.
Mueller's probe ended with a whimper, not the bang Dems wanted, Ukrainegate their second
bite of the apple to try discrediting Trump for political advantage ahead of November 2020
elections.
That's what Russiagate and Ukrainegate are all about.
These actions by undemocratic Dems and their media press agents are further clear proof that
Washington's deeply corrupted political system to its rotten core is far too debauched to
fix.
Afghan war demonstrated that the USA got into the trap, the Catch 22 situation: it can't
stop following an expensive and self-destructive positive feedback loop of threat inflation
and larger and large expenditures on MIC, because there is no countervailing force for the
MIC since WWII ended. Financial oligarchy is aligned with MIC.
This is the same suicidal grip of MIC on the country that was one of the key factors
in the collapse of the USSR means that in this key area the USA does not have two party
system, It is a Uniparty: a singe War party with two superficially different factions.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans wellbeing does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying
jobs. They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out
like a garbage.
"41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"–US Dept.
of Agriculture. FDR addressed the needs of this faction of the population when he delivered
his One-Third of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded
on that issue in his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship;
3.Freedom from want; 4.Freedom from fear.
Items 3 and 4 are probably unachievable under neoliberalism. And fear is artificially
instilled to unite the nation against the external scapegoat much like in Orwell 1984.
Currently this is Russia, later probably will be China. With regular minutes of hate replaced
by Rachel Maddow show ;-)
Derailing Tulsi had shown that in the USA any politician, who try to challenge MIC, will
be instantly attacked by MIC lapdogs in MSM and neutered in no time.
One interesting tidbit from Fiona Hill testimony is that neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment make their living off threat inflation. They literally are
bought by MIC, which indirectly finance Brookings institution, Atlantic Council and similar
think tanks. And this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact. Rephrasing Samuel Johnson's
famous quote, we can say, "MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last
refuge of scoundrels."
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
If anyone was watching The Horowitz hearing in the senate today it would be hard to conclude
that RussiaGate and Ukrainegate will not have serious consequences going forward.
The whole sordid, nasty conspiracy seems on the verge of being exposed, maybe as high as
Obama himself, although he is just a puppet himself, and indictments are sure to follow. I
don't see how anyone could think that this will not be catastrophic for the democratic
party.
"... The FFM was headed by Malik Ellahi , who served as head of the OPCW's government relations and political affairs branch. The appointment of someone lacking both technical and operational experience suggests that Ellahi's primary role was political. Under his leadership, the FFM established a close working relationship with the anti-Assad Syrian opposition, including the White Helmets and SAMS. ..."
"... Once the FFM wrapped up its investigation in Douma, however, it became apparent to Fairweather that it had a problem. There were serious questions about whether chlorine had, in fact, been used as a weapon. The solution, brokered by Fairweather, was to release an interim report that ruled out sarin altogether, but left the door open regarding chlorine. ..."
"... Braha did this by dispatching OPCW inspectors to Turkey in September 2018 to interview new witnesses identified by the White Helmets, and by commissioning new engineering studies that better explained the presence of the two chlorine cannisters found in Douma. By March, Braha had assembled enough information to enable the technical directorate to issue its final report. Almost immediately, dissent appeared in the ranks of the OPCW. An engineering report that contradicted the findings published by Braha was leaked , setting off a firestorm of controversy derived from its conclusion that the chlorine cannisters found in Douma had most likely been staged by the White Helmets. ..."
"... The OPCW, while eventually acknowledging that the leaked report was genuine, explained its exclusion from the final report on the grounds that it attributed blame, something the FFM was not mandated to do. According to the OPCW , the engineering report in question had been submitted to the investigation and identification team, a newly created body within the OPCW mandated to make such determinations. Moreover, Director General Arias stood by the report's conclusion that it had "reasonable grounds" to believe "that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on 7 April 2018." ..."
"... The OPCW's credibility as an investigative body has been brought into question through these leaks, as has its independent character. If an organization like the OPCW can be used at will by the U.S., the United Kingdom and France to trigger military attacks intended to support regime-change activities in member states, then it no longer serves a useful purpose to the international community it ostensibly serves. ..."
A spate of leaks from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (
OPCW ), the international inspectorate
created for the purpose of implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, has raised serious
questions about the institution's integrity, objectivity and credibility. The leaks address
issues pertaining to the OPCW investigation into allegations that the Syrian government used
chemical weapons to attack civilians in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7, 2018. These
allegations, which originated from such anti-Assad organizations as the Syrian Civil Defense
(the so-called White Helmets )
and the Syrian American Medical Society ( SAMS ), were immediately embraced as credible by the OPCW, and
were used by the United States, France and the United Kingdom
to justify punitive military strikes against facilities inside Syria assessed by these
nations as having been involved in chemical weapons-related activities before the OPCW
initiated any on-site investigation.
The Douma incident was initially described by the White Helmets, SAMS and the U.S., U.K. and
French governments as involving both sarin nerve agent and chlorine gas. However, this
narrative was altered when OPCW inspectors released, on July 6, 2018, interim
findings of their investigation that found no evidence of the use of sarin. The focus of
the investigation quickly shifted to a pair of chlorine cylinders claimed by the White Helmets
to have been dropped onto apartment buildings in Douma by the Syrian Air Force, resulting in
the release of a cloud of chlorine gas that killed dozens of Syrian civilians. In March, the
OPCW released its final report on
the Douma incident , noting that it had "reasonable grounds" to believe "that the use of a
toxic chemical as a weapon has taken place on 7 April 2018," that "this toxic chemical
contained reactive chlorine" and that "the toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine."
Much has been written about the OPCW inspection process in Syria, and particularly the
methodology used by the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), an inspection body created by the OPCW in
2014 "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly
chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic." The FFM was created under the
direction of Ahmet
Üzümcü , a career Turkish diplomat with extensive experience in
multinational organizations, including service as Turkey's ambassador to NATO.
Üzümcü was the OPCW's third director general, having been selected from a field
of seven candidates by its executive council to replace Argentine diplomat Rogelio Pfirter.
Pfirter had held the position since being nominated to replace the OPCW's first director
general, José Maurício Bustani. Bustani's tenure was marred by controversy that
saw the OPCW transition away from its intended role as an independent implementor of the
Chemical Weapons Convention to that of a tool of unilateral U.S. policy, a role that continues
to mar the OPCW's work in Syria today, especially when it comes to its investigation of the
alleged use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons against civilians in Douma in April
2018.
Bustani was removed from his position in 2002, following an
unprecedented campaign led by John Bolton, who at the time was serving as the
undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the U.S. State
Department. What was Bustani's crime? In 2001, he had dared to enter negotiations with the
government of Iraq to secure that nation's entry into the OPCW, thereby setting the stage for
OPCW inspectors to visit Iraq and bring its chemical weapons capability under OPCW control. As
director general, there was nothing untoward about Bustani's action. But Iraq circa 2001 was
not a typical recruitment target. In the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991, the U.N. Security
Council had passed a resolution under Chapter VII requiring Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
(WMD), including its chemical weapons capability, to be "removed, destroyed or rendered
harmless" under the supervision of inspectors working on behalf of the United Nations Special
Commission, or UNSCOM.
The pursuit of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction led to a series of confrontations with Iraq
that culminated in inspectors being ordered out of the country by the U.S. in 1998, prior to a
72-hour aerial attack -- Operation Desert Fox. Iraq refused to allow UNSCOM inspectors to
return, rightfully claiming that the U.S. had infiltrated the ranks of the inspectors and was
using the inspection process to spy on Iraqi leadership for the purposes of facilitating regime
change. The lack of inspectors in Iraq allowed the U.S. and others to engage in wild
speculation regarding Iraqi rearmament activities, including in the field of chemical weapons.
This speculation was used to fuel a call for military action against Iraq, citing the threat of
a reconstituted WMD capability as the justification. Bustani sought to defuse this situation by
bringing Iraq into the OPCW, an act that, if completed, would have derailed the U.S. case for
military intervention in Iraq. Bolton's intervention
included threats to Bustani and his family, as well as threats to withhold U.S. dues to the OPCW accounting
for some 22% of that organization's budget; had the latter threat been implemented, it would
have resulted in OPCW's disbandment.
Bustani's departure marked the end of the OPCW as an independent organization. Pfirter,
Bolton's hand-picked replacement, vowed to keep the OPCW out of Iraq. In an
interview with U.S. media shortly after his appointment, Pfirter noted that while all
nations should be encouraged to join the OPCW, "We should be very aware that there are United
Nations resolutions in effect" that precluded Iraqi membership "at the expense" of its
obligations to the Security Council. Under the threat of military action, Iraq allowed UNMOVIC
inspectors to return in 2002; by February 2003, no WMD had been found , a result that did
not meet with U.S. satisfaction. In March 2003, UNMOVIC inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq
under orders of the U.S., paving the way for the subsequent invasion and occupation of that
nation that same month (the CIA later concluded that
Iraq had been disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction by the summer of 1991).
Under Pfirter's leadership, the OPCW became a compliant tool of U.S. foreign policy
objectives. By completely subordinating OPCW operations through the constant threat of fiscal
ruin, the U.S. engaged in a continuous quid pro quo arrangement, trading the financial solvency
of an ostensible multilateral organization for complicity in operating as a de facto extension
of American unilateral policy. Bolton's actions in 2002 put the OPCW and its employees on
notice: Cross the U.S., and you will pay a terminal price.
When Üzümcü took over the OPCW's reins in 2010, the organization was very
much the model of multinational consensus, which, in the case of any multilateral organization
in which the U.S. plays a critical role, meant that nothing transpired without the express
approval of the U.S. and its European NATO allies, in particular the United Kingdom and France.
Shortly after he took office, Üzümcü was joined by Robert Fairweather , a
career British diplomat who served as Üzümcü's chief of Cabinet. (While
Üzümcü was the ostensible head of the OPCW, the daily task of managing the
functioning of the OPCW was that of the chief of Cabinet. In short, nothing transpired within
the OPCW without Fairweather's knowledge and concurrence.)
Üzümcü and Fairweather's tenure at the OPCW was dominated by Syria, where,
since 2011, the government of President Bashar Assad had been engaged in a full-scale conflict
with a foreign-funded and -equipped insurgency whose purpose was regime change. By 2013,
allegations emerged from both the Syrian government and rebel forces concerning the use of
chemical weapons by the other side. In August 2013, the OPCW dispatched an inspection team into
Syria as part of a U.N.-led effort, which included specialists from the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the U.N. itself, to investigate allegations that sarin had been used in
attack on civilians in the town of Ghouta. While the mission found conclusive evidence that sarin nerve agent had been
used , it did not assign blame for the attack.
Despite the lack of causality, the U.S. and its NATO allies quickly assigned blame for the
sarin attacks on the Syrian government. To forestall U.S. military action against Syria, the
Russian
government helped broker a deal whereby the U.S. agreed to refrain from undertaking
military action if the Syrian government joined the OPCW and subjected the totality of its
chemical weapons stockpile to elimination. In October 2013, the OPCW-U.N. Joint Mission , created
under the authority of U.N. Security Council resolution 2118 (2103), began the process of
identifying, cataloging, removing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons. This process was
completed in September 2014 (in December 2013, the OPCW was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its
disarmament work in Syria).
If the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons was an example of the OPCW at its best, what
followed was a case study of just the opposite. In May 2014, the OPCW created the Fact-Finding Mission, or FFM ,
charged with establishing "facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals,
reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic." The FFM was headed
by Malik Ellahi ,
who served as head of the OPCW's government relations and political affairs branch. The
appointment of someone lacking both technical and operational experience suggests that Ellahi's
primary role was political. Under his leadership, the FFM established a close working
relationship with the anti-Assad Syrian opposition, including the White Helmets and
SAMS.
In 2015, responsibility for coordinating the work of the FFM with the anti-Assad opposition
was transferred to a British inspector named Len Phillips (another element of the FFM, led by a
different inspector, was responsible for coordinating with the Syrian government). Phillips
developed a close working relationship with the White Helmets and SAMS and played a key role in
OPCW's investigation of the April 2017 chemical incident in Khan Shaykhun. By April 2018, the
FFM had undergone a leadership transition, with Phillips
replaced by a Tunisian inspector named Sami Barrek . It was Barrek who led the FFM into
Syria in April 2018 to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use at Douma. Like Phillips,
Barrek maintained a close working relationship with the White Helmets and SAMS.
Once the FFM wrapped up its investigation in Douma, however, it became apparent to
Fairweather that it had a problem. There were serious questions about whether chlorine had, in
fact, been used as a weapon. The solution, brokered by Fairweather, was to release an interim
report that ruled out sarin altogether, but left the door open regarding chlorine. This
report was released on July 6, 2018. Later that month, both Üzümcü and
Fairweather were gone, replaced by a Spaniard named Fernando
Arias and a French diplomat named Sébastien
Braha . It would be up to them to clean up the Douma situation.
The situation Braha inherited from Fairweather was unenviable.
According to an unnamed OPCW official who spoke with the media after the fact, two days
prior to the publication of the interim report, on July 4, 2018, Fairweather had been paid a
visit by a trio of U.S. officials, who indicated to Fairweather and the members of the FFM
responsible for writing the report that it was the U.S. position that the chlorine cannisters
in question had been used to dispense chlorine gas at Douma, an assertion that could not be
backed up by the evidence. Despite this, the message that Fairweather left with the OPCW
personnel was that there had to be a "smoking gun." It was now Braha's job to manufacture
one.
Braha did this by dispatching OPCW inspectors to Turkey in September 2018 to interview
new witnesses identified by the White Helmets, and by commissioning new engineering studies
that better explained the presence of the two chlorine cannisters found in Douma. By March,
Braha had assembled enough information to enable the technical directorate to issue its final
report. Almost immediately, dissent appeared in the ranks of the OPCW. An engineering report
that contradicted the findings published by Braha
was leaked , setting off a firestorm of controversy derived from its conclusion that the
chlorine cannisters found in Douma had most likely been staged by the White Helmets.
The OPCW, while eventually acknowledging that the leaked report was genuine, explained
its exclusion from the final report on the grounds that it attributed blame, something the FFM
was not mandated to do.
According to the OPCW , the engineering report in question had been submitted to the
investigation and identification team, a newly created body within the OPCW mandated to make
such determinations. Moreover, Director General Arias stood by the report's conclusion that it
had "reasonable grounds" to believe "that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon has taken
place on 7 April 2018."
Arias' explanation came under attack in November, when WikiLeaks published an email sent
by a member of the FFM team that had participated in the Douma investigation. In this email,
which was sent on June 22, 2018, and addressed to Robert Fairweather, the author noted that,
when it came to the Douma incident, "[p]urposely singling out chlorine gas as one of the
possibilities is disingenuous." The author of the email, who had participated in drafting the
original interim report, noted that the original text had emphasized that there was
insufficient evidence to support this conclusion, and that the new text represented "a major
deviation from the original report." Moreover, the author took umbrage at the new report's
conclusions, which claimed to be "based on the high levels of various chlorinated organic
derivatives detected in environmental samples." According to email's author "They were, in most
cases, present only in parts per billion range, as low as 1-2 ppb, which is essentially trace
quantities." In short, the OPCW had cooked the books, manufacturing evidence from thin air that
it then used to draw conclusions that sustained the U.S. position that chlorine gas had been
used by the Syrian government at Douma.
Arias, while not addressing the specifics of the allegations set forth in the leaked email,
recently declared that it is "the nature of any thorough inquiry for individuals in a team
to express subjective views," noting that "I stand by the independent, professional conclusion"
presented by the OPCW about the Douma incident. This explanation, however, does not fly in the
face of the evidence.
The OPCW's credibility as an investigative body has been brought into question through
these leaks, as has its independent character. If an organization like the OPCW can be used at
will by the U.S., the United Kingdom and France to trigger military attacks intended to support
regime-change activities in member states, then it no longer serves a useful purpose to the
international community it ostensibly serves.
To survive as a credible entity, the OPCW must open itself to a full-scale audit of its
activities in Syria by an independent authority with inspector general-like investigatory
powers. Anything short of this leaves the OPCW, an organization that was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize for its contributions to world peace, permanently stained by the reality that it is
little more than a lap dog of the United States, used to promote the very conflicts it was
designed to prevent.
The
Washington Post , throughdocumentsreleased through the Freedom of Information Act, has published a long
investigation into Afghanistan. Journalists have collected over 400 testimonies from American
diplomats, NATO generals and other NATO personnel, that show that reports about Afghanistan
were falsified to deceive the public about the real situation on the ground.
After the tampering with and falsification of the report of the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW), we are witnessing another event that will certainly discomfit those
who have hitherto relied on the official reports of the Pentagon, the US State Department and
international organizations like the OPCW for the last word.
There are very deliberate reasons for such disinformation campaigns. In the case of the
OPCW, as I
wrote some time back, the aim was to paint the Syrian government as the fiend and the
al-Qaeda- and Daesh-linked "moderate rebels" as the innocent souls, thereby likely justifying a
responsibility-to-protect armed intervention by the likes of the US, the UK and France. In such
circumstances, the standing and status of the reporting organization (like the OPCW) is
commandeered to validate Western propaganda that is duly disseminated through the
corporate-controlled mainstream media.
In this particular case, various Western capitals colluded with the OPCW to lay the
groundwork for the removal of Assad and his replacement with the al-Nusra Front as well as the
very same al-Qaeda- and Daesh-linked armed opposition officially responsible for the 9/11
attacks.
As if the massaging of the OPCW reports were not enough in themselves to provoke
international outrage, this dossier serves to give aid and comfort to jihadi groups supported by the Pentagon
who are known to be responsible for the worst human-rights abuses, as seen in Syria and Iraq in
the last 6 years.
False or carefully manipulated reports paint a picture vastly different from the reality on
the ground. The United States has never really declared war on Islamic terrorism, its
proclamations of a "War on Terror" notwithstanding. In reality, it has simply used this
justification to occupy or destabilize strategically important areas of the world in the
interests of maintaining US hegemony, intending in so doing to hobble the energy policies and
national security of rival countries like China, Iran and the Russian Federation.
The Post investigation lays bare how the US strategy had failed since its inception,
the data doctored to represent a reality very different from that on the ground. The inability
of the United States to clean up Afghanistan is blamed by the Post on incorrect military
planning and incorrect political choices. While this could certainly be the case, the
Post's real purpose in its investigation is to harm Trump, even as it reveals the
Pentagon's efforts to continue its regional presence for grand geopolitical goals by hiding
inconvenient truths.
The real issue lies in the built-in mendacity of the bureaucratic and military apparatus of
the United States. No general has ever gone on TV to say that the US presence in Iraq is needed
to support any war against Iran; or that Afghanistan is a great point of entry for the
destabilization of Eurasia, because this very heart of the Heartland is crucial to the
Sino-Russian transcontinental integration projects like the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and
the Belt and Road Initiative. In the same vein, the overthrow of the Syrian government would
have ensured Israel a greater capacity to expand its interests in the Middle East, as well as
to weaken Iran's main regional ally.
The Post investigation lays bare the hypocrisy of the military-industrial complex as
well as the prevailing political establishments of Europe and the United States. These parties
are not interested in human rights, the wellbeing of civilians or justice in general. Their
only goal is to try and maintain their global hegemony indefinitely by preventing any other
powers from being able to realize their potential and thereby pose a threat to Atlanticist
preeminence.
The war in Iraq was launched to destabilize the Middle East, China's energy-supply basin
crucial to fueling her future growth. The war in Syria served the purpose of further
dismantling the Middle East to favor Saudi Arabia and Israel, the West's main strategic allies
in the Persian Gulf. The war in Afghanistan was to slow down the Eurasian integration of China
and Russia. And the war in Ukraine was for the purposes of generating chaos and destruction on
Russia's border, with the initial hope of wresting the very strategically area of Crimea from
Russia.
The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry, and this has been on full display in
recent times. Almost all of Washington's recent strategic objectives have ended up producing
results worse than the status quo ante. In Iraq there is the type of strong cooperation between
Baghdad and Tehran reminiscent of the time prior to 1979. Through Hezbollah, Iran has
strengthened its position in Syria in defense of Damascus. Moscow has found itself playing the
role of crucial decider in the Middle East (and soon in North Africa), until only a few years
ago the sole prerogative of Washington. Turkey's problems with NATO, coupled with Tel Aviv's
open relation with Moscow are both a prime example of Washington's diminishing influence in the
region and Moscow's corresponding increase in influence.
The situation in Afghanistan is not very different, with a general recognition that peace is
the only option for the region being reflected in the talks between the Afghans, the Taliban,
the Russians, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis. Beijing and Moscow have well known for over a
decade the real intent behind Washington's presence in the country, endeavoring to blunt its
impact.
The Post investigation only further increases the public's war weariness, the war in
Afghanistan now having lasted 18 years, the longest war in US history. Jeff Bezos, the owner of
the Post , is a bitter opponent of Trump and wants the president to come clean on the
Afghanistan debacle by admitting that the troops cannot be withdrawn. Needless to say,
admitting such would not help Trump's strategy for the 2020 election. Trump cannot afford to
humiliate the US military, given that it, along with the US dollar, is his main weapon of
"diplomacy". Were it to be revealed that some illiterate peasants holed up in caves and armed
with AK-47s some 40 years ago are responsible for successfully keeping the most powerful army
in history at bay, all of Washington's propaganda, disseminated by a compliant media, will
cease to be of any effect. Such a revelation would also humiliate military personnel, an
otherwise dependable demographic Trump cannot afford to alienate.
The Washington Post performed a service to the country by shedding light on the
disinformation used to sustain endless war. But the Post's intentions are also
political, seeking to undermine Trump's electoral chances by damaging Trump's military
credentials as well as his standing amongst military personnel. What Washington's elite and the
Post do not know, or perhaps prefer to ignore, is that such media investigations
directed against political opponents actually end up doing irreparable damage to the political
and military prestige of the United States.
In other words, when journalist do their job, the military industrial complex finds it
difficult to lie its way through wars and failures, but when a country relies on Hollywood to
sustain its make-believe world, as well as on journalists on the CIA payroll, on compliant
publishers and on censored news, then any such revelations of forbidden truths threaten to
bring the whole facade crashing down.
"Trump was simply asking new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky -- in a July phone
call -- to investigate crimes at the "highest levels" of both Kiev and Washington," Rudy
Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Trump, told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham
Angle."
"So, he is being impeached for doing the right thing as president of the United States,"
he said.
Giuliani told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle" that he helped forced out Yovanovitch
because she was corrupt and obstructing the investigation into Ukraine and the Bidens.
Dem's impeachment for innocent conduct is intended to obstruct the below investigations of
Obama-era corruption:
- Billions of laundered $
- Billions, mostly US $, widely misused
- Extortion
- Bribery
- DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump
He told Ingraham that he needed her out of the way because she was corrupt. Giuliani said he
was not the first person to go to the president with concerns about the diplomat.
In more tweets Tuesday, Giuliani elaborated:
Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled
Ukrainian collusion.
" Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine.
She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at
minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion."
Marie Yovanovitch was dismissed in March after Trump's allies said she was blocking the
probe of Joe Biden and bad-mouthing the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko said that she
gave him a "do not prosecute list", that included Ukraine MPs and the exact same Sorosfunded
NGO president.
Nov 19, 2019Several sources claim former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch,
instructed Ukraine officials to keep their hands off investigating the NGO in Ukraine founded
by George Soros. Why?"
Any questions? As Putin warned the US: "ask about the 5th floor of the State Department."
(where Soros held court!). No wonder the US Commies hate Putin.
What the Shiffhead Impeachment hearings demonstrated with the appearances of Ms.
Yankonitbitch, Bowtie George, and the other "Dindunuffin/Donnonuffin Clowns" is just how much
American Taxpayers' money is being wasted employing a bunch of sanctimonious drones who do
nothing but get in the way of progress. Successful Corporations remove dead wood like that
with downsizing and shakeups. But the Federal Government seems immune to efficiency because
our elected officials NEVER DO THEIR JOBS BY USING ZERO BASE BUDGETING TO JUSTIFY EVERY
******* DOLLAR. And so, we now hear of yet another Omnibus Budget being foisted onto American
Taxpayers and more wasteful spending that never, never, never, gets reduced. We need a
Taxpayer's Revolution in this Country to stop the corrupt theft.
And one more thing: What the Ukrainian Matter reveals is how Foreign Aid is dispensed,
handed out by the foreign recipient, and the funds are laundered and kicked back to the
corrupt politicians and Deep State Operatives like the Bidens. If $400 Million in palletized
untraceable cash can be delivered via a clandestine unmarked airplane at night to Iran
supposedly for ransom as the Socialist Media Complex would have us believe in a way that is
not consistent with long practiced methods for funds transfer, can we imagine all the
billions that have quietly been stolen from us to enrich scum like Barack Obola, Quid Pro
Joe, The Clintons, and so many others? IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN'T GET A DIME TO
SPEND ON BUILDING A WALL TO STOP THE ILLEGAL ALIEN COCKROACH INVASION.
Yovanovitch pulled the "poor me federal" employee act. I worked for the Feds for 31 years
most as a manger and Yovanovitch victim act is what all federal employees pull when they get
in trouble. Blah Blah my 30 years of service, my awards, my appraisals blah blah. She said
that she had no concern about Hunter Biden while being hailed as a corruption fighter. Blah
blah.
It's a crime that State Department people and ambassadors can have the same ethnic origin
as the countries they serve in. It's a recipe for personal/family agendas, corruption and not
representing the best interests of the United States. Of course if you're a DemoRat, you're
always corrupt, as they have proven it is a given.
Rudy Giuliani: Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted.
"Ousted"? I thought the penalty for high treason was hanging. What are they waiting for?
Hang the lot and in a public square near Congress so that all the traitors who reside in
Congress and the highest levels of government and banking get a sense of what awaits
them.
"At the end of the month, almost all criminals arrested for state crimes in New York,
including sex crimes , will be released without posting bail. It is a suicidal policy,
but it is nonetheless the state’s prerogative to engage in such suicide. What is
not its prerogative is the New York law that took effect this week granting
driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and blocking ICE access to criminal enforcement
information. We have a national union with a federal government controlling immigration for a
reason, and it’s time for the Trump administration to show state officials who has the
final say over this issue.
Beginning this week, the NY state government
is inviting any and all illegal aliens , with or without criminal records, to apply for
driver’s licenses. As documentation
, they can offer consular ID cards, which are fraught with fraud, expired work permits, or
foreign birth certificates. They can even offer Border Crossing Cards, which are only valid
for 72 hours and for a stay in the country near the border area! The state law further
prohibits state and county officials from disclosing any information to ICE and bars ICE and
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from accessing N.Y. Department of Motor Vehicles (NYDMV)
records and information.
It’s truly hard to overstate the enormity of the public safety crisis this law,
dubbed “the green light law,” will spawn. There are
currently 3.3 million aliens in the ICE non-detained docket who remain at large in this
country. Just in one year, ICE put detainers on aliens criminally charged with 2,500
homicides. Given
that New York has the fourth largest illegal alien population in the country, it is
virtually certain that a large number of criminal aliens reside in the state and will now be
offered legal resident documents to shield them from removal.
Some might suggest that this is the problem of New York’s residents and that it is
their job and their responsibility alone to overturn these laws. But the difference between
this law and their general pro-criminal laws is that when it comes to immigration, they
simply lack the power to enact such a policy. Rather than the DHS and DOJ bemoaning these
laws, it’s time for the Trump administration to actually stop them in their tracks.
Otherwise the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is nothing but ink on parchment.
A violation of federal law and the Constitution
8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes a felon of anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard
of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation
of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or
shield from detection, such alien in any place.” That statute also makes a criminal of
anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United
States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence
is or will be in violation of law” or anyone who “engages in any conspiracy to
commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding
acts.” Some form of this law has been on the books since 1891.
NY’s new law not only harbors illegal aliens but actually calls on the DMV to notify
illegal aliens of any ICE interest in their files. There is only one purpose of this law: to
tip off criminal alien fugitives that ICE is looking for them, the most literal violation of
the law against shielding them from detection. Would we allow state officials to block
information to the FBI, ATF, or DEA?
Moreover, New York’s Green Light law violates the entire purpose of the infamous
1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which was “to combat
the employment of illegal aliens.” The law specifically makes it “illegal for
employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized
workers.” Yet the rationale for the Green Light Law, according to supporters , was
“getting to work” and “ensure that our industries have the labor they need
to keep our economy moving.” That directly conflicts with federal law.
Finally, 8 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits state and local government from “in any way
restrict[ing]
, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status,
lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” The entire purpose of this bill is to restrict
all New York government entities from sending information on citizenship status to ICE.
Whether one disagrees with immigration laws or not, nobody can argue that the federal
government lacks the power to enforce them. Immigration law is one of the core jobs of the
federal government. People are free to go to any state once they are in the country, which is
why the Founders transferred
immigration policy from the states under the Articles of Confederation to the federal
government under the Constitution.
This is why James Madison in Federalist #42 bemoaned that, under
the Articles of Confederation, there was a “very serious embarrassment” whereby
“an alien therefore legally incapacitated for certain rights in the [one state], may by
previous residence only in [another state], elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one
State, be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of
the other.” He feared that without the Constitution’s new idea of giving the
federal Congress power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”
“certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious” would
choose states with weak immigration laws as entry points into the union and then move to any
other state as legal residents or citizens.
As for immigration without naturalization, because of the issue of the slave trade, the
first clause of Article I, Section 9 bars Congress from prohibiting “the Migration or
Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit” until the year 1808. Well, Congress has long exercised that power to exclude
over the past 200 years. New York has lacked the ability to maintain its own separate
immigration scheme for quite some time.
When did the federal government become weak in the face of state rebellion?"
The diplomatic service made a big mistake when they abandoned the practice of preventing
people from serving in countries where they have an ethnic connection
jovanivic is part of a rabid Ukrainian diaspora, chased out of the country by the Red Army
for collaboration with the Nazis.
these people have a vicious, insatiable desire for revenge ...and the US does not need
these kind of biases mucking things up
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
While former
Weekly Standard writer Warren thought the news was Cheney going after Pence, the real news
is Cheney's neoconservative crowd -- much of the GOP foreign policy establishment, which can be
counted on to advocate for intervention overseas -- being mad that President Trump won't listen
to their terrible advice.
Cheney was one of the
chief architects of the Iraq War, now in its seventeenth year with no end in sight. Given
the neverending morass that war has become, and its utter failure to concretely benefit
Americans in exchange for lives lost and trillions
spent , it is preposterous that he would be lambasting the current vice president over
foreign policy. He should instead be issuing public mea culpas.
Neocons Believe in
America as Global Policeman
Cheney's accusation that Trump is conducting Obama's foreign policy is inaccurate, because
both Obama and neocons are internationalists, and Trump is not. Neocons generally think global
peace can be achieved through spreading of freedom and democracy, often by using military
force. They tend to think any region in which America is not actively involved risks being
filled with a menacing geopolitical force. They often view themselves as global citizens, and
see America's power as the perfect tool for peace and democracy spreading. America should act
in its own interest, say the neocons, but America's interest is the global interest, and
vice versa.
Among other things, this leads neoconservatives to currently advocate for regime change or
at least continued U.S. presence in Syria, continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan (even as that
war is nearly two decades-old), a very hardline approach to Russia (which is oddly deemed an
equal or even greater threat than China), and a U.S. military presence in
more than 20 African countries that you have never heard of, to fight Islamic
terrorists.
Internationalists might disagree about how much force should be used to spread liberalism.
President Obama took out Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, and presided over a terribly ineffective and
dangerous effort to fund Syrian rebels in that country's civil war. Republican neocons like
Cheney just wish Obama had done even more, and put U.S. troops on the ground in Libya and Syria
as well.
The Problem with Defaulting to Intervention
Despite their certainty about launching the United States into myriad global conflicts,
neocons have lots of problems. First, they are incredibly naïve about fundamentalist Sunni
Islam. Take the Syria example. ISIS and al Qaeda are both forms of fundamentalist Sunni Islam,
which is incredibly popular across the Middle East and Northern Africa. Fighting the ideology
that creates ISIS and al Qaeda could literally take forever.
It could also be self-defeating. Bombing and occupying a foreign land might make young men
there more prone to outright terrorism, and infantilize the domestic forces that must take a
stand in order for true progress against radicalization to occur.
In other areas too, neocons often cheer endeavors that shoot our country in the foot. They
want us to stay in Syria to fight terrorism, but they were more than happy to fund and arm
rebels --
many of whom were radical Sunnis with ties to al Qaeda -- in order to try to take down the
regime of Bashar al-Assad. Ditto with the intervention in Shia-majority Iraq, which ultimately
emboldened and empowered the dominant Shia power, Iran.
Academically speaking, neocons have learned the lesson of World War II, but haven't the
lessons of World War I, Vietnam, or countless other conflicts where intervention and war had
unforeseen outcomes and consequences. Thus they have a stunning record of getting foreign
policy wrong. Leading neocon Bill Kristol was a huge
advocate for the Iraq War , for example, and famously predicted it would be over in two months .
Despite how poorly many U.S.-involved conflicts have gone, neocons have refused to question
their ideology. They will question someone's motives if -- for example -- he disagrees with
entering Syria's civil war. You can point out that neither side is good, that this is largely a
Shia-Sunni religious struggle that we should stay out of, and that taking out Bashar al-Assad
would create a power vacuum for jihadists, but
Kristol and Max Boot will respond by calling you a Russian stooge.
Trump Is Right to
Not Listen to Failed Advice
Even though he still has neocons advising him in the White House, President Trump is thus
smart to frequently ignore these people. In fact, pushing back against neocons is a big reason
Trump got elected.
The American people agree that we shouldn't be
subsidizing wealthy European countries' welfare states by fronting their defense. Germany's
military is literally falling apart, but the country is more than happy to give Russia billions
for natural gas. If Germany isn't concerned about Russia, is it our job to do all the work?
The American people also appreciate that Trump is trying to end the war in Afghanistan, and
get American troops out of Syria, among other conflicts. Pence's statement, that Trump wants us
to be thoughtful about where we place U.S. troops, jives with the thoughts of a vast bipartisan
majority of Americans.
The GOP Is a Conservative Party
Trump had an easy go of his GOP contenders in 2015-16 because the GOP is not a
neoconservative party, it is simply a conservative party. There is a big difference. For
neocons like Cheney to act as if Donald Trump stole the party is laughable. The neocons were an
aberration in conservatives' coalition.
The roots of the Grand Old Party are nationalism, foreign policy realism, and fiscal
(spending) restraint. In but one example, President Eisenhower wrote a friend that cutting
taxes was a reward for finding wasteful spending. President Nixon went to Communist China to
exploit the rift between Beijing and Moscow. Democrats got us in the Vietnam War, and Nixon and
Ford got us out.
There is a fundamental long-run contradiction between U.S. nation-building
overseas and limited government here at home.
Conservative voters care about localism, and tempered, non-utopian nationalism. It isn't
just nice to care about the people around us, and demand our politicians do what's best for
them, it is a high moral ideal
-- even commanded by
scripture .
Some neocons just aren't conservatives. Many are socially
liberal , and view the pro-life cause as a way to get the so-called hayseeds to turn out on
election day, not as a pressing moral issue. Because of this, some neocons may eventually find
a home in the establishment Democrat Party.
True, neocons say they are fiscal conservatives, and many have criticized President Trump
for not talking about entitlement reform (as has this writer), but in practice neocons are
fiscal fakers. Their priorities never lead to downsizing the federal government. Rather, they
bargain with Democrats to increase domestic welfare spending as long as the military budget
also increases. There is a fundamental long-run contradiction between U.S. nation-building
overseas and limited government here at home.
That's why neocons have already lost the GOP, and Trump's presidency is only just the
beginning of a necessary shift. The Republican Party is finding its roots, and eventually going
back to true fiscal conservatism (spending restraint that allows tax cuts, not just tax cuts
for their own sake) and foreign policy realism.
But because of the American political system, this shift will occur in bits and spurts. Just
this January, 47 Republican senators
(that's most of them) joined Democrats to vote for an amendment pushed by Senate Majority
leader Mitch McConnell that sought to keep the United States in Syria and Afghanistan
indefinitely. Try getting anything close to half of the American public to sign on to that.
That's the real story here. Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD
and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas, and works in the financial services industry.
The views expressed are those of the author only. You can follow Willis on Twitter @WillKrumholz .
USSR, Yugoslavia, US, EU, and the Indian Union are predicated on the ideas of the
Enlightenment Tradition. So far, USSR and FRY have disintegrated. If EU fails, could US and
EU be too far behind. In US, we have the political ascendancy of foolish Protestantism, in
India that of Hindu masses.
Can any states, predicated on secularism of the Enlightenment Tradition survive the rise
of religious politics?
"... A nation seeking peace-as-dominion will use force more freely. This has long been an Israeli predilection. Since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, however, it has become America's as well. As a consequence, U.S. national-security policy increasingly conforms to patterns of behavior pioneered by the Jewish state. This "Israelification" of U.S. policy may prove beneficial for Israel. Based on the available evidence, it's not likely to be good for the United States. ..."
"... Here is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describing what he calls his "vision of peace" in June 2009: "If we get a guarantee of demilitarization we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state." The inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank, if armed and sufficiently angry, can certainly annoy Israel. But they cannot destroy it or do it serious harm. By any measure, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) wield vastly greater power than the Palestinians can possibly muster. Still, from Netanyahu's perspective, "real peace" becomes possible only if Palestinians guarantee that their putative state will forego even the most meager military capabilities. Your side disarms, our side stays armed to the teeth: that's Netanyahu's vision of peace in a nutshell. ..."
Peace means different things to different governments and different countries. To some it
suggests harmony based on tolerance and mutual respect. To others it serves as a euphemism for
dominance, peace defining the relationship between the strong and the supine.
In the absence of actually existing peace, a nation's reigning definition of peace
shapes its proclivity to use force. A nation committed to peace-as-harmony will tend to employ
force as a last resort. The United States once subscribed to this view. Or beyond the confines
of the Western Hemisphere, it at least pretended to do so.
A nation seeking peace-as-dominion will use force more freely. This has long been an Israeli
predilection. Since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, however, it has become
America's as well. As a consequence, U.S. national-security policy increasingly conforms to
patterns of behavior pioneered by the Jewish state. This "Israelification" of U.S. policy may
prove beneficial for Israel. Based on the available evidence, it's not likely to be good for
the United States.
Here is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describing what he calls his "vision of
peace" in June 2009: "If we get a guarantee of demilitarization we are ready to agree to a real
peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state." The
inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank, if armed and sufficiently angry, can certainly annoy
Israel. But they cannot destroy it or do it serious harm. By any measure, the Israel Defense
Forces (IDF) wield vastly greater power than the Palestinians can possibly muster. Still, from
Netanyahu's perspective, "real peace" becomes possible only if Palestinians guarantee that
their putative state will forego even the most meager military capabilities. Your side disarms,
our side stays armed to the teeth: that's Netanyahu's vision of peace in a nutshell.
Netanyahu asks a lot of Palestinians. Yet however baldly stated, his demands reflect
longstanding Israeli thinking. For Israel, peace derives from security, which must be absolute
and assured. Security thus defined requires not simply military advantage but military
supremacy .
From Israel's perspective, threats to supremacy require anticipatory action , the
earlier the better. The IDF attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 provides one
especially instructive example. Israel's destruction of a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in
2007 provides a second.
Yet alongside perceived threat, perceived opportunity can provide sufficient motive for
anticipatory action. In 1956 and again in 1967, Israel attacked Egypt not because the
blustering Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser possessed the capability (even if he proclaimed the
intention) of destroying the hated Zionists, but because preventive war seemingly promised a
big Israeli pay-off. In the first instance, the Israelis came away empty-handed. In the second,
they hit the jackpot operationally, albeit with problematic strategic consequences.
For decades, Israel relied on a powerful combination of tanks and fighter-bombers as its
preferred instrument of preemption. In more recent times, however, it has deemphasized its
swift sword in favor of the shiv between the ribs. Why deploy lumbering armored columns when a
missile launched from an Apache attack helicopter or a bomb fixed to an Iranian scientist's car
can do the job more cheaply and with less risk? Thus has targeted assassination eclipsed
conventional military methods as the hallmark of the Israeli way of war.
Whether using tanks to conquer or assassins to liquidate, adherence to this
knee-to-the-groin paradigm has won Israel few friends in the region and few admirers around the
world (Americans notably excepted). The likelihood of this approach eliminating or even
diminishing Arab or Iranian hostility toward Israel appears less than promising. That said, the
approach has thus far succeeded in preserving and even expanding the Jewish state: more than 60
years after its founding, Israel persists and even prospers. By this rough but not
inconsequential measure, the Israeli security concept has succeeded. Okay, it's nasty: but so
far at least, it's worked.
What's hard to figure out is why the United States would choose to follow Israel's path. Yet
over the course of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama quarter-century, that's precisely what we've
done. The pursuit of global military dominance, a proclivity for preemption, a growing taste
for assassination -- all justified as essential to self-defense. That pretty much describes
ourpresent-day MO.
Israel is a small country with a small population and no shortage of hostile neighbors. Ours
is a huge country with an enormous population and no enemy, unless you count the
Cuban-Venezuelan Axis of Ailing Dictators, within several thousand miles. We have choices that
Israel does not. Yet in disregarding those choices the United States has stumbled willy-nilly
into an Israeli-like condition of perpetual war, with peace increasingly tied to unrealistic
expectations of adversaries and would-be adversaries acquiescing in Washington's will.
Israelification got its kick-start with George H.W. Bush's Operation Desert Storm, a
triumphal Hundred-Hour War likened at the time to Israel's triumphal Six-Day War. Victory over
the "fourth largest army in the world" fostered illusions of the United States exercising
perpetually and on a global scale military primacy akin to what Israel has exercised
regionally. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon announced that henceforth it would settle for nothing
less than "Full Spectrum Dominance."
Bill Clinton's contribution to the process was to normalize the use of force. During the
several decades of the Cold War, the U.S. had resorted to overt armed intervention only
occasionally. Although difficult today to recall, back then whole years might pass without U.S.
troops being sent into harm's way. Over the course of Clinton's two terms in office, however,
intervention became commonplace.
The average Israeli had long since become inured to reports of IDF incursions into southern
Lebanon or Gaza. Now the average American has become accustomed to reports of U.S. troops
battling Somali warlords, supervising regime change in Haiti, or occupying the Balkans. Yet the
real signature of the Clinton years came in the form of airstrikes. Blasting targets in
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Serbia, and Sudan, but above all in Iraq, became the functional equivalent
of Israel's reliance on airpower to punish "terrorists" from standoff ranges.
In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush, a true believer in Full Spectrum Dominance, set out to
liberate or pacify (take your pick) the Islamic world. The United States followed Israel in
assigning itself the prerogative of waging preventive war. Although it depicted Saddam Hussein
as an existential threat, the Bush administration also viewed Iraq as an opportunity: here the
United States would signal to other recalcitrants the fate awaiting them should they mess with
Uncle Sam.
More subtly, in going after Saddam, Bush was tacitly embracing a longstanding Israeli
conception of deterrence. During the Cold War, deterrence had meant conveying a credible threat
to dissuade your opponent from hostile action. Israel had never subscribed to that view.
Influencing the behavior of potential adversaries required more than signaling what Israel
might do if sufficiently aggravated; influence was exerted by punitive action, ideally
delivered on a disproportionate scale. Hit the other guy first, if possible; failing that,
whack him several times harder than he hit you: not the biblical injunction of an eye for an
eye, but both eyes, an ear, and several teeth, with a kick in the nuts thrown in for good
measure. The aim was to send a message: screw with us and this will happen to you. This is the
message Bush intended to convey when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Unfortunately, Operation Iraqi Freedom, launched with all the confidence that had informed
Operation Peace for Galilee, Israel's equally ill-advised 1982 incursion into Lebanon, landed
the United States in an equivalent mess. Or perhaps a different comparison applies: the U.S.
occupation of Iraq triggered violent resistance akin to what the IDF faced as a consequence of
Israel occupying the West Bank. Two successive Intifadas had given the Israeli army fits. The
insurgency in Iraq (along with its Afghan sibling) gave the American army fits. Neither the
Israeli nor the American reputation for martial invincibility survived the encounter.
By the time Barack Obama succeeded Bush in 2009, most Americans -- like most Israelis -- had
lost their appetite for invading and occupying countries. Obama's response? Hew ever more
closely to the evolving Israeli way of doing things. "Obama wants to be known for winding down
long wars," writes Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. "But he has shown no hesitance
when it comes to shorter, Israel-style operations. He is a special ops hawk, a drone
militarist."
Just so: with his affinity for missile-firing drones, Obama has established targeted
assassination as the very centerpiece of U.S. national-security policy. With his affinity for
commandos, he has expanded the size and mandate of U.S. Special Operations Command, which now
maintains an active presence in more than 70 countries. In Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, and
the frontier regions of Pakistan -- and who knows how many other far-flung places -- Obama
seemingly shares Prime Minister Netanyahu's expectations: keep whacking and a positive outcome
will eventually ensue.
The government of Israel, along with ardently pro-Israel Americans like Michael Gerson, may
view the convergence of U.S. and Israeli national-security practices with some satisfaction.
The prevailing U.S. definition of self-defense -- a self-assigned mandate to target anyone
anywhere thought to endanger U.S. security -- is exceedingly elastic. As such, it provides a
certain cover for equivalent Israeli inclinations. And to the extent that our roster of enemies
overlaps with theirs -- did someone say Iran? -- military action ordered by Washington just
might shorten Jerusalem's "to do" list.
Yet where does this all lead? "We don't have enough drones," writes the columnist David
Ignatius, "to kill all the enemies we will make if we turn the world into a free-fire zone."
And if Delta Force, the Green Berets, army rangers, Navy SEALs, and the like constitute (in the
words of one SEAL) "the dark matter the force that orders the universe but can't be seen," we
probably don't have enough of them either. Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems
willing to test both propositions.
The process of aligning U.S. national-security practice with Israeli precedents is now
essentially complete. Their habits are ours. Reversing that process would require stores of
courage and imagination that may no longer exist in Washington. Given the reigning domestic
political climate, those holding or seeking positions of power find it easier -- and less risky
-- to stay the course, vainly nursing the hope that by killing enough "terrorists" peace on
terms of our choosing will result. Here too the United States has succumbed to Israeli
illusions.
Andrew J. Bacevich is a visiting professor at the University of Notre
Dame.
The interesting info here is that the article states Haftar's "eastern-based Libyan
National Army (LNA), backed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, France, Russia and
Turkey".
The NATO rift between Turkey and its other members has escalated with the Evil Outlaw US
Empire's Senate voting to recognize the Armenian Genocide and Greece to help the LNA (Bengazi
gov't) defend against Turkish shipments of militia/terrorists and weapons to the besieged GNA
in Tripoli. This
site is very helpful and up-to-date regarding what's occurring. And
this PDF Briefing Paper is very good and quite detailed.
All of the above's added to the tense situation around Cyprus, Turkey's threat to close
Incirlik, and Greek offers to house those NATO facilities. It increasingly looks like the
Turkish S-400s are aimed at Greece and NATO.
/div>
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it to
abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis, but
most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and that "If
only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with the future
deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but most of the
time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an example out of
it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have no
checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this un-democratic
way.
Viking guy at 40
"Today we are not members of the EU, but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The
EU is a non-democratic nightmare that must be demolished."
Absolutely. The EU is the 2nd biggest imperialist asshole on the block, benefitting from the
fact that 1st place is taken by the USA, which is far more blatant, in-your-face and
universally obnoxious when at it, and doing it even to the EU. The EU not being the ultimate
superpower, it can't bully the US or China and only does it when dealing with lesser powers.
That's why it's practically impossible for anyone living inside a major EU-member to actually
notice and be aware of the typical EU behaviour: to crush any lesser country and to force it
to abide by its very own rules, whether independent countries want it or not.
That the EU is that bad should have been clear and obvious to all during the Greek crisis,
but most Europhiles prefer to think this was just an accident, due to some bad apples, and
that "If only the Czar knew", this wouldn't happen. Well, UK is going to get hit badly with
the future deal, because an imperalist neo-liberal power like the EU - just like the US, but
most of the time without the military part of it - can only crush any opposition and make an
example out of it.
If the EU were a truly democratic endeavour, they would allow at least popular referendum at
EU-wide level, and possibly even initiatives, for starter. The way it works, the people have
no checks on it. Not a bit surprise though, most of its core members function this
un-democratic way.
While all experts agree that the events in Venezuela are following the same model as those
in Syria, some writers have contested the article by Thierry Meyssan which highlights their
differences from the interpretation in the anti-imperialist camp. Here, our author responds.
This is not a quarrel between specialists, but an important debate about the historic change we
are experiencing since 11 September 2001, and which is influencing all our lives.
In the first part of this article, I pointed out the fact that currently, President Bachar
el-Assad is the only personality who has adapted to the new " grand US strategy " – all
the others continue to think as if the present conflicts were simply a continuation of those we
have been experiencing since the end of the Second World War. They persist in interpreting
these events as tentatives by the United States to hog natural resources for themselves by
organising the overthrow of the pertinent governments.
As I intend to demonstrate, I believe that they are wrong and that their error could hasten
humanity down the road to hell.
For the last 70 years, the obsession of US strategists has not been to defend their people,
but to maintain their military superiority over the rest of the world. During the decade
between the dissolution of the USSR and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they searched for ways
to intimidate those who resisted them.
Harlan K. Ullman developed the idea of terrorising populations by dealing them a horrifying
blow to the head ( Shock and awe ) [ 1 ]. This was the idea behind the use
of the atomic bomb against the Japanese and the bombing of Baghdad with a storm of cruise
missiles.
The Straussians (meaning the disciples of philosopher Leo Strauss) dreamed of waging and
winning several wars at once ( Full-spectrum dominance ). This led to the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, placed under a common command [ 2 ].
Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski suggested reorganising the armies in order to facilitate the
treatment and sharing of a wealth of data simultaneously. In this way, robots would one day be
able to indicate the best tactics instantaneously [ 3 ]. As we shall see, the major reforms
he initiated were soon to produce poisonous fruit.
US neo-imperialist thought
These ideas and fantasies, first of all, led President Bush and the Navy to organise the
world's most wide-ranging network for international kidnapping and torture, which created
80,000 victims. Then President Obama set up an assassination programme mainly using drones, but
also commandos, which operates in 80 countries, and enjoys an annual budget of 14 billion
dollars [ 4
].
As from 9/11, Admiral Cebrowski's assistant, Thomas P. M. Barnett, has given numerous
conferences at the Pentagon and in military academies in order to announce the shape of the new
map of the world according to the Pentagon [ 5 ]. This project was made possible by
the structural reforms of US armies – these reforms are the source of this new vision of
the world. At first, it seemed so crazy that foreign observers too quickly considered it as one
more piece of rhetoric aimed at striking fear into the people they wanted to dominate.
Barnett declared that in order to maintain their hegemony over the world, the United States
would have to " settle for less ", in other words, to divide the world in two. On one side, the
stable states (the members of the G8 and their allies), on the other, the rest of the world,
considered only as a simple reservoir of natural resources. Contrary to his predecessors,
Barnett no longer considered access to these resources as vital for Washington but claimed that
they would only be accessible to the stable states by transit via the services of the US army.
From now on, it was necessary to systematically destroy all state structures in the reservoir
of resources, so that one day, no-one would be able to oppose the will of Washington, nor deal
directly with the stable states.
During his State of the Union speech in January 1980, President Carter announced his
doctrine – Washington considered that the supply of its economy with oil from the Gulf
was a question of national security [ 6 ]. Following that, the Pentagon
created CentCom in order to control the region. But today, Washington takes less oil from Iraq
and Libya than it exploited before those wars – and it doesn't care!
Destroying the state structures is to operate a plunge into chaos, a concept borrowed from
Leo Strauss, but to which Barnett gives new meaning. For the Jewish philosopher, the Jewish
people can no longer trust democracies after the failure of the Weimar Republic and the Shoah.
The only way to protect itself from a new form of Nazism, is to establish its own world
dictatorship – in the name of Good, of course. It would, therefore, be necessary to
destroy certain resistant states, drag them into chaos and rebuild them according to different
laws [ 7 ].
This is what Condoleezza Rice said during the first days of the 2006 war against Lebanon when
Israël still seemed victorious – " I do not see the point of diplomacy if it's
purpose is to return to the status quo ante between Israël and Lebanon. I think that would
be a mistake. What we are seeing here, in a way, is the beginning, the contractions of the
birth of a new Middle East, and whatever we do, we have to be sure that we are pushing towards
the new Middle East and that we are not returning to the old ". On the contrary, for Barnett,
not only the few resistant people should be forced into chaos, but all those who have not
attained a certain standard of life – and once they are reduced to chaos, they must be
kept there.
In fact, the influence of the Straussians has diminished at the Pentagon since the death of
Andrew Marshall, who created the idea of the " pivot to Asia " [ 8 ].
One of the great differences between the thinking of Barnett and that of his predecessors is
that war should not be waged against specific states for a political reason, but against
regions of the world because they are not integrated into the global economic system. Of
course, we will start with one country or another, but we will favour contagion until
everything is destroyed, just as we are seeing in the Greater Middle East. Today, tank warfare
is raging in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt (Sinaï), Palestine, Lebanon (Ain al-Hilweh and Ras
Baalbeck), Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (Qatif), Bahreïn, Yemen, Turkey (Diyarbakır),
and Afghanistan.
This is why Barnett's neo-imperialist strategy will necessarily be based on elements of the
rhetoric of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, the " war of civilisations " [ 9 ]. Since it is
impossible to justify our indifference to the fate of the people from the reservoir of natural
resources, we can always persuade ourselves that our civilisations are incompatible.
According to this map, taken from one of Thomas P. M. Barnett's power point slides,
presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 2003, every state in the pink zone must be
destroyed. This project has nothing to with the struggle between classes at the national level
nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they are done with the expanded Middle East, the US
strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.
The implementation of US neo-imperialism
This is precisely the policy which has been in operation since 9/11. None of the wars which
were started have yet come to an end. For 16 years, on a daily basis, the living conditions of
the Afghan people have become increasingly more terrible and more dangerous. The reconstruction
of their state, which was touted to be planned on the model of Germany and Japan after the
Second World War, has not yet begun. The presence of NATO troops has not improved the life of
the Afghan people, but on the contrary, has made it worse. We are obliged to note the fact that
it is today the cause of the problem. Despite the feel-good speeches on international aid,
these troops are there only to deepen and maintain the chaos.
Never once, when NATO troops intervened, have the official reasons for the war been shown to
be true – neither against Afghanistan (the responsibility of the Taliban in the attacks
of 9/11), nor Iraq (President Hussein's support for the 9/11 terrorists and the preparation of
weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA), nor Libya (the bombing of its own people by the
army), nor in Syria (the dictatorship of President Assad and the Alaouite cult). And never once
has the overthrow of a government ever put an end to these wars. They all continue without
interruption, no matter who is in power.
The " Arab Springs ", which were born of an idea from MI6 and directly inspired by the "
Arab Revolt of 1916 " and the exploits of Lawrence of Arabia, were included in the same US
strategy. Tunisia has become ungovernable. Luckily, Egypt was taken back by its army and is
today making efforts to heal. Libya has become a battlefield, not since the Security Council
resolution aimed at protecting the population, but since the assassination of Mouamar Kadhafi
and the victory of NATO. Syria is an exception because the state never fell into the hands of
the Muslim Brotherhood, which prevented them from dragging the country into chaos. But numerous
jihadist groups, born of the Brotherhood, have controlled – and still control –
parts of the territory, where they have indeed sown chaos. Neither the Daesh Caliphate, nor
Idleb under Al-Qaïda, are states where Islam may flourish, but zones of terror without
schools or hospitals.
It is probable that thanks to its people, its army and its Russian, Lebanese and Iranian
allies, Syria will manage to escape the destiny planned for it by Washington, but the Greater
Near East will continue to burn until the people there understand their enemies' plans for
them. We now see that the same process of destruction has begun in the North-West of Latin
America. The Western medias speak with disdain about the troubles in Venezuela, but the war
that is beginning there will not be limited to that country – it will spread throughout
the whole region, although the economic and political conditions of the states which compose it
are very different.
The limits of US neo-imperialism
The US strategists like to compare their power to that of the Roman Empire. But that empire
brought security and opulence to the peoples they conquered and integrated. It built monuments
and rationalised their societies. On the contrary, US neo-imperialism does not intend to offer
anything to the people of the stable states, nor to the people of the reservoirs of natural
resources. It plans to racket the former and to destroy the social connections which bind the
latter together. Above all, it does not want to exterminate the people of the reservoirs, but
needs for them to suffer so that the chaos in which they live will prevent the stable states
from going to them for natural resources without the protection of the US armies.
Until now, the imperialist project ran on the principle that " you can't make an omelette
without breaking eggs ". It admitted that it had committed collateral massacres in order to
extend its domination. From now on, it is planning generalised massacres in order to impose its
authority – definitively.
US neo-imperialism supposes that the other states of the G8 and their allies will agree to
allow their overseas interests to be " protected " by US armies. That should pose no problem
with the European Union, which has already been emasculated for a long time, but will have to
be negotiated with the United Kingdom, and will be impossible with Russia and China.
Recalling its " special relationship " with Washington, London has already asked to be
associated with the US project for governing the world. That was the point of Theresa May's
visit to the United States in January 2017, but she has so far received no answer [ 10 ].
Apart from that, it is inconceivable that the US armies will ensure the security of the "
Silk Roads " as they do today with their British opposite numbers for the sea and air routes.
Similarly, it is unthinkable for them to force Russia to genuflect, which has just been
excluded from the G8 because of its engagement in Syria and Crimea.
With the Hong Kong protests showing no sign of letting up, a new narrative has emerged; that
anti-government activists are "
sliding into terrorism with home-made bombs" designed to inflict mass casualties.
On Sunday, Hong Kong police reported that they foiled a second bomb plot in under a week -
arresting three men who were allegedly testing home-made devices and chemicals in a secluded
area, according to
SCMP .
"If this keeps up, China will be virtually forced to shut down the protests - all in the
name of fighting terrorism."
well, I had argued all along that the strategy of the incremental escalation of violence,
the destruction of public infrastructure, both well documented regime change strategies, were
designed to ignite a civil war and force Mainland intervention.
This could then be used as an excuse for the usual embargo tactics. The construction of a
remote detonated bomb is highly complex and as you will recall from Islamic terrorism, bomb
makers are highly skilled.
For this skill to suddenly materialise in HK suggests intelligence agents at work. Hong
Kong has real problems, all economic, but their 5 demands don't call for economic remedies,
indeed they call for things that will never happen.
The leaders of the protests, Josh Wong, Deniese Ho and others are trained by NED and other
agencies to sow discord in what was otherwise a peaceful community.
There was a BBC documentary on utube about HK activists being trained at the NED/Soros
Oslo Freedom forum 2014 but it seems to have been memoryholed in the last few days.
"If this keeps up, China will be virtually forced to shut down the protests..."
Total nonsense. At this point if people in HK started blowing themselves up, the only thing
to pop in Beijing will be some champagne bottles. If Hong Kong slowly destroys itself,
Beijing will just contentedly watch from the sidelines as all that banking business goes to
Shanghai, Macao or across the river to Shenzhen.
Clapper and Brennan will be shaking in their boots after watching Barr's interview: done in
"bad faith" = SEDITION !!!! Deep State operatives...ie, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Stork, Lisa,
McCabe, should be held accountable. Obama should probably be impeached.
The hard fact is, that the top of the FBI knew, in advance, that the "dossier" was just bs
invented by Russian liars, for money, to be used as political lies for kilary's campaign. It
Wasn't evidence and Comey knew far in advance of crossfire hurricane. I can't see less than 20
years in comey's future. That same includes barak, brennan and clapper, who were all informed,
willing accomplices in this crime.
10:30
Whoever in FBI that intentionally misled the court using the Steele dossier knowing that the
dossier was "total rubbish" as Barr states, needs to be inditing immediately. Why we are
continuing to investigate instead of inditimg while continuing to investigate. Until these people
are held accountable I don't think our country will begin to heal and media and others apologize
to the country for the damage they have done.
7:49 -
"Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance, and therefore couldn't be questioned
about classified matters." Well now, isn't that interesting. Haven't heard that one before.
In an exclusive interview, Attorney General William Barr spoke to NBC News' Pete Williams
about the findings on the Justice Department Inspector General's report on the Russia
investigation and his criticisms of the FBI.
I'm So glade we have a competent attorney General pushing back on the massive
disinformation narrative that comes from Giant News outlets of which are used to being
unchallenged, unchecked by today's "journalistic standards"
so this guy really asked Bahr"why not open an investigation even with little evidence?"
because is a violation of civil liberties to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens. You
need compelling evidence for something so huge
Horowitz should be instructed to edit or update his Report to discuss The Question of Bias
and Evidence of Bias. He has clearly misguided Americans with his choice of words and has
omitted important facts underpinning bias.
AG Barr is an outstanding role model, a man of integrity and wisdom, calm in a raging
political storm. I have full confidence he will make those who fabricated evidence and hid
exculpatory evidence finally face justice. AG Barr for President 2024!
Barr is a straight shooter and I love it. It sounds like we will get to the real truth
eventually through Durhams investigation I just hope it doesnt take another year to get to
the prosecutions.
So, I watched the interview... The video is called, "Full Interview: Barr Criticizes
Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation." Not once did I hear him criticize the
I.G.'s report. In fact, A.G. Barr clarified that the I.G.'s report was limited in scope
because of the limitations put on the I.G. He said that the report was appropriate.
It's scary to see how powerful the corruption of the Democratic Party has grown. It
represents a serious threat to all our personal freedom. The Democratic Party has to be
stopped.
Ok after watching this interview its quite clear that Barr and Durham is going after these
criminals and people are going to jail. Maybe there is hope for US yet becuase this dane
consider US atm a banana republic. Spying on political candidates? Forging documents? You FBI
behaving like Stalins secret police. Lets see what happen.
Amazing for the AG to go in deep into enemy territory at the heart of the opposition media
to lay out a case for the criminal activities that undermined our country prior to and after
the 2016 election. The deep state is trembling at the prospect of being held accountable
after all the facts are laid out to the american people that these activities cannot be
brushed aside or swept under the carpet if we are to continue as a country.
The corrupt media is trying to act like they have not been involved in this treasonous
scam since the beginning working directly with the treasonous cabal. The media has been lying
and pushing fake news for 3 years calling Trump a Russia agent and called him treasonous. I
knew the whole time that they were lying there was evidence from day one that this was all
lies and if I can see that from the public then they can definitely see that from the inside
they are purposefully lying.
I dare anyone on here to research Barr's History back to his involvement in the
assignation of JFK, the cover up, defending Nixon, Epstein, and many other illegal and
immoral activities. After reviewing the evidence, I walked away believing that Barr is trying
to cover up his tracks so he does do jail time. No need to reply. Either take my dare or not.
God Bless America and ALL her people, Stephan
The public are sick of waiting . I find myself skipping through a half hour news show in 5
minutes flat looking for arrests ,whereas before I was rivited to every minute of the half
hour show but it goes on and on and at the there is Nothiing .The Democrats are the masters ,
it's obvious . If they break the law they get off scott free . If you are republican wave bye
bye , you will be in jail for years . America is not the free and fair country it is all
cracked up to be . It is corrupted by the democrats who have peoiple in high places that
thwart real justice.
Mifsud approached George! Who was Mifsud working for (western asset) and why did he
approach George? He’s the one who offered George dirt on Hill. Then invited him to meet
the fake “niece”, of Putin, in England! What about this information? Someone set
George up to make this happen outside the US, because of EO 12333. It had to happen outside
the US so they could go to the fisa court!
I dont trust Christopher Wrey. He keeps slow-walking all the FBI documents and
declassifications. He also fights judicial watch and judges that rule in their favor and
continue not giving over what is ordered! This last judge was ready to hold him in contempt
for refusing to cooperate with court ordered documents.
Why did the FBI continue to investigate Trump after January when the case collapsed? To
try and find a way to impeach Trump. Remember the Washington Post headlined article right
after the inauguration "The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already
underway." The FBI "insurance" policy was essential!
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
"... Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Lula, recently freed from prison after his trial and conviction were deemed by the Supreme Court to have been a right-wing ruse, is vowing to challenge neo-Nazi president Jair Bolsonaro in the next presidential election. ..."
Trump's reinvigoration of the 19 th century imperialist Monroe Doctrine, which
Washington uses as a political lever to prevent the Western Hemisphere from adopting its own
foreign and domestic policies, has, once again, cast the United States in the light of an
oppressive overlord over the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Trump regime has returned to a Cold War playbook of color-coding Western Hemisphere
nations with red or pink for "socialist" and "communist." Falling into the "red" category are
Venezuela, which is suffering from crippling US-led economic, diplomatic, and trade sanctions,
and Nicaragua and Cuba, which are also subject to sanctions. Color-coded "pink" are Mexico and
Argentina, led by progressive presidents and which have shifted from their heretofore pro-US
stances. Argentina elected progressive leftist Alberto Fernández as president and, as
vice president, former president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The Peronista left ticket
defeated incumbent right-wing president Mauricio Macri, a one-time real estate business crony
of Trump and someone who had abused the nation's security services in a failed attempt to dig
up dirt to target former President Kirchner in a bogus corruption court case. The same
CIA-backed "lawfare" operation was used to impeach and remove from office Brazilian leftist
president Dilma Rousseff and imprison her predecessor, the wildly popular Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva. Lula, recently freed from prison after his trial and conviction
were deemed by the Supreme Court to have been a right-wing ruse, is vowing to challenge
neo-Nazi president Jair Bolsonaro in the next presidential election.
Trump and his Central Intelligence Agency's aggressive stance toward progressive hemispheric
governments have seen more transitions from the "red/pink" bloc to the fascistic and pro-US
bloc than the other direction. Ecuador has moved from the red/pink bloc to the blue as a result
of the pro-US policies of President Lenin Moreno, who served as vice president under the
leftist president Rafael Correa from 2007 to 2013. Moreno's threats against his predecessor
forced Correa to flee to political exile in Belgium. The recent right-wing coup in Bolivia was
supported by fascist leaders of Brazil and Colombia. Bolivia's democratically-elected president
Evo Morales was forced to flee to Mexico, which granted him political asylum.
The revanchist imperialism of the Trump administration has witnessed Moreno and Morales
being forced to flee the fascist "thugocracy" policies of their respective nations, which rely
on abusing the legal system to stifle dissent and imprison opposition politicians. The
governments of Chile and Peru have also firmly lined up with Washington and have engaged in
anti-opposition policies that, in the case of Chile, has led to bloodshed in the streets as a
result of brutal police actions.
A recent addition to the blue bloc from the pink/red coalition is Uruguay. After fifteen
years of rule by the left-wing Broad Front, the right-wing National Party's presidential
candidate, Luis Lacalle Pou, declared a razor-thin victory over Broad Front candidate Daniel
Martinez. One of Lacalle Pou's first decisions was to recognize the opposition Venezuelan
regime of the CIA puppet, Juan Guaido. Lacalle Pou also decided to align Uruguay with the Lima
Group, a bloc of US lackey regimes dedicated to overthrowing the Maduro government of
Venezuela. Lacalle Pou has also signaled his willingness to develop closer ties with the
Bolsonaro regime in Brazil and distance Uruguay from the Fernandez- Kirchner government of
Argentina. It is not secret that Argentina's Alberto Fernández supported the Broad
Front's Daniel Martinez for president.
Of special concern to progressive Uruguayans is the role that Lacalle Pou's coalition
partner, the Cabildo Abierto party of far-right winger Guido Manini Ríos, will play in
his government. If the CIA's lawfare operations in Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, and Bolivia are
any indication, the Cabildo Abierto elements in Lacalle Pou's government, all supporters of the
former military junta's war against leftists in the 1970s, may seek the arrest of former
leftist presidents Jose Mujica, a leader of the leftist Tupamaro guerrillas in the 1970s, and
Tabaré Vázquez. The Latin American fascist acolytes of Trump, from Bolsonaro and
Bolivian politician Luis Fernando Camacho – known as the "Bolivian Bolsonaro" – to
Manini Ríos and Colombian President Ivan Duque, all share in common a desire to imprison
and even torture and execute the leftist opposition of their respective nations.
If the fascistic foreign policy power levers of the Trump White House, CIA, and State
Department have their way, another leftist leader in South America will face prison or worse.
Suriname's leftist president Desi Bouterse was recently convicted by a military court of the
extrajudicial executions of 15 political opponents in 1982, while he served as the military
leader of the former Dutch colony.
The death of the 15 opposition leaders may have been the work of the CIA, which launched a
coup attempt against Bouterse in 1982. In December 1982, the CIA worked closely with Dutch
intelligence to establish contacts with Bouterse's opposition in Suriname, including
politicians, businessmen, and journalists. The Dutch provided assistance to former President
Henck Chin a Sen and his Amsterdam-based opposition forces. The CIA plan included landing
Surinamese rebels in Paramaribo, the Suriname capital, and seize power. There were also reports
that the CIA planned to assassinate Bouterse during the coup, a direct violation of a White
House executive order banning assassinations of foreign leaders. The CIA's chief in-country
liaison for the coup was US ambassador to Suriname Robert Duemling.
A CIA dispatch from Suriname, dated March 12, 1982, describes the CIA's hands-on involvement
in the coup against Bouterse: "Dissident military officers opposing the leftist trend of the
military leadership launched a coup yesterday, but forces loyal to the government are still
resisting. The group, calling itself the Army of National Liberation, is led by two officers
who have been associated with conservative elements of the Surinamese society . . . Although
the rebels have control of the Army's main barracks and ammunition depot in Paramaribo,
government strongman Army Commander Bouterse and troops loyal to him apparently have taken up a
defensive position in the capital's police camp some 6 kilometers away. Fighting subsided
somewhat last night, with both sides claiming to be in control and appealing for support from
military troops and citizenry. A large number of rank-and-file military, who had objected to
Bouterse's leftist policies several months ago, probably will join the dissidents if Bouterse's
position weakens further." If anyone is responsible for the deaths of the opposition figures in
1982, one does not need to look beyond CIA headquarters in Langley and its interlocutors with
the Ford Foundation in New York.
Suriname's third largest ethnic group is Javanese, people who originally were settled by the
Dutch colonizers from Indonesia. In 1982, Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who spoke
fluent Javanese, was already well-entrenched with CIA programs in Java through her employment
with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Ford Foundation. Dunham, who
used her Indonesian last name, re-spelled Sutoro from Soetoro, was a valuable asset for the
CIA's program to destabilize Suriname through its business-oriented and very anti-Bouterse
Javanese minority. Curiously, Ann Sutoro's employment contract with the Ford Foundation ended
in December 1982, the same month that the CIA attempted to oust Bouterse. During her 1981-1982
contract with the Ford Foundation, Dunham Sutoro spent much of her time liaising with the Ford
Foundation's headquarters in New York, a city that was also a base for the CIA-backed
Surinamese opposition.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Bouterse was on a state visit to China when the court delivered
its guilty verdict, along with a 20-year prison sentence. Bouterse seized power in 1980 during
an era that saw leftist leaders like Daniel Ortega and his Sandinistas, Panamanian President
Omar Torrijos, Ecuadorian President Jaime Roldos, Bolivian President Hernán Siles Zuazo,
Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley, and Grenadian Prime Minister Maurice Bishop all buck
Washington's influence in the hemisphere. Bouterse became a destabilization target of the
Ronald Reagan-George H. W. Bush administration. After stepping down from power in 1987,
Bouterse and his National Democratic Party returned to power when Bouterse was elected
president in 2010 and re-elected in 2015. In 2012, the National Assembly passed a bill that
granted Bouterse immunity from prosecution. It was later overturned by a court in another
blatant display of Washington-orchestrated lawfare. In 1999, the Dutch weighed in against
Bouterse by being convicted by a Netherlands court of drug-trafficking. Bouterse denies all the
claims against him and remains popular among the primarily Afro-Surinamese population.
The legal action against Bouterse appears to be part of the Trump administration's program
to curb China's international "Belt and Road Initiative," particularly in Latin America. Trump
has countered with his own contrivance, called the "Growth in the Americas" program. Peru has
signaled that it will join Argentina, Chile, Jamaica, and Panama in supporting the American
anti-Chinese bloc. It is clear that if Washington is able to depose Bouterse from power in
Suriname, it can prevent China from establishing a foothold in the country.
The Trump regime is attempting to move its chess pieces around on the Western hemisphere's
political chessboard. Increasingly, it will be up to exiled progressives like Correa and
Morales, as well as the recently-liberated Lula, to counter the march to fascist rule from
Tierra del Fuego to the Rio Grande.
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
Any particular American war has no purpose, but the USA waging it does. The main points of
what war does:
1. Transfers wealth from social services to the military industrial complex. Americans
don't have education, infrastructure, or healthcare, but they do have a generation of
soldiers with PTSD, national debt, worldwide hatred, and an ever increasing sense of
exceptionalism.
2. Traps Americans in a cycle of fear and persecution. Americans don't need a bogeyman,
but our corporate overlords do, its how they monetize the populace. Find some disparate
population of brown people who want self autonomy, send in the CIA to fuck them up, and when
they retaliate tell Americans that people who live in a 3rd world land locked country several
thousands of miles away are a threat to their very existence and way of life because they
don't like God and Walmart.
Sadly the US uses the MIC to keep a large chunk of its population under control, as well as
providing a convenient coverup of the actual numbers of people who are unemployable or would
be unemployed if it were'nt for the taxpayer funding humungous spending in the so-called
defence sector, which needs a a constant supply of conflict to keep going. The frankly
moronic 'thank you for your service' soundbite drives me insane but it shows how much the
American public has been brainwashed.
For years my home state of Washington had a New Deal Democrat Senator named Henry Jackson,
AKA the Senator from Boeing.
He did good things for the state & was hugely popular here. One reason being that because
he brought the Federal pork back home.
IMO the things Gen. Butler wrote about in the 1920s are still the modus operandi of US
foreign policy.
If the Afghanistan war ends, the USA will go to war with someone else. You cannot spend so
much on military & not be at war. America must have an enemy. And, don’t forget,
they always have “God on our side!”
The neocons in power during 2001 were hell bent on taking out Saddam Hussein. When 9/11
happened, they were looking for avenues to blame Iraq so that they could launch the war on
that nation. Since things could not be put together, and all evidence pointed to Afghanistan,
they took a detour in their war plan with a half hearted approach.
In fact Afghanistan was never the problem - It was Pakistan that held Afghanistan on the
string and managed all terror related activities. Everything related to 9/11 and beyond
pointed directly at Pakistan. Whatever threat Bush and his cronies projected about Iraq was
true in the case of Pakistan. The war was lost when they made Pakistan an ally on the war on
terror. It is like allying with Al Capone to crack down on the mafia.
Pakistan bilked the gullible American war planners, protected its assets and deflected all
the rage on to the barren lands of Afghanistan. They hid all key Al Qaeda operatives and
handed off the ones that did not align with their strategic interests to the US, while
getting reward for it. War in Iraq happened in a hurry because the Bush family had scores to
settle in Iraq. Pressure was lifted on Afghanistan. This is when the war reached a dead
end.
The Taliban knew time was on their hands and waited it out. Obama did understand the
situation and tried to put Af-Pak together and tightened the grip on Pakistan. He got the
troops out of Iraq. Pakistan is almost bankrupt now for its deep investment on terror
infrastructure. The US has drained billions of dollars and lives in Afghanistan due to
misdirected goals. I am surprised Bush and Cheney have not been sent to jail on lies to
launch the Iraq war and botching the real war on terror.
"... The Washington Examiner first reported Friday that lawyers for the Free Beacon -- a conservative outlet based in the nation's capital -- funded the project from fall 2015 to spring 2016, when it pulled its funding as Trump looked set to clinch the nomination. ..."
"... Washington Free Beacon ..."
"... After the Democrats took over funding of the operation in mid-2016, Fusion GPS would hire former British spy Christopher Steele and would lead to the production of the so-called "Trump dossier," filled with salacious but unconfirmed claims about how Trump was compromised by the Russians. ..."
"... The Free Beacon noted in its statement that it had "no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele." ..."
"... The Free Beacon is funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire and major GOP donor Paul Singer. The New York Times reports that Singer initially supported Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the Republican nomination, but later spearheaded a campaign to deny Trump the nomination even after Rubio dropped out of the race. ..."
"... While supporting Republican establishment favorites such as Rubio and 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Singer was a major backer of Common Core and was the founder of a super-PAC that has the express purpose of turning the GOP pro-gay marriage. ..."
"... Kristol is also the founder of the Weekly Standard, which like the Free Beacon has a neoconservative foreign policy outlook. The Free Beacon was co-founded by two former Weekly Standard writers, chairman Michael Goldfarb and editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti. ..."
The Washington Free Beacon, funded by GOP mega-donor Paul Singer, was the original funder of
Fusion GPS' research project that attempted to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump -- a
project that would later be funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's
campaign.
The Washington Examiner first
reported Friday that lawyers for the Free Beacon -- a conservative outlet based in the
nation's capital -- funded the project from fall 2015 to spring 2016, when it pulled its
funding as Trump looked set to clinch the nomination.
Lawyers for the Free Beacon informed the House Intelligence Committee of its role in the
funding on Friday. The outlet issued a statement
standing by its decision to fund the project:
Since its launch in February of 2012, the Washington Free Beacon has retained
third party firms to conduct research on many individuals and institutions of interest to us
and our readers. In that capacity, during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to
provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we
retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton.
After the Democrats took over funding of the operation in mid-2016, Fusion GPS would
hire former British spy Christopher Steele and would lead to the production of the so-called
"Trump dossier," filled with salacious but unconfirmed claims about how Trump was compromised
by the Russians.
Fusion has come under scrutiny for its
alleged ties to Russia, including the fact that many of the claims
originate from Kremlin sources -- meaning that the information came from inside the Russian
government.
The Free Beacon noted in its statement that it had "no knowledge of or connection to the
Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or
provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele."
"The Washington Free Beacon has issued a statement asserting that it had no involvement with
Christopher Steele or the dossier he compiled from Russian sources," Jack Langer, spokesman for
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Breitbart News. "The Beacon has
agreed to cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee to help the Committee verify this
assertion."
Yet, the revelation is likely to fuel questions about the role the so-called "Never Trump"
movement played in an effort that would eventually inflict damage on President Trump, and that
was possibly part of a Russian misinformation scheme.
The Free Beacon is funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire and major
GOP donor Paul Singer. The New York Times reports
that Singer initially supported Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the Republican nomination, but
later spearheaded a campaign to deny Trump the nomination even after Rubio dropped out of the
race.
While supporting Republican establishment favorites such as Rubio and 2012 presidential
candidate Mitt Romney, Singer was a major
backer of Common Core and was the
founder of a super-PAC that has the express purpose of turning the GOP pro-gay
marriage.
The Examiner reports that the Free Beacon was originally part of the 501(c)(4)
tax-exempt organization -- the Center for American Freedom -- but in 2014 became a for-profit
organization. The Center's original board of directors includes William Kristol, a prominent
"Never Trump" activist.
Kristol is also the founder of the Weekly Standard, which like the Free Beacon has a
neoconservative foreign policy outlook. The Free Beacon was co-founded by two former Weekly
Standard writers, chairman Michael Goldfarb and editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti.
***Update***
"The Washington Free Beacon has issued a statement asserting that it had no involvement with
Christopher Steele or the dossier he compiled from Russian sources," Jack Langer, spokesman for
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Breitbart News. "The Beacon has
agreed to cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee to help the Committee verify this
assertion."
TrumpAlways •
2 years ago • edited I smell McCain. Anyone else smell McCain with a little bit of
Bush in there...
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
As early as
August 2018 , there had been speculation that the Skripals were being held at USAF
Fairford airbase, based on audiovisual evidence in the background garden scene where the
interview took place. Helmer's sources (they requested anonymity) spotted a chicken coop in
the background which they say is a crow ladder trap. This is one indication that the garden
scene was located near a runway. Background noises included the roar of jet engines.
If Helmer's information is correct, then we can now understand why the British government
never gave Russian embassy staff access to the Skripals: London was in no position to do so,
the Skripals were on US territory.
One implication of this new information is that the Skripals may no longer be in Britain
and may now be living in North America somewhere with new identities. Should something happen
to them (or have happened to them already), they will not be missed by their new neighbours.
The Skripals will never be allowed to return to Russia and Sergei Skripal will never see or
be allowed to communicate with his elderly mother again.
It really does look as if Sergei Skripal may have had something to do with that Orbis
dossier after all, even if as a minor source or as a reference rather than the primary source
of disinformation about Donald Trump's past activities in Moscow. What other work has Skripal
done for his American masters?
It looks as if Sergei Skripal may not be the primary source of the disinformation in
Christopher Steele's dossier. Perhaps the person who is the primary source
is not a Russian at all.
JR | Dec 11 2019 19:41 utc | 20 brings up a revisiting of the Litvinenko polonium poisoning.
It is worth mentioning that a tiny but crucial and virtually never mentioned detail of the
official inquiry (considered the last word on the matter) is that those conducting the
official inquiry were never allowed access to the autopsy report -- which should have been
(which would have been, in any honest effort at inquiry) the bedrock starting point. The
report has right along been sequestered by Scotland Yard in the interests of... you guessed
it: national security. Go figure...
It strikes me that the best explanation of the attack on the Skripals is not that he was
responsible for the Steele Dossier in any way, but that he could easily prove that it was a
fantasy. And was planning to do so.
He knew better, though, than to say so in the UK which suggests that he was on his way
home with his daughter when MI6 caught up with him and poisoned them both.
Steele, Pablo Miller and Skripal were old partners in crime.
I'm wondering whether the mistake Sergei made was not to leave the house -- probably worth
lotsa rubles -- behind and just go. On the other hand he was almost certainly under constant
surveillance.
@50 The Official Report to which you refer was also very careful to enter extensive
caveats regarding its conclusions for which there was almost no real evidence.
It seems important to note that Mr. Lavrov refers to administrations in his
comments, not presidents per se. As there are many staff in presidential
administrations, it seems entirely possible that 1) the requests from the Russians never
reached Obama or Trump personally, and 2) either or both presidents were therefore not even
aware of the requests. In the case of Trump, that would be consistent with the fact that many
members of his administration have been revealed to have operated contrary to his wishes.
@Jen #42
The Skripals residing on US territory would definitely indicate that the US has been the
senior partner in the "Skripal operation". This seems to be part of a general pattern.
@Jackrabbit #48
For the Steele dossier to be intentional bullshit (meaning its creator(s) knew it was
false when they created it) doesn't seem all that surprising. Intelligence agencies promote
disinformation all the time. That in no way means that Trump is in on the game.
Both Putin and Lavrov have stated that they talked directly with Obama and Trump about the
issues involved with their relations, so there's no excuses or obfuscation possible is this
case.
The congress decline is now visible. Other institutions will follow.
Much depends on how long "plato oil" will hold and Seneca cliff arrives.
Notable quotes:
"... First the institutions will decline. Second, the State will decline. Third, the economy will decline and only after this "phase 3" that we'll be able to se the real desintegration of the USA. ..."
"... More probable would be the gradual secession of some States after the economy has degraded enough. I wouldn't consider the loss of one peripheral State as the formal end of the USA, but if it goes to the stage of it losing more or less the Southern States or the Midwest States, then I think some historians would use these as a useful event to mark the formal end of the USA. ..."
"... the USA will remain a very influent regional superpower for the foreseeable future. It would have to take the entire capitalist structure to fall for the USA to really enter its disintegration phase. I've talked with some Marxists, and the most optimistic of them believe the USA still has some 150-200 years of tranquil existence. Of course, we're not psychics, so they are all wild guesses. ..."
@ Posted by: Passer by | Dec 9 2019 16:39 utc | 102
Well, the only USA that matters to the rest of the world is the
USA-as-the-world's-sole-superpower. If that version of the USA disappears, then we would be
talking about a completely different geopolitical architecture ("multipolar").
The USA itself doesn't need to collapse or disintegrate for that to happen.
My opinion is that the USA is losing its "sole superpower" status, albeit at a very slow
pace. It couldn't be another way, since the USA is a nuclear superpower, so its competitors
must deactivate its hegemony slowly and gently.
I also believe the USA will disappear some day, but in a different way than the USSR.
Since the USA is a capitalist economy, it will desintegrate rather than collapse, and this
disintegration will happen more a la Roman Empire (Crisis of the Third Century and beyond)
rather than a la USSR. Capitalism has an anarchic way of producing and distributing its
wealth, resulting in a decentralized web of institutions. First the institutions will
decline. Second, the State will decline. Third, the economy will decline and only after this
"phase 3" that we'll be able to se the real desintegration of the USA.
I don't believe the USA will fall by conquest, mostly because it has MAD, second because
its geographic location favors a defensive war of its territory. More probable would be
the gradual secession of some States after the economy has degraded enough. I wouldn't
consider the loss of one peripheral State as the formal end of the USA, but if it goes to the
stage of it losing more or less the Southern States or the Midwest States, then I think some
historians would use these as a useful event to mark the formal end of the USA.
But before that, I believe the USA will remain a very influent regional superpower for
the foreseeable future. It would have to take the entire capitalist structure to fall for the
USA to really enter its disintegration phase. I've talked with some Marxists, and the most
optimistic of them believe the USA still has some 150-200 years of tranquil existence. Of
course, we're not psychics, so they are all wild guesses.
They poisoned with the USA with Russophobia for decades to come, and that really increases
the risk of nuclear confrontation, which would wipe out all this jerks, but also mass of innocent
people.
Notable quotes:
"... The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5. Not holding my breath I am afraid. ..."
"... Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better distractions). ..."
Sooner or later you'll have this, IMHO: Reaction time 7 minutes . You know,
decision-making time to say "launch" or not. The decision-maker in the White House, Downing
Street and Elysees Palace either a geriatric or one of this new multiracial breed. Just think
about those people
Add to that the level of overall expertise by the crews manning those systems, its
maintenance etc. Add increased automation of some parts of the launch process with
hardware/software as it's produced now (you know, quality control etc.).
It will take a miracle not to have that launch sooner or later. Not big, say .80 KT. What
happens after that is anybody's guess. Mine, taking the second point from the fourth
paragraph .a big bang.
The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of
their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5.
Not holding my breath I am afraid.
@peterAUS The rational actor false supposition has it that the biologics can't be used
because they don't recognize friend from foe.
Rational actors? Where? Anthrax via the US mail.
One rational actor point of view is that you have to be able to respond to anything.
Anything. In a measured or escalating response. Of course biologics are being actively
pursued to the hilt. Just like you point out about Marburg.
But, the view from above is that general panic in the population cannot be allowed, and so
all biologics have to be down played. "of course we would never do anything like that, it
would be insane to endanger all of humanity". Just like nukes. So professors pontificate
misdirection, and pundits punt.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis. "We only want the fear that results
in more appropriations. Not the fear that sinks programs." Don't generate new Church
commissions. Hence the fine line. some fear yes, other fears, no.
Well Washington D.C.
Hahahahaha sorry, couldn't resist.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis.
I don't.
But I also probably forgot more about nuclear war than most of readers here will ever
know. And chemical, when you think about it; had a kit with atropine on me all the time in
all exercises. We didn't practice much that "biologics" stuff, though. We knew why, then.
Same reason for today. Call it a "stoic option" to own inevitable demise.
Now, there is a big difference between the age of those protests I mentioned and today.
The Internet. The access to information people, then, simply didn't have.
Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real
world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better
distractions).
Well, they will care, I am sure. For about ..say in the USA ..several hours, on
average.
We here where I am typing from will care for "how to survive the aftermath" .. for two
months.Tops.
Days before Britain's historic election, the UK's military-intelligence apparatus is
turning to the corporate media and US government-funded NATO cut-outs to smear Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn with evidence-free Russiagate allegations.
Ben NORTON, Max BLUMENTHAL
The popular socialist leader of Britain's Labour Party,
Jeremy
Corbyn
, could be on the verge of becoming prime minister of the
United
Kingdom
. And the mere possibility is terrifying British intelligence services and the US
government.
Since Corbyn was elected to the head of the Labour Party in 2015, in a landslide victory after
running on a staunch leftist and anti-war platform, the
corporate
media has waged a relentless campaign
to demonize and delegitimize him.
With just days remaining before UK's national election on December 12, British intelligence
agencies and US government-backed organizations have escalated their
attacks
on Corbyn
, borrowing tactics from America's
Russiagate
hysteria
and going to great efforts to portray him -- without any substantive evidence -- as a supposed puppet of
the dastardly Kremlin.
These government-sponsored attacks on Corbyn, a lifelong anti-imperialist and former chair of the
Stop
the War Coalition
, are far from new. In December, The Grayzone reported on the
Integrity
Initiative
, a
UK
government-funded secret network
of spies, journalists, and think tanks that rehabilitated Cold
War-era information warfare to demonize Corbyn and smear anti-war leftists as Vladimir Putin's
unwitting foot soldiers.
But as polls show more and more popular enthusiasm for Labour and its socialist program on the eve
of the vote, and as the prospects of a Corbyn-led government become increasingly plausible, Western
government spooks have rapidly laundered avalanches of disinformation through the press, desperately
trying to undermine the party's electoral efforts.
Dozens of misleading hit pieces are circulating in the press that treat PSYOP specialists and
regime-change lobby groups funded to the hilt by Washington, NATO, and the weapons industry as
trustworthy and impartial.
British journalist Matt Kennard has documented at least 34 major media stories that rely on
officials from the UK military and intelligence agencies in order to
depict
Corbyn as a threat to national security
.
A powerful trans-Atlantic disinformation network sponsored by NATO-related entities and dedicated
to spreading fear about Russian meddling has set its sights on the leftist Labour leader.
Western intelligence cut-outs blame Corbyn's exposure of NHS
scandal on Russia
On November 27, the Jeremy Corbyn campaign revealed a
451-page
dossier
containing details of secret negotiations between the UK's Conservative government and the
US to privatize Britain's National Health Service (NHS) as part of the Brexit deal. The explosive
revelation put the lie to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's promise that the NHS was not up for
negotiation.
Less than a week later, a peculiar story dropped in the British media. A December 2
headline
in
the pro-Tory Telegraph blared that the NHS dossier deployed by Corbyn "points to Russia." The liberal
Guardian published a
similar
report
asserting that the leaked papers had been "put online by posters using Russian methods."
And the story
gravitated
across the Atlantic
thanks to the neoconservative Daily Beast tabloid.
In every case, the media relied on a single source to link the NHS dossier – and Corbyn himself –
to Russian interference: a supposed data consulting firm called Graphika, and its director, supposed
"information expert" Ben Nimmo.
Assuring the public that the leak of the documents "closely resembles a known Russian operation,"
Nimmo simultaneously conceded that "we do not have all the data that allows us to make a final
determination in this case."
Ben Nimmo at the DFRLab's 2018 Digital Sherlocks conference in Berlin, Germany
Not one outlet covering story bothered to inform readers who Nimmo was, or offered any detail on
the powerful state forces behind Graphika.
In fact, Nimmo is not a data expert or a journalist, but a former NATO press officer who previously
consulted for the covert Integrity Initiative propaganda farm, which was funded by the UK Foreign
Office and dedicated to spawning conflict with Russia.
Nimmo put his lack of journalistic precision on display when he launched a bungled 2018 witch-hunt
against Twitter users whose postings diverged from the NATO line, branding several real live humans as
Russian bots.
His victims included
Mariam
Susli
, a well-known Syrian-Australian social media personality, the famed Ukrainian concert
pianist
Valentina
Lisitsa
, and a British pensioner named Ian Shilling.
This April, Nimmo was hired as Director of Investigations by Graphika. Humbly
describing
itself
as "the best in the world at analyzing how online social networks form, evolve, and are
manipulated," Graphika's
partners
include
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon's Minerva Initiative, the Senate
Select Intelligence Committee, and the Syria Campaign – the billionaire-funded
public
relations arm of the Syrian White Helmets
.
Nimmo also
works
as a senior fellow
at the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) at the Atlantic Council, NATO's
unofficial think tank in Washington.
Its DFRLab was enlisted by Facebook to "identify, expose, and explain disinformation during
elections around the world," and subsequently received $1 million from Mark Zuckerberg's social media
empire to carry out its work.
Last October, with guidance from Nimmo and the Atlantic Council's DFRLab, Facebook and Twitter
deleted
the accounts of hundreds of users
, including many alternative media outlets maintained by American
citizens.
Among those targeted in the coordinated purge were popular alternative news sites that scrutinized
police brutality and militarism, along with the pages of professional
journalists
.
Now, in the UK, the Atlantic Council is injecting itself into a national election campaign,
exploiting an atmosphere of Russia hysteria that its self-styled "information experts" have helped to
stoke.
On December 6,
Reddit
announced
that its platform had been used by "suspected" Russian actors to publish the scandalous
NHS dossier that become a centerpiece of Corbyn's campaign against Johnson. As usual, the primary
source for Reddit's claim was the Atlantic Council, which it credited with "provid[ing] us with
important attribution."
Reddit's Director of Policy, Jessica Ashooh, is the Atlantic Council's former Middle East Strategy
Task Force Deputy Director, and an ex-official of the government of the United Arab Emirates. She was
hired by the social media giant in 2017, at around the same time that Senate Select Intelligence
Committee co-chair Sen. Mark Warner was
demanding
more government control
over Reddit on the grounds that it was a potential vehicle for Russian
influence.
In a 2016
column
for
Foreign Policy, Ashooh likened Donald Trump to self-proclaimed ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and
appeared to lament that "drone strikes on Trump Tower are probably not coming any time soon."
She complained that Trump was "giving voice to troubling narratives of marginalization and
disenchantment with the status quo," and chided the "elite class" for underestimating him.
Those same elite grievances have animated the campaign to destroy Corbyn, a left-wing populist
whose political views are alternately opposed to Trump's. And the same cynical tactics honed in the
paranoid passion play of Russiagate have been redeployed against the Labour leader.
In the most recent intelligence-backed assault on Corbyn, corporate media outlets have even relied
on Nazis and neo-fascist blogs as sources.
Using literal Nazi blog posts to smear Corbyn as a terrorist
sympathizer
One of the most shockingly dishonest smears of Jeremy Corbyn was published in the British tabloid
The Sun on December 7.
The story, hyperbolically titled "'
HIJACKED
LABOUR
' Ex-British intelligence officers say Jeremy Corbyn is at the centre of a hard-left
extremist network," claimed the "Labour leader's spider's web of extensive contacts stretch from
Marxist intellectuals to militant groups and illegal terror organisations."
The piece uncritically echoes the opinions of a right-wing lobby group called Hijacked Labour,
which was founded by former military intelligence officers with the express goal of ousting Corbyn and
purging the Labour Party's anti-imperialist faction.
In lieu of any actual evidence, the report relied on a graphical web created by these conservative
disgruntled ex-spies, which attempts to link Corbyn to terrorism through many degrees of separation --
and cites neo-Nazis to do so.
The conspiratorial web does not show any tangible ties between these figures, and impugns Corbyn
with vague far-right buzzwords like "global Marxism" and "postmodern neo-Marxism." The latter term is
a non-existent and paradoxical concoction of ultra-conservative pundit
Jordan
Peterson
, based on the fascist anti-Semitic myth of "
Cultural
Marxism
," which is itself rooted in Nazi Germany's propaganda on "
Cultural
Bolshevism
."
In fact, the Hijacked Labour website directly references the right-wing pundit, recommending a
Jordan Peterson lecture titled "
Postmodernism
and Cultural Marxism
." The Peterson screed was published by
The
Epoch Times
, a right-wing media outfit run by the
fascist
Chinese cult Falun Gong
, which maintains that science and race-mixing are demonic and insists
Donald Trump was sent by God to destroy the Communist Party of China.
The anti-Corbyn group of British spooks also implored readers to watch a video by Thomas DiLorenzo,
a right-wing neoliberal economist at the libertarian Mises Institute, which Hijacked Labour claims
"works against the deconstructive and destructive effects of Cultural Marxism."
Given the conspiratorial web's reliance on far-right terminology, it might not have been a surprise
that it also cited literal Nazis as a source.
Critics on Twitter quickly pointed out that the Hijacked Labour website used by the British media
to attack Corbyn cited a neo-Nazi website called Aryan Unity.
Together with this white supremacist page, the former British military intelligence officers cited
a critique of antifascists published by the far-right website The Millennium Report. This blog has run
blatantly anti-Semitic posts with titles like, "
Why
are the Jews so reviled worldwide
? Have they brought this judgment on themselves?", "
New
World Order Pledged To Jews
," and "
This
is how the 'Court Jews'
have been strategically placed into power families over millennia."
After facing backlash on social media, The Sun article was removed from the website.
And the
new
URL
for the post includes the term "legal-removal," suggesting that the publication
may have been threatened with legal action for publishing the absurd story.
But this was far from the only corporate media attack on Corbyn that relied on military
intelligence apparatus as a source.
British journalist Mark Curtis has expanded his colleague Matt Kennard's tally and shown that some
40 media stories have been published in major corporate media outlets smearing Jeremy Corbyn with the
unsubstantiated claims of British spies.
The UK's military intelligence apparatus has demonstrated a striking ability to influence
the mainstream media, stirring pseudo-scandals almost every week. Desperate to prevent the
election of the first authentically left-wing British prime minister, it is no longer
disguising its role in the assault on Corbyn.
But there is one weapon Corbyn boasts that this unelected, opaque element can only hope for: the
hearts and minds of masses of British people. And this December 12, the people get to decide.
thegrayzone.com
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Tags:
Jeremy Corbyn
Mass Media
United Kingdom
United States
Print this article
December 9, 2019 |
Editor's Сhoice
US and UK Military-Intelligence Apparatus Campaigns to Destroy Jeremy Corbyn
Days before Britain's historic election, the UK's military-intelligence apparatus is
turning to the corporate media and US government-funded NATO cut-outs to smear Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn with evidence-free Russiagate allegations.
Ben NORTON, Max
BLUMENTHAL
The popular socialist leader of Britain's Labour Party,
Jeremy
Corbyn
, could be on the verge of becoming prime minister of the
United
Kingdom
. And the mere possibility is terrifying British intelligence services and the US
government.
Since Corbyn was elected to the head of the Labour Party in 2015, in a landslide victory
after running on a staunch leftist and anti-war platform, the
corporate
media has waged a relentless campaign
to demonize and delegitimize him.
With just days remaining before UK's national election on December 12, British intelligence
agencies and US government-backed organizations have escalated their
attacks
on Corbyn
, borrowing tactics from America's
Russiagate
hysteria
and going to great efforts to portray him -- without any substantive evidence -- as a supposed
puppet of the dastardly Kremlin.
These government-sponsored attacks on Corbyn, a lifelong anti-imperialist and former chair of
the
Stop the War Coalition
,
are far from new. In December, The Grayzone reported on the
Integrity
Initiative
, a
UK
government-funded secret network
of spies, journalists, and think tanks that rehabilitated
Cold War-era information warfare to demonize Corbyn and smear anti-war leftists as Vladimir
Putin's unwitting foot soldiers.
But as polls show more and more popular enthusiasm for Labour and its socialist program on
the eve of the vote, and as the prospects of a Corbyn-led government become increasingly
plausible, Western government spooks have rapidly laundered avalanches of disinformation through
the press, desperately trying to undermine the party's electoral efforts.
Dozens of misleading hit pieces are circulating in the press that treat PSYOP specialists and
regime-change lobby groups funded to the hilt by Washington, NATO, and the weapons industry as
trustworthy and impartial.
British journalist Matt Kennard has documented at least 34 major media stories that rely on
officials from the UK military and intelligence agencies in order to
depict
Corbyn as a threat to national security
.
A powerful trans-Atlantic disinformation network sponsored by NATO-related entities and
dedicated to spreading fear about Russian meddling has set its sights on the leftist Labour
leader.
Western intelligence cut-outs blame Corbyn's exposure of
NHS scandal on Russia
On November 27, the Jeremy Corbyn campaign revealed a
451-page
dossier
containing details of secret negotiations between the UK's Conservative government
and the US to privatize Britain's National Health Service (NHS) as part of the Brexit deal. The
explosive revelation put the lie to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's promise that the NHS was not
up for negotiation.
Less than a week later, a peculiar story dropped in the British media. A December 2
headline
in
the pro-Tory Telegraph blared that the NHS dossier deployed by Corbyn "points to Russia." The
liberal Guardian published a
similar
report
asserting that the leaked papers had been "put online by posters using Russian
methods." And the story
gravitated
across the Atlantic
thanks to the neoconservative Daily Beast tabloid.
In every case, the media relied on a single source to link the NHS dossier – and Corbyn
himself – to Russian interference: a supposed data consulting firm called Graphika, and its
director, supposed "information expert" Ben Nimmo.
Assuring the public that the leak of the documents "closely resembles a known Russian
operation," Nimmo simultaneously conceded that "we do not have all the data that allows us to
make a final determination in this case."
Ben Nimmo at the DFRLab's 2018 Digital Sherlocks conference in Berlin, Germany
Not one outlet covering story bothered to inform readers who Nimmo was, or offered any detail
on the powerful state forces behind Graphika.
In fact, Nimmo is not a data expert or a journalist, but a former NATO press officer who
previously consulted for the covert Integrity Initiative propaganda farm, which was funded by
the UK Foreign Office and dedicated to spawning conflict with Russia.
Nimmo put his lack of journalistic precision on display when he launched a bungled 2018
witch-hunt against Twitter users whose postings diverged from the NATO line, branding several
real live humans as Russian bots.
His victims included
Mariam
Susli
, a well-known Syrian-Australian social media personality, the famed Ukrainian concert
pianist
Valentina
Lisitsa
, and a British pensioner named Ian Shilling.
This April, Nimmo was hired as Director of Investigations by Graphika. Humbly
describing
itself
as "the best in the world at analyzing how online social networks form, evolve, and
are manipulated," Graphika's
partners
include
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon's Minerva Initiative, the
Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and the Syria Campaign – the billionaire-funded
public
relations arm of the Syrian White Helmets
.
Nimmo also
works
as a senior fellow
at the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) at the Atlantic Council,
NATO's unofficial think tank in Washington.
Its DFRLab was enlisted by Facebook to "identify, expose, and explain disinformation during
elections around the world," and subsequently received $1 million from Mark Zuckerberg's social
media empire to carry out its work.
Last October, with guidance from Nimmo and the Atlantic Council's DFRLab, Facebook and
Twitter
deleted
the accounts of hundreds of users
, including many alternative media outlets maintained by
American citizens.
Among those targeted in the coordinated purge were popular alternative news sites that
scrutinized police brutality and militarism, along with the pages of professional
journalists
.
Now, in the UK, the Atlantic Council is injecting itself into a national election campaign,
exploiting an atmosphere of Russia hysteria that its self-styled "information experts" have
helped to stoke.
On December 6,
Reddit
announced
that its platform had been used by "suspected" Russian actors to publish the
scandalous NHS dossier that become a centerpiece of Corbyn's campaign against Johnson. As usual,
the primary source for Reddit's claim was the Atlantic Council, which it credited with
"provid[ing] us with important attribution."
Reddit's Director of Policy, Jessica Ashooh, is the Atlantic Council's former Middle East
Strategy Task Force Deputy Director, and an ex-official of the government of the United Arab
Emirates. She was hired by the social media giant in 2017, at around the same time that Senate
Select Intelligence Committee co-chair Sen. Mark Warner was
demanding
more government control
over Reddit on the grounds that it was a potential vehicle for
Russian influence.
In a 2016
column
for
Foreign Policy, Ashooh likened Donald Trump to self-proclaimed ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
and appeared to lament that "drone strikes on Trump Tower are probably not coming any time
soon."
She complained that Trump was "giving voice to troubling narratives of marginalization and
disenchantment with the status quo," and chided the "elite class" for underestimating him.
Those same elite grievances have animated the campaign to destroy Corbyn, a left-wing
populist whose political views are alternately opposed to Trump's. And the same cynical tactics
honed in the paranoid passion play of Russiagate have been redeployed against the Labour leader.
In the most recent intelligence-backed assault on Corbyn, corporate media outlets have even
relied on Nazis and neo-fascist blogs as sources.
Using literal Nazi blog posts to smear Corbyn as a
terrorist sympathizer
One of the most shockingly dishonest smears of Jeremy Corbyn was published in the British
tabloid The Sun on December 7.
The story, hyperbolically titled "'
HIJACKED
LABOUR
' Ex-British intelligence officers say Jeremy Corbyn is at the centre of a hard-left
extremist network," claimed the "Labour leader's spider's web of extensive contacts stretch from
Marxist intellectuals to militant groups and illegal terror organisations."
The piece uncritically echoes the opinions of a right-wing lobby group called Hijacked
Labour, which was founded by former military intelligence officers with the express goal of
ousting Corbyn and purging the Labour Party's anti-imperialist faction.
In lieu of any actual evidence, the report relied on a graphical web created by these
conservative disgruntled ex-spies, which attempts to link Corbyn to terrorism through many
degrees of separation -- and cites neo-Nazis to do so.
The conspiratorial web does not show any tangible ties between these figures, and impugns
Corbyn with vague far-right buzzwords like "global Marxism" and "postmodern neo-Marxism." The
latter term is a non-existent and paradoxical concoction of ultra-conservative pundit
Jordan
Peterson
, based on the fascist anti-Semitic myth of "
Cultural
Marxism
," which is itself rooted in Nazi Germany's propaganda on "
Cultural
Bolshevism
."
In fact, the Hijacked Labour website directly references the right-wing pundit, recommending
a Jordan Peterson lecture titled "
Postmodernism
and Cultural Marxism
." The Peterson screed was published by
The
Epoch Times
, a right-wing media outfit run by the
fascist
Chinese cult Falun Gong
, which maintains that science and race-mixing are demonic and
insists Donald Trump was sent by God to destroy the Communist Party of China.
The anti-Corbyn group of British spooks also implored readers to watch a video by Thomas
DiLorenzo, a right-wing neoliberal economist at the libertarian Mises Institute, which Hijacked
Labour claims "works against the deconstructive and destructive effects of Cultural Marxism."
Given the conspiratorial web's reliance on far-right terminology, it might not have been a
surprise that it also cited literal Nazis as a source.
Critics on Twitter quickly pointed out that the Hijacked Labour website used by the British
media to attack Corbyn cited a neo-Nazi website called Aryan Unity.
Together with this white supremacist page, the former British military intelligence officers
cited a critique of antifascists published by the far-right website The Millennium Report. This
blog has run blatantly anti-Semitic posts with titles like, "
Why
are the Jews so reviled worldwide
? Have they brought this judgment on themselves?", "
New
World Order Pledged To Jews
," and "
This
is how the 'Court Jews'
have been strategically placed into power families over millennia."
After facing backlash on social media, The Sun article was removed from the
website. And the
new
URL
for the post includes the term "legal-removal," suggesting that the
publication may have been threatened with legal action for publishing the absurd
story.
But this was far from the only corporate media attack on Corbyn that relied on
military intelligence apparatus as a source.
British journalist Mark Curtis has expanded his colleague Matt Kennard's tally and shown that
some 40 media stories have been published in major corporate media outlets smearing Jeremy
Corbyn with the unsubstantiated claims of British spies.
The UK's military intelligence apparatus has demonstrated a striking ability to
influence the mainstream media, stirring pseudo-scandals almost every week.
Desperate to prevent the election of the first authentically left-wing British prime
minister, it is no longer disguising its role in the assault on Corbyn.
But there is one weapon Corbyn boasts that this unelected, opaque element can only hope for:
the hearts and minds of masses of British people. And this December 12, the people get to
decide.
Trump is right about the NATO members inadequate military spending; the US expects NATO
members to spend 2% of their GDP on their own defence, the US however, does not require them
to purchase American made weapons, they can produce their own weapons, like French do, or buy
from each other like Germans -- they just have to make their military up and ready in case of
emergency, that's not an unreasonable expectation.
Among the NATO members however, Canada's case is unique; due to its closeness and joint
high command (NORAD) with the US -- and direct threat from Russian claim on the Canadian
Arctic, Canada needs and must increase its military spending significantly, Canada should
purchase modern Air force fleet, Advanced Surveillance equipment, Warships and Submarines for
the defence of the Arctic; F-35, F-22, AH-64 Apache, Nuclear powered Icebreaker and
Submarines etc. because all these equipment will we be partially built in Canada which bring
many high tech jobs and economic growth to the Canadian communities.
Trump is right, NATO and Canada should spend much more on their own defence, and buying
American advanced weapons is the best strategic choice for the Canadians forces, there
shouldn't be any doubt about that.
LOL to the first comment, Russia is *zero* threat to Canada ** . Russia is zero threat to the
US or Europe either. NATO has long outlived its purpose and needs to die.
** I suppose Russia could claim the north pole, and threaten to hold Santa hostage.
@Jmaie
Russian annexation of Crimea was a blatant assault on the International Law, yet it went off
without serious consequences to Russia -- it's not a secret that Russia has claims on
Canadian Arctic seabed, Russia has already planted its flag on the Arctic seabed; here is a
Link that you should want to see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctic
I'd really be interested to understand how on earth the reintegration, by overwhelming
majority in a plebiscite acknowledged by all sides as free and unconstrained, of Crimea, a
Russian province for 300+ years, and a majority-Russian area for quite a long time, is "a
blatant assault on the International Law".
The "International Law" you quote must be a newcomer.
"I'd really be interested to understand how on earth "
It is very easy to understand. As Upton Sinclair observed "It is difficult to get a man to
understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Alistair repeats typical neocon viewpoint. Nothing original here. Neocons make their
living off threat inflation and this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact.
Fiona Hill is a shining recent example here -- this intellectual prostitute of MIC is a
member of Brookings Institution, Atlantic Council and other MIC lobbing organization that
promote Cold War 2 and neoliberal globalization.
The real question is "Why we should believe any of these chickenhawks?" They has been
proven liars so many times that they deserve the rotten tomatoes to be thrown at them on any
of their public appearances or, which is sadly impossible, at their Internet posts
But again money do not smell: unless neocons start facing very real and very personal
consequences, nothing will change. And like with any sect there is small number of
intellectually deficient people who still believe them.
3. Restrainers Want Realistic Foreign Policy Goal s. Instead of engaging in
costly and futile efforts to remake the world in our image, restrainers want U.S. foreign
policy to pursue more feasible objectives. The U.S. military must be strong enough to deter
attacks on the U.S. homeland, a task that is relatively easy to accomplish. When necessary,
the United States can also help other states uphold the balance of power and deter war in a
few key strategic areas outside the Western Hemisphere. America's economic clout will also
give Washington considerable influence over the institutions that manage trade, investment
and other beneficial forms of international cooperation, and it should use that influence
to ensure these institutions are working properly. But the United States has neither the
need, the capacity, nor the wisdom to conduct massive social engineering projects
("nation-building") in deeply divided and conflict prone societies, and it should cease
trying.
4. Restrainers Want Credible Foreign Commitments . The United States keeps taking
on new security obligations in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but it rarely
debates their wisdom or value. Americans are now formally committed to defending more
countries around the world than at any time in U.S. history, even though some of these
states are hard to defend, have little strategic importance for the United States, and
sometimes act in ways that damage U.S. interests. Washington is also engaged in less
visible military activities in dozens of other countries, some of them shrouded in secrecy.
Yet anytime U.S. leaders contemplate trimming these obligations, alarmists warn that the
slightest reduction in America's global presence will undermine U.S. credibility, embolden
rivals, and lead to catastrophe. Having allowed itself to become overextended, the United
States ends up fighting endless wars in places with no strategic value in order to convince
allies and adversaries that it will still fight in places of greater importance.
The sooner the EU & Europe generally either discard NATO or create its own defence
force in parallel with NATO, the better.
Europe MUST take control of its own destiny. It can not have an external nation, the US,
with different, if not opposing interests, dictating European policy & action.
The “Russia” situation is a perfect example of this divergence of interests.
Europe’s future clearly lies with greater Eurasian integration. Energy, primary
products, & mercantile trade all lie to the East, through Russia to China, Vietnam etc.
Notably, some countries such as Italy are already pulling away from official EU policy &
turning East.
Unfortunately, The US has bribed & threatened (many) EU leaders, leaders who
couldn’t even imagine a change to the status quo. Thankfully, though, it seems that
many average Europeans are sick to their back-teeth with the status quo & Europe’s
“evermore” subservience to US imperialism.
German tax-payers, like most other Europeans, see no need to spend billions of
hard-earned euros against a non-existent threat from the East.
They don’t even want to spend their money turning back the actual threats spilling
across their borders, but climate change is way up there on the agenda. De-industrialised
Europe chock-full of third-world denizens is going to be heaven on earth.
"... Primacists use the security threats that are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't stop, or in fact increase, the use of force. ..."
"... These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example, veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all parties involved. ..."
"... September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and denying this space wouldn't have prevented it. ..."
"... For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the Pacific." ..."
"... The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and importance. ..."
"... This article originally appeared on LobeLog.com . ..."
The unrivaled and unchallenged exertion of American military power around the world, or
what's known as "primacy," has been the basis for U.S. Grand Strategy over the past 70 years
and has faced few intellectual and political challenges. The result has been stagnant ideas,
poor logic, and an ineffective foreign policy. As global security challenges have evolved, our
foreign policy debate has remained in favor of primacy, repeatedly relying on a select few,
poorly conceived ideas and arguments. Primacy's greatest hits arguments are played on repeat
throughout the policy and journalism worlds and its latest presentation is in a recent
article in
the Wall Street Journal, written by its chief foreign policy correspondent, titled,
"America Can't Escape the Middle East." The piece provides a case study in how stagnant these
ideas have become, and how different actors throughout the system present them without serious
thought or contemplation.
Hyping the threat of withdrawal
The WSJ piece trotted out one of the most well-worn cases for unending American military
deployments in the region. "The 2003 invasion of Iraq proved to be a debacle," it rightly
notes. However, there's always a "but":[B]ut subsequent attempts to pivot away from the region
or ignore it altogether have contributed to humanitarian catastrophes, terrorist outrages and
geopolitical setbacks, further eroding America's standing in the world."
Primacists often warn of the dire security threats that will result from leaving Middle East
conflict zones. The reality is that the threats they cite are actually caused by the
unnecessary use of force by the United States in the first place. For example, the U.S. sends
military assets to deter Iran, only to have Iran increase attacks or provocations in response.
The U.S. then beefs up its military presence
to protect the forces that are already there. Primacists use the security threats that
are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't
stop, or in fact increase, the use of force.
These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently
ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example,
veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at
unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even
draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't
induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the
Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and
don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all
parties involved.
Terrorism safe havens
And how many times have we heard that we must defend some undefined geographical space to
prevent extremists from plotting attacks? "In the past, jihadists used havens in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Syria and Iraq to plot more ambitious and deadly attacks, including 9/11," the WSJ piece
says. "Though Islamic State's self-styled 'caliphate' has been dismantled, the extremist
movement still hasn't been eliminated -- and can bounce back."
The myth of the terrorism safe havens enabling transnational attacks on the United States
has
persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and significant scholarly research
that contradicts it. The myth persists because it provides a simple and comforting narrative
that's easy to understand. September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the
ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and
denying this space wouldn't have prevented it.
Terrorists don't need safe havens to operate, and only gain marginal increases in
capabilities by having access to them. Organizations engage in terrorism because they have such
weak capabilities in the first place. These movements are designed to operate underground with
the constant threat of arrest and execution. The Weatherman Underground in the United States
successfully carried out bombings while operating within the United States itself. The Earth
Liberation Front did the same by organizing into cells where no cell knew anything about the
other cells to prevent the identification of other members if members of one cell were
arrested. Organizations that engage in terrorism can operate with or without safe havens.
Although safe havens don't add significantly to a terrorist groups' capabilities, governing
your own territory is something completely different. ISIS is a commonly used, and misused,
example for why wars should be fought to deny safe havens. A safe haven is a country or region
in which a terrorist group is free from harassment or persecution. This is different from what
ISIS created in 2014. What ISIS had when it swept across Syria and Iraq in 2014 was a
proto-state. This gave them access to a tax base, oil revenues, and governing resources. Safe
havens don't provide any of this, at least not at substantial levels. The Islamic State's
construction of a proto-state in Syria and Iraq did give them operational capabilities they
wouldn't have had otherwise, but this isn't the same as the possible safe havens that would be
gained from a military withdrawal from Middle Eastern conflicts. The conditions of ISIS's rise
in 2014 don't exist today and the fears of an ISIS resurgence like their initial rise are
unfounded .
Credibility doesn't work how you think it works
For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always
be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America
withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea
and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the
Pacific."
Most commentators have made this claim without recognition of their own contradictions that
abandoning the Kurds in Syria would damage American credibility. They then list all the other
times we've abandoned the Kurds. Each of these betrayals didn't stop them from working with the
United States again, and this latest iteration will be the same. People don't work with the
United States because they trust or respect us, they do it because we have a common interest
and the United States has the capability to get things done. As we were abandoning the Kurds
this time to be attacked by the Turks, Kurdish officials were continuing to
share intelligence with U.S. officials to facilitate the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi because both the United States and the Kurds wanted Baghdadi eliminated and only
the United States had the capability to get it done.
Similarly, the idea that pulling out militarily in one region results in a direct chain of
events where our adversaries move into countries or areas in a completely different region is
quite a stretch of the imagination. Russia moved into Crimea because it's a strategic asset and
it was taking advantage of what it saw as an opportunity: instability and chaos in Kiev. Even
if we left troops in every conflict country we've ever been in, Russia would have correctly
assessed that Ukraine just wasn't important enough to spark a U.S. invasion. When the Soviets
withdrew from Afghanistan, did the United States invade Cuba? What alliance did the Soviets or
Chinese abandon before the United States entered the Korean War?
Assessments of credibility , especially in times of crisis (like that in Ukraine), are made
based on what leaders think the other country's interests are and the capabilities they have to
pursue those interests. There is no evidence to support -- in fact there is a lot of evidence
that contradicts -- the idea that withdrawing militarily from one region or ending an alliance
has any impact on assessments of a country's reliability or credibility.
Not all interests are created equal
Threat inflation isn't just common from those who promote a primacy-based foreign policy,
it's necessary. Indeed, as the WSJ piece claimed, "There is no avoiding the fact that the
Middle East still matters a great deal to U.S. interests."
The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need
to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists
couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve
all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and
importance. Vital interests are those that directly impact the survival of the United
States. The only thing that can threaten the survival of the United States is another powerful
state consolidating complete control of either Europe or East Asia. This would give them the
capabilities and freedom to strike directly at the territorial United States. This is why the
United States stayed in Europe after WWII, to prevent the consolidation of Europe by the
Soviets. Addressing the rise of China -- which will require some combination of cooperation and
competition -- is America's vital interest today and keeping troops in Afghanistan to prevent a
terrorism safe haven barely registers as a peripheral interest. There are U.S. interests in the
Middle East, but these interests are not important enough to sacrifice American soldiers for
and can't easily be secured through military force anyway.
Consequences
Most of these myths and arguments can be summarized by the claim that any disengagement of
any kind by the United States from the Middle East comes with consequences. This isn't entirely
wrong, but it isn't really relevant either unless compared with the consequences of continuing
engagement at current levels. We currently have 67,000 troops in the
Middle East and Afghanistan and those troops are targets of adversaries, contribute to
instability, empower hardliners in Iran, and provide continuing legitimacy to insurgent and
terrorist organizations fighting against a foreign occupation. One
article in The Atlantic argued that the problem with a progressive foreign policy
is that restraint comes with costs, almost ironically ignoring the fact that the U.S.'s current
foreign policy also comes with, arguably greater, costs. A military withdrawal, or even
drawdown, from the Middle East does come with consequences, but it's only believable that these
costs are higher than staying through the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions that inflate
such risks and costs. No wonder then that these myths have become the greatest hits of a
foreign policy that's stuck in the past.
"... When Bush and his allies used this rhetoric, they were trying to spin a war of aggression as an act of self-defense. Now it is part of an even more ludicrous effort to make supplying weapons and other military assistance to Ukraine seem as if it is vitally important to the U.S. Simply put, this is propaganda, and it isn't even very good propaganda at that. ..."
"... Obviously, we aren't going to be fighting the Russians "here" no matter what happens in this conflict. These are the sorts of irrational claims that we get after decades of irresponsible threat inflation and mistakenly assuming that every conflict in the world is somehow our business. ..."
Here is a congealing conventional wisdom around sending military assistance to Ukraine that
is as absurd as can be, and it cropped up again this morning:
"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" was extremely stupid when
applied to terrorism. It is much more stupid when applied to Russia, and shows how
impoverished the FP thinking of even bright, engaged Americans is. My goodness.
It is discouraging to see that one of the dumbest talking points from the Bush era has
returned. "Fight them there" was always a silly justification for waging unnecessary wars in
other countries, and now it is being repurposed to justify the questionable policy of throwing
weapons at a conflict in Europe. When it was used in the context of Bush-era wars, it was an
attempt to make what were clearly wars of choice seem as though they were unavoidable. When a
government needs to defend a bad policy, it will usually claim that they have no choice but to
do what they are doing.
When Bush and his allies used this rhetoric, they were trying to spin a
war of aggression as an act of self-defense. Now it is part of an even more ludicrous effort to
make supplying weapons and other military assistance to Ukraine seem as if it is vitally
important to the U.S. Simply put, this is propaganda, and it isn't even very good propaganda at
that.
I have written many times why I think it is a mistake to arm Ukraine. It just encourages
escalation at worst and the prolongation of the conflict at best. Until recently, the arguments
in favor of doing this have not been very compelling, but at least they weren't quite so
mindless. Needless to say, Russia's conflict with Ukraine is a local one, and the U.S. doesn't
have much at stake in that conflict. Ukrainians aren't fighting Russia and its proxies on our
behalf or to prevent them from attacking someone else, but for the sake of their own country.
If Russia hawks insist on providing Ukraine with weapons and other assistance, they should at
least be able to acknowledge that this is a peripheral interest of the United States.
Exaggerating the importance of this policy to U.S. security just calls attention to how little
it matters to U.S. security.
Obviously, we aren't going to be fighting the Russians "here" no matter what happens in this
conflict. These are the sorts of irrational claims that we get after decades of irresponsible
threat inflation and mistakenly assuming that every conflict in the world is somehow our
business.
From page 12 of Martyanov's RRMA, " people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, none of whom had spent a
day serving in cadre officer uniform "
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years and retired from the Navy Reserve as a full
Captain.
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years
A Tracker, in 1950s for a couple of years, while having a degree in Political Science. That sure qualifies him for making strategic
decisions, right? Especially in the 21st century. Well, we all saw results, didn't we?
@Jim Christian Jim, a lot of truth in what you say. But especially this:
As for the military? A reflection of our society. When I went into the Navy in 1975, it was Stars and Stripes and we served
in large part for Mom, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.
Here is a quote from one of Russian undercover intelligence assets which was outed when Anna Chapman was outed. Unlike her,
however, this guy was a real deal. Here is what he had to say recently about US:
What is THEIR weakness? As enemies these guys are mediocrities, second rate. They overate. Their previous generation was
stronger. They respected us, we respected them. We don't respect these ones,they didn't deserve it. They can bully, as for
the real fight–we'll see about that They are enraged that soon they will have to live within their means.They forgot how to
do so long time ago. That is why they want to solve a problem with us now, while others are still afraid of them.
I remember 70s and 80s clearly, being myself a Cold Warrior, these were different times. many different people. Today, as you
say, I see decay everywhere in everything, the country (the US) was literally robbed, people blinded and all for a reasons of
bottom line in "business" and for Israel's, Saudi and corporate interests. The America I encountered in 1990s is gone.
The threat to US official impunity panics the regime more than any number of Russian
Sarmats or nuclear ramjets. The ICC is one very new judicial forum, and its halting efforts
to get its institutional footing panicked the US into imposing illegal sanctions on
accredited diplomats. The real threat of the Rome Statute is the universal obligation to
prosecute or extradite war criminals and enemies of humanity.
An increasing number of the most influential US functionaries will be unable to travel
freely. This is, in effect, pariah-state status more abject than North Korea's. This has been
a mounting challenge for years – GW Bush fled Switzerland, scared off by a war crimes
accusation from a single legislator.
And international criminal law is one jaw of a pincer. It complements the doctrine of
state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. State responsibility provides the
civil equivalent of international criminal law, with the potential to impose restitution,
reparation, satisfaction, and compensation with interest. Satisfaction articulates directly
with international criminal law by providing for prosecution of designated criminals. The
US faces insupportable liabilities for its internationally wrongful acts, and US
functionaries know that any one of them could be sacrificed to get the regime off the
hook.
Russian policy is to enforce this law at gunpoint. Iranian policy is to make its case in
independent international courts. China is vocal about upholding rule of law, and as its
deterrent improves, it will be increasingly active in applying it. The G-192 – 96% of
the world's population – pitches in by withholding the "waterfall" of G-5 privileges.
The UK recently got pushed off the ICJ bench for the first time ever for its lawless conduct.
The US is next.
The US is an underdeveloped country ineffectually waving second-rate weapons. The world is
leaving it behind.
For the past two centuries and, particularly the last three decades, direct foreign military
intervention in the affairs of ostensibly sovereign and independent states has been perhaps the
most consistent and destructive common denominator that shapes our region's worsening
condition. Direct warfare by foreign powers almost always paves the way for decades, if not
centuries, of continuing instability -- whether in the cases of Napoleon in 1798, the Soviet
Union and the United States in Afghanistan in the decades after 1979, the U.S. in Iraq in 2003,
or Russia, Iran, and seemingly half the world in Syria since 2015.
Direct foreign military attacks or other "security" activities inside Middle East lands
inevitably create traumatic local power imbalances that portend chronic local ideological
conflicts, and spark resentments and resistance to the foreign invader or to the invader's
local ruling ally. Foreign invaders also create local authority vacuums that open the door for
other states to intervene (see Iraq, Syria, and Libya), and also create the ideal spawning
ground for radical, militant, resistance, or terrorist movements of all stripes. Israel
repeatedly encountered this instinctive local resistance to its predatory militarism in Lebanon
and Gaza, as did the U.S. and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and the U.S. and its allies in
Iraq.
Almost nothing good emerges from direct foreign militarism in the Middle East, and even when
the fighting stops surreptitious foreign support to local warring parties also perpetuates
tensions and clashes, which only spur economic waste, corruption, collapse, and widespread
poverty and suffering among the citizenry.
It is clear now that foreign militarism plays a destructive and sustained role in the two
biggest problems that now tear apart much of the Arab region (and also touch on non-Arab
Mideast states like Iran, Turkey and Israel). The first is mass pauperization that now sees
over two-thirds of all Arab citizens living in poverty or vulnerability, in states that have
reached or approach bankruptcy and allow citizens no meaningful political rights. This will get
much worse because all prevailing economic trends that could counter it are flat or negative
(trade, tourism, direct investment, remittances, job creation).
The second problematic big regional trend -- very much states' reactions to their citizens'
helpless pauperization -- is the growing militarization and securitization of governance. This
is evident in bloated military and security budgets that are controlled by a handful of
unelected, unaccountable leaders, and expanded use of anti-terrorism laws since September 2011
to deter or imprison domestic political foes, or prevent any independent political expression
by the public (see Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain). Foreign militarism since the 1940s
has inevitably promoted local military rule within Arab states. The incompetence, autocracy,
and corruption of Arab military rulers since the 1970s have driven economies into the ground,
and sparked the nonstop street uprisings we witness today across the region.
The centuries of cumulative interventions by foreign powers inside Arab states reached a new
peak in the past eight years in Syria, where dozens of foreign and regional actors that joined
the fray inside the country charted new ground in the historical legacy that had mostly seen
big power, usually Western and colonial, interventions in the region's affairs.
Of course Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Persian, and other imperial dominance in
the region across time all played a role in defining the Middle East as a frontline battlefield
in the recurring waves of global imperial dominance and cultural influence. Starting in the
19th Century, however, as imperial powers started to come to terms with their imminent
historical demise, the British and the French mostly wrote the book on the ugly heritage of
battling for strategic supremacy in our region. The 20th Century saw foreign powers fight at
will in the Middle East, and also provide indirect political and "security" support to their
favorite local partners, allies, surrogates, and stooges, who kept fighting it out inside Arab
countries that proved to be only nominally sovereign and independent states.
The civil war in Syria that started in 2011 was the logical outcome of this legacy. It
mirrors other states where authority and legitimacy collapsed in the eyes of their own people,
and the sovereign control of their lands and resources succumbed to the many foreign actors
that came in to save the dying beast or bite off pieces of its carcass. Syria offers one of the
most important examples of this, given the wide variety of warring parties that joined its
several overlapping local, regional, and global wars.
The fighters in Syria included dozens of Arab states and non-state armed groups, local
militias and tribal forces, regional non-Arab powers like Iran, Turkey, Israel, and Hezbollah
and their clients, wannabe regional powers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, leading global powers
like the U.S. and Russia, second-tier powers like the U.K. and France, and a few smaller
countries around the world that joined directly or provided mercenaries mostly to win credits
with bigger Arab or foreign powers.
The eight-year war in Syria is at once a consequence and a high-water mark of sustained
foreign military interventions in the Arab region, and a harbinger of how such foreign and
local militarism will operate there for years to come. We can already see in Libya, Lebanon,
Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and scattered other corners of our troubled region several noteworthy
legacies of today's foreign militarism in Syria and its antecedents since Napoleon.
Regional and foreign powers' rolling interventions in Syria have redefined how such powers
engage across the region, where two opposing loose alliances, loosely allied with Saudi Arabia
or Iran, now face off -- each comprises Arab states, regional Arab and non-Arab powers, global
powers, and local non-state actors. The sheer number and variety of foreign forces that
directly or indirectly fought in Syria portend badly for fragile states whose illusory
sovereignty can collapse at any moment in the face of dozens of armed actors that pounce like
wolves circling a dazed gazelle. The "international community" that actively joined and fueled
the fighting also responded weakly to the alleged and real war crimes on both sides This
suggests that the "international community" is something of a fiction, but also that, whatever
it represents, it can live with the Middle East's continuing authoritarian, lawlessness, and
violent political systems -- as long as the violence, refugees, terrorists, and turmoil remain
in the Middle East.
Indeed, global and regional powers actively engage in cross-border militarism and
neo-colonialism that we can see in several arenas: Washington's support for Israeli settlements
expansion and annexations of occupied Arab lands, and its lingering presence in Syria and Iraq;
Russian and American support for Turkish incursions into northern Syria; Saudi Arabian and
Emirati moves to control parts of the south of Yemen for their own strategic aims; British and
American direct involvement in the war on Yemen; and, French, Emirati, Russian, and Egyptian
support for the rebel forces of Khalifa Haftar in Libya, to mention only the most obvious.
These are only the most current but ongoing consequences of over two centuries of non-stop
foreign military and political interference that our region has experienced, with devastating
long-term impacts. Internal and regional wars, in a climate of very high Arab military
spending, continue to propel countries back into dilapidated or vulnerable conditions every few
decades. The Arab examples of this only increase, including Lebanon, Palestine, Libya, Egypt,
Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Jordan. Non-Arab Iran, Turkey, and Israel face their own
challenges, as they simultaneously suffer the damages of external militarism and also engage in
it themselves around the region.
It is time for all foreign and regional powers to start learning the hard lessons of these
historical trends and instead seek non-violent diplomatic solutions to challenges they now
mostly address with their guns blazing. A regional population of half a billion poor and
powerless people held in check by hundreds of billions of dollars of military spending linked
to foreign troops who enter our countries at will is probably a far greater real threat to
their wellbeing than anything they can imagine today.
This is the net result of Clinton policies and neocon dominance in the USA foreign policy.
And it is not a pretty picture. It might difficult to win Russia back as an ally after those
Russiagate nonsense. They feel really offended by it and might overreact as is evident from the
test below.
I'll just say again that imbecilization is a completely normal historical phenomenon in declining empires, Empires also tend to have a very
flexible conception of truth, that is, they believe they can
fabricate reality for the simple reason they are geopolitically dominant.
The fact that the MSM have become mouthpieces for the CIA/deep state has
played a huge role in the brainwashing of academia and the rise of neoliberalism. The false
narratives these "trusted sources" of information have been serving up create a very real
Matrix, a false reality that is ingrained into those who rely upon them for their daily
"news".
It feels like the world has gone crazy. They push someone's wallet in our pocket, and then
shout "catch the thief!". We try to debunt this false flag, show surveillance footage, which
clearly shows the setup. But the continue shout in chorus - " thief, thief, thief!".
Acquaintances turn away, hide their eyes. Those "Western partners" iare numerous and they
silence our weak attempts to protest. We were driven into a corner... They try to strangulate
us with sanctions.
Unfortunately, this is our new reality. For the next decade. The question is "Why?" Because
we are a force in international arena again. We're ruining their racketeering business. We are
a vivid example that it is possible to escape the system of the global racket of which they
feed, That there is an alternative.
So now there is a player who does not wan to pay the racketeers, And he is still alive. This
means that others may not pay either. They hate such a situation, because other players may
refuse to pay, and that also means that sooner or later they might be force to live within this
own meanss. It has been a long time since they live within their means, and they completely
lost the habit of doing so. So they want to "solve" the problem with us now ones and forever,
while others are still afraid of them.
Plus they have a new gang leader. Like all newbies, he wants to be the toughest. And raises
the stakes.
Let's face the truth. They won't let us go easily. It's pointless to explain. We will be
hunted, subjected to the array of false flags, persecuted and sanctioned to death. And if they
feel the slack – they will beta us to the death, much more thoroughly then they did in
1990th. The question of whether this can be avoided is no longer worth asking. Today we have
one question – how to survive the next two decades?
We need finally exhale and turn on the brain... The key to victory, as Sun Tzu wrote –
is in knowing the enemy and knowing yourself.
What is their strength?
First, there are many. And they have money. They can buy everything, including witnesses and
judges. We'll be blamed for for anything; they will attack and we will be framed as the
attacker.
Second, they scream loudly. In chorus. That control world mass communications. And their
propaganda works. It is useless to argue otherwise. All our arguments are useless. They will
fall of death ear and will be ignored. Nobody will question their validity -- they will be
simply swipe under the carpet. No matter how ridiculous is their "version of events" is
(Skripals, Russiagate, Ukrainegate) the label "the guilty party" is already put on us like a
yellow patch on the Jews in Nazi Germany. Before any investigation or God forbid judicial
process. And most people on the planet still take their word for it.
What is their weakness?
As opponents these guys, I mean their neoliberal elites are the second grade; they belong to
the "grey zone", the zone of mediocrity. Too greedy, too arrogant, and too lazy. Sometime
semi-senile. Their previous generation was much stronger. They respected us. And we them.
We do not respect this new neoliberal elite and they feel that. And we don't respect them
because such mediocrities do not deserve our respect, and are not trustworthily partner. They
generally can be classified as "Unable to adhere to any legal treaties" (Nedogovorosposobnie")
. And that scares us, almost to death, because you need to deal with completely unpredictable,
bizarre partner for whom treaties and agreements are not worth the paper they were printed on.
But they will avoid open fight, unless the success guaranteed. We need to ensure that such
situation never occur.
Their nervousness, their fidgeting, their second-rateness now is staring to be felt by other countries who would
prefer to hedge their bet and join only a sure winner. They see that the outcome of the USA quest for Full Spectrum Dominance is not yet
decided.
In addition, our opponents are now engaged in brutal showdown with each other. Western
Europe recovered and became competitor of the USA. They also are openly laughing over their new chief. Half of the major
Europium countries leadership probably hates him. For how long he can stay in
power is completely unclear. But this is a new and unexpected development. .
And those in the second row, the stooges, are generally ready to escape from this virtual
battlefield. It became too expensive to catch hot potatoes for Uncle Sam as the amount of loot
for partners shrunk dramatically. And problems with neoliberalism at home mounted. Neoliberal
chickens start coming to roost. They were promised money and a share of loot, not a beating in a real fight
with a strong determined opponent.
What is our strength?
First of all we no longer have any illusions about the the USA or West in general, illusions
that cost us so dearly in 1990th. They are predators who want to colonize, fleece and dismember
our nation. An having no illusions means that they can't repeat economic rape they committed in
1990th. Now we know what awaits us if we give up. They'll devour us completely. Those gangsters
will kick the lying opponent with feet until he is dead. They won't let us survive a second
time.
We also have a grenade as the last resort. They know it, and they're terrified we'll pull
the pin.
They don't understand how we can be defeated, so they try new ways to make us surrender
without a fight. Looking for a weak spot.
What is our weakness?
Our first problem is that we are alone. We are a big and clumsy country with a lot of
internal problems and convoluted history. Which refuse to became the USA vassal. We were a difficult neighbor in the past. Some
people are afraid of us because or our past.
Our second and main problem is the lack of money for economic reconstruction. We don't have enough money for the restoration of the
economy and the standard of living of our people after 1990th rape to the level we deserve as
the major European country. Say the level the Germany managed to achieve, despite being
defeated in WWII. And nobody is going to help us, at least on acceptable conditions. They will
try to slow down our economic development by all mean possible. that's why they already imposed
sanctions under bogus pretext. They will impose more to slow down the process. They will
manipulate oil prices and engage us in "gas wars." If we can solve this problem and restore the
economy and the standard of living of people after 1990 collapse other problems will be easier
to take on.
Also a nice thing about having money is that you instantly have a lot of fiends ;-) At
once.
Now some panoramic view on the situation like in oil painting.
First of all out willingness to fight back is a guarantee that they will not get into a real
fight. We need to hold out for the next ten-twenty years or so. I think this is what we can
expect for neoliberalism to last before the collapse.
But that doesn't solve all our problems. We need that they stop punching us with new
sanctions. Better forever but, at least for the next twenty years. Until their racket finally
falls apart.
So the second goal is to earn to earn money need to reconstruction of the economy and
creating first class infrastructure. Which will allow us to grow. and we need to do this while
there is time. That probably means that invest our money in growth and stop saving "for a rainy
day" in US treasures and Western banks. Otherwise, this rainy day may come in a very unexpected
fashion and way too soon: money will simply be confiscated as long as they can do it with
impunity.
Andrey Bezrukov is the associate Professor of the chair of applied analysis of
international problems, MGIMO
"... Today USA even is no more an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything negotiated by a rival spider. ..."
US political "elites" are generally appallingly incompetent in matters of war and are
"educated" mostly through Hollywood and Clansiesque "literature". I am not even sure that
they comprehend what Congressional Research Service prepares for them as compressed
briefings. Neocon wing of US political elite is simply mentally inadequate.
Very true, especially the part about "Hollywood and Clansiesque 'literature.'" I used to
read Clancy's books and, while entertaining, in retrospect they appear ridiculous, even
childish. But they probably capture the popular notion of American military invincibility
better than any other.
Most of Hollywood's output is garbage anyway, and its grasp of real war and military
matters appears to be that of a not so precocious third grader.
Katyn, whoever did it, was much before Cold War and before even first relatively small
nuclear blast.
And if you want to go that far – why not remember crisis over West Berlin, where
tank armees were watching one another, but no one pulled trigger?
Afghanistan was attacking one's own ally. Same as Prague 1968 and Hungary 1956.
If you want to compare – that is like USA invading Panama to remove their no longer
reliable puppet Norriega.
Did American attack on their own Panama risk USSR going ballistic? Hardly so. There was no Soviet invasion into Pakistan nor there was Chinese/American invasion into
India.
And looking away from purely military events, there was no attempt to arrest the whole
embassy stuff them, neither in Moscow nor in DC. No killing Soviet ambassadors in NATO states
during official events.
Those dirty games had red lines, both sides maintained. Today? Today USA even is no more
an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution
any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything
negotiated by a rival spider.
> deploying conventional anti-ballistic missile defenses around their most important
cities.
No, by then effective treaty both USSR and USA had only ONE region they were allowed to
protect.
Those were some nuclear launchpads in USA i guess, and one single city (Moscow) in USSR. No
more.
> deterrence [did not] worked > See the last phrase in bullet 2.
You suppose USSR killed itself trying to keep deterrence working.
That does not show it did not work, already.
That shows it worked so well (at least from Soviet perspective) that they gambled all they
had on the futile effort of keeping that deterrence working into the future.
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country, they
will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They will
not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war. -- John
Turner, 1922
Still it is true that Morales clings to power for too long... Generally the problem of the successor is almost an
irresolvable problem for left wing LA governments.
Economists' and statisticians' sign-on letter regarding the Bolivian elections
We the undersigned call for Bolivia's democratic institutions and processes to be
respected.
The Trump administration has openly and strongly supported the military coup of November
10 that overthrew the government of President Evo Morales. Everyone agrees that Morales was
democratically elected in 2014, and that his term does not end until January 22; yet many
outside of the Trump administration seem to accept the Trump-supported military coup.
Many people who supported the coup have claimed that Morales stole the election. This
story of fraud was given a very big boost by a statement issued by the Organization of
American States the day after the October 20 election, which it subsequently repeated in
similar forms. The statement, from the OAS Electoral Observation Mission for Bolivia,
announced "deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend
of the preliminary results after the closing of the polls." No evidence in support of this
statement was included. However, it was widely interpreted as an allegation of fraud, and
such allegations became common in the largest media since the election.
In fact, it is easy to show with election data, which is publicly available, that the
change in Morales' lead was neither "drastic" nor "hard to explain." There was a pause in the
"quick count" of the vote results -- when 84 percent of the votes were counted -- and
Morales' lead was at 7.9 percentage points. At 95 percent, his margin had increased to just
over 10 percent, which allowed Morales to win in the first round, without a runoff. By the
end, the official count showed a lead of 10.6 percent.[1]
It is not uncommon for election results to be skewed by location, which means that results
can change depending on when different areas' votes get counted. No one argued that there was
fraud in Louisiana's November 16 gubernatorial election, when the Democratic candidate John
Bel Edwards, pulled out a 2.6 percentage point victory, after being behind all night, because
he won 90 percent of the vote in Orleans County, which came in at the end of the count.
And the change in Morales' lead was not "drastic" at all; it was part of a steady,
continuous increase in Morales' lead for hours before the interruption.
This graph shows that the lead held by President Evo Morales (light blue dots) and by his
party in parliamentary elections (dark blue dots) rose at a steady rate for most of the vote
counting. There was no sudden surge at the end to put him over the 10 percent threshold.
The explanation for the increase in Morales' margin was therefore quite simple: the
later-reporting areas were more pro-Morales than earlier-reporting areas.
In fact, the final result was quite predictable on the basis of the first 84 percent of
votes reported. This has been shown through statistical analysis and also by even simpler
analysis of the differences in political preferences between later and earlier-reporting
areas.
We call upon the OAS to retract its misleading statements about the election, which have
contributed to the political conflict and served as one of the most-used "justifications" for
the military coup. We ask the Congress of the United States to investigate this behavior of
the OAS, and to oppose the military coup, the Trump administration's continuing support for
it, and the continuing violence and human rights violations of the de facto government.
Media outlets and journalists also have a responsibility to seek independent experts who
are at least familiar with the election data and can offer an independent analysis of what
happened, rather than simply take the word of OAS officials who have now repeatedly shown to
be wrong about this election.
Many lives may depend on getting this story straight.
This list tells quite a story. It deserves a name such as "US History Written in Blood," but
more ironically and yet sufficient would be "An Inconvenient List." In any case, mass murder
for fun and profit has defined war throughout the entire history of humankind. That in the
modern era of late that the US has pioneered rentier capitalism as a means of extracting
profits from the industrial war machine is a matter of the natural evolution of state
sanctioned murder, far better at returning profits to investors than the mere slaughter of
stone age natives to steal their land.
OTOH, pacifism is indeed an aberration of political thought, not necessarily an unwarranted
aberration, yet one that should be subject to close inspection for its bona fides. My
Cherokee ancestors inform me to always be suspect of the good intentions of white men
claiming that they despise war.
Pacifism for me is individual. I was a cold warrior (pacifist not!) from '72 to '85 when I
went from supporting operating weapons to the "dark side" in weapons development, which a lot
was also nuclear related.
It's pretty obvious that Team Pelosi is more concerned with the affairs of the Empire,
even though she has no constitutional responsibility. than for the welfare of the American
people. The focus of the impeachment hearing on American policy in Ukraine is further
evidence.
Meanwhile, I have gotten no answer to my basic question: what are the top 5 pieces of
progressive legislation that Pelosi has passed--legislation that representations can brag
about to their constituents when running in 2020? It's pretty obvious that their have been
almost none.
Yet, I have been assured by others here at EV that our two party representative political
system is not merely engaging in so much Kabuki theatre in order to appear relevant. Who
knew?
Outside of the fact that this fellow is a liar of monumental proportion - for instance, this
post alone contains 3 different lies - it is fundamentally untrue that BOTH parties are just
engaged in theater. One actually passes legislation to help people and to reduce the
influence of $$$. The other - as former Republican party member Norm Orenstein has pointed
out - is anti-democracy, pro-despotism and a insurgent danger with a propaganda arm.
Huh... all team Pelosi/Schumer of is rant against the US constitution, demean the congress,
disdain the office of the President and make up things about the Donald.
See the continuing resolution good through 20 Dec because Pelosi who owns the House won't
face the responsibility to try and run the US government's purse.
More selective outrage from EMichael, the partisan hack.
Sure, it's horrendous that Trump pardoned a war criminal. But let's not forget that Obama
never even prosecuted torturers ... or closed Guantanamo as promised.
As usual for EMichael and his ilk, what's a horror when their party does something, it's
perfectly acceptable when his party does it.
All these years of being a almost pacifist and now I am seeing the error in my ways.
Sometimes - hopefully increasingly less often - good people must rise up and stomp out evil.
The pardons were not just condoning war crimes - it was telling the nazi ahs in the ranks
that they can do the same domestically. The right has an army within the US. Most of the
officers are okay - but that said, they are tolerating nazis, white supremacists, oathkeepers
and dominionists in their ranks. These exceptions are to let the other nazis know they can
mass murder if the want.
"Second, reports suggest that Trump's new demands are not based on any clear U.S. military
need. This leads us to the question of how Trump arrived at the new sum being sought from
South Korea."
"Polling shows that while Americans are increasingly skeptical of the U.S. intervention
into Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans do support the United States' current engagement in the
world and its commitments to allies."
"Polling" in the current militarized liberal media is questionable as is putting one's
finger on "clear U.S. military need".
It seems the source of "clear US military need" in Japan and Korea (Germany, France, EU
part of NATO, Libya, Somalia...) is media selling the meme that the US cannot "trust" them to
maintain the US" "rules based world order".
"Trust" an excuse to shoulder the "white man's burden".
Besides there are a lot of Lockheed coupons to be clipped.
In February 1899, British novelist and poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem entitled "The
White Man's Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands." In this poem, Kipling
urged the U.S. to take up the "burden" of empire, as had Britain and other European nations.
Published in the February, 1899 issue of McClure's Magazine, the poem coincided with the
beginning of the Philippine-American War and U.S. Senate ratification of the treaty that
placed Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, and the Philippines under American control. Theodore
Roosevelt, soon to become vice-president and then president, copied the poem and sent it to
his friend, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, commenting that it was "rather poor poetry, but good
sense from the expansion point of view." Not everyone was as favorably impressed as
Roosevelt. The racialized notion of the "White Man's burden" became a euphemism for
imperialism, and many anti-imperialists couched their opposition in reaction to the
phrase.
Take up the White Man's burden --
Send forth the best ye breed --
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild --
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child
Take up the White Man's burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain
Take up the White Man's burden --
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard --
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly) to the light:
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden-
Have done with childish days-
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Source: Rudyard Kipling, "The White Man's Burden: The United States & The Philippine
Islands, 1899." Rudyard Kipling's Verse: Definitive Edition (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday, 1929).
"... As Bolivian soldiers were firing tear gas at a funeral for slain protesters recently, the US State Department issued a statement saluting "Bolivia's political transition to democracy" and declaring that the military leaders who had just overthrown the elected government were "standing up for their constitution." It was the latest example of intensifying US support for violently oppressive regimes south of our border. We are paying attention to Latin America again. That's bad news for Latin America. ..."
As Bolivian soldiers were firing tear gas at a funeral for slain protesters recently, the
US State Department issued a statement saluting "Bolivia's political transition to democracy"
and declaring that the military leaders who had just overthrown the elected government were
"standing up for their constitution." It was the latest example of intensifying US support
for violently oppressive regimes south of our border. We are paying attention to Latin
America again. That's bad news for Latin America.
The US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago are sometimes described as
wars in which everyone lost. In an odd way, though, Latin America won those wars. For more
than a decade, the US government focused so obsessively on the Middle East that it forgot
about Latin America. Free of intervention from Washington, voters in several countries
elected progressive or leftist leaders whom the United States would never have tolerated in
an earlier era. That cycle is now ending. The United States is returning to its traditional
role in Latin America, embracing retrograde regimes just as we did during the dark days of
military dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s.
In Bolivia, the landlocked heart of South America, the military deposed President Evo
Morales on Nov. 10 after opponents charged that he had used fraud to secure his re-election
three weeks earlier. Morales was Bolivia's first indigenous president and an outspoken
socialist. He had nationalized the oil and gas industries. Some feared that he was preparing
to limit foreign exploitation of his country's rich lithium deposits. His indigenous identity
was a permanent affront to the white ruling class. The little-known politician who has
installed herself as provisional president, Jeanine Añez, once tweeted: "I dream of a
Bolivia free of satanic indigenous rituals."
Morales may have -- manipulated election laws to give himself an extra presidential term.
But in its first days, the new regime has shown little democratic impulse. Morales has been
forced to flee the country. Senior members of his party have been attacked or arrested. If
his masses of indigenous followers are pushed back into political isolation despite
constituting the country's majority, many will feel disenfranchised and angry.
Their cousins in Honduras would know the feeling. Late one night in 2009, the elected
Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, who like Morales had alienated both the United States and
his own ruling elite, was pulled out of bed and put on a plane out of the country while still
in his pajamas. In the decade since then, the new regime in Honduras has eagerly handed out
mining and hydroelectric contracts to foreign corporations. It has abolished term limits for
presidents -- the very sin for which we denounced President Morales in Bolivia. Mass protests
have been harshly suppressed. Environmental activists are killed with impunity.
Last month in a New York court, the brother of Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez
was convicted on charges of large-scale drug trafficking. A witness testified that the drug
lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman had contributed $1 million to Hernandez's presidential
campaign. Yet just a couple of days after the trial ended, the senior American diplomat in
Honduras was photographed partying with President Hernandez. Hondurans who saw those pictures
could hardly miss the message: the United States happily supports a Latin American government
that holds power unconstitutionally, allows political killers to rampage freely, and is
widely reported to be infiltrated by drug traffickers -- as long as it is friendly to the
United States. How has Honduras showed that friendship? By keeping leftists out of power and
agreeing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The other Latin American country in which the United States is most assiduously wrecking
prospects for democracy is Guatemala. Like neighboring Honduras, it has long been dominated
by a clique of lavishly corrupt oligarchs. But over the last decade, a force has emerged that
for the first time mounted a serious challenge to drug traffickers, larcenous politicians,
organized-crime kingpins, and death squad leaders. In 2006, the government invited a squad of
investigators and prosecutors assembled by the United Nations to come to Guatemala and build
cases against powerful criminals. Since then the squad, known by the Spanish acronym CICIG,
has secured more than 400 convictions and deeply shaken the political elite. Presidents
George W. Bush and Barack Obama recognized that this process might help stabilize Guatemala,
and provided moral support and funding for CICIG.
This year, at the request of senior Guatemalan officials who seemed likely to be indicted
for corruption, the State Department agreed to stop backing CICIG. That crippled the first
serious effort in generations to confront the violent corruption that throttles civic life in
Guatemala. What did President Trump ask in return? That Guatemala open an embassy in
Jerusalem and agree to serve as a "safe haven" for Honduran and Salvadoran immigrants the
United States doesn't want to accept -- a sick joke considering that Guatemala is plagued by
violence and has one of the world's highest murder rates.
Bashing leftists in Latin America and embracing their quasi-fascist enemies is one of
Washington's oldest habits. It feels good and pays electoral dividends in Florida. Bolivians,
Hondurans, and Guatemalans might be forgiven for wishing that United States would once again
plunge into all-consuming war somewhere far away. That might allow them to try shaping their
societies as they see fit.
In addition to L.A., others in California submitting briefs include Sacramento, San Diego,
Fresno, Riverside and Orange counties, as well as a slew of cities, including Sacramento,
Fullerton, Torrance and Newport Beach. Several states including Idaho, Texas and Alaska have
as well. Their reasons for doing so vary.
"We're saying that we agree with the central tenet of Boise that no one should be
susceptible to punishment for sleeping on a sidewalk at night if there's no alternative
shelter at that point," said Los Angeles City Atty. Mike Feuer. "But the rationale sweeps too
broadly ... It makes the opinion unclear and, therefore, the opinion raises more issues than
are resolved. And so it leaves jurisdictions like us without the certainty that we need."
---
The ninth curt ruling specified that without enough shelters, public camping cannot be
banned.
LA is spewing horse manure, claiming they want a humane solution, but they are filing to
have the ruling overturned. LA wants to ban homeless camping and they make up a bunch of
irrational horse manure because they had already invited the homeless to California with
promises of shelter that does not exits. They re caught in a contradiction and end up talking
out of the side of their mouth.
And no, more national debt to promise apartments for everyone just make inequality worse
because we end up doing bad deals with the primary dealers. The evidence is in on that. Our
ten year experiment of the '50 little hoovers' crowd has been proven fraudulent.
"... Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way. ..."
The average demorat, aside from worshipping Ba'al and hating the constitution, is depraved,
been such since crooked Hillary forgot that the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering
liberals living on the coasts do not run the world.
"...the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering liberals living on the coasts do not run the
world."
[Who says that they do not? Certainly, it is close enough to that for government work.
Besides, in the end corporations and the interests of the donor class dictate the rules of
engagement for both illiberal and unconservative politicians. How the dogs of politics fight
over scraps thrown out for them should be of less interest to the wage class than who is
throwing out the scraps to them.]
Of course a former Air Force military hardware procurements officer likely knows no more
about present day life among the wage class than a banker. That would be like thinking that a
kid raised in poverty by the welfare state knew how to farm. Still, it is possible for either
one to be haunted by guilt late in life.
You are bound with your adversaries in ways known only to God, not a religious testimonial
but merely a proxy for the abstraction of omniscience. Some things can be seen as clear as
day and remain a complete mystery, to me at least.
At the very least Trump is guilty of being Trump. So, if you believe the charges against
Trump are Trumped up, then what else would you expect?
Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely
fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the
time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against
any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way.
The US Constitution was written and then rewritten repeatedly in blood going all the way
back to Apr 19, 1775. That is what it means to be an American, son, my Cherokee ancestors
notwithstanding.
China suspends Hong Kong visits by U.S. military ships, aircraft, sanctions U.S. NGOs
BEIJING -- The Chinese government has decided to suspend reviewing applications to visit
Hong Kong by U.S. military ships and aircraft starting Monday, foreign ministry spokesperson
Hua Chunying said.
China will also take sanctions against some U.S. non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for
their role in the disturbances in Hong Kong, Hua said at a press conference.
The NGOs include the National Endowment for Democracy, National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs, International Republican Institute, Human Rights Watch and Freedom
House.
A lot of facts and evidence have shown that the aforementioned NGOs supported anti-China
rioters in Hong Kong in various ways, abetted their extreme and violent criminal behavior and
incited separatist activities for "Hong Kong independence", Hua said, adding that these
organizations bear major responsibilities for Hong Kong's chaotic situation and should be
sanctioned and pay their price.
The spokesperson said the United States has seriously violated the international law and
basic norms governing international relations, and interfered in China's internal affairs by
signing the so-called Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 into law despite
China's firm opposition.
"China urges the U.S. to correct its mistake and stop meddling in Hong Kong affairs or
interfering in China's other internal affairs by any word and act," Hua said.
China will take further necessary actions in accordance with the development of the
situation to firmly defend the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong and safeguard national
sovereignty, security and development interests, she said.
"... Wellsir, I'm old enough to remember 2002, when the Bush administration and its allies built a case for the Iraq War, using the often-heard line, "We fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." Seriously, young folks, look it up online. ..."
"... And now comes Prof. Karlan, using the same rhetoric to characterize the conflict between the US and Russia in Ukraine. She was there to talk about the legal aspects of impeachment, but she bizarrely tipped her hand by trashing Trump because he failed to play his part as a warmonger ..."
"... The American elites didn't learn a damn thing from Iraq ..."
"... On the contrary. They learned that, via deceptive rhetoric and on false pretenses, they could easily manoeuver the U.S. into fighting a war on behalf of another nation's interests rather than its own, and face no repercussions for committing such treason, no matter how many lives it costs and how much it impoverishes the U.S. (to say nothing of what bloodshed and chaos it will cause in the targeted nation -- because after all, destabilization is the point). ..."
"... Trump will never beat an actually decent candidate, he occupies the White House because Clinton was the worst candidate in American history. He's (probably) going to win again because his opponents are even more unpopular and incompetent than he is. ..."
"... No, they are only using the mendacious phrase "spreading democracy" as a cover for what they really want to spread: globalist neoliberalism. ..."
"... The left is shameless, duplicitous and disingenous in the extreme when it comes to Russia (and frankly anything else). To be honest it was my collegiate experiences in the 1980s, comparing the handwaving garbage with what my own eyes saw in the East Bloc, that made me a lifetime, permanent rightist. The left is bankrupt, full of liars and dissemblers and needs to be stopped at any cost. ..."
"... I'd highly recommend the films "Ukraine on Fire" and "Revealing Ukraine" (available on Amazon Prime w/o extra rental $) for a good basic primer on the Ukraine over the last 15 years, particularly of US interference and malfeasance in promoting the coup in 2014. And if anyone "interfered" in the 2016 election it wasn't Russia, but the Ukraine, particularly its very pro-Hilary President Poroshenko (illegitimate though he was and remains after the unconstitutional US-backed coup in against Yanukovich in 2014). ..."
"... NATO should have been moth-balled c. 1992. Instead it is hell-bent on aggressive expansion and antagonizing Russia, for no reason (other than to line the pockets of corrupt US and other officials, "business-men" i.e. oligarchs, etc.). ..."
"... The whole conflict was completely avoidable and is 100% due to America's and Western Europe's dumb actions since the fall of the USSR. ..."
In the Year of Our Lord 2019, sixteen years after this nation launched the catastrophic Iraq War, the following words were spoken
on Capitol Hill this week:
We have become the shining city on a hill. We have become the nation that leads the world in understanding what democracy is.
And one of the things we understand most profoundly is it's not a real democracy, it's not a mature democracy, if the party in
power uses the criminal process to go after its enemies. And I think you heard testimony - the Intelligence Committee heard testimony
about how it isn't just our national interest in protecting our own elections. It's not just our national interest in making sure
that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front line so they fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them here, but
it's also our national interest in promoting democracy worldwide.
This was not the second coming of the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Bolton brigade. This was Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor and Democrat
called by her party to testify in this week's House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing.
Wellsir, I'm old enough to remember 2002, when the Bush administration and its allies built a case for the Iraq War, using the
often-heard line, "We fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." Seriously, young folks, look it up online.
And I'm old enough to remember these lines from President Bush's second inaugural address, in 2005:
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants,
and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the
success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every
man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and
earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and
no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement
of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation
and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
That didn't work out too well for us, for Iraq, or for the Middle East.
And now comes Prof. Karlan, using the same rhetoric to characterize the conflict between the US and Russia in Ukraine. She was
there to talk about the legal aspects of impeachment, but she bizarrely tipped her hand by trashing Trump because he failed to play
his part as a warmonger.
The American elites didn't learn a damn thing from Iraq
On the contrary. They learned that, via deceptive rhetoric and on false pretenses, they could easily manoeuver the U.S.
into fighting a war on behalf of another nation's interests rather than its own, and face no repercussions for committing such
treason, no matter how many lives it costs and how much it impoverishes the U.S. (to say nothing of what bloodshed and chaos it
will cause in the targeted nation -- because after all, destabilization is the point).
There are, as Victoria Nuland put it, 5 billion reasons for backing the CIA-led coup that overthrew an elected government and
replaced it with leaders that the she and the rest of the Obama/Clinton State Department chose. It was the Democrats, since the
nineties under another Clinton, that decided to move the American military right up to Russia's borders, interfere in the 1996
election to keep the puppet Yeltsin in power, and with Wall Street leaders to pillage the Russian economy with the stated end
to break up Russia into smaller satrapies with governments appointed by the IMF.
Did Joe Biden brag about a quid proof not releasing funds to the Ukraine until it ended the probe into Burisma, which was paying
son Hunter millions, and dismiss the investigators altogether? Does it turn out Ukrainian power brokers favored under Obama then
sought to influence the American elections against Trump, viewed as wanting to make peace with Russia? Yes, and yes.
The US are not a democracy, since the people do not rule. Rather, it's an oligarchy, since a few influential groups do get
their way all the time. Pamela is just shilling for one of these groups, the war party.
It does not matter who you vote for, you always get John McCain.
Agreed, I hope the Republicans agree to impeach him immediately after Election Day if he does win (which I think he will due
to the opposition candidates). I'd much prefer Mike Pence to represent us than freaking Trump. I voted third party last time,
but even as bad as Trump is, he's not nearly as bad as every democratic front runner.
Why the Democratic Party doesn't back Tulsi Gabard is insane, she's the only candidate who everyone could be somewhat happy
with.
Taking a "Unity-Party" angle this election and nominating an anti-war military Veteran who's also a super patriotic minority
women would absolutely destroy Trump. She's also a religious conservative while simultaneously being a sane social liberal, she
satisfies some of the concerns of literally every part of the electorate. A Tulsi Gabard/ Joe Manchin ticket would be an 84 level
blowout. A Joe Biden/ Kamala Harris ticket is literally the best thing that has ever happened to Trump. Trump will never beat
an actually decent candidate, he occupies the White House because Clinton was the worst candidate in American history. He's (probably)
going to win again because his opponents are even more unpopular and incompetent than he is.
An article from someone I trust on that evidence which is not hearsay would be useful, any chance you would write one? I ask
because impeachment is either political or legal. If it's political then it's just the normal noise from D.C., if it's legal then
I want legal standards of evidence. The times I've paid attention the "evidence" has been at the level of someone told me they
overhead a phone conversation or we all believed this, but Trump directly told me the opposite of what we all believed.
I'm looking for something like saying "I did not have sex with that woman" under oath as evidence of committing perjury.
...OTOH, Trump's move against Hunter Biden could possibly be a "high crime and misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment, but given
the existence of Acts of Congress against foreign corrupt practices and the New York Times investigation of Hunter Biden, it becomes
hard to untangle Trump's motives. It would seem to be difficult to prove that an impeachable "high crime and misdemeanor" occurred
if probable cause for a Hunter Biden investigation existed. If we prove (NOT assume, as the Dems currently are doing) that probable
cause did not exist then impeachment would be a slam dunk. If we don't prove that then Trump's impeachment will not be seen as
legitimate by large segments of the public. We really are teetering on the edge of something deep here.
You think that finding out what the son of a sitting vice President, a VP who was also 'point man' for Ukraine, was doing getting
millions from a corrupt Ukrainian entity is strictly 'personal gain'? You think that looking into Ukrainian influence into our
election is 'personal gain'?
Oh the spreading of democracy worldwide nonsense again! Democracies are earned not given, that lesson cost us trillions and
in blood! This sycophant also brought up Pres. Trumps son Baron into the proceedings for no good reason but to score points at
tea time back at Stanford. What a demagogue.
It's always such a lie too, because it's never really about spreading "democracy" -- that is, they don't at all like
the spread of true democracy when the people genuinely prefer and vote for Putin, Assad, Orban, etc., to say nothing of when democracy
demonstrates the true will of the people in cases such as Brexit.
No, they are only using the mendacious phrase "spreading democracy" as a cover for what they really want to spread: globalist
neoliberalism.
Democracies are earned not given, that lesson cost us trillions and in blood!
Yes please give us more democracy, so the uniparty can sell our jobs to global capital and our children's future to foreigners.
Nations have survived tyranny, despots, and brutal civil wars. It is not at all clear whether the nations of the West will survive
your beloved democracy.
...Of course, anyone with a brain knows it's not about Ukraine, a country having no bearing at all on the vital interests of
the United States. Rather, Ukraine is a handy pretext serving the interests of America's military-industrial complex and the enrichment
of our Ruling Class.
If Trump wanted to prove a really great president, he could forge a peace with Russia (which would entail getting a settlement
with Ukraine). It is insane, and only to the benefit of woke liberal capitalists to frame Russia as a permanent enemy. Carving
developed nations into 'us vs them', so the liberal elite can divide and rule us. They use this strategy on multiple fronts, to
ensure success:
US vs Russia
US/UK vs EU
'pseudo-Christian' west vs islam
1st world vs multicutural diversity migration
Pragmatically, we will need an alliance with Russia (and possibly with a post-communist China) to stave off the invading colonisers
looking to grift a free lunch in the 'rich' west (its only the 1% wealthy in the west who are really rich, not the >90% peasant
class), not to mention the ideologically/religiously motivated muslims planning to implement the global sharia subjugation of
the pseudo-Christian west demanded in the Koran.
Sadly, Trump does seem to be proving he lacks the organisational skills to drain the swamp - a virtually impossible task for
any one person. A 'friendship pact' with Russia (perhaps swapping trade access to US for human rights, democratic and media freedoms
in Russia) would be a big step forward to building a united free west. Perhaps bring Poland and Hungary in to to reassure Russia,
and strengthen the protections for Christians and traditional family life. But for this to happen Trump needs to have a Secretary
of State he trusts heavily.
... Signify... whatever, anything, but please not too much thinking. Same with Washington's foreign policy blob. What matters
is that the world's is forced to take America's opinions into account, no matter how bone-headed they are. If they put the world
on fire that's called collateral damage (Ledeen Doctrine).
What I find funniest about this whole "impeachment" shenanigan is how the Democrats honestly think anyone doesn't believe they're
guilty of exactly what they're accusing Trump of. All Trump has to do is reveal seven such cases to the American people after
this whole shenanigan is over and turn their own words against them and they are THROUGH! This might honestly be the biggest political
mistake in the history of our Republic.
The whole thing is nonsense. Democracy is particular to the West, and is frankly innately fragile and dying a proper death
-- slowly, mind you, but dying it is, and thankfully so.
The whole Russia situation is hilarious and a thousand percent ideological. I sat next to these same assholes in college in
the 1980s as they blithely handwaved "no true Scotsman" type arguments about the Soviet Union, and moral equivalency and so on,
and then of course without their precious hearts skipping one single beat, they switched immediately to "Russia is evil and must
be stopped at all costs" when Russia emerged with a nationalist/rightist government.
The left is shameless, duplicitous and disingenous in the extreme when it comes to Russia (and frankly anything else).
To be honest it was my collegiate experiences in the 1980s, comparing the handwaving garbage with what my own eyes saw in the
East Bloc, that made me a lifetime, permanent rightist. The left is bankrupt, full of liars and dissemblers and needs to be stopped
at any cost.
My guess is that Russia has enough nuclear weapons and the capability to launch them at every major city in the US. Vladimir
is no drunkard like Boris Yeltsin was. We should not provoke the Russian bear into lashing out at the US. The old Soviet Union
lost some 20 million of its citizens in WWII and did the heavy lifting in defeating the Nazis. Hands up if you want to send your
19 year old son to fight the Russians in Sevastopol. Does the average American even know where Sevastopol is? More than likely,
a war with Russia would result in the nuclear bombing of New York, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Houston for
starters.
I'd highly recommend the films "Ukraine on Fire" and "Revealing Ukraine" (available on Amazon Prime w/o extra rental $)
for a good basic primer on the Ukraine over the last 15 years, particularly of US interference and malfeasance in promoting the
coup in 2014. And if anyone "interfered" in the 2016 election it wasn't Russia, but the Ukraine, particularly its very pro-Hilary
President Poroshenko (illegitimate though he was and remains after the unconstitutional US-backed coup in against Yanukovich in
2014).
NATO should have been moth-balled c. 1992. Instead it is hell-bent on aggressive expansion and antagonizing Russia, for
no reason (other than to line the pockets of corrupt US and other officials, "business-men" i.e. oligarchs, etc.).
I'm halfway cheering for Russia in their conflict with Ukraine. That's Russia's sphere of influence, Ukraine has no business
in the EU or in NATO. Any sane American government would be courting Russia in the new Cold War that's obviously coming with The
Chinese Communist Party. Instead we pulled all of the former European countries in the USSR into our sphere of influence.
The whole conflict was completely avoidable and is 100% due to America's and Western Europe's dumb actions since the fall of the
USSR.
Daniel
LarisonTAC contributor Gil Barndollar
calls attention to the damage that endless war is doing to the military:
The president has been rightly excoriated for these pardons, which dishonor the U.S.
military and may degrade good order and discipline. But amid this uproar, Americans should
note the bigger lesson: Endless wars, especially endless counterinsurgency or
counterterrorism wars, slowly chip away at both a military's ethics and its critical
war-fighting skills.
These wars are particularly corrosive because they cannot be conclusively won, and for every
enemy that is destroyed it seems as if two or three more appear to replace it. Futile,
open-ended wars contribute to breakdowns in discipline. Barndollar continues:
However, keeping their honor clean becomes harder and harder the longer these wars drag
on. Wars among the people, as all our endless wars now are, are inherently dirty. When even
senior members of the foreign policy establishment concede that we are not seeking victory in
Afghanistan, it becomes harder for soldiers to make hollow mission accomplishment a higher
priority than self-preservation. Treating U.S. soldiers like victims, as Trump implicitly
does, also becomes more common.
When a war cannot be won, the rational thing to do would be to stop fighting it, but instead
of doing that our political and military leaders treat endless war as a new normal that must
not be questioned. It is bad enough when a government sends its soldiers to fight and die for a
cause that it pretends can still be won when that isn't possible, but to keep sending them over
and over again into war zones to fight a war they admit is futile has to be discouraging and
frustrating. This also has to widen the division between the military and the civilian
population. While military personnel are called on to go on multiple tours in pointless
conflicts, most people back home mouth empty platitudes about supporting the troops and do
nothing to bring the wars to an end. The public's failure to hold our political and military
leaders accountable for these failed and unnecessary wars is bound to have corrosive effects as
well.
At the same time, these wars degrade the military's ability to fight other adversaries:
Even more serious for American national security is the fact that endless small wars
degrade a military's ability to fight and win big wars -- wars that have real consequences
for our security and way of life.
Our endless wars have been enormously costly. It is estimated that all of the wars of the
last twenty years will end up costing at least $6.4 trillion, and beyond that they have
consumed our government's attention and resources to the detriment of everything else. Our
political and military leaders perpetuate these wars, and the public has allowed them to do
this, because they are still laboring under the faulty assumption that the U.S. is being made
more secure in the process. The reality is that endless wars are undermining our security,
weakening the military, and creating more enemies. They should be ended responsibly, but they
must end. about the author Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics
Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The
American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
"... Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed. https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 … ..."
"... So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17? ..."
"'Our Democracy Is at Stake.' Pelosi Orders Democrats to Draft Articles of Impeachment
Against Trump" [ Time ]. With autoplay video.
""The President abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of
our national security by withholding military aid and a crucial Oval Office meeting in
exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival." • So now when
a President doesn't allow The Blob to dictate Ukraine policy it's an impeachable offense?
Really? Yasha Levine quotes Democrat impeachment witness Karlan (see below) but the point is
the same:
Yasha Levine ✔ @yashalevine
Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon
against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or
suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed.
https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 …
So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our
national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17?
"Read opening statements from witnesses at the House Judiciary hearing" [
Politico ]. "Democrats' impeachment witnesses at Wednesday's judiciary committee hearing
plan to say in their prepared remarks that President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine were
the worst examples of misconduct in presidential history." • So again, it's all about
Ukraine. I feel like I've entered an alternate dimension. Aaron Maté comments:
My very subjective impression: I've skimmed three, and read Turley. Karlan, in particular,
is simply not a serious effort. Turley may be wrong -- a ton of tribal dunking on Twitter --
but at least he's making a serious effort. I'm gonna have to wait to see if somebody, say at
Lawfare, does a serious effort on Turley. Everything I've read hitherto is and posturing and
preaching to the choir. (Sad that Larry Tribe has so completely discredited himself, but that's
where we are.)
Lambert, while Trump was unable to complete his attempt to extort the President of
Ukraine, as someone who practiced the criminal law for 34 years, let me be the first to clue
you in to the concept in the criminal law of the inchoate offense . This is
criminal law, not contract law.
An inchoate offense includes an attempt, a conspiracy, and the solicitation of a crime.
All focus on the state of mind of the perpetrator, and none require that the offense be
completed -- only that a person or persons having the required criminal intent took material
steps toward completing the crime. Such a person becomes a principal in the contemplated
crime, and in the eyes of the law is just as guilty as if he or she had completed the
attempted offense.
(The details of Trump's offense differ from what David in Santa Cruz said they would be.)
"Inchoate" appears only in Turley's piece, indicating, to me, that his was the only serious
effort.
Prominent Ukrainian neo-Nazi figures have been spotted in the Hong Kong protests just weeks
after hosting an "academy of street protest" in Kiev. Leaders of far-right Ukrainian groups
that rose to prominence in the 2014 coup d'etat they helped orchestrate, including the
Azov
Battalion and Right Sektor , have recently traveled
to Hong Kong to participate in the anti-Beijing protests there. It's unclear why the groups,
sporting the apparel of a far-right hooligan group called "Honor" or "Gonor," have gone to Hong
Kong, but the fact that both the 2014 Ukrainian coup and the present protests in Hong Kong have
enjoyed extensive support from the CIA-spawned National Endowment
for Democracy may give a clue.
"Hong Kong welcomed us as relatives," Serhii Filimonov wrote on Facebook Saturday, sharing a
video of himself and other Ukrainian far-right figures in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.
Filimonov once headed the Kiev branch of the Azov Civilian Corps, a support group for the
ultra-nationalist Azov Battalion that's thinly veiled as a civilian NGO.
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fserhii.filimonov.98%2Fvideos%2F160773771798497%2F&show_text=1&width=560
photos posted the
following day include Ihor Maliar, an Azov Battalion veteran who sports a "victory or
Valhalla" tattoo across his neck, and Serhii Sternenko, who headed the Odessa section of Right
Sektor when it torched the Trade Unions House on May 2, 2014, killing 42 people and injuring
hundreds in the street violence before and after. Sternenko also helped found the "People's
Lustration" fascist gang, which harassed, beat up and humiliated former officials of the
Ukrainian government in the months following the 2014 Euromaidan coup. Sputnik Screenshot
Screenshot of a Facebook post by Serhii Filimonov showing "Gonor" members in Hong Kong
Several of the men wear paraphernalia of the far-right "Honor" or "Gonor" so-called youth
group founded by Filimonov in 2015, sporting a stylized version of the "trident," a symbol with
ancient meaning in Ukraine adopted by ultra-nationalists, as three daggers. Several also have
neo-Nazi tattoos, such as swastikas.
Actual swastika tattoos, just in case you were left in any doubt these are actual
neo-nazis. pic.twitter.com/z2HqMWNXuO
The men also posed in front of the
wrecked Hong Kong Polytechnic University , where an intense two-week showdown between
police and protesters saw more than 1,000 students detained and thousands of weapons seized,
including petrol bombs and explosives.
Sputnik Screenshot
Serhii Filimonov post showing Ukrainian far-right figures posing in front of Hong Kong
Polytechnic University
Early last month, Filimonov, Sternenko and Maliar spoke at an "academy of street protest" in
Kiev, the posters of which featured a molotov
cocktail emblazoned with the "Gonor" logo.
Sputnik Screenshot Poster
for an "academy of street protest" featuring lectures by several Ukrainian far-right figures
A Ukrainian Facebook page that came to the defense of the Gonor crew and their trip Monday
afternoon seems to bridge the gap between the two movements. Calling itself the "Free Hong Kong
Center," the page posts about the supposed strong links between the Hong Kong and 2014 Ukraine
protests, complete with the words "umbrella" and "dignity" on their banner, referencing what
demonstrators in Hong Kong called their 2014 protests, seen as a precursor to the present
unrest, and by far-right Ukrainians to the 2014 coup.
"They assured us they are really against nazism and another kind of alt-right ideology,"
they posted, dismissing the neo-Nazi imagery as traditional Ukrainian symbols.
Sputnik Screenshot Facebook post by "Free Hong Kong Center" defending "Gonor" members'
visit to Hong Kong
It's not clear exactly what these "simple activists" were doing in Hong Kong. However, it's
worth noting the extensive groundwork laid for both the 2014 uprising in Ukraine and the 2019
protests in Hong Kong via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
In the three years before the 2014 coup, the CIA-backed NED sunk $14 million into regime
change efforts in Ukraine, and the NED
has been
cultivating anti-Beijing attitudes in Hong Kong since the mid-1990s, before the territory
was returned to Chinese rule by the British Empire.
Whether Filimonov and associates are there at the NED's behest or as simply a bit of protest
tourism is anybody's guess.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
After presiding over a far-right coup in Bolivia, the US dubbed Nicaragua a "national
security threat" and announced new sanctions, while Trump designated drug cartels in Mexico as
"terrorists" and refused to rule out military intervention.
One successful coup against a democratically elected socialist president is not enough, it
seems.
Washington dubbed Nicaragua a threat to US national security, and announced that it will be
expanding its suffocating sanctions on the tiny Central American nation.
Trump is also turning up the heat on Mexico, baselessly linking the country to terrorism and
even hinting at potential military intervention. The moves come as the country's left-leaning
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador warns of right-wing attempts at a coup.
As Washington's rightist allies in Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador are desperately
beating back massive grassroots uprisings against neoliberal austerity policies and yawning
inequality gaps, the United States is ramping up its aggression against the region's few
remaining progressive governments.
These moves have led left-wing forces in Latin America to warn of a 21st-century revival of
Operation Condor, the Cold War era campaign of violent subterfuge and US support for right-wing
dictatorships across the region.
Trump admin declares Nicaragua a 'national security
threat'
A day after the US-backed far-right coup in Bolivia, the White House released a statement
applauding the military putsch and making it clear that two countries were next on Washington's
target list: "These events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in
Venezuela and Nicaragua ," Trump declared.
On November 25, the Trump White House then quietly issued a statement characterizing
Nicaragua as an "unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
This prolonged for an additional year an executive order Trump had signed in 2018 declaring
a state of "national emergency" on the Central American country.
Trump's 2018 declaration came after a failed violent right-wing
coup attempt in Nicaragua . The US government has funded and supported many of
the opposition groups that sought to topple elected Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and
cheered them on as they sought to overthrow him.
The 2018 national security threat designation was quickly followed by economic warfare. In
December the US Congress approved
the NICA Act without any opposition. This legislation gave Trump the authority to impose
sanctions on Nicaragua, and prevents international financial institutions from doing business
with Managua.
Trump's new 2019 statement spewed outlandish propaganda against Nicaragua, referring to its
democratically elected government -- which for decades has been targeted for overthrow by
Washington -- as a supposedly violent and corrupt "regime."
This executive order is similar to one made by President Barack Obama in 2015, which
designated Venezuela as a threat to US national security.
Both orders were used to justify the unilateral imposition of suffocating economic
sanctions. And Trump's renewal of the order paves the way for an escalated economic attack on
Nicaragua.
The extension received negligible coverage in mainstream English-language corporate media,
but right-wing Spanish-language outlets in Latin America heavily amplified it.
And opposition activists are gleefully cheering on the intensification of Washington's
hybrid warfare against Managua.
More aggressive US sanctions against Nicaragua
Voice of America (VOA), the US government's main foreign broadcasting service, noted that
the extension of the executive order will be followed with more economic attacks.
Washington's ambassador to the Organization
of American States (OAS), Carlos Trujillo, told VOA, "The pressure against Nicaragua is
going to continue."
The OAS representative added that Trump will be announcing new sanctions against the
Nicaraguan government in the coming weeks.
VOA stated clearly that "Nicaragua, along with Cuba and Venezuela, is one of the Latin
American countries whose government Trump has made a priority to put diplomatic and economic
pressure on to bring about regime change."
This is not just rhetoric. The US Department of the Treasury updated the Nicaragua-related
sanctions section of its website as recently as November 8.
And in September, the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control announced a " more
comprehensive set of regulations ," strengthening the existing sanctions on Nicaragua.
Voice of America's report quoted several right-wing Nicaraguans who openly called for more
US pressure against their country.
Bianca Jagger, a celebrity opposition activist formerly married to Rolling Stones frontman
Mick Jagger, called on the US to impose sanctions on Nicaragua's military in particular.
"The Nicaraguan military has not been touched because they [US officials] are hoping that
the military will like act the military in Bolivia," Jagger said, referring to the military
officials who violently overthrew Bolivia's democratically elected president.
Many of these military leaders had been
trained at the US government's School of the Americas , a notorious base of subversion
dating back to Operation Condor. Latin American media has been filled in recent days with
reports that Bolivian soldiers were paid $50,000 and generals were paid up to $1 million to
carry out the putsch.
VOA added that "in the case of the Central American government [of Nicaragua], the effect
that sanctions can have can be greater because it is a more economically vulnerable
country."
VOA quoted Roberto Courtney, a prominent exiled right-wing activist and executive director
of the opposition group Ethics and Transparency, which monitors elections in Nicaragua and is
supported by the US
government's
regime-change arm , the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Courtney, who claims to be a human rights activist, salivated over the prospects of US
economic war on his country, telling VOA, "There is a bit of a difference [between Nicaragua
and Bolivia] the economic vulnerability makes it more likely that the sanctions will have an
effect."
Courtney, who was described by VOA as an "expert on the electoral process," added, "If there
is a stick, there must also be a carrot." He said the OAS could help apply diplomatic and
political pressure against Nicaragua's government.
These unilateral American sanctions are illegal under international law, and considered an
act of war. Iran's foreign minister,
Javad Zarif , has characterized US economic warfare "financial terrorism," explaining that
it disproportionately targets civilians in order to turn them against their government.
Top right-wing Nicaraguan opposition groups applauded Trump for extending the executive
order and for pledging new sanctions against their country.
The Nicaraguan Civic Alliance for Justice and Democracy, an opposition front group that
brings together numerous opposition groups , several of which are
also
funded by the US government's NED , welcomed the order.
Trump dubs drug cartels in
Mexico "terrorists," refuses to rule out drone strikes
While the US targeting of Nicaragua and Venezuela's governments is nothing new, Donald Trump
is setting his sights on a longtime US ally in Mexico.
In 2018, Mexican voters made history when they elected Andrés Manuel López
Obrador as president in a landslide. López Obrador, who is often referred to by his
initials AMLO, is Mexico's first left-wing president in more than five decades. He ran on a
progressive campaign pledging to boost social spending, cut poverty, combat corruption, and
even decriminalize drugs.
AMLO is wildly popular in Mexico. In February, he had a record-breaking
86 percent approval rating . And he has earned this widespread support by pledging to
combat neoliberal capitalist orthodoxy.
"The neoliberal economic model has
been a disaster, a calamity for the public life of the country," AMLO has declared. "The child
of neoliberalism is corruption."
When he unveiled his multibillion-dollar National Development Plan, López Obrador
announced the end to "the long night of neoliberalism."
AMLO's left-wing policies have caused shockwaves in Washington, which has long relied on
neoliberal Mexican leaders ensuring a steady cheap exploitable labor base and maintaining a
reliable market for US goods and open borders for US capital and corporations.
On November 27 -- a day after declaring Nicaragua a "national security threat" -- Trump
announced that the US government will be designating Mexican drug cartels as "
terrorist organizations ."
Such a designation could pave the way for direct US military intervention in Mexico.
Trump revealed this new policy in an interview with right-wing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.
"Are you going to designate those cartels in Mexico as terror groups and start hitting them
with drones and things like that?" O'Reilly asked.
The US president refused to rule out drone strikes or other military action against drug
cartels in Mexico.
Trump's announcement seemed to surprise the Mexican government, which immediately called for
a meeting with the US State Department.
The designation was particularly ironic considering some top drug cartel leaders in Mexico
have long-standing ties to the US government. The leaders of the notoriously brutal cartel the
Zetas, for instance, were originally trained in
counter-insurgency tactics by the US military.
Throughout the Cold War, the US government armed, trained, and funded right-wing
death squads throughout Latin America, many of which were involved in drug trafficking. The
CIA also used drug money to fund far-right counter-insurgency paramilitary groups in Central
America.
These tactics were also employed in the Middle East and South Asia. The United States armed,
trained, and funded far-right Islamist
extremists in Afghanistan in the 1980s in order to fight the Soviet Union. These same
US-backed Salafi-jihadists then founded al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
This strategy was later repeated in the US wars on Libya and Syria. ISIS commander
Omar al-Shishani
, to take one example, had been trained by the US military and enjoyed direct support from
Washington when he was fighting against Russia.
The Barack Obama administration also oversaw a campaign called Project Gunrunne r
and Operation Fast and Furious, in which the US government helped send thousands of guns to
cartels in Mexico.
Mexican journalist Alina Duarte explained that, with the Trump administration's designation
of cartels as terrorists, "They are creating the idea that Mexico represents a threat to their
national security ."
"Should we start talking about the possibility of a coup against Lopez Obrador in
Mexico?" Duarte asked.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
She noted that the US corporate media has embarked on an increasingly ferocious campaign to
demonize
AMLO , portraying the democratically elected president as a power-hungry aspiring dictator
who is supposedly wrecking Mexico's economy.
Duarte discussed the issue of US interference in Mexican politics in an interview with The
Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton, on their podcast Moderate
Rebels:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/7OJyCHjxCEs
Now, a whisper campaign over fears that the right-wing opposition may try to overthrow
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is spreading across Mexico.
AMLO himself has publicly addressed the rumors, making it clear that he will not tolerate
any discussion of coups.
"How wrong the conservatives and their hawks are," López Obrador tweeted on November
2. Referencing the 1913 assassination of progressive President Francisco Madero, who had been a
leader of the Mexican Revolution, AMLO wrote, "Now is different."
"Another coup d'état will now be allowed," he declared.
In recent months, as fears of a coup intensify, López Obrador has swung even further
to the left, directly challenging the US government and asserting an independent foreign policy
that contrasts starkly to the subservience of his predecessors.
AMLO's government has rejected US efforts to delegitimize Venezuela's leftist government,
throwing a wrench in Washington's efforts to impose right-wing activist
Juan Guaidó as coup leader.
AMLO has welcomed Ecuador's ousted socialist leader Rafael Correa and hosted Argentina's
left-leaning Alberto Fernández for his first foreign trip after winning the
presidency.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/D4T0zbASfbA
In October, López Obrador even welcomed Cuban President Díaz-Canel to Mexico
for a historic visit.
Trump's Operation Condor 2.0
For Washington, an independent and left-wing Mexico is intolerable.
In a speech for right-wing, MAGA hat-wearing
Venezuelans in Miami , Florida in February, Trump ranted against socialism for nearly an
hour, threatened the remaining leftist countries in Latin America with regime change.
"The days of socialism and communism are numbered not only in Venezuela, but in Nicaragua
and in Cuba as well," he declared, adding that socialism would never be allowed to take root in
heart of capitalism in the United States.
While Trump has claimed he seeks to withdraw from wars in the Middle East (when he is not
occupying its oil fields
), he has ramped up aggressive US intervention in Latin America.
During the height of the Cold War, Operation Condor thousands of dissidents were murdered,
and hundreds of thousands more were disappeared, tortured, or imprisoned with the assistance of
the US intelligence apparatus.
Today, as Latin America is increasingly viewed through the lens of a new Cold War, Operation
Condor is being reignited with new mechanisms of sabotage and subversion in play. The mayhem
has only begun.
The poll graph without three day averaging is a great visual illustration of the margin of
error concept. It's even clear in the averaged version. I guarantee people are NOT changing
their minds that fast, and I'm sure all the issues Lambert highlighted are contributing to
the inaccuracies.
That said, a few trends are clear. Biden is trending steadily (but very slowly) downward.
Sanders and Buttigieg are trending up, Sanders slowly and Buttigieg somewhat faster, while
Warren is settling back to her long term average after a bump in October. Harris' decision to
withdraw looks like a good one. Undecided numbers are all over the place, and tend to spike
up when other lines spike down, so I'm guessing that's down to differing polling
methodologies and how hard people are pushed to make a call.
Are these pollsters reading all twenty names over the telephone? Or is the polled asked to
name a candidate? I can't get my head around how to manage a list of this many candidates by
voice without 'Name Recognition' being the first choice.
> Are these pollsters reading all twenty names over the telephone?
That's a very good question. Is the list of names so long -- I don't think we've ever had
one so long -- that it enables pollsters to game the polls in new ways? Could be such a
simple and obvious mode of rigging that we did not see it.
Morning Consult (B/C)
Nov 25 – Dec 1
Mon – Sun
15,773 Likely
National
16 candidate names, plus "Someone else" (not present in data source, derived in app)
Details here: https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
The differences are Joe Sestak and Steve Bullock in HarrisX but not MC, going to guess
that MC decided not to list them because they dropped, and if they asked the names during the
survey their report them in the conveniently names "Someone else" category.
Regarding ChrisPacific's point about Undecideds, yes, this is affected by methodology and
whose polls came out on a particular day.
And more generally, we should expect to see noise in this data. These are minuscule
samples compared to the actual voting universe of over 65 million. The "Margin of Error" /
"Confidence Interval" claims are based on the assumption that all polls are distributed as a
uniform bell curve. Arguably useful for getting the noise out of stats for physical
observations of mechanical models, but absurd for human polling. Pollsters (who work mostly
in marketing) use MoE/CI to convince clients spend money on small polls and then spin out
reassuring MoE or CI (which scale to each other, bigger MoE = narrower CI). (Tangentially, on
political campaigns, the tactical advantages to be found in population data come from looking
into what's happening in the noise, not from smoothing it out and then assessing the
distorted surface).
And as in most viscous media, quick changes tend to snap back to origin, slow ones push
though. Consider also that a) these candidates are introducing themselves, impressions
develop over time, and engagement is still low. Also, the context of US society may be
gradually changing, but it would take a sudden shock (like 9/11 at the time) to change the
background context and be reflected in a suddenly shift in Dem Primary polls.
I participated in the last Des Moines Register/CNN Iowa poll. The pollster was required to
read all of the names, even when I could name one immediately.
The call came on my cell phone from a restricted number. I asked for what company or
candidate the poll was being conducted; the interviewer said that she was not given that
information, but at the very end I was asked whether I would be willing to talk to a reporter
from CNN or the DMR (I declined). She did tell me the research firm for which she worked,
which I later saw was the name of the firm that had conducted the poll. When I saw the
original release, I wondered whether I was correct that this was the poll, since I remembered
a question about my preference for a health care system that wasn't in the original release.
That result was released at a later date.
The M4A option for that question was simply M4A, without additional information or
qualifiers. I, as is usual for me, couldn't simply answer a multiple choice question, but
explained that I supported improved M4A, and that current Medicare is still expensive. The
interviewer told me that she herself has trouble affording Medicare, and that she
particularly has trouble paying for her medication. (We got a little chatty.)
The research firm was also contacting Republicans. She said that I had been the first
Democrat that she had reached that day, and that Republicans got different questions. She did
not know whom she was calling and, at the end, asked my first name so that her company could
verify that she had reached the right individual.
I'll check back here in case there are any other questions about the poll that I might be
able to answer. If anyone is interested in the questions themselves, those are already
available online.
Why did I agree to participate? To have my support for Bernie counted, of course!
"... A more compelling explanation for the persistence of a large global U.S. military footprint, and the concomitant creep of oversees commitments, is to be found in domestic politics. Trump's rhetoric can diverge sharply from reality without consequence because few in his party have an incentive to hold him accountable. In this hyper-polarized political moment, most voters will stick with their party regardless of how many campaign pledges are broken or foreign policy initiatives end in failure. With an all-volunteer military, flattening taxes, and deficit financing, the vast majority of Americans are insulated from the costs of American foreign policy. So long as most Americans want to look tough and influential without paying for it, politicians won't be punished for living in the same fantasy world as voters. ..."
"... The main reason why America's military commitments remain unchanged under Trump may simply be that the president doesn't really want to reduce them. ..."
aul MacDonald and Joseph Parent
explain in detail that Trump hasn't reduced U.S. military commitments overseas:
But after nearly three years in office, Trump's promised retrenchment has yet to
materialize. The president hasn't meaningfully altered the U.S. global military footprint he
inherited from President Barack Obama. Nor has he shifted the costly burden of defending U.S.
allies. To the contrary, he loaded even greater military responsibilities on the United
States while either ramping up or maintaining U.S. involvement in the conflicts in
Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere. On practically every other issue, Trump departed radically
from the path of his predecessor. But when it came to troop deployments and other overseas
defense commitments, he largely preserved the chessboard he inherited -- promises to the
contrary be damned.
MacDonald and Parent's article complements my earlier
post about U.S. "global commitments" very nicely. When we look at the specifics of Trump's
record, we see that he isn't ending U.S. military involvement anywhere. He isn't bringing
anyone home. On the contrary, he has been sending even more American troops to the Middle East
just this year alone. While he is being excoriated for withdrawals that never happen, he is
maintaining or steadily increasing the U.S. military presence in foreign countries. Many Trump
detractors and supporters are so invested in the narrative that Trump is presiding over
"withdrawal" that they are ignoring what the president has actually done. Trump's approach to
U.S. military involvement might be described as "loudly declaring withdrawal while maintaining
or increasing troop levels." Almost everyone pays attention only to his rhetoric about leaving
this or that country and treats it as if it is really happening. Meanwhile, the number of
military personnel deployed overseas never goes down.
The authors offer a possible explanation for why Trump has been able to get away with
this:
A more compelling explanation for the persistence of a large global U.S. military
footprint, and the concomitant creep of oversees commitments, is to be found in domestic
politics. Trump's rhetoric can diverge sharply from reality without consequence because few
in his party have an incentive to hold him accountable. In this hyper-polarized political
moment, most voters will stick with their party regardless of how many campaign pledges are
broken or foreign policy initiatives end in failure. With an all-volunteer military,
flattening taxes, and deficit financing, the vast majority of Americans are insulated from
the costs of American foreign policy. So long as most Americans want to look tough and
influential without paying for it, politicians won't be punished for living in the same
fantasy world as voters.
Trump is further insulated from scrutiny and criticism because he is frequently described as
presiding over a "retreat" from the world. Most news reports and commentary pieces reinforce
this false impression that Trump seeks to get the U.S. out of foreign entanglements. There are
relatively few people pointing out the truth that MacDonald and Parent spell out in their
article. The main reason why America's military commitments remain unchanged under Trump
may simply be that the president doesn't really want to reduce them.
"... Now consider the notion of "anti-Semitism." Google searches for that word and its close variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I'm sure I've seen that term tens of thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic media and entertainment. But thinking it over, I'm not sure that I can ever recall a single real-life instance I've personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I've ever come across making such claims were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance. When the daily newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you may gradually grow suspicious. ..."
"... It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for "anti-Semitism" these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition. A few weeks ago an unknown 28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary victory over a top House Democrat in New York City, and naturally received a blizzard of media coverage as a result. However, when it came out that she had denounced the Israeli government for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, cries of "anti-Semite" soon appeared, and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits combining her name and that harsh accusatory term. Similarly, just a few days ago the New York Times ran a major story reporting that all of Britain's Jewish newspapers had issued an "unprecedented" denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, describing it as an "existential threat" to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism it was fostering; but this apparently amounted to nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long mistreatment of the Palestinians. ..."
I recently published a couple of long essays, and although they primarily focused on other
matters, the subject of anti-Semitism was a strong secondary theme. In that regard, I mentioned
my shock at discovering a dozen or more years ago that several of the most self-evidently
absurd elements of anti-Semitic lunacy, which I had always dismissed without consideration,
were probably correct. It does seem likely that a significant number of traditionally-religious
Jews did indeed occasionally commit the ritual murder of
Christian children in order to use their blood in certain religious ceremonies, and also
that powerful Jewish international bankers did play a large
role in financing the establishment of Bolshevik Russia .
When one discovers that matters of such enormous moment not only apparently occurred but
that they had been successfully excluded from nearly all of our histories and media coverage
for most of the last one hundred years, the implications take some time to properly digest. If
the most extreme "anti-Semitic canards" were probably true, then surely the whole notion of
anti-Semitism warrants a careful reexamination.
All of us obtain our knowledge of the world by two different channels. Some things we
discover from our own personal experiences and the direct evidence of our senses, but most
information comes to us via external sources such as books and the media, and a crisis may
develop when we discover that these two pathways are in sharp conflict. The official media of
the old USSR used to endlessly trumpet the tremendous achievements of its collectivized
agricultural system, but when citizens noticed that there was never any meat in their shops,
"Pravda" became a watchword for "Lies" rather than "Truth."
Now consider the notion of "anti-Semitism." Google searches for that word and its close
variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I'm sure I've seen that term tens of
thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic
media and entertainment. But thinking it over, I'm not sure that I can ever recall a single
real-life instance I've personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from
my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I've ever come across making such claims
were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance. When the daily
newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking
people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you may gradually
grow suspicious.
Indeed, over the years some of my own research has uncovered a sharp contrast between image
and reality. As recently as the late 1990s, leading mainstream media outlets such as The
New York Times were still denouncing a top Ivy League
school such as Princeton for the supposed anti-Semitism of its college admissions policy,
but a few years ago when I carefully investigated that issue in quantitative terms for my
lengthy Meritocracy
analysis I was very surprised to reach a polar-opposite conclusion. According to the best
available evidence, white Gentiles were over 90% less likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the
other Ivies than were Jews of similar academic performance, a truly remarkable finding. If the
situation had been reversed and Jews were 90% less likely to be found at Harvard than seemed
warranted by their test scores, surely that fact would be endlessly cited as the absolute
smoking-gun proof of horrendous anti-Semitism in present-day America.
It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for "anti-Semitism"
these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition. A few weeks ago an unknown
28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary
victory over a top House Democrat in New York City, and naturally received a blizzard of media
coverage as a result. However, when it came out that she had denounced the Israeli government
for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, cries of
"anti-Semite" soon appeared, and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits
combining her name and that harsh accusatory term. Similarly, just a few days ago the New
York Times ran a
major story reporting that all of Britain's Jewish newspapers had issued an "unprecedented"
denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, describing it as an "existential threat" to the
Jewish community for the anti-Semitism it was fostering; but this apparently amounted to
nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long
mistreatment of the Palestinians.
One plausible explanation of the strange contrast between media coverage and reality might
be that anti-Semitism once did loom very large in real life, but dissipated many decades ago,
while the organizations and activists focused on detecting and combating that pernicious
problem have remained in place, generating public attention based on smaller and smaller
issues, with the zealous Jewish activists of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) representing a
perfect example of this situation. As an even more striking illustration, the Second World War
ended over seventy years ago, but what historian Norman Finkelstein has so aptly labeled "the
Holocaust Industry" has grown ever larger and more entrenched in our academic and media worlds
so that scarcely a day passes without one or more articles relating to that topic appearing in
my major morning newspapers. Given this situation, a serious exploration of the true nature of
anti-Semitism should probably avoid the mere media phantoms of today and focus on the past,
when the condition might still have been widespread in daily life.
Many observers have pointed to the aftermath of the Second World War as marking a huge
watershed in the public acceptability of anti-Semitism both in America and Europe, so perhaps a
proper appraisal of that cultural phenomenon should focus on the years before that global
conflict. However, the overwhelming role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and other bloody
Communist seizures of power quite naturally made them objects of considerable fear and hatred
throughout the inter-war years, so the safest course might be to push that boundary back a
little further and confine our attention to the period prior to the outbreak of the First World
War. The pogroms in Czarist Russia, the Dreyfus Affair in France, and the lynching of Leo Frank
in the American South come to mind as some of the most famous examples from that period.
Lindemann's discussion of the often difficult relations between Russia's restive Jewish
minority and its huge Slavic majority is also quite interesting, and he provides numerous
instances in which major incidents, supposedly demonstrating the enormously strong appeal of
vicious anti-Semitism, were quite different than has been suggested by the legend. The famous
Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 was obviously the result of severe ethnic tension in that city, but
contrary to the regular accusations of later writers, there seems absolutely no evidence of
high-level government involvement, and the widespread claims of 700 dead that so horrified the
entire world were grossly exaggerated, with only 45 killed in the urban rioting. Chaim
Weizmann, the future president of Israel, later promoted the story that he himself and some
other brave Jewish souls had personally defended their people with revolvers in hand even as
they saw the mutilated bodies of 80 Jewish victims. This account was totally fictional since
Weizmann happened to have been be hundreds of miles away when the riots occurred.
Although a tendency to lie and exaggerate was hardly unique to the political partisans of
Russian Jewry, the existence of a powerful international network of Jewish journalists and
Jewish-influenced media outlets ensured that such concocted propaganda stories might receive
enormous worldwide distribution, while the truth followed far behind, if at all.
For related reasons, international outrage was often focused on the legal confinement of
most of Russia's Jews to the "Pale of Settlement," suggesting some sort of tight imprisonment;
but that area was the traditional home of the Jewish population and encompassed a landmass
almost as large as France and Spain combined. The growing impoverishment of Eastern European
Jews during that era was often assumed to be a consequence of hostile government policy, but
the obvious explanation was extraordinary Jewish fecundity, which far outstripped that of their
Slavic fellow countrymen, and quickly led them to outgrow the available spots in any of their
traditional "middleman" occupations, a situation worsened by their total disinclination to
engage in agriculture or other primary-producer activities. Jewish communities expressed horror
at the risk of losing their sons to the Czarist military draft, but this was simply the
flip-side of the full Russian citizenship they had been granted, and no different from what was
faced by their non-Jewish neighbors.
Certainly the Jews of Russia suffered greatly from widespread riots and mob attacks in the
generation prior to World War I, and these did sometimes have substantial government
encouragement, especially in the aftermath of the very heavy Jewish role in the 1905
Revolution. But we should keep in mind that a Jewish plotter had been implicated in the killing
of Czar Alexander II, and Jewish assassins had also struck down several top Russian ministers
and numerous other government officials. If the last decade or two had seen American Muslims
assassinate a sitting U.S. President, various leading Cabinet members, and a host of our other
elected and appointed officials, surely the position of Muslims in this country would have
become a very uncomfortable one.
As Lindemann candidly describes the tension between Russia's very rapidly growing Jewish
population and its governing authorities, he cannot avoid mentioning the notorious Jewish
reputation for bribery, corruption, and general dishonesty, with numerous figures of all
political backgrounds noting that the remarkable Jewish propensity to commit perjury in the
courtroom led to severe problems in the effective administration of justice. The eminent
American sociologist E.A. Ross, writing in 1913, characterized
the regular behavior of Eastern European Jews in very similar terms .
Lindemann also allocates a short chapter to discussing the 1911 Beilis Affair, in which a
Ukrainian Jew was accused of the ritual murder of a young Gentile boy, an incident that
generated a great deal of international attention and controversy. Based on the evidence
presented, the defendant seems likely to have been innocent, although the obvious lies he
repeatedly told police interrogators hardly helped foster that impression, and "the system
worked" in that he was ultimately found innocent by the jurors at his trial. However, a few
pages are also given to a much less well-known ritual murder case in late 19th century Hungary,
in which the evidence of Jewish guilt seemed far stronger, though the author hardly accepted
the possible reality of such an outlandish crime. Such reticence was quite understandable since
the publication of Ariel Toaff's remarkable volume
on the subject was still a dozen years in the future.
Lindemann subsequently expanded his examination of historical anti-Semitism into a much
broader treatment, Esau's Tears , which appeared in 1997. In this volume, he added
comparative studies of the social landscape in Germany, Britain, Italy, and several other
European countries, and demonstrated that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews varied
greatly across different locations and time periods. But although I found his analysis quite
useful and interesting, the extraordinarily harsh attacks his text provoked from some outraged
Jewish academics seemed even more intriguing.
For example, Judith Laikin Elkin opened her discussion in The American Historical
Review by describing the book as a "545-page polemic" a strange characterization of a book
so remarkably even-handed and factually-based in its scholarship. Writing in
Commentary , Robert Wistrich was even harsher, stating that merely reading the book
had been a painful experience for him, and his review seemed filled with spittle-flecked rage.
Unless these individuals had somehow gotten copies of a different book, I found their attitudes
simply astonishing.
I was not alone in such a reaction. Richard S. Levy of the University of Illinois, a noted
scholar of anti-Semitism, expressed amazement at Wistrich's seemingly irrational outburst,
while Paul Gottfried, writing in Chronicles , mildly suggested that Lindemann had
"touched raw nerves." Indeed, Gottfried's own evaluation quite reasonably criticized Lindemann
for perhaps being a little too even-handed, sometimes presenting numerous conflicting analyzes
without choosing between them. For those interested, a good discussion of the book by Alan
Steinweis, a younger scholar specializing in the same topic,
is conveniently available online .
The remarkable ferocity with which some Jewish writers attacked Lindemann's meticulous
attempt to provide an accurate history of anti-Semitism may carry more significance than merely
an exchange of angry words in low-circulation academic publications. If our mainstream media
shapes our reality, scholarly books and articles based upon them tend to set the contours of
that media coverage. And the ability of a relatively small number of agitated and energetic
Jews to police the acceptable boundaries of historical narratives may have enormous
consequences for our larger society, deterring scholars from objectively reporting historical
facts and preventing students from discovering them.
The undeniable truth is that for many centuries Jews usually constituted a wealthy and
privileged segment of the population in nearly all the European countries in which they
resided, and quite frequently they based their livelihood upon the heavy exploitation of a
downtrodden peasantry. Even without any differences in ethnicity, language, or religion, such
conditions almost invariably provoke hostility. The victory of Mao's Communist forces in China
was quickly followed by the brutal massacre of a million or more Han Chinese landlords by the
Han Chinese poor peasants who regarded them as cruel oppressors, with William Hinton's classic
Fanshen describing the unfortunate history that unfolded in one particular village.
When similar circumstances led to violent clashes in Eastern Europe between Slavs and Jews,
does it really make logical sense to employ a specialized term such as "anti-Semitism" to
describe that situation?
Furthermore, some of the material presented in Lindemann's rather innocuous text might also
lead to potentially threatening ideas. Consider, for example, the notorious Protocols of
the Learned Elders of Zion , almost certainly fictional, but hugely popular and
influential during the years following World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution. The fall of so
many longstanding Gentile dynasties and their replacement by new regimes such as Soviet Russia
and Weimar Germany, which were heavily dominated by their tiny Jewish minorities, quite
naturally fed suspicions of a worldwide Jewish plot, as did the widely discussed role of Jewish
international bankers in producing those political outcomes.
Over the decades, there has been much speculation about the possible inspiration for the
Protocols , but although Lindemann makes absolutely no reference to that document, he
does provide a very intriguing possible candidate. Jewish-born British Prime Minister Benjamin
Disraeli certainly ranked as one of the most influential figures of the late 19th century, and
in his novel Coningsby , he has the character representing Lord Lionel Rothschild
boast about the existence of a vast and
secret network of powerful international Jews , who stand near the head of almost every
major nation, quietly controlling their governments from behind the scenes. If one of the
world's most politically well-connected Jews eagerly promoted such notions, was Henry Ford
really so unreasonable in doing the same?
Lindemann also notes Disraeli's focus on the extreme importance of race and racial origins,
a central aspect of traditional Jewish religious doctrine. He reasonably suggests that this
must surely have had a huge influence upon the rise of those political ideas, given that
Disraeli's public profile and stature were so much greater than the mere writers or activists
whom our history books usually place at center stage. In fact, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a
leading racial theorist, actually cited Disraeli as a key source for his ideas. Jewish
intellectuals such as Max Nordau and Cesare Lombroso are already widely recognized as leading
figures in the rise of the racial science of that era, but Disraeli's under-appreciated role
may have actually been far greater. The deep Jewish roots of European racialist movements are
hardly something that many present-day Jews would want widely known.
One of the harsh Jewish critics of Esau's Tears denounced Cambridge University
Press for even allowing the book to appear in print, and although that major work is easily
available in English, there are numerous other cases where an important but discordant version
of historical reality has been successfully blocked from publication. For decades most
Americans would have ranked Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn as among the world's greatest
literary figures, and his Gulag Archipelago alone sold over 10 million copies. But his
last work was a massive two-volume account of the tragic 200 years of shared history between
Russians and Jews, and despite its 2002 release in Russian and numerous other world languages,
there has yet to be an authorized English translation, though various partial editions have
circulated on the Internet in samizdat form.
ORDER IT NOW
At one point, a full English version was briefly available for sale at Amazon.com and I
purchased it. Glancing through a few sections, the work seemed quite even-handed and innocuous
to me, but it seemed to provide a far more detailed and uncensored account than anything else
previously available, which obviously was the problem. The Bolshevik Revolution resulted in the
deaths of many tens of millions of people worldwide, and the overwhelming Jewish role in its
leadership would become more difficult to erase from historical memory if Solzhenitsyn's work
were easily available. Also, his candid discussion of the economic and political behavior of
Russian Jewry in pre-revolutionary times directly conflicted with the hagiography widely
promoted by Hollywood and the popular media. Historian Yuri Slezkine's award-winning 2004 book
The Jewish Century provided many similar facts, but his treatment was far more cursory
and his public stature not remotely the same.
Near the end of his life, Solzhenitsyn gave his political blessing to Russian President
Vladimir Putin, and Russia's leaders honored him upon his death, while his Gulag
volumes are now enshrined as mandatory reading in the standard high school curriculum of
today's overwhelmingly Christian Russia. But even as his star rose again in his own homeland,
it seems to have sharply fallen in our own country, and his trajectory may eventually relegate
him to nearly un-person status.
A couple of years after the release of Solzhenitsyn's controversial final book, an American
writer named Anne Applebaum published a thick history bearing the same title Gulag ,
and her work received enormously favorable media coverage and won her a Pulitzer Prize; I have
even heard claims that her book has been steadily replacing that earlier Gulag on many
college reading lists. But although Jews constituted a huge fraction of the top leadership of
the Soviet Gulag system during its early decades, as well as that of the dreaded NKVD which
supplied the inmates, nearly her entire focus on her own ethnic group during Soviet times is
that of victims rather than victimizers. And by a remarkable irony of fate, she shares a last
name with one of the top Bolshevik leaders, Hirsch Apfelbaum, who concealed his own ethnic
identity by calling himself Grigory Zinoviev.
ORDER IT NOW
The striking decline in Solzhenitsyn's literary status in the West came just a decade or two
after an even more
precipitous collapse in the reputation of David Irving , and for much the same reason.
Irving probably ranked as the most internationally successful British historian of the last one
hundred years and a renowned scholar of World War II, but his extensive reliance on primary
source documentary evidence posed an obvious threat to the official narrative promoted by
Hollywood and wartime propaganda. When he published his magisterial Hitler's War ,
this conflict between myth and reality came into the open, and an enormous wave of attacks and
vilification was unleashed, gradually leading to his purge from respectability and eventually
even his imprisonment.
These important examples may help to explain the puzzling contrast between the behavior of
Jews in the aggregate and Jews as individuals. Observers have noticed that even fairly small
Jewish minorities may often have a major impact upon the far larger societies that host them.
But on the other hand, in my experience at least, a large majority of individual Jews do not
seem all that different in their personalities or behavior than their non-Jewish counterparts.
So how does a community whose individual mean is not so unusual generate what seems to be such
a striking difference in collective behavior? I think the answer may involve the existence of
information choke-points, and the ability of relatively small numbers of particularly zealous
and agitated Jews in influencing and controlling these.
We live our lives constantly immersed in media narratives, and these allow us to decide the
rights and wrongs of a situation. The vast majority of people, Jew and Gentile alike, are far
more likely to take strong action if they are convinced that their cause is a just one. This is
obviously the basis for war-time propaganda.
Now suppose that a relatively small number of zealous Jewish partisans are known to always
attack and denounce journalists or authors who accurately describe Jewish misbehavior. Over
time, this ongoing campaign of intimidation may cause many important facts to be left on the
cutting-room floor, or even gradually expel from mainstream respectability those writers who
refuse to conform to such pressures. Meanwhile, similar small numbers of Jewish partisans
frequently exaggerate the misdeeds committed against Jews, sometimes piling their exaggerations
upon past exaggerations already produced by a previous round of such zealots.
Eventually, these two combined trends may take a complex and possibly very mixed historical
record and transform it into a simple morality-play, with innocent Jews tremendously injured by
vicious Jew-haters. And as this morality-play becomes established it deepens the subsequent
intensity of other Jewish-activists, who redouble their demands that the media "stop vilifying
Jews" and covering up the supposed evils inflicted upon them. An unfortunate circle of
distortion following exaggeration following distortion can eventually produce a widely accepted
historical account that bears little resemblance to the reality of what actually happened.
So as a result, the vast majority of quite ordinary Jews, who would normally behave in quite
ordinary ways, are misled by this largely fictional history, and rather understandably become
greatly outraged at all the horrible things that had been done to their suffering people, some
of which are true and some of which are not, while remaining completely ignorant of the other
side of the ledger.
Furthermore, this situation is exacerbated by the common tendency of Jews to "cluster"
together, perhaps respresenting just one or two percent of the total population, but often
constituting 20% or 40% or 60% of their immediate peer-group, especially in certain
professions. Under such conditions, the ideas or emotional agitation of some Jews probably
permeates others around them, often provoking additional waves of indignation.
As a rough analogy, a small quantity of uranium is relatively inert and harmless, and
entirely so if distributed within low-density ore. But if a significant quantity of
weapons-grade uranium is sufficiently compressed, then the neutrons released by fissioning
atoms will quickly cause additional atoms to undergo fission, with the ultimate result of that
critical chain-reaction being a nuclear explosion. In similar fashion, even a highly agitated
Jew may have no negative impact, but if the collection of such agitated Jews becomes too
numerous and clusters together too closely, they may work each other into a terrible frenzy,
perhaps with disastrous consequences both for themselves and for their larger society. This is
especially true if those agitated Jews begin to dominate certain key nodes of top-level
control, such as the central political or media organs of a society.
Whereas most living organizations exist solely in physical reality, human beings also occupy
an ideational space, with the interaction of human consciousness and perceived reality playing
a major role in shaping behavior. Just as the pheromones released by mammals or insects can
drastically affect the reactions of their family members or nest-mates, the ideas secreted by
individuals or the media-emitters of a society can have an enormous impact upon their
fellows.
A cohesive, organized group generally possesses huge advantages over a teeming mass of
atomized individuals, just as a Macedonian Phalanx could easily defeat a vastly larger body of
disorganized infantry. Many years ago, on some website somewhere I came across a very
insightful comment regarding the obvious connection between "anti-Semitism" and "racism," which
our mainstream media organs identify as two of the world's greatest evils. Under this analysis,
"anti-Semitism" represents the tendency to criticize or resist Jewish social cohesion, while
"racism" represents the attempt of white Gentiles to maintain a similar social cohesion of
their own. To the extent that the ideological emanations from our centralized media organs
serve to strengthen and protect Jewish cohesion while attacking and dissolving any similar
cohesion on the part of their Gentile counterparts, the former will obviously gain enormous
advantages in resource-competition against the latter.
Religion obviously constitutes an important unifying factor in human social groups and we
cannot ignore the role of Judaism in this regard. Traditional Jewish
religious doctrine seems to consider Jews as being in a state of permanent hostility with all
non-Jews , and the use of dishonest propaganda is an almost inevitable aspect of such
conflict. Furthermore, since Jews have invariably been a small political minority, maintaining
such controversial tenets required the employment of a massive framework of subterfuge and
dissimulation in order to conceal their nature from the larger society surrounding them. It has
often been said that truth is the first casualty in war, and surely the cultural influences of
over a thousand years of such intense religious hostility may continue to quietly influence the
thinking of many modern Jews, even those who have largely abandoned their religious
beliefs.
The notorious Jewish tendency to shamelessly lie or wildly exaggerate has sometimes had
horrifying human consequences. I very recently discovered a fascinating passage in Peter
Moreira's 2014 book The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War ,
focused on the important political role of that powerful Secretary of the Treasury.
A turning point in Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s relationship with the Jewish community came in
November 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise came to the corner office to tell the secretary what
was happening in Europe. Morgenthau knew of the millions of deaths and the lampshades made
from victims' skin, and he asked Wise not to go into excessive details. But Wise went on to
tell of the barbarity of the Nazis, how they were making soap out of Jewish flesh.
Morgenthau, turning paler, implored him, "Please, Stephen, don't give me the gory details."
Wise went on with his list of horrors and Morgenthau repeated his plea over and over again.
Henrietta Klotz was afraid her boss would keel over. Morgenthau later said the meeting
changed his life.
"... "The cost cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame. Its essence was summed up by Col. Ted Westhusing, an Army scholar of military ethics who was an innocent witness to corruption, not a participant, when he died at age 44 of a gunshot wound to the head while working for Gen. David Petraeus training Iraqi security forces in Baghdad in 2005. He was at the time the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq." ..."
"... " 'I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,' Colonel Westhusing wrote, abbreviating the word mission. 'I am sullied.' " ..."
In my opinion the most under-reported event of the Iraq war was the suicide of military Ethicist Colonel Ted Westhusing. It was
reported at the end of a Frank Rich column that appeared in the NY Times of 10-21-2007:
"The cost cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame. Its essence
was summed up by Col. Ted Westhusing, an Army scholar of military ethics who was an innocent witness to corruption, not a participant,
when he died at age 44 of a gunshot wound to the head while working for Gen. David Petraeus training Iraqi security forces in
Baghdad in 2005. He was at the time the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq."
"Colonel Westhusing's death was ruled a suicide, though some believe he was murdered by contractors fearing a whistle-blower,
according to T. Christian Miller, the Los Angeles Times reporter who documents the case in his book "Blood Money."
Either way, the angry four-page letter the officer left behind for General Petraeus and his other commander, Gen. Joseph Fil,
is as much an epitaph for America's engagement in Iraq as a suicide note."
" 'I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,' Colonel Westhusing wrote, abbreviating
the word mission. 'I am sullied.' "
"The tiny pink candies at the bottom of the urinals are reserved for Field Grade and Above." --sign over the urinals in the "O"
Club at Tan Son Nhut Airbase, 1965.
Now that sentiment, is Officer-on-Officer. The same dynamic tension exists throughout all Branches and ranks.
My background includes a Combat Infantry Badge and a record of having made Spec Four , two times. If you don't know what that
means, stop reading here.
I feel that no one should be promoted E-5 or O-4, if they are to command men in battle, unless they have had that life experience
themselves. It becomes virgins instructing on sexual etiquette.
Within the ranks, there exists a disdain for officers, in general. Some officers overcome this by their actions, but the vast
majority cement that assessment the same way.
What makes the thing run is the few officers who are superior human beings, and the NCOs who are of that same tribe. And there
is a love there, from top to bottom and bottom to top, a brotherhood of warriors which the civilian population will forever try
to discern, parse and examine to their lasting frustration and ignorance.
It is the spirit of this nation [Liberty, e pluribus unum and In God We Trust ] that is the binding filament of it all. The
civilians responsible for the welfare of the armed services need to be more fully aware of that spirit and they need to bring
it into the air-conditioned offices they inhabit when they make decisions about men who know sacrifice.
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans
post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately
though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially
people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect
it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
Ukrainegate has definite signs of Soros funded operation
Notable quotes:
"... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
"... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
"... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
"... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. ..."
"... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
"... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
"... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
"... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly... ..."
"... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
"... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
"... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
"... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
"... AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge in her own country! ..."
"... Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money ..."
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning
after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned
in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent
the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete
ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon
George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros,
were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump
administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution
will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of
Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation
faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the
Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because
there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.
Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being
mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary
of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.
There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit
them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have
read as follows:
"Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms
as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect
Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle
East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted
off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War.
Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his
administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies
but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with
the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution
No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities
to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed
at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and
the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org
and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle,
Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great
Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump
presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans
to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street
protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former
Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign
policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the
Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against
Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump
newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.
One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair
Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible
for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets
of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as
"anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's
son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics
not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George
Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
"It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."
None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.
Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.
Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.
News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.
I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.
Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal
outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to
attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?
The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting
politically correct views. And so on.
This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.
"Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield their
brand."
Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:
"The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in
reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm of the American
Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote
in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can
lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "
The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch,
James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite
Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this
elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome,
Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been
exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking
houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge,
there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization
They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort
of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George
Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People
comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?
Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage
infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business
what they do.
We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also
the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.
Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed
to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations
The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says
it all.
The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question
about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long,
that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to
begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.
For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.
Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.
Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering
Global Crime Syndicate.
The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to
be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not
ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started.
Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling
for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.
Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.
Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut
down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic
terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his
son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very
UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking
from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.
Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia,
they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful
in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...
Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their
audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push
those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons
do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?
Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled
by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a
lot of buttons you can push.
Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying.
Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the
catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people,
the White people, are stirring from their slumber.
"PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William
Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.
JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's
security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."
If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA,
empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple
revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have
done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and
then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice
for the violence that he funded.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on
Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be
distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint
a special prosecutor, PROMISED...
The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes
of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The
"real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because
that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through
501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a
massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an
advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa)..
But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter
missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned
down in front of the whole world.
If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will
unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)
I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon
the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.
The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the
purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to
something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest.
They will come back... that is what they do.
They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.
In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again
may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.
The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss
of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are
truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest
groups because they do not have a voice.
Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction
and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.
The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors'
complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests
get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.
In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors
and let them know they are a part of your movement.
Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.
Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society.
On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.
Got that wrong as well.
Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great
precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous,
but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of
the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions,
both deceived and oppressed it."
First five minutes of Alex Jones' video today is clips of people saying "Donald Trump will never be president". Full Show - Soros-Funded Goons Deployed to Overthrow America - 11/11/2016
AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge
in her own country!
lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM
Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff,
but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.
"... Authored by Peter Hitchens via The Mail On Sunday blog, ..."
"... I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure. ..."
"... In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks ..."
"... But I've never seen one like this. It scared me. ..."
"... If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be started by a falsehood. ..."
I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot
identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure.
I had travelled a long distance by train to an address I had been given over an encrypted email.
I was nervous that the meeting might be some sort of trap.
Leaks from inside arms
verification organisations are very sensitive matters. Powerful people mind about them.
I wasn't sure whether to be afraid of being followed, or to be worried about who might be waiting behind
the anonymous door on a dark afternoon, far from home. I took all the amateurish precautions that I could
think of.
As it happened, it was not a trap. Now, on carefully selected neutral ground, I was to meet a person
who would confirm suspicions that had been growing in my mind over several years – that there is something
rotten in the way that chemical weapons inspections are being conducted and reported. And that the world
could be hurried into war on the basis of such inspections.
Inside the safe house, I was greeted by a serious, patient expert, a non-political scientist
whose priority had until now always been to do the hard, gritty work of verification
– travelling
to the scenes of alleged horrors, sifting and searching for hard evidence of what had really happened.
But this entirely honourable occupation had slowly turned sour.
The whiff of political interference had begun as a faint unpleasant smell in the air and grown
until it was an intolerable stench.
Formerly easy-going superiors had turned into tricky bureaucrats.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had become so important that it could
no longer be allowed to do its job properly.
Too many of the big powers that sponsor and finance it were breathing down its neck, wanting certain
results, whether the facts justified them or not.
My source calmly showed me various pieces of evidence that they were who they said they were,
and knew what they claimed to know, making it clear that they worked for the OPCW and knew its inner workings.
They then revealed a document to me.
This was the email of protest, sent to senior OPCW officials, saying that a report on the alleged Syrian
poison gas attack in Douma, in April 2018, had been savagely censored so as to alter its meaning.
In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks
:
leaks
over luxurious, expensive lunches with Cabinet Ministers, anonymous leaks that just turned up in envelopes,
leaks from union officials and employers, diplomats and academics.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read
stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
But I've never seen one like this. It scared me.
If it was true, then
something hugely dishonest and dangerous was going on, in a place where absolute integrity was vital.
If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be
started by a falsehood.
Last week I reported on the first episode in this story. Within days the OPCW had confirmed that the
email I leaked was authentic.
Nobody followed me home or threatened me. A few silly people on social media told blatant lies about
me, insinuating that I was somehow a Russian patsy or a defender of the disgusting Syrian regime that
I have been attacking in print for nearly 20 years. That was what I had expected.
But there is much more to come.
And, as it grows harder for everyone to ignore this
enormous, dangerous story,
I suspect I shall be looking over my shoulder rather more than usual.
A con man of the first order. Fewer and fewer are seeing him as a decent man. Just another
neoliberal. When he was in his in first term and said to a bunch of reporters in a hamburger stand that
he was the same as a 1960's moderate Republican, I couldn't believe that people gave him a
pass.
It was so obvious. I never made the mistake of voting for him again. I'm glad it's finally
getting through to people what a phony, greedy person he is.
He and his neoliberal ilk are why this country is declining rapidly into economic and social
disaster and why South America and Europe are now on fire with right-wing coups and massive
demonstrations.
With the power structures combining to purposely decimate the world population, I see
nothing but historic calamity facing all of us. I just hope the 1% have to pay the piper as
well.
Take a mild-mannered Constitutional Law professor, wave a magic wand and utter "Abracadabra!"
and you get a full-blown apologist for US Imperialism! "We are the Indispensable Nation We
are the Indispensable Nation We are the Indispensable Nation " Stop the world, I want to get
off!
Who's for starting a pool to guess the month and week Barack Obama announces – with
reluctance – that for "the good of the Nation and Party" he would accept the
nomination, were it to be offered?
Barack vs Hillary, Round 2: Better than "The Thrilla in Manilla" or "The Rumble in the
Jungle."
Follow-up: Will the Democratic Party survive the campaign and convention?
" That anonymous author (a German intelligence analyst) documented the evilness of the overthrow of Evo Morales in Bolivia,
and the threat now clearly posed to the world by the US regime -- a spreading cancer of expansionist fascism, led from Washington.
But, even more than this, he indicated that unless the individuals who are responsible for the advancing fascism are executed,
there won't be any real hope for democracy anywhere in the world. Either this impunity will stop, or else the spread of the US
international dictatorship -- not only by CIA coups such as this, but by illegal international invasions such as of Iraq 2003,
Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, and Yemen 2015-, -- will continue and will engulf in misery ultimately the entire world . He makes
clear the complicity of US 'news'-media in the lies that 'justify' this coup (and 'justified' those invasions)." [My Emphasis]
IMO, that's a very broad interpretation of b's summation, but I cannot argue against the section I bolded--as some may have
noticed, my appellation for the USA has evolved to better reflect its nature: the Evil Outlaw US Empire. There are numerous reasons
that prompted me to do so, one I mentioned in my reply @14 to S--tact is no longer employed in diplomacy by the Evil Outlaw US
Empire, and that's a very bad sign, IMO. Zuesse continues on calling out the crimes of BigLie Media, echoing my accusation that
the writers and editors are all committing the crimes of Goebbels and ought to mimic his actions when his end was nigh.
Zueese ends his very authentic rant with the following prescription which was clearly needed prior to 911:
"Unfortunately, the only global solution would be a second American Revolution, but, this time, the news-media are far less
honest, and so almost no support exists amongst the US population for doing that. Consequently, the outlook for the future, worldwide,
is grim. If the warning (hidden by the media as it is), this time from Bolivia, is not heeded, how can this cancer ever be stopped
from engulfing the entire world?"
It's curious that an impending Civil War within the Evil Outlaw US Empire is posited but seldom a 2nd Revolution, although
the latter's been discussed at the bar by myself and others off and on over the past several years. I wrote the following in a
reply to psychohistorian on the previous open thread:
"I appears that the prerequisite to obtaining freedom and democracy is public ownership of the vast majority of financial levers.
Without public capture of that essential domain, only some form of penury is possible for the vast majority of commonfolk, leaving
only a select hierarchy free, democracy reserved only for their use. Pretty well sums up the current situation within the Evil
Outlaw US Empire I'd say."
The Civil Arm of the coup: one of the best-funded NGOs in Bolivia during 2017 and 2018 was the International Republican Institute
(IRI). http://bit.ly/37HYnit
The destabilization of Ukraine and Tunisia are the main achievements of this American organization.
US Empire's Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell gets irked that more nations are joining the INSTEX mechanism for commerce with Iran as
shown by his Tweet:
"cc: @TreasurySpox @USTreasury sounds to me like all these people and groups should be added
to the US Sanctions list. We should ensure that they don't get to work in the US market.
Iran or the US -- they decide. But not both ." [My Emphasis]
The nations saying we're not with you are Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway,
and Sweden--what might be termed the more enlightened Europeans.
And here we have Germany's CDU acting in a manner reflecting the Bush Doctrine as it debated
Germany's 5G
rollout :
"The moderates, represented by Merkel, believe that Germany should not rule out any company
over political issues, but focus more on objective factors such as whether its technological
security and standards meet German requirements. However, some hard-liners make it an
ideological issue and believe Huawei should be excluded. The reason they provided is ' no
Chinese company is an independent company,' adding that Huawei's involvement is principally "an
imminent question of national security .
"After decades of following the US, Germany has somewhat lost the ability to independently
decide its development and destiny. But in recent years, the US has been pursuing
unilateralism. The export-oriented German economy is affected by not only China-US trade
conflicts, but also US threat of imposing tariffs on German products. Thus, it is time for
Berlin to stop its fear of threats from Washington and make choices that are in line with its
own interests." [My Emphasis]
Every Evil Outlaw US Empire chartered corporation in the tech realm is not an "independent
company" since they work hand in glove with CIA, NSA, FBI, other government organizations, and
are also funded by the government. The same is likely true of every Western tech company. A
double standard excuse in service of continuing the Bush Doctrine.
To paraphrase Grenell, Now is most certainly the time to declare your independence and
reclaim your sovereignty and cease acting in the service of another nation.
American nationalism binds the whole-to-its-parts by using narrative to weaponize emotions
and broadcast the idea of American 'wholeness' as somehow exceptionally greater than the sum of
its parts.
There can be no doubt that zealotry became the dynamic forging the American character .
First and foremostly, enunciations spat out by bearded prophets were carried on the winds of
ontological time and eventually landing on the shores of the new world along with bible and
crucifix to stave off inequities and help shape a mind-set (and foreign policy) for those
taking possession of the Kingdom of God. A colonial policy that inevitably consigned the
population of the occupied territories into misery and poverty would in time come to be
regarded as regime change. The Protestant reformation was always about gilding the God
narrative with a work ethic equal to the sum of its mercantile whole.
To this very day, individual achievements take precedence over collective values as
missionary zeal is believed to have the potential to sublimate the libido and divert energy
into productive work activities. The nub of the narrative being the ineffable
Protestant-cum-existentialist credential underpinning the virtues of 19th century Anglophile
culture that found ways of appeasing the mind with dreamlike emoluments to convey the promise
of earthly rewards for the industrious of mind or simply put; mercantilism became
a-one-size-fits-all solution for man's irascible struggle with his existential hairshirt.
In time, European mercantile classes would invasively penetrate every corner of the globe
for the purpose of wealth extraction. Those who sought material gratification would eventually
come to define democracy as freedom to pursue individual desires. What emerged from this was
class-identified gentrification and fake sugar-coated democracy supporting a form of
fake-individuality that created a class system based on the exploitation on just about
everything.
As time passed the existential stature of the state grew, while the existential stature of
the individual remained the same. With the advent of mercantilism came a national economic
policy designed to maximize exports and minimize imports, with the state taking a more
adversarial role in all business arrangements. For the state to be greater than the sum of its
parts meant exporting a greater quantity of its manufactured products to its trading partners
while minimising the amount of goods they imported from them.
To do this it was necessary to devise policies that aimed to reduce a possible current
account deficit and achieve a current account surplus. Mercantilism introduced a national
economic policy aimed at accumulating monetary reserves through a positive balance of trade,
especially in finished goods fine policies in theory, but when push came to shove in the
competitive arena, greed inevitably exposed these polices to the raw 'talents' of people like
Sheriff Trump and most of his contemporaries , who interpret business as dealership and
mawkishly set out to wage economic warfare on all and sundry.
The practice of sucking in wealth associated with the resources of Africa, India, the
Americas, India and other Asian destinations was so successful that Britain almost
inadvertently found itself in possession of an empire. It had reached a plateau where the sum
was greater than its parts and to sustain its 'sum-status' meant creating an alliance of
collusive narratives to justify its pre-eminence and the best way to do so and retain control
of the narrative was to resort to propaganda and trophy issues that would weaponize the
emotions of the population. Hence the modern state found a way to prioritize itself at the
expense of the individual. Over time, business cartels in tandem with the government would
create ever more contextual paradigms for the individual to deal with.
What was required to sustain the status quo was a narrative to make the people feel proud of
the fact that they were part of a-top-dog-team in action. Once the authors of the narrative
realized that propaganda, when coupled with patriotism, could produce adherents imbued with
convictions that were inherent in the narrative, they realized that language itself could
cement a profitable relationship between buyer and seller and public relations became a force
unto itself.
If you were part of the bourgeoisie who came into existence in the 19th centuries as a
consequence of the wealth pouring into Europe and Britain from the colonial exploitation of
Africa or India, Ireland, Asia etc. and your conscience was troubled by virtue of being party
to a culture sliding grandiosely up its own existential arse, you could find balm within the
isolated confines of the psychiatrist's couch if your pockets were deep enough. If you were of
a humble disposition, there was the pastor or the priest who could deal with your existential
woes. If you made it to the 20th century you probably would have become so conditioned by
events as to be unaware of other people's suffering and if you made it to the 21 century perish
the thought!
It was in this phase of history that commerce cleverly entered the business of explaining
the meaning of existence per educational fiat for a price! Thereafter it would be secular
experts who explained the meaning of life to anybody who could afford to pay for enlightenment
while simultaneously repressing revolutionary instincts that could, in the first instance,
allow the light of reason to filter through.
With the crafting of the existential narrative, more and more people came to see themselves
as parts in a new whole. Personal history became the curveball of the 20th century, promoting a
vision of America as utopia on steroids, which in turn, produced a sky-is-the-limit kind of
optimism. America had long taken over from where Britain had left off after experiencing a fin
de siecle stampede through its pearly gates in the 19th century which eventually produced an
adrenaline rush to end all adrenaline rushes by the time it put a man on the moon. The net
result was that American industry became kingpin for a century which left it convinced of its
own invincibility.
When did America start to believe that it had to possess the biggest nuclear arsenal for it
to feel that 'whole' America had become greater than the sum of its rival's parts? Which raises
the question; given the way power is used by the modern democratic-capitalist state, is the
American constitution merely an example of baggage retained for baggage sake? Is there anything
beyond raw power that may define its essence? Does it have an essence, or is it merely guided
by some dark light that emanates from a single word 'democracy' that stands alone on the blank
piece of paper that was placed in a bottle and cast upon the ocean with information that might
help 'the people' fulfil their desires?
Do the people not see that they need to be free from illusions that enfold them before they
can revolutionize their system and move on?
The elites who control the narrative remain invisible, they are neither deep nor surface
stakeholders, they simply control the money flow. They are the sum-total of the faceless state,
protected by protocols, secret intelligence agencies and the reality of the military budget
that is put in place to maintain top-dog status for the elites and the illusions that comfort
the multifarious minions now quarantined in citizen- zones that continue to emasculate their
revolutionary spirit.
The current impeachment process in America best illustrates the sterility the population is
immiserated in. They should be impeaching themselves (instead of looking for a scapegoat) for
their inability to confront their own record. They seem unaware that they are party to a
bloodbath that has devastated much of the Middle East and many other societies across the
globe.
Once again, Americans are involved in the early stages of an election that leaves the
question of America's foreign policy in the too hard basket. A charade that would make
Machiavelli blush. But alas, when blush comes to shove, American might is a God given right and
collateral damage is not something that would soon alter the tone of its pugnaciously
thick-skinned approach to reality.
Then there is ever more evidence of the schism that is corporate existentialism as opposed
to individual existentialism. The former owning the right to squash the latter ever since
Corporate America took the civil out of civilisation by assiduously seeking to remove
voices/data/information/truth and honourable journalism from serving the public interest.
To observe how Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden (also Daniel Ellsberg,
Jeffrey Wigand, Thomas Andrew Drake and Frank Serpico) were treated for divulging the execrable
crimes of the American state are odious to say the least. That so many Americans, in condoning
"the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" mentality, and dismissive of the service their
whistle-blowers are providing, is appalling. A new class of people have come into existence and
they hate whistle-blowers because they speak truth to power pity the millions of Americans who
don't think that way!
And what does the MSM really think of all this? That the New York Times continues to readily
publish Bibi Netanyahu's blandishments concerning existential threats to Israel while ignoring
the fact that Palestine have had their country invaded and countless Palestinians now live
under appalling conditions where existential rights do not even apply to them. The hurt that is
inflicted on Palestinians is akin to the hurt that can be extended to say, Julian Assange,
because both insidiously demean the human spirit.
These are actions that highlight the schism that exists between governance and the governed
existence of the state in relation to the existence of the individual or any other agent in the
individual legal zone we recognise as being separate from the privileged existential zone of
governments that includes corporations who enjoy limited liability by virtue of their status in
law. Existentialism, at the individual level, is a concept born of leisure (think affluence),
but when dealing with fiscal reality, finds its sovereignty somewhat overshadowed by the
external trappings of an existential system designed to keep the checks and balances that
favour the imperial narrative.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
Six months ago when the US Government slammed Assange with 17 charges under The Espionage
Act for publishing the Chelsea Manning Leaks, indications were that these actions were taken to
stifle the existence of a precedent that challenged the rights of a government to suppress the
existence of truth itself; eventually it became their right to gag the message and the
messenger.
The American police state is a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle meant to keep the property
and the resources of the American people flowing into corrupt government agencies and their
corporate partners. In its present incarnation, it unmistakably exists as a pariah whose
insidious meddling in other people's systems knows no limitations. It unrelentingly spews out
lies at every opportunity which vaunt variations on a theme of America's self-righteous
greatness ad nauseam. Its porous foreign policy exists to suck-out the essence of vulnerable
states that are exposed to the gravitation pull of weaponised systems such as Wall Street and
The Pentagon.
The systems that have weaponized American culture have spawned a host of 'yes' men and women
the MSM is aglow with them. The emotional and intellectual life of main street America is
ominously self-righteous and defensive. To understand how reflexive American politics is, is to
discover by merely surfing channels that the American public has become the meat in a
political-duopoly sandwich.
To listen to Elizabeth Warren expostulating on Bolivia attests to a form of political incest
that bedevils America. The Massachusetts Senator wanted to air her foreign policy bona fides in
an interview with a former Barack Obama administration apparatchik on the podcast "Pod Save
America."
Warren praised Trump's strategy of appointing the deflated Venezuela coup leader Juan Guaido
as president and declared, "I support economic sanctions." She also described the country's
democratically elected president Nicolas Maduro as a "dictator." although the interview was
conducted back in February, video clips have recently resurfaced and gone viral on social
media.
Which brings me back to the observation that America's mawkish culture is viral in ways that
are mainly lethal for those it disapproves of. It behaves like a giant octopus forever
extending its tentacles into places that it wishes to exploit or annihilate. And behold The
American Posse has morphed into stealth forces that operate outside of international law, human
decency or basic accountability. It abhors the idea that leaders like Nicolas Maduro could curb
the extortionist practices of corporate America and set about eliminating poverty in his
beloved Bolivia. Worst of all is the fact that the American public condones regime change and
all the other rapacious practices it is known for.
Sadly, America has become like an illiterate robot in a mathematical minefield stomping and
headbutting everyone and everything it perceives as a competitor while waving its nuclear
missiles and pruning shears at spectres of the existential sub-particle kind that threaten to
lead humanity in a direction where it might discover that dancing the socialist fandangle might
be o.k. after all.
Looks like exceptions in US political jargon means "no rivals"... Trump is still dreaming about "Full Spectrum Dominance"
Otherwise he would not populate his administration with rabid neocons, leftover from Bush II administration. As well as
people who were responsible for Obama color revolutions and wars. Instead of gratitude from neocons viper nest in the State
Department he got Ukrainegate as a Thanksgiving present.
Notable quotes:
"... If the US cannot find some modus vivendi with China, then the outcome could be a catastrophic conflict worst than any previous world war, he admonished. ..."
"... A key remark made by Kissinger was the following: "So those countries that used to be exceptional and used to be unique, have to get used to the fact that they have a rival." ..."
"... In other words, he is negating the erroneous consensus held in Washington which asserts that the US is somehow "exceptional", a "uni-power" and the "indispensable nation". This consensus has grown since the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the US viewed itself as the sole super-power. That morphed into a more virulent ideology of "full-spectrum dominance". Thence, the past three decades of unrelenting US criminal wars and regime-change operations across the planet, throwing the whole world into chaos. ..."
"... While sharing a public stage with Kissinger, the Chinese leader added: "The two sides should proceed from the fundamental interests of the two peoples and the people of the world, respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, pursue win-win results in cooperation, and promote bilateral ties to develop in the right direction." ..."
"... Likewise, China and Russia have continually urged for a multipolar world order for cooperation and partnership in development. But the present and recent US governments refuse to contemplate any other order other than a presumed unipolar dominance. Hence the ongoing US trade strife with China and Washington's relentless demonization of Russia. ..."
"... This "exceptional" ideological mantra of the US is leading to more tensions, and ultimately is a path to the abyss. Henry Kissinger gets it. It's a pity America's present crop of politicians and thinkers are so impoverished in their intellect. ..."
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made prudent
remarks recently when he said the United States is no longer a uni-power and that it must
recognize the reality of China as an equal rival. The furor over a new law passed by the US this week regarding Hong Kong and undermining
Beijing's authority underlines Kissinger's warning.
If the US cannot find some modus vivendi with China, then the outcome could be a
catastrophic conflict worst than any previous world war, he admonished.
Speaking publicly in New York on November 14, the veteran diplomat urged the US and China
to resolve their ongoing economic tensions cooperatively and mutually, adding: "It is no longer
possible to think that one side can dominate the other."
A key remark made by Kissinger was the following: "So those countries that used to be
exceptional and used to be unique, have to get used to the fact that they have a
rival."
In other words, he is negating the erroneous consensus held in Washington which asserts
that the US is somehow "exceptional", a "uni-power" and the "indispensable nation". This
consensus has grown since the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the US
viewed itself as the sole super-power. That morphed into a more virulent ideology of
"full-spectrum dominance". Thence, the past three decades of unrelenting US criminal wars and
regime-change operations across the planet, throwing the whole world into chaos.
Kissinger's frank assessment is a breath of fresh air amid the stale and impossibly arrogant
self-regard held by too many American politicians who view their nation as an unparalleled
power which brooks no other.
The seasoned statesman, who is 96-years-old and retains an admirable acumen for
international politics, ended his remarks on an optimistic note by saying: "I am confident the
leaders on both sides [US and China] will realize the future of the world depends on the two
sides working out solutions and managing the inevitable difficulties."
Aptly, Kissinger's caution about danger of conflict was reiterated separately by veteran
journalist John Pilger, who
warned in an exclusive interview for Strategic Culture Foundation this week that, presumed
"American exceptionalism is driving the world to war."
Henry Kissinger is indeed a controversial figure. Many US scholars regard him as one of the
most outstanding Secretaries of State during the post-Second World War period. He served in the
Nixon and Ford administrations during the 1970s and went on to write tomes about geopolitics
and international relations. Against that, his reputation was badly tarnished by the US war in
Vietnam and the horrendous civilian death toll from relentless aerial bombing across Indochina,
believed to have been countenanced by Kissinger.
Kissinger has also been accused of supporting the military coup in Chile in 1973 against
elected President Allende, and for backing the dirty war by Argentina's fascist generals during
the 1970s against workers and leftists.
... ... ...
At times, President Donald Trump appears to subscribe to realpolitik pragmatism. At other
times, he swings to the hyper-ideological mentality as expressed by his Vice President Mike
Pence, as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mike Esper. The
latter has labeled
China as the US's "greatest long-term threat".
This week President Trump signed into law "The Human Rights and Democracy Bill", which will
impose sanctions on China over alleged repression in its Hong Kong territory. Beijing has
reacted furiously to the legislation, condemning
it as a violation of its sovereignty.
This is exactly the kind of baleful move that Kissinger warned against in order to avoid a
further poisoning in bilateral relations already tense from the past 16 months of US-China
trade war.
One discerns the difference between Kissinger and more recent US politicians: the former has
copious historical knowledge and appreciation of other cultures. His shrewd, wily, maybe even
Machiavellian streak, informs Kissinger to acknowledge and respect other powers in a complex
world. That is contrasted with the puritanical banality and ignorance manifest in Trump's
administration and in the Congress.
Greeting Kissinger last Friday, November 22, during a visit to Beijing, President Xi Jinping
thanked him for his historic contribution in normalizing US-China relations during 1970s.
"At present, Sino-US relations are at a critical juncture facing some difficulties and
challenges," said
Xi, calling on the two countries to deepen communication on strategic issues. It was an echo of
the realpolitik views Kissinger had enunciated the week before.
While sharing a public stage with Kissinger, the Chinese leader added: "The two sides
should proceed from the fundamental interests of the two peoples and the people of the world,
respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, pursue win-win results in
cooperation, and promote bilateral ties to develop in the right direction."
Likewise, China and Russia have continually urged for a multipolar world order for
cooperation and partnership in development. But the present and recent US governments refuse to
contemplate any other order other than a presumed unipolar dominance. Hence the ongoing US
trade strife with China and Washington's relentless demonization of Russia.
This "exceptional" ideological mantra of the US is leading to more tensions, and
ultimately is a path to the abyss. Henry Kissinger gets it. It's a pity America's present crop
of politicians and thinkers are so impoverished in their intellect.
"... However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her." According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren. ..."
In November, Barack Obama, who had avoided commenting on the Democratic presidential
primary, came out forcefully in opposition to the extreme positions taken by some leading
progressive contenders, positions that could cause the Democrats to be beaten by Trump in the
2020 election. Obama was a very popular president among Democrats, and what he has to say
carries considerable weight with them. While this may not be his intent, Obama's position could
open the field for Hillary Clinton to enter the fray and quite possibly become the Democrats'
nominee, given the lackluster performance of leading "moderate" Joe Biden, whose weaknesses
have been brought out by the mainstream media, despite their animosity toward Trump.
Now many in the Democratic Party leadership, as well as wealthy Democratic donors, have been
concerned for some time about the radical nature of some of the economic policies advocated by
the leading progressive Democratic contenders. They fear that instead of the 2020 election
revolving around Trump with his low approval ratings, and very likely his impeachment, which
would seem to be a slam-dunk victory for Democrats, it would focus on those radical economic
proposals. Many voters are skeptical about how free college for all, free health care for all,
high-paying jobs in "green energy" -- after greatly reducing the use of fossil fuels, free
childcare for all, just to name some of the "free" things that have been promised, would really
work. Instead of raising taxes on the middle class, most of these free things would purportedly
be paid for by the super-wealthy, which would exclude mere millionaires such as Bernie Sanders
(estimated wealth $2 million) and Elizabeth Warren (estimated wealth $12 million) who are the
leading progressive contenders.
Obama began stressing his concern about the danger of radicalism in an October speech at the
Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. And he did this not by dealing with presidential candidates
but with youth who think they can immediately change society. "This
idea of purity and you're never compromised, and you're always politically woke and all
that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama lectured. "The world is messy. There are
ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."
It was at a gathering of Democratic donors in Washington, D.C., in November that Obama
cautioned Democratic candidates not to go too far to the left since that would antagonize many
voters who would otherwise support the Democratic candidate. "Even as we push the envelope and
we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in
reality ," Obama asserted. "The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear
down the system and remake it." Although Obama did not specify particular Democratic
candidates, his warning was widely interpreted as being directed at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders.
Currently, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, according to national polls,
is Joe Biden, who is considered a moderate. But Biden has a number of problems. He continues to
make gaffes while speaking, and during his long career in the Senate took positions that are
antithetical to the Democratic Party of today. Moreover, he lacks the charisma to attract large
crowds to his events. Thus, it is questionable that he has the capability to attract large
numbers of Democratic voters to the polls in November 2020.
According to Politico Magazine , Obama was recently discussing election tactics with
an unnamed current candidate and "pointed out that during his own 2008 campaign, he had an
intimate bond with the electorate" and he is quoted as adding, "And you know who really
doesn't have it ? Joe Biden."
Biden's appeal already seems to be waning. For example, in November, a Marquette Law School
poll, which is considered the gold-standard survey in swing state Wisconsin, which the
Democrats need to win the 2020 election, shows
Trump leading Biden 47 percent to 44 percent. In October, Trump had trailed Biden by 6
points (44 percent to 50 percent), and in August, Trump trailed Biden by 9 points (42 percent
to 51 percent). In short, Biden is losing support. Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 by a slender
margin of 0.77 percent, with 47.22 percent of the total votes over the 46.45 percent for
Hillary Clinton.
Another problem Biden faces is the corrupt activities of his son Hunter and brother James,
who have taken advantage of their connection with him. The mainstream media has so far largely
kept this mostly under wraps, but this tactic won't be successful as the election approaches.
In fact, the progressive Democrats such as Bernie Sanders are likely to bring this up in a
desperate effort to be nominated. And already these issues are being mentioned by the
alternative media. For instance, there is an article in the non-partisan, anti-government
Intercept
titled, "Joe Biden's Family Has Been Cashing in on His Career for Decades. Democrats Need to
Acknowledge That," and comparable articles in the conservative Washington Examiner such
as, "Hunter Biden-linked company r
eceived $130M in special federal loans while Joe Biden was vice president," and "Hunter
Biden has
99 problems , and Burisma is only one."
David Axelrod, Democratic strategist and longtime aide to Barack Obama, said concerns about
Biden's electability clearly influenced multi-billionaire (estimated $53 billion) and
former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's entrance into the contest for the Democratic
nominee for president. "There's no question that Bloomberg's calculus was that Biden was
occupying a space, and the fact that he's getting in is a clear indication that he's not
convinced Biden has the wherewithal to carry that torch," Axelrod said. "So yeah, I don't think
this is a positive development for Joe Biden."
Similarly, Democratic strategist Brad Bannon contended that "centrist Democrats and wealthy
donors have
lost confidence in Biden's ability to stop Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders from winning
the nomination." Bannon added that with Bloomberg entering the Democratic presidential race,
"Biden's fundraising will get even shakier than it already is. There's only room for one
moderate in this race and Bloomberg threatens Biden's status as the centrist
standard-bearer."
Bloomberg's "stop and frisk"
policy as mayor , which largely targeted blacks and Hispanics, should make it virtually
impossible that he could be the Democratic nominee, despite his recent apology. Unless he has
become senile in his late 70s, Bloomberg should well understand this since he did not make his
billions by being stupid. It could be that he intends to serve as a stalking horse to draw
Hillary Clinton into the contest by showing the weakness of Biden. Then like Superwoman,
Hillary can enter the fray, appearing not to act for her own sake but to save the country from
a likely second term for President Trump.
Similarly, Mark Penn, who was chief strategist for Clinton's unsuccessful 2008 presidential
campaign, said Bloomberg's entrance
could cause Clinton to consider to run and decide there's "still a political logic there for
her."
As Biden's support slips away, Clinton's should rise. Clinton has been recently promoting a
book she co-wrote with her daughter, Chelsea, in Britain. In an interview with BBC Radio 5
Live , Clinton said "many, many, many people" are
pressuring her to jump into the 2020 presidential race and that she thinks about this "all
the time." Clinton told the host that she is under "enormous pressure" but said it is not in
her plans, though she cryptically added that she would "never say never."
Dick Morris, who was once a close confidant of the Clintons during Bill Clinton's time as
Arkansas governor and U.S. president recently said in a radio interview that Hillary Clinton
likely wants to run for the presidency in 2020. "My feeling is that
she wants to ," Morris said. "She feels entitled to do it. She feels compelled to do it.
She feels that God put her on the Earth to do it. But she's hesitant because she realizes the
timing is bad."
However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out
because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her."
According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the
leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren.
Morris has not been in touch with the Clintons for many years, and has become strongly
critical of them, so his claim might be questionable. Nonetheless, his portrayal of Hillary's
current thinking seems quite reasonable.
A Fox News poll included Clinton along with the active Democratic candidates in a
hypothetical election with Trump, and Hillary came out ahead of him by two percentage
points. While some actual candidates did somewhat better than Hillary, she did quite well for
someone who is not currently running for office.
Furthermore, a Harris Harvard poll in late October asked the question, "Suppose Hillary
Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and John Kerry decides [sic] to enter the race, who would you
support as a candidate for President?" Joe Biden received the support of 19 percent of Democrat
respondents while Clinton was a
close second with 18 percent. Elizabeth Warren came in third at 13 percent, John Kerry was
at 8 percent, and Bloomberg was at 6. Again, Clinton does quite well for someone who is not
actually running for president.
One might think that if references to family members' corruption damaged Biden, then Clinton
would be subject to worse damage in that area, since she and her husband Bill were connected
with far more corrupt activities -- Whitewater, Travelgate, the Lewinsky affair, the Paula
Jones affair, t the death of Vince Foster, the Clinton Foundation, her private server, and so
on. But these issues are already known and are presumably already taken into account by the
voters, whereas the Biden family's corrupt activities are so far largely unknown.
It should be pointed out that Clinton has a number of positives as a presidential candidate.
Although losing in the Electoral College in 2016, Clinton had garnered 3 million more votes
more than Trump. The election was decided by a total of 80,000 votes in three states. It is
highly unlikely that such a fluke could be duplicated.
Clinton's staff had been overconfident assuming victory, which was based on their polling of
various states, and as a result began to focus on competing in states well beyond those Clinton
needed for victory.
Moreover, one key event outside the control of Clinton's staff was FBI Director James
Comey's investigation of Clinton's use of a personal email server during her tenure as
secretary of state. Most crucial were his July 2016 public statement terminating the
investigation, with a lengthy comment about what Clinton did wrong, and his October 28
reopening the inquiry into newly discovered emails and then closing it two days before the
election, stating that the emails had not provided any new information. The October 28 letter,
however, probably played a key role in the outcome of the election. As statistician Nate Silver
maintains: "Hillary Clinton would probably be president
if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which
said the FBI had 'learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the
investigation into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended
the news cycle and soon halved Clinton's lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the
Electoral College.'"
[Silver's organization FiveThirtyEight had projected a much higher chance (29
percent) of Donald Trump winning the presidency than most other pollsters]
Clinton has also helped to convince many Democrats and members of the mainstream media that
the 2016 election was stolen from her by Russian agents If this were really true – which
is very doubtful – then Hillary should be the Democrats' candidate for 2020 since Russian
intervention should not be as successful as it allegedly was in 2016.
In endorsing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, Obama stated. "I don't think that
there's ever been someone
so qualified to hold this office." He has yet to make such an endorsement for Biden and
privately, as mentioned earlier, said he is a poor choice for a nominee. He might ultimately
endorse Biden, but he certainly would not renege on what he said four years ago about Clinton
if she became the Democrats' standard-bearer.
Should Clinton opt to run, she would have no trouble raising money since she set a record in
2016 of $1.4 billion
and wealthy donors want a moderate to be the Democratic nominee. It would seem likely that she
would enter the contest if Biden has serious trouble. She would miss some state primaries since
it would be too late to register in them but given the crowded field of candidates, there is a
likelihood that there will be a brokered convention, that is, the convention will go past the
first ballot. Since the superdelegates would be allowed to vote in all rounds after the first,
they could determine the winner, which would probably mean the selection of a candidate who
would be seen to have the greatest chance of winning, and that would likely be Hillary Clinton,
if she has entered the fray.
I discussed the merits of Pete Buttigieg in a previous article in
Unz Review, and what I write here might seem to conflict with that. However, while Buttigieg is
doing quite well
in the polls, he still does not get much support
from blacks and Latinos, which is essential to become the Democrats nominee for president.
Buttigieg could, however, be nominated for vice president or, more likely, given an important
cabinet position since the vice-presidential slot would probably be reserved for a black or
Latino if a white person were picked as the presidential nominee, which currently seems
likely.
But because of Buttigieg's relatively hardline foreign policy
, which largely meshes with that of Clinton's, and his wide knowledge and language ability,
Buttigieg would fit well in the all-important position of secretary of state in a Clinton
administration. Moreover, Buttigieg, whose tenure as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, will end in
January 2020, would almost certainly be willing to take such a position, which could serve as a
jumping-off point for the presidency in the future.
"... Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies. ..."
"... No informed American can afford to not know the names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. > ..."
"... Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover. ..."
"... The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket. ..."
"... In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent. ..."
"... That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book. Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters. ..."
"... Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state. However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and often place American interests second to that of the lobby. ..."
Although it is generally understood that American neoconservatives pushed hard for the war
in Iraq, this book forcefully argues that the neocons' goal was not the spread of democracy,
but the protection of Israel's interests in the Middle East. Showing that the neocon movement
has always identified closely with the interests of Israel's Likudnik right wing, the
discussion contends that neocon advice on Iraq was the exact opposite of conventional United
States foreign policy, which has always sought to maintain stability in the region to promote
the flow of oil. Various players in the rush to war are assessed according to their motives,
including President Bush, Ariel Sharon, members of the foreign-policy establishment, and the
American people, who are seen not as having been dragged into war against their will, but as
ready after 9/11 for retaliation
Every American should read this superb book about the intimate connection between the
state of Israel and the Americans who planned and promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
(and who still influence U.S. policy in the Middle East). This very well-researched and
well-argued book will enlighten Americans who want to understand how the Jewish State of
Israel powerfully shapes U.S. Middle East policy.
Stephen Sniegowski provides a detailed look at the network of die-hard pro-Israel
Neoconservatives who have worked in the U.S. government, in think tanks, and in the news
media to shape American foreign policy to serve the needs of Israel at the expense of the
U.S. From media baron Rupert Murdoch, whose 175 newspapers around the world ALL editorialized
in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and later Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, to
Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, the
neoconservatives successfully persuaded President George W. Bush to invade Iraq to promote
Israel's foreign policy interests.
Sniegowski describes how the Neocons promoted lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons
of Mass Destruction and his supposed ties to al-Qaeda terrorists from a network of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute,
Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy, and the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
He also traces the influence of Israeli Zionist Oded Yinon on the American
Neoconservatives. Yinon wrote an article in 1982 entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s" that called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of many of the Arab states and
their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. This is basically what
is happening to Iraq and Syria today. He also called for Israelis to accelerate the
emigration of Palestinians from Israel, whose border he believed should extend to the Jordan
River and beyond it.
Yinon's article influenced a paper written for the Israeli Likud government of Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 by American neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David
Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's
claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Like Yinon's article, it also called for the removal of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of Syria to promote Israel's interests. It was
written five years BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. These same three
men - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser - who advised Netanyahu's Israeli
government on issues of national security would later advise President George W. Bush to
pursue virtually the same policies regarding the Middle East.
If you want to understand how and why powerful pro-Israel neoconservatives in the U.S.
misled Americans and convinced President George W. Bush to order the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, and how they persuaded the U.S. Congress to give Bush the authority to order the
invasion, read this outstanding book.
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper
entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think
tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to
foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.
The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and
around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on
the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted
with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing
all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and
unbelievably changed to "building democracy".
As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists,
now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next
phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
UPDATE October 2014:
And it gets worse: The 911 story itself keeps morphing. Google "Building 7", YouTube "911
Missing Links" or check the article at http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf. >
Important book for those trying understand the chaos that
is currently reigning in the Middle East. From the lies based NEOCON attack on Iraq trumpeted
by the mainstream USA media as a fight to save Western Civilization, to the rise of ISIL.
This books will make those connections clear. No informed American can afford to not know the
names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. >
On January 27, 2005, [...] posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker
contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had
taken over the American government.
Hersh hoped that future historians would document the
fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to
overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The
Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved
the takeover.
Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional
American values: Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes
Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).
"Memoirs of a Trotskyist" in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol)
provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism. Sniegoski noted
correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former
comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties. Thanks to
leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that
anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread
through the fragile American political body.
The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group
attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a
detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to
overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.
Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it
was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal. However,
he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American
conservative movement. The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless
of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.
The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America. Instead, the
neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups. Sniegoski provided extensive
documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives. For example, the Christian
Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers. Zionism originated with
the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed
the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel). In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and
Jerusalem. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed
explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.
The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to
understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their
religions.
The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative
cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy
America with endless wars.
_The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, And the
National Interest of Israel_, published in 2008 by Enigma Editions of IHS Press, by scholar
Stephen J. Sniegoski is a thorough examination of the role of the neoconservatives in pushing
for war in the Middle East (beginning with the war in Iraq and pushing onwards towards Iran)
in order to protect the national interests of Israel. Sniegoski makes the claim that the
neoconservatives have been the fundamental force behind the war efforts of the United States
and have played a particularly prominent role in the Bush administration. While these claims
have now become common knowledge, Sniegoski makes an important contribution by tracing the
history of the neoconservative movement and its links to prominent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel
groups. In particular, Sniegoski claims that neoconservativism is a tool of Zionism and the
Likudniks of Israel. Sniegoski traces out how following the attacks of September 11, the
neoconservative war hawks had a profound influence on the thinking of President Bush and
offered him a ready made solution to his foreign policy agenda. In this book, Sniegoski also
considers and refutes other theories as to the root causes behind America's intervention in
Iraq (such as the role of oil and war profiteering) but explains how these theories lack the
validity of that which lays the blame on the neoconservatives and their goals for Israeli
dominance in the Middle East.
In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at
the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked
charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the
United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book
echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the
small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains
that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a
tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent.
This book begins with a Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley (famous author of _They Dare
to Speak Out_ and longtime opponent of the Israeli Lobby) in which he explains the importance
of Sniegoski's book and deflects the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. Following this,
appears an Introduction by noted paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who explains his admiration
for Sniegoski's book, offers some comparisons between Sniegoski's claims and those of other
individuals, and contrasts the old non-interventionist limited government form of
conservativism with that of the neoconservatives.
The first chapter of Sniegoski's book is entitled "The Transparent Cabal" and notes the
disastrous consequences that have followed upon the Iraq war spurred on by the
neoconservatives. The author explains what he means in calling the neoconservatives a
"transparent cabal" and notes the importance of their Middle East, pro-Israeli agenda. The
author explains how following the events of September 11, they came to take on a prominent
role in influencing the thinking of the president (who had previously shown little interest
in the Middle East).
The second chapter is entitled "The "Neocon-Israel" Claim: Bits and
Pieces" and exposes the role of Israel's Likudnik party behind the neoconservatives. The
author deflects claims of "anti-Semitism" which are frequently hurled at those who make these
charges by showing that even many prominent Jews agree with this. Following this appears a
chapter entitled "Who are the Neocons?" which shows how the neocons emigrated from their
original home in the Democratic party of the McGovernite left into the Republican party as
the New Left began to voice criticisms of Israel. The author shows that many of the neocons
are actually socialists and Trotskyites parading under the label of "conservative". Further,
the author shows the role of various intellectuals centering around New York City in creating
the neoconservative movement.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "The Israeli Origins of the
Middle East War Agenda" which shows how the goal of Middle East war to further the interests
of Israel has been supported extensively by hawkish groups in Israel. The author explains how
these groups came to have such a prominent role in influencing the policy of the United
States and in suppressing the native population of Palestinians in Israel. Following, appears
a chapter entitled "Stability and the Gulf War of 1991: Prefigurement and Prelude to the 2003
Iraq War" in which the author explains the importance of the first Gulf War of Bush I in
prefiguring the Iraq War of Bush II. After this, appears a chapter entitled "During the
Clinton Years" in which the author shows the continuing role of the neocons during the
Clinton years.
Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Serbian Interlude and the 2000
Elections" in which the author explains how the war in Yugoslavia paved the way for the
coming Iraq War of President Bush. This also explains the split that occurred among
conservatives between those traditional conservatives who opposed the war and the neocons who
firmly supported it. Following this appears a chapter entitled "George W. Bush
Administration: The Beginning" in which the author explains the role that the neocons came to
take in the Bush administration mentioning in particular the role of such figures as
Wolfowitz and Cheney and the role of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Following
this appears a chapter entitled "September 11", showing how the events of Sept. 11 allowed
the neocon agenda to gain prominence in the mind of President Bush.
Next, appears a chapter
entitled "Move to War" explaining how the neocons pushed for war against Sadaam Hussein
presenting their case to the American people by claiming that Hussein was in possession of
WMDs which could be used against America. Following this appears a chapter entitled "World
War IV" explaining how the conflict in the Middle East came to be dubbed World War IV by
certain intellectuals among the neocons.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "Democracy for the
Middle East" showing the role of the neocons in foisting "democracy" onto various nations and
their goal of global democratic revolution. The author also explains the role of the thinking
of political philosopher Leo Strauss behind many of the neocons and his profoundly
anti-democratic philosophy. Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Neocons'
Post-Invasion Difficulties" showing how the invasion of Iraq turned out to be more serious
and difficult than originally anticipated by the neocons. Next, appears a chapter entitled
"Beginning of the Second Administration" showing the continuing role of the neocons under the
second Bush administration.
Then, appears a chapter entitled "Israel, Lebanon, and the 2006
Election" showing the role of Lebanon and Syria in relationship to Israel and that of the
2006 election.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "2007: On to Iran" showing how the neocons
continued to press for further wars in particular against Iran by alleging among other things
that Ahmedinejad was a mad man with possible access to nuclear weapons. Following, appears a
chapter entitled "The Supporting Cast for War" noting the role of Christian Zionists (which
includes the beliefs of President Bush, although not his father), former Cold Warriors, and
even prominent establishment liberals in supporting the Iraq war. The author notes however
that the traditional foreign policy establishment elites and many in the intelligence
agencies did not support the war, but were disregarded to further the neocon agenda. The
author also contrasts the difference between the liberal elites who frequently were pro-war
and the popular anti-war movement which had very little power.
Following this, the author
turns to a chapter entitled "Oil and Other Arguments" in which the author considers the
claims that the war was fought to obtain access to oil or for the interests of war profiteers
and shows that while both groups certainly benefited they are not the real reason for the
war. The book ends with a "Conclusion" in which the author expounds upon the continuing role
of the neocons in influencing American foreign policy and a "Postscript" in which the author
notes that no matter who wins the 2008 election that the neocon agenda will likely continue
and is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This book offers a fascinating history and account of the role of the neoconservatives in
pushing the United States into war. The author makes clear the influence of the Israeli
Likudnik party behind the neocons and their goal of strengthening the position of Israel in
the Middle East. It is important to understand the fundamental nature of the foreign policy
elites who have been pushing us into war against Iraq and now with eyes towards Iran.
That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book.
Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed
by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters.
Let's put aside these negative and nasty characterizations and look at the facts.
Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state.
However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and
often place American interests second to that of the lobby.
To suggest that there is such a
lobby and that it is powerful is hardly anti-semitic. Nor is the author. He is simply stating
verifible facts which any student of politics is free to do. He may be mistaken in his
conclusions but that hardly makes him anti-semitic. And he may not be mistaken at all. He is
not the first to suggest that our leaders are fearful of the Israeli lobby and do its bidding
and often to the detriment of American interests .
Stephen Sniegoski, a diplomatic historian, is uniquely qualified to write about the
neoconservatives' involvement in the prolonged Iraq War originating in 2003. He accurately
predicted their activities and allegiance in this entanglement in 1998, three years before
the acts of 9-11 and two additional years before a traumatized nation yielded to a nescient,
misdirected President, his Vice President/administration, and an ostensibly compliant
bi-partisan House and Senate.
The author presents a tight outline which he cogently expands in intelligible detail,
maintaining that the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the adoption of a war
agenda whose basic structure was conceived in Israel to advance Israel's interests. The
pro-Israel neoconservatives and a powerful Israel lobby in the United States fervently pushed
its agenda. Ironically, he extracts his most persuasive evidence from an extensive
neoconservative paper trail that's been clearly recognized by a discreet cadre of vigilant
Americans for years. Thus the title, "The Transparent Cabal."
Dr. Sniegoski asks the appropriate question: "Who are the neoconservatives?" He provides
insightful answers on their pertinent activities since 1972, those who shaped and mentored
them, their immediate family/interconnected family networks, their prominent periodical
publications, their past and present leadership, non-Jewish minority members, their
persistent rise to positions of political influence and authority, their embrace of Christian
Zionists, and their close ties to the extremely conservative Likud Party in Israel. He
reveals their tactical affiliations with key, heavily endowed influential think tanks, and a
vast number of powerful Israel-centric lobbying organizations that reactively finance and
nurture their continued success.
Many readers will recognize his references to writers of previous books, articles and
columns -- many of Jewish heritage -- who bravely fight against well financed, mainstream
media-dominant opponents and their psychological surrogates active on the Internet. These
opponents perniciously engage in personal attacks and retribution, indiscriminately applying
irrelevant anti-semitic labels. They persist at attempting to sway public discourse by
spreading misinformation, disinformation, and mostly NO RELEVANT INFORMATION to the
public.
In various places throughout the book, the author notes curious relationships with current
and former elected and appointed officials. He writes about the ongoing 2008 presidential
campaign in a postscript, citing past and existing direct influences on specific candidates
by the neoconservatives, the Israel Lobby and its supporters.
The book concludes with a summary of the paucity of benefits compared to the predictable
losses of the American people over recent years. These are the real consequences of the
Israel-inspired plan to "drain the swamp" (a euphemism for destabilizing perceived enemies
then establishing precarious nominal democracies) that began with our misadventure in Iraq
and was to proceed with subsequent U.S. military interventions in Iran and Syria. The few
meager benefits and the enormous losses to the United States are compared to the strategic
advantages that the State of Israel derives directly from our five-year induced military
involvement in Iraq and our concomitant departure from past, longstanding policies of
diplomacy and stability in the Middle East.
Sniegoski counsels, "it is hardly controversial to propose that elites, rather than the
people as a whole, determine government policies, even in democracies."
Yet this war has a supporting cast of middle Americans. Many of them were traumatized by
the events of 9-11 and reactively saw an act of patriotism in supporting retaliation against
a falsely perceived enemy in Iraq. It's time to reconsider false arguments preceding the Iraq
War that have only been cosmetically modified until the present day. It's time to dismiss
incongruous ideas formed in the cauldron of confusion after 9-11.
Given today's realities, it DOES take patriotism and courage to insist on formally
normalizing an entangled, unreciprocated military alliance with an Israeli government that
burdens the taxpayers of the United States, promotes angst among its people, and imperils its
military forces worldwide.
Know and embrace Thomas Jefferson's ideal of 'eternal vigilance' as citizens of the United
States.
.
.
Facts in this book are reinforced in adjacent paragraphs and referenced in nearly 50 pages of
notes. Readers are encouraged to read:
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability by Amy Chua -- "Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects
in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a
Public Inquiry" **a 166 PAGE LEAKED REPORT** documenting foreign espionage activities
surrounding 9-11, available on the Internet (although rarely in COMPLETE UNEDITED FORM **WITH
5 EXHIBITS AND 4 MAPS**). .
Stephen J. Sniegoski has a doctorate from the University of Maryland and studied American
diplomatic history. My review here will refer to him as "S," for short.
This book is about the American neoconservative movement. S goes from its founding through
its influential role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq War, then he discusses the War's
aftermath. S's argument is that the neoconservative agenda regarding the Middle East is
designed to serve the interests of the state of Israel, as those interests are articulated by
the right-wing Likud party there. This agenda supports weakening Arab nations surrounding
Israel so that they cannot pose a threat to her. According to S, the neoconservatives
supported such an agenda since their beginning as a movement, but 9/11 created an opportunity
for this agenda to become the foreign policy of the United States during much of the
Presidency of George W. Bush.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Looking broadly at the book itself, it is a standard narration of the events
surrounding and including the Iraq War. Like a lot of people, I lived through that, so the
sweeping narrative of the book was not particularly new to me. The story is essentially that
the U.S. went into Iraq expecting to find weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, bombed the
country and found that were no WMDs, and traveled the difficult road of trying to rebuild the
country, amidst ethnic division, turmoil, and opposition from Iraqis.
B. That said, there were some things that I learned from this book. First, while
neoconservatism is said to believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East, it is not
necessarily committed to democracy, per se. Initially, it supported a new government of Iraq
that would be led by the traditional, pre-Saddam tribal authorities, who were not democratic.
Second, S seems to imply that even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was
unnecessary, since the Taliban initially appeared cooperative in offering to help the U.S. to
bring al-Qaeda to justice. Third, there are neoconservatives who have supported undermining
even America's allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. The different groups in Saudi
Arabia was also interesting, for, as S notes, Shiites hold a significant amount of control
over Saudi oil, even though the political establishment is Sunni. Fourth, S argues rigorously
against the idea that the U.S. launched the Iraq War to get more oil. Saddam was offering
U.S. oil companies opportunities to drill in Iraq, plus oil companies did not want the oil
infrastructure of the country to be disrupted or shattered by war.
C. There were also things in the book that I was interested to learn more about, even
though I had a rudimentary understanding of them before. For one, S chronicles George W.
Bush's changing views on foreign policy, as he went from rejecting nation-building, while
retaining a tough stance, to embracing nation building. In the early days of the Bush II
Administration, long before the Iraq War, Condi Rice even explained on news shows why regime
change in Iraq would be a mistake at that point. Second, S discusses the coalition that
emerged to support the war in Iraq. The neocons wanted to protect Israel, but Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld embraced the Iraq War as a way to showcase the effectiveness of a
lean military. Meanwhile, many Americans, frightened after 9/11, supported the Iraq War as a
way to keep the U.S. safe. And Christian conservatives embraced the good vs. evil, pro-Israel
stance of neoconservative policy. Third, S strategically evaluates moves that the U.S. made;
for S, for example, the surge did not actually work, but more stability emerged in Iraq as
different ethnic factions became separated from each other.
D. According to S, the Iraq War was a disaster. It stretched America's military, taking
away resources that could have been used to find Osama bin-Laden. Yet, Israel got something
that it wanted as a result: disarray among her Arab neighbors. An argument that S did not
really engage, as far as I can recall, is that the Iraq War placed Israel even more in peril,
since it increased the power of Iran by allowing Iraq to serve as a proxy for Iranian
interests.
E. For S, neoconservatism is concerned about the security of Israel. Even its staunch Cold
War policy is rooted in that concern, since the U.S.S.R. tended to support Arabs over the
Israelis. S acknowledges, though, that there is more to neoconservatism that that.
Neoconservatives supported a strong U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia
during the Clinton Administration, and neoconservatism also maintains stances on domestic
issues, such as welfare.
F. S is sensitive to any charges of anti-Semitism that may be launched against his book.
He emphatically denies that he is saying there was a Jewish conspiracy to get the U.S. into
Iraq, for he observes that many Jews opposed the Iraq War. Moreover, S does not exactly
present the U.S. government as a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), for the neoconservatives
were long on the margins prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Even under Bush II, the
traditional national security and intelligence apparatus was critical of the Iraq War,
preferring more multilateralism and a focus on stability in the Middle East. The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), long a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, also had
reservations about the Iraq War.
G. S largely depicts the Likud party in Israel, and neoconservatives, as supporting
Israel's security as a nation, her protection, if you will. At the same time, S argues that
Israel in 2006 was acting aggressively rather than defensively in its invasion of Lebanon,
for Lebanon had coveted water-supplies.
H. Near the end of the Iraq War, S demonstrates, neoconservatives were calling on the U.S.
to take an aggressive stance against Iran, going so far as to bomb the country. That, of
course, is an issue that remains relevant today. S probably regards such a move as a mistake.
At the same time, he can understand why Israel would be apprehensive about a nuclear-armed
Iran. He thinks that Ahmadinejad has been incorrectly understood to say that Israel should be
wiped off the map, but S still acknowledges that a powerful Iran could provide more support
to the Palestinians, which would trouble Israel. Although S understands this, he seems to
scorn the idea that Israel should get everything she wants and have hegemony.
I. S is open to the possibility that neoconservatives believe that their support for
Israel is perfectly consistent with America's well-being. As S observes, the U.S. government
since its founding has had people who believe that partisanship towards a certain nation --
-Britain or France -- -is not only good for its own sake but serves the interests of the
United States. S disputes, however, that neoconservative policy is the only way to help the
U.S. Could not one argue, after all, that the U.S. would want to be on the Arabs' good side,
with all the oil the Arabs have? This analysis may be a little dated, since the U.S. now has
some alternative sources of energy (fracking), but S makes this point in evaluating the
historical stance of neoconservatism.
I was interested to see the reviews of this book. Usually if any book suggests that Israel
is less than perfect a group of Zionist fanatics surface with several reviews telling us that
there nothing wrong Israel or American support of it.
Remarkably there is only one negative review of this book which has to be seen to be
believed. This reviewer "yoda" from Israel charges in all seriousness that Sniegoski does not
provide evidence that the neoconservatives are "predominantly Jewish " and are " strongly
aligned with Israel". Asking the author to provide evidence for such
assertions is like asking him to give evidence that the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow .
This is I believe the real reason that that there are relatively few attacks on this book.The
author does not engage in shrill denunciations of Israel or of the neoconservatives . What he
does do is quote at length what neocoservstives say and provide careful documentation for any
factual claims. For the most part the reader is allowed to
draw his own conclusions. Should the US continue to finance
Israeli repression of Palestinians and perhaps go to war against Iran or anyone else who
might object to Israeli policie?
Instead of denouncing Sniegoski "Yoda" should consider
the sane Israelis in his own country . For example former
Mossad chief Meir Dagan who said that a war with Iran was
the "stupidest idea he had ever heard of." Also moviemaker
Emmanuel Dror who interviewed virtually all the former directors of the Shin Bett ( Israel's
internal security service )
who all called for disengaging from the occupied territories .
perhaps we all would be better off listening to these Isaelis rather than follow the
neoconservatives into another disastrous war on the other side of the world.
This is going to be a very strange review coming from me. You see, I wrote a novel called
"Other Nations" and well, people that liked it a lot, liked it, but then those that really
disliked it disliked it because my "aliens among humans" were nice people, likeable people,
even charismatic people, everyday suburban types even, living that kind of life. Among us.
Next door, in the next city over. They wanted instead to see the aliens among us portrayed as
well, pick your favorite genocidal maniac or mind-controlling dictator or creature so
dementedly alien that no sense can be made of it. Well!
There are many types of true horror. The kind that passes itself off as my aliens among us
are portrayed, well, I guess some people GET IT - and they liked it.
But I'm not here to push my book. I'm here to push THIS BOOK - because my god, this is
REAL, not fantasy, it's REAL, not science fiction. And yes, they are among us with well -
BUY THIS BOOK. If you are too broke to buy it, get it from the library - and by all means
- READ IT.
Just hope to whatever god you choose that neocons are removed from governmental influence
and that their Amen corner is ignored. Hope to god, because if they suceed in doing the
INSANITY they want to do - America will be FINISHED - if it's not finished already due to
what these Fifth Columnists have done during the 8 years of Twilight Zone (GWB Rule).
And for those Jewish critics on here that might want to compare these neocon FACTS and the
other FACTS openly available to all (which is WHY the book is called the TRANSPARENT cabal) -
compare it to the Protocols - they better think twice about that. Becauase, you see, what's
in here is real, real facts, provably real facts - and if Jews themselves compare this to the
Procols? Some folks might get the idea that maybe that is real too. Perhaps George Soros (who
is Jewish) needs to speak LOUDER against the neocons. They are, indeed, crazies, as Colin
Powell called them. Crazies.
If you want to have an eye opener then read and see who were those Jewish players working
and influencing everything in the Bush Admin.promoting war with Iraq, then this is your book
of truth. The cabal of Jewish players come out of the woodwork in Stephen Sniegoski's great
work. When step by step the plan was a clear war map laid out for the U.S. in detail and
after you realize just who was working for whom in this criminal cabal of the American
government.
When you have Jewish control of the main stream media and Jewish control in Washington, D.C.,
don't wonder why the facts were omitted to make all the right connections for the public to
see in this lead up to a war from lies.
Max is one of the greatest journalists of our time ! Thank You , but take care because
their are many that are threatened by truth and integrity ! RESPECT !
The msm is full of CIA swamp lobbyist liars. Max is just objectively reporting
substantiated data points that counter lies that are meant to sell taxpayers war.
Any left wing leader clinging to power long enough (for EVo Morales it was 12 years) creates
a real opportunities for a color revolution, which would decimate the whole movement. Looks like
at this point Evo Moralis was doomed and the coup was just a matter of time.
Any protests in governments that oppose Washing neoliberal empire are hijacked by Washington and turned into the anti-government
coupe d'état.
Notable quotes:
"... by 2019, Morales had been in office for 12 years, and his popularity had ebbed. As Christine Mathias writes in Dissent, even some on the left, including former indigenous supporters, had begun to question his leadership ..."
"... They raised concerns about Morales's desire to remain in office indefinitely, alleged corruption in his inner circle, his administration's response to recent fires in the Amazon, and especially its extractivist development model. Aymara leader Felipe Quispe presented some of the most damning critiques, describing [Morales' Movimiento al Socialismo] as "neoliberalism with an Indian face." ..."
"... Now, I've seen a lot of mockery directed at the Bolivian court for this decision, which said that barring Morales from running violated his "human rights." It is seen as a transparent power-grab by Morales, and a sign that his rule was undemocratic and illegitimate, because he simply had "cronies" rewrite the law. ..."
"... Article 23. Right to Participate in Government ..."
"... 1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: ..."
"... a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; ..."
"... b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and ..."
"... c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. ..."
"... 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. ..."
"... This is important, because now that Morales has been forced out of power by an illegitimate leader, every effort is being made to paint him as having been illegitimate himself. ..."
"... We know that, as protests escalated after the election, Morales lost the support of members of the Bolivian police and that the military "encouraged him" to resign. Morales fled to Mexico; ..."
"... "We want to be a democratic tool of inclusion and unity," said the 52-year-old religious conservative, sitting at a table bearing a huge open Bible and crucifix. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Several MAS officials have been detained, fled the country or have sought refuge in foreign embassies. Meanwhile, debate has brewed over whether the party, which still enjoys wide support, should even be allowed to exist due to the alleged electoral manipulation. ..."
"... The Journal quotes a Morales critic saying: "MAS is dead We have a saying here: When the dog dies, so do the fleas." ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... she was doing the power grab. ..."
"... But Morales was elected! ..."
"... Order Restored Amid Unrest, Government Says ..."
"... A Dozen Unarmed Protesters Murdered In Cold Blood. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... debate has brewed over whether the party, which still enjoys wide support, should even be allowed to exist due to the alleged electoral manipulation. ..."
In Bolivia, within the course of a month,
one of the most successful contemporary governments to call itself "socialist" has been
replaced by an
unelected right-wing leadership that has killed protesters, promised to restore the rule of
Christianity, and demanded the jailing of former president Evo Morales as a "
terrorist. " What went wrong?
Let us review the most uncontroversial facts of what happened in Bolivia. Evo Morales, the
country's first indigenous leader, had been praised for his sound management of the country's
economy,
which "experienced a spectacular run of economic growth and poverty reduction." Even
harshly critical media assessments mentioned "the
country's growing economy and shrinking inequality," and the New York Times
noted that "tiny, impoverished Bolivia, once a perennial economic basket case, has suddenly
become a different kind of exception -- this time in a good way," as the country became South
America's fastest-growing
economy . As with China, the heavily state-led economic program of Bolivia -- which
included successful
nationalization of certain parts of industry -- threatens free market orthodoxies about the
inevitable catastrophe of socialism and state "intervention in the economy." (According to the
Center for Economic and Policy Research, "the importance of the government's nationalization of
hydrocarbons to Bolivia's economic progress over the past 13 years cannot be
overemphasized.")
But by 2019, Morales had been in office for 12 years, and his popularity had ebbed. As
Christine Mathias writes in Dissent, even some on the left, including former indigenous
supporters, had begun to question
his leadership :
They raised concerns about Morales's desire to remain in office indefinitely, alleged
corruption in his inner circle, his administration's response to recent fires in the Amazon,
and especially its extractivist development model. Aymara leader Felipe Quispe presented some
of the most damning critiques, describing [Morales' Movimiento al Socialismo] as
"neoliberalism with an Indian face."
Morales ran for a fourth term this year. Previously, the new Bolivian constitution that
Morales had introduced imposed term limits. There was a referendum on whether to scrap term
limits in 2016, and Morales lost narrowly. Bolivia's Supreme Court then overturned the results
of the referendum, allowing Morales to run again.
Now, I've seen a lot of mockery directed at the Bolivian court for this decision, which
said that barring Morales from running violated his "human rights." It is seen as a transparent
power-grab by Morales, and a sign that his rule was undemocratic and illegitimate, because he
simply had "cronies" rewrite the law.
A few bits of context are important, though. First, the president actually has less direct
control over the makeup of the Bolivian court than the United States president has over the
composition of our Supreme Court. And second, the ruling was not actually as crazy as it is
being made to sound. The ruling was based on the American
Convention of Human Rights , which Bolivia is a signatory to. The relevant section reads as
follows:
Article 23. Right to Participate in Government
1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities:
a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives;
b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the
will of the voters; and
c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his
country.
2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in
the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language,
education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal
proceedings.
As you can see, every citizen is guaranteed the right to be elected in periodic
elections, and that right can be regulated only on the basis of a number of very
particular grounds. "Having served in office previously" is not one of those grounds. Now, your
instinct here may be to say "Oh, but that's silly , of course term limits are
permitted, it would be ridiculous to say that term limits are a violation of human rights." The
entire argument made by legal textualists like Antonin Scalia, however, is that it doesn't
matter what you might have meant , it matters what the law says. If the
drafters of a law believe that you should be able to restrict people from running for office
based on their previous service in office, they need to put that in the rights convention,
otherwise that exception won't be valid.
I am not saying that I am anti-term limits, or that I share Scalia's theory of
jurisprudence, although it's worth remembering that term limits do prevent people from
choosing the candidate that they might want the most and are a restriction on democracy (after
all, Obama would probably still be president if we adopted the democratic principle that "the
candidate the most people would want to vote for should win the election"). I am saying that
it's not obvious that the Supreme Court was simply mindlessly throwing out the rule of law, and
that the reactions after the Court's decision (some called the decision itself a "coup") was
not justified.
This is important, because now that Morales has been forced out of power by an
illegitimate leader, every effort is being made to paint him as having been illegitimate
himself. (The New York Times , using the language preferred
by the right-wing government , calls him a "strongman.") And if these arguments are
correct, it undermines critics of the anti-Morales coup. After all, if he was an autocrat who
himself had no democratic mandate and disrespected institutions, it was less bad for his
successors to seize power, even if they did so without being elected. The present Bolivian
"leadership" has made a very strong effort to portray themselves as "restoring" a democracy
that Morales had "undermined" (with the new self-declared president saying that "the coup
d'état was by Evo Morales") even as they behave undemocratically themselves, so it's
important to actually scrutinize the facts and remember what happened.
I find Morales' decision to keep running indefinitely to be frustrating, and a sign that he
was relying more on his personality than a political movement, but I do not think that he
disrespected the law any more than Michael Bloomberg did when he had the New York City
Council get rid of term limits. I would not have called Bloomberg an "illegitimate" mayor or a
"dictator," nor would I say that he was not the "real" mayor of New York and could justly be
overthrown by the NYPD. So I think Morales was within his rights to run again, and since his
term has not expired, and he was forced out by threats of violence, he should still be
considered the president of Bolivia.
What of the election itself? American media has reported on the election as if it was
self-evident that Morales stole it or committed election fraud. The central allegations here,
however, do not appear to hold up. Read the analyses from
Kevin Cashman in Jacobin and
Mark Weisbrot in MarketWatch , who both provide careful explanations of how the
Bolivian election actually worked, as opposed to vague innuendos.
She vowed to be a
mere caretaker until new elections could be held, "[telling] reporters that her only aim was to
unite the country and restore it to the path to democracy," and
saying that her mission in office was "to call for clean and transparent elections with all
the qualified political actors as soon as possible." Of course, that word "qualified" should
have been the tip-off from the beginning that Añez would soon unilaterally declare
Morales ineligible to run .
But it was very evident that she was lying about her intentions, which were not to preside
over a "caretaker" government but to re-establish right-wing rule after a decade of successful
socialism. She acted like "
anything but a caretaker ," and has "been putting her own ideological stamp on South
America's poorest nation as she pursues the opposition's long-held dream of undoing nearly
14 years of socialist rule under former president Evo Morales." She "replaced Bolivia's top
military brass, cabinet ministers and the heads of major state-owned companies with appointees
of her own." She immediately moved to reshape the county's foreign policy, reinstall Catholic
rituals, and gave soldiers immunity from prosecutor for murdering protesters. Sure enough,
"within hours, a confrontation between soldiers and Morales supporters near Cochabamba left
nine dead." (It is ironic that Áñez had previously "denied that Morales had been
the victim of a coup," saying "a coup d'etat is when there are soldiers in the streets.")
Añez's government barely pretended to care about equality. She brought a giant Bible
to her swearing-in, and said "the Bible has returned to the government palace." As the press
noted, this was "a pointed attack on Morales, since the constitution he passed in 2009 placed
Christianity on equal footing with indigenous spiritual traditions." Añez's open
Christian supremacist ideology was evident even when she was making half-hearted gestures
toward inclusiveness:
"We want to be a democratic tool of inclusion and unity," said the 52-year-old
religious conservative, sitting at a table bearing a huge open Bible and crucifix.
Añez was not just repudiating Morales, socialism, and secular pluralism, but the
indigeneous population more broadly. She had
previously "published provocative posts on Twitter
mocking Indigenous people's culture, branding their
religious rites 'satanic' and calling Mr. Morales a
'poor Indian. '"
She "quickly set up a transition cabinet with almost no indigenous people, but full of
business elites who oppose Morales." At a public rally by a close Añez ally, a speaker
cried: "We have tied all the demons of the witchery and thrust them into the abyss. Satans, get
out of Bolivia now." As one analyst noted, her government seems to be " thinking
that what Bolivia needs right now is a purge. "
And the purge is underway. The interim interior minister threatened
"to arrest lawmakers loyal to ousted President Evo Morales for alleged acts of subversion and
sedition," even though Morales' MAS party still technically held a legislative majority. He "
announced the creation of a 'special apparatus of the Prosecutor's Office' that will crack
down on elected officials from Morales' Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party, which controls
about two-thirds of the legislature," and "said he would be publishing a 'list' of legislators
he claims are guilty of 'subversion' and that those individuals will be blocked from continuing
their duties as representatives and will be subject to arrest starting Monday." He "began by
promising to hunt down Mr. Morales's top former minister, Juan Ramón Quintana, who has
gone into hiding," saying "We're going to go hunting for Juan Ramón Quintana because he
is an animal that feeds on the blood of the people."
Several MAS officials have been detained, fled the country or have sought refuge in
foreign embassies. Meanwhile, debate has brewed over whether the party, which still enjoys
wide support, should even be allowed to exist due to the alleged electoral
manipulation.
The Journal quotes a Morales critic saying: "MAS is dead We have a saying here: When the
dog dies, so do the fleas."
* * * *
Surely, some things are clear here. The new right-wing government is not actually interested
in democracy, but in destroying socialism and indigenous power. They're literally threatening
to "hunt down" socialist legislators. They don't want fair elections. They want elections that
have socialists either excluded from running or intimidated by force. Why is Evo Morales in
Mexico? He's not there because he wants to be in Mexico. He's there because if he had stayed in
Bolivia he might have been jailed as a "terrorist" or killed. I do not know why there is "
debate "
over whether what happened in Bolivia was a "coup." The elected president fled the country at
the direction of the military and has been branded a criminal by an unelected leadership that
has murdered protesters and explicitly vowed to destroy socialism and restore Christian
rule.
Yet now we enter the topsy-turvy world of the U.S. media, whose response to the Bolivian
coup has been a case study in Chomsky and Herman's theory of "manufacturing consent."
The Wall Street Journal , unsurprisingly, has heralded the ousting of Morales as
a victory for
democracy . "No one should shed a tear" for Morales, its editorial board said. Bolivia's
"people have suffered enormously" under Morales, it said, citing no evidence. (Hard to know
what to cite when what the people have suffered from its record
growth and diminishing poverty .) The Journal said that "Bolivian law forbids a
candidate caught in fraud from running again," though it did not cite which Bolivian law allows
unconfirmed allegations to override court precedents. Another editorial, " Morales Made
Bolivia A Narco State ," essentially repeated the word "narco" over and over, emphasizing
that Morales started as the head of the coca grower's union, to convince readers to think of
him as nothing but a drug trafficking dictator. (The editorial had the audacity to center
criticism of Morales around his violations of indigenous people's rights, said the military
"suggested" he step down, and suggested that he simply ran illegally, failing to mention the
court decision that allowed him to participate and the justifications given by the court.)
One expects this stuff from a fascist-sympathizing
Murdoch paper, of course. But the New York Times has been just as bad, full of
sentences like: "Morales's grip on power unraveled after he tried bending electoral rules to
stay in power for a fourth term in October, flouting constitutional term limits he himself had
set." (Again, a Supreme Court decision allowed him to run under the terms of a treaty.) "
How an Unknown Female Senator Came to Replace the Bolivian Strongman Evo Morales " is an
incredible article. It does not quote any socialist legislators, but quotes plenty of figures
from the conservative opposition, including heavy quotation from a "cement magnate." It
discusses the "transition talks," and says that Añez was brought to the capital to
"pre-empt any power grab," without noting that she was doing the power grab. The
article treats the conservatives as pragmatic and patriotic restorers of order who were
concerned with preventing a slide into chaos and wanted to maintain the constitutional order.
"We knew that she was the only constitutional thread we had." Calling Morales a "strongman" is
bad enough. He is a democratically elected president, and the Times did the
opposition's work for it by printing a word that suggested Morales was an illegitimate tyrant.
(Even if you believe this year's elections were fraudulent, Morales' term does not expire until
January!) Perhaps because of public outcry about this use of a loaded, and arguably racist,
term, the Times later stealth-edited "strongman" out of
the headline and replaced it with "president," without offering a correction or
apology.
The Times editorial board published an incredible editorial blaming Morales for
what happened, saying that "the
country's growing economy and shrinking inequality propped him up for years. But its democracy
and its institutions suffered, and that's what brought him down." (The idea of being "propped
up" by a growing economy is funny.) "Predictably," the Times editors said, stodgy old
leftists were denouncing the "coup," but "what brought Mr. Morales down was not his ideology or
foreign meddling, as he claimed, but the arrogance of the
populist , evident in so many other parts of the world -- the claim to be the ultimate
arbiter of the will of the people, entitled to crush any institution that stands in his way."
The Times editorial is an interesting example of how institutions in other countries
are spoken of differently than they would be in our own. It says Morales had the country's
Supreme Court "by now stuffed with his loyalists, rule that limiting his time in office somehow
violated his human rights." Our Supreme Court, of course, is not "stuffed with
loyalists," even though it too is a nakedly
political institution . Of Añez, all it said was that she was "offering to lead the
country to new elections," and that Morales "would do well to call on his backers to clear the
way."
Witness, too, this Times op-ed
, written in sorrow and lament , about how Bolivia offers "lessons on how to
fix semi-democracies," saying that the coup was "a reminder that the process of stopping
semi-democratic leaders is likely to be semi-democratic as well." But Morales was
elected! The op-ed pretends there is no difference between Morales's democratic election
and Añez's seizure of power without an election. "Blaming the coup is to blame the
symptoms and ignore the overall shock on the system caused by the preceding democratic
backsliding . Fixing a semi-democracy will not always follow strict democratic playbooks The
best that can be hoped for is that the military sides with moderate civilians, democratic
norms, and constitutional rule."
Here, we would do well to remind ourselves that anything can be cloaked under euphemisms:
mass murder can be "restoring order," overthrowing an elected government can be "preserving
democratic rule." And the most dangerous political actors are going to have a very strong
incentive to use these kinds of euphemisms, which is why it's important for ordinary people to
be extremely skeptical, and why newspapers shouldn't quote powerful people's words as if they
are facts. ( Order Restored Amid Unrest, Government Says is a headline that could
easily mean A Dozen Unarmed Protesters Murdered In Cold Blood. )
When you are reading about Bolivia in the U.S. press, make sure to ask critical questions:
Whose voices are being quoted here, and whose voices don't I hear? What is taken as being
self-evident that should actually require some proof? How are words being shaded in ways that
could disguise what is actually going on? Is one action being described two different ways when
done by two different people? (When X does it, they're a "strongman" or "caudillo" and when Y
does it they are a "caretaker" or "interim leader.") Propaganda
often looks very reasonable, on the surface, especially to those of us who don't have access to
the facts on the ground. Every word needs to be read carefully to see how our perceptions of
reality are being manipulated.
One interesting thing about propaganda, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, is that you can
often find the truth buried within it. U.S. newspapers often do report all the facts you need
to know in order to understand what is going on, but the analysis and framing buries those
facts. (I've previously
written about how the Holocaust, far from being unknown, was reported in the pages of the
New York Times as something trivial not worth caring about.) You need to notice the
small stuff. For example, when someone is quoted talking about how "when a dog dies, the fleas
do too," that sounds an awful lot like they're probably going to try to destroy the socialist
movement. Amid all the Wall Street Journal 's discussions about whether or not to call
the "transition" a "coup," you will find little sentences like: " debate has brewed over
whether the party, which still enjoys wide support, should even be allowed to exist due to the
alleged electoral manipulation. " Um, there is debate over whether a movement with wide
support should be allowed to exist? Who is "brewing" this debate?
When Añez announced that Morales couldn't run in a new election, Current
Affairspredicted that the next thing
that would happen was a new election which wouldn't be legitimate, but which would quickly be
declared legitimate. Sure enough, MAS legislators are being persecuted and threatened, and Evo
Morales is being told that if he comes back to the country he will be tried as a terrorist.
No election held under these conditions can be legitimate, and it will inevitably be
worse than the "fraud-marred" original election. But when the right wins, they will
declare democracy restored. In fact, fake elections are historically a powerful tool of the
right.
The 1933 German election was
not a real election, because the Nazis' opponents were systematically persecuted and
threatened. But they used it to claim they had a democratic mandate. This is also what happened
in Brazil: The most popular Workers Party candidate, Lula, was barred from running, and cleared
the way for the far-right Jair Bolsonaro to take power.
This is what the Bolivian right needs now: an "election" in which the most popular
opposition candidate is barred from standing, and the majority party is threatened and
intimidated. Then, when the right narrowly wins the election (as Bolsonaro and Hitler did) they
will demand recognition for the "people's will." If you do not notice what is happening, you
need to read some more history! This is a very old story and has been told many times.
The U.S.' counterinsurgency war against the communist and Black self-determinationist
movements of the 20th century ensured that the period of U.S. imperial decline beginning in the
1970s would embolden the rich to eviscerate any and all gains made by workers in the decades
prior. Neoliberal austerity, privatization, and monopolization drowned the United States in a
sea of counterrevolutionary political ideology. "Call out culture" commodified movement culture
and channeled activists into profitable modes of expression that promoted individual
recognition, academic prestige, and careerism rather than the plight of the poor, especially
the Black poor.
... ... ...
"Corporate political operatives like Obama seek to 'diversify' a violent empire."
As I wrote for Black
Agenda Report in 2016, Obama's legacy is in large part shaped by a mastery of
counterinsurgency warfare. His recent slandering of millennial activists fits snugly within
this legacy. While appearing to castigate the very political environment that elevated him
beyond criticism for eight years, Obama was really taking aim at the increasingly left posture
of millennials. The "Bernie or bust" movement is worrisome to a ruling class that has utilized
the counterinsurgency skills of Barack Obama to engineer massive profits from endless war and
austerity. "Wokeness" and "purity" must be shot down by Obama because it threatens the
legitimacy of political class actors like him who expect to be praised for their intelligent
leadership over the great race to the bottom.
Barack Obama takes great pride in his impurity. Obama was elected in 2008 to bring "hope"
and "change" to the masses, only to escalate and add to every single ill of end-stage U.S.
imperialism. Under his administration, whistleblowers were prosecuted
under the Espionage Act in record numbers,
Black wealth plummeted, bankers ran away with trillions worth
in bailout rescue funds, and the military industrial complex expanded its special
operations to
engulf 70 percent of the world's nations in a regime of endless chaos. In many ways,
Obama's presidency was the biggest lie in the history of an empire built on grand lies of
democracy, liberty, and freedom. As he successfully posed as the "lesser evil," Obama was hard
at work instituting a permanent private healthcare system ( the Affordable Care Act ),
murdering thousands of people
by way of drone strike , and militarizing the African continent
through AFRICOM to ensure the instability required for Western corporations to plunder the
continent of its vast wealth.
"'Wokeness' and 'purity' must be shot down by Obama because it threatens the legitimacy
of political class actors like him."
While Obama succeeded in ramming through the ruling class' agenda, he also helped engineer
the political crisis which paved the way for the rise of Bernie Sanders. Millennials have
mobilized in the millions to elect a president that will bring them Medicare for All, a Green
New Deal, and living wages. They are no longer interested in politicians like Obama who claim
to be a "lesser evil" choice to the Republicans only to implement a more effective Wall Street
agenda that renders
ninety percent of all new jobs low-wage or temporary. The "purity" of the Sandernista's
principles is a sign to Obama and his class that Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and
Pete Buttigieg are unlikely to garner any support from Sanders' large millennial base. It
should come as no surprise, then, that Obama feels compelled to condemn the political leanings
of young people as an affront to his sordid legacy.
Obama benefitted from the proliferation of call out culture so much that he has no shame in
telling its most loyal adherents to "shut up and dribble" into the embrace of the Democratic
Party. Neither Obama nor the rest of the corporate Democratic Party has anything to offer
except the so-called civility and respectability that characterizes their approach to imperial
rule. Obama is aware of who he works for and what will keep him well-paid now that his
presidential career has ended. Like Hillary Clinton, Obama has quickly become a pundit for Wall
Street and its paid killers in the war machine. His most recent comments offer further evidence
of the desperate need for a mass exit from the Democratic Party. Of course, no mass exodus from
the Democratic Party is possible prior to a popular repudiation of Obama's legacy and all the
imperial arrogance and destruction that comes with it.
Danny Haiphong is an activist and journalist in the New York City area. He and Roberto
Sirvent are co-authors of the book entitled American Exceptionalism and American Innocence:
A People's History of Fake News--From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror ( Skyhorse
Publishing). He can be reached at[email protected], on Twitter @spiritofho,
and on Youtube at The Left Lens with Danny Haiphong
"... The Empire has started something it cannot win. I have other thoughts on this but I just dropped by to post this and get back to my entertaining chores, me being the chef and all that. ..."
Just enough time to share this Global Times editorial
regarding the gross interference in China's affairs by the Evil Outlaw US Empire's
Congress--to cooperate with the Empire is to commit treason :
"In the meantime, the law also threatens to sanction Hongkongers who do not cooperate
with the US. This will suppress neutral space for people with different ideas and further
tear the city apart. The only way to maintain the solidarity of Hong Kong is to resist US
provocation and prevent more people from joining hands with the opposition for fear of US
sanctions. Efforts to fight the forces colluding with the US should be stepped up, and the
corresponding laws need to be improved. There is no way to allow traitors to prevail and
patriots to suffer .
"'One country, two systems' is China's independent constitutional arrangement and US
intervention damages its external environment. Hong Kong society should be vigilant. To
maintain "one country, two systems," the Chinese mainland and the HKSAR need to work
together. Anyone who colludes with external forces to undermine 'one country, two
systems' must pay a heavy price ."
"To sum up, Trump has signed another evil law that intervenes in China's domestic
affairs and violates the country's sovereignty by using Hong Kong as a stick. However,
in deciding how to use the stick and whether it will take the US where it wishes,
Washington has to think carefully because the move would probably backfire ." [All
Emphasis Mine]
The Empire has started something it cannot win. I have other thoughts on this but I just
dropped by to post this and get back to my entertaining chores, me being the chef and all
that.
Happy T-Day, and may Peace at some point finally prevail and come to Rule this and all
other days.
After initiation of Operation Condor 2.0, which debuted with massacres in Bolivia following fascist coup d´etat against majority
of pueblos originarios , as preparations in other countries of CARICOM are in the making, starting with Grenadine....
"... The aim of Washington – and I am sure it has people on the ground in Bolivia to 'advise' the coup government – will be to stabilize the situation and keep things quiet while Anez gets settled in and selects a cabinet and forms her organization. After that, it'll just be the new reality, and everyone will have to get used to it. ..."
"... Frankly, it's almost a pity there wasn't a mercenary army for hire by victims of western-sponsored coups such as Ukraine and Bolivia. The military has remained mostly loyal to Maduro in Venezuela, so I did not include it. ..."
Inside Bolivia's murderous post-coup regime – with Wyatt Reed
25 Nov 2019
Moderate Rebels
Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton speak with journalist Wyatt Reed, who is reporting on the
ground in Bolivia after a US-backed far-right military coup against democratically elected
leftist President Evo Morales. He describes the bloody repression of Indigenous protesters
and the state of resistance.
The aim of Washington – and I am sure it has people on the ground in Bolivia to
'advise' the coup government – will be to stabilize the situation and keep things quiet
while Anez gets settled in and selects a cabinet and forms her organization. After that,
it'll just be the new reality, and everyone will have to get used to it.
Frankly, it's almost a pity there wasn't a mercenary army for hire by victims of
western-sponsored coups such as Ukraine and Bolivia. The military has remained mostly loyal
to Maduro in Venezuela, so I did not include it.
This army could be used to fight the
disloyal police and military and restore order. But that'd be the wrong way to go, because it
would quickly escalate and you can be sure the hired peacekeepers would be referred to as
invaders rather than 'moderate rebels', so Washington would consider itself invited in
militarily to 'protect democracy'.
Once again, the United States is complicit in an illegal coup d'état in Latin America,
this time in Bolivia. On November 10, a right-wing, anti-Indigenous group seized power after
the Bolivian military's removal of President Evo Morales, who had declared victory in the
October 20 presidential election.
The United States' fingerprints are all over the coup. Advisers from the U.S. Southern
Command have been stationed on Bolivia's border with Argentina, Ivanka Trump made a
surprising visit to an Argentine province near the Bolivian border in September, the pro-U.S.
Organization of American States (OAS) cast unfounded doubt on Morales's election victory, and
the U.S.'s National Endowment for Democracy provided suspicious grants to Bolivia.
At least 32
people have been killed and hundreds injured since the coup began. Sacha Llorenti,
Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations,
toldDemocracy Now!, "We are going through not just a coup d'état, but a
violent one." Indeed, it has resulted in "the rise of a far-right regime of terror,"
professor Gabriel Hetland
wrote in TheWashington Post.
Morales -- Bolivia's first Indigenous leader in a country where 65 percent of the people
are Indigenous -- received 10 percent more votes than Carlos Mesa, the second-place candidate
who has close ties to the U.S. government. Mesa was in regular communication with U.S.
officials who were trying to destabilize Morales, U.S. government cables published by WikiLeaks
reveal.
The day after the election, the U.S.-funded OAS sought to delegitimize the election
results. "The OAS Mission expresses its deep concern and surprise at the drastic and
hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results revealed after the closing of
the polls,"
it stated .
But the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) published a
comprehensive statistical analysis on November 8 that found no evidence of fraud or
irregularities in the election and determined that the results reflected highly similar
patterns from past elections. Other research
conducted by CELAG (Centro Estratégico Latinoamericano de Geopolítica)
confirmed CEPR's findings and identified insufficient evidence to support the assertions in
the OAS statement.
CEPR co-director Mark Weisbrot
noted in an op-ed for Market Watch , "The OAS isn't all that independent at the
moment, with the Trump administration actively promoting this military coup, and Washington
having more right-wing allies in the OAS than they did just a few years ago."
U.S.
complicity in the coup in Bolivia is illegal under both U.S. and international law.
The OAS was
established during the Cold War to prevent the proliferation of leftist governments.
USAID considers OAS a critical tool in "promot[ing] US interests in the Western
hemisphere by countering the influence of anti-US countries" such as Bolivia.
The November 10 military coup led to the forced resignation of Morales, who received
asylum in Mexico. Right-wing politician Jeanine Añez declared herself interim
president, and Donald Trump immediately recognized her illegitimate claim to the presidency.
Añez then issued a decree
immunizing the military from criminal liability "for carrying out necessary actions in their
legitimate defense while performing their constitutional duties." Morales supporters accused
Añez of giving soldiers "carte blanche" to shoot demonstrators. Bolivia's human rights
ombudsman and reporters
have documented widespread injuries and fatalities from gunshots.
U.S. Involvement
in the Coup
During Morales's nearly 14 years in office, his Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party
reduced
poverty by 42 percent and extreme poverty by 60 percent. It cut unemployment by 50
percent and nearly
tripled the per-capita G.D.P. "It's indisputable that Bolivians are healthier, wealthier,
better educated, living longer and more equal than at any time in this South American
nation's history," Anthony Faiola
wrote in TheWashington Post .
There was
discontent about Morales seeking a fourth term among some sectors in Bolivia, who thought
there should be space for new leadership. But Morales had a
strong record of establishing policies to help the people of Bolivia, which angered the
U.S. government, Western corporations and the corporate media, "who function as ideological
shock troops against leftist governments in Latin America," Alan MacLeod wrote
at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
The U.S. and Argentine governments helped to engineer the Bolivian coup, Stella Calloni
reported in Resumen: Latinoamerico . She cited the presence of advisers from the
U.S. Southern Command on the Argentine border with Bolivia.
Calloni also documented "the surprising trip of Ivanka Trump" to the Argentine province of
Jujuy near the Bolivian border on September 4-5. Accompanied by 2,500 U.S. agents and
Undersecretary of State John Sullivan, Ivanka Trump was ostensibly there to "visit" a small
NGO dedicated to furthering women's rights, and she delivered an "aid" package of $400
million for "road works." Alicia Canqui Condori, national representative of MAS, said that,
"in Jujuy Donald Trump's daughter had met with Gov. Gerardo Morales to plan what happened in
Bolivia."
Moreover, according to Calloni, Bolivian Gen. Williams Kaliman, who "suggested" that
Morales resign after the election, traveled to the United States 72 hours after the coup
began and he
received $1 million from the U.S. embassy in Bolivia. Like many Latin American strongmen
over the years,
at least six of the top military leaders involved in the coup, including Kaliman, were
trained at the notorious U.S. Army School of the Americas (now
called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) in Fort Benning,
Georgia.
Months before the coup, Bolivia concluded a
$2.3 billion deal with a Chinese consortium to mine lithium. Bolivia has 70
percent of the world's supply of lithium, which is used in car batteries, electronic
devices and weapons systems. "The idea that there might be a new social compact for the
lithium was unacceptable to the main transnational mining companies," Vijay Prashad
wrote . U.S. and Canadian companies sought to make a lithium agreement with Bolivia but
they could not meet Morales's conditions. "Morales himself was a direct impediment to the
takeover of the lithium fields by the non-Chinese transnational firms," according to Prashad.
"He had to go."
Sordid History of U.S. Meddling in Latin America
U.S. complicity in the Bolivian coup follows in a sordid tradition of meddling in the
political and economic affairs of Latin American countries. "For many years, the US
government has provided overt financial support to opposition political parties and civic
groups, including to many of the groups that have been engaged in violent insurrections and
coup plotting since at least 2008," Thomas Field wrote in
Jacobin.
This is the time to urge senators and Congress members to end all U.S.
support for the illegitimate regime.
One key vehicle that the U.S. government uses as a cover for its imperialist policies is
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). After disturbing revelations of covert CIA
operations in the second half of the 1970s, NED was established under Ronald Reagan. "The
idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for
decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities,"
William Blum
wrote in 2005. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein concurred,
stating in 1991, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."
Although ostensibly a private, nonprofit organization, NED is largely funded by the United
States. "In effect," Blum noted, "the CIA has been laundering money through NED."
Peter Haberfeld, a retired lawyer and labor organizer who has studied the "Pink Tide"
governments in Latin America, documented NED grants in Bolivia. He told Truthout that
"between 2016 and 2019, NED gave grants to over 30 organizations for 'democracy promotion' in
Bolivia. The grants total $3,209,887."
Haberfeld said the grants were officially earmarked for "lofty objectives such as
expanding participation by women, youth, media and entrepreneurs in a vibrant political
process, particularly in connection with elections," but cautioned "it is wise to be
suspicious." Haberfeld cited author Neil A. Burron, who wrote in The New Democracy Wars:
The Politics of North American Democracy Promotion in the Americas, that "democracy
promotion is typically formulated to advance commercial, geopolitical and security objectives
that conflict with a genuine commitment to democracy development." Burron noted, "For the US,
the political manipulation of democracy promotion in support of a North American-led regional
order is a continuation of long-standing forms of intervention [that have been] used as a
license to meddle in the domestic affairs of others."
NED
was complicit in the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, manipulated the 1990 Nicaraguan
elections, heavily funded the 2002 failed coup attempt against socialist President Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela, and supported the opposition to progressive President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide in Haiti in the 1990s. Between 1990 and 1992, NED donated a quarter-million dollars
to the Cuban-American National Foundation, the violent anti-Castro group based in Miami.
In 2018, under the guise of "democracy," "human rights" and "entrepreneurship," NED
funneled
more than $23 million to opposition groups in Latin American countries, including
Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Bolivia.
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton called Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua the
"Troika of Tyranny" in November 2018. A few months later, in April 2019, the U.S. government
orchestrated
another unsuccessful
coup in Venezuela. Juan Guaidó, Washington's chosen puppet to seize power from
President Nicolás Maduro, was funded by NED.
Trump not only took aim at the progress Barack Obama had made toward normalization
of relations with Cuba, he has escalated the U.S. economic war on Cuba and unleashed
untold numbers of lawsuits that
threaten to destroy the fragile Cuban economy.
The Obama administration, led by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
supported the 2009 coup in Honduras. The fraudulent election following the coup was
financed by NED and the State Department, ushering in a repressive and militarized regime.
Conditions deteriorated, leading to the exodus of thousands of Honduran children fleeing
north.
U.S. Complicity in the Coup in Bolivia Is Illegal
U.S. complicity in the coup in Bolivia is illegal under both U.S. and international law.
The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of or threat to use force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of another nation. The International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to self-determination.
The Charter of the Organization of American States, to which the U.S. is a party, forbids
any country from intervening in the internal or external affairs of another country. The OAS
charter declares
that, "Every State has the right to choose, without external interference, its political,
economic, and social system and to organize itself in the way best suited to it, and has the
duty to abstain from intervening in the affairs of another State."
The Foreign
Assistance Act forbids the United States from assisting a country "whose duly elected
head of government is deposed by military coup or decree."
There has been global condemnation of the coup. Sixty-four organizations of jurists,
lawyers, NGOs, social movements and trade unions from around the world, including the
International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the National
Lawyers Guild , sent a
letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, urging her to
strongly condemn the human rights violations resulting from the coup.
Fourteen members of the House of Representatives sent a
letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying they were "deeply concerned" about the
contribution of the Trump administration to the "escalating political and human rights
crisis" in Bolivia.
Over 800 scholars, activists and public figures published an open
letter demanding that the United States and the international community halt all support
to the right-wing, anti-Indigenous regime that took power after the military coup.
Veterans For Peace
condemned the racist coup in Bolivia and demanded an end to U.S. intervention in Latin
America:
Veterans For Peace stands in solidarity with the Indigenous majority in Bolivia who are
resisting the racist, right-wing takeover of their democracy. We demand that the coup be
stopped and democracy restored in Bolivia. As military veterans who have been used and
abused in too many unjust wars, we demand an end to 200 years of U.S. intervention in Latin
America.
The situation in Bolivia is volatile and there is danger it could devolve into civil war . This is
the time to urge senators and Congress members to end all U.S. support for the illegitimate
regime, demand free and fair elections with all political parties represented, and insist
that fundamental human rights of all Bolivians are protected.
@ jayc # 34 who wrote
"
The effective elements of the blunt stick the HKHRDA represents will inevitably weaken if not
destroy HK's position as a financial hub, a fact which the protest leaders seem not to have
gamed out. Or maybe they have.
"
Exactly! I think destroy is closer to the truth. China does not want profit forced in the
middle of their financial dealings with the outside world and there is little or no value
that HK can add to the equation.
As jared adds in comment #40 above
"
The financial industry is generally a con game built on managing perception and after all its
all about the money when we strip away the facade.
"
The lie that private finance masturbation for profit adds anything to the GDP of the world is
getting closer to being obvious to many. If anything it can be shown that profit subtracts
value that could/should be provided as a public utility by government.
So in due course the trade war was replaced by the full scale cold war.
Notable quotes:
"... Needless to say, no differences will be "settled amicably" and now China will have no choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating Trump's effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing. ..."
"... The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers, requires annual reviews of Hong Kong's special trade status under American law and will allow Washington to suspend said status in case the city does not retain a sufficient degree of autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework. The bill also sanctions any officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city's autonomy. ..."
"... The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP. ..."
"... In accordance with the law, the Commerce Department will have 180 days to produce a report examining whether the Chinese government has tried use Hong Kong's special trading status to import advanced "dual use" technologies in violation of US export control laws. Dual use technologies are those that can have commercial and military applications. ..."
"... The new law directs the US secretary of state to "clearly inform the government of the People's Republic of China that the use of media outlets to spread disinformation or to intimidate and threaten its perceived enemies in Hong Kong or in other countries is unacceptable." ..."
"... The state department should take any such activity "into consideration when granting visas for travel and work in the United States to journalists from the People's Republic of China who are affiliated with any such media organizations", the law says. ..."
"... Yes I think getting the western financial institutions out of HK is the plan. I'm sure they appreciate the US doing this for them, but of course they could never admit that. ..."
Less than an hour after Trump once again paraded with yet another all-time high in the
S&P...
... and on day 510 of the trade war, it appears the president was confident enough that a
collapse in trade talks won't drag stocks too far lower, and moments after futures reopened at
6pm, the White House said that Trump had signed the Hong Kong bill backing pro-democracy
protesters, defying China and making sure that every trader's Thanksgiving holiday was just
ruined.
In a late Wednesday statement from the White House, Trump said that:
I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong.
They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong
will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity
for all.
Needless to say, no differences will be "settled amicably" and now China will have no
choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating
Trump's effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing.
Trump's signing of the bill comes during a period of unprecedented unrest in Hong Kong,
where anti-government protests sparked by a now-shelved extradition bill proposal have
ballooned into broader calls for democratic reform and police accountability.
"The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act reaffirms and amends the United States-Hong
Kong Policy Act of 1992, specifies United States policy towards Hong Kong and directs
assessment of the political developments in Hong Kong," the White House said in a statement.
"Certain provisions of the act would interfere with the exercise of the president's
constitutional authority to state the foreign policy of the United States."
The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers,
requires annual reviews of Hong Kong's special trade status under American law and will allow
Washington to suspend said status in case the city does not retain a sufficient degree of
autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework. The bill also sanctions any officials
deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city's autonomy.
The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without
opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else
suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP.
Trump also signed into law the PROTECT Hong Kong act, which will prohibit the sale of
US-made munitions such as tear gas and rubber bullets to the city's authorities.
While many members of Congress in both parties have voiced strong support for protesters
demanding more autonomy for the city, Trump had stayed largely silent, even as the
demonstrations have been met by rising police violence.
Until now.
The bill's author, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, said that with the legislation's
enactment, the US now had "new and meaningful tools to deter further influence and interference
from Beijing into Hong Kong's internal affairs."
In accordance with the law, the Commerce Department will have 180 days to produce a
report examining whether the Chinese government has tried use Hong Kong's special trading
status to import advanced "dual use" technologies in violation of US export control laws. Dual
use technologies are those that can have commercial and military applications.
One other less discussed but notable provision of the Hong Kong Human Rights Act targets
media outlets affiliated with China's government. The new law directs the US secretary of
state to "clearly inform the government of the People's Republic of China that the use of media
outlets to spread disinformation or to intimidate and threaten its perceived enemies in Hong
Kong or in other countries is unacceptable."
The state department should take any such activity "into consideration when granting
visas for travel and work in the United States to journalists from the People's Republic of
China who are affiliated with any such media organizations", the law says.
* * *
In the days leading up to Trump's signature, China's foreign ministry had urged Trump to
prevent the legislation from becoming law, warning the Americans not to underestimate China's
determination to defend its "sovereignty, security and development interests."
"If the U.S. insists on going down this wrong path, China will take strong countermeasures,
" said China's foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a briefing Thursday in Beijing. On
Monday, China's Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang summoned the U.S. ambassador, Terry
Branstad to express "strong opposition" to what the country's government considers American
interference in the protests, including the legislation, according to statement. The new U.S.
law comes just as Washington and Beijing showed signs of working toward "phase-one" of deal to
ease the trade war. Trump would like the agreement finished in order to ease economic
uncertainty for his re-election campaign in 2020, and has floated the possibility of signing
the deal in a farm state as an acknowledgment of the constituency that's borne the brunt of
retaliatory Chinese tariffs.
Last week China's Vice Premier and chief trade negotiator Liu He said before a speech at the
Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Beijing, that he was "cautiously optimistic" about reaching the
phase one accord. He will now have no choice but to amend his statement.
In anticipation of a stern Chinese rebuke, US equity futures tumbled, wiping out most of the
previous day's gains... Still, the generally modest pullback - the S&P was around 2,940
when Trump announced the Phase 1 deal on Oct 11 - suggests that despite Trump's signature,
markets expect a Chinese deal to still come through. That may be an aggressive and overly
"hopeful" assumption, especially now that China now longer has a carte blanche to do whatever
it wants in Hong Kong, especially in the aftermath of this weekend's
landslide victory for the pro-Democracy camp which won in 17 of the city's 18
districts.
"Following last weekend's historic elections in Hong Kong that included record turnout, this
new law could not be more timely in showing strong US support for Hongkongers' long-cherished
freedoms," said Rubio
This is another attempt by the US to stop BRICS. They care NOTHING about HK, only its
usefulness in the US war on Chinas growing importance in world trade.
but no no no... trading with communists brings jobs to sell cheap crap. oh what was I
thinking.... cheap crap, jobs, and the richest of the rich get richer... my bad.
it ain’t like the commies are going to use the money to build up their military..
Of course the obvious solution is to just let people choose whatever or whomever they want
to associate with and be respected and left alone for their choice.
But no. We all have to live and abide by the wishes of other people bcuz of "unity" and
****.
Eh guys, you still do not understand that all this (not only China and Hong Kong) is a
very big "elite" performance for ordinary people to keep you (the rest of the boobies) in
subjection. It's like in boxing - contractual fights. Do you think world "elites" benefit
from peace and order? You are mistaken - these guys have the world as death (the death of
their Power and their Control). An example from the history of Europe - in the 18-19 and
early 20th century, Europe only did what it fought. But the funny thing is that the monarchs
(the real owners of Europe) were relatives among themselves. The First World War was
popularly called “The War of Three Cousins” (English monarch, German Kaiser and
Russian emperor). But the Europeans paid for the dismantling of relatives. Now the "monarchs"
are bankers and your position has not changed, you changed only the owners after 1918.
Problem with Hong Kong is, it is dependent on China to survive. That is not only true for
the most basic neccessities, but also as a port for international trade. However, in the last
25 years, Shenzhen and Guangzhou have built up their own trade hubs, which has pulled trade
away from being concentrated in Hong Kong, and consequently more dependent on China. Our
ideas of Hong Kong remaining an independent island nation isn't going to work for three
reasons:
1. Without being a doorway to China, there is no other reason for its existence.
2. Hong Kong is indeed Chinese sovereign territory, that was taken away from it to be made
into a trade colony by the British in 1841, under the Treaty of Nanking. The British gave up
Hong Kong in 1997, under the 1984 signed Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which Britain
agreed to return not only the New Territories but also Kowloon and Hong Kong itself. China
promised to implement a "One Country, Two Systems" regime, under which for fifty years Hong
Kong citizens could continue to practice capitalism and political freedoms forbidden on the
mainland. So, when the year 2047 comes around, Hong Kong will be fully absorbed and
integrated in a One Country, One system Chinese regime. In otherwords, Hong Kong's fate was
already sealed in 1984, and there is nothing America can legally do about it.
3. Hong Kong still needs the basic neccessities from China to survive. Don't count on
either the British or the Americans to provide it.
Yes I think getting the western financial institutions out of HK is the plan. I'm sure
they appreciate the US doing this for them, but of course they could never admit
that.
The question is who will listed to Obama after his "change we can believe in" betrayal. Also
is not he a war criminal? Obama election was probably the most slick false flag operation even
conducted by intelligence agencies. Somebody created for him complexly fake but still plausible
legend.
That Obama desire to interfere in 2020 election also shows gain that that he a regular
completely corrupt Clinton neoliberal. The worst king of neoliberals, wolfs in sheep's
clothing.
And the fact that CIA democrats dominates the Democratic Party actually is another reason
from "Demexit" from the Democratic party of workers and lower middle class. The sad fact that the
USA Corporate Dems recently became the second pro-war militarist party, and learned to love
intelligence agencies; two things unimaginable in 60th and 70th.
As we noted earlier, a bombshell admission from Politico today exploring Obama's
substantial behind the scenes influence as Democratic kingmaker : included in the lengthy
profile on the day-to-day of the former president's personal office in the West End of
Washington D.C. and his meeting with the field of Democratic candidates, is
the following gem :
"Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would
speak up to stop him."
And crucially, when asked about that prior statement reported in Politico, an Obama
spokesperson did not deny that he said it.
The frank admission underscores what many independent analysts, not to
mention prior damning WikiLeaks DNC disclosures , have pointed out for years: that the
establishment controlling the Democratic party has continuously sought to rig the system
against Bernie.
"Since losing 2016, Dem elites have waged a prolonged effort to stop Bernie. Bernie is the
obvious answer to the neoliberal Clinton-Obama legacy voters rejected..." journalist Aaron
Maté observed of the
Politico quote.
Here's the stunning and deeply revealing section in full, which began by outlining Obama's
'advice-giving' throughout meetings with Democrat contenders including Joe Biden, Elizabeth
Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker,
and others :
Publicly, he has been clear that he won't intervene in the primary for or against a
candidate , unless he believed there was some egregious attack. "I can't even imagine with
this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something," said a close adviser.
Instead, he sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly
and to unite the party when the nominee is clear.
There is one potential exception: Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he
does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama
would speak up to stop him. (Asked about that, a spokesperson for Obama pointed out that
Obama recently said he would support and campaign for whoever the Democratic nominee is.)
And a further deeply revealing but more laughable quote comes later as follows: "Obama
designed his post-presidency in 2016, at a time when he believed Hillary Clinton would win and
Biden would be out of politics." So the reality is... far from the idea that the Dem elites
would back the actual nominee the party puts forward, clearly the die has already been cast
against Bernie just
like the last time around against Hillary in 2016.
Politico author Ryan Lizza later in the story quotes a "close family friend," who described
that Obama's "politics are not strong left of center."
"I mean it's left, but he's nowhere near where some of the candidates are currently sitting,
at least when he got himself elected," the source claimed.
This means in the mind of Obama and other top party influencers and kingmakers, Bernie and
other popular outliers like Tulsi Gabbard have already long been sidelined. Tulsi, it should
also be noted, is one of the couple of candidates who did not bother to stop by Obama's D.C.
office for a 'blessing' and advice.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
"... Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. ..."
"... Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics ..."
"... "The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision." ..."
"... Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. ..."
"... To a great degree American foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions inherited from Old Europe. ..."
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins.
Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being unreasonable -- those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to
boost Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort.
Jokes aside, however, I can only imagine how SVR
and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many "free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a
free ride.
Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't
remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics. I thought it
had been an American Admiral. I had no luck finding a reference so I googled it. Still no joy with the American admiral, but the
list thrown up had near the top of it this informative quote from Patrick Bahzad.
"The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration.
It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose
to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe"
to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth
called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant
but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy
agenda on questions that would require adult supervision."
Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the
respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the
crazy banner. Or, to put it more soberly, form part of the neocon wing of those administrations. Though I, as an outside
observer, might be prejudiced here because I happen not to get on very well with Brzezinski and his copious output.
Allowing for that prejudice, which I confess runs very deep, I still think that to an extent American foreign policy has been
hijacked by Eastern European emigres who themselves retain some of the prejudices and mindset of another age and place.
Looking at it from afar, the influence of some Eastern European emigres on American foreign policy has been uniformly deleterious.
And that from a long way back and no matter whether those emigres are in Washington or Tel Aviv.
It cannot but help be distorting, that influence. It's not merely that unexamined Russophobia is embedded in the DNA of many
Eastern Europeans. There's a narrow minded focus on aggressive Machtpolitik, bred from centuries of violent territorial disputes
with neighbors.
That, transferred to the world stage as it must be when it infects the foreign policy of the United States - because that is
a country that cannot but help be at the centre of the world stage - distorts US foreign policy. To a great degree American
foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions
inherited from Old Europe.
In the most famous of his speeches Churchill spoke of the time when, as he hoped, "the New World, with all its power and might,
steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Let the historians dispute as they will, that is what happened. And continued to happen for half a century and more. But there
was a price few noticed. The New World might have stepped forward to rescue the old, but it carried back from that old world a
most destructive freight.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
I wrote what follows before reading Andrei's response to EO, but do not see much reason to change what I had written.
When in 1988 I ended up working at BBC Radio 'Analysis' programme because it was impossible to interest any of my old television
colleagues in the idea that one might go to Moscow and talk to some of the people involved in the Gorbachev 'new thinking', my
editor, Caroline Anstey, was an erstwhile aide to Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister.
As a result of his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, she had a fascinating anecdote about what one of his fellow
members, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, said about another, Zbigniew Brzezinski: that he could never work out which
of his country's two traditional enemies his Polish colleague hated most.
Almost a generation after hearing her say this, in December 2013, I read an article Brzezinski published in the 'Financial
Times, headlined 'Russia, like Ukraine, will become a real democracy.'
Unfortunately, it is behind a subscription wall, but it clearly expresses its author's fundamental belief that after all those
years of giving Russia the 'spinach' treatment -- to use Victoria Nuland's term -- it would finally 'knuckle under', and become
a quiescent satellite of the West.
An ironic sidelight on this is provided in a recent article by a lady called Anna Mahjar-Barducci on the 'MEMRI' site -- which
actually has some very useful material on matters to do with Russia for those of us with no knowledge of the language -- headlined
'Contemporary Russian Thinkers Series -- Part I -- Renowned Russian Academic Sergey Karaganov On Russia And Democracy.'
Its subject, who I remember well from the days when he was very much one of the 'new thinkers', linked to it on his own website,
clearly pleased at what he saw as an accurate and informed discussion of his ideas.
There is an obvious risk of succumbing to facetiousness, but sometimes what one thinks are essential features of an argument
can be best brought out at the risk of caricaturing it.
It seems to me that some of the central themes of Karaganov's writing over the past few years -- doubly interesting, because
his attacks on conventional Western orthodoxies are very far from silly, and because he is a kind of 'panjandrum' of a significant
section of the Russian foreign policy élite -- may be illuminated in this way.
So, attempting to link his Russian concerns to British and American ones, some central contentions of his writings might be
put as follows:
'"Government of the people, by the people, for the people' looked a lovely idea, back in 1989. But if in practice "by the people"
means a choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, how can it be "for the people?"
'Moreover, it turned out that our "deplorables" were always right, against us 'intellectuals', in grasping that, with "Russophobes"
running Western policy, a "real democracy" would simply guarantee that we remained as impotent and humiliated as people like Brzezinski
clearly always wanted us to be.
'Our past, and our future, both in terms of alliances and appropriate social and political systems, are actually "Eurasian":
a 'hybrid' state, whose potential greatest advantage actually should be seen as successfully synthesising different inheritances.
'As the need for this kind of synthesis is a normal condition, with which most peoples have to reckon, this gives us a very
real potential advantage over people in the West, who, like the communists against whom I rebelled, believe that there is one
path along which all of humanity must -- and can -- go.'
At the risk of over-interpreting, I might add the following conclusion:
'Of course, precisely what this analysis does not mean is that we are anti-European -- simply that we cannot simply come to
Europe, Europe come some way to meet us.
'Given time, Helmut Schmidt's fellow countrymen, as also de Gaulle's, may very well realise that their future does not lie
in an alliance with a coalition of people like Brzezinski and traditional "Russophobes" from the "Anglosphere".
'And likewise, it does not lie with the kind of messianic universalist "liberalism" -- and, in relation to some of the SJC
and LGBT obsessions, one might say "liberalism gone bonkers" -- which Putin criticized in his interview with the "Financial Times"
back in June.
An obvious possibility implicit in the argument is that, if indeed the continental Europeans see sense, then the coalition
of traditional 'Anglophobes' and the 'insulted and injured' or the 'borderlands' may find itself marginalized, and indeed, on
the 'dustbin of history' to which Trotsky once referred.
Of course, I have no claims to be a Russianist, and my reading of Karaganov may be quite wrong.
But I do strongly believe that very superficial readings of what was happening when I was working in the 'Analysis' office,
back in 1988-9, have done an immense disservice alike to Britain and the United States.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
David, Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. But the events of two days ago with Putin and Lavrov being personally
present at the unveiling of the monument to Evgenii Primakov in a front of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs speaks, in fact
screams, volumes. You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as I type this and it means that the West "lost"
(quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose) Russia and it can be "thankful" for that to a so called Russia
Studies field in the West which was primarily shaped and then turned into the wasteland, in large part thanks to influx of East
European "scholars" and some "Russian" dissidents which achieved their objectives by drawing a caricature. They succeeded and
Russia had it with the West.
DH, appreciate your comment. Haven't read the MEMRI paper yet. Scanned the first page though.
Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. ... You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as
I type this and it means that the West "lost" (quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose)
Well, two things sticked out for me during Tumps reelection campain.
1) on the surface he stated, he wanted closer relations to Russia. Looked at more closely, as should be expected, maybe. They
were ambigous. If I may paraphrase it colloguially: I meet them and, believe me, if I don't get that beautiful deal, i'll be out
of the door the next second.
2) he promised to be enigmatic, compared to earlier American administrations. In other words, hard to read or to predict. Guess
one better is as dealmaker. But in the larger intelligence field? Enigmatic may well be a commonplace. No?
Otherwise, Andrei, I would appreciate your further elaboration on Karaganov as opportunist.
Andrei: Strzok and Pientka come from Galicia -- the westernmost portion of what is now Ukraine -- that was acquired by Empress
Maria Theresa in the mid - 18th century.
I have been curious about precisely where both Srzok and Pientka came from, but have not had time to do any serious searches.
What is the actual evidence that they have Galician origins?
And, if they do, what are these?
I would of course automatically tend to assume that Polish names mean that their origins are Polish.
But then, if this is so, why are they enthusiastically collaborating with 'Banderista' Ukrainians?
It has long been a belief of mine that one of Stalin's great mistakes was to attempt to incorporate Galicia into the empire
he was creating.
Had he returned it to Poland, the architects of the Volhynia massacres of Poles -- as also of the massacres of Jews in Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg
-- could have gone back to their old habits of assassinating Polish policemen.
I first picked up the Galician connection in an article by Scott Humor: " North America is a land run by Galician zombies "
-- published by The Saker on July 4, 2018. It seems that Galicians, especially those that arrived after WWII, migrate into security
positions such as ICE / FBI / NSA etc. It may have to do with a family history of work in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Regrettably, I am not from Eastern Europe and cannot help you further about the Bortnicks, the Gathkes, Buchtas, and so on.
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public
opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:
Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a
number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.
The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy,
and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for
continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with
Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is
still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons,
and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:
In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has
increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent
favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.
38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another
31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of
Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that
there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night.
Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to
scale back U.S. involvement overall.
The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American
exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be
unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries."
This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks
really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to
American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there
is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there
is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.
The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran
has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been
nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to
elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this
year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more
support for negotiations and non-intervention:
A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year,
there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want
negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan
increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to
defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran
threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent
stand against it.
With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against
Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it
isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also
weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points
overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly
split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other.
This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear
weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy
and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more
support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear
weapons.
There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and
avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant
constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right
now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they
want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.
"... She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands. ..."
"... "In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests." ..."
"... government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. ..."
"... Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials. ..."
"... In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies .. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin. ..."
"... Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in Kiev. ..."
"... Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race .. ..."
"... But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another's elections. ..."
"... While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government. ..."
"... Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed, ..."
"... "In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian empire." ..."
"... On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR . ..."
"... NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security. ..."
"... True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine, renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia. ..."
"... Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries. ..."
"... That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward. ..."
"... The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind. ..."
"... But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood. ..."
"... George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well. ..."
"... David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, ..."
"... . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader . ..."
It's beginning to seem like an assault by the Zulu army of American politics – they
just never stop coming.
We are referring to the Russophobic neocon Deep Staters who have trooped before Adam's
Schiff Show to pillory POTUS for daring to look into the Ukrainian stench that engulfs the
Imperial City – a rank odor that is owing to their own arrogant meddling in the the
internal affairs of that woebegone country.
This time it was Dr. Fiona Hill who sanctimoniously advised the House committee that there
is nothing to see on the Ukraine front that involved any legitimate matter of state; it was
just the Donald and his tinfoil hat chums jeopardizing the serious business of protecting the
national security by injecting electioneering into relations with Ukraine.
She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook
a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed
repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands.
"In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence
Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically
driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Folks, we are getting just plain sick and tired of this drumbeat of lies, misdirection and
smug condescension by Washington payrollers like Fiona Hill. No Ukrainian interference in the
2016 US election?
Exactly what hay wagon does she think we fell off from?
Or better still, ask Paul Manafort who will spend his golden years in the Big House owing
to an August 2016 leak to the New York Times about an alleged "black book"
which recorded payments he had received from his work as an advisor to the Ukrainian
political party of former president Yanakovych. As we have seen, the latter had been removed
from office by a Washington instigated coup in February 2014.
By its own admission, this story came from the Ukrainian government and the purpose was
clear as a bell: Namely, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and force Manafort out
of his months-old role as campaign chairman – a role that had finally brought some
professional management to the Donald's helter-skelter campaign for the nation's highest
office.
In the event, this well-timed bombshell worked, and in short order Manafort resigned,
leaving the disheveled Trump campaign in the lurch:
government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well
as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was
used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr.
Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012,
according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators
assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients
also included election officials.
In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies
.. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million
deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort
and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously
come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential
campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation
of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of
Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of
public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in
Kiev.
The bolded lines in the NYT story above tell you exactly where this was coming
from. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau had been set up by an outfit called "AntAC", which
was jointly funded by George Soros and the Obama State Department. And there can be little
doubt that the Donald's accurate view at the time – that Crimea's reunification with
Mother Russia after a 60 year hiatus which had been ordered by the former Soviet Union's
Presidium – was unwelcome in Kiev and among the Washington puppeteers who had put it in
power.
For want of doubt that the Poroshenko government was in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the
liberal rag called Politico spilled the beans a few months later. In a January
11, 2017 story it revealed that the Ukrainian government had pulled out all the stops
attempting to help Clinton, whose protégés at the State Department had been the
masterminds of the coup which put them in office. Thus, Politico concluded,
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information
on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race ..
But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between
governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump
campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the
Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency – and publicized
by a parliamentarian – appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were
earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president,
Yanukovych.
The New York Times , in the August story revealing the ledgers'
existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an
investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the
FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Yet Fiona Hill sat before a House committee and under oath insisted that all of the above
was a Trumpian conspiracy theory, thereby reminding us that the neocon Russophobes are so
unhinged that they are prepared to lie at the drop of a hat to keep their false narrative
about the Russian Threat and Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine alive.
Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a
specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what
happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed,
Russia today poses a greater foreign policy and security challenge to the United States
and its Western allies than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Its annexation of
Crimea, war in Ukraine's Donbas region, and military intervention in Syria have upended
Western calculations from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Russia's intervention in Syria,
in particular, is a stark reminder that Russia is a multi-regional power ..
There is not a single true assertion in that quotation, of course, but we cite it for a
very particular reason. Shifty Schiff & his impeachment tribunal have brought in Hill
– and Lt. Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Tim Morrison previously
– in order to created an echo chamber.
That's right. The Dems are parroting the neocon lies – whether they believe them or
not – in order to propagate the impression that the Donald is undermining national
security in his effort to take a different posture on Russia and Ukraine, and is actually
bordering on treason.
Thus, Adam Schiff repeated the false neocon narrative virtually word for word at the opening
of the public hearings:
"In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's
embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian
empire."
That's pure rubbish. It's based on the Big Lie that the overwhelming vote of the Russian
population of Crimea in March 2014 was done at the gun point of the Russian Army. And that
event, in turn, is the lynch-pin of the hoary canard that Putin is seeking to rebuild the
Soviet Empire.
So it is necessary to review the truth once again about how Russian Crimea had been
temporarily appended to the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times.
The allegedly "occupied" territory of Crimea, in fact, was actually purchased from the
Ottomans by Catherine the Great in 1783, thereby satisfying the longstanding quest of the
Russian Czars for a warm-water port. Over the ages Sevastopol then emerged as a great naval
base at the strategic tip of the Crimean peninsula, where it became home to the mighty Black
Sea Fleet of the Czars and then the Soviet Union, too.
For the next 171 years Crimea was an integral part of Russia (until 1954). That span
exceeds the 170 years that have elapsed since California was annexed by a similar thrust of
"Manifest Destiny" on this continent, thereby providing, incidentally, the United States Navy
with its own warm-water port in San Diego.
While no foreign forces subsequently invaded the California coasts, it was most definitely
not Ukrainian and Polish rifles, artillery and blood which famously annihilated The Charge Of
The Light Brigade at the Crimean city of Balaclava in 1854; they were Russians defending the
homeland from Turks, French and Brits.
And the portrait of the Russian "hero" hanging in Putin's office is that of Czar Nicholas
I – whose brutal 30-year reign brought the Russian Empire to its historical zenith. Yet
despite his cruelty, Nicholas I is revered in Russian hagiography as the defender of Crimea,
even as he lost the 1850s war to the Ottomans and Europeans.
At the end of the day, security of its historic port in Crimea is Russia's Red Line, not
Washington's. Unlike today's feather-headed Washington pols, even the enfeebled Franklin
Roosevelt at least knew that he was in Soviet Russia when he made port in the Crimean
city of Yalta in February 1945.
Maneuvering to cement his control of the Kremlin in the intrigue-ridden struggle for
succession after Stalin's death a few years later, Nikita Khrushchev allegedly spent 15
minutes reviewing his "gift" of Crimea to his subalterns in Kiev.
As it happened, therefore, Crimea became part of the Ukraine only by writ of one of the
most vicious and reprehensible states in human history – the former Soviet Union:
On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet
transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian
SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial
proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the
Ukrainian SSR .
That's right. Washington's hypocritical and tendentious accusations against Russia's
re-absorption of Crimea imply that the dead-hand of the Soviet presidium must be defended at
all costs – as if the security of North Dakota depended upon it!
In fact, the brouhaha about "returning" Crimea is a naked case of the hegemonic arrogance
that has overtaken Imperial Washington since the 1991 Soviet demise.
After all, during the long decades of the Cold War, the West did nothing to liberate the
"captive nation" of Ukraine – with or without the Crimean appendage bestowed upon it in
1954. Nor did it draw any red lines in the mid-1990's when a financially desperate Ukraine
rented back Sevastopol and the strategic redoubts of the Crimea to an equally pauperized
Russia.
In short, in the era before we got our Pacific port in 1848, and even during the 170-year
interval since then, America's national security has depended not one whit on the status of
Russian-speaking Crimea. That the local population has now chosen fealty to the Grand Thief
in Moscow over the ruffians and rabble who have seized Kiev amounts to a giant: So what!
The truth is, when it comes to Ukraine there really isn't that much there, there. Its
boundaries have been morphing for centuries among the quarreling tribes, peoples, potentates,
Patriarchs and pretenders of a small region that is none of Washington's damn business..
Still, it was this final aggressive drive of Washington and NATO into the internal affairs
of Russia's historic neighbor and vassal, Ukraine, that largely accounts for the demonization
of Putin. Likewise, it is virtually the entire source of the false claim that Russia has
aggressive, expansionist designs on the former Warsaw Pact states in the Baltics, Poland and
beyond.
The latter is a nonsensical fabrication. In fact, it was the neocon meddlers from
Washington who crushed Ukraine's last semblance of civil governance when they enabled
ultra-nationalists and crypto-Nazis to gain government positions after the February 2014
putsch.
As we indicated above, in one fell swoop that inexcusable stupidity reopened Ukraine's
blood-soaked modern history. The latter incepted with Stalin's re-population of the eastern
Donbas region with "reliable" Russian workers after his genocidal liquidation of the kulaks
in the early 1930s.
It was subsequently exacerbated by the large-scale collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists
in the west with the Nazi Wehrmacht as it laid waste to Poles, Jews, gypsies and other
"undesirables" on its way to Stalingrad in 1942-43. Thereafter followed an equal and opposite
spree of barbaric revenge as the victorious Red Army marched back through Ukraine on its way
to Berlin.
So it may be fairly asked. What beltway lame brains did not chance to understand that
Washington's triggering of "regime change" in Kiev would reopen this entire bloody history of
sectarian and political strife?
Moreover, once they had opened Pandora's box, why was it so hard to see that an outright
partition of Ukraine with autonomy for the Donbas and Crimea, or even accession to the
Russian state from which these communities had originated, would have been a perfectly
reasonable resolution?
Certainly that would have been far preferable to dragging all of Europe into the lunacy of
the current anti-Putin sanctions and embroiling the Ukrainian factions in a suicidal civil
war. The alleged Russian threat to Europe, therefore, was manufactured in Imperial
Washington, not the Kremlin.
In fact, in 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification, the West would not seek to exploit
the situation through any eastward expansion – not even by "one inch," as
then-secretary of state James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that
commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually led right up to the
Russian border.
So Robert Merry said it well in his excellent piece on the entire neocon Ukraine Scam that
is being paraded before the Schiff Show.
That is, what is being desperately defended on Capitol Hill is not the rule of law,
national security or fidelity to the Constitution of the United States., but a giant Neocon
Lie that is needed to keep the Empire in business, and the world moving ever closer to an
utterly unnecessary Cold War 2.0 between nation's each pointing enough nuclear warheads at
the other to destroy the planet.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the
expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued
stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO
either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their
elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial
blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official
status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but
they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed
at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater
economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged
street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland
gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely
Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she
shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position,
demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to
protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's
east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a
plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly
the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass
Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in
the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British
geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its
vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands.
Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any
sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia,
the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's
eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US
government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the
encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with
economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected
Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge
Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this
aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon
its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and
leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
"... America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted. ..."
"... Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent, sensitive type would be concerned by it. ..."
"... America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over" as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened. ..."
"... Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington. ..."
"... Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even insist they do so. ..."
The motives for so many Western spies serving the Soviet Union – and in the 1940s and
1950s the Soviets had the best "humint" on earth – were rather idealistic. This was
largely true for the Cambridge Circle in Britain. They were concerned that America was going
to "lord it over" the Russians and everyone else.
America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the
1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted.
Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined
towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of
major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent,
sensitive type would be concerned by it.
You certainly did not have to be a communist to feel that way, but being one assisted with
access to important Soviet contacts. They sought you out.
America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable
position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over"
as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened.
It made little secret of its desire to keep such a monopoly, so brilliant people like
Oppenheimer would be well aware of something they might well regard as ominous.
Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the
Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there
were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington.
A hugely important general like MacArthur was unblinkingly ready in 1950 to use atomic
weapons in the Korean War to destroy North Korea's connections with China.
I read several major biographies of Oppenheimer, and there is little to nothing concerning
Soviet intelligence work. When I came across the Sudoplatov book with its straightforward
declaration of Oppenheimer's assistance, it was difficult to know how to weigh the claim.
Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even
insist they do so.
Judging by what is suggested here, if Oppenheimer did help, it was in subtle ways like
letting Klaus Fuchs, a fellow scientist and a rather distinguished one (but a Soviet spy),
look at certain papers. But the scientific community always has some considerable tendency to
share information, a tendency having nothing to do with spying.
In general, it should be understood, that Oppenheimer, despite all his brilliance, was a
rather disturbed man all his life. Quite early on, as just one example, he attempted to
poison someone he did not like. Only pure luck prevented the man's eating a lethally-laced
apple. There were other disturbing behaviors too.
Later they believed that equality of superpower status for the Soviet Union would
contribute to world peace.
How dumb were these "scientists". Everyone knows that once Soviet Union fell, peace and
freedom and democracy are flowering all over the world and United States are not waging any
wars anymore.
Agreed. However, an addendum, you seem to have forgotten to mention Russia's aggressive
training whales to spy on Norway, crickets to drive the US embassy in Cuba nuts, weaponizing
Masha and the bear, using Pokemon to sow the seeds of discord, contemplating on freezing up a
few states, any many others the mere thought of gets one wound up.
Agreed. However, an addendum, you seem to have forgotten to mention Russia's aggressive
training whales to spy on Norway, crickets to drive the US embassy in Cuba nuts, weaponizing
Masha and the bear, using Pokemon to sow the seeds of discord, contemplating on freezing up a
few states, any many others the mere thought of gets one wound up.
"... "Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount of influence over both parties." ..."
"... She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so serious about what's at stake here." ..."
"... Democratic presidential primary debate, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019, in Atlanta, via the AP. ..."
In a rare moment with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi
Gabbard explained why the leading figures in her party are war hawks. Far from days of the
Democrats feigning to have any semblance of an 'anti-war' platform (only convenient for Liberal
activism during the Bush years, but fizzling out under Obama), today's party attempts to
out-hawk Republicans at every turn.
"I'm looking at the Democratic establishment figures," Matthews introduced, "people I
normally like. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton. You go down the list. They all supported
the war in Iraq. Why were they hawks? " (Though we might ask, what do you mean, "
were ?"). "Why so many Democrats with a party that's not hawkish, why are so many of
their leaders hawks?" Matthews reiterated.
In the segment, Matthews heaps rare praise on Tulsi for being "out there all alone tonight
fighting against the neocons."
"Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy
establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount
of influence over both parties."
She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors
have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have
people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical
decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so
serious about what's at stake here."
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
The interview happened immediately after this week's fifth Democratic debate Wednesday night
in Atlanta, and after pundits have continued to complain that Gabbard is a 'single issue
candidate'.
However, is there any candidate in her party or in the GOP saying these things?
We find ourselves in a rare moment of agreement with MSNBC's Matthews: she is "out there all
alone tonight fighting against the neocons." Tags Politics
"... The "marginal violence" campaign of the "pro-democratic" students has failed to win more support for them. Regular Hongkongers are increasingly willing to take a stand against further provocations: ..."
"... Ten days ago the core of the black clad rioters began to paralyze Hong Kong's traffic during regular workdays. They ransacked nearly every metro stations and barricaded large thoroughfares and tunnels. Schools were closed, businesses and workers were severely harmed. ..."
"... One 70 year old street cleaner was killed when he was hit by a stone thrown by the rioters against civilians who tried to remove a barricade. A 57 year old man was drenched with gasoline and set alight after he verbally disagreed with the rioter's ransacking of a metro station. A policeman was shot with an arrow. ..."
"... Last Sunday the police surrounded the PolyU and let no one leave. Those who wanted out were either arrested or, when under 18, identified and handed to their parents. There were several violent battles when the rioters attempted to break through the police cordon but only a few escaped. ..."
"... Today there are still some 30 rioter holed up in a PolyU building. The police are waiting them out. They said that they had made more than a thousand arrests. The university is ransacked and there was significant battle damage . The rioters again left thousands of Molotov cocktails and other weapons behind. ..."
"... Had China moved troops to Hong Kong, or allowed more force to be used against the protesters, the U.S. would have used that to press its allies to put strong sanctions on China. The protesters' violence was designed to achieve that outcome. The plan was part of the larger U.S. strategy of decoupling from China . ..."
"... Here's a handy piece of advice for non-American nations around the world: Whenever some American starts running its mouth about crusading for Freedom, Democracy, Human Rights, or similar propaganda slogans, get ready to defend your nation. These slogans are merely the American version of the White Man's Burden and Western Civilizing Mission. ..."
"... The U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have cost American taxpayers $6.4 trillion since they began in 2001. That total is $2 trillion more than all federal government spending during the recently completed fiscal year. The report, from Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, also finds that more than 801,000 people have died as a direct result of fighting. ..."
"... The Grayzone piece linked above misses the real man behind the lobbying. Andrew Duncan who is a main sponsor of Senator Marco Rubio who is the main promoter on the hill for "activist" and U.S. darling Joshua Wong. Duncan is also one of the producers (financiers) of a film about Wong. ..."
"... In Hong Kong, it looks like university students were enthused to join in. ..."
"... The cognitive dissonance has been overwhelming these past months. "Pro-democracy protesters" who use black bloc tactics of arson and vandalism ..."
"... . Add a dollop of uninformed virtue-signalling from the usual clueless western cheerleaders, and it has been a festival of delusion which somehow ends with the image of a petrol-bomb-wielding black bloc protester as the new face of "freedom" (as seen on twitter). ..."
"... Recall that early media reports said there were 1.7 million protesters "according to the organiser's estimates". Once you remember that, then every time you hear millions is a hint to look up the Police estimate (150k) and estimates of maximum numbers in space available - also 150k or thereabouts. ..."
"... People whose ultimate goal is a comfortable life in a the USA which best meets their needs without necessarily concerning themselves with the needs of everybody else, are incredibly vulnerable once arrested. ..."
"... Usually it takes a few years before a resistance movement becomes too infiltrated to fulfill its objectives (eg the IRA), if the PRC has managed to do this to a movement which initially had so much popular support, within the space of a couple of months, this a massive win. ..."
"... I can only try to imagine what the Chinese police do to the Filipino mercenaries who make up the core of the US sponsored "protesters" with Molotovs when they catch them. ..."
"... The Chinese are not really as smart as we thought, are they, or such riots would have never happened (where were the parents of all these kids used by the US organizers?). But credit goes to the smart Chinese leadership for sitting out all the violence of the US-sponsored "peaceful protests" and thus preventing the organizers from involving the rest of the West in the war on China. The organizers will not give up, will try another day another way. ..."
"... Many young Chinese rioters burned their own jobs with their Molotovs , the typical achievement of the professional ideologues - getting the young people to do damaging things to themselves. ..."
"... Considering the now ridiculously low, and increasingly lower, share of Hong Kong in China's economy, wrecking Hong Kong economy like it just happened was a Pyrrhic move from the protesters. Hurting HK's economy doesn't hurt China much, actually, it might just boost a little bit more mainland China and weaken the independent-minded HK a bit more. ..."
"... It's funny, in a silly kind of way, that the US Congress has decided to "own" the Hong Kong riots by recognising them as 'legitimate'. The protesters shot themselves in the foot when they rejected Carrie Lam's offer to convene a summit at which protest reps and HK Govt reps could negotiate their differences - without pre-conditions. ..."
"... hong kong is just a small piece of the puzzle, a tiny bit of the apple in the big strudel which is the US hurry hurry rush, particularly since obama and clinton, to 'pivot to Asia' and try to 'contain' once again a rising superpower, China. ..."
The U.S. sponsored riots in Hong Kong are mostly over. They were sustained much longer than
we had expected .
The "marginal violence" campaign of the "pro-democratic" students has
failed to win more support for them. Regular Hongkongers are increasingly willing to
take a stand against further provocations:
Demonstrators gathered at about 12.30pm on a bridge outside Exchange Square, which houses
Hong Kong's stock exchange in the city's financial heartland, in another round of lunchtime
protests that have been staged most days over the past two weeks.
Scuffles broke out after a pro-police group of about 50 people showed up about an hour
later, but police arrived soon after to clear the area.
During at least two altercations between some members of each group, an anti-government
contingent yelled "go back to China" at their adversaries, and one of their number kicked a
woman walking towards the smaller group.
Ten days ago the core of the black clad rioters began to paralyze Hong Kong's traffic during
regular workdays. They ransacked nearly every metro stations and barricaded large thoroughfares
and tunnels. Schools were closed, businesses and workers were severely harmed.
One 70 year old street cleaner was killed when he was hit by a stone thrown by the rioters
against civilians who tried to remove a barricade. A 57 year old man was drenched with gasoline
and set alight after he verbally disagreed with the rioter's ransacking of a metro station. A
policeman was shot with an arrow.
The rioters occupied the Chinese University and the Polytechnic University (PolyU) which are
next to large streets and the important Cross-Harbor-Tunnel. Using the universities as logistic
bases and fortifications they managed to keep many roads closed throughout day and night. After
some negotiations with the president of the Chinese University the rioters evacuated from there
while
leaving some 8,000 petrol bombs behind . They concentrated in the PolyU next to the
Cross-Harbor-Tunnel.
Last Sunday the police surrounded the PolyU and let no one leave. Those who wanted out were
either arrested or, when under 18, identified and handed to their parents. There were several
violent battles when the rioters attempted to break through the police cordon but only a few
escaped.
After a few days most of those inside PolyU surrendered to the police.
Today there are still
some 30 rioter holed up in a PolyU building. The police are waiting them out. They said
that they had made more than a thousand arrests. The university is ransacked and there was
significant
battle damage . The rioters again left thousands of Molotov cocktails and other weapons
behind.
The blockage of the city traffic and the increasing damage caused by rioter vandalism has
alienated even those who earlier supported them. As the police now have most of the core
rioters under arrest there is little chance that such violent protests will continue.
On Sunday there will be citywide district council elections in Hong Kong. China had pushed
for the elections to go forward under all circumstances. Riot police will guard all polling
stations.
Weeks ago the "pro-dem" candidates, who supported the rioters, were still poised to win more
seats than they had held before the protests. But they now fear that the general public will
punish them for the mayhem they have caused and will
choose establishment candidates :
Chinese University political scientist Ivan Choy Chi-keung said while the turnout could set
another record, the overall situation was more unpredictable than before.
"The pan-democrats could have won a landslide victory if the elections had been held in
the summer, when the protests erupted," Choy said. "But after the recent clashes at two
universities, undecided voters may be worried about public order and be discouraged from
voting.
He was referring to fiery battles protesters fought with police outside Chinese University
on November 12, followed by more confrontations outside Polytechnic University last week.
"It will be difficult for the camp to win more than half of the seats, as some originally
envisaged," Choy said.
The Hong Kong government has conceded none of the protesters' "five demands". The only thing
that the protesters have won is the passing of
legislation by the U.S. Congress :
The House of Representatives on Wednesday followed the lead of the Senate in overwhelmingly
approving two pieces of legislation: The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which
requires the president to annually review the favourable trading status that the US gives to
Hong Kong, threatening to revoke it and impose penalties against officials if freedoms are
determined to have been quashed; and the Protect Hong Kong Act, which will block the sale of
tear gas and other policing items.
The former, although largely symbolic, could alter Washington's relationship with Hong
Kong and Beijing.
US President Donald Trump has a straightforward choice on legislation passed on to him by
the United States Congress supporting the protests that have engulfed Hong Kong –
approve or veto. Coming amid tough bargaining on his trade war with China, he may be tempted
to make his decision part of the negotiations.
...
But Beijing sees such measures as striking at the heart of Chinese sovereignty. Radical
protesters could be spurred to greater violence. Unspecified countermeasures are promised
should Trump give his approval.
...
But the trade war, violence and legislation have damaged business sentiment in Hong Kong.
Approval or not, pessimism and uncertainty have already been deepened. There can be no
winners.
Trump wants the trade deal with China and will therefore likely
veto the bill :
Speaking on the "Fox & Friends" morning program, the president said that he was balancing
competing priorities in the U.S.-China relationship.
"We have to stand with Hong Kong, but I'm also standing with President Xi [Jinping], he's
a friend of mine. He's an incredible guy, but we have to stand I'd like to see them work it
out, okay?" the president said. "I stand with freedom, I stand with all of the things that I
want to do, but we are also in the process of making one of the largest trade deals in
history. And if we could do that, it would be great."
A veto would only have a temporary impact as the law has passed the House and Senate by veto
proof majorities.
The idea behind the protests and the rioters In Hong Kong was all along to provoke another
Tian An Men incident . This has been quite obvious since the start of the protest. It now
gets publicly acknowledged:
"Some of the protesters seem to have an objective to provoke a military confrontation with
China. They seem to want a Tiananmen Square outcome as success."
Fmr Foreign Sec @Jeremy_Hunt says he is "concerned with the tactics" with some of
#HongKong's protesters
Had China moved troops to Hong Kong, or allowed more force to be used against the
protesters, the U.S. would have used that to press its allies to put strong sanctions on China.
The protesters' violence was designed to achieve that outcome. The plan was part of the larger
U.S. strategy of
decoupling from China .
The plan failed because China was too smart to give the U.S. what it wanted. Now it is Trump
who is under pressure. He needs the trade deal with China because the current trade war is
doing harm to the U.S. economy and endangers his reelection.
Which is probably the real reason why the protests have died down.
Posted by b on November 22, 2019 at 19:02 UTC | Permalink
Here's a handy piece of advice for non-American nations around the world:
Whenever some American starts running its mouth about crusading for Freedom, Democracy,
Human Rights, or similar propaganda slogans, get ready to defend your nation. These slogans are merely the American version of the White Man's Burden and Western
Civilizing Mission.
They are a clear and present threat that the American predator is slouching towards
you.
Interesting that in The Atlantic magazine article B links to (at "That was a mistake"), the
writer Suzanne Sataline followed a rioter all the way through PolyU without saying why she
had to do so. Had she been found by police, she would surely have been arrested and charged
with assisting in terrorist-styled activities.
Next time The Atlantic sends her on an overseas assignment, perhaps somewhere in the
Middle East, Africa or Latin America, she might not be so lucky. Somehow the fate of Marie
Colvin in Syria or Lebanon comes to mind. I would not be surprised though if Sataline has
never heard of Colvin.
The U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have cost American taxpayers $6.4
trillion since they began in 2001.
That total is $2 trillion more than all federal government spending during the recently
completed fiscal year. The report, from Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University,
also finds that more than 801,000 people have died as a direct result of fighting.
"I think China needs to stop interfering in the internal affairs of the United States because
our treatment of Hong Kong is an internal matter," says @MarcoRubio.
While claiming to fight for "self-determination," Hong Kong opposition leaders are
collaborating with regime-change neoconservatives in Washington to "preserve the US's own
political and economic interests." A new DC lobbying front has become their base of
operations.
The Grayzone piece linked above misses the real man behind the lobbying. Andrew Duncan who
is a main sponsor of Senator Marco Rubio who is the main promoter on the hill for "activist"
and U.S. darling Joshua Wong. Duncan is also
one of the producers (financiers) of a film about Wong.
An election watchdog organization filed a complaint Friday with the Federal Election
Commission over a $500,000 donation to a super political action committee aiding Marco
Rubio from a mystery firm headed by a New York investor.
...
The complaint from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, seeks
an investigation into IGX LLC for masking the donation and to determine whether the
Conservative Solutions PAC was aware of the origins of the contribution. The actual donor,
Andrew Duncan, of Brooklyn, New York, acknowledged to the Associated Press earlier this
month that he had routed his contribution through IGX, a business entity registered last
year in Delaware.
If the violence in the demonstrations is being pushed by the US, as suggested by b (and I
agree), it doesn't matter very much how popular the demos are. Apart from the need not to
look absurdly out of tune.
This is not the first time that I've compared the Hong Kong demos to the Gilets Jaunes in
France. The model is identical. Groups separate from the popular demonstrations commit
violence; no-one knows who they are. Black-masked unknown individuals.
In Hong Kong, it looks like university students were enthused to join in.
In Paris we had it again last Saturday, but it won't last, as most of the Gilets Jaunes
are against the violence. We ran into a group that night; they didn't seem very violent, more
like copycats. Their more violent fellows had just destroyed a war monument.
The French always deny that it could be a foreign intervention, but it's so similar to
what has happened in Hong Kong.
The cognitive dissonance has been overwhelming these past months. "Pro-democracy protesters"
who use black bloc tactics of arson and vandalism.
"Students yearning for freedom" who
organize Molotov cocktail factories. Complaints of excessive "police brutality" when by
objective international standards the police were remarkably constrained. "Hong Kong is a
repressive police state" says Joshua Wong, and yet it is consistently near the top of the
list in the Cato Institute world freedom index.
The protesters are "fighting for democracy"
even though Hong Kong is democratic, and demand a "universal suffrage" that in practice very
few jurisdictions, least of all their beloved US/UK, enjoy. Add a dollop of uninformed
virtue-signalling from the usual clueless western cheerleaders, and it has been a festival of
delusion which somehow ends with the image of a petrol-bomb-wielding black bloc protester as
the new face of "freedom" (as seen on twitter).
I disagree. Gillets Jaunes protest are throughout the country. And GJ are not trying to maintain any
sort of special status like HK protesters. GJ have not been violent. Its those that are trying to discredit the GJ that are
violent.!!
The author (b) writes: "Had China moved troops to Hong Kong, or allowed more force to be used
against the protesters, the U.S. would have used that to press its allies to put strong
sanctions on China."
Ironically, China already moved its troops to the street of Hong Kong this week - to help
to clean the street and repair the damages done by the rioters! I know it is anti-climax, and a big let down for all the Chinese haters like Marco Rubio,
Nancy Pelosi, Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon and many others.
The funny thing is that a little bit of effort and the whole thing becomes apparent even
through the traditional media reports. Recall that early media reports said there were 1.7
million protesters "according to the organiser's estimates". Once you remember that, then
every time you hear millions is a hint to look up the Police estimate (150k) and estimates of
maximum numbers in space available - also 150k or thereabouts.
More stories hint of high protester numbers but don't mention numbers -- so check the
accompanying pictures and videos - we a few thousand (ie well down on ever factual early
numbers) and more recently just a few hundred. Police violence - yet every picture or video
show large numbers of police acting very very peaceably (compare Paris). HK democracy - yet
all the pictures recently have been exclusively of masked blackshirts and if you dig deep
most of the violence has been blackshirt on passers by.
There must be picture editors who are stunned by the reports they run. And obviously the story they are all looking for is the China overreaction that was never
going to happen.
The whole thing runs in parallel with the obvious Ujghur 1 million in prison lie (it would
be equivalent to every male aged 16-29) where the only witnesses to speak to western
journalists have been fed to the press in Istanbul. We all know that Chinese muslims in
Istanbul are going to or already in ISIS. James Le Mesurier doing a little extra press
feeding in his spare time.
in 1997, the year Great Britain consumed her concession of Hong Kong, the colony, now
mainland proper, was counting for 40% of China´s GDP. today hardly 2%. a major factor
of the unrest.
"They seem to want a Tiananmen Square outcome as success."
The Tiananmen Square outcome was–media accounts to the contrary –- that the kids
all left the square safely by 7:20 am, just as all the HK demonstrators are unharmed.
There was a riot led by professional thugs elsewhere in Beijing, in Chang'An
Avenue, but that was a different matter entirely and one with an interesting sequel. The
leader of that riot was exfiltrated to the UK by MI6 and subsequently convicted of robbing
and murdering an elderly Londoner. Sweet.
The decision to crowd hundreds of members of the hard core into a siege situation at PolyU is
more than a mistake it will be catastrophic for a movement which is largely peopled by
members of the bourgeoisie. Although if it follows the form of many other similar resistance efforts it is likely that any
proletariat members participating found themselves on the front lines during confrontation
because they had the balls to be there once push came to a crack on the melon with a baton.
People whose ultimate goal is a comfortable life in a the USA which best meets their needs
without necessarily concerning themselves with the needs of everybody else, are incredibly
vulnerable once arrested.
The best outcome for PRC will be a situation where they have intelligence of what moves
resistance may be planning in the future, combined with some ability to control the
resistance.
Now that the most violent of the protesters have stuffed themselves into one spot in a way
that makes being arrested as they leave the scene they vandalised a reasonable act by police
in the eyes of Hongkong citizens and, for that matter, the world, we can be certain many of
the arrestees will be 'turned' by the police and intelligence services.
As for that essential ingredient of any resistance movement, solidarity, the atlantic
article b linked to denigrates many of those still stuck inside PolyU as "well-meaning,
unlucky naifs who didn't know the geography and didn't have the guile or foresight to
negotiate, bargain, lie, or sneak their way out." that elitist summation of the
courageous is likely to have been engendered in the writer by her sources (prolly introduced
by amerikan 'friends') who did escape.
Smart proletarian fighters abandoned inside PolyU and desperate bourgeois resisters now
facing the disappointment of their families caused by the realisation that their actions have
made their future prospects a lot grimmer will cause many to rationalise that they were
betrayed & led up the garden path by a selfish leadership. In those circs helping the
police is less a betrayal than a reasonable reaction to movement indifference towards them,
they will decide.
Perhaps this was a definite police strategy from the start, utilizing some of the vandals
already arrested at earlier riots. That would mean that some of the escapees were not solely
agents of usuk, some were permitted to escape by the police so they wouldn't have to explain
away yet another arrest to their comrades.
Usually it takes a few years before a resistance movement becomes too infiltrated to
fulfill its objectives (eg the IRA), if the PRC has managed to do this to a movement which
initially had so much popular support, within the space of a couple of months, this a massive
win.
I can only try to imagine what the Chinese police do to the Filipino mercenaries who make up
the core of the US sponsored "protesters" with Molotovs when they catch them. I can certainly
understand why they are desperately trying to escape through the sewer pipes of the
University etc. Even the dumbest Hong-Kongers have finally cottoned it that they are the big
losers of this "democratic revolution".
The Chinese are not really as smart as we thought, are they, or such riots would have
never happened (where were the parents of all these kids used by the US organizers?). But
credit goes to the smart Chinese leadership for sitting out all the violence of the
US-sponsored "peaceful protests" and thus preventing the organizers from involving the rest
of the West in the war on China. The organizers will not give up, will try another day
another way.
But the Chinese authorities must study the Russian experience with
prevention , to avoid the huge economic losses. This is a big but Pyrrhic Chinese victory
over US. The Return on Investment to the riot organizers was not too bad, for couple tens of
million dollars they set back the Hong Kong economy by billions and 5-10 years.
Many young
Chinese rioters burned their own jobs with their Molotovs , the typical achievement of
the professional ideologues - getting the young people to do damaging things to
themselves.
@ Kiza in #39 who wrote
"
This is a big but Pyrrhic Chinese victory over US. The Return on Investment to the riot
organizers was not too bad, for couple tens of million dollars they set back the Hong Kong
economy by billions and 5-10 years. Many young Chinese rioters burned their own jobs with
their Molotovs, the typical achievement of the professional ideologues - getting the young
people to do damaging things to themselves.
"
Thanks for your thoughts.
China has won in two ways, IMO
1. It will speed the reintegration of HK into the China political economy because it further
destroyed the HK of British rule.
2. It is a wake up call to Taiwan about their reliance on and fealty to the West....what
benefits are there and at what cost?
I agree with Psychohistorian. Considering the now ridiculously low, and increasingly lower,
share of Hong Kong in China's economy, wrecking Hong Kong economy like it just happened was a
Pyrrhic move from the protesters. Hurting HK's economy doesn't hurt China much, actually, it
might just boost a little bit more mainland China and weaken the independent-minded HK a bit
more.
As long as the situation ends up returning to normal and things stay quiet afterwards,
I would nearly wonder if some Chinese agents didn't help create that mess in Hong Kong,
because Beijing surely doesn't need a booming HK with special status anymore.
I think your reasoning is far too complex, and I here in Australia, (a Serial Email-er to the
National Broadcaster "The ABC") emailed some months ago my impression the Government in
Beijing would sit on its hands and watch the show across the moat from Shenzhen 35 Klms away,
which it sees as the replacement for Hong Kong?
I don't think the Chinese have forgotten the Opium Wars and the arrogance of the Poms which
occupied Hong Kong from 1841 to 1997 with a short intermission in which the Japs took
residence. So I believe they just watched Hong Kong destroy itself, and didn't care who was
behind it and as a result would be in a far more powerful position when they expose the
British and the US for their part in this exercise.
There never was going to be a Tienanmen event as I predicted several months ago about which
the idiots in the ABC salivated and all sorts of stuff was written about the impending
"Invasion" of the "Democratic" Island where these over indulged brats had their
Hissy-Fit.
Hong Kong never in its History has ever had "Democracy" as it was a servile "Stateless
Outpost" dictated by Buckingham Palace via the "Foreign Office" and the Resident
Governor!
<<<<<<<<<<<< So suck it up!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I feel these terms "pro-dem" and "pan-democratic" in HK politics should not be allowed to
stand uncontested. Sure, the government in mainland China is not democratic (refreshingly, at
least it doesn't pretend to be).
But the Beijing-friendly parties in Hong Kong contest the
local elections under exactly the same (flawed) rules as every other party; so it seems to me
they're all equally democratic. Rather, the pan-dem (pandemic?!) bloc in Hong Kong is
pro-American -- that's the real difference.
It's already long, long ago that I noticed the same sleight of hand in Serbia, where MSM
conflated "democratic" with "pro-EU".
It's funny, in a silly kind of way, that the US Congress has decided to "own" the Hong Kong
riots by recognising them as 'legitimate'. The protesters shot themselves in the foot when
they rejected Carrie Lam's offer to convene a summit at which protest reps and HK Govt reps
could negotiate their differences - without pre-conditions.
She subsequently sounded the plot's death knell the day she announced that her government
won't recognise ANY of the protesters' infantile supplementary demands and declared violent
masked protesters to be illegal and illegitimate.
...
A week or so ago ABC.net.au's reporter in Hong Kong said that the protests were confined to a
very small area representing Hong Kong's "financial heartland." He stated that two blocks
from the Media Circus/protests it's business-as-usual in the rest of Hong Kong.
I haven't heard this claim made by any other MSM 'news' source...
Earlier I thought China was too soft on the rioters but they have played it well. Like Russia
separated moderate rebels from jihadis in Syria, China separated the regime change rioters
from the genuine protestors in Hong Kong.
"Hong Kong is a repressive police state" says Joshua Wong, and yet it is consistently near
the top of the list in the Cato Institute world freedom index.
Posted by: jayc | Nov 22 2019 21:14 utc | 19
In the past, I thought that Hong Kong was dominated by a narrow rich oligarchy with rules
that kept the input from hoi-polloi to the minimum, which meant low taxes for business and
the rich etc. From the point of view of Cato Institute it is the definition of paradise, but
the life in paradise may have its discontent.
Compare with Chile that has exemplary record of
"property rights" since Pinochet era with a constitution that makes it very hard to change,
and yet, the locals are not happy and neither Russian nor Bolivarian agitators were identfied.
Or Colombia, another shiny bastion of democracy, allowing very wide spectrum of
relationship between bosses and workers (assassinations of uppity organizers included). I
would be curious if systematic and widespread murder in the defense of freedom merits
downgrading in Cato Institute world freedom index.
I agree completely with what many other commenters have written, the whole rigmarole was just
an US attempt to instigate a "Colour Revolution".
Modus Operandi fits perfectly with what has been done in many other places.
It is about time the US tastes its own soup....And we dont even have to supply them weapons, they have got plenty
As long as the situation ends up returning to normal and things stay quiet afterwards, I
would nearly wonder if some Chinese agents didn't help create that mess in Hong Kong,
because Beijing surely doesn't need a booming HK with special status anymore.
Yep, and I would think that the Chinese leadership took exactly that calculated risk to
neutralise the HK status and snuff out some fifth column saboteurs. Beats disappearing them
and all that untidy stuff.
As for any comparison with the Gillet Jaunes by other contributors, I do not see that at
all. I agree people are in the streets but the GJ are in solidarity with their fellow
citizens whereas the HK rioters are murderous thugs pissing on their fellows. The role of the
police forces are entirely opposite with the HK police exercising phenomenal constraint. The
HK rioters could learn something if they followed the Maoist history of struggle or even the
history of the west. Losers and creatures of the USUK private finance fascisti.
I wonder if this PolyU seige was meant to be some sort of Odessa style Tienanmen event. I
mean, what can you do with 8000 molotov cocktails without getting roasted in the process?
Common sense prevailed on both sides.
Rioters who left the scene and surrendered just
chickened out. They love a good riot but did not sign up to get themselves identified by
their dental records. It would not even surprise me if there were any snipers out there
waiting to shoot protesters running for their lives fleeing a burning building. MSM would
have a field day.
Peterau@ Posted by: Peter AU1 | Nov 23 2019 7:34 utc | 67
Fair enough chap; I rarely click on linked nyms because they tend to reveal blatant
agendas which are most often a disappointment.
Without getting into a serious debate about it, I have come to the conclusion that when Xi
runs the Zhou Enlai 'completely uninterested in intervention' line which he has been sticking
to since the kick-off off the latest attempt by usuk to take advantage of the people of
Hongkong (despite anyone who can think, asking themselves that if the englanders really cared
that much about their Honkers subjects, WTF didn't they give 'em all brit passports when they
were asked to), he seems least credible.
This is a bloke who runs a line much closer to the old school, 'rich do what rich do',
line that his parents promulgated, than he ever has to either Zhou's or Mao's unapologetic
socialism stance - (although it must be emphasized that there is a vast difference in both
means and goals between the act which wealthy Chinese merchants in China pulled and the
sociopathic, anti-humanist line that modern usury based capitalism spruiks) unfortunately
neither advocate for the humanist, everybody deserves a fair shake of the stick mantra, which
is the only line that can possibly lead to the continuing existence of human beings.
hong kong is just a small piece of the puzzle, a tiny bit of the apple in the big strudel
which is the US hurry hurry rush, particularly since obama and clinton, to 'pivot to Asia'
and try to 'contain' once again a rising superpower, China.
china is pretty clearly the new next up and coming world empire, (anyone really see any
other competition against the US? and don't count on europe to offer much resistance to much
of anything that the US wants/demands either, though there are notable exceptions, like Nord
Stream)
peter lee/chinahand tells me something I didn't yet know, about the china chicken hawks:
"....donnie came into office w/ aspirations as a china dealmaker/korea peacemaker. but his
political weakness forced him to pivot to milsec his best base of support. & the China
hawks took over literally every lever of policy. From Schriver at the Pentagon to Pottinger
at the NSC to the purge of Thornton at State. Now that China hawks run the policy apparatus,
China threat is entrenched as the Beltway consensus and the indispensable political accessory
for Dems & GOP alike, Donnie's outlived his usefulness...."
so while the US has wasted at least $6 trillion since 2001 on a futile and endless series
of north african/middle eastern wars of aggression (and blowing lots of things up, just like
in those hollywood movies), China and built and built and invested its trillions in
productivity. Hong kong is important in the chess game, but really just as a sideshow and
irritant
The problem for the US has been that unlike previous trade competitors, Japan, Korea and
Germany, there is no standing UIS army in China, so they don't have to do as they are told.
Now even though HK has shrunk from 25% of Chinese GDP at handover to less than 3% now, it
remains strategically important, especially as China builds out its capital markets.
As such,
threatening the separate economic status of HK is a pretty powerful stick which the Neo cons
have just given themselves. In my opinion it is no coincidence that what began as a peaceful
protest over the extradition treaty (whipped up by the tycoons and the triads who have most
to lose) turned into an antifa style textbook color revolution immediately after Rubio et al
had launched the bill in the summer. Given that prior to two weeks ago most members of the
House would have struggled to find Hong Kong on a map it was mightily helpful that the
protesters decided to 'spontaneously" switch to telegenic firebombs and tactics to ensure
24/7 news coverage on C(IA)NN in the days leading up to the vote.
The WP and NYT as well as
the FT and Economist all did their bit of course, as did all the breathless 'embedded
reporters'. Result, the US has just awarded itself the right to meddle in the political
affairs of Hong Kong including specifically setting a timetable for universal suffrage on the LegCo. This is technically not a big deal as the people of HK were supposed to get that in
2015, but, (and get this) the so called pro democracy purists refused to accept it unless
they also got the right to both nominate and select the chief executive as well, something
that was not being offered. Bottom line, tycoons have what they want, the State Department
has what it wants and while the Taiwanese would like to keep the pot boiling for their
elections in January, most of the vested interests are done now so the propaganda machine can
move on.
Here are some interesting takes on the origins of the HK protests:
This has an unfortunate title. It has nothing to do with Africans. It is referring to the
fact that there are always locals that benefit from being part of a colony.
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/house-niggers-mutiny/ These are focused on the very human response to a loss in status, as well as the problems
of living in a economic entity controlled by oligarchs.
The spirit of the "One country, two systems" deal is that HK should remain capitalist
until 2047. It is possible for a capitalist society to also be a dictatorship (Fascist Italy,
Third Reich, the military dictatorships of Latin America of the 1950s-1980s, Thailand etc.
etc.), so, even if Beijing deprives the people of HK (which is a city, not a country) of
directly choosing its leadership, the 1C2S social contract remains intact.
Capitalism doesn't equal democracy.
--//--
Posted by: Ts'yew T'aw-Loh | Nov 23 2019 14:01 utc | 80
Well, if that's the brilliant conclusion this "Zhōu Shùrén" came after
carefully analysing 3,000+ years of Chinese History, then he's wrong.
Lu Xun grew up (and died) during the "Century of Shame". That period was exceptional, not
the rule, in Chinese history. In that context, I understand his stance. But that's definitely
not what China is today.
Sure you could teach his works to the people of HK, but they could as easily interpret his
opus on the reverse: that the HK are the new "Chinese", and thus must liberate themselves
from the "other" -- Beijing. So, I don't know what lessons, beyond the specific historical
period the writer lived in, you could take in modern geopolitics.
If you want not only to understand the social world, but to change it in a scientific,
rational way, Marxism is the only way to go nowadays.
..As for any comparison with the Gillet Jaunes by other contributors, I do not see that at
all. I agree people are in the streets but the GJ are in solidarity with their fellow
citizens whereas the HK rioters are murderous thugs pissing on their fellows. The role of the
police forces are entirely opposite with the HK police exercising phenomenal constraint.
Uncle Tungsten @67
I agree there aren't many who view the GJ in that way, but one of them, a regular visitor
with good info from the Middle East, is so invested with Macron, and always has been, that he
refuses to see that the GJ are exactly what they seem to be- a genuine grassroots provincial
movement with conservative attitudes. By which I mean that they want to conserve the welfare
state features that have made France a relatively civilised society. Macron, on the other
hand, is a gung ho market reformer who can't wait to smash the unions, privatise the
railways, restore the profit motive to the healthcare system and generally make the rich
happy. Macron is a groupy of and an eager collaborator with the oligarchs. In fact he is, as
the behaviour of his police forces and the relentless force used against demonstrators
confirms, an authoritarian in the French tradition which gave rise to fascism and a conscious
inheritor of the mantle of Petain and those who collaborated with the Nazis to preserve
'order and hierarchy.' The last French election was a contest between two schools of fascist
and Macron won.
claims UAW
and Israel behind Iraq protests Humm Is there a central "start a protest, riot or
invasion task group somewhere .. Where are these fake or overtaken protest and coup-de-riot
plots planned? Where is the play book? Who funds them and why? Is it possible these RIPOFFs
are private interest planned, state funded and private contractor executed? Who writes the
reports about them..
Who studies them (what schools what people in those schools teaches this kind of stuff). How
can copies of reports about riots, protests and invasions that were planned by outsider third
parties be obtained.. ??
Studying reported results by those who planned the protest or the riot, invasion or
whatever would or could reveal the methods and give strong indicators about the true source
of each new riot, invasion, protest or false flag [RIPOFF]
Where do they start.. (seems like the young people mostly..) but I do not know
How long does it take to get a riot or protest organized ?
How much money does it take to get a riot or protest organized?
How many experts does it take to get the riot or protest organized?
did the same people that planned the riots in Hong Kong also plan the riots or protests in
Iraq and Lebanon/
More about China calling out the US for meddling from Reuters this morning
"
BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States is the world's biggest source of instability and its
politicians are going around the world baselessly smearing China, the Chinese government's
top diplomat said on Saturday in a stinging attack at a G20 meeting in Japan.
Meeting Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok on the sidelines of a G20 foreign ministers
meeting in the Japanese city of Nagoya, Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi did not hold back in
his criticism of the United States.
"The United States is broadly engaged in unilateralism and protectionism, and is damaging
multilateralism and the multilateral trading system. It has already become the world's
biggest destabilizing factor," China's Foreign Ministry cited Wang as saying.
The United States has, for political purposes, used the machine of state to suppress
legitimate Chinese businesses and has groundlessly laid charges against them, which is an act
of bullying, he added.
"Certain U.S. politicians have smeared China everywhere in the world, but have not
produced any evidence."
The United States has also used its domestic law to "crudely interfere" in China's
internal affairs, trying to damage "one country, two systems" and Hong Kong's stability and
prosperity, he added.
"It Was A Coup. Period": Tulsi Gabbard Slams US 'Interference' In Bolivia
Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has come out swinging on Bolivia, following an initial period of being silent
and reflection on the issue after leftist President Evo Morales was forced to step down on November 10 over growing anger at election
irregularities, whereupon he was given political asylum in Mexico.
"What happened in Bolivia is a coup. Period," Gabbard wrote on Twitter in the early hours of Friday while warning against any
US interference.
"The United States and other countries should not be interfering in the Bolivian people's pursuit of self-determination and right
to choose their own government, " she argued.
Washington had been quick to endorse and recognize opposition senator Jeanine Anez as 'interim president' after she controversially
declared herself such without a senatorial quorum or public vote, and as Morales' Movement for Socialism was said to be barred from
the senate building when it happened.
Gabbard's statement, which again sets her far apart from a large field of establishment and centrist candidates on foreign policy
issues , comes a few days after Bernie Sanders was the first to condemn the events which led to Evo's ouster as a military coup.
"When the military intervened and asked President Evo Morales to leave, in my view, that's called a coup," Sanders tweeted Monday,
while linking to a video showing Bolivian security forces dispersing an indigenous pro-Morales protest using a volley of tear gas
canisters.
Meanwhile, in a new interview with Russian media this week, Evo Morales said the right-leaning Organization of American States
(OAS), which had initially cited "clear manipulations" in the voting surrounding his controversial re-election to a fourth term,
played a prime role in deposing him, and that ultimately Bolivia's huge reserves of lithium were being eyed by the United States
and its right-wing Latin American allies .
"The OAS made a decision and its report is not based on a technical report, but on a political decision,"
Evo told RT in the interview from Mexico.
Addressing his country's most valued natural resource, he said, "In Bolivia we could define the price of lithium for the world...Now
I have realized that some industrialized countries do not want competition" -- while implying Washington had helped engineer his
downfall.
Most estimates put the impoverished country's Lithium supply at about 60% of the world's known reserves .
The White House in the days after Evo's ouster
had called it a "significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere"; however, the now exiled former president described
it as "the sneakiest, most nefarious coup in history."
* * *
Watch key moments of the translated RT interview below:
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been called "the most dangerous weapon ever" by critics of this insane policy. These
weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would
normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2.
Arming Ukraine
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly
pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being
pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was
introduced by
the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was
plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation
against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time
that this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn't hawkish enough to also do
was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and
April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there
is
no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in
Venezuela
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts
from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day .
Trump's attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that
the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have
killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians .
"Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military
interference look particularly disquieting," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We warn
against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences."
5. Withdrawing
from the INF treaty
For a president who's "soft" on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between
the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to
declare that
"the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war." It appears entirely possible that Trump
will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all
lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START
Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these
treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one
way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South
Korea can compete with the U.S. in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to
nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but
the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
"The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement
designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to
conduct reconnaissance flights over one another's territories," The Wall Street Journalreported last month , adding that the
administration has alleged that "Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while
using its missions to gather intelligence in the US."
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits
Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
"US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev said," Sputnik
reports .
"All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and
lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for
the whole humanity," Patrushev said.
"In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological
leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually
pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital
development," he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
"Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with
the United States to buy Raytheon Co's Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a
major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia," Reuters
reported last year .
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about
the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the
nation's oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the
nation's government of that financial resource. Syria's ally Russia strongly opposes this,
accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of "international state banditry".
"In a statement, Russia's defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under
international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not
motivated by genuine security concerns in the region," Reutersreported last
month.
"Therefore Washington's current actions – capturing and maintaining military control
over oil fields in eastern Syria – is, simply put, international state banditry,"
Russia's defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and
hundreds , but whatever the exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian
citizens as part of the Trump administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last
year.
exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump
administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in
Estonia
Within weeks of taking office,
Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other
military hardware right up to Russia's border as part of a NATO operation.
"Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security
through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America's
dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention
in Ukraine," the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black
Sea
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
"US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress
showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures," CNN reported at
the time . "Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the
2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military
operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by
stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but
crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President
Vladimir Putin had called for."
"A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in
response.
13. More sanctions
"The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the
leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal
conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia," The
New York Timesreported in December
2017 .
14. Still more sanctions
"Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet," reads
a Vice headline from April of last year.
"The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17
senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its
subsidiary, a Russian bank," Vice reports. "While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia's role
in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures
seek to penalize Russia's recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including
its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern
Ukraine."
"The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and
entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea," The Hill
reported in November of last year. "The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and
Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S.
says Russia seized illegally in 2014."
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
"Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to
influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals
associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action
increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a
vessel," reads
a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18.
Secondary sanctions
Secondary
sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the
primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The U.S. has leveled sanctions against both
China and
Turkey for
purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is
threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as
foreign agents
Both RT and
Sputnik have been forced to register as "foreign agents" by the Trump administration. This
classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities
and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic
burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20.
Throwing out Russian diplomats
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of
Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the
U.K.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters "to resist Russian aggression"
"US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare
training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian
Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service
officials," Army Times
reported this past July.
"U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states
and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation in 2014," Army Times writes. "A low-level conflict continues to simmer in
eastern Ukraine's Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to
this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty,
national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian
aggression and even occupation."
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian
Federation
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional
U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of
the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States' commitment to protecting
Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice
ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive
military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially,
Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump's destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement
after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said
it was "deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse
to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", adding that this
administration's actions were "trampling on the norms of international law".
25.
Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to
support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
"Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said
he's looking at sanctions to block the project he's warned would leave Berlin 'captive' to
Moscow," Bloomberg
reports . "The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany."
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of
dollars in money from Germany" for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that's my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is
anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn't benefit anyone's
partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain
as can be, but there's a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the
political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative
that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that's
how different narrative is from fact; there's almost no connection. Instead they use a light
sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile
the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set
off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the
greater the probability of that happening. We're rolling the dice on Armageddon every single
day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the U.S. and Russia
should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather
diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is
in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's, in which millions of Ukrainians were shot, raped, beaten and starved out, while
"ethnic Russians" moved in and took over. Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away, he simply
transferred the administration thereof to the Soviet Republic of "the" Ukraine (a term
Ukranians have always decried as a way to make it seem as if Ukraine had always been a part
of the USSR). The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put
them there. That argument is the same one Hitler used as his excuse to annex Poland, and Polk
used to annex Texas. It's true Russia's self-interest (and well-founded fears of foreign
betrayal) have been largely ignored, but it's also disingenuous to ignore their murderous
20th-century imperialism. Just because we're not the good guys doesn't mean they are
either.
anon4d2 , November 20, 2019 at 18:12
Perhaps you forgot that the USSR actions in eastern Europe after WWII were in direct
response to the murder of 20 million Russians in WWII by the Nazi forces, attacking through E
Europe just as Napoleon had done. All US casualties in all its wars are less than five
percent of that, and 95 percent of Nazi division-months were spent in the USSR. On that front
they had nearly all of the casualties and did nearly all of the fighting. No wonder they were
a bit uncomfortable afterward with leaving open the favorite attack route of the west. What
would the US have done if a hundred times its WWII casualties were caused by two invasions
through (for example) Mexico? Would we have left the door open? Such circumstances cannot be
ignored. Starting one's version of history after the world's greatest provocation cannot be
said to clarify the history.
Toby McCrossin , November 21, 2019 at 02:56
"Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's"
Nice alternative facts. Ukraine was one of the original constituent republics of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922!
" Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away"
Huh? Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. You know you can check this stuff yourself
using Google, right?
"The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put them
there."
Right, so the Soviets put the Russians in Crimea in 1783, 139 years before it was in
existence. I guess the Soviets mastered time travel.
I know reading's hard and all but you might wanna try it some time.
Jon Anderholm , November 20, 2019 at 02:22
An essential article by Caitlin .. Thanks so much .
Sam F , November 19, 2019 at 22:56
Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 19:59
Given the laws of cause and effect, our nuclear missiles might as well be considered to be
pointed straight at ourselves. Like shooting at one's image in a mirror or joining in a
mutual suicide pact. Sheer insanity.
ranney , November 19, 2019 at 17:26
WONDERFUL article, Caitlin. You are so right! I agree with Alan Ross, you deserve an award
for this, and I hope this gets passed around for a wide readership.
Antonio Costa , November 19, 2019 at 15:14
When elected POTUS you are elected, no matter the campaign rhetoric, to take the reins of
the imperial empire.
Trump did that willingly, in fact to a fault given his "big mouth". He's no more nor less
dangerous than his predecessors. And like them, his is a mass of rhetorical contradictions.
Policy is all that should really matters. It is our only means of identifying some truth.
Trump knows what most here know regarding US invasions and assassinations. What he thinks
about any leader is anyone's guess (including his). For him it's all deal making as if it's
his private Trump Towers Enterprises. But in the end he's playing the chief gangsta role of
his like. (If you've ever listened to Sinatra at the Sands (the full concert), you'll hear
how Trump has mimicked the popular gangsta singer to the last "love ya baby ").
The media is not free. It is an arm of the national security state, with occasional
outages of truth telling, all the more to tell the big lies. It's purpose is to pacify and
repress any rebellions. Since the end of Vietnam it has succeeded. And here we are, never
knowing truth from lie. (I think of Obama as deceitful to the max, while Trump just tells
transparent lies so you don't know when he's actually telling a profound truth.)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi
Germany from 1933 to 1945)
Mark Thomason , November 19, 2019 at 14:22
We can go one step further than to say that Trump was reckless toward Russia, "with zero
resistance from either party."
Both parties demanded it. They approved it as "Presidential" whenever he did it, and
attacked him for any effort to be less reckless. They'd done the same to Obama, but Trump
proved weaker and more malleable.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 14:14
Verra nice peroration. I have two objections. One, I doubt that the people of the Donbass
are Russian backed in the same sense that the "moderate" rebel scum in Syria is US backed
with weapons, intelligence, and training but the people of the Donbass are ethnic Russians.
With a steady stream of anti-Russian legislation coming out of Kiev, I imagine they're
looking for an out. Putin is trying to get it for them without starting a war with Ukraine.
The real question that Washington has yet to address is what are they going to do if the
people of Ukraine notice that since they signed on to the neo-liberal dictates of Washington
and Brussels they've become the poorest nation in Europe. I know that there are a number of
Ukrainians who think wistfully of the days when they were part of Mother Russia. But you
never know, the CIA is notorious for its subversion and the Ukrainians might prove to be
spectacularly stupid. After all, they weren't doing badly until they let the US and EU foment
a coup for them.
And, two, "We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the
U.S. and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately." While I agree with the
sentiment, don't bring Russia into this. Everything that Russia has done has been a reaction
to what is usually an American violation of international law. Putin has been very clear that
he wants to back off this cold war but he has also been very clear that we started it and
we're going to have to be the ones to start backing off.
David Hamilton , November 20, 2019 at 02:11
I absolutely agree with your number two reaction to Caitlin's suggestion that Russia and
the U.S. should stop it and establish detente immediately. Everything Russia's leadership is
doing is a reaction to American imperial dares to defy their law violations. They exhibit
extreme and principled restraint to the Orwellian madness emanating from this place.
I think it is important that this be understood. Russians have been used and abused once
before by American largesse in the form of Clinton's puppet's assistance in the rape of the
former Soviet Union by the Harvard-sponsored project. That was the one during the nineties
that privatized national industries and created a dozen neoliberal oligarchs. The cost was a
huge increase in death rate that lowered life expectancy into the 50's from 70 years I think.
Cynical foreign policy, isn't it?
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:16
Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official
control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so
spectacularly is beyond depressing.
Many thanks to Caitlin Johnstone, Consortium News and all the others pushing back against
this system of perception management. I keep repeating it because it rings true. It's like
waking up in the Twilight Zone.
John Neal Spangler , November 19, 2019 at 12:44
She is right. CNN. MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo totally irresponsible. Fox not much better. So
many anti-Russian bigots in US
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:37
Thank you Caitlin. The neoliberals and neocons both desperately want a greatly intensified
cold war with Russia, but want it started by Trump ( because he is personally an
outsider).
This gives the Democrat and Republican donors contracts for the war machine. Ever since
Clinton administration moved NATO to the Russian border, the process has worked for the
oligarchs who control all US policies, foreign and domestic.
The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and
Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise
"Orwellian" media environment.
For anyone who has been waiting for the publication of reporter Udo Ulfkotte's best
selling book (in Germany), a book based on his experience as a well respected journalist
whose reporting was completely compromised by Western intelligence services and business
interests, it is finally available in an English language edition. The English language
edition has been quite obviously suppressed for the last several years and the book was
published in 9 languages BEFORE this English edition became available. It is a book that is
well worth reading to better understand why literally NOTHING written by MSM should be
believed at face value, ever:
See:
I would urge anyone interested in buying this book to get it directly from the publisher-
Progressive Press. Amazon and other mega monopolies are a big part of our problems. Take the
time to make a few extra clicks and boycott Jeff Bezos.
Noah Way , November 19, 2019 at 10:58
The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which
includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a
puppet. Nobel Peace Prize winner oBOMBa bombed 7 countries, overthrew Ukraine's democratic
government, invaded Syria, armed terrorists as proxy armies, authorized drone assassinations,
and bombed a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The last president to resist the military complex? JFK
Caitlin Johnstone's list points to growing tensions with Russia. Failure of the political
and media establishment to see this makes the task of avoiding world war three all the more
difficult. In the West the end of the Cold War was seen as the dawn of peace. But the Cold
War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we are now in a pre-world war
environment.
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:45
The Democratic Party members have not " missed" anything that Trump has done. They will
not impeach him on those grounds, because they too are guilty of complicity in those war
crimes.
As Pelosi said regarding impeaching GWB for the torture program or invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan " it's off the table". Because she was complicit.
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:23
Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. A referendum was held and 90% of the voters voted
to rejoin Russia. Most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and speak Russian. They were
understandably scared to death of what their fate would be under the rule of the fascists the
US installed in Ukraine.
And frankly, Russia had every right to protect its only warm water port in Sevastopol that
would have been taken over by NATO if Crimea had remained part of Ukraine. Too many Americans
have been indoctrinated in the belief that Russia has no legitimate self interest to
defend.
michael , November 19, 2019 at 18:22
In addition to what Lois Gagnon points out, you have to realize that the re-patriation of
Crimea to Russia in March 2014 was the direct result of Obama, Biden, Nuland et al
overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, in the Maidan coup
in February, 2014, and replacing him with a neoNAZI regime. Russian speech was outlawed,
which has been the language of the majority of Crimea since Catherine the Great.
The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the
Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita
median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from
the US.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 20:25
Crimeans have an absolute right of self-determination as a fundamental human right under
established international law, just as the Kosovars did when we were supporting the breakup
of Serbia when Clinton was president. Ethnic Russians voted in an overwhelming majority in a
free and fair plebiscite to rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for centuries, because
the neo-Nazi US coup government allied with Azov battalions in Kyiv terrified them and they
wanted nothing further to do with them. Crimea had every right to decide. Russia did nothing
to interfere, not a bullet was fired. Russia's troops were already stationed in Crimea by
treaty and did not invade. Russia warned NATO against the Kosovo precedent that it would come
back to bite them someday, and it was ignored. NATO is unhappy because it was denied an
illegitimate geostrategic advantage they thought they would gain. Crimea is happy, so what's
the problem?
DH Fabian , November 19, 2019 at 21:08
"We," who? Regardless, the issues you raise can't be understood outside of their
historical context, and Americans never try to understand the world within that historical
context.
anon , November 19, 2019 at 22:54
Crimea was part of Russia for roughly 200 years before the USSR premier (Kruschev?) gave
it to Ukraine, although its inhabitants were nearly all of Russian heritage and language,
like E Ukraine. So not surprising that they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
dean 1000 , November 20, 2019 at 19:26
Couldn't agree more Lois Gagnon. Washington did an illegal coup. Russia did a legal
annexation.
btw – The Autonomous Republic of Sevastopol on SW Crimea is no longer the only
ice-free port of the Russian Navy. Kaliningrad (on the Baltic sea) has been part of Russia
since 1945. Its deep ice-free harbor is the home port of Russia's Baltic fleet according to
the 2012 world book DVD.
Good one Caitlin. Again
jdd , November 19, 2019 at 09:51
This article properly puts to rest the absurd notion that President Trump is a "tool of
Putin, " and correctly notes that it has created a potentially disastrous situation.
However,
let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Anglo/American led forces arrayed
against Trump from the moment he announced his intention to run on a platform of "getting
along" with Russia and joining with Putin to defeat ISIS.
Failing impeachment, from the
attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of
Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort
to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of
the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the
current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish
testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment.
Nick , November 19, 2019 at 16:50
Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until
after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later.
Alan Ross , November 19, 2019 at 09:47
This article alone deserves an award for public service. And in a more sensibly run world
Caitlin Johnstone would have gotten at least fifty such awards for past articles.
This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a
chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department.
Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017).
"Miner's daughter
tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times.
She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got
PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard
Pipes, Akira Iriye, and
Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not
languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability
to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate
witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female
careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The
list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their
native countries.
She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being
questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence
Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon
Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's
emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said.
"Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And
those two things had just diverged." [13] In response
to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff
, Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016]
was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud."
[
Never has the world seen so many simultaneous outbreaks of mass protests against various
governments and regimes.
Currently there is public unrest simmering in Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, Hong Kong, France,
Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.
But which ones are authentic grassroots movements , and which ones have been hijacked by
outside powers or are being co-opted by the United States Department of Regime Change?
The following segment explores some of the dynamics at play, and what signs to look out for
in various global uprisings...
Nice and focused and succinct...love the Mao quote...
The higher the monkey climbs, the harder he will fall...
That describes Scumbag Pompeo in a nutshell...worth hearing this brief history of the
lardass pathological climber...
I have said this before...Trump is still the best of what's on offer in the fake democracy
of empire...
His opponents are hoisting themselves on their own petard...the more pathologically
determined they get, the bigger the bomb exploding in their face...Wile E Coyote 101...
The simple fact as I see it is that Trump is basically alone, which is not surprising
because who among the Washington creatures is going to agree with any of his sensible
agenda...which most notably is to get out of Syria and Afghanistan...and 'get along' with
Russia...
Regardless of anything else bad that he thinks is good...which includes enabling Israeli
colonialism and other things...if he were able to actually pull off those agenda items it
would be a very good step forward...
Now he has been tied up quite effectively by the opposition ['resistance'] but he's still
managed to at least break open northeastern Syria for the government to return...a big
plus...
As far as hopes to somehow take him down...that is delusional...he's a tough cookie who's
dealt with much tougher customers than these half wits in Washington...
People forget that the POTUS has tremendous power, even all alone and stranded on an oval
office island...he is not going to be brought down like Nixon...that era is over...plus he's
not as dumb as poor Dickie...
At the same time, there will be no scumbags going to jail for the massive hoax of
Russiagate and what amounts to a domestic color revolution attempt that they perpetrated on
their own people...
The Trump plan is to simply remain in office, which almost certainly he will do, and then
we may see Prometheus Unbound...
"... Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but many of us will never know... ..."
"... They certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for "the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism. ..."
In my July 25th article " Zelenskii's dilemma " I pointed
out the fundamental asymmetry of the Ukrainian power configuration following Zelenskii's crushing victory over Poroshenko: while
a vast majority of the Ukrainian people clearly voted to stop the war and restore some kind of peace to the Ukraine, the real levers
of power in the post-Maidan Banderastan are all held by all sorts of very powerful, if also small, minority groups including:
The various "oligarchs" (Kolomoiskii, Akhmetov, etc.) and/or mobsters Arsen Avakov's internal security forces including some "legalized"
Nazi death squads The various non-official Nazi deathsquads (Parubii) The various western intelligence agencies who run various groups
inside the Ukraine The various western financial/political sponsors who run various groups inside the Ukraine The so-called "Sorosites"
(соросята) i.e. Soros and Soros-like sponsored political figures The many folks who want to milk the Ukraine down to the last drop
of Ukrainian blood and then run
These various groups all acted in unison, at least originally, during and after the Euromaidan. This has now dramatically changed
and these groups are now all fighting each other. This is what always happens when things begin to turn south and the remaining loot
shrinks with every passing day,
Whether Zelenskii ever had a chance to use the strong mandate he received from the people to take the real power back from these
groups or not is now a moot point: It did not happen and the first weeks of Zelenskii's presidency clearly showed that Zelenskii
was, indeed, in " free fall ": instead of becoming
a "Ukrainian Putin" Zelenskii became a "Ukrainian Trump" – a weak and, frankly, clueless leader, completely outside his normal element,
whose only "policy" towards all the various extremist minorities was to try to appease them, then appease them some more, and then
even more than that. As a result, a lot of Ukrainians are already speaking about "Ze" being little more than a "Poroshenko 2.0".
More importantly, pretty much everybody is frustrated and even angry at Zelenskii whose popularity is steadily declining.
... ... ...
Another major problem for Zelenskii are two competing narratives: the Ukronazi one and, shall we say, the "Russian" one. I have
outlined the Ukronazi one just above and now I will mention the competing Russian one which goes something like this:
The Euromaidan was a completely illegal violent coup against the democratically elected President of the Ukraine, whose legitimacy
nobody contested, least of all the countries which served as mediators between Poroshenko and the rioters and who betrayed their
word in less than 24 hours (a kind of a record for western politicians and promises of support!).
... ... ...
Some of the threats made by these Ukronazis are dead serious and the only person who, as of now, kinda can keep the Ukrainian
version of the Rwandan " Interahamwe " under control would probably be Arsen Avakov, but since he himself is a hardcore
Nazi nutcase, his attitude is ambiguous and unpredictable. He probably has more firepower than anybody else, but he was a pure "
Porokhobot " (Poroshenko-robot) who, in many ways, controlled Poroshenko more than Poroshenko controlled him. The best move
for Zelenskii would be to arrest the whole lot of them overnight (Poroshenko himself, but also Avakov, Parubii, Iarosh, Farion, Liashko,
Tiagnibok, etc.) and place a man he totally trusts as Minister of the Interior. Next, Zelenskii should either travel to Donetsk or,
at least, meet with the leaders of the LDNR and work with them to implement the Minsk Agreements. That would alienate the Ukronazis
for sure, but it would give Zelenskii a lot of popular support.
Needless to say, that is not going to happen. While Zelenskii's puppet master Kolomoiskii would love to stick this entire gang
in jail and replace them with his own men, it is an open secret that powerful interest groups in the US have told Zelenskii "don't
you dare touch them". Which is fine, except that this also means "don't you dare change their political course either".
...are going through the famous Kübler-Ross stages of griefs: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance: currently,
most of them are zig-zagging between bargaining and depression; acceptance is still far beyond their – very near – horizon. Except
that Zelenskii has nothing left to bargain with.
Thank you for a rational article about Ukraine. The sad thing is that it might take years to reach the "acceptance" phase.
It would take someone like Hitler to clean out the stables. Arrest is not a viable option as they will bribe their way out.
These people need to be put down like rabid dogs. That is the only way to put an end to their mischief and it would be a deterrent
to their replacements.
Personally, I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel. Another
country that is still in the "denial" phase. Its military and political leaders know full-well that their strategic aims have
all failed. The boot is now firmly on the other foot.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
To give you an idea of how ridiculous it has all become, the UK no longer accepts medical degrees awarded by universities in Crimea.
Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but
many of us will never know...
I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel.
You got that right – what it's all about is building a New Khazaria. But they're neither giving up on their Greater Israel
project between the two rivers, and hence more wars, conflict and chaos to drive out the native Arabs from the Middle East.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
@AWMThey certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for
"the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part
of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism.
@bob sykes Kolomoiskii is the real hidden owner/controller of the company that bribed the Bidens. He has a finger in lots
of pies. His pretense to leaning towards Russia is his way to try to get the Americans to stop attempts to get at the many millions
that he stole from his own Ukrainians bank – fake loans to his companies.
Of course, the Russians understand all of that. This theater is aimed at the Americans – not at the Russians.
For the Ukrainian state to break up, there need to be some forces interested in a break-up. You won't find such forces inside
the Ukraine.
What is Ukrainian South-East? In pure political terms, "South-East" is a bunch of oligarchs, who are all integrated into Ukrainian
system, and have no reason to seek independence from Kiev, especially if it means getting slapped with Western sanctions.
Even the Kremlin doesn't show much interest in breaking up the Ukraine, so why the hell would it break up?
It's worth pointing out that the so-called "Novorossia movement" started out as Akhmetov's project to win concessions from
new Kiev regime. It was then quickly hijacked by Strelkov, a man who actually wanted to break up the Ukraine, and it is because
of Strelkov, that Donetsk and Lugansk are now de-facto independent. Without similar figures to lead secessionist movements elsewhere
in the Ukraine, this break-up that Saker keeps talking about will never happen.
His ratings must be sky-high, because otherwise I cannot imagine why Fox would allow him to continue to use their network as
a medium to broadcast common sense.
Of course the Dems are making it so easy.
Schiff, Kent, Taylor, Yanovitch -- what a pathetic, nauseating crew.
When they passed the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019" by unanimous
consent, the U.S. Senate essentially doused our relationship with China with kerosene and set
it on fire. The following comes from Zero Hedge
In a widely anticipated move, just after 6pm ET on Tuesday, the Senate unanimously passed a
bipartisan bill, S.1838, showing support for pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong by
requiring an annual review of whether the city is sufficiently autonomous from Beijing to
justify its special trading status. In doing so, the Senate has delivered a warning to China
against a violent suppression of the demonstrations, a stark contrast to President Donald
Trump's near-silence on the issue, the result of a behind the scenes agreement whereby China
would allow the S&P to rise indefinitely as long as Trump kept his mouth shut.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=/ As Bloomberg notes, the House unanimously passed a similar bill last month, but slight
differences mean both chambers still have to pass the same version before sending it to the
president. /=
Sending it to the president, huh?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //
[My own comment]
15 hours ago [near midnight last night] I said:
I think there is some possibility that the Chinese government will announce something
rather drastic in about seven hours. All cargo ships and planes will turn around 180 and head
back to China. Wal-Mart will close. Amazon will go dark.
It's possible.
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So... When the congressional fools send this unanimous bill(!) to Trump, will he sign it.
If he does, does the US economy collapse instantly? If he doesn't do they impeach him?
Or... Does he not sign it, then they immediately override, then the economy collapses
utterly while they are busy trying to impeach him?
Re the unanimous vote by US Senate - "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of
2019".
As you noted this seems to put Trump into a real bind re ongoing trade agreement soap
opera with China. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
The American political establishment has made any trade deal with China more unlikely.
Which probably removes a trade deal with China from Trump's list of accomplishments in the
2020 elections.
Thus the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019" would seem to be directed against
Trump.
But how really desperate is Trump for a trade deal with China? In trying to
re-industrialize the United States, maybe not so much.
And now he can blame the political establishment for American economic problems related to
the lack of a China trade deal.
I don't think this would work as Trump would reject the trade. He would love to see the
Democrats' slime and corruption trotted out in public. Meanwhile he is basically immunized
from anything that may come out of a Senate trial as he has already been trashed to a
saturation point.
And, since after three years of this BS they still haven't come up with any real evidence
against Trump, he would have little to worry about.
The Democrats have far more to lose than Trump; his attitude towards a Senate trial would
likely be: "Bring it on. Make my day, assholes."
The idealization of Trump that pictures him as some kind of silver bullet that could
penetrate the heart of corruption is a bizaare fantasy. It stands at odds with the reality of
the man. A crook he is at the very least. But it is what the two Parties agree upon, the
criminality in which they find common cause, that is the most horrifying thing.
From truthdig :
House Democrats Hand Trump 'Authoritarian' Surveillance Powers . And RT reports that this
includes a couple of remarkable dems, the idealistic newcomers we hear so much about. It will
be a long time before we are rid of the succubus of blanket surveillance. The grotesque
empire is to be held together at all cost.
snake @95 argues "the deep state does not exist" with circular logic that is massively off
target.
The deep state is individuals INSIDE the government that do the bidding of the banksters,
the military-industrial complex, the globalists and other nefarious interests. None of those
interests have the ability to make policy and implement regime changes without the deep
state. Yes, outside interests drive the actions of the deep state, but no, those outside
interests have no ability to accomplish anything without their deep state operatives.
If the US federal government bureaucracy was a) much less powerful, b) much more
transparent, and c) more responsive to elected leaders, then none of the bad things would
happen. A pipe dream? Yes - but it is erroneous to make a simple declaration "the deep state
doesn't exist" without any rational arguments to refute my points in @72.
Thank you for your post. You say that there is a deep state, but you then go on to tell us
it is not as deep as we imagine. So, I posit we should call it "the shallow state". It is the
foam on the edge of the sea as it begins to recede from a high tide of corrupt practices,
delicate and lacy at the edges and so mesmerizing and attractive to some. But it is receding.
And out there as it departs the Deep People are waiting. They are the depths of an ocean that
never disappears. At low tide they are still there, and they will feed the incoming tide. At
the turn.
And I also say, you may not care what the future brings, but I do. I have a little
granson, born on my birthday, gazing at me with twinkling eyes from his photograph across the
room. Family is also something we can call Deep and be truthful about that. It runs in both
directions, past and future. The Deep People have Deep Families.
And yes, I know, other grandsons have met untimely deaths this century and are counted as
'collateral damage' by the shallow state. Still they are with us as the past is always with
us; they deepen our persons in unaccountable but irreversible ways. They strengthen our
family commitments. They are always here, in our memories and in our strengths. They are not
collateral; they are the fabric of our determinations, our life blood.
The Deep People do care what happens. The twinkle in their grandsons' eyes burns in
their hearts. It is a fire, a consuming force. It never dies.
"deep state", "deep people", "the swamp" .. a rose by any other name would smell just as
rancid.
"deep people" implies a small, isolated group. IMO, it's more like an iceberg than
seashore foam. 90% of it is hidden from view.
My point was that snake's blame of the oligarchs misses the target. I look at them the way
I look at any other predator - if the opportunity exists, they will take it. The deep state
is THE necessary ingredient for the evil that the US government does.
I too have grandchildren. I am convinced that their lives will be less free, less
prosperous, with less opportunity than what the seven generations of Wills family before me
have experienced in the US for the last 275 years. So what can I do about it? Typing on my
keyboard certainly won't make one whit of difference...
Andrew Bacevich rightly
rejects
the
idea that there was ever a
Pax Americana
in the Middle East:
"It took many decades to build a
Pax Americana
in the Middle East," X writes. Not
true: it took only a handful of hours - the time he invested in writing his essay. The
Pax
Americana
is a figment of X's imagination.
Defenders of U.S. hegemony like to make what they think is a flattering comparison between the
U.S. and the Roman Empire, but
where the Romans made a desert and called it peace the U.S.
has gone to war in the desert again and again with no end in sight.
Not only has the U.S. not brought peace, but there is little reason to think that our
government is capable of doing so.
More to the point, the U.S. has no right to keep
meddling in the affairs of these nations. It would also be accurate to say that the more American
involvement there has been in the region, the less
pax
there has been there. There is
nowhere else in the world where our foreign policy is as intensely militarized, and it is no
accident that it is also where our foreign policy is most destructive.
If the U.S.
genuinely desired stability and the security of energy supplies, it would not be waging an economic
war on Iran, and it wouldn't be fueling a disgraceful war on Yemen.
The author of that
piece, William Wechsler, notably has nothing to say about either one of those policies.
Opponents of U.S. withdrawal
from the Middle East make two major claims: that withdrawal would
harm U.S. interests and that it would make the region worse off than it already is.
The second point is wrong but debatable, and the first one depends on an absurdly expansive
definition of what U.S. interests are. The
piece
that
Bacevich is answering asserts that "it would be a terrible mistake and deeply harmful to the United
States" to withdraw from the region, but the author does not show that current troop levels of more
than 50,000 people are necessary or even useful for securing U.S. interests.
The U.S.
didn't have and didn't need a large military presence in the Middle East for the entire Cold War,
and it doesn't need to have one now.
Having a military presence in the region has directly
contributed to increased threats to U.S. security through terrorism, and it made the Iraq war
debacle possible. The greatest harm to U.S. security has come from our ongoing extensive military
involvement in this part of the world.
Neither does the author demonstrate that U.S. foreign policy up until now has actually
been doing the job he thinks it has.
For instance, he mentions "supporting a delicate
balance of power that promotes regional stability and protects our allies," but looking back over
just the last twenty years of U.S. foreign policy in the region there is no evidence that the U.S.
has been supporting a balance of power or promoted regional stability.
On the contrary, to
the extent that there was a balance of power at the start of this century, the U.S. set about
destroying it by overthrowing the Iraqi government, and it has further contributed to the
destabilization of at least three other countries through direct or indirect involvement in
military interventions.
The clients that the U.S. has in the Middle East aren't allies and
we aren't obliged to protect them, but the U.S. hasn't done a terribly good job of protecting them,
either. The U.S. has managed to indulge its clients in reckless and atrocious behavior that has
also made them less secure and undermined our own security interests. Support for the war on Yemen
is a good example of that.
Enabling the Saudi coalition's war has bolstered Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), devastated and fractured Yemen, and exposed Saudi Arabia to reprisal
attacks that it had never suffered before.
The other major flaw with the Wechsler piece is that he is warning against something that isn't
happening:
As campaign promises tend to become governing realities for American foreign policy, the
prospect of a full U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East now stands before us.
If only that were true.
The U.S. has more troops in the region than it
did at the start of this year. There is no sign that those numbers will be reduced anytime soon.
Support for the war on Yemen continues, and the president has gone out of his way to keep arming
the Saudi coalition. Even in Syria, there will still be an illegal U.S. military presence for the
foreseeable future. Full withdrawal is nowhere in sight right now. The U.S. is heading in the
opposite direction. The author pretends that withdrawal is in the offing and then urges the next
president to "reverse this course," but there is nothing for the next president to reverse. So why
rail against something that hasn't happened and isn't likely to occur?
This is an old
tactic of making the option of withdrawing from the region seem so extreme and dangerous that it
has to be rejected out of hand, but these scare tactics are less and less effective as we see the
mounting costs of open-ended conflict and deep entanglement in the affairs of other countries.
The author wants the next administration "to reestablish American leadership in the Middle East,
restore deterrence with our adversaries, and begin renewing trust with our partners and allies,"
but he has not made a persuasive case that "American leadership" in the region is worth
"reestablishing" even if it were possible to get back to the way things were before the Iraq war.
Many of the "partners and allies" in question are themselves unreliable and have become
liabilities, and many of the adversaries do not really threaten the U.S.
Bacevich
concludes that there needs to be a radical overhaul of U.S. foreign policy in the region on account
of its colossal failures:
Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is
essentially zero.
There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East.
The imperative is to go forward, which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in
region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman
rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.
Once we acknowledge those errors, the next step is not to fall into the same patterns
out of a misguided desire for "leadership" and domination.
Instead of chasing after a
fantasy of imposing peace in some other part of the world, we need to stop our destabilizing and
destructive policies that perpetuate conflict and make new wars more likely.
Lets just be honest the USA is in the business of war,overthrowing
governments and creating vassal states with murder and mayhem all
the way,sponsoring fascists,dictators,drug lords and Christ knows
what else along the way and there is no high moral ground as its
average citizen is either watching football or Kim Kardashians ***
and couldn't give a ****,no amount of whinging is ever going to
change that the author is pissing in the wind.
Instead of replacing and upgrading infrastructure in the US, we
have burned that money up in the desert fighting wars so the
Chinese and Russian oil companies could waltz in and take all of
marbles.
US Middle East policy has been failing since Eisenhower
injected us into Iran an in the 1950s.
It seems to me those people are intent on killing each other at
all costs. No need to get in their way and suffer casualties.
Seems like a population reduction in that region might improve
the world
Your ignorance is amazing. Before the US interventions a
number of these countries were going down the path of having
secular governments. Many had mixed communities from a
religious and ethnic perspective. US bastardry has cost the
lives of tens of thousands of people.
Aside from the countless us blunders in the middle east.. The core
issues are rooted in the barbaric religious beliefs that have
plagued the region since Mohammed rose to power.
Let them figure it out. Why stick yoar hook nose into someone
else's problems? Ah there is something in it for the special
group, and the tab goes to the tax payers.
The politicians
should set the example by sending their kids to woar first.
Trillions wasted and what benefit has that been to the tax
payers? No money for healthcare or education, pensions,
infrastructure etc. Lotsa money available for killing people.
Agreed. The Jews were a relatively recent reintroduction to
the region. It was a **** hole long before this time. Try to
blame it all on them but it's a weak point of view. Unless
you are looking at the last 70 years. But that **** hole
status goes back far beyond this time frame
Perpetual war was always the plan since Reagan days to break up
OPEC or cause in-fighting and destablize region. Iran/Iraq war,
first Gulf war, Iraq war, ISIS, Syrian conflict, Yemen,
Sunni/Shitte division, feed the fire on unofficial decades old
plan still ongoing by CIA and State Dept lifers. Perpetual war in
Mid-East was always the plan.
That way you keep down the competition.
What do you think all the demonizing efforts are against China
and Russia now? They are countries murica can't conquer.
The author of the referenced article is a prototypical Atlantic
Council Zionist *** chickenhawk ******** artist who pisses
swampwater - William F. Wechsler.
His concern is Greater Israel, not what is best for Americans.
All humanity, including us, have the right to survive and defend
ourselves from obliteration. To do this we must hit when hit, and
harder to eliminate the attack. beyond that, we need not fight.
God will is in charge, not ours.
We are at risk of non-survival
when we fail to recognize the difference between what we feel
responsibly for, and what we can actually control. That is why we
need a border. Defnding it gives us a line behidn which we can
produce, and be productive. Once we cross that line, we begin to
fall into a morass.
How long did it take America to exit Vietnam? You would think
America had money and men to burn with these fruitless wars. Who
benefits other than the vampires of the military-industrial
complex, owners of cemetaries, and those who produce and market
the Intel community's distracting and criminally-produced films
and television offerings?
Vietnam War started back when dollar debt was redeemable in
gold. Back then debts had impact and the war spending was felt
almost immediately though its effect on the economy. War was
partially responsible for closing of the gold window by Nixon.
They couldn't fake sustainability otherwise.
Jimmy Carter: US 'Most Warlike Nation in History of the World'
-
April 19, 2019
Most countries surveyed in a 2013 WIN/Gallup poll identified
the United States as the greatest threat to world peace, and a
2017 Pew Research poll found that a record number of people in
30 surveyed nations viewed US power and influence as a "major
threat."
Benjamin
Disraeli: Father Of The World Wars
The British-Jewish Lion Plots
Austria-Hungary and Turkey were the winners at Disraeli's
Congress of Berlin. Serbia and Russia were the losers.
Disraeli: "Our great object was to break up and permanently
prevent the alliance of the three Empires and I maintain there
never was a general diplomatic result more completely
effected."
The Franco-Russian alliance encircles Germany and
Austria-Hungary. Britain joined the alliance in 1907.
The Great War was only triggered by the assassination. The real
engineer of the disaster was Rothschild agent, Benjamin
Disraeli, who died in 1881.
All Wars Are Bankers' Wars!
The IRS and The Federal Reserve
Bank work together to swindle USA citizens
The 16th Amendment and the Income Tax
1913 proved to be a transformative year for the nation's
economy, first with the passage of the 16th "income tax"
Amendment and the false claim that it had been ratified.
"I think if you were to go back and and try to find and
review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the
internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back
and examined that carefully, you would find that a
sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment."
- U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs.
United States, 2003.
Later that same year, and apparently unwilling to risk
another questionable amendment,
Congress passed the
Federal Reserve Act over Christmas holiday 1913, while
members of Congress opposed to the measure were at home.
This was a very underhanded deal, as the Constitution
explicitly vests Congress with the authority to issue the
public currency, does not authorize its delegation, and thus
should have required a new Amendment to transfer that
authority to a private bank. But pass it Congress did, and
President Woodrow Wilson signed it as he promised the
bankers he would in exchange for generous campaign
contributions.
Woodrow Wilson later regretted that decision.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my
country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its
system of credit. We are no longer a government by free
opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote
of the majority, but a government by the opinion and du
I don't blame
them. Look at all the invasions and coups since WWII. Theft of
gold, resources, death and destruction and poverty follows. No
moar competition.
Washington? We know what our founding father said about the Jews.
He was right. Today, and even before the Federal Reserve "Black
Magic Act" of 1913:
Washington = Israel.
There is no
America any longer. It was 911'd inside and out by the Joker ***
cult. And after they 911'd you they did a Joker dance, didn't
they?
it was never paxamericana. it was always paxjudaica, in other
words war and chaos called peace the way jewlanders roll with
their zionazi cocksuckers in tow.
"They [the Jews] work more
effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a
hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great
cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each
state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society
and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."
-- George
Washington
We in Ukraine?
Historically and even today, Russia has much in common with Ukraine -- the United States, almost nothing.
Stephen F. Cohen
November 14, 2019
500 Words
51 Comments
Reply
Listen
॥
■
►
RSS
http://www.unz.com/scohen/why-are-we-in-ukraine/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Add to Library
Remove
from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
For centuries and still today, Russia and
large parts of Ukraine have had much in common -- a long territorial border; a shared history; ethnic,
linguistic, and other cultural affinities; intimate personal relations; substantial economic trade; and
more. Even after the years of escalating conflict between Kiev and Moscow since 2014, many Russians and
Ukrainians still think of themselves in familial ways. The United States has almost none of these
commonalities with Ukraine.
Which is also to say that Ukraine is not
"a vital US national interest," as most leaders of both parties, Republican and Democrat alike, and much of
the US media now declare. On the other hand, Ukraine is a vital Russian interest by any geopolitical or
simply human reckoning.
Why, then, is Washington so deeply
involved in Ukraine? (The proposed nearly $400 million in US military aid to Kiev would mean, of course,
even more intrusive involvement.) And why is Ukraine so deeply involved in Washington, in a different way,
that it has become a pretext for attempts to impeach President Donald Trump?
The short but essential answer is
Washington's decision, taken by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, to expand NATO eastward from Germany
and eventually to Ukraine itself. Ever since, both Democrats and Republicans have insisted that Ukraine is a
"vital US national interest." Those of us who opposed that folly warned it would lead to dangerous conflicts
with Moscow, conceivably even war. Imagine Washington's reaction, we pointed out, if Russian military bases
began to appear on Canada's or Mexico's borders with America. We were not wrong: An estimated 13,000 souls
have already died in the Ukrainian-Russian war in the Donbass and some 2 million people have been displaced.
Things are likely to get worse.
Democrats are sharply criticizing Trump for withholding large-scale military aid to Kiev (even though
President Obama, despite strong pressure, wisely did so). Ukraine's recently elected President Volodymyr
Zelensky, having been drawn into the Washington scandal, is no longer as free to negotiate peace with
Russian leader Vladimir Putin as he hoped and promised during his campaign. And candidates for the 2020 US
Democratic presidential nomination, with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, are likely to compete for the role
of Kiev's biggest military booster. Here, as generally in US-Russian relations, Democrats are becoming a war
party.
Meanwhile, as I have reported before,
Russian leader Vladimir Putin continues to be accused by hard-liners in Moscow of passivity in the face of
"American aggression in Ukraine." Is it irony or tragedy that the often-maligned Trump and Putin may stand
between us and something much worse -- between a fragile Cold War peace and the war parties in their respective
countries?
The short but essential answer is Washington's decision, taken by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s,
to expand NATO eastward from Germany and eventually to Ukraine itself.
The problem, however, is with the fact that the United States has neither resources nor status anymore to
do either:
Kissinger: If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine
whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities. We should explore the possibilities of a
status of nonmilitary grouping on the territory between Russia and the existing frontiers of NATO.
That's the danger, remove last remaining military and intelligence professionals and you have ignorant,
grossly incompetent American political class which thinks that it is 1995.
The fact that both Trump and Putin have managed to keep the peace is laudable and somewhat surprising,
particularly on our side given the comparative pressure the Israel lobby can exert on Trump politically and
personally vs. Putin.
Thanks to Ron & the many anti-US-Russia-Ukraine war writers here at Unz over the years including Pat
Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, Phil Giraldi, Caitlyn Johnstone, C.J. Hopkins and The Saker, among
others.
Russia is the only nation on Earth with the undisputable power to permanently cripple the United States
with nuclear weapons. A nuclear exchange between these nations would do serious damage to the world
ecosphere for decades if not centuries.
Short of defending against a full-scale invasion of United States territory the United States has no
justified interest in provoking or engaging in such an exchange.
The entire Ukraine is not worth the bones of one American infantryman.
The people in Washington and Tel Aviv who are playing these games with potentially millions of American &
Russian lives are psychopaths who in a sane world would be tried for war crimes for the acts they have
already committed, much less those they contemplate or risk setting in motion.
The problem, however, is with the fact that the United States has neither resources nor status anymore
to do either:
I would add that if Russia were broken up, then very likely China and not the United States would capture
the mineral wealth of Siberia. This would be a geopolitical blunder of biblical proportions, comparable to
Germany's decision to sponsor Lenin's sealed train voyage.
[Digression: Andrei, I read your blog and I agree about Russian Math and Physics cirriculum. I followed a
similar cirriculum in Poland and I got into MIT easily. Я согласен]
Guessing it's because that dastardly Putin wanted Russia's share of tax receipts from the looting oligarchs
and their western backers during the pillaging 90s. Bankers and financiers lives matter more then the common
good. So does the Clinton slush fund So Hillary got her vengeance on Vlad by doing an Ukrainian coup, and
sending her best like Brett Kimberlin, Victoria Nuland, and Jonathan Winer. Unfortunately the sneaky Putin
kept Crimea and its port on the Black Sea.
The gall of it all. With all the Hong Kong real estate woes, HSBC needs Russian money laundering moolah.
More are becoming aware of Bill Browder's Magnitsky Act con. Plus Hillary's appetite for payoffs is
insatiable. Basically no clue why we're in the Ukraine other than the Clintons. Trump really should have at
least one of them up. Instead he's facing a bogus impeachment. Good news is we might be geting rid of Joe
Biden, and the nuke weapon makers are getting richer. Wonder where that missing 1998 4.8 billion
dollarFederal Reserve/ IMF loan to Russia ever got too?
comparable to Germany's decision to sponsor Lenin's sealed train voyage.
While I disagree with this assessment–it was just an episode against the background of a complete
collapse of Russia, even none other than Solzhenitsyn admits that Bolsheviks merely picked the power up from
the street where it was laying because nobody realistically wanted it, I have to say that in terms of
consequences of Russia breaking up, you are absolutely spot on. In such a scenario the main beneficiary will
be China and it will be easy for it.
Andrei, I read your blog and I agree about Russian Math and Physics cirriculum. I followed a similar
cirriculum in Poland
In general what is known as Socialist Camp–STEM education was extremely good, I know Germans, Poles and
Czechs, among others, who also were the "products" of this education and yes, they had no problems
navigating US higher-ed.
Pitting the Christian (Protestant) U.S. against Christian
(Orthodox) Russia serves the needs of
Dhimmi
Globalism. Both sides are limited in their ability to
resist Muslim efforts at replacing Christians if they cannot unify against the IslamoGlobalist invaders.
The Biden family, Kerry family, and
Dhimmi
Soros family all have business investments in Ukraine
that will only make money if they are able to keep responsible Christians out of office. If Trump can clear
the
Dhimmi
Deep State hurdles, investigations and impeachment, hopefully this flow of money to
suppress Ukrainian Christians will be shut off.
Not really, just out of focus. NATO is Israel's bitch/attack dog. Israel is owned by the Rothschilds, The
Rothschilds got tossed from the USSR. They regained Russia through Yeltsin. Putin pushed back against the
Rothschild front oligarchs, and now they want it back.
Guys, guys what's going on?! You are, recently, slipping hard here. C'mon we aren't THAT dumb.
So far you've done sterling work in the real world; keeping "normies" in check on the Internet too.
But the crew here is ..slipping.
Two options:
1. You really take us here for dumb fucks. While there is some merit there, still I mean, Soros as
dhimmi?!?
2. The team here has kept the same handles but the real people behind them are different guys. Temps hired
for peanuts. So, if that, where have the real guys gone? And, more importantly, why?
If I can venture an opinion I guess on focusing the effort on normies in the runup to the election.
Anyway, please, tone that idiocy down. It's bad form, really.
It looks as if at least one Ukrainian "player" has taken a look at the smoking ruins of the Middle East and
concluded that "friendly ouvertures" by US are just the on-ramp to a scenario where there will be much
pissing on your robbed grave in a decade or so. A trial balloon to start a de-escalation vis-ŕ-vis of Russia
may have been launched.
In general what is known as Socialist Camp–STEM education was extremely good, I know Germans, Poles
and Czechs, among others, who also were the "products" of this education and yes, they had no problems
navigating US higher-ed.
And then they all flee to the U.S. to design and build computers, airplanes, missiles, etc., while their
native lands try to remain barely 2nd world in STEM.
Another important piece of the puzzle is NATO's Strategic Concept, approved at the 1999 Washington Summit.
It included for the first time "possibility of conducting non-Article 5 crisis response operations." Since
Article 5 refers to a response to a military attack against a member country, this single phrase changed
NATO from a defensive alliance to an offensive one.
This created a loophole. First, sponsor a separatist
insurgency in a country you don't like. When the government responds, claim that civilians are suffering.
Mobilize the public opinion using photos of crying women (less than ten is enough, just show them
frequently.) Follow up with accusations of "humanitarian crisis." Claim that "genocide is unfolding" (this
quote and the bogus claim of 100,000 dead Albanians was used in 1999). Frequently use the phrase
"International Community". Invade.
This scenario was implemented against Yugoslavia and Libya. Had Al Gore won in 2000, Richard Holbroooke
would become Secretary of State and he would use Chechnya as a pretext for intervention in Russia. It almost
happened – Madeleine Albright asked Russia to permit presence of "observers" in Chechnya. Putin wisely
refused, perhaps because he knew that "observers" in Kosovo were used to provide a pretext for war against
Yugoslavia.
Albright's request happened soon after Nato permitted "non-Article 5 crisis response operations."
Few people realize how close we were to a repeat of Yugoslavia-style scenario being used to break up Russia.
@Curmudgeon
You believe it's "The Rothschilds".
I believe it's a
BIT
more complicated than that.
I suggest we skip
that
debate here.
At the moment the pressure is in three spots: Syria, Ukraine and Balkans.
Or, why are "we" in Syria and Balkans, for example? Dumb question, of course.
As why "we" are in Iraq, Afghanistan. Or Bulgaria. Or Japan. Or Italy. Or whatever.
Boring, in fact.
Changing that fact, somehow, could be an interesting conversation. Granted, wouldn't attract much traffic
around here. One day, perhaps.
The question should be : Is there any little speck of land on the entire planet that isn't of "strategic
importance" to the fools that control the USG??
@Exile
Exactly! The fact is that the Democratic establishment have lost any credibility with the Russia Scam so
they are now working on the Ukraine angle an angle that is fraught with danger for them if it all comes out
in the wash.
@peterAUS
The IslamoSoros is an ex-Jew, now totally dedicated to Islam and Jew extermination. That is why he is so
dedicated to the genocidal BDS movement: (1)
Israel released a list of 20 BDS-supporting organizations whose members will be banned from entering
Israel due to their BDS activism, prominently featuring six American groups. At least four of the six
BDS-promoting U.S. groups receive funding tied to Soros. Scores of other U.S. organizations that support
the BDS movement are financed by Soros.
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a central proponent of anti-Israel BDS activism on
college campuses and in churches
Globalism is against the Judeo-Christian God and his values. Which is why the IslamoSoros and Globalism
go together so well.
@Undocumented Shopper
"This would be a geopolitical blunder of biblical proportions, comparable to Germany's decision to sponsor
Lenin's sealed train voyage."
Exactly. The reason they did that was because they feared Russia would open
up a second front. A short sighted objective in the end because the Zionists managed to sucker America into
fighting on the side of the Allies for the promise of their "promised land" in Palestine.
Same with America embracing Ukraine since Putin isn't going to follow the conventional rules of
engagement since he doesn't have to thanks to the US abrogating the treaty on Medium range nukes. If NATO
makes its advance through Ukraine he'll launch a nuclear counterstrike using tactical nukes.
The people in Washington and Tel Aviv who are playing these games
Don't you mean to say Jaffa? Or Jerusalem? Then again it's actually neither, so may as well.
Russia is the only nation on Earth with the undisputable power to permanently cripple the United
States with nuclear weapons.
Say it ain't so. It's almost as if Israel is not the only one with a Samson(ov) Option? But I'm sure
you'll find a way to blame it on people in the wrong (((Capital))) Anyway.
Israel's nukes are a reason to take them away?
Russia's nukes are a reason to grab your ankles and hope for the best?
I am not in Ukraine. Imperial Washington is in Ukraine as part of it's project to rule the world by force of
arms. I am in Texas minding my own business.
@Gall
I see what you mean. But perhaps the Dems, or the powers behind them, are just concerned with getting rid of
Trump and don't mind if the scandal envelops Joe Biden too.
They'd just be getting rid of the old
"moderate" white guy and giving the nomination instead to a woman.
They would have Warren or whoever's baggage, and she's not young either -- but they wouldn't have to
suffer Creepy Joe's more advanced age and apparent mental decline, his open touching of young girls, and his
constant gaffes and lies/exaggerations.
@Exile
'The fact that both Trump and Putin have managed to keep the peace is laudable and somewhat surprising,
particularly on our side given the comparative pressure the Israel lobby can exert on Trump politically and
personally vs. Putin '
Get the feeling that maybe you're solving this puzzle?
What happens to the interest of US politicians in the Ukraine if Russia agrees to dump Syria?
Yes, but the long answer is that a majority of Jews (with exception to the author perhaps and some others)
now have a dog in this fight (or rather, many). It's hard to believe, but 80 years after playing the leading
role in having millions of Ukrainians murdered in the 1930's, after founding the Soviet Union, Jews now
dominate Ukraine, not just with oligarchs but with politicians elected to the highest office(s) in the land.
They now have their second Jewsh president in a row, the first being part Jewish. The top positions of the
gov't are dominated by Jews and I believe they control most of the media, just as they do in the US. By
contrast, Russia has an ethnic Russian that leads the country and by some counts is undergoing a big return
to Christanisty. Ths is like a horror movie to Jews who never stop indoctrinating Amercans with talk of the
"pogroms" from 120 years ago or longer.
I can sum up the differences based on a personal experience. In
2002 I visted Saint Petersburg and met a young woman there. Durng the time we spent together the subject of
the Jews came up and she said "Russians and Jews don't get along well". I don't recall the exact words of
her sentence, but that is precisely the sentiment she related. It was rather refreshing. She wasn't
criticnzing either side, just stating a fact. And she wasn't apologizing. She appeared to be a proud
Russian. By contrast, when I was in Lviv last year, what had been the heart of Ukrainian nationalism, I met
a young woman completely beholden to the Jews. She had visited Israel several times, she spoke of Jewish
briliance, she made a comment about the bad Palestinians, she called me an anti-semite for telling her Jews
dominated the USSR and were in charge when millions of Ukrainians were killed. She hated Germans, and hated
me. She told me how brilliant Einsten was and how awful Germans were. No doubt, she would be a very loyal
American.
That is what is at stake for the Jews. They now have one more country they dominate, and maybe this one
more than any other. And this is the same country they blasted for many decades as "anti-semitc", portraying
Ukrainians as evil "anti-semites" in movies and deporting Ukrainains from the USA so they could be tried on
trumped up charges in Israel (John Demjanjuk).
Anyone that doesn't think Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler and the Jewish dominated mainstream medis are not
acting in their own interest (Jewish interests) are just dumb.
@Andrei Martyanov
"The problem, however, is with the fact that the United States has neither resources nor status anymore to
do either:"
Yes -- but
The US would hope it can pull another Indonesia, Ukraine, Hondurous, & now Bolivia etc, etc,
etc on Russia. Another colour revolution, by those humanitarians in the NED.
@A123
"Globalism is against the Judeo-Christian God and his values. Which is why the IslamoSoros and Globalism go
together so well."
I can't believe your claims never mind your logic.
So called "globalists" give not a damn about any religion, any race, any culture, & (probably) any ideology.
They care about Power & Money -- that-is-it.
@A123
What religion does Soros profess? Is he a member of an established racial and/or religious group? Just
wondering. Ann Coulter says he's a "pompous American billionaire." But I felt that description was somehow
incomplete.
And where does it mention that Jews compose 90% of the current government of Ukraine? And of the previous
governments ever since the Putsch?
And that in a country almost devoid of Jews.
Most of the oligarchs were created by the Americans using the World Bank and International Finance
Organization and a string of private banks. These oligarchs are again almost all Jewish.
Any article or video about Ukraine that leaves the role of International Jewery out is a work of fiction.
Why, then, is Washington so deeply involved in Ukraine?
Because once you secure the old border by making an ally of the country on it, their border becomes the
new insecure border and so you have to bring yet another country on the far side of the new ally within your
alliance. There is no end to it.
I think it is as simple as it looks. Ukraine is "vital to American interests" inasmuch as those interests
are:
1- Keeping a heel on Russia to serve whatever existing financial interests there are in that status
quo, or simply to remain dominant geopolitically, power being an end in itself
2- The venality of American politicians in using Ukraine as a financial playground, very much as
Ukrainian and Russian politicians have done.
There's no real mystery in a small "border" nation that exists as a conduit for a vital commodity being
the pawn of bigger powers, is there?
@Anonymous
I find it odd how Eastern Europeans boast that they're much more intelligent and capable than Westerners,
yet it seems to me that those of them with any intelligence and capability move to Western countries as soon
as possible.
If they're so wonderful shouldn't it be the other way round? Of course, they always blame it
on "Communism" but that seems to be rather like the "Colonialism" excuse for why India and Africa is third
world, how long is that excuse credible?
@Anonymous
"And then they all flee to the U.S. to design and build computers, airplanes, missiles, etc., while their
native lands try to remain barely 2nd world in STEM".
Computers like the fundamentally insecure Intel
processor chips? Besides, most "American" computers are manufactured in Asia. The American "executives" just
skim off the profits. Any time now the people who actually make the microprocessors, RAM, hard drives, SSDs,
network chips, etc. will realise that all they have to do is initiate a "buyout" and it will all be theirs.
Airplanes yeah, like the F-35? No honest comparison of the F-35 with any of the recent MiGs or Sukhois
could come to any conclusion but that the Russian planes are vastly superior. And, of course, vastly cheaper
– not only to buy, but to maintain and upgrade. Besides, the price of a Russian jet fighter includes the
engines (unlike some F-35 quotations I have seen).
Missiles you really have got to be joking even to bring missiles into it. Turkey, India and many other
nations are well aware that the Russian anti-aircraft missiles are far, far better than any US products. Not
only that – they are also much cheaper! If you are talking about offensive missiles, the picture becomes
even more one-sided.
To correct your wording, the people you speak of "flee to the US" not to design and build anything
useful, but mainly to scoop up all the gold with which the streets are lined, and drink all the milk and
honey that flows there.
They quickly find out that it's not gold that lines the sidewalks, but something much nastier and
smellier.
@RadicalCenter
"A map is useful for ascertaining which countries border Russia. Yes, there are many".
Whereas the USA has
borders with two (very weak) nations: Canada and Mexico. As Jules Jusserand, French Ambassador to the US,
remarked in 1910:
"The United States was blessed among nations. On the north, she had a weak neighbour; on the south,
another weak neighbour; on the east, fish; and on the west, fish".
Nothing has changed since then.
So the USA, with only two relatively weak and unthreatening neighbours, should need very minimal armed
forces and should spend very little on armaments; while Russia, with many neighbours (including some very
powerful ones) is justified in spending far more on its armed forces.
Precisely the opposite of what we see; in reality, the USA spends ten times as much on armaments as
Russia does.
Of course, the convenient Wikipedia article is heavily biased toward the neocon view that Ukraine is no
part of Russia and has always been independent.
Kievan Rus was roughly contemporary with King Alfred's Wessex – the nation that rapidly expanded to
become England. And Kiev was the capital of the very first Russian state, just as Winchester was the capital
of King Alfred's Wessex. (All of this happened over 800 years before the American Revolution).
If someone were to tell me today that Hampshire (the county in which Winchester is situated) is not part
of England, but belongs to some weird country called "Borderland" – the literal meaning of "Ukraine" – I
would laugh out loud. Russians would be quite as justified in claiming that Kiev has always been a Russian
city, and still is today.
However the Russians are peaceable, tolerant people and prefer to let their "erring sisters" go their own
way unhindered. (Unlike Abraham Lincoln's USA, which reacted to the perfectly justified secession of the
Confederate States by launching a war that killed nearly a million people).
" .I've often quoted Randolph Bourne as saying, "War is the
health of the state." He was quite correct. The larger the nation, the greater the need political leaders
have for warfare. ..Since the end of World War II, the US military-industrial complex has been
displeased with the fact that peacetime means diminished revenue for them. Increasingly, they've contributed
heavily to election campaigns for both major parties in every election.
The repayment for those contributions has always been the same – the political class must find excuses to
create a new conflict as soon as another one ends, ensuring the continued revenue of the complex.
This has resulted in the US becoming the first and only country that's in a consciously created state of
perpetual warfare. The cost of this, in 2018, was roughly $600 billion – 54% of all federal discretionary
spending ":
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting
[via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal
scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", simply because of their innate, unchangeble criminal nature."
onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to
differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a
professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
– Without the unequivocally Russian parts (to include Dniepropetrowsk and Odessa oblasts) Ukraine is a
landlocked sunflower field chemically pure of strategic value (thanks to Nord Stream 2).
It was a private venture of the Tribe to provide a safe space more conveniently located than London or
Cyprus.
– The Banderists are a wild card it took a special kind of idiocy to wake up that particular dog; they are
not forever going to believe it was the Big Bad Russians who massacred their brothers.
From the other side
of the grand chessboard (always assuming there still is such a thing as an independent US geostrategy) the
situation is simple – there are two Archimedean points, the loss either of which will mean the end of the
empire:
– Germany: NATO´s eastward expansion is not so much aimed at Mother Russia as on preempting
Tauroggen/Rapallo 3.0 . Brexit doesn´t help either.
– the Gulf: there is a reason it is called "Persian" and not "Lake Monroe"; contrary to popular belief
the US do not need the oil, but without the ability to deny it to others the $$$ would collapse, rendering
untenable the worldwide strategic posture (and prolly unleashing a groid uprising back home).
Classic empire in overstretch – the only question is how much damage they will do on the way down.
@Kolya Krassotkin
Yes.
The Neocon foreign policy has been swallowed up by most of the Dumbo-crats because of TDS (Trump Derangement
Syndrome). Thank God for Tulsi. The Republi-tards are even more rabidly Neocoonish than the Demokratz. Thank
The Lord for Rand Paul. So 'they', The Cabal, the Neocons, whatever you want to call them, basically run our
foreign policy.
Now 'they' have a special hatred for Putin because he reestablished Christian Orthodoxy into Mother Russia.
You have to admire Trump's intestinal fortitude to push back against Christian Zionists, Neocons, derranged
Democrats and stupid politicians in general and that's just in his own family!
@Anonymous
You probably live under some stone. If you were following Russia military developments you would clearly
understand that STEM so far at least math physics part is doing ok and considerably better than in USA.
@Andrei Martyanov
At least Germans once in a while did something good for Russia, while doing really long term disservice to
themselves as history shown.
Basically ukraine and belorussia is Russia safe few parts. The whole madness of this situation that
basically russian people were led to believe that they are not russians . Sooner or later this anomaly will
have to be addressed and I disagree with those who consider ukraine a lost cause. Everything in due time. In
this regard chinese are behaving rightfully not allowing no piece of china go. Once one start retreating in
this regard there is no knowing how much can be lost. For now I think russia is doing right thing. But
eventually both Ukraine and belorussia will have to be reintegrated. On their own they are not viable
anyway.
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
[... Opus Dei ...] Neo-cons at it again.
Posted by: Ghost Ship | Nov 14 2019 13:24 utc | 98
Opus Dei was created in 1928 is Spain, where Catholics were opposing emerging hordes of
godless Communists, Anarchists and Socialists. Since ca. 1960 Opus Dei is active in Bolivia
where they continue Work of God, with fruits that he have just witnessed. Sadly, in Bolivia
the error of Marxism is compounded by native superstition and paganism under flags of
Pachamama. Perhaps Opus Dei is neo-Saint Inquisition, but as conservatists, they have
decently long pedigree.
The problem with import substitution is that the factories that used to make these goods were
largely moved to China. China isn't going to give them back.
So in order to attempt to substitute US made for the China imports, the factories have to
be built first.
Secondly, China heavily subsidizes the early parts of the supply chains: raw materials and
what not. This wouldn't hold true to American factories.
So while the goal and the theory are good, the problem is the execution.
Russia is doing it because they're forced to: sanctions actually accelerates the process
because Russian internal investors know there will be a reasonably long term market for
Russian goods so long as the sanctions hold true, and the sanctions also lock in Russian
capital (that which was repatriated) to some extent.
Inadvertently today I found myself trapped into listening for a couple of minutes to the
nonsense that Schiff was spouting in the House of Horrors.
It is almost incredible that what he was doing, in essence, was to draw attention to the two
great facts in this case, the first being the gangster Maidan coup, which the US no longer
even pretends not to have brought about for its own purposes, and the second, the way in
which the Vice President and his family set about profiting, personally, from the looting of
every Ukrainian's fortune-every family's healthcare, pension plan, utility bill, home. In
this case by saddling the people, dependent on gas heat to see them through the winter, with
millions to be paid to Hunter Biden, friends of John Kerry and other assorted profiteers.
Like 'b' I find it almost impossible to believe that the Democrats are opening this can of
worms and feeding it to the world.
But then I wonder if, perhaps, these people do not know something that foreigners cannot
know, something about the societal stupidity and institutional ignorance for which the only
country ever known to have supported "No Nothing" candidates is famous.
Perhaps Schiff and Pelosi know what they are doing and what they are doing is based upon HL
Mencken's dictum:
"Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Like 'b' I find it almost impossible to believe that the Democrats are opening this can
of worms and feeding it to the world.
Just don't claim (like I do) that Russiagate and Ukrainegate are kayfabe courtesy of Deep
State 'managed democracy' or you're a nutcase that everyone will ignore.
Nah, just sit back and enjoy while the Democratic Party cuts its own throat for over the
Ukrainegate nothingburger which will see no one held accountable for anything.
A partisan witch-hunt less than a year before the 2020 Election? Double-plus good for
Trump's re-election.
But the possibility of a set-up is INCONCEIVABLE to naval-gazing Kool-Aid
drinkers.
It's gotta be real because Bloomberg wants to join the Democratic race!
Just as he wanted to join the race in 2016? His intention to do so also underscored the
reality of THAT race. Rinse, repeat. LOL. The dumbf*cks won't notice.
@ 11 jackrabbit.. you can claim that too and i am not ignoring you! i agree with bevin and b
how this is insane what the dems are doing, but the whole usa political scenario is insane...
at the same time i get cranky with regard to everything being laid at the deep states feet
when no one can articulate just what the deep state is.. in fact, i think there are a number
of powerful players running at cross purposes to each other, so i don't think it is as easy
as you make out laying it all at the feet of this 'deep state'... sure, the political process
is mostly a charade and i doubt it matters much who wins at this point...
but, i do think the usa continues to slide into a more precarious place that coincides
with a multi polar world that the usa is also very resistant to... as for the people of the
usa - maybe many of them are easily manipulated, but not all of them.. it is the same around
the world... how does one explain how the protesters in bolivia or honk kong are so easily
duped? no.. i think generally people are easily duped, but not all people..
Deep State: the unusual behavior and strange coincides driven by a small number of very
well connected people that make little sense but advance the interests of the
establishment.
Full-Spectrum Dominance (FSD) means controlled opposition everywhere. FSD in practice:
> Political kayfabe
Hillary makes mistakes that help elect Trump. Trump helps to get Pelosi elected as House
Speaker.
> Compromising whistle-blowers
The Intercept turns in whistle-blowers.
IMO, lumping the D-Party into the same boat doesn't reflect reality. A great many D-Party
members were disenfranchised by the DNC during 2016; many know it and know why, and never
swallowed Russiagate. Many of those D-Party folk are again backing Sanders and Gabbard
because they're the genuine social-democratic faction the DNC abandoned as soon as Reagan won
in 1980 since it supposedly was the Reagan Democrats that swung the election--an assumption
never proven correct. And the DNC stated during the lawsuit over 2016 that it would repeat
its actions again in 2016, 2020, and beyond. Thus there're two main factions: DNC-Corporate
D-Party and small d social-democratic D-Party--both of which are clearly incompatible. It's
the former of those two that Gabbard wants to purge; Sanders also seems willing but hasn't
been as explicit as Gabbard. Thus we have the old House divided against itself cannot stand
situation. Either you're with Obama, Clinton, the Banksters, and the further enslavement of
citizens via debt-peonage and expansion of the Outlaw US Empire or you're with the Sanders
and Gabbard social-democrats and liberation of citizens via the nationalization of education,
health care and dignified retirement, and the neutering of the Outlaw US Empire.
Unfortunately, both Gabbard and Sanders are adamant they won't run as 3rd Party POTUS
candidates, which means the Corporate faction will get its candidate on the ballot unless
something remarkable occurs--a coup within the DNC that totally purges the
Obama/Clinton/Corporate faction.
Sorry, but that last phrase I find to be 100% fantastical--about as probable as Kentucky's
#1 ranked basketball team losing at home to Evansville at much greater odds than the 40:1
cited for Evansville. Morrison said it was 5:1 50+ years ago, but I don't think people were
as brainwashed then as now.
I am aware not *every single* Democrat bought into Russiagate.
You seem to suggest that the corruption on full display by the DNC during 2016
inoculated
**some** Democrats to Russiagate if they were Bernie supports. Maybe. But we are faced with
the puzzling contradiction that Bernie himself did not support the lawsuit brought by the
Bernie supporters against the corrupt DNC ... AND ... AND ... Bernie has been a
foaming-at-the-mouth supporter of the Russiagate hysteria!
"How can he not talk about the reality that Russia, through cyberwarfare, interfered in
our election in 2016, is interfering in democratic elections all over the world, and
according to his own CIA director will likely interfere in the 2018 midterm elections that we
will be holding?" "How do you not talk about that unless you have a very special relationship
with Mr. Putin?"
Who said the above? Rachael Maddow? Hillary Clinton? John Brennan? Why none other than
Bernie Sanders!
And did you note that Bernie is being a megaphone for the CIA in this quote?
More and more and more Bernie Russiagate promoting quotes here (and 2018 had only
begun!):
Nemesis@15 -"Trust me when I say" ... never trust anyone who says anything after that phrase!
How exactly did the Dems play the right card with Russiagate? Do you mean they hoodwinked
their supporters into believing Russia to be the enemy, so that is somehow 'the right card'?
I'll stop there. You've completely confused me.
I mean "right" in that allowing Russiagate to seep into the waking consciousness of
America took the pressure off the dems and what was going to be their reckoning. In effect,
they have now doubled-down in the hope that the Trump phenomenon of nationalism will fade
away and their rule will be restored. Whether or not Sanders plays into this I think we are
yet to see, but, so far, Sanders has played ball with a lot of dem garbage.
Again, by the "right" play I mean as if a dark sorcerer had banked his continued favor
with the king he serves on a magic brew that would muddle the King's brain and keep him from
knowing of the Sorcerer's repulsive ambition. Such is the dems plan as well as many if not
all of the republicans who secretly detest DJT but who don't speak up because their base
believes in Trump.
Often I expect these stories in the media to get important technical details wrong...but
here we see that this writer did his homework...
I have said this many times before, but the MCAS system is NOT an anti-stall system...it
is there solely for the purpose of providing the right kind of stick feel to the pilot...
"On most airplanes, as you approach stall you can feel it," a veteran pilot for a U.S.
commercial carrier told me.
Instead of the steadily increasing force on the control column that pilots were used
to feeling -- and that F.A.A. guidelines required -- the new engines caused a loosening
sensation.
This is exactly it...and this is why I have to wonder how exactly is MCAS going to be
cleared to fly again...since the original, much less authoritative version was found
inadequate in providing the stick force required...and the rejigged production version proved
to be a surefire killer if it kicked in at low altitudes such as takeoff...
We recall that Captain Sullenberger called the MAX a 'death trap'...
So clearly the system's authority has to be dialed back...in which case the airplane
handling qualities do not meet established requirements...
The story here tells of the struggle that the family of Ralph Nader's grand-niece, who
perished in the Ethiopian flight, is waging to 'axe the max'...
Hopefully they will succeed, but I doubt it..the MAX can never be a good airplane...full
stop...
Inadvertently today I found myself trapped into listening for a couple of minutes to the
nonsense that Schiff was spouting in the House of Horrors.
It is almost incredible that what he was doing, in essence, was to draw attention to the two
great facts in this case, the first being the gangster Maidan coup, which the US no longer
even pretends not to have brought about for its own purposes, and the second, the way in
which the Vice President and his family set about profiting, personally, from the looting of
every Ukrainian's fortune-every family's healthcare, pension plan, utility bill, home. In
this case by saddling the people, dependent on gas heat to see them through the winter, with
millions to be paid to Hunter Biden, friends of John Kerry and other assorted profiteers.
Like 'b' I find it almost impossible to believe that the Democrats are opening this can of
worms and feeding it to the world.
But then I wonder if, perhaps, these people do not know something that foreigners cannot
know, something about the societal stupidity and institutional ignorance for which the only
country ever known to have supported "No Nothing" candidates is famous.
Perhaps Schiff and Pelosi know what they are doing and what they are doing is based upon HL
Mencken's dictum:
"Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
@Please illustrate a situation where the executive branch/office of the USA would be suddenly
discontinued...
Posted by: Chevrus | Nov 13 2019 17:33 utc | 3
Just found your query. Quick and dead-on response is a major EMP event, but that is not
what I had in mind.
Let me see if I can work up another, but necessarily lengthier response.
As I noted on the Bolivia thread, BRICS is having its Summit today & tomorrow in
Brasilia, and will likely be the most important of its brief life. So far, just this report :
"The heads of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa will discuss issues related to
economic, financial and cultural cooperation as well as arms control and joint efforts to
counter terrorism.
"The leaders of the five member-states are to attend the BRICS Business Forum, and meet
with the BRICS Business Council and the heads of the New Development Bank.
"In addition, Vladimir Putin will hold a number of bilateral meetings with the heads of
state and government taking part in the summit."
No! But there will be a new "civil war" in the US around the mid of the next decade. Split
occuring not south to north, but west to east; chaos further increased by immigrants from the
middle & south Americas with their own agenda.
Forces (land & air), militia & DHS people of the eastern party may seek secure
backing near frontier to Canada (area of Great Lakes therefore save). Some of the 'big
capitalists' who feel more international than patriot will flee to outer South America
(Argentinia, Chile).
Eventually a dead president (for that and for the civil war please look into cycles of
US-history). Peace will come with the first female president. Keep watch on Tulsi Gabbard
(but may be also another lady - as I am in Europe I am not familiar with all probable coming
female candidates).
Why no permanent split of the States? There are internal benefits (common traffic, markets
etc.) but more it is the outside pressure: to be able to compete with China it is a necessity
for the States to remain united. Also the coming chaos in Europe and Russia demands
unification of the US.
Now a very strange remark: some elites in the US have already accepted, even promote the
tendency toward "civil war" to enable a 'reset' of the political, economical and social
structure of the country. Furthermore, a seemingly weak US with a split in the military may
lead Russia in temptation to make some mistake (towards Ukraine and Europe). And now a very,
very strange remark: while some forces in the homeland are caught in civil disorder some
other forces in the overseas may be involved in a foreign war. Extremely pointed out: the
coming civil war in a very specific manner is a fake (to deceive and trap Russia - of course
not Putin but his followers).
Today I had a look into George Friedman's book about the next hundred years. For the first
view there is a lot of nonsense (disintegration of China etc.). But I agree that the power of
the US will be restored during the century. And if not the same power as it was in the 1990s,
then in every case the internal stability of the USA is completely guaranteed.
With greetings from Germany and with thanks to Bernhard for his valuable work, Gerhard
Like 'b' I find it almost impossible to believe that the Democrats are opening this can
of worms and feeding it to the world.
Just don't claim (like I do) that Russiagate and Ukrainegate are kayfabe courtesy of Deep
State 'managed democracy' or you're a nutcase that everyone will ignore.
Nah, just sit back and enjoy while the Democratic Party cuts its own throat for over the
Ukrainegate nothingburger which will see no one held accountable for anything.
A partisan witch-hunt less than a year before the 2020 Election? Double-plus good for
Trump's re-election.
But the possibility of a set-up is INCONCEIVABLE to naval-gazing Kool-Aid
drinkers.
It's gotta be real because Bloomberg wants to join the Democratic race!
Just as he wanted to join the race in 2016? His intention to do so also underscored the
reality of THAT race. Rinse, repeat. LOL. The dumbf*cks won't notice.
@ 11 jackrabbit.. you can claim that too and i am not ignoring you! i agree with bevin and b
how this is insane what the dems are doing, but the whole usa political scenario is insane...
at the same time i get cranky with regard to everything being laid at the deep states feet
when no one can articulate just what the deep state is.. in fact, i think there are a number
of powerful players running at cross purposes to each other, so i don't think it is as easy
as you make out laying it all at the feet of this 'deep state'... sure, the political process
is mostly a charade and i doubt it matters much who wins at this point...
but, i do think the usa continues to slide into a more precarious place that coincides
with a multi polar world that the usa is also very resistant to... as for the people of the
usa - maybe many of them are easily manipulated, but not all of them.. it is the same around
the world... how does one explain how the protesters in bolivia or honk kong are so easily
duped? no.. i think generally people are easily duped, but not all people..
Karlof1 @ 9 --
"I expect the atmosphere to be tense..."
I do, as well. Though I imagine certain leaders might feel a temptation to suspend
Brazil's membership, doing so would illustrate a structural weakness to be overcome by any
legitimate multipolar body. That is, if the Empire is able to turn just one member (in this
case Brazil), it may be used to weaken the organization as a whole.
Having just a limited exposure to Putin's approach to multipolarity, my understanding is
that it is to be accepted that sovereign countries evolve along their own trajectories (as
opposed to being subjected to "universal" "liberal" principles). If Brazil or Turkey decide
that this means playing both sides off each other, it will be interesting to see whether
there are any principled (as opposed to realpolitical or pragmatic) objections that Russia
might offer.
Deep State: the unusual behavior and strange coincides driven by a small number of very
well connected people that make little sense but advance the interests of the
establishment.
Full-Spectrum Dominance (FSD) means controlled opposition everywhere. FSD in practice:
> Political kayfabe
Hillary makes mistakes that help elect Trump. Trump helps to get Pelosi elected as House
Speaker.
> Compromising whistle-blowers
The Intercept turns in whistle-blowers.
The reason I ask is because I have heard a load of bull about Russia's plans to Russianize
the world and that Trump is his pawn since day -167 of his inauguration. I have heard this
from coworkers, from friends, from family, seen it on Reddit, read it on neolib outlets like
slate and the like. I'm wondering if you live in Trump country and just don't hear or see the
Russophobia being played out in the beltway and on the elitest coastlines.
Trust me when I say that the dems played the right card, albeit a desperate one, when they
started with the whole Russiagate nonsense. To you and I, b and others, Russiagate is
nonsense. But tell that to the average dem or moron yuppie in their towers along our shining
seas.
Please illustrate a situation where the executive branch/office of the USA would be suddenly
discontinued...
Posted by: Chevrus | Nov 13 2019 17:33 utc | 3
An imminent one-two punch from IG Horowitz and John Durham has powerful players
quaking
in their boots.
9/11 saw Americans willingly surrendering rights;
accepting a pack of lies, a myth, to explain the event;
militarism becoming the refuge for American's safety.
What are the limits of the rights that Americans are next willing to surrender?
**What are those limits?**
The Resistance, Democrats, no longer respects democratic rights -
no thought to the millions of voters that they would disenfranchise if
the nullification of Trump's election were successful via a coup (impeachment).
Five years ago would you have imagined that Democratic voters would be so cavalier
about democratic rights? So willing to accept the vacuous accusation that our
President is a Russian agent. Would resurrect the CIA - the torturing, kidnapping,
assassinating, war promoting, false flag creating, disinformation spewing CIA, - and
ravenously swallow endless streams of McCarthyist propaganda.
How fast,how far, can we spiral downwards? Is the seizure of power too far down the
spiral
to imagine? Five years ago would you have imagined the current decent of Democrats we have
witnessed?
If the pretext, the myth, of the necessity of seizing power, were echoed by the mouthpiece
MSM
would Democrats go along? Americans have surrendered rights in our near lifetime.
Americans
worship militarism and their military heroes more than ever before. Americans have
swallowed
hook-line-and-sinker the new-McCathyism and "Putin is an evil man".
An imminent one-two punch from IG Horowitz and John Durham has powerful players
quaking
in their boots. To answer your question, I cannot imagine what players like John Brennan
are scheming. But as you know 9/11 was not beyond their criminal limit or capability.
Paul Damascene @13: I generally share your view, about Putin's view, but I don't think Putin
minds Erdogan playing both sides, Bolsonaro, yeah, but not Erdogan, he can play games with us
all he wants. Keeps us distracted, and Erdogan doesn't like us "taking the oil", and we can't
get in a shooting war with him, he's NATO. He's the military counter-balance to the Pentagon
in Syria that Russia cannot be. So I think he will be thrashing around in N. Syria with
Putin's consent until we leave (as long as he doesn't pick a fight with Assad.)
Bolsonaro he may see as something to wait for the end of.
It will be interesting and possibly informative to see what comes out of this meeting.
Thanks for your reply! Note that the main event is the Business Forum, which is an arena
where genuine national interests usually reign. As you're likely aware, BRICS was formulated
as an instrument to facilitate development via commerce and mutual investment and that its
first major joint accomplishment was the formulation of the BRICS Development Bank to bypass
the IMF, World Bank and the dollar dominated international trade regime. I found it curious
that Global Times had zero articles on its main page related to the Summit, while
Xinhuanet ran this
short commentary overview which amounts to a short recap and cheerleading. We'll need to
await the presser this evening to get a better feel.
You make an interesting point librul... It reminds me of the whole continuity of government
scheme. 'In case of _____, break glass an impose martial law or whatever the manufactured
disaster calls for. The fact that the north woods 911 bit worked is a testament to just how
far the ptb are willing to go. You know, in regard to the USA perspective I can tell you from
first hand experience that a steady diet of agitation propaganda as well loads of distraction
have rendered a majority of the population easily lead no matter what stripes they might be
wearing. Selling Russia as the bad bad guy was easy. Look if a large group of people buy the
Bin Laden hit then the sky is the limit.
The 5 mile asteroid would pose a serious problem to most mammals, but given the amount of
species self loathing being pedaled about.... My point about the executive branch and the
question of 'is he the last' hinges on the fact that the president does nothing which is not
somewhat scripted. We know what happens when they go "off the Rez"...
Below is a ZH quote about the meeting with Trump and Erdogan today
"
"It's a great honor to be with President Erdogan... the ceasefire is holding very well, we've
been speaking to the Kurds and they seem to be very satisfied, as you know we pulled back our
troops quite a while ago..."
"I want to thank the President for the job they've [Turkey] done in Syria," Trump said of
Erdogan.
And on that note, he already addressed the rationale for continued US troop presence in
Syria, saying with Erdogan sitting next to him: "We are keeping the oil. We have the oil. The
oil is secure. We left troops behind only for the oil."
"
To those Trump supporters, I would appreciate understanding how the keep the oil fits in
with you saying Trump wants to get out of Syria?
'Deep State' is just a convenient way of labeling something we can also call 'the
illuminati', or 'the globalists', or 'the one percent', or 'Big Brother', etc.. We know that
there are hidden powers. Some call them reptilians. Who knows? We can tell that they are
there, though we cannot say exactly who they are and how they constitute their coherence, how
they organize themselves. We can see pieces of the deeper pattern, but we cannot see the
whole thing. So we use these vague and sometimes fanciful labels.
Right now a struggle is going on in Bolivia that is the world's struggle. Humanity is
maybe in its final throes, there and in so many other places. Or maybe its the birth pains of
who we were really meant to be. God help us.
IMO, lumping the D-Party into the same boat doesn't reflect reality. A great many D-Party
members were disenfranchised by the DNC during 2016; many know it and know why, and never
swallowed Russiagate. Many of those D-Party folk are again backing Sanders and Gabbard
because they're the genuine social-democratic faction the DNC abandoned as soon as Reagan won
in 1980 since it supposedly was the Reagan Democrats that swung the election--an assumption
never proven correct. And the DNC stated during the lawsuit over 2016 that it would repeat
its actions again in 2016, 2020, and beyond. Thus there're two main factions: DNC-Corporate
D-Party and small d social-democratic D-Party--both of which are clearly incompatible. It's
the former of those two that Gabbard wants to purge; Sanders also seems willing but hasn't
been as explicit as Gabbard. Thus we have the old House divided against itself cannot stand
situation. Either you're with Obama, Clinton, the Banksters, and the further enslavement of
citizens via debt-peonage and expansion of the Outlaw US Empire or you're with the Sanders
and Gabbard social-democrats and liberation of citizens via the nationalization of education,
health care and dignified retirement, and the neutering of the Outlaw US Empire.
Unfortunately, both Gabbard and Sanders are adamant they won't run as 3rd Party POTUS
candidates, which means the Corporate faction will get its candidate on the ballot unless
something remarkable occurs--a coup within the DNC that totally purges the
Obama/Clinton/Corporate faction.
Sorry, but that last phrase I find to be 100% fantastical--about as probable as Kentucky's
#1 ranked basketball team losing at home to Evansville at much greater odds than the 40:1
cited for Evansville. Morrison said it was 5:1 50+ years ago, but I don't think people were
as brainwashed then as now.
The 'Orwellian Globalists' may have overstepped, hubristically, when they chose an
out-and-out racist, an outspoken racist, to be their puppet to head the new government in
Bolivia. This may be just what was needed to provoke the MAJORITY indigenous people of
Bolivia ...
Librul@16 responds to the statement by start, Chevrus @ 3. "Please
illustrate a situation where the executive branch/office of the USA
would be suddenly discontinued..." Chevrus @ 3, end
An imminent one-two punch from IG Horowitz and John Durham
has powerful players quaking in their boots.
9/11 saw Americans willingly surrendering rights;
accepting a pack of lies, a myth, to explain the event;
militarism becoming the refuge for American's safety.
What are the limits of the rights that Americans are next
willing to surrender? **What are those limits?**
How fast, how far, can we spiral downwards? Is the seizure of power
too far down the spiral to imagine? Five years ago would you have
imagined the current decent of Democrats we have witnessed?
Is media capable to determine who shall have the power? Can
media make Americans surrender their rights?
An imminent one-two punch from IG Horowitz and John Durham
has powerful players quaking in their boots. To answer your
question, I cannot imagine what players like John Brennan
are scheming. But as you know 9/11 was not beyond their
criminal limit or capability. by: librul @ 16
Snake says look at and carefully read the statements by Assad in Syria.. they
are very telling about circumstances here in the states. Assad distinguishes
top down ideology from bottom up cause a very interesting distinguishment.. ..
So to answer your question how far are Americans willing to allow the Oligarchs to
retract human rights in America: are their any limits to the willing surrender?
I think it is as Assad said in the above citation.. outside investors
instigated the unrest in Syria and used it as pretense to get their governments
to invade Syria so that the investors could privatize all of
Syria.. That is exactly what is happening in USA governed America.
karlof1 @4
Your scenario doesn't reach its logical conclusion:
1) Asteroid strike is automatically blamed on "those damn rooskies".
2) Nuclear war ensues.
3) Far West, South, TransMissisippi and New England all secede with each claiming to be the
rightful 'United State of America'.
4) Voila.
IIRC the Clintons rode into the Whitehouse on the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC).
The DLC has quietly morphed into the DNC (or stolen their ID). Proof might be found on
identifying the faction controlling the Democratic Party's finance committee under the
assumption whoever controls the finance also controls the party. Memory is a perfidious and
ephemeral thing and goes down Alice's rabbit hole in nothing flat.
@14 jackrabbit.. i am sorry, but it is too simplistic for me... your examples are fine, but
as i see it, they random and not some orchestrated plot from up above... that is where we
differ here... in fact, your overview is much too simplistic..you can make it simple for me,
but the whole concept of deep state orchestrating everything here is much too simplistic..
@ 16 librul... good overview that is kind of how i see the democratic party here, although
@ 24 karlof1 disagrees, it looks like that to this outsider / canuck.. here is the line from
karlof1 that gives it away for me - "Unfortunately, both Gabbard and Sanders are adamant they
won't run as 3rd Party POTUS candidates" which begs the question, why? my answer - they are
useful shills for this same agenda..
I am aware not *every single* Democrat bought into Russiagate.
You seem to suggest that the corruption on full display by the DNC during 2016
inoculated
**some** Democrats to Russiagate if they were Bernie supports. Maybe. But we are faced with
the puzzling contradiction that Bernie himself did not support the lawsuit brought by the
Bernie supporters against the corrupt DNC ... AND ... AND ... Bernie has been a
foaming-at-the-mouth supporter of the Russiagate hysteria!
"How can he not talk about the reality that Russia, through cyberwarfare, interfered in
our election in 2016, is interfering in democratic elections all over the world, and
according to his own CIA director will likely interfere in the 2018 midterm elections that we
will be holding?" "How do you not talk about that unless you have a very special relationship
with Mr. Putin?"
Who said the above? Rachael Maddow? Hillary Clinton? John Brennan? Why none other than
Bernie Sanders!
And did you note that Bernie is being a megaphone for the CIA in this quote?
More and more and more Bernie Russiagate promoting quotes here (and 2018 had only
begun!):
I see a civil war in the USA as highly unlikely. The upper class has too much common
interest and purpose. The lower classes are divided and powerless and in the near future only
seem to be becoming more so. When the third-worldization reaches a critical point, a staged
and managed revolution may be in the cards. Before a real revolution has any chance, the
elites will have flooded the USA with immigrants from the south, ensuring further division of
the lower classes and postponing any real challenge.
Overall, the societal foundation of the USA looks to have been crumbling for maybe five
decades already and for the next few decades an acceleration of that process is more likely
than a reversal. Don't be on the lookout for leaders or movements to change any of that. Only
when the american people clean up their act, ie. their addiction to numbing drugs, empty
consumerism and false jingoisms, will anything there ever change for good. Until that
happens, the place will be withering more and more.
Not until the American elites start to fail to safeguard their own priviliges at the cost
of the rest of the population will change happen.
I don't see the Russian aggression that you propose to be realistic or likely to happen.
Russia does not need to reach abroad for energy, resources or food. Their main challenge is
to manage the riches of the huge country with the people they have. Already the resurgence
after the post-1990 crash (and the preceding stagnation) is an accomplishment worthy of
admiration.
The Russian interest clearly is consolidation and defence, which is exactly what their
policies have been showing on the international stage. Suggestions of aggression are pure
projection by Atlanticists theselves. Instead of Washington trying to provoke Russian
mistakes, the real game is about Moscow trying to contain NATO's erratic trashing and
carefully preventing any catastrophic escalation.
To wit, what country did recently "update" its nuclear doctrine, suggesting the
possibility of 'limited' use of nuclear weapons? Was it Russia, or ehhm... perhaps the
USA?
The only uncertain factor between Russia and the USA is Europe. I expect a lot more
American craziness towards Europe, as its effective leverage crumbles. Europe has not yet
devolved as badly as the USA and the American implosion is a major risk factor for the
Europeans.
psychohistoiran @22 asks "To those Trump supporters, I would appreciate understanding how the
keep the oil fits in with you saying Trump wants to get out of Syria?"
As someone who voted for Trump I can tell you I do not agree with this decision nor will I
defend it. I hold the same sentiment pre 2016 that I do now - bring these endless wars to an
end. Period. Am I disappointed in his walking back the decision to leave Syria entirely? You
betcha.
Weeks ago when barflies were discussing Trump's withdrawal, someone corrected my
understanding regarding the Kurds who took control of the oil fields, so to speak, and were
selling the oil to SAA. My understanding of this newest policy is the Kurds will continue to
manage and benefit from the sale of the oil. I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I
am. But if my understanding of the arrangement is correct, the Kurds maintaining their role,
then they are likely still selling the oil to the SAA. Then again, maybe not, but I wouldn't
be surprised if they were.
So, management or control of the oil fields has changed, but it looks like everything else
remains as it was before when the oil fields were managed/controlled by the Kurds.
What I do respect in the President's decision to leave NE Syria is removing troops from
theater. The CIA's proxy war appears to have been shutdown. This w/o question I applaud,
LOUDLY.
BTW, all this talk about asteroids and false flags makes me remind the brilliant nineties
movie "Starship Troopers", in which Paul Verhoeven not only sort of presages 911 and the
ensuing war on the bugs, but also smuggled into it the ephemeral phrase "Are you psychic?". I
sometimes wonder how many people got that...
This may be just what was needed to provoke the MAJORITY indigenous people of Bolivia ...
I doubt it, without massive quantities of weapons similar to those received by the Syrian
takfiris, the indigenous people don't stand a chance once the Western Hemisphere Institute
for Security Cooperation (formerly SOA) trained Washington-supported death squads get to
work. It's going to be a massacre that'll be barely reported in MSM, because after the
"election" they'll be anti-democratic. Bolivia is not Syria.
The issue with the Americans is a hyper-partisan mindset has been instilled, akin to duelling
sports teams, so one cheers for their team facts or context be damned. This used to be a Fox
News-Republican phenomenon, but now has infected Dem supporters as well.
Break up of US would mean break up of Canada too. Look to the moves made by province of
Alberta in response to fed election - a sort of firewall is being proposed where Alberta will
take on fed gov responsibilities pension, health care, etc. Alberta is a Koch Bros oil
republic, and any N American melt-down will result in formation of private fiefdoms - i.e.
Alberta-Montana-Wyoming-South Dakota become Kochland.
Then you must be a shut-in or unemployed to not see the dual-benefit of the deep state in
that it stymies trump and resurrects Russia as a boogeyman. Nay! Thrice-benefit in that it
also allows for an excuse to be horrifically status quo and gamble on everything returning to
normal after the trump phenomenon runs its course and the duopoly reassert its grip.
I wonder how in the Earth can anyone have cultural cooperation and join efforts against
terrorism with a goon like Bolsonaro who has posted Twitters celebrating Bolivia´s coup
and is known misses Pinochet ´s "expeditive measures" against communists...How this, so
called group BRICS, can continue following its path, as if nothing had happened, especially
since the coup in Bolivia...
Just today read the statements by Kremlin spokeman, Peshkov, and what to say, seemed to me
quite soft his stance, throwing balons out...Sometimes I feel like to trust John Helmer on
his assesment on the existence of two blocks in the Russian Federation, the stavka ,
and these people of the Kremlin office...
To this you add the Russian ambassador to the US, today visiting Kissinger ( the builder
of the Condor Plan...) a man always like begging for better relations to this bully of a
country, and this is one of the times when I wonder if i would not be supporting all this
time just the people who wants to crush me...( meaning my now almost 6 years long support for
the RF and concretely this adminsitration...)
I found quite different the unambiguous and strong statements by the Russian FM and
Kremlin itself when Venezuela was about to suffer a coup, and now when the legitimate
government of Bolivia has been sent into exile and his indigenous population on the verge of
extermination by nazi thugs...
You can not be against nazis in the Ukraine and then support ( or be way too soft in your
lack of condemnation...) nazis in Brasil or Bolivia (... or the EU...) or you are for
international law and human rights, always, or not, but not only when business opportunities
are in prospect....
Yes, today is one of those days when my consideration of the RF and Putin´s
administration as a referent in keeping international order in the face of a lawless US just
wobbles...
No se puede estar en misa y repicando al mismo tiempo
Waiting for the final statement of the meeting for to possibly take a determination on
this issue...
@ 36 jayc... kenney is a divisive politician.. i always think of alberta like the 'texas
wannabe' of canada... they think highly of themselves and their oil, even when they can't get
it out to the coast due the fact the people on the coast view all this very differently.. and
now they are resorting to a type of quebec referendum option to use as leverage over the rest
of canada.. it didn't work with quebec, and it definitely won't work with alberta.. at least
quebec could legitimately claim itself a different type of culture... as for dividing up
canada and the usa - it makes more sense to go along north south lines - cascadia being a
good example of this.. koch republic would be a good name for that zone!!
You'd probably do well to study the history of China after the downfall of the Manchu Qing
dynasty up to the 1930s at least (when Japan began invading the country and bringing its own
forms of chaos, violence and enslavement) to get an idea of where the US might be heading if
and when the Federal government falls. From the 1910s onwards, China was governed by warlords
looking out for No 1, with their own armies.
Not so very different from the situation prevailing in Afghanistan and Libya. Talk about
the chickens coming home to roost.
The other alternative is if the 50 states decide to be self-governing statelets or form
their own federations among themselves or with neighbouring provinces and states in Canada
and Mexico, or even abroad. Alaska may petition Moscow to be accepted back into the Russian
Federation and Hawaii may seek another large patron to attach itself for security reasons.
Washington and Oregon
states may finally form a federation with British Columbia and call it Cascadia.
Yeah, like Formerly T-Bear intoned about memory. I concede, but still note Gabbard hasn't
faltered in her zeal. I finally finished my series of thoughts on the Bolivian thread
regarding the Big Picture. IMO, Evil's sly enough to get elected even if it campaigned
showing its attributes as in
this image . If I were 20 years younger, I'd emigrate to Russia or China, but I'm not and
doubt I've 20 years remaining on this orb. But I do think I've got the struggle properly
diagnosed, although no cure's readily available.
Right now a struggle is going on in Bolivia that is the world's struggle.
@Posted by: Paul | Nov 13 2019 20:06 utc | 23
Indeed ,the same way I see it, and it seems that, in this one, Russian will not be with
us...After all there is neither oil, nor weapons to sale in Bolivia, nor to the working poor
people.....
Just today I was hearing Trump stating that he would like very much assisting to the next
Vicotry Day parade in Moscow...Well, how to say ( wait for me while I go throwing up a
bit...) Just here again, a bit back in myself...
Thus, this thug, who just has unleashed those rabid nazi death squads over the poor
indigenous people of Bolivia is going to sit along the veterans who really fought the nazis
in WWII, the few who still are alive to remember the 25 millions of their own who died in the
battle fields, moreover taking into account that Trump´s father really was a nazi
himself and supported Nazi Germany as if there was no tomorrow...If you though that of
Netanyahu last year was way too much...to see how yo take this...
Seeing these things, no wonder that fascism advance without obstacles...Voting in the UN
or passing all day energically protestingthe demolition of monuments to Soviet heros of WWII
is not enough...It is neede to eergically protest when today´s nazis are salughterin
currently lving people...
As happened during WWII, I fear, it will be us the people who will have to organize
ourselves to fight this scourge...Putin, simply, will not be there....May be the Red Army
will...
Gerhard @10;
I agree the US will split up. As a poli sci initiate, i was forced to consider the role of
institutions acting in support of the polis. I wasn't impressed at the time. my disdain for
the rot of leadership in most if not all institutions in the west, it was mostly for the
greed....but i realize the cumulative effect is the fraying of those 'supports' of the nation
itself. Consider:
The 16 intelligence agencies each have their own agendas, the regulatory agencies are
revolving doors for industry placements, the FBI was crooked since the days of Hoover, the
governments agencies are rife with oligarchy quislings .....and in the end the greed of those
in power will be not be held back by any moral force. The police are militarized, murdering
and robbing their own citizens.
Meanwhile, the MSM are owned by the oligarch, so there is no national forum where the
corruption can be addressed on a national level. This leaves the blog sites such as MOA to
lead the fight against the PTB. The problem is in the nature of the internet, which has no
'locus' as in a national voice. The internet has no center. As example, i am not a US
citizen. When the polis finally hit the point where the Rentier economy has driven them to
extreme reaction, they will not be thinking of reclaiming the vast American experiment,
rather they will seek to at least control their little part of the world. I believe you will
see blocs of similar states rising up to control whet they think is in their own best
interests: The mid-west, the west coast and mountain states, the deep south, the eastern
states will find common issues to crytalize around.
That's my read.
As a Canadian, my thoughts are how Canada will negotiate with these remainder blocs of former
US states.
James @ 39
I general concur with your brief reading of Jayson Kenney and Alberta talk of separatism. But
on that score the comparison would not so much be to Texas as perhaps to Boris Johnson /
Nigel Farage, in their moves to break away from the EU. I don't know that either of them (or
Kenney) is all that passionate about separation itself, but the divisiveness -- and surfing
various waves of polarization -- are what this new nihilist political wave seems to be about.
I support the Cascadia concept. There's a wonderful work of speculative fiction called
Ecotopia that is set in a Cascadia - although it was written before the digital hi-tech era
and so could not predict that such an entity, short of a true revolution, would be run by
Microsoft - Google - Apple etc.
A high speed rail link from Vancouver to Portland has been proposed, which is a
forward-thinking policy initiative, but they are going to take a few years to think about it,
and then another fifteen to twenty years to build it, and that itself will only happen if the
"no new taxes" retrograde types don't stop it in its "tracks" (which they intend to do).
off topic: I've just realized how vexing the idea of a non-citizen army.
Imagine: The tax payer funds the majority of tax dollars to a bureau that funds its own
production of weapons, recruitment, training personnel, maintenance of 800 or so bases across
the world and, finally, deploying these recruits wherever it deems worthy, based on the
directions of it's head, potus. its just so sweet: hire mercenaries, and do whatever you want
across the planet....there are no draftees ....no one to criticize when the body bags return
stateside. Some otherwise brain-dead fuck in the pentagon is enjoying lieutenant generalship,
just for figuring out the army didn't need a draft...there were plenty of poor people, who
could be had with a few bucks......
I'm in Montana and working on a piece of fiction that anticipates the breakup of the
States in the not-so-distant future. I did a little research on Cascadia and found that
there's elements of white supremacism wanting to co-opt the idea of Cascadia for their own
ethno-state fever
dreams :
The far right is known to appropriate pop culture imagery, particularly for recruitment and
to mitigate their viewpoints. But Alexander Reid Ross, a professor at Portland State
University, explained that Cascadia, "a really important movement in the Pacific
Northwest," is targeted specifically for its link to bioregionalism. "It implies a
territorial imperative but doesn't necessarily involve anti-racism, according to the far
right, so fascists appropriate it," he told me of Cascadia.
The appropriation began at least as far back as 2004, when a flag suspiciously similar
to the Cascadian flag appeared on the cover of Harold Armstead Covington's book, A Distant
Thunder. In 2008, Covington founded the white nationalist group Northwest Front, which
calls for an "independent and sovereign White nation in the Pacific Northwest." The group
later penned a disturbing rhyme on its website about this flag, the Tricolor flag, using
language similar to Baretich's:
The sky is blue, and the land is green. The white is for the people, in
between.
Cascadia appropriation has snowballed since then. In 2016, a man adopting the moniker
Herrenvolk, a German word for "master race" used by the Nazis, helped form Cascadia, the
"foremost" alt-right group in the Pacific Northwest. According to its website, its mission
is to "regain our sovereignty and prevent foreign influence on our people." That goal
correlates with the narrative of Cascadia as quintessential, and it echoes the groaning
around Portland about newcomers spoiling the city.
in the narrative I'm working on, New Cascadia does become a white supremacist
stronghold.
I was somewhat puzzled by your Good and Evil post in the last thread, karlof1. Were you just
being facetious or did I misread you to say that all would depend on the outcome of the 2020
election?.
I followed you on the course of 'the rest of the world' under leadership from Russia and
China into multipolarity rather than one hegemon; I'd tend to agree with you on that concept,
though maybe we'd have disagreements on the course of history up to that point. I have a
literary turn of mind myself, and to me "good" literature (with a small g) always comes out
on top - as with goodness in most other aspects of life learning as well.
All the same, it's hard for me to think the coming US election will really decide
anything. That is, I don't see any of the candidates preparing his or herself to join 'the
rest of the world'. That would be the good outcome for me and I just can't see it
happening.
I'll be literary and say that maybe for nations 'the way up is the way down.' And while
the disparity and struggle between wealthy and not in the US is starkly apparent, we are
nowhere near bottoming out here yet. And I think we have to be; I think we will be - but
when? I'll be literary again and say that for Tigger it was when he got all his bounce taken
out of him. All of it. Not 'make America great' but rather 'help America survive
yadayadayada...'
I'm kinda doubting I'll be around to see it. It's sort of that 'not with a bang but a
wimper' sort of scenario - and we're a long way from wimpering yet.
Still, I feel very positive. I think 'the rest of the world' is going to be kinder than we
deserve when it all boils down to the dregs. What a day that will be!
Nemesiscalling 15
Right you are. The Anti-Russia hype has been going on for a while but had a bit of a hiatus
during King (W) Shrub II. Both parties worked to destroy the Russian economy during the
80s/90s with the Chicago/Harvard boys gutting it completely while enriching themselves. It
accelerated under Obama while they presented us with the "Reset" switch. Apparently the
Russians didn't play along so they became the bogeyman that gets inflated as time goes on.
Trump tried but got dragged down in the process.
As to a US split, I live in the south. So I've wondered if California (for example) tried
to leave if a US President would pull a Lincoln and destroy the state ... in order to save
it.
Nemesis@15 -"Trust me when I say" ... never trust anyone who says anything after that phrase!
How exactly did the Dems play the right card with Russiagate? Do you mean they hoodwinked
their supporters into believing Russia to be the enemy, so that is somehow 'the right card'?
I'll stop there. You've completely confused me.
Occupied Palestine continues killing people as documented in the report below from Reuters
"
GAZA (Reuters) - An Israeli missile strike in the Gaza Strip killed six members of a
Palestinian family on Thursday, all of them civilians, medical officials and residents said,
bringing the death toll in the territory from a 48-hour surge in fighting to 32.
The Israeli military had no immediate comment on the pre-dawn incident in Deir al-Balah,
which came as cross-border shelling exchanges continued despite a ceasefire offer by the
Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad.
Israel killed an Islamic Jihad field commander on Tuesday, sparking cross-border rocket
salvoes by the militant group and further Israeli strikes. Medics said 32 Palestinians have
been killed, at least a third of them civilians.
Those killed in Thursday's attack on a home in Deir al-Balah included a woman and a child,
medical officials said. Another 12 people were wounded, they said.
"
Sad to see this continue to go on and no resolution in sight, only escalation
I mean "right" in that allowing Russiagate to seep into the waking consciousness of
America took the pressure off the dems and what was going to be their reckoning. In effect,
they have now doubled-down in the hope that the Trump phenomenon of nationalism will fade
away and their rule will be restored. Whether or not Sanders plays into this I think we are
yet to see, but, so far, Sanders has played ball with a lot of dem garbage.
Again, by the "right" play I mean as if a dark sorcerer had banked his continued favor
with the king he serves on a magic brew that would muddle the King's brain and keep him from
knowing of the Sorcerer's repulsive ambition. Such is the dems plan as well as many if not
all of the republicans who secretly detest DJT but who don't speak up because their base
believes in Trump.
TASS and Sputnik have both published short reports on events from the BRICS Summit in
Brasilia. As I noted earlier, it revolved around the Business Forum, so most everything
focused on economics, global trade, and the hindrances in the normal conduct of commerce:
"'Undoubtedly, the global economy was affected by the fact that methods of unfair
competition, unilateral sanctions - including politically motivated ones are being used on a
wider scale in the global trade, [and] protectionism is flourishing. Under those
circumstances, BRICS nations have to take serious effort to ensure the development of their
economies, to prevent the deterioration of the social situation and the fall of living
standards, of our citizens' welfare,' Putin said at the closing ceremony of the BRICS
business forum."
Hopefully, there'll be a full transcript of Putin's remarks and further reporting to
digest tomorrow.
Re: trustworthy people, I meant that my eyes have seen first hand the effects of this
whole Russiagate brainwashing. As a result, I don't talk politics with my family, and it is
tenuous with my coworkers. Can you imagine a guy working in a west-coast city and actually
has something positive to say about DJT?
I still say that DJT deserves an ENORMOURS!...ENORMOUS! amount of credit for awakening
such terminology into the public lexicon as "Globalism," "nationalism," "fake news," and the
like. How he was able to do this was very simple but absolutely revolutionary for any
bonafide presidential candidate that I can remember or know. For myself, I view the issue as
globalism as paramount and far more world-shattering than US imperialism.
Here
is an interesting Frontline interview with Ann Coulter a week or so ago. It shines a light on
how a guy like Trump was able to capture the public imagination. Hint: it wasn't because the
Deep State was grooming him.
For any of you who use protonmail. They seem to be touting their links to clearly compromised
media sources such as Bellingcat quite strongly these days, and are pushing the empire's
message on MH17, Ukraine, Scripals, Russiagate etc etc. I was an early adopter but they now
seem compromised or simply deluded. Too bad, another one bites the dust.
Got it, Nemesiscalling, sorry to be obtuse. But I'm afraid I do disagree. This whole phobia
against Russia and anti-Trump scenario turned off huge numbers of their voters - some didn't
vote but some actually held their noses and voted for Trump. To me (and I sure could be
wrong) Dems just dug themselves a deeper hole with all of this. Save some sort of coup, I
can't see them winning a year from now. If anything more US voters have wised up than were
wised up before - you don't go back once eyes are opened.
I agree with your premise about this being kayfabe. From where I sit, there is no other
explanation for any political party to make these endless attacks based on absolutely nothing
over and over again. Attacks which can only maintain the charade from 2016 of Trump the
Victim. Does anyone think that somehow the Dems suddenly stopped being to calculating
psycho/sociopaths that they and the other side of the aisle are? Why would such shrewd
players not verify what people like Vindeman had to say before putting them on the stand?
They keep undermining their own case over and over again.
I find it impossible that they would continue to stick their hands in the fire after being
burned every single time before this, and with easily verifiable information. Especially when
the attacks are ALWAYS over stupid shit and never go after anything he actually could be
attacked for doing. What I keep seeing is like watching kindergarten kids try to kill a grown
man with foam rocks.
We keep seeing this complex, convoluted, evil shit come out of DC and yet we
simultaneously think these same players are morons? No freaking way. These attacks are the
only thing that keeps Trump's base on his side as he keeps betraying them and the opposition
keeps trying to outdo its last performance of stupid. I have seen a LOT of Trump supporters
throw in the towel on him for things he has done in the last 3 years, yet they come back to
his side after the newest stupid thing the left wing of the uni-party comes up with.
Shit, it isn't like Trump is even really shaking things up to cause such a ruckus!
"... And, of course, it wouldn't be good, old-fashioned Washington gunslinging if she didn't pin the blame on somebody else. In this case, it was former secretary of state Rex Tillerson and former White House chief of staff John Kelly -- portrayed by Haley as duplicitous snakes who sought to undermine the president behind his back. ..."
Her messaging confirms what many have long suspected: Nikki Haley is a human weathervane, trying to ingratiate herself to the
boss (she knows Trump will remain a popular figure within Republican politics for years to come) while at the same time distancing
herself from his most controversial actions.
And, of course, it wouldn't be good, old-fashioned Washington gunslinging if she didn't
pin the blame on somebody else. In this case, it was former secretary of state Rex Tillerson and former White House chief of staff
John Kelly --
portrayed by Haley as duplicitous snakes who sought to undermine the president behind his back.
She is a neocon and people arent going to vote for more war. She has no real accomplishments. I think she would make an interesting
candidate. A republican woman is generally not as loopy left wing as the democratic women running just because their women. Personally
Nikki does not represent my values and I wouldnt vote for her.
Well, what does that tell ya about the continuing corruption and ruining of America's elections systems in this evolving, shallower
society and the major 'news' media being 'neo-con' run or influenced as such?
It's ridiculous and I'm being kind, that people with no qualifications are seriously being given money and given media exposure
such as- Buttgieg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and some others with low IQ's and only want the ego tripping and be one of the 'elites'
all their non-productive lives.
So, Nikki Haley is seriously one of those to lead America?
You now what, people who vote for these clowns, clowns that never worked in their lives, are just plain shallow too. But...the
big donors give these characters money so that they will continue the terrible neo-con foreign policy.
Now, may I ask, as a fella that was born in another nation:
how come I use my real name but Nikki Haley and others do not?
I laugh, as did others, over the years when I say-you would think, that a guy with my name, being a Palestinian/Arab/Moslem heritage,
would be the last one to do that!
Well, how 'bout that question in our great big country America? Dig?
Opportunism of this one is so sky high that it resembles a cartoonish psychopath. Even her name is not real. A pathological liar
who took up barking as a profession because that is what sells these days. Tragedy of America is that snakes move high and up.
"... Cliff Asness, another money manager, would fly into a rage at Warren adviser Gabriel Zucman for using the term "revenue maximizing" -- a standard piece of economic jargon -- describing it as "disgustingly immoral." ..."
"... Objectively, Obama treated Wall Street with kid gloves. In the aftermath of a devastating financial crisis, his administration bailed out collapsing institutions on favorable terms. He and Democrats in Congress did impose some new regulations, but they were very mild compared with the regulations put in place after the banking crisis of the 1930s. He did, however, refer on a few occasions to "fat cat" bankers and suggested that financial-industry excesses were responsible for the 2008 crisis because, well, they were. And the result, quite early in his administration, was that Wall Street became consumed with " Obama rage ," and the financial industry went all in for Mitt Romney in 2012. ..."
No, the really intense backlash against Warren and progressive Democrats in general is
coming from
Wall Street . And while that opposition partly reflects self-interest, Wall Street's Warren
hatred has a level of virulence, sometimes crossing into hysteria, that goes beyond normal
political calculation.
What's behind that virulence?
First, let's talk about the rational reasons Wall Street is worried about Warren. She is, of
course, calling for major tax increases on the very wealthy, those with wealth exceeding $50
million, and the financial industry is strongly represented in that elite club. And since
raising taxes on the wealthy is highly popular , it's an
idea a progressive president might actually be able to turn into real policy.
Warren is also a big believer in stricter financial regulation; the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, which was highly effective until the Trump administration set about gutting
it, was her brainchild.
So if you are a Wall Street billionaire, rational self-interest might well induce you to
oppose Warren. Neoliberal_rationality/ does not, however, explain why a money manager like Leon Cooperman
-- who just two years ago
settled a suit over insider trading for $5 million, although without admitting wrongdoing
-- would circulate an embarrassing, self-pitying open letter
denouncing Warren for her failure to appreciate all the wonderful things billionaires like
him do for society.
Nor does it explain why Cliff Asness, another money manager, would fly into a rage at Warren
adviser Gabriel Zucman for using the term "revenue maximizing" -- a standard piece of
economic jargon -- describing it as "disgustingly immoral."
The real tell here, I think, is that much of the Wall Street vitriol now being directed at
Warren was previously directed at, of all people, President Barack Obama.
Objectively, Obama treated Wall Street with kid gloves. In the aftermath of a devastating
financial crisis, his administration bailed out collapsing institutions on favorable terms. He
and Democrats in Congress did impose some new regulations, but they were very mild compared
with the regulations put in place after the banking crisis of the 1930s. He did, however, refer on a few occasions to "fat cat" bankers and suggested that
financial-industry excesses were responsible for the 2008 crisis because, well, they were. And
the result, quite early in his administration, was that Wall Street became consumed with "
Obama
rage ," and the financial industry went all in for Mitt Romney in 2012.
I wonder, by the way, if this history helps explain an odd aspect of fund-raising in the
current primary campaign. It's not surprising that Warren is getting very little money from the
financial sector. It is, however, surprising that the top recipient isn't Joe Biden but
Pete
Buttigieg , who's running a fairly distant
fourth in the polls. Is Biden suffering from the lingering effects of that old-time Obama
rage?
In any case, the point is that Wall Street billionaires, even more than billionaires in
general, seem to be snowflakes, emotionally unable to handle criticism.
I'm not sure why that should be the case, but it may be that in their hearts they suspect
that the critics have a point.
What, after all, does modern finance actually do for the economy? Unlike the robber barons
of yore, today's Wall Street tycoons don't build anything tangible. They don't even direct
money to the people who actually are building the industries of the future. The vast expansion
of credit in America after around 1980 basically involved a surge in
consumer debt rather than new money for business investment.
Moreover, there is growing evidence that when the financial sector gets too big it actually
acts as a drag on the economy -- and America is well past that point .
Now, human nature being what it is, people who secretly wonder whether they really deserve
their wealth get especially angry when others express these doubts publicly. So it's not
surprising that people who couldn't handle Obama's mild, polite criticism are completely losing
it over Warren.
What this means is that you should beware of Wall Street claims that progressive policies
would have dire effects. Such claims don't reflect deep economic wisdom; to a large extent
they're coming from people with vast wealth but fragile egos, whose rants should be discounted
appropriately. The Times is committed to publishing
a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of
our articles. Here are some tips
. And here's our email: [email protected]
.
Are we starting to witness some state cinture in Spain?
After yesterday warning, is the socialist government of Sánchez turning, at least a
bit, if only in form, socialist?
( after the advance of the "devotes of Trump´s night worship" in yesterday elections
and probably progession of Spanish policy investigation on Barcelona riots, two events that
reinforced each other? )
Spain criticizes the role of the Bolivian Army and Police in the resignation of President
Evo Morales, after protests against his re-election.
Spain joins the avalanche of international comdenations before the proceeding of the
Bolivian Army and Police at the juncture that the Latin American country is going through,
since, according to a statement issued on Monday by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in this regard, that proceeding reminds past times in Latin American history, even more
when President Evo Morales opted for a new call for elections.
"Spain condemns that the process opened yesterday towards a new electoral call has been
distorted by the intervention of the Armed Forces and the Police, suggesting to Evo Morales
to submit his resignation", the note said.
Likewise, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls "all actors to avoid resorting
to violence" and "to guarantee the security of all Bolivians (...) including former
President Morales himself, his relatives and members of his administration".
For his part, the general secretary of the Spanish Unidas Podemos party, Pablo
Iglesias, has written on his Twitter account that "Coup d'etat in Bolivia. Shameful that
there are media that say the army makes the president resign. In the last 14 years Bolivia
has improved all its social and economic indicators. All our support to the Bolivian people
and Evo Morales".
The style of scaring the people is a total imitation from post-Maidan Ukraine, where
communists and other opposed factions in Rada were beaten, covered in paint and thrown in
waste containers...until they left the country...
Then Myrotvorets was launched and the first killings on those who dared to quition
Euromaydan events... Recall Alex Buzina... Any compromised intellectual will suffer the same
fate in Bolivia...
Guess who is behind this coup at the letter of the book...
Don't get me wrong Sasha, I don't think Evo's team objective, 2 weeks after they've win them,
was to repeat elections so soon. This is likely their best approach right now, for the sake
of Bolivians and their supporters. Not mentioning possible reaction a la Caracas.
#InfoMV Evo Morales denounced that his security personnel were offered 50 thousand dollars
for him to be delivered to violent opposition groups. He held Fernando Camacho and Carlos
Mesa responsible for what would happen to him or García Linera.
@Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Nov 10 2019 23:43 utc | 53
You seem to be unaware of the developments of events to this time, Evo called for
elections BEFORE he was oblied to resign by police and military rebels, and made leave the
country...
Elections now with every Evo´s supporter under menace of death would only throw a fake
result favourable to the opposition who did not manage to win elections democratically...
This is the same scenario than in the Ukraine, where representatives of the working people
were never more able to concur to elections and had to leave the country, remaining to be
elected only those puppets of oligarchs or the US...
Pasquinades posted by coupist opposition before Efvo´s resignation what ccan illustrate
why the government has resigned so fast...
Pure fascism....
What I told you? Here you have the Bolivian Myrotvorets .....
Traitor Tracking The population is asked to register all the social network publications of
the "Cyber llunkus". Take screenshots and copy the links of the publications and profiles
of the "Cyber Llunkus".
The M.A.S. ( Evo´s party ) is a criminal organization.
Once Evo Morales falls, a rake will be made to identify the traitorous of the people "Cyber
Llunkus" and imprison them through the location of their mobile devices.
Fake profiles will not save them.
#Civil Resistance Bolivia
Now that the US tells us the tale of democratic elections in Bolivia now...
A people's Counter-revolution that sweeps the Reactionaries down the drain once and for
all.
Chavez was keen to the CIA's modus and thus reformed the military in numerous respects,
particularly by making it impervious to corruption--AND--instituting the uniquely structured
Bolivarian Constitution. Evo's problems stem from the lack of extensive public support as
proven by the election results that kept him from instituting the sort of reforms Chavez
accomplished; and the same goes for all other Latin American nations. In a nutshell, the
Bolivian people squabbled too much amongst themselves and never constructed the type of
Revolutionary constitution and social system required to be resilient to outside
manipulation. Yes, Venezuela was very much a Bottom->Up remaking of society to the point
where the Comprador upper 10% didn't matter, which is why Chavez then Maduro left them to
their own devices. But elsewhere, the popular masses never generated the required solidarity
to prevent losing their hard won freedoms. Sure, it's possible to regain power through the
ballot box, but it can be just as easily lost as is happening now in Bolivia if preventative
measures aren't taken beforehand.
Nations must have constitutions that don't allow for rich minorities to gain control or to
allow them to begin in control as in the USA's case. But to institute such an instrument, the
popular masses must act as one and cast their factionalisms aside until this primary aspect
of consolidating power in their hands becomes the law of their land. Plus, they must again
drop their in-fighting when confronted by any reactionary threat and remember what the main
task is at all times--Maintenance of Freedom.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
Look that this people ransacking Evo´s home, they are not white patricios ...but
those who they have payed to do the dirty work...indigenous people poorly
dressed...collaborating in ovrthrowing the legitimate democratically elected from their
own...
Yeah..this time is no different from others, they always go straight to the throat of the
weak and poor...Totally depsicable...
To their own, earning points in the view of the world...
@ Sasha who wrote
"
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
"
I agree, thank you for your commenting and want to add my perspective to that.
If you read many who come and comment at MoA that supposedly are "educated" you will
notice that they continue to think and write in terms of the conflict being between socialism
and capitalism in spite of myself, karlof1 and others that continually point out that China
is 80% capitalistic as are other "socialistic" countries but what matters is what part of the
social economy is socialism versus capitalism. That is why I continue to beat my drum about
the evil of global private finance that is the core problem with the social contract of the
West. Look at how many in the West are brainwashed to not understand the difference between
public/private finance and its effects on the whole culture and aggressive nature of the
society under that meme.
That, IMO, is the core education that all those in the West and all striving to throw off
the chains/economic jackboot of the West must learn and take to heart.
Very disappointing to hear about Evo...but this is just one round in a very long fight...
In Argentina we have a new government for the people...in Mexico also...Lula is out of
jail now in Brazil so eventually that will turn also...
The empire is rotting but is very dangerous right now because they are lashing out
everywhere...we see in Lebanon and Iraq they are not succeeding...
This is desperation we see folks...they are losing control quickly and are trying
to forestall the inevitable collapse of their global fascist dictatorship...
I think the end will come much sooner than they expect...the house of cards is teetering
badly...
Maidán script all the way....They do not have enough with hi resigning, they need
to wipe out such honest leader form the face of Earth, at least while the "new fake
elections" to maskerade the take over by the opposition are developed...as happened with
Lula....
Here, US Lawyer sees all the signature of the US around the place...as happens to
me...
A significant factor is that the anti-Morales opposition is based mainly in Santa Cruz
department in eastern Bolivia. This is the largest department (in territory and population)
in Bolivia and has significant natural gas reserves. The indigenous people living in that
department have virtually nothing in common with the highland indigenous people (Aymara and
Quechua speakers) who formed Morales' base.
Morales did not have a military background as Chavez did and we can presume he was never
able to cultivate a network of militias among the urban and rural working class that could
support and defend his government. Significantly it was the armed forces who asked Morales to
resign.
@Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 11 2019 1:34 utc | 72
Sorry...but the conflict is between socialism and capitalism...between the rich and the
working masses, especially those who work and still they remain poor....as has always
been....who says otherwise is only trying to fool the masses...
Of course, you people in this forum who live over the average peer, I do not try that you
understand...
You live in your world, looking your belly button, and the furthest you are willing to go is
complain here about the Outlaw US Empire...
Why do you not damn go tomorrow in the streets to protest this new coup by your fascist
administration?
Do not tell me, that would risk your privileged pensions...and all those expensive things
you do to your bodies...
Excuse me, but today, reading the same stupid things of always make me feel like throwing
up...
Fully support the findings of the @OAS_official report recommending new elections in
#Bolivia to ensure a truly democratic process representative of the people's will. The
credibility of the electoral system must be restored.
Will he still support new elections in the morning?
Meanwhile the protesters are calling MAS a criminal
organization so no doubt it'll be excluded from the new elections as happened to the
Party Of The Regions in Ukraine. The wonders of American "democracy".
Why was Evo Morales overthrown? He was nationalizing the highly profitable lithium
industry and planning to deal directly on the international market rather than exporting the
commodity at bargain prices to Western corporations"
"Bolivia has %43 of World's Lithium mines. Batteries from smartphones to Electric cars are
all made with Lithium. Evo Morales was investing in facilities to produce Lithium as a high
end export material rather than just exporting the mine itself."
Somewhere on his blog "Sic Semper Tyrannis", maybe earlier this year, Pat relates the tale
of how when working for the US Gov. in Bolivia he gave medical help to someone and was
rewarded with information which led to the capture of Che Guevara. This may be what Sasha is
referring to.
"The Hydrocarbons law (Law 3058, May 2005) and a subsequent Supreme Decree (May 2006)
require that companies sell all production to YPFB and that domestic market demand be met
before exporting hydrocarbons. Furthermore, these laws transfer the entire transport and
sales chain over to state control. After the law was enacted, hydrocarbon companies were
required to sign new contracts with YPFB, agreeing to pay 50 percent of gross production in
taxes and royalties."
"Prepared by our U.S. Embassies abroad. With its network of 108 offices across the United
States and in more than 75 countries, the U.S. Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of
Commerce utilizes its global presence and international marketing expertise to help U.S.
companies sell their products and services worldwide. Locate the U.S. Commercial Service
trade specialist in the U.S. nearest you by visiting http://export.gov/usoffices."
I usually try to read all the comments before making my first of the day, but I have yet to
do so, although I looked to see if anyone had linked to Escobar's
report on Lula and Brazil , which is an extremely important article for events within
Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and the rest of the world that's resisting the
Outlaw US Empire and its Neoliberal/Neofascist attack dogs.
The information Pepe provides is very important as it jibes with what Assad averred in
his RT
interview , for which I'm still looking for a transcript. Here's Pepe's warning about the
likely future course of events, which has CIA scrawled over every act:
"With the military betting on a strategy of chaos, augmented by Lula's immense social base
all over Brazil fuming about his return to prison and the financial bubble finally burst,
rendering the middle classes even poorer, the stage would be set for the ultimate toxic
cocktail: social 'commotion' allied with 'terrorism' associated with 'organized crime.'
"That's all the military needs to launch an extensive operation to restore "order" and
finally force Congress to approve the Brazilian version of the Patriot Act (five separate
bills are already making their way in Congress).
" This is no conspiracy theory. This is a measure of how incendiary Brazil is at the
moment, and Western mainstream media will make no effort whatsoever to explain the nasty,
convoluted plot for a global audience ." [My Emphasis]
Bolivia coup was orchestrated with direct assist of OAS analysis/report which identified
alleged voting fraud. OAS report focuses on a vote-counting system called TREP, which was
adopted by Bolivia and others in the region on direct advice of OAS. The TREP system is meant
to provide/ publicize initial results, but it is not "official". The official results come
from a slower and more thorough vote count process. The OAS claim of irregularities in the
TREP count is largely irrelevant, as it was never intended to be "official" or legally
reflect official results. There were no irregularities in the official count, won by Morales,
and the so-called "delay" was in fact the natural process of the slower moving count to
produce the official result.
While Trump denounced Morales, the US State Department stepped in to sanitize Washington's
position, with a senior official telling Reuters that the US has "no preference" among
opposition candidates. The spokesperson did say, however, that anyone who tried to
"distort" last month's vote should not be allowed to participate .
That's MAS banned from the election by the cunts in the fucking State Department. Imagine
if the Russian MFA announced that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties could field
presidential candidates in 2020. Trump is an idiot but the State Department, DoJ, and
Treasury are the real bastards. Forget the CIA, that's just a bunch of senile tossers who
have wet dreams about Cold War 2.0.
b mentioned lithium with reference to Bolivia in his 139 above
Nov 11, 2019 -- Bolivian Coup Comes Less Than a Week After Morales Stopped Multinational
Firm's Lithium Deal
"Bolivia's lithium belongs to the Bolivian people. Not to multinational corporate
cabals."
The Morales move on Nov. 4 to cancel the December 2018 agreement with Germany's ACI Systems
Alemania (ACISA) came after weeks of protests from residents of the Potosí area. The
region has 50% to 70% of the world's lithium reserves in the Salar de Uyuni salt flats.
Among other clients, ACISA provides batteries to Tesla; Tesla's stock rose Monday after the
weekend.
As Bloomberg News noted in 2018, that has set the country up to be incredibly important in
the next decade:
Demand for lithium is expected to more than double by 2025. The soft, light mineral is
mined mainly in Australia, Chile, and Argentina. Bolivia has plenty -- 9 million tons that
have never been mined commercially, the second-largest amount in the world -- but until now
there's been no practical way to mine and sell it. . .
here
But Teslas catch fire....from ZPower--
Actually, lithium may be in trouble for vehicle batteries.
Just as lithium-ion (Li-ion) replaced nickel metal hydride (NiMH) before it and nickel
cadmium (NiCd) before that, silver zinc (AgZn) batteries are on track to replace Li-ion too,
according to a McGraw-Hill forecast as far back as 2010. Since then silver zinc has been
perfected and are on the market for rechargeable hearing-aid "button" batteries by ZPower LL
(Camarillo, Calif.) They are nonflammable and could provide up to 40 percent more run time
than lithium-ion batteries. . . here
Credit where its due: both Corbyn and Sanders have issued statements against the coup in
Bolivia.
On the other hand the recently re-elected, appalling government of Canada has backed it to
the hilt. Was probably involved in financing it. See yves engler https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/11/canada-backs-coup-against-bolivias-president/
The State Department which rarely misses a chance to discredit the democracy that it so
hates, is accusing Morales of 'distorting' the election result. Nobody is suggesting that he
didn't win the election, at most it is being claimed that his margin of victory, more than
10%, was exaggerated.
A similar, equally spurious claim was used to justify the coup against Aristide. There it was
not disputed that Lavelan candidates had won their senatorial elections but that their
victories were merely pluralities not majorities.
For this offence Canada, the US and (let it be recalled) Brazil occupied the country,
kidnapped Aristide and banned his party from running in future elections.
On November 7, 2019, the National Court of Justice of Ecuador ratified the preventive
detention of former president Rafael Correa , along with a number of his former officials.
Immediately after the court rendered its decision for pretrial detention, Correa rejected
accusations of bribery, illicit association and contributions to his political campaign between
2012 and 2016, while he was the leader of Alianza Patria Altiva i Soberana (PAIS). Correa
founded Alianza PAIS in 2006, as a democratic socialist political party with an objective to
achieve economic and political sovereignty, and foment a social and economic revolution in the
nation, which came to be known as The Citizens' Revolution (La Revolución
Ciudadana).
During his presidency, which lasted from January 15, 2007 to May 24, 2017, Correa
introduced a brand of 21 st century socialism to Ecuador, with a focus on improving
the living standards of the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the population. His
presidency was part of 'the revolutionary wave' in Latin America, referred to as 'Pink tide',
where a number of left-wing and socialist governments swept into power throughout the continent
during the 2000s, including Cristina Néstor Kirchner and Fernández de Kirchner in
Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Manuel Zelaya in
Honduras, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, and Hugo Chávez in
Venezuela. All of these governments were opposed to neo-liberal economic policies and American
imperialism.
While he was president, Correa raised taxes on the rich and cut down on tax evasion, and
increased public investment on infrastructure and public services, including publicly-funded
pensions, housing, free health care and education. His government ended up building many
schools in different parts of the nation, particularly the countryside, and provided students
with nearly all of the materials needed to further their studies. President Correa also more
than doubled the minimum wage, which contributed to significantly reducing socioeconomic
inequality. In 2018, a World Bank report explained that:
Ecuador has made notable improvements in reducing poverty over the last decade. Income
poverty decreased from 36.7 percent in 2007 to 21.5 percent in 2017. In addition, the share
of the population living in extreme poverty fell by more than half, from 16.5 percent in 2007
to 7.9 percent in 2017, representing an average annual drop of 0.9 percentage points. In
absolute numbers, these changes represent a total of 1.6 million individuals exiting poverty,
and about one million exiting extreme poverty over the last decade.[i]
Furthermore, the unemployment rate fell from an 'all time high of 11.86 percent in the first
quarter of 2004' to 'a record low of 4.54 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014'[ii]. The World
Bank also reported that Ecuador posted annual economic growth of '4.5 percent during 2001-2014,
well above the average for the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region of 3.3 percent.
During this period, real GDP doubled and real GDP per capita increased by 50 percent.'[iii]
On October 1, 2016, Correa announced the nomination of Lenín Boltaire Moreno
Garcés , who served as his vice president from 2007 to 2013, as his party's candidate
for the 2017 presidential election at the conference of Alianza PAIS. Moreno was elected
president, and it was expected that he would continue and build on Correa's left-wing economic
policies. However, within a few months of winning the election, president Moreno began to
dismantle many of the social, economic and political reforms enacted by Correa during his
decade as president. Contrary to Correa's government, many of the domestic policies pursued by
president Moreno included reducing public spending, weakening worker rights, and providing
significant tax cuts to the rich and large corporations. In other words, president Moreno has
gradually shifted Ecuador's left-wing policies to the political centre-right.
Moreno's presidency also shifted Ecuador's foreign policy stance, giving it a more
neo-liberal and pro-American orientation. When Correa's socialist government was in power,
Ecuador enjoyed close diplomatic and economic relations with Venezuela, and was more
independent of American hegemony. For example, president Correa closed a US military base in
Manta, Ecuador when Washington's lease expired in 2009. Prior to that, in 2007, Correa
stated:
We'll renew the [Manta air] base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami --
an Ecuadorean base if there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely,
they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States.[iv]
Subsequently, on September 18, 2009, he also said:
As long as I am president, I will not allow foreign bases in our homeland, I will not
allow interference in our affairs, I will not negotiate our sovereignty and I will not accept
guardians of our democracy.
Contrary to Correa, the US-Ecuador military relationship has expanded under the Moreno
government 'through training, assistance, and the reestablishment of an Office of Security
Cooperation at the U.S. Embassy in Quito.'[v]Ecuador and the US have also signed deals for the
purchase of weapons and other military equipment, and agreed to cooperate more closely in the
areas of security, intelligence, and counter-narcotics.
In 2011, president Correa expelled US ambassador Heather Hodges from Quito. Subsequently, in
2014, his government expelled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
from the country, where it had been operating since 1961 as part of John F. Kennedy's Alliance
for Progress (AFP)[vi]. USAID regularly exercises 'soft power' in Latin American nations in
order to help the US establish itself as an 'international police power'[vii]. In May 2019,
Moreno's government announced that USAID would return to Ecuador.
President Correa also became renowned for providing Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with
political asylum in Ecuador's London embassy in 2012 to prevent his arrest and possible
extradition to the US. However, shortly after his election, there were indications that Moreno
might be willing to hand him over to authorities in the UK. In addition to calling Assange an
'inherited problem,' a 'spoiled brat' and a 'miserable hacker', Moreno accused him of
repeatedly violating his asylum conditions and of trying to use the embassy as a 'centre for
spying'[viii]. Then, on April 11, Assange's political asylum was revoked, which allowed him to
be forcibly removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy by British police.In response, Correa called
Moreno 'the greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history' for committing 'a crime
humanity will never forget'[ix].
President Correa's government supported the integration of South America countries into a
single economic and political bloc. However, since Moreno came to power, Ecuador has distanced
itself from the Venezuelan government, and withdrew from the Bolivarian Alternative for the
Americas[x](ALBA) in August 2018, as well as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in
September 2019. UNASUR was established by 12 South American countries in 2008to address
important issues in the region without the presence of the United States. Currently, only five
members remain: Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. The other seven members,
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay, agreed to create the Forum for
the Progress of South America (PROSUR) in March 2019. The goal of this alternative organization
is to achieve the right-wing agenda in Latin America, as its members support neo-liberal
austerity measures and closer ties with Washington. It could be said that PROSUR aligns well
with the goals and objectives of the Monroe Doctrine.
Another major shift in president Moreno's political stance pertains to lawsuits brought
against Texaco/Chevron by the Correa government to obtain compensation for environmental
damages caused when the operations of Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) dumped 16 billion
gallons of toxic wastewater in the Amazon region of Ecuador between 1964 and 1992, affecting
more than 30,000 Indigenous people and Campesinos in the area. 'Chevron left 880 pits full of
crude oil which are still there, the rivers are still full of hydrocarbon sediment and polluted
by the crude oil spills in Amazonia, which is one of the most biodiversity rich regions in the
world'[xi], and 'the damage has been left unrepaired for more than 40 years'[xii]. To raise
public awareness about this environmental disaster, president Correa's government established
an international campaign called the 'Dirty Hand of Chevron'. In 2011, the Ecuadorian
Constitutional Court ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in compensation for social and
environmental damages it caused.
In September 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), an agency of the United Nations
based in the Hague, Netherlands, ruled that the Ecuadorian court decision against Chevron was
illegal, because it was an outcome of fraud, bribery, and corruption. The PCA 'also ruled that
Ecuador will have to pay economic compensation'[xiii]to Chevron. 'The amount has not been
established yet, but Chevron requested that Ecuador assume the US$9.5 billion' awarded to
affected communities by the Ecuadorean court.[xiv]Following the PCA decision, the government of
president Moreno announced that:
the state will sue former President Rafael Correa and his government officials if Ecuador
lost the international arbitration process.[xv]
In this matter, president Moreno also accused Correa of 'failing to defend the country's
interests correctly and spending money on "The Dirty Hand of Chevron" campaign, which according
to the government sought to "manipulate national and international public opinion."'[xvi] In
reality, president Moreno supports the PCA decision, thereby prioritizing the interest of
Texaco/Chevron over those of his own citizens . In fact, his government has been attempting
to nullify the Constitutional Court ruling against Chevron. In response, former president
Correa has accused the Moreno government of 'doing homework ordered by (the United States Vice
President Mike) Pence'. Even some of Moreno's own cabinet ministers condemned the PCA ruling
and expressed their support for Ecuador's Constitutional Court for defending of the country's
nationals interest and the rights of the people of the Amazon.
Correa exhibited a hostile attitude towards the Bretton Woods Institutions during his
presidency. He sought to renegotiate Ecuador's external debt of US$10.2 billion, which he
called 'illegitimate' because 'it was accrued during autocratic and corrupt regimes of the
past. Correa threatened to default on Ecuador's foreign debt, and ordered the expulsion of the
World Bank's country manager'[xvii], which was carried out on April 26, 2007. His government
also opposed the signing of any agreements that would permit the IMF to monitor Ecuador's
economic plan. As a result of such actions on the part of Correa's government, 'Ecuador was
able to renegotiate its debt with its creditors and redirect public funds towards social
investments.'[xviii]
To the contrary, Moreno has enthusiastically embraced the IMF during his short time as
president. On March 1, 2019, Ecuador's central bank manager, Verónica Artola
Jarrín, and economy and finance minister, Richard Martínez Alvarado,submitted a
letter of intent to the IMF requesting a three-year $4.2 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF)
agreement. An EFF allows the IMF to assist countries that are facing 'serious medium-term
balance of payments problems.' More precisely, EFF is designed to:
to provide assistance to countries: (i) experiencing serious payments imbalances because
of structural impediments; or (ii) characterized by slow growth and an inherently weak
balance of payments position. The EFF provides assistance in support of comprehensive
programs that include policies of the scope and character required to correct structural
imbalances over an extended period.[xix]
The IMF agreement signed in March allowed Ecuador to borrow $4.2 billion. However, as is
always the case, the IMF agreement was not without conditionalities, as it required the
Ecuadorian government to implement a series of neo-liberal economic reforms. According to IMF
statements, these reforms aim to transform Ecuador's fiscal deficit into a surplus, reduce the
country's debt-to-GDP ratio, and increase foreign investment. On March 11, 2019, Christine
Lagarde, former Managing Director of the IMF, claimed that:
The Ecuadorian authorities are implementing a comprehensive reform program aimed at
modernizing the economy and paving the way for strong, sustained, and equitable
growth.[xx]
On March 11, 2019, Christine Lagarde also explained that:
Achieving a robust fiscal position is at the core of the authorities' program, which will
be supported by a three-year extended arrangement from the IMF. The aim is to reduce
debt-to-GDP ratio through a combination of a wage bill realignment, a careful and gradual
optimization of fuel subsidies, a reprioritization of capital and goods and services
spending, and a tax reform. The savings generated by these measures will allow for an
increase in social assistance spending over the course of the program. The authorities will
continue their efforts to strengthen the medium-term fiscal policy framework, and more
rigorous fiscal controls and better public financial management will help to enhance the
effectiveness of fiscal policy.[xxi]
Protecting the poor and most vulnerable segments in society is a key objective of the
authorities' program. In this context, the authorities plan to extend the coverage of, and
increase the nominal level of benefits under the existing social protection programs. Work is
also underway to improve the targeting of social programs.[xxii]
Ecuador's participation in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
represents another point of contention between Correa and the Moreno government. Ecuador was a
member of OPEC from 1973 and 1992. After a period of absence, it rejoined the organization in
2007 after Correa became president of the country. However, on October 1 st ,
president Moreno announced that Ecuador would once again end its membership in OPEC effective
January 1, 2020. Given Moreno's penchant for implementing neo-liberal economic policies, this
decision was likely based on the notion that freeing the country from the burden of having to
abide by quotas would bring fiscal sustainability to Ecuador. This is evidenced by the fact
that Ecuador contacted OPEC to request permission to produce above its quota in February 2019,
though it was never confirmed whether a response was received[xxiii]. While increasing
production in its Amazonian oil fields would likely bring more foreign investment to Ecuador
and open up new markets, it would also lead to serious conflicts between the Moreno government
and the indigenous people living in the area, who are strongly opposed to oil extraction.
In addition to announcing Ecuador's departure from OPEC, president Moreno also selected
October 1 st as the date to introduce Decree 883, a series of economic measures that
included ending longstanding subsidies for fuel, the removal of some import tariffs, and cuts
to the benefits and wages of public employees. In particular, the elimination of fuel
subsidies, which had been in place for 40 years, was instituted in order to meet IMF
requirements to keep the $4.2 billion programme on track, and to satisfy international
investors. The EFF agreement between the IMF and the Ecuadorean government also called for
thousands of public employees to be laid off, the privatization of public assets, the
separation of the central bank from the government, cutting public expenditures, and raising
taxes over the next three years. IMF representatives claim that these types of reforms bring
more foreign direct investment into the economy.
In fact, a close examination of the neo-liberal economic reforms recommended by the IMF in
many countries reveals that they are almost identical, meaning that they do not take the
diverse needs and realities of each country into account; rather, they are driven by the
interests of the countries and other stakeholders that provide the funds. Generally, the IMF's
recommendations[xxiv]consist of cutting deficits, liberalizing trade, privatizing state-owned
enterprises, reforming the banking and financial systems, increasing taxes, raising interest
rates, and reforming key sectors. However, countless studies have revealed that these types of
reforms, have raised the unemployment rate, created poverty, and have often preceded
recessions. On October 2, 2019, the IMF issued a press release on Ecuador stating that:
The reforms announced yesterday by President Lenin Moreno aim to improve the resilience
and sustainability of Ecuador's economy and foster strong, and inclusive growth. The
announcement included important measures to protect the poor and most vulnerable, as well as
to generate jobs in a more competitive economy.
The authorities are also working on important reforms aimed at supporting Ecuador's
dollarization, including the reform of the central bank and the organic code of budget and
planning.
IMF staff will continue to work closely with the authorities to improve the prospects for
all Ecuadorians. The second review is expected to be submitted to the Executive Board in the
coming weeks.[xxv]
President Moreno's decision to end the subsidies on fuel led to the prices of diesel and
petroleum increasing by 100% and 30%, respectively, overnight, which directly contributed to
significantly raising the costs of public transportation. In response, protests erupted against
Moreno's austerity measures on October 3 rd , featuring students, unions and
indigenous organizations. They declared an indefinite general strike until the government
reversed its neo-liberal adjustment package. Moreno's initial response was to reject the
ultimatum and state that he would 'not negotiate with criminals.'
The following day, on October 4, 2019, president Moreno declared a state of emergency under
the pretext of ensuring the security of citizens and to 'avoid chaos.' Nonetheless, the
protests continued and intensified to the point that the government was forced to relocate to
city of Guayaquil because Quito had been overrun by anti-government protestors. However, this
attempt to escape the protestors proved ineffective as taxi, bus and truck drivers blocked
roads and bridges in Guayaquil, as well as in Quito, which disrupted transportation
nationwide.
In the following days, thousands of demonstrators continued to demand the reversal of
austerity measures, as well as the resignation of the president. However, Moreno remained
defiant, refusing both demands under all circumstances. Subsequently, Ecuador's main oil
pipeline ceased operations after it was seized by indigenous protesters. Petro-Ecuador was
concerned that production losses could reach 165,000 barrels a day. Indigenous protesters also
occupied two water treatment plants in the city of Ambato. Meanwhile, violent clashes between
protesters and police resulted in seven deaths , about 2,000 injuries, and over 1,000
arrests. Eventually, Moreno's government was forced to back down and make concession with the
well -organised protesters.
On October 13, president Moreno agreed to withdraw Decree 883 and replace the IMF-backed
plan with a new proposal, involving negotiations with the Confederation of Indigenous
Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) and other social groups. The following day, president Moreno
signed Decree 894, which reinstated the cancelled fuel subsidies. However, on October 23,
CONAIE released a statement informing the public that 'it paused talks with President Lenin
Moreno because of the government's "persecution" of the group's leaders [Jaime Vargas] since a
halt to violent anti-austerity protests.'[xxvi]
It is unlikely that president Moreno would be willing to give up on his austerity policies
or start the process of cancelling the IMF loan, given his apparent commitment to helping the
US realize the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. Many of the reforms and policies that his
government has introduced will help keep Ecuador firmly entrenched in America's backyard for
years to come.
This is not a new development, as history has revealed that, for more than a century
, 'in Latin America there are more than enough of the kind of rulers who are ready to use
Yankee troops against their own people when they find themselves in crisis' (Fidel Castro,
Havana 1962). However, the eruption of protests in response to Moreno's neo-liberal reforms
suggests that he faces an uphill battle, as his fellow Ecuadorians do not appear to share his
enthusiasm for selling his country to external creditors and foreign influences. Although
Moreno has managed to successfully drive Rafael Correa out of Ecuador, the former president's
opposition to capitalism and imperialism remain strong among the population.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Global Research contributor Dr. Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
University of Ottawa.
"... this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods. ..."
"... Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. ..."
"... To me Trump is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it comes to impeachment. ..."
"... Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats . ..."
"... "The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth." ..."
"... Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats! ..."
"... Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a "war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all. ..."
"... To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero. ..."
"... The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee. ..."
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's unsubstantiated assertion that Biden
pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics," he said. "Period. That's on the
record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence campaigns on swing voters and implied
that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it
seems, have their blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's
about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party
agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and
equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take
it. And I agree it's about protecting the current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the impeachment, but other motives seem relevant.
I have thought since Obama went all in with Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And
they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth.
To me Trump
is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to
start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split
when it comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist
Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself
was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone
trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about
Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving
to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact
it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on
a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior to the excerpt I provide, which I
suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and other countries that the Obama administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all
boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to home Pelosi says look over here at
the orange head, look over there at the border but whatever you do, do not look over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE ">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Andrew J. Bacevich weighs in on US foreign policy:
Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of
World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian
Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly
in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a
"war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all.
To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the
ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that
failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero.
There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East. The imperative is to go forward,
which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with
King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.t
The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement
on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with
the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee.
@Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 11 2019 21:30 utc | 152
But, with that explanation, it is like you are whithewashing fascism as a merely opposing political view, which is precisley
the position and pretension of the Trumpers, when it is not. Fascism is incompatible with democracy and human rights...as the
recent ( just overnight the coup...) declarations by The Donald on the events in Bolivia come to confirm...
You forget a main characteristic of fascists, that is that they aspire ( and when the circumstances allow it, always try...)
to wipe out their political adversaries from the face of Earth, as the case in Bolivia is so flagrantry illustrating. Along with
their political adversaries, who are always those who position themselves in the side or as representives of the people, they
always try to wipe out also all those subgroups of human beings they consider utermenschen ...In this cathegory they will
include many, slavs, latinos, jews, gypsies, black people...
Then, once in power, they will use terror to keep the citizenry ( who otherwise will rebel once the real "program" of the nazis
unveiled ) in control...
That the US system is as a whole fascist falls plainly in the faces of all its deluded and anestesized citizens when you see today
that neither Pelosi, nor Schumaker, nor Clinton, nor Biden have said a word agsint what happened yesterday in Bolivia or against
the words of the POTUS who "allegedly" they try to overthrow...a representation described by Trump himself, in the heights of
stone face, as coup d´etat...
I stated that fascism has no ideology. It cannot be a "political view" .
The fascists in Rwanda are Black. The fascists in Israel are Jewish. The fascists in Ukraine are Slavs. The fascists in Colombia
are Latinos.
Fascism isn't about one ethnicity or another. Ethnic prejudice is just one (of many) handle that the capitalists elites use
to get some parts of society to attack other parts. The people who fall under that control by the capitalist elites are fascists.
Are we starting to witness some state cinture in Spain?
After yesterday warning, is the socialist government of Sánchez turning, at least a
bit, if only in form, socialist?
( after the advance of the "devotes of Trump´s night worship" in yesterday elections
and probably progession of Spanish policy investigation on Barcelona riots, two events that
reinforced each other? )
Spain criticizes the role of the Bolivian Army and Police in the resignation of President
Evo Morales, after protests against his re-election.
Spain joins the avalanche of international comdenations before the proceeding of the
Bolivian Army and Police at the juncture that the Latin American country is going through,
since, according to a statement issued on Monday by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
in this regard, that proceeding reminds past times in Latin American history, even more
when President Evo Morales opted for a new call for elections.
"Spain condemns that the process opened yesterday towards a new electoral call has been
distorted by the intervention of the Armed Forces and the Police, suggesting to Evo Morales
to submit his resignation", the note said.
Likewise, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls "all actors to avoid resorting
to violence" and "to guarantee the security of all Bolivians (...) including former
President Morales himself, his relatives and members of his administration".
For his part, the general secretary of the Spanish Unidas Podemos party, Pablo
Iglesias, has written on his Twitter account that "Coup d'etat in Bolivia. Shameful that
there are media that say the army makes the president resign. In the last 14 years Bolivia
has improved all its social and economic indicators. All our support to the Bolivian people
and Evo Morales".
The style of scaring the people is a total imitation from post-Maidan Ukraine, where
communists and other opposed factions in Rada were beaten, covered in paint and thrown in
waste containers...until they left the country...
Then Myrotvorets was launched and the first killings on those who dared to quition
Euromaydan events... Recall Alex Buzina... Any compromised intellectual will suffer the same
fate in Bolivia...
Guess who is behind this coup at the letter of the book...
Don't get me wrong Sasha, I don't think Evo's team objective, 2 weeks after they've win them,
was to repeat elections so soon. This is likely their best approach right now, for the sake
of Bolivians and their supporters. Not mentioning possible reaction a la Caracas.
#InfoMV Evo Morales denounced that his security personnel were offered 50 thousand dollars
for him to be delivered to violent opposition groups. He held Fernando Camacho and Carlos
Mesa responsible for what would happen to him or García Linera.
@Posted by: Vasco da Gama | Nov 10 2019 23:43 utc | 53
You seem to be unaware of the developments of events to this time, Evo called for
elections BEFORE he was oblied to resign by police and military rebels, and made leave the
country...
Elections now with every Evo´s supporter under menace of death would only throw a fake
result favourable to the opposition who did not manage to win elections democratically...
This is the same scenario than in the Ukraine, where representatives of the working people
were never more able to concur to elections and had to leave the country, remaining to be
elected only those puppets of oligarchs or the US...
Pasquinades posted by coupist opposition before Efvo´s resignation what ccan illustrate
why the government has resigned so fast...
Pure fascism....
What I told you? Here you have the Bolivian Myrotvorets .....
Traitor Tracking The population is asked to register all the social network publications of
the "Cyber llunkus". Take screenshots and copy the links of the publications and profiles
of the "Cyber Llunkus".
The M.A.S. ( Evo´s party ) is a criminal organization.
Once Evo Morales falls, a rake will be made to identify the traitorous of the people "Cyber
Llunkus" and imprison them through the location of their mobile devices.
Fake profiles will not save them.
#Civil Resistance Bolivia
Now that the US tells us the tale of democratic elections in Bolivia now...
A people's Counter-revolution that sweeps the Reactionaries down the drain once and for
all.
Chavez was keen to the CIA's modus and thus reformed the military in numerous respects,
particularly by making it impervious to corruption--AND--instituting the uniquely structured
Bolivarian Constitution. Evo's problems stem from the lack of extensive public support as
proven by the election results that kept him from instituting the sort of reforms Chavez
accomplished; and the same goes for all other Latin American nations. In a nutshell, the
Bolivian people squabbled too much amongst themselves and never constructed the type of
Revolutionary constitution and social system required to be resilient to outside
manipulation. Yes, Venezuela was very much a Bottom->Up remaking of society to the point
where the Comprador upper 10% didn't matter, which is why Chavez then Maduro left them to
their own devices. But elsewhere, the popular masses never generated the required solidarity
to prevent losing their hard won freedoms. Sure, it's possible to regain power through the
ballot box, but it can be just as easily lost as is happening now in Bolivia if preventative
measures aren't taken beforehand.
Nations must have constitutions that don't allow for rich minorities to gain control or to
allow them to begin in control as in the USA's case. But to institute such an instrument, the
popular masses must act as one and cast their factionalisms aside until this primary aspect
of consolidating power in their hands becomes the law of their land. Plus, they must again
drop their in-fighting when confronted by any reactionary threat and remember what the main
task is at all times--Maintenance of Freedom.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
We all see what seems to be the demise of empire but facts on the ground tell a different
story today in Bolivia. I am sorry for the pain and suffering for many caused by my country
under the control of the global private finance cult. I continue to try and spread the word
about the perfidy of Western empire and will keep trying but am limited in my abilities.
I hope to live to see the demise of private finance led empire all over the world.
Humanity deserves a better future.
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
Look that this people ransacking Evo´s home, they are not white patricios ...but
those who they have payed to do the dirty work...indigenous people poorly
dressed...collaborating in ovrthrowing the legitimate democratically elected from their
own...
Yeah..this time is no different from others, they always go straight to the throat of the
weak and poor...Totally depsicable...
To their own, earning points in the view of the world...
@ Sasha who wrote
"
What saved Venezuela was the huge investing in education started with Chavez, in that they
counted with the help and advice of people from the Spanish left ...
Bolivian people, of the poor class, are mostly poorly educated people...and so easy to buy
and fool...as this images show...
"
I agree, thank you for your commenting and want to add my perspective to that.
If you read many who come and comment at MoA that supposedly are "educated" you will
notice that they continue to think and write in terms of the conflict being between socialism
and capitalism in spite of myself, karlof1 and others that continually point out that China
is 80% capitalistic as are other "socialistic" countries but what matters is what part of the
social economy is socialism versus capitalism. That is why I continue to beat my drum about
the evil of global private finance that is the core problem with the social contract of the
West. Look at how many in the West are brainwashed to not understand the difference between
public/private finance and its effects on the whole culture and aggressive nature of the
society under that meme.
That, IMO, is the core education that all those in the West and all striving to throw off
the chains/economic jackboot of the West must learn and take to heart.
Very disappointing to hear about Evo...but this is just one round in a very long fight...
In Argentina we have a new government for the people...in Mexico also...Lula is out of
jail now in Brazil so eventually that will turn also...
The empire is rotting but is very dangerous right now because they are lashing out
everywhere...we see in Lebanon and Iraq they are not succeeding...
This is desperation we see folks...they are losing control quickly and are trying
to forestall the inevitable collapse of their global fascist dictatorship...
I think the end will come much sooner than they expect...the house of cards is teetering
badly...
Maidán script all the way....They do not have enough with hi resigning, they need
to wipe out such honest leader form the face of Earth, at least while the "new fake
elections" to maskerade the take over by the opposition are developed...as happened with
Lula....
Here, US Lawyer sees all the signature of the US around the place...as happens to
me...
A significant factor is that the anti-Morales opposition is based mainly in Santa Cruz
department in eastern Bolivia. This is the largest department (in territory and population)
in Bolivia and has significant natural gas reserves. The indigenous people living in that
department have virtually nothing in common with the highland indigenous people (Aymara and
Quechua speakers) who formed Morales' base.
Morales did not have a military background as Chavez did and we can presume he was never
able to cultivate a network of militias among the urban and rural working class that could
support and defend his government. Significantly it was the armed forces who asked Morales to
resign.
@Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 11 2019 1:34 utc | 72
Sorry...but the conflict is between socialism and capitalism...between the rich and the
working masses, especially those who work and still they remain poor....as has always
been....who says otherwise is only trying to fool the masses...
Of course, you people in this forum who live over the average peer, I do not try that you
understand...
You live in your world, looking your belly button, and the furthest you are willing to go is
complain here about the Outlaw US Empire...
Why do you not damn go tomorrow in the streets to protest this new coup by your fascist
administration?
Do not tell me, that would risk your privileged pensions...and all those expensive things
you do to your bodies...
Excuse me, but today, reading the same stupid things of always make me feel like throwing
up...
Fully support the findings of the @OAS_official report recommending new elections in
#Bolivia to ensure a truly democratic process representative of the people's will. The
credibility of the electoral system must be restored.
Will he still support new elections in the morning?
Meanwhile the protesters are calling MAS a criminal
organization so no doubt it'll be excluded from the new elections as happened to the
Party Of The Regions in Ukraine. The wonders of American "democracy".
Why was Evo Morales overthrown? He was nationalizing the highly profitable lithium
industry and planning to deal directly on the international market rather than exporting the
commodity at bargain prices to Western corporations"
"Bolivia has %43 of World's Lithium mines. Batteries from smartphones to Electric cars are
all made with Lithium. Evo Morales was investing in facilities to produce Lithium as a high
end export material rather than just exporting the mine itself."
Somewhere on his blog "Sic Semper Tyrannis", maybe earlier this year, Pat relates the tale
of how when working for the US Gov. in Bolivia he gave medical help to someone and was
rewarded with information which led to the capture of Che Guevara. This may be what Sasha is
referring to.
"The Hydrocarbons law (Law 3058, May 2005) and a subsequent Supreme Decree (May 2006)
require that companies sell all production to YPFB and that domestic market demand be met
before exporting hydrocarbons. Furthermore, these laws transfer the entire transport and
sales chain over to state control. After the law was enacted, hydrocarbon companies were
required to sign new contracts with YPFB, agreeing to pay 50 percent of gross production in
taxes and royalties."
"Prepared by our U.S. Embassies abroad. With its network of 108 offices across the United
States and in more than 75 countries, the U.S. Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of
Commerce utilizes its global presence and international marketing expertise to help U.S.
companies sell their products and services worldwide. Locate the U.S. Commercial Service
trade specialist in the U.S. nearest you by visiting http://export.gov/usoffices."
I usually try to read all the comments before making my first of the day, but I have yet to
do so, although I looked to see if anyone had linked to Escobar's
report on Lula and Brazil , which is an extremely important article for events within
Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and the rest of the world that's resisting the
Outlaw US Empire and its Neoliberal/Neofascist attack dogs.
The information Pepe provides is very important as it jibes with what Assad averred in
his RT
interview , for which I'm still looking for a transcript. Here's Pepe's warning about the
likely future course of events, which has CIA scrawled over every act:
"With the military betting on a strategy of chaos, augmented by Lula's immense social base
all over Brazil fuming about his return to prison and the financial bubble finally burst,
rendering the middle classes even poorer, the stage would be set for the ultimate toxic
cocktail: social 'commotion' allied with 'terrorism' associated with 'organized crime.'
"That's all the military needs to launch an extensive operation to restore "order" and
finally force Congress to approve the Brazilian version of the Patriot Act (five separate
bills are already making their way in Congress).
" This is no conspiracy theory. This is a measure of how incendiary Brazil is at the
moment, and Western mainstream media will make no effort whatsoever to explain the nasty,
convoluted plot for a global audience ." [My Emphasis]
Bolivia coup was orchestrated with direct assist of OAS analysis/report which identified
alleged voting fraud. OAS report focuses on a vote-counting system called TREP, which was
adopted by Bolivia and others in the region on direct advice of OAS. The TREP system is meant
to provide/ publicize initial results, but it is not "official". The official results come
from a slower and more thorough vote count process. The OAS claim of irregularities in the
TREP count is largely irrelevant, as it was never intended to be "official" or legally
reflect official results. There were no irregularities in the official count, won by Morales,
and the so-called "delay" was in fact the natural process of the slower moving count to
produce the official result.
While Trump denounced Morales, the US State Department stepped in to sanitize Washington's
position, with a senior official telling Reuters that the US has "no preference" among
opposition candidates. The spokesperson did say, however, that anyone who tried to
"distort" last month's vote should not be allowed to participate .
That's MAS banned from the election by the cunts in the fucking State Department. Imagine
if the Russian MFA announced that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties could field
presidential candidates in 2020. Trump is an idiot but the State Department, DoJ, and
Treasury are the real bastards. Forget the CIA, that's just a bunch of senile tossers who
have wet dreams about Cold War 2.0.
b mentioned lithium with reference to Bolivia in his 139 above
Nov 11, 2019 -- Bolivian Coup Comes Less Than a Week After Morales Stopped Multinational
Firm's Lithium Deal
"Bolivia's lithium belongs to the Bolivian people. Not to multinational corporate
cabals."
The Morales move on Nov. 4 to cancel the December 2018 agreement with Germany's ACI Systems
Alemania (ACISA) came after weeks of protests from residents of the Potosí area. The
region has 50% to 70% of the world's lithium reserves in the Salar de Uyuni salt flats.
Among other clients, ACISA provides batteries to Tesla; Tesla's stock rose Monday after the
weekend.
As Bloomberg News noted in 2018, that has set the country up to be incredibly important in
the next decade:
Demand for lithium is expected to more than double by 2025. The soft, light mineral is
mined mainly in Australia, Chile, and Argentina. Bolivia has plenty -- 9 million tons that
have never been mined commercially, the second-largest amount in the world -- but until now
there's been no practical way to mine and sell it. . .
here
But Teslas catch fire....from ZPower--
Actually, lithium may be in trouble for vehicle batteries.
Just as lithium-ion (Li-ion) replaced nickel metal hydride (NiMH) before it and nickel
cadmium (NiCd) before that, silver zinc (AgZn) batteries are on track to replace Li-ion too,
according to a McGraw-Hill forecast as far back as 2010. Since then silver zinc has been
perfected and are on the market for rechargeable hearing-aid "button" batteries by ZPower LL
(Camarillo, Calif.) They are nonflammable and could provide up to 40 percent more run time
than lithium-ion batteries. . . here
A controversial whistleblower who allegedly reported second-hand on President
Donald Trump's
private conversation with the Ukrainian President
Volodymyr
Zelensky visited the Obama White House on numerous occasions, according to Obama era visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch.
Last week
Real Clear Investigation's first reported the whistleblower's name. It is allegedly CIA officer Eric Ciaramella. His name, however,
has been floating around Washington D.C. since the leak of Trump's phone call. It was considered an 'open secret' until reporter
Paul Sperry published his article. Ciaramella has never openly stated that he is the whistleblower and most news outlets are not
reporting his name publicly.
He was detailed to the National Security Counsel during the Obama Administration in 2015 and was allegedly sent back to the CIA
in 2017, after a number of people within the Trump White House suspected him of leaking information to the press, according to several
sources that spoke with SaraACarter.com .
Further, the detailed visitor logs reveal that a Ukrainian expert
Alexandra Chalupa , a contractor that was hired by the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, visited the White
House 27 times.
Chalupa allegedly coordinated with the Ukrainians to investigate then candidate Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
Manafort was forced out of his short tenure as campaign manager for Trump when stories circulated regarding business dealings with
Ukrainian officials. Manafort was later investigated and convicted by a jury on much lesser charges then originally set forth by
Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation. He was given 47 months in prison for basically failing to pay appropriate taxes and
committing bank fraud.
Both Ciaramella and Chalupa are of interest to Republican's investigating the what some conservatives have described as the second
Trump 'witch-hunt.' And many have called for the whistleblower to testify to Congress.
They are absolutely correct and within the law. There is so much information and evidence that reveals that this was no ordinary
whistleblower complaint but one that may have been based on highly partisan actions targeting Trump.
Here's just one example : Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes said its impossible to have a fair impeachment
inquiry without the testimony of the alleged whistleblower because he is a 'fact foundational witness' who had met with Intelligence
Committee Chairman
Adam
Schiff, D-CA, previously. Schiff had originally denied that he had any contact with his committee and then had to walk back his
statements when it was revealed that the whistleblower had met with the Democrats prior to filing his complaint to the Intelligence
Inspector General about the President.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, said the visitor logs reveal that there is much lawmakers or the American public don't know
about what happened during the 2016 presidential elections and moreover it raises very significant questions about the apparent partisan
nature of the whistleblower.
"Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine
and the related impeachment scheme targeting President Trump," said Fitton, in a press release Friday.
"Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings documented in these visitor logs."
Read Below From Judicial Watch
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White
House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She
visited on December 9, 2015
The Hill
reported that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, "took the rare step of
trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC)."
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded
Open Society Foundations. She visited on March 16, 2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016 and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist. She is also the wife of State Department
Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January 19, 2016.
On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported
that the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was with the State Department's policy
planning staff where specialized in Russia and Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of
the signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26, 2015.
James Melville: Then-recently confirmed as Obama's Ambassador to Estonia, visited on September 9, 2015.
On June 29, 2018, Foreign Policy
reported that Melville resigned in protest of Trump.
Victoria Nuland: who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on
June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered
documents revealing Nuland had an extensive involvement with Clinton-funded
dossier . Judicial Watch also released
documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of classified Russia investigation
information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19, 2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire
reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Alexandra Chalupa, then a DNC contractor:
Charles Kupchan: From 2014 to 2017, Kupchan served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European
affairs on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) in the Barack Obama administration. That meeting was on November 9,
2015.
Alexandra Sopko: who at the time was a special assistant and policy advisor to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs, which was run by Valerie Jarrett. Also listed for that meeting is Alexa Kissinger, a special assistant to Jarrett. That
meeting was on June 2, 2015.
Asher Mayerson: who at the time was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement under Jarrett had five visits with
Chalupa including December 18, 2015, January 11, 2016, February 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, and June 14, 2016.
Mayerson was previously an intern at the Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work
for the City of Chicago Treasurer's office.
Mayerson met with Chalupa and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016.
On May 4, 2016, Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis
Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine.
The EU sees US leadership failing while the Russian beast to its east are getting stronger. The lessons of Russia wielding power
over Ukraine by cutting off energy supplies have been noted: energy security is a long-term threat to the EU and Russia is on the
verge of controlling Middle Eastern supplies as well. Furthermore, the lessons of China's economic successes through non-democratic
government control will also have been noted as something for European statists to emulate.
The EU's response to the energy threat from Russia has been to adopt a radical green agenda without reservation. Despite about
98% of transport and logistics being delivered by diesel and gasoline, some member states in the EU are banning the sales of internal
combustion engines as motive power from as soon as 2030 . This accelerated path to zero emissions will require massive investment.
Clearly this is being viewed as economically stimulative at a time of declining optimism over the general economic outlook.
These views are articulated in UNCTAD's Trade and Development Report 2019, Financing a Global Green Deal [iii]. The authors argue
that internationally coordinated action between governments pursuing reflationary monetary and fiscal policies, while restricting
international capital flows, will generate the economic growth and capture the resources to finance the investment. The charts below
are indicative of their thinking, and are copied from Page 56 of the report.
Excellent laying out of the situation but little in the way of digestible solutions. Demonizing Russia as "the Beast" is both
unhelpful and shows a prejudice of the author shared by the genuinely evil powers of the world. Russia has a huge interest in
keeping Europe as an energy trading partner. The troubles with Ukraine were due to the US / Globalist efforts in that country
to destabilize a competitor (Russia) in their global hegemonic bid.
Russia is well led and debt free. The gold backed crypto is well underway in that country but was not mentioned in this otherwise
breathy article. Crypto is a bridge too far at the moment for general consumption. I am betting on a return to a fractional gold
tie down. The mis-leaders and the bankers will not enjoy having their print-fest party spoiled but it is the only practical solution
and carries the much desired mechanism of tying their dirty hands.
Debt is the noose which will hang the central banks and this hanging needs to be done in public whether 5% or 50% of the people
understand it. Some people will only understand how the system works when Starbucks declines their cattle card.
Again pathetic assholes making plans against Russia.
It is a terrible shame: only two countries at the UN opposed Russia's resolution on the fight against Nazism.
The third committee of the UN General Assembly on social and humanitarian issues by a majority vote adopted a draft Russian
resolution to combat the glorification of Nazism. Thanks to this initiative, radical groups can have big problems.
Representatives of 121 countries supported the idea of Russian diplomats. As expected, only two countries voted against -
the United States and Ukraine. Another 55 countries abstained from voting.
No wonder. Americans are behind any Nazism. Hitler's fascism in particular, they grew up in the hope of inciting Hitler to the
USSR. Well, Ukro-Nazis today are the favorite Nazi whores of Americans. Therefore, such results: the owner and his whore.
As Nikita Khrushchev said, we did not finish you off near Stalingrad, but we will finish you off!
America is fighting terrorism and the White House is hosting it
Walid Sharabi and Gamal Hishmat , Muslim Brotherhood leaders, wanted for justice for
participating in killing and inciting on terror attacks in Egypt, escaped from the country
and they are hosted by Qatar, Turkey and moving freely in Europe and the USA.
They are wanted for participating and inciting on burning vital buildings and public
properties, inciting for violence and killing, criminal court cases numbers 12838 year 2013 , and 10790/101 year 2013 .
Muslim Brotherhood leaders attended meetings with senior US officials and Congress in this
current month Jan 2015. Walid Sharabi declared on his Face book page, that Mohamed Morsi
being the legitimate president of Egypt, is not an open issue for discussion or arguments. He
added that this is not the first time and won't be the last time to held meetings with US
officials and also they are in contact and meetings with 27 other countries in the world to
discuss Egyptian affairs issues.
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD LEADERS IN THE US CONGRESS MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD LEADERS ESCAPED FROM
EGYPT AND WANTED FOR JUSTICE FOR PARTICIPATING AND INCITING ON TERROR ATTACKS
Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the above screenshot are the leaders of the
revolutionary council formed and established by Muslim brotherhood in Turkey after the
30/6/2013 revolution. The woman is Maha Azzam the chief of the council, Walid Sharabi and
Gamal Hishmat Shura council member of Muslim Brotherhood and Abd Elmawgoud Aldardiri the
official spokesman of Muslim Brotherhood and their dissolved political party, after being
declared a "terrorist organization" in Egypt.
Despite that the US refused to consider Muslim Brotherhood as "terrorist organization",
and that the US doesn't hide publicly their ties with Muslim Brotherhood, but we do have many
questions and exclamations here. What is the purpose of these meetings? Is it to hold the
stick from the middle?!
There is a blatant contradictory in the
White house policy , The White house claims their support for stability and fighting
terrorism in Egypt, and in the meantime time, they support and held meetings with the same
terrorists, Egypt is fighting!
There is no official declarations from the US officials or the Brotherhood about the
details of discussions of these meetings between MB and US officials. If Washington follows
the transparency policy as they always claim, why these meetings details were not published
to the public opinion!?
There is certainly a message there to Egypt from the US and their Muslim Brotherhood
allies, and If there is any honesty or transparency in the White house policy, Obama should
declare and admit publicly that they held deals with the devil and the terrorists, as long as
it serve their interests, and they have no shame in applying double standards policy. This is
happening already, so why not call spade a spade!
Does the White house think that playing with this idiotic card of Muslim Brotherhood, can
put any pressure on Egypt, when needed, or to go on with the same chaos middle East project,
that Egypt was saved from, after the 30/6 Egyptian revolution, to face the same destiny of
Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen, so the project will be accomplished and achieve its
targets!
Is it a coincidence or intentional to allow the first political party of a terrorist
organization like the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA, and held official meetings with them
what is the deal here?
On 26 Jan 2015, the inquisitr's
Website published that Muslim Brotherhood Starts A Political Party "UMMA" out of Chicago.
The founder of the party is Sabri Samirah a Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood member, was deemed a
US national security risk in 2003 and was banned from entering the US for almost 11
years.
SABRI SAMIRAH ALLOWED TO ENTER THE US BY OBAMA IN 2014 AFTER 11 YEARS OF BAN FOR NATIONAL
SECURITY THREAT
Sabri Samirah, was allowed into the U.S. by President Barack Obama back in 2014 following
an 11-year ban!!! He immediately gathered Muslims to form the party, which is now recognized
as the UMMA, an offset of the United Muslim Americans Association (UMAA means nation). The
first political party in the U.S. to be openly connected to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist
organization .
So, not only the White House refused to consider Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist
organization, but they allowed them to form a political party in the US There are some
political analysis that are confirming the ties between MB and Washington, to keep the
channels open between the US and terrorist Organizations through the mediation of Muslim
Brotherhood, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to ease the pressure on the US in their fight against
terrorism!
What is the deal Obama?!
This is not the first time and it won't be the last time either, the White House make
deals with all parties, including terrorists, this is no longer a secret and it is not
shocking anymore.
But why not call things by its own names? Obama always talks about his administration's
principles and values and standard policy and he is always lecturing us about the US
transparency in dealing whether with internal or external affairs. But he never calls things
by its right names!
The Muslim Brotherhood who deceived the entire world and many Egyptians, with their
moderate Islam and that they only seek to be political partners with other political
currents, are the same Muslim
Brotherhood who ruled Egypt with fascism and the same who live in about 80 countries in
the world, including the US, they are the same MB who consider
women as nothing but a pot of desires and lusts
This is their tactics, they are spreading through deception, and when the right moment
comes, they show their ugly faces and raise their swords against any one who doesn't belong
to their sick distorted ideology.
This is no longer a prediction or analysis, this is no longer a reading of the scene. We
repeat and we will never gave up confirming and warning the entire world that Muslim
Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, because this is what we have lived and experienced
when Egypt was under the rule of Muslim Brotherhood, and we are still fighting their terror
attacks.
Obama, you can't support the Egyptian people and support the terrorists at the same time,
unless of course, you are a MORON or a Schizophrenic!
Obama said that the US will always support the Egyptian people's will and the Egyptians
are the only ones to chose freely their own future and destiny
We did chose freely our destiny and future, like UNCLE OBAMA said, by our own free will on
30/6/2013.
We revolted against Muslim Brotherhood fascist regime and got back our identity and
country that has been hijacked by Muslim Brotherhood terrorists.
Obama can't claim that the US respect our human rights and free choices, the Obama's
administration violated one of our main human rights when they interfered in our internal
affairs from the very first beginning, and every time they are dictating and lecturing us
about what must be done to enjoy freedom and democracy.
Obama is against violence and armed demonstrations, this is what he claims He mentioned
several times that those who demonstrate can not express themselves with violence!? Not even
with bombs or machine guns! How come Obama is telling our gevernment to apply Restraint
policy , while they are facing Muslim Brotherhood armed demonstrations and terror
attacks?!
Yes, "He can" support us and support the terrorists at the same time.
Obama, you can't claim that you are with us and you are fighting terrorism, and at the
same time, you are hosting Terrorists in the heart of America!
All of these flags, logos and names vary, but The terrorism is one. they symbolize the
blood, racism and extremism, intolerance and discrimination, murder and slaughter and
bloodshed and torture.
How come Obama supports the symbol of Muslim Brotherhood which is a symbol of terrorism,
violence and blood, and he is fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda? They are all coming from the same
bloody womb! How come America declared HAMAS as terrorist group, and in the meantime, the
white house is supporting Muslim brothers terrorists and Hamas is the military wing of
MB!
Muslim Brotherhood raising their 4 fingers sign of terrorism and blood in the US congress
and US foreign affairs department, it is not a message of challenging the Egyptian State or
the Egyptian people, but Muslim Brotherhood are directly challenging the American people.
This is totally insane and beyond any logic for any brain to absorb or even to
understand.
who said
this today in an official gov't press release?
"Today, Russia – led by a former KGB officer stationed in Dresden ‒ invades
its neighbors and slays political opponents. It suppresses the independence of the Orthodox
Church in Ukraine. Russian authorities, even as we speak, use police raids and torture
against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians who are working in opposition to Russian aggression. In
Chechnya, anyone considered "undesirable" by the authorities simply disappears.
In China – in China, the Chinese Communist Party is shaping a new vision of
authoritarianism, one that the world has not seen for an awfully long time. The Chinese
Communist Party uses tactics and methods to suppress its own people that would be
horrifyingly familiar to former East Germans. The People's Liberation Army encroaches on the
sovereignty of its Chinese neighbors, and the Chinese Communist Party denies travel
privileges to critics – even German lawmakers – who condemn its abysmal human
rights record. The CCP harasses the families of Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang, who simply
sought refuge abroad. We – all of us, everyone in this room – has a duty. We must
recognize that free nations are in a competition of values with those unfree nations."
"... This period is when Clinton IMHO sent NATO in a wrong direction from being strictly defensive/political to getting involved in Yugoslavia which certainly irritated Russia. ..."
"... Then good old Obama and another Clinton deciding to overthrow Gaddafi and his whole Arab Spring foreign policy to include getting involved in Syria. These were disastrous decisions that the current POTUS inherited and is trying to change except the "deep state" is fighting him tooth and nail. ..."
"... Getting out of Ukraine would be a huge trust maker for Russia and it would be followed by sanctions being lifted allowing for a level playing field to begin working on the issues that need fixing. NATO isn't going away however the forward deployed forces in the Baltic's and Poland could over time in an agreed to reciprocal move say removing Iskander missiles from Kaliningrad could be accomplished. ..."
You are 100% correct that trust is the number one point in coming to any agreement and
currently there is very little trust on either side for varying reasons. One important fact
that is overlooked by most people is the leadership of President George H. W. Bush and PM
Margaret Thatcher during the transition from the Soviet Union/Warsaw pact to independent
sovereign nations. The Bush was a WW II pilot and Thatcher earned the name Iron Lady for her
decisive action in the Falklands War, both understood the world as it was in 1990. This
statement highlights the view that prevailed from Bush at the time: "Not once, but three
times, Baker tried out the "not one inch eastward" formula with Gorbachev in the February 9,
1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev's statement in response to the assurances that "NATO
expansion is unacceptable." Baker assured Gorbachev that "neither the President nor I intend
to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place," and that the
Americans understood that "not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as
well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in
Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction
will spread in an eastern direction." (See Document 6)"
These were complicated issues that involved a multitude of parties being negotiated by
just a few i.e. US, UK, France and West Germany a holdover from the WW II model. The Poles,
Czechs and others were not consulted and IMHO had they been the situation would have become
untenable. It must be remembered that Poland and Czechoslovakia suffered heavily due to
"large important nations" giving them away pre and post WW II. There was no written agreement
nor official treaty between the west and the Soviet Union soon to be Russian Federation and I
believe that was intentional for the reason I give above. George H. W. Bush was not reelected
in 1992 and Bill Clinton became POTUS and he pursued a foreign policy that was entirely
different. Some of his ideas used Thatchers earlier idea of a more political NATO with less
emphasis on the original military mission which brought in the Partnerships for Peace
program. That program was IMHO quite good as it stabilized countries that were wobbly in the
1990's after the breakup occurred. The Clinton White House had Madeline Albright an immigrant
from Czechoslovakia as secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski a former secretary of State
and an academic that influenced his policies which were pro eastern European anti Russian. It
was during this time that NATO expanded. The US is a country of immigrants and there is a
large Polish population as well as other eastern Europeans and political considerations are
always come into play.
This period is when Clinton IMHO sent NATO in a wrong direction from being strictly
defensive/political to getting involved in Yugoslavia which certainly irritated Russia.
G.W. Bush basically continued the trend with regard to NATO but was preoccupied with 9/11
more than anything else. Bush thought that he understood Putin and even invited him to his
ranch in Crawford, Texas which Putin accepted and they did seem to get along.
However 2008
and the Georgia War began the slide in relations between the two countries. Then good old
Obama and another Clinton deciding to overthrow Gaddafi and his whole Arab Spring foreign
policy to include getting involved in Syria. These were disastrous decisions that the current
POTUS inherited and is trying to change except the "deep state" is fighting him tooth and
nail.
Getting out of Ukraine would be a huge trust maker for Russia and it would be followed by
sanctions being lifted allowing for a level playing field to begin working on the issues that
need fixing. NATO isn't going away however the forward deployed forces in the Baltic's and
Poland could over time in an agreed to reciprocal move say removing Iskander missiles from
Kaliningrad could be accomplished.
Many have tried, usually ended up in those infamous endless Russian fields, in long boxes.
See Pushkin, for the exact quote. But historical trivialities aside, there should be a way to
satisfy Imperial hubris without 'salting the grounds'. Hannibal's elephants did not carry
nukes in their trunks. Trying for the sixth time in the last 4 centuries to get Moscow
grounds salted might end badly for the entire planet.
Trust was not breached by Russia, military buildup, hostile threatening military, NATO
expansion and refusal to negotiate on these issues did not originate from Russia. Russia has
tried to negotiate, concede and de-escalate before. The West did not respond to those moves.
Even US sanctions placed on Soviet Union were not removed from Russia, despite there being no
reason for them to remain in place. This and other recent events (libya, iran deal etc) tells
Russia and other global players that de-escalating with the West doesn't work.
Even now, West seems to be interested to trade with Russia at least in some areas. And
Europe is increasingly frustrated with the United States. There is reportedly a number of EU
initiatives aimed at gradually limiting US economic levers created during the Cold War.
Rising economies will gradually offer more opportunities outside of the Western world.
Multipolar wolrd was a slogan in the 00s, in the 2040es it might be a reality.
We know NATO will not maintain ABM and CFE, and it is apparently not interested in INF and
Open Skies, and even START is in question now. NATO will withdraw troops if only Russia does
something? Please, you don't really believe that. With INF gone, Iskander is outdated, it was
a treaty-limited weapon. Moving it a few hundred klicks will not make NATO concede anything
now.
A huge trust maker would be for all NATO members to publically admit on their web page
that pledges to Russia were broken and at least some NATO officials feel responsibility for
that. They've spent 27 years denying any verbal assurances, now that those assurances are
declassified, they build other narratives about how those pledges did not matter. For there
to be trust, there needs to be an admission that trust was there, and was broken, and not by
Russia. No troop movements necessary even.
Biden isn't going to win the next election Trump will be reelected in 2020. The current
strain in relations with Russia has been inherited by Trump and even before he was elected
the DNC and Hillary Clinton cooked up the "Russia colusion" story which after $46 million and
2 1/2 years no Russia collision. Of course now we have the Dems trying to impeach Trump which
will not go anywhere in the Senate more waste of time and money. However there is the Justice
Department I.G. report soon to be released and many of the people who brought you the Russia
colusion hoax will be named. The Justice Department has an ongoing criminal investigation
into the key players and will undoubtedly result in indictments and prosecutions.
The real reason all of this is going on is because the establishment both Dem's & Repub's
along with the deep state look at Trump as an outsider who is tipping over their apple cart
i.e. he is changing the foreign policy direction and they don't like it one bit so they
create fake issues to try and stop him.
After his reelection I predict that more normal relations with Russia will resume.
Nowadays the actual attacks are manifested as 'hybrid warfare'. Of course Russia took the
US intervention and financing of Chechen rebels as an attack back in the 2000 ties. She took
fermenting and financing of the Georgian rose revolution as a hybrid attack, same as promises
made to pres. Saakashvili to support him militarily and politically after his attack on
Tskhinvali were taken as a hybrid attack. Same goes for both of the first color revolution in
Ukraine, and then the Revolution of dignity of 2014 that pushed ultra-right government to
power in Ukraine. In fact the NATO promise to both Georgia and Ukraine to take them in as
members in 2008 right after Putin's warning in 2007 was the first move in the 'hybrid war'.
The West had been warned, yet it decided to bulldoze its way across Eurasia and triggered the
confrontation. The placings of Aegises ashore in Poland and Romania was the cherry on top.
There can be be no meaningful compromise until the West backs off on the NATO enlargement.
That 2008 conference was what had reanimated the image of the collective West as adversary
for Russia.
What both sides should strive for though is at the very least to diminish the degree of
danger to the planet. Russia would not back off because she finds it easy enough to corner
individual EU states into minimal economic cooperation - Germany is already in recession and
there is no way they are going to continue damaging their economy for the sake of US
politics. And then there is China. When the Russians cannot buy goods from Germans they go
for made in China, which in turn gets China secure oil and gas from Russia. Which make the
repeat of pre-WW II situation with blockade on Japan pretty much impossible. Get realistic,
the West is loosing this one and should count her chickens already.
Well, then the sanctions will continue, as will the policy of keeping Russian in check in
the EU gas market.
What's interesting is that NATO never attacked Russia or threatened to attack Russia. Seems
to me that Putin is simply using the expansion as a pretext for military aggression against
the neighboring states. It's what the USSR did in 1939 against Finland. According the Soviet
side, the war started after Finland attacked the Soviet Union...
Russia *needs* the sanctions for at least another 5 years. Her milk and beef production is
still lagging compared to the deceased USSR and the only way her greedy oligarchs will
heavily invest in cow herd rearing is to continue to block the Eastern European milk products
to enter Russia. Chicken, eggs, pork and veggies are already up to speed, wheat production is
exploding, the salmon breeding programme have started so the Norway is not getting her market
back, bu the cow herds take longer to rear.
The Power of Siberia pipeline is being certified and filled right now - China would receive
her first delivery of piped Russian gas in 2020, so it is good that EU is prepping or the
squeeze - they are not going to continue getting unlimited cheap Russian gas, because Power
of Siberia II is in the works.
Every individual NATO member had attacked Russia in the past 4 centuries ( including small
but meaningful US contingent in the 1918), and some non-member allies had stomped those
fields as well. So the Russians are not taking any chances with the buffer zone. All of
Russia expansions to the West have always started with West invading first - then being
rolled back league by league. But seriously - ? Russians can live with Europe staying where
she is - if in turn Europe can learn to respect her civilization borders. The move on Ukraine
and Georgia was not a wise one.
"... "Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear it" (p. 11). ..."
"... Americans were held captive by the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic. ..."
"... The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15). ..."
"... our corporate media have devised -- at least for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in order to smother real dissent (p. 21). ..."
"... And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid. ..."
"... For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the same" (pp. 259-260). ..."
Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc . is the most insightful and revelatory book about American
politics to appear since the publication of Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal almost four
full years ago, near the beginning of the last presidential election cycle.
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite social
circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In fact, I would strongly recommend that the reader spend some time with Frank's What's the
Matter with Kansas? (2004) and Listen, Liberal! (2016) as he or she takes up
Taibbi's book.
And to really do the book the justice it deserves, I would even more vehemently recommend
that the reader immerse him- or herself in Taibbi's favorite book and vade-mecum ,
Manufacturing Consent (which I found to be a grueling experience: a relentless
cataloging of the official lies that hide the brutality of American foreign policy) and, in
order to properly appreciate the brilliance of Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the Media Stole from
Pro Wrestling," visit some locale in Flyover Country and see some pro wrestling in person
(which I found to be unexpectedly uplifting -- more on this soon enough).
Taibbi tells us that he had originally intended for Hate, Inc . to be an updating of
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (1988), which he first read
thirty years ago, when he was nineteen. "It blew my mind," Taibbi writes. "[It] taught me that
some level of deception was baked into almost everything I'd ever been taught about modern
American life .
Once the authors in the first chapter laid out their famed propaganda model [italics
mine], they cut through the deceptions of the American state like a buzz saw" (p. 10). For what
seemed to be vigorous democratic debate, Taibbi realized, was instead a soul-crushing
simulation of debate. The choices voters were given were distinctions without valid
differences, and just as hyped, just as trivial, as the choices between a Whopper and a Big
Mac, between Froot Loops and Frosted Mini-Wheats, between Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, between
Marlboro Lites and Camel Filters. It was all profit-making poisonous junk.
"Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is
choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear
it" (p. 11). And there's an indisputable logic at work here, because the reality of
hideous American war crimes is and always has been, from the point of view of the big media
corporations, a "narrative-ruining" buzz-kill. "The uglier truth [brought to light in
Manufacturing Consent ], that we committed genocide of a fairly massive scale across
Indochina -- ultimately killing at least a million innocent civilians by air in three countries
-- is pre-excluded from the history of the period" (p. 13).
So what has changed in the last thirty years? A lot! As a starting point let's consider the
very useful metaphor found in the title of another great media book of 1988: Mark Crispin
Miller's Boxed In: The Culture of TV . To say that Americans were held captive by
the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility
of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their
having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on
the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings
of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of
our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic.
Taibbi summarizes the history of these three decades in terms of three "massive revolutions"
in the media plus one actual massive political revolution, all of which, we should note, he
discussed with his hero Chomsky (who is now ninety! -- Edward Herman passed away in 2017) even
as he wrote his book. And so: the media revolutions which Taibbi describes were, first, the
coming of FoxNews along with Rush Limbaugh-style talk radio; second, the coming of CNN, i.e.,
the Cable News Network, along with twenty-four hour infinite-loop news cycles; third, the
coming of the Internet along with the mighty social media giants Facebook and Twitter.
The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of
the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of
anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15).
For all that, however, the most salient difference between the news media of 1989 and the
news media of 2019 is the disappearance of the single type of calm and decorous and slightly
boring cis-het white anchorman (who somehow successfully appealed to a nationwide audience) and
his replacement by a seemingly wide variety of demographically-engineered news personæ
who all rage and scream combatively in each other's direction. "In the old days," Taibbi
writes, "the news was a mix of this toothless trivia and cheery dispatches from the frontlines
of Pax Americana . The news [was] once designed to be consumed by the whole house . But once we
started to be organized into demographic silos [italics mine], the networks found
another way to seduce these audiences: they sold intramural conflict" (p. 18).
And in this new media environment of constant conflict, how, Taibbi wondered, could public
consent , which would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from conflict,
still be manufactured ?? "That wasn't easy for me to see in my first decades in the
business," Taibbi writes. "For a long time, I thought it was a flaw in the Chomsky/Herman
model" (p. 19).
But what Taibbi was at length able to understand, and what he is now able to describe for us
with both wit and controlled outrage, is that our corporate media have devised -- at least
for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in
order to smother real dissent (p. 21).
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
Or pretty much so. Taibbi is more historically precise. Because of the tweaking of the
Herman/Chomsky propaganda model necessitated by the disappearance of the USSR in 1991 ("The
Russians escaped while we weren't watching them, / As Russians do ," Jackson Browne presciently
prophesied on MTV way back in 1983), one might now want to speak of a Propaganda Model 2.0.
For, as Taibbi notes, " the biggest change to Chomsky's model is the discovery of a far
superior 'common enemy' in modern media: each other. So long as we remain a bitterly-divided
two-party state, we'll never want for TV villains" (pp. 207-208).
To rub his great insight right into our uncomprehending faces, Taibbi has almost
sadistically chosen to have dark, shadowy images of a yelling Sean Hannity (in lurid FoxNews
Red!) and a screaming Rachel Maddow (in glaring MSNBC Blue!) juxtaposed on the cover of his
book. For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters
do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And
though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the
same" (pp. 259-260).
And that effect is hate. Impotent hate. For while Rachel's fan demographic is all wrapped up
in hating Far-Right Fascists Like Sean, and while Sean's is all wrapped up in despising Libtard
Lunatics Like Rachel, the bipartisan consensus in Washington for ever-increasing military
budgets, for everlasting wars, for ever-expanding surveillance, for ever-growing bailouts of
and tax breaks for and and handouts to the most powerful corporations goes forever
unchallenged.
Oh my. And it only gets worse and worse, because the media, in order to make sure that their
various siloed demographics stay superglued to their Internet devices, must keep
ratcheting up levels of hate: the Fascists Like Sean and the Libtards Like Rachel must be
continually presented as more and more deranged, and ultimately as demonic. "There is us and
them," Taibbi writes, "and they are Hitler" (p. 64). A vile reductio ad absurdum has
come into play: "If all Trump supporters are Hitler, and all liberals are also Hitler," Taibbi
writes, " [t]he America vs. America show is now Hitler vs. Hitler! Think of the
ratings! " The reader begins to grasp Taibbi's argument that our mainstream corporate media are
as bad as -- are worse than -- pro wrestling. It's an ineluctable downward spiral.
Taibbi continues: "The problem is, there's no natural floor to this behavior. Just as cable
TV will eventually become seven hundred separate twenty-four-hour porn channels, news and
commentary will eventually escalate to boxing-style, expletive-laden, pre-fight tirades, and
the open incitement to violence [italics mine]. If the other side is literally Hitler,
[w]hat began as America vs. America will eventually move to Traitor vs. Traitor ,
and the show does not work if those contestants are not eventually offended to the point of
wanting to kill one another" (pp. 65-69).
As I read this book, I often wondered about how difficult it was emotionally for
Taibbi to write it. I'm just really glad to see that the guy didn't commit suicide along the
way. He does describe the "self-loathing" he experienced as he realized his own complicity in
the marketing processes which he exposes (p. 2). He also apologizes to the reader for his not
being able to follow through on his original aim of writing a continuation of Herman and
Chomsky's classic: "[W]hen I sat down to write what I'd hoped would be something with the
intellectual gravitas of Manufacturing Consent ," Taibbi confesses, "I found decades of
more mundane frustrations pouring out onto the page, obliterating a clinical examination" (p.
2).
I, however, am profoundly grateful to Taibbi for all of his brilliantly observed anecdotes.
The subject matter is nauseating enough even in Taibbi's sparkling and darkly tragicomic prose.
A more academic treatment of the subject would likely be too depressing to read. So let me
conclude with an anecdote of my own -- and an oddly uplifting one at that -- about reading
Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the News Media Stole from Pro Wrestling."
On the same day I read this chapter I saw that, on the bulletin board in my gym, a poster
had appeared, as if by magic, promoting an upcoming Primal Conflict (!) professional
wrestling event. I studied the photos of the wrestlers on the poster carefully, and, as an
astute reader of Taibbi, I prided myself on being able to identify which of them seemed be
playing the roles of heels , and which of them the roles of babyfaces .
For Taibbi explains that one of the fundamental dynamics of wrestling involves the invention
of crowd-pleasing narratives out of the many permutations and combinations of pitting
heels against faces . Donald Trump, a natural heel , brings the goofy
dynamics of pro wrestling to American politics with real-life professional expertise. (Taibbi
points out that in 2007 Trump actually performed before a huge cheering crowd in a
Wrestlemania event billed as the "battle of the billionaires." Watch it on YouTube!
https://youtu.be/5NsrwH9I9vE --
unbelievable!!)
The mainstream corporate media, on the other hand, their eyes fixed on ever bigger and
bigger profits, have drifted into the metaphorical pro wrestling ring in ignorance, and so,
when they face off against Trump, they often end up in the role of inept prudish
pearl-clutching faces .
Taibbi condemns the mainstream media's failure to understand such a massively popular form
of American entertainment as "malpractice" (p. 125), so I felt more than obligated to buy a
ticket and see the advertised event in person. To properly educate myself, that is.
I have stopped watching broadcast "news" other than occasional sessions of NPR in the car.
I get most of my news from sources such as this and from overseas sources (The Guardian,
Reuters, etc.). I used to subscribe to newspapers but have given them up in disgust, even
though I was looking forward to leisurely enjoying a morning paper after I retired.
I was brought up in the positive 1950's and, boy, did this turn out poorly.
Matt Taibbi is an American treasure, and I love his writing very much, but we also need to
ask, Why hasn't another Chomsky (or another Hudson), an analyst with a truly deep and
wide-ranging, synthetic mind, appeared on the left to take apart our contemporary media and
show us its inner workings? Have all the truly great minds gone to work for Wall Street? I
don't have an answer, but to me the pro wrestling metaphor, while intriguing, misses
something about the Fourth Estate in America, if it indeed still exists. And that is, except
for radio, there is a distinct imbalance between the two sides of the MSM lineup. On the
corporate liberal side of the national MSM team you have five wrestlers, but on the
conservative/reactionary side you have only the Fox entry. Because of this imbalance, the
corruption, laziness, self-indulgence, and generally declining interest in journalistic
standards seems greater among the corporate liberal media team, including the NYT and WaPo,
than the Fox team.
I'm not a fan of either Maddow (in her current incarnation) or Hannity, but Hannity,
perhaps because he thinks he's like David, often hustles to refute the discourse of the
corporate liberal Goliath team. Hannity obviously does more research on some topics than
Maddow, and, perhaps because he began in radio, he puts more emphasis on semi-rationally
structured rants than Maddow, who depends more on primal emotion, body language, and
Hollywood-esque fear-inducing atmospherics.
I'd wager that in a single five-minute segment there will often be twice as many rational
distinctions made in a Hannity rant than in a Maddow performance. In addition, for the last
three years Hannity has simply been demonstrably right about the fake Russiagate propaganda
blitz while Maddow has been as demonstrably wrong from the very beginning as propaganda
industry trend-setter Adam Schiff. So for at least these last three years, the Maddow-Hannity
primal match has been a somewhat misleading metaphor. The Blob and the security state have
been decisively supporting (and directing?) the corporate liberal global interventionist
media, at least regarding Russia and the permanent war establishment, and because the
imbalance between the interventionist and the non-interventionist MSM, Russia and Ukraine are
being used as a wedge to steadily break down the firewalls between the Dem party, the intel
community, and the interventionist MSM. If we had real public debates with both sides at
approximately equal strength as we did during the Vietnam War, then even pro wrestling-type
matches would be superior to what we have now, which is truthy truth and thoughtsy thought
coming to us from the military industrial complex and monopolistic holding companies. If
fascism is defined as the fusion of the state and corporations, then the greatest threat of
fascism in America may well be coming from the apparent gradual fusion of the corporate
liberal MSM, the Dem party elite, and the intel community. Instead of an MSM wrestling match,
we may soon be faced with a Japanese-style 'hitori-zumo' match in which a sumo wrestler
wrestles with only himself. Once these sumo wrestlers were believed to be wrestling with
invisible spirits, but those days are gone . http://kikuko-nagoya.com/html/hitori-zumo.htm
Today's Noam Chomksy? Chomsky was part of the machine who broke ranks with it. His MIT
research was generously funded by the Military Industrial Complex. Thankfully, enough of his
latent humanity and Trotskyite upbringing shone through so he exposed what he was part of. So
I guess today that's Chris Hedges, though he's a preacher at heart and not a semiotician.
> In addition, for the last three years Hannity has simply been demonstrably right
about the fake Russiagate propaganda blitz while Maddow has been as demonstrably wrong
Eh. Read whats-his-name's (Frankfurter?) book On Bullshit . You are giving
Hannity credit for something he doesn't really care about.
I don't believe the media environment as a whole leans corporate Dem/neoliberal.
T.V. maybe, but radio is much more right wing than left (yes there is NPR and Pacifica,
the latter with probably only a scattering of listerners but ) and it's still out there and a
big influence, radio hasn't gone away. So doesn't the right wing tilt of radio kind of
balance out television? (not necessarily in a good way but). And then there is the internet
and I have no idea what the overall lean of that is (I mean I prefer left wing sites, but
that's purely my own bubble and actually there are much fewer left analysis out there than
I'd like)
The whole review is good, but this extract should be quoted extensively:
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite
social circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In short, stagnation and self-dealing at the top. What could possibly go wrong?
Are you serious? Maddow called Trump a traitor and accused him of betrayal in Russiagate,
and was caught out when that fell apart. This was pointed out all over the MSM .
Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and
portable tablets
and then goes on to spend most of the article talking about television. I'd say television
is still the main propaganda instrument even if many webheads like yours truly ignore it
(I've never seen Hannity's show or Maddow's–just hear the rumors). Arguably even
newspapers like the NYT have been dumbed down because the reporters long to be on TV and join
the shouting. And it's surely no coincidence that our president himself is a TV (and WWE)
star. Mass media have always been feeders of hysteria but television gave them faces and
voices. Watching TV is also a far more passive experience than surfing the web. They are
selling us "narratives," bedtime stories, and we like sleepy children merely listen.
This rave review has inspired me to add this to my to-read non-fiction queue. Currently
reading William Dalrymple's The Anarchy, on the rise of the East India Company. Next up: Matt
Stoller's Goliath. And then I'll get to Taibbi. Probably worth digging up my original copy of
Manufacturing Consent as well, which I read many moons ago; time for a re-read.
May I suggest Stephen Cohen's "War with Russia?" if it's not already on your list? In
focusing on the danger emerging from the new cold war, seeded by the Democrats, propagated by
corporate media (which he thinks is more dangerous than the first), Cohen clarifies the
importance of diplomacy especially with one's nuclear rivals.
Us rubes knew decades ago about pro wrestling. There was a regional circuit and the hero
in one town would become the villain in another town. The ones to be surprised were like John
Stossel, who got a perforated eardrum from a slap upside the head for his efforts at
in-your-face journalism with a wrestler who just wouldn't play along with his grandstanding.
Somewhere, kids cheered and life went on.
Ah, Ancient Athens, here we come – running back to repeat your mistakes! Our MSM
media has decided that when we are not at our neighbor's throats, we should be at each
other's throats!
I was watching old clips of the 'Fred Friendly Seminars' on YouTube. IMHO any channel that
produced a format such as this would be a ratings bonanza. Imagine a round table with various
media figures (corporate) left, (corporate) right, and independent being refereed by a
host-moderator discussing topics in 'Hate, Inc.'. In wrestling it's called a Battle Royale.
The Fourth Estate in a cage match!
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
This is important, if people don't want to be naive about what democracy buys. Democracy
in the end is a ritual system to determine which members of an elite would win a war without
actually having to hold the war. Like how court functions to replace personal revenge by
determining (often) who would win in a fight if there were one, and the feudal system
replaced the genocidal wars of the axial age with the gentler warfare of the middle ages
which were often ritual wars of the elite that avoided the full risk of the earlier wars.
That, I think, is important -- under a democracy, the winner should be normally the winner
of the avoided violent conflict to be sustainable. Thus, it's enough to get most people to
consent to the solution, using the traditional meaning of consent being "won't put up a fight
to avoid it". If the choices on the table are reduced enough, you can get by with most people
simply dropping out of the questions.
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
It shouldn't be a surprise that we've moved to "faking dissent" -- it's the natural
evolution of a system where a lot of the effective power is in the hands of tech, and not
just as in the early 20th century, how many workers you have and how many soldiers you can
raise.
If you don't like it, change the technology we use to fight one another. We went from
tribes to lords when we switch from sticks to advanced forged weapons, and we went from
feudalism to democracy when we had factories dropping guns that any 15 year old could use
(oversimplifying a bit). Now that the stuff requires expertise, you'd expect a corresponding
shift in how we ritualize our conflict avoidance, and thus the organization of how we control
communication and how we organize our rituals of power.
Aka, it's the scientists and the engineers who end up determining how everything is
organized, and people never seem to bother with that argument, which is especially surprising
that even hard-core Marxists waste their time on short-term politics rather than the tech
we're building.
I'd be curious whether Taibbi thought about the issue of the nature of the technology and
whether there are technological options on the horizon which drive the conflict in other
directions. If we had only kept the laws on copyright and patent weaker, so that the
implementation of communicative infrastructure would have stayed decentralized
Tabby's "manufacturing fake consent" was really the whole punchline – the joke's on
us. Hunter S. Thompson, another of Taibbi's heroes, is, along with Chomsky, speaking to us
through MT. Our media is distracting us from social coherence. Another thing it is doing
(just my opinion) is it is overwhelming us to the point of disgust. Nobody likes it. And we
protect ourselves by tuning it out. Turning it off. Once the screaming lunatics marginalize
themselves by making the whole narrative hysterical, we just act like it's another family
fight and we're gonna go do something else. When everyone is screaming, no one is
screaming.
I have tried to read Hate Inc. and Taibbi's Griftopia but one of my main issues with
Taibbi's writing is his lack of notes, references, or bibliography, etc. in his books. In
skimming Hate Inc. it seems like a book I would enjoy reading, however my personal value
system is that any book without footnotes, endnotes, citations, or at minimum a bibliography
is just an opinion or a story. At least Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal has a section for End
Notes/References at the end of the book. Again just my personal values.
I am from Greater Boston, far, far from flyover country (which I imagine begins in Yonkers
NY), but I sure grew up with pro wrestling as part of the schoolyard discourse. I certainly
knew it was as much of a family affair as Disney on Ice and have trouble believing he thought
otherwise though I will not impugn his honesty. I am very grateful to the author for taking
the time to write this, but is it possible for a male who grew up in the US to be as deeply
embedded in the MSNBC demo as he claims to be?
Seriously, how is it possible for a male raised in the US to not at least have some
working familiarity with pro wrestling? My family along with my community was very close to
the national median income–do higher income boys really not learn about WWF and
WWE?
Seriously, rich kids, what was childhood like? I know you had music lessons and sports
camps, what else? Was it really that different?
Sorry, my blue collar, lifetime union member brother says your view is horseshit. All the
knows about WWE and WWF is that they are big-budget fakery and that's why they are of no
interest.
aye. in my blue to white collar( and back to blue to no collar) upbringing, wrestling was
never a thing. it was for the morons who couldn't read. seen as patently absurd by just about
everyone i knew. and this in klanridden east texas exurbia
wife's mexican extended familia oth luche libre is a big thing that all and sundry talked
about at thanksgiving. less so these days possibly due to the hyperindiviualisation of media
intake mentioned
(and,btw, in my little world , horseshit is a good thing)
Even allowing for my lefty-liberal bias, I do not see how it is possible to equate Fox
Noise and MSNBC, or Hannity and Maddow, as "both-sides" extremists. Fox violates basic
professional canons of fairness and equity on a daily basis. MSNBC occasionally does, but is
quick to correct errors of fact. Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without
much education or knowledge of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar. It is
one of the evil successes of the right-wing news cauldron to have successfully equated these
two figures and organizations.
Huh? MSNBC regularly makes errors of omission and commission with respect to Sanders. They
are still pushing the Russiagate narrative. That's a massive, two-year, virtually all the
time error they have refused to recant.
The blind spots of people on the soi-disant left are truly astonishing.
'Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without much education or knowledge
of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar '
oh, well, then – end of conversation! i mean, god knows, it'd be a cold day in hell
before a rhodes scholar, or even someone married to one, would ever lead us astray down the
rosy neoliberal path to hell, while, at the same time, under the spell of trump derangement
syndrome, actually attempt to revive the mccarthy era, eh?
Actual drugs are being used to hinder debate as well as emotional drugs like hate.
They can't trust agency to be removed by words and images alone – the stakes are too
high.
Now all of you go take a feel good pill and stop complaining!
I've been impressed with Taibbi's work, what I've read of it, but ironically this very
article contains a quote from him which exemplifies the problem: his casual assertion that
the US committed "genocide" in Indochina. Even the most fervent critics of US policy didn't
say this at the time, for the very good reason that there was no evidence that the US tried
to destroy a racial, religious, ethnic or nationalist group (the full definition is a lot
more complex and demanding than that). He clearly means that the US was responsible for lots
of deaths, which is incontestable. But the process of endless escalation of rhetoric, which
this book seems to be partly about, means that everything now has to be described in the most
extreme, absurd or apocalyptic tones, and at the top of your voice, otherwise nobody takes
any notice. So any self-respecting war now has to be qualified as "genocide" or nobody will
take any notice.
"... I wish the punditry class would stop characterizing these metastatic wars for hegemony and resources, as 'mistakes and blunders' when their purpose are first, and foremost, to have the "enemy" participate in the destruction of his own land ..."
Our democracy is not in peril -- we do not live in a democracy. The image of our democracy is in peril. The deep state
-- the generals, bankers, corporatists, lobbyists, intelligence chiefs, government bureaucrats and technocrats -- is intent on salvaging
the brand. It is hard to trumpet yourself as the world's guardian of freedom and liberty with Donald Trump blathering on incoherently
about himself, inciting racist violence, insulting our traditional allies along with the courts, the press and Congress, tweeting
misspelled inanities and impulsively denouncing or sabotaging bipartisan domestic and foreign policy. But Trump's most unforgivable
sin in the eyes of the deep state is his criticism of the empire's endless wars, even though he lacks the intellectual and organizational
skills to oversee a disengagement.
The deep state committed the greatest strategic blunder in American history when it invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq.
Such fatal military fiascoes, a feature of all late empires, are called acts of "micro-militarism." Dying empires historically squander
the last capital they have, economic, political and military, on futile, intractable and unwinnable conflicts until they collapse.
They seek in these acts of micro-militarism to recapture a former dominance and lost stature. Disaster piles on disaster. The architects
of our imperial death spiral, however, are untouchable. The clueless generals and politicians who propel the empire into expanding
chaos and fiscal collapse are successful at one thing -- perpetuating themselves. No one is held accountable. A servile press treats
these mandarins with near-religious veneration. Generals and politicians, many of whom should have been cashiered or put on trial,
are upon retirement given lucrative seats on the boards of the weapons manufacturers, for whom these wars are immensely profitable.
They are called upon by a fawning press to provide analysis to the public of the mess they created. They are held up as exemplars
of integrity, selfless service and patriotism.
After nearly two decades, every purported objective used to justify our wars in the Middle East has been upended. The
invasion of Afghanistan
was supposed to wipe out al-Qaida. Instead, al-Qaida migrated to fill the power vacuums the deep state created in the wars in Iraq,
Syria, Libya and Yemen. The war in Afghanistan morphed into a war with the Taliban, which now controls most of the country and is
threatening the corrupt regime we prop up in Kabul. The deep state orchestrated the invasion of Iraq, which had nothing to do with
the attacks of 9/11. It confidently predicted it could build a Western-style democracy and weaken Iran's power in the region. Instead,
it destroyed Iraq as a unified country, setting warring ethnic and religious factions against each other. Iran, which is closely
tied to the dominant Shiite government in Baghdad, emerged even stronger. The deep state armed "moderate" rebels in Syria in an effort
to topple President Bashar Assad, but when it realized it could not control the jihadists -- to whom it had provide some $500 million
in weapons and assistance -- the deep state began to bomb them and arm Kurdish rebels to fight them. These Kurds would later be betrayed
by Trump. The "war on terror" spread like a plague from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya to Yemen, which after five years of war
is suffering one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters. The financial cost for this misery and death is between $5 trillion
and $8 trillion. The human cost runs into hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, shattered cities, towns and infrastructure and
millions of refugees.
Trump committed political heresy when he dared to point out the folly of unchecked militarism. He will pay for it. The deep state
intends to replace him with someone -- perhaps Mike Pence, as morally and intellectually vacuous as Trump -- who will do what he
or she is told. This is the role of America's executive: Personify and humanize the empire. Do so with pomp and dignity. Barack Obama
-- who speciously reinterpreted the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to give the executive the right to assassinate anyone
abroad, even a U.S. citizen, deemed to be a terrorist -- excelled at the game.
The removal of Trump from office would not threaten corporate power. It would not restore civil liberties, including our right
to privacy and due process. It would not demilitarize the police or champion the rights of the working class. It would not impede
the profits of the fossil fuel and banking industries. It would not address the climate emergency. It would not disrupt the warrantless
surveillance of the public. It would not end extraordinary renditions, the kidnapping of those around the globe considered to be
enemies of the state. It would not halt the assassinations by militarized drones. It would not halt the separation of children from
their parents and the warehousing of these children in filthy, overcrowded conditions. It would not remedy the consolidation of wealth
and power by the oligarchs and the further impoverishment of the citizenry. The expansion of our prison system and of black sites
throughout the world, sites where we torture, would continue, as would the gunning down of poor, unarmed citizens in urban wastelands.
Most importantly, the catastrophic foreign wars that have resulted in a series of failed states and wasted trillions of taxpayer
dollars, would remain sacrosanct, enthusiastically embraced by the leaders of the two ruling parties, puppets of the deep state.
The impeachment of Trump, despite the enthusiasm of the liberal elite, is mostly cosmetic. The entire political and governmental
system is corrupt. Hunter Biden was reportedly paid $50,000 a month to sit on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings,
although he has no training or experience in the gas industry. He had previously worked for the credit card corporation MBNA, which
was one of Joe Biden's largest campaign contributors when he was a senator from Delaware. Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings
for the same reason he was hired by MBNA. His father, long a tool of corporate power and the military-industrial complex, in short
the deep state, was a senator and later the vice president. Joe Biden, the Clintons and the Democratic Party leaders personify the
legalized bribery that defines their rivals in the Republican Party. Corporate candidates in the two ruling parties are preselected,
funded and anointed. If they do not abide by the demands of the deep state, which protects corporate interests and the management
of empire, they are removed. There is even a word for it --
primarying . Corporate lobbyists write the laws.
The courts enforce them. There is no way in the American political system to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup,
AT&T, Amazon, Microsoft, Walmart, Alphabet, Facebook, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin, UnitedHealth Group or Northrop Grumman.
We, the American public, are spectators. An audience. Who will be seated when the game of musical chairs stops? Will Trump be
able to hold on to power? Will Pence be the new president? Or will the deep state elevate a political hack like Biden or a neoliberal
apologist such as Pete Butiggieg, Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris to the White House? Will it draft Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry,
Sherrod Brown or, God forbid, Hillary Clinton? And what if the deep state fails? What if the rot in the Republican Party, or what
Glen Ford calls Trump's "white man's party," is so profound
it won't sign on for the political extinction of the most incompetent president in American history? The power struggle, which includes
blocking Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren from obtaining the Democratic Party nomination, will make for months of great television
and generate billions in advertising revenue.
The war between the deep state and Trump began the moment he was elected. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper -- both now paid news cable commentators -- along with former FBI head James Comey soon would
accuse Trump of being a tool of Moscow. Intelligence agencies leaked salacious stories about "
pee tapes " and blackmail, plus reports of
"repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence. Brennan, Clapper and Comey were quickly joined by other former intelligence officials,
including Michael Hayden, Michael Morell and
Andrew McCabe. Their attacks were then amplified by former senior military leaders including
William McRaven , James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, John Kelly,
James
Stavridis and Barry McCaffrey.
The Russia conspiracy, after the release of the Mueller report, proved to be a dud. The deep state actors, however, were re-energized
by Trump's decision to pressure the government of Ukraine to investigate Biden. Trump, this time, seems to have given his deep state
enemies enough rope to hang him.
The impeachment of Trump marks a new and frightening chapter in American politics. The deep state has shown its face. It has made
a public declaration that it will not tolerate dissent, although Trump's dissent is rhetorical, mercurial and ineffectual. The effort
to impeach Trump sends an ominous message to the American left. The deep state not only intends to prevent, as it did in 2016, Bernie
Sanders or any other progressive Democrat from achieving power, but has signaled that it will destroy any politician who attempts
to question the maintenance and expansion of empire. Its animus toward the left is far more pronounced than its animus toward Trump.
And its resources to destroy those on the left are nearly inexhaustible.
The political philosopher
Sheldon Wolin saw it
all in his 2008 book "Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism." He wrote:
The political role of corporate power, the corruption of the political and representative processes by the lobbying industry,
the expansion of executive power at the expense of constitutional limitations, and the degradation of political dialogue promoted
by the media are the basics of the system, not excrescences upon it. The system would remain in place even if the Democratic
Party attained a majority; and should that circumstance arise, the system will set tight limits to unwelcome changes, as is foreshadowed
in the timidity of current Democratic proposals for reform. In the last analysis the much-lauded stability and conservatism of
the American system owe nothing to lofty ideals, and everything to the irrefutable fact that it is shot through with corruption
and awash in contributions primarily from wealthy and corporate donors. When a minimum of a million dollars is required of House
candidates and elected judges, and when patriotism is for the draft-free to extol and for the ordinary citizen to serve, in such
times it is a simple act of bad faith to claim that politics-as-we-now-know-it can miraculously cure the evils which are essential
to its existence.
There are no internal or external checks on the deep state. The democratic institutions, including the press, that once gave citizens
a voice and a say in the exercise of power have been neutered. The deep state will further the corporate consolidation of wealth
and power, expand the social inequality that has thrust half of Americans into poverty or near poverty, strip us of our remaining
civil liberties and feed the rapacious appetites of the military and the war industry. The resources of the state will be squandered
as the federal deficit balloons. The frustration and feelings of stagnation among a disempowered and neglected citizenry, which contributed
to the election of Trump, will mount.
There will come a moment of reckoning, as there has during the last few days in
Lebanon and
Chile . Social unrest is inevitable. Any population can be pushed only so far. The deep state, incapable of reform and determined
to retain its grip on power, will morph under the threat of popular unrest into a corporatized fascism. It has at its disposal the
legal and physical tools to instantly turn the United States into a police state. This is the real danger behind the deep state's
drive to impeach Trump. It is a stark message to obey or be silenced. Trump, in the end, is not the problem. We are. And if the deep
state fails to rid itself of Trump it will, however reluctantly, use him to carry out its dirty work. Trump, if he manages to survive
in power, will get his military parades. We will get, with or without Trump, tyranny.
I sure wish Chris would accept and promote the truth about the government's physically impossible and intelligence insulting
9-11 grand conspiracy myth. It was a false flag operation that served as the "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Harbor" desired by PNAC. It's also the most powerful tool We The People have (or probably ever will have) to help bring about
the dramatic regime change we so desperately need here in the U.S..
Play
Hide
I wish the punditry class would stop characterizing these metastatic wars for hegemony and resources, as 'mistakes and
blunders' when their purpose are first, and foremost, to have the "enemy" participate in the destruction of his own land.
So even when we don't get all the spoils we desire death, destruction, and chaos, are in themselves a great accomplishment. This
was clearly explained by John Perkins in Zietgeist Addendum
Divide and Conquer @ MM 30:27, Causality & The Art of War @ MM 34:25
Speaking of 9/11, Huffpost has gone full blown conspiracy theory on us. Referring to Tulsi Gabbard the author, Akbar Shahid
Ahmed, is accusing the US congress of entertaining "poisonous theories" by allowing Americans to sue the Saudis.
Huffpost has always been a part of the 9/11 criminal cover up. It is why I hate them and why I check on them every single day.
They are guilty of treason. Here is what they say. Notice how 9/11 truth is being referred to as "Islamist terror."
Now she's trying to make Islamist terror a focus of the Democratic primary ― reminding voters, in case they had forgotten,
that there was something there to be afraid of.
Hundreds of other members of Congress, many of them far more senior and more mainstream than Gabbard, were wrong to bolster
poisonous theories about 9/11 when they blessed the 2016 bill that implied there are still questions about Saudi ties to the attacks.
Gabbard is wrong to do it now.
President Obama vetoed that bill but it was overwhelmingly passed by congress over his veto. That makes me think that congress
is not as interested in maintaining the 9/11 criminal cover up as the people are at the very top. I often wonder how many people
in congress have figured out that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sure some of them have and just keep their mouth shut about it in
order to avoid the flack.
Ha, I'll check in on Huffpost once in a while to see what propaganda is being fed to corporate liberals. I hate them as well.
Same goes for Zerohedge, except I check in on them to see what propaganda is being fed to fascists and "Libertarians." I have
no love for them either. But reading both anthropologically does help to keep the mind limber.
Cheers
You still read huffpost? I never read more than the headlines - so I could get a compacted assemblage of the day's mainstream
"news." But when they did a hit piece on Nicaragua and the Ortega government, I stopped even the cursory perusal. The only place
for garbage is the dumpster.
So what do you think of this story? MSM execs part of 'network of people' that covered for Epstein – Project Veritas founder
to RT
https://www.rt.com/news/472...
Abolish the CIA, NSA, the Patriot Act et Al,.and have as a primary goal disengagement from foreign military entanglements,
and foreign economic entanglements.
There is a short list of things to do. The people in DC know this already.
Hillary just doesn't know when to shut up. What do you think of this story? VIDEO: Leaked ABC News Insider Recording EXPOSES
#EpsteinCoverup "We had Clinton, We had Everything"
Where's the outcry in the MSP over Max Blumenthal's arrest?!! There is none because the MSP does not threaten the establishment
with telling the truth.
Same with Assange, Manning, Snowden, Kiriakou...
1. The media is working with the deep state and even hires former CIA liar and criminals like Brennan and clapper and Haden..the
very people behind the coup against Trump.Whether you support Trump or not this is sedition and a greater danger to the country
than Trump.Its all coming out.
Portly, Well-Paid Spy Who Infiltrated Trump Campaign Source Of WaPo Disinformation On Flynn: Report
Stefan Halper, who was paid over $1 million by the Obama administration - was enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three
members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election.
And according to a recent court filing by Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, Halper, the CIA, the FBI, and a Defense official
used Russian-born academic Svetlana Lokhova to smear Flynn by feeding Ignatius information suggesting she was a Russian honeypot.
2. The media is covering up the murder and biggest child trafficking and blackmail operation in US history....and has for YEARS.
ABC Issues 'Cover Your Azz, Lawyer-Speak' Response To Bombshell Epstein Coverup Claims
Amy Robach, 'Good Morning America' Co-Host and Breaking News Anchor at ABC, explains
how a witness came forward years ago with information pertaining to
Epstein, but Disney-owned ABC News refused to air the material for years.
Robach vents her anger in a "hot mic" moment with an off-camera
producer, explaining that ABC quashed the story in it's early stages.
"I've had this interview with Virginia Roberts (Now Virginia Guiffre)
[alleged Epstein victim]. We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told "Who's Jeffrey Epstein. No one knows
who that is. This is a stupid story."
She continues, "The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different
ways."
Epstein is one of the most important cases in recent history. MSM can't seem to forget it fast enough. The line from Meyer
Lansky to JE Hoover to Roy Cohn and finally to Epstein exposes the cabal of government, media, corporate interests, judiciary,
military contractors, the security state etc. to organized crime.
The fact that I'm an American citizen is completely irrelevant since "Russian bots" like myself are only identified
by anonymous DNC funded trolls on the internet. They labeled me as one, so I must be one. That is how it works in full fantasy
politics.
Karl Rove explained it to us many years ago. They make up stuff and while we are trying to figure it out, they make up more
stuff. It is a political strategy to get away with all kinds of criminality by keeping the public constantly dazed and confused.
" Trump committed political heresy when he dared to point out the folly of unchecked militarism. He will pay for it. The deep
state intends to replace him with someone -- perhaps Mike Pence, as morally and intellectually vacuous as Trump -- who will do
what he or she is told. "
Rather than falsely paint President Donald Trump as the " American Hitler " the generic Left and those rather obtuse sectarian
Marxist parties should at least describe Trump- presently- as THE LESSER EVIL.
I see Anti-Fa and the New Democrats as promoting the HATE TRUMP , IMPEACH TRUMP , HATE RUSSIA New McCarthyism. What horrors
of robot like GROUP THINK , of lock step political conformity - even on the right TWO MINUTES HATE person of the week .
To what a horrible degree has the generic Left abandoned the FREE SPEECH , FREE THOUGHT tradition of Western Civilization ?
How many brainless HATERS on the Left ? THEY lead the way to a STALINIST future of dictatorship OVER the proletariat . Now SCIENCE
says that 2+2 = 5 ?
The real left has pushed against this insanity.......real journalists on the left .even thought they cant stand Trump knows
how dangerous this is.....these people pushing Russiagate and Impeachment are NOT LEFT......they are pro WAR corporate tools.
I agree but perhaps not enough yet. The left is going to have vanquish these "woke" useful idiots before I become a card carrying
member again. And I say that as someone who is anti-empire, pro massive wilderness areas, pro alternative energy, and pro access
to tools (means of production) for working people, though I would prefer Credit Unions loaning to individual owner operators and
small worker collectives to top down state socialism.
The real left is people like Bernie Sanders. The Democratic Party needs to shed its authoritarian fake left members. They are
powerful but they are also very vulnerable. The movements to reform incarceration and expose sexual predators are going to expose
them.
Yes we do. We know it because of what Hillary and her team had to do in order to stop him. They cheated, they lied, they stole,
then they went to court and the judges agreed that it was all OK for them to do that since they get to make up the rules!
It was really obvious to anyone paying close attention to Bernie's campaign that he would have won if it was not for the corrupt
DNC putting such a heavy thumb on the scale. You can assert that we don't know it, but in fact we do. We know it because we were
closely watching the whole thing.
It also pisses us off to think how much better things would be now if he had. Team Hillary is 100% responsible for giving us
President Trump.
Lol. You think the Clintons, Obama's, and Bidens of the world care even one bit more about working people than Trump? Hint
it was Bill Clinton who ended "welfare as we know it," who ended Glass Stegall, and vastly increased the clear cutting of National
Forests. If anything things may be slightly better for working people with a Republican in charge for at least Dim party partisans
like you will call out bad behavior by the government rather than sweeping it under the carpet and saying the Russians did. At
least assholes like you will match against wars started by Republicans.
BP and the government actually being the royal family. The British royals attacked the poor people in the US gulf by deliberately
blowing up the oil well. [At least one of them is on record as believing that world population needs to be reduced by 95%. The
oil well was deliberately blown.]
Our president sided with the rich people in England, a tight group but he is in it, over the poor and brown people in the US
and our poisoned ocean, air and food supply.
It was an act of war, much like 9/11 and possibly Fukushima. All covered up and blamed on something else. Obama was treasonous
in the way he catered to BP and the Queen over the American citizens. Just disgraceful.
"There is no way in the American political system to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, AT&T, Amazon,
Microsoft, Walmart, Alphabet, Facebook, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin, UnitedHealth Group or Northrop Grumman."
The citizens of this country have allowed this to happen by unquestionably doing business these companies. The beast can be
(or could have been) starved. Don't buy their products, above all don't work for them, and always seek alternatives. Now that
these totalitarian systems have reached monopoly or near monopoly status the only way to fight them is not to do business with
them. Is that really impossible? I see so many seemingly forward thinking people ordering 2/3 of everything they buy from Amazon,
plunking away at their Windows and Mac computers, shopping at Whole (Amazon) Foods, banking at Bank of America, etc. How do they
overlook their direct contribution to the problem of corporate dominance when they actively support it every day?
........."The deep state will further the corporate consolidation of wealth and power, expand the social inequality that has
thrust half of Americans into poverty or near poverty, strip us of our remaining civil liberties and feed the rapacious appetites
of the military and the war industry"..........it's all well under way. You can thank the "DC Club" for that Too. And this time
next year, will be quite telling.
"... Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus. ..."
Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern
Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria.
After the drawdown of US
troops at Erdogan's insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria,
the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and
at al-Tanf military base.
Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria,
Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which
serves as a lifeline for Damascus.
Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around
al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.
It's worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence
of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel's concerns regarding the expansion of
Iran's influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it's worth pointing out
that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war – roughly 400,000
barrels per day, which isn't much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the
Gulf states.
Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of
1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where
there was oil,
the purpose of exercising control over Syria's oil is neither to smuggle oil
out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.
There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in
Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on
the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion
of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State
strongholds in eastern Syria.
Much like the "scorched earth" battle strategy of medieval warlords – as in the case of the Islamic
State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds
in eastern Syria –
Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and
natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other
main rival in the region, Damascus.
After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need
of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington
hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over
Syria's own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.
Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria's oil wealth, it bears mentioning
that "scorched earth" policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep
state.
President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and Washington's national security establishment.
Regarding Washington's interest in propping up the Gulf's autocrats and fighting their wars in regional
conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister
threatened
that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other
assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the
United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually
passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were
Saudi nationals.
Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment
in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total
would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf's investments in North America and Western Europe.
Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf's oil in the energy-starved
industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data:
Saudi Arabia has the world's
largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million
barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million
barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3
million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788
billion barrels, more than half of world's 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military
bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of
1980, which states: "Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United
States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force."
Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry's sales of arms to the Gulf Arab
States,
a report
authored
by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration
had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during
its eight-year tenure.
Similarly, the top items in Trump's agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were:
firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to counter Iran's influence
in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package
included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.
Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind,
during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is
not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms
to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar
al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive
policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its
attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term
security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.
Similarly, when King Abdullah's successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad
bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the
dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not
only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars'
worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.
In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab
states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf's petro-sheikhs contribute substantial
investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.
Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order,
according to a January 2017
infographic
by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world,
including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.
Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops,
particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second
World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is
already shared between Washington and host countries.
Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe
whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost
for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in
South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.
Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar – pay
two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of
world's proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.
* * *
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the
politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.
I am always amazed (and amused) at
how much smarter "journalists" are
than POTUS. If ONLY Mr. Trump would
read more and listen to those who
OBVIOUSLY are sooo much smarter!!!!
Maybe then he wouldn't be cowed and
bullied by Erdogan, Xi, Jung-on,
Trudeau (OK so maybe that one was
too far fetched) to name a few.
Please note the sarcasm. Do I really
need to go in to the success after
success Mr. Trump's foreign policy
has enjoyed? Come on Man.
What a load of BOLOCKS...The ONLY, I
mean The Real and True Reason for
American Armored presence is one
thing,,,,,,,Ready for IT ? ? ? To
Steal as much OIL as Possible, AND
convert the Booty into Currency,
Diamonds or some other intrinsically
valuable commodity, Millions of
Dollars at a Time......17 Years of
Shadows and Ghost Trucks and Tankers
Loading and Off-Loading the Black
Gold...this is what its all
about......M-O-N-E-Y....... Say It
With Me.... Mon-nee, Money Money
Mo_on_ne_e_ey, ......
From the sale of US oil in Syria
receive 30 million. dollars per
month. Image losses are immeasurably
greater. The United States put the
United States as a robbery bandit.
This is American democracy. The
longer the troops are in Syria, the
more countries will switch to
settlements in national currencies.
"Our interests", "strategic
interests" is always about money,
just a euphemism so it doesn't
look as greedy as it is. Another
euphemism is "security' ,meaning
war preparations.
...The military power of the USA
put directly in the service of "the
original TM" PIRATE STATE.
U are
the man Norm! But wait... now things
get a little hazy... in the
classic... 'alt0media fake
storyline' fashion!
"President Trump is known to be a
businessman and at least ostensibly
follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the
craft of international diplomacy,
however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and
Washington's national security
establishment."
Awww! Poor "DUmb as Rocks
Donnie" done been fooled agin!
...In the USA... the military men
are stirring at last... having been
made all too aware that their
putative 'boss' has been operating
on behalf of foreign powers ever
since being [s]elected, that the
State Dept of the once Great
Republic has been in active cahoots
with the jihadis ...
and that those who were sent over
there to fight against the
headchoppers discovered that the
only straight shooters in the whole
mess turned out to be the Kurds who
AGENT FRIMpf THREW UNDER THE BUS
ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM JIHADI HQ!
"... At a first approximation, democracy is the alliance of the city dwellers for the power of the city, ignoring tribes and rural aristocrats, carefully contained so the landowners keep their land, and the slaves are kept under control. Or, to update it, the class collaboration of the wealthy (nowadays some sort of capitalist,) the middling strata and the common people for the power of the nation, carefully arranged so the people with great property make the decisions about the economy. ..."
"... As an example, it's only in the last few years I've wakened up to the extraordinary tendency to people to ignore either the progressive content of bourgeois revolutions, such as in pretending that destroying a national secular state in Iraq or Syria and replacing it with a cantonal confederation is a step backward. Or in surreptitiously pretending that democracy has nothing to do with the democratic state needing fighters against other states. Like most people on the internet, i do tend to get a little trendy, and repetitive. But apparently I'm too socially backward to get the memo on the correct trendy, and repetitive. ..."
"... The classic model of course was the Roman Republic. By coincidence I was reading Livy's first five books and the relationship between rights for the plebs and the need for them in war, stands out. Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy makes this even plainer. In the US much of this was conveyed to the Americans via Algernon Sidney's Discourses on Government as refracted through Cato's Letters. (I hope to live long enough to read Discourses on Davila by John Adams, solely because of the title.) ..."
"... It would seem to me that the answer to the question "what is democracy" is best answered by another question: who gets (and doesn't get) the franchise? ..."
I went to see occasional Timberite Astra Taylor's remarkable film What is
Democracy? last night. It takes us from Siena, Italy to Florida to Athens and from Ancient
Athenian democracy through the renaissance and the beginning of capitalism to the Greek debt
crisis, occupy and the limbo life of people who have fled Syria and now find themselves stuck.
It combines the voices of Plato and Rousseau with those of ordinary voters from left and right,
Greek nationalists and cosmopolitans, ex-prisoners, with trauma surgeons in Miami, Guatemalan
migrants in the US, with lawmakers and academics, and with refugees from Syria and Afghanistan.
All the while it poses the questions of whether democracy is compatible with inequality and
global financial systems and the boundaries of inclusion.
steven t johnson 10.23.19 at 3:05 pm (no link)
At a first approximation, democracy is the alliance of the city dwellers for the power of the
city, ignoring tribes and rural aristocrats, carefully contained so the landowners keep their
land, and the slaves are kept under control. Or, to update it, the class collaboration of the
wealthy (nowadays some sort of capitalist,) the middling strata and the common people for the
power of the nation, carefully arranged so the people with great property make the decisions
about the economy.
It doesn't sound like this is very informative or useful, so I will wait until I have a
cheaper way to see it.
In my opinion, democracy as an actually existing property of a society is only imperfectly
described in terms of institutional arrangements, philosophical constructs, political system
or (as steven t johnson would have it) power relations between social groups. In addition to
all that, but probably prior to all that, democracy relies on principles which are
anthropological in nature, that pertains to the particular way human beings relate to
each other on a given territory.
This means that I absolutely believe in the necessity of a "we" to underlie democracy but
I doubt that this "we" needs to be (or indeed is ever) constitutive, it exists primarily if
not exclusively as a matter of human relations not as a constitutive abstraction. This also
means that I'm not surprised by the general absence of convergence in democratic forms around
the world (much to the bemusement of English-speaking political philosophers, or in the last
20 years, German and Flemish politicians) and that I believe that global citizenship is under
present circumstances a meaningless concept with respect to democracy. Some people understand
this to be arguing for a national, ethnic or cultural definition of democracy, in which only
people with a specific national identity, or a particular ethnicity, or specific cultural
practices or (in the contemporary American libertarian version) specific personality traits
may participate, as a matter of normative or positive judgment, depending on various
proponents of this theory. This seems to me to be a rather ironic analytical error: if indeed
a core property of democracy is rooted in the characteristic ways people relate to each
other, it is highly implausible that this could change under the influence of even a
substantial minority (in one direction or the other).
Incidentally, the idea that democracy is originally native to North-America is somewhat
classical (Voltaire championed it, but as usual with him, it is hard to vouch for his
seriousness). Since then it has resurfaced periodically for instance in William James Sidis
(disturbed) book The Tribes and the States or in the works of Bruce Johansen. Serious
discussions of this question lead, I believe, to the seemingly paradoxical observation that
English and Dutch settlers came to adopt the democratic principles of the Haudenosaunee
because they were themselves rather primitive (temporally speaking), and hence
democratic, in their anthropological values. Suc discussion would also lead to the far more
pessimistic conclusion that beyond their political models, native people in North-America
facilitated the establishment of a political democracy by providing a large neighboring group
to exclude out of humanity.
LFC@10 uses a reason for waiting as an excuse for a rhetorical question meant as a taunt. The
reason I might see it, if it's cheap enough, is because new facts and the (rare) new
perspective, if any, would seep into my thinking. The idea that my thinking doesn't change is
unfounded. It changes, it just doesn't change by conversion experience. The cogent arguments
of the wise on the internet are like Jesus on the road to Damascus, not quite able to be
described consistently, but still irrefutable.
But, try as I may, continual reworking of old ideas by new -- to me -- information
inevitably leads to the change. The process usually goes A Is that really true? B My old
ideas get a parenthesis added. C The parenthesis gets worked into the rest of the paragraph
so that I'm more consisten. D I've always believed that. The step where I abjectly plead for
forgiveness for being a moron is never there, any more than actually being consistent.
As an example, it's only in the last few years I've wakened up to the extraordinary
tendency to people to ignore either the progressive content of bourgeois revolutions, such as
in pretending that destroying a national secular state in Iraq or Syria and replacing it with
a cantonal confederation is a step backward. Or in surreptitiously pretending that democracy
has nothing to do with the democratic state needing fighters against other states. Like most
people on the internet, i do tend to get a little trendy, and repetitive. But apparently I'm
too socially backward to get the memo on the correct trendy, and repetitive.
For a less contentious example, as part of the process I've realized that ancient Sparta
was on the democratic spectrum, not least because of two kings which is definitely not twice
the monarchy. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is still true, despite authority. But a
true expert who actually cared could revise the elementary insight into a much more
sophisticated, much superior way that might not even seem controversial. It might even seem
just like the answer to the questions: Why did Sparta ever ally with Athens in the first
place? Why did both Athens and Sparta ally (at different times) with Persia?
I will admit to a general prejudice against every historical discovery that a particular
place etc. was the birth of virtue.
steven t johnson 10.24.19 at 3:20 pm (no link)
Re the Haudenosaunee as exemplars of democracy, this is as I recall long known to be true of
Benjamin Franklin, one of the disreputable founders, nearly as disgraced as Tom Paine.
(Indeed, the notion that the revolutionaries weren't the founders, but Philadelphia lawyers'
convention was, is remarkable, though unremarked on.) But, what did Franklin admire about the
Iroquois League? I think it was the power through unity of different "tribes." The league
essentially genocided the Hurons to control the fur trade; launched long distance military
expeditions to drive away many other peoples from large areas in the Ohio valley to free up
hunting grounds; when it was convenient, they sold their rights, lands, there to the US. (The
treaty of Fort Stanwix) was later repudiated, verbally at least, by other.
The classic model of course was the Roman Republic. By coincidence I was reading Livy's
first five books and the relationship between rights for the plebs and the need for them in
war, stands out. Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy makes this even plainer. In the US much of
this was conveyed to the Americans via Algernon Sidney's Discourses on Government as
refracted through Cato's Letters. (I hope to live long enough to read Discourses on Davila by
John Adams, solely because of the title.)
It would seem to me that the answer to the question "what is democracy" is best answered by
another question: who gets (and doesn't get) the franchise?
http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-saker-interviews-michael-hudson/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
Introduction: I recently spoke to a
relative of mine who, due to her constant and voluntary exposure to the legacy AngloZionist media, sincerely
believed that the three Baltic states and Poland had undergone some kind of wonderful and quasi-miraculous
economic and cultural renaissance thanks to their resolute break with the putatively horrible Soviet past
and their total submission to the Empire since. Listening to her, I figured that this kind of delusion was
probably common amongst those who still pay attention and even believe the official propaganda. So I asked
Michael Hudson, whom I consider to be the best US economists and who studied the Baltics in great detail, to
reply to a few very basic questions, which he very kindly did in spite of being very pressed on time. Once
again, I want to sincerely thank him for his kind time, support and expertise.
* * *
The Saker:
The US
propaganda often claims that the three Baltic states are a true success, just like Poland is also supposed
to be. Does this notion have a factual basis? Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing
growth, but was that not mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies? Looking specifically at the three
Baltic states, and especially Latvia, these were the "showcase" Soviet republics, with a high standard of
living (at least compared to the other Soviet republics) and a lot of high-tech industries (including
defense contracts). Could you please outline for us what truly happened to these economies following
independence? How did they "reform" their economies going from an ex-Soviet one to the modern "liberal" one?
Michael Hudson:
This is
a trick question, because it all depends on what you mean by "success."
The post-Soviet neoliberalism has been a
great success for kleptocrats at the top. They gave themselves the public domain, from key industries to
prime real estate. But the Balts largely let their Soviet industries collapse, making no effort to salvage
or reorganize them.
Much of the problem, of course, was that all the linkages to Soviet-era
industry were torn apart as the Soviet Union was disbanded. With their supplier and final markets closed
down from Russia to Central Asia, the Baltic economies had to start afresh – with a very right-wing tax
policy and no government help whatsoever, as the government itself had become privatized in the hands of
former officials and grabitizers.
Lithuania was marginally better in having some industrial policy. EU and
NATO accession in 2004, along with easy credit, kicked off property bubbles in the Baltics, largely inflated
by Swedish banks that made a bonanza off these countries that lacked their own banks or public credit
creation. The resulting 2008 crashes were the largest in the world as a percent of GDP, with Latvia
suffering the world's biggest contraction.
The neoliberal western advisors who took
control of these economies – as if this was the only alternative to Soviet bureaucracy – imposed crushing
austerity programs to restore macroeconomic "stability" meaning security of their land and infrastructure
grabs. This was applauded by Europe's bankers, who thought the Balts had discovered a workable recipe
allowing austerity governments to retain power in a seeming democracy. These policies would have collapsed
governments anywhere else, but the ability to emigrate, plus ethnic divisions against Russian speakers,
allowed these governments to survive.
It's a historically specific situation,
but Europe's bankers promote it as a generalized model. George Soros's INET and his associated front
institutions have been leaders in subsidizing this financialization-cum-grabitization. The result has been a
massive exodus of prime working age people from Lithuania and Latvia. (Estonians simply commute to Finland.)
Meanwhile, their economies are buoyed by foreign bank lending, which sends profits back to home countries
and can be reversed at any time.
Politically, the neoliberal revolution also has been a success for U.S.
Cold Warriors, who sent over native Balts from Georgetown and other universities to impose "free market"
doctrine – that is, a market "free" of domestic regulation against theft of the public domain, against
monopolies, against land taxes and other income taxes. The Baltic states, like most of the rest of the
former Soviet Union, became the Wild East.
What was left to the Baltic countries
was land and real estate. Their forests are being cut down to sell wood abroad. I describe all this in my
book
Killing the Host
.
The Saker:
After
independence, the Baltic states had tried to cut as many ties with Russia as possible. This included
building (rather silly looking) fences, to forcing the Russians to develop their ports on the Baltic, to
shutting down large (or selling to foreign interests which then shut them down) and profitable factories
(including a large nuclear plant I believe), etc. What has been the impact of this policy of "economic
de-Sovietization" on the local economies?
Michael Hudson:
Dissolution of the Soviet Union meant
that Baltic countries lost their traditional markets, and had to shift their focus to Western Europe and, to
some extent, Asia.
Latvia and Estonia had been assigned computer and information technology,
and they have found this to be much in demand. When I was in Japan, for instance, CEOs told me that they
were looking to Latvia above all to outsource computer work.
Banking also was a surviving sector.
Gregory Lautchansky, former vice-rector at the University of Riga had been a major player already in the
1980s for moving out Russian oil and KGB money. (His company, Nordex, was sold to Mark Rich.) Many banks
continued to shepherd Russian flight capital via offshore banking centers into the United States, Britain
and other countries. Cyprus of course was another big player in this.
The Saker:
Russians are still considered "non-citizens"
in the Baltic republics; what has been the economic impact of this policy, if any, of anti-Russian
discrimination in the Baltic states?
ORDER IT NOW
Michael Hudson:
Russian-speakers, who do not acquire citizenship (which requires passing local language and history tests),
are blocked from political office and administrative work. While most Russian speakers below retirement age
have now acquired that citizenship, the means by which citizenship must be acquired has caused divisions.
Early on in independence, many Russians
were blocked from government, and they went into business, which was avoided by many native Balts during the
Soviet era because it was not as remunerative as going into government and profiting from corruption. For
instance, real estate was a burden to administer. Russian-speakers, especially Jewish ones, have wisely
focused on real estate.
The largest political party is Harmony
Center, whose members and leadership are mainly Russian-speaking. But the various neoliberal and nationalist
parties have jointed to block its ability to influence law in Parliament.
Since Russian speakers are only able to
"vote with their feet," many have joined in the vast outflow of emigration, either back to Russia or to
other EU countries. Moreover, the poor quality of social benefits has led to few children being born.
The Saker:
I often hear that a huge number of locals
(including non-Russians) have emigrated from the Baltic states. What has caused this and what has been the
impact of this emigration for the Baltic states?
Michael Hudson:
The Baltic states, especially Latvia,
have lost about 30 percent of their population since the 1990s, especially those of working age. In Latvia,
about 10 percent of the loss were Russians who exited shortly after independence. The other 20 percent have
subsequently emigrated.
The European Commission forecasts that Latvia's working-age population
will decline by 1.6% annually for the next 20 years, while the birth rate remains as stagnant as it was in
the late 1980s. The retired population (over age 65) will rise to half a million people by 2030, more than a
quarter of today's population, and perhaps about a third of what remains. This is not a domestic market that
will attract foreign or local investment.
And in any case, the European Union has
viewed the post-Soviet economies simply as markets for their own industrial and agricultural exports, not as
economies to be built up by public subsidy as the European countries themselves, the U.S. and Chinee
economies have done. The European motto is, "Give a man a fish, and he will be fed all day with your surplus
fish and consumer goods – but give him a fishing rod and we will lose a customer."
Readers who are interested might want to
look at the following books and articles. I think the leading work has been done by Jeffrey Sommers and
Charles Woolfson.
The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Baltic Model
(London:
Routledge Press, 2014). Editors, J. Sommers & C. Woolfson. Foreword, J. Galbraith. ISBN:
978-0-415-82003-5.
Jeffrey Sommers, "No People, Big Problem': Democracy And Its Discontents In Latvia's National
Elections,"
Social Europe,
October 17, 2018.
Jeffrey Sommers, "Decline of the Demos: Latvia, the Face of New Europe and Austerity's Return," in F.
Jaitner, T. Olteanu and T. Spöri, eds.,
Crises in the Post-Soviet Space: From the dissolution of the
Soviet Union to the conflict in Ukraine
(Routledge Press, 2018) pp. 195-209. ISBN 9780815377245.
Jeffrey Sommers,
"
Austerity as a global prescription and lessons from the neoliberal
Baltic experiment."
Economic & Labour Relations Review.
Keynote article, 25:3 (fall 2014) pp.
1-20. DOI 10.1177/1035304614544091. Co-authored with C. Woolfson and A. Juskaa.
The Saker:
Finally,
what do you believe is the most likely future for these states? Will the succeed in becoming a "tiny
anti-Russia" on Russia's doorstep? The Russians appear to have been very successful in their
import-substitution program, at least when trying to replace the Baltic states: does that mean that the
economic ties between Russia and these states is now gone forever? Is it now too late, or are there still
measures these countries could take to reverse the current trends?
Michael Hudson:
Trump's
trade sanctions against Russia hurt the Baltic countries especially. One of their strong sectors was
agriculture. Lithuania, for instance, was known for its cheese, even in Latvia. The sanctions led Russian
dairy farming to develop their own cheese-making, and agriculture has become one of Russia's strongest
performing sectors.
This is a market that looks like it will
be permanently lost to the Baltic states. In effect, Trump is helping Russia follow precisely the policy
that made American agriculture rich: agricultural isolation has forced domestic replacement for hitherto
foreign food. I expect that this will lead to consumer goods and other products as well.
I am in Tallinn, Estonia right now. Just how good an economy is performing is often hard to determine by
talking to people, because like economists, many people have different perceptions. I was just talking to a
Russian-Estonian who was telling me how much better Lithuanians and Latvians are then Estonians at doing
things and how much cheaper things are there. It is true that things are much cheaper in the other Baltic
countries because Estonia (a tiny country of just over 1 million people) has taken off. Since the 2008
econmic collapse housing prices have shot up and in Tallinn there is building going on all over the city.
But, my acquaintance is wrong about other things. Estonians do things very well and Tallinn is a very nice
city, with beautiful cafes, clean and well kept streets and crime is very low. It is a very good city,
except it is now very expensive, especially considering how much people make here. The weather is not nice,
except for in the summer and there are friendly Estonians but they don't have a reputation for being
particularly friendly, even among themselves. I have not been back to Latvia yet, but when I was in Riga
years ago, it was a gorgeous city, bigger than Tallinn too. I think they do things very well there too. The
Russians I speak to here are often friendly and based on what I have been told, relations between Russians
and Estonians are much better than when I was here in the early 2000's.
No offense is intended to
Russians, but the Baltic countries had large German populations that played a key role in the development of
the cultures and peoples of these countries. There were also many Jews here prior to WW II. By the time WW
II had begun the German populations were much smaller than they had been and at the end of the war the
Jewish populations were much smaller. Jews were targeted in Latvia and Lithuania and many Latvians,
Lithuanians and Estonians were shipped off to far off places in the USSR during the war. I believe the Jews
were largely pro communist and welcomed the Soviet takeover of these countries in 1940, while the Latvian
and Estonian peoples were pro German, thus explaining the hard feelings between Balts and Jews.. They wanted
independence and formed legions to fight alongside the German army during WW II.
These countries were very advanced before WW II, having engineering industries and the Russian Empire's
first auto company was formed in Riga before WW I. While engineering may have been restarted after WW II,
these countries populations were decimated and they never returned to their former heights. Perhaps they
still can.
I'm assuming that these 3 East European countries are being bombarded with the same propaganda as the Ukies
are, so Russian speakers and those intelligent enough to see the game being played will be belittled and
isolated. But the Russian folks living in Russia have a birds eye view of what is going on in the west and
their puppet countries. Russia TV and debate programs, just have to show the delinquencies that are daily
happenings in the States, and Europe, in order to make the Ru people say – No Thanks to that way of life. As
far as the new Russian cheeses that are now in the markets -lol – they make a lightly smoked gouda that is
really good and is about 120-140 roubles a kilo. And, they are making more cheddar that is a white medium
taste as well. No scarcity of good natural food in Russia and No POlice state. Spacibo Unz Rev.
The trade volume between Russia and the Baltic states has actually risen, despite the sanctions. The Baltics
send food products and booze to Russia (and another 150 countries, food exports to Russia actually grew in
2016-2018). As well as chemical products and pharmaceuticals. Meldonium, btw, is made in Latvia and is still
being sent to Russia (as well as 20 other countries), not for athletes, but for regular folks. Work is being
carried out on a new generation Meldonium pill (the biggest market will be Russia).
Growth in the Baltic states has been 3-4% in the last few years. GDP per capita, as well as HDI, is
higher than in Russia. Foreign investment, including from Russia, has been growing (Russia was the second
largest investor in Latvia in 2018). Savings rates are growing, too. After a relative quiet period after
2010, the number of Russian (and other tourists) has grown again.
Estonia's population stopped shrinking in 2016 and is now growing in fact. They've seen immigration from
Finland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, as well as returning Estonians.
Emigration is a problem, of course, but this is partly because the Baltic states are the only former USSR
republics whose citizens were even given work permits in the West, imagine what would happen if these
permits were given to Russians from the regions.
Neo-liberal policies are of course bad and certain types of investment should be controlled, but to say
that there are no social services in the Baltic states is complete nonsense. Due to generous parental
payments, birthrates have risen significantly since the 1990s – in fact, birthrates in the Baltics are now
slightly higher than the EU average. Life expectancy is also growing. Latvia covers IVF treatments in full.
There are free school lunches.
Yes, it is true that some of the Soviet era factories should've been salvaged but the problem was they
were not competitive globally at that time (and there was no capital to remodel them). The Soviet market was
a closed one. However, some businesses were salvaged. There is local manufacturing (electronics,
pharmaceuticals, etc).
Not everything is ideal, but it is also not the kind of gloom and doom as you paint.
Saker says:
"Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing growth, but was that not
mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies?"
"Foreign Aid Makes Corrupt Countries More Corrupt":
"Any time a government hands out money, not just foreign aid, it breeds corruption And there are few
better examples than Ukraine – just don't tell the House impeachment hearings. Counting on foreign aid to
reduce corruption is like expecting whiskey to cure alcoholism .If U.S. aid was effective, Ukraine would
have become a rule of law paradise long ago . The surest way to reduce foreign corruption is to end
foreign aid."
@onebornfree
The EU gives every year about 2,500 million euros to the 3 Baltic countries ( 6 million people the three of
them ) , and 9000 million euros to Poland ( 38 million people ) , plus more billions to other eastern
members .
Older members of the EU , specially the UK which is going out , Greece witch was tortured ( again )
economically by Germany , and south Europe in general are not very happy about admitting so many ex-soviets
countries en the EU and subsidizing them .
Recovery and self-sufficiency since Yeltsin show the brilliance of the Russian people
It's not so much brilliance as sheer necessity to survive under sanctions. But some results were better
than anyone expected. Say, food before sanctions used to be so-so in the provinces and downright bad in
Moscow because of abundance of imported crap. Now the food is exclusively domestic, fresh and tasty. Russia
never had traditions of making fancy cheeses. Now, to bypass sanctions, quite a few Italian and French
cheese-makers started production in Russia, so in the last 2-3 years domestically made excellent fancy
cheeses appeared in supermarkets. Arguably, Russian agriculture benefited by sanctions more than any other
sector, but there are success stories virtually in every industry. Sanctions and Ukrainian stupidity served
as a timely wake up call for Russian elites, who earlier wanted to sell oil and natural gas and buy
everything else. Replacing imports after the sanctions were imposed had a significant cost in the short run,
but in the long run it made Russia much stronger, economically and militarily. Speak of unintended
consequences.
My mom is from Lithuania and I've been there several times. We have second cousins our age.
Her father was
a surveyor for the Republic in the 20s and 30s, charged with breaking up the manors and estates and the
state distributing the land to the peasantry. It was near-feudalism. There was very little
industrialization; that which existed were in a few urban centers. One interesting comment from her was that
the "Jews were communists". From what I've read they were the urban working class, but perhaps part of the
socialist/Jewish Bund?
There is no doubt that the Soviet period unleashed considerable industrialization and modernization.
Lithuania had some of the best infrastructure in the USSR. Its traditional culture was really celebrated.
When I first visited, not long after the fall of the USSR, there were enormous, vacant industrial plants.
The collective farms were in the process of being sold off the western European agribusiness firms. One
relative through marriage was from the Ukraine, with a PhD in Physics and had been employed in the military
industries -- she was cleaning houses thereafter.
Any usable industrial enterprises were quickly sold off. The utilities are all foreign owned. Part of EU
mandates are "open" electricity "markets", which resulting in DC interconnections costing hundreds of
millions with the west to import very high priced electricity. The EU has paid for "Via Baltica", a highway
running from Poland to Estonia; it is choked with trucks carrying imports and there are huge distribution
and fulfillment centers along the highway. Such progress, huh?
There had been good public transport in the earlier years of independence, but that has been replaced
with personal automobiles -- usually western European used cars that pollute a lot. Trakai is a commuter town
to Vilnius with a medieval castle (restored in Soviet times). First time I went it was very pleasant. Second
time in 2018 the place was choked with cars and not very nice at all.
The impact of emigration cannot be over-stated. College educated young people leave by the hundreds
of thousands. Those that remain are paid very low wages (e.g., 1000 euros for a veterinarian or dentist),
but pay west European prices for many essentials. Housing is cheaper than the west.
Last time in Kazlu Ruda there were huge NATO exercises in progress and even bigger ones planned for 2020.
German units were billeted at an airbase nearby, rumored to have been a CIA black site. How fitting, as the
Germans with the Lithuanian Riflemens Union exterminated a quarter of a million Jews in a matter of months
(see Jager Report on Wikipedia). There is a Red Army graveyard in the town that has the remains of perhaps
350 soldiers killed in the area driving out the Nazis. I was frankly surprised it was still there.
Lithuania hasn't been independent since the days of the Pagans and Vytautas. It surely isn't independent
today.
Anecdotal -- yes. But based on personal observation.
"... The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or supply documents to them. ..."
"... Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. ..."
"... There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one of his top aides. ..."
"... General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat." ..."
"... Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in Syria. ..."
"... Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in Washington. ..."
By a near party-line vote of 232-196, the US House of Representatives voted Thursday for a
resolution laying out the procedures for the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump
that was begun September 24. The resolution sets the stage for the holding of public, televised
hearings and the likely drawing up of articles of impeachment in the course of the next
month.
Only two Democrats out of 233 in the House voted against the resolution, Jeff Van Drew of
New Jersey and Colin Peterson of Minnesota. Only one member elected as a Republican, Justin
Amash of Michigan, voted for the resolution. He left the Republican Party in July because of
his support for impeachment, and he now sits as an independent.
The sharp divisions over the resolution were reflected in the hour-long debate, in which
Republican defenders of Trump denounced the impeachment inquiry with hysterical anticommunist
rhetoric, calling it "Soviet-style" and a "show trial." Democrats wrapped themselves in the
American flag -- or displayed it on a large placard as they spoke, in the case of Speaker Nancy
Pelosi -- and denounced Trump for endangering US "national security."
The procedure laid down in the eight-page resolution, drafted Wednesday by the House Rules
Committee, gives an outsized role to the House Intelligence Committee, which is to begin public
hearings sometime in November at which many of the witnesses who have testified behind closed
doors will be asked to do so again in front of television cameras.
The Intelligence Committee, along with four other committees conducting investigations into
various aspects of President Trump's personal, business and official conduct, will report its
findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually draw up any articles of impeachment,
vote on them, and send them to the full House for final action.
The overall procedures, including provisions for extended questioning of witnesses by
representatives of both the majority and minority parties, conform generally to similar
measures adopted during the impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon in 1974 and
President Bill Clinton in 1998.
The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend
and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his
order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or
supply documents to them.
In the event of continued presidential stonewalling of the House committees, the resolution
provides that the chair of the Judiciary Committee "shall have the discretion to impose
appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the president or his counsel
under these procedures to call or question witnesses."
In other words, if Trump continues to block testimony and evidence, his attorneys will not
be allowed to cross-examine those witnesses who do appear despite the full-throated opposition
of the White House. Given that many officials and former officials of the Trump administration
have agreed to testify under subpoena, this could become a significant issue.
The special role of the House Intelligence Committee underscores the reactionary nature of
the Democrats' impeachment drive. Trump is being targeted, not for his real crimes as
president, attacking immigrants, undermining democratic rights, and asserting quasi-dictatorial
powers, but for his foreign policy actions that are opposed by a substantial section of the US
military-intelligence apparatus.
The witnesses testifying before the closed-door sessions of the Intelligence Committee are
not immigrant mothers, cruelly and in some cases permanently separated from their children, or
the victims of Trump-inspired fascist gunmen like the El Paso mass shooter. Instead, they are
an array of State Department and military officials at odds with Trump's efforts to browbeat
the government of Ukraine into supplying him with political dirt against former vice president
Joe Biden, viewed by Trump as a likely opponent in the 2020 election.
Particularly significant in that context is the announcement that the Intelligence Committee
has set a November 7 date for the testimony of John Bolton, Trump's former national security
advisor. It is not clear whether Bolton will testify, but the potential alignment of the
Democrats and one of the most notorious war criminals in the American government is a clear
demonstration of the reactionary motives of the Democrats, who are acting as front men for
rabid warmongers in the national-security state.
Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's
top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the
National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons
of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order
to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China
from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian
Oceans.
Morrison is the highest-ranking Trump aide to provide evidence to the Intelligence
Committee, and he announced his impending departure from the White House on Wednesday night,
hours before he was sworn in as a witness. According to leaks to the press from the closed-door
hearing, Morrison largely confirmed the testimony of other witnesses, particularly Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman, that there was a direct quid pro quo involved in US policy towards Ukraine:
Trump demanded a public investigation into the Democratic Party and the Bidens, in return for
military aid and a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House.
There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the
gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to
restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that
benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that
Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would
not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the
Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one
of his top aides.
There were further indications of support for the impeachment drive -- or at least for the
national-security officials who have come forward to testify against Trump -- from the top
levels of the military and diplomatic establishment. General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired
only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday
defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling
him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary
contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat."
And in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is expected
to confirm his nomination to be US Ambassador to Russia, Deputy Secretary of State John
Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was
the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer
her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on
the Bidens.
Asked whether it was "ever appropriate for the president to use his office to solicit
investigations into his domestic political opponents," Sullivan replied, "I don't think that
would be in accord with our values." Given Trump's frequent declarations that his telephone
conversation with Zelensky, in which he made just such a request, was "perfect," Sullivan's
statement is extraordinary. It suggests an unprecedented degree of open revolt against Trump
within the national-security establishment.
The real motives of the impeachment drive were spelled out with particular frenzy in a
column by neoconservative Max Boot, who, like Bolton, has been an all-out supporter of US
military aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and throughout the world. Writing in the
Washington Post , under the headline, "More Trump gifts to Russia," he declares,
"Trump is bringing the United States to its knees and making Russia great again."
Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department
axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against
pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in
Syria.
He writes: "Russian soldiers are entering U.S. bases and taking up the joint patrolling
duties with the Turkish army that U.S. troops had been performing until recently. The fate of
Syria was settled not in Washington but in Sochi -- Putin's favorite Black Sea resort. Trump
has given Russia what it has sought for decades: a leading role in the Middle East. This is the
biggest geopolitical shift in the region since 1972 when Egypt's Anwar Sadat expelled Soviet
advisers and aligned with Washington."
Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step
towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US
role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in
Washington.
by John Quiggin on October 13, 2019 On Facebook, my frined
Timothy Scriven pointed to an opinion piece by classics professor Ian Morris headlined
In the long run, wars make us safer and richer It's pushing a book with the clickbaity
title War! What is it Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to
Robots .". Timothy correctly guessed that I wouldn't like it.
Based on the headline, I was expecting a claim along the lines "wars stimulate technological
progress" which I refuted (to my own satisfaction at any rate) in Economics in Two
Lessons" . But the argument is much stranger than this. The claim is that war, despite its
brutality created big states, like the Roman empire, which then delivered peace and
prosperity.
For the classical world at 100 CE or so, the era on which Morris is an expert, that argument
seemed pretty convincing. As the famous Life of Brian sketch suggests, Roman rule delivered a
lot of benefits to its conquered provinces.
The next 1900 years or so present a bit of a problem, though. There have been countless wars
in that time, and no trend towards bigger states. On the contrary two or three dozen states
(depending on how you count them) now occupy the territory of the former Roman Empire.
You could cut the number down a bit by treating the European Union as a new empire, but then
you have an even bigger problem. The EU was not formed through war, but through a determination
to avoid it. Whatever you think about the EU in other respects, this goal has been
achieved.
Morris avoids the problem by a "no true Scotsman" argument. He admits in passing that the
1000 years of war following the high point of Rome had the effect of breaking down larger,
safer societies into smaller, more dangerous ones, but returns with relief to the era of true
wars, in which big states always win. That story works, roughly, until 1914, when the empires
he admires destroyed themselves, killing millions in the process.
After that, the argument descends into Pinker-style nonsense. While repeating the usual
stats about the decline in violent deaths, Morris mentions in passing that a nuclear war could
cause billions of deaths. He doesn't consider the obvious anthropic fallacy problem – if
such a war had happened, there would not be any op-eds in the Washington Post discussing the
implications for life expectancy.
I haven't read the book, and don't intend to. If someone can't present a 700 word summary of
their argument without looking silly, they shouldn't write opinion pieces. But, for what its
worth, FB friends who have read it agree that it's not very good.
William Meyer 10.13.19 at 12:31 pm (no link)
I have not read the book in question, so I don't know if the author made this point: "Since
violence or implicit violence is how we overcome essentially all collective action problems
as humans, war probably does belong in the human toolkit." Obviously it would be better if we
could find more and better alternatives to war, and remove the obvious glitches in the
alternatives (e.g., representative democracy, single-party states, etc.) we have tried in the
past. So I find it odd as I get old that so little energy/research/academic effort is devoted
by the human race to finding better means of collective decision making. Clearly our current
abilities in this field are completely inadequate. I ponder if this is because we are
incapable of doing better by some inherent flaw in our makeup or if it is because, as in some
many areas of life, the wicked work tirelessly to maintain the systems that enrich and
empower them. I suspect I'll never find out.
Omega Centauri 10.13.19 at 4:33 pm (no link)
There might be a case to be made for empire building conquest advancing human society. I
think it was primarily by forcing the mixing of cultures which otherwise would have been
relatively isolated from each other. Also empires tended to create safe internal trade
routes, the Silk Road was made possible by the Mongol empire.
At least the authors of books about such empires like to state that over a timespan of
centuries that empire creation was a net positive.
Orange Watch 10.13.19 at 7:07 pm (no link)
Tim Worstall and Dipper's suggestion that the EU is borne of war is mostly just a failure to
take Morris's claim on its unsophisticated face and instead assume it contains subtle
complexity that is obviously missing if you read the article itself:
This happened because about 10,000 years ago, the winners of wars began incorporating
the losers into larger societies. The victors found that the only way to make these larger
societies work was by developing stronger governments; and one of the first things these
governments had to do, if they wanted to stay in power, was suppress violence among their
subjects.
For the EU to have been a result of war in the sense that Morris means, it would have to
have been forcibly formed in 1945 by the US/UK/Russia forcibly incorporating Europe into it.
When Morris states "wars make us stronger and richer" he very simply means wars of conquest
are long-term net positives. He doesn't mean something subtle about nations banding together
to forestall further war; he bluntly means conquerors gluing together their conquests into
empires and then liberally applying boot leather to necks.
Mark Brady 10.13.19 at 7:56 pm (no link)
John Quiggin is, of course, well aware of this quotation, but some of you may not.
"Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of
destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us
how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see "miracles of
production" which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a postwar world made certainly
prosperous by an enormous "accumulated" or "backed up" demand. In Europe they joyously count
the houses, the whole cities that have been leveled to the ground and that "will have to be
replaced." In America they count the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon
stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the obsolescent
radios and refrigerators. They bring together formidable totals.
"It is merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat
beyond recognition. This time it is supported by a whole bundle of related fallacies. It
confuses need with demand."
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Chapter 3, "The Blessings of Destruction."
Alex SL 10.13.19 at 8:37 pm (no link)
On one side, AFAIK the last few centuries of war in Europe have indeed seen a reduction of
the number of states. Yes, the trend was partly reversed since 1914, but never to the degree
of splintering that existed in the middle ages.
On the other side, even the widely accepted cases of supposedly 'beneficial' empires such
as the Romans bringing the Pax Romana and the Mongols allowing far-reaching trade and travel
need to be seen against the devastation they caused to make their victories possible. The
Romans, for example, committed genocide in Gaul and Carthage, and they enslaved millions.
Best case argument in my eyes is that a very successful war is beneficial because it stops
continuous smaller wars, which is still not exactly the same as a general "war is
beneficial". Why not just create institutional arrangements that avoid wars between small
nations in the first place?
fran6 10.13.19 at 9:26 pm (no link)
Here's another personality who's also unfazed by the evils of war (although, she does wish
more folks were "kind" to each other):
Stephen @11 Say what? Are you suggesting that the Soviet bloc was part of the EU? As both
your comment and Tim Worstall's unwittingly illustrate, the fact that the EU has been
entirely peaceful since its creation (by contrast with non-EU Europe) is not because
Europeans suddenly became pacifists.
Sorry if I have a hard time getting Morris' argument, but: towards the end, be seems to be
saying the world requires a "Globocop" like the US to ensure its prosperity. But how does
that relate to his wider point about the benefits of war? Does Morris believe the hegemon
owes it to itself, and to the rest of the world, to wage permanent war?
Morris sold out. This was evident in his book comparing the progress of China and Europe,
though that book made excellent points in between the fluff and is well worth reading. But he
is well versed enough in Chinese history to be aware of the ultimate example of armies
conquering and bringing peace to a large area, which happens repeatedly in Chinese history.
Actually, Chinese history itself shows that the opposite argument has more support, that
instead of war being valuable because one powerful country will conquer a large area and
bring peace to it, its valuable because competition between states who are worried about
other states getting a jump on them turns out to be valuable to progress. Large continental
empires, including the Roman one as well, tended to stagnate in terms of culture and
technology and become correct.
MFB 10.15.19 at 7:18 am (no link)
Well, the opinion-piece was published on Jeff Bezos' blog. Oligarchs are naturally in favour
of centralised power and therefore of empires (so long as they are at the apex thereof, which
they usually are). The best way to build an empire is through war.
Of course, the author has to say "despite Hitler, Stalin and Mao", for ideological
reasons. Actually, Hitler built his empire largely through the threat of war rather than
through war itself; once he had actually started the war, he antagonised three more powerful
empires than his own and his empire was then crushed. As for Stalin, he actually did various
double-back-somersaults to avoid getting into wars, and the "empire" which he built in
Eastern Europe as a result of winning a war he didn't want did not sustain itself. And of
course Mao didn't start any wars at all -- his name just had to be thrown in for reactionary
reasons.
It is true that the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British empires were built upon war.
But where are they now? The United States fought a lot of wars against its indigenous people,
but frankly it would still have been a global superpower if it had simply sidestepped most of
them, at least from about 1865 onward.
An interesting question: can it be that a professor of Classics doesn't actually have to
understand the concept of evidence-based argument in any case, because everything has already
been said on the subject and all you have to do is cherry-pick other people's statements?
Because that seems to be how that silly article reads.
And yes, the whole thing reeks of the better angels propaganda. Let's not forget, by the
way, that various members of the EU -- Britain, France, Italy et al -- have launched brutally
murderous wars elsewhere, and the fact that they don't fight among themselves doesn't make
them peaceful or moral entities.
@TheSophist #25: that was mentioned as a joke rather than self-publicity, but if you're
really interested: The Roman Empire: roots of imperialism (Pluto Press, 2020). Obviously
books about the Roman Empire are ten a penny; my main claim for this one, besides its being
less apologetic and/or gung-ho than most, is that I try to integrate the historical reality
with its reception, i.e. how people have subsequently deployed Rome as an example or model.
Maybe the Roman Empire delivered on peace, but prosperity is a bit more complicated. Some
years ago David Hays wrote a book on the history of technology. One of the things he did was
make a back-of-the-envelope estimate of material welfare at different levels of development.
He concluded that, while civilization has always been a good deal for the elite, it's been
rather iffy for peasants and workers. It's only during the Industrial Evolution that the
standard of living at the lower end of society rose above that of hunter-gatherers. So, the
prosperity delivered by the Roman Empire went mostly to the elite, not the peasantry.
Peter Erwin@43 wanted the Nazis to roll right up to the eastern border of Poland, etc. etc.
So did Hitler. And although I'm quite reluctant to read minds, especially dead one, I will
nevertheless guarantee the move into the Baltics was seen as a blow to his plans, even if
accepted for temporary advantage. You must always see who hates Stalin for beating Hitler,
and those rare few who object to his real crimes.
And, Erwin thinks Chinese troops being in Korea with permission is an aggression, while US
troops closing on Chinese borders is not. The US still isn't out of Korea, but China is, but
he can't figure out who the aggressor is.
Really, Peter Erwin really says it all. The maddest ant-Communist propaganda is now
official.
MFB 10.17.19 at 9:02 am (no link)
I don't want to unnecessarily dump on Peter Erwin, because I don't believe in kicking
disadvantaged children, but if he reads the original post he will notice that it was talking
about international wars, not civil wars. I'll admit the invasion of Finland (and of the
Baltic states and Poland) but those were fairly obviously ways of strengthening the USSR's
position in order to discourage a German invasion, and all took place within the boundaries
of the former Russian Empire which Stalin undoubtedly saw as the default position.
As to Mao, he didn't start the Korean war (as Erwin unwillingly admits) and all the other
wars except for the invasion of Vietnam were civil wars since they entailed moving into
Chinese-controlled territory which had broken away during the main civil war. I'll admit that
Vietnam was a problem, but then, since Mao had been dead for some time by then, it's would be
hard for Erwin to blame him except for the fact that Erwin clearly lives on Planet
Bizarro.
@John Quiggin The claim is that war, despite its brutality created big states, like the
Roman empire, which then delivered peace and prosperity
I don't think this is an intellectually generous summary of the arguments, as presented in
the article.
The author himself summarizes it as "war made states, and states made peace", and if it is
indeed true that the author often speaks of "larger, more organized societies" there is a
strong implication that for a society to be "large" in the sense discussed in the article, it
is not really necessary that it be territorially very wide (the most clear cut indication of
that is that the author refers to the European states of the 1600s as "big, settled states"
while they all were geographically tiny at the time). So the point of the author, if
interpreted with intellectual honesty, seems to me to be twofold: 1) that war has been a
crucial factor in the formation of complex, organized states and societies and 2) that these
complex, organized states and societies brought with them so many positive things that the
wars required to form them were worth it.
The second point is pure Pinker. I consider it logically meaningless, myself (it
ultimately relies on the concept that History proceeds like an individual who is choosing a
pair of shoes) and morally repugnant (it is not hard to see who will be pleased to have a
rhetorical tool that can justify any atrocity by the long term gains it will provide humanity
– indeed, it is instructive in that respect to read SS internal papers on when and why
children should be executed with their parents, and how to select people for that task:
contrary to what could be guessed, the manual recommends the soldiers who appear to have a
strong sense of empathy and morality, with the idea that they will those who will most
strongly endorse the "by doing this abominable act, we are sacrificing ourselves on behalf of
future generations" thesis).
The first point, however, appears to me to be broadly correct descriptively. Extracting an
interesting thesis out of it requires much more work than is indicated by the article,
however (I consider Ertman's Birth of the Levianthan an example of that kind of extra
work done successfully).
@John Quiggin Lots of people predicted, along the lines of your post, that with the
external threat of the USSR gone, and the US pulling back, the old warlike Europe would
reassert itself.
I think what we may call the "wide military context thesis" runs rather like this: because
of the experience of WWII and the Cold War, modern industrial states have amassed enormous
military power while at the same time knowing that they can experience total destruction if
they enter into a military conflict with a state of comparable military might. As a
consequence, peace dominates between them. So France is not at war with the United Kingdom or
Germany, certainly in part because they are all (for now) members of the EU but also in part
for the same reason Japan is not at war with South Korea and Russia not at war with
China.
Personally, I think it would be absurd to claim that the EU has played no role in the
pacification of Western Europe in the second half of the twentieth century, but I think it
would be equally absurd to deny the role of other factors that plainly play a major role in
the equally remarkable pacification of other regional areas in the absence of an economical
and political unification process (rise in prosperity, rise in education, aging populations,
increased military power ).
@7, Omega
Not really wanting to get into the "do empires benefit civilization by promoting trade"
argument, but having just read Lost Enlightenment, nothing in that lengthy tome suggests the
Silk Road city states gain any special advantage from the Mongol invasion. In fact, quite the
opposite. After the Mongols (in part for reasons preceeding the conquest), Central Asia never
regained its pre-eminence (it had actually not just been a facilitator of trade but also a
center of manufacture, culture, scientific progress). Maybe the trade routes hobbled along as
trade routes but the civilization that was both built by and facilitated trade did not
rebound. Most empires seem to get that there is wealth to be had from involvement in trade,
they don't always know how to keep the gold goose alive.
LFC 10.20.19 at 9:10 pm (no link)
"War made states and states made peace" is a riff on Charles Tilly's line "war made the state
and the state made war."
"... Obama's life and actions are a texbook explanation of how humans develop on the sociopathic spectrum. Not all sociopaths are evil-looking monsters. Obama, Biden, Buttigieg, Kamala, W... but their actions always expose them. We, as fellow humans and sentient beings, must develop filters that trigger deeper probes into their actions over time and their sociopathic-- even psychopatic actions will emerge. ..."
For the hysterical Trump Derangement Syndrome jello-brained fools saying Trump is
killing people in secret or something ridiculous like that, check out the list of drone
murders in Pakistan as a rather typical illustration. The trend is the same for Yemen and
Afghanistan.
Here are the crucial totals for Pakistan:
Strikes under the Bush Administration: 51
Strikes under the Obama Administration: 373
Strikes under the Trump Administration: 5
84 of the 2,379 dead have been identified as members of al-Qaeda
"O-bomber" is an apt sobriquet for the previous Nobel Peace Prize winning
PotUS.
Karlof1,petri, lysias and others,(@40s) thank you for your details and focus on the U.S.
government's crimes and actions in Ukraine, especially pointing to Obama. His name is left
out of most blogs and discussions and I think is key to a critical need for us to redirect
our future conversations and actions: we need to identify the neoliberal/neocon trojan
horses early and often. I voted for Obama in 08 and was shocked as he immediately began
filling his cabinet with neoliberal/neocons-- Geitner, Hillary, Gates, Summers, etc.
Obama's life and actions are a texbook explanation of how humans develop on the
sociopathic spectrum. Not all sociopaths are evil-looking monsters. Obama, Biden,
Buttigieg, Kamala, W... but their actions always expose them. We, as fellow humans and
sentient beings, must develop filters that trigger deeper probes into their actions over
time and their sociopathic-- even psychopatic actions will emerge.
lysias 98 US when it comes to international law has been lawless since 1986.
"The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1 is a public
international law case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in
favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The
ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their
rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United
States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that
the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. also blocked enforcement of the
judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from
obtaining any compensation.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
In the last decades, US has used things like R2P and coalitions and so forth, but under
Trump, US is dropping most pretenses. Pompeo at times is as honest as Trump when it comes to
US and what it is.
I linked a video in an earlier comment to Pompeo, but then I realised there was a bit more to
"We lied, we cheated, we stole." The piece that was cut off in the earlier video I linked "
It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment"
We can all wish that things were different, but they are what they are. So we have to
recognize what exists and look out for ourselves. And a little shot of Edward Abbey is pain
relief sometimes. Some quips from an anarchist:
> I know my own nation best. That's why I despise it the most. And I know and love my own
people, too, the swine. I'm a patriot. A dangerous man!
> A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
> Democracy--rule by the people--sounds like a fine thing; we should try it sometime in
America.
>> No man is wise enough to be another man's master. Each man's as good as the next --
if not a damn sight better.
The Bushes were a CIA family. William Barr's first jobs after college were with the CIA, and
his father was OSS. This has been the CIA's attitude towards law from the start. They've
largely been running the country since the JFK assassination, and now they're out in the open
trying to topple an elected president.
Arguably some of the most significant events since the eight-year long war's start have played out in Syria with rapid pace over
just the last month alone, including Turkey's military incursion in the north, the US pullback from the border and into Syria's oil
fields, the Kurdish-led SDF&# deal making with Damascus, and the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All of this is why a
televised interview with Presiden39;st Bashar Assad was highly anticipated at the end of this week.
Assad's commentary on the latest White House policy to "secure the oil" in Syria, for which US troops have already been redeployed
to some of the largest oil fields in the Deir Ezzor region, was the biggest pressing question. The Syrian president's response was
unexpected and is now driving headlines, given what he said directly about Trump, calling him the "best American president" ever
– because he's the "most transparent."
"When it comes to Trump you may ask me a question and I'll give you an answer which might seem strange. I tell you he's the best
American president," Assad said, according to a
translation provided by NBC.
"Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president," Assad continued.
"All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the 'unique'
and 'brilliant' American or Western principles. But all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the
American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others," he added.
"Trump speaks with the transparency to say 'We want the oil'." Assad's unique approach to an 'enemy' head of state which has just
ordered the seizure of Syrian national resources also comes after in prior years the US president called Assad "our enemy" and an
"animal."
Trump tweeted in April 2018 after
a new chemical attack allegation had surfaced: "If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster
would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"
A number of mainstream outlets commenting on Assad's interview falsely presented it as "praise" of Trump or that Assad thinks
"highly" of him; however,
it appears the Syrian leader was merely presenting Trump's policy statements from a 'realist' perspective , contrasting them from
the misleading 'humanitarian' motives typical of Washington's rhetoric about itself.
That is, Damascus sees US actions in the Middle East as motivated fundamentally by naked imperial ambition, a constant prior theme
of Assad's speeches , across administrations, whether US leadership dresses it up as 'democracy promotion' or in humanitarian terms
characteristic of liberal interventionism. As Assad described, Trump seems to skip dressing up his rhetoric in moralistic idealism
altogether, content to just unapologetically admit the ugly reality of US foreign policy.
I see Americans keep calling Assad and Putin a ''dictator'' Hey, jackasses, they were ELECTED in elections far less corrupt than what you have in the USSA
Assad is a very eloquent speaker. Witty, sharp and always calm when speaking with decadent press. Of course the MSM understood
what he DID mean, but they cannot help themselves, but parse anything to try hurting Trump.
If true. It means the Vatican (the oldest most important money there is) like Saudi Arabia and the UAE sure do seem to care
about stuff like purchasing power in their "portfolios" and a "store of value"?...
I see lots of EU participants taking their money to Moscow as well with that Arctic bonanza that says "come hither" if you
want your money to be worth something!!!
It's always been about oil. Spreading Freedumb, Dumbocracy and Western values, is PR spiel. The reality is, the West are scammers,
plunderers and outright thieves. Forget the billions Shell Oil, is holding for the Biafran people/region in Nigeria, which it
won't give to either the Bianfran states in the east, nor the Nigerian government, dating back to the secessionist state of Biafra/Nigerian civil war 1967-70. The west are nothing more than gang-bangers, but on the world stage.
Yet the department for trade and industry is scratching its head, wondering why their are so few takers for a post-Brexit trade
deal with the UK, where the honest UK courts have the final say? lol
Too bad it is political suicide for an American president to try to establish communication with Assad. He seems like a pretty
practical guy and who knows, it might be possible to work out a peaceful settlement with him.
economic warfare on the syrian civlian population through illegal confiscation of vital civilian economic assets, and as conducted
in venezeula, is called ________________
Assad is saying where before the UKK was a masked thief, with Trompas and his egotism alias exceptionalism, has not bothered
withthe mask. He is still a murderer and thief.
Now Assad has some idea why Trump is so popular with his base, they love him for not being politically correct, for "telling
it like it is". He's like the wolf looking at the sheep and telling them he's going to eat them and the sheep cheering because
he's not being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Unfortunately in the case of Trump's sheeple, they don't even have a clue they're going to be eaten, the Trumptards all think
he's going to eat someone else like the "deep state" or the "dumbocrats". Meanwhile he's chewing away at their health care, their
export markets, piling up record deficits, handing the tax gold to the rich and corporations while they get the shaft, taking
away program after program that aided students, the poor, and the elderly, appointing lobbyists to dismantle or corrupt departments
they used to lobby against, and in general destroying the international good will that it's taken decades to build.
"... Of course, when the die was cast and Rumsfeld's famous Shock and Awe campaign began, the three major news talk channels, CNN, MSNBC and FOX, were all over us with cheerleading. ..."
"... Swinton's use of the phrase 'Intellectual prostitutes' rang true then. ..."
"... As the war criminal Mr. Obama stated, when in 2008 many of his own party wanted to have hearings on the pre-emptive attack and occupation of Iraq, that it was time to 'Move forward'. Forward he did by increasing the number of drone murderous assaults by Tenfold! ..."
"... Now that he is out of office, Barack, the 'Hope and Change' king, just purchased a home for $8.1 million. Tell that to the suckers who fell for his rhetoric in the Afro American communities. ..."
There is no such thing at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press There is not ONE of you who
dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print!
I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with The business of journalists is to destroy
the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his
daily bread We are the tools of rich men behind the scenes.
We are jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property
of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes!"
We only need go back a few short years to see the utter magnitude of what Swinton was talking about. Remember the illegal and
immoral USA invasion and occupation of Iraq? Most of the 'levers of empire' were pushed to accommodate that bit of lying, disinformation
and half truths.
This writer remembers when Phil Donahue had his nightly news/talk show on MSNBC. By February of 2003 or thereabouts, Jeff Cohen,
Phil's producer, recalls how he was told to have TWO pro invasion guests on for every anti invasion guest. Remember, at that time
General Electric Corp. owned MSNBC. Yet, that was not enough to satisfy the empire. On February 23 the Donahue show was cancelled,
although the ratings were pretty good.
You see, by that time, late February, the machine was all ready for the attack. It just needed a few more morsels of propaganda
to sink into both the Congress and of course the consumers Sorry, I mean the citizenry.
This writer was extremely agitated by the high level of Pro invasion info coming over the embedded mainstream print and electronic
media. One slight consolation was when C-Span actually 'did the correct thing' and showed a Canadian news channel's coverage of the
impending doom.
Of course, when the die was cast and Rumsfeld's famous Shock and Awe campaign began, the three major news talk channels, CNN,
MSNBC and FOX, were all over us with cheerleading.
FOX was so off the radar that no critique is needed. However, CNN and MSNBC, trying to look like 'Neutral Journalism 101', could
not contain their peanut gallery mindsets, the one that John Swinton referred to in his famous speech.
You had Aaron Brown, Lester Holt and little Katie Couric (of flagship station NBC, owned by GE), along with Brian Williams (later
to be outed, for but awhile, for his phony news stories in Iraq) all right there celebrating the 'Liberators of Iraq'.
They all wore their flag buttons on their lapels, and little Katie was filmed strolling through the halls of NBC shouting 'Marines
Rock!' Of course, Lester Holt did the 'right (wing) thing' and now is a respected anchor so much so that good ole Lester moderates
presidential debates.
Swinton's use of the phrase 'Intellectual prostitutes' rang true then.
Now we come to a recent bit of disgrace. Ellen Degeneres, the highly celebrated and successful daytime talk show hostess and proud
gay woman, was seen sitting with Junior Bush at a Dallas Cowboys game, in the exclusive owner's box area.
She has had Junior on her show to talk about his painting, has visited him at his ranch, and considers him a 'Nice guy'. Junior
has, on record as president, never did squat to help with the AIDs pandemic, and allowed his far right evangelical beliefs to keep
him from ever speaking favorably about gay rights etc.
Yet, this openly gay woman, who must have felt alarmed by our illegal invasion (OR DID SHE?), must have had friends who were enraged
by that invasion at the time.
All the many alternative news blips must have gotten to her eyes and ears, telling her that the Bush/Cheney gang were WAR CRIMINALS!
Yet Ms. DeGeneres continues to satisfy the lie which tells us to take a pass on the dastardly things done by the war criminals in
the White House.
As the war criminal Mr. Obama stated, when in 2008 many of his own party wanted to have hearings on the pre-emptive attack
and occupation of Iraq, that it was time to 'Move forward'. Forward he did by increasing the number of drone murderous assaults by
Tenfold!
Now that he is out of office, Barack, the 'Hope and Change' king, just purchased a home for $8.1 million. Tell that to the
suckers who fell for his rhetoric in the Afro American communities.
Anyone but the foolish people who still support Mr. Trump realize that he is as much of a populist as the man he emulates with
his body gestures: Il Duce!
Nothing ever changes when the majority of working stiffs suck in the foul air that comes from the mouths of the empire's minions,
whether they be presidents, congress people or (so called) journalists and talk show hosts. It is time for those of good conscience
to boycott the lot of them!
Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson
of Brooklyn , NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his works posted on sites like Global
Research, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News,
Dissident Voice, , Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on
World News Trust , whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut
military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has an internet interview show, 'It's the Empire...
Stupid' with producer Chuck Gregory.
Pretty good article. Pity you had to spoil it with the Trump populist Mussolini comparison at the end. Don't get me wrong I am
no Trump fan but are you saying that much of the stuff written about him is not propaganda? So when it comes to Trump the media
are ..even handed? honest? ..unbiased? (LOL). P.S. How many wars did Bush try and stop? How many wars did Obama stop? Is stopping
wars now "populism"? Even I can see that the highest levels of the US government have been compromised by the intelligence agencies
and corrupt partisan actors. Need I remind you that it was a "populist" who called out the FAKE NEWS?
Doctortrinate
The News Today, as slipshod as you like – but how far is it different from those diligent yesterdays. Broadcasts, built upon a
complex Fabrication, to deceive it's willing dependants into accepting falsifications as an authentic constant of everyday reality.
So, until the demoi discard the pleasure of blissful ignorance, for the painful truth whatever the spin, however its dressed,
the story will continue, trapped in it's own invention, lost in a pernicious labyrinth where every redundant turn forgets the
last.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Corporatism is Fascism, and Fascists that tow the party line are always utilized for purposes of impression management much like
props on a TV program are. Dubya is a corporatist whore just as daytime talk show hosts are too. Assuming that corporatist whores
should have integrity is naďve in the extreme.
If you watch television you are an automaton without enough reason to be able to turn the television off given that you have
been programmed to mindlessly adhere to whatever the television coughs up daily.
If you watch mindless Fascists entertaining mass murderers like George W. Bush at ballgames that host the Military Industrial
Complex for halftime shows you are _Functionally Retarded_ and likely skimmed over this article whilst locked in a trance state
of ignorance & a lack of education.
FUCK America & American television.
It's a bankrupt Corporation that is $22 trillion in debt that it will never pay back, suckers!
MOU
wardropper
" Mr. Obama stated, when in 2008 many of his own party wanted to have hearings on the pre-emptive attack and occupation of
Iraq, that it was time to 'Move forward' "
And I will never, ever, forget Nancy Pelosi's dismissive shrug when many of that same party were calling for Bush's impeachment
on account of that illegal invasion:
"Impeachment is off the table." Decent Americans no longer have a representative in the US government. As Swinton clearly
implies, those who hire today's journalists bear practically all the responsibility for this.
hollyPlastic
A glaring example of how much the West loves freedom is shown in this UN briefing on Torture, this week.
This serves a good demonstration of how stupid Hong Kong protesters are in believing that there is a 'West/UK/US' supporting
their quest for 'Democracy' and 'Freedom'.
milosevic
you mean Hollywood movies aren't an accurate source of information about world politics and history???
hollyPlastic
Look and you'll see that according to the Controlled Corporate Mass Media, there are, in this period of history, three pillars
that are supporting Western civilisation:
Pillar One: Peroxide. Look how very blonde people are getting on mainstream media. You can't miss it. Good investment to
buy shares in Peroxide factories.
Piller Two: White Skin. Whether it's using Photoshop or Skin Whitening Products, people are looking very white in their
photos, these days.
Pillar three: Piercing Blue Eyes. That must be using photoshop, because there aren't eyes that are so blue in real life
like you see nowadays in the photos.
And
The Blonde is getting blonder. Even, black is now turning blonde. The White is getting whiter. The Blue is getting bluer.
Other pillars of Western Civilisation are somewhat behind the scene and include the proliferation/sales of weapons of mass
destruction, breaking international laws, as well as, the withdrawal from treaties which restrict the deployment of nuclear missiles.
mark
Ah, but everybody knows Bombing Brown People and Torturing Brown People is good for them. We only do it for their benefit. And
this in no way contradicts Our Values and Our Rules Based Order. All these benighted natives and lesser breeds are jolly grateful
for all our lofty sermons and pious lectures about human rights.
I find it very interesting, how people need to worship something!It seems to me that they aren't able to admit, that there are
things that are not clear to them!For instance, we know very little about the universe, so we declare God made it!
hollyPlastic
There is a poignant remark made on these pages which goes something like this:
When surviving depends on believing, the mind works wonders
I think the implications of 'believing' in order to survive are profound. People need to believe in order to fit in,
in order to get a job, in order to get a promotion, in order to get married, in order to get enough food to feed their offspring,
and in order to 'look' free.
Not to forget, by believing in Jesus, you give your proxy support to plunder every inch of the Earth, and kill as many brown-skin
people as possible.
hollyPlastic
I describe this situation we face as mind control warfare
It is indeed. Thanks for the valuable thoughts!
Tim Jenkins
Mammon avoids questioning & analysing incredible endless lies by 'Schiff for brains'. When actually, just like Norman Bates in
Psycho, Adam Schiff is actually the "whistleblower", with bent whistle all he needs is a wig and a rocking chair 🙂
Jayzus . Adam fecken Schiff. Complete wackjob extraordinaire, tho in Washington DC he has s(ch)tiff competition. Someone the Liberal
bourgie professional types here in Aussie regard with dewy eyed fondness and admiration for leading the . Resistance. Gag. Can
things get anymore surreal? Do you sometimes feel like you've dropped acid by mistake such is the bizarre happenings, um, happening.
Do you think the Mad Hatter would be perplexed at the state of our World? I know I bloody am
bob
Hey man, there's nothing wrong with the way the British regime treats its sick people .
Bob, nothing wrong at all -- if you worship St.Margaret of Muck, patron saint of the AZC.
"There's no such thing as a social conscience".
Pyewacket
Eugenics mate, it's been back in fashion here for the past decade. But instead of dying in a death camp, you die on the street,
or your own home, if you have one.
vexarb
AOO, you mean Trump's Time to Bring Them Back might be genuine? I give him credit because I understand his problem: he has to
face his Jewish daughter and her Likudnik husband.
"It is easier to rule an Empire than to manage a family" -- Montaigne
vexarb
ps Not only face but live with. Trump's sincerity is in the same awkward family position as Cher in "Moonstruck" when she and
her boyfriend meet her father and his girlfriend at the Opera, and she says to her father:
"I'm not sure whether I saw you".
mark
The only 2 reputable journalists who tried to cover Iraq honestly were Donahue and Chris Hedges. Needless to say, both were immediately
sacked. Needless to say, all the cheerleading whores with blood on their hands prospered greatly and are still in situ peddling
new lies.
Graft
Unfortunately Donahue is not on the working mans side he just didn't want a war and Chris Hedges is controlled opposition that's
why he has his own tv show and lost a tonne of support for his outright lies about Lenin
mark
I don't agree with either of them on different issues but I wouldn't question their integrity.
Ramdan
"But the more fundamental problem is that Americans are too nice. That may seem like a paradox, since we are a country that blithely
bombs the world and then weeps with self-pity and affronted dignity when the little people we just stomped on fail to forgive
us for tearing out their fingernails. In fact, our niceness is itself a symptom of the moral obliviousness that permits us to
enact atrocities in the first place. Niceness is not friendliness, not hospitality, not charity and not goodness. Niceness is
the blank grin on the face of the psychopath: it is the public enactment of all the forms of love and kindness without the troublesome
burden of loving anyone or treating people with kindness.
This is what an Ellen DeGeneres is really getting at when she brags about being friends with those who have "different beliefs."
It is not a matter of actual emotional attachment to any system of values, and it's certainly not a matter of transcending minor
political squabbles to form some approximation of a community. [ ]
Rather, she is saying that it is more personally and professionally convenient just to be nice to whatever person happens to be
in the same grandstand for the same spectacle of large men grievously injuring each other. It is not that there are disparate
values to be bridged in order to form a diverse and tolerant society. Instead, it is hankering after the ease of a society in
which there is no necessity to form a core of values beyond the practical calculation of personal and social advantage."
Dubya rehabilitated himself by slagging off the Orange Man. So he's now a jolly decent chap and all round good egg. Certainly
outweighs a little thing like a couple of million dead sand niggers.
Graft
As jimmy Bore said on his show liberals love Bush nowadays but they still fucking hate Ralph Nader, because he gave us ..Bush!
Mind officially blown
Ramdan
This is an interesting (as for debate) assessment of the motives and the way we (mis)construct reality .
"in the interests of survival" but "survival" of what?
"survival" of a mind construct as in "I don't like this but I NEED to do it to survive, to STAY ALIVE, to keep eating, to not
to die"?
"Survival" as in the indegenous kids eating from dumpsters? (
here and
here ) .
OR "survival" of our INTERNALIZED adoration of Mammon as the provider for pleasurable moments and the utter avoidance of the
non-pleasurable.
survival of a vehement desire for what is mentally, socially and culturally construed as 'satisfactory', 'laudable', 'praiseworthy',
'deserving' .which basically is the adoration of wealth, and 'upper' social status, of celebrity and of all other things that
represent the ACTUAL internal adoration of Mammon.
Is in this- seemingly 'innocuous' – way that reality is subverted and we (unconsciously) construct the uber-materialistic worldview
that continues to discard the honest, deep human, spiritual values that can save us from this madness.
I would rather remember again, and old, "crazy" guy .
"A philosopher named Aristippus, who had quite willingly sucked up to Dionysus and won himself a spot at his court, saw
Diogenes cooking lentils for a meal. "If you would only learn to compliment Dionysus, you wouldn't have to live on lentils."
Diogenes replied, "But if you would only learn to live on lentils, you wouldn't have to flatter Dionysus."
― Diogenes of Sinope
"... In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted. ..."
"... Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor. ..."
"... I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil - they didn't. ..."
"... I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique. ..."
"... And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot. ..."
"... How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement. ..."
Recently Ukraine has been thrown into the spotlight as Democrats gear up to impeach President Donald Trump. More important, though,
is its role in damaging America's relations with Russia, which has resulted in a mini-Cold War that the U.S. needs to end.
Ukraine is in a bad neighborhood. During the 17th century, the country was divided between Poland and Russia, and eventually ended
up as part of the Russian Empire. Kiev then enjoyed only the briefest of liberations after the 1917 Russian Revolution, before being
reabsorbed by the Soviet Union. It later suffered from a devastating famine as Moscow confiscated food and collectivized agriculture.
Ukraine was ravaged during Germany's World War II invasion, and guerrilla resistance to renewed Soviet control continued for years
afterwards.
In 1991, the collapse of the U.S.S.R. gave Ukraine another, more enduring chance for independence. However, the new nation's development
was fraught: GDP dropped by 60 percent and corruption burgeoned. Ukraine suffered under a succession of corrupt, self-serving, and
ineffective leaders, as the U.S., Europe, and Russia battled for influence.
In 2014, Washington and European governments backed a street putsch against the elected, though highly corrupt, pro-Russian president,
Viktor Yanukovych. The Putin government responded by annexing Crimea and backing separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine's Donbass region.
Washington and Brussels imposed economic sanctions on Russia and provided military aid to Kiev.
The West versus Russia quickly became a "frozen" conflict. Moscow reincorporated Crimea into Russia, from which it had been detached
in 1954 as part of internal Soviet politics. In the Donbass, more than a score of ceasefires came and went. Both Ukraine and Russia
failed to fulfill the 2016 Minsk agreements, which sought to end the conflict.
In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from
their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political
division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged
Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists
have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted.
The most important geopolitical impact has been to poison Russia's relations with the West. Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine
cannot be justified, but the U.S. and Europe did much to create the underlying suspicion and hostility. Recently declassified documents
reveal the degree to which Western officials misled Moscow about their intention to expand NATO. Allied support for adding Georgia
and Ukraine, which would have greatly expanded Russian vulnerability, generated a particularly strong reaction in Moscow. The dismemberment
of Serbia with no consideration of Russia's interests was another irritant, along with Western support for "color revolutions" elsewhere,
including in Tbilisi. The ouster of Yanukovych finally triggered Putin's brutal response.
Washington and Brussels apparently did not view their policies as threatening to Russia. However, had Moscow ousted an elected
Mexican president friendly to America, while inviting the new government to join the Warsaw Pact, and worked with a coalition of
Central American states to divert Mexican trade from the U.S., officials in Washington would not have been pleased. They certainly
wouldn't have been overly concerned about juridical niceties in responding.
This explains (though does not justify) Russia's hostile response. Subsequent allied policies then turned the breach in relations
into a gulf. The U.S. and European Union imposed a series of economic sanctions. Moreover, Washington edged closer to military confrontation
with its provision of security assistance to Kiev. Moscow responded by challenging America from Syria to Venezuela.
It also began moving towards China. The two nations' differences are many and their relationship is unstable. However, as long
as their antagonism towards Washington exceeds their discomfort with each other, they will cooperate to block what they see as America's
pursuit of global hegemony.
Why is the U.S. entangled in the Ukrainian imbroglio? During the Cold War, Ukraine was one of the fabled "captive nations," backed
by vigorous advocacy from Ukrainian Americans. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they joined other groups lobbying on behalf of ethnic
brethren to speed NATO's expansion eastward. Security policy turned into a matter of ethnic solidarity, to be pursued irrespective
of cost and risk.
To more traditional hawks who are always seeking an enemy, the issue is less pro-Ukraine than anti-Russia. Mitt Romney, the Republican
Party's 2012 presidential nominee, improbably attacked Russia as America's most dangerous adversary. Hence the GOP's counterproductive
determination to bring Kiev into NATO. Originally Washington saw the transatlantic alliance as a means to confront the Soviet menace;
now it views the pact as a form of charity.
After the Soviet collapse, the U.S. pushed NATO eastward into nations that neither mattered strategically nor could be easily
protected, most notably in the Balkans and Baltics. Even worse were Georgia and Ukraine, security black holes that would bring with
them ongoing conflicts with Russia, possibly triggering a larger war between NATO and Moscow.
Ukraine never had been a matter of U.S. security. For most of America's history, the territory was controlled by either the Russian
Empire or the Soviet Union. Washington's Cold War sympathies represented fraternal concerns, not security essentials. Today, without
Kiev's aid, the U.S. and Europe would still have overwhelming conventional forces to be brought into any conflict with Moscow. However,
adding Ukraine to NATO would increase the risk of a confrontation with a nuclear armed power. Russia's limitations when it comes
to its conventional military would make a resort to nuclear weapons more likely in any conflict.
Nevertheless, George W. Bush's aggressively neoconservative administration won backing for Georgian and Ukrainian membership in
NATO and considered intervening militarily in the Russo-Georgian war. However, European nations that feared conflict with Moscow
blocked plans for NATO expansion, which went into cold storage. Although alliance officials still officially backed membership for
Ukraine, it remains unattainable so long as conflict burns hot with Russia.
In the meantime, Washington has treated Ukraine as a de facto military ally, offering economic and security assistance. The U.S.
has provided $1.5 billion for Ukrainian training and weapons, including anti-tank Javelin missiles. Explained Obama administration
defense secretary Ashton Carter: "Ukraine would never be where it is without that support from the United States."
Equally important, the perception of U.S. backing made the Kiev government, headed by President Petro Poroshenko, less willing
to pursue a diplomatic settlement with Russia. Thus did Ukraine, no less than Russia, almost immediately violate the internationally
backed Minsk accord.
Kiev's role as a political football highlights the need for Washington to pursue an enduring political settlement with Russia.
European governments are growing restless; France has taken the lead in seeking better relations with Moscow. Germany is unhappy
with U.S. attempts to block the planned Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has campaigned
to end the conflict.
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently met in Minsk to revive the
agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage
of Ukrainian legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong opposition from nationalists,
passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security concerns. The U.S. and its allies should
formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances,
Moscow would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine protects local autonomy while
Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted. Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation,
since the country would likely be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of Crimea
while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object. Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would
double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would
certainly be better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author
of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
I credit Mr. Bandow for his largely fair and accurate description of the events in Ukraine of five years ago, and for his ultimate
policy proposal for the US to extricate itself from its close involvement in the area. However, I'm a little confused by what
exactly the author means by "Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine" and "Putin's brutal response" (aside from the treatment of
dissidents and journalists as he specifically mentioned) to the Maidan Revolution.
Was it aggressive and brutal for Russia to support separatists in the Donbass who were facing the prospect of legal discrimination
and violence by a criminal, neo-fascist government in Kiev, not to mention de-industrialization, the gutting of the agriculture
sector and the forced economic migration of an enormous number of its young workers (assuming that Ukraine's economic deal with
the EU followed the script of every other Easter European's country's deal with the EU)? If Yanukovych had fled to the Donbass
and proclaimed himself still the freely elected (though certainly corrupt) President of the nation, Russia's support for the region
would have even had a shiny brass legal fig leaf, wouldn't it?
As for the supposed "conquest" of Crimea, that's a rather strong word to use considering that all of two members of the Ukrainian
military were killed, and 60-80 of them detained, while 15,000 defected to Russia. Compared to the violence in Kiev and Odessa,
what happened in Crimea almost qualifies as a bloodless coup. But then Mr. Bandow shies away from using the word "hegemony" to
describe the foreign policy of the United States, figuratively putting the word in the mouths of those bad men (which they are)
in Moscow and Beijing. It's a pity that Mr. Bandow felt the need to make linguistic concessions to the foreign policy establishment
in what was otherwise a useful and balanced piece.
Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings
in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to
escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor.
I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition
of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously
had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil
- they didn't.
I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history
of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique.
And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are
conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot.
How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement.
It is a deeply held belief that democracy is a system that by definition a generally acceptable path forward. That belief is
false as democracy is still comprised of human beings. And democracy in their hands is no "cure all". It can be a turbulent and
jerky bureaucratic maze process that pleases no one and works over time.
The US didn't accomplish it without violence until after more than 130 years, when the native populations were finally subdued.
And as for a system that embodied equal treatment to similar circumstance -- we are still at it. But a violent revolution every
ten years certainly isn't the most effective road to take.
-----------------
Why we insistent on restarting the cold war is unclear to me save that it served to create a kind of strategic global clarity
Though what that means would troublesome because Russia's ole would now be as a developing democratic state as opposed to a communist
monolith. And that means unfettered from her satellites and empowered by more capital markets her role as adversary would be more
adroit. As time after time, Ores Putin has appeared the premier diplomat for peace and stability in situations in which the US
was engaged or encouraging violence.(the Ukraine). I certainly don't think that our relations with Russia or China are a to be
kumbaya love fests, there is still global competition and there's no reason to pretend it would be without tensions. But seriously,
as a democratic/capital market player -- there really was no way to contain Russia.
----------------------
Given what we experienced during 2007 --- corruption comes in a mryiad of guises.
The Ukraine situation is complex to be certain, but ending military aid and letting Russia clean up seems like a bad idea.
This week we saw Russian forces occupy US bases abandoned when Trump ordered our troops to withdraw from the Turkish border.
And now the author is arguing we should do something similar in the Ukraine.
When did Russian appeasement become so important to conservative foreign policy?
Mate, Russians were in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. US troops are there illegally (no Congress mandate, no
international mandate, no invitation). US is an occupying, destabilizing, terrorist protecting force in Syria and Americans should
look beyond their self esteem before commenting on this "shameful" retreat. US does not have the right to put its troops wherever
it fancies.
This win or loose mentality will be the death of you. Who do you think is threatening the US, when it has the biggest moats
protecting its shores? The only thing that is happening is that the hegemonic role, that of controlling everyone's economy for
its own elites benefit is being denied.
This is what you are complaining mate, the the rich Americans cannot get richer? Do you think they will share with you, or
that, like the good English boys of the past, you will not be able to land a job with East India Co. and despoil the natives for
a while?
If the US were smart then they would lead some sort of negotiation where eastern Europe and Ukraine and Russia were allowed only
mutually agreed defensive weapons systems. A demilitarization of say 200 miles on each side of the Russia border. The strategy
should be to encourage trade between Eastern Europe and Russia where Russia has influence but is not threatening. It may be slow
to build that trust but the real question is whether the US and Europe and NATO want peace with Russia or whether they are using
fear of Russia to keep eastern Europe united with the US and Europe. This may be the case but the future will have China as a
greater threat than Russia (China will even be a threat to Russia). Any shift in Russian relations will take decades of building
trust on both sides.
Good article and excellent history of facts. If I recall during the last Bush administration W hosted a Putin and his then spouse,
at a visit at his ranch. Putin informed W," the Ukraine belongs to Russia. end of sentence.
The author forgot the critical role of Sevastopol in the Crimea. It is Russia's only warm water port and there was no way that
it was going to allow this area to become a NATO naval base. Secretary of State Clinton and her sidekick for Ukraine, Victoria
Nuland should have known this before they started supporting the overthrow of the pro-Russia government in Kiev.
If you look at a historical atlas, you won't find an independent country called Ukraine before 1991. When my parents were born,
near what is now called Lviv, the area was called Galicia and Lemberg was its provincial capital. A gold medal issued in 1916
in honor of Franz Josef's 85th birthday noted that he was the Kaiser of Austria, Hungary, Galicia and Lodomeria.
When the old Soviet Union agreed to allow East and West Germany to reunify, it was with the understanding that NATO would not
extend membership to former Soviet block countries and that there would be no NATO bases in these areas either. NATO and the US
broke their oral commitment to Russia a few years later.
The US should get out of the business of trying to spread democracy in third world countries and interfering in the affairs
of foreign governments. We can't afford to be the policeman of the world. We don't even have the ability to make many of our own
central cities safe for Americans. Think Baltimore, St. Louis, New Orleans and Detroit, all four of which appear on Wikipedia's
list of the 50 murder capitals of the world (per thousand population).
"This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all
that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama said, to some laughs from the crowd.
"The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws." he
continued.
Obama cited college campuses and social media as a breeding ground for wokeness.
"One danger I see among young people particularly on college campuses," he said, "I do get
a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media,
there is this sense sometimes the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible
about other people and that's enough."
Obama then directly poked fun at 'woke' keyboard warriors:
"Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or used the wrong verb
or then, I can sit back and feel good about myself: 'You see how woke I was? I called you
out.'" he mocked.
In a nutshell, Obama is saying we all need a little more aloha spirit -- being
respectful & caring for one another. Not being so quick to judge. Not seeing everything
as black/white. I hope you'll join me in bringing the spirit of aloha to the White House.
https://t.co/tYADx6Dzqs
Obama made some pretty campaign finance promises in the 2008 primary, and then did an
about-face during the general, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the usual
suspects. Then he declined to prosecute the bankers. Let's not do that again.
Bernie Sanders on Elizabeth Warren's work for big corporations such as advising Dow
Chemical:
"I'll let the American people make that judgment. I've never worked for a corporation.
I've never carried their baggage in the U.S. Senate." pic.twitter.com/yV9TRw7jPB
People are defending Warbama's helping DOW screw women who had breast cancer out of their
settlement. It's absolutely sickening to see people defending the indefensible. "She needed
the experience." WTAF does that even mean?
Obama made some pretty campaign finance promises in the 2008 primary, and then did
an about-face during the general, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the
usual suspects. Then he declined to prosecute the bankers. Let's not do that again.
Bernie Sanders on Elizabeth Warren's work for big corporations such as advising Dow
Chemical:
"I'll let the American people make that judgment. I've never worked for a
corporation. I've never carried their baggage in the U.S. Senate." pic.twitter.com/yV9TRw7jPB
of identity politics is bullshit. He's offended enough by irrationality that he's willing
to comment on that in public--now that he's out of the Presidency and doesn't have to win any
more elections.
However, none of that would stop him (or did stop him) using that kind of identity
politics to the hilt for his own political advantage.
#2 Go
on ahead and mock all you want. Those of us who see you for what you are will never stop
seeing it and calling you out on it. Boohoo mofo.
"... Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal: ..."
"... " Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. " ..."
"... The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page: ..."
"... With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very, very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter. ..."
With the Trump impeachment procedures ongoing and the connection to his conversation about the
Biden family with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, there has been very little coverage of an
important aspect of the relationship between Washington and Kiev. While none of us can speak to
the actual intent of Donald Trump's remarks be it for personal gain or for other reasons, there
is background information that may help illuminate the context of the discussion between the
two world leaders.
In case you haven't read the pertinent section of the transcript of the conversation, here it
is:
" President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that
you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any
future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the
United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States
and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard
on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him
having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate
even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just
recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we
will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody
but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most
experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you
Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also
plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as
the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I
can assure you.
President Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good
and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way
they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr.
Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I
would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy
very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that
would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the
people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.
The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution
and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney
General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you
can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all,
I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute
majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate,
who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or
she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.
The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the
honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top
of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to
us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in
our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall
her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad
ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she
admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new
President well enough.
President Trump: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr.
Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get
to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very
badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to
get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many
Ukrainian friends, their incredible people." (my bolds)
Now, let's look back in time to 1998. On July 22, 1998, a treaty was signed between Ukraine and
Washington.
The Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters was signed in Kiev on the aforementioned date. Here is an
excerpt from the The original letter of submittal from the Department of State to the
President's office dated October 19, 1999 which states the following:
"I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty between the United States of America and
Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the Treaty''), signed at
Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice
and consent to ratification. Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an exchange of notes under which the
Treaty is being provisionally applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic
laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual assistance in criminal matters.
Provisional application would cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.
The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar
bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with
Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the United States. It will enhance our
ability to investigate and prosecute a range of offenses.The Treaty is designed to
be self-executing and will not require new legislation." (my bold)
The Treaty was then transmitted by the President of the United States (Bill Clinton) to the
Senate on November 10, 1999 (Treaty Document 106-16 -106th Congress - First Session) as shown
on this letter of
transmittal from Bill Clinton's office:
Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal:
" Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving
documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or
other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related
to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any
other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. "
The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September
27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the
President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on
February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page:
Here are the first two pages of the Treaty which outline the scope of assistance that is to
be offered by both nations as well as the limitations on assistance:
... ... ...
If you wish to read the Treaty in its entirety, please click
here .
With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very,
very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking
Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter.
Eric Ciaramella is connected to Victoria Nuland. IIf this information is true, the entire Impeachment thing is a another phase
of Russiagate. It's the Democrats attempt at a coup d'etat
Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protégé and was brought into the White House by H. R. McMaster. Looks like McMaster was a
neocon zealot.
In Chile, a country of around 17 million people, more than 1 million people r out in the
streets of capital Santiago protesting neoliberalism and the US-friendly govt's repression of
protest. The Western media are curiously silent about the scale of the uprising. #
ChileDesperto
... ... ...
Once again, protests in 22 countries is rather a lot (and these, as it were,
the wildfires, not small flare-ups here and there). But note that none of the sources
(including me, "L.S.") have a consistent list; it's extraordinary that Bloomberg, which is an
actual new gathering organization, omits Haiti, and that Human Rights Watch (HRW) omits France
(since the
state violence deployed against the gilet jaunes has been significant, far me so
than Hong Kong).
So how are we to make sense of these protests? The Dean, we might call her, of studies in
non-violent protest (and hence of the violence that accompanies or suppresses it) is Erica
Chenoweth, so we will begin with her (I would classify her as an academic rather than an
advocate, like Gene Sharp.) From there, we will broaden out to look at how the data that any
academic -- and, one would think, news-gathering organizations -- would use. Finally, we'll
look at what the previous two academic approaches do not really consider: The social basis of
protests as a predictor of success.
She speculates that the cause of the this decline is due to Authoritarian Adaptation:
the ability of authoritarian governments to adopt more politically savvy repressive tools
may be part of
the reason for the decline in success rates in the past six years. 21 .
Authoritarian leaders have begun to
develop and systematize sophisticated techniques to undermine and thwart nonviolent
activists.
Chenoweth provides this table, categorizing these techniques:
table l Methods of authoritarian adaptation against nonviolent resistance 2
*
Strategies to Reinforce Elite Loyalty
• Pay off the inner entourage
•Co-optoppositionists
• Use public brutality against accused defectors to deter further defections
Strategies to Suppress or Undermine the Movement
• Use direct violence against dissidents or their associates
• Counter-mobilize one's own supporters
• Plant plain-clothes police and agents provocateurs
• Solicit the help of paramilitary groups and pro-state armed militias
• Infiltrate the movement and engage in surveillance
• Pass pseudo-legitimate laws and practices that criminalize erstwhile legal
behaviors
• Add administrative and financial burdens to civil society groups
Strategies to Reinforce Support among the Public and Other Observers
• Blame foreigners and outsiders
• Mischaracterize domestic oppositionists as terrorists, traitors, coup plotters,
or
communists
• Conceal information through censorship and spin
• Remove foreign journalists from the country
21. There may be several other reasons for this decline in effectiveness. First, because
non-violent resistance has become such a popular and widespread practice, it is possible that
those wielding it do not yet have the requisite skill sets to ensure victory. For example,
Kurt Weyland has shown that radicals in various European capitals mobilized against their
dynastic sovereigns with a sense of false optimism , having witnessed a successful
revolution in France in February of 1848 (Kurt Weyland, 'The Diffusion of Revolution: "1848"
in Europe and Latin America,' International Organization 63/3:391–423 (2009)). They
essentially drew what Weyland calls "rash conclusions" about their own prospects for success
and attempted to import the French revolutionary model into their own contexts, failing
miserably. Second, a higher proportion of nonviolent uprisings since 2010 possess
"violent flanks" -- segments or groups within the campaign that destroy property,
engage in street fighting, or use lethal violence alongside a predominantly nonviolent
movement -- than in previous decades. Violent flanks tend to undermine participation rates in
nonviolent movements while discouraging security force defections (see Erica Chenoweth and
Kurt Schock, 'Do Contemporaneous Armed Challenges Affect the Out-comes of Mass Nonviolent
Campaigns?' Mobilization: An International Quarterly 20/4: 427–451 (2015)). Whereas the
most successful decades of nonviolent resistance featured highly disciplined campaigns of
nonviolent action, today almost 50% of primarily nonviolent campaigns possess some degree of
violent activity from within .
Chenoweth's strictures on "violent flanks" may apply to Hong Kong (though it is also true
that the Hong Kong protesters have achieved their first goal, the withdrawal of the of the
extradition bill). However, we should also remember the protester's spray-painted slogan: "
It was you who taught me that peaceful marches are useless ." We have yet to see. Perhaps
practice has outrun the academics. Perhaps not. We will look at this issue more tomorrow;
obviously, it applies to Chile.
Data Gathering (Fisher, et al.)
Chenoweth's dataset of "major episodes of contention, 1/1/1900–5/1/2016" includes 237
non-violent and 235 violent cases. But if we seek to record and classify protests in near real
time, there will be orders of magnitude more cases than that. Two projects to do just that are
described by Dana R. Fisher, Kenneth T. Andrews, Neal Caren, Erica Chenoweth, Michael T.
Heaney, Tommy Leung, L. Nathan Perkins, and Jeremy Pressman in " The science of contemporary street
protest: New efforts in the United States " (Science Advances, October 23, 2019). This is a
fascinating article, which I encourage all big data fans to read in full. From the
abstract:
This article reviews the two most central methods for studying street protest on a large
scale: building comprehensive event databases and conducting field surveys of participants at
demonstrations.
Of event databases, they write:
Tracking protest events in real time is fundamentally a discovery and coding problem. It
resembles the data collection components of past efforts to study protest by aggregating data
from third-party sources (51, 54). Unique to today's environment is the sheer number of
sources and the time-limited nature of the discovery-and-review period: Given the transience
of information on the internet compared to print media, thousands of sources produce reports
of variable reliability on a daily basis. Researchers must archive and extract information
such as where, when, and why a protest took place, as well as how many people attended,
before that content is moved behind a paywall, deleted, or otherwise made unavailable.
(Encouragingly, the event database is a citizen science effort.) However:
these event-counting methods also have several reliability, coding, and discovery
limitations and challenges, including (i) resolving discrepancies in reported data, such as
crowd size, for the same event reported by multiple sources; (ii) evaluating the reliability
and bias of each source; (iii) requiring manual review of what can be hundreds of potential
protest reports every day; (iv) accurately and consistently coding events in near real time;
and (v) having an incomplete list of sources and an incomplete list of reports from known
sources.
Of field surveys, Fisher et al. write:
The complex environment of a protest leads researchers to focus their attention on several
considerations that are not common in many other types of surveys. First, it is impossible to
establish a sampling frame based on the population, as the investigator does not have a list
of all people participating in an event; who participates in a protest is not known until the
day of the event; and no census of participants exists. Working without this information, the
investigator must find a way to elicit a random sample in the field during the event. Second,
crowd conditions may affect the ability of the investigator to draw a sample. The ease or
difficulty of sampling depends on whether the crowd is stationary or moving, whether it is
sparse or dense, and the level of confrontation by participants. Stationary, sparse crowds
that are peaceful and not engaged in confrontational tactics (such as civil disobedience, or
more violent tactics, like throwing items at the police) tend to be more conducive to
research. In general, the presence of police, counter-protesters, or violence by
demonstrators are all likely to make it more difficult to collect a sample. Third and last,
weather is an important factor. Weather conditions, such as rain, snow, or high temperatures,
may interfere with the data collection process and the crowd's willingness to participate in
a survey.
The Women's March after Trump was elected was one subject of surveys:
In her book American Resistance , Fisher examined seven of the largest protests
in Washington, DC, associated with opposition to President Trump: the 2017 Women's March, the
March for Science, the People's Climate March, the March for Racial Justice, the 2018 Women's
March, the March for Our Lives, and Families Belong Together (81). Her results show that the
Resistance was disproportionately female (at least 54%), highly educated (with more than 70%
holding a bachelor's degree), majority white (more than 62%), and had an average adult age of
38 to 49 years. Further, she found that the Resistance is almost entirely left-leaning in its
political ideology (more than 85%). Resistance participants were motivated to march by a wide
range of issues, with women's rights, environmental protection, racial justice, immigration,
and police brutality being among the more common motivations (83). She also found that
participants did not limit their activism to marching in the streets, as more than half of
the respondents had previously contacted an elected official and more than 40% had attended a
town hall meeting
I think Thomas Frank would recognize "the Resistance," although Fisher seems to have an odd
concept of what "the left" might mean. For example, there's no mention of strengthening unions,
the minimum wage, or the power of billionaries, so I wonder what her coding practices were.
The authors conclude -- as a good academic should do! -- with a call for further
research:
Moving forward, best practices will require forming teams of scholars that are
geographically dispersed in a way that corresponds with the distribution of the events under
investigation. While previous studies have concentrated on conducting surveys in different
regions and in major cities, the datasets would be more representative if data were collected
in multiple locations simultaneously in a way that represents smaller cities, suburbs, and
rural areas.
Consider an event projected to take place in 300 cities simultaneously in the United
States or Europe. Suppose that the target areas were stratified into 12 regions or countries.
If a survey was conducted in three types of locations -- one city, one suburb, and one rural
site or one capital, one college town, and one urban area with neither a capital nor a
university -- in each region, that would require the survey to go into the field in 36
locations (or roughly 12% of events). Such a task would likely require a minimum of 12 to 36
scholars working together, each coordinating research teams to collect survey data at events
in their region. Even more resources and institutionalization would be required to conduct
crowd surveys at a genuine random sample of events.
Beyond collaboration among multiple scholars, scaling up the administration of surveys
would also require standardization of the instrument, sampling, and practices in entering and
coding the survey data.
Ironically, the scale of the effort to survey and record such an event -- say, each scholar
would have a team of 10, for a total of 360, would be within an order of magnitude or so of
that required to organize it! (There were 24,000 Bolsheviks in 1917). What this
article does show, however, is how blind the public and the press are flying (though doubtless
the various organs of state security have better information.)
We further develop the argument that opposition movements dominated by industrial workers
or the urban middle classes have both the requisite motivation and capacity to bring
about
democratization . We clarify how and why the social composition of opposition movements
affects democratization. We expect that both the urban middle classes and, especially,
industrial workers have the requisite motivation and capacity to engender democratization, at
least in fairly urban and industrialized societies.
Other social groups -- even after mobilizing in opposition to the regime -- often lack the
capacity to sustain large-scale collective action or the motivation to pursue democracy. We
collect data on the social composition of opposition movements to test these expectations,
measuring degree of participation of six major social groups in about 200 antiregime
campaigns globally from 1900 to 2006. Movements dominated by industrial workers or middle
classes are more likely to yield democratization, particularly in fairly urbanized societies.
Movements dominated by other groups, such as peasants or military personnel, are not
conducive to democratization, even compared to situations without any opposition
mobilization. When separating the groups, results are more robust for industrial worker
campaigns
The capacities of protestors are found in their leverage and in their abilities to
coordinate and maintain large-scale collective action. Leverage comes from the power
resources that a group can draw on to inflict various costs on the autocratic regime and thus
use to extract concessions, including political liberalization. Leverage can come from the
ability to impose economic costs on the regime, through measures such as moving capital
assets abroad or carrying out strikes in vital sectors. Other sources of leverage include
access to weapons, manpower with relevant training, and militant ideologies that motivate
recruits. Urban middle classes score high on leverage in many societies. Many urban
professionals occupy inflection points in the economy, such as finance. Industrial workers
can also hold a strategic stranglehold over the economy, being able to organize nationwide or
localized strikes targeting key sources of revenue for the regime. In addition, workers often
have fairly high military potential, due to military experience (e.g., under mass
conscription) and, historically, often being related to revolutionary, sometimes
violence-condoning, ideologies (Hobsbawm 1974).
Riots and uprisings are often fleeting, and opposition movements are therefore more
frequent than regime changes. Hence, in addition to leverage, protestors must be able to
organize and maintain large-scale collective action over time, also after an initial
uprising, in order to challenge the regime. In this regard, groups with permanent,
streamlined organizations can effectively transmit information, monitor participants, and
disperse side payments. Organizations also help with recruiting new individuals, networking
with foreign actors, and experimenting with and learning effective tactics. The urban middle
classes have some potent assets in this regard, as they include members with high human
capital, which might enhance organizational skills. Various civil society, student, and
professional organizations can help mobilize at least parts of the middle classes. Industrial
workers typically score very high on organizational capacity (see Collier 1999; Rueschemeyer
et al. 1992). They are often organized in long-standing and comprehensive unions and labor
parties and have extensive networks, including international labor organizations and the
Socialist International. In sum, we expect opposition movements dominated by the middle
classes or industrial workers to be related to subsequent democratization. Yet, we anticipate
a clearer relationship for industrial worker campaigns, due to their multiple sources of
leverage and especially strong organizational capacity allowing for effective and sustained
challenges to the regime.
Lots to ponder here, including the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a quintessentially
"urban middle class" protest, the Women's March, potential differences between Hong Kong and
(say) Chile, and much much more -- including the operational capacities of our own working
class, and the effects of deindustrialization and gutting unions. I wonder of the condition of
teeth, as a class marker, is included in any survey coding?
Conclusion
I hope this survey of the literature has been stimulating. I will have more to say about
invididual protests tomorrow.
NOTES
[1] I'm super-uncomfortable with the "responsibility to protect" framing (which is why so
much of the focus of the article is on state violence, presumably as a justification for the
U.S. to intervene). That suggests to me that Chenoweth runs with the wrong crowd, at least part
of the time.
Back in 2004 I had a few friends working in a film shot during the RNC convention
protests. It made headlines because actress Rosario Dawson was arrested (police thought she
was an anarchist protestor). The film shoot had footage of an undercover police officer
posing as a protestor starting scuffles and trying to rile up other protestors.
It was written up in The NY Times but people still act as if this is crazed conspiracy
talk.
Of interest is the underlying assumption in the Conclusion of your post; that pre-existing
exposure to sub-national group organizing is positive towards successful outcomes. In most
situations, a Union is organized against strong countervailing pressures from the Owner
class. A winnowing out process that concentrates and toughens successful organizers has
already occurred. As it were, protests that draw on extant Union personnel have an automatic
advantage. An entire step in the organization formation process has been rendered irrelevant.
Access to "off the shelf" organizers will jump start a movement.
As a corollary to the above, I note the absence of an even semi-professional class of
agitators in the United States. Not so do I note an absence of outright professional Organs
of the State: Oppressors.
A century ago, the world had several international organizations seriously dedicated to the
subversion and overthrow of "Free Market" Capitalism. Today?
A century ago, the world had several international organizations seriously dedicated to
the subversion and overthrow of "Free Market" Capitalism.
True, and that complicates the studies Lambert cites in at least two ways.
1. In what Lambert reports, and I think he's got the drift of their arguments, the
distinction between violent and nonviolent movements ignores the way in which nonviolent
movements have deployed the threat of violence precisely by offering themselves as a
nonviolent alternative. Within the Civil Rights movement in this country "if you don't
listent to us, you'll get them" was part of King's message to white elites, with "them"
referring to everyone from Malcolm X to the revolutionary elements of international Marxism.
Others with a better understanding of India's independence movement could find a
parallel.
2. Running in the opposite direction, international movements, particularly on the left,
have often been a brake on local initiative. The Trotskyist critique of Stalinist practice,
wherein the Stalinist international imposed, often murderously, controls on national
communist parties to avoid (overly) antagonizing the bourgeois international, is at least
historically accurate, however much one might dispute its strategic validity. This isn't so
immediately relevant to the violent/nonviolent question, but it does help foreground the
international context that the summarized articles appear to lose track of.
Especially due to (1) the data behind the graph needs a good review for 'interactive
effects' of this sort.
3 weeks ago I witnessed a large protest on the streets of Seoul, I'd think at least 50,000
people. But it was mostly elderly folk and very right wing, essentially protesting at what
they see as Government policies that are too pro Chinese and pro North Korean. The protests
were clearly well financed and organized – the banners were mass produced and
'non-official' ones were almost all pushed to the fringes. Locals were contemptuous, saying
they'd all been paid to turn up and bussed in from the provinces. There were smaller protests
on other days. All were peaceful.
I also saw the aftermath of a very big protest in Hong Kong A few days before. There was a
lot less damage than you'd think from the international reporting, a few shops burnt out. But
I was left with little doubt that there was a lot of 'silent' support among regular HKers and
even ethnic Chinese (mainlanders) for the protests.
The winners write history. Surviving losers also rewrite history ('Gone with the Wind").
Or, past lives are never written about at all. The problem is that western government has
swirled down the drain into incompetent delusion. Corporations rule. Plutocrats are in combat
over the spoils. Protests won't work until police and mercenaries realized that they aren't
being paid enough to die or to subjugate their own families.
Right now, the problem is two million Californians forced out of their homes or waiting
with no electricity for evacuation orders. The American government is simply incapable
rebuilding Puerto Rico or Northern California. Or handling global plagues such as African
Swine Fever that has already killed a quarter of the global pig population. Simply put,
climate change, overpopulation, and rising inequality assure that revolutions cannot be
orderly.
The 10% Technocrats like Elizabeth Warren will try to keep things running until they can't
anymore.
I don't see how the protests in Spain by Catalan nationalists are a case of political
freedom.
If you believe that the right of self determination means that countries like Spain are
divisible, then why not also allow Catalonia to also be divisible? And let people in every
city, town, street, and house be able to decide which country they want to split off or
join?
I would have complete sympathy if Catalans were protesting against any legitimate
oppression regarding their language or culture, or any other related discrimination. Why
don't more Catalans simple work with others in Spain and the EU to make it more equal, fair,
and just, than give in to racist nationalism?
The modern world simply cannot afford to allow nationists to split up the world into
smaller pieces, which often leads to wars, ethnic cleansing, and additional oppression of any
remaining "non-pure" people.
This is a good question for which the stupidity of brainless nationalism has no answer
(nationalism musn't be brainless but too often it is). In reality this is more an struggle
for political power rather than fight for rights. And of course, although less noisy, there
are many catalans that don't give a damn on independence. Only, or as many as, 42%
of catalans ask for a referendum on independence but a larger majority prefers
negotiations on autonomy.
One would think that brexit is a good example of what could go wrong on badly thougth
procedures of independence but blind nationalism, always believes in its exceptionality. You
can compare the Torras and Puigdemont of the moment as illuminated as Jonhson or Blair in
their own moments: feeling incapable of wrong doing and above procedure rules. A recipe for
disaster if they ever prevail.
As an example we have Mr. Utility Friendly Torras, current president of the Generalitat,
going his way on energy policy and giving still validity in Catalonia to an anachronic decree
approved in Spain by his co-religionary Rajoy (but hated because, you know, spanish) in 2009
–and now derogued– that was a stop signal for the development of renewables. This
occurs even when the Parliament od Catalonia has already repealed the decree. Shows the kind
of respect this great leader has for procedures when anything does not align with his
ideas.
If Gazans wanted political freedom, they'd be rioting against Hamas, which has refused to
hold general elections for eight years and kills its political opponents and civilians who
object to their policies. What they really want is dead Jews.
The Gazans are in a tough spot. The surrounding states view the Gazan situation as a spur
in the flank of Israel. The constant threat of the descendants of those Arabs 'ethnically
cleansed' out of the whole of Palestine in 1947 being sent into Israel to reclaim their
ancestral lands is a constant in the Arab state's permanent conflict with the State of
Israel.
The alternative offered to the Gazans is to become permanent second class citizens in a
Greater Israel. Actually, make that third class citizens. At present, Israel has First Class,
comprised of the Orthodox religious Jews, Second Class, comprising the Secular Jews, and
Third Class, all others.
As for self rule, with a dollop of actual democracy, well, easier said than done.
" Violent flanks tend to undermine participation rates in nonviolent movements while
discouraging security force defections"
Ecuador and Chile pose a challenge to that theory. The events there are significant in
themselves, because traditionally, capturing the capital constitutes victory, whether a
revolution or an invasion. In Ecuador, that was clearcut: the demonstrators – not very
non-violent – controlled the capital and drove the government out of it, then continued
a rampage against government buildings. The president, from Guayaquil, ordered the military
to remove them – which didn't happen, probably for ethnic reasons. As before, this was
essentially an Indian uprising. Moreno caved, which means he can't meet his agreement with
the IMF. This was the IMF riot to end all. And we were just talking about retiring in
Ecuador.
In Chile, more than a million people in the street have essentially captured the capital,
as the videos make clear. Nothing is going to move, short of extreme violence. Again, the
president capitulated and undertook to meet the demonstrators' demands. That one wasn't
really non-violent, either, though the culminating demonstration was.
In both cases, victory is somewhat qualified because the right-wing president remains; the
real result remains to be seen – but notice has been served. If that process continued
much further, he could be lynched in the street. (I do wonder why Chile re-elected a
right-winger, only a year ago. They now have to reverse an election.)
And looking at the map: the US isn't there. A hyper-violent police force alienated from
the public might be a factor.
> Ecuador and Chile pose a challenge to that theory
I think Chenoweth's perspective could be a bit US-centric, or academic-centric. I have to
admit that one reason I agreed with her is that the black bloc's role in Occupy was so
pernicious (with "diversity of tactics" being on a par with "innovation" and "sharing" for
seamy tendentiousness). I think in the United States we are not ready, as it were,
for "violent flanks."
So when I started following Hong Kong, I viewed matters at first through the Occupy Frame
(and the black-clad protesters didn't help me avoid that). However, it's clear that a
substantial portion of the population really does see then as "front-liners," as in America
we would not. Further, property violence seems carefully calibrated, as in the United States
it is not. So I was wrong.
Thanks, Lambert; I get that Here; in the U.S. it is *divide and conquer* , or conquering
by division as long as we fight with each other over *hot button* topics; we can't get
together to deal with the big; underlying issues.
There's another kind of protest entierely; the entiely fabricated protest as means of
pro-establishment propaganda. Here in Portland, OR, we've been treated to some breathlessly
sensationalized street battles between ostensibly far right and far left 'protesters'.
Eyewitness accounts speak of supposed ultra-conservative activists popping out of the back of
police vans to instigate dustups. And anyone who's not wholly ignorant of the infiltration of
left activists in the 60s knows just how easy this is. A Punch and Judy show managed from FBI
headquarters which is then reported by hyperventilating media. Fox News shows us raggedy
Bolsheviks with bandito massks beating up clean cut journo Andy Ngo (who then goes on the
pro-Israel circuit after recovering from massive brain trauma!) Then switching to Amy
Goodman, you get bald thuggish looking white guys with tattoos variously of Christian and
Viking themes (how exactly these really mesh in anyone's mind, I don't quite get-but that's
supposing it's real) forming a phalanx and waving confederate flags.
The entire thing seems fabricated to push fretting liberal homeowners and Responsible People
to support the 'radical center' of neoliberal Clintonism.
Since you live in Rose City, feel free to go on down and meet the "raggedy Bolsheviks" for
your own self. Or talk to the nazis, most are friendly enough to 'non-combatants'.
No doubt there are false flaggers and cops in both groups, but I assure you the conflict
itself is not staged.
Thanks for starting to wade into this topic. I appreciate the academic sideboards as a way
to discover the common elements. Which will help us with the revolution against neoliberalism
here in the US.
let me add my thanks for this round up. I look forward to continuing coverage on this
topic and especially beg those living outside the US, most especially those speaking the
local languages to give us the benefit of your observations.
Marcie Smith has done amazing research into the "guru of nonviolent revolution," Gene
Sharp, who turns out to be a CIA tool responsible for the "nonviolent" color revolutions
which were just an easier assertion of soft power than those annoying invasions and
coups.
So amazing that you can't be bothered to supply readers with the link?
Here is it is . I think Smith
oversimplifies ; I also think misuse of Smith's work leads to a quasi-religious tendency
("faith is the evidence of things not seen") to imagine CIA agents behind every protest sign,
and to imagine Sharp as a Saruman-like figure controlling the action from a distance, all of
which is both untrue and demoralizing/disempowering. You also seem to think that Sharp's
techniques substitute for invasions and coups; but in Serbia they clearly did not,
since we had both Otpor and bombing; and in Tahrir Square, to the extent that Sharp inspired
that protest -- the hashtag #GeneSharpTaughtMe was widely used at the time, in mockery -- an
invasion wasn't even an option. It's also not clear that the outcome of Tahrir Square was an
outcome we even desired; clearly the protesters had no idea what to do with power if they
won, which one would think their case officers would have handled as a matter of course.
The reflexiv sequence protest -> color revolution -> Gene
Sharp -> CIA seems deeply attractive to some soi disant leftists;
it's so mechanical and pointless and self-defeating it makes head hurt and my back teeth
itch. (Even at the best, it's like arguing that because the Germans sent Lenin over the
Russian border in a sealed train in 1917, that the Bolsheviks were all a plot by Kaiser
Wilhelm II.)
I'm also curious why you even bring up Gene Sharp. The post doesn't mention him. Is it
your thesis that the CIA is behind all the global protests?
This is a good point.
Not all opposition is controlled, but that does not mean the forces of the ancien regime
don't try. The upheavals in Egypt caught the neoliberal paladins by surprise and caused much
dismay. That the Army brought the mild islamist party leader down in a counter-doup is not a
symptom that the entirety of the Tahrir Square enterprise was a CIA orchestrated hoax of some
kind. Just that the US was happy to let Morsi hang once the Generals got their act together.
There certainly are many pro neoliberal coups that dress themselves up in liberatory
clothing. (Maidan and Georgia are the claerest examples.)
Gene Sharp, from everything I've seen on him and his career, showed him to be a true
believer in neoliberalism and the empire that propped it up. I suggest people look into his
views on the "free market," and its relation to democracy, to see what he was really
about.
What was the name of the institute he headed over at Harvard for so many years? Why, it
was the "Center for International Affairs"! Now why did they decide to rename that, after
waves of student protests against it? The acronym just a little too "on the nose?" He seemed
like a willfully ignorant dupe working alongside a long list of cold war psychopaths. Whether
or not he "believed" this or that, about his own work, is irrelevant.
Not to mention the underemployed -- the ongoing commitment of western regimes to inflation
prevention at the expense of labor wastage and the consequent immiseration of the citizenry
is scandalous.
Kenneth Pomeranz's "The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern
World Economy," basically proves your point very effectively. Pretty much beats down any
crypto-racist theories on the superiority of "western civilization," etc. China didn't have
coal, simple as that.
I would say that one has to categorize "protests" in order to uncover how they relate to
social relations of power. Violent vs non-violent framing is useful if you want to argue that
violence is not just immoral but actually impractical. If you want to try to prove the
eternal moral basis of the liberal order, it's great. If you really want to uncover how
conflict and power work, you need more vectors.
Complicate Chenoweth's liberal framing by adding more categories. What's the goal of the
movement? Is it revolutionary of reformist? Is the movement organized or diffuse? If the
violence is diffused is it lumpen rioting and random terror? If the violence is organized is
it terror cells, military columns, foreign invasion or something else? If the movement is
organized non-violent, does it exist at the same time as an organized violent movement with
similar goals? If the movement is organized non-violent, are the people in it armed but not
using the arms? If the movement is diffused non-violent is it actively opposed to violence?
Every combination matters in context, and the reform vs revolutionary labels absolutely
matter. There is a big difference between demanding the end of a fuel tax and demanding the
end of capitalism. There is a big difference between the treatment of armed people and
unarmed people by security forces, depending on the context.
In general IMO, reforms under liberalism can be captured through non-violent protest, and
diffused violence can harm their chances because they give security forces an excuse for a
crackdown. The organized threat of violence can help organized non-violent reform protests
because it scares the ruling class (BPP in the USA is a great example), but organized
violence itself can harm non-violent reform protests unless it's successfully revolutionary.
Revolution (not just a change in government!) can never be achieved through non-violent
protest, because the ruling class will use violence to save themselves.
"... But militarism is more than thuggish dictators, predatory weaponry, and steely-eyed troops. There are softer forms of it that are no less significant than the "hard" ones. In fact, in a self-avowed democracy like the United States, such softer forms are often more effective because they seem so much less insidious, so much less dangerous. ..."
"... But who can object to celebrating " hometown heroes " in uniform, as happens regularly at sports events of every sort in twenty-first-century America? Or polite and smiling military recruiters in schools ? Or gung-ho war movies like the latest version of Midway , timed for Veterans Day weekend 2019 and marking America's 1942 naval victory over Japan, when we were not only the good guys but the underdogs? ..."
"... Roughly two-thirds of the federal government's discretionary budget for 2020 will, unbelievably enough, be devoted to the Pentagon and related military functions, with each year's "defense" budget coming ever closer to a trillion dollars ..."
"... The U.S. military remains the most trusted institution in our society, so say 74% of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll. ..."
"... A state of permanent war is considered America's new normal. ..."
"... America's generals continue to be treated, without the slightest irony, as "the adults in the room." ..."
"... The media routinely embraces retired U.S. military officers and uses them as talking heads to explain and promote military action to the American people. ..."
"... America's foreign aid is increasingly military aid. ..."
"... In that context, consider the militarization of the weaponry in those very hands, from .50 caliber sniper rifles to various military-style assault rifles. ..."
"... Paradoxically, even as Americans slaughter each other and themselves in large numbers via mass shootings and suicides (nearly 40,000 gun deaths in 2017 alone), they largely ignore Washington's overseas wars and the continued bombing of numerous countries. ..."
"... 9. Even as Americans "support our troops" and celebrate them as "heroes," the military itself has taken on a new " warrior ethos " that would once -- in the age of a draft army -- have been contrary to this country's citizen-soldier tradition , especially as articulated and exhibited by the "greatest generation" during World War II. ..."
"... Democracy shouldn't be about celebrating overlords in uniform. A now-widely accepted belief is that America is more divided, more partisan than ever, approaching perhaps a new civil war , as echoed in the rhetoric of our current president. Small wonder that inflammatory rhetoric is thriving and the list of this country's enemies lengthening when Americans themselves have so softly yet fervently embraced militarism. ..."
Killing Me Softly with Militarism - The Decay of Democracy in America
When Americans think of
militarism
,
they may imagine jackbooted soldiers goose-stepping through the streets as flag-waving crowds exult
;
or, like
our
president
, they may think of enormous parades featuring troops and missiles and tanks, with
warplanes soaring overhead. Or nationalist dictators wearing military uniforms
encrusted
with
medals, ribbons, and badges like so many barnacles on a sinking ship of state. (Was Donald
Trump
only
joking
recently when he said he'd like to award himself a Medal of Honor?)
And what
they may also think is: that's not us. That's not America. After all, Lady Liberty used to welcome
newcomers with a torch, not an
AR-15
.
We don't
wall
ourselves
in while
bombing others
in
distant parts of the world, right?
But militarism is more than thuggish dictators, predatory weaponry, and steely-eyed
troops. There are softer forms of it that are no less significant than the "hard" ones.
In
fact, in a self-avowed democracy like the United States, such softer forms are often more effective
because they seem so much less insidious, so much less dangerous. Even in the heartland of Trump's
famed base, most Americans
continue
to reject
nakedly bellicose displays like phalanxes of tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue.
But who can object to celebrating "
hometown
heroes
" in uniform, as happens regularly at sports events of every sort in twenty-first-century
America? Or polite and smiling military recruiters
in
schools
? Or gung-ho war movies like the latest version of
Midway
, timed for Veterans
Day weekend 2019 and marking America's 1942 naval victory over Japan, when we were not only the
good guys but the underdogs?
What do I mean by softer forms of militarism?
I'm a football fan, so one recent
Sunday afternoon found me watching an NFL game on CBS. People deplore violence in such games, and
rightly so, given the number of injuries among the players, notably concussions that debilitate
lives. But what about
violent
commercials
during the game? In that one afternoon, I noted repetitive commercials for
SEAL
Team
,
SWAT
, and
FBI
,
all CBS shows from this quietly militarized American moment of ours. In other words, I was exposed
to lots of guns, explosions, fisticuffs, and the like, but more than anything I was given glimpses
of hard men (and a woman or two) in uniform who have the very answers we need and, like the
Pentagon-supplied
police
in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, are armed to the teeth. ("Models with guns," my wife
calls them.)
Got a situation in Nowhere-stan? Send in the Navy SEALs. Got a murderer on the loose? Send in
the SWAT team. With their superior weaponry and can-do spirit, Special Forces of every sort are
sure to win the day (except, of course, when they don't, as in America's current series of
never-ending
wars
in distant lands).
And it hardly ends with those three shows.
Consider, for example, this
century's update of
Magnum P.I.
, a CBS
show featuring a kickass private investigator. In the original
Magnum
P.I.
that I watched as a teenager, Tom Selleck played the character with an easy charm.
Magnum's military background in Vietnam was acknowledged but not hyped. Unsurprisingly, today's
Magnum is proudly billed as an ex-Navy SEAL.
Cop and military
shows are nothing new on American TV, but never have I seen so many of them,
new and old, and so well-armed.
On CBS alone you can add to the mix
Hawaii
Five-O
(yet more models with guns updated and up-armed from my youthful years), the three
NCIS
(Naval
Criminal Investigative Service) shows, and
Blue
Bloods
(ironically starring a more grizzled and less charming Tom Selleck) -- and who
knows what I haven't noticed? While today's cop/military shows feature far more diversity with
respect to gender, ethnicity, and race compared to hoary classics like
Dragnet
,
they also feature far more gunplay and other forms of bloody violence.
Look, as a veteran, I have nothing against realistic shows on the military. Coming from a family
of first responders -- I count four firefighters and two police officers in my immediate family --
I loved shows like
Adam-12
and
Emergency!
in
my youth. What I'm against is the strange militarization of everything, including, for instance,
the idea, distinctly of our moment, that first responders need their very own version of the
American flag to mark their service. Perhaps you've seen those
thin
blue line
flags, sometimes augmented with a red line for firefighters. As a military veteran,
my gut tells me that there should only be one American flag and it should be good enough for all
Americans. Think of the proliferation of flags as another soft type of up-armoring (this time of
patriotism).
Speaking of which, whatever happened to
Dragnet
's Sergeant Joe Friday, on the
beat, serving his fellow citizens, and pursuing law enforcement as a calling?
He didn't
need a thin blue line battle flag. And in the rare times when he wielded a gun, it was .38 Special.
Today's version of Joe looks a lot more like G.I. Joe, decked out in body armor and carrying an
assault rifle as he exits a tank-like vehicle, maybe even a
surplus
MRAP
from America's
failed
imperial
wars.
Militarism in the USA
Besides TV shows, movies, and commercials, there are many signs of the increasing embrace of
militarized values and attitudes in this country. The result: the acceptance of a military in
places where it
shouldn't be
, one that's
over-celebrated,
over-hyped
,
and given
far too much
money and cultural
authority, while becoming
virtually immune
to
serious criticism.
Let me offer just nine signs of this that would have been so much less conceivable when
I was a young boy watching reruns of
Dragnet
:
1. Roughly
two-thirds
of
the federal government's discretionary budget for 2020 will, unbelievably enough, be devoted to
the Pentagon and related military functions, with each year's "defense" budget coming ever
closer to a
trillion
dollars
. Such colossal sums are rarely debated in Congress; indeed, they enjoy wide
bipartisan support.
2. The U.S. military remains the
most
trusted
institution in our society, so say 74% of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll. No
other institution even comes close, certainly not the presidency (37%) or Congress (which
recently rose to a monumental
25%
on
an impeachment high). Yet that same military has produced disasters or quagmires in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere. Various "surges" have repeatedly failed. The
Pentagon itself can't even pass
an
audit
. Why so much trust?
3. A state of permanent war is considered America's new normal. Wars are now automatically
treated as multi-generational with little concern for how
permawar
might
degrade our democracy. Anti-war protesters are rare enough to be
lone
voices
crying in the wilderness.
4. America's generals continue to be treated, without the slightest irony, as "the adults in
the room." Sages like former Secretary of Defense
James
Mattis
(
cited
glowingly
in the recent debate among 12 Democratic presidential hopefuls) will
save
America
from unskilled and tempestuous politicians like one Donald J. Trump. In the 2016
presidential race, it seemed that neither candidate could run without being endorsed by a
screaming general (
Michael
Flynn
for Trump;
John
Allen
for Clinton).
5. The media routinely embraces retired U.S. military officers and uses them as
talking
heads
to explain and promote military action to the American people. Simultaneously, when
the military goes to war, civilian journalists are "embedded" within those forces and so are
dependent on them in every way. The result tends to be a cheerleading media that supports the
military in the name of patriotism -- as well as higher ratings and corporate profits.
6. America's foreign aid is increasingly military aid. Consider, for instance, the current
controversy over the aid to Ukraine that President Trump blocked before his infamous phone call,
which was, of course,
partially
about weaponry
. This should serve to remind us that the United States has become the
world's
foremost
merchant of death, selling far more weapons globally than any other country. Again,
there is no real debate here about the morality of profiting from such massive sales, whether
abroad
($55.4
billion in arms sales for this fiscal year alone, says the Defense Security Cooperation Agency)
or
at home
(a
staggering 150 million new guns produced in the USA since 1986, the vast majority remaining in
American hands).
7. In that context, consider the militarization of the weaponry in those very hands, from .50
caliber
sniper rifles
to
various military-style assault rifles. Roughly
15
million
AR-15s are currently owned by ordinary Americans. We're talking about a gun designed
for battlefield-style rapid shooting and maximum damage against humans. In the 1970s, when I was
a teenager, the hunters in my family had bolt-action rifles for deer hunting, shotguns for
birds, and pistols for home defense and plinking. No one had a military-style assault rifle
because no one needed one or even wanted one. Now, worried suburbanites buy them, thinking
they're getting their "
man
card
" back by toting such a weapon of mass destruction.
8. Paradoxically, even as Americans slaughter each other and themselves in large numbers via
mass shootings and suicides (nearly 40,000
gun
deaths
in 2017 alone), they largely ignore Washington's overseas wars and the
continued
bombing
of numerous countries. But ignorance is not bliss. By tacitly giving the military a
blank check, issued in the name of securing the homeland, Americans embrace that military,
however loosely, and its misuse of violence across significant parts of the planet. Should it be
any surprise that a country that kills so wantonly overseas over such a prolonged period would
also experience mass shootings and other forms of violence at home?
9. Even as Americans "support our troops" and celebrate them as "heroes," the military itself
has taken on a new "
warrior
ethos
" that would once -- in the age of a draft army -- have been contrary to this
country's
citizen-soldier tradition
,
especially as articulated and exhibited by the "greatest generation" during World War II.
What these nine items add up to is a paradigm shift as well as a change in the
zeitgeist. The U.S. military is no longer a tool that a democracy funds and uses reluctantly. It's
become an alleged force for good, a virtuous entity, a band of brothers (and sisters), America's
foremost missionaries overseas and most lovable and admired heroes at home.
This embrace
of the military is precisely what I would call soft militarism. Jackbooted troops may not be
marching in our streets, but they increasingly seem to be marching unopposed through -- and
occupying
--
our minds.
The Decay of Democracy
As Americans embrace the military, less violent policy options are downplayed or
disregarded.
Consider the State Department, America's diplomatic corps, now a
tiny
,
increasingly
defunded
branch
of the Pentagon led by Mike Pompeo (celebrated by Donald Trump as a tremendous leader because he
did
well
at West Point). Consider President Trump as well, who's been labeled an isolationist, and
his
stunning
inability
to truly withdraw troops or end wars. In Syria, U.S. troops were recently redeployed,
not withdrawn, not from the region anyway, even as
more
troops
are being sent to Saudi Arabia. In Afghanistan, Trump sent a few thousand more troops in
2017, his own modest version of a mini-surge and they're still there, even as peace negotiations
with the Taliban have been abandoned. That decision, in turn, led to a new surge (a "
near
record high
") in U.S. bombing in that country in September, naturally in the name of advancing
peace.
The result: yet higher levels of
civilian
deaths
.
How did the U.S. increasingly come to reject diplomacy and democracy for militarism and
proto-autocracy?
Partly, I think, because of the absence of a military draft. Precisely
because military service is voluntary, it can be valorized. It can be elevated as a calling that's
uniquely heroic and sacrificial. Even though most troops are drawn from the working class and
volunteer for diverse reasons, their motivations and their imperfections can be ignored as
politicians praise them to the rooftops. Related to this is the Rambo-like cult of the warrior and
warrior
ethos
, now celebrated as something desirable in America. Such an ethos fits seamlessly with
America's generational wars. Unlike conflicted draftees, warriors exist solely to wage war. They
are less likely to have the questioning attitude of the citizen-soldier.
Don't get me wrong: reviving the draft isn't the solution; reviving democracy is.
We need the active involvement of informed citizens, especially resistance to
endless
wars
and
budget-busting
spending
on American weapons of mass destruction. The true cost of our previously soft (now
possibly hardening) militarism isn't seen only in this country's quickening march toward a
militarized authoritarianism. It can also be measured in the dead and wounded from our wars,
including the
dead, wounded
, and
displaced
in
distant lands. It can be seen as well in the rise of increasingly well-armed, self-avowed
nationalists domestically who promise solutions via walls and weapons and "good guys" with guns.
("Shoot them in the legs," Trump is
alleged
to
have said about immigrants crossing America's southern border illegally.)
Democracy shouldn't be about celebrating overlords in uniform.
A now-widely
accepted belief is that America is more divided, more partisan than ever, approaching perhaps a
new
civil
war
, as echoed in the rhetoric of our current president. Small wonder that inflammatory
rhetoric is thriving and the list of this country's enemies lengthening when
Americans
themselves have so softly yet fervently embraced militarism.
With apologies to the great
Roberta Flack
,
America is killing itself softly with war songs.
"Police who deployed explosives and armored vehicles to flush
out a man –who'd stolen two belts and a shirt from a Greenwood
Village Walmart– from the house of Leo and Alfonsia Lech, are
not required to compensate the couple for destroying their
home, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled
on
Tuesday."
Those police destroyed a house worth well over 200K since
it's in metro Denver...and all to apprehend a punk that
shoplifted less than $100 of merchandise...something
terribly wrong, all the govt units, local on up are high on
the arrogance of power with impunity.
The author seems to be writing an interesting fiction, reminds one of a Hollywood movie
about a Russian oligarch at the behest of a senior Russian government official, attempting
to engineer wall street crash.
Taking out a newspaper advertisement with proper representation to state one's case can't
be compared with the US funded National Endowment for Democracy's funding of Hong Kong's
increasingly violent rioting.
This is like apple and orange, not comparable. China did not interfere in
NBA's affairs, just reacting to her citizens uproar against the infamous now
deleted tweet. Thus many Chinese Chinese sponsors pulled out. This is no
different to sponsors pulling out of US athletes endorsements from time to
time when there are scandals.
Whereas NED is US intelligence cover for interference in targeted countries
like Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran and many Islamic countries around the world, to
advance US political agenda.
And in breaking news. 39 Britons have been found dead in a container
trying to be smuggled fromt eh failed UK state to the successful state
run by the CCP.
Did I get that the right-way round ?
This is a paper or news site about asia. It is written in English? What does this tell
you? The audience ostensibly consists of westerners (or educated people from asia or
elsewhere) who want to read an alternative to the drivel and rubbish that's propagated in
copious quantities by the scat factories of the west and their zionist-oligarch dominated
news conglomerates...
Who is interfering in elections? Does china name some loser guaido as president of
venezuela or support terrorists in syria? Is china sanctioning (with financial warfare)the
whole world including their own allies? You must have no modicum of shame to come up with
this absolute smorgasbord of rancid festering bollocks that you think is befitting of
"reporting." You are bettet off taking a sabbatical and never coming back... i would tell
you all of this to your face with the utmost respect that i could muster before i
vomited...
Presidents come and go... the empire, deep state bureaucrats, and their slavish
dual-state minions such as yourself will march on no matter what until your rotten seed
perpetuate the corruption and degeneracy passed down through your genes. That xyz is
president makes zero difference in deterring the momentum of evil that lurks within the
diseased sociopaths such as yourself.
You are an unmitigated disgrace to true journalism and do a grave disservice to this
site's reputation.
CIA uses fake identities for the propaganda articles. If a nation is building close
ties with China, automatically an author with a name from that nation appears. They
also have groups posting propaganda under a single fake name. There are only a few
genuine Asian CIA hacks making a living off the CIA.
USA is heading for multiple
recessions possibly a depression unless they change their current anti China
policies.
In fact, in military, fake identities for information warfare are assigned to
one person, so that it multiplies the effect. To keep track of these
"personas" per each real person, and their postings -- a "persona" data bases
are needed to keep track of their activities. And unfortunately , there are
always some technicians who are more then happy to talk about it.
It would not surprise me if he worked for the CIA... this organization is, by
its mission, embedded into all public spheres...
What is worrisome is that
the cia has no accountability to anyone. It is one great example of deep state
operator. Also, cia is heavily infiltrated by mossad. In other words, cia is a
parallel drug traffickers organization that dabbles in news, democracy
promotion, torture, coups, blackmail, assasibation, rendition...
It is accountable to no one ... their actions are conducted in secrecy and
cannot be scrutinized... the president can't control them... these
organizations are a manifest example of why this article is a huge fallacy
dressed up in cured excrement.
These people are outrageously shameless in their assertion that they can openly interfere
in the internal affairs of other countries, like the recent bills passed by the US House
of Representatives in support of the Blackshirts of HK, but they would not brook any
interference from China in their election, not that it's true at all.
This is a good example of how the US apply its Orwellian ideology of "American
Exceptionalism" - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -
George Orwell's "Animal Farm."
Another guy cashing in on the evil China fad, pathetic. It is the US who conducts
financial warfare by imposing illegal sanctions and restrictions on other countries using
the dominance of the dollar in international trade.
If it is so easy to have a country's financial system snd stock markets manipulated -- how
do know that our own financial sharks are not already manipulating market to enrich them
selves , while making it appear that everything is fine? Or that they are not crashing
markets in order to profit?
There is something not right about a country with financial and market systems living off
the fumes of news cycle?
Look at how many times West attacked Russian financial systems
and markets, blocking whole companies and financial institutions -- yet nothing crashed.
Currency lost some value helping exports, while those earning in dollars simply had more
money to spend domestically. And by placing sanctions kn European food products -- they
shot up to the first place globally in wheat production.
I am wondering if the difference is Russia's large currency and gold reserves. As
opposed US economy that sits atop a large debt bubble? Than anything can spook it.
Bill Gertz is running out of stuff to bad mouth China. He is eager to make some money now
that he's been fired by Washington Free Beacon for having some shady deals with the
Chinese billionaire fugitive Guo who is the subject covered in his reporting.
Maybe Gertz can tell us who China wants to be elected by staging these financial influence
campaign? Gertz is sounding utterly ridiculous now.
american are losers, foreign influence here and there, well thanks to your own foreign
policies bombing here and there and regime change everywhere, you sow what you get. if you
don't want foreign influence. just build a great wall and extend it to these. not only no
5G, ditch all comunications including mail
This is a nonsense article. Lots of hypotheticals with no proof presented of China's
intention or cases of actually trying to influence any American election.
This is more
how Western countries behave with their Machivellian modus operandi overthrowing
governments in Eastern Europe, Latin America, etc. This author and American officials are
merely voicing what the USA is already capable of doing rather than what China has in
place.
In fact there is a debate among Chinese officials and think tanks that they might want
Trump to have a second term because as the USA p@sses off many countries including those
allied with the USA that might help China down the line.
Wait a minute -- Russia wants Trump to be reelected, and China wants him to lose?
With US creating legislation for the whole world -- our sanctions whose enforcement is
imposed in others -- means that other people must have the right to elect the president?
How can the world accept such financial burden on others with no right to vote.
Remember
America next time you vote for sanctions, tariffs etc. -- no taxation without
representation.
Global presidents must be elected globally!
There's no need for the Chinese to rely on 'covert' operation to influence the election's
outcome. For instance, if China just cancels the buying of the agricultural goods from the
US that it has dealt with Trump in what is being called the partial deal from the trade
war, it would be already enough to influence in the election. Lol!
MOSCOW, October 26, 2019 – RIA Novosti – The Russian Ministry of Defense has
published satellite intelligence images , showing American oil smuggling from Syria.
Image 1: Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic as of October 26, 2019.
According to the ministry, the photos confirm that "Syrian oil, both before and after the
routing defeat of the Islamic State terrorists in land beyond the Euphrates river , under the
reliable protection by US military servicemen, oil was actively being extracted and then the
fuel trucks were massively being sent for processing outside of Syria."
Image 2: Daman oil gathering station, Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 42 km east of Deir
ez-Zor, August 23, 2019.
Here, in a picture of the Daman oil gathering station (42 kilometers east of the Deir-ez-Zor
province), taken on August 23, a large amount of trucks were spotted. "There were 90 automotive
vehicles, including 23 fuel trucks," the caption to the image said.
In addition, on September 5, there were 25 vehicles in the Al-Hasakah province, including 22
fuel trucks. Three days later, on September 8, in the vicinity of Der Ez-Zor, 36 more vehicles
were recorded (32 of them were fuel trucks). On the same day, 41 vehicles, including 34 fuel
trucks, were in the Mayadin onshore area.
Image 3: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Al-Hasakah province, 8 km west of Al-Shaddadi,
September 5, 2019.
As the official representative of the Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov noted, the Americans
are extracting oil in Syria with the help of equipment, bypassing their own sanctions.
Igor Konashenkov:
"Under the protection of American military servicemen and employees of American PMCs, fuel
trucks from the oil fields of Eastern Syria are smuggling to other states. In the event of
any attack on such a caravan, special operations forces and US military aircraft are
immediately called in to protect it," he said.
According to Konashenkov, the US-controlled company Sadcab , established under the so-called
Autonomous Administration of Eastern Syria , is engaged in the export of oil, and the income of
smuggling goes to the personal accounts of US PMCs and special forces.
The Major General added that as of right now, a barrel of smuggled Syrian oil is valued at
$38, therefore the monthly revenue of US governmental agencies exceeds $30 million.
Image 4: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 10 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
"For such a continuous financial flow, free from control and taxes of the American
government, the leadership of the Pentagon and Langley will be ready to guard and defend oil
fields in Syria from the mythical 'hidden IS cells' endlessly," he said.
According to Konashenkov, Washington, by holding oil fields in eastern Syria, is engaged in
international state banditry.
Image 5: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 14 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
The reason for this activity, he believes, "lies far from the ideals of freedom proclaimed
by Washington and their slogans on the fight against terrorism."
Igor Konashenkov:
"Neither in international law, nor in American legislation itself – there is not and
cannot be a single legal task for the American troops to protect and defend the hydrocarbon
deposits of Syria from Syria itself and its own people, " the representative of the Defense
Ministry concluded.
A day earlier, the Pentagon's head, Mark Esper declared that the United States is studying
the situation in the Deir ez-Zor region and intends to strengthen its positions there in the
near future "to ensure the safety of oil fields."
The Ruskies are mad - Trump is stopping them from taking the oil, it belongs to the Kurds
for their revenue and if US wants to help them have it so what....US is staying to secure
those oilfields against ISIS taking it again!
If everyone listened to the President when he talks there wouldn't be any spin that anyone
could get away with.
The oil is on Kurdish land. This part of Syria is just a small sector of Kurdish territory
that has been stolen from them by dividing it between four "countries", each of which has
oil. This is why the territory was stolen and why the Kurds have become the world's best
fighters.
Putin brokered a deal to stop Turkey wiping the Kurds by having their fighting force
assimilate with the Syrian military and required Russian observers access to ensure the Turks
keep their word and not invade to wipe all the Kurd civilians in order to also take their
Syrian oil.
So the corrupt US generals get caught in the act. Their senators and reps on the payroll
are going to need some more of that fairy tale PR for POTUS to read to us at bedtime.
If we are to believe that this is to protect the oil fields then the oil revenue should be
going to Syria, even though the Kurds are on the land. Follow the money to find the truth
because there is no one you can trust on this stage.
MSM are simply not covering this story. Or the other story about the supposed gas attack
at Douma where evidence was adulterated and/or ignored completely under US pressure.
Expect the same from MH17.
WTF is going on with our leaders and corporate MSM....can no one in a leadership position
distinguish between lies and the truth? Or fantasy and reality? Where are the 'journalists'
who will stand up and tell the truth in MSM? They no longer exist.
18 wheel fuel trucks around here hold 10K gal. 50 truck loads 500K of un processed oil if
it's true? I though they just got there. but no telling who might steal under those
conditions.
That was August. this is now. The Russians must have really wanted that oil to finance
their occupation. Trump is preventing ISIS from using the oil as their piggy bank.
Wasn't Erdogan doing the same not too long ago? Shortly after Erdogan became close friends
with Putin. Does this mean Trump and Putin will become close friends as well? Or is this
simply a common practice between two people who undeservingly place relatives in government
positions? First Turkey hands over Al Baghdadi (he received medical treatment in Southern
Turkey in a private clinic owned by Erdogan's daughter guarded by MIT agents) so that they
can continue to commit genocide against Kurds in Turkey and Syria... and now the US is
stealing Syrian oil like how the Turks initially were doing. What a mess and a
disappointment. Hopefully Erdogan visits DC and unleashes his security guards beating any
person freely walking the streets while Trump smiles and describes him as a great leader.
Watch in coming weeks as the tanker convoys are proven to be rogue operations from an out
of control CIA / Cabal network. Trump removed the troops, and now Russia is shining a light
on it.
No coincidence another article on ZH brung attention to the Ukrainian wareehouse arsos..12
in 2 yrs..2017-2018 where stored munition were carted away...not to fight rebels n Donbass
but sold to Islamic groups in Syria..it was one of Bidens pals..one keeps the wars going
while the others steal siphon of resources..whatever isn't nailed down..I've never seen
anything like this..Democrats are truly CRIME INC
w/o that oil..Syria can never reconstruct itself..Usually in a War or ,after that is, the
victors help rebuild..what we see is pillaging and salting the earth and walk away.. as the
Romans did to enemies like Carthage..it will resemble Libya ...a shambles
So the smuggling is protected by air cover and special forces? Light up the fields using
some scud missiles. I'm sure Iran or Iraq have a few they could lend Syria. Can't sell it if
its burning.
Brits and Americans have pillaged, as any other empire, wherever they conquered.
After WW1 the 'Allies' robbed Germany of all foreign currency and its entire gold. This
triggering hyperinflation and mega crisis.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated' across
Europe.
In more recent history, the gold of Iraq, Ukraine and Libya was flown to Fort Knox.
All well documented.
This is common practice by empires. Just please stop pretending you were the good
guys , spreading freedom and democracy, because that's really a mockery and the
disgusting part of your invasions.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated'.
Exactly, that's where the US got its 8,000 tons of gold. Before WWII, the US had 2000 tons
of gold, after WWII it had 8,000 tons. Even today the US always steals the gold of the
countries it "liberates"
Help me understand why the USA would want to smuggle oil from Syria. When the USA has more
oil than all of the middleast.
Now I can see why Russia would blame the USA if smuggling Oil from Syria. Russia needs
that oil really bad. So to get the USA away from the Syrian oil fields they would of course
create a reason for the rest of the world that the USA is Dishonerable and must not be
trusted with Syrian oil. It is just too obvious to me, what Russia is trying to
accomplish.
Huh? The US is stealing the oil to deprive the Syrian people energy they need to rebuild
the country we destroyed. This is collective punishment of Syrians because they won't
overthrow Assad.
Collective punishment is a crime against humanity according to international law. There's
your impeachable offense. But don't worry, that kind of crime is ok with Shifty Schiff and
the rest of the Israel ***-kissers in Congress.
The US is NOT stealing the oil - the American Military have become PIRATES - no different
than Somali Red Sea Pirates or looters in Newark stealing diapers and TV's
This is nothing new. We've been stealing oil from dozens of countries for the past 75
years since WWII. The only difference is that Trump is being blatant about it which in a way
is weirdly refreshing.
Regardless of what do you think about Donald Trump, what intelligence community did was a plain vanilla coup d'état approved by Obama
and coordinated by run by Brennan faction in CIA. With active participation of factions of FBI (Counterintelligence department),
Department of Justice (several highly placed officials) and State Department (which is a real neocon vipers nest so the majority of high level officials,
especially connected with the Ukrainian color revolution participated) eagerly participated in the coup.
They left too many fingerprints in this and now Barr hopefully will brings some individuals to justice for this coup.
Notable quotes:
"... I was fortunate to participate in a forum in August sponsored by the Ron Paul Institute. Here is my presentation on the attempted coup by US Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community. ..."
I was fortunate to participate in
a forum in August sponsored by the Ron Paul Institute. Here is my presentation on the attempted
coup by US Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community.
"... The below analysis is provided by " Ehsani " -- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical analysis blog, Syria Comment . ..."
"... An M1 Abrams tank at the Udairi Range Complex in Kuwait, via Army National Guard/Military Times. ..."
Here's
Why Trump's "Secure Syria's Oil" Plan Will Prove Practically Impossible
by
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2019 - 23:30
0
SHARES
The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
" -- a Middle
East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes
for the influential geopolitical analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.
Much has been debated since President Trump tweeted that
"The U.S has secured the oil"
in Syria. Is this feasible? Does it make any sense? The below will
explain how and why
the answer is a resounding
NO
.
Al-Omar and Conoco fields are already secured by Kurdish-led SDF and U.S forces. Some of the oil
from these fields was being sold through third parties to Syria's government by giving it in crude
form and taking back half the quantity as refined product
(the government owns the
refineries).
Syria's government now has access to oil fields inside the 32km zone
(established
by the Turkish military incursion and subsequent withdrawal of Kurdish forces). Such fields can produce
up to 100K barrels a day and will already go a long way in terms of meeting the country's immediate
demand.
So the importance of accessing oil in SDF/U.S hands is not as pressing any longer.
SDF/U.S forces can of course decide to sell the oil to Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
but Syria's government now has control over the border area connecting Syria to KRG territory through
both Yaaroubia and Al-Mallkiya.
The Syrian government also now has control over supply of electricity. This was made possible by
taking control of the Tishreen and Furat dams.
Operating those fields needs electric power
supply and the state is now the provider.
Securing and operating these fields also entails paying salaries to those operating the fields.
International companies would be very reluctant to get involved without legal backing to operate
the fields.
"Securing the oil" therefore
can only mean preventing the Syrian state from accessing al-Omar/Conoco
only (not oil in the north)
. It's unlikely anything can be sold or transported.
And let's not forget "securing" this oil would need
ready air cover, and all for what?
SDF composition included Arab fighters and tribes who accepted Kurds in leadership since they had
American support and key cities in north. Many of those Arabs are already switching and joining the
Syrian Army.
"Securing" oil for benefit of the Kurds is likely to antagonize the Arab fighters
and tribes in the region.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more
than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
The psychopaths destroyed the last secular country in the ME. Same
with Lybia. Now all we get are extremists on all sides. Mossad doing
what it knows best, bringing chaos for the psychopaths.
By withdrawing from Northern Kurdistan and by making an exception
for the oil fields, Genius President Trump just told the world a number
of things:
To trust the U.S.A. as an ally is sheer stupidity
The "alternative media" theory that it is all about oil (and
possible gas) has been proven true
The U.S.A. is being ruled by a hobbyist who has no strategic
plans, replacing them with a "random walk" concept
Of course, the European allies (except Turkey) are still refusing
to learn from this experience. "Duck and cover until November 2020"
is their current tactics. Not sure if this is a good idea.
Turkey has learned to go their own ways, but I don't think it is
a good idea to create ever more enemies at one's borders. Greece,
Armenia, the Kurdish regions, Syria, Cyprus, not sure how their stance
is towards Iran. Reminds me of Germany before both World Wars. Won't
end well.
"America/The US", a label, is
actually just a location on a map and is not a reference to the actual
identities of those who start wars for profit.
Also it is hilarious to use that label as if an area of the planet
is or has attacked another area. Land can not attack itself, ever,
just as guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Trump is not claiming posession of oil in syria by leaving some
troops behind. Just as he did not declare war, nor start any EVER.
Every conflct on earth has it's roots with very specific individuals,
none of whom are even related to Trump.
Syria was a conflicting mess before he took office and he is dutifully
attempting to pull US soldiers out of a powder keg of nonsense he
wants no part of. Nor does any sane American want more conflict in
battles we can't afford, in countries we'll never even visit.
Like I said before, Trump can't just abruptly yank all our troops.
It's simply not that simple. And for those pretending he is doing
syria a disservice, I dare any one of you to go there yourselves and
see if you bunch of complete dipshits can do better. Who knows, maybe
you'll find the love of your life, ******* idiots.
First, the US invades Syria in violation of the Geneva Convention
on War making it an international criminal. Then it funds and equips
the most vile terrorists on the planet which leads to the killing
of thousands of innocent Syrians. And now it has decided to stay and
steal oil from Syria. The US is now the Evil American Empire owned
and run by crooks, gangsters and mass murderers. The Republic is dead
along with morality, justice and freedom.
Let's limit the culprits to: The Obama regime... and
not all the US. This is why these devils need to be brought
to trial and their wealth clawed out of their hiding places to
pay reparations to some of the victims.
The US has been an Evil American Empire for a long time, since
at least the Wilson administration, and Republican or Democrat...it
make little difference. World wars, the Fed, IRS, New Deal,
Korea, Vietnam, War OF Terror, assassinations, coups, sanctions,
Big Pharma, Seeds of Death and Big Agri...and the list goes
on and on. Please understand that America is not great and one
day all Americans will have to account for what their country
did in their name. If you believe in the Divine, then know that
their will be a reckoning.
The Obama regime was merely a continuation of the Chimpy Bush
regime, which was merely a continuation of the Clinton regime,
which was merely a continuation of the Pappy Bush regime, which
was merely a continuation... etc.
More chinks in the petrodollar armor will be the outcome of this. The credibility of murica is withering
away as every day passes. Iraqi pressure upon foreign troops there
to leave and/or drawdown further will also make this venture even
more difficult to manage.
The Kurds
may not be the smartest with regards to picking allies, but even they
may by now have learned that sticking to murica any longer will destroy
any semblance of hope for any autonomy status whatsoever once the
occupants have left. Likewise, the Sunni tribes around this area don't
want to become another Pariah group once things revert to normal.
Assad will eventually retake all his territory and
this is speeding up the process of eventual reconciliation in Syria.
They've spent far more on these wars than they've made back by stealing
other countries' resources. Trillions wasted in exchange for mere
billions in profit, to say nothing of the massive loss of life and
destruction incurred.
'The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
"
-- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst
who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical
analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.'
this quote was my first red flag.
so POTUS outsmarts Erdongan, takes out ISIS leader BAGHDADI along
with Erdongan MIT agents meeting with him. sorry, Ehsani, i think
your full of sh*t.
CIA & MOSSAD LLC
friends ISIS is just the excuse the american
an israeli terrorists used and use in order to keep trying to remove
Assad from the Government.
They just can't accept defeat and absolute failure. What's worse
than an american/israeli terrorist destroyed ego?!
All info needs verification. US sources are not trustworthy including
anyone where money originates from the usual fake info instigators/
players.
POTUS is so misled by the deep state MIC /CIA/ FBI et al and their
willing fake media cohorts that he agreed to give the White Helmets
more public money for more fake movies, as has been properly proven
and widely reported.
Either they have taken control of his mind with a chip insert or
they have got his balls to the knife.
The false flags have been discredited systematically and only a
very brainwashed or a very frightened person would believe anything
from the same source until after a thorough scourge is proven successfully
undertaken.
It is evident that even the last hope department has been got at
by the money-power.
If they can do 9/11 and get away with it, as they have, then they
will stop at nothing to remain entrenched.
90% of oil is traded in U.S. dollars if that stops living standards
will drop in the U.S.. We dropped from 97% look how bad its now
with 7% imagine going down to 50% life would be unlivable
here.
...meanwhile, both according to
russia today
as well as the
(otherwise lying rag of a newspaper)
guardian
, the russian
government seems to take a different position to the views expressed
here by "a middle east expert".
russian state media is reporting that US troops are in the process
of taking control of syrian oil fields in the deir el-zour region
and have described such actions as "banditry". the crux of the matter
is this: if the US were not actually illegally taking control of Syrian
oil, then Russia would not be reporting this. Contrary to western
mainstream media, Russian sources have repeatedly shown themselves
to be factual.
Shame the "withdrawl" from Syria is tainted with "securing the oil".
US doesnt need that oil at all. So Orwellian! Unless the Kurds somehow
get rights to it.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
Trump
is
securing
the
oil
not
for
the
Kurds
or
anything
in
the
middle
east-
his
doing
it
as
a response
to
the
media
backlash
he
received
when
he
announced
he's
abandoning
the
Kurds.
this is nonsense. thinking of the kurds and their interests is the absolutely last thing on trump`s mind: what counts for trump is how he is viewed by his voter base, no more, no less.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas
drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about
Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge
Trump at first threw down the gauntlet to the spies and proclaimed his autocratic
prerogative when God held off the rain for his inauguration (!) but now he would gladly get
on his knees between Gina Haspel's legs if the CIA would only help him stay in power.
What distinguishes Obama from other presidents is the degree to which he was manufactured.
He made it to the WH without much of a political base. Control of the political context,
media and process, launched Obama to the top. It was fulfillment of the liberal American
dream. It was a great coup. Talk about the "deep state"! It's staring us all in the face.
"... "What they did was treasonous, OK? It was treasonous," he told author Doug Wead for his upcoming book, " Inside Trump's White House: The Real Story of His Presidency." ..."
President Trump has ratcheted up his claim that the Obama White House spied on his 2016 campaign, charging in a new book that
it was a "treasonous" act by the former Democratic president.
"The interesting thing out of all of this is that we caught them spying on the election. They were spying on my campaign. So you
know? What is that all about?" said Trump.
"I have never ever said this, but truth is, they got caught spying. They were spying," said Trump who then added, "Obama."
In 2017, Trump tweeted that he felt the Obama White House "had my wires tapped" in Trump Tower. He later said he didn't mean it
literally but that he felt his campaign was being spied on.
Attorney General William Barr earlier this year said he was looking into whether "improper surveillance" may have occurred in
2016.
He has tasked a prosecutor to look into Obama officials and other officials who sparked the Russia collusion investigation into
Trump after a report showed no collusion. New reports on that investigation described it as "criminal" in nature.
"It turned out I was right. By the way," Trump told Wead in excerpts provided to Secrets.
"In fact, what I said was peanuts compared to what they did. They were spying on my campaign. They got caught and they said,
'Oh we were not spying. It was actually an investigation.' Can you imagine an administration investigating its political opponents?"
said the president.
In the book, Trump said that the Russia investigation undercut his presidency.
" Anybody else would be unable to function under the kind of pressure and distraction I had. They couldn't get anything done.
No other president should ever have to go through this. But understand, there was no collusion. They would have had to make something
up," he said.
Technically, it was sedition, unless Trump can show that Obama was acting for a foreign power. There definitely were foreign
powers involved, the question is who was in charge?
The attempt to circumvent democracy and ensure Hillary's victory in the elections with falsified Russian collusion allegations
along with a constant communist media bombardment to discredit Trump, absolutely constitutes treason. What you need to understand
is that socialist progressives serve a different god - lucifer - and a different nation - Israel; that they do not have your best
interests at heart is a given.
Everything they do is to undermine traditional morality and the moral fabric that holds civilization together. Ordo Ab Cao.
Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch have published formerly classified
documents from the U.S. Department of Defence which reveals the agencies earlier views on
ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they
should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
Levantreport.com reports:
Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND
TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A
DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS
IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN
REGIME ".
The DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was
circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS,
NGA, State Dept., and many others.
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the
group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified
documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on
ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they
should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and
some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria –
as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS
members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency
at facilities in Jordan in 2012.
The USA is a real leader in technology and arm production. This is the country that created
PC, Internet and smartphones, which changed the world. So technical supremacy paves the way to
imperial behaviour.
CIA is one of the most powerful tools of the empire, the force that is instrumental in
peeking the USA on globalist path now (looks at Russiagate) .
The path of U.S.-Israeli arrogance and domination, with its various dimensions, and with
its direct and indirect extensions and alliances, which is witnessing military defeats and
political failures, reflected successive defeats for the American strategies and plans, one
after the other. All this has led [the U.S.] to a state of indecision, retreat, and inability
to control the progress of events in our Arab and Islamic world. There is a broader
international context for this – a context that, in its turn, helps to expose the
American crisis, and the decline of the [U.S.] unipolar hegemony, in the face of pluralism,
the characteristics of which are yet to be stabilized.
"The crisis of the arrogant world order is deepened by the collapse of U.S. and
international stock markets, and by the confusion and powerlessness of the American economy.
This reflects the height of the structural crisis of the model of capitalist arrogance.
Therefore, it can be said that we are in the midst of historic transformations that foretell
the retreat of the USA as a hegemonic power, the disintegration of the unipolar hegemonic
order, and the beginning of the accelerated historic decline of the Zionist entity.
After World War II, the U.S. has adopted the leading, central hegemonic project. At its
hands, this project has witnessed great development of the means of control and unprecedented
subjugation. It has benefited from an accumulation of multi-faceted accomplishments in
science, culture, technology, knowledge, economy, and the military, which was supported by an
economic political plan that views the world as nothing but open markets subject to the laws
of [the U.S.].
"The most dangerous aspect of Western logic of hegemony in general, and the American logic
of hegemony in particular, is their basic belief that they own the world, and have the right
to hegemony due to their supremacy in several fields. Thus, the Western, and especially
American, expansionist strategy, when coupled with the enterprise of capitalist economy, has
become a strategy of a global nature, whose covetous desires and appetite know no bounds.
The barbaric capitalism has turned globalism into a means to spread disintegration, to sow
discord, to destroy identities, and to impose the most dangerous form of cultural, economic,
and social plunder. Globalization reached its most dangerous phase, when it was transformed
into military globalization by the owners of the Western hegemony enterprise, the greatest
manifestation of which was evident in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq, to
Palestine, and to Lebanon.
There is no doubt that American terrorism is the source of all terrorism in the world. The
Bush administration has turned the U.S. into a danger threatening the whole world, on all
levels. If a global opinion poll were held today, the United States would emerge as the most
hated country in the world.
The most important goal of American arrogance is to take control of the peoples
politically, economically, and culturally, and to plunder their resources.
Rachel Maddow's trademark pouty-face got a workout as she strained to imagine " what the
thing is that Durham might be looking into." Yes, that's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside
an enigma, all right with a sputtering fuse sticking out of it.
... ... ...
Over in the locked ward of CNN, Andy Cooper and Jeff Toobin attempted to digest the criminal
investigation news as if someone had ordered in a platter of shit sandwiches for the green room
just before air-time. Toobin pretended to not know exactly who the mysterious Joseph Misfud
was, and struggled to even pronounce his name
... ... ...
As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own
historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud
and a scoundrel and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a
criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has
happened before in history.
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
"... It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East. ..."
"... Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ..."
"... They've re-started the Cold War. Keeps all the warmongers in business. Surely they're not stupid enough to want a hot one are they? ..."
"... It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold. ..."
"... "Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow on them." ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
Rachel Maddow's trademark pouty-face got a workout as she strained to imagine " what the
thing is that Durham might be looking into." Yes, that's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside
an enigma, all right with a sputtering fuse sticking out of it.
... ... ...
Over in the locked ward of CNN, Andy Cooper and Jeff Toobin attempted to digest the criminal
investigation news as if someone had ordered in a platter of shit sandwiches for the green room
just before air-time. Toobin pretended to not know exactly who the mysterious Joseph Misfud
was, and struggled to even pronounce his name
... ... ...
As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own
historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud
and a scoundrel and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a
criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has
happened before in history.
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
@Digital Samizdat Absolutely. Gabbard is the "Democrat" Trump. A Jew puppet presented as an outsider. They're exactly the
same. Even Obama was presented that way to an extent.
Yet the dumb goyim will fall for it for the third time in a row.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
@Ilyana_Rozumova The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
@MarathonMan Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
And now, according to the latest news, Trump will send tanks into Syria to help the Kurds secure the oil for Israel. It's hard
to understand why the Elders of the Deep State want to impeach Trump. He has done everything they wanted, moved the embassy, gave
Syria's Golan Heights to Israel, never criticizes the illegal settlements in Palestine. What else do they want from him?
What do you mean Pelosi has no credibility? Have you checked her bank balance lately? Nancy, had she not waded into politics,
would have been a pole dancer she had the goods for it.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
When it comes to senior American politihoes, no one is ever right. Pelosi may be cultivating the ISIS, but Gabbard is busy blowing
assorted dictators and more closer to the heart, the hindoo nationalist queers, as impotent (I mean that in a literal sexual context,
as their elites don't marry) as they might be.
Tulsi needs to conduct herself with gravitas, because of her age. However, she is helped by the fact that the leader of the progressive
wing is a former bartender, and the leader of the environmental resistance is a high-school sophomore.
@MarathonMan It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
Lol! Deceitful lies from some godless/pagan whitrash.
If you are referring to some self-perceived notions of barbarity/deception/etc., within Islam, then you are a deceitful !@#
who is trying to cover up the sheer savagery/psychopathy/deception/hypocrisy/etc., of the Christoo whitrash race.
Again, as far as the roots of Islam being in Judaism, that is laughable. It is Christooism which is clearly having roots in
Judaism (there have been so many here who have quoted from your pagan scriptures about the haloed position of the Jooscum)
and Hindooism .
In-his-image mangods/womangods, Trinity/Trimurthi, the human body is the temple of god the list is long where you all share
your pagan theologies.
Islam utterly rejects all such pagan abominations. The following verses of the Holy Quran amply proves the simplest and purest
form of monotheism, that is Islam;
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born , Nor is there to Him
any equivalent ."
@A123 "Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability."
Wrong.
The Oded Yinon Plan employs exactly this strategy, and along with the Neocon dominated State Dept with its Regime Change program
(Oded Yinon plan in stealth mode) is the predicate. Meanwhile, once it emerged, Obama & Kerry sought to preserve ISIS as a means
to pressure Assad. Neocon Zionist fifth column in the US, & Israel-behind-the-scenes are the dual agency-behind-the-curtain of
US regime-change wars ***EVERYWHERE*** (because they hate Russia, too.).
@DESERT FOX And rule, finally, over a smoldering wreck of a planet? They already rule most of it, they're at the Endgame of
their long match with the world. Not that they eschew violence and mass murder. Indeed, they got their start thousands years ago
by worshiping a god who told them to genocide all their neighbors and steal all their goods.
@really no shit I'm in the same age cohort as most of these shameless grifters, so I know the end of this run on earth is
drawing near. I know that no one can take whatever they accumulate in this life with them into oblivion or whatever their imagined
version of paradise might be. The loot stays here in this vale of tears.
ALL of these players busy ruining and ending lives, like Pelosi, the Clintons and the Bush family, are multi-millionaires at
the least–and all on the taxpayers' dime. Why do they desperately seek to add ever more cash to their bank accounts by bringing
yet more misery into the world? It won't be very long and either the collection of psychopaths known as the government of the
United States and its ruthless war machine will end up with the proceeds or they will pass down to further generations of these
congenital parasites and deadbeats.
Does Joe ask himself whether it was worthy to spend his wretched life accumulating ill-gotten wealth to pass on to Hunter and
his ilk? Or for Hillary to set up Chelsea and the next generation of Rodham Clinton lampreys? Jimmy Carter seems to have been
the only American president who didn't constantly grasp for money once out of office and the world never heard a peep about Amy
ever again.
[MORE]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters trained in Jordan became members
of the ISIS after their training.]
JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S.
instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting
the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future
campaign in Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to
extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in
the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans
worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan
reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total
of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British
and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine's report. The
French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch have published formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defence
which reveals the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that
they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
Levantreport.com reports:
Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION
THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR),
AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME ".
The DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government
agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic
asset.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department
of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable
presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually
facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also
that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan
in 2012.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
The path of U.S.-Israeli arrogance and domination, with its various dimensions, and with its direct and indirect extensions
and alliances, which is witnessing military defeats and political failures, reflected successive defeats for the American strategies
and plans, one after the other. All this has led [the U.S.] to a state of indecision, retreat, and inability to control the progress
of events in our Arab and Islamic world. There is a broader international context for this – a context that, in its turn, helps
to expose the American crisis, and the decline of the [U.S.] unipolar hegemony, in the face of pluralism, the characteristics
of which are yet to be stabilized.
"The crisis of the arrogant world order is deepened by the collapse of U.S. and international stock markets, and by the confusion
and powerlessness of the American economy. This reflects the height of the structural crisis of the model of capitalist arrogance.
Therefore, it can be said that we are in the midst of historic transformations that foretell the retreat of the USA as a hegemonic
power, the disintegration of the unipolar hegemonic order, and the beginning of the accelerated historic decline of the Zionist
entity.
After World War II, the U.S. has adopted the leading, central hegemonic project. At its hands, this project has witnessed great
development of the means of control and unprecedented subjugation. It has benefited from an accumulation of multi-faceted accomplishments
in science, culture, technology, knowledge, economy, and the military, which was supported by an economic political plan that
views the world as nothing but open markets subject to the laws of [the U.S.].
"The most dangerous aspect of Western logic of hegemony in general, and the American logic of hegemony in particular, is their
basic belief that they own the world, and have the right to hegemony due to their supremacy in several fields. Thus, the Western,
and especially American, expansionist strategy, when coupled with the enterprise of capitalist economy, has become a strategy
of a global nature, whose covetous desires and appetite know no bounds.
The barbaric capitalism has turned globalism into a means to spread disintegration, to sow discord, to destroy identities,
and to impose the most dangerous form of cultural, economic, and social plunder. Globalization reached its most dangerous phase,
when it was transformed into military globalization by the owners of the Western hegemony enterprise, the greatest manifestation
of which was evident in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq, to Palestine, and to Lebanon.
There is no doubt that American terrorism is the source of all terrorism in the world. The Bush administration has turned the
U.S. into a danger threatening the whole world, on all levels. If a global opinion poll were held today, the United States would
emerge as the most hated country in the world.
The most important goal of American arrogance is to take control of the peoples politically, economically, and culturally,
and to plunder their resources.
– Hassan Nasrallah December 8, 2009
and Trump IS NOT "pulling out" Will Tulsi? One way to find out. Doesn't look good though, unless shes willing to splinter the
C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds, as they say..
Where's the proof that she is CFR member, I see sock puppets parrot this line all the time but offer no proof. Her serving
on the armed & financial services committees and doing a speech for them doesn't make her a member. I'd take her over Trump any
day.
a US-made color revolution seems to be afoot in Bolivia
wendy davis on Thu, 10/24/2019 - 11:50am The pink tide needs to be stemmed for good,
as with VZ, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, and so on; nor can the sole Indigenous President (and a
peasant to boot!) on the planet be allowed to win this election. Note: this a$$hat's threats
came on Oct. 21 , with only a portion of the votes announced! Yeah, we know what the US and its
client states will do; it's all part of the CIA handbook, isn't it? Criminalize the pinko's
'regime', sanction/sanction/sanction and eventually back the West's preferred leader.
The United States threatens "serious consequences" for Bolivia's government before vote
counting has even completed, offering a deceptive and inaccurate version of events
surrounding the Bolivian election.
The " Civic Committee " of Santa Cruz issues an ultimatum to the Election Commission to open
a second round of voting, otherwise they'll " proclaim " their own president. Also order Evo
Morales and his VP to vacate the presidential palace
@ MarkWeisbrot 'The OAS
should either provide evidence in support of its statements questioning the election results,
or publicly retract these statements.'
@ AndeanInfoNet
'President Evo Morales affirms that there should be an audit of the election results to address
fraud accusations in # Bolivia 's national elections. He
asked the opposition to provide evidence of these claims.'
Presidential elections were held on Sunday, Oct. 20. Telesur english described the two
front-runner candidates on
Oct. 17, 2019 :
"A look at Bolivia's opposition candidates provide insight into that question, so too does
examining the current fates of countries like Ecuador and Argentina that threw out progressive
governments to elect neoliberals, which is what Bolivia's right-wing is offering today.
Carlos Mesa , a former head of state himself who presided during the country's neoliberal
past, invited in the United States military to establish bases in Bolivia during his term.
Carlos Mesa's previous term (2003-2005) gives some idea of what lies in store for Bolivians if
he wins. During his watch, poverty and extreme poverty was twice as high as the current rates
-- over two thirds of the population were impoverished. His presidency, which he didn't
complete, came to represent one of the moments at which the country most beholden to the U.S.
government and its institutions.
During his time in power he attempted to push through
a bill that would grant legal immunity to U.S. officials operating in Bolivia , most of
whom were overseeing coca eradication and quelling Campesino protests against the practice.
Mesa's two-year tenure saw not only 'security' affairs outsourced to the U.S., but economic
policies. International institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) directed
economic affairs, exemplified by having their
office inside the building where Bolivia's Central Bank is also housed.
In his infamous resignation speech Mesa railed against
Morales saying his proposal to nationalize natural gas was 'unviable' because the U.S. and the
World Bank "have told us so." [long snip]
"The stakes are incredibly high in this election. One only has to look to Argentina and
Ecuador to see the speed at which progressive social pacts can disintegrate. After opting for
President Mauricio Macri, Argentina is now beholden to the tune of billions of dollars in IMF
loans and all the austerity conditions attached to it. Macri and his IMF pact have produced
runaway inflation, unemployment and poverty, as well as police excessive use of force against
demonstrators who are constantly protesting the effects of the IMF measures. Ecuador, too, is
just now emerging from 12 days of massive police violence and military curfews imposed on
protesters who were forced to the streets to stand against IMF-imposed austerity after
President Lenin Moreno invited the fund back to the Andean nation after a nearly 20-year
absence. Both Macri and Moreno have used remarkably similar rhetoric being employed by the
Bolivian opposition . Both railed against the leftist governments that preceded them,
characterizing them as 'populist' and calling for a reorientation of foreign policy towards the
U.S. and it's institutions and allies.
Ecuador in particular has accelerated attacks on the progressive regional integration
championed by former Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. Barely completing half a term in power,
Moreno has already triggered the disintegration of UNASUR, the most important Latin American
forum that didn't include the U.S. Add to that the handing over of Julian Assange to British
authorities last April and establishing a U.S. military base in the Galapagos Islands, current
president Moreno, whose approval rating has sunk to 17 percent, seems determined to do away
with the progressive policies of the previous administrations, opting for austerity and U.S.
approval.
Bolivia's extraordinary achievements in lifting the regions poorest country out of
underdevelopment have been achieved only after rejecting neoliberalism and taking back control
of the country's natural resources. One study
illustrates how Bolivia would have lost US $74 billion in revenue were it not for Morales'
widespread nationalization initiatives.
"A coup is underway, carried out by the right-wing with foreign support what are the methods
of this coup attempt?"
Bolivia's leftist President Evo Morales gave a press conference early Wednesday morning in
which he warned that a right-wing coup attempt is being carried out so as to stop the full
counting of votes , and annul the result of Sunday's elections if it gives Morales a
first-round victory.
"A coup is underway, carried out by the right-wing with foreign support what are the methods
of this coup attempt? They're not recognizing or waiting for election results, they're burning
down electoral courts , they want to proclaim the second-place candidate as the winner",
Morales told journalists assembled.
Morales pointed to the fact he is in the first place and reiterated his victory. However, he
also stated that "we are just
waiting for the electoral court to report the results, I'm nearly certain that with the vote of
the rural areas that we will win in the first round, even though the preliminary results show
that we've won, but we are respectful and will wait for the official results from the electoral
court. I say to the international press, our triumphs have always been with the rural
vote."
"Anti-government right-wing protests turned violent Monday with numerous violent attacks
took place across the country as preliminary results indicated that leftist President Evo
Morales is on course for a first-round victory. Attacks included the burning down of vote
counting centers and assaulting Indigenous supporters of Morales.
The first such action was in the city of Sucre, an opposition stronghold, where rioters set
fire to the regional electoral authority . Elsewhere in the country, government buildings were
attacked in Tarija, Oruro, the campaign headquarters of Morales' party were vandalized.
In Cochabamba, where Morales is leading the vote, protesters attempted to seize control
of the Campo Ferial, which is the hall in which the votes were being counted .
The president stressed that a key tactic of the right-wing who are plotting a coup is to not
recognize the Indigenous vote, which largely favors Morales." [snip]
To defeat the coup, Morales echoed the call from social movements of the
CONALCAM who yesterday declared a state of emergency and peaceful mobilization to defend
democracy from right-wing violence."
The Guardian's spin on the protests on
Oct. 21, 2019 : Bolivia braces for fresh protests as officials say Evo Morales close to
victory; Protesters set fire to electoral offices in three cities across the country late on
Monday amid fury over allegations of vote-rigging
Supporters of the Bolivian opposition candidate Carlos Mesa of Comunidad Ciudadana party
prepare to burn ballots during a protest in La Paz, Bolivia, on Monday.
"... All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world. ..."
"... That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners," and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security." ..."
"... The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans. That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap. ..."
"... There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism. A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist foreign policy to our land. ..."
The chaos arising from U.S. interventionism in Syria provides an excellent opportunity to explore the interventionist mind.
Consider the terminology being employed by interventionists: President Trump's actions in Syria have left a "power vacuum," one
that Russia and Iran are now filling. The United States will no longer have "influence" in the region. "Allies" will no longer be
able to trust the U.S. to come to their assistance. Trump's actions have threatened "national security." It is now possible that
ISIS will reformulate and threaten to take over lands and even regimes in the Middle East.
This verbiage is classic empire-speak. It is the language of the interventionist and the imperialist.
Amidst all the interventionist chaos in the Middle East, it is important to keep in mind one critically important fact: None of
it will mean a violent takeover of the U.S. government or an invasion and conquest of the United States. The federal government will
go on. American life will go on. There will be no army of Muslims, terrorists, Syrians, ISISians, Russians, Chinese, drug dealers,
or illegal immigrants coming to get us and take over the reins of the IRS.
Why is that an important point? Because it shows that no matter what happens in Syria or the rest of the Middle East, life will
continue here in the United States. Even if Russia gets to continue controlling Syria, that's not going to result in a conquest of
the United States. The same holds true if ISIS, say, takes over Iraq. Or if Turkey ends up killing lots of Kurds. Or if Syria ends
up protecting the Kurds. Or if Iran continues to be controlled by a theocratic state. Or if the Russians retake control over Ukraine.
It was no different than when North Vietnam ended up winning the Vietnamese civil war. The dominoes did not fall onto the United
States and make America Red. It also makes no difference if Egypt continues to be controlled by a brutal military dictatorship. Or
that Cuba, North Korea, and China are controlled by communist regimes. Or that Russia is controlled by an authoritarian regime. Or
that Myanmar (Burma) is controlled by a totalitarian military regime. America and the federal government will continue standing.
America was founded as a limited government republic, one that did not send its military forces around the world to slay monsters.
That's not to say that bad things didn't happen around the world. Bad things have always happened around the world. Dictatorships.
Famines. Wars. Civil wars. Revolutions. Empires. Torture. Extra-judicial executions. Tyranny. Oppression. The policy of the United
States was that it would not go abroad to fix or clear up those types of things.
All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire,
pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world.
That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners,"
and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security."
That's when U.S. forces began invading and occupying other countries, waging wars of aggression against them, intervening in foreign
wars, revolutions, and civil wars, initiating coups, destroying democratic regimes, establishing an empire of domestic and foreign
military bases, and bombing, shooting, killing, assassinating, spying on, maiming, torturing, kidnapping, injuring, and destroying
people in countries all over the world.
The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans.
That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and
dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck
to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap.
The shift toward empire and interventionism has brought about the destruction of American liberty and privacy here at home. That's
what the assassinations, secret surveillance, torture, and indefinite detentions of American citizens are all about -- to supposedly
protect us from the dangers produced by U.S. imperialism and interventionism abroad. One might call it waging perpetual war for freedom
and peace, both here and abroad.
There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial
complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism.
A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist
foreign policy to our land.
"... The argument the Bolivian right-wing is using is exactly the same the Brazilian one used after the 2014 results: election fraud. The vice-president of the Bolivian Supreme Electoral Court has already renounced in protest after the institution caved in to the pressure and suspended the publication of the results: ..."
"... Evo Morales is much more fragile than Nicolás Maduro -- even though Bolivia's economy has been much better. The key here is that, in Latin America, every period of economic growth is destined to be followed by a period of economic crisis because it's impelled to follow the neoliberal model of development by the USA. The left-wing presidents are then forced to overcome this through straight up government spending in order to at least alleviate extreme poverty that ravages the subcontinent. ..."
"... But the hardest challenge for the socialists in Latin America are its armed forces: after the 1950s, they were turned into American subsidiaries, each one with a military doctrine that focuses on fighting the "internal enemy" (i.e. the socialists). No Latin American military is able to fight a single conventional war, they are essentially glorified militarized police forces. Maduro has the FANB; Morales doesn't have the Bolivian Armed Forces on his side. ..."
"... Meanwhile, neoliberalism rots. Bolsonaro already know his fate: ..."
"... It must be hard to realize, after years of hallucination and messianic complex, that you were just a disposable puppet of the Americans. ..."
"... A Brazilian prefers to suffer in silence than having to risk his life for a greater cause and, since the 1960s, has an inexplicable fascination with the USA and everything American (Bolsonaro ran his campaign openly as the "Brazilian Trump"). ..."
The argument the Bolivian right-wing is using is exactly the same the Brazilian one used after the 2014 results: election
fraud. The vice-president of the Bolivian Supreme Electoral Court has already renounced in protest after the institution caved
in to the pressure and suspended the publication of the results:
Evo Morales is much more fragile than Nicolás Maduro -- even though Bolivia's economy has been much better. The key here
is that, in Latin America, every period of economic growth is destined to be followed by a period of economic crisis because it's
impelled to follow the neoliberal model of development by the USA. The left-wing presidents are then forced to overcome this through
straight up government spending in order to at least alleviate extreme poverty that ravages the subcontinent.
But the hardest challenge for the socialists in Latin America are its armed forces: after the 1950s, they were turned into
American subsidiaries, each one with a military doctrine that focuses on fighting the "internal enemy" (i.e. the socialists).
No Latin American military is able to fight a single conventional war, they are essentially glorified militarized police forces.
Maduro has the FANB; Morales doesn't have the Bolivian Armed Forces on his side.
Let's wait and see how it evolves.
--//--
Meanwhile, neoliberalism rots. Bolsonaro already know his fate:
It must be hard to realize, after years of hallucination and messianic complex, that you were just a disposable puppet
of the Americans.
However, things are not so simple in Brazil: the majority of the Left is reactionary and pacifist; the Brazilian people has
a high tolerance for misery, is very docile and doesn't have a curriculum of violent uprisings or revolutions.
A Brazilian prefers to suffer in silence than having to risk his life for a greater cause and, since the 1960s, has an
inexplicable fascination with the USA and everything American (Bolsonaro ran his campaign openly as the "Brazilian Trump").
Neocons are lobbyists for MIC, the it is MIC that is the center of this this cult. People like Kriston, Kagan and Max Boot are
just well paid prostituttes on MIC, which includes intelligence agencies as a very important part -- the bridge to Wall Street so to
speak.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us. ..."
Glenn Greenwald has just published a very important
article in The Intercept that I would have everyone in America read if I could. Titled "With New D.C. Policy Group,
Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons", Greenwald's excellent piece details the frustratingly under-reported
way that the leaders of the neoconservative death cult have been realigning with the Democratic party.
This pivot back to the party of neoconservatism's origin is one of the most significant political events of the new millennium,
but aside from a handful of sharp political analysts like Greenwald it's been going largely undiscussed. This is weird, and we need
to start talking about it. A lot. Their willful alignment with neoconservatism should be the very first thing anyone ever talks about
when discussing the Democratic party.
When you hear someone complaining that the Democratic party has no platform besides being anti-Trump, your response should be,
"Yeah it does. Their platform is the omnicidal death cult of neoconservatism."
It's absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls "the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed," neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies.
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan
member or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Check out leading neoconservative Bill Kristol's response to the aforementioned Intercept article:
... ... ...
Okay, leaving aside the fact that this bloodthirsty psychopath is saying neocons "won" a Cold War that neocons have deliberately
reignited by fanning the flames of the Russia hysteria and
pushing for more escalations , how insane is it that we live in a society where a public figure can just be like, "Yeah, I'm
a neocon, I advocate for using military aggression to maintain US hegemony and I think it's great," and have that be okay? These
people kill children. Neoconservatism means piles upon piles of child corpses. It means devoting the resources of a nation that won't
even provide its citizens with a real healthcare system to widespread warfare and all the death, destruction, chaos, terrorism, rape
and suffering that necessarily comes with war. The only way that you can possibly regard neoconservatism as just one more set of
political opinions is if you completely compartmentalize away from the reality of everything that it is.
This should not happen. The tensions with Russia that these monsters have worked so hard to escalate could blow up at any moment;
there are too many moving parts, too many things that could go wrong. The last Cold War brought our species
within a hair's
breadth of total annihilation due to our inability to foresee all possible complications which can arise from such a contest,
and these depraved death cultists are trying to drag us back into another one. Nothing is worth that. Nothing is worth risking the
life of every organism on earth, but they're risking it all for geopolitical influence.
... ... ...
I've had a very interesting last 24 hours. My
article about Senator John
McCain (which I titled "Please Just Fucking Die Already" because the title I really wanted to use seemed a bit crass) has received
an amount of attention that I'm not accustomed to, from
CNN to
USA Today to the
Washington Post . I watched Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar
talking about me on The View . They called me a "Bernie
Sanders person." It was a trip. Apparently some very low-level Republican with a few hundred Twitter followers went and retweeted
my article with an approving caption, and that sort of thing is worthy of coast-to-coast mainstream coverage in today's America.
This has of course brought in a deluge of angry comments, mostly from people whose social media pages are full of Russiagate
nonsense , showing
where McCain's current support base comes from. Some call him a war hero, some talk about him like he's a perfectly fine politician,
some defend him as just a normal person whose politics I happen to disagree with.
This is insane. This man has actively and enthusiastically pushed for every single act of military aggression that America has
engaged in, and some that
it hasn't , throughout his entire career. He makes Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton look like a dove. When you look
at John McCain, the very first thing you see should not be a former presidential candidate, a former POW or an Arizona Senator; the
first thing you see should be the piles of human corpses that he has helped to create. This is not a normal kind of person, and I
still do sincerely hope that he dies of natural causes before he can do any more harm.
Can we change this about ourselves, please? None of us should have to live in a world where pushing for more bombing campaigns
at every opportunity is an acceptable agenda for a public figure to have. Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless
hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are
traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any
kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are
whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around
what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us.
-- -- --
I'm a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following me on
Twitter , or throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon .
So, it looks like that's it for America, folks. Putin has gone and done it again. He and his
conspiracy of Putin-Nazis have "hacked," or "influenced," or "meddled in" our democracy.
Unless Admiral Bill McRaven and his special ops cronies can ginny up
a last-minute military coup , it's four more years of the Trumpian Reich, Russian soldiers
patrolling the streets, martial law, concentration camps, gigantic banners with the faces of
Trump and Putin hanging in the football stadiums, mandatory Sieg-heiling in the public schools,
National Vodka-for-Breakfast Day, death's heads, babushkas, the whole nine yards.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Some of the "virtual facts:" ..."
"... The Soviet Union never ended. Russia is still communist and an inevitable and indeed indispensable enemy of the US. Anyone who challenges that certitude is an obvious agent of the Russian government. ..."
"... Iran is the "greatest supporter of terrorism" in the world." ..."
"... The Syrian Arab Government is an abomination on the scale of Nazi Germany and must be destroyed and replaced by God knows what . ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is a deeply friendly state and ally of the US. ..."
"... It is beyond scary to see just how entrenched and powerful Deep State is and how it involves/controls both political parties ..."
"... I doubt there is any magic bullet website or other source of information that would turn people over night. A good start would be encouraging them to read transcripts of various Putin and Lavrov speeches and pressers, also Valdai Club, economic forum ect. ..."
"... The colonel's complaint implicitly assumes that things were not always thus. My adult experience since I saw a war up close has been that the "facts" of our public discourse are always simplified and usually grossly distorted. ..."
"... Not only are the MSM married to a narrative but they feel compelled to attack the few who ever challenge the orthodoxy. For example, 'Tulsi Gabbard met with the war criminal Assad'. ..."
"... It is certainly true that Russia is being demonized in all the MSM I have sampled. A frequent criticism is that Putin, like Assad, and earlier Saddam and Quadaffi, is essentially an illegitimate ruler of his country, ruling through brute force and without the consent of his countrymen. (Thus the WaPo editorials routinely call Putin a "thug", just as they call Assad a "butcher".) ..."
"... Not to defend Trump and his balance sheet mindset with respect to the Saudis, the reality is that both parties and presidents from George H.W to Bill Clinton to W and Obama have treated the Saudi monarchy as our "friend", even when they sponsored the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. ..."
"... Tony Blair became a wealthy man after his prime ministership on the back of money thrown his way by the Arab sheikhs ..."
Mika B remarked a couple of years ago on the show that she and her sex slave stage in the
early morning that the social media were out of control because it is the job of the MSM to
tell people what to think. The Hillary stated recently that life was better when there were
only three TeeVee news outlets because it was easier to keep things under control. Now? My God!
Any damned fool can propagate unauthorized "facts." What? Who?
Well, pilgrims, the US government (along with our British and Israeli helpmates and masters)
are the preeminent creators and purveyors of the manufactured virtual facts on which we base
our policy. These "facts" are "ginned up" in the well moneyed hidden staff groups of "hidden"
candidates that are devoted to the seizure of power made possible by a deluded electorate.
These "facts" are then propagated and reinforced through relentless IO campaigns run by
executive "bots" in the MSM and in such remarkable and imaginative efforts as the "White
Helmets" film company manned by jihadis and managed by clubby Brits left over from the Days of
The Raj (sob). These "facts" are now so entrenched in the general mind that they can be used to
denounce people like Rep. (major ) Gabbard as traitors because they challenge them.
Some of the "virtual facts:"
The Soviet Union never ended. Russia is still communist and an inevitable and indeed
indispensable enemy of the US. Anyone who challenges that certitude is an obvious agent of
the Russian government.
Iran is the "greatest supporter of terrorism" in the world." Iran is so designated by the
State Department on the annual list of terrorism supporting states which asserts this to be
true on the basis of Iranian support of Lebanese Hizbullah and Palestinian Hamas, calling
them "terrorist" groups rather than anti -Israeli nationalist resistance organizations. This
Zionist inspired propaganda is spread far and wide by neocon "useful idiots" like Maria
Bartiromo and Jesse Watters.
The Syrian Arab Government is an abomination on the scale of Nazi Germany and must be
destroyed and replaced by God knows what ... "They gassed their own people!" Bullshit! There
is no objective evidence for that. There are nothing but propaganda statements by the FUKUS
governments unsupported by any real evidence. The MI-6 funded (with USAID money) Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights (located in a basement in England) as well as the White Helmets
murder/propaganda operation states that the SAG is guilty as charged but independent
investigation says that assertions of SAG guilt are untrue.
Saudi Arabia is a deeply friendly state and ally of the US. How mad an idea is this! This
theocratic, absolute monarchy is a friend of the US? How insane an idea! Trump has a balance
sheet where a soul should be and that is the basis for the belief that MBS and/or his
"country" are our friends. pl
Yes I fully concur. We have gone from fact-based news to faith-based fake news led by the
MSM. I recall at the start of the Iraq War in March 2003, the line was out that British PM
Tony Blair was George W. Bush's "poodle," forgetting entirely that it was the first of the
British "dodgy dossiers" that made the totally discredited claim that Saddam had gotten tons
of yellow cake from Niger. So the British have no military resources but they continue to
maintain the idea that they can manipulate the U.S. and make up for the demise of the old
British empire.
The Steele dossier was the second British "dodgy dossier" that got the ball rolling on
Trump the Russian mole and Putin's "poodle."
So much fraud. But now social media must be patrolled and anyone daring to challenge the
voice of the MSM must be purged by Google, Facebook, Twitter et al.
My question is: When will the machinations of the Big Lie MSM Wurlitzer cross the line and
trigger the backlash that they secretly fear so much? MSM has to destroy Trump by 2020 or
else his "fake news" polemic will stick... because there is no much truth to it. The
messenger may be crude, but he has the bully pulpit to have a real impact.
I await the release, as Larry Johnson pointed out, of the Horowitz IG report on the
origins of the fake Trump-Russia collusion line. Also the pending Barr-Durham larger report
which is zeroing in on John Brennan.
"MSM has to destroy Trump by 2020 or else..."
The MSM are joined by all those folks who were wined, dined, and degraded by Jeffrey Epstein
and Hollywood hero Harvey Weinstein. Nobody seems to care about who Jeffrey abused, or who
enjoyed his island paradise. Harvey, he's about to buy a free ride out of jail. Meanwhile we
jail idiots who "bribe" there kids way into that "elite" institution - UCLA.
an ideal study would no doubt want to look into the Italy-GB-US angle already concerning
the "first dossier", or whatevers. Didn*t that have mediawise an intermediate French
angle?
This is what happens when the deciders believe their own propaganda. The media now says
that a residual force of American troops and contractors will stay behind at the Deir ez-Zor
oil fields and Al-Tanf base near the Jordon border. The media moguls dare not mention that
the real intention is to prevent the Syrian Arab Army from retaking its own territory or that
Turkey is seizing thousands of square miles of Syria. Syrians with Russia, Chinese and
Iranian aid won't quit until Syria is whole again and rebuilt. This means that America
continues its uninvited unwinnable war in the middle of nowhere with no allies for no reason
at all except to do Israel's bidding and to make money for military contractors. The swamp's
regime change campaign failed. The Houthis' Aramco attack shows that the gulf oil supply is
at risk and can be shut down at will. Continuing these endless wars that are clearly against
the best interests of the American people is insane.
It strikes me, as a matter of observable fact, that the Houthi attack had almost no long run
affect on oil production. Everything was back to normal within 10 days. I think that the
attack was allowed to occur for exactly one reason and that was to start a shooting war
between the USA as KSA's great defender and Iran as the horrible nation that has a mild
dislike for Israel.
It failed. So far.
To believe that the 24/7/52 AWACS, Ground radar, Israeli radar, and the overlapping close in
radar coverage of the Saudi oil fields all failed to detect the drones and cruise missiles is
to believe in more miracles than I can handle on a good day. It also means that assets in
other parts of this world covered by these same type of radars are just as vulnerable to
local disaffected groups.
The FUKUS thinks we are all a bunch of brainless sheep to be led by a ring in our noses. The
'Muktar' is clueless regarding our Saudi brethren, he's supposed to administer how the
overlords say he's to administer, nothing more. The CIA administration still has a hard-on
because they blew it regarding Iran and they're still embarrassed about it.
In two days, counting closer to a day and a half will be the sad anniversary (October 23)
where the Israeli government willfully with forethought let our Marines and other service
personnel bunked with them at the barracks in Beirut die needlessly, because Nahum Admoni
wanted U.S. to get our noses bloodied.
Never mind that the Russians lost close to 30 million to the brotherhood of the Operation
Paper Clip, and the Bormann Group that today controls from behind the scenes most of the
World's money thanks to Martin creating over 750 corporations initially to start with, that
has expanded like a Hydra. Any time that truth (Russia is no longer Communist) rears its ugly
head, the Bormann group goes into overdrive to ensure that the big lie perpetuates.
The FUKUS think we're all a bunch of sheep to be led off a cliff, and the propaganda mills
have created the trail right up to the edge of the precipice that the sheep are trotting.
Amen. The landslide of disinformation and bullshit disseminated on a daily basis by a pliant
media is happily lapped up by ignorant, uninformed Americans. I've had quite an exchange with
a liberal friend of mine who was shrieking MSNBC talking points on Syria and the Kurds. Mind
you, this fellow never served a day in the military. Never held a clearance in his life.
Didn't know a thing about JOPES and how Special Ops forces use a series of written orders
signed off on by the CJCS. Yet, he was qualified to criticize Trump. At the same time not one
of his kids or grandkids are signed up to fight on that frontline. I told him politely to
STFU and get educated before trying to comment on something he knows nothing about.
Thanks Colonel.
I am British and did consider the military in my youth but if I were that age now I would
not. Having seen what my political master, and yours, have asked the military to do the
danger of being sent on some counter product regime change mission or to prop-up someone I
would rather fight is just too great. I would only end up refusing to follow orders which I
understand the military takes a rather dim view of.
... regime change mission or to prop-up someone I would rather fight is just too
great.
once upon a time, and strictly I had opted not to believe either side before that, but
yes, at one point I wondered fully aware they may be legitimate complaints, how would the
UCK, or the Kosovo Liberation Army become the "Western" partner in war.
In hindsight I was made aware of this one grandiose British officer ... once upon a
time.
"if I were that age now..." That is the same line used by the American left since the
'60s.
"I would only end up refusing to follow orders..."
Samantha Power at the UN and James Comey at the FBI both had a "higher loyalty" than to the
elected government or the Constitution on which it is based. That's why they are busy trying
to subvert it.
There's a lot of truth there, Colonel. Life would be better with just three TV new outlets,
huh. Which three? Can you imagine being limited to three cable new outlets? Actually most
people probably limit themselves to three news outlets or less. They find an echo chamber and
stick with it. I thank God I don't have cable or satellite TV and I have too many interests
to engage with talk radio.
I couldn't agree more with your characterization of "virtual facts" about Iran, Syria and
Saudi Arabia. I also agree that those who continue to view Russia as an implacable enemy bent
on our destruction and world domination are liars and/or fools. The Soviet Union was just a
phase, a phase now past. Russia never ended. Conversely, those who insist that Russia is a
newly minted nation of glitter farting unicorns incapable of nefarious behavior are also
fools and/or liars. Russia is a formidable competitor, fully capable and willing to take
prudent actions in pursuit of her interests. We should respect her and seek cooperation where
we can and tolerance where we must.
How the never-Trumpers treat Tulsi Gabbard is shameful. What Clinton recently said is mild
compared to what others have been saying for quite some time. Calling Tulsi a Russian asset
is foolishly wrong. That Russia may prefer Tulsi over other potential Presidential candidates
should be seen as a positive thing. A policy of mutual respect, cooperation and tolerance
between our two countries would benefit the entire world.
America needed to restore the Kuwait monarchy for freedom and democracy. Remember defense
Secretary Dick Cheney sending captured Iraq arms to the Taliban.
Same play book was used to run Libyan arms through Bengazi to Wahhabism freedom fighter
"ISIS" and the al Lindsey McCain head choppers.
The nonsense will end since not even the United States can endure these costs. Did you hear
Trump? 8 trillion yankee dollars and nothing to show for it.
What is highly alarming, almost terrifying, is that really well educated people who have
achieved great things in their careers and are pillars of society believe this crap.
I had dinner guests last week; a former Chairman of a bank and his wife who is a highly
acclaimed Professor of public Health and Epidemiology who told me how awful Trump and Putin
are neither of these friends are what you could remotely classify as Social Justice
leftists.
My problem is that I don't know where to start to try and put them right without them
thinking I'm a tinfoil hatted conspiracy nut. I wish there was a website dedicated solely to
purveying basic truthful information that is not perhaps as esoteric as SST. Should I try and
start one or are there already good examples to point to?
I'm thinking this is so far and so deep there is nothing that can or will be done. Trump's
election and presidency has lifted the curtain on the puppet show. This recent Syria troop
removal is Trump's second attempt at openly declaring troops will be pulled out of Syria only
to have the military has said, "Um, no, we will stay and simply relocate."
Trump openly
called for FISA warrants to be declassified only to have the DOJ and FBI either ignore and
defy him. Groups like Judicial Watch and others go into court to get the requested
information through FOIA and DOJ and FBI lawyers and the courts block them.
It is beyond
scary to see just how entrenched and powerful Deep State is and how it involves/controls both
political parties. Trump has faced hurricane winds of opposition from day one and has been
constantly subverted by his own party and his own people. I don't know how he can get up
every day and continue to fight the obvious and concerted Deep State coup against him. I pray
for him. I pray the rosary for him.
There are members within Trump's own party who have agreed that there should be an
investigation into the impeachment of Trump for running a yellow light (at most). Again,
members of his own party. Renowned Constitutional lawyers John Yoo and Alan Dershowitz, from
Cal-Berkeley and Harvard laws schools respectively, have said that not only has Trump done
nothing, even remotely, which could trigger an impeachment inquiry but if Congress were to do
so it would be unconstitutional and illegal. But alas, who would enforce this? Deep State
snakes like John Roberts at the Supreme Court? Robert has already signed off on the coup (
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/john-roberts-mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-trial.amp).
The only thing that separates America from falling into the abyss is Trump, a handful of
people in Washington, a few conservative talk show hosts, and about 40% of America. Many
people have talked a good game at points but I think in the end are just double agents of the
dark side/Deep State (Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, ... IG Horowitz, etc.). And some, such
as Chris Wray, are unabashed dark side/Deep State agents in good standing.
As St. Thomas More said, "The times are never so bad that a good man cannot live in them."
I have faith in Barr. I have faith in Durham. Two men whose Catholic faith is integral to
every aspect of their lives and work. But with as pervasive, entrenched, and powerful as the
Deep State is I'm skeptical they have the power to do anything. Btw, here's U.S. Attorney
John Durham's lecture before the Thomistic Institute at Yale (hosted by the Dominican Order):
https://soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/perspective-of-a-catholic-prosecutor-honorable-john-durham
One thing that really amuses me is that the marionettes of Deep State in the media and
politics actually believe that once Trump is gone their puppet show theatre can resume like
nothing happened. Sorry, but there is no coming back from this. They will be lucky if the
worst thing that happens is a sizable part of of the American populace protests by throwing
sand in the gears. I'm afraid it will end much worse.
I doubt there is any magic bullet website or other source of information that would turn
people over night. A good start would be encouraging them to read transcripts of various
Putin and Lavrov speeches and pressers, also Valdai Club, economic forum ect.
Most only get to see the odd sentence or paragragh in western MSM with an entirely
fictional story built around it, so perhaps and MSM piece like that and the transcript of the
relevant presser or speech alongside it.
I suspect the fine detail in Putin and Lavrov's replies to press questions
rather than cliches would surprise many people.
Walrus--100% my experience as well. Many dinners with "liberal" even "progressive" friends,
mostly of the retired kind require great psychic energy. Their Overton Window is 1"-square,
making exchanges very difficult to squeeze even minimal bits of political reality.
My daily
blog tour, like MW's above, takes me through: Moon of Alabama, Naked Capitalism, SST, Caitlin
Johnstone, Grayzone and a few others. I'm intel gathering -- but I need to figure out how to
convey broader perspectives even to my 40-45 year-old children and their friends. Inside the
Beltway assumptions are hard to de-program.
While I agree with the essence of the post I disagree with the characterization of SOHR. It
tends to get its stuff right. I have listed several significant events where SOHR disagreed
with the official narrative: On Sources And Information - The Syrian
Observatory For Human Rights . Those are exactly the moments where SOHR is disregarded by
the pressitude.
It is the selective quoting of such sources that paint them as partisan even as they try
to stay somewhat neutral.
---
@Pat - Any comment to the Gen. McRaven op-ed in the NYT? Our Republic
Is Under Attack From the President If President Trump doesn't demonstrate the leadership that America needs, then it is time
for a new person in the Oval Office.
Isn't it a call to mutiny? It seems to me to be far beyond the allowed political comment
from a retired General.
Those that look up the pole, all they see is assholes. Those that look down all they see is
assholes, but those that look straight ahead, they see which path to take.
The colonel's complaint implicitly assumes that things were not always thus. My adult
experience since I saw a war up close has been that the "facts" of our public discourse are
always simplified and usually grossly distorted.
Is the Iranian regime terrible? Well, yes,
but it is also a regime that holds real elections and often loses them. Not in the same
league of awful with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
Similarly with the other examples. The
"facts" have in each case a basis in truth but do not by themselves give a true picture. Is
our discourse more unfair to Russia than it was to Nasser's Egypt? Is our promotion of Saudi
Arabia any worse than our adulation of Chiang Kai-shek?
Not only are the MSM married to a narrative but they feel compelled to attack the few who
ever challenge the orthodoxy. For example, 'Tulsi Gabbard met with the war criminal Assad'.
It would do our vaunted free press wonders if they traveled to Damascus instead of
repeating the same tired talking points about Syria. I'll never forget the look on Gabbard's
face when she talked about the Syrians came up to her and said, 'why are you attacking us,
what did we do to you'. Meeting real people can undo a lifetime of blather and must be
stopped at all cost.
b Perhaps memory fails me but I think SOHR propagated the SAG gas attacks mythology. I have
stated that McRaven should be recalled to active duty and court-martialed. I could find
several punitice articles in UCMJ under which he could be charged.
When McCain returned from the Hanoi Hilton he could have been prosecuted for treason he was
not because "peace with honour" overrode UCMJ and honour. McRaven is being offered up as a
distraction. Call him back to active duty yes, and assign him somewhere dreary, unimportant
and far from CONUS. Ignore the stuff he is blathering while he is retired, if he repeats
blather while on active duty then the navy might be able to recover some honour.
No...your memory does not fail you, Colonel, the SOHR was the main source cited at MSM level
on the alleged protests which gave place to the destruction of Syria and the legitimation and
labelling of alleged "moderate rebels" which then resulted being but terrorist jihadi groups
brought mainly from abroad under financing and mtrainning of non Syrian actors...
The source on the alleged atrocities commited by Assad was SOHR at the first years of the
war on Syria, along with Doctors Without Borders and "special envoys" by British and French
main papers reporting from the former, and first, "Baba Amr" caliphate in Homs....I am
meaning the times of Sunday Times´ Marie Colvin and the other woman from Le
Figaro , who then resulted or KIA or caught amongst the jihadists ranks along with other
foreign "special envoys" who then were released in a truce with Assad through a safe
corridor, especially made for that end, to Lebanon.
I fear SOHR was the source of the super-trolling consisting on inundating the MSM comments
sections, like that of El País , with dozens of vertical doctored photographs
every time any of us aware entered commenting to debunk their fake news.
I remember this since that was the starting point of Elora as net activist...( till then,
just a baby, peacefully growing up...unaware....but had no election, felt it was a duty,
since, as you comment here, so few people aware...Having known Syria few years before she
could not believe what they were telling about Assad, who, eventhough not being perfect, as
it has been long ago proved any other leader in the world is, had managed to show the
visitant a flourishing Syria where misery present at other ME countries was almost
absent...
It is only lately, when the Syrian war was obviously lost for the US coalition, that the
SOHR started contradicting some fake claims by the White Helmets, especially last two alleged
chemical attacks, if Elora´s not wrong.
Why this, why now, why in this form? Probably those powers behind SOHR trying to secure a
part in the cake of reconstruction and future of Syria...since, it got obvious, love for
Syria is not amongst one of their mottos...
Trump approves $4.5 million in aid for Syria's White Helmets
WASHINGTON -- US President Donald Trump has authorized $4.5 million in aid for Syria's
White Helmets group, famed for rescuing wounded civilians from the frontlines in the civil
war, the White House says today...
Thank you for this refuge from the noise. How long before the strangling of information makes
its way here, and to Craig Murray, Naked Capitalism, and others who look on with clear eyes?
Humans are copy/paste artists and generally not very good at creative thinking. When shown a
series of steps to achieve a reward people will repeat all the steps including clearly
unnecessary ones. Monkeys will drop unnecessary steps and frequently show more creativity by
using a different method to achieve the reward instead of copying.
The old story goes how a woman always cut the ends off a roast before putting it in a pan.
When her daughter asks why she doesn't know, asks her mother who doesn't know and asks the
great grandmother who laughs and says her pan was too small.
I suspect it is a functional tradeoff that lets us transfer great amounts of cultural
information and maintain a civilization of sorts. It creates a tough environment for
innovators and allows for easy manipulation of the majority.
Nature of course always has a sprinkling of minority traits in the gene pool to allow for
sudden changes in the environment. Most likely those of us that are more critical thinkers
and like in depth, multi-dimensional viewpoints and historical knowledge are always going to
be standing by watching the crowd do their copy/paste thing.
The rise of the internet giving easy access to more "sources" means more fragmentation in
worldviews than ever before depending on where people copy/paste from.
Re: only three TV channels and they all said the same thing!
Once Upon a Time, not so long ago, publishing news was hard. For one thing, you needed a
printing press, which was big, expensive and required housing and specialized technicians to
operate it. Not only that, but a printing press cost money for every sheet of paper printed,
and you had to spend more money to distribute what he printed.
They say that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one" but there's more! Unless
you were already rich and planned to publish as an expensive and time-consuming hobby, you
needed an income stream. You would get some money from subscriptions, but subscriptions are
really a means to sell advertising. Dependence on advertising meant that there were some
people the publisher had to keep happy, and others he could not afford to annoy.
Anyone who knows anything about local news knows this. At best, it's a tightrope walk
between giving subscribers the news they want to know, and not infuriating your advertisers.
The result was a sort of natural censorship. Publishers had to think long and hard before
they published anything that would tork the bigwigs off. The fact that a publisher was tied
to a physical location and physical assets also made libel suits much easier.
The same thing applied to broadcast TV, only more so. It took orders of magnitude more
money, and you were restricted to a limited amount of bandwidth.
The internet changed all that. Now, any anonymous toolio with a laptop ($299 cheap at
WallyWorld) and WiFi (free at many businesses) can go into the news publishing business by
nightfall, and with worldwide distribution and an advertising revenue stream, to boot.
Marginal cost of readership is zero.
Needless to say, this development has The People That Matter very concerned, and they are
working hard to stuff that genie back into the bottle.
For what it's worth, I found the late Udo Ulfkotte's personal-experience book "Bought
Jounalism" to be quite interesting on this topic, as it details the kind of nuts-and-bolts of
print-media prostitution. But I would really like to see an org-chart sometime of the
overlapping, possibly competing, mission control centers (if that's the right phrase) that
control the various "Wurlitzer" messaging and who, ultimately, is on charge of these. It has
been intriguing to watch, since Kerry uttered his "the Internet makes it very hard to govern"
line years ago, the blurry outline of a vast operation to shut down any non-approved media
messages, now including all social media. To give credit where credit is due, "they" sure
have done a bang-up job in feeding bullshit across all platforms down the throats of a
Western people, like a goose being fattened up for foie gras.
"...the US government (along with our British and Israeli helpmates and masters) are the
preeminent creators and purveyors of the manufactured virtual facts on which we base our
policy."
Sir
I've been perplexed for some time what the objectives are of these virtual fact creators?
When one digs into who the movers & shakers are in the virtual fact creation apparatus
then it seems very much analogous to the Jeffrey Epstein orbit. Folks bound together through
the carrot of extraordinary personal gain and the stick of personal destruction. Your
Drinking the Koolaid, is a seminal work in exploring how these virtual facts are created and
how those who challenge the creation are marginalized and even destroyed personally.
IMO, policy making on the basis of virtual facts extends beyond foreign policy to economic
and financial policy as well as healthcare policy in the US. The symptoms are seen in growing
wealth inequality and increased market concentration globally and financial policy completely
unmoored from common sense and sophistry an important element in virtual fact creation.
We're seeing signs of the early breakdown in social cohesion with social unrest in France,
Spain, Hong Kong, Chile, Lebanon, Ecuador. Brexit and the election of Trump despite the
intensity and vitriolic nature of how the media was used against them. The impeachment of
Trump another tool in the desperate attempt to retain and consolidate power. Maybe we're in
the Fourth Turning as Howe & Strauss label it.
"The Soviet Union never ended. Russia is still communist ..."
In the interest of specificity and accountability, where/who in the MSM are asserting
that?
You (PL) are making a serious charge.
Just who is guilty of perpetrating such a blatant falsehood?
well it seems to me that the groundwork is being laid for an authoritarian state - and it
already has sophisticated tools that are unprecedented in their scope and depth and ability
to store data. And the whole enterprise is based on three rules:
1) secrecy - data is restricted to "insiders";
2) deception - the "outsiders" (you know, the citizens) are regarded as a herd of cattle to
be managed - with lies and disinformation so we don't get any ideas;
3) ruthless enforcement to dehumanize and destroy dissent. Just consider the torture and
destruction of Journalist Julian Assange: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Not sure what the appropriate response is but I spend a lot of time at my camp working in
the woods. Thanks, Colonel Lang, for maintaining this site.
Keith Harbaugh
This is my opinion. I am uninterested in proving anything to you. If you listen to what is
said on the MSM (including Fox) it is evident that in the "minds" of the media squirrels
Russia is just the USSR in disguise. Try listening to what they are saying as sub-text.
The request was not just for my benefit, but with the thought that it would be useful to
document the occurrences of such clearly false statements in the media.
It is certainly true that Russia is being demonized in all the MSM I have sampled.
A frequent criticism is that Putin, like Assad, and earlier Saddam and Quadaffi,
is essentially an illegitimate ruler of his country,
ruling through brute force and without the consent of his countrymen.
(Thus the WaPo editorials routinely call Putin a "thug",
just as they call Assad a "butcher".)
I am certainly not endorsing that view, just reporting what I hear and read.
When I hear that, I harken back to my graduate school days,
when the same sort of charges were leveled against America, which was usually spelled
"Amerika", or sometimes "AmeriKKKa", and described as a racist, imperialist, fascist country
whose establishment must be "Smashed".
I believe the core group of people who so wanted a revolution in America in 1970
(which they essentially got, as we have seen over the last 50 years)
are much the same as those now demonizing Russia.
Here is some specificity on their complaints against Russia back then:
They were not opposed to the USSR, or communism.
Many of them were in effect communists.
The cry among many was : "Marx, Mao, and Marcuse" (Herbert Marcuse was a former Brandeis professor who extolled cultural Marxism).
What they did have, in spades, was a feeling that their ancestors had been victimized by the
Czarist regime in Russia,
which, among other supposed sins, had not done enough to prevent pogroms against them.
They seemed to have a deep fear of the Russian people,
based on their long experience with them.
My suspicion (actually, belief) is that the opposition to Putin is based on the fact that
he is sometimes viewed as a throwback to the the Czars,
and that is definitely not something looked upon favorably by many Jews.
"Trump has a balance sheet where a soul should be and that is the basis for the belief
that MBS and/or his "country" are our friends."
Not to defend Trump and his balance sheet mindset with respect to the Saudis, the reality
is that both parties and presidents from George H.W to Bill Clinton to W and Obama have
treated the Saudi monarchy as our "friend", even when they sponsored the terrorists that
attacked us on 9/11.
Tony Blair became a wealthy man after his prime ministership on the back of money thrown
his way by the Arab sheikhs.
MIC needs money and that requires foreign wars and hostility with Russia and China. Neoliberalism like Bolshevism if hegemonic social
doctrine which tried to spread itself all over the world. As one commenter suggested Trump made alot of "deals with the devil" in order
to survive and that shows.
In any case he, may be accidentally served, as a "great disruptor" mainly due to his own badly conceived ideas how to reform the
USA foreign policy on the the base of "might make right" principle. That's why he prefer bilateral treaties to multilateral, as it is
easier to bully the other side into submission this way.
Outside his 2016 campaign rhetoric's, he never question the idea of empire, as such. The differences with neocons were not about
goals, but means to achieve them. Since April 2017 he was essentially yet another neocon. He populated his administration with rabid
neocons like Bolton and Pompeo (and before them Haley and "generals")
And he proved to be pretty much the same warmonger as Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Trump's policies look chaotic. But one big reason for that is that some of his staff, like the 'U.S. official' above, are trying to subvert them. They have tried and still try to cage him in on nearly every issue. ..."
"... I don't believe in the 4D chess theory, this seems more like sheer incompetence to me. Yes, it's preferable to Hillary, but hardly the best of times. ..."
"... The Obama/war party got the US got into a stupid mess, and we have to admire Trump for getting them out, without betraying the monsters in the State department under Obama and the CIA or their Saudi/Israel allies. Indeed if Obama hadn't lead a coup against Erdogan this might not be possible. ..."
"... CNN reported on Trump's Viktor Orban's heresy informing us that Trump was deviating from U.S. foreign policy and you should have seen the smirk plasted on all of their faces. Do they realize that they have been groomed by the CIA like trained seals begging for fish? ..."
"... Even before Trump took office they began to stack his appointments with the same treasonable and corrupt bunch from prior administration. One man cant do everything ..."
"... But more to the point is listening to Trump policy. Libya "We should have taken the oil", Iraq "We should have taken the oil, who knows we may get anther chance", Syria "We should take the oil". ..."
"... Taking the oil is as much Trump policy as ending endless wars. It must be noted that Trump is very specific about which type of wars he does not like. Expensive wars and endless wars are not to his liking. ..."
"... We sadly live in a political era of not 'good guy vs bad guy', but of 'shittier vs shittiest'. Clinton was, and is shit. But so is Trump! The author here naively projects too much of his own hopes or fantasies onto Trump ..."
"... Totally swept aside is the complete asshole domestic policies of Trump: sell off national parks to oil and gas, privatize public schools, drill for oil in Arctic Nat Refuge, gut the EPA, build Israel-like walls along Mexico border, etc not to mention utterly fucking over the Palestinians and giving Israel everything.. ..."
"... In the good old days when the hand did not implement the policies of the regent, the head would usually fall soon after.. ..."
"... Its a shame that these days these criminals the world over get away with it because its 'policy' of the government.. What ever it is.. Thats it.. They usually are moved and promoted into higher posts.. Never are the government employees fired for their malign deeds.. ..."
"... The one who appointed Bolton is obviously not in his right mind and his purpose is immediate war with Iran and further destruction of the entire Middle East. He's called Sheldon Adelson, not Trump. ..."
"... When wondering why Trump chose poorly for his staff you need to forget the nonsense that Trump was the establishment's chosen winner of the elections in 2016. ..."
"... I'm not sure it's all incompetence, though I agree there is plenty of that to go around, which may not always be a bad thing if incompetence allows the Empire do less damage was it keels over. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I think he had to make a whole lot of deals with a whole lot of devils in order to survive, in the political and the literal sense. ..."
Since Donald Trump became president many of his subordinates have tried to subvert his policies. Instead of implementing Trump's
idea and preferences they have tried to implement their own. Some Have done so because they believed that it is the "right thing
to do" while others have ignored Trump's wishes to play their own game.
A recent example can be found in a Washington Post Ukrainegate
story:
Trump’s conversations with Putin, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and others reinforced his perception of Ukraine as a hopelessly
corrupt country — one that Trump now also appears to believe sought to undermine him in the 2016 U.S. election, the officials
said.
...
The efforts to poison Trump’s views toward Zelensky were anticipated by national security officials at the White House, officials
said. But the voices of Putin and Orban took on added significance this year because of the departure or declining influence of
those who had sought to blunt the influence of Putin and other authoritarian leaders over Trump.
... American policy has for years been “built around containing malign Russian influence” in Eastern Europe, a U.S.
official said. Trump’s apparent susceptibility to the arguments he hears from Putin and Orban is “an example of the president
himself under malign influence — being steered by it.”
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly believes that he was elected to change it.
He had stated his opinion on Russia during his campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to
have good relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized the voters.
Trump's policies look chaotic. But one big reason for that is that some of his staff, like the 'U.S. official' above, are trying
to subvert them. They have tried and still try to cage him in on nearly every issue.
When Trump then wields his Twitter
sword and cuts through the subversion by publicly restating his original policies the look from the outside is indeed chaotic. But
it is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his pleasure" are there to implement them.
Instead they have tried (and try) to make their own ones:
White House and State Department officials had sought to block an Orban visit since the start of Trump’s presidency, concerned
that it would legitimize a leader often ostracized in Europe. They also worried about Orban’s influence on the U.S. president.
“Basically, everyone agreed — no Orban meeting,” said a former White House official involved in internal discussions. “We were
against it because [we] knew there was a good chance that Trump and Orban would bond and get along.”
The effort to keep distance between Trump and Orban began to fray earlier this year with the departures of senior officials
and the emergence of new voices around the president. Among the most important was Mulvaney, who became acting chief of staff
in January and was seen as sympathetic to Orban’s hard-right views and skepticism of European institutions.
One "senior official" who tried to sabotage the Orban visit was
Fionna Hill who until recently
served as the Russia analyst at the National Security Council.
One wonders if Mrs. Hill ever read her job description. The people in the NSC do net get hired to implement their own policy preferences.
The task of the National Security Council is to "advise and assist" the president and to "coordinate" his policies within the administration.
That's it.
The same rules apply to the Pentagon and other agencies.
Aaron Stein points out that those aides who disregarding the declared policy of the president
are responsible
for the current chaotic retreat from Syria:
Trump has been clear about his intentions in Syria. As he
told the world in April 2018, after years of fighting foreign wars, in his view it was time for the United States to withdraw
from Syria, passing responsibility for the mission to hold territory taken from the Islamic State to regional states. I was listening,
and wrote in War on
the Rocks that the longer the president’s own staff continued to treat the world’s most powerful man like an infant,
the more likely it became that he would simply order a hasty withdrawal. This chaotic U.S. exit from Syria was obviously
coming, for anyone paying attention to the opinion of the man who matters most in the United States: the president.
...
For over a year, it was obvious Trump wanted to leave Syria and, as I wrote in April 2018, Trump “has made his preferences for
U.S. policy in the Middle East clear” and it was time “for his national security staff to listen to him and to devise a sequential
drawdown policy that fits with the spirit of the president’s demands, but takes deliberate and uncomfortable steps to protect
U.S. interests.” This did not happen.
Rather than plan and begin to implement a coordinated withdrawal, the president’s appointed envoy for Syria and the Department
of Defense worked to ensure Washington could stay, and ignored the reality that Trump would eventually order
an American withdrawal. Such delusions have not served the United States and its friends well.
The lack of planning for the option the commander in chief had already decided on led to the current mess. The Pentagon practically
sabotaged trump's announced policies by continuing to build up bases in Syria and by falsely telling the Kurds that the U.S. would
stay. It should instead have planned and prepared for the announced retreat from the country.
One can clearly see that this current withdrawal was not prepared for, neither politically nor militarily, in any orderly way.
Yesterday the Pentagon said it would pull the troops out of Syria but station them nearby in west Iraq. But no one had asked the
Iraqi government what it though of that idea. The inevitable outcome is that Iraq now
rejects it:
U.S. forces that crossed into Iraq as part of a pull-out from Syria do not have permission to stay and can only be there in transit,
the Iraqi military said on Tuesday.
...
The Iraqi military statement contradicted the Pentagon’s announcement that all of the nearly 1,000 troops withdrawing from northern
Syria are expected to move to western Iraq to continue the campaign against Islamic State militants and “to help defend Iraq”.
“All U.S. forces that withdrew from Syria received approval to enter the Kurdistan Region so that they may be transported outside
Iraq. There is no permission granted for these forces to stay inside Iraq,” the Iraqi military said.
There was also the idea that some 200 soldiers would be left behind in Syria to deny the Syrian government access to its own oil
fields in east Syria. Not only would this be obviously illegal but nobody seems to have given a thought on how the logistics for
such remote unit could be sustained. The oil fields are geographically large and the company strength unit would have to be dispersed
into tiny outposts within a hostile country and resupplied over unsecured roads. To defend them from surprise attacks the U.S. would
need to put combat air patrols above them for every hour of each day.
One hopes that the Pentagon and State Department recognize that the high political and financial costs of such a deployment is
not justified for making a minor political point that will not change the inevitable outcome of the war.
Trump ordered that all U.S. troops leave Syria. An illegal occupation of Syria's oil fields would keep the U.S. in Syria but in
an clearly indefensible position. Whoever came up with or supported that idea needs to be fired.
Here is a sign that the Pentagon has finally recognized that its utter lack of planning for the implementation of Trump's decision
to leave Syria resulted in a bad outcome. It is now
trying to avoid to be (again) be caught with its pants down with regards to Afghanistan:
The Pentagon recently began drawing up plans for an abrupt withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in case President Donald
Trump surprises military leaders by ordering an immediate drawdown as he did in Syria, three current and former defense officials
said.
...
Ending wars like the one in Afghanistan was one of Trump's chief campaign promises in 2016, and administration officials have
privately expressed concern that as the 2020 election approaches, he'll be more likely to follow through with threats of troop
withdrawal, as he did last week in Syria.
Trump has made clear to his advisers that he wants to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by the 2020 election, NBC News
reported in August.
Trump made his decision in August but the Pentagon only now reacts to it. That is too slow.
Trump should have been and should be more rigorous with his staff. Those who sabotage his policies need to be fired early and
often. It would make his polices look much less chaotic than they currently seem to be.
Perhaps if Trump had not been so clueless/careless in his appointments then he would not be ignored and subverted so routinely.
As Paul Craig Roberts recently stated, who in their right mind would appoint a warmonger like John Bolton if his purpose was to
stop regime change wars and improve relations with Russia?
I don't believe in the 4D chess theory, this seems more like sheer incompetence to me. Yes, it's preferable to Hillary,
but hardly the best of times.
Even more remarkable than the way the US is exiting Syria is the way it got in. The us backed Turkey/Saudi/Israel in the creation
of Jihadi forces to bring down such a well entrenched and popular leader, Assad, and then maintained a presence based on the bizarre
claim that it was fighting terrorists and leading a mighty coalition that made the Syria/Russia/Iran/Hezbollah coalition laughable.
No wonder no one (not reading MofA or similar) understands quite what the US was doing there. No wonder people found the Assad
is deeply evil story credible, it did at least make more sense to an ordinary newspaper reader than the rest of the story (though
untrue).
The Obama/war party got the US got into a stupid mess, and we have to admire Trump for getting them out, without betraying
the monsters in the State department under Obama and the CIA or their Saudi/Israel allies. Indeed if Obama hadn't lead a coup
against Erdogan this might not be possible.
CNN reported on Trump's Viktor Orban's heresy informing us that Trump was deviating from U.S. foreign policy and you should
have seen the smirk plasted on all of their faces. Do they realize that they have been groomed by the CIA like trained seals begging
for fish?
It's as if U.S. foreign policy is cast in stone. Now we know that there is a list of foreigners you can talk to, Netanyahu
and whatever clown is governing Britain, and a list of pariah states we have to forever be at odds with. This precludes ever understaning
Iran's issues.
I hate the deep state but I hate their MSM enablers even more.
Even before Trump took office they began to stack his appointments with the same treasonable and corrupt bunch from prior
administration. One man cant do everything
Holding the Deir Ezzor oilfields would only require an operation the size of the Tanf operation. Anything wandering into that
area gets hit by US airstrikes or artillery strikes. Paved plus unpaved roads from Iraq into eastern Deir Ezzor...
But more to the point is listening to Trump policy. Libya "We should have taken the oil", Iraq "We should have taken the
oil, who knows we may get anther chance", Syria "We should take the oil".
Taking the oil is as much Trump policy as ending endless wars. It must be noted that Trump is very specific about which
type of wars he does not like. Expensive wars and endless wars are not to his liking.
We sadly live in a political era of not 'good guy vs bad guy', but of 'shittier vs shittiest'. Clinton was, and is shit. But
so is Trump! The author here naively projects too much of his own hopes or fantasies onto Trump.
Totally swept aside is the complete asshole domestic policies of Trump: sell off national parks to oil and gas, privatize
public schools, drill for oil in Arctic Nat Refuge, gut the EPA, build Israel-like walls along Mexico border, etc not to mention
utterly fucking over the Palestinians and giving Israel everything....not to mention the Khashoggi disaster. Zero ethics,
blah blah blah this guy fucking sucks.
In the good old days when the hand did not implement the policies of the regent, the head would usually fall soon after..
Its a shame that these days these criminals the world over get away with it because its 'policy' of the government.. What
ever it is.. Thats it.. They usually are moved and promoted into higher posts.. Never are the government employees fired for their
malign deeds..
... many of his subordinates have tried to subvert his policies.
Wait ... what?
Those 'subordinates' work for Trump. Trump could easily prevent the subverting of his policies - if he chose to.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Wasn't it Trump that tweeted that he was "locked and loaded" for war with Iran?
Wasn't it Trump that ordered TWO missile strikes on Syria based on false pretenses?
Wasn't it Trump that fully supported the Venezuela coup? And approved of illegally seizing Venezuelan assets?
Wasn't it Trump that violated UN Resolutions by moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Golan Heights as Israeli
territory? All while drastically curtailing aid to the Palestinians?
Wasn't it Trump that militarized Space? (He seems rather proud of doing so.)
Furthermore, I don't hear Trump complaining about things like USA not following thru on commitments made for peace in Korea
or USA's terminating the INF Treaty.
Thank you for this post, b. The last president to have had obstruction within government that he had to adjust to, as well as
press adversity, was Jimmy Carter. It is really a huge problem when so much of the government is carry over, and in the case of
Trump it has been so obvious that he needed to have his own people and a better atmosphere in press coverage. For a volitile leader
this situation has been charged from the getgo. So much so that it is very difficult for the public to assess his actual leadership
abilities. We either over- or underestimate him, to our own peril. And that is true of other countries as well. They see the pull
and tug and the histrionics that ensue on both sides - how can they help assessing the chaotic situation as chaotic?
It was the people's will, in accordance with the Constitution, that Trump be declared president. I didn't vote for him, but
he is supposed to be our leader. What this country then did in the international arena should have been according to his decisions.
I do not believe, if that had been the case, that we would now be in the sad state we are in with our international reputation
in tatters.
Trump would have seen his policies followed, and we would have had more consistency in government than we now have. Some of
those policies would have been less than perfect and could then have been argued against in order to give us better government
in future. With the obstinate warpath he has been forced to adhere to, and that footdragging by those under him so clearly obstructing
an orderly situation that had been hoped for in Syria, we have to conclude that it is only the obstructionists who are to blame.
Them we see, what Trump might have accomplished or not accomplished we do not see.
Please, Circe, pull in your horns. There is no way to accurately tell what is Trump and what is his opposition when it comes
to US policy - even when he seems to say something in contradiction to what he has said previously, we cannot know but can reasonably
suppose forces in disagreement with him have the upper hand when it comes to actual implementation.
That upper hand is a high crime in Constitutional terms.
The only reason Trumpty is trying to APPEAR to get out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan is because it is the only policy space where
his campaign promises differed in any great degree to the rest of the 2016 and 2020 POTUS competitors (Gabbard excepted).
And the DNC is trying to bury Gabbard on behalf of themselves and the rest of the warmongers in the Republican race.
Iraq refusing to take delivery on Syria-exiting US troops, let alone their Kurdish/ISIS terrorist hangers-on shows how little
influence the US now really carries outside Israel and Saudi Arabia. Non-terrorist Kurds were giving the US troops the send-off
they deserve... rocks and rotten veggies.
Trump was better at governing his TV show than running his government. Certainly, his irresponsible choices for his chief aides
carry much blame, but so does his inability/unwillingness/false promise to drain the swamp of all the saboteurs--just look at
the Justice Department for a graphic example. But Trump's mismanagement was exacerbated by his totally different conception of
the Outlaw US Empire and how it would go about its business--views that were diametrically opposite of those indoctrinated into
the career bureaucrats that would be charged with carrying out policy--when you've been told it's fine and dandy to ignore and
break as many laws and treaties as needed to implement policy, it becomes second nature to ignore and work against policy directives
that go against your indoctrination. One major point Trump was correct about was the a priori need to Drain the Swamp of the creatures
that brought about all the ill-fated policies he now wanted to unwind and abandon--the most important singular point he hasn't
really tried to accomplish. Instead, one of the first places he visited after his inauguration was CIA headquarters--Downtown
Swampland HQ.
I included and linked to
this article earlier today, "Trump's Foreign Policy Strategy Is All About the 2020 Elections." Lets assume that assumption
is 100% correct; what does that leave post-election when there's no further election to attempt to win? If all troops are removed
from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, what else will occur? Continued withdrawal from the Persian Gulf as Iran's HOPE project swings
into action? Withdrawal from Korea? Closing Gitmo? I haven't heard Trump say anything about potential domestic or foreign second
term policy. The D-Party's candidates have proposed lots of domestic policy changes, some greatly needed and desired by the public;
but aside from Gabbard, little's been said about foreign policy.
so all his handpicked bootlickers and his handpicked 'acting' this n that are not doing what the man wants them to do?
oh dear, you mean they are not loyal to the shitface? they have their own agenda? oh really? is that like the turtle not letting
go anything up for a vote if he (shitface) is not gonna sign it? Or is that the turtle not letting anything go up for a vote if
he (turtle) don't like it.
I have said since the beginning that the shitface is dumb, dumber and dumbest, simply by making enemies left right n centre,
using people until they are bled dry and then never eve working with anyone. Cause frankly, that is what he does.
So why are people astonished and surprised that those that he surrounds himself are a carbon copy of himself?
and does anyone here care? I mean stealing children is not as sexy and exiting as discussion the never ending war that will
never end cause ending it will benefit neither the shitface in the us nor the shitface in russia nor the shitfaces in the middle
east.
We should all hope the pentagon is never caught with its pants down because they always go commando.. being exceptionally manley
and all that... That sight would forever give PTSD to anyone watching.. The Roman generals on the other hand was at the front
giving orders.. These commandos hide in bunkers thousands of miles away and gives insane orders..
"who in their right mind would appoint a warmonger like John Bolton if his purpose was to stop regime change wars..."
The one who appointed Bolton is obviously not in his right mind and his purpose is immediate war with Iran and further
destruction of the entire Middle East. He's called Sheldon Adelson, not Trump.
I don't know, but I can guess: Bolton is a known entity to the departments and people in question. If Bolton sucked
up in his interviews, he may have left Trump with the impression that he would actually follow orders.
We all know that is nonsense, but Trump wouldn't necessarily.
When wondering why Trump chose poorly for his staff you need to forget the nonsense that Trump was the establishment's chosen
winner of the elections in 2016.
Was the 2016 election staged? Yes, and Trump was certainly aware of it. This is why Trump had not bothered to have a transition
team set up on election night, and why he had not bothered to even start vetting anyone for any of his cabinet positions until
after the election results were announced on November 10th.
Trump wasn't supposed to win the 2016 elections (ignore the jack bunny's silly nonsense about Kissinger anointing Trump in
2014 because the paywalled link it always provides as evidence doesn't mention Trump at all). Trump himself wasn't expecting
to win. Trump basically chose his staff by writing down names he recognized on slips of paper and pulling them out of a hat.
"Hmm... since I am pretending to be a Republican, who do I know that would make a stereotypical Republican Secretary of Defense?
I know, 'Mad Dog' Mattis! OK, so how about the Secretary of State? Well, the CIA already runs the State Department, so why not
appoint Pompeo? He knows the job already. Let's see, Secretary of Education... Hey, Betsy, are you busy?" and so on.
These choices were made on the spur of the moment in the chaos of an entirely unexpected victory with Trump trying to think
of the kinds of choices a blowhard Republican like he was typecast as would make. Do not assign them overly much significance.
@Perimetr. I'm not sure it's all incompetence, though I agree there is plenty of that to go around, which may not always be
a bad thing if incompetence allows the Empire do less damage was it keels over. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I think he had to
make a whole lot of deals with a whole lot of devils in order to survive, in the political and the literal sense. The deals
came with many demons attached, some of whom have been shown the door recently, and maybe more will go. Interesting to me there
seems to be some daylight showing between T and Bibi that wasn't there before. Not quite sure how T is pulling that off, but I
suspect it is a risky independence. Might Barr and Co. have something ready to drop that will stick? Unlikely, I know, but something
seems to be giving Trump more room to maneuver.
So, it looks like that's it for America, folks. Putin has gone and done it again. He and his
conspiracy of Putin-Nazis have "hacked," or "influenced," or "meddled in" our democracy.
Unless Admiral Bill McRaven and his special ops cronies can ginny up
a last-minute military coup , it's four more years of the Trumpian Reich, Russian soldiers
patrolling the streets, martial law, concentration camps, gigantic banners with the faces of
Trump and Putin hanging in the football stadiums, mandatory Sieg-heiling in the public schools,
National Vodka-for-Breakfast Day, death's heads, babushkas, the whole nine yards.
"... How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook expansion.. NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the target area. ..."
"... Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. ..."
"... Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to mind. ..."
"... A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion? ..."
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
"... Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint . ..."
"... The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and who has expertise in Ukraine, the Washington Examiner has reported . ..."
"... later emerged that a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The Washington Post concluded that Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false. ..."
"... Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence. ..."
"... Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an illegal spying operation on the president. ..."
"... It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on intelligence ..."
"... Image credit: Caricature by Donkey Hotey via Flickr , CC BY-SA 2.0 . ..."
"... Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence. ..."
Seems every day brings a new revelation about Democratic efforts to rig an impeachment of
the president. The false claims and astonishing conflicts of interest being thrown out there
are piling up fast.
The latest, from the San Francisco Examiner, exposes House Intelligence Committee chairman
Adam Schiff's choice of staffers, who it turns out were
two disgruntled Deep-Staters from the White House
who had actually worked with the
so-called "whistleblower":
Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018,
was hired in February,
while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's
committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted
his
complaint
.
The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and
who has expertise in Ukraine,
the Washington Examiner has reported
.
A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a
phone conversation
between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to
a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff's staff. He had previously informed the CIA's
legal counsel's office.
Schiff
initially denied
he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on
Sep. 17: "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."
But it
later emerged that a member of his staff
had spoken to
the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The
Washington Post
concluded that
Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false.
"
Grace, 36,
was hired
to help Schiff's committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump
accused Schiff
of
"stealing people who work at White House." Grace
worked at the NSC
from 2016 to 2018 in
U.S.-China relations and
then briefly
at the Center for a New American
Security think tank, which
was founded by
two former senior Obama administration officials.
So these people were all buddies beforehand, and this would explain why the so-called
whistleblower had been sneaking around with Schiff's staff before he made his whistleblower
complaint.
And that came only after someone with influence was able to get the inspector general of the
Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going.
More and more, this sounds like a pre-planned setup. One Trump operative has a very good
summary of what seems to have been really going on as these anything but exculpatory stories
mount:
Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting
his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so
they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic
efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own
business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence.
Experienced intelligence operatives, and apparently this Trump operative has this sort of
background, like to say there are no coincidences.
As facts continue to roll out, it's getting more and more obvious that Schiff's operation
was to orchestrate this impeachment scenario all along, going into high gear with the flame-out
of the Mueller investigation.
Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation
orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an
illegal spying operation on the president.
It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on
intelligence
, not on being one of those creepy secret police characters in The Lives of
Others . It's also an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars. In light of this Schiff spy
operation, and if Democrats don't want some backatcha next time there's a Dem in office with a
Republican House, it really ought to be every last one of them signed up to that Biggs
list.
Image credit:
Caricature by Donkey Hotey via
Flickr
,
CC BY-SA
2.0
.
Seems every day brings a new revelation about Democratic efforts to rig an
impeachment of the president. The false claims and astonishing conflicts of interest being
thrown out there are piling up fast.
The latest, from the San Francisco Examiner, exposes House Intelligence Committee chairman
Adam Schiff's choice of staffers, who it turns out were
two disgruntled Deep-Staters from the White House
who had actually worked with the
so-called "whistleblower":
Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018,
was hired in February,
while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's
committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted
his
complaint
.
The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and
who has expertise in Ukraine,
the Washington Examiner has reported
.
A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a
phone conversation
between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to
a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff's staff. He had previously informed the CIA's
legal counsel's office.
Schiff
initially denied
he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on
Sep. 17: "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."
But it later emerged that a member of his staff
had spoken to
the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The
Washington Post
concluded that
Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false."
Grace, 36,
was hired
to help Schiff's committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump
accused Schiff
of
"stealing people who work at White House." Grace
worked at the NSC
from 2016 to 2018 in
U.S.-China relations and
then briefly
at the Center for a New American
Security think tank, which
was founded by
two former senior Obama administration officials.
So these people were all buddies beforehand, and this would explain why the so-called
whistleblower had been sneaking around with Schiff's staff before he made his whistleblower
complaint.
And that came only after someone with influence was able to get the inspector general of the
Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going.
More and more, this sounds like a pre-planned setup. One Trump operative has a very good
summary of what seems to have been really going on as these anything but exculpatory stories
mount:
Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House,
recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing
the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the
lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding
their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a
coincidence.
Experienced intelligence operatives, and apparently this Trump operative has this sort of
background, like to say there are no coincidences.
As facts continue to roll out, it's getting more and more obvious that Schiff's operation
was to orchestrate this impeachment scenario all along, going into high gear with the flame-out
of the Mueller investigation.
Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation
orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an
illegal spying operation on the president.
And that's a far more concrete crime than anything Trump is accused of committing. Right
now, Schiff has 109 congressional representatives
signed on to GOP rep. Andy
Biggs of Arizona's
call to condemn and censure Schiff for this sick little illegal
freelance operation to spy on Trump.
It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on
intelligence, not on being one of those creepy secret police characters in
The Lives of
Others
. It's also an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars. In light of this Schiff spy
operation, and if Democrats don't want some backatcha next time there's a Dem in office with a
Republican House, it really ought to be every last one of them signed up to that Biggs
list.
"... inspector general of the Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going." Doesn't that beg the question IF Atkinson had any past
relationships with any of these people in his former position? I believe I read somewhere that
Atkinson somehow was involved in the Steele Dossier from his former job.
Our government has always operated this way. Nothing new here. It only seems "run worse" because the results are out in the
open for all to see. Whereas, the same thing could be done in secret and you'd never know
about it (the changes in the rules).
Which do you prefer? The sloppy American way, or the secretive Chinese way?
I'm sorry to say we have only these two choices. The sloppy American way is preferable to
me because it's the better part of our openly democratic republic and our Constitution.
The current problems and distractions we are dealing with are the result of Biden,
Schiff, and the Democrat's attempts to be secretive about what they're doing. So, we have to
wonder why these people don't want their actions to be known.
We should delight in seeing such illegitimate secrets exposed.
"...The sloppy American way, or the secretive Chinese way?"
What difference does it make if the criminals
are never indicted? The fact that I know of don't know makes no difference. We know
politicians are dirty scum, anyway..
But I think it's not good enough to just accept rampant corruption, surely things
could be better than this?
Also, it's not so much the Dems in question but the entire system.
And I see little evidence that the system is changing.
Though as you point out, one big shift is that more of us have become aware of how
bad it is.
And as you point out, it's always been that way, going back at least to 1913... but
more like forever and with all systems.
And if it is forever and all systems, then maybe it's better we DON'T get to see
all the dirty laundry all the time, including that nothing is done about it. Maybe
better not to know! Maybe that's the only way to make the country 'great' again!?
International Man
: In a broad sense,
how would you describe the
foreign policy of the US?
David Stockman
: Well,
in two words: Empire First.
I contrast
that with what Donald Trump thought he wanted to seek as a candidate, America First.
Now these are obviously simplifications and slogans, but there is an underlying substance that's
really important.
I think the basic idea behind "America First" is reaching way back to Robert Taft in the
1950s.
He said that we cannot have a permanent warfare state in America, because our
foreign policy doesn't require it and our fiscal capacities can't afford it.
What Taft basically said is the US sits between these two great ocean moats in a nuclear age,
where the number-one threat is a nuclear threat, not an invasion of conventional forces. The way
you deal with that is to have overwhelming retaliatory capacity, to keep the other side at bay.
As a matter of fact, he was totally right. It worked for 40 years.
The Soviet
Union finally crumbled under its own weight in 1991, and therefore the case was proved. There was
no industrial society, high-tech conventional military threat left in the world. The opportunity
arose in the early 1990s to go really full out America First.
Why did we keep all of these aircraft carriers, battleships, all this forward power projection
capability, air refueling capabilities, 100 bases or more all over the world? None of that was
needed throughout the entire Cold War, but most especially after 1991. That's the direction we
should have gone.
Where we ended up was in the opposite direction of what I call "America First." Instead
of dismantling NATO, we expanded it from 15 to 29 countries.
Instead of keeping faith with the promise that was made to Gorbachev by Secretary of State Jim
Baker and George Bush the elder -- that NATO would not expand a single inch to the east -- instead, we
basically encircled the entire rump state of Russia that was left after the Soviet Union fell
apart. That has then led to the case for a military budget this year of $750 billion, when the
truth is a homeland defense would cost less than $250 billion.
International Man
: What are your thoughts on the amount of money the US spends
on foreign aid, wars, the so-called intelligence community, the State Department, and other aspects
of foreign policy?
David Stockman
: The excess over what we need for homeland defense is more than
a half trillion dollars per year -- money we are wasting that we don't have, that we're borrowing and
passing on to future generations.
We're really at a point where there is a stark contrast between what homeland security
and the safety of people in Lincoln, Nebraska, or Spokane, Washington, require -- and what they
continually produce in the imperial city in Washington, DC, with this massive warfare-state budget.
Now, unfortunately the lesson that we've learned in the first three years of the Trump
administration is that good intentions, even vague ones -- and Trump surely had no articulated or
well-developed content to his notion of America First -- they don't stand a chance against this
massive machine that is self-perpetuating.
In other words, Empire First dominates our foreign policy, because there's so much money
flowing into the Pentagon, the 17 intelligence agencies, and the rest.
That money is also going to the tens of thousands of people who are getting paid big salaries to
work as contractors for the NSA and other agencies. They form a built-in lobbying force of
tremendous effectiveness to keep the funds flowing.
When you add to that all of the think tanks that get money from the State Department, the
National Endowment for Democracy, and various pockets and crevices in the Pentagon that no one can
even keep up with, essentially you have what I call the equivalent of a self-licking ice cream
cone.
The thing just keeps going because it's so big it feeds itself -- the $750 billion defense
budget is just the beginning.
That's the Department of Defense budget per se, but if you
add in another $25 billion for nuclear energy programs at the Department of Energy, $50 billion for
security assistance and foreign aid, international relations, another $60–70 billion for Homeland
Security, and then the veterans' budget, which is $200 billion, it's just massive. It represents
the deferred cost of all these stupid wars that we've had and didn't need.
Altogether we're talking about a $1.1 trillion budgetary monster that creates these enormous
flows of dollars that want to perpetuate themselves. Therefore, the kind of America First
rationality that the world situation clearly would permit and support is completely lost.
I don't know what these people think they're fighting. Do they think that China is going to get
up and bomb 4,000 Walmart stores in America? That's not going to happen. Their economy would
collapse in six months if they began serious military activities or threats against the United
States or Western Europe.
Russia has a GDP of $1.6 trillion, which is less than the GDP of the New York
metropolitan area. It's a little rump state that has a lot of hydrocarbons, some wheat fields, and
a workforce that is shrinking because of a fondness for vodka.
These are obvious facts and the fundamentals. Let's call it the structure of the global national
security environment. It's so obvious that this massive warfare state machine that we have is not
needed. We could go the route of America First -- homeland defense, the Taftian posture -- and yet
there's not a snowball's chance in the hot place that it gets any kind of airtime, exposure, or
debate in Washington, DC.
Donald Trump even tried to get the last 2,000 or 3,000 troops out of Syria, where we have no
reason to be whatsoever. None, zero, zip. He can't do that because he is undermined by his own
advisors and the embedded Deep State that has never seen a war that it wanted to end and never an
occupation that it didn't want to perpetuate.
International Man
: It seems the
one thing Democrats and Republicans
agree on is a more aggressive foreign policy.
Why does US foreign policy never seem to
change, regardless of who is in power?
David Stockman
: That's really a good question, and I think
there are
two dimensions to it.
One, just in terms of the structure, when you have $1.1 trillion dollars pouring into
the system every year, it creates an overwhelming lobbying force for self-perpetuation.
To
perpetuate this massive budget, it needs to have threats, dangers, enemies, and all the rest. The
whole system is in the business of threat inflation -- even threat manufacture.
It's not just the defense contractors, as I said before. It's all the chattering classes that
inhabit these NGOs, think tanks, and all the rest of it.
Ukraine would be a great example of this now, or why we are stumbling around in Syria. Why did
we walk away from the Iranian nuclear deal and impose this vicious economic blockage and sanction
war? That's inviting some kind of hostile response at some point.
The second thing is this whole Russia-gate issue from 2016. It has essentially neutered
the Democratic Party as a rational voice in foreign affairs and the restraint that it historically
had on the warfare state.
I started back in the '60s, protesting the Vietnam War. I went to all the marches on the
Pentagon and all the rest of it.
The reason I bring this up is, at that point in time, the Democratic Party was loaded with doves
and antiwar people and people who were skeptical of anything you would hear from the CIA. We knew
what the CIA was.
The Democratic Party produced a lot of statesmen in the 1970s: McGovern, Fullbright, the Church
Committee, and all these guys who investigated the abuses of the warfare state and the CIA -- the lies
that got us into the quagmire of Vietnam, which ended up being a stain on America's history. It
really was a genocide perpetuated against a defenseless people who weren't a threat to us at all.
That's what it was.
We came out of the 1970s with a pretty healthy debate -- and a lot of checks and balances
politically against this warfare-state machine.
Now what happened to the Democratic Party?
They're basically AWOL on the issue
of war and peace -- and on the need for a restrained foreign policy. They've got it into their heads
that they lost the election not because their policies were failing and not because they had the
worst candidate the Democrats had fielded in decades, but because allegedly the Russkies
infiltrated our political system in the Trump campaign and stole the election.
Now, we can make fun of that, but what it's done is basically put the Democrats in a posture
where every night if you watch the war channel, CNN, they have half a dozen of them saying Trump is
jeopardizing national security. He's not listening to his intelligence community. He's leaving the
Ukrainians high and dry -- and Putin's going to be occupying Kiev within hours.
This is all complete nonsense. They've lost their minds. There's a couple antiwar
Democrats left, and that's it. That changes the equation fundamentally.
Here's why.
One way or another, the Republican Party was hijacked by the neocons back in
the 1980s and 1990s, and it's just gone from bad to worse.
So, you can't expect the Republican Party to be any kind of vehicle for common sense and a
peaceful foreign policy.
The Democratic Party was supposed to be the check, and it is now
AWOL. So, now there is no debate. It's a pretty dangerous thing, because we're doing stupid stuff
all over the world.
The latest example, which is red hot of course, is Ukraine-gate.
Let's just roll back the picture a couple years. Why is this thing even happening?
The answer is because, in 2014, Washington supported, financed, and encouraged a coup on the
streets of Kiev that threw out a legitimately elected government. It put in a lot of right wing
neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists that scared the hell out of the Russians living in the eastern part
of Ukraine and in Crimea -- where there are few Ukrainians by the way; only 15% of the population of
Crimea is Ukrainian. The rest is basically Russian and Tatars.
That's where the whole damn thing started. We never should have been there. That's right on
Russia's doorstep. It's not our business to sort out the history there. Crimea was a Russian
territory for 200 years anyway.
Once we got into the middle of that, that's why we had to send our vice president, Joe Biden, to
Ukraine to be the policy coordinator. Now let's think about it.
There are 190 countries or so in the world, and Ukraine has a GDP of $130 billion.
Ukraine is an absolute nothing, irrelevant piece of global real estate.
We didn't need to
send the vice president of the United States to coordinate policy. In a good policy environment,
you wouldn't need to send the vice president there to coordinate anything.
What did that lead to?
Well, once the vice president was there, all of a sudden
everything changed, including this Burisma energy company. It was basically run by a guy -- which
never comes out on CNN -- but he was allied with the president who was overthrown. And what did they
do? They called Washington. They looked for the sleaziest lobbyist they could find. What they came
up with was Hunter Biden and his buddy, Devon Archer, who was equally a sleaze bag, his roommate in
college apparently or something like that. He was a campaign finance bundler for John Kerry all the
time he was in the Senate.
This is how the whole damn thing got started.
The debate today focuses on what
Trump was doing during a very brief phone call in July 2019 and not about the history -- how we got
there and why the thing is off base to begin with. They pretend history only started with a phone
call on July 25, 2019.
That's the way the empire rolls. It demands that anybody who is paying attention should have
amnesia and that the only thing that you're supposed to focus on is what happened yesterday, as
it's spun by the machinery of the warfare state.
That's why we have the irony of the Democratic majority in the House. I don't think that
they're necessarily conscious tools of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. They're just
stupid. They're uninformed, and they're caught up in this imperial city groupthink.
Now they're out to impeach a president who casually wanted to look into what was clearly a
blatant case of influence peddling on the part of the prior vice president and his son.
Biden says he didn't know what Hunter was doing. Who believes that? But the point is, why in the
world would this big energy company based in Ukraine be hiring a guy, a lobbyist from Washington,
DC, unless his name was Biden? Biden knew nothing about natural gas, energy, Eastern Europe, or
Ukraine.
Once the empire gets as massive as it is, it behooves everybody around the world to have
all of the influence operations that they can afford or can mobilize in Washington to weigh into
the policy debate.
It really is like an imperial city. There are tens of millions -- hundreds of millions -- and billions
of dollars every year being paid by foreign countries to Washington, because they think they have
to defend their self-interest in the day-to-day operation of the US warfare state.
Again, it's another example of how Empire First perpetuates itself. Not only do you have all of
the domestic lobbies, the defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and think tanks that get
all their money from government agencies, but then you have all of the foreign outposts. The two
are actually pretty melded together.
The Atlantic Council is one of the most odious of these so-called think tanks
that dominates the debate.
They confuse these wet-behind-the-ears young people
who get elected to Congress. I can appreciate that. I was elected when I was pretty wet behind the
ears.
They send people to Washington to influence in a very subtle way, because the money goes through
the back door. Much of the money for the Atlantic Council comes from Ukrainian oligarchs who are
anti-Russian for whatever reason, and a lot more comes from Saudi Arabia and the UAE and the rest
of the oil states.
It's all on behalf of a big, slick lobbying operation that's created this pro-empire
mentality. It got us in the middle of all of these conflicts in the Middle East, but also Ukraine.
It is really bad. The Atlantic Council's role in pushing the Russia-gate hoax and getting us
involved in Ukraine -- essentially threatening Russia on its very border -- is pretty nasty stuff.
Don't forget that Russia bought Crimea in 1783 with good gold money from the Turks, who were
perennially short on cash. It was populated by Russian speakers all that time. It became the base
for the home port of the great Black Sea Fleet, which is what Russia has seen as its defense under
czars and commissars alike. For 170 years, it was an integral part of the Old Russian Empire and
then the Soviet Union.
Crimea got added to Ukraine when there were few Ukrainians living there, only because Khrushchev
won the violent struggle for succession after Stalin died. Khrushchev was Ukrainian, and so in a
drunken celebration one night, he basically said, I hereby will Crimea to my buddies in Ukraine for
all the good work that they did in helping kill off my two rivals to power.
Then a couple days later, the Presidium officially passed a law that added Crimea to the
Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine.
So, what these Washington idiots are doing -- led by think tanks like the Atlantic Council and all
the rest of those who got us into this conflict in Ukraine -- is basically trying to enforce the dead
hand of the Soviet Presidium from 65 years ago.
Crimea wasn't the site of a Russian occupation. After the Ukrainian nationalists and neo-Nazis
took control of the Ukraine government in the coup, the people in the Russian-speaking regions were
scared to death.
There's a whole bloody history behind this.
Hitler marched
through on the way to Stalingrad, and the Nationalist Ukrainians were with him. Then the Red Army
marched back through after Stalingrad and liquidated all their Ukrainian enemies. Yet decades and
decades later, Washington gets itself into the middle of this, trying to enforce the dead hand of
the Soviet Union.
Crimea got partitioned. There was a vote. No one can say that 90% of the people didn't vote to
rejoin Mother Russia, because they did. So what is the big deal?
And yet the warfare state
found it convenient to bulk up the Russian threat as one reason for continuing to have all the
defense money and the imperial footprint around the world. The next thing you know, it becomes
policy, because the Democrats really embrace it -- after they decided that Putin cost them the
election.
* * *
The amount of money the US government spends on foreign aid, wars, the so-called
intelligence community, and other aspects of foreign policy is enormous and ever-growing. It's an
established trend in motion that is accelerating, and now approaching a breaking point. It could
cause the most significant disaster since the 1930s. Most people won't be prepared for what's
coming. That's precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent
video with all the details.
Click
here to watch it now.
Russia today is simply a foil, a cover story for Hillary's
weakness and corruption....a cover for the runaway war machine
that enriches a few and protects Israel
"Russia has a GDP of $1.6 trillion, which is less than the GDP
of the New York metropolitan area. It's a little rump state that
has a lot of hydrocarbons, some wheat fields, and a workforce that
is shrinking because of a fondness for vodka."
If they only
had the world's reserve currency, non-stop printing press, and
blatant disregard for nation-states, they would occupy a more
untenable and precarious financial condition.
This is another fraud run by Uncle Scam. Voting at the IMF and
World Bank is weighted by GDP. The US and European allies
report in their native currencies, but countries like Russia
must convert to $USD.
Recall that Italy's GDP was "adjusted"
to allow for estimates for hookers and blow, to allow them to
keep their number of votes. This gives the US and Allies block
the votes they need.
But Russia, after sanctions, had to devalue their currency,
hence their GDP in USD went down. Their standard of living did
not decrease all that much.
On a purchasing power parity basis, China's economy is
already bigger than the US, it has been for almost a decade.
It is the "Exorbitant Privilege" of world reserve currency
that gives the US its power. Sanctions only work for a time,
eventually you will either have to abandon that privilege or
fight a major war to defend it.
The term exorbitant privilege refers to the alleged
benefit the United States has due to its own currency being
the international reserve currency. Accordingly, the US
would not face a balance of payments crisis, because it
purchased imports in its own currency. Exorbitant privilege
as a concept cannot refer to currencies that have a regional
reserve currency role, only global reserve currencies.
OK, I'm going to air a very unpopular opinion. We are entering a
period of period decline. There are too many people on the planet,
and resources are finite. Your life and mine are considerably
easier and more luxurious than they have any right to be, and they
will continue to be so while much of the rest of the world goes
without. Know why?
Because we live at the center of empire.
In
the modern high-tech world, it's inevitable there's going to be a
horrible, evil monolithic hegemon calling the shots and stealing
all the resources. Just be ******* grateful that you're living
there. Long live the empire.
When you are an
empire subject
, you are smack bang right
in the middle of all the dumb propaganda, like a fish
surrounded by the water. Empire subjects are de-sensitized to
imperial high crimes. Empire subjects thus tend to lack any
empathy towards regime change recipients.
It takes a strong
mind to de-programme from all the brainwashing and become aware
of the water.
If it wasn't for the empire, your life and mine would likely
be significantly more difficult. Out fabulously opulent
western lifestyles are entirely the result of the west
taking more than it's share of the resources. With the
present population... and in my very strong opinion a
concerted international effort to curb population growth
should have started AT LEAST half a century ago, but we are
where we are... it's either this or everyone on the planet
lives like peasants. Take your choice.
In other words,
Empire First
dominates our foreign
policy, because there's so much money flowing into the Pentagon,
the 17 intelligence agencies, and the rest.
Actually, it's
not Empire First, it's
PURSUIT of PROFIT
first.
This right here is the problem with the human species.
Many people know very little about Russia or the Russian people.
Most of what they have been told has been filtered through a
national security apparatus so entrenched in a cold war mindset
they appear paranoid.
It is clear the warmongering faction
residing within Washington has declared Russia a major threat and
sparked massive media coverage to convince us it is true. The myth
of Russia's strength amplified by journalists. More in the
following article;
Poppy Bush was corrupt from his first job out of skull and
bones. Zapata Off Shore Oil was 'his company' and Operation
Zapata was the CIA operation to over throw Castro in Cuba as
early as 1959. George Bush was the named
CIA operative
that Hoover named in a FBI memo in 1963 questioned whether Anti
Castro Cubans were involved in JFK assassination. Bush lied
about his CIA employment for more than thirty years many times
under oath.
Bush is truly the focal point after JFK
assassination (a coup) that changed much of the key personnel
in DC.
I place nearly the blame on on the very first miserable P.O.S.
George H.W Bush. He was forced onto Reagan as a V.P. because he
was a well k own establishment deep state ******. Reagan believed
in a string military but his primary philosophy was peace through
strength.
Well when Bush 1 became El Jefe he very quickly
changed the rules and instead of peace through strength he decided
that the large military Reagan had built up had to be used so
peace through strength became basically demonstration of serious
firepower for the world to witness and he set the nation on the
road of empire.
Since then the continuation and support of empire became the
norm and anything less is now isolationism. Peace and conflict
avoidance is considered isolationism.
Bankers run the United States of War. The Empire is a slave to
its debt, a slave to maintaining a illusion of solvency,
bankers that few politicians have the courage to unplug the
bankers IV drip from.
"... I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against 'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans. ..."
"... This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a good description ..."
"... The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely two branches of the Business Party. ..."
"... Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points across at the same time. ..."
"... Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment. ..."
"... Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local. ..."
Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the "favorite of the Russians" to win the 2020 presidential
election and is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party candidate against the eventual Democratic nominee.
...
The Russians already have their "eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party
candidate," she said, in an apparent reference to Gabbard.
"She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far," Clinton
told David Plouffe, the podcast's host and the campaign manager for former President Obama's 2008 campaign.
"And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton added, referring
to the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate.
The responses were appropriate:
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard - 22:20 UTC
· Oct 18, 2019
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that
has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy,
there has been a ...
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through
your proxies and ...
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
The Streisand effect of Clinton's shoddy remark will help Tulsi Gabbard with regards to name recognition. It will increase her
poll results. With Joe Biden faltering and Elizabeth Warren increasingly exposed as a phony Clinton copy, Bernie Sanders could become
the Democrats leading candidate. Then the “favorite of the Russians” smear will be applied to him.
Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House. But the Democratic
establishment would rather sabotage the election than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead.
Voters do not like such internal squabble and shenanigans. The phony Ukrainegate 'impeachment inquiry' is already
a gift for Trump. Messing with the candidate field on top
of that will inevitably end with another Trump presidency.
and Suspend her from what? a lamp post? That's a little bit harsh.
Hillary is actually doing something constructive for the first time in her career - by giving a boost to Tulsi Gabbard who
is the only candidate who challenges the military industrial complex, which has probably caused more death and destruction than
anyone else in history.
I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against
'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans.
But none of the other Democratic candidates stand a chance of beating Trump either. The two front-runners are medically unfit
for any important challenging job - Biden (senility) and Sanders (recent heart attack/stroke?).
Tulsi is urging Hillary to "enter the race" !! Hillary is foaming at the mouth with desire to enter the 2020 race. Is Tulsi
working for Hillary?
Behind the scenes it was decided to make HunterBidenGate the pretext for a Trump impeachment. This, it
was thought, would damage Trump AND Biden and make way for the resurrection of Hillary Clinton. There were so many other pretexts
available but they chose this one.
"Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party"
This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual
structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a
good description. Even a quick review of the Wikipedia entry reveals little.
As best I can tell, a person is a party member by checking the box on the voter registration form. The few times I have registered,
I did not check a box for any party. It is none of the state's business who I associate with or vote for.
It is also not the state's business to supervise and fund the selection of party candidates. But that is what happens in the
US. The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely
two branches of the Business Party.
"It didn't come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV debate this week. It was billed
as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii Representative told some prime-time home-truths to the nation:
"Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have
supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011 along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing
and cheer-leading this regime-change war."
The 38-year-old military veteran went on to denounce how the US has sponsored Al Qaeda terrorists for its objective of overthrowing
the government in Damascus."
Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points
across at the same time. The way she tries to finesse her stances on Iran, India and Israel is disturbing though.
Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary
of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement.
When she's forthright, punches hard and says the things that many people are thinking but few dare say - as she did in her
statement on Syria, but didn't in her statement on Iran - she comes off as the first real candidate for President that I've seen
in my lifetime (I don't count the likes of Dennis Kucinich, who never seemed to actually want to win).
If Tulsi is serious about doing the world good, this is the path she needs to take. Speak the truths no one else is willing
to say; punch hard; stick with it. Yeah and be willing to die for it. If they can't stop you, which I don't think they can, they'll
come gunning for you...
Finally, at last, foreign affairs (i.e wars) has made it into a presidential campaign, and by a veteran, with veterans currently
being sanctified in the U.S. The women (Tulsi, Jill and Hillary) are getting down and dirty, too, which is always a good thing
and a feature of politics in time past, as in the Truman era. President Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen. If you cannot handle the pressure, you should not remain in a position where you have to deal with it."
Let's hope that they get into the details of Hillary's failures, including Libya, Somalia, and especially Syria. Let's get
it on! In the last election she never was forced to answer for her specific failures. Now's the time.
Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way
from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate
media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment.
What Trump has successfully done from the right that Sanders/Gabbard (like Corbyn in the UK) are struggling to do from the
left is to attack the establishment that's in a permanent state of warfare abroad and at home against its "enemies" and unfettered
capitalism at home For a brief moment it was hoped by progressives that Obama - who defeated the faces of the establishment, Clinton
and McCain in 2008 - would really fight the establishment but he ended up becoming more of a celebrity politician like Trudeau
who talked a good game but was unable to effect real change on the ground which of course led to a large number or African Americans
not voting in 2016 and a lot of white blue collar Obama 2008 voters going for Trump.
The corporate media which has been totally corrupted and infiltrated by intelligence agencies - quote openly versus covertly
as in the past - is going to make every effort to shut down not just Gabbard but Sanders and ensure that Warren - a wannabe feel-gooder
like Obama - be completely neutered to effect real change.
Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed
through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local.
"... For those who don't speak fluent neoconservative, "isolationist" here means taking even one small step in any direction other than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and "We are becoming isolationist" here means "We have hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world." ..."
"... a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is endangering peace with his "isolationism" ..."
"... Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness that the opposite of "war" is no longer "peace", but "isolationism". By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things. ..."
Humanity was treated to an important lecture on peace at a recent event for the NIR School of the Heart by none other than Ellen
Degeneres BFF and world-renowned peace expert George W Bush.
"I don't think the Iranians believe a peaceful Middle East is in their national interest," said the former president according
to The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin, whose
brief Twitter thread on the subject appears
to be the only record of Bush's speech anywhere online.
"An isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world," Bush said during the speech in what according to Rogin was
a shot at the sitting president.
"We are becoming isolationist and that's dangerous for the sake of peace."
For those who don't speak fluent neoconservative, "isolationist" here means taking even one small step in any direction other
than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and "We are becoming isolationist" here means "We have
hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and
we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world."
It is unclear why Bush is choosing to present himself as a more peaceful president than Trump given that by this point in his
first term Bush had launched not one but two full-scale ground invasion wars whose effects continue to ravage the Middle East to
this very day, especially given the way both presidents appear to be in furious agreement on foreign policy matters like Iran. But
here we are.
From a certain point of view it's hard to say which is stranger:
(A) a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is
endangering peace with his "isolationism", or
(B) the claim that Trump is "isolationist" at all.
But these bogus warnings about a dangerous, nonexistent threat of isolationism are nothing new for Dubya. In
his farewell address to the nation , Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
As we discussed
recently , use of the pro-war buzzword "isolationism" has been re-emerging from its post-Bush hibernation as a popular one-word
debunk of any opposition to continued US military expansionism in all directions, and it is deceitful in at least three distinct
ways. Firstly, the way it is used consistently conflates isolationism with non-interventionism, which
are two wildly
different things . Secondly, none of the mainstream political figures who are consistently tarred with the "isolationist" pejorative
are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination, or even proper non-interventionists; they all support many interventionist positions
which actual non-interventionists object to. Thirdly, calling someone who opposes endless warmongering an "isolationist" makes as
much sense as calling someone who opposes rape a man-hating prude; opposing an intrinsically evil act is not the same as withdrawing
from the world.
Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real
purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness
that the opposite of "war" is no longer "peace", but "isolationism". By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the
political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt
to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is
of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things.
It would actually be great if George W Bush could shut the fuck up forever, ideally in a locked cell following a public war tribunal.
Failing that, at the very least people should stop looking at him as a cuddly wuddly teddy bear with whom it's fun to
share a sporting arena suite or a
piece of hard candy or to
hang award medals on for his treatment of veterans. This mass murdering monster has been
growing more and more popular with
Democrats lately just because he offers mild criticisms of Trump sometimes, as have war pigs like
Bill Kristol and Max Boot and even John
Bolton for the same reason, and it needs to stop. And in the name of a million dead Iraqis, please don't start consulting this
man on matters of peace.
Leave aside that Trump should not have been compelled to make the transcript public . .
. .
It's tempting to view Trump's presidency as sui generis. With norms and seemingly
well-settled historical precedents broken, with the liability casually laid at his feet by
most observers, even if not wholly out to destroy him.
Knowing its intent was remove him from office, Trump nevertheless ordered unprecedented
cooperation with the Mueller investigation. A brilliant move in hindsight. I don't recall
very much handwringing about the bad precedent this set for presidential power.
Trump's insight, and in no small part it explains his continued survival, is his refusal
to accept the appearance of his fully possessing his Article II powers. Most especially in
the context of the National Security State.
Utz has written how even Eisenhower was foiled from negotiating to reduce tensions with
the Soviet Union/Krushchev. If they could derail the POTUS then doing so with those that
followed him should have been easy by comparison and, I think, was. The trend since, as the
USG's global power grew, was for president's to ever quickly give way upon after office to
the role of what I call Figurehead/Pitchman. It's a Safe Space, as was palpably obvious
through Obama's two terms.
While Figurehead/Pitchman versus Real POTUS is, of course, a spectrum not a dichotomy,
Trump for reasons I don't need to belabor has effectively constituted a sharp break.
So, decisions of his like the following, facially a diminution of his authority, which
passed without a great deal of notice, struck me as him protecting himself from his
authorizing military actions designed to end his presidency:
The longer Trump survives the further these highest order threats of nuclear war and to
our Constitutional Republic recede. Even if it doesn't seem that way at moments like
this.
It's childish nonsense the idea that any foreign state, including Russia, thought Trump
would win, much less wanted him to do so. It's equally juvenile, especially close to three
years hence, to not understand that foreign adversaries and allies alike awaited a resolution
of this factional war internally within the US, avoiding catastrophe in the meantime.
Thankfully, at least so far, since Trump took the oath, the foreign powers for which a
Hillary presidency would have been a geopolitical gift of historic proportions (e.g. China;
Iran), have largely made their peace with that lost opportunity.
Bolton Opposed Ukraine Investigations; Called Giuliani "A Hand Grenade" by
Tyler Durden Tue, 10/15/2019 - 12:25 0 SHARES
Former national security adviser John Bolton was 'so alarmed' by efforts to encourage Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and 2016
election meddling that he told an aide, Fiona Hill, to alert White House lawyers, according to the
New York Times
.
When Hill confronted Sondland, he told her that he was 'in charge' of Ukraine, "a moment she compared to Secretary of State Alexander
M. Haig Jr.'s declaration that he was in charge after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, according to those who heard the testimony,"
according to the Times.
Hill says she asked Sondland on whose authority he was in charge of Ukraine, to which he replied 'the president.' She would later
leave her post shortly before a July 25 phone call with Ukraine's president which is currently at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, the Times also notes that "House Democrats widened their net in the fast-paced inquiry by summoning Michael McKinley,
a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who abruptly resigned last week, to testify Wednesday."
Career diplomats have expressed outrage at the unceremonious
removal of Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch from Ukraine after she came under attack by Mr. Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr. and
two associates who have since been arrested on charges of campaign violations.
Three other Trump admin officials are scheduled to speak with House investigators this week, including Sondland - who is now set
to appear on Thursday. On Tuesday, deputy assistant secretary of state George Kent will testify, while on Friday, Laura K. Cooper
- a a deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia policy, will speak with lawmakers as well.
Looks like we have our whistleblower. My only question is, how does one whistle with such a bristly moustache draping their
hairlip?
So now we have Mr. Neocon and Mr. Liddle Kidz conjugating as the strangest of bedfellows? How will this play to their respective
bases? Are we to assume these people think this nations top law enforcement agent (POTUS) is to abdicate his duties therewith
just because the criminal is (at least according to our two tiered justice system) supposed to be beyond reproach?
Mr. Bolton, bright and determined as he is, has hitched his wagon to mad mare galloping full tilt over a precipice.
Looking for a return of uranium one to the headlines soon. In due time we will stich this Russia/Ukraine narrative back together
from a patchwork of facts. You traitors are fucked...royally fucked...and you know it.
So, Mr bolton, explain to us in simple terms how you appraise America's security and her related interests. Your camp is in
eclipse.
John Bolton:
"I was appauled...just flabbergasted...that the president was concerned that our intelligence apparatus was politicized to
the extent that its highest echelons were arrayed in an attempt to subvert a lawful and legitimate election. Never mind that six
other nations were tasked with abetting this treasonous plot...this is an outrage!!! The whole point of intelligence agencies
is to skirt the law with impunity, and once we (the unelected permanent breacracy) tell one of our minions like Biden or Hillary
that they're permanently immune from prosecution, we can't have some earnest pact of Patriots running around demanding law and
order."
What a sorry bunch of cretians.
We were so close...so close...to losing it all. But since the enemy is making clear we're playing zero sum, we're going to
end up with everything.
Brace yourself, California. If I were you, I'd study the legal framework of Reconstruction. Your plight will be of a kind.
Your state has been engaged in a systematic attempt to overthrow the government. Your leaders will be appointed for a generation
after this all comes out. Don't look to Beijing to save you...they kinda have their hands full.
So, I guess Bolton is no longer collecting free money like Hunter Biden was. I get it now how all these politicians have kids
overseas and open foreign corporations which our tax money goes in to by way of cutting deals overseas public officials to line
their pockets with our money. This how they get into government poor and become very rich! Giuliani is pointing this fact out
to the public with Trump and the swamp HATES IT!
The public now knows how these corrupt PUBLIC OFFICIALS in America have been fleecing the tax payers. This is a major hit on
the swamp.
Trump & Giuliani we're behind you thank you for showing us how the swamp has been ******* us for all these years.
Understand that the reason Schitt head won't allow public hearings is because the former Ambassador to Ukraine--Volker, shot
this whole **** fest down when he testified. There is no "there" there.
Bolton and the others are crying because of Trump's pull out. The left jumped on the war bandwagon under Billary a long time
ago. Necons work both parties.
If Bolton dislikes Guiliani that's the best endorsement of Rudy I can imagine. Bolton is a complete warmongering traitor who,
like McShitstain, desires a nice case of brain cancer.
Go Rudy, expose the corrupt Demonrats! We deplorables love human hand grenades. That's why we elected the Donald, and you apparently
are the perfect lawyer for our great God emperor.
"Schiff simply does not have the gravitas that a weighty procedure such as impeachment requires," Biggs wrote in an opinion
piece for Fox News. "He has repeatedly shown incredibly poor judgment. He has persistently and consistently demonstrated that
he has such a tremendous bias and animus against Trump that he will say anything and accept any proffer of even bogus evidence
to try to remove the president from office."
"... Hitler's Third Reich was obliterated by massive military force in 1945. It lasted just 12 years. Stalin's Soviet Union bore the brunt of beating Hitler, but later succumbed to economic sclerosis. It fell apart in 1991, after 68 years. The mystery of the People's Republic of China is that it is still with us. ..."
The 70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China was not a birthday I felt like
celebrating. As Dutch historian Frank Dikötter has shown in his searing three-volume
history of the Mao Zedong era, the Communist regime claimed the lives of tens of millions of
people: 2 million in the revolution between 1949 and 1951, another 3 million by the end of
the 1950s, up to 45 million in the man-made famine known as the "Great Leap Forward," and yet
more in the mayhem of the Cultural Revolution, Mao's campaign against the intelligentsia,
which escalated into a civil war.
Hitler's Third Reich was obliterated by massive military force in 1945. It lasted just
12 years. Stalin's Soviet Union bore the brunt of beating Hitler, but later succumbed to
economic sclerosis. It fell apart in 1991, after 68 years. The mystery of the People's
Republic of China is that it is still with us.
Now, I could give you a rather boring explanation of why I think China's bid to "catch up
and surpass" (ganchao) the United States will fail. But maybe a more interesting answer can
be found in Liu Cixin's astonishing 2008 novel, "The Three-Body Problem," which I read for
the first time last week.
The problem of the title is introduced to the reader -- and to the nanotechnology
scientist Wang Miao, one of the central characters -- as a virtual reality game, set in a
strange, distant world with three suns rather than the familiar one. The mutually perturbing
gravitational attractions of the three suns prevent this planet from ever settling into a
predictable orbit with regular days, nights, and seasons. It has occasional "stable eras,"
during which civilization can advance, but with minimal warning, these give way to "chaotic
eras" of intense heat or cold that render the planet uninhabitable The central conceit of
Liu's novel is that China's history has the same pattern as the three-body problem: periods
of stability always end with periods of chaos -- what the Chinese call dong luan. The other
key character in the book is Ye Wenjie, who sees her father, a professor at Tsinghua
University, beaten to death by a gang of teenage Red Guards during the Cultural
Revolution.
Banished from Beijing to a labor camp in benighted rural backwater, Ye is rescued when she
is given a lowly job in a mysterious observatory known as Red Coast. But nothing can undo the
emotional damage of witnessing her father's murder. Nor can she escape the chaos of
Communism. She watches in horror as the entire area around the observatory is deforested.
Everything -- even astrophysics -- is subordinated to Mao's warped ideology.
Disillusioned completely by the madness of mankind -- a sentiment reinforced by a chance
meeting with an American environmentalist -- Ye stumbles on a way of beaming a message from
Earth deep into space by bouncing it off the sun. When, after years of empty noise, a clear
message is received in reply, she does not hesitate. Even though the message is a warning not
to communicate with Trisolaris -- the name of a real planet with three suns -- Ye sends
another message, ensuring that the Trisolarians can locate Earth, and initiate their
long-planned relocation.
Rehabilitated in the political thaw that follows Mao's death, Ye Wenjie returns to
Beijing, following in her father's footsteps as a physics professor. But she leads a double
life, for she also becomes the Commander of the Earth-Trisolaris Movement, a radically
misanthropic organization dedicated to helping the Trisolarians conquer earth. Acute readers
will notice that this group's ideology is a subtle parody of Maoism.
"Start a global rebellion!" they shout. "Long live the spirit of Trisolaris! We shall
persevere like the stubborn grass that resprouts after every wildfire! ... Eliminate human
tyranny!"
Little do they know that the Trisolarians are even worse than humans. As one of the aliens
points out to their leader, because of their world's utter unpredictability, "Everything is
devoted to survival. To permit the survival of the civilization as a whole, there is almost
no respect for the individual. Someone who can no longer work is put to death. Trisolarian
society exists under a state of extreme authoritarianism." Life for the individual consists
of "monotony and desiccation." That sounds a lot like Mao's China.
There is one scene in "The Three-Body Problem" that sticks in the mind. An adult and a
child stand looking at the grave of a Red Guard killed during the factional battles that
raged during the Cultural Revolution. "Are they heroes?" asks the child. The adult says no.
"Are they enemies?" The adult again says no. "Then who are they?" The adult replies:
"History."
True, the hero of the story is the foul-mouthed, chain-smoking Beijing cop Shi Qiang.
Chinese readers doubtless relish the scene when he lectures a pompous American general about
how best to save the world.
But the deeper meaning of the book is surely that Trisolaris is China. The three bodies in
contention are not suns but classes: rulers, intellectuals, masses. Right now, China is in
one of its stable phases. But, as the contending forces shift, chaos will sooner or later
return. Perhaps it already has, in Hong Kong.
If it spreads, I -- and history -- will win that bet.
The Three-Body Problem is a hard science fiction novel by the Chinese writer Liu Cixin. It is
the first novel of the Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy, but Chinese readers generally
refer to the whole series by the title of this first novel. The second and third novels in
the trilogy are titled The Dark Forest and Death's End. The title of the first novel refers
to the three-body problem in orbital mechanics. ...
The English translation by Ken Liu was published by Tor Books in 2014. It was the first
Asian novel ever to win a Hugo Award for Best Novel, in 2015 and was nominated for the 2014
Nebula Award for Best Novel.
(An amazing trilogy. Inspired by Arthur Clarke (*). Looks like Niall has read the first
book.)
* 'The Songs of Distant Earth' is a 1986 science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C.
Clarke, based upon his 1958 short story of the same title. He stated that it was his
favourite of all his novels. ... The novel tells of a utopian human colony in the far future
that is visited by travellers from a doomed Earth, as the Sun has gone nova. The Songs of
Distant Earth explores apocalyptic, atheistic, and utopian ideas, as well as the effects of
long-term interstellar travel and extra-terrestrial life. (Wikipedia)
('Songs' is optimistic; 'Remembrance of
Earth's Past is not.)
At its core, exceptionalism places America outside of normal history into a category of its
own. Our initial "escape" from history followed two interrelated tracks: one was the religious
radicalism of the Puritans, the other was the frontier experience. Both paths were the
warpath.
The early settlers believed that they were "chosen" -- blessed by a special relationship to
their God. They viewed their " errand in the wilderness " as
a holy mission destined to bring a new and better way of life to the world. God's judgment on
their progress was revealed in the bounty of a harvest or the outcome of a war.
Exceptionalism was not a free-floating idea but was forged into a lasting culture by the
frontier wars aimed at the elimination or assimilation of native people and the conquest of
land. America's frontier history produced a lasting mythology that popularized empire and white
settler culture while cloaking their many contradictions.
I know it is hard to believe that the Puritans are still camped out in our minds. The old
religious radicalism has taken modern form in the liberal-sounding belief that the US military
is a "force for good (read God) in the world." The double-edged sword of exceptionalism traps
us into repeating history: our high moral standards and special role in the world gives us
license for wars and aggressions. It is the liberal elements of exceptionalism that are most
seductive, most difficult to wrap our heads around, and the most effective at winning our
consent to war.
Exceptionalism Wins Our Consent to War With A One-Two Punch
On the one hand, we have the "hard" exceptionalism like that of the Cold War (New and Old)
and the War on Terrorism. These war stories revolve around a rigid binary of good and evil.
After 9/11, in scores of speeches, George W. Bush repeated the mantra that there were "no gray
areas" in the struggle between good and evil.
On the other hand, "soft" exceptionalism takes a slightly different tack by appealing to the
liberal in us. Stories of rescue, protection, democracy and humanitarian efforts assure us of
our goodness. Obama mastered this narrative by claiming the US had a "duty to protect" the weak
and vulnerable in places like Libya.
These two strains of war stories are the narrative one-two punch, winning our consent to war
and empire.
Here is how war propaganda works: if authority figures in government and media denounce
foreign leaders or countries or immigrants as an evil threat and repeat it thousands of times,
they do not even have to say, "We are the chosen people destined to bring light to the world."
They know that millions of Americans will unconsciously refer to the exceptionalist code by
default because it's so deeply embedded in our culture. Once made brave by our exceptional
character and sense of superiority, the next moves are war, violence and white
supremacy.
Myth Meets the American War in Vietnam
The Vietnam War, and the resistance to it, profoundly challenged all existing war stories.
At the heart of this disruption was the soldier's revolt. Thousands of
US soldiers and veterans came to oppose the very war they fought in . An anti-war movement
inside the military was totally unprecedented in US history. The war-makers have been
scrambling to repair the damage ever since.
Following the defeat of US forces in Vietnam, the elites shifted gears. The idea that the US
could create a new democratic nation -- South Vietnam -- was an utter illusion that no amount
of fire-power could overcome. In truth, the US selected a series of petty tyrants to rule that
could never win the allegiance of the Vietnamese people because they were the transparent
puppets of American interests. The ruling class learned a lesson that forced them to abandon
the liberal veneer of "nation-building."
The Next Generation of War Stories: From "Noble
Cause" to "Humanitarian War."
Ronald Regan tried to repair the damaged narratives by recasting the Vietnam War as a "Noble
Cause." The Noble Cause appealed to people hurt and confused by the US defeat, as well as the
unrepentant war-makers, because it attempted to restore the old good vs. evil narrative of
exceptionalism. For Regan, America needed to rediscover its original mission as a
"city on a hill" -- a shining example to the world. Every single President since has
repeated that faith.
The Noble Cause narrative was reproduced in numerous bad movies and dubious academic studies
that tried to refight the war (and win this time!). Its primary function was to restore
exceptionalism in the minds of the American people. While Regan succeeded to a considerable
degree -- as we can see in the pro-war policy of both corporate parties -- "nation-building"
never recovered its power as a military strategy or war story.
The next facade was Clinton's "humanitarian war." Humanitarian war attempted to relight the
liberal beacon by replacing the problems of nation-building with the paternalistic do-gooding
of a superior culture and country. In effect, the imperialists recycled the 19th Century war
story of "Manifest Destiny" or "White Man's Burden." That "burden" was the supposed duty of
white people to lift lesser people up to the standards of western civilization -- even if that
required a lot of killing.
This kind of racist thinking legitimized the US overseas empire at its birth. Maybe it would
work again in empires' old age?
From the "War on Terrorism" to the "Responsibility to
Protect."
After the shock of 9/11 the narrative shifted again. Bush's "global war on terrorism"
reactivated the good vs. evil framing of the Cold War. The "war on terror" was an incoherent
military or political strategy except for its promise of forever wars.
Just as the Cold War was a "long twilight struggle" against an elusive but ruthless
communist enemy, terrorists might be anywhere and everywhere and do anything. And, like the
fight against communism, the war on terrorism would require the US to wage aggressive wars,
launch preemptive strikes, use covert activities and dodge both international law and the US
Constitution.
9/11 also tapped into deeply-rooted nationalistic and patriotic desires among everyday
people to protect and serve their country. The first attack on US soil in modern memory
powerfully restored the old binary: when faced with unspeakable evil, the US military became a
"force for good in the world." It's easy to forget just how potent the combination is and how
it led us into the War in Iraq. According to
The Washington Post :
Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10
Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even
though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of
this.
The mythology is so deep that at first the people, soldiers especially, just had to believe
there was a good reason to attack Iraq. So we fell back on exceptionalism despite the total
absence of evidence. Of course Bush made no attempt to correct this misinformation. The myth
served him too well -- as did the official propaganda campaign claiming Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction.
But in due course, some of the faithful became doubters. A peace movement of global
proportions took shape. But in the US far too much of what appeared as resistance was driven by
narrow partisan
opposition to Republicans rather than principled opposition to war and empire.
But fear not war-makers -- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton came to the rescue! As they
continued Bush's wars in the Middle East and expanded the war zone to include Libya, Syria and
then all of Africa, they sweetened "humanitarian war" with a heaping dose of cool-coated
"Responsibility to Protect." Once again, American goodness and innocence made the medicine go
down and our wars raged on.
Obama restored legitimacy to the empire so effectively that it took years for the illegal,
immoral, racist and "unwinnable" wars to reveal themselves to the public. I was told by one of
the leaders of About Face: Veterans
Against War that they almost had to close shop after Obama was elected because their donor
base dried up. Obama's hope was our dope. Just as the daze was finally lifting, Trump started
to take the mask off.
Is The Mask Off?
Today's we face an empire with the mask half off. Trump's doctrine -- "We are not
nation-building again, we are killing terrorists." -- is a revealing take on military trends
that began with the first US – Afghan War (1978-1992). US leaders gave up nation-building
and opted for failed states and political chaos instead of the strong states that
nation-building, or its illusion, required. The US military began to rely on
mercenaries and terrorists to replace the American
citizen-soldier. The
soldier revolt of the Vietnam Era already proved that everyday Americans were an unreliable
force to achieve imperial ambitions.
Nothing rips the mask off of the humanitarian justifications better than the actual
experience of combat in a war for oil and power -- so the war managers tried to reduce combat
exposure to a few. And they succeeded. The number of official US troops abroad
reached a 60-year low by 2017 . Even still
a new resistance movement of veterans is gathering steam .
Can
the "Green New Military" Put The Mask Back On?
The recycled imperial justifications of the past are losing their power: Manifest Destiny,
White Mans' Burden, leader of the free world, nation-building, humanitarian war, war against
terrorism, responsibility to protect -- what's next? If only the military could be seen as
saviors once again.
So far the New Cold War against Russia and China has recycled the anti-communist conspiracy
of the old Cold War into the xenophobic conspiracy theory of Russia-gate. Even a trusted tool
like Mueller could not make it work as a coherent narrative but no matter -- the US did not
skip a beat in building up
military bases on Russia's borders .
The media and political attacks on Russia or China or immigrants, or Iran or Syria are
likely to continue because propagandists cannot activate the exceptionalist code without an
evil enemy. Still, it takes more than evil. An effective war story for the US ruling class must
project the liberal ideas of helping, protection, saving and the spread of democracy in order
to engineer mass consent to war. Hence the need for "Humanitarian War," "Duty to Protect" or
maybe the"Green New Military."
Let anyone propose a retreat from any battlefield and the "humanitarian" war cry will rally
the empire's pawns and savior-types. If we practice our exceptionalism religiously -- and
religion it is -- then the US empire will never ever pull back from any war at any time. There
is always someone for the empire to "protect and save:" from the "Noble Savages" and innocent
white settlers of the frontier, to the Vietnamese Catholics, to the women of Afghanistan, to
the Kurds of Syria.
We so want to see our wars as a morality play, just as the Puritans did, but the empire is
all about power and profit.
"War is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means." -- Carl
von Clausewitz
All the Big Brass study Clausewitz because he is the founder of western military science --
but they are so blinded by the dilemmas of empire that they make a mess of his central
teaching: War is politics.
None of the war narratives and none of the wars can solve the most important question of
politics: governance . Who will govern the colonies? The overwhelming verdict of history is
this: colonies cannot be democratically or humanely governed as long as they are colonies.
Until the empire retreats its heavy hand will rule in places like Afghanistan.
The empire is reaching the limits of exceptionalism as both war narrative and national
mythology. This is why our rulers are forced to desperate measures: perpetual war, occupation,
intense propaganda campaigns like Russia-gate, the reliance on mercenaries and terrorists, and
the abuse and betrayal of their own soldiers.
Just as damning to the war machine is the collapse of conventional ideas about victory and
defeat. The US military can no longer "win." The question of victory is important on a deep
cultural level. According to the original mythology, the outcome of wars waged by "the chosen
people" are an indication of God's favor or disfavor. In modern terms, defeat delegitimizes the
state. Endless war is no substitute for "victory."
But it's not military victory we want. Our victory will be in ending war, dismantling the
empire, abolishing the vast militarized penal system and stopping irreparable climate chaos.
Our resistance will create a new narrative but it can only be written when millions of people
become the authors of their own history.
The empire is slipping into decline and chaos – one way or another. Will we be actors
deciding the fate of the American Empire or will it's collapse dictate our fate? But these wars
will, sooner or later, become the graveyard of empire -- or else America is truly exceptional
and we really are God's chosen people.
"... George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game: ..."
"... This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end of his days. ..."
"... DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity. From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power." ..."
"... There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect. ..."
"Comedian Ellen DeGeneres loves to tell everyone to be kind. It's a loose word, kindness; on her show, DeGeneres customarily
uses it to mean a generic sort of niceness. Don't bully. Befriend people! It's a charming thought, though it has its limits
as a moral ethic. There are people in the world, after all, whom it is better not to befriend. Consider, for example, the person
of George W. Bush. Tens of thousands of people are dead because his administration lied to the American public about the presence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and then, based on that lie, launched a war that's now in its 16th year. After Hurricane
Katrina struck and hundreds of people drowned in New Orleans, Bush twiddled his thumbs for days. Rather than fire the officials
responsible for the government's life-threateningly lackluster response to the crisis, he praised them, before flying over
the scene in Air Force One. He opposed basic human rights for LGBT people, and reproductive rights for women, and did more
to empower the American Christian right than any president since Reagan.
George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether
he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only
moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game:
And here is Ellen DeGeneres explaining why it's good and normal to share laughs, small talk, and nachos with a man who has
many deaths on his conscience:
Here's the money quote from her apologia:
"We're all different. And I think that we've forgotten that that's okay that we're all different," she told her studio
audience. "When I say be kind to one another, I don't mean be kind to the people who think the same way you do. I mean be
kind to everyone."
This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it
should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still
have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end
of his days.
Nevertheless, many celebrities and politicians have hailed DeGeneres for her radical civility:
There's almost no point to rebutting anything that Chris Cillizza writes. Whatever he says is inevitably dumb and wrong,
and then I get angry while I think about how much money he gets to be dumb and wrong on a professional basis. But on this occasion,
I'll make an exception. The notion that DeGeneres's friendship with Bush is antithetical to Trumpism fundamentally misconstrues
the force that makes Trump possible. Trump isn't a simple playground bully, he's the president. Americans grant our commanders-in-chief
extraordinary deference once they leave office. They become celebrities, members of an apolitical royal class. This tendency
to separate former presidents from the actions of their office, as if they were merely actors in a stage play, or retired athletes
from a rival team, contributes to the atmosphere of impunity that enabled Trump. If Trump's critics want to make sure that
his cruelties are sins the public and political class alike never tolerate again, our reflexive reverence for the presidency
has to die.
DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity.
From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems
very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power."
...I am all in favor of Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance, but this comment shows me she is too childish to hold any power.
Tulsi Gabbard
Verified account @TulsiGabbard
22h22 hours ago
.@TheEllenShow msg of being kind to ALL is so needed right now. Enough with the divisiveness. We can't let politics tear
us apart. There are things we will disagree on strongly, and things we agree on -- let's treat each other with respect, aloha,
& work together for the people.
There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect.
"... "The app displays police locations and we have verified with the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau that the app has been used to target and ambush police, threaten public safety, and criminals have used it to victimize residents in areas where they know there is no law enforcement," the company said in a statement. ..."
The maker of the iPhone has removed an app that allowed rioters in Hong Kong track where police are located after reports that
it was used to ambush officers and vandalize communities where law enforcement was not present. Following the suit of other companies
taking sides in ongoing tensions in China's autonomous city, Apple allowed HKmap.live to appear in its app store. The 'noble' goal
of helping rioters praised in the media has brought the opposite result.
"The app displays police locations and we have verified with the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau that
the app has been used to target and ambush police, threaten public safety, and criminals have used it to victimize residents in areas
where they know there is no law enforcement," the company said in a statement.
"... "Is Apple guiding Hong Kong thugs?" the Chinese People's Daily newspaper wondered in an op-ed published on Wednesday. Beijing tore into the trillion-dollar company for offering HKmap.live, a map app that allows users to report and track police activity, warning the app "facilitates illegal behavior" and that Apple is hurting its reputation among Chinese consumers by "mixing business with politics and commercial activity with illegal activities." " ..."
"... This recklessness will cause much trouble for Apple ," the People's Daily declared, advising the tech firm to " think deeply ." ..."
"... Hong Kong's cheerleaders are rapidly finding out they may have bitten off more than they can chew. It's rarely a good idea, as a global business, to alienate 1.4 billion people living in the world's second-largest economy. ..."
"... More importantly, most Americans don't want a side of politics when they buy a smartphone or go to a basketball game. ..."
Beijing is angry at Apple for allowing a police-tracking map used by Hong Kong protesters in its App Store. Pressure grows on
US companies doing business in China to take a side, as virtue-signaling clashes with serving customers. "Is Apple guiding Hong
Kong thugs?" the Chinese People's Daily newspaper wondered in an op-ed published on Wednesday. Beijing tore into the trillion-dollar
company for offering HKmap.live, a map app that allows users to report and track police activity, warning the app "facilitates
illegal behavior" and that Apple is hurting its reputation among Chinese consumers by "mixing business with politics and commercial
activity with illegal activities." "
This recklessness will cause much trouble for Apple ," the People's Daily declared,
advising the tech firm to " think deeply ."
The majority of Apple's products are manufactured in China, and those that aren't are assembled in Texas from Chinese parts. China
is the second-largest market for Apple products, and CEO Tim Cook expects it will soon overtake the US as number one.
According to HKmap.live's developers, Apple initially rejected the app during a reviewing process, but reconsidered following
an appeal. It allows users to report not only the locations and movement of police, but also the use of tear gas and other protester-specific
features. The protests, which began in May over a now-shelved extradition bill, have grown quite violent, with some rioters turning
on ordinary citizens who merely express solidarity with the mainland.
It's not as if Apple has a track record of defying China's wishes – the company does not include the Taiwan flag emoji on its
Chinese devices, and this week has gone further by hiding the flag from users in Hong Kong and Macau. China does not recognize Taiwan
as a separate country.
Nor do people look to Apple as their moral guiding light. The Foxconn factories used by the company in China have become infamous
after a wave of worker suicides, so much that Apple had "suicide nets" installed to stop the employees from jumping to their
deaths.
So where did this sudden urge to stand up for rioters that have become the darlings of the West come from? Apple joins a lengthening
list of American corporate entities – including the makers of adult cartoon 'South Park', the manager of NBA team the Houston Rockets,
and Vans shoes – who've piled on China following the outbreak of the protests during the summer.
Virtue-signaling is almost expected of American companies in the Trump era. Celebrities who don't speak out against the president
are assumed to be secretly harboring pro-Trump sympathies, for example. China probably seems like an easier target than the president
– Beijing is halfway around the world and currently embroiled in a trade war with the US.
Hong Kong's cheerleaders are rapidly
finding out they may have bitten off more than they can chew. It's rarely a good idea, as a global business, to alienate 1.4 billion
people living in the world's second-largest economy. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, who initially spoke up for Rockets manager Daryl
Morey's "freedom of expression" after he tweeted in support of the protests, has modified his statement to include understanding
that there are "consequences" to such freedoms and is scrambling to reach an understanding with China after the nation's largest
state-run TV station dropped NBA games in retaliation.
Look for Apple to do something similar if the government controlling its manufacturing and its second-largest market decides to
punish its insolence.
More importantly, most Americans don't want a side of politics when they buy a smartphone or go to a basketball game. The vast
majority of consumers – those who aren't on Twitter shrieking over the latest revelation that a CEO attended a Trump fundraiser –
are not interested in a company's ability to virtue signal. They want a product that works, not one that tells them what to think.
China’s embassy in France has slammed the country’s reaction to protests in Hong Kong, calling it hypocritical and arguing France
should show empathy as China did when Paris was trying to cope with Yellow Vests.
The diplomatic mission was commenting on a statement issued by the European Union, and swiftly repeated by the French Foreign
Ministry last week, after Hong Kong police used live ammunition against a protester in self-defense for the first time in four months
of demonstrations.
"... "Sorry, until George W. Bush is brought to justice for the crimes of the Iraq War, (including American-lead torture, Iraqi deaths & displacement, and the deep scars -- emotional & otherwise -- inflicted on our military that served his folly), we can't even begin to talk about kindness," the actor of Incredible Hulk fame tweeted. ..."
"... While some online were appreciative of the anti-Bush sentiment, many wondered aloud why similar treatment was rarely afforded to Bush's successor, Barack Obama, who is largely given a pass despite pursuing – in some cases escalating – many of the same policies for which Bush is condemned today. ..."
"... From a massive escalation of the Afghan war in 2009, ramping up drone bombings on Pakistan, establishing a secret presidential "kill list" that included American citizens, leading a NATO operation that left Libya in ruin, or arming violent Islamist militants in Syria – Obama still has much to answer for, but is rarely asked to do so. Despite bragging that he'd already bombed seven countries by 2015, liberal celebrities like Ruffalo have had few harsh words for the Nobel Peace Prize winner. ..."
"... *Nobel Peace Drones™ ..."
"... "Mark Ruffalo (correctly) calling out George Bush for being a war criminal, responsible for the displacement and death of millions," ..."
Actor Mark Ruffalo was shredded for double standards after he posted a "callout" tweet
assailing George Bush for the sins of the Iraq War, with many netizens noting his aversion to
slamming Barack Obama's military adventures. Weighing into a controversy kicked off by TV
personality Ellen Degeneres, who came under fire for schmoozing it up with former President
George W. Bush at a football game last weekend, Ruffalo insisted no quarter or kindness should
be offered to perpetrators of heinous war crimes until they face consequences, including
Bush.
"Sorry, until George W. Bush is brought to justice for the crimes of the Iraq War,
(including American-lead torture, Iraqi deaths & displacement, and the deep scars --
emotional & otherwise -- inflicted on our military that served his folly), we can't even
begin to talk about kindness," the actor of Incredible Hulk fame tweeted.
Sorry, until George W. Bush is brought to justice for the crimes of the Iraq War,
(including American-lead torture, Iraqi deaths & displacement, and the deep scars --
emotional & otherwise -- inflicted on our military that served his folly), we can't even
begin to talk about kindness. https://t.co/dpMwfck6su
While some online were appreciative of the anti-Bush sentiment, many wondered aloud why
similar treatment was rarely afforded to Bush's successor, Barack Obama, who is largely given a
pass despite pursuing – in some cases escalating – many of the same policies for
which Bush is condemned today.
Claiming Bush is some monster while worshipping Obama even though they did the same things
abroad🤔
From a massive escalation of the Afghan war in 2009, ramping up drone bombings on Pakistan,
establishing a secret presidential "kill list" that included American citizens, leading
a NATO operation that left Libya in ruin, or arming violent Islamist militants in Syria –
Obama still has much to answer for, but is rarely asked to do so. Despite bragging that he'd
already bombed seven countries by 2015, liberal celebrities like Ruffalo have had few harsh
words for the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
"Woke Twitter, [including] Mark Ruffalo, are selective about call outs," one user
observed, noting the several occasions former first lady Michelle Obama posed affectionately
with Bush without facing a similar wave of outrage from figures like Ruffalo.
People ripping Jameela Jamil and the celebs in these screenshots but it was tumbleweed 101
when Michelle Obama was getting regular sweeties fixes from George W. Bush & going above
and beyond duty in friendly optics. Woke Twitter, incl Mark Ruffalo, are selective about call
outs. pic.twitter.com/snNYZEbAWM
It's funny how Mark Ruffalo can criticize Ellen, who was an actual person affected by
Bush's ignorance, but not a peep about Michelle Obama who admits to having a special
FRIENDSHIP with GW. https://t.co/9UM1BP8GpY
Another commenter seconded Ruffalo's views on Bush, but encouraged the actor to take his
criticism further, applying the same humanitarian standard evenly, regardless of the party in
power.
"Mark Ruffalo (correctly) calling out George Bush for being a war criminal, responsible
for the displacement and death of millions," the user said.
The same is true for Obama. He started 5 wars and displaced even more people than Bush.
However, Obama is a media darling who Mark gushes over.
Mark Ruffalo (correctly) calling out George Bush for being a war criminal, responsible for
the displacement and death of millions
The same is true for Obama. He started 5 wars and displaced even more people than Bush
However, Obama is a media darling who Mark gushes over
100% on Bush. You forgot to add Obama & Clinton though. No reason to root for justice
against one war criminal, while giving a free pass to others. It makes it partisan, rather
than ethical.
I did not vote for Trump, or for Hillary, but I firmly agree with analysis of Bacevich here:
> Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental hubris. When it comes to tallying
up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include thousands
of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands
of non-Americans killed or injured; millions displaced; trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and
in its case even formed inside a US prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it has yet to
recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
> The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the administration of President Bill Clinton
and continued by his successor. Deregulating the banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet,
as a direct result of the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment shot up to
10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock market cratered and millions saw their life
savings evaporate. Again, the question must be asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
Hong Kong police have seized weapons, armor and materials used to create Molotov cocktails,
which they said belonged to radical groups among the protesters labeled 'pro-democracy' by
western media. According to the police, on Monday and Tuesday they targeted 48 locations
throughout the city that they suspected were connected with violent protesters, who have been
waging street battles against the police force for several months.
The police arrested 51 people, including seven women, who were aged between 15 and 44, and
charged them with various crimes related to the rioting.
... ... ...
The authorities published
photos of the items they discovered during the raid, which include several suits of body armor,
various melee weapons as well as chemicals and glass bottles used in the manufacturing of
petrol bombs – a weapon routinely deployed by the protesters to cause chaos in Hong
Kong.
... ... ...
Mass anti-government protests first gripped the Chinese city in March, when thousands took
to the streets to protest an extradition bill that they deemed an attack on Hong Kong's
autonomy under the so-called "one country, two systems" arrangement. The bill has since been
revoked, but the protest movement's demands have continued to grow and it has become more
violent in its approach.
... ... ...
Peaceful protest demonstrations in Hong Kong, which have been the prime focus for Western
media coverage, take place against the backdrop of vandalism, harassment of businesses deemed
loyal to the central government and outright rioting.
"... "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . ." ..."
"... I have not always been a pacifist, but my view is "liberal internationalism" can never excuse war. ..."
"... Particularly, as US pushed "liberal internationalism" is maintaining a post WW II world order to add to its Degeneracy. ..."
"... They conflate PNAC strategy with US security and anyone not in to military intervention for the PNAC is a traitor. ..."
This is what institutional, "humanitarian" power looks like: Fluff pieces in liberal media
with zero input from people on the receiving end of your bombs; unchecked power to decide who
lives and who dies; and (most of all) never having to answer for it.
To [Samantha Power] applies Scott Fitzgerald's often cited comment. Once Biden is back in
power, all these people will come back from the cold & rain the bombs on the globally
deplorables.
Lily Lynch @lilyslynch
This is what institutional, "humanitarian" power looks like: Fluff pieces in liberal media
with zero input from people on the receiving end of your bombs; unchecked power to decide who
lives and who dies; and (most of all) never having to answer for it.
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then
retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them
together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . ."
"liberal internationalism in Obama's cabinet. That made her [Powers] a target for his
critics. Her openness to military intervention – she was against [W Bush?] it in Iraq
but for it in Libya – drew flak from the left."
How can a supposed liberal [Obama was not a liberal in a traditional sense, maybe post
modern?] favor military intervention?
Does it involve ignoring "state run industrial age mass murder"?
Does it see a rationalized outcome to justify state mass murder?
I think post modern morality goes more towards the means don't matter much less the end---
see Libya!
I have not always been a pacifist, but my view is "liberal internationalism" can never
excuse war.
Particularly, as US pushed "liberal internationalism" is maintaining a post WW II world
order to add to its Degeneracy.
Looks like Us politicians adopted the stance: if you can't win against Israel lobby,
join... And yea we should talk about Zionists as a flavor of far right nationalism, nit about Jews, per se. The latter smells with
anti-Semitism as it accuses the ethnic group as a whole. Which is not only false, but also self-defeating stance:
Russophobia is "politically correct" anti-Semitism in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
"... I would suggest to Phil Giraldi to talk about Zionists instead of Jews doing Israel's bidding. These Zionists adhere to the most racist and Apartheid ideology under the sun; Zionism. Not every Jew is a Zionist. Therefore it's an insult to those Jews who do not adhere to this wicked ideology and resist it. The notion of the right-wing Zionist regime in Israel to speak in the name of world Jewry should be rejected not only by the Jewish citizens of each country but by the public in general. It's amount to the hijacking of Jews in the name of a vile racist and occupation regime. Such a claim puts the local Jewish population in a precarious position, which could reproach in "dual loyalty." As Giraldi has pointed out numerous times, the majority of Americans have lost control of their Middle Eastern policy. A group of people whose loyalty to the US can cautiously describe as vague are in charge. ..."
"... I read in a sidebar on Antiwar.com that Sigal Mandelker was one of the attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. ..."
"... Mandelker was one of the DOJ officials who signed off on Epstein's sweetheart nonprosecution agreement. One suspects she was the superior of Alexander Acosta who told him that Epstein belonged to intelligence and was above Acosta's pay grade. ..."
Given Israel's clearly demonstrated ability to manipulate and manage American government at
all levels, there is inevitably considerable speculation about the presence of actual Israeli
citizens in the federal and state bureaucracies. Very often, lists that appear on the internet
focus on Jewish legislators, but in reality, few of them are likely to have Israeli citizenship
even if they regularly exhibit what amounts to "dual loyalty" sympathy for the Jewish state.
Nevertheless, Jews who are Zionists are
vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the
Middle East.
There are, of course, some Jews who flaunt their identification with Israel, to include
current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who describes himself as "protector" of Israel and
former Senator Frank Lautenberg, frequently referred to as "Israel's Senator." One might also
include Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff and mayor of Chicago, who reportedly
served as a
volunteer in the Israeli Army, and Doug Feith, who caused so much mischief from his perch
at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Feith had a law office in Jerusalem, suggesting
that he might have obtained Israeli citizenship.
To be sure there are many non-Jews in the American government who have hitched their star to
the Israeli wagon because they know it to be career enhancing. One only has to observe in
action Senator Lindsay Graham, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and perhaps the most
revolting of all, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who ran for office proclaiming that he would
be the most pro-Israel governor in the United States. After being elected he traveled to
Jerusalem with a large entourage of Zionist supporters to hold the first meeting of the Florida
state government cabinet. According to some authorities in Florida, the meeting was supposed to
be held in the state capitol Tallahassee and was therefore illegal, but DeSantis was undaunted
and made clear to observers where his loyalty lies.
Part of the problem is that Israeli citizenship is obtained virtually automatically upon
application by any Jew and once obtained it is permanent, only revocable by petitioning the
Israeli government. Nor is there anything equating to a list of citizens, so it is possible to
be an Israeli citizen while also holding American citizenship and no one would be the wiser. As
the United States permits American citizens to have multiple passports and therefore
nationalities there is, in fact, nothing in U.S. law that prohibits being both Israeli and
American.
Having dual nationality only a real issue when the policies of one citizenship conflict with
the other, and that is precisely where the problem comes in with Israeli dual nationals in the
United States, particularly if they wind up in the government. Frank Lautenberg, for example,
was responsible for the "Lautenberg amendment" of 1990 which brought many thousands of Russian
Jews into the United States as refugees, even though they were not in any danger and were
therefore ineligible for that status. As refugees, they received significant taxpayer provided
housing, subsistence and educational benefits.
Some other current officials in the government who may or may not have dual nationality and
are in policy making positions might include U.S. (sic) Ambassador to Israel David Friedman and
the recently resigned international negotiator Jason Greenblatt. Both have long histories of
pro-Israel advocacy to include supporting illegal settlements on the West Bank. And there is
also someone named Jared Kushner, whose ties to Israel are so close that Benjamin Netanyahu
once slept in his father and mother's apartment. If the metric to judge the actions – and
loyalty – of these individuals is their willingness to place American interests ahead of
those of Israel, they all would fail the test.
That said, there was one individual dual national who truly stood out when it came to
serving Israeli interests from inside the United States government. She might be worthy of the
nickname "Queen of Sanctions" because she was the Department of the Treasury's Under Secretary
for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI), who handed the punishment out and had her hand
on the throttle to crank the pain up. She is our own, unfortunately, and also Israel's own
Sigal Pearl Mandelker, and is its wonderful to be able to say that she
finally resigned last week!
OFTI's
website proclaims that it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system against
illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats," but
it has from its founding been really all about safeguarding Israel's perceived interests.
Grant Smith notes how "the secretive office has a special blind spot for major terrorism
generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal Israeli
settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel's
clandestine nuclear weapons complex."
To be sure, sanctions have been the key weapon in the ongoing unending war against perceived
"enemies" like Russia and Venezuela, but they have been laid on most promiscuously in the case
of Iran, Israel's number one enemy du jour, which has also been demonized by Washington even
though it is no threat to the United States. And it should be recognized that sanctions are not
a bloodless exercise used to pressure a recalcitrant government. They disproportionately affect
the poor and powerless, who starve and are denied access to medicines, but they rarely have any
impact on those who run the government. Five-hundred thousand Iraqi children died from
sanctions imposed by President Bill Clinton and his vulturine Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright. Currently, Iranians and Venezuelans are dying, by some estimates in their tens of
thousands.
Once on a sanctions list administered by the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) , there is no actual appeal process and no getting off the hook unless Mandelker
said so. And anyone who has any contact with the sanctioned entity can be in for trouble,
including American citizens who will find themselves no longer having rights to free speech and
association. The terms for violation of sanctions used by OFAC are "transaction" and "dealing
in transactions," broadly construed to include not only monetary dealings or exchanges, but
also "providing any sort of service" and "non-monetary service," including giving a
presentation at a conference or speaking or writing in support of a sanctioned group or
individual.
OFAC has a broad mandate to punish anyone who has anything to do with any Iranian group or
even any individual as Iran is considered a country that is "comprehensively sanctioned." To
cite just one example of how indiscriminately the sanctions regime works, Max Blumenthal
has
described how the FBI recently, acting under Mandelker's orders, warned a number of
Americans who had planned on speaking at an Iranian organized conference in Beirut that they
might be arrested upon their return.
Mandelker was born in Israel and largely educated in the United States. She is predictably a
lawyer. She has never stated how many citizenships she holds while repeated inquiries as to
whether she retains her Israeli citizenship have been ignored by the Treasury Department. It is
not clear how she managed to obtain a security clearance given her evident affinity to a
foreign country. The position that she held until last Wednesday was created in 2004 by George
W. Bush and is something of a "no Gentiles need apply" fiefdom. Its officials travel regularly
on the taxpayer's dime to Israel for consultations and also collaborate with pro-Israel
organizations like AIPAC, WINEP and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).
Mandelker's predecessor was Adam Szubin and he was preceded by David Cohen and, before that, by
the office's founder Stuart Levey, who is currently Group Legal Manager and Group Managing
Director for global bank HSBC. Since its creation, OFTI has not surprisingly focused on what
might be described as Israel's enemies, most notably among them being Iran.
Mandelker was clear about her role, citing her personal and business relationship with "our
great partner, Israel." Referring to sanctions on Iran, she has said that "Bad actors need
money to do bad things. That is why we have this massive sanctions regime Every time we apply
that pressure, that crunch on them, we deny them the ability to get that kind of revenue, we
make the world a safer place." In support of the pain she is inflicting to no real purpose
other than to force complete Iranian capitulation, she cites alleged Iranian misdeeds, foremost
of which is its alleged threatening of Israel. She also condemns Iran's support for Syria's
Bashar al-Assad, who she claims has killed his own people with chemical weapons, an assertion
that has proven to be untrue.
Mandelker touted her personal history as a claimed child of the seemingly ubiquitous
"holocaust survivors." In a speech at the Holocaust Museum in April she claimed that her
parents went underground in Eastern Europe: "They were hiding underground, in forests, in
ditches and under haystacks. I grew up hearing their stories, including about moments of great
courage, some of which resulted in survival and others that ended in death."
To be sure, Mandelker and her predecessors have been going after Iran's money since the 1979
Islamic Revolution, constantly devising new restrictions and rules to make it hard for Tehran
to do business with any other country. In 2006 Levey's office began to focus on cutting off
Iran from the global financial system. Currently the Trump administration is applying what it
describes as "maximum pressure" in seeking to sink Iran's economy by blocking all oil exports.
Since May, any country buying Iranian oil has been vulnerable to secondary sanctions by
Washington, all set up and choreographed by Mandelker.
That Mandelker and company have been engaging in economic warfare with a country with which
the United States is not at war seems to have escaped the notice of the media and Washington's
chattering class, not surprisingly as Israel is a beneficiary of the policy. And the fact that
the way sanctions are being enforced against American citizens is clearly unconstitutional has
also slipped by the usual watchdogs. Sigal Mandelker was a prime example of why anyone who is
either an actual dual national or plausibly possesses dual loyalty should not hold high office
in the United States government and is a blessing that she is gone, though one imagines she
will be replaced by another Zionist fanatic. If anyone wonders why Israel gets away with what
it does the simple answer would be that there are just too many people at the federal level who
think that serving Israel is the same as serving the United States. That is just not so and it
is past time that the American public should wake up to that fact.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
As refugees, they received significant taxpayer provided housing, subsistence and
educational benefits.
Including free Social Security, even though they never paid any money into that fund.
And it's not merely thousands, but hundreds and hundreds of thousands, all living off the
generosity of the American taxpayer. But Shhh, don't say anything, why that would be
anti-Semitic!
Talk about welfare Queens.
Those covered by the Lautenberg Amendment are eligible for Special Cash Assistance and
for Federal Public Assistance Programs including, but not limited to, Social Security,
Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
CRS statistics indicate that over 370,000 refugees were admitted from the Former
Soviet Union in the first ten years of the Lautenberg Amendment. In October 2002 the
Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that "The Lautenberg Amendment allowed some 350,000 to
400,000 Jews from the former Soviet Union to gain entry into the United States without
having to prove they were individually persecuted." In 2010 the Hebrew Immigrant Aid
Society cited Eric Rubin, Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow stating
that the amendment had resulted in almost 440,000 refugees from the former Soviet Union
and other regions of the world.
*Eric Alterman made extended remarks in 2009 at the 92d Y, celebrating his dual loyalty:
"You know, one of the touchiest words you can say when you're discussing Jews and Israel
is the word dual loyalty. It's sort of one of those words that American Jewish officialdom
has ruled out of the discourse. If you say dual loyalty, you're playing into the hands of
anti-semites, because it's been a consistent trope among anti-Semites that you can't trust
Jews. etc. etc. And I find this very confusing because I was raised dually loyal my whole
life. When I went to Hebrew school, the content of my Hebrew school was all about supporting
Israel. When my parents who I think are here tonight sent me to Israel when I was 14, on a
ZOA [Zionist Organization of America]-sponsored trip it was drummed into me that I should do
what's best for Israel.
I was at the Center for Jewish History not long ago where I heard Ruth Wisse, the Yiddishist
professor at Harvard instruct a group of young Jewish journalists that they should think of
themselves as members of the Israeli army.
I am a dual loyal Jew and sometimes I'm going to actually go with Israel, because the United
States can take an awful lot of hits and come up standing. Whereas if Israel takes one
serious bad hit it could disappear. So there's going to be some cases where when Israel and
the United States conflict I'm going to support what's best for Israel rather than what I
think is best for the United States.
Then-editor of the Forward Jane Eisner: Can you imagine a time where you would feel that dual
loyalty and go with Israel?
Alterman: I just said, there are many occasions.
Eisner: Can you give us an example?
Alterman: I think that bin Laden and 9/11 were to some degree inspired by U.S. support of
Israel. I think a great deal of the terrorist attacks and the sort of pool of potential
terrorists who want to attack the United States are inspired by the United States support for
Israel. I'm not saying we shouldn't support Israel for that reason. I'm saying, Dammit if
that's the price we have to pay, then I'm willing to pay it. I'm just saying Let's be honest
about it.".>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just think that what Alterman said is not condemned ..he suffers nothing for admitting
that he is basically a traitor who would sacrifice Americans for the Jewish state.
Unbelievable ..staggers the mind how this kind of Jew treason is so accepted in America
..just staggering.
How did this kind of treason come to be O.K. for the Jews?
It came from this kind of treason .. Nancy Pelosi Addressing AIPAC in December of last
year:
"I have said to people when they ask me, if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the
one thing that would remain would be our commitment to our aid, I don't even call it our aid,
our cooperation with Israel. That's fundamental to who we are.""
If there was a terrorist out there worth a damn he would be bombing congress instead of
Wal-Mart's.
"'You can assume that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. If they aren't part of the
regular Israeli army, they're fighting for Israel. Israel has common goals with Turkey, the
United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries,' Assad was quoted by
Ynet" – https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4946010,00.html
Dammit if that's the price we have to pay, then I'm willing to pay it
Altermann is being slippery here, saying HE would be willing to pay the price of some
neoCONs or Zionists dragging the USA into another war for Israel.
What he should of said is that as a member of the Jewish dominated MSM, they are more than
willing to trick, deceive, bamboozle and pull us by our Star of David shaped nose ring into
endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel and if you disagree, why you're just a mouth
breathing, knuckle-dragging anti-Semite.
They need to live for 3 months in Israel (after attaining the correct visa) to attain the
citizenship, or a year of living in Israel for the passport (unless they changed this
recently or accelerated it).
What you are confused with is obtaining the repatriation visa and the temporary card. The
visa they can issue before people arrive in Israel, and the temporary identity card at the
airport. But those are only useful if you will live for the following months in Israel.
I would suggest to Phil Giraldi to talk about Zionists instead of Jews doing Israel's
bidding. These Zionists adhere to the most racist and Apartheid ideology under the sun;
Zionism. Not every Jew is a Zionist. Therefore it's an insult to those Jews who do not adhere
to this wicked ideology and resist it. The notion of the right-wing Zionist regime in Israel
to speak in the name of world Jewry should be rejected not only by the Jewish citizens of
each country but by the public in general. It's amount to the hijacking of Jews in the name
of a vile racist and occupation regime. Such a claim puts the local Jewish population in a
precarious position, which could reproach in "dual loyalty." As Giraldi has pointed out
numerous times, the majority of Americans have lost control of their Middle Eastern policy. A
group of people whose loyalty to the US can cautiously describe as vague are in charge.
"As the United States permits American citizens to have multiple passports and therefore
nationalities there is, in fact, nothing in U.S. law that prohibits being both Israeli and
American".
Although I have not checked recently, I am fairly sure that is not the whole story by any
means.
It is quite true that ordinary citizens can go a lifetime with dual nationality and feel
no pain. I am one such, as my parents were British by birth but I was born in Argentina. Like
the USA, Argentina grants nationality to everyone born there (or, perhaps more accurately,
claims such people as its citizens).
However I think you will find that US law forbids anyone with dual US-anything nationality
to serve as an officer (or perhaps in any rank) in the other nation's armed forces, or to
accept political office in the other nation's government. There may well be other
restrictions.
The exceptions I have pointed out are very relevant indeed to the dual US-Israeli citizens
mentioned in the article, as many of them have served in the Israeli armed forces. Indeed is
that not compulsory for any Israeli citizen resident in Israel)? Some of them have also held
political office, had civil service jobs, etc.
For such people to remain anonymous is a scandal and, frankly, a serious national security
risk for the USA.
"Israeli citizenship is obtained virtually automatically upon application by any Jew and once
obtained it is permanent, only revocable by petitioning the Israeli government".
Neat and effective. "It's a kopeck to get in, but a ruble to get out".
'OFTI's website proclaims that it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system
against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security
threats" '
Doesn't the US government mind this office setting itself up against the power of
Washington?
Illicit use of funds – check.
Rogue nation – check.
Terrorist facilitators – check in CAPITAL LETTERS. (Also actual terrorists).
WMD – check. (No other nation's government still maintains nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons).
Money launderers – Hell, Washington is the world's biggest counterfeiter.
Drug kingpins – check, although that is mostly delegated to the CIA.
Other national security threats – check, Washington is a national security threat to
every other nation in the world except Israel.
To be sure there are many non-Jews in the American government who have hitched their
star to the Israeli wagon because they know it to be career enhancing.
It can only be career enhancing if whites allow it.
One only has to observe in action Senator Lindsay Graham, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki
Haley and perhaps the most revolting of all, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who ran for
office proclaiming that he would be the most pro-Israel governor in the United States.
With the exception of Nikki Haley, who was appointed by an elected official, the other two
were elected by the majority white electorate. Jews have inordinate power in our country
because whites allow it.
To be clear any problems caused by Jews are the result of white insouciance.
I read in a sidebar on Antiwar.com that Sigal Mandelker was one of the attorneys
representing Jeffrey Epstein in 2008.
If it is true, then she,like Alexander Acosta, is guilty of breaking the law by entering
into judgement a plea deal without first notifying the plaintiffs of what that deal was, and
whether or not it met to their satisfaction.
The fact that it was MORE important to Mandelker to reward a child rapist/ pedophile with
a super sweet, totally cush deal , than to seek justice for his numerous victims , indicates
, with extreme clarity , she has no business working in our treasury department, let alone
our OFAC.
Individuals, who breach our laws and rules of ethics to ensure pedophiles and child
rapists are free to roam our streets, have no business working in the United States
Government, in any capacity.
The fact that both Mendaker AND Acosta were given prominent positions of power , with the
full awareness of their actions by those who appointed them, is very, very troubling.
It is simply NOT acceptable to the American People that there may be pedophiles and/or
child rapists serving within, and/ or influencing , our representative bodies.
The fact there has been no investigation into any of this, as well as Mandelkers
connection, is an absolute disgrace.
It seems to me, that until all the facts are clear, President Trump should order a "clean
sweep protocol" As soon as possible.
Child rapists , and their enablers , belong in only one place .and that is Federal Prison.
.
It is not just a matter of ethics it is a matter of National Security.
Zionists have thoroughly infiltrated and compromised the US Treasury. This is news. Watch
it be ignored.
Crypto-Israelis have captured (and partly converted) a US Federal agency for the purpose
of crippling the economies of any state that interferes with the far-flung agenda of global
Zionism. Their duplicitous mission borders on treason.
Using American resources to target Israel's far-away foes has nothing to do with advancing
the interests of the American people. To the contrary. It damages us economically and
strategically. It also undermines us domestically since these actions allow a foreign-based
faction to seize and exploit US power for its own nefarious ends.
Crypto-Zionist penetration of Washington is a backdoor assault on US sovereignty. We are
being parasitized.
Incredibly, Israeli influence over Washington has become so embedded that's it's now taken
for granted by Jews and acquiescing gentiles alike. Success in Washington now requires one to
A) fully understand (and respect) Jewish privilege, while B) never transgressing upon the
taboos that protect this indomitable group.
Indeed, just examining the range and depth of Jewish power in America is a forbidden topic
(except by Jewish scholars for a Jewish audience).
But for the rest of us, just noticing Jewish power is a risky enterprise. (So say
nothing.)
Officially, there's no such thing. Only Jewish victims.
Hapless Americans are confused. For Diaspora Jews however these artful deceptions
constitute a familiar gameplan. Organized Jewish subversion dates back to ancient Persia.
Jews celebrate it. (See: Purim)
Today, Israeli operatives are all over Washington, Wall Street, Hollywood and beyond. And
they're not the least bit ashamed about it. No siree. It's what they do.
Activist Jews are deeply committed to weaving Israel's economic and political needs into
the very fabric of American life. They are succeeding.
When Zio-America's corrupt, bloodthirsty, and over-extended empire finally collapses,
Diaspora Jews can simply cash in their chips and migrate to Israel. America's demise will
mark a new chapter in their glorious, wandering, drama-filled history.
Unfortunately, we goyim are expected to go down with the American ship.
To see just how 'entitled' the Jewish State thinks it is read these two articles. They
are aflame over Trump decision not to interfere in the Turkey Kurd dispute on the Turkey
Syrian border.
Speaking of aflame, I would recommend a third. It's an article by Yossi Alpher, who is a
former Mossad official and former director of Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center for
Strategic Studies.
Concluding paragraphs from, What Trump's Withdrawal From Syria Means For The Kurds
– And For Israel :
At the end of the day, there are two basic lessons here for Israel and its supporters.
For anyone who has entertained doubts about the need for a state for the Jewish people, the
Kurds represent a tragic reminder. They are consistently being abandoned to an ugly fate
because they don't have a country.
The second lesson is that Israel cannot and must not depend on Trump. The cries of alarm
in Israel in recent days about a looming security threat do not only reflect lessons drawn
from Iran's (or one of its proxy's) spectacular attack on Saudi Arabia's energy
infrastructure. The alarms also reflect concern over the precedent set by Trump's refusal
to get involved militarily after Washington's Saudi ally was the victim of naked aggression
from Iran.
From that standpoint, America abandoning the Syrian Kurds is just icing on the cake of
Trump's Middle East non-strategy.
@alexanderMandelker was one of the DOJ officials who signed off on Epstein's sweetheart
nonprosecution agreement. One suspects she was the superior of Alexander Acosta who told him
that Epstein belonged to intelligence and was above Acosta's pay grade.
For China, the three principle points of potential military friction with the U.S. are
Taiwan, South Korea-Japan, and the South China Sea. Apart from South Korea and Japan, where the
U.S. has significant ground and air forces already forward deployed, the main threat to China
is maritime power projected by American aircraft carrier battlegroups and amphibious assault
ships. The Chinese response was to develop a range of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD)
capabilities designed to target American naval forces before they arrived in any potential
contested waters.
Traditionally, the U.S. Navy has relied on a combination of surface warships armed with
sophisticated air defense systems, submarines, and the aircraft carrier's considerable
contingent of combat aircraft to defend against hostile threats in time of war. China's
response came in the form of the DF-21D medium-range missile , dubbed the
"carrier killer." With a range of between 1,450 and 1,550 kilometers, the DF-21D employs a
maneuverable warhead that can deliver a conventional high-explosive warhead with a circular
error of probability (CEP) of 10 meters -- more than enough to strike a carrier-sized
target.
To compliment the DF-21D, China has also deployed the DF-26 intermediate-range missile , which
it has dubbed the "Guam killer," named after the American territory home to major U.S. military
installations. Like the DF-21, the DF-26 has a conventionally armed variant, which is intended
to be used against ships. Both missiles were featured in the 2015 military parade commemorating
the founding of the PRC.
As capable as they were, however, the DF-21D and DF-26 were not the shashoujian
weapons envisioned by Chinese military planners, representing as they did reciprocal
capability, as opposed to a game-changing technology. The unveiling of the true
shashoujian was reserved for last week's parade, and it came in the form of the DF-100
and DF-17 missiles.
The DF-100 is a vehicle-mounted supersonic cruise missile "characterized by a long range,
high precision and quick responsiveness," according to
the Chinese press . When combined with the DF-21/DF-26 threat, the DF-100 is intended to
overwhelm any existing U.S. missile defense capability, turning the Navy into a virtual sitting
duck. As impressive as the DF-100 is, however, it was overshadowed by the
DF-17 , a long-range cruise missile equipped with a hypersonic glide warhead, which
maneuvers at over seven times the speed of sound -- faster than any of the missiles the U.S.
possesses to intercept it. Nothing in the current U.S. arsenal can defeat the DF-17 -- not the
upgraded anti-missile ships, THAAD, or even the Ground Based Interceptors (GBI) currently
based in Alaska.
In short, in the event of a naval clash between China and the U.S., the likelihood of
America's fleet being sent to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean is very high.
The potential loss of the Pacific Fleet cannot be taken lightly: it could serve as a trigger
for the release of nuclear weapons in response. The threat of an American nuclear attack has
always been the ace in the hole for the U.S. regarding China, given that nation's weak
strategic nuclear capability.
Since the 1980s, China has possessed a small number of obsolete liquid-fuel intercontinental
ballistic missiles as their strategic deterrent. These missiles have a slow response time and
could easily be destroyed by any concerted pre-emptive attack. China sought to upgrade its ICBM
force in the late 1990s with a new road-mobile solid fuel missile, the DF-31 . Over the course of the next
two decades, China has upgraded the DF-31, improving its accuracy and mobility while increasing
the number of warheads it carries from one to three. But even with the improved DF-31, China
remained at a distinct disadvantage with the U.S. when it came to overall strategic nuclear
capability.
While the likelihood that a few DF-31 missiles could be launched and their warheads reach
their targets in the U.S., the DF-31 was not a "nation killing" system. In short, any strategic
nuclear exchange between China and the U.S. would end with America intact and China
annihilated. As such, any escalation of military force by China that could have potentially
ended in an all-out nuclear war was suicidal, in effect nullifying any advantage China had
gained by deploying the DF-100 and DF-17 missiles.
Enter the
DF-41 , China's ultimate shashoujian weapon. A three-stage, road-mobile ICBM
equipped with between six and 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV)
warheads, the DF-41 provides China with a nuclear deterrent capable of surviving an American
nuclear first strike and delivering a nation-killing blow to the United States in retaliation.
The DF-41 is a strategic game changer, allowing China to embrace the mutual assured destruction
(MAD) nuclear deterrence posture previously the sole purview of the United States and
Russia.
In doing so, China has gained the strategic advantage over the U.S. when it comes to
competing power projection in the Pacific. Possessing a virtually unstoppable A2/AD capability,
Beijing is well positioned to push back aggressively against U.S. maritime power projection in
the
South China Sea and the
Taiwan Straits .
Most who watched the Chinese military parade on October 1 saw what looked to be some
interesting missiles. For the informed observer, however, they were witnessing the end of an
era. Previously, the United States could count on its strategic nuclear deterrence to serve as
a restraint against any decisive Chinese reaction to aggressive American military maneuvers in
the Pacific. Thanks to the DF-41, this capability no longer exists. Now the U.S. will be
compelled to calculate how much risk it is willing to take when it comes to enforcing its
sacrosanct "freedom of navigation."
While the U.S. commitment to Taiwan's independence remains steadfast, its willingness to go
to war with China over the South China Sea may not be as firm. The bottom line is that China,
with a defense budget of some $250 billion, has successfully combined "Western technology with
Eastern wisdom," for which the U.S. has no response.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofseveral books,
most recently,Deal of the Century: How
Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (2018).
"When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, the unchallenged world record holders for 'second
chances' and 'failing upward' are America's neoconservatives.", Stephen Walt
Actually, many of them should have been considered candidates for war criminals. "Waging the
war of agression" was part of the Nuremberg trials. This was the media called euphemistically
"the war of choice"!
"When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, the unchallenged world record
holders for 'second chances' and 'failing upward' are America's neoconservatives. Beginning in
the mid-1990s, this influential network of hard-line pundits, journalists, think tank analysts,
and government officials developed, purveyed, and promoted an expansive vision of American
power as a positive force in world affairs.
They conceived and sold the idea of invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein and insisted
that this bold move would enable the United States to transform much of the Middle East into a
sea of pro-American democracies.
What has become of the brilliant strategists who led the nation into such a disastrous
debacle? None of their rosy visions have come to pass, and if holding people to account were a
guiding principle inside the foreign policy community, these individuals would now be marginal
figures commanding roughly the same influence that Charles Lindbergh enjoyed after making naive
and somewhat sympathetic statements about Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.",
Walt, S. (2018). The Hell of good intentions: America's foreign policy elite and the decline
of US primacy. Straus and Giroux, p. 190.
You would have thought that these cheerleaders of invasion of Iraq and violation of the UN
charter would have run far, far away so that we never hear from them again--but no, they are
back explaining the world for us and making money doing that.
[ Milanovic was referring to a new column in Project Syndicate that I was confused by
before I noticed this reference to the column. Among the points of Milanovic, we find the
same self-defeating foreign policy being pushed by the same elite opinion-makers who hurt us
so much by taking us to war in Iraq and beyond.
"... Combat crews of S-400, in Astrakhan Region, held combat exercises against hypersonic target-missiles "Favorit PM" and destroyed all targets. The statement of the press-service of Western Military District announced. The crews of S-400 Triumphs were from the units of air-defense of Leningrad Army of Air Force and Air Defense of Western Military District. ..."
The Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke yesterday at the yearly Valdai
Discussion Club meeting in Sochi. A video with English translations and excerpts of the
transcript are here .
With regards to the global system Putin made an interesting historic comparison:
in the 19th century they used to refer to a "Concert of Powers." The time has come to talk in
terms of a global "concert" of development models, interests, cultures and traditions where
the sound of each instrument is crucial, inextricable and valuable, and for the music to be
played harmoniously rather than performed with discordant notes, a cacophony. It is crucial
to consider the opinions and interests of all the participants in international life. Let me
reiterate: truly mutually respectful, pragmatic and consequently solid relations can only
built between independent and sovereign states .
Russia is sincerely committed to this approach and pursues a positive agenda.
The Concert of
Europe was the balance of power system between 1815 to 1848 and from 1871 to 1914:
A first phase of the Concert of Europe, known as the Congress System or the Vienna System
after the Congress of Vienna (1814–15), was dominated by five Great Powers of Europe:
Prussia, Russia, Britain, France and Austria. [...] With the Revolutions of 1848 the Vienna
system collapsed and, although the republican rebellions were checked, an age of nationalism
began and culminated in the unifications of Italy (by Sardinia) and Germany (by Prussia) in
1871. The German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck re-created the Concert of Europe to avoid
future conflicts escalating into new wars. The revitalized concert included France, Britain,
Austria, Russia, and Italy with Germany as the main continental power economically and
militarily.
Bismark's concert kept peace in a usually warring Europe for 43 years. If Putin wants to be
the new Bismarck I am all for it.
Russian president Vladimir Putin has said that Moscow is helping China build a system to warn
of ballistic missile launches.
Since the cold war, only the United States and Russia have had such systems, which involve
an array of ground-based radars and space satellites. The systems allow for early spotting of
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Speaking at an international affairs conference in Moscow on Thursday, Putin said Russia
had been helping China develop such a system. He added that "this is a very serious thing
that will radically enhance China's defence capability".
His statement signalled a new degree of defence cooperation between the two former
Communist rivals that have developed increasingly close political and military ties while
Beijing and Washington have sunk into a trade war.
That is as good for China as it is for Russia. China has an immediate need for such a system
because the U.S. is taking a significantly more bellicose posture against it.
The U.S. left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia to build a nuclear
missiles force in South Asia
that will aim at China. It is now looking for Asian countries in which it could station
such weapons. China is
using its economic might to prevent that but the U.S. is likely to succeed.
While China
has capable weapons and can defend itself against a smaller attack the U.S. has about 20
times more nuclear warheads than China. It could use those in an overwhelming first strike to
decapitate and destroy the Chinese state. An early warning system will give China enough time
to detect such an attack and to launch its own nuclear deterrent against the U.S. The warning
systems will thus checkmate the U.S. first strike capability.
Over the last two years Russia and China both unveiled hypersonic weapons. Currently the
U.S. has neither such weapons nor any defensive system that can protect against these.
Russia was smart enough to develop both - the super fast offensive weapon and a defense
against it. Via Andrei Martyanov we learn of a recent Russian press
notice:
Translation: Combat crews of S-400, in Astrakhan Region, held combat exercises against
hypersonic target-missiles "Favorit PM" and destroyed all targets. The statement of the
press-service of Western Military District announced. The crews of S-400 Triumphs were from
the units of air-defense of Leningrad Army of Air Force and Air Defense of Western Military
District.
And what this "Favorit PM" missile-target complex is? Very simple, it is deeply modernized
good ol' S-300 P series which allows to use missiles of types 5V55 which have their
explosives removed and are capable of atmospheric maneuverable flight with the velocities of
Mach=6 (in excess of 7,000 kilometers per hour). These are genuine hyper-sonic
missile-targets and, evidently, and I don't have any reasons to doubt it, S-400 had very
little problems shooting them down.
On top of the missile warning system China will also want to have that most capable air and
missile defense system. Russia will make it a decent offer.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's talked a day earlier than Putin. His speech and the Q &
A with him are here
. The talk was mostly about the Middle East and Lavrov's tone was rather angry while he passed
through a long list of U.S. sins in the region and beyond. There were also some interesting
remarks about Turkey, Syria and the Ukraine. The most interesting passage was his response to a
question about U.S. sanction against Russia to which some senators want to add even more.
Lavrov said:
I have heard that Marco Rubio and Ben Cardin are two famous anti-Russia-minded members of the
US Congress. I don't think that this implies that they have any foresight. Those with a more
or less politically mature opinion of the situation should have realised long ago that the
sanctions don't work in the direction they wanted them to work. I believe that they will
never work. We have a territory and its riches that were bestowed on us by God and our
ancestors, we have a feeling of personal dignity, and we also have the armed forces. This
combination makes us very confident. I hope that economic development and all the investment
that has been made and continues to be made will also pay off in the near future.
The U.S. loves to dish out sanctions left and right and the Trump administration has
increased their use. But sanctions, especially unilateral ones, do not work. The U.S. has not
recognized that because it has never assessed whether those sanctions fulfill their aims. A
recent Government Accountability Office report found :
The Departments of the Treasury (Treasury), State (State), and Commerce (Commerce) each
undertake efforts to assess the impacts of specific sanctions on the targets of those
sanctions. [...] However, agency officials cited several difficulties in assessing sanctions'
effectiveness in meeting broader U.S. policy goals , including challenges in isolating the
effect of sanctions from other factors as well as evolving foreign policy goals. According to
Treasury, State, and Commerce officials, their agencies have not conducted such assessments
on their own.
The U.S. sanctions and sanctions and sanctions but never checked if sanctions work to the
intended purpose. The efforts to sanction Russia have surely led to some unintended
consequences. They are the reason why the alliance between China and Russia deepens every day.
The U.S. has the exorbitant privilege of having its own
currency being used as the international reserve. The sanctioning of U.S. dollar transactions
is the reason why the U.S. is now losing it :
Russia's Rosneft has set the euro as the default currency for all its new export contracts
including for crude oil, oil products, petrochemicals and liquefied petroleum gas, tender
documents showed.
The switch from U.S. dollars, which happened in September according to the tender
documents published on Rosneft's website, is set to reduce the state-controlled firm's
vulnerability to potential fresh U.S. sanctions.
Washington has threatened to impose sanctions on Rosneft over its operations in Venezuela,
a move which Rosneft says would be illegal.
Iran has taken comparable steps. It now sells oil to China and India in either local
currencies. Other countries will surely learn from this and will also start to use other
currencies for their energy purchases. As the transactions in dollars decrease they will also
start to use other currencies for their reserves.
But the U.S. is not losing its financial or sole superpower status because of what China or
Russia or Iran have done or do. It is losing it because its has made too many mistakes.
Those states who, like Russia, have done their homework will profit from it.
Posted by b on October 4, 2019 at 18:03 UTC |
Permalink
next page " b: [Iran] now sells oil to China and India
Not to India, but India has said that that will change. India has to be deliberate because it
is angling for a permanent seat in the UNSC.
Russia is building a network of missile defense, early warning, electronic weapons systems
that will ring Greater Eurasia, not just the Russian Federation.
Russia may not produce smart phones and have their own Amazon or Alibaba scale e-commerce
platform, but they have the world class defenses and leading edge counter-strike weapons that
overwhelm anything the US has or will have for a decade to come.
Putin and Lavrov have laid out the diplomatic talking points for a safer, saner world.
And as the saying goes, if you don't talk to Lavrov, then you can talk with Shoigu
(MOD).
The Russians have warned the West. Maybe the West is hard of hearing.
But what is clear, the rest of the world has heard it and they are gravitating toward Russia
and China.
It is losing it because its has made too many mistakes.
A statement that deserves to be unpacked. I think at the core of the "mistakes" is a
certain exceptionalist attitude which carries with it a combination of greed and
hubris that promotes moral turpitude.
When the re-alignment of Russia and China started, I compared them to two soldiers, standing
back-to-back, defensively pointing their guns forward. This is becoming an integrated
continental defense now. Do you think that the two missile warning system will remain
separate? It is sad that it had to come to this, but the AngloZionist mindset of domination
and exploitation is what it is. Russia and China are not benevolent, but a big majority of
countries prefers their economic approach to the Western military - bombed and killed if you
do not comply with master's wishes. Simply, the West is a one-trick-pony in decline,
As the U.S.A.slowly petrifies into an ever more fragile state of existence will the blow that
finally causes it to fracture into a state of catastrophic impotence,( in it's eyes ) mean
that it will die with a whimper or a bang?
Will the politik of the U.S.A.wake up before it's demise and re-orientate it's ethos so as to
integrate with the new order instigated from the east or, like an enraged, immature being try
to bring the rest of the world down with it?
I hope wiser minds than those in the Senate prevail. However I'm not really that optimistic
that they are capable of serious self reflection.
Here is an article that looks at a WikiLeaks document that explains how the United States
Army is preparing to help Washington achieve its national strategic objectives:
This Army manual gives us a very clear view of how Washington uses manipulation through
its influence on the World Bank, IMF, OECD and other "global" groups to wage unconventional
warfare on any nation that doesn't share its view of how the world should function and that
threatens America's control of the globe, including nations like Venezuela, Iran, Russia and
North Korea.
While China has capable weapons and can defend itself against a smaller attack the U.S. has
about 20 times more nuclear warheads than China. It could use those in an overwhelming
first strike to decapitate and destroy the Chinese state.
b, in a nuclear exchange, all it takes is a tiny fraction of the US/China/Russia's nuclear
arsenals to finish off human civilisation, so numbers are irrelevant. Radiation knows no
borders.
Such contributors and Don Bacon, Grieved and Karlof1 might help me (dis)confirm this, but my
impression is that Russia is or could make a case for selling only or primarily defensive
weapons, to pretty much anyone ... with the effect and, say, the intent, to make wars of
aggression, particularly pre-emptive strikes, much less tempting.
By shifting the field advantage towards defense, can it be plausibly proposed that Russia
is working to make the world, overall, a safer place (even if their primary intent might be
to make it safer from attacks initiated by the Unipolar Axis)?
b: The U.S. sanctions and sanctions and sanctions . . .
It even sanctions itself, with tariffs. Free trade is dead!
Don, there's NEVER been free trade, ever, no matter how far back you look in history. Free
trade is imperial speak for the dominant economies dictating to the weaker.
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Oct 4 2019 18:46 utc | 9
my impression is that Russia is or could make a case for selling only or primarily
defensive weapons, to pretty much anyone ...
Isn't this exactly what they're doing. Martynov's writings reveal this proces in detail.
It's a process that has its origins in WWII, a process that also has economic implications
for Russia.
I agree with Barovsky in comment # 8 about the MAD nature of any nuclear war
I also want to posit that until China has its own air and missile defense system that
Russia will use its to insure that any nuclear attack on China will result in global MAD
@ b who wrote
"
But the U.S. is not losing its financial or sole superpower status because of what China or
Russia or Iran have done or do. It is losing it because its has made too many mistakes.
"
it is not the US necessarily that has the sole financial superpower status but the cult of
global private finance ownership that is international and not just the US. And now that
financial superpower status is not just being challenged from outside the Western nations of
empire but from within as I continue to write about in the latest Open Thread. The US state
of California has instantiated public finance for the state...it was signed into law this
past Wednesday and the Western MSM has yet to report or comment on this game changing
initiative.....speaks volumes to the threat it creates to global private finance because
California has the 5th largest GDP in the world.
I had been leaning toward the scenario where the Empire would, eventually, have to be put
down in a violent confrontation, with a CBG sunk, but I am really feeling now, given the
Singapore deal in the EAEU with India and Iran in the wings and the missile-shield over PRC
and Rosneft selling product in Euros and Syria and Iran and Venezuela not being wiped out,
that maybe, just maybe, the Empire will be left in the dust, with no climactic confrontation
required. Maybe I am being naive, but there seems to be evidence to support that idea.
I wish since a while for an US American Gorbachov. This kind of person only is able to bring
down the still running war economy. You would expect some hero like spiritual leader is
necessary. The only thing what was special about the russian version for that job, he was
young. Able to imagine a world without that permanent pressure, that everybody can feel in
every cell of society. Of course, I hoped that trump maybe will do this, but he is twisted in
his own challenges, already old, no real love for the people around him in general. The
actual task is to lead down US from the sole position of power to become the most important
country in the world. I hope US Americans can fell save one day without spending half of
world's expanses on war, which equals that US budget is more than half for this reason. Who
will be able to explain to voters, this isn't a sound deal?
I'm loathe to posit this but if the US follows the demise of previous empires, then only
war will accomplish this but perhaps, just perhaps the mold (or is that mould?) has been
broken? After all, WWI and WWII came about because of competition between dominant economies
and ultimately a redivision of the world into new blocs. But then again, the emergence of the
USSR changed everything, the most momentous event of the 20th century. So perhaps we need a
new USSR but this time a transnational USSR?
My country is in a sorry state of affairs indeed, and listening to those around me, a common
theme occurs, a wish that that slow-coming line in the sand which will truly mark the end of
our illusion of exceptionalism would just get here and be done, so we, or those of us who are
left afterward, can work through those damnable five stages of grieving, and begin the
process of reconstruction and healing what remains.
Judging by comments made here, I've withdrawn hope of either party having anything to
present the citizenry as a way out of our demise, so coast toward that necessary line we do.
Is that too negative?
Slightly off topic, but is not the Western use of children for nefarious purposes increasing?
From the first Hong King rioter who got shot for attacking a policeman, at all of his 14
years of age, through Epstein's sexual use of young girls for blackmail, to Greta and the
climate change screaming kids. If you are younger than 18, and without or with weak parental
oversight due to challenging economic conditions (struggle to survive), you are a fair game
for the Western "elite". Earn some pocket money by burning down Hong Kong.
This will only increase, because it runs parallel to the tactics of turning adults against
each other to miss to notice the "elite's" hand in all of their pockets. Fight each other
people and send your children into the front lines. That is how they channel anger toward's
"elite's" alternative-model enemies (China) and away from the real perpetrators and the real
issues. This is why the images of Hong Kong riots overlap with the two minute hate from the
movie 1984.
Finally, the Communist elite used children too, to do the dying in revolutions, to report
their own parents the communist authorities and to severely punish ideological opponents. The
use of children is nothing new, but it shows total moral depravity.
@ Sally Snyder 7
Thank you for that! And I thought Special Forces was only interested in assassinations.
As you indicate, it's surprising that they put such self-damaging information in print.
They think they're invincible, so we need more Lavrovs to set them straight.
re Paul Damascene #9, I see mutually assured defense as a highly desirable strategy emerging
from Russia and China. If that new 'mad' is expanded to friendlies in the middle east then a
very large sector of the planets continents can be enclosed in a single defensive frame.
I see this as a mighty good potential to arrest the lunatic tendency to war constantly
being chanted by the five eyes and their vassal toadies.
Certainly the elimination of nuclear weapons entirely should be the global objective.
Failing that, the prevention of ground blasts with the consequent dust and threat of nuclear
winter is desirable in my view. High altitude interception may prevent premature detonation
of attacking warheads but it will most likely lead to highly contaminated hot spots on
ground.
There is an evil in warmongering that is utterly beneath contempt.
I see on AMN, the Syrian News site, an article speaking about a new KFC in terrorist-held
Idlib ...
If this isn't a statement about who is collaborating in these wars I don't know what is !!
It is partially about the globalists wanting to increase the extent of their reach (apart
from all the religious and cultural issues too)
...
...but my impression is that Russia is or could make a case for selling only or primarily
defensive weapons, to pretty much anyone ... with the effect and, say, the intent, to make
wars of aggression, particularly pre-emptive strikes, much less tempting.
By shifting the field advantage towards defense, can it be plausibly proposed that
Russia is working to make the world, overall, a safer place (even if their primary intent
might be to make it safer from attacks initiated by the Unipolar Axis)?
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Oct 4 2019 18:46 utc | 9
Imo that's a perfectly sane assessment. It's just an unfortunate prerequisite, and a sign
of the times, that M.A.D. had to be looming in the background before the wisdom could be
recognised and de-escalation could commence.
@ PD 9 shifting the field advantage towards defense
>Actually all nations are supposed to concentrate on defense. The US changed its War
Dept to Defense Dept. --( to throw us off? ) There are few nations that have an overwhelming
offensive capability. Its expensive and requires a lot of people, including mostly
draftees.
> The F-35 jet fighter now goes for about $150 million per copy, in large part because it
is stealthy and can get through enemy defenses. At least that's the plan. But after eighteen
years (and counting) of development, the F-35 still has not been approved for full
production. That's an offensive weapon.
> Another expensive piece of gear is the aircraft carrier, now going for $13 billion per
copy, and several of the newfangled complex features on the new carrier design don't work.
High maintenance, too. Of eleven carriers only two are deplorable currently, none on the east
coast. Carriers have been mostly used to facilitate bombing runs over defenseless third-world
countries. They need a cheap defense.
> Regarding soldiers, few countries have a draft, or a large draft, any longer. No more
major land armies, required for offense. People are expensive, and 70% of US youth don't
qualify for service.
> The US Marine Corps is now going through a change with a new commandant. The main US
enemy now is China, and there's no thought of any war on China itself, only on allied islands
they might grab. So the Marines want to back out of their land warfare stance and concentrate
on Iwo-Jima type operations like the good old days. New USMC Commandant Berger: "We are too
heavy, too cumbersome. We're built for another Desert Storm. We have to go on a diet. .
.we're not going to go head-to-head, tank-on-tank," he said
> The recent Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia was a wake-up call. Drones and missiles,
inexpensive unstoppable and effective.
> So there's a lot of work to do, but yes one can say there is a trend from offense to
defense, and little by little the world might be safer against offensive actions.
I see mutually assured defense as a highly desirable strategy emerging from Russia and
China. If that new 'mad' is expanded to friendlies in the middle east then a very large
sector of the planets continents can be enclosed in a single defensive frame.
Excellent observation Uncle! It's the Empire (and its vassals) versus the planet.
There will never be an American Gorbachev because the American system is completely
different from the Soviet system.
In the USSR, the Communist Party was everything and commanded all the sociometabolical
aspects of society through a centralized State. When the Gorbachev killed the Party, he
killed the USSR. That's why it simply collapsed overnight and in a relatively peaceful
way.
The USA is a pure-blood capitalist society. It functions through a confederation of
capitalists, who command and owns different parts of the means of production. The State,
albeit powerful, is just one instutition among many others in this free market anarchy. The
USA, therefore, is a relatively decentralized society (for its size, it is incredibly
decentralized). In this sense, the USA is more akin to the old Roman Empire than any other
recent liberal or late-feudal empire.
My guess is the USA will degenerate slowly and very violently and chaotically, with a
succession of weak POTUS over a course of at least many decades. It can or cannot lose
territory in this process (I don't think it ever will, unless you're talking about Puerto
Rico and other possessions in the Southwestern Pacific). It almost certainly will provoke
many more wars against foreign nations in the process. It will be a very dangerous period of
Humanity's History, if not mark its end (if a total nuclear war happens).
--//--
I don't think Putin wants to be "the next Bismarck". Bismarck's new Concert was a failure:
it didn't relieve pressure between the imperialist powers in Europe and only gathered
pressure overtime in order to create an even bigger meatgrinder (WWI), which generated an
even bigger revolution (1917). By all intents and purposes, Bismarck's foreign polices were
an abject failure. His domestic record, on the other side, is stellar, since he turned
Germany into a world superpower which, by 1900, had already surpassed the UK in industrial
terms to reach second place overall (behind only the much bigger USA).
..."But the U.S. is not losing its financial or sole superpower status because of what China
or Russia or Iran have done or do. It is losing it because its has made too many
mistakes."...
The cadaver that is the USA, a ruptured spleen of financial criminality, is in it's end
stage of sucking the life of the world, it's host. Russia, China, and like minded sovereign
states are backstopping the US buck into oblivion with their gold purchases. Gold continues
to show the absurdities of the financial status of the US dollar. Gold is inoculating these
states that are being sanctioned and financially harassed. The USA, is a drunken bum in the
gutter looking for his next drink. Time is running short as the world economies are now
contracting into a spiral down the toilet drain taking the great financial criminal with
it.
If any politicians on the global chessboard can rival the statesmanship and intellect in
strategy, it sure is Putin.
Before him maybe de Gaulle, Helmut Schmidt or Churchill. But now? No where in the western
states.
To the growing ties with China and Russia: Irony is, Putin warned the western world, that
if his and Russia's preference of joining the western states would be denied, Russia would be
forced into China's arms, even though they are culturally and religiously much more tied to
Europe and the western world.
US and NATO policy brought the Russians to see the former "yellow menace" as their only
hope; Equally China was forced into the arms of its Russian neighbor, despite the Chinese
tradition of seeing the Russians equally as a not much loved neighbor.
So the "social Imperialists" and "Barbarians" of Russia and the "Yellow Menace" were forced
to overcome their old prejudices.
De Gaulle once said: "One day the Russians will realize again that they are white."
Meaning, when the Soviet system would come crashing down, the Russians would realize, that
they and their culture are European, and not Asian.
When this prophecy actually came true, and Yeltsin and Putin tried to rebuild the bridges
back to their cultural fellow European states, the Neocons destroyed that historic chance of
healing decades and century old wounds.
Putin and Russia actually tried for over a decade to avert this. Only most recently the
fight in the Russian bureaucracy is leading into going into the partnership with China more
broadly. It still is a partnership not of love or true desire, but of simple survival. And
that won't likely ever change.
I am currently reading a great book of the legendary German-French journalists and author
Peter Scholl-Latour about the new cold war against Russia. he published it IIRC over 12 years
ago, with research since the 90s for it, and including previous reports from his visits in
Russia since 1958.
He saw what he discusses here 20 years ago. And the strategic consequences of this idiotic
rejection of Russia's wish to come back into the fold of European nations by the US will
haunt us for generations to come, if it is not fixed.
Only way to that would be if we would have politicians in the EU and Europeans states like
Putin; more concrete: With the backbone, strategic insight, and a strong stand on national
sovereignty.
But with the current politicians in the EU and its states? Certainly no one on the left,
as "sovereignty" is now seen as "Nazi", and left politicians at least here in Germany being
"educated" by NATO think tanks, supporting military "interventions". The only ones who
realize how important sovereignty is for any country, are the new right like Salvini, Le Pen,
and the Nigel Farage. Which maybe a big part of why they are so hysterically attacked by the
MSM and establishment.
But sovereignty is important for the left too, and historically e.g. the older generations
social democrats here knew that. People like Helmut Schmidt realized that no people can be
free, and exercise its self-determination as a nation, without true sovereignty.
But the time of politicians of this class and caliber in the west is long gone. Maybe
another reason, why our politicians hate Putin so much. ;)
It should be obvious to anyone that we're going to see some kind of a joint Sino-Russian
military organization like NORAD. I was wondering about this after Russia sold their S-400 to
China. However, I'm not sure if the Chinese, or Russia, would be open to a Warsaw Pact
version 2. IMO, the inevitable collapse would be like the Soviet Union as WMDs will prevent a
war fought directly between the larger powers. In the meantime, expect more proxy wars fought
globally.
Kiza | Oct 4 2019 19:49 utc | 20:
It's always been like this as that is the most impressionable stage of one's life. I don't
know if this is an increase or not, but I see these useful idiots as activation of sleeper
cells cultivated in educational institutions.
The "Concert of Powers" was marked by numerous wars. Great power conflict in Europe was
avoided in favor of colonial wars. England against Indians, Africans and Asians, but Russia
against Turks too. So much for "truly mutually respectful..." relations. Putin speaks
gibberish. Today, "sovereign" means claiming the right to wage war at will. This is not a
premise for solid relationships, but shifting alliances against the current enemy.
It is incidentally highly unlikely that a basket of currencies could possibly substitute
for a single reserve. If people couldn't make bimetallism work, making bi-, tri-, poly-fiat
currency work isn't happening either. The fluctuations in relative value will destabilize the
financial systems of smaller powers.
Don
I don't see possibility of India getting a UNSC permanent seat any time coming soon, it's a
permanent wishful thinking on India's part. India will need to resolve her problems with
Kashmir and Pakistan before even she be considered. Indian realist analyst know this well. As
matter of fact I don't see any hope that anytime soon we can see a structural change in UN.
It's more possible UN be dissolved like the League was before it be reformed. US and India
only can be short term tactical allies against China, and not even strategic allies since
they both have different postures toward the subcontinent's, Indian Ocean states.
Exactly, which is why I am both confused and frustrated by people taking a side in the
Ukraine-gate farce. Does it matter which flavor of evil is currently provably less corrupt?
They all have almost the same goals: peanuts and platitudes to placate the peasants at home
and Full Spectrum Imperial Dominance abroad. I get trying to figure out the Gordian Knot, but
the Make Believe of Good Cop/Bad Cop is annoying.
- Wars like WW 1 & WW 2 are not going to happen anymore because such wars have simply too
expensive. But instead we'll see a series of smaller wars or proxy wars.
I should think that one reason for the failure of the Second Concert of Europe was that
Britain was determined to eliminate Germany as an economic and political rival and as an
example of what centralised government economic and social planning could do to improve
people's lives and the conditions in which they lived and worked. The reforms that Bismarck
brought to Germany, if only to keep 1848-style revolutions at bay, challenged the prevailing
laissez-faire economic policies (precursor to neoliberalism in our day) in Britain that
favoured the landowning and military elites.
The period 1871 - 1914 was one in which British aristocracy "revitalised" itself (for want
of a better term) by taking brides from American families that made their wealth from
investing in railway development across the US and in new American industries. (Perhaps
"vampirising" American money is the better term.) The classic examples of such marriages are
those of Consuelo Vanderbilt, of the wealthy Vanderbilt family, marrying into the
Spencer-Churchill family; and of Winston Churchill's mother marrying his father. Acquiring
American wealth in this way was one way in which British elites could maintain enough power
to keep a grip on British politics and British colonial politics.
The same period was also one in which European powers competed to chop up Africa and Asia
into colonies or "spheres of influence". So in a sense, the Europeans were already at war
with each other (and the Second Concert was a facade, just as the Cold War of the late 20th
century was a facade): they conducted this war away from their own publics, in areas distant
and remote enough, that most incidents of mass violence or outright land theft could be
covered up. The major exception was Belgian King Leopold's treatment of the area that is now
the Democratic Republic of Congo / Congo (Kinshasa) as he ruled it in the manner of a
mediaeval feudal lord and the atrocities committed there by his government were on a scale
too huge to ignore.
@Paul Damascene #9
Not strictly true.
Two nations, one with sword and shield but the other with only a shield. The first nation can
attack with little fear of reprisal.
Russia is still not going to sell defensive weapons to anyone unless there is a clear overall
strategic benefit.
Ironic that the Great War had to wait until 1914, when Britain's Liberal government was
adopting many of Bismarck's social welfare measures.
I suspect that America's increasing hostility to China reflects a fear of contagion from
the more successful and fairer Chinese system. Just like Britain and Germany in 1914.
Two are listed as being good for target velocity up to 6,415 mph which is well into
hypersonic range.
Another two, target velocities up to 11,185mph - mach 14.7 according mph to mach
converter.
Helmut Schmidt's books on China are impressive, but it's striking that in the first one,
"Nachbar China," of 2006, he totally failed to anticipate the economic collapse of 2008.
Actually, that's not true. When the UK went to war in 1914, they discovered that their
soldiers were so undernourished and unfit to fight for the Empire, that a series of 'social
reforms' were enacted to improve the lot of the working class (or cannon fodder).
"While China has capable weapons and can defend itself against a smaller attack the U.S. has
about 20 times more nuclear warheads than China. It could use those in an overwhelming first
strike to decapitate and destroy the Chinese state."
B, I read your analysis of the China weapons parade and came away with the impression that
US air & sea superiority was over. I thought China already had the S-400 too. I had no
idea that the US was in possession of more nukes than China. I hope that China gets that
system set up quickly, as well as the S-400.
The US is a psychopathic control freak, whose mask has slipped, yet the only one who
doesn't know that is Washington, but when it realizes it, that's when it will become far more
dangerous and may think that their time for a US first nuke strike is running out. Let's hope
they are not that stupid.
Anybody that believes China have only 290 nukes are naive.
Look at all those DF-41 and JL-2/3 missiles they've made. Some of those missiles have MIRV
capability.
What point does lying that way about a deterrence weapon serve? China only has nukes to
deter America from attacking them. The nukes are not intended to ever actually be used, so
why would they lie and pretend to have less than they really have? That makes no sense. If
anything they would lie and pretend to have more than they really do to enhance their
deterrence.
Secret weapons do not make an effective deterrence.
On the other hand, like Japan China probably has big stockpiles of fissile materials
sufficiently enriched that they could make many hundreds of additional nukes in a matter of a
couple weeks, or maybe even just days, if they needed to.
Just to clarify, a 100kg solid chunk of iron traveling at hypersonic speeds and with
decent accuracy would ruin the day for an American aircraft carrier. No nuke is needed.
Furthermore, if China has only 290 nukes, but 5,000 launch vehicles, which ones out of
that 5,000 are armed and have to be destroyed if America does a first strike and wants to
avoid several dozen of its biggest cities being turned into glowing craters in response?
Hint: All 5,000.
So you see, China doesn't really need much more than 290 nukes to prevent America from
attacking, assuming Americans are not stupid. Unfortunately that could very well be a losing
bet.
Washington is not a nation. It is only a city. If the rest of the world wants an honest
glimpse of what this city intends, all it has to do is look at what it has done, and is still
doing, to America's population. Take an honest look, disregarding all testimony. When you
completely disregard the narrative of dc and the media, the picture becomes quite stark quite
quickly.
The reason for the constitutional crisis in Britain in 1910, which resulted in the House of
Lords losing most of its power, was that the Lords refused to approve Lloyd George's People's
Budget, which, according to Wikipedia, "introduced unprecedented taxes on the lands and
incomes of Britain's wealthy to fund new social welfare programs." The upshot of the crisis
was that the budget became law.
. . . picked this up on the web:
In his seminal work On War, Carl von Clausewitz famously declared that, in comparison to the
offense, "the defensive form of warfare is intrinsically stronger than the offensive."
The defender being in his homeland contributes to defensive strength. It's certainly
contributed to US offensive failures in the last fifty years. It took the mighty US Army four
years and over a thousand deaths to pacify Baghdad. So what to do, the US has reverted to
high-level aerial bombing and long-range artillery to kill foreigners. This increases US
opposition, creating more enemies. No shortage of them.
Gotta give you a big Shout-Out for providing that ultra important fact as that marked the
beginning of the reaction to Classical Economists in the UK which was already happening
within the Outlaw US Empire, thus the seed of UK's Neoliberalism was planted and watered. It
also brought the UK and US elite together mind-set-wise.
Josh @51--
Your observation is 100% on the mark! The utterly gross neglect of the USA's human
capital's been ongoing for decades, and was given a great boost by the adoption of
Neoliberalism as basic policy during Carter's presidency, which was subsequently turbocharged
by Reagan/Bush. Profit before people had always been present; but after the "Saving the
bond-holders" deliberately deep recession caused by Volker from 1979-1982, there would be no
more policies aimed at improving social welfare. Instead, they were targeted for destruction
as the Full Employment Act of 1946 was 100% ignored by both Rs & Ds as jobs went offshore
and the Rust Belt oxidized.
--//--
Today, the hollowed-out Outlaw US Empire is a mere Paper Tiger reduced to using terrorists
and terrorism as its policy tools. Slowly, the nations of the world are enacting a de facto
form of containment that will eventually result in the diminishment of The Empire's abilities
and force it to become a normal nation for the first time in its history--hopefully without a
nuclear conflagration.
Putin is a voice of reason in a very sick and twisted world, one that is dominated by an evil
empire whose only purpose seems to be global corporate hegemony.
@2 Red Ryder - Russia is building a network of missile defense, early warning, electronic
weapons systems that will ring Greater Eurasia, not just the Russian Federation.
Always good to see your sweeping strategic view from the commanding heights. I quoted your
opening sentence because it makes such total sense, and also sounds so good. Mackinder has no
need to turn in his grave - the heartland has upended the world to save him the trouble
;)
There will be the invulnerable Eurasia, and the outside.
~~
I'm enjoying all the comments jumping onto the notion of Mutual Assured Defense. It seems
a concept that many here can readily relate to - and sign me up for sure. Thanks to Paul
Damascene for the concept, and uncle tungsten for coining the phrase.
Sharmine Narwani in her recent interview with Ross Ashcroft cited a Twitter comment
somebody made, to the effect that the S-400 was Russia's foreign policy. She was struck by
how perfectly this actually works as a policy. In a world where everybody has an S-400, no
war. Mutually assured defense.
I have long theorized, without a grain of collateral to prove it, that there is only one
security strategy for Russia. If I had a border as extensive as Russia's, I would see that
the only security possible for me would rest in an entire world at peace.
Therefore Russia works towards peace. It's how she conquers the world. As we saw in
Chechnya and in Syria, Russia builds and not destroys. Syria in particular over a long period
showed us precisely how Russia fights - not to "win", not to destroy an enemy, but purely to
lock down the peace and make everything safe. Only those restless souls who would not become
still were killed.
China too shares this same understanding of the Tao - not surprisingly of course. The game
is not to crush the opponent but to render the fight unnecessary. If China conquers the world
it will mean the Mandate Of Heaven has come to rule everywhere. The fight will become
unnecessary.
~~
Federico Pieraccini in his latest
article had this to say about China's strategy:
Beijing's strategy seems to be designed to progress in phases, modulating according to the
reaction of the US, whether aggressive or mild; a kind of capoeira dance where one never
actually hits one's opponent even when one can.
I had to look it up, Brazil's amazing contribution to world peace, the capoeira. I had
never heard of it and now I will never forget it. A brilliant comment from Pieraccini.
Peace is coming to the world faster than war is being left room to break out. And this is
because peacemaking is as dynamic an activity as warmaking . But by its very
nature of not breaking things, it is far less visible.
. . .from Putin
Truly mutually respectful, pragmatic and consequently solid relations can only built between
independent and sovereign states.
. . .from the UN Charter
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
Putin is pointing backwards not forwards when you think it through.
No "souvereign" state can be independent in the age of global supply chains and markets,
refugees and global warming. The world is interdependent and always has been since the
evolution of the human species in Africa.
"Souvereignty" and statehood has always been achieved (and lost) by military power. It is
a recipe for war.
This is for the theory. Now for the practice. Of course, Russia has been intervening in
the affairs of other "souvereign" states. Of course Iran has been striving for dominance in
the Middle East. And of course Eastern European states feel squeezed between Russia, the US
and Germany. And of course China pressures Vietnam for the resources of the South China
Sea.
Putin is talking about being polite.
Europe will have neither economic nor political or military power dealing with Russia, the
US or China as individual "sovereign" states. And this is what this populist dance is
about.
The US has not lost influence because of the sanctions, they have lost influence because
they have no longer the technological edge and "souvereign states" have the alternative of
allying with Russia and China. That is a binary choice, not souvereinty.
ciue @ 41:
An intelligent observation, thanks. Though I find myself wondering if the world in which
everyone has a shield, and only one, a sword, is not, perhaps, a world quite changed.
In reading Don Bacon @ 58 and Grieved @ 57, something slid into place for me. As a child
of the Enlightenment, pained as I have been--for all its failings--to see it slip under the
waves, it has been especially painful to see the West despoiling its legacies of democracy
and universal human rights. Nothing has done these more damage than our corrupt, cynical
exploitation of them. When I look to the emergent multipolar model with not inconsiderable
relief, I see it as one in which democracy will not necessarily be a central value or form of
polity.
But if this multipolar principle of the sovereign equality among all of its members is
considered from a certain vantage point, the principle's equivalent in a democratic system of
individuals would be an acceptance of its various citizens as of fundamentally equal worth
regardless of their ideologies or beliefs.
Perhaps if that feature of our own systems were not so close to being lost, a glimpse of
this quality of an international comity wouldn't come to me now as a revelation.
I guess it is a Rorschach test. I don't see how anything in Syria has been resolved
peacefully, I just don't. I am not blaming Russia for it. Putin virtually waited until it
became clear that the US (Obama) would not intervene.
Russians had the worst WWI and WWII experience, plus Chechnya and Afghanistan. No Russian
leader would be able to motivate them for anything else but defense. It took the Moscow
apartment bombings to motivate them for the Chechen war.
weaponized economics USA says it has ability to affect the economic environment, says it can
influence international financial institutions .. says it can use such abilities and
influence to cement multinational coalitions for unconventional warfare campaigns or dissuade
adversary nation-state governments from supporting competitors"
financial blackmail .[nations either join/suffer], the stores of value can be exploited..
the economic space is a war zone the tax, interest rates, legal and bureaucratic measures
used locally, by target states, can be [manipulated] to persuade adversaries, allies, and
surrogates to modify their behavior.. Entire agencies specialize in identifying.
opportunities where financial weapon(s) can be used to provide leverage [to achieve goals]?
Thank you Sally Snyder @ 7 for that link and great explanation. I want to add that I see
evidence the USA uses that same strategy domestically against the leaders of its states, its
cities, its counties, its political parties and privately against the leaders and activist
the world over. Americans rarely have the opportunity you afforded @7 to understand why
things are happening in the USA the way they are.
new subject:
The Great War had to wait until 1914, when Britain's Liberal government was adopting many of
Bismarck's social welfare measures.to Lysias @ 43 <==I certainly do agree with your
reason.. Consider the following
The great war was on hold since 1897, waiting on the British and French bankers to
create a means to finance the war. That financing required the warriors in Europe to
invade and overthrow the US Constitutional prohibition (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 4)
which prohibited Capitation or other direct taxes, not based in proportion to the population.
Amendment 16 ratifed on February 3, 1913 reads, the Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Within minutes after the US. Supreme court took up taking non proportional taxes from the
pockets of working Americans the privately owned Federal reserve bank was created, and made
by congress the central bank of the world (1913). So to recap, British adoption of Bismarck's
measures had little to do with the war in Europe, instead it was the the money to be taken by
taxation from the pockets of every American that satisfied the bankers requirement of
suitable and ample capital (Federal Reserve Act of 1913); USA taxes on Americans would
collateral the FR lending, and the USA would guarantee the taxes would be collected and
rendered as required. Once constitutional intent was thwarted, the federal Reserve could lend
to the global warriors who wanted to destroy Germany and take the oil rich land (entire
Middle East) from the Ottoman. It took two world wars and trillions of tax dollars, not to
mention millions of lives, for the pubic nations states to enable the private theft of the
oil rich Middle East lands owned by the Ottomans.
additionally .. Barovsky responded also to lysias @ 43 with "Actually, that's not true.
When the UK went to war in 1914, they discovered that their soldiers were so undernourished
and unfit to fight for the Empire, that a series of 'social reforms' were enacted to improve
the lot of the working class (or cannon fodder).by: Barovsky @ 46
@ somebody 61 I don't see how anything in Syria has been resolved peacefully, I just don't.
Russia's strategy of giving foes a choice of fighting or being bused elsewhere, a choice they
took, was a truly unique peaceful resolution. Never been done before, to my knowledge.
Revolutionary. Wonderful. Peaceful. I liked it.
If I may: A big part of national strategy is to have the populace focusing on "foreign
threats" which takes citizens' minds of their domestic problems. Part of "sovereign equality"
is (at the national level) to mind our own business, not somebody else's.
George Washington dedicates a large part of his farewell address to discussing foreign
relations and the dangers of permanent alliances between the United States and foreign
nations, which he views as foreign entanglements.
Later, we have "War is the Health of the State"
by Randolph Bourne (1918) . . here
". . .The republican State has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man's emotions.
What it has are of military origin, and in an unmilitary era such as we have passed through
since the Civil War, even military trappings have been scarcely seen. In such an era the
sense of the State almost fades out of the consciousness of men. With the shock of war,
however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people,
without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling,
the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other
Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war. . ."
I think we are seeing more like russia/china using a strategy similar to Muhammad Ali's rope
a dope against the u.s. They are both spending their money wisely on building effective
military forces, both defensive and offensive, but they are not wasting their treasure on
imperialist adventures. At the same time, everywhere U.S. has tried to corner a market or
extend itself, they have been getting cut off at the knees by either Russia or China. Russia
put a monkey wrench in U.S. goals in Ukraine, Syria and Venezuela. U.S. went after Iran and
China stepped in with a huge oil purchase and development project. Now I'm reading that
Russia is getting ready to assist Cuba in a major way.
Was it napoleon who said, "when you see your enemy making mistakes, let him"? (paraphrase)
I think they are going to continue trying to avoid a fight while they wait for the U.S. to
either come to its senses, collapse or come to blows, but they won't be the instigator.
U.S. is capitalist and this kind of society is more likely to destruct through a financial
collapse or a civil war than declaring war on either China or Russia. Not that war with China
or Russia can be ruled out, but if it occurred I think it would probably start as a result of
U.S. accidental blowing something up with one of our smart missiles....
This (entertaining) article was written by some street fellow in ukraine around the time
Yanukovich was ousted, but the similarities between Ukraine and US shares a common
perspective of a lot of USA common folk. In usa,you don't ever get to own much (its all
leased or financed) and even if you do, its not hard for them to find a way to liberate it
from you.
I recall US journalist George Seldes remarking his observations as he met the UK
conscripts coming to the WW1 front. His on-the-scene notes of malnourishment and inability to
handle repetitive lifting of ammunition to feed mortars/small cannon, relative to German
conscripts, were telling. Explains the postwar emphasis on sports and diet just to prep for
the next war. Lessons perhaps also applied to American emphasis on spoprts may just be the
overt signs of underlying gov covert funding/subsidies and legislation enabling "league"
monopolies.
Why the understatement? It's the same reason why militaries don't showcase their latest
greatest hardware to the public. Secrecy provides maneuvering room and is only revealed when
appropriate. It's also about managing fear and public opinion in hopes of exerting some
influence over your adversary.
AFAIK, China have not officially stated their holdings. The 290 figure is really an
estimate given by various NGOs.
Time is on the side of the new eastern powers, that is, with each passing month the US
military (& economic) superiority shrinks.
I think that is why China has been able to exercise such restraint with HK, they can put up
with the tantrums till 2047.
The big danger is if those who own the USA try to use their advantage before they lose
it.
They already assume
that an apocalypse is inevitable;
When the elite retreat to bunkers and private islands in Hawaii, New Zealand, Tasmania or
Patagonia
, their main concern is how to keep the deplorable's grubby hands off their stuff when the
shit finally hits the fan.
...re China's invention of gun powder. IIRC Marco Polo brought it back to Europe in 1400s at
a time when China had already advanced it to hand-held-cannon status.
Note well that Europe itself was already in an advanced state of acquisitive madness, as
much as could be enabled by formations of swords and horses occasionally being an
overwhelming weapon .
With gunpowder, force-of-arms were now an overwhelming weapon in far more areas of the
continent.
Then, and only then, could a Columbus et al have set out on voyages of discovery with
confident ability to claim any "new" lands for some king who would fund the mission.
I submit, there is no way a Columbus could set-sail unless he had on-board such
overwhelming weapons.
Else, landing anywhere without such would only permit some sly smiling and trading and
scouting. Any overtly aggressive landing party would be slaughtered by the sheer numbers of
home-team locals.
Re "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely", gunpowder was the 1st
overwhelming weapon that enabled conquest.
The 2nd overwhelming weapon was the atom-bomb. But IMO, some heroic figures understood
the ramifications its overwhelming-nature; thus they felt motivated to force its sharing, bec
a monopoly guaranteed its use to permit limitless conquering.
Then at that point, science was funded by .govs to invent the next overwhelming weapon
and use it before any delicious target could duplicate it. We are here.
Lavrov: "Those with a more or less politically mature opinion of the situation should have
realised long ago that the sanctions don't work in the direction they wanted them to
work."
Oswald Spengler is good here. What he called Western 'money-thinking' is moving at the moment
in contrary, self-extinguishing, directions. Full spectrum dominance, bankrolled by reserve
currency status, seeks the whole enchilada and potentially once had the wherewithal to
achieve it --if not for the punitive subtractions necessitated by sanctions regimes.
Compounding matters, the exiled nations, having escaped the comforts of the lab, develop
fearsome powers of self-reliance (what North Korea proudly calls juche). Banded together,
these hardened exiles will some day go on to decimate the King's Army:
"Spengler, more poet than historian, offers the penetrating eye of the stranger. His
prescience for the Russian destiny is paraphrased by Kerry Bolton here:
The Russian soul is not the same as the Western Faustian, as Spengler called it, the
'Magian' of the Arabian civilization, or the Classical of the Hellenes and Romans. The
Western Culture that was imposed on Russia by Peter the Great, what Spengler called
Petrinism, is a veneer The Russian soul expresses its own type of infinity, albeit not that
of the Westerner's Faustian soul, which becomes enslaved by its own technics at the end of
its life-cycle."
Many of those 'technics' fall under what Spengler called "money-thinking". At the
twilight of its life-cycle the West threatens to withhold its toxicity from all those who
don't 'play fair', plying its financial sanctions like an overused tool-set: fractional
reserve banking, impudent debt-money that arrives ex nihilo seeking its keep from
God-knows-where, leverage that belabors ever-narrowing denominators of intrinsic
value."
The Western debt pyramid can ill-afford meting out the punishment of exile. On the
contrary it needs everything on Earth plus the minerals of passing meteors and Martian water.
However its petulance and hubris can't resist banishing nations that displease it. When its
petulance exceeds its own diminishing critical mass, the seesaw tips against it.
Re ""power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely", gunpowder was the 1st overwhelming
weapon that enabled conquest."
The history of empires is as long as the history of agriculture and herding, nearly ending
with the advent of nuclear weapons and MAD.
Only one country left trying that needs some sense knocking into it.
I don't think the bussing to Idlib was Russian strategy. The Syrian civil proxy war was a
lot about demographics, Hezbollah tried to save Shiites from mixed areas, dito the Syrian
state with their supporters. It was a local solution that was necessary as Jihadi fighters
come with huge families. Turkey might have had a part as their interest was to have the
Jihadis at the border to fight against the Kurdish groups. You may have noticed that the
Syrian government with support of Russia now attacks the Jihadi fighters in Idlib.
Russia's strategy was to force Turkey on its side without alienating Iran or Syrians. Iran
at one stage seemed ready to support a religious power share the type of Lebanon. The Russian
intervention stopped that idea.
Russia saved the Syrian state and the Syrian state insisted on being secular and getting
rid of all internal ennemies. That is a kind of peace but the peace of the graveyard.
Actually it is quite funny that Putin has started to go back to the 19th century, to
"development models, interests, cultures and traditions " and the "concert of power".
After the Congress of Vienna there was the Russio-Persian war, the Russio-Turkish war, the
battle of Warsaw against Poland, the Crimean war against the Ottoman empire, Britain and
France, advancement in Central Asia and one of the tsars banned Ukrainian language in print.
Never mind the tsars successfully fighting the rebellions of the Russian middle classes.
Though in 1861 Russian serfs were finally freed as they were needed in newly developing
industries. The century ended in 1900 with the Russification of Finland, making Russian the
official language.
@ Peter AU 1 who wrote about the history of empires
"
Only one country left trying that needs some sense knocking into it.
"
That is occurring as we write our textual white noise about the details but the approach is
not a Western knocking some sense into it but an Eastern Art of War approach.
It came to me today that instead of WWIII we need to think of what the world is going
through as a Civilization war or evolution, assuming we make it out the other side of the
conflict. The current empire is trying everything in its quiver of arrows short of MAD to
retain control over the form of social organization with private finance at its core.
But the social organization of the East does not think like that and wants to spread the
wealth and ownership broadly. The East has been taken advantage of and maligned by the West
for centuries and they are not going to continue to let that happen. So they have organized
themselves to beat the West at its own game but are doing so according to the Art of War meme
instead of trying to knock some sense into the West. Since the East is good at playing the
long game in relation to the West they are incrementally wearing down and constraining the
West until it collapses of its inability to bully and Might-Makes-Right itself forward.
As we are watching the end game of those efforts, IMO. I don't see the West holding its
control on empire for much longer because the East is giving example of a better and more
equitable way that will be and is winning over country after country that have been client
states of empire held in place by the jackboot of global private finance.
We are witnessing a Civilization war of our species and it is quite the spectacle, eh?
Another example of the ever sanctioning superpower is losing its status. "Whistleblower
accuses largest US military shipbuilder of putting 'American lives at risk' by falsifying
tests on submarine stealth coating" Another day, another example of failure of the MIC to
deliver.
Huntington Ingalls Industries, which spun-off from Northrop Grumman in 2011, "knowingly
and/or recklessly" filed falsified records with the Navy claiming it had correctly applied a
coating, called a Special Hull Treatment, to Virginia-class attack submarines which would
allow the vessels to elude enemy sonar, the Sept. 26 complaint alleges.
Instead, the complaint said, Huntington Ingalls' Newport News Shipbuilding facility in
Virginia took shortcuts that allegedly "plagued" the class of submarines with problems, and
then retaliated against the employee who spoke up about the issues. At this rate most of the
US navy will be tied up at their home port waiting for repairs.
According to the complaint, Lawrence, a senior engineer at Huntington Ingalls who has
worked there since 2001, has provided evidence of the alleged issues at the company's Newport
News Shipbuilding facility in Virginia. Stay safe Lawrence.
My thoughts also. And we do live in very interesting times for sure.
When I say knocking some sense into, that includes something along the lines of a soviet
style collapse which is the preferable option.
~By The Western debt pyramid can ill-afford meting out the punishment of exile.~
71 FSD
Yeah, it is curious. You would think, with an understanding of its own system - infinite
growth backed by debt - that empire would wisely choose to employ its tentacles, not deny
them. Especially with most states outside of North Korea being open for business in some
shape or form. At this rate the US Treasury will need to authorize the advance sale of
mortgages to the burgeoning colonies on the moon.
To navigate to the summit for the best part of a century. And to squander those gains
within the space of half a young lifetime.
Putin's concept of strong defense is sound. You don't attack if the other side can defend
itself. You negotiate. In Thailand, we rarely see street fights (except between drunk
foreigners).
Why? The national sport is lethal Muay Thai (kick boxing), so you never start a fight, since
the other side can fight, too. You talk it over, negotiate.
Lot of nonsense in this thread. From "gunpowder was the 1st overwhelming weapon that
enabled conquest." When it is trivially simple to argue that the trained, uniformed and
properly regimented Roman Army which came 1500 years earlier was both a better example and
likely not the first.
Equally facile is the claim that "It's the quest for power that corrupts" Whilst its
probably true that some have been corrupted reaching for power it is equally true that many
who for various reasons were not corrupted in the quest, either because they acquired it
through serendipity by way of hereditary or accident, came into power as naive or
ideologically principled upstarts yet as with every leader, they were corrupted by power as
they were convinced no one else could do it (be the bossfella) as well as they.
Emperor Claudius comes to mind as an earlyish big time boss destroyed by power, but callow
youths thrust into power as clan leader when dad and/or older bros were killed in battle and
went on to become bigger arseholes than Dad, are examples which go back to when us mob first
walked upright.
Barovsky
I quoted a sentence by chu teh and was replying to the piece about gunpowder.
As for the power corrupts part, take a look at the US prior to the fall of the Soviet
Union and then what it has become during the time it held virtually absolute power..
Yesterday night The Godfather was broadcasted in a foreign private channel....
I saw a comrade telling about that and arguing that this movie contains the world...and it
is that indeed it encompasses the history of the USA...
"I have "worked" all my life for the welfare of my family, and I have always refused to be
a puppet moved by the threads of the powerful. With you I had other projects Michael. I
thought that one day you could move those threads. Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone, or
more".
Even in the meeting of all the mafia families in New York for to reach a "pact of no
agression" someone states:
As for the power corrupts part, take a look at the US prior to the fall of the Soviet
Union and then what it has become during the time it held virtually absolute power
In the decades since the 1972 Watergate scandal, more charges of corruption have been
leveled against members of presidential administrations than in the preceding two
centuries. Perhaps the most lasting achievement of Ronald Reagan's presidency was the
astonishingly successful campaign to delegitimate government itself, at least in the eyes
of many citizens, and to enshrine individual economic self-interest, manifested in
unregulated "private enterprise," as the paramount value of American life. That
transformation, like the rise of so-called rational choice and utility maximization as the
governing paradigms in the social sciences, has encouraged citizens to seek wealth -- and
to avoid paying taxes or participating in civil society -- as the only sensible strategy.
As a result, the homely virtues of self-discipline, moderation, and reciprocity preached by
Enlightenment thinkers such as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Abigail Adams now strike
many Americans as outmoded advice for suckers. If "greed is good," as the Wall Street
character Gordon Gekko asserted, then Donald J. Trump's career of swindling, debt dodging,
and tax evasion might serve as a model to emulate rather than an object lesson in the
mainstreaming of corrupt business practices.1
No one familiar with Alexander Hamilton, Roger "open the purses of the people" Morris or the
roots of the Shay's Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, North Carolina Regulator movement and other
people's movements and actions, or the 1787-88 counter-revolutionary coup carried out by the
Constitutional Convention for the purpose of centralizing economic and military power toward
social control and building a continental empire (anyone in any doubt about that should read
the proceedings and the Federalist Papers; Hamilton was especially forthcoming about the
imperial motivation), would have any illusions about how deeply corruption is inherent in the
US system.
Same for imperialism. And all subsequent US history starting and continuing with the
genocide of the First Nations bears this out.
With respect to sanctions, the EU central power ( i.e. Germany ) impossed harsh sanctions
that ended being implemented in full only by southern countries like Spain, who are those who
have seen their commercial excahnges with Russia diminished to the least with the conseuqent
loses for national business, while, in fact, German business continue their exchnage with
Russia as if nothing had happened...
Now that Trump impose import tariffs to Europe, the most affected are, again, those who
fulfilled the US sanctions plan towayds Russia at the letter, i.e. Spain and southern
countries...
If these Southern European Countries would have a sovereign government with any respect
for the people who vote them, they will extract the consequent lesson from all of this...and
would apply the recipe for all this with respect to Russia, Iran, and so on...
The lesson would translate like "the more you comply with US mandate on sanctions against
any other country you have nothing against, even at the price of harming badly your own
economy, the more sanctions/import tariffs will be impossed on yourself at the first
necessity...", which is the old lesson from primary school, "the more weak you would show in
front of a bully...more beating will come..., oor already in grown mafiosi, "more "special
tax" for "protection" to pay"...
Then it is Spain who hosts most of US nuclear deterrence and AFRICOM central command...If
Spain would have a sovereign government with a hint of respect for the people who vote it, an
ultimatum will be possed in front of the yankees, "eliminate import tariffs, stop meddling
with national economy, or pack your things and go home"
The Federal Reserve of the United States has injected about 278,000 million dollars in the
money market in four days. After injecting 53,000 million dollars earlier this week, the
Federal Reserve renewed these operations three times for astronomical amounts representing
75,000 million per day, and has already announced that it will continue to do so daily
until October 10.
The newspaper Le Figaro (1) describes as "astronomical" that jet of fiat money that,
however, does not seem to worry the New York Stock Exchange, with a Dow Jones index that
remained above 27,000 points throughout week. It is normal because, as the Efe agency says,
"Wall Street feeds on the flexibility of the Fed" (2), that is, the massive emissions of
paper money.
It has no different menu to nourish itself and, as specialists say, "the reasons that
lead to lower interest rates are usually not good."
The resistance of Wall Street is explained because these operations only affect the
interbank market, which is short of liquidity "temporarily". Banks that are financed on a
daily basis in this market would suffer a shortage of liquidity as a result of large debt
issues by the Treasury and a strong demand for liquidity from companies facing fiscal
maturities.
But there are more than enough reasons for speculators to worry. "The reasons may be not
only technical," says the newspaper. Some financial institutions have refused to make their
funds available to the market, indicating the possible vulnerability of a participant (bank
or companies) who may not be able to repay the amounts borrowed on a day-to-day basis. If
this situation is confirmed, which is synonymous with the loss of mutual trust in the
interbank market, it could be a more serious crisis than in 2008.
The President of the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell, who took office in February last
year, has no different alternative. He has been a member of the board of governors of the
Federal Reserve since 2012 and knows nothing more than routine: since the late 1970s he is
the first president of the Federal Reserve that does not even have a bachelor's degree in
economics. Does he need it?
The question is whether the gigantic mass of fiat money that it has put into circulation
will be sufficient to avoid a collapse like that of 2007, or another even greater collapse
will occur.
Russ @ 86.. can you tell me more about the continental congress. where can the biographies
and histories be had which might shed some real light on John Hanson first president(1781-1783) of the
United States in Congress Assembled(1776-1789) .. and Samuel Huntington (Conn), and Thomas
McKeen (Delaware) and the others who were elected and served as Presidents of the
[Continental Congress<= the government that defeated the British and that existed between
1776 and 1789}, before the lobbyist imposed ratification to install the US Constitution {a
document that cut off (terminated) the right of self determination and denied bottom up
democracy to the people of the several nations that were in America at the time]. Before the
constitution, the people could and did impose democracy on those who were in charge of the
local, state and central governments (The Articles of Confederation, central government from
1776 to 1789] after the Constitution, [the governed were never heard from again. ]. ..
somebody @59 sez: ""Souvereignty" and statehood ... is a recipe for war."
This is the mindset of the hegemon (or the servant of hegemony, whatever). They cannot
even imagine "Truly mutually respectful, pragmatic and consequently solid relations"
between nations any more than they can imagine others seeking that. They assume that everyone
else is motivated to dominate as they are. They project their own damage from having been
born into an intensely competitive, egotistical, identity -obsessed culture onto the
rest of humanity out of sheer ignorance that things could possible be any different
elsewhere.
Western culture, with the purest expression being in the United States, exalts in the
individual. That sounds like a noble and wonderful thing on the surface, but the practical
effect is to atomize society into isolated and competing hermetic entities. Community is
displaced to accommodate the self. This environment favors the sociopath and the psychopath,
which is why in the West sociopaths and psychopaths most easily accumulate power and rise to
the tops of all of those societies' institutions. It is not surprising that those born into
such an environment imagine it to be the natural order and human nature because that is all
they know and experience.
But of course that is not human nature. The species would have died out far more than a
hundred thousand years ago if it were. Human nature is to build community, and given the
opportunity that is precisely what they do. Community, though, is a threat to the power of
the psychopaths who ascend to the top of capitalist society, so in all institutions in which
those psychopaths gain power they discourage and fight and dismantle community and replace it
with social order built around themselves.
This psycho-driven culture grew to dominate in the West because, like slave-based
societies before, it was economically progressive. Due to the immaturity of communication
technology, individual psychos could assemble and coordinate larger social organizations
directed at production than the population could naturally assemble on its own. But
technology progresses and naturally formed human communities grow in scale and scope over
time. This made slave-based economies obsolete, and is now in the process of obsoleting
psycho-centric economies. It should come as no surprise that this replacement is occurring
most rapidly in cultures where the psycho-centrism had not fully established itself.
Considering the above, my bet is that as we see China's BRI project mature in Africa, that
continent will experience a Renaissance of epic proportions, perhaps even dwarfing China's
accomplishments of the last half century. This is because African cultures are similar to the
Chinese and other Asian cultures in that they have not yet been fully assimilated into the
western worship of "individualism" , so their natural human tendencies towards
community-building are not yet corrupted and subverted.
If China's transition to the dominant progressive power on the planet doesn't shatter the
dangerous American myth of exceptionality, then big portions of Africa moving into first
world status surely will. That's still some decades away, but we should be able to see
undeniable signs of movement in that direction by about 2030 to 2040 (growth in industrial
output and movement up the value added chain, dramatic development of infrastructure, rapid
increases in academic attainment, significant declines in poverty, etc).
Naturally, that is something that few westerners, particularly Americans, can wrap their
heads around because they have a flawed (Hobbesian) understanding of human nature. As they do
with China now, westerners will deny the evidence from their own eyes with regards to Africa
for as long as they can.
wikipedia makes no mention of it but for a long time Thomas McKeen was famous as the villain
in William Cobbett's The Democratic Judge or The Equal Liberty of the Press.
McKeen was a very nasty piece of work-his origins in Delaware are coincidental
"...that is not human nature. The species would have died out far more than a hundred
thousand years ago if it were. Human nature is to build community, and given the opportunity
that is precisely what they do. Community, though, is a threat to the power of the
psychopaths who ascend to the top of capitalist society, so in all institutions in which
those psychopaths gain power they discourage and fight and dismantle community and replace it
with social order built around themselves..."
How true, if a little unfair to psychopaths.
Very interesting.
I don't think it's the use of fiat money itself that's so important but what it's used for.
The money you describe as being used to support Wall Street is a great example of the wrong
use. Supporting a derivative led financial speculation benefitting the 1% vs the belt and
road which is oriented to real economic development which would be a wise productive use of
fiat.
-------------
In a famous critical remark directed at China's heavy reliance on western-style, debt-led
growth – an anonymous author (thought to be Xi or close colleague), noted
(sarcastically) the notion that big trees could be grown 'in the air'. Which is to say: that
trees need to have roots, and to grow in the ground. Instead of the 'virtual', financialised
'activity' of the West, real economic activity stems from the real economy, with roots
planted in the earth. The 'Belt and Road' is just this: intended as a major catalyst to real
economics.When the music stops and the derivative structure starts unraveling showing
multiple claims on ownership who will prevail. I think that there's a new sheriff in town
with the power to back up the 'roots in the ground' team.Posted by: financial matters | Jan
22, 2019 8:46:28 AM | 100
The 1776 Constitution was on a vector. By contrast, the 1788 Constitution was designed to
foreclose any further democratic movement. On the contrary, its main vector was to
concentrate power and wealth up the hierarchy, and to help build an empire for this new
ruling class.] the empire class ...needed a constitution which would centralize government,
strongly concentrate it, turn it into a versatile and brutal weapon on behalf of finance
assaults, military aggression, and police repression. There's only one path forward: We must
resume the American Revolution. by Russ @ 90..
very interesting.. 2012 .. discussion.. your paper .thanks . but still no background on the
people who brought about the 1776 government. and who operated it between its inception 1776
and the Bankers coup that regime changed the 1776 government into the 1788 Constitution of
the United States of America.
As you said in your article, everyone should know about Article 6 in the constitution of the
United States of America (the 1788 government) it saved British and French Aristocracy
<=and kept in power the very people the Americans had sought to remove=> from the
Americans who fought the war. It says All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into,
shall be as valid against the US under this Constitution, as under the confederation (but no
where do I see court cases that say under the 1776 government, that claims to lands, granted
by foreign kings and Queens (land grant estates) were valid? In fact, what I see is that the
Articles of Confederation government was planning to deny title to, and confiscate the lands
which traced to the land grants (G. Washington owned half of West Virginia and all of
Virginia) and the AoC plan was to distribute the land grant lands so confiscated among the
people who lived in America equally?
@WG 91 . . . as we see China's BRI project mature in Africa, that continent will experience a
Renaissance of epic proportions
Yes, and they've got a head start:
African countries with GDP growth rates above 5% in 2018
Libya, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, The Gambia, Senegal, Uganda, Burkina Faso.
Kenya, Guinea, Ghana, Egypt, Niger.
Also: China 6.5, US 2.8, France 1.5, Germany 1.4, UK 1.3 . . here
Lot of nonsense in this thread. From "gunpowder was the 1st overwhelming weapon that
enabled conquest."
Posted by: A User | Oct 5 2019 8:38 utc | 81
...re China's invention of gun powder. IIRC Marco Polo brought it back to Europe in
1400s at a time when China had already advanced it to hand-held-cannon status.
Posted by: chu teh | Oct 5 2019 4:51 utc | 69
Agree with the lot of nonsense bit, although there is also a lot of interest. It is true
that China discovered gunpowder, but not sure about the "hand-held-canon status". My version
of reality had it that due to differences of perspective between East and West, China
discovered gunpowder and used it for firecrackers, and (allegedly) never thought of using it
for weapons. Similarly knowledge of the configuration of the stars in relation to location
was discovered by the arabs, long before this knowledge was exploited by Europeans for
navigation. The claim being, that the practical Europeans put scientific discovery to use for
practical benefits while the East - which discovered important segments of that scientific
discovery long before - had "merely" put it to spiritual, cultural and other transcendent
uses.
I absorbed the above factoids (gunpowder and the stars) over half a century ago before I
would have looked at such claims sufficiently critically; to what extent such factoids might
be really true I am not quite sure, although I remain somewhat sceptical about the
"hand-held-canon" claim. The broader claim though about the application of scientific
discovery needs to be reexamined more impartially.
Ian2 @67: "Secrecy ... is only revealed when appropriate."
And the appropriate moment to reveal a strategic doomsday arsenal that only exists to
prevent attack is when that arsenal is fielded. This point is so obvious that it was raised
with humorous intent in the 1964 Kubrick movie Dr. Strangelove .
You only keep weapons systems secret that you intend to use in attacks in order to
surprise your victims. Since America is violently aggressive and regularly attacks other
countries, the US maintains this sort of policy. America is exceptional in this
regard, though. America's focus is on offensive weaponry to attack other countries
with, so keeping those weapons secret helps limit America's victims' abilities to prepare and
defend themselves. Military secrecy is therefore the tool of the aggressor intended to
facilitate sucker-punching its victims. Weapons intended to discourage such attacks
must be advertised loud and clear for their intended deterrence to succeed. This is
why Russia openly announces their new weapons and why China shows theirs off in parades.
China does not intend to use their nukes. They are not like America which is building
tactical nukes to make atomic weapons more palatable to use in practice. There are no
countries in the world that China has shown any interest in attacking anyway, unlike America
which maintains a list of target countries that it is working itself up to attacking.
, This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your
comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the
image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
< B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
< U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
< A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
..according to two Chinese scholars who have connections to regime insiders and who
requested anonymity to discuss the thinking of policymakers in Beijing, China's response has
been rooted not in anxiety but in confidence.
Beijing is convinced that Hong Kong's elites and a substantial part of the public do not
support the demonstrators and that what truly ails the territory are economic problems rather
than political ones -- in particular, a combination of stagnant incomes and rising rents.
Beijing also believes that, despite the appearance of disorder, its grip on Hong Kong society
remains firm. The Chinese Communist Party has long cultivated the territory's business elites
(the so-called tycoons) by offering them favorable economic access to the mainland. The party
also maintains a long-standing loyal cadre of underground members in the territory. And China
has forged ties with the Hong Kong labor movement and some sections of its criminal
underground. Finally, Beijing believes that many ordinary citizens are fearful of change and
tired of the disruption caused by the demonstrations.
Beijing therefore thinks that its local allies will stand firm and that the demonstrations
will gradually lose public support and eventually die out. As the demonstrations shrink, some
frustrated activists will engage in further violence, and that in turn will accelerate the
movement's decline. Meanwhile, Beijing is turning its attention to economic development
projects that it believes will address some of the underlying grievances that led many people
to take to the streets in the first place.
This view of the situation is held by those at the very top of the regime in Beijing, as
evidenced by recent remarks made by Chinese President Xi Jinping, some of which have not been
previously reported. In a speech Xi delivered in early September to a new class of rising
political stars at the Central Party School in Beijing, he rejected the suggestion of some
officials that China should declare a state of emergency in Hong Kong and send in the
People's Liberation Army. "That would be going down a political road of no return," Xi said.
"The central government will exercise the most patience and restraint and allow the [regional
government] and the local police force to resolve the crisis." In separate remarks that Xi
made around the same time, he spelled out what he sees as the proper way to proceed:
"Economic development is the only golden key to resolving all sorts of problems facing Hong
Kong today."
ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTEMS, MANY QUESTIONS
Chinese decision-makers are hardly surprised that Hong Kong is chafing under their rule.
Beijing believes it has treated Hong Kong with a light hand and has supported the territory's
economy in many ways, especially by granting it special access to the mainland's stocks and
currency markets, exempting it from the taxes and fees that other Chinese provinces and
municipalities pay the central government, and guaranteeing a reliable supply of water,
electricity, gas, and food. Even so, Beijing considers disaffection among Hong Kong's
residents a natural outgrowth of the territory's colonial British past and also a result of
the continuing influence of Western values. Indeed, during the 1984 negotiations between
China and the United Kingdom over Hong Kong's future, the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping
suggested following the approach of "one country, two systems" for 50 years precisely to give
people in Hong Kong plenty of time to get used to the Chinese political system.
But "one country, two systems" was never intended to result in Hong Kong spinning out of
China's control. Under the Basic Law that China crafted as Hong Kong's "mini-constitution,"
Beijing retained the right to prevent any challenge to what it considered its core security
interests. The law empowered Beijing to determine if and when Hong Kongers could directly
elect the territory's leadership, allowed Beijing to veto laws passed by the Hong Kong
Legislative Council, and granted China the right to make final interpretations of the Basic
Law. And there would be no question about who had a monopoly of force. During the
negotiations with the United Kingdom, Deng publicly rebuked a top Chinese defense official --
General Geng Biao, who at the time was a patron of a rising young official named Xi Jinping
-- for suggesting that there might not be any need to put troops in Hong Kong. Deng insisted
that a Chinese garrison was necessary to symbolize Chinese sovereignty.
Statements made by U.S. politicians in support of the recent demonstrations only confirm
Beijing's belief that Washington seeks to inflame radical sentiments in Hong Kong.
At first, Hong Kongers seemed to accept their new role as citizens of a rising China. In
1997, in a tracking poll of Hong Kong residents regularly conducted by researchers at the
University of Hong Kong, 47 percent of respondents identified themselves as "proud" citizens
of China. But things went downhill from there. In 2012, the Hong Kong government tried to
introduce "patriotic education" in elementary and middle schools, but the proposed curriculum
ran into a storm of local opposition and had to be withdrawn. In 2014, the 79-day Umbrella
Movement brought hundreds of thousands of citizens into the streets to protest Beijing's
refusal to allow direct elections for the chief executive. And as authoritarianism has
intensified under Xi's rule, events such as the 2015 kidnapping of five Hong Kong–based
publishers to stand trial in the mainland further soured Hong Kong opinion. By this past
June, only 27 percent of respondents to the tracking poll described themselves as "proud" to
be citizens of China. This year's demonstrations started as a protest against a proposed law
that would have allowed Hong Kongers suspected of criminal wrongdoing to be extradited to the
mainland but then developed into a broad-based expression of discontent over the lack of
democratic accountability, police brutality, and, most fundamentally, what was perceived as a
mainland assault on Hong Kong's unique identity.
Still, Chinese leaders do not blame themselves for these shifts in public opinion. Rather,
they believe that Western powers, especially the United States, have sought to drive a wedge
between Hong Kong and the mainland. Statements made by U.S. politicians in support of the
recent demonstrations only confirm Beijing's belief that Washington seeks to inflame radical
sentiments in Hong Kong. As Xi explained in his speech in September:
---
The Communist party conveniently discovered truth when Xi cam to power.
I doubt it, I think a thousand year history of this stuff is playing out and it has
nothing to do with East vs West. I think Xi faces this stuff in many provinces, though not as
bad. Xi is deliberately playing the 'This time is different', and old Commie trick.
"... If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment? ..."
"... One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike. ..."
"... Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time for the election. Buckle up, indeed. ..."
"... The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger" ..."
"... The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent, but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. ..."
"... Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were ratting on the CIA. ..."
"... I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed. The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't. ..."
"... And Pelosi, when asked by the CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" ..."
"... There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have to look no further than her constituency, the donor class. ..."
"... Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's harmful acts to date. ..."
"... Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever, brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous. ..."
"... In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected. ..."
"... Once is the intra-elite competition between the intelligence community and Trump. ..."
"... Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue town than any other candidates. ..."
"... I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it. ..."
"... The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks, of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism. One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct about the "Noise" part. ..."
"... The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses, more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has supported those policies in the past. ..."
"... Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political, which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against. ..."
"... And not a word about Clinton approving arms sales while Secretary of State and accepting gifts to their foundation? ..."
"... What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch. ..."
"... That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in office. ..."
"... Yes, Pelosi put the Intelligence Committee (Schiff) in charge, as opposed to the Judiciary Committee (Nadler). Odd. ..."
"... Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family! Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits. ..."
"... Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! ..."
"... Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later normalized and rationalized all this, of course.) ..."
"... In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for losing. ..."
"... Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than ever? ..."
"... It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves, that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway ..."
"... a world in which it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment. ..."
"... Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings will happen behind closed doors. ..."
"... Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the republicans or Trump (other than bombast). ..."
"... Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. ..."
"... As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership. His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the cause. ..."
"... Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence, halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged in US media? ..."
"... I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere. ..."
"... Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter ..."
"... Here, Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or political refuge. ..."
"... The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama. ..."
"... Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of the lies. Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful, prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME. ..."
"... I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to watch that theater live on a 60 inch screen. ..."
"We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden," said Biden's
brother James according to
this Politico story about how the Biden family cashes in on their well-placed relative.
... ... ...
If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that
say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment?
Two traps for a party that much of the nation depends on to rid them of the man the last
election elevated to power. Two reasons for independent voters -- those not Party loyalists,
not blue-no-matter-who, not Never-Trumpers, voters who never turn out for elections or rarely
do -- to not turn out for this one, when their voice and vote is needed most in this greatest
of watershed years
.
What's decided now, in this year and the next, will set the course of the nation and the
world for a dozen years to come -- or a dozen millennia if the chaos predicted by the most
pessimistic among us takes root and grows. After all, social and political chaos is a breeding
ground for authoritarian "solutions." We don't need any of those, and this may be the last
electoral chance to avoid them.
To reiterate a comment in the recent Water Cooler (this article is a better forum):
One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying
impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose
the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike.
Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine
about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation
origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be
trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time
for the election. Buckle up, indeed.
Yes, I've been wondering this also. The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow
too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so
it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger", as @InquiringMind
put it during the latest Water Cooler.
A recent decision was made by the intelligence organs to allow reporting of second-hand
information and be titled a whistleblower for your efforts. it is acceptable to spy (which
this is an example of, since it is not whistleblowing) and listen to conversations saying
they heard this or that was happening, report that through legal channels, and have it
accepted BECAUSE IT APPEALS POLITICALLY to the agency or the particular representative.
The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to
service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent,
but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free
flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. We're getting wise
– not completely, not with any assuredness that our info is complete, but enough to
cause tremendous doubt and distrust of the messaging coming from government and media
propagandists.
To me, the danger of this period is exactly the lack of organized opposition, politically
at home and among the nations of the globe, to this onslaught and flooding of the ears with
lies that become real due to that repetition. We are not united, and the convenient and quick
answers are flawed. The Communist Party was deeply flawed, and the International a craven
defender of Stalin, but we could certainly use some organization similar to fight this neocon
cancer now, before it metastisizes into worse, if that is possible. That being said,
impatience drives tribal thinking, already invading academia and the few public intellectuals
existing. I await the working classes hitting their limit. Buckle up, indeed
Hey, I'm not posing an answer, and see fear of one everywhere, so don't thank me. There is
a inchoate and diffuse anger brewing "out there", but it does not reflect our measured,
rather moderate knowledge of crime and abuse of power we observe daily. It will, given the
money and influence of the right wing, push over to such violent reaction it will make the
1930s seem like a birthday party. The left, or what is loosely left of it, badly needs
discipline and structure, but its traditional organs have been rent asunder and are not
trustworthy.
A thinktank? New party? Dunno it has to have room to grow, and our secret-sauce parties
and intel outfits have "six ways from Sunday" to mess with any of it. Clarity of political
thought seems to come from crisis and being cornered, but that clarity is not guaranteed to
be "healthy", babies going with the bath water-wise. Bernie is a short-term stopgap to the
bleeding IF he can wrap his mind around the movement and an understanding of the immediate
threats to its existence- i.e., the DNC.
Regarding the first sentence of your comment: The requirements of the law never changed,
the whistleblower used an old form anyway, and the recently changed form has been
replaced.
In any case, the IG's process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not
by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been
virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the
2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations
were credible and that Congress should be notified.
Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were
ratting on the CIA. This hearsay would be laughed out of a court of law absent other proof.
Further, I think we can dismiss the IG investigation as being anything not pressured by
establishment types threatened by Trump's vendetta against Obama and his wing of the neo-lib
global corporation, as it promises to open the can of worms that both parties are united in
foreign policy and who we deal with, and that unity spills over into McCarthy-like reaction
to any unpredictability and unreliability such as Trump's. We can't "get him" on his real
crimes, as that would leave all "them guys" exposed.
I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the
conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed.
The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't.
And Pelosi, when asked by the
CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" It will be extremely interesting to see how
much influence the CIA has over Republican Senators who will be casting decisive votes.
Thirty-three Republicans Senators will be excused and given cover. Is there a thirty-fourth
with the cojones to vote against removal and against the CIA's efforts to impose a color
revolution on American soil?
If this is really about 2020 then Democrats are even more stupid than I'm inclined to
believe. Krystal Ball said this morning that only 35% of the public supports impeachment. All
this effort will do is rile up Trump supporters. I recall what happened in the 1998 midterms
after the Clinton impeachment. There's every reason to believe this will turn around and bite
the Democrats in 2020.
Pelosi and Schumer are fine with that. If Democrats were to actually win, they'd have to
govern, and they can't do that.
There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have
to look no further than her constituency, the donor class.
From their perspective there has been too many uncomfortable policy debates, including
climate change, occurring on the campaign trail. As with Russiagate all of these discussions
will vanish from the corporate media.
Also, some of the donors have stated they will not donate to the Dems, and may in fact
donate to Trump, if Warren gets nominated.
Finally, purely for display of party unity, protecting Joe Biden, even if it brings him
down will have value. Also, this specific charge will not bring up any of other former "suits" illegal
actions.
Inasmuch as polling showing the combined popularity of Sanders and Warren exceed 30% while
Biden is down to 19%, if you can end with a inconclusive first round of voting at the
Democratic Convention, you can bring in the Supers and name the person of your choice.
As to the question of 'why now?', my guess is because the 'resistance' types see the
writing on the wall that they are going to lose with anybody but Sanders as the candidate,
and they aren't about to allow Sanders to win. RussiaRussiaRussia, porn stars, and everything
else they tried didn't work and they've got nothing else that would give the public at large
something to vote for .
As to that writing on the wall, I will offer some very anecdotal evidence, but I found it
telling. A few days ago I went to a rural county fair. Now granted these fairs likely attract
a more conservative crowd, however this particular fair was in the most liberal county in the
state. Took a look at the exhibition hall at the fair, full of quilts, 4th grade artwork,
canned tomatoes, etc. as well as booths for both the Republican and Democrat parties.
At the Democrat party booth, they had put out poster boards with a list of issues and you
were supposed to put a little round sticker next to the issue you felt was most important.
Boring policy wonk stuff. I don't even remember if anyone was manning the booth when we
stopped by, but if they were they made no attempt whatsoever to speak with us. My wife put
one sticker on a poster and walked away and we were the only people there at the time. In
fairness, clearly there had been people there earlier since there were a lot of stickers
stuck to posters.
At the Republican booth, there were a number of people in line engaging with those manning
the booth. And rather than just pining little stickers on a poster, the Republicans were
handing out Trump 2020 swag and letting people get photos with a big Trump cutout. IDoing fun
stuff. Walking around the fair later I saw one of the few Hispanics in attendance (this is a
very white county in an extremely white state) sporting a Trump 2020 tote bag as he and his
wife walked through the fair.
If I were to base a prediction on the evidence alone, I would say Trump and the Elephants
are going to hand the Asses their asses in 2020 and they can feel it coming.
I really don't see how this doesn't blow up in their faces, but they've got nothing
else.
This is my feeling on it. It's the Democrats' Benghazi, a string of congressional hearings
designed to produce dirt on Trump to sink him in the election. Actual impeachment and removal
is nahgunnahappen, as that requires 67 senators, which would require all Democrats in the
Senate, both independents, and 20 Republicans . It would be a minor miracle if five
Republicans signed onto impeachment.
However, with dirt slinging as the only useful outcome possible, it shows how incompetent
Pelosi is by limiting the inquiry to just the Ukraine business. The damning dirt could come
in any form out of any corner of Trump's ongoings, so why would you limit the dirt digging to
something that, on the face of it, doesn't scream it went any deeper than Trump's
implication. Especially as it didn't happen that long ago.
God, this is so stupid. Look, perhaps it is because I live in a different continent or I
have a twisted turn of mind but I am seeing something completely different at work here. Is
Trump Corrupt? Of course he is but in a completely ham-fisted way that makes it blatantly
obvious. With Trump you always have low expectations. But Thomas Neuburger talks about ICE
deaths, Puerto Rico, the Muslim ban but so what? Obama was guilty of far worse but no
Democrats will criticize him for any of it. An example? If you cover up an international war
crime such as torture, that is an international crime too and Obama definitely covered up for
the CIA tortures and "looked forward". And one ramification for that was the US now having a
ex-torturer as head of the CIA.
So here is my take. The past few months Americans were finally having subjects like
healthcare and college debt forgiveness getting some air time and some serious traction. The
Democrat candidates were being forced to give answers on their positions on such ideas. But
now? The Democrats have introduced impeachment which has all the success prospects of
Russiagate. Expect copious amounts of verbal diarrhea in the next few months which will allow
for no time for discussion of subjects like healthcare anymore. The DNC will shout down
anyone trying to do so by shouting "Impeachment!". And when the elections rock around in a
year's time and there is finally some minor space to start talking about such subjects, the
DNC will tell progressives "You know, you should have really brought this up in 2019 while
there was time to talk about it. Your bad."
Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the
Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's
harmful acts to date.
I tell people that Trump is a minor league con man because so many people assert that he
is a con man
Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was
prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company
friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever,
brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not
prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous.
In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected.
Obama is in a con man league of his own, as he benefits from the left's form of Obama
Derangement Syndrome.
Interesting that attacking trump on this is attacking Biden did dem elites give up on him?
don't see how he can survive, which seems to open the field for Warren sanders if so, not
what donors want, pelosi musta been forced by blue dogs cia.
Maybe good for sanders he needs rest, the stents will require recovery msm can't focus away
from impeach to celebrate his health problems
How long? Say one month?
Hopefully the dems great white hope Biden will be down and out by primaries Bernie might find
help in the south this time where it was a wall last time
Ca dem elites don't want Bernie, but electorate doesn't want Kamala
And Tulsi back on stage with her useful to focus on wars.
I think this vectors the right direction, Rev Kev. White noise to drown out clearly
articulated messages. If any of this were about actual evidence, Binney would've been called
to undercut the Crowdstrike assertions.
There are a couple of things that seem real. Once is the intra-elite competition between
the intelligence community and Trump. Epstein cracked a door and some light got through.
Trump seems to have taken the standard operating procedures personally.
Despite this, Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks
serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue
town than any other candidates.
The endgame comes with the primaries. Sander's campaign income has a verisimilitude with
greater weight than the polls. Even polls which aren't specifically rigged can't cope with
modern communications. The problem is, with electronic vote-flipping on top of old-school
methods, unless the paper ballots get in (which is against status quo interests), how can it
be made clear the vote is being rigged? Could public gatherings outside the polling places be
enough to offer an alternative count?
Plus, Sanders has set himself up as TINA. He has not spread his wealth of four decades of
credibility to anyone else. No Hindu is getting the Oval, so Gabbard is a gadfly, not an
option. Trump and the top three Democratic candidates could all actually die of old age.
The only thing I'd actually put a bet on in all this is that Trump will not be removed
from office via impeachment.
I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to
overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it.
The real determinate is which people 'care' about it. The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks,
of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism.
One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White
Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct
about the "Noise" part.
According to Ball in the "Rising" video, the percentage of people who support impeachment
is 35%. That pretty much covers all the "partisan hacks" you refer to.
To the average voter? This is just noise and nonsense. Regardless of how impeachment ends
(and one doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that it will go nowhere), the concerns and
the anger of average voters are not going away.
Ditto, Ambrit- a rational response bestride the not caring noise.
The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders
is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses,
more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has
supported those policies in the past.
Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing
govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on
the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of
policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political,
which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against.
Right now, probably true. However, we've been victim to propaganda many times before
– WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.etc. We have an apparatus that has honed its abilities
to reach millions immediately through TV, press, video, websites, that puts former agit-prop
to shame. We have been swarmed with the same message, basically allowing those caught in lies
previously to suddenly be believed today, "because"
The truth of any proposition comes down to its provenance and our ability to get tired of
the repetition and cacophony surrounding us, thus surrendering the ground. If enough believe
the initial message, if enough see their bread buttered by it, then the rest of us are prone
to that surrender unless an outside agency we CAN rely on exists.
It is sad to say that "not caring" becomes a positive. 50% of the voting public does not
vote, and most who vote do not care if their vote is even counted properly. Do not care
equals no democracy at all.
What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally
discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and
they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch.
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's caucus finally made her do what she despises doing. That it should
benefit her party leadership's choice to replace Donald Trump is, of course,
coincidental.
There's still the nit that there's been no congressional vote authorizing her impeachment
inquiry, which will keep the process in the courts and delay proceedings longer than
necessary.
Ms. Pelosi's actions bring to mind the contradictory naval order, proceed with all
deliberate speed. It is a sign that the admirals acknowledge the necessity of doing
something, but tell their commanders it's on them if it goes South.
That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and
prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much
as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in
office.
California is the vanguard of the "Resistance" to Trump. Pelosi is from California, as is
Schiff. Two of the Intelligence Committee members are also from California (Jackie Speier and
Eric Swalwell) as the LA Times pointed out a few days ago ("
California to play an outsize role in impeachment inquiry of Trump "). This is probably
why the whole impeachment inquiry is centered in the Intelligence committee and not the
Judiciary.
Various Obama officials live or work in California. For example, Eric Holder was hired by
the California Legislature to fight Trump. David Plouffe, who works with the Chan Zuckerberg
Initiative among other Silicon Valley groups, is helping a liberal group called ACRONYM with
anti-Trump digital messaging.
Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was
married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family!
Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits.
Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! The Wash Post even
had a fantasy piece about "President Pelosi" just a few days ago.
Thanks for that, saved me a bit of rushed commenting because I was going to quickly
comment on it before I noticed you had already.
California has 6 of the 24 members of the House Intelligence Committee: 4 of those 6
members hold 100% of Democratic (Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff) and Republican (Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes) leadership roles; there are 4 out of 14 in the total Democratic membership,
and 2 out of 10 in the Republican membership.
Also, Californian members make up 100% of the House membership of the Gang of Eight, , 2
Democratic and 2 Republican: respectively, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff; and Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes.
And lastly, both California Senators Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris (despite her
newbiness), are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the only State to have both Senators as
members.
As a decades long California resident, what sickens me the most about this is California
legislators (overwhelmingly Democratic Party, but may as well be Republican given the
stunning inequality/austerity imposed in California) preside over the highest numbers of
unsheltered homeless in the country. A full third of California residents have been forced
onto Medi-Cal (where millions can't find a treating doctor for the life of them), or don't
qualify (despite not being able to afford their rents), yet can't afford any insurance.
Concurrently, State Legislators and that duplicitous, slimy creep Newsom just signed off on
an Obama inspired California
Healthcare Mandate Penalty , although there were crickets at California's Franchise Tax
Board when it came to following the IRS in going after Facebook's stunning and blatant 2010
Ireland Asset transfers Tax evasion (to the tune of billions now, and next to impossible to
determine what the current status of it is), they would much rather go after their
increasingly impoverished populace who can't afford a CPA, let alone an attorney.
> In other words, the rightness of impeachment was never a consideration for Democratic
Party leaders.
Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the
table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless
surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later
normalized and rationalized all this, of course.)
So one would not have expected principle or the "rule of law" or any of those other
shibboleths to enter into the liberal Democrat decision-making process. It never does.
This person starts out with an establishing remark that convicts Trump, and goes on from
there. Unlike a true impeachment process, no 'real' groundwork is laid down. Furthermore, by
half-heartedly mentioning "issues" with the Pelosi formulation, in effect, that Biden is just
as bad as Trump, the author lays the groundwork for the 'impeachment' of both Party's "main"
candidates. The piece reminds me of the logic of the Alice in Wonderland trial: "Sentence
first – verdict afterwards." All this, my cynical sensibility reminds me, sotto voice,
for an insane Queen.
Impeachment has always been a political process. After all, it is a function of the Congress,
the prototype of politics. To take the authors buttressing point, that the 'essence' of
impeachment should be the pure logic of the deeds in question casts the entire process of
impeachment in the light of virtue signalling. How else would a disinterested observer
characterize a process where the process itself is not initiated with the anticipation of a
useful outcome? In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for
losing.
This piece, if any, shows plainly the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American
political process today. The two "leading" candidates of the "rival" Partys are both
delineated to be frauds, figuratively and literally. Turning the mentioning of the earlier
English Parliamentary 'version' of impeachment on, as it were, it's head, one is lead to
consider that only something as all encompassing and determinative as an actual bloodletting
will be of any use to the Nation.
Be very careful what you ask for. You might get it.
"Impeachment is the Constitution's version of the English Civil War, minus the war."
It could be argued that getting rid of a Prime Minister via a vote of no confidence is
orders of magnitude simpler than impeachment. In fact, it seems to happen about every ten or
twenty years on average in the UK. And no civil war required either.
The best analogue of today with then is that the English Civil War did not just remove the
Royalist leadership of the time, but an entire generation of Royalists. Does America really
want a twenty year interregnum?
We are already in the Interregnum. Trump was 'none of the above'. People talked about a
'clown car' and then Trump showed that a clown could actually accede to power, insofar as a
clown can manage the role. The Democrats responded with a clown show of their own. It's a
circus, although the clowns are pretty malign. Maybe people like that. Meanwhile, serious
people with serious political proposals, like Sanders, are on the outside looking in.
Someone's going to have to break a window.
Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's
changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly
filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than
ever?
All I can think of is that the Clinton derangement syndrome – the bitterness and
perceived injustice that the anointed one didn't get anointed – still has an iron grip
on the psyche of the DC Daristocrats. They're stone drunk on hatred, spite, and lust for
revenge and are hallucinating in broad daylight that they've got the hook to sell it.
I like the idea that this is all a clever ruse to keep the focus away from sanity in
health care etc., but it just doesn't look like they have that much sense. From the UK to the
the US, everyone's going nuts.
I bet it's good for fund raising, those I know who are most embarrassed by trump have a
fair amount of money and currently they are very excited. Whatever it is, it's not bernie (or
should I say &@cking bernie), it's not M4A, and it's not student loans, as commented on
above this line
It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves,
that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for
all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert
attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway
There is a huge amount of pressure from the public to get rid of Trump any way possible
and a lot of that, ironically, has been manufactured by the democrats themselves. That, I
suspect, combined with Hillary syndrome, is more what's behind this than the criminal, but
lucid, plan to obscure the popularity of programs benefiting the public.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the last 5 years of commentary then -- there's been
plenty of substance offered by those who are just as powerless as you.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
It's not clear the Democrats would notice any impropriety. What would be tearing them
apart is that they didn't get a seat at the trough (on the board) as well.
I would say 'Joe Biden's son's integrity' and 'the dubious right-wing Democratic Party
CIA-led arms sales-drive policy in the Ukraine.'
I don't think that Biden himself is particularly corrupt; the guy really is a terrible
hack. And I don't think legal corruption is necessarily what's at issue, but a world in which
it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and
help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment.
The wider context–villifying Russia, cleaning up Ukraine enough to justify
consorting with fascists and the far-right to keep all the balls in the air, needs to be
exposed.
There is a right way to do impeachment, and this ain't it. They could investigate the
Trump administrator for its rampant corruption – it's a very target-rich environment.
Instead, Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and
offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House
Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings
will happen behind closed doors.
So, they think that they're going to remove the duly elected
President behind closed doors, and they think the population will be okay with this? Do they
really live in such a bubble that they think people trust their judgment enough to do this?
It boggles the mind.
Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot
on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the
democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the
republicans or Trump (other than bombast).
Also, just a thought, having this discussion behind closed doors makes sense if Pelosi is
hoping they will come to their senses.
As to the right or wrong way to do impeachment, I think the democrats like the republicans
are simply beyond that or any notion of it other than the residue of dim memory that ends up
entirely as the decorative part in public speeches. I suspect they are quite simply oblivious
to such niceties as anything being wrong with using impeachment as a weapon rather than as a
means for justice.
I'm pretty sure Pelosi doesn't want it and wanted to repeat her 2007 play, but she doesn't
have 2008 certainty to offer (keep the powder dry I know but this was what that was about).
Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. The people who missed brunch
aren't exactly rationale or going to have this explained to them behind closed doors. Pelosi
has been slowly losing with the caucus, but most of the members are terrible and vulnerable
to an AOC-esque challenge especially in safe seats which most of the seats are. Again without
theven #resistance, safe seat Team Blue types are very vulnerable.
Adding that, imo, the rank and file voters did the work of electing Democrats to a House
majority, motivated partly by Clinton revenge, but also by policy issues. There's been
noticeable dismay in the corners of twitter where I wander at Pelosi's taking so long to act,
the inept performances of the few hearings so far, and now the proposed narrow focus.
my take is they're never actually going to pass articles of impeachment, which would hand
the process over to McConnell in the Senate. It will stay in the House and they will attempt
to nab Trump or perhaps one of his sidekicks like Giuliani on obstruction of the House
investigation. This is by now a fairly transparent strategy, and we will find out what the
elusive PA swing voter thinks of it soon enough.
As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership.
His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the
cause.
Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy
running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence,
halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged
in US media?
I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of
Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting
the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere.
Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will
not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not
declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter.
Here,
Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of
Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud
armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any
consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions
emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or
political refuge.
Wasn't the power to go to war exclusively reserved for Congress, to try to make sure that
the country wouldn't go to war on a lark? And wasn't the Bill of Rights enshrined to make
sure that the U.S. Government could not put people to death, at least without due
process?
I realize that this might mean that Congress would have had to impeach presidents left and
right. So be it; enlisted women and men can be severely punished for killing innocent people
(and for far less, such as disobeying orders). Why should presidents and vice-presidents
escape responsibility for high crimes of unjustifiable homicide (and, I must add,
countenancing torture)?
The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare
achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any
brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama.
Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of
the lies.
Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful,
prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME.
Is this the last desperation Hail Mary by the Democratic Party and the National Security
State to save themselves?
Has it already happened?
I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew
McCabe
has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to
watch that theater live
on a 60 inch screen.
"... After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental" organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation, and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today. ..."
"... There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government involvement. ..."
"... It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement in Hong Kong for years. ..."
"... Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream media? ..."
"... The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups that there was a reduction in their power. ..."
"... The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. ..."
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your Twitter account has just been closed. Why?
Daniel McAdams: In August I was watching a segment of the Sean Hannity program while at a friend's house and noticed that despite
an hour of Hannity ranting against the "deep state" in the US, he was wearing a lapel pin bearing the seal of the US Central Intelligence
agency, which most would agree is either the center or at least an important hub of the US "deep state" itself. I tweeted about
this strange anomaly and as a comment to my own Tweet on it I happened to say that Hannity is "retarded." Twitter informed me
that I had committed "hateful conduct" for "promoting violence against or directly attacking or threatening other people on the
basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability,
or disease." It is clear on its face that I did none of these. I used a non-politically correct term to ridicule Hannity for attacking
the "deep state" while wearing the symbols of the deep state on his very lapel.
It is clear that Twitter is deeply biased against any voices outside the mainstream, pro-empire perspective. As a leading Tweeter
in opposition to interventionist US foreign policy, I had long been targeted by those who enable and enforce Twitter's political
biases. Look at who Twitter partners with and you will understand why I was banned for a transparently false reason: the US government-funded
Atlantic Council and other similar organizations are working with Twitter to eliminate any voices challenging US global military
empire.
In your opinion, what exactly is the role of the CIA in the regime changes of some countries around the world?
From its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency carried the dual role of analyzing
intelligence for its customers in the Executive Branch of the US government and conducting covert actions and operations in pursuit
of (claimed) US foreign policy goals. The history of CIA action in post-war Europe is extensive and includes founding front organizations
to prop up socialist and far-left publications and institutions as a challenge to Soviet communism as well as backing far-right
groups and political parties and even violent terror organizations to directly confront communism and overturn elections where
communists made gains.
After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a
global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted
US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental"
organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods
developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation,
and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic
government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today.
The practical value to the United States of such operations is less than zero, the costs to the American taxpayer are enormous,
and the immorality of manipulating the globe toward an outcome preferred by Washington's elites is self-evident.
When we see the generalized NSA surveillance, do you think we live in a democracy or a tenebrous fascist regime?
Americans have been manipulated by the elites in government and its allies in state propaganda (otherwise known as the "mainstream
media") to accept, particularly post-9/11, the deeply anti-American proposition that we must yield our privacy and Constitutionally-guaranteed
civil liberties to a government that promises it will not abuse its increased power over us but will only use it to keep us safe.
These promises have been over and over again proven to be lies. Government is not targeting terrorism or terrorists: they are
targeting average American citizens.
Americans were told that only terrorists' phone calls would be intercepted, but then Edward Snowden revealed that all of our
phone calls are intercepted. Americans were mad for a few weeks but then Washington promised "reform" of the PATRIOT Act in the
form of the FREEDOM Act and everybody calmed down. Even though the FREEDOM Act is actually worse than the PATRIOT Act because
it legalized all of the illegal activities that were taking place under the PATRIOT Act. "Reform" in Washington means obfuscation
and perception manipulation.
Likewise, Americans seeking to travel within their own country have been forced to allow strangers to invade and touch the
most private areas of their bodies – and their children's bodies! American sheep just bow to the authorities and keep watching
their freedoms stolen from them, murmuring to themselves as they are raped by the authorities, "well I have nothing to hide "
You mentioned one time Operation Mockingbird, where the CIA manipulated journalists in the 1950s. In your opinion, does the CIA
continue to use these same practices today?
I have no doubt that the CIA continues to maintain a close relationship with both mainstream and independent journalists. This
is critical to establishing and controlling the narrative in each foreign "crisis." It is no accident that each mainstream media
outlet – regardless whether left-wing or right-wing or any wing - has the exact same perspective on events like the Ukraine coup
or the Venezuela attempted coup, or Hong Kong protests. Part of this is the US "deep state" or "national security state" and part
of it is the increasing integration of US corporate entities into the US government. Major media outlets are owned by US corporations
that also own weapons manufacturing companies and cannot be trusted to report on events objectively. Similarly, virtually every
US mainstream media outlet employs "former" members of the US intelligence community to "explain" foreign events to their viewers.
When is the last time a credible non-interventionist or pro-peace analyst has been featured in any mainstream media outlet?
As in Soviet times, any view at odds with Washington's "party line" is simply disappeared. When independent media outlets begin
gaining traction and challenging the narrative, they are "de-platformed" on social media and even from their Internet service
providers under the recommendations of US government-funded NGOs like the Atlantic Council or the German Marshal Fund.
Is not what is currently happening in Hong Kong a CIA manipulation targeting China in the context of the Trump administration's
economic war?
There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single
body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see
the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government
involvement.
It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement
in Hong Kong for years. They don't even hide it: you can easily find on USAID and National Endowment for Democracy website
the level of funding the US government provides these organizations and political parties. And when these party leaders come to
Washington, they are received by the US Vice President, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, and other high-ranking US government
officials. Which foreign opposition movements that Washington does not support are given such treatment?
Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly
went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist
Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream
media?
You mentioned a US-supported coup when you talked about Venezuela. In your opinion, does the US administration continue the same
interventionist policy to destabilize Latin American countries?
Any Latin American government not in Washington's constellation has been and is targeted for destabilization and overthrow.
We saw this with the 2009 coup in Honduras, whose architect was then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We see it in Cuba. We
see it in Venezuela. We saw it with Ecuador, where a government wary of US persecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was
"changed" in favor of a regime that handed Assange over to the authorities in exchange for a few billion dollars from the IMF.
Do what Washington says and get paid; oppose Washington and get overthrown. That is the foreign policy of the US empire. And like
the Soviet empire that preceded it, it is a policy doomed to failure.
Why in your opinion does the United States always need an enemy? Is not there a danger of world war when we see the multitude
of US imperialist interventions around the world?
The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its
elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class
America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge
the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their
families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on
terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted
in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups
that there was a reduction in their power.
After the Russian and Iranian success in beating back the jihadist threat in Syria, the 2017 US national security strategy
did an Orwellian about-face and abandoned the "war on terror" in favor of a declaration that our new enemies were again our old
enemies: China and Russia. It is literally Orwell's 1984: "we are at war with Eastasia. We had always been at war with Eastasia."
What do you think about the North Korean and Iranian case, where the Trump administration lacks a clear vision and where some
neoconservatives are pushing for a war?
There are few consistencies in President Trump's foreign policy. One emerging consistency, however, is that he seems genuinely
reluctant to take the country into a bona fide war. He's happy with sending a few dozen Tomahawk missiles into the Syrian countryside,
but when faced with an actual robust response to any US strike, he to this point has chosen de-escalation. This may be a function
of his keen eye for politics rather than any philosophical or moral concerns, but it to this point seems thematic. The problem
is that by surrounding himself with neoconservatives – and make no mistake his replacement for Bolton is at least as much a neocon
as the Mustached One himself – the president is isolating himself from any inputs advising military constraint when facing crises
overseas. That is why many of us were so much hoping that Bolton would be replaced with a Realist like Col. Douglas Macgregor.
There is a big danger that the president will be cornered by a lack of non-war options to the next crisis simply because he gives
no quarter to non-war voices in his administration.
When we consider the plight of activists and whistleblowers, such as Assange, Snowden, etc. can we still talk about freedom of
speech and human rights? Shouldn't we mobilize more to support these activists and others around the world?
The plight of Snowden and Assange and all of the persecuted whistleblowers and truth-tellers is the plight of what is life
of our liberty, freedom, and even Western civilization. When all dissent is quashed, imprisoned, tortured, we are left with only
the Total State. The Total State, as we know from history, brooks no dissent because it can only maintain power by continuing
the illusion that it alone is the source of truth. Thus any voice challenging the Total State, as the embodiment of truth, must
on its face be a lie. Why would truth allow lies to undermine it? Why would any sane person oppose "the people" as represented
in their Soviet government? Surely such a person would be insane and need of treatment rather than a citizen raising a legitimate
question or differing opinion.
This is what we are facing in the US today. A Total State, where opposing views are de-platformed and disappeared. Where truth-tellers
are jailed and tortured – pour servir d'avertissement aux autres (to serve as a warning to others).
What is your assessment of the Trump Presidency and what do you think of its foreign policy?
The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch
foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along
with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative
cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. He did not chart a wise course
in building a solid administration of professionals who agree with him – and there are plenty to choose from – and instead he
actually hired an entire team of people who not only disagree with his stated positions, but they actually publicly ridicule them
and work against them. It is unprecedented in my memory to see those who serve the president publicly undermining his stated positions,
yet Bolton and Pompeo never hesitated or hesitate to do just that. This is an enormous missed opportunity for President Trump
and for the United States.
You have been an advisor to Congressman Ron Paul and you are doing an excellent job as Director of the Ron Paul Institute for
Peace and Prosperity. Can you explain to our readers what the missions of this institute are?
Our mission as a non-profit educational institution is to make the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and the restoration
of our civil liberties at home. We are the continuation of the Ron Paul liberty movement. To that end, we publish thousands of
articles making the case for non-interventionism on our website, we broadcast a daily Ron Paul Liberty Report, and we hold conferences
throughout the country bringing together a broad coalition of Americans – and non-Americans – to learn and promote peace and prosperity!
* * *
Daniel McAdams is executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-host of the "Ron Paul Liberty
Report," a daily live broadcast. He served for 12 years on Capitol Hill as foreign affairs and national security advisor to former
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former
communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.
"... Of course, I understand your motives for Impeachment are not wholly altruistic. With corporate donations drying up and growing pressure from Progressive primary challengers making Establishment incumbents increasingly nervous, you need some way to excite your old school base for the important election season to come. ..."
Thank you so much for inviting me to your Impeachment Party. It's really great to hear
you've finally found something to nail Trump with. Good for you! You've been looking so hard
these past three years. So nice to see all that effort finally pay off!
(Of course, some might say you should have spent that time looking for solutions to all the
problems the country is facing, but hey, let's not get crazy! Right?) And your amazing valor
doesn't stop at Biden. Oh no. You are even willing to let Republicans dredge up Hillary's email
scandal long after people had all but forgotten about Crowdstrike. The Romans who stood in
front of the charging elephants at Cannae would be proud.
... ... ...
Of course, I understand your motives for Impeachment are not wholly altruistic. With
corporate donations drying up and growing pressure from Progressive primary challengers making
Establishment incumbents increasingly nervous, you need some way to excite your old school base
for the important election season to come.
That's why it's even more testament to your pluck that you would choose such a transparently
hypocritical and overtly political hill on which to take your final stand, especially after
2016 showed so clearly that going after Trump personally only makes him more popular.
So I
say onward Impeachment soldier!
By the time the primaries roll around, your brave Establishment beserkers will have divided
the party and discredited the leadership to such an extent that rank and file Dems will be
begging for a Progressive intervention.
Foreign new coverage in modern western societies is controlled by intelligence agencies. There are no exceptions.
Notable quotes:
"... At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure". ..."
"... For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark: ..."
"... All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in the Vatican. People seem to forget that they should bear false witness https://www.youtube.com/embed/yUGPIeE9kMc?feature=oembed ..."
@d
dan " ..media biased Hong Kong reporting ."
How would American cops react to punks tossing Molotov Cocktails at them? Arson is a felony
but there would be no need for a trial just a coroner.
@Godfree Roberts "The
weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to
ourselves about China "
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is
simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for
any cure".
For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong
compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark:
@Godfree Roberts Here
is a good analysis of how the main stream media (MSM) gang up to give propaganda, and how I
wish they have objective comments about China or any country they do not like.
All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in
the Vatican. People seem to forget that they should bear false witness
"... Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions." ..."
"... The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's president. ' ..."
'US President Donald Trump has moved to suspend Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's
senior officials, relatives, and others who receive financial benefits from entering into
the US in Wednesday press release from the White House.
Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House
Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants
of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions."
The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's
president. '
Netanyahu's coalition was given the nod because they have 55 seats to the other side's
54.
There's still some question about whether Netanyahu can form a governing coalition.
But
Netanyahu now has 42 days to convince his former Defense Minister(!) Lieberman
(who heads the Yisrael Beiteinu Party) to join the coalition led by Likud.
"... One of the reasons that I doubt Biden's version of the story stems from my experience in Venezuela. After Chavez took power, Venezuelans told me that he had found that a critical subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA was basically a CIA shop. The names of CIA on the Board of Directors were not just ordinary CIA, but were recognizable figures at the very top. ..."
"... To me this is entirely plausible. Control of oil is critical to US global hegemony. And what better way to control foreign oil than to have trusted American asset sit on the BOD? ..."
One of the reasons that I doubt Biden's version of the story stems from my experience in
Venezuela. After Chavez took power, Venezuelans told me that he had found that a critical
subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA was basically a CIA shop. The names of CIA on
the Board of Directors were not just ordinary CIA, but were recognizable figures at the very
top.
To me this is entirely plausible. Control of oil is critical to US global hegemony. And
what better way to control foreign oil than to have trusted American asset sit on the BOD?
This brings us to Hunter Biden's appointment to Ukrainian energy giant Burisma. After the
coup in 2014, why wouldn't Biden want a trusted asset on the board of the biggest natural gas
producer in Ukraine? IOW it was unpublicized standard operating procedure.
This is a standard play in any color revolution. Possibility of emigrate is hanging like a
carrot to make protest more numerous and more violent. Kind of the reward for foot solves (who
are often students and have illusions as for their ability to move up the food chain after the
emigration) for their participation in the in color revolution.
The role of Taiwanese security agencies in riots still needs to be investigated... Hong Cong
protest changes the result of presidential elections in Taiwan and that probably was their main
role, as attempt to undermine sovereignty of China over Hong Cong in the long run are doomed to
be a failure. Taiwan now has renewed geopolitical importance for the USA and efforts to distance
it from China will multiply. So the main price might be the result of Taiwan presidential
elections.
In this case protesters were just pawns in a larger game.
Notable quotes:
"... the United States is waging a campaign to force China into a corner and inflict major geopolitical defeats. ..."
"... The United States already is entangled in the dispute over Taiwan’s political status. Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, Washington made a commitment to provide Taipei with “defensive” weaponry and to regard any coercive moves by Beijing as a threat to the peace of East Asia. Under the Trump administration, U.S. policy has become even more supportive of Taiwan’s de facto independence. American officials complained about the decision of the Solomon Islands to recognize Beijing instead of Taipei and threatened to reconsider aid to that country. ..."
"... Even more significant, for the first time since Washington severed formal diplomatic ties with Taipei and switched them to Beijing in 1979, high-level U.S. security officials, including former national security adviser John Bolton, have met with their Taiwanese counterparts . The Trump administration has also approved an $8 billion arms sale that includes F-16 fighters . Beijing protests all U.S. weapons sales to Taipei, but the reaction this time seems especially angry. ..."
"... o doubt that swaying the upcoming Taiwan election was one of the goals of the "protest" apparatus and its backers. Tsai was looking weak until the "protests." ... ..."
"... sub-title: and especially avoid any manifestations of meddling. Not sure how that can be accomplished, my understanding is that NED et al are up to their eyeballs in meddling, taxpayer funded, and Chinese govt is well aware of that. ..."
"... "Chinese leaders also suspect that the United States is fomenting much of the trouble in Hong Kong. It is tempting to dismiss such accusations as nothing more than typical propaganda and scapegoating on the part of a beleaguered communist regime." ..."
"... Well, thank goodness one of the articles Mr. Carpenter linked to mentioned the U.S. government's National Endowment for Democracy, which distributed over $400,000 to three groups in Hong Kong last year. ..."
“We hope that before Communist China’s
National Day on Oct. 1, our friends in Taiwan can express their support for Hong Kong through
street protests,” Wong
said at a news conference on September 3. "A lot of people in the past have said 'today
Hong Kong and tomorrow Taiwan.' But I think the most ideal thing we'd say is 'Taiwan today,
tomorrow Hong Kong.' Hong Kong can be like Taiwan, a place for freedom and democracy."
Advertisement
Such sentiments by themselves are enough to enrage Beijing. But Wong also urged Taiwan's
government to let Hong Kong protesters seek political asylum. Worse from Beijing's standpoint,
he made those statements not in Hong Kong or some neutral location, but in Taipei following
meetings with Taiwan's governing, pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Communist Chinese leaders are likely to interpret such a venue as further evidence of a Hong
Kong-Taiwanese political alliance against the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Beijing’s persistent attempts to undermine Hong Kong’s political autonomy under
its “one county, two systems” arrangement has caused Taiwanese attitudes to turn
emphatically against such a formula for their island. Most Taiwanese were never enthusiastic
about that proposal, but the proposed Hong Kong extradition law (just now withdrawn) that would
have enabled Chinese authorities to try Hong Kong-based political dissidents in mainland courts
has soured Taiwanese public opinion even more. A poll that Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs
Council published in late July
found that 88.7 percent of respondents rejected one country, two systems, up from 75.4 per
cent in a January survey.
The Hong Kong democracy campaign is strengthening hardline, anti-PRC factions in Taiwan.
Incumbent President Tsai appeared to be in deep political trouble earlier this year.
Taiwan’s continuing
economic malaise had undermined her presidency, and the DPP suffered huge losses in
November 2018 local elections. Indeed, the losses were so severe that Tsai had to
quit her post as party chair. She also faced a strong primary challenge for the DPP’s
presidential nomination from her onetime prime minister, James Lai.
But Tsai has shrewdly exploited public anger at Beijing’s crude attempts to undermine
Hong Kong’s autonomy to rebuild her domestic political support. “As long as I am
here, I will stand firm to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty,”
Tsai pledged in July. “As long as I am here, you would not have to fear, because we
will not become another Hong Kong.” That message resonated with voters, and not only did
she defeat Lai, but her fortunes against the opposition Kuomintang Party in the upcoming
general election appear far more favorable than they did a few months ago.
The Hong Kong developments have created a political nightmare for the Kuomintang. The
party’s nominee, Han Kuo-yu, the maverick populist mayor of Kaohsiung, had long advocated
closer relations with the mainland. To that end, he sought to resume the policy that the last
Kuomintang president, Ma Jing-jeou, pursued from 2008 to 2016. Earlier this year, Han visited
China and had cordial meetings with Communist Party officials. He has always seemed highly
favorable to the PRC’s one country, two systems arrangement for Taiwan as well as Hong
Kong. Both the Chinese government and pro-Beijing media outlets in Taiwan (the so-called red
media) were decidedly enthusiastic about
Han’s candidacy against more moderate opponents in the Kuomintang Party’s
primary election this summer.
But the popularity of the Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrations among Taiwanese voters has
thrown Han on the defensive, and he is beating a very fast retreat from his previous position.
In a desperate attempt to rebut allegations that he would embrace an appeasement policy toward
Beijing, Han even
asserted that, if he is elected president, Taiwan would only accept China’s one
country, two systems proposal “over my dead body.” It is not clear how credible his
eleventh-hour political transformation is with Taiwanese voters.
Chinese leaders also suspect
that the United States is fomenting
much of the trouble in Hong Kong.
... ... ...
As much as Americans are understandably pleased with the democratic factions in Hong Kong
and Taiwan, Washington must temper its enthusiasm—and especially avoid any manifestations
of meddling. We must not give PRC leaders reason to believe that the United States is
waging a campaign to force China into a corner and inflict major geopolitical defeats.
Caution in both capitals is imperative. The next few months, perhaps even the next few weeks,
may determine whether East Asia remains at peace.
The United States already is entangled in the dispute over Taiwan’s political
status. Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, Washington made a commitment to provide Taipei
with “defensive” weaponry and to regard any coercive moves by Beijing as a threat
to the peace of East Asia. Under the Trump administration, U.S. policy has become even more
supportive of Taiwan’s de facto independence. American officials complained about the
decision of the Solomon Islands to recognize Beijing instead of Taipei and
threatened to reconsider aid to that country.
Even more significant, for the first time since Washington severed formal diplomatic
ties with Taipei and switched them to Beijing in 1979, high-level U.S. security officials,
including former national security adviser John Bolton, have met with their Taiwanese counterparts . The Trump
administration has also approved an $8 billion arms sale that includes
F-16 fighters . Beijing protests all U.S. weapons sales to Taipei, but the reaction this
time seems especially angry.
US foreign policy has never been our strong suit. We change government every 4 years or 8,
meaning the State Department has a lot of turnover and is politically influenced to the
political doctrine in vogue, for any elected party. My personal best current day example is
North Korea. NK fears if they sign on with the US, their leaders fate will follow that of
Saddam and Gaddafi. Friends one day , next we turn on them. Even invade.
Reality is we have zero influence with Beijing, or Moscow. China has their hands full for
sure consuming Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
Wow---so Ted Galen Carpenter is going full propagandist now. N o doubt that swaying the
upcoming Taiwan election was one of the goals of the "protest" apparatus and its backers.
Tsai was looking weak until the "protests." ...
sub-title: and especially avoid any manifestations of meddling. Not sure how that can be
accomplished, my understanding is that NED et al are up to their eyeballs in meddling,
taxpayer funded, and Chinese govt is well aware of that.
The mainland Chinese government expects acquiescence to its one China policy. Too bad Hong
Kong's Chinese people and the Taiwanese already have their own identities. Not.
"Chinese leaders also suspect that the United States is fomenting much of the trouble in
Hong Kong. It is tempting to dismiss such accusations as nothing more than typical propaganda
and scapegoating on the part of a beleaguered communist regime."
Well, thank goodness one of the articles Mr. Carpenter linked to mentioned the U.S.
government's National Endowment for Democracy, which distributed over $400,000 to three
groups in Hong Kong last year. Said agency was the subject of an article here at TAC
only a year or so ago, which can be found at
https://www.theamericancons... .
Readers of this report might find it of worth, and might consider the other countries in
which the NED "promotes" "democracy."
"... CIA decided under Dulles that they were the only ones capable of leading this country, mainly because they wanted it ran their way and no other. Don't take my word for it though, read Arthur B. Darling's "THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT TO 1950 copy right 1990 Penn State Press. (This work was classified for quite a long while.) ..."
"... So the first thing that works in CIA et al's favor is politicians who have been in DC long enough to be worn down and thoroughly compromised by blackmail of one sort or another and there fore vulnerable. ..."
It has been my contention that Biden's powerful backers from the
military-industrial-intelligence-media complex are fully aware of his mental state, and that
is precisely why they want him to be president. Why? He would only be a figure-head
president. He would be given a suggested running mate as well as a list of candidates for
cabinet and other appointed positions (as Obama was given) and Biden would follow that in
making appointments. Policies of his administration would be consistent with the interests of
the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex.
robert e williamson jr , September 20, 2019 at 15:19
Kids this is exactly what the intelligence community wants, someone who they can claim
needs to be told what to do or be kept discreetly out of the loop, so currently Joe maybe the
chosen one just as Bill Barr is reported to have told Slick Willy.
We end up where we are at the moment because our security state apparatus is ran by the
intelligence community who do not really want a strong intelligent, clear minded president
who can actually think for himself. Ask Barrack Obama!
For years I've used this analogy, crude as it maybe, that when the newly elected president
is called on for his national security briefing it is always a tense encounter because this
"Newby" is about to have a come to Jesus meeting with this most abusive of all government
entities. The intelligence community. He is "shown the way"he will act because if he doesn't
this community who has relieved him of one his go -- -s will come and relieve him of the
other.
This started as a joke on my part, I'm now convinced it reflects reality.
At some point many here will understand that since around the time of the murder of JFK ,
CIA has framed things in this manner.
CIA decided under Dulles that they were the only ones capable of leading this country,
mainly because they wanted it ran their way and no other. Don't take my word for it though,
read Arthur B. Darling's "THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT TO
1950 copy right 1990 Penn State Press. (This work was classified for quite a long
while.)
Doing so will help make your mind more flexible , jeesh what a slog to get through it.
So the first thing that works in CIA et al's favor is politicians who have been in DC
long enough to be worn down and thoroughly compromised by blackmail of one sort or another
and there fore vulnerable.
I figured if Caitlin could say "dog balls " which I think was a great analogy I could say
gonads.
Time to sit down Joe.
Thanks again to Consortium News for their great efforts at informing the masses.
Columnist Max Boot in The Washington Post put into writing what we have all known for
some time: real journalism, Jefferson's informed citizenry and all that, is dead. The job has
shifted to aspirational writing, using manipulated droplets of facts and just plain made-up
stuff to drive events.
Boot writes to drive Trump from office and overturn the 2016 election. Max : "Much of my
journalism for the past four years has been devoted to critiquing President Trump and opposing
the spread of Trumpism. But no matter how many columns or sound bites I produce, he remains in
office . I am left to ask if all my work has made any difference."
Boot has spent the last several years creating and circle-supporting others who create false
narratives. They manufacture reasons for Trump to resign, press Democrats to impeach, and try
to persuade voters they otherwise hold in contempt that they don't know what's good enough for
them. We kind of figured this out after senior staff at the New York Times had to
remind
reporters that they were "not part of the f*cking resistance," but it is helpful to see it in
daylight. After all, democracy dies in darkness.
The uber-false narrative Max and others Frankensteined into existence was Russiagate. Trump
wasn't the
Manchurian Candidate and there was no quid pro quo for Russian election help. Yet the media
literally accused the president of treason by
melding together otherwise unrelated truthlets -- Trump wanted a hotel in Moscow, some ads were
run on Facebook -- that could be spun into a narrative to bring him down. Correlation was made
into causation in a purposeful freshman Logic 101 fail. What was true was of little
consequence; what mattered was whether the media could collectively create a story that the
rubes would believe and then pile on.
Advertisement
The critical flaw in Russiagate (other than that it didn't happen) was that the media
created an end-point they could not control. Robert Mueller was magic-wanded into the Last
Honest Man, the Savior of Democracy, as the narrative first unfolded and then fell apart like a
cardboard box in the rain. After his dismal
testimony, there was nowhere for the story to go.
Was it only a week ago Law and Order: Scotland SVU was the locus of the Next Big Thing
following Greenland? Because even as we race to catch up (debunking takes longer than making up
accusations,) a whole new Big Thing popped up over the Ukraine. Details are vague, based all on
leaks and persons familiar with some of it, but are as dire as they are lacking.
But as with every other outrage, leaks in the new phone call-gate instantly became
certainties, certainties became foreign influence in our elections, and demands to impeach were
recycled until Twitter voted for the death penalty. And all before a single piece of hard data
is public. See the pattern yet?
If the latest "gate" doesn't pan out, Democrats have already jumpstarted an old favorite,
upgraded for the 2020 election: Trump is now manipulating domestic and foreign policy for
personal gain via hotel fees.
At first glance, it seems like a non-starter. Trump's hotels are as much a part of him as
the extra pounds he carries. He campaigned as a CEO and announced early on that he was not
going to divest
. But with the first cold slap of his election victory, a narrative was being shaped: he could
not become president because of his business conflicts of interest; it was danged unconstitutional
.
Early proponents of this dreck dug around in the Constitution's closet and found the
Emoluments Clause , a handful of lines intended to bar officeholders from accepting gifts
from foreign sovereigns, kings, and princes to prevent influence buying. Pre-Trump, the last
time the issue was in actual contention was with President Martin Van Buren (no relation) over
gifts from the Imam of Muscat.
The media ran with it. They imagined out of whole cloth that any foreign government official
getting a room at any Trump hotel had been given a "gift." Then they imagined that any tiny
percentage of that room profit that actually went to Trump himself represented a bribe. Then
they imagined that despite the vast complexity of U.S. relations, Trump would alter course
because some guy rented a room. It was Joker -like in its diabolicalness, the presidency
itself merely a prank to hide an international crime spree. Pow!
It was ridiculous on its face, but they made it happen. The now-defunct leftist site
Think Progress ran what might be Story Zero before Trump even took office. An anonymous
source claimed that, under pressure, the Kuwaiti ambassador had canceled a major event at one
hotel to switch to Trump's own D.C. hotel. It turned out to be untrue. "Do you think a
reception of two hours in the Trump hotel is going to curry favors with the administration when
we host thousands of U.S. troops in Kuwait? When we have in the past and still do support
American operations in Afghanistan and Iraq?" the Kuwait ambassador asked when someone
got around to his side of the story. But no matter: the narrative was set.
Then it grew. Though the Emoluments Clause is quite specific, the media decided that every
timeanyone stayed at a Trump property, it was corruption. Even when Trump visited
one of his own homes, it was corruption, because the Secret Service paid Trump for the
privilege. Of course, the Secret Service has always paid for the facilities used in
their work because the government cannot commandeer private property or accept free rooms
(which, ironically, could be seen as a bribe), not from Marriott and not from the Trump
Organization. Even Joe Biden still has to charge the Secret Service
rent on a cottage he owns so they can protect him when he's home in Delaware.
More?
T-Mobile booked nine rooms at a Trump hotel, in media hive minds ostensibly to influence
federal approval of a $26 billion merger. Those rooms were worth about $2,700. Of course, the
president, who can influence the Dow with a tweet, prefers to make his illegal money off jacked
up hotel bills. Think small has always been a Trump trademark.
Reuters headlined how foreigners were buying condos from
third-party owners (i.e., not Trump or his company), but they were in a Trump-managed
building and maybe the monthly maintenance fees would qualify as mini-emoluments? Trump was
accused of "
hiding " foreign government income at his hotels when servers at the bar failed to ask cash
customers if they were potentates or princes (the
headline : "Trump Organization Says It's 'Not Practical' to Comply With the Emoluments
Clause").
And of course, there was the
Air Force crew staying at a Trump place in Scotland. No matter that the hotel had forged
its relationship with a nearby airport long before Trump became president, or that the Air
Force had
used the airport and hotel
hundreds of times before Trump became president (going back to World War II), or that a
decision by the Pentagon to have flights stop more frequently there was made under the
Obama administration. None of that stopped the media from proclaiming corruption. One piece
speculated that the $166 per night the Air Force pays for rooms was always part of Trump's
cornerstone financial
plan for the floundering multi-million golf course.
But to see how much the corruption narrative really is a media creation, you have only to
compare it to how the mainstream media covered what might have been a similar question in the
past. Imagine if journalists had treated every appearance by Obama as a book promotion. What if
his every speech had been slandered across the channels as corruption, Obama just out there
pimping his books? Should he have been impeached for commercializing the office of
president?
Follow the money, as Rachel Maddow likes to say. The Trump Organization pays to the Treasury
all profits from foreign governments. In 2018, that was
$191,000 . The year before, the amount was $151,470. So Trump's in-pocket profit is
zero.
Meanwhile, Obama's profit as an author during his time in office was
$15.6 million (he's made multiples more since, including a
$65 million book advance). In the two weeks before he was inaugurated, Obama reworked his
book deals to take advantage of his new status. He agreed not to publish another non-fiction
book during his time in office to keep anticipation high, while signing a $500,000 advance for
a young adult version of Dreams From My
Father .
Obama's books were huge sellers
in China, where publishing is largely government controlled, meaning he likely received Chicom
money in the Oval Office. His own State Department bought $79,000
worth of his books to distribute as gifts.
As with Trump, nothing Obama did was illegal. There are no laws per se against a president
making money. Yet no one bothered to raise ethical questions. No one claimed he sought the
presidency as a bully ATM machine. No one claimed his frequent messaging about his father was
designed to move books. No one held TV hearings on his profits or how taxpayer funds were used
to buy his books. It's not "everybody does it" or "whataboutism"; it's why does the media treat
two very similar situations so very differently?
Max Boot confessed why. The media has created a pitch-and-toss game with Democrats, running
false, exaggerated, and shallowly reported stories to generate
calls for
hearings , which in turn breathe life into the corruption stories they live off. We will
soon see how far last week's breathless drama -- unnamed "whistleblower" leaks supposedly
charging Trump with pressuring the Ukrainian president to investigate his rival Joe Biden --
will go.
Boot and his ilk are doing a new job. Journalism to them is for resistance, condemnation,
arousal, and regime change. And that's one way democracy does die.
"Thirteen drones moved according to common combat battle deployment, operated by a single
crew. During all this time the American Poseidon-8 reconnaissance plane patrolled the
Mediterranean Sea area for eight hours," he noted. Read also Three layers of Russian air defense at Hmeymim air base in
Syria When the drones met with the electronic countermeasures of the Russian systems, they
switched to a manual guidance mode, he said. "Manual guidance is carried out not by some
villagers, but by the Poseidon-8, which has modern equipment. It undertook manual control," the
deputy defense minister noted.
"When these 13 drones faced our electronic warfare screen, they moved away to some distance,
received the corresponding orders and began to be operated out of space and receiving help in
finding the so-called holes through which they started penetrating. Then they were destroyed,"
Fomin reported.
"This should be stopped as well: in order to avoid fighting with the high-technology weapons
of terrorists and highly-equipped terrorists it is necessary to stop supplying them with
equipment," the deputy defense minister concluded.
The Russian Defense Ministry earlier said that on January 6 militants in Syria first
massively used drones in the attack on the Russian Hmeymim airbase and the Russian naval base
in Tartus. The attack was successfully repelled: seven drones were downed, and control over six
drones was gained through electronic warfare systems. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed
that the solutions used by the militants could be received only from a technologically advanced
country and warned about the danger of repeating such attacks in any country of the
world.
The forum
The eighth Beijing Xiangshan Forum on security will run until October 26 in Beijing. It was
organized by the Chinese Ministry of Defense, China Association for Military Science (CAMS) and
China Institute for International Strategic Studies (CIISS). Representatives for defense
ministries, armed forces and international organizations, as well as former military officials,
politicians and scientists from 79 countries are taking part in the forum.
The defense minister also stressed that the number of threats to Russia is not declining
MOSCOW, September 22. /TASS/. The United States' belief in its own superiority could lead to
various unreasonable ideas, posing a major threat to Russia and other states, Russian Defense
Minister Sergei Shoigu said in his
interview with Moskovsky Komsomolets published on Sunday.
"When you think - as the United States continues to believe so by inertia - that the
balance of power has developed in your favor, various ideas may come to your head, including
unreasonable ones. I consider this situation now as the main threat, and not only for Russia,"
Shoigu said.
Meanwhile, the recognition of your vulnerability and a wish to maintain balance and
universal equal security "makes you turn your head on," the defense minister said, also
stressing that the number of threats to Russia is not declining.
At the same time, Shoigu voiced hope that a full-scale war is not on the horizon.
The priority task now is to ensure information security, he stressed, noting that "at the
current level of informatization and automation, there is a high probability of errors in the
weapons control system.".
"... Under international law, a state is accountable for the unlawful actions of a proxy only if an organ of the state ordered the proxy to commit the act. It is not sufficient simply to have provided material support or even encouraged the unlawful act. For example, in the 1980s, the International Court of Justice found the United States not liable for Contra violations of international humanitarian law, even after concluding that the United States had "financed, organized, trained, supplied, equipped and armed" the Contras, even to the point of providing training materials that discussed "shoot civilians attempting to leave a town, neutralize local judges and officials, hire professional criminals to carry out 'jobs,' and provoke violence at mass demonstrations to create 'martyrs'." ..."
It's become standard procedure for the US and its MSM to consider that Iran is totally
responsible for all anti-US events in the Middle East because of actions by Iran's "proxy
forces" in other countries. While these events usually have more diverse objectives, it's
often Iran did this and Iran did that. But there's no legal basis for that.
Here's some words on proxy relationships from DefenseOne: (excerpts)
Iran's proxy relationships have given it an extraordinary ability to impose costs on its
adversaries while obscuring its role. Doing so allows it to manage its risks while
politically constraining its adversaries' response. It might seem intuitive to simply
declare Iran responsible, and satisfying to retaliate against it directly. But
international law sets a high bar for holding a proxy's benefactor responsible for the
actions of its proxy, making it difficult to build the kind of international consensus
necessary to the legitimacy for any retaliation.
Under international law, a state is accountable for the unlawful actions of a proxy
only if an organ of the state ordered the proxy to commit the act. It is not sufficient
simply to have provided material support or even encouraged the unlawful act. For example,
in the 1980s, the International Court of Justice found the United States not liable for
Contra violations of international humanitarian law, even after concluding that the United
States had "financed, organized, trained, supplied, equipped and armed" the Contras, even
to the point of providing training materials that discussed "shoot civilians attempting to
leave a town, neutralize local judges and officials, hire professional criminals to carry
out 'jobs,' and provoke violence at mass demonstrations to create 'martyrs'."
Setting the bar so high establishes perverse incentives. A state that employs proxies is
discouraged from moderating their behavior, since any attempt at moderation could imply
effective control, and even from acknowledging the proxy relationships. So without proof
that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which typically manages Iran's proxy
relationships, ordered or participated in the attacks, there is little for which Saudi
Arabia or the United States can hold Iran legally accountable.. .
here
In 2001, drones were just a distant dream. It also involves a chain of once in a lifetime
of human errors by at least three governmental institutions (CIA, FBI and Pentagon).
What the Houthi did in 2019 is not that far fetched. Drones are a much more developed and
cheap technology, and Saudi Arabia is a basket case of a country. Surprise is how much soft
power they did enjoy in the West, since many commenters here still insist Saudi Arabia is
some kind of fascist utopia that couldn't be tricked by a bunch of stone age cave dwellers
(which the Houthi aren't any way). Looks like the USA's aura of invincibility is
contagious.
Jackrabbit #16. Perhaps increased tensions are enough to get Nuttyahoo elected (which I think
fits with the supposition that this attack is false flag). However My guess is that the
Houthis will prosecute this war to the very doorsteps of the holy mosques in KSA and exact
immense retribution if they can. They are responding to 5 years of geocidal assault and
cannot but fight to the death.
Trump and his immaculate surrounds of holy zionists and pentecostal towel boys are in
thrall. Mesmerised by their inspired service to the holy writ. No doubt they consult daily
with their personal rabbi who talks through his fedora as O would have it. But they are
beholden to something evil and beneath the dignity of humankind.
Perhaps war will be avoided by dithering and too elaborate plotting but I still consider
that justice might manifest in a meteor strike on their heads.
"... American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe. ..."
"... A government that imagines that it has both the right and responsibility to police the entire planet will find an excuse to mire itself in one or more conflicts on a regular basis, and if there isn't one available to join it will start some ..."
"... U.S. military dominance should have at least guaranteed that we remained at peace once our major adversary had collapsed at the end of the Cold War, but the dissolution of the USSR encouraged the U.S. to become much more aggressive and much more eager to use force whenever and wherever it wanted. Wertheim provides an answer for why this is: ..."
"... Why have interventions proliferated as challengers have shrunk? The basic cause is America's infatuation with military force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim, limiting debate to what that aim should be. ..."
"... Using force appeals to many American leaders and policymakers because they imagine that frequent military action cows and intimidates adversaries, but in practice it creates more enemies and wastes American lives and resources on fruitless conflicts. ..."
"... The constant warfare of the last two decades in particular has corroded our political system and inured the public to the idea that it is normal that American soldiers and Marines are always fighting and dying in some foreign country in pursuit of nebulous goals, but nothing could be more abnormal and wrong than this. ..."
"... Our establishment would rather give up their skin. They don't call it hegemony, they call it the post ww2 order, leadership, resisting isolationism or some other such nonsense. ..."
"... any country that attempts to gain enough power to assert its own sovereignty is considered a threat that must be crushed and we roll out all of the tools at our disposal to do it. ..."
"... Al Qaeda's attack on us was due to us using them as a tool to stop Russia's push into Afghanistan. ..."
"... Good luck with that. We are ruled by people who are functionally indistinguishable from sociopaths, and sociopaths learn only from reward and punishment. ..."
"... I do not see a politically feasible way to end our global empire without destabilizing that same globe that has come to rely on our military power. ..."
"... Empires have a sort of inertia, and few in history voluntarily give up dominion. ..."
"... What is unsustainable is the current rate of government spending. The current rate of military spending is driving up our debt and making it impossible to reinvest in desperately needed infrastructure. ..."
"... We have been coasting on the infrastructure investments of the 50's and 60's but if we don't start cutting military spending and redirecting that money elsewhere we are going to be bankrupt. ..."
"... I agree that it is almost impossible to conceive of any scenario whereby this "ideology" of so-called world order and/ hegemony would change in the US and in its puppets. ..."
"... The deck is so totally stacked in favor of this ideology, the totally controlled MSM, the MIC, the corrupt and controlled congress, and the presidential admin structure itself, would never allow this mantra to be challenged. ..."
"... It is all about greed and power-the psychopaths pursuing and defending this 'ideology' would never ever go quietly. The money and power is too corrupting. ..."
"... I'm not sure that most of the citizens in those European countries we occupy actually support our permanent military presence in their countries. ..."
"... The new paradigm is that private militarism dominates government, turning it to its preferred priorities of moneymaking warmaking. ..."
Stephen Wertheim explains
what is required to bring an end to unnecessary and open-ended U.S. wars overseas:
American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe.
Dominance, assumed to ensure peace, in fact guarantees war. To get serious about stopping endless war, American leaders must do
what they most resist: end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace.
Any government that presumes to be the world's hegemon will be fighting somewhere almost all of the time, because its political
leaders will see everything around the world as their business and it will see every manageable threat as a challenge to their "leadership."
A government that imagines that it has both the right and responsibility to police the entire planet will find an excuse to mire
itself in one or more conflicts on a regular basis, and if there isn't one available to join it will start some.
U.S. military dominance should have at least guaranteed that we remained at peace once our major adversary had collapsed at
the end of the Cold War, but the dissolution of the USSR encouraged the U.S. to become much more aggressive and much more eager to
use force whenever and wherever it wanted. Wertheim provides an answer for why this is:
Why have interventions proliferated as challengers have shrunk? The basic cause is America's infatuation with military
force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim, limiting debate to what that aim should be.
Using force appeals to many American leaders and policymakers because they imagine that frequent military action cows and
intimidates adversaries, but in practice it creates more enemies and wastes American lives and resources on fruitless conflicts.
Our government's frenetic interventionism and meddling for the last thirty years hasn't made our country the slightest bit more secure,
but it has sown chaos and instability across at least two continents. Wertheim continues:
Continued gains by the Taliban, 18 years after the United States initially toppled it, suggest a different principle: The profligate
deployment of force creates new and unnecessary objectives more than it realizes existing and worthy ones.
The constant warfare of the last two decades in particular has corroded our political system and inured the public to the
idea that it is normal that American soldiers and Marines are always fighting and dying in some foreign country in pursuit of nebulous
goals, but nothing could be more abnormal and wrong than this. Constant warfare achieves nothing except to provide an excuse
for more of the same. The longer that a war drags on, one would think that it should become easier to bring it to an end, but we
have seen that it becomes harder for both political and military leaders to give up on an unwinnable conflict when it has become
an almost permanent part of our foreign policy. For many policymakers and pundits, what matters is that the U.S. not be perceived
as losing, and so our military keeps fighting without an end in sight for the sake of this "not losing."
Wertheim adds:
Despite Mr. Trump's rhetoric about ending endless wars, the president insists that "our military dominance must be unquestioned"
-- even though no one believes he has a strategy to use power or a theory to bring peace. Armed domination has become an end in
itself.
Seeking to maintain this dominance is ultimately unsustainable, and as it becomes more expensive and less popular it will also
become increasingly dangerous as we find ourselves confronted with even more capable adversaries. For the last thirty years, the
U.S. has been fortunate to be secure and prosperous enough that it could indulge in decades of fruitless militarism, but that luck
won't hold forever. It is far better if the U.S. give up on hegemony and the militarism that goes with it on our terms.
Our establishment would rather give up their skin. They don't call it hegemony, they call it the post ww2 order, leadership,
resisting isolationism or some other such nonsense.
Truth be told, as your article states, any country that attempts to gain enough power to assert its own sovereignty is
considered a threat that must be crushed and we roll out all of the tools at our disposal to do it.
It makes us less safe. Isolationism did not cause 9/11. In the 90's when we were being attacked by Al Qaeda we were too distracted
dancing on Russia's bones to pay any attention to them. While Al Qaeda was attacking our troops and blowing up our buildings we
were bombing Serbia, expanding NATO and reelecting Yeltsin and sticking it to Iran.
It goes beyond that. Al Qaeda's attack on us was due to us using them as a tool to stop Russia's push into Afghanistan.
We later abandoned them when the job was done: a pack hound we trained, pushed to fight, then left in the forest abandoned and
starved. Then we wonder why it came back growling.
Isolationism may not be the most effective solution to things, but I'll admit a LOT of pain, on ourselves and others, would've
never happened if we took that policy.
Good luck with that. We are ruled by people who are functionally indistinguishable from sociopaths, and sociopaths learn only
from reward and punishment.
So far, they only have been rewarded for their crimes.
While I think the economic basis of the Soviet Union was faulty, and it had lost the popular support it might have had in early
days, the USSR's military aggression, particularly in Afghanistan, was a major precipitating factor in its downfall. It would
have eventually crumbled, I believe, anyway, but had they taken a less aggressive stance I think they would have lasted several
decades longer.
Is it really in our hands to actually disengage though? Is this politically feasible?
How does this work? The US gets up one day and says "We're pulling all of our troops out of Saudi and SK. No more funding for
Israel! No bolstering the pencil-thin government of Afghanistan. All naval bases abroad will be shut down. Longstanding alliances
and interests be damned!"
I sympathize very strongly with the notion that we must use military force wisely and with restraint, and perhaps even that
the post-WW2 expansion abroad was a mistake, but I do not see a politically feasible way to end our global empire without
destabilizing that same globe that has come to rely on our military power.
This is the world we live in, whether we like it or not, and barring some military or economic disaster that forces a strategic
realignment or retreat (like WW2 did for the old European powers) I don't know how you practically pull back. Empires have
a sort of inertia, and few in history voluntarily give up dominion.
What is unsustainable is the current rate of government spending. The current rate of military spending is driving up our
debt and making it impossible to reinvest in desperately needed infrastructure.
We have been coasting on the infrastructure investments of the 50's and 60's but if we don't start cutting military spending
and redirecting that money elsewhere we are going to be bankrupt.
Sure. That doesn't mean American withdrawal would create less instability in toto. Maybe it would. Who knows? We mortals can only
take counterfactuals so far.
I agree that it is almost impossible to conceive of any scenario whereby this "ideology" of so-called world order and/
hegemony would change in the US and in its puppets.
The deck is so totally stacked in favor of this ideology, the totally controlled MSM, the MIC, the corrupt and controlled
congress, and the presidential admin structure itself, would never allow this mantra to be challenged.
It is all about greed and power-the psychopaths pursuing and defending this 'ideology' would never ever go quietly. The
money and power is too corrupting.
Maybe, just maybe, however, as we are at $22 trillion in debt and counting (just saw a total tab for F-35 of $1.5 trillion)
that the money will run out, and zero interest rate financing is not all that awesome, this unsustainable mindlessness will be
curtailed or even better, changed.
It's not really hegemony. Old-fashioned empires took over territory in order to gain resources and labor. We haven't done that
since 1920. Especially since 1990 we've been making war purely to destroy and obliterate. When our war is done there's nothing
left to dominate or own.
Domestically we've been using politics and media and controlled culture to do the same thing. Create "terrorists" and "extremists"
on "two" "sides", set them loose, enjoy the resulting chaos. Chaos is the declared goal, and it's been working beautifully for
70 years.
China is expanding empire in Africa and Asia the old-fashioned way, improving farms and factories in order to have exclusive
purchase of their output.
Could not have said it better. "On our terms" would mean that Europe is forced to take matters of military security in it's own
hands, I hope. But chanches are slim, history shows empires must fall hard and break a leg or so first before anything changes.
Iran, Saudi-arabia, the greater ME, China, the trade wars and the world economy are coming together for a perfect storm it seems.
The problem with US hegemony is Israel. Look around the world. Neither Japan nor South Korea nor Vietnam nor Philippines nor India
nor Indonesia nor Australia (the same can be said for South and Central America, Mexico, Canada and Europe) require a significant
US presence.
None of them are asking for a greater presence in their country (except Poland) while being perfectly happy with
our alliance, joint defense, trade, intelligence and technology sharing.
It is only Israel and Saudi Arabia which are constantly pushing the US into middle eastern wars and quagmires that we have
no national interest. Trump sees the plain truth that the US is in jeopardy of losing its manufacturing and its technological
lead to China. If we (US) dont start to rebuild our infrastructure, our defense, our cities, our communities, our manufacturing,
our educational system then our nation is going to follow California into a 3rd world totalitarian state dominated by democratic
voting immigrants whose only affiliation to our country and our constitutional republic is a welfare check, free govt programs
and incestuous govt contracts which funnel govt dollars into the re-election PACs of democratic / liberal elected officials.
The new paradigm is that private militarism dominates government, turning it to its preferred priorities of moneymaking warmaking.
Defeat is now when war's income streams end. The only wars that are lost, are those that end, defeating the winning of war profits.
War, as a financial success story, has become an end in itself, and an empire that looks for more to wage means some mighty big
wages with more profit opportunities. Victory is to be avoided - red ink being spilled through peace detestable - and blood spilled
profitably to be encouraged.
"... The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government -- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area. President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in April with Haftar and appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's stance. ..."
"... One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In her new book, The Education of an Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed, flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison correctly excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?" ..."
"... Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling! ..."
"... I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians. ..."
The United States cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials can't seem to
decide which faction they want to back.
The Western-created disaster in Libya continues to grow worse. Fighting between Field
Marshal Khalifa Haftar's so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) and the even more misnamed
Government of National Accord (GNA) has intensified in and around Tripoli. The LNA boasted on
September 11 that its forces had routed troops of the Sarraj militia, a GNA ally, killing
about two hundred of them. That total may be exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the
situation has become increasingly violent and
chaotic in Tripoli and other portions of Libya, with innocent civilians bearing the brunt
of the suffering.
An article in Bloomberg News provides a
succinct account of the poisonous fruits of the U.S.-led "humanitarian" military
intervention in 2011. "Libya is enduring its worst violence since the 2011 NATO-backed ouster
of Muammar el-Qaddafi, which ushered in years of instability that allowed Islamist radicals to
thrive and turned the country into a hub for migrants destined to Europe. Haftar had launched
the war as the United Nations was laying the ground for a political conference to unite the
country. It is now more divided than ever." The country has become the plaything not only of
rival domestic factions but major
Middle East powers , including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab
Emirates. Those regimes are waging a ruthless geopolitical competition, providing arms and in
some cases even launching airstrikes on behalf of their preferred clients.
The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly
can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to
support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government
-- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area.
President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in
April with Haftar and
appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and
bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's
stance.
Given the appalling aftermath of the original U.S.-led intervention, one might hope that
advocates of an activist policy would be chastened and back away from further meddling in that
unfortunate country. Yet, that is not the case. Neither the Trump administration nor the
humanitarian crusaders in Barack Obama's administration who caused the calamity in the first
place seem inclined to advocate a more cautious, restrained U.S. policy.
One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential
national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In
her new book, The Education of an
Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed,
flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect
to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the
culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison
correctly
excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the
effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan
culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never
have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they
couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the
policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?"
The answer to Larison's rhetorical question is "extraordinarily arrogant." It is not as
though prudent foreign-policy experts didn't warn Power and her colleagues about the probable
consequences of intervening in a volatile, fragile country like Libya. Indeed, as Robert Gates,
Obama's secretary of defense, confirms in his memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War , the Obama
administration itself was deeply divided about the advisability of intervention. The Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Vice President Joe Biden, and Gates were opposed. Among the most outspoken
proponents of action were Power and her mentor, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gates notes
further that Obama was deeply torn, later telling his secretary of defense that the decision
was a "51 to 49" call.
The existence of a sharp internal division is sufficient evidence by itself that Power's
attempt to absolve herself and other humanitarian crusaders of responsibility for the
subsequent tragedy is without merit. Indeed, it has even less credibility than Pontius Pilate's
infamous effort to evade guilt. They were warned of the probable outcome, yet they chose to
disregard those warnings.
Power, Clinton, Obama and other proponents of ousting Qaddafi turned Libya into a chaotic
Somalia on the Mediterranean, and the blood of innocents shed since 2011 is on their hands.
Given the stark split within the president's national security team, the Libya intervention was
especially reckless and unjustified. The default option in such a case should have been against
intervention, not plunging ahead.
The Trump administration should learn from the blunders of its predecessor and resist any
temptation to meddle further. America does not have a dog in the ongoing fight between Haftar
and the GNA, and we should simply accept whatever outcome emerges. Washington's arrogant
interference has caused enough suffering in Libya already.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at the National Interest , is the author of thirteen books and more than
eight hundred articles on international affairs. His latest book is NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur .
The outcome in Libya is what the intent was - chaos, per the Yinon plan. The side effect
of mass immigration to Europe was warned by Gaddafi! All was known, yet the destabilization
war continued.
Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis
who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their
stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling!
Libya was and still is the case of a civil war into which foreign powers have intervened.
The major parties of that war have always been the Tripolitanian West and the Cyrenaican
East. Whoever is on top considers the others to be the rebels. That is how the demise of
Qaddafi began. For him Benghazi was the rebel's nest which needed some cleaning. Nothing has
changed. Haftar is the new Qaddafi.
I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan
intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of
governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians.
You can always make things worse. It is one thing that Trump and friends are good at.
They don't consider that a criticism either, since they want what the rest of us consider
worse -- more war, more enemies, more inequality in outcomes at home, more desperation at
home giving more power to the haves over the have-nots.
Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book" is a timeless classic that still applies to articles
produced for electronic consumption. One of Adler's primary admonitions was to consider the
author's expertise, credibility, and potential biases. With regard to this article, scrolling
down to the end reveals the author's association with the Koch Brother financed Cato
Institute. The Koch Brothers and their money have done more to destroy American democracy
than any foreign tyrant or Presidential folly.
And oh, by the way, what did the Neocons and the Vulcans of the W Administration do to the
entire Middle East other than create a contiguous geographic belt of Iranian Shiite influence
from Tehran to Beirut?
There was a moment in Viet Nam when I questioned whether everything I had been taught
about "America" was one big fabricated lie – a huge pretend. It was April 1969, and I had
just experienced witnessing the aftermath of a series of bombings of supposed military targets.
They were in fact inhabited, undefended villages where virtually everyone in those villages
perished from low flying bombings, that included napalming. The majority of dead –
murdered – were young burned children. On several occasions I observed those bodies up
close, sickened by the sight, now burdened by the criminal nature of the US war. The policy of
accumulating massive numbers of body counts was an inkling of the Grand Lie. Reading the
entrance sign to my squadron in-country headquarters, "Welcome to Indian Country," was a first
clue.
My duty station was the "home" of the fighter-bombers and pilots who followed orders to
destroy those "enemy targets", i.e., villages. I was the USAF night security commander
following orders to protect those soldiers and planes from mortar and sapper attacks.
A few days later I was reading an article in Stars and Stripes , an official,
independent newspaper for soldiers, reporting on a recent Supreme Court decision (
Street v . New York , 1969) that upheld the right of desecrating our "sacred"
symbol – the US flag. During a period of increased burnings of the US American flag in
protests of the US wars against African-Americans at home, and Asians abroad, an
African-American veteran recipient of a Bronze Star, Sidney Street , publicly burned his
personal flag on a New York City street corner for which he was arrested and convicted.
Depressed, I pondered how it is that one could be arrested for burning a piece of cloth
– even a national symbol – that represented an official policy of criminally
burning innocent human beings, including large numbers of young children, while the
pilot-perpetrators were commended, and whom, in my duties I was protecting? Initially suicidal,
I had difficulty wrapping my head around this dystopian nightmare. I was in psychic shock from
extreme cognitive dissonance.
Our behavior against the Vietnamese, a nation of peasants with one-sixth the population of
the USA, one-thirtieth its size, certainly must rank as one of the worst of a number of
barbarisms in the 20 th Century. The US left 26 million bomb craters, sprayed
21 million gallons of DNA-altering chemical warfare on the landscape and people,
murdered some 6 million Southeast Asians, destroyed by bombing over 13,000 of Viet Nam's
21,000 villages, 950 churches and pagodas, 350 clearly marked hospitals, 3,000 high schools and
universities, 15,000 bridges, etc.
Why all this overwhelming firepower and destruction? Incredulously, to prevent the
Vietnamese from enjoying their self-determination, absurdly touted as necessary to stop
"communism." Does there in fact exist a kind of psychopathy in our cultural DNA? Though I
hadn't fired a bullet myself, or dropped a bomb, I had been a compliant participant in a
mindless murder machine. Viet Nam was not an aberration, but consistent with a long history of
arrogant interventions revealing something very dark about who we are. Was I part of a savage
culture of unthinking sadists, I wondered?
Learning Real People's Versus Fake, Kool Aid US History
I have spent countless hours studying a more comprehensive people's version of world and US
history. Study of US history of course is part of the Eurocentric globalization/colonization
over the past 500 years. The 20 percent Eurocentric "developed-world" is a product of
self-proclaimed "superiors" violently and deceitfully stealing resources and labor from the
other 80 percent, all cloaked in the conceited rhetoric of spreading "civilization." This
patriarchal policy is totally unsustainable from a social, political, ecological,
psychological, and moral perspective.
It is instructive to learn that the "Founding Fathers" chose, not democracy, but
oligarchy/plutocracy "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." Jefferson's
"empire of liberty" was a vision to expand private property for large landowners. Our
Constitution is more a document to preserve freedom of "property" and commercial transactions,
than it is to preserve human liberty, of which free speech is the most fundamental. Historian
Staughton Lynd summarized it thus: inherited land replaced inherited government. Recently the
highest court of the land ruled the legal fiction that property (money) is a person with free
speech rights, as preposterous as the earlier legal fiction that a person (slave) is
property.
A fear-laden gun culture originating in violent settler-colonialism and white
nationalism-supremacy serve as a basis for the founding ideology and military strategy of the
United States. Slave patrols and Indian fighters were our first "special operations,"
establishing the essential White character of our militarized culture. As the systematic
dispossession project continued, the US government signed over 400 treaties with Indigenous
nations, violating every one of them, establishing deceit and outright lying as part of
our cultural DNA.
The politics of violence based on classism and racism has been incessant throughout our
history. Examining the US criminal injustice system housing a quarter of all the world's
prisoners reveals brutal truth when comparing extreme disparities in punishments by race, and
class. Justice?
I studied the history of the city of my birth – Geneva, New York, which in the 1700s
was Kanadesaga, capitol of the Seneca nation. On September 8, 1779, Major General John Sullivan
and his forty-five hundred soldiers eradicated these "merciless Indian Savages" in the largest
Revolutionary War battle of 1779 – a terrorist, scorched-earth campaign massacring
civilians while destroying all forty of the well-established Seneca towns, including
Kanadesaga. By 1788, the European settlers renamed it Geneva, as if nothing had happened, a
deserved reward for superiors.
All those arrowheads I enjoyed collecting as a child possessed a profound dark secret about
the nature and character of my ancestors. However, I would only discover their secret after
deep reflections from my Viet Nam awakening.
Official US military interventionism began with the US Marine invasion of the Dominican
Republic in 1798 during the undeclared naval war with France. However, hundreds of settler
paramilitary units had been killing Indians since the 1620s. But imperialism has been
explicit policy since the late 1890s to assure domestic prosperity. In 1907,
Woodrow Wilson while president of Princeton University (six years before being elected US
president) lectured:
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world
as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are
closed against him must be battered down. .Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order
that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
President McKinley, and various Senators continued to advocate "a foreign market for our
surplus products." US meddling, both "soft," and hard, has never stopped.
Traveling to a number of nations in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East have exposed me
to details of hundreds of US overt interventions, and thousands of covert
destabilization actions. These policies have caused the murders of millions, 20 to 30
million alone since WWII during the so-called "Cold War". Only five of these nearly 600
military interventions have been declared wars as required by the Constitution, clearly
indicating our sacred document is not taken seriously. This also tells us the system has no
interest in being accountable to its own Constitution, or international law. Speaking with
peasants in these victim-countries invariably reveals the horrendous cruelty of US interveners
and their surrogates. Does the US possess any intentions to be law-abiding? Does the US possess
any feelings for others, or only selfish imperial ambitions? And does anyone care?
Violence against even White citizens has matched violence we have carried out in foreign
policy. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1917-18 were enacted to suppress anti-war dissent
against US entrance into World War I. Thousands of US Americans were deported and
imprisoned following World War I for "radical" anti-war expressions, including labor leaders
and socialists. Some were tortured in US prisons. Ironically, free speech dissent is most
critical when a government decides to go to war. The original Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
stifled free speech of US citizens, including elected officials, who objected to the undeclared
war against France. Free speech? Huh?
While the US was locking up and deporting citizens for opposing World War I, the FBI was
ignoring extremely violent KKK supremacist groups whose six million members –
nearly 25 percent of the white male population at the time – were lynching with impunity
an average of six African-Americans a month. Equal protection?
The first known use of air power against civilians was committed by US Marines in Haiti in
1919. But, the second known use of US air power against civilians occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
May 31-June 1, 1921, when hundreds of economically successful Black residents living in a
36-square block community were murdered, including from low flying white-piloted planes
dropping incendiaries, destroying nearly 1,300 buildings. How many US Americans know about this
abomination?
Walter White, a longtime leader in the National Association for Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP), concluded that southerners fear of Negro progress offends the
intangible feeling of racial superiority, explaining the intensity of White savagery. The sense
of established White superiority (or anyone possessing those feelings) often leads to an
insecure character from lack of practicing accountability with others in a world of varied,
challenging relationships. Those feelings easily morph into paranoia of others, and delusions
of self grandeur – one of the most difficult psychological orders to treat, as the
persistent pathology of racism (and classism) so attests.
The third known use of US bombing civilians occurred at Blair Mountain, West Virginia,
August-September 1921. As many as 15,000 striking coal miners attempting to unionize were
attacked by 2,000 armed sheriff's deputies, coal company paramilitaries, US troops, and US Army
Martin MB-1 bombers, killing as many as 100 miners, with many more wounded. Before the battles
had ended, more than a million ammunition rounds had been fired. Nearly 1,000 miners were
ironically indicted for murder of the nearly 30 deaths among the miner's attackers. Over 700
union organizers have been murdered in our history. Is this known by many?
We continue to be obsessed with personal and government guns (police and military) as a
guarantor of our security. Those who question easy access to guns, even assault weapons, or the
ridiculously wasteful military spending, are thought of as nearly traitorous. US citizens
personally own nearly 400 million firearms, or 40 percent of all private guns in the world. On
average, three US citizens are killed every day by police, disproportionately
African-Americans. So far in 2019, the US has experienced more than one mass shooting (4 or
more shot) every day. Our gun death rate is ten times above that of other high income
countries. Using violence as a default position historically ends in disaster, as it has been
proven over and over that violence spirals out of control into more violence, while distracting
from serious discourse. Why the incredible record of violence? Insecurity?
Under its doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance, the US government routinely dispatches
military ships to every sea space, military planes to every airspace, hundreds of satellites
into outer space, while ordering Special Forces units to operate clandestinely in nearly
three-fourths of the world's countries. Additionally, of the 1.4 million US soldiers in the
world, nearly 200,000 are positioned in as many as 150 countries, most stationed at 800 major
military bases in 80 nations. The US also possesses a large percentage of the world's weapons
of mass destruction, and recently has dispensed with any genuine effort at containing the
spread of nuclear weapons. The annual military budget, including hidden costs, amounts to an
exorbitant $1.25 trillion a year, more money than the next seven countries combined spend on
their militaries. If you want to be guaranteed health care and a modest house, join the Army.
Otherwise these human rights are "unaffordable." If you want gun control, start at the top.
How to explain the extent and breadth of our violent militarism and global imperialism?
Paranoia? It seems that our sense of superiority justifies hurtful dispossession from others to
acquire and preserve undeserved privilege.
After exiting the military in 1970, my opinions about the US war against the Vietnamese were
affirmed with the 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers revealing the more than 20 years of
criminal intentions, and deceit, to thwart Vietnamese aspirations for self-determination.
Earlier in 1971, January 31-February 2, Vietnam Veterans Against the War conducted the "Winter
Soldier Investigation: An Inquiry into American War Crimes" when nearly 120 veterans testified
about the war crimes and atrocities they committed or witnessed in Viet Nam. I was aghast when
learning about Nixon's intended Huston plan to criminally interrupt antiwar activities, the
FBI's sixteen-year COINTELPRO of more than 2,000 illegal actions against innocent US citizens,
the CIA's Operation CHAOS keeping tabs on 300,000 citizens opposed to the Viet Nam war, and the
National Security Agency's Operation SHAMROCK watch lists of those communicating with people
overseas. Respect for the law? Huh? Further research revealed that as early as 1934 President
Roosevelt instituted a long-standing joint FBI-military program to conduct domestic
intelligence with broad investigative scope. The "American" Kool Aid indeed has sedated us.
Today our freedoms are further curtailed, for example, as the National Security Agency (NSA)
spies on every US American, the Authorization of Military Force Act (AUFA) allows
warrantless electronic surveillance of anyone suspected of aiding terrorism, and the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) enables indefinite detention of US citizens, even arrest by
the military. Where is the Constitution when we need it? Or was it ever really there for
us?
One of the most revealing chapters in our history is the incredible sympathy the US
possessed for authoritarian Nazi Germany. Even though the Soviet military was most critical in
defeating the Nazis in World War II, deep fear of the Bolsheviks (the emergence of an
alternative social-economic system to capitalism) motivated US America's wealthy class, with
complicity of the US government, to support the rise of Nazi Germany from the mid-1930s
into the war years themselves. The US capitalists supported the Nazi capitalists to defeat the
"threat" of socialism. Elite power brokers included leaders of Wall Street and wealthy "barons"
such as the Rockefellers and Andrew Mellon, and businesses such as Ford Motor, IBM (tabulating
daily location of Jews in the Holocaust), General Motors, General Electric, Standard Oil,
Texaco, ITT, International Harvester, Chase Manhattan Bank, the House of Morgan banking
dynasty, DuPont, United Aircraft, etc., who enjoyed huge profits from the war. And following
the war, the US's "Operation Gladio" systematically defeated popular anti -Nazi groups
throughout Europe, while "Operation Paperclip" secretly brought Nazi scientists and other
professionals to the US. Our affinity for fascism has been established.
Psychologically, it is important to note that our national identity has consistently
been markedly defined by demonizing others – "merciless savages", "uppity ni**ers",
"anarchists", "radicals", "communists", "Russians", "alien filth", "narco-traffickers",
"terrorists", "shithole countries", "vermin", etc., echoing psychologist Carl Jung's principle
of "shadow projection." Jung described a cowardly trick we play on ourselves: avoid looking in
the mirror so as not to take responsibility for seeing our own demons. We "see" the evil in
others, perpetuating a nation addicted to war against them, obscenely profiting as we
self-righteously deny our own severe pathologies. If we had looked in the mirror we would have
learned what Pogo told us, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Eco-psychologist Chellis Glendinning suggests that modern humans suffer from deep insecurity
that emerged from collective traumas hundreds of generations ago. A serious disconnect from
intimacy with the earth occurred when our ancient ancestors began controlling nature through
agriculture and animal domestication. Evolutionary philosopher Gregory Bateson concludes that
addictive behavior is consistent with the Western approach to life that pits mind against body,
while behaving as if the natural world is a commodity. We seek various distractions to numb our
pain from this feeling of aloofness. Technology, not Nature, has become our God.
Recognizing the Lie
Could it be that virtually everything I was taught by my parents, community, school, church,
and political leaders in terms of factual history, morality, ethics, and rational thinking
about "America" was the opposite of what had been represented? How could that be?
Yes, I have been conditioned by an incredibly comfortable fairy tale, a massive cultural
system denying or distorting historic realities, founded on shameful genocides. I had been
betrayed. We are told we are the greatest, even as we (s)elect imperial Presidents and
Congresspeople in an orgy of fantastic fiction about "democracy." The US Senate is a
millionaire's club, with many members of the US House also in that class. Indian author
Arundhati Roy describes "democracy" and "pro-democracy" as the "Free World's whores", hollow
words satisfying a whole range of tastes, available to be used and abused at will where facts
don't matter.
US America loves its myth of being committed to justice for all, but in fact it is a society
ruled and funded by a wealthy elite. This is not a government of, by and for the people!
It is a ruthless oligarchy sanctioned by a majority of the people believing their vote
counts. Money has always mattered, severely rigging the game in many ways toward an
upper class (obscenely bribing candidates, corporate personhood power, gerrymandering,
proprietary election software, hacking capacity to effect results, Jim Crow laws, voter
suppression, etc.). The oligarchy approves "acceptable" candidates, while contrived rhetoric,
propaganda, and our education system keep us faithful to our political system comprised of one
party with two right wings, the winner ruling by tyranny of its majority. But the bottom line
is that (s)elected representatives obey their large donors who thrive on war-making against
vulnerable others.
Nonetheless, these facts do not preclude existence of individual conscientious politicians.
However, the political economic system itself is fixed, it is not broken, a dilemma every
honest politician must face. This delicious Kool Aid has in fact concealed a delusional
madness, a Kafkaesque, Orwellian nightmare. Our political leaders have consistently and
collectively acted outside the Constitution, while selectively applying laws that
preserve the cabal in power. It has always been this way, though the social revolution of the
1960s threatened to overturn the oligopoly. This revolution was unfortunately unsuccessful but
the fearful system's repressive reaction is now in its fifth decade. In the end, we are in fact
a nation of men, not laws.
So, in effect, our mythological story made me functionally stupid, a "good kid" who became
complicit in mindless, mass murder. And I am suggesting that it has created a society comprised
of millions of functionally stupid people. This is different from intelligence. This is not
idiocy. This is serious non -thinking of intellectually capable people who, in effect,
have suspended their autonomous critical thinking, basking in an intoxicated spell of our sense
of national invincibility. It has enhanced the Friedman era of neoliberal privatization,
worshipping greed, while millions are without health care and homeless. This is mass
psychopathy, a dangerous cultural mental illness.
German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer , while a prisoner in one of Hitler's jails,
wrote about the role of stupidity in the German people that substantially contributed to the
rise of Nazism and worship of savior Hitler. He argued that it is very separate from
intellectual capacity but occurs when a cult-like belief system dangerously suspends critical
thinking, bringing collective relief to an emotionally anxious population. It is a form of
voluntary servitude more dangerous than malice, an entrenched belief system that makes genuine
dialogue and education almost impossible. (Bonhoeffer was hung in April 1945).
As US Americans we possess no visceral memory of the two unspeakable genocides
our ancestors shamefully committed, forcefully dispossessing Indigenous Africans of their
labor, and genuine Americans of their land, murdering millions with impunity. Even though we
are superficially taught about slavery and conquering the Indigenous, their egregious suffering
has been outsourced outside our feeling fields for 25 generations . Thus, was
established our cultural "DNA" of achieving expansion benefitting a few (mostly White males and
those who think like them) through any means while escaping any accountability
whatsoever. Now nearly 600 overt, and thousands of covert interventions later, US Americans
still know little or nothing about our unspeakable imperialism. Why not? Isn't it critically
important that we seriously grapple with our diabolical history?
In 2019, the President, US military, CIA, and other "regime change" entities like the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and their funders in Congress, continue to intervene
almost everywhere, destabilizing with crippling sanctions, sadistically causing suffering,
causing chaos, creating kill lists, murdering, bombing, etc. Does any of this criminal insanity
even happen? Has it ever? Does it matter to most people? I believe there is a deep shame
that burdens us. It is understandable to avoid looking at shame, but the cost is perpetual war
for perpetual peace until we are all dead. The era of privilege is over, as we enter the
terrifying era of consequences, bringing fear, insecurity and anxiety to many heretofore
privileged folks. Denial becomes a lethal seduction.
Our amnesia has precluded emotional intelligence, a depth of character, so necessary
for mature development, with little understanding of historical context. We are effectively
emotionally retarded, blocking the universal embedded human feeling of empathy, and the
collective solidarity that emerges therefrom. Thus, "America" is very insecure having been
conveniently wrapped in a fake, pretend narrative, convincing us of our "exceptional" nature,
ignoring both our systemic pattern of domestic violence, and global imperialism. The corporate
media, and corporate-owned social media platforms, serve as stenographers for our oligarchic
policies and values. They create an agenda-driven narrative that inoculates our minds with
constant group think untruths of neo-liberal capitalism.
We now live in a post-truth world, where narcissistic life is experienced as virtual, not
real. Do we feel the pain of the Afghani, Yemeni, the Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Libyan, Somali,
the Russian, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Honduran, Guatemalan, Mexican, Palestinian in Gaza, or
our neighbor down the street whose cancer left her homeless due to foreclosure? How much do we
care? Answering these questions can tell us a lot about our own survival, including yours and
mine.
Serious discussion and debate of a broad range and depth of ideas is virtually
nonexistent. Mention of "socialism" is considered traitorous to the religion of neoliberal
corporatism. In reality, we promote individualism over community, competition over cooperation,
and acquisitiveness over inquisitiveness. These capitalist characteristics condition human
development in a way that is diametrically opposed to our inherent, genetic nature as a social
species requiring for survival cooperation in all our relations.
The economy and political system is now virtually dependent upon what Eisenhower proclaimed
as the military/security industrial complex, and that complex thrives on creation of endless
"enemies" which produce obscene war profits for a very few. Community and family units have
disintegrated, and citizenship is less engaged as life is increasingly defined in terms of
commodities. Everything and everybody is for sale to the highest bidder. This leads to anomie,
violence and madness. And yet, we continue to enjoy shopping as the government conducts its
daily bombing. How can this be? How can we pay taxes and go about our business as usual when so
many people in the world are being impoverished or eliminated by US policies facilitating the
wealthy getting richer?
The Deep Divide – 1959 – 2019
Having graduated from a rural upstate New York high school in 1959 at the height of
post-WWII Cold War euphoria, in the midst of the short historic blip of aspiring consumerism,
the "American" Kool Aid I and my 28 fellow graduates drank at that time was delicious. I was
raised in a lower middle class home by conservative, religious parents, not dissimilar to the
upbringings of many of my classmates. Life seemed great, and simple. However, my Viet Nam
experience rudely exposed the poisonous nature of this delicious drink and its true
ingredients.
Discovering information about my former classmates finds several still living in the same
area we grew up, possessing similar views to that which we believed in 1959 – religiously
and politically conservative, but now supporters of MAGA, Trump and Israel. One classmate who
had been a basketball cheerleader, still married to her high school sweetheart after 60 years,
read my Facebook postings from Nicaragua, then declared me "a fool" admonishing me to "stay
there." This same cheerleader chanted for each starter before games, such as "Brian, Brian,
he's our man, if he can't do it, nobody can."
Being raised in and conditioned by US America instills a desire to preserve a fantasy of
post-WWII euphoria for many, at least until President Reagan. But experiential reality
painfully destroys make-believe. I argue that the USA has never been great, but suspect many of
my 1959 classmates would vehemently disagree.
Trump Exposes the Pretend Society
The phenomenon of the Presidency of Donald John Trump disturbingly "offers" our culture, and
the world, an overdue undisguised photo of our real culture and its politics. Some say
Trump brings out the worst in people – hatred, self-centeredness, cruelty, insensitivity,
crassness, racism, insulting language, poisonous divisiveness, adolescent delinquency, etc. But
is it possible that his language and demeanor are validating expressions of historically
suppressed feelings and values which have never been sufficiently addressed or openly
acknowledged in our Eurocentric, capitalist, money-oriented, nature-defying, often
mean-spirited culture? These censored feelings once unleashed, no matter how adolescent they
seem, are capable of manifesting in a vicious authoritarian and neo-fascist state, as they did
in Germany nearly 100 years ago. It seems we are at that point again.
The "developed" world, now led by the United States of America, has historically been built
on egregious exploitation and violence hidden under fanciful rhetoric. Inevitably, the chickens
will come home to roost. As Eurocentrics we have been lying to ourselves and the world with our
highly touted economic system and "democracy," fooling ourselves by myths and lies we have long
believed about our "superiority" built on the suffering of others. As stated above, we have
(s)elected leaders who are to varying degrees corrupted by money who use politically "correct"
language and a finessed demeanor to gain approval. In fact, they have consistently been
imperial and oligarchic, selfishly stealing to assure an insatiably consumptive lifestyle for
under 5 percent of the world's population (but only benefitting a minority of its own people),
while gobbling up anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of the globe's resources (depending on the
resource and era examined). We ad nauseum excuse our interventions using "national
security" or "humanitarian justice." We have followed in the footsteps of our imperial teachers
in the United Kingdom. Fair? Sustainable? Ever thought about the structural unfairness and
gross arrogance that has enabled 500 years of colonization? Trump's Presidency reveals a lot
about us that we have not wanted to recognize. Scary? Our historical chronic complicity in this
horror story cannot be ignored.
Trump serves as an avatar, or caricature, of a collective, creepy, violent, disgusting,
mean-spirited, immature culture, at least as experienced by large numbers of people both in the
US and the world. Trump's appeal can largely be attributed to the fact that he has taken the
clothes off of Pretend . His childish nature of lying, tweeting and exaggerating,
ironically reveals an ugly "truth" about our modern selves that has been drowned under
incredible "public relations" – education, the media, Hollywood, sports, the State
Department, etc. His extreme personal narcissism matches well our extreme collective
exceptionalism. Is it clearer now just how big the LIE has been, protected by our comfortable
500-year myths? Welcome to dystopia, Kafka, and Orwell.
Conclusion
The 400-year history of Western dualistic Cartesian thinking (named after French philosopher
Rene Descartes' view of reductionist mind-body dualism) divorcing human beings from study of
observable nature, has produced a terribly flawed epistemology. The opposite basis for
knowledge is holism, a framework that enables comprehension of multiple interconnections and
historical context. Dispensing with any serious concern for consequences, the insatiably
consumer-driven materialistic Western Way of Life has ironically and blissfully been destroying
life itself by its addiction to burning finite fossil fuels. The harsh truth is that a
capitalist system is on a direct collision course with sustainable societies that require
conserving healthy interconnected relationships with each other and the earth's eco-system. We
have become accustomed to wishful thinking that resources are infinite, and that they belong to
us. This theft can only happen, of course, by force or its threat, and deceit, while living in
the toxic illusion we are better than others. Does this suggest a kind of arrogant
collective stupidity?
Nature bats last, something our cortex apparently chose to fatally ignore. We now face the
greatest existential crisis as Nature bats last humbling modern humans into extinction, or near
so. We somehow forgot the most critical truth of all – that we all part of the One. If we
can now recognize our various levels of "stupidity", we have an adrenaline opportunity to leap
out of our heretofore seductive comfortable fantasy, choosing instead to access our buried
human characteristic of interconnection with everything and everybody, i.e., mutual respect and
accountability. This leap now must be of a revolutionary nature, rocketing us out of our
historic arrogant pleasureableness. Our survival foundation: embracing the evolutionary feeling
of empathy. Saving ourselves is pretty damn important, and that means saving life for all.
Let's do it! We are not worth more; they are not worth less.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Brian Willson, Viet Nam veteran and trained lawyer, has been a lifelong critic of US
domestic and foreign policy. His essays and biography are found at his website:
brianwillson.com. His recent book, "Don't Thank Me for My Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the
Long History of US Lies" is published by Clarity Press (2018). His psycho-historical memoir,
"Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson" was published by PM Press (2011).
A documentary, "Paying the Price for Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson" was produced in 2016
by Bo Boudart Productions.
Bacevich is wrong: it is all about the control of oil producing nations in the Middle East and the preservation "oil for
dollars only" regime (with the help of Israel as the forward base of the US imperialism in the Middle East)
Notable quotes:
"... In this piece, I want to draw attention to the systemic problem of "Iran expertise" in Washington, which is neither new nor limited to the hawkish political factions now running this country's foreign policy. ..."
"... I assert that the US foreign policy establishment[i] has collectively created a culture of expert impunity when it comes to Iran, which has contributed in no small part to the unstable and dangerous policy conditions we see under Trump today. ..."
"... Supporting Iraq in its foolhardy war with Iran in the 1980s proved to be strategically shortsighted in the extreme. It yielded vastly more problems than it solved. It set in train a series of costly wars that have produced negligible benefits. Supporting Saudi Arabia today in its misbegotten war in Yemen is no less shortsighted. ..."
"... Power confers choice, and the United States should exercise it. We can begin to do so by recognizing that Saudi Arabia's folly need not be our problem." ..."
"... Iran has a much longer history of managing pawns and vassal states than the USA. So too has Russia. Now replace 'Iran' with 'Israel' and you can recognise the belligerent initiator/opponent of the conflict. Trouble is that Trump is captive of the Israelis (and his petty ego) while being tormented and impoverished by all those countries that the USA invaded at the Israeli's behest. ..."
"... The dumb oafish response of the USA giant with its five eyes as it stomps about the planet enthralled by prospect of egomaniacle rapture is what endagers humanity. Leave the middle east and everyone else to their own conflict resolution I say. ..."
In this piece, I want to draw attention to the systemic problem of "Iran expertise" in
Washington, which is neither new nor limited to the hawkish political factions now running
this country's foreign policy.
I assert that the US foreign policy establishment[i] has
collectively created a culture of expert impunity when it comes to Iran, which has
contributed in no small part to the unstable and dangerous policy conditions we see under
Trump today.
"I am not suggesting that Washington is supporting the wrong side in Yemen. I am
suggesting, however, that neither side deserves support. Iran may well qualify as America's
"enemy." But Saudi Arabia is not a "friend," regardless of how many billions Riyadh spends
purchasing American-manufactured weaponry and how much effort Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman invests in courting President Trump and members of his family.
The conviction, apparently widespread in American policy circles, that in the Persian Gulf
(and elsewhere) the United States is compelled to take sides, has been a source of recurring
mischief. No doubt the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran poses a danger of
further destabilizing the gulf. But the United States is under no obligation to underwrite
the folly of one side or the other.
Supporting Iraq in its foolhardy war with Iran in the 1980s proved to be strategically
shortsighted in the extreme. It yielded vastly more problems than it solved. It set in train
a series of costly wars that have produced negligible benefits. Supporting Saudi Arabia today
in its misbegotten war in Yemen is no less shortsighted.
Power confers choice, and the United States should exercise it. We can begin to do so
by recognizing that Saudi Arabia's folly need not be our problem."
Iran has a much longer history of managing
pawns and vassal states than the USA. So too has Russia. Now replace 'Iran' with 'Israel' and
you can recognise the belligerent initiator/opponent of the conflict. Trouble is that Trump is
captive of the Israelis (and his petty ego) while being tormented and impoverished by all
those countries that the USA invaded at the Israeli's behest.
The dumb oafish response of the USA giant with its five eyes as it stomps about the planet
enthralled by prospect of egomaniacle rapture is what endagers humanity. Leave the middle
east and everyone else to their own conflict resolution I say.
Yeah, I'm reminded--again--of Milo Mindbender's racket in Catch-22 , which was 100%
greed driven. But we mustn't forget the vaunted Vietnam Syndrome assorted POTUS have set out
to quell. Trump just played on that theme today in a portion of his speech I cited. As
psychohistorian reported on the open thread, the next round of QE has commenced in an effort
to bolster Trump's electability--lots of that money just went to shorting oil. Tomorrow will
surely bring forth new revelations, accusations, and denials.
For any barflies in the vicinity, Iran opens "an exhibition of
hunted/captured drones in #Tehran from September 22 to October 7" that will draw more than
the curious. I'm sure pics will get tweeted.
https://english.almasirah.net/details.php?es_id=8810&cat_id=1
"Air Force of the Yemeni Army and Popular Committees, Saturday morning carried out a
large-scale operation with 10 drones, targeting Abqaiq and Khurais refineries east of Saudi
Arabia. The operation is called the 2nd Operation of Balanced Deterrence."
"... Someone should tell Mike that our credibility as a nation is further damaged with claims that are in need of supporting evidence. ..."
"... Did Fat Mike rub the head camel jockey's glowing orb? ..."
"... America is a bomb-happy empire - we kill illiterate peasants and destroy mud-walled villages. We are really good at it. ..."
"... Mike, it may be an "act of war" for Saudi Arabia but it's not an act of war for the United States. We weren't attacked, they were. Let them unfuck the situation. ..."
"... No more wars Mr. Trump, no more wars. Plus, we need to prepare to defend our Constitution on our own shores. ..."
Mike, it may be an "act of war" for Saudi Arabia but it's not an act of war for the United
States. We weren't attacked, they were. Let them unfuck the situation.
I am pro military and I have many friends who have served or currently serve. And I have
kids. I'm not sending my kids to kill Iranians for the Saudi's, for Israel or for any other
fucked-up nation in the Middle East. And I don't want 18-year-old American kids getting
killed or wounded for those ungrateful ***** either.
No more wars Mr. Trump, no more wars. Plus, we need to prepare to defend our Constitution
on our own shores.
Sep 16, 2019 Welcome
to the world where things don't add up. For instance, some people did some things to
the Saudi Arabian oil refinery at Abqaiq over the weekend. Like, sent over a salvo of cruise
missiles and armed drone aircraft to blow it up. They did a pretty good job of disabling the
works. It is Saudi Arabia's largest oil processing facility, and for now, perhaps months, a
fair amount of the world's oil supply will be cut off. President Trump said "[we] are waiting
to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what
terms we would proceed!" Exclamation mark his.
How many times the past few years has our government declared that "we have the finest
intelligence services in the world." Very well, then, why are we waiting for the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia to tell us who fired all that stuff into Abqaiq? Whoever did it, it was
unquestionably an act of war. And, of course, what are we going to do about it? (And what will
some people do about it?)
Let's face it: the USA has had a hard-on for Iran for forty years, ever since they overthrew
their shah, invaded the US embassy in Tehran, and took fifty-two American diplomats and staff
hostage for 444 days. On the other hand, the Arabians and Iranians have had a mutual hard-on
for centuries, long before the Saud family was in charge of things, and back when Iran was
known as Persia, a land of genies, fragrant spices, and a glorious antiquity (while Arabia was
a wasteland of sand populated by nomads and their camels). The beef was formerly just about
which brand of Islam would prevail, Sunni or Shia. Lately (the past fifty years) it has been
more about the politics of oil and hegemony over the Middle East. Since the US invaded Iraq and
busted up the joint, the threat has existed that Iran would take over Iraq, with its majority
Shia population, especially the oil-rich Basra region at the head of the Persian Gulf. The
presence of Israel greatly complicates things, since Iran has a hard-on for that nation, too,
and for Jews especially, often expressed in the most belligerent and opprobrious terms, such as
"wiping Israel off the map." No ambiguity there. The catch being that Israel has the capability
of turning Iran into an ashtray.
The world has been waiting for a major war in the Middle east for decades, and it might have
one by close of business today. Or perhaps some people will do nothing . The
Iran-backed Houthi rebels of Yemen supposedly claimed responsibility for the attack. That's
rich. As if that rag-tag outfit has a whole bunch of million-dollar missiles and the knowledge
and capacity to launch them successfully, not to mention the satellite guidance mojo. A
correspondent suggests that the missiles were fired from a pro-Iranian military base in Iraq,
with the Houthis brought in on flying carpets to push the launch buttons.
President Trump is trumpeting America's "energy independence," meaning whatever happens over
there won't affect us. Well, none of that is true. We still import millions of barrels of oil a
day, though much less from Saudi Arabia than before 2008. The shale oil "miracle" is hitting
the skids these days. Shale oil production has gone flat, the rig-count is down, companies are
going bankrupt, and financing for the debt-dependent operations is dwindling since the
producers have demonstrated that they can't make a profit at it. They're trapped in the
quandary of diminishing returns, frontloading production, while failing to overcome steep
decline curves in wells that only produce for a couple of years.
It's also the case that shale oil is ultra-light crude, containing little heavier
distillates such as diesel and aviation fuel (basically kerosene). Alas, American refineries
were all built before shale oil came along. They were designed to crack heavier oil and can't
handle the lighter shale. The "majors" don't want to invest their remaining capital in new
refineries, and the many smaller companies don't have the ability. So, this makes necessary a
high volume of oil swapping around the world. Without diesel and aviation fuel, US trucking and
commercial aviation has a big problem, meaning the US economy has a big problem.
With the new crisis in the Middle East, benchmark West Texas Intermediate oil is up from
around $55-a-barrel to just over $60 at the market open (European Brent crude is just above
$70). That's a pop, but not a spectacular one, considering that a whole lot more damage might
ensue in the days ahead. China, Korea, and Japan stand to lose bigly if the players in the
Middle East really go at it and bust up each other's assets. If that happens, the world will
never be the same. You can kiss the global economy goodbye for good. Let's hope some people
don't do something.
Not just the Saudi's. The Houthis support Palestine, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
They also control the Straits of Mandeb where most of Israel's oil transits to Asia.
Hence the war in Yemen an the problems in the Sudan. So its no wonder its not just
the Saudi's who are fighting the Houthis. The Houthis are fighting against the U.K.,
Germany, the U.S., Israel and the UAE, who are all supporting the Saudi's. Yemen, one
of the worlds oldest civilizations
Iran never said "wiping Israel off the map."It was Ahmadinejad that said "..wipe
the Zionist entity off the map".
This author should know better than to repeat Zionist lies.
Kunstler has some huge holes in his game. He seems to take many of the US MSM
talking points as good coin. Like, exhibit A, the "wipe Israel off the map" quote
which has long since been shown to be a mis-translation. Often his bigotry also slips
like when he dismisses Houthi capabilities and gets wrong what actually hit the
refineries. These were DRONES not missiles. That is why they were able to evade the
Saudi air defenses. But Houthis are to uncouth to pull of such an operation and
moreover how dare they defend themselves or accept assistance from Iran even if it
were true they are supplying the Houthis with weapons and intelligence. Of course, he
also fails to explain, following like a dog on a leash the US media, why Iran would
launch such an attack considering it may provoke the Israelis or the US. Sure they
may hate the Saudis but they certainly do not want a war where, though they would not
technically lose, would see their society destroyed. Again Cui Bono.
Kunstlers's roots are definitely showing here. His usual barbed wit has simply
disappeared and he seems to have bitten off and swallowed whole the officialbullshit , very unwise at this stage.
"A correspondent suggests" just doesn't cut it. Correspondents have suggested all
sorts of things and he should learn to ignore these voices and rely on facts
instead.
He forgets the fact that Saudi Arabia has been waging war on Yemen since 2015 and
that the damage inflicted upon the Saudi oil installations is only a tiny fraction of
the retribution that the Saudis deserve.
Kunstler predictably forgets the fact that Israel has been illegally attacking
Iranian interests in Syria for several years and that as a result many Iranians have
been killed by Israel in recent times. The fact is that these illegal forays are also
acts of war, which of course Kunstler forgets to tell us.
One other fact pertains to his boasting that Israel could wipe Iran off the map,
which is not just bad taste, but ignores the fact that Iran has enough conventional
power to do the same to its postage stamp sized and bellicose neighbour.
We now know that when the chips are down, Kunstler will simply revert to type and
tow the crooked official zio line. We don't need Kunstler for that, we all ready have
a zionist media, a craven Congress and Trump's government of crazies, very important
facts.
If the Yemenis are being assisted by Iran I say that's a good thing. The Saudi
beasts are being assisted by our jew rulers. If I was a Yemeni blowing up that oil
infrastructure would have been on top of my list. And Israel is the country that
would be turned into an ashtray. The US is gone, over run invaded, already lost.
"Let's face it:" says Kunstler. Iran started it forty years ago, "ever since they
overthrew their shah ..." Bad Iranians attacking the USA.
But if we go back a few decades further, we find USUKisrael smashing the elected
government of Iran and installing The Shah! So Kunstler is lying when he says "their
shah"; he should say OUR shah. I think he probably knows this. He's not accidentally
mixing things up.
Catastrophic or not the neocons are itching for a big confrontation and Iran fits
the bill.
Keep in mind that most collateral damage will be suffered by the Saudis.
The US is now the biggest producer of oil, just imagine the boost that the US shale
investors will get in an industry that was about to have its bubble burst.
No longer will it struggle to break even, no it will make a good profit, more
importantly the bubble will not hit the financial sector hard.
Now KSA will suffer a blow, but that will only serve the US - new loans and new
contracts will reverse the money stream and tie the Saudi regime even more to
Washington.
As a bonus it will please the Israelis when finally Iran will be taken out and
Hezbollah isolated.
Wild cards - how hard can Iran retaliate beyond KSA, is it able and willing to
strike against Israel? How hard can it strike US targets in the region? And finally
will they go full on against the Arabian energy infrastructure. If a couple of Houthi
cruise missiles in a single strike can drop total oil production by 5% and raise
prices by 20%, imagine what kind of havoc a real Iranian campaign can cause (again
ignoring the oil bonanza the US oil industry will score).
I really believe there is now a 50/50% that Washington will gamble a full blown
war against Iran, its perceived benefits outweighing the dangers.
If anything Israel will be the deciding factor, if Tel Aviv does not fear Iranian
retribution and gives the go ahead, we'll have a war on our hands,
The US is certainly stretched thin defending the national and security interest
across the globe - aka defending and expanding the empire.
However there is enough fire power to defeat the Iranian military as an organized
force and Teheran as a government, it all depends on the US rules of engagement and
how far they are willing to push this war.
But afterwards it will be no better than Iraq or Afghanistan.
That may actually be the excuse to do what some strategists have been itching to
do since the Korean war, that is to use a couple of tactical nukes - the ultimate
terror weapon of state.
The current NPR is a strong sign in favor of nuclear weapons in conflict as it
greatly reduces the threshold. Iran's perceived threat to global oil production could
be used to set an example.
In what condition will Saudi Arabia be in, after Iran has been subdued? Also the
plethora of US bases in the area will also be fat juicy targets for Iranian
missiles.
Did the condition of South East Asia other than the ubiquitous Domino Theory,
worry many when they went to war in Viet Nam, what about Iraq?
Oil and Israel are key.
Oil prices and Israel's safety.
They want to take out Iran, but this small attack shows how vulnerable the
regional energy infrastructure really is. That can be a temporary advantage, in
boosting US oil income, but that can be easily off set by the impact of rising oil
prices on all other sectors and the public.
That's why I think it is 50/50 at best, and slowly leaning to less likely we'll
see a major escalation.
Otoh, if I were the Houthis, I'd launch a couple of additional strikes to press
the message.
Saudi Arabia supplies oil to China, so to believe Iran was behind the drone attack
on Saudi oil is a bit of a stretch. The question is was it the U.S. and Israel
coordinating that attack? Israel's influence on the U.S. in the middle east is what
is getting America running in circles
The dangerous disease that inflict the USA neoliberal elite can be called "supremacism
delirium"
As for quality of arms produced, when profit is the main motivation, the quality of design
suffer. Still despite recent setbacks the USA remain the leader in new arm technologies.
B's posting is further proof that the US of A (and it's flunky allies) are indeed led by the
stupid, corrupt, and ignorant.
While Russia and Iran are taking rational routes to protect themselves, the US and it's
allies are pouring billions, if not trillions, of dollars (and thousands of lives) into a
foreign policy that can only be described as the foreign policy of God, for it passes all
human understanding.
Thanks b! One way looking radar is so Pre-Second World War! The Patriot's MPQ-53 radar has a
search sector of 90° and track capability of 120°--an amazingly inferior capability I
wasn't aware of, nor is the vast majority of the public, which is why that twitter gif I
linked to on the previous thread is humorous. In that comment, it was said that the radar's
were reoriented to aim at Houthiland which is the given excuse as to why the Iranian attack
wasn't detected. I don't buy that for an instant.
Houthi media's gone silent for now as it awaits a response from Saudis before launching
there next attack in under 48 hours--yes, they did place an actual time, but were very
general about the types of targets, although the top threat remains hydrocarbon
infrastructure. RT reports :
"Saudi Arabia's energy minister said that its oil supplies had resumed and that its oil
market would be 'fully back online' by the end of September following attacks which
Washington blames on Iran while Riyadh is still probing.
"Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman told the media that oil production in October would
reach 9.89 million barrels per day and 12 million bpd by the end of November."
We shall see if the output equals the boast, particularly if Houthis continue their
attacks. No questions about providing better defenses reminds me of the Death Star
Commandeer's famous last words about his weapon's invincibility.
Meanwhile, Nuttyahoo's coalition's narrowly losing the election.
I love how the warmongers on FOX / CNN make Iran / Russia sound nefarious that they call
their strategy A2D2 or asymmetric warfare (aka actual defense of their country instead of
power projection). How is using short / medium range missiles or a green water navy
'asymmetric'?
If we do go to war w/Iran the only way we win is by committing war crimes by bombing
population centers until they surrender, we can't beat them in a straight up fight. I'm not a
military wonk but I can see the relative competence levels. We can't even get a decent photo
of a boat with a bomb on it after it's been sitting in broad daylight for 10hrs.
( Tony
Cartalucci - NEO ) - The US continues to deny any involvement in ongoing unrest in China's special administrative region of Hong
Kong.
However, even a casual look at US headlines or comments made by US politicians makes it clear the unrest not only suits US interests,
but is spurred on almost exclusively by them.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said it is "ludicrous" for China to claim the United States is behind the escalating
protests in Hong Kong.
Pompeo rebuked Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, who had claimed violent clashes in the city prompted by opposition
to the Hong Kong government's controversial extradition bill were "the work of the US".
However, even US policymakers have all but admitted that the US is funnelling millions of dollars into Hong Kong specifically
to support "programs" there. The Hudson Institute in an article titled, "
China Tries to Blame
US for Hong Kong Protests ," would admit:
A Chinese state-run newspaper's claim that the United States is helping pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong is only partially
inaccurate, a top foreign policy expert said Monday.
Michael Pillsbury, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told Fox News National Security Analyst KT McFarland the U.S.
holds some influence over political matters in the region.
The article would then quote Pillsbury as saying:
We have a large consulate there that's in charge of taking care of the Hong Kong Policy Act passed by Congress to insure democracy
in Hong Kong, and we have also funded millions of dollars of programs through the National Endowment for Democracy [NED] so in
that sense the Chinese accusation is not totally false.
A visit to the NED's website reveals an entire section
of declared funding for Hong Kong specifically.
The wording for program titles and their descriptions is intentionally ambiguous to give those like US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
plausible deniability.
However, deeper research reveals NED recipients are literally leading the protests.
Johnson Yeung Ching-yin, from the Civil Human Rights Front, was among 49 people arrested during Sunday's protest – deemed illegal
as it had not received police approval – in Central and Western district on Hong Kong Island.
As S
Brian Wilson put it: "There was a moment in Viet Nam when I questioned whether everything I
had been taught about "America" was one big fabricated lie – a huge pretend. "
Well, I still think the failure to anticipate a Houthi attack is suspicious.
Another "failure of imagination" like 9-11 that conveniently allowed the attack to
happen.
Even if the radar only points one way, they could've set up radars that pointed in other
directions. After all, the Houthi had already demonstrated their ability to strike targets
far from Yemen.
And the damage done is also suspicious. 17 targets hit by 10 long-range drones/cruise
missiles? And the high precision? USA+Saudis are saying the ONLY explanation is that Iran
participated in the attack. But there's another explanation: sabotage (or photoshop) that
increased the damage so that oil prices would go higher and fears of war with Iran would
distract everyone from the possibility that its really all about oil prices and Netanyahu's
election.
Self-inflicted damage after a major attack? That too was something we saw in 9-11 when
WTC7 was brought down.
PS Like many, my initial reaction was that this attack would be the justification for
war with Iran. But increased TENSIONS are probably enough for TPTB to achieve some very
desireable ojectives:
1. Election of Netanyahu
TINA!
2. Funding Trump's "Deal of the Century" for Palestinians Saudis will pay them to leave with the increased revenue from higher oil
prices
3. USA financial bailout Financial firms have tens of billions invested in fracking which is not profitable at
low oil prices
Iran Rejects US Accusation It Is Behind
Saudi Attacks https://nyti.ms/30iNte7
NYT - Michael Wolgelenter - September 15
Iran on Sunday forcefully rejected charges by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that it was
responsible for drone attacks that caused serious damage to two crucial Saudi Arabian oil
installations, with the foreign minister dismissing the remarks as "max deceit."
The attacks on Saturday, which hold the potential to disrupt global oil supplies, were
claimed by Houthi rebels in Yemen. Mr. Pompeo said that Iran had launched "an unprecedented
attack on the world's oil supply," although he did not offer any evidence and stopped short
of saying that Iran had carried out the missile strikes.
The Houthis are part of a complex regional dynamic in the Middle East, receiving support
from Iran while the Saudis, Tehran's chief rival for supremacy in the region and the leader
of a coalition that is fighting the Houthis in Yemen, are aligned with the United States.
Seyed Abbas Mousavi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, castigated the Saudis
for their role in the war in Yemen, where the Saudis have directed airstrikes that have
caused heavy civilian casualties and exacerbated a humanitarian crisis. He also ridiculed Mr.
Pompeo's comments.
The semiofficial Fars news agency reported on its English-language website that Mr.
Mousavi described Mr. Pompeo's allegations as "blind and fruitless remarks" that were
"meaningless" in a diplomatic context.
Saudi Arabia has yet to publicly accuse Iran of involvement in the attack. On Sunday, its
Foreign Ministry urged international action to preserve the world oil supply in response to
the attack, but it said nothing about assigning blame or striking back.
The developments come at a moment of rising tensions between Iran and the United States,
which have mounted since President Trump pulled out of the 2015 accord in which Iran agreed
with the West to restrict its nuclear program. Since the American withdrawal, Iran has
gradually pulled away from its some obligations under the agreement. ...
... "US & its clients are stuck in Yemen because of illusion that weapon superiority will
lead to military victory," Mr. Zarif wrote on Twitter. "Blaming Iran won't end disaster.
Accepting our April '15 proposal to end war & begin talks may.
The attack on Saturday, which the Houthis said involved 10 drones, represented the rebels'
most serious strike since Saudi Arabia inserted itself into the conflict in Yemen four years
ago. That the rebels could cause such extensive damage to such a crucial part of the global
economy astonished some observers. ...
It's Monday September 16th, 2019 and the weeks starts off like this:
GM's UAW Strike
Yemeni Houti Rebels Drones wipe out 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production
Trump tweets in response is "locked and loaded" implying a new US war in the ME
One of Trump's White House flunky's declared "it is better if Trump does not study an
issue" before making decisions (oh yea,"Stupid is what Stupid does")
Biden and S. Warren tied in the DEM race for 2020
Piketty's new Economics tome is out
PM Netanyahu is losing his re-election bid in Israel, to be determined by tomorrow's
Election
We live in interesting times...
...the question I pose for the times is 'Are the People are better lead by businessmen,
politicians, academics, or intellectuals?
"... Then the question arose whether drones had been used at all, or whether the attack might in fact have been a missile strike ..."
"... But regardless, the game has escalated up one more rung up the ladder. How many more will it take for the world to put its interests ahead of Israel's? ..."
"... Next escalation rung: a loading dock for supertankers: either the port of Yanbu or Ra's Tanura. Followed by desalination facilities, if Western politicians still pretend to turn a blind eye and prefer to follow the dictates of their Israeli masters. Nuff Sed. ..."
"... In asking the question, qui bono, you do have to include Netanyahu, who is up for reelection tomorrow. There's nothing like striking fear into the heart of the electorate on the eve of an election for firming up support for a proven incumbent. And if the US attacks Iran before tomorrow, so much the better for Netanyahu. ..."
"... That said, I don't think that Netanyahu's buddies in Riyadh would be amused if this were proven. However, poking a friend in the eye never seemed to stop Israel before think USS Liberty. ..."
"... Israel has the means, plus the motive (Bib's reelection), and might have taken the opportunity to attribute the attack to Iran and force Trump's hand. ..."
"... I am assuming, myself, personally, this action was taken to prevent a meeting in NYC between Trump and the President of Iran. That is my guess. ..."
"... There was never going to be a meeting between Rouhani and Trump. I expect to be dead of old age before there would be any substantive meetings between Iran and the United States. ..."
"... Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei has said there will be no meeting until the U.S.ends sanctions. ..."
"... I do not for a moment believe Bolton would have stood for it, and even though he's gone, neither will Pompeo or Pence. Both appear to be fanatically devoted to Israel. There may be meetings between low level functionaries, and Trump seems to want one very much, but Rouhani has said there is no way to trust America, so no point to talking. The situation may change if Netanyahu loses the election, although I have no reason to believe Avigdor will be any better. ..."
"... However, if Trump DOES cut a deal, he will not try and fluff it off as an "Executive Agreement"....if Trump cuts a deal he knows he will have to bring it to Congress. Thee Lobby may kill it there...or not. We'll see. ..."
"... It's not just Yemen. People forget there is an oppressed Shiite minority near the Aramco HQ (dispossessed of the oil fields, located in their ancestral area & treated like sub-sub-citizens); they get periodically beheaded" ..."
"... The Al Saud gang, under the Clown Prince Muhammad Bone Saw, can not count on those Shiite inhabitants of the oil rich region, not necessarily because of the latter's sympathy for Iran but because they were brutalized for almost a century. ..."
"... One to benefit from it that I see so far is Saudi's Aramco IPO which is critical to Saudi . According to WSJ they were considering delaying it because of low oil prices, they needed oil to reach $80 barrel to make it viable. The attack sent prices up but now market is talking about risk if there are 'on going attacks'. What could we deduce if there are no on going attacks and the IPO proceeds? ..."
"... We know Yemen has the Quds-1 and has surprised us before with their technical capability. Combine that with the video of Yahya Sari claiming full responsibility for the attack and I'm not sure there is any reason to speculate about conspiracies involving other actors. ..."
"... In addition, the specificity of the targets hit suggests good intel. I would suspect that Houthi's have linked with disaffected groups in SA (lots!) and improved their Humint. It seems highly unlikely that Iran would do something like this AND leave their fingerprints behind - at least based on recent events. ..."
"... Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my experience they turn off all ATC and air defense systems that require manning or watch keeping when they find them inconvenient as on the weekend. IMO if Ansarallah did this they will do something similar soon to prove they are responsible. ..."
"... israel gets a lot of press and speculation on this board as well as everywhere else for all their conspiracies and supposed omnipotent power and control but in this writers opinion THEY have been punching way above their actual weight for years and current reality has exposed how feckless and puny they really are in the scheme of things. ..."
"... ''i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if israel were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations israel is viewed as responsible for.'' A Cult is a Cult regardless of it members makeup. And Israel is looking more like a Jim Jones farm every day. ..."
"... And Iran has demonstrated that they can cause months worth of damage on the KSA, the UAE, and Kuwait. I can't believe the number of Congressman who simultaneously believe that Iran was able to glide over U.S. made air defenses without detection and also believe that we can simply carpet bomb their refineries without any repercussion. How can one believe both things at the same time? That Iran is responsible for a sophisticated ghost attack and that they are incapable of retaliating in a target rich environment. ..."
"... Not only did Graham say this but the loon from Maryland repeated it. These people are insane but MSM hosts encourage it, just saw Cavuto snear at Ron Paul because he actually made sense. We are so messed up. ..."
"... Everyone keeps misunderestimating the Yemenis. The Houthis are fighting as part of a coalition that includes a large part of the Yemeni military and intelligence services. This coalition is carrying out a war under guerrilla conditions, but that war is led by professional military men. ..."
"... It is the benefit of being a perfumed prince or fop or neo-con that history has no meaning because history ended sometime in the 90's. Somehow I hear the voice of a Rove lecturing: ..."
"... "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
"... Yes indeed. Dave deserves hearty congratulations though we might add a caveat. The said "valves" could have been blown out in advance via software or person throwing a switch (humint or cyber component to one attack vector). ..."
"... It cries out "sure, it's bad, but it is reversible." ..."
"... Houthis have every reason to utilize their advanced weapons systems against Saudi targets to bring the war to an end. As for Iran, seems they have been on a semi-successful diplomatic campaign to counter US maximum pressure with their own maximum pressure on Europeans, Russia and China to deliver on the economic benefits that are as important in JCPOA as the curtailing of Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... Trump talking about meeting Rouhani in New York, Zarif in China getting at least $50-100 billion in pledged economic support, Russia suggesting $10 billion investment in the Iranian energy sector: Why would Iran at this moment make a direct move to turn the world fully against them? Perhaps a rogue faction of IRGC out to stop any diplomatic action, but even that would have to come with OK from Khamenei--or there would be strong action against the rogues. ..."
"... Pressure on Trump to maintain the hardline against Iran following Bolton ouster? Pompeo has been leading the diplomatic back channels and repeating Trump's goal of forcing Iran to the table. Even the Saudis are for the moment hesitant to blame Iran, actually calling for a UN investigation into the source of the attacks. ..."
"... "The Iran did it" narrative as an attempt to keep on undermining the pro-Syrian government coalition. ..."
What made this attack different from other recorded Houthi drone attacks was not only the
unprecedented amount of material damage caused but also lingering doubt about the nature and
the attribution of the attack. First,
a video allegedly showing flying objects entering Kuwaiti airspace led to speculation that
like a
previous "Houthi" drone attack this strike might actually have originated in Iraq or even
Iran. While the video remains unverified, the fact that the Kuwaiti government
launched a probe into the issue lends some credence to the idea that something might have
happened over Kuwait that day. Speculation about the origins of the attack was further fueled
by a tweet
by Mike Pompeo in which he claimed that there was no evidence the attacks came from
Yemen.
Then the question arose whether drones had been used at all, or whether the attack might in
fact have been a missile strike. Previous Houthi drone strikes against oil facilities tended to
result in quite limited damage which could be an indication that a different weapons system was
used this time. Indeed, Aramco
came to the conclusion that its facilities were attacked by missiles. Even more curious,
several pictures began to emerge on social media purportedly showing the wreckage of a missile
in the Saudi desert. While the images appear real, neither the date the photos were taken nor
their location can be verified.
Social media users quickly claimed the images showed a crashed
Iranian-made Soumar cruise missile. The Soumar and its updated version, the Hoveyzeh, are
Iran's attempts at reverse-engineering the Soviet-designed KH-55 cruise missile, several of
which the country
illegally imported from Ukraine in the early 2000s . Others claimed it was the Quds 1, a
recently unveiled Houthi cruise missile often claimed to be a rebranded Soumar."
armscontrolwonl
---------------
TTG raised the issue of whether or not this wave of strikes was done by UAVs or cruise
missiles. IMO this cruise missile could be built in Yemen with Iranian assistance. I am very
interested in the question of what the actual vector of the attacks was in this case. pl
The accuracy of the strikes in the spherical pressurized gas storage containers all being in
the same place relative to each target is the place to start for those who, unlike me, are
capable of analyzing these things.
But regardless, the game has escalated up one more rung up the ladder. How many more will
it take for the world to put its interests ahead of Israel's?
Next escalation rung: a loading dock for supertankers: either the port of Yanbu or Ra's
Tanura. Followed by desalination facilities, if Western politicians still pretend to turn a
blind eye and prefer to follow the dictates of their Israeli masters. Nuff Sed.
In asking the question, qui bono, you do have to include Netanyahu, who is up for reelection
tomorrow. There's nothing like striking fear into the heart of the electorate on the eve of
an election for firming up support for a proven incumbent. And if the US attacks Iran before
tomorrow, so much the better for Netanyahu.
That said, I don't think that Netanyahu's buddies in Riyadh would be amused if this were
proven. However, poking a friend in the eye never seemed to stop Israel before think USS
Liberty.
"The Israeli military is armed with the latest fast jets and precision weaponry, yet it has
turned to its fleet of drones to hit targets in Iraq. Deniability has played a big factor
– the ability of drones to elude radar and therefore keep targets guessing about who
actually bombed them is playing well for Israeli leaders who are trying to prevent an
increasingly lethal shadow war with Iran from developing into an open conflict."
The Samad 3 is laden with explosives that allow it to detonate a shaped charge which
explodes downwards towards its target. Footage provided to MintPress by Yemen's Operations
Command Center shows the Samad landing on an asphalt runway, confirming that the drone is
now capable of conducting operations and then returning to base.
There is a huge sea water desalination plant not far away that provides all the treated water
via pipeline for injection into the oil reservoirs to improve recovery of oil. Target that
and not only have you already impacted the processing of the oil produced but would then
impact the total volume of oil available for processing.
I can see no happy ending short of
negotiation between interested parties. MBZ looks to have already reached that conclusion in
respect of the UAE. what will be the self preservation response for the House of Saud
Could the Committee speculate on possible 'steps of retaliation' operating, for theoretical
purposes, at the moment, on the assumption that regardless of where the 'bullets' were fired
from, or from what 'gun' they were fired, Iran paid for deed. What steps are open for action?
I am assuming, myself, personally, this action was taken to prevent a meeting in NYC between
Trump and the President of Iran. That is my guess.
There was never going to be a meeting between Rouhani and Trump. I expect to be dead of old age before there would be any substantive meetings between Iran
and the United States.
Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei has said there will be no meeting until the U.S.ends sanctions.
I
do not for a moment believe Bolton would have stood for it, and even though he's gone,
neither will Pompeo or Pence. Both appear to be fanatically devoted to Israel. There may be
meetings between low level functionaries, and Trump seems to want one very much, but Rouhani
has said there is no way to trust America, so no point to talking. The situation may change
if Netanyahu loses the election, although I have no reason to believe Avigdor will be any
better.
With all due respect, I think one of us fails to grasp the true nature of Trump. If he puts
his mind to it, and thinks it will benefit him, nobody, not Bolton, not Pompeo, not the whole
Neocon cabal, Israeli govt, the present one or the next one, will stop him if he is President
and alive. He will do what is best for Trump.
And trust has nothing to do with this. Why in the hell should I trust Iran? Hell, why
should I trust the UK? I trust that people and nations have interests. That's all I trust.
But that does mean I could not reach a deal with them. Now, as to whether that deals
holds...that is another question. However, if Trump DOES cut a deal, he will not try and
fluff it off as an "Executive Agreement"....if Trump cuts a deal he knows he will have to
bring it to Congress. Thee Lobby may kill it there...or not. We'll see.
Babak, I value your input here. However, I hope you are wrong and that a meeting or meetings
(substantive or not) will start as soon as the dealbreaker is out of office, and the
sanctions are called off. But I would never wish you an early death. May you live a hundred years.
Thank you very kindly.
I would like to ask the following questions:
Will the United States restore sovereign immunity to Iran?
Will the United States Congress rescind all the laws against Iran that form the basis of
economic war against Iran?
Will the United States rescind the sanctions against Ayatollah Khamenei, Dr. Zarif,
General Soleimani, etc., etc. etc.?
Will the Protestant Christians in the United States ever tire of their unrequited love for
all things Old Testament?
In my opinion, the answer to all of these are "no". Unfortunately, even if a man with the caliber of an FDR or a Nixon is elected to the US
Presidency, he will not be able to accomplish much because of the difficulty, nay the
impossibility, of untangling the rules and regulations that US has woven against Iran.
In my opinion, all of that was predicated on the strategic defeat of Iran and her
surrender.
If I WERE ANSWERING. I got some demands of my own..but we can put them aside for the moment.
In general, I would be inclined to respond: Yes, to the "sovereign immunity" question.
Certainly. Regarding "economic warfare", you would have to give me your legal definition of
such a broad phrase, but in principle, yes. Whole heartedly yes. Sanctions against Iran, and
it individuals officers? Yes, absolutely. Sick of sanctions, in general. It is not in my
power to answer the "unrequited love" issue, but I do solemnly state that I would agree to
stop laughing--in public, anyway, at the question. Wanna meet?
Nassim Nicolaas Taleb, author of "Black Swan":
"SAUDI FIELDS It's not just Yemen. People forget there is an oppressed Shiite minority near the Aramco HQ
(dispossessed of the oil fields, located in their ancestral area & treated like
sub-sub-citizens); they get periodically beheaded"
The Al Saud gang, under the Clown Prince Muhammad Bone Saw, can not count on those Shiite
inhabitants of the oil rich region, not necessarily because of the latter's sympathy for Iran
but because they were brutalized for almost a century.
Why would Iran have done it? Just to show they can or to provoke a attack on Iran?
One to benefit from it that I see so far is Saudi's Aramco IPO which is critical to Saudi
. According to WSJ they were considering delaying it because of low oil prices, they needed
oil to reach $80 barrel to make it viable. The attack sent prices up but now market is
talking about risk if there are 'on going attacks'. What could we deduce if there are no on
going attacks and the IPO proceeds?
Only other beneficiary would be Israel if the attack actually does and likely has killed
any Trump-Iran meeting.
Yemenis claimed credit for it, Iran and Iraq said they didn't do it. First word out of US
mouth is Iran did it. The mouth I am least likely to believe is the US. I remember Iraq has
WMDs propaganda....and those it came from.
Oh well, if Iran says they did not do it.......the US govt lies. The Iranian govt lies, the
Saudis surely lie. This is not about innocents. That search is for children and mighty young
ones at that.
The Quds-1 cruise missile is a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle). The remotely piloted aerial
vehicles, which are more commonly referred to as drones are also UAVs. The difference is in
the degree of autonomy in flight control. On board autonomous flight control negates the need
for LOS radio or satellite communications with the cruise missile. Cruise missiles, with
their autonomous control, were always characterized by their high degree of accuracy.
I've
started looking a little closer at the Arduino/RasberryPi and model aircraft hobbyist groups.
With the availability of affordable microcontrollers and sensors, along with the massive
library of open source software, I am convinced a hobbyist could put together a guidance
system in his garage workshop capable of doing what the Quds-1 just did in SA. I also agree
with Colonel Lang that an airframe like the Quds-1 could easily be built in war-torn Yemen. A
cave would make an outstanding workshop.
Even if Iran exported dual use components or even blue prints; it should be counted as part
of the unfortunate world weapons market & wouldn't be illegal.
Your point TTG was nicely illustrated in b's video of the Russian guy building in his
workshopa turbofan engine that flew . Providing there is a set of plans it can be constructed
and it only has to have a one time reliability.
Evidence for what delivered the strike will be found within the complex and there will be a
lot of skills on the ground looking for those answers. The projectiles that struck the
spheres looked to have had penetrating qualities rather than high explosive, putting a hole
in a pressure vessel is sufficient to destroy its usefulness. I would be interested to know
if the projectiles that struck the train were explosive to maximise damage there. Do we need
to be considering what could deliver multiple targeted projectiles or were there simply
multiple independent units or some combination as there were more strikes logged over two
target complexes than the ten delivery platforms mentioned in the Al Ansar press release. Was
there a flight controller and if so where were they located also comes to mind.
There is also the TJ200 built bij Polaris from Brazil with the following description::
"Turbine TJ200:
TJ200 was specially designed to be used in either small cruise missiles or small high
performance UAVs. The most important advantage of TJ200 engine is small diameter and a
relatively low SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption) when compared to other engines of the same
thrust, what makes TJ200 perfect to be used in long range small missiles."
http://www.polaristec.com.br/products.html
That's a pretty specific description. So there are a number of COTS engines out there.
I'd have more confidence in the reporting if I could match it up better with what I can see
in Google Maps/Earth.
The only two satellite pictures I've seen of "burning oil plants" disticntly show a large
plume of black smoke centered a little ways away from the actual refinery area, in some kind
of rectangular area outside the actual "plant". Are those wellheads burning? or adjacent
underground storage? or what?
And the pictured of a burning plant labeled "Haradh Gas Plant" is actually (according to
Google Maps & my eyeballs) the Hawiyah Gas Plant, about 60 miles NNE of Haradh.
In Google Maps/Earth, the Abqaiq facility is on the East side of the city/town of Buquaiq,
and the details match the recent pix. The plume lines up with an empty square patch of desert
at the end of a pipeline running SSE out of the plant.
I've looked all around Khurais, and haven't found anything which could possibly be the
"Oil/Gas Infrastructure at Khurais", as the pictures of the damaged facility there are
labeled.
Elkern, I was referring to the pictures of the cruise missile parts in the sand. Seems to me
they are old from previous attacks.
As far as I can tell the pics of damage at Buqaiq and Khurais are valid. With the
exception of the eleven spherical tanks, which I believe were NOT hit. But I've been wrong
before and am no expert on imagery analysis.
We know Yemen has the Quds-1 and has surprised us before with their technical capability.
Combine that with the video of Yahya Sari claiming full responsibility for the attack and I'm
not sure there is any reason to speculate about conspiracies involving other actors.
The Houthis are not an Iranian "proxy" and I highly doubt they would accept responsibility
for something they didn't do.
Moon of Alabama links some photos and has discussion that suggests very high precision
5-10 m. That is not easily achievable with commercial GPS absent a lot of additional
correction hardware. On the other hand, drones can easily do so. Further, it would be
negligent for SA not to have GPS jamming around such facilities.
In addition, the specificity of the targets hit suggests good intel. I would suspect that
Houthi's have linked with disaffected groups in SA (lots!) and improved their Humint. It
seems highly unlikely that Iran would do something like this AND leave their fingerprints
behind - at least based on recent events.
Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my experience they turn off
all ATC and air defense systems that require manning or watch keeping when they find them
inconvenient as on the weekend. IMO if Ansarallah did this they will do something similar
soon to prove they are responsible.
imo, the saudi's and washington are going to have to take one for the team. the team being
the global oil based world economy and all the notional value FOR THE present ONLY oil
derivatives and interest rate derivatives burdening the western banking system.... think the
insolvent deutsche bank et al.
a war on iran will do every bit as much damage or MORE to the west as it does to iran
which both russia and china can not.. will not allow to die.
israel gets a lot of press and speculation on this board as well as everywhere else for
all their conspiracies and supposed omnipotent power and control but in this writers opinion
THEY have been punching way above their actual weight for years and current reality has
exposed how feckless and puny they really are in the scheme of things.
i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if
israel were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations
israel is viewed as responsible for.
''i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if israel
were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations israel is
viewed as responsible for.'' A Cult is a Cult regardless of it members makeup.
And Israel is looking more like a Jim Jones farm every day.
Only one tank appears to have minor sooting or scorching. As though they were emptied after
an initial strike then targeted in a second strike, but no reports of a second strike.
In the sat pic showing targets in red boxes, top square, the target appears to be smaller
spheres which do look darkened.
Several correspondents here, including Adrestia and b, seem to lack faith in an autonomous
navigation and terminal guidance system for these cruise missiles. They do not need a radio
or cell phone communication link. This could have been even without a GPS signal. Given that
the strikes appear to come from the west, the smartest route would be to fly north to the
pipelines and then east to the targets. Once the missiles are close to the target either a
visual terminal guidance system could take over or the targets are marked and the missiles'
terminal guidance systems just home in on the marked targets. The marks could be laser
illumination, small IR strobes or offset targeting devices. These offset targeting devices
are emplaced with the exact azimuth and distance to the desired target programmed into the
missiles' terminal guidance system. As I said before, we did this in the early 80s. In the
90s, I used the IR strobes. These were tiny lights snapped to the top of a 9V battery. You
could carry a dozen in your pocket. I personally like the idea of emplacing small IR strobes
on target or a set distance and azimuth from the target. The missiles could home on a spot
say due east and 100 meters from the strobe. I'm sure there are other methods I haven't
thought of yet. My educated guess is that this strike was well thought out with both
intelligence and operational support on and near the target site. Anyone who thinks the
Houthi and their Yemeni allies are incapable of planning and executing this is magnificently
ignorant.
GPS is not accurate enough for the last 10-30 feet. Another possiblity that doesn't need
any human terminal guidance could be a creative use of sensors.
Using CARVER select suitable targets. Pick something that is hot, big or fumes gas.
Then use a combination of gas-sensing, parking-sensors, heat-sensing sensors for the last
few feet.
I'm reading the manual for an FY41AP autopilot right now. About $250, made in china.
As for optical guidance, the attacks happened about 0400 - night or dawn?
This autopilot has a video link as well as autonomous and ground based control modes I think.
If the Yemenis had a guy with a transceiver near abqaiq, then maybe they could send these
things over from yemen using gps and a guy with transceiver provided terminal guidance. If
that were to happen the drones would need to be launched at set intervals.
Your last sentence is true enough as far as it goes, but also, if Israel were all
Zoroastrians (or any other group) the world would have dealt with their paranoid and
psychopathic behavior decades ago. The only reason they get away with everything is because
they are Jewish.
Bacevich in NYT op ed. Behind a paywall, here is a copy. Please do not post if it is too long or off topic
Iran Might Be America's Enemy, but Saudi Arabia Is No Friend
After last week's refinery attack, Trump should be careful about throwing America's weight
behind an unreliable "ally."
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Mr. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Sept. 16, 2019
Image The American frigate Stark, which was hit by two missiles fired from an Iraqi fighter
plane during the Iran-Iraq war in 1987. The American frigate Stark, which was hit by two missiles fired from an Iraqi fighter
plane during the Iran-Iraq war in 1987.
In 1987, an Iraqi warplane attacked an American Navy frigate, the Stark, on patrol in the
Persian Gulf. Accepting Saddam Hussein's explanation that the attack, which killed 37
sailors, had been an accident, American officials promptly used the incident, which came at
the height of the Iran-Iraq war, to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. The incident provided the
impetus for what became a brief, and all but forgotten, maritime war between the United
States and Iran.
Last week, someone -- precisely who remains to be determined -- attacked two oil
refineries in Saudi Arabia. American authorities have been quick to blame Iran, and the
possibility of a violent confrontation between the two countries is once again growing.
Before making a decision on whether to pull the trigger, President Trump would do well to
reflect on that 1987 episode and its legacy.
Back then, the United States had become involved in the very bloody and seemingly
interminable Iran-Iraq war, which Hussein had instigated in 1980 by invading Iran. As that
war turned into a brutal stalemate, President Ronald Reagan and his advisers persuaded
themselves that it was in America's interests to come to Iraq's aid. Iran was the "enemy" so
Iraq became America's "friend."
After the Stark episode, American and Iranian naval forces in the Gulf began jousting, an
uneven contest that culminated in April 1988 with the virtual destruction of the Iranian
Navy.
Yet the United States gained little from this tidy victory. The principal beneficiary was
Hussein, who wasted no time in repaying Washington by invading and annexing Kuwait soon after
his war with Iran ground to a halt. Thus did America's "friend" become America's "enemy."
The encounter with Iran became a precedent-setting event and a font of illusions. Since
then, a series of administrations have indulged the fantasy that the direct or indirect
application of military power can somehow restore stability to the Gulf.
In fact, just the reverse has occurred. Instability has become chronic, with the
relationship between military policy and actual American interests in the region becoming
ever more difficult to discern.
In 2019, this now well-established penchant for armed intervention finds the United States
once more involved in a proxy conflict, this time a civil war that has ravaged Yemen since
2015. Saudi Arabia supports one side in this bloody and interminable conflict, and Iran the
other.
Under President Barack Obama and now President Trump, the United States has thrown in its
lot with Saudi Arabia, providing support comparable to what the Reagan administration gave
Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s. But American-assisted Saudi forces have exhibited no more
competence today than did American-assisted Iraqi forces back then. So the war in Yemen drags
on.
ImageSmoke billowing from one of the oil facilities hit by drone attacks on two Saudi Aramco
oil facilities in Abqaiq, in Saudi Arabia's eastern province, on Saturday.
Smoke billowing from one of the oil facilities hit by drone attacks on two Saudi Aramco oil
facilities in Abqaiq, in Saudi Arabia's eastern province, on Saturday.CreditAgence
France-Presse -- Getty Images
Concrete American interests in this conflict, which has already claimed an estimated
70,000 lives while confronting as many as 18 million with the prospect of starvation, are
negligible. Once more, as in the 1980s, the demonization of Iran has contributed to a policy
that is ill advised and arguably immoral.
I am not suggesting that Washington is supporting the wrong side in Yemen. I am
suggesting, however, that neither side deserves support. Iran may well qualify as America's
"enemy." But Saudi Arabia is not a "friend," regardless of how many billions Riyadh spends
purchasing American-manufactured weaponry and how much effort Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman invests in courting President Trump and members of his family.
The conviction, apparently widespread in American policy circles, that in the Persian Gulf
(and elsewhere) the United States is compelled to take sides, has been a source of recurring
mischief. No doubt the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran poses a danger of
further destabilizing the Gulf. But the United States is under no obligation to underwrite
the folly of one side or the other.
Supporting Iraq in its foolhardy war with Iran in the 1980s proved to be strategically
shortsighted in the extreme. It yielded vastly more problems than it solved. It set in train
a series of costly wars that have produced negligible benefits. Supporting Saudi Arabia today
in its misbegotten war in Yemen is no less shortsighted.
Power confers choice, and the United States should exercise it. We can begin to do so by
recognizing that Saudi Arabia's folly need not be our problem.
Andrew J. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the
author of the forthcoming "The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War
Victory."
"a war on iran will do every bit as much damage or MORE to the west as it does to iran"
And Iran has demonstrated that they can cause months worth of damage on the KSA, the UAE,
and Kuwait. I can't believe the number of Congressman who simultaneously believe that Iran
was able to glide over U.S. made air defenses without detection and also believe that we can
simply carpet bomb their refineries without any repercussion. How can one believe both things
at the same time? That Iran is responsible for a sophisticated ghost attack and that they are
incapable of retaliating in a target rich environment.
Not only did Graham say this but the loon from Maryland repeated it. These people are
insane but MSM hosts encourage it, just saw Cavuto snear at Ron Paul because he actually made
sense. We are so messed up.
use the pic released by USG of the damage to get an idea of the orientation of the incoming
projectiles, I used that rectangularish pond behind as an aid,
Everyone keeps misunderestimating the Yemenis. The Houthis are fighting as part of a coalition that includes a large part of the Yemeni
military and intelligence services. This coalition is carrying out a war under guerrilla
conditions, but that war is led by professional military men. Yemen had a serious air force
consisting mostly of missile systems before the war. Much of it was destroyed by the bombing
campaign carried out for Saudi Arabia, but the military organization survived. They have now
reconstituted the Yemeni air forces under fire and in the midst of famine, blockade and
invasion.
Stock up on popcorn, the show has only just begun.
Using my CAD and graphic tools and Google Earth along with the photo showing the four
perforated pressure tanks, I have estimated the four vectors as:
E1 280W. E2 279W, E3 281W and E4 273W. I have numbered the tanks from the most eastwards (the
furthermost away in the photo). Angles from true north (0/360 deg). This averages as 278N
with a STDEV of 3 degrees. Its almost due west. Must be very difficult for autopilots (or
real pilots) could perform more than one group-turning maneuver and still maintain final-run
accuracy to what was achieved.
p.s. I'm not specialist in this field apart from terrestrial navigation and drafting
experience.
RobW
The Czech company which produces the TJ100 does have strong links with Iran.
"2005 TPP Iranshahr Iran, the largest project in the company's history, a turnkey project
- four power plant units." But then again. Creating a crash site in the desert with some COTS components in it is
also easy to do. I would be surprised if Iran is launching missiles now. That would be pretty
stupid to do.
I know. I was attempting a comparison between the way most Americans perceive the desert
peoples and the way most Americans fail to extrapolate from their beliefs of one groups
capabilities and motivations and another group closer to home. The perfumed fops in Ryadh and
the Perfumed Princes in DC are very similar under the perfume.
I remember in the mid sixties how the "benighted" Vietnamese and VC were on their last legs,
unable to do anything militarily significant, that the war would be over in 67. This was that
generations perfumed princes attitude towards a people who had been fighting against invaders
since the 1850s. I remember 68 and the most unexpectedly successful operational and strategic
level victory by the NVA and the VC that was TET.
From an infotainment/Cronkite perspective
the important thing was that the Saigon embassy was broached. From and operational
perspective a "defeated" enemy launched several hundred simultaneous attacks all over South
Vietnam while holding down as a diversion the Dien Bien Phu look alike that was Khe San. 51
years 2 and 1/2 generations and today we make the exact same mistakes in evaluating the
current situation.
It is the benefit of being a perfumed prince or fop or neo-con that history has no meaning
because history ended sometime in the 90's. Somehow I hear the voice of a Rove lecturing:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and
when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality --
judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you,
will be left to just study what we do."
I have seen articles over the last month or so (sorry, no links) saying that because they are
not able to send large amounts of material aid through the Saudi and U.S. Navy blockade of
Yemen, the Iranians sent blueprints and a few engineers and the Ansar Allah have been
building them in Yemen.
What looks like missile hits at identical positions on those spherical tanks are not.
They are the locations of pressure relief valvaes that blew when the towers hit, venting gas
up out and away.
I am in full agreement with your assessment Dave. I don't see any penetrations on those 11
spherical tanks. Look at the complete devastation on the three smaller spherical pressure
tanks.
Unless we get higher resolution pics that definitely show those tanks were pierced there
is no way I am going to believe those tiny scorch marks are UAV or missile hits. Much too
symmetrical! No amount of geometrical explaining of drone tracks will account for that
symmetry.
Yes indeed. Dave deserves hearty congratulations though we might add a caveat. The said
"valves" could have been blown out in advance via software or person throwing a switch
(humint or cyber component to one attack vector). Yes, tremors or shakes triggering sensor
which blows valve is possible, I suppose. But the thing that had me up at night was the
nagging sense that this was a prearranged message of sorts.
It cries out "sure, it's bad, but
it is reversible." So I had been wondering about invitation for pow-wows given UN upcoming
meeting in NY. I'm tending to lean toward an advance blowout rather than blowout in reaction
to stress. Why damage such delicate, custom equipment as those beautiful tanks? As you say,
it has to be something intrinsic/internal to the construction of the tanks. So - before or
after remains to be discussed. Assuming the pics are legitimate. But that's why I thought
especially there was a subtle message sent. If they are legit - see above. If not legit -
then it is howling reversibility or caution at the very least.
The processor trains are a linear series of stabilizer columns that help separate the sour
hydrogen sulfide gas from the crude oil. They are at the heart of the process and probably
the highest value target. They are to the left of the 11 pressure tanks in the pictures
shown, or perhaps just NNW of those tanks.
I buy the idea of HUMINT assets having collected target informatoin but the idea of
mini-strobes, etc. seems to me to be too difficult to do given the separation of the missile
force and the HUMINT assets. Very hard to coordinate.
Houthis have every reason to utilize their advanced weapons systems against Saudi targets to
bring the war to an end. As for Iran, seems they have been on a semi-successful diplomatic
campaign to counter US maximum pressure with their own maximum pressure on Europeans, Russia
and China to deliver on the economic benefits that are as important in JCPOA as the
curtailing of Iran's nuclear program.
Trump talking about meeting Rouhani in New York, Zarif
in China getting at least $50-100 billion in pledged economic support, Russia suggesting $10
billion investment in the Iranian energy sector: Why would Iran at this moment make a direct
move to turn the world fully against them? Perhaps a rogue faction of IRGC out to stop any
diplomatic action, but even that would have to come with OK from Khamenei--or there would be
strong action against the rogues.
Pressure on Trump to maintain the hardline against Iran following Bolton ouster? Pompeo
has been leading the diplomatic back channels and repeating Trump's goal of forcing Iran to
the table. Even the Saudis are for the moment hesitant to blame Iran, actually calling for a
UN investigation into the source of the attacks.
2) a general redirection of attention is achieved from 2 points:
- from Syria
In the issue of National Geographic Bulgaria of 04.2019, April 2019 number 4 (162),on p.29
there is a map of the migratory route of a bird - Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Turkey, Bulgaria. BUT the name of Syria is missing, just an empty space within its current
borders.
Maybe, I sincerely hope not, it was just a part of a campaign of mass indoctrination - the
"former Syria" to be divided between neighbors with a US military base here and there or to
turn onto a No Man's land of lawlessness right there, flanking the EU, Russia's Muslim areas,
China's silk road etc
"The Iran did it" narrative as an attempt to keep on undermining the pro-Syrian government
coalition.
- from the temptation to mix with West's "rivals" internal issues
A strange coincidence that there was such a recent burst of "opposition" activity first in
Russia, then in China. The velvet revolution recipe of the Arabian spring, Ukraine, etc (if
it was such) didn't quite work however.
And the "empires strike back" - subtly and not so subtly. China offers for the London
stock exchange (let's not forget that the Chinese take-over of the London metal exchange went
without a fuss). Saudi Arabia next.
Maybe the message is "Just stay out of your ex-colonies"
Richard Gill, managing director of the UK company Drone Defence:
"But [drone defence is] military-grade technology and it's massively expensive. To install a
defensive system is extremely complex and the threat is evolving at such a rate that it's
very hard to keep up to date, because the adversaries change the type of technology they use
in a way that almost renders the defence moot."
"Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply,"
declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Putting America's credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating
attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom's oil production, 5.7 million
barrels a day.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear,
in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe
was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!"
Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones
to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to
carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.
Pompeo dismissed their claim,
"There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen."
But while the Houthis claim credit,
Iran denies all responsibility.
Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo's charge, that
the U.S. has simply
replaced a policy of "maximum pressure" with a policy of "maximum deceit." Tehran is calling us
liars.
And, indeed, a direct assault on Saudi Arabia by Iran, a Pearl Harbor-type surprise attack on
the Saudis' crucial oil production facility, would be an act of war requiring Saudi retaliation,
leading to a Persian Gulf war in which the United States could be forced to participate.
Tehran being behind Saturday's strike would contradict Iranian policy since the U.S. pulled out
of the nuclear deal. That policy has been to avoid a military clash with the United States and
pursue a measured response to tightening American sanctions.
U.S. and Saudi officials are investigating the sites of the attacks, the oil production facility
at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field.
According to U.S. sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10 the Houthis
claim, and cruise missiles may have been used. Some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing
sides, which suggests they were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.
But according to The New York Times, some targets were hit on the west side, pointing away from
Iraq or Iraq as the source. But as some projectiles did not explode and fragments of those that did
explode are identifiable, establishing the likely source of the attacks should be only a matter of
time. It is here that the rubber meets the road.
Given Pompeo's public accusation that Iran was behind the attack, a Trump meeting with Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly's annual gathering next week may be a dead
letter.
The real question now is what do the Americans do when the source of the attack is known and the
call for a commensurate response is put directly to our "locked-and-loaded" president.
If the perpetrators were the Houthis, how would Trump respond?
For the Houthis, who are native to Yemen and whose country has been attacked by the Saudis for
four years, would, under the rules of war, seem to be entitled to launch attacks on the country
attacking them.
Indeed, Congress has repeatedly sought to have Trump terminate U.S. support of the Saudi
war in Yemen.
If the attack on the Saudi oil field and oil facility at Abqaiq proves to be the work of Shiite
militia from inside Iraq, would the United States attack that militia whose numbers in Iraq have
been estimated as high as 150,000 fighters, as compared with our 5,000 troops in-country?
What about Iran itself?
If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired
on Saturday -- shutting down about 6% of world oil production -- imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war
would do to the world economy.
In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military
equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the
kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?
Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of
war?
Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran's oil refineries to "break the
regime's back,"
while Sen. Rand Paul contends that "there's no reason the superpower of
the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran."
Divided again:
The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war
with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.
How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.
John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.
"... USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions... ..."
"... Strategically what this means is that after wantonly bombing and attacking woefully poor Yemen for years, rich Saudi Arabia is not capable of protecting almost the entire source of its wealth. ..."
It's Monday September 16th, 2019 and the weeks starts off like this:
GM's UAW Strike
Yemeni Houti Rebels Drones wipe out 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production
Trump tweets in response is "locked and loaded" implying a new US war in the ME
One of Trump's White House flunky's declared "it is better if Trump does not study an
issue" before making decisions (oh yea,"Stupid is what Stupid does")
Biden and S. Warren tied in the DEM race for 2020
Piketty's new Economics tome is out
PM Netanyahu is losing his re-election bid in Israel, to be determined by tomorrow's
Election
We live in interesting times...
...the question I pose for the times is 'Are the People are better lead by businessmen,
politicians, academics, or intellectuals?
Personally, I choose to be lead by people that do the right thing long term for the People,
not the most politically expedient or the one that makes the most money in the short run or
the smartest, etc.
USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can
sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions about USA
capability. Have not yet seen any press questions in that direction.
USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can
sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions...
Strategically what this means is that after wantonly bombing and attacking woefully poor
Yemen for years, rich Saudi Arabia is not capable of protecting almost the entire source of
its wealth.
"American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military
dominance across the globe. Dominance, assumed to ensure peace, in fact guarantees war. To
get serious about stopping endless war, American leaders must do what they most resist: end
America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace."
Carter suggested that instead of war, China has been investing in its own infrastructure,
mentioning that China has 18,000 miles of high-speed railroad.
"How many miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?"
Zero, the congregation answered.
"We have wasted I think $3 trillion," Carter said of American military spending. " It's
more than you can imagine. China has not wasted a single penny on war and that's why they're
ahead of us. In almost every way."
SCMP Hong Kong @SCMPHongKong - 13:47 UTC · Sep 15,
2019
A video going viral online shows a middle-aged man being beaten up by protesters this
afternoon. He was later found lying injured at Gloucester Road. Paramedics treated him; he
was conscious vid
There were several such incidents today. These
rightwing 'protesters' are extremely aggressive. The true utility of the HK protests was
articulated by former US envoy to HK and Taiwan Stephen Young in the Asia TImes this week,
declaring that the "one country, two systems" framework was now "dead" since "Beijing has
reneged on its pledges to introduce local autonomy and democracy to Hong Kong." He claims it
is already too late for HK - "But the lesson for Taiwan's 23 million citizens is different.
Build your defences, solidify your relations with your essential security partner, America,
and make it clear you will fight for your freedom."
This is an incorrect and self-serving analysis. China has not reneged on any pledges or
undermined the Basic Law, despite claims to the contrary. Much like "Russian aggression"
became a key narrative thread in Ukraine despite little actual evidence of such aggression,
the alleged "brutal authoritarian" activity on behalf of the Chinese government will continue
as "the" story in Hong Kong even if it hasn't actually happened.
A big provocation has been promised by the protesters to spoil the October 1 celebration
of 70 years of PRC. Then focus will switch to Taiwan and its election in January. The
Americans hope the nationalist anti-PRC forces win, helped by the hysteria generated over HK,
and then the program of militarizing the island to serve as a fount of tension in the region
will begin in earnest with an explicit rejection of Taiwan's status as a part of China.
IMO the Honk Kong thing is backfiring a bit on the empire.
These very loud calls for Trump and England to come to their aid and liberate them is not
what the evil empire had in mind.
The Americans have gotten themselves in a real bind with their maximum pressure campaign on Iran. This latest attack on Saudi
Arabia's oil production looks like an escalation of the previous attacks on shipping and the spy drone. It is not evident how
the Americans can respond to this latest attack.
As I see it their options are:
1. To let KSA respond to the Houthi attack and continue with their campaign to shut down Iranian oil production, without any
direct U.S. response to the attack. However this will achieve nothing, as next month Iran will up pressure again with another
attack on Middle-East oil assets, and we'll be back to the same place.
2. To bomb Iran's oil industry, as Pompeo and Graham suggest. However this risks blowing up the whole Middle East, as well
as the World's oil market and their own (Western) economies.
3. Forget about Iran and move the fight to maintain U.S. global hegemony to another front: back to Venezuela? Serbia? Hong
Kong? Taiwan? However the end result of such a move would more than likely be another humuliating defeat for the U.S.
4. Do as Stephen Wertheim / New York Times suggest and sue for peace. This will end the dream of U.S. World dominance, Globalization
and the current western based financial system. The U.S. will become no more than a heavily indebted regional power in a 'Multi-polar
World Order' led by China and Russia.
As I see it, the U.S. is out of options to continue their war for global dominance. #4 is the only viable option. But, as one
author argued in a recent paper (I don't have the reference), wars continue long after the victor is clear, because the loser
can't admit defeat (at heavy additional costs to the loser). I think that this is the position that the U.S. finds itself in now.
What the attack on Saudi oil infrastructure shows us, is that now Iran has united her proxys into one united front.
While they were cautious to not leave evidence of their involvment with the Houtis before, they now are putting their support
more and more into the open.
The attack seemed to have involved not only Houti drones (already build with help from Iran), but also Iranian backed forces
in Iraq, AND pro Iranian forces in Saudi Arabia itself. And maybe even other actors.
This is a major new development. Not only for the war on Yemen, but also in the context of Iran providing a credile detterence
against US+Saudi aggression.
They excalated with increasing levels, and one wonders, what could top this last attack off.
And i am pretty sure, we will find out sooner rather than later.
@ 27
WaPo: Abqaiq . .damaged on the west-northwest sides
That's it! It was Hezbollah for sure. (not)
Actually there were two targets, the Buqaiq (Abqaiq) oil processing plant and the Khurais oil field, both in the Eastern Province.
These attacks are not the first -- from longwarjournal:
Last month, the Houthis claimed another drone operation against Saudi's Shaybah oil field near the United Arab Emirates. At
more than 1,000 miles away from it's Yemen territory, that strike marked one of the Houthis farthest claimed attacks.
The Houthis also claimed a drone strike on the Abu Dhabi airport last year, but that has been denied by Emirati officials.
Additionally, a drone strike on Saudi's East-West oil pipeline near Riyadh earlier this year, which the Houthis claimed responsibility,
was allegedly conducted by Iranian-backed Iraqi militants. If accurate, that means the Houthi claim of responsibility acted
as a type of diplomatic cover for the Iraqi militants.
Since beginning its drone program last year, the Houthis have launched at least 103 drone strikes in Yemen and Saudi Arabia
according to data compiled by FDD's Long War Journal. . .
here . . .and more
here .
Really appreciated the write up on the Houthis attack.
Sounds like the attack left substantial damage. Another bigger issue underlying all of this, aside from Saudi inability to get
what it wants now from it's IPO, is the fact that the US Patriots did not detect this attack.
The Saudis spent billions last year on this defense system. Sounds like the clown Prince better give Russians a call about their
S-400.
But the US wouldn't appreciate that much, would they?
Does he mean the treat of de-dollarization? The USA military is just an the enforcement arm
of Wall Street banks.
Notable quotes:
"... "It is increasingly clear that Russia and China want to disrupt the international order by gaining a veto over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions," ..."
"It is increasingly clear that Russia and China want to disrupt the international order
by gaining a veto over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions," Esper
said, seemingly unaware of the absurd hypocrisy of his words.
An Iranian parliamentary faction has come up with the idea of establishing a club of
sanctioned countries for concerted action against the US economic terrorism.
The chairman of the Parliament's faction on countering sanctions, Poormokhtar, gave a report
on the formation of the faction and its activities, as well as the ongoing efforts to establish
the club of sanctioned countries. Iran's FM, Zaraf, said this would be enhancing the already
existing alliance of Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela against US economic
terrorism.
PressTV: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela are among the nations that have
come out against the United States' use of sanctions to enforce its foreign policy around the
world. In what ways can they fight these US sanctions as a group?
Peter Koenig: Brilliant idea! Solidarity makes stronger and eventually will attract other
countries who are sick and tired of the US sanction regime, and since they have the backing of
Russia and China, that's a very strong alliance, especially an economic alliance. The sanction
regime can only be broken through economics, meaning decoupling from the western monetary
system. I said this before and say it again, at the risk of repeating myself.
After all, China is the world's largest and strongest economy in Purchasing Power GDP
measures which is the only comparison that really counts. I believe this solidarity alliance
against US sanctions is certainly worth a trial.
And personally, I think it will be a successful trial, as more countries will join, possibly
even non-sanctioned ones, out of solidarity against a common tyrant.
The countries in solidarity against sanctions, in addition to ignoring them -- and the more
they ignore them, the more other countries will follow-suit -- that's logical as fear
disappears and solidarity grows.
For example, Iran and Venezuela, oil exporting countries, could accompany their tankers by
war ships. Yes, it's an extra cost, but think of it as temporary and as a long-term gain. Would
"Grace I" have been accompanied by an Iranian war ship the Brits would not have dared
confiscating it. That's for sure.
PressTV: Many of the US sanctions have led to death of civilians in those particular
countries. At the same time, sanctions have also led to the improvement of these countries to
the point where domestic production in various fields advanced. Don't sanctions become
country-productive to US aims?'
PK: Of course, the sanctions are counter-productive. They have helped Russia to become
food-self-sufficient, for example. That was not Washington's intention and less so the
intention of the EU, who followed Washington's dictate like puppets.
Sanctions are like a last effort before the fall of the empire, to cause as much human
damage as possible, to pull other nations down with the dying beast. It has always been like
that starting with the Romans through the Ottoman's. They realize their time has come but can't
see a world living in peace. So they must plant as much unrest and misery as possible before
they disappear
That's precisely what's happening with the US.
Intimidation, building more and more military bases, all with fake money, as we know the
dollar is worth nothing – FIAT money – that the world still accepts but less
and less so, therefore military bases, deadly sanctions, and trade wars. Trump knows that a
trade war against China is a lost cause. Still, he can intimidate other countries by insisting
on a trade war with China or that's what he thinks.
PressTV: The more countries US sanctions, illegally, more people turn against the US:
doesn't that defeat the US so-called fight against terrorism and violence?
PK: Well, US sanction and the entire scheme of US aggression has nothing to do with fighting
terrorism, as you know. It's nothing but expanding US hegemony over the world, and if needed,
and more often than not, the US finances terrorism to fight proxy wars against their so-called
enemies, meaning anybody not conforming to their wishes and not wanting to submit to their
orders and not letting them exploit – or rather steal – their natural
resources.
Syria is a case in point. ISIL is funded and armed by the Pentagon, who buys Serbian
produced weapon to channel them through the Mid-East allies to Syrian terrorists, the ISIL or
similar kinds with different names -- just to confuse.
Venezuela too – the opposition consist basically of US trained, financed and armed
opposition "leaders" – who do not want to participate in totally democratic elections
– order of the US – boycott them. But as we have seen as of this day, the various
coup attempts by the US against their legitimate and democratically elected President,
Nicolás Maduro, have failed bitterly, and this despite the most severe sanctions regime
South American has known, except for Cuba, against whom the US crime has been perpetuated for
60 years.
So, nobody should have the illusion that Washington's wars are against terrorism. Washington
is THE terrorist regime that fights for world hegemony.
The collapse of neoliberalism naturally lead to the collapse of the US influence over the globe. and to the treats to the dollar
as the world reserve currency. That's why the US foreign policy became so aggressive and violent. Neocons want to fight for the
world hegemony to the last American.
Notable quotes:
"... US foreign policy is ever more unstable and confrontational ..."
"... Bolton's brutal defenestration has raised hopes that Trump, who worries that voters may view him as a warmonger, may begin to moderate some of his more confrontational international policies. As the 2020 election looms, he is desperate for a big foreign policy peace-making success. And, in Trump world, winning matters more than ideology, principles or personnel. ..."
"... Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has not merely broken with diplomatic and geopolitical convention. He has taken a wrecking ball to venerated alliances, multilateral cooperation and the postwar international rules-based order. ..."
"... The resulting new world disorder – to adapt George HW Bush's famous 1991 phrase – will be hard to put right. Like its creator, Trump world is unstable, unpredictable and threatening. Trump has been called America's first rogue president. Whether or not he wins a second term, this Trumpian era of epic disruption, the very worst form of American exceptionalism, is already deeply entrenched. ..."
"... driven by a chronic desire for re-election, Trump's behaviour could become more, not less, confrontational during his remaining time in office, suggested Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins university. ..."
"... "The president has proved himself to be what many critics have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient, irresponsible, intellectually lazy, short-tempered and self-obsessed," Cohen wrote in Foreign Affairs journal . "Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated into obvious disaster. But [that] should not distract from a building crisis of US foreign policy." ..."
"... This pending crisis stems from Trump's crudely Manichaean division of the world into two camps: adversaries/competitors and supporters/customers. A man with few close confidants, Trump has real trouble distinguishing between allies and enemies, friends and foes, and often confuses the two. In Trump world, old rules don't apply. Alliances are optional. Loyalty is weakness. And trust is fungible. ..."
"... The crunch came last weekend when a bizarre, secret summit with Taliban chiefs at Camp David was cancelled . It was classic Trump. He wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute. Furious over a debacle of his own making, he turned his wrath on others, notably Bolton – who, ironically, had opposed the summit all along. ..."
"... With Trump's blessing, Israel is enmeshed in escalating, multi-fronted armed confrontation with Iran and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Add to this recent violence in the Gulf, the disastrous Trump-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, mayhem in Syria's Idlib province, border friction with Turkey, and Islamic State resurgence in northern Iraq, and a region-wide explosion looks ever more likely. ..."
"... "the bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image – has failed and cannot be revived", ..."
With John Bolton dismissed, Taliban peace talks a fiasco and
a trade war with China, US foreign policy is ever more unstable and confrontational
It was by all accounts, a furious row.
Donald Trump was talking about relaxing sanctions on
Iran and holding a summit with its president, Hassan Rouhani, at this month's UN general assembly in New York. John Bolton, his hawkish
national security adviser, was dead against it and forcefully rejected Trump's ideas during a tense meeting in the Oval Office on
Monday.
...Bolton's brutal defenestration has raised hopes that Trump, who worries that voters may view him as a warmonger, may begin
to moderate some of his more confrontational international policies. As the 2020 election looms, he is desperate for a big foreign
policy peace-making success. And, in Trump world, winning matters more than ideology, principles or personnel.
The US president is now saying he is also open to a repeat meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, to reboot stalled nuclear
disarmament talks. On another front, he has offered an olive branch to China, delaying a planned tariff increase on $250bn of Chinese
goods pending renewed trade negotiations next month. Meanwhile, he says, new tariffs on European car imports could be dropped, too.
Is a genuine dove-ish shift under way? It seems improbable. Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has not merely broken with
diplomatic and geopolitical convention. He has taken a wrecking ball to venerated alliances, multilateral cooperation and the postwar
international rules-based order. He has cosied up to autocrats, attacked old friends and blundered into sensitive conflicts he does
not fully comprehend.
The resulting new world disorder – to adapt George HW Bush's famous 1991 phrase – will be hard to put right. Like its creator,
Trump world is unstable, unpredictable and threatening. Trump has been called America's first rogue president. Whether or not he
wins a second term, this Trumpian era of epic disruption, the very worst form of American exceptionalism, is already deeply entrenched.
The suggestion that Trump will make nice and back off as election time nears thus elicits considerable scepticism. US analysts
and commentators say the president's erratic, impulsive and egotistic personality means any shift towards conciliation may be short-lived
and could quickly be reversed, Bolton or no Bolton.
Trump wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal in Afghanistan with the Taliban, pushed ahead blindly,
then changed his mind at the last minute
Trump is notorious for blowing hot and cold, performing policy zigzags and suddenly changing his mind. "Regardless of who has
advised Mr Trump on foreign affairs all have proved powerless before [his] zest for chaos," the
New York Times noted last week
.
Lacking experienced diplomatic and military advisers (he has sacked most of the good ones), surrounded by an inner circle of cynical
sycophants such as secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and driven by a chronic desire for re-election, Trump's behaviour could become
more, not less, confrontational during his remaining time in office, suggested Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns
Hopkins university.
"The president has proved himself to be what many critics have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient, irresponsible,
intellectually lazy, short-tempered and self-obsessed," Cohen wrote
in Foreign
Affairs journal . "Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated into obvious disaster. But [that] should
not distract from a building crisis of US foreign policy."
This pending crisis stems from Trump's crudely Manichaean division of the world into two camps: adversaries/competitors and supporters/customers.
A man with few close confidants, Trump has real trouble distinguishing between allies and enemies, friends and foes, and often confuses
the two. In Trump world, old rules don't apply. Alliances are optional. Loyalty is weakness. And trust is fungible.
As a result, the US today finds itself at odds with much of the world to an unprecedented and dangerous degree. America, the postwar
global saviour, has been widely recast as villain. Nor is this a passing phase. Trump seems to have permanently changed the way the
US views the world and vice versa. Whatever follows, it will never be quite the same again.
Clues as to what he does next may be found in what he has done so far. His is a truly calamitous record, as exemplified by Afghanistan.
Having vowed in 2016 to end America's longest war, he began with a troop surge, lost interest and sued for peace. A withdrawal deal
proved elusive. Meanwhile, US-led forces
inflicted record civilian casualties .
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest The US and Israeli flags are projected on the walls of Jerusalem's Old City in May, marking the anniversary of
the US embassy transfer from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Photograph: Ahmad Gharabli/Getty
The crunch came last weekend when a bizarre, secret
summit with Taliban chiefs at Camp David was cancelled . It was classic Trump. He wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for
a dramatic peace deal, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute. Furious over a debacle of his own making,
he turned his wrath on others, notably Bolton – who, ironically, had opposed the summit all along.
All sides are now vowing to step up the violence, with the insurgents aiming to disrupt this month's presidential election in
Afghanistan. In short, Trump's self-glorifying Afghan reality show, of which he was the Nobel-winning star, has made matters worse.
Much the same is true of his North Korea summitry, where expectations were raised, then dashed when he got
cold feet
in Hanoi , provoking a backlash from Pyongyang.
The current crisis over Iran's nuclear programme is almost entirely of Trump's making, sparked by his decision last year to renege
on the 2015 UN-endorsed deal with Tehran. His subsequent "maximum pressure" campaign of punitive sanctions has
failed to cow
Iranians while alienating European allies. And it has led Iran to resume banned nuclear activities – a seriously counterproductive,
entirely predictable outcome.
Trump's unconditional, unthinking support for Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's aggressively rightwing prime minister – including tacit
US backing for his proposed annexation of swathes of the occupied territories – is pushing the Palestinians back to the brink, energising
Hamas and Hezbollah, and
raising tensions across the region .
With Trump's blessing, Israel is enmeshed in escalating, multi-fronted armed confrontation with Iran and its allies in Iraq,
Lebanon and Syria. Add to this recent violence in the Gulf, the disastrous Trump-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, mayhem in Syria's
Idlib province, border friction with Turkey, and Islamic State resurgence in northern Iraq, and a region-wide explosion looks ever
more likely.
The bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it
in America's image – has failed and cannot be revived
Stephen Wertheim, historian
Yet Trump, oblivious to the point of recklessness, remains determined to unveil his absurdly unbalanced Israel-Palestine "deal
of the century" after Tuesday's Israeli elections. He and his gormless son-in-law, Jared Kushner, may be the only people who don't
realise their plan has a shorter life expectancy than a snowball on a hot day in Gaza.
... ... ...
...he is consistently out of line, out on his own – and out of control. This, broadly, is Trump world as it has come to exist
since January 2017. And this, in a nutshell, is the intensifying foreign policy crisis of which Professor Cohen warned. The days
when responsible, trustworthy, principled US international leadership could be taken for granted are gone. No vague change of tone
on North Korea or Iran will by itself halt the Trump-led slide into expanding global conflict and division.
Historians such as Stephen Wertheim say change had to come. US politicians of left and right mostly agreed that "the bipartisan
consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image –
has failed and cannot be revived",Wertheim wrote earlier this year
. "But agreement ends there " he continued: "One camp holds that the US erred by coddling China and Russia, and urges a new competition
against these great power rivals. The other camp, which says the US has been too belligerent and ambitious around the world, counsels
restraint, not another crusade against grand enemies."
This debate among grownups over America's future place in the world will form part of next year's election contest. But before
any fundamental change of direction can occur, the international community – and the US itself – must first survive another 16 months
of Trump world and the wayward child-president's poll-fixated, ego-driven destructive tendencies.
Survival is not guaranteed. The immediate choice facing US friends and foes alike is stark and urgent: ignore, bypass and marginalise
Trump – or actively, openly, resist him.
Here are some of the key flashpoints around the globe
United Nations
Trump is deeply hostile to the UN. It embodies the multilateralist, globalist policy approaches he most abhors – because they
supposedly infringe America's sovereignty and inhibit its freedom of action. Under him, self-interested US behaviour has undermined
the authority of the UN security council's authority. The US has rejected a series of international treaties and agreements, including
the Paris climate change accord and the Iran nuclear deal. The UN-backed international criminal court is beyond the pale. Trump's
attitude fits with his "America First" isolationism, which questions traditional ideas about America's essential global leadership
role.
Germany
Trump rarely misses a chance to bash Germany, perhaps because it is Europe's most successful economy and represents the EU, which
he detests. He is obsessed by German car imports, on which protectionist US tariffs will be levied this autumn. He accuses Berlin
– and Europe– of piggy-backing on America by failing to pay its fair share of Nato defence costs. Special venom is reserved for Germany's
chancellor, Angela Merkel, most likely because she is
a woman who stands up to him . Trump recently insulted another female European leader, Denmark's
Mette Frederiksen, after she refused to sell him Greenland .
Israel
Trump has made a great show of unconditional friendship towards Israel and its rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who
has skilfully maximised his White House influence. But by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, officially condoning Israel's annexation
of the Golan Heights, and withdrawing funding and other support from the Palestinians, the president has abandoned the long-standing
US policy of playing honest broker in the peace process. Trump has also tried to exploit antisemitism for political advantage, accusing
US Democrat Jews who oppose Netanyahu's policies of "disloyalty" to Israel.
Clinton attempts to bankrupt and subdue Russia as well as his criminal (in a sense of no permission form the UN) attack on Yugoslavia
backfired. Russia became permanently hostile. The fact he and his coterie were not yet tried by something like Nuremberg tribunal is
only due to the USA dominance at this stage of history. And he probably will manage to die before such opportunity might materialize.
The True Toll of the Trade War
Behind the escalating global conflict over trade and technology is a larger breakdown of the postwar rules-based order, which
was based on a belief that any country's growth benefits all. Now that China is threatening to compete directly with the United
States, support for the system that made that possible has disappeared.
By RAGHURAM G. RAJAN
CHICAGO – Another day, another attack on trade. Why is it that every dispute – whether over intellectual property (IP), immigration,
environmental damage, or war reparations – now produces new threats to trade?
For much of the last century, the United States managed and protected the rules-based trading system it created at the end
of World War II. That system required a fundamental break from the pre-war environment of mutual suspicion between competing powers.
The US urged everyone to see that growth and development for one country could benefit all countries through increased trade and
investment.
Under the new dispensation, rules were enacted to constrain selfish behavior and coercive threats by the economically powerful.
The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering the occasional rap on the knuckles to those acting in bad faith. Meanwhile,
the system's multilateral institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund, helped countries in dire need of funds, provided
they followed the rules....
"The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering the occasional rap on the knuckles to those acting in bad faith"
USA foreign policy since 70th was controlled by neocons who as a typical Trotskyites (neoliberalism is actually Trotskyism
for the rich) were/are hell-bent of world domination and practice gangster capitalism in foreign policy.
Bolton attitude to UN is very symptomatic for the neocons as a whole.
Madeline "not so bright" Allbright was the first swan. As well as Clinton attempts to bankrupt and subdue Russia and criminal
(in a sense of no permission from the UN) attack on Yugoslavia. Both backfired: Russia became permanently hostile. The fact he
and his coterie were not yet tried by something like Nuremberg tribunal is only due to the USA dominance at this stage of history.
The truth is that after the dissolution of the USSR the USA foreign policy became completely unhinged. And inside the country
the elite became cannibalistic, as there was no external threat to its dominance in the form of the USSR.
The USA stated to behave like a typical Imperial state (New Rome, or, more correctly, London) accepting no rules/laws that
are not written by themselves (and when it is convenient to obey them) with the only difference from the classic imperial states
that the hegemony it not based on the military presence/occupation ( like was the case with British empire)
Although this is not completely true as there are 761 US Military Bases across the planet and only 46 Countries with no US
military presence. Of them, seven countries with 13 New Military Bases were added since 09/11/2001.In 2001 the US had a quarter
million troops posted abroad.
Still as an imperial state and the center of neoliberal empire the USA relies more on financial instruments and neoliberal
comprador elite inside the country.
With the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 the USA centered neoliberal empire experiences first cracks. Brexit and election
of Trump widened the cracks in a sense of further legitimizing the ruling neoliberal elite (big middle finger for Hillary was
addressed to the elite as whole)
If oil price exceed $100 per barrel there will yet another crack or even repetition of the 2008 Great Recession on a new level
(although we may argue that the Great Recession never ended and just entered in Summers terms "permanent stagnation: phase)
Although currently with a bully at the helm the USA empire still going strong in forcing vassals and competitors to reconsider
their desire to challenge the USA that situation will not last. Trump currently is trying to neutralize the treat from China by
rejecting classic neoliberal globalization mechanism as well as signed treaties like WTO. He might be successful in the short
run but in the "long run" that undermines the USA centered neoliberal empire and speed up its demise. .
In the long run the future does not look too bright as crimes committed by the USA during triumphal period of neoliberalism
hangs like albatross around the USA neck.
EU now definitely wants to play its own game as Macron recently stated and which Merkel tacitly supports. If EU allies with
Russia it will became No.1 force in the world with the USA No. 2. With severe consequences for the USA.
If Russia allied with China the USA Np.1 position will hinge of keeping EU vassals in check and NATO in place. Without them
it will became No.2 with fatal consequences for the dollar as world reserve currency and sudden change of the USA financial position
due to the level of external debt and requires devaluation of the dollar.
Looks like 75 year after WWII the world started to self-organize a countervailing force trying to tame the USA with some interest
expressed by such players as EU, Russia, China, India, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. As well as ( in the past;
and possibly in the future as neoliberal counterrevolutions in both countries probably will end badly) by Brazil and Argentina.
Only Canada, Australia and probably UK can be counted as the reliable parts of the USA empire. That's not much.
One of the key questions in the escalating US trade disputes with China and other
countries is how much the economy of other countries depends on trade. The answer helps to
determine how much leverage the US has in trade disputes. Thus, it's interesting to note that
starting about a decade ago, both India and China started reducing their dependence on
exports as a source of growth, while doing more to build internal supply chains and relying
more on domestic products.
A group of authors from McKinsey Global Institute published "Asia's future is now" * in
July 2019, including Oliver Tonby, Jonathan Woetzel, Wonsik Choi, Jeongmin Seong and Patti
Wang. Here's a figure showing how the reliance of China and India on exports has been
falling.
[Graph]
The authors also note:
"As consumption rises, more of what gets made in these countries is now sold locally
instead of being exported to the West. Over the decade from 2007 to 2017, China almost
tripled its production of labor-intensive goods, from US$3.1 trillion to US$8.8 trillion. At
the same time, the share of gross output China exports has dramatically decreased, from 15.5
percent to 8.3 percent. India has similarly been exporting a smaller share of its output over
time. This implies that more goods are being consumed domestically rather than exported.
Furthermore, as the region's emerging economies develop new industrial capabilities and begin
making more sophisticated products, they are becoming less reliant on foreign imports of both
intermediate inputs and final goods. The previous era of globalization was marked by Western
companies building supply chains that stretched halfway around the world as they sought out
the lowest possible labor costs -- and often their supply chains ran through Asia. Now labor
arbitrage is on the wane. Only 18 percent of today's goods trade now involves exports from
low-wage countries to high-wage countries -- a far smaller share than most people assume and
one that is declining in many industries. ....
"Asian consumers have long had a strong preference for foreign luxury goods and brands.
But things are changing. The post-90's generation is starting to lose this bias against
domestic brands; in fact, they are starting to choose them over foreign brands more often.
..."
Wages in China have risen substantially in the last couple of decades. As a result, the
rising manufacturing hubs in Asia are now in places like Vietnam and Indonesia. In addition,
many of the international economic ties are within Asian countries, rather than being between
China and the United States.
"Historically China was known as the 'factory to the world.' But while low-cost labor was
its original competitive advantage, the wage gap between China and the rest of Asia is
closing. In 1996, wages in Japan were 46 times higher than in China; by 2016, they were only
four times higher. China is moving up the value chain, and as it transitions, other locations
around Asia are stepping into some of its former niches. Vietnam, in particular, has become a
hub of labor-intensive manufacturing for export. The country has attracted a flood of
greenfield investment into cities such as Hai Phong. In addition to Hai Phong (Vietnam), Ho
Chi Minh City (Vietnam), Bekasi (Indonesia), and Xi'an (China) are rising makers of
electronics. As new places assume new roles in industry value chains, a new set of cities
begins to benefit from the influx of capital. Investment in factories leads to new roads, new
jobs, and urbanization. Much of the capital flowing into Vietnam comes from South Korea and
Japan. These new manufacturing hubs speak not only to the rise of emerging Asian countries
but also to a region that is more connected and co-invested."
This helps to explain why, when the US puts economic pressure on trade with China, it
affects US trade with China, but not necessarily China's trade with other countries of Asia
or patterns of US trade with the Asian region as a whole.
The Only Way to End 'Endless War'
First, America has to give up its pursuit of global dominance.
By Stephen Wertheim
"We have got to put an end to endless war," declared Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend,
Ind., during the Democratic presidential primary debate on Thursday. It was a surefire applause
line: Many people consider "endless war" to be the central problem for American foreign
policy.
Even President Trump, the target of Mr. Buttigieg's attack, seems to agree. "Great nations
do not fight endless wars," he announced in his latest State of the Union.
But vowing to end America's interminable military adventures doesn't make it so. Four years
ago, President Barack Obama denounced "the idea of endless war" even as he announced that
ground troops would remain in Afghanistan. In his last year in office, the United States
dropped an estimated 26,172 bombs on seven countries.
President Trump, despite criticizing Middle East wars, has intensified existing
interventions and threatened to start new ones. He has abetted the Saudi-led war in Yemen, in
defiance of Congress. He has put America perpetually on the brink with Iran. And he has
lavished billions extra on a Pentagon that already outspends the world's seven next largest
militaries combined.
What would it mean to actually bring endless war to a close?
Like the demand to tame the 1 percent, or the insistence that black lives matter, ending
endless war sounds commonsensical but its implications are transformational. It requires more
than bringing ground troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. American war-making will
persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe.
Dominance, assumed to ensure peace, in fact guarantees war. To get serious about stopping
endless war, American leaders must do what they most resist: end America's commitment to armed
supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace.
________________________________
In theory, armed supremacy could foster peace. Facing overwhelming force, who would dare to
defy American wishes?
________________________________
In May, Vice President Mike Pence told graduating cadets at West Point: "It is a virtual
certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in your life. You will
lead soldiers in combat. It will happen." Mr. Pence enumerated the potential fronts: the
greater Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, Europe, the Western Hemisphere. He had a point. So long
as the United States seeks military domination everywhere, it will fight somewhere.
In theory, armed supremacy could foster peace. Facing overwhelming force, who would dare to
defy American wishes? That was the hope of Pentagon planners in 1992; they reacted to the
collapse of America's Cold War adversary not by pulling back but by pursuing even greater
military pre-eminence. But the quarter-century that followed showed the opposite to prevail in
practice. Freed from one big enemy, the United States found many smaller enemies: It has
launched far more military interventions since the Cold War than during the "twilight struggle"
itself. Of all its interventions since 1946, roughly 80 percent have taken place after
1991.
Why have interventions proliferated as challengers have shrunk? The basic cause is America's
infatuation with military force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim,
limiting debate to what that aim should be. Continued gains by the Taliban, 18 years after the
United States initially toppled it, suggest a different principle: The profligate deployment of
force creates new and unnecessary objectives more than it realizes existing and worthy
ones.
In the Middle East, endless war began when the United States first stationed troops
permanently in the region after winning the Persian Gulf war in 1991. A circular logic took
hold. The United States created its own dependence on allies that hosted and assisted American
forces. It provoked states, terrorists and militias that opposed its presence. Among the
results: The United States has bombed Iraq almost every year since 1991 and spent an estimated
$6 trillion on post-9/11 wars.
An even deadlier phase may be dawning. Because the United States pursues armed dominance as
a self-evident good, the establishment feels threatened by a rising China and an assertive
Russia. "Some of you will join the fight on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific," Mr.
Pence told the cadets, noting that "an increasingly militarized China challenges our presence
in the region." But China's rise invalidates primacy's rationale of deterrence, and shows that
other powers have ambitions of their own. Addressing the rise of China responsibly will require
abandoning nostalgia for the pre-eminence that America enjoyed during the 1990s.
Despite Mr. Trump's rhetoric about ending endless wars, the president insists that "our
military dominance must be unquestioned" -- even though no one believes he has a strategy to
use power or a theory to bring peace. Armed domination has become an end in itself. Which means
Americans face a choice: Either they should openly espouse endless war, or they should chart a
new course.
As an American and an internationalist, I choose the latter. Rather than chase an illusory
dominance, the United States should pursue the safety and welfare of its people while
respecting the rights and dignity of all. In the 21st century, finally rid of colonial empires
and Cold War antagonism, America has the opportunity to practice responsible statecraft,
directed toward the promotion of peace. Responsible statecraft will oppose the war-making of
others, but it will make sure, first and foremost, that America is not fueling violence.
________________________________
Shrinking the military's footprint will deprive presidents of the temptation to answer every
problem with a military solution.
________________________________
On its own initiative, the United States can proudly bring home many of its soldiers
currently serving in 800 bases ringing the globe, leaving small forces to protect commercial
sea lanes. It can reorient its military, prioritizing deterrence and defense over power
projection. It can stop the obscenity that America sends more weapons into the world than does
any other country. It can reserve armed intervention, and warlike sanctions, for purposes that
are essential, legal and rare.
Shrinking the military's footprint will deprive presidents of the temptation to answer every
problem with a violent solution. It will enable genuine engagement in the world, making
diplomacy more effective, not less. As the United States stops being a party to every conflict,
it can start being a party to resolving conflicts. President Obama's nuclear agreement with
Iran and, to a lesser extent, President Trump's opening with North Korea suggest that
historical enmities can be overcome. Still, these steps have not gone far enough to normalize
relations and allow us to get on with living together in a world whose chief dangers -- climate
change, disease, deprivation -- cross borders and require cooperation.
Hawks will retort that lowering America's military profile will plunge the world into a
hostile power's arms. They are projecting, assuming that one rival will covet and attain the
kind of armed domination that has served America poorly. Russia, with an economy the size of
Italy's, cannot rule Europe, whatever it desires. China bears watching but has so far focused
its military on denying access to its coasts and mainland. It is a long way from undertaking a
costly bid for primacy in East Asia, let alone the world.
In any case, local states are likely to step up if the American military pulls back. The
world conjured by the Washington establishment is an empty space, a "power vacuum," waiting
passively to be led. The real world is full of people ready to safeguard their freedom. Today a
world with less American militarism is likely to have less militarism in general.
Hawks also warn that restraint will produce chaos, dooming the "rules-based," "liberal
international order." Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, President Trump's envoy for Syria, recently
told a version of this tale when he pounded the table in anger at Americans' objections to
"endless war." "Literally scores and scores of American military operations," he said,
"undergird this global security regime and thus undergird the American and Western and U.N.
values system."
But there's a reason no one can connect the dots from unceasing interventions to a system of
law and order. After decades of unilateral actions, crowned by the aggressive invasion of Iraq,
it is U.S. military power that threatens international law and order. Rules should strengthen
through cooperation, not wither through imposition.
In truth, the largest obstacle to ending endless war is self-imposed. Long told that the
United States is the world's "indispensable nation," the American people have been denied a
choice and have almost stopped demanding one. A global superpower -- waging endless war -- is
just "who we are."
But it is for the people to decide who we are, guided by the best of what we have been.
America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy," Secretary of State John Quincy
Adams said in 1821. "She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the
ruler of her own spirit."
Two centuries later, in the age of Trump, endless war has come home. Cease this folly, and
America can begin to take responsibility in the world and reclaim its civic peace. Reply
Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 04:09 PM
The key question is why Trump hired Bolton in the first place, not why he was sucked...
This guy is a reckless imperialist, staunch neocon and a war criminal. No person who promoted
or voted in the Congress for Iraq war can held government or elected position. They are
compromised for the rest of their miserable lifes.
I'm no fan of Trump, but I would like to see a comparison of the total "US instigated
foreign fatalities" for his last 2 & 1/2 years compared with Obama's last 2 & 1/2
years, and what we guess the number would have been under Hillary. I'm sorry, but I think
Trump's number would be the lowest. In coming up with an explanation, I like to use the
"Reality Show Entertainment Value" theory which many have described. In this case, people
like to watch Trump bullshitting and freaking out the establishment, but they really don't
like watching dead bodies burn up or be carried away in body bags. That reality is not
attractive entertainment, despite the fantasy of it being bankable entertainment when
Tarantino flame throws a teenager at the end of "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood."
Obama and Hillary are not "reality TV fans." They are more immersed in their megalomaniac
view of themselves as world actors, and will willfully kill a few hundred thousand if they
think it advances their misguided objectives.
"... Trade wars and sanctions are economic weapons against rival regimes, and like actual military warfare, often lead to unanticipated and sometimes devastating blowback from the targeted regimes. ..."
"... At the same time, western companies were forced to withdraw from Russian mega-deals because of sanctions. The best-known example was Exxon, forced by sanctions to walk away from an Arctic joint venture with Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft, where it had invested $3.2 billion. In their very first effort, the partners successfully drilled oil wells containing 750 million barrels. ..."
"... The trade war with China that has led to tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese exports to the US, and as a result, Russia and China have moved even closer. It remains an absolute mystery why no one in the west had foreseen the blowback from economic warfare leading to an alliance between two of its most powerful adversaries. ..."
"... The US acts as if it has been blind-sided by the Russian/China moves, even though years before it undertook economic warfare against them, China, the world's largest energy importer, agreed to finance oil and gas multi-billion-dollar pipelines in neighboring Russia. Now Russia has become China's largest energy supplier, equaling or perhaps even surpassing its energy supplies to Europe. ..."
"... As stated by Global Village Space (GBS) , China and Russia rushed to aid Iran, with China replacing Total, in a 25-year deal estimated to be worth some $400 billions. With that, China inherits a bonanza, providing much needed finance and technology to a country that was and could again become one of the world's leading energy producers. China is looking to finance $280 billion to develop Iran's gas, oil and petrochemicals industries, along with $120 billion to improve transport and manufacturing, making it a key partner in China's Road and Belt program. ..."
"... The deal also gives China the right to buy any or all Iranian oil, gas, and petrochemicals products at a minimum guaranteed 12% discount to global benchmarks, plus an additional discount of 6-8% for risk adjusted compensation. Financing will proceed using local currencies, avoiding the costs of converting to a hard currency like the US dollar or the Euro, giving the Beijing yet another 10% cost advantage. ..."
"... In direct defiance of US sanctions against Iran, China has stepped into the breach, increasing its oil purchases from Iran while becoming Iran's major energy trade and finance partner. Like Russia, it seems that Iran is moving towards a military alliance with China. If the west worries about China's expansive moves in the South China Sea, along China's own borders, what to make then of China moving in on Hormuz, where some 30% of world oil is transited each day? ..."
"... It is well known that the US has been in secret meetings with Iran representatives, much to the dismay of the Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Bloomberg reports, after the G7 meeting, Trump publicly and repeatedly stated he was ready to meet with Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani. Bloomberg also reported that in a meeting with his Cabinet, Trump announced that he was ready to ease sanctions as a possible way to open negotiations between the two countries. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin agreed with the President, while National Security Advisor Bolton voiced strong opposition, that only one day later, led to his firing. Secretary of State Pompeo stated that Trump may meet on the sidelines of the upcoming UN meeting with Iran's President. ..."
"... The EU defence industry initiative, the ECB's money transfer service, the EU army (or defence collaboration :) are all longer term policies aimed at reducing the EU's reliance on systems that are controlled by the USA. ..."
"... Sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare, only the target is a nation, not a city. ..."
"... John Bolton is clueless. He's a throwback to ruthless American competition and cowboy capitalism. And he appears to be an idiot. ..."
"... Consumer spending is going to struggle the rest of the year as it rebalances and manufacturing is heading to a full blown recession by December as auto companies try and get their balance sheets under control. ..."
Yves here. Even though most
readers know the general point very well, that US trade and financial sanctions haven't brought
targets to their knees, and had instead pushed them to find allies, but it's useful to have
detail to flesh out the story. There are some bits one can quibble with, like the "annexation
of Crimea" bit, and the US objectives for its sanctions against Russia. At least under the
Obama Administration, the belief was that they would damage the economy severely and force a
regime change.
By Robert Berke, an energy financial analyst with experience as a government consultant
to the State of Alaska. Originally published at
OilPrice
Trade wars and sanctions are economic weapons against rival regimes, and like actual
military warfare, often lead to unanticipated and sometimes devastating blowback from the
targeted regimes.
A prime example was President Obama sanctioning Russia over its annexation of Crimea. The
sanctions were designed to block Russia from any access to western financing, aimed at causing
a dire financial and economic crisis in Russia that would force it to relinquish Crimea and end
support for Ukraine's breakaway territories.
In fact, the sanctions did cause Russia to enter a short-lived recession. But it also had
other, much more drastic results for the West. It forced Russia to move closer to China, and
Moscow saw Beijing as a great alternative to western financing for Russian industries.
At the same time, western companies were forced to withdraw from Russian mega-deals because
of sanctions. The best-known example was Exxon, forced by sanctions to walk away from an Arctic
joint venture with Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft, where it had invested $3.2 billion.
In their very first effort, the partners successfully drilled oil wells containing 750 million
barrels.
As noted by Reuters, the withdrawal was costly:
Exxon will post an after-tax loss of $200 million as a result of pulling out of the
Rosneft deal, but the true costs for the company run much deeper. Exploring and developing
giant offshore fields in Russia was supposed to provide long-term growth for the company,
and, in recent years, has seen falling reserves.
But the opportunity losses are likely to be far higher for Exxon, the company that famously
missed the US shale revolution. The long-term deal with Rosneft, expected to continue for
decades, included exploration for oil in the Black Sea, enormous shale resources in Western
Siberia, and the development of three large blocks in the Arctic (Kara Sea).
The trade war with China that has led to tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese exports
to the US, and as a result, Russia and China have moved even closer. It remains an absolute
mystery why no one in the west had foreseen the blowback from economic warfare leading to an
alliance between two of its most powerful adversaries.
China's major state-owned oil companies and its Silk Road fund each became 10% partners in
Russia's first major Arctic LNG (liquified natural gas), project in the Yamal Peninsula,
undertaken with Novatek, Russia's largest independent gas producer. The project offers great
prospects for enormous expansion.
The US acts as if it has been blind-sided by the Russian/China moves, even though years
before it undertook economic warfare against them, China, the world's largest energy importer,
agreed to finance oil and gas multi-billion-dollar pipelines in neighboring Russia. Now Russia
has become China's largest energy supplier, equaling or perhaps even surpassing its energy
supplies to Europe.
A similar scenario is taking place in the Persian Gulf where the US has withdrawn from the
Iran nuclear deal, while imposing economic sanctions on Iranian oil exports. The French energy
giant, Total, that in recent years has been a leading international oil company in that
country, was forced to withdraw because of sanctions, just like Exxon in Russia's Arctic, it
left billions of dollars on the table.
This may also answer the question as to why French Prime Minister Macron was so intent on
inviting the Iranian Foreign Secretary to the recent G7 meeting in France. It's also no secret
that French carmakers Peugeot and Renault are the main suppliers to Iran's auto assembly
plants.
As stated by
Global Village Space (GBS) , China and Russia rushed to aid Iran, with China replacing
Total, in a 25-year deal estimated to be worth some $400 billions. With that, China inherits a
bonanza, providing much needed finance and technology to a country that was and could again
become one of the world's leading energy producers. China is looking to finance $280 billion to
develop Iran's gas, oil and petrochemicals industries, along with $120 billion to improve
transport and manufacturing, making it a key partner in China's Road and Belt program.
The deal also gives China the right to buy any or all Iranian oil, gas, and
petrochemicals products at a minimum guaranteed 12% discount to global benchmarks, plus
an additional discount of 6-8% for risk adjusted compensation. Financing will proceed using
local currencies, avoiding the costs of converting to a hard currency like the US dollar or the
Euro, giving the Beijing yet another 10% cost advantage.
GBS further reports that the security for these projects will include up to 5,000 Chinese
security personnel on the ground in Iran to protects Chinese projects and to safeguard the
transit of energy products from Iran to China, including security for the very strategic Hormuz
Straits.
In direct defiance of US sanctions against Iran, China has stepped into the breach,
increasing its oil purchases from Iran while becoming Iran's major energy trade and finance
partner. Like Russia, it seems that Iran is moving towards a military alliance with China. If
the west worries about China's expansive moves in the South China Sea, along China's own
borders, what to make then of China moving in on Hormuz, where some 30% of world oil is
transited each day?
If these are considered winning policies for the West, one has to ask what failure looks
like.
The West is already slowly becoming aware of the blowback this disastrous policy has caused.
Evidence for this can be found in Macron's efforts to persuade Trump towards a peaceful
resolution with Iran.
It is well known that the US has been in secret meetings with Iran representatives, much to
the dismay of the Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Bloomberg reports, after the G7 meeting, Trump
publicly and
repeatedly stated he was ready to meet with Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani. Bloomberg
also reported that in a meeting with his Cabinet, Trump announced that he was ready to ease
sanctions as a possible way to open negotiations between the two countries. Treasury Secretary
Mnuchin agreed with the President, while National Security Advisor Bolton voiced strong
opposition, that only one day later, led to his firing. Secretary of State Pompeo stated that
Trump may meet on the sidelines of the upcoming UN meeting with Iran's President.
The firing of Bolton was
immediately followed by a fall in the price of oil and gold. Allowing Iran to continue to
increase supplies into already well supplied oil markets will add downward pressure on oil
prices. For the Trump administration, this is not necessarily a bad thing unhappy consumers at
the gas pump make for unhappy voters.
Similarly, the Trump Administration badly needs to move towards ending the trade war with
China in order to calm global markets. The recent announcement of the resumption of trade talks
between the US and China in October may provide an opportunity for a similar easing of tariffs
and a path towards further resolution.
Although these actions could help to quell global tensions, it may be too late to reverse
some of the serious damage caused by US-led economic warfare. Once China positions itself in
Iran, it will not likely be interested in withdrawing from its new strategic position in the
Middle East, that it gained as a result of US near sighted foreign policy.
Prior to the election, we may see a breakthroughs in the trade war, and the alleviation of
sanctions with Russia, Iran, China, and perhaps even North Korea, but the US will almost
certainly see the negative consequences from adversaries it helped to expand and
strengthen.
Can't speak much about the effects of the Chinese sanctions but I know a little bit about
the Russian ones. These Russian sanctions are biting hard but not the way they were intended
and it is not only the big oil companies that are losing big. Since they kicked in Russia has
lost about $50 billion in trade with the European Union which kinda stings. But in the same
time frame, the European Union has lost about $240 billion.
Considering that fact that these
sanctions were never for their benefit but for solidarity with the US, that is a very
expensive price tag. The US lost only about $17 billion but I remember reading that after the
sanctions kicked in, trade between the U and Russia actually increased. Europe is a big loser
here, particularly with agriculture. When the EU sanctioned Russian products to the EU, the
Russians did the same to them a few weeks later which came as a shock. Since then Russia has
made huge investments into growing their own food crops and those markets will never come
back again for the EU. As an example, Russia is once more a world leader in the production of
wheat second only to the US and has learned the value of autarky.
You see these results in all sorts of areas as the country started phasing out imports and
replacing them with domestically made products. They even started making marine engines out
of necessity as they were denied purchase of foreign ones. People might remember how Russia
was going to buy two specially built ships from France but France reneged under pressure from
Washington.
France not only had to give back all the money the Russians paid but also had to
compensate Russia for all related costs that the Russians made. In the end France paid Russia
over a billion dollars which was triple what the Russians initially paid. And now the
Russians are constructing their own ships of this class in the Crimea using the knowledge
acquired from France. Perhaps it is things like this that has cause Macron to open up
contacts with Russia once more in spite of what Washington demands.
Add in the purchase of gold stocks, developing financial systems in case the US cuts
Russia off from the SWIFT clearance systems, the development of weaponry that makes the
deployment of nuclear missile systems in Europe futile, you realise that Washington has
massively underestimated the response of counties like Russia, China and Iran and depended on
unicorn wishes instead.
But in the same time frame, the European Union has lost about $240 billion. Considering
that fact that these sanctions were never for their benefit but for solidarity with the US,
that is a very expensive price tag.
Well, Looks like Donald Trump let "The Swamp(tm)" run loose and they went and over-torqued
the screws!
Some decision makers in within the EU have begun to see the US sanctions against
everything and everyone as having the true goals of ablating EU's influence on the world
while hampering EU-based businesses. There are initiatives and polices that hints at "cutting
the cord" are quietly being introduced.
The EU defence industry initiative, the ECB's money transfer service, the EU army (or
defence collaboration :) are all longer term policies aimed at reducing the EU's reliance on
systems that are controlled by the USA.
The 'North Stream' pipeline and keeping the Iran deal kinda alive are more immediate and
direct challenges, as was the total unwillingness to join in any of the planned military
adventures involving Syria and Iran.
France is being rather open about about it. Possibly to test out on behalf of the EU what
the USA is actually willing to do to exact revenge and enforce compliance, possibly also
because opposing the USA in France remains a reliable way to win votes.
It's not just Trump. Our Congress is totally at the beck of special pleaders such as LNG
exporters and arms companies. All seek to use the US economic weapon to further their own
interests.
Plus, Russia is determinedly GMO free. The more the US goes down the GMO route, the less
likely the food trade with the EU – the European dogs wont eat GMO dogfood.
Post Brexit perhaps, Britain will accept US foods, all the more reason to insist on a proper
border if NI remains part of the 'UK'.
It's not just GMO, but the level and quality of technocratic oversight. US government
agencies are incapable of regulating anything in the private sector. While the EU is still
greatly influenced by private money, it has not completely sold out.
What is ignored by media is the harm sanctions inflict on the people living in these
countries. I think it should be considered a crime against humanity and our leaders should be
prosecuted. Sanctions are a weapon that is just as harmful as weapons to kill. We only seem
to look at the economic effects and ignore the social effects.
Sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare, only the target is a nation, not a
city.
I've known in a vague intuitive way that US sanctions would alienate nations and isolate
the US, it's useful seeing how exactly these sanctions are backfiring with more nuance!
What is the next step after you have sanctioned everything and everyone and the reaction
is a shrug and a work around? Sanctions do have their bite, but they are, or are becoming, a
more effective tool for global economic and political realignment than a means to accomplish
their stated purpose.
Good question. I am wondering the same thing. There is a vague pattern here with Russia,
the most resource-rich oil producer. We don't want Russia to take off too fast. What can be
left in the ground should be left in the ground. And maybe that was the existential threat
posed by Exxon – a private, profit seeking US corporation geared to do everything fast
in order to make their profits.
Just thinking about slamming the breaks on manufacturing and
consumption and how this can make a mess of the oil industry if it is going for profits
– race to the bottom (currently). Rather, anyone thinking straight would want to
conserve oil, control it's production and marketing. John Bolton is clueless. He's a
throwback to ruthless American competition and cowboy capitalism. And he appears to be an
idiot.
There was a discussion of China's role in manufacturing drugs for Big Pharma on the news
last night, truly frightening.
They've already been found to be selling us contaminated drugs, what happens when they
refuse to deliver anything other than fentanyl?
I find it hard to understand how we're going to recover from the damage done by the
short-sighted, wholesale outsourcing of our manufacturing to China.
Given the centrality of drugs to American life, we should categorize them as sensitive
items of national security and declare a war on foreign drugs. That would brilliantly combine
the failed policies of the past with the failed policies of the present. We could make
exceptions for most-favored nations like Colombia or Afghanistan.
As in military conflicts, the fog of geoeconomic war together with partisan lens and poor
leadership can prevent adversaries from developing an accurate assessment of reality. The
writer has raised some examples that support his view pertaining to pushback, and he could be
right as The Rev Kev so eloquently pointed out here WRT Russia. However, whether his article
provides an accurate overview of the current state of play remains an open question IMO.
Setting aside deeply troubling questions about our national values and whether sanctions
should ever be employed due to their very damaging effects on domestic populations, together
with their evident past failure to realize policy goals, there are credible accounts that
China is now confronting a U.S. dollar shortage; that China has significant issues in its
financial system and economy; and that the people of China are seeing sharply rising food
prices as a result of decreased supplies of pork and soybeans. These issues are being
perceived as sufficient to cause China's leaders to be receptive to negotiating resolution of
the current tariffs, trade, intellectual property, and investment impasse on terms favorable
to the U.S. Whether this will be so remains to be seen, of course.
A multi-polar world became a uni-polar world with the fall of the Berlin Wall and Francis
Fukuyama said it was the end of history. It was all going so well, until the neoliberals got to work. The US created an open, globalised world with the Washington Consensus. China went from almost nothing to become a global super power.
That wasn't supposed to happen, let's get the rocket scientists onto it. Maximising profit is all about reducing costs. China had coal fired power stations to provide cheap energy.
China had lax regulations reducing environmental and health and safety costs.
China had a low cost of living so employers could pay low wages.
China had low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
China had all the advantages in an open globalised world. "The Washington Consensus was always going to work better for China than the US"
the rocket scientists.
If the US left this running it would be China first and America second. PANIC!
It seems since about the Vietnam war era, US FP has been run by hubristic idiots with
delusions of grandeur. Its foreign policy 101 that you never, never, set policy to drive your
2 largest rivals to alliance.
Yet these morons did exactly that. Since Trump, there have been many retirements form the
State Dept.
And maybe that's not such a bad thing. They show no evidence of competence.
Russia is leasing out old collective farm lands that was abandoned in the eastern part of
the country to Asian countries to farm and grow the export food products needed. It seems the
collective farms were abandoned and now the Russian government is re-purposing the vast
amounts of land available.
"Russia is now considering requests from Asian firms to farm another 1 million hectares
(2.5 million acres) -- an area roughly the size of Jamaica, according to the head of a
government agency."
It may be said that Trump's tariffs are the best things that could have happened to China
and Russia.
Frankly, I think it has pushed up consumer spending and that is about it. In other words,
this economy has overcapacity problems in the auto sector and its relation to junk corporate
debt, is not good.
Consumer spending is going to struggle the rest of the year as it rebalances and
manufacturing is heading to a full blown recession by December as auto companies try and get
their balance sheets under control.
"... Yes, people tend to forget that Bolton and all the other neocons are worshipers at the altar of a secular religion imported to the US by members of the Frankfurt School of Trotskyite German professors in the 1930s. These people had attempted get the Nazis to consider them allies in a quest for an ordered world. Alas for them they found that the Nazi scum would not accept them and in fact began preparations to hunt them down. ..."
"... Thus the migration to America and in particular to the University of Chicago where they developed their credo of world revolution under that guidance of a few philosopher kings like Leo Strauss, the Wohlstetters and other academic "geniuses" They also began an enthusiastic campaign of recruitment of enthusiastic graduate students who carefully disguised themselves as whatever was most useful politically. ..."
"Carlson concluded by warning about the many other Boltons in the federal bureaucracy,
saying that "war may be a disaster for America, but for John Bolton and his fellow neocons,
it's always good business."
He went on to slam Trump's special representative for Iran and contender to replace Bolton,
Brian Hook, as an "unapologetic neocon" who "has undisguised contempt for President Trump, and
he particularly dislikes the president's nationalist foreign policy." Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif echoed Carlson hours later in a tweet, arguing that "Thirst for war
– maximum pressure – should go with the warmonger-in-chief." Reuters and
Haaretz
-------------
Yes, people tend to forget that Bolton and all the other neocons are worshipers at the altar
of a secular religion imported to the US by members of the Frankfurt School of Trotskyite
German professors in the 1930s. These people had attempted get the Nazis to consider them
allies in a quest for an ordered world. Alas for them they found that the Nazi scum would not
accept them and in fact began preparations to hunt them down.
Thus the migration to America and in particular to the University of Chicago where they
developed their credo of world revolution under that guidance of a few philosopher kings like
Leo Strauss, the Wohlstetters and other academic "geniuses" They also began an enthusiastic
campaign of recruitment of enthusiastic graduate students who carefully disguised themselves as
whatever was most useful politically.
They are not conservative at all, not one bit. Carlson was absolutely right about that.
They despise nationalism. They despise the idea of countries. In that regard they are like
all groups who aspire to globalist dominion for their particular ideas.
As for the gory details of CIA involvement in the Chilean coup d'état of 1973,
Costa-Gavras' film "Missing" (Universal Pictures, 1982) staring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek
exposes the surreptitious U.S. involvement via CIA operatives, supportive of Pinochet's
cold-bloodied massacre of students and other innocent bystanders. Not surprisingly, the film
was removed from the U.S. market following a lawsuit against the director and Universal
Pictures by former ambassador Nathaniel Davis for defamation of character. When Davis lost his
lawsuit, the film was re-released by Universal in 2006.
The face of neoliberalism in Chile today is disheartened, reflecting deep losses for the
wealthy class as the people of the country reject Milton Friedman's neoliberal policies,
including clever tax evasion techniques by the business class. Could this be the start of a
worldwide movement against neoliberalism?
After all, Chile is the country that neoliberal advocates crowned their "newborn" in the
battle against big government, "get government off our backs," according to Milton Friedman
(and, Reagan picked up on the adage.) But, au contraire, according to the film "Missing,"
fascism took control over Chile. Is it possible that Friedman and Kissinger secretly cherished
a fascist empire, where control would be complete, disguised as "the land of individual
economic freedom?" Whatever their motives, that's what they got, and they never hesitated to
revere Chile's remarkable economic achievements, fascism and all, which is powerfully expressed
in the film "Missing," from end to end the heavy hand of fascism is ever-present.
Today is a new day as the people of Chile abandon decades of rotting neoliberal policies.
They've had enough of Milton Freidman. The people have decided that the "state" is a beneficial
partner for achievement of life's dreams. The "state" is not the menacing force of evil
preached by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
The people of Chile are embracing an anti-neoliberalistic nation/state for the first time in
over four decades. Will the world follow in their footsteps similar to the world adopting the
principles of the "Miracle of Chile" these past four decades?
As for the new way forward, it's all about student debt. Yes, student debt was the catalyst
behind Chile's repudiation of neoliberalism. In 2011 students in Chile made headlines by
launching nationwide strikes over high tuition costs that drove their families into debt (sound
familiar?) The strike lasted for eight months.
Over time, the student marches gained recognition by other like-minded organizations like
trade unions and protests of environmental degradation. According to Tasha Fairfield, an
assistant professor for the London School of Economics' Department of International
Development, the strikes were pivotal: "The student movement played a critical role in creating
political space," according to Fairfield, it "dramatically changed the political context in
Chile and helped to place the issues of Chile's extreme inequalities centrally on the national
agenda," Sebastian Rosemont, Chilean Activists Change the Rules of the Game, Foreign Policy In
Focus, Dec. 2, 2014.
Subsequently, the national election of 2013 swept the left wing into power with a huge wave
of public support, gaining strong majorities in both houses of the National Congress as well as
electing Michelle Bachelet president. The big leftward sweep came as over two thirds of the
population grew to support student demands for free university tuition.
Ever since the 2013 election, neoliberal policies have crumbled like a decrepit equestrian
statue of Pinochet, who carried the stigma of brutal criminality to, and beyond, the grave.
In stark contrast to 40 years ago, today, when students, armed with only stones clashed with
police equipped with full regalia of riot gear, tear gas, and armored vehicles, the harsh
police activity drew heavy international criticism. That, combined with more than two-thirds of
the population in support of the student movement, led to a new politics, Nueva Mayoria (New
Majority), a center-left coalition made up of Bachelet's Socialist Party, the Christian
Democratic Party, and the Party for Democracy.
Whereupon, Nueva Mayoria, turning up its nose to neoliberalism, raised corporate taxes from
20 percent to 25 percent and closed tax loopholes for companies and wealthy business owners.
Those changes added $8.3 billion annually to government coffers, thus, serving as a source of
funds to provide free education to all Chileans by 2020, as well as improved health care, and
including a roll back of the for-profit schools that emerged under Pinochet's dictatorship,
which is another neoliberal fascination, witness the U.S. for-profit schools listed on the New
York Stock Exchange honestly, what's with that? In order to achieve success, the new Chilean
politics astutely employed a key tactical move by applying the corporate tax hikes to only the
largest corporations. As a result, nearly 95% of businesses are not be affected by higher
taxation. This, in fact, served to secure a broad base of support for the new politics by
having those who can afford to pay Pay.
Along those same lines, the new government removed a tax dodge employed by large business
owners that allowed them to mostly escape taxes on $270 billion of profits (similar to the U.S.
15% "carried interest" for private equity entities, e.g., Mitt Romney's 15% tax rate).
Thus, it's little wonder that public backlash is challenging neoliberalism, especially
considering the conditions throughout the Pinochet regime, as described in the meticulously
structured documentary film, "The Pinochet Case," (Icarus Films, 2002), which opens with scenes
of ordinary Chileans scouring the desert for the remains of family members who were tortured
and killed decades previous.
Chile, "The Babe of Neoliberalism," came to life as an experiment for the "Chicago School"
of economic thought. It worked. Today neoliberal theory rules the world, laissez-faire
capitalism as practiced from China to the United States, privatization, open markets, slash
government, and deregulation, in short, "whatever works best for profits works best for
society." But, does it?
Forty years of neoliberal thought and practice has changed the world's socio-economic
landscape, but it only really, truly works for the same class of people today as it did 800
years ago for the nobility of the Middle Ages.
Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at [email protected] .
It seems since about the Vietnam war era, US FP has been run by hubristic idiots with
delusions of grandeur. Its foreign policy 101 that you never, never, set policy to drive your
2 largest rivals to alliance.
Yet these morons did exactly that. Since Trump, there have been many retirements from
the State Dept. And maybe that's not such a bad thing. They show no evidence of
competence.
Ukraine is mainly the result of attempt of the USA to encircle Russia well as EU design for economic
Drang nach Osten -- attempt to displace Russia in xUSSR
republics.
So they pushed Ukraine into the pat that Baltic republic were already known for.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine's newly elected comedian president Volodymyr Zelensky called the prisoner exchange a "first step" in ending the war in Eastern Ukraine, which has killed an estimated 13,000 civilians. ..."
"... In a subsequent referendum, 89% in Donetsk and 96% in Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine voted for independence, which the new government of Petro Poroshenko government did not accept. ..."
"... She told U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone conversation that was tapped and later leaked that Arseniy Yatsenyuk, neoliberal head of the "Fatherland" Party, should be Prime Minister as he was thought to have the "economic" and "governing experience." ..."
"... Nuland further revealed that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in "democracy promotion" in Ukraine since 1991 through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was carrying on the kind of work previously undertaken by the CIA during the Cold War. ..."
"... NED president Carl Gershman called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step towards toppling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." ..."
"... To help achieve this end, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to the post-coup government in Ukraine, which Putin considered as the "ideological heirs of [Stephen] Bandera, Hitler's accomplice in World War II." ..."
"... Swayed by a slick lobbying campaign backed by supporters of the Afghan mujahidin in the 1980s looking for a new cause and by the Senate's Ukraine Caucus, the Obama administration further provided nearly $600 million in security assistance to the Ukrainian military. ..."
"... American military advisers embedded in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry provided rocket propelled grenades, carried out training exercises and planned military operations including with members of the fascist Azov battalion, which had Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel patches emblazoned on their sleeves. ..."
On Saturday September 7, Russia and Ukraine agreed to a prisoner swap which has brought
hope of improved relations between the two countries and an end to the 5-year long conflict in
Eastern Ukraine.
A peace accord is being planned for later this month in Normandy involving Ukraine, Russia,
France and Germany.
Ukraine's newly elected comedian president Volodymyr Zelensky called the prisoner exchange a
"first step" in ending the war in Eastern Ukraine, which has killed an estimated 13,000
civilians.
The Ukraine War remains largely unknown to the American public even though the United States
has had a great stake in it.
The war started after a coup d'états in Ukraine in February 2014, which overthrew the
democratically elected pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovuch.
In a subsequent referendum, 89% in Donetsk and 96% in Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine voted for
independence, which the new government of Petro Poroshenko government did not accept.
The United States was a heavy backer of the coup and dirty war that unfolded in the
East.
Victoria Nuland, the head of the State Department's European desk, traveled to Ukraine three
times during the protests that triggered the coup, handing out cookies to demonstrators.
She told U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in a telephone conversation that was tapped and
later leaked that Arseniy Yatsenyuk, neoliberal head of the "Fatherland" Party, should be Prime
Minister as he was thought to have the "economic" and "governing experience."
Nuland further revealed that the U.S. had invested over $5 billion in "democracy promotion"
in Ukraine since 1991 through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was carrying on
the kind of work previously undertaken by the CIA during the Cold War.
Ukraine has long been considered an important bridge between Eastern and Western Europe and
holds lucrative oil and gas deposits.
NED president Carl Gershman called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step
towards toppling [Russian President Vladimir] Putin who "may find himself on the losing end not
just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
To help achieve this end, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in loan guarantees to
the post-coup government in Ukraine, which Putin considered as the "ideological heirs of
[Stephen] Bandera, Hitler's accomplice in World War II."
Swayed by a slick lobbying campaign backed by supporters of the Afghan mujahidin in the
1980s looking for a new cause and by the Senate's Ukraine Caucus, the Obama administration
further provided nearly $600 million in security assistance to the Ukrainian military.
It was supplied with counter-artillery radars, anti-tank systems, armored vehicles and
drones in a policy expanded upon by Trump.
Before and after the Ukrainian military's campaign began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA
Director John Brennan, and Vice President Joe Biden visited Kiev, followed by a flow of senior
Pentagon officials.
A back-door arms pipeline was set up through the United Arab Emirates and Blackwater
mercenaries were allegedly deployed.
American military advisers embedded in the Ukrainian Defense Ministry provided rocket
propelled grenades, carried out training exercises and planned military operations including
with members of the fascist Azov battalion, which had Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel patches
emblazoned on their sleeves.
Obama's National Security adviser, Samantha Power, claimed that the [Ukrainian] governments
"response [to alleged provocations by eastern rebels] [was] reasonable, it is proportional, and
frankly it is what any of our countries would have done."
The Ukrainian military and allied warlord and neo-Nazi militias were not acting reasonably
or proportionally, however, when they carried out artillery and air attacks on cities and
struck residential buildings, shopping malls, parks, schools, hospitals and orphanages in
Eastern Ukraine, and tortured and executed POWs in what amounted to clear war crimes.
NYU Professor Stephen Cohen notes that even TheNew York Times , which mainly
deleted atrocities from its coverage, described survivors in Slovyansk living "as if in the
Middle Ages."
That the American public knows nothing of these events is a sad reflection of the
superficiality of our media and decline in the quality of international news coverage.
It is also a testament to the failing of the political left, which has embraced the cause of
immigrant and Palestinian rights and fighting climate change, legitimately, but neglected the
plight of the Eastern Ukrainian people. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jeremy Kuzmarov
"... After he became vice president in 1940, as Roosevelt was increasingly ill, Wallace promoted a new vision for America's role in the world that suggested that rather than playing catch up with the imperial powers, the United States should work with partners to establish a new world order that eliminated militarism, colonialism and imperialism. ..."
"... In diplomacy, Wallace imagined a multi-polar world founded on the United Nations Charter with a focus on peaceful cooperation. In contrast, in 1941 Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, had called for an 'American century,' suggesting that victory in war would allow the United States to "exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit." ..."
"... Foreign aid for Wallace was not a tool to foster economic dominance as it was to become, but rather "economic assistance without political conditions to further the independent economic development of the Latin American and Caribbean countries." He held high "the principle of self-determination for the peoples of Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and other colonial areas." He saw the key policy for the United States to be based on "the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and acceptance of the right of peoples to choose their own form of government and economic system." ..."
"... The United States should be emulating China, its Belt and Road Initiative and Community of Common Destiny, as a means of revitalizing its political culture and kicking its addiction to a neo-colonial concept of economic development and growth. Rather than relying on militarization and its attendant wars to spark the economy, progressives should demand that the US work in conjunction with nations such as China and Russia in building a sustainable future rather than creating one failed state after another. ..."
This is as good a time as any to point to an alternative vision of foreign policy. One based on the principle of non-interference,
respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and, above all, international law. One based on peaceful coexistence and mutual
cooperation. A vision of the world at peace and undivided by arbitrary distinctions. Such a world is possible and even though
there are currently players around the world who are striving in that direction we need look no further than our own history for
inspiration. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you one Henry A. Wallace, for your consideration.
(The following excerpts from an article by Dr. Dennis Etler. Link to the full article provided below.) --
The highest profile figure who articulated an alternative vision for American foreign policy was the politician Henry Wallace,
who served as vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1940-1944 and ran for president in 1948 as the candidate of the
Progressive Party.
After he became vice president in 1940, as Roosevelt was increasingly ill, Wallace promoted a new vision for America's
role in the world that suggested that rather than playing catch up with the imperial powers, the United States should work with
partners to establish a new world order that eliminated militarism, colonialism and imperialism.
Wallace gave a speech in 1942 that declared a "Century of the Common Man." He described a post-war world that offered "freedom
from want," a new order in which ordinary citizens, rather than the rich and powerful, would play a decisive role in politics.
That speech made direct analogy between the Second World War and the Civil War, suggesting that the Second World War was being
fought to end economic slavery and to create a more equal society. Wallace demanded that the imperialist powers like Britain and
France give up their colonies at the end of the war.
In diplomacy, Wallace imagined a multi-polar world founded on the United Nations Charter with a focus on peaceful cooperation.
In contrast, in 1941 Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, had called for an 'American century,' suggesting that victory in
war would allow the United States to "exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and
by such means as we see fit."
Wallace responded to Luce with a demand to create a world in which "no nation will have the God-given right to exploit other
nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path to industrialization, but there
must be neither military nor economic imperialism." Wallace took the New Deal global. His foreign policy was to be based on non-interference
in the internal affairs of other countries and mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Sadly, since then, despite occasional efforts to head in a new direction, the core constituency for US foreign policy has been
corporations, rather than the "common man" either in the United States, or the other nations of the world, and United States foreign
relations have been dominated by interference in the political affairs of other nations. As a result the military was transformed
from an "arsenal for democracy" during the Second World War into a defender of privilege at home and abroad afterwards.
-- - Foreign aid for Wallace was not a tool to foster economic dominance as it was to become, but rather "economic assistance without
political conditions to further the independent economic development of the Latin American and Caribbean countries." He held high
"the principle of self-determination for the peoples of Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and other colonial areas." He saw the key
policy for the United States to be based on "the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and acceptance
of the right of peoples to choose their own form of government and economic system."
--
Wallace's legacy suggests that it is possible to put forth a vision of an honest internationalism in US foreign policy that
is in essence American. His approach was proactive not reactive. It would go far beyond anything Democrats propose today, who
can only suggest that the United States should not start an unprovoked war with Iran or North Korea, but who embrace sanctions
and propagandist reports that demonize those countries.
Rather than ridiculing Trump's overtures to North Korea, they should go further to reduce tensions between the North and the
South by pushing for the eventual withdrawal of troops from South Korea and Japan (a position fully in line with Wallace and many
other politicians of that age).
Rather than demonizing and isolating Russia (as a means to score political points against Trump), progressives should call for
a real détente, that recognizes Russia's core interests, proposes that NATO withdraw troops from Russia's borders, ends sanctions
and reintegrates Russia into the greater European economy. They could even call for an end to NATO and the perpetuation of the
dangerous global rift between East and West that it perpetuates.
Rather than attempt to thwart China's rise, and attack Trump for not punishing it enough, progressives should seek to create new
synergies between China and the US economically, politically and socioculturally.
-- -
In contrast to the US policy of perpetual war and "destroying nations in order to save them," China's BRI proposes an open plan
for development that is not grounded in the models of French and British imperialism. It has proposed global infrastructure and
science projects that include participants from nations in Africa, Asia, South and Central America previously ignored by American
and European elites -- much as Wallace proposed an equal engagement with Latin America. When offering developmental aid and investment
China does not demand that free market principles be adopted or that the public sector be privatized and opened up for global
investment banks to ravish.
-- The United States should be emulating China, its Belt and Road Initiative and Community of Common Destiny, as a means of revitalizing
its political culture and kicking its addiction to a neo-colonial concept of economic development and growth. Rather than relying
on militarization and its attendant wars to spark the economy, progressives should demand that the US work in conjunction with
nations such as China and Russia in building a sustainable future rather than creating one failed state after another.
Usually a forum for anodyne statements about international cooperation and proper
environmental stewardship, the lid was blown off the latest Arctic Council meeting in May when
Pompeo delivered an unabashedly martial and provocative speech that deserves far more attention
than it got at the time. So let's take a little tour of what may prove a historic proclamation
(in the grimmest sense possible) of a new Washington doctrine for the Far North.
"In its first two decades, the Arctic Council has had the luxury of focusing almost
exclusively on scientific collaboration, on cultural matters, on environmental research," the
secretary of state began mildly. These
were, he said, "all important themes, very important, and we should continue to do those. But
no longer do we have that luxury. We're entering a new age of strategic engagement in the
Arctic, complete with new threats to the Arctic and its real estate, and to all of our
interests in that region."
In what turned out to be an ultra-hardline address, Pompeo claimed that we were now in a new
era in the Arctic. Because climate change -- a phrase Pompeo, of course, never actually uttered
-- is now making it ever more possible to exploit the region's vast resource riches, a scramble
to gain control of them is now officially underway. That competition for resources has
instantly become enmeshed in a growing geopolitical confrontation between the U.S., Russia, and
China, generating new risks of conflict.
On the matter of resource exploitation, Pompeo could hardly contain his enthusiasm.
Referring to the derision that greeted William Seward's purchase of Alaska in 1857, he
declared:
"Far from the barren backcountry that many thought it to be in Seward's time, the
Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance. It houses 13% of the world's
undiscovered oil, 30% of its undiscovered gas, and an abundance of uranium, rare earth
minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources."
Of equal attraction, he noted, was the possibility of vastly increasing maritime commerce
through newly de-iced trans-Arctic trade routes that will link the Euro-Atlantic region with
Asia. "Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for
trade," he enthused. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and
the West by as much as 20 days Arctic sea lanes could come [to be] the 21st century's Suez and
Panama Canals." That such "steady reductions in sea ice" are the sole consequence of climate
change went unmentioned, but so did another reality of our warming world. If the Arctic one day
truly becomes the northern equivalent of a tropical passageway like the Suez or Panama canals,
that will likely mean that parts of those southerly areas will have become the equivalents of
uninhabitable deserts.
As such new trade and drilling opportunities arise, Pompeo affirmed, the United States
intends to be out front in capitalizing on them. He then began bragging about what the Trump
administration had already accomplished, including promoting expanded oil and gas drilling in
offshore waters and also freeing up "energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ," a pristine stretch
of northern Alaska
prized by environmentalists as a sanctuary for migrating caribou and other at-risk species.
Additional efforts to exploit the region's vital resources, he promised, are scheduled for the
years ahead.
A New Arena for Competition (and Worse)
Ideally, Pompeo noted placidly, competition for the Arctic's resources will be conducted in
an orderly, peaceful manner. The United States, he assured his listeners, believes in "free and
fair competition, open, by the rule of law." But other countries, he added ominously,
especially China and Russia, won't play by that rulebook much of the time and so must be
subject to careful oversight and, if need be, punitive action.
China, he pointed out, is already developing trade
routes in the Arctic, and establishing economic ties with key nations there. Unlike the United
States (which already has multiple military bases in the Arctic, including one at Thule in
Greenland, and so has a well-established presence there), Pompeo claimed that Beijing is
surreptitiously using such supposedly economic activities for military purposes, including,
heinously enough, spying on U.S. ballistic missile submarines operating in the region, while
intimidating its local partners into acquiescence.
He then cited events in the distant South China Sea, where the Chinese have indeed
militarized a
number of tiny uninhabited islands (outfitting them with airstrips, missile batteries, and the
like) and the U.S. has responded by
sending its warships into adjacent waters. He did so to warn of similar future military
stand-offs and potential clashes in the Arctic. "Let's just ask ourselves, do we want the
Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea, fraught with militarization and competing
territorial claims?" The answer, he assured his listeners, is "pretty clear." (And I'm sure you
can guess what it is.)
The secretary of state then wielded even stronger language in describing "aggressive Russian
behavior in the Arctic." In recent years, he claimed, the Russians have built hundreds of new
bases in the region, along with new ports and air-defense capabilities. "Russia is already
leaving snow prints in the form of army boots" there, a threat that cannot be ignored. "Just
because the Arctic is a place of wilderness does not mean it should become a place of
lawlessness. It need not be the case. And we stand ready to ensure that it does not become
so."
And here we get to the heart of Pompeo's message: the United States will, of course,
"respond" by enhancing its own military presence in the Arctic to better protect U.S.
interests, while countering Chinese and Russian inroads in the region:
"Under President Trump, we are fortifying America's security and diplomatic presence in the
area. On the security side, partly in response to Russia's destabilizing activities, we are
hosting military exercises, strengthening our force presence, rebuilding our icebreaker fleet,
expanding Coast Guard funding, and creating a new senior military post for Arctic Affairs
inside of our own military."
To emphasize the administration's sincerity, Pompeo touted the largest NATO and U.S. Arctic
military maneuvers since the Cold War era, the recently completed " Trident Juncture " exercise (which he
incorrectly referred to as "Trident Structure"), involving some 50,000 troops. Although the
official scenario
for Trident Juncture spoke of an unidentified "aggressor" force, few observers had any doubt
that the allied team was assembled to repel a hypothetical Russian invasion of Norway, where
the simulated combat took place.
Implementing the Doctrine
And so you have the broad outlines of the new Pompeo Doctrine, centered on the Trump
administration's truly forbidden topic: the climate crisis. In the most pugnacious manner
imaginable, that doctrine posits a future of endless competition and conflict in the Arctic,
growing ever more intense as the planet warms and the ice cap melts. The notion of the U.S.
going nose-to-nose with the Russians and Chinese in the Far North, while exploiting the
region's natural resources, has clearly been circulating in Washington. By August, it had
obviously already become enough of a commonplace in the White House (not to speak of the
National Security Council and the Pentagon), for the president to offer to buy Greenland.
And when it comes to resources and future military conflicts, it wasn't such a zany idea.
After all, Greenland does have abundant natural resources and also houses that U.S. base in
Thule. A relic of the Cold War, the Thule facility, mainly a radar base, is already being
modernized , at a cost of some $300 million, to better track Russian missile launches.
Clearly, key officials in Washington view Greenland as a valuable piece of real estate in the
emerging geopolitical struggle Pompeo laid out, an assessment that clearly wormed its way into
President Trump's consciousness as well.
Iceland and Norway also play key roles in Pompeo's and the Pentagon's new strategic
calculus. Another former Cold War facility, a base at Keflavik in Iceland has been reoccupied
by the Navy and is now being used in antisubmarine warfare missions. Meanwhile, the Marine
Corps has
stationed several hundred combat troops at bases near Trondheim, Norway, the first
permanent deployment of foreign soldiers on Norwegian soil since World War II. In 2018, the
Pentagon even
reactivated the Navy's defunct Second Fleet, investing it with responsibility for
protecting the North Atlantic as well as the Arctic's maritime approaches, including those
abutting Greenland, Iceland, and Norway. Consider these signs of heating-up times.
And all of this is clearly just the beginning of a major buildup in and regular testing of
the ability of the U.S. military to operate in the Far North. As part of Exercise Trident
Juncture, for example, the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman and its flotilla of
support ships were sent into the Norwegian Sea, the first time a U.S. carrier battle group had
sailed above the Arctic Circle since the Soviet Union imploded in 1991. Similarly,
Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer recently announced
plans to send surface warships on trans-Arctic missions, another new military move. (U.S.
nuclear submarines make such journeys regularly, sailing beneath the sea ice.) This article first appeared on TomDispatch. More articles by:Michael T. Klare
Iran sanction and the threat of war has nothing to do with its nuclear program. It is about
the USA and by extension Israel dominance in the region. and defencing interesting of MIC, against the interest of general public.
Which is the main task of neocons, as lobbyists for MIC (please understand that MIC includes intelligence agencies and large
part of Wall Street) .
That's why Israel lobby ( and Bloomberg is a part of it ) supports strangulation Iran economy, Iran war and pushes Trump administration into it.
the demand " Rather than push for an extended sunset, Trump should hold out for a complete termination of Iran's nuclear
activities and an end to its other threatening behavior -- such as its ballistic-missile program and its support for terrorist
groups across the Middle East -- in exchange for readmission into the world economy" is as close to Netanyahu position as we can
get.
Notable quotes:
"... The Bloomberg editors urge Trump not to give up on brain-dead maximalism with Iran ..."
"... As always, hard-liners ignore the agency and interests of the other government, and they assume that it is simply a matter of willpower to force them to yield. ..."
"... They have not left the Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the contrary, they have agreed to abide by the Additional Protocol that has even stricter standards. They are not enriching uranium to levels needed to make nuclear weapons. They certainly haven't built or tested any weapons. ..."
"... Iran has jumped through numerous hoops to demonstrate that their nuclear program is and will continue to be peaceful, and their compliance has been verified more than a dozen times, but fanatics here and in Israel refuse to take yes for an answer. That is because hard-liners aren't really concerned about proliferation risk, but seek to use the nuclear issue as fodder to justify punitive measures against Iran without end ..."
The
Bloomberg editors
urge Trump not to give up on brain-dead maximalism with Iran:
Rather than push for an extended sunset, Trump should hold out for a complete termination
of Iran's nuclear activities and an end to its other threatening behavior -- such as its
ballistic-missile program and its support for terrorist groups across the Middle East -- in
exchange for readmission into the world economy.
This chance may never come again.
Bloomberg's latest advice to Trump on Iran is terrible as usual, but it is a useful window
into how anti-Iran hard-liners see things. They see the next year as their best chance to push
for their maximalist demands, and they fear the possibility that Trump might settle for
something short of their absurd wish list. If Trump does what they want and "holds out" until
Iran capitulates, he will be waiting a long time. He has nothing to show for his policy except
increased tensions and impoverished and dying Iranians, and this would guarantee more of the
same. The funny thing is that the "extended sunset" they deride is already an unrealistic goal,
and they insist that the president pursue a much more ambitious set of goals that have
absolutely no chance of being reached. As always, hard-liners ignore the agency and interests
of the other government, and they assume that it is simply a matter of willpower to force them
to yield.
The Bloomberg editorial is ridiculous in many ways, but just one more example will suffice.
At one point it says, "Nor is there any doubt that Iran wants nuclear weapons." Perhaps
ideologues and fanatics have no doubt about this, but it isn't true. If Iran wanted nuclear
weapons, they could have pursued and acquired them by now. They gave up that pursuit and agreed
to the most stringent nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated to prove that they wouldn't
seek these weapons, but the Trump administration chose to punish them for their cooperation.
Iran has not done any of the things that actual rogue nuclear weapons states have done. They
have not left the Non-Proliferation Treaty. On the contrary, they have agreed to abide by the
Additional Protocol that has even stricter standards. They are not enriching uranium to levels
needed to make nuclear weapons. They certainly haven't built or tested any weapons.
Iran has jumped through numerous hoops to demonstrate that their nuclear program is and will
continue to be peaceful, and their compliance has been verified more than a dozen times, but
fanatics here and in Israel refuse to take yes for an answer. That is because hard-liners
aren't really concerned about proliferation risk, but seek to use the nuclear issue as fodder
to justify punitive measures against Iran without end.
They don't want to resolve the crisis
with Iran, but rather hope to make it permanent by setting goals that can't possibly be reached
and insisting that sanctions remain in place forever.
"It will be well worth while": the state Duma has praised the willingness of the American
Ambassador to come and have a talk following his interview "Komsomolskaya Pravda"
Okhotny Ryad [address of State Duma -- ME] is now waiting for the Ambassador of
the USA to Russia, following his interview with "Komsomolskaya Pravda". We shall remind you,
that Jon huntsman, who, following his resignation, is leaving in October, has stressed that
he is ready to discuss allegations of interference (here he was talking about the publication
on Twitter by his Embassy of the announcement of the rally and a map of its route, together
with a request that these places be avoided these), but there has yet been no invitation made
that he do so.
I would be very happy to discuss this with anyone, but nobody has invited me and I
think I have not been invited because people know the truth, and it consists of the fact that
on the eve of the demonstrations, the Embassy should publish a consular alert and warn its
citizens to stay away from the places where they are to take place. My first responsibility
is to ensure the safety of American citizens.
And if I do not tell people, I would thereby have demonstrated neglect of my duty,
and my official duties. So I did what I did in all other cases – what I was doing in
China and what to do in Singapore when I was Ambassador there: we took documents already in
the public domain, and warned U.S. citizens that they should stay away from specific
locations, and published a map of where these places were marked.
That is what all this is really about, and I am very surprised that the standard
function of the Embassy has been presented as something unusual", said the
Ambassador."
(above) 02.20 2011, Beijing: Huntsman staying away from a specific place that the US
Embassy to China considered as being potentially dangerous to US citizens.
"... A kreakl is a Russian liberal, often the child or grandchild of Soviet-era intellectuals who believed they knew better than anyone else how the country should be run. ..."
"... "Continuing street protests in Hong Kong and Moscow have no doubt spooked the authoritarian duo of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Moscow protests, the largest in many years, must be keeping Mr. Putin up at night, or they wouldn't be dispersed with such unabated brutality." ..."
"... "This loss of nuclear competence is being cited by nuclear and national security experts in both the U.S. and in Europe's nuclear weapons states as a threat to their military nuclear programs. The White House cited this nuclear nexus in a May memo instructing Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy, to force utilities to buy power from unprofitable nuclear and coal plants. The memo states that the "entire US nuclear enterprise" including nuclear weapons and naval propulsion, "depends on a robust civilian nuclear industry." ..."
Nina Khrushcheva is a kreakl. We use that word here a lot, and perhaps not all the readers
know what it means. It is a portmanteau of "Creative Class", but makes use of the letter 'k',
because the letter 'c' in Russian has a soft 's' sound, so we use the hard 'k'. The Creative
Class, or so they styled themselves, were the intelligentsia of Soviet times; the free-thinking
liberals who were convinced Russia's best course lay in accommodating the west no matter its
demands, in hope that it would then bless Russia with its secrets for prosperity and all the
fruits of the American Dream.
A kreakl is a Russian liberal, often the child or grandchild of Soviet-era intellectuals
who believed they knew better than anyone else how the country should be run. They express
their disapproval of the current government in the most contemptuous way, interpret its defense
of family values as homophobia, and consider its leadership – uniformly described by the
west as 'authoritarian' – to be stifling their freedom. My position is that their often
privileged upbringing insulates them from appreciating the value of hard work, and lets them
sneer at patriotism, as they often consider themselves global citizens with a worldly grasp of
foreign affairs far greater that of their groveling, sweaty countrymen. Their university
educations allow them to rub shoulders with other pampered scions of post-Soviet affluence, and
even worse are those who are sent abroad to attend western universities, where they internalize
the notion that everyone in America and the UK lives like Skip and Buffy and their other
college friends.
Not everyone who attends university or college turns out a snobbish brat, of course, and in
Russia, at least, not everyone who gets the benefit of a superior education comes from wealth.
A significant number are on scholarships, as both my nieces were. Some western students are in
university or college on scholarships as well, and there are a good many in both places who are
higher-education students because it was their parents dream that they would be, and they saved
all their lives to make it happen.
But many of the Russian loudmouths are those who learned at their daddy's knee that he
coulda been a contendah, if only the money-grubbing, soulless monsters in the government hadn't
kept him down – could have been wealthy if it were not for the money pit of communism,
could have taken a leadership role which would have moved the country forward had the leader
who usurped power not filled all the seats with his cronies and sycophants.
Khrushcheva is somewhat an exception to the rule there, because her grandpa actually was the
leader of the Soviet Union – First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Nikita Khrushchev. It was he who oversaw the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954,
the same year the Soviet Union
applied to join NATO . Some references consider Khrushchev her grandfather, and some her
great-grandfather; it's complicated. Julia – Khrushcheva's mother – was the
daughter of Leonid, who was a fighter pilot in World War II and the son of Khrushchev. When he
was shot down in the war and did not return, Khrushchev adopted Julia. Nina Khrushcheva is
therefore his biological great-granddaughter, but his adoptive granddaughter.
Now, she's Professor of International Affairs at The New School, New York, USA, and a Senior
Fellow of the World Policy Institute, New York. As you might imagine, The New School is a
hotbed of liberal intellectualism; as its Wiki entry announces, " dedicated to academic freedom
and intellectual inquiry and a home for progressive thinkers". So let's see what a liberal and
progressive thinker thinks about the current state of affairs vis-a-vis Russia and China, and
their western opponents.
You sort of get an early feel for it from the title: "
Putin and Xi are Gambling with their Countries' Futures ". I sort of suspected, even before
I read it, that it was not going to be a story about what a great job Putin and Xi are doing as
leaders of their respective countries.
Just before we get into that a little deeper – what is the purpose of an 'Opinion'
section in a newspaper? If it was 'Facts', then it would be news, because the reporter could
substantiate it. As I best understand it, people read newspapers to learn about news –
things that happened, to who, and where, when and why, documented by someone who either saw
them happen, interviewed someone who did, or otherwise has researched the issue. 'Opinion'
sections, then, allow partisans for various philosophies to present their conclusions as if
they were facts, or to introduce disputed incidents from a standpoint which implies they are
resolved and that the author's view represents fact.
Well, hey; here's an example, in the first paragraph – "Continuing street protests
in Hong Kong and Moscow have no doubt spooked the authoritarian duo of Chinese President Xi
Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Moscow protests, the largest in many years,
must be keeping Mr. Putin up at night, or they wouldn't be dispersed with such unabated
brutality."
I suppose they have their fingers on the world's pulse at The New School, but I haven't seen
any indication at all, anywhere, that either Mr. Putin or Mr. Xi are 'spooked' about anything.
The protests in Hong Kong appear to be instigated at the urging of the USA – as usual
– with reports that the protesters are
receiving western funding , and photographs showing protest leaders apparently
meeting with the US Consul-General . Nonetheless, despite the aggressive violence displayed
by the protesters, who are certainly not peaceful, the issue seems to be mostly confined to
Hong Kong, and there have been no indications I have seen that Beijing is 'spooked' about it at
all. In fact, the position of the Chinese government seems fairly reasonable – it does
not want to see Chinese criminals escape justice by fleeing to Hong Kong.
As to whether either protests are representative of a large number of people, it is
difficult to say: organizers of the Hong Kong protests claim almost 2 million, while the police
– responsible for crowd control – say there were no more than a tenth of that
number. And if the Moscow protests really were the largest in years, those hoping to see Putin
overthrown might want to keep quiet about that; organizers claim about 50,000 people, and
organizers usually overestimate the crowd for their own reasons. Moscow is a city of over 13
million just within the city limits. So the massive crowd represents less than half of one
percent of the city's population. Polling of the protest crowd suggested more than half of them
were from outside Moscow, where who is on the city council is no concern of theirs, since they
cannot vote. And in an echo of the iconic Tahrir Square protests, an element of the 'Arab
Spring' – probably the first mass demonstrations managed by social media – the
Moscow protests appear to be
managed and directed via social media links, where it is possible to exercise
disproportionate influence on a targeted crowd of restless youth who have little or no personal
investment in the country, and just want to be part of what's cool.
Let's move on. According to Khrushcheva, the protests are 'being dispersed with unabated
brutality'. That so? Show me. Bear in mind that all these protests are unauthorized, and those
participating in them are breaking the law and in breach of the public peace. Flash violence is
an objective of the demonstrations, because otherwise their numbers are insignificant, and if
they play it by the book nobody pays them any mind. I've seen loads of pictures of the
protesters in Moscow being hauled away to the paddywagons, and nobody is bloody or has their
clothing ripped. Here are some examples (thanks, Moscow Exile).
None of those adolescents looks old enough to vote. A video clip of a Chinese policeman
using his beanbag gun to disperse protesters has been edited to omit the part where he was
swarmed by protesters who were punching him. No citizens who are in high dudgeon at what they
are being told is 'unabated brutality' would tolerate unauthorized protests by young hooligans
in their own towns for a second, and would scorn any suggestion that they are pursuing noble
goals such as freedom and democracy. Fellow demonstrators in these photos seem far more
interested in capturing every bit of the action on their phones than in assisting their
captured co-demonstrators.
By way of contrast, check out this clip of US police officers in New Jersey arresting a young woman on the
beach because there was alcohol – apparently unopened – on the same beach
blanket, which she claimed belonged to her aunt. A pretty small-potatoes issue, you would
think, compared with the fearless defense of freedom and democracy. Yet the police officers,
viewed here on their own body cameras, throw her to the ground and punch her in front of her
child although she is obviously not drunk and their breathalyzer test does not register any
alcohol on her breath. Bystanders gratuitously and repeatedly advise her, "Stop resisting".
People who complain about the way the girl is being handled are told, "Back off, or you'll be
locked up, too". For what? Which of these looks like a police state, to you? Nina Lvovna? I'm
talking to you.
The demonstrations, we are told, are a poignant sign of Putin's declining popularity. Yes,
poor old chap. In fact, Putin's approval
rating in 2019 was 64%; it was 70% in 2000, nearly 20 years ago. Just for info, Donald
Trump, the Leader Of The Free World, had an approval rating with his own voters of 44% in 2018,
and Macron was even worse at 26%. I guess a little Macron goes a long way – his
current approval rating is only 28%. His fortunes have not improved much, you might say.
Boris Johnson has not yet even properly taken the reins in the UK, but his people do not appear
optimistic; about 35% speculate
he is or will be a capable leader , while only 23% rate him more honest than most
politicians. Enjoy those, BoJo; they represent a zenith born of unreasonable hope –
The Economist describes these ratings as 'surprisingly high'. In 2018, the
Netherlands' Mark Rutte
had only 10% approval – and that was the highest of the ministers – while 34%
disapproved. Apparently about half just didn't care.
Look; Khrushcheva is talking out her ass. There just is no way to sugar-coat it. In 2015,
Vladimir Putin was
the most popular leader in the world with national voters. I daresay he is now, as well;
with the state of the world, I find it hard to imagine any other leader has an approval rating
higher than 64%. But feel free to look. Polling agencies carefully parse their questions so as
to push the results in the direction they'd like to see, but when the question is reduced to a
basic "Do you trust Putin? Yes or No?", his approval rating goes higher than it is right now.
Please note, that's the reference supplied by Khrushcheva to substantiate her statement that
fewer and fewer Russians now conflate their nation with its leader.
I don't personally recall Putin ever saying he hoped Trump would improve relations with
Russia, although it would not be an unreasonable wish had he said it. I think he was probably
glad Hillary Clinton did not win, considering her shrill Russophobic rhetoric and fondness for
military solutions to all problems, but Khrushcheva makes him sound like a doddering old fool
who barely knows what century he is living in. I think Russia always hoped for better relations
with America, because when any country's relations with America are very bad, that country
would be wise to prepare for war. Because that's how America solves its problems with other
countries. Washington already had a go at strangling Russia economically, and it failed
spectacularly, and we're getting down to the bottom of the toolbox.
Next, Khrushcheva informs us that Russia is in as weak a position to defeat the USA in a
nuclear war as it was when it was the USSR. That's true, in a roundabout way. For one, there
would be no victors or defeated in a nuclear war. It would quickly escalate to a full-on
exchange, and much of the planet would become uninhabitable. For another, Russia was always in
a pretty good position to wax America's ass in a nuclear exchange and it still is. Russia
still has about
6,800 nuclear weapons to the USA's 6,500 , and has continued to modernize and update its
nuclear arsenal through the years. A Russian strike would be concentrated on a country about a
third its size. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't like those odds. Mind you, if I were a
free-thinking liberal professor who did not have a clue what I was talking about, I would laugh
at the odds – ignorance seasoned with a superiority complex tends to make you act that
way. Just as well that betting men mostly run the world, and not jackhole liberal
professors.
The recent explosion at what was believed to be development of a new nuclear weapon in
Russia is assessed by Khrushcheva to be a clear sign of incompetence, which is quite a
diagnosis considering no investigation has even started yet. Somehow she missed the dramatic explosion of
Elon Musk's SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, together with its multi-million-dollar satellite payload,
back in 2016. Oh, never mind – Musk quickly explained that it was 'an anomaly'. Well,
that clears it all up. Must have; the US government has continued to throw money at Musk as if
he were embarrassingly naked or something, and nobody seems prepared to suggest it was
incompetent. While we're on that subject, the whole reason SpaceX even exists is because the
USA continues to use Russian RD-180 rockets developed in the 1960s to launch its satellites and
space packages into orbit, because it doesn't have anything better. I'd be careful where I
tossed that 'incompetent' word around. Cheer up, though the news isn't all bad: just a bit more
than a year ago, the most advanced commercial reactor designs from Europe and the United States
just delivered their first megawatt-hours of electricity within one day of each other. Oh,
wait. It is bad news. Because
that took place in China . You know, that place where Xi in his unabated brutality is
trampling upon the fair face of democracy. In fact, according to nuclear energy consultant
Mycle Schneider, principal author of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report, "The
Chinese have a very large workforce that they move from one project to another, so their skills
are actually getting better, whereas European and North American companies haven't completed
reactors in decades".
Is that bad? Gee; it might be. "This loss of nuclear competence is being cited by
nuclear and national security experts in both the U.S. and in Europe's nuclear weapons states
as a threat to their military nuclear programs. The White House cited this nuclear nexus in a
May memo instructing Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy, to force utilities to buy power from
unprofitable nuclear and coal plants. The memo states that the "entire US nuclear enterprise"
including nuclear weapons and naval propulsion, "depends on a robust civilian nuclear
industry." You see, Ninushka, competence in nuclear weapons is directly related to
competence in nuclear engineering as a whole.
I hope she knows more about Russia than she does about China – in a single paragraph
she has the Chinese government threatening to send in the army to crush protests, and standing
aside while thugs beat up protesters – and both are bad. And of course, this threatened
action/inaction had to have been sanctioned by Xi's government. Why? Well, because everyone in
Hong Kong knows it. Much of the rest of her reasoning – free thinking, I guess I should
call it – on China is what Xi 'might be contemplating' or 'could be considering'.
Supported by nothing, apparently, except the liberal free-thinker's gift of clairvoyance.
Hong Kong was always Chinese. The Qing dynasty ceded it to the British Empire in the Treaty
of Nanjing, and it became a British Crown Colony. Britain was back for Kowloon in 1860, and
leased what came to be known as The New Territories for 99 years, ending in 1997. Time's up.
The people of Hong Kong are Chinese; it's not like they are some different and precious race
that China aims to extinguish. I was there a decade after it returned to Chinese control, and
it was largely independent; it had its own flag, the British street names were retained, and
you can probably still stop on Gloucester Road and buy a Jaguar, if you have that kind of
money. To a very large degree, China left it alone and minded its own business, but like I
said; it's Chinese. These ridiculous western attempts to split it off and make an independent
nation of it are only making trouble for the people of Hong Kong and, as usual, appeal mostly
to students who have never run anything much bigger than a bake sale, and 'free-thinking
liberals'.
China is not 'isolated diplomatically'. Beijing is host city to 167
foreign embassies . There are only 10 more in Washington, which considers itself the Center
of the Universe. Lately China has been spreading itself a little,
muscling into Latin America , right in Uncle Sam's backyard. Foreign Direct Investment into
China increased3.6 percent
year-on-year to $78.8 billion USD in January-July 2019, and has increased steadily since
that time, when it fell dramatically owing to Trump's trade war. That has proved far more
disastrous to the USA than to China, which is rapidly sourcing its imports from other suppliers
and establishing new trading relationships which exclude the United States, probably for the
long term. "China is isolated diplomatically" is precisely the sort of inane bibble-babble
liberal free-thinkers tell each other because they want to believe it is true. It is not.
Similarly – and, I would have thought, obviously – China is also not 'increasingly
regarded as an international pariah'. That's another place she's thinking
of.
There is nothing Russia or China could do to please the United States and its increasingly
lunatic governing administration, short of plucking out its eye and offering it for a bauble,
like Benton Wolf in The Age of Miracles. The type of 'reforms' demanded by the US State
Department suggest its current state is delusion, since they are patently designed to weaken
the government and empower dissident groups – is that the essence of democracy? It sure
as fuck is not. You can kind of tell by the way Washington pounces on its own dissident groups
like Mike Pompeo on a jelly roll; the FBI investigated
the Occupy Wall Street movement as a terrorist threat. Russia got a prescient preview of
the kind of treatment it could expect from the west when it applied to join NATO, as I
mentioned at the beginning of this post. The acceptance of the Soviet Union "would be
incompatible with its democratic and defensive aims."
So as most ordinary thinkers could have told you would happen, America's
hold-my-beer-and-watch-this hillbilly moves to split Russia and China apart have succeeded in
driving them closer together; the world's manufacturing and commercial giant and a major energy
producer – a great mix, unless you are the enemy. The rest of the world is kind of
watching America with its pants around its ankles, wondering what it will do next. It failed to
wreck the Russian economy, failed to depose and replace Bashar al-Assad in Syria, failed to
depose and replace Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, and it will fail to prevent a Sino-Russian axis
which will reshape global trade to its own advantage at the expense of America. Because
whenever it has an opportunity to seize upon a lucid moment, to turn away from its destructive
course, it chooses instead to bullshit itself some more. To whisper what it wishes were true
into its own ear.
HK article gets at the nascent conflicting conflagrations wrt objectives .what is to be cast
into the fire and what is to be taken as a new HK socioeconomic script.
The comments are **well worth** reading ,some of which mirror comments on HK by Stooges. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/09/09/pers-s09.html
If Carrie Lam had half a brain, she could always threaten to bring back the extradition bill
with a new provision that people who damage essential infrastructure like railway lines and
roads, and who target police with rocks, laser beams and grenades shot from portable grenade
launchers will be extradited to Beijing to stand trial for their misdeeds, if the protesters
keep changing and ramping up their demands.
Carrie Lam chose to play it like Yanukovych, and to give the protesters what they asked for.
That resulted in Yanukovych running for his life, and Lam might well find herself in the same
situation if the police don't get a handle on the hoodlums that are smashing the place up and
hurling stones and Molotov cocktails. Appeasing protesters only makes them feel empowered,
and that empowerment causes them to wonder why they should be satisfied with only what they
originally demanded. That's a natural effect, and this is not a natural protest, but a
destabilization effort instigated and nurtured by foreign interests. So the protesters'
demands are just going to grow and grow, because the goal is either a violent clash with the
police or complete government capitulation. China is not going to let the latter happen.
Lam has said already that there will be no negotiation with groups that destroy public
property, but protesters have vowed not to give an inch. The ball is in Lam's court, and if
she does not harden up and present a credible defense, she will be removed either by China or
by the protesters. Hong Kong is not going to become a democratic independent country –
China is not going to let it be snatched away under their noses. Firm action right now might
be able to get the situation under control with a minimum of violence, but if it goes on much
longer, people are going to be killed And there is zero the west could do to stop it, as it
is a domestic Chinese matter, so their continued egging on of the protesters shows how little
it cares for their lives.
WSWS,org's reporting on the Hong Kong protests has been dismal and ideologically biased. To
my knowledge, the protesters' demands have never covered working conditions, housing
conditions and the tremendous social inequalities (said to be the highest in the world). They
have never covered the state of a tax haven economy used and abused by billionaires in
mainland China to minimise their tax obligations to Beijing or to send money to other
overseas tax havens through registering their offspring or other people as Hong Kong
residents, resulting in money being poured into property speculation which itself has led to
sky-high property prices and the inability of ordinary people to afford to buy or rent homes
of a suitable space at reasonable prices.
The protesters' initial demands were to withdraw the extradition bill, to force Carrie Lam
to resign as Chief Executive and to force her government to investigate what they claimed was
police violence – in spite of the fact that most of the violence and sabotage (which
has now extended to fighting with commuters and throwing things at them, vandalising MTR
stations and throwing rocks and objects onto train lines) has been committed by protesters
themselves – and (as if as a last thought) demanding universal suffrage.
Full 10-minute video of middle-aged and elderly commuters fighting with protesters, the
incident that led to the Prince Edward MTR station staff calling in police over the August /
September weekend to subdue and arrest protesters, some of whom attempted to evade arrest by
changing clothes:
Yes You are correct in that wsws appears to be not on its game in its analysis of the HK
situation,as was noted in some of the comments to the article. Addressing fundamental
economic disparities in HK does not seem to feature in the agenda of the protesters.
Can't wait to see the Chinese headline: "Safe in Hong Kong, Chinese Accused Murderer Wei Tu
Lukky says, 'Thanks for the Democracy, Students!" Of course you'll never see it, because no
western paper would ever print it. As far as the west is concerned, it really is all about
freedom and democracy. Like no such things as extradition treaties exist between democracies.
Canada and the United States have an extradition treaty – aren't they democracies?
Aren't they free?
What it boils down to is that westerners like Bill Browder do not want to be snatched when
they are passing through Hong Kong International Airport, and extradited to China. Westerners
do not particularly care otherwise about the rule of law in China, but the usual
troublemakers sense an opportunity to destabilize and create a problem for China. If China
soft-pedals it, as they have done, it quickly gets out of hand to the point where they are
dealing with rioters rather than protesters, smashing and destroying in an orgy of violence.
Had they cracked down hard in the beginning and kicked out all western journalists reporting
on the issue, the 'protests' would have been strangled in the cradle, and while the west
would have gotten a little mileage out of the brutal Chinese authoritarianism, it would have
been nowhere near as bad as it is now.
The 'student leaders' of the 'protests', Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow, are 22. I suppose
there might be a place somewhere in which 22-year-olds don't feel like they know everything,
but I've never heard of it. With political unit chief of the US Consulate Julie Eadeh
stroking them and telling them she's never seen anyone so brave, they can barely keep the
grins off their faces and fancy they really are somebody important. Lam did indeed flip on
the extradition issue, but it's too late for that now. She is going to learn the Yanukovych
lesson all over again – appeasing protesters, especially when it is part of a
destabilization program, only leads to more demands and more protests.
The Chinese government perhaps thought to go slow and not give the western media any money
shots to make a big issue of. That might have worked, if this was a genuine one-issue
protest. But it isn't – as i just pointed out, extradition treaties have nothing to do
with democracy and freedom, and if a bunch of students think they are going to have their own
country to play Independence Doctor in, they have a big surprise coming. Remember when
Poroshenko was justified in doing whatever he wanted, including taking students right out of
the university parking lot and putting them on a bus to Army training, because he was
'protecting his country'? Well, the Chinese government sees itself as having the same rights
where a small group of students is causing a major problem, and is blatantly violating public
order in an attempt to win western approbation; it is plainly not legal to throw stones and
gas bombs at the police and smash up public infrastructure.
You can't give people whatever they want when they are acting like hooligans – it
only makes them think of more things they want. And that's just what is happening here. If
they are not very careful, the entire Lam government is going to be replaced overnight with
hardliners, and then heads will roll.
Withdrawing the extradition bill is an easy move because Lam can always reintroduce it later
(perhaps in a changed form) though perhaps when that happens, the guy who killed his pregnant
girlfriend in Taiwan on St Valentine's Day in 2018, and used all her bank cards to clear his
own debts will have already gone free and for all we know have left Hong Kong.
Also by withdrawing the bill, Lam takes some of the wind out of the sails of the protest
movement. If the protesters are not happy over the withdrawal and ratchet up their demands
that Lam and her entire government resign, then Beijing knows this is a Color Revolution
protest movement and might start to press Hong Kong to expel British and American consular
staff stationed in the territory and shut down British and American NGOs and think-tanks
using whatever the laws of Hong Kong permit Lam to use against them. Lam may not be able to
stop the protests from escalating but she can slow them down by cutting off their funding,
advice and support.
Yes, it's curious that western governments are justified in using whatever force they feel is
necessary to put down anti-government protests, or just to keep order in general –
reports abound of ordinary people not doing anything wrong meeting up with a mean cop who
decides to slam them around a little in the process of establishing their identity, and the
aversion of the American police to bystanders filming them is well-known. But in certain
countries – and sometimes just certain governments in those countries – dispersal
of protesters or those posing as peaceful protesters is always 'brutal'. So it is in Hong
Kong, where 'pro-democracy protesters' – which is a label used to justify pretty much
any behavior – throw stones and gas bombs at police and destroy public property
(rioting by another, more palatable name). Nothing Saakashvili did to put down protests was
ever described by western media as 'brutal' in my recollection.
One reaction Americans are unaccustomed to is pity. When I meet them on the boats, traveling,
I am always extra nice to them, because I feel sorry for them. They have to go back. They're
nice people, mostly, they've never done anything to me personally. But sooner or later, they
have to go back to where those license plates were issued. They can't stay here. And I'm
sorry for them. But I would imagine most of them feel they are envied, and their citizenship
is coveted by the less-fortunate. That might be true in some third-world hellholes where
people would go anywhere to get out, but it certainly isn't so here.
The stars-and-stripes-wavers you meet in comment forums are usually blissfully ignorant,
happy in their fool's paradise where everyone wants to be an American, and resistance to
Uncle Sam's ruthless bullying is inspired by jealousy and inadequacy. For them, simply
acknowledging that Washington sometimes makes mistakes – which it's allowed to do,
because it's exceptional – is the essence of responsibility and fairness. There, I said
we aren't always right – what could be more fair? But when America invades a country
that did nothing to provoke it except refuse when it was ordered to do this or that,
sometimes things it couldn't do, like abandon the nuclear weapons program it didn't have
well, that was a mistake, but it was an honest mistake because no end of smart people the
world over agreed they did indeed have a nuclear weapons program. I mean, if you don't do
something quick, the consequences could be a mushroom cloud, ya know. And when it orders the
democratically-elected president of a country to stand down and make way for a hand-picked
replacement, it's not being arrogant. No; it's taking necessary on behalf of that leader's
benighted people, who suffer awful oppression at his hands, and America only wants them to be
free to make good choices.
A lot of those comments go unanswered; some because many of those forums now insist you
sign in with Facebook so they can go behind the scenes and see who and where you are and gain
all sorts of personal information about you, because dimwits love to blabber their entire
personal lives on Facebook. But some go unanswered simply because there is no real use in
trying to change such made-up minds. You will never dent the my-country-right-or-wrong
blathering of ignorant people who know nothing beyond what they see on CNN.
David Warner Mathisen definitely know what he is talking about due to his long military career... Freefall speed
is documented and is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally
collapsing building.
Now we need to dig into the role of Larry Silverstein in the
Building 7 collapse.
Notable quotes:
"... Below is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001. ..."
"... The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative" promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004. ..."
"... Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7 ..."
"... This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001. ..."
"... its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview. ..."
"... the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building ..."
"... Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states). ..."
"... Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day. ..."
"... In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled " Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative? " which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019. ..."
"... on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. ..."
"... Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here . ..."
"... The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare: ..."
"... David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University. ..."
Below is a video showing several film sequences
taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen
years ago on September 11, 2001.
The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative"
promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.
Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska
published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane
on September 11, 2001, and concluded that fires could not possibly have caused the collapse of that 47-story steel-frame building
-- rather, the collapse seen could have only been caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every support column (43 in number).
This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue
to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001.
Various individuals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tried to argue that the collapse of Building
7 was slower than freefall speed, but its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed,
as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an
interview
here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview.
Although the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all
the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to
prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building prior to the flight of the aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World
Trade Center (Buildings One and Two), as well as the power to cover up the evidence of this criminal activity and to deflect questioning
by government agencies and suppress the story in the mainstream news, the collapse of Building 7 is by no means the only evidence
which points to the same conclusion.
Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly
during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting
the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states).
However, eighteen years later there is simply no excuse anymore -- except for the fact that the ramifications of the admission
that the official story is a flagrant fraud and a lie are so distressing that many people cannot actually bring themselves to consciously
admit what they in fact already know subconsciously.
For additional evidence, I strongly recommend the work of the indefatigable Kevin Robert Ryan , whose blog at Dig Within should be required reading for every man and woman in the united
states -- as well as those in the rest of the world, since the ramifications of the murders of innocent men, women and children on
September 11, 2001 have led to the murders of literally millions of other innocent men, women and children around the world since
that day, and the consequences of the failure to absorb the truth of what actually took place, and the consequences of the
failure to address the lies that are built upon the fraudulent explanation of what took place on September 11, continue to
negatively impact men and women everywhere on our planet.
Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan
but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters
to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a
jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless
the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day.
I would also strongly recommend listening very carefully to the series of five interviews with Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, which can be found in the
Guns and Butterpodcast archive here . These interviews,
from 2013, are numbered 287, 288, 289, 290, and 291 in the archive.
I would in fact recommend listening to nearly every interview in that archive of Bonnie Faulkner's show, even though I do not
of course agree with every single guest nor with every single view expressed in every single interview. Indeed, if you carefully
read Kevin Ryan's blog which was linked above, you will find a
blog post by Kevin Ryan dated June 24, 2018 in which he
explicitly names James Fetzer along with Judy Woods as likely disinformation agents working to discredit and divert the efforts of
9/11 researchers. James Fetzer appears on Guns and Butter several times in the archived interview page linked above.
That article contains a number of stunning quotations about the ongoing failure to address the now-obvious lies we are being told
about the attacks of September 11. One of these quotations, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996), is particularly noteworthy --
even though I certainly do not agree with everything Carl Sagan ever said or wrote. Regarding our propensity to refuse to acknowledge
what we already know deep down to be true, Carl Sagan said:
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even
to ourselves, that we've been taken.
This quotation is from Sagan's 1995 text, The Demon-Haunted World (with which I have points of disagreement, but which
is extremely valuable for that quotation alone, and which I might suggest turning around on some of the points that Sagan was arguing
as well, as a cautionary warning to those who have accepted too wholeheartedly some of Sagan's teachings and opinions).
This quotation shows that on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept
what we already know. This internal division is actually addressed in the world's ancient myths, which consistently illustrate that
our egoic mind often refuses to acknowledge the higher wisdom we have available to us through the reality of our authentic self,
sometimes called our Higher Self. Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character
of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see
here for example,
and also here .
The important author Peter Kingsley has noted that in ancient myth, the role of the prophet was to bring awareness and acknowledgement
of that which the egoic mind refuses to see -- which is consistent with the observation that it is through our authentic self (which
already knows) that we have access to the realm of the gods. In the Iliad, for example, Dr. Kingsley notes that Apollo sends disaster
upon the Achaean forces until the prophet Calchas reveals the source of the god's anger: Agamemnon's refusal to free the young woman
Chryseis, whom Agamemnon has seized in the course of the fighting during the Trojan War, and who is the daughter of a priest of Apollo.
Until Agamemnon atones for this insult to the god, Apollo will continue to visit destruction upon those following Agamemnon.
Until we acknowledge and correct what our Higher Self already knows to be the problem, we ourselves will be out of step with the
divine realm.
If we look the other way at the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001, and deliberately
refuse to see the truth that we already know deep down in our subconscious, then we will face the displeasure of the Invisible Realm.
Just as we are shown in the ancient myths, the truth must be acknowledged and admitted, and then the wrong that has been done must
be corrected.
In the case of the mass murder perpetrated on September 11, eighteen years ago, that admission requires us to face the fact that
the "terrorists" who were blamed for that attack were not the actual terrorists that we need to be focusing on.
Please note that I am very careful not to say that "the government" is the source of the problem: I would argue that the government
is the lawful expression of the will of the people and that the government, rightly understood, is exactly what these criminal perpetrators
actually fear the most, if the people ever become aware of what is going on. The government, which is established by the Constitution,
forbids the perpetration of murder upon innocent men, women and children in order to initiate wars of aggression against countries
that never invaded or attacked us (under the false pretense that they did so). Those who do so are actually opposed to our government
under the Constitution and can be dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the Constitution, which establishes
a very clear penalty for treason.
When the people acknowledge and admit the complete bankruptcy of the lie we have been told about the attacks of September 11,
the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate repeal and dismantling of the so-called "USA PATRIOT Act" which was
enacted in the weeks immediately following September 11, 2001 and which clearly violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Additionally, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate cessation of the military operations which were
initiated based upon the fraudulent narrative of the attacks of that day, and which have led to invasion and overthrow of the nations
that were falsely blamed as being the perpetrators of those attacks and the seizure of their natural resources.
The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent
pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media
for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That human right has been grievously trampled upon under the false description of what actually took place during the September
11 attacks. Numerous technology companies have been allowed and even encouraged (and paid, with public moneys) to create technologies
which flagrantly and shamelessly violate "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and
which track their every move and even enable secret eavesdropping upon their conversation and the secret capture of video within
their homes and private settings, without any probable cause whatsoever.
When we admit and acknowledge that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, which has been falsely used as a supposed
justification for the violation of these human rights (with complete disregard for the supreme law of the land as established in
the Constitution), then we will also demand the immediate cessation of any such intrusion upon the right of the people to "be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" -- including the cessation of any business models which involve spying on men and
women.
Companies which cannot find a business model that does not violate the Bill of Rights should lose their corporate charter and
the privilege of limited liability, which are extended to them by the people (through the government of the people, by the people
and for the people) only upon the condition that their behavior as corporations do not violate the inherent rights of men and women
as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
It is well beyond the time when we must acknowledge and admit that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001
-- and that we continue to be lied to about the events of that awful day. September 11, 2001 is in fact only one such event in a
long history which stretches back prior to 2001, to other events which should have awakened the people to the presence of a very
powerful and very dangerous criminal cabal acting in direct contravention to the Constitution long before we ever got to 2001 --
but the events of September 11 are so blatant, so violent, and so full of evidence which contradicts the fraudulent narrative that
they actually cannot be believed by anyone who spends even the slightest amount of time looking at that evidence.
Indeed, we already know deep down that we have been bamboozled by the lie of the so-called "official narrative" of September 11.
But until we admit to ourselves and acknowledge to others that we've ignored the truth that we already know, then the bamboozle
still has us .
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
This is a bit like rearranging the chairs on the deck of Titanic.
The problem is we do not know who pressed Trump to appoint Bolton., Rumors were that it was Abelson. In this case nothing
changed.
The other problem with making Bolton firing a significant move is the presence in White House other neocon warmongers. So one
less doe not change the picture. For example Pompeo remains and he is no less warmongering neocon, MIC stooge, and no less
subservant to Israel then Bolton.
Notable quotes:
"... Firing National Security Advisor John Bolton gives US President Donald Trump a chance to move foreign policy in a more peaceful direction – as long as he's not replaced with another hawk, former congressman Ron Paul told RT ..."
"... Bolton has "been a monkey-wrench in Donald Trump's policies of trying to back away from some of these conflicts around the world," Paul observed on Tuesday ..."
"... "Every time I think Trump is making progress, Bolton butts in and ruins it," Paul added. Negotiations with Afghanistan and talks with North Korea and Iran have reportedly been scuttled by his aggressive tendencies, with Pyongyang declaring him a "defective human product." ..."
"... "A lot of people here didn't even want his appointment, because he was only able to take a position that did not require Senate approval," Paul said, suggesting that perhaps the "Deep State" pressure had forced the president to keep Bolton around long past his sell-by date. ..."
"... As for whether Bolton's departure would change the White House's policy line significantly, though, Paul was less certain. "I don't think it will change a whole lot," he said, pointing out that "we have no idea" who will replace Bolton. Trump said he would make an announcement next week. ..."
Firing National Security Advisor John Bolton gives US President Donald Trump a chance to
move foreign policy in a more peaceful direction – as long as he's not replaced with
another hawk, former congressman Ron Paul told RT.
Bolton has "been a monkey-wrench in Donald Trump's policies of trying to back away from some
of these conflicts around the world," Paul observed on Tuesday, after news of Bolton's
dismissal from the White House.
Also on rt.com Bolton out: Trump ditches hawkish adviser he kept for 18 months despite
'disagreements'
"Every time I think Trump is making progress, Bolton butts in and ruins it," Paul added.
Negotiations with Afghanistan and talks with North Korea and Iran have reportedly been scuttled
by his aggressive tendencies, with Pyongyang declaring him a "defective human product."
Foreign leaders weren't the only ones who had a problem with Trump's notoriously belligerent
advisor, either.
"A lot of people here didn't even want his appointment, because he was only able to take a
position that did not require Senate approval," Paul said, suggesting that perhaps the "Deep
State" pressure had forced the president to keep Bolton around long past his sell-by date.
While the uber-hawk's firing came "later than it should be," Paul hoped it would clear the
way for Trump to follow through on the America First, end-the-wars promises that won him so
much support in 2016. "Those of us who would like less intervention, we're very happy with
it."
Also on rt.com War and whiskers: Freshly-resigned John Bolton gets meme-roasting
As for whether Bolton's departure would change the White House's policy line
significantly, though, Paul was less certain. "I don't think it will change a whole lot," he
said, pointing out that "we have no idea" who will replace Bolton. Trump said he would make an
announcement next week.
"... However satisfying it may be to see him leave, whoever is picked to succeed him may not be much of an improvement. No one should cheer the chaotic and dysfunctional nature of this administration. Its boss revels in divisions and factionalism among his staff, which allows him to continue governing by his whims, kneejerk reactions and vanity. ..."
"... It is more likely that he was fired because he dented his boss's ego than because his advice was so bad: Mr Trump liked Mr Bolton's bellicose style when he saw it on Fox News, not when it clashed with his own intentions. ..."
"... The national security adviser may have been the most ferocious of the voices urging Mr Trump to turn up the pressure on Iran, but he was certainly not alone . Mr Bolton's presence in the White House was frightening. But its continued occupation by the man who hired him is much more so. ..."
"... As far as Pompeo's "moderation" goes, don't expect anything moderate. But general mailiciousness and opportunism aside, as an evangelical he'll certainly get along perfectly with Pence. ..."
The Guardian view on John Bolton: good riddance, but the problem is his
boss
Many will rightly celebrate the departure of the US national security adviser. But
however welcome the news, it reflects the deeper problems with this administration
...
However satisfying it may be to see him leave, whoever is picked to succeed him may not be
much of an improvement. No one should cheer the chaotic and dysfunctional nature of this
administration. Its boss revels in divisions and factionalism among his staff, which allows
him to continue governing by his whims, kneejerk reactions and vanity.
It is neither normal nor desirable for the national security adviser to be excluded
from meetings about Afghanistan – even if it is a relief, when the individual concerned
is (or was) Mr Bolton. It is more likely that he was fired because he dented his boss's ego
than because his advice was so bad: Mr Trump liked Mr Bolton's bellicose style when he saw it
on Fox News, not when it clashed with his own intentions.
The national security adviser may have been the most ferocious of the voices urging
Mr Trump to turn up the pressure on Iran, but he was certainly not alone . Mr Bolton's
presence in the White House was frightening. But its continued occupation by the man who
hired him is much more so.
I read that the main drivers of getting him kicked or retire himself were Mnuchin and
Pompeo, both afflicted by that nasty goofy smile disease. I am always happy when I see
Mnuchin's hands on the table, eliminating one explanation for the smile.
There is that reported sentence about Bolton - that there is no problem for which war was
not his solution. I read about similar sentence about Pompeo - that he has an IR seeker for
Donald's ass.
That written, good riddance indeed. Likely, if Bolton had his way, the US would likely be
at war with North Korea and Iran.
When I studied I was at the UNFCCC for a time during Bush Jr. presidency and talked about
what Bolton did at the UN with my superior, a 20 year UN veteran.
A 'malicious saboteur arsonist' is a polite summary of what he did there directly and
indirectly, and with given his flirt with MEK and regime change in Iran he has likely not
changed at all.
As far as Pompeo's "moderation" goes, don't expect anything moderate. But general
mailiciousness and opportunism aside, as an evangelical he'll certainly get along perfectly
with Pence.
I don't usually find much value at the Atlantic but this article (written before Trump even
fired Bolton) about Trump's FP timeline (and flip flops) and Bolton who was acting like he
was President is very, very good.
It will allow Trump loyalist to more easily support Trump and give everyone else a tad bit of
hope that Trump really won't go bonkers and start any wars.
Since President Trump appears to talk about things and stuff with Tucker Carlson, perhaps he
should ask Tucker Carlson to spend a week thinking . . . and then offer the President some
names and the reasoning for offering those names.
If the President asks the same Establishment who gave him Bolton, he will just be handed
another Bolton. "Establishment" include Pence, who certainly supported Bolton's outlook on
things and would certainly recommend another "Bolton" figure if asked. Let us hope Pence is
not consulted on Bolton's successor.
different clue,
re "Let us hope Pence is not consulted on Bolton's successor."
Understandable point of view but then, Trump still is Trump. He can just by himself and
beyond advice easily find suboptimal solutions of his own.
Today I read that Richard Grenell was mentioned as a potential sucessor.
As far as that goes, go for it. Many people here will be happy when he "who always only
sais what the Whitehouse sais" is finally gone.
And with Trump's biggest military budget in the world he can just continue the arms sale
pitches that are and were such a substantial part of his job as a US ambassador in
Germany.
That said, they were that after blathering a lot about that we should increase our
military budget by 2%, 4%, 6% or 10%, buy US arms, now, and of course the blathering about
Northstream 1 & 2 and "slavedom to russian oil & gas" and rather buy US frack gas of
course.
He could then also take a side job for the fracking industry in that context. And buy
frack gas and arms company stocks. Opportunities, opportunities ...
If you think that Russia or China or Iran takes this clown show seriously or trusts in
word one Washington will follow through on what they say i have a bridge to sell you.
even during Obama's second term it was clear Putin and his staff did not trust the Obama
administration to tell the truth about the weather let alone anything important.
to get anything done now with Russia or China or Iran i suspect its become impossible. all
that's left between Washington, Moscow and Beijing is to avoid a nuclear ww3.
we have an impasse which is impossible to bridge. Russia and China are creating a new
world order for those that become a part that's philosophically, morally and economically
incompatible with the one Washington and its European vassals are trying to sustain.
only one winner will emerge from the struggle and i do not mean war although that is not
impossible once one side reaches denouement point of economic degradation.
Its said a reputation arrives on foot and departs on horseback and with ours all you
can see now is the tail wafting the air.
September
11, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. Note that for all
of Trump's considerable faults, including hiring John Bolton in the first place and taking too
long to get rid of him, Bolton's opposition to finding a way for the US to extricate itself
from the war in Afghanistan was reportedly the last straw.
When the conflict that the Vietnamese refer to as the American War ended in April 1975, I
was a U.S. Army captain attending a course at Fort Knox, Kentucky. In those days, the student
body at any of our Army's myriad schools typically included officers from the Army of the
Republic of Vietnam (ARVN).
Since ARVN's founding two decades earlier, the United States had assigned itself the task of
professionalizing that fledgling military establishment. Based on a conviction that the
standards, methods, and ethos of our armed forces were universally applicable and readily
exportable, the attendance of ARVN personnel at such Army schools was believed to contribute to
the professionalizing of the South Vietnamese military.
Evidence that the U.S. military's own professional standards had recently taken a hit --
memories of the
My Lai massacre were then still fresh -- elicited no second thoughts on our part.
Association with American officers like me was sure to rub off on our South Vietnamese
counterparts in ways that would make them better soldiers. So we professed to believe, even
while subjecting that claim to no more scrutiny than we did the question of why most of us had
spent a year or more of our lives participating in an obviously misbegotten and misguided war
in Indochina.
For serving officers at that time one question in particular remained off-limits (though it
had been posed incessantly for years by antiwar protestors in the streets of America): Why
Vietnam? Prizing compliance as a precondition for upward mobility, military service rarely
encourages critical thinking.
On the day that Saigon, the capital of the Republic of Vietnam, fell and that country ceased
to exist, I approached one of my ARVN classmates, also a captain, wanting at least to
acknowledge the magnitude of the disaster that had occurred. "I'm sorry about what happened to
your country," I told him.
I did not know that officer well and no longer recall his name. Let's call him Captain
Nguyen. In my dim recollection, he didn't even bother to reply. He simply looked at me with an
expression both distressed and mournful. Our encounter lasted no more than a handful of
seconds. I then went on with my life and Captain Nguyen presumably with his. Although I have no
inkling of his fate, I like to think that he is now retired in Southern California after a
successful career in real estate. But who knows?
All I do know is that today I recall our exchange with a profound sense of embarrassment and
even shame. My pathetic effort to console Captain Nguyen had been both presumptuous and
inadequate. Far worse was my failure -- inability? refusal? -- to acknowledge the context
within which that catastrophe was occurring: the United States and its armed forces had, over
years, inflicted horrendous harm on the people of South Vietnam.
In reality, their defeat was our defeat. Yet while we had decided that we were done paying,
they were going to pay and pay for a long time to come.
Rather than offering a fatuous expression of regret for the collapse of his country, I ought
to have apologized for having played even a miniscule role in what was, by any measure, a
catastrophe of epic proportions. It's a wonder Captain Nguyen didn't spit in my eye.
I genuinely empathized with Captain Nguyen. Yet the truth is that, along with most other
Americans, soldiers and civilians alike, I was only too happy to be done with South Vietnam and
all its troubles. Dating back to the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the United States and
its armed forces had made a gargantuan effort to impart legitimacy to the Republic of Vietnam
and to coerce the Democratic Republic of Vietnam to its north into giving up its determination
to exercise sovereignty over the entirety of the country. In that, we had failed spectacularly
and at a staggering cost.
"Our" war in Indochina -- the conflict we chose to call the Vietnam War -- officially ended
in January 1973 with the signing in Paris of an "Agreement Ending the War and Restoring Peace
in Vietnam." Under the terms of that fraudulent pact, American prisoners of war were freed from
captivity in North Vietnam and the last U.S. combat troops in the south left for home,
completing a withdrawal begun several years earlier. Primary responsibility for securing the
Republic of Vietnam thereby fell to ARVN, long deemed by U.S. commanders incapable of
accomplishing that mission.
Meanwhile, despite a nominal cessation of hostilities, approximately 150,000 North
Vietnamese regulars still occupied a large swathe of South Vietnamese territory -- more or less
the equivalent to agreeing to end World War II when there were still several German panzer tank
divisions lurking in Belgium's Ardennes Forest. In effect, our message to our enemy and
our ally was this: We're outta here; you guys sort this out . In a bit more than two
years, that sorting-out process would extinguish the Republic of Vietnam.
Been There, Done That
The course Captain Nguyen and I were attending in the spring of 1975 paid little attention
to fighting wars like the one that, for years, had occupied the attention of my army and his.
Our Army, in fact, was already moving on. Having had their fill of triple-canopy jungles in
Indochina, America's officer corps now turned to defending the Fulda Gap, the region in West
Germany deemed most hospitable to a future Soviet invasion. As if by fiat, gearing up to fight
those Soviet forces and their Warsaw Pact allies, should they (however improbably) decide to
take on NATO and lunge toward the English Channel, suddenly emerged as priority number one. At
Fort Knox and throughout the Army's ranks, we were suddenly focused on "high-intensity combined
arms operations" -- essentially, a replay of World War II-style combat with fancier weaponry.
In short, the armed forces of the United States had reverted to "real soldiering."
And so it is again today. At the end of the 17th year of what Americans commonly call the
Afghanistan War -- one wonders what name Afghans will eventually assign it -- U.S. military
forces are moving on. Pentagon planners are
shifting their attention back to Russia and China. Great power competition has become the
name of the game. However we might define Washington's evolving purposes in its Afghanistan War
-- "nation building," "democratization," "pacification" -- the likelihood of mission
accomplishment is nil. As in the early 1970s, so in 2019, rather than admitting failure, the
Pentagon has chosen to change the subject and is once again turning its attention to "real
soldiering."
Remember the infatuation with counterinsurgency (commonly known by its acronym COIN) that
gripped the national security establishment around 2007 when the Iraq "surge" overseen by
General David Petraeus briefly ranked alongside Gettysburg as a historic victory? Well, these
days promoting COIN as the new American way of war has become, to put it mildly, a tough sell.
Given that few in Washington will openly acknowledge the magnitude of the military failure in
Afghanistan, the incentive for identifying new enemies in settings deemed more congenial
becomes all but irresistible.
Only one thing is required to validate this reshuffling of military priorities. Washington
needs to create the appearance, as in 1973, that it's exiting Afghanistan on its own terms.
What's needed, in short, is an updated equivalent of that "Agreement Ending the War and
Restoring Peace in Vietnam."
Until last weekend, the signing of such an agreement seemed imminent. Donald Trump and his
envoy,
former ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, appeared poised to repeat the trick that
President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger pulled off in 1973 in
Paris: pause the war and call it peace. Should fighting subsequently resume after a "decent
interval," it would no longer be America's problem. Now, however, to judge by the president's
twitter
account -- currently the authoritative record of U.S. diplomacy -- the proposed deal has
been postponed, or perhaps shelved, or even abandoned altogether. If National Security Advisor
John Bolton
has his way , U.S. forces might just withdraw in any case, without an agreement of any sort
being signed.
Based on what we can divine from press reports, the
terms of that prospective Afghan deal would mirror those of the 1973 Paris Accords in one
important respect. It would, in effect, serve as a ticket home for the remaining U.S. and NATO
troops still in that country (though for the present
only the first 5,000 of them would immediately depart). Beyond that, the Taliban was to
promise not to provide sanctuary to anti-American terrorist groups, even though the Afghan
branch of ISIS is already
firmly lodged there. Still, this proviso would allow the Trump administration to claim that
it had averted any possible recurrence of the 9/11 terror attacks that were, of course, planned
by Osama bin Laden while residing in Afghanistan in 2001 as a guest of the Taliban-controlled
government.
Mission accomplished , as it were.
Back in 1973, North Vietnamese forces occupying parts of South Vietnam neither disarmed nor
withdrew. Should this new agreement be finalized, Taliban forces currently controlling or
influencing significant
swaths of Afghan territory will neither disarm nor withdraw. Indeed, their
declared intention is to continue fighting.
In 1973, policymakers in Washington were counting on ARVN to hold off Communist forces. In
2019, almost no one expects Afghan security forces to hold off a threat consisting of both the
Taliban and ISIS. In a final insult, just as the Saigon government was excluded from U.S.
negotiations with the North Vietnamese, so, too, has the Western-installed government in Kabul
been excluded from U.S. negotiations with its sworn enemy, the Taliban.
A host of uncertainties remain. As with the olive branches that President Trump has
ostentatiously offered to Russia, China, and North Koea, this particular peace initiative may
come to naught -- or, given the approach of the 2020 elections, he may decide that Afghanistan
offers his last best hope of claiming at least one foreign policy success. One way or another,
in all likelihood, the deathwatch for the U.S.-backed Afghan government has now begun. One
thing only is for sure. Having had their fill of Afghanistan, when the Americans finally leave,
they won't look back. In that sense, it will be Vietnam all over again.
What Price Peace?
However great my distaste for President Trump, I support his administration's efforts to
extricate the United States from Afghanistan. I do so for the same reason I supported the Paris
Peace Accords of 1973. Prolonging this folly any longer does not serve U.S. interests. Rule
number one of statecraft ought to be: when you're doing something really stupid, stop. To my
mind, this rule seems especially applicable when the lives of American soldiers are at
stake.
In Vietnam, Washington wasted 58,000 of those lives for nothing. In Afghanistan, we have
lost more than 2,300
troops , with another 20,000 wounded, again for next to nothing. Last month, two American
Special Forces soldiers were killed in a
firefight in Faryab Province. For what?
That said, I'm painfully aware of the fact that, on the long-ago day when I offered Captain
Nguyen my feeble condolences, I lacked the imagination to conceive of the trials about to
befall his countrymen. In the aftermath of the American War, something on the order of
800,000
Vietnamese took to open and unseaworthy boats to flee their country. According to estimates
by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, between 200,000 and 400,000 boat people
died at sea. Most of those who survived were destined to spend years in squalid refugee camps
scattered throughout Southeast Asia. Back in Vietnam itself, some 300,000 former ARVN officers
and South Vietnamese officials were imprisoned in so-called reeducation camps for up to 18
years. Reconciliation did not rank high on the postwar agenda of the unified country's new
leaders.
Meanwhile, for the Vietnamese, north and south, the American War has in certain ways only
continued. Mines and unexploded ordnance left from that war have inflicted more than 100,000
casualties since the last American troops departed. Even today, the toll caused by Agent
Orange and other herbicides that the U.S. Air Force sprayed with abandon over vast stretches of
territory continues to mount. The Red Cross calculates that more than one million Vietnamese have suffered
health problems, including serious birth defects and cancers as a direct consequence of the
promiscuous use of those poisons as weapons of war.
For anyone caring to calculate the moral responsibility of the United States for its actions
in Vietnam, all of those would have to find a place on the final balance sheet. The 1.3 million
Vietnamese admitted to the United States as immigrants since the American War formally
concluded can hardly be said to make up for the immense damage suffered by the people of
Vietnam as a direct or indirect result of U.S. policy.
As to what will follow if Washington does succeed in cutting a deal with the Taliban, well,
don't count on President Trump (or his successor for that matter) welcoming anything like 1.3
million Afghan refugees to the United States once a "decent interval" has passed. Yet again,
our position will be: we're outta here; you guys sort this out.
Near the end of his famed novel, The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald described two
of his privileged characters, Tom and Daisy, as "careless people" who "smashed up things and
creatures" and then "retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness" to "let other
people clean up the mess they had made." That description applies to the United States as a
whole, especially when Americans tire of a misguided war. We are a careless people. In Vietnam,
we smashed up things and human beings with abandon, only to retreat into our money, leaving
others to clean up the mess in a distinctly bloody fashion.
Count on us, probably sooner rather than later, doing precisely the same thing in
Afghanistan.
Bacevich is right. Vietnam was a tragedy. Here we are at Ground Hog Day in
Afghanistan.
I was touched by the author's recollection of Capt Nguyen. I well know that awful moment
when , reflecting on some past event, I have recognised my own actions as insensitive, crass
and unfeeling. How do we get so wrapped-up in ourselves that the feelings of others hardly
impinge on our sensitivities? What happened to society? Is that where the West has gone
wrong?
Btw, quote "to judge by the president's twitter account -- currently the authoritative
record of U.S. diplomacy" unquote. I hope those owning the Twitter Nest note the future use
of their archive.
Andrew Bacevich is right. However, there is an amazing human disinclination to face facts
but live with delusions which risk extinction for immediate gratification. The lessons from
Vietnam were never learned. The Bush/Cheney fateful decision to occupy Afghanistan at the
same time as invading Iraq ultimately led to the current predatory corporate military rule
that will never voluntarily withdraw from overseas. The intent of the media/intelligence coup
against the President is to prevent peace from breaking out. Executives and wealthy
shareholders would lose their taxpayer gravy train. The troops and contractors now in Eastern
Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are expendable. They will not have two years to get out. No
planning, deep-sixing science, and profits over safety all assure that sooner or later there
will be another black swan event. Be it Brexit, closure of Strait of Hormuz, subprime auto
loans, WWIII, or climate change, assuredly something will give the final push and the
American Empire will collapse.
"Après moi, le déluge! is the watchword of every capitalist and of every
capitalist nation. Hence Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer,
unless under compulsion from society."
Prof. Bacevich is very perceptive and he writes well; his essays are always worth reading.
Nevertheless, he is a retired US Army officer after all and there is that thing about
leopards and spots. There is a tell in this article, when he speaks of the day that Saigon
'fell'. I too remember well that day in April of '75. I was studying in Madison, on the GI
Bill. My friends and I all rejoiced on that day, as Saigon had finally been 'liberated'.
Why rejoice? The point should be that the US had no business in Vietnam, not that one
group finally succeeded in uniting the country under the rule of one dictatorial party. Not
all Vietnamese welcomed the "liberation" and many died fleeing the country.
I am sure this will be misunderstood, so I'll add that I think that the US role was one
massive war crime and we never should have been there at all, that Ho Chi Minh probably would
have won a fair election in the 1950's etc
Being antiwar has nothing necessarily to do with favoring the side our government opposes.
It simply means that there is no moral justification for the US invading Vietnam or Iraq,
supporting jihadists in Syria, helping the Saudis and the Israelis bomb civilians, and so
on.
Prof. Bacevich has an personal stake in what he writes about. His son, Lt. Andrew John
Bacevich, was killed in action by an IED during the occupation back in 2007. He was already a
severe critic of the war at the time but I am guessing that this underlined the futility of
it tall.
Although it is true that the willing of Trump to put an end to the Afghan occupation must
be seen as a positive, his policy of ever increasing military budgets make this affirmation
from Bacevich "the incentive for identifying new enemies in settings deemed more congenial
becomes all but irresistible" truer that ever. These expenditures must be justified in
practical terms and It worries me what the new enemies in Trump's brain are.
Ha, ha hah!
Yes, Hollywood has made a big effort to explain us, the common people, that US's military
expenses will protect us from Centaurians, Klingons, meteorites and some other rogue
invaders. I cannot imagine any other reason.
> Prizing compliance as a precondition for upward mobility, military service rarely
encourages critical thinking.
John Boyd: "And you're going to have to make a decision about which direction you want to
go." He raised his hand and pointed. "If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have
to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a
member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments." Then Boyd
raised his other hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can do
something -- something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you
decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good
assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to
compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might
make a difference. To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call.
That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?" [Robert
Coram]
Which is worse? Living in a cave in Afghanistan or living in a prison in Europe/US?
If the invasion of Afghanistan was about capturing some people and then imprisoning them then
that question might possibly be relevant.
If the invasion was about prestige then sometimes the best revenge and biggest insult is to
treat that someone as irrelevant and insignificant. If the opportunity presents itself to do
something then by all means do something, do what prestige demands but if that does not
happen then what?
Sometimes the measure of someone is had by the measure of his/her enemies. Giving someone the
significance of being the enemy might provide that someone with a better life. There are
people with money who'd be willing to fund the enemy of their enemy. But how do those
financiers know if they are funding some chancers/charlatans or the real thing? Spread some
uncertainty about who are charlatans/chancers and see what happens to the funding . Maybe the
guilty ones might feel it necessary to publicly provide the necessary proof of their guilt,
doubtful but & if the location of them is found then threaten closure of the diplomatic
missions of the nation where they are unless they are handed over. The diplomatic missions
are cushy positions and closing them will only hurt the 'elite', the general population is
left unharmed.
Afghanistan is unlikely to change anytime soon. As with all predictions of the future that
one might be very wrong. However, the ones predicting that Afghanistan can and will change
due to military occupation are in my opinion the ones who need to somehow provide support for
their prediction.
A few predictions here. After the US and the rest of the Coalition leaves Afghanistan, not
much happens for awhile. But then the government starts to lose ground. Slowly at first, and
then quickly. Eventually Kabul falls. Long before then the US and other countries would have
had evacuated their embassies so that there is no repeat of the frantic helicopter
evacuations like happened in Saigon. There is a swell of refugees, particularly those who
worked with the Coalition but Trump refuses all entry of them into the US saying that there
are "very bad people and some very bad gang members and some very, very bad drug dealers" in
Afghanistan.
Five years after the last troops are out of Afghanistan the war is all but forgotten in the
same way that the vets of the Korean War were forgotten. Not for nothing did they call Korea
the "Forgotten War.' By then the US is immersed in another campaign – probably in
Africa – and news about what is happening in Afghanistan is relegated to the back
pages. The vets will remember, but the nation will ignore them in the same way that Vietnam
vets were forgotten after that war ended until the striking Vietnam Veterans Memorial was
built in Washington by the vets themselves. In West Point text books, the war is relegated to
the back pages as the cadets will instead study peer warfare with Russia and China.
One very important question remains.
By 2001 the Taliban had reduced opium production to virtually zero. Every year since the
US/NATO invasion, opium production has increased.
What will the Afghans do when the US and British are no longer around to facilitate the
heroin trade? Perhaps that's why negotiations are proving so difficult.
The Taliban banned the cultivation of opium in 2001, shortly before being ousted by the
US-led NATO coalition. However, after 2005, the Taliban began to regroup, and encouraged
opium production to finance its insurgency by forcing locals to grow opium and punishing
those who refused. Besides, major opium traffickers annually pay vast amounts to the
Taliban in exchange for safe transport routes secured by the group.
The Taliban uses the money it collects from the opium trade to pay fighters' salaries,
buy fuel, food, weapons and explosives. Based on some reports, around 40% of the Taliban's
funding comes from opium production, while the rest of its expenditure is borne by foreign
patrons and tax collections. The group's annual income from the opium trade was estimated
to be $400 million in 2011, but it is believed to have significantly increased in recent
years.
The Taliban collect two types of taxes from opium businesses: a transportation tax from
drug trafficking and a 10% tax from opium cultivation. In exchange, the group provides
security for the drug convoys and carries out attacks on government institutions like
checkpoints in order to allow drug convoys to pass. The group has also launched attacks on
government forces to safeguard drug labs and factories.
The Taliban don't need US/UK to facilitate things. In fact, getting the US out of the
country might eliminate one of their major Heroin-related business rivals, the CIA.
Bacevich states, "Rule number one of statecraft ought to be: when you're doing something
really stupid, stop. To my mind, this rule seems especially applicable when the lives of
American soldiers are at stake. In Vietnam, Washington wasted 58,000 of those lives for
nothing."
Why does he find his rule especially applicable to the paltry number of US dead, given that
at least fifty times as many Indochinese died?
This attitude is surely one reason for the loathing felt by much of the world toward the USA.
People are justifiably sick of hearing how US lives are inherently more valuable than their
own.
" That said, I'm painfully aware of the fact that, on the long-ago day when I offered
Captain Nguyen my feeble condolences, I lacked the imagination to conceive of the trials
about to befall his countrymen. In the aftermath of the American War, something on the order
of 800,000 Vietnamese took to open and unseaworthy boats to flee their country. According to
estimates by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, between 200,000 and 400,000
boat people died at sea. Most of those who survived were destined to spend years in squalid
refugee camps scattered throughout Southeast Asia. Back in Vietnam itself, some 300,000
former ARVN officers and South Vietnamese officials were imprisoned in so-called reeducation
camps for up to 18 years. Reconciliation did not rank high on the postwar agenda of the
unified country's new leaders.
Meanwhile, for the Vietnamese, north and south, the American War has in certain ways only
continued. Mines and unexploded ordnance left from that war have inflicted more than 100,000
casualties since the last American troops departed. Even today, the toll caused by Agent
Orange and other herbicides that the U.S. Air Force sprayed with abandon over vast stretches
of territory continues to mount. The Red Cross calculates that more than one million
Vietnamese have suffered health problems, including serious birth defects and cancers as a
direct consequence of the promiscuous use of those poisons as weapons of war.
For anyone caring to calculate the moral responsibility of the United States for its
actions in Vietnam, all of those would have to find a place on the final balance sheet. The
1.3 million Vietnamese admitted to the United States as immigrants since the American War
formally concluded can hardly be said to make up for the immense damage suffered by the
people of Vietnam as a direct or indirect result of U.S. policy ."
Note in particular the phrase "the people of Vietnam" in the last sentence. I find your
criticism to be unwarranted.
I neither missed nor ignored Bacevich's caveat.
I was focusing on his 'rule number one', which seems to make the lives of a few US soldiers
more sacred than those of the many people – civilians as well as soldiers – they
kill.
I am not trying to say that Bacevich is as evil and abhorrent as say Bolton. I don't think he
is, though I suspect he's on the same side when it comes down to it.
I am suggesting that the USA will fail to win the hearts and minds of the world's people
while killing them and belittling their deaths.
(and you might note the phrase "can hardly be said to make up for" in the last
sentence!)
As I remember the movie Dr. Strangelove, as the USA nuclear weapon was launched toward
Russia, Russia was given an option to destroy some USA cities as a way of the USA doing fair
and suitable penance.
I don't imagine the USA's military is viewed in the world as other than operating in the
USA elites' interests, despite any media (Cable, internet, print,Hollywood films) verbiage
about "bringing democracy" or "bringing freedom" to other nations.
I believe the Peace Corps was established as a way to make the world a better place with
USA's expertise and as a way to win "hearts and minds of the world's people".
If you fund, arm, and train an army for a decade and it still can't defend itself against
insurgents, then you have to wonder whose side is right? If it actually had the backing of
the people on the ground and dedicated troops and government, then it should be able to hold
its ground well.
The US has had exactly the same outcomes in Vietnam and Afghanistan with training the
respective armies.
In Iraq, it is largely coherent tribal entities of Kurds and Shiites that have been
providing the backbone of relatively successful military organizations (not the same one
despite being in the same country). Both groups have their own independent goals. The US
forefeited its abiltiy to create a true national army in Iraq when they disbanded the former
Iraqi Army shortly after invading. That resulted in a well-trained insurgency.
"The US has had exactly the same outcomes in Vietnam and Afghanistan with training the
respective armies."
Hardly. From 1979 the US funded, armed and trained the Mujaheddin, who won. I'm not aware of
them funding, arming or training the Viet Cong or Viet Minh.
They didn't win when they backed the losing sides, that's true. But it isn't saying much
beyond the obvious.
I like Bacevich but he really demurred from making his underlying point. He asked "Why
Vietnam" and then he proceeded to fluff through that question. But the analogy to Afghanistan
remains at a much deeper level. That level (imo) is this: Why Vietnam? Because, at that
hysterical cold war turning point, Vietnam was the gateway to Southern China (Gore Vidal).
Our main objective was to position ourselves to invade Southern China and protect the old
imperialist interests of the UK and France (aka Nato). But we dithered and hesitated. Thank
god. It could have been a much worse debacle. So here it is: We invaded Afghanistan and sent
a zillion dollars worth of materiel to Iraq in order to take over the Middle East. And that
meant invading Iran. But just like China, Iran was a dangerous plan. Too many things could go
wrong, so everyone knew they would go wrong. Duh. And so we dithered and hesitated. And made
up for it by blatant propaganda for 15 years. We're "outta there" because we should never
have been in there. And one of the tragedies is our abandonment of the Kurds. Just like the
South Vietnamese. Bacevich didn't mention the Kurds. He implied our abandonment would upset
the poor Afghans. But, they won't care at all. They'll be flipping all of our departing
helicopters the bird. Still there was a point to be made about our fecklessness. Interesting
aside here that Bacevich, a well thought-out moral person, is the new President of the Quincy
Institute. It will probably become famous for deep, murky contradictions. And pompous
rationalizations without ever really making the point. Just to the taste of Soros and the
Kochs.
I suspect, re Afghanistan, there is an upside that will never be made into a finer point.
That is, we have worn out the appetite for a wider war for all concerned and managed to come
to agreement with all parties of interest in Middle East oil. Including Russia. And Israel.
And nobody will make much fuss about it, but we will still leave a very high-tech military
contingent in Afghanistan because Eurasia is a vast opportunity.
Vietnam War strictly motivated by the "Domino Theory" and "monolithic Asian communism",
per Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, et al. Kennedy was said to be having "second thoughts" about
expanded US presence at the time of his assassination; however, LBJ went all-in, urged on by
McNamara and the generals 11 years later it all went tits-up, Nixon ended the draft, all
relatively quiet on the war front, then Carter and Brzezinski funded Islamic militants in
Afghanistan to harry the Russkies and ca. 20yrs later, Cheney-Bush repeat the Russian
quagmire plus ça change etc" .
The author is too limited in his appraisals of USA wars, and the commentariat here too
polite to expand on the list of the criminal wars waged by the USA since Vietnam.
Iraq and Afghanistan were mentioned, yes, but there were also open wars of aggression
against Yugoslavia, then Serbia, Grenada and Libya as well as clandestine wars against a good
chunk of the globe, Israel/Palestine, Russian backyard countries, China, Venezuela, a swathe
of Central American countries, and so on ad infinitum.
USA's holy grail of subjugating all oil producing countries in the world, except for those
that can fight back, and purported payment to those unable to fight back, with readily
printable papers of questionable value, is not a long term strategy. Not long term as in 10
or 20 more years. Then what? John Bolton or his clone on a cocktail of steroids and
amphetamine, lobbing nuclear weapons indiscriminately all over the place?
"... Footage from the city also documented flagrant acts of vandalism targeting the infrastructure and public transportation. In one video, a staircase was spray-painted with an inspiring message, "fight for freedom," accompanied by a swastika. ..."
"... The protesters – many of them masked and armed with metal rods and clubs – also erected street barricades, which were then set ablaze. Police used tear gas to disperse the unruly crowds. ..."
"... Videos – not always publicized by the mainstream media – also show aftermath of vandalism as anti-government unrest enters its 14th week. ..."
"... Beijing has repeatedly accused Washington of fueling the political turmoil, a claim that became more difficult to refute after a senior American diplomat was seen meeting with protest leaders. ..."
"... With their direct appeal to Trump, it appears that many of the protesters are not interested in negotiating directly with the government. Hong Kong had already officially withdrawn the controversial extradition bill with China that sparked the unrest. ..."
Hong Kong protesters rallied in their thousands and clashed with police in fresh unrest.
They even called on Washington to "liberate" them from Chinese rule, suggesting some may now
view the US as their patron. Thousands of demonstrators marched to the US Consulate in Hong
Kong on Sunday, in what they said was an appeal to President Donald Trump to intervene in the
weeks-long political turmoil. Videos of the rally show protesters waving American flags as they
sing the US national anthem and play 'The Star Spangled Banner' through the speakers on their
phones.
People also carried banners, urging Trump to "liberate" Hong Kong. American lawmakers
are currently mulling the so-called 'Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act'. The legislation
would require Washington to annually assess Hong Kong's level of autonomy from Beijing and
react with economic countermeasures if self-rule is compromised.
Some signs of protest used to drum up support for the cause have raised questions about the
factual accuracy of the messaging. According to the Global Times, a banner attached to an
overpass erroneously claimed that "China owes America $1 trillion."
#HK radical protesters
fail to get the facts right on a banner which states that "China owes US$1 trillion." Here is
a free lesson: As of May, the US owes China about $1.11 trillion, not the other way round.
#香港pic.twitter.com/hky6WCDJqA
Footage from the city also documented flagrant acts of vandalism targeting the
infrastructure and public transportation. In one video, a staircase was spray-painted with an
inspiring message, "fight for freedom," accompanied by a swastika.
The protesters – many of them masked and armed with metal rods and clubs – also
erected street barricades, which were then set ablaze. Police used tear gas to disperse the
unruly crowds.
Beijing has repeatedly accused Washington of fueling the political turmoil, a claim that
became more difficult to refute after a senior American diplomat was seen meeting with protest
leaders.
With their direct appeal to Trump, it appears that many of the protesters are not interested
in negotiating directly with the government. Hong Kong had already officially withdrawn the
controversial extradition bill with China that sparked the unrest.
Hong Kong protest figurehead Joshua Wong, who has been rocking up to 'pro-democracy'
meetings with various Western officials in recent weeks, has been spotted hanging out with the
chairman of the White Helmets in Berlin. Wong attended the 'Bild 100' summer party in Berlin
this week, where he seems to have bumped into White Helmets boss Raed Al Saleh. That's a tad
awkward, since the Syrian first-responders group operates solely in areas controlled by
anti-government fighters and has been heavily suspected of
links to Al Qaeda and US-sponsored jihadist militias – a fact that did not go
unnoticed on Twitter.
There was another familiar face in the snaps, too: Mayor of Kiev Vitaly Klitschko, who was,
for a time, himself a Western favorite when Ukraine was in Washington's regime-change
crosshairs.
But Wong has had some questionable high-level meetings, too. He also met German Foreign
Minister Heiko Maas at the event – with that tete-a-tete quickly slammed by Beijing.
These meetings come on the heels of photos showing Wong speaking to
Julie Eadeh, an official from the US consulate general in Hong Kong, which raised more
suspicions that Washington had a hand in the recent violent anti-China protests
"... Watch for persons disguised as Red Chinese troops attacking the local Hong Kong radio station. ..."
"... A lot of countries are getting involved. Last Sunday there were many protesters who didn't even speak Cantonese! They were Mandarin speakers from Taiwan and when the crowd shouted to "Run away" (from the approaching police) they just stood and looked confused. Obviously the western MSM hasn't bothered to mention the point. They want you to think it is still HK students. BS!! ..."
"... German government is actually working for US and CIA. Nevermind the fact that German elites are supporting EU breaking away from USA and detest Trump. ..."
"... Your dislike of China blinds you to simple facts like Germany is a vassal of usa that is still under ww2 military occupation . Small domestic differences are allowed in all politics to give the illusion of choice. But tyranny gets a vote everytime. Democracy is a buzzword that died a long time ago in all countries. ..."
"... German government is actually working for US and CIA ..."
A lot of countries are getting involved. Last Sunday there were many protesters who didn't
even speak Cantonese! They were Mandarin speakers from Taiwan and when the crowd shouted to
"Run away" (from the approaching police) they just stood and looked confused. Obviously the
western MSM hasn't bothered to mention the point. They want you to think it is still HK
students. BS!!
All one needs to do is look at the fake protesters, the signs, the violent behaviors, the
top leaders' contacts in the US consulate, the White Hats, and elsewhere, and it is clear and
obvious who leads, funds and directs the destructive rioting scum bags.
The PRC needs to close the US and all EU consulates, terminate the HK-SAR, bring in a
hundred thousand tough well-disciplined PLA soldiers who will in an hour put a stop to this
US-directed garbage.
China insisted that Hong Kong be removed from the UN's list of territories that needed to
be decolonised prior to hand-over by the UK. Now China along with Russia, Cuba, Syria and
Iran are members of the UN decolonisation committee that is meant to assist territories to
decolonise. How strange democracy is.
The militant, unconstitutional and ineffective committee.
So according to the irrational narrative of the China Media now, German government is
actually working for US and CIA. Nevermind the fact that German elites are supporting EU
breaking away from USA and detest Trump.
The Chinese Journalists must have received detailed fake news training from CNN and
NBC
Your dislike of China blinds you to simple facts like Germany is a vassal of usa that is
still under ww2 military occupation . Small domestic differences are allowed in all politics
to give the illusion of choice. But tyranny gets a vote everytime. Democracy is a buzzword
that died a long time ago in all countries.
Your love of China blinds you to the facts that EU and US are bastions of freedom, and not
every single incident is a ******* conspiracy of the US and EU.
Also, I think you need to look up the word 'vassal'. Wrong time period & context.
"... But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive, influential Mercer billionaires. ..."
"... Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't. ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon interventionist. ..."
"... It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One. ..."
"... Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016. ..."
No major politician, not even Barack Obama, excoriated the Iraq war more fiercely than did
Trump during the primaries. He did this in front of a scion of the house of Bush and in the
deep red state of South Carolina. He nevertheless went on to win that primary, the Republican
nomination and the presidency on that antiwar message.
And so, to see Bolton ascend to the commanding heights of the Trump White House shocked many
from the time it was first rumored. "I shudder to think what would happen if we had a failed
presidency," Scott McConnell, TAC' s founding editor, said in late 2016 at our foreign
policy conference, held, opportunely, during the presidential transition. "I mean, John
Bolton?"
At the time, Bolton was a candidate for secretary of state, a consideration scuttled in no
small part because of the opposition of Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. As McConnell
wrote in November of that year: "Most of the upper-middle-level officials who plotted the Iraq
War have retreated quietly into private life, but Bolton has kept their flame alive." Bolton
had already been passed over for NSA, losing out early to the doomed Michael Flynn. Rex
Tillerson beat him for secretary of state. Bolton was then passed over for the role of
Tillerson's deputy. When Flynn flamed out of the White House the following February, Trump
chose a general he didn't know at all, H.R. McMaster, to replace him.
Bolton had been trying to make a comeback since late 2006, after failing to hold his job as
U.N. ambassador (he had only been a recess appointment). His landing spots including a Fox News
contributorship and a post at the vaunted American Enterprise Institute. Even in the early days
of the Trump administration, Bolton was around, and accessible. I remember seeing him multiple
times in Washington's Connecticut Avenue corridor, decked out in the seersucker he notoriously
favors during the summer months. Paired with the familiar mustache, the man is the Mark Twain
of regime change.
But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the
Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive,
influential Mercer billionaires. He also struck a ferocious alliance with the Center for
Security Policy, helmed by the infamous Frank Gaffney, and gave paid remarks to the National
Council for the Resistance of Iran, the lynchpin organization of the People's Mujahideen of
Iran, or MEK. The latter two associations have imbued the spirit of this White House, with
Gaffney now one of the most underrated power players in Washington, and the MEK's "peaceful"
regime change mantra all but the official line of the administration.
More than any of these gigs, Bolton benefited from two associations that greased the wheels
for his joining the Trump administration.
The first was Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist. If you want to
understand the administration's Iran policy under Bolton to date, look no further than a piece
by the then-retired diplomat in conservative mainstay National Review in August 2017,
days after Bannon's departure from the White House: "How to Get Out of the Iran Deal." Bolton
wrote the piece at Bannon's urging. Even out of the administration, the former Breitbart
honcho was an influential figure.
"We must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel," said
Bolton. "The [Iran Deal's] vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran's
direction; Iran's significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable
conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that [the Iran deal] is
not in the national-security interests of the United States."
Then Bolton, as I
documented , embarked on a campaign of a media saturation to make a TV-happy president
proud. By May Day the next year, he would have a job, a big one, and one that Senator Paul
couldn't deny him: national security advisor. That wasn't the whole story, of course. Bolton's
ace in the hole was Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has helped drive
Trump's Israel policy. If Trump finally moves against Bolton, it will likely be because Adelson
failed to strenuously object.
So will Trump finally do it? Other than White House chief of staff, a position Mick Mulvaney
has filled in an acting capacity for the entire calendar year, national security advisor is the
easiest, most senior role to change horses.
A bombshell Washington Post story lays out the dire truth: Bolton is so distrusted on
the president's central prerogatives, for instance Afghanistan, that he's not even allowed to
see sensitive plans unsupervised.
Bolton has also come into conflict with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to three
senior State Department officials. Pompeo is the consummate politician. Though an inveterate
hawk, the putative Trump successor does not want to be the Paul Wolfowitz of the Iran war.
Bolton is a bureaucratic arsonist, agnostic on the necessity of two of the institutions he
served in -- Foggy Bottom and the United Nations. Pompeo, say those around him, is keen to be
beloved, or at least tolerated, by career officials in his department, in contrast with Bolton
and even Tillerson.
The real danger Bolton poses is to the twin gambit Trump hopes to pull off ahead of, perhaps
just ahead of, next November -- a detente deal with China to calm the markets and ending
the war in Afghanistan. Over the weekend, the president announced a scuttled meeting with the
Taliban at Camp David, which would have been an historic, stunning summit. Bolton was
reportedly instrumental in quashing the meet. Still, there is a lot of time between now and
next autumn, and the cancellation is likely the latest iteration of the president's showman
diplomacy.
Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and
day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security
advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor,
Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired
General Jack Keane.
Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff
Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general and
ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the
administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less
explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.
And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't.
You confuse "politician" and "liar" here, whereas he is "consummate" at neither politics
nor lying. His politicking has been as botched as his diplomacy; his lying has been
prodigious but transparent.
Bolton has been on the way out now for how many months? I will believe this welcome news
when I see his sorry ___ out the door.
I think much of America and the world will feel the same way.
It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't
change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon
interventionist.
It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One.
Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could
replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing
people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat
its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016.
Trump whole administration is just a bunch of rabid neocons who will be perfectly at home (and some were) in Bush II
administration. So firing of Bolton while a step in the right direction is too little, too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud. ..."
"... Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor, Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired General Jack Keane. ..."
While there was some feverish speculation as to what an impromptu presser at 1:30pm with US
Secretary of State Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and National Security Adviser Bolton
would deliver, that was quickly swept aside moments later when Trump unexpectedly announced
that he had effectively fired Bolton as National Security Advisor, tweeting that he informed
John Bolton "last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House" after "
disagreeing strongly with many of his suggestions. "
... ... ...
Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering
neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even
Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud.
While we await more details on this strike by Trump against the military-industrial
complex-enabling Deep State, here is a fitting closer from Curt Mills via the American
Conservative:
Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and
day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security
advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor,
Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired
General Jack Keane.
Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff
Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general
and ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the
administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less
explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.
And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he
didn't.
"... Yeah, consistency may be nice, but what about the actual substance of what Bolton believes and does? ..."
"... Personally, I'm not interested in trying to starve Iran into submission or attack it on behalf of Israel. And I would be interested in actually pursuing a meaningful attempt to resolve the Korea issue. Bolton is not only on the wrong side of these issues, he is in general the principal malign force pushing foreign policy insanity in this administration (as opposed to Adelson et all pushing policy insanity from outside the administration.) ..."
"... Heinrich Himmler also was consistent and sincere. By your logic, that must mean that Himmler was a credit to the Nazi regime. ..."
"... You can't serve a president well if you're constantly at odds with him. The Commander-in-Chief has to have his or her own mind about things, advisors are there to advise. If you want to do one thing but you're being counseled to do otherwise, what purpose does such a relationship serve? ..."
"... It was clearly Adelson and his ilk who got Bolton hired in the first place when Trump had initially been unimpressed. In "Fire and Fury," Steve Bannon allegedly says that Trump didn't think Bolton looked the part of NSA. And it's even more significant that Adelson and others of a similar cast--e.g., Safra Catz, the dual-national CEO of Oracle-- engineered a whispering campaign against McMaster that paved the way for what was effectively his firing. ..."
"... Bolton's ace in the hole was Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has helped drive Trump's Israel policy ..."
"... Besides, it's not like Bolton was a military man, he openly acknowledges that he didn't want to go and 'die on some rice paddy' in Vietnam. But, he's willing to send other people's kids to fight and die in some pointless show of geopolitical power, If he goes, good riddance. ..."
"... Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia drive Trump's Iran policy, and Pompeo is their messenger. ..."
"I have to think that NSA Bolton actually believes what he advocates."
There are and have been lots of people who believe what they advocate--Lenin, Trotsky,
Mao, Robespierre, and the Neoconservatives in general among them.
Yeah, consistency may be nice, but what about the actual substance of what Bolton
believes and does?
Personally, I'm not interested in trying to starve Iran into submission or attack it on
behalf of Israel. And I would be interested in actually pursuing a meaningful attempt to
resolve the Korea issue. Bolton is not only on the wrong side of these issues, he is in
general the principal malign force pushing foreign policy insanity in this administration
(as opposed to Adelson et all pushing policy insanity from outside the administration.)
Sorry, but Bolton's "service" sure ain't appreciated by me!
Hyperbole much I see.
If you want to honestly assess someone, you might want to avoid that tact. To my knowledge NSA Bolton is not building concentration camps to send undesirables to
an early grave.
I would be curious what you know about what his agenda is or why.
You can't serve a president well if you're constantly at odds with him. The
Commander-in-Chief has to have his or her own mind about things, advisors are there to
advise. If you want to do one thing but you're being counseled to do otherwise, what
purpose does such a relationship serve?
Nah, they (Bolton and all the neocons) are celebrating the death of another American
soldier killed in a suicide attack just prior to a planned peace summit with the Taliban.
The Taliban and the neocons are two sides that deserve each other, but at the cost of many
innocents.
Its easy to depose any third world government with our military, but one cannot
eradicate an ideology with today's humanitarian standards. So we should just leave and tell
the Taliban they can even take power in Afghanistan again, but if they harbor any groups
that want to attack our country, we'll be back. It only takes a month or so to depose a
third world government. Then we leave again. We can do this over and over again and it'll
be way cheaper than leaving troops there and many fewer casualties.
I don't think Bolton will be in there for the rest of Trump's presidency. Presidential
appointments rarely ever last through the whole administration. Now I'm not when he goes
cause anyone's guess is as good as mine. And will policy actually change for the better or
remain the same?
" If only the Tsar knew how wicked his advisers are! "
We've been hearing of Bolton's imminent demise since the time Trump appointed the
unindicted criminal, and to a position that isn't subject to Congressional advice and
consent.
Bolton is still in office, still making policy, still stovepiping "intelligence" to
Trump, still plotting away like Grima Wormtongue.
If Trump wasn't so close to Bolton, why was he in regular contact with the man before
appointing him, and why does he allow Bolton to control what information Trump gets?
And if you read the latest news, it seems that the occupation of Afghanistan isn't going
anywhere either. Bolton wins again, but some writers at TAC keep holding out hope for
Trump.
"If Trump finally moves against Bolton, it will likely be because Adelson failed to
strenuously object."
Well, isn't that nice? Trump's decision on whether to keep or fire his national security
advisor depends on the whim of the hideous, Israel-uber-alles ideologue Adelson. That sure
makes me feel good. (And by the way, Curt Mills, this is called burying the lede.)
Of course it's only logical. It was clearly Adelson and his ilk who got Bolton hired in
the first place when Trump had initially been unimpressed. In "Fire and Fury," Steve Bannon
allegedly says that Trump didn't think Bolton looked the part of NSA. And it's even more
significant that Adelson and others of a similar cast--e.g., Safra Catz, the dual-national
CEO of Oracle-- engineered a whispering campaign against McMaster that paved the way for
what was effectively his firing.
This piece misses what's important about the Trump administration's foreign/security
policy saga and reduces it to a mere matter of personalities and petty politics. File this
under the heading of discretion being the better part of valor.
"Bolton's ace in the hole was Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has
helped drive Trump's Israel policy. If Trump finally moves against Bolton, it will likely
be because Adelson failed to strenuously object."
So -- Ilhan Omar was right??? I thought she was a vile anti-Semite echoing an ancient
slur!!
If Bolton does leave, I won't be sorry to see him go. Bolton's Hawkish opinions are
dangerous to the US' economic health.
Want to go into a deep Recession? Start another long-term foreign war that goes on for
decades - and do it on credit, AGAIN.
Besides, it's not like Bolton was a military man, he openly acknowledges that he didn't
want to go and 'die on some rice paddy' in Vietnam. But, he's willing to send other people's kids to fight and die in some pointless show of
geopolitical power, If he goes, good riddance.
The photo accompanying the article sums it up. Pompeo flanked by an American flag, and both
of them dwarfed by a huge projection of the flag of Israel.
Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia drive Trump's Iran policy, and Pompeo is
their messenger.
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
points.
Notable quotes:
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
ideological prop.
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
Globalization and
Economic Crisis
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
surplus. 3
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
labor. 4
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
9
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
home market.
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
until now.
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Imperialist
Interventions
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
anti-imperialist).
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
support.
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
neoliberalism.
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
segments.
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
it.
Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
One of the first authors to recognize this fact and its significance was Paul Baran in
The Political Economy of
Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957).
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
2013).
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
What democracy they are talking about? Democracy for whom? This Harvard political prostitutes are talking about democracy for oligarchs
which was the nest result of EuroMaydan and the ability of Western companies to buy assets for pennies on the dollar without the control
of national government like happen in xUSSR space after dissolution of the USSR, which in retrospect can be classified as a color revolution
too, supported by financial injection, logistical support and propaganda campaign in major Western MSM.
What Harvard honchos probably does not understand or does not wish to understand is that neoliberalism as a social system lost its
attraction and is in irreversible decline. The ideology of neoliberalism collapsed much like Bolsheviks' ideology. As Politician like
Joe Boden which still preach neoliberalism are widely viewed as corrupt or senile (or both) hypocrites.
The "Collective West" still demonstrates formidable intelligence agencies skills (especially the USA and GB), but the key question
is: "What they are fighting for?"
They are fighting for neoliberalism which is a lost case. Which looks like KGB successes after WWIII. They won many battles and
lost the Cold war.
Not that Bolsheviks in the USSR was healthy or vibrant. Economics was a deep stagnation, alcoholism among working class was rampant,
the standard of living of the majority of population slides each year, much like is the case with neoliberalism after, say, 1991. Hidden
unemployment in the USSR was high -- at least in high teens if not higher. Like in the USA now good jobs were almost impossible to obtain
without "extra help". Medical services while free were dismal, especially dental -- which were horrible. Hospitals were poor as church
rats as most money went to MIC. Actually, like in the USA now, MIC helped to strangulate the economy and contributed to the collapse.
It was co a corrupt and decaying , led by completely degenerated leadership. To put the person of the level of Gorbachov level of political
talent lead such a huge and complex country was an obvious suicide.
But the facts speak for themselves: what people usually get as the result of any color revolution is the typical for any county
which lost the war: dramatic drop of the standard of living due to economic rape of the country.
While far form being perfect the Chinese regime at least managed to lift the standard of living of the majority of the population
and provide employment. After regime change China will experience the same economic rape as the USSR under Yeltsin regime. So in no
way Hong Cong revolution can be viewed a progressive phenomenon despite all the warts of neoliberalism with Chenese characteristics
in mainland China (actually this is a variant of NEP that Gorbachov tried to implement in the USSR, but was to politically incompetent
to succeed)
CHENOWETH: I think it really boils down to four different things. The first is a large and diverse participation that's
sustained.
The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other
elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide
how violent the confrontation with -- and reaction to -- the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other
security elites, economic and business elites, state media. There are lots of different pillars that support the status quo,
and if they can be disrupted or coerced into noncooperation, then that's a decisive factor.
The third thing is that the campaigns need to be able to have more than just protests; there needs to be a lot of variation
in the methods they use.
The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed -- which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes
-- they don't either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw
the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they're essentially co-signing
what the regime wants -- for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they're probably going to get totally crushed.
Wai Sing-Rin @waisingrin • Aug 27
Replying to @ChrisFraser_HKU @edennnnnn_ and 2 others
Anyone who watched the lone frontliner (w translator) sees the frontliners are headed for disaster. They're fighting just
to fight with no plans nor objectives.
They see themselves as heroes protecting the HK they love. No doubt their sincerity, but there are 300 of them left.
If bombing is/was punishment for use chemical weapons , US would have to keep bombing itself
to this day , as punishments for what they did to Vietnam ..And elsewhere.
"I have to think that NSA Bolton actually believes what he advocates."
There are and have been lots of people who believe what they advocate--Lenin, Trotsky,
Mao, Robespierre, and the Neoconservatives in general among them.
Yeah, consistency may be nice, but what about the actual substance of what Bolton
believes and does?
"... The old adage that the 'sea is always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as the last. ..."
"... And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran. The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'. ..."
"... "[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks. ..."
"... "The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage". ..."
"... A Quinnipiac University survey last week found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say the president's policies are hurting the economy. ..."
"... This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China 'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ). ..."
There is consensus amongst the Washington foreign policy élite that all factions in
Iran understand that – ultimately – a deal with Washington on the nuclear issue
must ensue. It somehow is inevitable. They view Iran simply as 'playing out the clock', until
the advent of a new Administration makes a 'deal' possible again. And then Iran surely will be
back at the table, they affirm.
Maybe. But maybe that is entirely wrong. Maybe the Iranian leadership no longer believes in
'deals' with Washington. Maybe they simply have had enough of western regime change antics
(from the 1953 coup to the Iraq war waged on Iran at the western behest, to the present attempt
at Iran's economic strangulation). They are
quitting that failed paradigm for something new, something different.
The pages to that chapter have been shut. This does not imply some rabid anti-Americanism,
but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a 'clock being played out',
it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the Middle East is
running down, and not the 'clock' of US domestic politics. The old adage that the 'sea is
always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines,
whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US
Administration will inherit the same genes as the last.
And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with
Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran.
The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of
interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even
Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of
US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in
the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'.
If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy 'process' in the
hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the US
has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once poured
forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an
incumbent President).
But more than just a long chapter reaching its inevitable end, Iran is seeing another path
opening out. Trump is in a 'China bind': a trade deal with China now looks "tough to
improbable", according to White House officials, in the context of the fast deteriorating
environment of security tensions between Washington and Beijing. Defense One spells it out:
"It came without a breaking news alert or presidential tweet, but the technological
competition with China entered a new phase last month. Several developments quietly heralded
this shift: Cross-border investments between the United States and China plunged to their
lowest levels since 2014, with the tech sector suffering the most precipitous drop. US chip
giants Intel and AMD abruptly ended
or declined to extend important partnerships with Chinese entities. The Department of Commerce
halved the number of
licenses that let US companies assign Chinese nationals to sensitive technology and engineering
projects.
"[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move
towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing
convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership,
policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand
the aftershocks.
"The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing
consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This
expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential
threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its
citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage".
Trump's China 'bind' is this: A trade deal with China has long been viewed by the White
House as a major tool for 'goosing' the US stock market upwards, during the crucial
pre-election period. But as that is now said to be "tough to improbable" – and as US
national security consensus metamorphoses, the consequent de-coupling, combined with tariffs,
is beginning to bite. The effects are eating away at President Trump's prime political asset:
the public confidence in his handling of the economy: A Quinnipiac University
survey last week
found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting
worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say
the president's policies are hurting the economy.
This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in
respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to
an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with
Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China
'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ).
No wonder Pompeo acted with such alacrity to put a tourniquet on the brewing 'war' in the
Middle East, sparked by Israel's simultaneous air attacks last month in Iraq, inside Beirut,
and in Syria (killing two Hizbullah soldiers). It is pretty clear that Washington did not want
this 'war', at least not now. America, as Defense One
noted , is becoming acutely sensitive to any risks to the global financial system from
"sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy".
The recent Israeli military operations coincided with Iranian FM Zarif's sudden summons to
Biarritz (during the G7), exacerbating fears
within the Israeli Security Cabinet that Trump might meet with President Rouhani in NY at
the UN General Assembly – thus threatening Netanyahu's anti-Iran,
political 'identity' . The fear was that Trump could begin a 'bromance' with the Iranian
President (on the Kim Jong Un lines). And hence the Israeli provocations intended to stir some
Iranian (over)-reaction (which never came). Subsequently it became clear to Israel that Iran's
leadership had absolutely no intention to meet with Trump – and the whole episode
subsided.
Trump's Iran 'bind' therefore is somehow similar to his China 'bind': With China, he
initially wanted an easy trade achievement, but it has proved to be 'anything but'. With Iran,
Trump wanted a razzmatazz meeting with Rohani – even if that did not lead to a new 'deal'
(much as the Trump – Kim Jung Un TV spectaculars that caught the American imagination so
vividly, he may have hoped for a similar response to a Rohani handshake, or he may have even
aspired to an Oval Office spectacular).
Trump simply cannot understand why the Iranians won't do this, and he is peeved by the snub.
Iran is unfathomable to Team Trump.
Well, maybe the Iranians just don't want to do it. Firstly, they don't need to: the Iranian
Rial has been recovering steadily over the last four months and manufacturing output has
steadied. China's General Administration of Customs (GAC) detailing the country's oil imports
data shows that China has not cut its Iranian supply after the US waiver program ended on 2
May, but rather, it has
steadily increased Iranian crude imports since the official end of the waiver extension, up
from May and June levels. The new GAC data shows China imported over 900,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil from Iran in July, which is up 4.7% from the month before.
And a new path is opening in front of Iran. After Biarritz, Zarif flew directly to Beijing
where he discussed a huge, multi-hundred
billion (according to
one report ), twenty-five-year oil and gas investment, (and a separate) 'Road and Belt'
transport plan. Though the details are not disclosed, it is plain that China – unlike
America – sees Iran as a key future strategic partner, and China seems perfectly able to
fathom out the Iranians, too.
But here is the really substantive US shift taking place. It is that which is termed
"a new normal" now
taking a hold in Washington:
"To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers [are] upgrading their toolkit to
ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks Unlike the President's trade
war, support for this new, expansive definition of national security and technology is largely
bipartisan, and likely here to stay.
with many of the president's top advisers viewing China first and foremost as a national
security threat, rather than as an economic partner – it's poised to affect huge parts of
American life, from the cost of many consumer goods to the nature of this country's
relationship with the government of Taiwan.
"Trump himself still views China primarily through an economic prism. But the angrier he
gets with Beijing, the more receptive he is to his advisers' hawkish stances toward China that
go well beyond trade."
"The angrier he gets with Beijing" Well, here is the key point: Washington seems to have
lost the ability to summon the resources to try to fathom either China, or the Iranian 'closed
book', let alone a 'Byzantine' Russia. It is a colossal attenuation of consciousness in
Washington; a loss of conscious 'vitality' to the grip of some 'irrefutable logic' that allows
no empathy, no outreach, to 'otherness'. Washington (and some European élites) have
retreated into their 'niche' consciousness, their mental enclave, gated and protected, from
having to understand – or engage – with wider human experience.
To compensate for these lacunae, Washington looks rather, to an engineering and
technological solution: If we cannot summon empathy, or understand Xi or the Iranian Supreme
Leader, we can muster artificial intelligence to substitute – a 'toolkit' in which the US
intends to be global leader.
This type of solution – from the US perspective – maybe works for China, but not
so much for Iran; and Trump is not keen on a full war with Iran in the lead up to elections. Is
this why Trump seems to be losing interest in the Middle East? He doesn't understand it; he
hasn't the interest or the means to fathom it; and he doesn't want to bomb it. And the China
'bind' is going to be all absorbing for him, for the meantime.
"... The reaction to what's going on in Hong Kong that I've seen, amongst the educated Taiwanese classes, is that most are horrified by it, perceiving it as a spasm of nihilist, ignorant Hong Kong youth manipulated by cynical outside forces. ..."
"... If the US intelligence agencies believe that Taiwan will throw in support for Hong Kong following a protest like this, it should think again. People in Taiwan have become far more skeptical of the US-Taiwan relationship, since the Sunflower Movement. ..."
"... In Hong Kong the U.S. is making the usual mistake of betting on the extreme rightwing, libertarians and fascists. ..."
"... The rioting students have already lost much of the wider support they had at the beginning of this operations. They will soon be seen as the nihilist idiots who only care about themselves that they truly are. The people of Hong Kong who care about Hong Kong will fight them down. ..."
"... I disagree with your characterization of the rioting students as nihilist idiots. Many probably believe (with justification) that the liberties they currently enjoy are at stake if HK's system of self-governance is eroded away to nothing. However, you raise a good point about the Chinese leadership being provoked into another Tiananmen. The PNAC crowd must be frustrated with the widespread public perception of China as *just* a manipulative trade competitor/pseudo adversary. A very public bloodbath in HK is just what they need to promote China to Axis of Evil status. ..."
"... Most Chinese, I expect, just want to get on with their lives rather than agitate about the CCP. ..."
The reaction to what's going on in Hong Kong that I've seen, amongst the educated Taiwanese
classes, is that most are horrified by it, perceiving it as a spasm of nihilist, ignorant
Hong Kong youth manipulated by cynical outside forces.
Remember that support for Tsai Yingwen & her coalition remains somewhere in the 20 to
30% range--that is, very much near the same range that Chen Shuibian was afflicted with,
before he was prosecuted and sent off to prison for corruption.
If the US intelligence agencies believe that Taiwan will throw in support for Hong Kong
following a protest like this, it should think again. People in Taiwan have become far more
skeptical of the US-Taiwan relationship, since the Sunflower Movement.
Yes--there will be a period of chaos, as the majority slowly explains to the unruly
outliers that no, their ideas are not useful. Yes, as in Hong Kong, that period may last a
period that US/uk authorities may find untenable.
But no: none of this will result in a China-NATO war. None of this will result in a hard,
black line running between the Koreas, Taiwan, and Japan. None of this will stop the
Philippines from continuing their gravitation westward ("Eastward", for you Euroyanks.)
Taiwan, I predict, will be the second-to-last stalwart holdout against US hegemony in East
Asia--with Japan being the last.
I get a different perspective from Taiwanese business people who I speak with regularly. They
are uniform in their disgust and fear of CCP. What they seem most concerned about is that the
US will abandon them when push comes to shove.
They are watching what's happening in HK with
much interest and are privately very sympathetic to the aims of the people of HK to be
independent of CCP rule.
I will guess that you are living in Taiwan, otherwise how would you be able to see the
reaction among the educated Taiwanese classes?
I would have to read up on the names of the people and movements you have given us before
I could know anything about them.
I had not heard, way back here in Great Lakestan, that US intelligence agencies were
thinking about whether Taiwan would "support" Hong Kong or not, though I suppose the US
intelligence agencies try to think about every possible thing. It seems more likely to me
that the agencies would be thinking about how Taiwan does or does not plan to welcome the
ChiCom regime when it looks their way and says " okay, you're next".
So, the "majority" will explain to the unruly outliers how useless their ideas are? In
what sense is a pack of ChiCom Regime-Lords a "majority"? A "majority" of what or whom?
I hope you are correct that there will be no China-NATO war. American hegemony is fading
and I hope the slow fade-out leaves America intact as a free country. I hope America can
break free from the International Forcey-Free-TradeRape system.
Yes, as one hegemony fades away . . . another rises. Since Taiwan is largely Han-majority,
I believe, I suppose Taiwan will fare better under Great Han Lebensraumist ChiCom rule than
Tibet or Sinjiang or Inner Mongolia or or or . . .
And maybe Taiwan will find Chinese hegemony more enjoyable than the American kind. And aren't
you the lucky lad? You may get to find out within your own lifetime.
As Angel-Eyes said to the Colonel with gangrene: " I wish you luck."
You predicted the immediate introduction of Chinese troops in Hong Kong how many month
back? Where are they?
China does not care about Hong Kong. It will not be provoked into another NED/CIA arranged
Tianamen.
In Hong Kong the U.S. is making the usual mistake of betting on the extreme rightwing,
libertarians and fascists.
The rioting students have already lost much of the wider support they had at the beginning
of this operations. They will soon be seen as the nihilist idiots who only care about
themselves that they truly are. The people of Hong Kong who care about Hong Kong will fight
them down.
There is alas a consistency in our ruling elite's modus operandi: just look at DC's support
for Taliban, liver-eating Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) in Syria, slave-trader Jihadists in Libya &
above all, genocidal Salafists in Yemen, Boston-marathon-bombing Chechens & above all
Saudi terror-financing Clown Prince ⚙️Mohammad Bone Saw⚙️: it is
telling that you are more concerned about a dead ideology as opposed to an expanding current
dangerous movement.
I disagree with your characterization of the rioting students as nihilist idiots. Many
probably believe (with justification) that the liberties they currently enjoy are at stake if
HK's system of self-governance is eroded away to nothing. However, you raise a good point
about the Chinese leadership being provoked into another Tiananmen. The PNAC crowd must be
frustrated with the widespread public perception of China as *just* a manipulative trade
competitor/pseudo adversary. A very public bloodbath in HK is just what they need to promote
China to Axis of Evil status.
Mr Wong and his comrades would be well advised to treat support from an American
administration still full of neocons with a great deal of suspicion. I don't doubt that
people like Bolton would willingly goad them into escalating the confrontation until the PLA
is forced to crush them. They may do so anyway. But if the risk of contagion is low an
example can be made of HK without violence. If major disruption continues businesses will be
forced to relocate. HK could simply be allowed to rot as this happens, pour encourager les
autres.
I did not. Chinese troops were massing on the HK border in August. There was a general
strike and that was a possible flash point. I predicted that China would inevitably crush the
rebellion in Hong Kong. I stand by that. Your anti-Americanism is showing again,
Obviously they do care. As the quoted article noted, they are the ones who provoked this
situation. Students (and others) did not just rush out into the streets on a whim. They have
not endured police state violence and arrests in pursuit of being "nihilist idiots".
Their chances seem slim. The question that I don't see asked or answered is "Why hasn't
this been put down already?" That seems the only plausible end to it. The Chinese government
certainly has the capability.
Holding back is not an effect of any strictness about rules or
morals. Not having done it can only mean that they see costs or dangers that they are not
(yet) willing to face.
Personally I think that the (the government) and powerful people with
China derive a LOT of money and power from the perception of Hong Kong as a rule-of-law
environment. But I have seen very little discussion of the motives for holding off. The costs
of holding off are obvious. The reasons for doing so must be massive.
There are indications elsewhere on the web that China will try and quarantine HK and let it
slowly die. Provided this can be achieved there is no need for military action. As for
overseas chinese attitudes, I didn't see any support for HK when I was in Singapore last
month and demonstrations by Chinese students in Australia seem to be neatly divided into pro
and anti HK camps. Most Chinese, I expect, just want to get on with their lives rather than
agitate about the CCP.
The American military is advanced over both Russia and China in one sense - they have access
to endless taxpayers' dollars to fund their programs, many of which are complete failures.
Putin can offer Trump hyper-sonic missiles knowing he cannot accept. To accept
these would display the USA's technical military inferiority for all to see. The msm ,
Hollywood, etc. all sing from the same song-sheet. "USA is great", ignore all the wars they
have lost, ignore the astronomical military financial expenditure (declared and hidden).
Just
like Reagan's star-wars program public perception is everything
If bombing is/was punishment for use chemical weapons , US would have to keep bombing itself
to this day , as punishments for what they did to Vietnam ..And elsewhere.
As newly appointed US Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, was reported to have claimed about
wanting for Russia to ''behave like a normal country'', Sergey Lavrov urged for him to
clarify what he means by ''normality'' during a press conference in the Russian capital; if
Russia was to behave like the US, it would have had to bomb Iraq, Libya, supporting an armed,
anti-constitutional coup in Kiev, and allocating millions in the interference in the affairs
of other countries, as in the ''promotion of democracy'' in Russia.
Sergey Shoygu did not have much to add, but what he did add could not be clearer: Russia
will probably have to remain being ''not normal''.
"... For the detached observer the juvenile behavior of groups of Americans is plain to see, both in this comment section and in the world at large. ..."
"... This is somewhat curious as this "normal nation" seems to have hit the neocon talking points as SecDef Esper used similiar phrase as applied to Russia. Russian MinFin responded: "he called upon us to act as a normal country [as such] and not like the United States," Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a press briefing in the Russian capital: Otherwise, we should have been acting like the US, bombing Iraq and Libya in blatant violation of international law " ..."
"... If there is any country in the world that is less "normal" in the scope and ambitions of its foreign policy than ours, I can't think of which one it would be ..."
"... I can think of one in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. As a matter of fact, USA's foreign policy is their foreign policy. ..."
"... This is somewhat curious as this "normal nation" seems to have hit the neocon talking points as SecDef Esper used similar phrase as applied to Russia. ..."
"... Russian MinFin responded: "he called upon us to act as a normal country [as such] and not like the United States," Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a press briefing in the Russian capital: Otherwise, we should have been acting like the US, bombing Iraq and Libya in blatant violation of international law " ..."
"... Similar to his rhetoric about other countries not following the "rules-based order". The US, which abandons and ignores treaties, or doesn't enter them in the first place but lectures others who have that they need to follow them. Who refuses to be judged by the ICC, UN and others yet wants them to hold others to account. And who call for regime-change of others based on rigged or suspect elections, yet refuses to fix its own crappy system and corruption. ..."
This can never happen. All Americans are inherently childish. They are all a product of the same environment, the same educational
system and the same all pervasive 'cultural' influences. This transcends ethnic boundaries for those born in the US or those who
arrived at an early age.
For the detached observer the juvenile behavior of groups of Americans is plain to see, both in this comment section and in
the world at large.
A recurring theme in international relations and diplomacy is that dealing with 'the Americans' is like dealing with children.
Of course when the American is trying to kill you, as they a often want to do, the actions of the petulant child take on new meaning.
This is somewhat curious as this "normal nation" seems to have hit the neocon talking points as SecDef Esper used similiar phrase
as applied to Russia.
Russian MinFin responded: "he called upon us to act as a normal country [as such] and not like the United States," Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov told a press briefing in the Russian capital: Otherwise, we should have been acting like the US, bombing Iraq and
Libya in blatant violation of international law "
" If there is any country in the world that is less "normal" in the scope and ambitions of its foreign policy than ours, I can't
think of which one it would be."
I can think of one in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. As a matter of fact, USA's foreign policy is their foreign policy.
This is somewhat curious as this "normal nation" seems to have hit the neocon talking points as SecDef Esper used
similar phrase
as applied to Russia.
Russian MinFin responded: "he called upon us to act as a normal country [as such] and not like the United States," Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov told a press briefing in the Russian capital: Otherwise, we should have been acting like the US, bombing Iraq and
Libya in blatant violation of international law "
" If there is any country in the world that is less "normal" in the scope and ambitions of its foreign policy than ours, I can't
think of which one it would be."
I can think of one in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. As a matter of fact, USA's foreign policy is their foreign policy.
Similar to his rhetoric about other countries not following the "rules-based order". The US, which abandons and ignores treaties,
or doesn't enter them in the first place but lectures others who have that they need to follow them. Who refuses to be judged
by the ICC, UN and others yet wants them to hold others to account. And who call for regime-change of others based on rigged or
suspect elections, yet refuses to fix its own crappy system and corruption.
This is also a thing about leftists with Trump Derangement Syndrome, who are oh-so-upset about Trump, either ignorant or lying
that he's at all an aberration. The US has consistently flouted international law, waged illegal wars and staged violent coups
and assassinations, and killed tens of thousands of innocents, under nearly all Presidents, including Obama.
"... I personally suspect that Trump has a negative net worth, and hopes that if he marches to Adelson's orders, he might get a nice pay-off at the end. It's the only thing that explains all this. ..."
I think it is highly unlikely Trump can pull off detente with the Chinese or anyone else before the next election. He has, unfortunately,
shown himself to be completely untrustworthy on the international stage. Under what circumstance are the Chinese going to sign
some agreement with him, when he might just throw out new tariffs a week later?
What are the Taliban going to agree to when the US wants to leave thousands of troops in Afghanistan?
I personally suspect that Trump has a negative net worth, and hopes that if he marches to Adelson's orders, he might get
a nice pay-off at the end. It's the only thing that explains all this.
"... Rickards had previously worked for the CIA (possibly still does – who knows?) but now seems to be a free-wheeling business executive, writer and strategic analyst. He tends to circulate outside of the usual middle-ranking semi-elite circles preferring to consort with the less observable, higher-ranking coteries of the inner-party. Moreover, he has nothing but disdain for the run-of-the-mill talking heads to be found (in abundance) in the media and academia – the outer-party. ..."
"... History is the first casualty of media micro-second attention span. An army of pseudo-savants saturate the airways to explain that tariffs are bad, trade wars hurt growth and mercantilism are a throwback to the 17th century. These sentiments come from mainstream liberals and conservatives and tag-along journalists trained in the orthodoxy of so-called free-trade and the false if comforting belief that trade deficits are the flipside of capital surpluses. So, what is the problem? The problem is that perpetual trade deficits have put the United States on a path to a crisis of the US$."[ 1 ] ..."
"... Obama, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton were globalists, defined as those willing to trade-off or compromise US interests for the sake of a stronger global community even conservative hawks like Reagan and JFK were firmly in the globalist camp, as they relied on NATO, the UN and the IMF to pursue their cold war goals. ..."
"... LBJ's administration contrived to conduct the Vietnam War as well as an expensive social programme, simultaneously. A guns plus butter economy. (The original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany. The then Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms." ) ..."
"... Globally, the leading manufacturer of auto-vehicles is Volkswagen followed by Toyota. GM are 4th and Ford are 8th of ten. Hardly market leaders anymore, but Rickards apportions the blame to 'unfair practices' by foreign manufacturers and argues instead for tariffs. The same goes for other trade partners. Fact that the United States has to a large extent been deindustrialised was a political choice of its own making. ..."
"... There were a number of advantages which accrued to the dollar contingent on the ending of gold convertibility which Eichengreen listed these in his book. But the principle one was making the surplus nations of the world pay for America's wars with an unconvertible currency. Instead of being paid for in gold, or at least a gold-backed currency the world produced goods and services for a piece of green paper backed by nothing. ..."
"... This was to be expected quite simply because at bottom Rickards is a sophist much in the tradition of Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" [ 12 ] ..."
"... A view which Rickards would certainly endorse. Beneath the Upper Manhattan, polished chic, there resides a ruthless Cold Warrior. The further one digs into the book, the more this becomes apparent. ..."
"... Many of us are aware of the problems of the USD but few are able to so succinctly explain why and connect the dots to expose the true picture. The bottom line is that the lifespan of the USD as king is almost over ..."
"... The US has been exposed, and so well said, as a predator nation .There must be a reason why China and Russia are buying up as much gold as their economy will permit .The exchange medium used for trade since time immemorial . ..."
"... The Wall Street ethos has always been 'kill or be killed' where bears eat, and bulls eat, but pigs get slaughtered! The problem with today's market & stock valuations is that they are as hyperinflated as Real Estate Commercial & Residential sectors are which leaves no wiggle room for price discovery until there is a system wide crash that mean reverts the valuations back to a realistic price. ..."
"... All that is happening now is that Trump is trying to solve his country's intractable economic and financial problems by looting the rest of the planet. This is not a new development, but Trump is at least refreshingly honest in his public pronouncements. ..."
"... The Nazi Empire imposed tribute on its conquests in identical fashion. Send us your industrial output, agricultural produce and raw materials. In return we'll give you a big credit balance at the Reichsbank. ..."
"... The current (real) military budget is $1,134 billion, around 60% higher than the fictitious figure that is normally touted. ..."
"... Gold could form some kind of basis for exchange in a collapse setting. Other desirable barter items would be alcohol, cigarettes, basic drugs like aspirin and paracetamol, electrical batteries, fuel and similar goods. Maybe ammunition as well. Goods were priced in cigarettes in postwar Germany. ..."
"... Bismarck is normally credited with the choice between Guns and Butter. Goebbels was suggesting that Guns will bring Butter. ..."
"... The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- ultimately a wholly artificial concept -- we're wasting immense amounts of resources and human potential, spreading misery and despoliation all over the planet and generally behaving like really awful global citizens. We can and must do better. ..."
"... American exceptionalism, for example, takes it for granted that we in the West are good, and therefore the East must become more like us. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them? ..."
"... American parasitism writ large over the last half century has amply signified to the entire world that 'manifest destiny' was merely a ruse to foist American hegemony onto all sovereign nations at the behest of an out-of-control American Oligopoly that was power-tripping post WW2 & drunk on the souls of the poor sots all over the entire world with their power hungry warmongering Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Its not "American". We just happen to be the chosen host for this part of history. Before us it was the British Empire that was top dog. ..."
"... You have made the common mistake of asserting that it is America, instead of those who govern (the USA and its pundits) that have engineered the problems you point out. ..."
"... To condense this lengthy essay: This ship is sinking. ..."
"Aftermath" is the latest addition to three previous publications by Rickards, Currency Wars (2011), The Death of Money (2014),
The Road to Ruin (2016). Together, with the present offering (Aftermath, 2019), the author uses the analogy of the Four Horsemen
of the Apocalypse to illustrate the themes of his four books. The latest book is thematic in its approach to the events which have
taken place in the world in general and the United States in particular during this period.
HIGH SOCIETY
Rickards had previously worked for the CIA (possibly still does – who knows?) but now seems to be a free-wheeling business executive,
writer and strategic analyst. He tends to circulate outside of the usual middle-ranking semi-elite circles preferring to consort
with the less observable, higher-ranking coteries of the inner-party. Moreover, he has nothing but disdain for the run-of-the-mill
talking heads to be found (in abundance) in the media and academia – the outer-party.
His observations of this social stratum are unapologetic and caustic:
History is the first casualty of media micro-second attention span. An army of pseudo-savants saturate the airways to explain
that tariffs are bad, trade wars hurt growth and mercantilism are a throwback to the 17th century. These sentiments come from
mainstream liberals and conservatives and tag-along journalists trained in the orthodoxy of so-called free-trade and the false
if comforting belief that trade deficits are the flipside of capital surpluses. So, what is the problem? The problem is that perpetual
trade deficits have put the United States on a path to a crisis of the US$."[
1 ]
As is apparent, his contempt is palpable.
It should be said that much of his writing and theorising is at times occasioned by a high level of sophistication, alas sadly
lacking in most of his contemporaries. But for all his refinement and eloquence that doesn't stop him being, from Off Guardian's
perspective (and mine), on the other side – the side of the Anglo-Zionist empire.
THE GREAT BETRAYAL
Throughout this book and previous books there runs a familiar leitmotif; a sense of betrayal by the present dominant section of
the US elite. This is not by any means an unusual political phenomenon and bears comparison with the stab-in-the-back myth – a notion
doing the rounds in Germany circa 1918.
It held that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but it was 'traitors' on the home front, especially the
traitorous republicans who overthrew the Hohenzollern monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19.
This precedent loosely corresponds to Rickards' belief in the perfidy of the current leadership of the US and his vitriol is directed
against this globalist faction who are firmly ensconced in both Democrat and Republican parties and whom, he argues, have sold the
pass in terms of America's strategic interests. He writes:
Obama, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton were globalists, defined as those willing to trade-off or compromise US interests for
the sake of a stronger global community even conservative hawks like Reagan and JFK were firmly in the globalist camp, as they
relied on NATO, the UN and the IMF to pursue their cold war goals.
However, all was not lost. As a result of
the Presidential election of 2016 when Donald Trump was sworn in on 17 January 2017 as the strongest nationalist since Theodore
Roosevelt. For the first time in 100 years a committed nationalist was sitting in the Oval Office." [
2 ]
The event was obviously political grist to Rickards' mill.
However, precisely how this liberation of the US from the domestic globalists' stranglehold was to be brought about wasn't made
clear, and in fact is barely touched upon by Rickards.
Trump, for all his bombast and promises to Make America Great Again (MAGA), and pursue a radical foreign policy of withdrawal
from globalist wars of choice and military adventurism, has been conspicuous by its absence.
Moreover, from the outset he has been beset by the ancien regime of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals – Bolton, Pompeo and Pence
– entrenched in key US institutions, as well as various think-tanks and media who are still doggedly set upon the realization of
neo-con foreign policy goals.
It seems odd that Rickards doesn't see fit to comment on this important development given that Trumps' campaign promises have
disappeared almost without trace since he entered the Oval Office.
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
Rickards is on firmer ground, however, when dissecting the 8th wonder of the world – US economic policy. The US sovereign debt
(i.e., the debt of the Federal Government) to GDP is now at a record, this is unprecedented for a peacetime administration.
In addition, it is also worth noting the magnitude of US private debt and unfunded future liabilities, pensions, Medicaid, social
security and so forth.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign debt
and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according to many
– see David Stockman, John Mauldin et al).
According to Rickards, the present situation has been largely the result of excess spending by both Democratic and Republican
administrations. The spending has either been on 'Defence' – a Republican favourite – or social like L.B. Johnson's 'Great Society'
programme – a Democratic favourite.
LBJ's administration contrived to conduct the Vietnam War as well as an expensive social programme, simultaneously. A guns plus
butter economy. (The original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany.
The then Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without
arms." )
LBJ's guns-and-butter policies were enacted in the late sixties at the height of the Vietnam war and the Tet Offensive. The utopian
attempt to have the best of both worlds brought LBJ's administration to an end; more importantly, perhaps it was also the beginning
of the process which brought down the curtain on the post WW2 economic world order established at the Bretton Woods conference in
1944.
Because the costs of the Vietnam war were superimposed on the economy not far effectively from full employment, the US domestic
sector was severely destabilised.
Instead of taxing the nation to pay for the war, the government engaged in the more acceptable practice of deficit financing
Vietnam showed that neither the United States nor any other democratic nation can ever again afford the foreign exchange costs
of conventional warfare, although the periphery was still kept in line by American military initiatives most recently in Yugoslavia
and Afghanistan.
The lesson in the long term is that peace will be maintained only by governments refusing to finance the military and other
excesses of the increasingly indebted imperial power." [
3 ]
The figure for the US sovereign debt – began to rise relentlessly from the 1980s onwards approaching wartime levels by the time
of the 2008 blowout.
It has been estimated by some economic theorists that any sovereign Debt-to-GDP figure greater than 60% represents a tripwire
whereby governments should act to rein in government expenditures.
The EU Maastricht criteria, for example, stipulated that EU Debt-to-GDP should not go over 60% except in certain circumstances
and an annual budgetary deficit should not be more than 3%.
That is a pretty tight monetary and fiscal policy EU style, but not to be outdone the spendthrift US was to go on a wild binge
in both fiscal and monetary terms the result of which is a now an unpayable mountain of debt. This gives an indication of how far
US economic policymaking has drifted away from any viable economic strategy.
Rickards fulminates:
To see how America came to this pretty pass we, one needs to review almost 40 years of fiscal policy under Presidents Reagan,
Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama and Trump from the period 1981-2019." [
4 ]
Under Reagan in 1981 US Debt-to-GDP ratio was 32.5%. The President was gung-ho for tax cuts and big spending increases, particularly
'defence' spending. This trend was continued under the tutelage of the Bushes and Clinton, and Debt-to-GDP ratio rose to 56.4% when
Bush Jr, took office and had risen to 82% by the time he left.
The Obama years saw the Debt-to-GDP rise to 100%. The diagram below 2009 debt-to-GDP was 82.3% This figure has risen inexorably
to over 100% in 2018. Yep, here we have the dreaded law of Diminishing returns. Every new dollar of input gives you 90 cents of output.
The above diagram illustrates the growth of debt vis-ŕ-vis National Income (GDP) since the 2008 blowout. Debt has been growing
progressively faster than National Income.
The US economy, like the US shale oil industry, has become a Ponzi scheme in all but name. The Fed's issuance of new debt to pay
off existing debt signals the key moment of the Minsky crisis.[
5 ]
There doesn't appear to be any viable way out this predicament short of a straight default. But Rickards argues that 'the United
States will never default on its debt because the Fed can simply print the money and to pay it off.' This will involve an engineered
inflation to wipe out the debt. But in fact, inflation is the default, a default by the back door. Getting paid in worthless currency
is in essence no different than not getting paid at all.
NO EXIT
As for solutions to a crisis which has seemingly reached the point of no return, all that Rickards can offer is a Japanese scenario
of low or zero growth punctuated by recession for the United States and by implication for the rest of the world. The United States
had its first long decade from 2007 to 2017 and is now into its second decade.
This growth pattern will persist absent of inflationary breakout which the Fed seems powerless to ignite in the short run;
a war; or severe depression perhaps caused by a new financial crisis.[
6 ]
Not much of a prospect for the average family then. But Rickards does give some useful advice to his more opulent readers on how
they should diversify their assets.
There are apparently "luxury bombproof bunkers built in former missile silos and expansive estates in New Zealand loaded with
rations and good wines."
Really? At this point one wonders if Mr Rickards is being serious or just smug.
SOCIAL IMMOBILITY AND THE RISE OF OLIGARCHY
The social and economic impact on levels of inequality in both the US and globally have been extremely deleterious and seem set
to continue. Inequality in income and wealth – a phenomenon identified and outlined by Thomas Piketty – is resulting in societies
which more and more resemble feudal economic and social structures rather than textbook capitalism. Social class is hardening into
social caste and rates of social mobility are decelerating at an alarming rate.
The liberal notion that the individual is the author of his/her own destiny has become a very dubious proposition when the drawbridges
of advantage, birth and preferment are drawn up. Moreover, high levels of income/wealth are not conducive to growth since the new
aristocracy owns most of the wealth/income which is hoarded rather than spent on investment and/or consumption. Stagnation, idled
capital and rent extraction becomes the economic norm.
Inequality is common in college admissions where the wealthy and connected continue to send their sons and daughters to elite schools
while the middle-class are restrained by sky-high tuitions and the burden of student loans.
It's true in the housing market where the rich picked up mansions on the cheap in foreclosure sales whilst the middle-class were
frozen in mortgage negative equity.
It's true in health care, where the rich could afford all the insurance they needed while the middle class were handicapped by
unemployment and the loss of job-related benefits. These disparities also affected the adult children of the middle-class. There
are no gold-plated benefits packages in the gig society
Research shows that fewer than 50% of all children aged 30 today earn more than their parents did at the same age. This 50% figure
compares with 60% who earned more in 1971, and 80% who earned more in 1950.
The American dream of each generation earning more than the prior generation is collapsing before our eyes The middle class is
getting poorer on a relative basis and lagging further behind the rich whose incomes absorb an increasing share of total GDP The
manner in which the rich become rich is variable.
It could be due to a number of unrelated factors Problems arise in the way that the rich stay rich become richer and pass on wealth
to their children and grandchildren." [
7 ]
It is a matter of common knowledge that the traditional techniques of preserving and creating wealth have been long established
in law, customs, education and socialization; these traditional methods being practised over decades, if not centuries, have produced
a system of elite self-recruitment, one moreover which endures through time.
Many of the richest US citizens – e.g., Buffet, Bezos, Zuckerberg – pay minimal tax demands. Much of the wealth of the richest
Americans is never taxed because they hold onto real estate and stocks and pass them onto their beneficiaries tax-free. This is one
of a perfectly legal method of avoiding tax; there are many more too numerous to cite which include various other examples of tax
avoidance/evasion.
Levels of income and wealth inequality within states are usually measured by what is called the Gini Co-efficient. This measure
is a commonly used measure of income inequality that condenses the entire income distribution for a country into a single number
between 0 and 1 or 0% to 100%: the higher the number, the greater the degree of inequality. A rough estimate of inequality is a figure
above 40%.
The United States and China are in the low forties, surrounded by underdeveloped and developing states such as The Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Burundi and El Salvador. At the other end of the spectrum are Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
In this connection the by now well-known study carried out by two American academics at Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens
and North western University Prof Benjamin Page argue that the US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent
influence."
In plain English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public
policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest
groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association
and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations
and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to be a democratic society are seriously threatened."
In summation, both gentlemen concluded that in essence the US was an oligarchy not a properly functioning democracy. All very
true but somewhat self-evident.
Rickards regards the present situation as being irreversible. He does not present any alternative to this trend other than some
vague hopes that the 'nationalist' President in the Oval Office will turn things around – MAGA in fact.
The golden age of post WW2 capitalism ended when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in August 1971, which was in effect
a default by the US. Holders of surplus dollars in Europe who were no longer able to swap these dollars for gold but were merely
presented with other US$s with which they had to purchase US Treasurys (Bonds) debts which were never going to be repaid. In the
age of fiat currencies Europe and various other holders of US Treasuries were in fact subsidizing the United States.
POOR LITTLE AMERICA
At this point the book becomes one long whinge about how hard done-by America has been and how the rest of the world has taken
advantage of this benign gentle giant. This rather bizarre belief calls for further analysis. The US pays some of the bill for NATO
whilst European nations pay insufficient amounts for the 'defence' of their countries.
It should be pointed out, however, that in terms of military hardware the NATO alliance is standardized to American specifications.
This means large-scale purchasing of US war materiel which is a gift bonus to the US armaments industry.
Then Germany has the nerve to buy Russian gas transported to Europe via Nordstream 2 which is cheaper and more reliable than US
Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), when in fact they should be buying more expensive and less reliable US LNG. Apparently, Germany ought
really to be subsidising the US shale oil Ponzi racket. Bad, ungrateful Germany.
Then comes the incessant carping regarding trade policy and trade deals. The US in its speed to become a cool, post-modern, financialised
economy apparently forgot about the importance of production. In the automobile industry the once dominant US triad of General Motors,
Ford and Chrysler are no longer in the vanguard and Japan, with South Korea catching up, is now the leading country in the export
of auto vehicles, a position which the US once held. It was the Japanese auto industry which pioneered production methods including
just-in-time deliveries and lean production (Toyota). Was anyone stopping the Americans from innovating?
In rank order. Figures quoted in Global Shift – Peter Dicken.
Globally, the leading manufacturer of auto-vehicles is Volkswagen followed by Toyota. GM are 4th and Ford are 8th of ten.
Hardly market leaders anymore, but Rickards apportions the blame to 'unfair practices' by foreign manufacturers and argues instead
for tariffs. The same goes for other trade partners. Fact that the United States has to a large extent been deindustrialised was
a political choice of its own making.
If the US has lost ground in the competition for trade on world markets that is because of its own insular provincialism and hubris,
not foreign competitive malpractice. Moreover, much of its productive industry which remains has been outsourced to low cost venues
such as China. The US more than anyone should know that its competitors are simply using the same policies that it itself used during
the 19th century to break British trade hegemony.
It has been the same story with agriculture. Trade liberalization (this must rank as the greatest misnomer of trade theory) and
trade treaties have been an example of the blatant unfairness of such agreements. During the Uruguay round of 'talks' (1982-2000):
the United States pushed other countries to open up their markets to areas of 'our' (i.e. the US's) strength, but resisted, successfully
so, to efforts to make us reciprocate.
Construction and maritime services, the areas of advantage of many developing countries were not included in the new agreement.
Worse still, financial services liberalization was arguably even harmful to some developing countries: as large international (read
American) banks squelched local competitors denying them the funds they garnered would be channelled to the international firms with
which they felt comfortable, not the small and medium-sized local firms
As foreign banks took over the banking systems of like Argentina and Mexico worries about small and medium sized firms within
these countries being starved of funds have been repeatedly voiced.
Whether these concerns are valid or not, whether they are exaggerated or not, is not the issue: the issue is that countries should
have the right to make these decisions themselves, as the United States did in its own country during its formative years; but under
the new international rules that America had pushed, countries were being deprived of that right.
Suffice it to say that agriculture has always been a flagrant example of the double standards inherent in the US trade liberalization
agenda. Although we insisted that other countries reduce their barriers to our products and eliminate the subsidies for which those
products competed against ours, the United States kept barriers for the goods produced by the developing countries, and the US continued
massive subsidies to its own produce. [
8 ] EXORBITANT PRIVILEGE
Oh, I almost forgot: the imperial tribute that the world pays to the hegemon; aka the reserve status of the dollar. The role of
the US dollar in the world's political economy gives it advantages which the rest of the dollar surplus-states are dragooned into
accepting. In the late sixties early seventies, the US was on the verge of technical bankruptcy due to its spending profligacy at
home and military adventurism in Indochina. It had three choices of how to deal with this acute problem.
[The] 3 courses open to the US government on the collapse of the Gold Pool in London in 1968 were: immediately pull out of
the war in South-East Asia and cut back overseas and domestic military expenditure to allow the dollar to firm again on world
markets; to continue the war paying for its foreign exchange costs with further outflows of Fort Knox gold; or to induce the Europeans
and other payments surplus areas to continue to accumulate surplus dollars and dollar equivalents (US Treasuries) not convertible
into gold." [ 9 ]
Of course, it was option three that appealed and Nixon in his television broadcast was to announce a 'temporary' suspension of
gold sales by the US to its overseas 'partners'.
The date in question, 15 August 1971, marked the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. The temporary suspension soon
morphed into a permanent one and a global fiat currency regime based on the dollar came into being. This represented a culmination
of a situation in which the US manipulation of the dollar was termed the 'Exorbitant Privilege' by the senior French politician Valery
Giscard d'Estaing. And privilege it was.
The central political fact is that the dollar standard places the direction of the world monetary policy in the hands of a
single country which thereby acquires great influence over the economic destiny of others. It is one thing to sacrifice sovereignty
in the interests of interdependence; it is quite another when the relationship is one-way.
The difference is that between the EEC(EU) and a colonial empire. The brute fact is that the acceptance of a dollar standard
necessarily implies a degree of asymmetry in power which, although it actually existed in the early post-war years, had vanished
by the time that the world sliding into a reluctant dollar standard." [
10 ]
There were a number of advantages which accrued to the dollar contingent on the ending of gold convertibility which Eichengreen
listed these in his book. But the principle one was making the surplus nations of the world pay for America's wars with an unconvertible
currency. Instead of being paid for in gold, or at least a gold-backed currency the world produced goods and services for a piece
of green paper backed by nothing.
Quite a clever little racket when you think about it.
Better still is the way that the two biggest surplus nations, Japan and China, have been the US's main creditors, bankrolling
the US by buying its Treasuries. This had another intended, or perhaps unintended effect: long term interest rates on US bonds came
down (since bond prices and bond interest rates move in opposite directions) and enabled the property bubble to expand until the
inevitable blow-out in 2008.
In mafia terms the US dollar has been a 'made' currency enjoying a set of privileges and protection which it did not earn but
foisted upon others. This is a unique dispensation which is enjoyed by the US to which the rest of the world is excluded.
However, it is in the nature of things that privileges will ultimately get abused. In pushing its luck to the point of abuse the
US should be aware that initial signs are that the world is sloughing off the US dollar. As it proceeds in that direction, the US
currency will lose its position as the global reserve asset. Holders of trillions of dollar-denominated assets will become sellers
eventuating in a collapse of the currency.
The US economy lives like a parasite off its partners in the global system, with virtually no savings of its own. The World
produces whilst North America consumes. The advantage of the US is that of a predator whose advantage is covered, by what others
agree, or are forced, to contribute.
Washington uses various means to make up for its deficiencies: for example, repeated violations of the principles of liberalism,
arms exports, and the hunting-down of oil super-profits (which involves the periodic felling of producers; one of the real motives
behind the wars in Iraq and Central Asia).
But the fact is that the bulk of the American deficit is covered by capital inputs from Europe and Japan, China and the South,
rich oil-producing countries and comprador classes from all regions, including the poorest, in the third world, to which should
be added the debt-service levy that is imposed on nearly every country in the periphery of the global system. The US superpower
depends from day to day on the flow of capital which sustains its economy and society. The vulnerability of the United States
represents a serious danger to Washington's project." [
11 ]
In light of the above we may conclude that – in spite of the irritating name-dropping – Rickards' books are interesting well written
and well-argued; per contra they are very light on facts which have been left deliberately unexamined as well as counter-narratives
which have also been ignored.
This was to be expected quite simply because at bottom Rickards is a sophist much in the tradition of Protagoras, Gorgias
and Thrasymachus "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" [
12 ]
A view which Rickards would certainly endorse. Beneath the Upper Manhattan, polished chic, there resides a ruthless Cold Warrior.
The further one digs into the book, the more this becomes apparent.
NOTES:-
[1] Rickards – Aftermath – page.21
[2] Ibid., – page.65
[3] Michael Hudson – Super Imperialism – pp.298/99, 32.
[4] Rickards – Ibid. – page.66
[5] Hyman Minsky's theories about debt accumulation received revived attention in the media during the subprime mortgage crisis
of the late 2000s. The New Yorker has labelled it "the Minsky Moment". Minsky argued that a key mechanism that pushes an economy
towards a crisis is the accumulation of debt by the non-government sector. He identified three types of borrowers that contribute
to the accumulation of insolvent debt: hedge borrowers, speculative borrowers, and Ponzi borrowers.
The "hedge borrower" can make debt payments (covering interest and principal) from current cash flows from investments. For
the "speculative borrower", the cash flow from investments can service the debt, i.e., cover the interest due, but the borrower
must regularly roll over, or re-borrow, the principal. The "Ponzi borrower" (named for Charles Ponzi, see also Ponzi scheme) borrows
based on the belief that the appreciation of the value of the asset will be sufficient to refinance the debt but could not make
sufficient payments on interest or principal with the cash flow from investments; only the appreciating asset value can keep the
Ponzi borrower afloat.
[6] Rickards – Ibid., page.85
[7] Rickards – Ibid., page.239
[8] Joseph Stiglitz – The Roaring 90s – pp.206/207
[9] Gold Pool 1968. The price of one troy ounce of gold was pegged to US$35. The larger the gap, known as the gold window,
between free market gold price and the foreign exchange rate, the more tempting it was for nations to deal with internal economic
crises by buying gold at the Bretton Woods price and selling it in the gold markets. It couldn't last and it didn't.
[10] Michael Hudson – Ibid. – p.309
[11] Barry Eichengreen – Exorbitant Privilege – passim.
Frank Lee left school at age 15 without any qualifications,
but gained degrees from both New College Oxford and the London School of Economics (it's a long story). He spent many years as a
lecturer in politics and economics, and in the Civil Service, before retirement. He lives in Sutton with his wife and little dog.
Guy
Excellent article by Frank Lee. Many of us are aware of the problems of the USD but few are able to so succinctly explain
why and connect the dots to expose the true picture. The bottom line is that the lifespan of the USD as king is almost over
.There will not be any rabbit pulled out of the hat to make America great again.That is a feel good cliché used to further
induce the population to go back to sleep.
The US has been exposed, and so well said, as a predator nation .There must be a reason why China and Russia are buying
up as much gold as their economy will permit .The exchange medium used for trade since time immemorial .
FoodBowl
Measuring 'National Debt as a Portion of the US Economy' is for economics classes and for newspapers to publish. The Criminal
Elites look at things differently. They measure the National Debt as a Portion of the 'FEROCIOUS BOMBING POWER the US Possess'.
Also, 'Spreading Chaos Capabilities' is added to the Bombing Power.
From this point of view, they see enormous assets, and the debts becomes less worrying as they see less urgency to deal with
this ever growing liabilities.
Fair dinkum
No analysis required because it's always been the same. The few exploit the many. This has fed the cancers of psychopathy, messiah
complexes and endless wars.
We are rushing towards the midnight sun.
MASTER OF UNIVE
The Wall Street ethos has always been 'kill or be killed' where bears eat, and bulls eat, but pigs get slaughtered! The problem
with today's market & stock valuations is that they are as hyperinflated as Real Estate Commercial & Residential sectors are which
leaves no wiggle room for price discovery until there is a system wide crash that mean reverts the valuations back to a realistic
price.
Warren Buffett is currently sitting on $55 billion in cash so that he does not get destroyed on the upcoming systemic wide
crash. Buffett has never pulled this kind of bread from the table in his lifetime whilst waiting for a systemic crash & the inevitable
fat tail blowout that is poised to rip the face off of the USA & EU as their eyeballs get ripped out too.
Ripping a face off & ripping eyeballs out is day trader speak for kicking counterparties in the groin for the deal. The French
Revolution was all about teaching the financial elite predator class of monetary control freaks who the boss really is when the
gravy train slows during Financial Winter.
And if they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen!
RW
mark
All that is happening now is that Trump is trying to solve his country's intractable economic and financial problems by looting
the rest of the planet. This is not a new development, but Trump is at least refreshingly honest in his public pronouncements.
It has always been thus.
The Roman Empire imposed tribute on its subjects. You have to send us so much grain, cattle, so many slaves, so much timber
for shipbuilding, so much precious metal and base metal, so many wild beasts for our circuses. In return we won't kill you.
The Nazi Empire imposed tribute on its conquests in identical fashion. Send us your industrial output, agricultural
produce and raw materials. In return we'll give you a big credit balance at the Reichsbank.
Uncle Sugar says send me your BMWs, fine wines, electronic gadgets, oil and minerals. In return I'll give you some worthless
little pieces of green paper you can exchange for worthless IOUs called Treasury Bills.
The current (real) military budget is $1,134 billion, around 60% higher than the fictitious figure that is normally touted.
The trade deficit is $900 billion. The budget deficit $1,175 billion, over 20% of the overall budget.
America is borrowing around $4 billion a day from the rest of the world. Uncle Sam is the biggest scrounger, parasite, leech,
bludger, and panhandler in the history of the planet.
The official national debt of $22.5 trillion understates the true position by a factor of over ten. Every US man, woman, child,
and babe in arms is in hock to the tune of over $700,000.
The global economy is about to crash, yet again (because it's never really recovered from the 2008 crash)'. Answers on a postcard,
please (and one that doesn't involve giving the banksters eye-watering amounts of money).
Frank Lodge
Without reading the book in question, this seems like an thoroughly sound and incisive review. Just one thing, "cometh" takes
a singular subject.
BigB
Rickards attitude is famously: "Buy gold" to which he creates a fear porn scenario around the coming recession. His solution:
"Buy gold". Not, lets look at the conditions that are causing the underlying boom and bust business cycles and find a solution
that works for humanity. His solution: "Buy gold" which the likes of he and the others who are driving the business cyclical waves
of mutilation have already done to hedge their portfolios. Fuck Ricards. I have no time for those who wish to profit from the
overfinancial immiseration of humanity. And you know where you can stick your gold.
Good luck to anyone who produces gold in an actual collapse scenario. So you need to buy guns and bodyguards for self-protection
if you buy gold...
mark
Gold could form some kind of basis for exchange in a collapse setting. Other desirable barter items would be alcohol, cigarettes,
basic drugs like aspirin and paracetamol, electrical batteries, fuel and similar goods. Maybe ammunition as well. Goods were priced
in cigarettes in postwar Germany.
Gold would probably be of use. Gemstones, jewellery, would not. 99.9% of people are unable to distinguish a real diamond from
a piece of glass.
bevin
"he original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany." Not for the
first time Wikipedia is wrong here. Bismarck is normally credited with the choice between Guns and Butter. Goebbels was suggesting
that Guns will bring Butter.
Martin Usher
Its nice to see this in a book but its really common knowledge. The only thing I'd dispute is this notion of an 'elite', there
is no such thing, its just greed holding the reins -- its like a mass FOMO, nobody's willing to take the long view because it
might mean they'll miss out on what they can grab right now.
The danger we face from this is that if a large enough economic bloc runs by more rational rules then its going to eventually
cream us economically. This forces us to destroy it. This is what's at the bottom of our problems with China. The USSR wasn't
strong or well organized enough to pose a real threat to us so it could be taken down primarily by economic means. The Chinese
learned their lesson from the Russian experience and 'played nice' which they built their country up -- we all heard the commentariat
from a few years ago about them 'not really being communists any more'. Now they're in a position to look us in the eye so we've
got to confront them, to take them down. (You'll notice that one of the conditions that will end the trade war is the 'liberalizing
of capital markets' -- that is, we need to take over their banking system and currency.) If -- when -- this fails then the only
recourse would be actual war.
The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- ultimately a wholly artificial concept -- we're wasting immense amounts
of resources and human potential, spreading misery and despoliation all over the planet and generally behaving like really awful
global citizens. We can and must do better.
wardropper
And we certainly must stop talking about "taking down" the Chinese, and instead actually try to understand where they come from,
with their roots in a far more ancient civilized society than ours.
American exceptionalism, for example, takes it for granted that we in the West are good, and therefore the East must become
more like us. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese
take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them?
I have been to China, and found the people there to consist of the same mixtures of honest, good, nondescript, sinister and
deplorable as we have here at home.
They also share exactly the same fundamental problem as we do: Their politicians and their people, like ours, are two entirely
separate things. Of course the origins of Chinese, or Russian, society are different from ours, but that is no reason to despise
them. Our origins are often pretty despicable too.
Antonym
The Chinese people are as materialistic or spiritual as any; it is the local deep state (CPC) totalitarian culture that needs
to change.
Robbobbobin
"The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- [w]e can and must do better."
Three thousand years?
He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity.
–Ecclesiastes 5:10
Two thousand years?
For the love of money is the root of all evil –1 Timothy 6:10
Surely the Anti Deceased Equine Distress Society has lobbied some sort of statute of limitations onto the books by now?
MASTER OF UNIVE
American parasitism writ large over the last half century has amply signified to the entire world that 'manifest destiny'
was merely a ruse to foist American hegemony onto all sovereign nations at the behest of an out-of-control American Oligopoly
that was power-tripping post WW2 & drunk on the souls of the poor sots all over the entire world with their power hungry warmongering
Military Industrial Complex.
Proof of their combined ignorance with respect to Cybernetics & Systems Theory was their willingness to follow the likes of
the Vietnam War architects that assumed incorrectly that they could impose a closed-looped cybernetic control system over world
finance & mercantilism throughout the entire world at the behest of academic failures like Macnamera who would not know a 'closed-looped
cybernetic' from an open-looped cybernetic if his life & legacy depended on it.
Simply put, American printing presses at the privately owned Federal Reserve cannot even remotely help or assist in anymore
financial profligacy for the Neoconservative or Neoliberal camps of the cerebrally sclerotic & Early Onset Dementia riddled, &
uneducated, financial buffoons that emanated out of the now defunct Chicago School headed up by Strauss et al. in the 60s & 70s.
All the macroeconomic indicators over the last two decades have clearly indicated that the Greenspan era of asset inflation
was nothing more than the undoing of Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker's hard won success during his tenure pre-Greenspan 'Maestro'
halcyon days of animal spirits run amok.
In brief, the United States of America can eat my shorts as it is solely responsible for manufacturing a finance control system
& requisite money pump fraud that is nothing more than a worldwide Ponzi scheme to defraud the entire world of disposable income
& discretionary income gain so that all gains accrue to the rentier class of speculative investors like Warren Buffett & Bob Paulson.
Bottom line is that Warren Buffett will have to purchase all the new automobiles, trucks, houses, mansions, cottages, farms,
cites, towns, railroads, roads, & precious metals as the emerging markets & first world markets all decouple just as Professor
Emeritus Benoit Mandelbrot hypothesized they would just before he died.
Go ahead, America, print the fake fiat greenbacks to infinity in vain hope of extricating yourselves from the intractable financial
muck & mire you are most assuredly going to find yourselves in this approaching October 2019.
Go ahead, Punk, make my day!
Are you feeling lucky, Punk?
RW
Martin Usher
Its not "American". We just happen to be the chosen host for this part of history. Before us it was the British Empire that
was top dog.
Money has no particular loyalty to a country. In pre-WW1 Europe the bourgeois were all intermarried, connected primarily by
wealth and power regardless of their nominal nationality, our present equivalent are similarly connected. Just like WW1 when the
chips are down we -- the ordinary people -- will be sacrificed on the alter of patriotism while they'll survive and prosper.
MASTER OF UNIVE
March 10th 2008 around 11:00am Bear Stearns time New York shitty was the virtual end of American hegemony worldwide forever more
into the obvious future of Macroeconomics & Macroprudential Policy as an ongoing concern. Debt-to-GDP of all sovereign Western
imperialist nations is intractably North of any semblance of sustainability vis-a-vis Finance worldwide or within Emerging Economies
or First World Developed Economies.
Intractable debt limits were broached when Nixon declared the bankruptcy of the Bretton Woods infrastructure of gold backed
USA Reserve Currency Status and then opted in ignorance for the petro-dollar bait & switch fiat USD Finance capture worldwide
which has now come home to roost across the rust belt of the heartland USA, and in places that were once bastions of manufacturing
for the middle class USA blue collar worker such as Detroit or Chicago. Today the business model of the USA is transnationalist
whereby places across the USA are not even remotely financed into that transnationalist Wall Street model of Finance that is wholly
parasitic to the point of crashing mainstreet USA across all sectors of the Service Sector Industries that were supposed to be
replacing the long lost USA Manufacturing Base that was offshored to the Third World sovereigns that would temporarly increase
profit margins for the transnationalist class of corporate parasites run amok to collectively destroy all life on Planet Earth
for centuries to come if we are lucky.
RW
martin
You have made the common mistake of asserting that it is America, instead of those who govern (the USA and its pundits)
that have engineered the problems you point out.
Why would the two parties in congress (Article II followers) and the two fellows with the Article II power, continue to [expand
the debt in fake, made up and useless expenses], unless they were controlled by external forces?
Maybe bankers and their high powered corporations are finding they can no longer easily dupe Americans into delivering their
resources into the pockets of the wealthy. Maybe the American people have drawn the line, no more, will they produce for the IMF,
world bank?
Maybe Americans have decided to refuse the tax burdens imposed to retire the fed debt? Maybe foreign nations have denied the
banks and their corporations access to their resources as a means to pay the USA debt? Maybe script has been recognized as a false
capital in-capable of ruling the world? Maybe organized criminals have taken up positions in the western governments and used
those positions to force on the governed many things? Maybe burdening the USA with debt is part of the plan to bankrupt America?
<==but why should the banks bankrupt America, why has access to education been limited, why has the USA spied on Americans? Why
have the governed Americans been denied access to the USA? Has the USA retired Americans from productive jobs, in order to accelerate
the demise of America? The USA has made Americans into debtors obligated to pay bankers in the form of taxes to be collected by
the USA and remitted to the bankers. <= just as is now occurring in Britain, Greece, France, and other places. Privatization,
monopolization and conversion from public to private franchising and ownership have served as the transforming agents that have
made the elite so wealthy.
Economic Zionism. as opposed to government regulated capitalism, condones no competition, allows no prisoners and either
takes or destroys all likely competitive elements (persons, corporations, or nations) Economic Zionism demands the government
that governs (as in USA governance over Americans) assist in rendering Americans broke. Is it because until Americans are broke,
the EZ bandits are hampered? Is scooping resources into private, monopoly powered, already wealthy hands, the goodies to be had
the goal? Maybe the USA is a privatizing agent instead of a benefactor serving Americans?
In USA governed America, there is much very-productive farm land, millions of tons of minerals, many productive seaports, and
tons and tons of money making monopolies (patents, copyrights, royalties, government franchised goodies, lucrative government
contracts, and plenty of government services and resources) to be privatized for profit. The goodies are located in thousands
of acres of rich farmland, the major ports and services attached thereto, and embedded within little domestic American companies
which the USA debt will eventually burden into bankruptcy. After all "scalping a bankruptcy" is historically a speciality of economic
zionism.
MASTER OF UNIVE
In 1994 JPMorgan management & traders went on a little holiday in Miami to concoct the Global Ponzi of debt & risk associated
with loans into what is known today as the Financialization Process whereby bank risk would be shuffled off of investment bank
balance sheets and onto those speculators that wanted to purchase all that risk involved in the bank portfolios en masse because
they knew how to offload that risk to unsuspecting greater fools that were always certain to come knocking in a climate of upward
growth and yield curve convexity. But the chink in their financial alchemy was obviously debt limits and the ability to track
the risk to the system as a whole given that all transactions in the derivatives world are dark & unregulated due to the helmsmen
like the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who previous to being nominated as Treasury Secretary was in fact the top man at Goldman
Sachs where he raked in approximately a smooth billion before traversing the revolving door between the Whore House & Goldman
Sachs New York shitty offices.
Casino Banking morphed into Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism when Bob Paulson wanted more Residential Mortgage Backed Security issuance
and pressured Goldman Sachs into providing more issuance via NINJA loans & Liar Loans after 05 when the Wall Street speculators
had to go bottom feeding for loan issuance in order to meet investor demand & apatite for their unhinged Gordon Gecko greed.
'Maestro' Greenspan emphasized his 'flaw' in his macroeconomic model of the world when the investor greed broached fat tails
on the order of a 10% crash of the power laws of distributions of loan issuance. Greenspan never assumed that the Financialization
Process would exceed a default scenario greater than 5-7% of no-performing loans in the subprime issuance tranche.
American exceptionalism via Henry Paulson USA Treasury Secretary 08 is what rendered American Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism wholly
defunct going forward into 2020 & beyond with a permanent lower bound CB Interest Rate Regime & specter of WW3 hot conflagration.
My money is on the pinko Commie bastards this time round the sovereign insolvency loop of domestic misery USA.
WELCOME to the New World Disorder!
RW
nottheonly1
To condense this lengthy essay: This ship is sinking.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign
debt and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according
to many
One – at least on this side of the screen – cannot but think that all this is by design. The cart is driven intentionally off
the cliff. To start off with a clean slate? Where the wealthy still have their wealth, but the suckers are depending on hand-outs?
An old proverb alledges that: To borrow brings sorrow.
To which only those who make loads of money from lending will disagree. Where are the solutions? No solutions, just listicles
as to how bad it all is? Sure, the West is reminiscent of the HMS Titanic – with the slight difference of the hole made by the
iceberg (debt) extending over the whole length of the ship. It is listing beyond dancing.
Well, I am willing to tell a secret (that isn't one anymore for quite some time):
Outlaw/prohibit Interest .
Prohibit capital gains . Or tax them with 99%.
Prevent under all circumstances a continuation of Performanceless Profits .
Make them punishable with prison time of no less than half of the age at which they were perpetrated. You're 30? You're going
in for 15. You're 65? Easy math.
Fact is, that there are solutions galore to save our souls. Problem is, those whose lives are depending on them, don't demand
them to be implemented. And why would the wealthy tax non-payers like Bezos et al want to change their 'winning team'? That is
a well known no-no. The only solution the masses of the little people can hope for is 'Force Majeur' that works to their benefit.
Shall we wait for that to happen?
I think the Car Wash conspiracy against Lula is a bombshell, and Pepe Escobar's prison
interviews with Lula provide insight to the larger global Borgist conspiracy. Check out what
Lula had to say about the JCPOA. Be sure to read partsI I and II as well.
And we certainly must stop talking about "taking down" the Chinese, and instead actually try to understand where they come from,
with their roots in a far more ancient civilized society than ours.
. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese
take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them?
I have been to China, and found the people there to consist of the same mixtures of honest, good, nondescript, sinister and deplorable
as we have here at home.
They also share exactly the same fundamental problem as we do: Their politicians and their people, like ours, are two entirely
separate things.
Of course the origins of Chinese, or Russian, society are different from ours, but that is no reason to despise them.
Our origins are often pretty despicable too.
"... Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong rearrested based on bail violations, which supporters claim represents political persecution. After being released on bail last week, Wong published an op-ed in the New York Times declaring the protests as the "front line" in a hybrid war vs the PRC, and travelled to Taiwan where he urged the government there to join forces with HK activists in open conflict against Beijing. In both forums, Wong hinted a major provocation was in the works to disrupt the October 1st celebration of the PRC's 70th anniversary. ..."
"... That is, just as the Maidan protesters, knowingly or not, demanded that the IMF impose an austerity program on them, the Hong Kong protesters demand sanctions and the withdrawal of preferential trading deals. The Maidan protests have been deliberately seeded as a correlating event to the HK protests, with numerous public screenings in HK of the contentious "Winter On Fire" documentary. This comparison first appeared in online journals such as Quartz many weeks ago, and appears to be one of the originating "memes" promoted by the PR people working behind the scenes. ..."
"... Wow those hongkong protesters are not even shy about their call for regime change by Trump against China/Hongkong ..."
The sooner the 50 states secede from that cesspool in Maryland and try something different, the better.
I agree, b; the panic amongst US military planners is indeed setting in; all the resources wasted in developing dubious-quality
weapons systems has been made plain for all the world to see with the rapid (and highly cost-effective) counter-measures both
Russia and China (and now Iran) have been able to put into serial production
(pretty
sure this ain't an RC video)
Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong rearrested based on bail violations, which supporters claim represents political persecution.
After being released on bail last week, Wong published an op-ed in the New York Times declaring the protests as the "front line"
in a hybrid war vs the PRC, and travelled to Taiwan where he urged the government there to join forces with HK activists in open
conflict against Beijing. In both forums, Wong hinted a major provocation was in the works to disrupt the October 1st celebration
of the PRC's 70th anniversary.
Meanwhile, "thousands of people converged at a park in central Hong Kong, chanting 'Resist Beijing, Liberate Hong Kong.' Many
of them, clad in black shirts and wearing masks, waved American flags and carried posters that read 'President Trump, please liberate
Hong Kong Protesters urged Washington to pass a bill, known as the Hong Kong Democratic and Human Rights Act, to support their
cause. The bill proposes sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials found to suppress democracy and human rights in the
city, and could also affect Hong Kong's preferential trade status with the U.S." https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hong-kong-protests-us-embassy-1.5275142
That is, just as the Maidan protesters, knowingly or not, demanded that the IMF impose an austerity program on them, the Hong
Kong protesters demand sanctions and the withdrawal of preferential trading deals. The Maidan protests have been deliberately
seeded as a correlating event to the HK protests, with numerous public screenings in HK of the contentious "Winter On Fire" documentary.
This comparison first appeared in online journals such as Quartz many weeks ago, and appears to be one of the originating "memes"
promoted by the PR people working behind the scenes.
AuGold , Sep 8 2019 21:01 utc |
46Zanon , Sep 8 2019 21:04 utc |
47
Wow those hongkong protesters are not even shy about their call for regime change by Trump against China/Hongkong:
"... Twice in the same sentence we get told what that assumption is: "America's technology leadership" which so clearly no longer exists in weaponry, electronics, nuclear engineering, rocketry, high speed rail and mass transportation, low energy building techniques, and a host of other realms. This same sort of thinking pervades every defense doctrine paper produced during Trump's administration--the planners have eaten and all too well digested their own propaganda about the backwardness of Russia, China and Iran. ..."
"... This does not imply some rabid anti-Americanism, but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a 'clock being played out', it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the Middle East is running down ..."
"... [with] Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as the last. ..."
"... "And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran. The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'. ..."
"... "If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy 'process' in the hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the US has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once poured forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an incumbent President)." ..."
Speculation's abounded about the political loyalty of the head of Russia's central bank
Elvira Nabullina. Luongo simply explains:
"Nabullina has always been a controversial figure because she is western trained and because
the banking system in Russia is still staffed by those who operate along IMF prescriptions on
how to deal with crises.
"But those IMF rules are there to protect the IMF making the loans to the troubled nation,
not to assist the troubled nation actually recover....
"The fundamental problem is a miseducation about what interest rates are, and how they
interact with inflation and capital flow. Because of this, the medicine for saving an economy
in trouble is, more often than not, worse than the disease itself.
"If Argentina's fourth default in twenty years doesn't prove that to you, nothing will."
It sounds like he's been reading Hudson's J is for Junk Economics !
The real rescue is Putin's aggressive de-dollarization policy that's finally rid Russia of
"dollar-dependency":
"She [Nabullina] keeps jumping at the shadows of a dollar-induced crisis. But the Russian
economy of 2019 is not the Russian economy of 2015. Dollar lending has all but evaporated and
the major source of demand for dollars domestically are legacy corporate loans not converted to
rubles or euros."
The key for me is to weave the content emphasis of Putin's Eastern Economic Conference speech with
his increasing pressure on Nabullina for the bank to support this very important development
policy direction and show China and other nations that Russia's extremely serious about the
direction being taken. Just Putin's language about mortgage rate reductions as an attracter
ought to be a huge message for Nabullina to respond properly. And a further kick in the pants
was provided by the massive deal announced between China and Iran. Luongo briefly alludes to
foreign policy in his article, its regional economic aspects, while omitting aspects hidden by
the US-China Trade War, specifically Russia's now very clear technological supremacy to the
Outlaw US Empire.
This brings us to Crooke's article in which he inadvertently tells us the #1 false
assumption in Trump's Trade War policy with China:
"To defend America's technology leadership , policymakers must upgrade their toolkit
to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks." [My
Emphasis]
Twice in the same sentence we get told what that assumption is: "America's technology
leadership" which so clearly no longer exists in weaponry, electronics, nuclear engineering,
rocketry, high speed rail and mass transportation, low energy building techniques, and a host
of other realms. This same sort of thinking pervades every defense doctrine paper produced
during Trump's administration--the planners have eaten and all too well digested their own
propaganda about the backwardness of Russia, China and Iran.
I could write further about the supposed handcuffing of POTUS by the unconstitutional and
illegal sanction regime "imposed" by the US Congress. Crooke mentions as a significant
hindrance--but if it was indeed a hindrance, any POTUS could break it by suing to prove its
unconstitutional, illegal standing, yet no effort is put into that, begging the question Why?
Crooke spends lots of space about this but fails to see the above solution:
"The pages to that chapter have been shut. This does not imply some rabid
anti-Americanism, but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a 'clock
being played out', it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the
Middle East is running down , and not the 'clock' of US domestic politics. The old adage
that the 'sea is always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy.
And [with] Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is,
of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as
the last.
"And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with
Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran.
The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of
interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even
Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of
US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in
the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'.
"If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy 'process' in
the hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the
US has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once
poured forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an
incumbent President)."
Being British, we should excuse Crooke for not knowing about the crucial Supremacy Clause
within the US Constitution, but that doesn't absolve any POTUS if that person is really intent
on talking with Iran--or any other sanctioned nation. IMO, the Iranians know what I know and
have finally decided the Outlaw US Empire's marriage to Occupied Palestine won't suffer a
divorce anytime soon. The result is the recent very active change in policy direction aimed at
solidifying the Arc of Resistance and establishing a Persian Gulf Collective Security Pact that
will end in check mating the Empire's King thus causing further economic problems for the
Empire.
Crooke does a good job of summarizing my comment and many more made over the year regarding
the reasons for the utter failure of Outlaw US Empire policy:
"Well, here is the key point: Washington seems to have lost the ability to summon the
resources to try to fathom either China, or the Iranian 'closed book', let alone a 'Byzantine'
Russia. It is a colossal attenuation of consciousness in Washington; a loss of conscious
'vitality' to the grip of some 'irrefutable logic' that allows no empathy, no outreach, to
'otherness'. Washington (and some European élites) have retreated into their 'niche'
consciousness, their mental enclave, gated and protected, from having to understand – or
engage – with wider human experience."
The only real way for the Outlaw US Empire to regain its competitive "niche" with the rest
of the world is to mount a massive program of internal reform verging on a revolution in its
outcome. It's patently obvious that more of the same will yield more of the same--FAILURE--and
the chorus of inane caterwauling by BigLie Media over where to place the blame.
"... " Fuel to the Fire: How Trump Made America's Foreign Policy Even Worse (and How We Can Do Better) " is a scalding indictment not only of the 45th U.S. president, but also of a morally bankrupt national security establishment whose addiction to empire has embroiled the nation in misbegotten military misadventures. ..."
"... Glaser, Preble and Thrall see Trump -- the "least informed, least experienced, and least intellectually prepared U.S. president in modern memory" -- as more bark than bite. True, he has altered specific U.S. positions on trade (more protectionism), immigration (greater closure) and human rights (deafening silence). But, on balance, they perceive a depressing continuity between Trump's foreign policy and what preceded it. Abetted by an invertebrate Congress and emboldened by the military-industrial complex, Trump has doubled down on the imperial presidency, on inflated threat perceptions, on defense spending and on the pursuit of global domination. In so doing, they claim, Trump is setting a course for continued interventionism that is at odds with U.S. ideals and dangerous to American liberty. ... ..."
In a provocative new book, three scholars from the
libertarian Cato Institute -- John Glaser, Christopher A. Preble and A. Trevor Thrall --
counsel the United States to abandon the pursuit of global primacy for a policy of prudence and
restraint. " Fuel to the Fire: How
Trump Made America's Foreign Policy Even Worse (and How We Can Do Better) " is a scalding
indictment not only of the 45th U.S. president, but also of a morally bankrupt national
security establishment whose addiction to empire has embroiled the nation in misbegotten
military misadventures. American foreign policy professionals may cast the United States as
a benevolent hegemon, defending the liberal or "rules-based" international order. But this
self-serving argument is hard to take seriously, they write, given the hubris, hypocrisy and
coerciveness of the American imperium.
The most surprising argument in "Fuel to the Fire" is that this misguided orientation has
persisted under Donald Trump. This seems counterintuitive. Washington's mandarins have recoiled
in bipartisan horror as the president dismantles their handiwork and pursues his "America
First" agenda. Glaser, Preble and Thrall see Trump -- the "least informed, least
experienced, and least intellectually prepared U.S. president in modern memory" -- as more bark
than bite. True, he has altered specific U.S. positions on trade (more protectionism),
immigration (greater closure) and human rights (deafening silence). But, on balance, they
perceive a depressing continuity between Trump's foreign policy and what preceded it. Abetted
by an invertebrate Congress and emboldened by the military-industrial complex, Trump has
doubled down on the imperial presidency, on inflated threat perceptions, on defense spending
and on the pursuit of global domination. In so doing, they claim, Trump is setting a course for
continued interventionism that is at odds with U.S. ideals and dangerous to American liberty.
...
Behind Hong Kong's chaos lie deep-seated social problems
"Seclusion brings no development opportunity for Hong Kong," said economist Lau Pui-King.
"Some youngsters don't understand that Hong Kong would be even worse if it is secluded from
the Chinese mainland."
"To come out of the current economic difficulty, Hong Kong needs to be linked with the
Chinese mainland much closer and more effectively," she said.
HONG KONG -- Kwong loves the pure adrenaline rush he gets when he takes his motorcycle out
on the weekends to light up his lackluster life.
The 35-year-old lives with his parents in an old and cramped apartment in the New
Territories of Hong Kong. He has a girlfriend but is hesitant to get married and start a
family.
"The rent is so high, and there is no way I can afford an apartment," said Kwong, who
earns 15,000 HK dollars (1,950 U.S. dollars) a month. Renting a 30-square meter one-bedroom
apartment would cost him about two-thirds of his salary.
"Future? I don't think much about it, just passing each day as it is," he said.
Kwong's words reflect the grievances among many people in Hong Kong, particularly the
young. Many vented their discontent in prolonged streets protests that have rocked Hong Kong
since June.
The demonstrations, which started over two planned amendments to Hong Kong's ordinances
concerning fugitive offenders, widened and turned violent over the past months.
"After more than two months of social unrest, it is obvious to many that discontentment
extends far beyond the bill," said Carrie Lam, chief executive of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (HKSAR), referring to the now-withdrawn amendments.
To Lam, the discontent covers political, economic and social issues, including the
often-mentioned problems relating to housing and land supply, income distribution, social
justice and mobility and opportunities, for the public to be fully engaged in the HKSAR
government's decision-making.
"We can discuss all these issues in our new dialogue platform," she said.
UNAFFORDABLE HOUSES
For nine straight years, housing in Hong Kong has been ranked as the least affordable in
the world. Homes in the city got further out of reach for most residents, according to
Demographia, an urban planning policy consultancy. The city's median property price climbed
to 7.16 million HK dollars in 2019, or 20.9 times the median household income in 2018, up
from 19.4 times from a year earlier.
In the latest case of house transaction, an apartment of 353 square feet (about 33 square
meters) at Mong Kok in central Kowloon was sold at 5.2 million HK dollars in September,
according to the registered data from Centaline Property Agency Limited.
For those fortunate enough to have bought an apartment, many have to spend a large part of
their monthly income on a mortgage. For those who have not bought any property yet, it is
common to spend more than 10,000 HK dollars in rent, while saving every penny up for a
multi-million HK dollar down payment.
From 2004 to 2018, the property price increased by 4.4 fold, while income stagnated,
statistics show. From 2008 to 2017, average real wage growth in Hong Kong was merely 0.1
percent, according to a global wage report by the International Labor Organization.
Homeownership dropped from 53 percent to 48.9 percent from 2003 to 2018.
Efforts of the HKSAR government to increase land supply to stem home prices from soaring
also went futile amid endless quarrels. Of Hong Kong's total 1,100 square kilometers of land
area, only 24.3 percent has been developed, with land for residential use accounting for a
mere 6.9 percent, according to data from the HKSAR government.
Social worker Jack Wong, 29, lives in an apartment bought by his parents. "I'm lucky. Most
of my friends still have to share apartments with their parents. My cousin has been married
for seven years, but he is still saving for his down payment, so he has to live at his
parents' house," he said.
"The older generation changed from having nothing to having something. We, the younger
generation, thought we had something, but it turns out we have nothing," he said.
MIDDLE CLASS' ANXIETY
While young people complain about having few opportunities for upward mobility, Hong
Kong's middle class, which should have long been stalwarts of the society, are under great
economic pressure and in fear of falling behind.
It is not easy to be middle class in Hong Kong, one of the world's most expensive cities.
To join the rank, a household needs to earn at least 55,000 HK dollars, or 7,000 U.S.
dollars, a month, according to Paul Yip Siu-fai, a senior lecturer at the University of Hong
Kong. About 10 percent of the households in the city are up to the rank.
Earning that much can be counted as rich in many parts of the world. But in Hong Kong, the
money is still tight if you have a child to raise and elderly to support.
Housing is the biggest burden for the average middle-class resident. The cost of having a
child is another headache in Hong Kong, where pricey extra-curricular activities and private
tutoring are considered necessary to win in the fierce competition.
Fears of descending to the low-income group are real for the middle class. Many think they
belong to the middle class only in education and cultural identity, but their living
conditions are not much better than the impoverished, said Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, former
secretary for transport and housing of the HKSAR government.
Civil servants and teachers, who earn much more than the average income, are traditionally
considered middle class. But Cheung found out in a survey that many of them could not afford
to have their own apartment, with some even living in the narrow rooms of partitioned
apartments.
"We don't belong to the low-income group, but we could just rent an apartment now," said
Lee, a teacher at a secondary school in Hong Kong.
Lee and her husband earned nearly 1.3 million HK dollars a year, but a 50-square meter
apartment is the best they could rent now for a five-member family. She preferred not to give
her full name as she feels her situation is embarrassing.
"We want to save more money to buy a house near prestigious elementary schools for our
kids," Lee said. "If our kids can't go to a good school, it'll be very tough in the
future."
CHANGING ECONOMIC STRUCTURE
In the 1970s, nearly half of Hong Kong's labor force were industrial workers when
manufacturing thrived in Hong Kong. During the 1980s, Hong Kong's finance, shipping, trade
and logistics and service industries started to boom.
Since then, the economic landscape began to change amid subsequent industrial
upgrading.
Due to the hollowing out of the manufacturing industry, the wealth gap in Hong Kong
widened and the class division worsened. Despite the prosperity of finance, trade and tourism
in recent years, more than 1.37 million people are living below the poverty line in Hong
Kong, home to more than 7 million.
Working career options are now limited, leaving little hope for the youngsters to move up
the social ranks.
As a result, Hong Kong's social class has largely been solidified in the 21st century,
with the richest people dominated by property developers and their families.
The Gini coefficient, which measures the inequality of income distribution, reached a
new high of 0.539 in 2016, far above the warning level of 0.4, according to data by the HKSAR
government's Census and Statistics Department. The greater the number toward one, the more
unequal in income distribution.
Though the HKSAR government tried to narrow the wealth gap, many people in Hong Kong said
they are not sharing the fruits of economic prosperity, the young and those low-income groups
in particular.
STAGNATING POLITICAL BARRIERS
What makes the deep-seated problems in Hong Kong such a hard nut to crack? The reason is
complicated, according to observers, partly due to the containment in the current political
structure that leads to governance difficulty, partly due to a doctrinaire implementation of
the principle of "small government, big market," or laissez faire, and most importantly due
to the opposition's "say no for none's sake" that stirs political confrontation and sends
Hong Kong into a dilemma of discussions without decisions, or making decisions without
execution.
Over the past 22 years, the successive HKSAR governments have tried many times to tackle
these problems by rolling out affordable housing programs and narrowing the rich-poor
gap.
For example, to make houses more affordable, Tung Chee-hwa, the first HKSAR chief
executive, proposed in 1997 to build at least 85,000 flats every year in the public and
private sectors, raise the homeownership rate to 70 percent in 10 years and reduce the
average waiting time for public rental housing to three years.
Such plans, however, went aborted as home prices plunged in Hong Kong amid the Asian
financial crisis in 1998.
"Since Hong Kong's return, many economic and livelihood issues would not be as politicized
as they are now, should the HKSAR government have introduced more policies and better social
security arrangements to address those problems," said Tian Feilong, a law expert of the "one
country, two systems" center with the Beijing-based Beihang University.
To carry out major policies or push forward major bills, the HKSAR government needs to
garner the support of two-thirds majority at the Legislative Council (LegCo).
The HKSAR government's previous motions, be it economic policies or fiscal appropriations,
were impeded by the opposition time and again at the LegCo, regardless of the interests of
the majority of Hong Kong residents and the long-term development of the society.
The HKSAR government sought in 2012 to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau to
ride the global wave of innovative startups, diversify its economic structure and bring more
opportunities for young people. Such efforts, however, were obstructed by the opposition at
the LegCo in defiance of repeated calls by the public. After three years, the proposal to
create the bureau was finally passed by the LegCo.
In another case, a Hong Kong resident, incited by the opposition, appealed in 2010 for a
judicial review of the construction plan of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Though the
HKSAR government won the lawsuit after more than a year of court proceedings, 6.5 billion HK
dollars of taxpayers' money had been wasted in the increased construction costs of the
bridge's Hong Kong section due to the delay.
As time passed, problems remained unsolved, so did public discontent.
Repeated political bickering stalled Hong Kong's social progress amid the sparring, and
the opposition created a false target and blamed the Chinese mainland for those deep-seated
problems.
Lau Pui-King, an economist in Hong Kong, snubbed the opposition's resistance of or even
antagonism to the Chinese mainland, saying such thinking of secluding Hong Kong from the
entire country could end nowhere but push the city down an abyss.
"Seclusion brings no development opportunity for Hong Kong," Lau said. "Some youngsters
don't understand that Hong Kong would be even worse if it is secluded from the Chinese
mainland."
"To come out of the current economic difficulty, Hong Kong needs to be linked with the
Chinese mainland much closer and more effectively," she said.
"... First, Fu Guohao , a reporter for the Chinese mainland newspaper, Global Times , was attacked, bound and beaten by protesters during their takeover of the Hong Kong International Airport. When police and rescuers tried to free him, the protesters blocked them and also attempted to block the ambulance that eventually bore him off to the hospital. The photos and videos of this ugly sequence were seen by netizens across the globe even though given scant attention in Western media. Where were the stalwart defenders of the press in the US as this happened? As one example, DemocracyNow! (DN!) was completely silent as was the rest of the U.S. mainstream media. ..."
"... And that photo with the protest leaders is just a snap shot of the ample evidence of the hand of the U.S. government and its subsidiaries in the Hong Kong events. Perhaps the best documentation of the U.S. "black hand" is to be found in Dan Cohen's superb article of August 17 in The Greyzone entitled, "Behind a made-for-TV Hong Kong protest narrative, Washington is backing nativism and mob violence." ..."
"... On both sides anti-interventionism takes an especially hard hit when it comes to major competitors of the US, powers that could actually stand in the way of US global hegemony, like Russia or China. In fact on its August 12 program, DN! managed a story taking a swipe at Russia right next to the one on Hong Kong – and DN! was in the forefront of advancing the now debunked and disgraced Russiagate Conspiracy Theory. ..."
Through the summer the world has watched as protests shook Hong Kong. As early as April they began as peaceful demonstrations
which peaked in early June, with hundreds of thousands, in protest of an extradition bill. That bill would have allowed Hong Kong,
a Special Administrative Region of China, to return criminals to Taiwan, mainland China or Macau for crimes committed there – after
approval by multiple layers of the Hong Kong judiciary. In the wake of those enormous nonviolent demonstrations, Carrie Lam, CEO
of Hong Kong, "suspended" consideration of the extradition bill, a face-saving ploy. To make sure she was understood, she declared
it "dead." The large rallies, an undeniable expression of the peaceful will of a large segment of the Hong Kong population had won
an impressive victory. The unpopular extradition bill was slain.
But that was not the end of the story. A smaller segment continued the protests. (The Hong Kong police at one point estimated
4,000 hard core protesters.) They pressed on with other demands, beginning with a demand that the bill be "withdrawn," not simply
"suspended." To this writer death by "suspension" is every bit as terminal as death by "withdrawal." As this piece is sent to press,
news comes that Corrie Lam has now
formally withdrawn the bill .
As the summer passed, two iconic photos presented us with two human faces that captured two crucial features of the ongoing protests;
they were not shown widely in the West.
First,
Fu Guohao , a reporter for the Chinese mainland newspaper, Global Times , was attacked, bound and beaten by protesters
during their takeover of the Hong Kong International Airport. When police and rescuers tried to free him, the protesters blocked
them and also attempted to block the ambulance that eventually bore him off to the hospital. The photos and videos of this ugly sequence
were seen by netizens across the globe even though given scant attention in Western media. Where were the stalwart defenders of the
press in the US as this happened? As one example, DemocracyNow! (DN!) was completely silent as was the rest of the U.S. mainstream
media.
Fu's beating came after many weeks when the protesters threw up barriers to stop traffic; blocked closure of subway doors, in
defiance of commuters and police, to shut down mass transit; sacked and vandalized the HK legislature building; assaulted bystanders
who disagreed with them; attacked the police with Molotov cocktails; and stormed and defaced police stations. Fu's ordeal and all
these actions shown in
photos on Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, a paper leaning to the side of protesters, gave the lie to the image of these
"democracy activists" as young Ghandis of East Asia. (The South China Morning Post is based in Hong Kong and its readership is concentrated
there so it has to have some reasonable fidelity in reporting events; otherwise it loses credibility – and circulation. Similarly,
much as the New York Times abhorred Occupy Wall Street, it could not fail to report on it.)
Which brings us to the second photo, much more important to U.S. citizens, that of a "Political Counselor" at the U.S. Consulate
General in Hong Kong who in August was pictured meeting with, Joshua Long and Nathan Law, at a hotel there. The official was formerly
a State Dept functionary in the Middle East – in Jerusalem, Riyadh, Beirut, Baghdad and Doha, certainly not an area lacking in imperial
intrigues and regime change ops. That photo graphically contradicted the contention that there is no US "black hand," as China calls
it, in the Hong Kong riots. In fact, here the "black hand" was caught red-handed, leading Chen Weihua, a very perceptive China Daily
columnist, to tweet the picture with the comment: "This is very very embarrassing. a US diplomat in Hong Kong, was caught meeting
HK protest leaders. It would be hard to imagine the US reaction if a Chinese diplomat were meeting leaders of Occupy Wall Street,
Black Lives Matter or Never Trump protesters."
And that photo with the protest leaders is just a snap shot of the ample evidence of the hand of the U.S. government and its
subsidiaries in the Hong Kong events. Perhaps the best documentation of the U.S. "black hand" is to be found in Dan Cohen's
superb article
of August 17 in The Greyzone entitled, "Behind a made-for-TV Hong Kong protest narrative, Washington is backing nativism and mob
violence." The article by Cohen deserves careful reading; it leaves little doubt that there is a very deep involvement of the
US in the Hong Kong riots. Of special interest is the detailed
role and funding , amounting
to over $1.3 million, in Hong Kong alone in recent years, of the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED), ever on the prowl for
new regime change opportunities.
Perhaps most important, the leaders of the "leaderless" protests have met with major US political figures such as John Bolton,
Vice President Pence, Secretary Pompeo, Senator Marco Rubio, Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, Nancy Pelosi and others, all of whom have
heartily endorsed their efforts. This is not to deny that the protests were home grown at the outset in response to what was widely
perceived as a legitimate grievance. But it would be equally absurd to deny that the U.S. is fishing in troubled Hong Kong waters
to advance its anti-China crusade and regime change ambitions.
That said, where is the U.S. peace movement on the question of Hong Kong?
Let us be clear. One can sympathize with the demand of many citizens of Hong Kong to end the extradition bill or even the other
four demands: an inquiry into police handling of their protests; the retraction of a government characterization of the demonstrations
as riots; an amnesty for arrested protesters; and universal suffrage. (The first three all grow out of violence of the protests,
be it noted.) But that is the business of the citizens of Hong Kong and all the rest of China. It is not the business of the U.S.
government. Peace activists in the US should be hard at work documenting and denouncing the US government's meddling in Hong Kong,
which could set us on the road to war with China, potentially a nuclear war. And that is a mission for which we in the U.S. are uniquely
suited since, at least in theory, we have some control over our government.
So, we should expect to hear the cry, "US Government, Hands Off Hong Kong"? Sadly, with a few principled exceptions it is nowhere
to be heard on either the left or right.
Let's take DemocracyNow! (DN!) as one example, a prominent one on the "progressive" end of the spectrum. From April through August
28, there have been 25 brief accounts ("headlines" as DN! calls them, each amounting to a few paragraphs) of the events in Hong Kong
and 4 features, longer supposedly analytic pieces, on the same topic. Transcripts of the four features are
here ,
here ,
here and
here . There is not a single
mention of possible US involvement or the meetings of the various leaders of the protest movement with Pompeo, Bolton, Pence, or
the "Political Counselor" of the US Hong Kong consulate.
And this silence on US meddling is true not only of most progressive commentators but also most conservatives.
On the Left when someone cries "Democracy," many forget all their pro-peace sentiment. And similarly on the Right when someone
cries "Communism," anti-interventionism too often goes down the tubes. Forgotten is John Quincy Adams's 1823 dictum, endlessly quoted
but little honored, "We do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Where does this lapse on the part of activists come from?
Is it a deep-seated loyalty to Empire, the result of endless indoctrination? Is it U.S. Exceptionalism, ingrained to the point of
unconsciousness? Or is it at bottom a question of who the paymasters are?
On both sides anti-interventionism takes an especially hard hit when it comes to major competitors of the US, powers that
could actually stand in the way of US global hegemony, like Russia or China. In fact on its August 12 program, DN! managed a story
taking a swipe at Russia right
next to the one on Hong Kong – and DN! was in the forefront of advancing the now debunked and disgraced Russiagate Conspiracy Theory.
In contrast, the anti-interventionist movement is front and center when it comes to weaker nations, for example Venezuela – and quite
properly so. But when one puts this advocacy for weaker nations together with the New Cold War stance on China and Russia, one must
ask what is going on here. Does it betoken a sort of imperial paternalism on the part of DN and like-minded outlets? It certainly
gains DN!, and others like it, considerable credibility among anti-interventionists which can help win them to a position in favor
of DN!'s New Cold War stance. And the masters of Empire certainly understand how valuable such credibility can be at crucial moments
when support for their adventures is needed from every quarter.
Fortunately, there are a handful of exceptions to this New Cold War attitude. For example, on the left
Popular Resistance has provided a
view
of the events in Hong Kong and a superb
interview with
K.J. Noh that go beyond the line of the State Department, the mainstream media and DN! And on the libertarian Right there is
the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and the
work of its Executive Director Dan McAdams.
We would all do well to follow the example of these organizations in rejecting a New Cold War mentality which is extremely dangerous,
perhaps fatally so. A good beginning for us in the U.S. is to demand of our government, "Hands Off Hong Kong."
This Is How a War With China Could Begin
First, the lights in Taiwan go out.
By Nicholas Kristof
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- If the United States gets embroiled in a war with China, it may begin
with the lights going out here in Taipei.
Tensions are rising across the Taiwan Strait, and there's a growing concern among some
security experts that Chinese President Xi Jinping might act recklessly toward Taiwan in the
next few years, drawing the United States into a conflict....
[ Nuttier and nuttier but there we are, and as Les Gelb explained, the foreign policy
community at such times have become incapable of independent thought. ]
Mission Unaccomplished: Meet the press -- and see why it failed at several crucial points
during the Iraq War
By Leslie H. Gelb with Jeanne-Paloma Zelmati - Council on Foreign Relations
My initial support for the war was symptomatic of unfortunate tendencies within the
foreign policy community, namely the disposition and incentives to support wars to retain
political and professional credibility. We "experts" have a lot to fix about ourselves, even
as we "perfect" the media. We must redouble our commitment to independent thought, and
embrace, rather than cast aside, opinions and facts that blow the common -- often wrong --
wisdom apart. Our democracy requires nothing less.
This Is How a War With China Could Begin
First, the lights in Taiwan go out.
By Nicholas Kristof
[ Though this essay is nutty, the implications are really frightening to me. We have
reached a point where New York Times columnists are imagining the bombing of China. This, to
my imagination, was precisely what was imagined during the height of the supposedly won Cold
War. ]
The atomic scientists should move their clock half the distance to mid night.
A side benefit of the US finding an excuse to terminate Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
(INF) Treaty of 1987 is to ring China with INF banned weapon systems!
The new, made up, cold war has two major fronts, Europe and the Pac Rim, whereas the
Soviet based [my] cold war only had Russia ringed from Germany Belgium UK and Spain.....
"... Hong Kong while having a high per capita income level is highly inequitable in income with economic tensions accentuated by a British-country-style property system. ..."
"... The parallels in Hong Kong property prices, with those of Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are striking. Singapore has a completely different and relatively equitable property system, so too does neighboring Shenzhen. ..."
"... "The Gini coefficient, which measures the inequality of income distribution, reached a new high of 0.539 in 2016, far above the warning level of 0.4" Pot meet kettle. ..."
"... "China's Gini Coefficient data was reported at 0.467 NA in Dec 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.465 NA for Dec 2016. China's Gini Coefficient data is updated yearly, averaging 0.477 NA from Dec 2003 to 2017, with 15 observations." ..."
"... With a GINI co-efficient of about 0.4, the US has nothing to cheer about. But why not demonize China instead of addressing our own problems first? ..."
Hong Kong is essentially self-governing, administered in much the same way as during the
later period of British colonial control. Hong Kong is part of China but completely unlike a
Beijing or Shanghai or Shenzhen in terms of governance. Hong Kong while having a high per
capita income level is highly inequitable in income with economic tensions accentuated by a
British-country-style property system.
The parallels in Hong Kong property prices, with those of Britain, Canada, Australia and
New Zealand are striking. Singapore has a completely different and relatively equitable
property system, so too does neighboring Shenzhen.
Chinese Communist Party propaganda from the usual source. Yep, Hong Kong has its problems.
Control by the CCP will not help them one bit.
"The Gini coefficient, which measures the inequality of income distribution, reached a new
high of 0.539 in 2016, far above the warning level of 0.4" Pot meet kettle.
"China's Gini Coefficient data was reported at 0.467 NA in Dec 2017. This records an
increase from the previous number of 0.465 NA for Dec 2016. China's Gini Coefficient data is
updated yearly, averaging 0.477 NA from Dec 2003 to 2017, with 15 observations."
Here are just some of the twists and turns in the case, which has gone on for more than
three years.
Flynn's trip to Russia in 2015, where it was claimed Flynn went without the knowledge or
approval of the DIA or anyone in Washington,
was proven not to be true .
Flynn was suspected of being compromised by a supposed Russian agent, Cambridge academic
Svetlana Lokhova, based on allegations from Western intelligence asset Stefan Halper.
This was also proven to be not true.
The very strange post-dated FD-302 form on the FBI's January 2017 interview of Flynn that
wasn't filled out until August 2017, almost seven months afterward, is
revealed in a court filing by Flynn's defense team .
FBI agent Pientka became the
"DOJ's Invisible Man," despite the fact that Congress has repeatedly called for him to
testify. Pientka has remained out of sight and out of mind more than a year and a half since
his name first surfaced in connection with the Flynn case.
Now, it's not that far-fetched of an idea that the Mueller special counsel prosecutors would
hide exculpatory evidence from the Flynn defense team, since they've just admitted to having
done exactly that in another case their
office has been prosecuting .
The defense team for Internet Research Agency/Concord, more popularly known as "the Russian
troll farm case," hasn't been smooth going for the Mueller prosecutors.
Then, in a
filing submitted to the court on Aug. 30, the IRA/Concord defense team alerted Judge
Friedrich that the prosecutors just got around to handing them key evidence the prosecutors had
for the past 18 months. The prosecution gave no explanation whatsoever as to why they hid this
key evidence for more than a year.
It's hard to see at this point how the entire IRA/Concord case isn't tossed out.
What would it mean for Flynn's prosecutors to have been caught hiding exculpatory evidence
from him and his lawyers, even after the presiding judge explicitly ordered them in February to
hand over everything they had?
It would mean that the Flynn case is tossed out, since the prosecution team was caught
engaging in gross misconduct.
Now you can see why Flynn refused to withdraw his guilty plea when Judge Sullivan gave him
the opportunity to do so in late December 2018.
A withdrawal of the guilty plea or a pardon would let the Mueller prosecution team off the
hook.
And they're not getting off the hook.
Flynn hired the best lawyer he possibly could have when it comes to exposing prosecutorial
misconduct. Nobody knows the crafty, corrupt, and dishonest tricks federal prosecutors use
better than Powell, who actually wrote a compelling book about such matters, entitled "
License to Lie: Exposing
Corruption in the Department of Justice ."
Everything this Mueller prosecution team did in withholding exculpatory evidence from
Flynn's defense team -- and continued to withhold even after Judge Sullivan specifically issued
an order about it -- is going to be fully exposed.
Defying a federal judge's Brady order is a one-way ticket to not only getting fired, it's a
serious enough offense to warrant disbarment and prosecution.
If it turns out Mueller special counsel prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence -- not
only in the IRA/Concord case, but also in the cases against Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael
Cohen, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and others -- that will have a huge impact.
If they are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence in one case, why wouldn't they do the
same thing in other cases they were prosecuting? Haven't they have already demonstrated they
are willing to break the rules? Tags
We have become a third-world country. Even throwing Mueller and his entire prosecutors'
team in jail would not be enough to restore confidence in our legal system. But it would be a
start.
On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.
c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential
Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior ·members of the
Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss
what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that
call, FLYNN and 2 Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 4 Filed 12/01/17 Page 2 of 6 the PTT
official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on
the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed
that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to
escalate the situation. d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN
called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only
respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner. e. Shortly after his phone call with
the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his
call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions. f. On or
about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating
that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that
time. g. On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him
that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FL YNN's request. h. After his phone
call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential
Transition Team about FL YNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S.
Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
The coup plot between the international intelligence community (which includes our
FBI-CIA-etc) and their unregistered foreign agents in the multinational corporate media is
slowly being revealed.
Here’s another possibility... elites in the US Gov set on running a soft coup
against a duly elected president and his team made up a whole pile of **** and passed it off
as truth.
The Manafort thing has me totally riled since HRC's "Password" guy and his brother were
PARTNERS with manafort, did the same damn things, and were NOT investigated.
Donald Trump is many things to many people, but is not his social personna to be patient.
He is being VERY patient to let this unfold, to "give a man enough rope" or political party
and its owner, as it may be....
Donna Brazile's book is under-rated: it holds they keys as to who ran the DNC and why
after Obie bailed.
Our local community rag (Vermont) had an opinion piece last week about "The slide towards
Facism", where the author breathlessly stated that she had learned from a MSNBC expose by
Rachel Maddow that the administration was firing researchers at NASA and EPA as well as
cutting back funding for LGBTQ support groups. Oh the horror. The author conveniently forgot
that the same dyke had lied for 2 years about Russia,Russia,Russia but it's still OK to
believe any **** that drops out of her mouth.
This is the level of insanity happening around here. Of course it is Bernie's turf.
People who are so stupid and gullible deserve everything they are gonna get.
Poor Flynn. Rail-roaded by ZOG and Obama and Hillary and Co. I hope beyond hope that the
truth is revealed and that he can sue the **** out of the seditionists/(((seditionists))) who
put him into this mess such that his great-great-grandchildren will never have to work.
I also blame Trump for throwing Flynn under the bus.
If they are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence in one case, why wouldn’t they
do the same thing in other cases they were prosecuting? Haven’t they have already
demonstrated they are willing to break the rules?
Duh! Because it's easy and the media never covers it and AG Barr and FBI director Wray
will cover it all up. America no longer operates under rule of law, and now we all know it.
Never cooperate with them!
flynn didn't rape children, to buzy trying to fight liberators of iraq and afganistan from
invasion... that's his major crime.
I guess, kelly, mattis, mcmaster neither are on the child rape trend. but what can they
do? when the entire cia and doj and fbi are full on controlled and run by the pedos? it's
like when all the cardinals and the pope are pedos, what a bishop to do...
Why would CIA Rothschild'd up puppet Trump pick only the best William Barr?
Who told Acosta to cut no prosecution deal with Epstein? George Bush? Robert Mukasey? or
Bob Mueller?
Trump, Barr, Bush, Mueller all on the same no rule of law national no government
pys op , for Epstein & 9/11 clean op team Poppa Bush, Clinton, &
Mossad.
Barr: CIA operative
It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone
out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.
Consider recent history: Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael
Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005),Janet Reno
(1993-2001), **** Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.
Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting
in 1971. Barr’s youth career goal was to head the CIA.
CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA
operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of
Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy
(Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.
When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA’s
“legal office” and Bush’s inner circle, and worked alongside Bush’s
longtime CIA enforcers Theodore “Ted” Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines,
and others, several of whom were likely involved with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy
assassination, and numerous southeast Asian operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden
Triangle narco-trafficking.
Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA
abuses.
Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean
opposition leader Orlando Letelier.
Barr joined George H.W. Bush’s legal/intelligence team during Bush’s vice
presidency (under President Ronald Reagan) Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief
Legal Counsel to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of
the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also “fixing” the
legal end, ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure
or arrest.
In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to “attack criminal
organizations”, drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr
would preserve, protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use
Justice Department power to escape punishment.
Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes,
including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all
crimes of state committed by Bush
Barr provided legal cover for Bush’s illegal foreign policy and war crimes
Barr left Washington, and went through the “rotating door” to the corporate
world, where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies.
In 2007 and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international law
firm Kirkland
& Ellis . Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John
Bolton, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys.
K&E’s clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt
Romney’s Bain Capital.
A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the
Bush apparatus as any other, besides Poppy Bush himself.
there is a war on america, and the DoD and men like flynn are too arrogant, dumb, and
proud to admit they have been fucked and conned deeply by men way smarter than them...
we don't need ******* brains, but killers to wage this revolution against the american
pedostate.
and that, what they master, they don't want to do.
if they want money, they should have learned to trade and not kill...
Let's say it's
January 2021
, and President Bernie Sanders has just assumed office. On his second day as
commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in world history, Bernie and his foreign policy
team are ushered into the White House Situation Room. After being seated at a long wooden table, a
group of diplomats and military officers informs Bernie that armed militants in the Central African
Republic have placed artillery around a town and are threatening to bombard its 10,000 inhabitants.
The townspeople have requested that the United States destroy the weapons and save their lives.
What should Bernie do?
For
Samantha Power
, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during Barack Obama's
second term, this really is no question at all: You eliminate the weapons. Power has dedicated her
life to promoting humanitarian intervention -- the idea that the United States, as the world's
"indispensable nation," has the moral duty to use its awesome military capabilities to prevent or
halt atrocities. First as a war reporter covering the Balkans in the 1990s, then as the Pulitzer
Prize–winning author of "
A
Problem From Hell": America and the Age of Genocide
, and finally as a government official
herself, Power has insisted that the "responsibility to protect" innocents from slaughter is
sacrosanct, even if it means U.S. military adventurism or violating foreign nations' sovereignty.
When civilians are threatened, Power believes we must save them.
THE
EDUCATION OF AN IDEALIST: A MEMOIR by Samantha Power
Dey Street Books,
592 pp., $29.99
For this position, she has been both praised and
lambasted. Power's supporters see her as a
moral beacon
in a world focused on power politics at the expense of human rights. In the last
two decades, she has shaped the way a generation of liberal analysts and policymakers understand
international relations and their role within it: Barack Obama has
called her
"one of our foremost thinkers on foreign policy," while Ben Rhodes has said she was
"who I wanted to become when I moved down to Washington." Meanwhile, critics like the law professor
Aziz Rana
understand her as an unreconstructed "war hawk," who employs the discourse of human
rights to mask American imperialism. For them, Power embodies the contradictions of liberal
geopolitics, in which lofty rhetoric is used to justify military action in regions where the United
States has at best tangential interests.
Power's memoir arrives at a time when she and her approach have fallen from favor -- both with the
current administration, which has adopted a nakedly transactional approach to foreign affairs, and
with left-wing foreign policy thinkers, who want to dismantle U.S. military dominance. Against
these tides, Power's new book seems intended to rehabilitate both her agenda and her own
reputation, as she narrates in vivid and engaging prose her rapid rise to some of the most
influential positions in U.S. foreign policy-making. It's the story of a sympathetic protagonist
just trying to save innocent lives -- yet one that inadvertently demonstrates the lethality of good
intentions. The most startling thing about a book titled
The Education of an Idealist
is that Power appears not to have learned very much.
Power's early years exemplified the peripatetic privilege of the global bourgeoisie. She was
born in Ireland in 1970, the daughter of a doctor mother and a dentist father. In 1979, after her
father's alcoholism destroyed her parents' marriage, Power's mother moved with Samantha and her
brother to the United States. Power quickly acclimated to American life; she lost her Irish accent,
began a lifelong love affair with baseball, and started on her high school's basketball team. She
also studied hard for the SAT, and in 1988 was accepted to Yale University.
During Power's sophomore year, the
Berlin Wall
came
down, the Cold War ended, and she became a political junkie who quizzed herself on the news of the
day. In the summer of 1990, she took a trip to Europe that would transform her life. Power began
her journey with a visit to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. Walking through the bleak Secret
Annex drove home to Power "the horror of Hitler's crimes," and after her visit she started to keep
a list of books she wanted to read on "what U.S. officials knew about the Holocaust and what they
could have done to save more Jews." Soon after, she traveled to Dachau, where she "wondered aloud
what the modern world would look like if President Roosevelt had not finally entered the war."
(Ignoring, naturally, the Soviet Union's role in ending World War II, and that it was the Red Army
that liberated Auschwitz.)
Power's trip persuaded her that U.S. military force could legitimately be used to save innocent
lives. The Holocaust became for her the moral justification for American empire in an era in which
the United States no longer faced any perceived existential threats. Power concluded that if the
United States didn't rule the world, genocide was inevitable, and for the remainder of her career
she would view atrocities in the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East through the prism of the
Holocaust: After all, if the U.S. military had liberated victims of genocide in the 1940s, why
couldn't it do the same in the
1990s
,
2000s
, and
2010s
?
If the U.S. military had liberated victims of genocide in the
1940s, why couldn't it do the same in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s?
The timing of Power's
trip was also crucial for her intellectual development. Before the disintegration of the Soviet
Union in the early 1990s, it was difficult to argue that the U.S. military could serve as a neutral
arbiter of human rights. Not only was the nation engaged in an avowedly political struggle with an
existential communist enemy, but the Vietnam War and several other failed interventions underlined
the dangers of using military force for ideological ends. Communism's collapse made it possible for
Power to imagine the U.S. military as a nonideological guarantor of broadly accepted human rights.
The empire could act for humanity, not politics. For Power -- and for many in her generation -- the U.S.
military was the base upon which the liberal international order of free markets, democracy, and
human rights would be constructed.
By her senior year at Yale, Power had determined that she "wanted to end up in a position to 'do
something'" about humanitarian crises. After graduating, she interned at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, where Mort Abramowitz, the endowment's president and a former ambassador to
Turkey, was turning his attention to the incipient Bosnian War. The more Power learned about the
conflict and its atrocities, "the more unnerved" she became. The war, she writes, provided her with
"a focus -- a specific group of people in a specific place who were being pulverized." To publicize
their suffering, she decided to become a
war reporter
, and in late 1993 she moved to the Balkans, armed with little more than a laptop.
Power was in Zagreb, Croatia, when on February 5, 1994, Bosnian Serbs mortared the
Markale
market
in Sarajevo, killing 68 civilians. As she watched news footage of "market vendors
carrying away the bloodied remains of their mutilated friends," she found herself "rooting for the
first time in [her] life for the United States to use military force." She spent the next year and
a half writing pieces on
civilian
suffering
that she hoped would engender a domestic outcry and convince President Bill Clinton
to forcibly end the siege of Sarajevo.
As time went on and Clinton refused to intervene (the U.S.-led NATO Operation Deliberate Force
would not commence until August 1995), Power began to consider a new track that was "less about
describing events and more about directly trying to shape them." The decisive moment came in July
1995, when she learned that the Bosnian Serb army
murdered
more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. The sheer brutality of the genocide
compelled Power to take up a place at Harvard Law School (she had applied and been accepted earlier
that year), with the intention of becoming a prosecutor "who could bring murderers to justice."
At Harvard, Power returned to the question that had haunted her at the Anne Frank House and
Dachau: Don't Americans, as citizens of the world's greatest power, have a personal responsibility
to save lives if we have the capacity to do so? She enrolled in a class on the ethics of using
force and, most important for her future career, she wrote a paper that examined "what U.S.
policymakers
themselves
were thinking" when they failed to respond to twentieth-century
genocides. This paper was her first step toward her 2002 book
"A Problem From Hell,"
which
codified a decade of liberal thinking about humanitarian intervention, and which transformed Power
into an
internationally renowned expert
on human rights and genocide prevention.
"A Problem From Hell"
had two main arguments. First, it claimed that throughout the
twentieth century "the United States has consistently refused to take risks in order to suppress
genocide" and, by not acting, had failed the people of Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda, among other
places. Second, the book maintained that in the future, U.S. decision-makers should take steps to
prevent or halt atrocities along "a continuum of intervention" that would range "from condemning
the perpetrators or cutting off U.S. aid to bombing or rallying a multinational invasion force."
Power did not, as many critics later avowed, unthinkingly advocate military intervention; rather,
she considered intervention as the final in a series of graduated steps intended to avert or stop
genocide. But as Power herself would soon learn, when Americans were presented with the hammer of
military force, many atrocities began to look like nails.
Power's book was perfectly primed for the post-9/11 moment, during which the question on many
Americans' minds was not whether the United States should remake the world, but how.
"A Problem
From Hell"
quickly became a cudgel in the
debate
over invading Iraq; as Power notes, several pundits clamoring for war invoked her book, arguing
that the 1980s Iraqi campaign of genocide against the Kurds gave the United States a casus belli.
Even though Power herself opposed the invasion, the writers who referenced
"A Problem From
Hell"
were not exactly misreading the book: Power
had placed
U.S. military intervention on the menu of options available to policymakers who said
they wanted to protect human rights.
In a moment defined by paranoia, revenge fantasies, and a sense of moral crusade, it is not
particularly surprising that
"A Problem From Hell"
was employed to rationalize war. The
book's relevance at the time, in fact, helps explain why it won the Pulitzer Prize for general
nonfiction in April 2003, one month after the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq.
Samantha
Power in 2013 at an International Civil Society event with Secretary of State John Kerry and National
Security Adviser Susan Rice
Jin Lee/Bloomberg/Getty
With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, Power got the chance to use her ideas to shape U.S.
policy more directly. Obama and Power first met in the spring of 2005, when Obama was an ambitious
junior senator from Illinois. They worked together for a year (Power volunteered to serve in his
office), and when Obama won the Democratic primary in 2008, he hired her as a foreign policy
adviser, later appointing her to the National Security Council as senior director for multilateral
affairs and senior director for human rights.
In government, Power swiftly learned that few officials cared about human rights; many, in fact,
deemed them a distraction from more important issues of power politics. Nevertheless, while at the
NSC, Power helped expand by $50 million U.S. aid to Iraqi refugees, increased the number of Iraqis
allowed to resettle in the United States, and doubled the government's refugee stipend. She also
advocated for the United States to run for a seat on the
U.N.
Human Rights Council
, which it won in 2009. From this perch, U.S. officials spurred a number of
resolutions focused on revealing human rights abuses in various nations, including Iran, Syria,
Sudan, and North Korea. Moreover, Power proudly emphasizes, the United States "succeeded in getting
the Human Rights Council to reduce by half the share of country-specific resolutions on Israel."
As this last comment indicates, for Power, protecting human rights means disciplining nations of
the Global South that are not U.S. allies. Throughout
The Education of an Idealist
, she
barely mentions Israel or Saudi Arabia -- she says nothing about Israel's occupation of the West Bank
or the Saudi war on women and LGBTQI+ people. These silences are deafening, because the type of
world Power wants to build will never be realized if only certain countries -- namely, those that
stand outside America's imperial sphere -- are held to account. Her approach does not make much sense
from a pragmatic perspective either: U.S. officials have the highest likelihood of ending human
rights abuses in countries that depend on us; there is little point in spending political capital
in a mostly quixotic attempt to transform antagonists like North Korea.
Meanwhile, Power completely ignores the human rights violations that took place in her own
country under Obama's watch; like many liberal interventionists, she is far more vexed by suffering
abroad. Nowhere does she address
police violence
against African Americans,
mass surveillance
,
refugee
detention
, or
mass
incarceration
. Nor does she give much thought to the colonial violence that defines American
history: In
The Education of an Idealist
, she recalls inviting a Serbian official to meet
with her in the so-called Indian Treaty Room, where she lectured him on the importance of
apprehending the war criminal Ratko Mladić. Somehow, Power overlooks the irony of championing
justice in a room named for repeatedly broken treaties that the U.S. government made with the
native population against which it committed genocide.
Power's most consequential decision during Obama's first term displayed a shortsightedness that
has often accompanied her faith in U.S. military power. With the outbreak of civil war in Libya,
Power began to advocate vociferously in favor of intervention to stop a potential massacre at
Benghazi. In particular, during a March 15, 2011, meeting, Power endorsed U.N. Ambassador Susan
Rice's proposal to establish a
no-fly zone
over Libya and attack Muammar Qaddafi's forces. Obama approved Rice's plan, and on
March 19, a U.S.-led NATO coalition began
bombing Libya
,
initiating a process that concluded with Qaddafi's death. Despite the war's expansion and the chaos
that ensued, Power remains proud of her contribution. For her, "once the revolution spread, the
real question became how to use the tools at our disposal to bring about the best possible -- or the
least bad -- outcome."
But was that the real question? Here are some other questions that are equally important and
that she should have taken more seriously before Obama commenced Operation Odyssey Dawn: Is the war
likely to expand? If the war expands and Qaddafi is deposed, who will govern Libya? Is the United
States -- especially the American public -- willing to commit itself to reconstruction efforts? What
precedent does the intervention potentially set? Power never really asked these questions, because
ultimately, as the historian Stephen Wertheim has argued, she considers humanitarian intervention a
categorical imperative (as long as it doesn't involve U.S. allies, of course). For this reason,
throughout her time in office Power regularly encouraged war.
In Obama's second term, Power left the NSC to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In
this position, she won many admirable victories: She aided in establishing a U.N. post
dedicated
to monitoring global LGBT rights;
brought countries together
to end the deadly Ebola outbreak of 2014; and promoted a resolution
that demanded the United Nations
deport
any peacekeeping units from countries in which U.N. soldiers were reported to have
committed sexual assault.
Yet it was also during Obama's second term that Power found herself less able to convince the
president of the moral necessity of intervention. In her memoir, she relates that when she first
learned that Bashar al-Assad's government had employed chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war,
she hoped "Obama would respond forcefully" and was disappointed when he didn't. Nevertheless, in
August 2013, Power was heartened to discover that Obama intended to answer the Syrian government's
murder of 1,400 people in a
chemical weapons attack
with airstrikes of military targets.
Power's expectations, however, were dashed when she was informed that Obama had decided to seek
congressional authorization for the airstrikes. "What happens if Congress doesn't support you?" she
asked the president. "Does that mean Assad could just keep using chemical weapons?" In the end,
Obama determined that Congress would rebuff his plan and
chose not
to go ahead with a vote; against Power's wishes, he also refused to intervene.
Instead, the president accepted Russia's offer to work together to disable Assad's chemical weapons
program. For her part, Power "shuddered at the inadequacy of the effort" to decrease Assad's
stockpile, despite the fact that U.S.-Russian collaboration provided an opportunity to build the
trust necessary to reach a political resolution of the conflict.
Power's recollection of the Syria debate highlights her meritocratic skepticism of democratic
politics. She writes that she "regretted that our administration had not ascertained whether we had
the votes
before
the President announced he was going to Congress. Had he known he would
fail, [she] did not believe he would have chosen the path he did." Power, in other words, wanted
Congress to rubber-stamp Obama's decision to intervene; she wasn't interested in having a real
public discussion about the potential benefits and drawbacks of using military force. In fact,
Power has the temerity to express disappointment with the U.S. public for refusing to support
intervention. Most Americans, she laments, "wanted no part of Syria. The student activists, civic
groups, churches, mosques, and synagogues that had come out
en masse
to demand help for
the people of Darfur [where in the mid-2000s a genocide erupted] were largely silent." Such a
statement evinces the privilege of an individual who has no reason to fear the
effects
another Middle Eastern intervention might have on her own family -- or on the people of
the Middle East.
The assumption running through Power's career is that the American empire is able to act as a
force for good in the world. At her memoir's end -- and in the wake of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and
Syria -- she affirms that "on issue after issue, either the United States brought a game plan to the
table or else the problem worsened." Though this might be true in some cases, it is certainly not
the rule, especially when one considers the
disastrous effects
of the nation's wars in the Greater Middle East; its
pointless
antagonism
of China, Russia, and Iran; its unwillingness to take the business-unfriendly steps
required to arrest climate change; and its unhesitating promotion of a capitalist system that has
exploited the labor of untold millions. The last several decades have taught us that the world
needs far less American "leadership" than it has enjoyed.
If you accept Power's premises, then humanitarian intervention boils down to a purely
philosophical inquiry: Is it right to save lives if one has the capacity to do so? The answer, of
course, is yes. The problem, though, is that intervention is not a thought experiment; it takes
place in a world of brutal realities. In particular, humanitarian forces confront radical
uncertainty. Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers
actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the
American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here
may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all.
Simply maintaining an enormous military able to intervene anywhere in the world carries its own
set of malign consequences: endless wars, global arms proliferation, a militaristic political
culture, the diversion of resources from welfare to weapons, and the strengthening of the
military-industrial complex, to name just a few.
The Education of an Idealist
does not
account for these social ills, or consider that the only way we can avoid them is by giving up the
capacities that enable us (theoretically, if not in practice) to alleviate foreign suffering.
The historian Samuel Moyn has
warned
that we must be careful not to elevate "the narrow and rare problem of when to send the military to
help strangers into the decisive one around which the future of American foreign policy revolves."
Power's memoir shows how much the discourse of humanitarian intervention obscures. By focusing on
the question "Do we save innocent lives?" liberal interventionists like Power shift our attention
from an equally important query: "How do we change conditions so lives don't need to be saved?" A
world oriented around this last question would look very different from the one we have now.
Daniel Bessner is the Pyle Assistant Professor in American Foreign Policy at the University of Washington
and author of
Democracy in Exile: Hans Speier and the Rise of the Defense Intellectual
.
@ dbessner
This discussion avoids comparing society in the mid-19th century and today. It really isn't that long ago. I've lived through
almost half of it. Except for officers most of the soldiers I served with were conscripted or enlisted because of the draft. In
a war your choices are limited. If they were in the march, driving wagons, armed to the teeth, they were soldiers; no matter how
they got there.
Today's volunteer Army most of the soldiers and contractors are there because they couldn't get a better job unless they are
adrenaline junkies or psychopaths. The current neoliberal economy purposefully exploits people and the environment to make a profit.
Today's soldiers aren't too different than the slave legions of ancient Rome. Perhaps, "warriors" isn't that much of a misnomer.
"... But what happens when those "standards of excellence" lead to 20 years of fighting unwinnable wars on the peripheries of the planet? When do habits and practices turn into mental stagnation? ..."
"... You know when it comes to generals, whether they're Marines, whether they're Army, whether they're Mattis who's supposedly this "warrior monk," these guys talk tactics and then claim it's strategy. What they consider to be strategic thinking really is just tactical thinking on a broad scale . I think the biggest problem with all the four-star generals are they're "how" thinkers not "if" thinkers. ..."
"... This inability of America's elites (including its generals) to grapple with strategic concepts is a result of the United States' post-Cold War unipolar moment. When there's only one superpower, geopolitics and the need for international balancing fall by the wayside. ..."
"... Mattis, like virtually all of his four-star peers, is a reactionary, fighting every day against the forces of change in modern warfare ..."
"... "[W]hen you shave it all down, his problem with being the epitome of establishment Washington is that he sees the alliance as the end, not as a means to an end," says Davis. "The means should be to the end of improving American security and supporting our interests." ..."
"... "By clinging to unsustainable military solutions from the distant past, he has condemned future generations of soldiers and marines to repeat disasters like Pickett's Charge," says Macgregor. ..."
Last week, The Wall Street Journal published a lengthy
op-ed written by former secretary of defense James Mattis, his first public statement since
his resignation in December. The article is adopted from his forthcoming book, Call Sign
Chaos: Learning to Lead , out this week.
The former Pentagon chief opens a window into his decision making process, explaining that
accepting President Trump's nomination was part of his lifelong devotion to public service:
"When the president asks you to do something, you don't play Hamlet on the wall, wringing your
hands. So long as you are prepared, you say yes." Mattis's two years at DoD capped off 44 years
in the Marine Corps, where he gained a popular following as a tough and scholarly leader.
Mattis received widespread praise from the foreign policy establishment when he resigned in
protest over President Trump's directive for a full U.S. military withdrawal from Syria and a
partial withdrawal from Afghanistan. "When my concrete solutions and strategic advice,
especially keeping faith with our allies, no longer resonated, it was time to resign, despite
the limitless joy I felt serving alongside our troops in defense of our Constitution," he
writes.
But did Mattis really offer "concrete solutions and strategic advice" regarding America's
two decades of endless war? spoke with four military experts, all veterans, who painted a very
different picture of the man called "Mad Dog."
"I think over time, in General Mattis's case a little over 40 years, if you spend that many
years in an institution, it is extremely hard not to get institutionalized," says Gil
Barndollar, military fellow-in-residence at the Catholic University of America's Center for the
Study of Statesmanship. Barndollar served as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps and
deployed twice to Afghanistan. "In my experiences, there are not too many iconoclasts or really
outside-the-box people in the higher ranks of the U.S. military."
It's just that sort of institutionalized thinking that makes the political establishment
love Mattis. "[A] person with an institutional mind-set has a deep reverence for the
organization he has joined and how it was built by those who came before. He understands that
institutions pass down certain habits, practices and standards of excellence," wrote David
Brooks in a hagiographic New York Timescolumn .
But what happens when those "standards of excellence" lead to 20 years of fighting
unwinnable wars on the peripheries of the planet? When do habits and practices turn into mental
stagnation?
"The problem is, from at least the one-star the whole way through, for the last two decades,
you've seen them do nothing but just repeat the status quo over and over," observes Lieutenant
Colonel Daniel L. Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, who served 21 years in the U.S.
Army and deployed four times to Iraq and Afghanistan. "I mean every single general that was in
charge of Afghanistan said almost the same boilerplate thing every time they came in (which was
nearly one a year). You see the same results, nothing changed."
"And if those guys took someone from a major to a two-star general, we'd probably have a lot
of better outcomes," he adds.
Major Danny Sjursen, who served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, agrees:
You know when it comes to generals, whether they're Marines, whether they're Army, whether
they're Mattis who's supposedly this "warrior monk," these guys talk tactics and then claim
it's strategy. What they consider to be strategic thinking really is just tactical thinking
on a broad scale . I think the biggest problem with all the four-star generals are they're
"how" thinkers not "if" thinkers.
Barndollar says: "The vast majority of military leaders, up to and including generals at the
three-, four-star level, are not operating at the strategic level, in terms of what that word
means in military doctrine. They're not operating at the level of massive nation-state
resources and alliances and things like that. They're at the operational level or often even at
the tactical level."
This inability of America's elites (including its generals) to grapple with strategic
concepts is a result of the United States' post-Cold War unipolar moment. When there's only one
superpower, geopolitics and the need for international balancing fall by the wayside.
The only component of national security policy Mattis discusses in his op-ed is America's
system of alliances, which he believes is the key to our preeminence on the world stage.
"Returning to a strategic stance that includes the interests of as many nations as we can make
common cause with, we can better deal with this imperfect world we occupy together," he
writes.
"Mattis, like virtually all of his four-star peers, is a reactionary, fighting every day
against the forces of change in modern warfare," counters Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who served
28 years in the U.S. Army. "He lives in denial of the technological breakthroughs that make the
World War II force structure (that he as SecDef insisted on funding) an expensive tribute to
the past."
Mattis muses that the Department of Defense "budget [is] larger than the GDPs of all but two
dozen countries." Yet having acknowledged that disparity, how can such underpowered foreign
nations possibly contribute to American security?
"He has that line in there about bringing as many guns as possible to a gun fight. What are
those guns?" asked Barndollar. For example, the British Royal Navy is the United States' most
significant allied naval force. But the United Kingdom has
only seven vessels stationed in the Persian Gulf and they're "stretched to the absolute
limit to do that."
"Our problem has been double-edged," says Davis of America's reliance on others. "On the one
hand, we try to bludgeon a lot of our allies to do what we want irrespective of their interests
as an asset. And then simultaneously, especially in previous administrations, we've almost gone
too far [in] the other direction: 'we'll subordinate our interests for yours.'"
"[W]hen you shave it all down, his problem with being the epitome of establishment
Washington is that he sees the alliance as the end, not as a means to an end," says Davis. "The
means should be to the end of improving American security and supporting our interests."
Sjursen says:
Mattis's view is the old Einstein adage: "doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a different result is the definition of insanity." Well that's all he's proposed.
He has no new or creative solutions. For him, it's stay the course, more of the same, stay in
place, fight the terrorists, maintain the illegitimate and corrupt governments that we back.
That's what he's been talking about for 18 years. It's all the same interventionist dogma
that's failed us over and over again since September 12, 2001.
"In the two years he was in office, what did he do that changed anything? He was a caretaker
of the status quo. That's the bottom line," says Davis, adding, "you need somebody in that job
especially that is willing to take some chances and some risk and is willing to honestly look
at 18 consecutive years of failure and say, 'We're not doing that anymore. We're going to do
something different.' And that just never happened."
Barndollar is more generous in his estimation of Mattis: "He needs to be lauded for standing
for his principles, ultimately walking away when he decided he could no longer execute U.S.
national security policy. I give him all the credit for that, for doing it I think in a
relatively good manner, and for trying to do his best to stay above the fray and refuse to be
dragged in at a partisan level to this point."
Mattis ends his Wall Street Journal op-ed by recounting a vignette from the 2010
Battle of Marjah, where he spoke with two soldiers on the front lines and in good cheer. But
his story didn't sit well with Sjursen, who says it encapsulates Mattis' inability to ask the
bigger questions: "He never talks about how those charming soldiers with the can-do attitude
maybe shouldn't have been there at all. Maybe the mission that they were asked to do was
ill-informed, ill-advised, and potentially unwinnable."
All this suggests that a fair evaluation of Mattis is as a soldier who is intelligent but
unoriginal. A homegrown patriot, but one who'd like to plant the Stars and Stripes in Central
Asia forever. A public servant, but one who would rather resign than serve the cause of
restraint.
"By clinging to unsustainable military solutions from the distant past, he has condemned
future generations of soldiers and marines to repeat disasters like Pickett's Charge," says
Macgregor.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter for The National Interest .Follow him on
Twitter@HunterDeRensis
.
When
"disinformation" is redefined
to include all potentially
polarizing stories that don't conform to the establishment narrative,
reality is
discarded as so much fake news and replaced with Pentagon-approved pablum
...
... ... ...
But
perhaps the worst part about all of this is that the government itself, including the
Pentagon, has an
extensive
history of running fake social media profiles to collect data on persons of interest
,
including through the NSA's JTRIG information-war program revealed in
the
Snowden documents.
Agents regularly deploy reputational attacks against dissidents using false
information. Fake identities are used to cajole unsuspecting individuals into collaborating in fake
FBI "terror" plots, a phenomenon which might once have been called entrapment but is merely business
as usual in the post-9/11 U.S.SA.
All of this begs the question: how will DARPA determine
the "intent" behind any meme or bit of information?
Will they punish journalists who push
fakes for the political establishment? Probably not. This is where the "impact" and "intent" fields
come in handy for them: fakes from "trusted sources" will be let through, while fakes and real stories
designed to "undermine key individuals and organizations" (dissent and those who seek freedom from the
political class) will be terminated before they have an impact on the thoughts of others.
When
"disinformation" is redefined to include all potentially polarizing stories that don't conform to the
establishment narrative, reality is discarded as so much fake news and replaced with Pentagon-approved
pablum.
The Soviets tried to police thought but it was an embarrassing
failure. What makes America think they can achieve better results?
Rather than risk the embarrassment of failure, perhaps the pentagon
should simply exterminate the human population and replace us with
robots programmed to consume and obey. Consume and obey. That's all
they want from us. And in refusing to do so, the people have failed
the ruling class.
The author should use the word "neoliberal" instead of "debauched"
Notable quotes:
"... When talking about politics, we should be careful not to define "debauched" too narrowly. While debauchery is typically associated with over-indulgence of the sensual pleasures, a more fitting political definition is a general loss of self-control. ..."
"... In the political realm, debauchery is less characterized by the sensual vices than by an overzealous desire for power. ..."
"... The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein is all one needs to see that many elites are very debauched as regards social mores. Yet how might a debauched culture be reflected in the realms of domestic and foreign policy? ..."
"... Class warfare tends to resonate most broadly when the wealthy become self-indulgent and unworthy, and dissolute plutocracies are oft times defended by "conservatives." In the terminal phase of a democracy, this can portend domestic revolution. ..."
"... Belligerent intervention is not nationalism! It is Neocon Texas - Harvard Redneckism ..."
"... I'm not sure I agree with the author's thesis: that debauchery or gratuitous political leadership results in immoral foreign policy. Were the highly-disciplined and self-sacrificing Japanese militarists who bombed Pearl Harbor and aligned with the Axis (Hitler, Mussolini) guided by any more virtuous foreign policy than say, "debauched" Churchill and Roosevelt? I doubt it. ..."
"... The article lacks specifics on how America's leaders are debauched and how this debauchery influences foreign policy, other than to say they are "unrestrained". But is non-restraint debauchery? Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was running a gratuitous non-profit institute to shake down foreign rulers in return for promising political favors if elected. She was going to sell the country out. ..."
"... We stole Venezuela's assets in the U.S. and even denied their baseball players the ability to send money back to their families, we really love them. We have an oil embargo on Syria and we are the only reason the Saudis are able to starve Yemen. None of these countries have ever done anything to us but it feels good that we can do this and even get most of the world to support us. ..."
"... It drives me crazy that devout Protestants in govt who believe that human nature is corrupt act as if they are standing in the gap while being belligerent and never questioning their own judgment. ..."
"... The problem is that we are led by sociopaths. ..."
"... This current round of unprovoked aggression against small countries started when Clinton attacked Serbia even though he did not have authorization from the UN. He did it because he could -- Russia had collapsed by then so they were powerless to prevent NATO from attacking their ally. No one had the power to stop the hegemon so it was a short journey from the relative restraint of George W. Bush to going beserk all over the world (of course in the name of stopping genocide, ecocide, insecticide or whatever). Get absolute power, get corrupted. ..."
"... I think people like Epstein are state sponsored to use the warped values of the elites to gain political advantage for their masters. Destroying historic value sets is part of this package. ..."
TAC are no doubt familiar with the truism that "politics is downstream of culture." This maxim, which is undoubtedly true,
should not, however, only be applied to social issues. In fact, culture shapes our public policy very broadly, far more than do dispassionate
"policymakers" exercising careful reason and judgment. The nature of our governance tends to reflect the cultural and philosophical
orientation of our elites, and this orientation is increasingly debauched.
When talking about politics, we should be careful not to define "debauched" too narrowly. While debauchery is typically associated
with over-indulgence of the sensual pleasures, a more fitting political definition is a general loss of self-control.
All the great religious and philosophical traditions understood that there is a part of our nature that can get out of control
and a divine part that can exert control. A culture thus becomes debauched when elites lose the sense that they need to rein themselves
in, that "there is an immortal essence presiding like a king over" their appetites, as Walter Lippmann put it. In the political
realm, debauchery is less characterized by the sensual vices than by an overzealous desire for power.
The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein is all one needs to see that many elites are very debauched as regards social mores. Yet how
might a debauched culture be reflected in the realms of domestic and foreign policy?
Let's start with domestic policy. How would debauched elites govern a democracy at home? One might surmise, for example, that
their lack of self-control might cause them to spend federal money as a means of keeping themselves in power. They might also attempt
to bribe their constituents by promising a variety of domestic programs while also pledging that the programs will be funded out
of the pockets of others. If they were really debauched, they might even borrow money from future generations to pay for these incumbency
protection initiatives. They might run up staggering
debt for the sake of their expedient political needs and promise that "the rich" can provide for it all. In short, the hallmark
domestic policy of a debauched democracy is, and has always been, class warfare.
It should be pointed out that class warfare is not simply a creation of demagogues on the left. Class warfare tends to resonate
most broadly when the wealthy become self-indulgent and unworthy, and dissolute plutocracies are oft times defended by "conservatives."
In the terminal phase of a democracy, this can portend domestic revolution.
While most conservatives might agree about the dangers of class warfare, it is on the foreign policy front where they seem most
debauched themselves. They remain stuck in a vortex of GOP clichés, with standard references to Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill,
leaders who were closer in their time to the American Civil War than we are to them now. For many of these "conservatives," every
contemporary authoritarian leader is the progeny of Hitler and any attempt to establish cordial relations is a rerun of Munich 1938.
As with domestic policy, the true sign of a debauched foreign policy is a loss of self-control and an excessive will to power
reflected in attempts to exert dominion over others with no particular nexus to the national interest. A debauched foreign policy
might just look like the decision to invade Iraq -- a war whose supporters offered numerous justifications, including alleged weapons
of mass destruction, democracy promotion, and anti-terrorism. Yet in hindsight, its real cause seems to have been the simple desire
by our leaders to impose their will. In a debauched democracy, class warfare is the paradigmatic domestic policy and profligate war
making is the paradigmatic foreign policy.
Given that self-control and restraint are the hallmarks of a genuinely conservative foreign policy -- because they remain humble
about what human nature can actually achieve -- one should receive the recent conference on
national conservatism with some
skepticism . The
retinue of experts who spoke generally espoused a foreign policy that sought dominion over others -- in other words, a continuation
of the belligerent interventionism that characterized the second Bush administration. This may be nationalism, but it seems not to
be conservatism.
One hopes that the leaders of this new movement will re-consider their foreign policy orientation as they have increasingly formidable
resources to draw upon. The creation of the Quincy Institute and the rise of
an intellectually formidable network of foreign policy "restrainers" provide hope.
Given that culture is king, however, these intellectuals may want to keep top of mind that restraint is not simply a policy option
but a character trait -- a virtue -- that needs to be developed in leaders who are then elevated. Prudent policies are no doubt essential
but the most important challenge in politics is, and always will be, attracting and encouraging the best leaders to rule. Our system
often does the opposite. This is at root a cultural problem.
William S. Smith is research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at the Catholic University
of America, and author of the new book
Democracy and Imperialism .
I'm not sure I agree with the author's thesis: that debauchery or gratuitous political leadership results in immoral foreign policy.
Were the highly-disciplined and self-sacrificing Japanese militarists who bombed Pearl Harbor and aligned with the Axis (Hitler,
Mussolini) guided by any more virtuous foreign policy than say, "debauched" Churchill and Roosevelt? I doubt it.
Moreover, has the author never heard of the concept "reasons of state"?: a purely political reason for action on the part of
a ruler or government, especially where a departure from openness, justice, or honesty is involved (e.g. "the king returned that
he had reasons of state for all he did"). In an existential emergency, would the leader of a nation be justified in using amoral
means to save his nation; but in all other circumstances should rely on conventional Christian morality as the default position?
This is what Pres. Truman apparently did when he dropped a-bombs on two Japanese cities. What Dietrich Bonhoeffer was apparently
involved with in the assassination attempt on Hitler. What Moses was embroiled with when he slayed 3,000 of his "debauched" followers
in the Exodus from Egypt.
The article lacks specifics on how America's leaders are debauched and how this debauchery influences foreign policy, other
than to say they are "unrestrained". But is non-restraint debauchery? Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was running a gratuitous
non-profit institute to shake down foreign rulers in return for promising political favors if elected. She was going to sell the
country out.
The opponent who beat her in the election promised the opposite and pretty much has delivered on his promises. Just
how is the current administration "unrestrained" other than he has not fulfilled pacifist's fantasies of pulling out of every
foreign country and conflict? Such pull outs have to be weighed on a case by case basis to determine the cost to human life and
world order. If the current administration has a policy it is that our allies have to fight and fund their own wars and conflicts
rather than rely on the U.S. to fight their wars for them.
The article is full of inflationary clichés ('politics is downstream of culture', 'class warfare', etc. And just how does the
author connect the dots between pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who was elected to nothing and held no power over anyone, and our "debauched'
foreign policy? Correlation is not causation but there isn't even a correlation there.
The more one reads opinions of Intellectuals , and as anyone with half a brain knows, to never believe a Politician, I am always
reminded, after considerable research why I personally choose Realism . Realism is certainly not new and has some varied forms.
Realism re-surfaced leading up to and during WW 2.
"...the true sign of a debauched foreign policy is a loss of self-control and an excessive will to power reflected in attempts
to exert dominion over others"
I love this.
We stole Venezuela's assets in the U.S. and even denied their baseball players the ability to send money back to their families,
we really love them. We have an oil embargo on Syria and we are the only reason the Saudis are able to starve Yemen. None of these
countries have ever done anything to us but it feels good that we can do this and even get most of the world to support us.
This reminds me of a Nick Pemberton article when he wrote ...
"We still play the victim. And amazingly we believe it ... We believe we can take whatever we want. We believe that this world
does not contain differences to be negotiated, but foes to be defeated."
I could never get this out of my head.
It drives me crazy that devout Protestants in govt who believe that human nature is corrupt act as if they are standing in the
gap while being belligerent and never questioning their own judgment.
Trump the adulterer was the one who decided against bombing
because he did not have a taste for blood while the pious were eager for it.
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the Earth."
-Matthew 5:5
"Meek" is the wrong word/translation. In the original Greek, the word is "preais" and it does not mean docile and submissive.
Rather the word means gentleness blended with restrained strength/power.
The passage should read, "Blessed are those who have swords and know how to use them but keep them sheathed: for they shall
inherit the Earth."
There is a simpler explanation of what has happened to the US. When it comes to human beings, the only thing you need to remember
is Lord Acton's dictum: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This current round of unprovoked aggression against small countries started when Clinton attacked Serbia even though he did
not have authorization from the UN. He did it because he could -- Russia had collapsed by then so they were powerless to prevent
NATO from attacking their ally. No one had the power to stop the hegemon so it was a short journey from the relative restraint
of George W. Bush to going beserk all over the world (of course in the name of stopping genocide, ecocide, insecticide or whatever).
Get absolute power, get corrupted.
The same thing is true domestically in the US. A small ethnic minority gave 50% and 25% of the money spent by the Democrats
and Republicans in the last presidential election. That gives them huge influence over the foreign policy of the country. Best
of all, no one else can question what is going on because classic tropes etc. Give a small group absolute power, get the swamp.
I think people like Epstein are state sponsored to use the warped values of the elites to gain political advantage for their masters.
Destroying historic value sets is part of this package.
The destruction of main core Christianity has not helped stem this tide
(subtle Happy Holidays, CE, BCE, etc.) . Brave women and men must arise and sewerize (drain the swamp) this mob of miscreants
defiling our belief system. .They have a right to exist but not dictate by subterfuge and fake news our values as they have been
doing.
Remove the OP pic of the Marines NOW, and fix the rest of your whine later.
This is America, we have no "betters" and our "gov't" has never, and will never, be comprised of anything other than our idiot
ay-whole neighbors who needed a job, whose sole job it is to govern the machinations of gov't and not us, as an un-self-governed
Society is otherwise un-governable.
And [due to human nature and physics (of which neither has or will change in the entire history of humanity)] sometimes you
have to go to war at the slightest of hints of provocation in order to achieve "illimitably sustainable conflict" of "Society"
[J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012] not have to haphazardly fight minute to minute of every day.
“ If when Political objects are unimportant, motives weak, the excitement of forces small, a cautious commander tries
in all kinds of ways, without great crises and bloody solutions, to twist himself skillfully into peace through the characteristic
weakness of his enemy in the field and in the cabinet, we have no right to find fault with him, if the premise on which he
acts are well founded and justified by success;
still we must require him to remember that he only travels on forbidden tracks,
where the God of War may surprise him; that he ought always to keep his eye on the enemy, in order that he may not have to defend
himself with a dress rapier if the enemy takes up a sharp sword ”.
(Clausewitz, “On War” pg. 137)
Loosely paraphrased: " peaceable resolution to conflict is only effective, and should only be sought and relied upon, when
it is certain that the other party will never resort to arms, with the implication that that is never " [J.M.Thomas R., TERMS,
2012 Pg. 80]
Weakness is provocative don't provoke your enemies. Quit whining.
Let’s start with domestic policy. How would debauched elites govern a democracy at home?
Let's see. They'd likely repeatedly cut taxes on the wealthiest and on corporations and skyrocket deficits. They'd likely increase
military spending to insane levels to the benefit of the military industrial complex. They'd likely perform wide scale deregulation
on polluting industries. They'd ignore all inconvenient science, especially that which didn't support the fossil fuel industry.
They'd likely avoid meaningful action on a healthcare system that is more broken and expensive than any other OECD nation. Then
they'd look for targets, the "others", to bash and attack in attempt to hide the real world consequences of what they were doing.
Why would they do this? They do it for campaign contributions, "a means of keeping themselves in power."
I believe we are in the hands of:
The Demons of “Democracy”
The demons of “democracy” speak of “peace”
While their selling of weapons does not cease
Hypocrites from hell who posture on the world stage
When they should be in a gigantic prison cage
Evil reprobates in positions of power Anything that’s good they devour Destroying countries and families too This is the satanic work they do
Fancy titles are given to their names
Such is the state of a system insane
Madness and filth has become “normal”
Nobody speaks or asks: “Is it moral”?
Principals and ethics, they are of them, devoid Speaking of decency and truth has them annoyed Pimping for war is their diabolical expertise Killing and bombing is the forte of this demonic sleaze
Training and supporting terrorists, they do this as well
Will nobody arrest this treacherous crew from hell?
These people are devils and full of hypocrisy
We need to be freed from these, demons of “democracy”...
Libya war was a pure oil grab. Pretexts always can be found.
Notable quotes:
"... Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all. ..."
"... The most telling part of Power's career in government was that she served as ambassador to the U.N. at a time when the U.S. was enabling and supporting the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and as part of the administration she had nothing to say about the crimes being committed against Yemeni civilians by coalition forces with U.S. military assistance and weapons. ..."
"... As Bessner notes, she doesn't have much to say about the abuses of U.S. clients in her book. She has been eager to advocate for using force against hostile or pariah regimes when they commit atrocities, but when client states use American weapons to commit the same atrocities while enjoying full U.S. backing Power didn't so much as utter a protest. After she left government and Trump became president, Power criticized U.S. support for the war, but when she was in a position to challenge a monstrous policy from inside the administration she apparently said nothing. ..."
"... And no one with enough intellectual honesty to mention that she was among the greatest enablers of Yemenis' suffering yet before the said "Tyrant" (who might be a tyrant to anyone but her social class) entered the office. Profiles in cowardice, all of them. ..."
Daniel Bessner has written a very interesting
review of Sar's memoir, The Education of an Idealist . Here he focuses on her narrow thinking about "humanitarian" intervention:
If you accept Power's premises, then humanitarian intervention boils down to a purely philosophical inquiry: Is it right to
save lives if one has the capacity to do so? The answer, of course, is yes. The problem, though, is that intervention is not a
thought experiment; it takes place in a world of brutal realities. In particular, humanitarian forces confront radical uncertainty.
Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the
ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest
answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all.
Can military intervention ever be humanitarian? It may be possible in theory, but as Bessner notes it doesn't work that way in
practice. "Humanitarian" interventionists want the wars they support to be judged by their intentions to save lives and not by the
results of ensuing chaos, instability, and violence. Taking sides in foreign conflicts inevitably means deciding that our government
should end the lives of some people that have done nothing to us because we have concluded that it is the right thing to do. That
takes for granted that our government has the right to act as judge and executioner in other people's wars simply because we have
the power to affect the outcome. When we think about "humanitarian" intervention this way, we can see that it is driven by the worst
kind of arrogant presumption. The first question we should ask is this: what gives us the authority to interfere in another country's
internal conflict? We should also ask ourselves what gives us the right to cast aside international law whenever we deem it necessary.
Isn't "humanitarian" intervention in practice little more than international armed vigilantism?
The Libyan war is one example of just such a "good" intervention that pretty clearly caused more harm than it prevented. It also
violated most of the requirements of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine that was invoked to justify it. Like more than a few
other die-hard Libyan war supporters, Power remains convinced that it was the right decision, because she doesn't ask the questions
that would force her to confront the harm that the intervention did to Libya and the surrounding region. Bessner comments:
Power never really asked these questions, because ultimately, as the historian Stephen Wertheim has argued, she considers humanitarian
intervention a categorical imperative (as long as it doesn't involve U.S. allies, of course).
That last qualification is an important one, and it gets at the heart of what is wrong with "humanitarian" interventionism in
the U.S. and the West. If a government is considered to be on "our" side, it can commit war crimes with impunity, devastate whole
countries, and starve tens of millions of people, and the most vocal "humanitarian" interventionists will usually have nothing to
say about it. I have remarked on several occasions that "humanitarian" interventionists just ignored the catastrophe in Yemen despite
the fact that it was the world's worst man-made humanitarian disaster, and it has only been in the last year or two that any of them
have spoken up about it now that it is Trump's policy.
The most telling part of Power's career in government was that she served as ambassador to the U.N. at a time when the U.S. was
enabling and supporting the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and as part of the administration she had nothing to say about the crimes
being committed against Yemeni civilians by coalition forces with U.S. military assistance and weapons.
As Bessner notes, she doesn't
have much to say about the abuses of U.S. clients in her book. She has been eager to advocate for using force against hostile or
pariah regimes when they commit atrocities, but when client states use American weapons to commit the same atrocities while enjoying
full U.S. backing Power didn't so much as utter a protest. After she left government and Trump became president, Power criticized
U.S. support for the war, but when she was in a position to challenge a monstrous policy from inside the administration she apparently
said nothing.
Bessner observes that railing against hostile and pariah states while letting clients off the hook makes no sense if the goal
is to minimize the harm to civilians:
Her approach does not make much sense from a pragmatic perspective either: U.S. officials have the highest likelihood of ending
human rights abuses in countries that depend on us; there is little point in spending political capital in a mostly quixotic attempt
to transform antagonists like North Korea.
Of course, it is much safer politically to denounce the states with which our government has no ties or influence, and it is much
easier to remain silent about the crimes of client states that have significant clout in Washington. The point here is not just that
Power failed her own test when she served in government, but that the impulse to intervene on "humanitarian" grounds amounts to agitating
for war against certain governments while giving U.S. clients a free pass to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with our
government's blessing.
There's yet one more reason to why she wasn't saying anything about Yemen when in office beside the one that it were her guys
who directed that war then. Perhaps less phony, but, I'd rather say, more tragic. It's much easier to criticize someone for neglecting
his duties than not to neglect those duties when you've got them yourself.
I almost see those lemmings on her Twitter chirping:
'Oh, you're so brave, you're standing up to the Terrible Orange Tyrant.' (Not that the "Tyrant" was even aware that she's standing
up to him).
And no one with enough intellectual honesty to mention that she was among the greatest enablers of Yemenis' suffering
yet before the said "Tyrant" (who might be a tyrant to anyone but her social class) entered the office. Profiles in cowardice,
all of them.
"... Can China then depend on widening internal demand to maintain its global edge? There are two reasons why not. The present authorities worry that a widening middle stratum could jeopardize their political control and seek to limit it.[a] ..."
"... The second reason, more important, is that much of the internal demand is the result of reckless borrowing by regional banks, which are facing an inability to sustain their investments. If they collapse, even partially, this could end the entire economic edge[b] of China. ..."
A structural crisis is chaotic. This means that instead of the normal standard set of
combinations or alliances that were previously used to maintain the stability of the system,
they constantly shift these alliances in search of short-term gains. This only makes the
situation worse. We notice here a paradox – the certainty of the end of the existing
system and the intrinsic uncertainty of what will eventually replace it and create thereby a
new system (or new systems) to stabilize realities .
Now, let us look at China's role in what is going on. In terms of the present system,
China seems to be gaining much advantage. To argue that this means the continuing functioning
of capitalism as a system is basically to (re)assert the invalid point that systems are
eternal and that China is replacing the United States in the same way as the United States
replaced Great Britain as the hegemonic power. Were this true, in another 20-30 years China
(or perhaps northeast Asia) would be able to set its rules for the capitalist
world-system.
But is this really happening? First of all, China's economic edge, while still greater
than that of the North, has been declining significantly. And this decline may well amplify
soon, as political resistance to China's attempts to control neighboring countries and entice
(that is, buy) the support of faraway countries grows, which seems to be occurring.
Can China then depend on widening internal demand to maintain its global edge? There are
two reasons why not. The present authorities worry that a widening middle stratum could
jeopardize their political control and seek to limit it.[a]
The second reason, more important, is that much of the internal demand is the result of
reckless borrowing by regional banks, which are facing an inability to sustain their
investments. If they collapse, even partially, this could end the entire economic edge[b] of
China.
In addition, there have been, and will continue to be, wild swings in geopolitical
alliances. In a sense, the key zones are not in the North, but in areas such as Russia,
India, Iran, Turkey, and southeastern Europe, all of them pursuing their own roles by a game
of swiftly and repeatedly changing sides. The bottom line is that, though China plays a
very big role in the short run, it is not as big a role as China would wish and that some in
the rest of the world-system fear. It is not possible for China to stop the disintegration of
the capitalist system. It can only try to secure its place in a future
world-system.
As far as Wallerstein's bottom line: The proof is in the pudding. That said, there seems to
be a tendency to regard Xi as all-powerful. IMNSHO, that's by no means the case, not only
because of China's middle class, but because of whatever China's equivalent of deplorables is.
The "wild swings in geopolitical alliances" might play a role, too; oil, Africa's minerals.
NOTES [a] I haven't seen this point made elsewhere. [b] Crisis, certainly. "Ending the
entire economic edge"? I'm not so sure.
Hong Kong and the Audacity of the U.S. Part of a "Destabilization War" with China By
Peter Koenig
Global Research, August 26, 2019 Region: Asia Theme: Intelligence
People often ask and hint at the similarities between the Hong Kong protests and the
French Yellow Vests. The former started on 31 March and are approaching their 19 th
week – the Yellow Vests (YV) have celebrated last weekend their 40 th week of
protests. As of recently some voices of Macron-infiltrates into the YV movement – or
Fifth Columnists – have suggested that the YVs may support the Hong Kong protesters in
solidarity for freedom .
Well, that didn't go down well with the highly educated and well informed YV. Many of them
actually felt insulted by the Macronites – ' for whom does this guy [Macron] take
us? ' – And right they are. There is not a shred of comparison between the two
movements, except that they are protests – but for widely different reasons, and serving
widely different agendas. The YV can in no way be associated with the Hong Kong "protests"
– which are equal to US funded Color Revolutions.
We, the YV leaders said, are fighting against an ever more totalitarian French government
that is ever more stealing our legitimate income in the form of all sorts of taxes and keeps a
minimum wage on which ever-more French families cannot survive. Life is unaffordable on a
regular workers pension. The Macron Government is creating poverty, by shifting the financial
resources – the few that are left, from the bottom to the top. – That's what we are
fighting and protesting against. We want a fundamental change in the French economic structure
and the French leadership. You see, all of this has nothing to do with the Washington funded
Hong Protests that are directed on Washington's behalf by Hong Kongers against the Government
of Mainland China.
It couldn't be clearer. The French Yellow Vests know what they are fighting for. The Hong
Kong protesters, most of them, follow a few leaders under false pretenses against their
country, against Beijing. Granted, many of the protesters are pro-westerners, they sing the US
National Anthem, and wave the British flag – the flag of their former colonialists.
Actually, funding to destabilize Hong Kong in the future has already started at the latest
in 1994, 3 years before the official Handover of Hong Kong by the UK to the Beijing Government.
Way before the official date of returning Hong Kong in 1997 to the Peoples Republic of China
(PRC), the US built up a network of Fifth Columnists in Hong Kong.
Washington pours millions into creating unrest in Hong Kong, similarly as in Ukraine, when
the US State Department financed the preparation of the 2014 coup at least 5 years ahead at the
tune of US$ 5 billion, according to Victoria Nuland's, Deputy Secretary of State, own
admission, directly and through NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, an "NGO" which it
isn't. It is rather the extended or soft arm of the CIA, receiving hundreds of millions of
dollars from the State Department for their 'regime changing' activities around the globe.
In 1991, The Washington Post quoted a NED founder, Allen Weinstein , as saying
"a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" .
Couldn't have been said better. We see the results all over the world.
Precisely this has happened in Hong Kong and is going on until this day – and probably
way beyond. The US will not let go. Especially now that most people who have at least a limited
understanding on how these western manipulations work, comprehend and see for themselves who is
sowing the unrests. Take the 22-year-old student and western hero of the 2014 Umbrella
Revolution, Joshua Wong , trained programmed and funded by the US State Department / NED / CIA.
He is again a main player in the current protest movement. Wong is the on-the-ground boy for
the local media tycoon, Jimmy Lai , who has spent millions of his own money in the 2014 "Occupy
Central" protests (Umbrella Revolution).
The oligarch uses his funds widely to finance protest leaders and protest groups. He also
created his own National Party, with significant xenophobic connotations. Yet Mr. Lai is very
close to the Trump Administration and met, along with many of his protest leaders, with the US
envoy in Hong Kong, as well as with National Security Advisor John Bolton – and other US
officials. On July 8, Mr. Jimmy Lai met US Vice President Mike Pence at the White
House.
Lai has full support of the US Government to fire-on and promote these protest groups. Yet,
if asked, the protesters have no precise plan or strategy of what they want. The island is
largely divided. By far not all protesters want to separate from the mainland. They feel
Chinese and express their disgust with Jimmy Lai's radical anti-Beijing propaganda. They call
him a traitor.
Mr. Lai was born in 1948 in mainland China, in an impoverished family in Canton. He was
educated to fifth grade level and smuggled to Hong Kong in a small boat at age 13. In HK he
worked as a child laborer in a garment factory at about the equivalent of US$ 8 per month. In
1975 he bought a bankrupt garment factory for a pittance and created Giordano, producing
sweaters and other clothing for mostly US clients, like J.C. Penny, Montgomery Ward and others.
Mr. Lai today is openly criticized even by his own people as a conspirator behind the violence
of the HK riots, or protests, as he prefers to call them.
The protests started with a 'controversial' extradition law – which, by the way,
exists between most States in the United States, as well as between nations in Europe and to a
large extent internationally. Therefore, this is nothing unusual. Yet, its importance was blown
out of proportion by the western media and by Mr. Lai's own local media to distort the picture.
A minority, of course, would like their full independence from China which is totally against
the agreement signed between the UK and Beijing at the so-called 1997 Handover.
A few days ago, the US sent a couple of war ships into China waters at Hong Kong. They had
the audacity to ask Beijing to grant them the right to dock at Hong Kong harbor. Beijing, of
course, refused and warned Washington – do not meddle in our internal affairs. Of course,
Washington has no intention to heed China's advice – they never do. They have been
inoculated with the view that the exceptional nation calls the shots. Always. Nobody else
should even dare to contradict them. Period.
On July 3, The China Daily pointedly reported
"The ideologues in Western governments never cease in their efforts to engineer unrest
against governments that are not to their liking, even though their actions have caused
misery and chaos in country after country in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Now they are trying the same trick in China."
The US tactics in Hong Kong, may be combined with Trump's trade war, with the Pentagon's
greater presence – mainly new military bases and navy presence in the Indo-Pacific region
– Obama's (in)famous Pivot to Asia which prompted Obama to order 60% of the US Navy fleet
to the South China Sea.
All of this and more are part of a destabilization war with China. Washington is afraid of
China's rising economic power in the world, of China's monetary system, that is based on
economic output and on gold, not fiat money like the US Dollar and the Euro and other
currencies following the western turbo-capitalist system; and Washington is afraid of losing
its dollar hegemony, as the Chinese yuan is gradually taking over the dollar's role as world
reserve currency.
Hong Kong was basically stolen by the Brits in 1842 at the heights of the Opium Wars. Under
pressure of the British military might, China ceded Hong Kong under the Treaty of Nanking,
signed on 29 August 1842. Hong Kong became, thus, a Crown Colony of the British Empire. In
1898, Hong Kong's Governor Chris Patten and Prince Charles agreed on a 99-year lease and
pledged to return Hong Kong to China in 1997.
After 155 years of British colonial oppression of the people of Hong Kong, it was time to
normalize the status of Hong Kong as what it always should have been, namely an integral
territory of China. The "One Country, Two Systems" agreement of 1997, returned Hong Kong to the
People's Republic of China, but the parties agreed to leave the capitalist system in place for
50 years. The agreement also stipulated that all intervention and colonial claims on Hong Kong
were supposed to end. Full sovereignty was to return to China. What's happening now –
US-UK fomented riots to seek independence of the island, is in total disregard of the 1997
Handover Treaty.
The US inspired and funded protests are destined to challenge the HK-China sovereignty
clause, by mobilizing public opinion that wants full "freedom" – i.e. independence from
China.
The 50 years of the usual abusive capitalist continuation, would allow the imperialist US
and UK to maintain economic control over Hong Kong and thereby exert economic influence over
the PRC. How wrong they were! – In 1997 Hong Kong's GDP constituted 27% of the PRC's GDP
– today that proportion shrunk to a mere 3%. China's rapidly growing level of
development, especially the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which the west chose to literally
ignore until about a year ago, has become a vital threat to the US corporate world.
What the US and UK – and the rest of the West – is particularly interested in is
HK's special banking position in the world. Through Singapore and Hong Kong, Wall Street and
key European banks, in cohorts with their not so 'ethically-clean' and often fraudulent HSBC
partner, pretend to control and influence Asian economics – and especially attempt to
prevent China to take over the Asian financial markets. Hong Kong has the most liberal banking
laws, possibly worldwide, where illegal money transactions, money laundering, shady investments
in the billions can be carried out and nobody watches. Maintaining HK as long as possible with
this special nation status and wielding influence and control over PRC's financial markets is
one of the western goals.
But little does the West understand that China and other eastern countries, plus Russia,
India, Pakistan, have already largely detached, or are in the process of detaching from the
dollar economy and are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Let's face it,
the SCO comprises about half of the world's population and controls about one third of the
globe's economic output.
Therefore, the SCO members do no longer depend on the western financial markets and monetary
manipulations. In fact, Shanghai has in the last decades grown to become China's financial hub
with way more importance for China than Hong Kong. So, it is very unlikely that China will
crack down on Hong Kong for the protests. There is too much political capital to be lost by
interfering. The West and Hong Kong protesters may as well riot themselves into rot.
But if China gets tired of these incessant western provocations and really wants to put an
end to them, the PRC could take over Hong Kong in less than 48 hours, abridge the 50 years of
western capitalism and make HK a full-fledged province of China, no privileges, no special
status, just a part of sovereign China. End of story.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and
environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health
Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at
universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH;
RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21 st Century; TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern
Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of
Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate
Greed– fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around
the globe. He is also a co-author ofThe World
Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
"We also explained in detail to the US lawmakers the kind of massive arrests and excessive
use of force by our police force, which resulted in the apprehension of a large number of
innocent civilians and left quite a number of protesters severely injured.
We also talked about the inhumane treatment to which some of the arrested protesters were
allegedly subjected and the "white terror" imposed by the central government on certain
business corporations such as Cathay Pacific Airways, where a number of employees, including
pilots and a flight attendant, were sacked over incidents related to the anti-extradition bill
protests.
Both Republican and Democratic members of the US Congress are pushing for the Hong Kong
Human Rights and Democracy Act.
One of the most important provisions of the bill is that HKSAR government officials who are
found suppressing Hong Kong's democracy, human rights or citizens' freedoms could have their
assets in the US frozen and be denied entry to the US.
We agree that the passage of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act through the US
Congress will help in our citizens' fight for democracy and in defending our human rights and
freedoms." Dennis Kwok
--------------
"Give me liberty or give me death?" This sounds like that sentiment.
Would such an Act do anything material for Hong Kong? Probably not. Trump says that he hopes
the CCP will settle the HK matter in a "humane way." IOW he doesn't intend to do anything
except use the HK crisis as leverage in his extended bargaining with China.
OTOH, this Act would do a lot for the conscience of the people of the US. We need to do
something that is actually selfless since we seem to have lost the knack for standing up for
the "little people" in places like Yemen and Palestine against Communist tyranny.
If such an Act were passed (probably over Trump's opposition) or maybe not since he claims
to not give a damn about trade with China, then Canada should follow our lead in this. British
Columbia is packed full of mainland Chinese who have stashed their wealth there and who look
forward to taking refuge in Victoria and/or Vancouver.
Palmerston, that mean old bastard, said that countries do not have friends. They merely have
interests. Well, maybe so, but I would say that such an Act would be in our long term spiritual
interest. pl
Thanks for posting the link to the text, it is an interesting piece of legislation.
"an assessment of whether sensitive dual-use items subject to the export control laws of
the United States are being --
(A) transshipped through Hong Kong; and (B) used to develop -- (i) the Sharp Eyes, Skynet,
Integrated Joint Operations Platform, or other systems of mass surveillance and predictive
policing"
As a related topic shouldn't the Congress also look into which US Tech companies are
aiding China in the development of systems of "mass surveillance and predictive
policing"?
What is the ultimate goal of US policy of Containing China? I fail to see anything in here
except opposition to another hyperpower. In my opinion, Democracy and Freedom in China is
centuries into the future, if at all. There could a revival of the ideas of Legalists in a
few decades but barring that, Democratic China is a pipedream, both for Containment
Strategists as well as for Chinese political activists and reformers and thinkers. A very sad
case of the Persistence of a rather brutal past. (And I no longer see protection of US jobs
as its core purpose.)
I consider CPC as the Red Emperor: no ideology there just organized power structure to run
that country, whose economy is supported by 300 million pigs – only an Act of Divine
Intervention, a Miracle, could cause the Chinese to become Muslims, let alone Shia.
If I am correct in my surmise, then the most productive way forward would be to learn to
live with an un-free, un-just, and un-democratic, and cunning China for many more decades.
But then that would be just like living with Saudi Arabia and her friends in Southern Persian
Gulf. No country or combinations of countries, in the West, can hope to dominate China at
acceptable costs. That is why Kwak's ideas are stupid.
But Yemen is supposedly an existential threat to the USA's good friend KSA, surely the KSA is
not communist? ( not all that much of a friend either unless one considers parasites to be
friends )
And Palestine is supposedly an existential threat to the USA's great friend Israel. Israel is
surely not a communist nation. ( also not that much of a friend unless one considers the
Johnathan Pollard types to be friends.)
Russia stopped being communist the instant that most successful agent in place Gorbachev
handed over control to Yeltsin, and The PRC has most successfully become a rapacious
capitalist nation once Mao and Mrs. departed this mortal coil.
And even DPRNK is easing away from communism thanks to the great admiration the leader there
has for the leader here.
I do not see an interest for the USA in sticking its nose into yet another nations family
disagreement. But then I haven't seen much value accruing to the USA in its continual
intrusion into other folks' affairs since 1881.
I agree. Though what Trump is going to do is unpredictable. It would sure be the right
thing for the Republic to make such a gesture. It won't hurt him either politically nor in
his trade negotiations with China.
Maybe the democratically-elected U.S.government should concern itself more with the
long-term, or even short-term, material interests of its own people, many of whom are
apparently sinking beneath the waves of debt, ill health, addiction and general decline in
life expectancy and life chances.
While any U.S. denunciation of the Chinese government over events in Hong Kong is unlikely
to affect outcomes there, it will no doubt worsen US-China relations. But that is a feature,
not a bug.
Of course, as you say, such a denunciation could be an important distraction to cheer up
Americans and to reinforce the Enlightenment myth that Anglo-American values are universal
despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
British Columbia is packed full of mainland Chinese who have stashed their wealth there and
who look forward to taking refuge in Victoria and/or Vancouver.
Indeed, and it causes a lot of resentment towards Chinese that is similar to
that towards the mainlanders in Hong Kong. The wealth-parking and haven-seeking in both
places has driven asset inflation that has affected the locals badly, with the exception of a
fortunate few. This has happened at the same time that HK has lost one of its engines of true
economic growth, its formerly indispensable role as a trade and financial portal for China.
The HK protests seem driven mainly by unfocused resentment of all things mainland and lacking
in coherent goals. HK's lack of an extradition treaty with the mainland is one incentive for
wealthy mainlanders, especially those who might have been shady in acquiring their wealth, to
seek a haven in HK.
IMO, CCP is going to crackdown violently on the people of HK who are the modern equivalent
of Patrick Henry. This is an example of their resolve. Volunteer drivers rescuing trapped
protestors.
The US Congress needs to stand with the good people of HK in their hour of need. There
should be consequences for CCP violence. Sanctions on the CCP politburo who have much of
their wealth stashed in the west should be an immediate response. The other should be ending
US investment in CCP linked entities and preventing the listing of Chinese companies on US
exchanges unless they fully comply with accounting and transparency standards that are
required of US companies. The US Congress should also recognize Taiwan as an independent
country as CCP has reneged on "One Country Two Systems". There can be no "deal" with CCP any
longer as they have time and again thumbed their noses before the ink has even dried in their
previous agreements including their inclusion in WTO. The time has come to destroy the
authoritarian CCP and enable the Chinese people to determine their own destiny.
Former communist countries get the nature of the CCP. IMO, this time the global response
to CCP violence will not be benign. CCP cash will not be able to easily buy public opinion
this time despite the propaganda of the fifth column.
Trump must know that a strong dollar is the worst situation for CCP with trillions in
dollar liabilities. There are reports that some Chinese cities are now rationing meat as pork
prices rocket up.
When my grandkids say they are scrutinizing all products they purchase to make sure
they're not Made in China, I know that sentiment is changing at the margin.
"the long-term, or even short-term, material interests of its own people, many of whom are
apparently sinking beneath the waves of debt, ill health, addiction and general decline in
life expectancy and life chances." marxist agitprop. You should move to the peoples' paradise
and then you can stand in line at COSTCO stores.
I can understand why you don't care about TROM. Humans have no inalienable rights in Iran.
Onle god has thr Right and it is for men to obey the Khawza to seek salvation.
What an anti-colonial snob you are! Try not to be overcome by your post-colonial angst.
Tyranny is tyranny, whether it be that of Britain, the asshole salafists or the
communists.
The hybrid war, being conducted against China by the United States and its gaggle of
puppet states from the UK to Canada to Australia, has entered a new phase.
The first stage involved the massive shift of US air and naval forces to the Pacific and
constant provocations against China in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.
The second stage was the creation of disinformation about China's treatment of minority
groups, especially in Tibet and west China.
That this propaganda campaign has been carried out by nations such as the US, Canada and
Australia who have the worst human rights records in the world with respect to their indigenous
peoples, subjected to centuries of cultural and physical genocide by those governments, and who
refuse to protect their minority peoples from physical attacks and discrimination despite their
human rights laws, shocks the conscience of any objective observer.
But not content with that, the propaganda was extended to China's economic development, its
international trade, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, its Silk and Belt Road Initiative,
its development bank, and other facilities and trade initiatives, through which China is
accused of trying to control the world; an accusation made by the very nation that threatens
economic embargo or worse, nuclear annihilation, to anyone, friend or foe, who resists its
attempt to control the world.
The fourth phase is the US attempt to degrade the Chinese economy with punitive "tariffs,"
essentially an embargo on Chinese goods. That the objective is not better trade deals but to
bring China to its knees is the fact that the negative effect of these tariffs on American
consumers, farmers and manufacturers is considered secondary to the principal objective.
Last year it moved to a fifth phase, t he kidnapping and illegal detention of Meng Wanzhou,
the Chief Financial Officer of China's leading technology company Huawei, in synchronicity with
a massive campaign by the USA to force its puppets to drop any dealings with that company. Meng
Wanzhou is still held against her will in Canada on US orders. Chinese have been harassed in
the US, Australia and Canada.
The latest phase in this hybrid warfare is the insurrection being provoked by the US, UK,
Canada and the rest in Hong Kong, using tactics designed to provoke China into suppressing the
rioters with force to amplify the anti-Chinese propaganda, or pushing the "protestors" into
declaring Hong Kong independent of China and then using force to support them.
Mitch McConnell , an important US senator implicitly threatened just such a scenario in a
statement on August 12th stating that the US is warning China not to block the protests and
that if they are suppressed trouble will follow. In other words the US is claiming that it will
protect the thugs in black shirts, the shirts of fascists. This new phase is very dangerous, as
the Chinese government has time and again stated, and has to be handled with intelligence and
the strength of the Chinese people.
There is now abundant evidence that the UK and US are the black hand behind the events in
Hong Kong. When the Hong Kong Bar association joined in the protests the west claimed that even
the lawyers were supporting the protests in an attempt to bring justice to the people. But the
leaders of that association are all either UK lawyers or members of law firms based in London,
such as Jimmy Chan , head of the so-called Human Civil Rights Front, formed in 2002 with the
objective of breaking Honk Kong away from China, such as Kevin Lam , a partner in another
London based law firm, and Steve Kwok and Alvin Yeung , members of the anti-China Civic Party
who are going to meet with US officials next week.
Kwok has called for the independence of Hong Kong in other visits, some sponsored by the US
National Security Council and has called for the US to invoke its Hong Kong Policy Act, which,
among other things mandates the US president to issue an order suspending its treatment of Hong
Kong as a separate territory in trade matters. The effect of this would be to damage China's
overall trade since a lot of its revenue comes through Hong Kong. The president can invoke the
Act if it decides that Hong Kong "is not sufficiently autonomous to justify it being treated
separately from China."
In tandem with Kwok's call for the use of that Act, US Senator Ted Cruz has filed a Bill
titled the Hong Kong Revaluation Act requiring the president to report on "how China exploits
Hong Kong to circumvent the laws of the United States."
But it seems the anti-Chinese propaganda campaign is not having the effect they hoped. The
New York Times ran a piece on August 13 stating, "China is waging a disinformation war against
the protestors." Embarrassed by US consular officials being caught red-handed meeting with
protest leaders in a hotel in Hong Kong last week and blatant statements of support for the
protestors from the US, Canada and UK as well attempts to treat Hong Kong as an independent
state, the US intelligence services have now been forced to try to counter China's accounts of
the facts by declaring anything China says as disinformation.
The US and UK objectives are revealed in this statement from the article,
"Hong Kong, which Britain returned to Chinese rule in 1997, remains outside China's
firewall, and thus is sitting along one of the world's most profound online divides.
Preserving the city's freedom to live without the mainland's controls has become one of the
causes now motivating the protests."
This statement flies in the face of the Basic Law, expressing the agreement between the UK
and China when the UK finally agreed to leave Hong Kong. We need to be aware of what the Basic
Law says. Promulgated in April 4 1990 but put into effect on July 1, 1997, the date of the hand
over of the territory to China, the Preamble states:
"Hong Kong has been part of the territory of China since ancient times; it was occupied by
Britain after the Opium War in 1840. On 19 December 1984, the Chinese and British Governments
signed the Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, affirming that the Government of
the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with
effect from 1 July 1997, thus fulfilling the long-cherished common aspiration of the Chinese
people for the recovery of Hong Kong.
Upholding national unity and territorial integrity, maintaining the prosperity and stability
of Hong Kong, and taking account of its history and realities, the People's Republic of China
has decided that upon China's resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, a Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region will be established in accordance with the provisions of
Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and that under the principle
of "one country, two systems", the socialist system and policies will not be practised in Hong
Kong. The basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong have been
elaborated by the Chinese Government in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
In accordance with the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the National People's
Congress hereby enacts the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the
People's Republic of China, prescribing the systems to be practised in the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, in order to ensure the implementation of the basic policies of the
People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong."
Hong Kong is a part of China. That is the essential fact set out in the Basic Law agreed to
by the UK as well as China. It is an administrative region of China. It is not an independent
state and never was when Britain seized it through force and occupied it.
So the claim that the protestors are trying to preserve something that never existed,
freedom from China's control, since Hong Kong is subject to China's control, is bogus. The fact
that China permitted Hong Kong to retain its capitalist system confirms this. The fact that
China can impose socialism 50 years after or sooner if certain conditions are met, also
confirms this.
The pretexts for the riots, the first being a proposed extradition law between the mainland
and Hong Kong which is similar to those that exist between provinces in Canada and states in
the USA, the second being the claim that China's insistence on its sovereignty over the
territory somehow overrides the limited autonomy granted Hong Kong and threatens that autonomy,
are without any foundation.
One could easily split Canada into pieces based on such bogus arguments or again split up
the USA, or even the UK as London sees its rule of Ireland, Wales and Scotland being challenged
by nationalist groups. And we know very well what violent protests will bring in swift
suppression of such forces if the central governments feel threatened, especially by the
violence we see used by the black shirts in Hong Kong. We saw what happened in Spain when the
Catalans attempted to split from Spain. The leaders of the movement are now in exile. We saw
what the US is capable of against demonstrators when it shot them down at Kent State when
students were demonstrating peacefully. These things are not forgotten. We know how the British
will react to renewed attempts for a united Ireland.
China is facing attacks on several fronts at once and it will require wisdom, endurance and
the strength of the Chinese people to defend their revolution and rid themselves of colonial
and imperialist domination, once and for all. T hose who carry British and American flags in
the protests in Hong Kong, reveal who they are. They are not the future of China. They are the
living embodiment of a dead history and dead ideas, zombies of the past.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a
number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel " Beneath the
Clouds . He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for
the online magazine "New Eastern
Outlook." He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... Before commenting please read Robert Parry's ..."
"... . Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. ..."
Film 'Official Secrets' is the Tip of a Mammoth Iceberg August 29, 2019 •
37 Comments
A new film depicting the whistleblower Katherine Gun, who tried to stop the Iraq invasion,
is largely accurate, but the story is not over, says Sam Husseini.
T wo-time Oscar nominee Keira Knightley is known for being in "period pieces" such as "Pride
and Prejudice," so her playing the lead in the new film "Official Secrets," scheduled to be
released in the U.S. on Friday, may seem odd at first. That is until one considers that the
time span being depicted -- the early 2003 run-up to the invasion of Iraq -- is one of the most
dramatic and consequential periods of modern human history.
It is also one of the most poorly understood, in part because the story of Katharine Gun,
played by Knightley, is so little known. Having followed this story from the start, I find this
film to be, by Hollywood standards, a remarkably accurate account of what has happened to
date–"to date" because the wider story still isn't over.
Katharine Gun
worked as an analyst for Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British equivalent
of the secretive U.S. National Security Agency. She tried to stop the impending invasion of
Iraq in early 2003 by exposing the deceit of George W. Bush and Tony Blair in their claims
about that country. For doing that she was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act -- a
juiced up version of the U.S. Espionage Act, which in recent years has been used repeatedly by
the Obama administration against whistleblowers and now by the Trump administration against
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
Gun was charged for exposing -- around the time of
Colin Powell's infamous testimony to the UN about Iraq's alleged WMDs – a top secret
U.S. government memo showing it was mounting an illegal spying "surge" against other U.N.
Security Council delegations in an effort to manipulate them into voting for an Iraq invasion
resolution. The U.S. and Britain had successfully
forced through a trumped
up resolution, 1441 in November 2002. In early 2003, they were poised to threaten, bribe or
blackmail their way to get formal United Nations authorization for the invasion. [See
recent interview with Gun .]
Katherine Gun The leaked memo, published by the British Observer , was big news in
parts of the world, especially the targeted countries on the Security Council, and helped
prevent Bush and Blair from getting the second UN Security Council resolution they said they
wanted. Veto powers Russia, China and France were opposed as well as U.S. ally Germany.
'Most Courageous Leak' It was the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy,
where I work ( accuracy.org ), Norman
Solomon, as well as Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who in the U.S. most
immediately saw the importance of what Gun had done. Ellsberg would later comment: "No one else
-- including myself -- has ever done what Katharine Gun did: Tell secret truths at personal
risk, before an imminent war, in time, possibly, to avert it. Hers was the most important --
and courageous -- leak I've ever seen, more timely and potentially more effective than the
Pentagon Papers."
Daniel Ellsberg on the cover of Time after leaking the Pentagon Papers
Gun said: "I went to the local bookshop, and I went into the political section. I found two
books, which had apparently been rushed into publication, one was by Norman Solomon and Reese
Erlich, and it was called Target Iraq . And the
other one was by Milan Rai. It was called War
Plan Iraq . And I bought both of them. And I read them cover to cover that weekend, and
it basically convinced me that there was no real evidence for this war. So I think from that
point onward, I was very critical and scrutinizing everything that was being said in the
media." Thus, we see Gun in "Official Secrets" shouting at the TV to Tony Blair that he's not
entitled to make up facts. The film may be jarring to some consumers of major media who might
think that Donald Trump invented lying in 2017. Gun's immediate action after reading critiques
of U.S. policy and media coverage makes a strong case for trying to reach government workers by
handing out fliers and books and putting up
billboards outside government offices to encourage them to be more critically minded.
Solomon and Ellsberg had debunked Bush administration propaganda in real time. But Gun's
revelation showed that the U.S. and British governments were not only lying to invade Iraq,
they were violating international law to blackmail whole nations to get in line.
Mainstream reviews of "Official Secrets" still seem to not fully grasp the importance of
what they just saw. The trendy AV
Club review leads : "Virtually everyone now agrees that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a
colossal mistake based on faulty (at best) or fabricated (at worst) intelligence." "Mistake" is
a serious understatement even with "colossal" attached to it when the movie details the
diabolical, illegal lengths to which the U.S. and British governments went to get other
governments to go along with it.
Gun's revelations showed before the invasion that people on the inside, whose livelihood
depends on following the party line, were willing to risk jail time to out the lies and
threats.
Portrayal of The Observer
Other than Gun herself, the film focuses on a dramatization of what happened at her work; as
well as her relationship with her husband, a Kurd from Turkey who the British government
attempted to have deported to get at Gun. The film also portrays the work of her lawyers who
helped get the Official Secrets charge against her dropped, as well as the drama at The
Observer , which published the NSA document after much internal debate.
Observer reporter Martin Bright, whose strong work on the original Gun story was
strangely followed by an ill-fated stint at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, has recently noted
that very little
additional work has been done on Gun's case. We know virtually nothing about the apparent
author of the NSA document that she leaked -- one "Frank Koza." Other questions persist, such
is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign governments to get UN votes or for other
purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with allegations made by former NSA analyst
Russ
Tice about the NSA having massive files on political people?
Observer reporter Ed Vulliamy is energetically depicted getting tips from former CIA
man Mel Goodman. There do seem to be subtle but potentially serious deviations from reality in
the film. Vulliamy is depicted as actually speaking with "Frank Koza," but that's not what he
originally
reported :
"The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency
which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The
Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the
United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'. On protesting that the
assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an
erroneous extension, and hung up."
There must doubtlessly be many aspects of the film that have been simplified or altered
regarding Gun's personal experience. A compelling part of the film -- apparently fictitious or
exaggerated -- is a GCHQ apparatchik questioning Gun to see if she was the source.
Little is known about the reaction inside the governments of Security Council members that
the U.S. spied on. After the invasion, Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser spoke in blunt
terms about U.S. bullying -- saying it viewed Mexico as its patio trasero , or back yard
-- and was Zinser was compelled to resign by President Vicente Fox. He then,
in 2004 , gave details about some aspects of U.S. surveillance sabotaging the efforts of
the other members of the Security Council to hammer out a compromise to avert the invasion of
Iraq, saying the U.S. was "violating the U.N. headquarters covenant." In 2005, he tragically
died in a car crash
.
Documents
leaked by Edward Snowden and published by The Intercept in 2016 boasted of how the NSA
"during the wind-up to the Iraq War 'played a critical role' in the adoption of U.N. Security
Council resolutions. The work with that customer was a resounding success." The relevant
document specifically cites resolutions 1441 and 1472 and quotes John Negroponte ,
then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "I can't imagine better intelligence support
for a diplomatic mission." (Notably, The Intercept has never published a word on "
Katharine Gun ." )
Nor were the UN Security Council members the only ones on the U.S. hit list to pave the way
for the Iraq invasion. Brazilian Jose Bustani, the director-general of the international
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. was ousted in an effective coup by John
Bolton in April of 2002 . Bolton is now national security adviser.
"Official Secrets" director Gavin Hood is perhaps more right than he realizes when he says
that his depiction of the Gun case is like the "tip of an iceberg," pointing to other deceits
surrounding the Iraq war. His record with political films has been uneven until now. Peace
activist David Swanson, for instance, derided his film on drones, " Eye in the Sky ." At a D.C. showing of "Official Secrets,"
Hood depicted those who backed the Iraq war as being discredited. But that's simply untrue.
Keira Knightley appears as Katherine Gun in Official Secrets (Courtesy of Sundance
Institute.)
Leading presidential candidate Joe Biden -- who not only voted for the Iraq invasion, but
presided over rigged
hearings on in 2002 – has recently falsified
his record repeatedly on Iraq
at presidential debates with hardly a murmur. Nor is he alone. Those refusing to be held
accountable for their Iraq war lies include not just Bush and Cheney, but John Kerry and
Nancy
Pelosi .
Biden has actually faulted Bush for not doing enough to get United Nations approval for the
Iraq invasion. But as the Gun case helps show, there was no legitimate case for invasion and
the Bush administration had done virtually everything, both legal and illegal, to get UN
authorization.
Many who supported the invasion try to distance themselves from it. But the repercussions of
that illegal act are enormous: It led directly or indirectly to the rise of ISIS, the civil war
in Iraq and the war in Syria. Journalists who pushed for the Iraq invasion are prosperous and
atop major news organizations, such as Washington Post editorial page editor
Fred Hiatt. The
editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer , Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News.
After Gun's identity became known, the Institute for Public Accuracy brought on Jeff Cohen,
the founder of FAIR, to work with program director Hollie Ainbinder to get prominent
individuals to support
Gun . The film -- quite plausibly -- depicts the charges being dropped against Gun for the
simple reason that the British government feared that a high profile proceeding would
effectively put the war on trial, which to them would be have been a nightmare.
Sam Husseini is an independent journalist, senior analyst at the Institute for Public
Accuracy and founder of VotePact.org .
Follow him on twitter: @samhusseini .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry'sComment Policy.
Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks,
and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment
does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 19:49
Saw the film today. Solid work; recommended.
Did her ultimate court appearance really go down in such a dramatic fashion? I suppose I
shouldn't be surprised if it did: English courtroom proceedings may not deliver better
justice than U.S. ones, but they're definitely more entertaining.
William , August 31, 2019 at 19:06
U.S. Government officials should be indicted for war crimes. It is quite clear that U.S.
officials conspired to ensure that an invasion
of Iraq would take place. The U.S. and Britain -- George Bush and Tony Blair -- initiated a
war of aggression against Iraq, and under
international law should be tried for war crimes, just as numerous German officials were
tried and convicted of war crimes.
No U.S. politician has called for investigation, and the main stream media has not touched
this topic. It is unquestionably clear that
the U.S. congress is a collection of spineless, cowardly, corrupt, greedy men and women. They
have allowed the U.S. to become a rogue,
criminal nation.
Katherine Gun is awesome! I heard her speak as part of a panel of whistleblowers –
wish there were many more like her
michael , August 31, 2019 at 08:15
Inequality.org reports that the majority of our top 1% are corporate executives. Finance,
which reportedly accounted for 3% of our economy in 1980, now accounts for 30%. Many of the
US's 585 billionaires have monopolies in their business domain, no different from the Robber
Barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. "Stability is more important than democracy",
the market hates uncertainty, and our foreign policies, determined by think tanks staffed and
funded by our "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia, will continue to push for the greed of our
Richest. "Democracy" is a just a hypocritical bon mot for stealing and destroying.
The Republicans have always supported these people. What is worrisome is that the Democrats
have come to the same place as the GOP, since donations– pay-to-play- lead to
re-elections. The Democrats have deserted the Poor and working class, since they have no
money for pay-to-play. Our 17 technologically advanced Stasis work in concert with Congress,
our entitled government bureaucrats, and their lapdog main stream media to "make things
happen" for our Richest. How long before people like Assange, Katherine Gunn, Chelsea
Manning, Edward Snowden, Binney, Kiriakou etc learn that it pays to keep their mouths shut?
Transparency and whistleblowing is punished. Maybe other approaches are needed?
Tony , August 31, 2019 at 07:26
Very interesting to see what inspired her to act the way that she did.
Of course, the supporters of the war had various motives.
But one motive behind President Bush's plan was revealed by Russ Baker in his book 'Family of
Secrets' page 423.
He recalls a conversation with Bush family friend and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. He
says that he told him:
"He (George W. Bush) was thinking about invading in 1999."
Bush apparently said:
"If I have a chance to invade if I had that much (political) capital, I'm not going to
waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I'm going to have
a successful presidency."
So there we have it, he thought that a war would boost his presidency.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 05:16
"The editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer, Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News."
That's a repulsive little nugget I would never have known otherwise.
Thanks to Sam Husseini for this account. The film is playing in my town, at least for this
coming week; I plan to get to it.
RomeoCharlie29 , August 30, 2019 at 19:24
This is a really interesting story and one I knew nothing about, although I was one who
opposed the Iraq war because to me it was obvious the whole WMD issue was bullshit. Now I
understand the perception that that war was an American/ Brit thing but you might recall that
America's deputy Sheriff in the Pacific, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, was Gung
ho for the war and committed Australian troops to the ill-fated endeavour with the result
that our country has subsequently become a target for ISIS inspired terrorism. Australia's
Opposition Leader at the time, Simon Crean led a vocal opposition to the war but "Little
Johnny" as we called him was not to be denied. Incidentally I don't think he has ever
admitted being wrong on this.
Xander Arena , August 30, 2019 at 18:15
Tip of an iceberg is right. Iraq was the second big lie of the 21st century. I wonder how
the world will react to the University of Alaska Fairbanks report which proves fraud at NIST,
and arguably reveals aiding and abetting of treason by the contractors who wrote NIST's
analysis of the WTC7 destruction. The UAF report drops Tuesday 9/3/19, and chisels away at
the big lie that preceded all the related Iraq deceit. BTW great article :)
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:49
I enjoyed the article and learned some things, but it does seem a bit of Hollywood
promotion at the same time.
If only Gun's sacrifice had stopped the invasion it would have been a sensation. As is,
the UN did not sanction the invasion, making that effort a bit moot, and since the reveal of
NSA bugging the world under Obama that dulls the sensibilities of those who might today have
otherwise been shocked, shocked like the Gary Powers U-2 spy plane downing over the USSR and
Ike being caught in a lie on TV.
But overall, knowing the downhill Gun's livelihood has taken over the 15 years makes the
story more of a warning for whistle blowers than inspiration. Maybe Gun will be well
compensated by the movie makers!
Neil E Mac , August 30, 2019 at 15:54
En fin!
bevin , August 30, 2019 at 14:13
One thing is certain: The Observer of 2019 would not publish a story like this. That is
one of the major changes since 2003: the capitalist media has tightened up. There are no
longer papers competing to attract readers at risk of cozy relations with the State. The
Observer/Guardian today – since the Snowden revelations- does what it is told.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:16
"In 2005, he tragically died in a car crash."
Unfortunately -- or fortunately? -- this no longer seems to be credible when it comes to
those who have gone ouit on a limb to challenge the Deep State, or the US version of the Deep
State.
Can Bush and Blair be charged with crimes? In connection with the Third Reich there is
AFAIK no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. Well, Iraq was also full of
'humanity." These guys belong in The Hague. Or in Iraq, doing community service.
In connection with Ellsberg's reviewing the evidence and concluding there was no
evidentiary justification for invading Iraq -- I wanna say, you didn't need to be Ellsberg or
any kind of expert to see clearly that there was no evidence that justified invading Iraq.
Millions of common folk could see this clearly. That is why over 14 million people worldwide
demonstrated against the planned illegal invasion. That is why people like me when to NYC, to
Washington, and also the front our local US Post Office in small towns all over the country
to protest the country's being lied into war. And were greeted mostly with thumbs-up from the
passers- and drivers-by.
The people knew it was all a pack of lies. It was the gullible PRESS that ginned up this
show. Remember Judith what's her name at the NYT? These people also should be indicted as war
criminals.
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:19
Judith Miller, the NYTimes reporter who did maybe the most to make the invasion of Iraq,
is the last name you were seeking.
SteveF , August 30, 2019 at 12:22
The timescales are interesting, we have the alleged US blackmail to get this illegal war
'approved' by the UN and in the same timescale we have the Jeffery Epstein story unfolding
and the corresponding allegations that he was a CIA/Mossad agent operating honey traps to
entangle the rich and famous.
The evil machinations of our governments are indeed breathtaking.
As we can see from so very many modern instances, it matters not at all that truth is on
your side, if what you are doing is attacking those with money and power.
And there's an entire American establishment dedicated to keeping it just that way.
America's history of the last half century, at least so far as foreign relations and
control of an empire, is almost entirely an artificial construct.
Absolutely no truth in everything from John Kennedy's assassination, which was intimately
concerned with America's relationship with Cuba, and the despicable Vietnam War to 9/11 and
the despicable Neocon Wars in the Middle East.
From hundreds of millions of printed newspapers and television broadcasts to speeches from
prominent American politicians, you have tissue of lies not unlike that that was constantly
being created by Oceania's Inner Party in 1984.
That's not even the slightest exaggeration, but, truly, are Americans in general the least
concerned or bothered?
We have no evidence of significant concern. None.
The Democratic Party just weeded out the only candidate it had, brave and informed enough
to speak to truth in some of these matters.
The ten left just represent varying degrees of hopelessness. On and on with weaving dreams
about this or that creative social program while the resources and close attention dedicated
to destruction in a dozen lands make them all impossible.
At the sae time, there is an almost complete lack of information and courage about
anything that is happening in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Israel, and in such massively
important countries as China, Russia, and Iran.
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are brave contemporary examples of the American
establishment's methods for shutting down truth and punishing severely those who reveal it.
While they have followers and supporters, I am always amazed at how relatively small their
numbers are.
And we have remarkably few individuals like Manning or Assange, especially when you
consider the scale and scope of America's many dark works. Mostly, we see only "willing
helpers" carrying on with their sensitive, secretive careers in government.
In the Democratic nomination contest, the "star" liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren, are virtually no different in these absolutely critical matters than a confirmed old
puke of a war criminal like Joe Biden, someone who probably deserves recognition as father of
Obama's industrial-scale extrajudicial killing project with drones and Hellfire missiles
making legally-innocent people in a dozen countries just disappear. Biden has a long record
of smarmy deeds and lack of courage and principles. He is, of course, most likely to get the
nomination too.
Act, from America's CIA, no different in principle and in law to those of the old
Argentine military junta's massive efforts at dragging people off the streets, drugging them,
and throwing them out of planes over the ocean, something they did to thousands. Oh, and
during that wonderful project there were no objections from America, only silence.
Aimee , August 30, 2019 at 22:31
Excellent post. Agree completely. Tulsi was our only hope and she never had a chance. We
are doomed.
Coleen Rowley , August 30, 2019 at 23:29
Here are some of the reasons for the ever lessening concern over US-NATO-Israel-Saudi's
(aka our current Empire's) wars: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/04/recipe-concocted-for-perpetual-war-is-a-bitter-one/
By the way my co-author and I tried unsuccessfully to get this published in about 15
different US papers before Robert Parry posted it on Consortiumnews.
Robert Edwards , August 30, 2019 at 11:17
It's time these liers and war criminals are brought to Justice – I know that's
wishful , but sometimes wishes come true America must get back to a country run on integrity
and honesty, otherwise all will be lost in the spiral of evil
Sorry, but, oh please, America is lost. Has been so for a very long time.
Only tremendous outside influences like depression or war and the growth of competing
states and the loss of the dollar's privileged status, are going to change the reality.
America's feeble democratic system is capable of changing almost nothing. After all, it
was constructed with just that in mind.
john wilson , August 31, 2019 at 05:07
I think think the real worry is that these days they don't even bother to lie anymore and
they just do what they want. Think Venezuela.
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:42
"Other questions persist, such is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign
governments to get UN votes or for other purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with
allegations made by former NSA analyst Russ Tice about the NSA having massive files on
political people?"
This also stands out , as given what we now know is standard modus opendi of CIA / Mossad
operations ,due to the Epstein arrest and ensuing information , who knows what is used to
leverage other nations to follow along with US and in this case UK demands.Birds of a feather
fly together.
Very good report by Sam Husseini.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:32
Absolutely. It is an obvious avenue now to investigate: How did the Epstein operation
impact on the decision to invade Iraq? How were teh votes wrung out for the war authorization
in October 2002?
Regarding Kerry, as a resident of Mass. I couldn't believe that Vietnam vet Kerry would
vote Yes on the war authorization act. I called his office a number of time to beg him to
vote no. Rumors emanated from within his office in Boston or wherever that phone calls from
constituents were running 180 to 1 urging him to vote NO. But he voted YES anyhow.
I simply believe that Yalie Kerry didn't see what was up with the obvious lying that drove
the runup to an illegal invasion. This is the kind of scenario where one now has to wonder --
and ask openly -- whether Kerry had been compromised in some way that made him vulnerable to
blackmail. Why the hell else would he vote so stupidly?
Recall that Scott Ritter ran afoul of some kind of sex trap and so he, one of the most
knowledgeable and outspoken critics of the fake WMD narrative, was effectively muzzled.
Did Kerry have a little skeleton in the closet somewhere?
The same could be asked of all the esp. Democratic legislators who voted YES. Because we
now understand which state in the EAstern Med wanted the war most and profited the most from
it. We now know how deep and how wide the tentacles of that state's intelligence service
intrude into our own national sphere, our Congress, our own intelligence services, our media,
and, most likely, our military. Epstein seems to been part f this web of pressure and
blackmail.
Epstein is gone, but Ghislaine Maxwell apparently still runs free.
Let's bring her in for questioning specifically about pressure applied on the Oct. 2002 vote.
(Although some speculate that she, too, is already dead.)
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:23
At a time when despair in political affairs is very depressing ,it is very refreshing to
see that the voices of reason are being vindicated.
I really want to see this film as this is the first time that I hear of the voice of
Katherine Gun .Bless her heart for standing up and her efforts to warn of deception . Does
the film make any mention of Dr.David Kelly's so-called suicide / murder ? Will have to wait
ans see.
Thank you CN for once again coming through for your excellent report.
Pablo , August 30, 2019 at 10:15
Lawrence Wilkerson (Powell's Chief of Staff?) told me that Collin knew Bush was
fabricating, but went to the U.N. as a "loyal foot soldier".
AnneR , August 30, 2019 at 08:25
Thank you, Sam Husseini, for this overview of the background – real story – to
the film Official Secrets.
To be frank, I'd not heard of Katherine Gun's revelations at the time – not
surprising because I don't think that the US MSM gave the leak any oxygen. They were all too
gung-ho for the war.
While the film undoubtedly soft-pedals some of the story and likely doesn't reveal or make
explicit as much as we'd all hope, I really do hope that it receives at least as much
publicity (good) and viewing as that execrable film Zero dark Thirty which basically
supported the CIA and its torturers. But somehow I doubt that.
TomR , August 31, 2019 at 06:19
Zero Dark Thirty is just about the worst bullshit fake narrative put out by the CIA that
I've ever seen. I watched it but cringed with the dramatized fake narrative that the CIA is
famous for – think the bullshit 9/11 US govt. narrative – if you or anyone else
believes that totally bunkum govt. narrative – well, I feel sorry for you.
Druid , August 31, 2019 at 17:28
Im a good- movie buff. I avoided Zero Dark Thirty. Not a farthing for those lies
Sylvia Bennet , August 30, 2019 at 07:51
I applaud Keira Knightley and all who were involved in bringing this story to the public.
It is vital that more people who have the eyes and ears of the public speak out on these
issues. Sadly, most of them keep their heads below the parapet. With the Main Stream Media
colluding with corrupt corporations and governments to lie or distort the truth, we need
decent people with influence to step up before it is too late.
Toxik , August 30, 2019 at 02:42
Looked at my local theaters and Official Secrets will not be shown.
jmg , August 29, 2019 at 18:39
Katharine Gun's case can also be very relevant for Julian Assange's defense:
"Within half an hour, the case was dropped because the prosecution declined to offer
evidence. . . . The day before the trial, Gun's defence team had asked the government for any
records of advice about the legality of the war that it had received during the run-up to the
war. A full trial might have exposed any such documents to public scrutiny as the defence
were expected to argue that trying to stop an illegal act (that of an illegal war of
aggression) trumped Gun's obligations under the Official Secrets Act 1989. . . . In 2019 The
Guardian stated the case was dropped 'when the prosecution realised that evidence would
emerge that even British government lawyers believed the invasion was unlawful.'"
So Katharine Gun, like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, etc., by revealing corruption and
crimes, maybe didn't obey the code of silence of organized crime, government sector, but
that's not a law.
For example, the US Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information,
explicitly outlaws any classification that covers up crimes or embarrassing information.
This means that whistleblowers like Katharine Gun or Chelsea Manning, and investigative
journalists like Julian Assange are the ones defending the law here, while the US and UK
governments are the criminals.
lindaj , August 29, 2019 at 22:10
Hear, Hear!
Me Myself , August 30, 2019 at 12:11
The espionage act has and would protect those who were responsible for the war I
believe.
If we could Abrogate the espionage act it would make are representatives more
accountable.
I was unaware of Katherine Gun she is clearly a standout person and will join the ranks of
are most respected truthers.
WTF Burkie , August 31, 2019 at 14:05
Our not are.b.c. burkhart
evelync , August 30, 2019 at 13:34
And the secrecy, apparently, is required in the name of "national security" .that's what I
was told by a Harvard JFK School of Government associate when I emailed 200+ of 'em to
express my outrage over their withdrawal of Chelsea Manning's honorary degree when Pompeo and
Morrell bullied them. I responded with – that's INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE at Harvard
– as a "respected" educational institution you should be front and center critiquing
foreign policy instead of helping to bury the wrongdoing ..no wonder voters didn't trust the
establishment candidates in 2016 but the DNC was too much a part of it all to see or care
what was going on. Except for Tulsi Gabbard who resigned at DNC VP in protest for what was
being done to the Sanders campaign and to endorse Sanders instead of Clinton. The DNC knee
capped the campaign of the one person who had won peoples' trust for his honesty.
We have incompetent people with no moral fiber making terrible decisions and burying the
mistakes under secrecy, a fear based "code of silence", as you say.
Biden touts his being chosen by Obama for VP; therefore "he's qualified".
Since Clinton and Biden were the most dangerously ambitious critics of Obama, I think he may
have chosen to add them to his administration as VP and Sec of State to practice "keep your
friends close and your enemies closer" .but his decision was very costly to the lives of
people around the world including the Caribbean and South American countries whose wealth our
oligarchs coveted.
And as far as Honduras is concerned those political choices by Obama sadly explains refugees
fleeing from that violent country even now ..thanks to our failing to declare the 2009 Coup a
"military coup". One of Clinton's "hard choices". Obama and Biden went along with that of
course.
Daniel Immerwahr's "How to Hide an Empire" tells the sordid tale of how waterboarding was
used long before Bush II – used on the freedom fighters for their independence in the
Philippines after the Spanish American War and we took over as imperialists ..
Most people, I think, don't know all the gruesome details of our aggression but they now know
enough to be troubled by it. Few political candidates have the backbone to criticize
wrongheaded foreign policy.
I'm disappointed that Tulsi Gabbard won't be permitted to join Bernie Sanders at the
September 12 2019 "debate" as the only ones who speak out on how wrong for this country and
the world our foreign policies have been. This courageous woman should be heard.
When Bernie was challenged in the 2016 Miami debate on his enlightened views on Cuba and
other Caribbean and South American countries, Clinton used Cold War rhetoric to attack him.
She was shocked, I tell you, shocked that he would not grind his heel on the Cuban people. I
wondered at the time whether she really believed the crap she was selling or just put on a
good political show for the national security state.
We so need transparency if we want to be a real democracy.
Sam F , August 30, 2019 at 21:06
Very true that transparency is essential to democracy. That also requires lifelong
monitoring of officials and their relatives for paybacks and other influence. But (for
example) Florida has an Sunshine Act that merely moves the bribes into other channels, and
may be the most corrupt state. I am investigating extensive racketeering there involving
state officials stealing conservation funds. They can be quire careless because their party
runs the entire state including state and federal judiciary, and instantly approves whatever
their rich "donors" want to steal. But the FBI and DOJ refuse to take action when given the
evidence on a silver platter – no doubt because they are appointed by the same party.
Theft is their sacred right and duty, to protect their country from its people.
michael , August 31, 2019 at 07:30
Florida's Sunshine laws were on display at Epstein's only trial, much of it still sealed
from public view.
"Assad (and by implication Assad's forces alone) killed 500,000 Syrians."
"Israel is just defending itself."
I can't squeeze the dishonesty about the war in Yemen into a short slogan, but I know from
personal experience that getting liberals to care when it was Obama's war was virtually
impossible. Even under Trump it was hard, until Khashoggi's murder. On the part of
politicians and think tanks this was corruption by Saudi money. With ordinary people it was
the usual partisan tribal hypocrisy.
Where is Nuland when people need her? It is interesting that the USA neoliberals (with help of other Western neoliberal countries)
now poisons all protests against government and as such help to de-legitimize them completely and irrevocably by pointing them as CIA/NED
stooges.
As China government is to a large extent neoliberal too grievances are easy to amplify and exploit.
As soon as money start flowing to protesters from the US government, NGO and/or controlled oligarchs the protest stops to be a legitimate
and became part of the color revolution efforts.
That's a very sad situation.
Notable quotes:
"... Violent protesters continue to throw corrosives and petrol bombs on Central Government Complex, Legislative Council Complex and Police Headquarters," said the police in a statement. "Such acts pose a serious threat to everyone at the scene and breach public peace. ..."
"... Tens of thousands participated in an unauthorized demonstration - many of whom threw objects and gasoline bombs over barriers at the government's headquarters. After initially retreating in response to the crowd control measures, protesters returned to a nearby suburb and set fire to a wall on Hennessy Road in the city's Wan Chai district. this fire has gotten much bigger after 20 minutes. the street is full of dark smoke. ..."
"... Protesters asked US President Donald Trump to take action and help the activists, who originally took to the streets to protest a controversial extradition bill which would have allowed China to bring suspects to the mainland to face trial in PRC courts. ..."
"... It appears the protesters want the military to enter so they can play the martyrs for the cameras. Hong Kong was under colonial rule for years! I guess the Rothschild family wants it back if asking Trump (a Rothschild stooge) to get involved! ..."
"... Fighting against the state is great, in theory, but not if you just want to replace the current power structure with a democracy or some other government. There's no point then. You're just replacing one mafia with another. ..."
"... Yes, most "adults" are still children who believe in the silly fantasy that there is such a thing as a legitimate ruling class. Nothing changes until a critical mass drops the superstition. ..."
"... I wouldn't be surprised if intelligence assets were over there convincing some of these people that this was a possibility. They are always spreading discord around the world. If you're the big guy in the room and you want to instigate a fight, tell the angry little guy you've got his back. ..."
"... I will never understand the logic of venting anger on inanimate objects like walls and buildings. If you're going to do it, do it properly and bring the real masters to heel, it'll never work simply destroying someone's car and bending the odd lamppost. They're probably tucked up in their fortress laughing and waiting for it to cool down so they can return to business as usual. ..."
"... They are getting international news coverage and breaking the information blockade of media. Do you get it now? ..."
"... They want absolutely that China intervene, it's why It's getting heavier. ..."
"... And then what? What's the end game? There is only one-way this can play out that I can see. Violent suppression and mass arrests. It will all be done 'officially' under the facade of Hong Kong authority, so technically no 'foul' ..."
Tens of thousands participated in an unauthorized demonstration - many of whom threw objects and gasoline bombs over barriers
at the government's headquarters. After initially retreating in response to the crowd control measures, protesters returned to a
nearby suburb and set fire to a wall on Hennessy Road in the city's Wan Chai district.
While others marched back and forth elsewhere in the city, a large crowd wearing helmets and gas masks gathered outside
the city government building . Some approached barriers that had been set up to keep protesters away and appeared to throw
objects at the police on the other side. Others shone laser lights at the officers.
Police fired tear gas from the other side of the barriers, then brought out a water cannon truck that fired regular water
and then colored water at the protesters , staining them and nearby journalists and leaving blue puddles in the street. -
AP
Several people were arrested and tossed into police vans.
" Violent protesters continue to throw corrosives and petrol bombs on Central Government Complex, Legislative Council Complex
and Police Headquarters," said the police in a statement. "Such acts pose a serious threat to everyone at the scene and breach public
peace. " Protesters in Hong Kong returned to the streets in what Bloomberg has called "one of the city's most violent days in
its 13th weekend of social unrest," after several top organizers were arrested, including Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Andy Chan.
Hong Kong police fired tear gas and sprayed protesters with blue dye from pepper-spray filled water cannons, while charging other
protesters with shields and batons.
Water cannons fired blue dye pic.twitter.com/U8YAR1PsrQ -- Tiffany May (@nytmay) August 31, 2019
Tens of thousands participated in an unauthorized demonstration - many of whom threw objects and gasoline bombs over barriers
at the government's headquarters. After initially retreating in response to the crowd control measures, protesters returned to a
nearby suburb and set fire to a wall on Hennessy Road in the city's Wan Chai district. this fire has gotten much bigger after 20
minutes. the street is full of dark smoke.
#hongkongprotests#HongKong Clashes Escalate as Water Cannons, Firebombs Are Used
https://t.co/JtIZo9EhGJ @bpolitics pic.twitter.com/pxdhcV0iRc -- Fion Li (@fion_li)
... ... ...
Protesters asked US President Donald Trump to take action and help the activists, who originally took to the streets to protest
a controversial extradition bill which would have allowed China to bring suspects to the mainland to face trial in PRC courts.
It appears the protesters want the military to enter so they can play the martyrs for the cameras. Hong Kong was under
colonial rule for years! I guess the Rothschild family wants it back if asking Trump (a Rothschild stooge) to get involved!
Fighting against the state is great, in theory, but not if you just want to replace the current power structure with a
democracy or some other government. There's no point then. You're just replacing one mafia with another.
In practice, fighting the state is almost never useful because there are never enough people who believe in a free society.
The state always wins in the end. The prudent thing is to do nothing and live life the best you can.
Yes, most "adults" are still children who believe in the silly fantasy that there is such a thing as a legitimate ruling
class. Nothing changes until a critical mass drops the superstition.
I wouldn't be surprised if intelligence assets were over there convincing some of these people that this was a possibility.
They are always spreading discord around the world. If you're the big guy in the room and you want to instigate a fight, tell
the angry little guy you've got his back.
I was living in Moscow as the Soviet Union was collapsing. The military and the millitarized police went over to the side of
the protestors and rebels, and that was decisive. There was some violence and some people were killed, but not nearly as much
and as many as there might have been.
One technical note: Never approach armored vehicles with objects in your hands - not even bouquets of flowers. Tanker crews
look upon these objects with extreme suspicion. People in Moscow were shot and killed because they offered bouquets to tankers.
... and in mainland China pork prices are skyrocketing, subsidized food prices are rising, 30% of the water is undrinkable,
air in all major Chinese cities is unsafe to breathe even by 3rd world standards, and China has stopped reporting the number of
protest daily across the country now that it is over 1000 a day.
Hong Kong is the distraction of a dynasty that is quickly collapsing. And let's not forget the trade war, the loss of American
companies and the CCP's desperate attempt to keep their intelligence agency Huawei in control 5G. China is collapsing. It's a
great show to witness.
And those protest leaders that were arrested a couple of days ago are in China having their organs harvested，this is a FACT，because
I read it here in the comments section a few days ago. Just like I've now read YOUR post，so it must be FACT!
Oh....wait...
'after several top organizers were arrested and then released, including Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Andy Chan. '
I will never understand the logic of venting anger on inanimate objects like walls and buildings. If you're going to do it,
do it properly and bring the real masters to heel, it'll never work simply destroying someone's car and bending the odd lamppost.
They're probably tucked up in their fortress laughing and waiting for it to cool down so they can return to business as usual.
And then what? What's the end game? There is only one-way this can play out that I can see. Violent suppression and mass arrests.
It will all be done 'officially' under the facade of Hong Kong authority, so technically no 'foul'
<Protesters in Hong Kong returned to the streets in what
Bloomberg has called " one of the city's most violent days in its 13th weekend of social unrest," after several top organizers
were arrested and then released, including Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Andy Chan. >
A terrible blunder by Xi. If the Tsarist government in 1905 executed all arrested Bolshevik leaders (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
etc.,), there would not be any Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917 and the Russian civilization would be still alive today. The
world only understands strength and any weakness is not forgiven.
Donald Trump will be remembered as a humorous yet sad 4-year blip in the history of America, where the People regrettably admit
that this "entertainment age" was responsible for their lack of judgement in 2016, and they learned that they shouldn't play games
with something as important to our country's honor and integrity as the office of the Presidency. Fool me twice, shame on me.....
"... So, a well-meaning Westerner suggests Gene Sharp's well-known 198 Methods of Non-Violent Action to a HKer, who politely informs him that Sharp's work is already available in Chinese ..."
"... You don't have to wait for your CIA handler to vouchsafe The Sacred Texts. Very sophisticated and tested protest tactics are all available on the Internet, if you research the media coverage of Tahrir Square, los indignados in Spain, the state capital occupations in the United States, Occupy proper, the Carré Rouge in Quebec, and many, many other examples (including the Umbrella movement organic to Hong Kong). It's not all Maidan -- which is on the Internet too, and I don't regard it was useful to forcefit all protests into that model. ..."
"... If they have factories in China now, and they are the invisible hands, I think they (and their factories) would be in trouble already, as in 'now,' and they don't have to worry about being extradited in the future. ..."
"... Me neither. That's a concern. However, there is the idea that "you taught me" that non-violence doesn't work (in 2014), "you" being the Chinese government. There is also the idea that the Mainland is no more agreement-capable than the United States," since they have no intention of adhering to the Basic Law on matters like universal suffrage . If the attitude among a great mass of the protestors is that they have nothing to lose, some sort of Masada-like scenario seems likely. ..."
"... And exactly whose interests would that serve? The interests of the students? The interests of Hong Kong generally? Answering that question will begin to take you down the rabbit hole. ..."
"... Now, it is true that "color revolution" in strong form seems to have lost some credibility, and that, if I may characterize the discourse collectively, we see a strategic retreat to formulations like "I'm sure the protestors have legitimacy," but they're still "manipulated," because, by gawd, that's what the US does. ..."
"... And then we get NGOs (been around for years) and Jimmy Lai (been around for years). Constants, that is, where the protests are a variable (which is why the heavy-breathing GrayZone post about xenohobia doesn't impress me all that much). ..."
"... So will this protest end the way Occupy ended here in "democratic" USA? One has to suspect the secessionist aim that is one of the apparent motives will not be rewarded. ..."
"... US funding and influence was quite well-attested then, for those who were paying attention. Oddly, or not, there seems to be no Victoria Nuland-equivalent for HK. One could argue, of course, that there's an invisible Nuland, but Occam's Razor eliminates that. I never followed Ukraine closely, I admit, partly because Ukraine is fabulously corrupt, and partly because (like Syria) it seemed impossible to separate fact from fiction on the ground. (The only rooting interest I have in Ukraine is their wonderful enormous airplanes.) I think for HK we have a lot more well-attested information. That's what the post is about, in fact. ..."
"... There is video of HKers using 3-person surgical tubing catapults to return to sender tear gas cannisters. I've seen pranksters use these "slingshots" to lob water balloons into unsuspecting civilians, but they are much better suited to return cannisters to the police. ..."
"... I know enough about HK to be a little suspicious of the motives of *some* protestors, but I'm in awe of their inventiveness and raw courage. And believe me, to protest publicly in HK/China requires real physical courage that is not required anywhere in the west, anyone who thinks otherwise is entirely clueless about the nature of the Chinese government and what it is capable of. ..."
"... The fact that neo-con elements in the US are happy about the protests is entirely irrelevant, it really is. Its like saying that when RT had approving articles about Occupy or Black Lives Matter that this proves the Russians were behind it. It really is that stupid and US centric an opinion. ..."
"... But here's the rub. Can you imagine what would happen if this all happened in a western country? Imagine this happening in New York for example. Actually we don't. The authorities came down on the Occupy Wall Street movement like a ton of bricks so we had a taste of what would happen. ..."
"... I am not saying that the Chinese government is right but I can understand their position here. They give Hong Kong a 'special deal' and the rest of China will want their own special deals. ..."
"... Just like the Chinese elites, the U.S. elites don't want to deal with the citizenry, and protest is something that shocks them. ..."
"... What really makes most HK skeptics suspicious is the way the media and the political establishment in the West are constantly slathering the students there with pure, unadulturated praise, while lambasting us skeptics as 'conspiracy theorists'. So comparisons of HK to Maidan are indeed apt. And please contrast the media's treatment of this protest with their (non-)treatment of the gilets jaunes movement in France. On that rare occasion when the MSM did deign to mention the gilets jaunes , they always faithfully accused them of 'racism' and 'anti-semitism'. But note how the HK protesters get pass for using Pepe the Frog as their symbol! ..."
"... The idea of protest is to disrupt the system and generally gum up the works, raising the costs of the offending campaign, hopefully to the point where the material and reputational damage makes the whole thing no longer worth pursuing. This is the end game. ..."
"... To paraphrase Noam Chomsky: Elites want a smoothly-running system of oppression. There is no reason to give them this gift. ..."
"... In general, the techniques described here seem unreliable and dangerous if masking your identity from surveillance is vital. The idea that you are going to identify and precisely target every video camera that can see you, 100% of the time, esp. in a moving and rapidly changing environment, seems extremely naive. Video cameras are small, cheap, inconspicuous, and easy to disguise. All that's needed by the opponent is a single video frame that shows your face clearly. ..."
Let me start out with a sidebar on "add oil" (加油), which you see all over the
coverage of the Hong Kong protests: It originated, says the OED , as a
cheer at the Macau Grand Prix in the 1960s, meaning "step on the gas" (which is good to know,
because I thought that the underlying metaphor was adding cooking oil to a wok preparatory to
frying). It translates roughly to " go for it !" Here, an apartment block encourages
the protesters by chanting it:
Sidebar completed, this post will have a simple thesis: The people of Hong Kong have
considerable experience in running protests, and we don't need to multiply invisible
entities ("hidden hands") to give an account of what they're doing. For example, it's not
necessary to postulate that the participants in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill
protests consulted CIA handlers on tactics; their tactics are often available, in open
source , on the Internet; other tactics are based on Hong Kong material culture ,
things and situations that come readily to hand and can be adapted by creative people (which
the protesters clearly are).
I started thinking about this post when I read this tweet:
So, a well-meaning Westerner suggests Gene Sharp's well-known 198 Methods of
Non-Violent Action to a HKer, who politely informs him that Sharp's work is already
available in Chinese .
Clearly, #genesharptaughtme is alive and well! (In
fact, I remember Black Lives Matter using the same hashtag.)
I am well-aware of Gene
Sharp's equivocal role as a defense intellectual -- in strong form, the Godfather of "color
revolutions" -- but at this point Sharp's influence is attenuated. Out here in reality,
information on non-violent strategy and tactics has gone global, like everything else.
You don't have to wait for your CIA handler to vouchsafe The Sacred Texts. Very
sophisticated and tested protest tactics are all available on the Internet, if you research the
media coverage of Tahrir Square, los indignados in Spain, the state capital occupations
in the United States, Occupy proper, the Carré Rouge in Quebec, and many, many other
examples (including the Umbrella movement organic to Hong Kong). It's not all Maidan -- which
is on the Internet too, and I don't regard it was useful to forcefit all protests into that
model.
So, I'm going to go through a few of the tactics used in the 2019 Hong Kong protests:
Umbrellas, Laser Pointers, Lennon Walls, and a Human Chain. For each tactic, I will throw it
into the open source bucket, or the material culture bucket; in either case,
there need be no "hidden hand." Also, I find protest tactics fascinating in and of themselves;
I think a movement is healthy if its tactics are creative, and when they are so no longer, the
movement has not long to live. (For example, Black Lives Matter started to disintegrate as a
national movement when the college die-ins stopped (and when the liberal Democrats co-opted it
by elevating Deray.) To the tactics!
Umbrellas
Umbrellas were already a symbol of protest in Hong Kong, from the Umbrella Movement of
2014. Here we see umbrellas being used to shield protestors from surveillance cameras
(although they can also be used as shields against kinetic effects).
One can indeed see that Maidan protestors using literal shields:
However, I would classify umbrella tactics as deriving from Hong Kong's material
culture ; Hong
Kong is sub-tropical ; there are typhoons; there is rain, fog, drizzle; and there is also
the sun. Massed umbrellas scale easily from the tens to the hundreds; they create a splendid
visual effect en masse ; and they are available in any corner shop. So, it is not
necessary to postulate an entity translating Maidan's heavy medieval shields to Hong Kong
umbrellas; the protestors would have worked out the uses of umbrellas themselves, adapting
the tools that come to hand to the existing conditions.
Laser Pointers
Hong Kong, under Mainland influence, is increasingly a surveillance state; it makes sense
that HKers would give considerable thought to surveillance, and how to avoid it, in the
normal course of events. How much more so protestors:
I would classify the laser pointers tactic open source , since that's how I found out that yes,
laser poinerns can knock out surveillance cameras . Again, there's no need to postulate
that some unknown entity gave the protesters the idea; anybody with a little creativity and
some research skills could come up with it, given the proper incentives (like being arrested,
say).
The idea that one may "post" anything has been actualized with Post-It Notes, giving HK
walls a digital, pixelated look:
And the authorities have just begun to tear them down: Reminds me of the NYPD bulldozing
the Zucotti Park library, sadly.
I would classify Lennon Walls in both categories: They originated, conceptually, in Prague
(so open source ) but they are well adapted for massed protest in the material
culture of Hong Kong. (Like massed umbrellas, massed PostIt notes scale easily from the
tens to the thousands; they create a splendid visual effect en masse ; and they are
available in any corner shop.)
Human Chain
Here is a poster publicizing "the Hong Kong Way," a human chain across Hong Kong: Here is
the beautiful result:
I would classify "the Hong Kong Way" as open source , since the idea originated
from " the Baltic Way
," where some two million people joined hands to form a human chain across the three Baltic
states: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
Conclusion
Just to tweak the "It's a color revolution!" crowd, here's an image of HKers watching a
movie about Maidan:
I hope I have persuaded you that (a) this Maidan movie is open source "; knowledge of
Maidan as a worthy object of study, that (b) by Occam's Razor, it doesn't take a CIA handler to
tell this to HKers, and that (c) if the HKers end up building catapults , they will be
adapted to Hong Kong's material culture (i.e., probably not medieval in appearance or
structure).[1]
NOTES
[1] The HKers may also be sending a message to the authorities: If Maidan is what you want,
bring it!
Maciej Cegłowski has written a first-hand account that helped me understand some of
the tactics the protesters employ. I see he's written a follow-on piece, too. https://idlewords.com/2019/08/a_walk_in_hong_kong.htm
Another claim is that rich Hong Kongers are behind the protests, fearing extradition.
If they have factories in China now, and they are the invisible hands, I think they (and
their factories) would be in trouble already, as in 'now,' and they don't have to worry about
being extradited in the future.
Ok. I really did not want to post any more comments on Hong Kong, or China for that matter,
here at NC. But I am genuinely puzzled, and I have to say concerned, about the way this issue
has been framed here. One does not have to accept the argument that *either* (1) the protests
are completely spontaneous and genuine; *or* (2) the protests are mainly the product of CIA
manipulation of otherwise clueless dupes (a whole lot of them apparently!). This is a false
dichotomy. None of the critics of the mainstream Hong Kong narrative that I am familiar with
take a position any where close to (2). It is a straw-man position if applied to most reputable
"skeptics."
Rather, the argument I have seen most often among these skeptics (including some commenters
here) is that, while the protests *were* authentic and directed at real issues of concern to
protesters, there have also been efforts on the part of Western agents to manipulate this
situation. This included support of particular, strategically significant leaders and groups
and, of course, control of the Western media narrative. We have pictures and stories in even
the mainstream press of US officials and representatives of western NGOs meeting with such
individuals. Hell, we have US politicians bragging about it. These connections are pretty
clear, whether or not HKers can find Gene Sharp's work on the internet.
I have no doubt that many HKers are opposed to mainland rule, so China hands here need not
lecture me condescendingly on that issue. On the other hand, I have no doubt that Chinese
officials are justified in suspecting covert action by the CIA to stir things up even more
(though a lot of the activity is actually pretty overt). Looking at the postwar actions of the
US and its allies all over the world, including China in the past, they would have to be idiots
not to. And they are not idiots.
Good post. As usual, reality is far more complex and not reducible to simplistic either/or
narratives. Protest, rebellion, and unrest are endemic in Chinese (and world) history. In a
globalized and interconnected modern world, of course there is widespread awareness and cross
fertilization of movements. The "West" did not start this fire, though no doubt they are doing
some fanning of the flames.
What worries me is that I do not understand the endgame of the protesters. If you are facing
a power far greater than your own, guerilla tactics are in order, but you have to know when to
declare victory and back off for awhile. They seem to want to keep pushing and pushing until
another Tienanmen may become inevitable.
The HK protesters recognize that they have enough bodies to literally bring parts of the
city to a halt. Soon the authorities will realize that they don't have enough police to
maintain order and some sort of compromise will be in order.
Imagine if 200 cars stopped on an LA freeway. Traffic would be halted for hours before
enough tow trucks could be put in service. Bodies in the street (cars on the freeway) can be
enough to stop "business as usual".
> I do not understand the endgame of the protesters
Me neither. That's a concern. However, there is the idea that "you taught me" that
non-violence doesn't work (in 2014), "you" being the Chinese government. There is also the idea
that the Mainland is no more agreement-capable than the United States," since they have no
intention of adhering to the Basic Law on matters like universal suffrage
. If the attitude among a great mass of the protestors is that they have nothing to lose, some
sort of Masada-like scenario seems likely.
As for the rest of the comment, meh. It's simultaneously an initial withdrawal of the
debunked "color revolution" theory, and a mushy reformulation of same in different terms ("no
doubt that Chinese officials are justified in suspecting covert action by the CIA"). Either you
believe that the Hong Kong protests are organic in origin and execution, or you don't.
See my comment
here .
My sympathy for the HK protesters is somewhat impaired by their antipathy for mainlanders
and mainlander immigration to HK. Its worth reading Carl Zha on Tiananmen. I thought i knew
what happened in Tiananmen, but it turned out i didn't.
I'm a bit leery of Chongqing native Carl Zha and his sudden
elevation. Let's remember that the Mainland is just as sophisticated in its information
campaigns as the US. For example, a claim that he has revealed what really happened, as we say,
at Tien An Man, without an explanation what his views are is a red flag to me. (In the
worse case scenario, disinformation is infesting the NC comments section.) No, I'm not going to
"just listen to the YouTube" because I don't have time to devote to it, as opposed to reading a
transcript quickly.
I've just come across Zha once or twice and I certainly would not consider him a reliable
source. The 'official' narrative around Tiannanman in China (as taught to Chinese people) has
changed more than once, his seems to match the current version. This doesn't mean he is lying
or wrong, I'm just suspicious about anyone who claims to know the 'truth' about such a chaotic
and charged event, and some of the things he has written is simply not a reflection of what
Chinese people I know think about it.
Its worth pointing out of course that almost all the evidence suggests that the Chinese
intelligence penetration of the US has been far more competent than vice versa. The narrative
that somehow the CIA was behind Tiananmen (which even MoA has pushed) and the current protests
simply strains all credulity. There is no doubt they would provide any help they could to
anti-government movements within China, but there is no evidence that they've done anything
more than promote a few fringe dissidents.
Zha (to my recollection) did not suggest the CIA was behind Tiananmen. He did suggest that
the amount of violence and the cause of the violence was not as reported in the West. There was
little corroboration though. That said, he had quite an interesting take on the lone man with
shopping bag stopping tank column. Perhaps it is common knowledge but he suggested that event
took place on the day after Tiananmen, when the tanks were trying to head back to base. Just
cos he said that don't make it true of course. But it did make me ask how i know what i think i
know.
I apologize for not outlining his views. I thought it better to just suggest him as a
possible reference and allow people to come to their own conclusions. I came across him cos I
follow Mark Ames on twitter. I know of Ames cos I spent time in Moscow in the 90s. So I
considered it a good recommendation -- but hardly foolproof. Zha suggests that students in
Tienamin set a bus on fire in the square (of heavenly peace?) which unfortunately contained a
number of PLA soldiers who were burned alive. I have no way of knowing whether this account is
true. However he also suggested the iconic man in front of tank column took place on the
following day. Which was news to me, and seemed quite plausible when you consider the
interaction. But I have no reason to believe this anymore than I should believe the BBC or CNN.
Its just that where I have listened to the BBC on subjects I am personally familiar with, they
have occasionally been rather "economical" with inconvenient truths. Mr Zha has the advantage
of Ames recommendation, a clean slate, and an interesting but unproven assertion.
His take on HK protests is that they have become rather violent, with the aim being to
prompt a violent response from the Chinese authorities.
HKers appear to view themselves as distinct from mainlanders, and do not seem to welcome
mainland immigration. Fascinating to see british colonial flags brandished when telling
Mandarin speakers to "go home". But even here I am relying on the translations applied by the
makers of the videos. I dont speak Cantonese or Mandarin.
They seem to want to keep pushing and pushing until another Tienanmen may become
inevitable.
And exactly whose interests would that serve? The interests of the students? The
interests of Hong Kong generally? Answering that question will begin to take you down the
rabbit hole.
> But I am genuinely puzzled, and I have to say concerned, about the way this issue has
been framed here. One does not have to accept the argument that *either* (1) the protests are
completely spontaneous and genuine; *or* (2) the protests are mainly the product of CIA
manipulation of otherwise clueless dupes (a whole lot of them apparently!). This is a false
dichotomy. None of the critics of the mainstream Hong Kong narrative that I am familiar with
take a position any where close to (2). It is a straw-man position if applied to most reputable
"skeptics."
Nonsense. If you say that the HK protests were a "color revolution," which was the original
claim ( following Moon of
Alabama here , with the most frequent analogy being Ukraine, #2 ("clueless dupes") is
exactly what you're saying.
So, I'm not "straw manning" at all, but replying directly to a criticism expressed here.
Please follow the site more closely before you mischaracterize what I wrote.
Now, it is true that "color revolution" in strong form seems to have lost some
credibility, and that, if I may characterize the discourse collectively, we see a strategic
retreat to formulations like "I'm sure the protestors have legitimacy," but they're still
"manipulated," because, by gawd, that's what the US does.
And then we get NGOs (been around for years) and Jimmy Lai (been around for years).
Constants, that is, where the protests are a variable (which is why the heavy-breathing
GrayZone post about xenohobia doesn't impress me all that much).
The formulation employed in your comment is even weaker:
there have also been efforts on the part of Western agents to manipulate this situation.
This included support of particular, strategically significant leaders and groups and, of
course, control of the Western media narrative.
I don't know what "efforts by" even means. (I mean, there were "efforts by" various odd
Russians to meet with Trump, but no hotel was build, and so, so what?) Nor do I think that
editorials in the Times have the slightest influence either on the Hong Kong protestors or the
Mainland. I can't imagine why anybody would take them seriously.
What I am here to say is that the HK protests are organic to HK. They are organized and
directed by HKers, many of whom have a lot of experience protesting. There is no need to
multiply entities -- whether in strong form the CIA or in very weak form "the connections are
pretty clear" -- to give an account of them. Now, as I said here,
I'm sure Five Eyes are "sniffing around." Probably Taipei, Japan, Indonesia, even the French
and the Dutch; anyone with an interest in events in the South China Sea. But IMNSHO the
protestors have full agency . (It's also hard to avoid that there's a whiff of colonialism
here, too: How is it possible that mere Chinese people could achieve such things without
Western help?
And so, like clockwork -- I've noticed this in other comments that start out with the weak
form of "manipulation" and end up with the strong form of "control" -- we come right back to
that claim!
On the other hand, I have no doubt that Chinese officials are justified in suspecting
covert action by the CIA to stir things up even more (though a lot of the activity is
actually pretty overt)
(So "overt" that you can't even link to whatever the activity might be. Fine.) First,
we come back to the Mandy Rice-Davies rule: They would say that, wouldn't they? Second, so
I wasn't straw-manning at all, then, was I? Third, after I went to the trouble of applying
Occam's Razor to your claims, you just repeat them!
NOTE * "We have pictures and stories in even the mainstream press of US officials and
representatives of western NGOs meeting with such individuals." The picture is in a
hotel ffs. Pretty low level of operational security, if you ask me.
So will this protest end the way Occupy ended here in "democratic" USA? One has to
suspect the secessionist aim that is one of the apparent motives will not be rewarded.
I've often inveighed against YouTube links that don't summarize the content. In this case,
those interested in "connecting the dots" and following the money might be interested to know
that the videocaster, Sarah Flounders, is a member of the Secretariat of Workers World
Party :
The Workers World Party (WWP) is a revolutionary Marxist -- Leninist political party in
the United States founded in 1959 by a group led by Sam Marcy of the Socialist Workers Party
(SWP). Marcy and his followers split from the SWP in 1958 over a series of long-standing
differences, among them their support for Henry A. Wallace's Progressive Party in 1948, the
positive view they held of the Chinese Revolution led by Mao Zedong and their defense of the
1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary, all of which the SWP opposed.
Immediately before and during the Tienanmen Square days, China appeared to be in danger of
disintegrating into warlordism. This was overcome and the decentralizing process that
threatened to emerge was eliminated. That was a victory of socialism.
The question of how far the Chinese government can go with the capitalist reforms will
certainly be up for review, notwithstanding a constitutional provision meant to make the
reforms a permanent feature in Chinese society.
One fact has certainly emerged: the millions who left the rural areas for the great cities
of China and were absorbed into the proletariat have given the Chinese government and
Communist Party the opportunity to strengthen the socialist character of the state. The
growth of the proletariat is the objective factor most needed for the building of
socialism.
I don't think its surprising that Flounders and the WWP would retail the mainland line.
I guess that this comes about seeing what happened to all the young people who supported the
Ukrainian "revolution" for a free, just society. Twice! How did that work out for them? How is
the Ukraine going these days? What did they say when they found out that that so-called
"revolution" last time had a $5 billion 'Made-in-the-USA' sticker on it? Conspiracy theory at
the time. Recorded fact now.
> Conspiracy theory at the time. Recorded fact now.
Not so. US funding and influence was quite well-attested then, for those who were paying
attention. Oddly, or not, there seems to be no Victoria Nuland-equivalent for HK. One could
argue, of course, that there's an invisible Nuland, but Occam's Razor eliminates that. I never
followed Ukraine closely, I admit, partly because Ukraine is fabulously corrupt, and partly
because (like Syria) it seemed impossible to separate fact from fiction on the ground. (The
only rooting interest I have in Ukraine is their wonderful enormous airplanes.) I think for HK
we have a lot more well-attested information. That's what the post is about, in fact.
Re similarities or otherwise with Kiev, we will have to wait and see if there is any sniper
crowd killings in HK as with the 'Heavenly Hundred' in Kiev. At the time, the shootings were
blamed on the government, but compelling evidence since points to US backed snipers from
Georgia.
Compelling might be pushing a point. There is certainly evidence, and some of it is quite
persuasive. However I dont consider some Georgians snipers on Italian tv compelling
evidence.
There is video of HKers using 3-person surgical tubing catapults to return to sender
tear gas cannisters. I've seen pranksters use these "slingshots" to lob water balloons into
unsuspecting civilians, but they are much better suited to return cannisters to the
police.
I did a brief search on the Internet for some video but couldn't find it.
The Maidan catapult had its own Twitter account. Here's what it looked like:
I doubt very much that a catapult designed by HKers would look like this; it is not
constructed of materials that come readily to hand. (And perhaps massed slingshots would be
more effective anyhow.)
(I can't read any languages written in Cyrillic, so I defer to any readers who can on my
interpretation.)
Endless wars. Smoke filled skies. Hurricanes, drought, flooding. No purpose in life.
Incarceration, surveillance and insurmountable debt. Arrogant incompetence.
Change is coming. People need hope. A movement will be born.
"Bring it on" -- "Pa'lante" in Spanish.
Hurray For The Riff Raff -- Pa'lante
"And do my time, and be something
Well I just wanna prove my worth --
On the planet Earth, and be, something"
"To all who had to hide, I say, iPa'lante!
To all who lost their pride, I say, ¡Pa'lante!
To all who had to survive, I say, ¡Pa'lante!"
"To my brothers, and my sisters, I say, ¡Pa'lante!"
Para Alante. Pa'lante for forward/move forward/go forward/go to the front/continue/keep
pushing forward/don't stop
Different Spanish interpretations depending on which blend of the language your ears become
attuned to .mine flow from cuban, with a twist of Puerto Rican/Newrican, a dabble of dominican,
some mexican icing and a little Columbian sprinkles on top
Thank you for this Lambert. Perhaps its my perspective of coming from a small country, but I
find the anti-HK protestor comments I see here and elsewhere baffling coming from supposed
progressives. Sometimes, really, its not all about the US, or even US Imperialism.
I know enough about HK to be a little suspicious of the motives of *some* protestors,
but I'm in awe of their inventiveness and raw courage. And believe me, to protest publicly in
HK/China requires real physical courage that is not required anywhere in the west, anyone who
thinks otherwise is entirely clueless about the nature of the Chinese government and what it is
capable of.
The fact that neo-con elements in the US are happy about the protests is entirely
irrelevant, it really is. Its like saying that when RT had approving articles about Occupy or
Black Lives Matter that this proves the Russians were behind it. It really is that stupid and
US centric an opinion.
As to the questions about the endgame, I really don't know, and I suspect the protestors
don't know either. My own opinion is that this is as much a nationalist movement as a political
one. Many HKers see themselves as a nation with one foot in the east and one in the west and
want to preserve this status, but nobody has to my knowledge articulated how they can achieve
this. Many of them have a romantic notion of what western 'freedoms' mean, but not quite as
romantic as people think, as so many HKers have lived in the US or UK or elsewhere and are not
entirely politically naive. But they sure as hell know they do not want to live in an
autocratic State led by Beijing, and they are perfectly entitled to that view.
Your last part of your comment makes the protestors sound like the Brexiteers of the Far
Fast. People who want radical change but are uncertain how to go about it and with no clear aim
in mind. They may not want to live in an autocratic State led by Beijing but according to the
map that I use, Hong Kong is within the borders of China. They are not going to get
independence and they cannot go back to the way things were so they had better sort out what it
is they want their relationship to Beijing to be before it is decided for them.
No. But their five demands don't sound like a winning combination. It doesn't make them
sound even serious about full-fledged change-
1-The complete withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill
2-The government to withdraw the use of the word "riot" in relation to protests
3-The unconditional release of arrested protesters and charges against them dropped
4-An independent inquiry into police behaviour
5-Implementation of genuine universal suffrage
That's a demand that Mainland China adhere to the Basic Law that transferred Hong Kong from
British sovereignty to PRC sovereignty. What's unserious about that?
Agreed about that last demand but it is the outlier on that list. Demands 2, 3 and 4 sound
like they are trying to 'prepare the battlefield' for the next series of protests by
undermining the ability of the Hong Kong Police to do their work. Demand 1 is just fulfilling
the casus belli for this series of protests.
> 'prepare the battlefield' for the next series of protests by undermining the ability of
the Hong Kong Police to do their work
In what sense is that not serious? (I'll say again that I think the HKers want what they
think is liberal democracy as the US/UK may once be said to have had it this is not a
proletarian revolution. Hence, the presence of billionaire Lai is unproblematic, despite heavy
breathing at Grey Zone.)
In what sense is asking for one's first demand not serious? Is it more serious to write it
off?
I realize that this is not a popular line of thought but I believe that you do have to
consider all aspects of such a big event to be fair. I mean, even Paul Joseph Watson came out
with a video supporting the protests-
But here's the rub. Can you imagine what would happen if this all happened in a western
country? Imagine this happening in New York for example. Actually we don't. The authorities
came down on the Occupy Wall Street movement like a ton of bricks so we had a taste of what
would happen.
I am not saying that the Chinese government is right but I can understand their position
here. They give Hong Kong a 'special deal' and the rest of China will want their own special
deals.
Hong Kong already has its own special deal, 'one nation, two systems' is the official slogan
from Beijing. Its Beijing that is backing away from this, not the protestors.
That's right. A 50-year deal and China was not in much of a position to do a lot about it.
Times change and I guess that the Chinese feel that it is time to redress the wrongs of the
past according to their lights. I wonder if Macau has the same issues.
So if China is, as accused, reneging on the "two systems" then where are the protestors on
the "one nation"? To some of us it appears that these young people simply don't want to be a
part of China. If true then that's an aim that goes far beyond mere reform.
And the reason USG involvement matters is that some of us don't believe the US should be
meddling in other countries -- even ones as unfree as China. The protestors could reassure
about the purity of their aims by renouncing US support or the sanctions that some Republicans
in Congress are threatening rather than waving US and British flags.
A 50-year deal and China was not in much of a position to do a lot about it.
Where on earth did you get that idea? It was actually China's idea, promoted by Deng
Xiaoping -- part of their strategy to woo Taiwan and ease the concerns of their neighbours.
Plus, it made perfect sense for them economically.
> The fact that neo-con elements in the US are happy about the protests is entirely
irrelevant, it really is. Its like saying that when RT had approving articles about Occupy or
Black Lives Matter that this proves the Russians were behind it. It really is that stupid and
US centric an opinion.
PK: Thanks. You mention coming from a small country, and I think it would benefit all U.S.
peeps here to adjust their perspectives accordingly. Good advice.
Second is dispelling the typical "Don't know much about history" attitude in the U S of A. I
notice how Lambert Strether ties together several recent organic protest movements. (Should we
also throw in Iranian protests after the presidential election in 2009, Taksim protests in
Istanbul, and Greek protests against austerity? All of which were organic and fit these models
-- the chants from the apartment building remind me of the videos of call and response at night
in Iranian cities during those protests.)
Americans like to act as if every event is brand new. And the "don't know much about about
history" attitude means being "nonjudgmental" -- which means having no control to assess facts
and not much concern for critical thinking.
One question to be asked here would be: How can protest in the U S of A be raised to the HK
or Taksim level of disruption?
Just like the Chinese elites, the U.S. elites don't want to deal with the citizenry, and
protest is something that shocks them.
And the endgame? The endgame is protest. What comes next? We may be in an era where more
protest is needed. Time to study again the disruptions of 1848?
What really makes most HK skeptics suspicious is the way the media and the political
establishment in the West are constantly slathering the students there with pure, unadulturated
praise, while lambasting us skeptics as 'conspiracy theorists'. So comparisons of HK to Maidan
are indeed apt. And please contrast the media's treatment of this protest with their
(non-)treatment of the gilets jaunes movement in France. On that rare occasion when the
MSM did deign to mention the gilets jaunes , they always faithfully accused them of
'racism' and 'anti-semitism'. But note how the HK protesters get pass for using Pepe the Frog
as their symbol!
Whom the media cover and how they cover them will always tell you a lot about who is really
behind a protest movement and who really stands to benefit from it.
Let me start out with a sidebar on "add oil" (加油), which you see all over
the coverage of the Hong Kong protests: It originated, says the OED, as a cheer at the Macau
Grand Prix in the 1960s, meaning "step on the gas" (which is good to know, because I thought
that the underlying metaphor was adding cooking oil to a wok preparatory to frying). It
translates roughly to "go for it!"
I have noticed that Germans often the phrase Gas geben (to floor it, to accelerate)
with roughly the same colloquial meaning of 'to get a move on'.
I do not understand the endgame of the protesters.
The idea of protest is to disrupt the system and generally gum up the works, raising the
costs of the offending campaign, hopefully to the point where the material and reputational
damage makes the whole thing no longer worth pursuing. This is the end game.
To paraphrase Noam Chomsky: Elites want a smoothly-running system of oppression. There
is no reason to give them this gift.
XXYY: Yes. And there were a few essays recently about disobedience. The question isn't why
people disobey. The true question is: Why is the mass of citizens so obedient?
During the Occupy protests one continually heard this question: What do they want?!?!
Leaving aside the fact that a group of 5000 people carrying large signs generally makes
answering this question pretty easy, there seemed to be a limited ability to grasp the idea
that protest is in fact an end .
I think we have somehow been seduced or indoctrinated with the idea that if you do A, it
must be strictly in service of getting B. Often the motivations are just inchoate rage or
anger, and often the intention is just to call attention to something or just f*ck sh*t
up!
As we saw with Occupy, a major turning point in US history and society and the origin of
much that was to come, it's fine to just trust the universe to helpfully spin your actions in
ways your never could have predicted.
To what end? That doesn't boost the number of cops. China brings in the tanks? That maybe
ends hk usefulness to China as offshore financial center and certainly ends rapprochement with
Taiwan.
IMO China's instinct for heavy handed response has led them to a series of mistakes. Perhaps
the trade war has them on edge.
In general, the techniques described here seem unreliable and dangerous if masking your
identity from surveillance is vital. The idea that you are going to identify and precisely
target every video camera that can see you, 100% of the time, esp. in a moving and rapidly
changing environment, seems extremely naive. Video cameras are small, cheap, inconspicuous, and
easy to disguise. All that's needed by the opponent is a single video frame that shows your
face clearly.
A much better approach to work on seems like trying to obscure your own identifying
features. Obviously people are doing this with masks, hoods, goggles, hard hats, umbrellas, and
everything else.
One thing I haven't seen too much about is strategies specifically intended to defeat facial
recognition technology. AI-based recognizers seem to be extremely brittle; small and even
undetectable modifications to the source data seem to be able to throw them off completely
(e.g. https://mashable.com/2017/11/02/mit-researchers-fool-google-ai-program/
). One can imagine these approaches being deployed deliberately as camoflauge or a "disguise".
Obviously the problem would be finding robust techniques.
It is apparent that the caricature of the Soviet Union in both productions is really a stand-in for the present-day Russian government
under Vladimir Putin. As only American exceptionalism could permit, Hollywood did not hold the same disdain for his predecessor,
Boris Yeltsin, whose legacy of high inflation and national debt have since been eliminated. In fact, most have forgotten that the
same filmdom community outraged about Russia's supposed interference in the 2016 U.S. election made a celebratory movie back in 2003,
Spinning Boris , which practically boasted about the instrumental role the West played in Yeltsin's 1996 reelection in Russia.
The highly unpopular alcoholic politician benefited from a near universal media bias as virtually all the federation's news outlets
came under the control of the 'oligarchs' (in America known simply as billionaires) which his economic policies of mass privatization
of state industry enriched overnight.
Yeltsin initially polled at less than 10% and was far behind Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov until he became the recipient
of billions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thanks to his corrupt campaign manager, Anatoly Chubais, now one of the most
hated men in all of Russia. After the purging of votes and rampant ballot-box stuffing, Yeltsin successfully closed the gap between
his opponent thanks to the overt U.S. meddling.
Spinning Boris was directed by Roger Spottiswoode, who previously helmed an installment in the James Bond series, Tomorrow
Never Dies . The 1997 entry in the franchise is one of thousands of Hollywood films and network television shows exposed by journalists
Matthew Alford and Tom Secker as having been influenced or directly assisted by the Pentagon and CIA in their must-read book National
Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood. Based on evidence from documents revealed in Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests, their investigation divulges the previously unknown extent to which the national security complex
has gone in exerting control over content in the film industry. While it has always been known that the military held sway over movies
that required usage of its facilities and equipment to be produced, the level of impact on such films in the pre-production and editing
stages, as well as the control over non-military themed flicks one wouldn't suspect to be under supervision by Washington and Langley,
is exhaustively uncovered.
As expected, Hollywood and the military-industrial complex's intimate relationship during the Cold War is featured prominently
in Alford and Secker's investigative work. It is unclear whether HBO or Netflix sought US military assistance or were directly involved
with the national security state in their respective productions, but these are just two recent examples of many where the correlated
increase in geopolitical tensions with Moscow is reflected. The upcoming sequel to DC's Wonder Woman set to be released next
year , Wonder Woman 1984, featuring the female superhero " coming into conflict with the Soviet Union during the Cold War
in the 1980s ", is yet another. Reprising her role is Israeli actress and IDF veteran is Gal Gadot as the title character, ironically
starring in a blockbuster that will demonize the Eurasian state which saved her ethnicity from extinction. Given the Pentagon's involvement
in the debacle surounding 2014's The Interview which provoked very real tensions with North Korea, it is likely they are at
least closely examining any entertainment with content regarding Russia, if not directly pre-approving it for review.
Ultimately, the Western panic about its imperial decline is not limited to assigning blame to Moscow. Sinophobia has manifested
as well in recent films such as the 2016 sci-fi film Arrival where the extra-terrestrials who reach Earth seem more interested
in communicating with Beijing as the global superpower than the U.S. However, while the West forebodes the return of Russia and China
to greater standing, you can be certain its real fear lies elsewhere. The fact that Chernobyl and Stranger Things are
as preoccupied with portraying socialism in a bad light as they are in rendering Moscow nefarious shows the real underlying trepidation
of the ruling elite that concerns the resurgence of class consciousness. The West must learn its lesson that its state of perpetual
war has caused its own downfall or it could attempt a last line of defense that would inevitably conscript all of humanity to its
death as the ruling class nearly did to the world in 1914 and 1939.
Obama's Unending Wars is impeccably researched,
revealing the reality of Barak Obama's devastating eight years in the White House, built by
African slaves. Obama became rich doing the white neo-colonialists bidding by warring
against more countries at once than any white president. True to Franz Fanon's classic
work, the author peals the imperial white mask off the black skin of Obama, whose father
was a Kenyan black man. Jeremy Kuzmarov documents how the drone president stood for seven
aggressive wars, and put into practice the George Bush AFRICOM plan to dominate the African
continent. Obama convinced or forced the governments of 53 of Africa's 54 governments to
accept US military bases/facilities and troops. US military will thereby directly assist
US's agricultural-multinationals to rape the continent once again.
Writing to white and
black readers sans condensation, Kuzmarov shows how many white progressives and former
revolutionaries, who, in their anxiety to reject any racist appearance, embraced this
warmongering president. Obama also convinced most African-Americans to give him leeway to
do them justice, which he never did. And now, for the first time in history, a large
percentage of black people in the US support the white Establishment's wars for
profit.
that's not true. West stored in Ukraine, argentina and Bnrasil to name a few. and it managed to create troubles for China in
Hong Cong and paralyze Venezuela.
In addition the USA is hell-bent on regime change in Iran and Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Why everyone on this site thinks the massive power vacuum created by the fall of the Imperial West will be filled by China and Russia filling the world with peaceful rainbows and unicorns. ..."
It used to be done regularly and it worked: The West identified a country as its enemy, unleashed its
professional propaganda against it, then administered a series of sanctions, starving and murdering children, the
elderly and other vulnerable groups. If the country did not collapse within months or just couple of years, the
bombing would begin.
And the nation, totally shaken, in pain, and in disarray, would collapse like a house of cards, once the first
NATO boots hit its ground.
Such scenarios were re-enacted, again and again, from Yugoslavia to Iraq.
But suddenly, something significant has happened. This horrific lawlessness, this chaos stopped; was deterred.
The West keeps using the same tactics, it tries to terrorize independent-minded countries, to frighten people into
submission, to overthrow what it defines as 'regimes', but its power, its monstrously destructive power has all of a
sudden become ineffective.
It hits, and the attacked nation shakes, screams, sheds blood, but keeps standing, keeps proudly erect.
*
What we are experiencing is a great moment in human history. Imperialism has not yet been defeated, but it is
losing its global grip on power.
Now we have to clearly understand 'Why?', so we can continue our struggle, with even greater determination, with
even greater effectiveness.
First of all, by now we know that the West cannot fight. It can spend trillions on 'defense', it can build nuclear
bombs, 'smart missiles' and strategic warplanes. But it is too cowardly, too spoiled to risk the lives of its
soldiers.
It either kills remotely, or by using regional mercenaries. Whenever it becomes clear that the presence of its
troops would be required, it backs up.
Secondly, it, the West, is totally horrified of the fact that there are now two super-powerful countries – China
and Russia – which are unwilling to abandon their allies. Washington and London do all they can to smear Russia and
to intimidate China.
Russia is being provoked continuously: by propaganda, by military bases, sanctions and by new and newer bizarre
mass media inventions that depict it as the villain in all imaginable circumstances.
China has been provoked practically and insanely, 'on all fronts' – from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet and the
so-called 'Uyghur Issue', to trade.
Any strategy that could weaken these two countries, is applied. Yet, Russia and China do not crumble. They do not
surrender. And they do not abandon their friends. Instead, they are building great railroads in Africa and Asia, they
educate people from almost all poor and desperate countries, and stand by those who are being terrorized by both
North America and Europe.
Thirdly, all the countries in the world are now clearly aware of what would happen to them, if they give up and
get 'liberated' by the Western empire. Iraq, Honduras, Indonesia, Libya and Afghanistan, are the 'best' examples.
Submitting themselves to the West, countries can only expect misery, absolute collapse and the ruthless extraction
of their resources. The poorest country in Asia – Afghanistan – has totally collapsed under NATO occupation.
The suffering and pain of the Afghan and Iraqi people is very well known to the citizens of Iran and Venezuela.
They are not giving up, because no matter how tough their life is under sanctions and the West-administered terror,
they are well-aware of the fact that things could get worse, much worse, if their countries were to be occupied and
governed by the Washington and London-injected maniacs.
And everyone knows the fate of the people living in Palestine or Gollan Heights, places which have been overrun by
the closest ally of the West in the Middle East, Israel.
*
Of course, there are other reasons why the West cannot get any of its adversaries to kneel.
One is – that the toughest ones are left. Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea (DPRK), Iran, Syria and Venezuela are
not going to run away from the battlefield. These are the most determined nations on earth. These are the countries
that have already lost thousands, millions, even tens of millions of their people, in the fight against Western
imperialism and colonialism.
If one is following the latest attacks of the West carefully, the scenario is pathetic, almost grotesque:
Washington and often the EU, too, are trying hard; they are hitting, they are spending billions of dollars, using the
local mercenaries (or call it 'local opposition'), and then they quickly withdraw after wretched but anticipated
defeat.
So far, Venezuela has survived. Syria survived. Iran survived. China is fighting horrible Western-backed
subversions, but it is proudly surviving. Russia is standing tall.
This is a tremendous moment in human history. For the first time, Western imperialism is being not only defeated,
but fully unveiled and humiliated. Many are now laughing at it, openly.
But we should not celebrate, yet. We should understand what and why this is happening, and then continue fighting.
There are many, many battles ahead us. But we are on the right track.
Let them try. We know how to fight. We know how to prevail. We have already fought fascism, in many of its forms.
We know what freedom is. Their 'freedom' is not our freedom. Their 'liberty' is not our liberty. What they call
'democracy' is not how we want our people to rule and to be ruled. Let them go away; we, our people, do not want
them!
They cannot overthrow our systems, because they are, precisely our systems! Systems that we want, that our people
want; systems we are ready to fight and die for!
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative
journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are
Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism
, a revolutionary novel
"Aurora"
and a bestselling work of political non-fiction:
"Exposing Lies Of The Empire"
. View his other books here. Watch
Rwanda Gambit
, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam
Chomsky
"On Western Terrorism"
. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to
work around the world. He can be reached through his
website
and his Twitter.
can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are
not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the
smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Jack Leon
Why everyone on this site thinks the massive power vacuum created by the fall of the Imperial West
will be filled by China and Russia filling the world with peaceful rainbows and unicorns.
... ... ...
BigB
I might add – following yesterdays comment getting the usual treatment for stating brute economic
realities – that the globalised economy being a dollarised one is not something you can have an
opinion about. It is a fact. That so many can hold a contrafactual opinion above fact can only be due
to economic illiteracy. Willfully held cherished opinion elevated despite the fact.
Which could be
more excusable if we had not had the ultimate in living proof of economic reality within recent living
memory. If the global economic system was not largely dollarised (to 60% of the global Reserve): then
a relatively minor mortgage crisis (or "savings glut") could not possibly have become global and
extending for over a decade to date. There is just no way that China and the rest of the world could
be pulled in a relatively small perturbation in the value of the dollar. It is proof positive of
interlinking – the fact that the global financial crisis was global.
There are no separate systems. It is an extreme failure of economic intelligence to predicate
otherwise. If not through economic illiteracy: then through false memory syndrome! FFS: it was only
twelve years ago that the system crashed. The interlinking is EVEN MORE integrated now. A loss of
confidence or 'moral contagion' will flash around the globe in close to real time. To posit
differential 'systems to fight and die for' in the face of economic and historical realism requires a
monumental feat of reality aversion and denial. Andre has lost his grip on economic reality. Don't
naively follow him.
vexarb
BigB, I think you are right to remind us that Love of Money is the Root of All Evil, but wrong
to criticize someone who rejoices when he sees that some branches of that Money Tree of Evil are
withering away. The end of Hitler's regime change plan for Europe was an occasion for rejoicing;
even though it did not mean the end of Capitalist resource wars, at least a relatively united
Europe enjoyed 40 years of relative peace and socialist prosperity. The end of NATZO's regime
change plan for socialist Syria and communist Iran may likewise herald a period of relative
unity, peace and socialist prosperity for the ME. That is one reason to cheer; two other reasons
are the re-emergence of China and Russia into a period of relative security and prosperity. So a
big three cheers are justified.
I remember, when socialist Syria began its resistance to AZC terrorism on Syrian soil, some
Trots complained that it was not correct to defend Syria on the ground because the real enemy
was global Capitalism up there in the sky.
Well, yeah: there is a relative geopolitical stability with the reshaping of a multipolar
world. But this is undermined by the underlying geoeconomic fragility and instability arising
from globalisation and a contracting global economy. So it is as a burning mirage shimmering
in a heat haze above the desert of humanities impoverishment.
We all like a story we can
rejoice in: a mythic tale of a kingdom of evil and a kingdom of good battling in a primordial
duel to the death. In the fantasy story light always overcomes the kingdom of evils dark
destruction: so we naturally align with the forces of good heroifying the mythic contenders
and denigrating the primal chaotic forces of evil. But for all the relevance this has: we
might as well cast Trump as Voldemort and turn to the Harry Potter novels for economic
literacy.
To coin a phrase you favour: meanwhile, back in the real world The dollar and the yuan
are inextricably and intentionally linked in value. They have been since 1994: 'hard pegged'
to 2005; and 'soft pegged' ever since. Do not believe the Chinese denials. The value is set
daily: and only a 2% fluctuation is allowed either way. This is economic reality. There are
no separate systems that are not underpinned by the value of the yuan: that is in turn
determined by the floating value of the dollar. It is a form of criminal negligence to not
know this basic fact: and concoct a poorly characterised quasi-mythological fantasy narrative
contrafactually.
In the most basic sense: if the dollar and yuan are relatively priced – there are no
separate systems. The value of the yuan follows the value of the dollar. Which has been a
weakening trend: culminating in the yuan being at its lowest rate since before the GFC.
Absolutely anyone can check out this fact: but they don't. When they encounter it: they
deny it. That's because the in stories we tell ourselves – it is the coherence of the
narrative construction that matters not the facts. The whole facts are sacred thing is also
contrafactual: the story is sacred. Because we identify with our inner story – facts like the
dollar/yuan peg are ignored. Andre is the JK Rowling of economic reality. Only his plotlines
and script are not nearly as inventive. In the real world – global capitalism is the dark
destructive force only, there is no alternative. This is Capitalist Realism. If we as a
humanity want to create an alternative: we need to face the hard economic reality. Fantasy
narratives are just a faery tale distraction from that. Myths that mean that the dark
destructivism carries on unresisted while we spin a good, if ultimately unbelievable, yarn.
vexarb
BigB, many thanks for your reply, and I always give you a plus for your clarity in
exposing a truth which invites rejection because it is both obscure and unpleasant. And I
by no means include you among those Soros-funded Trots who "attack from the Left". But I
am a simple minded person, and believe we have a right to rejoice in our little victories,
even if we do not slay Mammon himself. And there is the ROI to consider – the cumulative
Return on Investment. Perhaps Mammon will not be killed in some final Apocalyptic battle
between Powers and Principalities in the Heavens: perhaps Mammon will die the death of a
thousand cuts; perhaps the branches of the Evil Money Tree with bleed their sap and wither
away, one little victory at a time from the little people in Syria, Lebanon, Iran Russia
and China -- for whom already we have given 3 cheers.
Andre also mentions some little
victories in America: for example, Cuba and Venezuela. To which we might add back Brazil
and give a 4th cheer -- because Lula's back in town!
The bogeyman strategy only works if there is a clear a simple target to bang on on relentlessly. For a
while it was Russia, but now Washington can't make it's mind up whether it's North Korea, Syria,
Russia, Venezuela, Iran or China, and so it keeps flip-flopping it's focus. There's isn't even a
shared ideology that connects these rogue states, other than their very natural desire for
sovereignty. Even the public that buys into the mainstream media's framing of the narrowtive is
intuitively sensing a lack of conviction.
nwwoods
"Narrowtive" ..nice turn of phrase
Aiwl
".. these rogue states,"
You meant 'accused of being rogue' by fascist regimes (i.e. US/UK/KSA/Australia etc.. ), right?
Pulitzer Prize winning writer Viet Thanh Nguyen put it best: "All wars are fought twice, the
first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory." Those second fights are often
longer, if less bloody, than the initial battles. The fights for memory and legacy often begin
before the guns have even fallen silent.
America's wars are no strangers to this dynamic. From Vietnam to the present, our wars have
always been refought by participants, journalists, scholars, and politicians. As we begin to
seriously debate ending America's quixotic campaigns in the Greater Middle East, one
particularly nasty narrative will be employed by the defenders of intervention and imperialism.
It recurs like clockwork every time America loses a war: that we were stabbed in the back.
Dolchstosslegende
The modern stab-in-the-back myth got its start in Germany exactly a century ago. Imperial
Germany was conceived of, created, and led by Prussia's military caste. Prussia, in Voltaire's
bon mot, was an army with a state, not a state with an army. And Prussia, after crippling
defeats by Napoleon at Jena and Auerstedt, had entered the First World War on a 50-year winning
streak.
But by the fall of 1918, Germany had lost the war. With its spring offensives failing and
fresh American troops flooding into France, final defeat was only a matter of time. While the
front lines were still on French and Belgian soil, the German Army had been decisively beaten
in the Hundred Days battles. After the Battle of Amiens, Germany's leaders, both military and
civilian, knew that the war's outcome was simply a math problem.
Germany did the only thing it could do and sued for a humiliating peace. The Kaiser was
forced to abdicate and flee, and a new civilian government signed an armistice and then the
Treaty of Versailles. Germany gave up land, people, and most of its army, and took on both
formal responsibility for the war and $5 billion in reparations.
Defeat was more than a bitter pill to swallow -- it was incomprehensible to millions,
especially those who had been at the front and had often experienced more (bloody) successes
than failures.
Germany's de facto military dictator, General Erich Ludendorff, was among the first to
embrace the idea that the country had been betrayed by communists, politicians, and most of
all, Jews. Though a wartime census showed that Jews were overrepresented in both the German
Army as a whole and in frontline units, the "Big Lie" stuck. Its propagation was aided by often
well-intentioned generals and politicians, who told the returning soldiers that "no enemy has
vanquished you."
When Adolf Hitler, a decorated veteran and budding demagogue, embraced this fiction, the
Dolchstosslegende (literally "dagger stab myth") was cemented. The German Army had not
lost. It had been betrayed by the home front and the politicians.
Vietnam
Korea, America's first war of the nuclear age, did not occasion charges of betrayal within.
Perhaps this was because outright defeat had been so close, both at the Pusan Perimeter in the
summer of 1950, and again six months later, when Chinese troops poured across the Yalu River
and drove the United Nations forces back over the 38th Parallel. A draw, especially with the
specter of nuclear war in the background, didn't seem so bad.
Vietnam was different. The U.S. military, armed with futuristic black rifles and
intercontinental bombers, lost to a Third World peasant army. Sure the U.S. won every battle,
dropping more bombs on South Vietnam than it had on either Germany or Japan in World War II,
whatever the cost. But they lost the war. The explanation: it was Jane Fonda and the hippies
that stabbed the army in the back , undermining support at home and turning the U.S.
tactical victory of 1968's Tet Offensive into a strategic defeat. As Vietnam veteran and former
Senator James Webb famously said of Fonda: "I wouldn't walk across the street to watch her slit
her wrist."
This narrative was buttressed by a wave of revisionist scholarship on Vietnam. Lewis
Sorley's A Better War posits counterinsurgency and pacification as a path to victory and
celebrates General Creighton Abrams's successes in the wake of the Tet Offensive. Mark Moyar, a
historian now working at USAID, penned Triumph Forsaken , an apology for South
Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. Max Boot, never one to miss a chance to extol the white
man's burden, has weighed in with multiple volumes on "the road not taken."
Traditional historians make a few obvious counterpoints that are difficult to refute.
Foremost among them is this one: despite two decades of French and American partnership and
aid, the South Vietnamese state and army were unable to ever stand on their own. The Easter
Offensive of 1972, sometimes celebrated as the finest hour of the Army of the Republic of
Vietnam (ARVN), was defeated only with the aid of tremendous American fire support and at the
cost of heavy ARVN casualties. Three years later, North Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon.
North Vietnam, for all its missteps and brutality, endured over 1 million casualties and
maintained the will to fight. The South did not.
Iraq
The Iraq war revisionist narrative is perhaps less plausible than that of Vietnam. True, the
Sunni tribes of Anbar Province turned against al-Qaeda and the Sunni-Shia civil war had
temporarily abated by 2008. These tactical realities led to absurd triumphalism from the
neoconservative crowd, especially those insiders who saw themselves as the brain trust of the
2007 troop surge.
The surge, a reinforcement of only 30,000 soldiers and Marines, was hailed as one of the
signal triumphs of American military history. General David Petraeus was celebrated as a
"savior general." The language of the sycophantic press corps would have made even Douglas
MacArthur blush. "The gold standard for wartime command," said then chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, describing Petraeus. America was told that its forces,
after initial missteps and much painful learning, had triumphed over terrorism in Iraq.
This victory, the story then goes, was squandered by President Barack Obama's pusillanimity
and inattention. U.S. troops marched out of Iraq as victors in 2011 and then had to march back
in three years later when the corrupt, sectarian Iraqi Army collapsed in the face of the ragtag
forces of the Islamic State: a pickup truck-borne reconnaissance-in-force of just 1,500
jihadists.
The reality is that the only thing America won in Iraq was "a decent interval," in Henry
Kissinger's infamous phrase. The surge had always been understood as merely a means to an end:
political reconciliation between Iraq's Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds. This manifestly failed to
occur. The security services became corrupt Shia fiefdoms, the Kurds intermittently plotted
their exit, and the Sunnis, feeling themselves excluded from post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, sought
new champions.
In a supremely cynical gambit, the Iraq war's architects flooded America's airwaves to blame
Obama for a squandered victory in Iraq, especially after the Islamic State's lightning
offensives of 2014. Obama and his defeatist cheerleaders in the media, we were told, had walked
away when Iraq was on the path to peace and prosperity.
Such a claim, regardless of the intricacies of intra-Shia politics and status of forces
agreements, rests on a foundation of hubris: the idea that America had the knowledge and skill
to dictate successful political outcomes to Iraqis. Nouri al-Maliki, the sectarian Shiite
leader blamed for setting conditions for the Islamic State's success, was plucked from
obscurity and installed as Iraq's prime minister under American sponsorship. Given the
inability and unwillingness of two U.S. presidents to curb or remove Maliki, and the
inescapable postwar Iranian influence in Shia-led Iraq, claims of a squandered victory are hard
to take seriously.
The late Michael Hastings put it best: the surge narrative was "perhaps the most impressive
con job in recent American history." Maybe a decent interval was worth the casualties and cost
of the surge. But deluding ourselves that "we won" is another matter.
Afghanistan
We are already seeing the new Dolchstosslegendes take shape in the debate over
Afghanistan, Syria, and once again Iraq. As both President Donald Trump and Democratic
presidential candidates make pledges about withdrawing from Afghanistan, the pushback is in
full force. Regional stability, women's rights, and terrorism are all cited as reasons to stay,
but the idea of stolen victory is also getting a workout.
Despite nearly 18 years of war and the deployment of nearly 100,000 U.S. troops at the war's
height, plus security and development assistance that far exceeds the Marshall Plan, the
Taliban today controls more of Afghanistan than at any point since their overthrow in 2002.
Opium cultivation, the primary funding source for the insurgents, sets new records year
after year. The situation has gotten so bad that in May the Pentagon stopped releasing its
district stabilization reports, which had been used to measure the security situation
throughout Afghanistan. Despite then-commander General John Nicholson's November 2017 statement
that the "most telling" metric of success is population control, the Department of Defense now
asserts that the reports are "of limited decision-making value."
Afghan security force casualties, probably the most important gauge of the war's progress,
are also unavailable, supposedly classified at the behest of the Afghan government. U.S.
Central Command's new chief, Marine General Kenneth McKenzie, Jr., recently acknowledged to the
Senate that Afghan army and police losses were unsustainable. A full third of the Afghan
security force has to be replaced every year due to casualties, desertion, and failures to
re-enlist. The trajectory of the war is pretty clear.
One could plausibly argue that America did win the Afghan war -- way back in 2002. The swift
initial campaign, fought mostly by the Afghan Northern Alliance with support from U.S. Special
Forces, CIA paramilitaries, and air power, toppled the Taliban government and shattered
al-Qaeda's network in Central Asia. Everything that came after, the argument goes, was mission
creep and utopian fantasy.
That case has its merits, but the war should be judged by America's professed goals there.
These quickly grew to include the establishment of a stable, secure, and centralizing Afghan
national government. By those lights, the war was, and is, an unwinnable quagmire.
Yet there are prominent national security professionals who will assert that Afghanistan was
never lost, and in fact can still be won. Paul D. Miller, a Georgetown professor and former
National Security Council staffer, made this case most recently in the pages of Foreign
Policy . Clinging to the life raft of the possible, however faint, Miller wrote that
"claiming the United States has failed is odd because the war is not over yet." After risibly
declaring that "Obama nearly won the war in 2012," Miller judged Afghanistan a secret success,
as a "mowing the grass" counterterrorism campaign.
After bemoaning the supposed hubris of those counseling withdrawal, Miller settled on a
maximalism that is jarring to even a casual observer of the war: "more resources, real
counterinsurgency, no deadline." Realist detractors, called out by name, are told to keep their
opinions to themselves, because their lack of faith undermines a necessary Forever War.
Syria
In Syria, unlike in Afghanistan, the insurgent enemy was decisively defeated on the
battlefield. The Islamic State's final sanctuary was destroyed in March. But after declaring a
conclusion to this successful punitive expedition, President Trump reluctantly reversed himself
and left a small residual U.S. force in place, ostensibly for counterterrorism purposes.
Trump had been relentlessly attacked by virtually the entire U.S. foreign policy
establishment for his supposed fecklessness for even suggesting a withdrawal. Senators voted
for an amendment rebuking the president by a margin of nearly 3-1. The secretary of defense,
former General James Mattis, resigned in protest. Pundits and purported experts across the
political spectrum inveighed against Trump's pullout plans.
The major U.S. papers are quick to report that the Islamic State is back, with fighters
slipping across the porous Iraq-Syria border and "seeding a new insurgency." Intermittent
attacks receive ample attention, as does the plight of Syria's Kurds, stuck between Assad's
regime and their Turkish enemies.
The Islamic State is likely to survive and return for the same reason it appeared in the
first place: victor's justice and the refusal of all parties to embrace political compromise
and power-sharing. Bashar al-Assad's forces are engaged in a campaign of repression and
violence in Sunni areas.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, under the supposedly less sectarian Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, a
similar process grinds on. As The New Yorker 's Ben Taub detailed in a December piece,
the conviction rate in Iraq's terrorism courts is 98 percent. The average trial lasts less than
10 minutes. The families of many of those on trial are themselves detained indefinitely in
squalid desert camps. Despite American advisors, American aid, and American attention, Iraq's
problems can only be solved by Iraqis. They are in no hurry to do so.
One might hope that the common-sense Middle American voter would see through this shallow
sophistry. After all, the signature moment of Trump's insurgency within the GOP primaries was
in South Carolina, where he denounced the 43rd president and the Iraq war and was rewarded with
an easy victory and the dispatch of Jeb Bush, the squishy embodiment of GOP conventional wisdom
on Iraq.
Today even recent veterans believe these wars were for naught. A new Pew survey found that
64 percent of Iraq veterans and 58 percent of Afghanistan veterans believe their wars were "not
worth fighting." These men and women realize that we cannot fix foreign lands at the point of a
bayonet, however impressive our temporary tactical victories may be.
But despite $6 trillion spent on these failed wars, American foreign policy remains largely
the prerogative of elites. The stories of triumphs forsaken and troops stabbed in the back only
need to reach and convince a small audience.
America's Dolchstosslegendes , fueled mostly by optimism and hubris, are not those of
bitter German anti-Semites, looking for someone to blame. But our myths and rationalizations
are still pernicious and consequential -- and they aren't going away.
General H. R. McMaster, formerly national security advisor to President Trump and now
ensconced at one of the most influential think tanks in Washington, recently blamed "war
weariness" and "a defeatist narrative" for challenging the ongoing American military commitment
to Afghanistan. As we near a presidential election and perhaps a chance at some realism and
retrenchment overseas, the myths of back-stabbing and lost victory must be rejected. Until
Americans, and especially elites, accept the lessons of history and the limits of U.S. power,
we will be doomed to repeat our Sisyphean wars of choice.
Gil Barndollar is the Military Fellow-in-Residence at the Catholic University of
America's Center for the Study of Statesmanship. He served as a U.S. Marine Corps infantry
officer from 2009-2016.
It's hard to take any analysis seriously that starts out with the politically correct
mantra
" about how the US lost Vietnam. As one of those post WWII conflicts that actually had
some veracity as an effort on behalf of others one can say with some ease, we won that war
and there's little question that the US service members who fought it were in fact
betrayed.
And that betrayal continues with the nonsense about how we lost.
"North Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon. North Vietnam, for all its missteps and
brutality, endured over 1 million casualties and maintained the will to fight. The South did
not."
They rolled in with the support of the Soviet Union, China and North Vietnam. You sure
leave a lot out of your understanding of events at the time, Nevermind rethinking the matter
today.
Pay attention people; Prussia not Russia. Yes there was Prussia and it is not related to
Russia. I'm making this comment because one of my colleagues wanted to corrected TAC article
by claiming there must've been some misspelling. I wonder how many of my fellow homo sapiens
think as my colleague does. I also wonder how many homos are in fact sapiēns?
Syria
I thought that you were going to mention the myth that had Obama bombed Assad after his 'red
line' comment that moderate rebels would have taken over Syria and turned it into the Garden
of Eden. This bizzare narrative is passionately defended by the likes of Jack Keane and too
many others to count.
Even though Al Qaeda and ISIS were always, by far, the strongest factions, the
demonstration of U.S. force would put so much fear into their hearts that it would allow our
freedom fighters to walk into Damascus. After all that's what happened in Libya and we know
how easily cowed ISIS and Al Qaeda are by one off bombings. Those are the people who start
off battles using 1 - 3 VBIEDs (suicide vehicles).
"The U.S. military, armed with futuristic black rifles and intercontinental bombers, lost to
a Third World peasant army."
That's a myth within the myth. The North Vietnamese Army (NVA) was not a third world
peasant army and should not be confused with the Viet Cong. That's an insult to the the NVA.
They were highly trained and were equipped by the Soviet Union. The Viet Cong were virtually
wiped out and were no longer a factor after the 68 Tet offensive. The NVA also kicked China
back out of Vietnam in a border war in 1979, and destroyed the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Germany was not decisively defeated on the battle field. Not one inch of Germany was occupied
by an allied soldier when the armistice was declared. Had the strike by the French military
been detected by the Germans the outcome would have been very different. The sacking of
Germany's wealth and infrastructure led to an economic collapse of the Weimar Republic. This
allied induced economic chaos led to the monster Hitler and his thugees. Might be worth
noting that prior to WW1 Germany and England were each other's best trading partners and the
Kaiser visited England regularly. The war party -- derided in history as the "yellow press
successfully lied about "the Hun" and got the war they wanted. Shades of 2003 Iraq;
mainstream media, a powerful foreign lobby, a spineless congress, and a compliant president.
Our decision makers have learned nothing from history except to follow the money. The neocons
have learned everything. Lies (main stream media) and political contributions will get you
endless wars. Just say NO! to Netanyahu.
I have nothing but questions after reading this article and concern about how gullible,
ignorant and loath we as a nation are when it comes to exposing the fallacy and ineptness of
your so-called anointed ones and foreign policy by the armed conflict. Why do we not learn
from our mistakes? Why do we continue to compound the mistakes we've made?
Part of the strategy in Afghanistan is nothing more than a rebranded "strategic hamlet"
strategy used in Vietnam. How well did that work out? Easy answer, it didn't, it just ceded
territory to the insurgency. Have we learned anything, not really, you still have some older
cadre teaching the new generation lessons learned from over 40 years ago and those lessons
haven't kept pace with developments in what we refer to as third world countries. We aren't
adapting militarily with the exception of the lethality of today's modern weapons. And
unfortunately should we engage in an armed conflict with a modernized advisary we'll still be
teaching the lessons learned and tactics used when fighting lesser equipped insurgencies.
I've gone off topic but watching the army I hold in esteem continue to do the same dumb s**t
is disheartening.
Thanks for the article, I enjoyed. You've done a really good job of making your point
without totally destroying the character of the perpetrators.
"... The idea that Americans think that they can do whatever it wants, wherever it wants without any consideration of the consequences of others is appalling. ..."
"... If we were comparing how America thinks and acts to a single person, we would say that this person is a narcissist. No lie is too outrageous, no crime punishable as long as they satisfy their own urges. This makes the US the equivalent of the school yard bully who will use threats, and violence to get what they want. ..."
And good for him. Nations have always competed for strategically placed land and
resources.
President Trump's idea of buying Greenland has evoked ridicule, mixed with
the usual venom, in both Denmark and the United States. And Trump's way of expressing himself
has only increased the scorn: as he said on August 18, "Essentially,
it's a large real estate deal." (If only Trump had said that buying Greenland would contribute,
somehow, to combating climate change, then he would have had a respectful audience, no matter
what his choice of words.)
Of course, it should go without saying that Democrats, joined by the Mainstream Media and
the international tweeting class, will oppose anything Trump advocates for. And so in the short
run, nothing is going to happen with Greenland.
Still, there's a creeping realization that the dreaded Trump might be on to something. Hence
this reluctant
headline in Politico : "Trump's Greenland Gambit Might Be Crazy -- But It Could Also
Be the Future."
Moreover, undeniably, the "real estate" (a.k.a. geopolitics) of the Arctic region is in
flux. That is, many players -- including China and Russia, as well as the U.S. and
multinational corporations -- are seeking greater footprints in that area. To recall past
geopolitical competitions in other parts of the world, we can say that a new Great Game , or maybe a Scramble , is at hand.
This includes not only Greenland, but also all the area reaching to the North Pole.
Thus on August 23, the State Department announced plans to
open up a consulate in Nuuk, the capital of semi-autonomous Greenland. We had opened a
consulate there in 1940, prior to our involvement in World War II, and shrewdly taken custody
of Greenland, as a way of keeping it out of Nazi Germany's grip. To President Roosevelt, the
thought that Hitler might be able to station bombers, U-boats -- or even Wehrmacht
soldiers -- so close to North America was too terrible to contemplate.
During the war, Greenland was a strategic bridge to our allies, notably the United Kingdom
and the Soviet Union; to this day, it's a grave to many American airmen who
died flying supply missions over its frozen vastness. We relinquished the earlier Nuuk
consulate in 1953, even as we retained a military presence at Thule, north of the Arctic
Circle, and elsewhere on that giant island.
As the State Department just wrote to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, America has a
"strategic interest in enhancing political, economic, and commercial relationships across the
Arctic region." The letter added that the consulate would serve as "a critical component of our
efforts to increase U.S. presence in the Arctic and would serve as an effective platform to
advance U.S. interests in Greenland."
We might pause over those last words, advance U.S. interests in
Greenland.
There we get a sense of motion, as in Manifest Destiny. Admittedly, Manifest Destiny is not
a PC phrase. Yet trendy pieties aside, it's hard to argue with the long-term logic of national
expansion as key to self-defense, as well as to greatness.
The phrase comes from the American journalist John O'Sullivan ,
writing back in 1845. O'Sullivan hailed "the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to
possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us." To the contemporary ear, all
that sounds right-wing, yet in the context of the 19th century, O'Sullivan was a progressive
modernizer. He stipulated that such expansion should be "for the development of the great
experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us."
Indeed, for reasons of realism as well as idealism, the U.S. was wise to follow O'Sullivan's
expansionary exhortations. After all, by the 19th century, as transportation and technology
improved, vacant territory wasn't staying vacant. That is, if we had chosen to leave, say,
Oregon to the Chinook, Klamath, and Umpqua tribes, then some other great power would have moved
in.
The most obvious alternative occupiers would have been the Russians, who had seized control
of Alaska beginning in the 17th century. If we hadn't bought them out in 1867, there's every
reason to think they would have continued to poke around the Pacific Northwest -- unless, of
course, the British in Canada drove them out. And the British, too, would have wanted Oregon --
unless the Germans or Japanese had gotten there first.
Absent Uncle Sam, there's no way to know who would have prevailed in that strategic welter;
the only thing we can know is that the low-tech locals would have been overwhelmed by someone.
Yes, might doesn't make right, but superior technology surely does make for might .
Indeed, from an American point of view, it's painful to think what the 20th century would
have been like if the Russians, Germans, or Japanese had gained control of Oregon or any
portion of the Pacific Coast.
Yes, of course there's a limit to America's reach. As we have discovered since the second
half of the 20th century, the U.S. is ill-equipped to nation-build and democratize far-flung
places that aren't vital to our national interest, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Libya.
Yet Greenland is closer, emptier, larger -- and therefore potentially richer. Already, we
know that it abounds with
Rare Earth Elements ; it's a territory, after all, more than a quarter the size of the
continental U.S.
So whether or not we ever buy it, we should seek more influence over its development. And
that development will happen, of course, under someone's flag -- because both geopolitics and
economics abhor a vacuum.
Indeed, as we ponder Greenland, we might think back to a classic work that persuaded
geopoliticians across the world to think about territory in a more strategic manner. That was
Alfred T. Mahan's 1890 tome The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783. As
Mahan, a U.S. naval officer, wrote, wise strategists need to think about location and logistics
well in advance of any possible fighting:
In a sea war, as in all others, two things are from the first essential, -- a suitable
base upon the frontier, in this case the seaboard, from which the operations start, and an
organized military force, in this case a fleet, of size and quality adequate to the proposed
operations. If the war, as in the present instance, extends to distant parts of the globe,
there will be needed in each of those distant regions secure ports for the shipping, to serve
as secondary, or contingent, bases of the local war.
The lesson is clear: if trouble comes, a nation should always want a physical buffer, as
well as forward bases. That's why we already have that base at Thule, and why, if the Arctic
keeps warming -- potentially turning the mostly frozen Arctic Ocean into navigable blue water
-- we'll want even more of a presence in that new seafaring zone.
Mahan was also keenly attuned to the issue of resources: as he wrote, a nation must think
about "cutting off the resources of the enemy while maintaining its own." In the 130 years
since, sea power, of course, has been layered by air power -- and now air power is layered by
space power. Yet on any physical plane, the principle of maintaining mastery of resources, and
resource routes, has remained vital.
Of course, some will protest that such machtpolitik thinking is simply wrong, even if
other countries are doing it. And yes, such passivity is the attitude of the European Union,
which seems content to watch the larger world go by while maintaining its pristine self-image.
(Although even the EU has been active on the issue of Brazil's burning Amazon forests -- a
reminder that everyone has at least a transnational preoccupation or two.)
In the meantime, in the larger world, territory and resources -- from Jerusalem to the South
China Sea to Crimea to Kashmir -- have been divvied up in new ways, and new forms of power have
emerged.
Now there's the looming question of the fate of Greenland, which is some darn fine real
estate.
James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at . He served as a
White House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
OT:
One thing that never made sense to me was why this country is called the "United States of
America " when the name 'America' already referred to the landmass it's on (the two
continents North and South America). Some say it's because the US was the first independent
nation on the Americas. Well, yes, but still, couldn't they pick a more original name that
wasn't the same as the whole continent, like Canada, Mexico and Brazil did? Was there an
ulterior motive to it?
And by "ulterior motive", I've seen some people say that the choice of the name "United
States of America " implied a "manifest destiny" among the Founding Fathers (i.e. it
didn't start with O'Sullivan et al). The notion, at least according to the allegations, is
that the Founding Fathers wanted the country to expand not only Westward to where it's at
today, but also to annex Canada, Mexico, and the rest of Latin America until reaching
present-day Argentina and Chile. I cannot verify if the allegations are true or not (after
all, the Founding Fathers warned against foreign entanglements), so feel free to confirm or
dispute the allegations.
The full name of Mexico is the United Mexican States , and its Spanish name is
Estados Unidos Mexicanos . The Spanish name for the USA is simply Estados
Unidos . At least one advantage is that Spanish has a word, estadounidense , that
specifically refers to anyone or anything of or from the USA as opposed to the Americas
themselves; "United Statesian" in English doesn't have the same ring to it.
For what it's worth, Russia isn't the "Eurasian Federation" and China isn't the "People's
Republic of Asia".
Buffers and forward bases are useless. If you assume falsely that Russia intends to attack
us, they don't need to march and row across Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Greenland to
Canada and then down to DC. Missiles are aimed directly across the Arctic in both directions.
Gaining resources is normal for empires, but in recent decades we haven't been trying to
gain resources. We've only been trying to destroy countries that compete with Saudi oil. If
we took over Greenland, we'd find a way to lock up or contaminate its oil and mineral
resources so nobody could ever use them.
The idea that Americans think that they can do whatever it wants, wherever it wants
without any consideration of the consequences of others is appalling.
If we were comparing how America thinks and acts to a single person, we would say that
this person is a narcissist. No lie is too outrageous, no crime punishable as long as they
satisfy their own urges. This makes the US the equivalent of the school yard bully who will
use threats, and violence to get what they want.
I'm a visitor, but spending about 100 nights a year in Hong Kong in 2019. This includes some
time during the initial protests in June, some time in July, and all of August until now. I
think there's a big misconception about how much this affects daily life. To be honest, apart
from having a hotel shuttle bus that was stuck in traffic in mid June, I didn't really
experience any negative impacts of the protests. I walk around 10 miles a day, and it is very
rare to see any protesters. One of my friends lives two blocks from the Chinese liaison office,
and he's had tear gassing on three days since mid June. I walked through a couple of riot
police staging areas, but they're very friendly and left me alone. I also saw some graffiti.
But in day-to-day life, the impact of the protests is zero.
In fact, visiting Hong Kong is much more enjoyable than usual, because there are virtually
no mainland tourists. You can visit TST Promenade, which normally has dozens of buses spewing
out thousands of visitors, and right now, you're practically the only person there. Equally
important, hotels have crazy prices around 30 to 50% off the usual low season pricing. HK$1100
for Hyatt TST or HK$750 for the new Marriott Ocean Park. Insane deals!
Now, of course, if you for some reason get impacted by any airport closure and you have to
be at an important event, that truly sucks. So perhaps don't fly through Hong Kong if you're on
the way to interview for an amazing job offer. But for tourists, it's an ideal time to
visit.
As far as safety is concerned, if you're from the US or Europe, unless you live in the most
sheltered and safest environments, Hong Kong -even with the protests- will be much better than
what you're used to.
...
From a local's perspective, the protests force an occasional work-at-home day, but so far
everything has been business as usual. There seem to be less mainland tourists, so the crowded
areas tend to be more manageable now. The violence and tear gas tend to start flying off at
night, and there is usually a decent period of time before the raids come for tourists to
escape. Avoid hanging around police stations as they are the main target of protesters,
accusing the police for brutality and using excessive force.
I do think visiting one of these peaceful rallies/protests or reading through one of the
many Lennon Walls around the city would be an interesting highlight for a tourist.
Do leave some time for your flight out though, in light of increased security measures for
departures these days.
Slavery had some good aspects for those chaps who had it rather good. A colonial setup is
the next best thing to slavery, and it also holds its attraction for people who knew how to
place themselves just below the sahibs and above the run-of-the-mill natives. The Hong Kong
revolt is the mutiny of wannabe house niggers who feel that the gap between them and the
natives is rapidly vanishing. Once, a HK resident was head and shoulders above the miserable
mainland coolies; he spoke English, he had smart devices, he had his place in the tentacle
sucking wealth out of the mainland, and some of that wealth stuck to his sweaty hands. But now
he has no advantage compared to the people of Shanghai or Beijing. There is huge swelling of
wealth in the big cities of Red China. The Chinese dress well, travel abroad, and they do not
need HK mediation for dealing with the West. Beijing had offered HK a fair deal of [relative]
equality; nothing would be taken from them, but the shrinking gap is not only unavoidable, but
desirable, too.
However, HK had been the imperial bridgehead in China for too long. Its people were
complicit, nay, willing partners in every Western crime against China, beginning with dumping
opium and sucking out Chinese wealth. Millions of opium addicts, of ruined families and
households nearly destroyed the Middle Kingdom, and each of them added to HK prosperity. The
blood, sweat and labour of all China abundantly supplied the island. HK was the first of the
Treaty Ports, and the last to return home. Its populace was not thoroughly detoxed; they
weren't ideologically prepared for a new life as equals.
Chairman Mao harboured hard suspicions against comprador cities, the cities and the people
who prospered due to their collaboration with the imperialist enemy. He cleansed them with
communist and patriotic re-education; recalcitrant compradors were sent to help peasants in
far-away villages in order to reconnect with the people. Mao's successors had a strong if
misplaced belief in Chinese nationalism as a universal remedy; they thought the Chinese of HK,
Macau and Taiwan would join them the moment the colonial yoke failed. This was an
over-optimistic assessment. The imperialist forces didn't give up on their former house slaves,
and the moment they needed to activate them against independent China they knew where to
look.
Their time came as the trade conflict between the US and China warmed up. The secret
government of the West aka Deep State came to the conclusion that China is getting way too big
for its boots. It is not satisfied with making cheap gadgets for Walmart customers. It is
producing state-of-art devices that compete with American goods and, what's worse, their
devices are not accessible for NSA surveillance. The Chinese company Huawei came under attack;
sanctions and custom duties followed in train. When the Yuan eased under the strain, the
Chinese were accused of manipulating their currency. It is a strong charge: when Japan was
attacked by the West in the 1990s and the Yen had eased as expected, this claim forced Tokyo to
keep the Yen high and take Japan into a twenty-year-long slump. But China did not retreat.
Then the supreme power unleashed its well-practiced weapon: they turned to foment unrest in
China and gave it a lot of space in the media. At first, they played up the fate of the Uygur
Islamists, but it had little success. The Uygur are not numerous, they are not even a majority
in their traditional area; their influence in China is limited. Despite headlines in the
liberal Western media proclaiming that millions of Uygur are locked up in concentration camps,
the impact was nil. No important Muslim state took up this cause.
The anniversary of Tiananmen came (in beginning of June) and went without a hitch. For good
reason: the alleged 'massacre' is a myth, as the Chinese always knew and we know now for
certain thanks to publication of a relevant US Embassy cable by Wikileaks.
There were no thousands of students flattened by tanks. A very few died fighting the army, but
China had evaded the bitter fate of the USSR. In China proper the event had been almost
forgotten. A few participants retell of their experiences to Western audiences, but the desired
turmoil did not materialise.
And then came the time for HK. It is an autonomous part of China; it had not been
re-educated; there are enough people who remember the good days of colonial slavery. The actual
spark for the mutiny, the planned extradition treaty, was exceedingly weak. For the last
decade, HK became the chosen place of refuge for mainland criminals, for HK had extradition
treaties with the US and Britain, but not with the mainland. This had to be remedied.
[The extradition treaty had played an important role in the Snowden case. An ex-CIA spy
Edward Snowden decided to reveal to the world the extent of the NSA surveillance we all are
subjects of. He chose the Guardian newspaper for his revelations, probably because of
the Wikileaks precedent. When he gave an extended interview to the Guardian in HK, his
identity had been revealed. The arrival of the US extradition request was imminent. The Chinese
authorities told Snowden that they would have to send him to a US jail, to torture and death;
that the extradition treaty left them no option in his case. Only the fast footwork of Julian
Assange's brave assistant Sarah Harrison prevented this grim finale and delivered Snowden to
safe Moscow.]
ORDER IT NOW
While HK authorities were obliged to extradite Snowden, they weren't and couldn't extradite
numerous criminals from the mainland. This was an obvious wrong that had to be urgently
corrected, in the face of rising tension. And then the sleeping agents of the West woke up and
activated their networks. They had practically unlimited funds, not only from the West, but
also from the criminals who weren't particularly impecunious and were afraid of extradition.
After the demonstrations started, the Western media gave them maximum coverage, magnifying and
encouraging the mutineers.
Hundreds of articles, leading stories and editorials in important newspapers cheered and
encouraged the HK rebels. The People's War Is Coming in Hong Kong , editorialised the
New
York Times today. An amazing fact (that is if you are a fresh arrival from Mars): the same
newspaper and its numerous sisters paid no attention to the real People's War raging in France,
where the Gilets Jaunes have continued to fight for forty weeks against the austerity-imposing
Macron regime. 11 people were killed and 2,500 injured in France, but the Western media just
mumbled about the GJ antisemitism. Nothing new, indeed. The same media did not notice the
one-million-strong
demonstration against the US war on Iraq, paid little attention to Occupy Wall Street,
disregarded protests against US wars and interventions. One hundred thousand people marching in
New York would get no coverage if their purpose did not agree with the desires of the Real
Government; and alternatively, three thousand protesters in Moscow with its 12 million
population would be presented as the voice of the people challenging Vlad the Tyrant.
In its peculiar way, the media fulfills its purpose of keeping us informed. If mainstream
media reports on something, it usually lies; but if media keeps mum, you can bet it is
important and you are not encouraged to learn of it. It is especially true in case of popular
protests. How do you know they are lying? – Their lips are moving.
The biggest lie is calling the HK rebels marching under the Union Jack, "pro-democracy".
These guys wish to restore colonial rule, to be governed by their strict but fair round-eyed
overlords. It could be a bad or a good idea, but democracy it ain't. The second biggest lie is
the slogan Make Hong Kong Great Britain Again.
Hong Kong was never a part of Great Britain. This was never on offer, so it can't become
that again. Even the most adventure- and diversity-prone British politician won't make seven
million Chinese in a far-away territory British citizens with full rights, members of an
imperfect but real British democracy. HK was a colony; this is what the marchers aspire to, to
make HK colony again.
With all these differences taken into account, this is as true for Moscow demos as well.
Moscow protesters dream of a Russia occupied by NATO forces, not of democracy. They believe
that they, pro-Western, educated, entrepreneurial, would form the comprador class and prosper
at the expense of hoi polloi. Mercifully, they aren't plentiful: the Russians already tried to
live under benign Western occupation between 1991 and 2000, when the IMF directed their
finances and American advisers from Harvard ran the state machinery. Smart and ruthless Jews
like Bill Browder , Boris
Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich made their fortunes, but Russia was ruined and its people were
reduced to poverty.
Not many Russians would like to return to the Roaring Nineties, but some would. It is a
matter for the majority to prevent this aspiring minority to achieve its aspirations. Those who
can't take it will flee to Israel, as young Mr Yablonsky
who discovered his Jewish roots after two nights of police detention. He landed in jail for
violently fighting erection of a church in his town.
The Chinese will likewise sort out their HK affliction. It can be done if the government
does not promise to restrict its counteractions to painless and bloodless measures. Only the
real and imminent threat of painful and bloody suppression can make such measures unnecessary.
Likewise, only the imminent threat of no-deal Brexit could bring some sense into the stubborn
heads of the EU leaders. A state that is not ready to use force will necessarily fail, as did
the Ukrainian state under Mr Yanukowych in 2014. Blood will be shed and the state will be
ruined, if its rulers are too squeamish to stop the rebellion.
We can distinguish a real people's rising and foreign-inspired interventions on behalf of
the compradors. The first one will be silenced while the second will be glorified by the New
York Times. It is that simple.
I would not worry overmuch for China. The Chinese leaders knew how to deal with Tiananmen,
they knew how to deal with minority unrest, without unnecessary cruelty and without hesitation
and prevarication. They weren't dilly-dallying when the US tried to
send to HK its warships , but flatly denied them the pleasure. They will overcome.
China should do a 'Kashmir' on Hong Kong. Open it fully to all the Chinese. Let Chinese go
there and march against Hong Kong snobs and wanna-be-whites.
That said, let's cut the Anglos some slack. Brit empire did lots of bad things but also
lots of good things. While HK was set up as colonial outpost and cooperated in terrible opium
trade, it was also a center of innovation and change that introduced all of China to new
ideas. Also, the trajectory of Chinese history since the 80s shows that it had much to learn
from Hong Kong and Singapore. Maoism was a disaster, and it also spawned Khmer Rouge that was
worse than French imperialism(that wasn't so bad). Also, back then, it was obvious that the
West was indeed far freer and saner than communist China. HK and Singapore set the template
for big China to follow.
But that was then, this is now. West is free? UK imprisons people for tweets. The West is
sane? France and UK welcome African invaders while banning people like Jared Taylor who stand
for survival of the West. Also, the West, under Jewish power, has moved into neo-imperialist
mode against Russia, Iran, and Middle East. And US media are not free. It is controlled by
Zionist oligarchs who impose a certain narrative, even utterly bogus ones like Russia
Collusion while working with other monopoly capitalists to shut down alternative news
sites.
And when globo-homo-mania is the highest 'spiritual' expression of the current West, it is
now crazy land.
This is why China must now crush Hong Kong. Don't send in the tanks. Just open the gates
and send 10 million mainlanders to march down the streets accusing HK snobs of being
comprador a-holes. That will do the trick. Turn Hong Kong into No-Bull House.
And what happened to Taiwan under globo-homo regime? It has 'gay marriage'. Chinese need
to go there and use maximum force to wipe out the decadent scum.
Some in the West complain about China's social credit system, and I agree it's bad, but we
got the same shit here. Ask Laura Loomer and Jared Taylor. 1/4 of corporations will not hire
people based on their support of Trump. Also, Chinese term for people with bad social credit
is mild compared to what Jewish elites call dissident Americans: 'deplorables', 'white
supremacist scum', 'white trash', 'neo nazi', etc. It's all very ironic since globalist Jews
are the new nazis who spread wars for Israel to destroy millions of lives.
I saw Bannon on TV recently around the time of the Tiananmen anniversary. He said that 75,000
people were killed in the Tiananmen incident. This tells you something about his lack of
sophistication or credibility. I was a Visiting Professor at the Peking Union Medical College
in 1989 and I always assumed that the numbers of dead and injured were greatly exaggerated. I
asked many fellow Professors and students in Beijing for their opinions over the years. Many
of these were working in the local hospitals at the time. On average the response to me was
between 300-500 dead and injured. I have never had any reason to question this estimate. The
Wikileaks memo confirms this.
I saw Bannon on TV recently around the time of the Tiananmen anniversary. He said that
75,000 people were killed in the Tiananmen incident. This tells you something about his
lack of sophistication or credibility.
Actually, the dishonesty or incompetence of our MSM is *vastly* greater than you're making
it out to be.
Over twenty years ago, the Beijing bureau chief of the Washington Post published a long
piece in the Columbia Journalism Review publicly admitted that the supposed "Tiananmen Square
Massacre" was just a media hoax/error, and that the claims of the PRC government were
probably correct:
Under the circumstances, it's difficult to believe that most MSM journalists interested in
the subject aren't well aware of the truth, and I've noticed that they usually choose their
words very carefully to avoid outright lies, but still implying something that is totally
incorrect. I'd assume that these implied falsehoods are then wildly exaggerated by ignorant
demagogues such as Bannon.
It's really astonishing that our MSM still continues to promote this "Big Lie" more than
two decades after the CJR admission ran.
Everyone knows that large numbers of people, including some PRC soldiers, were killed or
injured in the violent urban riots elsewhere in Beijing. I think the official death toll
claimed by the PRC government at the time was something like 300 killed, which seems pretty
plausible to me.
So if I'm reading this article right–Communist China so gooooood– how about those
65,000,000 Mao and his "Leaders" er, basically sort of er, murdered? Lets hear what they have
to say about the great China "leaders"? Oh yeah, we can't they killed them . Is this the take
away quote from Mr. Shamir?: "I would not worry overmuch for China. The Chinese leaders knew
how to deal with Tiananmen, they knew how to deal with minority unrest, without unnecessary
cruelty and without hesitation and prevarication." Yes, they do know "how to deal with
minority unrest" historically–65,000, 000 corpses is some real "dealing" -- no
"unnecessary cruelty"? (I also read recently of the sexual torture of Falun Gong
practitioners–brutal gang rapes and with instruments of torture–this is recent
and well, happening now I read– Is this also how to deal with "minority
unrest"–Do we cheer on China for this too? No "unnecessary cruelty" at work here
either? I mean you could point out that yes, there is definitely some of the Colonial
backlash he cites as to Hong Kong at work without praising how great China is at "dealing
with minorites" I think, that would have played a bit better, to me anyway . https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/the-legacy-mao-zedong-mass-murder
https://www.theepochtimes.com/sexual-torture-of-detained-falun-dafa-adherents-rampant-rights-lawyer_2807772.html
Interviews of actual Hong Kongers suggest that their principal objection to extradition is
that residents of HK would then be subject to People's Courts rather than to the British
style courts of HK with all the legal trappings of the Foreign Devils (presumption of
innocence, rules of evidence, no hearsay, no secret trials, no anonymous accusers – all
that folderol).
@getaclue China's not
a communist country except in name. The Epoch Times is a Falun Gong mouthpiece that makes
stuff up. I don't support Mao but he is irrelevant today.
The reasons you list might motivate some of the protesters, but it can't be responsible for
this many of them. There IS a homegrown problem here and China would be foolish to ignore it.
The protester's motivations and their implications, as I see it:
1. Loss of prestige – Irrelevant, they'll get used to it
2. Colonial nostalgia – Dead end, open to mockery
3. Housing/economic issues – Manageable with subsidies and regulations, but
HK will have to give up some autonomy
4. Regional tribalism/xenophobia – Manageable, not unique to HK
5. US intervention – Dangerous but manageable with better PR & soft
power
6. Genuine belief in liberal democracy – Very dangerous, will cause national
decline similar to the West
@Brabantian They are
the ideal rat traps.
Even if Wikileaks wasn't a set-up, undoubtably they would be under close surveillance and/or
be infiltrated and compromised.
Snowden has been suspect in my mind when he purportedly left so much info to just one
journalist belonging to a sketchy outfit, and only a trickle of info came forth, while he's
celebrated all over. Many of us already knew about such program from good people like William
Binney.
As you say, there are real whisleblowers, and they are ignored, jailed or dead.
Goddamn Israel, this is an excellent piece of writing. You hit every nail on the head when it
comes to explaining why the troublemakers in Hong Kong are a bunch of useful idiots being
used by imperialist powers. These bastards really are house niggers, the kind of people who
would side with a distant foreign power over their own countrymen. Hats off to you good sir,
thank you for your clarity of thought.
@Commentator Mike
Exactly. The Chinese use the deep state to keep order and suppress crime; Washington uses it
to spread disorder (Antifa) and protect crime (BLM). There is a difference, you see!
I see no real difference between the English colonies and the previous Chinese colonies in
Asia this would be "the pot calling the kettle black", just the usual hypocrisy of state
actors.
The local HK people who live on the edge of these power structures are not the seeming
profiteers of any of this they exist in frameworks they can neither control nor escape escape
from so blaming them for being in a place not of their choosing is being disingenuous.
All I read is someone blaming children for the sins of the father.
On HK riots, there are some interesting writers giving some insight into US gov, CIA, UK gov,
MI6, Canada, Germany involvement in collabration with treason HKies.
The ZUS has started to purge & shut down pro-China-Russia Truth teller in FB,
tweeters, Google,
Those can read HKies Cantonese writing, here's one site where these HK rioters recruit,
organize & discuss where to meet, how to attack police, activities, and payment. https://lihkg.com/category/1?order=now
This is the truth of white shirt(local residents West called mobsters) vs black
shirt(rioters West called peaceful protestors). The residents of Yuan Lan district demanded
the rioters not to mess up their place. The black shirt challenge white shirt for fight by
spraying fire host and hurling vulgarity, ended get beaten up.
Any way, I was permanent banned from Quora, FB, even I am not related to China, just
because I exposed some of ZUS-India axis evils & lies with evidences in other topics.
Censorship is fully in placed.
HK was a colony; this is what the marchers aspire to, to make HK colony again.
I haven't followed this closely, but – why? Why would so many Chinese want that? I
understand a couple of tycoons, but why would ethnic Chinese want a foreign rule?
Perhaps they- just speculating – don't care about full democracy, but are scared of
China's Big Brother policy of complete surveillance & a zombie slavery society. No one
with a functioning mind- and the Chinese, whatever one thinks of their hyper-nationalism
& a streak of robotic- groupthink- conformist culture – wants to live in a chaos;
but also, no one wants to live in a dystopian nightmare which is the fundamental social
project of the new China.
The latest, apaprently, from The Mouth (Sauron .):
.Four police officers were filmed drawing their guns after demonstrators were seen
chasing them with metal pipes .
.senior police officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said this week that
officers had been targeted and exposed online even while there was temporary peace on the
streets. The police said officers' personal data, contact information, home addresses, and
more had been shared online, and accused protesters of threatening officers' families .
Is anyone there thinking that as soon as they "neutralize" the LOCAL police force
SOMETHING else will come into the fray?
Probably not. Feels good.
This time it won't be Communist era conscripts of the regular Army.
I'd say good luck to those protesters but really can't. Wouldn't make any sense.
A state that is not ready to use force will necessarily fail, as did the Ukrainian state
under Mr Yanukowych in 2014. Blood will be shed and the state will be ruined, if its rulers
are too squeamish to stop the rebellion.
Thank you, Me Shamir.
Your analogy of the house nigger is spot on and a accurate portrayal of the slave
mentality held by these protestors. It is the epitome of shamelessness and insanity to beg to
be enslaved. As a Hker, I am happy to say none of the people I associate with support the
protestors and these British house niggers are the filth of HK society.
You are absolutely right to point out a state that is not ready to use force will fail and
I think the situation have reached a critical point where some blood must be shed and some
examples to be made. There is a Chinese saying " People don't cry until they see the coffin."
Time to bring it on.
I never understood Mao and why he had to kill all those millions of people, I do now
The protests are also driven by personal autonomy desires.
Look at the micro level. My sister teaches English in Chengdu. Google, Gmail, You Tube,
What's App and Facebook are all blocked in China.
You have to download a VPN before you land to use any of these sites.
Everything online in China is done by WeChat. *Everything* . From video calls to pay your
utilities to banking. It's an open joke that WeChat is heavily monitored by the Party. It's
the meat of your social credit score- WeChat data.
However, in HK, there are servers where you can hop on FB, Google products and the
like.
HK has a more laisse faire vibe that huge enormous China. If you have never been, that
point can't be overstated. To make blanket statements about anything in China is
misleading.
Because China is another planet. HK was/ is a cosmopolitan outpost that had its own
identity- It does not want to be swallowed up by clodhopper spitting burping mainlanders
completely.
Most comments are idiotic (as is the article). True, Western players certainly have fomented
much of this; true, many (most?) protesters are violent & obnoxius; true, Chinese
national identity planners want to unify, step by step, all mainland (and not only them) Han
Chinese under one rule, fearing of some disintegration in the future.
But, having in mind what kind of society mainland China was & has become, Wittfogel's
remark on oriental despotism becomes pertinent .
The good citizens of classical Greece drew strength from the determination of two of their
countrymen, Sperthias and Bulis, to resist the lure of total power. On their way to Suza, the
Spartan envoys were met by Hydarnes, a high Persian official, who offered to make them mighty
in their homeland, if only they would attach themselves to the Great King, his despotic
master. To the benefit of Greece-and to the benefit of all free men-Herodotus has preserved
their answer. "Hydarnes," they said, "thou art a one-sided counselor. Thou hast experience of
half the matter; but the other half is beyond thy knowledge. A slave's life thou
understandest; but, never having tasted liberty, thou canst not tell whether it be sweet or
no. Ah! hadst thou known what freedom is, thou wouldst have bidden us fight for it, not with
the spear only. but with the battle-axe."
"Once, a HK resident was head and shoulders above the miserable mainland coolies; he spoke
English, he had smart devices, he had his place in the tentacle sucking wealth out of the
mainland, and some of that wealth stuck to his sweaty hands."
HK is having trouble competing with it's closest peer competitor Singapore. Some of the
reason for that is a legal framework that disadvantages HK. The basis of HK real estate
market attractiveness over other locations in China and the world is a legal framework
separate from China. While the extraction treaty seems reasonable at first, remember HK's
extradition treaties have to compete with Singaporean, Taiwanese, and Australian extradition
treaties. A curiosity of the extradition treaty is HK is already in China, so why the need to
extradite people to somewhere else in China?
China might or might not be able to industrialize its economy through central planning.
But one industry they have not been able to centrally plan is movies and entertainment. How
is it that in the past with nothing HK had a top tier movie industry, Bruce Lee, but now
seems to have nothing.
IMO, mainland Chinese authorities just don't understand the HK economy and are mostly
chosing policies they consider convenient.
"Smart and ruthless Jews like Bill Browder, Boris Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich made their
fortunes, but Russia was ruined and its people were reduced to poverty."
That is the way the WASP Empire, the Anglo-Zionist Empire, provides freedom.
Send your money to VDARE so it can call for more WASP Empire – which the WASP and
Jewish Elites will fill with as many non-whites as they can entice in order to smash the
white trash down forever, so that even more Jews become multi-billionaires. And we all can
delight in speaking English, the language of international Jewry since WW2.
@Wally "HK was taken
from China, China has the right to take it back."
Yes, but not until 2047, apparently:
"One country, two systems" is a constitutional principle formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the
Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC), for the reunification of China
during the early 1980s. He suggested that there would be only one China, but distinct Chinese
regions such as Hong Kong and Macau could retain their own economic and administrative
systems, while the rest of the PRC (or "Mainland China") uses the socialism with Chinese
characteristics system. Under the principle, each of the two regions could continue to have
its own governmental system, legal, economic and financial affairs, including trade relations
with foreign countries, all of which are independent from those of the Mainland ."
" .Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom, ruled by a governor appointed by the
monarchy of the United Kingdom, for 156 years from 1841 (except for four years of Japanese
occupation during WWII) until 1997, when it was returned to Chinese sovereignty. China agreed
to accept some conditions, as is stipulated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, such as
the drafting and adoption of Hong Kong's "mini-constitution" Basic Law before its return. The
Hong Kong Basic Law ensured that Hong Kong will retain its capitalist economic system and own
currency (the Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, legislative system, and people's rights and
freedom for fifty years, as a special administrative region (SAR) of China for 50 years.
Set to expire in 2047, the current arrangement has permitted Hong Kong to function as its
own entity under the name "Hong Kong, China" in many international settings ."
Its, "interesting" that[ unless I somehow missed it], this important detail was completely
omitted from this very poorly written article, and from [at least] the first 56 comments in
the thread.
From the comments so far, I notice that the usual Zionist, pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli crew
around here (PeterAUS, Corvinus, Bardon Kaldian, TKK) also all happen to be virulently
anti-China.
Quite an interesting correlation. It seems to suggest something
We can distinguish a real people's rising and foreign-inspired interventions on behalf
of the compradors. The first one will be silenced while the second will be glorified by the
New York Times. It is that simple.
Well put Sir.
And spot on true.
It is really the perfect metric for understanding the underlying motivations and relative
merit, (or lack there of) for any geopolitical event or movement.
Should the people of Crimea be able to determine their own destiny?
Just look to the NYT to understand the nuances of that region and conflict. If they say
Crimea is foundering under Russian tyranny, then you can be 100% certain the opposite is the
truth.
Did the US foment democracy in (Yats is the guy) Ukraine? Read the NYT, and it all gets
spelled out. Assad's chemical attacks, moderate rebels.. From MH17 to 'Russian aggression',
you can find 'all the truth that's fit to print'. Only inversed.
Hong Kong, Donbas, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Charlottesville, Yellow Vests, Gaza, Russian
hacking and collusion.. and on and on and on. It's an invaluable tool for understanding our
times and the motivations and principles (or lack there of) being brought to bear.
And as you mention, for the really salient things, (like serial aggressive wars
based on lies, treasonous atrocities writ large, and assorted war crimes, DNC corruption, GOP
corruption, et al ad nauseam), one must listen to the crickets, who speak thunderously
of these things, with their telling silence.
Rampant white supremacists shooting people right and left, are bull-horned by the
screeching -silence over every POC who's a mass-shooter'.
By carefully not reporting some things, and outright lies and distortions with others, the
NYT has become an invaluable tool for glimmering the ((moral abomination)) of our times.
We should all be very grateful for their solid and predictable efforts.
– That agreement does not give complete independence & sovereignty to HK.
– That agreement does not allow rioters to engage in destructive, disruptive, violent
actions.
– That agreement mandates that the HK administration maintain order, which heretofore
they have not.
– Therefore that agreement has been violated, invalidated by the HK administration.
China has the right & responsibility to maintain order in HK. HK is theirs, they are
rightfully taking it back.
The main problem was the the USA elite after the dissolution of the USSR was hell-bent on world dominance. And Clinton
was in the vanguard of this trend.
Clinton has pretty destructive, toxic legacy, is not he? He and his administration
essentially acted as a short sited and greedy gangster and he sowed the teeth of dragon into US-Russia relations.
Clinton tried to exploit Russian weakness during this period to the fullest extent possible,. This is the policy similar to
policy of GB toward Germany after WWI. In short Clinton was a typical imperialist from the very beginning and like all subsequent
Presidents valued international treaties and obligation only when they benefited the USA. The stance that illegal bombing of
Serbia only confirmed. At this point by Nuremberg standards he and all top official ion his administration and first of all
Madeline not so bright Albright became war criminals. The fact they they were not prosecuted is just a historical aberration
stemming from the dominant USA position at this time.
Essentially Clinton transformed NATO into aggressive alliance which is an expansion of the USA military.
Notable quotes:
"... As President Bill Clinton repeatedly remarked, the two key questions about enlargement were when and how ..."
Newly available sources show how the 1993–95 debate over the best means of expanding
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization unfolded inside the Clinton administration. This
evidence comes from documents recently declassified by the Clinton Presidential Library, the
Defense Department, and the State Department because of appeals by the author.
As President Bill Clinton repeatedly remarked, the two key questions about enlargement
were when and how . The sources make apparent that, during a critical decision making
period twenty-five years ago, supporters of a relatively swift conferral of full membership to
a narrow range of countries outmaneuvered proponents of a slower, phased conferral of limited
membership to a wide range of states.
Pleas from Central and Eastern European leaders, missteps by Russian President Boris
Yeltsin, and victory by the pro-expansion Republican Party in the 1994 U.S. congressional
election all helped advocates of full-membership enlargement to win.
The documents also reveal the surprising impact of Ukrainian politics on this debate and the
complex roles played by both Strobe Talbott, a U.S. ambassador and later deputy secretary of
state, and Andrei Kozyrev, the Russian foreign minister.
Finally, the sources suggest ways in which the debate's outcome remains significant for
transatlantic and U.S.-Russian relations today.
... ... ...
In other words, the Bush administration performed the first “ratcheting down” of options, a process not without its costs. It
raised the question, controversial to this day, of whether the Bush administration promised Moscow that, in exchange for
tolerating the extension of NATO across a united Germany, the alliance would not seek further expansion eastward. Opinions on
this topic range from absolutely not to absolutely yes.15
... ... ...
Without advance warning, Yeltsin decided to vent his frustrations publicly at the Budapest summit with Clinton in attendance.
The Russian president accused the United States, in the interest of NATO expansion, of risking a “‘cold peace’” to follow the
Cold War.108
On the flight back from Budapest to Washington, Talbott recalled that the president “was furious at his foreign-policy team for
dragging him across the Atlantic to serve as a punching bag for Yeltsin.”
... ... ...
The shift in U.S. thinking unsurprisingly contributed to more tensions with Moscow, as evidenced by Talbott's subsequent
negotiations. Kozyrev tried to convince Talbott that a better idea would be to transform NATO into “a collective security
organization rather than a vehicle for containment” by amending the North Atlantic Treaty.122
Talbott rejected the idea, saying “no way are we going to entertain the possibility of redefining NATO in any way that
compromises its basic mission.”123
Put bluntly, “We're not in the business of having to ‘compensate’ Russia or buy it off. Russia is not doing us a favor by
allowing NATO to expand.”124
...Finally, interacting with the other five factors was President Clinton's increasing sympathy to the appeals of
CEE leaders, which inclined him toward those aides pushing for full Article 5 expansion, and his personal optimism that Russia
would eventually tolerate enlargement.
...In Perry's view, arms control—most notably, START II, which would have eliminated two-thirds of the U.S. and Russian
arsenals, but never went into effect—ended up being “‘a casualty of NATO expansion’” and of fighting between the Kremlin and the
Duma.139
START III suffered a similar fate, not even progressing to a signing. Looking back in 2015, Perry concluded: “The downsides of
early NATO membership for Eastern European nations were even worse than I had feared.”140
.... Viewed from twenty-five years on, with U.S.-Russian confrontation on the rise, democracy crumbling in Hungary
and Poland, and U.S. tanks returning to Europe, there is room for doubt. Given that the window of opportunity for changes is now
firmly shut, however, NATO must make the best of the status quo; for the foreseeable future, confrontation with Russia is once
again the order of the day.
Like in the case of EuroMaydan with enough money injected and support of local oligarchs militants can be trained and then used
as the street fighters in the color revolution.
The fact the NED and similar NGO was not prohibited in Hong Cong in retrospect might be crucial blunder of Chinese authorities.
In a way, Hong Cong serves as Western Ukraine in those events.
President Donald Trump
tweeted on August 13 that he "can't imagine why" the United States has been blamed for the chaotic protests that have gripped
Hong Kong.
Trump's befuddlement might be understandable considering the carefully managed narrative of the U.S. government and its unofficial
media apparatus, which have portrayed the protests as an organic "pro-democracy" expression of grassroots youth. However, a look
beneath the surface of this oversimplified, made-for-television script reveals that the ferociously anti-Chinese network behind the
demonstrations has been cultivated with the help of millions of dollars from the U.S. government, as well as a Washington-linked
local media tycoon.
Since March, raucous protests have gripped Hong Kong. In July and August, these demonstrations transformed into ugly displays
of xenophobia and mob violence.
The protests ostensibly began in opposition to a proposed amendment to the extradition law between Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland
China, and Macau, which would have allowed Taiwanese authorities to prosecute a Hong Kong man for
murdering his pregnant girlfriend and dumping her body in the bushes during a vacation to Taiwan.
Highly organized networks of anti-China protesters quickly mobilized against the law, compelling Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie
Lam to withdraw the bill.
But the protests continued even after the extradition law was taken off the table -- and these demonstrations degenerated into
disturbing scenes. In recent days, hundreds of masked rioters have occupied the Hong Kong airport, forcing the cancellation of inbound
flights while harassing travelers and viciously
assaulting journalists and
police .
The protesters' stated goals remain vague. Joshua Wong, one of the most well known figures in the movement, has
put forward a call for the Chinese government
to "retract the proclamation that the protests were riots," and restated the consensus demand for universal suffrage.
Wong is a bespectacled 22-year-old who has been trumpeted in Western media as a "freedom campaigner," promoted to the English-speaking
world through his own Netflix documentary, and rewarded with the backing of the U.S. government.
But behind telegenic spokespeople like Wong are more extreme elements such as the Hong Kong National Party, whose members have
appeared at protests waving the Stars and Stripes and belting out cacophonous renditions of the Star-Spangled Banner. The leadership
of this officially banned party helped popularize the call for the full independence of Hong Kong, a radical goal that is music to
the ears of hardliners in Washington.
Xenophobic resentment has defined the sensibility of the protesters, who vow to "retake Hong Kong" from Chinese mainlanders they
depict as a horde of locusts. The demonstrators have even adopted one of the most widely recognized symbols of the alt-right, emblazoning
images of Pepe the Frog on their protest literature. While it's unclear that Hong Kong residents see Pepe the same way American white
nationalists do, members of the U.S. far-right have embraced the protest movement as their own, and even personally joined their
ranks.
Among the most central influencers of the demonstrations is a local tycoon named Jimmy Lai. The
self-described "head of opposition media," Lai is widely described
as the Rupert Murdoch of Asia. For the masses of protesters, Lai is a transcendent figure. They clamor for photos with him and applaud
the oligarch wildly when he walks by their encampments.
Lai established his credentials by pouring millions of dollars into the 2014 Occupy Central protest, which is known popularly
as the Umbrella Movement. He has since used his massive fortune to fund local anti-China political movers and shakers while injecting
the protests with a virulent brand of Sinophobia through his media empire.
Though Western media has depicted the Hong Kong protesters as the voice of an entire people yearning for freedom, the island is
deeply divided. This August, a group of protesters mobilized outside Jimmy Lai's house, denouncing him as a "running dog" of Washington
and accusing him of national betrayal by unleashing chaos on the island.
Days earlier, Lai was in Washington, coordinating with hardline members of Trump's national security team, including John Bolton.
His ties to Washington run deep -- and so do those of the front-line protest leaders.
Millions of dollars have flowed from U.S. regime-change outfits like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) into civil society
and political organizations that form the backbone of the anti-China mobilization. And Lai has supplemented it with his own fortune
while instructing protesters on tactics through his various media organs.
With Donald Trump in the White House, Lai is convinced that his moment may be on the horizon. Trump "understands the Chinese like
no president understood," the tycoon
toldThe Wall Street
Journal . "I think he's very good at dealing with gangsters."
Born to Wealthy Mainland Parents
Born in the mainland in 1948 to wealthy parents, whose fortune was expropriated by the Communist Party during the revolution the
following year, Jimmy Lai began working at 9 years old, carrying bags for train travelers during the hard years of the Great Chinese
Famine.
Inspired by the taste of a piece of chocolate gifted to him by a wealthy man, he decided to smuggle himself to Hong Kong to discover
a future of wealth and luxury. There, Lai worked his way up the ranks of the garment industry, growing enamored with the libertarian
theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, the latter of whom
became his close friend.
Friedman is famous for developing the neoliberal shock therapy doctrine that the U.S. has imposed on numerous countries, resulting
in the excess deaths of millions. For his part, Hayek is the godfather of the Austrian economic school that forms the foundation
of libertarian political movements across the West.
Lai built his business empire on Giordano, a garment label that became one of Asia's most recognizable brands. In 1989, he threw
his weight behind the Tiananmen Square protests, hawking t-shirts on the streets of Beijing calling for Deng Xiaoping to "step down."
Lai's actions provoked the Chinese government to ban his company from operating on the mainland. A year later, he founded Next
Weekly magazine, initiating a process that would revolutionize the mediascape in Hong Kong with a blend of smutty tabloid-style journalism,
celebrity gossip and a heavy dose of anti-China spin.
The vociferously anti-communist baron soon became Hong Kong's media kingpin, worth a whopping $660 million in 2009.
Today, Lai is the founder and majority stakeholder of Next Digital, the largest listed media company in Hong Kong, which he uses
to agitate for the end of what he calls the Chinese "dictatorship."
His flagship outlet is the popular tabloid Apple Daily , employing the trademark mix of raunchy material with a heavy dose
of xenophobic, nativist propaganda.
In 2012, Apple Dailycarried a full page
advertisement depicting mainland Chinese citizens as invading locusts draining Hong Kong's resources. The
advertisement called
for a stop to the "unlimited invasion of mainland pregnant women in Hong Kong." (This was a crude reference to the Chinese citizens
who had flocked to the island while pregnant to ensure that their children could earn Hong Kong residency, and resembled the resentment
among the U.S. right-wing of immigrant "anchor babies.")
Ad in Lai's Apple Daily: "That's enough! Stop unlimited invasion of mainland pregnant women!"
The transformation of Hong Kong's economy has provided fertile soil for Lai's brand of demagoguery. As the country's manufacturing
base moved to mainland China after the golden years of the 1980s and '90s, the economy was rapidly financialized, enriching oligarchs
like Lai. Left with rising debt and dimming career prospects, Hong Kong's youth became easy prey to the demagogic politics of
nativism .
Many protesters have been seen waving British Union Jacks in recent weeks, expressing a yearning for an imaginary past under colonial
control which they never personally experienced.
In July, protesters vandalized the Hong Kong Liaison Office, spray-painting the word, "Shina" on its facade. This term is a xenophobic
slur some in Hong Kong and Taiwan use to refer to mainland China. The anti-Chinese phenomenon was
visible
during the 2014 Umbrella movement protests as well, with signs plastered around the city reading, "Hong Kong for Hong Kongers."
This month, protesters turned their fury
on the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, spray-painting "rioters" on its office. The attack represented resentment of the left-wing
group's role in a violent 1967 uprising against the British colonial authorities, who are now seen as heroes among many of the anti-Chinese
demonstrators.
Besides Lai, a large part of the credit for mobilizing latent xenophobia goes to the right-wing Hong Kong Indigenous party leader
Edward Leung. Under the direction of the 28-year-old Leung, his pro-independence party has brandished British colonial flags and
publicly harassed Chinese mainland tourists. In 2016, Leung was
exposed for meeting with U.S. diplomatic officials at a local restaurant.
Though he is currently in jail for leading a 2016 riot where police were bombarded with bricks and pavement – and where he
admitted to attacking an officer – Leung's rightist politics and his slogan, "Retake Hong Kong," have helped define the ongoing
protests.
A local legislator and protest leader
described Leung to The New York Times as "the Che Guevara of Hong Kong's revolution," referring without a hint of irony
to the Latin American communist revolutionary
killed in a CIA-backed operation
. According to the Times , Leung is "the closest thing Hong Kong's tumultuous and leaderless protest movement has to a guiding
light."
The xenophobic sensibility of the protesters has provided fertile soil for Hong Kong National Party to recruit. Founded by the
pro-independence activist Andy Chan, the officially banned party combines anti-Chinese resentment with calls for the U.S. to intervene.
Images and videos have surfaced of HKNP members waving the flags of the U.S. and U.K., singing the Star Spangled Banner, and carrying
flags emblazoned with
images of Pepe the Frog, the most recognizable
symbol of the U.S. alt-right.
While the party lacks a wide base of popular support, it is perhaps the most outspoken within the protest ranks, and has attracted
disproportionate international attention as a result. Chan has
called for Trump to escalate the trade war and accused China of carrying out a "national cleansing" against Hong Kong. "We were
once colonized by the Brits, and now we are by the Chinese," he declared.
Displays of pro-American jingoism in the streets of Hong Kong have been like catnip for the international far-right.
Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson recently
appeared at an anti-extradition protest in Hong Kong, livestreaming the event to his tens of thousands of followers. A month
earlier, Gibson was seen roughing up antifa activists alongside ranks of club wielding fascists. In Hong Kong, the alt-right organizer
marveled at the crowds.
"They love our flag here more than they do in America!" Gibson exclaimed as marchers passed by, flashing him a thumbs up sign
while he waved the Stars and Stripes.
Xenophobic PropagandaSuch xenophobic propaganda is consistent with the clash of civilizations theory that Jimmy Lai has
promulgated through his media empire.
"You have to understand the Hong Kong people – a very tiny 7 million or 0.5 percent of the Chinese population – are very different
from the rest of Chinese in China, because we grow up in the Western values, which was the legacy of the British colonial past, which
gave us the instinct to revolt once this extradition law was threatening our freedom," Lai told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo. "Even
America has to look at the world 20 years from now, whether you want the Chinese dictatorial values to dominate this world, or you
want the values that you treasure [to] continue."
During a panel discussion at the neoconservative Washington-based think tank, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Lai
told the pro-Israel lobbyist Jonathan Schanzer,
"We need to know that America is behind us. By backing us, America is also sowing to the will of their moral authority because
we are the only place in China, a tiny island in China, which is sharing your values, which is fighting the same war you have
with China."
While Lai makes no attempt to conceal his political agenda, his bankrolling of central figures in the 2014 Occupy Central, or
Umbrella movement protests, was not always public.
Leaked emails
revealed that Lai poured more than $1.2 million to anti-China political parties including $637,000 to the Democratic Party and
$382,000 to the Civic Party. Lai also gave $115,000 to the Hong Kong Civic Education Foundation and Hong Kong Democratic Development
Network, both of which were co-founded by Reverend Chu Yiu-ming. Lai also
spent $446,000 on Occupy Central's 2014 unofficial referendum.
Lai's U.S. consigliere is a former Navy intelligence analyst who interned with the CIA and leveraged his intelligence connections
to build his boss's business empire. Named
Mark Simon , the veteran spook arranged for former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin to meet with a group in
the anti-China camp during a 2009 visit to Hong Kong. Five years later, Lai
paid $75,000 to neoconservative Iraq war author and U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to organize a meeting with
top military figures in Myanmar.
This July, as the Hong Kong protests gathered steam, Lai was junketed to Washington, D.C., for
meetings with Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Republican
Senators Ted Cruz, Cory Gardner, and Rick Scott. Bloomberg News correspondent Nicholas Wadhams remarked on Lai's visit, "Very unusual
for a [non-government] visitor to get that kind of access."
One of Lai's closest allies, Martin Lee, was also granted an audience with Pompeo, and has held court with U.S. leaders including
Rep. Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President
Joseph Biden .
Among the most prominent figures in Hong Kong's pro-U.S. political parties, Lee began collaborating with Lai during the 1989 Tiananmen
Square protests. A recipient of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" in 1997, Lee is the founding
chairman of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, now considered part of the pro-U.S. camp's old guard.
While Martin Lee has long been highly visible on the pro-western Hong Kong scene, a younger generation of activists emerged during
the 2014 Occupy Central protests with a new brand of localized politics.
Joshua Wong meets with Sen. Marco Rubio in Washington on May 8, 2017.
Joshua Wong was just 17 years old when the Umbrella Movement took form in 2014. After emerging in the protest ranks as one of
the more charismatic voices, he was steadily groomed as the pro-West camp's teenage poster child. Wong received lavish praised in
Time magazine, Fortune , and Foreign Policy as a "freedom campaigner," and became the subject of an award-winning
Netflix documentary called "Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower."
Unsurprisingly, these puff pieces have overlooked Wong's ties to the U.S. regime-change apparatus. For instance, National Endowment
for Democracy's National Democratic Institute (NDI) maintains a close
relationship with Demosisto, the political party Wong founded in 2016 with fellow Umbrella movement alumnus Nathan Law.
In August, a candid photo surfaced of Wong and Law meeting with Julie Eadeh, the political counselor at the U.S. Consulate General
in Hong Kong, raising questions about the content of the meeting and setting off a diplomatic showdown between Washington and Beijing.
The Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong submitted a formal complaint with the U.S. consulate
general, calling on the U.S. "to immediately make a clean break from anti-China forces who stir up trouble in Hong Kong, stop sending
out wrong signals to violent offenders, refrain from meddling with Hong Kong affairs and avoid going further down the wrong path."
The pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao published personal details about Eadeh, including the names of her children
and her address. State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus lashed out, accusing the Chinese government of being behind the leak
but offering no evidence. "I don't think that leaking an American diplomat's private information, pictures, names of their children,
I don't think that is a formal protest, that is what a thuggish regime would do,"
she said at a State Department briefing.
But the photo underscored the close relationship between Hong Kong's pro-West movement and the U.S. government. Since the 2014
Occupy Central protests that vaulted Wong into prominence, he and his peers have been assiduously cultivated by the elite Washington
institutions to act as the faces and voices of Hong Kong's burgeoning anti-China movement.
In September 2015, Wong, Martin Lee, and University of Hong Kong law professor Benny Tai Lee were
honored by Freedom House, a right-wing soft-power organization that is heavily funded by the National Endowment for Democracy
and other arms of the U.S. government.
Just days after Trump's election as president in November 2016, Wong was back in Washington to appeal for more U.S. support. "Being
a businessman, I hope Donald Trump could know the dynamics in Hong Kong and know that to maintain the business sector benefits in
Hong Kong, it's necessary to fully support human rights in Hong Kong to maintain the judicial independence and the rule of law,"
he
said .
Wong's visit provided occasion for the Senate's two most aggressively neoconservative members, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton, to
introduce the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy
Act," which would "identify those responsible for abduction, surveillance, detention and forced confessions, and the perpetrators
will have their U.S. assets, if any frozen and their entry to the country denied."
Wong was then taken on a junket of elite U.S. institutions including the right-wing
Heritage
Foundation think tank and the newsrooms of TheNew York Times and Financial
Times . He then held court with Rubio, Cotton, Pelosi, and Sen.
Ben
Sasse .
In September 2017, Rubio, Ben Cardin, Tom Cotton, Sherrod Brown, and Cory Gardner signed off on a
letter
to Wong, Law and fellow anti-China activist Alex Chow, praising them for their "efforts to build a genuinely autonomous Hong Kong."
The bipartisan cast of senators proclaimed that "the United States cannot stand idly by."
A year later, Rubio and his colleagues
nominated the trio of Wong, Law, and Chow for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize.
Washington's support for the designated spokesmen of the "retake Hong Kong movement" was supplemented with untold sums of money
from U.S. regime-change outfits like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and subsidiaries like the National Democratic Institute
(NDI) to civil society, media and political groups.
As journalist Alex Rubinstein reported
, the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, a key member of the coalition that organized against the now-defunct extradition law, has received
more than $2 million in NED funds since 1995. And other groups in the coalition reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars from the
NED and NDI last year alone .
While U.S. lawmakers nominate Hong Kong protest leaders for peace prizes and pump their organizations with money to "promote democracy,"
the demonstrations have begun to spiral out of control.
Protests Become More Aggressive
After the extradition law was scrapped, the protests moved into a more aggressive phase, launching "hit and run attacks" against
government targets, erecting roadblocks, besieging police stations, and generally embracing the extreme modalities put on display
during U.S.-backed regime-change operations from Ukraine to Venezuela to Nicaragua.
The techniques clearly reflected the training many activists have received from Western soft-power outfits. But they also bore
the mark of Jimmy Lai's media operation.
In addition to the vast sums Lai spent on political parties directly involved in the protests, his media group created an animated
video "showing how to resist police in case force was used to disperse people in a mass protest."
While dumping money into the Hong Kong's pro-U.S. political camp in 2013, Lai traveled to Taiwan for a secret roundtable
consultation
with Shih Ming-teh, a key figure in Taiwan's social movement that forced then-president Chen Shui-bian to resign in 2008. Shih reportedly
instructed Lai on non-violent tactics to bring the government to heel, emphasizing the importance of a commitment to go to jail.
According to journalist
Peter Lee
, "Shih supposedly gave Lai advice on putting students, young girls, and mothers with children in the vanguard of the street protests,
in order to attract the support of the international community and press, and to sustain the movement with continual activities to
keep it dynamic and fresh." Lai reportedly turned off his recording device during multiple sections of Shih's tutorial.
One protester explained
to The New York Times how the movement attempted to embrace a strategy called, "Marginal Violence Theory:" By using "mild
force" to provoke security services into attacking the protesters, the protesters aimed to shift international sympathy away from
the state.
The charged atmosphere has provided a shot in the arm to Lai's media empire, which had been suffering heavy losses since the last
round of national protests in 2014. After the mass marches against the extradition bill on June 9, which Lai's Apple Daily
aggressively promoted, his Next Digital
doubled in value ,
according to Eji Insight.
Meanwhile, the protest leaders show no sign of backing down. Nathan Law, the youth activist celebrated in Washington and photographed
meeting with U.S. officials in Hong Kong, took to Twitter to
urge his peers to soldier on : "We have
to persist and keep the faith no matter how devastated the reality seems to be," he wrote.
Law was tweeting from New Haven, Connecticut, where he was
enrolled with a full scholarship at Yale
University. While the young activist basked in the adulation of his U.S. patrons thousands of miles from the chaos he helped spark,
a movement that defined itself as a "leaderless resistance" forged ahead back home.
Dan Cohen is a journalist and co-producer of the award-winning documentary, "Killing Gaza." He has produced widely distributed
video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine, Latin America, the U.S.-Mexico border and Washington, D.C. Follow
him on Twitter at @ DanCohen3000 .
RW Nye , August 22, 2019 at 11:42
The author's use of the term "xenophobia" here is certainly inappropriate, as virtually all persons involved are Chinese–however
divided they may be on issues of politics. Those political issues are thorny ones, stemming from the different historical experiences
of the Chinese in Taiwan, Hong Kong and the mainland. Weak government doomed the imperial dynasty, so it is understandable that
the Chinese leadership should place a high premium on maintaining order and stability. Ordinary people also value order and stability,
but not necessarily as much as they treasure their personal liberties. The percentage of Hong Kong's population supporting the
protesters is difficult to determine from overseas, but available sources suggest it is substantial. Extradition procedures and
suffrage issues may be only the tip of the iceberg. I suspect the real concern is the increasingly repressive "social credit"
policies and universal surveillance of mainland society.
Nicholas Smith , August 23, 2019 at 16:22
I'm sorry, but the usage of locusts to refer to "outsiders" is classical xenophobic imagery, regardless of ethnic similarities.
By your logic the french considering the Germans "huns" wouldn't be xenophobic, because they're both Caucasian.
Maricata , August 21, 2019 at 18:26
""You have to understand the Hong Kong people – a very tiny 7 million or 0.5 percent of the Chinese population – are very different
from the rest of Chinese in China, because we grow up in the Western values, which was the legacy of the British colonial past,
which gave us the instinct to revolt once this extradition law was threatening our freedom," Lai told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo"
Right.
Western values of imperialism, class, racism, violence, misogyny and indignity.
This is where Trump comes in. Anyone who doesn't understand that Western civilization is crumbling just needs to look at Trump.
Funny,no mention of Soros. You know he is lurking somewhere behind the scenes.
Robert , August 21, 2019 at 14:10
US is pushing for a Chinese Maidan. Soon the escalation of false-flag violence will occur, pushing China to respond with force.
In the East, the CIA is fomenting separatism and extremism among Muslim Uighurs, pushing them to volunteer for ISIS and Al Qaeda
in the ME, and then blaming China for responding to their terrorism with re-training camps.
Maricata , August 21, 2019 at 18:27
That is how the CIA works.
John Patrick , August 21, 2019 at 05:28
I don't see any mention of the China's "re-education" camps for 1 million Muslims or of the brutal religious persecution (from
Christianity to Falun Gong) by the author or commenters. The list of atrocities could go on, but they might have something to
do with the huge number of people ("small streets" or not) in HK protesting against the possibility being sent across the boarder
to the totalitarian behemoth on their border. No, but they're all dupes of the US.
Yes, of course, the US is corrupt and its foreign policy evil, but the same for China. (Check in with the Dali Lama on that).
So here's a news flash for you idealogues: both countries suck. They are oppressive and ruthless.
And "xenophobic"? What SJW drivel. Fortunately, China and HK are both mostly Asian, otherwise the ever so woke author would be
playing enough race cards to fill the East China Sea.
Rad , August 21, 2019 at 20:34
"(Check in with the Dali Lama on that)." What makes you think the Delai Lama is objective? After all, his brother worked for
the CIA and also had skin in the game. Look up the article in the Chicago Tribune on CIA funding for the Tibetan warriors. The
writer managed to interview Tibetians involved in the failed uprising many many years later and they were willing to talk because
they realised they had sacrificed their lives for nothing.
Anonymot , August 20, 2019 at 19:18
One of the more interesting things about our trajectory of failed regime changes and installing ignorant quislings is that
they have happened from the Democratic administrations, like Truman with Korea, Cuba with Kennedy, Vietnam that started with Democrats
and ended with Republicans on to the inflaming of the Middle East under Bush and exploding with Libya, Afghanistan, Irak etc.
under Obama and the Ukraine and hate-Russia, ostensibly Democrat. under Hillary.
If you look at the overall rather than piecemeal it is perfectly clear that the sole consistency in all of it is the CIA AND
ITS BROTHER INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. They and the State Dept. were and are the sole filters and providers of foreign affairs policy
recommendations to Presidents and Congress, Republican and Democrat.
Considered beyond the surface level that clearly says that neither the Presidents nor Congress control anything we do overseas.
The options, the personnel, and their weights are all provided by our sole experts, via the CIA.
Our domestic issues may be argued until Kingdom Come, by Sanders, Warren, or Marion whatsername, but they don't say anything
of any significance about foreign affairs. (The sole exception being Tulsi Gabbard who's just been run off the rails by the Clinton
controlled DNC.)
You can rail until you're blue, vote for whoever you will. The mindset of the CIA is directed now and always has been by oil
and MIC interests. The reason they have all failed is a vision of failure representing semi-permanent chaos in those countries
as power. It's a variation of divide-and-conquer, because the divided are too weak to resist our advances.
One day we'll wahe up to the discovery that we don't need the expensive facade of elected official at any level. They only
make noise. The Harrises and O'Rourkes may argue over the best toothpaste or hypothesize over how to gussie up police uniforms,
but none of the billions they spend to become elected make any difference on what goes down the sewers in our foreign policies.
Democracy was a great idea. Too bad we never tried it.
I fear this is only Part One of the US plan. The expectation is that sooner or later China will have to crack down on this
movement, and the demonstrators will ensure the crackdown is harsh and brutal. It is what happens afterwards in Taiwan that will
matter. There a wave of sympathy for Hong Kong will lead to popular demands to declare independence. US agents will encourage
them. Taiwan independence for China means war, because if they allow it, Taiwan will become a massive US military base. The US
is already arming Taiwan to prepare for that war. They think that a largely naval and air war is winnable for them. They think
that the modest Chinese nuclear deterrent (max. 300 warheads) has been neutralized by the Thaad anti-missile system in South Korea.
The US war party is actually betting on winning a war with China to set it back 3o years. And they think this is the moment to
do it.
Realist , August 21, 2019 at 06:23
Your remarks about Taiwan are really food for thought. It seemed almost unthinkable to me that Washington would eagerly instigate
a war with China on its own turf. They undoubtedly assume that China cannot or will not strike at the American homeland in response.
Japan and South Korea, certainly at risk in such a war, are probably incapable of talking any sense into the Americans. They haven't
succeeded with respect to North Korea. Russia has plenty of nukes to spare, what makes Washington think that they would not be
for sale or gifting to the Chinese in the extreme scenario you picture. A conquered China would pretty much mean the quick end
of an independent Russia. Putin has to know that.
Maricata , August 21, 2019 at 18:28
Thank Steve Bannon for this. He consistently meets with Chinese 'dissidents' to create the subjective and material basis for
chaos and crisis.
If this writer can identify the leaders, ( collaboraters of the US and Brit Governmenst) why can`t the Chinese authorities
pick them up one at a time. If this were happening in the USA all of these leaders would be in maximum security lockups. Just
pick them up and disappear them for a while. You never fight a fire by dumping water into the centre of the fire you fight it
from around the edges. Cut off it`s oxygen supply.
I am sure China has a plan to end this rebellion , but so long as these people are running around free Hong Kong will be unmanageable.
Cut off the head of the snake. Go for the leaders. First step cancel the one country two systems treaty, the Brits and US are
doing their best to subvert the word and intent of the treaty so why should China be forced to live with it? Out law every NGO
in the country. close the US embassy there. Then clear the streets. Businesses that want to leave let them go. Those that want
to stay need to understand that they will stay out of politics and live under the rule of law.
lysias , August 20, 2019 at 14:45
The West wants an excuse to treat China as a pariah state. China should react with patience. Time is on its side.
The "Yellow Vest" are rendered essentially invisible by Western MSM, and if covered at all are roundly vilified even after
9 straight months of being on the streets all over France. Any resistance to our neoliberal military/police state paradise is
unacceptable and will be treated as such. One is hard pressed in examining MSM to find any critique of the brutality of the French
police in suppressing these protests.
However, Western MSM simply LOVES protests that can be used to paint our official enemies as "evil," or "totalitarian," or
"un-democratic," as if the word "democracy" has ANY meaning whatsoever in the Western lexicon other than "rule by oligarchy."
One need not be the proverbial "rocket scientist" to see the events unfolding in Hong Kong within the prism of the ever present
American and Western neocolonial soft power and propaganda operations. However, one does need to close one's eyes rather tightly
and to deny a great deal of well documented recent history from about the globe NOT TO SEE these connections.
– "citizen-consumers are daily less interested in whether something is a fact than in whether it is convenient that it should
be believed"- this quote from far back in 1962 – Alex Carey quoting Daniel Boorstin from Boorstin's book – "The Image: A Guide
to Pseudo-Events in America"
The following quote by Carey of Boorstin from the same book seems to sum up our current reality all to well:
"we are threatened by a new and peculiarly American menace . . . It is the menace of unreality . . . We risk being the first
people in history to have been able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive, so 'realistic' that they can live in them.
We are the most illusioned people on earth. Yet we dare not become disillusioned, because our illusions are the very house in
which we live, they are our news, our heroes . . . our very experience."
Ma Laoshi , August 20, 2019 at 10:41
There is one question which I can't seem to get answered; perhaps this means it is the right question. As far as I know, all
these CIA fronts NED, NDI, IRI, etc., violate HK's Basic Law when they operate in the territory. And I'm positive that foreign
affairs are explicitly excluded from HK's autonomy deal. So why on earth are these outfits still allowed to meddle in Hong Kong's,
and thus China's, politics, financially and otherwise? Part of me says that the weak HK Govt is only getting what it deserves
if they don't keep their own house in order.
Carroll Price , August 20, 2019 at 08:03
The planners of international chaos strike again. Does Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, ring any bells?
Zhu , August 20, 2019 at 07:40
I find it hard to believe anyone in the US political elite really has good will for Chinese people. They've slaughtered yellpw
People by the million thrughout my lifetime. Probably Trump, Wolfowitz, et al. lust to turn China into another Itaq. :-(
t seems the anti-PRC forces are using the failure of Hong Government to provide a rising standard of living for ordinary people
as a reason for protesting against the PRC. The PRC has demonstrated the ability of its government to raise the standard of living
for hundreds of millions of people. Hong Kong has not.
I would guess the PRC will be patient and let the authorities in Hong Kong regain control of the island and aiding those who
see what is happening as another color revolution engineered by America. Private persons with personal fortunes who see the opportunity
to shape events can be very dangerous as we have seen in America.
Hong Kong appears to be a one percent city, where the elite shape events, and this needs to be addressed by the people of Hong
Kong with assistance from the PRC. Hong Kong is, after all, part of China.
Does anyone else see the constant use of the left wing right wing dichotomy as both tiresome and unproductive. And confusing.
Realist , August 20, 2019 at 05:11
The Diem brothers, Nguyen Van Thieu, Nguyen Cao Ky, Bill Browder, Porky Poroshenko, Yats, Juan Guaido, Ahmed Chalabi, Hamid
Karzai, Chung Kai-shek, and now Jimmie Lai, Martin Lee and Joshua Wong: all just Quislings to American hegemony. There are and
have been legions of others, some, like Marco Rubio and Clarence Thomas, even operate within the United States and against the
interests of most of its people. Though they purport to be champions to their community of origin, they are simply exploiting
their ethnicity to surreptitiously push dangerous far right agendas that are to no one's benefit but the richest oligarchs. That's
what all these names have in common; they were all spawned of wealth and privilege and adopted by the American aristocracy to
bring their own people under American vassalage.
What was the impetus for this latest color revolution propped up by Washington? That citizens of Hong Kong have the freedom
to kill their pregnant girl friend in another jurisdiction and not be extradited and prosecuted for the crime? Why is that "get
out of jail free" card not being played on behalf of Julian Assange, who committed only noble acts to expose high crimes by the
state against humanity only to better our dysfunctional society? He exposed deliberate murder, he did not commit it. It was done
systematically by powerful elements in society, not by a single deluded individual. An awful lot of gullible people in the Orient
are being misled to preserve privileges for a subset of their population, and it's not "white privilege" in this case. It's just
good old fashioned might makes right. Meanwhile, the white folks back in their own bailiwick are crucifying one of their own to
protect the rich and powerful rather than to hold them accountable for their atrocious behavior–all justified with the most erudite
hypocrisies conceived within the minds of men. (And I use that last word as it has been employed over the last thousand years
or so in this language. The alphabet community can keep their collective shirts on. You've all been included in these bad decisions,
if only for the optics by geniuses like Karl Rove, Rahm Emanuel, and John Bolton.)
Thanks to the authors for underscoring that "members of the U.S. far-right have embraced the protest movement as their own,
and even personally joined their ranks." That certainly elucidates why grizzled pols like Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Cardin and even
Sherrod Brown have embraced the coup plotters. They know how to maintain a grasp on power while not exerting the slightest effort
to uphold moral principles. The warmongering Dems have long been every bit as antagonistic to true freedom, democracy and the
American constitution as the GOPers, substituting instead this absurd charade, this bait and switch we see played out in the news
media every day. Certainly no surprise that right wing extremist and noted toady to plutocrats, Marco Rubio, would nominate that
lot for a Nobel Peace Prize. Considering the Zeitgeist, it would also not surprise me if they won, assuming Washington wanted
them to win. Norway (this Nobel is awarded from Oslo rather than Stockholm) has apparently had some kind of epiphany in this new
millennium and now shares Washington's every niggling paranoia which brings us full circle, because the original Quisling, who
acted as a puppet for the Third Reich, was from Norway.
Det McNulty , August 20, 2019 at 03:44
As an investigation of some of the reactionary forces that are operating amongst the HK protests, this offers points of interest
and concern, which warrant exploration and condemnation. However, I disagree with the framing; to see these elements as representative
of the protests as a whole is simply propaganda that supports the most right-wing elements inside the PRC that claim all the protestors
are rioters. When it comes to complex politics events, there will always be foreign interference at some levels and on all sides.
Yet the writing here is not balanced and does not recognise that the vast majority of the protestors are ordinary working people,
many of whom are non-aligned and simply want to protect the freedoms they are afforded in HK and not have the place be completely
absorbed into the opaque legal system of the PRC. The lack of empathy for the people of HK in some parts of the radical left is
quite revolting. The PRC has never been some haven of democratic socialism and doesn't support real workers' self management or
anything of the like. HK is being exploited by powerful forces, but our support should be with its people against state oppression
in all forms.
Thank you for your comments here and on Patrick Lawrence's recent column. Your perspective is refreshingly sensible. I find
the leftist orthodoxy (that word now seems to apply) where these protests are concerned disturbing. As a friend of mine who lived
in HK for a decade put it: the notion that these protests are being choreographed mainly by US interests is just another expression
of US-centrism. As if the people of HK couldn't possibly have their own worthy agenda.
Realist , August 22, 2019 at 06:07
Yet they wave a sea of American flags and sing the American national anthem at their protests. They may have an agenda but
they are telegraphing that it is an integral part of Washington's agenda with this symbolism. Or did you miss that?
Det_McNulty , August 22, 2019 at 16:40
Indeed, I find it rather ridiculous that people seem more concerned with 'exposing' what appears to be a relatively small element
of the protests and not actually addressing the legitimate concerns of those protesting and engaging with those involved in the
movement, i.e. interviewing ordinary people on the street and representatives from trade unions. Investigating the role of different
states and their intermediaries in fomenting and tactically supporting aspects of the movement is of course important, but reads
like propaganda when it doesn't account for the complexities of the situation and reduces the events to something along the lines
of orchestration by US imperial agents and neoconservative NGOs, rather than a popular movement. Also, if people are concerned
about such contradictions, why's there no focus on the role of the UK in selling arms to HK (I believe there's an HK delegation
at the upcoming September arms bazaar at the Excel Centre in London); such a point should be of interest to anyone concerned with
power and corruption.
Gui Lottine , August 20, 2019 at 02:48
What happened to god old fashioned "off with his/her head"? China needs to take out these servants of the anglo-zionist empire,
once and for all.
Zhu , August 20, 2019 at 07:25
You can be absolutely certain that no one in China gives 2 fen about Zionism, Anti-zionism, etc
Yes, the author is right. This represents just one more front of a new massive effort against China. For America's establishment,
China's rise and competition are just unacceptable.
American officials have a great deal of experience encouraging and supporting discontent abroad – in Ukraine, in Venezuela,
in half a dozen other Latin countries, and now in Hong Kong.
It is always possible in any country to find a fair number of discontented people.
There are literally millions of such people in the US for example.
So when some highly trained and organizers come into a place – as the US has very much done in Hong Kong – it is not hard to
create some trouble.
Here is some really interesting analysis of crowd sizes in Hong Kong.
This is science-based estimating.
The numbers coming out of it, which really cannot be terribly wrong, tell us the crowds are far less than much of the mainline
press claims.
With the city's narrow streets, photos can give quite a false impression.
8/20/19
Dear CN,
HERE'S ONE OF THE BETTER WESTERN COVERAGES ON THE HK UPHEAVAL, AND MORE.
(THERE'S 1 MORE VIDEO ON THIS TOPIC BY "The Duran" DATED AUG. 6, 2018) -- these guys are really good!
GO TO YOU TUBE, THEN LOOK FOR "The Duran" videos. I think you'll like many / most of their videos; they make mince meat of
western MSM. More in their own site. I'm sure Mr. Lauria knows them.
Thank you for publishing this. I have lived in Hong Kong all my life and I despaired of reading anything in the English-language
press that was vaguely fair about the riots here. All I see are Guardian style pejorative bias. Well done.
LOST: US Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, pictured with President Donald
Trump.
Last week, German lawmakers sent a stark message to Washington. The argument escalated
following a series of flippant comments made by US ambassador
Richard Grenell who had demanded Germany increase its defense spending, claiming it was
"really insulting to expect the US taxpayer to keep paying for over 50,000 Americans" stationed
in Germany, and that the US would do well to move all of its military assets from Germany, and
relocate eastward to Poland. Lawmakers in Berlin reacted by welcoming a US withdrawal from
German soil – and proceeded to tell the US it can take its nuclear weapons with
them.
Dietmar Bartsch , chairman
of the Left Party, said, "The US ambassador is right: US taxpayers should not have to pay for
US troops in Germany If the Americans pull out their soldiers, they also have to pull out their
nuclear weapons."
Other German parliamentarians spoke out. Lars Klingbeil , secretary-general of the SPD,
accusing Grenell of bullying Berlin, stating, "We will not be blackmailed by the
Americans."
Clearly, this has been another epic failure of diplomacy by a seemingly directionless Trump
administration.
Unfortunately, it isn't the first time Grenell has drawn fire from Berlin. He was also
accused of acting like "a high commissioner of an occupying power," by Wolfgang Kubicki ,
deputy leader of the Free Democrats (FDP).
In the end, these type of mindless antics by Washington will only result in pushing Europe
and Russia closer together.
With the
Nord Stream II pipeline project still underway, this could end up being an extremely costly
move for the anti-Russia lobby in Washington.
US relationships with several nations have faced challenges with the major priority changes
of President Trump. Germany is no exception, and what was long one of the closest relationships
in the
West is now fragile, and steadily worsening .
There are a number of reasons why. Germany's economic power has made it a target for Trump's
trade wars. The Trump hostility to the European Union has also put it at odds with Germany and
its neighbors. And a big reason is that Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel really don't
communicate that much.
US Ambassador Richard Grenell hasn't helped matters, spurning traditional events the German
government puts on for US envoys, and feeling himself entitled to
constantly issue policy demands and threaten repercussions if Germany doesn't comply.
Grenell has made himself a lot of enemies as a result, and many see it as just typical of
the way the Trump Administration generally behaves around its traditional allies. This once
again adds to the communication problem, as ideally his job would be to keep the lines open
between the two countries, and he's broadly not doing that.
"... US vis a vis British Empire is appealing because in view of the Eurasian land mass both are islands. US is really big island with immensely better natural resources than Britain. ..."
"... Britain's demise was two fold: bankrupted and depleted by two immense expensive wars to keep Germany (a couple of generations after Bismarck!) from running the Eurasian land mass, and lesser their opposition taking up for Chou and Peng's (Giap's) "war of the masses". The US misses the problems of long war (no prince ever prospered from Long war) against "war of the masses" no matter how Petraeus or assigns rewrite the US' "counterinsurgency" catechism. ..."
"... US continues to lose any [image of] moral authority, it may have claimed. Super powers have economic power, war making power which is fueled with economic power, and moral power. US is over spending in wasteful (long wars on terror) war making, decelerating in economics (corporate interests first) has lost most of the moral authority it may never have had. ..."
"... I am not sure what he post US world order will look like.... The military dimension will remain too horrible to tilt! Short of "war of the masses" which could physically bankrupt the "island". Which brings the British empire post 1945 to application ..."
US vis a vis Holland is not obvious nor appealing.
US vis a vis British Empire is appealing because in view of the Eurasian land mass both
are islands. US is really big island with immensely better natural resources than
Britain.
Britain's demise was two fold: bankrupted and depleted by two immense expensive wars to
keep Germany (a couple of generations after Bismarck!) from running the Eurasian land mass,
and lesser their opposition taking up for Chou and Peng's (Giap's) "war of the masses". The
US misses the problems of long war (no prince ever prospered from Long war) against "war of
the masses" no matter how Petraeus or assigns rewrite the US' "counterinsurgency"
catechism.
As to Keenan.... he left active work for state during Truman administration because he
disagreed with the momentum in State. The Keenan lesson is the third point make yourself the best..... Napoleon's moral
dimension.
US continues to lose any [image of] moral authority, it may have claimed. Super powers
have economic power, war making power which is fueled with economic power, and moral power.
US is over spending in wasteful (long wars on terror) war making, decelerating in economics
(corporate interests first) has lost most of the moral authority it may never have had.
I am not sure what he post US world order will look like.... The military dimension will
remain too horrible to tilt! Short of "war of the masses" which could physically bankrupt the
"island". Which brings the British empire post 1945 to application
Multi polar maybe, with the Eurasian land mass vying on several levels with the huge
'island' in the Western Hemisphere?
OMG, we're talking about annexing Greenland. Population-wise, it's smaller than Wayne, NJ,
and we should take it with the same proportional seriousness if Wayne, NJ, were to walk
onto the world stage.
And if we are serious (OK, why not for a sec), we could easily give each Greenland US$1M
(for $55B total) and a 2k square foot house (and their own town) in Florida. Heck,
annuitize the payments, and basically each Greelander gets a house in the sun, and $8k a
month tax-free for the rest of their life.
...
I agree with Doug's basic thesis. The U.S. Imperial project clearly needs to stop and it
seems to keep going no matter who we elect.
That said, we do have alternatives to breaking up the nation, especially because many of
the problems we face coming from not executing the system we have. It's awesome to have a
single-language continent-wide nation where someone can drive between Key West and Prudhoe
Bay. The answer is federalism and even breaking up states into smaller, more human units.
(Similar breakups can occur for corporations.)
I also believe (strongly) that if we fix judicial review and allow value judgments to be
made at the state level and in legislatures, the cultural war will end, and end almost
immediately.
However, if we cannot (or will not) rein in our federal government and our
military-industrial complex, and we cannot rein in our judiciary... then we may have to
consider breaking up. I just don't see it happening, though.
More likely, what i see is our social arrangements will become very much like a Unix
network. Individuals will have permissions ... individual, group, network-wide. China's
social trust is one example ... we will have our own. (I believe this will happen in the
U.S., btw.) It will be similar to credit rating.
This week, Silicon Valley giant YouTube has taken a string out of China's bow by deplatforming some 210 channels for posting content
criticizing the recent Hong Kong protests, claiming that channels were somehow " sowing political discord " on behalf of the
Chinese government.
The Google subsidiary accused the channels of acting "in a coordinated manner." Their move was the most recent in a clear pattern
of censorship, along with social media giants Facebook and Twitter who recently censored pro-Chinese accounts in a move critics have
called 'arbitrary' censorship.
In a blog
post this past Thursday, Google threat analyst Shane Huntley said," Channels in this network behaved in a coordinated manner
while uploading videos related to the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. "
Huntley added that Google's supposed " discovery " was somehow "consistent with recent observations and actions related
to China announced by Facebook and Twitter."
The hypocrisy of the Silicon Valley firms is breathtaking nonetheless. Even the Washington Post was forced to point out that in
accusing China of disinformation, Twitter and Facebook take on
an authoritarian role they've always sought to reject:
"The move underscored the awkward and largely uncharted territory the companies have attempted to navigate in the aftermath of
the 2016 presidential election in the United States, where Facebook and Twitter faced furious public and political pressure to stem
the tide of disinformation on their platforms. Once vehemently opposed to being seen as "arbiters of truth," both have since built
major operations to detect and dismantle forms of online manipulation -- even if it means angering important global actors such as
the Chinese government."
Twitter and Facebook are also using the same tactics to selectively shut down established writers who use pen names, including
one of the most prolific bloggers specializing in foreign affairs over the last decade, Tony Cartalucci , who was deplatformed for
exposing US-backed unrest and 'color revolutions' in countries like Thailand, China, Syria and elsewhere. He
remarked after
the fact:
"Tony Cartalucci is my pen name and a form of anonyminity – it is not a "fictitious persona." I write in a country where
US-backed political agitators – referred to as "democracy activists" in the Reuters article – regularly use deadly violence against
their opponents. And if writing under a pen name or anonymously is grounds for expulsion from both Facebook and Twitter, what
is The Economist still doing on either platform? The Economist's articles are all
admittedly written anonymously ."
Regarding the Hong Kong controversy, Google claims that it knows the Chinese state was attempting to "influence" public opinion
against the protesters because of the " use of VPNs " as well as " other methods of disguise. " In actuality, nearly
all Chinese internet users who seek any outside news or international perspectives regularly use some form of VPN masking to bypass
various information firewalls. The same in the Middle East, and even in Europe, as US regulators continue to force a gradual balkanization
of the internet based on global regions.
The issue of US-based digital monopoly firms attempting to manage online discourse globally – is officially a global problem
now. As Chinese officials have rightly pointed out: there is no more ambiguity on the issue, as the US is using its overwhelming
ownership of internet platforms to fix marketplace of ideas in favor of is own policies – including regime change. Even
The Post spells it out clearly:
"There is no international consensus over what qualifies as permissible speech -- or permissible tactics in spreading that speech,
whether it comes from government operatives or anybody else."
The same sponsors (a mixture of foreign NGO and embassies and local disgruntled oligarchs), the same attempt to exploit
real population grievances, the same methods with militant protestors training probably by the same instructors or at least
the same books, just different people and difference sources for forming the fifth column. The role of students in Hong Cong
is more prominant. In EuroMaydant that most violent part of protestors were football hooligans and western Ukrainian militia
consisting mostly of neo-Nazi elements ready to commit crimes.
Notable quotes:
"... Joshua Wong, one of the U.S. coddled students, compares the situation with 2014 Maidan riots in Ukraine. He is right in more ways than he says. ..."
So is there any evidence that the Hong Kong protests are controlled or being directed by the
United States or its NGO community that has created so many color revolutions across the world?
The short answer is yes.
For instance, one of the recognized
leaders of the protest movement is Joshua Wong, who is a leader and secretary-general of
the "Demosisto" party. Wong has consistently denied any links to the United States and its NGO
apparatus. However, Wong actually
traveled to Washington DC in 2015, after the conclusion of the Hong Kong Umbrella
Revolution to receive an award given to him from Freedom House, a subsidiary of the National
Endowment for Democracy. Demosisto
has been linked with the National Endowment for Democracy as well.
For those that may be unaware, the NED is an arm of the US State Department designed to sow
discord in target countries resulting in the overthrow, replacement, or extraction of
concessions from governments of target countries.
Indeed, Jonathan Mowat adds to the recent historical understanding of the controlled-coup
and color revolutions in his article, "
The New Gladio In Action: 'Swarming Adolescents,' " also focusing on the players and the
methods of deployment. Mowat writes,
Much of the coup apparatus is the same that was used in the overthrow of President
Fernando Marcos of the Philippines in 1986, the Tiananmen Square destabilization in 1989, and
Vaclav Havel's "Velvet revolution" in Czechoslovakia in 1989. As in these early operations,
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and its primary arms, the National Democratic
Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI),
played a central role. The NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983, to do
overtly what the CIA had done covertly, in the words of one its legislative drafters, Allen
Weinstein. The Cold War propaganda and operations center, Freedom House, now chaired by
former CIA director James Woolsey, has also been involved, as were billionaire George Soros'
foundations, whose donations always dovetail those of the NED.
Nathan Law, another leader of the Hong Kong protests and rock star of the Umbrella
Revolution, is also closely connected to the National Endowment for Democracy. On the NED
website, "World Movement for Democracy," in a post entitled " Democracy
Courage Tribute Award Presentation, " where the organization mentions an award it presented
to Law. In the article, it states,
The Umbrella Movement's bold call in the fall of 2014 for a free and fair election process
to select the city's leaders brought thousands into the streets to demonstrate
peacefully. The images from these protests have motivated Chinese democracy activists on the
mainland and resulted in solidarity between longtime champions of democracy in Hong Kong and
a new generation of Hong Kong youth seeking to improve their city. The Hong Kong
democracy movement will face further obstacles in the years to come, and their idealism
and bravery will need to be supported as they work for democratic representation in Hong
Kong.
Interestingly enough, Joshua Wong has
shown up to express "solidarity" with other protest movements engineered by the United
States and its NGO apparatus, particularly in Thailand where
Western NGOs and the US State Department are controlling both the protest movement and the
former government.
For a short overview of how such operations work, watch the video below, a BBC report on the
Oslo Freedom Forum which shows some of the leaders of today's Hong Kong protests as well as
leaders of the Umbrella Revolution and other global "protest movements" being trained by the US
State Department/NGO apparatus in 2013.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/JIjVBUwpri8
Also see my previous articles on the topic linked below:
Notably, these protests are receiving heavy media coverage as well as the ever-present logo
(umbrellas), both hallmarks of color revolutions and social media giants Twitter and Facebook
have accused China of spreading disinformation via their accounts and have been
removing or blocking pro-China accounts indicating that someone in the halls of power in
the West would like to see the protests continue.
So Why Does The US Support The
Protests?
The United States State Department and its subsidiary color revolution apparatus does not
support protest movements because it supports right and freedom for people in other countries.
After all, the US government as a whole does not support rights and freedom for its own people.
So, in full knowledge that the US government does support the Hong Kong protesters, the
question then arises, "Why?"
There are at least three reasons why the US is supporting the Hong Kong protest movement,
none of which involve the rights of Hong Kongers. First, with China set to fully acquire Hong
Kong in 2047 and growing integration between Hong Kong and China over the next three decades,
the
United States does not want to see China grow any stronger as an economic, military, or
diplomatic powerhouse. The full return of Hong Kong to China would further Chinese growth in
all three of these areas.
Second, the United States benefits from a weaker Chinese government and one that is not able
to fully impose control on every citizen within its borders. This is why the US has funded
destabilization movements all across China, many with real concerns, as well as terrorist
attacks in areas where China is planning to develop in the third world.
Lastly, Hong Kong currently acts as a tax
haven for Western corporations and as a dumping ground for wealth that needs to avoid
taxation. Chinese control may very well threaten that wealth, particularly in light of the fact
that the Trump administration is moving forward on an apparent plan to put the United States on
a more fair footing with China in terms of international trade through tariffs and increased
worker protections.
Geopolitical Concerns
In short, by maintaining Hong Kong as-is, the United States would maintain an outpost
alongside China's borders. However, China not only views Hong Kong as physical territory and
financial wealth, it understands that, in a trade or real war with the United States, Hong Kong
can be used to not only physically position military forces but it can also be used to
economically loot the mainland.
While the United States may be funding and directing many of the protest leaders in Hong
Kong, the fact remains that the protesters themselves as well as the many people who support
them have legitimate reasons to be protesting. Indeed, in the case of Hong Kong, it appears
that the nefarious American desire to weaken China and protect its corporate tax haven have
intersected with the very real need of Hong Kongers to preserve what's left of the liberty they
have.
In order to understand this, it is necessary to understand that there is a plethora of
opinions on the Hong Kong issue within Hong Kong itself. First, it seems the dividing line of
opinions often centers around age, heritage, and geopolitics. From reading mainstream reports
and watching a number of videos, it is apparent that the majority of protesters are young, even
university-educated people who have lived their lives in Hong Kong while the counter protesters
seem to be older, with a stronger heritage link to China. This older generation should not be
conflated with oldest, however, as it appears that many are from the "baby boomer" era more-so
than the elderly generation before it. That being said, age is not a clear cut line of
difference, however, with a number of younger and older people choosing to support opposite
sides. Like any protest movement, the majority of the people of Hong Kong can be found going
about their everyday business, teetering on the edges of any engagement whatsoever.
One such reason that the oldest and the youngest protesters seem to intersect, however, is,
in the case of the oldest, a memory of what life was like in neighboring China before the
Cultural Revolution and the ability to watch that way of life change for the worst and
eventually horrific. The youngest members of the "anti-China" crowd may be viewing the issue
similarly for the completely opposite reason, precisely the fact that they grew up in a time
knowing nothing but freedoms their neighbors could scarcely dream of.
It is also important to point out the cultural difference in Hong Kong, which is essentially
Chinese culture at heart, but one that has embraced capitalism and has experienced rights that
mainland Chinese people can only dream of. Based on Common Law, this includes the right to
freedom of speech. As the Financial Times wrote
in 2018 ,
For more than two decades, citizens and residents in the former British colony of Hong
Kong have enjoyed a wide range of freedoms and legal protections unthinkable in any other
part of the People's Republic of China. These protections, guaranteed by the territory's
tradition of judicial independence, are the bedrock of the city's extraordinary success as a
regional entrepôt. It is precisely because of these legal safeguards that many
international companies, including most global media organisations, have chosen to base their
regional headquarters in Hong Kong.
As mentioned earlier, one reason the "lease" of Hong Kong was pushed back for so long a time
(to be fully realized in 2047) is because it would erase an entire generation of people who
remembered what such little freedom was like compared to the zero freedom afforded by China.
However, what was perhaps unintended was a birth of an entire generation of people who only
knew that freedom and are not as keen to give it away as others may have been. This is one
reason you can see young people in the streets with signs supporting freedom of speech and even
calling for the right to own and bear arms. In other words. you are able to see so many people
who have been denied rights Americans take for granted or are under threat of losing even more
of their rights desperately trying to gain or retain them, all while many Americans march in
the streets to have those same rights taken away. Clearly, it is true that freedom is treasured
the most when it is lost.
This threat of Chinese takeover is very real. With its brutal authoritarian methods of
control, social credit
systems , slave labor economy, and polluted food supply, many young Hong Kongers are
rightfully terrified of what "one country, one system" will mean for them. China is a communist
nightmare, no matter how much Western leftists would like to portray otherwise.
Nowhere is there more clear an example of "Western" arrogance than a widely-circulated video where an angry
Australian lectures young Hong Kong protesters on how much "better everything is gonna be" when
China takes over both Hong Kong and Taiwan. Coming from a country with virtually no rights and
doing business in another, it may be par for the course for him. But there is something
incredibly irritating to watch his denial of these protesters' legitimate concerns and his
lecturing on the part of the authoritarian regime that will soon be in power.
This (the threat of quickly descending into the clutches of Chinese authoritarians) is the
very real concern the Western NGOs have seized upon in order to foster social unrest in Hong
Kong.
Violence – Violent Counter Protests
There have been numerous videos depicting violence coming from both sides of the isle. On
one hand, violence on the Hong Kong side has been blamed on anarchists, often a typical method
of specific types of anarchists as well as police false flagging in order to justify a
crackdown. Other videos have surfaced showing protesters beating "journalists" and those who
disagree with them. The justification given by the protesters were that the individuals were
"Chinese agents," a claim that may or may not be true.
Likewise, we have seen numerous videos of counter-protesters also engaging in violence
against the Hong Kong protesters, many of whom being members of Hong Kong/Chinese organized
crime as mentioned earlier. The videos depicting police attacks against protesters have also
been widely circulated in the media.
Scale Of Protests VS Counter Protests
The Hong Kong protests have spread from Hong Kong itself to all across the world with the
immigrant community engaging in demonstrations in their adopted countries. Likewise,
counter-protests have expanded globally.
There is very little doubt that the protests against greater Chinese involvement in Hong
Kong have been much larger than those supporting it. One need only look at the numbers of the
protests that took place on August 17 where 1.7 million people showed up to
march.
What A Good Outcome Would Look Like
To claim that the protesters have a legitimate cause while, at the same time, pointing out
that the US is directing the leaders of their movement may seem contradictory but,
unfortunately, it is not. It should be possible to any unbiased observer to understand that the
protesters are justified in their fear of being taken over by a country that just finished
slaughtering 80 million people and that is currently oppressing each and every one of their
citizens. It should also be possible to understand that the Western NGOs have seized upon this
fear and desire for freedom for its own nefarious purposes. Only those who wish to promote an
ideology would refuse to mention both aspects of the protests, something both the mainstream
and alternative media outlets have unfortunately been guilty of.
So with all this in mind, what would a positive outcome be?
1.) First, the United States must cease using its NGO community or intelligence agencies
to direct and manipulate an uprising or unrest in Hong Kong. The future of Hong Kong is for
Hong Kongers to decide, not under the manipulation of Western NGOs. The US must immediately
cease fostering dissent in other nations. If the US wants to counter Chinese empire, it must
do so by offering economic and other incentives and not by threats, social unrest, or
violence.
2.) None of the protesters' demands thus far are unreasonable. There should be an
independent inquiry as to the techniques being used by police, police brutality, and the
connections these tactics have to the growing Chinese influence in Hong Kong. Protesters who
have been arrested for their political views (not those arrested for offensive violence,
rioting, or peddlers of foreign influence) should be released. While official categorizations
are no issue to fixate upon, the protests should be reclassified as what they are, protests.
Elections should be instituted and the people of Hong Kong should elect their Legislative
Council and Chief Executive directly. Withdraw the extradition bill completely from
consideration until a reasonable proposal can be drafted, discussed, and agreed upon. Carrie
Lam is widely known as a tool of Beijing and, for this reason, a gradual, orderly, and
democratic transition of power should take place.
In addition, while not official protest demands, the solidification of the rights to free
speech, expression, possession of weapons, and privacy should take place.
3.) Just as the United States should stop inserting itself into the domestic life of Hong
Kong, so should China immediately cease any and all attempts to control public opinion,
social discourse, and political life in Hong Kong. Because of China's lack of human rights
within its own borders, there is a legitimate reason for Hong Kong to desire complete
separation from the mainland. Thus, if China is not interested in becoming a free society,
the "One country, two systems" policy must be extended abandoned and Hong Kong should remain
independent.
Conclusion
By now, it should be relatively clear that many of the leaders of the Hong Kong protests are
controlled and directed via the network of United States intelligence agencies and NGO
apparatus for the purpose of protecting its corporate tax haven, keeping a friendly outpost on
the Chinese border, and sowing seeds of discord within China itself.
However, the protesters are absolutely right in their concern for what will happen if they
become part of China – i.e., another human tragedy that is the result of Communist
authoritarianism exhibited by the Chinese government.
Thus, both the official and the mentioned unofficial demands are entirely reasonable. The
people of Hong Kong must not be forced to live oppressed under authoritarian Chinese rule.
Because the US has its own interests that do not involve freedom or human rights, it would be
wise of the Hong Kong protests to abandon their Western-backed opposition leaders and find real
organic leaders that are not taking orders from the West.
They should, however, continue to press for the rights they have and the rights they
deserve.
The reason they protest makes no sense. Many countries have extradition laws. How is Hong
Kong exempt? Why would 2mm protest some criminals being sent for trial? Or if they're
separatists, and Beijing wants their organs why would that mobilize millions? Haven't they
got better battlea to pick?
The autonomy of Hong Kong was guaranteed in all areas apart from defence and foreign
affairs. Under it, Hong Kong's laws and "common law" legal system would remain in place.
The independence of its courts and their right to exercise the power of final adjudication
were assured.
In doing this, both the UK and Chinese Governments had accepted the "one country, two
systems" proposal based on the rule of law and which was to remain unaltered and in place
until 2047.
If my facts are real, the vast Chinese area surrounding Hong Kong speaks Mandarin, and the
(relatively) tiny city of Hong Kong speaks Cantonese, which is a different language. Somehow
this was set up by those jolly old Englishmen as their 'Green Zone', from which to control
the rest of China (largely with narcotics). Those Brits have quite a talent for creating
these utopias.
The Hong Kongers are very wealthy compared with their 'peasant' Chinese neighbors, so they
deserve very special treatment! So this was guaranteed to happen.
Inevitably the Langley Boys had to stick their fingers in it (it's all they know how to
do).
Imagine if Argentina is a great superpower, and California wants to break away, and the
Argentinians are only there to help. Great diplomatic move!
If they are demanding representative democracy they are either blind to its historic
effects across the world, or they are paid for by those for whom the representative system
works so well.
Let them ask for semi-direct democracy, direct access to reverse their representative's
decisions. See how fast the US and China proper coordinate to cut them off at the root.
Lastly, Hong Kong currently acts as a tax
haven for Western corporations and as a dumping ground for wealth that needs to avoid
taxation.
FYI, virtually all former British colonies that are defacto city-states or tiny islands
are acting as tax havens for the rich and corrupt. For example:
The Jersey and Guernsey islands, Cayman islands, Turks & Caicos, HK, Singapore. For
the former colonies and territories, where its rich and/or corrupt want to expatriate their
untaxed wealth, you can also add the Vancouver and Toronto RE, Dubai... and of course London
itself.
At this stage of the war between America and China it does not matter if the protests are
organic or supported by America. Beijing sees it as a covert operation by Trump aimed to
destabilize China and I do not blame Beijing for thinking that. We are in the process of
overturning the Venezuelan government and are actively engaged in the carnage in Yemen while
engaging in Colonial style tactics to buy Greenland
Under this light Beijing is going to treat these Protestors as agents of America.
It's a Rothschild funded color revolution in Hong Kong same as in Ukraine, Syria, Iran,
Egypt, .... Looks like many support his color revolution in Hong Kong.
Americans are too busy protesting those Communistos overseas who want to destroy our
beautiful and pure democracy such as Silicon Valley, banks and the free market democrats who
protect us from the ramparts of DC.
"... Miles Kwok aka Guo Wengui is a disgruntled Chinese oligarch. He is one of the men who finances the Hong Kong protests. Here he appears with Steve Bannon Miles Kwok & Mr Bannon: The 5 principles on Hong Kong's matter (vid). But the NYT ..."
"... One policeman fired a warning shot against the increasingly brutal mob. It is only of question of time until the first person gets killed. ..."
"... China churns out millions of consumer-grade quadcopters starting at $9-00 per unit all the way up to self-navigating programmable units with HQ video transmission. I'd be very surprised if the PLA hasn't got every potential Maidan rooftop and window covered from several angles. I haven't heard any whingeing about drones from the Disgusting Western MSM but drone surveillance/ oversight is already state of the art. ..."
"... might result in providing an adequate narrative for G7 to join the USA in concerted move to decouple China. That's my take away in watching the incremental escalations in both the severity and absurdity of the violence. How else to explain protesters wantonly targeting the tourist industry as the one to bear the blunt? Even 17, 18 years are old enough to know their Mom and Dads' jobs, and thus their own livelihood, depend on this economy and left to their own they would likely have chosen some other means to press their points, if not for having to obey or get paid by their instigators? ..."
"... I also agree with you that TPP was a China-decoupling Plan conceived under Obama. But I am not so sure the idea of China-decoupling dated back before Obama. If it did, the deep state would have ample time prior to now to start the building up of alternative supply chains and other logistics. ..."
"... It is apparent at this point that the deep state is caught off-guarded by China's intransigence and at loss of what to do next. It seems that in their zeal to contain China, they instead are accelerating their own decline. The ironies of real life! ..."
The black block in Hong Kong, which consists of just a few hundred youth, is now
back at rioting . Subway stations
get vandalized and people pushed off the trains that the
rioters use to ferry from one flash mob incident to the next one. Bricks and Molotov cocktails are
thrown at police lines. Some protesters use baseball bats against the
police, others have handguns . Today the
police, for the first time, deployed water cannon trucks . One
policeman fired a warning shot
against the increasingly brutal mob. It is only of question of time until the first person
gets killed.
Joshua Wong, one of the U.S. coddled students, compares the situation with
2014 Maidan riots in Ukraine. He is right in more waysthan
he says . H.K. One policeman fired a warning shot against the increasingly brutal mob. It is only of
question of time until the first person gets killed.
China churns out millions of consumer-grade quadcopters starting at $9-00 per unit all the
way up to self-navigating programmable units with HQ video transmission. I'd be very
surprised if the PLA hasn't got every potential Maidan rooftop and window covered from
several angles. I haven't heard any whingeing about drones from the Disgusting Western MSM
but drone surveillance/ oversight is already state of the art.
I agree with you the HK violent protests were designed to prompt China to over react and
send in troupes. The resulting carnage might result in providing an adequate narrative for
G7 to join the USA in concerted move to decouple China. That's my take away in watching the
incremental escalations in both the severity and absurdity of the violence. How else to
explain protesters wantonly targeting the tourist industry as the one to bear the blunt? Even
17, 18 years are old enough to know their Mom and Dads' jobs, and thus their own livelihood,
depend on this economy and left to their own they would likely have chosen some other means
to press their points, if not for having to obey or get paid by their instigators?
China thus far has not followed their antagonists' script and refused as yet to ramp
the confrontation up another notch. But the time will come! The time will come that mass
psychology in HK, and subsequently vast other parts of the world, would change into one that
demands stern actions be taken by China to stem the carnage and restore minimal order for the
sake of livelihood of 7.5 million people. That's when the broom will be lowered, and vassals
of the USA would have an excuse of not joining the decoupling if they don't want to.
I also agree with you that TPP was a China-decoupling Plan conceived under Obama. But I
am not so sure the idea of China-decoupling dated back before Obama. If it did, the deep
state would have ample time prior to now to start the building up of alternative supply
chains and other logistics.
It is apparent at this point that the deep state is caught
off-guarded by China's intransigence and at loss of what to do next. It seems that in their
zeal to contain China, they instead are accelerating their own decline. The ironies of real
life!
Soviet Union was a theocratic state. The fact that it was simultaneously military empire is only of secondary importance. When
Bolshevik's
ideology collapsed after the WWII (despite the fact that USSR emerged as the victor), the writing was on the wall as there was no force
able to which stand nationalism, fueled by West financial injections and support. nationalism turn the USSR apart. Attempt to colonize
the post Soviet state and convert it in a new Latin America by the USA and other western countries was only partially successful. Russia
despite huge losses due to drunk Yeltsin period when briefly it was a colony of the USA escaped the clutches and due to economic rape
experienced became a staunch opponent of the US imperialism. Which drives the US neoliberal elite crazy if we judge it by the level
of anti-Russian hysteria in the USA now (although there are some domestic motive to fuel anti-Russian hysteria -- it helps to unite the
fractured society using the fake threat from the "enemy" and thus to patch cracks in the neoliberal facede of the US society)
The USA now is experiencing the situation somewhat similar to the situation of the USSR in 70th or early 80th. Neoliberal idology
collapsed in 2008. That means that forces that keep the US global financial empire together with the network of treaties and US financial
dominance weakered and nationalism started to show its face prompting country after country engage in attempts to diminish the USA influence
and/or revoke vassal status.
The US neoliberal elite now is so de-generated that in comparison the level of degeneration of Soviet Politburo under Brezhnev looks
pretty mild. And that also speed up the demise of the US controlled global neoliberal empire. Trump launched trade war with China without
understanding possible consequences for the world economic order and the US empire and the situation might go out of control,
when the USA will be ostracized fist in "China friendly space" (which BTW is probably half of total global population and then
one by one among former vassals in EU and Latin America.
Neoliberals in Congress slowly by surely work on dismantling of the USA neoliberal empire not because they want such an
outcome but because
they do not understand what are the steps that might help to prevent it other then a switch to gangster capitalism. Add to this possible fracturing of the country (God knows
what will happen
when the dollar loses the reserve currency status)
In any case this is a slow process. It took the USSR 46 years to collapse after the victory in WWII. It might take even longer for
the USA empire to collapse. Much depends on the speed of oil depletion.
Notable quotes:
"... The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng's) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly brutal; rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive; hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing). ..."
"... However, the US imperium managed to survive and to outlive the Soviets. How? The United States, with its financial capital (or an outfoxing illusion of it), evolved into a debtor empire through the Wall Street guaranties. ..."
"... These two pillars of the US might from the East coast (the US Treasury/Wall Street and Pentagon) together with the two pillars of the West coast – both financed and amplified by the US dollar, and spread through the open sea-routs (Silicone Valley and Hollywood), are an essence of the US posture. ..."
"... This very nature of power explains why the Americans have missed to take the mankind into completely other direction; towards the non-confrontational, decarbonized, de-monetized/de-financialized and de-psychologized, the self-realizing and green humankind. ..."
"... Sadly enough, that was not the first missed opportunity for the US to soften and delay its forthcoming, imminent multidimensional imperial retreat. The very epilogue of the WWII meant a full security guaranty for the US: Geo-economically – 54% of anything manufactured in the world was carrying the Made in USA label, and geostrategically – the US had uninterruptedly enjoyed nearly a decade of the 'nuclear monopoly'. ..."
"... Look the map, at Russia or China and their packed surroundings. The US is blessed with its insular position, by neighboring oceans. All that should harbor tranquility, peace and prosperity, foresightedness. ..."
"... Indeed, no successful and enduring empire does merely rely on coercion, be it abroad or at home. The grand design of every empire in past rested on a skillful calibration between obedience and initiative – at home, and between bandwagoning and engagement – abroad. ..."
"... To sum up; After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans accelerated expansion while waiting for (real or imagined) adversaries to further decline, 'liberalize' and bandwagon behind the US. ..."
"... When the Soviets lost their own indigenous ideological matrix and maverick confrontational stance, and when the US dominated West missed to triumph although winning the Cold War, how to expect from the imitator to score the lasting moral, or even a momentary economic victory? ..."
"... The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is what the most attribute as an instrument of the Chinese planetary posture. Chinese leaders promised massive infrastructure projects all around by burning trillions of dollars. ..."
"... In 9 more days, high school begins in China, so many of the thrill-seekers will be in class, while the US-paid street criminals will be exposed and ridiculed.. Hopefully locked up for a very long time.. ..."
"... When communism collapsed in 1989, a whole class of smug self satisfied individuals like Fukuyama and the Neocons and Ziocons feeding off them patted themselves on the pack, assured of their complete moral superiority and unlimited virtue. They had won, and could now throw their weight around the planet however they pleased. ..."
"... People who were a little bit more far sighted subsequently concluded that communism collapsed FIRST. The prevailing system in the Anglozionist empire just took longer to collapse. Our system of crony capitalism, crapitalism, parasitic financial capitalism, looting kleptocracy, managed to endure for another 20 years before it collapsed in turn over 2007-8, never to recover. It has remained on life support ever since, sustaining its zombie existence through the printing of tens of trillions of toilet paper money backed by nothing but thin air, negative interest rates, and draconian austerity ravaging societies and entire countries. ..."
"... The world could have been re ordered for the better after 1989. Genuine cooperation between great powers. Wide ranging disarmament. A new security structure for all the countries of the planet. The dismantling of relics like NATO. The resolution of previously intractable conflicts. A much better deal for developing countries with new terms of trade. The needs of billions of people given the priority they deserved. This was all up for grabs. But the opportunity for a better world was thrown away and will never return. ..."
"... Instead, militarism and aggression were given their head. NATO expanded deep into the former Soviet Union in breach of all the undertakings that were given to the contrary. Russia was comprehensively looted and reduced to destitution and misery. One country after another was invaded and destroyed. Millions died and tens of millions immiserated. The whole planet was destabilised. Trillions were squandered that could have been devoted to productive purposes and real human needs. ..."
"... Successful use of propaganda as a means of social control requires a number of conditions: The will to use it, the skills to produce the propaganda, the means to deiiseminate it; and the use of significant symbols with real power over emotional reactions – ideally symbols of the sacred and satanic (Light vs DARK) ..."
"... Nice essay! Indeed, the US empire has survived [hopefully for not much longer] by swindling, and, fraudulent treaties. One critical aspect of the widespread of US influence is SPYING! Highly likely, most of what the US achieved would not have been possible without the spying apparatus that have infiltrated every corner of the world. Of course, spying did not start with the Internet, although now it is made 'natural'. ..."
"... Their education is first and foremost about recognizing the importance of the existing hierarchy and knowing their place in it. Any facts or ideas they learn after this are recognized, understood and acted upon within the context of performing that role. ..."
"... Most of the rewards and punishments of being a middle class professional are not related to being right or wrong, justified or not, honest or dishonest. They are to do with being obedient or not, disciplined or indisciplined, "normal" or eccentric. ..."
Does our history only appear overheated, while it is essentially calmly predetermined? Is it directional or conceivable, dialectic
and eclectic or cyclical, and therefore cynical? Surely, our history warns. Does it also provide for a hope? Hence, what is in front
of us: destiny or future?
Theory loves to teach us that extensive debates on what kind of economic system is most conductive to human wellbeing is what
consumed most of our civilizational vertical.
However, our history has a different say: It seems that the manipulation of the global political economy – far more than the introduction
of ideologies – is the dominant and arguably more durable way that human elites usually conspired to build or break civilizations,
as planned projects.
Somewhere down the process, it deceived us, becoming the self-entrapment. How?
*
One of the biggest (nearly schizophrenic) dilemmas of liberalism, ever since David Hume and Adam Smith, was an insight into reality:
Whether the world is essentially Hobbesian or Kantian. As postulated, the main task of any liberal state is to enable and maintain
wealth of its nation, which of course rests upon wealthy individuals inhabiting the particular state.
That imperative brought about another dilemma: if wealthy individual, the state will rob you, but in absence of it, the pauperized
masses will mob you.
The invisible hand of Smith's followers have found the satisfactory answer – sovereign debt. That 'invention' meant: relatively
strong central government of the state. Instead of popular control through the democratic checks-&-balance mechanism, such a state
should be rather heavily indebted. Debt – firstly to local merchants, than to foreigners – is a far more powerful deterrent, as it
resides outside the popular check domain.
With such a mixed blessing, no empire can easily demonetize its legitimacy, and abandon its hierarchical but invisible and unconstitutional
controls. This is how a debtor empire was born. A blessing or totalitarian curse?
Let us briefly examine it.
The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng's) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly
brutal; rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive;
hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing).
On opposite sides of the globe and cognition, to each other they remained enigmatic, mysterious and incalculable: Bear of
permafrost vs. Fish of the warm seas. Sparta vs. Athens. Rome vs. Phoenicia However, common for the both was a super-appetite for
omnipresence. Along with the price to pay for it.
Consequently, the Soviets went bankrupt by mid 1980s – they cracked under its own weight, imperially overstretched. So did the
Americans – the 'white man burden' fractured them already by the Vietnam war, with the Nixon shock only officializing it.
However, the US imperium managed to survive and to outlive the Soviets. How? The United States, with its financial capital
(or an outfoxing illusion of it), evolved into a debtor empire through the Wall Street guaranties.
Titanium-made Sputnik vs. gold mine of printed-paper
Nothing epitomizes this better than the words of the longest serving US Federal Reserve's boss, Alan Greenspan, who famously quoted
J.B. Connally to then French President Jacques Chirac: "True, the dollar is our currency, but your problem" .
Hegemony vs. hegemoney .
House of Cards
Conventional economic theory teaches us that money is a universal equivalent to all goods. Historically, currencies were a space
and time-related, to say locality-dependent. However, like no currency ever before, the US dollar became – past the WWII – the universal
equivalent to all other moneys of the world.
According to history of currencies, the core component of the non-precious metals' money is a so-called promissory note – intangible
belief that, by any given point in future, a particular shiny paper (self-styled as money) will be smoothly exchanged for real goods.
Thus, roughly speaking, money is nothing else but a civilizational construct about imagined/projected tomorrow – that the next
day (which nobody has ever seen in the history of humankind, but everybody operates with) definitely comes (i), and that this tomorrow
will certainly be a better day then our yesterday or even our today (ii).
This and similar types of collective constructs (horizontal and vertical) over our social contracts hold society together as much
as its economy keeps it alive and evolving. Hence, it is money that powers economy, but our blind faith in constructed (imagined)
tomorrows and its alleged certainty is what empowers money.
Clearly, the universal equivalent of all equivalents – the US dollar – follows the same pattern: Bold and widely accepted promise.
What does the US dollar promise when there is no gold cover attached to it ever since the time of Nixon shock of 1971?
Pentagon promises that the oceanic sea-lanes will remain opened (read: controlled by the US Navy), pathways unhindered, and that
the most traded world's commodity – oil, will be delivered.
So, it is not a crude or its delivery what is a cover to the US dollar – it is a promise that oil of tomorrow will be deliverable.
That is a real might of the US dollar, which in return finances Pentagon's massive expenditures and shoulders its supremacy.
Admired and feared, the Pentagon further fans our planetary belief in tomorrow's deliverability – if we only keep our faith in
dollar (and hydrocarbons' energized economy), and so on and on in perpetuated circle of mutual reinforcements.
These two pillars of the US might from the East coast (the US Treasury/Wall Street and Pentagon) together with the two pillars
of the West coast – both financed and amplified by the US dollar, and spread through the open sea-routs (Silicone Valley and Hollywood),
are an essence of the US posture.
This very nature of power explains why the Americans have missed to take the mankind into completely other direction; towards
the non-confrontational, decarbonized, de-monetized/de-financialized and de-psychologized, the self-realizing and green humankind.
In short, to turn history into a moral success story. They had such a chance when, past the Gorbachev's unconditional surrender
of the Soviet bloc, and the Deng's Copernicus-shift of China, the US – unconstrained as a lonely superpower – solely dictated terms
of reference; our common destiny and direction/s to our future/s.
Winner is rarely a game-changer
Sadly enough, that was not the first missed opportunity for the US to soften and delay its forthcoming, imminent multidimensional
imperial retreat. The very epilogue of the WWII meant a full security guaranty for the US: Geo-economically – 54% of anything manufactured
in the world was carrying the Made in USA label, and geostrategically – the US had uninterruptedly enjoyed nearly a decade of the
'nuclear monopoly'.
Up to this very day, the US scores the biggest number of N-tests conducted, the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, and
it represents the only power ever deploying this 'ultimate weapon' on other nation. To complete the irony, Americans enjoy geographic
advantage like no other empire before. Save the US, as Ikenberry notes:
" every major power in the world lives in a crowded geopolitical neighborhood where shifts in power routinely provoke counterbalancing".
Look the map, at Russia or China and their packed surroundings. The US is blessed with its insular position, by neighboring
oceans. All that should harbor tranquility, peace and prosperity, foresightedness.
Why the lonely might, an empire by invitation did not evolve into empire of relaxation, a generator of harmony?
Why does it hold (extra-judicially) captive more political prisoners on Cuban soil than the badmouthed Cuban regime has ever
had? Why does it remain obsessed with armament for at home and abroad?
Why existential anxieties for at home and security challenges for abroad?
Whydid the fall of Berlin Wall 30 years ago mark a beginning of decades of stagnant or failing incomes in the US (and elsewhere
in the OECD world) coupled with alarming inequalities?
What are we talking about here; the inadequate intensity of our tireless confrontational push or about the false course of
our civilizational direction?
Indeed, no successful and enduring empire does merely rely on coercion, be it abroad or at home. The grand design of every
empire in past rested on a skillful calibration between obedience and initiative – at home, and between bandwagoning and engagement
– abroad.
In XXI century, one wins when one convinces not when one coerces. Hence, if unable to escape its inner logics and deeply-rooted
appeal of confrontational nostalgia, the prevailing archrival is only a winner, rarely a game-changer.
To sum up; After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans accelerated expansion while waiting for (real or imagined) adversaries
to further decline, 'liberalize' and bandwagon behind the US.
Expansion is the path to security dictatum only exacerbated the problems afflicting the Pax Americana. That is how the capability
of the US to maintain its order started to erode faster than the capacity of its opponents to challenge it. A classical imperial
self-entrapment!
The repeated failure to notice and recalibrate its imperial retreat brought the painful hangovers to Washington by the last presidential
elections. Inability to manage the rising costs of sustaining the imperial order only increased the domestic popular revolt and political
pressure to abandon its 'mission' altogether. Perfectly hitting the target to miss everything else
Hence, Americans are not fixing the world any more. They are only managing its decline. Look at their (winner) footprint in former
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria – to mention but a few.
*
When the Soviets lost their own indigenous ideological matrix and maverick confrontational stance, and when the US dominated
West missed to triumph although winning the Cold War, how to expect from the imitator to score the lasting moral, or even a momentary
economic victory?
Neither more confrontation and more carbons nor more weaponized trade and traded weapons will save our day. It failed in past,
it will fail again any given day.
Interestingly, China opposed the 1st World, left the 2nd in rift, and ever since Bandung of 1955 it neither won over nor (truly)
joined the 3rd Way.
Today, many see it as a main contestant. But, where is a lasting success?
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is what the most attribute as an instrument of the Chinese planetary posture. Chinese leaders
promised massive infrastructure projects all around by burning trillions of dollars.
Still, numbers are more moderate. As the recent The second BRI Summit has shown, so far, Chinese companies had invested $90 [billions]
worldwide. Seems, neither People's Republic is as rich as many (wish to) think nor it will be able to finance its promised projects
without seeking for a global private capital. Such a capital – if ever – will not flow without conditionalities.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS – or 'New Development' – Bank have some $150 billion at hand, and
the Silk Road Infrastructure Fund (SRIF) has up to $40 billion. Chinese state and semi-private companies can access – according to
the OECD estimates – just another $600 billion (much of it tight) from the home, state-controlled financial sector.
That means that China runs short on the BRI deliveries worldwide. Ergo, either bad news to the (BRI) world or the conditionalities'
constrained China.
Greening international relations along with a greening of economy – geopolitical and environmental understanding, de-acidification
and relaxation is the only way out.
That necessitates both at once: less confrontation over the art-of-day technology and their monopolies' redistribution (as preached
by the Sino-American high priests of globalization) as well as the resolute work on the so-called Tesla-ian implosive/fusion-holistic
systems (including free-energy technologies; carbon-sequestration; antigravity and self-navigational solutions; bioinformatics and
nanorobotics).
More of initiative than of obedience (including more public control over data hoovering). More effort to excellence (creation)
than struggle for preeminence (partition).
Finally, no global leader has ever in history emerged from a shaky and distrustful neighborhood, or by offering a little bit more
of the same in lieu of an innovative technological advancement. (Eg. many see the Chinese 5G as an illiberal innovation, which may
end up servicing authoritarianism, anywhere.
And indeed, the AI deep learning inspired by biological neurons (neural science) including its three methods: supervised, unsupervised
and reinforced learning can end up used for the digital authoritarianism, predictive policing and manufactured social governance
based on the bonus-malus behavioral social credits.)
Ergo, it all starts from within, from at home. Without support from a home base (including that of Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet),
there is no game changer. China's home is Asia. Its size and its centrality along with its impressive output is constraining it enough.
Hence, it is not only a new, non-imitative, turn of technology what is needed. Without truly and sincerely embracing mechanisms
such as the NaM, ASEAN and SAARC (eventually even the OSCE) and the main champions of multilateralism in Asia, those being India
Indonesia and Japan first of all, China has no future of what is planetary awaited – the third force, a game-changer, lasting visionary
and trusted global leader.
Post Scriptum: To varying degrees, but all throughout a premodern and modern history, nearly every world's major foreign
policy originator was dependent (and still depends) on what happens in, and to, Russia. It is not only a size, but also centrality
of Russia that matters. It is as much (if not even more), as it is an omnipresence of the US and as it is a hyperproduction of the
PR China.
Ergo, it is an uninterrupted flow of manufactured goods to the whole world, it is balancing of the oversized and centrally positioned
one, and it is the ability to controllably destruct the way in and insert itself of the peripheral one. The oscillatory interplay
of these three is what characterizes our days.
Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević is chairperson and professor in international law and global political studies, Vienna,
Austria. He has authored six books (for American and European publishers) and numerous articles on, mainly, geopolitics energy and
technology. His 7th book, From WWI to www. – Europe and the World 1918-2018 was to released in December.
Memo to author: try an analogy with Macau; China's other SAR (special administrative region); the 2nd wealthiest city in the world,
and the world leader in gambling profit.. From 05:30 until 23:00, Mainlanders flock into the City, 7 days a week; like an
entire country migrating daily.. No protests there, unlike their sinking cousins across the Bay in Hong Kong..
The author suggests that Xinjiang and Tibet be included as somehow vital to China's dynamic progress, when they are empty of
resources, and only need to be stabilized as a transit point for the BRI, which is progressing very well indeed.. People here
think of it as the New Silk Road, not BRI..
The author is welcome to visit next year, when the 600 k.p.h. Maglev (magnetic levitation) train enters operation, and compare
it to say, Amtrak in America, which is like a system from an 1860's cowboy and Indian film..
In 9 more days, high school begins in China, so many of the thrill-seekers will be in class, while the US-paid street criminals
will be exposed and ridiculed.. Hopefully locked up for a very long time..
Jack Leon
Hopefully locked up for a very long time..
Ahh the blessed joys of absolute power literally controlling every aspect of peoples thoughts and daily lives, can't wait to
move there. People in Macau cannot be black holed into a Chinese gulag that's exactly why it is so successful, no one with any
money goes to gamble and party in Beijing. Mainlanders flock there to escape the prison state that is modern China.
"Please move to the back of the Maglev or you will be punished. Discredited Entities are not welcome on this ride."
mark
When communism collapsed in 1989, a whole class of smug self satisfied individuals like Fukuyama and the Neocons and Ziocons
feeding off them patted themselves on the pack, assured of their complete moral superiority and unlimited virtue. They had won,
and could now throw their weight around the planet however they pleased.
People who were a little bit more far sighted subsequently concluded that communism collapsed FIRST. The prevailing system
in the Anglozionist empire just took longer to collapse. Our system of crony capitalism, crapitalism, parasitic financial capitalism,
looting kleptocracy, managed to endure for another 20 years before it collapsed in turn over 2007-8, never to recover. It has
remained on life support ever since, sustaining its zombie existence through the printing of tens of trillions of toilet paper
money backed by nothing but thin air, negative interest rates, and draconian austerity ravaging societies and entire countries.
The world could have been re ordered for the better after 1989. Genuine cooperation between great powers. Wide ranging
disarmament. A new security structure for all the countries of the planet. The dismantling of relics like NATO. The resolution
of previously intractable conflicts. A much better deal for developing countries with new terms of trade. The needs of billions
of people given the priority they deserved. This was all up for grabs. But the opportunity for a better world was thrown away
and will never return.
Instead, militarism and aggression were given their head. NATO expanded deep into the former Soviet Union in breach of
all the undertakings that were given to the contrary. Russia was comprehensively looted and reduced to destitution and misery.
One country after another was invaded and destroyed. Millions died and tens of millions immiserated. The whole planet was destabilised.
Trillions were squandered that could have been devoted to productive purposes and real human needs.
We now face disaster on multiple fronts. The very real possibility of war on a scale never seen before in human history, leading
to human extinction. Financial, economic and social collapse dwarfing the experience of 1929. Political chaos and upheaval. All
of this completely unnecessary.
mark
The US National Debt Clock is whizzing round at $25,000 a second. The current budget deficit is $1,175 billion. Trump is trying
to loot the rest of the planet to get himself out of the economic hole he is in.
Jack Leon
The world could have been re ordered for the better after 1989. Genuine cooperation between great powers. Wide ranging disarmament."
All very true and concise, but do you truly believe that had the USSR won the cold war and the USA gone bankrupt, they would
have even extended the olive branch the other way? Although impossible to definitively say, my guess is yeah right the Soviets
would make Perestroika look like a bargain. We'd be wearing shitty Communist clothes, eating Borscht and watching as the party
ravaged every resource for the Soviet oligarchs.
Capitalism is ths best system for economic growth, undeniably proven over and over, problem is, your right we live in a corporate
communist state, which destroyed the greatest economic system ever created. And I would also agree 2007 was the official end of
our great Republic although building for decades to that point.
vexarb
"the main champions of multilateralism in Asia, those being India Indonesia and Japan first of all"
Read that slowly and all will become crystal clear -- despite the author's Germanic gnomic English.
vexarb
Sorry, I was being pretty gnomic myself. The Herr Professor is saying that the Chief Champions of Multi-Lateralism are countries
which are either allied to the Empire (India) or have been crushed by the Empire (Indonesia) or both (Japan).
TheThinker
BigB – I wrote this over on the thread a couple of articles back in a reply to George. But, it seemed pertinent to what you say
above, perhaps even reinforces it. As I am double posting, Admin, feel free to delete if it is not useful to the discussion.
I've been reading a collection of essays by a Australian guy called Careys – on Democracy and propaganda, fully named, Taking
the Risk out of Democracy. He died unpublished but his papers were collated in a book after. Here some bits from my read that
were interesting.
In Jan 1994 David Hume reflecting on the consequences of the recent state terrorist projects that Washington had organised
and directed in its Central American domains, with the Church a prime target. They took special note of 'what weight' the culture
of terror has had in domestically the expectations of the majority vis-a-vis alternatives different for the powerful; the destruction
of hope, they recognised, is one of the greatest achievements of the free world doctrine of 'low intensity conflict' what is called
'terror' when conducted by official enemies. Noam Chomsky 1994
Propaganda is the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbolism collective attitudes are
amenable to many modes of alteration . intimidation intimidation .economic coercion drill
But their arrangement and rearrangement occurs principally under the importers of significant symbolism and the technique of
using significant symbols for this purpose is propaganda. Lasswell, Bardson & Janowitz 1953
Successful use of propaganda as a means of social control requires a number of conditions: The will to use it, the skills
to produce the propaganda, the means to deiiseminate it; and the use of significant symbols with real power over emotional reactions
– ideally symbols of the sacred and satanic (Light vs DARK)
A society or culture which is disposed to view the world in Manichean terms will be more vulnerable to control by propaganda.
Conversely, a society where propaganda is extensively employed as a means of control, will tend to retain a Manichean world view,
a view dominated by symbols and visions of the sacred and satanic.
Manichean – an adherent of the dualistic systems (dual = 2) religious systems of Manes, a combination of Gnostic, Buddiasm,
Zoroastrianism and various other elements with a doctrine of a conflict between the Light and Dark, matter being regarded as dark
and light / good vs evil – love vs hate
The 'public mind' was recognised long ago by corporate leaders to be 'the only serious danger confronting' their enterprise
& major hazards facing industrialists along with the newly realised political power of the masses, which had to be beaten back.
Big Business in the US stated started the Americanise Movement ostensibly to Americanise worker, who was being perceived as
being under threat from subversive forces of the Industrial Workers of the world.
what started as a method of controlling the political opinion of immigrant workers quickly turned into a massive program for
the thinking of an entire population. One of the most startling examples of the escalation of the whole population in processes
of propaganda was how Americanisation Program ( a word which conjures up the 'thought police') came to be transformed into a National
Celebration Day for the 4th July, to many of us (Carey's words not mine) it comes as a shock to discover that American Independence
Day had it's beginning in a Business led program to control public opinion rather than as a direct expression of a Nation celebrating
its historical birth.
Gary Weglarz
("The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng's) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly brutal;
rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive;
hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing).").
– sorry, but this line left me laughing out loud and gasping for a little air. If the meaning of the term's "covertly coercive"
and "exploitive" actually are simply euphemisms to mean things like carpet bombing peasant societies into the 'stone age,' running,
training and arming death squads and torture operations decade upon decade, over-throwing democratic populist governments and
installing brutal dictators, and organizing and supporting mass murder and torture on an epic scale from Indonesia to Chile to
Vietnam to Guatemala, and of course endless others, then yes, I suppose we American's have been "covertly coercive" and "exploitive."
I wonder, however, why such routine U.S. mayhem fails to rise to the level of the former Soviet's "overtly brutal" designation?
As usual when I read the world as described by Western "academics" I am confused by the carefully coded language used to describe
the absolute amoral brutality of Western empire. But hey, perhaps describing the willful murder of a half-a-million Iraqi children
as "worth it," is simply an example of America's "asocial" tendencies rather than of actual barbarity.
wardropper
The worst of it all is that none of it NEEDS to have "meaning".
Another sex scandal, or a bank scandal of huge proportions is plastered all over the media, and, two days later, while people
are still trying to digest it with the most superficial thought processes they can muster, we suddenly find we are at war with
China, Russia – or Denmark, for that matter
"Oh, we seem to be at war again!", would seem to be the most likely response, while we eagerly await the next scandal
The owners of our media honestly deserve the same end that Goebbels faced , but we share guilt inasfar as we have all-too readily
allowed them to confuse our thinking until it isn't even thinking any more, but merely knee-jerk reaction to click-bait.
Russia's centrality? I wouldn't be fooled by the CIA's apparent obsession with Russia; the rest of the world knows that China
is now no. 2. The Chinese have caught up technologically by study and crook, and are financially and population wise much stronger
than Russia.
In fact Russian Siberia must look quite juicy for Beijing with all its space and minerals , were it not for those damn old
Russian MIRVs.
Note well
Nice essay! Indeed, the US empire has survived [hopefully for not much longer] by swindling, and, fraudulent treaties. One
critical aspect of the widespread of US influence is SPYING! Highly likely, most of what the US achieved would not have been possible
without the spying apparatus that have infiltrated every corner of the world. Of course, spying did not start with the Internet,
although now it is made 'natural'.
SPYING, and the ubiquitousness of it, should be stated every time US influence is mentioned.
Antonym
Why would only growing Indian or Chinese middle classes be cancer? Any greed is cancer, whether from a beggar or a billionaire.
be they be India, Chinese, American, British etc.
Fair dinkum
The Western middle class has pushed the planet to the precipice. The 400 million plus Chinese and Indian middle class will bury
the world at the bottom of it.
Roland Spansky
Oh give it a rest, Chicken Little. People such as yourself have been squawking about the planet being on the edge of a precipice
for – conservatively – the last sixty years. Open your eyes. It's a con. You've been had.
wardropper
It seems to have escaped your attention that the middle classes are the main victims of "austerity" these days. The aim is to
wipe them out, and have the 1% vs. the enslaved 99% as the new norm. It would be very uncomfortable to have a flourishing 55%
middle class against the 1%, which is why we have austerity in the first place.
As for "deadly cancers", well, we obviously have our own fair share of those, but it so happens that they are not the middle class.
Dominic Berry
Their education is first and foremost about recognizing the importance of the existing hierarchy and knowing their place in
it. Any facts or ideas they learn after this are recognized, understood and acted upon within the context of performing that role.
Implicitly anti hierarchical facts provoke a cognitive dissonance which prevents them being recognized, but even when it is
recognized as important, not accounted for by the existing procedures, critically important, (e.g., ecological collapse, nuclear
weapons, austerity economics,) even when we see that something has to be done, well, "What am I supposed to do?"
Most of the rewards and punishments of being a middle class professional are not related to being right or wrong, justified
or not, honest or dishonest. They are to do with being obedient or not, disciplined or indisciplined, "normal" or eccentric.
"... Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two weeks. Follow him on Twitter , @ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ; and visit his webpage ..."
I first met Jason Lee when he was promoting jazz concerts in his hometown of Hong Kong. More recently, he has been sending
me Facebook messages about the Hong Kong protests. You would think that a relatively prosperous, 43-year-old Hong Konger would support
the demonstrations that have rocked that city since June. Well, you may be surprised by his views.
Lee, who spends time in both Hong Kong and mainland China, says protesters' attacks on police and government buildings "are going
too far." Referring to how they
recently closed the
Hong Kong airport, he asks, "Would the USA let JFK airport be occupied for one day?"
Protesters carrying British flags and spray painting anti-communist slogans on legislative offices don't understand the region's
colonial history when British troops brutally occupied Hong Kong, Lee tells me in a phone interview.
"I'm Chinese from Hong Kong," says Lee. "I love my country, China."
The protest movement began in opposition to a proposed extradition law, which demonstrators claimed would allow political dissidents
to be extradited to China. Hong Kong officials said the law wouldn't be used for
political repression but later withdrew
it.
Some Hong Kongers, Lee included, think the protesters' calls for "democracy" are really demands for independence from China, even
a return to British colonial rule .
"They want the movement to go on and on by raising new demands," Lee says. "And then they claim the government isn't responding."
Sharp class divisions
One major factor driving the protests is economic inequality. For many years, Hong Kong was a key financial and commercial outpost
for the People's Republic of China (PRC). But, as the PRC's economy expanded, it didn't need Hong Kong as a middle man and the territory's
economy declined relative to China's.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong billionaires made huge profits leading to one of the world's
highest rates
of income inequality.
Housing is now in short supply and Hong Kong rents are the
highest
in the world. Many young adults still live with their parents or crowd into small, subdivided apartments.
"My apartment is 350 square feet," Sean Starrs, a Hong Kong professor,
told the Real News Network. "My students say, well what do you do with all that space?"
And, as always, Washington is happy to take advantage of those complaints for its own odious purposes.
In the old days, the CIA would slip wads of cash to dissidents in order to promote anti-government riots and install pro-U.S.
regimes. That method worked for
Iran in 1953 and
Chile in 1973.
Nowadays, the United States uses the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to spread propaganda to accomplish the same goals.
The NED is supposed to build democracy but in reality promotes dissidents who favor U.S. style capitalism, and it
funds aspiring autocrats.
I don't think the CIA initiated the demonstrations, but the events bear a strong resemblance to other U.S.-manipulated "color"
revolutions.
Color revolutions vs. genuine uprisings
With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, several former Soviet republics faced a series of elections, mass demonstrations and coups.
In Georgia the uprising was called a "rose revolution." In Ukraine, it was orange. During the 2013 Maidan revolt in Ukraine, the
US role in manipulating the mass movement and selecting the country's new president was
revealed publicly.
On the other hand, popular, mass uprisings in 2011 overthrew dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt. So how do you tell the difference
between genuine uprisings and the color revolts?
The key questions are who is leading the protests and what would happen if they took power? Would the country go in a progressive
direction or join the reactionary camp led by the United States? While no one party or recognized coalition leads the Hong Kong protests,
there are identifiable political trends.
Political trends in Hong Kong
The pan-democratic forces call for universal suffrage and direct elections of Hong Kong officials. Critics say those calls for
democracy cover up their close alliance with US policy and their rejection of eventual unity with China. The pan-democrats suffered
surprising losses in last year's legislative council elections.
The umbrella protests of 2014 accelerated the rise of another trend, the localists, a
xenophobic rightwing movement that calls for "self determination" (independence) from Beijing.
"They think Hong Kongers are better than Chinese," says Elvin Ho, a retired business consultant living in Hong Kong. Native Hong
Kongers mostly speak Cantonese, he explains in a phone interview. "Localists will pick a fight with random targets during the riot,
who speak Mandarin, and bully them."
Imagine for a moment that the PRC ceased to exist. Would Hong Kong transform itself into a democratic society? I think some combination
of localists and pan-democratic forces would come to power and then violently repress those who supported the PRC and the previous
Hong Kong government.
Sound farfetched? That's what has happened when the pro-western forces came back to power in
Ukraine and
Hungary .
But the PRC does exist, and it's not about to allow Hong Kong independence. China has massed paramilitary police along the Hong
Kong border as a clear threat against the protesters. Many Hong Kongers are getting tired of the constant disruptions and violence
on both sides.
So far the Hong Kong government has bided its time, hoping the public will tire of the constant turmoil. We can only hope the
current crisis ends without further violence.
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two weeks. Follow him on
Twitter , @ReeseErlich; friend him on
Facebook ; and visit his
webpage.
"... During his meeting with Johnson on Sunday at the G7 in France, the US president raised eyebrows when he responded in the affirmative to questions from reporters on whether he had any second thoughts about the tariff move. ..."
While one may accuse the US president of many things, having second thoughts is hardly one
of them: once Trump has decided on a course of action, he tends to follow through. Which is why
the global press gasped when a rare case of doubt emerged this morning during Trump's breakfast
meeting with the UK's Boris Johnson at the Biarritz G-7, when the US president acknowledged
having second thoughts about the escalating the trade war with China... only for his top
spokeswoman to later retract and say Trump meant he regretted not raising tariffs even
more.
During his meeting with Johnson on Sunday at the G7 in France, the US president raised
eyebrows when he responded in the affirmative to questions from reporters on whether he had any
second thoughts about the tariff move.
Every president of the USA for the past 50 years has cultivated US exports to China. You
want to just throw it away, only two or three years before the purchasing power of China
exceeds that of the USA???
China - 1.5 billion.
USA - 326 million
China growth rate 2018: 6.4%
USA growth rate 2018: 2.8% source
China now produces twice as many graduates a year as the US source
As of 2015, China had already taken global lead in manufacturing output:
source
China - $2,010 billion
USA - $1,867 billion
World market size, based on population:
source
China - 18.7%
USA - 4.3%
Greedy US corporations have been in bed with China robbing the US citizen with all those
job exports to China.
If things were produced in US, the corporations would have made less money, but the US
citizen would have been better off. The trade deficit which has been running for decades
wouldn't have been that much.
Anyone with a lick of commonsense knew Trump's detractors would be gunning for him during
his trip to Europe. Trump has not disappointed these people by continuing his effort to come
across as too clever for his own good. Trump gave these people more ammunition when he said
he has doubts about his actions.
During breakfast with the UK's Boris Johnson at the G-7 meeting in Biarritz, France Trump
acknowledged having second thoughts about the escalating the trade war with China. The
article below explores how this may cause Trump a great deal of grief.
"... The economic decoupling from China has to backfire since it's not a rational or prudent course of action; and the cast of characters such as Bolton and Pompeo will not be able to think their way out of this train wreck they have set in motion. ..."
Future policy also seems prefigued by that decoupling from arms treaties with Russia that has
gradually unfolded.
This manuevering stands a chance of touching off an outrageous and bloody
end.
Obama's bringing along of the tactical "baby nukes" with adjustable settings, and his
"pivot to Asia" are in retrospect to be regarded as preparing the ground. The corporate
Democratic Party and its mouthpieces are carrying the demonization of Russia to a continual,
dizzying extreme, at the same time
The economic decoupling from China has to backfire since it's not a rational or prudent
course of action; and the cast of characters such as Bolton and Pompeo will not be able to
think their way out of this train wreck they have set in motion.
Nice plan, except it's too late. I don't think Russia will agree to this proposal. The
West is very antagonized both in Russian elites and common people. Even if some high
ranking officials will be happy to struck a deal common people will still perceive USA
and the west as enemies. On the contrary China's reputation and karma is not as tainted
as America's in the eyes of the majority in Russia. At this point any concession given to
West will be met with disdain.
Correct. NATO has thousands of troops on the Russian border and surrounds Western
Russia by land and sea ... meanwhile the US preparing new cruise missile programs to be
stationed in the EU... Putin would be a fool to play nice in the face of such a military
buildup... in fact, he'd be deposed if he tried. No... the die is cast... the
Russia-China Alliance is tightly cemented.
Doug Bandow gives fair and reasoned arguments. The current trend appears to be towards
war. The question of enticing Moscow away from Beijing is a logical one. But does Russia
fear China as an enemy more than it fears America? Who would benefit from hostilities
between these two – America? That would not serve Russia's strategic interests.
The challenge in the 21st century is not repeating the mistakes of the twentieth.
History shows vital interests drive nations to war: but it is in nobody's interest to
fight a third world war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
I don't think here in Russia we fear anyone. We live in an era of powerful
thermonuclear weapons. Russia has fully operational nuclear triad with thousands of
warheads. Any military scenario against us trigger a final judgement day for human
civilization. President Putin openly said that. At this point Russia is more or less
isolationist trying to sever itself from global production chains to be more independent.
The trade with US is minuscule, so basically US has the stick but lacks carrot. On the
other hand China lacks what Russia really needs, so it's more of an allie of convenience.
Basically all Russia needs is being left alone and being able to influence it's own
region. Vast natural resources and population can really provide this kind of
isolationism. But the US can't stop poking the bear, so enraged bear can really be pissed
and provide China a helping hand.
Isolated from US and vassals doesn't mean completelly isolated. As author mentioned G7
is only 1/10 of World's population. And France, Germany and Italy are eager to restore
pre-sanction relations. Also having China, power on the rise (contrary to declining West)
in your corner is a very good thing.
"However, Beijing's widespread, sometimes brutal crackdown at home, increasingly
threatening approach to both Hong Kong and Taiwan, and more aggressive stance toward
territorial disputes challenge common Western interests and values. "
What "brutal crackdown"? I presume he means HK but the response of the Chinese gov is
hardly brutal. On the contrary, the authorities there have been been far more passive and
restrained than the west would be. Try shutting down a major US airport with a
demonstration and see long it takes for US robo-cops to cover the tiled floors in
protester blood and fill jail cells with unconscious bodies. Consider the (mostly
unreported) brutality in France as M(i)cron orders his gendarmes to use force to suppress
growth of the Gilets Jaunes movement.
What "aggressive stance" to territorial disputes? Chinese aren't blockading any areas
of the SCS and are not preventing freedom of navigation. They have claimed a number of
SCS rocks and minor islands, but the fact remains that none of the largest 18 islands are
Chinese controlled yet no-one wants to level the same charges against Taiwan,
Philippines, Vietnam or Malaysia that control them. The Chinese maintain an active
military presence around their own bases in the SCS, but they don't act to stop other
traffic in the area, and no-one has any actual legitimate business with these isolated
rocks, either now or before the ChiComs claimed them.
Bandow is spinning a load of BS with these and other assertions of a fake reality. Its
just part of a superficial narrative intended to support the idea of a "benevolent and
democratic" US selflessly guarding the "free world" against an "authoritarian police
state" that is "challenging and undermining the global rules-based system". It a load of
baloney that well-expired but Bandow the organ-grinder keep turning the handle to make
the public monkies dance for the amusement and hidden agendas of Cato Institutes elites
paymasters.
"Kyiv would be left to forge whatever economic ties it desired east and west."
Really? When did the ruling elites of the US and EU change their policies? It was the
refusal of the Eurotrash to accept Ukraine accepting Russian cash and economic assistance
in 2014 that led to the Ultra-nationalist putsch with US/EU full support. Yanukovich
wanted a deal and the EU refused to give him one he could accept, then threw their weight
behind his forced removal and shut-out the possibility of Ukraine having economic
relations with its largest trading partner (Russia).
BTW in English we have always spelled the city as Kiev, not Kyiv. Bandow is clearly
pandering to the Ukropi nationalists and anti-Russia radicals.
"In return, Russia could abandon support for Donbas rebels in Ukraine, grant Kyiv full
navigational access in contested waters, and stop using natural gas as a weapon."
Russia isn't about to abandon Donbass while the Ukies show no regard for civilian
lives in their incessant shelling attacks and repeated violations of "truces". Kiev is
attacking Donbass and intent on advancing, not the other way around, so a cessation of
conflict is in their court, not Donetsk or Lugansk.
Kiev has full access to "contested waters" (presumably access to the Azov Sea) but
they need to follow protocols. It is their refusal to play by the rules (and the
deliberate provocations by the SBU) that is the crux of the problems.
Russia doesn't use natural gas as a weapon. She simply sells gas to willing customers
(who buy it from her due to good prices and a long established record as a reliable
supplier). Russia is understandably looking for alternative routes of transit to avoid
nations that are her traditional antagonists and who wish to use gas transit as leverage
over her. Why should Russia allow unfriendly nations to have the ability to shutdown her
gas exports? Ukraine was stealing gas for years which led to the cessation of gas
supplies while custody transfer violations were investigated and stopped. Why should
Russia maintain transit through unfriendly nations and allow them to gain transit fees?
If they cease their Russia-baiting BS things might change, but that is their decision to
make, and Russia will act in the meantime according to her interests.
Doug Bandow tries to play the moderate but he recycles the worst agitprop tropes about
Russia. To be expected from a minion of the Cato Institute I suppose...
I would highly recommend that Doug Bandow get a lecture in Russian Foreign Politics.
This is not just a market with a handful dollar. Bandow might be a visiting Student a
MGIMO for Russian Foreign Politics which is based on trust and reliability for years.
Besides, Peking is by far the largest economic Partner of Russia. President Putin is not
interested on G7 membership. It lacks results and is a further "bla, bla" Organisation
without any success. Economic sanctions are more an issue for western Europe. As example
Francs lost 50% of their Russian Trade about 12B USD.
US inferior Foreign Politics lacks all of it. It's an Ad-Hoc organised Ministry with
interference from the President.
Aren't these guys really stup!d? They are discussing should Russia be in G8 or not,
while Putin many times said that this organization is useless for Russia! :-)))
"... The trojan horse for the return of neoliberalism in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, stated that he's going to borrow money from the IMF to fund his government, which would make all Venezuelans indebted to this predatory institution. Guaidó spends the money, the poor and working people work to pay taxes that pay off the principal and the interest. ..."
"... The IMF was created in New Hampshire in 1945 to internationalize and standardize capitalism and its rules in an increasingly globalized and U.S.-dominated world. ..."
"... Its primary function is acting as an international lender-of-last-resort to indebted countries. IMF member states decide which countries will receive loans, but the member states with the largest say are the ones that own the largest share of the IMF's funds, which have always been the United States and its allies. ..."
"... This is why the IMF's standard "structural adjustment program" is based on the so-called Washington Consensus, a set of 10 economic policies entirely concocted by U.S. think tanks, the IMF, the World Bank and the Treasury Department. The Washington Consensus is as follows: ..."
Think about who gets rich off of the Venezuela regime-change agenda. It's the same people
that said we had to invade Iraq in order to prevent nuclear apocalypse. It's the same people
who said the world would stop turning on its axis if we didn't carpet bomb Libya and
Syria.
Transcript -- This video was produced as part of a MintPress News and Grayzone collaboration -- Of all the reasons to
plot an elaborate and risky coup, there's one reason that always stands out: profit. Money
makes the world go around and in far more ways than we might think. Here are the top five
special interest groups and institutions that seek to benefit from the U.S. backed coup in
Venezuela.
Number 1: The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which wants to saddle the
Venezuelan people with enormous debt to the IMF
The trojan horse for the return of neoliberalism in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, stated
that he's going to borrow money from the IMF to fund his government, which would make all
Venezuelans indebted to this predatory institution. Guaidó spends the money, the poor
and working people work to pay taxes that pay off the principal and the interest.
The IMF was created in New Hampshire in 1945 to internationalize and standardize capitalism
and its rules in an increasingly globalized and U.S.-dominated world.
Its primary function is acting as an international lender-of-last-resort to indebted
countries. IMF member states decide which countries will receive loans, but the member states
with the largest say are the ones that own the largest share of the IMF's funds, which have
always been the United States and its allies.
This is why the IMF's standard "structural adjustment program" is based on the so-called
Washington Consensus, a set of 10 economic policies entirely concocted by U.S. think tanks, the
IMF, the World Bank and the Treasury Department. The Washington Consensus is as follows:
In exchange for a loan, often with a high-interest rate that many would call predatory, the
IMF overhauls the protective and redistributive policies of a country for neoliberal policies,
making the target country ripe for finance capital investment and profit-making.
Number
2: The Oil Industry, out to control the oil reserves
There's little doubt that the oil industry is pushing the U.S. to overthrow the Maduro
government, especially when National Security Advisor John Bolton openly states this on
national television.
Bolton was himself once part of the oil industry, serving as the director of Diamond
Offshore Drilling, Inc. in 2007. He's no stranger to advocating for the interests of the
fossil-fuel industry.
Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves by far and Washington won't let that wealth
go unexploited, or worse, be shared among its enemies like the Maduro government, Russia,
China, or Iran.
And with so many politicians, Republican and Democratic, bought off by industry players --
companies like ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and Chevron -- it's impossible to imagine anyone in
Washington successfully advocating for Venezuela maintaining ownership over its own sovereign
natural resources.
Number 3: The Military-Industrial Complex, working to military
dominance and arm another U.S. puppet
One of the most bizarre things about America is that we've created one of the world's
largest private industries around arms dealing. And like any industry, whether it be JDAM bombs
or beef, private businesses often resort to lobbying Congress to squeeze political favors out
of the government in the form of subsidies -- or in the case of the military industrial
complex, a foreign policy of endless war, one based on elusive ideas like combating terrorism
or defending democracy.
You can see that wherever the U.S. goes, expensive construction projects follow. Behind
every multi-billion dollar base construction, some private contractor is there reaping the
profits.
Once our military presence is firmly established, the weapons sales begin. And we all know
no U.S. ally or puppet state is complete without a full fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16s -- then
they'll be able to fend off all of those pesky leftist rebels with freedom missiles.
With Venezuela's neighbors, Colombia and Brazil, growing closer to NATO and accepting U.S.
military presence in their countries, we can only assume Venezuela is Washington's next
target.
As the strategic approach of regime change evolves, new industries arise to meet these
needs.
After the massive anti-war protests following the invasion of Iraq, outright invasion and
occupation are no longer viable strategies, owing to negative public opinion. So Washington
sought to disguise war propaganda using humanitarian rhetoric.
Number 4: "Humanitarian"
NGOs to create and implement the alibi
Privately owned NGOs dedicated to human rights and promoting "American style" democracy have
played a much larger role in regime-change operations in recent years. They serve as soft-power
institutions that attempt to subtly sway a population against its own government through
propaganda laced with words like freedom, democracy, and human rights.
These NGOs are given the full blessing of the U.S. government and the two often work in
tandem. Don't believe me? Take it from former CIA case officer Phillip Agee.
The US Agency for International Development's (USAID) regime-change arm, the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), funded opposition groups in Nicaragua, Venezuela (during the
2002 coup), Haiti, Ukraine, and most recently China and North Korea. And whenever U.S. foreign
policy sets its sights on a certain target, private industries usually develop to help meet
that goal as well as make a quick buck along the way.
For example, Thor Halvorssen -- the first cousin of Leopoldo Lopez, the founder of Juan
Guaidó's party, Popular Will -- calls himself a human-rights activist. He founded the
notorious Human Rights Foundation (HRF) and makes a living giving speeches and TV appearances
talking about why the governments of Venezuela or North Korea are not legitimate and need to be
overthrown.
Unsurprisingly, HRF is funded by the conservative Sarah Scaife Foundation, which is itself
funded by think tanks like the top neoconservative think tank, the American Enterprise
Institute, as well as the Heritage Foundation. HRF is also funded by the Donors Capital Fund
and the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation, which are also funded by the American Enterprise
Institute. It's one big web of moving money that all leads back to the same cast of
characters.
The crisis in Venezuela has been a huge gift for people like Halvorssen, who use the U.S.'s
war on Venezuela to promote themselves and their organizations.
Number 5: Think Tanks
selling reports that tell the MIC what it wants to hear
Like NGOs, think tanks also play an important role in giving regime change a sense of
legitimacy -- in their case, intellectual legitimacy. Think tanks rely on donations to operate
and many find willing donors among the capitalist class. These fat cats pay for fancy looking
reports meant to justify their desired goal, the delegitimization of socialist governments and
the legitimization of coup governments that uphold the Washington Consensus.
The Cato Institute has been deeply involved in overthrowing the Venezuelan government. In
2008, Cato awarded Venezuelan opposition leader, Yon Goicoechea, the Milton Friedman Prize for
Advancing Liberty and $500,000 for his role in disrupting a constitutional referendum in
Venezuela. That money was used to finance the political rise of Juan Guaidó, and his
clique known as Generation 2007.
These seemingly independent research groups have intimate networks that they leverage to
amplify the message their donors have given them. Here's an article in the Washington
Post written by a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute saying the U.S.'s failure to
intervene in Venezuela has caused the Maduro government to destabilize the region.
Whether it was the bank bailouts following the 2008 crisis, or the lack of action on climate
disaster, in America it seems the government always puts the interests of the rich ahead of the
poor and working class, and the situation in Venezuela is no exception.
As the U.S. continues to attack the Maduro government, keep these special interests in mind.
Think about who gets rich off of the regime-change agenda. It's the same people that said we
had to invade Iraq in order to prevent nuclear apocalypse. It's the same people who said the
world would stop turning on its axis if we didn't carpet bomb Libya and Syria.
Now they're trying to get us to support war in Venezuela. You won't be any freer or more
prosperous after the Maduro government is toppled. It's just war propaganda.
Top photo | A worker counts Venezuelan bolivar notes at a parking lot in Caracas, Venezuela
May 29, 2018. Marco Bello | Reuters
Kei Pritsker is a journalist and activist located in Washington DC. Kei focuses on
international politics and economics. He previously worked as a producer at RT America.
"... In 1945, when Western Europe was on its knees, the USSR had just lost an estimate of 35% of its GDP and China was just restarting its civil war after a century of devastation, only the USA had its economy intact. That meant the USA was, in 1945, both the industrial and financial superpower. The only thing that stopped it from being the world's superpower was the fact that the USSR managed to block access to a good portion of the globe, and the fact that China would be closed for the capitalists for more than 30 years. ..."
"... By the end of the 1970s, the American economy had clearly reached a point of exhaustion. After an agonizing double-dip crisis in 1980-2, the Plaza Accord of 1985 finally bring German and Japanese ascension dreams to an end -- but it also buried the American ambition to continue to be both the industrial and financial superpowers. The USA was now only the financial superpower. ..."
"... Americans can simply print money in order to import whatever they need to survive. It's up to the rest of the world to sustain its value, since they need USDs to make international trade. That's why the USA is the only country in the world that doesn't suffer from inflation when it prints money; instead, the crisis breaks at the weakest link of the trade chain (usually, a Third World country). ..."
"... But the price is deindustrialization: as the USA imports increase, it becomes cheaper to produce anywhere else (as in "another country"). And even that can only go insofar as the rest of the world doesn't break (i.e. until the Third World can sustain it). ..."
"... The 2008 crisis was impressive not because it was a financial one, but because it had its epicenter at the USA (as in opposition of at another random Third World country, as was the case of 1997). 2008 was a structural, not a cyclical, crisis. ..."
"... The capitalist part of the globe is now effectivelly a zombie economy: the First World countries can't rise the interest rates because that would bankrupt their precious big corporations; but they also can't lower then anymore because they are already essentially in negative territory. ..."
In the capitalist world, any given country needs two conditions in order to be the world's
superpower: industrial superpower and financial superpower. Think of it as the world of
boxing: you have to have two belts in order to be considered the undisputed world
champion.
In 1945, when Western Europe was on its knees, the USSR had just lost an estimate of
35% of its GDP and China was just restarting its civil war after a century of devastation,
only the USA had its economy intact. That meant the USA was, in 1945, both the industrial and
financial superpower. The only thing that stopped it from being the world's superpower was
the fact that the USSR managed to block access to a good portion of the globe, and the fact
that China would be closed for the capitalists for more than 30 years.
In 1972, China was opened. In 1974-5 there was the oil crisis, which would, in hindsight,
strip the USA from its industrial superpower status. But the problem, before that, wasn't the
USSR, but two small countries that lost the war: Germany and Japan.
The (re)rise of Germany and Japan is a telltale about the nature of capitalism, and why
unipolar worlds are, in the long term, impossible in capitalism under a Nation-State
configuration. Let's talk about it.
In 1948, the Marshall Plan was passed and executed. With it, Western Europe was revived.
But why did it work? Simple answer: the plan paid Western Europe in USD. Since the USA was
the only industrial superpower in the capitalist world at the time, that meant the ravaged
Western European countries could, with American currency, buy excess American industrial
capacity to rebuild themselves.
Japan didn't receive funds from the Marshall Plan, instead, it received the Dodge Plan,
which was reverse Marshall Plan, and possibly the first documental evidence of what we would
call today "austerity". It was a monumental failure: there was a series of strikes in 1948-9,
and the plan was quickly withdrawn. Japan's redemption would only come one year later, with
the Korean War. With the Korean War, American bases were installed on Japanese soil, and,
with it, more than USD 1 billion (which was a fortune at the time, more than what, e.g.
Germany, received through the Marshall Plan) was injected in Japan. The country was saved by
an accident of History.
So, how did the USA exerted absolute power over the capitalist half of the world? We can
visualize it clearly here: the other countries had to buy from the USA in order to rebuild
and reindustrialize. For that, they needed USD. That, on its part, reinforced its financial
sector and the US's Treasury bonds (sovereign debt). In exchange, the USA could simply
dictate the other countries' foreign policies (see the Suez fisco for a very illustrative
case).
But it is not possible for a country to be the industrial and financial superpower forever
in the capitalist system: as the other countries reindustrialize, the amount of value on them
also increases. That makes their trade accounts turn positive (i.e. "black"). If one's trade
account is positive, then that means another country (or countries) must be negative. As
other countries begun to be awash with Dollars, they begun to be able to buy things with them
not only from the USA, but also from each other. The Dollar weakened, but American exports
didn't become necessarily cheaper: the USD was now the standard world currency.
Since the Dollar didn't weaken from the trade point of view, the USA begun to bleed out in
this front: German and Japanese cheap industrialized goods begun to dominate. Then, as
industrial competition begun to saturate, commodities also begun to get more expensive. The
oil crisis of 1974-5 just wasn't worse for the USA because it hurt Germany, Japan and,
specially, the USSR more.
By the end of the 1970s, the American economy had clearly reached a point of
exhaustion. After an agonizing double-dip crisis in 1980-2, the Plaza Accord of 1985 finally
bring German and Japanese ascension dreams to an end -- but it also buried the American
ambition to continue to be both the industrial and financial superpowers. The USA was now
only the financial superpower.
But even then, how did the USA manage to keep its proeminence? Well, one important factor
was that, albeit Germany and Japan were industrially strong, they were small: there comes a
point where scale is decisive. But another very important factor was China: after 1972, the
US industrial elite begun to outsource its manufacturing infrastructure to China, in order to
enjoy its huge population. Since China was a Third World country, it imposed no immediate
threat to the USA.
The post-1972 world then had a sole superpower (in the capitalist world) that actually was
a binary system: USA with the financial, China with the industrial titles.
After the fall of the USSR (1991), the Eastern European markets were open and its assets
sacked. This gave the USA little bit more time, roughly correspondent to the Bill Clinton
governments (1993-2000). But it was only that: borrowed time.
This part is dedicated to why the capitalist world behaves like it does since the
post-war.
Contrary to other mercantile systems (e.g. Late Bronze Age, Antiquity), capitalism has a
novelty: the capitals' account (the "financial part").
That happens because capitalism is the first system capable of putting production under
unconditional command of commerce. To put it another way, people work (i.e. produce) in order
to sell, not to consume the produce themselves. The "world (free) market" therefore
determines what is produced, under what conditions, and by how much.
How does it happen? By reducing human labor to the form of abstract labor (i.e. labor in
general, as a substance). This "substance" is value. With value, you can transform any labor
in a quantitative form. This quantitative form is time. But you can't exchange time, and,
even then, time oscillates: some workers are faster than others, or work under more ideal
circumstances. The solution to this is money: money is a historically determined commodity
which is "elected" as a universal means of exchange. It is stripped from its original use
("retired") and is ascended to the post of being useful only as money. Money is, thus, the
universal commodity, the commodity whose use is serving as being the one capable of being
exchanged for any other commodity.
By reading this quick explanation, you must be asking? Where are the Nation-states in this
story? Well, the fact is, capitalism doesn't need Nation-states to exist. Not only that, but,
in the long term, Nation-states are prejudicial to capitalism. It's goal is what Marx called
the "world market"; to that, Nation-states are an obstacle.
Why then do Nation-states exist? Simple: because that was the concrete political reform
the bourgeoisie found to topple feudalism. That, and the technological limitations of the
time (which exist until our times). They had to swallow reality and try to build the "world
market" through Nation-states. Call it "really existing capitalism" for ironic purposes, if
you want.
The USA is a Nation-state that issues the USD, which is the universal fiat currency of the
post Bretton Woods era. But the USA is still a capitalist Nation-state in a
capitalist-dominated world. That means its tendency is still to form the world market, not to
be a self-sustaining fief.
So, it is the Nation-state that is responsible to -- in the context of the world market --
produce the most valuable commodity in capitalism: money.
If you produce money, you don't have, from the capitalist point of view, the need to
produce anything else: money transforms into any other kind of commodity (fetichism of the
commodity, alienation of labor). Americans can simply print money in order to import
whatever they need to survive. It's up to the rest of the world to sustain its value, since
they need USDs to make international trade. That's why the USA is the only country in the
world that doesn't suffer from inflation when it prints money; instead, the crisis breaks at
the weakest link of the trade chain (usually, a Third World country).
But the price is deindustrialization: as the USA imports increase, it becomes cheaper
to produce anywhere else (as in "another country"). And even that can only go insofar as the
rest of the world doesn't break (i.e. until the Third World can sustain it).
The 2008 crisis was impressive not because it was a financial one, but because it had
its epicenter at the USA (as in opposition of at another random Third World country, as was
the case of 1997). 2008 was a structural, not a cyclical, crisis.
The system itself broke. 2008 only didn't collapse the USA because the Fed acted quickly
and essentially ransacked the American people in order to keep the big banks et al afloat.
There was some allocation to Third World countries (such as Greece), but the overall effect
was limited. The capitalist part of the globe is now effectivelly a zombie economy: the
First World countries can't rise the interest rates because that would bankrupt their
precious big corporations; but they also can't lower then anymore because they are already
essentially in negative territory.
This left us with China. Why didn't China go down in 2008? The answer is equally simple:
because it is not capitalist. Needless to say, Cuba and North Korea were also left unscathed
by the 2008 meltdown.
"If decoupling shaved a few points off global GDP, hurt American businesses, or pushed the
world into recession, well that's the price o' freedom."
I believe that there is a US deep state, but are the ones with the most power business
interests or those with more of an interest in changing world order. Corporations have
invested a lot in gutting our manufacturing and sending it overseas primarily to China. I
suppose they will not be happy to lose money, so will push back. Trump has to worry about an
election, and would another president also follow Trumps China decoupling?
Also - "The U.S. Military's Greatest Weakness? China 'Builds' a Huge Chunk of It"
Both plans (Carney's and Trump's) won't work in my opinion.
The problem is that capitalism doesn't operate based on national interests, but on
profits: if the prospective profit rate is not high enough, the capitalists won't invest.
The USA can't decouple from China without abdicating its world superpower status. The most
it could do is to induce industry to get out of China and go to other countries not called
USA -- but then, it would just transfer the problem to another place (from China to a
constellation of countries), not solve it. The USA will continue to deindustrialize as its
hyperconsumer population becomes ever more expensive relative to the other countries' labor
power. The only solution would be for it to abdicate the USD as universal currency -- but
that would defeat the purpose of continue to be the sole superpower.
Even if the USA manages to transform China into a wasteland and all the other countries
fully industrialized, that would mean it would become an anachronistic, Ancient
Régime-like, aristocracy; it would be a matter of time before this confederation of
industrialized countries to topple the USA. In other words: even in its most successful
scenario, the USA would be killing China only to create an even bigger China 150 years from
now. That can happen, but is very unlikely.
Carney's plan also won't work, because that wouldn't solve the crisis of profitability
capitalism is suffering from now: you would've been just replacing the USD with another
hyperimperialistic fiat currency.
It's funny how symmetrical both plans are: Trump wants to destroy China in order to create
an even bigger (borderless) China; Carney wants to destroy the USA only to create an even
bigger (borderless) USA. In the first case, it would be a confederation of
hyperindustrialized countries; in the second case, it would be an hyper-elite of true
"masters of the universe" governing over a scify-worthy dystopia.
"... Max Boot first came to public notice, or at least to mine, during the run-up to the Iraq war. He had persuaded a television producer somewhere to label him a "Defense Expert," which, in the natural order of things, caused some people to mistake him for a defense expert. He had never been involved in even minor military operations himself, but he seemed uncontained in his enthusiasm for military operations involving other people. ..."
"... As the country debated the merits of an expedition to Iraq, Max Boot seemed to be everywhere. He was in every room. While he was rarely the most influential voice in any of those rooms, he was almost always the loudest. Among his several asseverations, all of them unburdened by either evidence or experience, were these: an American invasion would rid Iraq of nuclear weapons. (Iraq had no nuclear weapons.) An American invasion would cause the Iraqis to rise up and greet us as liberators. (They rose up and fought us as invaders.) An American invasion would bring democratic stability to a troubled region. (It brought chaos.) An American military victory would be quick and decisive. (After 16 years and incalculable losses in blood, treasure, prestige, and morale, the American military is still in Iraq.) ..."
"... After the heavy fighting had faded, a consensus began to form, slowly at first and then picking up speed, that the invasion of Iraq had been one of the most disastrous self-inflicted mistakes in the history of American foreign policy. For almost everybody involved, as well as those many in the region who had hoped to remain uninvolved, the so-called discretionary war in Iraq had been a tragedy. ..."
Max Boot first came to public notice, or at least to mine, during the run-up to the Iraq
war. He had persuaded a television producer somewhere to label him a "Defense Expert," which,
in the natural order of things, caused some people to mistake him for a defense expert. He had
never been involved in even minor military operations himself, but he seemed uncontained in his
enthusiasm for military operations involving other people.
As the country debated the merits of an expedition to Iraq, Max Boot seemed to be
everywhere. He was in every room. While he was rarely the most influential voice in any of
those rooms, he was almost always the loudest. Among his several asseverations, all of them
unburdened by either evidence or experience, were these: an American invasion would rid Iraq of
nuclear weapons. (Iraq had no nuclear weapons.) An American invasion would cause the Iraqis to
rise up and greet us as liberators. (They rose up and fought us as invaders.) An American
invasion would bring democratic stability to a troubled region. (It brought chaos.) An American
military victory would be quick and decisive. (After 16 years and incalculable losses in blood,
treasure, prestige, and morale, the American military is still in Iraq.)
After the heavy fighting had faded, a consensus began to form, slowly at first and then
picking up speed, that the invasion of Iraq had been one of the most disastrous self-inflicted
mistakes in the history of American foreign policy. For almost everybody involved, as well as
those many in the region who had hoped to remain uninvolved, the so-called discretionary war in
Iraq had been a tragedy.
As the question settled, some of us who had grown tired of Max Boot chirping in our ears
began to wonder how he would respond. What might he say? Perhaps an abashed silence would do.
Or should he undertake a penitential retreat to an obscure college, where he might meliorate
his remorse with weed or alcohol? In less generous moments, we toyed with the idea that he
might simply walk into the surf, after leaving an abject note of apology pinned against the sea
breeze by a heavy shard of driftwood.
Our answer was a long time coming.
I am a heavy viewer of CNN, at both the airport and the barber shop, that is. One day last
year, as I was having my thinning locks trimmed, the network ran a banner headline: MAX BOOT
QUITS REPUBLICAN PARTY. I couldn't help myself. I started laughing. Soon the entire shop -- the
sheeted customers, the startled barbers, the guys reading sticky magazines -- they were all
asking, along with the rest of America, who is this Max Boot? I tried to answer but I couldn't.
Each time I tried, I wound up laughing uncontrollably. CNN, which appears to have missed the
earlier and equally newsworthy story, MAX BOOT JOINS REPUBLICAN PARTY, had reached its summary
judgment: nothing had so become Max Boot's secret Republican career as the leaving of it.
(Seriously, one thing you can count on is the acuity of CNN's news judgment. By a remarkable
coincidence, both Arnold Thornbush of Ames, Iowa, and Phoebe Birdbath of Tempe, Arizona, had
quit the GOP that very same day, but the CNN desk, laser-focused, could not be distracted from
the big story.)
Ideas may or may not have consequences -- the debate rages -- but fake news most certainly
does. Shortly after CNN's blockbuster story, The Washington Post , or what used to be
The Washington Post , offered Max Boot a regular column. No, the Post
couldn't find the stones to cast him as a defense expert. The Max Boot beat is still a bit
undefined, but it seems to highlight his ad hominem attacks on former friends and
associates from his secret Republican career.
Forgive Max Boot. He's no idiot. He's just trying to make himself useful.
I never really knew Max Boot's background. So, after reading this column, I looked up his
Wikipedia biography and it blew my mind. What on earth has this guy ever done to be
considered a "Defense Expert?" He did not serve in the military or even in a civilian defense
capacity. Nor does he seem to have any military related education - not a Service Academy, a
military school, or a War College. As near as I can tell, this guy has made a career out of
writing opinion pieces - jumping from a college newspaper to the Wall Street Journal to the
Weekly Standard. Essentially, he's a glorified blogger who convinced a lot people that
invading Iraq was a good idea. Unbelievable.
Have some compassion, people! When the Democratic establishment finally follows its
Republican counterpart to the oblivion, where all these poor unemployed people, these
suffering dullards representatives of the strata of society with insufficient access
to intellectual capacities go? On the other hand, ingenium mala saepe movent .
Perhaps, after that he finally gets over himself and finds that eldritch ability to say two
coherent words.
I like the last line. Max is an old fashioned imperialist who made a home with the GOP when
that seemed the most likely place for people of his views. Once Trump talked about walking
that back, he quit.
Something always missing from articles like this, is the context. Max Boot is a Zionist. That
is WHY he wants to destroy Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, ... anyone perceived as a threat to
Israel. He has not been a failure but a success, or at least a partial success, as indeed we
have destroyed Iraq, and Libya, and nearly destroyed Syria. You think he should be ashamed of
his failures. Of course he is not, because he has not failed.
That war mongering piece of filth should be loaded aboard a C 130 and sent on a one-way
flight to Ukraine, his original lair, where, parachute, bandolier, and all, he can be
jettisoned over Kiev.
As far as I can tell, neither Alfred Rosenberg nor Julius Striecher never fired a shot during
World War II, neither so much as harmed a single hair on the head of an "Untermensch",
combatant or not.
Both, however propagandized incessantly for aggressive war and genocide. Both men hanged
at Nuremberg, for crimes against peace, aggressive war, and crimes against humanity. (I think
Streicher only hanged for crimes against humanity, but the sentence was the same.)
In a group of brain dead walking/talking ziocon mouth pieces, max boot stands out as one of
most brain dead-does not have an original thought in his head.
While this is a Russian site with specific audience, comments show that people reject the USA policy which might creates problems
for the USA in the future. Not the USA neoliberal/neocon elite cares.
This decisions just had shown to the whole would that Trump is a clown capable of twitting, not much more. Other people make key
decisions for the county.
The deep state that controls the US are lying criminal psychopaths. Any agreements and treaties negotiated with them aren't
worth the time or paper they are written on.
all.putin wants world peace but the Americans whats to tell everyone what to do and start wars what.they.sould buid a wall.around
america stop them getting out
le"> We can certainly expect Poland and Romania to be targeted with Nuclear munitions at the very least. There will likely
be an official Russian announcement of this fact as well. In the event of a breakout of hostilities with Nato then Russia will
target the military infrastructure in both countries and vaporise them immediately. Unfortunately a very large number of Polish
and Romanian civilians will be caught in the blasts. That will be tragic of course.
I live in the Netherlands and I am on the side of Russia. Europe is disgusting for not condemning the USA intentions. Eu will
regret it. When bombs fall on Europe because of these incompetent leaders we will not forget.
icle"> The Western public MUST, MUST become very familiar pronto with the few intellectuals, scholars, journalists, writers
and authors who have been at the forefront for global peace and world justice for decades! It's our only hope! Right now the only
sane voice on the national stage is Tulsi Gabbard. People must start reading: John Pilger, James Petras, Diana Johnstone, Stephen
Lendman, Ray McGovern, Finian Cunningham, Andre Vltchek, Michael Parenti, Stephen Cohen, The Saker, Caitlin Johnstone, Paul Craig
Roberts.
USA a decadent nation run by global mafia . Cannot trust what they say , is proven by their actions Sold their soul to the
devil for money and power. Yet they will fail God is in charge!
e"> The double standard in the West is breathtaking. It's as simple as the Golden Rule: merely try to imagine the reaction
in New York, London, Washington, Paris, Chicago, Boston if Russia or China were to do the exact same thing in southern Canada
or the Caribbean. The Washington military empire builders could possibly destroy humanity with their reckless and imperial behavior.
They simply cannot accept any sovereign nation-states that 1.) give the finger to Wall Street or the idea of the uni-polar world
Washington's intent on establishing, or 2.) gives diplomatic support to the Palestinians or is even a mild thorn in the side of
Israel. For further reading, see the following scholars, intellectuals, journalists and writers: James Petras, Diana Johnstone,
John Pilger, Stephen Lendman, Michael Parenti, Finian Cunningham, Andre Vltchek and a few others I'm forgetting at the moment.
e"> Under Trump the USA are rapidly steering towards an open dictatorship, something they've been doing for years but more
covertly. The USA have always been shouting the loudest about democracy and freedom but that's just a façade while they bully
the world and their own people into submission. The curtain is falling faster and faster now. Oh, and ask the American Natives
what the Americans do with treaties...
The US does not want friendship with Russia, it seeks to either control it or destroy it. Since the first option isn't going
to happen, it's obvious what's next and it'll start with more sanctions, expanding NATO into Georgia and Ukraine and placing nuclear
missiles on Russia's Eastern and Western border.
"comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> All it takes, is 1 single warhead fired from ex. Poland to reach Moscow. How many
launchers do USA have placed in these countries near Russia? Is Moscow more than 500 KM away from any NATO border? If the enemy
sets up catapults outside your city walls, isn't that a clear sign the enemy intend to fire those catapults against your walls?
So what do you do? Do you sit and wait? Or do you take out the catapults before they break down your walls? As far as any strategist
see this, it can be only one solution for survival.
omment-renderer-text-content expanded"> During FDR's 'Pearl Harbor' speech he said, "It will be recorded that the distance
of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago." There are echoes
of this speech in Putin's words (
02:18 ) and the
type of treachery referred to by Roosevelt applies to the American exit from the INF. America has become a nation holding "a big
stick" and loudly shouting about it (contrary to an earlier Roosevelt's advice). The White House acknowledged (and the NYT reported)
that we are involved in seven wars right now (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Niger). We have 38 "named" foreign
military bases as well as upwards of 600 overseas military installations of some sort including "lily pads," i.e., "cooperative
security locations" and an undisclosed number of "black" locations. Our military budget is pushing towards a trillion dollars
per year ($717 billion this year). We are threatening small countries such as Venezuela with military action (and yes, something
needs to be done for the good of the people there but that should not include an American military attack which President Trump,
our Secretary of State ("and his colleague") have said is "on the table." And now, we are dumping nuclear weapons treaties. We
have truly become a country which "lives by the sword." Good luck to us all.
Okay , so this is a broadcast of the President of Russia speaking to his security council right , this is official researched
factual intel ....has to be on that level ...right . Now to the few negative responses I have come across ,what intel do you have
and where did you get it...
Instead of addressing and trying to ameliorate this most dangerous development, let's instead focus on Trump's idiotic and
diversionary comments and tweets about buying Greenland or some such other nonsense.
But analysts argued that the mainland will become even more attractive to foreign
investors, as business conditions are set to improve through reform and opening-up measures
and as other major economies, including in the US and Europe, are engulfed in their own
economic and political chaos.
The HK protesters are shooting themselves on the foot. They can't achieve a military
victory because, contrary to countries like Brazil and Ukraine, USA's infiltration in China
is very low (reduced to embassies and universities), which rules out unconventional warfare
as per the TC-18-01.
The only part that loses with this situation is the Hongkonger capitalist
(native) elite -- that's why Carrie Lam is desperate and almost cried in one recent speech.
But this is a problem for the protesters themselves, who are liberals and seek to establish a
perpetually capitalist HK. Hence
HSBC, Standard Chartered, Bank of East Asia speak up against violence, call for peace in
HK ; hence a op-ed from the SCMP fears this is the
end of HK as we know it . It can't come sooner.
"This is an issue I've broached a few times on The Corbett Report now, because I think it's a
trap that those of us watching the machinations of the American Empire can fall into. It
seems straightforward: If Washington is paying to stir things up in a given area, then the
protests are all fake and the freedom movement in that area is not a "real" freedom movement.
But this is too binary and simplistic. The people of Hong Kong have real and legitimate
grievances with the Chinese government and real worries about their future. The right of the
people to self-determination is a real and powerful motivating force there just as it is
anywhere else, and who are we to tell the people of Hong Kong that their wish for freedom is
illegitimate?
Something that should give pause for thought to those who would write off such protests as
nothing more than American deep state operations is that when you dehumanize the protesters
and disallow the legitimacy of their movement, you inevitably find yourself in the awkward
position of cheering on the jackbooted thugs of the police state who are there to quell the
protests.
Yes, as many in the independent media have pointed out, the protesters have engaged in
acts of violence during these protests, and that is despicable and should be condemned. But
the police (who, interestingly, are dressing themselves up as protesters and mingling in with
the crowds, Montebello-style), are also using brutal violence against protesters, and to
ignore or deny that reality is dishonest.
So that brings us to our next question: Where does all of this leave us, looking on at a
situation like this? The question itself is a trick. It presupposes that we have a role of
some sort to play in these protests. That non-Hong Kongers should be actively choosing sides,
rooting for, and even "aiding" one side or another in this conflict. But that's precisely the
problem, isn't it? If it's outside interference that is stirring all of this discontent up in
the first place, as some in the independent media would have you believe, then is more
outside interference really the answer here?
In fact, as usual, the violence and conflict taking place in Hong Kong right now is
playing directly into the hands of those who want to come in and impose "order" in the
region. The protests obviously give Beijing the excuse to line their army up at the border
and threaten to do away with the fig leaf of Hong Kong's quasi-sovereignty altogether. At the
same time, any such crackdown would be exactly the excuse that the US and its partners in
international crime would need to escalate their Clash of Civilizations 2.0 with the dreaded
Chinese bogeyman.
One thing is for certain: the fight for the future of Hong Kong is raging as we speak. But
the real question is: who is fighting that fight? The people of Hong Kong, or Beijing and
Washington? The answer to that question will determine whether Hong Kong ever achieves a
modicum of freedom, or whether it is destined to forever be a plaything in a proxy wars
between the great powers."
The problem with Trump is that everything in him is second rate. Even bulling. and many americans were aware of that and
voted for him just because that thought that Hillary was worse. Much worse.
And Daniel
Larison is correct: when Trump faces strong backlash he just declare the partner in negotiation "terrible" and walks out and try
to justify his defeat ex post facto.
Notable quotes:
"... As we have seen, Trump's bullying, maximalist approach does not work with other governments, and this approach cannot work because the president sees everything as a zero-sum game and winning requires the other side's capitulation. ..."
"... The result is that no government gives Trump anything and instead all of them retaliate in whatever way is available to them. He can't agree to a mutually beneficial compromise because he rejects the idea that the other side might come away with something. Because every existing agreement negotiated in the past has required some compromise on our government's part, he condemns all of them as "terrible" because they did not result in the other party's surrender. ..."
"... he is so clueless about international relations and diplomacy that he still thinks it can get him what he wants. The reality is that all of his foreign policy initiatives are failing or have already failed, and the costs for ordinary people in the targeted countries and here at home keep going up. ..."
"... "Temperamentally, the president is unprepared for diplomacy and negotiations with sovereign states," said D'Antonio. "He doesn't know how to practice the give-and-take that would produce bilateral or multilateral achievements and he takes things so personally that he considers those with a different point of view to be enemies. He is offended when others decline to be bullied and angered by those who counter his proposals with their own ideas." ..."
"... The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of them believe that he understood how to negotiate when he has never been any good at it. Now the U.S. and many other countries around the world are paying the price. ..."
"... "Trump has always been a lousy negotiator." ..."
"... But, but, but... he is very good in breaking up negotiated treaties, and breaking up negotiation itself. ..."
Michael Hirsh
reminds us
that Trump has always been a lousy negotiator:
Michael D'Antonio, a Trump biographer who interviewed him many times, agrees with Lapidus that there is no discernible difference
in the way Trump negotiates today, as president, compared to his career in business. "His style involves a hostile attitude and
a bullying method designed to wring every possible concession out of the other side while maximizing his own gain," D'Antonio
said. "As he explained to me, he's not interested in 'win-win' deals, only in 'I win' outcomes. When I asked if he ever left anything
on the table as a sign of goodwill so that he might do business with the same party in the future he said no, and pointed out
that there are many people in the world he can work with, one at a time."
As we have seen, Trump's bullying, maximalist approach does not work with other governments, and this approach cannot work
because the president sees everything as a zero-sum game and winning requires the other side's capitulation.
The result is that no government gives Trump anything and instead all of them retaliate in whatever way is available to them.
He can't agree to a mutually beneficial compromise because he rejects the idea that the other side might come away with something.
Because every existing agreement negotiated in the past has required some compromise on our government's part, he condemns all of
them as "terrible" because they did not result in the other party's surrender.
He seems particularly obsessed with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) because the trade-off inherent in any agreement
made with Iran was that they would regain access to frozen assets, and he ignorantly equates this with "giving" them money. The fact
that the JCPOA heavily favored the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1 doesn't interest Trump. Iran was allowed to come away with something
at the end, and even the little bit they were able to get is far too much for him. This is one reason he has been so closely aligned
with Iran hawks over the last four years, and it helps explain why he endorses absurd, unrealistic demands and "maximum pressure"
of collective punishment. He is doing more or less the same thing he has always done, and he is so clueless about international relations
and diplomacy that he still thinks it can get him what he wants. The reality is that all of his foreign policy initiatives are failing
or have already failed, and the costs for ordinary people in the targeted countries and here at home keep going up.
Here is another relevant point from the article:
"Temperamentally, the president is unprepared for diplomacy and negotiations with sovereign states," said D'Antonio. "He
doesn't know how to practice the give-and-take that would produce bilateral or multilateral achievements and he takes things so
personally that he considers those with a different point of view to be enemies. He is offended when others decline to be bullied
and angered by those who counter his proposals with their own ideas."
The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of them believe that he understood how to negotiate when
he has never been any good at it. Now the U.S. and many other countries around the world are paying the price.
Pulling off that "greatest trick" was amazing easy, actually: all Trump and his creatures had to do was go on the assumption that
most Americans will readily believe what they see on television. Especially when it jibes with their prejudices.
"The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of
them believe that he understood how to negotiate when he has never been
any good at it."
While I agree with pretty much all of the article, let us not forget that a majority of Americans was not, in fact, fooled.
Americans are certainly paying a price Benjamin Franklin warned about. But as for other countries, theirs is due strictly to their
own doing, for relying excessively on the goodwill of America and turning a blind-eye to our imperialism. Quite frankly, up to
now, US allies have been enablers.
Add to that, " When someone hits me, I hit them back ten times harder."
This is not what we teach our children. It is a miserable way to live, or to run a country. No wonder the President is longer
referred to as "the leader of the free world." He gave up that title. These are sad days.
Yes, he is utterly incompetent on his main selling point, his supposed skill at negotiating. It is very inconvenient having Trump
as our standard-bearer.
"The greatest trick that Trump pulled on Americans was to make many of them believe that he understood how to negotiate when he
has never been any good at it."
Actually, the people who voted for Trump and who support him now love him for being a bully. That's what they want. They want
a Tony Soprano as their president, a guy who will go out and beat up all the people they hate. They don't want "negotiation".
They want a guy who has a baseball bat and knows how to use it. What's "interesting" is that despite all of Trump's appeals to
violence, and his willingness to support violence (for example, Saudi Arabia), he largely shrinks from it himself. We've seen
far fewer Tomahawks than one might have expected, particularly considering the great press he received the first time around.
Will we continue to be lucky? I hope so, but it's hard to be optimistic.
survey
shows that most Americans don't want war with Iran. Only 18% of all American adults favor
military action against Iran, and even among Republicans that number is just 25%. 78% favor
economic and diplomatic efforts. That's fine as far as it goes, and it shows that there is very
little support for a new war at this time. The framing of the question is the bigger problem
and makes the results from the poll much less useful.
The poll asks, "What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its
nuclear program -- take military action against Iran, or rely mainly on economic and diplomatic
efforts?" The question assumes that it is within our government's power to "get Iran to shut
down its nuclear program," when the experience of the last twenty years tells us that it is
not. The nuclear negotiations that produced the JCPOA show beyond any doubt that there are
limits to what Iran is willing to concede on this point. It is good that most Americans prefer
non-military options to pursue this fantastical goal, but the assumption that Iran will one day
"shut down" its nuclear program is completely unrealistic. On the contrary, the more pressure
that the U.S. puts on Iran in an attempt to force such a shutdown, the more inclined Iran's
government is to build up its program.
If Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful, there is no need for them to shut it down. The
long-term goal of the JCPOA has been to demonstrate to the satisfaction of all parties that
Iran's nuclear program is and will remain peaceful, and then at that point Iran will be treated
like any other member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The U.S. doesn't need to do
anything to "get" Iran to do this because the goal of shutting down the program is a foolish
and impossible one. Perceiving Iran's possession of a peaceful nuclear program as a problem to
be solved is one of the reasons why our debate over Iran policy is so warped and biased in
favor of coercive measures. The idea that Iran has to "shut down" a program that it is legally
entitled to have under the NPT is bizarre, but it is obviously a common view here in the
U.S.
The question is misleading in another way, since it suggests that military action could be
effective in forcing Iran to "shut down" the program. In reality, attacking Iran's nuclear
facilities would at most set back the program, but it would give the Iranian government a
strong incentive to develop and build a deterrent that would discourage the U.S. from launching
more attacks in the future. Attacking a country when it doesn't have nuclear weapons is a good
way to encourage them to acquire those weapons as quickly as possible.
That makes the results to the follow-up question all the more dispiriting. The poll also
asks, "Suppose U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work. If that happens, do you think
the United States should -- or should not -- take military action against Iran?" Once again,
the question assumes that getting Iran to "shut down" its nuclear program is both a legitimate
and realistic goal. If non-military measures "do not work," there is additional support for
military action from a depressing 42% of those who initially favored "economic and diplomatic
efforts." Put them together with the initial supporters of military action, and you have a
narrow majority of all American adults that thinks the U.S. should take military action:
The 42% of those who favor military action if nonmilitary efforts fail translates to 35%
of all U.S. adults. Combining that group with the 18% who favor military action outright
means a slim majority of Americans, 53%, would support military action against Iran if
diplomatic and economic efforts are unsuccessful.
There is a disturbingly high level of support for launching an illegal attack on another
country for something it is legally permitted to have. The assumption that "economic and
diplomatic efforts" will be "unsuccessful" if they don't force Iran to abandon its nuclear
program helps to push respondents to give that answer, but they wouldn't endorse a military
option if they hadn't been led to think that Iran's nuclear program is an intolerable danger.
That is partly because of the bad framing of the questions, but it is also a product of decades
of relentless propagandizing about a supposed threat from Iran's nuclear program that is
completely divorced from reality. We need better poll questions on this subject, but we also
need better, more informed debate about Iran and we have to stamp out the threat inflation that
poisons and distorts the public's perceptions of threats from other states.
China slammed Taiwan Monday for offering asylum to Hong Kong people facing prosecution for
involvement in anti-government protests, telling the island's leaders to "stop meddling" in the
territory's affairs.
Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen voiced support last month for granting asylum to some Hong
Kong protesters, with the semi-autonomous financial hub in the midst of an unprecedented
political crisis.
Ma Xiaoguang, a spokesperson for the Chinese cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office, warned
Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party to "stop undermining the rule of law in the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region, stop meddling in Hong Kong affairs, and stop indulging
criminals in any way".
Taiwanese authorities "ignore the facts and reverse black and white, not only masking the
crimes of a small number of Hong Kong militants, but also fuelling their arrogance for
destroying Hong Kong", said Ma.
Last month after dozens of Hong Kong activists reportedly involved in an unprecedented
storming of the city's parliament fled to Taiwan, the Taipei said it would provide assistance
to those seeking sanctuary.
"They openly claim to provide (protesters) asylum, making Taiwan into a 'haven sheltering
criminals', where does this put the safety and welfare of the Taiwan people?" asked Ma.
Beijing regards Taiwan as a part of China awaiting reunification, but the island is a
self-ruled democracy.
The protest movement in Hong Kong was sparked by widespread opposition to a plan for
allowing extraditions to the Chinese mainland, but has since morphed into a broader call for
democratic rights.
Taiwan's history of providing sanctuary to Chinese dissidents has been mixed.
The island still does not recognise the legal concept of asylum but has, on occasions,
allowed dissidents to stay on long-term visas.
Ties with Beijing have soured since Tsai came to power in 2016 because her party refuses to
recognise the idea that Taiwan is part of "one China". lawrence
2 days ago
Taiwan is an independent country. Of cause it has the right and authority to grant any asylum
to the eligible asylum seeker. Respect Taiwan as an respected country ,equal to china, and
the world will put china in a better place. Loving freedom and democracy is a human basic
right realty and could not be altered by force...wake up china..
Biden (D)(2): "Biden's Complicity in Obama's Toxic Legacy" [ Counterpunch
(Re Silc)]. "Central to [Biden's] narrative is the presentation of the difference between Trump
and Obama as akin to the difference between Hitler and Gandhi. A better analogy –
especially when it comes to foreign policy – would be the difference between John Wayne
Gacy, the serial killer who was known for dressing up as a clown at public events, and Ted
Bundy, the tall, handsome serial killer who enticed his victims into his car with his charm and
good looks." • I picked out the sickest burn, if we still say that, but the article as
whole is quite a bill of particulars.
Obama reportedly asked his senior staff to "fix this problem with Biden" -
something they never quite got a handle on. Thus, Biden went on embarrassing the top of his
ticket during both private fundraisers with big-time donors, and with the general public.
The bitterness only escalated from there, especially as Biden began making more frequent
gaffes on the campaign trail. In the final week of September alone, Biden "equated paying
higher taxes with patriotism," told voters both he and Obama were opposed to coal -- contrary
to their platform – and second guessed the campaign's messaging strategy.
In the wake of such gaffes, Obama purportedly told his staff to "fix this problem with
Biden," but refrained from getting involved himself. All of that changed two weeks before
Election Day, when Biden claimed at a fundraiser that Obama, if elected, would stare down an
international crisis in his first six-months.
The prophesy would not have stirred much concern, except Biden gave the impression to
those in attendance and the media that he was "showing off" for wealthy donors, and the
crisis in question would be "generated."
"Mark my words," Biden told the crowd. "It will not be six months before the world tests
Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a
generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Biden's inability to stop making cracks about Obama's 'lack of experience' infuriated the
candidate in a way that even the sharpest jabs from Hillary never quite managed to do. Halperin
and Heilemann described how, during one call not long after the above-mentioned remark, a
furious Obama fumed about "how many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?"
On Obama's nightly call, the candidate hit the ceiling. ([Chief strategist David] Axelrod
was already up there, needing to be peeled off, having let fly a string of F-bombs when he
first found out what Biden had said.) 'Golly, man!' Obama said, with more anger in his voice
than 'gollys' normally carry. He was, in fact, as pissed off as most people on the call had
ever heard him, more so than he'd been at even the wickedest jabs from Hillary Clinton. 'How
many times is Biden gonna say something stupid?'"
Not long after, Obama set up a private call with Biden where he laid into his running mate,
accusing him of failing to 'have his back.'
A couple of days later, Obama phoned Biden and laid into him. You were supposed to have my
back, he said, not be out there creating problems...More than that, though, what rankled
Obama was that Biden hadn't bothered to pick up the phone and apologize. Worse, Biden didn't
say that he was sorry when Obama called; he showed no remorse for his...comments or
understanding that they posed a real political problem.
All of this is why Obama reportedly told Biden during a private call before the 76-year-old
launched his campaign that he 'didn't need to do this.'
"You don't have to do this, Joe, you really don't," Obama told Biden before the
76-year-old formally launched his campaign in April.
For Democratic primary voters, this is definitely something worth keeping in mind.
"... EU is the power, that took part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children of Iraq, building sex slaves markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in Ukraine. EU power is diminishing? Let it crash and burn if you ask me. ..."
> Further US sanctions on Russia. Russian gdp growth is very low now, forecasts are
about mere 1,2 % per anum, and thus Russia's share of world GDP is declining.
Posted by: Passer by | Aug 20 2019 13:15 utc
You think "harming Russia" is a good answer to question "how does it boost USA the
hegemon?". Well, let's suppose it...
Problem then is, Russia does not care that much about nominal GDP and even about PPP GDP.
It is "average temperature in hospital", where some patients are in 41C fever and others in
4C morgue, but on average they all have that healthy 36,6C.
However, even for those sanctions that did hit Russia and EU hard (and those were enacted
mostly in 2015), under the "China-Russia double helix" model, economic soft power is Chinese
responsibility, so targetting EU and Russia economically was perhaps a mis-aiming, like would
be targetting China militarily.
Also, take a single line - "congress obliges Trump to enlist Russian officials for
sanctions" and do the search in both pro-Clinton Google and in DDG. first page of Google has
zero relebvant results. DDG however starts with
Trump Administration Sends Congress List of Possible Russia ...
www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html
Congress has tied Trump's hands on Russian sanctions - Vox
www.vox.com/2017/7/29/16061878/trump-russian-sanctions-sign
Congress Forces Trump to Sanction Russia - Fash the Nation
fashthenation.com/2018/03/congress-forces-trump-to-sanction-russia/
Trump Finally Imposes Russia Sanctions That Congress Ordered ...
www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/trump-finally-imposes-russia-sanctions-that-congress-ordered-months-ago/
Is 2017 so far ago that we already forgot it? Trump has no freedom of choice to sanction
Russia or not. It is not his authority to make this choice. Trump is ordered to sanction and
he would do. If he has any leeway, it is to how specifically sanction, but even that choice
is framed into UIS domestic politic fuel, as a vehicle to fry Trump over being "Putin's shil"
and looking "not enough" into evil Russians.
> China postponed for overtaking the US in gdp MER to 2032 from 2024.
Estimations are just that, estimations. Guesses into the future mixed with propaganda. If
you don't buy Trump's tweets about "China begging for deal" and Obama's about "Russian
economy in tatters" - why to buy these estimations?
> Indian growth downgraded - which taken together with China means slowing down Asia's
rise.
Pro-American Modi in power of India was a definite win for USA. But I do not think Trump
did it in 2016. Such events are grown for years and years of undercover works.
Same for the Brazil fiasco, which i perceive was much heavier blow upon BRICS than Modi.
But Brazilian coup was in preparation yet before Trump's oath. May 2016 was the FINAL act,
prepared months before:
nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/americas/brazil-dilma-rousseff-impeachment.html
> Iran in recession - long term growth is low - it means that Iran's share of the world
economy is now declining. This will lower Iranian influence in the long term.
Long term? like Trump is planning for long term? Would he, like Putin, still be American
president in 2016+18=2034 ?
Well, maybe. However does it boost much US the hegemon position today?
Also notice how this pushes Iran back to Russian bucket. Before JCPOA Iran was flirting
with "Lesser Satan" a lot, promising to buy russian airliners, promising to barter Iranian
goods (oil and others) for Russian goods, thus de facto letting Russia be quasi-monopolistic
seller of Iranian goods on world market for any margin Russia would manage to extract. All
those hints and kinda-plans were squashed instantly after JCPOA. Iran rushed to trade with EU
directly, to buy Boeing and Airbis jets.... But was shot into the leg before it started. I
think China would also find their way to be "big helping brother" to Iranian economy, on some
conditions of course.
> Venezueala in deep recession
True, and this is again fitting the isolationist bill, to a degree. If Team Trump ready to
exclude USA from global trade - it would have to secure oil supply. Enslaving a nearby
oil-containing nation would do.
Additionally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Venezuela_relations
lists 2014 as start of economic sanctions against Venezuela. So, Trump has inherited "office
of Venezuelan affairs" from Cinton/Obama. And... he brought it to light and headlines by
making that idiotic wannabe-coup. The sh*t that previously USA did silently pretending
whitegloved "shining beacon", Trump exposed.
Did it really made USA position better in 2018 than it was in 2014? I doubt. To me it
seemes more like T.T. accelerated things and "threw it all on the table" making Venezuela
"hit the rock bottom". Now Venezuela can adjust to the new brave world, while USA would
probably not be in position to tighten its grip - it already burned all the reserves and in
so clumsy way, that Bolton and Co became a laughing stock. If anything, it exposed that while
most gov't there would be paying lip service to USA, none would go with something material.
France invaded with USA Libya, Germany invaded with USA Serbia, but none enlisted to invade
Venezuela with USA.
> In Latin America most governments are now US puppet governments.
Brazil was indeed a huge blow into the BRICS dream. But i see it more of that indirect,
covert "soft power" that USA secret services prepared and rushed to implement before
Trump.
> Weakened the EU, via support for Brexit and other ways - it means that the euro will
not be a viable alternative for replacing the dollar
Basically turning EU elites against USA and splitting "Western Hegemony" into rivaling
factions.
From multipolar view circa 2010, would it be much difference for, say, Russia or China or
Iran, whether USD or EUR would be "reserve currency"?
After Alexander of Macedonia died his empire split to pieces, and some of those pieces
soon started warring. Did this enhance Greek hegemony or reduced it?
When COMECOM and Warsaw Pact disbanded did it enhanced Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe
or reduced it? But it slashed exports of those lands, Bulgaria is not more agriculture
super-power it used to be, "Ikarus" bus is still often meet in Moscow street but in the
"remnants of old times still able to run" kind, Poland is no more producing ocean-grade
ships. So, was it enhancing USSR share of world economy then?
Also, didn't he kind of forced EU elites into Chinese OBOR camp? That said, similarly
Russia was forced towards China in 2013-2014 by Western lunacy, so i would not say it was
Trump's novelty to push EU eastwards.
EU was in with US in looting Libya, EU was in with US in looting Serbia, now US calls for
EU to join in "patrolling" Persian Gulf and response is... like the one about invading
Venezuela. Hegemon became stronger?
> Trade wars seem to be hitting EU's export dependent economy pretty hard.
And i wish to see more of those wars not less. Won't you? EU is the power, that took
part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children of Iraq, building sex slaves
markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in Ukraine. EU power is diminishing?
Let it crash and burn if you ask me.
> Turkey has serious economic problems - partly due to the US again - which again means
slowing down multipolarity
Wasn't in 2012 Turkey part of Hegemon entourage neck-deep in bloody ISIS affair?
Wasn't Turkey for decades be knockign into closed EU membership doors?
Wasn't Turkey send their people into Germany to intertwine and cross-influence?
Turkey as part of multipolarity? Maybe. But exactly because it was prohibited from what
they see their place in global western world. However i am not very sure that would West
offer "larger piece" to Turkey in their crippling hegemony, turkey would not turn back yet
again. Goog thing, it would be hard to do as few believe western promises today, but again,
didn't Trump (but other western politicians too, and including many pre-Trump) invested into
making West glaringly "not agreement-capable" in but everyone's view?
Trump could smash Turkey and instate Kudistan.
Trump could smash Kurds and make amends with Erdo.
Instead Trump is breaking pots with both. Neither Kurds not Turks no trust "the shining
beacon".
> Overall situation - the US share in the world economy is declining at slower rates
than before
Won't this mean Trump's economic policy is if limited success?
> the retarding of growth of everyone else, which means defacto slowing down
multipolarity and the replacement of the US dollar
That may be what some faction of Team Trump counting upon. But i have reservations.
Uni-polarity is not about economic growth. It is about trading on One True Market, hegemon's
one.
And when everything goes down, another factors start to weigh in. Like elasticity of demand
and replacement with cheaper substitutes. Like, if i need a tooling for my house, i would
perhaps want to purchase Japanese Makita or German Bosh. Those are famous brands with decades
of well earned reputation. But if i only can salivate on them, then perhaps i can go with
some cheaper Chinese knock-off? Or perhaps to blow the dust from my grandpa's old tool and
purchase nothing at all? If i can buy genuine American Levi's it is a fad, but if i can, then
perhaps i will make it in Turkey-made or China-made or Philipinnes-made or even Syria-made
jeans? You know, their cut is not that fitting as European or American, but perhaps we can
deal with it for the price? If in Russia i can no more buy Czech or German beer as before
2014, then perhaps i can sooth myself with apple cidre from semi-eastern Altai region of
Russia? And then, will my gov't still had the same need for USD for those adjusted trade
transactions, as it used to?
"... The current neoliberal order failed to suppress China development enough to block her from becoming the competitor (and the second largest economy.) ..."
"... That's why a faction of the USA elite decided to adopt "might makes right" policies (essentially piracy instead of international law) in a hope that it will prolong the life of the US-centered neoliberal empire. ..."
"... As much as Trump proved to be inapt politician and personally and morally despicable individual (just his known behavior toward Melania tells a lot about him; we do not need possible Epstein revelations for that) he does represent a faction of the US elite what wants this change. ..."
"... All his pro working class and pro lower middle class rhetoric was a bluff -- he is representative of faction of the US elite that is hell bent on maintaining the imperial superiority achieved after the collapse of the USSR, whatever it takes. At the expense of common people as Pentagon budget can attest. ..."
"... That also explains the appointment of Bolton and Pompeo. That are birds of the feather, not some maniacs (although they are ;-) accidentally brought into Trump administration via major donors pressure. ..."
"... In this sense Russiagate was not only a color revolution launched to depose Trump by neoliberal wing of Democratic Party and rogue, Obama-installed elements within intelligence agencies (Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.) , but also part of the struggle between the faction of the US elite that wants "muscular" policy of preservation of the empire (Trump supporters faction so to speak) and the faction that still wants to kick the can down the road via "classic neoliberalism" path (Clinton supporters faction so to speak.) ..."
It is not about the strategy. It's about the agony. The agony of the US centered global
neoliberal empire.
Trump and forces behind him realized that current set of treaties does not favor the
preservation of the empire and allows new powerful players to emerge despite all
institutionalized looting via World Bank and IMF and the imposition of Washington Consensus.
The main danger here are Germany (and EU in general) and, especially, China.
The current neoliberal order failed to suppress China development enough to block her from
becoming the competitor (and the second largest economy.)
That's why a faction of the USA elite decided to adopt "might makes right" policies
(essentially piracy instead of international law) in a hope that it will prolong the life of
the US-centered neoliberal empire.
As much as Trump proved to be inapt politician and personally and morally despicable
individual (just his known behavior toward Melania tells a lot about him; we do not need
possible Epstein revelations for that) he does represent a faction of the US elite what wants
this change.
All his pro working class and pro lower middle class rhetoric was a bluff -- he is
representative of faction of the US elite that is hell bent on maintaining the imperial
superiority achieved after the collapse of the USSR, whatever it takes. At the expense of
common people as Pentagon budget can attest.
That also explains the appointment of Bolton and Pompeo. That are birds of the feather, not
some maniacs (although they are ;-) accidentally brought into Trump administration via major
donors pressure.
In this sense Russiagate was not only a color revolution launched to depose Trump by
neoliberal wing of Democratic Party and rogue, Obama-installed elements within intelligence
agencies (Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.) , but also part of the struggle between the faction of
the US elite that wants "muscular" policy of preservation of the empire (Trump supporters
faction so to speak) and the faction that still wants to kick the can down the road via
"classic neoliberalism" path (Clinton supporters faction so to speak.)
"For the US its better to wreck Venezuela's economy than to allow it to flourish and expand
its influence.."
Not necessarily. The US is gambling that it will beat Venezuela. But if it doesn't, if
Venezuela simply outlasts the imperialist sanctions, it will emerge much stronger.
In recent years there has been a drift towards compromise with the US in Venezuela. Chavez
was always very generous towards his opponents and this has continued. As a result the old
Creole ruling class has been relatively undisturbed. It has retained its power over the
media, for example and left in a position to sabotage the economy through its control of
supermarkets, banks and commerce. It has retained its landholdings and maintained its
agribusiness.
And now, in cahoots with the imperialists, it has come out against the government and
chavismo. Its racist, neo fascist propensities and its contempt for its own countrymen and
women- the poor and the working class- have been revealed. While the people are fighting to
defend themselves against imperialism, Guido and the Venezuelan right, the capitalist class
have made their positions very obvious. Given any sort of opportunity they will smash the
social security and food security networks that keep the poor from starvation. They will
privatise- Honduras style- and death squads will roam the working class districts torturing
and killing.
In short the people of Venezuela have been shown exactly what to expect if the US wins. And
the allies of the US have been revealed to be the country's worst enemies: traitors and
Quislings.
In the end, if the US does not replace the Maduro government, it will find itself much
worse off. All its Fifth Columnist friends will be in exile or hiding. All their wealth will
have been distributed to the poor or nationalised.
And the US will have one more sworn and permanent enemy, the people of Venezuela.
"... Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them. ..."
"... The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best." That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history. ..."
"... As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion. ..."
"... Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before." ..."
"... The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans. ..."
"... As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq. ..."
"... Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security." He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous, to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question. ..."
"... The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes? ..."
"... Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic war. ..."
Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them.
Estimates of the number of civilians who died during the war in Iraq range from 151,000 to 655,000. An additional 4,491 American
military personnel perished in the war. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, toxicologist at the University of Michigan, has organized several
research expeditions to Iraq to measure the contamination and pollution still poisoning the air and water supply from the tons of
munitions dropped during the war. It does not require any expertise to assume what the studies confirm: disease is still widespread
and birth defects are gruesomely common. Back home, it is difficult to measure just how many struggle with critical injuries and
post-traumatic stress disorder.
The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction,
Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best."
That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually
did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history.
As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match
its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion.
Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state
of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before."
The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement
in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans
dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When
they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the
equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans.
As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical
assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played
a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq.
Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security."
He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving
aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous,
to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question.
Far worse than the worship of Mueller is the refusal to scrutinize the abysmal foreign policy record of Joe Biden, currently the
frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Of the Democrats in the Senate at that time, Biden was the most
enthusiastic of the cheerleaders for war, waving his pompoms and cartwheeling in rhythm to Dick Cheney's music. Biden said repeatedly
that America had "no choice but to eliminate the threat" posed by Saddam Hussein. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
his blustering was uniquely influential.
The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked
into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone
who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador
to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should
ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes?
Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism
of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The
moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic
war.
Polling well below Biden in the race is the congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard. She alone on the Democratic stage has made
criticism of American militarism central to her candidacy. A veteran of the Iraq war and a highly decorated major in the Hawaii Army
National Guard, Gabbard offers an intelligent and humane perspective on foreign affairs. She's called the regime change philosophy
"disastrous," advocated for negotiation with hostile foreign powers, and backed a reduction in drone strikes. She pledges if she
becomes president to end American involvement in Afghanistan.
When Chris Matthews asked Gabbard about Biden's support for the Iraq war, she said, "It was the wrong vote. People like myself,
who enlisted after 9/11 because of the terrorist attacks, were lied to. We were betrayed."
Her moral clarity is rare in the political fog of the presidential circus. She cautions against accepting the "guise of humanitarian
justification for war," and notes that rarely does the American government bomb and invade a country to actually advance freedom
or protect human rights.
Gabbard's positions are vastly superior to that of the other young veteran in the race, Pete Buttigieg. The mayor of South Bend
recently told New York that one of his favorite novels is The Quiet American , saying that its author, Graham Greene,
"points out the dangers of well-intentioned interventions."
Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination seem low, and his prospects of becoming a literary critic appear even lower.
The Quiet American does much more than raise questions about interventions: it is a merciless condemnation of American exceptionalism
and its attendant indifference to Vietnamese suffering.
Americans hoping for peace won't find much comfort in the current White House either. President Trump has made the world more
dangerous by trashing the Iran nuclear deal, and his appointment of John Bolton, a man who makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Mahatma
Gandhi, as national security advisor is certainly alarming.
America's willful ignorance when it comes to the use of its own military exposes the moral bankruptcy at the heart of its political
culture. Even worse, it makes future wars all but inevitable.
If no one can remember a war that ended merely nine years ago, and there's little room for Tulsi Gabbard in the Democratic primary,
how will the country react the next time a president, and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declare that they
have no choice but to remove a threat?
Norman Solomon, journalist and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, knows the answer to that question. He provides it
in the title of his book on how the media treats American foreign policy decisions: War Made Easy .
Where ae the people who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Should they be tried for lying to the American public?
4500 troops killed and over $1.1 TRILLION wasted with no good results .With hundreds of thousands of Iraq's killed. .
Where are they, indeed? They are still running US foreign policy; that's where they are. They are pundits in all the major media;
that's where they are.
I cannot even imagine what historians will say about the uncanny persistence of these charlatans' influence in this era after
a consistent record of disastrous, abysmal misadventures.
You don't have to look too hard to find them. Bolton, Pompeo, and other neocons are hiding in plain sight. The Military Industrial
Complex is embedded in our foreign policy like a tick on a dog.
Because you'd be knocking out a storm trooper instead of the emperor, at least as far as Bush goes. Same for why the focus is
on Bolton rather than simply Trump.
I CAN see an argument that Trump/Bush knew what they were doing when they brought those people in though. f you feel that way
and see it more of an owner of a hostile attack dog then yeah, you'd want to include those two too.
Here stands Tulsi. A woman, who, unlike their conventional troupe, can win this election. They reject her because... what? Moar
war? She's not the member of the Cult? Or it's simply some sort of collective political death wish?
They reject her because she had the temerity to speak truth to power and supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 race. She stepped
down from her position as Vice Chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders. She has real courage, and earned their wrath. She's not perfect
but she's braver and stronger than almost the entire field. Only Bernie is on par.
And Bernie is the one they also hate, maybe a little bit less openly. Thus they reject those who can win the election. It's either
a self-destructiveness or they think that it's better to keep on losing than to rebuild the party into what it needs to be.
Democrats and the Republican establishment, both, love war. It wasn't a coincidence that Hillary Clinton chose Madeleine Albright
to be a keynote speaker at "her" party convention ("we think the deaths of a half million children are worth it"). Liberals know
that there isn't really any "free" free, and that taxing the rich won't match their dreams -- it is the blood and bones of innocent
foreigners that must pay for their lust. Establishment Republicans are more straightforward: they simply profit off the death
and destruction.
This is why Trump is being destroyed, and why Tulsi is attacked. If only "she" (the one who gloated over Khameni's murder)
had been elected, we'd be in a proxy war with Russia now! A real war with Iran! This is what the American people want, and what
they'll likely get when they vote another chicken-hawk in come 2020.
Tulsi, like Sanders is a 'danger' to everything Israel wants.
So, all...all the main 'news' networks and online sites don't like them and give more coverage to the same old Dem bull peddlers
like ignorant Booker and the lousy opportunist low IQ Kamala Harris and Gillibrand.
Manafort and his ilk can be tried and convicted for their lies. I guess if the lie is big enough we grant a pass on any need for
prosecution. Justice for all? I don't think so.
Max Blumenthal posted a powerful piece at Consortium News (7/31/2019) about Biden's central and south American mis-adventures.
Biden still extols his own policies however disastrous. The hubris of the man is worse than nauseating.
Whether one thinks Gabbard has a shot at the nomination or not, it's important to keep her on the stage in the next round of debates.
Go to Tulsi2020.com
and give her just one dollar (or more if you can)
so she has enough unique contributors to make the next round. And if you get polled,early on give her your vote.
The total US costs related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to be considerably larger than $1.1 trillion, according
to this study:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu...
Try $4-$6 trillion, according to the author of the study.
Long after I, Andrew Bacevitch and Hillary Clinton have gone to our reward, there will still be thousands of wounded warriors
from these US Middle East adventures dependent on VA benefits for their survival and competing with civilian seniors for government
handouts. A war with Iran would make the US fiscal situation that much worse.
The religious folks who were so anxious to protect family values only a few years ago seem to have their heads in the sand
when it comes to the financial future of today's young Americans.
A few weeks ago, I made a token contribution to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign to help her qualify for the July Democratic debates.
She will need more new contributors to qualify for the next round of debates.
Tulsi hasn't a chance of the nomination, but she's exposing things and maybe more people will get a clue about what's really going
on with American lives and taxes being squandered for the profit of the few who benefit from these atrocities and wars abroad,
done in the name of all Americans.
Being a supporter of Tulsi Gabbard for the very reasons that the author writes, has me agreeing with everything he has promoted
in his piece.
However, to answer his own question as to why Americans are lured into commenting on such innocuous and foolish things in such
an important election such as Biden's touching of women, is answered by the author's own prose.
He states that Americans are only provided such nonsense from the press that is monitoring the election process. What else
can people talk about? And even if many Americans are clearheaded enough to understand the charade of the current Democratic debates,
what or who will actually provide legitimate coverage with the exception of online sites as the American Conservative, among others?
If most Americans were actually thinking individuals, Tulsi Gabbard would be a shoo-in for the presidency in 2020. However,
given the two factors of a highly corrupted mainstream press and too many Americans not studying enough civics to understand what
is going on around them, it is highly unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard will even get close to the possibility of being nominated...
Cheney, mentioned in the article, was pure evil. I voted for GB2 for two reasons. 1) He was a very good Texas governor. He actually
got anti-tax Texas to raise taxes dedicated to support education, in return for stricter standards for teachers. A good trade
since Texas public schools were awful. 2) Dick Cheney. I thought he was the adult in the room that would provide steady and reliable
guidance for Bush.
Boy was I wrong about Cheney. "Deficits don't matter". Just watch the movie Vice. Christian Bale does an incredible job portraying
the pure evil of Cheney and the Military Industrial Complex. The movie is chilling to watch. And it is basically true. Politifact
does a good job of scoring the accuracy of Cheney's role in the Bush administration as portrayed in the movie.
U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, President Trump and National Security Advisor John Bolton at the NATO
Foreign Ministerial in Brussels, Belgium on July 12, 2018. [State Department photo/ Public Domain]
Matt Lee
reports
on the Trump administration obsessive
use of sanctions:
Call it the diplomacy of coercion.
The Trump administration is aggressively pursuing economic sanctions as a primary foreign policy tool to an extent
unseen in decades, or perhaps ever. Many are questioning the results even as officials insist the penalties are
achieving their aims.
It is true that the Trump administration is using economic coercion as its default approach to almost everything, but
there doesn't appear to be any diplomacy involved. There is such a thing as "coercive diplomacy," but there is no
evidence that Trump and his officials understand the first thing about it. An administration that genuinely wanted to
secure lasting diplomatic agreements with other states would apply pressure only as a means to a specific, achievable
goal, but with this administration they are waging purely destructive economic wars that the targeted states cannot end
without capitulating. The "maximum pressure" description implies an unwillingness to relieve pressure short of the other
side's surrender.
It is not just that it is a "combination of more sticks and fewer carrots." The Trump administration's policies are
all punishment and no reward. In the case of Iran, it could hardly be otherwise when the administration chose to
penalize Iran with sanctions for daring to comply with a multilateral nonproliferation agreement. Iran behaved
constructively and acceded to the demands of the P5+1 four years ago, and in return for their cooperation they have been
subjected to a grueling economic war despite fully complying with their commitments. When our government punishes
another state for doing what previous administrations wanted them to do, no amount of punishment could force that state
to trust our government a second time.
The administration approaches each case in the same way: they impose penalties, they make threats, they offer no
incentives, and they make outrageous, far-fetched demands that no government would ever accept. Trump handles the trade
wars in much the same way that he handles the "maximum pressure" campaigns against intransigent governments, and he
fails every time because he can't conceive of a mutually beneficial agreement and therefore refuses to compromise.
Trump's "diplomacy" is no diplomacy at all, but a series of insults, sanctions, tariffs, and threats that achieve
nothing except to cause disruption and pain. Unsurprisingly, a pressure campaign that is aimed at toppling a government
or forcing it to give up everything it has cannot be successful on its own terms as long as the targeted government
chooses to resist, and the stakes for the targeted government will always higher than they are for the administration.
In a contest of wills, the party that is fighting to preserve itself has the advantage.
Someday, when everybody in the world hates America, these economic atrocities will come
back to the USA with violence. You can't do these things to people and not expect
retaliation. When people are hungry from sanctions and can't get medicine for their
children, they will fight back. Wouldn't you? But, it won't affect Wash., just innocent
people, like the innocent people abroad suffering from Wash. policy. Americans will reap
what Wash. sows.
It was the World's largest war at that time and surpassed WW II in many statistics, although
probably not "tonnage of bombs dropped". That latter was WW II, not surpassed until the Gulf
War when USAF used up all it's old arsenal (the better to let more contracts, my dear).
To be fair, military aviation was in its infancy then. The slaughter on the Western front broke
England's Social Structure and paved the way for the destruction of the British Empire. Four
other empire's died as a consequence of WW I (German, Austrian, Russian, and Turkish)
Note: "Kaiser" derives from "Caesar" which was an Imperial title of the late Roman Empire
besides being Gaius Julius Caesar's family name). Promises made to both Arabs and Jews by the
two-faced British Foreign Office paved the way for today's Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
It was a shattering event which tend to occur at 100 year intervals. The one previous was the
Napoleonic Wars. I forget the one before that. War of the Spanish succession? And
coincidentally, we are now living a hundred years later in the Middle east Forever war, which I
fully expect to have similar consequences. The rights and civil liberties of free Americans are
already a casualty.
The Great War set the stage for the Great Depression. I think a similar depression occurred
after the War of 1812 (Napoleonic War in Europe). I'd have to consult a history text to see
about others, but our 1970's economic travails were mirrored after the Civil war and the dot
com bust is eerily similar to the Depression of 1890.
There is a theory that wars and revolutions occur at two cycles of approximately 100 and 170
years based on temperature and rainfall cycles. Every 500 years they coincide in a 5-3
resonance and whole civilizations fall or are transformed. Toynbee's 1000 year cycles can be
seen as two such resonances. Following his analysis, the first crisis turns the civilization
inwards and autocratic. The second breaks it entirely. Religions change too. I forget how. My
Toynbee is packed away. does anyone here know what were the religious changes? Interestingly,
the next 500 year supercycle fell in 2000 AD, so we are now in the first major crisis of
Western Technical Civilization? (my name for the Renaissance and beyond, usually prosaically
called "Modern"). this should turn WTC inward and autocratic, eventually dying in the next
event around 2500 AD which should entire the collapse of civilization and a great
folk-wandering sparked by environmental collapse. (loss of Eurasian pasture in the case of
500AD, turning steppe peoples westward (China was having a civilization peak, no way were the
Huns turning east. In fact, they were expelled from China.
A statue of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his dog Fala are seen at the FDR Memorial September 20, 2012 in Washington,
DC.
KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images
Along with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt is often hailed as one of the United States'
greatest presidents. FDR gave Americans hope during the Great Depression, created key institutions like Social Security
that remain broadly popular today, led the country to victory in World War II, and created a broad political coalition
that endured for decades. He made mistakes -- as all presidents do -- but it's no wonder he's still regarded with reverence.
On Aug. 14, 1936 -- 83 years ago -- FDR gave a
speech
at
Chautauqua in upstate New York, fulfilling a promise he had made at his inauguration in 1933. It is a remarkable speech,
where FDR lays out his thoughts on the proper American approach to international affairs. He explains his "good
neighbor" policy toward Latin America, along with his belief that although a more liberal international trade may not
prevent war, "without a more liberal international trade, war is a natural sequence."
For me, the most remarkable feature of this speech is Roosevelt's blunt, vivid, and passionate denunciation of war,
expressed with a candor that is almost entirely absent from political discourse today. After making it clear that "we
are not isolationists, except insofar as we seek to isolate ourselves completely from war," he acknowledges that "so
long as war exists on Earth, there will be some danger that even the nation which most ardently desires peace may be
drawn into war."
But then he goes on:
"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men
coughing out their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen 200 limping,
exhausted men come out of line -- the survivors of a regiment of 1,000 that went forward 48 hours before. I have seen
children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war."
Roosevelt then reminds his listeners that war can result from many causes (including, in a passage that surely speaks
to us today, "political fanaticisms in which are intertwined race hatreds"). He hopes to preserve U.S. neutrality should
conflict erupt elsewhere and warns against the few selfish men who would seek to embroil the country in war solely to
reap war profits. To make sure the country does not foolishly choose profits over peace, he calls for the "meditation,
the prayer, and the positive support of the people of America who go along with us in seeking peace."
Yet, for all that, FDR leaves no doubt that the American people will defend themselves and their interests if war is
forced on them. In his closing paragraph, he declares: "If there are remoter nations that wish us not good but ill, they
know that we are strong; they know that we can and will defend ourselves and defend our neighborhood." And it is
precisely what Roosevelt ultimately did.
Seriously, can you think of a recent U.S. president who spoke of war and peace in similar terms, with equal passion
and frankness?
Bill Clinton was no militarist, but he was so worried about being labeled a dove that he kept boosting defense
spending, firing off cruise missiles without thinking, and blindly assuming that exporting democracy, expanding trade,
and issuing open-ended security guarantees would suffice to bring peace around the world. And when he had a golden
opportunity to broker a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace, he whiffed.
By contrast, George W. Bush was a swaggering frat boy who brought wars to several places and peace nowhere. He liked
to pose in a
nifty flight suit
and give
high-minded, tough-talking speeches, but the unnecessary wars he launched killed hundreds of thousands of people and
severely damaged America's global position.
Barack Obama may have agonized over every targeted killing and major military decision, but he also ramped up the
drone war, sent additional troops to Afghanistan to no good purpose, helped turn Libya into a failed state, and tacitly
backed the Saudi-led war in Yemen. And when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (!), his acceptance speech focused as
much on defending America's role in the world -- including its widespread use of military force -- as it did on extolling the
virtues of peace and the measures that must be taken to advance it.
Ironically, though Donald Trump loves military parades, flybys, and the other visible trappings of military power, he
seems rather leery of war. Like former Vice President Dick Cheney, who sought and received
five separate deferments
from the draft during Vietnam, Trump (or his father) apparently saw military service as
something that
only less
fortunate people
ought to participate in. As president, he does seem to recognize that starting some new war could
hurt him politically, even as his
more hawkish
advisors
keep pushing him in that direction. And we've yet to hear him extolling the virtues of peace as candidly as
Roosevelt did in 1936.
Look, you don't have to tell a realist like me that we live in an imperfect world and that perpetual peace is a pipe
dream. But the difficulty of the task is precisely why it merits serious attention. Yet instead of embracing peace as a
virtue, U.S. politicians go to great lengths to show how tough they are and how ready they are to send Americans into
harm's way in order to take out some alleged enemy. But how often do they talk about trying to understand the complex
origins of most contemporary conflicts? How often do they try to empathize with the United States' adversaries, not in
order to agree with them but so as to understand their position and to figure out a way to change their behavior without
resorting to threats, coercion, or violence? How often do prominent politicians say, as Roosevelt did, that they "hate
war"?
As I've
said before
, the U.S. disinterest in peace isn't just morally dubious; it's strategically myopic.
The United States should not shrink from fighting if such fighting is forced on it, but it should be the country's
last resort rather than its first impulse. The United States is remarkably secure from most external dangers, and apart
from political malfeasance at home (see: the Trump administration), the only thing that could really screw things up in
the short term is a big war. War is bad for business (unless you're Boeing or Lockheed Martin), and it tends to elevate
people who are good at manipulating violence but not so good at building up institutions, communities, or companies.
When you're already on top of the world, encouraging the use of force isn't prudent; it's dumb. Peace, in short, is
almost always in America's strategic interest.
Which makes it even more surprising that the word has mostly vanished from Americans' strategic vocabulary, and here
I think two big factors are responsible. First, fewer politicians (and especially presidents) have "seen war" in the way
that Roosevelt had. Harry Truman did, and so did Dwight D. Eisenhower (obviously), John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon,
Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush. Needless to say, none of the post-Cold War presidents ever saw war in
the same way.
Equally important, both the political class and the public have been imbibing an intoxicating brew of militarist
rhetoric, imagery, and argument for decades. Americans cheer the troops at baseball games, wave giddily at thunderous
aerial flybys, and finance all of their military adventures by borrowing money so that no one has to make obvious
sacrifices now.
In Roosevelt's era, Americans were still reluctant to "go abroad in search of monsters to destroy," but they fought
with unexpected ferocity when attacked. They were slow to anger but united in response. The situation today is the exact
opposite -- they are quick on the trigger provided that none of them have to do very much once the bullets are flying.
Instead of seeing war as a tragic necessity that is to be avoided if at all possible, Americans regard it as a rather
sanitary "policy option" that takes place in countries most of them cannot locate and is conducted primarily by drones,
aircraft, and volunteers. Americans fight all the time but without clear purpose or firm resolve. As one would expect,
they usually lose, although others often
pay a much larger price
than
they do.
There are faint signs that this situation is changing, after nearly 25 years of mostly failed adventures abroad. The
foreign-policy elite
may have acquired a certain
addiction to war
, but longtime addicts
sometimes decide to turn their lives around and kick the habit. As noted above, Trump hasn't started any new wars yet,
and his various Democratic challengers aren't pushing for more war either. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Tulsi
Gabbard have pretty fair (
but
not perfect
) records on this broad issue, and each has been vocal in opposing U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in
Yemen. Pete Buttigieg wants the United States to rely less on military force in some places (but not others), Kamala
Harris has been mostly silent on the issue, and the other leading candidates have more mixed records. Don't forget that
Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War, and both Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar lean in more hawkish directions.
I'm waiting for one of them to start talking openly and intelligently about peace. What is needed to promote it, and
how can the United States use its still considerable power to keep itself out of war and to help others escape its
destructive clutches? If any of the 2020 candidates decide to tackle this issue head-on, they might start by reading
what a great president once said, 83 years ago.
This page is only accessible by Foreign Policy Premium subscribers.
FP Premium subscribers get insider access to in-depth research reports on complex topics with far-reaching
geopolitical implications, as well as exclusive conference calls with FP's editors and reporters, Foreign Policy's
award-winning print magazine, and advanced access to live events.
Sign in or Subscribe to Continue
Sign in to your Foreign Policy account
Sign In
Not an FP Premium subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Upgrade to FP Premium to Continue
Thank you for being an FP Basic subscriber. To get access to this special FP Premium benefit, upgrade your
subscription by clicking the button below.
This page is only accessible by Foreign Policy Premium subscribers.
FP Premium subscribers get insider access to in-depth research reports on complex topics with far-reaching
geopolitical implications, as well as exclusive conference calls with FP's editors and reporters, Foreign Policy's
award-winning print magazine, and advanced access to live events.
Sign in or Subscribe to Continue
Sign in to your Foreign Policy account
Sign In
Not an FP Premium subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Upgrade to FP Premium to Continue
Thank you for being an FP Basic subscriber. To get access to this special FP Premium benefit, upgrade your
subscription by clicking the button below.
Looks like the USA played Hong Hong population like Western Ukrainians... Differneces in
history and interests with mainland china are easy to amplify given enough dollars and acess to
free training of students. Who are the the core of this color revolution with oligarchs like
Jimmy Lai concerned with the future of this fortunes under Chines control are real puppeteers of
this show.
Like in case of EuroMaydan some concerns of citizens are real and deserve listening. But they
serve are just a pretext for fueling violet actions against legitimate government.
But the protests continued even after the extradition law was taken off the table -- and
these demonstrations degenerated into disturbing scenes. In recent days, hundreds of masked
rioters have occupied the Hong Kong airport, forcing the cancellation of inbound flights while
harassing travelers and viciously assaulting journalists and
police
.
The protesters' stated goals remain vague. Joshua Wong, one of the most well known figures
in the movement, has put forward a call for the
Chinese government to "retract the proclamation that the protests were riots," and restated the
consensus demand for universal suffrage.
Wong is a bespectacled 22-year-old who has been trumpeted in Western media as a "freedom
campaigner," promoted to the English-speaking world through his own Netflix documentary, and
rewarded with the backing of the U.S. government.
But behind telegenic spokespeople like Wong are more extreme elements such as the Hong Kong
National Party, whose members have appeared at protests waving the Stars and Stripes and
belting out cacophonous renditions of the Star-Spangled Banner. The leadership of this
officially banned party helped popularize the call for the full independence of Hong Kong, a
radical goal that is music to the ears of hardliners in Washington.
Xenophobic resentment has defined the sensibility of the protesters, who vow to "retake Hong
Kong" from Chinese mainlanders they depict as a horde of locusts. The demonstrators have even
adopted one of the most widely recognized symbols of the alt-right, emblazoning images of Pepe
the Frog on their protest literature. While it's unclear that Hong Kong residents see Pepe the
same way American white nationalists do, members of the U.S. far-right have embraced the
protest movement as their own, and even personally joined their ranks.
Among the most central influencers of the demonstrations is a local tycoon named Jimmy Lai.
The self-described "head of
opposition media," Lai is widely described as the Rupert Murdoch of Asia. For the masses of
protesters, Lai is a transcendent figure. They clamor for photos with him and applaud the
oligarch wildly when he walks by their encampments.
Lai established his credentials by pouring millions of dollars into the 2014 Occupy Central
protest, which is known popularly as the Umbrella Movement. He has since used his massive
fortune to fund local anti-China political movers and shakers while injecting the protests with
a virulent brand of Sinophobia through his media empire.
Though Western media has depicted the Hong Kong protesters as the voice of an entire people
yearning for freedom, the island is deeply divided. This August, a group of protesters
mobilized outside Jimmy Lai's house, denouncing him as a "running dog" of Washington and
accusing him of national betrayal by unleashing chaos on the island.
Days earlier, Lai was in Washington, coordinating with hardline members of Trump's national
security team, including John Bolton. His ties to Washington run deep -- and so do those of the
front-line protest leaders.
Millions of dollars have flowed from U.S. regime-change outfits like the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED) into civil society and political organizations that form the backbone of
the anti-China mobilization. And Lai has supplemented it with his own fortune while instructing
protesters on tactics through his various media organs.
With Donald Trump in the White House, Lai is convinced that his moment may be on the
horizon. Trump "understands the Chinese like no president understood," the tycoon toldThe Wall Street Journal . "I think he's very good at dealing with gangsters."
Born
to Wealthy Mainland Parents
Born in the mainland in 1948 to wealthy parents, whose fortune was expropriated by the
Communist Party during the revolution the following year, Jimmy Lai began working at 9 years
old, carrying bags for train travelers during the hard years of the Great Chinese Famine.
Inspired by the taste of a piece of chocolate gifted to him by a wealthy man, he decided to
smuggle himself to Hong Kong to discover a future of wealth and luxury. There, Lai worked his
way up the ranks of the garment industry, growing enamored with the libertarian theories of
economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, the latter of whom became his close friend.
Friedman is famous for developing the neoliberal shock therapy doctrine that the U.S. has
imposed on numerous countries, resulting in the excess deaths of millions. For his part, Hayek
is the godfather of the Austrian economic school that forms the foundation of libertarian
political movements across the West.
Lai built his business empire on Giordano, a garment label that became one of Asia's most
recognizable brands. In 1989, he threw his weight behind the Tiananmen Square protests, hawking
t-shirts on the streets of Beijing calling for Deng Xiaoping to "step down."
Lai's actions provoked the Chinese government to ban his company from operating on the
mainland. A year later, he founded Next Weekly magazine, initiating a process that would
revolutionize the mediascape in Hong Kong with a blend of smutty tabloid-style journalism,
celebrity gossip and a heavy dose of anti-China spin.
The vociferously anti-communist baron soon became Hong Kong's media kingpin, worth a
whopping $660 million in 2009.
Today, Lai is the founder and majority stakeholder of Next Digital, the largest listed media
company in Hong Kong, which he uses to agitate for the end of what he calls the Chinese
"dictatorship."
His flagship outlet is the popular tabloid Apple Daily , employing the trademark mix
of raunchy material with a heavy dose of xenophobic, nativist propaganda.
In 2012, Apple Dailycarried a
full page advertisement depicting mainland Chinese citizens as invading locusts draining Hong
Kong's resources. The advertisement
called for a stop to the "unlimited invasion of mainland pregnant women in Hong Kong." (This
was a crude reference to the Chinese citizens who had flocked to the island while pregnant to
ensure that their children could earn Hong Kong residency, and resembled the resentment among
the U.S. right-wing of immigrant "anchor babies.")
The transformation of Hong Kong's economy has provided fertile soil for Lai's brand of
demagoguery. As the country's manufacturing base moved to mainland China after the golden years
of the 1980s and '90s, the economy was rapidly financialized, enriching oligarchs like Lai.
Left with rising debt and dimming career prospects, Hong Kong's youth became easy prey to the
demagogic politics of
nativism .
Many protesters have been seen waving British Union Jacks in recent weeks, expressing a
yearning for an imaginary past under colonial control which they never personally
experienced.
In July, protesters vandalized the Hong Kong Liaison Office, spray-painting the word,
"Shina" on its facade. This term is a xenophobic slur some in Hong Kong and Taiwan use to refer
to mainland China. The anti-Chinese phenomenon was
visible during the 2014 Umbrella movement protests as well, with signs plastered around the
city reading, "Hong Kong for Hong Kongers."
This month, protesters turned their fury on the Hong
Kong Federation of Trade Unions, spray-painting "rioters" on its office. The attack represented
resentment of the left-wing group's role in a violent 1967 uprising against the British
colonial authorities, who are now seen as heroes among many of the anti-Chinese
demonstrators.
Besides Lai, a large part of the credit for mobilizing latent xenophobia goes to the
right-wing Hong Kong Indigenous party leader Edward Leung. Under the direction of the
28-year-old Leung, his pro-independence party has brandished British colonial flags and
publicly harassed Chinese mainland tourists. In 2016, Leung was
exposed for meeting with U.S. diplomatic officials at a local restaurant.
Though he is currently in jail for leading a 2016 riot where police were bombarded with
bricks and pavement – and where he
admitted to attacking an officer – Leung's rightist politics and his slogan, "Retake
Hong Kong," have helped define the ongoing protests.
A local legislator and protest leader
described Leung to The New York Times as "the Che Guevara of Hong Kong's
revolution," referring without a hint of irony to the Latin American communist revolutionary
killed in a CIA-backed
operation . According to the Times , Leung is "the closest thing Hong Kong's
tumultuous and leaderless protest movement has to a guiding light."
The xenophobic sensibility of the protesters has provided fertile soil for Hong Kong
National Party to recruit. Founded by the pro-independence activist Andy Chan, the officially
banned party combines anti-Chinese resentment with calls for the U.S. to intervene. Images and
videos have surfaced of HKNP members waving the flags of the U.S. and U.K., singing the Star
Spangled Banner, and carrying flags emblazoned with images of Pepe the
Frog, the most recognizable symbol of the U.S. alt-right.
While the party lacks a wide base of popular support, it is perhaps the most outspoken
within the protest ranks, and has attracted disproportionate international attention as a
result. Chan has
called for Trump to escalate the trade war and accused China of carrying out a "national
cleansing" against Hong Kong. "We were once colonized by the Brits, and now we are by the
Chinese," he declared.
Displays of pro-American jingoism in the streets of Hong Kong have been like catnip for the
international far-right.
Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson recently
appeared at an anti-extradition protest in Hong Kong, livestreaming the event to his tens
of thousands of followers. A month earlier, Gibson was seen roughing up antifa activists
alongside ranks of club wielding fascists. In Hong Kong, the alt-right organizer marveled at
the crowds.
"They love our flag here more than they do in America!" Gibson exclaimed as marchers passed
by, flashing him a thumbs up sign while he waved the Stars and Stripes.
Xenophobic
PropagandaSuch xenophobic propaganda is consistent with the clash of civilizations
theory that Jimmy Lai has promulgated through his media empire.
"You have to understand the Hong Kong people – a very tiny 7 million or 0.5 percent of
the Chinese population – are very different from the rest of Chinese in China, because we
grow up in the Western values, which was the legacy of the British colonial past, which gave us
the instinct to revolt once this extradition law was threatening our freedom," Lai told Fox
News' Maria Bartiromo. "Even America has to look at the world 20 years from now, whether you
want the Chinese dictatorial values to dominate this world, or you want the values that you
treasure [to] continue."
During a panel discussion at the neoconservative Washington-based think tank, the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies, Lai
told the pro-Israel lobbyist Jonathan Schanzer,
"We need to know that America is behind us. By backing us, America is also sowing to the
will of their moral authority because we are the only place in China, a tiny island in China,
which is sharing your values, which is fighting the same war you have with China."
While Lai makes no attempt to conceal his political agenda, his bankrolling of central
figures in the 2014 Occupy Central, or Umbrella movement protests, was not always public.
Leaked emails
revealed that Lai poured more than $1.2 million to anti-China political parties including
$637,000 to the Democratic Party and $382,000 to the Civic Party. Lai also gave $115,000 to the
Hong Kong Civic Education Foundation and Hong Kong Democratic Development Network, both of
which were co-founded by Reverend Chu Yiu-ming. Lai also
spent $446,000 on Occupy Central's 2014 unofficial referendum.
Lai's U.S. consigliere is a former Navy intelligence analyst who interned with the CIA and
leveraged his intelligence connections to build his boss's business empire. Named
Mark Simon , the veteran spook arranged for former Republican vice-presidential candidate
Sarah Palin to meet with a group in the anti-China camp during a 2009 visit to Hong Kong. Five
years later, Lai
paid $75,000 to neoconservative Iraq war author and U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz to organize a meeting with top military figures in Myanmar.
This July, as the Hong Kong protests gathered steam, Lai was junketed to Washington, D.C.,
for
meetings with Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security
Advisor John Bolton, and Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Cory Gardner, and Rick Scott. Bloomberg
News correspondent Nicholas Wadhams remarked on Lai's visit, "Very unusual for a
[non-government] visitor to get that kind of access."
One of Lai's closest allies, Martin Lee, was also granted an audience with Pompeo, and has
held court with U.S. leaders including Rep. Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President
Joseph Biden .
Among the most prominent figures in Hong Kong's pro-U.S. political parties, Lee began
collaborating with Lai during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. A recipient of the
U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" in 1997, Lee is the founding
chairman of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, now considered part of the pro-U.S. camp's old
guard.
While Martin Lee has long been highly visible on the pro-western Hong Kong scene, a younger
generation of activists emerged during the 2014 Occupy Central protests with a new brand of
localized politics.
Joshua Wong meets with Sen. Marco Rubio in Washington on May 8, 2017.
Joshua Wong was just 17 years old when the Umbrella Movement took form in 2014. After
emerging in the protest ranks as one of the more charismatic voices, he was steadily groomed as
the pro-West camp's teenage poster child. Wong received lavish praised in Time magazine,
Fortune , and Foreign Policy as a "freedom campaigner," and became the subject of
an award-winning Netflix documentary called "Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower."
Unsurprisingly, these puff pieces have overlooked Wong's ties to the U.S. regime-change
apparatus. For instance, National Endowment for Democracy's National Democratic Institute (NDI)
maintains a close
relationship with Demosisto, the political party Wong founded in 2016 with fellow Umbrella
movement alumnus Nathan Law.
In August, a candid photo surfaced of Wong and Law meeting with Julie Eadeh, the political
counselor at the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong, raising questions about the content of
the meeting and setting off a diplomatic showdown between Washington and Beijing.
The Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong submitted a
formal complaint with the U.S. consulate general, calling on the U.S. "to immediately make a
clean break from anti-China forces who stir up trouble in Hong Kong, stop sending out wrong
signals to violent offenders, refrain from meddling with Hong Kong affairs and avoid going
further down the wrong path."
The pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao published personal details about
Eadeh, including the names of her children and her address. State Department spokesperson
Morgan Ortagus lashed out, accusing the Chinese government of being behind the leak but
offering no evidence. "I don't think that leaking an American diplomat's private information,
pictures, names of their children, I don't think that is a formal protest, that is what a
thuggish regime would do," she said at a State Department
briefing.
But the photo underscored the close relationship between Hong Kong's pro-West movement and
the U.S. government. Since the 2014 Occupy Central protests that vaulted Wong into prominence,
he and his peers have been assiduously cultivated by the elite Washington institutions to act
as the faces and voices of Hong Kong's burgeoning anti-China movement.
In September 2015, Wong, Martin Lee, and University of Hong Kong law professor Benny Tai Lee
were
honored by Freedom House, a right-wing soft-power organization that is heavily funded by
the National Endowment for Democracy and other arms of the U.S. government.
Just days after Trump's election as president in November 2016, Wong was back in Washington
to appeal for more U.S. support. "Being a businessman, I hope Donald Trump could know the
dynamics in Hong Kong and know that to maintain the business sector benefits in Hong Kong, it's
necessary to fully support human rights in Hong Kong to maintain the judicial independence and
the rule of law," he
said .
Wong's visit provided occasion for the Senate's two most aggressively neoconservative
members, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton, to introduce the "Hong Kong Human
Rights and Democracy Act," which would "identify those responsible for abduction, surveillance,
detention and forced confessions, and the perpetrators will have their U.S. assets, if any
frozen and their entry to the country denied."
Wong was then taken on a junket of elite U.S. institutions including the right-wing
Heritage Foundation think tank and the newsrooms of TheNew York Times and
Financial Times . He then held court with Rubio, Cotton, Pelosi, and Sen.
Ben Sasse .
In September 2017, Rubio, Ben Cardin, Tom Cotton, Sherrod Brown, and Cory Gardner signed off
on a
letter to Wong, Law and fellow anti-China activist Alex Chow, praising them for their
"efforts to build a genuinely autonomous Hong Kong." The bipartisan cast of senators proclaimed
that "the United States cannot stand idly by."
A year later, Rubio and his colleagues
nominated the trio of Wong, Law, and Chow for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize.
While U.S. lawmakers nominate Hong Kong protest leaders for peace prizes and pump their
organizations with money to "promote democracy," the demonstrations have begun to spiral out of
control.
Protests Become More Aggressive
After the extradition law was scrapped, the protests moved into a more aggressive phase,
launching "hit and run attacks" against government targets, erecting roadblocks, besieging
police stations, and generally embracing the extreme modalities put on display during
U.S.-backed regime-change operations from Ukraine to Venezuela to Nicaragua.
The techniques clearly reflected the training many activists have received from Western
soft-power outfits. But they also bore the mark of Jimmy Lai's media operation.
In addition to the vast sums Lai spent on political parties directly involved in the
protests, his media group created an animated video "showing how to resist police in case force
was used to disperse people in a mass protest."
While dumping money into the Hong Kong's pro-U.S. political camp in 2013, Lai traveled to
Taiwan for a secret roundtable
consultation with Shih Ming-teh, a key figure in Taiwan's social movement that forced
then-president Chen Shui-bian to resign in 2008. Shih reportedly instructed Lai on non-violent
tactics to bring the government to heel, emphasizing the importance of a commitment to go to
jail.
According to journalist Peter
Lee , "Shih supposedly gave Lai advice on putting students, young girls, and mothers with
children in the vanguard of the street protests, in order to attract the support of the
international community and press, and to sustain the movement with continual activities to
keep it dynamic and fresh." Lai reportedly turned off his recording device during multiple
sections of Shih's tutorial.
One protester explained
to The New York Times how the movement attempted to embrace a strategy called, "Marginal
Violence Theory:" By using "mild force" to provoke security services into attacking the
protesters, the protesters aimed to shift international sympathy away from the state.
The charged atmosphere has provided a shot in the arm to Lai's media empire, which had been
suffering heavy losses since the last round of national protests in 2014. After the mass
marches against the extradition bill on June 9, which Lai's Apple Daily aggressively
promoted, his Next Digital doubled in
value , according to Eji Insight.
Meanwhile, the protest leaders show no sign of backing down. Nathan Law, the youth activist
celebrated in Washington and photographed meeting with U.S. officials in Hong Kong, took to
Twitter to urge his peers to soldier on :
"We have to persist and keep the faith no matter how devastated the reality seems to be," he
wrote.
Law was tweeting from New Haven, Connecticut, where he was enrolled with a full
scholarship at Yale University. While the young activist basked in the adulation of his
U.S. patrons thousands of miles from the chaos he helped spark, a movement that defined itself
as a "leaderless resistance" forged ahead back home.
Dan Cohen is a journalist and co-producer of the award-winning documentary, "Killing Gaza."
He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across
Israel-Palestine, Latin America, the U.S.-Mexico border and Washington, D.C. Follow him on
Twitter at @ DanCohen3000 .
Thank you for publishing this. I have lived in Hong Kong all my life and I despaired of
reading anything in the English-language press that was vaguely fair about the riots here.
All I see are Guardian style pejorative bias. Well done.
'Hong Kong, Kashmir: a Tale of Two Occupations' Pepe Escobar,
August 7 , 2019, strategic-culture.com (CC w/ attribution):
"Readers from myriad latitudes have been asking me about Hong Kong. They know it's one of my
previous homes. I developed a complex, multi-faceted relationship with Hong Kong ever since the
1997 handover, which I covered extensively. Right now, if you allow me, I'd rather cut to the
chase.
Much to the distress of neocons and humanitarian imperialists, there won't be a bloody
mainland China crackdown on protesters in Hong Kong – a Tiananmen 2.0. Why? Because it's
not worth it.
Beijing has clearly identified the color revolution provocation inbuilt in the protests
– with the NED excelling as CIA soft , facilitating the sprawl of fifth columnists even
in the civil service.
There are other components, of course. The fact that Hong Kongers are right to be angry
about what is a de facto Tycoon Club oligarchy controlling every nook and cranny of the
economy. The local backlash against "the invasion of the mainlanders". And the relentless
cultural war of Cantonese vs. Beijing, north vs. south, province vs. political center.
What these protests have accelerated is Beijing's conviction that Hong Kong is not worth its
trust as a key node in China's massive integration/development project. Beijing invested no
less than $18.8 billion to build the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge, as part of the Greater Bay
Area, to integrate Hong Kong with the mainland, not to snub it.
Now a bunch of useful idiots at least has graphically proven they don't deserve any sort of
preferential treatment anymore.
The big story in Hong Kong is not even the savage, counter-productive protests (imagine if
this was in France, where Macron's army is actually maiming and even killing Gilets
Jaunes/Yellow Vests). The big story is the rot consuming HSBC – which has all the makings
of the new Deutsche Bank scandal.
HSBC holds $2.6 trillion in assets and an intergalactic horde of cockroaches in their
basement – asking serious questions about money laundering and dodgy deals operated by
global turbo-capitalist elites.
In the end, Hong Kong will be left to its own internally corroding devices – slowly
degrading to its final tawdry status as a Chinese Disneyland with a Western veneer. Shanghai is
already in the process of being boosted as China's top financial center. And Shenzhen already
is the top high-tech hub. Hong Kong will be just an afterthought."
'Civil Disobedience in Hong Kong or US Color Revolution Attempt?', Stephen Lendman , Global
Research,
August 13, 2019
" As the saying goes, if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, chances are it is
one.
What's been going on for months in Hong Kong has all the earmarks of a US orchestrated
color revolution , aimed at destabilizing China by targeting its soft Hong Kong
underbelly.
In calling for reunification of China in the early 1980s, then-leader Deng Xiaoping said
Hong Kong and Macau could retain their own economic, financial and governmental systems, Taiwan
as well under a "one country, two systems" arrangement.
The above would be something like what the US 10th Amendment stipulates, stating:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Each of the 50 US states has its own electoral system, governing procedures, and laws that
may differ from federal ones.
China's soft underbelly in Western-oriented Hong Kong left it vulnerable to what's going on.
US dirty hands likely orchestrated and manipulated pro-Western 5th column elements behind
months of anti-Beijing protests.
Dubbed Occupy Central, China's leadership is well aware of what's going on and the high
stakes. Beijing is faced with a dilemma.
Cracking down forcefully to end disruptive Hong Kong protests could discourage foreign
investments. Letting them continue endlessly can destabilize the nation.
US war on China by other means aims to marginalize, weaken, contain, and isolate the country
-- because of its sovereign independence, unwillingness to bend to US interests, and its
growing political, economic, financial, and military development.
China's emergence as a world power threatens Washington's aim to control other countries,
their resources and populations worldwide.
Its successful economic model, producing sustained growth, embarrasses the US-led unfair,
exploitative Western "free market" system.
The US eliminated the Japanese economic threat in the 1980s, a similar one from the Asian
Tiger economies in the 1990s, and now it's China's turn to be taken down.
Its leadership understands what's going on and is countering it in its own way. China is a
more formidable and resourceful US adversary than earlier ones.
Its strategy includes taking a longterm approach toward achieving its objectives with plenty
of economic and financial ability to counter US tactics.
It may become the first post-WW II nation to defeat Washington's imperial game, making the
new millennium China's century in the decades ahead.
US strategies to control other nations include preemptive wars of aggression, old-fashioned
coups, and color revolutions -- what appears to be going on in Hong Kong.
This form of covert war first played out in Belgrade, Serbia in 2000. What appeared to be a
spontaneous political uprising was developed by RAND Corporation strategist in the 1990s -- the
concept of swarming.
It replicates "communication patterns and movement of" bees and other insects used against
nations to destabilize and topple their governments.
The CIA, (anti-democratic) National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican
Institute (IRI), National (undemocratic) Democratic Institute, and USAID are involved.
Their mission is disruptively subverting democracy and instigating regime change through
labor strikes, mass street protests, major media agitprop, and whatever else it takes short of
military conflict.
Belgrade in 2000 was the prototype test drive for this strategy. When subsequently used, it
experienced successes and failures, the former notably in Ukraine twice -- in late 2004/early
2005, again in late 2013/early 2014.
US color revolution attempts have a common thread, aiming to achieve what the Pentagon calls
"full spectrum dominance" -- notably by neutralizing and controlling Russia and China,
Washington's main rival powers, adversaries because of their sovereign independence.
Controlling resource-rich Eurasia, that includes the Middle East, along with Venezuelan
world's largest oil reserves, is a key US imperial aim."
'Hong Kong protests met with denunciations and threats', Peter Symonds, 14 August 2019 ,
wsws.org
"Yesterday, amid an occupation numbering in the thousands, the airport authority was
compelled to halt all check-in services for flights after 4.30 p.m., resulting in the
cancellation of some 300 departures. Clashes erupted between riot police in the evening after
protesters seized a mainland Chinese man who they accused of being an undercover police
officer.
According to the South China Morning Post , the riot police used pepper spray in the
airport to drive out protesters. It reported that as of this morning only a small group of some
30 protesters remained.
The airport occupation has dramatically raised the stakes in the political confrontation
that is now in its 10th week. The huge protests in June over planned legislation to allow
extradition from Hong Kong to China have morphed into a protest movement making wider
democratic demands , including action against police violence and free elections based on
universal suffrage.
The city's administration, led by Chief Executive Carrie Lam and backed by Beijing, has
adamantly refused to make any concessions to the protesters, other than to suspend the
legislation. At a press conference yesterday, Lam denounced the "illegal activities" of the
protesters, defended the violent actions of the police and warned that "riot activities [have]
pushed Hong Kong to the brink of no return."
Lam's remarks echoed those of Hong Kong business leaders amid falling share prices and fears
of an economic downturn, especially in the property sector. Swire Pacific, a wealthy
family-owned business empire that owns the Cathay Pacific airline and an extensive property
portfolio, issued a statement condemning "illegal activities and violent behaviour" and gave
Lam and the police full support "in their efforts to restore law and order." Sun Hung Kai
Properties, controlled by Asia's third richest family, also called on Tuesday for the
restoration of social order and backed Lam.
Sections of the Hong Kong business elite, concerned at Beijing's encroachment on their
interests, had initially supported the protests against the extradition bill but are now
calling for an end to the protest movement. Property tycoon Peter Woo said in a statement on
Monday that the protests had already forced the government to shelve the legislation and
claimed that some people were using the issue to "purposely stir up trouble."
The huge social gulf between the handful of billionaires who dominate Hong Kong,
economically and politically, and the vast majority of the city's population looms large. Low
wages, economic insecurity, the lack of opportunities for young people, unaffordable housing,
and threadbare welfare services are all fuelling discontent and anger."
'Violent Protests In Hong Kong Reach Their Last Stage; The riots in Hong Kong are about to
end',
August 14, 2019 , moonofalabama.org
The protests, as originally started in June, were against a law that would have allowed
criminal extraditions to Taiwan, Macao and mainland China. The law was retracted and the large
protests have since died down. What is left are a few thousand students who, as advertised
in a New York Times op-ed , intentionally seek to provoke the police with "marginal
violence":
Such actions are a way to make noise and gain attention. And if they prompt the police to
respond with unnecessary force, as happened on June 12, then the public will feel disapproval
and disgust for the authorities. The protesters should thoughtfully escalate nonviolence, maybe
even resort to mild force, to push the government to the edge. That was the goal of many people
who surrounded and barricaded police headquarters for hours on June 21.
The protesters now use the same violent methods that were used
in the Maidan protests in the Ukraine. The U.S. seems to hope that China will intervene and
create a second
Tianamen scene . That
U.S. color revolution attempt failed but was an excellent instrument to demonize China. A
repeat in Hong Kong would allow the U.S. to declare a "clash of civilization" and increase
'western' hostility against China. But while China is prepared to intervene
it is unlikely to do the U.S. that favor. Its government expressed confidence that the
local authorities will be able to handle the issue.
There are rumors that some Hong Kong oligarchs were originally behind the protests to
prevent their extradition for shady deals they made in China. There may be some truth to that.
China's president Xi Jingpin is waging a fierce campaign against corruption and Hong Kong is a
target rich environment for fighting that crime." [snip]
"Rents and apartment prices in Hong Kong are high. People from the mainland who buy up
apartments with probably illegally gained money only increase the scarcity. This is one reason
why the Cantonese speaking Hong Kong protesters spray slurs against the Mandarin speaking
people from the mainland. The people in Hong Kong also grieve over their declining importance.
Hong Kong lost its once important economical position. In 1993 Hong Kong's share of China's GDP
was 27%. It is now less than a tenths of that and the city is now more or less irrelevant to
mainland China."
'World is watching': US reaction points to Hong Kong as a 'color revolution', 12 Aug, 2019,
RT.com
"One cannot help but recall that the same phrasing was used for Ukraine, during the Maidan
protests of 2013 that culminated in a violent coup in February 2014 – and plunged that
country into secession of Crimea and civil war in the Donbass, eastern Ukraine.
The impression is only reinforced by the images reminiscent of Kiev coming out of Hong Kong,
showing helmeted protesters in black masks firing grenades and throwing firebombs at police
– none of which has stopped the chorus of US media from calling the protesters "pro-democracy."
OMG.
Hong Kong protesters in Hong Kong proudly sing US National anthem "The Star-Spangled
Banner" O say can you see ... What so proudly we hailed ...brings tears to my eyes pic.twitter.com/CeM5zrA1Fe
"There is even nationalism, albeit of a xeno variety: some protesters have brandished flags
of Hong Kong's former colonial master, the UK. Others have embraced the US flag, telling
reporters it stands for "freedom, human rights and democracy." [snip]
"Even though US President Donald Trump has steered clear of Hong Kong and made sure to
describe is as an internal Chinese matter, focusing his diatribes entirely on trade, the
Chinese public is becoming increasingly convinced that Washington is instigating turmoil in
Hong Kong along the lines of "color revolutions" elsewhere."
And for a it of comic relief: ' Hong Kong phooey! Would you like any hypocrisy with that? ,
George Galloway, August 13, 2019 , RT.com
"Like a homing pigeon in reverse the entire UK media has flown like a bat out of hell away
from France all the way to Hong Kong (as they had earlier flown to Caracas until the big
protests turned into the wrong kind of protests).
There is nothing, except the shoe-sizes, of the demonstrators in Hong Kong that I don't know
thanks to the veritable blizzard of in-depth analysis of the protestors there and their each
and every demand. Protesters in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain can be executed, but we will never be
told their names.
And the hypocrisy of the media is just for starters.
If a group of British protesters broke into the British Parliament and hung, for argument's
sake, a Russian flag over the Speaker's chair it is " highly likely " that a commando
force would quickly and violently overwhelm and arrest them accompanied by volleys of
accusations about Russian interference.
If a crowd of British protestors occupied Heathrow Airport in such numbers and so
disruptively that British Airways had to stop flights in and out of the airport, causing
massive financial loss, dislocation, and personal inconvenience, I promise you that their
protest would have been cleared out by the above mentioned commandos on the very first day of
their protests.
If protesters in London were hoisting Chinese flags and singing the Chinese national anthem
then, well, I'm sure you get my point.
The struggle between the government of China and its citizens is no more the business of the
British than it is of the Slovakians. It's true that Hong Kong was a British colony for 150
years but the least said about the shame and disgrace of how that came to be, the better, I
promise you.
Suffice to say that to acquire territory by force, followed by unequal treaty at
gunboat-point to punish the actual owners of the land for resisting the British opium trade,
is, even by British Imperial standards, extraordinary. So shameful is it you'd think the
British would want to draw a veil over it. But not so."
On the other hand, and note sources and today's date :
'Chinese military personnel near Hong Kong border', Ambassador in London says China prepared
to intervene 'if things get worse'; troops 7km from border, Jimmy Yee & AFP, asiatimes.com,
August
15, 2019
"Thousands of Chinese military personnel waving red flags paraded at a sports stadium in a
city across the border from Hong Kong on Thursday.
Armored vehicles were also seen inside the stadium in Shenzhen, as concerns build that China
may intervene to end more than 10 weeks of unrest in Hong Kong.
Trucks and armoured personnel carriers are seen outside the Shenzhen Bay stadium in
Shenzhen, bordering Hong Kong in China's southern Guangdong province, on August 15, 2019.
"Indeed, China's
ambassador in London warned several hours later that Beijing was ready to intervene if the
crisis gets worse.
"Should the situation in Hong Kong deteriorate further the central government will not sit
on its hands and watch," Ambassador Liu Xiaoming said at a news conference in the UK. "We have
enough solutions and enough power within the limits of Basic Law to quell any unrest swiftly.
Their moves are severe and violent offenses, and already shows signs of terrorism."
China's state-run media reported this week that the elements of the People's Armed Police
(PAP), which is under the command of the Central Military Commission, were assembling in
Shenzhen.
Some of the personnel inside the stadium on Thursday had armed police insignias on their
camouflage fatigues, according to an AFP reporter.
The security forces could be seen moving in formation inside the stadium and occasionally
running, while others rode around outside on motorbikes.
Outside the stadium – which is around seven kilometers from Hong Kong – there
were also dozens of trucks and armored personnel carriers.
The People's Daily and Global Times, two of the most powerful state-run media outlets,
published videos on Monday of what it said was the PAP assembling in Shenzhen.
The Global Times editor-in-chief, Hu Xijin, said the military presence in Shenzhen was a
sign that China was prepared to intervene in Hong Kong.
"If they do not pull back from the cliff and continue to push the situation further beyond
the critical point, the power of the state may come to Hong Kong at any time," Hu wrote.
US President Donald Trump also said Tuesday American intelligence had confirmed Chinese
troop movements toward the Hong Kong border .
"I hope it works out for everybody including China. I hope it works out peacefully, nobody
gets hurt, nobody gets killed," Trump said.
'Satellite images show China's military massing near Hong Kong border; A satellite photo has
revealed a worrying threat, right on the border with Hong Kong. It indicates Beijing is losing
patience', news.com.au,
August 15, 2019
"Satellite photos show what appear to be Chinese armoured personnel carriers and other
military vehicles across the border from Hong Kong.
Parked in a sports complex in the city of Shenzhen, the deployment has been interpreted as a
threat from Beijing to use increased force against pro-democracy protesters.
The pictures, collected on Monday by Maxar's WorldView, show 500 or more vehicles sitting on
and around the soccer stadium at the Shenzhen Bay Sports Centre.
The military force is just across the harbour from the Asian financial hub that has been
rocked by near-daily street demonstrations.
Hong Kong's 10-week political crisis, in which millions of people have taken to the streets
calling for a halt to sliding freedoms, is the biggest challenge to Chinese rule of the
semi-autonomous city since its 1997 handover from Britain." [snip]
"The state-run People's Daily did not comment on the purpose of the vehicles but
noted that the People's Armed Police was in charge of "handling riots, turmoil, seriously
violent, criminal activities, terrorist attacks and other societal security incidents".
China looks so sleek and modern. But then, so do the futuristic skylines of many Asian and
MiddleEast cities. Such economic opulence. Such energy in a rising and thriving middle
class.
Sorry for the OT. Pepe Escobar is always a great read when he covers the CIA's activities
throughout the world. A rare topic in the tattered old US. Thanks for bringing it.
simply astounding buildings, and sleek, as you say. pepe's covered so many stories over
the decades, and my guess is that he and lendman are altogether correct that this was a
USAID, NED, cia prompted rebellion. and you?
now i haven't a clue about the alleged chinese troops massing at the border, nor about any
of the attributed to the chinese quotes, but i had pinged: 'and who invented the game of
chess?' as i discovered, few claim it was the chinese, most say east indians > persia,
etc.
singing the amerikan national anthem? waving UK and US flags? RU kidding me?
thanks for reading and commenting, pluto.
China looks so sleek and modern. But then, so do the futuristic skylines of many Asian
and MiddleEast cities. Such economic opulence. Such energy in a rising and thriving
middle class.
Sorry for the OT. Pepe Escobar is always a great read when he covers the CIA's
activities throughout the world. A rare topic in the tattered old US. Thanks for bringing
it.
China looks so sleek and modern. But then, so do the futuristic skylines of many Asian
and MiddleEast cities. Such economic opulence. Such energy in a rising and thriving
middle class.
Sorry for the OT. Pepe Escobar is always a great read when he covers the CIA's
activities throughout the world. A rare topic in the tattered old US. Thanks for bringing
it.
"It may become the first post-WW II nation to defeat Washington's imperial game, making
the new millennium China's century in the decades ahead." As a citizen of the U.S., which
will be devastated when the dollar is dropped as the reserve currency... I'm rooting for
China.
I very much appreciate this piece. While I did experience a "ding!" moment when I saw the
NED referenced, because I just watched a video on it yesterday, I was nevertheless
pathetically oblivious to what the U.S. is doing.
back up again today. you'll like the abundance of information and tweets alex rubenstein
brought on june 13, 2019 :
' American Gov't, NGOs Fuel and Fund Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Protests '
It is inconceivable that the organizers of the protests are unaware of the NED ties to some
of its members' (one outtake in a lengthy exposé):
As MintPress News previously reported :
"The NED was founded in 1983 following a series of scandals that exposed the CIA's
blood-soaked covert actions against foreign governments. 'It would be terrible for
democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,' NED President Carl
Gershman told the New York Times in 1986. 'We saw that in the Sixties, and that's why it
has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that's why the
endowment was created.'
Another NED founder, Allen Weinstein, conceded to the Washington Post's David Ignatius,
'A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.'"
UK media cheerlead Hong Kong protesters who fear China will use 'non-political crimes to
prosecute critics'. The same media that's spent 9 years cheerleading persecution, torture
of whistleblowing platform founder Julian Assange for non-political crimes https://t.co/KuYyF0L5dS
on edit : the subtweets under cohen's original are great! robert mackey was not
amused....
now one thing to remember is that pierre omidyar was a deep contributor to centre ua, and
either NED or USAID before maidan and the putsch in ukraine. i haven't read the intercept
link, but mackey (i'm fairly certain) was one of the five 'fearless investigative
journalists' who'd smeared julian assange while he was down.
glad you've found this compilation of value, tle; me too.
on second edit: i did remember correctly, as it turns out. from my recent diary on the
crushing of julian assange (this via oscar grenfell):
An article by Robert Mackey in November, 2017 accused the WikiLeaks founder of a
"willingness to traffic in false or misleading information," of "working on behalf of
Trump" and of transforming "the WikiLeaks Twitter feed into a vehicle for smearing
Clinton."
"It may become the first post-WW II nation to defeat Washington's imperial game,
making the new millennium China's century in the decades ahead." As a citizen of the
U.S., which will be devastated when the dollar is dropped as the reserve currency... I'm
rooting for China.
I very much appreciate this piece. While I did experience a "ding!" moment when I saw
the NED referenced, because I just watched a video on it yesterday, I was nevertheless
pathetically oblivious to what the U.S. is doing.
noted that commenter karlov1 had urged others to click into b's tianemen scene hyperlink,
which goes to his own
june 4, 2019 ' Tian An Men Square - What Really Happened (Updated)' (including grisly
photos)
"Since 1989 the western media write anniversary pieces on the June 4 removal of
protesters from the Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The view seems always quite one sided and
stereotyped with a brutal military that suppresses peaceful protests.
That is not the full picture. Thanks to Wikileaks we have a few situation reports from the
U.S. Embassy in Beijing at that time. They describe a different scene than the one western
media paint to this day."
he's also brought any number of tweeted descriptions of similar violence perpetrated by
protestors on those they believe might be undercover police, and this telling paragraph:
""While the protests against the extradition bill may have been backed by some tycoons, it
is obvious that there is also a large U.S. government influence behind them. It is the U.S.,
not some oligarchs, which is behind the current rioting phase.
In 1992 Congress adopted the United States–Hong Kong Policy Act which mandates U.S.
government 'pro-democracy' policies in Hong Kong. Some Senators and lobbyists now push for a
Support Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act which would intensify the interference.
Before the June protests started Secretary of State (and former CIA head) Mike Pompeo met
with the Hong Kong 'pro-democracy' leader Martin Lee and later with 'pro-democracy' media
tycoon Jimmy Lai. The National Endowment for Democracy finances several of the groups behind
the protests."
We all know the Hypocrisy of that War. Clinton had to distract the masses from MonicaGate
and Hillary had to prove to the MIC that she could be beneficial to them.
Result : Those Kosovo Albanians had a state handed to them, and instead of building
it(with uncle Sam's and EU help) as prosperous country, they used their weapons and
"expertise" in becoming the low level gangsters of Europe. Every Europol analysis points to
the direction of Kosovo Albanians as the criminal thugs in prostitution and drug trade and
protection rackets. The largest percentage of a single ethnic group in European jails is that
of Albanians.
The most unjust and illegal of wars in the late 20c.
There was only one reason to bomb white Christian brothers in Serbia thereby aiding the
Muslim of Kosovo and Albania, and that was Russia, which by that stage had got its act
together and dealt with the traitorous oligarchs who had sold their country out to the
west.
Hillary and her cronies no doubt lost a lot of money when the Russians shut their rat
lines down.
I hope I live long enough to see those fuckers swing, and Tony Blair, Alistair Campnell
and Peter Mandelson as well.
Again, your Muslims are to blame for everything. Muslims are all different. And it is
necessary to separate the faithful Muslims from the bandits who are only covered by Muslim
slogans.
NATO and your godless government are to blame!
An Afghan Freedom Fighter in Donbass - ENG SUBTITLE
It happened at the time of the Lewinsky affair and the possible impeachment of Clinton.
They needed a distraction.
Milosevic btw. agreed to all conditions imposed on the FR of Yugoslavia except for one
condition that nobody would accept: the full and unhindered access to the territory of FRY by
NATO troops. That effectively meant an occupation. Nobody would agree to that. NATO and
Albright deliberately came up with that condition for they knew it was unacceptable. Even
Kissinger said that condition was over the top. NATO and Albright wanted that war. Serbia
btw. saved Albright twice when she was still a little Slovakian Jewish girl whose family
found refuge twice in Serbia. Once they escaped the Nazis that way and the second time the
communists.
NATO thought they would need 48 hours but they needed 78 days and Milosevic only gave in
after NATO switched from hitting military targets to civilian targets: Hospitals, commuter
trains, civilian industry, an open market, random houses in random villages. After Milosevic
pulled out his troops out of Kosovo, the KLA started killing Serbs and moderate Albanians,
not to mention engage in organ trafficking (...). As the article said, well over 200k Serbs,
moderate Albanians, Roma and other minorities were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.
The US also used cluster bombs and DU weapons. Of the 4000 Italian KFOR troops that went
into Kosovo after the bombing, 700 are dead from cancer and leukemia with several hundreds
more seriously ill. The American KFOR troops wore hazmat suits. The Italians did not have
them and were not warned. Today, many people in southern Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo itself
are sick and dying.
yes just like USA tried to help Vietnam against communists... by killing 2 million
Vietnamese. and tried to help Korea by killing 20 % of the population. and by helping Iraq
get rid of "bad" Saddam Hussein by killing 2 million Iraqies.
Not disagreeing with you but lets remember that communists were killing a lot of people in
other areas not long before those wars in SE Asia. May have been a wash in the end.
Bring back the draft. On the whole Americans have no idea what the carnage of combat
produces. Combat vets do. And the ones that aren't natural psychopaths never want to
experience it again. This volunteer army we have is over loaded with a them. A military draft
will actually bring some sort civilian control.
Such ********. Do the millions we kill have any human rights? It's been going on for 4000
years. Ruthless pursuit of empire and fabricating phony justifications.
Hillary seems to enjoy killing people. If it wasn't Gaddaffi, it was all the people on her
body bag count, and now it's known she encouraged killing people in Serbia. Someone needs to
take that old cow out into the center of the town and burn her at the stake.
Partially true, otherwise as usually excellent Dr. Paul, ... The Pandora's box situation
was opened years before Clinton's bombing of Serbia, which was part of a larger scheme
started nearly a decade before.
That was when the US armed the religious extremists in Bosnia, in order to bring war,
"civil war" and chaos, and disintegration, the way they more recently tried to do with Syria,
or "succeeded" in doing in Libya, bringing chaos and open-air slave markets in a country that
was one of the most developed on the African continent under Gaddafi (a truth that was so
easily erased by propaganda).
And the whole neocon scheme started two decades before, with the Zbigniew Brzezinski
doctrine, when the US started arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan, provoking the trap for the
Soviet invasion of 1979, which was the real opening of US neocon's Pandora's box we are
regrettably so familiar with by now. We've all fallen in that old
neocon/military-industrial-congressional-complex trap by now. And there seems to be no end in
sight to those eternal wars "for civilization" (the old colonial trope dressed under new
fatigues). Unless serious societal and political changes take place in the US to put an end
to the US "imperial" death drive.
"... Lee Stranahan gives the best explanation I have ever heard, on the color revolution that occurred in the Ukraine. He also demonstrates how that revolution overlaps in to the one happening in the United States right now: The very one that has been going on, ever since HRC conceded her Presidential bid to DJT, in her purple pantsuit. ..."
"... The west plays a mean game. The more they try to destabilize the east, the harder Xi,Putin & Erdogan have to crack down on dissidents resultng in harder condemnation of teh west and increased meddling :) ..."
"... "the vast web of NGOs" is a web or organizations which are not accountable to anyone except their money men. ..."
"... The NGO's distort the representative nature of a society. If anything their existence proves that representative democracy is a fraud and just a way for elites to control nations. The only thing to demand after that is direct democracy where all policies etc. have to be voted in by the population. ..."
A few years ago, very few people understood the concept behind color revolutions.
Had Russia and China's leadership not decided to unite in solidarity in 2012
when they began vetoing
the overthrow of Bashar al Assad in Syria- followed by their alliance around
the Belt and Road Initiative
, then it is doubtful that the color revolution concept would be as well-known as it has become today.
At that time, Russia and China realized that they had no choice but to go on the counter offensive, since the regime change operations
and colour revolutions orchestrated by such organizations as the CIA-affiliated National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Soros
Open Society Foundations were ultimately designed to target them as those rose, orange, green or yellow revolution efforts in Georgia,
Ukraine, Iran or Hong Kong were always recognized as weak points on the periphery of the threatened formation of a great power alliance
of sovereign Eurasian nations that would have the collective power to challenge the power of the Anglo-American elite based in London
and Wall Street.
Russia's 2015 expulsion of
12 major conduits of color revolution included Soros' Open Society Foundation as well as the NED was a powerful calling out of the
enemy with the Foreign Ministry calling them "a threat to the foundations of Russia's Constitutional order and national security".
This resulted in such fanatical calls by George Soros for a
$50 billion fund to counteract Russia's interference in defense of Ukraine's democracy. Apparently the
$5 billion spent by the NED in Ukraine was not nearly enough.
In spite of the light falling upon these cockroaches, NED and Open Society operations continued in full force focusing on the
weakest links the Grand Chessboard unleashing what has become known as a "strategy of tension". Venezuela, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Tibet
and Xinjian (dubbed East Turkistan by NED) have all been targeted in recent years with millions of NED dollars pouring into separatist
groups, labour unions, student movements and fake news "opinion shapers" under the guise of "democracy building". $1.7 million in
grants was spent by NED in Hong Kong since 2017 which was a significant increase from their $400 000 spent to coordinate the failed
"Occupy HK" protest
in 2014 .
The Case of China
In response to over two months of controlled chaos, the Chinese government has kept a remarkably restrained posture, allowing
the Hong Kong authorities to manage the situation with their police deprived of use of lethal weapons and even giving into the protestors'
demand that the changes to the extradition treaty that nominally sparked this mess be annulled. In spite of this patient tone, the
rioters who have run havoc on airports and public buildings have created lists of demands that are all but impossible for mainland
China to meet including 1) an "independent committee to investigate the abuses of Chinese authorities", 2) for china to stop referring
to rioters as "rioters", 3) for all charges against rioters to be dropped, and 4) universal suffrage- including candidates promoting
independence or rejoining the British Empire.
As violence continues to grow, and as it has become an increasing reality that some form of intervention from the mainland may
occur to restore order, the British Foreign Office has taken an aggressive tone threatening China with "severe consequences" unless
"a fully independent investigation" into police Brutality were permitted. The former Colonial Governor of China Christopher Patten
attacked China by saying "Since president Xi has been in office, there's been a crackdown on dissent and dissidents everywhere, the
party has been in control of everything".
The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded saying "the UK has no sovereign jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hong Kong it
is simply wrong for the British Government to exert pressure. The Chinese side seriously urges the UK to stop its interference in
China's internal affairs and stop making random and inflammatory accusations on Hong Kong."
The British have not been able to conduct their manipulation of Hong Kong without the vital role of America's NGO dirty ops, and
in true imperial fashion, the political class from both sides of the aisle have attacked China with Senate Majority leader Mitch
McConnell and Nancy Pelosi making the loudest noise driving the American House Foreign Affairs Committee
to threaten "universal condemnation
and swift consequences" if Beijing intervenes. This has only made the photographs of Julie Eadeh, the head of Political Office at
the American Consulate in Hong Kong meeting with leaders of the Hong Kong demonstrations that much more disgusting to any onlooker.
While both Britain and America have been caught red handed organizing this color revolution, it is important to keep in mind
who is controlling who.
The Foreign Origins of the NED
Contrary to popular opinion, the British Empire did not go away after WWII, nor did it hand over the "keys to the kingdom" to
America. It didn't even become America's Junior Partner in a new Anglo-American special relationship. Contrary to popular belief,
it stayed in the drivers' seat.
The post WWII order was largely shaped by a British coup which didn't take over America without a fight.
Nests of Oxford-trained Rhodes Scholars, Fabians
and other ideologues embedded within the American establishment had a lot of work ahead of them as they struggled to purge all
nationalist impulses from the American intelligence community. While the most aggressive purging of patriotic Americans from the
intelligence community occurred during the dissolution of the OSS and creation of MI6 in 1947 and the Communist witch hunt that followed,
there were other purges that were less well known.
As an organization which was beginning to take form which was to become known as the
Trilateral Commission organized by Britain's "hand in America" called the Council on Foreign Relations and international Bilderberg
Group, another purge occurred in 1970 under the direction of James Schlesinger during his six month stint as CIA director. At that
time 1000 top CIA officials deemed "unfit" were fired. This was followed nine years later as another 800 were fired under a list
drafted by CIA "spymaster" Ted Shackley. Both Schlesinger
and Shackley were high level Trilateral Commission members who took part in the group's 1973 formation and fully took power of America
during Jimmy Carter's 1977-1981 presidency which unleashed a dystopian reorganization of American foreign and internal policy
outlined in my previous report .
Project Democracy Takes Over
By the 1970s, the CIA's dirty hand funding anarchist operations both within America and abroad had become too well known as media
coverage of their dirty operations at home and abroad spoiled the patriotic image which the intelligence community then desired.
While the internal resistance to fascist behaviour from within the intelligence Community itself was dealt with through purges, the
reality was that a new agency had to be created to take over those functions of covert destabilization of foreign governments.
What became Project Democracy herein originated with a Trilateral Commission meeting in May 31, 1975 in Kyoto Japan as a protégé
of Trilateral Commission director Zbigniew Brzezinski named Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington delivered the results of his
Task Force on the Governability
of Democracies . This project was supervised by Schlesinger and Brzezinski and presented the notion that democracies could not
function adequately in the crisis conditions which the Trilateral Commission was preparing to impose onto America and the world through
a process dubbed
"the Controlled Disintegration of Society ".
The Huntington report featured at the Trilateral meeting stated: "One might consider means of securing support and resources from
foundations, business corporations, labor unions, political parties, civic associations, and, where possible and appropriate, governmental
agencies for the creation of an institute for the strengthening of democratic institutions."
It took 4 years for this blueprint to become reality. In 1979
three Trilateral Commission members named William Brock (RNC Chairman), Charles Manatt (DNC Chairman) and George Agree (head of Freedom
House) established an organization called the American Political Foundation (APF) which attempted to fulfil the objective laid out
by Huntington in 1975.
The APF was used to set up a program using federal funds called the Democracy Program which issued an interim report "The Commitment
to Democracy" which said: "No theme requires more sustained attention in our time than the necessity for strengthening the future
chances of democratic societies in a world that remains predominantly unfree or partially fettered by repressive governments. There
has never been a comprehensive structure for a non-governmental effort through which the resources of America's pluralistic constituencies
. .. could be mobilized effectively."
In May 1981, Henry Kissinger who had replaced Brzezinski as head of the Trilateral Commission and had many operatives planted
around President Reagan,
gave a speech at Britain's Chatham House (
the controlling hand behind the Council on Foreign Relations ) where he described his work as Secretary of State saying that
the British "became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations
In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American
State Department It was symptomatic". In his speech, Kissinger outlined the battle between Churchill vs FDR during WWII and made
the point that he favored the Churchill worldview for the post war world (And ironically also that of Prince Metternich who ran the
Congress of Vienna that snuffed out democratic movements across Europe in 1815).
In June 1982,
Reagan's Westminster
Palace speech officially inaugurated the NED and by November 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy Act was passed bringing
this new covert organization into reality with $31 million of funding under four subsidiary organizations (AFL-CIO Free Trade Union
Institute, The US Chamber of Commerce's Center for International Private Enterprise, the International Republican Institute and the
International Democratic Institute) (2).
Throughout the 1980s, this organization went to work managing Iran-Contra, destabilizing Soviet states and unleashing the first
"official" modern color revolution in the form of the Yellow revolution that ousted Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. Speaking
more candidly than usual, NED President David Ignatius
said in 1991
"a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA".
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the NED was instrumental in bringing former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO/WTO system and
the New World Order was announced by Bush Sr. and Kissinger- both of whom were rewarded with knighthoods for their service to the
Crown in 1992 and 1995 respectively.
Of course, the vast web of NGOs permeating the geopolitical terrain can only be effective as long as no one says the truth and
"names the game". The very act of calling out their nefarious motives renders them impotent and this simple fact has made the
recently announced China-Russia arrangement to formulate a proper strategic response to color revolutions so important in the
current fight.
Lee Stranahan gives the best explanation I have ever heard, on the color revolution that occurred in the Ukraine. He also
demonstrates how that revolution overlaps in to the one happening in the United States right now: The very one that has been going
on, ever since HRC conceded her Presidential bid to DJT, in her purple pantsuit.
Are you saying that the Israelis who vote en masse for Netanyahu and the Jews who donate the money for AIPAC and the ADL and
the Jews who wrote America's 1965 Immigration Act, and the international Jews who created the Fed which allows the Jews to print
free money for themselves to buy up control of all US industry and commerce and communications and the institutions that form
American culture, and who support genocide of the Palestinians, are scapegoats? Are you saying that Banko-Warburg, the architect
of the Fed and the main supplier of money for the Communist takeover of Russia in 1917 by Lenin and Trotsky (Max Warburg and Jacob
Schiff), is a European-English-American banking family?
Seriously, what do you mean by European-English-American? Ehret has dodged the massive elephant in the room -- mainly Israeli
control of American foreign policy, and now domestic policy. Is it the American-Anglo elite (?), or the Israeli-American Empire
(Jews), that has the world in its grip?
The west plays a mean game. The more they try to destabilize the east, the harder Xi,Putin & Erdogan have to crack down
on dissidents resultng in harder condemnation of teh west and increased meddling :)
Trumpstein, Fatty Pompous, Bolthead, Bibi, and Soros are having old man circle jerks while planning colored revolutions together.
But China may be a bridge too far...
Color revolutions belong to city of london.. and their spy agency network.. as illustrated by russiagate, cia and fbi dont
take orders from white house
CIA-affiliated National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Soros Open Society Foundations were originators of rainbow revolutions.
Just pick a color and they were there, lock, stock, and barrel, at the center of it all.
Today you'll see their tentacles reaching from Antifa to ISIS, LGBTIQPWXYZ GlobalHomo to Open Border socialists, and most every
place where there's chaos, wars, and instabilities.
Its one big new world order of hate, hate and more hate.
Warning: SPLC is a know propaganda outlet for government and special interest organizations. They are funded by rich globalist
elites, Big Tech, and states known to be sponsors of state terrorism.
"Since president Xi has been in office, there's been a crackdown on dissent and dissidents everywhere, the party has
been in control of everything".
You can say the same for many western nations as people for objecting to current policies are made outcasts and persecuted
by their own governments. Just saying it is Xi in China or any other nation in the world is ******** ... the ever increasing censorship
and suppression of objection so they can keep the ever increasing entitlements for the top flowing.
"the vast web of NGOs" is a web or organizations which are not accountable to anyone except their money men.
Some rich people fund them as a hobby, others work for them for free - they obviously do not need to work for their daily bread
or they wouldn't be in an NGO. These NGOs meddle in the politics without standing for elections.
What qualified Soros to give many countries good advice? His money! Just money! The German compensation schemes (Wiedergutmachung)
were seed money for many. How lucky this Hungarian Soros was.
What qualified Soros to give many countries good advice?
Soros is just a puppet no different from Wilbur Ross, Justin Trudeau, Cynthia Freeland, Julie Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull, Zelenski,
Poroshenko, Steve Mnuchin et al. Follow the money.
The NGO's distort the representative nature of a society. If anything their existence proves that representative democracy
is a fraud and just a way for elites to control nations. The only thing to demand after that is direct democracy where all policies
etc. have to be voted in by the population.
Direct democracy is possible with modern technology where the a motion is presented and you have 7 days to vote upon it.
Bluff to democracy as they have it - HK only became democratic because the AnZis could
then use it to stir unrest against China. Funny how HK was never democratic while the Brits
were still there.
Prolls still think representative democracy actually gives them anything more than a
mirage.
Yes. HK had 0 votes under imperialist British rule, until near their departure. How many
British Kings, err adminstrators, of HK were elected by the HK people?
The British seeded the idea of democracy as a "gift" to the people of China, with the
specific intention of causing trouble down the line. Add a few dozen US NGO's to the mix,
Soros' funding for the "colors"... all that's happened is that down the line has arrived.
It's a politically expedient time to activate the colors.
But the era in which Britain and the US controlled all geopolitical change is over. It's
not going to happen in HK either. China has specifically told the HK police to use no
violence (imagine any of these protests happening in the USA and what would happen to the
rioters there...). The first step will be to authorize HK police to defend themselves. There
won't be a second step, as the protestors have the courage of chicken ****.
How current prices correlate with Pompeo statement that "We have taken over 95 percent of the
crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the
market." ? Something really strange is happening here.
Notable quotes:
"... Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the public in order to defend a dangerous policy. ..."
"... Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with that. ..."
"... When Pompeo has been asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the Iranian government's behavior, and instead he boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people: ..."
"... We have taken over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the market. ..."
"... Pompeo is deception, lies, absolute dishonesty. But of course that is the mark of the trump regime in general terms. ..."
Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not
being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than
leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is
persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the
public in order to defend a dangerous policy.
Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of
issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with
that. He probably thinks that there is no price to be paid for constantly lying and
misrepresenting things to the public and Congress, and so he keeps doing it.
The more important reason why Pompeo keeps deceiving the public is that he is also eager to
please the president, and so he has to keep claiming success for failing policies because
reports of success are what the president wants to hear. When Pompeo's ridiculous op-ed came
out last week, one of the common questions that many people asked was, "Who is the audience for
this?" The point these people were making was that the "argument" in the op-ed was so facile
and nonsensical that it can't possibly have been intended to persuade anyone, so the purpose of
it had to be to placate Trump and reassure him that the policy "works."
Miller does an outstanding job picking apart Pompeo's various claims and using Pompeo's
previous contradictory claims against him, and he shows that the Secretary's defense of
"maximum pressure" is a joke to any minimally informed person. But as far as Pompeo is
concerned, all that matters is that Trump sticks with the policy. When Pompeo has been
asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the
Iranian government's behavior, and instead he
boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people:
I remember, David – I'm sure no one in this room, but many here in Washington
said that American sanctions alone won't work. Well, they've worked.We have taken
over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we
have taken it off the market.
Miller addressed Pompeo's use of economic damage as proof of the policy's success this
way:
Using economic damage to gauge the success of sanctions is like using body counts to
measure success in counter-insurgency -- it's an indicator that your policy is having an
effect, but does not necessarily imply you're any closer to achieving strategic
objectives.
For a hard-liner like Pompeo, continuing with a destructive and bankrupt policy is a matter
of ideology and an expression of hostility towards the targeted country. It doesn't matter to
hard-liners if the policy actually achieves anything as long as it does damage, and so they
take pride in the damage that they cause without any concern for the consequences for the U.S.
and Iran. Rational critics of this policy rightfully object that this is just aimless
destruction, but the destruction is the point of the policy.
It only appears incompetent until you discover who benefits, and it isn't the majority of
Americans. Who has benefited so far? The Plutocrats, oligarchs, Israel, Saudi, MIC, Big Oil,
Big Rx, immigration related services. This is just a partial list, but guess who it doesn't
include?
Any nation that allows "freedom of speech" has made the assumption that either everyone is
honest or everyone is smart enough to know bull sh !t when they hear it.
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is
Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently
absurd MSM propaganda. For example, the meme that releasing factual information about actual
election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging of its own
nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on
and lying to the American people, spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and
assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer Brennan;
Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples
of "norms-respecting Republican patriots";
Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating
Russian stooge.
Former Ukrainian presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko trace to Steele dossier is a real shocker.
Notable quotes:
"... On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emailed himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife Nellie Ohr, titled " WhosWho19Sept2016 ." The spreadsheet purports to show relationship descriptions and "linkages" between Donald Trump, his family and criminal figures, many of whom were Russians. ..."
"... If you want to have more fun, search the pdf using the term "BAYROCK." You will discover that Nellie Ohr, like a female Don Quixote, is searching desperately to link Trump and Sater to dirty Russian money. What she does not suspect is that Sater was being used, via his company Bayrock, to try to gain access to Russians who were potential targets of the FBI. ..."
"... What is not emphasized in the piece, and it is something I want to direct you to, is that the idea or impetus to launch the investigation of Butina came courtesy of Christopher Steele, who was relaying rumor and conjecture to Bruce Ohr. ..."
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray reminds me of one of the workers in the bowels of the Titanic who was furiously shoveling coal into the doomed boilers of the sinking ship. The FBI, like the Titanic, is in trouble. ..."
"... It also gave immunity to all of the people on Hillary's team that participated in obstruction of justice. On that same day, Jim Comey signed off on a separate memo that decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Larry..Fusion GPS has always refused to Reveal who where its Financial support came from... ..."
"... So..the Timeline Indicates Fusion GPS was hired by The "Washington Free Beacon" around October 2015 to background checks and Profiles of The Republican Candidates for President.and that Fusion GPS continued to do so until May 2016..when it became clear that Donald Trump clinched the Nomination.. ..."
"... I wonder why AG Barr isn't forcing the FBI to comply sooner with Judge Boasberg's ruling to hand over unredacted Comey Memos and Archey Declarations? ..."
"... So what did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it? ..."
"... Nellie Ohr was working for a privately-owned firm that had employed her to make false accusations about Trump's alleged connections to Russians in order to sabotage his presidency and lay the groundwork for his impeachment. ..."
"... They also hired foreign agent, Chris Steele to concoct a thoroughly-debunked dossier for the same purpose. ..."
"... Can these people be charged with a crime or have we entered a new world of 'dirty tricks'??? ..."
"... Examination of the Nellie Ohr documents given to the FBI shows some of her source material also came from former Ukrainian presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko and a lawsuit she filed against Manafort. ..."
"... So, Bruce Ohr became a conduit of information not only for intelligence from Clinton's British opposition-researcher but also from his wife's curation of evidence from a Clinton foreign ally and Manafort enemy inside Ukraine. Talk about foreign influence in a U.S. election! ..."
"... The lines between government officials and informants, unverified political dirt and real intelligence, personal interest and law enforcement, became too blurred for the Justice Department's own good. ..."
There are many moving pieces in the drama surrounding the Deep State attempt to kill the Trump Presidency. God Bless Judicial
Watch. I think most of the key evidence that has surfaced came courtesy of Tom Fitton, Chris Farrell and their team of tireless workers.
I want to bring you back to
Mr. Felix Sater . He was part of Bayrock, which worked closely with Donald Trump's organization and, most importantly of all,
was an FBI Confidential Human Source since December of 1998.
Thanks to Judicial Watch we have a new dump of Bruce Ohr emails, which include several from his wife, Nellie. There are 330 pages
to wade thru (you can
see
them here ). There
is one item in particular I encourage you to look at:
On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emailed himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife Nellie Ohr, titled "
WhosWho19Sept2016
." The spreadsheet purports to show relationship descriptions and "linkages" between Donald Trump, his family and criminal figures,
many of whom were Russians. This list of individuals allegedly "linked to Trump" include: a Russian involved in a "gangland
killing;" an Uzbek mafia don; a former KGB officer suspected in the murder of Paul Tatum; a Russian who reportedly "buys up banks
and pumps them dry"; a Russian money launderer for Sergei Magnitsky; a Turk accused of shipping oil for ISIS; a couple who lent their
name to the Trump Institute, promoting its "get-rich-quick schemes"; a man who poured him a drink; and others.
The spreadsheet starts on page 301. If you search the document for the name Felix Sater, he will pop up. Now here is the curious
and, I suppose, reassuring thing about this document--Nellie Ohr did not have a clue that Felix Sater was an active FBI informant.
We can at least give the FBI credit for protecting Sater's identity from Nellie Ohr and, more importantly, her husband, DOJ official
Bruce Ohr.
If you want to have more fun, search the pdf using the term "BAYROCK." You will discover that Nellie Ohr, like a female Don
Quixote, is searching desperately to link Trump and Sater to dirty Russian money. What she does not suspect is that Sater was being
used, via his company Bayrock, to try to gain access to Russians who were potential targets of the FBI.
One point is clear--she uncovered no evidence implicating Trump working with the Russians, either thru Felix Sater or one of the
other "suspects" she exhaustively listed.
Shifting gears, there are two very important pieces recently posted at The Conservative Tree House that I encourage you to read:
What is not emphasized in the piece, and it is something I want to direct you to, is that the idea or impetus to launch the
investigation of Butina came courtesy of Christopher Steele, who was relaying rumor and conjecture to Bruce Ohr.
You can find this information in the
Bruce
Ohr 302s that Judicial Watch also secured. Marina Butina was unfairly and unjustly portrayed and prosecuted as a Russian intelligence
agent. It was a damn lie.
I do not ever want to hear another American complaining about an American State Department or CIA employee who is entrapped and
unfairly prosecuted in Russia.
We have done the same damn thing that we have accused the Soviets of doing. The same thing. It is shameful.
The
second piece is the ultimate feel good piece. Kudos to its author, Sundance.
He details how a Federal Judge, infuriated by the FBIs stupidity and mendacity, tells the Bureau to go pound sand. The FBI is
frantically trying to prevent the Archey Declarations from being revealed thanks to a lawsuit brought by CNN (finally, CNN did something
right).
The Archey Declarations provide a detailed description of the memos written and illegally removed from FBI Headquarters by that
sanctimonious twit, Jim Comey. More shoes will be dropping in the coming days.
It appears that Inspector General Horowitz is going to present at least one report on Jim Comey and one report on the FISA abuse
by the FBI.
FBI Director Christopher Wray reminds me of one of the workers in the bowels of the Titanic who was furiously shoveling coal
into the doomed boilers of the sinking ship. The FBI, like the Titanic, is in trouble.
Finally, Gateway Pundit's Joe Hoft put up an important piece today (
see here ). Here is the bottomline, and keep this in mind as you read the piece, on June 20, 2016 the FBI signed off on a deal
with Hillary Clinton's attorney's that gave Hillary's team the right to destroy computers and emails.
It also gave immunity to all of the people on Hillary's team that participated in obstruction of justice. On that same day,
Jim Comey signed off on a separate memo that decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
The fix was in more than a month before Jim Comey appeared on camera to try to explain why he was not recommending prosecution
of Hillary for putting Top Secret information on her unclassified server.
Jim Comey lied when he declared that could not prove "intent."
I am sure that those of you who have never held a clearance and handled Top Secret material probably believed that lie.
But anyone who knows how the TS system is set up knows that the ONLY WAY, I repeat, the ONLY WAY to put TS material on an unclassified
server is to do so intentionally. There is no way to do this mistakenly.
Jim Ticehurst said in reply to Jim Ticehurst... ,
Larry..Fusion GPS has always refused to Reveal who where its Financial support came from...
So..the Timeline Indicates
Fusion GPS was hired by The "Washington Free Beacon" around October 2015 to background checks and Profiles of The Republican Candidates
for President.and that Fusion GPS continued to do so until May 2016..when it became clear that Donald Trump clinched the Nomination..
creating Phase 2..Operations..
"The Washington Free Beacon ".Has an Editor in Chief ..who is William Kristols Son In Law..And William Kristols ..Father....Irving
Kristol..is Called..."the God Father of Neo Conservatism". William Kristol..was a John McCain supporter..
Thus Fusion GPS..retained Nellie Ohr..(strangly..NO Wiki Profile) who apparently had to Use her husbnd Bruce Ohrs Clearances,,to
continue Her Collaberation with Fusion GPS..
By June 2016 the Strategy was to bring in Christopher Steele..who was know to Bruce Ohr back to 2006.. Strange.. NO early life
BIOS for Bruce or Nellie Ohr..
I wonder why AG Barr isn't forcing the FBI to comply sooner with Judge Boasberg's ruling to hand over unredacted Comey Memos
and Archey Declarations?
The Gateway Pundit item about the ridiculously unfair and unethical deals made in Hillary Clinton's email scandal investigation
is just further proof of how the Clinton taint infected the FBI. "Crooked" is a very apt epithet, that's for sure. I'd love to
know how much Bill and Hill raked in during her Sec'y. of State racketeering.
You say: "One point is clear--she uncovered no evidence implicating Trump working with the Russians, either thru Felix Sater or
one of the other "suspects" she exhaustively listed."
This is true, but it is also true that Nellie Ohr was working for a privately-owned firm that had employed her to make
false accusations about Trump's alleged connections to Russians in order to sabotage his presidency and lay the groundwork for
his impeachment.
They also hired foreign agent, Chris Steele to concoct a thoroughly-debunked dossier for the same purpose.
Can these people be charged with a crime or have we entered a new world of 'dirty tricks'???
... Examination of the Nellie Ohr documents given to the FBI shows some of her source material also came from former Ukrainian
presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko and a lawsuit she filed against Manafort.
Why is that significant? Tymoshenko and Hillary Clinton had a simpatico relationship after the former secretary of State
went out of her way in January 2013 to advocate for Tymoshenko's release from prison on corruption charges.
So, Bruce Ohr became a conduit of information not only for intelligence from Clinton's British opposition-researcher
but also from his wife's curation of evidence from a Clinton foreign ally and Manafort enemy inside Ukraine. Talk about foreign
influence in a U.S. election!
...
The tales of Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Christopher Steele, Yulia Tymoshenko, and those DEA and TSA agents raise a stark warning:
The lines between government officials and informants, unverified political dirt and real intelligence, personal interest
and law enforcement,
became too blurred for the Justice Department's own good.
The person responsible for securing the release of Yulia Tymoshenko was Chancellor Merkel. Further, that USA opposed Tymoshenko.
quote
As for one of the leaders of the war party in Kiev, Merkel has privately and publicly endorsed every claim of Yulia Tymoshenko,
promoting her release from prison and protecting her campaigns for war against Russia, even though – according to the high-level
German source – “they [Chancellery, Foreign Ministry] have known for years that [Tymoshenko] was a crook.”
endquote
There is a lot more detail Tymoshenko's corruption and Merkel's rescue here:
STEPHEN COHEN: I'm not aware that Russia attacked Georgia. The European Commission, if you're talking about the 2008 war,
the European Commission, investigating what happened, found that Georgia, which was backed by the United States, fighting with an
American-built army under the control of the, shall we say, slightly unpredictable Georgian president then, Saakashvili, that he
began the war by firing on Russian enclaves. And the Kremlin, which by the way was not occupied by Putin, but by Michael McFaul and
Obama's best friend and reset partner then-president Dmitry Medvedev, did what any Kremlin leader, what any leader in any country
would have had to do: it reacted. It sent troops across the border through the tunnel, and drove the Georgian forces out of what
essentially were kind of Russian protectorate areas of Georgia.
So that- Russia didn't begin that war. And it didn't begin the one in Ukraine, either. We did that by [continents], the overthrow
of the Ukrainian president in [20]14 after President Obama told Putin that he would not permit that to happen. And I think it happened
within 36 hours. The Russians, like them or not, feel that they have been lied to and betrayed. They use this word, predatl'stvo,
betrayal, about American policy toward Russia ever since 1991, when it wasn't just President George Bush, all the documents have
been published by the National Security Archive in Washington, all the leaders of the main Western powers promised the Soviet Union
that under Gorbachev, if Gorbachev would allow a reunited Germany to be NATO, NATO would not, in the famous expression, move two
inches to the east.
Now NATO is sitting on Russia's borders from the Baltic to Ukraine. So Russians aren't fools, and they're good-hearted, but they
become resentful. They're worried about being attacked by the United States. In fact, you read and hear in the Russian media daily,
we are under attack by the United States. And this is a lot more real and meaningful than this crap that is being put out that Russia
somehow attacked us in 2016. I must have been sleeping. I didn't see Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and 2016. This is reckless, dangerous,
warmongering talk. It needs to stop. Russia has a better case for saying they've been attacked by us since 1991. We put our military
alliance on the front door. Maybe it's not an attack, but it looks like one, feels like one. Could be one.
Real politik. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't start fights in the first place. The idea that American leadership
is any better than mid-Victorian imperialism, is laughable.
AARON MATE: We hear, often, talk of Putin possibly being the richest person in the world as a result of his entanglement
with the very corruption of Russia you're speaking about
Few appear to be aware that Bill Browder is single-handedly responsible for starting, and spreading, the rumor that Putin's
net worth is $200 billion (for those who are unfamiliar with Browder, I highly recommend watching Andrei Nekrasov's documentary
titled " The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes "). Browder
appears to have first
started this rumor early in 2015 , and has repeated it ad nauseam since then, including in
his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 . While Browder has always framed the $200 billion figure as his own
estimate, that subtle qualifier has had little effect on the media's willingness to accept it as fact.
Interestingly, during the press conference at the Helsinki Summit, Putin claimed Browder sent $400 million of ill-gotten gains
to the Clinton campaign. Putin
retracted the statement and claimed to have misspoke a week or so later, however by that time the $400 million figure had
been cited by numerous media outlets around the world. I think it is at least possible that Putin purposely exaggerated the amount
of money in question as a kind of tit-for-tat response to Browder having started the rumor about his net worth being $200 billion.
The stories I saw said there was a mistranslation -- but that the figure should have $400 thousand and not $400 million. Maybe
Putin misspoke, but the $400,000 number is still significant, albeit far more reasonable.
Putin never was on the Forbes list of billionaires, btw, and his campaign finance statement comes to far less. It never seems
to occur to rabid capitalists or crooks that not everyone is like them, placing such importance on vast fortunes, or want to be
dishonest, greedy, or power hungry. Putin is only 'well off' and that seems to satisfy him just fine as he gets on with other
interests, values, and goals.
Yes, $400,000 is the revised/correct figure. My having written that "Putin retracted the statement" was not the best choice
of phrase. Also, the figure was corrected the day after it was made, not "a week or so later" as I wrote in my previous comment.
From the Russia Insider link:
Browder's criminal group used many tax evasion methods, including offshore companies. They siphoned shares and funds from
Russia worth over 1.5 billion dollars. By the way, $400,000 was transferred to the US Democratic Party's accounts from these
funds. The Russian president asked us to correct his statement from yesterday. During the briefing, he said it was $400,000,000,
not $400,000. Either way, it's still a significant amount of money.
There's something weird about the anti-Putin hysteria. Somehow, many, many people have come to believe they must demonstrate
their membership in the tribe by accepting completely unsupported assertions that go against common sense.
In a sane world we the people would be furious with the Clinton campaign, especially the D party but the R's as well, our media
(again), and our intel/police State (again). Holding them all accountable while making sure this tsunami of deception and lies
never happens again.
It's amazing even in time of the internetz those of us who really dig can only come up with a few sane voices. It's much worse
now in terms of the numbers of sane voices than it was in the run up to Iraq 2.
Regardless of broad access to far more information in the digital age, never under estimate the self-preservation instinct
of American exceptionalist mythology. There is an inverse relationship between the decline of US global primacy and increasingly
desperate quest for adventurism. Like any case of addiction, looking outward for blame/salvation is imperative in order to prevent
the mirror of self-reflection/realization from turning back onto ourselves.
we're not to believe we're not supposed to believe we're supposed to believe
Believe whatever you want, however your comment gives the impression that you came to this article because you felt the need
to push back against anything that does not conform to the liberal international order's narrative on Putin and Russia, rather
than "with an eagerness to counterbalance the media's portrayal of Putin". WRT to whataboutism, I like
Greenwald's definition of the term :
"Whataboutism": the term used to bar inquiry into whether someone adheres to the moral and behavioral standards they seek
to impose on everyone else. That's its functional definition.
aye. I've never seen it used by anyone aside from the worst Hill Trolls.
Indeed, when it was first thrown at me, I endeavored to look it up, and found that all references to it were from Hillaryites
attempting to diss apostates and heretics.
The degree of consistency and or lack of hypocrisy based on words and actions separates US from Russia to an astonishing level.
That is Russia's largest threat to US, our deceivers. The propaganda tables have turned and we are deceiving ourselves to points
of collective insanity and warmongering with a great nuclear power while we are at it. Warmongering is who we are and what we
do.
Does Russia have a GITMO, torture Chelsea Manning, openly say they want to kill Snowden and Assange? Is Russia building up
arsenals on our borders while maintaining hundreds of foreign bases and conducting several wars at any given moment while constantly
threatening to foment more wars? Is Russia dropping another trillion on nuclear arsenals? Is Russia forcing us to maintain such
an anti democratic system and an even worse, an entirely hackable electronic voting system?
You ready to destroy the world, including your own, rather than look in the mirror?
You're talking about extending Russian military power into Europe when the military spending of NATO Europe alone exceeds Russia's
by almost 5-1 (more like 12-1 when one includes the US and Canada), have about triple the number of soldiers than Russia has,
and when the Russian ground forces are numerically smaller than they have been in at least 200 years?
" to put their self-interests above those of their constituents and employees, why can't we apply this same lens to Putin and
his oligarchs?"
The oligarchs got their start under Yeltsin and his FreeMarketDemocraticReformers, whose policies were so catastrophic that
deaths were exceeding births by almost a million a year by the late '90s, with no end in sight. Central to Yeltsin's governance
was the corrupt privatization, by which means the Seven Bankers came to control the Russian economy and Russian politics.
Central to Putin's popularity are the measures he took to curb oligarchic predation in 2003-2005. Because of this, Russia's
debt:GDP ratio went from 1.0 to about 0.2, and Russia's demographic recovery began while Western analysis were still predicting
the death of Russia.
So Putin is the anti-oligarch in Russian domestic politics.
I know of many people who sacrifice their own interests for those of their children (over whom they have virtually absolute
power), family member and friends. I know of others who dedicate their lives to justice, peace, the well being of their nation,
the world, and other people -- people who find far greater meaning and satisfaction in this than in accumulating power or money.
Other people have their own goals, such as producing art, inventing interesting things, reading and learning, and don't care two
hoots about power or money as long as their immediate needs are met.
I'm cynical enough about humans without thinking the worst of everyone and every group or culture. Not everyone thinks only
of nails and wants to be hammers, or are sociopaths. There are times when people are more or less forced into taking power, or
getting more money, even if they don't want it, because they want to change things for the better or need to defend themselves.
There are people who get guns and learn how to use them only because they feel a need for defending themselves and family but
who don't like guns and don't want to shoot anyone or anything.
There are many people who do not want to be controlled and bossed around, but neither want to boss around anyone else. The
world is full of such people. If they are threatened and attacked, however, expect defensive reactions. Same as for most animals
which are not predators, and even predators will generally not attack other animals if they are not hungry or threatened -- but
that does not mean they are not competent or can be dangerous.
Capitalism is not only inherently predatory, but is inherently expansive without limits, with unlimited ambition for profits
and control. It's intrinsically very competitive and imperialist. Capitalism is also a thing which was exported to Russia, starting
soon after the Russian Revolution, which was immediately attacked and invaded by the West, and especially after the fall of the
Soviet Union. Soviet Russia had it's own problems, which it met with varying degrees of success, but were quite different from
the aggressive capitalism and imperialism of the US and Europe.
The pro-Putin propaganda is pretty interesting to witness, and of course not everything Cohen says is skewed pro-Putin – that's
what provides credibility. But "Putin kills everybody" is something NOBODY says (except Cohen, twice in one interview) – Putin
is actually pretty selective of those he decides to have killed. But of course, he doesn't kill anyone, personally – therefore
he's an innocent lamb, accidentally running Russia as a dictator.
The most recent dictator in Russian history was Boris Yeltsin, who turned tanks on his legislature while it was in the legal
and constitutional process of impeaching him, and whose policies were so catastrophic for Russians (who were dying off at the
rate of 900k/yr) that he had to steal his re-election because he had a 5% approval rating.
But he did as the US gvt told him, so I guess that makes him a Democrat.
Under Putin Russia recovered from being helpless, bankrupt & dying, but Russia has an independent foreign policy, so that makes
Putin a dictator.
"Does any sane person believe that there will ever be a Putin-signed contract provided as evidence? Does any sane person believe
that Putin actually needs to "approve" a contract rather than signaling to his oligarch/mafia hierarchy that he's unhappy about
a newspaper or journalist's reporting?"
Why do you think Putin even needs, or feels a need, to have journalists killed in the first place? I see no evidence to support
this basic assumption.
The idea of Russia poised to attack Europe is interesting, in light of the fact that they've cut their military spending by
20%. And even before that the budgets of France, Germany, and the UK combined well exceeded that of Russia, to say nothing of
the rest of NATO or the US.
Putin's record speaks for itself. This again points to the absurdity of claiming he's had reporters killed: he doesn't need
to. He has a vast amount of genuine public support because he's salvaged the country and pieced it back together after the pillaging
of the Yeltsin years. That he himself is a corrupt oligarch I have no particular doubt of. But if he just wanted to enrich himself,
he's had a very funny way of going about it. Pray tell, what are these 'other interpretations'?
"The US foreign policy has been disastrous for millions of people since world war 2. But Cohen's arguments that Russia isn't
as bad as the US is just a bunch of whattaboutism."
What countries has the Russian Federation destroyed?
Here is a fascinating essay ["Are We Reading Russia Right?"] by Nicolai N. Petro who currently holds the Silvia-Chandley Professorship
of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island. His books include, Ukraine
in Crisis (Routledge, 2017), Crafting Democracy (Cornell, 2004), The Rebirth of Russian Democracy (Harvard, 1995), and Russian
Foreign Policy, co-authored with Alvin Z. Rubinstein (Longman, 1997). A graduate of the University of Virginia, he is the recipient
of Fulbright awards to Russia and to Ukraine, as well as fellowships from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the National
Council for Eurasian and East European Research, the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in Washington,
D.C., and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. As a Council on Foreign Relations Fellow, he served as special assistant
for policy toward the Soviet Union in the U.S. Department of State from 1989 to 1990. In addition to scholarly publications
on Russia and Ukraine, he has written for Asia Times, American Interest, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian
(UK), The Nation, New York Times, and Wilson Quarterly. His writings have appeared frequently on the web sites of the Carnegie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs and The National Interest.
Thanks for so much for this. Great stuff. Cohen says the emperor has no clothes so naturally the empire doesn't want him on
television. I believe he has been on CNN one or two times and I saw him once on the PBS Newshour where the interviewer asked skeptical
questions with a pained and skeptical look. He seems to be the only prominent person willing to stand up and call bs on the Russia
hate. There are plenty of pundits and commentators who do that but not many Princeton professors.
It has been said in recent years that the greatest failure of American foreign policy was the invasion of Iraq. I think that
they are wrong. The greatest failure, in my opinion, is to push both China and Russia together into a semi-official pact against
American ambitions. In the same way that the US was able to split China from the USSR back in the seventies, the best option was
for America to split Russia from China and help incorporate them into the western system. The waters for that idea have been so
fouled by the Russia hysteria, if not dementia, that that is no longer a possibility. I just wish that the US would stop sowing
dragon's teeth – it never ends well.
The best option, but the "American exceptionalists" went nuts. Also, the usual play book of stoking fears of the "yellow menace"
would have been too on the nose. Americans might not buy it, and there was a whole cottage industry of "the rising China threat"
except the potential consumer market place and slave labor factories stopped that from happening.
Bringing Russia into the West effectively means Europe, and I think that creates a similar dynamic to a Russian/Chinese pact.
The basic problem with the EU is its led by a relatively weak but very German power which makes the EU relatively weak or controllable
as long as the German electorate is relatively sedate. I think they still need the international structures run by the U.S. to
maintain their dominance. What Russia and the pre-Erdogan Turkey (which was never going to be admitted to the EU) presented was
significant upsets to the existing EU order with major balances to Germany which I always believed would make the EU potentially
more dynamic. Every decision wouldn't require a pilgrimage to Berlin. The British were always disinterested. The French had made
arrangements with Germany, and Italy is still Italy. Putting Russia or Turkey (pre-Erdogan) would have disrupted this arrangement.
The Crimea voted to be annexed by Russia by a clear majority. The US overran Hawaii with total disregard for the wishes of
the native population. Your comparison is invalid.
"Putin's finger prints are all over the Balkan fiasco".How is that with Putin only becoming president in 2000 and the Nato
bombing started way beforehand. It's ridiculous to think that Putin had any major influence at that time as govenor or director
of the domestic intelligence service on what was going during the bombing of NATO on Belgrad. Even Gerhard Schroeder, then chancellor
of the Federal Republic of Germany, admitted in an interview in 2014 with a major German Newspaper (Die Zeit) that this invasion
of Nato was a fault and against international law!
Can you concrete what you mean by "fingerprints" or is this just another platitudes?
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
o Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently absurd MSM propaganda. For example,
the meme that releasing factual information about actual election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging
of its own nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
o Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on and lying to the American people,
spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer
Brennan;
o Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples of "norms-respecting Republican
patriots";
o Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating Russian stooge.
By all measures Clinton is a war criminal... Hilary is a female sociopath or worse.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of 1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end
of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" ..."
"... The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. ..."
"... Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA
is fighting for human rights and American values." ..."
"... Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo.
After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war
had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks. ..."
Twenty years ago, President Bill Clinton commenced bombing Serbia in the name of human rights, justice, and ethnic tolerance.
Approximately 1,500 Serb civilians were killed by NATO bombing in one of the biggest sham morality plays of the modern era. As British
professor Philip Hammond recently noted, the 78-day bombing campaign "was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what
it called 'dual-use' targets, such as factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an
attempt to terrorise the country into surrender."
Clinton's unprovoked attack on Serbia, intended to help ethnic Albanians seize control of Kosovo, set a precedent for "humanitarian"
warring that was invoked by supporters of George W. Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq, Barack Oba-ma's bombing of Libya, and Donald
Trump's bombing of Syria.
Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo, and there is an 11-foot statue of him standing in the capitol, Pristina, on Bill Clinton Boulevard.
A commentator in the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a
typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started
the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation if Clinton was shown standing on the
corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.
Bombing Serbia was a family affair in the Clinton White House. Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of
1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What
do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" A biography of Hillary Clinton, written by Gail Sheehy and published
in late 1999, stated that Mrs. Clinton had refused to talk to the president for eight months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.
She resumed talking to her husband only when she phoned him and urged him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the president
began bombing within 24 hours. Alexander Cockburn observed in the Los Angeles Times,
It's scarcely surprising that Hillary would have urged President Clinton to drop cluster bombs on the Serbs to defend "our
way of life." The first lady is a social engineer. She believes in therapeutic policing and the duty of the state to impose
such policing. War is more social engineering, "fixitry" via high explosive, social therapy via cruise missile . As a tough therapeutic
cop, she does not shy away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy: the death penalty.
I followed the war closely from the start, but selling articles to editors bashing the bombing was as easy as pitching paeans
to Scientology. Instead of breaking into newsprint, my venting occurred instead in my journal:
April 7, 1999: Much of the media and most of the American public are evaluating Clinton's Serbian policy based on
the pictures of the bomb damage -- rather than by asking whether there is any coherent purpose or justification for bombing.
The ultimate triumph of photo opportunities . What a travesty and national disgrace for this country.
April 17: My bottom line on the Kosovo conflict: I hate holy wars. And this is a holy war for American good deeds
-- or for America's saintly self-image? Sen. John McCain said the war is necessary to "uphold American values." Make me barf!
Just another Hitler-of-the-month attack.
May 13: This damn Serbian war is a symbol of all that is wrong with the righteous approach to the world and to problems
within this nation.
The KLA
The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. The previous year, the State Department condemned "terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army."
The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden. Arming the KLA helped Clinton portray
himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many congressmen
eager to portray U.S. bombing as an engine of righteousness. Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand
for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."
In early June 1999, the Washington Post reported that "some presidential aides and friends are describing [bombing] Kosovo
in Churchillian tones, as Clinton's 'finest hour.'" Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it
alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo. After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and
Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks.
In a speech to American troops in a Thanksgiving 1999 visit, Clinton declared that the Kosovar children "love the United States
because we gave them their freedom back." Perhaps Clinton saw freedom as nothing more than being tyrannized by people of the same
ethnicity. As the Serbs were driven out of Kosovo, Kosovar Albanians became increasingly oppressed by the KLA, which ignored its
commitment to disarm. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 20, 1999,
As a postwar power struggle heats up in Kosovo Albanian politics, extremists are trying to silence moderate leaders with a
terror campaign of kidnappings, beatings, bombings, and at least one killing. The intensified attacks against members of the moderate
Democratic League of Kosovo, or LDK, have raised concerns that radical ethnic Albanians are turning against their own out of fear
of losing power in a democratic Kosovo.
American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serbian civilians, bombing Serbian
churches, and oppressing non-Muslims. Almost a quarter million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled Kosovo after Clinton
promised to protect them. In March 2000 renewed fighting broke out when the KLA launched attacks into Serbia, trying to seize
territory that it claimed historically belonged to ethnic Albanians. UN Human Rights Envoy Jiri Dienstbier reported that "the [NATO]
bombing hasn't solved any problems. It only multiplied the existing problems and created new ones. The Yugoslav economy was destroyed.
Kosovo is destroyed. There are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed now."
U.S. complicity in atrocities
Prior to the NATO bombing, American citizens had no responsibility for atrocities committed by either Serbs or ethnic Albanians.
However, after American planes bombed much of Serbia into rubble to drive the Serbian military out of Kosovo, Clinton effectively
made the United States responsible for the safety of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo. That was equivalent to forcibly disarming a group
of people, and then standing by, whistling and looking at the ground, while they are slaughtered. Since the United States promised
to bring peace to Kosovo, Clinton bears some responsibility for every burnt church, every murdered Serbian grandmother, every new
refugee column streaming north out of Kosovo. Despite those problems, Clinton bragged at a December 8, 1999, press conference that
he was "very, very proud" of what the United States had done in Kosovo.
I had a chapter on the Serbian bombing campaign titled "Moralizing with Cluster Bombs" in Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion
and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton–Gore Years (St. Martin's Press, 2000), which sufficed to spur at least one or two
reviewers to attack the book. Norman Provizer, the director of the Golda Meir Center for Political Leadership, scoffed in the
Denver Rocky Mountain News, "Bovard chastises Clinton for an illegal, undeclared war in Kosovo without ever bothering to mention
that, during the entire run of American history, there have been but four official declarations of war by Congress."
As the chaotic situation in post-war Kosovo became stark, it was easier to work in jibes against the debacle. In an October 2002
USA Today article ("Moral High Ground Not Won on Battlefield") bashing the Bush administration's push for war against Iraq,
I pointed out, "A desire to spread freedom does not automatically confer a license to kill . Operation Allied Force in 1999 bombed
Belgrade, Yugoslavia, into submission purportedly to liberate Kosovo. Though Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic raised the white flag,
ethnic cleansing continued -- with the minority Serbs being slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground in the same way the
Serbs previously oppressed the ethnic Albanians."
In a 2011 review for The American Conservative, I scoffed, "After NATO planes killed hundreds if not thousands of Serb
and ethnic Albanian civilians, Bill Clinton could pirouette as a savior. Once the bombing ended, many of the Serbs remaining in Kosovo
were slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground. NATO's 'peace' produced a quarter million Serbian, Jewish, and Gypsy refugees."
In 2014, a European Union task force confirmed that the ruthless cabal that Clinton empowered by bombing Serbia committed atrocities
that included murdering persons to extract and sell their kidneys, livers, and other body parts. Clint Williamson, the chief prosecutor
of a special European Union task force, declared in 2014 that senior members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had engaged in "unlawful
killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and Albania, sexual violence, forced displacements
of individuals from their homes and communities, and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites."
The New York Times reported that the trials of Kosovo body snatchers may be stymied by cover-ups and stonewalling: "Past
investigations of reports of organ trafficking in Kosovo have been undermined by witnesses' fears of testifying in a small country
where clan ties run deep and former members of the KLA are still feted as heroes. Former leaders of the KLA occupy high posts in
the government." American politicians almost entirely ignored the scandal. Vice President Joe Biden hailed former KLA leader and
Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in 2010 as "the George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council of Europe investigative
report tagged Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation.
Clinton's war on Serbia opened a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and pundits portrayed that
war as a moral triumph, it was easier for subsequent presidents to portray U.S. bombing as the self-evident triumph of good over
evil. Honest assessments of wrongful killings remain few and far between in media coverage.
This article was originally published in the July 2019 edition ofFuture of Freedom .
James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Today columnist and has written
for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader's Digest, Playboy, American Spectator,
Investors Business Daily, and many other publications. He is the author of Freedom Frauds: Hard Lessons in American Liberty
(2017, published by FFF); Public Policy Hooligan (2012); Attention Deficit Democracy (2006); The Bush Betrayal
(2004); Terrorism and Tyranny (2003); Feeling Your Pain (2000); Freedom in Chains (1999); Shakedown (1995);
Lost Rights (1994); The Fair Trade Fraud (1991); and The Farm Fiasco (1989). He was the 1995 co-recipient of
the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the recipient of the 1996 Freedom
Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. His book Lost Rights received the
Mencken Award as Book of the Year from the Free Press Association. His Terrorism and Tyranny won Laissez Faire Book's Lysander
Spooner award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. Read his blog . Send
him email .
I believe that the full and proper name of the psychiatric disorder in question is
Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome [PTDS].
Symptoms include:
Eager and uncritical ingestion and social-media regurgitation of even the most patently
absurd MSM propaganda. For example, the meme that releasing factual information about actual
election-meddling (as Wikileaks did about the Dem-establishment's rigging of its own
nomination process in 2016) is a grave threat to American Democracy™;
Recent-onset veneration of the intelligence agencies, whose stock in trade is spying on
and lying to the American people, spreading disinformation, election rigging, torture and
assassination and its agents, such as liar and perjurer Clapper and torturer Brennan;
Rehabilitation of horrid unindicted GOP war criminals like G.W. Bush as alleged examples
of "norms-respecting Republican patriots";
Smearing of anyone who dares question the MSM-stoked hysteria as an America-hating
Russian stooge.
"The Campaign Press: Members of the 10 Percent, Reporting for the One Percent" [Matt
Taibbi,
Rolling Stone ]. "Anyone who's worked in the business (or read Manufacturing Consent)
knows nobody calls editors to red-pencil text.
The pressure comes at the point of hire. If you're the type who thinks Jeff Bezos should
be thrown out of an airplane, or that it's a bad look for a DC newspaper to be owned by a
major intelligence contractor, you won't rise.
Meanwhile, the Post has become terrific at promoting Jennifer Rubins and Max Boots.
Reporters watch as good investigative journalism about serious structural problems dies on
the vine, while mountains of column space are devoted to trivialities like Trump tweets
and/or simplistic partisan storylines.
Nobody needs to pressure anyone. We all know what takes will and will not earn attaboys in
newsrooms. Trump may have accelerated distaste for the press, but he didn't create it. He
sniffed out existing frustrations and used them to rally anger toward 'elites' to his side.
The criticism works because national media are elites, ten-percenters working for
one-percenters.
The longer people in the business try to deny it, the more it will be fodder
for politicians. Sanders wasn't the first, and won't be the last."
• Yep. I'm so glad
Rolling Stone has Matt Taibbi on-board. Until advertisers black-list "the One Percent," I
suppose.
"... The real concern is about the primacy of the dollar and US hegemony. When Krugman trumpeted 'free' trade with China back in 2000, falsely claiming that US labor would benefit, his main point was that it was good policy strategically. Krugman was woefully wrong, as China grew to be a geopolitical rival, not a US client state like Japan or Germany as the Clintonistas and the foreign policy borg had hoped. ..."
"... Folks, it ain't about US jobs and consumer prices, which will be affected at worst only marginally. What it's really about is the dominance of the empire and its enormous, tax-free profits overseas. ..."
What's at Risk if US Stumbles Into
a Currency War https://nyti.ms/2yKGPC1
NYT - Neil Irwin - August 7
... ... .. ...
The Trump administration has introduced a zero-sum approach to global currency policy --
envisioning a loser for every winner -- that violates the spirit of those rules.
In that sense, the latest moves risk upsetting a relatively stable order, creating
unpredictable ripple effects. When currencies swing wildly, they can pull along the economies
of some of the most powerful nations, such as by crushing entire sectors of the economy that
find themselves uncompetitive after a swing in global exchange rates.
And it could undermine the central role the United States has played in the international
financial system, especially if the accusations of manipulation are followed up with concrete
retaliation to try to artificially depress the value of the dollar.
"The dollar being the primary global currency has enormous benefits for the U.S., but with
the side effect that when the U.S. tries to depreciate, there are limits on how much it can
do that," said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
"But if the U.S. abuses its privilege too much by bullying, there will eventually be a
switch."
The decision to name China a currency manipulator does not, in and of itself, do much. But
it could be followed up with pressure on the International Monetary Fund and other nations to
make similar findings and lean on the Chinese to adjust their policies. Or it could lead to
direct intervention in foreign exchange markets by the United States Treasury.
This is not the first time President Trump has accused a major trading partner of using
currency policy to mistreat the United States.
... ... ...
A habit of the Trump administration has been to link seemingly unrelated items in its
dealings with other countries -- using tariff threats to try to influence Mexican immigration
policy, for example.
If the Trump administration continues down the path of using currency policy to try to
bludgeon China over trade, technology and national security issues, it will signal a
remarkable expansion into a policy area that has been a source of stability in recent
decades.
"It's dangerous to start a currency war because you don't know where it will end," said
Eric Winograd, chief U.S. economist at AllianceBernstein. "We've seen with the trade war that
it started in one place, and ended up much broader. There's every risk a currency war will do
the same."
"It could undermine the central role the United States has played in the
international financial system."
All the talk about hurting consumers and jobs is just noise that policy elites emit to win
support on false pretenses.
The real concern is about the primacy of the dollar and US hegemony. When Krugman
trumpeted 'free' trade with China back in 2000, falsely claiming that US labor would benefit,
his main point was that it was good policy strategically. Krugman was woefully wrong, as
China grew to be a geopolitical rival, not a US client state like Japan or Germany as the
Clintonistas and the foreign policy borg had hoped.
Now there is a real debate about global strategy going on. Trump wants to whack China back
into place, reduce it as a geopolitical threat. The other side is still wedded to the 2000
notion having China follow US global leadership and defending the exorbitant privileges of US
corporations, their banksters, and their profits. Their latest gambit is to raise a
potentially real issue--the primacy of the US dollar.
Folks, it ain't about US jobs and consumer prices, which will be affected at worst
only marginally. What it's really about is the dominance of the empire and its enormous,
tax-free profits overseas.
The most dangerous bit of theater involving sanctions initiated by the Trump administration
continues to focus on Iran. Last week, the White House elevated its extreme pressure on the
Iranians by engaging in a completely irrational sanctioning of Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif. The sanctions will have no effect whatsoever and they completely
contradict Donald Trump's repeated assertion that he is seeking diplomacy to resolving the
conflict with Iran. One doesn't accomplish that by sanctioning the opposition's Foreign
Minister. Also, the Iranians have received the message loud and clear that the threats coming
from Washington have nothing to do with nuclear programs. The White House began its sanctions
regime over a year ago when it withdrew from the JCPOA and they have been steadily increasing
since that time even though Iran has continued to be fully compliant with the agreement.
Recently, the US took the unprecedented step of sanctioning the entire Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps, which is part of the nation's military.
American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made clear that the sanctions on Iran are
intended to cause real pain, which, in fact, they have succeeded in doing. Pompeo and his
accomplice in crime National Security Advisor John Bolton believe that enough pressure will
motivate the starving people to rise up in the streets and overthrow the government, an
unlikely prospect as the American hostility has in fact increased popular support for the
regime.
To be sure, ordinary people in Iran have found that they cannot obtain medicine and some
types of food are in short supply but they are not about to rebel. The sanctioning in May of
Iranian oil exports has only been partially effective but it has made the economy shrink, with
workers losing jobs. The sanctions have also led to tit-for-tat seizures of oil and gas
tankers, starting with the British interception of a ship carrying Iranian oil to Syria in
early July.
Another bizarre escalation in sanctions that has taken place lately relates to the Skripal
case in Britain. On August 2 nd , Donald Trump
signed an executive order imposing a package of new sanctions against Moscow over the
alleged poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England in March
2018. The order "prohibit[s] any United States bank from making any loan or providing any
credit except for loans or credits for the purpose of purchasing food or other agricultural
commodities or products." The ban also includes "the extension of any loan or financial or
technical assistance by international financial institutions," meaning that international
lenders will also be punished if they fail to follow Washington's lead.
The sanctions were imposed under the authority provided by the US
Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act adopted in 1991, which
imposes penalties for use of chemical weapons. Novichok, which was reportedly used on the
Skripals, is a chemical weapon developed in the labs of the Soviet Union, though a number of
states are believed to currently have supplies of the agent in their arsenals. Russia can
appeal the sanctions with 90 days by providing "reliable assurance" that it will not again use
chemical weapons.
Russia has strenuously denied any role in the attack on the Skripals and the evidence that
has so far been produced to substantiate the Kremlin's involvement has been less than
convincing. An initial package of US-imposed sanctions against Russia that includes the export
of sensitive technologies and some financial services was implemented in August 2018.
Venezuela is also under the sanctions gun and is a perfect example how sanctions can
escalate into something more punitive, leading incrementally to an actual state of war. Last
week Washington expanded its sanctions regime, which is already causing starvation in parts of
Venezuela, to include what amounts to a complete
economic embargo directed against the Maduro regime that is being enforced by a naval
blockade.
The Venezuelan government
announced last Wednesday that the United States Navy had seized a cargo ship bound for
Venezuela while it was transiting the Panama Canal. According to a government spokesman, the
ship's
cargo was soy cakes intended for the production of food. As one of Washington's raisons
d'etre for imposing sanctions on Caracas was that government incompetence was starving the
Venezuelan people, the move to aggravate that starvation would appear to be somewhat capricious
and revealing of the fact that the White House could care less about what happens to the
Venezuelan civilians who are caught up in the conflict.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez
condemned the move as "serious aggression," and accused the Trump Administration of trying
to impede Venezuela's basic right to import food to feed its people.
One of the most pernicious aspects of the sanctions regimes that the United States is
imposing is that they are global. When Washington puts someone on its sanctions list, other
countries that do not comply with the demands being made are also subject to punishment,
referred to as secondary sanctions. The sanctions on Iran's oil exports, for example, are being
globally enforced with some few exceptions, and any country that buys Iranian oil will be
punished by being denied access to the US financial and banking system. That is a serious
penalty as most international trade and business transactions go through the dollar denominated
SWIFT banking network.
Finally, nothing illustrates the absurdity of the sanctions mania as a recent report that
President Trump had
sent his official hostage negotiator Robert O'Brien to Stockholm to obtain freedom for an
American rap musician ASAP Rocky who was in jail after having gotten into a fight with some
local boys. The Trumpster did not actually know the lad, but he was vouched for by the likes of
Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, both of whom have had nice things to say about the president.
The negotiator was instructed to tell Sweden that if they did not release Rocky there would be
"negative consequences." Who can doubt that the consequences would undoubtedly have included
sanctions?
It has reached the point where the only country that likes the United States is Israel,
which is locked into a similar cycle of incessant aggression. To be sure Donald Trump's
rhetoric is part of the problem, but the indiscriminate, illegal and immoral use of sanctions,
which punish whole nations for the presumed sins of those nations' leaders, is a major
contributing factor. And the real irony is that even though sanctions cause pain, they are
ineffective. Cuba has been under sanctions, technically and embargo, since 1960 and its ruling
regime has not collapsed, and there is no chance that Venezuela, Iran or Russia's government
will go away at any time soon either. In fact, real change would be more likely if Washington
were to sit down at a negotiating table with countries that it considers enemies and work to
find solutions to common concerns. But that is not likely to happen with the current White
House line-up, and equally distant with a Democratic Party obsessed with the "Russian threat"
and other fables employed to explain its own failings.
America's Superpower Panic
History suggests that a global superpower in relative decline should aim for a soft landing,
so that it still has a comfortable place in the world once its dominance fades. By contrast,
US President Donald Trump's incoherent, confrontational approach toward China could seriously
damage America's long-term interests.
By J. BRADFORD DELONG
BERKELEY – Global superpowers have always found it painful to acknowledge their
relative decline and deal with fast-rising challengers. Today, the United States finds itself
in this situation with regard to China. A century and a half ago, imperial Britain faced a
similar competitive threat from America. And in the seventeenth century, the Dutch Republic
was the superpower and England the challenger.
History suggests that the global superpower should aim for a soft landing, including by
engaging with its likely successor, so that it still has a comfortable place in the world
once its dominance fades. Sadly, US President Donald Trump is no historian. And his
incoherent, confrontational approach to China could seriously damage America's long-term
interests.
Like Britain and the Dutch Republic before it, America is the world's dominant military
power, and its reach is global. It has some of the world's most productive industries, and
dominates global trade and finance.
But, also like its predecessors, America now faces a rising power – a confident,
ambitious country that has a larger population, is hungry for wealth and global preeminence,
and believes it has a manifest destiny to supplant the current hegemon. And, unless something
goes badly wrong, the challenger's continued rise is all but assured.
Inevitably, conflicts will arise. The up-and-coming superpower wants more access to
markets and to intellectual property than the incumbent wishes to provide. And what the
incumbent does not willingly give, its challenger will seek to take. Moreover, the rising
superpower wants a degree of influence in international bodies commensurate to what its
fundamental power will be a generation from now, and not to what it is today.
These are all legitimate disagreements, and the two powers need to manage them by
advancing and defending their respective interests. But these tensions do not outweigh the
two countries' common interest in peace and prosperity.
What, then, should the incumbent hegemon do?
In the Anglo-Dutch case, a series of trade skirmishes and naval wars in the 1600s led to a
remarkably large number of derogatory expressions entering the English language, such as
Dutch book, Dutch concert, Dutch courage, Dutch leave, Dutch metal, Dutch nightingale, and
Dutch reckoning. In the long run, though, Britain's fundamental strengths proved decisive,
and the country became a global power. Yet the Dutch created a world in which they were
largely comfortable long after their predominance ended.
The Dutch shift from opposing Britain to engaging with it was a crucial factor in this
transition. On October 24, 1688, a change in wind direction allowed the Dutch fleet to leave
harbor in support of the aristocratic Whig faction in England, thereby ending the would-be
absolutist Stuart dynasty. Thereafter, the two powers' joint interests in limited government,
mercantile prosperity, and anti-Catholicism formed the basis of a durable alliance in which
the Dutch were the junior partner. Or, as a viral slogan of the 1700s more bluntly put it,
there would be "no popery or wooden shoes!" – the latter being a contemporary symbol of
French poverty. And with British backing, the Dutch remained independent, rather than falling
involuntarily under French control.
More than a century later, imperial Britain eventually adopted a similar strategy of
engagement and cooperation with America. This culminated, as Harold Macmillan unwisely
(because too publicly) put it when he was seconded to General Eisenhower's staff in North
Africa during World War II, in Britain playing Greece to America's Rome. As a result, the US
became Britain's staunchest geopolitical ally of the twentieth century.
Today, US policymakers could learn much by studying the actions of the Dutch Republic and
Britain when they were global hyperpowers pursuing soft landings. In addition, they should
read "The Sources of Soviet Conduct," the 1947 article by US diplomat George F. Kennan that
advocated a US policy of containment toward the Soviet Union.
Three of Kennan's points stand out. First, he wrote, US policymakers should not panic, but
recognize what the long game is and play it. Second, America should not try to contain the
Soviet Union unilaterally, but rather assemble broad alliances to confront, resist, and
sanction it. Third, America should become its best self, because as long as the struggle
between the US and Soviet systems remained peaceful, liberty and prosperity would ultimately
be decisive.
But since taking office in January 2017, Trump has steadfastly ignored such advice.
Instead of forming alliances to contain China, Trump withdrew the US from the proposed
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. And he continues to make random, incoherent demands
– such as immediately eliminating the bilateral US-China trade deficit.
Rather than carefully playing the long game with regard to China, Trump seems to be
panicking. And, increasingly, China and the world know it.
J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley.
America now faces a rising power – a confident, ambitious country that has a larger
population, is hungry for wealth and global preeminence, and believes it has a manifest
destiny to supplant the current hegemon....
-- Brad DeLong
[ This is wrong and dangerous.
The Chinese leadership has repeatedly, publicly made clear that there is no consideration
of China becoming a hegemon or supplanting any current supposed hegemon. ]
What will stop the US from badgering China into war?
[ China has long been at peace and wishes to remain so, and China has long been beyond
badgering even if the US is only beginning to understand that China is beyond badgering.
]
The political personality of Soviet power as we know it today is the product of ideology
and circumstances: ideology inherited by the present Soviet leaders from the movement in
which they had their political origin, and circumstances of the power which they now have
exercised for nearly three decades in Russia. There can be few tasks of psychological
analysis more difficult than to try to trace the interaction of these two forces and the
relative role of each in the determination of official Soviet conduct. yet the attempt must
be made if that conduct is to be understood and effectively countered....
Britain in the late victorian period
saw the US as a third party
Germany was the rival
And Germany was its war opponent in The great war
Was that a soft landing ?
Yes Britain and Japan were allies
From the turn of the 20th century
to the 1930's
And even though a clear rival in Asia
But never a prime opponent like Germany had been
Britain only a resigned itself to junior status with the roll up to WWII
Yes many Brit a saw the truth as early as 1919
But only.the onset of a second German war
Brought it home universally
That the reign of Britain was over
No soft land
A blitz bombing and a regime praying for us intervention
The Great War refers to World War I, and I wonder at the extent to which the war was possible
because of the perceived ethnic differences of the states.
But that doesn't bother Trump, Bolton, Pompeo and their mob. They think quarter by quarter.
Immediate gratification is the name of their game. They know that "in the long run we are
all dead". And they don't care what happens then.
Your viewpoint is the same as that of Jonathon Cook. He says "Russiagate" was a faction
fight between two groups of the Power Elites.
One wanted to keep 'putting the lipstick on the pig' which is predatory Capitalism, and
the other wants to let it all hang out and rape the planet NOW.
Just as there was a clueless "liberal" cheering group for Mueller, the Looters have a
fan club among the "right". Both sets of the applauding groups are just puppets. And of
course neither has recognized their true role in the unfolding dramas.
Daniel Benaim and Michael Walid Hanna
explain that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East hasn't changed much at all under
Trump, but there has been a reduction in diplomatic engagement:
For all the headlines, the U.S. military presence in the Middle East is fairly consistent.
Despite the administration's intention, laid out in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, to
refocus the U.S. military on great-power competition, the U.S. footprint in the Middle East
remains relatively constant, and seemingly permanent. Instead, what has changed is the scale
of civilian effort that, in most previous administrations, would have accompanied such a
military presence. The Trump administration has left numerous vacancies for key civilian
positions unfilled for long stretches, slashed aid programs, and focused on high-level
personal relations at the expense of broader ties. Altogether, its approach has not been
typified by either retrenchment or interventionism but by what Barry Posen, writing in
Foreign Affairs, has called "illiberal hegemony" -- military superiority shorn of diplomatic
stewardship.
Benaim and Hanna are right about this, and their article is a welcome corrective to the many
false claims that Trump is "retreating" from the region. The administration's disdain for
diplomacy and aid has been impossible to miss over the last two and a half years, and they have
combined that with more or less continuing the military deployments and missions that they
inherited. What that means in practice is that the U.S. remains entangled in the affairs of the
region, but our government's involvement leans even more heavily towards the military. That
leaves every other kind of engagement underfunded, understaffed, and neglected. Since our
foreign policy is already excessively militarized, this makes a bad problem worse. Benaim and
Hanna note this later in the article:
This approach also exacerbates the long-standing problem of overreliance on the military
as the central tool of U.S. Middle East policy. Even on a diplomat's best days, regional
leaders are well aware of the "consul effect" -- the contrast between well-resourced American
military commanders and their relatively impoverished diplomatic colleagues. Further
marginalizing diplomats costs them influence, access, and bargaining power, while positioning
the military and intelligence communities as the only effective U.S. institutional actors in
the region.
Given the reality that the U.S. military presence hasn't been reduced, and has actually
increased in some places over the last two years, how is it that we keep hearing about U.S.
"retreat" and "withdrawal" as if these were happening? Client states have an incentive to whine
about possible "abandonment" no matter what the U.S. does. Either they complain about an
"abandonment" that has supposedly already happened, or they warn against a possible
"abandonment" that might take place in the future. The whining serves the purpose of putting
pressure on every administration to maintain existing commitments and then to add more. Then
there are pundits and analysts at home that constantly fret about U.S. "withdrawal" as a way of
agitating for increased involvement. Then there are the supporters of the president that want
to pretend that the "withdrawal" is really happening in order to credit the president for doing
something he hasn't done. Add them all up, and you get an unfounded consensus that the U.S. is
"retreating" when virtually nothing has changed. In the case of Trump, there is an additional
factor of taking the president's rhetoric at face value while ignoring what his administration
is doing. Trump boasts about some things that never happened and never will happen, and for
some reason he is blamed/credited for things he never does while his real policies often escape
close scrutiny.
Put simply, U.S. military engagement in the Middle East is largely unchanged and has even
escalated to some degree under Trump, but all other kinds of engagement get short shrift. Far
from disentangling the U.S. from its excessive commitments in the region, Trump has embraced
our worst clients and deepened our government's involvement in the worst way for the sake of
arms sales and whipping up anti-Iranian sentiment. This is the exact opposite of what should be
happening, and it is antithetical to a foreign policy that extricates U.S. forces from the
region.
China ratcheted up its accusations of U.S. involvement in fomenting protests in Hong Kong,
spotlighting a top diplomat in state media, as the restive city prepared for a 10th weekend
of demonstrations under the threat that Beijing could step in.
Hundreds of black-clad protesters began a three-day sit-in at the city's international
airport on Friday, while several demonstrations planned for the weekend were banned by the
local police. That could give rise to further clashes, days after Beijing warned it could
intervene directly if Hong Kong authorities were unable to quell the unrest on their own.
The protests come amid rising trade tensions between the U.S. and Beijing. Chinese
officials have accused the U.S. of encouraging protesters to undermine the government, though
the Trump administration has offered guidance to officials to maintain a measured response in
an effort to avoid derailing U.S. efforts on trade talks. U.S. diplomatic representatives in
Hong Kong have met with senior government officials.
On Thursday and Friday, Beijing-backed media outlets circulated a photo of Julie Eadeh,
the political unit chief of the U.S. consulate general in Hong Kong, meeting in a hotel lobby
with prominent members of the opposition, including 22-year-old Joshua Wong, a key figure in
protests that rocked Hong Kong five years ago.
The reports, in the China Daily and other mainland outlets, pointed to the meeting as
evidence that a U.S. "black hand" was behind the protests. Tai Kung Pao, a Beijing-backed
newspaper in Hong Kong, called Ms. Eadeh an expert in subversion with experience in Iraq. It
publicized the names of her children and husband, citing a church publication from her
hometown. The narrative and some of the personal details were reposted on numerous mainland
Chinese publications and websites.
State broadcaster CCTV said Friday that the Central Intelligence Agency was known for
instigating "color revolutions," a reference to demonstrations that sprang up in former
Soviet states during the previous decade. Beijing officials also said this week that the Hong
Kong unrest had the markings of a color revolution.
What do you think is motivating Beijing to connect the U.S. with the protests in Hong
Kong? Join the conversation below.
.
A spokesman for the U.S. consulate general in Hong Kong said Ms. Eadeh wasn't available for
comment, and referred questions to Washington.
A State Department spokeswoman said on Twitter on Friday that the Chinese state media
reports on the U.S. diplomat in Hong Kong had gone from irresponsible to dangerous and must
stop. She earlier called China a "thuggish regime" for targeting Ms. Eadeh.
"Chinese authorities know full well, our accredited consular personnel are just doing
their jobs, just like diplomats from every other country," she said in the tweet.
A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy denied that Washington was behind the protests, saying
that the Hong Kong demonstrations reflected residents' concerns about eroding autonomy.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry's Hong Kong Commissioner's Office on Friday said the U.S.
remarks revealed again the "dark and twisted side of U.S. psychology."
Mr. Wong said Friday that neither he nor his group receive any funding, supplies or advice
from the U.S. government. ...
Protests Put Hong Kong on Collision Course With
China's Communist Party https://nyti.ms/2MfpdHo
NYT - Javier C. Hernández and Amy Qin - August 12
HONG KONG -- As anti-government demonstrations escalate in Hong Kong, each side is staking
out increasingly polarized positions, making it difficult to find a path to compromise
between the protesters and China's ruling Communist Party.
The demonstrations, which began as a fight against a bill that would have allowed Hong
Kong residents to be extradited to the mainland, have more broadly morphed into a call for
free elections, which largely do not exist in China. To Beijing, it would be a direct
challenge to the leadership, tantamount to losing control of Hong Kong.
The once peaceful demonstrations have now intensified, coming into conflict with Hong
Kong's reputation for order and efficiency. Protesters on Monday filled the airport,
crippling one of the world's busiest transportation hubs.
Demonstrators returned again on Tuesday, with more flights canceled that day.
China is also projecting more power, raising the possibility of more intense and more
frequent clashes with the police. An official in Beijing on Monday condemned the actions of
the protesters last weekend, casting it as the first signs of "terrorism." The Chinese police
also appeared to conduct large-scale exercises across the border from Hong Kong in Shenzhen,
a city on the mainland.
"We are at a crossroads," said Martin Lee, a democracy advocate and former lawmaker. "The
future of Hong Kong -- the future of democracy -- depends on what's going to happen in the
next few months."
The unrest is exposing the inherent conflict in the political experiment that began when
China reclaimed Hong Kong from Britain in 1997, an ambitious attempt to marry Beijing's brand
of authoritarianism with a bastion of civil liberties.
China's top leader, Xi Jinping, wants to make Hong Kong more like a mainland city, using
economic incentives to buy happiness and propaganda to win loyalty. The protesters, who
represent a wide swath of Hong Kong, want a government that looks out for their interests,
not just Beijing's, to help resolve problems like astronomical housing prices and low
wages.
The two sides no longer seem to recognize each other's concerns. ...
Hong Kong Airport Suspends
Check-Ins as Protests Continue
Hundreds of people occupied parts of Hong Kong
International Airport, with some using luggage
trolleys to block travelers from reaching their gates.
The demonstration came hours after the city's
embattled leader pleaded for order following days
of escalating chaos and violent street clashes.
Hong Kong Airport Suspends Check-Ins in 2nd Day
of Disruptive Protests https://nyti.ms/2MekLsu
NYT - Mike Ives - August 12
HONG KONG -- Hong Kong's airport suspended check-ins for a second straight day on Tuesday
as protesters again disrupted its operations, hours after the city's embattled leader pleaded
for order amid escalating chaos.
Hundreds of demonstrators occupied parts of Hong Kong International Airport's departures
and arrivals halls on Tuesday, with some using luggage trolleys to block travelers from
reaching their departure gates. The Hong Kong Airport Authority closed check-in services in
the late afternoon, and it advised all passengers to leave as soon as possible.
It was the second day in a row that demonstrators had seriously disrupted operations at
the airport, one of the world's busiest. On Monday, protesters effectively shuttered it after
storming the arrivals and departures halls. As flight cancellations piled up on Tuesday, a
few scuffles broke out between protesters and travelers. ...
BEIJING -- Chinese authorities condemned violent weekend demonstrations in Hong Kong as
"deranged" acts that marked the emergence of "the first signs of terrorism" in the
semiautonomous city, vowing a merciless crackdown on the perpetrators.
The escalating rhetoric from Beijing followed a day of heated protests in Hong Kong,
including the hurling of petrol bombs, and came as thousands of protesters gathered at Hong
Kong's international airport on Monday, prompting officials to cancel all flights for the
rest of the day apart from those already en route to the air-travel hub.
"Radical Hong Kong protesters have repeatedly used extremely dangerous tools to attack
police officers," a spokesman for the Chinese government's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office
told a news briefing on Monday, according to Chinese state media. "The first signs of
terrorism are starting to appear."
On Sunday, police in riot gear fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds of
protesters across Hong Kong, some of whom threw bricks and what police identified as Molotov
cocktails and smoke bombs. Police said an officer was hospitalized with burns to his legs
after being hit by a Molotov cocktail hurled by a protester.
The spokesman, Yang Guang, expressed "intense condemnation" for such "deranged and severe
criminal activities committed without regard for the consequences." Such violence must be
severely punished, "without leniency, without mercy," he said.
Mr. Yang also called on ordinary Hong Kong residents to oppose the violence. "Hong Kong
has already reached an important juncture," he said. "All the people who care about Hong
Kong's future should step firmly forward, and say no to all criminal activities and all
violent elements."
Mr. Yang didn't indicate that Beijing has any imminent plans to intervene in the unrest.
Instead, he reiterated the central government's firm support for Hong Kong's police and
judiciary in their efforts to "decisively enforce the law" and punish wrongdoers as soon as
possible.
Chinese state media, however, appeared to signal that mainland forces are ready to step
in, if necessary.
On Monday, social-media accounts run by the Communist Party's flagship newspaper, People's
Daily, and other leading state news outlets published footage of Chinese paramilitary forces
arriving in the southern city of Shenzhen, which abuts Hong Kong, over the weekend.
The footage, dated Saturday, featured captions describing the columns of armored vehicles
and trucks as a detachment from the People's Armed Police that may have been sent to
participate in summer training drills.
The People's Daily, in a microblog post featuring the footage, cited a Chinese law
outlining the armed police's powers, saying the paramilitary force can be used to deal with
"riots, disturbances, severe violent criminal incidents, terrorist attacks and other public
security incidents."
Hong Kong -- Hong Kong's real estate billionaires are calling for an end to massive
protests that have crippled local businesses and paralyzed the city's international
airport.
Swire Pacific, one of Hong Kong's richest family-owned business empires, issued a strongly
worded statement on Tuesday. The company condemned "illegal activities and violent behavior"
and threw its support behind Hong Kong's beleaguered government.
"Swire Pacific is deeply concerned by the ongoing violence and disruption impacting Hong
Kong," the company said in a statement, offering its full support for Hong Kong Chief
Executive Carrie Lam and the city's police "in their efforts to restore law and order."
The company's CEO is billionaire Merlin Swire. The family's business empire dates back
more than 200 years and has had roots in Hong Kong for much of that time. It owns luxury
hotels, office towers and high-end shopping malls in the city.
Swire is also the largest shareholder in Cathay Pacific, Hong Kong's flagship airline that
has become a high profile casualty of the turmoil. Swire said it fully supports the carrier's
"strict implementation" of new restrictions on the airline handed down by China's aviation
authority over the weekend.
The statement came as hundreds of protestors crowded into Hong Kong's international
airport, disrupting flights for the second day in a row. ...
Property tycoon: Time to "think deeply"
Sun Hung Kai Properties, which is controlled by Asia's third richest family, the Kwoks,
also called Tuesday for demonstrators to stop the violence. The real estate developer called
for the restoration of social order and voiced support for Hong Kong's government ...
Wow, that is an outstanding tour d'horizon from Magnier you linked. This is a
keeper to show others who may be amenable to learning about today's Middle East balance of
forces, and how it has been arrived at.
Succinct yet very comprehensive, the piece not only catches up the histories of recent
years, but provides an analysis of today and the near-to-mid-term future - both military and
geopolitical. It speaks of the various lessons learned along the way, including the lessons
being absorbed in real time today as the confrontation between Iran and the US has barely yet
begun and yet racked up totally instructive scores.
The new war is essentially economic; it is a war of sanctions and limiting free movement of
ship movements around the globe. It is a war of tankers and oil platforms. It is a
starvation war where no one can threaten the enemy with a return to the "stone age"
because the firepower is now universally available . Yemen is the best example: the
threat of bombing Dubai forced the Emirates to seek Iranian mediation to prevent a missile
attack against them. The Houthis, despite years of Saudi bombing of Yemen, have also
managed to bomb Saudi airports, military bases and oil stations in the heart of Saudi
Arabia, using cruise missiles and armed drones. [My emphasis]
And Hezbolllah has cemented its standing with nations in the region, expanded its skill
from guerrilla and small-theater to nation-size theater, and this:
It has run intensive courses in the use of its drones, used its precision missiles with
accuracy, produced thousands of highly trained Special Forces and it has fought an enemy
(al-Qaeda) that is much more motivated to fight to the death than any Israeli Special
Forces units. [My emphasis]
Israel is essentially paralyzed. Even to the extent, as Magnier relates, of being careful
to warn Hezbollah drivers before bombing its supply trucks, because "Israel wanted to
avoid human casualties among Hezbollah officers, fully aware of the price of
retaliation. " My emphasis again.
The bad guys have fallen behind - as we know, but as Magnier illustrates so clearly in
this appraisal, with his review of the initial western strategies just a few years ago and
how they have all been rendered null. Even the US now is an antique target for modern missile
and drone technology - and the battle-hardened skill with these weapons definitely resides
with the Levant axis rather than with the imperialists and their dogs.
The future? This:
Gaza, along with Beirut, Damascus and Baghdad, are all highly equipped by Tehran with
sufficient missiles to inflict real damage on Israel and on US forces deployed in the
Middle East. Israel is playing around by targeting various objectives tactically but with
no real strategic purpose- only for Netanyahu to keep himself busy and train his Air Force,
and to gain publicity in the media. Soon, when Syria recovers and Iraq is stronger, the
Israeli promenade will have to cease. Hezbollah in Lebanon may also find a way in the near
future to keep its irregular but organised army busy by firing anti-air missiles against
Israeli jets and imposing new rules of engagement.
That suggest that FBI actions were influenced by Obama administration and CIA to much greater
expent thatn we assuned.
Notable quotes:
"... It may be that much of the dossier was created out of whole cloth by Nellie Ohr who was tasked to create a narrative that jibed with Simpson's political objectives. ..."
"... The ukraine is probably behind a great deal of the "info" the democrats and fib used.. ..."
In reviewing these 302s there are some salient points I want to bring to your attention.
First, Christopher Steele was terminated as an FBI Confidential Human Source at the end of
September 2016 for leaking to the press. That should have put an end to the relationship.
Instead, the FBI starts using Bruce Ohr, the number four guy at the Department of Justice, as a
cutout. Absolutely no justification for this kind of behavior by the FBI. It is, at a minimum,
unethical and creates a real problem if any of the info collected from Ohr was to be used in a
court proceeding. Something known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" would kick in and the
so-called evidence proffered by Ohr would be inadmissible or unusable because of Steele's
previous lies to the FBI.
Second, Glenn Simpson played a huge role in helping spread anti-Trump propaganda generated
by Steele. In fact, it was Simpson's insistence on Steele speaking with the press that got
Steele terminated as an FBI source.
Third, the FBI knew by mid-December 2016 that Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, was working with
Simpson and Steele. This too should have set off alarm bells about the potential conflicts of
interest and unethical conduct.
Fourth, evidence used ultimately against Paul Manafort came from Nellie Ohr. If this was not
disclosed to Manafort's attorney's there is a likely Brady violation, which bolster's
Manafort's prospects for an appeal.
Fifth, Steele and Simpson made several claims of fact about Russia ties to the Trump
campaign that were later proven to be false. For example, stating that Michael Cohen was in
Prague meeting the Russians. Important to note that Christopher Steele produced the final
report of the so-called dossier bearing his name on 13 December 2016 yet this information was
"passed" to Ohr one day prior to the date on the report.
Sixth, the "debriefing" of Ohr on 12 December 2016 also provided the foundation for going
after Marina Butina. (See Sara Carter's excellent update on this case
here ). The false information from Steele/Simpson via Bruce Ohr became the pretext for
launching an investigation of Butina, who was working for a wealthy Russian banker, Alexander
Torshin. This too turns out to have been a fabrication. I believe this provides Butina's
attorneys more ammunition for arguing prosecutorial misconduct and failure to provide critical
Brady material.
Seventh, Ohr's report that Simpson and Steele were communicating with the State Department,
including Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland and Kathleen Kavalec makes it clear that State
Department was used as a front to pass on info from the questionable Steele Dossier. This
information was used in the FISA warrant and provided a seemingly reliable justification for
spying on Carter Page (see the Page FISA warrant here
.)
And finally, Fusion GPS, which was hired on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, was regularly
communicating and coordinating with Obama's Department of Justice and Department of State. This
was a complete abuse of power.
Now, here is the summary of the 302s:
11/22/2016 (entered on 12/19/2006)
Ohr met with Steele in 2007 (not sure of date) at a conference.
July 30, 2016 Steele met Ohr for breakfast. Steele claimed Carter Page had met with Russian
Sechin at a conference.
States that Glenn Simpson hired Steele and Ohr's wife to dig up dirt on Trump's connections
to Russia.
Noted that reporting was going to the Clinton Campaign, Jonathan Winer and the FBI.
Ohr met with Steele in late September and was told about Alfa Bank ties to Trump and the
Sergei Millian organization.
Noted that Steele was desperate to stop Trump and to thwart the Kremlin.
Ohr knew that Glenn Simpson and "others" were meeting with Victoria Nuland.
12/05/2016 (entered on 12/19/2016) (drafted on 12/12/2016)
Glenn Simpson directed Christopher Steele to speak to the press, including David Corn at
Mother Jones.
Ohr provided FBI info on Manafort Chronology prepared by his wife.
12/12/2016 (entered on 12/19/2016) (Drafted on 12/14/2016)
Ohr states, per Simpson, that Cohen replaced Manafort and Page as the contact with the
Russians.
Says that Cohen met with Russians in Prague.
Claims that Torshin is a Russian mobster and is trying to infiltrate the NRA and was pushing
money to Trump.
Simpson opined that Sergei Millian was an SVR officer and a link to Trump.
12/20/2016 (entered on 12/27/2016)
Thumb drive with Nelly Ohr's research passed to FBI.
1/23/2017 (entered on 1/31/2017) (drafted on 1/25/2017)
Simpson tells Ohr a source will be outed in the coming days.
Steele claims he met with a McCain staffer prior to October 2016
1/25/017 (entered on 1/27/2017)
Ohr spoke with Steele on 25 January 2017.
1/27/2017 (entered on 1/27/2017)
Steele told Ohr he wanted to keep lines of communication open.
02/06/2017 (entered on 02/08/2017)
Ohr contacted by Steele via What'sApp on 31 January 2017. Was reacting to firing of Sally
Yates. Worried that if Ohr got fired he would have no one to talk to.
"Interviewing agents asked Ohr to ask Steele if he would be comfortable getting the name of
an FBI agent."
Ohr reminded agents that Steele had spoken several times prior to 2016 Presidential election
with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec. Ohr identified one of the sources
for Steele's report as a Ukranian.
02/14/2017 (entered on 02/15/2017)
Ohr tells FBI about Steele's concerns about his business. Identifies other lawyer (name
blacked out) he is working with. Steele is preparing a proposal to re-establish his business
releationship with the FBI.
05/08/2017 (entered on 05/10/2017)
Steele tells Ohr that he is worried about Comey's upcoming testimony. Ohr tells Steele what
Comey will say and Steele is "happy."
Ohr said that Glenn Simpson would be visiting Steele soon.
As an aside, note the similarities between Steele and Downer. Both carried some imprimatur of
credibility based on prior government service, and popped up from no where and returned to
relative obscurity after producing a document that was able to be immediately misused by
others for the same purpose.
I'd wondered why anyone would want to involve Downer in these events, the man is a moron.
However, one of his greatest strengths is producing wonderful well written reports, and to
that extent would appear to have been chosen well.
It is, however despicable the whole story is, suggesting - and in its own way entertaining -
that apparently the experienced gutter lady "Eff the EU" Nuland was also involved, probably
bringing in her ... regime change experience aquired in the Ukraine.
I wonder, did she ever say "Eff the Orange Man too"? Alas. Either way, more interesting to
me is whether she also handed out cookies to Steel and/or Ohr?
As far as financial price of the Ohr & Steel operation goes, compared to the 5+
billion that were according to Nuland proudly poured into Ukraine to get Maidan and backstab
Janukowytsch, hiring Steel to backstab somebody else - Trump - was probably way cheaper -
i.e. 'however illegal, it was more economic'.
That said, I detested Nuland well before this story for her Maidan stuntery and the "Eff
the EU" arrogance, but then, she really made it easy even for an at time even more benevolent
observer.
But the big question that I would be interested to get opinions on is this:
when is all this stuff going to be revealed in a way that not even the readers of the WaPo
NYT et al can deny thet the entire Russia collusion/interference story is false from
beginning to end?
The longer the Russia-interfered-in-our-election-and-everybody-else's lie is perpetrated,
the closer we all get to nuclear annihilation. So it's a matter of some importance.
Any ideas?
One that occurs to me is that nothing will happen -- it will all dribble out over such a long
time that nothing will ever be ever dramatic and simple enough to make an effect.
My other thought is that Trump & Co wants the big explosive revelations to hit the
street next Mar/Apr so as to destroy the Dems in 2020.
But many of us have known the general outline of the conspiracy for a couple of years, but
nothing big ever hits the street and the lies get dug in a little deeper every day that
they're not exploded.
So, state department honchos--Victoria Nuland, Kavalec and Sally Yates (DOJ)--all had some
knowledge of what was going on, right? And so did national security advisor Susan Rice.
Doesn't that prove that Obama must have been in the loop?
I think it does.
Second, how much of Nellie Ohr's russia research actually ended up in the steele dossier?
I think that it is very unlikely that Chris Steele maintained his sketchy connections in
Russia after the seismic political changes in the early 2000s. It may be that much of the
dossier was created out of whole cloth by Nellie Ohr who was tasked to create a narrative
that jibed with Simpson's political objectives.
This drive is being led by three nations in particular: namely Israel, Saudi Arabia and
America. All three are seeking to portray Iran as the major threat to regional stability. They
are also attempting to paint her as the major sponsor of anti-Western terrorism. This is
particularly laughable, given the fact that not one of the major attacks – that have
killed hundreds across the West in recent decades – can be traced back to her, which
cannot be said for Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. or Qatar. The truth is that Iran is a major
threat to the regional hegemony of these powers. After Russia, it is principally Iran and her
allies in Hezbollah and the Houthi movement who have prevented the Americans, Israelis and
Saudis from imposing their will upon the region and removing regimes considered hostile to
their interests. At the same time, Iran is weaker than Russia and is probably regarded as a
suitable first target for elimination, after which, deprived of her main regional ally, Russia
might perhaps prove more 'amenable' to Western overtures.
Here in the West, the population, held captive by a deceptive media and a corrupt and
cynical political class, can only watch these developments with the hope that they do not
escalate further. However, if we at least attempt to apply logic and historical precedent to
the situation, we may be able to discern the hidden hands that are stirring tension across the
region. Then, perhaps, we can at least avoid being dragged into yet another foreign war in
defence of somebody else's national interests.
Charlie O'Neill is a freelance writer specialising in History and Geopolitics.
I think the idea that the USA and its few remaining allies are preparing to attack Iran is
laughable. The idea that Saudi Arabia has become a more tolerant society ridiculous. It is
all window-dressing.
The boot is now very much on the other foot. I suspect that Iran carried out the recent
false flags against tankers close to the UAE. They are doing exactly what the USA used to do
in order to initiate a war. They are not going to wait to be suffocated by the ongoing
embargoes and sanctions. It is very much to their advantage to move the date of the
inevitable hostilities forward. I suspect Russia and China are doing all they can to prevent
them from doing so. American bases in the region are hostage to Iran.
The Iranians have made it clear that in the event they are attacked, Israel would be
largely inoperable in 30 minutes. The Israelis have absolutely no ability to withstand any
losses. They have inflicted pain on others for decades and have forgotten what it feels like.
There would be a mass-exodus of the Jewish middle class – who mostly have 2nd
passports.
Qatar, where the biggest US military base in the region is based, is already an ally of
Iran in all but name. Bahrain, where the US navy is based, is a Shia stronghold. The UAE has
sent envoys to Iran to apologise for allowing a US spy plane – the one that got shot
down by the Iranians – to take off from one of their airfields. They are making
peace-overtures to Iran and withdrawing their forces from Yemen. Currently, the Saudi proxies
are fighting the Emirati proxies in Aden.
Here is something from the Irish Times – a paper that has yet to be bought up by
Zionists.
Here are the regional nations that have flipped to the side of Iran: Oman, UAE, Qatar,
Iraq and Turkey. These countries know full well that the USA and Israel are a spent force.
The Eastern province of Saudi Arabia – where the oil lies – is Shia. The Iranians
have no intention of destroying Saudi oil installations – because they might soon
control them.
The writer of this article would do well to peruse some local news sources and not rely so
heavily on the mainstream media.
Bad new for Trump, Netanyahu and Kushner's gang.
Crown Prince MbS is fading fast. His father the King has taken back some control. Other Arab
leaders are pulling out of his Yemen war. King Salman has refused to accept any plans for
Palestines except a 2 state solution and the Arab Peace Initiative offered before.
Mohammad bin Salman's Waning Influence
August 5, 2019Emile Nakhleh
So, Saudi Arabia is building its future by an alliance with women and Judaism. Good luck,
they'll need it.
As to the overall picture, the disorganization of the US into ethnic groups under Obama
and the continuation of that under Trump (who is, since the Federal government's permanent
staff opposes him, a weak president) has most groups betting, world wide, that the US won't
intervene in their local disputes. Consequently, they are fighting and cooperating as they
see fit, and a new equilibrium is forming. Also, the sun rises in the morning.
This trend is long established [1], and I doubt it can be changed.
Even the change in Saudi Arabia has to do with this trend. Saudi Arabia is apparently
betting that they can survive as a high income Arab state if they have a large qualitative
and economic superiority over their much more poor neighbors. I really hope their efforts
work better for them than did Russian efforts to Westernize.
Unfortunately here in Europe most if not all politicians and media are simply following the
U.S. line.
Large parts of european populations are also blindly trusting the mainstream narratives,
though some do due to religious reasons instead of political ones.
Whenever there is some "official resistance" to these policies it is mostly symbolic.
It is a sad state of affairs. At this point in time when most people have access to
unprecedented information recources, via the internet, there still seems to be not much
interest in actually utilizing these resources.
People are too used to being force fed their information. There are no critical thinking
abilities to speak of in the general population. The barrage of propaganda people are being
subjected to ( from every direction and at all times ) is simply impossible to withstand for
most.
Parts of the population that think of themselves as "woke", informed and as "The Resistance"
are just as misinformed and deceived ( if not more ) as the sheeplike masses they claim
superiority over
An excellent piece, but I was slightly surprised that it did not go on to examine the de
facto alliance that appears to be growing between Iran and Russia. Everything surely depends
on the scope and extent of this alliance. If it is firm and committed, then Zio-America is
stirring up a hornet's nest by its sabre-rattling. And is the Trump administration really
naïve, mad or stupid enough not to understand the consequences in the face of a strong
Russo-Persian alliance? The US body count will dwarf the combined total of all its recent
illegal and criminal undertakings on behalf of its puppet-masters. How will a six-figure sum
of American dead be sold to its public, when 'only' 58,000 American military personnel died
in the Vietnam conflict? Media control can only ever extend so far.
Russia may be Iran's main regional ally: but Iran is also vital to Russia's strategic
interests. It cannot allow Tehran to fall. That would destabilize Central Asia and the
Caucasus, Moscow's backyard. In that sense they are equal partners. While the US is allied
with Israel and Saudi Arabia in pursuit of regional hegemony, Washington has wider interests
threatening to bring it into confrontation with Russia, and China, which also has core
interests to protect. That confrontation will be a world, not a regional, war. The pattern of
history shows there is already historical precedent for such events leading to world war
– this time nuclear war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
"Made possible by a generous founding grant from Mr. Haim Saban of Los Angeles, the
Saban Center will permit the Brookings Institution to dramatically expand its research and
analysis of Middle East policy issues at a time when the region has assumed a dominant
position on the U.S. foreign policy agenda.
"After September 11, American interests in countering terrorism, promoting peace,
preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and preserving regional stability
all converged on the Middle East," Armacost noted. "The generosity of Haim Saban will
enable Brookings to expand significantly its circle of experts who will conduct original
research and develop innovative programs to promote a better understanding of the policy
choices facing American decision-makers." "
A 2010 New Yorker magazine profile of Saban said:
His greatest concern, he says, is to protect Israel, by strengthening the United
States-Israel relationship. At a conference last fall [2006] in Israel, Saban described his
formula. His "three ways to be influential in American politics," he said, were: make
donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.
In 2007, Grant Smith, the Herculean head of Institute for Research: Middle East Policy
(IRMEP), wrote of Saban's action:
11/21/2007 Excerpt from the book "Foreign Agents" Why AIPAC took over Brookings
By targeting and taking over Middle East policy at Brookings in 2002, Saban and Indyk were
able to "leapfrog" AIPAC messaging from second to last in the think tank market (WINEP had
only 2%) to first place. Taking over Brookings also made it appear to Americans that there
was now an "expert consensus" from "right to left" on the key Middle East policy issue of
the year: the US invasion of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction pretexts. Brookings is
often portrayed as a "centrist to left think tank" in the corporate news media. According
to FAIR, "Progressive or Left-Leaning" media citations were a small but important segment
of the marketplace of ideas, but combined with "centrist", they represented the majority.
For Saban and Indyk, taking over Brookings Middle East policy in 2002 meant penetrating the
63% of the marketplace of ideas that was generally not beating a drum for war in Iraq.
Saban has supported Hillary Clinton financially and in other ways, probably since the
Clintons were in the White House, but demonstrably once the Clintons bought their house in
New York state in 2000 in preparation for Hill's successful run for the senate -- heavily
backed by Saban money. Team Clinton's Favorite Billionaire https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/haim-saban-hillary-clinton-donor-230711
Hillary has been Saban's creature throughout her-post Lewinsky life.
Sher glad we dodged that Hillary bullet & voted in tRump, say what.
Who will fight this war with iran? They wont go slowly into the night but fight tooth and
nail. Remember Hezbollah never even called up its reserves and the entire war was fought with
their regular forces already stationed there numbering a few thousand at most and only a few
hundred directly being engaged.
Before Iran goes, they will make sure the world economy will for ever be changed. With
regime changes in all ME and maybe even in other countries from unhappy populations.
Technologically, yes. It's also weaker economically.
OTOH, Iran has a rising population, totally different to Russia's ongoing demographic
crisis. The Iranian population increase occurs against a backdrop of policies to curb it,
which means that Iran could increase the increase to its population size (talking about the
second derivative here) at the drop of a hat. Russia could not even dream of being in such a
situation.
Unlike Russia, Iran is not officially a democracy either. Iran has a system of officially
limited democracy yielding to the supreme authority of a clerical elite, guarded by aptly
called revolutionary guards. This system has withstood decades of Western attempts to topple
it. Iran is much better able to hold its liberal, Westernized middle class in check than
Russia.
The biggest difference is the one in ideology. Iran has the Shia branch of Islam, what
does Russia have? The Putin government tries to ally itself with the Russian Orthodox church,
but the church has much less influence on Russian society than Shiite religiosity has on
Iran. Iran is a Shiite country through and through. The Iranian regime can count on millions
of committed followers to defend it to the death. Nothing of the same kind can be said about
the Putin government.
Unlike Russia, Iran also has geography on its side. Russia can be invaded from all
directions, Iran is a mountain fortress overlooking the straights of Hormuz to boot.
Russia and Iran have complementary strengths and weaknesses. Russia cannot allow Iran to
fail, but you have to wonder whether Iran should not lend a helping hand to Russia in dealing
with its fifth-column liberals.
In reality, America is ruled by an oligarchy, America's 60 families, a de facto government
according to Ferdinand Lundberg. This "shadow government" has controlled the top levels of
the US government for most of our nation's history.
May 18, 2019 The Truth-Teller: From the Pentagon Papers to the Doomsday Machine
The growth of the military-industrial complex poses an existential threat to humanity.
Daniel Ellsberg, peace activist and Vietnam War whistleblower discusses with Tellus Senior
Fellow Allen White the continuing existential threat posed by the military-industrial complex
-- and what needs to be done about it.
MARCH 13, 2019 'Imperialism on Trial' tour comes to Northern Ireland on March 19th and
21st
Next week, the Imperialism on Trial tour comes to Belfast, Northern Ireland, and will
include an impressive line-up of speakers, including two former British Ambassadors, a former
British soldier, an Irish Republican writer, and a veteran CIA analyst – each
presenting their own analysis of world events, and interrogating the role played at home and
abroad – by western powers.
@renfro
Saudi Arabia's "drift" to better relations with Israel started in 1975 when King Faisal, the
oil embargo anti-Israel, and pro Palestinian cause King, was assassinated by a nephew, who
had just returned from the US (purely co-incidental, of course).
It was Faisal, became King in his own bloodless coup, that started reforms in Saudi Arabia.
He was a pan-Islamist as opposed to Nassar's pan-Arabist, and was open to mending fences with
Shia while suppressing Wahabbism. Bin Salman is entirely a product of the CIA/MI-6/Mossad.
@RichardMunter
The days when the number of soldiers on each side was very important are over. Now, war is
much more automated and, as always, it is dependent on the training, intelligence and
motivation of the soldiers on each side.
The mercenaries of ISIS are certainly motivated, trained and well-equipped, but they seem
to be losing 10+ soldiers for each Syrian soldier lost. That is because they have no defence
against Russian and Syrian aviation.
Both the Russians and the Iranians would make formidable adversaries – because they
are defending their own peoples. The Israelis know that they don't belong there and the
Americans are really the tourists of militarism.
While the presentation of facts is accurate, reflecting events in the past years, there is no
actual analysis and explanations, other than local power struggle, but it is a bit more
complicated than that.
Egypt had first to be tamed and after loosing the Sinai peninsula, with the peace brokered
by US (plus a continuous dole of money/weapons), the biggest Arab nation that could have
engender any meaningful threats to Israel as a state (and nowadays to its expansionist
thrust) has been quashed. At that time Iran was a monarchy resting on US support (so Israel
had beautiful relations with the regime, which posed no threats).
Now comes the Iran Revolution which suddenly becomes a threat to US interests (oil,
dollar, oil flow), Israel's interests (provides strategic depth to Lebanon, Palestinians,
Syria, and Iraq), and all Arab monarchies around since it shows their own citizens that there
is a different way of running a country
As such KSA and other monarchies (Qatar seems to be fine though) would rather make peace
with the devil (Israel), than allow the idea of a Republic (especially Arab – see
untamed Syria, and soon, after US will leave, Iraq) in their midst.
Iran free to sell oil to whomever and on whatever currency is also able to buy and build
weapons and provide a modicum of well being to its citizens while allowing a modicum of
democracy to exist as well as supporting entities as Syria, Hezbollah is a mortal threat to
US, Israel, and many Arab monarchies around, especially KSA. This level of nationalism is
unacceptable for US geo-strategic and economic planners. Such a resource, as oil cannot be
allowed to benefit all citizens of a country but needs to be controlled and enrich the few.
This is why Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Syria, etc.
@Counterinsurgency
Absolutely, and schooling is the individual supply line of the drones aka patriots who will
scarifice themselves for the Empire. This has been planned shortly after the Federal Reserve
was founded and created.
"Rebuilding America's Defenses" – A Summary Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S.
Global Hegemony
Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored
until after the war was over.
This film goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American
Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present.
@RichardMunter
I think you misrepresents a little bit the underpinnings of Iran's form of government. In the
US it is said that the three branches of government are independent and on equal footing.
Practice is showing that it is not true and that the operational arm (government/President)
has the upper hand in all goings and it is seldom or ever challenged.
In Iran the top is represented by the Law (Islamic law) with its guardians (supreme
ayatollah and the guardians). I don't think conceptually this is a bad thing (except as an
atheist I have some issues with the idea of divine law, especially when it punishes
unbelievers and such) and ultimately in theory everyone else is aspirationally saying that
their country is a country of law.
Iran, also called Persia, and officially the Islamic Republic of Iran republic
@Commentator
Mike Well said. the war against Gemal Abdulnasser and his brand of revolutionary
nationalism calling for Arab unity and establishing one Arab country for all Arabs is a great
example of imperialist intervention in the Arab world.
The west does not want nor tolerates Arab unity ,any of those leaders calling for such
idea are either ousted by coups or ending up dead .
@Hossein
Iran has been a miniature empire absorbing a large number of ethnically diverse peoples for a
very long time. They know very well how to balance the interests of its various components
– unlike the USA or the UK. Of course, outsiders such the British and Americans try to
fracture the country along its ethnic lines. There is nothing new there either. Divide and
Rule.
All ethnic groupings in Iran are well aware that they have much to lose should the USA
regain control of the country. They know their history.
The real irony of what is happening is that the USA and UK have imported large numbers of
foreigners from their de facto ex colonies and they have no idea as to how to absorb these
aliens. That has rendered the USA and the UK vulnerable to being fractured themselves.
Electing a Zionist Pakistani to be the mayor of London is hardly going to appease the
Pakistanis of the UK. He only represents himself.
The Arabs of Ahwaz have only to look across the Persian Gulf to see what is happening to
their ethnic cousins in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to realise that they are quite
fortunate.
"Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power." ~Bertrand Russell
Fully applicable to any color revolution.
Notable quotes:
"... The president's top legislative ally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), was far more direct: "Any violent crackdown would be completely unacceptable... The world is watching." ..."
"... One cannot help but recall that the same phrasing was used for Ukraine, during the Maidan protests of 2013 that culminated in a violent coup in February 2014 – and plunged that country into secession of Crimea and civil war in the Donbass. ..."
"... The impression is only reinforced by the images reminiscent of Kiev coming out of Hong Kong, showing helmeted protesters in black masks firing grenades and throwing firebombs at police – none of which has stopped the chorus of US media from calling the protesters "pro-democracy." ..."
"... There is even nationalism, albeit of a xeno variety: some protesters have brandished flags of Hong Kong's former colonial master, the UK. Others have embraced the US flag, telling reporters it stands for "freedom, human rights and democracy." ..."
"... All of this has been seen before, most recently in Kiev but also in other places. There was even the requisite meddling by the State Department: US diplomat Julie Eadeh was photographed meeting with protest leaders. It wasn't quite Victoria Nuland passing out cookies to the Maidan demonstrators, but it was enough to raise alarm. ..."
"... This is very very embarrassing. Julie Eadeh, a US diplomat in Hong Kong, was caught meeting HK protest leaders. It would be hard to imagine the US reaction if Chinese diplomat were meeting leaders of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter or Never Trump protesters. ..."
"... " Our diplomat was doing her job and we commend her for her work," State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said at a news briefing last week. Ortagus then denounced what she said was publication of Eadeh's personal details, including the names of her children, in Chinese media as the action of a "thuggish regime." ..."
"... It is worth noting that the protests have already accomplished their original purpose, as the bill that would have allowed the extradition of criminal suspects to mainland China has been suspended. So now the demonstrators are calling for city officials to resign and broader political reforms, open-ended demands that will likely only grow with time. ..."
"... Color evolutions are a type of regime change technique developed by US strategists and executed by diplomats and non-governmental organizations. They rely on exploiting legitimate grievances of the local population, amplifying with money and marketing small groups of activists they either create or co-opt. The goal is to provoke the government into a violent crackdown, so as to destroy its legitimacy – whereupon it can be replaced in the name of "democracy and human rights." ..."
"... In the "best case" scenario, such as Serbia, the immediate body count is low but the country's democratic institutions are irreparably damaged and corrupted by this sort of fraud and manipulation. Ukraine, Syria, or Libya are what the worst-case scenario looks like: civil war or anarchy, with tens of thousands of deaths. ..."
If the iconography and tone of Hong Kong protests and the support from US diplomats weren't enough, Washington's words of concern
sure seem to suggest that the months-long demonstrations amount to a 'color revolution.' On Monday, the Trump administration urged
"all sides to refrain from violence." While carefully paying lip service to Hong Kong being an internal Chinese matter, the
unnamed White House official who spoke to the press said the US supported those "looking for democracy."
The president's top legislative ally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), was far more direct: "Any violent
crackdown would be completely unacceptable... The world is watching."
The people of Hong Kong are bravely standing up to the Chinese Communist Party as Beijing tries to encroach on their autonomy
and freedom. Any violent crackdown would be completely unacceptable. As I have said on the Senate floor: The world is watching.
https://t.co/5VPm5P4PfB
One cannot help but recall that the same phrasing was used for Ukraine, during the Maidan protests of 2013 that culminated in
a violent coup in February 2014 – and plunged that country into secession of Crimea and civil war in the Donbass.
The impression is only reinforced by the images reminiscent of Kiev coming out of Hong Kong, showing helmeted protesters in black
masks firing grenades and throwing firebombs at police – none of which has stopped the chorus of US media from calling the protesters
"pro-democracy."
There is even nationalism, albeit of a xeno variety: some protesters have brandished flags of Hong Kong's former colonial master,
the UK. Others have embraced the US flag, telling reporters it stands for "freedom, human rights and democracy."
Hong Kong protesters in Hong Kong proudly sing US National anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner" O say can you see ... What so
proudly we hailed ...brings tears to my eyes 😂🤣💀 pic.twitter.com/CeM5zrA1Fe
All of this has been seen before, most recently in Kiev but also in other places. There was even the requisite meddling by the
State Department: US diplomat Julie Eadeh was photographed meeting with protest leaders. It wasn't quite Victoria Nuland passing
out cookies to the Maidan demonstrators, but it was enough to raise alarm.
The State Department did not deny the meeting, arguing that it was something "American diplomats do every single day around
the world."
This is very very embarrassing. Julie Eadeh, a US diplomat in Hong Kong, was caught meeting HK protest leaders. It would be
hard to imagine the US reaction if Chinese diplomat were meeting leaders of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter or Never Trump
protesters. pic.twitter.com/JfiU2O2HZq
"Our diplomat was doing her job and we commend her for her work," State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said
at a news briefing last week.
Ortagus then denounced what she said was publication of Eadeh's personal details, including the names of her children, in Chinese
media as the action of a "thuggish regime."
It is worth noting that the protests have already accomplished their original purpose, as the bill that would have allowed the
extradition of criminal suspects to mainland China has been suspended. So now the demonstrators are calling for city officials to
resign and broader political reforms, open-ended demands that will likely only grow with time.
Even though US President Donald Trump has steered clear of Hong Kong and made sure to describe is as an internal Chinese matter,
focusing his diatribes entirely on trade, the Chinese public is becoming increasingly convinced that Washington is instigating turmoil
in Hong Kong along the lines of "color revolutions" elsewhere.
HK media has the right to report on US diplomats who actively interfere in HK situation, and help people understand what they're
doing. The US administration is instigating turmoil in HK the way it stoked "color revolutions" in other places worldwide. This
is thuggish diplomacy. pic.twitter.com/4hkH7eYyEH
If this charge is in fact true, that is very bad news for the already strained Sino-American relations – but also for Hong Kong
itself.
Color evolutions are a type of regime change technique developed by US strategists and executed by diplomats and non-governmental
organizations. They rely on exploiting legitimate grievances of the local population, amplifying with money and marketing small groups
of activists they either create or co-opt. The goal is to provoke the government into a violent crackdown, so as to destroy its legitimacy
– whereupon it can be replaced in the name of "democracy and human rights."
The prototype for this approach was the October 2000 coup in Serbia, which US diplomats and the cheerleader media then invoked
in subsequent cases.
In the "best case" scenario, such as Serbia, the immediate body count is low but the country's democratic institutions
are irreparably damaged and corrupted by this sort of fraud and manipulation. Ukraine, Syria, or Libya are what the worst-case scenario
looks like: civil war or anarchy, with tens of thousands of deaths.
Neither of which matters to the US diplomats, media or politicians, though. They declare it a "victory for democracy" and
move on to the next target, to replay the scenario all over again.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist and political commentator, working at RT since 2015
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Allegedly authorities are infiltrating protests, instigating violence, then making
arrests. Anybody have anything on this or a countervailing narrative?
Furious pushback this week by the US State Department after a photo of a US consular official
meeting with "pro-democracy activists" was published in Hong Kong media. The National
Endowment for Democracy money is distributed through the HK consulate. The NED spent about $8
million from 1998-2015, promoting "civil society" organizations and trade unions, and
training democracy "activists", yet has remained almost invisible to the western press. http://nedprogramsinhk.blogspot.com/2016/08/ned-grants-to-hong-kong-1994-to-2015.html
Numerous HK protesters have stated publicly they seek a "return" to democracy and freedom.
Semantically, this suggests that democracy and freedom was something the HK people once
possessed. The young protesters seem ill-informed on HK's colonial past and the dynamics of
the city's internal politics. Surely the NED's millions haven't been squandered promoting
false narratives?
Engagement in regular street battles with the police would not be tolerated anywhere. If
anything, the HK police have been relatively restrained, though the protesters believe
otherwise. They seem to believe that if the government does not immediately institute their
demands and "listen" to them, then the next logical step is vandalism, street blockades and
attacks on police stations. What are the NED educational programs on democratic functions
actually teaching people?
The current battles don't match up to the fury of HK riots in 2016, when police tried to
shut down unauthorized street vendors. The emotional pitch of those battles are quite
shocking, and perhaps suggest that commerce is ultimately the most cherished freedom in
HK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1rKmZ0xLKw
Hong Kong Maidan starts crossing the Rubicon from bricks and umbrellas to US-made grenade
launchers...Do you recall the moment the Maidan snipers arrived and Pravy Sektor battallions
trained months before in Poland took over from the initially seemingly popular uprise?
The protests in Hong Kong are starting to look more and more like the events at the Kiev
Maidan in late 2013 / early 2014. Apparently someone got hold of a US-made M320 grenade
launcher.
Next thing they'll need will be tyres to create barricades and to burn.
BTW that US consular official giving orders ... ahem, meeting with "pro-democracy
activists" was identified as Julie Eadeh.
Strange that the US didn't deny that Julie Eadeh met with these people but instead
labelled China as "thuggish" for doxxing Eadeh in Hong Kong media. Looks like the US doesn't
even bother any more to advise its diplomats to take care in meeting dissidents and
regime-change activists, and not to get themselves into situations where people can
photograph them on their cellphones and spread the news on social media.
You could try forming the movement and see how far you get without it being infiltrated by
the police, the FBI or any other law enforcement agency in the area where you live, assuming
that you live in the United States.
This could very well mean that you and your followers will have to communicate and do
everything "off the grid" - that means no online contact, no email, maybe even no cellphone
contacts at all. How far would you all be able to go with that? You could use old-fashioned
snail mail but I understand the US Postal Service is
now photographing and scanning all mail and may share information about senders and
recipients with law enforcement agencies.
How will The Movement be organised? Will it have a centralised leadership to control the
agenda, aims and membership? Or will it be a network of decentralised cells with the problems
that that arrangement might have (fragmentation, disagreement over goals, objectives and
agenda and how to carry it out, whether you are prepared to use violence or not)?
I'm not saying your suggestion is a bad idea but to form a grassroots movement these days
is not as easy as it might have been in the past (and that wasn't easy for those who did form
such organisations).
"... Cute – immediate goal, humanitarian aid so everybody gets a couple of free meals and some medicine. Next job, roll back socialism. At which time all the poor will not be able to afford to eat or get medicine. But who'll give a fuck then, right? Because corporate America will already be in charge by then, kicking ass and taking names and privatizing everything so that even Guaido will not be able to say he owns anything in Venezuela but his house. And of course, the equation for Venezuelans has not changed a bit: Captain America really wants to help, but it has to be under Guaido – they're really, really stuck on him for some reason. So it's Guaido or starvation. What's it gonna be, Venezuela? ..."
"In a post-Maduro Venezuela, the U.S. will remove sanctions, foster pro-market and
pro-business reforms and help rebuild confidence, Ross said. An immediate priority will be
providing humanitarian aid, while a medium-term focus will be rolling back socialism, Ross
said."
They are even promising to privatize garbage collection and sewer system! In the
medium-term focus, of course. Immediate focus on reign of terror, while handing out tins of
spam to the swarming masses. After that, setting up slave markets, just like in Tripoli!
Cute – immediate goal, humanitarian aid so everybody gets a couple of free meals and
some medicine. Next job, roll back socialism. At which time all the poor will not be able to
afford to eat or get medicine. But who'll give a fuck then, right? Because corporate America
will already be in charge by then, kicking ass and taking names and privatizing everything so
that even Guaido will not be able to say he owns anything in Venezuela but his house. And of
course, the equation for Venezuelans has not changed a bit: Captain America really wants to
help, but it has to be under Guaido – they're really, really stuck on him for some
reason. So it's Guaido or starvation. What's it gonna be, Venezuela?
I hope somebody else will help them out. I'd dearly love to see Venezuela get on its feet
without American assistance, and then tell the entire Yoo Ess of Aye to kiss its ass. No more
heavy crude for your refineries, maybe you can turn them into basket shops, what say? No
thanks; we'll buy our food elsewhere, if it's all the same to you. Oh, and Bolsonaro? Eat a
bag of shit. Invite your Colombian buddy over for dinner
Yes, I meant to remark on that as well. It's funny that the western regime-change model
relies on countries loaned huge amounts of money to be enslaved by their honesty, and
actually pay it back.
"... The 77th brigade, Integrity Initiative members or just right wing sympathisers here and in America will pretend these sort of staged demonstrations are genuinely supported by Moscow citizens, when the opposite is actually true and the 'opposition leader' Navalny has a rating of 3% at most in Russia. Search the real Navalny on the internet and his true nature as an ultra fascist in the service of some western agencies becomes obvious, as this journalist certainly knows. ..."
"... Remember the scams of the 'Dusty Boy' of Syria, the Gay Girl of Damascus and the little 7 year old girl in Aleppo with perfect English, Bana Alabed, and you might start to wonder that the media are still so arrogant, trying to attract you to their agenda with such crude propaganda. ..."
"... The main stream media must think readers are still as gullible as they might have seemed before the arrival of the internet. ..."
"... The best thing to do is to hold to the law and enforce it impartially. It is well-known that the western press will try to stage embarrassing moments, like cute girl demonstrators who throw themselves to the ground and writhe about screaming that thugs are beating them up, or provocative photographs that capture a moment in which a girl is being restrained like that rock-throwing bitch a few years back. Only one side will ever be shown in the west, and it will be the side which makes Russia look the worst. Russia cannot afford to care what the west thinks. ..."
"... When she speaks to the reporter by the Yandex advertised taxi(?) she says (something like) "We gather here peacefully and they over they've gathered and are absolutely not peaceful." Bizarre. Apparently we cannot trust our eyes when we see that OMON is not doing anything but standing with discipline and waiting for orders. ..."
"... Is this like the Hong Kong thing where demonstrators rampage and destroy stuff, demanding it as their 'democratic right' yet when some nutters go and beat them or launch fireworks at them they are then up in arms demanding that the police protect them and enforce the peace? ..."
"... Everybody has learned a lot about colour revolutions, especially their likely targets, and Washington is helpful in that it continues to use the template long after an effective countering technique is available. The first time the Gene Sharp model was used, it was devastating, worked beyond the State Department's wildest dreams. ..."
"... The next time it worked pretty well, too, because everyone on the other side said "Wait; they're not using that same technique, are they?" By the time they got around to trying it on Lukashenko, he slammed the ball right back into their court by calling snap elections at the first sign of astroturfing, and steamrollered the fake opposition. ..."
"... That's probably true, but there is often inflexibility on the part of the protesters as well, and in cases where they believe they have international backing – spelled U.S.A. – their demands rarely allow much room for compromise. ..."
"... The government must step down and yield governing power, usually to a group of ideologues and liberal activists, and the next step is well-known to everyone. The American 'advisers' are sent in, and state institutions are rapidly dismantled and privatized for international investment, as happened in Yeltsin's Russia. ..."
"... When protesters claim to want "more democracy" but cannot even define what "democracy" means, then it's clear they don't know what they are talking about, and probably just American stooges. ..."
"... People in HK do have many grievances but many of their problems, like the insanely high property prices, the shortage of housing for people who are not billionaires, the pollution, the crappy infrastructure, the lack of jobs in any industry apart from buying and selling property, the dismal job prospects of people who have been through an education system that relies on rote learning and slaving through scads of homework, are problems arising from the capitalist system they still retain. Unfortunately, for most of its 20-year rule since the hand-back in 1997, the HK govt has been inept in handling most of these problems. ..."
"... Putin is in as much danger of being unceremoniously chucked out of office as he is of choking to death on his grandmother's knitting. The west is ever hopeful, and dutifully rallies to the glorification of every new dissident firebrand, but whether or not they know it, they are just going through the motions. ..."
"... It is no coincidence that it is always the same people who show up to bitch and carp about how dreadful Putin is, and how Russia needs American-style freedom and democracy and non-stop Pride parades and all the trappings of fresh admission to Club West. They are the only people who would stand to benefit from driving Putin out. Nobody else is interested. ..."
"... The western media would rush to interview and endorse any talking Russian toad if it said "I hate Putin". ..."
"... However, if the Americans want to pin their new hopes for Putin's political immolation on some 17-year-old attention-junkie bint, they should knock themselves out. They are merely hardening Russian opinion against them, and they may not care but some day they will. And then they will wail, "Why do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom!" ..."
Olga Misik: Teenage girl reads constitution in front of Putin's riot police during
Moscow protestsShe is a lone teenage girl sat cross-legged and armed with nothing
more than the Russian constitution.
They are a line of Moscow's notoriously brutal riot police, equipped with shields,
batons and helmets.
But the image of a young pro-democracy demonstrator single-handedly defying Vladimir
Putin's security forces looks set to become one of the most powerful symbols of resistance to
the president's autocracy.
Olga Misik, 17, was photographed sitting in front of the officers reading out the
country's constitution – which affirms the right to peaceful gatherings – during
protests on Saturday.
Apparently unsure how to handle such a show of calm audacity, the police hold
back.
The image has gone viral across the world, being shared thousands of times, the
peaceful defiance central to the photo faintly reminiscent of that present in the the iconic
picture of Tiananmen Square's Tank Man. It is now being used by Russian opposition to rally
support in the face of continuing state oppression.
Putin's riot police?
Moscow's notoriously brutal riot police, equipped with shields, batons and helmets --
unlike those nice riot police in Paris?
Olga has "gone viral" -- and will be forgotten in a month.
As one commenter to the Independent advises, "watch the video and not the propaganda
'Independent'":
The continuous attempt to say how bad Putin is and how perverse is Russia is really
boring. I do not know of any country in which unauthorized demonstrations are allowed,
moreover, the attitude of the Russian police is very soft compared, for example, with the US
police against those of "occupy Wall Street".
The typical hypocrisy of the Anglo-Saxon press.By the way I´m not Russian,
because the easy answer is " you are a Russian troll".
But the usual "Kremlin Troll" comments dominate:
Prigozhin trolls were already contaminating this site almost before the article has
even been posted.
Why does the Indie allow this filthy scum to basically commandeer their websites; it can't
just be because Gore & Co. welcome their rabid, typically Russian anti-Semitism.
Or maybe it is.
Either way, whilst every other news online new outlet is desperately trying to excise
these crypto-fascist losers from their sites, the Indie and their so-called Mods spend most
of their time deleting all comments warning readers of their disruptive presence.
Why?
Similarly, any comment which runs counter to the Kremlin line – despite the fact
that we are in England – is flagged frantically by these hordes of Russian Putinite
goons and thus automatically deleted.
This means that virtually the entire comments sections in the Indie reflect the views
of Putin rather than their bone fide readers from Britain and Western Europe.
Leaving aside Gore & Co's infatuation with attracting "clicks", and their hatred of
Britain and the (white) British, is this really what the Indie wants?
To be the mouthpiece for a mass-murdering, homophobic, anti-democratic despot?
Because that's what this wokesome millennial whingers' comic has become.
Response from an alleged troll:
Funny. I don't see anyone commenting about "Putin and how wonderful Russia is and that
everybody lives in harmony". All I see are people recognising that the media is twisting
truth again, making it seem Russia is doing something 'undemocratic' that virtually all
Western countries do – enact and enforce laws against unauthorised demonstrations,
peaceful or otherwise.
Tell me the truth, if you are capable. Do we, or do we not, have laws in London
preventing unauthorised demonstrations? Do we, or do we not, have riot-uniformed police to
enforce those laws when necessary?
What is different then, about this situation in Moscow, except for the fact that Russia
actually has a real written constitution, and we don't?
Countered by:
I wonder what fate awaits Olga, Novichok on the doorhandle, a Public recant to save her
family, exile away from prying eyes, murdered by some Kremlin errand boys or depression and
an open window on the 7th floor? The only way to ensure her safety is publicity
Yes, I wonder? Cue "Prigozhin troll":
These 3 articles in 3 days on the subject of an unauthorised tiny demonstration over
the issue of disputed local signatures for the Moscow council candidates reveals the depths
the MSM will go to demonise Russia, even going so far to use the obviously staged photo of
this young woman to encourage sympathy for the poor citizens of Moscow, who in this case are
no more than the 5k ultra right followers of Navalny , who periodically uses these sort of
demos to disrupt main thoroughfares in order to arouse sympathy in the compliant western
media.
The 77th brigade, Integrity Initiative members or just right wing sympathisers here and
in America will pretend these sort of staged demonstrations are genuinely supported by Moscow
citizens, when the opposite is actually true and the 'opposition leader' Navalny has a rating
of 3% at most in Russia. Search the real Navalny on the internet and his true nature as an
ultra fascist in the service of some western agencies becomes obvious, as this journalist
certainly knows.
The aim, as always , is emotive publicity used to demonise the Russian government,
which is strange as this is a local Moscow council affair, nothing to do with Putin.
Remember the scams of the 'Dusty Boy' of Syria, the Gay Girl of Damascus and the little
7 year old girl in Aleppo with perfect English, Bana Alabed, and you might start to wonder
that the media are still so arrogant, trying to attract you to their agenda with such crude
propaganda.
Even this journalist and those here insisting this biased report is genuine, are
secretly aware of its real intent but as it suits their neocon purpose, so must be defended
as police brutality about to happen to a young woman, representing the downtrodden Moscow
citizenry.
Only 5k demonstrators in the largest city in Europe might suggest a different view of
this affair, when this article won't tell you that a 12k authorised demo went off last week
without incident.
BTW Indy, when's the next report on the much more widespread weekly demos in France
against Macron and your wonderful EU?
The main stream media must think readers are still as gullible as they might have
seemed before the arrival of the internet.
Is that whole sitting down and reading of the constitution by a stuttering schoolgirl
staged or not?
My god, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with that picture. Calling it contrived
hardly touches its banality and fakeness. I wish i could unsee it.
I think they are trying for a Tiananmen Square moment; you know, innocent unarmed
demonstrator holds back massive force? If it was not actually staged, western reporters are
jumping on the opportunity to try to inspire protests and demonstrations, like they always
do.
The Russian government and authorities long ago learned to recognize the fundamentals of
a western-inspired regime-change action – if they try to put up tents, rip them down
because if you don't, a 'tent city' will appear like it did in Kuh-yiv on the occasion of the
Orange Revolution.
If they manage to embarrass the government into allowing the protesters to
do anything they want, the west will bring in rent-a-crowds and you will have a violent riot
on your hands.
Such actions can quickly – with the enthusiastic support of the western
media – snowball into a real problem.
The best thing to do is to hold to the law and
enforce it impartially. It is well-known that the western press will try to stage
embarrassing moments, like cute girl demonstrators who throw themselves to the ground and
writhe about screaming that thugs are beating them up, or provocative photographs that
capture a moment in which a girl is being restrained like that rock-throwing bitch a few
years back. Only one side will ever be shown in the west, and it will be the side which makes
Russia look the worst. Russia cannot afford to care what the west thinks.
When she speaks to the reporter by the Yandex advertised taxi(?) she says (something like)
"We gather here peacefully and they over they've gathered and are absolutely not peaceful."
Bizarre. Apparently we cannot trust our eyes when we see that OMON is not doing anything but
standing with discipline and waiting for orders.
Is this like the Hong Kong thing where demonstrators rampage and destroy stuff, demanding
it as their 'democratic right' yet when some nutters go and beat them or launch fireworks at
them they are then up in arms demanding that the police protect them and enforce the peace?
Cake and eat it.
The subsequent protest on Saturday was the latest in a rising tide of civil unrest
across Russia sparked by dissatisfaction over declining living standards that has led to
falling ratings for Russian President Vladimir Putin and the ruling United Russia
party.
Called by opposition leader Alexei Navalny to take place outside of City Hall, just a
stone's throw away from the Kremlin, the demonstration demanded that opposition candidates be
allowed on the ballot in September's Moscow City Duma elections.
Even though the number of votes that they may have possibly achieved in the election would
have been statistically insignificant and apart from the fact that their debarment from
standing for election occurred because they could not acquire a minimum number of signatures
of support in order to stand for election, which ruling just happens to be a matter of
law.
But it's Putin CLAMPDOWN!!!!!
Thank you, Moscow Times! And Moscow City Hall is about half a mile from the Kremlin. That's some stone's throw!
The Tiananmen Square moment was China's trial by fire. If the government had wavered, then
they would have been overthrown, and China would have become a British colony again.
Fortunately, the Chinese government figured out what it had to do.
Everybody has learned a lot about colour revolutions, especially their likely targets, and
Washington is helpful in that it continues to use the template long after an effective
countering technique is available. The first time the Gene Sharp model was used, it was
devastating, worked beyond the State Department's wildest dreams.
The next time it worked
pretty well, too, because everyone on the other side said "Wait; they're not using that same
technique, are they?" By the time they got around to trying it on Lukashenko, he slammed the
ball right back into their court by calling snap elections at the first sign of astroturfing,
and steamrollered the fake opposition.
I suppose eventually Washington will move on to
something else, but just like the myth of democracy, it's so hard to let go.
Check out this 'roadmap for peace' by Doug Bandow. Although he works for the Cato
Institute, I've usually found his writing quite reasonable and rational. He is an American,
and so that carries with it the annoying presupposition that no major decisions can be made
without American input – America is too important to be left out. I have my own
feelings on that, and I don't mind sharing that when America gets involved in a multinational
project, it usually insists on rules that will turn the whole thing to American advantage,
and insists on being the leader.
All that notwithstanding, I was amused to note that most of
the concessions Bandow's plan would have Moscow yielding are things it is not actually doing,
and therefore would be easy to give up.
For instance, in exchange for Moscow's promise to not ever again meddle with American
elections, Washington would acknowledge its past political meddling and foreswear future
interventions in Russian affairs, including funding private organizations involved in
political activities. Washington would have to stop funding Russian political NGO's and admit
its meddling.
Unfortunately, Russia would have to admit to meddling in the 2016 election;
something it actually didn't do, and the fact there is no real evidence of it would become
irrelevant. But it almost seems a small price to pay.
The west would agree to drop sanctions
on Russia, but retain the legal authority to re-impose them should it become necessary
– that seems quite a bit like legitimizing them, to me. There actually is no legal
authority to impose sanctions – and threaten all your allies as to what will happen to
them if they don't go along – without ever providing proof of the grounds for
establishing them.
On the whole, it's an interesting deal. Not that it will ever happen. Washington is not
interested in deals where it has to give up something, because everything it does is for a
lofty and holy reason.
The US has just announced more sanctions against Russia because of the alleged Skripal
poisonings.
The Skripals did not die -- or did they? Where are the Skripals? And what about sanctions for the poisoning to death of the alkie mother of
three?
Don't the lives of alkie Hampshire social inadequates count? Discrimination, that is!
Deal or No Deal:
If I were in charge in Russia, I would NOT take the deal. (Hint: IT'S A TRAP!)
Especially if it meant "admitting" to something I didn't do (like meddling in the 2016
elections). That is a typical pindos snare, as Gaddafi himself learned, too late.
It's also, by the way, how American cops operate to trick innocent people: "Sign this false
confession, and you'll be home for dinner "
20 years later, they are still rotting away in the pokey
Russia should offer counter-deal: You admit to all the meddling you did, and I admit to
nothing. You big fat bully.
I agree; I would not take the deal, either. Of course it would never actually be offered,
because America will never admit to 'meddling' in anyone's elections or politics –
they're 'spreading democracy', for which they will never apologize, since it is their duty as
the Exceptional Nation. It just amused me that Bandow slyly phrased it in such a way that
Moscow would not really have to give up anything; only promise to stop doing things it is not
and has not been doing.
Likewise, America is not ever going to enter into any sort of deal which would see broad
autonomy for Eastern Ukraine and the possibility of recognizing Crimea as Russian if it
passed a do-over referendum. That would mean why, that would mean losing!
I think the grievances of the students against the Chinese government had merit. Moreover
yielding to continuing the status quo ante or reversion to Brit colony status were not the
only possible outcomes. The former happens to be the case but things need not have gone
that way.
That's probably true, but there is often inflexibility on the part of the protesters as well,
and in cases where they believe they have international backing – spelled U.S.A.
– their demands rarely allow much room for compromise.
The government must step down
and yield governing power, usually to a group of ideologues and liberal activists, and the
next step is well-known to everyone. The American 'advisers' are sent in, and state
institutions are rapidly dismantled and privatized for international investment, as happened
in Yeltsin's Russia.
In this case, the students wanted 'more democracy', and that right there suggests they
really did not have any clear goals but change.
So true. When protesters claim to want "more democracy" but cannot even define what
"democracy" means, then it's clear they don't know what they are talking about, and probably
just American stooges.
People in HK do have many grievances but many of their problems, like the insanely high
property prices, the shortage of housing for people who are not billionaires, the pollution,
the crappy infrastructure, the lack of jobs in any industry apart from buying and selling
property, the dismal job prospects of people who have been through an education system that
relies on rote learning and slaving through scads of homework, are problems arising from the
capitalist system they still retain. Unfortunately, for most of its 20-year rule since the
hand-back in 1997, the HK govt has been inept in handling most of these problems.
The thing that sparked this year's protests was the proposed extradition bill that would
establish appropriate extradition arrangements between Hong Kong and every other state or
territory that it currently does not have extradition agreements with, and this included
Mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, in the wake of the 2018 St Valentine's Day murder in which
a 20-year-old HK woman was strangled by her 19-year-old HK boyfriend while holidaying in
Taiwan, who then stuffed her body into a suitcase and left it at a train station in Taiwan
while he returned to HK. The man is currently in jail on charges relating to stealing the
woman's money after her death (he took all her ATM cards and used them) and he is due to be
freed this coming October. The HK govt has currently delayed a second reading of the
extradition bill but haven't withdrawn it entirely, which was one of the protesters'
demands.
The fact that, even after the backdown on the extradition proposal, the protesters
continued escalating their demands to the point of demanding current HK leader Carrie Lam's
removal, demonstrates that there is far more to the protesters' agenda than the extradition
proposal. Add to that the fact that protesters receive cash payments for protesting (with the
amounts jacked up if protesters destroy or damage things) and a CIA operative, Brian Kern,
has been identified as a ring-leader, and it is apparent that a Color Revolution
regime-change operation is in full swing.
The cops in Hong Kong Crown Colony were unbelievably corrupt. I worked with a former Hong
Kong policeman, a British European (the HK Crown Colony police had British senior officers
and Chinese "other ranks") who joined the force "to see the world". He was an idealist and
resigned. He could not stand the corruption that he witnessed there. His father, by the way,
was the local cop where I lived: the "village bobby", so to speak, complete with standard
issue Raleigh bicycle and cycle clips, who was a decent, friendly bloke.
This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it
6 (UK) Division is the new organisational home for the Army's "asymmetric edge",
comprising all things "Intelligence, Counter-Intelligence, Information Operations, Electronic
Warfare, Cyber and Unconventional Warfare".
Launched this morning, 6 Div is a rebranding of the formation formerly known as Force
Troops Command, which covered a hotchpotch of Royal Signals, Intelligence Corps and other
units, including the infamous 77 Brigade
####
Don't forget to hit the comments for hilarity!
Also, the timing of the announcement says plenty, i.e. slipping it in to the news stream
when people have already gone on holiday and all the BREXIT and other bollocks. I've not seen
this reported on the tv in the UK – which is currently facing severe flooding etc.
Is it just me or is all the PPNN reporting that 'Putin's support has dropped to levels
not seen since 2011!'. Of course they don't actually give you any numbers and cherry pick
dodgy poll numbers but there really is this Pavlovian reaction anytime there is a
demonstration in Russia, like undertakers gathering at an allegedly dangerous road crossing
waiting for some cyclist to be dragged under a trash lorry so that they can tut tut and then
profit from the cyclist's misfortune. Nix that, the PPNN are just professional versions of
MacBeth's witches, something which they don't understand is a story .
Putin is in as much danger of being unceremoniously chucked out of office as he is of choking
to death on his grandmother's knitting. The west is ever hopeful, and dutifully rallies to
the glorification of every new dissident firebrand, but whether or not they know it, they are
just going through the motions.
The only group, and I mean the only one, that would benefit
from Putin's overthrow would be the disaffected kreakliy and the poncy forgotten
semi-intellectuals.
They would be feted by the west as political visionaries, and perhaps
given minor government positions to satisfy their vanity. But who else would make out like a
bandit?
The military? Hardly – the west, after years of giggling about Russia's
decrepit military, lapsed into an uneasy silence on the subject just about the time that
long-distance Kalibr cruise-missile attack took place from the Caspian Sea into Syria, and a
west given meddling-room would want to disband the Russian military, if anything, down to a
token force of absolutely-trustworthy sycophants who would probably be issued with American
weapons.
The oligarchs? Hardly – western business would be snapping up former state
assets while simultaneously carrying out an 'anti-corruption drive' under the new President's
imprimatur.
Small businesses? Hardly – corporate interest would be in melding large
state interests into the Corporate Borg, and their method is to squeeze out small business in
order to expand market share.
The people? Hardly – Russia would be a convenient place
to move all the refugee immigrants from that entire hemisphere, while the stubborn loyalty of
the population to Putin would not be forgotten.
It is no coincidence that it is always the same people who show up to bitch and carp about
how dreadful Putin is, and how Russia needs American-style freedom and democracy and non-stop
Pride parades and all the trappings of fresh admission to Club West. They are the only people
who would stand to benefit from driving Putin out. Nobody else is interested.
They're just trying to get some mileage out of Olga what's-her-name, and make it look like a
drop in Putin's poll numbers happened exactly at the moment this young political firebrand
emerged. Pretty sad, really, but you can't tell 'em, and it wouldn't make any difference.
They have to try, it's the same instinct that makes a dog lick its nose if you smear cheese
on it.
The western media would rush to interview and endorse any talking Russian toad if it
said "I hate Putin".
I think a lot of people DID see that coming, to the extent that the only behavior acceptable
today in the American political milieu is a rehash of that sophomore's question, "Can you say
in one sentence or less what makes America the Greatest Country In The World?" The American
media typically pleats that 'the system is broken', but not during election season.
Then,
America is the greatest and running on all cylinders, and the successful candidate is the one
who will convince voters that, rather than fix the whatever system, he/she/ze/zir (it's only
a matter of time) will take a system that is the best in the world and make it squeeze out
even more happiness and satisfaction for Americans. Anyway, if you go off-message with that,
you are under the soulless influence of the Russians.
Anyway, it looks as if the democrats have gone to the well too often with that Russian
bullshit, and people are starting to get impatient with the cop-out – it's just an
excuse for having no good answer. You can always say, "X is because Russia". I think Harris
just bit the dust, and will lose a lot of support over this and gradually drop out. I got a
kick out of the "Gabbard is a non-issue, and won't even make the second debates" or something
to that effect. Whoever smugly said that was apparently asleep when a Ukrainian comedian who
plays a president on TV won the presidency in a landslide. The incumbent once thought it was
safe to laugh politely at him, because he was a non-issue, too.
I saw this story also on the same site, although it was not necessary to click on it, for
obvious reasons.
"A salute to the bravery of Olga Misik, 17, who during recent bloody protests for free
Moscow elections sat before Putin's armed-to-the-teeth goons and calmly read aloud the
Russian constitution, including Article 31 affirming the right to peaceful political
assembly. She was later arrested and allegedly beaten. "Injustice always concerns everyone,"
said Olga, who takes the long view of repression. "Today the Moscow City Duma, tomorrow the
governor of the region It is only a matter of time."
'Bloody protests for free Moscow elections'?? They were bloody? Really? and the issue was
free Moscow elections? Not candidates being allowed to run despite having been disqualified
for not reaching the signatory threshold? The game of coming up with enough signatures to
demonstrate a valid support base is an old one, trawling the obituaries and all manner of
dodges to come up with enough for people who don't really have any support, but want a
soapbox from which to squawk their message and then say they were cheated of victory by the
Kremlin. Putin's armed-to-the-teeth goons? Really? American police called to control
demonstrations are unarmed? Since when? Does arming them make them goons? I can't see their
teeth – how does the reporter know they are armed to the teeth? Olga takes the long
view of repression, does she? From the jaded pinnacle of 17? I'm surprised they did not ask
her views on gay sex – she's old enough. Just.
Embarrassing western hyperbole – a Russian review of the PISA tests that descended
to the same level might read, "A salute to the simple-mindedness of the Amerikantsi
'students', who must have gone to school at a mental institution, or been taught by the
homeless lunatics that abound in and around Amerikantsi cities. Once again they managed to
score so poorly that one might reasonably wonder if they arrived at the testing institution
by accident, thinking instead that they were being taken to see one of the
violence-and-profanity-riddled Amerikantsi movies that pollute the television and cause the
Amerikantsi schoolchildren to shoot each other as if they lived inside a video game where it
is not real blood. It's difficult to imagine a sensible explanation for such a dismal
performance, in which they finished below the OECD average in every category."
But you won't see anything like that in a Russian newspaper, or hear it on a Russian news
program. Because they don't act like the country is run by hysterical 12-year-olds. However,
if the Americans want to pin their new hopes for Putin's political immolation on some
17-year-old attention-junkie bint, they should knock themselves out. They are merely
hardening Russian opinion against them, and they may not care but some day they will. And
then they will wail, "Why do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom!"
I was particularly intrigued by the mention of the Democrats getting caught fabricating
fake Russian troll accounts to pretend the Russians were trying to influence some state
election or other, I forget what, supposedly reported in the Times. I didn't see that, and I
don't recall anyone mentioning it here.
Yet again, lying by omission . Their 'Defense Correspondent' Jonathan Marcus notes
briefly that W. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty in 2002 and that Russia announce pulling
out of it in 2007 but does not explain why, i.e. the combination of the following:
a) expanding these 'defensive' ABM sites to the lo-land of Po-land & also Romania
b) the universal Mk.41 launchers can also fire nuclear capable Tomahawk cruise missiles at
Russia from much closer ranges = less reaction time = reduced deterrence effect =
increases the chance of nuclear first strike against Russia, and thus
c) denied/refused Russia any means to verify the non-use of nukes for the launchers just
saying 'Trust us!' which is complete bs considering all the previous promises made and
not kept.
None of the linked articles therein mention Russia's objections. But then Marcus is
only a 'Defence correspondent' (such small details clearly aren't important in the grand
scheme of things) and he can always get a future job at NATO as a Spokesman like previous BBC
journos Oana Lungescu & Mark Laity. In a fight between Jonathan Marcus & Mark Urban,
who do you think would replace Oana? Or someone else? They all do sterling government
service
Oooh, looky here! The BBC inches itself up the line which if crossed would constitute
journalism . Why don't they just jump on in? It's safe as long as your patrons –
Da Gov – and the intelligence services don't go after you (Hello 'Guardian'!):
In an earlier statement, Russia's foreign ministry said the US decision to withdraw was
"a grave mistake".
It also accused America of violating the treaty by deploying MK-41 launchers in Europe,
capable of firing intermediate-range cruise missiles
####
So the plus is, above they actually link to the Russian Foreign Ministry statement, but no
further. The big minus is that they wrote far, far more about Russia's 'violations'.
That t-Rump thinks Russia, let alone China is excited about joining a new deal,
hahahahahahahah!
We also discover that go to and favorite 'defense expert' (MGU Candidate of Sciences
Biology degree!) for the Pork Pie News Networks Pavel Felgenhauer is not dead!
It's mostly about the control of Mid East oil and Israel status in the region ...
And despite all those positive things mentioned bellow Iran is still a theocratic state. It
is definitely not Saudi Arabia but still..
Notable quotes:
"... Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand. ..."
"... Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State. ..."
"... Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes, there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why. ..."
"... Iran’s real “crime” is twofold: 1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and 2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing, which would cut into the lucrative US market. ..."
"... There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which nobody appreciates… ..."
"... In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if needed. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the illegality of Trump tearing up the deal…which was adopted [unanimously] by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231… ..."
"... The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states… ..."
"... So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions… ..."
"... The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied territories…is simply unacceptable… ..."
As I pen this short essay, Iran is standing against the mightiest nation on earth. It is
facing tremendous danger; of annihilation even, if the world does not wake up fast, and rush to
its rescue.
Stunning Iranian cities are in danger, but above all, its people: proud and beautiful,
creative, formed by one of the oldest and deepest cultures on earth.
This is a reminder to the world: Iran may be bombed, devastated and injured terribly, for
absolutely no reason. I repeat: there is zero rational reason for attacking Iran.
Iran has never attacked anyone. It has done nothing bad to the United States, to the United
Kingdom, or even to those countries that want to destroy it immediately: Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
Its only 'crime' is that it helped devastated Syria. And that it seriously stands by
Palestine. And that it came to the rescue of many far away nations, like Cuba and Venezuela,
when they were in awful need.
I am trying to choose the simplest words. No need for pirouettes and intellectual
exercises.
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is currently
occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the nuclear deal. This
information was leaked by his own staff. This is not about who is a bigger gangster. It is
about the horrible fact that antagonizing Iran has absolutely nothing to do with Iran
itself.
Which brings the question to my mind: in what world are we really living? Could this be
tolerable? Can the world just stand by, idly, and watch how one of the greatest countries on
earth gets violated by aggressive, brutal forces, without any justification?
I love Iran! I love its cinema, poetry, food. I love Teheran. And I love the Iranian people
with their polite, educated flair. I love their thinkers. I don't want anything bad to happen
to them.
You know, you were of course never told by the Western media, but Iran is a socialist
country. It professes a system that could be defined as "socialism with Iranian
characteristics". Like China, Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth, and it is
perfectly capable of creating and developing its own economic and social system.
Iran is an extremely successful nation. Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation
from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by
UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand.
It clearly has an internationalist spirit: it shows great solidarity with the countries that
are being battered by Western imperialism, including those in Latin America.
I have no religion. In Iran, most of the people do. They are Shi'a Muslims. So what? I do
not insist that everyone thinks like me. And my Iranian friends, comrades, brothers and sisters
have never insisted that I feel or think the same way as they do. They are not fanatics, and
they do not make people who are not like them, feel excluded. We are different and yet so
similar. We fight for a better world. We are internationalists. We respect each other. We
respect others.
Iran does not want to conquer anyone. But when its friends are attacked, it offers a helping
hand. Like to Syria.
In the past, it was colonized by the West, and its democratic government was overthrown, in
1953, simply because it wanted to use its natural resources for improving the lives of its
people. The morbid dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi was installed from abroad. And then, later,
again, a terrible war unleashed against Iran by Iraq, with the full and candid support of the
West.
I promised to make this essay short. There is no time for long litanies. And in fact, this
is not really an essay at all: it is an appeal.
As this goes to print, many people in Iran are anxious. They do not understand what they
have done to deserve this; the sanctions, the US aircraft carriers sailing near their shores,
and deadly B-52s deployed only dozens of miles away.
Iranians are brave, proud people. If confronted, if attacked, they will fight. And they will
die with dignity, if there is no other alternative.
But why? Why should they fight and why should they die?
Those of you, my readers, living in the West: Study; study quickly. Then ask this question
to your government: "What is the reason for this terrible scenario?"
Rent Iranian films; they are everywhere, winning all festivals. Read Iranian poets. Go eat
Iranian food. Search for images of both historic and modern Iranian cities. Look at the faces
of the people. Do not allow this to happen. Do not permit psychopathic reasoning to ruin
millions of lives.
There was no real reason for the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The West
perpetrated the most terrible imperialist interventions, ruining entire nations.
But Iran -- it all goes one step further. It's a total lack of logic and accountability on
the part of the West.
Here, I declare my full support to the people of Iran, and to the country that has been
giving countless cultural treasures to the world, for millennia.
It is because I have doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.
[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are ...
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is
currently occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the
nuclear deal.
Certainly war with Iran is not because Trump wants to humiliate Obama. There is very
serious pressure on Trump to go to war with Iran, and that pressure comes from sources
including Sheldon Adelson, Netanyahu, John Bolton, and elements within the military
industrial complex and oil industries both of which would be able to capitalize on such a
misadventure. It is very possibly Trump’s misgivings about a war with Iran (in spite of
the idiotic rhetoric) that is keeping the US from attacking Iran.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies. It was much to Obama’s credit
to enter into the agreement with Iran, and the opposition to doing so obviously runs much
deeper than Trump’s desire to make Obama look bad.
@Andre
Vltchek Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for
expediency there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other
things, Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.”
But the way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal
psychopathy driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken. The jury is
not out on this one yet, and Trump’s resistance to war with Iran is a thread of hope
keeping it from happening. I am not trying to split hairs. It is important because there is a
tendency to focus on the face in the white house and not on the forces that are behind the
mischief. It also probably gets more likes among a broader audience who want to blame Trump
or Obama when they are more like two leaves being blown by a strong wind than the leader of
the free world or any other nonsensical title given to the president. Take it for a slight
literary critique and not for any disagreement with the overall sentiment or quality of the
article.
It was at that point I knew this wasn’t an intellectually honest essay. You
don’t even need to go back six months to see what a peaceful little lamb Iran is, as
it attacked merchant ships in the Straight of Hormuz. Perhaps your intended audience is
ignorant to facts, but Iran is, by no means, a country of innocent intent.
What would USA do if Iranian or any other non-friendly nation surrounded USA, including
sending heavily armed ships into its harbors?
This map from Democratic Underground puts a star on every U.S. military base in the
region, and aside from the Caspian area to the North, American forces pretty much have
Tehran surrounded (via Informed Comment).
[Non-violent resistance is not necessarily futile, but a feint]: We cannot delude
ourselves.
People ask, What about nonviolent, peaceful forms of resistance? And you know, the answer
is, There is no such thing as nonviolence.
Nonviolence is a form of disruption and only works if you are facing those who are
constrained in their use of violence, or works best if you can use your enemy’s
violence against them.
Take for example, Dr. Martin Luther King . . . [he learned from Gandhi and others that]
nonviolence is a mechanism of goading your opponent into being violent.
Once they become violent, you can call on your friends to be even more violent against
them. And he knew he could goad the sheriff into behaving violently and stupidly, and then
the FBI would descend on them.
You know, we always want to delude ourselves that war is not the answer. It would be good
if that were true, but unfortunately it is very often the key answer, the only answer.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?323264-1/the-worth-war&start=599
USA is being deliberately provocative, goading Iran to throw the first punch, whereupon
USA will “descend on them.”
It’s not the first time USA & its allies have used the tactic.
I dunno … If the West was going to attack, it should have happened several weeks ago,
if not earlier. Do you think Trump’s stand-down of an attack allegedly in progress was
to save a couple hundred Iranian lives, or might it make more sense that it became clear a
couple hundreds or thousands of coalition lives were at serious risk? The leadership knows
this will be far messier than Iraq if it goes kinetic, and they would prefer to continue to
starve Iran into submission while making a lot of noise about the ‘evil and suicidal
death-cult’ regime in Tehran.
Andre Vltchek gives a passionate defence of Iran, and the reasons for not attacking it. I
agree there are ‘doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.’
If the US, and its allies, were to destabilize Iran to such an extent as to threaten regime
change China and Russia would have to intervene. The world should avoid war on Iran, even if
it is for selfish reasons. All the indications point to world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@anonymous
Because the JIDF/Zionist has the modus operandi of falsifying consensus. Large numbers of
seemingly reasonable people all pushing the same view point has the unconscious effect of
making an unwary reader adopt that same viewpoint. Of course, they’re hoping you dont
go trawling through their comment history or else the whole thing blows up.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies.
Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign
affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State.
People need to realize that it’s been a RedBlue puppet show of the same empire
since – for purposes of Iran – 1953. Blaming one politician as opposed to the
other plays right into the hands of those who want to run the world from Washington.
The past can not be changed. Trump is responsible for the here and now.
Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes,
there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t
much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in
American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why
oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why.
The Iran never attacked anyone narrative has long been a favourite. What is buried somewhere
in cyberspace, is an article written over 20 years ago about the causes of the Iraq –
Iran war. The article laid out several instances of Iranian revolutionaries attacking several
Iraqi border towns. It also pointed out that Iraq’s original invasion into Iran stopped
about 8 miles into Iran, apparently understanding that it was never going to defeat Iran
territorially. The article also stated that Iraq was egged on by the US to attack, in hopes
to dislodge the new regime. However, it was the Shah who attacked Iraq in the 70s over the
Shat al Arab waterway. The subsequent peace agreement settled the issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/07/archives/iraq-and-iran-sign-accord-to-settle-border-conflicts-iraq-and-iran.html
One reason given by Iraq for its invasion of Iran, post revolution, was that it viewed the
border attacks by Iranian revolutionaries, as a refutation of the treaty.
Iran’s real “crime” is twofold:
1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and
2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing
vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing,
which would cut into the lucrative US market.
The USA-Israel-Nato menaces to Iran are criminal horseshite BUT –
Iran is horrifyingly brutal toward its own citizens, one of the most savage of all
countries in per capita executions of its own people, sometimes hanging 100 people or so in a
month, typically done by slow-torture hanging, often in groups of 6 or 8 people in public
squares.
It seems that usually, Iran does not even try to break the neck of its hanging victims
with a long drop, which can induce a merciful coma before the victim dies, typically some 15
minutes to an hour later. As is often observed in Iran, smaller people such as women
typically die more slowly, their lighter weight leading to a longer period of torturous
choking.
And Iran has a bunch of other Islamic barbarisms … Iran burying women alive up to
their necks, only their veiled heads above the ground, and stoning them to death; the
floggings and amputations, sometimes the victim marked for death is flogged bloody before
being hanged from a crane etc
But André Vltchek thinks Iran is a great place …
Iran is also a bizarre social experiment in extreme social dysfunctionality, with the
‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is essentially
legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do, one of those can
be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the imam to be
officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning, e.g., by
saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise themselves as
‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for a small marital
‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
Between temporary marriage, and Iran’s practice of educating its women – often
‘bad’ for Muslim fertility – Iran’s birth rate has collapsed even
more than in much of Europe.
A great shame the US CIA overthrew the secular socialist Iranian government in 1953. May
the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
…‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is
essentially legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do,
one of those can be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the
imam to be officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning,
e.g., by saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise
themselves as ‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for
a small marital ‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
May the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
Well, the price for the later is the former, apparently.
Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for expediency
there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other things,
Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.” But the
way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal psychopathy
driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken.
I don’t see it that way…..Vltchek has been around unz for a while…..so
it would not be wrong for him to assume most of unz knows the real forces behind Trump
and the Iran war push.
@Brabantian
You come off sounding like a Soros acolyte by parroting ‘human rights porn’ that
is largely fabricated bullshit…and disseminated by the usual NGO suspects and their
MSM partners…
That’s not to say there is no merit to your basic beef…Iran is a
theocracy…religious fanaticism has been a curse on humanity over the
ages…religion in general really…
Iran does execute a lot of people…Vltchek is overly enthusiastic about
Iran…I would say probably because he sympathizes a lot with their essentially
‘socialist’ approach [as do I]…but Iran is no angel…
But then who is…?…US cops gun down 1,000 people a year…
Also some mitigating facts to consider…a lot of the criminals Iran executes are
drug traffickers…Afghanistan next-door is heroin central…run by the CIA with
help from their ISIS private army…
This is nothing new…the deep state of empire has been running the global drug
racket for a couple of centuries now…and using it as a geopolitical weapon against
perceived ‘enemies’…going back to the opium wars that were used by the
British to ‘crack open’ China…and today aimed against Russia, Central Asia
and Iran…not to mention ‘neutralizing’ large swaths of the domestic
population by turning them into drug zombies…
Iran’s drug laws are not nearly as draconian as in other jurisdictions in the Muslim
world…capital punishment goes only for those caught with over 30 grams of hard drugs
like heroin…which is far bigger than user amounts…the death sentence is not
applied for first offenders, or even for repeat offenders of 30 to 100 grams…so really
it is the hardcore traffickers that are getting offed…I have no problem with
that…[neither do leaders like the Philippines’ Duterte who is much less tolerant
than Iran…]
There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians
aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia
colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their
agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which
nobody appreciates…
They are also spurning Russian offers of help…
In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million
barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if
needed.
[Probably because they resent Russia for pressuring them to reign in their activities in
Syria…it just shows the all or nothing mentality of religious fanatics…]
All in all it is crazy to think that religious zealotry can lead to anything
good…it never has…
But there is a bigger principle here… it’s their country…
Nobody gives us the right to tell them how to live their lives…certainly compared
to Saudi Barbaria and the other gulf theocracies…not to mention serial criminal
Israel…nobody has good cause to be pointing fingers at Iran…
The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are
INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states…
So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since
only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions…
The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with
Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied
territories…is simply unacceptable…
So let’s not lose sight of the ball…this has nothing to do with Iran’s
domestic behavior…and everything to do with serial criminal USA…
@SteveK9
Yes, SteveK9, but you meant, of course, to say “why oh why the US would want to destroy
Iran”–not Israel. Israel has been trying to maneuver Uncle Sam into a shooting
war with Iran for a decade or more. Israel’s American neocons have succeeded in getting
America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran is the last country standing in the
way of Israel’s total dominance of the Middle East. No Israel, no war, it’s as
simple as that.
@Brabantian
Standard muslim stuff. It’s their country so up to them what they do. But Iran was
cooperating with Al Qaida in Bosnia in the 1990s chopping heads of Christians and atheists.
In fact they were aligned with USA and NATO there but now US is using that involvement
against them as proof of “terrorism” activity.
And here’s Andre praising them. It was well known that they were supplying weapons
disguised as humanitarian aid but US and NATO did nothing to stop them at the time.
@Commentator
Mike There was an embargo on any weapons getting through to Bosnia at the time. The
Bosnians were massively outgunned by the Serbs that had possession of almost all the serious
hardware after the break up of Yugoslavia. The Muslim world was not about to let this
discrepancy go unanswered.
AQ at that stage was still mostly the “foreign legion” global defense
initiative that was the initial vision of Shaykh Abdullah Azzam so it’s not surprising
the Iranians were cooperating with them at the time. It would later progressively warp into
the terrorism outfit over time in the 90’s especially with the African embassy
bombings.
@Commentator
Mike Maybe you could take a look at what is going on there as we speak.
As European, you could do it. Americans and the rest of colonists can’t.
Let’s just say there is a significant Iranian presence in Bosnia.
Serbs and Croats in the region won’t be displeased should the regime in Tehran get
smashed into pieces. Really small pieces.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for the
much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place in the
world. And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
Actually one can work even within those hatreds unless they’re given a chance to
flare up, and obviously certain forces work on doing just that, as we have seen in Ukraine.
Oh yes, and the Muslims aren’t helping much to bring peace about in that region.
Thanks but no thanks. Since Supreme Commander Al Baghdadi ordered muslims to get us by any
and every means I strictly avoid eating anywhere muslims work, cook, or serve, despite liking
their food. Didn’t you hear of the three Albanian Kosovars who were arrested in Italy
plotting a bombing campaign? They worked as waiters in Venice, Italy’s tourist hub. I
pity those tourists who went through their restaurant before the Kosovars decided to move
onto bigger actions. And he did mention poison, whatever, even spitting.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for
the much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place
in the world.
As for this:
And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
"... Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel, France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. ..."
"... As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton called for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to " pay a little price ".) ..."
"... Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker. ..."
"... With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals. ..."
"... These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated by decades of conflict. ..."
"... The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained extensively why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was unthinkable , bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO somewhat refused to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias. ..."
"... In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies. ..."
"... Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to withdraw from the coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces. ..."
"... An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't want to cross, having so much at stake. ..."
"... With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises. The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its own profits and controls global finance. ..."
"... Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran. ..."
In 2014 we were almost at the point of no return in Ukraine following the coup d'etat supported and funded by NATO and involving
extremist right-wing Ukrainian nationalists. The conflict in the Donbass risked escalating into a conflict between NATO and the Russian
Federation, every day in the summer and autumn of 2014 threatening to be doomsday. Rather than respond to the understandable impulse
to send Russian troops into Ukraine to defend the population of Donbass, Putin had the presense of mind to pursue the less direct
and more sensible strategy of supporting the material capacity of the residents of Donbass to resist the depredations of the Ukrainian
army and their neo-Nazi Banderite thugs. Meanwhile, Europe's inept leaders initially egged on Ukraine's destabilization, only to
get cold feet after reflecting on the possibility of having a conflict between Moscow and Washington fought on European soil.
With the resistance in Donbass managing to successfully hold back Ukrainian assaults, the conflict began to freeze, almost to
the point of a complete ceasefire, even as Ukrainian provocations continue to this day.
Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel,
France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. Russian
intervention in 2015 managed to save the country with no time to spare, destroying large numbers of terrorists and reorganizing the
Syrian armed forces and training and equipping them with the necessary means to beat back the jihadi waves. The Russians also ensured
control of the skies through their network of Pantsir-S1, Pantsir-S2, S-300 and S-400 air-defence systems, together with their
impressive jamming (Krasukha-4), command and control
information management system (Strelets C4ISR System) and electronic-warfare technologies (1RL257 Krasukha-4).
As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack
on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no
secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton
called
for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to "
pay a little price ".)
Since Trump became president, the rhetoric of war has soared considerably, even as the awareness remains that any new conflict
would sink Trump's chances of re-election. Despite this, Trump's bombings in Syria were real and potentially very harmful to the
Syrian state. Nevertheless, they were
foiled by Russia's electronic-warfare capability, which was able to send veering away from their intended target more than 70%
of the latest-generation missiles launched by the British, French, Americans and Israelis.
One of the most terrifying moments for the future of humanity came a few months later when Trump started hurling threats and abuses
at Kim Jong-un , threatening to reduce Pyongyang to ashes. Trump, moreover, delivered his fiery threats in a speech at the United
Nations General Assembly.
Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint
a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens
to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He
then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker.
With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different
results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have
had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies
were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer
has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies
have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals.
The difference between the case of Iran and the aforementioned cases of Ukraine, Syria and North Korea is precisely the direct
involvement of these two lobbies in the decision-making process underway in the US.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the
cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated
by decades of conflict.
What readers can be assured of is that in the cases of Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and Iran, the US is unable to militarily impose
its geopolitical or economic will.
The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained
extensively
why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was
unthinkable
, bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO
somewhat refused
to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias.
In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed
in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously
contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover
and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies.
In North Korea, the country's tactical and strategic nuclear and conventional deterrence discourages any missile attack. Any overland
attack is out of the question, given the high number of active as well as reserve personnel in the DPRK army. If the US struggled
to control a completely defeated Iraq in 2003, how much more difficult would be to deal with a country with a resilient population
that is indisposed to bowing to the US? The 2003 Iraq campaign would really be a "cakewalk" in comparison. Another reason why a missile
attack on North Korea is impossible is because of the conventional power that Pyongyang possesses in the form of tens of thousands
of missiles and artillery pieces that could easily reduce Seoul to rubble in a matter of minutes. This would then lead to a war between
the US and the DPRK being fought on the Korean Peninsula. Moon Jae-in, like Merkel and Sarkozy in the case of Ukraine, did everything
in his power to prevent such a devastating conflict.
Concerning tensions between the US and Iran and the resulting threats of war, these should be taken as bluster and bluff. America's
European allies are heavily involved in Iran and depend on the Middle East for their oil and gas imports. A US war against Iran would
have devastating consequences for the world economy, with the Europeans seeing their imports halved or reduced. As Professor Chossudovsky
of the strategic think tank Global Research has so ably
argued , an attack on Iran is unsustainable, as the oil sectors of the UAE and Saudi Arabia would be hit and shut down. Exports
would instantly end after the pipelines going West are bombed by the Houthis and the Strait of Hormuz closed. The economies of these
two countries would implode and their ruling class wiped out by internal revolts. The state of Israel as well as US bases in the
region would see themselves overwhelmed with missiles coming from Syria, Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Iran. The Tel Aviv government
would last a few hours before capitulating under the pressure of its own citizens, who, like the Europeans, are unused to suffering
war at home.
Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against
the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic
resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication
of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to
withdraw from the
coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable
damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces.
An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't
want to cross, having so much at stake.
With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises.
The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its
own profits and controls global finance. And finally, US military planners do not intend to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iran
that would reveal the extent to which US military power is based on propaganda built over the years through Hollywood movies and
wars successfully executed against relatively defenceless countries. Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin
Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them
on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is telling that Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh have to resort to numerous but ultimately useless
provocations against Iran, as they
can only rely on hybrid attacks in order to economically isolate it from the rest of the world.
Paradoxically, this strategy has had devastating consequences for the role of the US dollar as a reserve currency together with
the SWIFT system. In today's multipolar environment, acting in such an imperious manner leads to the acceleration of de-dollarization
as a way of circumventing sanctions and bans imposed by the US.
A reserve currency is used to facilitate transactions. If the disadvantages come to exceed the benefits, it will progressively
be used less and less, until it is replaced by a basket of currencies that more closely reflect the multipolar geopolitical reality.
The warmongers in Washington are exasperated by their continuing inability to curb the resilience and resistance of the people
in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Donbass, countries and regions understood by the healthy part of the globe as representing
the axis of resistance to US Imperialism.
America must always threaten someone with war. Syria, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, so many to choose from.
Conflicts must never be resolved; they must always kept simmering, so a hot war can be triggered quickly. All Presidents are
turned in the first three months after sworn in.
It's what happens as empires mature. Governance becomes bloated, corrupt and inept (often leading to wars). Maturity time has
become significantly reduced due to the rate of information technology advance. America is five years away from going insolvent
according to most models and forecasts. All new debt after 2024 will be used to pay the interest on existing debts and liabilities.
There is simply no stopping it. The US already pays close to 500 billion in annual interest on debts and liabilities. Factor in
a 600 billion or 700 billion dollar annual military budget, and unrestrained deficit spending clocking in at over a trillion,
and, well, it isn't going to work for long. Considering most new well paying jobs are government jobs... The end is either full
socialism / fascism (folks still don't get how similar these are), a currency crisis and panic, depression and institutional deterioration.
The only good news to libertarians I guess - if you can call it good - is that the blotted government along with the crony corporations
will mostly and eventually collapse. Libertarian governance might not be a choice by an electorate, it might simply become fact
in the aftermath.
I guess Trump eventually will understand this lesson in politics that friendship, mutual respect and helping each other accomplishes
way way more then threatening countries to be bombed back into the stoneage.
Noone likes to do a cutthroat deal enforced upon them by thuggery. Trump's got to learn that you can't run politics like you do
your bussinesses, it's not working unles that was his plan all this time, to destroy America.
"The Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy
goals.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at
the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been
devastated by decades of conflict."
America is increasingly looking like Ancient Rome towards the end. It is overstretched, nearly insolvent, fewer allies want
to be allies, it's population is sick, physically and mentally. Obesity, diabetes, drug use/addiction make it impossible for the
Pentagon to meet recruitment goal. Mental illness causes daily mass killing. The education system is so broken/broke that there
is little real education being done. Americans are among the most ignorant, least educated and least educate-able people in the
developed world.
Militarily, the USA can bomb but that's about it... defeats upon defeats over the past two decades demonstrate the US military
is a paper tiger of astonishing incompetence.
Boeing can't make planes anymore. Lockheed is not much better. Parts of the F-35 are made by Chinese subsidiaries. The most
recently built aircraft carrier cannot launch fighter jets.
Recent estimates indicate that more than 550,000 people experience homelessness in the US on any given night, with about two-thirds
ending up in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs, and one-third finding their way to unsheltered locations like
parks, vehicles, and metro stations. According to the Urban Institute, about 25% of homeless people have jobs.
I find that it is difficult for me to wrap my head around pain and suffering on such an immense scale. Americans often think
of the homeless as drug-addicted men that don't want to work, but the truth is that about a quarter of the homeless population
is made up of children.
Seriously, why would Iran want to hijack a German ship? Iran took the UK one in retaliation for the Brits seizing the one at
Gibraltar. Had that not happened, no Brit ships in the Persian Gulf would have been touched. This is all a carefully engineered
USA provocation designed to, inter alia, increase tension in the Persian Gulf, put more nails in coffin of JCPOA...and most importantly
give UK an excuse, as remaining signatory, to call for the original UN sanctions on Iran to be snapped-back.
Federico, let me explain it simply: the U.S. is allied with Israel, and Iran hates Israel. Why, I don't know (nor do I care),
but that's why the U.S. needs to keep Iran in check.
Yet CONGRESS just passed the largest defense bill in history. The WAR industry is bankrupting us financially spiritually and
morally.
A war is coming. But upon whom this time (or STILL?), because with President Bolton and Vice President Adelson in power, China
Iran or Russia or maybe all three, are open options.
Interview with a Russian I saw 2 years ago "USA wants to create local conflicts on foreign shores, ...on our borders, we will
not allow that to happen and make the war international" I will translate: Russia will not be pulled in to some stupid small war
draining their resources while the US sits comfortable, they will throw their missiles around - no escape from nuclear winter.
If spending has reached the limit now, during peacetime....what will happen during a protracted war? Even if it stays conventional,
it would appear that a huge war effort, comparable to WWII, just won't be possible. The US seems to be in a pre-war Britain position,
but there isn't a friendly giant across the water to bail them out with both cash and resources.
Either things become insane in fairly short order, or wiser heads will prevail and the US will step back from the brink. Do
we have any wiser heads at the moment?
I keep seeing John Bolton's moustache, Andi am not filled with confidence.
"... This is the first major expansion of sanctions against a western hemisphere nation by the US in over 30 years, and is intended to put Venezuela into the same level of economic isolation as similarly restricted Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. ..."
President Trump signed an executive order late Monday imposing a
full economic embargo against Venezuela , freezing all government assets in the US and
forbidding all transactions of any Venezuelan officials.
This is the first major expansion of sanctions against a western hemisphere nation by the
US in over 30 years, and is intended to put Venezuela into the same level of economic
isolation as similarly restricted Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria.
The order cites human rights abuses, and the fact that President Maduro is still in power
in Venezuela, even though the US recognized opposition leader Guaido as the rightful ruler of
the country.
This is the latest US effort to try to impose regime change in Venezuela, after a failed
military coup earlier this year. It's not clear how broadly the US intends to enforce the
sanctions, for example if they intend to use military force to prohibit naval trade from the
Venezuelan coast
I think the grievances of the students against the Chinese government had merit. Moreover
yielding to continuing the status quo ante or reversion to Brit colony status were not the
only possible outcomes. The former happens to be the case but things need not have gone
that way. https://www.history.com/topics/china/tiananmen-square
That's probably true, but there is often inflexibility on the part of the protesters as well,
and in cases where they believe they have international backing – spelled U.S.A.
– their demands rarely allow much room for compromise. The government must step down
and yield governing power, usually to a group of ideologues and liberal activists, and the
next step is well-known to everyone. The American 'advisers' are sent in, and state
institutions are rapidly dismantled and privatized for international investment, as happened
in Yeltsin's Russia.
In this case, the students wanted 'more democracy', and that right there suggests they
really did not have any clear goals but change.
So true. When protesters claim to want "more democracy" but cannot even define what
"democracy" means, then it's clear they don't know what they are talking about, and probably
just American stooges.
People in HK do have many grievances but many of their problems, like the insanely high
property prices, the shortage of housing for people who are not billionaires, the pollution,
the crappy infrastructure, the lack of jobs in any industry apart from buying and selling
property, the dismal job prospects of people who have been through an education system that
relies on rote learning and slaving through scads of homework, are problems arising from the
capitalist system they still retain. Unfortunately, for most of its 20-year rule since the
hand-back in 1997, the HK govt has been inept in handling most of these problems.
The thing that sparked this year's protests was the proposed extradition bill that would
establish appropriate extradition arrangements between Hong Kong and every other state or
territory that it currently does not have extradition agreements with, and this included
Mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, in the wake of the 2018 St Valentine's Day murder in which
a 20-year-old HK woman was strangled by her 19-year-old HK boyfriend while holidaying in
Taiwan, who then stuffed her body into a suitcase and left it at a train station in Taiwan
while he returned to HK. The man is currently in jail on charges relating to stealing the
woman's money after her death (he took all her ATM cards and used them) and he is due to be
freed this coming October. The HK govt has currently delayed a second reading of the
extradition bill but haven't withdrawn it entirely, which was one of the protesters'
demands.
The fact that, even after the backdown on the extradition proposal, the protesters
continued escalating their demands to the point of demanding current HK leader Carrie Lam's
removal, demonstrates that there is far more to the protesters' agenda than the extradition
proposal. Add to that the fact that protesters receive cash payments for protesting (with the
amounts jacked up if protesters destroy or damage things) and a CIA operative, Brian Kern,
has been identified as a ring-leader, and it is apparent that a Color Revolution
regime-change operation is in full swing.
The cops in Hong Kong Crown Colony were unbelievably corrupt. I worked with a former Hong
Kong policeman, a British European (the HK Crown Colony police had British senior officers
and Chinese "other ranks") who joined the force "to see the world". He was an idealist and
resigned. He could not stand the corruption that he witnessed there. His father, by the way,
was the local cop where I lived: the "village bobby", so to speak, complete with standard
issue Raleigh bicycle and cycle clips, who was a decent, friendly bloke.
A Saudi royal, Ahmed Bin Abdul Aziz, yesterday warned against "the kingdom's involvement in a
war with Iran."
"I'd oppose the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman if he decided to join a US-British
military alliance to confront Iran," The New Khalij quoted Abdul Aziz as saying.
The brother of the Saudi King added that it was important for Riyadh to take measures to
unify the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) instead of responding to US President Donald Trump's
plans, which he described as "pushing the region to the brink of war."
Don't Underestimate Iran's Ability to Fight a Bloody War They already proved themselves against Iraq during the 1980s
-- and they're far stronger today. By
Pouya Alimagham •
August 6, 2019
Circa 1980's; an Iranian soldier wearing gas mask during Iran-Iraq War. Iraq used chemical weapons against military and civilian
targets throughout the eight year war. Declassified reports indicate that Saddam Hussein had international assistance in obtaining
the weapons, including from the U.S. and U.K, and the CIA assisted in targeting.
(Creative Commons/Wikipedia) On July 29, President Trump tweeted: "Just remember, Iranians never won a war, but never lost a
negotiation." In just 12 words, Trump leveled a multi-layered, ahistorical insult against both his predecessor, Barack Obama, and
Iran.
More importantly, the remarks betray a dangerously ignorant understanding of Iran that could result in another careless Middle
East war of choice.
The tweet invokes a clichéd, colonial-era stereotype that Iranians, like other Middle Eastern peoples, are wily swindlers -- rapacious,
greedy bazaar merchants who aim to take advantage of honest and unsuspecting Westerners. Trump is hardly the first American leader
to dabble in such denigrating stereotypes. Wendy Sherman, a senior State Department official and former lead negotiator who helped
forge the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, infamously
quipped that
Iranians could not be trusted because they have "deception in their DNA."
The president deployed the stereotype of Iranian cunning to imply that they tricked a naďve president, Barack Obama, into signing
a flawed nuclear deal. According to the world's foremost nuclear security
experts , however, the
accord was ensuring Iran's compliance, thereby preventing a nuclear weapons program -- that is, until Trump subverted the agreement
in 2018.
Advertisement
More importantly, Trump's words underscore the idea that Iranians are cowardly and militarily ineffectual, but make up for such
unflattering character flaws by swindling their foes during negotiations to achieve victory.
Iran's last war, however, should dispel any notion of cowardice and military weakness -- a history President Trump and anti-Iran
hawks like National Security Adviser John Bolton must face with clear eyes if the United States is to avoid another needless, catastrophic
war in the Middle East.
Iraq Invades Iran
In the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran faced one of its most vulnerable moments in modern times. During the
revolutionary upheaval, many arms depots were raided and weapons were distributed to volunteers ready to deliver the monarchy its
coup de grace .
After the watershed moment, the Revolutionary Council feared that, given the Anglo-American coup in 1953 through the Iranian military,
Iran's generals could not be trusted. The subsequent purge resulted in the decimation of the country's military leadership. Moreover,
political infighting between revolutionary factions also led to unrest. To make matters worse, militant students were fearful that
the U.S. was planning to undermine the revolution through a coup -- as it did the nationalist government of Mohammad Mossadeq in
1953 -- so they resolved to ward off any such attempts. Consequently, they seized the U.S. embassy and held its personnel hostage.
The international community responded by isolating Iran for its blatant disregard for international norms.
Capitalizing on Iran's internal post-revolutionary chaos, military disarray, and international isolation, Iraqi strongman Saddam
Hussein ordered the invasion of his neighboring rival on September 22, 1980. Shortly after, Iran's internal power struggle between
the various revolutionary factions erupted into open warfare.
So devastating was the power struggle that many of the leading personalities of the Iranian Revolution died in assassinations
and bomb blasts, including Iran's president and prime minister. Thus, the Iranian state was forced to fight on two battlefronts --
internally against its challengers and externally against Iraqi invaders. The government did not, however, collapse under the weight
of its domestic rivals and foreign aggressors. In fact, the war enlivened Charles Tilly's timeless words: "War makes states."
Iranian Resilience
The Iranian state harnessed a powerful ideology that intertwined nationalism with Islamic revolutionary zeal in order to prompt
Iranians to close rank behind it, marshaling hundreds of thousands of soldiers to liberate Iranian territory occupied by the Iraqi
military. By May 24, 1982, and after tens of thousands of deaths, Iran freed the border city of Khorramshahr after a brutal two-year
siege.
Soon after Khorramshahr's liberation, the invading Iraqis were on the defensive, and Saddam's wartime financiers, namely Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait, offered Iran a multi-billion dollar reparations package to end the war. Iran's leader refused, declaring that
the only way the war would end was with Saddam Hussein's bloody demise. He then spearheaded the conflict onto Iraqi soil for the
first time. Time captured the moment by phrasing the counter-invasion as "
Iran on the march ."
Iran Versus the World
Iraq enjoyed the support of the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and the Arab League -- with
the exception of Syria and Libya -- and even used
chemical weapons on Iranian troops.
Yet Iran persisted despite such horrible odds, and hundreds of thousands continued to go to the battlefront knowing it was possible
that they, too, could fall victim to Iraq's horrific chemical weapons.
The violence dragged on for eight bitter years, making it the longest conventional war of the 20th century -- with an Iranian
death toll estimated between half a million to a million. To put that staggering number into perspective, the conservative estimate
exceeds the total American loss of life in World War II.
The war's conclusion was a failure in Iranian eyes, as it did not end in Saddam Hussein's overthrow and Iraqis and the region
would continue to suffer at his hands. Two years later, he refused to demobilize his million-man army to a jobless future in a war-ravaged
economy, and instead dispatched them across Iraq's border again -- this time to Kuwait.
Yet neither did Iran lose the war. In fact, it was the first conflict since the two 19th-century wars with Czarist Russia in which
Iran did not lose any territory. Above all, the country survived a genocidal conflict -- and survival was its own victory.
Iran Today
Today, Iran's population is more than double what it was in 1980 -- estimated at roughly
83 million . After lacking
military support from abroad during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran now has extensive
domestic
weapons manufacturing capabilities. Also unlike 1980, it has more allies in the region. In other words, if Iran fought so stubbornly
under such dire circumstances during the '80s, it will only fight more effectively today. It has already proven itself militarily
by coordinating the fight alongside the U.S. to defeat ISIS in Iraq while simultaneously working with Russia to help the Syrian government
win an unrelenting civil war.
The Iranian military budget may be a fraction of America's, but the Trump administration -- especially anti-Iran hawks John Bolton
and Mike Pompeo -- should consider this history and current reality objectively. If they don't, if they continue to underestimate
Iran the same way the Bush administration did with a far weaker Iraq in 2003, they risk another war of choice. Indeed, on the eve
of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney infamously
stated : "I think it will
go relatively quickly weeks rather than months." To be sure, history has been unkind to his rosy assessment.
Thinking a war with Iran will be over before it begins -- or that it will, as Senator Tom Cotton
boasted
, not require more than "two strikes, the first strike and the last strike" -- is the first step towards another needless, ruinous
war.
Pouya Alimagham is a historian of the modern Middle East at Massachusetts Institute of Technology , and
author of the forthcoming Contesting the Iranian Revolution: The Green Uprisings (Cambridge University Press). Follow him
on Twitter @iPouya .
"The Hong Kong-Mainland conflict reflects a huge gap in national identity. This can be
explained in part on how the nationality of most Hong Kong people was changed in 1997 from
British to Chinese.
From China's standpoint, Hong Kong had always been Chinese soil. Through 150 years of
British rule, its people remained Chinese, regardless of British law.
This fitted nicely with Britain's policy, which was to see to it that the millions of
Chinese "British citizens" in Hong Kong could not move to the United Kingdom. Nationality and
immigration laws were changed.
Britain created a new category of citizens, called British Dependent Territory Citizens, in
the 1980s. This transformed United Kingdom citizens into Hong Kong citizens. When Hong Kong was
no longer a British dependent territory, yet another new category was created, British National
(Overseas). The holder has no right to live in Britain and the citizenship cannot be passed on
to the next generation.
China, too, changed its nationality law to deal with Hong Kong. The Standing Committee of
its National People's Congress in 1996 – the year before the handover – issued
"Explanations" of how China's Nationality Law would be applied in Hong Kong. That is to say,
the law would mean different things in different parts of the country, a highly unusual legal
situation.
The "Explanations" introduce a concept missing in the nationality law itself, that of
"Chinese descent." Thus, any Hong Kong resident of Chinese descent who was born in Hong Kong or
China is a Chinese national, regardless of whether he possesses Canadian, Australian, British
or other nationality. That means people who were foreign nationals were transformed into
Chinese nationals in 1997.
China – and Britain – wanted the people as well as the territory to be
transferred wholesale. The millions of people in Hong Kong were considered nothing but
chattel.
Actually, the idea of giving the inhabitants a choice of nationality when the ownership of
land is transferred is by no means novel. In fact, it happened on Chinese territory when the
Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895 in the Treaty of Shimonoseki."
This video is circulating supposedly showing the Chinese Army about to enter Hong Kong.
Not so, it is a police ceremony to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of
communist China on July 30.
Here is an article in deeper detail written by Chaohua Wang.
She was at Tiananmen in 1989, and on the short list of students wanted by the Government, but
managed to escape, eventually getting a PhD at UCLA. https://outline.com/Tdnha9
The HK situation is more interesting, i.e. worse, than it first appears. I am not sanguine
that the Colour Revolution here will be suppressed by local authorities. It is clear that the
police are loath to use anything approaching adequate force on rioters, as they will face an
unsupportive and indeed overzealous magistracy, one prepared to jail police readily, but
which will release rioters on derisory bail amounts.
In that connection, think of Andy Chan, allegedly arrested in a building full of
explosives and offensive weapons, who was promptly bailed for a mere HKD1,000 without any
restriction on leaving Hong Kong.
Effectively, the administration in HK is failing to exercise the first prerogative of a
state, that being the monopoly on the use of force. Large parts of the legislature and the
judiciary will not support the police, so they do not do their jobs beyond a highly
ineffective minimum.
In such conditions the HK government cannot survive. I think it is much more likely now
that there will be armed intervention from China. There must be. HK authorities are split and
can no longer use force as appropriate and required.
The current situation is a direct analogy with Euromaydan. And the relevant question is who
"Luovochkin" in case of Hong Cong color revolution? How many high level Hong Kong politicians
were bought by the US and UK embassies and Taiwan clandestine network ?
The hidden goal might well be to impose sanction on China based on the " violation of human
rights" like the USA regime did with Russia after EuroMaydan.
Provoking direct intervention may be the intent here. Few jurisdictions anywhere would
tolerate mob attacks on legislature buildings or police stations. Donning body armour and
throwing bricks at police gets one labelled a domestic terrorist in the USA. The HK police
have been remarkably restrained to this point, particularly compared to similar actions in,
say, France.
The protest movement succeeded in achieving its immediate demand - the shelving of the
extradition law - and is now motivated by more amorphous grievances. If much of the
motivation is the desire to retain a degree of independence from the mainland, then engaging
in insurrectionary violence directed at governmental institutions is precisely a way to
achieve the exact opposite. In that context, the influence of malign interests seeking to
provoke the CCP into a TIannemen-like crackdown is an understandable supposition.
China will not intervene unless there is pro-independence armed insurgency, like what
happened in Tibet in 1959. The Chinese government does not have to worry about contagion
either, because most mainland Chinese either doesn't care or they oppose the protest. In
fact, most
Hongkongers probably also oppose the protest. The Chinese and Hong Kong governments will
wait the protest to run it course and use it as a cautionary tale for future protests,
because such movement eventually hurts Hong Kong's economy and its own bottom line.
that is the wrong way to describe it! the chinese do not recognise (quite rightly) hong
kong borders. if the hong kongers choose to play up then they will be put down just as you
describe.
The Hong Kong police has so far done little against the rioters. Few have been arrested. It
can still up its response by several grades.
The tactic for now is to let the rioters expose themselves as what they are. The
typical Hong Konger want to mind their business and dislike having it disturbed by some
unruly students. They back the police.
When the time is ripe the police will pick off the leaders of the riots and do them
in.
Somebody in the twitterverse asked the twits this question: "Name a job that you can
completely suck at and still keep your job?" Instantly answered by Max Blumenthal "Beltway
think tank senior fellow"
"... US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism, as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it." ..."
"... Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. ..."
"... IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner. ..."
"... It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning. ..."
"... Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. ..."
"... I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance hegemony and fiat money. ..."
"... The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy. ..."
"... Trump hasn't proposed any new policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him. ..."
I will mention this again, to see what people here think, as they are intelligent people. I sent mails to Russian and Chinese
authorities about this.
"I will provide you with possible reasons behind the current trade wars and rejection of globalisation by the US. In short,
they think that they will save their hegemony, to a certain degree, that way.
There are long term GDP Growth and Socioeconomic Scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
OECD, and the world scientific community. They are generally used to measure the impact of Climate change on the World. In order
to measure it, Socioeconomic Scenarios were developed, as the level of economic growth in the world is very important for determining
the impact of Climate Change in the future. High growth levels will obviously affect Climate Change, so these GDP estimates are
important. The scenarios are with time horizon 2100.
For more on this you can check these studies here, some of the many dealing with this topic. They describe the scenarios for
the world.
There are 5 main scenarios, or "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways". All of them describe different worlds.
SSP 1 - Green World, economic cooperation, reduced inequality, good education systems. High level of economic growth, fast
catch up of the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
SSP 2 - More of the same/ Muddling through - continuation of the current trends. Relatively high level of economic growth,
relatively fast catch up of the developing world with the developed world. Good level of multipolarity.
SSP 3 - Regional Rivalry - nationalisms, trade wars, lack of global cooperation, fragmentation of the word, environmental
degradation. Low levels of economic growth everywhere, the developing world remains poor and undeveloped. Low level of multipolarity,
West retains many positions.
SSP 4 Inequality - depicts a world where high-income countries use technological advances to stimulate economic growth;
leading to a high capacity to mitigate. In contrast, developments in low income countries are hampered by very low education
levels and international barriers to trade. Growth is medium, the catch up process between the developing world and the developed
world is not fast. Medium level of multipolarity.
SSP 5 Economic growth and fossil fuels take priority over green world - High levels of economic growth, fast catch up of
the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
See SSP 3. A world of rivalry, trade wars, trade barriers, lack of global cooperation, and fragmentation, will lead to lower
level of growth in the developing world, and thus a slow catch up process. Multipolarity in such a world is weak as the developing
world is hampered.
In other words, a world of cooperation between countries will lead to higher economic growth in the developing world, faster
catch up process, and thus stronger multipolarity.
Low cooperation, fragmented world, high conflict scenarios consistently lead to low growth in the developing world and thus
to the US and the West retaining some of its positions - a world with overall bad economy and low level of multipolarity.
Basically, globalisation is key. The developing world (ex West) was growing slowly before globalisation (before 1990). Globalisation
means sharing of technology and knowledge, and companies investing in poorer countries. Outsourcing of western manufacturing.
Etc. After globalisation started in 1990, the developing world is growing very well. It is globalisation that is weakening the
relative power of the West and empowering the developing world. The US now needs to kill globalisation if it is to stop its relative
decline.
So what do we see: exactly attempts to create the SSP 3 scenario. Trade wars, sanctions, attacks on multilateral institutions
- the WTO, on international law, on the Paris Climate Change Agreement (which if accepted would put constraints on the US economy),
on the UN, bullying of Europe, lack of care for european energy needs, support for Brexit (which weakens Europe), crack down on
chinese students and scientists in the US, crack down on chinese access to western science data, demands to remove the perks for
poor countries in the WTO, etc. This is hitting economic growth in the whole world and the global economy currently is not well.
By destroying the world economy, the US benefits as it hampers the rise of the developing nations.
US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism,
as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science
community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much
as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer
serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it."
You ask, "The concept of multilateralism is not completely clear to me in relation to the global public/private finance issue
and I am not of faith but of questions...."
"In international relations, multilateralism refers to an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal."
The key point for the Chinese during negotiations as I understand them via their published White Paper on the subject is
development and the international rules put in place at WTO for nations placed into the Developing category, which
get some preferential treatment to help their economies mature. As China often reminds the global public--and officials of the
Outlaw US Empire--both the BRI and EAEU projects are about developing the economies of developing economies, that the process
is designed to be a Win-Win for all the developing economies involved. This of course differs vastly from what's known as the
Washington Consensus, where all developing economies kowtow to the Outlaw US Empire's diktat via the World Bank and IMF and thus
become enslaved by dollar dependency/debt. Much is written about the true nature of the Washington Consensus, Perkins Confessions
of an Economic Hit Man and Klein's Disaster Capitalism being two of the more recent and devastating, and many nations
are able to attest to the Zero-sum results. The result is very few nations are willing to subject their economies to the pillaging
via Washington Consensus institutions, which Hudson just recently reviewed.
The Empire is desperate and is looking for ways to keep its Super Imperialism intact and thus continue its policy aimed at
Full Spectrum Dominance. But the Empire's abuse of the dollar-centric institutions of international commerce has only served to
alienate its users who are openly and actively seeking to form parallel institutions under genuine multilateral control.
However as Hudson illustrates, Trump doesn't know what he's doing regarding his trade and international monetary policies. Today's
AP above the fold headline in Eugene's The Register Guard screamed "Trump threatens 10% tariffs;" but unusually for such
stories, it explains that the 10% is essentially a tax on US consumers, not on Chinese companies, which provides a message opposite
of the one Trump wants to impart--that he's being tough on the Chinese when the opposite's true. China will continue to resist
the attempts to allow the international financial sharks to swim in Chinese waters as China is well aware of what they'll attempt
to accomplish--and it's far easier to keep them out than to get them out once allowed in, although China's anti-corruption laws
ought to scare the hell out of the CEOs of those corps.
The Empire wants to continue its longstanding Open Door policy in the realm of target nations opening their economies to the
full force of Imperial-based corps so they can use their financial might to wrestle the market from domestic players and institute
their Oligopoly. China already experienced the initial Open Door (which was aimed at getting Uncle Sam's share of China during
the Unequal Treaties period 115 years ago) and will not allow that to recur. China invokes its right under WTO rules for developing
economies to protect their financial services sector from predation; the Empire argues China is beyond a developing economy and
must drop its shields. We've read what Hudson advised the Chinese to do--resist and develop a publicly-based yuan-centered financial
system that highly taxes privatized rent-seekers while keeping and enhancing state-provided insurance--health, home, auto, life,
etc--while keeping restrictions on foreign land ownership since it's jot allowed to purchase similar assets within the domestic
US market.
The Outlaw US Empire insists that China give so it can take. Understandably, China says no; what we allow you to do, you should
allow us to do. Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. Obviously,
the latest proposal was merely a repetition of what came before and was rejected as soon as the meeting got underway, so it ended
as quickly as it started. IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and
nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner.
It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same
since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning.
Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. D-Party Establishment
candidates have yet to let it be known they'll try to do what Trump's failing to do, which of course has nothing to do with aiding
the US consumer and everything to do with bolstering Wall Street's Ponzi Scheme.
Good comment, karlof1 , i think that the attack against China is attack against the heart of multipolarity. It will be good
if b could post about the escalation of the trade war. This is important. The US clearly intends to resist multipoarity, and tries
to stop it.
If I would have had my act together last night I would have posted another link fro Xinhuanet (can't find now) about how
China wants to retain developing nation status and provides as data that the (I think) per capita GDP had gone down....gotten
worse in relation to the US per capita GDP.
I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance
hegemony and fiat money.
Passer by @30--
The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates
what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it
all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it
to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy.
Thus, there's no need to sponsor the reindustrialization that would lead to MAGA. Indeed, Trump hasn't proposed any new
policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate
Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him.
In your outline, it's very easy to see why BRI is so attractive to other nations as it forwards SSP1. Awhile ago during a discussion
of China's development goals, I posted links to its program that's very ambitious and doing very well with its implementation,
the main introduction portal
being here .
psychohistorian @11 asked: "The concept of multilateralism is not completely clear to me in relation to the global public/private
finance issue and I am not of faith but of questions...."
karlof1 @31 covered it pretty well I think, but I want to try to answer in just a couple sentences (unusual for me).
Global private finance is driven by one thing and one thing only: making maximum profits for the owners quarter by financial
quarter. Global public finance is driven by the agendas of the nations with the public finance, with profits being a secondary
or lesser issue.
This boils down to private finance being forever slave to the mindless whims of "The Market™" (hallowed be Its name),
while public finance is, by its nature, something that is planned and deliberated. Nobody can guess where "The Market™"
(hallowed be Its name) will lead society, though people with the resources like placing bets in stock markets on the direction
It is taking us. On the other hand, if people have an idea which direction society should be heading in, public control
over finance is a precondition to making it so.
"The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire"
I'm not sure this will be the case anymore -
Former heads of DHS and NSA explain how the U.S. can keep Huawei at bay
"Perhaps more importantly, this proposal demonstrates one way the U.S. can reinforce elements of what the government calls
the “national technology and industrial base” (NTIB), the collection of companies who design, build and supply the U.S. with vital
national-security related technologies."
While Hong Cong people, especially working and middle class might have legitimate grievances, The USA poison and exploits for
pretty nefarious purposes any protest converting it into anti-government action organized and financed by foreign sources.
Trump promised isolationalist foreign policy. He folded and his policy does not differ much from Obama administration policy.
I wonder if this is propaganda or not that some civil servants jointed the protest. In any case the carrot of emigration to Taiwan
might work for some.
Vandalizing vehicles and destroying commerce will not fare well with the majority of population, so in a way the protesters already
alienated themselves from the people of Hong Kong and clearly represent foreign interests.
Chinese "officials also recently described the US as a "black hand" behind the anti-Beijing protests - which began over a proposed
extradition bill - something which the US state department dismissed as "ridiculous". " But why they were unable to prevent those riots
despite previous exprince needs to be investigated. Probably like in EuroMaydan some Hong Kong officials changed sides.
Analogies with EuroMaydan clashes with police in the center of Kiev are evident if you want the videos. Looks like the "fighters"
(which is a tiny percentage of protesters) are well trained to play the role of shock troops. Analogies with EuroMaydan are evident
in a way they use the improvised body armor and the way they use inflammable liquids
There is also strong analogy in demands: "Protesters are also demanding that the government look into allegations of police abusing
their power, as well as a full withdrawal of the extradition bill, which has only been suspended for now. They are also demanding that
all arrested protesters be exonerated , along with the implementation of universal sufferage and that the government stop referring
to their demonstrations as riots. "
Protesters could be seen hurling bricks at the Mong Kok province police station, while others vandalized walls, vehicles and lamp
posts .
Protesters could be seen hurling bricks at the Mong Kok province police station, while others vandalized walls, vehicles and lamp
posts .
A day after thousands of civil servants took to the streets in Central to urge authorities to give in to protesters' demands,
people gathered on Saturday for an approved rally in the shopping hub of Mong Kok, but which soon splintered off into different directions
, ending in clashes in Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui as police used tear gas.
Outside Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station, some had hurled bricks into its car park , while others vandalised vehicles and lamp posts.
The force said it had issued a warning for the crowd to leave before firing rounds of tear gas.
Earlier, protesters marched all the way to the Cross-Harbour Tunnel, briefly blocking it and bringing traffic to a halt, before
circling back to Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui. Along sections of the main thoroughfare Nathan Road, some set up barricades and geared
up with helmets and masks as night fell. -
SCMP
According to reports, thousands of civil servants have defied government orders not to join the protests - and were met with applause
from Hong Kong residents as they took to major roads in the heart of the city's business district.
The protestors were warned peaceful or not as these constant riots have been destroying businesses as people simply will not
shop under such conditions. The fact is there is no reason for the protests accept to remove the HK government and destroy the
economy as the extradition agreement has been removed. This has nothing to do with democracy or communism but of the US forcing
China to open up their markets just as Briton did with the Opium Wars in 1841. HK is in fact a Chinese territory and has been
all along even though the Brits forced them to sign over the place after the first Opium War. It is no accident we have protests
there, in Venezuela and now in Moscow all US and British backed.
The Chinese have more patience than me as I would have set in the military the first day of protests after the HK gov announced
the extradition treaty was gone. The fact is the Chinese did not have to ask for one in the first place as it is and always has
been theirs.
Do you think the British had ask for one when they took control of all their colonies years ago? How about the US with all
theirs territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.
Do you think the people of Hawaii had a choice when statehood was forced on them and the removal of the royal family there
all because of Dole Pineapple, US Sugar, etc. Bringing democracy to the world!
43,000 marchers -- 17,000 U.S. World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups -- who gathered in Washington, D.C.
in the summer of 1932 to demand cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Organizers called the demonstrators the
"Bonus Expeditionary Force". General McArthur ordered Patton to roll out tanks to machine gun down his own former soldiers on
Pennsylvania Ave.
If this is happening in the US, police has already opened fire at the protesters for sure. Because they will be labeled as
domestic terrorists and killed.
A time to reflect on history of ones own imperfections. Approximately 250,000 people participated in this 1963 civil rights
march in DC, where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I have a Dream" speech.
Between 500,000 and 600,000 people demonstrated against the Vietnam War in DC, which had led to thousands of deaths by 1969.
Coalitions started organizing smaller rallies in 1967, eventually leading up to the large anti-Vietnam march two years later.
The Solidarity Day march was a rally of about 260,000 people in DC in 1981. It was in response to President Ronald Reagan's
decision to fire 12,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike and demanded wage increases and safer working conditions.
In 1982, around a million protestors filled Central Park to protest nuclear weapons during Ronald Reagan's presidency.
This 1987 protest (also known as "the Great March") drew around 200,000 people, The New York Times reported at the time.
The march called for federal money for AIDS research and treatment, as well as an end to discrimination against LGBT people.
In 1995, Washington, DC's Million Man March took place with a stated aim to unite the Black community. Estimates for the number
of attendees vary from 400,000 to 1.1 million people.
Between 800,000 and a million people marched on the National Mall in 1993 for LGBT rights. The organizers' primary demands
were civil rights bills against discrimination, an increase in AIDS research funding, and reproductive rights.
In 1997, two years after the Million Man March, anywhere from 500,000 to 2 million people convened for the Million Woman March.
The event, which was held on a rainy Saturday in 1997, included prayer, musical performances, and speeches by local organizers
and civil rights activists.
As a protest to George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, between 10 to 15 million people marched in 600 cities across the
world in 2003. At least 500,000 people protested in American cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Seattle.
In 2004, the March for Women's Lives was one of the largest pro-choice protests in American history, with between 500,000 and
1.1 million attendees.
A day after Trump's inauguration, approximately half a million people protested in the Women's March in Washington DC, making
it one of the largest one-day protests in American history. Nationwide, an estimated 4.2 million came out for sister marches in
over 600 cities.
The effort also extended internationally with marches in over 60 countries on every continent -- including Antarctica.
"We must create a society in which women -- including Black women, Native women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women,
Muslim women, lesbian queer and trans women -- are free and able to care for and nurture their families, however they are formed,
in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments," its organizers wrote.
While I am aware of Eric Zuesse being somewhat controversial to some people, I do concur with
his assessment of the party that should be stripped of the 'Democratic' prefix. There is
nothing democratic in this organization and its members are either willful stooges, or the
most gullible people on earth - responsible for heinous crimes against humanity under the
cover of 'humanitarian aid'.
To even consider to allow this organization to continue in its deception of the American
electorate, shows the deepest infiltration of foreign influence, for whom this deception is
not only natural, but also compulsive. You may have guessed it, it's not the Russians.
However, an article by the Strategic Culture Organization, linked to on MOA yesterday
The 'Special Relationship' is collapsing , goes even further. It makes obvious the unholy
filth that has been plaguing humanity for a very long time. And while some may find it
questionable, it turns out that the Queen does appear to be the longest sitting Fascist in
the history of mankind.
Sometimes it is necessary to connect the dots beyond personal beliefs in regards to the
real conspiracy against working people all over the world.
"... The establishment's "Democracy Works!" propaganda seeks to stifle such Movements, directing attention to establishment candidates voice those concerns. But those candidates invariably prove to be ineffective because they can never get enough support to win and their efforts largely end with the election. ..."
Well you don't trust any of them, but you vote for the ones pushing policy you want to see happen, and you vote for the
ones that try to make that happen, and you abandon them immediately if they renege.
Obama's election and betrayal proved that this strategy doesn't work.
Tulsi is not anti-war', she's anti- dumb wars . Just as Colin Powell was ('Powell Doctrine' LOL). Just as
Obama was ("don't do stupid stuff"). Just as Trump is (amid howls of "isolationist!" LOL).
The fact is, every candidate will salute the flag as soon as the requisite false flag outrage occurs.
Furthermore, even if you ardently support Tulsi because she voices something that appears to be anti-war, you have to contend
with passionate supporters of other candidates: those who want a candidate of color, those who want an older
more experienced candidate, those who want a women candidate; those who want a socialist candidate, etc. In this way the electorate
is played against each other and in the end the establishment's favored candidate emerges naturally as the "democratic choice"
(with the help of establishment money and media support) .
Relying on voting for change is not enough . There has to be independent Movements for each fundamental change:
Democracy, Anti-war; Economic fairness. Like the Yellow Vest Movement.
The establishment's "Democracy Works!" propaganda seeks to stifle such Movements, directing attention to establishment candidates
voice those concerns. But those candidates invariably prove to be ineffective because they can never get enough support to win
and their efforts largely end with the election.
Trump had recently told reporters he was considering a naval blockade or full "quarantine"
of Venezuela as the latest effort to try to impose regime change, something the US announced
it had recognized month ago but which so far hasn't happened.
President
Maduro denounced the comments , and called on his ambassador to complain to the UN
Security Council about the "illegal" US threat to blockade the Venezuelan coastline. Maduro
added it was "clearly illegal."
Clearly illegal as a practical matter is likely to be very much beside the point for US
policy. Previous indications were that Trump had become bored with Venezuela because of the
lack of progress, and it's likely he'll only try to impose a regime change in this manner if
he believes it will work.
"... Since the beginning of the yellow vest protests end of november 2019 there have been made 11000 arrests,without proof,it's the police that decides.There are 2000 condemnations of people that never were known to be outside the law. The arrested people are kept in a small cell ,with up to twenty persons,without sanitary equipment, stinking piss, and maybe released after 24 hours. The Order of French Lawyers sais it has nothing to do with exercising justice, when after such a confinement you must chose to accept or refuse "comparution immediate", thus to accept being judged immediately, with a lawyer appointed, who has no time to study your file, or staying in detention for maybe months, to prepare your trial. ..."
"... There have been 4000 injuries,300 grave injuries, like head injuries, losing hands, comas, 26 people lost an eye. (While Macron and his ministers are concerned about the health of Navalny, they say bluntly that- those injuries are all fault of the protestors, who'd better stay home.) ..."
I would like to point to the following article ,for those who read French and are interested
in the policies of the Macron regime towards protests from french citizens.
It appeared on the
website Agoravox, which offers a forum for anyone wanting to write and publish. Of course there
are regular authors that publish on one specific subject, like Ukraine, or the Empire, but if
you want- to write about gardening, or climate change ,you can do it.
At the moment there is
even an article of some Iranian defending MEK, and an emirati author, gives always a
hallugenic view on middle-eastern events.
Anyways,this article provides a lot of information about the violence that is bestowed
upon the protesting citizen,by an unleashed police force,who becomes more and more violent
beacause of its uncountability.Whenever there is enquiry,it is police enquiring police.
Since the beginning of the yellow vest protests end of november 2019 there have been made
11000 arrests,without proof,it's the police that decides.There are 2000 condemnations of
people that never were known to be outside the law. The arrested people are kept in a small
cell ,with up to twenty persons,without sanitary equipment, stinking piss, and maybe released
after 24 hours. The Order of French Lawyers sais it has nothing to do with exercising
justice, when after such a confinement you must chose to accept or refuse "comparution
immediate", thus to accept being judged immediately, with a lawyer appointed, who has no time to
study your file, or staying in detention for maybe months, to prepare your trial.
There have been 4000 injuries,300 grave injuries, like head injuries, losing hands, comas, 26
people lost an eye. (While Macron and his ministers are concerned about the health of
Navalny, they say bluntly that- those injuries are all fault of the protestors, who'd better
stay home.)
Police make a lavish use of LBD granade lancers, a weapon of war class A2 according
to international standards. France is the only european country that uses them, and the Swiss
manufacturer needed a derogation to export them.
There have been 19000 shots of LBD and 4000
grenades fired.
The death of Zaynab Ridouane,in Marseille,a lady 82 years,on the second floor of her
appartment, who was closing the volets of her window when two shots were deliberately
fired. The enquiry said she died of heart failure.
The death of Steve Maya Caniço, which
is now focused upon in the media, was caused,on the day of la fête de la musique, when a
police charge drove 14 people assisting a techno concert at 4 A.M on the quai of the Loire
right into the river, after falling down seven meters.
The young man, who couldnt swim drowned
and his corpse was found last week. Police inquiry sais he was drowned but not in relation to
the police charge. Now the prefect of Nantes has prohibited a memory march for Steve. At the
same time white collar criminals like tax evading ministers are still walking
free. Officials, ministers and Macronist party representatives are lying all the time
now, rarely confounded in MSM.
The author's main point, I think he is right,is that Macron has to fulfill the
recommendations of the European Council, a.k.a. GOPE(Grand Orientations de la Politique
Economique) like his predecessors Sarkozy and Hollande, and that in view of the protests to
come he is doubling down on state violence to put fear in the citizens so that they will stay
home.
Of course the media in France, who put Macron in power, and 95% of which are owned by a
handful of billionaires and weapon industrials, are minimizing protestors in numbers and
legitimacy.,in the same time worrying about Russian and Chinese state violence towards
Putin-contestot no.1 Navalny and HongKong protesters.
The GOPE are actually the directives that would completely abolish all the post-war social
achievements of the french people.After the war de Gaulle and the communists put on a welfare
system pensions, and other social and equal laws.
Since the fall of the USSR they are
demolishing it, bit by bit. Now the GOPE for 2019 show this:diminishing of social spending,and
public spending.Gains in efficiency,etc.There is also the pension reform coming up.
Violence is the last resort of Macron and his fascist clique to get those thçngs
done, and with less than 15% population support you can reign the world in France.
Where will it all end? Suicide among police man have reached 45 cases this year up till
now, more than last year's total. This is not getting away by itself.
The young man,who couldnt swim drowned and his corpse was found last week.Police inquiry
sais he was drowned but not in relation to the police charge.Now the prefect of Nantes has
prohibited a memory march for Steve.
The situation in France needs a lot more exposure. It seems the prohibition was
unsuccessful, there is a big march ongoing (video)
Events in Hong Kong may be less about extradition laws and more about the upcoming election
in Taiwan, where the two main candidates are largely identified with either the mainland or
the USA. Using the HK protests to provoke a harsh reaction from the HK authorities and/or the
Chinese government itself, provides a ready platform for the pro-American candidate. In light
of this, the protests will likely continue indefinitely, including violent acts designed to
provoke over-reaction.
I think that 10 years from now the biggest impact from Trump will be from his cancellation
of the Iran nuclear accord and unilateral imposition of strict sanctions which the Europeans
were not able to bypass in any meaningful way due the prevalence of the US dollar in global
transactions.
There is now significant motivation in Europe and even China in creating a real
alternative to the US dollar for international transactions which bypasses US banks. If this
happens to any significant degree, it would undercut the US dollar as the world's reserve
currency, resulting in a permanent drop in its value.
Without international support, US Government deficits and trade deficits will become
unsustainable, and there will be a significant drop in the American median standard of
living.
Scott interviews Gareth Porter about John Bolton's most recent efforts to raise tensions
with Iran. He and Scott speculate about Iran's ability to disrupt international trade in the
region by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that they would do so given
the risks of inciting more serious conflict as a result.
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years.
He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military
banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This
will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump
won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, "Orlando Shooting Means Trump for President," @ The Unz Review (June 12, 2016).
Note how the 'free press' of the US has been not only complicit in all this every step of the way but is coordinated with it,
staying silent about things in front of its nose and launching propaganda campaigns on cue. Obviously the media is in close cooperation
with elements of the political establishment. Oh, but we have the freest media in the world. I know so because I read it in the
newspaper.
"INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS," President Donald Trump tweeted in April, days before the
Justice Department released the Mueller report to the public.
Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have argued throughout the years-long
investigation into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia that the entire probe began
based on shoddy intelligence and that federal law enforcement illegally spied on members of
the campaign.
But now that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe has concluded -- and Trump has a
particularly receptive attorney general running the Justice Department -- the push to
"investigate the investigators" has moved from rhetoric to reality.
There are several reviews of the Russia probe currently underway, both of which predate
Barr. They include one by the Justice Department's internal watchdog, whose findings are
expected in the coming weeks, and another inquiry overseen by Utah federal prosecutor John
Huber, which was prompted by Republican complaints about the Russia probe and the handling of
Hillary Clinton-related scandals.
Attorney General William Barr is also conducting his own inquiry. Barr tapped the US
attorney for Connecticut to help examine the origins of the Russia probe.
But media reports suggest the AG is closely invested in this process. And last week, the
president gave Barr's inquiry a substantial boost. At Barr's request, Trump signed a memo
ordering US intelligence agencies to cooperate with Barr and giving the AG sweeping powers to
declassify intelligence documents as part of his audit. ...
You mean the FISA warrant that happened a full 4 months prior to Steele Dossier even
existing? None of what you claim here makes sense unless you are trying to justify these (and
other) illegal acts by POTUS.
... Trump believes that everybody is a crook and views demands that he follow the law as
mere hypocrisy. Here he pivots immediately from his rage that he is being asked to comply
with basic ethical norms -- in this same interview Trump threatened to raise tariffs on
French wine, a move that would benefit Trump's own winery -- to insinuations that President
Obama probably committed financial crimes, too.
Trump's claim that Republicans never investigated Obama is especially bizarre. Congress
held eight separate investigations on Benghazi alone. The redundancy was deemed necessary
because conservatives simply refused to accept findings that no scandal had taken place.
Trump, reaching for evidence that Obama probably did something just as unethical as Trump
did, comes up with Obama's book. You can almost see the wheels turning in Trump's brain as he
tries to summon some damning piece of evidence about his predecessor. ...
None of this makes sense. The FISA warrant came after a Trump staffer drunkenly bragged about
getting info from Russia. This has already been investigated by the FBI. Hint: Hannity,
Levine, and Savage are propaganda mouthpieces. Stop listening to them.
"... And while some may be quick to dismiss her allegations, it was similar "interference" by the US state department that was observed in Ukraine just days before the fateful Maidan protests that brought down the president and thanks to Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland , set the world on its current path of cold war-era confrontation between the US and Russia, which in turn has virtually assured another global military conflict in the future. ..."
...China's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday claimed the recent protests in Hong Kong are "the work of the U.S.," adding that the United
States owes the world an explanation.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo "thinks that the recent violence in Hong Kong is reasonable because everyone knows that this
is the work of the U.S.," spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a regular press briefing, referring to when Pompeo said China should "do
the right thing" in dealing with protests in Hong Kong, in an interview with Bloomberg Television last week.
According to
Kyodo, as evidence Hua provided examples of recent U.S. "interference" in which, she claims U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, U.S.
National Security Adviser John Bolton and Pompeo met with opposition figures multiple times throughout the weeks-long protests over
a controversial extradition bill. And while some may be quick to dismiss her allegations, it was similar "interference" by the
US state department that was observed in Ukraine just days before the fateful Maidan protests that brought down the president and
thanks to
Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland , set the world on its current path of cold war-era confrontation between the US and Russia, which
in turn has virtually assured another global military conflict in the future.
"There have been many American faces in the violent parade in Hong Kong, and even some American flags," Hua said.
In urging the United States to "let go" of the Hong Kong issue, Hua warned, "Those who play with fire only get themselves burned."
China's remarks came just hours before the ministerial-level trade talks between the two nations in Shanghai collapsed without
even a glimmer of progress after just a few hours of discussions, with the future of trade negotiations in limbo.
"... Aggressive wars abroad pollute the domestic political discourse and breed hypernationalism, racism and xenophobia. The 18 or so years of war following the 9/11 attacks have seen this ostensible republic sink to new lows of behavior. ..."
"Empires in decline tend to behave badly. Indeed, whether British, French or Russian, the
twilight years of imperialism often brought brutal repression of subjects abroad, the
suppression of civil liberties at home and general varieties of brutality toward foreigners, be
they refugees or migrants.
Aggressive wars abroad pollute the domestic political discourse and breed
hypernationalism, racism and xenophobia. The 18 or so years of war following the 9/11 attacks
have seen this ostensible republic sink to new lows of behavior.
Aggressive wars of choice have ushered in rampant torture, atrocities in Iraq's Abu Ghraib
prison, indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, drone assassinations,
warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance of the citizenry...
It's all connected. The empire -- all empires -- eventually come home."
Maj. Danny Sjursen, An American Tragedy: Empire at Home and Abroad
Regional experts had immediately suspected the possibility of an Israeli air raid after a
pro-Iranian militia arms depot in Iraq was obliterated during
a mysterious attack
on July 19
, and another reported follow-up attack this past Sunday.
The attack happened around 80 km from the Iranian border and 40 km north-east of Baghdad at Camp
Ashraf, former home to the Iranian exile group Mojahedin-e Khalq, but now reportedly in the hands
of Iranian intelligence and paramilitaries.
Speculation was rampant in the days that followed as to the source of the 'mysterious' air
strikes - or what was also initially reported as a drone strike - however, some pointed the finger
at an American operation targeting Iranian militants inside Iraq.
But now Israeli and regional media, citing western diplomats, have confirmed it was
a
nearly unprecedented Israeli operation on Iraqi soil
--
representing a major
escalation and expansion of Israel's anti-Iran operations.
Israel reportedly launched a total of two separate air strike operations on the camp using its
US-supplied F-35 stealth fighter jets.
Israel has expanded the scope of its anti-Iranian attacks and struck targets in Iraq
,
the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported Tuesday.
According to the report, which cites anonymous Western diplomats,
Israel
struck Iranian warehouses storing arms and missiles at Camp Ashraf
, north-east of
Baghdad, twice in the past month.
On July 19, the base was struck by an Israeli F-35 fighter jet, the sources added. The base
was allegedly attacked again on Sunday.
The report alleges the primary target included
a shipment of Iranian ballistic missiles
which recently entered Iraq via the nearby Iranian border.
And though not confirmed, the report further claimed that "Iranian advisers" had been injured in
the series of airstrikes.
Israel has over the past couple of years conducted "hundreds" of attacks inside Syria, which
defense officials have claimed were primarily against Iranian and Hezbollah bases, but if this
month's air strikes on Camp Ashraf are confirmed Israeli assaults, it would constitute a major
widening in terms of the scope of Tel Aviv's "anti-Iran" targeting operations.
The news is also sure to enrage officials in Baghdad, who will mount protests defending Iraqi
sovereignty. Israel hasn't mounted a known significant attack on Iraqi soil since the days of
former dictator Saddam Hussein.
All or nothing diplomacy("my way or highway") is a politically correct term for imperial dictate
Notable quotes:
"... For the neocons infesting the Trump administration, that is a feature, not a bug. ..."
"... Agree but I think "my way or the highway" has been a fairly standard feature of American arrogance going back several decades. ..."
"... Bush senior and Clinton's state dept (Madeleine notsobright) were prime examples of "exceptionalism" and all that comes out of ray gun's NED. ..."
"... one realizes that what the Trump administration calls "strategists" are what regular folks call "morons". ..."
"... This is a very good assessment of a normal diplomatic give and take noticeably lacking here. The ironic part is that the greatest deal maker of all time can't make a deal because he considers every person on the other side of the table a mark. Trump actually believes to the core of his being that he can charm the world's pants off. Once they are naked, he can have his way with them. In fact, he considers them a fool for believing him in the first place. This formula has served him well and made him the most powerful man in the world. What worked for him here, won't work for him anymore on the world stage. While that says some terrible things about us, it is nice to know there are limits to this kind of behavior. The stakes are much higher and his opponents are smarter and more ruthless. ..."
"... I don't see him trying another strategy. This one has served him so well for so long, he's never going to change. When called into question, he always says, "We'll see." He thinks it's just a time factor. Eventually, they will come around. No one can long resist his charm offensive or so he thinks. ..."
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets with U.S. President Donald Trump during the Singapore summit June 12. NPR
reports on the current state of U.S.-North Korea "talks":
"The president still has faith" that Kim can be an effective negotiating partner, said one person closely familiar with U.S.
deliberations. The person asked not to be identified citing the sensitivity of the matter.
But elsewhere within the U.S. government, there is a widespread "loss of faith." The source said U.S. strategists are baffled
that the North Korean ruler has seemed unable to spur his country to keep what they see as his commitments.
The reported bafflement of "strategists" is a bit worrisome, because it suggests that these "strategists" haven't been paying
attention for the last 18 months. Kim didn't make the commitments they think he made, and so he isn't failing to "spur" anything.
As he and other North Korean government officials keep saying, they are waiting for the U.S. to change its approach from the maximalist
demands that the administration has been insisting on throughout this process. North Korea has been remarkably clear that they aren't
going to wait on the U.S. forever, and they have repeatedly mentioned that the end of this year was how long the administration had
to make the necessary change.
Meanwhile the Trump administration seems to have internalized its own propaganda about the extent of progress made with North
Korea, and that has created dangerous false expectations of what North Korea is supposed to do. North Korea knows it didn't commit
to doing anything yet, but the administration promotes the fiction that they have committed to disarm and need to "fulfill" those
commitments. The only way that there is going to be significant progress in talks with North Korea is if the administration recognizes
that its maximalism is a dead end and they abandon it. Unfortunately, because they have been lying to us and to themselves that they
are already making progress, they can't admit that they need to reduce their demands and offer North Korea something as an incentive
to make concessions. Trump's North Korea policy is stuck because the administration can't acknowledge that the one thing they insist
on getting–North Korean disarmament–is never happening.
One reason they can't acknowledge this is pride. After dragging Obama for his "terrible" deal with Iran, reneging on the JCPOA,
and claiming that any deal with North Korea would be even better than that one, Trump and his officials would have a hard time admitting
that they haven't even made a dent with their all-or-nothing, hard-line approach. Another reason is that hard-liners are hung up
on the belief that "maximum pressure" can force other states to do what they want, and so they assume it is only a matter of time
and sufficient pressure before North Korea caves. Changing their policy at this point would be an admission of failure they don't
want to make, and they refuse to admit failure as long they think that "maximum pressure" is going to deliver the goods. The reality
is that there has been significantly less pressure on North Korea over the last year, and even before that the pressure campaign
was not what made North Korea interested in talking. The Trump administration is waiting on something that will never occur, and
in the meantime they are frittering away their opportunity to reach a more modest arms control agreement. As usual, an all-or-nothing
approach to diplomacy leaves us with nothing.
This is a very good assessment of a normal diplomatic give and take noticeably lacking here. The ironic part is that the greatest
deal maker of all time can't make a deal because he considers every person on the other side of the table a mark. Trump actually
believes to the core of his being that he can charm the world's pants off. Once they are naked, he can have his way with them.
In fact, he considers them a fool for believing him in the first place. This formula has served him well and made him the most
powerful man in the world. What worked for him here, won't work for him anymore on the world stage. While that says some terrible
things about us, it is nice to know there are limits to this kind of behavior. The stakes are much higher and his opponents are
smarter and more ruthless.
I don't see him trying another strategy. This one has served him so well for so long, he's never going to change. When called
into question, he always says, "We'll see." He thinks it's just a time factor. Eventually, they will come around. No one can long
resist his charm offensive or so he thinks.
The New Quincy Institute Seeks Warmongering Monsters to Destroy Andrew Bacevich on his new left-right group, which is
going hammer and tongs against the establishment on foreign policy. By
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos •
July 30, 2019
Andrew J. Bacevich participates in a panel discussion at the U.S. Naval War College in 2016. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication
Specialist 1st Class Christian S. Eskelund/Released) For the last month, the foreign policy establishment has been abuzz over the
new kid on the block: the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , named
for John Quincy Adams. Adams, along with our first president George Washington,
warned of foreign entanglements and the urge to go
abroad in "search of monsters to destroy," lest America's fundamental policy "insensibly change from liberty to force
. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit ."
Those in the foreign policy Blob have had different reactions to the "upstart" think tank. These are the preeminent organizations
that stand imperious in size and square footage, but have lacked greatly in wisdom and clarity over the last 20 years. Quincy will
stand apart from them in two significant ways: it is drawing its intellectual and political firepower from both the anti-war Left
and the realist and restraint Right. And it is poised to support a new "responsible statecraft," one that challenges the conditions
of endless war, including persistent American militarism here and abroad, the military industrial complex, and a doctrine that worships
primacy and a liberal world order over peace and the sovereignty of other nations.
Quincy, which is rolling out its statement of principles this
week (its official launch will be in the fall), is the brainchild of Trita Parsi, former head of the National Iranian-American Council,
who saw an opening to bring together Left and Right academics, activists, and media disenchanted by both sides' pro-war proclivities.
Together with Vietnam veteran and former Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich (also a longtime TAC contributor), the
Carnegie Endowment's Suzanne DiMaggio, Columbia University's Stephen Wertheim, and investigative journalist Eli Clifton, the group
wants to serve as a counterweight to both liberal interventionists like the Brookings Institution and Council on Foreign Relations,
and the war hawks and neoconservatives of the Heritage Foundation and Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
They've already taken hits from both sides of the establishment, dismissed brusquely
as naive , or worse,
isolationist (that swipe from neoconservative Bill Kristol, whose now-defunct Weekly Standard once ran a manifesto headlined
"The Case for American Empire"
). The fact that Quincy will be funded by both George Soros on the Left and the Charles Koch Foundation on the Right has brought
some rebuke from unfriendlies and even some friendlies. The former hate on one or the other powerful billionaire, while the latter
are wary of Soros' intentions (he's has long been a financial supporter of
"soft-power"
democracy movements overseas, some of which have encouraged revolution and regime change).
Advertisement
But Quincy's timing couldn't be more perfect. With a president in the White House who has promised to draw down U.S. involvement
overseas (with the exception of his Iran policy, he has so far held to much of that pledge), and national conservatives coming around
to TAC's long-held worldview on realism and restraint (and an increasing willingness to reach across the aisle to work with
like-minded groups and individuals), Quincy appears poised to make some noise in Washington.
According to the group's new statement of principles , "responsible
statecraft" 1) serves the public interest, 2) engages the world, 3) builds a peaceful world, 4) abhors war, and 5) is democratic.
Andrew Bacevich and Trita Parsi expanded on this further in a recent Q&A with TAC.
(Full disclosure: the author is on Quincy's steering committee and TAC also receives funding from the Charles Koch Foundation.)
TAC : Quincy's principles -- and thus it's name -- are rooted in the mission of "responsible statecraft." Can you give
me a sense of what that means in practical terms, and why you settled on this phrasing for the institute?
AB: With the end of the Cold War, policy elites succumbed to an extraordinary bout of hubris, perhaps best expressed in the claim
that history had designated the United States as its "indispensable nation." Hubris bred recklessness and irresponsibility, with
the Iraq war of 2003 as Exhibit A. We see "responsible statecraft" as the necessary antidote. Its abiding qualities are realism,
restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement. While the QI is not anti-military, we are wary of war except when all other alternatives
have been exhausted. We are acutely conscious of war's tendency to produce unintended consequences and to exact unexpectedly high
costs.
TAC : Quincy is a trans-partisan effort that is bringing together Left and Right for common cause. Is it a challenge?
AB: It seems apparent to us that the myriad foreign policy failures and disappointments of the past couple of decades have induced
among both progressives and at least some conservatives a growing disenchantment with the trajectory of U.S. policy. Out of that
disenchantment comes the potential for a Left-Right coalition to challenge the status quo. The QI hopes to build on that potential.
TAC : Two of the principles take direct aim at the current foreign policy status quo: responsible statecraft abhors war,
and responsible statecraft is democratic (calling out a closed system in which Americans have had little input into the wars waged
in their names). How much of what Quincy aims to do involves upending conventional norms, particularly those bred and defended by
the Washington "Blob"?
AB: In a fundamental sense, the purpose of the QI is to educate the American people and their leaders regarding the Blob's shortcomings,
exposing the deficiencies of old ideas and proposing new ones to take their place.
TAC: That said, how much blowback do you anticipate from the Washington establishment, particularly those think tanks and
individuals whose careers and very existence depend on the wheels of militarism forever turning?
AB : Plenty. Proponents of the status quo are entrenched and well-funded. Breaking old habits -- for example, the practice of
scattering U.S. military bases around the world -- will not come easily.
TAC : There has been much ado about your two primary funders -- Charles Koch and George Soros. What do you say to critics
who suggest you will be tied to/limited by their agendas?
AB: Our funding sources are not confined to Koch and Soros and we will continue to broaden our support base. It's not for me to
speak for Koch or Soros. But my guess is they decided to support the QI because they support our principles. They too believe in
policies based on realism, restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement.
TAC : Better yet, how did you convince these two men to fund something together?
TP: It is important to recognize that they have collaborated in the past before, for instance on criminal justice reform. This
is, however, the first time they've come together to be founding funders of a new entity. I cannot speak for them, but I think they
both recognize that there currently is a conceptual deficit in our foreign policy. U.S. elite consensus on foreign policy has collapsed
and the void that has been created begs to be filled. But it has to be filled with new ideas, not just a repackaging of old ideas.
And those new ideas cannot simply follow the old political alignments. Transpartisan collaboration is necessary in order to create
a new consensus. Koch and Soros are showing tremendous leadership in that regard.
TAC : The last refuge of a scorned hawk is to call his critics "isolationist." It would seem as though your statement of
principles takes this on directly. How else does Quincy take this often-used invective into account?
AB : We will demonstrate through our own actions that the charge is false.
TAC : Critics (including James Traub,
in his own piece on Quincy
) say that Washington leaders, once in office, are "mugged by reality," suggesting that the idea of rolling back military interventions
and avoiding others sounds good on paper but presidents like Barack Obama had no choice, that this is all about protecting interests
and hard-nosed realism. The alternative is a bit naive. How do you respond?
AB: Choices are available if our leaders have the creativity to recognize them and the gumption to pursue them. Obama's patient
and resolute pursuit of the Iran nuclear deal affirms this possibility. The QI will expose the "we have no choice" argument as false.
We will identify and promote choice, thereby freeing U.S. policy from outmoded habits and stale routines.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is e xecutive editor at . Follow her on Twitter
@Vlahos_at_TAC
QI is a welcome change from the endless, whining tirade of the old hawks.
I wish them well in gaining influence in DC.
I hope that they can give voice to the growing numbers of us who do not support illegal invasions, funding dissidents to
foment regime change and our flawed system of selecting key allies (regardless of their human rights records) and protecting
them and their interests at all cost. This has been a drain our economic resources and moral standing.
In this time, when nationalism and disaster capitalism seem to be winning on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems there
is little hope for peace, decency and diplomacy.
QI has a huge challenge to take on the parasitic organism that is the war machine, but any initiative is better than none.
If Quincy is to have any chance of success in its mission, it will have to tackle the issues surrounding Federal election campaign
financing. The current rules give a handful of American billionaires effective control over US Middle East policy. What is
good for donors like Sheldon and Miriam Edelson is not necessarily good for the American public. Donald Trump was elected president
of the US not Prime Minister of Israel.
I did read one of Mr. Basevich's books a few years ago and my take away remains valid today: The US cannot afford to be
the policeman of the world.
Trump definitely contributes a lot to the collapse of classic neoliberalism. He rejected neoliberal globalization in favor of using
the USA dominant position for cutting favorable to the USA bilateral deals. That undermined the role of dollar of the world reserve
currency and several mechanisms emerged which allow completely bypass dollar system for trade.
Notable quotes:
"... US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic interdependence. ..."
"... A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. ..."
US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic
partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic
interdependence.
In response, China (and perhaps Europe) will fight to establish their own networks and secure control of their nodes. Again, multilateralism
could be the victim of this battle.
A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. It's not the world according
to Myrdal, Frank, and Perroux, and it's not Tom Friedman's flat world, either. It's the world according to Game of Thrones
.
It made me do a face palm. Somebody thought they had separated economics from geopolitics or power…or at least they wanted
people to believe that and the jig is up.
“One reason for this is that in an increasingly digitalised economy, where a growing part of services are provided at zero
marginal cost, value creation and value appropriation concentrate in the innovation centers and where intangible investments are
made. This leaves less and less for the production facilities where tangible goods are made.”
It depends on what you mean by value.
If value is dollars in someone’s Cayman Islands tax-free account, then value is concentrated in NYC and SF.
But if we follow Natural Law (Marx or Mohammed) and define value as labor, then this is exactly wrong. A Natural Law economy
tries to maximize paid and useful work, because people are made to be useful.
The digital world steadily eliminates useful work, and steadily crams down the wages for the little work that remains. Real
value is avalanching toward zero, while Cayman value is zooming to infinity.
He’s talking more about the whims of the stock market and of our intellectual property laws. For example the marginal cost
for Microsoft to issue another copy of “Windows” is zero. Even their revised iterations of the OS were largely a rehash of the
previous software. Selling this at high prices worked out well for a long time but now the software can practically be had for
free because competitors like Linux and Android are themselves free. So digital services with their low marginal cost depend on
a shaky government edifice (patent enforcement, lack of antitrust) to prop up their value. Making real stuff still requires real
labor and even many proposed robot jobs–driving cars, drone deliveries, automated factories and warehouses–are looking dubious.
Dean Baker has said that the actual investment in automation during the last decades has slowed–perhaps because expensive and
complicated robots may have trouble competing with clever if poorly paid humans. And poorly paid is the current reality due to
population increases and political trends and perhaps, yes, automation.
And even if the masters of the universe could eliminate labor they would then have nobody to buy their products. The super
yacht market is rather small.
>the distribution of gains from openness and participation in the global economy is increasingly skewed. …. True, protectionism
remains a dangerous lunacy.
Well “openness and participation” is looking like lunacy to the Deplorables for exactly the reason given, so what is actually
on offer here?
With useful physical labor being off-shored, first world citizens should all be made shareholders in the new scheme. We shall
all then become dividend collecting layabouts buying stuff made by people we do not know, see, or care about. If they object we
simply have the military mount a punitive expedition until they get whipped back into shape. Sort of like now but with a somewhat
larger, more inclusive shareholder base. It will be wonderful!
Are you sayin’ the lefty Social Wealth Fund concept is really just another way of replicating the same old bougie program of
domination and suppression?
I’m saying that it can be and historically, and that there are and have been multi-national systems of super exploitation of
peripheral, primarily resource exporting populations, relative to a more broadly distributed prosperity for “higher” skilled populations
of the center. This has been a common perspective within anti-imperialist movements.
The argument is not without merit. Is this a “contradiction among the people” where various sectors of a larger labor movement
can renegotiate terms, or is it some more intransigent, deeply antagonistic relationship is a crucial question. The exportation
of manufacturing to the periphery is disrupting the political status-quo as represented by the center’s centrism, political sentiments
are breaking away to the left and right and where they’ll land nobody knows.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
I was just reading this John Helmer below, like Pepe Escobar I’m not sure who’s buttering his bread but it’s all food for thought
and fresh cooked blinis are tastier than the Twinkies from the western msm, and this thought came to mind: Iran is the perfect
test ground for the US to determine Russian weapons and tactical capabilities in a major war context in 2019. That alone might
make it worth it to the Pentagon, why they seem so enthusiastic to take the empire of chaos to unforseen heights (depts?). Somewhat
like the Spanish Civil War was a testing ground for the weapons of WW2.
1. Because it has a lot of non US controlled Oil.
2. Because it is Central on the eastern end of the silk road.
3. Because it does not kiss the US Ring bearers hand at every opportunity, and the US is determined to make it an example not
to be followed.
But consider Saudi us relations… who is kissing who’s ring?
Or consider Israeli us relations… ditto.
We’re a thuggish whore whose favors are easily bought; bring dollars or votes. Or kiss the ring.
An environmental insight here. The world stands devastated. It has reached its carrying capacity for thoughtless humans. From
here on in we have to take the consequences of our actions into account. So when it is said, as above, that the dollar exchange
rate is more important than the other bilateral exchange rates, I think that is no longer the reality. There is only a small amount
of global economic synergy that operates without subsidy. The vast majority is subsidized. And the dollar is just one currency.
And, unfortunately, the United States does not control the sun and the wind (well we’ve got Trump), or the ice and snow. Let alone
the oceans. The big question going forward is, Can the US maintain its artificial economy? Based on what?
That is a factor that seems ignored by the philosophers who are the subjects of the headline posting. It is a great oversight,
a shoe which has been released and is now impacting the floor. “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men”
Looks like the world order established after WWIII crumbed with the USSR and now it is again the law if jungles with the US as the
biggest predator.
Notable quotes:
"... The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet. ..."
"... Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy ..."
"... A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism" (meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest. ..."
"... For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.) to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness. ..."
"... Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II. ..."
"... Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards. ..."
"... Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations' International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity." ..."
"... This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago, and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer. ..."
"... England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank." ..."
"... But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium. ..."
"... On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas, this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions attack on Europe ..."
"... The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above. In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945. ..."
"... By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands. ..."
"... It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either. ..."
"... But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3 billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid. ..."
"... It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. ..."
"... Anticipating just such a double-cross, President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe. ..."
"... It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence. ..."
"... Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs, but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and settle for being a dominant minority. ..."
"... Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change. ..."
"... Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms". Interesting times. ..."
"... Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. ..."
"... To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles. ..."
"... Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet again. Nothing to see here, actually. ..."
"... So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change. ..."
"... Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. ..."
"... I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. ..."
"... If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing. ..."
"... In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3. ..."
"... Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble." ..."
"... He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas. ..."
"... The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run. ..."
"... Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics" on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners. ..."
"... Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence. There will be fierce competition to fill the gap. ..."
"... On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top. I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect. ..."
"... Former US ambassador, Chas Freeman, gets to the nub of the problem. "The US preference for governance by elected and appointed officials, uncontaminated by experience in statecraft and diplomacy, or knowledge of geography, history and foreign affairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_882041135&feature=iv&src_vid=Ge1ozuXN7iI&v=gkf2MQdqz-o ..."
"... Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT. ..."
"... The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy. ..."
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons
who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America. Just as the Vietnam War drove the United States off gold
by 1971, its sponsorship and funding of violent regime change wars against Venezuela and Syria – and threatening other countries
with sanctions if they do not join this crusade – is now driving European and other nations to create their alternative financial
institutions.
This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would become
the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could have achieved
what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real estate grifter
has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub it in, he is using
Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It is almost like a black
political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there is no longer even a pretense
that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
– the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the "Heartland" nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago.
The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution
of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported
even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States
is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign
policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure,
dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank
to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence,
not democracy.
In the Devil's Dictionary that U.S. diplomats are taught to use as their "Elements of Style" guidelines for Doublethink, a "democratic"
country is one that follows U.S. leadership and opens its economy to U.S. investment, and IMF- and World Bank-sponsored privatization.
The Ukraine is deemed democratic, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries that act as U.S. financial and military protectorates
and are willing to treat America's enemies are theirs too.
A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public
relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism"
(meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest.
This trajectory could be seen 50 years ago (I described it in Super Imperialism [1972] and Global Fracture [1978].) It had to
happen. But nobody thought that the end would come in quite the way that is happening. History has turned into comedy, or at least
irony as its dialectical path unfolds.
For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that
opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties
that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.)
to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners
and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness.
The reality is that right-wing parties want to get elected, and a populist nationalism is today's road to election victory in
Europe and other countries just as it was for Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But it he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be – but
it would be a false mental leap to use "quo bono" to assume that he is a witting agent.
After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be any
more naďve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II.
Dismantling International Law and Its Courts
Any international system of control requires the rule of law. It may be a morally lawless exercise of ruthless power imposing
predatory exploitation, but it is still The Law. And it needs courts to apply it (backed by police power to enforce it and punish
violators).
Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country
have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy
years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which
let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards.
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their equity
share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy. Without such power, the United States would not join
any international organization. Yet at the same time, it depicted its nationalism as protecting globalization and internationalism.
It was all a euphemism for what really was unilateral U.S. decision-making.
Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international
court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations'
International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture
policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable
basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity."
[1]
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton erupted in fury, warning in September that: "The United States will use any
means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," adding that
the UN International Court must not be so bold as to investigate "Israel or other U.S. allies."
That prompted a senior judge, Christoph Flügge from Germany, to resign in protest. Indeed, Bolton told the court to keep out of
any affairs involving the United States, promising to ban the Court's "judges and prosecutors from entering the United States." As
Bolton spelled out the U.S. threat: "We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the
U.S. criminal system. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We
will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
What this meant, the German judge spelled out was that: "If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or
investigate an American citizen, [Bolton] said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no
longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted."
The original inspiration of the Court – to use the Nuremburg laws that were applied against German Nazis to bring similar prosecution
against any country or officials found guilty of committing war crimes – had already fallen into disuse with the failure to indict
the authors of the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra or the U.S. invasion of Iraq for war crimes.
Dismantling Dollar Hegemony from the IMF to SWIFT
Of all areas of global power politics today, international finance and foreign investment have become the key flashpoint. International
monetary reserves were supposed to be the most sacrosanct, and international debt enforcement closely associated.
Central banks have long held their gold and other monetary reserves in the United States and London. Back in 1945 this seemed
reasonable, because the New York Federal Reserve Bank (in whose basement foreign central bank gold was kept) was militarily safe,
and because the London Gold Pool was the vehicle by which the U.S. Treasury kept the dollar "as good as gold" at $35 an ounce. Foreign
reserves over and above gold were kept in the form of U.S. Treasury securities, to be bought and sold on the New York and London
foreign-exchange markets to stabilize exchange rates. Most foreign loans to governments were denominated in U.S. dollars, so Wall
Street banks were normally name as paying agents.
That was the case with Iran under the Shah, whom the United States had installed after sponsoring the 1953 coup against Mohammed
Mosaddegh when he sought to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil (now British Petroleum) or at least tax it. After the Shah was overthrown,
the Khomeini regime asked its paying agent, the Chase Manhattan bank, to use its deposits to pay its bondholders. At the direction
of the U.S. Government Chase refused to do so. U.S. courts then declared Iran to be in default, and froze all its assets in the United
States and anywhere else they were able.
This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago,
and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might
be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally
got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult
that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer.
But then came Venezuela. Desperate to spend its gold reserves to provide imports for its economy devastated by U.S. sanctions
– a crisis that U.S. diplomats blame on "socialism," not on U.S. political attempts to "make the economy scream" (as Nixon officials
said of Chile under Salvador Allende) – Venezuela directed the Bank of England to transfer some of its $11 billion in gold held in
its vaults and those of other central banks in December 2018. This was just like a bank depositor would expect a bank to pay a check
that the depositor had written.
England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster
his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign
reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank."
Turkey seemed to be a likely destination, prompting Bolton and Pompeo to warn it to desist from helping Venezuela, threatening
sanctions against it or any other country helping Venezuela cope with its economic crisis. As for the Bank of England and other European
countries, the Bloomberg report concluded: "Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank
of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them."
This led to rumors that Venezuela was selling 20 tons of gold via a Russian Boeing 777 – some $840 million. The money probably
would have ended up paying Russian and Chinese bondholders as well as buying food to relieve the local famine.
[4] Russia denied this report, but Reuters has confirmed is that Venezuela has sold 3 tons of a planned 29 tones of gold to the
United Arab Emirates, with another 15 tones are to be shipped on Friday, February 1.
[5] The U.S. Senate's Batista-Cuban hardliner Rubio accused this of being "theft," as if feeding the people to alleviate the
U.S.-sponsored crisis was a crime against U.S. diplomatic leverage.
If there is any country that U.S. diplomats hate more than a recalcitrant Latin American country, it is Iran. President Trump's
breaking of the 2015 nuclear agreements negotiated by European and Obama Administration diplomats has escalated to the point of threatening
Germany and other European countries with punitive sanctions if they do not also break the agreements they have signed. Coming on
top of U.S. opposition to German and other European importing of Russian gas, the U.S. threat finally prompted Europe to find a way
to defend itself.
Imperial threats are no longer military. No country (including Russia or China) can mount a military invasion of another major
country. Since the Vietnam Era, the only kind of war a democratically elected country can wage is atomic, or at least heavy bombing
such as the United States has inflicted on Iraq, Libya and Syria. But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the
connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium.
Russia and China have already moved to create a shadow bank-transfer system in case the United States unplugs them from SWIFT.
But now, European countries have come to realize that threats by Bolton and Pompeo may lead to heavy fines and asset grabs if they
seek to continue trading with Iran as called for in the treaties they have negotiated.
On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran
and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument
in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored
Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas,
this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions
attack on Europe.
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing and
able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United
States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is insisting that NATO
members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms – preferably bought from the United States, not from German or French merchants
of death.
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to
bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its inception
is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves. That is
why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food
blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands.
It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to
become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically
to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports
from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees
across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either.
Likewise, the IMF has been forced to admit that its basic guidelines were fictitious from the beginning. A central core has been
to enforce payment of official inter-government debt by withholding IMF credit from countries under default. This rule was instituted
at a time when most official inter-government debt was owed to the United States. But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3
billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country
deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption
to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid.
It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. Europe has taken
notice that its own international monetary trade and financial linkages are in danger of attracting U.S. anger. This became clear
last autumn at the funeral for George H. W. Bush, when the EU's diplomat found himself downgraded to the end of the list to be called
to his seat. He was told that the U.S. no longer considers the EU an entity in good standing. In December, "Mike Pompeo gave a speech
on Europe in Brussels -- his first, and eagerly awaited -- in which he extolled the virtues of nationalism, criticised multilateralism
and the EU, and said that "international bodies" which constrain national sovereignty "must be reformed or eliminated."
[5]
Most of the above events have made the news in just one day, January 31, 2019. The conjunction of U.S. moves on so many fronts,
against Venezuela, Iran and Europe (not to mention China and the trade threats and moves against Huawei also erupting today) looks
like this will be a year of global fracture.
It is not all President Trump's doing, of course. We see the Democratic Party showing the same colors. Instead of applauding democracy
when foreign countries do not elect a leader approved by U.S. diplomats (whether it is Allende or Maduro), they've let the mask fall
and shown themselves to be the leading New Cold War imperialists. It's now out in the open. They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era
Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're
our bastards."
Where is the left in all this? That is the question with which I opened this article. How remarkable it is that it is only right-wing
parties, Alternative for Deutschland (AFD), or Marine le Pen's French nationalists and those of other countries that are opposing
NATO militarization and seeking to revive trade and economic links with the rest of Eurasia.
The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed observer like
me. It took a colossal level of arrogance, short-sightedness and lawlessness to hasten its decline -- something that only crazed
Neocons like John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo could deliver for Donald Trump.
[2] Patricia Laya, Ethan Bronner and Tim Ross,
"Maduro Stymied in Bid to Pull $1.2 Billion of Gold From U.K.," Bloomberg, January 25, 2019. Anticipating just such a double-cross,
President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe.
Well, if the StormTrumpers can tear down all the levers and institutions of international US dollar strength, perhaps they
can also tear down all the institutions of Corporate Globalonial Forced Free Trade. That itself may BE our escape . . . if there
are enough millions of Americans who have turned their regionalocal zones of habitation into economically and politically armor-plated
Transition Towns, Power-Down Zones, etc. People and places like that may be able to crawl up out of the rubble and grow and defend
little zones of semi-subsistence survival-economics.
If enough millions of Americans have created enough such zones, they might be able to link up with eachother to offer hope
of a movement to make America in general a semi-autarchik, semi-secluded and isolated National Survival Economy . . . . much smaller
than today, perhaps likelier to survive the various coming ecosystemic crash-cramdowns, and no longer interested in leading or
dominating a world that we would no longer have the power to lead or dominate.
We could put an end to American Exceptionalism. We could lay this burden down. We could become American Okayness Ordinarians.
Make America an okay place for ordinary Americans to live in.
If Populists, I assume that's what you mean by "Storm Troopers", offer me M4A and revitalized local economies, and deliver
them, they have my support and more power to them.
That's why Trump was elected, his promises, not yet delivered, were closer to that then the Democrats' promises. If the Democrats
promised those things and delivered, then they would have my support.
If the Democrats run a candidate, who has a no track record of delivering such things, we stay home on election day. Trump
can have it, because it won't be any worse.
I don't give a damn about "social issues." Economics, health care and avoiding WWIII are what motivates my votes, and I think
more and more people are going to vote the same way.
Good point about Populist versus StormTrumper. ( And by the way, I said StormTRUMper, not StormTROOper). I wasn't thinking
of the Populists. I was thinking of the neo-etc. vandals and arsonists who want us to invade Venezuela, leave the JCPOA with Iran,
etc. Those are the people who will finally drive the other-country governments into creating their own parallel payment systems,
etc.
And the midpoint of those efforts will leave wreckage and rubble for us to crawl up out of. But we will have a chance to crawl
up out of it.
My reason for voting for Trump was mainly to stop the Evil Clinton from getting elected and to reduce the chance of near immediate
thermonuclear war with Russia and to save the Assad regime in Syria from Clintonian overthrow and replacement with an Islamic
Emirate of Jihadistan.
Much of what will be attempted " in Trump's name" will be de-regulationism of all kinds delivered by the sorts of basic Republicans
selected for the various agencies and departments by Pence and Moore and the Koch Brothers. I doubt the Populist Voters wanted
the Koch-Pence agenda. But that was a risky tradeoff in return for keeping Clinton out of office.
The only Dems who would seek what you want are Sanders or maybe Gabbard or just barely Warren. The others would all be Clinton
or Obama all over again.
I couldn't really find any details about the new INSTEX system – have you got any good links to brush up on? I know they made
an announcement yesterday but how long until the new payment system is operational?
arguably wouldn't it be better if for USD hegemony to be dismantled? A strong USD hurts US exports, subsidizes American consumption
(by making commodities cheaper in relative terms), makes international trade (aka a 8,000-mile+ supply chain) easier.
For the sake of the environment, you want less of all three. Though obviously I don't like the idea of expensive gasoline,
natural gas or tube socks either.
It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive
Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence.
Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs,
but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and
settle for being a dominant minority.
Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast
their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change.
What this change would consist of, and how it would manifest, remained an open question. Would he pursue rapprochement with
Russia and pull troops out of the Middle East as he claimed to want to do during his 2016 campaign, would he doggedly pursue corruption
charges against Clinton and attempt to reform the FBI and CIA, or would he do both, neither, or something else entirely?
Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international
order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment
desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms".
Interesting times.
Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery
going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. Whether or not he ever had or has a coherent plan for the havoc he has
wrought, he has certainly been the agent for change many of us hoped he would be, in stark contrast to the criminal duopoly parties
who continue to oppose him, where the daily no news is always bad news all the same. To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you
don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the
best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles.
Look on some bright sides. Here is just one bright side to look on. President Trump has delayed and denied the Clinton Plan
to topple Assad just long enough that Russia has been able to help Assad preserve legitimate government in most of Syria and defeat
the Clinton's-choice jihadis.
That is a positive good. Unless you are pro-jihadi.
Clinton wasn't going to "benefit the greater good" either, and a very strong argument, based on her past behavior, can be made
that she represented the greater threat. Given that the choice was between her and Trump, I think voters made the right decision.
Hudson's done us a service in pulling these threads together. I'd missed the threats against the ICC judges. One question:
is it possible for INSTEX-like arrangements to function secretly? What is to be gained by announcing them publicly and drawing
the expected attacks? Does that help sharpen conflicts, and to what end?
Maybe they're done in secret already – who knows? The point of doing it publicly is to make a foreign-policy impact, in this
case withdrawing power from the US. It's a Declaration of Independence.
It certainly seems as though the 90 percent (plus) are an afterthought in this journey to who knows where? Like George C.Scott
said while playing Patton, "The whole world at economic war and I'm not part of it. God will not let this happen." Looks like
we're on the Brexit track (without the vote). The elite argue with themselves and we just sit and watch. It appears to me that
the elite just do not have the ability to contemplate things beyond their own narrow self interest. We are all deplorables now.
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected
Is not supported by this (or really the rest of the article). The past tense here, for example, is unwarranted:
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their
equity share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy.
And this
So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. Germany agreed
to slow down the transfer.
Doesn't show Germany as breaking free at all, and worse it is followed by the pregnant
But then came Venezuela.
Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet
again. Nothing to see here, actually.
So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change.
"So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change."
I'm surprised more people aren't recognizing this. I read the article waiting in vain for some evidence of "the end of our
monetary imperialism" besides some 'grumbling and foot dragging' as you aptly put it. There was some glimmer of a buried lede
with INTEX, created to get around U.S. sanctions against Iran ─ hardly a 'dam-breaking'. Washington is on record as being annoyed.
Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD
as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. World bond market flows are 10X the size
of world stock market flows even though the price of the Dow and Facebook shares etc get all of the headlines.
And foreign exchange flows are 10-50X the flows of bond markets, they're currently on the order of $5 *trillion* per day. And
since forex is almost completely unregulated it's quite difficult to get the data and spot reserve currency trends. Oh, and buy
gold. It's the only currency that requires no counterparty and is no one's debt obligation.
That's not what Hudson claims in his swaggering final sentence:
"The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed
observer like me."
Which is risible as not only did he fail to show anything of the kind, his opening sentence stated a completely different reality:
"The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected" So if we hold him to his first
declaration, his evidence is feeble, as I mentioned. As a scholar, his hyperbole is untrustworthy.
No, gold is pretty enough lying on the bosom of a lady-friend but that's about its only usefulness in the real world.
Always bemusing that gold bugs never talk about gold being in a bubble . yet when it goes south of its purchase price speak
in tongues about ev'bal forces.
thanks Mr. Hudson. One has to wonder what has happened when the government (for decades) has been shown to be morally and otherwise
corrupt and self serving. It doesn't seem to bother anyone but the people, and precious few of them. Was it our financial and
legal bankruptcy that sent us over the cliff?
Indeed! It is to say the least encouraging to see Dr. Hudson return so forcefully to the theme of 'monetary imperialism'.
I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you
haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. You can
find any number of articles on his web site that return periodically to the theme of monetary imperialism. I remember one in particular
that described how the rest of the world was brought on board to help pay for its good old-fashioned military imperialism.
If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt
status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long
as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington
neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be"
to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing.
Until the US returns to the path of genuine wealth creation, it is past time for the rest of the world to go its own way with
its banking and financial institutions.
In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same
pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3.
UK withholding Gold may start another Brexit? IE: funds/gold held by BOE for other countries in Africa, Asian, South America,
and the "stans" with start to depart, slowly at first, perhaps for Switzerland?
Where is the left in all this? Pretty much the same place as Michael Hudson, I'd say. Where is the US Democratic Party in all
this? Quite a different question, and quite a different answer. So far as I can see, the Democrats for years have bombed, invaded
and plundered other countries 'for their own good'. Republicans do it 'for the good of America', by which the ignoramuses mean
the USA. If you're on the receiving end, it doesn't make much difference.
Agreed! South America intervention and regime change, Syria ( Trump is pulling out), Iraq, Middle East meddling, all predate
Trump. Bush, Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with any of this.
" So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. "
What proof is there that the gold is still there? Chances are it's notional. All Germany, Venezuela, or the others have is
an IOU – and gold cannot be printed. Incidentally, this whole discussion means that gold is still money and the gold standard
still exists.
What makes you think that the gold in Fort Knox is still there? If I remember right, there was a Potemkin visit back in the
70s to assure everyone that the gold was still there but not since then. Wait, I tell a lie. There was another visit about two
years ago but look who was involved in that visit-
And I should mention that it was in the 90s that between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were manufactured in the
US under Clinton. Since then gold-coated tungsten bars have turned up in places like Germany, China, Ethiopia, the UK, etc so
who is to say if those gold bars in Fort Knox are gold all the way through either. More on this at --
http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html
It wasn't last year that Germany brought back its Gold. It has been ongoing since 2013, after some political and popular pressure
build up. They finished the transaction in 2017. According to an article in Handelblatt (but it was widely reported back then)
they brought back pretty much everything they had in Paris (347t), left what they had in London (perhaps they should have done
it in reverse) and took home another 300t from the NY Fed. That still leaves 1236t in NY. But half of their Gold (1710t) is now
in Frankfurt. That is 50% of the Bundesbanks holdings.
They made a point in saying that every bar was checked and weighed and presented some bars in Frankfurt. I guess they didn't
melt them for assaying, but I'd expect them to be smart enough to check the density.
Their reason to keep Gold in NY and London is to quickly buy USD in case of a crisis. That's pretty much a cold war plan, but
that's what they do right now.
Regarding Michal Hudsons piece, I enjoyed reading through this one. He tends to write ridiculously long articles and in the
last few years with less time and motivation at hand I've skipped most of his texts on NC as they just drag on.
When I'm truly fascinated I like well written, long articles but somehow he lost me at some point. But I noticed that some
long original articles in US magazines, probably research for a long time by the journalist, can just drag on for ever as well
I just tune out.
This is making sense. I would guess that tearing up the old system is totally deliberate. It wasn't working so well for us
because we had to practice too much social austerity, which we have tried to impose on the EU as well, just to stabilize "king
dollar" – otherwise spread so thin it was a pending catastrophe.
Now we can get out from under being the reserve currency – the currency that maintains its value by financial manipulation
and military bullying domestic deprivation. To replace this old power trip we are now going to mainline oil. The dollar will become
a true petro dollar because we are going to commandeer every oil resource not already nailed down.
When we partnered with SA in Aramco and the then petro dollar the dollar was only backed by our military. If we start monopolizing
oil, the actual commodity, the dollar will be an apex competitor currency without all the foreign military obligations which will
allow greater competitive advantages.
No? I'm looking at PdVSA, PEMEX and the new "Energy Hub for the Eastern Mediterranean" and other places not yet made public.
It looks like a power play to me, not a hapless goofball president at all.
So sand people with sociological attachment to the OT is a compelling argument based on antiquarian preferences with authoritarian
patriarchal tendencies for their non renewable resource . after I might add it was deemed a strategic concern after WWII .
Considering the broader geopolitical realities I would drain all the gold reserves to zero if it was on offer . here natives
have some shiny beads for allowing us to resource extract we call this a good trade you maximize your utility as I do mine .
Hay its like not having to run C-corp compounds with western 60s – 70s esthetics and letting the locals play serf, blow back
pay back, and now the installed local chiefs can own the risk and refocus the attention away from the real antagonists.
Indeed. Thanks so much for this. Maybe the RICS will get serious now – can no longer include Brazil with Bolsonaro. There needs
to be an alternate system or systems in place, and to see US Imperialism so so blatantly and bluntly by Trump admin –
"US
gives Juan Guaido control over some Venezuelan assets" – should sound sirens on every continent and especially in the developing
world. I too hope there will be fracture to the point of breakage. Countries of the world outside the US/EU/UK/Canada/Australia
confraternity must now unite to provide a permanent framework outside the control of imperial interests. The be clear, this must
not default to alternative forms of imperialism germinating by the likes of China.
" such criticism can't begin to take in the full scope of the damage the Trump White House is inflicting on the system of global
power Washington built and carefully maintained over those 70 years. Indeed, American leaders have been on top of the world for
so long that they no longer remember how they got there.
Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it
now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's
inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of
a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble."
I read something like this and I am like, some of these statements need to be qualified. Like: "Driving China and Russia together".
Like where's the proof? Is Xi playing telephone games more often now with Putin? I look at those two and all I see are two egocentric
people who might sometimes say the right things but in general do not like the share the spotlight. Let's say they get together
to face America and for some reason the later gets "defeated", it's not as if they'll kumbaya together into the night.
This website often points out the difficulties in implementing new banking IT initiatives. Ok, so Europe has a new "payment
system". Has it been tested thoroughly? I would expect a couple of weeks or even months of chaos if it's not been tested, and
if it's thorough that probably just means that it's in use right i.e. all the kinks have been worked out. In that case the transition
is already happening anyway. But then the next crisis arrives and then everyone would need their dollar swap lines again which
probably needs to cleared through SWIFT or something.
Anyway, does this all mean that one day we'll wake up and a slice of bacon is 50 bucks as opposed to the usual 1 dollar?
Driving Russia and China together is correct. I recall them signing a variety of economic and military agreement a few years
ago. It was covered in the media. You should at least google an issue before making silly comments. You might start with the report
of Russia and China signing 30 cooperation agreements three years ago. See
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/06/27/russia-china-sign-30-cooperation-agreements_606505
. There are lots and lots of others.
He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and
WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas.
The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical
foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed
the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run.
Whilst the far right factions fight over the rudder the only new game in town is AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al which Trumps supporters
hate with Ideological purity.
Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On
US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics"
on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners.
On a household level it fits, but there no "loser" household that in infinity can print money that the "winners" can accumulate
in exchange for their resources and fruits of labor.
One wonder what are Trumps idea of US being a winner in trade (surplus)? I.e. sending away their resources and fruits of labor
overseas in exchange for what? A pile of USD? That US in the first place created out of thin air. Or Chinese Yuan, Euros, Turkish
liras? Also fiat-money. Or does he think US trade surplus should be paid in gold?
When the US political and economic hegemony will unravel it will come "unexpected". Trump for sure are undermining it with
his megalomaniac ignorance. But not sure it's imminent.
Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash
will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence.
There will be fierce competition to fill the gap.
On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and
austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top.
I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect.
Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the
rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT.
The trade deficit required a large Government deficit to cover it and the US government could just create the money to cover
it.
Then ideological neoliberals came in wanting balanced budgets and not realising the Government deficit covered the trade deficit.
The US has been destabilising its own economy by reducing the Government deficit. Bill Clinton didn't realize a Government surplus is an indicator a financial crisis is about to hit. The last US Government surplus occurred in 1927 – 1930, they go hand-in-hand with financial crises.
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it's the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy.
It should be remembered Bill Clinton's early meeting with Rubin, where in he was informed that wages and productivity had diverged –
Rubin did not blink an eye.
"... "After watching seven hours of a spectacle that felt much more cruel than enlightening, I cannot avoid pondering a question which honestly gives me no joy to ponder: just how much damage has MSNBC in particular done to the left?" The Hill's Rising star began, before excoriating her former employer's "fevered speculations" about an "Infowars conspiracy theory" and the way it hosted people like Jonathan "maybe Trump has been a Russian asset since the 1980s" Chait and "conspiracy gadfly Louise Mensch" in search of ratings bumps. ..."
"... "This whole setup has done more damage to the Democrats' chances of winning back the White House than anything that Trump could ever have dreamed up," Ball argued. "Think about all the time and the journalistic resources that could have been dedicated to stories that, I don't know, that a broad swath of people might actually care about? Healthcare, wages, the teachers' movement, whether we're going to war with Iran? I'm just spitballing here. ..."
"... Ball argued that the fact that MSNBC is doing so much damage to the Democratic Party in the name of ratings proves that MSNBC isn't "on Team D in the same way that Fox News is on Team R", saying they're really just in it for the money. But this is where Ball gets it wrong. It is of course true that ratings are a factor, and that conspiracy theories can be used to sell advertising space, but MSNBC would have had a much easier time marketing conspiracy theories about Trump's loyalties to Israel and Saudi Arabia , both of which would have had vastly more factual evidence to back them up. The only difference is that the US-centralized empire doesn't have agendas that it wants to advance against those two countries. ..."
"... Ball is correct that MSNBC doesn't serve the Democratic party, but she's incorrect that it serves only money. MSNBC, which is now arguably a more aggressive war propaganda network than Fox News, serves first and foremost the US national security state. And so do all the other western mainstream news networks. ..."
"... From the Pentagon's point of view, US hegemony good, Russia-China alliance very, very bad. ..."
"... I t was determined with the help of influential neoconservative think tankers that the US must maintain this unipolar paradigm at all costs. As soon as that view became the establishment orthodoxy , any threat to US hegemony was now interpreted as a threat to national security. An "attack" on America was no longer limited to physical attacks on US soil, or even on US allies and assets: any attempt to escape unipolarity is now treated as a direct attack on the empire. ..."
"... This is why we've seen nations like Iraq, Libya and Syria spoken about by the propagandists as "enemies" as though they pose some kind of direct threat to the American people. There was never any actual threat to the physical United States, but those nations were not complying with the dictates of US hegemony, and that noncompliance was treated as a direct attack. ..."
"... This "if you're not obeying us you're attacking us" mentality is ridiculous on its face and no right-thinking citizen would ever consent to it, which is why the consent manufacturers need to promote imaginary nonsense like weapons of mass destruction, a Russian "attack" on American democracy, and a conspiracy theory about the Kremlin infiltrating the highest levels of the US government. It's got nothing to do with actual fears of those nations posing any threat to actual Americans. It's about continuing to rule the world. ..."
"After watching seven hours of a spectacle that felt much more cruel than enlightening, I cannot avoid pondering a question which
honestly gives me no joy to ponder: just how much damage has MSNBC in particular done to the left?" The Hill's Rising star began,
before excoriating her former employer's "fevered speculations" about an "Infowars conspiracy theory" and the way it hosted people
like Jonathan "maybe Trump has been a Russian asset since the 1980s" Chait and "conspiracy gadfly Louise Mensch" in search of ratings
bumps.
"This whole setup has done more damage to the Democrats' chances of winning back the White House than anything that Trump could
ever have dreamed up," Ball argued. "Think about all the time and the journalistic resources that could have been dedicated to stories
that, I don't know, that a broad swath of people might actually care about? Healthcare, wages, the teachers' movement, whether we're
going to war with Iran? I'm just spitballing here.
I actually heard some pundit on Chris Hayes last night opine that independent women in middle America were going to be swayed
by what Mueller said yesterday. Are you kidding me? This is almost as bonkers and lacking in factual basis as that time Mimi Rocah
said that Bernie Sanders is not pro-women because that was what her feelings told her. Rocah, by the way, a political prosecutor
with no political background, is only opining at MSNBC because of her role in leading viewers to believe that any day now SDNY is
going to bring down Trump and his entire family."
Ball argued that the fact that MSNBC is doing so much damage to the
Democratic Party in the name of ratings proves that MSNBC isn't "on Team D in the same way that Fox News is on Team R", saying they're
really just in it for the money. But this is where Ball gets it wrong. It is of course true that ratings are a factor, and that conspiracy
theories can be used to sell advertising space, but MSNBC would have had a much easier time marketing conspiracy theories about Trump's
loyalties to
Israel and
Saudi Arabia , both of which would have had
vastly more factual evidence to back them up. The only difference is that the US-centralized empire doesn't have agendas that
it wants to advance against those two countries.
Ball is correct that MSNBC doesn't serve the Democratic party, but she's incorrect that it serves only money. MSNBC, which is
now arguably a more aggressive war propaganda network than Fox News, serves first and foremost the US national security state.
And so do all the other western mainstream news networks.
Consider the way the Syrian province of Idlib is being reported on right now, to pick one of many possible examples.
Al-Qaeda-controlled
Idlib is the final stronghold of the extremist militant groups that
the US and
its allies flooded Syria with in a
premeditated campaign to effect regime change, and Syria and its allies are fighting to recapture the region. They are using
methods that are identical to those commonly used by the US and its allies, yet the bombing campaigns of the US-centralized empire
receive virtually no critical coverage while western mainstream outlets like
CNN and
the BBC
are churning out brazenly propagandistic pieces about the evils of the Assad coalition's airstrikes.
"Civilians are dying in Idlib, just as they died in their thousands in recent US UK air strikes in eg Raqqa and Mosul," political
analyst Charles Shoebridge
observed on Twitter today. "The difference is that when it's (often unverified) claims that Russia or Syria are doing the killing,
US UK media make it front page news."
There are many gaping plot holes in the Russiagate narrative that outlets like MSNBC have been bashing everyone over the head
with, but the most obvious and easily provable of them is the indisputable fact that Donald Trump
has escalated tensions against Russia more than any US president in decades. You never hear anyone talk about this self-evident
fact in all the endless yammering about Russia, though, because it doesn't advance the agendas of either of America's two mainstream
parties, and it doesn't advance the interests of US imperialism. Democrats don't like acknowledging the fact that Trump has been
consistently and aggressively working directly against the interests of Moscow , and Trump supporters don't like acknowledging
that their president is just as much of a neocon-coddling globalist as those they claim to oppose, so the war machine has gone conveniently
unchallenged in manufacturing new cold war escalations against a nation they've had marked for destruction since the fall of the
Soviet Union.
In a very interesting new Grayzone
interview packed full of ideas that you'll never hear voiced on western mass media, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov
spoke openly about the various ways that Russia, China, and other nations who've resisted absorption into the blob of the US power
alliance have been working toward the creation of a multipolar world. Ryabkov said other nations have been watching the way the dominance
of the US dollar has been used to economically terrorize noncompliant nations into subservience by way of sanctions and other manipulations,
with Washington expecting that the dollar and the US financial system will remain "the cardiovascular system of the whole organism."
"That will not be the case," Ryabkov said. "People will bypass, in literal terms. And people will find ways how to defend themselves,
how to protect themselves, how to guarantee themselves against any emergencies if someone comes up at the White House or whatever,
at the Treasury, at the State, and says 'Hey guys, now we should stop what is going on in Country X, and let's squeeze them out.'
And this country sits on the dollar. So they will be done the moment those ideas will be pronounced. So China, Russia and others,
we create alternatives that we will most probably continue using not just national currencies, but baskets of currencies, currencies
of third countries, other modern barter schemes."
"We will use ways that will diminish the role of dollar and US banking system with all these risks of assets and transactions
being arrested, being stopped," Ryabkov concluded.
That, right there, is the real reason you're being sold Russia hysteria today.
And it isn't just on the matter of financial systems in which the unabsorbed powers are uniting against the imperial blob. Russia
and China
just carried out their first joint air patrol on Tuesday, drawing a hostile response from imperial vassals Japan and South Korea.
"Russian and Chinese bombers on 'first' joint patrol in the Asia-Pacific region. The China-Russia alliance has become a reality
and will last for long time,"
reads a post by one Russian Twitter commentator in response to the news.
The emergence of this alliance, which the Chinese government
has warned Washington is 'not vulnerable to interference', has been something the west has feared for a long time. A
Pentagon white paper published this past May titled "Russian Strategic Intentions" mentions the word "China" 108 times. Some
noteworthy excerpts:
The world system, and American influence in it, would be completely upended if Moscow and Beijing aligned more closely.
The allies' goal should be deterrence. At the same time, the US should bilaterally engage Russia to peel them away from China's
orbit.
He also encourages the development of the US's 'capability to effectively foster distrust and unease between the Russia Federation
and China.'
Along with Beijing, Moscow seeks a multipolar world in which US hegemony comes to an end. As Alexander Lukin recently pointed
out, the 'common ideal of a multipolar world [has] played a significant role in the rapprochement between Russia and China.'
Russia and China were explicitly mentioned in the 2018 National Defense Strategy as the great powers with which the US is
in competition. Both Russia and China have come a long way since the 1990s, and the 'friendship' that emerged in the immediate
post-Tiananmen period and continued to grow over the years now today appears to be one of the strongest bilateral alliances on
the planet.
Together, Russia's tentacles on its former Soviet neighbors and Moscow's strategic alliance with Beijing in pursuit of a multipolar
world (in which the US is no longer the global hegemon) form the two main pillars upon which Putin's grand strategy rests. All
other aspects of its foreign policy behavior can be traced back to this dual-pronged grand strategy.
I think you get the picture. From the Pentagon's point of view, US hegemony good, Russia-China alliance very, very bad.
Analysts like the white paper's authors, and even
The New York Times editorial board
, have urged the drivers of US foreign policy to attempt to lure Moscow away from Beijing, the latter rightly perceived as the greater
long-term threat to US dominance due to China's surging economic power. But diplomacy has clearly been ruled out toward this end,
with only a steadily escalating campaign to shove Russia off the world stage now deemed acceptable.
It
was determined with the help of
influential
neoconservative
think tankers that the US must maintain this unipolar paradigm at all costs. As soon as that view
became the establishment orthodoxy , any threat to US hegemony was now interpreted as a threat to national security. An "attack"
on America was no longer limited to physical attacks on US soil, or even on US allies and assets: any attempt to escape unipolarity
is now treated as a direct attack on the empire.
This is why we've seen nations like Iraq, Libya and Syria spoken about by the propagandists as "enemies" as though they pose
some kind of direct threat to the American people. There was never any actual threat to the physical United States, but those nations
were not complying with the dictates of US hegemony, and that noncompliance was treated as a direct attack.
This "if you're not obeying us you're attacking us" mentality is ridiculous on its face and no right-thinking citizen would
ever consent to it, which is why the consent manufacturers need to promote imaginary nonsense like weapons of mass destruction, a
Russian "attack" on American democracy, and a conspiracy theory about the Kremlin infiltrating the highest levels of the US government.
It's got nothing to do with actual fears of those nations posing any threat to actual Americans. It's about continuing to rule the
world.
"... I don't doubt that Hong Kong residents have legitimate gripes, but like a tapeworm attaching itself to the host, almost any domestic unrest in any US "adversary" is usually tapped into by the US for its own purposes. ..."
"... The real issue here is the idea that Western nations have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, anywhere in the world, whenever it suits them to further the agenda of the Imperialism. ..."
"... It's also funny that China.gov has decided that the protesters shouldn't be treated too harshly because its not their fault that they're childish and impatient. ..."
"... I find it interesting how "pro-democracy activists" in Hong Kong, Venezuela, Nicaragua et al uniformly resort to vandalism and arson as a preferred tactic, with the encouragement of western politicians who warn the target nations to restrain the police. ..."
"... In Hong Kong, the protesters are conducting direct attacks on government institutions - legislature, police HQ, PRC offices - which pretty much anywhere else would be met by overt force to quell insurrectionary violence. The "pro-democracy activists" in the above mentioned countries in fact show little interest in democratic process. ..."
"... China no longer needs HK the money center has moved to the Main Land. China can seat back and watch HK melt down, ..."
"... Once again, pay close attention to who is carrying water for the western empire by regurgitation corporate media narratives about the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong. Do always suspect these individuals' posts now that they reveal themselves as tools of the empire. ..."
"... How can you tell when protests are genuine and "organic" ? The corporate mass media ignores them, downplays them, and when it cannot ignore them refers to them in disparaging and ridiculing terms. ..."
"... The National Endowment for Democracy spends millions of dollars to subvert sovereign governments. You will notice that no "color revolutions" in Colombia, Honduras, or Chile. ..."
"... Hudson's main thesis is that the Petro-Dollar is instrumental in the continued operation of the Empire, and there will be no movement away from that as it would undercut dollar hegemony through the weakening of the oil market which the US has control. Therefore any movement to curb the climate catastrophe will not gain support by the US. It is a contradiction of existence. ..."
"... Currently there are numerous articles on protests in Russia (five on the portal's main page, all of which are critical of the Russian government and supportive of the relatively tiny protests). Likewise there are numerous article supportive of the protesters in Hong Kong. Again, five on Google News' main page supporting the protesters but none voicing any criticism of them. ..."
"... Meanwhile the gilets jaunes protests remain backpage news with no coverage on the main page of either the news aggregation portals or on the major news sites landing pages. Ongoing protests in Haiti, though, are not even getting backpage coverage in the western corporate mass media. ..."
"... There are certainly newsworthy events in the world, but coverage of them by the corporate mass media is 100% propaganda. They are all capitalist enterprises with pervasive interest in defending capitalism and the empire that capitalism has built. This concept isn't complicated. ..."
"... This is all money that could be spent repairing and improving our flagging infrastructure, preparing our electrical grids for possible cyber or EMP attacks (solar panels/inverters/batteries in large population centers), and addressing the student debt crisis that is only getting worse. But we all know that big business and Wall Street/The City of London control every aspect of the U.S. government and every action taken by said government is in service to their short and long term goals. ..."
"... Jacques actually criticizes Beijing for being too lenient towards Hong Kong. With its "One Nation, Two Systems" policy - which it has adhered to scrupulously - China has also allowed Hong Kong to wallow in its own lack of any spirited imperative. In consequence, many in HK look with envy across the water to Shenzhen, and wonder where their own rise to glory will come from. The structure that Jacques describes is not going to produce it. ..."
"... Wait. I thought it was one issue. The extradition issue? I wonder if Syrians had legitimate issues too? Oh my! ..."
"... I don't want my government starting revolutions that lead to wars for regime change I'm not free to stop. The ZioAnglo imperialists corrupt everything they touch. ..."
"... cash payments were offered to students to protest. This is confirmed by Jeff J Brown's article for The Greanville Post in which he mentions people were paid higher amounts "for tearing the place up". ..."
"... Interesting too in the same article is that Brian Kern has been noted as an apparent CIA operative stirring up protesters. ..."
"... In September the new university year starts. ..."
Guys, i think i found the reason behind the trade wars and crack down on globalisation by the US. They think that they will
save themselves, to a certain degree, that way.
There are long term GDP Growth and Socioeconomic Scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
OECD, and the world scientific community. They are generally used to measure the impact of Climate change on the World. In order
to measure it, Socioeconomic Scenarios were developed, as the level of economic growth in the world is very important for determining
the impact of Climate Change in the future. High growth levels will obviously affect Climate change, so these estimates are important.
For more on this you can check these studies here, some of the many dealing with this topic.
There are 5 main scenarios. All of them describe different worlds.
SSP 1 - Green World, economic cooperation, reduced inequality, good education systems. High level of economic growth, fast
catch up of the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
SSP 2 - More of the same/ Muddling through - continuation of the current trends. Relatively high level of economic growth,
relatively fast catch up of the developing world with the developed world. Good level of multipolarity.
SSP 3 - Regional Rivalry - nationalisms, trade wars, lack of global cooperation, fragmentation of the word, environmental
degradation. Low levels of economic growth everywhere, the developing world remains poor and undeveloped. Low level of multipolarity,
West retains many positions.
SSP 4 Inequality - depicts a world where high-income countries use technological advances to stimulate economic growth;
leading to a high capacity to mitigate. In contrast, developments in low income countries are hampered by very low education
levels and international barriers to trade. Growth is medium, the catch up process between the developing world and the developed
world is not fast. Medium level of multipolarity.
SSP 5 Economic growth and fossil fuels take priority over green world - High levels of economic growth, fast catch up of
the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
See SSP 3. A world of rivalry, trade wars, trade barriers, lack of global cooperation, and fragmentation, will lead to lower
level of growth in the developing world, and thus a slow catch up process. Multipolarity in such a world is weak as the developing
world is hampered.
In other words, a world of cooperation between countries will lead to higher economic growth in the developing world, faster
catch up process, and thus stronger multipolarity. Basically, globalisation is key. The developing world (ex West) was growing
slowly before globalisation (before 1990). Globalisation means sharing of technology and knowledge, and companies investing in
poorer countries. Outsourcing of western manufacturing. Etc. After globalisation started in 1990, the developing world is growing
very well. It is globalisation that is weakening the West and empowering the developing world. So the US needs to kill it.
So what do we see: exactly attemts to create the SSP 3 scenario. Trade wars, sanctions, attacks on multilateral institutions
- the WTO, on international law, on the Paris Agreement for Climate Change (which if accepted would put constraints on the US
economy), on the UN, bullying of Europe, support for Brexit (which weakens Europe), crack down on chinese students and scientists
in the US, crack down on chinese access to western science data, demands to remove the perks for poor countries in the WTO, etc.
This is hitting economic growth in the whole world and the global economy currently is not well. By destroying the world economy,
the US benefits as it hampers the rise of the developing nations.
You can see this process described in this article:
Trump's Brilliant Strategy to Dismember U.S. Dollar Hegemony
But the author is wrong. Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony. Trump does that in order to
save it, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence community. They want to destroy globalisation
and create fortress US, in order to save as much as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit
the US.
The Outlaw US Empire's desperate. It was recently announced that Russia/China trade is now conducted mostly in Yuan/Rubble with
dollar transactions at 45% and dropping fast.
Plus, the volume of Russia/China trade is rapidly increasing and has already surpassed
2018's volume. The major Power of Siberia gas pipeline to China with an export capacity of 38 billion cubic meters compared with
the initial Nordstream project's 55 billion cubic meters will vastly increase the non-dollar trade value.
Additionally, China seeks ever more ag products from a Russia that's rapidly expanding that export potential thereby taking
away one of the Empire's few export earners. Rather soon, all Russia/China trade will be outside of the dollar system while its
volume rapidly expands. IMO, Hong Kong represents an Outlaw US Empire temper tantrum that only serves to further delegitimize
its standing with China and the ASEAN region. Rather starkly, the Outlaw US Empire is beginning to realize China doesn't need
it whatsoever, nor does most of Eurasia. Ouch!
Hmm are you trying to say that HK is unlike the Ukraine and the issuing mess that was created by the U.S. government agencies,
if you are your sadly misinformed.!!!
I don't doubt that Hong Kong residents have legitimate gripes, but like a tapeworm attaching itself to the host, almost
any domestic unrest in any US "adversary" is usually tapped into by the US for its own purposes.
Thank you b. I had a strong suspicion that the west - particularly the US/UK - were behind this brouhaha, if for no other reason
than that it arose when it did. And that the BBC World Service has been beating the drum for the protestors, always mentioning
fantastical numbers (millions, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands) when it does so.
The BBC World Service, as the US-UK voice of corporate-capitalist-imperialism, *never* speaks to those Hong Kong people who
are not interested in the protests or the purported reasons for them (so much for their much vaunted "impartiality" which is and
always has been utter bunkum). Nor, when the extradition bill is mentioned, does the Beeb *ever* point out that it includes Taiwan
and Macau. Only China is spoken of as the focus of the bill. *Nor* does the BBC ever say that Hong Kong has (and is) used as a
bolt hole for real criminals who are wanted in China, Taiwan and Macau. And they have never mentioned the fact that HK has similar
treaties with other nation states. Nor has anything (in my hearing) been said about the US connections of any of the leaders of
this "movement." Omitting information is as important as repetition, use of weaselly terms, outright lying when seeking to propagandize.
In contrast - because it's "one of us" - virtually nothing has been reported on the Gilets Jaunes protests, except on the odd
occasion when some accompanying the protests have broken Parisian shop windows. And during those few and far between reports no
mention at all was made about the French Riot Police's brutality and the terrible wounds they inflicted on the demonstrators.
(Of course, we also never hear *anything* about what the Israelis do to Palestinians unless it can be portrayed as poor, weak
and vulnerable Israel being victimized by the Goliath Palestinians.)
By contrast every report on the HK protests underscores the HK police's use of tear gas and plastic bullets.
The real issue here is the idea that Western nations have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries,
anywhere in the world, whenever it suits them to further the agenda of the Imperialism.
If the Chinese people of Hong Kong have a problem with their rulers, surely they have the right to do whatever they
choose about it, without external interference. But apparently not, according the Empire and its lackeys. As ever, the West is
the arbiter of other peoples lives (and death). It's sickening and I'm ashamed by the actions of our so-called leaders.
The brainwashed faith breathers need to ask themselves which country is really persecuting religions by using them as pawns
in the ongoing oppression of others by the elite of empire and their puppets.
Nice of you to quote Tony Cartalucci. As I
mentioned in the previous thread, he has been
banned by Facebook
and Twitter . Cartalucci has been opposing NED, Soros and their fake civil society organizations and color revolutions in
Asia for at least 10 years. Part of the reason for his ban is likely
his opposition
to the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong.
...
"As that outcome was totally predictable one wonders why the Trump administration bothered to launch such nonsense. It will only
make it more difficult to solve other problems, like North Korea or global trade, over which China has influence."
Posted by b on July 27, 2019 at 17:06 UTC
... not to mention the tired old fantasy of driving a wedge between China and Russia. The chance of that succeeding now is
less than zero. It's also funny that China.gov has decided that the protesters shouldn't be treated too harshly because its
not their fault that they're childish and impatient.
Okay, so when these protests first started I wrote that this was U.S.-instigated and that Hong Kong was looking like the new Taiwan,
and the usual Trump bootlickers pretended I was exaggerating. I pretty much predicted Trump was a fraud, and a Zionist Neocon
from minute one. Never mind. I'm vindicated...again and again.
I find it interesting how "pro-democracy activists" in Hong Kong, Venezuela, Nicaragua et al uniformly resort to vandalism
and arson as a preferred tactic, with the encouragement of western politicians who warn the target nations to restrain the police.
The so-called Black Bloc torched a single police car and sprayed some graffiti in Toronto some years back and the whole city
entered a version of martial law for a few days. In Hong Kong, the protesters are conducting direct attacks on government
institutions - legislature, police HQ, PRC offices - which pretty much anywhere else would be met by overt force to quell insurrectionary
violence. The "pro-democracy activists" in the above mentioned countries in fact show little interest in democratic process.
In contrast, the protests in Puerto Rico have accomplished a fair amount with, as far as I know, very little vandalism or insurrectionary
activity. Not much media coverage on that.
thanks b... you have struck the trolls nerve center, lol.... i see the cbc is trying to rustle up more animosity towards russia-putin
with the protests from today in moscow..
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/moscow-election-protest-arrests-1.5227714
that and the selective coverage on the yellow vests protests, Venezuela protests and etc. etc. the usa empire sure is busy these
days!
C I eh? @ 22 you are always talking to a wall of hasbara psyop trolls
All in all just another brick in the wall. The more I read, the more I am stunned by the system. The scope and breath of this
stuff is stunning.
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone
All in all it's just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave those kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave those kids alone
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
Wrong, do it again!
Wrong, do it again!
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!
(Wrong, do it again!)
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
(Wrong, do it again!)
You! Yes! You behind the bike sheds! Stand still, laddie!
(If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?)
You! Yes! You behind the bike sheds! Stand still, laddie!
If the existence of a mafia is the indicator of a fascist state, then you'll also have to worry about Japan (Yakuza), Taiwan
(allied with the Hongkonger Triad), Hong Kong itself (Triad), Russia (Eurasiatic Mafia), Italy (where the term was created), USA
(Kennedy's family had link with the American mafia) and essentially all Latin America (where narcotrafic is in all but name mafias).
Once again, pay close attention to who is carrying water for the western empire by regurgitation corporate media narratives
about the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong. Do always suspect these individuals' posts now that they reveal themselves as
tools of the empire.
How can you tell when protests are genuine and "organic" ? The corporate mass media ignores them, downplays them,
and when it cannot ignore them refers to them in disparaging and ridiculing terms.
How can you tell when protests are events that are manufactured by the empire in the fashion of free open air music
festivals? Because the empire's corporate mass media will give them free advertising, exaggerate the attendance, and refer to
the heavily marketed events in glowingly positive terms.
The above behaviors of the corporate mass media have so far proven to be infallible indicators of the legitimacy of protests
and can be relied upon with the utmost confidence. Likewise, people who echo the empire's corporate mass media narratives reveal
themselves as tools, witting or otherwise, of the empire, and their comments warrant deep skepticism.
As that outcome was totally predictable one wonders why the Trump administration bothered to launch such nonsense.
Simple. Washington DC's only option left is throwing a temper tantrum, tossing Molotov's everywhere, a scorched earth policy.
C I eh? | Jul 27 2019 19:37 utc | 22:
That's an interesting point of view. However, I remember some politician (forgot who it was) in an interview mentioning that
if the stock exchanges in HK and Shanghai were to ever merge, it would make New York and London look like small potatoes (or something
to that effect). I see all this ruckus as payback for going against The Empire.
The National Endowment for Democracy spends millions of dollars to subvert sovereign governments. You will notice that no
"color revolutions" in Colombia, Honduras, or Chile.
Russia and China are ditching the dollar for bilateral trade but not necessarily using local currencies. I am not sure if those
Euro transfers use SWIFT; I would guess so.
Per the Moscow Times.
"The dollar's share fell to 45.7% in the first quarter of 2019, down from 75.1% in 2018. When both exports and imports of goods
and services between Russia and China are considered, the share of the dollar also fell dramatically but still accounted for 55.7%
of payments ($14.7 billion of a total turnover of $26.4 billion), RBC reported.
At the same time, the euro's share in payments of Russian exports to China increased tenfold over the year from 0.7% in the
first quarter of 2018 to 37.6% in the first quarter of 2019.
news
"The euro has become a safe haven for trade operations" between Russia and China, Oleg Remyga from the Eurasia program at Skolkovo
Business School told RBC.
The euro is increasingly being used in payments for crude oil -- Russia's main export to China -- . . ."
You can always figure out where the truth lies when the beloved "directors of the revolution" show up to pass out cookies. You'd
think Pompeo et al would have figured that one out by now.
Regarding the scenarios outlined by Passer by | Jul 27 2019 17:09 utc | 1: This seems very credible as Michael Hudson outlined
in his piece in Counterpunch on July 22:
"Global warming is the second major existentialist threat. Blocking attempts to reverse it is a bedrock of American foreign
policy, because it is based on control of oil. So the military, refugee and global warming threats are interconnected."
Hudson's main thesis is that the Petro-Dollar is instrumental in the continued operation of the Empire, and there will
be no movement away from that as it would undercut dollar hegemony through the weakening of the oil market which the US has control.
Therefore any movement to curb the climate catastrophe will not gain support by the US. It is a contradiction of existence.
Since China has little oil, and considers reliance on the same a vulnerability and consequently has spent 20 years in rare
earth refinement industry development, it now controls 70 percent of the market. It will take quite a while for the West to catch
up, as at least one industry consultant has pointed out that it takes about 20 years for an industry to go from an idea to production.
These difference will underline the struggle between China and the US in the meantime You can be assured the US will not change
its current course until the Petro-Dollar is annulled.
Time will tell whether China will be able to wean itself from coal. If not, climate change remediation will not matter.
Your defense of the empire's mass media is charming, but since you are one of the obvious tools of empire that I was speaking
of it is not unexpected.
The proof of what I said above is trivial: Go to any major news aggregation site (
Google News is typical) with your browser in incognito mode and count the
stories from major corporate sources concerning protests and tax your brain to try and determine if the articles are pro or con
(critical/supportive of the protesters or the target of the protests).
Currently there are numerous articles on protests in Russia (five on the portal's main page, all of which are critical
of the Russian government and supportive of the relatively tiny protests). Likewise there are numerous article supportive of the
protesters in Hong Kong. Again, five on Google News' main page supporting the protesters but none voicing any criticism of them.
Meanwhile the gilets jaunes protests remain backpage news with no coverage on the main page of either the news aggregation
portals or on the major news sites landing pages. Ongoing protests in Haiti, though, are not even getting backpage coverage in
the western corporate mass media.
"Is there not one iota of newsworthy events left in the world to cover or is it all propaganda?"
There are certainly newsworthy events in the world, but coverage of them by the corporate mass media is 100% propaganda.
They are all capitalist enterprises with pervasive interest in defending capitalism and the empire that capitalism has built.
This concept isn't complicated.
The longer the US wastes time, resources, and energy on tired tactics like sponsored mobs and political subversion, the less
time, resources, and energy it will have to adjust favorably to the new international order that will inevitably emerge despite
Washington's efforts.
How true, and add to that list the money spent on military adventurism in the ME/Iran and destabilizing Central/South American
countries. Where does all this money come from? These "non-profits" sure seem to have a lot of it if they can send over $1.5M
to groups in Hong Kong alone within just two years.
This is all money that could be spent repairing and improving our flagging infrastructure, preparing our electrical grids
for possible cyber or EMP attacks (solar panels/inverters/batteries in large population centers), and addressing the student debt
crisis that is only getting worse. But we all know that big business and Wall Street/The City of London control every aspect of
the U.S. government and every action taken by said government is in service to their short and long term goals.
I work with many Chinese, both of mainland and HK descent. A few RL observations. Chinese from HK seem to dislike Chinese from
the mainland and vise versa. HK Chinese have generally better English. Mainland Chinese are typically less high strung and more
jovial than their HK counterparts. I have been told by HK Chinese that the protests are selfish and not fully embraced by pop.
They are seen as a nuisance, or a youthful excess. ML Chinese have told me the same as well as the opposite, they have also expressed
the same sentiment as the Chinese pol in b's article.
Circe. Do you have an answer to my question from the OT? Got a prez that
wasn't a Zioshill?
Can't find the link now, but within the past week it was announced that a new clearing mechanism was being initiated in Russia's
Far East to facilitate settling all bilateral trade between China and Russia in either Rubbles or Yuan matching a similar facility
already opened by the PBC. The figures you cited were for the 1st Q; I cited hearsay 2nd Q figures which ought to be published
soon. The point is both the dollar and its monopolistic trade and settlement mechanisms will soon be bypassed and further widened
in scope to accommodate ever increasing amounts of global commercial transactions to the great detriment of the Outlaw US Empire.
I am not sure if it is possible to run an anti-empire theme by denying democratic representation. I don't think you are going
to be able to defend the likes of Junius Ho as easily as the above, nor that locals, who to my view are almost entirely moderate,
run on manipulation from Washington or wherever.
The only point I think that can be contested outright is the local election results, that is the layer that was open to universal
suffrage, were pro-Beijing
Gives the figures under the tab "Elections of the Legislative Council" and it seems majority in absolute votes were outside
of pro-Beijing. So I still stay with the notion that at the least it is Beijing that is overstepping the mark here, that this
level of tension is not necessary. On the other hand, Beijing entered an agreement on handover that was going to be difficult
for it to meet when compared to its own ideology, not that that is any excuse.
China's ownership of over a trillion in U.S. treasury and its control over rare earth refinement are not leverage it can easily
use against U.S. imperialism as it could turn into a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Wearing down the hegemony
of the dollar is the best strategy. The other two are weapons of last resort. However, China has enough leverage to sabotage the
U.S. plan in regards to Iran, and even Venezuela, and so far it has done squat. This inaction is a huge mistake as China's sources
of oil will be U.S. compromised, and if greater conflict breaks out and the U.S. wants control, the first thing the U.S. will
do is turn off the spigot.
Thanks for your sanity, and your perspective on this storm in a Chinese teacup. Yes, regions within countries have their own
attitude towards other regions. And HK was tutored by British hypocrisy for a century and a half.
If you haven't already seen this, I think you will enjoy this short (9 min) clip from Martin Jacques on Hong Kong. He points
to the economic structure and the structure of governance in HK. In both cases they are the imperial model, where there is little
representation of the people, where policy direction came from London rather than being concocted locally, and where a few oligarchs
rule the economy and have no capacity to innovate or evolve:
Jacques actually criticizes Beijing for being too lenient towards Hong Kong. With its "One Nation, Two Systems" policy
- which it has adhered to scrupulously - China has also allowed Hong Kong to wallow in its own lack of any spirited imperative.
In consequence, many in HK look with envy across the water to Shenzhen, and wonder where their own rise to glory will come from.
The structure that Jacques describes is not going to produce it.
Sleepy @ 5 said;"I don't doubt that Hong Kong residents have legitimate gripes, but like a tapeworm attaching itself to the host,
almost any domestic unrest in any US "adversary" is usually tapped into by the US for its own purposes.
Completely with you Ron. First, Hong Kong is China's only international financial
center, so to call it insignificant is uninformed: it will take at least another generation and a change in China's currency access
before Shanghai reaches the status of Hong Kong.
Second, there is no appetite for leaving China, Hong Kong is part of China, the dispute is about the speed at which the two
are merging and respect for the 50 years agreement. Three, there is no democracy in HK: The pro-democracy politicians were voted
into the Legislature by the 5000 or so HK individuals who have been chosen to vote, but even then they were banned by Beijing
because they wouldn't swear allegiance to Beijing.
Four: People have not benefited from China, their lives have got worse: Rent controls were abolished, public housing is not
being built and the locals are being discarded in favour of a select 150 mainlanders brought in every day to take the top jobs
(lawyers, finance etc), bringing mainland corruption to what was once a fairly clean HK.
Then you have the huge wave of mainland tourists allowed to visit HK, crowding the city out with illmannered and discourteous
tourists swarming around places like TST and Mong Kok, places close to the new high speed train terminal. The business men who
used to run HK for its own interests are now running the city for Beijing: even though I think that economic reasons are not the
main drive behind the demonstrations.
As for independence: Ask yourself why Taiwan, which has been ruled by the independence party for the last 3 years, has still
not declared independence: Maybe the local politicians use it as a threat to keep back the worst aspects of Beijing? Maybe nobody
really wants to be independent, they just don't want to be invaded by uncontrollable corruption?
As for the violence, anyone with any knowledge of the HK Chinese will know that this is not their way. It is total ignorance
to think that the HK people would support violence against their own police. Even the triads who carried out the train invasions
appear to have had second thoughts afterwards, releasing the recording about them "not getting paid for the job".
I am not saying the US is not involved, they are unlikely to resist such an opportunity, but the US has no real knowledge of
the local HK population and could never influence the HK people to turn violent. Most HK people are very proud to be Chinese,
they are not looking to be American even though they will use America to get ahead. It looks like the increase in violence is
foreign interference as a signal to Beijing, but it will not have the support of the locals: 2 million marched against the extradition
law, a few thousand are involved in the riots, there is no comparison.
But your account doesn't eliminate the hybrid warfare hypothesis. On the contrary, the confirm it.
In TC-18-01 -- the American manual to unconventional warfare (UW), it states that:
WILL OF THE POPULATION
1-15. The population must possess not only the desire to resist but also the will to bear the significant
hardships associated with repressive countermeasures by the government or occupying power. Populations
that the regime subjugates or indoctrinates for long periods are less likely to possess the will required to
sustain a prolonged and difficult struggle. Populations living under repressive conditions generally either
retain their unique religious, cultural, and ethnic identity or begin to assimilate with the regime out of an
instinct to survive. Planners need to distinguish between the population's moral opinion of their
"oppressors" and their actual willingness to accept hardship and risk on behalf of their values and beliefs.
Populations recently overtaken by an occupying military force have a very different character than those
that have had to survive for decades under an oppressive regime.
1-16. Information activities that increase dissatisfaction with the hostile regime or occupier and portray the
resistance as a viable alternative are important components of the resistance effort. These activities can
increase support for the resistance through persuasive messages that generate sympathy among populations.
1-17. In almost every scenario, resistance movements face a population with an active minority supporting
the government and an equally small militant faction supporting the resistance movement (Figure 1-2). For
the resistance to succeed, it must convince the uncommitted middle population, which includes passive
supporters of both sides, to accept it as a legitimate entity. A passive population is sometimes all a well-
supported insurgency needs to seize political power. As the level of support for the insurgency increases,
the passive majority will decrease.
[...]
CIVIL AFFAIRS SUPPORT TO THE SEVEN PHASES
OF UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE
3-42. CA forces are capable of providing support to all seven phases of a UW campaign. CMO planners
and CA forces are well equipped to assist SFODs in developing the factors that make up the operational
environment of UW operations, in achieving the support or neutrality of various segments of society, or
influencing the JSOA. All Civil Affairs operations (CAO) may support UW, although the most important
role of CAO is facilitating the swift transition of power from the resistance forces to a legitimate
government after the cessation of hostilities.
In other words, it's not that the USA creates, ex nihilo , the inner contradictions of a country (which indeed exist
in any country -- the USA itself included); what they do is to take those domestic contradictions and magnify them with propaganda
warfare and hot warfare resources (color revolutions and guerrilla, low intensity warfare).
For example, you may have a young son who hates you because you deny him ice cream (you're afraid he's going to get cavities,
diabetes, obesity etc. etc.). To wage an hybrid warfare on you would be for me to tell him you're doing it not because you're
taking care of his health, but because you want to see him sad and then give him a loaded gun. Sure, many things may happen after
that: he may kill you, you may kill him, he may heavily wound you and vice versa; you can neutralize his weapon before anything
graver happens, or he may not shoot you simply because, deep down, he still loves you. Indeed, hybrid war has unpredictable results
-- but the selling point of it is that it is low cost, low risk to the USA: even if it fails, it can be tried again and again
simply because the American military is, today, the master of logistics and can reach any corner of the world while the other
countries can't touch it in a non-MAD scenario.
HK is fake and gay, an international airport, stock market and a place to launder your money. Honkies should emigrate to anglo-white
coutries if becoming eunuchs for the nordic man is their greatest dream in life. It does suit them well and they'll be relieve
without the burden of useless genitals.
Everything is possible, what should colour your views is the likelyhood of it happening. You cannot rule out anything. Let's
start at the beginning of your theory: How did the USA persuade Carrie Lam to table the Extradition Bill in the first place? And
if the answer is that they were just waiting for "something" bad to be tabled, then they are not in control, they are not manipulating
the situation, they are observers.
No, nothing so diametric as implying insanity in others simply from applauding sanity where I find it. I hadn't read your comment,
and I had to go back to find your reference. I can't place who or what RL is - sorry the reference is lost on me. But I wasn't
referring to anything except the perspective that one region having an attitude about another region means nothing more than it
would anywhere else in the world.
~~
While I'm making this comment I may as well address the thread in general and say that I don't accept any of the claims in
this thread made by anyone that this is a majority popular movement in Hong Kong. If it were that, it would feel different in
its very bones, and most people here would strongly support it. I agree totally with b's article. The US is interfering and magnifying
things, as usual, and failing.
What is clear to me, is that Hong Kong is a little bit lost, suffering from the ghosts of British sensibility, and with no
forward vision for itself. It should indeed, as Jacques suggests, seek closer integration with the mainland, in order to experience
a superior form of democratic representation, and the liberating vision of actually having a future.
You are not only saying a non specific CIA manual confirms it's own involvement, but that the totatility of that occuring (or
majority as we are talking democratic values here) is product of its approach. In other words no event is organic if it fits the
description of a circumstance that the CIA might use or fabricate. You understand you are busy justifying dictatorship, denying
(in this case Hong Kongers) the credibility or ability of own opinion. Do you really understand what you are transmitting as message
? It is exactly opposite of what you might pretend to represent. You could take this one step further,though it won't be appreciated
here, by saying b is using that tactic to subvert western opinion by making western method seem oppressive. You can go round in
circles endlessly like this, and you call it confirmation.
The Hong Kong links to Outlaw US Empire regime change NGOs are overt as revealed by b and further on this thread; so yeah,
it's as you write. My opinion seconds that of many: Hong Kong had the opportunity to become another Singapore in tandem with Macau--are
there riots there, NO!--and blew it totally. There was no Hong Kong-based vision for what to do after reunification. It
should've been no secret as to what direction PRC was going to go economically and what its plans were. These "protesters" want
to be independent so they say, but I doubt very much if they could articulate what their future plans are to keep Hong Kong's
economy vibrant and the relations they propose to have with their biggest market right next door. Without those sorts of visions
there's no way the "movement" is legitimate.
If you're going to organize a genuine Movement, you must have an agenda, a manifesto, a plan, a vision of what you want to
accomplish, particularly if you win and gain power. I've written down ideas and solutions for specific problems, analytical essays
and such--but I've never written a Revolutionary Manifesto to propose to the masses. (Big Lightbulb overhead!) It could be framed
as an answer to
this WaPost op/ed
: "We Are in Our Articles of Confederation Moment: Our national legislature no longer functions," which I linked to yesterday.
We know what's wrong, but the solution and change in direction needed don't fit soundbites. Nice homework assignment for Political
Revolution 101.
"Malaysian PM: #Israel 'the main cause of #terrorism in world'"
And can say what needs to be said. While I applaud, I disagree; IMO the Outlaw US Empire is both the main cause and most involved
globally and with impunity.
Although you seem to completely misstate vk @65's argument, your query regarding "How did the USA persuade Carrie Lam to table
the Extradition Bill in the first place?" may not be as daft as it first appears.
In 2018, Hong Kong man Chan Tong-kai, 19, took his girlfriend Poon Hiu-wing, 20, on a Valentine's Day trip to Taiwan. While
there he strangled her, stuffed her body in a suitcase and dumped it near a subway station in Taipei. After he returned to Hong
Kong, he was safe from extradition to a Taiwanese court. This horrific incident led to protests in Hong Kong and was the impetuous
for the extradition bill.
While I'm not suggesting Chan was acting at the behest of the CIA, it would certainly fit with the hybrid war scenario for
the US to use its assests to amplify the pro-extradition protests inspired by the murder, while also preparing a Colour Revolution
in response to the inevitable introduction of an extradition bill.
The NYT described it as "The Murder Case that lit the fuse in Hong Kong", hate to link to them but here goes:
@ Paora who wrote in response to apsnaz
"
While I'm not suggesting Chan was acting at the behest of the CIA, it would certainly fit with the hybrid war scenario for the
US to use its assests to amplify the pro-extradition protests inspired by the murder, while also preparing a Colour Revolution
in response to the inevitable introduction of an extradition bill.
"
We are not suppose to think that deeply.....grin Thanks for that
I agree with what Grieved wrote in a comment above and which I have repeated below
"
What is clear to me, is that Hong Kong is a little bit lost, suffering from the ghosts of British sensibility, and with no forward
vision for itself. It should indeed, as Jacques suggests, seek closer integration with the mainland, in order to experience a
superior form of democratic representation, and the liberating vision of actually having a future.
"
Hong Kong has been used as a tool like the US used Puerto Rico as to attempt to show up Cuba.
South Korea is going to go through the same transition, given the opportunity.
Democratic values are BS when the money in your pocket and bank account is not worth the digits or paper printed on......it
has no intrinsic value like before 1971 and in reality now represents DEBT maintained by FAITH
And China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other have lost FAITH in the fiat DEBT of the West because it is connected to
nothing of intrinsic value.
This is the reality that many are not prepared for but is coming soon. The West is being forced to return to a money system
that is not FIAT.
This will clarify my lifeblood claim about finance and focus folks on the perfidy of private fiat money systems
I am not surprised by this, the mainland has a scheme which allows 150 people to emigrate to HK every day, it has been running
since 1997: (2019-1997) * 365 * 150 = 1,204,500. Add to that all the individuals who have moved for other reasons, such as marriage,
and there are quite a few mainlanders in HK. Mainlanders do not speak the local language and do not have the same loyalty to HK.
The emigration scheme is part of the problem as most of those immigrants are people associated with the Chinese Communist Party
- maybe not members, but they got the ticket to emigrate, so they are viewed favourably: HK locals see them as part of the problem!
...
Posted by: aspnaz | Jul 28 2019 1:28 utc | 62
1,204,500 is only about 15% of the Hong Kong population. If the protesters truly believe that they are the majority, they
can start their own petition, as well as protesting in the streets. The fact that they haven't done so makes me a little bit suspicious
if they are the real majority, even among the 6 million or so native Hongkongers.
...
Maybe this petition shows that HK locals are right to be worried!
Posted by: aspnaz | Jul 28 2019 1:28 utc | 62
Divide and conquer, exaggerating the difference between different groups of Hongkongers?
Another interesting factor raised by your post raises is that of kissing ass: One grievance that the HK locals have is that
the local business community is too busy kissing Beijing ass. There is a small minority of HK locals, mostly business folk, who
will sign up to such a petition - handing over their HK ID numbers - in the hope of being recognised by Beijing as worthy of preferential
treatment. Beijing is authoritarian and corrupt, so having evidence of your support for Beijing can go a long way in business
circles.
Posted by: aspnaz | Jul 28 2019 1:39 utc | 64
Well, I guess Hong Kong businessmen are pragmatic. I can't really blame them. Maybe that's one of the reasons why the protesters
haven't started their own petition yet and are concentrating on street demonstrations only so far.
Naive. Either the naïveté is the product of blind idealism or it's a pretence to make a more convincing argument on the so-called
purity of the revolution emerging in HK.
You know what I don't trust? HK is like the victim of a long kidnapping by the West for many years and the locals are now suffering
from Stockholm Syndrome, believing somehow that the kidnappers had the right idea and did what they did for the locals benefit.
Now it's time to see the kidnappers for who they really are. Unfortunately for the locals and fortunately for China, the end goal
is way more important than the capitalist utopia the West uses as an inducement for rebellion.
vk gets it.
@50 NemesisCalling
Well at least you came clean about your affection for Trump. Who's fixated? The one who can see no wrong in their brand of
messiah, or the one who sees, period!????
Yeah, yeah it's what I said, you supported the Assad side over the suffering weak Syrian rebels before you supported the suffering
weak rebel side in HK. Trump's rebels over Obama's, riiiight? Cause there's a difference, riiiight? NOT.
Who cares how China stiffs the West when the West gets away with murder! The point isn't to make China clean up its act in
order to trust its power In an imperfect world, the point is a CHECK ON POWER. I don't expect anything from China except that
it act as the wall that stops imperial hegemony, and it's pretty well-positioned to do so.
If you wanna compare China's corruption vs the ZioAnglo Empire's corruption, that's a whole other circular discussion I'm not
interested in having.
I want China to be the means to the END OF THE ZIOANGLO EMPIRE. Get it? That's the big picture I care about.
Regarding the migration thing. Trump is an old man who wishes he were young again, but he won't get that either. You can't
reverse reality and you can't fight karma. So Trump, the latest Zionist stooge, can't admit that the rest of the world suffered
a massive Muslim migration thanks to wars instigated by the ZioAnglo Empire led by U.S. and so the U.S. must in turn suffer its
own massive migration of the latino kind. Nothing will reverse it; it's reality, it's karma, and so it's bigger and stronger than
Trump. He'll die a disillusioned man if he thinks a wall and cages will deter the inevitable changing demography.
Finally, Anacharsis
Yes, despite that somewhat cynical outlook on China's imperfections, I'm counting on China focusing on survival over blind
capital ambition, therefore, hopefully reclaiming more of its lost ideology, as its survival is hydrocarbon dependent which will
require it to flex some geopolitical strategy over the ZioAnglo Empire.
The seeds for these color revolutions are similar to sleeper terrorist cells. Assets are in place, and more are held in reserve
not for "specific" events to unfold, but for general societal discontent to rise to a certain level, at which time the assets
will be mobilized to help organize and focus the discontent, ultimately for the purpose of destabilizing the offending nation
state.
In Syria, for example, water shortages led to civil unrest. Western powers could have spent those billions of dollars on desalination
plants, diplomatic pressure on Turkey to release more water from their reservoirs, and helped the country remain stable through
a tough time. Instead the Western Powers spent billions of dollars hiring and arming mercenaries to collapse the Syrian Nation,
along with a massive propaganda effort geared at demonizing Assad and the Syrian Government.
I wonder what all those tens or hundreds of thousands of dead Syrian rebels think of the organic protest started by a few thousands
that they then surrendered to the ZioAnglos and their terrorist collaborators ISIS just to achieve the revolutionary noteriety
and humanitarian assistance that led them to an early grave? I'm sure it's a cautionary tale for Hong Kong.
Calling Martin Lee a US stooge is BS. A true Patriot (HK) if there ever was one. I don't deny the US has a hand in fueling the
fire, but the HK people (bottom 90%) have some legitimate grievances.
Once again, pay close attention to who is carrying water for the western empire by regurgitation corporate media narratives
about the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong. Do always suspect these individuals' posts now that they reveal themselves
as tools of the empire.
Right on the money... Bernhard's article has hit every nail squarely on the head...and driven it home with gusto...
Yet we see a number of quite ridiculous posts taking issue with the basic premise...'Organic' my arse...the color revolution
fingerprints are all over this bullshit...
I see James has also noted the unusually frenetic troll activity...
They will of course end up sorely disappointed...China is not Georgia or Ukraine where their stunts can have some effect...come
to think of it, even there the old tricks mostly now just provoke a collective yawn from the target populace...LOL
I don't want my government starting revolutions that lead to wars for regime change I'm not free to stop. The ZioAnglo imperialists
corrupt everything they touch. Let's face it, Revolution has become a dirty word. The Revolution should be AGAINST
the Zio Anglo Empire and not a source to expand its hegemonic reach!
Aye! Che is turning in his grave at this perversion.
Re: my somewhat cynical (I would say ironic, but I won't quibble) outlook on China's (your word:) imperfections: any "ideology"
has been lost (more discarded than lost, really) last century and China is now the epitome of pragmatist--pragmatism is a stage
significantly less coherent than ideologically-driven; therefore, decadence and dissolution come next--then it's just a matter
of time and how many band-aids they can come up with. If you add this to the fact that if China erodes the dollar, they also erode
the value of the money in their own pocket (since they own a rather large percentage of that corporation)...logically, I just
don't see how that horse is gonna run.
You raise a little known aspect of Karma inadvertently or not, in that there is personal, racial and country Karma. So apart
from building your own personal negative or positive Karma, we are also liable to the other sorts. How could supporting a war
mongering nation not have consequence? As such he that stands idly by as evils are committed by his country or race will be affected
by the negative Karma generated. Those that oppose such acts not so.
However the popular notion of instant Karma is nonsense, Karma can't cause effect that quickly. Sometimes it takes several
lives to balance previous Karma as all issues can't be queued for one lifetime as such perfect circumstance rarely exists. Would
expect the Karma affecting masses would be more so. Albeit it certainly appears instant in the example given.
Interesting is that there have been other civilizations prior this one, and wherein lies their history? Purely in myths or
old writing more often as analogy. But the day to day machinations and intrigues of those that wielded power there are not remembered
or even vaguely important in the mists of time. As will be our current. Sadly nothing will change with the power brokers until
our mindset as humanity changes.
Posted by: Herr Ringbone | Jul 28 2019 10:41 utc | 99
"The primary legitimate grievances are impossibly high housing costs (which many of the poorer residents of HK are not affected
by, as they have access to the city's massive public housing programme)"
More "fake" facts: Stock of public housing has gone up by 110,000 in the past 10 years. Up to 1997, under British rule, the
government was building over 84000 apartments per year. Have a look here
https://www.thb.gov.hk/eng/psp/publications/housing/HIF2018.pdf
for the misserable record of the China government. In addition, prior to 97 there were rent controls which made living easier
for the poorest: look it up yourself.
"and poor work conditions in the form of low wages and absurdly long working hours."
So the chef down the local restaurant who is a migrated mainlander, helping to keep HK salaries low, is not the fault of the
government?
So the chef down the local restaurant who is a migrated mainlander, helping to keep HK salaries low, is not the fault of the
government?
You really have a problem with people from the Mainland, don't you? Aside from your repellent racism, which you appear to have
adopted wholesale from your HK relatives, you should understand how absurd your position is. The overwhelming majority of families
in HK are only one or two generations away from the Mainland, i.e. a thirty-five year old here will have parents who very likely
came to HK from China (usually Guangdong). HK is very much a society of immigrants -- from China.
It is inevitable that people from China will come to live in Hong Kong. You appear to be complaining because you don't like
Putonghua speakers.
Posted by: Herr Ringbone | Jul 28 2019 10:51 utc | 100
"You should be able to see from this that people are lying when they claim that the extradition law would have put Hong Kong critics
of China at risk of extradition to the Mainland. That would not have been possible under the law."
The people of Hong Kong are already at risk of rendition if they criticize China: Remember the HK booksellers, kidnapped while
abroad, taken to China and forced to give TV confessions to mainland China courts. That is the reality: The people of HK know
what China will do if they criticize China!
The people of Hong Kong are already at risk of rendition if they criticize China: Remember the HK booksellers, kidnapped while
abroad, taken to China and forced to give TV confessions to mainland China courts. That is the reality: The people of HK know
what China will do if they criticize China!
If the booksellers are the only thing you can cite in this respect -- and let's face it, they are -- then you are on pretty
shaky ground, and I am not going to bother further.
flankerbandit @92 said: "[The trolls] will of course end up sorely disappointed...China is not Georgia or Ukraine where their
stunts can have some effect."
Good post, and correct. It is surprising how badly these State Department/Atlantic Council trolls misread the situation in
Hong Kong. Protests alone are not going to do more than annoy the rest of the HK population, even if they do somehow manage to
get 2 million people on board with the staged events. They absolutely need the CIA death squad snipers to shoot up the protesters
and police at one of these events in order to gain broader sympathy from the HK population, but that is not so easy in HK as in
Libya, Syria, or Ukraine. Chinese intelligence and even the Hong Kong Triads are fully expecting the CIA's antics and keep wrecking
the CIA's plans. So long as there is no violence that the complicit corporate mass media can pin on the authorities then the protests
will remain simple events... staged entertainment for a portion of the HK population. The protests will go nowhere and die out
as the audience/attendees realize that they have better things to do with their lives.
Due to being sick with chills and headaches, I have been laid up for several days and have come late to this party of all parties
to be late for (as relatives of my late father still live in Hong Kong, in Northpoint).
I have been been following the recent protests over the extradition bill through Rebecca Chan's 21SilkRoad Facebook group.
A number of people who contribute to the discussions there have mentioned that cash payments were offered to students to protest.
This is confirmed by
Jeff J Brown's article for The Greanville Post in which he mentions people were paid higher amounts "for tearing the place
up".
Interesting too in the same article is that Brian Kern has been noted as an apparent CIA operative stirring up protesters.
Note how the Asperger Nazi pointed out how he "attended" a protest. This is an important part of the distinction between
fake and staged "protest events" and genuinely organic protests. Did he participate in organizing the protest? Did he hear
about it from an organizer at his workplace, or a group passing out leaflets on a street corner? Did he pass out leaflets himself
and try to convince others to help?
No, of course not. The Asperger Nazi heard about the protest event from TV advertisements days ahead of time. The advertisements
may have been disguised as news segments, but they are advertisements nonetheless.
Fake protest events don't have participants, but rather attendees and audiences. The top organizers are salaried professionals
from event management corporations. They often hire hundreds of people (usually college students on vacation) days ahead of time
to train them up to act as event chaperones. Typically the event chaperones will themselves be managed by a couple dozen trainers
and handlers that the event management company brings in from abroad (Britain or the US). The event chaperones will be issued
identical t-shirts with an event logo professionally silkscreened on them. They will also be issued identical whistles or other
signalling devices on lanyards that they wear around their necks. They will likewise be issued backpacks with some "protest
supplies" , such as hand towels or bandannas and bottles of solutions to neutralize teargas and things like that. On the day
of the protest event each of the event chaperones will attempt to form squads of about a dozen or less protesters and explain
signalling so that the squad can coordinate its actions. In this manner the few hundred event chaperones can steer thousands of
event attendees, and by herd instinct the rest of the attendees/audience will follow.
The event management corporation will handle the marketing of the protest event. This includes working out with local TV station
producers and even international TV network producers how the event is to be portrayed and TV viewers attracted to it.
"Guerrilla marketing" tactics will also
be employed. See the linked Wikipedia article for examples. Entertainers and notable athletes will be contracted to promote the
protest event, and if possible an outdoor stage with sound system, light show, and jumbotron screens will be arranged for the
entertainers to perform from (particularly notable at the fake Maidan protests in Kiev back in 2013-2014).
Key here is that none of the attendees/audience participate in organizing the protest event. The event just seems to happen
all on its own and all the attendees/audience have to do is show up.
Real and "organic" protests are a whole different matter.
That is to say that extradition could occur before any proof of guilt, before a trial had occurred ...
That's how extraditions always work, isn't it?
You haven't paid attention to any of the safeguards I mentioned that are in the law.
If there is any favouritism in the HK judiciary, it goes against China. Those people are trained in the common law tradition
and many have a thoroughly colonial mentality still. Some judges are still foreigners, for heaven's sake. You only have to listen
to the comments that come from the Bar Association, for example.
Those might have happened exactly as you describe, but I've been in a similar situation in another part of the world and fascists
have described the situation exactly as in that manner and the gov have still been putting protesters in jail after so many years
with exactly the same accusations. Now in our situation too there might have been external actors (I don't know), yet the protest
was righteous as well. I'm not blaming you, but you may be naive too. Or it's me who's naive.
The process that I described above costs lots of money. Many $millions. It also requires the complicity of the
so-call "free press" corporate mass media. If you overlook that aspect then indeed it is you who are being naive.
Who has $millions and would pay them to disrupt the empire's satrap in Haiti? How could those people recoup their investment?
Particularly when any such investors would certainly understand that the empire can outspend them and will just install another
satrap after this one is deposed? More critically, where is the mass media cheering on the protesters in Haiti?
To be certain, it is possible to fool people into thinking external agents are behind genuine protests, but only when those
people who are fooled overlook the practical aspects of organizing protests. In fact, in order to successfully fool the fooled
it is necessary for the "free press" corporate mass media to participate in the deception.
This last point cannot be stressed enough: Whichever "side" the "free press" corporate mass media is supporting in a
protest is the bad guys in every single case. The only time the "free press" corporate mass media will suddenly
discover the righteousness of a genuine protest is if they realize that their necks are on the chopping blocks next if they continue
to back the empire.
How can this not be another attempt to 'divide and conquer'? The only odd thing about this - it still is gobbled down by the masses
of those countries in which this dividing and conquering originates. Tell me that there are similar tactics in place outside the
Western value regimes.
Nevertheless, the real importance of finding out who perpetrated/organized this latest round of instigated civil unrest, lies
within the fact that it is also applied in numerous other Nations who are turning away from this Western business model of coercion
and mayhem.
The deep state stooges will point out how bad all the socialist countries are - Nations that actually care for their populations.
Nothing China has done since Tienanmen square can compete with the Fascism of the US and Europe.
I urge anybody to read up this article on the WSWS web site for what it is worth. The German regime has just affirmed the
'Gesinnungsstrafrecht' in a ruling by
the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court).
If the Chinese government would have affirmed a law like this for Hong Kong, or its mainland territory, the Fascists would
foam at the mouth. That this law is now affirmed - 74 years after the alleged end of Fascism in Germany - in what calls itself
a 'Democracy', is beyond words.
Max Liebermann said that "One cannot eat as much as one wants to vomit" when he observed the Nazis marching through the Brandenburg
Gate.
'Gesinnungsstrafrecht' means that you can now be locked away in Germany for opposing capitalism. Or for demanding 'equality'.
How much worse has it to become before it can change to the better?
1) all hybrid wars have an "organic" component. What differentiates a legitimate revolt from a hybrid war is the artificiality
of its growth: in a popular uprising, growth is organic (result of mass mobilization by the working classes themselves), in a
hybrid war (or just a color revolution), growth comes from material and human resources help from the USA. As the Americans themselves
admit, the degree of its growth is unpredictable, and depends on many variables within the target country itself.
2) for newcomers here, please read my comments on a past free tread here. The sequence of events clearly indicates a textbook
hybrid warfare modus operandi : from pacif to violent -- this violence growing on a constant and linear degree. There was
no chance a color revolution would topple the Lam government (because it won the popular vote in the last elections), so the protest
leaders knew they needed a body count to escalate it to unconventional warfare. Was it a purely organic uprising, the protest
would've stopped once Lam killed the bill: any legitimate opposition without a prospect of absolute victory would stop right there
and declare victory, thus maintaining the mobilization and stepping up to the phase of organization (probably, founding a new
localist party to dispute the next elections); that wasn't the case with these protests, which clearly tried to breed chaos and
thus creating a theater for guerilla warfare (one of the main tactics for unconventional warfare).
3) yes, the movement initially attracted 2 million people to the streets (it probably was much less, but that's not the point
here). But after Lam withdrew the bill, those 2 million immediately turned into 70,000, which then turned into 30,000 (again,
those are the propaganda numbers, spread by the Western MSM, so you cannot accuse me of being pro-Beijing with them). Meanwhile,
a pro-Beijing movement attracted 500,000 to the streets of Hong Kong. This movement of the masses clearly indicates the anti-bill
protests had a highly artificial inflating factor -- possibly with paid protesters and paid propaganda. My bet would be that some
American NGO is paying some student leaders in HK to organize the whole thing.
4) the main problem with the anti-Beijing protesters is that their cause is utopic: full independence in not viable for Hong
Kong not much because of the Mainland grip, but because the natural conditions make the construction of a Nation-State unfeasible.
Hong Kong doesn't have agriculture and doesn't have a significant source of water. The UK is now an impoverished giant and doesn't
have the resources to sustain and eventual "independent" HK. It would continue to be a de facto province of China on economic
pressure alone (as is already the case of Taiwan -- a much bigger and naturally richer island). And the majority of the HK people
know this: the localist parties (yes, the pro-independence movement in HK is not even united) never won an election.
5) I'm not saying that the USA is evil. Good and Evil are Christian concepts, therefore they are idealisms and don't exist
in the real world. We Marxists don't use them. What I'm saying is that the USA is using its strengths to order to gain a geopolitical
advantage over its two main enemies of the 21st Century: Russia and China. Those advantages are: military logistics (hundreds
of bases around the world; supremacy over the Seven Seas and the Dollar Standard) and soft power (the world still believes that
the USA system is, if not the best possible model, the least worse). Those are the two ingredients only the USA have. Hybrid Warfare,
therefore, is a war tactic that is very cheap -- both in the political and material sense -- for the Americans to use: no wonder
it was created by them and only them use it.
The fact that the West infected the natives of Hong Kong with an extended dosage of capitalist utopia ideology plays a role in
China's ability to hold on to Hong Kong and the ZioAnglo Empire knows this. The Empire only and always fuels and fans dissent
that is good for it geostrategically and infiltrates what is ripe for the picking and HK is just too ripe and strategically important
a chess piece for the Empire to ignore and not weaponize against China.
So you all who are pretending purity in this fake incipient revolution stop pretending this isn't what's happening in HK.
China has a HK Taiwan problem. The only reason Trump isn't gloating is because he's got to settle a favorable tariff arrangement
to win over U.S. farmers in 2020.
China needs to act on its power as a global player, get serious about flexing leverage against the U.S. in different areas
including on North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as well as financially, and be less discreet and polite regarding ZioAnglo Empire's
goals while domestically balancing economic ambition with political ideology that rallies its people to recognize and stand firm
and ready against the subversive attempts of the Empire to diminish China's power.
If China continues with its laissez-faire attitude regarding the Empire's multiple aggressive geopolitical moves, and holds
back on moves of its own, then this time in history represents the beginning of China's decline and Trump is on a mission to capitalize
on its inaction and accelerate that outcome.
I don't disagree with that, except for "I'm not saying that the USA is evil." I say, as an atheist, the USA is deeply, unbelievably
evil. Yet I don't want to be blind to the sufferings of people under much much much less evil rulers as well. Any ruler is better,
much better in comparison to the rule of US. But I don't blindly approve them, in themselves, as good ones.
I admit I hadn't looked at the links etc.; yes, it seems a genuine colour rev! Yet again US, not always, but sometimes if not
most of the times, use an already existing wound.
Acar Burak @126 said: "Yet again US...use an already existing wound."
That's the beauty of identity politics and the US color revolutions. You can always find many people who believe that
they have "an already existing wound" and who just want others to acknowledge and validate it. Even in the most affluent
communities in the imperial homelands you will find no shortage of people you can recruit to your cause (whatever it may be) simply
by affirming to them that their personal butthurt is legitimate and it is someone else's fault. It is just a warmed over version
of Catholic "original sin" and in imperfect societies you will never be short on people who will find that stain or injury
within themselves that they feel is holding them back from true happiness.
Such "wounded" individuals are always easy prey for the con artist. The empire's narrative spinners encourage self-pity
among the weak while the Communists try to discourage it, so it is no surprise that the weak go crying to capitalist hucksters
who offer empty promises of cures for their internal unhappiness. That is an advantage the empire makes full use of, both internally
and among its vassal states.
Vaughn L. Treude 77
"What a shame that pro-democracy and pro-liberty movements get tainted by association with US government opportunism."
So very true. The groups want support. Unfortunately they get it from the likes of Pompeo. I watched a TED talk from 2015 about
our democracy not representing us. It pointed to the Hong Kong protests of 2014 and how the candidates were selected by a committee
for the people to vote on instead of a more democratic process.
Calling Martin Lee a US stooge is BS. A true Patriot (HK) if there ever was one. I don't deny the US has a hand in fueling
the fire, but the HK people (bottom 90%) have some legitimate grievances.
The real grievance of Hongkongers is the rampart income and wealth disparity in Hong Kong. That this grievance is not even
mentioned by the protesters is an ominous sign that the movement has been hijacked by those who have ulterior motivations.
Gruff - please provide a detailed historical example of an "organic" protest in your terms.
I go back to the 60s and every single major protest movement since that time fits neatly inside your simplistic box. None can
pass your smell test. Not to mention you offer no positive steps to correct what you see as a problem, except banning/ignoring
people with different ideas from you who are automatically considered paid trolls. And this is just blog commentary we're talking
about not y'know, organised political agitation, a relatively toothless pasttime for old timers. Duly noted even here in a commenters'
community you take the side of the supposed "insider" status-quo and seek to push out anyone with different ideas.
Grow up Gruff. Your schtick was already overly tired in 2005. It lives on here among a few self-identified "insiders" only
because b to his credit doesn't believe in ideological banning. I could name names but its the same ol high volume commenters
who start the insinuations of "lot of trolls out tonight" or whatever baloney to rally the like minded into a clique of "anti-subversion."
Every movement has its agitators and its co-opters, all with agendas of their own. Every revolution contains counter-revolutions
(real and imagined) within its power structures (AKA "power struggles"). And yes, every revolution has its power structure
too. Inescapable given human need for social hierachy. This is also the fatal flaw within every political movement (and in fact
human civilisation itself) that from the beginning it plants the seeds for fractiousness, division and eventual downfall.
What's to do then? Bow to the inevitable power of the state, is that your reactionary, arch conservative solution Gruff? Seems
the only logical answer to be inferred from your ongoing repetitive tiresome same ol same ol "troll hunting".
Maybe you are a CIA troll. See how easy that is?
At least start backing up your schtick with some relevant data. You have gone beyond simplistic and boring dude.
@128 Curtis - ".. pointed to the Hong Kong protests of 2014 and how the candidates were selected by a committee for the people
to vote on instead of a more democratic process."
You illustrate an excellent example of the shit colonial administrative system of governance that the British left in Hong
Kong. Recall that the policy of China towards its returning provinces is the "One Nation, Two Systems" framework - the same framework
that will apply to Taiwan eventually.
Under this policy of two systems, China has scrupulously left Hong Kong to govern itself, and to enjoy its own oligarchical,
stagnant and corrupt economy. Both of these things are much inferior to those in China. If people have grievances about their
life in Hong Kong, they would do well to look at the foreign methods ruling them. They would be better off under the Chinese system,
as Martin Jacques criticized Beijing for NOT imposing on Hong Kong, in the clip I
posted up-thread.
Two million people are prepared to go marching on the street, yet you are suspicious that they are not genuine because they
have not signed a petition? Sorry, I don't follow this logic: You are suspicious of anti-government protesters who will not
put their ID card numbers on a petition in an country rules by a corrupt, authoritarian government? And why is a petition more
convincing than 2m people in the street?
The number of protesters was exaggerated. The police counted only 340,000 when the protest organizers claimed two millions.
Hong Kong government is in cahoots with the real estate tycoons and is in the pockets of the uber-rich. But that's the case for
every government in the world. It does not mean the Hong Kong government is especially corrupt or authoritarian. If the protesters
can demonstrate that they are indeed a force to be reckoned with by both protesting in the streets and garnering hundreds of thousands
of signatures to support their cause, then they will have a far greater chance of success. Success means that they do not have
to worry about government persecution. By hiding both their faces and names, they undermine their own cause, reduce the chance
of their success, and increase their risk of being persecuted by the HK government.
One wonders how long it will take before other countries kick US NGOs like the CIA front organization the National Endowment for
Democracy and Soro's Open Society out of their countries as the subversives that they are.
As a simple rule of thumb "If any organs of the US State or its allies appear to support a political demonstration, that demonstration
ought automatically to be condemned by anti-imperialists and democrats of any kind". The only demonstrations worth supporting
are those organised by principled opponents of the state and spontaneous responses to actions supported by the state. Where the
state in question is at loggerheads with the Empire any opposition to that state is going to be contaminated by imperialist money
and support.
The truth is that in almost every case where the Empire, and this includes its ideological engines such as the
media, is supporting opposition to the state which it is attempting to overthrow, support for demonstrations is not only mistaken
but counter productive.
No good can come from actions which the imperialists approve of, guide and promote. This must be the case because the purpose
of the imperialists is to enslave, rape and plunder populations.
The lessons of Iran in 2009, Kiev in 2014, Venezuela today, Brazil last year etc etc, of Libya and Syria and of the overthrow
of Aristide in Haiti are quite clear: the Empire exploits the poor and the disenfranchised, it aims not to liberate them but to
bind them into a slavery more profound than any previously undergone.
With reference to Hong Kong, no doubt there are plenty of genuine grievances with the CP government. There are also plenty
of tensions of a caste and racial nature, borne of the long rule of the imperialists, employing the place as a base from which
to impose its deleterious rule on a population that it exploited in every way including the trafficking (kidnapping and sale)
of millions of 'coolies.'
Anyone with any sense in Hong Kong knows that the National Endowment of Democracy and the UK Foreign Office are not involved to
promote the interests of the people but to revive the fascist power that the Communists displaced and the "west" supported for
so long.
bevin - your "simple rule of thumb" of course precludes any chance for revolution anywhere. Thus yours is a reactionary statement
at base. Not that I'm surprised at that fact. Disappointed though.
We no longer live in the early 20th Century. When I read you more and more I believe you are mired within an antiquated political
philosophy that no loner resembles economic conditions on the globalised ground.
As imperialism already exists everywhere in many forms, guises, is international and not necessarily bound anymore by recognised
nation states, monied forces will always seek to contaminate and control any movement seeking political change.
Your rule of thumb means support for Brexit is a waste of time.
For, as is now readily apparent to most (and should have been for a long time now), the main beneficiary of Brexit will be...US
imperialism.
We must stop with these false moralisms: we all know that the question on the table here is not the welfare of the HK people,
but on which terms it will be pacified.
If you cared about the welfare of the people in abstract, you would be talking about Africa and the Middle East, not Hong Kong.
I sent this post to a friend from mainland China who is now a US citizen living in Arizona. Here is his reply:
The mess in Hong Kong definitely has British and American "black hands" behind it. I wouldn't be surprised the Chinese government
decides to take back Hong Kong completely soon if the violent protests continue. Some people in Hong Kong don't understand how
lucky they are that they don't have to live under the same rules that rest of the Chinese people have to live. Small number of
people wanted independence which I think is supported by British and American "black hands" (that's the word used by Chinese government).
Instead of enjoying what they have and possibly make it last longer than the 50 years that Chinese government originally promised,
they may very well lose it in less than 50 years. Like most Chinese, I absolutely have no sympathy for them. Soon they will find
out life will be much worse under the true Chinese government. Naturally the small number of people who started all this will
escape to England or the U.S. but rest of the people in Hong Kong will be permanently screwed.
What is wrong with extraditing people accused of crimes to the places where they are alleged to have committed the crime? This
bill that is being protested, seems to be hedged round with all sorts of restrictions on when it would be permissible to extradite
someone. To me it looks like a pretty reasonable bill. What do you think is wrong with it?
And yes, I read bevin's comment regarding B-o-rexit @ 170 in that thread the other day and snorted coffee through my nose I laughed
so hard. You were obviously straining mightily to reconcile your support for the Brexit debacle with some "wishin and hopin" that
maybe Jeremy Corbin-style socialism will strike Trump's base of voters as the way forward?
What has become of you bevin? Srsly, sir. That comment and this one support reactionary, hard right policies falsely shrouded
in a deceptive, utopian fantasy.
If the existence of a mafia is the indicator of a fascist state, then you'll also have to worry about Japan (Yakuza), Taiwan
(allied with the Hongkonger Triad), Hong Kong itself (Triad), Russia (Eurasiatic Mafia), Italy (where the term was created),
USA (Kennedy's family had link with the American mafia) and essentially all Latin America (where narcotrafic is in all but
name mafias).
Check out too, while you are at it Ron Unz's massive essay on "The Power of Organised Crime" in the Unz Review (unz.com)
"By their fruit shall ye know them." If it walks like a duck... The msm is the propaganda arm of the Empire. Anyone that relies on it for news is going to be at best confused, at worst
totally misinformed or completely shut off from reality. Yes sometimes there is some real news in it but not very often and you
cannot, sensibly, rely on it.
I feel very deeply torn about "Brexit". On the on hand I like having Europe so united and on the other the people supporting
"Remain" are the likes of Tony Blair, Mandelson, Cameron and a whole gang of undesirables and the US seems to be supporting Brexit!
It is very clear that the State Department (NED) and Atlantic Council crew have gotten their marching orders concerning Hong Kong!
Apparently the State Department thinks their HK operation still has legs and can be revitalized with sufficient astroturfing.
If b were to publish on the empire's disruption efforts in Russia that are in the news these last couple days you can expect
the very same crew to be casting FUD on b's analysis and talking up the clown Navalny like he was the real "opposition"
to Putin's United Russia party. These tools would even have defended Random Guaido if they could have thought of a way
to do so without being universally laughed at. Where Hong Kong is concerned, however, they are nursing the mistaken impression
that there is still an opening to try and sell the corporate media narrative. The only people buying though are their astroturfing
companions.
One may wonder why they come to these alternative media sites that provide analysis that is independent of the empire's artificial
narratives. Do they imagine readers here might somehow have not heard the mass media's take on things already and that if the
astroturfers regurgitate the corporate media narratives readers here will be "enlightened" and flock back to Huffington
Post and similar imperialist forums? More likely they are just following orders. Still, their presence here indicates that the
empire is concerned about the analysis that b shares and the discussions that follow that sharing. That concern is gratifying.
I agree, when the empire sends it's beasts of burden to sow chaos, you know you have gotten somewhere as an alternative media
source. The concern is indeed gratifying.
Who is your real patron? Whose orders are you taking to police the forums?
You sell the left as a very power hungry, fascistic and extremely idiotic position; you and your "comrades" are excellent left
repellents –though only for the idiotic youngsters.
But if you don't have a patron (which I doubt) and you're a genuine charlatan, that's even worse. I always smile when all those
scoundrels in the West are called left, progressive etc. And now I see the real left and I laugh. Really.
@154 William Gruff - "...why they come to these alternative media sites that provide analysis that is independent of the empire's
artificial narratives. Do they imagine readers here might somehow..."
You raise a good point that is worth considering.
We know that everything they do is done in full mediocrity, and that it either fails to achieve anything or else actually results
in a loss of what they had before. If the same dynamic is at work here, then one could expect to see that they are actually losing
with every slanderous and attacking comment they make.
Why do they hurt themselves in this way, by sending in sub-par operatives to engage with the very view that comes from having
seen through the pretense they use as cover?
Can it be that they know one thing better than us, which is that this very conversation is a fatal threat to them? In a way
that we fail to measure to its full weight, do they see they are losing? Is it possible that they see that for every troll they
send, thousands may be liberated from thralldom? And the more they see this liberation, the more they double down?
This "death by irony" would match everything else they do.
"... Why do they hurt themselves in this way, by sending in sub-par operatives to engage with the very view that comes from
having seen through the pretense they use as cover? ..."
You think that the likes of GCHQ and their equivalents in Langley and Tel Aviv will willingly pay impoverished university students
or otherwise unemployable dole-chq takers on zero-hours styled contracts a decent wage for their pains?
Even hiring people to staff the trolling call-centres is subjected to the rigours of neoliberal labour hiring and remuneration.
From the Morning Star
"Earlier this year, in mid-March, before most people in Hong Kong, never mind the West, were aware of the details of the Extradition
Bill, the US National Security Council (NSC) issued an invitation to Hong Kong opposition politicians to visit Washington.
Headed by Anson Chan, the most senior civil servant in the last British colonial administration, meetings were fast-tracked
with Trump's Vice-President Mike Pence and the NSC itself.
"The vice-president is clearly concerned about rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, including religious rights," Chan told the
media.
The main topic of conversation was stopping the extension of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Extradition Bill).
Hong Kong's Civic Party leader Dennis Kwok, who was part of Chan's delegation, said after the NSC meeting that the US government
was "paying high attention to what's happening in Hong Kong, and extradition is certainly at the top of their priority when it
comes to Hong Kong."
They were particularly interested in how the Bill "would directly affect the interests of the American businesses and citizens
who are either in Hong Kong or going through Hong Kong."
Chan also referred directly to the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, which states that the US regards Hong Kong as
"an independent customs territory and economic entity separate from the rest of China."
This status gives Hong Kong considerable advantages in the ease of trade with the US -- its loss would seriously harm the Hong
Kong economy.
Given Hong Kong's separate monetary authority and currency, taxation rules, banking systems and property laws, this is simply
a reflection of economic reality.
However, if Hong Kong were to lose that status in US law, it could be subject to punitive tariffs, economic sanctions and a
whole raft of restrictions on Hong Kong-US trade.
These were the first hints that the Hong Kong opposition and the Trump administration would tie the Extradition Bill to the
ongoing US-China trade war.
In mid-May, these threats took a more direct form. Just weeks before the first major public mobilisation against the fugitives
law, a second high-profile delegation, this time headed by Hong Kong Democratic Party founder Martin Lee, also found a warm welcome
in the US capital.
On this occasion, the delegation met US Secretary of State Mike "Regime Change" Pompeo, then with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the most powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill.
The highpoint of Lee's visit was an invitation to give testimony to the bipartisan US Congressional-Executive Commission on
China, chaired by Marco Rubio.
I have seen the true face of the HK demonstrations in the Australian Financial Review photo of the demonstrators holding US flags,
I think,that is a good example of the real reason and source of this disturbances ,
Is a revolution that benefits the ZionistAnglo Empire's hegemony legitimate? The Empire is fascism on a global scale. Do you
not see that? The higher goal should be to remove that scourge not add to its power. If the Empire hijacks a foreign domestic
protest for its own power-driven agenda, how does that benefit so many more others on the planet who don't want to be under its
dominion?
Your thinking is naive and driven by the humanitarian propaganda that the Empire uses as a Trojan Horse to move in and take
over.
I don't want Zionist America in every corner of the world exerting its militaristic world order by chaos! F.ck it! I am for
a multi-polar world where Zionist America and its vassals don't dictate the rule by breaking international law!
If the Empire co-opts through various forms of concerned psy-ops, crowd enhancement illusion, Zionist media promotion
and fake righteousness, which amounts to propaganda, the protest of 340,000 to further its enslavement of say, 350,000,000 on
a global scale, how is that good?
Again, the Empire represents GLOBAL FASCISM. In other words GREATER EVIL.
In the case of Brexit, I would discard who prefers what. Brexit is America's gain. Better to reign in the poorhouse than to
serve in the palace. In Europe the UK always demands exceptionalism. When it becomes more dependent on the US, the latter will
make the demands.
Now, of course, the UK could use a lesson in humility, and so far Brexit has certainly delivered on that! 😁
I think the U.K. should quit acting like Europe's primadonna, return to the fold and play nice with others. The alternative
is probably more karmic spanking.
@166 StarMan
Why am I not surprised?
Especially that Marco Rubio weaseled his way into this.
A political reality which has devolved so far to the right that while we babble about online trolls we begin to believe authoritarian
fascist govts supported by global oligarchs are doing the right thing on our behalf!
And is the Fascist ZioAnglo Empire doing the right thing on our and everyone's behalf with its unchecked global militaristic
and financial power and tyranny???
"... "You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty convincing.... ..."
"... Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system??? ..."
"... The Russians trying to rig the elections meme was a fallback for the failure of the “trump is a russianstooge" meme. ..."
Here are some insights into the minds of many movers and shakers in Russiagate:
Key US officials behind the Russia investigation have made no secret of their animus
towards Russia.
"I do always hate the Russians," Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer on the Russia probe,
testified to Congress in July 2018. "It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals
and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous
threat to that way of life."
As he opened the FBI's probe of the Trump campaign's ties to Russians in July 2016,
FBI agent Peter Strzok texted Page: "fuck the cheating motherfucking Russians Bastards. I
hate them I think they're probably the worst. Fucking conniving cheating savages."
Speaking to NBC News in May 2017, former director of national intelligence James
Clapper explained why US officials saw interactions between the Trump camp and Russian
nationals as a cause for alarm: "The Russians," Clapper said, "almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were
concerned."
In a May interview with Lawfare, former FBI general counsel Jim Baker, who helped
oversee the Russia probe, explained the origins of the investigation as follows: "It was
about Russia, period, full stop. When the [George] Papadopoulos information comes across
our radar screen, it's coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia.
we've been thinking about Russia as a threat actor for decades and decades."
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin
rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections
as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of
"Russia meddling" which began with the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA
and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies???
And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system???
Protesters wearing all black streamed through the Yuen Long area, even though police refused to grant permission for the march,
citing risks of confrontations between demonstrators and local residents.
By nightfall, protesters and police were once again facing off in the streets, as they've done previously during the summer-long
pro-democracy protests in the Chinese territory. Demonstrators threw objects and ducked behind makeshift shields, and police officers
shot plumes of tear gas into the air.
In May the chief organizer of the demonstrations
met with U.S. leaders:
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Hong Kong pro-democracy leader Martin Lee on Thursday, the State Department said,
as Hong Kong activists seek to derail a proposed extradition law pushed by Beijing.
"Secretary Pompeo expressed concern about the Hong Kong government's proposed amendments to the Fugitive Ordinance law, which
threaten Hong Kong's rule of law," the department said in a statement.
Lee founded the first pro-democracy party in Hong Kong in 1990 and has been a prominent voice calling for civil liberties for
the city's residents.
Lee and
other U.S. stooges organized large demonstrations against an extradition bill which would allow the government to send people
who committed crimes in mainland China, Taiwan and Macau to those provinces where the crime was committed to receive their punishment.
Hong Kong already has similar agreements with foreign countries.
Since then the government of Hong Kong temporarily pulled the bill back. The protest movement immediately diminished. But a core
of black-clad students, influenced by the U.S. paid leaders, is trying to keep the struggle up. Throughout the last weeks they broke
into the parliament building and ransacked it. They defiled family graves or pro-Chinese politicians, attacked police lines,
harassed elderly arrivals (vid) at Hong
Kong's airport and today, during an illegal demonstration,
destroyed a car which they falsely believed
to have a Chinese mainland owner.
Such behavior will only diminish the popular support they might have received otherwise.
That the U.S. is behind this can also be seen in the
slanted
coverage the riots
receive
in 'western' media. The picture they draw is
incomplete :
Unable to defeat the bill legislatively, Hong Kong's pro-Western opposition has taken to the streets. With the help of Western
media spin - the illusion of popular opposition to the extradition bill and Beijing's growing influence over Hong Kong is created.
What is not only omitted - but actively denied - is the fact that the opposition's core leaders, parties, organizations, and
media operations are all tied directly to Washington DC via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and corporate foundations
like Open Society Foundation.
Hong Kong has 7.5 million inhabitants. While demonstrations of several ten thousands seems big, they does not represent a majority.
The so called 'pro-democracy' parties in Hong Kong have lost in each and every local election. The pro-China parties always receive
a majority of votes.
Hong Kong was once the exclusive 'door to China'. It lost that status when China opened up for trade. Today a number of much larger
cities within the mainland are way richer and more important. Hong Kong has little influence on what happens elsewhere in China.
The temporary special status it received after Britain's colonial rule is of little concern. Most people in Hong Kong recognize that.
They know that their economic well being now depends on Beijing's good will.
The U.S. may believe that the circus it creates with these student stunts might push China into doing something harsh. But the
mainland is not concerned about
such nonsense. It already knows how this will end:
"Trying to seize the opportunity to incite chaos in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region does not have popular support
and will not be successful," [Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang] said.
The students who were instigated to commit violence and crimes will go to jail. The extradition bill will be reintroduced at a
convenient time and pass Hong Kong's legislative council with a large majority.
As that outcome was totally predictable one wonders why the Trump administration bothered to launch such nonsense. It will only
make it more difficult to solve other problems, like North Korea or global trade, over which China has influence.
I don't doubt that Hong Kong residents have legitimate gripes, but like a tapeworm attaching itself to the host, almost any domestic
unrest in any US "adversary" is usually tapped into by the US for its own purposes.
Thank you b. I had a strong suspicion that the west - particularly the US/UK - were behind this brouhaha, if for no other reason
than that it arose when it did. And that the BBC World Service has been beating the drum for the protestors, always mentioning
fantastical numbers (millions, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands) when it does so.
The BBC World Service, as the US-UK voice of corporate-capitalist-imperialism, *never* speaks to those Hong Kong people who
are not interested in the protests or the purported reasons for them (so much for their much vaunted "impartiality" which is and
always has been utter bunkum). Nor, when the extradition bill is mentioned, does the Beeb *ever* point out that it includes Taiwan
and Macau. Only China is spoken of as the focus of the bill. *Nor* does the BBC ever say that Hong Kong has (and is) used as a
bolt hole for real criminals who are wanted in China, Taiwan and Macau. And they have never mentioned the fact that HK has similar
treaties with other nation states. Nor has anything (in my hearing) been said about the US connections of any of the leaders of
this "movement." Omitting information is as important as repetition, use of weaselly terms, outright lying when seeking to propagandize.
In contrast - because it's "one of us" - virtually nothing has been reported on the Gilets Jaunes protests, except on the odd
occasion when some accompanying the protests have broken Parisian shop windows. And during those few and far between reports no
mention at all was made about the French Riot Police's brutality and the terrible wounds they inflicted on the demonstrators.
(Of course, we also never hear *anything* about what the Israelis do to Palestinians unless it can be portrayed as poor, weak
and vulnerable Israel being victimized by the Goliath Palestinians.)
By contrast every report on the HK protests underscores the HK police's use of tear gas and plastic bullets.
The real issue here is the idea that Western nations have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries,
anywhere in the world, whenever it suits them to further the agenda of the Imperialism.
If the Chinese people of Hong Kong have a problem with their rulers, surely they have the right to do whatever they
choose about it, without external interference. But apparently not, according the Empire and its lackeys. As ever, the West is
the arbiter of other peoples lives (and death). It's sickening and I'm ashamed by the actions of our so-called leaders.
Nice of you to quote Tony Cartalucci. As I
mentioned in the previous thread, he has been
banned by Facebook
and Twitter . Cartalucci has been opposing NED, Soros and their fake civil society organizations and color revolutions in
Asia for at least 10 years. Part of the reason for his ban is likely
his opposition
to the color revolution attempt in Hong Kong.
...
"As that outcome was totally predictable one wonders why the Trump administration bothered to launch such nonsense. It will only
make it more difficult to solve other problems, like North Korea or global trade, over which China has influence."
Posted by b on July 27, 2019 at 17:06 UTC
... not to mention the tired old fantasy of driving a wedge between China and Russia. The chance of that succeeding now is
less than zero. It's also funny that China.gov has decided that the protesters shouldn't be treated too harshly because its not
their fault that they're childish and impatient.
Evidence accumulates that Obama was the real leader of this color revolution against Trump with Brannan as his chief lieutenant
and Comey as a willing accomplice.
Now that the dust has settled, one must ask why the Deep State wanted Trump gone. Why does the Obama-Clinton mafia hates him so
much? Is this due to Trump committed an unforgivable sin in suggesting we “get along with Russia” and thus potentially cut the
revenues of military-industrial complex ? This is not true -- Trump inflated the Pentagon budget to astronomical height. Then
why ?
Notable quotes:
"... The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama. ..."
"... Operation Crossfire Hurricane was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip Strozk texted the following to his mistress, Lisa Page : ..."
"... We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials, such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named in US intelligence documents. ..."
"... Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane? ..."
"... On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election to install Donald Trump? ..."
"... Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide. ..."
The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was
not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken
with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama.
As
I have written previously , the claim that Russia tried to hijack our election is a damn lie. But you do not have to take my
word for it. Just listen to Barack Obama speaking in October 2016 in response to Donald Trump's expressed concerns about
election meddling :
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they are
so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this
time," the president said to the future president in October 2016.
"Democracy survives because we recognize that there is something more important than any individual campaign, and that is making
sure the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself. Becasue Democracy works by consent, not by force," Obama said.
"I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections
and the election process before votes have even taken place. It is unprecedented. It happens to be based on no fact. Every expert
regardless of political party... who has ever examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances of significant
voter fraud are not to be found. Keep in mind elections are run by state and local officials."
It is important to remember what had transpired in the Trump/Russia collusion case by this point. Operation Crossfire Hurricane
was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations
that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA
and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip
Strozk texted
the following to his mistress, Lisa Page :
Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote: " the White House is running this. " My answer,
"well, maybe for you they are." And of course, I was planning on telling this guy, thanks for coming, we've got an hour, but with
Bill [Priestap] there, I've got no control .
Page: Yeah, whatever (re the WH comment). We've got the emails that say otherwise.
The White House clearly knew. But Strzok's text is not the only evidence. We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials,
such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named
in US intelligence documents.
There are only two possibilities:
Obama was being briefed by Susan Rice and DNI James Clapper and CIA Director about the project
to take out Trump, or
Obama was kept in the dark.
Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known
to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to
hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do
nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane?
On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was
the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election
to install Donald Trump?
My wife was for many years an election official in Virginia. IMO Obama was right in saying that a US presidential election
is impossible to "rig." The US Constitution requires that federal elections be run by the states WITHOUT federal supervision.
As a result the methods and equipment in the states and the various parts of the states vary widely and the state systems are
not tied together with a national electronic network as, for example, the system is in France where the result of a national election
is reported on TeeVee immediately when the polls close.
Asking the question, "Can you cite one specific case where a single vote was definitively changed by Russian meddling?"
causes panic in a person who is declaiming about the evils of Russian meddling in our elections.
When you ask that question, the invariable retort is that the Russians are so clever that you wouldn't know that you were being
gulled; or, when I say that I have never seen a Russian produced facebook ad, the rejoinder is that the Russians concentrated
on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and, of course, I would have been privy to the bot-sent emails and facebook ads generated by
the Internet Research Agency.
You've maintained all along that the Russians interfered in the election, yet I believe it is your position that the Russians
did not change a single vote. Is that correct or do you believe the Russians changed the votes before tabulation?
What did the Russians do that the Trump and Hillary campaigns did not do? Did they also turnout the tens of thousands who showed
up for Trump rallies that Hillary could never muster? Are they still turning out thousands at recent Trump rallies? I'm curious
how come Brennan and Clapper could not turn out thousands to Hillary's rallies when according to our German friend "b", the omnipotent
US Intel services just turned out a quarter of the population of Hong Kong to protest CCP authoritarianism?
Did the Israeli, Saudi and Chinese governments interfere in the election? How would you compare what they did to what you believe
the Russians did?
uieter about it. All that is very different from the absolute covert nature of the Russian IO in the 2016 election. I have
no idea what China did or is doing.
You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication. The lies on this are enormous. If the FBI really had detected
GRU hacking of the DNC in 2015, which is claimed in the fabricated meme, then you would expect the FBI and the other counter intel
elements of the USG to take action. THEY DID NOTHING.
The issue of Russian hacking only emerged when Hillary and the DNC learned that DNC emails were going to be put out by WIKILEAKS.
Again, not one shred of actual evidence that the Russians did it, but blaming the Russians became a convenient excuse in a bid
to divert attention from the real story--i.e,. Hillary and the DNC colluded to defeat Bernie Sanders.
The only real solid evidence of colluding with foreigners, in this case the Ukraine, comes courtesy of Hillary and her campaign.
Hiring a foreign intel officer (ie. Steele) who then takes info from Russians of questionable background and spread it around
as "truth". That was not a Russian IO. Pure Clinton IO.
"What the Russians did was insert misattributed information and disinformation into the election cycle...That is what separates
the Russian IO from anything Clinton, Trump or any of their supporters did."
I believe supporters of both candidates did exactly what you say the Russians did - insert misattributed information & disinformation
into the media stream. If you watch MSNBC or Fox on any given day there is much assertion & opinion masquerading as news. And
the Twitter & Facebook and blog universe are teeming with stories and innuendo that are more fiction than fact all from anonymous
accounts.
The Russia Collusion hysteria is replete with examples of "misattributed information and disinformation". It seems that yellow
journalism is as American as apple pie.
The whole opaque PAC structure with names like "Americans for Democracy" funded by chain structures hiding the real financiers
and calling up down is something that we see growing in every election cycle and is already of significant scale both in terms
of financing and dubiousness.
It is also rather common that "experts" who are called upon to opine on issues routinely never disclose their conflicts of
interest. Jeffrey Sachs and so many others on the payroll of CCP entities never disclose those payments as they extoll the virtues
of offshoring our industrial base to China and are apologists for CCP espionage.
Blue peacock, supporters of Clinton and Trump did not put out misattributed info. They both put out truth, innuendo, exaggerations,
misleading info and even outright lies, but they put it out as themselves. They didn't represent themselves as someone other than
who they were. The PAC structure comes close to skirting this requirement for truthful attribution, but a quick internet search
blows away the facades of these PACs. What the Russians did was pure black propaganda.
You mean the kindly grandmother, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, did not inform President Obama that
the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant to surveil the Republican candidate for the presidency and members of his staff becasue he
was working with Russians? Or do you mean that James Comey failed to tell his boss, Loretta Lynch; or do you mean John Brennan
failed to tell Obama about that Steele dossier from Fusion GPS that Mueller know anything about; or do you mean that James Clapper
failed to tell Jeh Johnson about that too? The Russians made them do all those things as part of an interference campaign, right?
It couldn't have been they were corrupt and incompetant.
"Instead, Obama...." made an "If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor" statement that he knew was completely false.
Trump didn't win, Russians influenced Americans to vote for Trump, just ask the losers of the election, their paid sources and
their colleagues in Congress. In fact Americans love Hilary so much she's just where in the polls right now?
I continue to be astounded by the outrage at "Russian meddling". So some Russians used the internet to post true or false information
on candidates in a election.... so what?...millions of American partisan trolls were doing the same thing for or against a candidate.
We had tons of fake info written by American bloggers and posters all over the net, Facebook, twitter etc..
Its not like Putin came to the US and gave a speech to congress in favor of Trump ...as Netanyahu did in appearing before the
US congress and urging them to go against President Obama's Syria policy for heaven's sake.
It is so ridiculous I have given up hope of finding enough IQs above that of a cabbage to form a sane government.
Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block
the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide.
1. The FBI cannot be trusted to uphold defend and protect our Constitution, as they sought actively
to overturn a duly elected POTUS.; and
2 - Mueller's incompetence is astounding.
Is the only entity of the Defense Department called the U.S. Army the only ones left actually upholding, defending, and protecting
our Constitution and our Constitution processes? I don't see the other entities of the DOD called Navy and Air Force doing their
jobs upholding our Constitution!
Thumbs up to the Army, thumbs down to the Navy and Air Force!
I'm a little more charitable to the FBI. The Trumps lied their asses off to the FBI about their foreign contacts. Which IMO,
wrong or right, left the FBI all but no recourse but to investigate those lies. Even if the lies were simply based in long-seated
personal habits, it takes investigation to prove that is the case.
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly
saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of "Russia meddling" which began with
the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean
we are headed for a one-party system???
Larry, sorry to nitpick, but I have such regard for your work that it pains me to see the typographical error in your second sentence,
where you say "his error" shortly after referring to Trump. I'm guessing that you meant to say "this error", but it reads as if
it means "Trump's error".
And while I'm at it, your last sentence has "it" instead of "if".
Keep up your great work for this excellent website.
Sadly naive in that you think the conspirators were actually acting in good faith. You think they were right when they used
the Steele Dossier in applying for a FISA warrant in Colyyer's Star Chamber? Steele was a paid informant for the FBI as was Page.
uh Hillary Clinton stood with Bush and lied the world into war. Hillary and Obama brought
slavery back to Libya and ISIS and the largest refugee crisis since WW2 to Syria .
Dont forget genocide in Yemen ..
Hillary also supported disastrous free trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA and {TPP that
brought back slavery} that harm workers on both sides of the borders
Hillary also toppled a democratically elected president in Honduras with Death Squads and
Obama killed 40,000 innocent t people with Sanctions in Venezuela
They are fleeing Hillary and Obama's Terror spree ..and cheer on worse WW3 with Russia
Reporter Quits NBC Citing Network's Support For Endless War
c.. Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes, Emma Peele, Without a Doubt – and I absolutely adore your
"Avengers" pseudonym !
Hillary's disgusting crimes, however, seem to me to be an attempt to ingratiate herself
(and the Democrats) with the Ultra Hawkish Bush Era Republicans.
Who can ever forgive & forget her ghoulish pronouncement, "We came, we saw, He
died!!"
(in reference to the ghoulishly brutal public murder of Libya's Qaddafi. {Qaddafi's "Green
Book" was a well imagined Socio-Economic plan for for the economic liberation of Africa from
the economic and cultural strictures of US, European Absolutist Brutal Dominion.} -- As it
was, Libya, under Qaddafi, was a liberal, socialist society with free education, free health
care for all citizens, and a nation with it's own currency , free from US/EURO manipulation
and control.
-- This Is Why We Killed Him. --
This is US Command and Control World-Wide POLICY ! ! ! --
-- Anglo-Saxon Command and Control of the Whole Wide World and all it's resources Owned and
Militarily Controlled by European Bankers
-- - EUROPEAN Bankers, Rothschild Criminal Banker WarMongers/ Wall Street and American
Military Power --
These are They which Evilly Rule the World and Disparage or Murder (annihilate) All Others
at their pleasure, and Trump is an evil antagonist with the personage of a King Leopold.
Please find "KING LEOPOLD'S GHOST' By Adam Hochschild
But the author is wrong. Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US
hegemony. Trump does that in order to save it, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised
by the US military/intelligence community. They want to destroy globalisation and create
fortress US, in order to save as much as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of
cooperation in the world benefit the US.
The Outlaw US Empire's desperate. It was recently announced that Russia/China trade is now
conducted mostly in Yuan/Rubble with dollar transactions at 45% and dropping fast. Plus, the
volume of Russia/China trade is rapidly increasing and has already surpassed 2018's volume.
The major Power of Siberia gas pipeline to China with an export capacity of 38 billion cubic
meters compared with the initial Nordstream project's 55 billion cubic meters will vastly
increase the non-dollar trade value.
Additionally, China seeks ever more ag products from a Russia that's rapidly expanding
that export potential thereby taking away one of the Empire's few export earners. Rather
soon, all Russia/China trade will be outside of the dollar system while its volume rapidly
expands.
IMO, Hong Kong represents an Outlaw US Empire temper tantrum that only serves to further
delegitimize its standing with China and the ASEAN region. Rather starkly, the Outlaw US
Empire is beginning to realize China doesn't need it whatsoever, nor does most of Eurasia.
Ouch!
Occupy
was no revolution, but its initial aim of disrupting a key operation of the state was the right
idea, for you must hurt your enemy, if only for a day. Imagine Wall Street or nearby Goldman
Sachs in flames! This goal was akin to puncturing a pipeline, blowing up an important bridge or
assassinating a crucial figure. In America, however, there's no visible target who's actually
worth killing, for none is indispensable to the state's criminal function. Those out in the
open are just actors. In laying out a much ballyhooed puppet's mangled cadaver, all you'll
achieve is a symbolic goal, but perhaps it's worth it after all, for all traitors must pay, and
it may even inspire a real revolt.
Revolution sounds cool because it implies a terrible awakening of the masses, to impose
their will, exact justice and start a new paradigm, but most revolutions are fake, with many
orchestrated by another elite or triggered by a foreign power. Moreover, Americans are too
divided and atomized to rebel as a people, so the best you can hope for is to regain
independence, freedom and sanity for your state, region or maybe just town.
The first step is to stop thinking of yourself as an American, for there's no America left
to save, much less "make great again," and there are no Americans left either, for if anybody
can be a defacto American just by showing up, then the concept is meaningless. That's like me
landing in Tel Aviv tomorrow and declaring I'm a Jew.
Your average American hardly has a hometown, just a homepage, and his neighbors are the
anonymous, pseudonymous, hasbarists and trolls he compulsively chats with. If you don't even
belong to your neighborhood, how are you the citizen of any nation?
To reclaim your street, you must regain your mind, but the porn has gotten so damn good, why
would anyone want to leave PornHub, Chaturbate or Illusory Participation, USA?
I was born in 1963, a year of many coup d'états, and you may remember the one in
South Vietnam, Guatemala, Ecuador, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Benin, Togo, Iraq or Syria,
which actually witnessed two. The most significant happened right in the US of A, however, and
like most, it was certainly an inside job.
Like Ngo Dinh Diem, John F. Kennedy wasn't a good enough puppet, so he had to be expertly
brained. Even if Lyndon Johnson wasn't in on the plot, he served them faithfully afterwards, as
has every American president since. They've all gotten the message. Similarly, it only
takes one academic to be defenestrated from the ivory tower for the rest to toe the line.
Americans live in a cowed country. Home of the brave my ass!
Protesting their government, thousands of Americans became symbolically homeless
, but their society has only sunk further, with destitution, despair and anger rapidly
increasing. As the rank of those who must sleep and defecate outside constantly swells,
Washington still doesn't give a shit, but why should it? They're getting theirs.
Inside the Beltway may be a swamp, but it's a gilded one, designed for the most arrogant and
smug. Outside, the quicksand ocean keeps on devouring.
Game over, I heave these toss away lines during garbage time, but enough of this, for I must
return to my daily tons of garbage .
The future is indeed plastic. From the end of the world, I watch various endings.
The theatrically strident "radical," who's most conformist, paradoxically this specimen
is a cookie cutter puppet that's jerked by a totalitarian master, the very state he thinks
he's resisting. Obediently correct, the American radical divides and attacks the masses.
Happily domineered, he demands that everyone else becomes as shackled as he is, and since
this will never happen, he's eternally enraged.
Notice how the solidarity of the 99% is no longer evoked by anybody.
Most revolutions are fake, with many orchestrated by another elite or triggered by a
foreign power.
Your average American hardly has a hometown, just a homepage.
I've read several well done, poetic, laments for the USA tonight, always enjoy good writing.
Don't understand why you exceptionalize JFK, though, he was pretty much a white Obama, good
looking but completely without insight or competence and certainly no different than Truman,
LBJ, RonReagan and all the rest. I mean, really? Have to admit, banging MM would sure beat
Porn!
@Brabantian "Steve
Sailer had written earlier about the idea that the elite-fostered public obsessing with
racial ethnic etc identity as a war cry, date from after the crushing of the Occupy movement,
as the possibly supreme distraction from people uniting against the elites."
Been going on for a long time. The New Age movements were spookfests to sidetrack
energetic and hopeful youth from trying to initiate real change in society. Follow a guru
("got to get a guru" drummed into our minds) or a Sun Myung Moon, instead of bothering the
elite ruling families and their wealth machine.
AntiFa never goes after the true fascists, the private owners of the corporations that
work with the government at transferring wealth from Public to Private hands. The Hidden Hand
at work.
Climate Change. Taxes and more expense for individuals to combat the Public-Private
partnership geo engineering of the Weather. Great Carbo "The People must change".
How about They shut down the weather modification machines for a start.
Projects created in sub basements underneath Langley.
@IvyMikeY ou
make your entirely idiotic claim and reveal your ignorance. The worst part of UR is the large
number of ignorant and/or lying babblers peddling their wares here.
• JFK was trying to stop Israel from getting The Bomb.
• JFK had ordered US forces out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.
• JFK had spoken out against secret societies.
• JFK had issued Executive Order 11110.
• HST dropped The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• HST woke up in the middle of the night to recognize Israel.
• LBJ carried on an illicit affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim.
• LBJ called back jet fighters racing to defend the USS Liberty from Israeli
attack.
• LBJ escalated US involvement in Vietnam.
• LBJ claimed to have been visited by the Holy Spirit in the White House.
• RWR granted amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S.
• RWR presided over downsizing, outsourcing, and offshoring U.S. industry to China.
• RWR tripled the national debt.
• RWR conspired with GHWB to delay release of U.S. hostages in Iran.
Linh Dinh: "Moreover, Americans are too divided and atomized to rebel as a people, so the
best you can hope for is to regain independence, freedom and sanity for your state, region or
maybe just town."
Atomization, alienation, and anomie are inherent properties of mass society. The only way
to get rid of these things would be to get rid of the mass of people themselves, or to
destroy the technology that undergirds such an arrangement and makes it possible. The latter
is a solution that would also cause a mass die off.
Many people imagine that the system could arbitrarily be decentralized, without
understanding that things have centralized, and are as they are, for a great many good,
practical reasons. Nevertheless, there is always nostalgia for the past. An article I
recently read ends this way:
We must have a polis again, in all that the Greeks understood by that term: small,
self-governing communities bound by common language, ethnicity, customs, and religious
traditions. Such a thing, far from being utopian, would spring from our nature, life as it
was lived across thousands of generations. What is artificial is our divorce from the land,
our crowding into cities to live alongside strangers for the purpose of endless
consumption, and our insistence on universalism even when we ourselves – those of
European descent – lose the most by it.
But that author appears not to understand, any more than you do, that such a thing is
impossible in the modern world. The technological infrastructure necessary to support the
more than seven billion people on the planet won't permit it; not even the 330 million or so
in the USA. Keep the infrastructure, and keep the atomization, alienation, and anomie. You
can't have one without the other.
Chinaman: "As Mark Twain put it succinctly: "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let
you do it""
This doesn't appear in any of his writings, and is dubious. Twain did write or say some
other things about voting that are in conflict with it, for example:
But in this country we have one great privilege which they don't have in other countries.
When a thing gets to be absolutely unbearable the people can rise up and throw it off. That's
the finest asset we've got -- the ballot box.
– interview in Boston Transcript, 6 November 1905
A similar quote has been attributed to anarchist Emma Goldman, who seems a more likely
source.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Representative democracy is just evolutionary autocracy, autocracy perfected.
In the good old days, were a leader to be a bit cruel or terrible, there would be an, if a
little bloody, directly democratic revolution, and the system would be switched to something
new. This is really just the Duke of Zhou's Mandate of Heaven, but without the pointing to
the unverifiable.
But within our autocracy, a good old boy can become leader through a popularity contest,
in which they neither have to tell the truth, nor wear speedos down a promenade for judges,
be a cruel and terrible leader, and even if the system somehow indited them whilst they were
in office, then another magical election would be called, and another good old boy would be
tapped into the hot seat. Sometimes they'd wear a blue tie, sometimes a red tie – but
they'd always listen to the brain, the permanent governments of elite money and power, and do
its bidding.
Representative democracy is a facelift, and currently, the world's representative
democracies are mostly giving facelifts to zombies. Protest is the right to shout but not the
right to be listened to. Being listened to is semi-direct democracy. At the very least a
legal and independent path to the reversing of representative decisions, so that there could
be a check and balance on the whole system of government by the people, de facto as well as
de jure.
This is spot on about the disease but not about the cure. For the cure consult LaFollette's
autobiography, Pinchot on the history of the Progressive Party, Thorstein Veblen's economics
(Michael Hudson for help), Buckminster Fuller, the Townsend Clubs, Upton Sinclair Eisenhower
told us -- an alert informed citizenry is America's ONLY hope. That's why you never heard of
these people.
Been going on for a long time. The New Age movements were spookfests to sidetrack
energetic and hopeful youth from trying to initiate real change in society.
Indeed. The incubus was generated in the social sciences labs of Tavistock and Frankfurt
even earlier, in this case to impregnate the minds instead of wombs. The offspring are the
sordid sexual freaks blinded and deranged by political syphilis.
They call this abortion Cultural Marxism to complete the oxymoronic allegory of fighting
for equality when the purpose and result is the opposite through diversion and division to
entrench elite rule.
Marx's words and works have been denigrated to give authority to a miscarriage. Marxism is
for equality, real equality; not sexual perversions, race blindness, gender fusion. His
philosophical message is that our existence is determined by our relationship with the social
and economic forces acting on our lives. The root power comes from the relations of
production, that is, our place in the economic order; whether you have to labour for your
crust or you belong to the chosen or privileged class; whether you have to sell your labour
to survive or enjoy the profits from the product of someone else's labour. In a sentence:
Marxism is for economic equality. Everything else is a distraction and smoke-screen.
@Laura McGrath It is
not race that is the problem. Brazil has a very mixed population. It had ZUS coup in 2016.
Race mixing will not help free this planet of the criminals who rule us.
For the Brazilian political scientist and historian Moniz Bandeira, the alarms rang long
ago. "These demonstrations that started last year and before the World Cup were not
spontaneous. These were prepared beforehand, with trained elements, trained agitators", he
explains. In his book "A Segunda Guerra Fria" (The Second Cold War) he describes in detail
the role of some NGOs and think-thanks in the so called color revolutions. "What is
necessary in Brazil is that the government does what Putin did: to force all NGOs to
register, register the money they receive, where they receive it from and how they use
it.
"
It is all about the Benjamins. Race mixing is not going to help us at all. It is a
delusion from our rulers. Obama is a classic example. In his administration he had a coup in
Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine and who knows where else. He destroyed Libya,
Syria by supporting "rebels" and Yemen he did the same.
Moniz points out the American interest in maintaining the prevalence of the dollar as
the global currency. According to him, threatened by BRICS – and the nonexistence of
regional powers in the continent -- "That's what the U.S don't want: Brazil having nuclear
submarines, they don't want a regional power in South America – not to mention one
that is linked to China and Russia. And there's a detail unknown for the Brazilian people:
there's a struggle around the international reserve currency. The fact that the U.S has the
right to print as much dollars as they want and the fact that the dollar is the
international currency: that's where the U.S hegemony lies. And what China and Putin want
to put an end to is just that -- that's the reason behind the BRICS."
Terpil later told author and investigative journalist Jim Hougan:
Historically, one of Wilson's Agency jobs was to subvert members of both houses [of
Congress] by any means necessary . Certain people could be easily coerced by living out
their sexual fantasy in the flesh . A remembrance of these occasions [was] permanently
recorded via selected cameras . The technicians in charge of filming [were] TSD [Technical
Services Division of the CIA]. The unwitting porno stars advanced in their political
careers, some of [whom] may still be in office."
. . . .
The downfall of "Washington's Jay Gatsby"
After having left his job as an ABC News correspondent in the 1980s, Craig Spence found
success as a prominent conservative Washington lobbyist. Spence would soon find his
fortunes shift dramatically when, in June 1989 , it was revealed that he had been
pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s in
apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment. Much like Jeffrey
Epstein, who ran a similar operation, Spence was often likened to Jay Gatsby, the
mysterious, wealthy figure from the well-known Fitzgerald novel The Great Gatsby.
I'm glad Democrats are hanging their hat on the fact that a president can be indicted when
he's out of office for obstruction of justice. So they won't object when Barr indicts
Obama.
I'm glad Democrats are hanging their hat on the fact that a president can be indicted when
he's out of office for obstruction of justice. So they won't object when Barr indicts
Obama.
"... Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state." ..."
"... The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized. ..."
"... There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait. ..."
"... But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded. ..."
"... Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions. ..."
"... The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods. ..."
"... On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel." ..."
"... Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1. ..."
"... The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy. ..."
"... Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did. Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing into the cargo hold. ..."
"... The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention the ones who broke international law. ..."
"... Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.) ..."
"... Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg): ..."
"... Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong. ..."
"... And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy. ..."
"... John Bolton, war criminal. ..."
"... John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a hat. ..."
"... Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace. ..."
"... While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him. So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump. ..."
"... The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war. ..."
"... The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is coming faster than you think. ..."
Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis? Evidence suggests he pressured the Brits to seize an
Iranian ship. Why? More war. By Gareth
Porter •
July 23, 2019
While Iran's seizure of a British tanker near the Strait of Hormuz on Friday was a clear response to the British capture of an
Iranian tanker in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, both the UK and U.S. governments are insisting that Iran's operation was illegal
while the British acted legally.
The facts surrounding the British detention of the Iranian ship, however, suggest that, like the Iranian detention of the British
ship, it was an illegal interference with freedom of navigation through an international strait. And even more importantly, evidence
indicates that the British move was part of a bigger scheme coordinated by National Security Advisor John Bolton.
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt called the Iran seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero "unacceptable" and insisted
that it is "essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region."
But the British denied Iran that same freedom of navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4.
The rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew was that it was delivering oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions.
This was never questioned by Western news media. But a closer look reveals that the UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions
against that ship, and that it was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships
through international straits.
The evidence also reveals that Bolton was actively involved in targeting the Grace 1 from the time it began its journey in May
as part of the broader Trump administration campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran.
Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on
sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The
EU Council regulation in question
specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business
entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state."
The UK government planned to claim that the Iranian ship was under British "jurisdiction" when it was passing through the Strait
of Gibraltar to justify its seizure as legally consistent with the EU regulation. A
maritime news outlet has reported that on July 3, the day before the seizure of the ship, the Gibraltar government, which has
no control over its internal security or foreign affairs, issued
a regulation to provide what it would claim
as a legal pretext for the operation. The regulation gave the "chief minister" of the British the power to detain any ship if there
were "reasonable grounds" to "suspect" that it had been or even that it was even "likely" to be in breach of EU regulations.
The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar
Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement
by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any
mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized.
There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually
impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims
territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas
the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of
the middle of the Strait.
But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace
1 was in the shipping lane heading east
toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the
coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this
live view of typical ship traffic
through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters
at any time before it was boarded.
But even if the ship had done so, that would not have given the UK "jurisdiction" over the Grace 1 and allowed it to legally
seize the ship. Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the
United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union,
establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation
for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage
of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions.
These articles allow coastal states to adopt regulations relating to safety of navigation, pollution control, prevention of fishing,
and "loading or unloading any commodity in contravention of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations" of bordering
states -- but for no other reason. The British seizure and detention of the Grace 1 was clearly not related to any of these concerns
and thus a violation of the treaty.
The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration
to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods.
The statement by Gibraltar's chief minister said the
decision to seize the ship was taken after the receipt of "information" that provided "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that it
was carrying oil destined for Syria's Banyas refinery. That suggested the intelligence had come from a government that neither he
nor the British wished to reveal.
BBC defense correspondent Jonathan Beale reported: "[I]t appears
the intelligence came from the United States." Acting Spanish Foreign Minister Joseph Borrell commented on July 4 that the British
seizure had followed "a demand from the United States to the UK." On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge
reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel."
Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on
the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.
Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration
reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance.
This decision was accompanied by
political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian
state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter.
That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities.
The State Department's Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions,
warned those
entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a
self-insured Iranian tanker.
But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern
tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System
data cited by Riviera Maritime Media . It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority
delisted the Grace 1 on May 29 -- just as the ship was beginning its journey. That decision came immediately after Panama's National
Security Council issued an alert
claiming that the Iranian-owned tanker "may be participating in terrorism financing in supporting the destabilization activities
of some regimes led by terrorist groups."
The Panamanian body did not cite any evidence that the Grace 1 had ever been linked to terrorism.
The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with
that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit
a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary
American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy.
Now that Iran has detained a British ship in order to force the UK to release the Grace 1, the British Foreign Ministry will claim
that its seizure of the Iranian ship was entirely legitimate. The actual facts, however, put that charge under serious suspicion.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative . He is also the author
of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
Honestly the Brits are such idiots, we lied them into a war once. They knew we were lying and went for it anyway. Now the are
falling for it again. Maybe it is May's parting gift to Boris?
Same EU legislation only forbids Syria exporting oil and not EU entities selling to Syria (albeit with some additional paperwork).
However, it doesn't forbid other non-EU states to sell oil to Syria. They are not behaving like the US. And this is also not UN
sanctioned. In fact, UK is also acting against the spirit of JPCOA towards Iran. Speak about Perfidious Albion (others would say
US lapdog).
Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped
there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales
aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did.
Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was
even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might
come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing
into the cargo hold.
The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention
the ones who broke international law.
Now we find that once again a European country had (apparently) gone out on a limb for the US--and wound up with egg on its
face for trying to show its loyalty to the US in an all-too-slavish fashion by doing America's dirty work.
Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe
the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the
bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.)
The very fact that the UK tried to present its hijack of Iran Oil as an implementation of EU sanctions dovetail well with Bolton's
objective of creating another of those "international coalitions" without a UN mandate engaging in 'Crimes of Aggression".
The total lack of support from the EU for this UK hijack signals another defeat to both the UK and the neocons of America.
Too bad there isn't an international version of the ACLU to argue Iran's legal case before the EU body. What typically happens
is that Iran will refuse to send representation because that would in effect, acknowledge their authority. The EU will have a
Kangaroo court and enter a vacant decision. This has happened numerous times in the U.S.
Would anyone in the U.S. or EU recognize an Iranian court making similar claims? Speaking of which, the entire point of UN
treaties and international law is to prevent individual countries from passing special purpose legislation targeting specific
countries. Why couldn't Iran pass a law sanctioning EU vessels that tried to use their territorial waters, what is so special
about the EU, because it is an acronym?
Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international
waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign
minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg):
https://www.academia.edu/30...
Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us
a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong.
Thanks for the investigative reporting. Trump has lied almost 11,000 times, so I think nobody expects the truth from The Trump
Administration anytime soon. Especially if it goes against the narrative.
And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will
not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy.
OK, so why did the Brits go along with it? Are they so stupid as to not figure out that Iran might respond in kind, or did the
Brits not also want war?
John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to
get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a
hat.
Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to
support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace.
While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him.
So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump.
The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time
now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war.
The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so
new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those
contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is
coming faster than you think.
WARNING: The article by Frank Ching reflects the position of the proponents of Hong Cong color revolution.
So brainwashed young people will pay for the Washington plot. This dream of emigrating to
Taiwan and, eventually, to the USA might or might not be granted. Business as usual for any color
revolution I think: without such guarantees from the State Department neocons to the leaders of
the color revolution would not push people to riot, but those guarantees might be a fake and they
might land in jail for along long time.
Attempt to undermine police moral is standard color regulation playbook trick, but I think
Chinese authorities are well aware of this (attempt to demoralize policy is number one method in
any color revolution; girls attaching flowers into police shields is classic) and took some
countermeasures. but this petition of Junior police Officers Association suggests that those
efforts probably at least partially failed and there is some level of infiltration into policy
force of color revolution proponents.
Of coarse, petition might be in itself a fake manufactured by color revolution proponents and
signed by people who can't represent the whole Association.
In might be interesting to know the level of infiltration of color revolution proponents into
the government. If we use EuroMaydan color revolution as an example some clashes might be
provoked by moles indie the government doing Washington bidding. The problem is that
neoliberalism is no longer as strong as in 2014 and such methods might be not have the same
effects despite all the efforts and money spend.
Not that the mainland China is paradise but here Hong Cong protesters are mainly doing
Washington necons bidding as timing is very suspicious indeed.
That day, June 27, the Department of Justice was literally under siege, with hundreds of
protesters encamped outside urging the secretary not to prosecute those who had been arrested
since June 9
... ... ...
The civil service can run on autopilot but police morale is a grave concern. While protest
marches are still peaceful, they are often followed by clashes between protesters and the
police, often leading to injuries on both sides.
The Junior Police Officers Association, which represents the bulk of the 31,000-strong
police force, has in a statement said that management "should not assign them tasks that may
result in injuries or deploy them to dangerous places to minimize their occupational
risks." Otherwise, the association said, it would "seek legal advice to find solutions that
will better guarantee the safety of officers."
walrus ,
I am concerned for the people of Hong Kong. The one thing the Chinese will not tolerate is
political disorder because Hong Kong is potentially an example for the rest of China.
I would therefore hope for a negotiated settlement that preserves face. This is not a time
for Western SJW's to egg the kids on either.
The alternative is perhaps Two hundred thousand young hong kong Chinese in prison
camps.........or worse. The Chinese are quite ruthless in dealing with potential insurrection
and couldn't care less about western hand wrinklier, sanctions and congressional
resolutions.
The IASPS conference study group leader was a Zionist named Richard Perle, who attended as a
delegate from the American Enterprise Institute; while another Jewish neocon named Douglas
Feith attended as a representative of Feith and Zell Associates.
Both these individuals then emerged as key players in the Bush administration: Perle was
Chairman of George Bush's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, and Feith became Under
Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon's Policy Advisor.
They were joined by a long list of similarly Israel-first Zionists in the Bush
administration:
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary and campaign advisor;
Robert Satloff, US National Security Council Advisor;
Rabbi Dov Zekheim, Under Secretary of Defense and Comptroller;
Elliott Abrams, National Security Council Advisor;
Marc Grossman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs;
Richard Haass, Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Director of
National Security Programs;
Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, a Pentagon advisor who sat on the Pentagon's
Defense Policy Board;
James Schlesinger, another Pentagon advisor who also sat on the Pentagon's Defense Policy
Board;
Robert Zoellick, the US's Trade Representative;
Mel Sembler, President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States;
Israeli citizen Ari Fleischer, official White House spokesman;
Joshua Bolten, Bush's Chief Policy Director;
Steve Goldsmith, Senior Advisor to the President and domestic policy advisor;
Mark Weinberger, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury;
Samuel Bodman, Deputy Secretary of Commerce;
Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State for Management;
Ruth Davis, the Director of the Foreign Service Institute;
Lincoln Bloomfield, Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs;
Jay Lefkowitz, General Counsel of the Office of Budget and Management;
David Frum, Bush's official White House speechwriter;
Ken Melman, White House Political Director; and
Brad Blakeman, White House Director of Scheduling.
The scene was now set: all they needed was an excuse to maneuver America into destroying
Iraq for the benefit of Israel, according to the plan which Perle and Feith had already helped
to map out.
"... That said, Germany's military readiness directly relates to the invasion threat from Russia Europe actually faces. I.e., ZERO. Washington should take note but of course it won't because there is no money in it for the American Merchants of Death. And the Generals inside the Pentagon just have too much fun fear-mongering about illusory existential enemies. ..."
"... As Politico recently reported, "an investigative committee of the German parliament -- the toughest instrument that lawmakers can use to probe government misdeeds -- is digging into how lucrative contracts from her ministry were awarded to outside consultants without proper oversight ..."
"... Yet another U.S. mirror image. Because that is exactly how inside baseball works in the Pentagon acquisition system. von der Leyen as a European Hack is no worse than the Washington / Pentagon Hacks on the other side of the Atlantic. Note, MIC lifer and Raytheon parasite Mark Esper currently sitting in the Big Seat in the Pentagon. You can be sure that DoD reform is way down on his bucket list. ..."
Like all those soon to occupy positions of power in the EU, von der Leyen did not run in the
recent European elections for the position she is about to hold. She did not participate in the
debates in front of various national electorates. But she was chosen -- after the elections --
by the political class in Brussels, ostensibly for her faith in and loyalty to the European
superstate, and personally to the German chancellor Angela Merkel.
Another
report by the Rand Corporation , a think tank, revealed that it would take Germany a month
to mobilize in the case of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. Von der Leyen is
very unpopular in the German army , but very popular with the Eurocrats.
She's a fervent supporter of a European army and a "United States of Europe" -- the
ultimate qualification for being president of the European Commission.
But there is more to the von der Leyen story. As Politico
recently reported , "an investigative committee of the German parliament -- the toughest
instrument that lawmakers can use to probe government misdeeds -- is digging into how lucrative
contracts from her ministry were awarded to outside consultants without proper oversight, and
whether a network of informal personal connections facilitated those deals."
The scent of corruption is a common element among those who are to hold key positions in the
European Union over the next few years. Josep Borrell, minister of foreign affairs for the
socialist government of Spain,
was fined 30,000 euros for insider trading. He is expected to hold the foreign policy post
in the European Commission.
Christine Lagarde, most recently chief of the IMF, was involved in the case of an
arbitration panel that awarded a massive payout to a French tycoon while she was the finance minister of
France. A special court for ministerial misconduct found her guilty of "negligence" but "waived
any punishment or criminal record, citing her 'international reputation' and role in dealing
with 'the international financial crisis.'" A marvelously L'état, C'est
Moi form of legal reasoning. Lagarde is expected to be the next president of the
European Central Bank.
The common threads of corruption, incompetence, and lack of accountability are what unites a
political class that has divorced itself from the concerns of the average European. In the last
days before her confirmation, von der Leyen pursued a charm offensive that included a commitment
to a "Green New Deal," a continuation of
an open borders policy , and a further deepening and enlargement of the European
superstate. This included the story of her having
offered hospitality to a Syrian immigrant who "now speaks German fluently."
Obviously von der Leyen would never have won the May elections running on an agenda like
that. But of course, she never had to run a campaign to win the votes of the peoples of Europe.
The campaign that she did run was premised on her having built "an extensive international
network in politics and business," as another Politico
story put it .
Von der Leyen thrived in the networking atmosphere of World Economic Forum meetings, where
she "serves on the organization's board of trustees," Politico noted, adding, "She's
also forged close ties to powerful figures outside the world of politics, most notably
Bertelsmann, Europe's largest media company, which owns RTL, the Continent's largest commercial
broadcaster, book publisher Random House and a stable of magazines."
A senior Green quoted for the article said her fluency in French has helped her establish a
rapport with the French political class that is unrivaled in Berlin.
It's clear that von der Leyen's domestic record appears to have had little effect on her
election -- what matters is that she is universally liked by the who's who. "What matters most
in these circles is the personal connection," said an adviser to the leader of one of the EU's
smaller member states.
Those who count and those who are to be ruled are not the same group of people. That seems
to be the essence of modern European politics: a political class and ideological cult that
masquerades as a competent technocratic elite, despite its long and disastrous history. Von der
Leyen's terrible record as defense minister meant nothing. Neither did Lagarde's record as head
of the IMF, where, for instance, the Greek debt crisis was transformed into a social
catastrophe. The deciding factor was their dedication to something that "those who count" are
committed to. Elections are merely a necessary, archaic ritual of legitimization.
Napoleon Linarthatos is a writer based in New York.
On Monday 22 July 1940, a major meeting was held at the Reich Economic Ministry in Berlin,
under the chairmanship of Minister Walther Funk, to discuss a directive issued by Hermann
Göring on 22 June, concerning the organization of a Greater European Economic Area under
German leadership. The Germans were well advanced with their plans for a post-war settlement.
One of the difficulties of planning lay in the fact that the Führer's aims and decisions
were not yet known and the military measures against Britain were not yet concluded.
What? A techno-managerial clique ruling the rest of us Great Unwashed (see "Deplorables")? It
couldn't happen here, could it? It's OK if they went to the right schools, isn't it?
Too much use if the word disastrous. Disastrous is what Wilhelm II did to the German empire.
This is not disastrous, but it is concerning like a rudderless ship.
Don't be asinine. Russia is not going to invade anything and has no claim on any part of
western Europe. The only thing the German military is good for is for sucking up additional
budgetary funds.
Another report by the Rand Corporation, a think tank, revealed that it would take Germany
a month to mobilize in the case of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States.
For the sake of completeness, the Rand Corporation is actually a marketing arm of the
Pentagon fully funded by the U.S. government.
That said, Germany's military readiness directly relates to the invasion threat from
Russia Europe actually faces. I.e., ZERO. Washington should take note but of course it won't
because there is no money in it for the American Merchants of Death. And the Generals inside
the Pentagon just have too much fun fear-mongering about illusory existential
enemies.
Of course that does not dismiss the charges of cronyism and corruption associated with
Ursula von der Leyen. But re:
But there is more to the von der Leyen story. As Politico recently reported, "an
investigative committee of the German parliament -- the toughest instrument that lawmakers
can use to probe government misdeeds -- is digging into how lucrative contracts from her
ministry were awarded to outside consultants without proper oversight , and whether a
network of informal personal connections facilitated those deals."
Yet another U.S. mirror image. Because that is exactly how inside baseball works in
the Pentagon acquisition system. von der Leyen as a European Hack is no worse than the
Washington / Pentagon Hacks on the other side of the Atlantic. Note, MIC lifer and Raytheon
parasite Mark Esper currently sitting in the Big Seat in the Pentagon. You can be sure that
DoD reform is way down on his bucket list.
The real story is that taxpayers on both NATO poles are played for chumps by the Power
Elites.
After the cold war ended in the 1990s the US quickly became the worlds leading police
state with mass incarceration, more of its own people in jail and prison then any nation in
the history of mankind. Who are we now to preach about freedom to the world ?
The primary weaknesses of liberal democracy and the capitalist order come from the
decisions made by voters and captains of industry. When political and economic freedom create
impoverishment, income disparity, racial strife, and nationalist xenophobia, the fruits of a
free society die on the vine. I see the Yahoo News elderly guys and the Russian trolls are
mystified by this obvious state of world affairs.
The problem is that for many decades american "words" contradict american "deeds", and the
whole world can easily see american double standards. That's why american "alternative" is
negative, not positive. As an example (one of 100s) we can remember that famous 1939 phrase
"Somoza may be a son of a b.., but he's our son of a b..."
Institutionalized group-think is the Great Enemy of any Empire. It leads to complacency
and a refusal to see the world as it really it, and to view oneself as uniquely gifted and
therefore exceptional and eternal.
Eventually this will become the prevailing wisdom in post-hegemony US just as it became so
in post-Empire Britain or post-Soviet Russia.
Lets see, mistakes:
Iraq war, Kosovo war, NATO enlargement, let Russia economy crushed at 90's. Let Libya
completely, Syria partially destroyed. Become arrogent see non-western nations low. Etc.
etc.
We can tell post cold-war is about "end of freedom commercial" and get real "wild
capitalism." China was mis-calculation. They decided to use it as cheap workforce and a
not-formal colony which ended surprisingly otherwise.
All above talk is a naive try to turn back "freedom commercial" days. Best thing USA can
teach now, how to kill people in every imaginable way.
The post Cold War worst mistake of US was the EU enlargement, Russia could have become
less paranoid and nationalist and perhaps a more solid democratic culture would have been
established
"Democracy" is simply the rule of a small elite minority of organised people over a much
greater majority of disorganised people. Russian "democracy" delivers what its people want to
the same degree as US "democracy". In fact, judging by Putins much higher domestic approval
numbers that the Trumpster, I'd say it delivers more...
Democracy" is simply the rule of a small elite minority of organised people over a much
greater majority of disorganised people. This is "oligarchy", not "democracy", the regime
that is running in Russia,China,NK and similar heavens of dictators.
"The result was an economic boom, a wave of democratization, and victory in an existential
struggle against Communism without yet another great-power global war. "
Victory? I assume you guys are aware that the Chinese are Communists?
Surely you didn't think that global completion over ideology and nationhood was resolved
in the Cold War? That was just a single geopolitical skirmish, one game in a whole season. It
ain't over till it over.... and its ain't done by a long shot.
"...are Communists?" Labels don't mean anything. They're huge, getting richer, have an
historically motivated chip on their shoulder and want to assume the place in the world,
particularly Asia, they feel is their due. They are sensitive to their public's opinion That
we have a buffoon in charge is certainly an impediment; we're still involved in 'unforced
error' wars the last appointed, incurious executive began as
China is hard to classify in the traditional sense. Its government is what we would call
"Communist", but its ruling ethos is essentially Confucianist , its social ideology is
Socialist, but it uses market economics, mercantilism and Capitalism to generate wealth and
pay for it all.
The Chinese are not fools. They have taken the best aspects of many ideologies and wielded
them into a system that seems to work well for them. What Americans might feel about it is
utterly superfluous.
Whether realizing or not, the author, quoting the National Security Strategy report of
2018, ironically described the US to a T when they wrote "For today, the dictator (the US)
may be your friend, but tomorrow he will need you as an enemy (China)". & "... (the US)
seek lifetime tenure (hegemony), expanding territories (bases) total authority (MAGA) &
obedient subjects"!
.
The philanthropic & much admired champion has grown into an ugly dictator, bending the
world to its will through soft & strong power. The global revulsion towards the misuse of
hegemonic muscle is what caused the US to lose its place in the Global Order! Simple as
that!
To this panglossian peaen to the American imperial system and its promotion of democracy,
human freedom and all other nice things against the dark forces represented by those other
guys like Russia and China, let us consider a reality of American foreign policy that belies
this tripe: US support of Saudi Arabia from 1945 to the present moment. I suggest that if any
of what this writer proposes we believe is true about the motives underlying US foreign
policy, then the theocratic and medieval regime Saudi Arabia would no longer exist. Yet it
continues to exist and is a valued partner of America.
Perhaps the most immediately effective strategy for effecting a realignment of the global
economy, ending the US pursuit of global military hegemony and the other planet threatening
practices of the US and Western plutocracy would be for other countries to follow the
historical precedent set by the United States in its Lend Lease dealings with Great Britain
as detailed in Hudson's Super Imperialism :
Britain was near the end of its financial tether. Its gold and dollar reserves had
fallen to $1 billion by September 1940, when it nationalized the overseas investments of
its large corporations and put them up for sale abroad. (p. 119)
(I am assuming Britain didn't do this voluntarily.) Hudson may be hinting at this with his
de-dollarization strategy suggest of "Deprivatization and buyouts of US assets abroad."
This would expose the whole rotten edifice of Western finance capitalism, perhaps provoking a
dangerous planet suicidal response. But one or two shots over the bow would be far more
effective in curbing the wealth addiction and predatory propensities of the West's plutocracy
than Trump's tariffs.
It would also provide the Western money worshipping public with a
powerful lesson they need a better definition of wealth than the price of stocks.
Damnit, folks, it is their job to say things that are wrong!
There is being wrong because one is missing some crucial information, or because one is
personally invested in a wrong narrative, but then there is being wrong because one is
deliberately trying to change a narrative to a false one for duty and profit.
The goings on in Hong Kong are so obviously a retry of the previous color revolution
attempt by the evil empire that it can be used as a reliable litmus test for who is carrying
water for the US State Department and Atlantic Council.
Yes, they 'feel encroached upon'. But honestly, their feelings in this matter are
delusional, and I mean that they are on the same level of delusion as the beliefs of those
involved in the Salem witch trials. Fantastic, community-wide, shared delusion.
It is hard for people to get their heads around the truth, because the narrative
universally starts from the assumption that 'China has been interfering', 'China hasn't kept
its word', etc.
And why not? It's China, right? It's a communist dictatorship. All those have to be safe
assumptions?
Except that they aren't; such assumptions are quite wrong. China has pretty much left Hong
Kong alone.
Yes, many Hong Kongers believe that they are being oppressed by China. But the
belief is simply and literally delusional. Very badly so.
Your theory fails the empirical test. It's an abstraction akin to the "Sea Peoples" theory
about the end of the Late Bronze Age.
Hong Kong, even after receiving 2 million migrants (which should've risen it GDP
considerably), begun to stagnate in relation to the Mainland. Since 1997, it's grown on
average 30%-50% the Mainland's average annual GDP growth rate (it is now growing at a 3%
annual average -- half the Mainland's rate).
In 2017, Shenzhen surpassed Hong Kong in terms of "GDP".
The matter is simple: after the handover (1997), Hongkongers demanded to remain
capitalist. The "One country, two systems" deal was a Hongkonger condition to go back to
China. At the time, it seemed like a wise decision: China was still a poor country, and there
was no signal Deng Xiaoping's reforms would be able to get out of the "middle income
trap".
They simply bet on the wrong horse: Chinese socialism demonstrated more dynamism than
Soviet socialism and achieved an important breakthrough in the period that ranged from its
accession to the WTO in 2001 to the aftermath of the 2008 crisis in 2012 (when, e.g. Brazil
-- another country growing at an accelerated pace from 2005 to 2011 thanks to high
commodities' prices and was used as a counterexample to Chinese socialism's success --
collapsed).
We can attest this "bet on the wrong horse" theory by simply looking at the protesters'
face: most of them very young, probably born after 1997 or too young to remember pre-1997
Hong Kong. They didn't live during the British despotic and authoritarian rule; they waived
the colonial flag and called it freedom. They forgot they are already living the British
dream: Hong Kong is still capitalist to the bone -- and will be until 2047, as the deal
dictates (legal guarantee of deals is a basic principle of freedom, since it's a basic
principle of Rule of Law -- so I don't know why the protesters are complaining about it).
This "Hongkonger is a nationality" is farce, a modern fabrication by the Western MSM. Hong
Kong was never a nation, and never will be a nation. The city proper doesn't even have a
source of potable water.
And you don't have to be unicultural to be a country; the same way, having a culture
doesn't entitle you to be a country. Culture doesn't equal country. This myth, that states
country borders are determined by cultural (specially, linguistic) differentiation is a
post-WWI fabrication, when the big imperialist powers had to find an excuse to partition the
Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires. Nobody outside Europe (and the Japanese) believes
that.
You are right. Hong Kongers effectively bet on the wrong horse. I mean, you can't really
blame them. Even Deng didn't realize how quickly China would grow.
Personally I think that Hong Kongers are having a very hard time, psychologically,
adjusting to the fact that Mainland Chinese are catching up or surpassing them in terms of
wealth. In the 1990s, they felt superior to other Chinese, and were secure in this
feeling.
That's all finished now.
In fact, given that this current colour revolution falls flat and we get back to normal in
a couple of months, I predict that Hong Kongers themselves will beg for One Country, Two
Systems to be ended early in about fifteen years' time. By then, it will be clear to anyone
who isn't brain dead that 1C2S is harming the Hong Kong economy by preventing full
integration with China, and no one in HK will support it any more.
You'll see Chinese flags being waved enthusiastically all over the place, probably by a
lot of 37-year-olds who were once chucking bricks at the cops and yelling for 'independence'
in 2019.
The lack of any productive industry is the fundamental economic problem with HK since
1997, and it's prior prosperity based on using itself as a main trade and investment gateway
into the Mainland is a short and one-time affair of the unique geopolitics of that era. HKers
who believe that privilege will last forever was naive to say the least, even when back in
97.
Contrast with Singapore that insists on sustaining a sizable manufacturing base to the
point it's considered a top economic priority, albeit one where much of it is being owned by
foreign capital.
Some posters are arguing that Hong Kongers are deluding themselves and that they should know
better and stop fighting assimilation into the Chinese system.
Talk about arrogance. Hey, Venezuelans should stop fighting the U.S. And kiss the ring! I
know what's good for them.
A good analogy for asserting our will over Hong Kong would be like trying to change the
nature of lemmings because we know what's best for them. Sure they commit ritualistic
suicide, but it is still their right and within their nature to do so.
Everything else equates to meddling and this is the stuff of absolute power and empire. A
far cry indeed from the ideals that most here espouse in every other circumstance. I am not
buying for a second that Hong Kongers don't have legitimate grievances with the concept of
being absorbed into China and that they are indeed airing them out for the world to see.
The process was textbook hybrid warfare: first, they tried to do "mass peaceful protests"
in order to seek a violent police response (preferably, with some dead) so as to trigger a
chain reaction to topple the democratically elected government. The Chinese are not stupid
and ordered the police to not act violently. Then, they tried to storm the Legco in order to
provoke a violent response: the police was against smart, and used the "scorched earth"
tactic: the building was left empty and unprotected, so all that was left to the protesters
was to vandalize the building (which played against their image); the fact that some
blowhards waived the colonial flag also didn't help their image (good image is a conditio
sine qua non for a color revolution).
Carrie Lam then outsmarted the protesters further by killing the bill (which is not
essential to Mainland governance of Hong Kong either way). That further delegitimized the
continuation of the protests. We can even speculate here if this bill wasn't a bait used to
test the waters in Hong Kong.
As a last, desperate attempt by the protesters, they tried to besiege the police hq in
order to try to induce a massacre. That obviously didn't work.
Those "protesters" are likely the heads of the color revolution attempt, almost surely on
the pockets of some NGO linked to Washington. They are now planning a fall back in order to
regroup. Taiwan is using this to consolidate itself even more as liberal Festung in
China.
As I stated here before, a color revolution only works against a strong government when it
has the backup of the unconventional warfare (UW). Hong Kong is very susceptible to a color
revolution, but is inviable as an unconventional warfare theater. That's because it doesn't
have any sources of potable water -- which comes from the New Territories (the flatlands
directly above the city-peninsula).
Well, it seems the color revolutionaires are very aware of this fact:
According to "Two masked male protesters", there's new reivindication in the agenda: they
want the dissolution of the government and new elections, to be decided by "popular vote"
(i.e. whoever is in the pockets of Washington).
"... As Mael Colium says, the US picks off individual countries by isolating them. ..."
"... there's a fundamental difference between debt in the past and debt today. In the past debt was owed to the state, today it's owed to some wealthy corporations. Good luck with debt jubilees in the absence of violent uprisings. ..."
"... The difference is they internalize profit and externalize cost. And that's fundamentally different from all other epochs in the past. Even the birth of nation state was out of their rationalization of how to maximize profit extraction and cost externalization in the 1st place. Good luck with debt jubilees. ..."
"... How would this occur aside from a repudiation of the almighty buck one wonders, and would it be based on reserves in the vault, or actual use as money? ..."
"... The Eurozone and China could run trade deficits, thereby creating an opportunity for their currencies to become reasonably viable alternative reserves. But they don't because they don't want to cede control of their manufacturing and export-driven economic bases away. ..."
"... The sine qua non of our economic empire (which I learned here) is that a global currency requires global trade deficits, which must grow as quickly as the global economy to fulfill its role. ..."
"... So American deficits are structural. Our debt-ceiling controversies are theater. And our dollar is exceptional until the instant it isn't–then the Fed electron-tranfers trillions more to the speculators whose notional dollars just evaporated, keeping the currencies in the air with their new casino chips. Is this a loan? A gift? An electron cloud? It's the fog of war by other means . . . ..."
"... Resources and the critical health of the planet bother me a lot. Money and "gold" are, in the end, both fictitious obsessions. ..."
"... You'll find few authors willing to provide their seminal work for free online– 2nd Edition PDF . I think it fair for those unfamiliar with Hudson's work to read his analysis prior to being judgmental. ..."
"On a similar note, I've wondered why Russia has not defaulted on it's considerable USD and
EUR debt (also too, why is Russia still doing debt in USD and thus strengthening U.S.?)"
It should be noted that Russia has almost zero foreign public debt and that the private foreign
debt has been much reduced and now amounts to US dollars 450 billion.
As Russia has a surplus of more than US dollars 100 billion on the current account the total
foreign debt amounts to 4 years current account surplus only.
Ad to this that Russias international currency reserves amounts to ca. US dollars 500
billion which meens that Russia is in a very strong fiscal position as it is capable of paying
off its entire foreign debt any time it chooses.
Along the same lines, the summary starts with, "The first existential objective is to avoid the current threat of war by
winding down U.S. military interference in foreign countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of neocolonialism."
Either would be
taken as proof of evil anti-US intentions, leading to sanctions, coups, assassinations,
regime change, and eventually outright war. As Mael Colium says, the US picks off individual
countries by isolating them.
When we have MMT paying for arts, history, journalism and particularly editors, I won't be
so irritated by these kinds of criticisms.
We live in a very advanced world of Bernaysian propaganda where the communicative
industries are privately owned and directed to ensure deep criticisms of the
hyper-exploitative current reality CANNOT be published and promoted.
When someone takes the effort to produce something, like this or the book other commenters
on this thread are also slighting, at great personal expense to themselves without corporate
backing or institutional support, a decent reply would be "Thank you!", rather than tasking
them or our hosts here at this site to "go back and clean up this mess??"
If you had any decency, you might suggest clarifying edits in comments, like changing
"– so that it can taxing its own citizens." at the end of the 23rd paragraph to,
"– so that it can avoid taxing its own citizens", to help the people you are
criticizing for making things so difficult for you.
Michael Hudson is a modern day Saint! Who cares about a few typos when his ideas are truly REVOLUTIONARY!
For example, i had no idea about Debt Jubilees in early civilizations 3000 years ago! The
pyramids built by FREE MEN! Liberty and Freedom originating from canceling debts! Torches and
Beacons of light as representatives of said Debt Jubilees!
If you ask me, the #HudsonHawk is trying to awaken the Workers of the World in
Forgiveness, Peace, Love, and Solidarity.
I didn't know that until I read anthropologist David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000
Years.
But there's a fundamental difference between debt in the past and debt today. In the past
debt was owed to the state, today it's owed to some wealthy corporations. Good luck with debt
jubilees in the absence of violent uprisings.
The difference is they internalize profit and externalize cost. And that's fundamentally
different from all other epochs in the past. Even the birth of nation state was out of their
rationalization of how to maximize profit extraction and cost externalization in the 1st
place. Good luck with debt jubilees.
That is why Russia, China and other powers that U.S. strategists deem to be strategic
rivals and enemies are looking to restore gold's role as the preferred asset to settle
payments imbalances.
How would this occur aside from a repudiation of the almighty buck one wonders, and would
it be based on reserves in the vault, or actual use as money?
Keep in mind that there isn't a human alive now who ever proffered a monetized gold coin
in order to purchase something, and increasingly relatively few that have ever used a
monetized silver coin for the same purpose.
I don't have a huge amount of sympathy. The Eurozone and China could run trade deficits,
thereby creating an opportunity for their currencies to become reasonably viable alternative
reserves. But they don't because they don't want to cede control of their manufacturing and
export-driven economic bases away.
The US doesn't mind and doesn't care about the domestic repercussions. For how much longer
that can continue, especially as Trump's America First policy is putting that under
some strain, is an open question. But for now, it's willing to be satisfied with a little
rowing back rather than wholesale reversal (back to, for example, an immediate-post war
position of significant trade surpluses although the article is correct to point out this was
due to the US being the last man standing, in terms of having a manufacturing base still
intact).
The Eurozone and China are not only not showing any signs of a policy change, they've
continued embedding and strengthening the current modus operandi. You pays your money, you
takes your choices. Here as elsewhere. If they'd rather not have the US$ having a
more-or-less monopoly position in then global financial system as a reserve currency, they'll
need to make the compromises needed to set up these challenger currencies as viable
alternatives.
But they can't have their economic cakes and eat them, too.
And it's not just currencies. You need legal systems which are deemed to be (which can
only come through real, observational experience) investor-friendly -- not just prone to
supporting or at the very least given an easy ride to domestic stalwarts. Again, this has
repercussions if you then have to stop cosseting domestic "champions". The US legal system is
ridiculously business friendly. But it doesn't, overtly, differentiate between US and non-US
companies in a commercial dispute.
The sine qua non of our economic empire (which I learned here) is that a global currency requires global trade
deficits, which must grow as quickly as the global economy to fulfill its role. Tell that to Germany! If your silly little euro or yen or renminbi tries to go
global, the dollar-based currency speculators will shrivel it like Soros did the pound in the
90s.
So American deficits are structural. Our debt-ceiling controversies are theater. And our
dollar is exceptional until the instant it isn't–then the Fed electron-tranfers
trillions more to the speculators whose notional dollars just evaporated, keeping the
currencies in the air with their new casino chips. Is this a loan? A gift? An electron cloud?
It's the fog of war by other means . . .
It may have been Hudson who explained that a quarter (or was it half?) of all corporate
profits after WWII went to American companies, when our economy was that much of the world's.
Now we're a much smaller fraction of the global economy, but our corporate sector still
profits as much as it did when it was producing, rather than marketing, real goods. Another
exceptional achievement.
Really all we know is that such a plan would create a different order. That so many
countries have continued to pauper their populations long after the obviousness that
"development" is a sham doesn't bode well for their intentions even after the USA is brought
to heel.
Agreed. The likes of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership are still under
negotiation and still, like every other multilateral investment agreement of recent vintage,
apparently primarily concerned with creating supranational rights for landlords, especially
of the absentee variety, at the expense of citizens in their collective capacity.
This is a good summary of our irrational world. MMT and the GND can save the situation but
only if we industrialized humans forego any more fossil fuels except for long-term survival
purposes. Ration it with draconian discipline. That in turn will discipline our military and
turn our energies to things we can no longer ignore. Money doesn't bother me much. Resources
and the critical health of the planet bother me a lot. Money and "gold" are, in the end, both
fictitious obsessions.
Thanks for providing this transcript prior to Hudson posting it to his own website. He was
the first political-economist to lay out the Outlaw US Empire's game plan when he published
Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire in 1972.
You'll find few
authors willing to provide their seminal work for free online– 2nd Edition
PDF . I think it fair for those unfamiliar with Hudson's work to read his analysis prior
to being judgmental.
The key problem for Trump is reaction of China and Russia... If Russia supports Iran the USA attack onIran might well be the
second Vietnam and KSA will probably seize to exit.
Notable quotes:
"... The bottom-line is this -- if Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia and China. ..."
"... The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front. ..."
"... it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine. ..."
"... There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed into a corner, will do so. ..."
"... The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK. ..."
"... As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran. ..."
"... A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double? ..."
"... I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check. Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not. ..."
"... "Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party." ..."
"... Yes. A demented obsession that is not in US interests. Is it really in Saudi and Israeli interests when they may be hurt too? ..."
"... The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off. ..."
"... Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump? ..."
"... The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region. ..."
"... If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway. ..."
"... The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S. ..."
"... Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid dog. ..."
Donald Trump appears to be on the verge of doing what the "Never Trumpers" could not--destroy his Presidency and make re-election
impossible. It all boils down to whether or not he decides to launch military strikes on Iran. The bottom-line is this -- if
Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate
beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia
and China.
The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to
portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media
echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to
employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take
action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front.
The media is busy pushing the lie that Iran launched an unprovoked "attack" on a British flagged ship. They ignore the British
action two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker heading to Syria. Britain justifies its action as just
keeping the sanction regime in place. But it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some
members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits
what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine.
There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not
dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed
into a corner, will do so.
I see at least four possible scenarios for this current situation. If you can think of others please add in the comments section.
"two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker"
Via Associated Press:
Royal Marines took part in the seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Gibraltar, a British overseas territory off the southern
coast of Spain. Officials there initially said the July 4 seizure happened on orders from the U.S." .......
It gets even better than on orders from the U.S.
"Britain has said it would release the vessel, which was carrying more than 2 million barrels of Iranian crude, if Iran could
prove it was not breaching EU sanctions"
We are supposed to believe that Syria is importing oil on ships which sail through the Straights of Gibraltar rather than getting
oil from, say, Russia! or going from Iran (it is Iranian oil, so they say) through the Suez Canal? What did they
do, sail around the continent of Africa to stage this?
So the brilliant minds at GCHQ that brought us Christopher Steele and the dossier have decided that they really, really, need
to get rid of the Orange Man and they don't care how many Iranian or American lives it takes. I wonder just how many people the
man not in the news, Jeffrey Epstein, had the dirty goods on and just which government was behind his operation.
The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean
port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK.
Thanks for the comment. I did a bit more research. It seems strange to me that Iran would use a ship to large for the canal
to make such a shipment to Syria, if indeed that was where it was heading.
Larry, your intel about the JCS not advising caution is most disheartening. I wouldn't be surprised if the warmongers surrounding
Trump are also telling him that his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists. That may not be far off.
Sure those who support Trump for his professed aversion to adventurism will be appalled at war with Iran, but his more rabid base
may follow him anywhere. Trump has no ideological need for war, but he does have a psychological need for adoration. That's not
a good situation.
"...his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists.."
TTG
I have seen private surveys commissioned by a deep pocketed hedge fund of working class folks in the mid-west & the south.
When the consequences of a military confrontation with Iran are described the overwhelming majority oppose it.
Larry is spot on. Trump will lose his re-election bid if he kowtows to Bibi & MbS. The short-term financial & economic effects
would crush his base and the half-life of jingoism after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, & Syria will be rather short. Trump will be
blamed by the "right" for cocking up teaching Iran a lesson and demonized by the "left "for getting us into another ME quagmire.
How does one wake POTUS Trump to the reality that his NEOCONS and Israel Firsters in his Cabinet will destroy his Presidency if
he doesn't jettison them out the door.
There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US, and I think the calculus might be to use the exact thing
Israelis want most (war with Iran) to do that. I think the resurrection of the Epstein case is also part of that effort. Thus,
war with Iran is inevitable.
"There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US"
Is it an organized effort? Where do I sign up?
Rick Wiles heads TruNews, a Christian evangelical network. He's been outspoken in his criticism of zionism, calls out Christian
zionists, and deplores that "the US has been taken over by zionists." To be sure, ADL has labeled Wiles an "antisemite." If TruNews
survives, it may be part of game-changing.
"From what I am hearing from knowledgeable sources [is that] no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at DOD are advising caution."
We should probably ignore the notion that the Joint Chiefs are bullish about a war with Iran -- the situation in the area is
terrible for us and the Joint Chiefs know it.
For example, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan have military understandings with Iran and the former is now installing advanced S-400
Russian missiles to defend itself from us. Furthermore, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbajian and Armenia will not allow
transit of war materiel or aircraft en-route to Iran. So how does the US project anything into that country?
Then again, US Central Command is located in Iran friendly Quatar, which merely hosts us and could require us to leave. How
come? Wouldn't you know it, Quatar is developing a massive gas reserve with Iran in the Gulf, is now very, very friendly with
big-brother Turkey and presently negotiating with Russia for S-400 missiles -- clearly against us.
Well, what about our Navy?
Alas, recent improvements in missiles have rendered our deep water Navy a liability -- not that the narrow Persian Gulf / Sea
of Oman is deep in any case. (President Trump learned about our Navy's vulnerability to missile attack last year as the Pentagon
quickly pulled our three carrier group force from Korea and parked those impressive ships on the south coast of Australia! )
Then there is Iran's near east client / ally Hezbollah, which has made clear that any bombing of Iran, a huge country, would
trigger heavy missile attack on postage-stamp Israel.
The Neocons may have managed to silence public Pentagon doubts, but President Trump is clearly attempting to avoid military
adventures. "No, the Iran downed drone was old and not that expensive." "The UK captured an Iranian tanker and the Iranians have
reciprocated. The two should sit down and work the situation out."
I believe that Iran is going to want to avoid war if they can. Their program of adding precision guidance to Hezbollah missiles
in Lebanon means that the longer they postpone war, the better for them. If they get to a point where they have 10,000 precision
guided missiles in Lebanon then the next Israel-Lebanon war will force Israel into a humiliating defeat.
Eighty percent of Israel's water comes from water desalination plants - and then there are electricity generation plants, sewage
treatment plants, and numerous other infrastructure targets that can be hit. Israeli civilians are soft and will cry uncle as
soon as their air conditioning cuts out.
Why not, then, have the Americans initiate the deed now... destroy Iran and Lebanon, and then, with France, the UK, Germany,
Canada et al. spend billions to rebuild Israel, with the Palestinians being sent to Jordan (if not worse).
Israel has gambled on a broader war several times in the past, and they believe (despite the fiasco in Lebanon) that each was
a win.
When did this group, leading the charge overseas in D.C. for the past 20 years, once get it right, as far as assumptions and expectations
of military necessities or outcomes? I am beginning to think this creating a greater danger out of a lesser mess is a feature,
not a defect. If so, why? To what end? Or is the policy process that broken?
Saddam ain't around any more, neither is Muammar Gaddafi. The neocons take those as great victories since the sacred state
of Israel is safe from those two.
imo a war with iran is theatre and will not take place.
should iran be attacked imo you can kiss the UAE goodbye as well as most if not all of the Saudi oil infrastructre along the
gulf. i would also expect a massive direct bombardment of israeli cities and other important targets from hezbollah starting with
the massive ammonia storage system in haifa whose destruction would annihilate that entire region. all of useful israel is in
the middle to upper third of the country closest to lebanon and easy reach for all of hezbollahs missiles.
the persian gulf upon the start of the war becomes the hotel california for any warship within. none would likely escape. and
the coup de gra for iran is whether they have the ballistic missile reach and or can gain access to russian long range bombers
fitted with kalibr or better cruise missiles able to smash diego garcia absolutely critical american relaestate in the indian
ocean.
trump imo is not crazy and can read a map as well as anyone with help from his REAL pentagon military professionals.
we have not even gotten to what happens to all those oil and interest rate derivatives far out of the money right now in somewhat
normal times. if war starts they go from notional to real fast and the western financial system implodes even with a force majeure
declaration
An Iran war would indeed most probably kill off Trump's chance of re-election. The almost inevitable spike in the price of oil
which it would bring about would have two implications:
1/ ROTW xUS manufacturing is already in recession, with services close to joining it in many countries. The US is clearly slowing
down and appears headed on the same course. The global economy is in no shape to withstand even a relatively short-lived surge
in oil prices.
2/ There is no knowing what lurks out there in the oil derivatives market, but the banking system - particularly the European
banking system - is far too fragile to sustain another bout of counterparty risk aversion along the lines of 2007/08. (And amongst
the trillions of gross derivatives exposure, one has to wonder just how many US and other banks are sitting across from Deutsche
Bank oil positions and happily netting off the counterparty risk.)
Regretably, from my side of the Atlantic the US looks like a traditional imperial power, addicted to war and conquest and with
a significant proportion of the population fetishizing (probably not a real verb) all things military. Whether Trump can be truly
damaged by extending the 'forever war' to Iran depends very much on how it goes - and I doubt he has the knowledge required to
think through all the plausible scenarios. We can be a lot more confident that carrying the blame for an unnecessary recession
into the election campaign has a solid chance of sinking him.
Just what good has the past two decades of "war and conquest" done for America, whether flyover country, Jussie Smollett's
"Maga Country" section of Chicago or the homeless encampments of Seattle, LA or Portland?
As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the
middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran.
Bolton is heading to Japan to "mediate" the
current economic disagreements between Japan and S. Korea.
Pompeo is declaring that the Iranian Ballistic Missile program is suddenly on the table. It would appear that the whole Iranian
atomic bomb thing was smoke and mirrors and hasbara.
There is a deal available, preparation for making the deal will involve political kabuki, grand posturing, the beating of drums
without rhythm and the flooding of the Old American Infotainment outlets with much wailing and whining about "the only democracy
in the MENA."
A deal will eventuate that allows both the USA and Iran to move on, about a week before the 2020 presidential election. Or
maybe not.
I have a question for those of you well versed with Iranian military capability. What are the capabilities of Iranian ballistic
missiles in terms of range, precision and payload lethality?
As Col. Lang has noted in the transition to war, before the US
Navy gets its ducks in a row, that is the window of opportunity that Iran has to strike back. What damage could they inflict on
oil & gas infrastructure including LNG, port & pipelines across UAE, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the
manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer
Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double?
As Larry notes "..President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when
it comes to employing military force.." , but I believe he has good political instincts and as his Reality TV/Twitter presidency
shows he has an excellent sense of how it plays both in the MSM and social media. He must know that while the "shock & awe" and
"boom-boom" videos may give him an instant boost the stock market that he has rested his presidency on may not soar but in fact
plummet. And he can't blame Jay Powell for that.
He must also instinctually know that November 2020 is a year away and a lot can go wrong as it is economically and in financial
markets since he's been harping at the Fed to lower rates in supposedly the best economy evah. Uncertainty spikes volatility and
the credit markets are already stressed particularly in offshore eurodollar funding which is an order of magnitude larger than
mortgage credit markets were in 2007.
Maybe Rand Paul is his counter to the ziocon fifth column? I don't think he's that foolish to pull the trigger on Iran and
sink his presidency when the Deep State & NeverTrumpers are out for his blood. He must know he'll lose immunity from legal jeopardy
when he's no longer POTUS.
As Col. Lang has repeatedly observed, the decisions to go to war do not necessarily follow economic, nor domestic political logic.
It is therefore better to speculate on the players state of mind rather than looking at the aforesaid rational drivers like economics
and votes.
I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check.
Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not.
Israeli wants Iran destroyed and their ability to pressure US Presidents to do their bidding all the way back to President
Truman is 100% success. Trump so cravenly promotes the Zionist interest that I see no reason he will not pursue regime change
in Iran to its logical conclusion.
The plan is ultimately Greater Israeli and the leaders of Iran are well aware of this.
Many comments say that Israeli will be badly damaged by any regional war. Why do you believe Israeli is just going to take
the blows? Analysis is not advocacy as Col. Lang says.
My fear is the ultimate weapons of mass destruction are introduced into the Middle East.
"Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea
how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party."
Option 1 - Diplomatic solution: The UK will do what it must do, ie what the US allows it to do. The GB Imperial project is no
more and the UK is riding along somewhere in the wake of the Imperial City. Whatever influence it exerts on power there is by
flattery or deception (Steele dossier.) Trump slapped the UK Ambassador out of Washington as if he were a fly. Moreover, the UK
alone carries no stick to wield against Iran. Iran is no Falklands.
Options 2 thru 4 - some degree of military attack on Iran:
as you point out, the return on investment for any kind of attack on Iran is highly unpredictable. It depends entirely on how
Iran chooses to respond and whether it decides to roll the dice, go all in, and endure the onslaught, and inflict what damage
it can where it can, which it very well may. Does anyone in Washington have an intel based fix on Iran's intentions when attacked?
I doubt it.
Not a single intervention in the last 18 years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya resulted in the anticipated outcome. Do they
have rear view mirrors in Washington?
My weakly held expectation, especially now with the passing of a few days, is that Washington will decide to temporize and
tell the UK to accept the humiliation, in effect kicking the can down the road. Everyone will know it is only doing what it has
been told to do.
Of course they will announce more face saving sanctions. The Donald will hope that he will be able to gut it out to 2020 without
having to make a decision that could blow him up, and likely would - but who knows? Iran will hope to gut it out to 2020 and in
the interim pray to God that some Democrat floats back down to earth with some issues, like the Donald once espoused, that will
be used to beat the Donald and send him and his family back to the upper East Side.
With the escalation game fully in play, it's going to be a close call.
I find it a bit hard to believe that leaders like Dunford, Selva, Milley, Richardson, and the others on the Joint Chiefs are
not advising caution. Milley, the next Chairman, for sure has advised caution at his recent Senate hearing. Dunford has only pushed
for an international coalition Task Force to guard ships transiting the Strait. Selva and Richardson appear to be more worried
about China.
Let us all hope that your knowledgeable sources are wrong.
The real danger is if Fred Fleitz gets to be DNI. If that happens be prepared for another scam like the Office of Special Plans
a la Wolfowicz and Feith. Probably Bolton and/or PomPom already have one hiding in the basement ready to go.
Iran's FM Zarif made a peaceful impression during Fareed Zakaria's interview. But all the headlines focus on his one statement:
"Start a war with Iran and we will end it" . Although those were NOT his words, what he said was "We will never start
a war,...But we will defend ourselves, and anybody who starts a war with Iran will not be the one who ends it."
The question is whether he speaks for the hardliners.
You forgot to mention what will happen to the world economy if the Strait of Hormuz is closed to all shipping by Iranian missiles
an mines. Stock marks would collapse and a deep recession if not depression would ensue quickly.
The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of
Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is
a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies
would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off.
Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump
campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions
on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous
administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump?
Iran is also not entirely innocent in the affairs of the Middle East. Israel believes with some evidence that Iran is building
forward bases in Syria - an unacceptable condition for Israel considering the thousands of missiles owned by Hezbollah and the
ballistic missile testing by Iran. Iran is also supplying weapons directly to Hezbollah (as they always have). In addition, Iran
is supplying weapons and (likely) ballistic missile technology to the Houthis. The Houthis have used ballistic missiles to attack
the Saudis. Yemen is on the border of Saudi Arabia - and a (Shia) Houthi government is unacceptable to the Saudis. The Trump administration
tore up the nuclear agreement because of the destabilizing political agenda of Iran (to US interests).
Trump campaigned on a more isolationist foreign policy so option 1 is still the most likely possibility for the moment (IMO).
The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started
fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local
security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region.
Your third paragraph is a stretch. Iran's actions that you describe are realistic (in the strategic sense of the word) responses
to Israel's overt hostility, overwhelming superiority in air power and its possession of scores of nuclear weapons.
I'm wondering if in case of war, Iran would need to "close the Gulf" at all.
If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading
docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway.
The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will
hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though
the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their
prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports
but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S.
Insurance on oil vessels will become almost impossible to get. The U.S will have to indemnify ship owners and I suspect
many will not trust the U.S. to come through with the money for claims. Trump has a history of this and thus many ships will stay
in port.
A war with Iran will not be won or lost militarily, but economically. Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq and has 3 times the
population and I simply do not think we can successfully occupy the country. That being the case, I don't think the U.S can permanently
prevent sabatoge in the Staits - meaning an oil induced recession will linger world wide for many years.
UNO: increased false flag incident instigated by the anglo-zionist
DUE:Increased takfiri movements in Idlib and provocatiev
attacks InnAleppo ,Hama Dara and Dier Ezurr as the Syrian Arab Army is consolidating around Northern Hama and Around Idlib .
TRE: More tanker siezures by the Nato cohorts and portraying Iran as breachoing the JCPCOA treaty. Nevr mentioning the breach
of contract from the western alliance from Pax-Americana and its Western European vassals
Quattro Russia and China will be either utilised as middle men or further labelled as agressors and Iranian?Syrian?Yemeni apologist.
Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid
dog.
Today's world is at war on many fronts. The rules of international law and order put in
place toward the end of World War II are being broken by U.S. foreign policy escalating its
confrontation with countries that refrain from giving its companies control of their economic
surpluses. Countries that do not give the United States control their oil and financial sectors
or privatize their key sectors are being isolated by the United States imposing trade sanctions
and unilateral tariffs giving special advantages to U.S. producers in violation of free trade
agreements with European, Asian and other countries.
This global fracture has an increasingly military cast. U.S. officials justify tariffs and
import quotas illegal under WTO rules on "national security" grounds, claiming that the United
States can do whatever it wants as the world's "exceptional" nation. U.S. officials explain
that this means that their nation is not obliged to adhere to international agreements or even
to its own treaties and promises. This allegedly sovereign right to ignore on its international
agreements was made explicit after Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeline Albright
broke the promise by President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would
not expand eastward after 1991. ("You didn't get it in writing," was the U.S. response to the
verbal agreements that were made.)
Likewise, the Trump administration repudiated the multilateral Iranian nuclear agreement
signed by the Obama administration, and is escalating warfare with its proxy armies in the Near
East. U.S. politicians are waging a New Cold War against Russia, China, Iran, and oil-exporting
countries that the United States is seeking to isolate if cannot control their governments,
central bank and foreign diplomacy.
The international framework that originally seemed equitable was pro-U.S. from the outset.
In 1945 this was seen as a natural result of the fact that the U.S. economy was the least
war-damaged and held by far most of the world's monetary gold. Still, the postwar trade and
financial framework was ostensibly set up on fair and equitable international principles. Other
countries were expected to recover and grow, creating diplomatic, financial and trade parity
with each other.
But the past decade has seen U.S. diplomacy become one-sided in turning the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, SWIFT bank-clearing system and world trade into an
asymmetrically exploitative system. This unilateral U.S.-centered array of institutions is
coming to be widely seen not only as unfair, but as blocking the progress of other countries
whose growth and prosperity is seen by U.S. foreign policy as a threat to unilateral U.S.
hegemony. What began as an ostensibly international order to promote peaceful prosperity has
turned increasingly into an extension of U.S. nationalism, predatory rent-extraction and a more
dangerous military confrontation.
Deterioration of international diplomacy into a more nakedly explicit pro-U.S. financial,
trade and military aggression was implicit in the way in which economic diplomacy was shaped
when the United Nations, IMF and World Bank were shaped mainly by U.S. economic strategists.
Their economic belligerence is driving countries to withdraw from the global financial and
trade order that has been turned into a New Cold War vehicle to impose unilateral U.S.
hegemony. Nationalistic reactions are consolidating into new economic and political alliances
from Europe to Asia.
We are still mired in the Oil War that escalated in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, which
quickly spread to Libya and Syria. American foreign policy has long been based largely on
control of oil. This has led the United States to oppose the Paris accords to stem global
warming. Its aim is to give U.S. officials the power to impose energy sanctions forcing other
countries to "freeze in the dark" if they do not follow U.S. leadership.
To expand its oil monopoly, America is pressuring Europe to oppose the Nordstream II gas
pipeline from Russia, claiming that this would make Germany and other countries dependent on
Russia instead of on U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG). Likewise, American oil diplomacy has
imposed unilateral sanctions against Iranian oil exports, until such time as a regime change
opens up that country's oil reserves to U.S., French, British and other allied oil majors.
U.S. control of dollarized money and credit is critical to this hegemony. As Congressman
Brad Sherman of Los Angeles told a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 9, 2019:
"An awful lot of our international power comes from the fact that the U.S. dollar is the
standard unit of international finance and transactions. Clearing through the New York Fed is
critical for major oil and other transactions. It is the announced purpose of the supporters of
cryptocurrency to take that power away from us, to put us in a position where the most
significant sanctions we have against Iran, for example, would become irrelevant."[1]
The U.S. aim is to keep the dollar as the transactions currency for world trade, savings,
central bank reserves and international lending. This monopoly status enables the U.S. Treasury
and State Department to disrupt the financial payments system and trade for countries with
which the United States is at economic or outright military war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin quickly responded by describing how "the degeneration of
the universalist globalization model [is] turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where
common international rules are replaced with the laws of one country."[2]That is the trajectory
on which this deterioration of formerly open international trade and finance is now moving. It
has been building up for a decade. On June 5, 2009, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
cited this same disruptive U.S. dynamic at work in the wake of the U.S. junk mortgage and bank
fraud crisis.
Those whose job it was to forecast events were not ready for the depth of the crisis and
turned out to be too rigid, unwieldy and slow in their response. The international financial
organisations – and I think we need to state this up front and not try to hide it –
were not up to their responsibilities, as has been said quite unambiguously at a number of
major international events such as the two recent G20 summits of the world's largest
economies.
Furthermore, we have had confirmation that our pre-crisis analysis of global economic trends
and the global economic system were correct. The artificially maintained uni-polar system and
preservation of monopolies in key global economic sectors are root causes of the crisis. One
big centre of consumption, financed by a growing deficit, and thus growing debts, one formerly
strong reserve currency, and one dominant system of assessing assets and risks – these
are all factors that led to an overall drop in the quality of regulation and the economic
justification of assessments made, including assessments of macroeconomic policy. As a result,
there was no avoiding a global crisis.[3]
That crisis is what is now causing today's break in global trade and payments.
Warfare on Many Fronts, with Dollarization Being the Main Arena
Dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991 did not bring the disarmament that was widely expected.
U.S. leadership celebrated the Soviet demise as signaling the end of foreign opposition to
U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism and even as the End of History. NATO expanded to encircle Russia
and sponsored "color revolutions" from Georgia to Ukraine, while carving up former Yugoslavia
into small statelets. American diplomacy created a foreign legion of Wahabi fundamentalists
from Afghanistan to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya in support of Saudi Arabian extremism and
Israeli expansionism.
The United States is waging war for control of oil against Venezuela, where a military coup
failed a few years ago, as did the 2018-19 stunt to recognize an unelected pro-American puppet
regime. The Honduran coup under President Obama was more successful in overthrowing an elected
president advocating land reform, continuing the tradition dating back to 1954 when the CIA
overthrew Guatemala's Arbenz regime.
U.S. officials bear a special hatred for countries that they have injured, ranging from
Guatemala in 1954 to Iran, whose regime it overthrew to install the Shah as military dictator.
Claiming to promote "democracy," U.S. diplomacy has redefined the word to mean pro-American,
and opposing land reform, national ownership of raw materials and public subsidy of foreign
agriculture or industry as an "undemocratic" attack on "free markets," meaning markets
controlled by U.S. financial interests and absentee owners of land, natural resources and
banks.
A major byproduct of warfare has always been refugees, and today's wave fleeing ISIS, Al
Qaeda and other U.S.-backed Near Eastern proxies is flooding Europe. A similar wave is fleeing
the dictatorial regimes backed by the United States from Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia and
neighboring countries. The refugee crisis has become a major factor leading to the resurgence
of nationalist parties throughout Europe and for the white nationalism of Donald Trump in the
United States.
Dollarization as the Vehicle for U.S. Nationalism
The Dollar Standard – U.S. Treasury debt to foreigners held by the world's central
banks – has replaced the gold-exchange standard for the world's central bank reserves to
settle payments imbalances among themselves. This has enabled the United States to uniquely run
balance-of-payments deficits for nearly seventy years, despite the fact that these Treasury
IOUs have little visible likelihood of being repaid except under arrangements where U.S.
rent-seeking and outright financial tribute from other enables it to liquidate its official
foreign debt.
The United States is the only nation that can run sustained balance-of-payments deficits
without having to sell off its assets or raise interest rates to borrow foreign money. No other
national economy in the world can could afford foreign military expenditures on any major scale
without losing its exchange value. Without the Treasury-bill standard, the United States would
be in this same position along with other nations. That is why Russia, China and other powers
that U.S. strategists deem to be strategic rivals and enemies are looking to restore gold's
role as the preferred asset to settle payments imbalances.
The U.S. response is to impose regime change on countries that prefer gold or other foreign
currencies to dollars for their exchange reserves. A case in point is the overthrow of Libya's
Omar Kaddafi after he sought to base his nation's international reserves on gold. His
liquidation stands as a military warning to other countries.
Thanks to the fact that payments-surplus economies invest their dollar inflows in U.S.
Treasury bonds, the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit finances its domestic budget deficit. This
foreign central-bank recycling of U.S. overseas military spending into purchases of U.S.
Treasury securities gives the United States a free ride, financing its budget – also
mainly military in character – so that it can taxing its own citizens.
Trump Is Forcing Other Countries To Create an Alternative to the Dollar Standard
The fact that Donald Trump's economic policies are proving ineffective in restoring American
manufacturing is creating rising nationalist pressure to exploit foreigners by arbitrary
tariffs without regard for international law, and to impose trade sanctions and diplomatic
meddling to disrupt regimes that pursue policies that U.S. diplomats do not like.
There is a parallel here with Rome in the late 1 st century BC. It stripped its
provinces to pay for its military deficit, the grain dole and land redistribution at the
expense of Italian cities and Asia Minor. This created foreign opposition to drive Rome out.
The U.S. economy is similar to Rome's: extractive rather than productive, based mainly on land
rents and money-interest. As the domestic market is impoverished, U.S. politicians are seeking
to take from abroad what no longer is being produced at home.
What is so ironic – and so self-defeating of America's free global ride – is
that Trump's simplistic aim of lowering the dollar's exchange rate to make U.S. exports more
price-competitive. He imagines commodity trade to be the entire balance of payments, as if
there were no military spending, not to mention lending and investment. To lower the dollar's
exchange rate, he is demanding that China's central bank and those of other countries stop
supporting the dollar by recycling the dollars they receive for their exports into holdings of
U.S. Treasury securities.
This tunnel vision leaves out of account the fact that the trade balance is not simply a
matter of comparative international price levels. The United States has dissipated its supply
of spare manufacturing capacity and local suppliers of parts and materials, while much of its
industrial engineering and skilled manufacturing labor has retired. An immense shortfall must
be filled by new capital investment, education and public infrastructure, whose charges are far
above those of other economics.
Trump's infrastructure ideology is a Public-Private Partnership characterized by high-cost
financialization demanding high monopoly rents to cover its interest charges, stock dividends
and management fees. This neoliberal policy raises the cost of living for the U.S. labor force,
making it uncompetitive. The United States is unable to produce more at any price right now,
because its has spent the past half-century dismantling its infrastructure, closing down its
part suppliers and outsourcing its industrial technology.
The United States has privatized and financialized infrastructure and basic needs such as
public health and medical care, education and transportation that other countries have kept in
their public domain to make their economies more cost-efficient by providing essential services
at subsidized prices or freely. The United States also has led the practice of debt pyramiding,
from housing to corporate finance. This financial engineering and wealth creation by inflating
debt-financed real estate and stock market bubbles has made the United States a high-cost
economy that cannot compete successfully with well-managed mixed economies.
Unable to recover dominance in manufacturing, the United States is concentrating on
rent-extracting sectors that it hopes monopolize, headed by information technology and military
production. On the industrial front, it threatens disrupt China and other mixed economies by
imposing trade and financial sanctions.
The great gamble is whether these other countries will defend themselves by joining in
alliances enabling them to bypass the U.S. economy. American strategists imagine their country
to be the world's essential economy, without whose market other countries must suffer
depression. The Trump Administration thinks that There Is No Alternative (TINA) for other
countries except for their own financial systems to rely on U.S. dollar credit.
To protect themselves from U.S. sanctions, countries would have to avoid using the dollar,
and hence U.S. banks. This would require creation of a non-dollarized financial system for use
among themselves, including their own alternative to the SWIFT bank clearing system. Table 1
lists some possible related defenses against U.S. nationalistic diplomacy.
As noted above, what also is ironic in President Trump's accusation of China and other
countries of artificially manipulating their exchange rate against the dollar (by recycling
their trade and payments surpluses into Treasury securities to hold down their currency's
dollar valuation) involves dismantling the Treasury-bill standard. The main way that foreign
economies have stabilized their exchange rate since 1971 has indeed been to recycle their
dollar inflows into U.S. Treasury securities. Letting their currency's value rise would
threaten their export competitiveness against their rivals, although not necessarily benefit
the United States.
Ending this practice leaves countries with the main way to protect their currencies from
rising against the dollar is to reduce dollar inflows by blocking U.S. lending to domestic
borrowers. They may levy floating tariffs proportioned to the dollar's declining value. The
U.S. has a long history since the 1920s of raising its tariffs against currencies that are
depreciating: the American Selling Price (ASP) system. Other countries can impose their own
floating tariffs against U.S. goods.
Trade dependency as an Aim of the World Bank, IMF and US AID
The world today faces a problem much like what it faced on the eve of World War II. Like
Germany then, the United States now poses the main threat of war, and equally destructive
neoliberal economic regimes imposing austerity, economic shrinkage and depopulation. U.S.
diplomats are threatening to destroy regimes and entire economies that seek to remain
independent of this system, by trade and financial sanctions backed by direct military
force.
Dedollarization will require creation of multilateral alternatives to U.S. "front"
institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and other agencies in which the United States holds
veto power to block any alternative policies deemed not to let it "win." U.S. trade policy
through the World Bank and U.S. foreign aid agencies aims at promoting dependency on U.S. food
exports and other key commodities, while hiring U.S. engineering firms to build up export
infrastructure to subsidize U.S. and other natural-resource investors.[4]The financing is
mainly in dollars, providing risk-free bonds to U.S. and other financial institutions. The
resulting commercial and financial "interdependency" has led to a situation in which a sudden
interruption of supply would disrupt foreign economies by causing a breakdown in their chain of
payments and production. The effect is to lock client countries into dependency on the U.S.
economy and its diplomacy, euphemized as "promoting growth and development."
U.S. neoliberal policy via the IMF imposes austerity and opposes debt writedowns. Its
economic model pretends that debtor countries can pay any volume of dollar debt simply by
reducing wages to squeeze more income out of the labor force to pay foreign creditors. This
ignores the fact that solving the domestic "budget problem" by taxing local revenue still faces
the "transfer problem" of converting it into dollars or other hard currencies in which most
international debt is denominated. The result is that the IMF's "stabilization" programs
actually destabilize and impoverish countries forced into following its advice.
IMF loans support pro-U.S. regimes such as Ukraine, and subsidize capital flight by
supporting local currencies long enough to enable U.S. client oligarchies to flee their
currencies at a pre-devaluation exchange rate for the dollar. When the local currency finally
is allowed to collapse, debtor countries are advised to impose anti-labor austerity. This
globalizes the class war of capital against labor while keeping debtor countries on a short
U.S. financial leash.
U.S. diplomacy is capped by trade sanctions to disrupt economies that break away from U.S.
aims. Sanctions are a form of economic sabotage, as lethal as outright military warfare in
establishing U.S. control over foreign economies. The threat is to impoverish civilian
populations, in the belief that this will lead them to replace their governments with
pro-American regimes promising to restore prosperity by selling off their domestic
infrastructure to U.S. and other multinational investors.
US Warfare on Many Fronts Dedollarization defense
Military warfare (the Near East, Asia)
NATO and bilateral treaty (Saudi, ISIS, Al Qaida). color revolutions and proxy
wars.
Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and pressure for Europe to
withdraw from NATO unless the U.S. alleviates its New Cold War threats.
Dollarization is monetary warfare. The US Treasury-bill
standard finances the mainly military U.S. balance-of-payments deficit. SWIFT threatens to
isolate Iran and Russia
Dedollarization will refrain from foreign central banks financing U.S. overseas military
spending by keeping their savings in dollars.
Creation of alternative payments clearing system.
The IMF finances US client regimes and seeks to isolate those
not following US policy.
An alternative global financial organization, such as Europe's
INSTEX to circumvent US anti-Iran sanctions, and Russo-China alternative to SWIFT.
Creditor policy forcing austerity on debtor economies, forcing
them to privatize and sell off their public domain to pay debts.
An international court empowered to write down debts to the
ability to pay, based on the original principles that were to guide the BIS in 1931.
The World Bank finances trade dependency on US food exports and
opposes national food self-sufficiency.
An alternative development organization based on food
self-sufficiency. Annulment of World Bank and IMF debt as "odious debt."
Unilateral US trade war based on levy of US protectionist
tariffs, quotas and sanctions,
Countervailing sanctions, and creation of an alternative to the
WTO or a strengthened organization free of US control.
Cyber War, spycraft via US internet platforms, and Stuxnet
sabotage.
Work with Huawei and other alternatives to US internet
options.
Class War: austerity program for labor
MMT, taxation of rentier income and capital gains.
Neoliberal monetarist doctrine of privatization and creditor-oriented
rules
Promotion of a mixed economy with public infrastructure as a
factor of production.
US patent policy seeks monopoly rents.
Non-recognition of predatory monopoly patents.
Investment control
Deprivatization and buyoutsof US assets abroad.
International law and diplomacy
The U.S. as the world's "exceptional nation," not subject to international laws or even
to its own treaty agreements.
Veto power in any organization it joins. The basic principle that the U.S. is not
subject to any foreign say over its laws and policies.
Global Problems caused by US Policy Response to U.S. Disruptive Policy
U.S. refuses to join international agreements to reduce carbon emissions, Global Warming
and Extreme Weather.
U.S. diplomacy is based on control of oil to make other countries dependent on U.S.
energy dominance.
Trade and tax sanctions against U.S. exporters and banks. Taxes on U.S. tax avoidance by
the oil industry's "flags of convenience" (convenient for tax avoidance).
Taxation or isolation of U.S. exports based on high-carbon production.
Attempt to monopolize new G5 Internet technology, Sanctioning of Huawei,
insistence on US priority in high-tech.
Rejection of patents on basic IT, medicine and other basic human
needs.
Patent laws in pharmaceuticals, etc.
Taxation of monopoly rents.
There Are Alternatives, on Many Fronts
Militarily, today's leading alternative to NATO expansionism is the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), along with Europe following France's example under Charles de Gaulle and
withdrawing. After all, there is no real threat of military invasion today in Europe. No nation
can occupy another without an enormous military draft and such heavy personnel losses that
domestic protests would unseat the government waging such a war. The U.S. anti-war movement in
the 1960s signaled the end of the military draft, not only in the United States but in nearly
all democratic countries (Israel, Switzerland, Brazil and South Korea are exceptions).
The enormous spending on armaments for a kind of war unlikely to be fought is not really
military, but simply to provide profits to the military industrial complex. The arms are not
really to be used. They are simply to be bought, and ultimately scrapped. The danger, of
course, is that these not-for-use arms actually might be used, if only to create a need for new
profitable production.
Likewise, foreign holdings of dollars are not really to be spent on purchases of U.S.
exports or investments. They are like fine-wine collectibles, for saving rather than for
drinking. The alternative to such dollarized holdings is to create a mutual use of national
currencies, and a domestic bank-clearing payments system as an alternative to SWIFT.Russia,
China, Iran and Venezuela already are said to be developing a crypto-currency payments to
circumvent U.S. sanctions and hence financial control.
In the World Trade Organization, the United States has tried to claim that any industry
receiving public infrastructure or credit subsidy deserves tariff retaliation in order to force
privatization. In response to WTO rulings that U.S. tariffs are illegally imposed, the United
States "has blocked all new appointments to the seven-member appellate body in protest, leaving
it in danger of collapse because it may not have enough judges to allow it to hear new
cases."[5]In the U.S. view, only privatized trade financed by private rather than public banks
is "fair" trade.
An alternative to the WTO (or removal of its veto privilege given to the U.S. bloc) is
needed to cope with U.S. neoliberal ideology and, most recently, the U.S. travesty claiming
"national security" exemption to free-trade treaties, impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and on
European countries that circumvent sanctions on Iran or threaten to buy oil from Russia via the
Nordstream II pipeline instead of high-cost liquified "freedom gas" from the United States.
In the realm of development lending, China's bank along with its Belt and Road initiative is
an incipient alternative to the World Bank, whose main role has been to promote foreign
dependency on U.S. suppliers. The IMF for its part now functions as an extension of the U.S.
Department of Defense to subsidize client regimes such as Ukraine while financially isolating
countries not subservient to U.S. diplomacy.
To save debt-strapped economies suffering Greek-style austerity, the world needs to replace
neoliberal economic theory with an analytic logic for debt writedowns based on the ability to
pay. The guiding principle of the needed development-oriented logic of international law should
be that no nation should be obliged to pay foreign creditors by having to sell of the public
domain and rent-extraction rights to foreign creditors. The defining character of nationhood
should be the fiscal right to tax natural resource rents and financial returns, and to create
its own monetary system.
The United States refuses to join the International Criminal Court. To be effective, it
needs enforcement power for its judgments and penalties, capped by the ability to bring charges
of war crimes in the tradition of the Nuremberg tribunal. U.S. to such a court, combined with
its military buildup now threatening World War III, suggests a new alignment of countries akin
to the Non-Aligned Nations movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Non-aligned in this case means
freedom from U.S. diplomatic control or threats.
Such institutions require a more realistic economic theory and philosophy of operations to
replace the neoliberal logic for anti-government privatization, anti-labor austerity, and
opposition to domestic budget deficits and debt writedowns. Today's neoliberal doctrine counts
financial late fees and rising housing prices as adding to "real output" (GDP), but deems
public investment as deadweight spending, not a contribution to output. The aim of such logic
is to convince governments to pay their foreign creditors by selling off their public
infrastructure and other assets in the public domain.
Just as the "capacity to pay" principle was the foundation stone of the Bank for
International Settlements in 1931, a similar basis is needed to measure today's ability to pay
debts and hence to write down bad loans that have been made without a corresponding ability of
debtors to pay. Without such an institution and body of analysis, the IMF's neoliberal
principle of imposing economic depression and falling living standards to pay U.S. and other
foreign creditors will impose global poverty.
The above proposals provide an alternative to the U.S. "exceptionalist" refusal to join any
international organization that has a say over its affairs. Other countries must be willing to
turn the tables and isolate U.S. banks, U.S. exporters, and to avoid using U.S. dollars and
routing payments via U.S. banks. To protect their ability to create a countervailing power
requires an international court and its sponsoring organization.
Summary
The first existential objective is to avoid the current threat of war by winding down U.S.
military interference in foreign countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of
neocolonialism. Their danger to world peace and prosperity threatens a reversion to the
pre-World War II colonialism, ruling by client elites along lines similar to the 2014 Ukrainian
coup by neo-Nazi groups sponsored by the U.S. State Department and National Endowment for
Democracy. Such control recalls the dictators that U.S. diplomacy established throughout Latin
America in the 1950s. Today's ethnic terrorism by U.S.-sponsored Wahabi-Saudi Islam recalls the
behavior of Nazi Germany in the 1940s.
Global warming is the second major existentialist threat. Blocking attempts to reverse it is
a bedrock of American foreign policy, because it is based on control of oil. So the military,
refugee and global warming threats are interconnected.
The U.S. military poses the greatest immediate danger. Today's warfare is fundamentally
changed from what it used to be. Prior to the 1970s, nations conquering others had to invade
and occupy them with armies recruited by a military draft. But no democracy in today's world
can revive such a draft without triggering widespread refusal to fight, voting the government
out of power. The only way the United States – or other countries – can fight other
nations is to bomb them. And as noted above, economic sanctions have as destructive an effect
on civilian populations in countries deemed to be U.S. adversaries as overt warfare. The United
States can sponsor political coups (as in Honduras and Pinochet's Chile), but cannot occupy. It
is unwilling to rebuild, to say nothing of taking responsibility for the waves of refugees that
our bombing and sanctions are causing from Latin America to the Near East.
U.S. ideologues view their nation's coercive military expansion and political subversion and
neoliberal economic policy of privatization and financialization as an irreversible victory
signaling the End of History. To the rest of the world it is a threat to human survival.
The American promise is that the victory of neoliberalism is the End of History, offering
prosperity to the entire world. But beneath the rhetoric of free choice and free markets is the
reality of corruption, subversion, coercion, debt peonage and neofeudalism. The reality is the
creation and subsidy of polarized economies bifurcated between a privileged rentier
class and its clients, eir debtors and renters. America is to be permitted to monopolize trade
in oil and food grains, and high-technology rent-yielding monopolies, living off its dependent
customers. Unlike medieval serfdom, people subject to this End of History scenario can choose
to live wherever they want. But wherever they live, they must take on a lifetime of debt to
obtain access to a home of their own, and rely on U.S.-sponsored control of their basic needs,
money and credit by adhering to U.S. financial planning of their economies. This dystopian
scenario confirms Rosa Luxemburg's recognition that the ultimate choice facing nations in
today's world is between socialism and barbarism.
___________________
[1]Billy Bambrough, "Bitcoin Threatens To 'Take Power' From The U.S. Federal Reserve,"
Forbes , May 15, 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/05/15/a-u-s-congressman-is-so-scared-of-bitcoin-and-crypto-he-wants-it-banned/#36b2700b6405.
[2]Vladimir Putin, keynote address to the Economic Forum, June 5-6 2019. Putin went on to
warn of "a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism and a forced breakdown." This
fragmenting of the global economic space "is the road to endless conflict, trade wars and maybe
not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is the road to the ultimate fight of all against
all."
[3]Address to St Petersburg International Economic Forum's Plenary Session, St Petersburg,
Kremlin.ru, June 5, 2009, from Johnson's Russia List, June 8, 2009, #8,
[4] https://www.rt.com/business/464013-china-russia-cryptocurrency-dollar-dethrone/
. Already in the late 1950s the Forgash Plan proposed a World Bank for Economic Acceleration.
Designed by Terence McCarthy and sponsored by Florida Senator Morris Forgash, the bank would
have been a more truly development-oriented institution to guide foreign development to create
balanced economies self-sufficient in food and other essentials. The proposal was opposed by
U.S. interests on the ground that countries pursuing land reform tended to be anti-American.
More to the point, they would have avoided trade and financial dependency on U.S. suppliers and
banks, and hence on U.S. trade and financial sanctions to prevent them from following policies
at odds with U.S. diplomatic demands.
[5]Don Weinland, "WTO rules against US in tariff dispute with China," Financial Times
, July 17, 2019.
Views from an economist who has been promoting neoclassical ideology for decades and then
wonders when there are no alternatives to escape the narrative? Completely ignores how a
monetary sovereign capacity can move away from US hegemony. The countries under the heel of
the US are there because the IMF has engineered their economies in favour of the US. They
could all threaten default at the same time and scare off the IMF horses – the US picks
off individual countries by isolating them. Play the united game and the power of division
practiced by the US would crumble. Just saying.
"They could all threaten default at the same time and scare off the IMF horses – the
US picks off individual countries by isolating them. Play the united game and the power of
division practiced by the US would crumble."
This is interesting. On a similar note, I've wondered why Russia has not defaulted on it's
considerable USD and EUR debt (also too, why is Russia still doing debt in USD and thus
strengthening U.S.?).
But only after she sells off all her U.S. holdings which will be (and have been already)
seized by Out Law America.
I believe Russia would be on some sort of legal ground in doing so in response to the
illegal sanctions imposed upon by by the EU and U.S.
And it will be interesting to see if Germany backs down on Nordstream II. Will she be a
total puppet of the U.S.?
Of course, it's depressing Russia has not reformed it's internal economy so that she can
grow faster. Maybe because while Putin and others don't want to take orders from Washington
they are trapped in neoliberal economic thinking and can't think outside the box?
Until Washington changes, I firmly believe Russia and other nations must act as if their
future hold one totally without U.S. interdependence and must create completely independent
economies the U.S. can not touch. China? Hard to include China in that right now with so much
trade with the U.S. but on the other hand their are reports U.S. related firms are starting
to move out of China.
The corporations that moved manufacturing to Mexico and then subsequently to China will
continue to seek cheaper labor so that their management can feather their own nests. They're
not going to bring back manufacturing to the US. Look at these greedy corporations that sell
Hanes underwear for example. They get rid of labels on their product to save less than a cent
per item and spend money and spend millions in extolling the virtues of not having labesl on
their tee shirts (Michael Jordon is the spokesman in the ad). Greed has no limits.
"Maybe because while Putin and others don't want to take orders from Washington they are
trapped in neoliberal economic thinking and can't think outside the box?"
Probably a lot there. Maybe the idea is that the system can work but needs to be fiddled
with to make it more fair to B stringers like Russia and China.
The only time anyone has had any success escaping Anglo-American finance was Germany,
Japan and the USSR in the 1930-45 period. The Soviets managed to keep their thing going until
much later, but internal corruption ( where isn't this a factor?) did them in.
Post WWII Japan kept away from the stranglehold of US Financiers by only purchasing
technology and protecting their markets which other countries have to emulate.
"I've wondered why Russia has not defaulted on it's considerable USD and EUR debt (also
too, why is Russia still doing debt in USD and thus strengthening U.S.?)"
Notice how this hasn't effected anything; other parties just happily bought it all up. The
Russians were stupid to drop it because Treasury Securities are a guaranteed return on
investment. Because, stick with me here on this, the US government can't run out of US
dollars.
They have removed those assets from the very great possibility of seizure by the US and
others (like the Venezuelan gold seized by the UK). When push comes to shove the US and its
minions have no ethics abut breaking whatever laws they deem to be in their way.
They bought quite a lot of gold, which seems to be doing pretty well these days.
You misunderstood me. Russia borrows USD and EUR from Western banks. That makes US –
Russia's enemy – stronger. Russia should borrow from Russia not the US. I'm asking why
don't they default on that debt. Your response assumed I was referring to Russia holding US
assets. That's different. BTW I don't agree with you that Russia made a mistake getting rid
of US assets given the US has stolen Russian real estate holdings in the US and other nations
property held in US banks like Venezuela's USD deposits and gold.
Along the same lines, the summary starts with, "The first existential objective is to
avoid the current threat of war by winding down U.S. military interference in foreign
countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of neocolonialism." Either would be
taken as proof of evil anti-US intentions, leading to sanctions, coups, assassinations,
regime change, and eventually outright war. As Mael Colium says, the US picks off individual
countries by isolating them.
I noticed that. I think Michael Hudson is a classical economist pushing back against the
currently reigning neo-classical economists. Classical economics is not Neo-classical
economics. Saying Hudson promotes neo-classical economics is a mistake.
I believe his hope is for the world to recognise that Athens, Rome and Constantinoiple
collapsed economically due to legislatively favoring creditors over debtors. Its a process we
see alive in North America and Europe today. That's where he is coming from
"Views from an economist who has been promoting neoclassical ideology for decades and then
wonders when there are no alternatives to escape the narrative?"
Really, you should read the article you posted this note under. What text is this comment
in reference to?
Michael Hudson promoting neoclassical ideology for decades?? Are we talking about the same
Michael Hudson from UMKC?
Could you please provide one single link to a paper that was written by him relying on
inductive methodology-based equilibrium theory??
There are a number of such "unclear sentences" in the article. Is the original article so
poorly written/edited, or is it errata in the transcription here?
Either way, it's a shame that such errors detract from the clarity of the ideas presented.
Is there any way to go back and clean this mess up??
Reading Michael's fascinating history of debt forgiveness isn't much different. I'm
grateful for his writing but suffer from his typing. Have proofreaders gone the way of buggy
whips?
(And we must stipulate that typos here on NC are so buggy they're a feature. Which makes
me wonder if/when Roman inscriptions went illiterate–first century BC civil wars, or
third century AD Christian takeover? Valuable historic perspective!)
Support. I would go further and say the article should be taken down for editing. Needs to
be translated into English.
Also, too, the final sentence: "This dystopian scenario confirms Rosa Luxemburg's
recognition that the ultimate choice facing nations in today's world is between socialism and
barbarism." is a rather large jump from the text. While many regular NC readers will agree,
the connection for others is obscure.
Wait the final sentence is what it is because it comes after everything before it. The
quote distills much of what precedes it: The US is determined to be "the winner" in all
dealings and nations acquiescing to US goals will likely lead to barbarism (austerity) for
those populations.
Sometimes a phrase hits to the core of a wider meaning: "Send Her Back!" (a racist chant
in any language).
When we have MMT paying for arts, history, journalism and particularly editors, I won't be
so irritated by these kinds of criticisms.
We live in a very advanced world of Bernaysian propaganda where the communicative
industries are privately owned and directed to ensure deep criticisms of the
hyper-exploitative current reality CANNOT be published and promoted.
When someone takes the effort to produce something, like this or the book other commenters
on this thread are also slighting, at great personal expense to themselves without corporate
backing or institutional support, a decent reply would be "Thank you!", rather than tasking
them or our hosts here at this site to "go back and clean up this mess??"
If you had any decency, you might suggest clarifying edits in comments, like changing
"– so that it can taxing its own citizens." at the end of the 23rd paragraph to,
"– so that it can avoid taxing its own citizens", to help the people you are
criticizing for making things so difficult for you.
Who cares about a few typos when his ideas are truly REVOLUTIONARY!
For example, i had no idea about Debt Jubilees in early civilizations 3000 years ago! The
pyramids built by FREE MEN! Liberty and Freedom originating from canceling debts! Torches and
Beacons of light as representatives of said Debt Jubilees!
If you ask me, the #HudsonHawk is trying to awaken the Workers of the World in
Forgiveness, Peace, Love, and Solidarity.
I didn't know that until I read anthropologist David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000
Years.
But there's a fundamental difference between debt in the past and debt today. In the past
debt was owed to the state, today it's owed to some wealthy corporations. Good luck with debt
jubilees in the absence of violent uprisings.
The difference is they internalize profit and externalize cost. And that's fundamentally
different from all other epochs in the past. Even the birth of nation state was out of their
rationalization of how to maximize profit extraction and cost externalization in the 1st
place. Good luck with debt jubilees.
I agree. I can read through typos, missing words, etc as long as the writing conveys the
intended meaning. I think the criticism of the document for grammatical perfection is not
warranted. I enjoyed the article myself anad I thank the author.
That is why Russia, China and other powers that U.S. strategists deem to be strategic
rivals and enemies are looking to restore gold's role as the preferred asset to settle
payments imbalances.
How would this occur aside from a repudiation of the almighty buck one wonders, and would
it be based on reserves in the vault, or actual use as money?
Keep in mind that there isn't a human alive now who ever proffered a monetized gold coin
in order to purchase something, and increasingly relatively few that have ever used a
monetized silver coin for the same purpose.
I don't have a huge amount of sympathy. The Eurozone and China could run trade deficits,
thereby creating an opportunity for their currencies to become reasonably viable alternative
reserves. But they don't because they don't want to cede control of their manufacturing and
export-driven economic bases away.
The US doesn't mind and doesn't care about the domestic repercussions. For how much longer
that can continue, especially as Trump's America First policy is putting that under
some strain, is an open question. But for now, it's willing to be satisfied with a little
rowing back rather than wholesale reversal (back to, for example, an immediate-post war
position of significant trade surpluses although the article is correct to point out this was
due to the US being the last man standing, in terms of having a manufacturing base still
intact).
The Eurozone and China are not only not showing any signs of a policy change, they've
continued embedding and strengthening the current modus operandi. You pays your money, you
takes your choices. Here as elsewhere. If they'd rather not have the US$ having a
more-or-less monopoly position in then global financial system as a reserve currency, they'll
need to make the compromises needed to set up these challenger currencies as viable
alternatives.
But they can't have their economic cakes and eat them, too.
And it's not just currencies. You need legal systems which are deemed to be (which can
only come through real, observational experience) investor-friendly -- not just prone to
supporting or at the very least given an easy ride to domestic stalwarts. Again, this has
repercussions if you then have to stop cosseting domestic "champions". The US legal system is
ridiculously business friendly. But it doesn't, overtly, differentiate between US and non-US
companies in a commercial dispute.
The sine qua non of our economic empire (which I learned here) is that a global currency
requires global trade deficits, which must grow as quickly as the global economy to fulfill
its role. Tell that to Germany! If your silly little euro or yen or renminbi tries to go
global, the dollar-based currency speculators will shrivel it like Soros did the pound in the
90s. So American deficits are structural. Our debt-ceiling controversies are theater. And our
dollar is exceptional until the instant it isn't–then the Fed electron-tranfers
trillions more to the speculators whose notional dollars just evaporated, keeping the
currencies in the air with their new casino chips. Is this a loan? A gift? An electron cloud?
It's the fog of war by other means . . .
It may have been Hudson who explained that a quarter (or was it half?) of all corporate
profits after WWII went to American companies, when our economy was that much of the world's.
Now we're a much smaller fraction of the global economy, but our corporate sector still
profits as much as it did when it was producing, rather than marketing, real goods. Another
exceptional achievement.
Oops, and I meant to begin with strong agreement, Clive, just developing your point about
the need for deficits to 'buy' control with unpayable debt. And it's an excellent point that
"The US doesn't mind and doesn't care about the domestic repercussions." Just imagine if we
did.
Oh man, this is definitely a two coffee cup read with a ton of material to absorb.
Definitely a keeper this. I'll just make a brief comment as it is late here. Maybe what is
key here is that there are so many trends working against the US as power shifts from a
unipolar to a multipolar world that a determination has been made in Washington to try to set
out a unilateral domineering position with regards the rest of the world to stop the loss of
prestige and power. This is just not Trump but the Washington political establishment backing
him up to put the US in a domineering position for at least the first half of this
century.
This is the first serious article I've seen linking opposition to climate action with the
US strategic focus on securing oil. The current oil wars may have started in 2003, but we've
really been fighting them for longer, at least since the Tanker War of the late 80s, which
led into the first Gulf War (which was explicitly for oil). We've been openly preparing for
such wars since the Carter Doctrine of the late 70s as well. Those dates matter because the
public generally became aware of global warming with the congressional hearings in 1988, and
the oil companies (and thus presumably the rest of the deep state) became aware of the
science as early as the 70s.
US military strategy has been based around ensuring climate change happens for as long as
climate change has been known about. Why isn't this more of a scandal? Why isn't this more
openly discussed as a justification for changing US foreign policy? Why isn't reducing
imperial adventures discussed as a side benefit of any policy, like a Green New Deal, that
seriously attempted to cut carbon emissions? It boggles the mind, and seems like the sort of
thing that'll be obvious to future generations so long as civilization hasn't collapsed by
then.
Really all we know is that such a plan would create a different order. That so many
countries have continued to pauper their populations long after the obviousness that
"development" is a sham doesn't bode well for their intentions even after the USA is brought
to heel.
This is a good summary of our irrational world. MMT and the GND can save the situation but
only if we industrialized humans forego any more fossil fuels except for long-term survival
purposes. Ration it with draconian discipline. That in turn will discipline our military and
turn our energies to things we can no longer ignore. Money doesn't bother me much. Resources
and the critical health of the planet bother me a lot. Money and "gold" are, in the end, both
fictitious obsessions.
Thanks for providing this transcript prior to Hudson posting it to his own website. He was
the first political-economist to lay out the Outlaw US Empire's game plan when he published
Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire in 1972. You'll find few
authors willing to provide their seminal work for free online– 2nd Edition
PDF . I think it fair for those unfamiliar with Hudson's work to read his analysis prior
to being judgmental.
The first existential objective is to avoid the current threat of war by winding down
U.S. military interference in foreign countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of
neocolonialism.
Clark Air Force base in Angeles City, Philippines had closed the year earlier in 1991.
China is growing power and challenger to shipping freedom of the South China Sea trading
route, building artificial fortified islands and aircraft carriers. History has not ended.
Power abhors a vacuum.
I agree with Hudson's point about the dangers of misdirected militarism, but I don't think
closing military bases around the world necessarily guarantees the end of military
adventurism dangers by other rising powers.
Jeffrey D. Sachs Trump is often called
an isolationist, but he is as interventionist as his predecessors. His strategy is simply to rely more heavily on US economic power
than military might to coerce adversaries, which creates its own kind of cruelty and destabilization – and embodies its own brand
of illegality.
NEW YORK – US President Donald Trump has based his foreign policy on a series of harsh economic blockades, each designed to frighten,
coerce, and even starve the target country into submitting to American demands. While the practice is less violent than a military
attack, and the blockade is through financial means rather than the navy, the consequences are often dire for civilian populations.
As such, economic blockades by the United States should be scrutinized by the United Nations Security Council under international
law and the UN Charter.
When Trump campaigned for office in 2016, he rejected the frequent US resort to war in the Middle East. During the years 1990-2016,
the US launched two major wars with Iraq (1990 and 2003), as well as wars in Afghanistan (2001), Libya (2011), and Syria (2012).
It also participated in many smaller military interventions (Mali, Somalia, and Yemen, among others). While the Syrian War is often
described as a civil war, it was in a fact a war of regime change led by the US and Saudi Arabia under a US presidential directive
called Timber
Sycamore .
None of these US-led wars (and others in recent history) achieved their political objectives, and the major conflicts have been
followed by chronic violence and instability. The attempt to force Syria's Bashar al-Assad from power led to a proxy war – eventually
involving the US, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Turkey, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates – that displaced over ten
million Syrians and caused around a half-million violent deaths.
While Trump has so far eschewed a new war, he has continued US regime-change efforts by other means. Trump is often called an
isolationist, but he is as interventionist as his predecessors. His strategy, at least so far, has been to rely more heavily on US
economic power than military might to coerce adversaries, which creates its own kind of cruelty and destabilization. And it constantly
risks flaring into outright war, as occurred with Iran this month.
The Trump administration currently is engaged in three attempts at comprehensive economic blockades, against North Korea, Venezuela,
and Iran, as well as several lesser blockades against countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua, and an intensifying effort to cut off
China's access to technology. The blockade against North Korea is sanctioned, at least in part, by the UN Security Council. The blockade
against Iran is in direct opposition to the Security Council. And the blockade against Venezuela is so far without Security Council
engagement for or against. The US is attempting to isolate the three countries from almost all international trade, causing shortages
of food, medicines, energy, and spare parts for basic infrastructure, including the water supply and power grid.
The North Korean blockade operates mainly through UN-mandated sanctions, and includes a
comprehensive list of
exports to North Korea, imports from North Korea, and financial relations with North Korean entities. The UN Food and Agriculture
Organization reports that ten million North Koreans are
at risk of hunger, partly owing to sanctions. "[T]he unintended negative impact sanctions can have on agricultural production, through
both direct and indirect impacts, cannot be ignored," the FAO warns. "The most obvious are restrictions on the importation of certain
items that are necessary for agricultural production, in particular fuel, machinery and spare parts for equipment."
The draconian US sanctions on Venezuela have come in two phases. The first, beginning in August 2017, was mainly directed at the
state oil company PDVSA, the country's main earner of foreign exchange; the second round of sanctions, imposed in January 2019, was
more comprehensive, targeting the Venezuelan government. A recent
detailed analysis
of the first round of sanctions shows their devastating impact. The US sanctions gravely exacerbated previous economic mismanagement,
contributing to a catastrophic fall in oil production, hyperinflation, economic collapse (output is down by half since 2016), hunger,
and rising mortality.
US sanctions against Iran have been in place more or less continuously since 1979. The most recent and by far most draconian measures,
introduced in August 2018 and intensified in the first half of this year, aim to cut Iran off from foreign trade. The US sanctions
are in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution
2231 , which endorsed the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. The effects have been devastating. The International Monetary Fund
forecasts that Iran's economy will shrink by 10% between 2017 and 2019, with inflation reaching 30% this year. Medicines are in
short supply .
One might expect that other countries would easily circumvent US sanctions. But the US has threatened to punish foreign companies
that violate the sanctions and has used the dollar's global clout as a bludgeon, threatening to sanction foreign banks that finance
trade with Iran. European companies have fallen into line, despite the European Union's express desire to engage economically with
Iran. Over the longer term, it is likely that more ways will be found to circumvent the sanctions, using renminbi, ruble, or euro
financing, yet the erosion of US sanctions will only be gradual.
Despite the intense economic pain – indeed calamity – inflicted on North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran, none of them has succumbed
to US demands. In this sense, sanctions have proved to be no more successful than military intervention. North Korea has maintained,
and most likely is expanding, its nuclear arsenal. The Iranian regime rejects US demands concerning its missile program and foreign
policies. And Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro remains in power.
The US blockades have been carried out by presidential decree, with almost no public debate and no systematic oversight by Congress.
This has been a one-man show, even more so than in the case of president-led wars, which trigger vastly more public scrutiny. Trump
realizes that he can impose crippling sanctions abroad with almost no direct costs to the US public or budget, and with virtually
no political accountability.
Military blockades are acts of war, and therefore subject to international law, including UN Security Council oversight. America's
economic blockades are similar in function and outcome to military blockades, with devastating consequences for civilian populations,
and risk provoking war. It is time for the Security Council to take up the US sanctions regimes and weigh them against the requirements
of international law and peacekeeping. Jeffrey D. Sachs , Professor of Sustainable
Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia's Center for Sustainable
Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. His books include
The
End of Poverty ,
Common
Wealth , The Age of
Sustainable Development ,
Building the New American
Economy , and most recently, A New
Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism .
As long as a country neither conducts a genocide, nor attacks other countries, nobody should interfere in its internal affairs.
If a country like Venezuela or Cuba goes broke due to its incompetent leadership, it should get help from the IMF etc. in exchange
for reforms as happens with any other country. Other than that it is their business whether they want to be socialist, capitalist
or whatever. That whole ideological crusade against leftist countries has to stop, it has cost millions of lives already.
And there is a simple way to stop Iran's activities in the Middle East: let's finally solve the conflict there after decades
during which the West simply looked the other way when land, water and oil were stolen from the Palestinians and others.
In my view the US has long turned into a rogue state. The rest of the world has to prune that country by working together and
isolating it. For instance, let's create a new global currency for commodities, the Com, in order to drive the dollar out.
Let's move the UN out of the US to a neutral, peaceful country, Switzerland for instance.
Sanctions are legal and based on national sovereignty and not a proper subject of scrutiny by an international body. Blockades
are subject to international law. By calling something which is legal by another term which may involve illegality one is guilty
of shedding false light.
Sachs thinks that if sanctions have the same effect as a blockade then sanctions are blockades. This is foolish. It is like
saying 'since a woman can get pregnant either through consensual sex or through rape, it follows that all fathers are rapists'.
Trump is carrying on policies previously applied. He has made no great innovation. It appears likely that no 'regime change'
will occur. That is why there is no real 'geopolitical' risk here. The effect of sanctions is to create a widening chasm between
regime 'insiders' and the great mass of the people. This has a demoralizing effect and reduces the ability of the regime to use
its brain-washed subjects for an aggressive purpose. In other words, sanctions reduce, not increase, the threat potential of a
bitter adversary.
Current sanctions attempt to effectively have jurisdiction over third parties, i.e. not the US, who would trade with Iran. ( that,
in full compliance with international law and a binding prior agreement to which the US is a party.) I am curious how you square
that with "national sovereignty", unless that is something over which the US has a higher priority than third parties.
As in all other times that are precursors to War, the laws of disparate nations mean nothing. We all have our own laws, to rule
our own geopolitical nations, which disserve the interests of other geopolitical nations.
Most recently, the WTO admits it is insufficient to resolve trade disputes among nations, and must change its hypotheses. This
is only another precursor admission that binding international laws are becoming irrelevant, and that we must "Start all over
again", i.e. the rule of the strongest, which means one state must conquer another before we can reestablish "Common Rule."
Economic sanctions are not tantamount to acts of war and should not be treated that way at the UN Security Council or anywhere
else. To do that would just leave acts of war as the only alternative in the case of serious disputes. But neither should nations
necessarily cooperate with sanctions they see as poorly motivated or poorly designed. In those cases, the best response is usually
technical -- new institutional arrangements that raise the costs or limit the effects of poorly justified unilateral sanctions.
it is the beginning of the end for the special role of the US$ in the world economy. Dethroning the US$ has now become a matter
of national security for 95% of the planet. Not that this would not have happened anyway, nothing lasts forever, but present events
accelerate the process.
This can be good for the US in the long run, if painful at first. One sometimes quips about the curse of natural resources.
US suffers from the similar curse of the Dollar, which is a natural resource of sorts, as it can be printed out of thin air, seemingly
without consequences. The dethroning of the US$ will cause a pretty significant, perhaps shocking, drop in living standards given
US social inequalities, but it may be beneficial in the long run by imposing some sobriety and discipline upon the political system.
Then, it could also break up the country for good. May you live in interesting times, as the saying goes.
Fortunately, the ability of the U.S. to do this is fading fast, as it loses its economic domination to China. So far, China has
shown rather less tendency to meddle in the affairs of other countries, with the notable exceptions of certain territories which
it regards as part of its territory. The world is slowly becoming fairer.
But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele's 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously
revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched
every claim Steele made about Trump's possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their
findings into a spreadsheet-like document.
The over-under isn't flattering to Steele.
Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele's
claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools
available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward
of 90 percent of the dossier's claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source
intelligence found with a Google search.
In other words, it was mostly useless.
"The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn't be corroborated, and
those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele's intelligence was
partly or totally inaccurate on several claims," one source told me.
The FBI declined comment when asked about the spreadsheet.
The FBI's final assessment was driven by many findings contained in classified footnotes at
the bottom of the spreadsheet. But it was also informed by an agent's interview, in early 2017,
with a Russian that Steele claimed was one of his main providers of intelligence, according to
my sources.
The FBI came to suspect that the Russian misled Steele, either intentionally or through
exaggeration, the sources said.
The spreadsheet and a subsequent report by special prosecutor Robert Mueller show just how far off the
seminal claims in the Steele dossier turned out to be.
For example, U.S. intelligence found no evidence that Carter Page, during a trip to Moscow
in July 2016, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir Putin Igor Sechin and senior
government official Igor Divyekin -- as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign,
as Steele reported.
Page did meet with a lower-level Rosneft official, and shook hands with a Russian deputy
prime minister, the FBI found, but it was a far cry from the tale that Steele's dossier
spun.
Likewise, Steele
claimed that Sechin had offered Page a hefty finder's fee if he could get Trump to help
lift sanctions on Moscow: "a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return."
That offer, worth billions of dollars, was never substantiated and was deemed by some in
U.S. intelligence to be preposterous.
The inaccuracy of Steele's intelligence on Page is at the heart of the inspector general
investigation specifically because the
FBI represented to the FISA court that the intelligence on Page was verified and strong
enough to support the FISA warrant. It was, in the end, not verified.
Another knockdown of the dossier occurred when U.S. intelligence determined former Trump
lawyer Michael Cohen was not in Prague
in the summer of 2016 when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a
hijacking of the election, the sources said.
Steele's theory about who in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia kept
evolving from Page to Cohen to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. None of those theories
checked out in the end, as the Mueller report showed.
Again, Steele's intelligence was wrong or unverifiable.
The salacious, headline-grabbing claim that Russians had incriminating
sex tapes showing Trump engaged in depraved acts with prostitutes also met a factual dead
end when the FBI interviewed the Georgian-American businessman who claimed to know about them.
Giorgi Rtskhiladze told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake," according to a
footnote in the Mueller report. Rtskhiladze's lawyer subsequently
issued a letter taking issue with some of Mueller's characterizations.
Steele had some general things right, of course, including that the Russians were behind
the
hacking of the Democratic National Committee's emails. Of course, there were public reports
saying so when Steele reported this.
But even then, his dossier's theory of how the hackers worked, who paid them and how they
communicated with Trump was determined in the FBI spreadsheet and subsequent Mueller
investigation to be far from accurate.
Even State officials, who
listened to Steele's theories in October 2016 -- less than two weeks before his dossier was
used to support the FISA request -- instantly determined he was grossly wrong on some
points.
Any effort to use Steele's belated cooperation with the inspector general's investigation to
prop up the credibility of his 2016 anti-Trump dossier or the FBI's reliance on it for the FISA
warrant is deeply misguided.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a key defender of Trump, said he talked with DOJ officials after
the most recent stories surfaced about Steele and was told the reporting is wrong. "Based on my
conversations with DOJ officials, recent reports which suggest Christopher Steele's dossier and
allegations are somehow deemed credible by DOJ, are simply false and not based on any
confirmation from sources with direct knowledge of ongoing investigations," Meadows told
me.
The FBI's own spreadsheet was so conclusive that it prompted then-FBI Director James Comey (no fan of Trump, mind
you) to dismiss the document as " salacious and unverified " and
for lead FBI agent Peter Strzok to text, "
There's no big there there ." FBI lawyer Lisa Page
testified that nine months into reviewing Steele's dossier they had not found evidence of
the collusion that Steele alleged.
Two years later, Mueller came to the same conclusion: Steele's intelligence alleging a
conspiracy was never verified.
The next time you hear a pundit suggesting Steele's dossier is credible or that the FBI's
reliance on it as FISA evidence was justified, just picture all those blanks in that FBI
spreadsheet.
They speak volumes as to what went wrong in the Russia investigation.
John Solomon is an
award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI
intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster
children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He
serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow
him on Twitter @jsolomonReports .
Ursula von der Leyen arrives clouded in scandal and ready to implement radical economic
policies that will stifle growth.
like Jean-Claude Juncker, she arrives in Brussels with a record of negligence in her country
of origin. Whereas Juncker was accused of failing in his duty to inform the Luxembourg
Parliament of illegal wiretapping by the intelligence service, von der Leyen was denounced for
mismanagement. In October 2018, when she was still Germany's minister of defense,
she admitted that her department had made mistakes in awarding contracts to external
consultants, amounting to several hundred million euros.
In 2012, Josep Borrell, former president of the European Parliament and former minister in
various Spanish socialist governments, was forced to resign from his position as president of
the European University Institute (UIE) following allegations of conflicts of interest. At that
time, he was receiving €300,000 as a member of the board of directors of the Spanish
sustainable energy company Abengoa, while at the same time promoting biofuels through the
institute.
Nevertheless, alongside von der Leyen, Borrell is about to be confirmed as the new head of
EU diplomacy. Another perfect candidate.
The scandal in Berlin is not the only reason the vote for Von der Leyen was narrow. It was
also that socialists and environmentalists weren't given sufficient trade-offs (in their eyes).
The European Union is all about distributing the large number of positions and policy
priorities between the involved parties, and in this case, the left felt shafted.
A source from the PiS party (the ruling party in Poland) told journalist Oskar
Górzyński of the media company Wirtualna Polska that it was a call from Chancellor
Angela Merkel that tipped some Polish MEPs over. What did Mrs. Merkel promise them? More
agricultural subsidies? The abandonment of the Article 7 sanction procedure against judicial
reforms in Poland? Only Merkel knows that and she won't tell.
Bill Wirtz comments on European politics and policy in English, French, and German.
His work has appeared in Newsweek, the Washington Examiner, CityAM, Le Monde, Le Figaro, and
Die Welt.
The clichés poured forth from Milley's lips with all the practiced smarminess of a
car salesman promoting a new line of pickup trucks. But what does this mean in practice,
Senator James Inhofe, Senate Armed Services Committee chair, wanted to know? What is General
Milley's top priority?
"The very number one for me," Milley replied, "is the modernization, recapitalization of the
nation's nuclear triad."
Now pause here for a moment. The triad -- the claim that the safety and security of the
United States requires a nuclear strike force consisting of long-range bombers and
long-range land-based missiles and missile-firing submarines -- represented fresh
thinking some 60 years ago. That was when ICBMs and Polaris submarines were entering service to
complement Strategic Air Command's fleet of B47s and B52s. If indeed "the fundamental character
of war is changing rapidly," how can it be that Milley's conception of originality is to field
glitzier versions of weapons dating back to when he was born? To make such a claim is on a par
with arguing that what the U.S. Army needed in 1940 was more horses and the U.S. Navy more
battleships.
It is small wonder that so few observers pay serious attention to what senior military
officers have to say. What they say is mostly drivel.
Andrew Bacevich is TAC 's writer-at-large and a co-founder of the Quincy Institute
for Responsible Statecraft.
Wow! Finally! No retreat to the comfort of broad generalization like "the eilites" but rather
a well considered, on target consideration of one of the individuals in a position of power
and responsibility sufficient to make the absolutely necessary changes our remarkable
nation's health demands. Thank you!
And, if the general can't make use of well a intended and considered constructive critique he
is not the experienced, compassionate adult the task requires.
It is small wonder that so few observers pay serious attention to what senior military
officers have to say. What they say is mostly drivel.
Professor Bacevich has this one exactly backwards. Notice that when the sanctified Pentagon
Generals make their fear-monger saturated pronouncements there is zero pushback from either
the Politicos or the lapdog MSM. It is not that they are not listening. It's that they fully
concur because they are intimidated by anyone wearing Stars on their shoulders.
They accept the "drivel" of the Pentagon Brass by default. BTW, which also includes the
includes the updated National Defense Strategy which has the U.S. playing belligerent Global
Cop in perpetuity and wasting taxpayer dollars out the wazoo.
If anything, the Congress and MSM should be paying more serious attention to the obsolete
and unaffordable pronouncements of the Generals and start questioning their own instinctive
deference to Pentagon authority which permits the warped, fully militarized and largely
failed U.S. foreign policy to continue as is.
I am not the first person to note that the US is displaying more and more symptoms of a dying
empire. To name a few; a broken political system, crony capitalism, a bloated military, use
of mercenaries, and unpayable debt.
The other day, while watching some general being interviewed, I noticed another symptom.
He, and other contemporary generals, have so many ribbons and metals on their chest that they
could be melted down for ore. I found a
site that lets me compare our beribboned commanders with those of yesteryear.
Civil War generals had few or no ribbons. World War I's General of the Armies Pershing
displays two rows of narrow ribbons. By World War II General Eisenhower showed three ribbon
rows. In 1950 General Bradley showed 6 rows ( you can see a detailed picture
here ).
The pictures of today's generals and officers are bedazzling. Just one example, The page
describing William J. Gainey, USA, Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman, JCS ( not even a
general ), shows a picture with at least 8 rows of ribbons, with a list 24 lines long
describing 56 awards after accounting for multiple awards.
As our military officers watch the country fall apart, at least they can fondle their
decorations.
Andrew J Bacevich does more for the long-term military strength and international standing of
the USA than much of the military and political leadership of this country. A true patriot.
That was amazing. "War is changing rapidly" coupled with "Most important: updating a 60 year
old weapon system"
Not a single world about figuring out why every war since Gulf 1 has been an abject
failure? Or the threat of our defense manufacturing infrastructure being sold by Wall Street
to China? Not a word?
The man can really talk out of both sides of his mouth, can't he? Should do great on
Capitol Hill...
Not sure how we got to this pathetic stage but my guess is that some of the pomposity is
directly related to the armies of press following the generals around in Iraq, e.g. petraeus,
et al
As a snarky comment, what in the world is with all of these "impressive" ribbons to the top
of these generals' shoulders-from what I understand, about 70-80% of them are meaningless,
only a few are for combat, valor, some are for merit, but are more or less automatic. Talk
about grade creep, how about ribbon creep.
Ike had about one or two rows, all meaningful awards. Marshall had maybe one row, meaningful
awards to a very competent general.
Those generals that came out of Iraq and Afghan were mostly mouth pieces for the press and
the politicians, i.e. drivel. None of them could win a meaningful engagement without bombing
the heck out of civilians and associated cities. In a word, pathetic.
Unless politicians feel pressure to act on military matters in a way that honors their or
their constituents' lived experiences, how are they to be incentivized to ask the right
questions? Some flavor of draft to increase stakeholders among the citizenry, or a service
requirement for government office, might realize the serious attention for which Mr. Bacevich
protests here, and drive the selection of better leaders.
To me for, both the nation and the military, we need to have an update of the high tech
weapon systems that the General talks about but we also need to have a reassessment of how we
fight wars. The wars the US won are (in my mind) the Revolution and WWII. I think the Civil
war was "lost" because although the US defeated the Confederacy it did not reunite the
nation. WWI was said to be the war to end all wars - - that didn't happen. No question that
both Korea and Vietnam were not won, despite the heroism of those fighting there - - those
wars were handled by Washington politics. MacAuthor could have won Korea but was fired. The
whole Vietnam was was managed by politics. Now to the middle east. Afghanistan is another
example of political warfare as is Iraq and potentially Iran. I believe that a war can be
partly won by high tech missiles, bombs, etc. but cannot be actually won except by occupying
the ground. We did this in Europe with the troops giving out cigarettes and candy as they
patrolled. That made them human to the previous "enemy". Our professional volunteer army
doesn't have the manpower to do this. I believe we need to have a secondary low-tech army of
drafted men and women who can be trained quickly to be able to follow commands, to use a
rifle with accuracy, and to be able to reduce civilian conflict without violent response. The
high tech folk require extended training, the low tech force is able to move in and actually
win the war. How would this help the nation? It would force people to live and work with a
diverse population and realize that we can be a single nation of people of different
backgrounds and ethnicity. The "fly over land" people really aren't a bunch of idiot racist
red-necks. The coastals are not (all) anxious to destroy America.
The US didn't just win in WWII because we occupied the ground. We won because we showed the
German people that we were happy to fire bomb entire ancient cities and indiscriminately kill
their women and children without a second thought.
And we were the good ones to surrender to. The Russians were happy to kill them all, with
the exception of a few pretty blonds who would henceforth bear strong Russian boys.
You can't win a war without utterly defeating an entire population. Which is why we can't
win our wars. None of these people have done anything to really harm us. And the American
people still have enough dignity to not just slaughter these people for no reason. We're not
entirely evil, yet.
I have always wondered what such people mean when they say that the character of warfare is
changing and the US has to adopt to such changes.
War is about 2 things; killing and destruction. That in a nutshell is the character of
war. Anything else may describe the complexities of tactics and strategies or the causes of
such conflicts but the actual features of any conflict are always the same.
The only thing that does change is the types of weapon systems used. The stupidity that
has led militaries to use them hasn't changed since the dawn of time...
"... One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. ..."
"... We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. ..."
"... It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/ ..."
"... Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated" near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow, doubt it. ..."
"... This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia. ..."
"... Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat. ..."
"... Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ..."
"... You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable. ..."
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as "The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News," illustrates how interest
groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke's article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran,
and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that
work closely with the US government. As Trump has neutered his presidency by gratuitously accepting Gen. Flynn's resignation as National
Security Advisor, this scheme is likely to be Trump's approach to "better relations" with Russia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder
from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West
and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent
to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient
directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic
relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is "increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western
financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and
wants." Sweetening the honey trap is official recognization of "Crimea as part of Russia."
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did
not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy. Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology
is superior to that in the West. And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity
to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is
a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development
projects with the issuance of central bank credit. Foreign loans are essential, claims the central bank.
Someone needs to teach the Russian central bank basic economics before Russia is turned into another Western vassal. Here is the
lesson: When central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from
the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money
supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into
its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence
of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their
own development. Indeed, China is the world's largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries that lack the
internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, techlology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies
that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China's development was given a
boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory
costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent
of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal
debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke's article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable
deals with the West. As Russia's neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the
Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic
blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its
oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat outselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists
who have been throughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia
does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues
the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does
is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Yes, correct. But this is an IMF rule, and Russia is an IMF member. To control its monetary policy it would have to get out.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important
to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"!
This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because this will also force
us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been expanding by leaps and bounds for the last
two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder – 2-3% of the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St.
Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West, who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions
didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up?
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to
Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"! This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to
be lifted, because this will also force us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been
expanding by leaps and bounds for the last two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder - 2-3% of
the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St. Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West,
who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say - why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up? ;)
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too
bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity
and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow,
doubt it.
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign. At any
rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that fears gentile
nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed.
Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against
humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine
face I, somehow, doubt it.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin a little
bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough to see
through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
The Russians can't be flummoxed, they aren't children. Russia and China border each other so they have a natural mutual interest
in having their east-west areas be stable and safe, particularly when the US threatens both of them. This geography isn't going
to change. Abandoning clients such as Syria and Iran would irreversibly damage the Russian brand as being unreliable therefore
they'd find it impossible to attract any others in the future. They know this so it's unlikely they would be so rash as to snap
at any bait dangled in front of them. And, as pointed out, the bait really isn't all that irresistible. It's always best to negotiate
from a position of strength and they realize that. American policy deep thinkers are often fantasists who bank upon their chess
opponents making hoped-for predictable moves. That doesn't happen in real life.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this already.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia–a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within the
largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin adjusted
his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that many of
them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced to get down
from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a good hint on
where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still–I personally am not convinced yet. We'll see.
In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains still being around–people
who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov. Let's not forget that
despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure as a Director of FSB,
Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his career. I know for a
fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry. Enough to mention
his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main ideologue behind Russia's
military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade) but who never served a day
in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing with the consequences.
This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation–hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
He has not done it already because he just cannot let go of his dream to have it as he did in 2003, when Russia Germany and
France together blocked legality of US war in Iraq. Putin still hopes for a good working relationship with major West European
powers. Italy France and even Germany.
He still hopes to draw them away from the US. However the obvious gains from Import substitution campaign make it apparent
that Russia does benefit from sanctions, that Russia can get anything it wants in technology from the East rather than the West.
So the break with Western orientation is in the making. Hopefully.
You forgot to mention the "moderate" jihadis, including the operatives from NATO, Israel, and US. (It seems that the Ukrainian
"patriots" that have been bombing the civilians in East Ukraine, also include special "patriots" from the same unholy trinity:
https://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/12/6/there-are-troops-jack-us-army-donbass
). There has been also a certain asymmetry in means: look at the map for the number and location of the US/NATO military bases.
At least we can see that RF has been trying to avoid the hot phase of WWIII.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign.
At any rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that
fears gentile nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is Jewish Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
On the power and privilege that really rule the US:
"Sanctions – economic sanctions, as most of them are, can only stand and 'succeed', as long as countries, who oppose Washington's
dictate remain bound into the western, dollar-based, fraudulent monetary scheme. The system is entirely privatized by a small
Zionist-led elite. FED, Wall Street, Bank for International Settlement (BIS), are all private institutions, largely controlled
by the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan et al clans. They are also supported by the Breton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank,
conveniently created under the Charter of the UN.
Few progressive economists understand how this debt-based pyramid scam is manipulating the entire western economic system. When
in a just world, it should be just the contrary, the economy that shapes, designs and decides the functioning of the monetary
system and policy.
Even Russia, with Atlantists still largely commanding the central bank and much of the financial system, isn't fully detached
from the dollar dominion – yet."
"I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this (nationalize the "central bank) already".
I read about a rumor a few years ago that Putin has been warned that nationalizing the now private Russian central bank will
bring absolutely dire consequences to both him and Russia. It is simply a step he cannot take.
How dire are the potential consequences? Consider that the refusal of the American government to reauthorize the private central
bank in the US brought about the War of 1812. The Americans learned their lesson and quickly reauthorized the private bank after
the war had ended.
Numerous attempts were made to assassinate President Andrew Jacksons specifically because of his refusal to reauthorize the
private central bank.
Here it is in audio form so you can just relax and just listen at your leisure.
*ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS* By Michael Rivero https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
300 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
This is rich from a Ukrainian nationalist ruled by Groysman/Kagans.
First, figure out who is your saint, a collaborationist Bandera (Babiy Yar and such) or a triple-sitizenship Kolomojski (auto-da-fe
of civilians in Odessa). If you still want to bring Holodomor to a discussion, then you need to be reminded that 80% of Ukrainian
Cheka at that time were Jewish. If you still think that Russians are the root of all evil, then try to ask the US for more money
for pensions, education, and healthcare – instead of weaponry. Here are the glorious results of the US-approved governance from
Kiev: http://gnnliberia.com/2017/02/17/liberia-ahead-ukraine-index-economic-freedom-2017/
"Liberia, Chad, Afghanistan, Sudan and Angola are ahead of Ukraine. All these countries are in the group of repressed economies
(49.9-40 scores). Ukraine's economy has contracted deeply and remains very fragile."
Here are your relationships with your neighbors on the other side – Poland and Romania:
"The right-winged conservative orientation of Warsaw makes it remember old Polish-Ukrainian arguments and scores, and claim its
rights on the historically Polish lands of Western Ukraine"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
" the "Assembly of Bukovina Romanians" has recently applied to Petro Poroshenko demanding a territorial autonomy to the Chernivtsi
region densely populated by Romanians. The "Assembly" motivated its demand with the Ukrainian president's abovementioned statement
urging territorial autonomy for the Crimean Tatars."
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/06/30/what-is-behind-romanias-activity-in-ukraine
And please read some history books about Crimea. Or at least Wikipedia:
"In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic by Nikita Khrushchev (a Soviet dictator). In 2014, a 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted for integration of the region into
the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout." You see, the Crimeans do not like Nuland-Kagan and Pravyj Sector.
Do you know why?
100 Words @Seamus
Padraig Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin
a little bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough
to see through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
well it depends. if putin is just out for himself, I can see him getting in bed with kissinger and co. if he is about russia,
he would not. that is how I see it. it isn't about if putin is smart or stupid. just a choice and where his royalty lies.
100 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine.
How so? #Krymnash
Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves.
If by "decline" you mean "expects this year a modest growth as opposed to previous years" then you might be right.
I've been reading about Russia's imminent collapse and the annihilation of the economy since forever. Some no-names like you
(or some Big Names with agenda) had been predicting it every year. Still didn't happen.
Putin is almost down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid
now.
Can I see a source for that?
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
False equivalence.
P.S. Hey, Quart – how is Bezviz? Also – are you not cold here? Or are you one of the most racally pure Ukrs, currently residing
in Ontario province (Canada), from whence you teach your less lucky raguls in Nizalezhnaya how to be more racially pure? Well,
SUGS to be you!
@Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Do you have any links to verify this that Russia is down to bedrock,from everything I read and have read Russia's do pretty
damn good, or is this just some more of your endless antiRussian propaganda,,
A scandal of a EU member Poland:
http://thesaker.is/zmiana-piskorski-and-the-case-for-polish-liberation/
Two days after he [Piskorski] publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds
of combatting "Russian hybrid war," he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland's Internal Security Agency while taking his children
to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day."
With the Poland's entry into EU, "Poland did not "regain" sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist
project Poland has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic
policies Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government's
relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation
is not a mere taxation on Poland's national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country
into a direct target and battlefield in the US' provocative war on Russia."
" it's not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It's not the Russians that
have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It's not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it's not the
Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored
in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this."
More from a comment section: "Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served
in Hitler's Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally,
"as with terrorists". While the Polish special services were training the future participants of the Maidan operations and the
ethnic cleansing of the Donbass, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this official statement (02-02-2014): "We support
the hard line taken by the Right Sector The radical actions of the Right Sector and other militant groups of demonstrators and
the use of force by protesters are justified The Right Sector has taken full responsibility for all the acts of violence during
the recent protests. This is an honest position, and we respect it. The politicians have failed at their peacekeeping function.
This means that the only acceptable option is the radical actions of the Right Sector. There is no other alternative".
In short, the US has been the most active enabler of the neo-Nazi movement in Europe. Mrs. Clinton seemingly did not get a
memo about who is "new Hitler."
Do you happen to know anything about western financial giants' influence upon Russia's "Atlanticist Integrationists"?
It's low hanging fruit for me to take a pick, but I am thinking The Goldman Sachs Group is well ensconced among Russian "Atlanticist
Integrationists."
You guys are top seeded pros at uncovering Deep State-banker secrets. In contrast, I drive school bus and I struggle to even
balance the family Wells Fargo debit card!
However, since our US Congress has anointed a seasoned G.S.G. veteran, Steve Mnuchin, as the administration's Treasury Secretary,
he has become my favorite "Person of Interest" who I suspect spouts a Ural Mountain-level say as to how "Atlanticist Integrationists"
operate.
Speaking very respectfully, I hope my question does not get "flummoxed" into resource rich Siberia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead
.
Most likely the Spirit of Anti-Christ keeping them alive to do his bidding.
@Priss Factor
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
What an amazing whoring performance for the war-manufacturers! And here is an interesting morsel of information about the belligerent
Frau der Leyen:
http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-accuses-von-der-leyen-of-misrepresentation/a-18775432
"Stanford university has said Ursula von der Leyen is misrepresenting her affiliation with the school. The German defense minister's
academic career is already under scrutiny after accusations of plagiarism." No kidding. Some "Ursula von der Leyen' values" indeed.
I doubt we'll see little change from the Trump administration toward Russia.
From SOTT:
Predictable news coming out of Yemen: Saudi-backed "Southern Resistance" forces and Hadi loyalists, alongside al-Qaeda of
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), launched a new offensive against the Houthis in western Yemen on Wednesday.
This is not the first time Saudi-backed (and by extension, Washington-backed) forces have teamed up with al-Qaeda in Yemen
.
Yemen is quickly becoming the "spark that lights the powder keg". The conflict has already killed, maimed and displaced
countless thousands (thanks to the stellar lack of reporting from trustworthy western news sources, we can only estimate the
scale of Saudi/U.S. crimes in Yemen), but now it seems that elements of the Trump administration are keen on escalation, likely
in hopes of giving Washington an excuse to carpet bomb Tehran.
Apparently, we feel satisfied fighting with our old allies, al-Qaeda and Saudis.
I think that the authors may be underestimating Putin in his determination to keep Russia and the Russian economy independent.
For example, I find this rumoured offer of "increased access to the huge European energy market" very funny, for at least two
reasons:
1) US wants to sell hydrocarbons (LPG) to the European market at significantly higher prices than the Russian prices, and
2) the current dependence of EU countries on the Russian energy would have never happened if there were better alternatives.
In other words, any detente offer that the West would make to Russia would last, as usual, not even until the signature ink
dries on the new cooperation agreements. Putin does not look to me like someone who suffers much from wishful thinking.
The Russian relationship with China is not a bed of roses, but it is not China which is increasing military activity all
around Russia, it is the West. Also, so far China has shown no interest in regime-changing Russia and dividing it into pieces.
Would you rather believe in the reform capability of an addict in violence or someone who does not need to reform? Would the West
self-reform and sincerely renounce violence just by signing a new agreement with Russia?
The new faux detente will never happen, as long as Putin is alive.
Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat.
The only one stopping Trump is Putin or Russia's missile defenses.
Indeed, Putin's main inside enemy is Russia's central bank, or the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (Atlanticists). Also Russia needs
to foster and encourage small&medium enterprises, that need cheap credit, to create competitive markets, where no prices are fixed
and market shares change. These are most efficient resource users.
In the US, Wallstreet controls government = fascism = the IG Farben- Auschwitz concentration camps to maximize profits. This
is the direction for the US economy.
Meanwhile in the EU, the former Auschwitz owners IG Farben (Bayer(Monsanto), Hoechst, BASF) the EU chemical giants, who have
patented all natures molecules, are in controll again over EU. Deutsche bank et allies is eating Greece, Italy, Spain's working
classes, using AUSTERITY as their creed.
So what is new? Nothing, the supercorporate-fascist elites are the same families, who 's morality is unchanged in a 100 years.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
I would really love to like Putin and I am trying but him protecting all those criminals and not reversing the history greatest
heist of 90′s makes it impossible. While I am behind all his moves to restore Russian military and foreign policy, I am still
waiting for more on home front. Note, not only the Bank must be nationalized. Everything, all industries, factories and other
assets privatized by now must be returned to rightful owner. Public which over 70 years through great sacrifice built all of it.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia--a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within
the largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin
adjusted his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that
many of them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced
to get down from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a
good hint on where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still--I personally am not convinced
yet. We'll see. In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains
still being around--people who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov.
Let's not forget that despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure
as a Director of FSB, Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his
career. I know for a fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry.
Enough to mention his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main
ideologue behind Russia's military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade)
but who never served a day in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing
with the consequences. This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation--hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
Smoothie, you seem to have natural aversion towards lawyers
Albeit, the first Vladimir, I mean Lenin also was a lawyers by education still he was a rather quick study. Remember that military
communism and Lenin after one year after Bolsheviks took power telling that state capitalism would be great step forward for Russia
whcih obviously was backward and ruined by wars at the time and he proceeded with New Economic Policy and Lenin despite not being
industry captain realized pretty well what constituted state power hence GOELRO plans and electrification of all Russia plans
and so forth which was later turned by Stalin and his team into reality.
Now, Lenin was ideologically motivated and so is Putin. But he clearly has been trying to achieve different results by keeping
same people around him and doing same things. Hopefully it is changing now, but it is so much wasted time when old Vladimir was
always repeating that time is of essence and delay is like death knell. Putin imho is away too relax and even vain in some way,
hence those shirtless pictures and those on the bike. And the way he walks a la "Я Московский озорной гуляка". As you said it
looks like he is protecting those criminals who must be prosecuted and yes, many executed for what they caused.
I suspect in cases when it comes to economical development he is not picking right people for those jobs and it is his major
responsibility to assign right people and delegate power properly, not to be forgotten to reverse what constitutes the history
greatest heist and crime so called "privatization". Basically returning to more communal society minus Politburo.
There is a huge elephant in the room too. Russia demographic situation which I doubt can be addressed under current liberal
order. all states which are in liberal state of affairs fail to basically procreate hence these waves of immigrants brought into
all Western Nations. Russia cannot do it. It would be suicide which is what all Western countries are doing right now.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech
industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would
stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable.
Some home reading (sorry, they are in Russian, but one ought to know the language if one writes about the country).
Trailer Trash is exactly right about brittle supply chains. To "maximize Shareholder value"
(the Prime Directive from Wall Street), corporations are maximizing (not optimizing)
efficiency, at the expense of long-term priorities.
Summer Diaz is sorta right about what I might describe as US cultural/political obesity,
but I don't look forward to living here after the shit hits the fan. There are lotsa crazy
bastards with guns. We'll see real race war, starvation, all 4 Horsemen.
Re questions about Israel's fate in Marandi's scenario: I think it's smart that he/they
don't talk about retaliation against Israel. Everybody knows that Iran has the ability to
really hurt Israel (sans Nukes, they probably can't obliterate it); but this threat is much
better left unsaid, just hanging in the air. Threatening Israel would be bad PR, decreasing
chances that EU, Russia, & China can talk the US back from the brink of WWIII. And making
sure Israel knows they're in danger - without bragging about it - gets (non-crazy) Zionists
in USA to help prevent all-out war!
It's OK for Iran to talk about the threat to KSA, UAE, etc, because everybody hates them
anyway, and cutting off the world's energy supply is their Doomsday Bomb. They need to remind
the world that if the US attacks Iran, everybody loses.
Three main antagonists have aimed at post-revolution Iran: The Outlaw US Empire, Occupied
Palestine, and Saudi Arabia, the latter being the most recent and vulnerable, while the first
two have already waged varying degrees of war with the Empire's Economic War having existed
for 40+ years. The Levant's former Colonial powers--Turkey, France, UK--are feeble, and in
Turkey's case is allied with Iran while being spurned by NATO and EU. Lurking in the
background are Russia and China's designs for Eurasian Integration which only the Outlaw US
Empire seeks to prevent as such integration benefits Saudi Arabia, Occupied Palestine, France
and UK. Thus the only entity that might benefit from non-hybrid war with Iran is the Outlaw
US Empire--Occupied Palestine's interests actually lie with becoming part of an Integrated
Eurasia not in trying to impede it. And the same goes for the other nations occupying the
Arabian Peninsula--but they all need to come to their senses by deeply examining their actual
long term interests as Qatar seems to have done in its rapprochement with Iran.
But, just how would a non-hybrid conflict with Iran benefit the Outlaw US Empire if it
consumes its regional allies? Would it bring more riches or create greater debt atop the
human cost? Most analysts have pointed to the Empire's vulnerability upon the trashing of the
current global economic structure. Indeed, the only visible benefit might accrue from slowing
Eurasian Integration. Then there's the highly negative result to the Empire's global
credibility which is already scrapping rock bottom and the likely end of Dollar Hegemony and
the Free Lunch it's lived on for the past 70+ years. But what about the fulfillment of the
Christian Rapture Myth? Sorry, but there should be no need to answer that fantastical,
magical, thinking. Not a very good balance sheet is it as liabilities seem to vastly outweigh
assets. Unfortunately, such logic is ignored by ideologues drunk on magical thinking. And
these results don't take into consideration an escalation into global nuclear conflict that's
in nobody's interest.
But as noted, Trump's up a tree and keeps climbing higher onto ever thinner, more
precarious branches. Iran offered him a chance to climb down if he removes illegal sanctions
and returns to JCPOA, which Pompeo promptly replied to with a lie that Iran would negotiate
on its ballistic missiles, thus giving the overall goal away.
So, Trump can't/won't climb down and non-hybrid conflict would do great damage to Outlaw
US Empire interests, which is where we were at July's beginning.
Iran will respond to a limited military strike with a massive and disproportionate
counterstrike targeting both the aggressor and its enablers.
Which will be the green light for an even more violent & disproportionate counterstrike
on Iran. Make no mistake - there are plenty of gung-ho Washington & Tel Aviv power
brokers who want to trash Iran. And they will do it, given the chance. The above scenario is
precisely what the war gods are hoping for.
I don't know about that. The US and Israel would really be opening up a can of worms. Any
over reaction by the USA and Israel gives Russia, India, and China a precedent to follow.
China might it easy to settle their difficulties with Taiwan. Kiev might go up in a mushroom
cloud. The USA isn't the only country in the world with problems. If they don't play by the
rules it just leads to more rule breakers.
An Alternate Scenario
There is a saying in Persian language called "Namad Maali" translates as "feltman massag", it
means slow killing.
This proverb is very often used in contemporary Persian language but most of the people do
not know the actual origin of the proverb.
There is an interesting legend behind it. Holagu Khan, a Mongol ruler, the grandson of
Chengiz Khan conquered Baghdad on year 1258, and captured the Caliph Al-Mo'tasam, the last
Caliph of Abbasid dynasty. Holagu decided to execute the Caliph and finish the 500 years
Muslim caliphate.
Many statesmen begged him to hold on. They told him that the caliph is legitimate successor
of prophet Mohammad. Caliphate is the pillar of the world, if you remove this pillar there
will be sun eclipse, thunder storm and total darkness. Holagu, with his shamanistic believes
fearing sky revenge was yielding, but he consulted his prime minister a Persian mullah, Nasir
al-Din Tusi. Nasir told him do not worry, these are total nonsense, all of our great Shai
twelve imams were direct descendants of prophet Mohammad, they were inherently innocent,
while Abbasid are not direct descendants of prophet. See that our imams, eleven out of
twelve, were martyred, there was no sun eclipse, no thunder storm, no darkness of the
world.
Holagu was bold enough to carry out the execution. Other statesmen brought forward a group of
astrologists who searched through their horoscopes and studied signs of stars and concluded
that all the signs are catastrophic, if a drop of caliph's blood drops on earth, there will
be a devastating thunder storm, rain of bloods pours down from sky and end of world ...
Holagu consulted Nasi again. Nasir being a great humorist, told him not worry, we can devise
a pretty easy solution for your peace of mind, send the caliph to hot bath of feltman
workshop, order to be wrapped in felt, they will give him a hot water bath with soap, they
will roll him slowly over and over, as they are crafting a felt, his life will be ended
peacefully in massage, without a drop of blood, meanwhile I will assign one of my intelligent
apprentice who is familiar with sky ways ( Nasir was a great mathematician and Astronomer, he
founded a famous observatory, he was inventor of trigonometry), to sit on the roof top of the
feltman workshop, he will monitor any changes on sky if there is a minor change, he will
signal to the feltman to release the caliph.
President Vladimir Khan has been giving warnings to Ayatollah do not burn JCPOA, do not close
Strait of Hurmoz. Ayatollah is telling him do not worry we are giving a feltman massage. Just
tell Xi khan do not lean his back against the wall street pillar, clean up your hands from
future fund casino, the pillars are collapsing slowly.
the US and its allies are bluffing. don't get caught up in wars and rumors of it. the only
way it was going to happen was if syria and iraq fell and both of them didn't.
when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy.
@C I eh? #14
I don't see China as the same situation as Russia.
The Russians who have largely supported Putin despite economic ill-effects from sanctions
are, at best, 1 generation removed from 1991-1996 post-Soviet collapse privation. They
remember the bad times and how to get through them.
The mainland Chinese today are 2 generation removed from the famines in the 50s and 60s, and
furthermore there is a largely generational break due to the Cultural Revolution.
I don't see China collapsing, but I also don't see the mainstream population taking a
oil-starvation induced economic collapse well at all, because the deal is social repression
if the economy and standards of living continue to improve.
The difference is French cheese and EU fruits and vegetables - luxury goods vs. oil = energy
= everything.
There seems to be misconception about Kuwait, in particular.
Kuwaitis are fed up with the Saudis and are more Iranophile than anything. They see who is
a true regional power.
Recently, I happen to be invited to a diplomatic function, welcoming a new Kuwaiti
ambassador (Not in US). There were several businessmen associates of the new ambassador at
that function. In an impromptu conversation, they professed their love for anything Iranian
or Persian, from culture and history to food and the people, and their disdain for the Saudis
and their ruling family.
In fact, one of them, much to my shock, uttered the circulating rumor that the ruling
family in SA are actually Jews. He said everyone in the region knows about this open secret
but afraid to talk about. That was a revelation for me coming from a Kuwaiti since I never
did pay attention to those rumors.
I think in the event of a regional conflict, Kuwait will be spared by Iran. What would
happen to the ruling family will be another story.
thanks Seyed Mohammad Marandi.. i agree with your headline...
the usa is not agreement friendly.. everything is on their terms only... they rip up
contracts when a new president doesn't like it, and make endless demands of others under
threat, just like bullies do. they sanction countries and don't mind killing, starving and
subjecting people in faraway lands to their ongoing and desperate means of domination..
nothing about the usa is friendly... they spend all their money on the military not just
because it works so well for wall st and the corporations but because they think they can
continue to bully everyone and anyone indefinitely.. they get support from the obvious
suspects and all the other colonies of the usa - europe, canada and etc - turn a type of
blind eye to it all, fearful they might be next if they step out of line.. thus, all these
chattel countries fail in line with the usa regime sanctions...
basically, the prognosis isn't good.. none of the colonies are capable of speaking up to
the usa regime, largely because they lack strong leadership and independence of thought in
all this... we continue to slip towards ww3 and at present all the observing countries sit on
their hands waiting for the next shoe to drop.. that is where we are at present with regard
the ramp up to war on iran...
The Gulf states know they would be in the front lines in any conflict, Saudi and UAE
infrastructure destruction would mean Kings, Princes and Emir's scurrying from their
destroyed countries because of their inability to sell oil and feed their people, as one
Iranian General said.. the US bases in the region are not threats, "they are targets". Its
true Iran has an army of 500,000, they also have millions of military aged men who would form
militias and have the reputation of taking their shrouds with them into battle.
I think a major miscalculation by Trump, initiating this kind of scenario is unlikely, those
other whack jobs Pence, Pompeo and Bolton are a cause for concern, just hear this nutcase
Lindsey Graham threatening the Europeans....
"The United States should sanction "to the ground" European countries that continue to trade
with Iran under the 2015 nuclear deal and refuse to join America's pressure campaign against
the Islamic Republic, says top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
"I will tell the Europeans, 'If you want to side with the Iranians, be my guest, but you
won't use an American bank or do business with the American economy,'" Graham said".
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/16/601067/US-Graham-Trump-Iran-JCPOA-EU-sanction-to-ground
Punitive sanctions against nations with a powerful military establishment have an incredibly
poor track record. Germany after WWI. Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. And one might add Russia
today. The more "effective" the sanctions, the closer to war.
But, of course, military planners in the U.S. and Israel have already picked out the
targets for nuclear strikes during the very first wave of attacks on Iran. It will be nuclear
first, ask questions later. Heil Trump has already said he will use nuclear weapons:
"obliterate". But will even that work? I doubt it. Iran must expect nuclear attacks in the
first wave. Yes, their urban populations will be destroyed, but their military? I doubt
it.
The folks who now are called Iranian once fought the most militaristic society ever - the
Spartans. There is likely a memory of that conflict still, and the lessons learned. They face
a military that no longer remembers Vietnam or its lessons. Sanctions are an act of war, not
military war but war against another who have been made into enemies nonetheless. Be mightily
careful who you make your enemy, one sage reminds that you become like them. Look at those
the U.S. has made enemy: Hitler and National Socialism; Mussolini and Fascism; Stalin and
State Authoritarianism; Franco and Military Repression; and the list continues substantially,
and then look at the U.S. in a distortion free mirror and what does one see?
Taking into consideration the novel Rand Paul intervention, the likely way forward is this,
and I'm sure it is what Putin (the master negotiator) has in mind: Trump blundered badly by
throwing out the JCPOA, but he needs a way out that allows him to save face and even turn it
into a partial "win". On the world stage (ie. for the public) it needs to look like Trump
accedes to reinstate the JCPOA IN EXCHANGE for Iran withdrawing from Syria! This will not
only save the nuclear deal, thereby reducing tensions, but it will force Israel to back down
and shut up. Israel can't complain and Trump can sell it as an achievement of his, "without
having to go to war". The US, of course will have to give Iran, Syria and Russia something in
exchange: Iran and Russia ultimately bolstered their forces in Syria in order to save Assad.
All things considered, Assad has won the war, so the reason for the bolstered Iranian and
Russian presence no longer applies. What the US must agree to is to suspend its efforts to
overthrow Assad (which Trump has been trying to do via the withdrawal of US troops in
northern Syria), thereby returning the country to the status quo ante. The wild card in all
of this, however, is Turkey's presence in Syria. Perhaps China can lend a helping hand on
that issue?
@35 "when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy."
I agree with that comment, though I will add that for this Administration "looking busy"
has a Keystone Cops look about it.
I mean, let's be real here: Norman Schwarzkopf did not make a single move against Iraq
until he had well over 500,000 GI's at his command, and Tommy Franks was not willing to
restart the Crash Boom Bang until he had built up his army to just shy of 500,000
soldiers.
And Iraq then was nowhere near as formidable as Iran is now.
Where are the troop buildups? Where is the CENTCOM army?
Nowhere. And no sign of it happening.
There is a real possibility that Bolton might get his way and start his dinky little war,
only to find that the USA loses a great big war before he even manages to get out of bed.
CENTCOM is not ready for war, nowhere close to it, and for that reason alone Iran is
correct to tell the USA that if Trump launches a "limited strike" then their response will be
"it's on, baby".
@ William Herschel 61. If the U.S. or anyone else uses any type of Nuclear weapons against
Iran, a declared ally of Russia, it will result in an immediate and full scale Nuclear
retaliation. This is a recent statement made by Vladimir Putin. Pompeo, Bolton et all are
well aware of this. The U.S. might talk of using tactical nukes but despite their Hubris,
even the most pro war in the Pentagon know what the results of that type of planned
anihilation will have on the U.S. mainland. People like Lindsey Graham are merely empty
vessels making a lot of noise.
Why would Iran allow any Western nation to save face through negotiations or
otherwise?
Khamenei yesterday tweeted several statements that were later posted to his website:
"At this meeting, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran stressed that Western
governments' arrogant behavior is the main obstacle in establishing ties and maintained:
Western governments' major vice is their arrogance. If they face a weak government, their
arrogance will be effective. But if that country knows the truth about them and resists, the
Western governments will be defeated.
"Referring to problems rising between Iran and the European partners of the JCPOA,
Ayatollah Khamenei said: Now, in the matters between us and the Europeans, the problems
persist, because of their arrogance.
"The Leader of the Islamic Revolution highlighted Iran's commitment to the JCPOA -- also
known as the Iran Deal -- and criticized European dignitaries of the deal for breaching it,
saying: As stated by our Foreign Minister, who works hard, Europe has had eleven commitments,
none of which it has met. The Foreign Minister, despite his diplomatic considerations, is
clearly stating that. But what did we do? We acted based on our commitments, and even beyond
that.
"Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated that Iran continued to stay within the JCPOA despite the
fact that the EU partners of the JCPOA as well as the British government violated the
international plan of action and yet demanded Iran to stay with its promises: Now that we
have started to reduce our commitments, they step forward. They are very insolent, and they
have not abided by their eleven commitments. We have just started to reduce some of our
commitments, and this process will surely continue."
The hypothetical suggestion Zarif made in his interview with NBC News was just
that--hypothetical--as it had to spell out again for the
apparently illiterate, deaf or both SoS Pompeo and BigLie Media presstitutes.
In his arrogance, Trump climbed up the tree he's now stuck within; and as I've pointed out
again and again, Iran isn't going to help him in his climb down--they'll be no face saving
for the arrogant Western nations. I mean, how clear can the Iranians make that?! They quite
well understand the very real interests at stake I put forth in my comment @32. And the Turks
on their own have upped the stakes with Erdogan
assuring :
"that his country is prepared to leave NATO during a meeting with Russian Deputy Vladimir
Zhirinovsky.
"'I met twice with Turkish President Recep Erdogan and he told me personally that Turkey
was willing to withdraw from NATO,' Zhirinovsky wrote."
Trump seems desperate for a way to climb down from his tree. Controversial Kentucky
Senator Rand Paul apparently volunteered his services as an emissary
to Iran , which Trump okayed but Paul's office is being mum about. As noted, Iran isn't
going to talk unless tangible, visible concessions are made prior to any talks
occurring--concessions Zarif and Rouhani have already stated as the minimum required: Ending
all illegal sanctions and return to JCPOA.
Iran just announced that they would be open to talk about ballistic missiles when US stops
selling arms in the Middle East.
You have to hand it to the Iranians. In the one-up-manship game, they are a formidable
opponent. Obviously, there is less than zero chance that would ever happen, but they are
super smart in driving the message of US arrogance home. I am happy to see they don't take
any shit from the Empire.
Washington's aggression is part
of a decades-long quest to control the spigot in the Persian Gulf.
Notable quotes:
"... As it happens, the world economy -- of which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would their country's nuclear supremacy. ..."
"... True, Washington fought wars in the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence," he told a nationwide TV audience. ..."
"... All told, 33.6 percent of world energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables. ..."
"... Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105 million barrels in 2040. ..."
"... More dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040, its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products. ..."
"... To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president in 1981, made the RDJTF into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East). ..."
"... When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging" mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later recall in his memoir Fighting for Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a report on the geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much more explicit than that. ..."
"... As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost. ..."
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared
at TomDispatch.com .
It's always the oil. While President Trump was hobnobbing
with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G-20 summit in Japan, brushing off a
recent UN report about the prince's role in the murder of Washington Post columnist
Jamal Khashoggi, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Asia and the Middle East,
pleading with foreign leaders to support "Sentinel." The aim of that administration plan: to
protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.
Both Trump and Pompeo insisted
that their efforts were driven by concern over Iranian misbehavior in the region and the need to
ensure the safety of maritime commerce. Neither, however, mentioned one inconvenient three-letter
word -- O-I-L -- that lay behind their Iranian maneuvering (as it has impelled every other
American incursion in the Middle East since World War II).
Now, it's true that the United States
no longer relies on imported petroleum for a large share of its energy needs. Thanks to the
fracking
revolution , the country now gets the bulk of its oil --
approximately 75 percent -- from domestic sources. (In 2008, that share had been closer to 35
percent.) Key allies in NATO and rivals like China, however, continue to depend on Middle Eastern
oil for a significant proportion of their energy needs.
As it happens, the world economy -- of
which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive
trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices
low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking
geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would
their country's nuclear supremacy.
This logic was spelled out clearly by President Barack Obama
in a September 2013 address to the UN General Assembly in which he
declared that "the United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power,
including military force, to secure our core interests" in the Middle East. He then pointed out
that, while the United States was steadily reducing its reliance on imported oil, "the world
still depends on the region's energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire
global economy."
Accordingly, he concluded, "We will ensure the free flow of energy from the
region to the world." To some Americans, that dictum -- and its continued embrace by President
Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo -- may seem anachronistic. True, Washington fought wars in
the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the
flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his
decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our
country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic
independence," he told a nationwide
TV audience.
But talk of oil soon disappeared from his comments about what became Washington's
first (but hardly last) Gulf War after his statement provoked
widespread public outrage .
("No Blood for Oil" became a widely used protest sign then.) His son, the second President Bush,
never even mentioned that three-letter word when announcing his 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet, as
Obama's UN speech made clear, oil remained, and still remains, at the center of US foreign
policy. A quick review of global energy trends helps explain why this has continued to be
so.
THE WORLD'S UNDIMINISHED RELIANCE ON PETROLEUM
Despite all that's been said about climate change and oil's role in causing it -- and about
the enormous progress being made in bringing solar and wind power online -- we remain trapped
in a remarkably oil-dependent world. To grasp this reality, all you have to do is read the
most recent edition of oil giant BP's "Statistical Review of World Energy," published this
June. In 2018, according to that report, oil still accounted for by far the largest share of
world energy consumption, as it has every year for decades. All told, 33.6 percent of world
energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global
disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of
nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables.
Most energy analysts believe that the global reliance on petroleum as a share of world
energy use will decline in the coming decades, as more governments impose restrictions on
carbon emissions and as consumers, especially in the developed world, switch from oil-powered
to electric vehicles. But such declines are unlikely to prevail in every region of the globe
and total oil consumption may not even decline. According to projections from the International
Energy Agency (IEA) in its " New Policies Scenario " (which assumes significant
but not drastic government efforts to curb carbon emissions globally), Asia, Africa, and the
Middle East are likely to experience a substantially increased demand for petroleum in the
years to come, which, grimly enough, means global oil consumption will continue to rise.
Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced
demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's
dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global
energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy
consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil
production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105
million barrels in 2040.
Of course, no one, including the IEA's experts, can be sure how future extreme
manifestations of global warming like the severe heat waves recently tormenting
Europe and
South
Asia could change such projections. It's possible that
growing public outrage
could lead to far tougher restrictions on carbon emissions between now and 2040. Unexpected
developments in the field of alternative energy production could also play a role in changing
those projections. In other words, oil's continuing dominance could still be curbed in ways
that are now unpredictable.
In the meantime, from a geopolitical perspective, a profound shift is taking place in the
worldwide demand for petroleum. In 2000, according to the IEA, older industrialized nations --
most of them members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) --
accounted for about two-thirds of global oil consumption; only about a third went to countries
in the developing world. By 2040, the IEA's experts believe that ratio will be reversed, with
the OECD consuming about one-third of the world's oil and non-OECD nations the rest.
More
dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of
petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040,
its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other
Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already
buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products.
Where will Asia get its oil? Among energy experts, there is little doubt on this matter.
Lacking significant reserves of their own, the major Asian consumers will turn to the one place
with sufficient capacity to satisfy their rising needs: the Persian Gulf. According to BP, in
2018, Japan already obtained 87 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East, India 64
percent, and China 44 percent. Most analysts assume these percentages will only grow in the
years to come, as production in other areas declines.
This will, in turn, lend even greater strategic importance to the Persian Gulf region, which
now possesses more than 60 percent of the world's untapped petroleum reserves, and to the
Strait of Hormuz, the
narrow
passageway through which approximately one-third of the world's seaborne oil passes daily.
Bordered by Iran, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, the Strait is perhaps the most
significant -- and contested -- geostrategic location on the planet today.
CONTROLLING THE SPIGOT
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the same year that militant Shiite
fundamentalists overthrew the US-backed Shah of Iran, US policy-makers concluded that America's
access to Gulf oil supplies was at risk and a US military presence was needed to guarantee such
access. As President Jimmy Carter
would say in his
State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980,
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic
importance: It contains more than two thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort
to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian
Ocean and close to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil
must flow. Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of
the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary,
including military force.
To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a
new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained
basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president
in 1981, made the RDJTF
into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which
continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing
the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East).
Reagan was the first president to
activate the Carter Doctrine in 1987 when he ordered Navy warships to escort Kuwaiti tankers, "
reflagged " with the stars and stripes, as they traveled through the Strait of Hormuz. From
time to time, such vessels had been coming under fire from Iranian gunboats, part of an ongoing
" Tanker War ," itself part
of the Iran-Iraq War of those years. The Iranian attacks on those tankers were meant to punish
Sunni Arab countries for backing Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein in that conflict. The American
response, dubbed Operation Earnest Will , offered an
early model of what Secretary of State Pompeo is seeking to establish today with his Sentinel
program.
Operation Earnest Will was followed two years later by a massive implementation of the
Carter Doctrine, President Bush's 1990 decision to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Although he
spoke of the need to protect US access to Persian Gulf oil fields, it was evident that ensuring
a safe flow of oil imports wasn't the only motive for such military involvement. Equally
important then (and far more so now): the geopolitical advantage controlling the world's major
oil spigot gave Washington.
When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted
that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging"
mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later
recall in his memoir Fighting for
Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent
and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our
offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly
acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever
since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the
Persian Gulf.
Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US
policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal
favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a
report on the
geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based
think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the
report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special
responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much
more explicit than that.
Of course, along with this "special responsibility" comes a geopolitical advantage: By
providing this service, the United States cements its status as the world's sole superpower and
places every other oil-importing nation -- and the world at large -- in a condition of
dependence on its continued performance of this vital function.
Originally, the key dependents in this strategic equation were Europe and Japan, which, in
return for assured access to Middle Eastern oil, were expected to subordinate themselves to
Washington. Remember, for example, how they
helped pay for
Bush the elder's Iraq War (dubbed Operation Desert Storm). Today, however, many of those
countries, deeply concerned with the effects of climate change, are seeking to lessen oil's
role in their national fuel mixes. As a result, in 2019, the countries potentially most at the
mercy of Washington when it comes to access to Gulf oil are economically fast-expanding China
and India, whose oil needs are only likely to grow. That, in turn, will further enhance the
geopolitical advantage Washington enjoyed as long as it remains the principal guardian of the
flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. How it may seek to exploit this advantage remains to be
seen, but there is no doubt that all parties involved, including the Chinese, are well aware of
this asymmetric equation, which could give the phrase "trade war" a far deeper and more ominous
meaning.
THE IRANIAN CHALLENGE AND THE SPECTER OF WAR
From Washington's perspective, the principal challenger to America's privileged status in
the Gulf is Iran. By reason of geography, that country possesses a potentially
commanding position along the
northern Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as the Reagan administration learned in 1987–88
when it threatened American oil dominance there. About this reality President Reagan couldn't
have been clearer. "Mark this point well: The use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not
be dictated by the Iranians," he
declared
in 1987 -- and Washington's approach to the situation has never changed.
In more recent times, in response to US and Israeli threats to bomb their nuclear facilities
or, as the Trump administration has done, impose economic sanctions on their country, the
Iranians have threatened on numerous occasions to block the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic,
squeeze global energy supplies, and precipitate an international crisis. In 2011, for example,
Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi
warned that should the West impose sanctions on Iranian oil, "not even one drop of oil can
flow through the Strait of Hormuz." In response, US officials have vowed ever since to let no
such thing happen, just as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in response to Rahimi at that
time. "We have made very clear," he
said , "that the
United States will not tolerate blocking of the Strait of Hormuz." That, he added, was a "red
line for us."
It remains so today. Hence, the present ongoing crisis in the Gulf, with fierce US sanctions
on Iranian oil sales and threatening Iranian gestures toward the regional oil flow in response.
"We will make the enemy understand that either everyone can use the Strait of Hormuz or no
one,"
said Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, in July 2018. And
attacks
on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz on June 13
could conceivably have been an expression of just that policy, if -- as
claimed by the United States -- they were indeed carried out by members of the
Revolutionary Guards. Any future attacks are only likely to spur US military action against
Iran in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. As Pentagon spokesperson Bill Urban
put it in response to Jafari's statement, "We stand ready to ensure the freedom of
navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows."
As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a
threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely
trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support
for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its
leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a
danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost.
If the United States goes to war with Iran, you are unlikely to hear the word "oil" uttered
by top Trump administration officials, but make no mistake: That three-letter word lies at the
root of the present crisis, not to speak of the world's long-term fate.
Michael T.
Klare The Nation 's defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and world-security
studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in
Washington, DC. His newest book, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on
Climate Change , will be published this fall.
Money, Money, Money,... Old Money, Factories, Russian Mercheant, German Industrialist,
American Slave owner... Nord Deutscheland, Bremen, was heavily Communist... Family would
understand the power of Communist Equality and Serfdom.
An old Soviet General said the EU is like the old Soviets , the leaders were not
elected, they were appointed by others mostly their friends and the EU process is the same,
fat cats appoint other fat cats instead of direct elections.
"... With promises to "drain the swamp!" still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump appoint nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state zealots to head his cabinet. ..."
The United States believes that it is so invincible, exceptional and so frightening that no
one would ever dare to protest, let alone defend its people against constant humiliation,
economic embargos and military threats.
It used to be like this for quite some time. In the past, the West used to bully the world
before and after each well-planned assault. Also, well-crafted propaganda used to be
applied.
It was declared that things are done 'legally' and rationally. There were certain stages to
colonialist and imperialist attacks: "define your goals", "identify your victim", "plan",
"brainwash your own citizens and people all over the world", and then, only then, "bomb some
unfortunate country back to the stone ages".
Now, things are slightly different. "The leader of the free world" wakes up in the middle of
the night, and he tweets. What comes from his computer, tablet or phone, (or whatever he uses),
is spontaneous, unpolished and incredibly dangerous. Similar in substance to what made him wake
up in the middle of the night, in a first place.
He does not seem to plan; he shoots off from the hip. Today, as I am writing this essay, he
has declared that he has "five strategies for Venezuela". Go figure. Bravo!
Earlier, as he was about to land outside London, he embarked on insulting the Mayor of the
British capital, calling him names. A bit like we used to do to each other, when we were five
years old, in the neighborhood playground.
He has been regularly offending Mexico, and of course Iran, China and Russia.
He basically tells the leader of the most populous nation on earth -- China -- to "be
there", at the G20 Summit, or else.
Whenever he and his lieutenants are in the mood, they get busy antagonizing everyone: Cuba
and Nicaragua, DPRK and Venezuela, Bolivia and Syria.
Of course, the main "culprits" are always the 'biggest bad boys', Russia and China.
Anyone, at any time, could easily land on the proverbial hit list of President Trump, and
hawks of his United States of A. It could be India (which, during 'good submissive times' is
called by the West the "biggest democracy", or perhaps Turkey (militarily the second mightiest
NATO country). The world had been converted into an entity which appears to be run by a
bloodthirsty and unpredictable dictatorship. The world is an entity where everyone is
terrified of being purged, imprisoned, starved to death, or directly attacked, even
liquidated.
It was always like this, at least in the modern history of the planet. Colonialism,
neo-colonialism, imperialism: they have many different faces but one common root. Root that has
been often hidden deep under the surface.
But this time it is all in the open, raw and brutally honest.
Both George W. Bush and Donald Trump have one thing in common: they are honest.
Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama were both 'suave' presidents. They were loved in Europe, as
they knew how to speak politely, how to dine elegantly, and how to commit mass murder in a
'rational, righteous way'; 'old-fashioned, European-style'.
The brutal, vulgar ways of W. Bush and Donald Trump, have been consistently shocking all
those individuals who are pleased when things are done 'stylishly' and 'politically correctly';
be it a coup or the starvation to death of millions through embargos. Or be it invasions or
'smart' bombing (practically, 'smart' meaning very far from the inquisitive eyes).
... ... ...
[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are
In case Westerners have not realized it, yet -- people all over the world are
indignant.
Absolutely Mr. Vltchek. No doubt about the widespread indignation against the US (and her
puppeteer, Israel) .You forgot to mention that the same people all over the world have caved
in to US imperial threats and blackmail . They are essentially powerless. Imperialism is also
about emasculating nations -- it is about dis-empowerment.
The US State Department's key personnel and its policies are of the Nuland ilk.
Trump is their puppet.
First part is true, second part is wrong, although they sure would like to have him under
their thump. State was hostile to Trump from day one. Besides, the Nulands aren't that high
on the totem pole, they're firmly subordinate to the Clinton/Democrat axis.
The author is correct, any small incident (and there are many potential flashpoints) could
trigger world war three: from the Artic to the Balkans, Syria to the South China Sea. Of
great empires: they rise, they hold sway, they die. That's the pattern of history. It is
always important to remember what comes before a fall. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I would say we ought to be making some changes to US policy that our friends and opponents
won't like. In that their public sentiments of angst, disgust, recriminations would carry
much weight -- they are certainly entitled to the their view.
1. reconsidering NATO and the size and number of US bases in Europe on the US dime
2. ensuring the security of US borders
3. reinvesting in the US
4. fewer employment of foreigners
and a host of other considerations, should our international neighbors pitch a conniption
fit -- well, fine and dandy they have that right -- but all things US must first support US
citizens.
Second,
Whether the president should be engaging these personal attacks via twitter is another
matter.
When I was in high school we had a bully, always taking kids lunch money, punching them,
throwing their books in the trash, calling their mothers sexual names and so on. He had two
cohorts who did the same using him as their muscle to intimidate and beat on the weak. This
went on for some time and finally became unbearable. One day while he was on a lower stair
someone pushed a sharpened pencil into his neck. The poor fellow fell in shock and other
students took the opportunity to savagely kick and stomp him in his head, groin and about his
body. One of his associates later got a rock in his head sending him to the hospital for 10
stitches.
This is what happens when folks get bullied and the "victims" arrive at the point where
they no longer care what happens to them. On an international scale the bully is the USA with
associates like the UK and France. We have already seen little victims give the bully a
bloody nose. Vietnam, (the last US troops fled from the embassy roof) Iraq and Afghanistan
come to mind. North Korea thumbs its nose at the goon. Venezuela and Iran are defiant and the
thug, for all its rhetoric is afraid to resort to physical violence. However bigger boys
China and Russia have been targeted and have become players.
However it is always the small guys who retaliate feeling that that they have lost all
dignity and have nothing more to lose.
This article is right on. It is only a matter of time before the US gets another
thrashing.
Brace yourselves mothers and fathers. Its your sons who will come home maimed, mentally
unstable or dead (the lucky ones) for scum draft dodging politicians who never learn and who
send youth to bleed for their illusions of grandeur.
@EliteCommInc. 'll bet a big majority of Europeans would be indifferent at worst to
withdrawal of our troops.
Some president or candidate would be smart to say, "Let's close bases abroad and
immediately use the money here at home to put Americans back to work." Take the money saved
from closing bases and ending the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and use it to build or
repair our crumbling infrastructure: bridges, roads, sidewalks, public hospitals, and public
schools. I'd like high-speed rail and an extensive electric vehicle charging network at least
along the coasts and in dense Regions elsewhere. We could do all of it for the amounts we are
squandering abroad, without borrowing further or raising taxes.
I have no idea if said war is coming. If history is any indication, there will most likely
be another war. I am dubious however, that said war will end human existence.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
"Its your sons who will come home maimed, mentally unstable or dead (the lucky ones) for
scum draft dodging politicians who never learn and who send youth to bleed for their
illusions of grandeur."
@Markster dy bags don't make the rulers lose any sleep. So far, they think the
continental USA is impregnable. We'll maybe see a skyscraper or two fall down, lose a few
thousand people, easily forgotten.
But what would really make the rulers think is losing a few cities via firestorms, or
millions of deaths in a few weeks due to plagues, or a breakdown of the transport or
electrical infrastructure, causing death and destruction on a huge scale.
With a little ingenuity and not too much money, some of these things can be made to
happen. And if the USA continues to be, not the policeman of the world but the abusive
drunken boyfriend, they will happen.
I agree. One US drill instructor told me the quality of recruits is so poor its enough to
make a man weep. The majority are mentally and physically deficient but quotas have to be
met. If you can count to two and can lift a fork to your mouth you could be the next great
general.
Instructors are also not allowed to holler at them or hit them and have to be respectful
and not get spittle in their faces or call them, their mothers and sisters names. Many cry
and breakdown in basic training and have to be given training on how to get through basic
training.
Many have served in Iraq, not seen any action having been in the support and supply areas
and yet come back to the States as cuckoo as ever.
I dont know how they will hold up in a conflict but your point is well taken. The parents
whether together or not never laid a solid foundation in their upbringing and you cannot make
a silk purse from a pig's arse !
@Twodees Partain s you apparently jumped to conclusions and personal insults rather than
reading it.
Do you really think that anyone who has fought rough, personal, political battles for
years or decades to become a national leader is so thin skinned they would overreact to
Twitter?
Your assertion is simply wrong. There is zero (0.0000%) tweet danger. National leaders are
not going to overreact to Tweets.
In fact, many of them have problems with their own local media. Those leaders are probably
taking notes on TRUMP's highly successful "Roll the Extremist Media" technique to see
if there is anything they can work into their own repertoire.
In case Westerners have not realized it, yet -- people all over the world are indignant.
I talk to Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, Venezuelans, Cubans, Iranians: they hate what comes
from Washington; hate it with passion. They know that what is being done to them is
terrorism, thuggery. But for now, they do not know how to defend themselves. Not yet, but
they are thinking.
Quite a few Americans are indignant too. Unfortunately they pay more attention to his
idiot ranting then what he actually does ..which is even worse than what he says.
Perhaps more striking are the public's feelings about the things Trump says: sizable
majorities say Trump's comments often or sometimes make them feel concerned (76%), confused
(70%), embarrassed (69%) and exhausted (67%). By contrast, fewer have positive reactions to
Trump's rhetoric, though 54% say they at least sometimes feel entertained by what he
says.
@Markster > Some people believe that could never happen again, some Jews believe there
could never be a holocaust in America , some think the US would never again imprison a ethnic
group in our country like we did the Japanese during WWII, some believe we would never again
drop a atomic bomb on a city of civilians like Truman did.
They would be wrong. We like to believe America and its people are an exception but we are
not.
No matter what country there will be enough of the wrong kind of people that the wrong
kind of leaders can get them possessed with fantasies and delusions of their power and get
them to cheer on senseless destruction including, unknowingly, their own.
" Someone may say: The West is killing millions every year, anyway. Better to fight
it, in order to stop it, once and for all. Others may join. And then, then what? Will Trump
give orders to kill tens of millions, just to maintain control over the world..?"
Extreme exaggerations due to extreme paranoia. Show me the millions the West is killing
every year. Trump refrained from retalliating against Iran because 150 people could be
killed, and you say he might be prepared to kill tens of millions ?
What Trump really is engaged in is not global mass murder but Big Mouth Diplomacy. You may
regret that, but that is all there is. That is his "art of the deal".
"Some president or candidate would be smart to say, "Let's close bases abroad and
immediately use the money here at home to put Americans back to work."
I would agree that we need to reconsider our base deployments. I am not as clear about
closing all of them outright. But we do agree that we need to calculate our exposure. And
while this recalculation is often turned into an "isolation" accusation, recalculating, even
if we opted to close those installations does not equate to advocating isolationism,
Laugh, though some time in isolation, minding our own business and dealing with ourselves,
might not be a bad idea for a time.
Trump refrained from retalliating against Iran because 150 people could be killed, and
you say he might be prepared to kill tens of millions ?
Another dweller in "Alice in Wonderland" I was writing about. It's getting crowded
there!
There are many ways of skinning a cat; also many ways of killing people, such as
sanctions, embargoes, blockades, destroying their infrastructure, stealing their resources
and gold deposits in the US, and so on.
With promises to "drain the swamp!" still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump
appoint nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state
zealots to head his cabinet.
What is going on? Is Dr. Michael Carpenter a mini-John Bolton in the making?
The timing of the recent protests was to be expected. They sound as if Joe Biden is about
ready to use Georgia for his "doomed" presidential campaign in much in the same vein as John
McCain attempted to do back in August 2008. The explanation of what happened during the
protests depends on who you are listening to, and how you well you are able to separate fact
from the carefully-crafted rhetoric.
One of the first things to do when evaluating the situation is to read some of the English
language news sites, especially those heavily funded by
NED or the "National Endowment for Destabilization" as it should be called, and other
likeminded
organisations which operate under the guise of spreading democracy in Georgia.
You will naturally find op
eds there, albeit with disclaimers such as Russian Soft Power Fails, Pointing the Way to a
New Georgian Consensus, but consider the clients of the author; these appear to be biased. Each
one reads as if drafted by VOA or other such mouthpieces of US policy, while their delivery
mechanism purports to be neutral and professional.
Such articles present those who support traditional Georgian values including the Georgian
Orthodox Church hierarchs and their anti-liberal followers, as a "domestic constituency",
described as "a growing and active minority within the Georgian electorate."
The agenda becomes clear when a comparison is made: "regardless of that debate about the
past, the Georgian Dream (Party) government has been drifting more recently towards the
anti-liberal, religious program advocated by Russian propaganda."
This is pretty heavy stuff – the writer makes a BIG deal out of "close ties" between
the ruling government and Russia, and its efforts to seek a balanced policy between the West
and Russia and improve relations after the 2008 Georgian Russian war. He presents these as
being anti-liberal, and part of a religious agenda, to imply that Georgia is both a Russian
vassal state and going backwards, despite the nature of the current US government and its base
of support.
Spoiling Russian-Georgian Relations
The purpose of these articles is demonstrated by allegations that the unleashing of
"indiscriminate" violence on the mostly peaceful crowd was so sudden that a legitimate question
is raised whether Georgia's informal ruler, Bidzina Ivanishvili, received an instruction from
the offended Putin to take "severe measures."
We should not the use of the word "mostly" here. This is a backhanded acknowledgement of the
reality that the well paid rioters who were attacking police actually started out in
Saakashvili era Patriot Camps ,
participated as young teens, and got their first taste of blood in the pro-democracy protests
back in May of 2011.
Civil Georgia, where you will find this, does not hide its funding source,
NED , and also states that "opinion pages" reflect the opinions of the author, "which may
not necessarily represent the editorial views of Civil.ge, but which we consider are to our
readers' benefit." However Civil Georgia will not accept opinion pieces from those who are not
marching in step with its not-so-hidden agenda.
Where's the balance?
It is becoming clear that what is transpiring
in Georgia is not a home grown occurrence, as previously described in this journal. The
succession of staged events there, including the Gay Pride marches, are being managed from
outside.
It also comes as no surprise to see that Salome Zurabishvili, the figurehead president of
Georgia, is part of the concerted effort to blame Russia for what is transpiring. The President
of Georgia stating that Russia is its enemy comes VERY close to stating that Georgia wants a
war with Russia -- and Zurabishvili, a former French Diplomat, knows that.
Zurabishvili stated on her Facebook page that Russia is "our enemy and occupier," and that
the"fifth column" controlled by it may be perhaps more dangerous today than open aggression.
She also recently stated that "that split in the country and in society and all the domestic
strife plays into the hands of no one but Russia."
Why would she take the opposite position to the political party which put her into power,
the Georgian Dream? She was born in Paris, worked in the French Foreign Ministry, worked in
NATO, and then joined American-supported Saakashvili, who made her Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Georgia.
There was much debate over how she came to be the Georgian Dream presidential candidate in
the first place, with a strong suspicion that she had been forced upon the ruling party by the
US. So whose side is the President of Georgia, representative of the Georgian State, actually
on?
Players in a New Great Game
In response to some of the protest slogans, and the comments of the Georgian president,
Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev promprlt responded, as reported by Russian Channel 1:
"I think these statements are extremely unprofessional, and show how the Georgian president
may not be up-to-date on the situation in Georgia, or is intentionally distorting the
situation. In Georgia, various political events are happening that are related to domestic
political struggles between the radical opposition, (those holdovers from Saakashvili's regime)
and the forces now in power (Georgian Dream). Any attempt to blame Russia for the situation is
a distortion of the actual situation, and it is most unfortunate that the Georgian president is
involved in this effort. But we will hope that the Georgian people will figure everything
out."
Maybe they will, but this is easier said than done, as the media and TV stations are
diverting attention to Russia as the culprit, as are Facebook and other social media outlets.
It is no wonder that Russia has acted swiftly, based on the recommendation of the Russian
National Security Council to take some protective and perhaps punitive actions, albeit a bit
too hasty ones.
The stakes are high, and the events on the ground are part of a larger scheme of things.
Russians are being discouraged from even visiting Georgia now, perhaps because Russian security
agencies suspect a "false flag" in the planning or early stages, which would be directed
towards, or at least blamed on, the Russians.
Consequently President Putin signed a decree which prohibits Russian airlines from carrying
passengers to Georgia as of July 8th. Tour operators are also prohibited from sending organised
groups to Georgia. All this is being done for security purposes, as the present situation may
engulf the border regions with the Georgian breakaways of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
These stop gap measures are temporary in nature, and will remain in effect only until the
situation in Georgia normalises. Georgia is currently a preferred tourist destination, with
such airlines as Aeroflot, Pobeba, Ural Airlines, S7, Red Wings and Nordavia offering direct
flights. So it will be not only Georgia which suffers economically from the political unrest in
Georgia, but Russian companies too.
Considering the volume of Russian tourists, upwards of 1 and ½ million, the impact of
this ban will be tangible.
In the first six months of 2019 over half a million Russians visited Georgia, both by air
and overland. The potential loss amounts to 750 million dollars, and will not only be short
term.Some of these tourists will now go elsewhere, and if they have good experiences in other
tourist destinations may not return to Georgia in the future.
Pointing the Finger
Fixing the real blame is not difficult. It does not lie with emotional Georgians, and their
poor judgment over who was invited to speak a conference of Orthodox Mps. The American
footprint is rather substantial.
Joe Biden's advisor Michael Carpenter (by happenstance) visited Tbilisi for three days just
prior to the violent protests. Whilst there, he publicly took exception to the fact that there
were so many tourists from Russia there, and even that they were buying property in
Georgia:
"I'M NOT SURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE IMPLICATIONS OF ITS OPEN DOOR
POLICY WITH RUSSIA. WITH SO MANY "TOURISTS" AND SO MUCH LAND BEING BOUGHT UP BY RUSSIAN
BUSINESSMEN, THEY [GEORGIANS AND THE GOVERNMENT] MAY WAKE UP AND FIND NOT 20% BUT 100% OF
GEORGIA OCCUPIED."
Before he worked for Biden, Dr. Michael Carpenter was Deputy Secretary for Defense in the
Pentagon with responsibility for Russia and some Eastern Bloc countries.
His warmongering
credentials are openly known. He is Senior Director of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy
and Global Engagement, and a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He also serves
on the
Jamestown Foundation board of directors and has Polish political ties, having been a
Fulbright Scholar at the Polish Academy of Science.
Someone in Tbilisi must have heard Carpenter loud and clear – and not been able to
resist the opportunity. When you hear about protests in Georgia, do not think of emotional
Georgians trying to overthrow their governments at every opportunity but of the calm, measured
distinguished academics of the Penn Biden Center, who are conveniently out of the way when the
plastic bullets and biased articles start flying.
President Trump has proved being quite a wise man so far, at least in terms of foreign
policy, because he's resisted to the attempts of Pompeo and Bolton and others to start new wars
all around the world. I might be wrong, but a Hilary or a Biden whatsoever would have already
concocted three or four wars in the meantime.
There is a definitely nexus of what is going on in Ukraine and Iran to what is now being
played out in Georgia, and with potentially fatal consequences. It would be better for Georgia
to wake up and understand that this is not a "home grown" protest but one carefully manipulated
from the US – Penn Biden Center, at the University of Pennsylvania.
The moves and supporting PR come from a well-rehearsed scenario, and one which has been used
so many times, and in so many countries.
Do we have a new snake-in-the-grass in terms of a new chapter in aggressive US foreign
policy, Dr. Michael Carpenter, a mini-John Bolton in the making?
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online
magazine "New Eastern Outlook" .
For more than three months, people in Hong Kong massed in the streets to protest a proposed
extradition law. Critics say it would allow China to extradite dissenting students,
journalists, and business people to the mainland, where they could face prison for their views.
Rallies and marches of tens of thousands grew to perhaps almost two million at
their peak.
"I was very angry about the proposed law," says Adrian Leong, a former Hong Kong resident
and political activist in San Francisco. "Everyone could see themselves getting in
trouble."
But supporters of the Beijing government say the proposed law would only allow extradition
of people accused of serious crimes, not political dissidents. Western governments and media
use the phony extradition issue to foment rifts between Hong Kong and the mainland, they
argue.
"They want China to splinter and die," says Nathan Rich, an American YouTube blogger living in China.
To sort out these competing claims, we have to understand some Hong Kong history.
Opium Wars
Starting in the late 1700s, the British East India Company illegally sold opium to China. By the
1830s, British and American entrepreneurs became fabulously wealthy selling opium, while
addicting millions of Chinese. When the Chinese government ordered the sales to stop, the
British sent gunboats to Chinese ports and fought the first Opium War from
1839-1842.
The Qing dynasty lost the war and was forced to cede Hong Kong island to the British, along
with parts of other port cities. The British launched the Second Opium War from 1853-1858, in
which they seized more Chinese territory and forced China to legalize opium.
For centuries, China had the world's largest economy, selling far more goods overseas than
it imported. The opium wars were fought in the name of "free trade," – i.e., the right of
British and American drug barons to open up the Chinese market.
Modern day imperialism
Selling addictive drugs to China didn't end in the nineteenth century. During the reign of
President Ronald Reagan, for example, the US forced
China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to buy US made cigarettes – all in the name of
opening their markets to free trade.
But by the 1980s, the People's Republic of China was emerging as a major world power, and
Britain agreed give up Hong Kong. In 1997, Britain returned Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty
with an agreement that it would maintain two different political and economic systems. It
became known as "one country, two systems."
One country, two systems was a bold step, something never tried before. China would keep its
socialist economy; Hong Kong would remain capitalist. Hong Kong would maintain governing
institutions established by the United Kingdom, including independent courts but also indirect
election of top political leaders. The one country, two systems would last for 50 years.
The Communist Party of China hoped that, given time, Hong Kong residents would come to see
the advantages of socialism and voluntarily join the mainland. They hoped Hong Kong could be a
model for integrating Taiwan into China.
But Hong Kong had existed as a separate entity for well more than 100 years, and
reunification wasn't going to be easy. Many Hongkongers seek to maintain their capitalist
institutions for as long as possible. They want direct election of political leaders and a
judiciary that tilts their way in case of disputes with Beijing.
Hongkongers have developed their own identity, notes Tom Fowdy, a China analyst who attended
university in Hong Kong. "On paper they are the same ethnic group, but they are culturally
different."
Extradition law
The roots of the current protests can be traced to the
case of Chan Tong Kai . In February, he flew to Taiwan with his girlfriend, strangled her,
stuffed her body in a suitcase, dumped her in a field, and flew back to Hong Kong. Although he
confessed, he couldn't be sent to Taiwan because Hong Kong had no extradition treaty. (Hong
Kong has extradition agreements with 20 countries but not
China, Macao, and Taiwan.)
Hong Kong authorities couldn't charge Chan with a murder that took place elsewhere. So a
Hong Kong court
convicted him on a lesser charge and sentenced him to a few months in jail.
Outrage over the Chan case led Hong Kong legislators to draft a law that would allow
extradition to any country on a case by case basis. Taiwan later indicated it would not seek
Chan's extradition, making the murder case moot. But the extradition issue remained on the
table.
Critics claim the proposed law would enable China to extradite and imprison political
dissidents from Hong Kong. However, the bill's supporters point out that an extraditable
offense must be a crime in both China and Hong Kong, which protects Hongkongers from arbitrary
arrest. And the law specifically prohibits
extradition for political crimes.
In addition, the bill granted Hong Kong's chief executive the ability to review extradition
requests and allows for two separate judicial review processes. And according to the chief
executive's office, extradition would "only cover 37 offenses punishable with imprisonment for
seven years or above, and none of them prohibits the exercise of the right to freedom of
expression."
But many people in Hong Kong simply don't trust Beijing. They cite examples when China
remanded Hong Kong residents without following judicial procedures. "The Communist Party of
China no longer respects the two systems," says activist Leong. "It only respects the one
country."
Demonstrations
On March 31, Hongkongers marched and rallied against the proposed legislation. By June, the
mostly peaceful protests grew to hundreds of thousands. On June 9, organizers
said two million people marched, while police put the number at 338,000.
Then, in a preplanned action on July 1, hundreds of militants smashed
their way into Hong Kong's legislative offices, where they destroyed furniture and sprayed
anti-communist graffiti on the walls. They draped the union
jack flag over the speaker's podium.
Analyst Fowdy says displaying the British flag doesn't mean protesters want a return to
British rule. Rather, they want Hong Kong to "remain a special administrative region under
Chinese sovereignty. They don't want Hong Kong to be just another Chinese city."
Whatever the militants' intention, in my opinion, raising the British flag leaves the
impression that they favor independence. That plays into the hands of Western powers who have
long sought to divide China.
It's no coincidence that most mainstream media unabashedly support the protesters and seek
to excuse the violent actions. An opinion article in the Wall Street Journalurged
readers to see the vandalism as "an act of desperation after years of frustration." I've yet to
see the Journal apply that logic to Black Lives Matters protesters in the US.
Here's the bottom line: Hong Kong is Chinese; it's not an independent country. Any effort
towards independence angers mainland Chinese, not just the government in Beijing.
Contrary to the impression left by the mainstream media, Hong Kong opinion is divided on the
extradition law. On June 30, tens of thousands gathered for a
rally supporting extradition and backing the Hong Kong government. Legislators say they
collected 700,000 verified signatures on a
petition supporting the proposed law.
For now, however, the momentum is with the anti-government forces. Hong Kong Chief Executive
Carrie Lam suspended the bill from consideration and on July 9 declared it "dead." Critics say
that isn't enough. They want her to withdraw the legislation completely and to resign.
So demonstrations are likely to continue. China and Hong Kong will be struggling for many
years to determine exactly what "one country, two systems" really means.
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two
weeks. Follow him on Twitter ,
@ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ;
and visit his webpage .
An Iranian general yesterday
confirmed Magnier's take (also
here ):
A senior Iranian general has revealed that Washington, through diplomatic channels,
recently asked Tehran to allow it to conduct a small-scale operation in the Iranian
airspace in order to save its face following the IRGC's shoot-down of a US spy drone.
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, the Head of Iran's Civil Defence Organization,
said Iran vehemently rejected the US request, saying that it will respond to any act of
aggression.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran responded that it views any operation as a war and will
give a crushing response to it. You may initiate a war but this is Iran which will finish
it," he said Sunday.
The idea that the U.S. would ask Iran to allow it to bomb some targets without hitting
back sounds crazy.
Dear Mr. Rouhani,
could you please name me three targets in your country that I am allowed to bomb?
It is urgent as I need to look tough on Iran.
Pretty please!
Donald Trump
But this is the Trump White House and the only thing Trump really seems to care for is his
own rating.
. . .that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to
be chosen by Iran,
Trump has experience in such a charade, when empty buildings were struck with US rockets
after the fake Syrian "gas attack" in Douma, April 2018. Probably the details were worked out
between US and Russia in that case. That it wasn't possible this time is a clear indication
of Iran strength. Stronger than Russia! Imagine that.
That Trump would come begging hat in hand seeking for Tehran to let the US bomb the country
unimpeded does not strike me as surprising or implausible. It fits Trump's trademark MO of
"chaotic, incoherent" to a 't', with a heavy dash of megalomania thrown in as well. Just
another day in the office for Trump.
The seizure of the Grace 1 is more intriguing for its brazen illegality as well as the
reported circumstances (if one can believe the Brits in their claim of boarding 2.5 miles
from shore). Was this another avenue of "maximum pressure" cooked up by Iran?
As for Iran seeking US military targets in the region, those sitting ducks will be the last
targets sought. Not that they might not, but that certainly would be nuclear option for
Tehran. There is much lower hanging fruit to target that would cripple the lackey Gulf
states. Hitting the desalination plants of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain would ruin
those economies overnight without risking environmental fallout. Iran would be hammered in
the MSM, but would be no matter their course of action. Those countries would have strategic
reserves of water, so I wouldn't imagine people actually dying of thirst in the desert, but
the next day there would be a biblical exodus of the ex-pats that run those economies. The
UAE would grind to a halt, there would be a possible overthrow of the monarchy of Bahrain,
and massive unrest in Saudi Arabia, without risking immediate gloves-off war with the US.
The cartoon has an element of truth, but mainly Trump is doing the bidding of his
pro-Israel billionaire funders, Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer. They are frustrated that
Trump has not been forceful enough with Iran.
An Iranian general yesterday
confirmed Magnier's take (also
here ):
A senior Iranian general has revealed that Washington, through diplomatic channels,
recently asked Tehran to allow it to conduct a small-scale operation in the Iranian
airspace in order to save its face following the IRGC's shoot-down of a US spy drone.
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, the Head of Iran's Civil Defence Organization,
said Iran vehemently rejected the US request, saying that it will respond to any act of
aggression.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran responded that it views any operation as a war and will
give a crushing response to it. You may initiate a war but this is Iran which will finish
it," he said Sunday.
The idea that the U.S. would ask Iran to allow it to bomb some targets without hitting
back sounds crazy.
Dear Mr. Rouhani,
could you please name me three targets in your country that I am allowed to bomb?
It is urgent as I need to look tough on Iran.
Pretty please!
Donald Trump
But this is the Trump White House and the only thing Trump really seems to care for is his
own rating.
. . .that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to
be chosen by Iran,
Trump has experience in such a charade, when empty buildings were struck with US rockets
after the fake Syrian "gas attack" in Douma, April 2018. Probably the details were worked out
between US and Russia in that case. That it wasn't possible this time is a clear indication
of Iran strength. Stronger than Russia! Imagine that.
That Trump would come begging hat in hand seeking for Tehran to let the US bomb the country
unimpeded does not strike me as surprising or implausible. It fits Trump's trademark MO of
"chaotic, incoherent" to a 't', with a heavy dash of megalomania thrown in as well. Just
another day in the office for Trump.
The seizure of the Grace 1 is more intriguing for its brazen illegality as well as the
reported circumstances (if one can believe the Brits in their claim of boarding 2.5 miles
from shore). Was this another avenue of "maximum pressure" cooked up by Iran?
As for Iran seeking US military targets in the region, those sitting ducks will be the last
targets sought. Not that they might not, but that certainly would be nuclear option for
Tehran. There is much lower hanging fruit to target that would cripple the lackey Gulf
states. Hitting the desalination plants of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain would ruin
those economies overnight without risking environmental fallout. Iran would be hammered in
the MSM, but would be no matter their course of action. Those countries would have strategic
reserves of water, so I wouldn't imagine people actually dying of thirst in the desert, but
the next day there would be a biblical exodus of the ex-pats that run those economies. The
UAE would grind to a halt, there would be a possible overthrow of the monarchy of Bahrain,
and massive unrest in Saudi Arabia, without risking immediate gloves-off war with the US.
The cartoon has an element of truth, but mainly Trump is doing the bidding of his
pro-Israel billionaire funders, Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer. They are frustrated that
Trump has not been forceful enough with Iran.
"... There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it. ..."
"... The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as related in a popular fairy tale. ..."
"... Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system. ..."
"... Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then. ..."
"... Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR. ..."
"... Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel to become the “western” power in the middle east. ..."
"... The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war. ..."
"... America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America. ..."
"... By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began. ..."
"... Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s absolute capitulation. ..."
"... For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations, but the US refused. ..."
"... Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention the most powerful Shia Muslim nation. ..."
>>US President Donald Trump’s ruthless use of the centrality of his country’s financial system and the dollar to force economic
partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic
interdependence.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
Just spit-balling here: The Iranian leadership, with good cause, wants to diminish or eliminate the U.S. grip on the region
and this subversive, potentially destabilizing sentiment resonates among the citizenry of various Middle Eastern countries.
There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential
loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it.
The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear
an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as
related in a popular fairy tale.
This is hardly definitive and I’m sure others could elaborate.
Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to
control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system.
I’m sure this is obvious to most people at this kind of web site and is overly simplistic but i sense sometimes some people
are shocked about the conflict with Iran and don’t get that basic dynamic of this conflict.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important
for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR.
Mossadegh, by nationalising the oil supply until, played against the status and he was overthrown in a MI/CIA sponsored coup
in 1953, leaving the Shah as the sole ruler in Iran till the revolution of 1979 when Iran came under theocratic rule and basically
diminished the power the US had throughout the years of the Shah’s rule.
The US was also shown to be quite powerless -- short of an invasion -- to deal with the hostage crisis in the US embassy, which
was finally after more than a year resolved with the help of Canada.
Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel
to become the “western” power in the middle east.
The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with
the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war.
This U.S. approach towards Iran has been the result of its lack of an intrinsic interest in the country. The same was true
of Britain. The late Sir Denis Right, the UK’s ambassador to Iran in the 1960s, put it best by writing that Britain never considered
Iran of sufficient value to colonize it. But it found Iran useful as a buffer against the competing great power, the Russian
Empire. Thus, British policy towards Iran was to keep it moribund but not dead, at least not as long as the Russian threat
persisted.
America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance
to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But
Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America.
By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated
Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle
of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began.
Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s
absolute capitulation.
For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations,
but the US refused.
Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the
world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention
the most powerful Shia Muslim nation.
Went on Kunstler's website with the tasteless name and read comment about Hannity
screaming to bomb Iran. And if Mr. Kunstler's facts are correct I imagine the Republicans
will be saving Mueller's answers for the next election. Whatever Mr. Kunstler has to say, he
says it well. What a mess. The way the bad guys have dug in and rigged the election process
and the "News" business, it is difficult to imagine anything can change.
The controls of our society have become so efficient it is tempting to say what the hell
and see if there is a good old film or an meaningful sporting event and let it go at
that.
In saying that, it brings to mind the other CN article about anti-war sentiment and
organizing against war and the war machine that has gone missing makes the point very well. I
do think the protest against the Iraq war was a watershed moment, when the protests were
simply ignored, and the in your face response by the powers that be.
Eddie S , July 4, 2019 at 10:01
"I do think the protest against the Iraq war was a watershed moment, when the protests
were simply ignored, and the in your face response by the powers that be."
Yes, I know that the whole Iraq War-crime episode was an extremely disheartening episode
to myself and millions of others who had marched in protest. It was horrible enough when the
neo-cons were able to blatantly orchestrate an illegal invasion (with the obeisance of the
long-cowed Democrats), but the RE-election of 'W' -- a year after the non-existence of the
WMDs was proven by our OWN invading military -- was in a political sense worse because it
showed that the majority of the US public was indifferent to illegal US invasions of other
countries, so there would be little resistance in the future to these 'wars'.
It was only when the media was portraying the deaths & bad injuries to US soldiers
occupying Iraq that a modest amount of public sentiment turned against the whole sordid
episode.
So the tacit message was pretty clear to powers that be -- - as long as US troops aren't
hurt, go-ahead and bomb-away those foreign men, women, and even children getting killed by
them don't matter, especially if our military leaders offer-up oh-so-sincere apologies and
state that 'these were unavoidable collateral civilian casualties because we only perform
surgical strikes on terrorists' (and said in a most serious, gravitas-laden tone, so you KNOW
they're telling the truth).
Windup , July 4, 2019 at 16:09
George wasn't 'elected' in the first place, let alone 're-elected'. I don't know if that
makes you feel better. Maybe it does- at least about the American public (at that point in
time anyway).
But it was certainly a forerunner to how we 'elect' our officials, which at this point is
more blatantly fraudulent. At least to those of us not reading/watching msm.
"... The US today is a global empire. Our country's military, ballooning to some 2.1 million in uniform at a time that there is really no significant war underway. US military spending, greater in constant dollars than at any time since WWII, represents 34% of all global military spending, and the US military budget, depending on how one counts it, is larger than the next largest eight-to-ten countries' military budgets combined. ..."
"... And remember -- US empire and militarism is and has always been supported by both political parties. ..."
"... only 32% of Americans say they are "proud" (forget "extremely proud"!) of America's vaunted political system. In a close second for popular disgust, only 37% said they are "proud" of the US health care system. ..."
"... In my view, my country has become the world's leading "rogue" nation, dismissive of all international laws and codes of conduct, actively attacking many countries on its own authority, without the support of UN Security Council resolutions, exonerating war crimes committed by its soldiers, and committed to the first use of nuclear weapons, both as a first strike against major power rivals like Russia and China, and against non-nuclear nations like Iran, and equally dismissive of all efforts, large and small, to respond to the crisis of catastrophic global heating. ..."
The US today is a global empire. Our country's military, ballooning to some 2.1 million
in uniform at a time that there is really no significant war underway. US military spending,
greater in constant dollars than at any time since WWII, represents 34% of all global military
spending, and the US military budget, depending on how one counts it, is larger than the next
largest eight-to-ten countries' military budgets combined.
To show how ridiculously huge the US military is, consider that at $220 billion for fiscal
year 2020, the US budget for Veterans Affairs alone (that's the agency that provides assistance
of all kinds, including medical, to those who served in the military, not counting career
soldiers who receive a pension that is counted separately) this one military budget line item
is larger than the entire military budget of China, and is more than three times as large as
the entire military budget of Russia, considered by many to be our primary "adversary"!
And remember -- US empire and militarism is and has always been supported by both
political parties.
... ... ...
I read that a recent Gallup Organization poll shows a significant drop in the percentage of
US Americans who are "extremely proud" of their country. True, 45% still say they are "proud"
of America, but normally that is how many say they are "extremely proud" to be Americans.
That's a significant fall-off. Even among normally super-patriotic Republicans the percentage
of those saying they are "extremely proud" this July 4 of this country was down to 76%, a 10%
drop from 2003, and close to the 68% low point reached at one point during the Obama
administration.
The main cause of the loss of patriotic ardor appears to be dismay or disgust with the US
political system. According to the poll, only 32% of Americans say they are "proud" (forget
"extremely proud"!) of America's vaunted political system. In a close second for popular
disgust, only 37% said they are "proud" of the US health care system.
So I guess I'm in pretty good company. I won't be oohing and aaahing at the local fireworks
display this year. It's basically a glorification of US war-making anyhow, and there's nothing
at all to be proud of in that regard, particularly with the US in the midst of a $1.5-trillion
upgrade of its nuclear arsenal, threatening war with Iran, pulling out of a Reagan-era treaty
banning intermediate-range nuclear missiles, and embarking in a new arms race both in space and
in virtually unstoppable hypersonic cruise missiles.
In my view, my country has become the world's leading "rogue" nation, dismissive of all
international laws and codes of conduct, actively attacking many countries on its own
authority, without the support of UN Security Council resolutions, exonerating war crimes
committed by its soldiers, and committed to the first use of nuclear weapons, both as a first
strike against major power rivals like Russia and China, and against non-nuclear nations like
Iran, and equally dismissive of all efforts, large and small, to respond to the crisis of
catastrophic global heating. [
At home, the US legal system has become a supine supporter of
virtually unlimited executive power, of unchecked police power, and of repressive actions
against the supposedly constitutionally protected free press.
It's tempting to hope that the decline noted by Gallup in the percent of Americans
expressing "extreme pride" and even of "pride" in the US, but support for the US among the
country's citizens still remains shamefully high in the face of all these negatives.
Anyhow, count me among those who won't be celebrating today's July 4 national
holiday.
"... Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang. ..."
"... I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth. ..."
"... There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos". To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos. ..."
"... You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras. ..."
"... I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day. ..."
"... The purpose, and effect, of empire is theft. ..."
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
How do you define terror? Perhaps, because of the way the term has evolved in the English
language, one wouldn't call the west 'terrorists' per se, but 'we' are certainly spreading
terror and terrorizing very large groups of people. Yeah, bring on the tanks and parade them
around town. Add a marching band that plays some war tunes.
The 'official' storyline : at the request of the US, Gibraltar police and UK marines have
seized an oil tanker in Gibraltar. The super-tanker, 1000 feet (330 meters) long, carrying 2
million barrels, had stopped there after sailing all around the Cape of Good Hope instead of
taking the Suez canal on its way, ostensibly, from Iran to Syria.
And, according to the storyline as presented to and in the western press, because the EU
still has sanctions on Iran, the British seized the ship. Another little detail I really
appreciate is that Spain's acting foreign minister, Josep Borrell, said Madrid was looking into
the seizure and how it may affect Spanish sovereignty since Spain does not recognize the waters
around Gibraltar as British.
That Borrell guy is the newly picked EU foreign policy czar, and according to some sources
he's supportive of Iran and critical of Israel. Them's the webs we weave. He's certainly in
favor of Palestinian statehood. But we're wandering
Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because potential
problems were anticipated in the Suez canal. But also: why dock in Gibraltar? Because no
problems were anticipated there. However, the US had been following the ship all along, and set
this up.
A trap, a set-up, give it a name. I would think this is about Iran, not about sanctions on
Syria; that's just a convenient excuse. Moreover, as people have been pointing out, there have
been countless arms deliveries to Syrian rebels in the past years (yes, that's illegal) which
were not seized.
The sanctions on Syria were always aimed at one goal: getting rid of Assad. That purpose
failed either miserably or spectacularly, depending on your point of view. It did achieve one
thing though, and if I were you I wouldn't be too sure this was not the goal all along.
That is, out of a pre-war population of 22 million, the United Nations in 2016 identified
13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance; over 6 million are internally displaced
within Syria, and around 5 million are refugees outside of Syria. About half a million are
estimated to have died, the same number as in Iraq.
And Assad is still there and probably stronger than ever. But it doesn't even matter whether
the US/UK/EU regime change efforts are successful or not, and I have no doubt they've always
known this. Their aim is to create chaos as a war tactic, and kill as many people as they can.
How do you define terror, terrorism? However you define it, 'we' are spreading it.
That grossly failed attempt to depose Assad has left Europe with a refugee problem it may
never be able to control. And the only reason there is such a problem is that Europe, in
particular Britain and France, along with the US, tried to bomb these people's homelands out of
existence. Because their leaders didn't want to conform to "our standards", i.e. have our oil
companies seize and control their supplies.
But while you weren't looking some things changed, irreversibly so. The US and Europe are no
longer the undisputed and overwhelming global military power they once were. Russia has become
a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their armies, assembled in NATO,
wouldn't stand a chance.
China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to
attack a country of 1.4 billion people either. Their military prominence ended around the turn
of the century/millennium, and they're not going to get it back. Better make peace fast.
So what we've seen for a few decades now is proxy wars. In which Russia in particular has
been reluctant to engage but decisive when it does. Moscow didn't want to let Assad go, and so
they made sure he stayed. Syria is Russia's one single stronghold in the Middle East, and
deemed indispensable.
Meanwhile, as over half of Syrians, some 11 million people, have been forced to flee their
homes, with millions of them traumatized by war, 'we' elect to seize a tanker allegedly headed
for a refinery in the country, so we can make sure all those people have no oil or less oil for
a while longer.
So the refugees that do have the courage and will to return will find it that much harder to
rebuild their homes and towns, and will tell those still abroad not to join them. At the same
time Assad is doing fine, he may be the target of the sanctions but he doesn't suffer from
them, his people do.
Yes, let's parade some tanks around town. And let's praise the heroic UK marines who seized
an utterly defenseless oil tanker manned by a bunch of dirt-poor Philippinos. Yay! There is
probably some profound irony that explains why Trump and Bolton and Pompeo want a military
parade at the very moment the US military must concede defeat in all theaters but the
propaganda one.
Still there it is. The only people the US, the west, can still credibly threaten, are
defenseless civilians, women, children. The leaders of nations are out of reach. Maduro, Assad,
let alone Putin or Xi.
Happy 4th of July. Not sure how independent you yourself are, but I can see a few people who
did achieve independence from western terror. Just not the poor, the ones that count. But don't
look at the tanks, look at the wind instead. The winds are shifting.
The EU has been a sticking plaster and a shot of Novocain at the open wound that is
Gibraltar. Without that stabilising influence, that plaster is about to be ripped off and a
slash of neat peroxide is about to be poured onto it.
Watch for more -- unpleasant -- developments coming soon on this one.
I wondered about that myself. There could be an unspoken message now out that the UK gets
to say who gets to use the Straits of Gibraltar. I am sure that the Spanish would see no
problem with that. One thing is sure. That is a few more countries that the UK has completely
antagonized now which will come back to bite it post-Brexit.
Thank you and well said, Gentlemen, Clive, the Reverend and the author, and to Yves for
sharing.
The winds are indeed shifting, but as long as defeat is not obvious in the propaganda
theatre, that's all that matters.
The NC community, especially Anonymous 2, David and Harry, have often written about the
calibre of civil servants in the Treasury with regard to Brexit, it's the same with the
Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.
Middle East experts, often termed "Arabists", have left, often forced out for ideological
reasons. They would have cautioned against such adventures. The newer and younger breed of
Foreign Office officials, e.g. the co-author of the dodgy / sexed up (WMD) dossier Matthew
Rycroft, and some veterans like John Scarlet, now retired and consulting with former Tory MP
James Arbuthnott (whose wife "presided" over Assange's recent hearing), are far more
ideological (neo con) and willing to blur the boundaries between impartial advice and
enabling what politicians want. There are few, if any regional, specialists at the Foreign
Office any more.
Sadly, it's the same with the officer corps, more ideological, enablers and less, if at
all, cognizant of the strategic implications of such actions.
As the above happens, HMG becomes more and more dependent on advice from the likes of US
neo con think tanks, especially the Henry Jackson Society. Unlike at the Treasury and Bank of
England, so far, no such neo cons and neo liberals have been imported from the former
colonies by the Foreign Office.
As both Clive and the Reverend conclude, watch out for more unpleasant developments things
that come back to bite the UK.
Maybe there is something else behind it, but it does seem to be a very clumsy operation
– its annoyed a lot of important people (not least in Spain) at just the time when this
isn't needed for the UK. I wonder if the neocon element in Whitehall is using the interregnum
in power to seek to bind the UK even more firmly to the US post Brexit.
"Russia has become a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their
armies, assembled in NATO, wouldn't stand a chance."
I am not sure the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats in the UK (or the US) know
this.
As the Colonel observes, people with specialist knowledge are being replaced with
ideologically-motivated enablers. And the Pentagon and its NATO assets stress their ability
to wage a "limited" nuclear war
"China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to
attack a country of 1.4 billion people either."
Indeed. And I would suggest China's "might level" is very close to not only Russia's but the
US's. Just as a for instance: the PLAN (Peoples' Liberation Army Navy) has instituted
probably the largest ship building program in history. All its newer vessels are equal to or
(significantly?) better than comparable US types.
All this war talk about just how fabulously strong, or not, this and that polity is
annoyingly ignorant; let's look at the reality that China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
the Philippines, would all be facing strong food shortages without any harvest failures. With
even moderate shortfalls, add in the rest of the world as countries start scrambling for food
to stockpile even those who are completely self sufficient. The United States has destroyed
it industrial base so much that it cannot provide all the parts, tools, white goods,
clothing, etc that it needs just to function daily. I have not checked Russia's economy, but
I suspect that like the UK, or any European country it needs other countries to survive.
One of the reasons that the British almost lost World War One, that Germany did, and the
nations that used to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire did so poorly after that war was the
breaking up of all those trade connections. Everyone was gung-ho on war or independence, but
no-one has made any plans whatsoever on to run their economy(ies) after the first few years
of war or peace. And no, sticking it all on the Germans did not work either.
I'm starting to get that last election feeling where previous sorts went a bit curious
when confronted with the choices and the past went poof . strangest thing[s]
Peace though procurement malpractice. The current batch of military hardware is so much
garbage that when the President wants to use the "superb" pieces of crap (F35 and the new
boats are prime examples) a general will have to become the sacrificial lamb and give the
president the news that this stuff is for show only.
The Israelis claim to like the F-35 and to have used it in Syria to attack Syrian Air
Defense installations after the Syrian Air Defense installations fired at their other manned
aircraft.
That's something of an endorsement of it's capabilities. How much I don't know.
I think the issue of Israeli use of US aircraft is complex – the US seems to have
pressurised Israel to drop its own aircraft, the Lavi , and it may well have been that giving
Israel priority with the F-35 was part of the quid quo pro over that. For many
countries, choosing the F-35 seems to owe more to politics than defence considerations.
I have, for some time, been of the opinion that one of the (relatively minor) reasons that
Turkey went with the S-400's is that it gets them out of the F-35 contract without legal
financial penalties. I bet the reports of the Turkish crews training in the US have been
scathing.
I have wondered if the Saab JAS 39 Gripen or the Su-57 might be good contenders.
I think it was RT that reported the other day that Russia is planning on starting full
production of the Su-57 in 2020. Given that it was speculated that production of the Su-57
was too expensive with the Russian Federation as the only customer, I wonder who might be
interested. China? Renewed Indian interest? Turkey ?
Personally, I think we in Canada should ask Sukho to submit a bid for our fighter
replacement program.
> But this time I thought how awful it would be to hear those monsters and know they
were loaded with missiles and there was no safe place to hide.
Around here there is a boat race where the military flies jets for show and quite a few
years ago, on a Saturday,while I was tinkering in the garage, this one pilot, and he or she
must have been having a grand old time, really put on a show. For half an hour to an hour the
neighborhood was subjected to the most thunderous roar, it made my skin crawl and hair stand
up, and I started thinking about and getting a tiny taste of the terror people that are
actual targets of this machine get.
On Sunday, there was no "air" show. So many people bitched and complained about Saturday
the military or show organizers called it off. Phone calls to stop the jets does not work in
the middle east, however.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for the sanction-busting war profiteers losing their illicit
cargo? Or am I supposed to feel sorry for Assad not being able to top off the gas tank on his
human rights violating war wagon?
Nobody's cool with the jingoism coming from the White House. But if the tanks come out for
only just this one very special episode of the Apprentice, the people of earth have dodged a
very obnoxious golden BB.
You're supposed to feel sorry for millions America killed in Syria and many other nations,
and the tens of millions she displaced from their homes.
According to the U.N., Nobel Peace prize winning Obama caused the greatest refugee crisis
since WW2 with all the browned skinned nations he bombed until America ran out of bombs and
then he made more and bombed again – Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Pakistan, Ukraine who have I missed there so many .
Said another way, The War on Terror IS terrorism.
About 10 years I started to realize the U.S. is an Evil Empire, a force for evil in the
world.
Happy 4th.
And may the bombing continue until there is peace. There are so many countries this great
nation has not yet bombed. Maybe we're just getting warmed up.
Google "UN says greatest refugee crisis since world war" and you'll annual reports
starting about 2014 till about 2017 – the Apex of the Obama wars – each year
replacing the previous year as all time records as humanitarian disasters.
Interesting word "illicit" meaning "outside the law." So exactly what law gives the
Americans and their faithful poodles the authority to do this?
Gibraltar was once the playground of the Barbary Pirates so it is an appropriate venue for
the hegemon to engage in a little piracy of its own. But Ilargi may be right that the winds
are shifting and bullies will get their comeuppance.
Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang.
I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is
bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies
emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the
Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor
Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth.
It makes the whole enterprise ridiculous – no one but the stupidest and most
brainwashed believes the filthy liars. Terrible that our ruling class are traitors to the
country – because why lie unless you have no respect for those ruled? Lie to the stupid
cattle – let them repeat the lies and laugh at their stupidity.
The Iranians are calling it piracy and now claim the right to seize any British oil tanker
in their waters. Perhaps they have passed "sanctions" against the Brits or the EU.
I'm thinking of passing some sanctions myself under my sovereign powers and seizing some
stuff. Hey why not? EU says it's ok.
Sanctions are for OUR profiteers, not their. We impose them so that our corporations and
profiteers can benefit from higher blackmark prices. When others cut into the profit it will
not be tolerated.
I think the glass jaw is appropriate, long time PR machinations are finding it harder to
peddle, considering the outcomes, hence the need for rather vulgar public displays of
military Sergeant Major marching up and down the field too imbue greatness on the unwashed by
proxy whilst swirling down the gurgler.
This is made even more surreal by grandiose gestures of minuscule proportions magnified
way beyond their scope in the big scheme of things sans a modern news cycle.
For some ridiculous reason I keep envisioning all the new data on shipwrecks during the
east indies company era and the findings .. silly me
I still don't understand why so many "commentators" have to try discussing
important topics without considering basic facts.
There are classes of ships called, for instance, Panamax or now specifically Suezmax.
These are the largest vessels that can transit said canals. The Panama Canal has locks
of a specific size and therefore there is a hard limit. Suezmax is a bit harder to define
because, without locks, it can vary some.
But there is a maximum and at just a first glance this vessel is at least near it.
"Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because
potential problems were anticipated in the Suez canal." Well, yes. But which problems.
There seem to be many, starting with the fact that the Grace 1 is under the Iranian
flag. But besides that, it is not at all unusual for a vessel of that size to sail around
the
Cape. There are many reasons. I, myself, have made a longer passage in a smaller
vessel – 13100 nautical miles from Kharg Island in Iran to New Brunswick
(Irving refinery). Around the Cape. Nobody was particularly surprised.
Reminiscent of all those US "journalists" piling on to an Aeroflot flight to Havana in
search of Edward Snowden. They, and the world, were certain he was aboard, until
the craft flew over downtown Miami.
Yes, that would be unusual but according to the articles of engagement
it could happen.
More relevant though is that there are lots of reasons for
a loaded tanker to take an indirect route not necessarily having
much to do with the ownership of the cargo. The "tanker trackers"
don't seem to be unduly surprised by the itinerary. Happens every
day.
Incidentally, I was once on a tanker sailing from Providence, RI
with orders to "steam due south until you hear from us". That could
have led to some interesting results. In the event, however, we
ended up in India after a change in engagements. The return leg
of that voyage was the 13100 mile passage I mentioned earlier.
Another time I thought I was going somewhere in the Caribbean and
ended up on a circumnavigation. Hey, it's normal. Let's not get too
excited about somebody who wants to go around the Cape instead
of risking Suez.
By the way, my experiences all occurred under the US flag so why
try to find some strange dirt on the Iranians when they are only
doing what everybody else does.
I don't think that you get it. The US seized a North Korean ship a few weeks back and now
the US had the UK seize an Iranian ship on 'suspicions'. Do you really want to see an
international situation for trade where ships can be seized as political pawns and sold? Or
maybe airplanes as well? The big insurance companies certainly want to know. The Iranians are
saying that they now have the right to seize a British ship in retaliation. Will the Brits
sell that captured ship? Will they sell the oil aboard or take it back to the UK for their
own use? Do we really want to see a widespread return to Prize Laws again?
Can we give you some sort of award for admitting you made a mistake with your first post,
and then admonishing us to "engage brain before operating mouth" ?
"Game of Thrones" LOL!! The more time changes the more it stays the same!
It's "piracy" if "they" do it to us (or our co-conspirators); it's "legal sanctions" if we do
"it" to "them".
What a farcical, lying, two-faced world we live in!
There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos".
To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos.
Has this been the "plan" for this period
since the end of World War Two? Even if it is not a "conspiracy", but rather a "concatenation
of interests", what difference does this terminology make to those suffering the boot
heel?
You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions
of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes
to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras.
Neither the Reagan Years (and those years before) nor the Obama Years have been a picnic
for many that live anywhere in CA (other than possibly CR and Panama). Not that most of those
running those countries are in any way innocent, particularly those that we funneled arms and
money to.
I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of
the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day.
re: Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline?
in case anyone else has not yet noted it, super tankers, VLCCs that can carry as much as 2
million barrels, cannot get through the Suez canal, which is limited to oil tankers in the
aptly named "Suezmax" class, less than half that size
Yeah this is not a well educated writer. Contradicts his own story at one point, and no
the US can't afford to get into a major war,but that does mean they lose either, the other
side would still lose more.
The winds change are blowing, indeed. Is that the fog of war on the horizon, or the
smokestacks of progress? Neither is good for the environment but as they say, fight one
battle at a time.
America's War On Terror has long since become the War OF Terrorism and it's good to see
the rest of the world has not only caught on but is doing something about it. Great Britain
went quietly and prospered. Will America do the same or will it struggle against the
inevitable? I suspect a bit of both. We do love to kill poor innocent brown people, after
all. It's what we're best at.
Time to find another line of work. Surely we can find something more productive to do?
The war on terror is a war on non-combatants. Its western terrorists, spooks and soldiers,
against Asian terrorists, Muslims.The other form of terrorism against non-combatants is
nuclear war – that's when the military attacks civilian targets like we did in WWII in
Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo but using more destructive ordinance.
Can we say, in light of the regular failures of our initiatives overseas, that we the
people are expecting something that is not intended. We imagine war is fought to achieve
unconditional surrender and bring the humiliated enemy to our feet begging for life but
perhaps these attacks in the Middle East and North Africa are not for a military victory at
all but to take away the natural resources of those countries, using the fog of war to
conceal our purpose?
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages.
More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing,
and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says,
an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a
"responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise
the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
One curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely
the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality – and political chaos, populism
and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But
free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the
most destabilising one.
... ... ...
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years – especially the Bretton
Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) – set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation
would take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility – something absent from contemporary globalisation,
with its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and
other currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade – negotiated by participating countries in a series
of multinational "rounds" – that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose
was never to maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations
doing their own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives,
within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they
found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel
industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination
from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their
own industries via tariffs – duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average
of nearly 7% – faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden
era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system,
the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries – especially in Latin America,
the Middle East, Africa and Asia – adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced
goods. It worked poorly in some places – India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in
factories that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced – but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia,
much of Latin America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and
commentators would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation:
"the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global
good."
The critical turning point – away from this system of trade balanced against national protections – came in the 1980s. Flagging
growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's
five biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public
sectors and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but
impediments to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself
as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its
international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member
nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were
judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its
ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding
devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only
remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this
model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of
their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an
influential 1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might
open and yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across
Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus
to the letter, a grave crisis resulted in
2002 , precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising
reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties
took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation.
These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
Rodrik – perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events – was himself a beneficiary
of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow
Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may
be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost
touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in
that the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade."
He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity
of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather
than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox
, Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The
results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push
back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised
by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink
their commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's
changed: globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The
benefits of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good
times may be running out.
Statistics from Global Inequality
, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation
have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms,
the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has
shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least
of our problems – Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out – globalisation was always going to slow;
in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation – by no
means all – have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence,
Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked
to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about
the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it
once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest
model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked
up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected
to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did,
and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found
it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world
– at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited
his agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political
priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the
already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced
by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill
Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who
are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that
she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues
for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation – economic and political – is irreversible. "There is a sense
that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation
– which, you know, I think has come rather late."
"... The purpose of a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose tribute. The genius of the World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry, agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries play an artificial economic game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing and loss of life by soldiers ..."
"... It was set up basically by the United States in 1944, along with its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Their purpose was to create an international order like a funnel to make other countries economically dependent on the United States ..."
"... American diplomats insisted on the ability to veto any action by the World Bank or IMF. The aim of this veto power was to make sure that any policy was, in Donald Trump's words, to put America first. "We've got to win and they've got to lose." ..."
"... The World Bank was set up from the outset as a branch of the military, of the Defense Department. John J. McCloy (Assistant Secretary of War, 1941-45), was the first full-time president ..."
"... Many countries had two rates: one for goods and services, which was set normally by the market, and then a different exchange rate that was managed for capital movements. That was because countries were trying to prevent capital flight. They didn't want their wealthy classes or foreign investors to make a run on their own currency – an ever-present threat in Latin America. ..."
"... The IMF and the World Bank backed the cosmopolitan classes, the wealthy. Instead of letting countries control their capital outflows and prevent capital flight, the IMF's job is to protect the richest One Percent and foreign investors from balance-of-payments problems ..."
"... The IMF enables its wealthy constituency to move their money out of the country without taking a foreign-exchange loss ..."
"... Wall Street speculators have sold the local currency short to make a killing, George-Soros style. ..."
"... When the debtor-country currency collapses, the debts that these Latin American countries owe are in dollars, and now have to pay much more in their own currency to carry and pay off these debts. ..."
"... Local currency is thrown onto the foreign-exchange market for dollars, lowering the exchange rate. That increases import prices, raising a price umbrella for domestic products. ..."
"... Instead, the IMF says just the opposite: It acts to prevent any move by other countries to bring the debt volume within the ability to be paid. It uses debt leverage as a way to control the monetary lifeline of financially defeated debtor countries. ..."
"... This control by the U.S. financial system and its diplomacy has been built into the world system by the IMF and the World Bank claiming to be international instead of an expression of specifically U.S. New Cold War nationalism. ..."
"... The same thing happened in Greece a few years ago, when almost all of Greece's foreign debt was owed to Greek millionaires holding their money in Switzerland ..."
"... The IMF could have seized this money to pay off the bondholders. Instead, it made the Greek economy pay. It found that it was worth wrecking the Greek economy, forcing emigration and wiping out Greek industry so that French and German bondholding banks would not have to take a loss. That is what makes the IMF so vicious an institution. ..."
"... America was able to grab all of Iran's foreign exchange just by the banks interfering. The CIA has bragged that it can do the same thing with Russia. If Russia does something that U.S. diplomats don't like, the U.S. can use the SWIFT bank payment system to exclude Russia from it, so the Russian banks and the Russian people and industry won't be able to make payments to each other. ..."
"... You can't create the money, especially if you're running a balance of payments deficit and if U.S. foreign policy forces you into deficit by having someone like George Soros make a run on your currency. Look at the Asia crisis in 1997. Wall Street funds bet against foreign currencies, driving them way down, and then used the money to pick up industry cheap in Korea and other Asian countries. ..."
"... This was also done to Russia's ruble. The only country that avoided this was Malaysia, under Mohamed Mahathir, by using capital controls. Malaysia is an object lesson in how to prevent a currency flight. ..."
"... Client kleptocracies take their money and run, moving it abroad to hard currency areas such as the United States, or at least keeping it in dollars in offshore banking centers instead of reinvesting it to help the country catch up by becoming independent agriculturally, in energy, finance and other sectors. ..."
"... But in shaping the World Trade Organization's rules, the United States said that all countries had to promote free trade and could not have government support, except for countries that already had it. We're the only country that had it. That's what's called "grandfathering". ..."
"The purpose of a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose
tribute. The genius of the World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute,
or to take over its industry, agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries
play an artificial economic game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing
and loss of life by soldiers."
I'm Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter: Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show: The IMF and World Bank: Partners In Backwardness
. Dr. Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trend,
a Wall Street Financial Analyst, and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
His most recent books include " and Forgive them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance
to the Jubilee Year "; Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy , and J Is for
Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception . He is also author of Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
, among many other books.
We return today to a discussion of Dr. Hudson's seminal 1972 book, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire
, a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF and World Bank, with a special emphasis on
food imperialism.
... ... ...
Bonnie Faulkner : In your seminal work form 1972, Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire ,
you write: "The development lending of the World Bank has been dysfunctional from the outset." When was the World Bank set up and
by whom?
Michael Hudson : It was set up basically by the United States in 1944, along with its sister institution, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Their purpose was to create an international order like a funnel to make other countries economically dependent
on the United States. To make sure that no other country or group of countries – even all the rest of the world – could not
dictate U.S. policy. American diplomats insisted on the ability to veto any action by the World Bank or IMF. The aim of this
veto power was to make sure that any policy was, in Donald Trump's words, to put America first. "We've got to win and they've got
to lose."
The World Bank was set up from the outset as a branch of the military, of the Defense Department. John J. McCloy (Assistant
Secretary of War, 1941-45), was the first full-time president. He later became Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (1953-60).
McNamara was Secretary of Defense (1961-68), Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy and Under Secretary of Defense (1989-2005), and Robert Zoellick
was Deputy Secretary of State. So I think you can look at the World Bank as the soft shoe of American diplomacy.
Bonnie Faulkner : What is the difference between the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the IMF? Is
there a difference?
Michael Hudson : Yes, there is. The World Bank was supposed to make loans for what they call international development.
"Development" was their euphemism for dependency on U.S. exports and finance. This dependency entailed agricultural backwardness
– opposing land reform, family farming to produce domestic food crops, and also monetary backwardness in basing their monetary system
on the dollar.
The World Bank was supposed to provide infrastructure loans that other countries would go into debt to pay American engineering
firms, to build up their export sectors and their plantation sectors by public investment roads and port development for imports
and exports. Essentially, the Bank financed long- investments in the foreign trade sector, in a way that was a natural continuation
of European colonialism.
In 1941, for example, C. L. R. James wrote an article on "Imperialism in Africa" pointing out the fiasco of European railroad
investment in Africa: "Railways must serve flourishing industrial areas, or densely populated agricult5ural regions, or they must
open up new land along which a thriving population develops and provides the railways with traffic. Except in the mining regions
of South Africa, all these conditions are absent. Yet railways were needed, for the benefit of European investors and heavy industry."
That is why, James explained "only governments can afford to operate them," while being burdened with heavy interest obligations.
[1] What was "developed" was Africa's
mining and plantation export sector, not its domestic economies. The World Bank followed this pattern of "development" lending without
apology.
The IMF was in charge of short-term foreign currency loans. Its aim was to prevent countries from imposing capital controls to
protect their balance of payments. Many countries had a dual exchange rate: one for trade in goods and services, the other rate
for capital movements. The function of the IMF and World Bank was essentially to make other countries borrow in dollars, not in
their own currencies, and to make sure that if they could not pay their dollar-denominated debts, they had to impose austerity on
the domestic economy – while subsidizing their import and export sectors and protecting foreign investors, creditors and client
oligarchies from loss.
The IMF developed a junk-economics model pretending that any country can pay any amount of debt to the creditors if it just impoverishes
its labor enough. So when countries were unable to pay their debt service, the IMF tells them to raise their interest rates to bring
on a depression – austerity – and break up the labor unions. That is euphemized as "rationalizing labor markets." The rationalizing
is essentially to disable labor unions and the public sector. The aim – and effect – is to prevent countries from essentially following
the line of development that had made the United States rich – by public subsidy and protection of domestic agriculture, public
subsidy and protection of industry and an active government sector promoting a New Deal democracy. The IMF was essentially promoting
and forcing other countries to balance their trade deficits by letting American and other investors buy control of their commanding
heights, mainly their infrastructure monopolies, and to subsidize their capital flight.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Now, Michael, when you began speaking about the IMF and monetary controls, you mentioned that there
were two exchange rates of currency in countries. What were you referring to?
MICHAEL HUDSON : When I went to work on Wall Street in the '60s, I was balance-of-payments economist for Chase Manhattan,
and we used the IMF's monthly International Financial Statistics every month. At the top of each country's statistics would
be the exchange-rate figures. Many countries had two rates: one for goods and services, which was set normally by the market,
and then a different exchange rate that was managed for capital movements. That was because countries were trying to prevent capital
flight. They didn't want their wealthy classes or foreign investors to make a run on their own currency – an ever-present threat
in Latin America.
The IMF and the World Bank backed the cosmopolitan classes, the wealthy. Instead of letting countries control their capital
outflows and prevent capital flight, the IMF's job is to protect the richest One Percent and foreign investors from balance-of-payments
problems.
The World Bank and American diplomacy have steered them into a chronic currency crisis. The IMF enables its wealthy constituency
to move their money out of the country without taking a foreign-exchange loss. It makes loans to support capital flight out
of domestic currencies into the dollar or other hard currencies. The IMF calls this a "stabilization" program. It is never effective
in helping the debtor economy pay foreign debts out of growth. Instead, the IMF uses currency depreciation and sell-offs of public
infrastructure and other assets to foreign investors after the flight capital has left and currency collapses. Wall Street speculators
have sold the local currency short to make a killing, George-Soros style.
When the debtor-country currency collapses, the debts that these Latin American countries owe are in dollars, and now have
to pay much more in their own currency to carry and pay off these debts. We're talking about enormous penalty rates in domestic
currency for these countries to pay foreign-currency debts – basically taking on to finance a non-development policy and to subsidize
capital flight when that policy "fails" to achieve its pretended objective of growth.
All hyperinflations of Latin America – Chile early on, like Germany after World War I – come from trying to pay foreign debts
beyond the ability to be paid. Local currency is thrown onto the foreign-exchange market for dollars, lowering the exchange
rate. That increases import prices, raising a price umbrella for domestic products.
A really functional and progressive international monetary fund that would try to help countries develop would say: "Okay, banks
and we (the IMF) have made bad loans that the country can't pay. And the World Bank has given it bad advice, distorting its domestic
development to serve foreign customers rather than its own growth. So we're going to write down the loans to the ability to be paid."
That's what happened in 1931, when the world finally stopped German reparations payments and Inter-Ally debts to the United States
stemming from World War I.
Instead, the IMF says just the opposite: It acts to prevent any move by other countries to bring the debt volume within
the ability to be paid. It uses debt leverage as a way to control the monetary lifeline of financially defeated debtor countries.
So if they do something that U.S. diplomats don't approve of, it can pull the plug financially, encouraging a run on their currency
if they act independently of the United States instead of falling in line. This control by the U.S. financial system and its
diplomacy has been built into the world system by the IMF and the World Bank claiming to be international instead of an expression
of specifically U.S. New Cold War nationalism.
BONNIE FAULKNER : How do exchange rates contribute to capital flight?
MICHAEL HUDSON : It's not the exchange rate that contributes. Suppose that you're a millionaire, and you see that your
country is unable to balance its trade under existing production patterns. The money that the government has under control is pesos,
escudos, cruzeiros or some other currency, not dollars or euros. You see that your currency is going to go down relative to the
dollar, so you want to get our money out of the country to preserve your purchasing power.
This has long been institutionalized. By 1990, for instance, Latin American countries had defaulted so much in the wake of the
Mexico defaults in 1982 that I was hired by Scudder Stevens, to help start a Third World Bond Fund (called a "sovereign high-yield
fund"). At the time, Argentina and Brazil were running such serious balance-of-payments deficits that they were having to pay 45
percent per year interest, in dollars, on their dollar debt. Mexico, was paying 22.5 percent on its tesobonos .
Scudders' salesmen went around to the United States and tried to sell shares in the proposed fund, but no Americans would buy
it, despite the enormous yields. They sent their salesmen to Europe and got a similar reaction. They had lost their shirts on Third
World bonds and couldn't see how these countries could pay.
Merrill Lynch was the fund's underwriter. Its office in Brazil and in Argentina proved much more successful in selling investments
in Scudder's these offshore fund established in the Dutch West Indies. It was an offshore fund, so Americans were not able to buy
it. But Brazilian and Argentinian rich families close to the central bank and the president became the major buyers. We realized
that they were buying these funds because they knew that their government was indeed going to pay their stipulated interest charges.
In effect, the bonds were owed ultimately to themselves. So these Yankee dollar bonds were being bought by Brazilians and other
Latin Americans as a vehicle to move their money out of their soft local currency (which was going down), to buy bonds denominated
in hard dollars.
BONNIE FAULKNER : If wealthy families from these countries bought these bonds denominated in dollars, knowing that they
were going to be paid off, who was going to pay them off? The country that was going broke?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Well, countries don't pay; the taxpayers pay, and in the end, labor pays. The IMF certainly doesn't want
to make its wealthy client oligarchies pay. It wants to squeeze ore economic surplus out of the labor force. So countries are told
that the way they can afford to pay their enormously growing dollar-denominated debt is to lower wages even more.
Currency depreciation is an effective way to do this, because what is devalued is basically labor's wages. Other elements of
exports have a common world price: energy, raw materials, capital goods, and credit under the dollar-centered international monetary
system that the IMF seeks to maintain as a financial strait jacket.
According to the IMF's ideological models, there's no limit to how far you can lower wages by enough to make labor competitive
in producing exports. The IMF and World Bank thus use junk economics to pretend that the way to pay debts owed to the wealthiest
creditors and investors is to lower wages and impose regressive excise taxes, to impose special taxes on necessities that labor
needs, from food to energy and basic services supplied by public infrastructure.
BONNIE FAULKNER: So you're saying that labor ultimately has to pay off these junk bonds?
MICHAEL HUDSON: That is the basic aim of IMF. I discuss its fallacies in my Trade Development and Foreign Debt
, which is the academic sister volume to Super Imperialism . These two books show that the World Bank and IMF were viciously
anti-labor from the very outset, working with domestic elites whose fortunes are tied to and loyal to the United States.
BONNIE FAULKNER : With regard to these junk bonds, who was it or what entity
MICHAEL HUDSON : They weren't junk bonds. They were called that because they were high-interest bonds, but they weren't
really junk because they actually were paid. Everybody thought they were junk because no American would have paid 45 percent interest.
Any country that really was self-reliant and was promoting its own economic interest would have said, "You banks and the IMF have
made bad loans, and you've made them under false pretenses – a trade theory that imposes austerity instead of leading to prosperity.
We're not going to pay." They would have seized the capital flight of their comprador elites and said that these dollar bonds were
a rip-off by the corrupt ruling class.
The same thing happened in Greece a few years ago, when almost all of Greece's foreign debt was owed to Greek millionaires
holding their money in Switzerland. The details were published in the "Legarde List." But the IMF said, in effect that its
loyalty was to the Greek millionaires who ha their money in Switzerland. The IMF could have seized this money to pay off the
bondholders. Instead, it made the Greek economy pay. It found that it was worth wrecking the Greek economy, forcing emigration and
wiping out Greek industry so that French and German bondholding banks would not have to take a loss. That is what makes the IMF
so vicious an institution.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So these loans to foreign countries that were regarded as junk bonds really weren't junk, because
they were going to be paid. What group was it that jacked up these interest rates to 45 percent?
MICHAEL HUDSON : The market did. American banks, stock brokers and other investors looked at the balance of payments of
these countries and could not see any reasonable way that they could pay their debts, so they were not going to buy their bonds.
No country subject to democratic politics would have paid debts under these conditions. But the IMF, U.S. and Eurozone diplomacy
overrode democratic choice.
Investors didn't believe that the IMF and the World Bank had such a strangle hold over Latin American, Asian, and African countries
that they could make the countries act in the interest of the United States and the cosmopolitan finance capital, instead of in
their own national interest. They didn't believe that countries would commit financial suicide just to pay their wealthy One Percent.
They were wrong, of course. Countries were quite willing to commit economic suicide if their governments were dictatorships propped
up by the United States. That's why the CIA has assassination teams and actively supports these countries to prevent any party coming
to power that would act in their national interest instead of in the interest of a world division of labor and production along
the lines that the U.S. planners want for the world. Under the banner of what they call a free market, you have the World Bank and
the IMF engage in central planning of a distinctly anti-labor policy. Instead of calling them Third World bonds or junk bonds, you
should call them anti-labor bonds, because they have become a lever to impose austerity throughout the world.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Well, that makes a lot of sense, Michael, and answers a lot of the questions I've put together to ask
you. What about Puerto Rico writing down debt? I thought such debts couldn't be written down.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's what they all said, but the bonds were trading at about 45 cents on the dollar, the risk of their
not being paid. The Wall Street Journal on June 17, reported that unsecured suppliers and creditors of Puerto Rico, would
only get nine cents on the dollar. The secured bond holders would get maybe 65 cents on the dollar.
The terms are being written down because it's obvious that Puerto Rico can't pay, and that trying to do so is driving the population
to move out of Puerto Rico to the United States. If you don't want Puerto Ricans to act the same way Greeks did and leave Greece
when their industry and economy was shut down, then you're going to have to provide stability or else you're going to have half
of Puerto Rico living in Florida.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Who wrote down the Puerto Rican debt?
MICHAEL HUDSON : A committee was appointed, and it calculated how much Puerto Rico can afford to pay out of its taxes.
Puerto Rico is a U.S. dependency, that is, an economic colony of the United States. It does not have domestic self-reliance. It's
the antithesis of democracy, so it's never been in charge of its own economic policy and essentially has to do whatever the United
States tells it to do. There was a reaction after the hurricane and insufficient U.S. support to protect the island and the enormous
waste and corruption involved in the U.S. aid. The U.S. response was simply: "We won you fair and square in the Spanish-American
war and you're an occupied country, and we're going to keep you that way." Obviously this is causing a political resentment.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You've already touched on this, but why has the World Bank traditionally been headed by a U.S. secretary
of defense?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Its job is to do in the financial sphere what, in the past, was done by military force. The purpose of
a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose tribute. The genius of the
World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry,
agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries play an artificial economic
game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing and loss of life by soldiers.
In this case the loss of life occurs in the debtor countries. Population growth shrinks, suicides go up. The World Bank engages
in economic warfare that is just as destructive as military warfare. At the end of the Yeltsin period Russia's President Putin said
that American neoliberalism destroyed more of Russia's population than did World War II. Such neoliberalism, which basically is
the doctrine of American supremacy and foreign dependency, is the policy of the World Bank and IMF.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why has World Bank policy since its inception been to provide loans for countries to devote their land
to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves? And if this is the case, why do countries want these loans?
MICHAEL HUDSON : One constant of American foreign policy is to make other countries dependent on American grain exports
and food exports. The aim is to buttress America's agricultural trade surplus. So the first thing that the World Bank has done is
not to make any domestic currency loans to help food producers. Its lending has steered client countries to produce tropical export
crops, mainly plantation crops that cannot be grown in the United States. Focusing on export crops leads client countries to become
dependent on American farmers – and political sanctions.
In the 1950s, right after the Chinese revolution, the United States tried to prevent China from succeeding by imposing grain
export controls to starve China into submission by putting sanctions on exports. Canada was the country that broke these export
controls and helped feed China.
The idea is that if you can make other countries export plantation crops, the oversupply will drive down prices for cocoa and
other tropical products, and they won't feed themselves. So instead of backing family farms like the American agricultural policy
does, the World Bank backed plantation agriculture. In Chile, which has the highest natural supply of fertilizer in the world from
its guano deposits, exports guano instead of using it domestically. It also has the most unequal land distribution, blocking it
from growing its own grain or food crops. It's completely dependent on the United States for this, and it pays by exporting copper,
guano and other natural resources.
The idea is to create interdependency – one-sided dependency on the U.S. economy. The United States has always aimed at being
self-sufficient in its own essentials, so that no other country can pull the plug on our economy and say, "We're going to starve
you by not feeding you." Americans can feed themselves. Other countries can't say, "We're going to let you freeze in the dark by
not sending you oil," because America's independent in energy. But America can use the oil control to make other countries freeze
in the dark, and it can starve other countries by food-export sanctions.
So the idea is to give the United States control of the key interconnections of other economies, without letting any country
control something that is vital to the working of the American economy.
There's a double standard here. The United States tells other countries: "Don't do as we do. Do as we say." The only way it can
enforce this is by interfering in the politics of these countries, as it has interfered in Latin America, always pushing the right
wing. For instance, when Hillary's State Department overthrew the Honduras reformer who wanted to undertake land reform and feed
the Hondurans, she said: "This person has to go." That's why there are so many Hondurans trying to get into the United States now,
because they can't live in their own country.
The effect of American coups is the same in Syria and Iraq. They force an exodus of people who no longer can make a living under
the brutal dictatorships supported by the United States to enforce this international dependency system.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So when I asked you why countries would want these loans, I guess you're saying that they wouldn't,
and that's why the U.S. finds it necessary to control them politically.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's a concise way of putting it Bonnie.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why are World Bank loans only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency of the country to which
it is lending?
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's a good point. A basic principle should be to avoid borrowing in a foreign currency. A country
can always pay the loans in its own currency, but there's no way that it can print dollars or euros to pay loans denominated in
these foreign currencies.
Making the dollar central forces other countries to interface with the U.S. banking system. So if a country decides to go its
own way, as Iran did in 1953 when it wanted to take over its oil from British Petroleum (or Anglo Iranian Oil, as it was called
back then), the United States can interfere and overthrow it. The idea is to be able to use the banking system's interconnections
to stop payments from being made.
After America installed the Shah's dictatorship, they were overthrown by Khomeini, and Iran had run up a U.S. dollar debt under
the Shah. It had plenty of dollars. I think Chase Manhattan was its paying agent. So when its quarterly or annual debt payment came
due, Iran told Chase to draw on its accounts and pay the bondholders. But Chase took orders from the State Department or the Defense
Department, I don't know which, and refused to pay. When the payment was not made, America and its allies claimed that Iran was
in default. They demanded the entire debt to be paid, as per the agreement that the Shah's puppet government had signed. America
simply grabbed the deposits that Iran had in the United States. This is the money that was finally returned to Iran without interest
under the agreement of 2016.
America was able to grab all of Iran's foreign exchange just by the banks interfering. The CIA has bragged that it can do
the same thing with Russia. If Russia does something that U.S. diplomats don't like, the U.S. can use the SWIFT bank payment system
to exclude Russia from it, so the Russian banks and the Russian people and industry won't be able to make payments to each other.
This prompted Russia to create its own bank-transfer system, and is leading China, Russia, India and Pakistan to draft plans
to de-dollarize.
BONNIE FAULKNER : I was going to ask you, why would loans in a country's domestic currency be preferable to the country
taking out a loan in a foreign currency? I guess you've explained that if they took out a loan in a domestic currency, they would
be able to repay it.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Yes.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Whereas a loan in a foreign currency would cripple them.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Yes. You can't create the money, especially if you're running a balance of payments deficit and if
U.S. foreign policy forces you into deficit by having someone like George Soros make a run on your currency. Look at the Asia crisis
in 1997. Wall Street funds bet against foreign currencies, driving them way down, and then used the money to pick up industry cheap
in Korea and other Asian countries.
This was also done to Russia's ruble. The only country that avoided this was Malaysia, under Mohamed Mahathir, by using capital
controls. Malaysia is an object lesson in how to prevent a currency flight.
But for Latin America and other countries, much of their foreign debt is held by their own ruling class. Even though it's denominated
in dollars, Americans don't own most of this debt. It's their own ruling class. The IMF and World Bank dictate tax policy to Latin
America – to un-tax wealth and shift the burden onto labor. Client kleptocracies take their money and run, moving it abroad
to hard currency areas such as the United States, or at least keeping it in dollars in offshore banking centers instead of reinvesting
it to help the country catch up by becoming independent agriculturally, in energy, finance and other sectors.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You say that: "While U.S. agricultural protectionism has been built into the postwar global system at
its inception, foreign protectionism is to be nipped in the bud." How has U.S. agricultural protectionism been built into the postwar
global system?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Under Franklin Roosevelt the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 called for price supports for crops
so that farmers could earn enough to invest in equipment and seeds. The Agriculture Department was a wonderful department in spurring
new seed varieties, agricultural extension services, marketing and banking services. It provided public support so that productivity
in American agriculture from the 1930s to '50s was higher over a prolonged period than that of any other sector in history.
But in shaping the World Trade Organization's rules, the United States said that all countries had to promote free trade
and could not have government support, except for countries that already had it. We're the only country that had it. That's what's
called "grandfathering". The Americans said: "We already have this program on the books, so we can keep it. But no other country
can succeed in agriculture in the way that we have done. You must keep your agriculture backward, except for the plantation crops
and growing crops that we can't grow in the United States." That's what's so evil about the World Bank's development plan.
BONNIE FAULKNER : According to your book: "Domestic currency is needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive." Why can't infrastructure costs be subsidized to keep down the economy's
overall cost structure if IMF loans are made in foreign currency?
MICHAEL HUDSON : If you're a farmer in Brazil, Argentina or Chile, you're doing business in domestic currency. It doesn't
help if somebody gives you dollars, because your expenses are in domestic currency. So if the World Bank and the IMF can prevent
countries from providing domestic currency support, that means they're not able to give price supports or provide government marketing
services for their agriculture.
America is a mixed economy. Our government has always subsidized capital formation in agriculture and industry, but it insists
that other countries are socialist or communist if they do what the United States is doing and use their government to support the
economy. So it's a double standard. Nobody calls America a socialist country for supporting its farmers, but other countries are
called socialist and are overthrown if they attempt land reform or attempt to feed themselves.
This is what the Catholic Church's Liberation Theology was all about. They backed land reform and agricultural self-sufficiency
in food, realizing that if you're going to support population growth, you have to support the means to feed it. That's why the United
States focused its assassination teams on priests and nuns in Guatemala and Central America for trying to promote domestic self-sufficiency.
BONNIE FAULKNER : If a country takes out an IMF loan, they're obviously going to take it out in dollars. Why can't they
take the dollars and convert them into domestic currency to support local infrastructure costs?
MICHAEL HUDSON : You don't need a dollar loan to do that. Now were getting in to MMT. Any country can create its own currency.
There's no reason to borrow in dollars to create your own currency. You can print it yourself or create it on your computers.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Well, exactly. So why don't these countries simply print up their own domestic currency?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Their leaders don't want to be assassinated. More immediately, if you look at the people in charge of
foreign central banks, almost all have been educated in the United States and essentially brainwashed. It's the mentality of foreign
central bankers. The people who are promoted are those who feel personally loyal to the United States, because they that that's
how to get ahead. Essentially, they're opportunists working against the interests of their own country. You won't have socialist
central bankers as long as central banks are dominated by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So we're back to the main point: The control is by political means, and they control the politics and
the power structure in these countries so that they don't rebel.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's right. When you have a dysfunctional economic theory that is destructive instead of productive,
this is never an accident. It is always a result of junk economics and dependency economics being sponsored. I've talked to people
at the U.S. Treasury and asked why they all end up following the United States. Treasury officials have told me: "We simply buy
them off. They do it for the money." So you don't need to kill them. All you need to do is find people corrupt enough and opportunist
enough to see where the money is, and you buy them off.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You write that "by following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail." What
is food blackmail?
MICHAEL HUDSON : If you pursue a foreign policy that we don't like -- for instance, if you trade with Iran, which we're
trying to smash up to grab its oil -- we'll impose financial sanctions against you. We won't sell you food, and you can starve.
And because you've followed World Bank advice and not grown your own food, you will starve, because you're dependent on us, the
United States and our Free World Ó allies. Canada will no longer follow its own policy independently of the United States,
as it did with China in the 1950s when it sold it grain. Europe also is falling in line with U.S. policy.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You write that: "World Bank administrators demand that loan recipients pursue a policy of economic dependency
above all on the United States as food supplier." Was this done to support U.S. agriculture? Obviously it is, but were there other
reasons as well?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Certainly the agricultural lobby was critical in all of this, and I'm not sure at what point this became
thoroughly conscious. I knew some of the World Bank planners, and they had no anticipation that this dependency would be the result.
They believed the free-trade junk economics that's taught in the schools' economics departments and for which Nobel prizes are awarded.
When we're dealing with economic planners, we're dealing with tunnel-visioned people. They stayed in the discipline despite its
unreality because they sort of think that abstractly it makes sense. There's something autistic about most economists, which is
why the French had their non-autistic economic site for many years. The mentality at work is that every country should produce what
it's best at – not realizing that nations also need to be self-sufficient in essentials, because we're in a real world of economic
and military warfare.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why does the World Bank prefer to perpetrate world poverty instead of adequate overseas capacity to
feed the peoples of developing countries?
MICHAEL HUDSON : World poverty is viewed as solution , not a problem. The World Bank thinks of poverty as low-priced
labor, creating a competitive advantage for countries that produce labor-intensive goods. So poverty and austerity for the World
Bank and IMF is an economic solution that's built into their models. I discuss these in my Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
book. Poverty is to them the solution, because it means low-priced labor, and that means higher profits for the companies bought
out by U.S., British, and European investors. So poverty is part of the class war: profits versus poverty.
BONNIE FAULKNER : In general, what is U.S. food imperialism? How would you characterize it?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Its aim is to make America the producer of essential foods and other countries producing inessential
plantation crops, while remaining dependent on the United States for grain, soy beans and basic food crops.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Does World Bank lending encourage land reform in former colonies?
MICHAEL HUDSON : No. If there is land reform, the CIA sends its assassination teams in and you have mass murder, as you
had in Guatemala, Ecuador, Central America and Columbia. The World Bank is absolutely committed against land reform. When the Forgash
Plan for a World Bank for Economic Acceleration was proposed in the 1950s to emphasize land reform and local-currency loans, a Chase
Manhattan economist to whom the plan was submitted warned that every country that had land reform turned out to be anti-American.
That killed any alternative to the World Bank.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Does the World Bank insist on client governments privatizing their public domain? If so, why, and what
is the effect?
MICHAEL HUDSON : It does indeed insist on privatization, pretending that this is efficient. But what it privatizes are
natural monopolies – the electrical system, the water system and other basic needs. Foreigners take over, essentially finance them
with foreign debt, build the foreign debt that they build into the cost structure, and raise the cost of living and doing business
in these countries, thereby crippling them economically. The effect is to prevent them from competing with the United States and
its European allies.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Would you say then that it is mainly America that has been aided, not foreign economies that borrow
from the World Bank?
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's why the United States is the only country with veto power in the IMF and World Bank – to make
sure that what you just described is exactly what happens.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why do World Bank programs accelerate the exploitation of mineral deposits for use by other nations?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Most World Bank loans are for transportation, roads, harbor development and other infrastructure needed
to export minerals and plantation crops. The World Bank doesn't make loans for projects that help the country develop in its own
currency. By making only foreign currency loans, in dollars or maybe euros now, the World Bank says that its clients have to repay
by generating foreign currency. The only way they can repay the dollars spent on American engineering firms that have built their
infrastructure is to export – to earn enough dollars to pay back for the money that the World Bank or IMF have lent.
This is what John Perkins' book about being an economic hit man for the World Bank is all about. He realized that his job was
to get countries to borrow dollars to build huge projects that could only be paid for by the country exporting more – which required
breaking its labor unions and lowering wages so that it could be competitive in the race to the bottom that the World Bank and IMF
encourage.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You also point out in Super Imperialism that mineral resources represent diminishing assets,
so these countries that are exporting mineral resources are being depleted while the importing countries aren't.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's right. They'll end up like Canada. The end result is going to be a big hole in the ground. You've
dug up all your minerals, and in the end you have a hole in the ground and a lot of the refuse and pollution – the mining slag and
what Marx called the excrements of production.
This is not a sustainable development. The World Bank only promotes the U.S. pursuit of sustainable development. So naturally,
they call their "Development," but their focus is on the United States, not the World Bank's client countries.
BONNIE FAULKNER : When Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire was originally published in
1972, how was it received?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Very positively. It enabled my career to take off. I received a phone call a month later by someone from
the Bank of Montreal saying they had just made $240 million on the last paragraph of my book. They asked what it would cost to have
me come up and give a lecture. I began lecturing once a month at $3,500 a day, moving up to $6,500 a day, and became the highest-paid
per diem economist on Wall Street for a few years.
I was immediately hired by the Hudson Institute to explain Super Imperialism to the Defense Department. Herman Kahn said
I showed how U.S. imperialism ran rings around European imperialism. They gave the Institute an $85,000 grant to have me go to the
White House in Washington to explain how American imperialism worked. The Americans used it as a how-to-do-it book.
The socialists, whom I expected to have a response, decided to talk about other than economic topics. So, much to my surprise,
it became a how-to-do-it book for imperialists. It was translated by, I think, the nephew of the Emperor of Japan into Japanese.
He then wrote me that the United States opposed the book being translated into Japanese. It later was translated. It was
received very positively in China, where I think it has sold more copies than in any other country. It was translated into Spanish,
and most recently it was translated into German, and German officials have asked me to come and discuss it with them. So the book
has been accepted all over the world as an explanation of how the system works.
BONNIE FAULKNER : In closing, do you really think that the U.S. government officials and others didn't understand how
their own system worked?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Many might not have understood in 1944 that this would be the consequence. But by the time 50 years went
by, you had an organization called "Fifty Years Is Enough." And by that time everybody should have understood. By the time Joe Stiglitz
became the World Bank's chief economist, there was no excuse for not understanding how the system worked. He was amazed to find
that indeed it didn't work as advertised, and resigned. But he should have known at the very beginning what it was all about. If
he didn't understand how it was until he actually went to work there, you can understand how hard it is for most academics to get
through the vocabulary of junk economics, the patter-talk of free trade and free markets to understand how exploitative and destructive
the system is.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Michael Hudson, thank you very much.
MICHAEL HUDSON : It's always good to be here, Bonnie. I'm glad you ask questions like these.
I've been speaking with Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show has been: The IMF and World Bank: Partners in Backwardness. Dr.
Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is president of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trend, a Wall
Street financial analyst and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. His 1972
book, Super Imperialism : The Economic Strategy of American Empire , a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies
through the IMF and World Bank, the subject of today's broadcast, is posted in PDF format on his website at michael-hudson.com.
He is also author of Trade, Development and Foreign Debt , which is the academic sister volume to Super Imperialism. Dr. Hudson
acts as an economic advisor to governments worldwide on finance and tax law. Visit his website at michael-hudson.com.
Guns and Butter is produced by Bonnie Faulkner, Yarrow Mahko and Tony Rango. Visit us at
gunsandbutter.org to listen to past programs, comment on shows, or join
our email list to receive our newsletter that includes recent shows and updates. Email us at
[email protected]. Follow us
on Twitter at #gandbradio.
Tom Wright
makes some good observations about Trump's foreign policy here, but I think he
underestimates Bolton's determination to cling to power:
It's hard to see how Bolton can stay. Trump has long known that Bolton wanted war more
than he does. He sidelined him on North Korea and overruled him on Iran. For his part, Bolton
has privately attacked Pompeo, long a Trump favorite, as falling captive to the State
Department bureaucracy and has predicted that the North Korea policy will fail.
Bolton has given an unusually large number of interviews to reporters and has been
rewarded with positive profiles lauding his influence and bureaucratic prowess. Those of us
who predicted that he would cling to the post of national security adviser, as it would be
the last job he'd ever get, may have been wrong. In fact, Bolton looks and sounds as if he is
preparing to exit on his own terms. Better that than being sent on a never-ending tour of the
world's most obscure places. For Bolton, leaving because he's too tough for Trump is the
perfect way to save face. Otherwise, he may be remembered as the man who presided over one of
the weakest national security teams in modern American history and someone whose myopic
obsessions -- like international treaties or communism in Venezuela -- meant the United
States lost precious time in preparing for the national security challenges of the
future.
Bolton has been allowed to drive Iran policy to the brink of war, and I can't believe that
he would voluntarily leave the position he has when he still has a chance of getting the war
with Iran that he has been seeking for years. It is true that Bolton was sent to Mongolia to
keep him out of sight during the president's visit with Kim at the DMZ, but where is the proof
that Trump has abandoned the maximalist demands that Bolton has long insisted on? On Iran,
Trump is still reciting hawkish talking points, sanctioning anything that moves, and
occasionally making more deranged threats against the entire country. Unless Trump decides to
get rid of Bolton, I don't see why Bolton would want to leave. He gets to set policy on the
issue he has obsessed over for decades, and he gets to pursue a policy of regime change in all
but name. Bolton will probably be happy to let Pompeo have all the "credit" for North Korea
policy, since there is none to be had, and he'll keep stoking the Iran obsession that has
already done so much harm to the Iranian people and brought the U.S. dangerously close to a war
it has no reason to fight.
Banishing Bolton to Mongolia was briefly entertaining for those of us that can't stand the
National Security Advisor, but it doesn't mean very much if administration policies aren't
changing. Since Bolton is the one running the policy "process," it seems unlikely that there
will be any real change as long as he is there. For whatever reason, Trump doesn't seem willing
to fire him. Maybe that's because he doesn't want to offend Sheldon Adelson, a known Bolton
supporter and big Trump donor, or maybe it's because he enjoys having Bolton as a lightning rod
to take some of the criticism, or maybe it's because their militaristic worldviews aren't as
dissimilar as many people assume. It doesn't really matter why Trump won't rid himself of
Bolton. What matters is that Bolton is supposedly "humiliated" again and again by Trump actions
or statements, and then Bolton gets back to promoting his own agenda no matter what the
president does.
For that matter, Bolton's absence from the DMZ meeting may have been exactly what he wanted.
Graeme Wood suggested
as much just the other day:
Carlson has inserted himself into the frame of this bizarre and impromptu diplomatic trip,
and that is exactly where the Boltonites want him: forever associated with a handshake that
will be recorded as a new low in the annals of presidential gullibility.
Many observers have assumed that Bolton won't be able to stay in the administration at
different points over the last several months. When Trump claimed that he didn't want regime
change in Iran, that was supposed to be a break with Bolton. The only hitch is that Bolton
maintains this same fiction that they aren't trying to bring down the Iranian government when
they obviously are. The second summit with North Korea and the possibility of some initial
agreement caused similar speculation that Bolton's influence was waning, and then he managed to
wreck the Hanoi summit by getting Trump to make demands that he and everyone else must have
known were unacceptable to the North Koreans. Every time it seems that Bolton's maximalism is
giving way to something else, Bolton gets the last laugh.
Demolishing the architecture of arms control has been one of Bolton's main ambitions
throughout his career. He has already done quite a bit of damage, but I assume he will want to
make sure that New START dies. Bolton likely will "be remembered as the man who presided over
one of the weakest national security teams in modern American history and someone whose myopic
obsessions -- like international treaties or communism in Venezuela -- meant the United States
lost precious time in preparing for the national security challenges of the future," but as
long as he has the chance to pursue those obsessions and advance his agenda I don't think he's
going to give it up. He is an abysmal National Security Advisor, a fanatic, and a menace to
this country, and I would love it if he did resign, but I just don't see it. I doubt that
Bolton cares about "saving face" as much as he does inflicting as much damage as he can while
he has the opportunity. The only thing that Bolton believes in quitting is a successful
diplomatic agreement that advances U.S. interests. That is why it is necessary for the
president to replace him, because I don't see any other way that he is going to leave.
Bolton quitting? Heck! He's just getting started. Britain, on orders from Bolton, detained
an Panamanian flagged supertanker heading to Syria with Iranian oil. Spanish officials said
the Grace 1, was seized by British patrol ships off Gibraltar, and boarded by Royal Marines
and detained on Wash.'s orders.
Bolton's power is becoming unlimited because Trump and the rest of the gov. is doing
nothing to stop his agenda, which most of Wash., must share, of starting a war with Iran, N.
Korea, or anywhere else he can stir up trouble.
It's so obvious Wash. wants Iran to fire the first shot in order to go to war and make
political donors like Sheldon Adelson happy, as well as Netanyahu who has more to say about
US foreign policy than the American people who just want to stop the wars and concentrate on
the issues and problems here at home.
After all, it's OUR MONEY going to finance all the atrocities abroad that the war industry
and other countries benefit from. Unbelievable stuff going on in Wash. and seems everyday it
gets worse and more absurd.
"... The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo). ..."
"... Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy. ..."
"... In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas " which also arrived in Ukraine. ..."
"... Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in Europe with US gas ..."
"... So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs " ..."
Manlio Dinucci invites us to take a step back. He replaces the sabotage of these petrol tankers, for which Washington
accuses Teheran, in the context of the global energy policy of the United States. By doing so, he demonstrates that, contrary to
appearances, Mike Pompeo is not targeting Iran, but Europe.
While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing
Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo
Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, assuring him that " Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the
European continent of the greatest Western democracy ". Thereby he has allied Italy with the
operation launched by Washington.
The " Gulf of Oman affair " , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the " Gulf of
Tonkin affair " of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was
accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be
false).
Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat
removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin
(because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription " Made in Iran ").
With this " proof " - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to
camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world
reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [ 1 ]. It is no coincidence that Iran
and Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia,
and five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are
approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the
same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.
The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting
to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that "
the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that
the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including
for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other
European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).
Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing
Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to
demolish the Syrian state.
Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be
distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South
Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of
construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union
itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.
In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre
of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the
energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas "
which also arrived in Ukraine.
Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in
Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for
US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic
fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.
So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest
democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in
Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ". Manlio Dinucci
There is an article on here by Michael Hudson, an economist who wrote about U.S. control of
the World Bank and IMF since 1948. He claims that the U.S. wages war because it gets other
countries to unwittingly finance them and the trade deficit. After WWII the U.S. forced
European countries to pay their war debt, by selling corporate assets, reducing barriers and
reduce their social programs. They had 3/4 of the world gold reserves because of those loans
during the war. Korea and Vietnam reduced their gold reserves to 10 billion by the late 60's
and were forced to get out off the Gold Standard. The French Banks that had a big presense in
Indochina sending their dollars to the French Central Bank and they were trading dollars for
gold. Nixon stopped it.
The dollar gave U.S. the means to have other countries finance their trade deficit, all
their wars and the military buildup. By ending the Gold backed dollar they forced the countries
that had U.S. debt dollars to purchase U.S. Treasury Bonds. As the U.S. debt grew so did the
dollars being held by those countries and the purchase of Treasury Bonds. The U.S. does not
allow countries holding those dollars to buy US property or buy Corporations and risk being
acused of commiting an act of war. So they are forced to buy U.S. debt while the US uses its
dollars to buy other countries resources with those worthless dollars.
The U.S. forces countries that default on their loans to pay penalties and huge interest
payments while the U.S. debt goes un checked and growing without the threat of being in
default...
"... All of this is "theater," distractions and moot points. No country is going to invade America or "take away our freedoms." America already is the "safest" nation on the earth due to geography and our massive nuclear deterrence. This would be even more true if America did not stir up every hornet nest is the world. Ironically, the one thing that can make our country less safe is continuing with all the "meddling" we now specialize in. ..."
"... If we stopped pursuing our "national interests," the "interests" of 99.9 percent of Americans would be enhanced. ..."
Andrew Bacevich
takes aim at the bogus hawkish "credibility" argument:
But does making threats and then dropping bombs enhance credibility? If so,
notwithstanding Obama's and Trump's own occasional qualms, the United States would have
amassed vast stores of the stuff over the past 30 years or so. Presidents since Ronald
Reagan, including Obama and Trump, have followed up threats with bombs on myriad occasions.
Targeted nations have included Libya, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia,
Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen, with the punitive action episodic in some
cases and sustained in others. No nation in recent memory has dropped more pieces of ordnance
on more countries than has the United States. Indeed, no other nation comes close.
Over those same 30 years, however, America's standing as a global leader has declined. It
turns out in practice that credibility is less a function of using force than of
demonstrating prudence. Yet somewhere between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the terrorist
attacks of 9/11, those charged with formulating U.S. policy decided that the dictates of
prudence need not apply to the actions of the world's one and only indispensable nation. In
recent decades, the abiding feature of American statecraft has been grandiosity, with
military activism camouflaging a loss of strategic realism.
Resorting to force frequently over the last several decades has not made the U.S. more
respected, trusted, or reliable in its commitments. When hawks warn that a "failure" to strike
this or that country could undermine our "credibility," they want us to believe that hostile
states will think they can get away with attacking our allies and that our allies will fear
that our government won't come to their assistance. They continually confuse decisions about
whether to initiate hostilities against other states with decisions about whether to respond to
aggression in defense of allies, but this just calls attention to the fact that the military
intervention they want has nothing to do with our security or the security of our allies.
"Failing" to bomb Syria in 2013 did not put any of our allies in greater danger, and I
suspect more than a few of our allies were glad that our government refrained from committing
more illegal acts of war. Backing off from an illegal attack on Iran has not encouraged rivals
to be more aggressive, but the possibility of starting a war over a drone alarmed our allies
that our government was once again prepared to plunge into an unnecessary war because of a
crisis of Trump's own making. Other states do not believe our government to be unwilling to
back up threats, especially when it concerns something that genuinely affects the U.S. and our
allies, but many of them do worry that our government is overeager to pick fights and look for
reasons to use force when alternatives are available. Like a trigger-happy vigilante, our
government uses force all the time for any reason and frequently for no good reason at all.
"Credibility" is just the most convenient excuse.
It is significant that the "credibility"-worshipers that complain when the U.S. doesn't
attack another country have little or nothing to say about the effect on our reputation when
the president reneges on international agreements negotiated in good faith. "Credibility" fans
don't particularly care if other states don't trust our promises when it relates to anything
else, but they are livid when a president doesn't seize every opportunity to rain down death
and destruction on other countries. I submit that no one making "credibility" arguments really
believes them, but they use these arguments to stoke fear that "inaction" (i.e., not killing
people) might be more dangerous than "action" (i.e., killing those people). "Failing" to bomb
another country doesn't have negative consequences for the U.S. (how could it?), but reneging
on diplomatic commitments is likely to make other governments less likely to trust our promises
and less likely to enter into agreements with our government in the future. Hawks don't have
much of a problem with the latter because they aren't interested in making diplomatic
agreements, but they are very worried that the U.S. "misses" the chance to launch an attack
because they want to get the U.S. embroiled in new conflicts. "Credibility" is the ready-made
excuse to launch attacks when no U.S. interests are at stake, and it can be reused over and
over to sell gullible people on wars we don't need. The price of those wars is then paid by the
people in the affected countries and our military. It's time to stop buying into the incredible
"credibility" argument.
All of this is "theater," distractions and moot points. No country is going to invade
America or "take away our freedoms." America already is the "safest" nation on the earth
due to geography and our massive nuclear deterrence. This would be even more true if
America did not stir up every hornet nest is the world. Ironically, the one thing that
can make our country less safe is continuing with all the "meddling" we now
specialize in.
If we stopped pursuing our "national interests," the "interests" of 99.9 percent of
Americans would be enhanced.
With all due respect Mr. Smith things have really gone down hill after Bush Sr. I'm talking
about direct attacks on the rights of American citizens. Bush Sr. (R) with his CIA drug dealing
with the help of Noriega. He purchased weapons with the proceeds to arm terrorist guerrilla
groups in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton (D) helped Bush Sr. as governor of Arkansas by covering up
any investigation targeting the operation and laundering their money through a state owned
bank. Bush Jr. (R) secured lands in Afghanistan in order to restart athe heroine trade by
growing poppy fields to process and ship back to the US. Obama (R) made sure the Mexican drug
cartels were well armed in order to launch a drug war that supported the Merida Initiative,
which allowed armed DEA, CIA and Mercenaries into Mexican territory. Trump (R) will be the
clean up hitter that will usher in the dollar collapse.
Mr. Smith do you really believe it is a coincidence that Rep 8 yrs, Dem 8yrs, Rep 8yrs, Dem
8yrs, Rep 3 yrs are voted in? Please sir, don't fool yourself because in the next election I
will bet money the orange fool will be president for another 4 years unless the owners don't
want him there. But we can safely say that history tells us he will. All I'm saying that people
like you, waiting for someone to throw you a rope because you've fallen into deep water are
waiting on a rescue boat that doesn't care if you drown.
Your best bet for change was thrown away when Dr. Ron Paul failed to be nominated. Us dumb
asses in Mexico didn't need another election fraud this time around! The people started YouTube
channels that reported the "real" news (Chapucero – Quesadillas de Verdades –
Charro Politico – Sin Censura, etc.). Those channels made a big difference, countering
the negative reporting by Mexican and US MSM that the Presidential Candidate for MORENA as
"Leftist", "Communist", "Socialist", "Like Hugo Chavez", "Dangerous", etc.
With all of the US propaganda, Mexican propaganda, the negative MSM and Elite financing,
Mexicans knew they had to get out and vote in record numbers and they did! Otherwise a close
election was seen as another loss and the end of Mexico as a country. People were ready to
fight and die if necessary. They had seen the Energy Reforms forced down our throat by the
corrupt PRI/PAN parties (Mex version o DEM/REP), with the help of Hillary Clinton and the US
State Department. They drafting the changes needed to the Mexican Constitution to allow a vote.
Totally against the Law in Mexico and I'm sure the laws of the US.
There is a saying that goes something like, "If you're not ready to die for Freedom, take it
out of your Vocabulary"!
Wars are necessary for the maintaining and expanding the US controlled neoliberal empire. Wars is the health of military
industrial complex.
The Deep State will bury any candidate who will try to change the USA forign policy. Looks
what happened to Trump. He got Russiagate just for vey modest proposal of detente with Russia
(of course not only for that, but still...)
Notable quotes:
"... The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they lied us into. ..."
Those are interesting proposals but wishful thinking: wars are necessary for Electing Tulsi Gabbard as our next Commander in Chief will not solve our biggest problems
alone.
Her candidacy, I believe , must be augmented by two new laws which should be demanded by the
taxpayer and enforced by her administration on "day one".
The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states
that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of
aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all
assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they
lied us into.
If they lied us into war .they pay for it NOT the US taxpayer.
The second is " The Terror Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ also retroactive to 2001,
it states that any and all individuals found to have engaged in plotting, planning, or staging
"false terror events" will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any
and all of the assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit to pay down the cost of
our War on Terror.
Americans should not have to sacrifice one cent of their tax dollars to pay for their own
defrauding by "staged" or "phony" terror events.
I believe that were Tulsi to be elected, she should set up two new task forces designed
especially for these reasons, Try to think of them as the " Office of Special Plans" IN
REVERSO.!.
Moreover she should hold weekly press briefings to notify the taxpayer of her progress, and
also how much of our 23 trillion in losses , FROM THEIR LIES, she has been able to recoup.
Getting these two initiatives up and running is the most potent force the taxpayers have in
cleaning out the fraud and larceny in DC, .ending our illegal wars overseas .. and
(finally)holding our "establishment elite " accountable for "LYING US INTO THEM"
It is way overdue for the American Taxpayer to take back control of our government from
those who ALMOST BANKRUPTED OUR ENTIRE NATION BY LYING US INTO ILLEGAL WARS.
It is not enough any more just to complain or "kvetch" about our problems .put on your
thinking caps .and start coming up with solutions and initiatives .start fighting for your
freedom, your finances and your future.
Elect the leaders YOU WANT and tell them exactly what you want them to do!
Tulsi has promised us all "SERVICE OVER SELF"
There you go !
I say that means not only ENDING our ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL WARS .but GETTING AS MUCH OF OUR
MONEY BACK from those who lied us into them !
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR FRAUD it is $23,000,000,000,000.00. in "heinous debt" .overdue!
"... "Question: Mr President, you have given an extensive overview of different topics. A short time after you last met with Donald Trump, the Americans introduced new sanctions against Russia. Could you tell if you received some reassurances from Donald Trump that no new sanctions will follow this time, or do you think sanctions may be imposed again? Or are you confident that there will no more sanctions? ..."
"... "Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. This is not our business; it is up to the United States to think about how they should build relations with Russia. I think we have mutual understanding that we should somehow get out of the situation that has emerged so far. But this is the same as with our colleagues and partners from the UK. It is an abnormal situation, it must be simply rectified; we must somehow find the strength to turn the page, to move on and to look to the future. It is the same in relations with the United States. ..."
"... "Let me reiterate, I meet with US businesspeople, including at the St Petersburg Economic Forum. 550 people went there. They want to work. That means jobs, that means goals the President of the United State is trying to achieve. I actually said in that interview that after the globalisation processes led to such big growth of the world economy, even the middle class in the United States felt they were left behind. While large corporation made huge profits, their management got a lot of advantages as did their partners, the middle class did not, not very much. Wages remained the same, and the standard of living began to grow a little. Jobs are needed and conditions to raise real incomes of US citizens. To achieve that they need to expand cooperation and work with everyone, including Russia. ..."
"... "They restricted the operation of their companies in the Russian market. We made calculations across some European countries, and it really amounts to lost profits. Cutting exports (our imports are their exports) amounts to tens of billions of euros. That means jobs, either job cuts or jobs that were not created. The same applies to the United States. I hope that sanity will prevail in the end." ..."
"... That is a polite way of saying that sanity is not prevailing at the moment. Putin pointing out that there is nothing Russia can do about the current relationship between the US and Russia leaves no illusions as to who the insane party is. It is not within Russia's power to make America sane. There are no magic words they can utter to fix what ails the US. ..."
"... Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism. ..."
"... Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism. ..."
"... The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation enjoys cultural freedom. ..."
"... Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with worker demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing and safe products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that. ..."
"... In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect : "the market does not and cannot take care of itself". ..."
"... Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market. ..."
"... For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing the plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of economic statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose. ..."
"... What you described is precisely a symptom of falling profitability. Financialisation, for example, only increases when the "real economy" is not profiting enough anymore. ..."
"... "If you try to understand how so many jobs have disappeared, the answer that you come up with over and over again in the data is that it's not trade that caused that -- it's primarily technology," Eighty percent of lost jobs were not replaced by workers in China, but by machines and automation. That is the first problem if you slap on tariffs. What you discover is that American companies are likely to replace its more expensive workers with machines." ..."
"... More evidence for Marx's Law: the USA was a victim of its own success, not of its own failures, nor because of alien enemies. ..."
In case there are others aside from myself interested in the G-20 outcomes, here are a few
links to what IMO's important. Go here to get the links to the
three main documents G-20 produced: "G20 Osaka Leaders Declaration," "Osaka declaration on
digital economy," and "G20 Osaka leaders' statement on preventing exploitation of the
internet for terrorism and violent extremism conductive to terrorism (VECT)." Pepe
Escobar's recap . Transcript of Putin's post G20 news
conference.
I hoped when I added the presser link to the Putin interview thread and hinted there
were connections between them that another line of analysis would develop, but it seems
participants were way to immersed/invested in the liberalism debate to bother.
From the press conference, I'd like to point-out one of the Q&As related to the
illegal sanctions regime, economic development and how they interact with Trump's 2016
Campaign Pledges as we begin the 2020 election cycle:
"Question: Mr President, you have given an extensive overview of different topics.
A short time after you last met with Donald Trump, the Americans introduced new sanctions
against Russia. Could you tell if you received some reassurances from Donald Trump that
no new sanctions will follow this time, or do you think sanctions may be imposed again?
Or are you confident that there will no more sanctions?
"Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. This is not our business; it is up to the United
States to think about how they should build relations with Russia. I think we have mutual
understanding that we should somehow get out of the situation that has emerged so far.
But this is the same as with our colleagues and partners from the UK. It is an abnormal
situation, it must be simply rectified; we must somehow find the strength to turn the
page, to move on and to look to the future. It is the same in relations with the United
States.
"I told you that we reasserted our wish to support the business community's proposal
regarding tools for the support of business initiatives. But it shows that the incumbent
Administration has intentions to somehow continue with this abnormal situation. I spoke
about our trade with the United States and with some other partners. Obviously, $25
billion in trade does not meet our interests and does not reflect our potential.
"That is why I have no idea if they will do anything or not. At any rate, one thing is
sure – we are not going to ask for anything. No means no. And if there is interest,
we will respond in kind and will do everything we can to turn the situation around.
"Let me reiterate, I meet with US businesspeople, including at the St Petersburg
Economic Forum. 550 people went there. They want to work. That means jobs, that means
goals the President of the United State is trying to achieve. I actually said in that
interview that after the globalisation processes led to such big growth of the world
economy, even the middle class in the United States felt they were left behind. While
large corporation made huge profits, their management got a lot of advantages as did
their partners, the middle class did not, not very much. Wages remained the same, and the
standard of living began to grow a little. Jobs are needed and conditions to raise real
incomes of US citizens. To achieve that they need to expand cooperation and work with
everyone, including Russia.
"They restricted the operation of their companies in the Russian market. We made
calculations across some European countries, and it really amounts to lost profits.
Cutting exports (our imports are their exports) amounts to tens of billions of euros.
That means jobs, either job cuts or jobs that were not created. The same applies to the
United States. I hope that sanity will prevail in the end."
It appears that Trump needs to end his Trade and Sanctions Wars (although all the
illegal sanctions aren't his doing) in order to bolster his reelection chances. The
questions are, Will the sanction hawks like Mnuchin try to impede such a policy change
since it seems to be required for domestic politics and How will D-Party candidates treat
the issue, particularly as several are hooked on Russiagate Koolaid?
And do please note the question about the interview at the end, Putin's answer and how
he put in within the context of the G20!
Great quote of Putin by karlof1 @39. That final sentence says much, though:
"I hope that sanity will prevail in the end"
That is a polite way of saying that sanity is not prevailing at the moment. Putin
pointing out that there is nothing Russia can do about the current relationship between the
US and Russia leaves no illusions as to who the insane party is. It is not within Russia's
power to make America sane. There are no magic words they can utter to fix what ails the
US.
A minor correction to dh-mtl @59 where it was claimed "[The globalists] lost power from
the mid-1930s to 1980."
The globalists were never actually out of power in the US. Instead they were confronted
with a massive upsurge in radical organized labor that threatened to remove them from
power. The globalists had to make very significant concessions to buy time for that labor
uprising to subside. That happened to take almost half a century, but throughout that
period the globalists retained power, though in a somewhat weakened form. They are back at
full strength now
'But to say any one nation "produced" the current global market economic system is a bit
like saying Yahweh created all the heavens and the earth in 6 days.'
I never suggested that 'one nation' produced this global system.
What I was suggesting is that perhaps the financial elites who benefit from, as you
describe it, a 'financial system created by and for the wealthiest elites wherever they may
call home', and who controlled Reagan and Clinton and W and Obama, Blair and Cameron and
Macron and Merkel and Aznar in Spain, etc., etc., and hundreds of MEPs in the European
parliament, and who created the U.S. Deep State, control virtually all of western
main-stream media, and who place their people in control of institutions such as the World
Bank, and IMF, and UN and WTO and BIS, and who decide the fate of the world every year at
Davos and the Bilderberg conference, might have had something the do with creating the laws
and treaties that created that system.
This sounds like a pretty effective political system to me, though definitely not
democratic.
Carter agreed to appoint Volker in order to save the bondholders by destroying the
domestic economy with interest rates over 20% which is what actually cost him the 1980
election. In 1978, McNamara was sent off to the World Bank to work in tandem with IMF to
begin the imposition of the euphemized Structural Adjustment Programs--the globalized
version of Neoliberalism.
'the Trump-nationalists and Brexiteers do not offer an effective solution to problem of
wealth inequality which is your complaint'.
Wealth inequality is not my complaint. My point is that 'dictatorship', whether it be in
the hands of 'wealthy global elites', military or other, cannot achieve acceptable outcomes
for a large, complex, modern society, and that excessive wealth inequality is a sure
indicator of dictatorship.
The Trump-nationalists and Brexiteers may not have an effective solution. But they are
convinced that what has been going on in their societies over the past 30 plus years has
definitely not worked for them either. My analysis is that they are trying to return to the
conditions in which the outcomes were much better for them.
My own conviction is that acceptable outcomes for a society can only be achieved when
the political leaders are working on behalf of the society as a whole, rather than for a
narrow privileged group, and especially a group that has little or no allegiance to the
nation-state, whose boundaries define the society.
When the political leaders are truly working on behalf of the population as a whole,
there is a wide variety of policy options that can work. Trial and error over time will
ensure that the policy options that are most appropriate for a particular society and its
circumstances will eventually emerge.
Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism.
Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as
autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism.
The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled
world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from
democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation
enjoys cultural freedom.
Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can
threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with
worker demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing
and safe products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that.
In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect
: "the market does not and cannot take care of itself".
The neoliberal project did not liberate markets so much as protect them by protecting
capitalism against the threat of democracy and to reorder the world where borders provide a
captive market
Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of
infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by
redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market.
For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing
the plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of
economic statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose.
Another example is getting government to accept monopoly capitalism over competitive
capitalism and have appointed judges who believe illegal collusion is nothing more than
understandable and legal "conscious parallelism"
What you described is precisely a symptom of falling profitability. Financialisation,
for example, only increases when the "real economy" is not profiting enough anymore.
It's important to highlight that the tendency of the profit rate to fall doesn't
necessarily means a company is losing money, but just that the profit rate is secularly
decreasing. Since it's a tendency, it also doesn't mean this fall happens linearly: capital
still operates in cycles. However, over the long term, profit rates will fall, no matter
what.
The biggest reason Trump can't bring back home these manufacturing jobs is because they
have been lost in large part to the success of 'efficiency' in the US Over the past
three-and-a-half decades, manufacturers have shed more than seven million jobs while
producing more stuff than ever. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported in The
Manufacturing Footprint and the Importance of U.S. Manufacturing Jobs that
"If you try
to understand how so many jobs have disappeared, the answer that you come up with over
and over again in the data is that it's not trade that caused that -- it's primarily
technology," Eighty percent of lost jobs were not replaced by workers in China, but by
machines and automation. That is the first problem if you slap on tariffs. What you
discover is that American companies are likely to replace its more expensive workers with
machines."
More evidence for Marx's Law: the USA was a victim of its own success, not of its own
failures, nor because of alien enemies.
When we speak of unadulterated capitalism and capital, we start with the most basic
capital we have, our hands. If I go and LABOUR by planting a tree and caring for it, the
fruit I consider mine. I might give those away at choice, or exchange them for something
else of value. That something eventually became known as money, a commonly recognised unit,
it's strength being that it could not be replicated, and its worth accepted in a wider
market by others. The fruit of a persons labour was transmitted to descendants and family
in tradition, in a society that respected that tradition. The whole process is very very
personal, including where extended business starts appearing.
Now, you want me to both accept taxation, where to not compete is a losing proposition,
and to accept that finance is able to conjure up replica money using that taxation as
basis, with which I have to compete with own earnings that are steadily purposefully
diluted - I take it very very very personally. What are you going to offer me, subsidy from
the pooled value now under your control ? Because it is a social and "fair" management of
reality ? Communism and socialism do not work, they remove the most natural good incentives
a person can have to actually go out and achieve anything, they dull what are otherwise
lively common understandings, they diminish societies that otherwise have open appreciation
for the effort of others. They try to own those, and they end up as dictatorships to try to
impose an own ideological dream. The same can be said of crony capitalism, which approaches
fascism.
That is why I subscribe to minarchic classical liberal notions of organisation, with
hard money and transparency of finance, as compromise. You know Iran and Saudi are gold
backed, don't you. You can figure out from that part of what is going on, maybe.
This is WSWS with their outdated dreams of "working class dictatorship" but some points and observation are very apt and
to the point.
Notable quotes:
"... The fraud of a "progressive" Democratic Party and presidential candidate was summed up in the near-universal declaration of the media that Senator Kamala Harris had emerged as the clear winner, part of a coordinated effort to promote her candidacy ..."
"... Harris climbed to the Senate by serving for years in the Bay Area of California as a law-and-order district attorney and state attorney general, defending police killers and bankers engaged in foreclosure fraud, including Trump's current treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been among the most rabid of Democrats in attacking Trump as a stooge of Russian President Putin. In Thursday's debate, her main foray into foreign policy was to denounce Trump for being soft on Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. ..."
"... She is being promoted most enthusiastically by those sections of the ruling class, whose views are promoted by the New York Times ..."
"... The Obama administration also deported more immigrants than any other, a fact that was raised in a question to Vice President Biden, who confined himself to empty declarations of sympathy for the victims of Trump's persecution, while denying any comparison between Trump and Obama. ..."
"... If these ladies and gentlemen decide not to engage on foreign policy, the reason is clear: the Democrats know that the American people are adamantly opposed to new military interventions. They therefore seek to conceal the preparations of American imperialism for major wars, whether regional conflicts with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or conflicts with nuclear-armed global rivals like China and Russia. ..."
"... On the first night, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, asked to name the greatest global security threat, replied, "The greatest threat that we face is the fact we are at a greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history." This remarkable declaration was passed over in silence by the moderators and the other candidates, and the subject was not raised on the second night at all, including by Bernie Sanders. ..."
Four hours of nationally televised debates Wednesday and Thursday among 20 Democratic
presidential candidates demonstrated the gigantic disconnect between the claims of this
pro-war, pro-corporate party to be driven by concerns for the well-being of working people
and the reality of poverty and oppression in America, for which the Democratic Party is no
less responsible than the Republicans.
The stage-managed spectacle mounted by NBC marked the formal beginning of an electoral
process dominated by big money and thoroughly manipulated by the corporate-controlled
media.
The attempt to contain the growing left-wing opposition in the working class and channel
it behind the second oldest capitalist party in the world necessarily assumed the form of
lies and demagogy. For the most part, the vying politicians, all of them in the top 10
percent on the income ladder, made promises to provide healthcare, jobs, decent schools,
tuition-free college and a clean environment for all, knowing full well they had no intention
of carrying them out.
No one -- neither the millionaire media talking heads asking the questions nor the
candidates -- dared to mention the fact that that Democratic Party has just voted to give
Trump an additional $4.9 billion to round up, detain and torture hundreds of thousands of
immigrants, including children, in the growing network of concentration camps being set up
within the US. Facts, as they say, are stubborn things, and this one demonstrates the
complicity of the Democratic Party in the fascistic policies of the Trump administration.
The second night of the debate featured the front-runners, former Vice President Joe Biden
and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Biden has a long record of reactionary politics,
including in the Obama administration. Sanders is continuing in this election his role in
2016 of channeling growing support for socialism into the framework of a right-wing
party.
The fraud of a "progressive" Democratic Party and presidential candidate was summed up in
the near-universal declaration of the media that Senator Kamala Harris had emerged as the
clear winner, part of a coordinated effort to promote her candidacy. The African-American
senator was lauded for attacking Biden for statements boasting of his ability in the past to
collaborate with segregationist senators and his past opposition to busing for school
integration.
It was Harris who adopted the most transparently bogus posture of left-radicalism in
Thursday night's debate, repeatedly declaring her agreement with Bernie Sanders and raising
her hand, along with Sanders, to support the abolition of private health insurance in favor
of a single-payer system. By Friday morning, however, she had reversed that stand, claiming
she had "misheard" the question and declaring her support for the continuation of private
insurance.
Harris climbed to the Senate by serving for years in the Bay Area of California as a
law-and-order district attorney and state attorney general, defending police killers and
bankers engaged in foreclosure fraud, including Trump's current treasury secretary, Steven
Mnuchin. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been among the most rabid of
Democrats in attacking Trump as a stooge of Russian President Putin. In Thursday's debate,
her main foray into foreign policy was to denounce Trump for being soft on Putin and North
Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
She is being promoted most enthusiastically by those sections of the ruling class,
whose views are promoted by the New York Times , who want the Democratic campaign to
be dominated by racial and gender politics so as to mobilize the party's wealthy upper-middle
class base and divert and divide the mass working class anger over social
inequality.
Many of the candidates fondly recalled the Obama administration. But those eight years saw
the greatest transfer of wealth from working people to the super-rich in American history.
The pace was set by the initial $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, which was expanded to
uncounted trillions in the course of 2009, combined with the bailout of the auto companies at
the expense of the autoworkers, who suffered massive cuts in benefits and a 50 percent cut in
pay for new hires, rubber-stamped by the United Auto Workers.
The Obama administration also deported more immigrants than any other, a fact that was
raised in a question to Vice President Biden, who confined himself to empty declarations of
sympathy for the victims of Trump's persecution, while denying any comparison between Trump
and Obama.
Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado attacked Biden for claiming credit for a bipartisan
budget deal in 2011 with Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Far from a genuine
compromise, he said, the deal "was a complete victory for the Tea Party. It extended the Bush
tax cuts permanently," as well as putting in place major cuts in social spending which
continue to this day. Bennet neglected to mention that he had voted for the deal himself when
it passed the Senate by a huge majority.
It was remarkable, under conditions where President Trump himself declared that the United
States was only 10 minutes away from launching a major assault on Iran earlier this month,
that the 20 Democratic candidates spent almost no time discussing foreign policy.
In the course of four hours, there were only a few minutes devoted to the world outside
the United States. The silence on the rest of the world cannot be dismissed as mere
parochialism.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates are deeply implicated in either the
policy-making or combat operations of US imperialism. The 20 candidates include two who were
deployed as military officers to Iraq and Afghanistan, Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard; Biden,
vice president for eight years and the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee; and five senators who are members of high-profile national security committees:
Harris and Bennet on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten
Gillibrand on the Armed Services Committee, and Cory Booker on the Foreign Relations
Committee.
If these ladies and gentlemen decide not to engage on foreign policy, the reason is
clear: the Democrats know that the American people are adamantly opposed to new military
interventions. They therefore seek to conceal the preparations of American imperialism for
major wars, whether regional conflicts with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or conflicts with
nuclear-armed global rivals like China and Russia.
In the handful of comments that were made on foreign policy, the Democratic candidates
struck a belligerent note. On Wednesday, four of the ten candidates declared the main global
threat to the United States to be China, while New York Mayor Bill de Blasio opted for
Russia. Many candidates referred to the need to combat Russian interference in the US
election -- recycling the phony claims that Russian "meddling" helped Trump into the White
House in 2016.
On the first night, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, asked to name the greatest
global security threat, replied, "The greatest threat that we face is the fact we are at a
greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history." This remarkable declaration
was passed over in silence by the moderators and the other candidates, and the subject was
not raised on the second night at all, including by Bernie Sanders.
You have probably seen the bumper sticker that says: "Shit Happens." Some people are just
lucky, I suppose, and odd coincidences mark their lives.
When he was just out of Columbia College and working for a reputed CIA front company,
Business International Corporation, Barack Obama had a chance encounter with a young woman,
Genevieve Cook, with whom he had a 1-2 year relationship.
Like Obama and at about the same
time, Cook just happened to have lived in Indonesia with her father, Michael Cook, who just
happened to become Australia's top spook, the director-general of the Office of National
Assessments, and also the Ambassador to Washington.
Of course, Obama's mother, as is well-known, just happened to be living in Indonesia with
Barack and Obama's step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian military officer, who had been
called back to Indonesia by the CIA supported General Suharto three months before the CIA coup
against President Sukarno. Suharto subsequently slaughtered over a million Indonesian
Communists and Indonesian-Chinese.
As is also well-known, it just so happened that Obama's
mother, Ann Dunham, trained in the Russian language, after teaching English in the US Embassy
in Jakarta that housed one of the largest CIA stations in Asia, did her "anthropological" work
in Indonesia and Southeast Asia financed by the well-known CIA conduits, USAID and the Ford
Foundation.
Then there is Cook's stepfather, Philip C. Jessup, who just happened to be in
Indonesia at the same time, doing nickel-mining deals with the genocidal Suharto
government.
Anyway, "shit happens." You never know whom you might meet along the way of life.
"... The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and international skepticism attests. ..."
"... Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown. ..."
"... Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something of an argument that began: ..."
"... He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out. Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf. They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share. Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. ..."
"... Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. ..."
"... There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were, they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack ..."
"... Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But he's not done with the disinformation exercise: ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification ..."
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based
on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the
area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in
the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US
government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible
investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike
Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media
ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo
and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and
international skepticism attests.
Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute
appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire
amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the
Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned
Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.
First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of
June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open
water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most
likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the
UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked
by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported
distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either
attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by
ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an
Iranian port.
Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to
the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.
Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who
made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something
of an argument that began:
This assessment is based on intelligence .
He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence
assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out.
Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf.
They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share.
Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had
a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that
Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first
claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US
doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had
operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After intelligence, Pompeo continued:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .
Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used
torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to
the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any
actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation
The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers
does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do
the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake
in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with
which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an
interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be
the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .
There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were,
they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six
examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019,
attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational
investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN
Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical
suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.
Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old
threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by
the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an
unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But
he's not done with the disinformation exercise:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high
degree of sophistication.
The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed"
mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could
know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word
garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence
necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:
Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace
and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of
escalating tension by Iran.
The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its
allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when
the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do
in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a
campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the
multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran
continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors
confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation,
which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them
into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its
promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US
threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.
Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming
they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has
observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long
record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other
rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how
implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:
40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin –
they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then
they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all
proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's
worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal,
including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of
"unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No
wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.
The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have
objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace
with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now.
Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in
forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president
from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war
with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a
whole new set of war crimes.
Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good
reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear
weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case
for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing
Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to
a nation that believes its lies to itself.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism,
and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from
Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first
published in Reader Supported
News . Read
other articles by William .
The New York Times is outraged, just outraged! -- that US anti-tank missiles have been found
in "unknown" Libyan rebel hands .
Of course, when tons of American military hardware was covertly sent to al-Qaeda linked
"rebels" fighting to topple Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and when those same weapons were later
transferred to the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria , many of them no doubt used by ISIS and
al-Nusra Front, the mainstream media didn't find much to complain about. But now the "scandal"
is being uncovered in 2019?
Currently, it's the UN-backed government in Tripoli which finds itself on the receiving end
of deadly accurate high-tech US-made weapons systems, according to
the Times :
Libyan government fighters discovered a cache of powerful American missiles , usually sold
only to close American allies, at a captured rebel base in the mountains south of Tripoli
this week.
The four Javelin anti-tank missiles, which cost more than $170,000 each, had ended up
bolstering the arsenal of Gen. Khalifa Hifter , whose forces are waging a military campaign
to take over Libya and overthrow a government the United States supports.
Markings on the missiles' shipping containers indicate that they were originally sold to
the United Arab Emirates, an important American partner, in 2008.
... ... ...
The Times report noted further, "If the Emirates transferred the weapons to
General Hifter, it would likely violate the sales agreement with the United States as well as a
United Nations arms embargo ."
Gen. Haftar -- who
solidified control of Eastern Libya over the past two years and swept through the south
early this year, has sought to capture Tripoli and seize military control of the entire
country, with the support of countries like the UAE and France, but is strongly opposed by
Turkey and most European countries.
Haftar has long been described by many analysts as "the CIA's man in Libya" -- given he
spent a couple decades living in exile a mere few minutes from CIA headquarters in Langley,
Virginia during Gaddafi's rule.
He was inserted back onto the Libyan battlefield before Gaddafi's eventual capture and field
execution at the hands of NATO supported Islamist fighters in 2011. The NYT offered further
details of the US weapons recovered this week
as follows :
Markings on the missile crates identify their joint manufacturer, the arms giants Raytheon
and Lockheed Martin , and a contract number that corresponds with a $115 million order for
Javelin missiles that was placed by the United Arab Emirates and Oman in 2008.
Again, isn't it a little late for the mainstream media to somehow only now discover and care
about the "scandal" of major US weapons systems in "unknown rebel hands" ?
For a trip down memory lane, and to review just what Obama and Hillary's original Libya war
has wrought, see Dan Sanchez's 2015 essay,
"Where Does ISIS Get Those Wonderful Toys?"
The CIA knows where these weapons are. All POTUS' know where these weapons are. The
Israelis know where these weapons are. The Saudis and UK know where these weapons are. What
is the problem?
" "We take all allegations of misuse of U.S. origin defense articles very seriously," a
State Department official
said in a statement following the Javelin anti-tank missile recovery.
"We are aware of these reports and are seeking additional information. We expect all
recipients of U.S. origin defense equipment to abide by their end-use obligations," the
statement continued. "
Hilarious. Do they expect the "unknown" rebels to just return them? If they're unknown,
how do tehy know they're rebels?
But i guess they're not worried under Obama thousands of these missiles were supplied to
Islamic Terrorists in Syria. And now Trump gave the green light to supply more missiles to
Turkish Islamic Terrorists in Syria. That are slaughtering Thousands of Syrian soldiers with
these missiles.
"... " China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. " ..."
"... In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word. ..."
"... Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the population, in a way that weakened them. Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed. ..."
A.B. Abrams: In the introduction to this work I highlight that a fundamental shift in world
order was facilitated by the modernization and industrialization of two Eastern nations –
Japan under the Meiji Restoration and the USSR under the Stalinist industrialization program.
Before these two events the West had retained an effective monopoly on the modern industrial
economy and on modern military force. Russia's image is still affected by the legacy of the
Soviet Union – in particular the way Soviet proliferation of both modern industries and
modern weapons across much of the region was key to containing Western ambitions in the Cold
War. Post-Soviet Russia has a somewhat unique position – with a cultural heritage
influenced by Mongolia and Central Asia as well as by Europe. Politically Russia remains
distinct from the Western Bloc, and perceptions of the country in East Asia have been heavily
influenced by this. Perhaps today one the greatest distinctions is Russia's eschewing of the
principle of sovereignty under international law and its adherence to a non-interventionist
foreign policy. Where for example the U.S., Europe and Canada will attempt to intervene in the
internal affairs of other parties – whether by cutting off parts for
armaments ,
imposing economic sanctions or even launching military interventions under humanitarian
pretexts – Russia lacks a history of such behavior which has made it a welcome presence
even for traditionally Western aligned nations such as the Philippines, Indonesia and South
Korea.
While the Western Bloc attempted to isolate the USSR from East and Southeast Asia by
supporting the spread of anticommunist thought, this pretext for shunning Russia collapsed in
1991. Today the West has had to resort to other means to attempt to contain and demonize the
country – whether labelling it a human rights abuser or threatening its economic and
defense partners with sanctions and other repercussions. The success of these measures in the
Asia-Pacific has varied – but as regional economies have come to rely less on the West
for trade and grown increasingly interdependent Western leverage over them and their foreign
policies has diminished.
Even when considered as a Western nation, the type of conservative Western civilization
which Russia may be seen to represent today differs starkly from that of Western Europe and
North America. Regarding a Russia Pivot to Asia, support for such a plan appears to have
increased from 2014 when relations with the Western Bloc effectively broke down. Indeed, the
Russia's future as a pacific power could be a very bright one – and as part of the up and
coming northeast Asian region it borders many of the economies which appear set to dominate in
the 21 st century – namely China, Japan and the Koreas. Peter the Great is
known to have issued in a new era of Russian prosperity by recognizing the importance of
Europe's rise and redefining Russia as a European power – moving the capital to St
Petersburg. Today a similar though perhaps less extreme pivot Eastwards towards friendlier and
more prosperous nations may be key to Russia's future.
The Saker: We hear many observers speak of an informal but very profound and even
game-changing partnership between Putin's Russia and Xi's China. The Chinese even speak of a "
strategic comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era ". How would you
characterize the current relationship between these two countries and what prospects do you see
for a future Russian-Chinese partnership?
A.B. Abrams: A Sino-Russian alliance has long been seen in both the U.S. and in Europe as
one of the greatest threats to the West's global primacy and to Western-led world order. As
early as 1951 U.S. negotiators meeting with Chinese delegations to end the Korean War were
instructed to focus on the differences in the positions of Moscow and Beijing in an attempt to
form a rift between the two. Close Sino-Soviet cooperation seriously stifled Western designs
for the Korean Peninsula and the wider region during that period, and it was repeatedly
emphasized that the key to a Western victory was to bring about a Sino-Soviet split. Achieving
this goal by the early 1960s and bringing the two powers very near to a total conflict
significantly increased prospects for a Western victory in the Cold War, with the end of the
previously united front seriously undermining nationalist and leftist movements opposing
Western designs from Africa and the Middle East to Vietnam and Korea. Both states learned the
true consequences of this in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there was a real risk of total
collapse under Western pressure. Attempts to bring an end to China's national revolution
through destabilization failed in 1989, although the USSR was less fortunate and the results
for the Russian population in the following decade were grave indeed.
Today the Sino-Russian partnership has become truly comprehensive, and while Western experts
from Henry Kissinger to the late Zbigniew Brzezinski among others have emphasized the
importance of bringing about a new split in this partnership this strategy remains unlikely to
work a second time. Both Beijing and Moscow learned from the dark period of the post-Cold War
years that the closer they are together the safer they will be, and that any rift between them
will only provide their adversaries with the key to bringing about their downfall. It is
difficult to comprehend the importance of the Sino-Russian partnership for the security of both
states without understanding the enormity of the Western threat – with maximum pressure
being exerted on multiple fronts from finance and information to military and cyberspace. Where
in the early 1950s it was only the Soviet nuclear deterrent which kept both states safe from
very real Western plans for massive nuclear attacks, so too today is the synergy in the
respective strengths of China and Russia key to protecting the sovereignty and security of the
two nations from a very real and imminent threat. A few examples of the nature of this threat
include growing investments in social engineering through social media – the results of
have been seen in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ukraine, a lowering threshold for nuclear weapons use
by the United States – which it currently trains Western allies outside the NPT to
deploy, and even reports from Russian and Korean sources of investments in biological warfare
– reportedly being tested in
Georgia, Eastern Europe and South Korea .
The partnership between Russia and China has become truly comprehensive, and is perhaps best
exemplified by their military relations. From 2016 joint military exercises have involved the
sharing of extremely
sensitive information on missile and early warning systems – one of the most well
kept defense secrets of any nuclear power which even NATO powers do not share with one another.
Russia's defense sector has played a key role in the modernization of the Chinese People's
Liberation Army, while Chinese investment has been essential to allowing Russia to continue
research and development on next generation systems needed to retain parity with the United
States. There is reportedly cooperation between the two in developing next generation weapons
technologies for systems such as hypersonic cruise and anti aircraft missiles and new strategic
bombers and fighter jets which both states plan to field by the mid-2020s. With the combined
defense spending of both states a small fraction of that of the Western powers, which
themselves cooperate closely in next generation defense projects, it is logical that the two
should pool their resources and research and development efforts to most efficiently advance
their own security.
Cooperation in political affairs has also been considerable, and the two parties have
effectively presented a united front against the designs of the Western Bloc. In 2017 both
issued strong warnings to the United States and its allies that they would not tolerate an
invasion of North Korea – which was followed by the
deployment of advanced air defense systems by both states near the Korean border with
coverage of much of the peninsula's airspace. Following Pyongyang's testing of its
first nuclear delivery system capable of reaching the United States , and renewed American
threats against the East Asian country, China and Russia staged near simultaneous
exercises near the peninsula using naval and marine units in a clear warning to the U.S.
against military intervention. China's Navy has on several occasions deployed to the
Mediterranean for joint drills with Russian forces – each time following a period of high
tension with the Western Bloc over Syria.
In April 2018, a period of particularly high tensions between Russia and the Western Bloc
over Western threats both to take military action against the Syrian government and to
retaliate for an alleged but unproven Russian chemical weapons attack on British soil, the
Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe traveled to Russia and more explicitly stated that the
Sino-Russian partnership was aimed at countering Western designs. Referring to the Sino-Russian
defense partnership as "as stable as Mount Tai" he
stated : "the Chinese side has come to show Americans the close ties between the Armed
Forces of China and Russia, especially in this situation. We have come to support you." A week
later China announced
large-scale live fire naval drills in the Taiwan Strait – which according to several
analysts were scheduled to coincide with a buildup of Western forces near Syria. Presenting a
potential second front was key to deterring the Western powers from taking further action
against Russia or its ally Syria. These are but a few examples Sino-Russian cooperation, which
is set to grow only closer with time.
The Saker: The US remains the most formidable military power in Asia, but this military
power is being eroded as a result of severe miscalculations of the US political leadership. How
serious a crisis do you think the US is now facing in Asia and how do you assess the risks of a
military confrontation between the US and the various Asian powers (China, the Philippines, the
DPRK, etc,).
A.B. Abrams: Firstly I would dispute that the United States is the most formidable military
power in the region, as while it does retain a massive arsenal there are several indicators
that it lost this position to China during the 2010s. Looking at combat readiness levels, the
average age of weapons in their inventories, morale both publicly and in the armed forces, and
most importantly the correlation of their forces, China appears to have an advantage should war
break out in the Asia-Pacific. It is important to remember that the for the Untied States and
its European allies in particular wars aren't fought on a chessboard. Only a small fraction of
their military might can be deployed to the Asia-Pacific within a month of a conflict breaking
out, while over 95% of Chinese forces are already on the region and are trained and armed
almost exclusively for war in the conditions of the Asia-Pacific. In real terms the balance of
military power regionally is in China's favor, and although the U.S. has tried to counter this
with a military 'Pivot to Asia' initiative from 2011 this has ultimately failed due to both the
drag from defense commitments elsewhere and the unexpected and pace at which China has
expanded and
modernized its armed forces.
For the time being the risk of direct military confrontation remains low, and while there
was a risk in 2017 of American and allied action against the DPRK Pyongyang has effectively
taken this option off the table with the development of a viable and growing arsenal of
thermonuclear weapons and associated delivery systems alongside the modernization of its
conventional capabilities. While the U.S. may have attempted to call a Chinese and Russian
bluff by launching a limited strike – which seriously risked spiraling into something
much larger – it is for the benefit of all regional parties including South Korea that
the DPRK now has the ability to deter the United States without relying on external support.
This was a historically unprecedented event, and as military technology has evolved it has
allowed a small power for the first time to deter a superpower without relying on allied
intervention. Changes in military technology such as the proliferation of the nuclear tipped
ICBM make a shooting war less likely, but also alters the nature of warfare to place greater
emphasis on information war, economic war and other new fields which will increasingly decide
the global balance of power. Where America's answer to the resistance of China and North Korea
in the 1950s to douse them with napalm, today winning over their populations through soft
power, promoting internal dissent, placing pressure on their living standards and ensuring
continued Western dominance of key technologies has become the new means of fighting.
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by Saudi Arabia's crown prince , played a key
role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its dominance over the Middle East and North Africa
– undermining Russian and Soviet aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and
Syria – in most cases with direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in
this respect referred to the agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping
them against our adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian
and Iranian militaries to the former President of
Afghanistan and the President
of Turkey , have all alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the
Islamic State for the sake of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has
increasingly slipped out of the Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will
increasingly be put into play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East
have been relatively limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang,
Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which
arguably poses the greatest threat.
The Saker: Do you think that we will see the day when US forces will have to leave South
Korean, Japan or Taiwan?
A.B. Abrams: Other than a limited contingent of Marines recently deployed to guard
the American Institute , U.S. forces are not currently stationed in Taiwan. The massive
force deployed there in the 1950s was scaled down and American nuclear weapons removed in 1974
in response to China's acceptance of an alliance with the United States against the Soviet
Union. Taiwan's military situation is highly precarious and the disparity in its strength
relative to the Chinese mainland grows considerably by the year. Even a large American military
presence is unlikely to change this – and just 130km from the Chinese mainland they would
be extremely vulnerable and could be quickly isolated from external support in the event of a
cross straits war. We could, however, see a small American contingent deployed as a 'trigger
wire' – which will effectively send a signal to Beijing that the territory is under
American protection and that an attempt to recapture Taiwan will involve the United States.
Given trends in public opinion in Taiwan, and the very considerable pro-Western sentiments
among the younger generations in particular, it is likely that Taipei will look to a greater
rather than a lesser Western military presence on its soil in future.
Japan and particularly South Korea see more nuanced public opinion towards the U.S., and
negative perceptions of an American military presence may well grow in future – though
for different reasons in each country. Elected officials alone, however, are insufficient to
move the American presence – as best demonstrated by the short tenure of Prime Minister
Hatoyama in Japan and the frustration of President Moon's efforts to restrict American
deployments of THAAD missile
systems in his first year. It would take a massive mobilization of public opinion –
backed by business interests and perhaps the military – to force such a change. This
remains possible however, particularly as both economies grow increasingly reliant on China for
trade and as the U.S. is seen to have acted increasingly erratically in response to challenges
from Beijing and Pyongyang which has undermined its credibility. As to a voluntary withdrawal
by the United States, this remains extremely unlikely. President Donald Trump ran as one of the
most non-interventionist candidates in recent history, but even under him and with considerable
public support prospects for a significant reduction in the American presence, much less a
complete withdrawal, have remained slim.
The Saker: Some circles in Russia are trying very hard to frighten the Russian public
opinion against China alleging things like "China want to loot (or even conquer!) Siberia",
"China will built up its military and attack Russia" or "China with its huge economy will
simply absorb small Russia". In your opinion are any of these fears founded and, if yes, which
ones and why?
A.B. Abrams: A growth in Sinophobic sentiment in Russia only serves to weaken the nation and
empower its adversaries by potentially threatening its relations with its most critical
strategic partner. The same is applicable vice-versa regarding Russophobia in China. Given the
somewhat Europhilic nature of the Russian state in a number of periods, including in the 1990s,
and the considerable European soft influences in modern Russia, there are grounds for building
up of such sentiment. Indeed Radio Free Europe, a U.S. government funded nonprofit broadcasting
corporation with the stated purpose of "advancing the goals of U.S. foreign policy," notably
published sinophobic content aimed at depicting the Russian people as
victims of Chinese business interests to coincide with the Putin-XI summit in June 2019.
However, an understanding of the modern Chinese state and its interests indicates that it does
not pose a threat to Russia – and to the contrary is vital to Russia's national security
interests. While Russia historically has cultural ties to the Western nations, the West has
shown Russian considerable hostility throughout its recent history – as perhaps is most
evident in the 1990s when Russia briefly submitted itself and sought to become part of the
Western led order with terrible consequences. China by contrast has historically conducted
statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not
measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. A powerful
and independent Russia capable of protecting a genuine rules based world order and holding
lawless actors in check is strongly in the Chinese interest. It is clear that in Russia such an
understanding exists on a state level, although there is no doubt that there will be efforts by
external parties to turn public opinion against China to the detriment of the interests of both
states.
The idea that China would seek to economically subjugate Russia, much less invade it, is
ludicrous. It was from Europe were the major invasions of Russian territory came – vast
European coalitions led by France and Germany respectively with a third American led attack
planned and prepared for but stalled by the Soviet acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. More
recently from the West came sanctions, the austerity program of the 1990s, the militarization
of Eastern Europe, and the demonization of the Russian nation – all intended to subjugate
and if possible shatter it. Even at the height of its power, China did not colonize the
Koreans, Vietnamese or Japanese nor did it seek to conquer Central Asia. Assuming China will
have the same goals and interests as a Western state would if they were in a similar position
of strength is to ignore the lessons of history, and the nature of the Chinese national
character and national interest.
The Saker: The Russian military is currently vastly more capable (even if numerically much
smaller) than the Chinese. Does anybody in China see a military threat from Russia?
A.B. Abrams: There may be marginalized extreme nationalists in China who see a national
security from almost everybody, but in mainstream discourse there are no such perceptions. To
the contrary, Russia's immense contribution to Chinese security is widely recognized –
not only in terms of technological transfers but also in terms of the value of the joint front
the two powers have formed. Russia not only lacks a history of annexing East Asian countries or
projecting force against them, but it is also heavily reliant on China in particular both to
keep its defense sector active and to undermine Western attempts to isolate it. Russian
aggression against China is unthinkable for Moscow – even if China did not possess its
current military strength and nuclear deterrence capabilities. This is something widely
understood in China and elsewhere.
I would dispute that Russia's military is vastly more capable than China's own, as other
than nuclear weapons there is a similar level of capabilities in most sectors in both
countries. While Russia has a lead in many key technologies such as hypersonic missiles, air
defenses and submarines to name a few prominent examples, China has been able to purchase and
integrate many of these into its own armed forces alongside the products of its own defense
sector. Russia's most prominent fighter jet for example, the Flanker (in all derivatives from
Su-27 to J-11D), is in fact fielded in larger numbers by China than by Russia itself –
and those in Chinese service have access to both indigenous as well as Russian munitions and
subsystems. Furthermore, there are some less critical but still significant sectors where China
does appear to retain a lead – for example it deployed combat jets equipped with a new
generation of active electronically scanned array radars and air to air missiles from 2017
(J-20 and in
2018 J-10C ) – while Russia has only done so this in July 2019 with the
induction of the MiG-35. Whether this is due to a Chinese technological advantage, or to a
greater availability of funds to deploy its new technologies faster, remains uncertain.
Russia's ability to provide China with its most vital technologies, and China's willingness to
rely so heavily on Russian technology to comprise so much of its inventory, demonstrates the
level of trust between the two countries
The Saker: Do you think that China could become a military threat to other countries in the
region (especially Taiwan, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc.)?
A.B. Abrams: I would direct you to a quote by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamed
from March this year. He stated: "we always say, we have had China as a neighbor for 2,000
years, we were never conquered by them. But the Europeans came in 1509, in two years, they
conquered Malaysia." This coming from a nationalist leader considered one of the most
sinophobic in Southeast Asia, whose country has an ongoing territorial dispute with China in
the South China Sea, bears testament to the nature of claims of a Chinese threat. It is
critical not to make the mistake of imposing Western norms when trying to understand Chinese
statecraft. Unlike the European states, China is not and has never been dependent on conquering
others to enrich itself – but rather was a civilization state which measured its wealth
by what it could its own people could produce. A harmonious relationship with India, Vietnam,
the Philippines and others in which all states' sovereign and territorial integrity is
respected is in the Chinese interest.
A second aspect which must be considered, and which bears testament to China's intentions,
is the orientation of the country's armed forces. While the militaries of the United States and
European powers such as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and France among others are heavily
skewed to prioritize power projection overseas, China's military has made disproportionately
small investments in power projection and is overwhelmingly tailored to territorial defense.
While the United States has over 300 tanker aircraft deigned to refuel its combat jets midair
and attack faraway lands, China has just three purpose-built tankers – less than
Malaysia, Chile or Pakistan. The ratio of
logistical to combat units further indicates that China's armed forces, in stark contrast
to the Western powers, are heavily oriented towards defense and fighting near their
borders.
This all being said, China does pose an imminent threat to the government in Taipei –
although I would disagree with your categorization of Taiwan as a country. Officially the
Republic of China (ROC- as opposed to the Beijing based People's Republic of China), Taipei has
not declared itself a separate country but rather the rightful government of the entire Chinese
nation. Taipei remains technically at war with the mainland, a conflict would have ended in
1950 if the U.S. had not placed the ROC under its protection. The fast growing strength of the
mainland has shifted the balance of power dramatically should the conflict again break out into
open hostilities. China has only to gain from playing the long game with Taiwan however –
providing scholarships and jobs for its people to live on the mainland and thus undermining the
demonization of the country and hostility towards a peaceful reunification. Taiwan's economic
reliance on the mainland has also grown considerably, and these softer methods of bridging the
gaps between the ROC and the mainland are key to facilitating unification. Meanwhile the
military balance in the Taiwan Strait only grows more favorable for Beijing by the year –
meaning there is no urgency to take military action. While China will insist on unification, it
will seek to avoid doing so violently unless provoked.
The Saker: In conclusion: where in Asia do you see the next major conflict take place and
why?
A.B. Abrams: The conflict in the Asia-Pacific is ongoing, but the nature of conflict has
changed. We see an ongoing and so far highly successful de-radicalization effort in Xinjiang
– which was taken in direct response to Western attempts to turn the province into 'China's Syria or
China's Libya,' in the words of Chinese state media, using similar means. We see a harsh
Western response to
the Made in China 2025 initiative under which the country has sought to compete in key
technological fields formerly monopolized by the Western Bloc and Japan – and the result
of this will have a considerable impact on the balance of economic power in the coming years.
We see direct economic warfare and technological competition between China and the United
States – although the latter has so far refrained from escalating too far due to the
potentially devastating impact reprisals could have. We further see an information war in full
swing, with Sinophobic stories often citing 'anonymous sources' being propagated by Western
media to target not only their own populations – but also to influence public opinion in
Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Influence over third parties remains vital to isolating China and
cementing the Western sphere of influence. Use of social media and social engineering, as the
events of the past decade have demonstrated from the Middle East in 2011 to Hong Kong today,
remains key and will only grow in its potency in the coming years. We also see a major arms
race, with the Western Bloc investing heavily in an all new generation of weapons designed to
leave existing Chinese and allied defenses obsolete – from laser air defenses to
neutralize China's nuclear deterrent to sixth generation stealth fighters, new heavy bombers,
new applications of artificial intelligence technologies and new hypersonic missiles.
All these are fronts of the major conflict currently underway, and the Obama and Trump
administrations have stepped up their offensives to bring about a new 'end of history' much
like that of the 1990s – only this time it is likely to be permanent. To prevail, China
and Russia will need to cooperate at least as closely if not more so as the Western powers do
among themselves.
The Saker: thank you very much for your time and answers!
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by
Saudi Arabia's crown prince, played a key role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its
dominance over the Middle East and North Africa – undermining Russian and Soviet
aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria – in most cases with
direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in this respect referred to the
agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our
adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian and Iranian
militaries to the former President of Afghanistan and the President of Turkey, have all
alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the Islamic State for the sake
of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has increasingly slipped out of the
Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will increasingly be put into
play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East have been relatively
limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang, Myanmar, the
Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which arguably poses
the greatest threat.
There is hardly such a thing called "Islamic Terrorism." In most egregious cases, such as
IS, etc., it can be shown that those lowlifes have been the mercenaries of the evil West and
their accursed implant in the ME (and nowadays the hindutvars too), collectively the avowed
enemies of true monotheism, Islam. I am including the recent Colombo attacks here.
How can any so-called "muslim" who is a tool-of-evil of the enemies of Islam, be a true
muslim? How then can it be termed "Islamic Terror"? Perhaps "Islamic Apostate Terror" would
be more suitable.
Of course, there are many other non-IS muslims who are called "terrorists." The
Palestinians, the Kashmiris, etc. For us muslims, they are simply freedom fighters.
Finally, there are a few muslims who do kill in the name Islam the Charlie Hebdo killers,
Bombay\Dhaka attackers, etc. Some of them are justified (due to intense provocations) and
others not at all. I will leave it for others to judge which falls under which category.
Perhaps the listed order will help decipher that.
It must be conceded, when it comes to setting the narrative of pure deceit, the West (and
its minions, the Jooscum and their lickspittle, the hindutvars), like in all things bad, can
be satanically good. We muslims are being decimated in the propaganda war.
We still got our True Monotheism though. The pagan/godless enemies of the Almighty One are
doomed to fail against it. God willing.
The American system ran on immigration that kept discontent about massive inequality under
control because a substantial proportion of the lowest SES were immigrants just glad to be in
the US. The tAmerican ruling class decided they could make more money by offshoring
everything that could be offshored and mass immigration to keep wags from going up in the non
offshorable parts of the economy.
China and America's venal globalising elite had converging agendas, but could not fool the
common people of America and their tribune . Even the military had began to get alarmed about
the economic growth and technological progress of China, which had been benefiting from
officially sanctioned preferential treatment by the US since Carter.
Free ride is over for China, we will see China's economic and military strength
progressively tested. What America built it can break.
China was made an economic superpower by the US elites. Not because they felt sorry for China
and wanted to speed up conversion to democracy by switching them to capitalist way of doing
business first.
They made them an economic superpower, because the US elites have lost their marbles. They
simply didn't see it coming. They wanted to turn China into one giant cheap sweatshop in
order to exploit their population with a low paying manufacturing jobs, which were never
supposed to make China reach.
But they did, because no matter how much the lost generation of the western elites were
foaming at their mouths about knowledge based economy, value added economy, high tech jobs
and the other crap, it is obvious that manufacturing remains a basis for any strong economy.
That doesn't look like it's going to change even when you add robots to the mixture.
I think that Napoleon was right when he warned the world about waking up the sleeping
dragon. First they made them an economic superpower, and now they want to contain them
militarily. Good luck with that.
There is a reason why China wants to build the silk road. Silk road implies land. The US
military has never been any good at land warfare. Neither where their predecessors –
the British. China, on the other hand, showed in Korea that even then, with a backward army,
equipped with handouts from the Soviet Union, they can pretty much trash the US army.
With the silk road initiative, China will seize the control of the entire Euro-Asian land
mass – the most populous and economically productive region of the world and will be
more than happy to let the US play pirates on the seas.
Abrams is giving the West too much credit for the Sino-Soviet rift of the late 5os and 60s.
That was NOT the doing of the CIA or Western Europe. It was 90% the fault of Mao who tried
to shove Khrushchev aside as the head of world communism. Because Stalin had treated Mao
badly, Krushchev wanted to make amends and treated Mao with respect. But Mao turned out to be
a total a-hole. There are two kinds of people: Those who appreciate friendly gestures and
those who seek kindness as 'weakness'.
It's like Hitler saw Chamberlain's offer as weakness
and pushed ahead. Being kind is nice, but one should never be kind to psychopaths, and
Khrushchev was nice to the wrong person.
Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as
'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be the new Stalin. He also made international statements
that made the US-USSR relations much worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence
with the West and pressed on for more World Revolution.
He also ignored Soviet advice not to
attempt radical economic policies (that were soon to bring China to economic ruin -- at least
Stalin's collectivization led to rise of industry; in contrast, Mao managed to destroy both
agriculture and heavy industry).
When Stalin was alive, he didn't treat Mao with any respect,
and Mao disliked Stalin but still respected him because Mao understood Power. With Stalin
gone, Khrushchev showed Mao some respect, but Mao felt no respect for Khrushchev who was
regarded as a weakling and sucker.
It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's
impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his
mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a
hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could
lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising.
Anyway, Putin and Xi, perhaps having grown up in less turbulent times, are more stable and
mature in character and temperament than Mao and Khrushchev. They don't see the Russo-China
relations as a zero sum game of ego but a way for which both sides can come to the table
halfway, which is all one can hope for.
@Priss Factor You are probably right about Hitler seeing (Neville) Chamberlain as weak.
But Hitler was a dupe for Britains much smarter and devious elites, who successfully played
him to do their bidding. Hitler, along with the major members of the nazis, had been
significantly influenced by Neville's elder cousin who spurred the nazis towards 'the
ultimate solution'.
Instead of being weak in the manner Hitler may have thought, Neville saved Hitler from his
own generals.
In historical turns , when Britain has appeared weak, it mostly is a deliberate faint.
Be it in Gallipoli, St Petersburg in 1919, Norway or Singapore in WW2.
Commendable contribution by Mr Abrams to enlighten the confused western establishment.
" China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a
civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and
subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. "
In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but
blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of
the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word.
Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the
population, in a way that weakened them.
Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed.
Americans cannot understand our relations with China by looking at events just the past 75
years. During the century before, European imperial powers and the United States treated
China as a open borders business opportunity backed by foreign military force. China was
infested by mini-colonies to profit from China's riches. The "Opium Wars" shock decent
Americans.
See better discussion at
platts.com "But US LNG could face problems of its own – the current low prices are forcing ever growing numbers of US producers
into bankruptcy. According to a recent report by Haynes and Boone, 90 gas and oil producers in the US and Canada have filed for bankruptcy
between January 2015 and the start of August 2016." So $2 price at Henry Hub should rise to at least $4 for companies to stay in business.
Notable quotes:
"... Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is produced domestically, the rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%. ..."
"... The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage. ..."
"... Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017. ..."
"... s mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines. This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources. ..."
"... This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe. ..."
"... Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG, a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security. ..."
"... The European countries do not appear to be dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" ..."
"... The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. ..."
One of the most important energy battles
of the future will be fought in the field of liquid natural gas (LNG). Suggested as one of the main solutions to
pollution , LNG offers the possibility
of still managing to meet a country's industrial needs while ameliorating environmental concerns caused by other energy sources.
At the same time, a little like the US dollar, LNG is becoming a tool Washington intends to use against Moscow at the expense of
Washington's European allies.
To understand the rise of LNG in global strategies, it is wise to look at a
graph (page 7)
produced by the International Gas Union (IGU) where the following four key indicators are highlighted: global regasification capacities;
total volumes of LNG exchanged; exporting countries; and importing countries.
From 1990 to today,
the world has grown from 220 million tons per annum (MTPA) to around 850 MTPA of regasification capacity. The volume of trade
increased from 20-30 MTPA to around 300 MTPA. Likewise, the number of LNG-importing countries has increased from just over a dozen
to almost 40 over the course of 15 years, while the number of producers has remained almost unchanged, except for a few exceptions
like the US entering the LNG market in 2016.
There are two methods used to transport gas.
The first is through pipelines, which reduce costs and facilitate interconnection between countries, an important example of
this being seen in Europe's importation of gas. The four main pipelines for Europe come from four distinct geographical regions:
the Middle East, Africa, Northern Europe and Russia.
The second method of transporting gas is by sea in the form of LNG, which in the short term is more expensive, complex and
difficult to implement on a large scale. Gas transported by sea is processed to be cooled so as to reduce its volume, and then
liquified again to allow storage and transport by ship. This process adds 20% to costs when compared to gas transported through
pipelines.
Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is
produced domestically, the
rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain
led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%.
The construction of infrastructure to accommodate LNG ships is ongoing in Europe, and some European countries already have a limited
capacity to accommodate LNG and direct it to the national and European network or act as an energy hub to ship LNG to other ports
using smaller ships.
"All of Europe's LNG terminals are import facilities, with the exception of (non-EU) Norway and Russia which export LNG. There
are currently 28 large-scale LNG import terminals in Europe (including non-EU Turkey). There are also 8 small-scale LNG facilities
in Europe (in Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway and Gibraltar). Of the 28 large-scale LNG import terminals, 24 are in EU countries
(and therefore subject to EU regulation) and 4 are in Turkey, 23 are land-based import terminals, and 4 are floating storage and
regasification units (FSRUs), and the one import facility in Malta comprises a Floating Storage Unit (FSU) and onshore regasification
facilities."
The countries currently most involved in the export of LNG are Qatar (24.9%), Australia (21.7%), Malaysia (7.7%), the US (6.7%),
Nigeria (6.5%) and Russia (6%).
Europe is one of the main markets for gas, given its strong demand for clean energy for domestic and industrial needs. For this
reason, Germany has for years been engaged in the Nord Stream 2 project, which aims to double the transport capacity of gas from
Russia to Germany. Currently the flow of the Nord Stream is 55 billion cubic meters of gas. With the new Nord Stream 2, the capacity
will double to 110 billion cubic meters per year.
The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation
to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria,
Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies
like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction
of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to
derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage.
Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore
in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in
perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017.
ENI's discovery has generated important planning for the future of LNG in Europe and in Italy.
Problems have arisen ever since Donald Trump sought to oblige Europeans to
purchase LNG from the US in
order to reduce the trade deficit and benefit US companies at the expense of other gas-exporting countries like Algeria, Russia and
Norway. As mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines.
This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne
gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into
its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources.
This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports
to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant
decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe.
But Europe finds itself in a decidedly uncomfortable situation that cannot be easily resolved. The anti-Russia hysteria drummed
up by the Euro-Atlantic globalist establishment aides Donald Trump's efforts to economically squeeze as much as possible out of European
allies, hurting European citizens in the process who will have to pay more for American LNG, which costs about a fifth more than
gas from Russian, Norwegian or Algerian sources.
Projects to build offshore regasifiers in Europe appear to have begun and seem unlikely to be affected by future political vagaries,
given the investment committed and planning times involved:
"There are currently in the region of 22 large-scale LNG import terminals considered as planned in Europe, except for the planned
terminals in Ukraine (Odessa FSRU LNG), Russia (Kaliningrad LNG), Albania (Eagle LNG) – Albania being a candidate for EU membership
– and Turkey (FSRU Iskenderun and FSRU Gulf of Saros).
Many ofthese planned terminals, including Greece (where one additional import terminal is planned – Alexandroupolis), Italy
(which is considering or planning two additional terminals – Porto Empedocle in Sicily and Gioia Tauro LNG in Calabria) , Poland
(FSRU Polish Baltic Sea Coast), Turkey (two FSRUs) and the UK (which is planning the Port Meridian FSRU LNG project and UK Trafigura
Teesside LNG). LNG import terminal for Albania (Eagle LNG), Croatia (Krk Island), Cyprus (Vassiliko FSRU), Estonia (Muuga (Tallinn)
LNG and Padalski LNG), Germany ( Brunsbüttel LNG), Ireland (Shannon LNG and Cork LNG), Latvia (Riga LNG), Romania (Constanta LNG),
Russia (Kaliningrad LNG) and Ukraine (Odessa).
Nine of the planned terminals are FSRUs: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and the UK. "In
addition, there are numerous plans for expansion of existing terminals, including in Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands,
Poland, Spain, Turkey and the UK."
Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share
of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not
surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG,
a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security.
The European countries do not appear to be
dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been
evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" This, however, is not the case with
all allies. Germany is not economically able to interrupt Nord Stream 2. And even though the project has many high-level sponsors,
including former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the project constantly seems to be on the verge of being stopped – at least in Washington's
delusions.
Even Eni's discovery of the gas field in Egypt has annoyed the US, which wants less competition (even when illegal, as in the
case of Huawei) and wants to be able to force its exports onto Europeans while maintaining the price of the LNG in dollars, thereby
further supporting the US dollar as the world's reserve currency in the same manner as the
petrodollar .
The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's
behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. The Europeans appear
prepared to set whatever course the US has charted them, one away from cheaper gas sources to the more expensive LNG supplied from
across the Atlantic. Given the investments already committed to receive this LNG, it seems unlikely that the course set for the Europeans
will be changed.
I live in Europe. I can honestly say that the people I know here prefer Russian gas. People are very ticked off about how the
US meddled in their gas supply and the structuring of the pipelines. Most feel that even if US LNG WAS competitive with Russian
gas price for now, that the US would in some way either increase prices or use it in some other way to control or manipulate the
EU. And sentiment towards USA tends toward resentment and distrust. That's not to say they are necessarily pro-Russia, but definitely
a wave of anti US is present.
US LNG pricing is based on Henry Hub which today is under $2.30/mmbtu.
Even adding in liquefaction and shipping costs, the price to the end user is extremely low.
Henry hub is projected to be sub $3 for DECADES!
Combine the low price with spot deliveries (pipe usually demands long term contracting commitments), and US LNG actually has
strong rationale for being accepted.
The statement above that US LNG cannot compete against Australia in Asia is preposterously false due to the VERY high buildout
costs of the Aussie LNG infrastructure.
Next year, Oz's first LNG IMPORT terminal at Port Kembla may well be supplied with US LNG.
The US has shown itself to be unreliable as a supplier of anything. Political posturing will always take precedence over any
international transaction.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia in your post can be said of the U.S.
I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to
project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary warfare , and thereby influence
events abroad. Depending on their size and infrastructure, they can be used as
staging areas or for logistical, communications and
intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have resulted in overseas military bases being established in
large numbers by world powers and the existence of
bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The U.S. has 36 listed here with none
of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
Whilst the left wants to go full throttle towards Wind and Solar, no one knows that the natural gas lobby is behind these sources
because both sources need a backup. While everyone talks "carbon footprint" they never discusses plant efficiency ( or
in the terms of engines brake specific fuel consumption and turbine specific fuel consumption ) in terms of thermal efficiency.
You know the boring stuff that plant operators stress over to make sure when your wife wakes up @ 3 in the morning to feed the
baby, the lights do go on, and they are creating that wattage in an cost affective manner. With that said, the king of thermal
efficiency i.e. burning a fuel to create electricity, is the Combined Cycle Natural Gas Power Plant. These plants combines a stationary
gas turbine buring natural gas to spin a generator and a boiler on the back side capture the waste heat to create steam to spin
a turbine to again add an input to the generator for a current state of the art of 61% efficiency . That means only 39%
going up the stack or for steam cooling to get your "Delta T" for the steam cycle to work. This 61% is vs maybe in the mid 40's
for a coal, oil plant or in the case of Nuclear just waste heat with nothing going out a stack. The greater wattage per fuel burned,
and the modularization of these Combined Cycle Plants aka have a series of 100mw turbines and bring them on line as needed, make
this a win-win IMHO for a massive refurbishing of our Utility base, with a host of benefits, before Gen 3 & Gen 4 Nuclear truly
take off again. These plants could be a great stop gap before Gen 3 & 4 are a reality. All the macinations towards wind and solar
and their disavantages aka being bird vegamatics, vistas being spoiled and huge swaths of land being used for panels make no sense
vs energy density of efficient plants. We are the Natural Gas King, lets not flare it anymore, and really, really leverage it
here, help allies, and use it for bringing bad behaving children of the world to the table ifyou will, if you want the candy,
behave....
Why do we have to treat other countries like we're the parent? We aren't. They are equal and fully functioning countries quite
capable of determining their own political and economic future...which may involve not trading or interacting with the U.S. Particularly
if we demand of them conditions we ourselves would never accede.
The Lithuanian FSRU "Independence" which was delivered from Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2014 to the port of Klaipeda drove
energy costs for heating through the roof and perhaps is one of the reasons the Prime Minister at the time only came in third
in the latest presidential elections. You can stay reasonably warm, eat or have money for medicine and other necessities. Pick
2 ONLY. Thank you USSA
Brainsick as Pompeo the US Pork without character.
As Long as Russia dlivery theier gas constantly and for a much better price then Us-Shale idiots, the ziocons only can lose.
We Europeans are not very impressed.
The biggest Capitalist economy on the planet needs to use mob tactics to push its over priced wares- seems 'long term' is not
part of their hit-and-run operation.
Now as for the article; apart from a few Eastern European Countries (The Ukraine, Poland etc.), I have seen no proof whatsoever,
that Europe is shifting to US LNG.
As for "As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?""; I am sorry,
but I think those days are over..... this can be seen in our Iranian stance, the 2 Russian pipelines - 1 being Nordstream II and
the other Turk-stream, increased trade with Russia, joining the the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and so on and
so on......
Slowly but surely the anti-Russia propaganda is dying. You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some people
all of the time (libtards), but you can't fool all the people all of the time. Europeans (the citizens) will question why they
should pay 20-30% more for their natural gas just to please America. Politicians better have an answer or change of policy if
they want to be reelected.
You gotta love the SCI. This shallowly-disguised Russian propaganda arm writes in the most
charming awkward idiomatic English, bouncing from a "false neutral" tone to a jingoistic
Amercia-phobic argot to produce its hit pieces.
Russian propaganda acts like Claude Raines in "Casablanca" : "i am shocked, shocked to
discover (geopolitics) going on here!" Geeeee, Europe and the US are in a struggle to
avoid Europe relying on Russia for strategic necessities like fuel, even if it imposes costs
on European consumers. If you have a dangerous disease, and your pharmacist is known for
cutting off their customers' vital drugs to extort them, you might consider using another
provider who not only doesn't cut off supplies, but also provides the police department that
protects you from your pharmacist's thugs who are known to invade customers' homes using the
profits from their own business.
The US provides the protective umbrella that limits Putin's adventurism. Russia cuts of
Ukraine's gas supplies in winter to force them into submission. Gasprom is effectively an arm
of the Russian military, weaponizing Russia's only product as a geopolitical taser. Sure, it
costs more to transport LNG across the Atlantic and convert it back to gas, but the profits
from that business are routinely funneled back to Europe in the form of US trade,
contributions to NATO, and the provision of the nuclear umbrella that protects Europeans from
the man who has publicly lamented the fall of the Soviet Union, called for the return of the
former SSRs, and violated the IRM treaty to place nuclear capable intermediate-range missiles
and cruise missiles within range of Europe and boasted about his new hypersonic weapons'
theoretic capability to decapitate NATO and American decision-making within a few minutes of
launch.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia
in your post can be said of the U.S. I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's
their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary
warfare , and thereby influence events abroad. Depending on their size and
infrastructure, they can be used as staging areas or for logistical,
communications and intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have
resulted in overseas military bases being established in large numbers by world powers and the
existence of bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and
military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The
U.S. has 36 listed here with none of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
"... More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good. ..."
"... Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option. ..."
"... A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled " Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense. ..."
"... "Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing nations." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic consequences." ..."
"... Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia". ..."
"... Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq. ..."
"... All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." – Henry Kissinger ..."
"... Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents? ..."
"... instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. ..."
"... funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America. ..."
"... if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important ..."
"... As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong: I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's also the fact that she's a CFR member ..."
"... Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out. ..."
"... All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden. ..."
After getting curb stomped on the debate
stage by Tulsi Gabbard, the campaign for Tim "Who the fuck is Tim Ryan?" Ryan
posted a statement decrying the Hawaii congresswoman's
desire to end a pointless 18-year military occupation as "isolationism".
"While making a point as to why America can't cede its international leadership and retreat from around the world, Tim was
interrupted by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard," the statement reads.
"When he tried to answer her, she contorted a factual point Tim was making -- about the Taliban being complicit in the 9/11
attacks by providing training, bases and refuge for Al Qaeda and its leaders. The characterization that Tim Ryan doesn't know
who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is simply unfair reporting. Further, we continue to reject Gabbard's isolationism and
her misguided beliefs on foreign policy . We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators
like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people."
Ryan's campaign is lying. During an exchange that was explicitly about the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ryan plainly said "When we
weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings." At best, Ryan can argue that when he said "they" he had suddenly
shifted from talking about the Taliban to talking about Al Qaeda without bothering to say so, in which case he obviously can't legitimately
claim that Gabbard "contorted" anything he had said. At worst, he was simply unaware at the time of the very clear distinction between
the Afghan military and political body called the Taliban and the multinational extremist organization called Al Qaeda.
More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a
costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything
other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good.
Under our current Orwellian doublespeak
paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable
opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option.
This is entirely by design. This bit of word magic has been employed for a long time to tar any idea which deviates from the neoconservative
agenda of total global unipolarity via violent imperialism as something freakish and dangerous. In
his farewell address to the nation , war criminal George W Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled "
Non-Interventionism
is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which
simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense.
"Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest
form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be
mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent."
"A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists
share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with
all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing
nations."
"A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within
nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling
itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and
non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic
consequences."
Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia".
Yet you'll see this ridiculous label applied to both Gabbard and Trump, neither of whom are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination,
or even proper non-interventionists. Gabbard supports most US military alliances and continues to voice full support for the bogus
"war on terror" implemented by the Bush administration which serves no purpose other than to facilitate endless military expansionism;
Trump is openly pushing regime change interventionism in both Venezuela and Iran while declining to make good on his promises to
withdraw the US military from Syria and Afghanistan.
Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm
not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this
while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending
disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq.
This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, virtually no one is a pure pacifist who opposes war under any and all possible
circumstances; anyone who claims that they can't imagine any possible scenario in which they'd support using some kind of coordinated
violence either hasn't imagined very hard or is fooling themselves. If your loved ones were going to be raped, tortured and killed
by hostile forces unless an opposing group took up arms to defend them, for example, you would support that. Hell, you would probably
join in. Secondly, equating opposition to US-led regime change interventionism, which is literally always disastrous and literally
never helpful, is not even a tiny bit remotely like opposing all war under any possible circumstance.
Another common distortion you'll see is the specious argument that a given opponent of US interventionism "isn't anti-war" because
they don't oppose all war under any and all circumstances.
This tweet by The Intercept 's Mehdi Hasan
is a perfect example, claiming that Gabbard is not anti-war because she supports Syria's sovereign right to defend itself with the
help of its allies from the violent extremist factions which overran the country with western backing. Again, virtually no one is
opposed to all war under any and all circumstances; if a coalition of foreign governments had helped flood Hasan's own country of
Britain with extremist militias who'd been murdering their way across the UK with the ultimate goal of toppling London, both Tulsi
Gabbard and Hasan would support fighting back against those militias.
The label "anti-war" can for these reasons be a little misleading. The term anti-interventionist or non-interventionist comes
closest to describing the value system of most people who oppose the warmongering of the western empire, because they understand
that calls for military interventionism which go mainstream in today's environment are almost universally based on imperialist agendas
grabbing at power, profit, and global hegemony. The label "isolationist" comes nowhere close.
It all comes down to sovereignty. An anti-interventionist believes that a country has the right to defend itself, but it doesn't
have the right to conquer, capture, infiltrate or overthrow other nations whether covertly or overtly. At the "end" of colonialism
we all agreed we were done with that, except that the nationless manipulators have found far trickier ways to seize a country's will
and resources without actually planting a flag there. We need to get clearer on these distinctions and get louder about defending
them as the only sane, coherent way to run foreign policy.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing
list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything
I publish. My work is
entirely
reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on
Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , purchasing some of my
sweet merchandise , buying my new book
Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone ,
or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click
here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
"If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
Fascinating belief, has he been to Libya lately, perhaps attended an open air slave Market in a country that was very developed
before the US decided to 'free' it.
When we weren't there, they flew planes into our buildings?
Excuse me mutant, but I believe we paid Israel our jewtax that year like all the others and they still flew planes into our
buildings. And then danced in the streets about it. Sick people.
All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." –
Henry Kissinger
Picture if you will Jesus. Seriously? Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can
you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents?
Do you see Jesus piloting a drone and killing Muslims, other non-believers, or anyone for that matter? Can you picture Jesus
as a sniper?
Soooo,,, If my favorite evening activity, is to sit on the front porch steps, while the dog and the cats run around, with my
shotgun leaning up next to me,,, Is that Isolationist, or Protectionist,,,
instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. we can't do **** if we're
glazed over in a nuclear holocaust. maybe Tulsi is lying through her teeth, but i am so pissed Trump went full neocon
funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY
projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America.
If you read her positions on various issues, a quick survey shows that she supports the New Green Deal, more gun control (ban
on assault rifles, etc.), Medicare for all. Stopped reading at that point.
We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad
who used chemical weapons on his own people.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ~ Joseph Goebbels
The better educated among us know exactly as to who Goebblels was referring to. Even a dullard should be able to figure out
who benefits from all of our Middle East adventures.
"Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer
peace, but isolationism. "
Under military might WAS the old world order... Under the new world order the strength is in cyber warfare .
If under technology the profiteers can control the masses through crowd control ( which they can-" Department of Defense has
developed a non-lethal crowd control device called the
Active Denial System (ADS) . The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target that is, millimeter wavelengths.
Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning.) your spending power ( they can through e- commetce and digital
banking) and isolation cells called homes ( they can through directed microwaves from GWEN stations).... We already are isolated
and exposed at the same time.
That war is an exceptable means of engagement as a solution to world power is a confirmation of the psychological warfare imposed
on us since the creation of our Nation.
Either we reel it in and back now or we destroy ourselves from within.
"
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly
has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important
Idiot, Tulsi is a sovereign nationalist on the left. You have just never seen one before. If you were truly anti-globalist
you'd would realize left and right are invented to divide us. The politics are global and national, so wake the **** up
""War Is the U.S. Racket!"" They are not good at it, there "great at it". My entire life 63yrs,they been fighting someone or
something. When times where rough in the 1800s,Hell! they fought themselves(Civil War. As I said b4 No one seems to ask, Where
does the gold go of the vanquished foe? Truly Is A Well Practiced Racket.
Good article with several salient points, thought I would ask "what's wrong with a little isolationism?" Peace through internal
strength is desirable, but good fences make good neighbors and charity begins at home!
The gradual twisting of language really is one of most insidious tactics employed by the NWO Luciferians. I think we'd all
like to see the traitorous Neocons gone for good. Better yet, strip them of their American citizenship and ill-gotten wealth and
banish them to Israel. Let them earn their citizenship serving in a front-line IDF rifle company.
As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong:
I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's
also the fact that she's a CFR member and avowed gun-grabber, to boot. Two HUGE red flags!
She almost strikes me as a half-assed 'Manchurian Candidate.' So, if she's elected (a big 'if' at this point) I ask
myself 'what happens after the next (probably nuclear) false flag?' How quickly will she disavow her present stance on non-interventionism?
How quickly and viciously will the 2nd Amendment be raped? Besides, I'm not foolish enough to believe that one person can turn
the SS Deep State away from it's final disastrous course.
These word games were already in use looong ago. Tulsi Gabbard is using Obama's line about fighting the wrong war. She
would have taken out Al Qaeda, captured Bin Laden, and put a dog leash on him. So that she could make a green economy, a
new century of virtue signalling tyranny. No thanks.
Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried
Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out.
All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden.
I went to some of the so-called liberal websites and blogs and the only mention of Gabbard is in the context of her being a
Putin stooge. This combined with the fact that virtually all establishment Republicans are eager to fight any war for Israel clearly
shows that it will take something other than the ballot box to end Uncle Scam's endless wars.
"... India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose. ..."
"... Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding behind Uncle Sams petticoat. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Trump is a bull in a china shop. Someone will have to pick up the pieces and it won't be the one percent. YOU and I are expendable. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants. ..."
leveymg on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 4:41pm In a surprise move, the EU special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran (INSTEX)
exercised its first trade today. The body was set up to facilitate exports of Iranian oil without U.S. dollars, avoiding a sanctions
regime imposed unilaterally by the U.S.
Instex is now operational despite U.S. threats to European banks and officials of reprisal sanctions if they violated Iran sanctions.
Bloomberg had reported on May 7 the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker,
issued a warning letter that Instex and anyone associated with it could be barred from the U.S. financial system if it goes into
effect.
In defiance of U.S. pressure, Instex was set up by EU diplomats in January as a means to prevent total collapse of the Iranian
nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The first official trades occurred today, in the
shadow of the Group of 20 Summit meeting.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/eu-claims-iran-deal-held-togethe...
A senior EU diplomat has said the first transactions were being made by a special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran at a
meeting of the remaining members of the 2015 nuclear deal in Vienna.
Friday's meeting in Vienna featured "constructive discussions," Helga Schmid, the head of the EU diplomatic service said, confirming
the entity, named Instex, was making its first transactions.
"INSTEX now operational, first transactions being processed and more EU Members States to join. Good progress on Arak and Fordow
[fuel enrichment] projects," she posted.
The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (Instex) is designed to facilitate trade of essential goods, such as food and
medicine, mainly from the EU to Iran. A Chinese official said Beijing was open to using the facility.
The platform has been set up in France, with a German managing director in a coordinated European effort to counterbalance
the US economic power displayed by its sanctions policy.
President Donald Trump last year pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions.
According to today's report:
As the talks kicked off on Friday, seven EU nations expressed support for Instex and the JCPOA, asking Iran "to abide by and
fully respect the terms and provisions of the nuclear agreement".
"We are working with France, Germany and the United Kingdom, as well as with the European External Action Service and the European
Commission, to establish channels to facilitate legitimate trade and financial operations with Iran, one of the foremost of these
initiatives being the establishment of Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges," read the statement from Austria, Belgium, Finland,
the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Whether the declaration of support and first tranche of transactions will be enough to keep Iran committed to the 2015 nuclear
deal is still in question.
Crucial for INSTEX's success will be whether participating states also develop mechanisms for European companies and their
employees that protect them from the expected American sanctions and compensate for any damages incurred. The legislative instrument
for this exists: The EU's blocking statute. It just needs to be updated to meet the new requirements.
Read more: US welcomes German firms' compliance on Iran sanctions
International transactions independent of the dollar
The knowledge and experience gained in the process could later be transferred to other areas, such as European initiatives
in international monetary transactions. This expertise could then come in handy for establishing payment channels independent
of the American financial system and the dollar, which the US also uses as a lever in its sanctions policy.
Two pieces of good news in two days, Tulsi Gabbard winning acknowledgement and respect in the debate, and this encouraging
sign from Europe. A person could almost get used to thinking common sense is gaining ground. Thank you, leveymg, for posting
this.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this baffling
part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week, Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would mainly
be for medicines and...food (?)
Right now, it's unclear which way this is going to go. If Europe bows to American power, again, it will turn out very badly
for everyone. Iraq times ten.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
...just fine. India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading
currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was
designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose.
Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding
behind Uncle Sams petticoat.
[edited to correct]
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did
before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement.
But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can
do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum of
our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest in
Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it
did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the
agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear
what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum
of our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest
in Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake
crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser
write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending
Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have
conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
"... This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington. ..."
"... That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same. ..."
"... To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the Iranian regime. ..."
"... the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel). ..."
"... Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon (Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism. ..."
"... The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense, but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and similar weapons. ..."
"... For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan, India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports. ..."
"... In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not territorial self-defense ..."
"... When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war levels. ..."
"... Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US security and oil interests. ..."
"... Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against biological and chemical weapons. ..."
"... Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces – some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for nukes. ..."
"... However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs. ..."
"... Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too. ..."
This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to
the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign
minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they
didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington.
That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland
and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same.
To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is
essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the
Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit
of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the
Iranian regime.
But as we have demonstrated previously, the best cure for high oil prices is the global
market, not the Fifth Fleet. And the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies
and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made
Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel).
Stated differently, the American people have no dog in the political hunts of Washington's
so-called allies in the region; and will be no worse for the wear economically if Washington
were to dispense with its idiotic economic warfare against Iran's 4 million barrel per day oil
industry and allow all exporters in the region to produce and sell every single barrel they can
economically extract.
Viewed in the proper context, Iran's response to the new sanctions and intensified efforts
to destroy their economy was readily warranted:
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the new sanctions "outrageous and stupid." Mr.
Khamenei, while the political leader of Iran, also is one of the world's leading authorities
for Shia Muslims.
"Would any administration with a bit of wisdom [sanction] the highest authority of a
country? And not only a political authority, a religious, social, spiritual one, and not the
leader of Iran only, the leader of the Islamic revolution all over the world?" Mr. Rouhani said
in a speech broadcast on state television.
He said it was "obvious" that the US was lying about wanting to negotiate with Iran: "You
want us to negotiate with you again?" Mr. Rouhani said, "and at the same time you seek to
sanction the foreign minister too?"
Iran also said these sanctions closed the door on diplomacy and threatened global
stability, as American officials renewed efforts to build a global alliance against
Tehran.
Unfortunately, it didn't take the Donald long to upchuck what amounted to a dangerous
tantrum:
.Iran's very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not
understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and
overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry
& Obama!
Those words are utterly reckless and outrageous. The Donald is carrying water for the
neocons, Bibi and the Saudis without really understanding what he is doing and in the process
is betraying America First and inching closer to an utterly unnecessary conflagration in the
Persian Gulf that will virtually upend the global economy.
Worst of all, as he escalates the confrontation with the Iranian regime, he espouses a pack
of lies and distortions that do no remotely comport with the facts. For instance, the following
tweet is absolutely neocon baloney:
.The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their leadership
spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The US has not forgotten Iran's
use of IED's & EFP's (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded many
more
The truth of the matter is that the Donald is referring to attacks on US forces by the
Shiite militias in Iraq during Washington's misbegotten invasion and occupation of that
woebegone nation during the last decades. The Shiite live there, constitute the majority of its
electorate, didn't want America there in the first place, and now actually run the government
that Washington placed in power and are totally opposed to Trump's confrontation with their
Shiite compatriots in Iran.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Better still, it is crucial to understand that this entire dangerous escalation is owing to
the fact that the Donald got into his thick head that utter nonsense that the Iran nuke deal
was some kind of disaster, and from there walked-away from the deal and restarted a brutal
economic war against Iran in the guise of sanctions.
But nothing could be further from the truth. The Donald's action to terminate the Iranian
nuclear deal was a complete triumph for the War Party.
It gutted the very idea of America First because Washington's renewed round of
sanctions constitute economic aggression against a country that is no threat to the US homeland
whatsoever.
In fact, Iran did not violate any term of the nuke deal, and as we demonstrate below,
scrupulously adhered to the letter of it. So the real reasons for Trump's abandonment of the
nuke deal have everything to do with the kind of Imperial interventionism that is the
antithesis of America First.
Trump's action, in fact, is predicated on the decades long neocon-inspired Big Lie that Iran
is an aggressive expansionist and terrorism-supporting rogue state which threatens the security
of not just the region, but America too.
But that's flat out poppycock. As we documented last week, the claim that Iran is the
expansionist leader of the Shiite Crescent is based on nothing more than the fact that Tehran
has an independent foreign policy based on its own interests and confessional affiliations
– legitimate relationships that are demonized by virtue of not being approved by
Washington.
Likewise, the official charge that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism is not
remotely warranted by the facts: The listing is essentially a State Department favor to the
Netanyahu branch of the War Party.
The fact is, the Iranian regime with its piddling $14 billion military budget has no means
to attack America militarily and has never threatened to do so. Nor has it invaded any other
country in the region where it was not invited by a sovereign government host.
As Ron Paul cogently observed:
Is Iran really the aggressive one? When you unilaterally pull out of an agreement that
was reducing tensions and boosting trade; when you begin applying sanctions designed to
completely destroy another country's economy; when you position military assets right offshore
of that country; when you threaten to destroy that country on a regular basis, calling it a
campaign of "maximum pressure," to me it seems a stretch to play the victim when that country
retaliates by shooting a spy plane that is likely looking for the best way to attack.
Even if the US spy plane was not in Iranian airspace – but it increasingly looks
like it was – it was just another part of an already-existing US war on Iran. Yes,
sanctions are a form of war, not a substitute for war.
The point is Washington's case is almost entirely bogus. To wit:
Mr. Trump also reiterated his demands Monday at the White House: "We will continue to
increase pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its
aspirations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium,
development of ballistic missiles, engagement in and support for terrorism, fueling of foreign
conflicts, and belligerent acts directed against the United States and its allies."
Let's see about those "dangerous activities and aspirations".
In fact, Iran has no blue water navy that could effectively operate outside of the Persian
Gulf; its longest range warplanes can barely get to Rome without refueling; and its array of
mainly defensive medium and intermediate range missiles cannot strike most of NATO, to say
nothing of the North American continent.
Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington
proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon
(Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of
Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of
unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously
labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism.
The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and
intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense,
but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of
practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and
similar weapons.
For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO
supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan,
India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a
hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports.
In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not
territorial self-defense. It is a testament to the manner in which the historic notion of
national defense has morphed into Washington's arrogant claim that it constitutes the
"Indispensable Nation" which purportedly stands as mankind's bulwark against global disorder
and chaos among nations.
Likewise, the Shiite theocracy ensconced in Tehran was an unfortunate albatross on the
Persian people, but it was no threat to America's safety and security. The very idea that
Tehran is an expansionist power bent on exporting terrorism to the rest of the world is a giant
fiction and tissue of lies invented by the Washington War Party and its Bibi Netanyahu branch
in order to win political support for their confrontationist policies.
Indeed, the three decade long demonization of Iran has served one overarching purpose.
Namely, it enabled both branches of the War Party to conjure up a fearsome enemy, thereby
justifying aggressive policies that call for a constant state of war and military
mobilization.
When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind
of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the
suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian
doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war
levels.
And the narrative they developed to this end is one of the more egregious Big Lies ever to
come out of the beltway. It puts you in mind of the young boy who killed his parents, and then
threw himself on the mercy of the courts on the grounds that he was an orphan!
To wit, during the 1980s the neocons in the Reagan Administration issued their own fatwa
again the Islamic Republic of Iran based on its rhetorical hostility to America. Yet that
enmity was grounded in Washington's 25-year support for the tyrannical and illegitimate regime
of the Shah, and constituted a founding narrative of the Islamic Republic that was not much
different than America's revolutionary castigation of King George.
That the Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA
overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and
megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US
security and oil interests.
During the subsequent decades the Shah not only massively and baldly plundered the wealth of
the Persian nation. With the help of the CIA and US military, he also created a brutal secret
police force known as the Savak, which made the East German Stasi look civilized by
comparison.
All elements of Iranian society including universities, labor unions, businesses, civic
organizations, peasant farmers and many more were subjected to intense surveillance by the
Savak agents and paid informants. As one critic described it:
Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain,
brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons
in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the
country as well.
Ironically, among his many grandiose follies, the Shah embarked on a massive civilian
nuclear power campaign in the 1970s, which envisioned literally paving the Iranian landscape
with dozens of nuclear power plants.
He would use Iran's surging oil revenues after 1973 to buy all the equipment required from
Western companies – and also fuel cycle support services such as uranium enrichment
– in order to provide his kingdom with cheap power for centuries.
At the time of the Revolution, the first of these plants at Bushehr was nearly complete, but
the whole grandiose project was put on hold amidst the turmoil of the new regime and the onset
of Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in September 1980. As a consequence, a $2 billion deposit
languished at the French nuclear agency that had originally obtained it from the Shah to fund a
ramp-up of its enrichment capacity to supply his planned battery of reactors.
Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was
not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst
of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa
against biological and chemical weapons.
Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces
– some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking
satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture
was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for
nukes.
However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not
consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own
forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs.
Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some
additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French
enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German
suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion
deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too.
To make a long story short, the entire subsequent history of off again/on again efforts by
the Iranians to purchase dual use equipment and components on the international market, often
from black market sources like Pakistan, was in response to Washington's relentless efforts to
block its legitimate rights as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to
complete some parts of the Shah's civilian nuclear project.
Needless to say, it did not take much effort by the neocon "regime change" fanatics which
inhabited the national security machinery, especially after the 2000 election, to spin every
attempt by Iran to purchase even a lowly pump or pipe fitting as evidence of a secret campaign
to get the bomb.
The exaggerations, lies, distortions and fear-mongering which came out of this neocon
campaign are downright despicable. Yet they incepted way back in the early 1990s when George
H.W. Bush actually did reach out to the newly elected government of Hashemi Rafsanjani to bury
the hatchet after it had cooperated in obtaining the release of American prisoners being held
in Lebanon in 1989.
Rafsanjani was self-evidently a pragmatist who did not want conflict with the United States
and the West; and after the devastation of the eight year war with Iraq was wholly focused on
economic reconstruction and even free market reforms of Iran's faltering economy.
It is one of the great tragedies of history that the neocons managed to squelch even George
Bush's better instincts with respect to rapprochement with Tehran.
The Neocon Big Lie About Iranian Nukes And Terrorism
So the prisoner release opening was short-lived – especially after the top post at the
CIA was assumed in 1991 by Robert Gates. As one of the very worst of the unreconstructed cold
war apparatchiks, it can be well and truly said that Gates looked peace in the eye and then
elected to pervert John Quincy Adams' wise maxim by searching the globe for monsters to
fabricate.
In this case the motivation was especially loathsome. Gates had been Bill Casey's right hand
man during the latter's rogue tenure at the CIA in the Reagan administration. Among the many
untoward projects that Gates shepherded was the Iran-Contra affair that nearly destroyed his
career when it blew-up, and for which he blamed the Iranians for its public disclosure.
From his post as deputy national security director in 1989 and then as CIA head Gates pulled
out all the stops to get even. Almost single-handedly he killed-off the White House goodwill
from the prisoner release, and launched the blatant myth that Iran was both sponsoring
terrorism and seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.
Indeed, it was Gates who was the architect of the demonization of Iran that became a staple
of War Party propaganda after the 1991. In time that morphed into the utterly false claim that
Iran is an aggressive wanna be hegemon that is a fount of terrorism and is dedicated to the
destruction of the state of Israel, among other treacherous purposes.
That giant lie was almost single-handedly fashioned by the neocons and Bibi Netanyahu's
coterie of power-hungry henchman after the mid-1990s. Indeed, the false claim that Iran posses
an "existential threat" to Israel is a product of the pure red meat domestic Israeli politics
that have kept Bibi in power for much of the last two decades.
But the truth is Iran has only a tiny fraction of Israel's conventional military capability.
And compared to the latter's 100 odd nukes, Iran has never had a nuclear weaponization program
after a small scale research program was ended in 2003.
That is not merely our opinion. It's been the sober assessment of the nation's top 17
intelligence agencies in the official National Intelligence Estimates ever since 2007. And now
in conjunction with a further study undertaken pursuant to the 2015 nuke deal, the IAEA has
also concluded the Iran had no secret program after 2003.
On the political and foreign policy front, Iran is no better or worse than any of the other
major powers in the Middle East. In many ways it is far less of a threat to regional peace and
stability than the military butchers who now run Egypt on $1.5 billion per year of US aid.
And it is surely no worse than the royal family tyrants who squander the massive oil
resources of Saudi Arabia in pursuit of unspeakable opulence and decadence to the detriment of
the 30 million citizens which are not part of the regime, and who one day may well reach the
point of revolt.
When it comes to the support of terrorism, the Saudis have funded more jihadists and
terrorists throughout the region than Iran ever even imagined.
In fact, Iran is a nearly bankrupt country that has no capability whatsoever to
threaten the security and safety of the citizens of Spokane WA, Peoria IL or anywhere else in
the USA.
Its $460 billion GDP is the size of Indiana's and its 68,000 man military is only slightly
larger than the national guard of Texas.
It is a land of severe mountains and daunting swamps that are not all that conducive to
rapid economic progress and advanced industrialization. It has no blue water navy, no missiles
with more than a few hundred miles of range, and, we must repeat again, has had no nuclear
weapons program for more than a decade.
Moreover, Donald's incessant charge that the Obama Administration gave away the store during
the nuke deal negotiations that led to the JCPA is just blatant nonsense. In fact, the Iranians
made huge concessions on nearly every issue that made a difference.
That included deep concessions on the number of permitted centrifuges at Natanz; the
dismantlement of the Fordow and Arak nuclear operations; the virtually complete liquidation of
its enriched uranium stockpiles; the intrusiveness and scope of the inspections regime; and the
provisions with respect to Iran's so-called "breakout" capacity.
For instance, while every signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has the right to
civilian enrichment, Iran agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges by 70% from 20,000 to
6,000.
And its effective spinning capacity was reduced by significantly more. That's because the
permitted Natanz centrifuges now consist exclusively of its most rudimentary, outdated
equipment – first-generation IR-1 knockoffs of 1970s European models.
Not only was Iran not be allowed to build or develop newer models, but even those remaining
were permitted to enrich uranium to a limit of only 3.75% purity. That is to say, to the
generation of fissile material that is not remotely capable of reaching bomb grade
concentrations of 90%.
Equally importantly, pursuant to the agreement Iran has eliminated enrichment activity
entirely at its Fordow plant – a facility that had been Iran's one truly advanced,
hardened site that could withstand an onslaught of Israeli or US bunker busters.
Instead, Fordow has become a small time underground science lab devoted to medical isotope
research and crawling with international inspectors. In effectively decommissioning Fordow and
thereby eliminating any capacity to cheat from a secure facility – what Iran got in
return was at best a fig leave of salve for its national pride.
The disposition of the reactor at Arak has been even more dispositive. For years, the War
Party has falsely waved the bloody shirt of "plutonium" because the civilian nuclear reactor
being built there was of Canadian "heavy water" design rather than GE or Westinghouse "light
water" design; and, accordingly, when finished it would have generated plutonium as a waste
product rather than conventional spent nuclear fuel rods.
In truth, the Iranians couldn't have bombed a beehive with the Arak plutonium because you
need a reprocessing plant to convert it into bomb grade material. Needless to say, Iran never
had such a plant – nor any plans to build one, and no prospect for getting the requisite
technology and equipment.
But now even that bogeyman no longer exists. Iran removed and destroyed the reactor core of
its existing Arak plant in 2016 and filled it with cement, as attested to by international
inspectors under the JCPA.
As to its already existing enriched stock piles, including some 20% medical-grade material,
97% has been eliminated as per the agreement. That is, Iran now holds only 300 kilograms of its
10,000 kilogram stockpile in useable or recoverable form. Senator Kirk could store what is left
in his wine cellar.
But where the framework agreement decisively shut down the War Party was with respect to its
provision for a robust, comprehensive and even prophylactic inspections regime. All of the
major provision itemized above are being enforced by continuous IAEA access to existing
facilities including its main centrifuge complex at Natanz – along with Fordow, Arak and
a half dozen other sites.
Indeed, the real breakthrough in the JCPA lies in Iran's agreement to what amounts to a
cradle-to-grave inspection regime. It encompasses the entire nuclear fuel chain.
That means international inspectors can visit Iran's uranium mines and milling and fuel
preparation operations. This encompasses even its enrichment equipment manufacturing and
fabrication plants, including centrifuge rotor and bellows production and storage
facilities.
Beyond that, Iran has also been subject to a robust program of IAEA inspections to prevent
smuggling of materials into the country to illicit sites outside of the named facilities under
the agreement. This encompasses imports of nuclear fuel cycle equipment and materials,
including so-called "dual use" items which are essentially civilian imports that can be
repurposed to nuclear uses, even peaceful domestic power generation.
In short, not even a Houdini could secretly breakout of the control box established by the
JCPA and confront the world with some kind of fait accompli threat to use the bomb.
That's because what it would take to do so is absurdly implausible. That is, Iran would need
to secretly divert thousands of tons of domestically produced or imported uranium and then
illicitly mill and upgrade such material at secret fuel preparation plants.
It would also need to secretly construct new, hidden enrichment operations of such massive
scale that they could house more than 10,000 new centrifuges. Moreover, they would need to
build these massive spinning arrays from millions of component parts smuggled into the country
and transported to remote enrichment operations – all undetected by the massive complex
of spy satellites overhead and covert US ands Israeli intelligence agency operatives on the
ground in Iran.
Finally, it would require the activation from scratch of a weaponization program which has
been dormant according to the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) for more than a decade.
And then, that the Iranian regime – after cobbling together one or two bombs without
testing them or their launch vehicles – would nevertheless be willing to threaten to use
them sight unseen.
So just stop it!
You need to be a raging, certifiable paranoid boob to believe that the Iranians can break
out of this framework box based on a secret new capacity to enrich the requisite fissile
material and make a bomb.
In the alternative scenario, you have to be a willful know-nothing to think that if it
publicly repudiates the agreement, Iran could get a bomb overnight before the international
community could take action.
To get enough nuclear material to make a bomb from the output of the 5,000 "old and slow"
centrifuges remaining at Natanz would take years, not months. And if subject to an embargo on
imported components, as it would be after a unilateral Iranian repudiation of the JCPA, it
could not rebuild its now dismantled enrichment capacity rapidly, either.
At the end of the day, in fact, what you really have to believe is that Iran is run by
absolutely irrational, suicidal madmen. After all, even if they managed to defy the immensely
prohibitive constraints described above and get one or a even a few nuclear bombs, what in the
world would they do with them?
Drop them on Tel Aviv? That would absolutely insure Israel's navy and air force would
unleash its 100-plus nukes and thereby incinerate the entire industrial base and major
population centers of Iran.
Indeed, the very idea that deterrence would fail even if a future Iranian regime were to
defy all the odds, and also defy the fatwa against nuclear weapons issued by their Supreme
Leader, amounts to one of the most preposterous Big Lies ever concocted.
There is no plausible or rational basis for believing it outside of the axis-of-evil
narrative. So what's really behind Trump's withdrawal from the JCPA is nothing more than the
immense tissue of lies and unwarranted demonization of Iran that the War Party has fabricated
over the last three decades.
Iran Never Wanted the Bomb
At bottom, all the hysteria about the mullahs getting the bomb was based on the wholly
theoretically supposition that they wanted civilian enrichment only as a stepping stone to the
bomb. Yet the entirety of the US intelligence complex as well as the attestation of George W.
Bush himself say it isn't so.
As we have previously indicated, the blinding truth of that proposition first came in the
National Intelligence Estimates of 2007. These NIEs represent a consensus of all 17 US
intelligence agencies on salient issues each year, and on the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons
program they could not have been more unequivocal:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear
weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We assess with moderate confidence Tehran
had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it
currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
"Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach
rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military
costs."
Moreover, as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern noted recently, the NIE's have not changed
since then.
An equally important fact ignored by the mainstream media is that the key judgments of
that NIE have been revalidated by the intelligence community every year since.
More crucially, there is the matter of "Dubya's" memoirs. Near the end of his term in office
he was under immense pressure to authorize a bombing campaign against Iran's civilian nuclear
facilities.
But once the 2007 NIEs came out, even the "mission accomplished" President in the bomber
jacket was caught up short. As McGovern further notes,
Bush lets it all hang out in his memoir, Decision Points. Most revealingly, he complains
bitterly that the NIE "tied my hands on the military side" and called its findings
"eye-popping."
A disgruntled Bush writes, "The backlash was immediate ."I don't know why the NIE was
written the way it was. Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact – and not a
good one."
Spelling out how the Estimate had tied his hands "on the military side," Bush included
this (apparently unedited) kicker: "But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had
no active nuclear weapons program?"
So there you have it. How is it possible to believe that the Iranian's were hell-bent on a
nuclear holocaust when they didn't even have a nuclear weapons program?
And why in the world is the Donald taking America and the world to the edge of a utterly
unnecessary war in order to force a better deal when the one he shit-canned was more than
serviceable?
The answer to that momentous questions lies with the Bombzie Twins (Pompeo and Bolton) and
the malign influence of the Donald's son-in-law and Bibi Netanyahu toady, Jared Kushner.
Rarely have a small group of fanatics more dangerously and wantonly jeopardized the
security, blood and treasure of the American people.
At the same time, the administration has signaled in recent days that it plans to let the
New Start treaty, negotiated by Barack Obama, expire in February 2021 rather than renew it
for another five years. John R. Bolton, the president's national security adviser, who met
with his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, in Jerusalem this week, said before leaving
Washington that "there's no decision, but I think it's unlikely" the treaty would be
renewed.
Mr. Bolton, a longtime skeptic of arms control agreements, said that New Start was flawed
because it did not cover short-range tactical nuclear weapons or new Russian delivery
systems. "So to extend for five years and not take these new delivery system threats into
account would be malpractice," he told The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet.
Like all of his complaints about arms control agreements, Bolton's criticisms of New START
are made in bad faith. Opponents of New START have long pretended that they oppose the treaty
because it did not cover everything imaginable, including tactical nuclear weapons, but this
has always been an excuse for them to reject a treaty that they have never wanted ratified in
the first place. If the concern about negotiating a treaty that covered tactical nuclear
weapons were genuine, the smart thing to do would be to extend New START and then begin
negotiations for a more comprehensive arms control agreement. Faulting New START for failing to
include things that are by definition not going to be included in a strategic arms reduction
treaty gives the game away. This is what die-hard opponents of the treaty have been doing for
almost ten years, and they do it because they want to dismantle the last vestiges of arms
control. The proposal to include China as part of a new treaty is another tell that the Trump
administration just wants the treaty to die.
The article concludes:
Some experts suspect talk of a three-way accord is merely a feint to get rid of the New
Start treaty. "If a trilateral deal is meant as a substitute or prerequisite for extending
New Start, it is a poison pill, no ifs, ands or buts," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive
director of the Arms Control Association. "If the president is seeking a trilateral deal as a
follow-on to New Start, that's a different thing."
Knowing Bolton, it has to be a poison pill. Just as Bolton is ideologically opposed to
making any deal with Iran, he is ideologically opposed to any arms control agreement that
places limits on the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The "flaws" he identifies aren't really flaws that
he wants to fix (and they may not be flaws at all), but excuses for trashing the agreement. He
will make noises about how the current deal or treaty doesn't go far enough, but the truth is
that he doesn't want any agreements to exist. In Bolton's worldview, nonproliferation and arms
control agreements either give the other government too much or hamper the U.S. too much, and
so he wants to destroy them all. He has had a lot of success at killing agreements and treaties
that have been in the U.S. interest. Bolton has had a hand in blowing up the Agreed Framework
with North Korea, abandoning the ABM Treaty, killing the INF Treaty, and reneging on the JCPOA.
Unless the president can be persuaded to ignore or fire Bolton, New START will be his next
victim.
If New START dies, it will be a loss for both the U.S. and Russia, it will make the world
less secure, and it will make U.S.-Russian relations even worse. The stability that these
treaties have provided has been important for U.S. security for almost fifty years. New START
is the last of the treaties that constrain the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, and when it
is gone there will be nothing to replace it for a long time. The collapse of arms control
almost certainly means that the top two nuclear weapons states will expand their arsenals and
put us back on the path of an insane and unwinnable arms race. Killing New START is irrational
and purely destructive, and it needs to be opposed.
bolton is opposed to any treaty, to any agreement, whereby the other side can expect to
obtain equally favorable terms-he wants the other side on their knees permanently without
any expectation of compromise by the empire.
It is interesting that Trump destiny now depends on geopolitical events he can't control namely actions of Iran and China.
Trump foreign policy appears to be driven by a combination of resentment and arrogance -- not a good combination for survival of
Trump and/or mankind
Was with Iran might result in high oil prices would kill the already anemic global growth and cause a recession (I guess
the volatility in oil prices will go through the roof at that point), Iran can destabilize the global economy by destroying most
of the oil production infrastructure around the gulf.
While Lyndon Johnson had chosen not running for reelection in 1968 because anti-war sentiment was high, G W Bush who was
reelected and the USA have now contractor army and casualties without draft does not matter much.
Notable quotes:
"... More likely they attack Saudi Arabia directly. Same impact, more justifiable if not outright popular. No one likes Prince Bone Saw. ..."
"... Iran could take those 10 million barrels a day away in 15 minutes. ..."
China will play a large roll in whether trump get re-elected.
If they decide they prefer his dysfunctional governance to his opponent, then they will engage
in a trade deal that will allow to trump to declare victory. It will likely be a very
superficial victory.
If they decide they would prefer to engage with a different administration, they will likely
refrain from a trade deal until after the election.
Have you asked yourself why Putin preferred trump? The answer is not pretty (for trump, or the
USA).
This is probably an absurd point of view. But in my opinion, it might be in Iran's interest
to drag the U.S into war, probably as indirectly as possible. That way they might
significantly reduce the chance of Trump being re-elected. (Obviously lives will be
sacrificed in this scenario)
The question is if it would work and would a Democrat president stop the war and go into the
same JCPOA deal again. Who knows. Very unpredictable.
Well, Mike, as absurd IMO is that Iran would risk self-destruction to get rid of Trump. He's
certainly a PITA for them, but closing the Strait of Hormuz to crash the global economy and
to blame it on Trump wouldn't work: Trump could blame it all on Iran while keeping on cooking
a controlled conflict with them, showing the world that the US doesn't depend on oil from any
other continent.
This would be a very difficult situation for a Democrat to step in and to
promise a better solution. The US would be relatively well off compared to Asia and Europe
and even could emerge out of such a constellation relatively more powerful.
But it could also
end up in a terrible mess. As you wrote: Who knows. Very unpredictable.
I'm about halfway through Putin's financial Times interview and suggest it be read by
all. There is much to be gleaned from it with a view to the 2020 Election Cycle and
candidate's positions. Just consider the following very small excerpt and its implications
for policy formulation by candidates:
"What we should be talking about is not how to make North Korea disarm, but how to ensure
the unconditional security of North Korea and how to make any country, including North Korea
feel safe and protected by international law that is strictly honoured by all members of
the international community . This is what we should be thinking about." [My
Emphasis]
Putin's insights into Trump's 2016 election strategy, IMO, is very enlightening and
essential reading as the conditions that contributed to Trump's victory have worsened under
his tenure and can be used against him if wisely pursued.
Sixty-six years later, I am witnessing how another "Ugly American" is walking in the
footsteps of Roosevelt. His name is John Bolton, a chief advocate of the disastrous US invasion
of Iraq, a nefarious Islamophobe, and former chairman of the far-right anti-Muslim Gatestone
Institute. This infamous institution is known for spreading
lies about Muslims - claiming there is a looming "jihadist takeover" that can lead to a
"Great White Death" - to incite hatred against them and intimidate, silence, and alienate
them.
In his diabolical plans to wage war on Iran, Bolton is taking a page from Roosevelt's
playbook. Just as the CIA operative used venal Iranian politicians and fake news to incite
against the democratically elected Iranian government, today his successor, the US national
security adviser, is seeking to spread misinformation on a massive scale and set up a false
flag operation with the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a militant terrorist organisation. Meanwhile,
he has also pressed forward with debilitating sanctions that are further worsening the economic
crisis in the country and making the lives of ordinary Iranians unbearable.
... ... ...
Bolton is the dreadful residue of the pure violence and wanton cruelty that drive Zionist
Christian zealots in their crusades against Muslims. He is the embodiment of the basest and
most racist roots of American imperialism.
The regime he serves is the most naked and vulgar face of brutish power, lacking any
semblance of legitimacy - a bullying coward flexing its military muscles. At its helm is an
arrogant mercantile president, who - faced with the possibility of an impeachment - has no
qualms about using the war machine at his disposal to regain political relevance and line his
pockets.
But the world must know Americans are not all ugly, they are not all rabid imperialists -
Boltons and Roosevelts. What about those countless noble Americans - the sons and daughters of
the original nations that graced this land, of the African slaves who were brought to this land
in chains, of the millions after millions of immigrants who came to these shores in desperation
or hope from the four corners of the earth? Do they not have a claim on this land too - to
redefine it and bring it back to the bosom of humanity?
"... If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region, not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and Iran. ..."
"... Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution. ..."
"... OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running. ..."
If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism,
starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it
wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout
the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy
blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region,
not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and
Iran.
Take a good look at
this Smithsonian map of where the U.S.A. is "combating terrorism." Note how the U.S.
military (i.e., global capitalism's unofficial "enforcer") has catastrophically blundered its
way into more or less every nation depicted. Or ask our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Israel,
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and so on. OK, you might have to reach
them in New York or London, or in the South of France this time of year, but, go ahead, ask
them about the horrors they've been suffering on account of our "catastrophic blunders."
See, according to this crackpot conspiracy theory that I would put forth if I were a
geopolitical analyst instead of just a political satirist, there have been no "catastrophic
policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is
proceeding exactly according to plan. The regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those
who wouldn't have been regime-changed, or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime
change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have been
a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people or the
"sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful. Global
capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open for
business or not.
Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after
winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of
America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the
contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation
projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S.
government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review
the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have
benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many
of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without
assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution.
OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global
capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American
face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it
comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments
control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running.
This is what Iran and Syria are up against. This is what Russia is up against. Global
capitalism doesn't want to nuke them, or occupy them. It wants to privatize them, like it is
privatizing the rest of the world, like it has already privatized America according to my
crackpot theory, of course.
if I were a geopolitical analyst, I might be able to discern a pattern there, and
possibly even some sort of strategy.
Sounds good.
Some other people did it before, wrote it down etc. but it's always good to see that
stuff.
it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the
collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately
started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East.
.there have been no "catastrophic policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The
Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is proceeding exactly according to plan. The
regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those who wouldn't have been regime-changed,
or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have
been a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people
or the "sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful.
Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not.
Spot on.
Now .there IS a bit of oversight in the article re competing groups of people on top of
that "Global capitalist" bunch.
It's a bit more complicated than "Global capitalism".
Jewish heavily influenced, perhaps even controlled, Anglo-Saxon "setup" .. or Russian
"setup" or Chinese "setup".
Only one of them can be on the top, and they don't like each other much.
And they all have nuclear weapons.
"Global capitalism" idea is optimistic. The global overwhelming force against little
players. No chance of MAD there so not that bad.NOPE IMHO.
There is a chance of MAD.
That is the problem . Well, at least for some people.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
I was a union man in my youth. We liked Capitalism. We just wanted our fair share of the
loot. The working class today knows nothing about organizing. They don't even know they are
working class. They think they are black or white. Woke or Deplorable.
ALL OF US non billionaires are coming up on serious hard times. Serious enough that we
might have to put aside our differences. The government is corrupt. It will not save us.
Instead it will continue to work to divide us.
Another great article by C J Hopkins.
Hopkins (correctly) posits that behind US actions, wars etc lies the global capitalist
class.
"Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not"
This is correct -- but requires an important caveat.
Intrinsic to capitalism is imperialism. They are the head & tail of the same coin.
Global capitalists may unite in their rapacious attacks on average citizens the world over.
However, they will disunite when it comes to beating a competitor to a market.
The "West" has no (real) ideological differences with China, Russia & Iran. This is a
fight between an existing hegemon & it's allies & a rising hegemon (China) & it's
allies.
In many ways it's similar to the WW I situation: an established imperial country, the UK,
& it's allies against a country with imperial pretensions -- Germany (& it's
allies)
To put it in a nice little homily: the Capitalist wolves prefer to eat sheep (us) -- but,
will happily eat each other should they perceive a sufficient interest in doing so.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of
monopolies.
In most key sectors, competition ends up producing monopolies or their near-equivalent,
oligopolies. The many are weeded out (or swallowed up) by the few . The
situation is roughly the same with democracy, which historically has always resulted in
oligarchy, as occurred in ancient Rome and Athens.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
You are right in expecting that in Capitalism there would be competition – the
traditional view that prices would remain low because of competition, the less competitive
removed from the field, and so on. But that was primitive laisser-faire Capitalism on a fair
playing field that hardly existed but in theory. Occasionally there were some "good"
capitalists – say the mill-owner in a Lancashire town who gave employment to the
locals, built houses, donated to charity and went to the Sunday church service with his
workers. But even that "good" capitalist was in it for the profit, which comes from taking
possession for himself of the value added by his workers to a commodity.
But modern Capitalism does not function that way. There are no mill-owners, just absentee
investor playing in, usually rigged, stock market casinos. Industrial capitalism has been
changed into financial Capitalism without borders and loyalty to worker or country. In fact,
it has gone global to play country against country for more profit.
Anyway, the USA has evolved into a Fascist state (an advanced state of capitalism, a.k.a.
corporatocracy) as Chomsky stated many years ago. Seen from abroad here's a view from the
horse's mouth ( The Guardian is official organ of Globalist Fascism).
"... Just as Obama turned out to be a slightly more articulate version of Dubya, Trump has turned out to be a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya. ..."
"... Bolton is a neo-con, neo-cons are Trotskyites. They believe in an eternal revolution. Bolton believes in eternal war. ..."
"... Sid, the natural conclusion is that the 'deep state' is real, and for the most part runs the country. Whoever is President is less important than the goals of the American elite, most importantly the 'War Party' (the MIC and the IC) and Wall Street, but including Health Care. A side party of equal importance is the Israel Lobby. What happens in America is pretty much what the leaders of those groups want. ..."
"... Trump is too weak to push back on Bolton. He likes bluster. If starting a war will make Trump look macho, he very well might start one. Bolton wants war, Trump may let us stumble into one. ..."
"... "What will it take to get Bolton fired?" One phone call from Israel. Then again, one phone call from Israel would also stop Trump from firing him, and there's no reason to suspect that Bibi is anything other than ecstatic over Bolton's performance. ..."
"... Find out who "told" Donald Trump he HAD to hire Bolton (and Pompeo and others as well) and you'll probably learn the identity of the real puppet master pulling the strings in the "Deep State." It's simply impossible to believe Trump – who ran for president on a platform of "non-interventionism" – appointed this guy on his own volition. ..."
"... The headline asks, "What Will It Take to Get Bolton Fired?" This is a great question. If he CAN'T be fired, this tells us who is really running our country. Another question along the same lines: What will it take to get America to cease its support of Saudi Arabia? ..."
"... The petodollar makes these wars possible; it also defends or preserves the Status Quo, which makes so many of our elite ultra wealthy and powerful. Our carte blanche support of Saudi Arabia is telling us something important just like Trump's appointment of Bolton told us something important. ..."
For
someone "not playing along," Trump has obediently given Bolton and the Iran hawks practically
everything they have wanted so far. He has gone much further in laying the groundwork for war
with Iran than any of his predecessors, and the only reason that many people seem confident
that he won't order an attack is their mistaken belief that he is a non-interventionist when
all of the evidence tells us that he is no such thing. Trump presumably doesn't want to start a
multi-year, extremely expensive war that could also throw the economy into a recession, but
then every president that launches an illegal war of choice assumes that the war would be much
easier and take less time than it does. No one ever knowingly opts for a bloody debacle. The
absurdly optimistic hawkish expectations of a quick and easy triumph are always dashed on the
rocks of reality, but for some reason political leaders believe these expectations every time
because "this time it's different." There will come a point where Bolton will tell Trump that
attacking Iran (or Venezuela) is the only way to "win," and Trump will probably listen to him
just as he has listened to him on all of these issues up until now.
There is no question that Bolton should lose his job. Even if you aren't an opponent
of Trump, you should be unhappy with the way Bolton has been operating for the last year. He
has made a point of sabotaging administration policies he doesn't like, resisting decisions he
doesn't agree with, and effectively reversing policy changes while pretending to be carrying
out the president's wishes. His mismanagement of the policy process is a bad joke, and the
reason he runs the National Security Council this way is so that he can stop views and
information that don't suit his agenda from reaching the president. But Trump pays little or no
attention to any of this, and as long as Bolton remains loyal in public and a yes-man in person
he is likely safe in his job. If Bolton gets his wish and the U.S. starts a war with Iran, he
may not be in that job for much longer, but the damage will have already been done. Instead of
counting on Trump to toss Bolton overboard, Congress and the public need to make absolutely
clear that war with Iran and Venezuela is unacceptable and Trump will be destroying his
presidency if he goes down that path in either country.
Obama entered office in 2008 promising to close Guantanamo and end
the stupid wars.
Not only did Obama fail to end a single war, he gave us new and stupider wars in Syria,
Yemen and Ukraine, to name but three. Guantanamo is still open.
Just as Obama turned out to be a slightly more articulate version of Dubya, Trump has turned
out to be a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya.
" some reason political leaders believe these expectations every
time because "this time it's different."
Like communists, political leaders think 'this time we'll get it right. Bolton is a neo-con, neo-cons are Trotskyites. They believe in an eternal revolution. Bolton
believes in eternal war.
As much of a disaster for American institutions Trump has been, I
believe he does not want to go to war. The times are a'changin'. Average Americans have figured
out that these wars are self-defeating nonsense. Trump knows that, and doesn't want to alienate
the middle American types who support him and would go to war.
But he does want to sound and look tough, hence Bolton. The problem is that while Trump may
believe he's just blustering, reneging on the nuclear deal, cranking back brutal sanctions and
sending US flotillas to the Strait of Hormuz looks and feels like war to the Iranians.
We could stumble into a very big and ugly war like America stumbled into the ugly era of
Trump. And Trump is the absolute last person I would want to serve as a commander in chief
during war time.
Sid, the natural conclusion is that the 'deep state' is real, and
for the most part runs the country. Whoever is President is less important than the goals of
the American elite, most importantly the 'War Party' (the MIC and the IC) and Wall Street, but
including Health Care. A side party of equal importance is the Israel Lobby. What happens in
America is pretty much what the leaders of those groups want.
Trump is too weak to push back on Bolton. He likes bluster. If
starting a war will make Trump look macho, he very well might start one. Bolton wants war,
Trump may let us stumble into one.
Of course the "Deep State", the "permanent government" the "Borg" or
whatever you want to call it is real.
Every winning candidate since arguably Bush 1.0 ("kinder gentler nation") ran for office as
a non-interventionist. Even Dubya promised a humbler foreign policy in 2000.
Once inaugurated, each candidate morphed into a foaming-at-the-mouth hawk.
I don't pretend to know how the process works, or even if it is the same for every
president, but the results speak for themselves. I suspect without evidence that it is
something like what we saw in "Yes, Minister".
The neo-cons are busy studying the Israeli playbook of declaring
themselves surrounded and launching a preemptive strike. Pompeo's view is that the occupation
of Iraq is/was so difficult because the US isn't as ruthlessly efficient as the IDF in the West
Bank and allowed Iraq some self-governance.He won't allow that in the conquered Iran.
Step 1: send a doctored telegram to Kaiser Trump and leak it to the press. Step 2: Get the GOP Senate to pass the "Gulf of Hormuz" declaration. Step 3: sink a ship, perhaps one called USS Maine or USS Liberty.
The first question is "What did it take to get Bolton hired?"
The answer to the author's question is that making Trump look bad (in a way that Trump
recognizes) is what will get Bolton fired. But like Dick Cheney, Bolton has a very good sense
of what a Richelieu needs to do to seem loyal and obedient to an idiot king. Rummy appended
Bible verses to schemes that he wanted Bush to approve. Bolton does something similar, no
doubt.
"What will it take to get Bolton fired?" One phone call from Israel. Then again, one phone call from Israel would also stop Trump
from firing him, and there's no reason to suspect that Bibi is anything other than ecstatic
over Bolton's performance.
The mammoth "donations" from Adelson et al to Trump and the corrupt Republicans have paid
off royally for Israel. With Trump and Bolton in the White House, Israel barely even needs a
foreign ministry, a treasury, or a military anymore. Uncle Sam does it all for free.
Find out who "told" Donald Trump he HAD to hire Bolton (and Pompeo
and others as well) and you'll probably learn the identity of the real puppet master pulling
the strings in the "Deep State." It's simply impossible to believe Trump – who ran for president on a platform of
"non-interventionism" – appointed this guy on his own volition.
Also, if it was so important to appoint Bolton, why would this be the case?
I think it's because – in the minds of those pulling the strings – it's crucial
to them that America does the things Bolton wants to do.
That is, Bolton wasn't named National Security Advisor to do nothing.
The headline asks, "What Will It Take to Get Bolton Fired?" This is a great question. If he CAN'T be fired, this tells us who is really running our
country. Another question along the same lines: What will it take to get America to cease its support
of Saudi Arabia?
We know the answer to this one. NOTHING. Consider that
We will support a nation whose leader orders the gruesome murder of a journalist.
We will support a nation that is committing war crimes and attrocities against a poor
nation like Yemen, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children.
We will support a nation that beheads 37 citizens in one day – some whose alleged
crimes occurred when the victims were teenagers, or whose alleged offenses include practicing
homosexuality or simply criticizing the government.
The answer (Saudi Arabia can do whatever it wants with no risk of incurring the wrath of
America) begs the question: Why is "letting Saudi Arabia do whatever it wants" so important to
America?
This answer, I believe, has everything to do with the vital role the petrodollar plays in
maintaining the Status Quo.
If the Deep State is calling the shots, what is most important to the Deep State?
Answer: Protecting the U.S. dollar (fiat) printing press. Absent this printing press and the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, none of
our current wars and future wars would even be possible.
And the fact we are willing to wage these wars sends a vital message to the nations of the
world: We WILL use our military against anyone who threatens the Status Quo.
The petodollar makes these wars possible; it also defends or preserves the Status Quo, which
makes so many of our elite ultra wealthy and powerful. Our carte blanche support of Saudi Arabia is telling us something important just like
Trump's appointment of Bolton told us something important.
The only way people like Bolton get fired is the same way Bannon
got dumped. It is when Trump sees on Fox News that they are getting more press coverage than
him.
The post of national security advisor needs to be subject to Senate
confirmation.
Henry Kissinger in the Nixon administration and Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Carter
administration were both more powerful/influential than the respective secretaries of state,
William Rogers and Cyrus Vance.
The Senate needs to assert itself and ensure that national security advisors are appointed
in the same way as secretaries of state. This would help to a certain extent.
As they
take the stage for the first Democratic debates of the 2020 presidential campaign, the 20
participating candidates should be ready for one frequently asked question: How will you pay
for it? Democrats often pledge to finance their most ambitious plans -- Medicare for All,
debt-free college, a Green New Deal -- with tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.
That is both sensible and fair. But candidates hoping to distinguish themselves in the
limited time they will be allotted should also consider taking a stand against the United
States' bloated defense budget.
This month, the House Armed Services Committee
advanced a $733 billion defense budget on a mostly party-line vote. According to
Defense News , the lack of Republican support for the bill
illustrated "the stark divide in defense policy between the two parties." Yet that divide
is far narrower than you might think. The bill's price tag is just $17 billion less than the
$750 billion that
President Trump requested ; it still was, as Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) boasted,
the "largest" defense budget in history. There remains a near-universal commitment in both
parties to massive defense spending -- a case of Washington bipartisanship that the country
would be better off without.
A timely new
report from the Center for International Policy's Sustainable Defense Task Force offers
an alternative path forward. In the report, "A Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less
Spending," the nonpartisan group of military and budget experts outlines a strategy that it
says would save $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years without harming national-security
interests. In fact, through a sober reassessment of the biggest threats to the United States
in the 21st century, including climate change and cyberattacks, the proposal would keep the
country safer than an outdated approach that relies on perpetual spending increases.
And probably, if we just impeach the Walrus of Death nothing will change . Its a freight
train to war. It moves slowly at first but its hell to try and stop.
This awesome demonstration of American resolve was meant to be punishment for the vicious
slaughter of an expensive U.S. military drone, which was peacefully invading Iranian airspace,
and not at all attempting to provoke the Iranians into blowing it out of the sky with a missile
so the U.S. military could "retaliate."
The military-industrial complex would never dream of doing anything like that, not even to
further the destabilization and restructuring of the Greater Middle East that they've been
systematically carrying out the since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which more on
that in just a moment.
"...as Stratfor, put it, "Trump, fearing a much bigger escalation, got cold feet."
One is reminded of the scene from Oliver Stone's JFK (1991), a General in the Joint
Chiefs comments disparagingly about Kennedy for keeping his finger "on the chicken switch"
with regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
Lyndon Johnson in the White House with Henry Cabot Lodge in 1963 declares: "Gentlemen, I
want you to know I'm not going to let Vietnam go the way China did. I'm personally committed.
I'm not going to take one soldier out of there 'til they know we mean business in Asia (he
pauses) You just get me elected, and I'll give you your damned war ."
Another question exists: should the US resist the allure of military action against Iran,
what can Iran do?
US sanctions against Iran amount to an act of war. Iran can bust sanctions up to some point
-- but for how long? Will Iran suffer half a million dead children & elderly people as
Iraq did in the 90's ? SHOULD Iran have to suffer such a criminally imposed loss of life?
Where is the way out of this insanity?
Iran won't negotiate with the US for the very good reason that the US clearly wants to
sterilize Iranian sovereignty (ie the US won't accept ANY Iranian missiles -- that is, Iran
has no right to self defense).
Sad to say, Trump does not need to launch military action against Iran, merely continue to
economically terrorise Iran until it has NO choice but to initiate military action against
its tormentors.
The war on Iran will continue till kingdom come, until it falls. Its clear as day that both
Russia and China back their Iranian allies against US provocations. China hasn't flinched
under US threats to embargo Iranian crude, and continues to purchase it, and Russia has an
oil swap agreement with Iran, where it buys Iranian oil and sells it as Russian on the
international market. This must be a severe irritation to the imperialists in Washington and
London as it renders their Iran sanctions regime practically toothless.
The imperialists are not backing down in their quest for subduing Iran. Seems like the idea
here is to put as many large ships in harms way as possible....and provoke Iran to attack one
of these......This will ensure the probability of miscalculation and/ or accidents becomes
almost unavoidable. There must be regime change in Tehran, on the road to Beijing and Moscow:
Iran has every right to defend itself from US imperialisms constant violence, as is the case
with China and Russia. It is also pleasing to see the almighty war machine get a bloody nose.
But we should never lose sight of the fact that it is always the working class that
suffers the most in terms of death, injuries and destitution.
End all wars!
End production for profit and the Nation state upon which it is built!
America's history demonstrates that loss of (foreign) life is of little concern to those in
power.
The Manhattan Project was established, and mightily financed because of reasonably well
established fears that Nazi Germany was on track to build its own A-bombs.
With the defeat of Germany that fear was gone. Nevertheless, knowing full well that Imperial
Japan had no such program, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vapourised. A clear demonstration that
they, atomic weapons, WMD, worked and a warning to the Soviet Union that it too could be
annihilated.
Robert Oppenheimer and others refused to take part in building an H-bomb for class and humane
reasons. This fell on Truman's deaf ears.
American Imperialism is indifferent to death and destruction of billions.
As WSWS has stated, Trumps announcement that the loss of 150 Iranian lives is the the reason
he pulled backs so much bilge.
Trump is in a catch 22. When push has come to shove , he simply cannot sell another war to
the US working class, and he knows it , and he's been well and truly spooked by the Iranian
response.
All the US garbage of itself as ''victim'', all the 'good cop bad cop' routines are
wearing thin. Nobody is buying it anymore , especially from a gangster.
Perhaps a predicted massive spike in global temperatures will clear out the collective
cobwebs further.
Good point about the possibility of Iran sinking a carrier. The Chinese have developed
advanced anti-ship weapons that, if the results of a RAND corporation war game can be
believed, will be able to neutralize carriers. This highlights the fact that, whatever the
salesmen of advanced weaponry might say, it will not win wars alone. All of the smart weapons
in the world have not ended the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan in the favour of American
imperialism.
We can see an historical precedent in the British development of the dreadnought, the
modern battleship, in the arms race that preceded WWI. Dreadnoughts were supposed to be the
decisive super weapons of the day, but the British and German battle fleets remained in their
moorings for most of the war for fear that these expensive ships would fall prey to torpedos.
The sinking of the HMS Formidable in 1915 is a case in point. The only major engagement
between dreadnoughts was at Jutland and it was inconclusive.
For all of the contemporary bluster about super weapons and the fetishism of smart bombs
and cyber weapons, they will not decisively win a war alone. As in the world wars of the last
century, the bourgeoisie will be forced to mobilize society for a war. This will mean
bringing the working class - against its will - into the maelstrom.
Yet again the WSWS demonstrates the incredible foresight and clarity of Marxist analysis. I
would like to extend my thanks to Comrade Andre and the editors of the WSWS for their
indefatigable efforts to impart Marxist consciousness to the masses. For all of the naysayers
who have attacked the WSWS as "sectarian" or as not involved in "practical work," need we
point to anything other than the WSWSs explanation of the connection between eruption of
American imperialism and the decline of the productive forces of that nation state? That
analysis has placed the WSWS in the position of being better prepared politically for the
consequences of war than the imperialists, as the latest farce in the Middle East
demonstrates.
A quote from Trotsky will further emphasize my point:
"We will not concede this banner to the masters of falsehood! If our generation happens to
be too weak to establish Socialism over the earth, we will hand the spotless banner down to
our children. The struggle which is in the offing transcends by far the importance of
individuals, factions and parties. It is the struggle for the future of all mankind."
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death
of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military
high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force
of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars
the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400
antiaircraft and antimissile defense system. So the question is, if the stealth advantage of
the F-35 is only good for a limited time, is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth
using up that particular asset??
Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz
in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more
important issues. Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of
navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water
in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be
entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the
straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is
something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians
have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no
subterfuge or secret operations will be involved.
Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will
cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached
within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily
see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar
article cited below). Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and
financial crisis of immense proportions around the world. The financial and speculative house
of cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their
dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down. The amount of
derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is
estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or
$1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a
billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} (See
"World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion Notional, as Banks Fight
Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked Capitalism", at <
https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ",
June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at <
https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time
Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at
<
https://www.globalresearch.... >). Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various
elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world
production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps
less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets.
All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain
homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need
to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their
primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing
Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.
So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and
their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the
Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other
members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the
phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely
safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don
worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the
corporate controlled media for very long.
"Thirty years of endless war have created a veritable cult of militarism within the American
ruling elite, whose guiding assumption seems to be that wars can be waged without drastic
global consequences, including for the United States itself."
The military/security surveillance state is a trillion dollar enterprise that instigates
conflicts to expand its profits. Militarism works hand-in-hand with the neoliberal
corporatists who deploy the military to secure natural resources, wage slaves, and
geostrategic hegemony. It should be noted, that the US imperialist agenda left unhindered
after the dissolution of the Soviet Union only intensified.
However, in order for the US ruling class to achieve the "ultimate goal" of unilateral
hegemony in the Middle East the military must confront Iran a powerful sizable country with
economic and political ties to China and Russia. This is the dilemma confronting the
warmongering psychopaths
who are influenced by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
A significant military attack against Iran will NOT go unanswered and if the Iranian
Military destroys a US warship and kills hundreds of sailors it would unleash another major
war in the Middle East igniting the entire region and possibly leading to a world war.
What should traumatize the US population and awaken them from their hypnotic warmongering
stupur created by propaganda proliferated on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN is that the United States
came within minutes of launching a war whose military consequences it had NOT seriously
examined.
In light of these dangerous events it is obvious that a faction of the American ruling class
circles including Trump were not prepared to face the consequences of a strike against Iran.
That is precisely why Trump aborted the mission last Friday. Just yesterday Trump himself
admitted for the first time that if it was up to John Bolton then we would be fighting the
whole world. Today Pompeo has been sent to Middle East to broaden his alliance with Gulf
Monarchical regimes most notably Saudi Arabia and UAE. It is aimed to prepare the ground for
possible confrontation with Iran.
Trump's comment re Bolton that the US "would fight the whole world" sums up what the US is
really about. Take it from me, The US hates virtually every country save one: Israel. Illegal
US Sanctions regimes now extend to almost 50% of the world's population. The US does not even
like the advanced countries such as Europe and Japan. They tolerate them because of
diplomatic support and large investment and trade ties. Outside that they have no affinity or
connection. Until we all realise the true nature of The US and its exclusive cultural mindset
[NFL, NBA, MLB etc etc], populations will merely continue to enable the US to attack and
sanction everybody and anyone of their demented choosing. The tragedy is that if the other
countries became united and were committed to ending this US terror by eg dumping the US
Dollar as international reserve currency and sanctioning all US corporations, the US would
face severe turmoil and its reign of endless terror brought to a sudden end.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
I believe things simple didn't go as planned as an airplane was threatened to be taken
down. Bolton was in Israel after that to most likely assure Netanyahu that a new attack would
be conducted, Bolton Warned Iran Not to 'Mistake U.S. Prudence and Discretion for
Weakness'...
There needs to be a correction in the article on the older Raad system not having been used
but instead the newer, 'Third of Khordad' system which brought down the MQ-4C Triton.
Pictures/ Info on the Third of Khordad reveals that it is in effect an Iranian version of the
Soviet Buk-M2 of the MH-17 downing fame which the western backed Kiev junta used from its
hand me down Soviet weapons arsenal, to shoot down the ill fated Malaysian Airliner over the
Ukraine. The system also is stark evidence of the close defense relationship between the
Russians and the Iranians, confirming the suspicions in the west that whatever weaponry Putin
transfers to Syria or Iraq is by default also available to Iran.
Not to be outdone by his failure to bring Iran to its knees, Trump ordered a massive cyber
attack on Iran's missile batteries and its command and control centers after rescinding the
military order to physically attack Iran for downing the drone. The Iranians today announced
the failure of this desperate US cyber attack:
This is in addition to the CIA placing an agent within the Iranian oil ministry for
conducting sabotage. She has been arrested and faces the death penalty for espionage:
The deep State in the US will not stop trying to subdue Iran until it capitulates. Iran
must fall to Washington in order for the US to effectively counter and sabotage both Putin's
Eurasian Integration and president Xi's BRI projects.
Trump's alterration at this moment can be due to Iran's internal coherence against American
imperialism. With santions being reinforced, one can anticipate more and more impovershment
and quality of life geting lower unabated to the point that the basis for internal coherence
gets eroded substantially. We saw working class uprisings in Iran recently and leadership
accused imperialist as rabble-rousers to find a way out.That is why we need building
SEP/IYSSE in Iran to hatch revolutionary force in Iran for Iran to join the peer in the rest
of the world. Morsi in Egypt was overthrown by Sisi with the backing of US imperialism headed
by Obama at that time. So is the imperialism and it will continue to work to weaken Iran as a
force successfully confronting imperialism in the middle east currently. Let us therefore
empower international working class to empower it to overthrow imperialism on one hand and
Stalinism on the other hand. Russia too depend largely on its arms sale to maintain its
economy. But human needs, not wepons, but basic needs including clean environment. Long live
the socialist revolution in Iran and internationally. Death to imperialism. Thank you comrade
Andre Damon.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
Economically it would be Armageddon. Although some think America does not rely on Mideast
oil, the world economy does and America is a part of that despite what nationalists dream.
Bolton is making threats from Israel and clearly some believe they stand to gain from war but
militarily too it would be Armageddon. The Pentagon would answer the sinking of a carrier by
nuking Iran to preserve American "credibility" i.e. fear. China and Russia would have to
react, China at least to keep its oil supplied. India pushed against China could add more
mushroom clouds not to mention Pakistan. Israel itself with Tel Aviv bombarded from Lebanon
and maybe invaded unable to stop this might nuke Lebanon and maybe Tehran if any of it
remains and Damascus besides. Just as ww1 started because military train timetables had to be
followed there are nukewar plans in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing that won't take long. So
world workers need to start our plan before others begin. Preemptive general strikes, antiwar
and socialist revolutionary agitation and propaganda within imperialist rank and files and
human blockades of war material networks should happen at an early date like now. Now also
WikiLeaks should put out whatever it hasn't while people exist to read it. The rich are
determined to kill Assange anyway and full wartime censorship is not far off.
Some people have speculated that if the U.S. does attack Iran then Iran will launch missiles
at Saudi Arabia's oil fields which will then send oil prices skyrocketing to $130 dollars a
barrel. The article also notes that:
"While Trump's foreign policy team -- headed by National Security Advisor John Bolton and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- 'unanimously' supported the attack, General Joseph Dunford,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 'cautioned about the possible repercussions of a
strike, warning that it could endanger American forces,' the Times wrote."
Apparently the good general cannot get too worked up at the sight of thousands and
thousands of Iranian children, women, and old men who would be slaughtered and grievously
wounded by U.S. bombs and the water supply which would be contaminated when those bombs would
land at a nuclear power plant. But these horrific actions by the United States are of no
consequence because, as Madeline Albright observed on a television a few decades ago, the
deaths of a half million Iraqi children by the U.S. was worth it. It would appear that the
lives of foreigners are of little consequence to those who are in power. Threatening to start
a war against another country for the most specious of reasons is simply another reason why a
malignant narcissist like Trump needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. Or
perhaps Trump believes that the best way to improve his low poll numbers is to start dropping
500 lb. bombs on a country which does not in any remote way pose a threat to the United
States.
"Almost all propaganda is designed to create fear. Heads of governments and their
officials know that a frightened people is easier to govern, will forfeit rights it would
otherwise defend, is less likely to demand a better life, and will agree to millions and
millions being spent on 'Defense'."-John Boynton Priestly [1894-1984], English writer
"Kill a man, and you are an assassin. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill
everyone, and you are a god."-Jean Rostand [1894-1977], French philosopher and biologist
After Hezballah had booted Zionist colonizers out of Lebanon, Zionist apartheid had lost its
image of "invincibility".
Now even ghetto Gaza is fighting back.
The CIA payrolled press whores like CNN's Christiane Amanpour for example a prime warmonger
and there are countless others embedded in every western media source.
Ironically, Amanpour is Iranian background, an avowed revolution hater and a devoted Iranian
Pahlavi monarchist. She's on the record for saying that she wants to see the Shah's exiled
son back on the throne in Iran, serving US imperialism for the 'benefit of the Iranian
nation'.
The sinking of an aircraft carrier, especially one as well known as the USS Lincoln, would
have been one of the biggest PR disasters for both Trump and the military. It probably would
have sparked demands from the people to know how, despite pouring trillions of dollars into
the mouths of greedy defense contractors for decades, a supposedly inferior military could so
easily take down one of our ships.
Khrushchev once said of the Sverdlov class cruisers built in the early 1950's that their only
practical purpose was as targets for anti ship missile training because of how outdated they
where considering they where armed with guns.
Maybe the anti-ship missile now stands at the point where it can make carriers obsolete
similar to how the battleship was made obsolete by the carrier.
There are some who argue that surface navies became obsolete in the 1950's with the advent of
long range missiles. For many years now, China has been helping to build up Iranian area
defences...
Cold war weapons are unsuitable for countering Iran's asymmetric warfare doctrine. A dozen or
two highly advanced US warships are no match for a thousand missile boats and thousands of
Iranian anti-ship missiles in the narrow confines of the shallow gulf.
Minutes or hours, or Trump never signed on to them, as the accounts from different US media
outlets and Trump have differed at several points. Fog of war indeed.
"... A significant military attack against Iran will NOT go unanswered and if the Iranian Military destroys a US warship and kills hundreds of sailors it would unleash another major war in the Middle East igniting the entire region and possibly leading to a world war. ..."
"... "While Trump's foreign policy team -- headed by National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- 'unanimously' supported the attack, General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 'cautioned about the possible repercussions of a strike, warning that it could endanger American forces,' the Times wrote." ..."
"Thirty years of endless war have created a veritable cult of militarism within the American
ruling elite, whose guiding assumption seems to be that wars can be waged without drastic
global consequences, including for the United States itself."
The military/security surveillance state is a trillion dollar enterprise that instigates
conflicts to expand its profits. Militarism works hand-in-hand with the neoliberal
corporatists who deploy the military to secure natural resources, wage slaves, and
geostrategic hegemony. It should be noted, that the US imperialist agenda left unhindered
after the dissolution of the Soviet Union only intensified.
However, in order for the US ruling class to achieve the "ultimate goal" of unilateral
hegemony in the Middle East the military must confront Iran a powerful sizable country with
economic and political ties to China and Russia. This is the dilemma confronting the
warmongering psychopaths
who are influenced by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
A significant military attack against Iran will NOT go unanswered and if the Iranian
Military destroys a US warship and kills hundreds of sailors it would unleash another major
war in the Middle East igniting the entire region and possibly leading to a world war.
What should traumatize the US population and awaken them from their hypnotic warmongering
stupur created by propaganda proliferated on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN is that the United States
came within minutes of launching a war whose military consequences it had NOT seriously
examined.
Some people have speculated that if the U.S. does attack Iran then Iran will launch missiles
at Saudi Arabia's oil fields which will then send oil prices skyrocketing to $130 dollars a
barrel. The article also notes that:
"While Trump's foreign policy team -- headed by National Security Advisor John Bolton and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- 'unanimously' supported the attack, General Joseph Dunford,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 'cautioned about the possible repercussions of a
strike, warning that it could endanger American forces,' the Times wrote."
Apparently the good general cannot get too worked up at the sight of thousands and
thousands of Iranian children, women, and old men who would be slaughtered and grievously
wounded by U.S. bombs and the water supply which would be contaminated when those bombs would
land at a nuclear power plant. But these horrific actions by the United States are of no
consequence because, as Madeline Albright observed on a television a few decades ago, the
deaths of a half million Iraqi children by the U.S. was worth it. It would appear that the
lives of foreigners are of little consequence to those who are in power. Threatening to start
a war against another country for the most specious of reasons is simply another reason why a
malignant narcissist like Trump needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. Or
perhaps Trump believes that the best way to improve his low poll numbers is to start dropping
500 lb. bombs on a country which does not in any remote way pose a threat to the United
States.
"Almost all propaganda is designed to create fear. Heads of governments and their
officials know that a frightened people is easier to govern, will forfeit rights it would
otherwise defend, is less likely to demand a better life, and will agree to millions and
millions being spent on 'Defense'."-John Boynton Priestly [1894-1984], English writer
"Kill a man, and you are an assassin. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill
everyone, and you are a god."-Jean Rostand [1894-1977], French philosopher and biologist
"... Just recently, John Judis, undisguisedly a political commentator of the Left, made an important argument in favor of nationalism. "Nationalist sentiment," he writes in his book The Nationalist Revival , "is an essential ingredient of a democracy, which is based on the assumptions of a common identity, and of a welfare state, which is based on the acceptance by citizens of their financial responsibility for people whom they may not know at all, and who may have widely different backgrounds from theirs." ..."
"... Of course, nationalism can be "the basis of social generosity or of bigoted exclusion." It is therefore important, according to Judis, that enlightened state leaders push nationalism in the proper direction. ..."
"... The presence of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives at this gathering also suggests that at least some of the panelists will be offering two approved concepts of nationalism: propositional nationhood for the United States and solidarity with Israeli nationalism. In both cases, however, the nationalism being advocated ends up tied to an aggressive foreign policy. ..."
"... The nationalist label has now fallen into the hands of the neocon establishment, which has managed to identify it with international meddling and a creedal nation. In other words, it's been appropriated by those who already wielded power. ..."
"... But what makes American nationalism even more unpalatable now than when Robert Nisbet famously denounced it in The Present Age: Progress and Anarchy in Modern America is its rhetorical availability. It serves different agendas, depending on which power bloc appeals to it. ..."
"... Until recently, nationalism had portentous associations for much of the political class. It signified, rightly or wrongly, ethnocentricity and dislike for outsiders. Now that's all changing. Those in power have tamed the concept and are recycling it for their own purposes. Stay tuned. ..."
Just recently, John Judis, undisguisedly a political commentator of the Left, made an
important argument in favor of nationalism. "Nationalist sentiment," he writes in his book
The Nationalist Revival , "is an
essential ingredient of a democracy, which is based on the assumptions of a common identity,
and of a welfare state, which is based on the acceptance by citizens of their financial
responsibility for people whom they may not know at all, and who may have widely different
backgrounds from theirs."
Of course, nationalism can be "the basis of social generosity or of bigoted exclusion."
It is therefore important, according to Judis, that enlightened state leaders push nationalism
in the proper direction.
Judis points out that while "globalism" is a force that nationalists understandably oppose,
"internationalism" need not clash with nationalist sentiment. In a op-ed
in TheNew York Times last October, Judis praised his kind of nationalism as
being beneficial to a successful and growing welfare state and a happier world. It can
also be, he said, a stepping stone that leads beyond itself to international cooperation
.
For those who study European socialism, it is clear that Judis is reprising the position of
French sociologist Pierre
Bordieu , who argued for decades that a socialist regime must create some kind of social
glue to hold its subjects together. Judis is now transferring Bordieu's view to the American
political scene.
Advertisement
Now, a conference on "conservative nationalism," which will take place in Washington in July , may be
pushing a "nationalism" that is at least as adaptable as Judis's.
One featured speaker , Claire Lehmann, the founder of Quillette, will be talking about how
nationalism "is
the antidote to racism." Presumably the more inclusive the operative term, the less likely
will be the Left's attack on those wielding it.
The presence of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives at this gathering also suggests
that at least some of the panelists will be offering two approved concepts of nationalism:
propositional nationhood for the United States and solidarity with Israeli nationalism. In both
cases, however, the nationalism being advocated ends up tied to an aggressive foreign
policy.
Nationalism, in any case, means different things for different peoples. It doesn't hold the
same meaning for Estonians or Hungarians, who belong to ethnic, historic communities, as it
does for a pluralistic country with hundreds of millions of people and a constantly expanding
immigrant population.
In the latest issue of the Rassemblement National monthlyL'Incorrect ,
Steve Bannon speaks of the natural fit between European nationalism and the nationalist
movement that he has been promoting in the United States. Both these ideologies, Bannon says,
derive from the same national principle. In an interview with me in the same publication, I
treated Bannon's contention as wishful thinking. The United States has become too diverse and
too culturally disunited to fit a traditional national model. Our use of nationalism will
likely lead to something less quaint and less organic but more explosive than what comes from
the Baltic nationalists or Viktor Orbán.
The nationalist label has now fallen into the hands of the neocon establishment, which
has managed to identify it with international meddling and a creedal nation. In other words,
it's been appropriated by those who already wielded power.
The same protean label is also likely to wander onto the Left, given the nontraditional and
very pliable nature of our "nationalism." John Judis may in fact be the harbinger of a new
American Left that celebrates nationalism, provided that Left is allowed to define that term
for the rest of us. Indeed, it may be possible to frame LGBT rights and reparations for blacks
as "nationalist" issues. Nationalism also need not hinder us from letting in lots of
undocumented immigrants who are only trying to join our team and learn our values.
Men and women of the interwar Right, down to such later figures as Russell Kirk and Robert
Nisbet, were understandably critical of American nationalism. They identified it with social
engineering and centralized government and preferred localism and regionalism to any
justification for an expansionist administrative state.
But what makes American nationalism even more unpalatable now than when Robert Nisbet
famously denounced it in The Present Age:
Progress and Anarchy in Modern America is its rhetorical availability. It serves
different agendas, depending on which power bloc appeals to it. The hope once entertained
by Pat Buchanan that a nationalist cause would help slow down immigration and preserve
America's traditional moral and cultural identity has not worked out as planned. Those who
control our politics and culture determine the meaning of terms, which is as true of
nationalism as it is of other political labels like "freedom" and "equality."
Until recently, nationalism had portentous associations for much of the political class.
It signified, rightly or wrongly, ethnocentricity and dislike for outsiders. Now that's all
changing. Those in power have tamed the concept and are recycling it for their own purposes.
Stay tuned.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at
Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale
Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .
This is just think tank swamp vapor. No real analysis, no real recommendation on adaption of the USA to the collapse of global neoliberal
system (aka the USA empire)
At the heart of the alignment between China and Russia is their shared interest in undermining U.S. influence globally. The two
countries are united in their mutual displeasure with the United States and the U.S.-dominated international order that they feel
disadvantages them. But while Russia and China may have initially banded together in discontent, their repeated engagement on areas
of mutual interest is fostering a deeper and enduring partnership.
It is clear that China will pose the greatest challenge to U.S. interests for the foreseeable future, but Beijing's increasing
collaboration with Moscow will amplify that challenge.
... ... ...
Washington must come to terms with this China-Russia alignment and work to address and manage it. To contain the depth of alignment,
Washington must look for opportunities to strain the seams in the Russia-China relationship. Russia and China may be drawing closer,
but their interests -- and especially their approaches -- are not identical. Russia and China compete in the Middle East, for example,
for military sales and nuclear energy deals. And their very different approaches to Europe could be a source of strain. In communicating
with Beijing, Washington should underscore how Russian interference in these countries could generate instability that threatens
China's growing economic interests.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is focused on combating China's unfair economic practices, a worthy undertaking. But any trade
war "victory" will be incomplete if Washington does not address Beijing's challenge, in collaboration with Moscow, to the very fabric
of the rules-based order that underpins continued U.S. global leadership and prosperity. Washington will be ineffective if it seeks
to go it alone. Pushing back against the illiberal influence of an aligned Russia and China will require the collective heft of Allies
and partners. The time is ripe to tackle this issue with America's European Allies. Europe has grown more attuned to -- and concerned
about -- the threat that China poses and shares the U.S. imperative to compete with Russia and China.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor is a senior fellow and director of the Center for New American Security's Transatlantic Security Center.
Contents of the article correlate extremely poorly with the title... I don't see even a semblance of a "containment plan" other
than a vague outline that US should ask EU countries something as of yet unspecified...
"... The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war that deserved retaliation. ..."
"... The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views? ..."
"... Iran is preparing to breach the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more generally. ..."
"... Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting Saudi and American domination of the region. ..."
"... Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is practically excluded." ..."
"... They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right. ..."
Iran predictably claimed that the drone was within its airspace. American officials asserted
that it was in international airspace. Reported by The New York Times :
"a
senior Trump administration official said there was concern inside the United States government
about whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft, or even the P-8A manned
aircraft flown by a military aircrew, actually did violate Iranian airspace at some point. The
official said the doubt was one of the reasons Mr. Trump called off the strike."
The point is worth repeating. The military was prepared to blast away when it wasn't even
certain whether America was in the right. The episode brings to mind the 1988 shootdown of an
Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf by the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes .
Initially the U.S. Navy justified its action, making a series of false claims about Iran Air
Flight 655, which carried 290 passengers and crew members. Eventually Washington did admit that
it had made a horrific mistake, though the Vincennes captain was later decorated.
The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false
pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy
advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from
pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war
that deserved retaliation.
The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into
a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he
further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to
surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views?
Presumably the president believes that he can control his war-happy subordinates, using them
as he sees fit. However, his overweening hubris ignores their power to set the agenda and
influence his choices. Consider the basic question of objectives regarding Iran. Trump now says
all he wants to do is keep nukes out of Tehran's hands: "Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon,"
he intoned after halting the proposed reprisal, adding that "restraint" has its limits. But the
nuclear accord was drafted to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iran is preparing to breach
the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is
evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more
generally.
Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far
more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to
abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting
Saudi and American domination of the region.
These mandates were an obvious non-starter -- what
sovereign nation voluntarily accepts puppet status? In fact, Pompeo admitted that he didn't
expect Iran to surrender, but instead hoped for a popular revolution. In recently stating that
the administration would negotiate without preconditions, he added that Washington expected
Iran to act like "a normal nation," meaning behaving just as he'd demanded last year. (Notably,
there was no offer for America to act like a normal country.)
Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist
backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.
The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be
rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is
practically excluded."
Once it became evident that no one would willingly back down and conflict was likely,
Germany's Kaiser and Russia's Tsar tried to halt the rush to war. However, they found
themselves hemmed in by the war plans created by their nominal subordinates. With
Austria-Hungary mobilizing against Serbia, Russia had to act to protect the latter. Germany
then faced a two-front war. Thus, to aid its ally in Vienna, the Germans had to mobilize
quickly in an attempt to defeat France before Russia could put its massive army into the field.
No one had sufficient time for diplomacy.
However, cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas did engage in a last minute "Willy-Nicky"
exchange of telegrams. Wilhelm warned Nicholas that general Russian mobilization would require
Germany to act, with war the result. In response, the tsar switched from general to partial
mobilization. But he was soon besieged by his top officials who insisted that the entire army
had to be called up.
Understanding that general mobilization meant war, the tsar observed: "Think of the
responsibility you are asking me to take! Think of the thousands and thousands of men who will
be sent to their deaths." But he gave in, approving mobilization on the evening of July 30.
Nicholas's concern was warranted. More than 1.7 million Russian soldiers, along with hundreds
of thousands of civilians, died in the conflict. The ensuing Russian Civil War was even more
deadly, indeed far more so for noncombatants, among them the tsar and his family.
Kaiser Wilhelm was equally at the mercy of the "France-first" Schlieffen Plan. To wait would
be to invite destruction between the French and Russians, so he approved German mobilization on
August 1. He predicted the war would lead to "endless misery," and so it did. In 1918, he was
forced to abdicate and he lived out his life in exile.
Pompeo, Bolton, and like-minded officials tried and failed to force another war last week.
Next time they may succeed in leaving the president with no practical choice but the one they
favor. In which case he will find himself starting the very conflict that he had declared
against.
Ongoing administration machinations -- exacerbated by the opportunity to manipulate a
president -- offer an important reminder as to the Founders' wisdom. Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention made clear their intention to break with monarchical practice,
minimizing the president's authority. Congress was assigned the powers to raise armies, decide
on the rules of war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and ratify treaties. Most
importantly, the legislative branch alone could declare war.
As commander-in-chief, the president could defend against attack, but he could not even
order a retaliatory strike without congressional authority. Wrote James Madison to Thomas
Jefferson: "The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that
the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has
accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature." Delegate James
Wilson insisted that the Constitution was intended to "guard against" being hurried into war:
"It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such
distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."
Most important, placing the war power with Congress ensured that the people would be heard.
Of course, even that is not enough today. Presidents have adeptly concocted "evidence" and
misled the public, such as during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private
conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right.
However, the Iraq debacle has resulted in greater skepticism of presidential claims. The
Trump administration's unsupported judgment that Iran was behind attacks on oil tankers was
greeted at home and abroad with a demand for more evidence. People were conscious of having
been repeatedly played by Washington and did not want a repeat. Many found the U.S. government
no more trustworthy than Iranian authorities, a humbling equivalence. And given the doubts
apparently voiced by Pentagon officials out of public view, such skepticism was
well-founded.
Last week, Donald Trump declared, "I want to get out of these endless wars." Unlike his
predecessors, the president apparently recognizes the temptation to sacrifice lives for
political gain. However, alone he will find it nearly impossible to face down the bipartisan
War Party. The best way to get out of endless wars is to not get in them in the first place.
And that requires changing personnel and respecting the constitutional limits established by
the nation's Founders.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire
Unfortunately, the President is attempting to walk a tight-rope between peace and the most
prominent funders of the GOP. Sheldon Adelson and his ilk are bent on the destruction of any
nation that stands in the way of Israeli expansion. And of course military contractors need
constant growth in tax-payer funding to support their margins and shareholder value. Hence
the blustering to appease the aforementioned and keep the bribes flowing, while backing down
to appease the base.
It would of course be in the interests of the base to oppose the bribe-taking to begin
with, but I assume that must be beyond their intellectual capacity. Or perhaps they're simply
in favor of it for ideological reasons.
We might as well be honest about it. All politicians over simplify, shade the truth, and
occasionally lie. But Trump's falsehoods are so continuous and extensive that there is no
reason to believe anything he says - everything needs to be validated against external
authorities - which is why he is so intent on tearing down all authorities that could
contradict him.
This is another in the long line of stories we are reading here (and in other places) that
Trump really doesn't want to get involved in a war but is being manipulated by Bolton, Pompeo
and the national security apparatus. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo. Even somebody as apparently dimwitted as Trump could not
possibly have failed to notice that they were warmongers. Indeed, Bolton is probably the most
extreme warmonger around: he has an extensive public record of advocating war with Iran for
about two decades now. I cannot believe that even Trump was unaware of this. And even if he
was, why hasn't he fired them? He doesn't need anybody's permission to do that. Let's get
real: Trump is every bit the warmonger as the people he hires. His statements to the contrary
are just more additions to his endless string of lies.
What's more, he has another way to avoid being cornered into starting a war. All he has to
do in that circumstance is acknowledge that the constitution doesn't grant him that authority
and toss the decision making to Congerss, where it legally belongs. But he has done nothing
that suggests he acknowledges that constitutional delegation of authority--even though it
could provide him a way out if he felt he needed one.
So, no. I don't believe for a minute that Trump wants to avoid war. Actions speak louder
than words, especially Trump's words.
You're falling for the "official" report that he called off the attack merely because 150
lives were at stake? Since when did he all of a sudden grow a conscious after the inexcusable
defense he gave for our irresponsible military and intelligence ventures? He even bypasses
Congress itself by his illegal presidential will to give weapons to the SAUDIS. The
tyrannical, radical, scourge of humanity tribal savages turned psychopathic oligarchs that is
the House of Saud.
Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves, Tucker Carson (a f*cking tv show host of all
people) convinced a US president to not commit to another illegal war. Not because lives were
at stake, heavens no. It's because going into a disastrous war with Iran would gauruntee his
chances of not getting re-elected.
The American government is a living parody with no hope of redemption.
The President's almost daily outpouring of gibberish gives one little confidence that the
notion of 'the truth' holds any importance for him or his crew. Who needs historical
precedents to establish a feeling of mistrust when even the simplest statements from the
White House are so often needlessly loaded with misapprehensions, distortions and out right
BS?
" He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so
at variance with his views?"
I get this, position. You present an incredibly tough front as you press an entirely
different goal. The problem is that the president has presented a very tough front himself.
So when it appears to to actually be tough, he comes across as "not so much". It even
provides opportunity to grand him fearful. In the scenario that I think is being played out
or made to appear to play out --- the good cop, the reasonable cop has to sound reasonable
all the time. He has to claim to be holding back the forces of evil that threaten to consume
the target. But the president has been leading the way as "bad cop" so in the mind the
targets, there are no good cops.
But in my view, all of this hoollla baaaloooey about Iran is a distraction to the real
threat
the border. And the only common ground to be had is to enforce the law. That is why I
think the president is weak. For all of the tough talk --- he folded -- again on immigration.
Pretending to get concessions that is by agreement already expected from Mexico is the such
naked weakness that launching hypersonic missiles obliterating Tehran would just give him
sandals.
Uhhhh, no. I don't regret my vote. And and I still want the wall built and the laws
enforced and the sovereignty of the US respected by guests and citizens alike,.
"... Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now. Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in forthrightly opposing war with Iran ..."
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based
on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the
area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in
the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US
government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible
investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike
Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media
ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo
and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and
international skepticism attests.
Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute
appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire
amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the
Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned
Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.
First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of
June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open
water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most
likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the
UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked
by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported
distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either
attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by
ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an
Iranian port.
Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to
the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.
Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who
made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something
of an argument that began:
This assessment is based on intelligence .
He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence
assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out.
Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf.
They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share.
Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had
a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that
Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first
claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US
doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is
the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After
intelligence, Pompeo continued:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .
Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used
torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to
the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any
actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation
The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers
does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do
the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake
in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with
which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an
interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be
the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .
There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were,
they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six
examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019,
attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational
investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN
Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical
suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.
Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old
threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by
the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an
unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But
he's not done with the disinformation exercise:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high
degree of sophistication.
The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed"
mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could
know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word
garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence
necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:
Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace
and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of
escalating tension by Iran.
The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its
allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when
the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do
in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a
campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the
multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran
continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors
confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation,
which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them
into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its
promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US
threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.
Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming
they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has
observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long
record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other
rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how
implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:
40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin –
they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then
they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all
proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's
worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal,
including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of
"unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No
wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.
The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have
objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace
with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now.
Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in
forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president
from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war
with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a
whole new set of war crimes.
Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good
reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear
weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case
for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing
Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to
a nation that believes its lies to itself.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism,
and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from
Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first
published in Reader Supported
News . Read
other articles by William .
"... Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or secret operations will be involved. ..."
"... Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial crisis of immense proportions around the world ..."
"... The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} ..."
"... Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets. ..."
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death
of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military
high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force
of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars
the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400
antiaircraft and antimissile defense system.
So the question is, if the stealth advantage of the F-35 is only good for a limited time,
is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth using up that particular asset??
Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz
in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more
important issues.
Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the
facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is
either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within
their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after
some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at
least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated
that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or
secret operations will be involved.
Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will
cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached
within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily
see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar
article cited below).
Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial
crisis of immense proportions around the world . The financial and speculative house of
cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their
dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down.
The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and
created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200
- $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett
Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're
talking BIG MONEY!!} (See "World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion
Notional, as Banks Fight Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked
Capitalism", at <
https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ",
June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at <
https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time
Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at <
https://www.globalresearch.... >).
Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and
speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual
products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the
Global Derivatives markets.
All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain
homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need
to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their
primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing
Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.
So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and
their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the
Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other
members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the
phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely
safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don
worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the
corporate controlled media for very long.
"... UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the nation. ..."
"... As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation, which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. ..."
"... CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The New York Times claims you were not informed.) ..."
"... The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he "really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently caught your eye. ..."
"... For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: ..."
UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt
regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the
nation.
DATE: June 21, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR : The President.
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Pompeo's Iran Agenda the Same As Yours?
A fter the close call yesterday when you called off the planned military strike on Iran, we
remain concerned that you are about to be mousetrapped into war with Iran. You have said you do
not want such a war (no sane person would), and our comments below are based on that premise.
There are troubling signs that Secretary Pompeo is not likely to jettison his more warlike
approach, More importantly, we know from personal experience with Pompeo's dismissive attitude
to instructions from you that his agenda can deviate from yours on issues of major
consequence.
Pompeo's behavior betrays a strong desire to resort to military action -- perhaps even
without your approval -- to Iranian provocations (real or imagined), with no discernible
strategic goal other than to advance the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He is a
neophyte compared to his anti-Iran partner John Bolton, whose dilettante approach to
interpreting intelligence, strong advocacy of the misbegotten war on Iraq (and continued pride
in his role in promoting it), and fierce pursuit of his own aggressive agenda are a matter of a
decades-long record. You may not be fully aware of our experience with Pompeo, who has now
taken the lead on Iran.
That experience leaves us with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of
consequence to you and the country, including the contentious issue of alleged Russian hacking
into the DNC. The sketchy "evidence" behind that story has now crumbled, thanks to some unusual
candor from the Department of Justice. We refer to the
extraordinary revelation in a recent Department of Justice court filing that former FBI
Director James Comey never required a final forensic report from the DNC-hired cybersecurity
company, CrowdStrike.
Comey, of course, has admitted to the fact that, amid accusations from the late Sen. John
McCain and others that the Russians had committed "an act of war," the FBI did not follow best
practices and insist on direct access to the DNC computers, preferring to rely on CrowdStrike
reporting. What was not known until the DOJ revelation is that CrowdStrike never gave Comey a
final report on its forensic findings regarding alleged "Russian hacking." Mainstream media
have suppressed this story so far; we
reported it several days ago.
The point here is that Pompeo could have exposed the lies about Russian hacking of the DNC,
had he done what you asked him to do almost two years ago when he was director of the CIA.
In our Memorandum
to you of July 24, 2017 entitled "Was the 'Russian Hack' an Inside Job?," we suggested:
"You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this.["This" being the
evidence-deprived allegation that "a shadowy entity with the moniker 'Guccifer 2.0' hacked
the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks ."] Our
own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither
former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been
completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down."
Three months later, Director Pompeo invited William Binney, one of VIPS' two former NSA
technical directors (and a co-author of our July 24, 2017 Memorandum), to CIA headquarters to
discuss our findings. Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney on October 24, 2017 by
explaining the genesis of the unusual invitation: "You are here because the President told me
that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you."
But Did Pompeo 'Really Want to Know'?
Apparently not. Binney, a widely respected, plain-spoken scientist with more than three
decades of experience at NSA , began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him
about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. As we explained in our most recent
Memorandum to you, Pompeo reacted with disbelief and -- now get this -- tried to put the
burden on Binney to pursue the matter with the FBI and NSA.
As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark
observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around
intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of
intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation,
which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015.
CIA malware and hacking tools are built
by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe
guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in
the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The
New York Times claims you were not informed.)
If Pompeo failed to report back to you on the conversation you instructed him to have with
Binney, you might ask him about it now (even though the flimsy evidence of Russia hacking the
DNC has now evaporated, with Binney vindicated). There were two note-takers present at the
October 24, 2017 meeting at CIA headquarters. There is also a good chance the session was also
recorded. You might ask Pompeo about that.
Whose Agenda?
The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the
impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he
"really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the
conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently
caught your eye.
Had he pursued the matter seriously with Binney, we might not have had to wait until the
Justice Department itself put nails in the coffin of Russiagate, CrowdStrike, and Comey. In
sum, Pompeo could have prevented two additional years of "everyone knows that the Russians
hacked into the DNC." Why did he not?
Pompeo is said to be a bright fellow -- Bolton, too–with impeccable academic
credentials. The history of the past six decades , though, shows that an Ivy League pedigree
can spell disaster in affairs of state. Think, for example, of President Lyndon Johnson's
national security adviser, former Harvard Dean McGeorge Bundy, for example, who sold the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution to Congress to authorize the Vietnam war based on what he knew was a lie.
Millions dead.
Bundy was to LBJ as John Bolton is to you, and it is a bit tiresome watching Bolton brandish
his Yale senior ring at every podium. Think, too, of Princeton's own Donald Rumsfeld concocting
and pushing the fraud about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to "justify" war on Iraq,
assuring us all the while that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Millions
dead.
Rumsfeld's dictum is anathema to William Binney, who has shown uncommon patience answering a
thousand evidence-free "What if's" over the past three years. Binney's shtick? The principles
of physics, applied mathematics, and the scientific method. He is widely recognized for his
uncanny ability to use these to excellent advantage in separating the chaff from wheat. No Ivy
pedigree wanted or needed.
Binney describes himself as a "country boy" from western Pennsylvania. He studied at Penn
State and became a world renowned mathematician/cryptologist as well as a technical director at
NSA. Binney's accomplishments are featured in a documentary on YouTube, "A Good American."
You may wish to talk to him person-to-person.
Cooked Intelligence
Some of us served as long ago as the Vietnam War. We are painfully aware of how Gen. William
Westmoreland and other top military officers lied about the "progress" the Army was making, and
succeeded in forcing their superiors in Washington to suppress our conclusions as all-source
analysts that the war was a fool's errand and one we would inevitably lose. Millions dead.
Four decades later, on February 5, 2003, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, we warned
President Bush that there was no reliable intelligence to justify war on Iraq.
Five years later, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, releasing the
bipartisan conclusions of the committee's investigation, said
this :
" In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact
when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the
American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually
existed."
Intelligence on the Middle East has still been spotty -- and sometimes "fixed" for political
purposes. Four years ago, a U.S. congressional report said Central Command painted
too rosy a picture of the fight against Islamic State in 2014 and 2015 compared with the
reality on the ground and grimmer assessments by other analysts.
Intelligence analysts at CENTCOM claimed their commanders imposed a "false narrative" on
analysts, intentionally rewrote and suppressed intelligence products, and engaged in "delay
tactics" to undermine intelligence provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency. In July 2015,
fifty CENTCOM analysts signed a complaint to the Pentagon's Inspector General that their
intelligence reports were being manipulated by their superiors. The CENTCOM analysts were
joined by intelligence analysts working for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
We offer this as a caution. As difficult as this is for us to say, the intelligence you get
from CENTCOM should not be accepted reflexively as gospel truth, especially in periods of high
tension. The experience of the Tonkin Gulf alone should give us caution. Unclear and
misinterpreted intelligence can be as much a problem as politicization in key conflict
areas.
Frequent problems with intelligence and Cheney-style hyperbole help explain why CENTCOM
commander Admiral William Fallon in early 2007 blurted out that "an attack on Iran " will not
happen on my watch," as Bush kept sending additional carrier groups into the Persian Gulf.
Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and
Persian Gulf Affairs, warned at the time that some Bush advisers secretly wanted an excuse to
attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something
[America] would be forced to retaliate for," she told Newsweek. Deja vu. A National
Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 concluded unanimously that Iran had stopped
working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed such work.
We believe your final decision yesterday was the right one -- given the so-called "fog of
war" and against the background of a long list of intelligence mistakes, not to mention
"cooking" shenanigans. We seldom quote media commentators, but we think Tucker Carlson had it
right yesterday evening: "The very people -- in some cases, literally the same people who lured
us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago -- are demanding a new war -- this one with Iran.
Carlson described you as "skeptical." We believe ample skepticism is warranted.
We are at your disposal, should you wish to discuss any of this with us.
For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney , former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp , Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the
State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA
Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence
Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate
leadership (Associate VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of
Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential
briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East &
CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Sarah Wilton , Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency
(ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in
2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
Pretty harsh evaluationof Pompeo by usually very polite Chinese newspaper. And what is true that in no
way Pompeo is a diplomat. He is a lobbyist for MIC, no more no less. Kind of Madeline Albright of different sex.
As Chinese journalist observed "Diplomacy is governed by international conventions, which require all countries to
observe basic norms. Pompeo behaves like a gangster. He is abandoning the traditional US major-power diplomacy and defying the
gentle style of diplomats. "
Notable quotes:
"... Chinese people will remember Pompeo as a representative who breaks the bottom line of US diplomatic ethics. Letting such a person dominate US diplomacy will unsettle the world and put global peace at risk. ..."
"... Pompeo also has turned the US State Department into a strategic headquarters used to antagonize the international community. By provoking conflict between countries who have unique differences, Pompeo has done nothing but threaten for world peace. ..."
"... Additionally, Pompeo is arguably the most active lobbyist and by all standards, a bully who coerces US allies to block Huawei. He has also spared no effort in criticizing China's policies in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. ..."
"... Pompeo's background reveals military and intelligence capabilities. While serving in the US House of Representatives, he initiated multiple foreign conflicts. Confrontation seems to be his preferred weapon of choice and the only option when engaging with anyone. Only when confronted with China, Russia, and Iran, can he see his true self. He feels such aggressive behaviour is necessary to prove his personal value. ..."
Chinese people will remember Pompeo as a representative who breaks the bottom line of US diplomatic ethics. Letting
such a person dominate US diplomacy will unsettle the world and put global peace at risk.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continues to be a politically troublesome figure in the
global arena. Washington stands at a critical juncture as it redesigns the national strategy
blueprint within a Cold War framework. The highest-ranking US diplomat has single-handedly
activated an outdated mindset, smashing it to the point of climax.
Known as an extreme
hardliner at the White House, Pompeo has redefined the traditional understanding of the chief
diplomat's role among the world's major powers with his signature reckless behaviour.
Pompeo also has turned the US State Department into a strategic headquarters used to
antagonize the international community. By provoking conflict between countries who have unique
differences, Pompeo has done nothing but threaten for world peace.
During his visits to other nations, Pompeo has bad-mouthed and tried to suppress China,
Russia, and Iran. His offensive remarks on China have destroyed the past
China-US diplomatic language that was enjoyed for decades, preferring to use negligent
words from his personal arsenal.
Additionally, Pompeo is arguably the most active lobbyist and by all standards, a bully
who coerces US allies to block Huawei. He has also spared no effort in criticizing China's
policies in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
His outspoken opinions on the recent events in Hong Kong was more of a Rubicon River
crossing than someone was just merely speaking their mind. Rather than adhere to a big power
game like his predecessors, Pompeo has transformed himself into anti-China flag on two
legs.
The US relationship
between China , Russia, and Iran will determine the future course of international
relations. The condition of each relationship serves as a wind vane indicating stability or
turbulence worldwide.
Pompeo is not only disrupting China, Russia, and Iran but also damaging the interests of
other countries. His words and actions have jinxed the very notion of 21st-century peace.
It is understandable how the US could feel threatened, due to the pattern shift among world
powers. However, Pompeo's goal has nothing to do with enhancing trust or easing concerns
expressed by other countries. Instead, he wants to turn US insecurity into a form of visible
hatred and increase hostility worldwide. He has consistently influenced stable international
conditions to the point of deterioration.
"Make America Great Again" is not a one-man show. The notion, which is nothing more than an
illiterate slogan, will never materialize and connect with the harmony enjoyed elsewhere
throughout the world.
In the past decades, the US has engaged in too many wars and conflicts, while also issuing
sanctions against foreign countries which were later drained of their national strength.
Pompeo has continued to push the US toward the flames of confrontation when dealing with
major foreign powers. He has not helped Trump achieve earlier campaign promises, and on the
contrary, he is making it difficult for the US president to keep them.
Pompeo's background reveals military and intelligence capabilities. While serving in the US
House of Representatives, he initiated multiple foreign conflicts. Confrontation seems to be
his preferred weapon of choice and the only option when engaging with anyone. Only when
confronted with China, Russia, and Iran, can he see his true self. He feels such aggressive
behaviour is necessary to prove his personal value.
Judging from the US and its Cold War reboot strategy, Pompeo has roamed too far outside of
the perimeter and has officially lost his way. The US government has labelled China as its
"strategic competitor." Meanwhile, Pompeo
has ignited hostility from China.
Pompeo's words are by no means an accurate consensus of the US public who also want to enjoy
a harmonious existence. By making volatile claims against China look reasonable, Pompeo has
turned himself into a cheerleader of hatred, who uses slander and vitriol for pompoms.
Having a secretary of state of this calibre is a tragedy of US politics and the sorrow of
international politics. The world needs to be exposed to the damage Pompeo has brought to
humankind's peaceful existence. His destructive power should not be tolerated because of his
title. He has repeatedly crushed diplomacy's constructive role while ignoring opportunities to
ease international conflicts. He is a stain upon the professional honour of diplomacy. The
global diplomatic community should detest his actions and join together in a crusade against
him.
This article originally appeared on the Global Times website.
"... Nobody at the Pentagon of any consequence. This is a massive opportunity for the president to do what he seems to be insinuating he wants to do, and that is to say to have himself be the only person making any decision in the world, but it's also because of his disingenuousness, his narcissism, his ego and the very fact that he contends that he's in control for this bureaucracy, this massive imperial bureaucracy, to take over. ..."
"... So the only conclusion I can come to is that Donald Trump is an absolute genius -- you will excuse me if I don't arrive at that conclusion -- or he's an inexperienced, narcissistic, egotistical man who's going to get in big trouble sooner or later, if he's not already. ..."
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Well, John Bolton stands first and foremost. I'm told right
now that with the lack of leadership at the Pentagon, Bolton treats the Pentagon as if it were
his vassal state. I'm told that Mike Pompeo is pretty much the same way. Let's look at the
strategic genius we have dealing with Iran right here. Mike Pompeo, a former Army Captain. Wow,
there's a strategic genius for you. Tom Cotton, former Army Captain. Wow, there's another
strategic genius for you.
Nobody at the Pentagon of any consequence. This is a massive opportunity for the
president to do what he seems to be insinuating he wants to do, and that is to say to have
himself be the only person making any decision in the world, but it's also because of his
disingenuousness, his narcissism, his ego and the very fact that he contends that he's in
control for this bureaucracy, this massive imperial bureaucracy, to take over.
I've studied every president since Harry Truman, studied the decision-making process of
every one of them. I've been up close and personal with four of those presidents'
decision-making processes. Some of them are more competent, some of them are very incompetent
depending on the particular decision. But across the board, none of them work like this
administration. Not a single one of them even remotely resembles this administration. So
the only conclusion I can come to is that Donald Trump is an absolute genius -- you will excuse
me if I don't arrive at that conclusion -- or he's an inexperienced, narcissistic, egotistical
man who's going to get in big trouble sooner or later, if he's not already.
GREG WILPERT And what about the other allies of the United States? What role are they
playing? I'm particularly thinking, of course, of Saudi Arabia and Israel.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Yes. I think Mike Pompeo went to Riyadh. Others have been
dispatched -- Bolton. And they're saying sorry, we told you it was coming. But standby, it will
come. I think we have outside Washington some really powerful figures pushing for this too.
Bibi Netanyahu, Mohammad bin Salman, and maybe even Mohammed bin Zayed in the Emirates, all
want bombs to fall on Iran. I don't think they want an invasion, but that shows how little they
know about strategy because if bombs fall on Iran, here's what will happen. No matter how
precise, how around-the-clock, how devastating, no matter where they're dropped -- on the
nuclear complex, on the IRGC, on the Quds force, wherever they might be dropped.
All those bombs will do besides destroying infrastructure and killing people, all they will
do is force the Iranian people to coalesce around this very, very bad government, which they
aren't right now. They're finding it corrupter and corrupter. And so, they are as against their
government as they've ever been, as a bloc, all echelons of Iranian society, but we will force
them together with those bombs and they'll stand with their government. The second thing they
will do is go right back to North Korea, which they did when I was in government. They'll learn
more about going underground. They will go underground. They'll build a nuclear weapon. They'll
test it and then they'll say, okay, now come get us. And we'll do the same thing we're doing
with North Korea right now and they know that we will not invade. So what do we do after we've
dropped the bombs? We figure all this out real quickly and we invade. And invasion of Iran --
you heard it here -- is a disaster in the making.
GREG WILPERT Now, Iran says that it would be willing to negotiate if first the sanctions are
lifted. Earlier this year though, Mike Pompeo outlined twelve separate issues for negotiation
-- several of which go far beyond the issue of nuclear power; such as ending support for
Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen. Now, it looks like there's a complete impasse
basically between the two sides. Do you think there is any chance that this conflict could
still be worked out peacefully, given how far apart the two sides are?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I don't want to dismiss it entirely because I think people like Bill
Burns and others who did some of the significant negotiating for President Obama that led to
the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement with Iran. I think that is still possible. I think there's
still places like Oman that would offer their good offices, like maybe Prime Minister Abe from
Japan or Sisi in Egypt. There are a lot of people out there who would offer their good offices
and might be able to affect some kind of beginning of talks. Here's the problem though. As long
as you have a thug like Mike Pompeo calling other world leaders "thugs," principally those in
Iran, and using that kind of language, and treating them the way we treat them, then there's no
respect being shown by the United States for the other party. Iran -- a 5,000-year-old
civilization. A country for a long-time homogeneous, 50-plus percent are Persian, 80 million
people, a vast country -- You've got to show that country some respect. You can't talk to them
the way Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton do. You can't disrespect them consistently like that and
expect them to ever come talk to you. So that has to stop, and I don't see it stopping anytime
soon -- let alone, taking on a more positive turn. And therefore, I don't see how we can
talk.
GREG WILPERT Okay. Well we're going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Colonel
Larry Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College
of William and Mary. Thanks again, Larry, for having joined us today.
Thanks for this, I largely agree with Col. Wilkerson’s impression, and his comment
about disrespect, among other things.
It’s a minor detail, but I wonder on what he bases his view of the level of corruption
in the society there. Does he think it’s American-level corruption, or less, or more? The
type of nuance and detailed information that would be required to make that type of judgement
in my view is difficult to find in the West these days.
It’s unfortunate and telling in a way also that in the article RepubAnon mentions
above, the Middle East Monitor didn’t manage to get Khamenei’s name right
either.
Trump has finally gone full banana peel. Anyone who is able to stand up straight for five
minutes without falling over backward cannot still doubt that Trump is a dangerous lunatic,
so intellectually stunted, ignorant and narcissistic (constantly measuring the heat and
brightness of the spotlight he desperately craves, like a hypochondriac taking his
temperature and blood pressure every 10 minutes) and so easily teed up and maneuvered in this
grotesque Iran con by psychotic madmen/sycophants like Pompous & Bolton and
breathtakingly devious vipers like Bibi Satanyahu and Saudi butcher MSOB. It is plain as
doomsday.
Trump’s repudiation of the JCPOA has created an interesting situation. No country
should deal with the US unless the contents of the deal offered have prior approval from both
the House and the Senate.
Scott Ritter had a good interview with Chris Hedges detailing Pompeo’s ridiculous
preconditions. Iran should start setting their own.
As for who was responsible for the damage to the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, I think
the market called BS on it. One filled with naptha, the other with kerosene/jet1… not
hard to make them go “BOOM”. I’m waiting for an LNG tanker to go up –
they have calorific equivalents close to low yield nuclear weapons.
They’ll learn more about going underground. They will go underground.
They’ll build a nuclear weapon. They’ll test it and then they’ll say,
okay, now come get us. And we’ll do the same thing we’re doing with North Korea
right now and they know that we will not invade. So what do we do after we’ve dropped
the bombs? We figure all this out real quickly and we invade. And invasion of Iran—
you heard it here— is a disaster in the making.
This is an interesting point that I must admit I hadn’t thought of before. It seems
obvious to anyone with even a modicum of military knowledge that an invasion of Iran would be
a gigantic and maybe impossible task, it would require an effort significantly larger than
the Vietnam War – almost certainly the largest mobilisation since WWII, and one with no
guarantee whatever of even limited success. When you read ‘insider’ articles on
the topic there is a general assumption that a war with Iran is something very different
– essentially, a stand off assault intended to cripple Iran through air strikes.
But it may well be that Bolton and his crazies (plus the Saudis and Israelis) are actually
playing a double game with the Pentagon. They are persuading them that all that’s
needed is a manageable air and naval war (which is comfortable ground for US military
strategists), while full well knowing that Iran is highly unlikely to collapse under that
sort of stress. Bit by bit, the US will be dragged into a ground war, one created by the
unstoppable momentum of a large scale air strike. This may well be the neocons actual
strategy.
Arms Dealers and Lobbyists Get Rich as Yemen Burns See the Top 4 U.S. contractors' profits explode, all while their
weapons have been used against civilian targets for years. •
June
25, 2019
And make no mistake: U.S. defense contractors and their lobbyists and supporters in government are getting rich in the process.
"Our role is not to make policy, our role is to comply with it," John Harris, CEO of defense contractor Raytheon International,
said
to CNBC in February. But his statement vastly understates the role that defense contractors and lobbyists play in Washington's
halls of power, where their influence on policy directly impacts their bottom lines. Since 2015, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates have waged war against Yemen, killing and injuring thousands of Yemeni civilians. An estimated
90,000 people have been killed, according
to one international tracker.
Nearly 90
coalition airstrikes have hit
homes , schools, markets,
hospitals, and mosques since 2015, according to Human Rights Watch. In 2018, the coalition bombed a wedding, killing 22 people, including
eight children. Another strike hit a
bus , killing at
least 26 children.
American-origin munitions produced by companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon were identified at
the site of over two dozen attacks throughout Yemen. Indeed, the United States is the single largest arms supplier to the Middle
East and has been for decades, according to a report by
the Congressional Research Service. From 2014 to 2018, the United States supplied 68 percent of Saudi Arabia's arms imports, 64 percent
of the UAE's imports, and 65 percent of Qatar's imports. Some of this weaponry was subsequently stolen or sold to
al-Qaeda linked groups in the Arabian Peninsula
, where they could be used against the U.S. military, according to
reports . The Saudi use of
U.S.-made jets, bombs, and missiles
against Yemeni civilian centers constitutes a war crime. It was an American laser-guided
MK-82 bomb that killed the children
on the bus; Raytheon's technology killed the 22 people attending the wedding in 2018 as well as a family traveling in their car;
and another American-made MK-82 bomb
ended the lives of at least 80 men, women, and children in a Yemeni marketplace in March 2016. Yet American defense contractors
continue to spend millions of dollars to lobby Washington to maintain the flow of arms to these countries.
"Companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and other defense contractors see countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE as huge
potential markets," Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War , told
TAC . "They see them as massive opportunities to make a lot of money; that's why they're investing billions and billions of dollars.
This is a huge revenue stream to these companies." Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics have all highlighted business with Saudi
Arabia in their shareholder reports.
"Operations and maintenance have become a very profitable niche market for U.S. corporations,"
said Richard Aboulafia, a vice president at Teal Group. He added that defense contractors can make as much as 150 percent more profit
off of operations and maintenance than from the original arms sale. U.S. weapons supply
57 percent of the military aircraft used by the Royal
Saudi Air Force, and mechanics and technicians hired by American companies repair and maintain their fighter jets and helicopters.
In 2018 alone, the United States made $4.5 billion worth of arms deals to
Saudi Arabia and $1.2
billion to the United Arab
Emirates , a report by William Hartung and Christina Arabia found.
From the report
: "Lockheed Martin was involved in deals worth $25 billion; Boeing, $7.1 billion in deals; Raytheon, $5.5 billion in deals; Northrop
Grumman had one deal worth $2.5 billion; and BAE systems had a $1.3 billion deal." "Because of the nature of U.S. arms control law,
most of these sales have to get government approval, and we've absolutely seen lobbyists weighing in heavily on this," Miles said.
"The last time I saw the numbers, the arms industry had nearly 1,000 registered lobbyists.
They're not on the Hill lobbying Congress about how many schools we should open next year. They're lobbying for defense contractors.
The past 18 years of endless wars have been incredibly lucrative for the arms industry, and they have a vested industry in seeing
these wars continue, and not curtailing the cash cow that has been for them." The defense industry
spent $125 million on lobbying
in 2018. Of that, Boeing spent
$15 million on lobbyists, Lockheed Martin spent
$13.2 million , General Dynamics
$11.9 million , and Raytheon
$4.4 million ,
according to the Lobbying
Disclosure Act website.
Writes Ben Freeman:
According to a new report firms registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act have reported receiving more than $40 million
from Saudi Arabia in 2017 and 2018. Saudi lobbyists and public relations professionals have contacted Congress, the executive
branch, media outlets and think tanks more than 4,000 times. Much of this work has been focused on ensuring that sales of U.S.
arms to Saudi Arabia continue unabated and blocking congressional actions that would end U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition
in Yemen. Lobbyists, lawyers and public relations firms working for the Saudis have also reported doling out more than $4.5 million
in campaign contributions in the past two years, including at least $6,000 to Trump. In many cases, these contributions have gone
to members of Congress they've contacted regarding the Yemen war. In fact, some contributions have gone to members of Congress
on the exact same day they were contacted by Saudi lobbyists, and some were made to key members just before, and even on the day
of, important Yemen votes.
Over a dozen lobbying firms employed by defense contractors have also been working on behalf of the Saudi or Emiratis, efficiently
lobbying for both the arms buyers and sellers in one fell swoop .
One of these lobbying firms, the McKeon Group, led by former Republican congressman and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
Howard McKeon, represents both Saudi Arabia and the American defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital ATK,
MBDA, and L3 Technologies. Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are the biggest suppliers of arms to Saudi Arabia. In 2018, the McKeon
Group took $1,697,000 from 10 defense
contractors " to, among
other objectives, continue the flow of arms to Saudi Arabia," reports National Memo. Freeman
details multiple examples where lobbyists working on behalf of the Saudis met with a senator's staff and then made a substantial
contribution to that senator's campaign within days of a key vote to keep the United States in the Yemen war.
American Defense International (ADI) represents the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia's coalition partner in the war against
Yemen, as well as several American
defense contractors, including General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, L3 Technologies, and General Atomics.
Not to be outdone by the McKeon Group, ADI's lobbyists have also aggressively pursued possible swing votes in the U.S. Senate
for the hefty sum of $45,000 a month, paid for by the
UAE . ADI lobbyists discussed
the "situation in Yemen" and the "Paveway sale to the UAE," the same bomb used in the deadly wedding strike, with the office of Senator
Martin Heinrich, a member of the Armed Services Committee, according to FARA
reports .
ADI's lobbyists also met
with Congressman Steve Scalise's legislative director to advise his office to vote against the congressional resolution on Yemen.
For their lobbying, Raytheon paid ADI
$120,000 in 2018. In addition to the
overt influence exercised by lobbyists for the defense industry, many former arms industry executives are embedded in influential
posts throughout the Trump administration: from former Airbus, Huntington Ingalls, and Raytheon lobbyist Charles Faulkner at the
State Department, who pushed Mike Pompeo
to support arms sales in the Yemen war ; to former Boeing executive and erstwhile head of the Department of Defense Patrick Shanahan;
to his interim replacement Mark Esper, secretary of the Army and another former lobbyist for Raytheon.
The war in Yemen has been good for American defense contractors' bottom lines. Since the conflict began, General Dynamics' stock
price has risen from about $135 to $169 per share, Raytheon's from about $108 to more than $180, and Boeing's from about $150 to
$360, according to In
These Times. Their analysis found that those four companies have had at least $30.1 billion in Saudi military contracts approved
by the State Department over the last 10 years. In April, President Donald Trump vetoed a resolution that would have ended American
support for the Saudi-UAE coalition war against Yemen. Such efforts have failed to meet the 60-vote veto-proof threshold needed in
the Senate. There are a few senators who didn't vote for the War Powers resolution "that will probably vote for the Raytheon sales,"
Brittany Benowitz, a lawyer and former adviser to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told TAC. "I think you'll
continue to see horrific bombings and as the famine rages on, people will start to ask, 'Why are we a part of this war?' Unfortunately,
I don't think that will start to happen anytime soon." Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter.
Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
Yes indeed, we are the #1 arms exporter and very proud about it. Meanwhile, Rubio, Pompeo, et. al. are also proud about how they
are finally clamping down on the nefarious arrangement that Venezuela and Cuba have to prop up their regimes.
Venezuela gives Cuba low cost oil and Cuba sends them about 25,000 doctors for free medical care to help prop up Maduro. Hmm
... sounds like one is exporting medical services in return for energy, pure, unabridged evil. Our second best export is misinformation
and lies.
I know, someone will give the State Dept line that the doctors are underpaid and the oil is below market price. The point is
that both countries export what they have more of in order to get what they need. This is the basics of any trade relationship.
Both countries are better off after the transaction and now both countries are suffering because of our benighted intervention.
I keep wondering when God is going to punish us for our appalling arrogance, pride, and our unwavering faith in our own righteousness.
God is certainly punishing me. I wish I was one of the blissfully ignorant.
The biggest business of America is war. The symptom of how all pervasive this has become is there is a new definition of defeat:
the only war that is lost, is one that ends. The new victory is now war without end.
If the Saudis have not yet routed the Houthis, I am doubt they ever will. Without invading the country and holding ground, I am
unclear of the point of constantly bombing.
The Houthis won their civil conflict, best allow them to constitute a government and deal with it.
The Saudis have invaded Yemen, but they and their mercenaries keep getting ambushed and ganked. The Yemeni tribes have a very
long and successful history of guerrilla warfare.
Admittedly, it's mostly the mercenaries, as the Saudis don't like a centralized military in particular and don't like fighting
opponents who can shoot back in general.
"Our role is not to make policy, our role is to comply with it," John Harris, CEO of defense contractor Raytheon International,
said to CNBC in February.
Yeah and Wells Fargo were just practicing "innovation" that the financial companies have told us they need to do.
The Republic is a total failure. It cares nothing for the Constitution the representatives are sworn to uphold and abide by. It's
all about the symbiosis of power in gov. and money in business. Those two factions exchange what they other needs to gain more
power and money at the expense of the taxpayers and countries abroad being destroyed. It's pretty simple if you ask 'cui bono'
and then follow the money. This time following the money may take the USA/world to thermo-nuclear war which psychos like Bolton,
Pompeo, Pence, Netanyahu, the MIC and all the other neo-cons want. Currently the war policy against Iran seems to be tied up in
Christian-Zionist eschatology to bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ. Does it get any more loony than this? Metaphysics
driving political and foreign policy is really a recipe for a disaster and may actually bring about loosing the Four Horseman
of the Apocalypse on the world, but that's OK I guess because Wash. sees the 'big picture.'
"... Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs. ..."
"... even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation. ..."
"... On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure. ..."
"... To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping tight control over the entire country at the same time. ..."
Iran's downing of a US military surveillance drone last week predictably led to another
flare-up in tense relations between Tehran and Washington. What could be the implications of a
potential conflict between the two nations? Right after the Global Hawk UAV was shot down, the
New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran,
but then changed his mind.
Let's start by saying that the decision to launch a military operation against Iran (which
is what this is really about), including the specific time and place, would have to be taken by
a very small group of top US political and military officials. At such meetings, no leaks could
possibly occur by definition.
Now, let's take a look at some of the details. The difference between a 'strike' and an
'operation' is quite significant, at the very least in terms of duration, and forces and
equipment involved. It would be nice to know if the NYT actually meant a single airstrike or an
entire air operation.
Amusingly enough, the publication reported that the strikes were scheduled for early morning
to minimize the potential death toll among the Iranian military and civilians. It's worth
pointing out that the US has never cared about the number of victims either among the military
personnel or the civilian population of its adversaries.
Moreover, the purpose of any military conflict is to do as much damage to your enemy as
possible in terms of personnel, military hardware and other equipment. This is how the goals of
any armed conflict are achieved. Of course, it would be best if civilian losses are kept to a
minimum, but for the US it's more of a secondary rather than a primary objective.
The US Navy and Air Force traditionally strike before dawn with one purpose alone – to
avoid the antiaircraft artillery (both small and medium-caliber), as well as a number of air
defense systems with optical tracking, firing at them. Besides, a strike in the dark hours of
the day affects the morale of the enemy personnel.
Here we need to understand that Iran would instantly retaliate, and Tehran has no small
capabilities for that. In other words, it would be a full-scale war. For the US, it wouldn't
end with one surgical airstrike without consequences, like in Syria. And the US seems to have a
very vague idea on what a military victory over Iran would look like.
There is no doubt that a prolonged air campaign by the US will greatly undermine Iran's
military and economic potential and reduce the country to the likes of Afghanistan, completely
destroying its hydrocarbon production and exports industries.
To say how long such a campaign could last would be too much of a wild guess, but we have
the examples of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 when airstrikes lasted for 38 days, and
Yugoslavia in 1991 when the bombing continued for 78 days. So, theoretically, the US could bomb
Iran for, say, 100 days, wrecking the country's economy and infrastructure step by step.
However, the price the US would have to pay for starting such a military conflict may turn
out to be too high.
For instance, Iran can respond to US aggression by launching intermediate and shorter-range
ballistic missiles to target oil and gas fields and terminals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait,
and the UAE.
Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to
assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive
fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs.
Firstly, it should be pointed out that even though the capabilities of US intelligence
agencies are almost limitless, quite a few Iranian missile launching sites remain undiscovered.
Secondly, US air defense systems in the Persian Gulf, no matter how effective, would not shoot
down every last Iranian missile. And even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical
infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation.
On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the
antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their
hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure.
If such a scenario came true, that would bring inconceivable chaos to the global economy and
would immediately drive up oil prices to $200-250 per barrel – and that's the lowest
estimate. It is these implications that are most likely keeping the US from attacking Iran.
To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale
ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both
regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership
of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping
tight control over the entire country at the same time.
For the record, the US failed to do that even in Afghanistan, which is several times smaller
than Iran in terms of both territory and population. And almost 18 years of fighting later, the
US has achieved next to nothing.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to
international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth
is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming
the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity
in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim
deserve better, given what we see around us.
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian
invasion of Greece & the West
Tucker ,,,, you are kind of restoring what little faith i had left of the mainstream press
with this upload its not mutch and it has a long long way to go , but it is a start thank the
guy in the sky
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
Tucker i disagreed with u in past on many things but i genuinely am impressed with your
stance and your moral compass on wars and learning from the past.. kudos to u on this
one...it shows we can disagree on many policies yet still respect and support one another on
humanity. Glad u worked on Trump on that one.
@ jayc 57 US Hook says Iran knew what getting into when struck deal
Yes they did, and now they regret it.
In 2013 Ali Khamenei said: "Certainly, we are pessimistic about the Americans. We do not
trust them. We consider the government of the United States of America as an unreliable,
arrogant, illogical, and trespassing government,"
The JCPOA was not a unilateral deal between USA and Iran, it was a multilateral
deal
That's correct de jure, but not de facto. The US all by itself is leading the current
attack on Iran, despite what the other members might think. Iran has not gotten any
significant support from other JCPOA participants.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 5:10:10 PM |
66
The Trump administration's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook...
______________________________________
Brian Hook is a "special" envoy in the sense that the "Special Olympics" are
special.
Thursday night was the night Donald Trump became president. You can imagine the hyperbolic
hosannahs that would have been sung if Trump had gone ahead with his planned strikes against
Iran, adding to the list of undeclared presidential wars. Instead he pulled back.
Hugh Hewitt called it the "big blink," inviting Liz Cheney -- who is very much her father's
daughter on foreign policy -- on his show to warn, "Weakness is provocative." Hewitt compared
it to Barack Obama's failure to enforce his "red line" in Syria. "Much worse"
argued Kori Schake in The Atlantic . Other reporting
focused on a "total breakdown in process."
It was not a picture perfect approach to national security, to be sure. But it did sharply
illustrate the Beltway's strange priorities. When Trump twice bombed Syria, few of those who
fret about his erosion of constitutional norms or authoritarian tendencies protested his
failure to seek congressional authorization as required by the Constitution. There was a much
larger process-related panic when Trump said late last year he wanted to bring American troops
home from Syria.
... ... ...
"How many more deaths? How many more lost limbs? How much longer are we going to be there?"
Woodward quotes Trump as asking. One Post write-up folded these lines into a broader
story about the White House's "nervous breakdown" and the national security team's impatience
with the president. But these are morally serious questions, not exaggerated inaugural crowd
size estimates.
No, Trump didn't become President last night. Last night was the culmination of two and a
half years of incredibly stupid foreign policy by a man who clearly doesn't know what he is
doing and us unfit to be the President. Obama left Trump with a situation where a wise
leader could have taken the deal endorsed by every other important nation on the planet and
created a detente with Iran. Instead, he handed policy over to the most beligarant war
hawks and gave them free reign to drive our country to the brink of a disastrous war. And
now we are supposed to congratulate Trump for failing to pull the trigger on the action
that every single step he had taken until now has been leading?
When you take the job of President of the United States, you don't get to be graded on a
curve. The fact that he didn't make the worst possible choice at the end of a long chain of
bad choices doesn't make him a good President.
"... It is utterly bizarre to hear people who believe Trump is unfit to lead seem disappointed that he isn't taking us to war. ..."
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove" advisors? ..."
"... If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his 10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker. ..."
"... Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine - first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he hears on Fox News to start it all over again. ..."
"... "It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster." ..."
"... the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the Constitution. ..."
"... And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con. ..."
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of his
own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is
quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the first
place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian air space
(or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk"
advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove"
advisors?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine
- first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again.
But just because on this pass he happened to randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're
supposed to congratulate him for finally "becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is
the contortions his supporters put themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to
everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article is
crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President," is
a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used when
Trump bombed Syria for the first time.
He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their
restraint (on the contrary, they have created a crisis for no good reason and have brought us
to the brink of war as a result) so much as he's criticizing the media for its
warmongering.
The media is actually trying to bait the President into a unilateral act of war against
another country that hasn't attacked us and couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop
routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm Bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated
in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper
place would be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this time.
(And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and kill
and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would be a truly presidential act." ..."
...This Administration's handling of Iran, as compared to the last, is anything but stupid.
Unless, of course, you're of the opinion we should be going to war, and you're pissed that
this President made the right decision at the right time. Nice try, because thinking the
way you are is stupid.
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of
his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump
is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the
first place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian
air space (or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future.
For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to
hitting pay dirt.
Well, this article vanquished my very recent admiration for Michael Brendan Dougherty,
acquired by way of Mr. Dreher.
"articulates a classical Augustinian just war argument ..."
That's like claiming Mrs O'Leary's cow that kicked over the lantern and burned Chicago
to the ground was articulating the finer points of preventing forest fires originated by
Smokey the Bear.
Do the writers here do a little physical stretching before contorting yourselves into
pretzel shapes trying to justify every lantern Trump kicks over into poles of dry hay as he
goes along?
Of course conservative Christians hate pulling back from imminent, and possibly nuclear
war. When haven't they in American history?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching
Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine -
first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again. But just because on this pass he happened to
randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're supposed to congratulate him for finally
"becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is the contortions his supporters put
themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article
is crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President,"
is a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used
when Trump bombed Syria for the first time. He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't
praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their restraint (on the contrary, they have created a
crisis for no good reason and have brought us to the brink of war as a result) so much as
he's criticizing the media for its warmongering. The media is actually trying to bait the
President into a unilateral act of war against another country that hasn't attacked us and
couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like
skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to
be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this
pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would
deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would
be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this
time. (And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and
kill and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
This type of article is the reason I read The American Conservative. Thank you for
addressing this important issue from a cautious and realistic perspective.
Although Donald Trump and I are on opposite sides of the fence on nearly every issue, I
do prefer his restrained foreign policy instincts to the hawkish ones of Hillary
Clinton.
Goodness you people and your Nobel prize obsession. The last guy got one he didn't deserve
so I should get one too. Whether the decision was presidential or not is hinged on motive
in my view.
If it was an assessment that if our drone did in fly over US airspace, then it
represented a legitimate target for Iran - then certainly critical thinking as expressed
has some merit to sound management.
If the matter was decided on the messiness of conflict and calculating one's political
carreer, the level of sound management is simply not a factor.
THIS is what white supremacy looks like: Punish Iran because one day in the far off future
they may develop an atomic bomb but gift Israel $3 billion a year while it harbors hundreds
of nukes. Meanwhile, pat head choppers like Saudi Arabia on the head -- As long as they
buys billions in US weapons and force nations to use US dollars to buy oil.
Do you realize that Iran is an Aryan nation, which would make them white? Israel is a
Jewish nation, which most white supremacists hate. And Saudi Arabia is an Arab country,
which would not make it a white country.
So how in the world is this what white supremacy looks like?
"... If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit down and talk. ..."
"... Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald. ..."
"... That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in flames. ..."
"how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of its asymmetric
regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia and the Straits
of Hormuz"
Oh, about 12 hours, there or thereabouts. That is Iran's "Trump card". If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token
sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit
down and talk.
Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with
everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald.
That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in
flames.
This recent 19 May piece from Ha'aretz documents precisely the manipulation of
American policy by Israeli charlatans and their agents of influence in the US. The title
says it all just by itself: "Netanyahu's Iran Dilemma: Getting Trump to Act Without
Putting Israel on the Front Line." It goes on to assess that:
"In this conflict, Israel is hoping to have its cake and eat it too. Ever since Trump
was elected president two and a half years ago, Netanyahu has been urging him to take a
more aggressive line toward Iran, in order to force it to make additional concessions on
its nuclear program and disrupt its support for militant organizations.
"Trump acceded to this urging a year ago when he withdrew America from the nuclear
agreement with Iran. That was followed by tighter sanctions on Iran, as well as
publication of a plan by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo detailing 12 steps Tehran
must take to satisfy Washington.
"But Israel isn't interested in being part of the front. That is why Jerusalem has
issued so few official statements on the Iranian issue, and why Netanyahu has urged
ministers to be cautious in what they say."
I'd say that passage captures the situation perfectly, and it just goes to show that
when you want to know about what chicanery Israel and its lobby are up to in the US, you
have to go and look at what Israelis are saying when they aren't particularly careful about
who's observing. That sort of truth is sanitized from any MSM accounts in the US.
@ OP 2
Israel is an important part of Middle East US policy decisions but not the only part, and not
the most important one. Going back to the Carter Doctrine, and before, the US has intended to
be the top dog in the Middle East but instead, through its mistakes, has become second fiddle
to Iran. The US and its allies have tens of thousands of troops with tons of military gear in
the area and are still losing influence, replaced by Iran and its Shia Crescent. That must be
reversed!
In Danielle Ryan’s article in RT's Op-ed “US will not ‘stumble into’
war with Iran by mistake. If it happens, it will be by design” she notes the prevalence
of “strange terminology” used by mainstream media to describe how the US gets
into wars. I have added to her list and checked that all have been used in the current
US-Iran scenario. The US is in danger of being: “dragged into, sucked into, sliding
into, stumbling into, slouching towards, lured into, bumbling into, blundering into and
sleepwalking into” war with Iran.
Who are they trying to kid when they have already declared economic war on Iran,
asphyxiating the Iranian economy, knowing full well that Iran has to respond.
John Bolton “sleepwalking” into war with Iran? He’ll be wide awake and
so excited he’ll probably have to relieve himself.
NemesisCalling , Jun 23, 2019 11:23:57 AM |
12Oscar Peterson , Jun 23, 2019 11:25:56 AM |
13
@Don Bacon #4
"Israel is an important part of Middle East US policy decisions but not the only part,
and not the most important one. Going back to the Carter Doctrine, and before, the US has
intended to be the top dog in the Middle East but instead, through its mistakes, has become
second fiddle to Iran. The US and its allies have tens of thousands of troops with tons of
military gear in the area and are still losing influence, replaced by Iran and its Shia
Crescent. That must be reversed!"
Have to disagree with a good deal of this.
Israel's strategic preferences have indeed become the most important single influence on
US Middle East policy. Up to a certain point in the past, that was not true, but it is now.
The Carter Doctrine has, in effect, been undermined by the distortions that the ever-growing
power of pro-Israel political Jewry in the US in both its neoconservative and Likudnik
expressions are able to impose on our policy.
Neither big oil, nor Saudi Arabia, nor anything that could objectively be called US
strategic considerations wields anything like the heft of political Jewry. And even
metastasizing Christian Zionism is only an ideological adjunct to Zionism proper, primarily a
function of the cultural damage stemming from Jewry's march through the institutions since WW
II.
That said, I must also disagree that Iran has become "the top dog" in the Middle East.
They are nowhere close, though, with their cultural and technological attainments, backed by
oil and gas deposits, their long-term strategic position has a lot of promise. A "top dog"
would not be in Iran's current underdog position vis-a-vis Israel and its US golem and having
to fight back with the stratagems we are currently seeing.
The Shia crescent is essentially a myth, and Iran's ability to exercise dominating
influence on Shia Arabs is largely a function of the hostility of Sunni Arabs to the Shia
Arab empowerment of recent years. Yes, the US is losing influence, but that is mostly a
function of our own policy dysfunction induced by dual-loyalist political Jewry and the
Israel-Über-Alles strategic preferences it imposes.
@Don Bacon
That clarifies.
I do agree that Israel is one of the 2 important factors in US calculation in south-west
Asia, the other being strategic leverage over big-league competitors. And, it is true that US
military presence in the Persian Gulf has been the Carter doctrine's making - although one
might argue the doctrine itself was created to fill the vacuum created with the departure of
the British and the subsequent independence given to the southern Sheikhdoms. The issue with
the current US strategy in the region is that it defies the reality with such an obstinance
that it completely undermines its own goals. The origin of this obstinance is well known to
everyone.
NJDuke , Jun 23, 2019 11:45:09 AM |
18Don Bacon , Jun 23, 2019 11:52:24 AM |
19
Israel or no, failure is not an option for the US in the Middle East, especially Syria which
was Hillary's Job-One during her SecState tenure.
AP, Dec 14, 2011-- US: Assad's Syria a 'dead man walking'
The State Department official, Frederic Hof, told Congress on Wednesday that Assad's
repression may allow him to hang on to power but only for a short time. And, he urged the
Syrian opposition to prepare for the day when it takes control of the state in order to
prevent chaos and sectarian conflict.
"Our view is that this regime is the equivalent of dead man walking," said Hof, the State
Department's pointman on Syria, which he said was turning into "Pyongyang in the Levant," a
reference to the North Korean capital. He said it was difficult to determine how much time
Assad has left in power but stressed "I do not see this regime surviving.". . .
here
And Syria is only the most important US target country in the ME, the Iraq challenge still
exists, Lebanon is important (receives some US military aid) and of course the old bugaboo
Iran has become more vital than ever. Iran has a heavy political influence in Iraq and Syria,
and that highway from Tehran to Beirut is a problem especially considering Iran ally (and
"terrorist") Hezbollah. So. . .that's why 50,000+ US troops, an air force, and the Navy's
Fifth fleet are there.
The main point is that the US world hegemon has to be strong everywhere, especially in
Asia, and if it's forced out of anywhere it would set a bad example, going back to 'losing
China.'
"The issue with the current US strategy in the region is that it defies the reality with
such an obstinance that it completely undermines its own goals. The origin of this
obstinance is well known to everyone."
Yes, I think that's the issue exactly, and Israel is at the heart of it all. We are
undermining our own goals (and scoring own goals.) Your point here captures the current
bottom line of US "strategy" in the region.
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what
it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." . ."I wouldn't go to
war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two
things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of
Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.". . .General Smedley Butler, USMC, two
Congressional Medals of Honor, veteran of wars in Central America, Europe and China
Is Israel responsible for the US enmity toward North Korea? the bombing of Libya and Somalia?
Eighteen years in Afghanistan?
No. In the US, to quote Randolph Bourne (1918), war is the health of the state.
. . .With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government,
with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the
negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it
into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country
into war. For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the
intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit
of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to
war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a
bigger role in the destiny of the world. The result is that, even in those countries where
the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the
people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which
has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the
nation into battle. Good democrats are wont to feel the crucial difference between a State
in which the popular Parliament or Congress declares war, and the State in which an
absolute monarch or ruling class declares war. But, put to the stern pragmatic test, the
difference is not striking. In the freest of republics as well as in the most tyrannical of
empires, all foreign policy, the diplomatic negotiations which produce or forestall war,
are equally the private property of the Executive part of the Government, and are equally
exposed to no check whatever from popular bodies, or the people voting as a mass
themselves.
"Is Israel responsible for the US enmity toward North Korea? the bombing of Libya and
Somalia? Eighteen years in Afghanistan?"
First, I did not claim that every move the US makes is Israel-induced. I said that Israel
is at the heart of our overall strategic dysfunction in the Middle East. Libya and Somalia
are peripheral, and Afghanistan is not truly in the region at all.
But let's be clear that the rise of both al Quaeda and, as a follow-on, the Islamic State
have been greatly facilitated by the resentment generated by the imposition of Jewish state
on the region at the expense of the local Arabs. Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have mentioned
the Zionist conquest and its wars as formative experiences.
And the rise of IS was a direct result of the US invasion of Iraq, itself induced by the
overlapping strains of Jewish neoconservatism and Likudnik hyper-Zionism. The overthrow of
Saddam created the political and strategic space for IS to emerge and thrive, and the
concerted attempt to overthrow Assad--another Israeli strategic preference--weakened the
Syrian state so much that it permitted the establishment of a "caliphate" which then invaded
Iraq. This expanding dynamic played a role in Libya as well.
With regard to Saudi Arabia, we have to ask why the US put its weight behind the
replacement of Muhammed bin Naif (MbN) with Muhammed bin Salman (MbS) when almost all the USG
wanted to tell Salman that we preferred staying with the known and trusted MbN. Almost
certainly, Trump's ignorant support of MbS originated with the pro-Israel Jews who dominate
his thinking. MbS has been a bonanza for Israel but a disaster for us (and the region.)
And with regard to Afghanistan, the denuding of that theater to resource the
Iraq-Iran-Syria invasion/regime change scheme demanded by Israel and its operatives in the US
had a definitively negative outcome on US policy in Afghanistan from which, it is now clear,
it will never recover.
In East Asia, the negative impact of US Israel-centric Middle East policy can be seen as
well. The neocon/Likudnik-induced morass of Iraq into which we marched distracted us from the
Asia-Pacific and particularly China's move into the South China Sea, which might have been
deterred, if we weren't expending the overwhelming majority of our energy, attention and
resources in the Middle East.
And since you bring up North Korea, the Israeli influence on US policy there is certainly
secondary but definitely not zero. Israel and its lobby seek an ultra-hard line on any US
negotiations with North Korea because they see it as an extension of Iran policy, so in their
view, any concession to North Korea is a bad example for Iran. This contributes to impeding
any possible negotiated solution to the complex of issues on the Korean Peninsula.
It is truly amazing how far the insidious reach of Israel, its nefarious lobby and the
"Is-it-good-for-the-Jews?" obsessions of political Jewry extends into US foreign policy. Our
current strategy is, as ATH noted, self-undermining. There really is no historical precedent
for it.
After all, this is what our elected, alleged representatives posit when they state
collectively, in unison, loudly, repeatedly, on their knees, that "the USA maintains an
irrevocable bond with Israel".
That statement should bring the condescension and the wrath of the USA public.
For what reason would the USA maintain an "irrevocable bond" with ANY other nation?
Regardless of the fact that ISrael is an apartheid state by its own definition as "The
Jewish State of ISrael".
You both have valid points, but I've always believed it's the dog that wags its tail.
Sure, if it was simply Palestine, one could expect different nuances of US policy. But any
qualitative difference? I don't see it.
The US would still back undemocractic strong men who would treat American interests as
paramount in return for US backing of their regime and turning a blind eye to their
enrichment at the expense of the general population. The US would be hellbent against any
pan-Arab nationalism or anything resembling socialism or sovereignty.
The proof? Well take a look at how the US treats the rest of the world.
The US and Israel have overlapping interests as it relates to the Middle East with the added
accelerator of the many dual nationals in seats of power.
lysias , Jun 23, 2019 2:21:16 PM |
57bevin , Jun 23, 2019 2:22:35 PM |
58
"Israel's strategic preferences have indeed become the most important single influence on US
Middle East policy. Up to a certain point in the past, that was not true, but it is now. The
Carter Doctrine has, in effect, been undermined by the distortions that the ever-growing
power of pro-Israel political Jewry in the US in both its neoconservative and Likudnik
expressions are able to impose on our policy."
Oscar Peterson is correct not because Israel's interests are of such importance-they
really are not- but because US Foreign policy has become totally incoherent.
This is because it is entirely aimed at fund raisers and influencers of the electorate. It is
founded on the theory that the United States can do whatever it pleases, and need never care
about consolidating its power or defending its positions because it is far more powerful than
all its potential rivals added together. This being the case its Foreign Policy becomes a
saleable commodity, just as its armed forces-which can never be defeated- are at the disposal
of the highest bidders.
Note to Psychohistorian: the open democracy website has an article on Costa Rica's public
banking today.
with regard to iran, the usa is tied at the hip to israel.. that is a fact... now, maybe it
can change, but i think phil at mondoweiss lays it out pretty clearly for anyone interested..
as i see it, this is just temporary... israel is gunning hard for war on iran.. anyone who
can't see that is in fact very blind..
meanwhile - Trump: “I have some hawks. John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was
up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time.“
bolton is in this position due the fact trump owed sheldon adelson one... at least trump
can see it, but i don't know that he can avoid where this is going... that would be putting
too much faith in a con artist - grifter..
I suggest you download Douglas Reed's comprehensive review of Zionism's activities in "The
Controversy of Zion" over the period you describe from a singular perspective and read it
thoroughly. IN fact I commend that book to everyone on this site. Reed was a correspondent
through WW2 and before and his work is detailed and readable, with extensive references.
"... As Col. Lang has noted here in the past, the Straits of Hormuz can't be blocked forever. At some point in the war, Iran will be overwhelmed. The question is how long does it take the US military to bring sufficient assets to bear to totally destroy all Iranian air defense and gain complete air superiority? What military damage can Iran and its allies inflict before that? ..."
"... Clearly, not only will oil prices skyrocket but also tanker insurance until Iran, Hezbollah & Syrian missile strikes are completely suppressed. Then it will take time to clear the straits of mines and debris. And of course the rebuilding of Gulf oil installations. Asia is particularly vulnerable as Russia could be a swing supplier to Europe. But what will Putin demand? ..."
"... those that supported Trump in the last election on the basis of his criticism of military interventions will abandon him. I agree with Tucker Carlson, it would be the end of the Trump presidency. ..."
"... Blue Peacock is close. If Iran decides to fight, they don't have to close the Straits, the insurance industry will do it for them. War risks insurance will not be commercially available at any price. The solution to that is for the U.S. Government to underwrite the necessary insurance not only for the tankers but the crews and associated people. This has been done before. ..."
"... But that only covers one aspect of the financial side... The derivatives trade has losers......and winners, and the winners aren't going to let the losers off the hook, and Uncle Sam can't fund that transaction. As for mining and clearing, I don't know for sure but I think I recall that a weeks orgy of mining with high tech stuff could take all of NATOs mine countermeasures resources some years to clear. ..."
"... ......And all this is assuming that Russia, China and perhaps others decide not to add their little cup of gasoline to the fire. ..."
"... Remember how "rich" Trump was "self funded" and therefore could not be influenced by contributions?"! Well $259 million bought him. Those funds came from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Paul Singer and Bernard Marcus, donors who have made no secret of their desire for the United States to destroy the Islamic Republic. Adelson, who alongside his wife Miriam are the biggest donors to Trump and the GOP, contributed $205 million to Republicans in the past two cycles and reportedly sent $35 million Trump's presidential bid. ..."
IMO, Pepe Escobar trends towards hyperbole. Stress and liquidity issues in derivatives
markets are the least of the worries. The Fed, ECB, BoE and BoJ can always open an unlimited
repo window for worthless collateral.
They'll be doing that with a high probability in any case since we already see growing
stress in the offshore eurodollar market since the middle of last year and that has nothing
to do with the Gulf. Just look at the movement in the yield curves in the past year.
As Col. Lang has noted here in the past, the Straits of Hormuz can't be blocked
forever. At some point in the war, Iran will be overwhelmed. The question is how long does it
take the US military to bring sufficient assets to bear to totally destroy all Iranian air
defense and gain complete air superiority? What military damage can Iran and its allies
inflict before that?
Iran must know that its air defenses & offensive missile capability will be
overwhelmed eventually, so its strategy must be to inflict maximum damage right at the very
beginning. The major Saudi & Gulf oil installations are all within strike distance of
Iranian missiles. So are US military bases in Qatar, Oman and Iraq. The straits are narrow
and could be heavily mined requiring time to clear. The war will also naturally extend into
conflict with Israel & Hezbollah and will require the intervention of the US military to
suppress fire. How much heavy bombing capacity does the USAF have?What happens to the Green
Zone in Iraq? What happens to Russian assets in Syria who will be in a total war zone with
Syria, Lebanon & Israel?
Clearly, not only will oil prices skyrocket but also tanker insurance until Iran,
Hezbollah & Syrian missile strikes are completely suppressed. Then it will take time to
clear the straits of mines and debris. And of course the rebuilding of Gulf oil
installations. Asia is particularly vulnerable as Russia could be a swing supplier to Europe.
But what will Putin demand?
The one thing is certain I believe, the US will become a pariah nation as the sentiment on
the streets around the world will see the US as the primary instigator of global
instability.
They see the long arc of US interventions that have consistently created instability and
don't buy easily into our propaganda. I also believe the Vietnam era protests and civil
disturbances will be small relative to what we'll get with the wider ME war as it will
provide a focal point for opposition to Trump.
This would be a godsend for the NeverTrumpers. And those that supported Trump in the
last election on the basis of his criticism of military interventions will abandon him. I
agree with Tucker Carlson, it would be the end of the Trump presidency.
"Is anyone in their right mind prepared to run the risk of a new global economic and
financial catastrophe triggered by a war between the United States and Iran?"
Israel is prepared for others to run that risk for them. Of course you could argue they
are out of their minds.
Blue Peacock is close. If Iran decides to fight, they don't have to close the Straits, the
insurance industry will do it for them. War risks insurance will not be commercially
available at any price. The solution to that is for the U.S. Government to underwrite the
necessary insurance not only for the tankers but the crews and associated people. This has
been done before.
But that only covers one aspect of the financial side... The derivatives trade has
losers......and winners, and the winners aren't going to let the losers off the hook, and
Uncle Sam can't fund that transaction. As for mining and clearing, I don't know for sure but
I think I recall that a weeks orgy of mining with high tech stuff could take all of NATOs
mine countermeasures resources some years to clear.
......And all this is assuming that Russia, China and perhaps others decide not to add
their little cup of gasoline to the fire.
Maybe Hormuz is better seen as symbolic of generalized disruption of oil flow due to
collective military action. How long can the BIS/FED zombie economy stay on its feet with
$200/bbl oil? $300/bbl? My guess is: Not very bloody long.
It is the ADELSON Administration . .... Bought and PAID FOR.
Remember how "rich" Trump was "self funded" and therefore could not be influenced by
contributions?"! Well $259 million bought him. Those funds came from Sheldon and Miriam
Adelson, Paul Singer and Bernard Marcus, donors who have made no secret of their desire for
the United States to destroy the Islamic Republic. Adelson, who alongside his wife Miriam are
the biggest donors to Trump and the GOP, contributed $205 million to Republicans in the past
two cycles and reportedly sent $35 million Trump's presidential bid.
Sheldon Adelson BRIBED Trump and the Republicans .... This does not include the "favorable
and unusual" so-called loans granted Kushner and ?Trump? who is notorious for being in
financial difficulty and is desperately hiding his taxes. Trump has lots of energy for
defending his tax returns but very little for defending Our borders. Trump's lawyers will
appeal and fight this tooth and nail for his Taxes. But when some P.O.S. "judge" treasonously
rules against defending this Nation's borders from Invaders Trump just shruggs and submits.
Makes empty threats about where to put the Invaders, and goes back to putting ISRAEL
FIRST.
63,000 American Citizens have been murdered by ILLEGALS since 9/11.... and tRUMP is worried
about Iran because Israel TOLD HIM TO. tRUMP is pissing all over Americans ..... so, yes,
there IS TRUTH to that dossier.
Trump has diverted American resources to granting Sheldon Adelson's every wish for a FOREIGN
nation.
Trump has NOT fulfilled his DUTY and Promises to the American People as he has focused on
Israel.
Trump is attempting to embroil this Nation in a foreign war through blatant LIES.
FIRST Trump claims scuba divers planted 90lb. Limpet mines 12 feet up the side of a ship
while bobbing in the water!
SECOND Iran shoots down US drone. I am surprised more are not shot down. Usually the US uses
them against defenseless enemies, but that is apparently not the case with Iran. What if
Russia starts flying drones over OUR coastline?
America-"I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you .... MOMMY! Iran
HIT ME!".
Why would we be SPYING on open water??? The debris was in Iranian territory ..... it did not
WALK there.
CURE: Trump, Adelson, Kushner, Pompeo, Bolton, need to go on trial for treason.
While the decline of the US empire is overstated and is more connected to the general decline
of neoliberalism as a social system after 2008, the decline of the US elite is evident and can't
be denied. Age-wise, the Congress looks now worse the Soviet Politburo. A lot of people expect to
die while still "representing" their districts or stats.
Notable quotes:
"... This strongly suggests that Washington's foreign policy elites are effectively paralyzed -- that is, incapable of meeting a new century's realities with new thinking . Trump's authorization of last week's cyberattack and his subsequent promise of new sanctions appear to be attempts to appease the swelling ranks of warmongers pressuring him to approve a military confrontation with Iran. ..."
"... In the case of Iran, Washington resists the Islamic Republic's undeniable place as a regional power, incessantly painting a nation dedicated to regional security as a sponsor of terror that is intent -- for reasons never explained -- on destabilizing its own neighborhood. ..."
"... Trump's authorization of last week's cyber attack and his subsequent promise of new sanctions appear to be attempts to appease the swelling ranks of warmongers pressuring him to approve a military confrontation with Iran. ..."
"... Should Trump's many adversaries in Washington prevail in instigating a military confrontation with Iran, the current crisis in the Persian Gulf will take its place among these. The outcome here may be evident in a matter of weeks, if not sooner. ..."
"... During the postwar decades the U.S. was "alone in the world" -- the phrase of the Italian journalist Luigi Barzini -- by virtue of its unchallenged dominance . ..."
"... Most of what the U.S. does abroad has come to demonstrate the opposite of its intent. America is emerging as a powerful but weak nation, its leadership divided and unable to rethink its global position. And a loss of strength is the very essence of a nation in decline. ..."
Washington's foreign policy towards Iran is driven by desperation rather than a reasoned
understanding of a world in historically significant flux. That can lead only to a continuing
succession of failures.
... President Donald Trump proved the
keeper of the peace, warmongers all around him, when he aborted an airborne
attack on Iran Thursday evening. The Iranians continue to act with admirable restraint in
the face of incessant provocations.
...But there are more fundamental truths to derive from the swift escalation of Washington's hostilities toward Tehran. They
come to four. Taken together, they offer a snapshot of an imperial power in accelerating decline.
Paralyzed Elites
First, Trump's determination to avoid pointless new wars of adventure has divided Washington
to an extent that is unprecedented at least as far back as the Vietnam debacle. In addition to
hawkish factions within the administration and the national security apparatus, an apparent
majority on Capitol Hill -- liberals as well as Republicans -- favors war as the principal
instrument of American foreign policy in the Middle East.
This strongly suggests that Washington's foreign policy elites are effectively paralyzed
-- that is, incapable of meeting a new century's realities with new thinking . Trump's
authorization of last week's cyberattack and his subsequent promise of new sanctions appear to
be attempts to appease the swelling ranks of warmongers pressuring him to approve a military
confrontation with Iran.
It is to Trump's credit that he has so far held out against those many who stand against
him. It is not clear how long he will be able to do so. There is informed speculation that
Trump never approved of the attack he canceled at the last minute Thursday night.
Crumbling Credibility
Second, Washington's ability to impose a self-serving narrative on global events is in the
latter stages of collapse. Winning broad acceptance of officially approved accounts of U.S.
actions and intentions has been essential to the effective execution of American foreign policy
at least since the Cold War's onset in the late 1940s. This is a dwindling asset, as the cases
of Ukraine, Syria, and now Iran attest.
Washington's account of events in the Persian Gulf since two cargo vessels were attacked two
weeks ago met open
resistance within 24 hours, notably from Germany, the European Union, and Japan -- all
among America's longstanding allies. The significance here cannot be overstated. If the U.S.
can no longer control accepted narratives, its global alliances will progressively weaken. This
process is already evident, notably in the increasing tension between Washington and its
trans-Atlantic allies.
Desperation Phase
Third, in the twilight years of its long preeminence, the U.S. has entered what is best
described as its desperation phase. Having no need of imaginative thinking or policy
innovation for more than seven decades, Washington finds itself incapable of either. Instead,
it assumes a perennial posture of resistance as a new, multipolar, and historically inevitable
world order emerges. In a word, America now acts as spoiler wherever this new order is
emergent.
This is evident in a variety of contexts. High among these are Western Europe's densely
woven interdependence with Russia, which elaborates continuously despite America's
objections , and the universally shared desire to achieve a lasting peace in Northeast
Asia. In the case of Iran, Washington resists the Islamic Republic's undeniable place as a
regional power, incessantly painting a nation dedicated to regional security as a sponsor of
terror that is intent -- for reasons never explained -- on destabilizing its own
neighborhood.
This strongly suggests that Washington's foreign policy elites are effectively paralyzed
-- that is, incapable of meeting a new century's realities with new thinking . Trump's
authorization of last week's cyber attack and his subsequent promise of new sanctions appear to
be attempts to appease the swelling ranks of warmongers pressuring him to approve a military
confrontation with Iran.
A foreign policy that rests on desperation rather than a reasoned understanding of a world
in historically significant flux can lead only to a continuing succession of failures. Should
Trump's many adversaries in Washington prevail in instigating a military confrontation with
Iran, the current crisis in the Persian Gulf will take its place among these. The outcome here
may be evident in a matter of weeks, if not sooner.
Isolation
Finally, there is the question of Washington's increasing isolation. During the postwar
decades the U.S. was "alone in the world" -- the phrase of the Italian journalist Luigi Barzini
-- by virtue of its unchallenged dominance . For better or worse, America led. ...
... ... ...
The U.S. remains beyond question the world's most powerful nation, as is frequently
remarked. But hard power is losing its agency: This is among the principal features of our new
century. It is important now to distinguish between strong nations and the merely powerful.
Most of what the U.S. does abroad has come to demonstrate the opposite of its intent. America
is emerging as a powerful but weak nation, its leadership divided and unable to rethink its
global position. And a loss of strength is the very essence of a nation in decline.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
"Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
If you value this original article, please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
This oil derivatives bomb which might explode after attack on Iran and bury petrodollar is a really interesting and
unique
feature of the current situation
Notable quotes:
"... Mike goes into great details about the late stage demise of a Hegemon on the way to collapse & the comparisons to Rome's demise correlate's exactly with America's demise ..."
"... ? One particular aspect of late stage decline is a inability too strong arm & bend other Nations to your will? ..."
"... Trump must know that if he attacks Iran, the entire US Petrodollar System will be destroyed? Trump is accelerating the Empires demise, its on steroids & the writing is on the Wall for America's collapse! ..."
"... I envisage that they would rather burn everything to the ground rather than give up its flailing & finished Unipolar status! ..."
If you want more understanding of America's decline as a Empire, in addition to what
this article highlights, please check out Mike Maloney's Fall of Empires: Rome vs USA on
Youtube along with his other excellent articles.
Mike goes into great details about the
late stage demise of a Hegemon on the way to collapse & the comparisons to Rome's
demise correlate's exactly with America's demise as a Empire & it all relates to a Hegemon's debasement of money? One particular aspect of late stage decline is a inability
too strong arm & bend other Nations to your will?
We have seen this with the abject failure in Venezuela, on America's doorstep even, with
the failed Coup d'état to overthrow Maduro & we are seeing the desperate
attempts to bully, threaten & intimidate Iran, who have recently called America's bluff
& bluster & stood up to it's bullying. America's maximum pressure strategy is in
tatters in Venezuela & Iran & everywhere else & it's waning influence has
become extremely apparent for all to see because no one believes or is falling for
America's false flags & BS anymore?
That's a sure sign that the US Empire is falling apart, right before our eyes. With the
Dollar system on the verge of Collapse & a America that is rolling the dice to attack
Iran, Trump must know that if he attacks Iran, the entire US Petrodollar System will be
destroyed? Trump is accelerating the Empires demise, its on steroids & the writing is
on the Wall for America's collapse!
How that collapse takes place is the pressing dilemma i.e will it be a the Thucydides
Trap option where America refuses to recognise the Multipolar World & burns everything
to the ground in a spiteful 'if we can't win, nobody will either moment ", as this article
hints at with America's spoiler role or will they choose to join the rest of the World as
just another member?
I envisage that they would rather burn everything to the ground rather
than give up its flailing & finished Unipolar status!
"... I propose that the Logic of Empire demands that the OBOR be interdicted and become subject to Imperial control...Iran's in the geography...and of course the oil and gas in simply part of the control over Heartland that Empire needs. ..."
"... Needs, because it's in very unstable financial condition. Essentially ketosis is underway, and Empire is in the condition of devouring its own power. ..."
"... The US will have to pay dearly to get their troops out of Afghanistan ..."
"... there is no way to "win" for one party at the cost of other parties. We are in this together. ..."
"This is about China"....not quite. It's about OBOR and Heartland, and the survival of a
corrupt and diseased Empire, or not...
What's missing here, and generally, is any attention to why. Why Iran, why now? What is
grand strategy? Is this vital or optional? Basic questions.
Of course the clowns are ignorant and stupid, how are they related to the grand
strategy?
I propose that the Logic of Empire demands that the OBOR be interdicted and become
subject to Imperial control...Iran's in the geography...and of course the oil and gas in
simply part of the control over Heartland that Empire needs.
Needs, because it's in very unstable financial condition. Essentially ketosis is
underway, and Empire is in the condition of devouring its own power.
The Strategy has zero to do with atomics, except to use them on Iran.
Summary> Iran must submit or be smashed and then submit. It does not matter who's in
charge nominally of Imperial Forces...Failing this, Empire dies.
And yet, Trumpie the clown can't spell "strait"...failed English 101?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 25, 2019 3:50:42 AM | 149
US have "lost" all wars after WW2 and then they were allied with Russia.
The US don't do old school colonialism (they destroyed the British and French empires) and
local independence goes to the highest bidder. So they have no way to ensure they will profit
after destroying everything (which they are very capable of doing).
Lets look where the US are now after WW2
Latin America: Used to be Cuba only completely outside of US sphere, now is also
Venezuela.
Asia: The US lost the Vietnam war. Vietnam now is very open to Western trade. The US could
have had that right from the start, as Ho Chi Minh started to fight for independence as
"their" guy. China has become the most powerful US competitor spending a fraction of the US
on military.
Europe: Will be Russian/Chinese sphere of influence (Gas, huge market) in the very end - at
least continental Europe. Britain tears itself apart not knowing which way to go.
Middle East: The US lost Turkey for good. Greece has become Chinese/Russian sphere of
influence. Neither Saudi nor Israel make it on any scale of "Western values" or ability to
fight proxy wars. The US may as well join OPEC as an energy producer - real interest in these
countries is marginal at best. Saudi will go the way of their Asian clients. The US will have
to pay dearly to get their troops out of Afghanistan
Of course there may be WW3, the next US president may reverse some counterproductive US
strategies, and a huge crisis may wipe off world markets. But there is no way to "win" for one party at the cost of other parties. We are in this
together.
The worlds absolute largest state sponsor and financier and trainer of Terrorists is the
United States and Israel.. The British usually just helped their enemies enemies but the US
trains anyone who will work for buck..
On the surface, it appears the dying empire must finally grab everything, no matter how
historically untouchable, in last ditch claim on total power.
Of course this is bad on every level, it's immoral, unethical, illegal, doomed to fail,
and doomed to hasten failure of the entire enterprise.
I'm dreaming here, but the best plan is to fade slowly into the night and put on the make
up tomorrow.
But anyway, the fully doomed and immoral path has a bright side for the MIC--it's a lock
on anyone who would try to shut it down. We will continue to do stupid things so we must
continue to do stupid things.
Thursday night was the night Donald Trump became president. You can imagine the hyperbolic
hosannahs that would have been sung if Trump had gone ahead with his planned strikes against
Iran, adding to the list of undeclared presidential wars. Instead he pulled back.
Hugh Hewitt called it the "big blink," inviting Liz Cheney -- who is very much her father's
daughter on foreign policy -- on his show to warn, "Weakness is provocative." Hewitt compared
it to Barack Obama's failure to enforce his "red line" in Syria. "Much worse"
argued Kori Schake in The Atlantic . Other reporting
focused on a "total breakdown in process."
It was not a picture perfect approach to national security, to be sure. But it did sharply
illustrate the Beltway's strange priorities. When Trump twice bombed Syria, few of those who
fret about his erosion of constitutional norms or authoritarian tendencies protested his
failure to seek congressional authorization as required by the Constitution. There was a much
larger process-related panic when Trump said late last year he wanted to bring American troops
home from Syria.
... ... ...
"How many more deaths? How many more lost limbs? How much longer are we going to be there?"
Woodward quotes Trump as asking. One Post write-up folded these lines into a broader
story about the White House's "nervous breakdown" and the national security team's impatience
with the president. But these are morally serious questions, not exaggerated inaugural crowd
size estimates.
@ jayc 57 US Hook says Iran knew what getting into when struck deal
Yes they did, and now they regret it.
In 2013 Ali Khamenei said: "Certainly, we are pessimistic about the Americans. We do not
trust them. We consider the government of the United States of America as an unreliable,
arrogant, illogical, and trespassing government,"
The JCPOA was not a unilateral deal between USA and Iran, it was a multilateral
deal
That's correct de jure, but not de facto. The US all by itself is leading the current
attack on Iran, despite what the other members might think. Iran has not gotten any
significant support from other JCPOA participants.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 5:10:10 PM |
66
The Trump administration's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook...
______________________________________
Brian Hook is a "special" envoy in the sense that the "Special Olympics" are
special.
It is interesting to listen to this speech again in view of Iran crisis, attempt to launch a
regime change in Venezuela and trade war with Chins lunched by Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... McCain and some other Western officials could barely contain themselves in there. They never forgive Putin for that speech. This was the decisive moment relations between the US. and Russia started to deteriorate. ..."
"... The Wikileaks cables showed how aggressively NATO was working to bring in Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance despite what was being said in public during that time. ..."
"... Look at the dirty bitch Victoria Nuland smirking at 11:43 . She knew what the US was about to do in Ukraine. ..."
"... this was the best anti NWO speech ever. The moment I saw it back then I knew Russia will have many problems coming for the NWO scum. You know what happened right? ..."
On February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin delivered his keynote speech at the Munich Security
Conference, challenging the post-Cold War establishment. RT looks back a decade to see how
accurate his ideas were.
McCain and some other Western officials could barely contain themselves in there. They
never forgive Putin for that speech. This was the decisive moment relations between the US.
and Russia started to deteriorate.
The Wikileaks cables showed how aggressively NATO was working to bring in Georgia and
Ukraine into the alliance despite what was being said in public during that time.
'The Putin Interviews', where Putin is interviewed by Oliver Stone from 2015 - 2017,
brought me here. This iconic speech was referred to by Oliver Stone in the interviews. The
speech was certainly worth watching and I highly recommend watching 'The Putin Interviews'.
You won't regret it.
I'm not Russian but he is my hero, my President and my dad!!! ^_^ And proud of him. This
memorable speech was one of my favorites! He stood for what he believes in and he stayed true
to it.
Hahahahahahahahaha! You can see the Western leaders here were in a state of profound SHOCK
as they listened to this speech. They thought he was going to kow-tow to the West - and he
did the EXACT OPPOSITE! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
ment-renderer-text-content expanded"> wow awesome speech. words from a outstanding
leader. Acting and standing for true Peace and prosperity. Unlike the UN and NWO whos only
goal is to continue to create terrorism. create fear and drain any communities from being
independent and free from there False saftey taxes and sanctions. not using the world
currency exchange means there unable to falsely influence the world markets
American people should be highly alarmed
at NATO actions , they are inching closer to Russia's borders trying to encircle Russia with
military bases and missiles , this is done in preparation of an attack of the country being
encircled, nato is lying and misleading its citizens and they dont worry about consequence
of such a scenario which surely would trigger the third world war, American people and all nato member citizens should strongly push back against this , we need to consider the outcome
of a nuclear power attacking and invading another nuclear power
Russia would surely use
nuclear weapons to defend its country if overwhelmed, millions could perish in a day, we
have to condemn and protest Nato plans for another world war before its too late, it will be
our families suffering and dying not the elite that is pushing this conflict
Great speech from a great man, a man who truly loves fairness and democracy not the sugar
coated type offered by the west. Did anyone notice that by 9:50 into his speech, a good
number of them wanted out? McCain at some point couldn't even bring himself to look at Putin,
What a pitiful fellow McCain is!!!!!
This speech needs to be re-posted . and disseminated .. it is very very current , more than
ever... there is a section of world who simply do not know .
10 years passed and what Putin said back then is exactly what's happened and is
still happening. I have great respect for Russia and I have no respect for US and their
allies. Whole NATO sucks, is obsolete and is acting exactly like world's terrorists!
I have no respect for the majority of the American people as they are as responsible for the wars their corrupt capitalism
controlled US government has done. American people went along with it for all these decades and they fought these wars for
them anyway, they did not care if they bully other nations, kill innocent people...
this was the best anti NWO speech ever. The moment I saw it back then I knew Russia will
have many problems coming for the NWO scum. You know what happened right?
news report
Bloomberg, Jun 24, 2019
Pompeo is starting a commission on human rights to rethink what they are and how they should
fit into U.S. foreign policy. . .
here
Office of the high Commissioner
United Nations Human Rights
May 6, 2019 US sanctions violate human rights and international code of conduct, UN expert
says
. . .On 17 April the United States banned the Central Bank of Venezuela from conducting
transactions in US dollars after 17 May, and will cut off access to US personal remittances
and credit cards by March 2020.
"It is hard to figure out how measures which have the effect of destroying Venezuela's
economy, and preventing Venezuelans from sending home money, can be aimed at 'helping the
Venezuelan people', as claimed by the US Treasury," the expert said.
His statements follow claims in a recent report published by the Washington-based Centre
for Economic and Policy Research that 40,000 people may have died in Venezuela since
2017 because of US sanctions .
Jazairy also said he was concerned the US would not renew waivers for international
buyers of Iranian oil, despite protests from NATO ally Turkey, among others. Washington has
demanded that all remaining States which benefited from waivers stop purchases on May 1, or
face sanctions.
"The extraterritorial application of unilateral sanctions is clearly contrary to
international law," the expert said. " I am deeply concerned that one State can use its
dominant position in international finance to harm not only the Iranian people, who have
followed their obligations under the UN-approved nuclear deal to this day, but also
everyone in the world who trades with them.
"The international community must come together to challenge what amounts to blockades
ignoring a country's sovereignty, the human rights of its people, and the rights of third
countries trading with sanctioned States, all while constituting a threat to world peace
and security.
"I call on the international community to engage in constructive dialogue with
Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and the United States to find a peaceful resolution in compliance
with the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations before the arbitrary use of
economic starvation becomes the new 'normal'." . . here
Favorite lie Trump willing to meet w/no pre-conditions
100 Pinocchio's. He even says that he wants to negotiate about Iran's so-called nuclear
weapons program. If the premise of the talks is that Iran has to abandon the JCPOA then how
is this not a precondition?
Nothing left to sanction, what's next?
You will know that war is certain when the U.S. forbids Iranian tankers from leaving port
(a blockade) so that they cannot even sell oil to China. Iran will rightly call this an act
of war and declare that stopping a single tanker will result in them firing on a U.S. naval
ship. The morons in the U.S. MSM will bleat and call this Iranian aggression even though it
is the U.S. that is blocking the sacred right of 'international shipping'. The number one
excuse we use to send our navy to the shores of China and Iran.
Don Bacon #65
"The US all by itself is leading the current attack on Iran, despite what the other members
might think. Iran has not gotten any significant support from other JCPOA participants."
The American's bluff was called way back in Obama's first term when Turkey and Brazil
proposed a plan which would settle concerns over Iran's nuclear centrifuges. Sec State
Clinton shut that down quickly, confirming the nuclear concerns were merely a pretext for a
regime-change policy. That established, the overriding interest, internationally, became
preventing a shooting war involving US and Iran -to which the negotiating of the JCPOA played
a strong role. The Russians and Chinese were criticized for supporting this process,
including the UNSC directed sanctions. But the process strengthened multilateral cooperation
and highlighted the obvious downsides of a self-avowed hegemonic power. By rejecting the
JCPOA, the Americans rejected the UN and international law/agreements for the second time in
15 short years. The overriding concern remains to expose the negative consequences of a
hegemonic entity while avoiding, to the extent possible, an actual shooting war.
Existence of financial derivatives on oil (aka "paper oil") and the size of trade involving
them in world markets changes the whole situation. The USA can shoot themselves in a foot even if
the US armed forces would be able to completely destroy the Iraq army air defenses and bomb
strategic targets.
There seems to be a common theme in many articles that 'shock and awe' military strikes
will force Iran's leaders into unconditional surrender. While the US has the capability to
do this on its own, for political reasons the US is actively seeking coalition partners.
The reality is it doesn't matter how many partners the US can convince to attack Iran. No
matter how sophisticated Iran's cyber, missile or air defenses are, based on simple
logistics Iran will eventually lose a shooting war against the US and any coalition
partners. Iran knows this.
The real question when the bombing starts, is not the number of casualties that Iran can
inflict on her enemies but how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of
its asymmetric regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia
and the Straits of Hormuz.
Iran doesn't have to win a shooting war, it only has to buy enough time that its forces
can disrupt oil shipments to China, India, Japan, South Korean and Europe to break the
supply chains to the US. Currently the US imports/exports over 5T dollars per year, even
impacting this by only 20% should cause the trillions in derivatives to crush the world
economy. Given that war should always be the option of last resort is there still the
possibility for negotiations?
Iran has too many examples of the promises of US and West not matching our actions. The
current sanctions are crippling the economy and backing Iran into a corner. No matter what
Iran does what guarantees can be provided that sanctions won't be reapplied. Absolutely
none. The criteria constantly change. There is an old saying in martial arts, in a fight an
opponent with no way out is far more formable than an opponent who can walk away.
Even a wide scale nuclear attack that wipes out a third of Iran's citizens in the ten
major cities and a majority of the armed forces probably won't succeed. Once nuclear
weapons are used, Iran's leaders are no longer constrained to any regional targets. If
Russia and China jump in to the fray then it could get real, as in WWIII awfully quickly.
Even without Russia and China getting involved, Iran's leaders just might consider 30M or
more deaths acceptable if her enemies are crushed. There is precedent for this. Estimates
put Russia's losses due to all causes in WWII at 25-30M people, and Russia called it a
win.
So all the babble that Iran will fold in the face of 'shock and awe' is naïve. Iran
can't win a shooting war but if can lose with style. To think that Iran can be defeated
like Iraq is folly. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is a local power, Iran is a regional one. Iran
is too large to be attacked by ground forces. That leaves airpower. Once the bombs start to
drop, all Iranian combat units have a minimum of 72 hours of war supplies. If the US and
the coalition partners don't achieve, 'unconditional surrender' in the initial strikes then
all bets are off for keeping the conflict local.
Many articles claim the tanker and pipeline attacks of the past two weeks are 'false
flags'. Hopefully they were, because if they were not, then Iran has just proven it's ready
and has the capability to strike anywhere in the region. Iran is quickly running out of
options and has no choice but to continue escalating regional tensions until something
gives. We are indeed living in interesting times.
@Oscar Peterson 48
Re China siding with the US if gulf oil is cut.
If China have read Trumps global energy dominance strategy, they will know it is aimed at
them.
Trumps attacks on Venezuela and Iran are twofold.
One reason is Israel - both Iran and Venezuela are anti Israel, and the second it energy
dominance -both countries have large reserves of no US controlled oil reserves.
Energy - oil and gas are China's Achilles heel. They must be imported from somewhere and
China being the would No1 importer of oil, it is something that cannot be substituted by
Russia overnight and possibly not even in the longer term..
That does not change the fact that Trump foreign policy is a continuation of Obama fogirn policy. It is neocon forign policy directed
on "full spectrum dominance". Trump just added to this bulling to the mix.
Notable quotes:
"... When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter because I want both sides." ..."
"... I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now. ..."
"... Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House. ..."
"... Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition." ..."
"... Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population. ..."
In a stunningly frank moment during a Sunday
Meet the Press interview focused on President Trump's decision-making on Iran, especially last week's "brink of war" moment which
saw Trump draw down readied military forces in what he said was a "common sense" move, the commander in chief threw his own national
security advisor under the bus in spectacular fashion .
Though it's not Trump's first tongue-in-cheek denigration of Bolton's notorious hawkishness, it's certainly the most brutal and
blunt take down yet, and frankly just plain enjoyable to watch. When host Chuck Todd asked the president if he was "being pushed
into military action against Iran" by his advisers in what was clearly a question focused on Bolton first and foremost, Trump responded:
"John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
Trump began by explaining, "I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks," before leading into this sure to be classic
line that is one for the history books: "If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"
During this section of comments focused on US policy in the Middle East, the president reiterated his preference that he hear
from "both sides" on an issue, but that he was ultimately the one making the decisions.
When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq
War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter
because I want both sides."
And in another clear indicator that Trump wants to stay true to his non-interventionist instincts voiced on the 2016 campaign
trail, he explained to Todd that:
I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle
East right now.
It was the second time this weekend that Trump was forced to defend his choice of Bolton as the nation's most influential foreign
policy thinker and adviser. When peppered with questions at the White House Saturday following Thursday night's dramatic "almost
war" with Iran, Trump said that he "disagrees" with Bolton "very much" but that ultimately he's "doing a very good job".
Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every
chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House.
But Bolton hasn't had a good past week: not only had Trump on Thursday night shut the door on Bolton's dream of overseeing a major
US military strike on Iran, but he's been pummeled in the media.
Even a Fox prime time show (who else but Tucker of course) colorfully described him as a "bureaucratic tapeworm" which periodically
reemerges to cause pain and suffering.
It's great that the biggest war mongers are the ones that not only never served but in the case of Bolton, purposely avoided
serving. They should send that ****** to Iran so we can see just how supportive he is when he's actually in danger.
This guy is a worthless piece of **** and Trump's an idiot for hiring him.
Being a cheerleader for the Iraq war is as ridiculous as that ******* mustache. He's just letting neocons have a front row
seat to power. That's how he's keeping them from jumping ship to become democrats. They have no principles. They're just power
worshippers.
Do ya all remember when Trump took office? Losers use military strategy that is overwhelming bombardment b4 land attack. I
thought that Donnie can not survive this pressure. Looks like now he is riding horse with banner in hands. Thumb up, MJT
I was against going into the Middle East...$7 Trillion? So why is Jared trying to give away $50 Billion more? People thought
they voted for MAGA, but they got Jared...MMEGA.
How about MJANYA?...Make Jared a New Yorker Again. Send Jared and Ivanka back to New York before it's $10 Trillion.
Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism
as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition."
Trump "unleashes"? For those who think, he also said Bolton is doing a good job. Crap headline. I think Solomon said, "In a
multitude of counselors there is victory".
What kind of unprofessional dingus talks openly about employee issues? That's not how you run a organization. That's how you
run a reality television show.
Sides? I could hire Hobo Joe, the bum that huffs paint and drinks scotch out of plastic bottle while yelling at traffic by
the intersection, as my advisor. He'd probably tell me to do some whacky stuff. But why would I do that?
There is no side to hear. Bomb everyone. That is John Bolton's side. It isn't worth hearing. The man shouldn't be drawing a
paycheck. He shouldn't be drawing breath. He should be pushing up daisies. He the same as ISIS.
Reading is fundamental....and certainly not needed to spout opinions. In fact, reading, combined with critical thinking, logic
and reason, just gets in the way of forming opinions. Or should I say "repeating" other's opinions.
"Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now."....Yes, just like your *** bosses wanted and needed and
you dumb ******* sheep still think voting matters.
Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's
itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population.
Democrats in Congress have the power to pull us back from the brink , but they need to act now. Once bombs start falling and
troops are on the ground, there will be massive political pressure to rally around the flag.
"... Pompeo is a rapture supremacist warmonger that is not good for anything. ..."
"... Not a fan of Pompeo, nor of any Secy of State that champions the cause of military adventurism instead of negotiations. We've had far too many Secys of State who have beat the drums of war instead of doing what the job entails.....being the nation's chief diplomatic negotiator. Pompeo is a bigger (chicken) hawk than the Secy of Defense for crying out loud. ..."
Furthermore, Hu had some particularly harsh words for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, labeling the Secretary of State a "troublesome"
figure in US-China relations and insisting that Pompeo "can no longer play the role of a top US diplomat between the two countries."
... ... ...
Beijing's attacks on the secretary of state come as Pompeo wrapped up a string of meetings in the Middle East with King Salman
of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince.
Not a fan of Pompeo, nor of any Secy of State that champions the cause of military adventurism instead of negotiations. We've
had far too many Secys of State who have beat the drums of war instead of doing what the job entails.....being the nation's chief
diplomatic negotiator. Pompeo is a bigger (chicken) hawk than the Secy of Defense for crying out loud.
"... Trump treats int'l matters like acrid biz negotiations (see art of the deal) - you pressure your carpet installer for your mega hotels with nasty e-mails, bellowing threats on the phone, rustling up the competition, getting a bunch of staff on your side to shore up da ego, etc. When the carpet-seller makes some bigly concessions on price (all understand the game that is played) you relent and make nicey, and the wives get together for tennis and a ruccola crab lunch and later some mega bash with smiling faces is pictured. ..."
Trump strove for some foreign policy triumphs. The art of the deal!
He tried his hand with N. Korea. What happened? (Besides perhaps improved NK-SK
relations ) Nothing.
Syria .. (though there is still plenty going on there) what gave Trump / the USA some
kind of 'victory'? Zilch, disounting missile attacks on a runway in an airport and on an
empty research and teaching facility.
Symbolic moves, as proposed to Iran (a deal, heh) to save face (see b's posts.)
Next, ho ho, regime change in Venezuela, that might be great, get some extra voters in
Florida. Result? The status quo ante, perhaps stronger than before, with the
Dauphin, Random Guaido, shown up to be a cynical petty fraudster, and not even
challenging enough to jail!
Iran? Note the pressure has been building up since last year when The Donald withdrew
the US from the JCPOA.
Real men go to Teheran!
Except Trump and US forces aren't going anywhere at all and most certainly not to Iran. A
real war in that theatre cannot be fought and won by the US. Nor can it be instigated and
subsequently 'let drop' or 'become unimportant, trivial, with some claims of victory' for ex.
Afghanistan. (very costly btw)
Iran has made it clear that economic sanctions are part of hybrid war, rightly so (but
not, as I still claim, by making some minor attacks on tankers round about, to provoke a
reaction, NO) -- at some point, one engages, if not: backing down is the only option.
Trump treats int'l matters like acrid biz negotiations (see art of the deal) - you
pressure your carpet installer for your mega hotels with nasty e-mails, bellowing threats on
the phone, rustling up the competition, getting a bunch of staff on your side to shore up da
ego, etc. When the carpet-seller makes some bigly concessions on price (all understand the
game that is played) you relent and make nicey, and the wives get together for tennis and a
ruccola crab lunch and later some mega bash with smiling faces is pictured.
I think he got on super well with Kim (NK) who understood all this.
Leaves begging what-who-why is the projected aim, potential hoped result of the hybrid
attack on Iran, and which parties (USA MIC, Fin. Trade Cos., Banking, FF industry, many other
industries; Israel, KSA) support it (again, for what precise aim?) Or are against
sanctions...
"... This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen. ..."
Trump is such a con man... He said he told Shinzō Abe, before the Japanese prime
minister visited Tehran on 12 June: "Send the following message: you can't have nuclear
weapons. And other than that, we can sit down and make a deal. But you cannot have nuclear
weapons."
On further questioning he added the demand that Tehran should not have a ballistic missile
programme, and suggested he wanted a tougher inspection regime.
This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic
missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the
region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure
into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen.
This recent 19 May piece from Ha'aretz documents precisely the manipulation of
American policy by Israeli charlatans and their agents of influence in the US. The title says
it all just by itself: "Netanyahu's Iran Dilemma: Getting Trump to Act Without Putting
Israel on the Front Line." It goes on to assess that:
"In this conflict, Israel is hoping to have its cake and eat it too. Ever since Trump
was elected president two and a half years ago, Netanyahu has been urging him to take a
more aggressive line toward Iran, in order to force it to make additional concessions on
its nuclear program and disrupt its support for militant organizations.
"Trump acceded to this urging a year ago when he withdrew America from the nuclear
agreement with Iran. That was followed by tighter sanctions on Iran, as well as publication
of a plan by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo detailing 12 steps Tehran must take to
satisfy Washington.
"But Israel isn't interested in being part of the front. That is why Jerusalem has
issued so few official statements on the Iranian issue, and why Netanyahu has urged
ministers to be cautious in what they say."
I'd say that passage captures the situation perfectly, and it just goes to show that when
you want to know about what chicanery Israel and its lobby are up to in the US, you have to
go and look at what Israelis are saying when they aren't particularly careful about who's
observing. That sort of truth is sanitized from any MSM accounts in the US.
"... The Supreme Court Treason related to the 2000 election penned by the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President, and his The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, provoke similar ire. ..."
"The UNSC veto doesn't make the UN Charter null and void. Actions that violate it are
still illegal/unconstitutional and able to be challenged in domestic courts". I agree it does
not make the charter null and void, the question is how can aggressors be brought to book,
Tony Blair was accused of the crime of aggression but the Judges said he could not be
prosecuted see below. Thanks for the link to the Uniting for Peace resolution, I will read it
tomorrow.
"Tony Blair should not face prosecution for his role in the 2003 Iraq war, the high court has
ruled.
The lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and another senior judge, Mr Justice
Ouseley, said on Monday that there was no crime of aggression in English law under which the
former prime minister could be charged.
Thanks for your reply! I recall what an absolutely incensed Craig Murray wrote about that decision about Tony Blair--well
beyond a travesty as it's a Capital Crime and not subject to statutes of limitation. The Supreme Court Treason related to
the 2000 election penned by the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the
Constitution and Chose Our President, and his The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, provoke similar ire.
Going on 3 decades now, one of my primary questions is How to contain the Outlaw US Empire and make it into a law-abiding
nation without blowing up the world. I've always recognized that it would take a global coalition to arrive at a genuine
confrontation.
IMO, we're very close to that point; the G-20 will indicate just how close.
But even more importantly than the global coalition is the requirement for a political force within the Empire asking and
acting on my question. The Maximum Pressure must come from internal and external sources for any positive outcome to be
achieved. Since 2012, I've seen 2020 as THE inflection point. It seems I'm not alone.
"... As I commented earlier, the vast majority of US citizens are illiterate when it comes to their Constitution. For military personnel, such illiteracy can prove fatal, for it's up to the individual to determine if the order given them is lawful or not. ..."
"... Any action not approved by the UNSC I would be ordered to perform would thus be an illegal order--Grenada being the first test opportunity, but I was never issued any orders and thus had no opportunity to protest. ..."
"... I linked to an article citing Putin's detailed accusation of the Outlaw US Empire for its gross, repetitive lawbreaking and the absolute necessity of returning to the Rule-of-Law centered around the internationally approved edicts of the UN Charter. ..."
"... The 1947 National Security Act was devised to circumvent the UN Charter and a foreign policy was devised to enable the USA to maintain its global dominance for as long as possible. ..."
"... A better question would be, Has the genuine National Interest of the USA ever been served, which would mean gaining an understanding of what constitutes National Interest and what would it being genuine entail. We touched on this topic several days ago, but a proper discussion is well beyond the scope of MoA. Above in this thread, I say the #1 policy goal--what's the most important goal in pursuing the National Interest--is announced in Joint Vision 2020 as attaining Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people, which is against established International and Constitutional Law. ..."
The UNSC veto doesn't make the UN Charter null and void. Actions that violate it are still
illegal/unconstitutional and able to be challenged in domestic courts. The problem is they
haven't yet. However, there is a way round those unwilling/unable to abide by the Charter as
UNSC members as you can read , a method
successfully employed during 1956's Suez Crisis to outmaneuver France and UK.
As I commented earlier, the vast majority of US citizens are illiterate when it comes to
their Constitution. For military personnel, such illiteracy can prove fatal, for it's up to
the individual to determine if the order given them is lawful or not. When I was in the
military, figuring that out attracted my curiosity since it affected me directly. Any action
not approved by the UNSC I would be ordered to perform would thus be an illegal
order--Grenada being the first test opportunity, but I was never issued any orders and thus
had no opportunity to protest.
In the very first comment I made today, I linked to an article citing Putin's detailed
accusation of the Outlaw US Empire for its gross, repetitive lawbreaking and the absolute
necessity of returning to the Rule-of-Law centered around the internationally approved edicts
of the UN Charter.
Either the United State of America is an Outlaw Nation or it is not. I contend it is and
have a stupendous amount of evidence going back to 1945 to substantiate my contention. Who
will mount the defense? Anyone?
In George Washington's Farewell Address, he intones to avoid "entangling alliances" for
they will tie one's hands. It's for that precise reason the US Senate refused to ratify the
Versailles Treaty at the end of WW1 because doing so automatically enrolled the USA into the
League of Nations, thus tying our hands from being able to act unilaterally as was our habit.
The sentiment changed and the idea of Collective Security finally outweighed the perceived
benefits of unilateral action--a perception that unfortunately was very short-lived.
The 1947 National Security Act was devised to circumvent the UN Charter and a foreign
policy was devised to enable the USA to maintain its global dominance for as long as
possible.
Amazingly, that foreign policy wasn't even declared Secret or above and was printed in the
ongoing publication Foreign Relations of the United States , known as FRUS at
collegiate libraries where you can learn about some amazing stuff.
Nor was the publication Joint Vision 2010 , 1997, that announced the Outlaw US
Empire's #1 policy goal of obtaining Full Spectrum Dominance, or its 2006 sequel, Joint
Vision 2020 . Quite obviously the policy goal is completely at odds with/against the UN
Charter and thus unconstitutional--yet--it's gone completely unchallenged while Tens of
Trillions of dollars were wasted in its pursuit.
Honestly, I try not to get impatient--but none of this is hidden from the public at all,
and Congress approves it despite their presumed literacy of the Constitution they swore to
uphold and defend. And I'm supposedly a Radical! I'm arguing what ought to be considered very
Conservative Principles--the same championed by my Republican Grandparents who supported
FDR.
/Rant
Time for a beer!
karlof1 | Jun 23, 2019 9:02:13 PM | 159
jared @153--
"Leading one to question who does it serve."
An excellent question! The Money Power; The Deep State; The Current Oligarchy; or as Michael Hudson is able to briefly
interject during the Crosstalk program available at the link, it's "Trade Wars for Monopoly Interests." The program's
educational because it unveils the numerous false assumptions/accusations put forth as self-evident Truths never questioned
by BigLie Media and its mavens.
A better question would be, Has the genuine National Interest of the USA ever been served, which would mean gaining an
understanding of what constitutes National Interest and what would it being genuine entail. We touched on this topic several
days ago, but a proper discussion is well beyond the scope of MoA. Above in this thread, I say the #1 policy goal--what's the
most important goal in pursuing the National Interest--is announced in Joint Vision 2020 as attaining Full Spectrum
Domination of the planet and its people, which is against established International and Constitutional Law.
Yet, that's the policy being pursued by TrumpCo, as it was by ObamaInc, by BushCo, and by ClintonLtd under whom it was
first enunciated.
I'll wager you didn't know that, nor do the vast majority of US citizens or their counterparts globally.
"... China leader Xi Jinping was not behind the attempt to introduce an extradition law in Hong Kong, well-placed sources say. Nor did it originate with Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor ..."
"... In the entire 22-year history of Hong Kong, China, only 100 people had been extradited, mostly fugitives put on planes to the United States. ..."
"... One was the China-US trade war, which was now causing easily detectable damage to their country's economic indicators. And the other was the rise in illegal capital outflows, often through underground banks to Hong Kong, where it distorted the property markets. ..."
"... On May 1, China critic Gordon C. Chang (known for his 2002 book The Coming Collapse of China) wrote a widely circulated essay claiming that Beijing was behind the amendment. ..."
"... Beijing, with methodical ruthlessness, is trying to bring Hong Kong to heel,, he wrote. Many believe new rules facilitating the sending of suspects to China would effectively allow Beijing to grab people at will and thereby completely control the city. ..."
"... Hong Kong end game: why the extradition bill is an infinity stone that could decimate half of society, said a headline in the Hong Kong Free Press over a melodramatic call to action by lawyer-activist Jason Ng. ..."
"... The number of complaints, from sensible suggestions to fantastical allegations, were so large they could not be ignored. ..."
"... Dramatic interpretations of what some people believed the amendment really meant, ie, the total loss of all freedom in Hong Kong, proliferated through social media. This led, on June 9, to a peaceful protest march of hundreds of thousands of people (but probably not a million: no self-respecting journalist takes the organizer estimate as hard fact). ..."
LittleWhiteCabbage , Jun 24, 2019 9:32:25 AM |
227
For those interested in the Big Picture behind events leading up to the Hong Kong extradition law impasse, the essay below
by longtime Hong Kong columnist Nuri Vittachy gives a detailed sequence.
Nury has posted his article on his FaceBook, and those who have such an account may also read it there.
Suffice to say, there is always plenty of Western mainstream disinformation and provocateurs in the mix.
____________________________________
China leader Xi Jinping was not behind the attempt to introduce an extradition law in Hong Kong, well-placed sources say.
Nor did it originate with Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.
The real story is quite different. And although I am sorry I cannot name the sources for the report below, this account rings
true to me. For a start, it indicates that a lot of what journalists like me have been saying was not correct. Read it if you
wish, and make up your own mind.
PROLOGUE: HANDS OVER A WALL
In 1994, an extraordinary meeting was held between police detectives from British Hong Kong, Portuguese Macau, and communist
Guangzhou. They talked about the possibilities of working jointly on cross-border crime. It seemed a tall order: the future was
full of political uncertainties.
1) MIRACLE CITY
A quarter of a century later, in 2019, Hong Kong had blossomed into a genuine oddity: a city in China with a world-class, independent
legal system.
Civil servants were proud that the city was repeatedly rated number one for judicial independence in Asia by the Global Competitiveness
Report of the World Economic Forum.
In the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, Hong Kong was ranked 16th for its rule of lawigher than many Western countries.
In the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators project, Hong Kong scored an impressive 93 for rule of law.
But there was a little problem.
2) A SMALL DIFFICULTY
The community lawyers knew Hong Kong was weak on international co-operation against crime, having few extradition treaties. This was awkward as the Chinese coastal city had signed a United Nations pledge to significantly reduce illicit financial and
arms flows [and] strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets.
And then Hong Kong was criticized by the G7 Financial Action Task Force, which said it had a significant deficit in this area
and was undermining international collaboration.
Critics of Hong Kong weakness pointed to the UN Model Treaty on Extradition which made it clear that in the name of justice,
states had an obligation to extend extradition treaties.
In the entire 22-year history of Hong Kong, China, only 100 people had been extradited, mostly fugitives put on planes to the
United States.
3) THE EXTRADITION PARADOX
This needed fixing. Hong Kong civil servants reviewed the literature.
Jurisdictions which claim to uphold the rule of law need extradition treaties as a social justice issue, said the writers of
an influential 2011 UK report on extradition.
Extradition must NOT be limited to places with similar legal systems. States have increasingly recognized that effective extradition
should operate on the basis of mutual trust and confidence (not suspicion and disrespect)." Extradition treaties forced other
places to follow rule-of-law procedures in handling fugitives.
Extradition treaties and were particularly necessary for places which shared borders, such as neighbouring states, it said.
Britain signed extradition treaties with numerous countries with abysmal human rights records, such as Iraq and Zimbabwe. America
signed deals with the Congo, Myanmar and El Salvador.
In Hong Kong, Department of Justice staff prepared to follow the leads of Western countries in this area. Simple, right?
4) MEANWHILE IN BEIJING
Under the surface in China , the internal enemies of Premier Xi Jinping were slamming him hard on two fronts, Beijing sources
say.
One was the China-US trade war, which was now causing easily detectable damage to their country's economic indicators. And
the other was the rise in illegal capital outflows, often through underground banks to Hong Kong, where it distorted the property
markets.
At some stage, it became clear that Xi's people (but likely not Xi himself) would have been told about routine legal developments
in Hong Kong, as a part of periodic briefings.
Some people say that China's illegal cash outflow problem to Hong Kong would have been mentioned at this time, but that remains
speculation.
5) CHANGES ARE TABLED
In Hong Kong, the civil servants proposal for the lengthening of the extradition countries list was filed in February. At this
point, the job was under the remits of Justice secretary Teresa Cheng and Security secretary John Lee.
Then, in March, there was a moment of high drama. A man in Hong Kong confessed to murder overseas but could not be arrested
for it. The incident wasn't just dangerous, worrying, and embarrassing but it made real the glaring hole in Hong Kong ability
to manage international crime.
But as the expansion of extradition treaties was discussed, activists noticed that China was NOT excluded in the proposals
and saw red.
Just two years earlier, a decision to allow co-operation between Chinese and Hong Kong immigration channels at a railway station
in Kowloon had caused dire predictions of doom.
6) THE LAW IS EXPLAINED
In the face of criticism from activists, Chief Executive Carrie Lam encouraged security minister Lee to explain the amendment
better.
Hong Kong extradition law, based on the UN model used in the west, was simple at heart, he said. It targeted fugitives suspected
of one or more of a limited list of serious crimes, including murder and rape. The caseload was expected to be very small.
Offenders accused of crimes related to politics and religion would automatically be untouchable. Tax-related matters were added
to the exemptions list. ALL decisions would be made by Hong Kong legal community.
Reviewing the proposal, some lawyers felt the built-in safeguards (such as right of appeal) were strong, while others felt
they were not. Some lawyers at the Bar Association pointed to weaknesses in the wording which needed to be changed. This was not
unusual for new laws or amendments. Lawyers with an anti-government stance made dire predictions which were not necessarily impossible
but were highly unlikely.
A number of activists interpreted this discussion as proof that the legal community agreed that the amendment was a ploy by
a CCP puppet government who wanted to silence them. The media, hungry for drama, overwhelmingly featured the angriest, most negative
interpretations.
7) CONSPIRACY OVERLOAD
On May 1, China critic Gordon C. Chang (known for his 2002 book The Coming Collapse of China) wrote a widely circulated essay
claiming that Beijing was behind the amendment.
Beijing, with methodical ruthlessness, is trying to bring Hong Kong to heel,, he wrote. Many believe new rules facilitating
the sending of suspects to China would effectively allow Beijing to grab people at will and thereby completely control the city.
Grab people at will? Frustrated pro-extradition lawyers said: If this was true, tourists could not visit UK without being in
danger of being snatched by Zimbabwe and tourists visiting the United States could be snatched by the Congolese government But
who could believe that?
8) INTERPRETATIONS ESCALATE
The fears fanned by Chang and others spread fast. Soon, the main narrative for much of the Western media was that a corrupt
Hong Kong civil service was following Beijing secret orders to destroy the city rule of law, with brave youths nobly resisting.
Typical was Vox headline: The Fight to Save Hong Kong..Time magazine had: Hong Kong's Extradition Law Would be a Victory for
Authoritarianism Everywhere. Quartz had Hong Kong is in the fight of its life.
Perhaps the root of the misunderstanding was the problem of scale. Hong Kong existing extradition arrangements only handled
four or five cases a year. Even if the amendment caused the number to double or triple, it would still be a tiny number.
Yet activists gave the impression that tens of thousands of people were in imminent danger of being dragged over the border
to mainland jails: a genuinely terrifying prospect.
Hong Kong end game: why the extradition bill is an infinity stone that could decimate half of society, said a headline in the
Hong Kong Free Press over a melodramatic call to action by lawyer-activist Jason Ng.
9) REPORTED AND UNREPORTED
The number of complaints, from sensible suggestions to fantastical allegations, were so large they could not be ignored.
Carrie Lam took the ball from Lee's court and headed north. (Mrs Lam periodically reports to Zhongnanhai in Beijing in the
same way that Hong Kong's British leaders periodically reported to Whitehall in London.)
In May, she reported to Central People government representatives that Hong Kong people had significant anxieties about the
extradition amendment her people were trying to introduce.
But she said that she felt it was worth continuing. A significant portion of society was in in favor of the amendment, although
their positive declarations went largely unreported.
Her complaint was fair. News articles blithely implied that businesses, diplomats and lawyers were all united against the law,
but this was not the case.
All five of Hong Kong biggest business organizations (The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, The Chinese General Chamber
of Commerce, The Chinese Manufacturers Association of Hong Kong, The Federation of Hong Kong Industries, and The Hong Kong Chinese
Importers and Exporters Association) were in favor of the legislation, and most urged the government to pass it as soon as possible.
Hong Kong consular officials, after a detailed briefing on the amendment, came on side, recognizing the positive intentions
and close similarity to their own extradition laws.
Many senior lawyers were in favor, too although the mainstream media and social media preferred to give airtime only to the
others.
10) WRONG AGAIN
Dramatic interpretations of what some people believed the amendment really meant, ie, the total loss of all freedom in Hong
Kong, proliferated through social media. This led, on June 9, to a peaceful protest march of hundreds of thousands of people (but
probably not a million: no self-respecting journalist takes the organizer estimate as hard fact).
Afterwards, many journalists (including the present writer) confidently speculated that Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam would have
spent the evening in deep consultation with her ultimate boss, Xi Jinping, over what to do next.
In fact, we appear to have been wrong again. Xi Jinping was never involved, and there was no consultation that day between
Mrs. Lam and Beijing. She told reporters she and her team spent the day monitoring events in Hong Kong and had no contact with
the north.
The media portrayed the story as the Hong Kong government made this amendment [as a result of the] instruction of the Beijing
government, said Chinese official Liu Xiaoming on June 12. As a matter of fact, Beijing central government gave no instruction,
no order about making amendment. This amendment was initiated by the Hong Kong government.
On Saturday, 15 June, Mrs. Lam put the amendment plan on hold. She and her team remain undecided on next steps.
The real story of this amendment begins as a mundane tale of civil servants trying to fix a shortcoming they spotted in a rather
technical ordinance. But perhaps the heart of the story is something else: evidence of a deep well of mistrust of China.
EPILOGUE: HAPPY BIRTHDAY
Recently in Guangzhou, the top CID officers of Hong Kong, Macau and Guangdong met for their 25th anniversary annual confab,
celebrating a long and impressive record of successful joint crime-busting operations.
But that meeting didn't fit the present media narrative, so went unreported by the mainstream media.
And that is why wise people read widely, talk to many people, and make up their own minds about what is going on and then,
hopefully, realize that a positive future is possible. But it requires collaboration. The message of 1994 is clear--what is needed
is co-operative hands reaching over walls.
This week Glenn Greenwald and colleagues published in The Intercept articles based on
initial analysis of a massive trove of internal communications between prosecutors and judges
involved in Brazil's corruption cases. An anonymous source had provided the material. To no
one's great surprise, these documents revealed that former president Lula da Silva's
prosecution and conviction were politically motivated ( part one ;
part
two ; part
three , with more to follow).
A massive trove of previously undisclosed materials provides unprecedented insight into
the operations of the anti-corruption task force that transformed Brazilian politics and
gained worldwide attention.
Tens of thousands of Venezuelans
have reportedly already died as a result of this administration's relentless assault on
their economy; those human beings are no less dead than they would have been if the US had
killed them by dropping cluster bombs on Caracas. Yet these deaths have received virtually no
mainstream media coverage, and Americans, while they
strongly oppose attacking Iran militarily , have had very little to say about Trump's
attacks on the nation's economy. The economy which people use to feed their children, to care
for their elderly and their sick.
I'm titling this essay "Starvation Sanctions Are Worse Than Overt Warfare", and I mean it. I
am not saying that starvation sanctions are more destructive or deadly than overt military
force in and of themselves; what I am saying is that the overall effect is worse, because
there's no public accountability for them and because they deliberately target civilians.
If the US were to launch a barrage of Tomahawk missiles into an Iranian suburb with the goal
of killing civilians, there'd be international outrage and the cohesion of the US-centralized
power alliance would take a major hit. Virtually everyone would recognize this as an
unforgivable war crime. Yet America will be able to kill the same number of civilians with the
same deliberate intention of inflicting deadly force, and it would suffer essentially no
consequences at all. There's no public or international pressure holding that form of violence
at bay, because it's invisible and poorly understood.
It reminds me of the way financial abuse gets overlooked and under-appreciated in our
society. Financial abuse can be more painful and imprisoning than physical or psychological
abuse (and I speak from experience), especially if you have children, yet you don't generally
see movies and TV shows getting made about it. In a society where people have been made to
depend on money for survival, limiting or cutting off their access to it is the same as any
other violent attack upon their personal sovereignty, and can easily be just as destructive.
But as a society we haven't yet learned to see and understand this violence, so it doesn't
attract interest and attention. That lack of interest and attention enables the empire to
launch deadly campaigns targeting civilian populations unnoticed, without any public
accountability. It's great that more people are starting to understand the cost of war, to the
extent that we're even seeing US presidential candidates make opposing it central to their
platforms, but this is happening at a time when overt warfare is becoming more obsolete and
replaced with something subtler and more sinister. We must as a society evolve our
understanding of what starvation sanctions are and what they do, and stop seeing them as in any
way superior or preferable to overt warfare.
The fact that people generally oppose senseless military violence but are unable to see and
comprehend a slow, boa constrictor-like act of slaughter via economic strangulation is why
these siege warfare tactics have become the weapon of choice for the US-centralized empire. It
is a more gradual way of murdering people than overt warfare, but when you control all the
resources and have an underlying power structure which maintains itself amid the comings and
goings of your officially elected government, you're in no hurry. The absence of any public
accountability makes the need for patience a very worthwhile trade-off.
So you see this siege warfare strategy employed everywhere by the US-centralized empire:
You see it with Iran and Venezuela.
You see it in Yemen, where in addition to deadly blockades the Saudis have been
deliberate targeting farms, fishing boats, marketplaces, food storage sites and
cholera treatment centers with US-assisted airstrikes.
You
saw it with Julian Assange , where Ecuador collaborated with the US to slowly make life
in the embassy more and more hellish in the hope that he'd step outside to be arrested by
British police.
You're
seeing it now with Chelsea Manning , who is currently racking up $500 a day fines for her
principled stand against a corrupt grand jury proceeding against Assange, fines which will
double next month to $1,000 a day.
The US-centralized power alliance is so powerful in its ability to hurt nations with
financial influence that in 1990 when Yemen voted against a UN Security Council Resolution
authorizing the attack against Iran, a senior US diplomat was caught on a hot mic telling the
Yemeni ambassador, "That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." According to
German author Thomas Pogge , "The US stopped $70 million in aid to Yemen; other Western
countries, the IMF, and World Bank followed suit. Saudi Arabia expelled some 800,000 Yemeni
workers, many of whom had lived there for years and were sending urgently needed money to their
families."
That's real power. Not the ability to destroy a nation with bombs and missiles, but the
ability to destroy it without firing a shot.
It's no wonder, then, that the drivers of this empire work so hard to continue growing and
expanding it. The oligarchs and their allies in opaque government agencies no doubt envision a
world where all noncompliant nations like Iran, Russia and China have been absorbed into the
blob of empire and war becomes obsolete, not because anyone has become any less violent, but
because their economic control will be so complete that they can obliterate entire populations
just by cutting them off from the world economy whenever any of them become disobedient.
This is the only reason Iran is being targeted right now. That's why you'll never hear a
factually and logically sound argument defending Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal;
there is none. There was no problem with the JCPOA other than the fact that it barred America
from inflicting economic warfare upon Iran, which it needed for the purpose of toppling the
nation's government so that it can be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized empire.
And all the innocent human beings who die of starvation and disease? They don't matter.
Imperial violence only matters if there are consequences for it. The price of shoring up the
total hegemony of the empire will have been worth it .
"... Keep a close watch on whether the organizers are shown to have studied in the US and if the most vociferous media are known to have had connections to the CIA/NED. ..."
The 'Extradition Protest', with its thousands of protesters seemingly instantly mobilized,
appears to have a startling resemblance to the 'Umbrella Protests' that were backed by the
CIA/NED.
Keep a close watch on whether the organizers are shown to have studied in the US and if
the most vociferous media are known to have had connections to the CIA/NED.
Iran's envoy to the United Nations has called on the international community to end "unlawful destabilizing measures" by the US,
declaring that while Iran does not seek war, it "reserves the right to counter any hostile act."
Iranian envoy to the UN Majid Takht Ravanchi has condemned continuing US provocations that culminated Thursday morning in the
downing of an American surveillance drone by the Iranian air force over Hormozgan province.
The drone "had turned off its identification equipment and [was] engaged in a clear spying operation," Ravanchi confirmed in a
letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, adding that the aircraft had ignored "repeated radio warnings" in order to enter
Iranian airspace near the Strait of Hormuz.
"... The build-up of riots against Hong Kong's proposed extradition treaty with the Mainland started months ago, supported and driven by commentary in the Land of the Free ..."
"... This happened before, in 2014. The Chinese leadership was certain the riots in Hong Kong reflected the work of American agencies. The following is an extract translated from a speech by Major-General Qiao Liang, a leading strategist for the Peoples' Liberation Army, addressing the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee in 2015: ..."
"... weakening yuan-dollar exchange rate will dissuade international portfolios from investing in China's projects, for which the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established. China should respond to moves to undermine her currency, seeking to enhance the attractions of her investment opportunities to international investment funds by taking measures to support the yuan. If not, global investment funds will simply not come China's way. ..."
"... Besides attracting portfolio flows into the US, a rising dollar is also a threat to foreign governments and corporates who have borrowed dollars and then have to pay them back later. This was what mauled South-East Asian economies in the 1997 financial crisis. China as a state is not in this position, though some of her regional trading partners will have fallen into this trap again. ..."
"... It is clear from elsewhere in Qiao's speech that the Chinese understand America's motives and methods. Therefore, they will anticipate American actions to undermine the yuan. If the Americans succeed and with the yuan made unattractive, international portfolio money that is already invested in China will be sucked out, potentially crashing China's capital markets. ..."
"... Put another way, we face no less than a dangerous escalation of the financial war between America and China, with America trying to close off international finance to China. ..."
"... Through deploying similar monetary policies to the Americans, it might now occur to Beijing's central planners that they are at a severe disadvantage playing that game. The dollar and the yuan are both unbacked credit-based currencies bedevilled with debt. But if the dollar goes head-to-head against the yuan, the dollar will always destabilise the yuan. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Chinese inaction is likely to be encouraged by another factor: the escalation of US embargoes on Iranian oil, and the increasing possibility of a new Middle-East conflict with Iran. This is bound to have a bearing on Chinese-American relations. ..."
"... Meanwhile, China is securing her defences. Besides aligning with Russia and both being expected to vote at the UN against Israeli/American attempts to escalate tensions in the Gulf, Russia can be expected to covertly help Iran. Beijing is also securing a partnership to protect North Korea, with Xi visiting Pyongyang this week in order to head off American action in that direction. The whole Asian continent from Ukraine to the Bering Sea is now on a defensive footing. ..."
When you see a rash, you should look beyond the skin for a cause. It has been like this with
Hong Kong over the last few weeks. On the surface we see impressively organised demonstrations
to stop the executive from introducing extradition laws to China. We observe that university
students and others not much older are running the demonstrations with military precision. The
Mainland Chinese should be impressed.
They are unlikely to see it that way. The build-up of riots against Hong Kong's proposed
extradition treaty with the Mainland started months ago, supported and driven by commentary in
the Land of the Free . America is now coming out in the open as China's adversary, no longer
just a trading partner worried by the trade imbalances. And Hong Kong is the pressure
point.
This happened before, in 2014. The Chinese leadership was certain the riots in Hong Kong
reflected the work of American agencies. The following is an extract translated from a speech
by Major-General Qiao Liang, a leading strategist for the Peoples' Liberation Army, addressing
the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee in 2015:
"Since the Diaoyu Islands conflict and the Huangyan Island conflict, incidents have kept
popping up around China, including the confrontation over China's 981 oil rigs with Vietnam
and Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" event. Can they still be viewed as simply accidental?
I accompanied General Liu Yazhou, the Political Commissar of the National Defence
University, to visit Hong Kong in May 2014. At that time, we heard that the "Occupy Central"
movement was being planned and could take place by end of the month. However, it didn't
happen in May, June, July, or August.
What happened? What were they waiting for?
Let's look at another time table: the U.S. Federal Reserve's exit from the Quantitative
Easing (QE) policy. The U.S. said it would stop QE at the beginning of 2014. But it stayed
with the QE policy in April, May, June, July, and August. As long as it was in QE, it kept
overprinting dollars and the dollar's price couldn't go up. Thus, Hong Kong's "Occupy
Central" should not happen either.
At the end of September, the Federal Reserve announced the U.S. would exit from QE. The
dollar started going up. Then Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" broke out in early October.
Actually, the Diaoyu Islands, Huangyan Island, the 981 rigs, and Hong Kong's "Occupy
Central" movement were all bombs. The successful explosion of any one of them would lead to a
regional crisis or a worsened investment environment around China. That would force the
withdrawal of a large amount of investment from this region, which would then return to the
U.S."
That America is stoking and organising discontent anew in Hong Kong is probably still
China's view today. Clearly, the Chinese believed America covertly managed "Occupy Central" and
therefore are at it again. Apart from what their spies tell them, the protests are too well
organised and planned to be spontaneous. This time, the attack appears to have a better chance
of success. The plan is coordinated with American pressure on Hong Kong's dollar peg in an
attempt to destabilise it, principally through the threat to extend tariffs against China to
Hong Kong. This second attempt to collapse Hong Kong is therefore more serious.
Hong Kong is critical, because through Shanghai Connect it is the only lawful channel for
foreign investment flows into China. This is important to the Americans, because the US
Treasury cannot afford to see global portfolio flows attracted into China at a time when they
will be needed to invest in increasing quantities of US Treasury stock. Understand that, and
you will have grasped a large part of the urgency behind America's attempt to destabilise Hong
Kong.
Qiao Liang makes this point elsewhere in his aforementioned speech, claiming American
tactics are the consequence of the ending of Bretton Woods:
"Without the restriction of gold, the US can print dollars at will. If they keep a large
amount of dollars inside the US, it will certainly create inflation. If they export dollars
to the world, the whole world is helping the US deal with its inflation. That's why inflation
is not high in the US."
While one can take issue with his simplistic analysis, that is not the point. What matters
is what the Chinese believe. Qiao concludes:
"By issuing debt, the US brings a large amount of dollars from overseas back to the US's
three big markets: the commodity market, the Treasury Bills market, and the stock market. The
US repeats this cycle to make money: printing money, exporting money overseas, and bringing
money back. The US has become a financial empire."
Conceptually, Qiao was broadly correct. His error in these two statements was to not explain
that ownership of dollars means they are deployed exclusively in America, but perhaps he was
simplifying his argument for a non-technical audience. All dollars, despite foreign ownership,
remain in the American economy as a combination of US Treasuries and T-bills, investment in US
listed and unlisted securities, physical assets such as property and also deposits through
correspondent banks held in New York.
It is not the dollars that flow, but their ownership that changes. Dollars are bought and
sold for foreign currencies by central banks, sovereign wealth funds, commercial banks,
insurance companies and pension funds. The currencies in which these entities invest matters,
and investment decisions are obviously affected by currency prospects. It allows the US
Treasury to attract these flows into the dollar by simply making other currencies less
attractive. Foreign owners of foreign currencies can easily be spooked into the safe havens of
the dollar and US Treasuries. This is the way foreigners are corralled into funding the budget
deficit.
A weakening yuan-dollar exchange rate will dissuade international portfolios from investing
in China's projects, for which the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established. China
should respond to moves to undermine her currency, seeking to enhance the attractions of her
investment opportunities to international investment funds by taking measures to support the
yuan. If not, global investment funds will simply not come China's way.
Besides attracting portfolio flows into the US, a rising dollar is also a threat to foreign
governments and corporates who have borrowed dollars and then have to pay them back later. This
was what mauled South-East Asian economies in the 1997 financial crisis. China as a state is
not in this position, though some of her regional trading partners will have fallen into this
trap again.
It is clear from elsewhere in Qiao's speech that the Chinese understand America's motives
and methods. Therefore, they will anticipate American actions to undermine the yuan. If the
Americans succeed and with the yuan made unattractive, international portfolio money that is
already invested in China will be sucked out, potentially crashing China's capital markets.
With the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act going onto the US statute book, President
Trump will be able to use the link to the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sanctions
against trade, finance and technology. The concern in Hong Kong is personal wealth will now
decamp and that Hong Kong property prices will implode.
The British involvement
America's strategy has included putting pressure on her allies to fall into line with her
interests against China. All NATO members have been told not to buy Huawei equipment.
Protective of the special relationship, the British have gone along with it. But Cheltenham's
GCHQ (the UK's cyber monitoring agency) has at least given Huawei the opportunity to address
the security issues that have been raised.
A greater problem is bound to arise, and that is the role of the City of London. In 2014,
the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, agreed a plan with the Chinese leadership
for the City to work with Hong Kong to internationalise the yuan. The Chinese wanted to bypass
New York for obvious reasons.
The request to meet Osborne went through Boris Johnson, at the time Mayor of London and
leading a trade delegation to China on behalf of the City. Johnson is now odds-on favourite to
become the next Prime Minister and if appointed will undoubtedly find himself in a difficult
position. He will have to walk a very fine line between Britain's developing Chinese interests,
her special relationship with America, his new friendship with Trump, and also the trade
agreement with America which both Trump and Johnson are likely to prioritise following
Brexit.
Depending on how Johnson acts, China may have to put her plans to internationalise the yuan
on hold. The risk for China is that with her international financial plans threatened and the
Americans determined to strengthen the dollar in order to undermine the yuan, she will not have
access to the international portfolio flows she needs to help finance her infrastructure plans
and her Made in China 2025 project.
Put another way, we face no less than a dangerous escalation of the financial war between
America and China, with America trying to close off international finance to
China.
China's policy predicament
In a tactical retreat, Hong Kong has put plans to introduce the new extradition legislation
on hold. All it has achieved is to redirect demonstrators' demands towards Hong Kong's Chief
Executive to resign, and the demonstrations continued.
The question now arises as to how the Chinese will proceed. So far, they have played their
hand defensively in the financial war against America, but things are now coming to a head.
Obviously, they will protect Hong Kong, but more importantly they must address capital flight
through the Shanghai Connect. One option will be to suspend it, but that would undermine the
trust fundamental to future inward portfolio flows. It would also be a huge setback for the
international yuan. In any event, action must be taken to underwrite the yuan exchange
rate.
One option would be to increase interest rates, but this will risk being read as a panic
measure. In this context, an early and definite rise in interest rates would be better than a
delay or a lesser adjustment to monetary policy. For the domestic economy, this would favour
savers in an economy already savings-driven, but disadvantage exporters and many small and
medium-size businesses. It would amount to a reversal of recent economic and monetary policies,
which are intended to increase domestic consumption and reduce export surpluses.
The economic theories that the central planners in Beijing actually believe in will become
centre-stage. China has adopted the global neo-Keynesian standard of economic planning and
credit expansion. When the country moved rapidly from a peasant economy, credit was able to
expand without the regular pitfalls of a credit cycle observed in an advanced economy being
noticeable. This was because economic progress eclipsed the consequences of monetary
inflation.
But China is no longer an economic green-field site, having become predominantly a modern
economy. Consequently, she has moved from her pure mercantilist approach to running the economy
to a more financial and monetary style of central planning.
Through deploying similar monetary policies to the Americans, it might now occur to
Beijing's central planners that they are at a severe disadvantage playing that game. The dollar
and the yuan are both unbacked credit-based currencies bedevilled with debt. But if the dollar
goes head-to-head against the yuan, the dollar will always destabilise the yuan.
Supping from the Keynesian cup is China's principal weakness. She cannot afford to face down
the dollar, and the Americans know it. For the Chinese, the path of least risk appears to be
the one China has pursued successfully to date: do as little as possible to rock the boat, and
let America make the mistakes. However, as I shall argue later, the time is coming for China to
take the offensive.
Meanwhile, Chinese inaction is likely to be encouraged by another factor: the escalation of
US embargoes on Iranian oil, and the increasing possibility of a new Middle-East conflict with
Iran. This is bound to have a bearing on Chinese-American relations.
False flags and
Iran
Last week, two oil tankers suffered an attack by parties unknown after leaving the Strait of
Hormuz outward-bound. Predictably, the Americans and the Saudis blamed Iran, and Iran has
denied involvement. The Americans, supported by the British, have been quick to point out that
Iran had the motivation to attack and therefore was the guilty party. As a consequence of US
sanctions, her economy is in a state of collapse and Iran needs higher oil prices. The US has
been building up its Gulf fleet provocatively, increasing tensions. According to Al-Jazeera,
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani warned last December that "If one day they (the US) want to
prevent the export of Iran's oil, then no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf."
Perhaps that day is close. Tehran must be desperate, and she blames the Americans and
Israelis for a false flag attack, an accusation that bases its credibility on previous
incidents in the region and a suspicion that Israel backed by America wants an excuse to attack
Iran. The Syrian bridge to Hezbollah threatens Israel to its North, so its involvement is
logical, and it looks like a Mossad operation. By driving Iran into a corner, it is hard to see
any other outcome than further escalation.
If America does get tied up in a new war in the Middle East, she will be fighting on two
Asian fronts: militarily against Iran and financially against China. It could descend rapidly
into a global crisis, which would not suit China's interests or anyone else's for that matter.
However, an American attack against Iran could trigger the widespread flight of investment
money to the safety of the dollar and US Treasuries.
If America achieves that objective before sending in the troops, she could then compromise
on both Iran and on tariffs against China. Assuming Qiao Liang's analysis still has traction in
Beijing, this is the way American strategy might be read by the Chinese war-gamers.
Meanwhile, China is securing her defences. Besides aligning with Russia and both being
expected to vote at the UN against Israeli/American attempts to escalate tensions in the Gulf,
Russia can be expected to covertly help Iran. Beijing is also securing a partnership to protect
North Korea, with Xi visiting Pyongyang this week in order to head off American action in that
direction. The whole Asian continent from Ukraine to the Bering Sea is now on a defensive
footing.
How will it be resolved?
If the funding of the US deficit is the underling problem, then a continuation of China's
longstanding policy of not reacting to America's financial aggression is no longer an option. A
weaker yuan will be the outcome and a second Asian financial crisis involving China would be in
the offing. It also means the progression of China's economy would become more dependent on
domestic inflationary financing through the expansion of bank credit at a time when food
prices, partially due to the outbreak of African swine fever, are rising as well.
There is bound to be an intense debate in the Chinese Politburo as to whether it is wise to
abandon neo-Keynesian financing and revert to the previous understanding that debasing the
currency and the inflation of food prices impoverishes the people and will inevitably lead to
political destabilisation. The logic behind the state accumulating a hoard of gold, encouraging
citizens to hoard it as well, and dominating international bullion markets was to protect the
citizens from a paper money crisis. That paper money crisis now threatens the yuan more than
the dollar.
It must be clear to the Chinese, who are no slouches when it comes to understanding
political strategy, why America is taking a far more aggressive stance in their financial war.
The absence of foreign buyers in the US Treasury market could turn out to be the most serious
crisis for America since the end of Bretton Woods. The Deep State, driven in this case by the
US Treasury, will not permit it to happen. For both China and America, these are desperate
times.
There was always going to be a point in time when mundane chess moves end up threatening to
check and then checkmate one or the other king. China now finds her king under serious threat
and she must make a countermove. She cannot afford portfolio flows to reverse. The financing of
her Made in China 2025 plan and the completion of the silk roads are vital to her long-term
political stability.
China must therefore counter dollar strength by means other than simply raising interest
rates. Inevitably, the solution points towards gold. Everyone knows, or at least suspects that
China has accumulated significant undeclared reserves of gold bullion. The time has probably
come for China to show her hand and declare her true gold reserves, or at least enough of them
to exceed the official gold reserves of the US.
It is likely a declaration of this sort would drive the gold price significantly higher,
amounting to a dollar devaluation. By denying gold is money, America has exposed itself to the
risk of the dollar's reserve status being questioned in global markets, and this is China's
trump card.
If Xi attends the Osaka G20 at the end of this month, the purpose would be less to talk to
Trump, but more to talk to the other leaders to make it clear what the Americans are up to and
to ensure they are aware of the consequences for the global monetary system when China takes
positive action to protect her own currency and domestic capital markets.
China gives the US too much credit for "people organizing" skills. Credit where credit is due: the Hong Kong population is dynamic and driven. They are
"incentivized" by Chinese policy itself.
"... Hire B-team actors whom he can fire at will, and for effect, as required to maintain the facade of 'dominance.' Let the dogs loose and then yank on their chains at the last minute. The master's voice etc. ..."
"... His problem is: it only works in TV Reality Show land -- and only for a limited time between business-as-usual advertising. ..."
"... He, and his cast of zio-policy diplomatic zombies have a much harder time when it comes to the real world and real national boundaries that resist and are likely to fight back. ..."
"... Seems the US is perpetually seeking war or at the very least threatening war. War on drugs, war on poverty war on disinfo war, trade wars , unending list of WAR, WAR, WAR. ..."
"... Sanctions were never justified in the first place. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has submitted to extra-ordinary inspections by the IAEA for decades. And gets ticks on the boxes. Anyone that thinks Iran is trying to 'build the bomb' probably believes unicorns live in the White House (the American one), and that Saddam blew up the Twin Towers. ..."
"... Compare the western attitudes towards Iran, and those towards India and Pakistan. Neither of which have signed up to the NPT. Not a single whimper from western governments or their MSM propaganda channels, when those countries developed an arsenal of nuclear WMD's. ..."
"... My guess on what happened with Trump was the same MO as in Syria, he has a temper tantrum ("kill them all, even the Russians" as was rumored) and he was informed of the possible fallout from such an attack. ..."
Whether Generalissimo Bone Spur and President Chief Kaiser of the USA, His Imperial Majesty Donald Trump, actually called for
a stand down of any attack on Iran for the shooting down of a surveillance UAV, or he suddenly realized that such an act would
touch off another unneeded war, is at this point in time a matter of some debate. What is clear however is that his Imperial Majesty
must clean out his current foreign policy and national defense staff (Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel etc.) before another crisis develops.
Otherwise the neocons that currently inhabit the Oval Office chicken hawk coop will be back at fomenting another crisis, which
might actually give them the war they so dearly want. His Imperial Majesty appointed them and he can fire them.
All this narrative fits Trump's modus operandi and his fake Alpha male persona.
Hire B-team actors whom he can fire at will, and for effect, as required to maintain the facade of 'dominance.' Let the dogs
loose and then yank on their chains at the last minute. The master's voice etc.
His problem is: it only works in TV Reality Show land -- and only for a limited time between business-as-usual advertising.
He, and his cast of zio-policy diplomatic zombies have a much harder time when it comes to the real world and real national
boundaries that resist and are likely to fight back.
Trump and US MIC is dangerous of course. But Trump has enough rat cunning to know when he's cornered. All he's done here with
this alleged last minute "call back" is test prove his chain of command is working. (...or is it?)
George V---
As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who the president has or who he is. Seems the US is perpetually seeking war or at the very
least threatening war. War on drugs, war on poverty war on disinfo war, trade wars , unending list of WAR, WAR, WAR.
I cannot see any way that the current irrational sanctions against Iran by the US can be rolled back. All US administrations are
full of hubris and in love with their own imagined gloriously supreme power. The only way they can be rolled back is if Iran offers
some face-saving excuse, which they can't do. They have nothing else to give (Pompeo's 'conditions for international re-alignment'
were essentially a demand for surrender and 'regime' change, probably authored by Maniac Walrus Bolton).
Sanctions were never justified in the first place. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has submitted
to extra-ordinary inspections by the IAEA for decades. And gets ticks on the boxes. Anyone that thinks Iran is trying to 'build
the bomb' probably believes unicorns live in the White House (the American one), and that Saddam blew up the Twin Towers.
Compare the western attitudes towards Iran, and those towards India and Pakistan. Neither of which have signed up to the NPT.
Not a single whimper from western governments or their MSM propaganda channels, when those countries developed an arsenal of nuclear
WMD's.
My guess on what happened with Trump was the same MO as in Syria, he has a temper tantrum ("kill them all, even the Russians"
as was rumored) and he was informed of the possible fallout from such an attack.
Trump will attack, just not yet. There is some new toy they want to try out. Shock and Awe style.
Bolton is just Albright of different sex. The same aggressive stupidity.
Notable quotes:
"... Albright typifies the arrogance and hawkishness of Washington blob... ..."
"... How to describe US foreign policy over the last couple of decades? Disastrous comes to mind. Arrogant and murderous also seem appropriate. ..."
"... Washington and Beijing appear to be a collision course on far more than trade. Yet the current administration appears convinced that doing more of the same will achieve different results, the best definition of insanity. ..."
"... Despite his sometimes abusive and incendiary rhetoric, the president has departed little from his predecessors' policies. For instance, American forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Syria. Moreover, the Trump administration has increased its military and materiel deployments to Europe. Also, Washington has intensified economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and even penalized additional countries, namely Venezuela. ..."
"... "If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." ..."
"... Even then her claim was implausible. America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People's Republic of China. Washington-backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe. ..."
"... Perhaps the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those most affected -- hence the rise of terrorism against the United States. Terrorism, horrid and awful though it is, became the weapon of choice of weaker peoples against intervention by the world's industrialized national states. ..."
"... Albright's assumption that members of The Blob were far-seeing was matched by her belief that the same people were entitled to make life-and-death decisions for the entire planet. ..."
"... The willingness to so callously sacrifice so many helps explain why "they" often hate us, usually meaning the U.S. government. This is also because "they" believe average Americans hate them. Understandably, it too often turns out, given the impact of the full range of American interventions -- imposing economic sanctions, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations, unleashing drone campaigns, underwriting tyrannical regimes, supporting governments which occupy and oppress other peoples, displaying ostentatious hypocrisy and bias, and more. ..."
"... At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against the Serb-dominated remnant of Yugoslavia. ..."
"... Alas, members of the Blob view Americans with little more respect. The ignorant masses should do what they are told. (Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster recently complained of public war-weariness from fighting in Afghanistan for no good reason for more than seventeen years.) Even more so, believed Albright, members of the military should cheerfully patrol the quasi-empire being established by Washington's far-sighted leaders. ..."
"... When asked in 2003 about the incident, she said "what I thought was that we had -- we were in a kind of a mode of thinking that we were never going to be able to use our military effectively again." ..."
"... For Albright, war is just another foreign policy tool. One could send a diplomatic note, impose economic sanctions, or unleash murder and mayhem. No reason to treat the latter as anything special. Joining the U.S. military means putting your life at the disposal of Albright and her peers in The Blob. ..."
Albright typifies the arrogance and hawkishness of Washington blob...
How to describe US foreign policy over the last couple of decades? Disastrous comes to mind. Arrogant and murderous also seem
appropriate.
Since 9/11, Washington has been extraordinarily active militarily -- invading two nations, bombing and droning several others,
deploying special operations forces in yet more countries, and applying sanctions against many. Tragically, the threat of Islamist
violence and terrorism only have metastasized. Although Al Qaeda lost its effectiveness in directly plotting attacks, it continues
to inspire national offshoots. Moreover, while losing its physical "caliphate" the Islamic State added further terrorism to its portfolio.
Three successive administrations have ever more deeply ensnared the United States in the Middle East. War with Iran appears to
be frighteningly possible. Ever-wealthier allies are ever-more dependent on America. Russia is actively hostile to the United States
and Europe. Washington and Beijing appear to be a collision course on far more than trade. Yet the current administration appears
convinced that doing more of the same will achieve different results, the best definition of insanity.
Despite his sometimes abusive and incendiary rhetoric, the president has departed little from his predecessors' policies. For
instance, American forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Syria. Moreover, the Trump administration has increased its military
and materiel deployments to Europe. Also, Washington has intensified economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and
even penalized additional countries, namely Venezuela.
U.S. foreign policy suffers from systematic flaws in the thinking of the informal policy collective which former Obama aide Ben
Rhodes dismissed as "The Blob." Perhaps no official better articulated The Blob's defective precepts than Madeleine Albright, United
Nations ambassador and Secretary of State.
First is overweening hubris. In 1998 Secretary of State Albright declared that
"If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than
other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."
Even then her claim was implausible. America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson
administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People's
Republic of China. Washington-backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against
Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with
Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe.
U.S. officials rarely were prepared for events that occurred in the next week or month, let alone years later. Americans did no
better than the French in Vietnam. Americans managed events in Africa no better than the British, French, and Portuguese colonial
overlords. Washington made more than its share of bad, even awful decisions in dealing with other nations around the globe.
Perhaps the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never
passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if
outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those
most affected -- hence the rise of terrorism against the United States. Terrorism, horrid and awful though it is, became the weapon
of choice of weaker peoples against intervention by the world's industrialized national states.
The U.S. record since September 11 has been uniquely counterproductive. Rather than minimize hostility toward America, Washington
adopted a policy -- highlighted by launching new wars, killing more civilians, and ravaging additional societies -- guaranteed to
create enemies, exacerbate radicalism, and spread terrorism. Blowback is everywhere. Among the worst examples: Iraqi insurgents mutated
into ISIS, which wreaked military havoc throughout the Middle East and turned to terrorism.
Albright's assumption that members of The Blob were far-seeing was matched by her belief that the same people were entitled to
make life-and-death decisions for the entire planet. When queried 1996 about her justification for sanctions against Iraq which had
killed a half million babies -- notably, she did not dispute the accuracy of that estimate -- she responded that "I think this is
a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." Exactly who "we" were she did not say. Most likely she meant
those Americans admitted to the foreign policy priesthood, empowered to make foreign policy and take the practical steps necessary
to enforce it. (She later stated of her reply: "I never should have made it. It was stupid." It was, but it reflected her mindset.)
In any normal country, such a claim would be shocking -- a few people sitting in another capital deciding who lived and died.
Foreign elites, a world away from the hardship that they imposed, deciding the value of those dying versus the purported interests
being promoted. Those paying the price had no voice in the decision, no way to hold their persecutors accountable.
The willingness to so callously sacrifice so many helps explain why "they" often hate us, usually meaning the U.S. government.
This is also because "they" believe average Americans hate them. Understandably, it too often turns out, given the impact of the
full range of American interventions -- imposing economic sanctions, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations, unleashing drone
campaigns, underwriting tyrannical regimes, supporting governments which occupy and oppress other peoples, displaying ostentatious
hypocrisy and bias, and more.
This mindset is reinforced by contempt toward even those being aided by Washington. Although American diplomats had termed the
Kosovo Liberation Army as "terrorist," the Clinton Administration decided to use the growing insurgency as an opportunity to expand
Washington's influence. At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state
could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington
expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against
the Serb-dominated remnant of Yugoslavia.
However, initially the KLA, determined on independence, refused to sign Albright's agreement. She exploded. One of her officials
anonymously complained: "Here is the greatest nation on earth pleading with some nothingballs to do something entirely in their own
interest -- which is to say yes to an interim agreement -- and they stiff us." Someone described as "a close associate" observed:
"She is so stung by what happened. She's angry at everyone -- the Serbs, the Albanians and NATO." For Albright, the determination
of others to achieve their own goals, even at risk to their lives, was an insult to America and her.
Alas, members of the Blob view Americans with little more respect. The ignorant masses should do what they are told. (Former National
Security Adviser H.R. McMaster recently complained of public war-weariness from fighting in Afghanistan for no good reason for more
than seventeen years.) Even more so, believed Albright, members of the military should cheerfully patrol the quasi-empire being established
by Washington's far-sighted leaders.
As Albright famously asked Colin Powell in 1992:
"What's the use of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" To her, American military personnel
apparently were but gambit pawns in a global chess game, to be sacrificed for the interest and convenience of those playing. No
wonder then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell's reaction stated in his autobiography was: "I thought I would
have an aneurysm."
When asked in 2003 about the incident, she said "what I thought was that we had -- we were in a kind of a mode of thinking
that we were never going to be able to use our military effectively again." Although sixty-five years had passed, she
admitted that "my mindset is Munich," a unique circumstance and threat without even plausible parallel today.
Such a philosophy explains a 1997 comment by a cabinet member, likely Albright, to General Hugh Shelton, then Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff: "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out
Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s
fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?" He responded sure, as soon as she qualified
to fly the plane.
For Albright, war is just another foreign policy tool. One could send a diplomatic note, impose economic sanctions, or unleash
murder and mayhem. No reason to treat the latter as anything special. Joining the U.S. military means putting your life at the disposal
of Albright and her peers in The Blob.
Anyone of these comments could be dismissed as a careless aside. Taken together, however, they reflect an attitude dangerous for
Americans and foreigners alike. Unfortunately, the vagaries of U.S. foreign policy suggest that this mindset is not limited to any
one person. Any president serious about taking a new foreign-policy direction must do more than drain the swamp. He or she must sideline
The Blob.
"... Twenty years have passed since the U.S.-orchestrated NATO attack on Yugoslavia. As the United States readied its forces for war in 1999, it organized a peace conference that was ostensibly intended to resolve differences between the Yugoslav government and secessionist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo on the future status of the province. A different scenario was being played out behind the scenes, however. U.S. officials wanted war and deliberately set up the process to fail, which they planned to use as a pretext for war. ..."
"... U.S. mediators habitually referred to the Yugoslav delegation as "the Serbs," even though they constituted a minority of the members. The Americans persisted in trying to cast events in Kosovo as a simplistic binary relationship of Serb versus Albanian, disregarding the presence of other ethnic groups in the province, and ignoring the fact that while some ethnic Albanians favored separation, others wished to remain in multiethnic Yugoslavia. ..."
"... It is probable that the U.S. was also operating electronic listening equipment and that U.S. mediators knew everything the delegations were saying in private. ..."
"... "Madeleine Albright told us all the time: 'If the Yugoslav delegation does not accept what we offer, you will be bombed.'" Šainović added, "We agreed in Rambouillet to any form of autonomy for Kosovo," but sovereignty remained the red line. [viii] ..."
"... As the conference progressed, U.S. negotiators were faced with an alarming problem, in that the Yugoslav delegation had accepted all of the Contact Group's fundamental political principles for an agreement, balking only at a NATO presence in Kosovo. On the other hand, the secessionist delegation rejected the Contact Group's political principles. Something had to be done to reverse this pattern. ..."
"... Quite intentionally, U.S. mediators included provisions in the final version of the text that no sovereign nation could be expected to accept. Neoliberal economic interests are always front and center when U.S. officials are involved, and they surely were not unaware of Kosovo's abundant reserves of mineral resources, ripe for exploitation. The first point in Article 1 of the Economic Issues section of the text states: ..."
"... Western investors were favored with a provision stating that authorities shall "ensure the free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital to Kosovo, including from international sources." [xiii] One may wonder what these stipulations had to do with peace negotiations, but then the talks had far more to do with U.S. interests than anything to do with the needs of the people in the region. ..."
"... Yugoslavia was required "to provide, at no cost, the use of all facilities and services required" by NATO. [xvii]Within six months, Yugoslavia would have to withdraw all of its military forces from Kosovo, other than a small number of border guards. [xviii] ..."
"... The plan granted NATO "unrestricted use of the entire electromagnetic spectrum" to "communicate." Although the document indicated NATO would make "reasonable efforts to coordinate," there were no constraints on its power. [xix] Yugoslav officials, "upon simple request," would be required to grant NATO "all telecommunication services, including broadcast services free of cost." [xx]NATO could take over any radio and television facilities and transmission wavelengths it chose, knocking local stations off the air. ..."
"... The plan did not restrict NATO's presence to Kosovo. It granted NATO, with its "vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]." [xxi] NATO would be "granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tools, or charges." [xxii] ..."
"... Bombing Yugoslavia was meant to solidify the new role for NATO as an offensive military force, acting on behalf of U.S. imperial interests. Since that time, NATO has attacked Libya, and engaged in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a variety of nations in Africa. Despite NATO's claim that it is "committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes," the record shows otherwise. ..."
"... Gregory Elich is a Korea Policy Institute associate and on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute. He is a member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea, a columnist for Voice of the People , and one of the co-authors of Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period , published in the Russian language. He is also a member of the Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific. His website is https://gregoryelich.org . Follow him on Twitter at @GregoryElich ..."
Twenty years have passed since the U.S.-orchestrated NATO attack on Yugoslavia. As the United States readied its forces for
war in 1999, it organized a peace conference that was ostensibly intended to resolve differences between the Yugoslav government
and secessionist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo on the future status of the province. A different scenario was being played out behind
the scenes, however. U.S. officials wanted war and deliberately set up the process to fail, which they planned to use as a pretext
for war.
The talks opened on February 6, 1999, in Rambouillet, France. Officially, the negotiations were led by a Contact Group comprised
of U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia Christopher Hill , European Union envoy Wolfgang Petritsch , and Russian diplomat Boris Mayorsky
. All decisions were supposed to be jointly agreed upon by all three members of the Contact Group. In actual practice, the U.S. ran
the show all the way and routinely bypassed Petritsch and Mayorsky on essential matters.
Ibrahim Rugova , an ethnic Albanian activist who advocated nonviolence, was expected to play a major role in the Albanian secessionist
delegation. Joining him at Rambouillet was Fehmi Agani , a fellow member of Rugova's Democratic League of Kosovo.
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright regularly sidelined Rugova, however, preferring to rely on delegation members from
the hardline Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which had routinely murdered Serbs, Roma, and Albanians in Kosovo who worked for the government
or opposed separatism. Only a few months before the conference, KLA spokesman Bardhyl Mahmuti spelled out his organization's vision
of a future Kosovo as separate and ethnically pure:
"The independence of Kosovo is the only solution We cannot live together. That is excluded." [i]
Rugova had at one time engaged in fairly productive talks with Yugoslav officials, and his willingness to negotiate was no doubt
precisely the reason Albright relegated him to a background role. Yugoslav Minister of Information Milan Komnenić accompanied the
Yugoslav delegation to Rambouillet. He recalls,
"With Rugova and Fehmi Agani it was possible to talk; they were flexible. In Rambouillet, [KLA leader Hashim] Thaçi appears
instead of Rugova. A beast." [ii]
There was no love between Thaçi and Rugova, whose party members were the targets of threats and assassination attempts at the
hands of the KLA. Rugova himself would survive an assassination attempt six years later.
The composition of the Yugoslav delegation reflected its position that many ethnic groups resided in Kosovo, and any agreement
arrived at should take into account the interests of all parties. All of Kosovo's major ethnic groups were represented in the delegation.
Faik Jashari , one of the Albanian members in the Yugoslav delegation, was president of the Kosovo Democratic Initiative and an official
in the Provisional Executive Council, which was Yugoslavia's government in Kosovo. Jashari observed that Albright was startled when
she saw the composition of the Yugoslav delegation, apparently because it went against the U.S. propaganda narrative. [iii] Throughout
the talks, Albright displayed a dismissive attitude towards the delegation's Albanian, Roma, Egyptian, Goran, Turkish, and Slavic
Muslim members.
U.S. mediators habitually referred to the Yugoslav delegation as "the Serbs," even though they constituted a minority of the members.
The Americans persisted in trying to cast events in Kosovo as a simplistic binary relationship of Serb versus Albanian, disregarding
the presence of other ethnic groups in the province, and ignoring the fact that while some ethnic Albanians favored separation, others
wished to remain in multiethnic Yugoslavia.
After arriving at Rambouillet, the secessionist Albanian delegation informed U.S. diplomats that it did not want to meet with
the Yugoslav side. Aside from a brief ceremonial meeting, there was no direct contact between the two groups. The Yugoslav and Albanian
delegations were placed on two different floors to eliminate nearly all contact. U.S. mediators Richard Holbrooke and Christopher
Hill ran from one delegation to the other, conveying notes and verbal messages between the two sides but mostly trying to coerce
the Yugoslav delegation. [iv]
Luan Koka, a Roma member of the Yugoslav delegation, noted that the U.S. was operating an electronic jamming device.
"We knew exactly when Madeleine Albright was coming. Connections on our mobile phones were breaking up and going crazy." [v]
It is probable that the U.S. was also operating electronic listening equipment and that U.S. mediators knew everything the delegations
were saying in private.
Albright, Jashari said, would not listen to anyone.
"She had her task, and she saw only that task. You couldn't say anything to her. She didn't want to talk with us and didn't
want to listen to our arguments." [vi]
One day it was Koka's birthday, and the Yugoslav delegation wanted to encourage a more relaxed atmosphere with U.S. mediators,
inviting them to a cocktail party to mark the occasion.
"It was a slightly more pleasant atmosphere, and I was singing," Koka recalled. "I remember Madeleine Albright saying: 'I really
like partisan songs. But if you don't accept this, the bombs will fall.'" [vii]
According to delegation member Nikola Šainović ,
"Madeleine Albright told us all the time: 'If the Yugoslav delegation does not accept what we offer, you will be bombed.'"
Šainović added, "We agreed in Rambouillet to any form of autonomy for Kosovo," but sovereignty remained the red line. [viii]
From the beginning of the conference, U.S. mediator Christopher Hill "decided that what we really needed was an Albanian approval
of a document, and a Serb refusal. If both refused, there could be no further action by NATO or any other organization for that matter."
[ix] It was not peace that the U.S. team was seeking, but war.
As the conference progressed, U.S. negotiators were faced with an alarming problem, in that the Yugoslav delegation had accepted
all of the Contact Group's fundamental political principles for an agreement, balking only at a NATO presence in Kosovo. On the other
hand, the secessionist delegation rejected the Contact Group's political principles. Something had to be done to reverse this pattern.
On the second day of the conference, U.S. officials presented the Yugoslav delegation with the framework text of a provisional
agreement for peace and self-rule in Kosovo, but it was missing some of the annexes. The Yugoslavs requested a copy of the complete
document. As delegation head Ratko Marković pointed out,
"Any objections to the text of the agreement could be made only after an insight into the text as a whole had been obtained."
Nearly one week passed before the group received one of the missing annexes. That came on the day the conference had originally
been set to end. The deadline was extended, and two days later a second missing annex was provided to the Yugoslav delegation.[x]
When the Yugoslavs next met with the Contact Group, they were assured that all elements of the text had now been given to them.
Several more days passed and at 7:00 PM on February 22, the penultimate day of the conference, the Contact Group presented three
new annexes, which the Yugoslavs had never seen before. According to Marković, "Russian Ambassador Boris Mayorsky informed our delegation
that Annexes 2 and 7 had not been discussed or approved by the Contact Group and that they were not the texts drafted by the Contact
Group but by certain Contact Group members, while Annex 5 was discussed, but no decision was made on it at the Contact Group meeting."
The Yugoslav delegation refused to accept the new annexes, as their introduction had violated the process whereby all proposals had
to be agreed upon by the three Contact Group members. [xi]
At 9:30 AM on February 23, the final day of the conference, U.S. officials presented the full text of the proposal, containing
yet more provisions that were being communicated for the first time. The accompanying note identified the package as the definitive
text while adding that Russia did not support two of the articles. The letter demanded the Yugoslav delegation's decision by 1:00
PM that same day.[xii] There was barely time enough to carefully read the text, let alone negotiate. In essence, it was an ultimatum.
Quite intentionally, U.S. mediators included provisions in the final version of the text that no sovereign nation could be expected
to accept. Neoliberal economic interests are always front and center when U.S. officials are involved, and they surely were not unaware
of Kosovo's abundant reserves of mineral resources, ripe for exploitation. The first point in Article 1 of the Economic Issues section
of the text states:
"The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles."
Western investors were favored with a provision stating that authorities shall "ensure the free movement of persons, goods, services,
and capital to Kosovo, including from international sources." [xiii] One may wonder what these stipulations had to do with peace
negotiations, but then the talks had far more to do with U.S. interests than anything to do with the needs of the people in the region.
The document called for a Western-led Joint Commission including local representatives to monitor and coordinate the implementation
of the plan. However, if commission members failed to reach consensus on a matter, the Western-appointed Chair would have the power
to impose his decision unilaterally. [xiv] Local representatives would serve as little more than window-dressing for Western dictate,
as they could adopt no measure that went against the Chair's wishes.
The Chair of the Implementation Mission was authorized to "recommend" the "removal and appointment of officials and the curtailment
of operations of existing institutions in Kosovo." If the Chair's command was not obeyed "in the time requested, the Joint Commission
may decide to take the recommended action," and since the Chair had the authority to impose his will on the Joint Commission, there
was no check on his power. He could remove elected and appointed officials at will and replace them with handpicked lackeys. The
Chair was also authorized to order the "curtailment of operations of existing institutions." [xv]Any organization that failed to
bend to U.S. demands could be shut down.
Chapter 7 of the plan called for the parties to "invite NATO to constitute and lead a military force" in Kosovo. [xvi]The choice
of words was interesting. In language reminiscent of gangsters, Yugoslavia was told to "invite" NATO to take over the province of
Kosovo or suffer the consequences.
Yugoslavia was required "to provide, at no cost, the use of all facilities and services required" by NATO. [xvii]Within six months,
Yugoslavia would have to withdraw all of its military forces from Kosovo, other than a small number of border guards. [xviii]
The plan granted NATO "unrestricted use of the entire electromagnetic spectrum" to "communicate." Although the document indicated
NATO would make "reasonable efforts to coordinate," there were no constraints on its power. [xix] Yugoslav officials, "upon simple
request," would be required to grant NATO "all telecommunication services, including broadcast services free of cost." [xx]NATO could
take over any radio and television facilities and transmission wavelengths it chose, knocking local stations off the air.
The plan did not restrict NATO's presence to Kosovo. It granted NATO, with its "vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free
and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]." [xxi] NATO would be "granted
the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tools, or charges." [xxii]
The agreement guaranteed that NATO would have "complete and unimpeded freedom of movement by ground, air, and water into and throughout
Kosovo." Furthermore, NATO personnel could not be held "liable for any damages to public or private property." [xxiii] NATO as a
whole would also be "immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal," regardless of its actions anywhere
on the territory of Yugoslavia. [xxiv]Nor could NATO personnel be arrested, detained, or investigated. [xxv]
Acceptance of the plan would have brought NATO troops swarming throughout Yugoslavia and interfering in every institution.
There were several other objectionable elements in the plan, but one that stood out was the call for an "international" (meaning,
Western-led) meeting to be held after three years "to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo."[xxvi] It was no mystery
to the Yugoslav delegation what conclusion Western officials would arrive at in that meeting. The intent was clearly to redraw Yugoslavia's
borders to further break apart the nation.
U.S. officials knew the Yugoslav delegation could not possibly accept such a plan.
"We deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept," Madeleine Albright confided to a group of journalists, "because
they needed a little bombing." [xxvii]
At a meeting in Belgrade on March 5, the Yugoslav delegation issued a statement which declared:
"A great deceit was looming, orchestrated by the United States. They demanded that the agreement be signed, even though much
of this agreement, that is, over 56 pages, had never been discussed, either within the Contact Group or during the negotiations."
[xxviii]
Serbian President Milan Milutinović announced at a press conference that in Rambouillet the Yugoslav delegation had "proposed
solutions meeting the demands of the Contact Group for broad autonomy within Serbia, advocating full equality of all national communities."
But "agreement was not what they were after." Instead, Western officials engaged in "open aggression," and this was a game "about
troops and troops alone." [xxix]
While U.S. officials were working assiduously to avoid a peaceful resolution, they needed the Albanians to agree to the plan so
that they could accuse the Yugoslav delegation of being the stumbling block to peace. U.S. mainstream media could be counted on to
unquestioningly repeat the government's line and overlook who the real architects of failure were. U.S. officials knew the media
would act in their customary role as cheerleaders for war, which indeed, they did.
British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook revealed the nature of the message Western officials were conveying to the Albanian delegation
when he said,
"We are certainly saying to the Kosovo Albanians that if you don't sign up to these texts, it's extremely difficult to see
how NATO could then take action against Belgrade." [xxx]
Western officials were practically begging the secessionists to sign the plan. According to inside sources, the Americans assured
the Albanian delegation that disarmament of the KLA would be merely symbolic and that it could keep the bulk of its weaponry so long
as it was concealed. [xxxi]
Albright spent hours trying to convince Thaçi to change his mind, telling him:
"If you say yes and the Serbs say no, NATO will strike and go on striking until the Serb forces are out and NATO can go in.
You will have security. And you will be able to govern yourselves." [xxxii]
That was a clear enough signal that the intent was to rip the province away from Yugoslavia and create an artificial state. Despite
such assurances, Thaçi feared the wrath of fellow KLA members if he were to sign a document that did not explicitly call for separation.
When U.S. negotiators asked Thaçi why he would not sign, he responded:
"If I agree to this, I will go home and they will kill me." [xxxiii]
This was not hyperbole. The KLA had threatened and murdered a great many Albanians who in its eyes fell short of full-throated
support for its policy of violent secession and ethnic exclusion.
Even NATO Commander Wesley Clark , who flew in from Belgium, was unable to change Thaçi's mind. [xxxiv] U.S. officials were exasperated
with the Albanian delegation, and its recalcitrance threatened to capsize plans for war.
"Rambouillet was supposed to be about putting the screws to Belgrade," a senior U.S. official said. "But it went off the rails
because of the miscalculation we made about the Albanians." [xxxv]
On the last day at Rambouillet, it was agreed that the Albanian delegation would return to Kosovo for discussions with fellow
KLA leaders on the need to sign the document. In the days that followed, Western officials paid repeated visits to Kosovo to encourage
the Albanians to sign.
So-called "negotiations" reconvened in Paris on March 15. Upon its arrival, the Yugoslav delegation objected that it was "incomprehensible"
that "no direct talks between the two delegations had been facilitated." In response to the Yugoslavs' proposal for modifications
to the plan, the Contact Group informed them that no changes would be accepted. The document must be accepted as a whole. [xxxvi]
The Yugoslav position, delegation head Ratko Marković maintained, was that "first one needs to determine what is to be implemented,
and only then to determine the methods of implementation." [xxxvii]The delegation asked the Americans what there was to talk about
regarding implementation "when there was no agreement because the Albanians did not accept anything." U.S. officials responded that
the Yugoslav delegation "cannot negotiate," adding that it would only be allowed to make grammatical changes to the text. [xxxviii]
From the U.S. perspective, the presence of the Yugoslav delegation in Paris was irrelevant other than to maintain the pretense
that negotiations were taking place. Not permitted to negotiate, there was little the Yugoslavs could do but await the inevitable
result, which soon came. The moment U.S. officials obtained the Albanian delegation's signatures to the plan on March 18, they aborted
the Paris Conference. There was no reason to continue engaging with the Yugoslav delegation, as the U.S. had what it needed: a pretext
for war.
On the day after the U.S. pulled the plug on the Paris talks, Milan Milutinović held a press conference in the Yugoslav embassy,
condemning the Paris meeting as "a kind of show," which was meant "to deceive public opinion in the whole world." [xxxix]
While the United States and its NATO allies prepared for war, Yugoslavia was making last-ditch efforts to stave off attack, including
reaching out to intermediaries. Greek Foreign Minister Theodoros Pangalos contacted Madeleine Albright and told her that Yugoslav
President Slobodan Milošević had offered to engage in further negotiations. But Albright told him that the decision to bomb had already
been made. "In fact," Pangalos reported, "she told me to 'desist, you're just being a nuisance.'" [xl] In a final act of desperation
to save the people from bombing, Milutinović contacted Christopher Hill and made an extraordinary offer: Yugoslavia would join NATO
if the United States would allow Yugoslavia to remain whole, including the province of Kosovo. Hill responded that this was not a
topic for discussion and he would not talk about it. [xli]
Madeleine Albright got her war, which brought death, destruction, and misery to Yugoslavia. But NATO had a new role, and the United
States further extended its hegemony over the Balkans.
In the years following the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, NATO was intent on redefining its mission. The absence
of the socialist bloc presented NATO not only with the need to construct a new rationale for existence but also with the opportunity
to expand Western domination over other nations.
Bosnia offered the first opportunity for NATO to begin its transformation, as it took part in a war that presented no threat to
member nations.
Bombing Yugoslavia was meant to solidify the new role for NATO as an offensive military force, acting on behalf of U.S. imperial
interests. Since that time, NATO has attacked Libya, and engaged in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a variety of nations
in Africa. Despite NATO's claim that it is "committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes," the record shows otherwise.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site,
internet forums. etc.
Gregory Elich is a Korea Policy Institute associate and on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute. He is
a member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea, a columnist for
Voice of the People , and one of the co-authors of
Killing Democracy: CIA
and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period , published in the Russian language. He is also a member of the Task Force
to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific. His website is
https://gregoryelich.org . Follow him on Twitter at @GregoryElich
Andrew Bacevich
recalls Madeleine
Albright's infamous statement about American indispensability, and notes how poorly it has held up over the last twenty-one years:
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping.
Albright's statement is even more damning for her and her fellow interventionists when we consider that the context of her remarks
was a discussion of the supposed threat from Iraq. The full sentence went like this: "We stand tall and we see further than other
countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." Albright was making a general claim about our supposed superiority
to other nations when it came to looking into the future, but she was also specifically warning against a "danger" from Iraq that
she claimed threatened "all of us." She answered
one of Matt Lauer's questions with this assertion:
I think that we know what we have to do, and that is help enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, which demand that Saddam
Hussein abide by those resolutions, and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, and allow the inspectors to have unfettered
and unconditional access.
Albright's rhetoric from 1998 is a grim reminder that policymakers from both parties accepted the existence of Iraq's "weapons
of mass destruction" as a given and never seriously questioned a policy aimed at eliminating something that did not exist. American
hawks couldn't see further in the future. They weren't even perceiving the present correctly, and tens of thousands of Americans
and millions of Iraqis would suffer because they insisted that they saw something that wasn't there.
A little more than five years after she uttered these words, the same wild threat inflation that Albright was engaged in led
to the invasion of Iraq, the greatest blunder and one of the worst crimes in the history of modern U.S. foreign policy . Not
only did Albright and other later war supporters not see what was coming, but their deluded belief in being able to anticipate future
threats caused them to buy into and promote a bogus case for a war that was completely unnecessary and should never have been fought.
"... "Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory, threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible. ..."
"... "The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals that cannot be reasoned with. ..."
Demanding that the Middle Eastern nation retaliate immediately in self-defense against the
existential threat posed by America's military operations, National Security Adviser John
Bolton called for a forceful Iranian response Friday to continuing United States aggression.
"Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory,
threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that
America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and
alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of
force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible.
"The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends
a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a
diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals
that cannot be reasoned with.
They've been given every opportunity to back down, but their goal is total domination of the
region, and Iran won't stand for that."
At press time, Bolton said that the only option left on the table was for Iran to launch a
full-fledged military strike against the Great Satan.
The current conflict is about the US hegemony in the region, not anything else.
The analysis is really good. I especially like "The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to
foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender"
That means that Doug Bandow
proposals while good are completely unrealistic.
Notable quotes:
"... Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle East. ..."
"... Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are? ..."
"... Washington did much to encourage a violent, extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn. ..."
"... The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace. ..."
"... Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well. Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran. ..."
"... Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism. ..."
"... Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington, ascendant in Tehran. ..."
"... Europeans also point to Bush administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War. Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response. ..."
"... Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the mother of all Mideast conflagrations. ..."
"... In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions, requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires a freer society. ..."
Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war
against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the
invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet
state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle
East.
Thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of wounded and maimed U.S. personnel, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and
millions of Iraqis displaced. There was the sectarian conflict, destruction of the historic Christian community, the creation of
Al Qaeda in Iraq—which morphed into the far deadlier Islamic State—and the enhanced influence of Iran. The prime question was how
could so many supposedly smart people be so stupid?
Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the
nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war
even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are?
The Iranian regime is malign. Nevertheless, despite being under almost constant siege it has survived longer than the U.S.-crafted
dictatorship which preceded the Islamic Republic. And the latter did not arise in a vacuum. Washington did much to encourage a violent,
extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined
to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn.
In 1953 the United States backed a coup against democratically selected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Washington then aided
the Shah in consolidating power, including the creation of the secret police, known as SAVAK. He forcibly modernized Iran’s still
conservative Islamic society, while his corrupt and repressive rule united secular and religious Iranians against him.
The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran,
triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue
subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons
employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace.
Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership
with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush
administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well.
Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran.
As Henry Kissinger reportedly once said, even a paranoid can have enemies. Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that
average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently
triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism.
The hostile relationship with Iran also has allowed Saudi Arabia, which routinely undercuts American interests and values, to
gain a dangerous stranglehold over U.S. policy. To his credit President Barack Obama attempted to rebalance Washington’s Mideast
policy. The result was the multilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It provided for an intrusive inspection regime designed
to discourage any future Iranian nuclear weapons program—which U.S. intelligence indicated had been inactive since 2003.
However, candidate Donald Trump had an intense and perverse desire to overturn every Obama policy. His tight embrace of Israeli
prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who ignored the advice of his security chiefs in denouncing the accord, and the Saudi royals,
who Robert Gates once warned would fight Iran to the last American, also likely played an important role.
Last year the president withdrew from the accord and followed with a declaration of economic war. He then declared the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps, a military organization, to be a terrorist group. (Washington routinely uses the “terrorist” designation
for purely political purposes.) Finally, there are reports, officially denied by Washington, that U.S. forces, allied with Islamist
radicals—the kind of extremists responsible for most terrorist attacks on Americans—have been waging a covert war against Iranian
smuggling operations.
The president claimed that he wanted to negotiate: “We aren’t looking for regime change,” he said. “We are looking for no nuclear
weapons.” But that is what the JCPOA addressed. His policy is actually pushing Tehran to expand its nuclear program. Moreover, last
year Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech that the Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian, who spent more than a year in
Iranian prison, called “silly” and “completely divorced from reality.”
In a talk to an obsequious Heritage Foundation audience, Pompeo set forth the terms of Tehran’s surrender: Iran would be expected
to abandon any pretense of maintaining an independent foreign policy and yield its deterrent missile capabilities, leaving it subservient
to Saudi Arabia, with the latter’s U.S.-supplied and -trained military. Tehran could not even cooperate with other governments, such
as Syria, at their request. The only thing missing from Pompeo’s remarks was insistence that Iran accept an American governor-general
in residence.
The proposal was a nonstarter and looked like the infamous 1914 Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, which was intended to be
rejected and thereby justify war. After all, National Security Advisor John Bolton expressed his policy preference in a 2015 New
York Times op-ed titled: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Whatever the president’s true intentions, Tehran can be forgiven for
seeing Washington’s position as one of regime change, by war if necessary.
The administration apparently assumed that new, back-breaking sanctions would either force the regime to surrender at the conference
table or collapse amid political and social conflict. Indeed, when asked if he really believed sanctions would change Tehran’s behavior,
Pompeo answered that “what can change is, the people can change the government.” Both Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations have recently argued that the Islamic Republic is an exhausted
regime, one that is perhaps on its way to extinction.
However, Rezaian says “there is nothing new” about Tehran’s difficult Iranian economic problems. “Assuming that this time around
the Iranian people can compel their government to bend to America’s will seems—at least to anyone who has spent significant time
in Iran in recent decades—fantastical,” he said. Gerecht enthusiasm for U.S. warmaking has led to mistakes in the past. He got Iraq
wrong seventeen years ago when he wrote that “a war with Iraq might not shake up the Middle East much at all.
Today the administration is using a similar strategy against Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. The citizens of these countries
have not risen against their oppressors to establish a new, democratic, pro-American regime. Numerous observers wrongly predicted
that the Castro regime would die after the end of Soviet subsidies and North Korea’s inevitable fall in the midst of a devastating
famine. Moreover, regime collapse isn’t likely to yield a liberal, democratic republic when the most radical, authoritarian elites
remain best-armed.
... ... ...
More important, Washington does not want to go to war with Iran, which is larger than Iraq, has three times the population, and
is a real country. The regime, while unpopular with many Iranians, is much better rooted than Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Tehran
possesses unconventional weapons, missiles, and allies which could spread chaos throughout the region. American forces in Syria and
Iraq would be vulnerable, while Baghdad’s stability could be put at risk. If Americans liked the Iraq debacle, then they would love
the chaos likely to result from attempting to violently destroy the Iranian state. David Frum, one of the most avid neoconservative
advocates of the Iraq invasion, warned that war with Iran would repeat Iraqi blunders on “a much bigger sale, without allies, without
justification, and without any plan at all for what comes next.”
Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure
on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for
war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington,
ascendant in Tehran.
Carefully calibrated military action, such as tanker attacks, might be intended to show “resolve” to gain credibility. Washington
policymakers constantly justify military action as necessary to demonstrate that they are willing to take military action. Doing
so is even more important for a weaker power. Moreover, observed the Eurasia Group, Iranian security agencies “have a decades-long
history of conducting attacks and other operations aimed precisely at undermining the diplomatic objectives of a country’s elected
representatives.” If Iran is responsible, observed Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, then administration policy perversely
“is rendering Iran more aggressive, not less,” thereby making the Mideast more, not less dangerous
Of course, Tehran has denied any role in the attacks and there is good reason to question unsupported Trump administration claims
of Iranian guilt. The president’s indifferent relationship to the truth alone raises serious questions. Europeans also point to Bush
administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War.
Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war
against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that
the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response.
Other malicious actors also could be responsible for tanker attacks. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, ISIS, and Al
Qaeda all likely believe they would benefit from an American war on Tehran and might decide to speed the process along by fomenting
an incident. Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al
Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the
mother of all Mideast conflagrations.
Rather than continue a military spiral upward, Washington should defuse Gulf tensions. The administration brought the Middle East
to a boil. It can calm the waters. Washington should stand down its military, offering to host multilateral discussions with oil
consuming nations, energy companies, and tanker operators over establishing shared naval security in sensitive waterways, including
in the Middle East. Given America’s growing domestic energy production, the issue no longer should be considered Washington’s responsibility.
Other wealthy industrialized states should do what is necessary for their economic security.
The administration also should make a serious proposal for talks. It won’t be easy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
declared “negotiation has no benefit and carries harm.” He further argued that “negotiations are a tactic of this pressure,” which
is the ultimate “strategic aim.” Even President Hassan Rouhani rejected contact without a change in U.S. policy. “Whenever they lift
the unjust sanctions and fulfill their commitments and return to the negotiations table, which they left themselves, the door is
not closed,” he said. In back channel discussions Iranians supposedly suggested that the U.S. reverse the latest sanctions, at least
on oil sales, ending attempts to wreck Iran’s economy.
If the president seriously desires talks with Tehran, then he should demonstrate that he does not expect preemptive surrender.
The administration should suspend its “maximum pressure” campaign and propose multilateral talks on tightening the nuclear agreement
in return for additional American and allied concessions, such as further sanctions relief.
In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions,
requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational
behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis
and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. Tehran has far greater interest in
neighborhood security than the United States, which Washington must respect if the latter seeks to effectively disarm Iran. The administration
should invite the Europeans to join such an initiative, since they have an even greater reason to worry about Iranian missiles and
more.
Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the
best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires
a freer society. That requires greater engagement, not isolation. Washington’s ultimate objective should be the liberal transformation
of Iran, freeing an ancient civilization to regain its leading role in today’s world, which would have a huge impact on the region.
The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo
is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender. This approach has failed in every case. Washington has caused enormous
economic hardship, but no target regime has capitulated. In Iran, like North Korea, U.S. policy sharply raised tensions and the chances
of conflict.
War would be a disaster. Instead, the administration must, explained James Fallows, “through bluff and patience, change the actions
of a government whose motives he does not understand well, and over which his influence is limited.” Which requires the administration
to adopt a new, more serious strategy toward Tehran, and quickly.
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet."
Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted
with madness.
President Donald Trump likes to think of himself as a statesman, an author, an A-level negotiator, but at heart, he's one thing:
an insult comic.
Every day in D.C. is a roast, the insults and belittling nicknames wielded like tiny comedy bullets. And if you haven't seen enough
of the fusillade on Twitter, all you need to do is turn on late night TV. Television comedy has a strange, symbiotic relationship
with the real political world, something between a feedback loop and a funhouse mirror....
"... "Let's go back to economic issues. Many people link these difficulties with the Western sanctions. By the way, the European Union again extended them today. Sometimes, there are appeals to make peace with everyone. If Russia complied with the West's demands and agreed to everything, would this benefit our economy in any way?" ..."
"... "Second, what would this give us and what would it not give us, and what would we lose? Look, according to expert analyses, Russia fell short by about $50 billion as a result of these restrictions during these years, starting in 2014. The European Union lost $240 billion, the US $17 billion (we have a small volume of trade with them) and Japan $27 billion. All this affects employment in these countries, including the EU: they are losing our market... ..."
"... "Now, the attack on Huawei: where does it come from and what is its objective? The objective is to hold back the development of China, the country that has become a global rival of another power, the United States. The same is happening with Russia, and will continue to happen , so if we want to occupy a worthy place under the sun, we must become stronger, including, and above all, in the economy." [My Emphasis] ..."
"... Dealing with Putin's bolded remark is a question not just for Russia, China and Iran; it's a question for the entire world and harkens back to the words of George Kennan I cited a few days ago about the USA needing a policy to continue its economic dominance of the planet he uttered in 1947, the policy that became The Anti-Communist Crusade covering for its actual Super Imperialism policy to retain that dominance. ..."
"... What's happening is a titanic struggle to make the Outlaw US Empire cease pursuing that policy. ..."
I'd like barflies to ponder the following thought/probability: Radar Saturated
Environment--radiation not from just individual, discreet, identifiable points, but from such
a vast multitude that no single point can be discerned.
To further my brainstorming de-escalation, I'd like to point out what Putin said in his
Direct Line
yesterday about the economic war being waged against Russia in accordance with the Ukraine
Coup in 2014. Pavel Zarubin asks:
"Let's go back to economic issues. Many people link these difficulties with the Western
sanctions. By the way, the European Union again extended them today. Sometimes, there are
appeals to make peace with everyone. If Russia complied with the West's demands and agreed to
everything, would this benefit our economy in any way?"
I thought this a capital question very similar to Iran's dilemma. Putin's response is
quite long, so I won't cite it all. Rather, I'll limit it to his initial reply and conclusion
as they both deal with the Big Picture:
"First, what does it mean 'to make peace'? We have not fought with anyone and have no
desire to fight with anyone.
"Second, what would this give us and what would it not give us, and what would we lose?
Look, according to expert analyses, Russia fell short by about $50 billion as a result of
these restrictions during these years, starting in 2014. The European Union lost $240
billion, the US $17 billion (we have a small volume of trade with them) and Japan $27
billion. All this affects employment in these countries, including the EU: they are losing
our market....
"Now to the question of whether some things would be different if we give in and abandon
our fundamental national interests. We are not talking about reconciliation here. Perhaps
there will be some external signals, but no drastic change. Look, the People's Republic of
China has nothing to do with Crimea and Donbass, does it? We are accused of occupying
Donbass, which is nonsense and a lie.
But China has nothing to do with it, and yet the tariffs for Chinese goods are rising,
which is almost the same as sanctions.
"Now, the attack on Huawei: where does it come from and what is its objective? The
objective is to hold back the development of China, the country that has become a global
rival of another power, the United States. The same is happening with Russia, and will
continue to happen , so if we want to occupy a worthy place under the sun, we must become
stronger, including, and above all, in the economy." [My Emphasis]
This year's Direct Line was as usual filled with domestic issues some that lead to foreign
policy issues. The overall scope and distinctness of the minutia are as vast as Russia. I've
followed these over the years and note they reveal Russia's strengths and fragilities. I'm
tempted to cite more but will leave it to the reader to pursue, but after 90 minutes you
still won't be finished because the transcript isn't yet complete, which while frustrating is
also amazing.
Dealing with Putin's bolded remark is a question not just for Russia, China and Iran; it's
a question for the entire world and harkens back to the words of George Kennan I cited a few
days ago about the USA needing a policy to continue its economic dominance of the planet he
uttered in 1947, the policy that became The Anti-Communist Crusade covering for its actual
Super Imperialism policy to retain that dominance.
What's happening is a titanic struggle to
make the Outlaw US Empire cease pursuing that policy.
Obama did what Clinton wing of Dems wanted him to do. Dem party is the party of Wall Street oligarchy now.
Notable quotes:
"... "...Obama has been trying hard: On 20 July 2011, Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com headlined " Bipartisan Plan Summary Charts Confirm Key Deficit 'Cuts ' Come From Imminent Social Security Pillage," and this conservative website expressed shock at how amazingly Republican this plan was , which Obama was trying to ram through. The "bipartisan" Obama had reached farther into Republican territory than Republican politicians had even dared. .." ..."
"... Obama's 'Mandate' To Slash Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security," ..."
"... So he had a mandate to cut social security, but not one to pass single payer? Remember when we heard that he wouldn't allow single payer advocates in the room with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies that we later learned that he had already made a deal with before the democrats worked on the hideously flawed ACA? And remember how pissed off people were when they learned what we were getting? But when Bernie was saying that we deserved universal health care people asked him how he was going to pay for it. And people cheered when Herheinous said that " universal health care will never ever happen." ..."
"... Obama also killed the anti war movement when he lied about Gaddafi's troops raping women and invaded Libya and then Syria. During his tenure states lost close to 1,000 seats. Finally after Obomber waltzed out of the WH people were so pissed off at him that they voted for Trump or against Hillary. ..."
"... In the end, the Clintons ushered in anti-New Deal Neoliberalism -- economics based on the Right Wing principles of 'greed is good' and 'monopolies are good for America' because they are good for Empire's global hegemony. At the end of his term, President Clinton signed a bill that revoked the last of the New Deal regulations that once protected the People from predatory capitalism. No sooner did Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette leave the White House for good, than the capitalists swooped into the "free market" and began asset-stripping and wage-stripping the American people -- beginning with the working poor and Black homeowners. Personal debt took off on a parabolic climb and it continues today, clouding everyone's future. ..."
"... I knew Obama wanted to cut social security, but not as early as he did. ..."
"... "I made you guys rich" he said not too long ago to the bank CEOs. And now he's getting rewarded for doing that. ..."
@jbob@jbob@jbob@jbob
wishes when they formed no opposition at all on matters like making sure GWB's tax cuts
weren't allowed to sunset, in fact what Obama did was even worse, Bush's tax cuts had that
sunset clause, not so with Obama he made them permanent .
This includes "Obama's Long Battle to Cut Social Security Benefits"
"Back in 2009, he came into office wanting to address the long-term financial issue of
Social Security not by removing the annual earnings-cap of around $100,000 that pertained
(and above which income was/is untaxed for Social Security, so that this change alone could
solve the problem), but instead by reducing retirement benefits to seniors: cutting the
benefits they receive.
This man, Obama, who went along with George W. Bush's taxpayer-bailouts for Wall
Street rather than institute bailouts of Main Street (the public) and who thereby
produced continuation of the economic crash for everyone other than the nation's wealthiest
1% or 5%, was also aiming to serve the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else
when it comes to long-term changes of Social Security."
".....On 16 January 2009, four days before Obama became President, Michael D. Shear headlined
in the Washington Post, "Obama Pledges Entitlement Reform, " and he reported about " a
wide-ranging 70 minute interview with Washington Post reporters and editors," in which Obama
endorsed efforts by congressional Republicans , and "the Blue Dog Coalition of fiscally
conservative Democrats," to cut Social Security and Medicare. Progressives were already
disturbed at what their friends in Congress were leaking to them about Obama's strong
commitment to doing this, and so a few blog posts were issued to ring alarm bells publicly
about it. Paul Rosenberg at openleft.com headlined on January 17th (three days before Obama's
Inauguration), regarding "Obama's 'Mandate' To Slash Medicare, Medicaid & Social
Security,"
Remember the "Cat food Commission"?
"...Obama has been trying hard: On 20 July 2011, Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com headlined "
Bipartisan Plan Summary Charts Confirm Key Deficit 'Cuts ' Come From Imminent Social Security
Pillage," and this conservative website expressed shock at how amazingly Republican this plan
was , which Obama was trying to ram through. The "bipartisan" Obama had reached farther
into Republican territory than Republican politicians had even dared. .."
The following day, July 21st, Paul Kane bannered in the Washington Post, "Debt Talks Bring
Tensions Between Democrats, Obama to Surface," and he reported that even top Democrats in the
Senate – Reid, Kerry, Cantwell, Mikulsky, Lautenberg, and Feinstein – were
shocked that the Democratic President was leaving them entirely out of the loop in his budget
negotiations, and was negotiating only with leading Republicans . "
Obama froze the federal wage for two years. Why did he think that was a good idea? For the
same reason he lowballed the money for us little folks and refused to help the 9 million
people who were losing their homes while the banks continued to commit fraud which he still
didn't stop or prosecute.
From the article..
Obama's 'Mandate' To Slash Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security,"
So he had a mandate to cut social security, but not one to pass single payer? Remember
when we heard that he wouldn't allow single payer advocates in the room with the insurance
and pharmaceutical companies that we later learned that he had already made a deal with
before the democrats worked on the hideously flawed ACA? And remember how pissed off people
were when they learned what we were getting? But when Bernie was saying that we deserved
universal health care people asked him how he was going to pay for it. And people cheered
when Herheinous said that " universal health care will never ever happen."
Obama also killed the anti war movement when he lied about Gaddafi's troops raping women
and invaded Libya and then Syria. During his tenure states lost close to 1,000 seats. Finally
after Obomber waltzed out of the WH people were so pissed off at him that they voted for
Trump or against Hillary.
...Bernie's dilemma is an easily-exploited structural distortion that occurs because the
Left is forced to share a Political Party with the Centrists and Center-Right in order for
their voice to be heard. That's not going to change until the Left changes it.
Democratic operatives and the Democratic party elite can easily push this attitude from
the inside, in subtle ways. When Bernie brings up marching with MLK (because the Democratic
Party is not about to tout his bio and lend credence to Bernie's story), the Dems simply roll
their eyes and mumble, "Here we go again." Or, "That story never gets old... to Bernie."
The Democrats have a long history of bamboozling Blacks. Contemplate the breathtaking
betrayal of Blacks by the Clinton administration. Black lives and families were destroyed by
heinous, unjust laws and by Democratic policies that weaponized the criminal justice against
them. This has shattered and traumatized Black families for generations.
In the end, the Clintons ushered in anti-New Deal Neoliberalism -- economics based on the
Right Wing principles of 'greed is good' and 'monopolies are good for America' because they
are good for Empire's global hegemony. At the end of his term, President Clinton signed a
bill that revoked the last of the New Deal regulations that once protected the People from
predatory capitalism. No sooner did Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette leave the White House for
good, than the capitalists swooped into the "free market" and began asset-stripping and
wage-stripping the American people -- beginning with the working poor and Black homeowners.
Personal debt took off on a parabolic climb and it continues today, clouding everyone's
future.
But returning to Democratic operatives for a moment, do you know why Black leaders
completely defaulted to the Clinton Administration, and why they went on to plant the seed of
Democratic Party bamboozlement in their followers? It was in this cauldron that the current
DC shitshow was made:
In the early years, following Martin Luther King's death, progressive social programs were
slowly put into place to convey onto Blacks some of the same Liberties that white population
enjoyed in the US. Public institutions were rendered color blind, by law. Blacks who wanted a
good education found it easier to gain admittance and to find government grants to help pay
for it. For Blacks who wanted to start their own businesses, there were advisors who offered
them support and small business loans. Buying a home suddenly became a real option in Black
communities. New mortgage banks opened that helped millions of Black residents take
ownership. Labor unions continued to lift many out of poverty, and lifted more into the
Middle Class for the first time.
Behind the scenes, however, there was obstruction. The Reagan and Bush I administrations
did not make it easy for Black leaders to access the funding that had been earmarked for
these programs. The bureaucracy put up walls and slow-walked the processes, deadlines were
frequently missed, documents were misplaced, and there was a general indifference to their
requests. But the arrival of the Clinton administration changed all that. A group of
Democrats opened a special 'window' where Black Leaders could finally get the money to run
the programs -- with none the hassle. This was enormously helpful and strong bonds developed
between the Democratic Party and Black community activists.
The Democratic Party assumed that they had corralled the Black Vote -- as if Blacks were
vending machines. Put in the right platitudes and out would come the expected votes. But I
wonder about that.... The rising generation Black journalists I've been reading since the
2016 election, paint a different picture of this political relationship. They are skeptical
of the words that politicians use. To them, 'MLK' is just another public holiday. Invoking
the name Martin Luther King does not put food on the table, or pay for college, or protect
them from daily government abuses. I think they know exactly who Joe Biden is and they are
aware that the Democratic Party feels entitled to their votes -- even when the Party isn't
fighting for economic justice and basic human rights, like universal healthcare. Perhaps it
is it's their turn to triangulate for awhile -- and see if the Neoliberal Party leadership is
going to respect their needs.
Thanks. Especially after reading aliasalias' comment. I knew Obama wanted to cut social
security, but not as early as he did.
"I made you guys rich" he said not too long ago to the bank CEOs. And now he's getting
rewarded for doing that.
Biden too has made speeches about cutting it and they are making the rounds on Twitter,
but too many people aren't hearing about it and think that he's just a lovable ole Joe who
sometimes talks funny and sticks his foot in his mouth. He is not. He was a ruthless during
his tenure in congress and not enough of those videos are getting out.
As too his not having a racist bone in his body just listen to his speech on busing. Sure
sounded racist to me. Of all the people he could have talked about back when congress was
sane why did he choose one of the biggest racists to bring up? Because even though he was
racist he could work with him? Nah..
to me that Lewis the civil rights leader was now sated and fat and had been replaced
by Lewis the toadying politician who would screw anyone including his own if it suited
him. Whoopi the same. When people get fat and comfortable for too long, they forget who
they are and don't care who they've become. As long as it involves more for them,
whatever it is, is fine with them.
When Lewis was called out for endorsing Clinton over Bernie, Whoopi for criticizing
AOC as not respectful of her betters, of course their critics were called racists. A
lament that never seems to get too old to the folks using it. While the old folks, white
racists, and black militants wallow in and continue to argue over the past, the kids are
moving way beyond them. Interracial relationships and biracial people are leaving it all
behind. Soon no one will know what race or ethnicity anyone is.
I really don't know how Bernie stands it. I couldn't do it, certainly not at age 77.
How many years now has he dragged his old and sorry ass around the country trying to
improve peoples lives? In return all he gets some dumb ass in the audience chastising him
for having fought for her equality. Fuck her. Fuck them. Fuck them all. From the Clintons
and the media to the whiny people with their shorts in a knot over this or that ONE thing
he failed to make better that they can't cope with or overcome - ever.
Divide and conquer is exactly what it is all about. Those that have theirs vs those
that don't and making sure it stays that way. I am so tired of them, their game, and the
victims. At what point does a victim wise up and quit being a victim or willingly become
a willing participant in the game?
U.S. -- A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction
with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to fight in a
foreign war if you post your support for attacking another country.
People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East
or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the
military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the
foreign war they wanted to happen so badly.
"Frankly, recruitment numbers are down, and we needed some way to find people who are
really enthusiastic about fighting wars," said a DOD official. "Then it hit us like a drone
strike: there are plenty of people who argue vehemently for foreign intervention. It doesn't
matter what war we're trying to create: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea,
China---these people are always reliable supporters of any invasion abroad. So why not get
them there on the frontlines?"
"After all, we want people who are passionate about occupying foreign lands, not grunts
who are just there for the paycheck," he added.
Strangely, as soon as the policy was implemented, 99% of saber-rattling suddenly
ceased.
Note: The Babylon Bee is the world's best satire site, totally inerrant in all its
truth claims. We write satire about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life.
The Babylon Bee was created ex nihilo on the eighth day of the creation week, exactly
6,000 years ago. We have been the premier news source through every major world event, from
the Tower of Babel and the Exodus to the Reformation and the War of 1812. We focus on just
the facts, leaving spin and bias to other news sites like CNN and Fox News.
If you would like to complain about something on our site, take it up with God.
Unlike other satire sites, everything we post is 100% verified by Snopes.com.
"... "Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory, threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible. ..."
"... "The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals that cannot be reasoned with. ..."
Demanding that the Middle Eastern nation retaliate immediately in self-defense against the
existential threat posed by America's military operations, National Security Adviser John
Bolton called for a forceful Iranian response Friday to continuing United States aggression.
"Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory,
threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that
America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and
alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of
force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible.
"The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends
a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a
diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals
that cannot be reasoned with.
They've been given every opportunity to back down, but their goal is total domination of the
region, and Iran won't stand for that."
At press time, Bolton said that the only option left on the table was for Iran to launch a
full-fledged military strike against the Great Satan.
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet."
Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted
with madness.
"... The politicians running the United States often owe their careers to military contractors. ..."
"... Iran isn't Iraq, Serbia, Panama, or an airstrip in Grenada. This country has real military strike-back capabilities that the backwater states we're used to invading simply do not, meaning war would present a far heightened danger not only to our troops but to civilians in the region. All our recent wars have been stupid, but this one would be really stupid. Just once, could we not do this? Does the script always have to end the same way? ..."
When it comes to starting wars, we don't even bother to change the script anymore
<...>
[...]Trump himself doesn't appear thrilled with the idea of going to war with Iran. When
Iran shot down the drone, Trump said it was "hard to believe it was intentional" and might
have been done by someone who was "loose and stupid," despite the aforementioned General
Salami saying Iran was "ready for war" after it happened. This is an area where we actually
want to encourage the all-hat-no-cattle side of our president.
The seeming ambivalence of Trump while the likes of Bolton and Mike Pompeo burn through
the same old invasion-pretext script presents a powerful case that this is just how the
American state operates, irrespective of who sits in the White House.
What we end up calling "aggression" abroad is often more like resistance to our plans to
control a region. Sometimes the "aggressor" is genuinely behaving badly, and sometimes not,
but for decades we've been lightning-quick to opt for military solutions to almost any
crisis, for increasingly obvious reasons.
The politicians running the United States often owe their careers to military
contractors. Their children typically don't fight in wars. The mayhem, death, and
environmental catastrophe that result from modern war never occur in their home states. It
long ago became too easy to make this decision, and we're on the brink of making it again. At
least with Iraq we pretended to argue.
Iran isn't Iraq, Serbia, Panama, or an airstrip in Grenada. This country has real
military strike-back capabilities that the backwater states we're used to invading simply do
not, meaning war would present a far heightened danger not only to our troops but to
civilians in the region. All our recent wars have been stupid, but this one would be really
stupid. Just once, could we not do this? Does the script always have to end the same
way?
"... Putin followed by China decided to act, or rather accelerate the actions they'd already begun. Medvedev & Hu Jintao both erred by not vetoing the UNSCR regarding Libya. ..."
"... Note that there's more than Iran to deescalate from. Indeed, there's a very big mess needing cleaning. The group that's ultimately responsible for the mess is the Current Oligarchy as they did this for their usual goal of attaining A Few Dollars More to further enlarge their Fistful of Dollars at what appeared to be little risk. ..."
"... Trump and the Neocons will be sacrificed. But will the Current Oligarchy have learned its lesson, ceased its attempt at world domination, and become willing to settle for its slice of Win-Win are the big IFs. But for us to get to that point in 2021, we must get beyond the current inflection point here in 2019. ..."
"... Probably the majority of us bar flies have long accepted that there is a "deep state," "ruling plutocracy," call it what you will, effectively running the US...probably for most of its existence, truth be told. ..."
"... But the most interesting thing about the tail end of the Obama presidency, and amplified through the Trump term, was realizing that there is not a single monolith "Deep State." There are discrete groups. When things were going well for the sole superpower, in the '90s and 00's, all of the factions were able to loot to their hearts' content, so you didn't really notice their interests could diverge. ..."
"... But as the overreach became unsustainable, and the World began fighting back, you began to see infighting. I won't pretend to be smart enough to know who is who and how each faction's vision of the world fits or fights with each other, but I think we saw a bit of a glimpse here in Trump's actions. ..."
"... Trump may or may not have much original thought--it's hard to tell, with presidents becoming largely weather vanes. But vanes can show how the winds are blowing. There certainly appears to be an extremely powerful Zionist faction, often allied with the NeoCon "might-makes-right" faction, and there is strong reason to believe Trump was largely bankrolled by and is extremely beholden to that group. ..."
"... But at the very last moment, one of the few groups who are more powerful--the NeoLiberal/Globalist/Financier faction, threw their weight in behind "No War Today." ..."
"... They certainly don't mind when Israel goes stirring shit here and there, as long as they're profiting greatly from low-level warfare and arms sales. But THIS kind of war, that would almost certainly devastate world markets? No. ..."
The Outlaw US Empire finds itself embroiled in a Hybrid Third World War of its own making
that began while Obama was in office in an attempt to recoup and then expand its economic
dominance. On several occasions Russia's Putin warned the West about the consequences of its
intensions, but the West refused to listen.
Putin followed by China decided to act, or rather accelerate the actions they'd already
begun. Medvedev & Hu Jintao both erred by not vetoing the UNSCR regarding Libya.
The subsequent change in heads-of-state to Putin & Xi also marked a sea change in
treatment of West at UN and in Russia/China relations. Back at the helm, Putin returns to
warning the West about consequences. Then came the demonization in the run up to Sochi
Olympics and subsequent coup in Ukraine of 2014 followed by Crimea's rejoining Russia and
successful resistance by Donbass against aggression.
In 2015, Minsk 2 handcuffed NATO allied
with Ukrainian fascists; JCPOA was finalized in July; Russia intervened in Syria at end of
September--all turning points blunting Outlaw US Empire aggression.
These events seem to help
POTUS aspirations of Sanders and Trump, which Trump won in 2016 thanks to Sanders being
stabbed in the back by the Democratic Party establishment. The 2016 POTUS campaign, election
and aftermath indicate the breakout of a factional fight within the Current Oligarchy. Trump
gets the green light from the prevailing faction within the Current Oligarchy to violate JCPOA and commence economic war with Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela while overseeing
the lawfare coup in Brazil to attack BRICS.
And that pretty much brings us to our current
moment, although I omitted a few details like Trade War with the world.
Note that there's more than Iran to deescalate from. Indeed, there's a very big mess
needing cleaning. The group that's ultimately responsible for the mess is the Current
Oligarchy as they did this for their usual goal of attaining A Few Dollars More to further
enlarge their Fistful of Dollars at what appeared to be little risk.
But , their risk
assessment was wrong thanks to decades of accumulated hubris. Trump finds himself the
figurehead of the treed Current Oligarchy that at present can't figure out a way down.
There's nothing symbolic to do. What needs to be done must be tangible. Removing its illegal
sanctions and surrendering to the many WTO challenges to its illegal trade practices would be
relatively quiet yet tangible ways to climb down without too much publicity.
Abstaining at UNSC to sanctions removal from DPRK and Iran would also be substantive and relatively quiet.
By then a new POTUS will be in charge and further changes can be made that can be attributed
to it as part of usual policy change thus saving whatever face remains to be saved.
Trump and the Neocons will be sacrificed. But will the Current Oligarchy have learned its
lesson, ceased its attempt at world domination, and become willing to settle for its slice of
Win-Win are the big IFs. But for us to get to that point in 2021, we must get beyond the
current inflection point here in 2019.
"...the Current Oligarchy running the Outlaw US Empire."
I agree with the gist of this, but would refine it a bit. Probably the majority of us bar
flies have long accepted that there is a "deep state," "ruling plutocracy," call it what you
will, effectively running the US...probably for most of its existence, truth be told.
But the
most interesting thing about the tail end of the Obama presidency, and amplified through the
Trump term, was realizing that there is not a single monolith "Deep State." There are
discrete groups. When things were going well for the sole superpower, in the '90s and 00's,
all of the factions were able to loot to their hearts' content, so you didn't really notice
their interests could diverge.
But as the overreach became unsustainable, and the World began
fighting back, you began to see infighting. I won't pretend to be smart enough to know who is
who and how each faction's vision of the world fits or fights with each other, but I think we
saw a bit of a glimpse here in Trump's actions.
Trump may or may not have much original thought--it's hard to tell, with presidents
becoming largely weather vanes. But vanes can show how the winds are blowing. There certainly
appears to be an extremely powerful Zionist faction, often allied with the NeoCon
"might-makes-right" faction, and there is strong reason to believe Trump was largely
bankrolled by and is extremely beholden to that group. Hence his strong pro-Israel/anti-Iran
stance.
But at the very last moment, one of the few groups who are more powerful--the NeoLiberal/Globalist/Financier faction, threw their weight in behind "No War Today."
They
certainly don't mind when Israel goes stirring shit here and there, as long as they're
profiting greatly from low-level warfare and arms sales. But THIS kind of war, that would
almost certainly devastate world markets? No.
So the Pentagon drew the line, and Trump toed
the line. The nut jobs may have painted everyone so far into a corner that a major conflict
might still happen, but there are now truly powerful forces trying to throw cold water on
it.
While everybody is entertained with the drone and events in the Persian Gulf, as it susally
goes lately, a coup d´etat is in the works in Georgia, against the moderate, not so
russophobic as the US/UK need, recently elected government who wants to restore mutual
beneficcial relations with its neighbors..
As the available videos
illustrate , this is the same crowd on rollpay we are used to witness in the Maidan, on
jeans bermudas and t-shirts or bare chest, wearing police helmets and shields, with both, the
US and Ukrainian flags waving in the sides and amongst the crowd of "protestors".
It is also reported that the handlers were all English speakers....
Most of injured resulting, according to Georgian Health Ministry, belong to police
members.
When you see a rash, you should look beyond the skin for a cause. It has been like this with
Hong Kong over the last few weeks. On the surface we see impressively organised demonstrations
to stop the executive from introducing extradition laws to China. We observe that university
students and others not much older are running the demonstrations with military precision. The
Mainland Chinese should be impressed.
They are unlikely to see it that way. The build-up of riots against Hong Kong's proposed
extradition treaty with the Mainland started months ago, supported and driven by commentary in
the Land of the Free . America is now coming out in the open as China's adversary, no longer
just a trading partner worried by the trade imbalances. And Hong Kong is the pressure
point.
This happened before, in 2014. The Chinese leadership was certain the riots in Hong Kong
reflected the work of American agencies. The following is an extract translated from a speech
by Major-General Qiao Liang, a leading strategist for the Peoples' Liberation Army, addressing
the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee in 2015:
"Since the Diaoyu Islands conflict and the Huangyan Island conflict, incidents have kept
popping up around China, including the confrontation over China's 981 oil rigs with Vietnam
and Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" event. Can they still be viewed as simply accidental?
I accompanied General Liu Yazhou, the Political Commissar of the National Defence
University, to visit Hong Kong in May 2014. At that time, we heard that the "Occupy Central"
movement was being planned and could take place by end of the month. However, it didn't
happen in May, June, July, or August.
What happened? What were they waiting for?
Let's look at another time table: the U.S. Federal Reserve's exit from the Quantitative
Easing (QE) policy. The U.S. said it would stop QE at the beginning of 2014. But it stayed
with the QE policy in April, May, June, July, and August. As long as it was in QE, it kept
overprinting dollars and the dollar's price couldn't go up. Thus, Hong Kong's "Occupy
Central" should not happen either.
At the end of September, the Federal Reserve announced the U.S. would exit from QE. The
dollar started going up. Then Hong Kong's "Occupy Central" broke out in early October.
Actually, the Diaoyu Islands, Huangyan Island, the 981 rigs, and Hong Kong's "Occupy
Central" movement were all bombs. The successful explosion of any one of them would lead to a
regional crisis or a worsened investment environment around China. That would force the
withdrawal of a large amount of investment from this region, which would then return to the
U.S."
That America is stoking and organising discontent anew in Hong Kong is probably still
China's view today. Clearly, the Chinese believed America covertly managed "Occupy Central" and
therefore are at it again. Apart from what their spies tell them, the protests are too well
organised and planned to be spontaneous. This time, the attack appears to have a better chance
of success. The plan is coordinated with American pressure on Hong Kong's dollar peg in an
attempt to destabilise it, principally through the threat to extend tariffs against China to
Hong Kong. This second attempt to collapse Hong Kong is therefore more serious.
Hong Kong is critical, because through Shanghai Connect it is the only lawful channel for
foreign investment flows into China. This is important to the Americans, because the US
Treasury cannot afford to see global portfolio flows attracted into China at a time when they
will be needed to invest in increasing quantities of US Treasury stock. Understand that, and
you will have grasped a large part of the urgency behind America's attempt to destabilise Hong
Kong.
Qiao Liang makes this point elsewhere in his aforementioned speech, claiming American
tactics are the consequence of the ending of Bretton Woods:
"Without the restriction of gold, the US can print dollars at will. If they keep a large
amount of dollars inside the US, it will certainly create inflation. If they export dollars
to the world, the whole world is helping the US deal with its inflation. That's why inflation
is not high in the US."
While one can take issue with his simplistic analysis, that is not the point. What matters
is what the Chinese believe. Qiao concludes:
"By issuing debt, the US brings a large amount of dollars from overseas back to the US's
three big markets: the commodity market, the Treasury Bills market, and the stock market. The
US repeats this cycle to make money: printing money, exporting money overseas, and bringing
money back. The US has become a financial empire."
Conceptually, Qiao was broadly correct. His error in these two statements was to not explain
that ownership of dollars means they are deployed exclusively in America, but perhaps he was
simplifying his argument for a non-technical audience. All dollars, despite foreign ownership,
remain in the American economy as a combination of US Treasuries and T-bills, investment in US
listed and unlisted securities, physical assets such as property and also deposits through
correspondent banks held in New York.
It is not the dollars that flow, but their ownership that changes. Dollars are bought and
sold for foreign currencies by central banks, sovereign wealth funds, commercial banks,
insurance companies and pension funds. The currencies in which these entities invest matters,
and investment decisions are obviously affected by currency prospects. It allows the US
Treasury to attract these flows into the dollar by simply making other currencies less
attractive. Foreign owners of foreign currencies can easily be spooked into the safe havens of
the dollar and US Treasuries. This is the way foreigners are corralled into funding the budget
deficit.
A weakening yuan-dollar exchange rate will dissuade international portfolios from investing
in China's projects, for which the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was established. China
should respond to moves to undermine her currency, seeking to enhance the attractions of her
investment opportunities to international investment funds by taking measures to support the
yuan. If not, global investment funds will simply not come China's way.
Besides attracting portfolio flows into the US, a rising dollar is also a threat to foreign
governments and corporates who have borrowed dollars and then have to pay them back later. This
was what mauled South-East Asian economies in the 1997 financial crisis. China as a state is
not in this position, though some of her regional trading partners will have fallen into this
trap again.
It is clear from elsewhere in Qiao's speech that the Chinese understand America's motives
and methods. Therefore, they will anticipate American actions to undermine the yuan. If the
Americans succeed and with the yuan made unattractive, international portfolio money that is
already invested in China will be sucked out, potentially crashing China's capital markets.
With the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act going onto the US statute book, President
Trump will be able to use the link to the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sanctions
against trade, finance and technology. The concern in Hong Kong is personal wealth will now
decamp and that Hong Kong property prices will implode.
The British involvement
America's strategy has included putting pressure on her allies to fall into line with her
interests against China. All NATO members have been told not to buy Huawei equipment.
Protective of the special relationship, the British have gone along with it. But Cheltenham's
GCHQ (the UK's cyber monitoring agency) has at least given Huawei the opportunity to address
the security issues that have been raised.
A greater problem is bound to arise, and that is the role of the City of London. In 2014,
the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, agreed a plan with the Chinese leadership
for the City to work with Hong Kong to internationalise the yuan. The Chinese wanted to bypass
New York for obvious reasons.
The request to meet Osborne went through Boris Johnson, at the time Mayor of London and
leading a trade delegation to China on behalf of the City. Johnson is now odds-on favourite to
become the next Prime Minister and if appointed will undoubtedly find himself in a difficult
position. He will have to walk a very fine line between Britain's developing Chinese interests,
her special relationship with America, his new friendship with Trump, and also the trade
agreement with America which both Trump and Johnson are likely to prioritise following
Brexit.
Depending on how Johnson acts, China may have to put her plans to internationalise the yuan
on hold. The risk for China is that with her international financial plans threatened and the
Americans determined to strengthen the dollar in order to undermine the yuan, she will not have
access to the international portfolio flows she needs to help finance her infrastructure plans
and her Made in China 2025 project.
Put another way, we face no less than a dangerous escalation of the financial war between
America and China, with America trying to close off international finance to
China.
China's policy predicament
In a tactical retreat, Hong Kong has put plans to introduce the new extradition legislation
on hold. All it has achieved is to redirect demonstrators' demands towards Hong Kong's Chief
Executive to resign, and the demonstrations continued.
The question now arises as to how the Chinese will proceed. So far, they have played their
hand defensively in the financial war against America, but things are now coming to a head.
Obviously, they will protect Hong Kong, but more importantly they must address capital flight
through the Shanghai Connect. One option will be to suspend it, but that would undermine the
trust fundamental to future inward portfolio flows. It would also be a huge setback for the
international yuan. In any event, action must be taken to underwrite the yuan exchange
rate.
One option would be to increase interest rates, but this will risk being read as a panic
measure. In this context, an early and definite rise in interest rates would be better than a
delay or a lesser adjustment to monetary policy. For the domestic economy, this would favour
savers in an economy already savings-driven, but disadvantage exporters and many small and
medium-size businesses. It would amount to a reversal of recent economic and monetary policies,
which are intended to increase domestic consumption and reduce export surpluses.
The economic theories that the central planners in Beijing actually believe in will become
centre-stage. China has adopted the global neo-Keynesian standard of economic planning and
credit expansion. When the country moved rapidly from a peasant economy, credit was able to
expand without the regular pitfalls of a credit cycle observed in an advanced economy being
noticeable. This was because economic progress eclipsed the consequences of monetary
inflation.
But China is no longer an economic green-field site, having become predominantly a modern
economy. Consequently, she has moved from her pure mercantilist approach to running the economy
to a more financial and monetary style of central planning.
Through deploying similar monetary policies to the Americans, it might now occur to
Beijing's central planners that they are at a severe disadvantage playing that game. The dollar
and the yuan are both unbacked credit-based currencies bedevilled with debt. But if the dollar
goes head-to-head against the yuan, the dollar will always destabilise the yuan.
Supping from the Keynesian cup is China's principal weakness. She cannot afford to face down
the dollar, and the Americans know it. For the Chinese, the path of least risk appears to be
the one China has pursued successfully to date: do as little as possible to rock the boat, and
let America make the mistakes. However, as I shall argue later, the time is coming for China to
take the offensive.
Meanwhile, Chinese inaction is likely to be encouraged by another factor: the escalation of
US embargoes on Iranian oil, and the increasing possibility of a new Middle-East conflict with
Iran. This is bound to have a bearing on Chinese-American relations.
False flags and
Iran
Last week, two oil tankers suffered an attack by parties unknown after leaving the Strait of
Hormuz outward-bound. Predictably, the Americans and the Saudis blamed Iran, and Iran has
denied involvement. The Americans, supported by the British, have been quick to point out that
Iran had the motivation to attack and therefore was the guilty party. As a consequence of US
sanctions, her economy is in a state of collapse and Iran needs higher oil prices. The US has
been building up its Gulf fleet provocatively, increasing tensions. According to Al-Jazeera,
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani warned last December that "If one day they (the US) want to
prevent the export of Iran's oil, then no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf."
Perhaps that day is close. Tehran must be desperate, and she blames the Americans and
Israelis for a false flag attack, an accusation that bases its credibility on previous
incidents in the region and a suspicion that Israel backed by America wants an excuse to attack
Iran. The Syrian bridge to Hezbollah threatens Israel to its North, so its involvement is
logical, and it looks like a Mossad operation. By driving Iran into a corner, it is hard to see
any other outcome than further escalation.
If America does get tied up in a new war in the Middle East, she will be fighting on two
Asian fronts: militarily against Iran and financially against China. It could descend rapidly
into a global crisis, which would not suit China's interests or anyone else's for that matter.
However, an American attack against Iran could trigger the widespread flight of investment
money to the safety of the dollar and US Treasuries.
If America achieves that objective before sending in the troops, she could then compromise
on both Iran and on tariffs against China. Assuming Qiao Liang's analysis still has traction in
Beijing, this is the way American strategy might be read by the Chinese war-gamers.
Meanwhile, China is securing her defences. Besides aligning with Russia and both being
expected to vote at the UN against Israeli/American attempts to escalate tensions in the Gulf,
Russia can be expected to covertly help Iran. Beijing is also securing a partnership to protect
North Korea, with Xi visiting Pyongyang this week in order to head off American action in that
direction. The whole Asian continent from Ukraine to the Bering Sea is now on a defensive
footing.
How will it be resolved?
If the funding of the US deficit is the underling problem, then a continuation of China's
longstanding policy of not reacting to America's financial aggression is no longer an option. A
weaker yuan will be the outcome and a second Asian financial crisis involving China would be in
the offing. It also means the progression of China's economy would become more dependent on
domestic inflationary financing through the expansion of bank credit at a time when food
prices, partially due to the outbreak of African swine fever, are rising as well.
There is bound to be an intense debate in the Chinese Politburo as to whether it is wise to
abandon neo-Keynesian financing and revert to the previous understanding that debasing the
currency and the inflation of food prices impoverishes the people and will inevitably lead to
political destabilisation. The logic behind the state accumulating a hoard of gold, encouraging
citizens to hoard it as well, and dominating international bullion markets was to protect the
citizens from a paper money crisis. That paper money crisis now threatens the yuan more than
the dollar.
It must be clear to the Chinese, who are no slouches when it comes to understanding
political strategy, why America is taking a far more aggressive stance in their financial war.
The absence of foreign buyers in the US Treasury market could turn out to be the most serious
crisis for America since the end of Bretton Woods. The Deep State, driven in this case by the
US Treasury, will not permit it to happen. For both China and America, these are desperate
times.
There was always going to be a point in time when mundane chess moves end up threatening to
check and then checkmate one or the other king. China now finds her king under serious threat
and she must make a countermove. She cannot afford portfolio flows to reverse. The financing of
her Made in China 2025 plan and the completion of the silk roads are vital to her long-term
political stability.
China must therefore counter dollar strength by means other than simply raising interest
rates. Inevitably, the solution points towards gold. Everyone knows, or at least suspects that
China has accumulated significant undeclared reserves of gold bullion. The time has probably
come for China to show her hand and declare her true gold reserves, or at least enough of them
to exceed the official gold reserves of the US.
It is likely a declaration of this sort would drive the gold price significantly higher,
amounting to a dollar devaluation. By denying gold is money, America has exposed itself to the
risk of the dollar's reserve status being questioned in global markets, and this is China's
trump card.
If Xi attends the Osaka G20 at the end of this month, the purpose would be less to talk to
Trump, but more to talk to the other leaders to make it clear what the Americans are up to and
to ensure they are aware of the consequences for the global monetary system when China takes
positive action to protect her own currency and domestic capital markets.
Douglas Macgregor is right -- Trump have surrounded himself with neocons and now put himself against the wall. Wars destroy
presidency -- George Bush II is not viewed favorable by the US people now, not is Obama with his Libya adventure.
With the amount of derivatives in the US financial system the rise of the price of oil above $100 can produce some interesting
and unanticipated effects.
Notable quotes:
"... PRESIDENT TRUMP don't let them sucker you. ..."
"... The true American people, do never believe what this congress, house, and senate want they are cramming down your throats... ..."
"... The real goal is domination of the Middle East -- and that's been a bipartisan US strategy for decades. ..."
"... By striking a compromise with a defiant non-democracy like Iran, which for the past 40 years has defined itself as the foremost opponent of American hegemony (liberal or otherwise), while signaling a desire to slowly dismantle American hegemony in the Middle East (in order to pivot to Asia), Obama introduced an unsustainable contradiction to US foreign policy. ..."
"... Excellent article, because it clearly exposes the central isssue - US hegemony. And that goes has implications way beyond Iran, particularly with respect to relations with China and Russia. Very similar geopolitical games are playing out in the South China Sea, around the Ukraine, and in Syria. ..."
"... This is not 1950 when the world economy was in collapse and the US was overwhelmingly the top dog. Other countries are nearly equal to the US. Hegemony is unsustainable in today's environment and one solution is a cooperative balance of power employing diplomacy, and unprecedented cooperation on questions of energy and security in order to solve global problems like climate change and the elimination of nuclear weapons. ..."
"... The new world order - as this 'confrontation' suggests, the USA, supported by the Saudis, their compatriots, and Israel. All renowned 'friends' of the USA. With friends like these who needs enemies. ..."
"... The "confrontation" goes way back to 1953, when the CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh (for his "sin" of nationalizing Iranian oil) and labelled him a Communist. Everything that is adversarial in US-Iranian relations goes back to that criminal act. ..."
The real goal is domination of the Middle East -- and that's been a bipartisan US
strategy for decades.
... ... ...
...if war is the endgame of their escalation, what is the endgame of their war? Dominance --
perpetual dominance of the Middle East (and the globe as a whole) by the United States. That is
and has been Washington's grand strategy, regardless of whether a Republican, a Democrat, or a
reality-TV star has occupied the White House. America has, of course, often ensured this
domination by supporting friendly dictatorships.
But there is also a liberal version of the strategy. Liberal hegemony, or primacy, dictates
that the United States has the moral obligation and the strategic imperative to transform
anti–status quo non-democracies into liberal (pliant) democracies. According to this
grand strategy, the existence of such non-democracies is a threat to the United States and its
hegemony.
America cannot coexist with them but must ultimately transform them. Military force is
instrumental to this endeavor. As Max Boot wrote back in 2003, the pillars of liberal hegemony
must be spread and sustained " at gunpoint if need
be ."
While some advocates of liberal hegemony object to the more militaristic interpretation
preferred by neoconservatives, the difference between liberal interventionism and
neoconservatism is more a matter of nuance than core belief.
Neither can provide a solution to Washington's endless wars, because both operate within the
paradigm of primacy, which itself is a root cause of the country's perpetual conflicts. As long
as that paradigm remains the guiding principle of foreign policy, hawks like John Bolton, Tom
Cotton, and Lindsey Graham -- and their Democratic fellow travelers, too -- will continue to
steer America's engagement with the world, as it is their outlook that is compatible with
primacy, not that of those on the progressive left or the libertarian right, who have advocated
non-interventionism or negotiated settlements with those who challenge Pax Americana.
This is why the cards were stacked against the survival of the Iran nuclear deal even if
Trump had not been elected. By striking a compromise with a defiant non-democracy like
Iran, which for the past 40 years has defined itself as the foremost opponent of American
hegemony (liberal or otherwise), while signaling a desire to slowly dismantle American hegemony
in the Middle East (in order to pivot to Asia), Obama introduced an unsustainable contradiction
to US foreign policy.
This contradiction has been particularly visible among Democrats who oppose Trump's Iran
policy but who still cannot bring themselves to break with our seemingly endless confrontation
with Iran. As long as such Democrats allow the debate to be defined by the diktat of US
primacy, they will always be on the defensive, and their long-term impact on US-Iran relations
will be marginal.
After all, the strategy of US primacy in the Middle East demands Iran's defeat...
Excellent article, because it clearly exposes the central isssue - US hegemony. And that
goes has implications way beyond Iran, particularly with respect to relations with China and
Russia. Very similar geopolitical games are playing out in the South China Sea, around the
Ukraine, and in Syria.
Liberals have to stop talking about "bad actors" (whenever they are
linked with competing powers, e.g. Iran, N.Korea, etc.) but welcome them as "allies" when
they are our faithful vassals (e.g. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.). Unfortunately, Obama
appeared to understand this with respect to Iran, but totally ignored it with respect to the
rest of the world.
Victor Sciamarelli says: June 21, 2019 at 1:57 pm
I completely agree with Trita Parsi's succinct description of the problem as, "Dominance
-- perpetual dominance of the Middle East (and the globe as a whole) by the United States.
That is and has been Washington's grand strategy, regardless of whether a Republican, a
Democrat, or a reality-TV star has occupied the White House." However, why not offer
alternative policies for debate?
Consider, for example, the idea of a "balance of power." It was for the same reason that the
British fought Napoleon, the Crimean War, entered the first world war, and also why they were
constantly engaged in diplomatic agreements in Europe. British policy demanded that they
prevent the rise of a hegemon on the continent.
Napoleon was never a threat to the English mainland and neither were the Germans in 1914.
Yet, they fought both because preventing a hegemon and maintaining a balance of power
pre-empted other considerations.
I would suggest that regardless of events since 1918 such as: the decline of the British
empire, Versailles, the world wide economic depression, the rise of fascism, the reaction to
communism, or the rise of a non-European super power like the US, thinking about a modern, up
to date form of the balance of power is useful.
Furthermore, we need an alternative policy because hegemony fails the world and the American
people, and the world faces two existential threats: climate change and nuclear war.
Moreover, the US has been a superpower for so long that nobody remembers what it is like not
to be a superpower. In addition, American elites seem unwilling or unable to grasp the real
limits of military power.
In a world where the five permanent members of the UN security council are nuclear powers,
and nuclear weapons are held by smaller nations, the major power centers of the world:
Europe, Russia, China, and the US, have no choice but to cooperate with each other and with
the countries of the ME.
The ME is a focal point for establishing cooperation because the world needs energy and the
ME needs stability and development, but it requires leadership and motive.
This is not 1950 when the world economy was in collapse and the US was overwhelmingly the top
dog. Other countries are nearly equal to the US. Hegemony is unsustainable in today's
environment and one solution is a cooperative balance of power employing diplomacy, and
unprecedented cooperation on questions of energy and security in order to solve global
problems like climate change and the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Pauline Hartwig says: June 21, 2019 at 1:38 pm
The new world order - as this 'confrontation' suggests, the USA, supported by the Saudis,
their compatriots, and Israel. All renowned 'friends' of the USA. With friends like these who
needs enemies.
Gene Bell-Villada says: June 21, 2019 at 12:40 pm
The "confrontation" goes way back to 1953, when the CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh (for his "sin" of nationalizing
Iranian oil) and labelled him a Communist. Everything that is adversarial in US-Iranian relations
goes back to that
criminal act.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called on Washington to weigh the possible
consequences of conflict with Iran and said a report in the New York Times showed the situation
was extremely dangerous.
U.S. President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for the
downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, but called off the attacks at the last minute, the report
said.
Bolton was notoriously a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, like his current boss, not due
to any scruples regarding what was occurring, but out of concern for his own sorry ass.
From the standpoint of Information Warfare, it is very critical when a new event happens to
put forward one's version of the "truth" first before any other possible competing theories can
arise. This could be why Pompeo or someone like him would chose to immediately come out with
accusations thrown around as facts with no evidence to support them and no respect for the
great Western concepts of "innocence until proven guilty" or the "right to a fair trial".
Pompeo's objective here is not the truth but to take that virgin intellectual territory
regarding the interpretation of this issue before anyone else can, because once a concept has
become normalized in the minds of the masses it is very difficult to change it and many people
in Washington cannot risk blowing the chance to waste thousands of American lives invading Iran
based on an ultimately false but widely accepted/believed narrative.
Not surprisingly foreign and especially Russian media has quickly attempted to counter the
"Iran obviously did it" narrative before it becomes an accepted fact. Shockingly Slavic
infowarriors actually decided
to speak to the captain of a tanker that was hit to get his opinion rather than simply
assert that Iran didn't do it because they are a long time buddy of Moscow. The captain's
testimony of what happened strongly contradicts the version of reality that Washington is
pushing. And over all Russia as usual takes the reasonable position of "let's gather the
evidence and then see who did it", which is good PR for itself as a nation beyond this single
issue.
In terms of finding the actual guilty party the media on both sides has thus far ignored the
simple fact that if Iran wanted to sink a tanker it would be sunk. No civilian vessel is going
to withstand an attack from a 21st century navy by having a particularly thick hull and the
idea that the Iranians need to physically attach bombs to boats is mental. Physically planting
bombs is for goofball inept terrorists, not a professional military. After all, even the West
acknowledges that
the Iranians use the best Russian goodies that they can afford and Russian 21 st
century arms will sink civilian ship guaranteed. The Iranians have everything they need to
smoke any civilian vessel on the planet guaranteed from much farther away than 3 feet.
If Iran's goal was to scare or intimidate the tanker they could have just shot at it with
rifles or done something else to spook the crew and get a media response. When looked at from
the standpoint of military logic, these "attacks" seem baffling as Iran could have just
destroyed the boats or directly tried to terrorize them to make a statement.
In a pointed critique of President Trump's foreign policy leadership, Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer stated to members of the press Thursday that "the American people deserve a
president who can more credibly justify war with Iran."
"What the American people need is a president who can make a much more convincing case for
going to war with Iran," said Schumer (D-NY), adding that the Trump administration's corruption
and dishonesty have "proven time and time again" that it lacks the conviction necessary to act
as an effective cheerleader for the conflict.
"Donald Trump is completely unfit to assume the mantle of telling the American people what
they need to hear in order to convince them a war with Iran is a good idea.
One of the key duties of the president is to gain the trust of the people so that they feel
comfortable going along with whatever he says. President Trump's failure to serve as a credible
advocate for this war is yet another instance in which he has disappointed not only his
colleagues in Washington, but also the entire nation."
Schumer later concluded his statement with a vow that he and his fellow Democrats will
continue working toward a more palatable case in favor of bombing Iran.
In a pointed critique of President Trump's foreign policy leadership, Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer stated to members of the press Thursday that "the American people deserve a
president who can more credibly justify war with Iran."
"What the American people need is a president who can make a much more convincing case for
going to war with Iran," said Schumer (D-NY), adding that the Trump administration's corruption
and dishonesty have "proven time and time again" that it lacks the conviction necessary to act
as an effective cheerleader for the conflict.
"Donald Trump is completely unfit to assume the mantle of telling the American people what
they need to hear in order to convince them a war with Iran is a good idea.
One of the key duties of the president is to gain the trust of the people so that they feel
comfortable going along with whatever he says. President Trump's failure to serve as a credible
advocate for this war is yet another instance in which he has disappointed not only his
colleagues in Washington, but also the entire nation."
Schumer later concluded his statement with a vow that he and his fellow Democrats will
continue working toward a more palatable case in favor of bombing Iran.
"... [Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security]. ..."
"... " Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them ." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of 9/11 Studies, Feb.2013). ..."
[False flag operations:] "The powers-that-be understand that to create the appropriate atmosphere for war, it's necessary to
create within the general populace a hatred, fear or mistrust of others regardless of whether those others belong to a certain
group of people or to a religion or a nation." James Morcan (1978- ), New Zealander-born Australian writer.
[Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext
to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security].
" Almost all wars begin with false flag operations ." Larry Chin (d. of b. unknown), North American author, (in 'False
Flagging the World towards War. The CIA Weaponizes Hollywood', Dec. 27, 2014).
" Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them
." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of
9/11 Studies, Feb.2013).
" That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking
as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord, and cultivate
prejudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable ." Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Founding father, pamphleteer,
(in 'The Rights of Man', c. 1792).
" I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, and we stole . It was like -- we had entire training courses. It reminds
you of the glory of the American experiment." Mike Pompeo (1963- ), former CIA director and now Secretary of State in the
Trump administration, (in April 2019, while speaking at Texas A&M University.)
***
History repeats itself. Indeed, those who live by war are at it again. Their crime: starting illegal wars by committing false flag attacks and blaming other countries for their
own criminal acts. On this, the Donald Trump-John Bolton duo is just like the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney duo. It is amazing that
in an era of 24-hour news, this could still going on.
We recall that in 2002-2003, the latter duo, with the help of U.K.'s Tony Blair, lied their way into a war of aggression against
Iraq, by pretending that Saddam Hussein had a massive stockpile of " weapons of mass destruction "and
that he was ready to attack the United States proper. On October 6, 2002, George W. Bush scared Americans with his big Mushroom Cloud analogy. -- It was
all bogus. -- It was a pure fabrication that the gullible (!) U.S. Congress, the corporate media, and most of the American public,
swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Now, in 2019, a short sixteen years later, the same stratagem seems to being used to start another illegal war of aggression,
this time against the country of Iran. The masters of deception are at it again. Their secret agents and those of their Israeli and
Saudi allies, in the Middle East, seem to have just launched an unprovoked attack, in international waters, against a Japanese tanker,
and they have rushed to the cameras to accuse Iran. They claim that the latter country used mines to attack the tanker.
This time, they were unlucky. -- The owner of the Japanese
tanker , the Kokuka Courageous, immediately rebuked that "official" version.
Yutaka Katada , president of the Kokuka Sangyo shipping company, declared that the attack came from a bombing from above
the water. Indeed, Mr. Katada told reporters:
" The crew are saying it was hit with a flying object. They say something came flying toward them, then there was an explosion,
then there was a hole in the vessel ."
His company issued a statement saying that " the hull (of the ship) has been breached above the waterline on the starboard
side ", and it was not hit by a mine below the waterline, as the Trump administration has insinuated. -- [N. B.: There was also
a less serious attack on a Norwegian ship, the Front Altair.]
Thus, this time the false flag makers have not succeeded. But, you can be sure that they will be back at it, sooner or later,
just as they, and their well financed al-Qaeda allies, launched a few false flag "chemical" attacks in
Syria, and blamed them on the Syrian Assad government.
Donald Trump has too much to gain personally from a nice little war to distract the media and the public from the Mueller report and from
all his mounting political problems. In his case, he surely would benefit from a "wag-the-dog" scenario that John
Bolton and his friends in the Middle East could easily invent. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago, warmonger
John Bolton was coincidently
in the Middle East, in the United Arab Emirates, just before the attacks!
Besides the Japanese ship owner's denial, it is important to point out that at the moment of the attack on the Japanese tanker,
the
Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Shinzo Abe , was in Iran, having talks with the Iranian government about economic cooperation
between the two countries about oil shipments. Since Iran is the victim of unilateral U. S. economic sanctions, to derail such an
economic cooperation between Japan and Iran could have been the triggered motivation to launch a false flag operation. It did not
work. But you can be sure that the responsible party will not be prosecuted.
Conclusion
We live in an era when people with low morals, sponsored by people with tons of money, can gain power and do a lot of damage.
How our democracies can survive in such a context remains an open question.
"... If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. ..."
We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya
had nothing to do with "stopping a bad man."
If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't
care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or
to harmonize their rock garden.
"... If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. ..."
We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya
had nothing to do with "stopping a bad man."
If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't
care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or
to harmonize their rock garden.
"... I was one of the first to comment that the uprising in Hong Kong is regime change-motivated. The road to Beijing leads through Hong Kong. Venezuela, Iran, China are all simmering on the Neocon stove top. And then Russia will fall like a house of cards. ..."
"... Yes, paying off more than a couple thousands would be absurd, but that's not how the US State Department manufactures these "regime change" protests. Only a few thousand end up on the payroll and that is plenty to create the illusion of "grassroots" . The real magic happens in the corporate mass media studios and newsrooms where the few thousand is amplified into a hundreds of thousands and the protest is transformed through the wizardry of marketing into the gala event of the decade. ..."
"... Assuming the Hong Kong authorities can prevent the CIA death squad snipers from doing their part of shooting up cops and protesters to turn the event into a riot, the protests will eventually die out like they did last time. The protests alone, without the CIA inspired riots, are insufficient for "regime change" ..."
I was one of the first to comment that the uprising in Hong Kong is regime
change-motivated. The road to Beijing leads through Hong Kong. Venezuela, Iran, China are all
simmering on the Neocon stove top. And then Russia will fall like a house of cards.
Let's not leave out the stealthy regime change through trumped up charges against Lula in
Brazil.
So, no BRI, no SCO, no OBOR, no EAEU, absolutely no competition to Zionist Empire. That's
the plan and Trump is front and center on it. Absolute domination c/o Trump.
There are stealth Zionists on this board, e.g. trashy referencing Mullahs and excusing
Trump's cancellation of Iran deal as complicated . Sounds Zionist to me. If it takes
the Ayatollah to pound Zionist/U.S. aggression into the ground, gimme 10 of them!!!
@139 Zach
I'll answer that: ZERO TOLERANCE.
It is an indignity on Bashar's part to have to allow Trump to save face with hundreds of
U.S. cruise missiles raining on sovereign Syrian soil.
Once you allow for one strike, you're losing and Israel will get in on the action too
whenever it feels like it. The rule must be to shoot down all intruders, manned and unmanned
the second they breach sovereign space and not give an inch. Period!
Regime change in China? Lol. Through Hong Kong? Omg, Circe. Talk about a bridge too far.
Calm yourself and get real! If Venezuela ain't falling to the !Zionists! I sincerely doubt
that Hong Kong is going to be the vanguard which will topple Beijing.
Yes, paying off more than a couple thousands would be absurd, but that's not how the
US State Department manufactures these "regime change" protests. Only a few thousand
end up on the payroll and that is plenty to create the illusion of "grassroots" . The
real magic happens in the corporate mass media studios and newsrooms where the few thousand
is amplified into a hundreds of thousands and the protest is transformed through the wizardry
of marketing into the gala event of the decade.
Assuming the Hong Kong authorities can prevent the CIA death squad snipers from doing
their part of shooting up cops and protesters to turn the event into a riot, the protests
will eventually die out like they did last time. The protests alone, without the CIA inspired
riots, are insufficient for "regime change" .
"... ...What else did you expect other than the MIC/Intelligence Agencies/Pentagon/embedded war mongers handling this stuff? ..."
"... Gen. Buck Turgidson is most certainly going rogue. ..."
"... That's really the bigger story here. It has become a mainstream idea that it is a GOOD thing that an elected President is a figurehead with no real power. ..."
...That's really the bigger story here. It has become a mainstream idea that it is a GOOD thing that an elected President is
a figurehead with no real power.
Of course it's been true for a long time, but it's a fairly recent phenomenon that a large number
of Americans like it. Russiagate is another example.
Huge portions of America were cheering for the unseating of an elected President
by unelected police state apparatus because they don't like him.
Russian president Vladimir Putin blamed the U.S. establishment for preventing an improvement in relations
between Moscow and Washington.
During his annual televised question-and-answer session with members of the
public, Putin was asked about the prospects for better ties if he met with President Donald Trump.
The Russian energy Ministry's department head Evgeny Grabchak, who faces U.S. sanctions, asked Putin on
air if he would "want to meet with Trump."
Putin replied that dialogue with the U.S. was "always good" adding that Russia was "ready for this
dialogue as long as our partners were too."
Putin went on: "But even if Trump wants to change anything, there are restrictions imposed by other
organs of power. There is a part of the American establishment that continues to invent fake news. We have
things to discuss with Trump in all areas, including the economy,"
Novaya Gazyeta
reported.
"... The second narrative -- further substantiated by recent reporting from The Intercept of collusion between the main judges in the case against Lula -- shows evidence of political persecution and a coordinated attempt to stop Lula from winning the presidential election and put a halt to the country's progressive social agenda. In this narrative, the corruption charges against Lula were manufactured in order to recover the right-wing's control of the government, despite a lack of evidence against him. ..."
"... Judge Sérgio Moro convicted Lula. He became a celebrity and is now the minister of justice in the government of President Jair Bolsonaro. It is clear that Bolsonaro won the election because Lula was not permitted to run. Moro's conviction delivered the presidency to Bolsonaro, who then rewarded Moro with the ministry appointment. ..."
"... Messages seemed to constantly be exchanged between the Moro and the Lava Jato team led by Dallagnol. These have now been revealed by The Intercept and scrutinized by a range of forensic and political analysts. It is clear that the judge and the prosecutor colluded to find Lula guilty and lock him away. ..."
"... The persecution of Lula is a story that is not merely about Lula, nor solely about Brazil. This is a test case for the way oligarchies and imperialism have sought to use the shell of democracy to undermine the democratic aspirations of the people. It is the methodology of democracy without democracy, a Potemkin Village of liberalism. ..."
Clarity emerges around the political persecution of Lula, Brazil's former president. But
what is still blurry for many is the actual case against him, writes Vijay Prashad.
Brazil's former President Luiz Inácio Lula da
Silva has now been in prison since April 2018. More than 400 Brazilian lawyers have signed a
statement that expresses alarm at what they see as procedural irregularities in the case
against him. They call for the immediate release of Lula. The Asociación Americana de
Juristas – a non-governmental organization with consultative status at the United
Nations – has called Lula a political prisoner. Lula was convicted of corruption and
money-laundering, despite a lack of solid evidence. Two lawsuits against him remain
unfinished.
Now, more evidence emerges about the collusion of the lead judge and the lead investigator
in the prosecution of Lula thanks to excellent reporting from The Intercept . The political motivations are now on the
record: they, on behalf of the oligarchy, did not want Lula – who remains hugely popular
– to be the 2018 presidential candidate of the Workers' Party (PT). Brazil's right-wing
has begun a horrible campaign to malign the journalists of The Intercept , notably its
editor Glenn Greenwald. Using the same tactics of hate, misogyny, and homophobia to defame
their journalists, they hope, will distract from and delegitimise the damning evidence of their
corrupt tactics.
Clarity now emerges around the political persecution of Lula. But what is still blurry for
many is the actual case against him. The details of his case remain murky, with many who
sympathise with Lula unsure of how to understand the corruption charges and his apparent
conviction. This newsletter is dedicated to providing a primer on Lula and the case against
him.
Who is Lula?
Luiz Inácio Lula da
Silva (73 years old), a metalworker and trade union leader, helped found the PT, Brazil's
main left party. He won two consecutive elections to govern Brazil from 2003 to 2010. At the
close of his second term, Lula had an approval rating of 86 percent – the highest in the
country's history. His poverty reduction programs – particularly his hunger alleviation
schemes – earned his government praise from around the world, which is why some are
calling
for him to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Income redistribution through social
programs such as Bolsa Família, Brasil sem Miseria, the expansion of credit, the
increase in decent work, and the increase in the minimum wage lifted almost 30 million (out of
209 million) Brazilians out of poverty. The number of public university campuses more than
doubled, leading to a 285
percent increase in Afro-Brazilians attending institutes of higher education. Brazil paid
off its debts to the IMF and the government discovered a massive new oil reserve in the Santos
Basin, off the coast of São Paulo. This oil will eventually change Brazil's strategic
position in the world.
Why was Lula arrested?
There are two narratives that exist to answer this question. The first -- the official
narrative, propagated by the bourgeoise -- is that Lula is in prison on charges of corruption
and money laundering. His cases remain pending before the courts. Curitiba's Public
Prosecutor's Office – led by Deltan Dallagnol – was in charge of an investigation
around corruption allegations at Brazil's state energy firm, Petrobras. Because a car wash
became part of the money laundering investigation, the Task Force was known as Lava Jato (Car
Wash). The Task Force uncovered activity by contractors such as OAS and Odebrecht, who had
– it turns out – remodelled an apartment on the coast and a farm in the interior
that were supposedly owned by Lula. These firms, it was said by the Task Force, had gained
concessions from Petrobras. The Task Force argued that Lula benefited from the contractors, who
in turn benefitted from state largess. This was the allegation.
The second narrative -- further
substantiated by recent reporting from The Intercept of collusion between the main
judges in the case against Lula -- shows evidence of political persecution and a coordinated
attempt to stop Lula from winning the presidential election and put a halt to the country's
progressive social agenda. In this narrative, the corruption charges against Lula were
manufactured in order to recover the right-wing's control of the government, despite a lack of
evidence against him.
Lola Alvarez Bravo, "Unos Suben y Otros Bajan," 1940.
Is there evidence against Lula?
Actually, no. The prosecutors could not prove that Lula had ever owned the apartment or the
farm. Nor could they prove any benefit to the contractors. Lula was convicted – bizarrely
– of unspecified acts . Former OAS director Léo Pinheiro, who had been
convicted of money laundering and corruption in 2014 and was to serve 16 years, gave evidence
against Lula; for this evidence, his sentence was reduced. There was no material evidence
against Lula.
Who convicted Lula?
Judge Sérgio Moro convicted Lula. He became a celebrity and is now the minister of
justice in the government of President Jair Bolsonaro. It is clear that Bolsonaro won the
election because Lula was not permitted to run. Moro's conviction delivered the presidency to
Bolsonaro, who then rewarded Moro with the ministry appointment.
Moro not only tried Lula in
his court, but also in the court of public opinion. The corporate media was on the side of the
prosecution, and leaks from the court created an image of Lula as the enemy of the people.
Bizarrely, the press often seemed to have information from the court before Lula's defence
attorneys. When Lula's lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition to get him out of jail, the
army's commander-in-chief sent the Supreme Court a message on Twitter to instructing them not
to grant the petition. The petition was denied.
Should Lula have been allowed to run for president?
The Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure says that one can only go to prison when their
appeals run out. Article 5 of the Constitution notes,"No one shall be considered guilty before
the issuance of a final and unappealable prison sentence." Why Lula went to jail in the first
place requires an investigation. Judge Moro argued that it was because he was found guilty in
the Appeal Court based on a plea bargain. This is murky. The UN's Human Rights Committee said
that Lula should have been allowed to run for president last year because his appeals had not
been exhausted. Not only did the judiciary and the prosecutors not allow Lula to run, but they
also did not allow him to meet the press and so influence the election.
What has been the role of the United States in the Lava Jato investigation?
Odd how the US Department of Justice officials visited Judge Moro during the investigation,
and how US Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco said in 2017 that the
U.S. justice officials had "informal communications" about the removal of Lula from the
presidential race. On 6 March 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice said
that it would transfer 80 percent of the fines it received from Petrobras to the Public
Prosecutor's Office to set up an "anti-corruption investment fund." It is fair to say that this
is a payment to the Lava Jato
team for its work on removing Lula from the presidential race.
What was the real corruption in this case?
Messages seemed to constantly be exchanged between the Moro and the Lava Jato team led by
Dallagnol. These have now been revealed by The Intercept and scrutinized by a range of
forensic and political analysts. It is clear that the judge and the prosecutor colluded to find
Lula guilty and lock him away. The first instance of corruption is this brazen collusion
between two parts of the government. The second instance of corruption is the role of the
United States in this case, and the pay-out to Dallagnol's department for services
rendered.
The persecution of Lula is a story that is not merely about Lula, nor solely about Brazil.
This is a test case for the way oligarchies and imperialism have sought to use the shell of
democracy to undermine the democratic aspirations of the people. It is the methodology of
democracy without democracy, a Potemkin Village of liberalism.
At Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, we are studying this phenomenon closely.
You have already seen our dossier
on the hybrid war against Venezuela and our dossier on lawfare
in Brazil. The arrest of human rights defenders from Julian Assange to Ola Bini as well as the
arrest of whistle-blowers from Chelsea Manning to David McBridge are part of this chilling
effect against the sentinels of democracy.
We are taking seriously this evisceration of democracy. We are going to look at the role of
money in elections (test case: India) and voter suppression, as well as the reduction of
'politics' to the festival of elections, the allowance of states to crush the basic
institutions of civil society, and the role of immiseration in the defeat of the democratic
spirit. We need a new theory of actually-existing democracy.
Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, journalist, commentator and a Marxist intellectual. He
is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and the chief editor
of LeftWord Books.
However, when virtually no one in the upper circles of power in Caracas ended up backing
Guaidó, Trump thought that his national security adviser John Bolton and his director
for Latin American policy, Mauricio Claver-Carone, "got played" by the opposition and key
Maduro officials, The Post reported.
Two senior White House officials told
The Post that the president "chewed out the staff" after the failure on April 30 to
shift Maduro from power and that now Trump's administration has no fixed strategy to remove
him.
Trump had "always thought of" Venezuela "as low-hanging fruit" on which he "could get a win
and tout it as a major foreign policy victory," the former official said. "Five or six months
later . . . it's not coming together," the unnamed official added.
However, this was rejected by National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis who
described the official's claims as, "patently false."
"... In layman's terms, American intelligence agencies meddled in Brazil's democracy by selectively leaking purported evidence of serious corruption by the then-ruling party, which predictably set into motion a self-sustaining inquisitional cycle that led to Rousseff's impeachment, Lula's imprisonment, and ultimately Bolsonaro's "dark horse" victory after he was presented to the people as the only non-corrupt candidate capable of restoring order out of the chaos that the socialists were blamed for causing. ..."
"... This externally triggered regime change was intended to create the domestic political conditions that were thought to make a Leftist revival impossible in the future and thereby indefinitely perpetuate the restoration of US influence in Brazil, with the Right's victory legitimized at the ballot after the majority of the population was successfully led by these foreign-manufactured events to conclude that Bolsonaro was the only person capable of changing the system. Upon entering office, he did exactly as he promised and began to push forward his controversial neoliberal reforms that provoked the latest strike. ..."
"... Bolsonaro and his US buddies obviously underestimated the Left's resilience and therefore weren't prepared for the massive pushback that this move provoked, but the public's anger last weekend was also fueled by The Intercept's leaked revelations that "Operation Car Wash's" top judge and the country's current Justice Minister colluded with prosecutors to convict Lula and therefore prevent him from running for President (which in turn greatly facilitated Bolsonaro's rise to power). ..."
"... It's important to point out that the conversation was leaked and not hacked, strongly suggesting dissident within the deepest ranks of the regime change movement for reasons that can only be speculated upon at this time but which nevertheless motivated the whistleblower to share the evidence in their possession with society in order to catalyze grassroots pressure against the government. ..."
"... It's therefore not an exaggeration to say that Brazil's long-running Hybrid War crisis never really went away, it just took a few months for it to change form and turn against its original initiators after they failed to close the Pandora's Box of regime change protest potential that they opened at the US' behest. Bolsonaro's rise to power was shady from the get-go and only made possibly by Lula's conviction and the consequent banning of the country's most popular political candidate from the presidential race ..."
"... Although some of the protesters are employing classic Color Revolution tactics during their anti-government demonstrations, this political technology isn't black and white because it could conceivably be used by anyone in pursuit of any end. ..."
Brazil's long-running Hybrid War crisis never really went away, it just took a few months
for it to change form and turn against its original initiators after they failed to close the
Pandora's Box of regime change protest potential that they opened at the US' behest.
The Bolsonaro government is coming under intense grassroots pressure as two crises continue
to converge within the country and threaten to spiral out of the authorities' control. An
estimated 45
million people just participated in a massive strike over the weekend against the proposed
neoliberal pension reforms that would increase both the age of retirement and contributions for
ordinary workers, which tens of millions of people feel is unfair but which the state says is
needed in order to fix the failing system that it inherited as a result of its predecessors'
corrupt mismanagement. Brazil has a history of seemingly irreconcilable political polarization
between the Left and Right like all Latin American countries do, but this fault line was
exacerbated to the fullest extent throughout the course of the long-running Hybrid
War on Brazil , which was waged via the NSA-facilitated "Operation Car Wash" that served as
a pretext for carrying out a preplanned pro-American regime change that represented the
crowning achievement of Obama's " Operation Condor 2.0
" and made Trump's "
Fortress America " hemispheric vision possible.
In layman's terms, American intelligence agencies meddled in Brazil's democracy by
selectively leaking purported evidence of serious corruption by the then-ruling party, which
predictably set into motion a self-sustaining inquisitional cycle that led to Rousseff's
impeachment, Lula's imprisonment, and ultimately Bolsonaro's "dark horse" victory after he was
presented to the people as the only non-corrupt candidate capable of restoring order out of the
chaos that the socialists were blamed for causing.
This externally triggered regime change was
intended to create the domestic political conditions that were thought to make a Leftist
revival impossible in the future and thereby indefinitely perpetuate the
restoration of US influence in Brazil, with the Right's victory legitimized at the ballot
after the majority of the population was successfully led by these foreign-manufactured events
to conclude that Bolsonaro was the only person capable of changing the system. Upon entering
office, he did exactly as he promised and began to push forward his controversial neoliberal
reforms that provoked the latest strike.
Bolsonaro and his US buddies obviously underestimated the Left's resilience and therefore
weren't prepared for the massive pushback that this move provoked, but the public's anger last
weekend was also fueled by The
Intercept's leaked revelations that "Operation Car Wash's" top judge and the country's
current Justice Minister colluded with prosecutors to convict Lula and therefore prevent him
from running for President (which in turn greatly facilitated Bolsonaro's rise to power).
Many
Brazilians had long suspected as much, but this was the first time that messages from a private
Telegram group consisting of the regime change collaborators were made public to corroborate
this theory. It's important to point out that the conversation was leaked and not hacked,
strongly suggesting dissident within the deepest ranks of the regime change movement for
reasons that can only be speculated upon at this time but which nevertheless motivated the
whistleblower to share the evidence in their possession with society in order to catalyze
grassroots pressure against the government.
It's therefore not an exaggeration to say that Brazil's long-running Hybrid War crisis never
really went away, it just took a few months for it to change form and turn against its original
initiators after they failed to close the Pandora's Box of regime change protest potential that
they opened at the US' behest. Bolsonaro's rise to power was shady from the get-go and only
made possibly by Lula's conviction and the consequent banning of the country's most popular
political candidate from the presidential race, which has now been proven without any
reasonable doubt to have been part of an actual conspiracy by some members of the permanent
bureaucracy ("deep state") against him.
This throws into question the electoral legitimacy of
Brazil's latest leader and therefore sets up the scenario of having every one of his political
moves invalidated if he's ever removed from office on this pretext, including the controversial
pension reform that he's trying to push through. Naturally, the labor crisis is merging with
the political one and creating a critical mass of regime change unrest.
Although some of the protesters are employing classic
Color Revolution tactics during their anti-government demonstrations, this political
technology isn't black and
white because it could conceivably be used by anyone in pursuit of any end. In this case,
the nascent movement has the same regime change objective as its pro-American antecedent and is
similarly relying on overwhelming popular support to legitimize its goals, albeit the defining
difference in this Hybrid War is that it isn't tied to any foreign power (both in terms of its
inception and development unlike "Operation Car Wash") except if one cynically traces its
origin to the US' NSA meddling many years ago. In fact, what's happening in Brazil right now is
nothing less than blowback against Bolsonaro after his conspiratorial US-backed rise to power
and the consequent pension controversy that he's since caused. The protest organizers want to
return the country to the pre-crisis status quo of being led by Lula and the Left, though they
might also embrace some mild reforms to appeal to the moderate Right that arose in recent years
if they ever end up succeeding in reversing the effects of the US' Hybrid War on Brazil.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the
relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China's One Belt One Road global vision
of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
Bias, Lies & Videotape: Doubts Dog 'Confirmed' Syria Chemical Attacks Disturbing new evidence suggests 2018 incident
might've been staged, putting everything else, including U.S. retaliation, into question. By
Scott Ritter •
June 20, 2019
It also calls into question all the other conclusions and reports by the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) , which was assigned in 2014 "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly
chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic."
As you recall, the Trump administration initiated a coordinated bombing of Syrian government facilities with the UK and France
within days of the
Douma incident and
before
a full investigation of the scene could be completed, charging Assad with the "barbaric act" of using "banned chemical weapons"
to kill dozens of people on the scene. Bomb first, ask questions later.
The OPCW began their investigation days
after the strikes . The group drew on witness testimonies, environmental and biomedical sample analysis results, and additional
digital information from witnesses (i.e. video and still photography), as well as toxicological and ballistic analyses. In July 2018,
the OPCW released an
interim report
on Douma that said "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental
samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties," but that chlorine, which is not a banned chemical weapon, was detected
there.
Advertisement
The report cited ballistic tests that indicated that the canisters found at two locations on the scene were dropped from the air
(witnesses blamed Assad's forces), but investigations were ongoing.
The final report in March
reiterated the ballistics data, and the conclusions were just as underwhelming, saying that all of the evidence gathered there provides
"reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place," due in part to traces of chlorine and explosives at
the impact sites.
Now, the leaked
internal report apparently suppressed by the OPCW says there is a "high probability" that a pair of chlorine gas cylinders that
had been claimed as the source of the toxic chemical had been planted there by hand and not dropped by aircraft. This was based on
extensive engineering assessments and computer modeling as well as all of the evidence previously afforded to the OPCW.
What does this mean? To my mind, the canisters were planted by the opposition in an effort to frame the Syrian government.
The OPCW has confirmed with the validity of this shocking document and has offered statements to reporters, including Peter Hitchens,
who published
the organization's response to him on May 16.
The ramifications of this turn of events extend far beyond simply disproving the allegations concerning the events in April 2018.
The credibility of the OPCW itself and every report and conclusion
it has released concerning allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government are now suspect. The extent to which
the OPCW has, almost exclusively, relied upon
the same Syrian opposition sources who are now suspected of fabricating the Douma events raises serious questions about both
the methodology and motivation of an organization that had been
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 for
"its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons."
In a
response to Agence France-Presse (AFP) , OPCW director general Fernando Arias acknowledged there is an internal probe into the
memo leak but that he continues to "stand by the impartial and professional conclusions" of the group's original report. He played
down the role of the memo's author, Ian Henderson, and said his alternative hypotheses were not included in the final OPCW report
because they "pointed at possible attribution" and were therefore outside the scope of the OPCW's fact finding mission in Syria.
Self-produced videos and witness statements provided by the pro-opposition Violations Documentation Center, Syrian Civil Defense
(also known as the White Helmets), and the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS)
, a non-profit organization that operates hospitals in opposition-controlled Syria, represented the heart and soul of the case
against the Syrian government regarding the events in Douma. To my mind, the internal memo now suggests that these actors were engaging
in a systemic effort to disseminate disinformation that would facilitate Western military intervention with the goal of removing
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.
This theory has been advanced by pro-Assad forces and their Russian partners for some time. But independent reporting on the ground
since the Douma incident has sussed out many of the same concerns. From James Harkin, director of the Center for Investigative Journalism
and a fellow at Harvard University's Shorenstein Center, who traveled to the site of the attacks and
reported for The Intercept
in February of this year:
The imperative to grab the fleeting attention of an international audience certainly seems to have influenced the presentation
of the evidence. In the videos and photos that appeared that evening, most analysts and observers agree that there were some signs
that the bodies and gas canisters had been moved or tampered with after the event for maximum impact. The Syrian media activists
who'd arrived at the apartment block with the dead people weren't the first to arrive on the scene; they'd heard about the deaths
from White Helmet workers and doctors at the hospital.
The relationship between the OPCW and the Syrian opposition can be traced back to 2013. That was when the OPCW was given the responsibility
of eliminating Syria's declared arsenal of chemical weapons; this task was largely completed by 2014. However, the Syrian opposition
began making persistent allegations of chemical weapon attacks by the Syrian government in which chlorine, a substance not covered
by Syria's obligation to be disarmed of chemical weapons, was used. In response, the OPCW established the
Fact Finding Mission (FFM) in 2014 "to establish facts surrounding
allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic."
The priority of effort for the FFM early on was to investigate allegations of the use of chlorine as a weapon. Since, according
to its May 2014
summary, "all reported incidents took place at locations that the Syrian Government considers to be outside its effective control,"
the FFM determined that the success of its mission was contingent upon "identification of key actors, such as local authorities and/or
representatives of armed opposition groups in charge of the territories in which these locations are situated; the establishment
of contacts with these groups in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence that allows the mandate and objectives of the FFM to
be communicated."
So from its very inception, the FFM had to rely on the anti-Assad opposition and its supporters for nearly everything. The document
that governed the
conduct of the FFM's work in Syria was premised on the fact that the mission would be dependent in part upon "opposition representatives"
to coordinate, along with the United Nations, the "security, logistical and operational aspects of the OPCW FFM," including liaising
"for the purposes of making available persons for interviews."
One could sense the bias resulting from such an arrangement when, acting on information provided to it by the opposition regarding
an "alleged attack with chlorine" on the towns of Kafr Zeyta and Al-Lataminah, the FFM changed its original plans to investigate
an alleged chlorine attack on the town of Harasta. This decision, the FFM reported, "was welcomed by the opposition." When the FFM
attempted to inspect Kafr Zeyta, however, it was attacked by opposition forces, with one of its vehicles destroyed by a roadside
bomb, one inspector wounded, and several inspectors detained by opposition fighters.
The inability to go to Kafr Zeyta precluded the group from "presenting definitive conclusions," according to the report. But that
did not stop the FFM from saying that the information given to them from these opposition sources, "including treating physicians
with whom the FFM was able to establish contact," and public domain material, "lends credence to the view that toxic chemicals, most
likely pulmonary irritating agents such as chlorine, have been used in a systematic manner in a number of attacks" against Kafr Zeyta.
So the conclusion/non-conclusion was based not on any onsite investigation, but rather videos produced by the opposition and subsequently
released via social media and
interviews
also likely set up by opposition groups (White Helmets, SAMS, etc.), which we know, according to their own documents, served
as the key liaisons for the FFM on the ground.
All of this is worrisome. It is unclear at this point how many Syrian chemical attacks have been truly confirmed since the start
of the war. In February of this year, the Global Policy Institute
released a report
saying there were 336 such reports, but they were broken down into "confirmed," "credibly substantiated," and "comprehensively confirmed."
Out of the total, 111 were given the rigorous "comprehensively confirmed" tag, which, according to the group, meant the incidents
were "were investigated and confirmed by competent international bodies or backed up by at least three highly reliable independent
sources of evidence."
They do not go into further detail about those bodies and sources, but are sure to thank the White Helmets and their "implementing
partner" Mayday Rescue and Violations Documentation
Center, among other groups, as "friends and partners" in the study. So it becomes clear, looking at the Kafr Zeytan inspection and
beyond, that the same opposition sources that are informing the now-dubious OPCW reports are also delivering data and "assistance"
to outside groups reaching international audiences, too.
The role of the OPCW in sustaining the claims made by the obviously biased Syrian opposition sources cannot be understated --
by confirming the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma, the OPCW lent credibility to claims that otherwise should not --
and indeed would not -- have been granted, and in doing so violated the very operating procedures that had been put in place by the
OPCW to protect the credibility of the organization and its findings.
There is an old prosecutorial rule -- one lie, all lies -- that comes into play in this case. With the leaked internal report
out there, suggesting that the sources in the Douma investigation were agenda-driven and dishonest, all information ever provided
to the OPCW by the White Helmets, SAMS, and other Syrian opposition groups must now, in my mind, be viewed as tainted and therefore
unusable.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
The OPCW reaction clearly considering the investigation into the leak instead of apologizing for not publishing this report is
revealing its bias.
There has been a push from 'the West' to have the OPCW also attributing responsibility. Given the bias already on display this
will further politicize the OPCW.
As soon as such organizations become propaganda tools their credibility goes into the wind.
Given what we know of the Skripal hoax and the Tories attitude to the truth with their government funded 'Integrity Initiative'
through the Institute of Statecraft' that exactly what the British Intelligence intended.
One may note the specific personal links through Orbis/Steele/Miller between the 'Integrity Initiative' and the fake 'Trump
Dossier' and one ought to be alarmed by 'services' of a British intelligence out of control, but given the FBI/CIA involvement
and exploitation of that fake 'Trump Dossier' it looks that the US has a quite similar problem.
"... Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed. Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses, is the message. ..."
"... The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever learn or be educated out of their biases; ..."
"... So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated. For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that we lack judgement in real life? ..."
"... Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists" from theirs ..."
"... Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well. ..."
"... Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia. ..."
"... Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental data that is inconsistent with that theory. ..."
"... Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances. Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like to refer to a whole book about it: Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics". ..."
"... As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?) ..."
"... The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply a perfect title. ..."
Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is
to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed.
Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses,
is the message.
Another approach is to show visual illusions, such as getting estimates of line lengths in the Muller-Lyer illusion, or studying
simple line lengths under social pressure, as in the Asch experiment, or trying to solve the Peter Wason logic problems, or the puzzles
set by Kahneman and Tversky. All these appear to show severe limitations of human judgment. Psychology is full of cautionary tales
about the foibles of common folk.
As a consequence of this softening up, psychology students come to regard themselves and most people as fallible, malleable, unreliable,
biased and generally irrational. No wonder psychologists feel superior to the average citizen, since they understand human limitations
and, with their superior training, hope to rise above such lowly superstitions.
However, society still functions, people overcome errors and many things work well most of the time. Have psychologists, for one
reason or another, misunderstood people, and been too quick to assume that they are incapable of rational thought?
He is particularly interested in the economic consequences of apparent irrationality, and whether our presumed biases really result
in us making bad economic decisions. If so, some argue we need a benign force, say a government, to protect us from our lack of capacity.
Perhaps we need a tattoo on our forehead: Diminished Responsibility.
The argument leading from cognitive biases to governmental paternalism -- in short, the irrationality argument -- consists
of three assumptions and one conclusion:
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public
toward better behavior.
The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever
learn or be educated out of their biases; instead governments need to step in with a policy called libertarian paternalism (Thaler
and Sunstein, 2003).
So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated.
For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that
we lack judgement in real life?
In Shepard's (1990) words, "to fool a visual system that has a full binocular and freely mobile view of a well-illuminated scene
is next to impossible" (p. 122). Thus, in psychology, the visual system is seen more as a genius than a fool in making intelligent
inferences, and inferences, after all, are necessary for making sense of the images on the retina.
Most crucially, can people make probability judgements? Let us see. Try solving this one:
A disease has a base rate of .1, and a test is performed that has a hit rate of .9 (the conditional probability of a positive
test given disease) and a false positive rate of .1 (the conditional probability of a positive test given no disease). What is
the probability that a random person with a positive test result actually has the disease?
Most people fail this test, including 79% of gynaecologists giving breast screening tests. Some researchers have drawn the conclusion
that people are fundamentally unable to deal with conditional probabilities. On the contrary, there is a way of laying out the problem
such that most people have no difficulty with it. Watch what it looks like when presented as natural frequencies:
Among every 100 people, 10 are expected to have a disease. Among those 10, nine are expected to correctly test positive. Among
the 90 people without the disease, nine are expected to falsely test positive. What proportion of those who test positive actually
have the disease?
In this format the positive test result gives us 9 people with the disease and 9 people without the disease, so the chance that
a positive test result shows a real disease is 50/50. Only 13% of gynaecologists fail this presentation.
Summing up the virtues of natural frequencies, Gigerenzer says:
When college students were given a 2-hour course in natural frequencies, the number of correct Bayesian inferences increased
from 10% to 90%; most important, this 90% rate was maintained 3 months after training (Sedlmeier and Gigerenzer, 2001). Meta-analyses
have also documented the "de-biasing" effect, and natural frequencies are now a technical term in evidence-based medicine (Akiet
al., 2011; McDowell and Jacobs, 2017). These results are consistent with a long literature on techniques for successfully teaching
statistical reasoning (e.g., Fonget al., 1986). In sum, humans can learn Bayesian inference quickly if the information is presented
in natural frequencies.
If the problem is set out in a simple format, almost all of us can all do conditional probabilities.
I taught my medical students about the base rate screening problem in the late 1970s, based on: Robyn Dawes (1962) "A note on
base rates and psychometric efficiency". Decades later, alarmed by the positive scan detection of an unexplained mass, I confided
my fears to a psychiatrist friend. He did a quick differential diagnosis on bowel cancer, showing I had no relevant symptoms, and
reminded me I had lectured him as a student on base rates decades before, so I ought to relax. Indeed, it was false positive.
Here are the relevant figures, set out in terms of natural frequencies
Every test has a false positive rate (every step is being taken to reduce these), and when screening is used for entire populations
many patients have to undergo further investigations, sometimes including surgery.
Setting out frequencies in a logical sequence can often prevent misunderstandings. Say a man on trial for having murdered his
spouse has previously physically abused her. Should his previous history of abuse not be raised in Court because only 1 woman in
2500 cases of abuse is murdered by her abuser? Of course, whatever a defence lawyer may argue and a Court may accept, this is back
to front. OJ Simpson was not on trial for spousal abuse, but for the murder of his former partner. The relevant question is: what
is the probability that a man murdered his partner, given that she has been murdered and that he previously battered her.
Accepting the figures used by the defence lawyer, if 1 in 2500 women are murdered every year by their abusive male partners, how
many women are murdered by men who did not previously abuse them? Using government figures that 5 women in 100,000 are murdered every
year then putting everything onto the same 100,000 population, the frequencies look like this:
So, 40 to 5, it is 8 times more probable that abused women are murdered by their abuser. A relevant issue to raise in Court about
the past history of an accused man.
Are people's presumed biases costly, in the sense of making them vulnerable to exploitation, such that they can be turned into
a money pump, or is it a case of "once bitten, twice shy"? In fact, there is no evidence that these apparently persistent logical
errors actually result in people continually making costly errors. That presumption turns out to be a bias bias.
Gigerenzer goes on to show that people are in fact correct in their understanding of the randomness of short sequences of coin
tosses, and Kahneman and Tversky wrong. Elegantly, he also shows that the "hot hand" of successful players in basketball is a real
phenomenon, and not a stubborn illusion as claimed.
With equal elegance he disposes of a result I had depended upon since Slovic (1982), which is that people over-estimate the frequency
of rare risks and under-estimate the frequency of common risks. This finding has led to the belief that people are no good at estimating
risk. Who could doubt that a TV series about Chernobyl will lead citizens to have an exaggerated fear of nuclear power stations?
The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students, not exactly a fair sample of humanity. The conceit of psychologists
knows no bounds. Gigerenzer looks at the data and shows that it is yet another example of regression to the mean. This is an apparent
effect which arises whenever the predictor is less than perfect (the most common case), an unsystematic error effect, which is already
evident when you calculate the correlation coefficient. Parental height and their children's heights are positively but not perfectly
correlated at about r = 0.5. Predictions made in either direction will under-predict in either direction, simply because they are
not perfect, and do not capture all the variation. Try drawing out the correlation as an ellipse to see the effect of regression,
compared to the perfect case of the straight line of r= 1.0
What diminishes in the presence of noise is the variability of the estimates, both the estimates of the height of the sons based
on that of their fathers, and vice versa. Regression toward the mean is a result of unsystematic, not systematic error (Stigler,1999).
Gigerenzer also looks at the supposed finding that people are over-confidence in predictions, and finds that it is another regression
to the mean problem.
Gigerenzer then goes on to consider that old favourite, that most people think they are better than average, which supposedly
cannot be the case, because average people are average.
Consider the finding that most drivers think they drive better than average. If better driving is interpreted as meaning fewer
accidents, then most drivers' beliefs are actually true. The number of accidents per person has a skewed distribution, and an
analysis of U.S. accident statistics showed that some 80% of drivers have fewer accidents than the average number of accidents
(Mousavi and Gigerenzer, 2011)
Then he looks at the classical demonstration of framing, that is to say, the way people appear to be easily swayed by how the
same facts are "framed" or presented to the person who has to make a decision.
A patient suffering from a serious heart disease considers high-risk surgery and asks a doctor about its prospects.
The doctor can frame the answer in two ways:
Positive Frame: Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive.
Negative Frame: Five years after surgery, 10% of patients are dead.
Should the patient listen to how the doctor frames the answer? Behavioral economists say no because both frames are logically
equivalent (Kahneman, 2011). Nevertheless, people do listen. More are willing to agree to a medical procedure if the doctor uses
positive framing (90% alive) than if negative framing is used (10% dead) (Moxeyet al., 2003). Framing effects challenge the assumption
of stable preferences, leading to preference reversals. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) who presented the above surgery problem, concluded
that "framing works because people tend to be somewhat mindless, passive decisionmakers" (p. 40)
Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. If you know that you have a datum which is more influential. These are the sorts of questions patients
will often ask about, and discuss with other patients, or with several doctors. Furthermore, you don't have to spin a statistic.
You could simply say: "Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive and 10% are dead".
Gigerenzer gives an explanation which is very relevant to current discussions about the meaning of intelligence, and about the
power of intelligence tests:
In sum, the principle of logical equivalence or "description invariance" is a poor guide to understanding how human intelligence
deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence, the ability
to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)
The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias.
One important conclusion I draw from this entire paper is that the logical puzzles enjoyed by Kahneman, Tversky, Stanovich and
others are rightly rejected by psychometricians as usually being poor indicators of real ability. They fail because they are designed
to lead people up the garden path, and depend on idiosyncratic interpretations.
Critics of examinations of either intellectual ability or scholastic attainment are fond of claiming that the items are "arbitrary".
Not really. Scholastic tests have to be close to the curriculum in question, but still need to a have question forms which are simple
to understand so that the stress lies in how students formulate the answer, not in how they decipher the structure of the question.
Intellectual tests have to avoid particular curricula and restrict themselves to the common ground of what most people in a community
understand. Questions have to be super-simple, so that the correct answer follows easily from the question, with minimal ambiguity.
Furthermore, in the case of national scholastic tests, and particularly in the case of intelligence tests, legal authorities will
pore over the test, looking at each item for suspected biases of a sexual, racial or socio-economic nature. Designing an intelligence
test is a difficult and expensive matter. Many putative new tests of intelligence never even get to the legal hurdle, because they
flounder on matters of reliability and validity, and reveal themselves to be little better than the current range of assessments.
In conclusion, both in psychology and behavioural economics, some researchers have probably been too keen to allege bias in cases
where there are unsystematic errors, or no errors at all. The corrective is to learn about base rates, and to use natural frequencies
as a guide to good decision-making.
Don't bother boosting your IQ. Boost your understanding of natural frequencies.
Good concrete advice. Perhaps even more useful for those who need to explain things like this to others than for those seeking
to understand for themselves.
"intelligence deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence,
the ability to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)"
"The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias."
Actually I think this is an example of an increasingly common genre of malapropism, where the writer gropes for the right word,
finds one that is similar, and settles for that. The worst of it is that readers intuitively understand what was intended, and
then adopt the marginally incorrect usage themselves. That's perhaps how the world and his dog came to say "literally" when they
mean "figuratively". Maybe a topic for a future article?
In 2009 Google finished engineering a reverse search engine to find out what kind of searches people did most often. Seth Davidowitz
and Steven Pinker wrote a very fascinating/entertaining book using the tool called Everybody Lies
Everybody Lies offers fascinating, surprising, and sometimes laugh-out-loud insights into everything from economics to ethics
to sports to race to sex, gender, and more, all drawn from the world of big data. What percentage of white voters didn't vote
for Barack Obama because he's black? Does where you go to school effect how successful you are in life? Do parents secretly
favor boy children over girls? Do violent films affect the crime rate? Can you beat the stock market? How regularly do we lie
about our sex lives, and who's more self-conscious about sex, men or women?
Investigating these questions and a host of others, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz offers revelations that can help us understand
ourselves and our lives better. Drawing on studies and experiments on how we really live and think, he demonstrates in fascinating
and often funny ways the extent to which all the world is indeed a lab. With conclusions ranging from strange-but-true to thought-provoking
to disturbing, he explores the power of this digital truth serum and its deeper potential – revealing biases deeply embedded
within us, information we can use to change our culture, and the questions we're afraid to ask that might be essential to our
health – both emotional and physical. All of us are touched by big data every day, and its influence is multiplying. Everybody
Lies challenges us to think differently about how we see it and the world.
I shall treat this posting (for which many thanks, doc) as an invitation to sing a much-loved song: everybody should read Gigerenzer's
Reckoning with Risk. With great clarity it teaches what everyone ought to know about probability.
(It could also serve as a model for writing in English about technical subjects. Americans and Britons should study the English
of this German – he knows how, you know.)
Inspired by "The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students" I shall also sing another favorite song. Much of Psychology
is based on what small numbers of American undergraduates report they think they think.
" Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. "
This one reminds of the false dichotomy. The patient has additional options! Like changing diet, and behaviours such as exercise,
elimination of occupational stress , etc.
The statistical outcomes for a person change when the person changes their circumstances/conditions.
@Tom
Welsh A disposition (conveyance) of an awkwardly shaped chunk out of a vast estate contained reference to "the slither of
ground bounded on or towards the north east and extending two hundred and twenty four meters or thereby along a chain link fence "
Not poor clients (either side) nor cheap lawyers. And who never erred?
Better than deliberately inserting "errors" to guarantee a stream of tidy up work (not unknown in the "professional" world)
in future.
Good article. 79% of gynaecologists fail a simple conditional probability test?! Many if not most medical research papers use
advanced statistics. Medical doctors must read these papers to fully understand their field. So, if medical doctors don't fully
understand them, they are not properly doing their job. Those papers use mathematical expressions, not English. Converting them
to another form of English, instead of using the mathematical expressions isn't a solution.
Regarding witnesses: When that jet crashed into Rockaway several years ago, a high percentage of witnesses said that they saw
smoke before the crash. But there was actually no smoke. The witnesses were adjusting what they saw to conform to their past experience
of seeing movie and newsreel footage of planes smoking in the air before a crash. Children actually make very good witnesses.
Regarding the chart. Missing, up there in the vicinity of cancer and heart disease. The third-leading cause of death. 250,000
per year, according to a 2016 Hopkins study. Medical negligence.
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public toward
better behavior.
Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists"
from theirs.
So, behind the smoke of all words and rationalisations, the law is unchanged: everyone strives to gain and exert as much power
as possible over as many others as possible. Most do that without writing papers to say it is right, others write papers,
others books. Anyway, the fundamental law would stay as it is even if all this writing labour was spared, wouldn't it?
But then another fundamental law, the law of framing all one's drives as moral and beneffective comes into play the papers
and the books are useful, after all.
An interesting article. However, I think that the only thing we have to know about how illogical psychiatry is this:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed
homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain
it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance"
for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
The article makes no mention of the fact that no "new science" was brought to support the resolution.
It appears that the psychiatrists were voting based on feelings rather than science. Since that time, the now 50+ genders have
been accepted as "normal" by the APA. My family has had members in multiple generations suffering from mental illness. None were
"cured". I know others with the same circumstances.
How does one conclude that being repulsed by the prime directive of every
living organism – reproduce yourself – is "normal"? That is not to say these people are horrible or evil, just not normal. How
can someone, who thinks (s)he is a cat be mentally ill, but a grown man thinking he is a female child is not?
Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going
along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well.
Thank you for this article. I find the information about the interpretation of statistical data very interesting. My take on the
background of the article is this:
Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia.
Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental
data that is inconsistent with that theory.
Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is
false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances.
Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like
to refer to a whole book about it:
Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics".
As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the
way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because
they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?)
We live in a strange world in which such people have control over university faculties, journals, famous prizes. But at least
we have some scientists who defend their area of knowledge against the spreading nonsense produced by economists.
The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply
a perfect title.
..Trump HAS drained the swamp,,, right into his administration.
Look at what we in the US have to look forward to,,, tyrants on the left,,, tyrants on the
right. I suppose we deserve this but it doesn't do well for my blood pressure.
..Trump HAS drained the swamp,,, right into his administration.
Look at what we in the US have to look forward to,,, tyrants on the left,,, tyrants on the
right. I suppose we deserve this but it doesn't do well for my blood pressure.
"... Theresa May's immediate conclusion that the Russian government bears certain and sole responsibility for the nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals is logically, scientifically, and forensically impossible. ..."
"... Teresa May is lying, everyone who seconds her assertion of false certainty is lying, they all know they are lying, and the Russians know that they know they are lying. ..."
"... "War" is what they seem to want it to be. For the past 18 to 24 months, we've also been inundated with Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner's ominous "We have been attacked. We are at war," video, as well as the bipartisan ( Hillary Clinton , John McCain ) insistence that alleged Russian election meddling should be considered an "act of war" equivalent to Pearl Harbor . Indeed, Trump's new National Security advisor, the warmongering lunatic John Bolton, calls it , explicitly "a casus belli , a true act of war." ..."
"... Even the military is getting in on the act. The nerve-agent accusation has been followed up by General John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, accusing Russia of arming the Taliban! It's noteworthy that this senior American military general casually refers to Russia as "the enemy": "We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial support provided by the enemy." ..."
"... The economic war against Russian is being waged through a series of sanctions that seem impossible to reverse, because their expressed goal is to extract confession, repentance, and restitution for crimes ascribed to Russia that Russia has not committed, or has not been proven to have committed, or are entirely fictional and have not been committed by anyone at all. We will only stop taking your bank accounts and consulates and let you play games with us if you confess and repent every crime we accuse you of. No questions permitted. ..."
It's a relentless economic, diplomatic, and ideological war, spiced with (so far) just a
dash of military war, and the strong scent of more to come.
I mean war with Russia, of course, although Russia is the point target for a constellation
of emerging adversaries the US is desperate to entame before any one or combination of them
becomes too strong to defeat. These include countries like Iran and China, which are developing
forces capable of resisting American military aggression against their own territory and on a
regional level, and have shown quite too much uppitiness about staying in their
previously-assigned geopolitical cages.
But Russia is the only country that has put its military forces in the way of a U.S. program
of regime change -- indirectly in Ukraine, where Russia would not get out of the way, and
directly in Syria, where Russia actively got in the way. So Russia is the focus of
attack, the prime target for an exemplary comeuppance.
Is it, then, a new Cold War, even more dangerous than the old one, as Stephen F. Cohen
says ?
That terminology was apt even a few months ago, but the speed, ferocity, and
coordination of the West/NATO's reaction to the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of the
Skripals, as well as the formation of a War Cabinet in Washington, indicates to me that we've
moved to another level of aggression.
It's beyond Cold. Call it the Warm War. And the temperature's rising.
The Nerve of Them
There are two underlying presumptions that, combined, make present situation more dangerous
than a Cold War.
One is the presumption of guilt -- or, more precisely, the presumption that the presumption
of Russian guilt can always be made, and made to stick in the Western mind.
The confected furor over the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals demonstrates this
dramatically.
Theresa May's immediate conclusion that the Russian government bears certain and sole
responsibility for the nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals is logically, scientifically, and
forensically impossible.
False certainty is the ultimate fake news. It is just not true that, as she says: "There is
no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state is culpable." This falsity of this
statement has been demonstrated by a slew of sources -- including the
developers of the alleged "Novichok" agent themselves, a thorough
analysis by a former UN inspector in Iraq who worked on the destruction of chemical
weapons, establishment Western scientific outlets like New Scientist ("
Other countries could have made 'Russian' nerve agent "), and the British government's own
mealy-mouthed, effective-but-unacknowledged disavowal
of that conclusion. In its own words, The British government found: "a nerve agent or
related compound," " of a type developed by Russia." So, it's absolutely,
positively, certainly, without a doubt, Russian-government-produced "Novichok" .or something
else.
Teresa May is lying, everyone who seconds her assertion of false certainty is lying, they
all know they are lying, and the Russians know that they know they are lying. It's a
It boggles the -- or at least, my -- mind how, in the face of all this, anyone could take
seriously her ultimatum, ignoring the procedures of the
Chemical Weapons Convention , gave Russia 24 hours to "explain" -- i.e., confess and beg
forgiveness for -- this alleged crime.
Indeed, it's noteworthy that France initially, and rather sharply, refused to assume Russian
guilt, with a government spokesman saying, "We don't do fantasy politics. Once the elements are
proven, then the time will come for decisions to be made." But the whip was cracked -- and
surely not by the weak hand of Whitehall -- demanding EU/NATO unity in the condemnation of
Russia. So, in an extraordinary show of discipline that could only be ordered and orchestrated
by the imperial center, France joined the United States and 20 other countries in the largest
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats ever.
Western governments and their compliant media have mandated that Russian government guilt
for the "
first offensive use of a nerve agent " in Europe since World War II is to be taken as flat
fact. Anyone -- like Jeremy Corbyn or Craig Murray -- who
dares to interrupt the "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards!" chorus to ask for, uh, evidence,
is treated to a storm of obloquy
.
At this point, Western accusers don't seem to care how blatantly unfounded, if not
ludicrous, an accusation is. The presumption of Russian guilt, along with the shaming of anyone
who questions it, has become an unquestionable standard of Western/American political and media
discourse.
Old Cold War McCarthyism has become new Warm War fantasy politics.
Helled in Contempt
This declaration of diplomatic war over the Skripal incident is the culmination of an
ongoing drumbeat of ideological warfare, demonizing Russia and Putin personally in the most
predictable and inflammatory terms.
For the past couple of years, we've been
told by Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and
Boris Johnson that Putin is the new Hitler. That's a particularly galling analogy for the
Russians. Soviet Russia, after all, was Hitler's main enemy, that defeated the Nazi army at the
cost of 20+ million of its people -- while the British Royal Family was not
un-smitten with the charms of
Hitlerian fascism , and British footballers had a poignant moment in 1938 Berlin
saluting the Fuhre.:
"War" is what they seem to want it to be. For the past 18 to 24 months, we've also been
inundated with Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner's ominous "We have been attacked. We are at war,"
video, as well as the bipartisan (
Hillary Clinton ,
John McCain ) insistence that alleged Russian election meddling should be considered an
"act of war"
equivalent to Pearl Harbor . Indeed, Trump's new National Security advisor, the
warmongering lunatic John Bolton,
calls it , explicitly "a casus belli , a true act of war."
Even the military is getting in on the act. The nerve-agent accusation has been followed up
by General John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, accusing Russia of arming the Taliban! It's
noteworthy that this senior American military general casually refers to Russia as "the enemy":
"We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial
support provided by the enemy."
Which is strange, because, since the Taliban emerged from the American-jihadi war against
Soviet forces in Afghanistan, and the Taliban and Russia have "enduring enmity" towards each
other, as Kate Clark of the Afghanistan Analysts Network puts it . Furthermore, the sixteen-year-long
American war against the Taliban has depended on Russia allowing the U.S. to move
supplies through its territory, and being "the principal source of
fuel for the alliance's needs in Afghanistan."
So the general has to admit that this alleged Russian "destabilising activity" is a new
thing: "This activity really picked up in the last 18 to 24 months When you look at the timing
it roughly correlates to when things started to heat up in Syria. So it's interesting to note
the timing of the whole thing."
Yes, it is.
The economic war against Russian is being waged through a series of sanctions that seem
impossible to reverse, because their expressed goal is to extract confession, repentance, and
restitution for crimes ascribed to Russia that Russia has not committed, or has not been proven
to have committed, or are entirely fictional and have not been committed by anyone at all.
We will only stop taking your bank accounts and consulates and let you play games with us if
you confess and repent every crime we accuse you of. No questions permitted.
This is not a serious framework for respectful international relations between two sovereign
nations. It's downright childish. It paints everyone, including the party trying to impose it,
into an impossible corner. Is Russia ever going to abandon Crimea, confess that it shot down
the Malaysian jet, tricked us into electing Donald Trump, murdered the Skripals, is secretly
arming the Taliban, et. al .? Is the U.S. ever going to say: "Never mind"? What's the
next step? It's the predicament of the bully.
This is not, either, an approach that really seeks to address any of the "crimes" charged.
As Victoria Nuland (a Clintonite John Bolton) put it on NPR, it's about, "sending a message" to
Russia. Well, as Russia's ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov
said , with this latest mass expulsion of diplomats, the United States is, "Destroying what
little remained of US-Russian ties." He got the message.
All of this looks like a coordinated campaign that began in response to Russia's
interruption of American regime-change projects in Ukraine and especially Syria, that was
harmonized -- over the last 18 to 24 months -- with various elite and popular motifs of
discontent over the 2016 election, and that has reached a crescendo in the last few weeks with
ubiquitous and unconstrained " enemization " [1] of Russia.
It's hard to describe it as anything other than war propaganda -- manufacturing the
citizenry's consent for a military confrontation.
Destroying the possibility of normal, non-conflictual, state-to-state relations and
constituting Russia as "the enemy" is exactly what this campaign is about. That is its
"message" and its effect -- for the American people as much as for the Russia
government. The heightened danger, I think, is that Russia, which has for a long time been
reluctant to accept that America wasn't interested in "partnership", has now heard and
understood this message, while the American people have only heard but do not understand
it.
It's hard to see where this can go that doesn't involve military conflict. This is
especially the case with the appointments of Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel, and John Bolton -- a
veritable murderers' row that many see as the core of a Trump War Cabinet. Bolton, who does not
need Senate confirmation, is a particularly dangerous fanatic, who tried to
get the Israelis to attack Iran before even they wanted to, and has
promised regime change in Iran by 2019. As mentioned, he considers that Russia has already
given him a " casus belli. " Even the staid New York Timeswarns
that, with these appointments, "the odds of taking military action will rise dramatically."
The second presumption in the American mindset today makes military confrontation more
likely than it was during the Cold War: Not only is there a presumption of guilt, there is a
presumption of weakness . The presumption of guilt is something the American imperial
managers are confident they can induce and maintain in the Western world; the presumption of
weakness is one they -- or, I fear, too many of them -- have all-too blithely
internalized.
This is an aspect of the American self-image among policymakers whose careers matured in a
post-Soviet world. During the Cold War, Americans held themselves in check by the assumption,
that, militarily, the Soviet Union was a peer adversary, a country that could and would defend
certain territories and interests against direct American military aggression -- "spheres of
interest" that should not be attacked. The fundamental antagonism was managed with grudging
mutual respect.
There was, after all, a shared recent history of alliance against fascism. And there was an
awareness that the Soviet Union, in however distorted a way, both represented the possibility
of a post-capitalist future and supported post-colonial national liberation movements, which
gave it considerable stature in the world.
American leadership might have hated the Soviet Union, but it was not contemptuous of it. No
American leader would have called the Soviet Union, as John McCain called Russia, just "a gas
station masquerading as a country." And no senior American or British leader would have told
the Soviet Union what British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson told Russia last week: to "go
away and shut up."
This is a discourse that assumes its own righteousness, authority, and superior power, even
as it betrays its own weakness. It's the discourse of a frustrated child. Or bully. Russia
isn't shutting up and going away, and the British are not -- and know they're not -- going to
make it. But they may think the Big Daddy backing them up can and will. And daddy may think so
himself.
Like all bullies, the people enmeshed in this arrogant discourse don't seem to understand
that it is not frightening Russia. It's only insulting the country, and leading it to conclude
that there is indeed nothing remaining of productive, non-conflictual, US-Russian "partnership"
ties. The post-Skripal worldwide diplomatic expulsions, which seem deliberately and desperately
excessive, may have finally convinced Russia that there is no longer any use trying. Those who
should be frightened of this are the American people.
The enemy of my enemy is me.
The United States is only succeeding in turning itself into an enemy for Russians. Americans
would do well to understand how thoroughly their hypocritical and contemptuous stance has
alienated the Russian people and strengthened Vladimir Putin's leadership -- as many of Putin's
critics warned
them it would. The fantasy of stoking a "liberal" movement in Russia that will install some
nouveau-Yeltsin-ish figure is dissipated in the cold light of a 77% election day. Putin is
widely and firmly supported in Russia because he represents the resistance to any such
scheme.
Americans who want to understand that dynamic, and what America itself has wrought in
Russia, should heed the passion, anger, and disappointment in this statement about
Putin's election from a self-described "liberal" (using the word, I think, in the intellectual
tradition, not the American political, sense), Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT TV
(errors in translation by another person):
Essentially, the West should be horrified not because 76% of Russians voted for Putin, but
because this elections have demonstrated that 95% of Russia's population supports
conservative-patriotic, communist and nationalist ideas. That means that liberal ideas are
barely surviving among measly 5% of population.
And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never
surrender" mode
[W]ith all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to
stop respecting you. You and your so called "values."
We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we
wanted to live like you, but not any longer.
We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all
those people who support you.
For that you only have yourself to blame.
In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared
him an enemy, we united around him .
It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they
shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose
patriotism.
Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.
Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.
In fact, the whole "uprising"/color revolution strategy throughout the world is over. It's
been fatally discredited by its own purported successes. Everybody in the Middle East has seen
how that worked out for Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and the Russians have seen how it worked out
for Ukraine and for Russia
itself . In neither Russia nor Iran (nor anywhere else of importance) are the Americans,
with their sanctions and their NGOs and their
cookies ,going to stoke a popular uprising that turns a country into a fractured client of
the Washington Consensus. More fantasy politics.
The old new world Washington wants won't be born without a military midwife. The U.S. wants
a compliant Russia ( and "international community") back, and it thinks it can force it
into being.
Fear Knot
Consider this quote from
The Saker , a defense analyst who was born in Switzerland to a Russian military family,
"studied Russian and Soviet military affairs all [his] life," and lived for 20 years in the
United States. He's been one of the sharpest analysts of Russia and Syria over the last few
years. This was his take a year ago, after Trump's cruise missile attack on Syria's Al Shayrat
airfield -- another instant punishment for an absolutely, positively, proven-in-a day, chemical
crime:
For one thing, there is no US policy on anything.
The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began
saying that the Americans were
"недоговороспособны".
What that word means is literally "not-agreement-capable" or unable to make and then abide by
an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so
much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.
But to say that a nuclear world superpower is "not-agreement-capable" is a terrible and
extreme diagnostic.
This means that the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult,
sober and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with.
In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume
that everybody involved was what we called a "rational actor". The Soviets sure where. As
were the Americans.
Not only do I find the Trump administration "not agreement-capable", I find it completely
detached from reality. Delusional in other words.
Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear
chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear here: if pushed into a corner the
Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war.
There is a reason for this American delusion. The present generation of American leadership
was spoiled and addled by the blissful post-Soviet decades of American impunity.
The problem is not exactly that the U.S. wants full-on war with Russia, it's that
America does not fear it. [2]
Why should it? It hasn't had to for twenty years during which the US assumed it could bully
Russia to stay out of its imperial way anywhere it wanted to intervene.
After the Soviet Union broke up (and only because the Soviet Union disappeared) the
United States was free to use its military power with impunity. For some time, the U.S. had its
drunken stooge, Yeltsin, running Russia and keeping it out of America's military way. There was
nary a peep when Bill Clinton effectively conferred on NATO (meaning the U.S. itself) the
authority to decide what military interventions were necessary and legitimate. For about twenty
years -- from the Yugoslavia through the Libya intervention -- no nation had the military power
or politico-diplomatic will to resist this.
But that situation has changed. Even the Pentagon
recognizes that the American Empire is in a "post-primacy" phase -- certainly "fraying,"
and maybe even "collapsing." The world has seen America's social and economic strength
dissipate, and its pretense of legitimacy disappear entirely. The world has seen American
military overreach everywhere while winning nothing of stable value anywhere. Sixteen years,
and the mighty U.S. Army cannot defeat the Taliban. Now, that's Russia's fault!
Meanwhile, a number of countries in key areas have gained the military confidence and
political will to refuse the presumptions of American arrogance -- China in the Pacific, Iran
in the Middle East, and Russia in Europe and, surprisingly, the Middle East as well. In a
familiar pattern, America's resultant anxiety about waning power increases its
compensatory aggression. And, as mentioned, since it was Russia that most effectively
demonstrated that new military confidence, it's Russia that has to be dealt with first.
The incessant wave of sanctions and expulsions is the bully in the schoolyard clenching his
fist to scare the new kid away. OK, everyone's got the message now. Unclench or punch?
Let's be clear about who is the world's bully. As is evident to any half-conscious person,
Russia is not going to attack the United States or Europe. Russia doesn't have scores of
military bases, combat ships and aircraft up on America's borders. It doesn't have almost a
thousand military bases around the world. Russia does not have the military forces to rampage
around the world as America does, and it doesn't want or need to. That's not because of
Russia's or Vladimir Putin's pacifism, but because Russia, as presently situated in the
political economy of the world, has nothing to gain from it.
Nor does Russia need some huge troll-farm offensive to "destabilize" and sow division in
Western Europe and the United States. Inequality, austerity, waves of immigrants from
regime-change wars, and trigger-happy cops are doing a fine job of that. Russia isn't
responsible for American problems with Black Lives Matter or with the Taliban.
All of this is fantasy politics.
It's the United States, with its fraying empire, that has a problem requiring military
aggression. What other tools does the U.S. have left to put the upstarts, Russia first, back in
their places?
It must be hard for folks who have had their way with country after country for twenty years
not to think they can push Russia out of the way with some really, really scary threats, or
maybe one or two "bloody nose" punches. Some finite number of discrete little escalations.
There's already been some shoving -- that cruise missile attack, Turkey's downing of a Russian
jet, American attacks on Russian personnel (ostensibly private mercenaries) in Syria -- and,
look, Ma, no big war. But sometimes you learn the hard way the truth of the reverse Mike Tyson
rule: "Everyone has a game plan until they smack the other guy in the face."
Consider one concrete risk of escalation that every informed observer is, and every American
should be, aware of.
The place where the United States and Russia are literally, geographically, closest to
confrontation is Syria. As mentioned, the U.S. and its NATO ally, Turkey, have already attacked
and killed Russians in Syria, and the U.S. and its NATO allies have a far larger military force
than Russia in Syria and the surrounding area. On the other hand, Russia has made very
effective use of its forces, including what Reuters
calls "advanced cruise missiles" launched from planes,
ships , and
submarines that hit ISIS targets with high precision from 1000 kilometers.
Russia is also operating in accordance with international law, while the U.S. is not. Russia
is fighting with Syria for the defeat of jihadi forces and the unification of the Syrian state.
The United States is fighting with its jihadi clients for the overthrow of the Syrian
government and the division of the country. Russia intervened in Syria after Obama announced
that the U.S. would attack Syrian army troops, effectively declaring war. If neither side
accepts defeat and goes home, it is quite possible there will be some direct confrontation
over this. In fact, it's hard to imagine that there won't.
A couple of weeks ago Syria and Russia
said the U.S. was planning a major offensive against the Syrian government, including
bombing the government quarter in Damascus. Valery Gerasimov, head of Russia's General Staff,
warned: "In the event of a threat to the lives of our servicemen, Russia's armed forces will
take retaliatory measures against the missiles and launchers used." In this context,
"launchers" means American ships in the Mediterranean.
Also a couple of weeks ago, Russia announced a number of new, highly-advanced weapons
systems. There's discussion about whether some of the yet-to-be-deployed weapons announced
may or
may not
be a bluff, but one that has already been deployed, called Dagger ( Kinzhal, not the
missiles mentioned above), is an air-launched hypersonic cruise missile that files at 5-7,000
miles per hour, with a range of 1200 miles. Analyst Andrei Martyanov claims that: "no
modern or perspective air-defense system deployed today by any NATO fleet can intercept even a
single missile with such characteristics. A salvo of 5-6 such missiles guarantees the
destruction of any Carrier Battle Group or any other surface group, for that matter."
Air-launched. From anywhere.
The U.S. attack has not (yet) happened, for whatever reason (Sputnik reporter Suliman
Mulhem, citing "a military monitor," claims
that's because of the Russian warnings). Great. But given the current state of America's
anxiously aggressive "post-primacy" policy -- including the Russiamania, the Zionist-driven
need to destroy Syria and Iran, and the War Cabinet -- how unlikely is that the U.S. will, in
the near future, make some such attack on some such target that Russia considers crucial to
defend?
And Syria is just one theater where, unless one side accepts defeat and goes home, military
conflict with Russia is highly likely. Is Russia going to abandon the Russian-speaking people
of the Donbass if they're attacked by fascist Kiev forces backed by the U.S.? Is it going to
sit back and watch passively if American and Israeli forces attack Iran? Which one is going to
give up and accept a loss: John Bolton or Vladimir Putin?
Which brings us to the pointed question: What will the U.S. do if Russia sinks an American
ship? How many steps before that goes full-scale, even nuclear? Or maybe American planners (and
you, dear reader) are absolutely, positively sure that will never happen, because the U.S. has
cool weapons, too, and a lot more of them, and the Russians will probably lose all their ships
in the Mediterranean immediately, if not something worse, and they'll put up with anything
rather than go one more step. The Russians, like everybody, must know the Americans always
win.
Happy with that, are we? Snug in our homeland rug? 'Cause Russians won't fight, but the
Taliban will.
This is exactly what is meant by Americans not fearing war with Russia (or war in general
for that matter). Nothing but contempt.
The Skripal opera, directed by the United States, with the whole of Europe and the entire
Western media apparatus singing in harmony, makes it clear that the American producers have no
speaking role for Russia in their staging of the world. And that contempt makes war much more
likely. Here's The Saker again, on how
dangerous the isolation the U.S. and its European clients are so carelessly imposing on Russia
and themselves is for everybody:
Right now they are expelling Russian diplomats en mass e and they are feeling very
strong and manly.
The truth is that this is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg. In reality, crucial
expert-level consultations, which are so vitally important between nuclear superpowers, have
all but stopped a long time ago. We are down to top level telephone calls. That kind of stuff
happens when two sides are about to go to war. For many months now Russia and NATO have made
preparations for war in Europe. Very rapidly the real action will be left to the USA and
Russia. Thus any conflict will go nuclear very fast. And, for the first time in history, the
USA will be hit very, very hard, not only in Europe, the Middle-East or Asia, but also on the
continental US.
Mass diplomatic expulsions, economic warfare, lockstep propaganda, no interest whatsoever in
respectfully addressing or hearing from the other side. What we've been seeing over the past
few months is the "kind of stuff that happens when two sides are about to go to war."
The less Americans fear war, the less they respect the possibility of it, the more likely
they are to get it.
Ready or Not
The Saker makes a diptych of a point that gets to the heart of the matter. We'd do well to
read and think on it carefully:
1/ The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not.
2/ The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not.
Russia is afraid of war. More than twenty million Soviet citizens were
killed in WWII, about half of them civilians. That was more than twenty times the number of
Americans and British casualties combined. The entire country was devastated. Millions died in
the 872-day siege of Leningrad alone, including Vladimir Putin's brother. The city's population
was decimated by disease and starvation, with some reduced to cannibalism. Wikileaks calls it "one of the
longest and most destructive sieges in history [and] possibly the
costliest
in casualties." Another million-plus died in the nine-month siege of Stalingrad.
Every Russian knows this history. Millions of Russian families have suffered from it. Of
course, there was mythification of the struggle and its heroes, but the Russians, viscerally,
know war and know it can happen to them . They do not want to go through it
again. They will do almost anything to avoid it. Russians are not flippant about war. They fear
it. They respect it.
The Americans are not (afraid of war). Americans have never experienced anything
remotely as devastating as this. About 620,000 Americans died in the Civil War, 150 years ago.
(And we're still entangled in that!) The American mainland has not been attacked by a
significant military force since the War of 1812. Since then, the worst attacks on American
territory are two one-off incidents (Pearl Harbor and 9/11), separated by seventy years,
totaling about six-thousand casualties. These are the iconic moments of America Under
Siege.
For the American populace, wars are "over there," fought by a small group of Americans who
go away and either come back or don't. The death, destruction, and aroma of warfare -- which
the United States visits on people around the world incessantly -- is unseen and unexperienced
at home. Americans do not, cannot, believe, in any but the most abstract intellectual sense,
that war can happen here , to them. For the general populace, talk of war is just more
political background noise, Morgan Freeman competing for attention with Stormy Daniels and the
Kardashians.
Americans are supremely insouciant about war: They threaten countries with it incessantly,
the government routinely sells it with lies, and the political parties promote it
opportunistically to defeat their opponents -- and nobody cares. For Americans, war is part of
a game. They do not fear it. They do not respect it.
The Russians are ready for war. The Nazi onslaught was defeated -- in Soviet Russia,
by Soviet Citizens and the Red Army -- because the mass of people stood and fought together for
a victory they understood was important. They could not have withstood horrific sieges and
defeated the Nazis any other way. Russians understand, in other words, that war is a crisis of
death and destruction visited on the whole of society, which can only be won by a massive and
difficult effort grounded in social solidarity. If the Russians feel they have to fight, if
they feel besieged, they know they will have to stand together, take the hits that come, and
fight to the finish. They will not again permit war to be brought to their cities while their
attacker stays snug. There will be a world of hurt. They will develop and use any weapon they
can. And their toughest weapon is not a hypersonic missile; it's that solidarity, implied by
that 77%. (Did you read that Simonyan statement?) They may not be seeking it, but, insofar as
anybody can be, they are ready to fight.
Americans are not (ready for war): Americans experience the horror of wars as a
series of discrete tragedies visited upon families of fallen soldiers, reported in
human-interest vignettes at the end of the nightly news. Individual tragedies, not a social
disaster.
It's hard to imagine the social devastation of war in any case, but American culture wants
no part of thinking about that concretely. The social imagination of war is deflected into
fantastic scenarios of a super-hero universe or a zombie apocalypse. The alien death-ray may
blow up the Empire State Building, but the hero and his family (now including his or her
gender-ambivalent teenager, and, of course, the dog) will survive and triumph. Cartoon
villains, cartoon heroes, and a cartoon society.
One reason for this, we have to recognize, is the victory of the
Thatcherite/libertarian-capitalist "no such thing as society" ideology. Congratulations, Ayn
Rand, there is no such thing as American society now. It's every incipient entrepreneur
for him or herself. This does not a comradely, fighting band of brothers and sisters make.
Furthermore, though America is constantly at war, nobody understands the purpose of it.
That's because the real purpose can never be explained, and must be hidden behind some facile
abstraction -- "democracy," "our freedoms," etc. This kind of discourse can get some of the
people motivated for some of the time, but it loses its charm the minute someone gets smacked
in the face.
Once they take a moment, everybody can see that there is nobody with an army threatening to
attack and destroy the United States, and if they take a few moments, everybody can see how
phony the "democracy and freedom" stuff is and remember how often they've been lied to before.
There's just too much information out there. (Which is why the Imperial High Command wants to
control the internet.) Why the hell am I fighting? What in hell are we fighting
for? These are questions everybody will ask after, and too many people are now asking
before, they get smacked in the face.
This lack of social understanding and lack of political support translates into the
impossibility of fighting a major, sustained war that requires taking heavy casualties -- even
"over there," but certainly in the snug. American culture might be all gung-ho about Seal Team
Six kicking ass, but the minute American homes start blowing up and American bodies start
falling, Hoo-hah becomes Uh-oh , and it's going to be Outta here .
Americans are ready for Hoo-hah and the Shark Tank and the Zombie Apocalypse. They
are not ready for war.
You Get What You Play For
"Russiagate," which started quite banally in the presidential campaign as a Democratic arrow
to take down Trump, is now Russiamania -- a battery of weapons wielded by various sectors of
the state, aimed at an array of targets deemed even potentially resistant to imperial
militarism. Trump himself -- still, and for as long as he's deemed unreliable -- is targeted by
a legal prosecution of infinite reach (whose likeliest threat is to take him down for something
that has nothing to do with Russia). Russia itself is now targeted in full force by economic,
diplomatic, ideological -- and, tentatively, military -- weapons of the state. Perhaps most
importantly, American and European people, especially dissidents, are targeted by a unified
media barrage that attacks any expression of radical critique, anything that "sows division" --
from Black Lives Matter, to the Sanders campaign, to "But other countries could have made it"
-- as Russian treachery.
The stunning success of that last offensive is crucial to making a war more likely, and must
be fought. To increase the risk of war with a nuclear power in order to score points against
Donald Trump or Jill Stein -- well, only those who neither respect, fear, nor are ready for war
would do such a stupid and dangerous thing.
It's impossible to predict with certainty whether, when, or with whom a major hot war will
be started. The same chaotic disarray and impulsiveness of the Trump administration that
increases the danger of war might also work to prevent it. John Bolton may be fired before he
trims his moustache. But it's a pressure-cooker, and the temperature has spiked
drastically.
In a previous
essay , I said that Venezuela was a likely first target for military attack, precisely
because it would make for an easy victory that didn't risk military confrontation with Russia.
That's still a good possibility. As we saw with Iraq Wars 1 (which helped to end the "Vietnam
Syndrome") and 2 (which somewhat resurrected it), the imperial high command needs to inure the
American public with a virtually American-casualty-free victory and in order to lure them into
taking on a war that's going to hurt.
But the new War Cabinet may be pumped for the main event -- an attack on Iran. Trump,
Pompeo, and Bolton are all rabid proponents of regime-change in Iran. We can be certain
that the Iran nuclear deal will be scrapped, and everyone will work hard to implement the
secret agreementthe Trump administration already has with Israel to "to deal
with Iran's nuclear drive, its missile programs and its other threatening activities" -- or, as
Trump himself expresses it: "cripple the [Iranian] regime and bring it to collapse." (That
agreement, by the way, was negotiated and signed by the previous, supposedly not-so-belligerent
National Security Advisor, H. R. McMaster.)
Still, as I also said in the previous essay, an attack on Iran means the Americans must
either make sure Russia doesn't get in the way or make clear that they don't care if it
does. So, threatening moves -- not excluding probing military moves -- against Russia will
increase, whether Russia is the preferred direct target or not.
The siege is on.
Americans who want to continue playing with this fire would do well to pay some respectful
attention to the target whose face they want to smack. Russia did not boast or brag or threaten
or Hoo-Hah about sending military forces to Syria. When it was deemed necessary -- when
the United States declared its intention to attack the Syrian Army -- it just did it. And
American10-dimensional-chess players have been squirming around trying to deal with the
implications of that ever since. They're working hard on finding the right mix of threats,
bluffs, sanctions, expulsions, "Shut up and go away!" insults, military forces on the border,
and "bloody nose" attacks to force a capitulation. They should be listening to their target,
who has not tired of asking for a "partnership," who has clearly stated what his country would
do in reaction to previous moves (e.g., the abrogation of the ABM Treaty and stationing of ABM
bases in Eastern Europe), whose country and family have suffered from wartime devastation
Americans cannot imagine, who therefore respects, fears, and is ready for war in ways Americans
are not, and who is not playing their game:
[2]
Though it's ridiculous that it needs to be said: I'm not talking here about the phony fear
engendered by the media presentation of the "strongman," "brutal dictator" Vladimir Putin. This
is part and parcel of comic-book politics -- conjuring a super-villain, who, we all know, is
destined to be defeated. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jim Kavanagh
Neocon donors ask Trump for favors and he can't refuse... Trump foreign policy is a direct continuation of Bush II and Obama
foreign policy and is dominated by neocons, who rule the State Department. Pomeo is a rabid neocon, to the right of
Condoleezza Rice, Hillary and John Kerry. Actually anti-Iranian and pro-Israeli bias was clearly visible even during 2016
campaign, but few voters paid any attention. Now they should.
It is clear that Trump is the most pro-Israel President after Johnson.
Notable quotes:
"... In contrast, in the Middle East the president has been extraordinarily bellicose. In April, the Administration revoked waivers that allowed certain countries to buy oil from Iran without violating U.S. sanctions [ U.S. Won't Renew Sanction Exemptions For Countries Buying Iran's Oil , by Bill Chappell, NPR, April 22, 2019]. In early May, the president imposed new sanctions on Iranian metals, a direct threat to the regime's economic viability. ..."
"... The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War , by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign Policy, June 14, 2019]. ..."
"... Why Iran would do this is questionable, unless it's just a move of desperation. ..."
"... But did Iran actually do it? Washington has a credibility gap with the rest of the world and its own people thanks to the disaster of the Iraq War . There were, it turned out, no "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So now many Americans openly question whether Iran attacked these tankers. This includes some MSM reporters who trusted the "intelligence community" when it was attacking Trump but now want an "international investigation of the incident". [ Ben Rhodes, CNN, And Others Purposefully Fuel Pro-Iranian "False Flag Conspiracy Theories After Tanker Attacks , RedState, June 14, 2019] ..."
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in
2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats'
extremism. [ Trump Is
Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National
Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump
began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago --
but essentially nothing has been done.
Later that month, the president said a fight would mean "the official end of Iran" [
Trump threatens Iran With 'Official End' by Kenneth Walsh, US News and World
Report, May 20, 2019].
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either
accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum
pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War, by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign
Policy, June 14, 2019].
Why Iran would do this is questionable, unless it's just a move of desperation.
But did Iran actually do it? Washington has a credibility gap with the rest of the world and
its own people thanks to the disaster of the Iraq War
. There were, it turned out, no "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So now many Americans openly
question whether Iran attacked these tankers. This includes some MSM reporters who trusted the
"intelligence community" when it was attacking Trump but now want an "international
investigation of the incident". [ Ben Rhodes, CNN, And Others Purposefully Fuel Pro-Iranian "False Flag Conspiracy Theories
After Tanker Attacks, RedState, June 14, 2019]
This is not the same country that re-elected George W. Bush in 2004. The trust in
institutions is gone; America is war-weary.
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is
non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There's something perverse about even
entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It's akin
to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the Rhine.
Pompeo plays 'I've Got A Secret" during an interview with Margaret Brennan of CBS Face The
Nation, responding to a request for evidence that Iran was behind a Taliban attack on a US
convoy in Afghanistan. Pompeo had painted the Taliban-claimed attack as one of "a series of
attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and
allied interests."
QUESTION: One of the things when you were at the podium at the State Department earlier
this week you presented as a fact was an attack that was carried out in Kabul in May. The
Taliban said they carried it out, but you blamed Iran for it. What evidence do you have
that Iran was behind that attack?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We have confidence that Iran instigated this attack. I can't share any
more of the intelligence, but I wouldn't have said it if the Intelligence Community hadn't
become convinced that this was the case.
QUESTION: So there's more that you can't share with us to back that up?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. That's correct. . .
here
Juan Cole, an American academic and commentator on the modern Middle East and South Asia,
takes a look at that charge. Once Again Pompeo Displays Hopeless Ignorance of Sunni & Shiite, Iran and
Taliban
. . .Pompeo painted the incident as one of "a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic
Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests."
Pompeo's statement is so embarrassing as to be cringe-worthy. It is either a lie in the
service of war propaganda or a display of such bottomless ignorance on the part of
America's chief diplomat as to be grounds for impeachment (or perhaps just consignment to
an asylum). . . here
"... The actual Deep State are always the aristocrats, themselves, the people who run the revolving door between 'the private sector' (the aristocracy's corporations) and the government. ..."
"... All of the well-financed candidates for the top offices are actually the Deep State's representatives, and virtually none are the representatives of the public, because the voters have been deceived, and were given choices between two or more candidates, none of whom will represent the public if and when elected. ..."
"... Is that Democratic Party initiative anything else than insincere political theater, lying to their own gullible voters, just being phonies who manipulate voters to vote for them instead of who are actually serving them? ..."
"... Is that what democracy is, now: insincere political theater? Is that "democracy"? America's voters are trapped, by liars, so it's instead mere 'democracy'. It's just the new form of dictatorship. But it's actually as ancient as is any empire. ..."
"... Trump's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was just as evil, and just as insincere, as Trump, but only a far more skillful liar, who deceived his voters to think that he would fight corruption , work to improve relations with Russia , provide a public option in his health-insurance plan , and otherwise work to reduce economic inequality , to improve the economic situation for disadvantaged Americans , and to prosecute banksters . ..."
"... If the UK elect Jeremy Corbyn all bets are off, he will expose ALL corrupt politicians media and foreign powers. Why do you think there is such a concerted effort to prevent him gaining office, even Pompeo has said "the US will prevent him becoming PM" ..."
"... But they won't LET you decentralize, Annie. It doesn't suit them. Millions of others do indeed share your concern, but merely imagining a better system doesn't make it happen. It doesn't get through the layers and layers of entrenched investment in the current system, or through the layers and layers of ruthless militarism protecting it. Our enemy will never step aside and voluntarily make way for something worthy of the name, "society". ..."
"... By all measures: capitalism is due another crisis Taleb's Black Swan is in clear view we can expect the unexpected. No one can predict the timing or severity: but the debt hangover from GFC 1 makes GFC 2 look potentially worse. ..."
"... Trumps promises before the election about the trillions wasted in futile wars, and promising to redirect those trillions into US infrastructure etc, turned out to be outrageous lies. Here are some quotes from HL Mencken which in my opinion sum up the passengers in the out of control US clown car, Trump, Bolton, Pence and Pompeo. ..."
"... The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth. ..."
Every empire is a dictatorship. No nation can be a democracy that's either heading an empire, or a vassal-state of one. Obviously,
in order to be a vassal-state within an empire, that nation is dictated-to by the nation of which it is a colony.
By contrast, 'enemy' nations are ones that the imperial power has placed onto its priority-list of nations that are yet to
become conquered. There are two main reasons to conquer a nation. One is in order to be enabled to extract, from the colony,
oil, or gold, or some other valuable commodity. The other is in order to control it so as to be enabled to use that land as a passageway
for exporting, from a vassal-nation, to other nations, that vassal-nation's products.
International trade is the basis for any empire, and the billionaires who own controlling blocs of stock in a nation's international
corporations are the actual rulers of it, the beneficiaries of empire, the recipients of the wealth that is being extracted from
the colonies and from the domestic subjects. The idea of an empire is that the imperial nation's rulers, its aristocracy, extract
from the colonies their products, and they impose upon their domestic subjects the financial and military burdens of imposing their
international dictatorship upon the foreign subjects.
Some authors say that there is a "Deep State" and that it consists of (some undefined elements within) the intelligence services,
and of the military, and of the diplomatic corps, of any given dictatorship; but, actually, those employees of the State are merely
employees, not the actual governing authority, over that dictatorship.
The actual Deep State are always the aristocrats, themselves, the people who run the revolving door between 'the private sector'
(the aristocracy's corporations) and the government. In former times, many of the aristocrats were themselves governing officials
(the titled 'nobility'), but this is no longer common. Nowadays, the aristocracy are the individuals who own controlling blocs of
stock in international corporations (especially weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, because the only markets for
those corporations are the corporation's own government and its vassal states or 'allies'); and such individuals are usually the
nation's billionaires, and, perhaps, a few of the mere centi-millionaires.
A small number, typically less than 100, of these extremely wealthy individuals, are the biggest donors to politicians, and to
think tanks, and to other non-profits (these latter being also tax-write-offs to their donors, and so are tax-drains to the general
public) that are involved in the formation of the national government's policies.
Of course, they also are owners of and/or advertisers in the propaganda-media, which sell the aristocracy's core or most-essential
viewpoints to the nation's subjects in order to persuade those voters to vote only for the aristocracy's selected candidates and
not for any who oppose the aristocracy. These few, mainly billionaires, are the actual Deep State -- the bosses over the dictatorship,
the ultimate beneficiaries in any empire. In order to maintain this system, of international dictatorship or empire, the most essential
tool is deceit, of the electorate, by the aristocracy. The method of control is: the bought agents of the Deep State lie to the public
about what their polices will be if they win, in order to be able to win power; and, then, once they have won power, they do the
opposite, which is what they have always been paid by the Deep State (the aristocracy) to help them to do. Thereby, elections aren't
"democratic" but 'democratic': they are mere formalities of democracy, without the substance of democracy.
All of the well-financed candidates for the top offices are actually the Deep State's representatives, and virtually none
are the representatives of the public, because the voters have been deceived, and were given choices between two or more candidates,
none of whom will represent the public if and when elected. Here are some recent examples of this system -- the imperial system,
international dictatorship, in action: During Donald Trump's Presidential campaign,
he said :
The approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They're fighting each other and yet we're fighting
both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I've always felt
that. Assad is, you know I'm not saying Assad is a good man, 'cause he's not, but our far greater problem is not Assad, it's ISIS.
I think, you can't be fighting two people that are fighting each other, and fighting them together. You have to pick one or the
other."
Assad is allied with Russia against the Saudis (who are the chief ally of the U.S. aristocracy), so the U.S. (in accord with a policy
that
George Herbert Walker Bush had initiated on 24 February 1990 and which has been carried out by all subsequent U.S. Presidents)
was determined to overthrow Assad, but Trump said that he was strongly opposed to that policy. Months before that,
Trump had said :
I think Assad is a bad guy, a very bad guy, all right? Lots of people killed. I think we are backing people we have no idea who
they are. The rebels, we call them the rebels, the patriotic rebels. We have no idea. A lot of people think, Hugh, that they are
ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can't be fighting ISIS and fighting Assad. Assad is fighting ISIS. He is fighting
ISIS. Russia is fighting now ISIS. And Iran is fighting ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can't go -- and I watched
Lindsey Graham, he said, I have been here for 10 years fighting. Well, he will be there with that thinking for another 50 years.
He won't be able to solve the problem. We have to get rid of ISIS first. After we get rid of ISIS, we'll start thinking about
it. But we can't be fighting Assad. And when you're fighting Assad, you are fighting Russia, you're fighting -- you're fighting
a lot of different groups. But we can't be fighting everybody at one time."
In that same debate (15 December 2015) he also said:
In my opinion, we've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent
that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the
other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now. We have done a tremendous disservice,
not only to Middle East, we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have
wiped away, and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A total and complete
mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals,
roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart."
Did he do that? No. Did he instead intensify what Obama had been trying to do in Syria -- overthrow Assad -- yes.
As the U.S. President, after having won the 2016 Presidential campaign, has Trump followed through on his criticism there, against
the super-hawk, neoconservative, Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham? No. Did he instead encircle himself with precisely such
super-hawks, such neoconservatives? Yes.
Did he intensify the overthrow-Assad effort as Graham and those others had advocated? Yes.
Did America's war against Syria succeed? No.
Did he constantly lie to the voters? Yes, without a doubt.
Should that be grounds for impeaching him? A prior question to that one is actually: Would a President Mike Pence be any different
or maybe even worse than Trump? Yes.
So: what, then, would be achieved by removing Trump from office? Maybe it would actually make things a lot worse. But how likely
would the U.S. Senate be to remove Trump from office if the House did impeach Trump?
Two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would need to vote to remove the President in order for a President to be removed after being impeached
by the House. A majority of U.S. Senators, 53, are Republicans. If just 33 of them vote not to convict the President, then Trump
won't be removed. In order to remove him, not only would all 47 of the Democrats and Independents have to vote to convict, but 20
of the 53 Republicans would need to join them. That's nearly 40% of the Republican Senators.
How likely is that? Almost impossible.
What would their voters who had elected them back home think of their doing such a thing? How likely would such Senators face
successful re-election challenges that would remove those Senators from office? Would 20 of the 53 be likely to take that personal
risk?
Why, then, are so many Democrats in the House pressing for Trump's impeachment, since Trump's being forced out of the White House
this way is practically impossible and would only install a President Pence, even if it could succeed? Is that Democratic Party
initiative anything else than insincere political theater, lying to their own gullible voters, just being phonies who manipulate
voters to vote for them instead of who are actually serving them?
Is that what democracy is, now: insincere political theater? Is that "democracy"? America's voters are trapped, by liars,
so it's instead mere 'democracy'. It's just the new form of dictatorship. But it's actually as ancient as is any empire.
There's nothing new about this -- except one thing: the U.S. regime is aiming to be the ultimate, the last, the final, empire,
the ruler over the entire world; so, it is trying especially hard, 'to defend freedom, democracy and human rights throughout the
world', as Big Brother might say.
He abandoned each one of those stated objectives as soon as he won against John McCain, on 4 November 2008, and then yet more
when he defeated Mitt Romney in 2012.
And aren't some of those promises the same ones that candidate Trump had also advocated and then abandoned as soon as he too was
(s)elected ? THE THREAT
TO THE EMPIRE The heroic fighters for the freedom of everyone in the world are the whistleblowers, who report to the public the
corruption and evil that they see perpetrated by their superiors, their bosses, and perpetrated by people who are on the public payroll
or otherwise obtaining increased income by virtue of being selected by the government to become government contractors to serve an
allegedly public function.
All liars with power hate whistleblowers and want to make special examples of any part of the press that publishes their truths,
their facts, their stolen documents. These documents are stolen because that's the only way for them to become public and thereby
known to the voters so that the voters can vote on the basis of truths as in a democracy, instead of be deceived as in a dictatorship.
Even if the truth is stolen from the liars, instead of being kept private ("Confidential") for them, are the whistleblowers doing
wrong to steal the truth from the liars? Or, instead, are the whistleblowers heroes: are they the authentic guardians of democracy
and the precariously thin wall that separates democracy from dictatorship?
They are the latter: they are the heroes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of such heroes are also martyrs -- martyrs for truth,
against lies. Every dictatorship seeks to destroy its whistleblowers. That's because any whistleblower constitutes a threat to The
System -- the system of control. In all of U.S. history, the two Presidents who pursued whistleblowers and their publishers the most
relentlessly have been Trump and Obama.
The public are fooled to think that this is being done for 'national security' reasons instead of to hide the government's crimes
and criminality. However, not a single one of the Democratic Party's many U.S. Presidential candidates is bringing this issue, of
the U.S. government's many crimes and constant lying, forward as being the central thing that must be criminalized above all else,
as constituting "treason."
None of them is proposing legislation saying that it is treason, against the public -- against the nation. Every aristocracy tries
to deceive its public in order to control its public; and every aristocracy uses divide-and-rule in order to do this. But it's not
only to divide the public against each other (such as between Republicans versus Democrats, both of which are actually controlled
by the aristocracy), but also to divide between nations, such as between 'allies' versus 'enemies' -- even when a given 'enemy' (such
as Iraq in 2003) has never threatened, nor invaded, the United States (or whatever the given imperial 'us' may happen to be), and
thus clearly this was aggressive war and an international war-crime, though unpunished as such.
The public need to fear and hate some 'enemy' which is the 'other' or 'alien', in order not to fear and loathe the aristocracy
itself -- the actual source of (and winner from) the systemic exploitation, of the public, by the aristocracy.
The pinnacle of the U.S. regime's totalitarianism is its ceaseless assault against Julian Assange, who is the uber-whistleblower,
the strongest protector for whistleblowers, the safest publisher for the evidence that they steal from their employers and from their
employers' government. He hides the identity of the whistleblowers even at the risk of his own continued existence.
... ... ...
On 20 May 2019, former British Ambassador Craig Murray (who had quit so that he could blow the whistle) headlined
"The Missing Step" and argued that
the only chance that Assange now has is if Sweden refuses to extradite Assange to the US in the event that Britain honors the Swedish
request to extradite him to Sweden instead of to the US (The decision on that will now probably be made by the
US agent Boris Johnson instead of by the regular Tory Theresa
May.)
How can it reasonably be denied that the US is, in fact (though not nominally) a
dictatorship ?
All of its allies are thus vassal-nations in its empire. This means acquiescence (if not joining) in some of the US regime's frequent
foreign coups and invasions; and this means their assisting in the spread of the US regime's control beyond themselves, to include
additional other countries.
It reduces the freedom, and the democracy, throughout the world; it spreads the US dictatorship internationally. That is what
is evil about what in America is called "neoconservatism" and in other countries is called simply "imperialism." Under American reign,
it is now a spreading curse, a political plague, to peoples throughout the world. Even an American whistleblower
about Ukraine who lives in the
former Ukraine is being targeted by
the US regime .
This is how the freedom of everyone is severely threatened, by the US empire -- the most deceitful empire that the world has ever
experienced. The martyrs to its lies are the canaries in its coal mine. They are the first to be eliminated.
Looking again at that rank-ordered list of 23 countries, one sees the US and eight of its main allies (or vassal-nations), in
order: US, UK, Canada, Poland, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, Japan, France, Indonesia. These are countries where the subjects are already
well-controlled by the empire. They already are vassals, and so are ordained as being 'allies'.
At the opposite end, starting with the most anti-US-regime, are: S. Africa, India, Russia, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, S. Korea,
Turkey. These are countries where the subjects are not yet well-controlled by the empire, even though the current government in some
of them is trying to change its subjects' minds so that the country will accept US rule.
Wherever the subjects reject US rule, there exists a strong possibility that the nation will become placed on the US regime's
list of 'enemies'. Consequently, wherever the residents are the most opposed to US rule, the likelihood of an American coup or invasion
is real. The
first step
toward a coup or invasion is the imposition of sanctions against the nation. Any such nation that is already subject to them
is therefore already in danger.
Any such nation that refuses to cooperate with the US regime's existing sanctions -- such as against trading with Russia, China,
Iran, or Venezuela -- is in danger of becoming itself a US-sanctioned nation, and therefore officially an 'enemy'. And this is why
freedom and democracy are ending. Unless and until the US regime itself becomes conquered -- either domestically by a second successful
American Revolution (this one to eliminate the domestic aristocracy instead of to eliminate a foreign one), or else by a World War
III in which the US regime becomes destroyed even worse than the opposing alliance will -- the existing insatiable empire will continue
to be on the war-path to impose its dictatorship to everyone on this planet.
ANDREW CLEMENTS
This should be taught in schools'
I will get my coat
Ramdan
"Our only hope is to organize the overthrow of the corporate state that vomited up Trump. Our democratic institutions, including
the legislative bodies, the courts and the media, are hostage to corporate power. They are no longer democratic. We must, like
liberation movements of the past, engage in acts of sustained mass civil disobedience and non-cooperation. By turning our ire
on the corporate state, we name the true sources of power and abuse. We expose the absurdity of blaming our demise on demonized
groups such as undocumented workers, Muslims, African-Americans, Latinos, liberals, feminists, gays and others. We give people
an alternative to a Democratic Party that refuses to confront the corporate forces of oppression and cannot be rehabilitated.
We make possible the restoration of an open society. If we fail to embrace this militancy, which alone has the ability to destroy
cult leaders, we will continue the march toward tyranny." Chris Hedges
Andrew Paul
Surely, as well as some billionaires and centi-millionaires, there are other perhaps more institutionalised individuals with power
to dispose of much even more clandestine wealth hidden in black budgets operated by and for the interests of unaccountable military
and intelligence services in the putative empire, and there is also 'organised crime' and there are wealthy religious organisations,
and these too can strongly influence politicians and the public opinion-forming 'narrative' shaping this false 'democracy' in
the name of an elitist, highly hierarchical, socially as well as environmentally destructive global empire under full spectrum
dominance.
At the global level the most viable alternative to this, I suggest, and barring destructive world war (but perhaps following
a US and even a UK civil war, unfortunately), will be a world federation or confederation with a high council at which all cultures
and social interest-groups, great and small, of this world are properly, and preferably directly democratically, represented.
Many thanks for the food for thought here.
Yarkob
"So: what, then, would be achieved by removing Trump from office? Maybe it would actually make things a lot worse."
See: Saddam Hussein
mark
We could get President Pocahontas or President Buttplug instead.
ANDREW CLEMENTS
President silence of the pestilent
Wilmers31
We see a merger today between Raytheon and United Technologies. Here one para from 0hedge:
"Of course, there is a simpler way to boost profit margins that avoids cutting costs – just boost revenue, which of course
would require war. Luckily, the Trump admin's neocon hawks are doing everything in their power to make sure that that's precisely
what happens as the stock of the combined company will continue its relentless levitation."
Don't let them use you – don't enlist. Freedom might still be ended, but less profitable for them.
mark
As another man at another time asked, "What is to be done?"
The power of the billionaires, their bought and paid for politicians, and their servile media need to be broken.
In living memory, tax rates in the UK and US reached 98% and 91% respectively. There's no need to go back anywhere near those
confiscatory levels, just ensure those people do actually pay SOME taxes. Last year, Amazon and Netflix should have paid over
$16 billion in taxes. They paid nothing – they were actually given rebates of over $4 billion. Boeing hasn't paid a cent in taxes
for 15 years. The same applies to a rogues' gallery of all the big boys, Google, Starbucks, General Electric, Boots, to name but
a few. Profits are made to disappear and turned into losses by financial sleight of hand. An inflated level of debt is incurred
to finance share buy backs instead of R&D, reinvestment and training. Trillions are salted away illegally in tax havens. The working
and middle classes, 99.9% of the population, endure decades of austerity, declining wages, salaries and benefits, disappearing
pensions, endemic insecurity. Rocketing house prices, Ł500,000 for a crappy one bed London flat. Children unable to leave home.
Education and health privatised or becoming so. All public services or formerly public services declining to third world standards.
A level of inequality not seen since Dickensian times. A financialised, spiv and shyster economy. A parasitic financial elite
bleeding productive businesses dry, committing crime with impunity, and looting the public Treasury of untold trillions. Criminal
wars of aggression abroad, taking the lives and destroying the future of tens of millions.
All this and much more needs to be changed.
But how?
Easier said than done. But is it?
We have seen what happens when anger and outrage are mobilised into an irresistible force.
This can happen surprisingly easily.
Things like the MPs expenses scandal, the Gilets Jaunes in France, Brexit in the UK, Trump in the US, political chaos in the EU.
whatever you think of those developments, one way or another. The elites have a very tenuous grip on power, which can be broken
quite easily.
All of the above characteristics of our present system can be changed by public pressure. It can be done.
Tax avoidance and tax havens can be closed down. If the big boys can't see which way the wind is blowing, they will do after a
few of them are jailed. Anything that works against the public interest targeted for radical change. Public utilities and rail
companies that fail to clean up their act properly regulated and if necessary nationalised. Housing and health treated as human
needs and human rights. The NHS and a massive post war social housing programme went ahead though the country was completely bankrupt.
It is a question of will and priorities. All this can be done. It is doable. All it needs is the mobilisation of sufficient outrage.
And there are many recent examples of this.
Frank Poster
"The elites have a very tenuous grip on power, which can be broken quite easily.
All of the above characteristics of our present system can be changed by public pressure. It can be done."
Easily? Sorry Mark, I agree with your sentiments but there's nothing easy about it whatsoever, and you must be living on a
different planet to me, sorry to say – let's examine each of your examples –
MPs expenses scandal : minimal effect, the buggers carry on, and with a self-appointed overseer.
Gilets Jaunes : smashed, sadly.
Brexit : this is not democracy, it's a US / neocon hijack of Britain.
Trump : Enriching the rich even more.
Political chaos in the EU : it's a US tactic to "shake the tree" and knock the confidence in the EU, it became too strong
a competitor for the US. Divide and conquer is their game with the EU. Tariffs will follow, and they are doing exactly the same
to China, and indeed Russia.
It's sad that the most common social purpose in European modern history is being attacked not only by the right wing nutters,
but also the blinkered Trotskyists on the left.
mark
You're right about some of the outcomes. The point I was trying to make is that it's not possible to paper over the cracks any
more. People realise that they have been lied to and the system does not work for them, if it ever did. This may sound nebulous,
but it has an effect. The credibility and influence of the MSM has been shredded by its own mendacity and lack of integrity. This
has far reaching consequences which may not be readily apparent on a day to day basis. But it is important. The same applies to
all the institutions and organs of the state. The world is becoming increasingly turbulent and unstable, and support for elites
and the systems they represent is dwindling rapidly. The whole economic and financial system is like a house of cards. At such
times, change that had previously been inconceivable becomes inevitable. Of course, there is no guarantee that these changes will
be positive, like Russia in 1917 or Germany in 1933.
Frank Poster
Pfff, what happened to the new OffG function to be able to edit one's posts, it's disappeared!
OffG
It vanished during our DoS attack – we haven't managed to get it back yet. Infuriating, I know.
Clearly explained analysis of the deep shit we're all in. Unfortunately tho I don't see a second American revolution breaking
out anytime soon. I think the large majority have been too crushed by the system; many working 2 or 3 jobs just to survive, many
a couple paychecks away from being homeless, many living in cars or under bridges, and sadly, the large large majority lap up
the propaganda spewed out by the stenographers. And believe it. Which leaves us with the next option for stopping this evil blood
drenched Empire. And that is probably where we're heading. Scary times Eric.
mark
You may be right, GP. When I lived in America I was quite shocked by the low standard of living of very many people. Working 2
or 3 jobs, unable to run a car, health care completely out of their reach, living in houses like wooden shacks. Even buying food
a problem. Completely ignorant of the outside world.
Half a million are now homeless, with third world shanty towns next to the gated developments of the rich, the streets covered
with human faeces, TB, typhoid and tapeworm becoming major problems.
What I see is this becoming worse and forming a critical mass, when it can no longer be ignored. As such, there are grounds
for optimism. Things becoming so bad that they can no longer be tolerated. Perhaps that is unrealistic, I don't know.
George
"Working 2 or 3 jobs, unable to run a car, health care completely out of their reach, living in houses like wooden shacks. Even
buying food a problem. Completely ignorant of the outside world."
Appreciate both your comments Mark, and yes, the Gilets Jaunes are probably the best current example of people fighting back against
the system and saying Enough. I've never been to the UK so can't really judge from first hand experience, know the situation in
United States by a fair bit of reading on the levels of poverty and precariousness state many live in, tho here in Australia the
levels of cognitive dissonance, apathy and groupthink (derived from mainstream media) seem very high, and I speak to lots of people
while out selling The Big Issue mag. About the angriest people get here is griping about Aussie politicians. I don't get any sense
of anger or disgust at the Actual economic system.
wardropper
"Things becoming so bad that they can no longer be tolerated" ?
Nothing a couple more wars couldn't fix, Mark
mark
You may be right, but the outcome of any wars that are currently being threatened, Iran, Venezuela, DPRK, Russia, China, would
be the final nail in the coffin of the AngloZionist Empire.
wardropper
My greatest worry is that this AngloZionist Empire doesn't care about anything at all – not even the nails in their own coffin.
They fondly imagine some kind of capitalistic "rapture" is going to whisk them off to "Money Heaven" and we will be left with
their crap and their puke all over our planet.
I no longer think it's exaggerated to talk of demonic beings here, and if they are not demonic, then why are they acting
as if they were?
nwwoods
FWIW, Tulsi Gabbard uttered a full-throated defense of both Assange and Manning.
Steve
It has to be remembered that Assange is an Australian and Manning was born in West Wales to a UK mother. These countries must
stand up for their citizens.
nwwoods
Given the recent federal police raids on Australian journalists, it seems unlikely that Australia will be coming to the aid of
Julian Assange any time soon.
Yes this is true. Tulsi Gabbard is the real deal and a bellwether of the current corrupt system and its stupefying echo chambers.
She has no chance at the moment, but that's not the point. She exposes the corruption of the aristocracies and their corrupt system
and shills.
As we are here. Take the Fruadian Tulsi ticks all their supposed PC boxes and yet their is no mention of her anywhere. But
"Creepy Joe" Biden who epitomises the corrupt entitlement the system offers is reported on add nauseum.
As the Fraud, can't attack her it appears they can't report on her either. So her good campaign work is reported on the alt
media, you know where the fake stuff is!
So there you have it, a perfect example of a faux feedback loop
Oh, and excellent article by Eric as well.
Frank Poster
She won't last long then, unfortunately.
nwwoods
No, I am hoping that the DNC doesn't change the rules in order to block her from at least the first round of televised debate.
But I'm not holding my breath.
BTW, I read somewhere that DNC intends to split the first (D) debate into two groups, ostensibly because of the ridiculous
number of candidates, which stands at 24, last I looked.
DNC is going to make certain that only centrist liberals are on the same debate stage with Joe Biden, "the only real progressive
in the race" (in his own words).
Bernie and Tulsi will probably be dining at the kids table, if at all.
Of course, they also are owners of and/or advertisers in the propaganda-media, which sell the aristocracy's core or most-essential
viewpoints to the nation's subjects in order to persuade those voters to vote only for the aristocracy's selected candidates
and not for any who oppose the aristocracy.
These few, mainly billionaires, are the actual Deep State -- the bosses over the dictatorship, the ultimate beneficiaries
in any empire.
the rest of Assange is a lie
What Mr. Mossange did in these media which promoted him? Who he worked for? for Arab Springs? for Rothschilds? What he did
on tea in The Economics, Guardian, NYT, The Bild etc.? What?
Einstein
Excellent piece.
DunGroanin
JA is a thorn in their side.
JC is a stake through their heart.
The v'empires fear is palpable.
Neither the throwing of the book or the kitchen sinks full of shit at their nemesises is working, as these polls demonstrate.
Hillarious. Bring on the much delayed GE.
wardropper
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but, frankly, it's been a long time since a GE fixed anything
Elections, as I think George Carlin said, are only there to make us think we have a voice.
Steve
If the UK elect Jeremy Corbyn all bets are off, he will expose ALL corrupt politicians media and foreign powers. Why do you
think there is such a concerted effort to prevent him gaining office, even Pompeo has said "the US will prevent him becoming PM"
wardropper
I think there is a misunderstanding here, Steve. I couldn't agree with you more, especially about the concerted efforts (which
I noticed a long time ago) to prevent Corbyn from gaining office.
My "wet-blanket" point is really only connected with your last quote from Pompeo, "The US will prevent him becoming PM". Surely
no one today is under any illusions as to whether Pompeo means what he says, much as I would love to throw a spanner in his works.
Nothing would please me more, either, than to learn that I had been overly pessimistic. But I still have no doubts that Pompeo
could and would fix any election that suited him. He has already admitted, in another context, to lying, cheating, stealing and
killing.
Rhisiart Gwilym
Pompous Hippo, TIGW – The Insane Geriatric Walrus, Donny Les Tweets, Elliott Demon, Veryfew Pence and the rest of the delusional
criminal inadequates of the DCSwamp may be against JC and wish to stop him, but – judging by their steadily-increasing ineffectualness
on the world stage (how're those regime changes in Syria and Venezuela going? how's the bankrupting-Russia-with-sanctions going?)
– they may not be too effective at preventing his entry to Downing Street.
wardropper
I pray you're right. Those dull-witted thugs may indeed be increasingly ineffectual, but the fact that they are still committed
to their insane agenda continues to cost the world a great deal of suffering.
different frank
People will be the good sheeple that the establishment want them to be.
They will vote who they are told to vote for.
Hate who they are told to hate.
Fear who they are told to fear.
Devoid of all independent thought. Forever sleeping. Always conforming. Always consuming. The sheeple serve their establishment
masters well. maybe a crumb will fall from the big table. They can fight each other for that. good sheep. baaa
kevin morris
We're all sheeple!
wardropper
Assange isn't.
Annie Besant
I will first quote the final passage from your tract which reads "Unless and until the US regime itself becomes conquered -- either
domestically by a second successful American Revolution (this one to eliminate the domestic aristocracy instead of to eliminate
a foreign one), or else by a World War III in which the US regime becomes destroyed even worse than the opposing alliance will
-- the existing insatiable empire will continue to be on the war-path to impose its dictatorship to everyone on this planet."
Whist it has not yet sunk in to the heads of the faceless perpetrators within the Hegemon, it is true to say that a much greater
proportion, the greater percentage of humanity are now enlightened to the truth that should a global nuclear conflict break out,
either by accident or design, there would be no living person remaining to gloat over the spoils.
This is where "American Exceptionalism" meets its nemesis, for at that moment all their power, influence, wealth, and vanity
would evanesce as the towers of Mammon are reduced to rubble. Even their nuclear bunkers would provide no safe haven and there
would be even less time for them to come to their senses, for we are contemplating the total extinction of the human species here.
Even in the face of an almost overwhelming resignation to fate, I am well aware that I am not alone in the belief that our
planet will survive until that time when our sun ceases to exist. Perhaps we can share Mr Zuess's suggestion that the key to our
survival here is by "domestic revolution" whereby within national limits, any country can create a groundswell of solidarity working
to find a humane fix for the broken socio-economic system which thrives on the incompetence of dysfunctional leaders. This can
be brought about by de-centralisation in matters of how our citizens are governed, rather than the current situation where our
citizens are controlled and monitored, both in public and in private.
Localised government, informed by local people, can address all the issues in respect of which there are many who currently
feel disempowered and thereby render themselves vulnerable to the general apathy and malaise that is fertile ground for the mischief
of authority. This is a matter of systemic transformation and it is taking place right now with innumerable (largely unreported)
peace, education, economic and apolitical bodies. Working together on a global basis, realising the interconnectedness of our
lives, we will replicate the chain reaction of an atomic device. However, in our case it will be the gradual acceleration of our
energies, all directed towards the betterment of all our mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters on this planet who ask for one
thing, and one thing only – that being an end to all this narcissism, cowardice, arrogance and greed, that are the dramatic personae
for this litany of misery which has been inflicted by devilish forces upon the masses of humanity over centuries. No matter how
small or insignificant my personal effort is here, I am now convinced that there are millions of others who feel the same. This
is why the movement is growing at such a pace. When all our creative, and positively directed energies eventually coalesce we
will approach the point of critical mass. At that time we will see the brainwashed troops of the military hegemon suddenly attain
enlightenment and throw down their weapons – and the cowards who have previously been in control will flee to exile on some nice
sunny beach. This is going to happen because I have already seen it.
wardropper
But they won't LET you decentralize, Annie. It doesn't suit them. Millions of others do indeed share your concern, but
merely imagining a better system doesn't make it happen. It doesn't get through the layers and layers of entrenched investment
in the current system, or through the layers and layers of ruthless militarism protecting it. Our enemy will never step
aside and voluntarily make way for something worthy of the name, "society".
Somebody, somewhere, sometime, is going to have to insist.
BigB
Annie is absolutely right: I think we need to start looking ahead. Neoliberal capitalism is dead: it cannot be revived because
there are neither the mineral or energy primary resource assets left for permanent expansionism. Monetizing debt is short term
firefighting – fighting fire with fire, debt with debt. We need to stop thinking like capitalists: assessing consciousness and
wellbeing against fake GDP and monetized debt prosperity and start thinking as humanists. Like Annie.
By all measures: capitalism is due another crisis Taleb's Black Swan is in clear view we can expect the unexpected. No
one can predict the timing or severity: but the debt hangover from GFC 1 makes GFC 2 look potentially worse.
Then capitalism has one more shot of adrenaline (more easing; ZIRPS; savings 'haircuts'; going cashless; potentially a change
in reserve) then what? Fascism or socialism. Angry people make for fascism. Peaceful people make for socialism. Materialism won't
be that much of an option: apart from the grotesque levels of conspicuous ersatz wealth that will build up in the meantime.
Capitalism is time-limited and finite: humanism is time-independent and limitless. We chose to measure our wealth and happiness
in terms of finite resources that were bound to run short. Perhaps now we can turn to the one non-finite resource we have overlooked
– ourselves?
wardropper
Philosophically, I'm with you 100%, BigB.
But it's also the crux of your own matter as to where the mechanisms for choosing either fascism or socialism really are in
our current system.
Many of us here want to know what to DO, rather than merely pass judgment on what is wrong.
For example, by nature, I am very inclined to follow Annie's path, but we have to know exactly what is the nature of the colossal
resistance we will definitely encounter. Will we be stuck in jail, or even "permanently disappeared", because we can think for
ourselves?
Or will the media simply keep up their current assault on our intelligence and education until, after a decade or two, nobody
is left who could rub two coherent sentences together?
harry law
Trumps promises before the election about the trillions wasted in futile wars, and promising to redirect those trillions into
US infrastructure etc, turned out to be outrageous lies. Here are some quotes from HL Mencken which in my opinion sum up the passengers
in the out of control US clown car, Trump, Bolton, Pence and Pompeo.
The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently
are those who try to tell them the truth.
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the
prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest,
insane, and intolerable.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
"... The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid. ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it. ..."
"... This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies. ..."
"... Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag". ..."
"... As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that. ..."
"... If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual? ..."
"... The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation. The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency. ..."
"... But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp. ..."
The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack
a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in
https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions
were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most
powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid.
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far
fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it.
This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they
are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies.
You mean "Mr. We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole"? What a disgraceful character...
pic.twitter.com/pMtAgKaZcG
Then there are the many problems of their "proof".
Where is the video of the Iranians PLACING explosives & detonating them? Removal would be prudent by any Navy/CG. Also location
of explosives is VERY high off waterline ...Weird. It's not a limpet mine, it's a demo charge. Had to be put on by fairly high
boat w/ a long gaff/pole https://t.co/3qzB7TrrYv
The distress call went out at 6 am. So, according to CENTCOM's analysis of this video, they're suggesting that 10 hours after
the tanker was hit, the IRGC just casually pulled up to the tanker to remove unexploded limpet mine in broad daylight?!
The Japanese company that owns the ship has refused to cooperate in this
false flag mission.
But in remarks to Japanese media, the president of the company that owns the ship said the vessel wasn't damaged by a mine. "A
mine doesn't damage a ship above sea level," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the vessel.
"We aren't sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship," he said.
Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag".
Finally, there is the question of "why"?
What would Iran hope to accomplish by this? I found one
establishment source that tried to rationalize.
Iran denied responsibility, with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif descending to bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag
operation by Israel's Mossad.
If you're not inclined to believe the Trump administration – and such skepticism is entirely reasonable – most detectives would
still tell you that the most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime.
To those seeking logic behind the attacks, though, it may be hard to see why Iran would do this – but that assumes that the
regime in Tehran is a rational actor.
The Gulf of Oman attacks are especially hard to explain: targeting Japanese shipping on the very day that Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe was meeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on a well-publicized peace mission would seem extraordinarily counterproductive, even
for a regime with an almost fanatical commitment to self-harm.
Have you ever noticed that everyone that we want to start a war with is crazy? Regimes that stand solid for generations under
hostile conditions are always run by maniacs. You'd think that insanity would prevent them from taking power in the first place,
but that seems to only be true with our allies.
As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories
involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that.
Since the U.S.'s tightening of sanctions has squeezed Iranian oil exports, nobody else's should be allowed to pass through
waters within reach of the IRGC.
The Iranians know that these threats, if repeated, can lose their power if not followed with action. The attacks on the tankers,
then, can be explained as a demonstration that Khamenei's attack dogs have some teeth.
There is another rationale. If Iran does eventually agree to negotiate with the U.S., it will want to bring some bargaining
chips to the table – something it can exchange for the removal of sanctions. In the negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran
was able to offer the suspension of its nuclear program. It doesn't have that particular chip now, although Tehran has recently
threatened to crank up the centrifuges again.
Meanwhile, the regime may have calculated that the only way to secure some kind of negotiating position is blackmail: End the
sanctions, or we take out some more tankers, and send oil prices surging.
This almost sounds logical, except for one thing: Iran tried that in 1988 and it didn't work. It only caused the one thing the
U.S. was itching for: to kill some Iranians.
Do you think that they've forgotten? Or that the U.S. is less warlike? Oh wait. Iranians are crazy and can't be reasoned with, amirite?
US public radio @NPR does not mention it was Iranians
who saved the crew. That's how terrible they are at journalism
-- boomerWithaLandline (@Irene34799239)
June 14, 2019
The only real question is, why such a transparent lie? Has the ruling elite gotten lazy or stupid? Or do they think that we are
that lazy and stupid? I have an alternative
theory .
For the last two years, as you've probably noticed, the corporate media have been not so subtly alternating between manufacturing
Russia hysteria and Nazi hysteria, and sometimes whipping up both at once. Thus, I've dubbed the new Official Enemy of Freedom
"the Putin-Nazis." They don't really make any sense, rationally, but let's not get all hung up on that. Official enemies don't
have to make sense. The important thing is, they're coming to get us, and to kill the Jews and destroy democracy and something
about Stalin, if memory serves. Putin is their leader, of course. Trump is his diabolical puppet. Julian Assange is well, Goebbels,
or something. Glenn Greenwald is also on the payroll, as are countless "useful idiots" like myself, whose job it is to sow division,
discord, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, anti-Hillaryism, collusion rejectionism, ontological skepticism, and any other
horrible thing you can think of.
Their bullsh*t lies have gotten lazy and stupid because real effort isn't required to start a war and kill a lot of people.
That is the question, I ask thee? If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo,
Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual?
The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation.
The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible
weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency.
My money, the little that I have, is on either the Saudis or the Israelis; maybe even both.
But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but
this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp.
The US was always the way Orlov describes its future. It only ever belonged to those who
could keep their heads above water. You go under, and you're gone forever, and very quickly
forgotten. I don't recommend it as a social system, but that's the system.
But the people, within that system. the people are great people, with remarkable moral
fiber, in situations they understand. Those who are breathing air and not water can
rightfully enjoy the company of these others, even though many of those others might lately
be breathing an air-water mixture – and perhaps even oneself.
It's a poignant thing, these United States. The people are as good as anywhere, but only
as trained as their culture tells them to be. Perhaps the future holds some spark of
brightness for the people. They were always a transcendent bunch, actually, in a culture
founded on spiritual independence – despite all the overlay of consumerist crap.
Somehow they uniquely evolved the means of ignoring that crap – playing the TV in the
background, for example, while reading college studies – in order to live decent
lives.
It's possible this long-remote karma of spiritual longing might still hold some embers.
Perhaps the people of the US might rediscover the power of sincere prayer? The power of
sincerity? Time alone will tell.
"... The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in Southeast Asia. ..."
There have always been people who have tried to gain power and control. The only
distinction was the mechanism through which they planned to achieve it: brute force or
something more original. For example, researchers manipulate data to attain the results they
want, while traders try to manipulate and influence market prices by disseminating erroneous
information. Some go even further by conducting so-called "false flag" and "fake news"
operations.
However, it is a gradual process. First, the technique of misinformation is implemented
– as you may remember, in 2016, the Internet was filled with fake news aimed at
distorting public opinion and helping one of the candidates to become president of the United
States of America. This year, intelligence agencies and non-government entities have decided to
use similar ploys to influence oil prices.
According to Wikipedia, a
false flag is "intentional misrepresentation or covert operation designed to deceive; the
deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for
some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility." Recently it became popular for
countries to "organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations
or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign
military or economic aggression."
Recently there were news report that two oil tankers had been damaged in a suspected attack
in the waters between the United Arab Emirates and Iran as they were leaving the Persian Gulf.
And predictably, the United States claimed that Iran was responsible for
damaging the vessels in the Gulf of Oman. This was the second such incident in four weeks.
The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from
saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the
consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took
place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in
Southeast Asia.
Iran has already accused the US of lying about a "torpedo attack" on an American-linked oil
tanker. "The US and its regional allies must stop warmongering and put an end to mischievous
plots and false-flag operations in the region," Iran's mission to the United Nations said .
As history has shown, the Americans won't back down. Does it mean that Iran is next on its
target list for war? Only time will tell.
Nevertheless, without waiting for the results of an investigation, Brent prices spiked after the reports
of the attacks on tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.
The Brent
crude quote won 4.45% on Thursday, shortly after news of the attacks broke, but it has
since slightly decreased, or, should we say, corrected. Without any doubt, someone managed to
put up a really good million-dollar front.
"... Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many conflicts. ..."
"... Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval required). ..."
"... Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process? ..."
"... In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped at least 26,172 bombs in seven countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital," the U.S. and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600 civilians, according to Amnesty International . ..."
"... U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945, which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least 600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term effects of cluster munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may well have exceeded one million.) ..."
"... the U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger , as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to yet more destruction. ..."
"... Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results. ..."
"... Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year. ..."
"... No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured," bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to end. ..."
"... A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror: the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh insurgents to strike. ..."
"... Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam. ..."
"... Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational awareness ." ..."
"... Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial power projection than with national defense ..."
"... Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens wars rather than shortening them. ..."
"... Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures -- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those being bombed become more resilient and resolute. ..."
"... Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the moral high ground in war. ..."
"... all the happy talk about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results. ..."
"... War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own turf. ..."
From Syria to Yemen in the Middle East, Libya to Somalia in Africa, Afghanistan to Pakistan
in South Asia, an American aerial curtain has descended across a huge swath of the planet. Its
stated purpose: combatting terrorism. Its primary method: constant surveillance and bombing --
and yet more bombing.
Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so
American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many
conflicts.
Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now
declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and
munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval
required).
Its reality for various foreign peoples: a steady diet of "
Made in USA " bombs and missiles bursting here, there, and everywhere.
Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars
are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of
ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process?
For many of America's decision-makers, air power has clearly become something of an
abstraction. After all, except for the 9/11 attacks by those four hijacked commercial
airliners, Americans haven't
been the target of such strikes since World War II. On Washington's battlefields across the
Greater Middle East and northern Africa, air power is always almost literally a one-way affair.
There are no enemy air forces or significant air defenses. The skies are the exclusive property
of the U.S. Air Force (and allied air forces), which means that we're no longer talking about
"war" in the normal sense. No wonder Washington policymakers and military officials see it as
our strong suit, our asymmetrical
advantage , our way of settling scores with evildoers, real and imagined.
Bombs away!
In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and
missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data
supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped
at least 26,172 bombs in seven
countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital,"
the U.S. and its allies dropped more than
20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to
literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600
civilians, according to
Amnesty International .
Meanwhile, since Donald Trump has become president, after claiming that he would get us out
of our various never-ending wars, U.S. bombing has surged, not only against the Islamic State
in Syria and Iraq but in
Afghanistan as well. It has driven up the
civilian death toll there even as "friendly" Afghan forces are sometimes mistaken for the
enemy
and killed , too. Air strikes from Somalia
to
Yemen have also been on the rise under Trump, while civilian casualties due to U.S. bombing
continue to be
underreported in the American media and
downplayed by the Trump administration.
U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945,
which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later
that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least
600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term
effects of cluster
munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to
conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may
well have exceeded one million.) Today's air strikes are more limited than in those past
campaigns and may be more accurate, but never confuse a 500-pound bomb with a surgeon's
scalpel, even rhetorically. When " surgical " is applied to bombing in today's
age of lasers, GPS, and other precision-guidance technologies, it only obscures the very real
human carnage being produced by all these American-made bombs and missiles.
This country's propensity for believing that its ability to rain hellfire from the sky provides a
winning methodology for its wars has proven to be a fantasy of our age. Whether in Korea in the
early 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s, or more recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the
U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case
of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful
non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even
when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger
, as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes
to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to
yet more destruction.
Such results are contrary to the rationale for air power that I absorbed in a career spent
in the U.S. Air Force. (I retired in 2005.) The fundamental tenets of air power
that I learned, which are still taught today, speak of decisiveness. They promise that air
power, defined as "flexible and versatile," will have "synergistic effects" with other military
operations. When bombing is "concentrated," "persistent," and "executed" properly (meaning not
micro-managed by know-nothing politicians), air power should be fundamental to ultimate
victory. As we used to insist, putting bombs on target is really what it's all about. End of
story -- and of thought.
Given the banality and vacuity of those official Air Force tenets, given the
twenty-first-century history of air power gone to hell and back, and based on my own experience
teaching such history and strategy in and outside the military, I'd like to offer some air
power tenets of my own. These are the ones the Air Force didn't teach me, but that our leaders
might consider before launching their next "decisive" air campaign.
Ten Cautionary Tenets
About Air Power
1. Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with
relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World
War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results.
2. Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would
have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. American air
power pulverized both North Korea and Vietnam (not to speak of neighboring
Laos and Cambodia ), yet the Korean War ended in a stalemate and the Vietnam War in
defeat. (It tells you the world about such thinking that air power enthusiasts, reconsidering
the Vietnam debacle, tend to argue the U.S. should have bombed even more -- lots
more .) Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the
Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year.
3. No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured,"
bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of
innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such
killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to
end.
Consider, for instance, the "decapitation" strikes launched against Iraqi autocrat Saddam
Hussein and his top officials in the opening moments of the Bush administration's invasion of
2003. Despite the hype about that being the beginning of the most precise air campaign in all
of history, 50 of those attacks, supposedly based on the best intelligence around, failed to
take out Saddam or a single one of his targeted officials. They did, however, cause "dozens"
of civilian deaths. Think of it as a monstrous repeat of the precision air attacks launched
on Belgrade in 1999 against Slobodan Milosevic and his
regime that hit the Chinese
embassy instead, killing three journalists.
Here, then, is the question of the day: Why is it that, despite all the "precision" talk
about it, air power so regularly proves at best a blunt instrument of destruction? As a
start, intelligence is often faulty. Then bombs and missiles, even "smart" ones, do go
astray. And even when U.S. forces actually kill high-value targets (HVTs), there are
always more HVTs out there. A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror:
the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air
strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh
insurgents to strike.
4. Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely
works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's
presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a
graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to
give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam.
Fast-forward to our era and consider recent signals sent to North
Korea and
Iran by the Trump administration via B-52 bomber deployments, among other military
"messages." There's no evidence that either country modified its behavior significantly in
the face of the menace of those
baby-boomer-era airplanes.
5. Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their
munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. Similarly, in the
present moment, making operational and then maintaining Lockheed Martin's boondoggle
of a jet fighter, the F-35, is expected to cost at least
$1.45 trillion over its lifetime. The new B-21 stealth bomber will cost more than $100 billion
simply to buy. Naval air wings on aircraft carriers cost billions each year to maintain and
operate. These days, when the sky's the limit for
the Pentagon budget, such costs may be (barely) tolerable. When the money finally begins to
run out, however, the military will likely suffer a serious hangover from its wildly
extravagant spending on air power.
6. Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command
of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational
awareness ." It can instead prove to be a kind of delusion, while war practiced in
its spirit often becomes little more than an exercise in destruction. You simply can't
negotiate a truce or take prisoners or foster other options when you're high above a
potential battlefield and your main recourse is blowing up people and things.
7. Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial
power projection than with national defense . As such, it fuels imperial ventures, while
fostering the kind of "
global reach, global power " thinking that has in these years had Air Force generals in
its grip.
8. Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens
wars rather than shortening them. Consider Vietnam again. In the early 1960s, the Air
Force argued that it alone could resolve that conflict at the lowest cost (mainly in American
bodies). With enough bombs, napalm, and defoliants, victory was a sure thing and U.S. ground
troops a kind of afterthought. (Initially, they were sent in mainly to protect the airfields
from which those planes took off.) But bombing solved nothing and then the Army and the
Marines decided that, if the Air Force couldn't win, they sure as hell could. The result was
escalation and disaster that left in the dust the original vision of a war won quickly and on
the cheap due to American air supremacy.
9. Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact
over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures
-- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those
being bombed become more resilient and resolute.
10. Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the
moral high ground in war.
The Road to Perdition
If I had to reduce these tenets to a single maxim, it would be this: all the happy talk
about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability
to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results.
For this reason, precision warfare is truly an oxymoron. War isn't precise. It's nasty,
bloody, and murderous. War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency
to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are
guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to
air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own
turf.
Who doesn't know the old riddle: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear
it, does it make a sound? Here's a twenty-first-century air power variant on it: If foreign
children die from American bombs but no U.S. media outlets report their deaths, will anyone
grieve? Far too often, the answer here in the U.S. is no and so our wars go on into an endless
future of global destruction.
In reality, this country might do better to simply ground its many fighter planes, bombers, and
drones. Paradoxically, instead of gaining the high ground, they are keeping us on a low road to
perdition.
In December of 2017, Daniel Ellsberg published a book,
"The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" . Among many other things,
he revealed the actual Strangelovian nature of our military establishment. Most enlightening
is his revelation that many in the high command of our nuclear triggers do not trust, or even
have contempt for, civilian oversight and control of the military. They covertly regard the
presidential leadership as naïve and inept, though it would be professional suicide to
admit such an attitude openly.
Comes now 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕹𝖊𝖜
𝖄𝖔𝖗𝖐 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 with the
revelation that the Pentagon's Cyber Command has attacked Russia's power grid with software
"implants" designed to destroy that grid the instant a mouse click is given, thereby possibly
initiating global war. Most alarmingly, the details of this secret action were kept from the
President, lest he countermand the operation or leak it to the Russians.
So now we have a general staff that is conducting critical international military
operations on its own, with no civilian input, permission or hindrances of any kind. A
formula for national suicide, executed by a tiny junta of unelected officers who decide to
play nuclear Russian roulette.
We seem to be ineluctably and irreversibly trapped in a state of national dementia.
Just remember this: The U.S. had the technological advantage in Viet Nam, and blasted that
country, along with Cambodia, and Laos, with 7.5 million tons of bombs, (more than the entire
WWII campaign of 2.25 million tons), and the Vietnamese were still able to kick our *** out
of the country by 1975.
There is a 11th tenet: air force operations need airports or aircraft carriers, and these
are very vulnerable to modern, high precision missiles. If the enemy has plenty of missiles,
your fighters and bombers can be impeded to take off and land, or even be destroyed. Modern
aircrafts need very sophisticated and working infrastructures to be operational.
In the case of a full war with Iran, I see all hostile bases and airports destroyed or
damaged by Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian missiles. They have tens of thousand of them - it is
30 years they have been accumulating missiles in prevision of a possible forthcoming war.
You are right. Also, there are many nations with subs and probably more countries have
acquired nukes than are willing to admit. I strongly suspect Iran already has nukes. If North
Korea has them, I see no reason that Iran wouldn't be even further ahead. They have been
under threat of US attacks for my entire lifetime. Anyway, I would not put it past some other
countries to hit US coastal cities and then deny any knowledge about who did it. There are
many capable and many people have been made enemies by our foreign policy. Surely these
people have treaties to help each other should be attack. And why would they make these
treaties public and antagonize the US military further. I'm sure there are many well kept
secrets out there. We must evolve, or the US and Israel could find it is us against the
world.
War is hell. It has always been so. The failure here is that since World War II all US
wars have been fatuously political. Actions have not been taken to win but to posture about
moral greatness and the ability to force the enemy to deal without destroying his capacity to
resist.
How can you say the US lost in Vietnam when the entire country could have been removed
from the face of the Earth? Yes the price of such removal would have been very high but it
could have been done. Do such considerations mean that if one withdraws one has lost?
The US won the war in the Pacific but it is now considered an excessive use of force that
the US used nuclear weapons to conclude the war. Perhaps the US did not use enough force then
to successfully conclude the Vietnam war? Perhaps, it failed to field the right kind of
force?
The definition of lost is an interesting one. The practical answer is that the US did lose
in many places because it was unwilling to pay the price of victory as publicly expressed.
Yet it could have won if it paid the price.
So an interesting question for military types is to ask how to lower the price. What kind
of weapons would have been needed to quickly sweep the enemy into oblivion in Vietnam let us
say, given the limits of the war? Could the war have been won without ground troops and
choppers but with half a million computer controlled drones armed with machine guns and
grenades flying in swarms close to the ground?
The factories to produce those weapons could have been located in Thailand or Taiwan or
Japan and the product shipped to Vietnam. Since only machines would be destroyed and the
drones are obviously meant to substitute for ground troops then how about a million or two
million of the drones in place of the half a million ground troops? Could the US, with
anachronistic technology to be sure, have won the war for a price that would have been
acceptable to the US?
The idea here is that one constructs an army, robot or otherwise, than can destroy the
enemy it is going to fight at a price which is acceptable. This is actually a form of
asymmetric warfare which requires a thorough understanding of the enemy and his capabilities.
The US did not enter Vietnam with such an army but with one not meant to serve in Vietnam and
whose losses would be deeply resented at home. The price of victory was too high.
But this does not mean that the US cannot win. It only means that the commitment to win in
a poorly thought out war must be great enough to pay the price of victory. This may be a
stupid thing to do but it does not mean that it cannot be done. One cannot assume that the US
will never again show sufficient commitment to win.
Victory means you get to write your own ******** version of history.The most devastating
civilian bombing campaign in human history is not even mentioned in this article. The US fire
bombing of 30 major cities in Korea with the death toll estimated at between 1.2 million and
1.6 million. I bet most US citizens aren't even aware of this atrocity or that the military
requested Truman to authorize the use of nuclear warheads which he, thankfully, declined to
do.
What does the word "victory" mean? It means whatever the rulers want it to mean. In this
case, "victory" is synonymous with prolongation and expansion of warmaking around the world.
Victory does not mean an end to combat. In fact, victory, in the classic sense, means defeat,
at least from the standpoint of those who profit from war. If someone were to come up with a
cure for cancer, it would mean a huge defeat for the cancer industry. Millions would lose
their jobs. CEO's would lose their fat pay packages. Therefore, we need to be clearheaded
about this, and recognize that victory is not what you think it is.
Talked with a guy recently. He is a pilot. He flies planes over Afghanistan. He is a
private contractor.
The program began under the Air Force. It then was taken over by the Army. It is now a
private contractor.
There are approx 400 pilots in country at a time with 3 rotations. He told me what he gets
paid. $200,000 and up.
They go up with a NSA agent running the equipment in back. He state that the dumbass
really does not know what the plane is capable of. They collect all video, audio, infrared,
and more? (You have to sense when to stop asking questions)
I just wanted to know the logistics of the info gathered.
So, the info is gathered. The NSA officer then gets with the CIA and the State Dept to see
what they can release to the end user. The end user is the SOCOM. After it has been through
review then the info is released to SOCOM.
So with all of this info on "goatherders" we still cannot pinpoint and defeat the "enemy"?
No. Too many avenues of profit and deceit and infighting. It will always be. May justice here
and abroad win in the end.
Concentrate on the true enemies. It is not your black, or Jewish, or brown, or Muslim
neighbor. It is the owners of the Fed, Dow chemical, the Rockefellers, McDonnel Douglas and
on and on and on and on and on and on..............
The ROAD to perdition passes through APARTHEID Israhell.
"It does not take a genius to figure out that the United States... has no vital
interests at stake in places like Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq. Who is driving the process
and benefiting? Israel is clearly the intended beneficiary... " – Philip Giraldi,
Former CIA officer.
There is a
report that the Trump administration may be preparing an attack on Iran:
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the
tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant
discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to
President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
If this report is true, that would mean that the worst of the Iran hawks in the
administration are prevailing once again. The report goes on to say that "Trump himself was not
enthusiastic about a military move against Iran, but lost his patience on the matter and would
grant Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is pushing for action, what he wants." If that is
true, that is an absurdly casual way to blunder into an unnecessary war. Trump should
understand that if he takes the U.S. into a war against Iran, especially without Congressional
authorization, it will consume the rest of his presidency and it should cost him his
re-election. Starting an unnecessary war with Iran would go down as one of the dumbest, most
reckless, illegal acts in the history of U.S. foreign policy.
Congress must make absolutely clear that the president does not have the authority to
initiate hostilities against Iran. Both houses should pass a resolution this week saying as
much, and they should block any funds that could be used to support such an action. There is no
legal justification for attacking Iran, and if Trump approves an attack he would be violating
the Constitution and should be impeached for it.
The risk of war with Iran is greater than it was six months ago, and it is much greater than
it was two and a half years ago when Trump took office. The U.S. and Iran are in this dangerous
position solely because of the determined efforts of Iran hawks in and around this
administration to drive our country on a collision course with theirs. Those efforts
accelerated significantly thirteen months ago with the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the
reimposition of sanctions, and things have been getting steadily worse with each passing month.
It is not too late to avert the collision, but it requires the U.S. to make a dramatic change
in policy very soon. Since we know we can't count on the president to make the right decision,
Congress and the public need to make him understand what the political price will be if he
makes the wrong one.
"... For the United States, as for all warlike nations, military power has traditionally been the decisive factor determining whether it wins or loses its campaigns to capture or subdue other countries. World War II was the climax of that bloody history. ..."
"... It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the regime-change era in the early 1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called the "New Look," rested on two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look" had a third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe that no one would ever discover what he sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change operations, much less explained why he favored them. ..."
For most of history, seizing another country or territory was a straightforward proposition.
You assembled an army and ordered it to invade. Combat determined the victor. The toll in death
and suffering was usually horrific, but it was all done in the open. That is how Alexander
overran Persia and how countless conquerors since have bent weaker nations to their will.
Invasion is the old-fashioned way.
When the United States joined the race for empire at the end of the 19th century, that was
the tactic it used. It sent a large expeditionary force to the Philippines to crush an
independence movement, ultimately killing some 200,000 Filipinos. At the other end of the
carnage spectrum, it seized Guam without the loss of a single life and Puerto Rico with few
casualties. Every time, though, U.S. victory was the result of superior military power. In the
few cases when the United States failed, as in its attempt to defend a client regime by
suppressing Augusto Cesar Sandino's nationalist rebellion in Nicaragua during the 1920s and
30s, the failure was also the product of military confrontation. For the United States, as for
all warlike nations, military power has traditionally been the decisive factor determining
whether it wins or loses its campaigns to capture or subdue other countries. World War II was
the climax of that bloody history.
After that war, however, something important changed. The United States no longer felt free
to land troops on every foreign shore that was ruled by a government it disliked or considered
threatening. Suddenly there was a new constraint: the Red Army. If American troops invaded a
country and overthrew its government, the Soviets might respond in kind. Combat between
American and Soviet forces could easily escalate into nuclear holocaust, so it had to be
avoided at all costs. Yet during the Cold War, the United States remained determined to shape
the world according to its liking -- perhaps more determined than ever. The United States
needed a new weapon. The search led to covert action.
A news agency
During World War II the United States used a covert agency, the Office of Strategic
Services, to carry out clandestine actions across Europe and Asia. As soon as the war ended, to
the shock of many OSS agents, Harry Truman abolished it. He believed there was no need for such
an agency during peacetime. In 1947 he changed his mind and signed the National Security Act,
under which the Central Intelligence Agency was established. That marked the beginning of a new
era. Covert action replaced overt action as the principal means of projecting American power
around the world.
Truman later insisted that he had intended the CIA to serve as a kind of private global news
service. "It was not intended as a 'Cloak & Dagger Outfit!'" he wrote. "It was intended
merely as a center for keeping the President informed on what was going on in the world [not]
to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized." Nonetheless
he did not hesitate to use the new CIA for covert action. Its first major campaign, aimed at
influencing the 1948 Italian election to ensure that pro-American Christian Democrats would
defeat their Communist rivals, was vast in scale and ultimately successful -- setting the
pattern for CIA intervention in every Italian election for the next two decades. Yet Truman
drew the line at covert action to overthrow governments.
The CIA's covert-action chief, Allen Dulles, twice proposed such projects. In both cases,
the target he chose was a government that had inflicted harm on corporations that he and his
brother, John Foster Dulles, had represented during their years as partners at the globally
powerful Wall Street law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. In 1952 he proposed that the CIA
overthrow President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala, whose government was carrying out land reform
that affected the interests of United Fruit. By one account, State Department officials "hit
the roof" when they heard his proposal, and the diplomat David Bruce told him that the
Department "disapproves of the entire deal." Then Dulles proposed an operation to overthrow
Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran, who had nationalized his country's oil industry.
Secretary of State Dean Acheson flatly rejected it.
White House resistance to covert regime-change operations dissolved when Dwight Eisenhower
succeeded Truman at the beginning of 1953. Part of the new administration's enthusiasm came
from Allen Dulles, Washington's most relentless advocate of such operations, whom Eisenhower
named to head the CIA. The fact that he named Dulles's brother as secretary of State ensured
that covert operations would have all the necessary diplomatic cover from the State Department.
During the Dulles brothers' long careers at Sullivan & Cromwell, they had not only learned
the techniques of covert regime change but practiced them. They were masters at marshaling
hidden power in the service of their corporate clients overseas. Now they could do the same
with all the worldwide resources of the CIA.
It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the regime-change era in the early
1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called
the "New Look," rested on two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look" had a
third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe that no one would ever discover what he
sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change
operations, much less explained why he favored them. He would, however, have had at least two reasons.
Since Eisenhower had commanded Allied forces in Europe during World War II, he was aware of
the role that covert operations such as breaking Nazi codes had played in the war victory --
something few other people knew at the time. That would have given him an appreciation for how
important and effective such operations could be. His second reason was even more powerful. In
Europe he had had the grim responsibility of sending thousands of young men out to die. That
must have weighed on him. He saw covert action as a kind of peace project. After all, if the
CIA could overthrow a government with the loss of just a few lives, wasn't that preferable to
war? Like most Americans, Eisenhower saw a world of threats. He also understood that the threat
of nuclear war made overt invasions all but unthinkable. Covert action was his answer. Within a
year and a half of his inauguration, the CIA had deposed the governments of both Guatemala and
Iran. It went on to other regime-change operations from Albania to Cuba to Indonesia.
Successive presidents followed his lead.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was once again free to launch
direct military invasions. When it found a leader it didn't like -- such as Saddam Hussein or
Muammar Qaddafi -- it deposed him not through covert action, but by returning to the approach
it had used before World War II: the force of arms. Covert efforts to overthrow governments
have hardly ceased, as any Iranian or Venezuelan could attest. The era when covert action was
America's principal weapon in world affairs, however, is over. That makes this a good time to
look back.
Metrics for covert action
Books about the Cold War heyday of covert action era are a mini-genre. Lindsey A. O'Rourke's
contribution is especially valuable. Unlike many other books built around accounts of CIA
plots, Covert Regime Change takes a scholarly and quantitative approach. It provides
charts, graphs, and data sets. Meticulous analysis makes this not the quickest read of any book
on the subject, but certainly one of the best informed. Chapters on the disastrous effort to
overthrow communist rule in Eastern Europe, which cost the lives of hundreds of deceived
partisans, and on the covert-action aspects of America's doomed campaign in Vietnam are
especially trenchant.
O'Rourke identifies three kinds of covert operations that are aimed at securing perceived
friends in power and keeping perceived enemies out: offensive operations to overthrow
governments, preventive operations aimed at preserving the status quo, and hegemonic operations
aimed at keeping a foreign nation subservient. From 1947 to 1989, by her count, the United
States launched 64 covert regime-change operations, while using the overt tool -- war -- just
six times. She traces the motivations behind these operations, the means by which they were
carried out, and their effects. Her text is based on meticulous analysis of individual
operations. Some other books about covert action are rip-roaring yarns. This one injects a dose
of
rigorous analysis into a debate that is often based on emotion. That rigor lends credence to
her conclusions:
When policymakers want to conduct an operation that they know violates international
norms, they simply conduct it covertly to hide their involvement.
Covert missions typically have lower potential costs than their overt counterparts, but
they are also less likely to succeed.
Can interveners acquire reliable allies by covertly overthrowing foreign governments?
Overall, I find the answer is no. Covert regime changes seldom worked out as intended.
The new leader's opponents often accused him of being a U.S. puppet and, in some cases,
even took up arms against the regime. In fact, approximately half of the governments that
came to power in a U.S.-backed covert regime change during the Cold War were later violently
removed from power.
States targeted in a covert regime-change operation appear less likely to be democratic
afterward and more likely to experience civil war, adverse regime changes, or human-rights
abuses
Covert regime changes can have disastrous consequences for civilians within the target
states. Countries that were targeted by the United States for a covert regime change during
the Cold War were more likely to experience a civil war or an episode of mass killing
afterward.
Even nominally successful covert regime changes -- where U.S.-backed forces came to power
-- seldom delivered on their promise to improve interstate relations.
Although these conclusions are not new, they have rarely if ever been presented as the
result of such persuasive statistical evidence. Yet even this evidence seems unlikely to force
a reassessment of covert action as a way to influence or depose governments. It is an American
"addiction." The reasons are many and varied, but one of the simplest is that covert action
seems so easy. Changing an unfriendly country's behavior through diplomacy is a long, complex,
multi-faceted project. It takes careful thought and planning. Often it requires compromise.
Sending the CIA to overthrow a "bad guy" is far more tempting. It's the cheap and easy way out.
History shows that it often produces terrible results for both the target country and the
United States. To a military and security elite as contemptuous of history as America's,
however, that is no obstacle.
Although covert regime-change operations remain a major part of American foreign policy,
they are not as effective as they once were. The first victims of CIA overthrows, Prime
Minister Mossadegh and President Arbenz, did not understand the tools the CIA had at its
disposal and so were easy targets. They were also democratic, meaning that they allowed open
societies in which the press, political parties, and civic groups functioned freely -- making
them easy for the CIA to penetrate. Later generations of leaders learned from their ignorance.
They paid closer attention to their own security, and imposed tightly controlled regimes in
which there were few independent power centers that the CIA could manipulate.
If Eisenhower could come back to life, he would see the havoc that his regime-change
operations wreaked. After his overthrow of Mossadegh, Iran fell under royal dictatorship that
lasted a quarter-century and was followed by decades of rule by repressive mullahs who have
worked relentlessly to undermine American interests around the world. The operation he ordered
in Guatemala led to a civil war that killed 200,000 people, turning a promising young democracy
into a charnel house and inflicting a blow on Central America from which it has never
recovered. His campaign against Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, which included the
fabrication of a poison kit in a CIA laboratory, helped turn that country into one of the most
violent places on Earth.
How would Eisenhower respond to the long-term disasters that followed his covert action
victories? He might well have come up with a highly convincing way to excuse himself. It's now
clear, he could argue, that covert action to overthrow governments usually has terrible
long-term results -- but that was not clear in the 1950s. Eisenhower had no way of knowing that
even covert regime-change operations that seem successful at the time could have devastating
results decades later.
We today, however, do know that. The careful analysis that is at the center of Covert
Regime Change makes clearer than ever that when America sets out to change the world
covertly, it usually does more harm than good -- to itself as well as others. O'Rourke
contributes to the growing body of literature that clearly explains this sad fact of
geopolitics. The intellectual leadership for a national movement against regime-change
operations -- overt or covert -- is coalescing. The next step is to take this growing body of
knowledge into the political arena. Washington remains the province of those who believe not
only that the United States should try to reconfigure the world into an immense American sphere
of influence, but that that is an achievable goal. In the Beltway morass of pro-intervention
think tanks, members of Congress, and op-ed columnists, America's role in the world is usually
not up for debate. Now, as a presidential campaign unfolds and intriguing new currents surge
through the American body politic, is an ideal moment for that debate to re-emerge. If it does,
we may be surprised to see how many voters are ready to abandon the dogma of regime change and
wonder, with George Washington, "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?"
This article was originally published in the June 2019 edition ofFuture of Freedom .
This post was written by: Stephen Kinzer Stephen Kinzer is an author and
newspaper reporter. He is a veteran New York Times correspondent who has reported from more
than 50 countries on five continents. His books include "Overthrow" and "All the Shah's Men".
Ali Vaez rebuts Mike Pompeo's terse, evidence-free
statement
accusing Iran of responsibility for the two tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman:
Pompeo delivered his remarks without providing any evidence to support his accusations, and then walked off the stage
without taking any questions. The Secretary of State's credibility has already been shot to pieces by his frequent lies and
misleading statements on a range of issues touching on everything from North Korea to Yemen to Iran, so he needed to clear
an even higher bar than usual to back up his accusations. He didn't come close. Aside from misleading the public and
Congress about important issues, Pompeo's serial fabrications have a real cost in that no one believes a word he says about
anything. It might be the case that Pompeo is telling the truth for once, but if so it would be extremely unusual for him.
I made that point earlier today:
I have previously discussed Pompeo's
complete lack of credibility
,
and it is worth revisiting part of that post now:
Pompeo is the chief representative of the United States abroad besides the president, so his habit of making things
up out of thin air and telling easily refuted lies can only harm our reputation, undermine trust, and cause even our
allies to doubt our government's claims.
Pompeo is the bully who cried "Iran!" so many times that we have no reason to trust his anti-Iranian claims now. The
fact that he and the National Security Advisor are so clearly slavering at the possibility of increased tensions with Iran
gives us another reason to be skeptical. We assume that they are trying to turn even the smallest incident into an excuse
for escalation, and so we naturally look at their claims of Iranian responsibility with great suspicion. Vaez's thread goes
through Pompeo's statement very carefully and points out the serious flaws and falsehoods, of which there are quite a few.
Once again, we see Pompeo's tendency to pin the blame for anything and everything that happens in the region on Iran,
and many of these are no more than unfounded assertions or deliberate distortions. For example, the Houthi attacks on Saudi
pipelines and airports are a result of the ongoing war on Yemen and the Saudi coalition bombing of Yemeni cities and towns.
All indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure are wrong and should be condemned, but we also need to
remember that these attacks are the direct consequence of belligerent and destructive policies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE
backed by the United States. If the Saudis and Emiratis stopped bombing Yemen tomorrow, the missile attacks on Saudi
targets would almost certainly cease thereafter. Just as Pompeo won't acknowledge the administration's role in goading and
provoking Iran, he refuses to acknowledge the role of the Saudi coalition's war in provoking Yemeni retaliation. He
desperately tries to make Iran the culprit of every crime, but instead of proving Iran's guilt it only calls into question
Pompeo's judgment and honesty.
Probably the most galling part of Pompeo's statement was his declaration that "Iran should answer diplomacy with
diplomacy." What diplomacy would Iran be responding to? Does Pompeo think his list of preposterous demands delivered as a
diktat last year counts as diplomacy? Does he think that waging relentless economic war on a country of eighty million
people qualifies as diplomatic? The Trump administration has chosen the path of provocation and confrontation for at least
the last thirteen months, and then they have the gall to fault Iran for its lack of diplomacy. If the administration had
not trashed the most important diplomatic agreement that our government had with Iran and proceeded to penalize them for
keeping up their end of the bargain, our two countries would not be as dangerously close to war as they are now. The
administration bears responsibility for creating the heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran, and it is their
obnoxious and destructive policy of collective punishment that has brought us to this point.
Pompeo proudly stated "We lie, we cheat " and even thought funny too. Guess that's one of the rare moments his
statement contained some truth at least.
You do have to admit, the blurred 30 second video of a boat next to the hull of a ship was absolutely DAMNING! It
proved conclusively that the Iranians launched unprovoked attacks on helpless civilian oil tankers.
Innocent
sailors would have left the limpet mines in place, so they could blow up and damage the tanker some more.
It could have been Iran, I don't know. This would be an understandable response for a country under blockade. I
would feel differently if people died.
People in Iran have died because of our illegal sanctions hindering flood
relief and medical care while Pompeo and others laughs at them. This does not include the suffering imposed on the
civilian population. I do not expect Iran to curl up into a ball and accept their punishment.
If this was an Iranian operation it demonstrates their competency as opposed to use wasting Jet fuel having
F35's circling around.
Iran means virtually nothing to the United States. They have nothing to do with our national interest. As far as
the tankers being mined; I have to say my first thought is that we (i.e. the United States) did it so we could
start a war. Very similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Viet Nam war.
"... A few years ago, Sheldon Adelson wanted the US to drop a nuke on Iran. Video below. What Sheldon wants, Trump the errand-boy delivers. The fact that the US public is overwhelmingly against a war with Iran is completely irrelevant. ..."
"... Probably a 50/50 chance it was an American-Saudi-Israel false flag. ..."
"... Just like how the Reichstag Fire took place and by pure happenstance, the Nazis had the Enabling Act all ready to go. ..."
"... If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the "actual" culprits being Mossad, CIA, MI6 or any combination of the three. The Neocons and Zionists in Washington are traitors to our Constitutional Republic! Don't let them drag us into another foreign war for Israel! ..."
"... Remember the USS Liberty! Never Forget! ..."
"... This updated post from "Moon of Alabama" is definitely worth reading: "Today's Attacks On Ships In The Gulf Of Oman Are Not In Iran's Interest – Or Are They? (Updated)": https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/todays-attacks-on-ships-in-the-gulf-of-oman-are-not-in-irans-interest.html#more ..."
"... Maybe Colin Powell can come out of retirement and deliver the US/neocon presentation at the UN Security Council: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rp6WuTSTyS8 ..."
"... The only person whom I can recall endlessly deceiving on this is Benjamin Netanyahu, whom I recall making speech after speech claiming that Iran was just about to have nuclear weapons. He's been doing that for over a decade now. ..."
"... As for incentives/disincentives, Mossad doesn't have much disincentive. If they are caught, they and their friends in the USA will scream 'Fake News!'. ..."
"... Who wants war? Saudis to prop up oil prices and get Iran in trouble? Pompeo because he wants to bring on the Rapture and the return of JC? Donald Trump so he can be a "wartime president" stir up his base and please the military contractor donors? Netanyahu to distract from his corruption charges and weaken Iranian Islamists? Some really stupid underground hardliners in Iran? ..."
"... I forgot one more who wants war: Bolton because he is an immoral idiot who wants to strut. ..."
Back in the 1960's as the Cuban missile crisis was brewing, JFK conferred with then French
president Charles DeGaulle and offered to show him the reconnaissance pictures showing the
Russian missiles in Cuba. DeGaulle is said to have replied "No, I do not need to see
pictures. The word of the President of the United States is enough."
It's impossible to imagine anyone saying that today, unless they still believe in the
tooth fairy.
It very well could an act by a state that according to an elite Army warfare college, is
"known to disregard international law to accomplish mission" and also a
"wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a
Palestinian/Arab act."
What state? See "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study," Washington Times, September 10,
2001.
A few years ago, Sheldon Adelson wanted the US to drop a nuke on Iran. Video below. What
Sheldon wants, Trump the errand-boy delivers. The fact that the US public is overwhelmingly
against a war with Iran is completely irrelevant.
Yes, Iran is to be blamed! Absolutely true, US President himself said so!
Let's look at some facts and then deductions. So, the US drone was following the Iranian
boat. Iranians saw the drone, fired at it and missed. Regardless, they continued their
"journey" to the tanker, all the while their supreme leader was trying to persuade Abe to
help Iran.
Tump: It was Iran the terrorist nation, not leaders but the nation. Not long ago Trump lauded
Iranians as very nice people. If the drone was there, why don't we see the beginning of the
boat's journey and then where that boat with the mine went? According to Mr Pompeo and Mr
Bolton, the nation of terrorists is not only evil but stupid too. Yet no other actor in the
region has the sophistication to perform such an act (that is stupid act) – according
to Mr.Pompeo.
Hm who else, I wonder would be interested in bringing down Iran? I can't think even of one
such actor.
Lest we forget. Gen. Wesley Clark's revelation. This was first revealed to General Wesley
Clark in 1991 by neo-con Paul Wolfowitz. The seven countries which were to be invaded and
blessed with regime change were Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and the big
prize, Iran with its wealth of resources and potential market of over 70 million persons.This
same plan was revealed again to General Clark during a visit to the Pentagon ten days after
9-11, the event that presented the neo-cons, and no doubt others behind the scenes, with
their Pearl Harbor, their justification to proceed with the plan, somewhat conveniently. You
can see Clark say it in person on YouTube if you don't believe it.
The only thing missing is a bunch of Iranian passports "just accidentally found" near the
ships with a big floating arrow pointing towards them, just in case we're clueless. If we get dragged into a bunfight with Iran because of this we deserve all the opprobrium
anyone hurls at us–if only for our outright stupidity.
""This assessment is based on intelligence [I think we already know what the Saudis and
Israelis want us to think], the weapons used [which were what again?], the level of expertise
needed to execute the operation [more than what was needed to prove the existence of fake
WMDs], recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping ['Iranian attacks' according to who,
exactly?], and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and
proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication [so sophisticated there's no
evidence they did it]," the Secretary said, without taking questions [or citing proof]"
He doesn't even bother with a Colin Powell style PowerPoint to convince us he believes any
of the horsesh!t he's peddling. Real contempt for the American public.
Let's quote that fellow with the little moustache, shortly before he ordered the invasion of
Poland: "I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The
victor will not be asked whether he told the truth."
To think that the only obstacle between peace and war is a president too stupid to
understand that he brought this on himself.
It's very sad that I trust the word of the Ayatollah Khameni more than the President of the
United States or any of his spokesman. The proxy which had the weapons, level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication is called the
Central Intelligence Agency.
How utterly convenient!
Abe is meeting with the Iranian leadership, what better time to attack Japanese tankers
(what better time for Saudi Arabia, Israel and the neocons, that is)? Not 24 hours go by after the supposed attack and Pompeo already knows who did it and has a
response ready. Why, it's almost like his mind were already made up! (But when it comes to,
say, that Saudi prince who chops up journalists, it seems that we can never ever ever really
know what happened!)
Just like how the Reichstag Fire took place and by pure happenstance, the Nazis had the
Enabling Act all ready to go.
Sarcasm aside, everyone knows that Pompeo is lying, looking for an excuse to escalate
tensions. The question is whether anyone will do anything about it.
If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the "actual" culprits being Mossad, CIA, MI6 or
any combination of the three. The Neocons and Zionists in Washington are traitors to our
Constitutional Republic! Don't let them drag us into another foreign war for Israel!
Jason Ditz, the News Editor at Antiwar.com reports: "Pompeo's declaration of Iran's guilt was
based chiefly on similar incidents happening in mid-May. John Bolton and Pompeo blamed Iran
then, and since this was the same sort of thing, they blame Iran now. The problem is, they
have offered no evidence Iran was responsible for the first incidents, let alone today's, and
are just tying them all together. Pompeo rattled off a list of things to blame Iran for,
including multiple incidents that were done by Yemen's Houthis, a rocket fired in Iraq that
was never convincingly blamed on anyone, and an Afghanistan bombing that clearly was nothing
to do with Iran at all."
Jason Ditz goes on to report: "The big questions are, as always, motive. Iran has no
conceivable reason to attack such ships. In this case, one of the ships is even
Japanese-owned. Japan is a very important trading partner of Iran, and Japan's prime minister
Abe Shinzo is visiting Iran right now, trying to reduce tensions. Abe has also declared Iran
to have no intention to make nuclear arms. This would be a preposterous move for Iran to even
consider. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif declared that 'suspicious doesn't begin to
describe' what happened, noting that the attacks were timed to when Japanese PM Abe Shinzo
was meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader. Abe's meeting was also a subject of Pompeo's
comments, as Pompeo falsely accused Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of having refused the meeting with
Abe. In reality, the meeting took place, and Khamenei simply rejected a proposal to trade
messages with President Trump. Pompeo went on to declare the attack on a Japanese ship during
Abe's Iran visit as an Iranian 'insult to Japan.' This all rests on the US assumption of
Iran's guilt, and as Zarif points out, makes the attack look suspiciously like it might have
been carried out for the benefit of the anti-Iran narrative. "
I read somewhere that the Iranians used weapons of mass destruction given to them by Saddam
to attack the USS Maine in the Gulf of Tonkin, taking American lives on American soil.
I had forgotten that basically all wars are "protected by a bodyguard of lies," according
to the video. Most poignant to me was the Iraqi woman pleading to Congress about Sadam
Hussein's destruction of incubators, which George HW Bush later referenced as the "babies
strewn about the floor like firewood." Except it was all fabricated by a PR firm!
Is anyone really that delusional to believe that Iran is going to attack a Japanese tanker
while the Japanese PM is meeting with the Ayatollah? The ONLY explanation that makes sense is
that it was planned in the White House by Pompeo and Bolton. Whether it was with or without
Trump's knowledge and approval is irrelevant. P & B have been openly salivating for any
excuse to start a war with Iran, and Trump has given them free rein. It is a war crime, and
all three are guilty.
The USS Liberty is spot on. That was our Versailles Treaty and Johnson ceded much of our
foreign policy and intelligence to Israel – we capitulated and have continued to
capitulate to Israel. Things are looking grim and look like a repeat of Iraq. What can stop
this momentum to war?
Well, it seems that just about 100% of those who comment here have this figured out. Once
these things were a bit more sophisticated, but now the Empire doesn't seem to care if its
schemes are blatantly transparent.
Abe has been closely consulting with Trump and the Iranians as a go-between to create the
conditions which can allow Trump to save face now that Bolton's and Pompeo's campaign against
Iran is a big fat failure.
It is clear who hopes to gain by this little stunt, which will not go anywhere. Abe is
certainly not going to be fooled by any of this. Don't expect the WaPo or the NYT to expose
this obvious false flag.
Iran is a rather divided country, and some groups regard USA with as much hatred and
suspicion as the neocons hold towards them. The responsible party might have been IRGC,
intending to raise tensions enough to make their government's current fence-straddling act
unviable and force them to scrap the JCPA.
I'd try to avoid the logic that it must have been
Saudis/Israel/USA, because if it was Iran, the likes of Bolton would somehow be in the right.
They're not. So far, Iran hasn't been the one responsible for the vast majority of
provocations, and even if it elements on their side were did this, the chickenhawks running
USA's national security won't bother to secure proof before escalating. It's not a secret
that they want war and aren't particularly picky about how they get it.
Saudi Arabia.
The other agencies speculated here are off the mark: Israel would fear getting caught, CIA
leaks like a sieve, MI6 has no incentive. But the Saudis? They have the combination of economic incentives, religious hatred,
technical knowledge, advanced (American) weaponry, and who-gives-a-crap-if-we-get-caught
attitude.
Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program, might
all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit premature? How
about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments? (:
I have a question about the video footage supposedly showing Iranians removing a mine from a
tanker. The quality of the picture is no better than that we saw back in the 1965 Tonkin Gulf
incident, when N Vietnamese boats allegedly attacked a US Navy ship. But that was 54 years
ago. In video technology today 1080p is a standard resolution, 4k is pretty common. Why is
the US Navy still showing something that looks like it came from my Dad's 8mm home movie
set-up?
"Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program,
might all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit
premature? How about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments?
(:"
What "history of endless deception"? Every third party has confirmed that Iran has
complied strictly with the JCPOA.
The United States, on the other hand, has a long track record of blatant lies to get the
wars it seeks ..
Exactly what I am hoping for IF the US attacks Iran. All depends on the Iranian
capabilities to cripple the flow of oil from the ME. So I say: Go Iran, make us pay! And
don't forget to throw some missiles on the royal Saudi palace and Riyad. Make that a few
dozen. Or hundred.
"Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program,
might all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit
premature? How about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments?
(:"
The only person whom I can recall endlessly deceiving on this is Benjamin Netanyahu, whom
I recall making speech after speech claiming that Iran was just about to have nuclear
weapons. He's been doing that for over a decade now.
As for incentives/disincentives, Mossad doesn't have much disincentive. If they are
caught, they and their friends in the USA will scream 'Fake News!'.
Mr. Bone Saw has got to be extremely cocky now.
And both of them could reasonably expect that if they succeed in triggering a US-Iran war,
that even later exposure wouldn't matter.
Yesterday (June 13th) Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a Democratic candidate for President in
2020, was interviewed by the Washington Post's Robert Costa. Here (at 23:58-28:06) is a brief
excerpt of Rep. Gabbard's excellent views on US Iran policy:
Who wants war?
Saudis to prop up oil prices and get Iran in trouble?
Pompeo because he wants to bring on the Rapture and the return of JC?
Donald Trump so he can be a "wartime president" stir up his base and please the military
contractor donors?
Netanyahu to distract from his corruption charges and weaken Iranian Islamists?
Some really stupid underground hardliners in Iran?
There are some plausible choices but none of them is the Iranian government.
I frankly just don't believe anything coming form the US government anymore, especially
warmongering neo-cons in charge of foreign policy, the Pentagon, and Deep State actors.
What on earth would Iran have to gain from attacking a Japanese oil tanker while their
leader is meeting with the Japanese PM? More likely a false-flag CIA operation.
"I have a question about the video footage supposedly showing Iranians removing a mine
from a tanker. The quality of the picture is no better than that we saw back in the 1965
Tonkin Gulf incident, when N Vietnamese boats allegedly attacked a US Navy ship. But that was
54 years ago. In video technology today 1080p is a standard resolution, 4k is pretty common.
Why is the US Navy still showing something that looks like it came from my Dad's 8mm home
movie set-up?"
100%. When I heard on the news this morning that there was video showing Iranians, I
thought "They have them". Then I saw the video. Now I call BS.
Are these the same guys that provided the irrefutable "evidence" of weapons of mass
destruction in Iran?
I am sure that since the Mossad provides us with intelligence in that area of the world, they
are completely objective, and have the best interest of the American military at heart.
@Snark: I tend to agree that the video raises more questions: -what would be the purpose of a
mine above the water line?
-why does it take a group of 10-20 people milling about on the bow to remove a mine?
-does 10-20 people really indicate a clandestine effort to remove a mine, more like a
clusterf____?
As OffGuardian remarked, does the deep state (cia,mi6,mossad) really think we are that
stupid?
Why would Iranians attack their own interests? Because they are "evil". Let's see: Front
Altair is owned by John Frederiksen, the owner of the Frontline Tanker company, who moved
Iranian oil for nearly 40 years including during the "tanker war" with Iraq siding with Iran.
Mr Federiksen was called Khomeini's blood life.
What about the Japanese tanker? While the Supreme Leader of Iran was working on Abe to help
Iran?
Who's evil, who's stupid?
"Outrage on Capitol Hill over 'completely unacceptable' US-funded scheme to shape Iran
debate," The Independent, Wednesday, June 12, 2019:
"United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that
has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and
accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime. State Department officials admitted to
Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on Monday that a project they had funded to
counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails. Critics in Washington have gone further,
saying that the programme resembled the type of troll farms used by autocratic regimes
abroad. 'It's completely unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars supported a project that
attacked Americans and others who are critical of the Trump administration's policy of
escalation and conflict with Iran,' a senior Congressional aide told The Independent, on
condition of anonymity. 'This is something that happens in authoritarian regimes, not
democracies'."
The Independent article by Negar Mortazavi and Borzou Baragahi continues: "One woman
behind the harassment campaign, a longtime Iranian-American activist, has received hundreds
of thousands of dollars from the State Department over the years to promote 'freedom of
expression and free access to information.' The campaign relentlessly attacked critics of the
Iran policy on social media, including Twitter and Telegram messaging app, accusing them
without evidence of being paid operatives of the regime in Tehran. A spokeswoman for the
State Department told reporters on Monday that funding for the 'Iran Disinformation Project'
had been suspended and is under review after it was reported that it went beyond the scope of
its mandate by veering from countering propaganda from Iran to smearing domestic critics of
White House policy. State Department officials disclosed to lawmakers they had granted $1.5
million for Iran Disinfo, which repeatedly targeted, harassed and smeared critics of Trump's
tough stance against Iran on social media.
The Independent article noted: "Among those targeted were American activists, scholars,
and journalists who challenged the Trump administration's 'maximum pressure campaign' against
Iran. The revelation that US taxpayer money was being used to attack administration critics
has now sparked a flurry of queries. 'There are still so many unanswered questions here,'
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar wrote on Twitter. 'What rules are in place to prevent state-funded
organisation from smearing American citizens? If there wasn't public outcry, would the
Administration have suspended funding for Iran Disinfo?' Cold War-era US rules barring the
use of government-funded propaganda against American citizens have been flouted for decades
State Department officials speaking at the closed-door meeting admitted the project was out
of bounds, according to Congressional staffers speaking to The Independent on condition of
anonymity. Both Democratic and Republican Congressional staffers were highly critical of the
project and questioned whether US officials should continue to work with the contractor,
E-Collaborative for Civic Education. The State Department spokeswoman declined to outline
steps to prevent such an operation in the future E-Collaborative for Civic Education,
co-founded by Iranian American activist Mariam Memarsadeghi, is a long-time State Department
contractor "
Foundation for Defence of Democracies and MEK involved in creating fake articles. The
Independent continues:
"Congressional officials also confirmed to The Independent that one individual working for
the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, an influential Washington organisation with
hawkish views on Iran, is part of the E-Collaborative for Civic Education's Iran
Disinformation Project Over the weekend, The Intercept revealed that a purported Iranian
activist, who had published dozens of articles on Iran in prominent outlets such as Forbes
and The Hill, does not exist and is a fake persona run by a team of operatives connected to a
bizarre Iranian political cult. The "Heshmat Alavi" persona had a strong presence on Twitter
and harassed Iranian journalists, academics, and activists who are critical of the
Mujahedin-e-Khalq organisation, a one-time armed guerilla group now holed up in Albania.
There is no known link between the Iran Disinfo programme and the fake persona. At least one
was cited by the Trump administration as proof against the effectiveness of the Obama-era
nuclear deal. Some of the MEK articles were also picked up by US government funded Voice of
America's Persian-language service "
Let's not forget the lies our great-grandparents were told to inveigle us into WWI: "German
troops are raping Belgian nuns" and "German troops are using Belgian babies for bayonet
practice."
100 years from now a future historian, (probably Russian or Chinese), writing about the
collapse of the US, will chronicle how the Americans gullibly believed the war propagandists
asserting that Iran fired on oil tankers, which belonged to it trading partner, with the same
sense of disbelief we now feel upon reading of the crazy assertions made about German
troops.
The Japanese ship's captain came out today and said that there was no way the ship was hit by
a mine as US claimed, it was hit above sea level and sailors saw something hitting the
vessel, like a torpedo.
Why on earth would Iran want to bomb a Japanese ship in the middle of a visit by the
Japanese PM?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
The US under the rule of the neocons in the Trump admin, the Pence-Pompeo-Bolton trifecta,
is a menace and a danger to the whole world. From Iran to Venezuela, Ukraine to North Korea,
China to Russia, there isn't a country these neocon stooges don't want to pick a quarrel
with. America has become the greatest threat to world peace.
Sam – When was the last time Iran invaded another country? Why is Israel pushing so
hard for us to fight yet another war on their behalf. As Ron Paul said – if they want
to fight Iran – let them, but we must stand aside as they duke it out. Israel has
created enough Gold Star mothers in the US. Time to do their own fighting. Larsen and Giraldi
make a lot of sense.
"... The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians. The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets. The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen. ..."
WATCH: US economist urges covert violence to provoke war with Iran "I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically
go down – someday one of them might not come up." Admin
Many believe war with the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the dream of some hardcore neocons in Washington since at least 2001.
Back in 2012 former employee of the IMF and current economist for the World Bank,
Patrick Clawson , provided fuel for this belief when
he was videoed obliquely advocating using covert violence so that the US president "can get to war with Iran."
In a startlingly frank speech, Clawson makes it clear he believes (and apparently approves) that the US has a history of seeking
war for profit, and of using provocations to goad its perceived enemies into starting such wars. Clawson highlights in particular
the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in 1861
, which, he says, was deliberately engineered by president Lincoln in pursuit of an excuse to launch a war on the Southern secessionist
states.
In light of the recent alleged attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, timed to coincide with the visit of the Japanese prime
minister to Iran, and in light of Secretary of State Capone Pompeo's precipitate and predictable claim the attacks were
likely perpetrated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, this is an apposite time to recall this telling little incident.
Below see the transcript of Mr Clawson's remarks
Transcript
"I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough and it's very hard for me to see how the United States president can get
us to war with Iran which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way of America gets
to war is what would be best for US interests
Some people might think that mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us in to the World War two as David mentioned. You may recall we had
to wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War One. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode
Some people might think that mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall they had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin
episode.
We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded, and may I point out that mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call off
the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which
the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.
So if in fact the Iranians aren't going to compromise it would be best if somebody else started the war
But I would just like to suggest that one can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August
17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down – someday one of them
might not come up.
Who would know why?
We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that but I'm just suggesting that a it's
this is not a either-or proposition of, you know, it's just sanctions has to be has to succeed or other things.
DunGroanin
Always follow the money they made lots instantly from the firework display, it aint rocket science!
What do you expect from a Zionist Front like WINEP? They've been inciting wars for Israel for decades. "Getting the stupid goys
to fight Israel's wars for decades."
Jen
If Patrick Clawson is typical of the kind of economist employed at the IMF and then promoted to a leading position at the World
Bank, I dread to think of the calibre of people who also applied for his job in the past and were rejected. His speech is so garbled
and full of unconscious slip-ups.
andyoldlabour
The US has convinced itself of its own so called "exceptionalism", where they can say anything out in the open, reveal their greatest
desires, their unholy plans. There must be some "good" Americans who can stop this madness, or have they all become inflicted/infected
with some hate virus?
Milton
Interesting that this Israeli-First traitor Clawson mentions Lincoln and Ft. Sumter. He finally admits what genuine historians
of the Civil War long knew: Lincoln was a warmonger and tyrant, not an emancipator. The Civil war was fought to eliminate true
freedom and equality in this country and it has been downhill ever since. The working class and soldier-class in America today
are slaves in every sense of the word. Slaves to Zion. No wonder the certified warmonger and racist Lincoln is worshiped equally
by Left and Right today, whilst genuine American patriots like Robert E. Lee have their legacy torn down. Lincoln was the proto-Neocon.
Tom Dilorenzo summed up the real Lincoln when he wrote in Lincoln Unmasked:
"Imagine that California seceded from the union and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Such was the case with General Sherman's bombardment of
Atlanta; a naval blockade; a blocking off of virtually all trade; the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes (as
occurred in Atlanta in 1864); the destruction of most industries and farms; massive looting of private property by a marauding
army; and the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number. Would such
an American president be considered a 'great statesman' or a war criminal? The answer is obvious.
A statesman would have recognized the state's right to secede, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, among other places, and
then worked diligently to persuade the seceded state that a reunion was in its best interest. Agreat statesman, or even a modest
one, would not have impulsively plunged the entire nation into a bloody war.
Lincoln's warmongering belligerence and his invasion of all the Southern states in response to Fort Sumter (where no one was
harmed or killed) caused the upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to secede after originally voting
to remain in the Union. He refused to meet with Confederate commissioners to discuss peace and even declined a meeting with Napoleon
III of France, who offered to broker a peace agreement. No genuine statesman would have behaved in such a way.
After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into
firing at Fort Sumter. A great statesman does not manipulate his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in human history."
mathias alexand
Here's a man who holds a press conference to announce a secret plan. Only in America.
False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the 'masters of the universe'. We know
who was responsible for the tanker attacks. Who are the 3 countries absolutely desperate to take Iran down and install a completely
pliant puppet regime answerable to Washington, Tel Aviv and to a lesser extent Riyadh. And creatures like Clawson, and all the
other vermin can only see $$$$. Thats all they care about. Opening up more markets to further enrich themselves. I echo the other
commenters also. The evil men stoop to for greed, power and control. Psychopaths.
harry law
The Foreign Office issued a statement saying: "It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible."
Unbelievable, The UK vassal will use this to as one more reason to evade their responsibilities in implementing the JCPOA.
Er . just a rough guess Bill going on the belligerent foaming at the mouth by people in those places along with the likes of Bolton
and Pompeo. In fact, you can probably go all the way back to about 1980 or so.
mark
I think the real giveaway was when all three rogue states openly stated their intention of doing this 1,000 times over the past
10 years. That was the crucial clue Sherlock Holmes was looking for.
Wilmers31
And who funds the Washington Institute? Last time I looked the International Crisis Group existed thanks to Soros and is usually
treated like a serious organisation.
Many Europeans are not in love with the idea of war with Iran, just to achieve obedience to the US. 90 million people is bigger
than Germany.
wardropper
These are the shysters, the spivs and the con men of bygone times. They are the ones who lurked at street corners, waiting for
someone to come along who was gullible enough to buy the Moon from them.
But, for some reason, they are all in politics today.
Now how could that be?
Only because there are people whom it currently suits to use shysters, spivs and con men in order to create enough chaos for
us to want to give up and just let those people have their way.
I agree with Rhys below. There is no more disgusting example of sub-humanity to be found on earth than these warmongers.
To deal with them, however, we will have to realize that their "philosophy", if you can call it that, runs very deep. It didn't
just enter their heads last week.
They are reared and trained in it.
It will be a tough battle.
wardropper
I should add that, in bygone times, the police and the law were usually able to deal with the shysters, spivs and con men, since
their lack of conscience often gave them away.
The modern version, however, which has moved into politics, was shrewd enough to use a few decades of bribery and threats in order
to build around itself a nice little shell, through which the law simply cannot penetrate, except on special occasions, mainly
for show.
Rhys Jaggar
There is a big cabal of warmongers who stoke the fuel but never see action. I find those people more disgusting than anyone on
earth.
Draft dodgers, academics, 'historians' etc etc.
Ball-less pricks is what I call them .
mark
All fully paid up members of the Bill Clinton Light Infantry.
andyoldlabour
The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical
weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.
The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets.
The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen.
William HBonney
The easiest, and perhaps best metric by which to judge a country, is 'do people aspire to live there? '.
I see you admire the Soviet Union, but at its dissolution, people were queuing to leave. And yet the US, and the UK, according
to you, iniquitous places of tyranny, are oversubscribed. Could it be, that for all your implied erudition, you are merely a bellend?
BigB
Well, even as a pacifist: if that is his sentiment – I hope he has sons or daughters in the military stationed in CENTCOM in Qatar.
I bet he hasn't, though.
Rhisiart Gwilym
He should be right there on the frontline himself. That would straighten the disgusting creep's ideas out about the 'usefulness'
of deliberately provoking war
Despite
the deep schism that separates America's deranged political duopoly, they do share a common
foreign policy pet project, and that is to prevent Russia from ever shining again on the global
stage in all fields of endeavor.
One of Donald Trump's main pledges on the 2016 campaign trail was to rekindle the dying
embers of US-Russia relations, which had been undergoing a mini Ice Age under Barack Obama, his
ballyhooed 'reset' notwithstanding. But before Trump was ever put to the test of romancing
Russia, he was sidelined by one of the most malicious political stunts of the modern age.
It is only necessary to recall the 2016 Winter of Our Discontent when the Democratic leader
sent
35 Russian diplomats and their families packing just before New Year's Eve in retaliation for
Russia's alleged involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee's computers. Before
Trump ascended the throne, those unfounded claims lit the fuse on 'Russiagate,' the debacle
which continues to undermine not just US-Russia relations, but the entire US political
system.
Yet would things have turned out any differently between Washington and Moscow had the
Democrats graciously accepted defeat in 2016 without feeling the need to blame remote Russia? I
am not sure.
Today, observers reason that
the US Republicans have no choice but to 'get tough' on Russia in an effort to dispel
Democrat-generated rumors of excessive coziness with the Kremlin. Last year, for example, Trump
bested Obama on the Russia front when he expelled 60 Russian diplomats in response to an
alleged assassination attempt on former British spy, Sergey Skripal; an astonishing move on the
part of the US conservative, but with so much riding on the line was it really a surprise?
And what was it exactly that was 'riding on the line'? Aside from good relations between the
world's two premier nuclear powers, not to mention thwarting nuclear Armageddon as Prime
Minister Theresa May very unwisely
issued an ultimatum to Russia over the matter, there is the question of hundreds of
billions of dollars of business contracts – from gas supplies to military hardware.
Tycoon Trump would sooner win over European gas supplies than the plains of Central Asia, for
example, the geopolitical lynchpin so dear to the hearts of US policymakers, like the late
Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is where so many people misread Donald Trump: His heart and mind is
devoted to the business deals, not the military steals. But that doesn't necessarily make his
moves are any less dangerous.
From President Trump's perspective, Russia is a 500-pound cigar-chomping guy at the
negotiating table with an ego and stature equal to his own that must be vanquished lest The
Deal be lost and he – Donald J. Trump, CEO and Founder of The Trump Organization –
look like a second-rate negotiator and fraud. Similar to the methods a belligerent globalist,
Trump the inveterate businessman will do anything to achieve leverage in the pursuit of
profit.
This is where Trump was only too happy to oblige the British with their extremely suspect
Skripal story because vilifying the Russians, once again, would give the US an upper hand in
stealing business away from Moscow, most notably in the realm of European gas supplies.
Presently, the Trump administration is trying hard to halt progress on Nord Stream 2, an
ambitious 11 billion euro ($12.4 billion) project to construct a gas pipeline under the Baltic
Sea from Russia to Germany.
Speaking from Kiev this week, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry
said Washington, once again endorsing the spirit of free competition and enterprise, was
preparing to introduce sanctions on foreign companies involved in the project.
But that's just the beginning.
To show how low the Americans would stoop to get a piece of this lucrative European market,
which the Russian's have been dutifully supplying for many decades, they've gone for some
dramatic
rebranding , calling LNG supplies "freedom gas." You know, the byproduct of 'freedom
fries.'
"Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom
gas throughout the world by giving America's allies a diverse and affordable source of clean
energy," said US Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes.
Dmitry Peskov, official spokesman of the Russian president, scoffed at such cynical attempts
by Washington to strong-arm nations into accepting its preferred version of the 'free
market.'
"Instead of fair competition they prefer to act like in Wild West times," Peskov told RT's
Sophie Shevardnadze ahead of the St.
Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). "They just show the gun and say that no,
you guys here in Europe, you are going to buy our natural gas and we don't care that it is at
least 30% more expensive than the gas coming from the Russians. This is the case."
Perhaps nowhere else is this effort to 'control the market' more evident than in the realm
of military spending, and particularly among NATO states. Currently, European countries spend
some $240 billion annually on military weapons and forces, while Russia spends just $66 billion
each year. Yet for businessmen like Trump, that is not good enough. Employing the vacuous claim
of an 'aggressive Russia,' Trump is passing around the proverbial hat, demanding
that NATO members contribute an ever-higher amount of their GDP to military spending. At the
same, the eastern border with Russia has become militarized like never before.
Here there is striking convergence on the part of the Democrats and Republicans when it
comes to Russia. The Democrats under Barack Obama, accepting the baton passed to them by the
Bush administration, dropped a US-made missile
defense system in Romania, a stone's throw from the Russian border. Obama's assurances that the
Russians would be allowed to participate in the project were casually forgotten. But the
Russians, who know a thing or two about military strategy, did not forget. Last year, Vladimir
Putin unveiled a number of
daunting military breakthroughs, including hypersonic weapons, which the Russian leader
explained were developed with the sole purpose of striking a strategic balance between the two
nuclear superpowers. And if the world needs more of anything these days, it is certainly
balance.
With such ploys in mind, it is easy to see why Moscow has little cause for celebration with
either a Democrat or Republican in the White House. Both political parties have long viewed
Russia not as a potential partner that could lend tremendous assistance in resolving some of
the planet's most intractable problems, but rather as some Cold War foe that needs vilified and
vanquished. Of course there is good reason for this decades-long duplicity. The double-pronged
attack by the Democrats and Republicans allows Washington to continue to make strategic inroads
against Russia, as well as China, while filling the corporate coffers at the same time. It is
an age-old strategy – albeit a foolhardy one in an age of nuclear weapons – which
is doomed to ultimate failure, if not disaster, if left unchecked. The views of individual
contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags:
NATOPerryRussiaTrumpUS
"... The department should also review its relationship with the contractor responsible for the smear campaign, because paying someone to do little more than harass political opponents because they are insufficiently hard-line is a waste of the public's money and serves no legitimate public interest: ..."
"... could it be the smear campaign is a feature and not a bug? And if so could it be a reflection of Pompeo's character and disposition. ..."
"... Take a look at previous secretaries of state - leading American foreign policy - Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton where the U.S. was lead into awful, nation destroying policies and mass deaths. The only recent person at that post that sincerely tried to actually do something for the sake of peace and the actual use of diplomacy was John Kerry, with the deal among the European nations and America and Iran. ..."
"... Terrible human beings they are and foe them it was all fun and games. Obama was too much of a weakling to take firm stands, except of course with the work of Kerry on the Iran deal. Ask yourself: do any of the three, Rice, Hillary or Albright give a damn about human life, including American troops dying? Ah no ..."
"... "Pompeo's State Department used government money, taxpayer money, to disinform the American public and smear American citizens. " ..."
"... It's worse than that. Our "America First" president's State Department hired foreigners to do this, foreigners who belong to a "former" terror gang that used to kill Americans. Hiring foreigners to lie to and smear Americans? There must be laws against it. Laws with serious consequences. ..."
Negar Mortazavi and Borzou Daragahi
report on the response in Congress to the scandal
over State Department funding for the so-called Iran Disinformation Project:
United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that
has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and
accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime.
State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on
Monday that a project they had funded to counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails.
Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of
troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad.
"It's completely unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars supported a project that
attacked Americans and others who are critical of the Trump administration's policy of
escalation and conflict with Iran," a senior Congressional aide told The Independent, on
condition of anonymity.
The State Department's
Global Engagement Center erred from the beginning by entrusting the effort to counter
Iranian regime propaganda to an outside contractor with such hard-line views. There was clearly
a failure to supervise what the contractor was doing with the funding provided by the
department, and the result was outsourcing the department's work to self-serving ideologues.
Had it not been for the public outcry and investigations by several of the people being
targeted by this department-funded operation, the department might not have realized what was
being done with its own resources until much later and it might not have acknowledged the error
at all.
The department should also review its relationship with the contractor responsible for the
smear campaign, because paying someone to do little more than harass political opponents
because they are insufficiently hard-line is a waste of the public's money and serves no
legitimate public interest:
E-Collaborative for Civic Education, co-founded by Iranian American activist Mariam
Memarsadeghi, is a long-time State Department contractor.
It purports to promote democratic political life and empower civil society inside Iran,
but it appears to have no presence inside the country and instead confines itself to engaging
with Iranians in the Diaspora.
In this case, the engagement with Iranians in the diaspora amounted to shouting abuse at
many of them and harassing those that didn't toe a certain ideological line. As the scandal
proves, hard-line regime changers have a very warped idea of what qualifies as pro-regime
rhetoric and who can be considered a regime supporter, and so it should come as no surprise
that this operation turned its ire on the many Iranian-American professionals that didn't get
with the hawkish program. This calls into question whether the department is capable of
countering disinformation from foreign governments without indulging the worst and most hawkish
people that want to use such efforts to settle scores against their fellow Americans. It is
good that Congress is looking into how this particular scandal happened, but there have to be
changes made to how the department runs the Global Engagement Center so that something like
this can't happen again.
One of the absurdities of this smear campaign is that it has targeted the very journalists
and analysts that have been far more effective in countering the Iranian government's false
claims through their reporting and analysis. The Iran Disinformation Project went after these
journalists and analysts because they refused to recite arguments in favor of regime change and
war. They were targeted because they were independent and credible observers and critics of
Iran and U.S. Iran policy, and that meant that they used their expertise and understanding of
the country to question the wisdom and efficacy of sanctions and spoke out against the folly of
military intervention. Iran hawks desperately need to discredit and smear people like this
because they pose a major threat to the promotion of the hawks' agenda. Fortunately, their
smear tactics aren't working very well these days.
How long before these Congressman are denounced as traitors by the likes of Tom Cotton. 'No
one can challenge me, I was in Iraq, how dare they shoot at me, it's my country not theirs.'
I think American citizens should engage their own State Department with lawsuits and criminal
indictments. The legal discovery process should air the place out quite nicely.
It's kind of odd that this is something that's being highlighted and looked into, considering
the total lack of interest in charging Bolton, Dean, Giuliani, Ridge, and others for their
material support to terrorists when they were promoting MEK when it was still on the FTO
list.
" .the department might not have realized what was being done with its own resources until
much later and it might not have acknowledged the error at all."
Oh well. We all make mistakes. Or could it be the smear campaign is a feature and not a
bug? And if so could it be a reflection of Pompeo's character and disposition.
Take a look at previous secretaries of state -
leading American foreign policy -
Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton where the U.S. was lead into awful, nation
destroying policies and mass deaths.
The only recent person at that post that sincerely tried to actually do something for the
sake of peace and the actual use of diplomacy was John Kerry, with the deal among the
European nations and America and Iran.
The above three were truly terrible people to have representing the U.S. They bullied and
gloated about the deaths in other nations:
see Albright defending the deaths of children in Iraq due to sanctions and Hillary laughing
at the deaths and mayhem in Libya.
Terrible human beings they are and foe them it was all fun and games.
Obama was too much of a weakling to take firm stands, except of course with the work of Kerry
on the Iran deal.
Ask yourself: do any of the three, Rice, Hillary or Albright give a damn about human life,
including American troops dying?
Ah no
To your point, what I enjoyed about John Kerry was his full throated effort to bring back the
ideal of what the State Department is supposed to be doing that is, using the mechanisms of
diplomacy to make peace and increase communication.
All the other Sec States felt like they wished they were part of the military.
Don't give me this "Global Engagement Center" crap. Pompeo? "Global Engagement"?
It's simple. Pompeo's State Department used government money, taxpayer money, to disinform
the American public and smear American citizens. The next step is obvious. Find who did it
and throw them in prison.
"Pompeo's State Department used government money, taxpayer money, to disinform
the American public and smear American citizens. "
It's worse than that. Our "America First" president's State Department hired
foreigners to do this, foreigners who belong to a "former" terror gang that used to
kill Americans. Hiring foreigners to lie to and smear Americans? There must be laws against it. Laws with
serious consequences.
This is a typical Trump. He understands that "protection of Germany" is a profitable "protection racket" for the USA, but still lies.
Notable quotes:
"... U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said during a visit to Ukraine in May that he expected Congress to prepare legislation to sanction companies involved in the pipeline's construction. ..."
U.S. president reiterates threats over Nord Stream 2 project
Russia says efforts to block pipeline amount to 'blackmail'
'Germany Is Making a Tremendous Mistake by Relying on Pipeline,' says Trump 'Germany Is Making a Tremendous Mistake by Relying on
Pipeline,' says Trump Close Share
Donald Trump upped his criticism of Germany on
Wednesday as he threatened sanctions over Angela Merkel's continued support for a gas pipeline from Russia and warned that he could
shift troops away from the NATO ally over its defense spending.
Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said he's looking at sanctions to block the
project he's warned would leave Berlin "captive" to Moscow. The U.S. also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany.
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars in money from Germany" for its gas,
Trump told reporters at the White House during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
The comments were the latest sign of how U.S.-German ties have eroded in recent years. The U.S. president has repeatedly rebuked
Merkel's government over the pipeline project, trade policies and defense spending. Germany, in turn, has criticized Trump's moves
to abandon international agreements, including on climate change and Iran.
Though he didn't say which companies or governments could potentially face sanctions, Trump's comments about the pipeline generated
a swift response from Moscow, which said the American president was engaging in "nothing other than blackmail and a form of unfair
competition," according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
Merkel and Trump met most recently last week during anniversary celebrations of the 1944 D-Day invasion. That gathering came days
after the EU's longest-serving leader took Trump to task at a commencement address at Harvard University, urging students to "tear
down walls" and not to treat "lies as truth." Without naming the U.S. leader, Merkel left little doubt as to whom she might mean
to a crowd who cheered her on.
U.S. opposition to the gas pipeline is bipartisan, out of concern that Russia could use its supplies of natural gas to exert pressure
on Western European nations dependent on the fuel. U.S. lawmakers also fear that with an added northern pipeline for its gas, Russia
could more easily cut off fuel to Ukraine, which is now a key transit country to Europe.
"Germany is making a tremendous mistake" by relying on the pipeline from Russia, Trump said during a joint news conference with
Duda.
Regardless of the political controversy, the Nord Stream 2 project has
faced delays and may not be ready to transport gas until the second half of 2020, according to a report made public by Denmark's
Energy Agency.
Nord Stream 2 organizers argue a new pipeline is needed to guarantee supplies will continue to flow in the coming decades as EU
domestic reserves shrink and import needs rise. Opponents of the project say it hurts the bloc's cohesion and weakens its Energy
Union strategy aimed at integrating the region's gas and power markets, diversifying energy supplies and improving security.
Uniper SE, Engie SA, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, OMV AG and BASF SE's Wintershall are European partners of Russia's Gazprom PJSC in
financing the project to expand Nord Stream by 55 billion cubic meters a year. Russia supplies a third of Europe's gas and has no
plans to give up its share to the expanding list of competitors from Norway to the U.S.
Trump, speaking during the news conference Wednesday, said that Poland signed a contract to purchase an additional $8 billion
of liquefied natural gas from U.S. companies, on top of $25 billion already under contract.
Trump said he'll meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Japan at the end of the month, though
its not clear the pipeline project will be on their agenda.
2016 data. Source: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said during a visit to Ukraine in May that he expected Congress to prepare legislation to sanction
companies involved in the pipeline's construction.
Senators Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, have drafted a bill that would target U.S.
sanctions at vessels laying the pipeline and deny U.S. visas to executives from companies linked to the ships. The legislation would
also block transactions in U.S.-based property or interests belonging to those individuals and would penalize entities that provide
insurance to the project.
In the latest sign of Trump's frustration over German defense spending, the president said he's discussed sending as many as 2,000
more U.S. troops to Poland -- and might take them from Germany since he believes Berlin isn't spending enough on defense as a partner
in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There are more than 30,000 U.S. troops in Germany.
Under an agreement reached during the Obama administration, NATO members committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense by the mid-2020s,
a level only seven
nations were estimated to have reached in 2018.
"Germany's at 1%, they should be at 2%," Trump said. According to NATO documents, spent about 1.2 percent of GDP on defense in
2018.
The U.S. already has a few thousand troops in Poland as part of its role in NATO. Trump's move, if carried out, would add to that,
but it wasn't clear if the forces would be permanently based there or just rotated through.
-- With assistance by Daryna Krasnolutska, Nick Wadhams, Daniel Flatley, Stepan Kravchenko, Ewa Krukowska, and Vanessa Dezem
"... Empires fall once the easy pickings are taken from the populace the loot. A republic is the easiest way to run empire. Patrick Henry warned about this. Since a republic is rule of the elite, it must claim divine authority (god gave us our leaders), since the divine right to rule by the self declared 'offspring of the gods' no longer worked, and got the tyrants killed. Let fools vote, and they think they can 'fix' the system. That trick never works. ..."
"... Augustus, for example, ultimately the second Roman emperor after Caesar, first battled Brutus and Cassus (together with Marc Anthony), then he battled Lucius, then Pompeius, and finally Marc Anthony. Under his subsequent rule Rome expanded and flourished like never before. It took another 400 years for (Western) Rome to collapse. ..."
It's difficult not to see signs of this same trajectory in the U.S. since the fall
of the Soviet Empire in 1990.
A recent comment by my friend and colleague Davefairtex on the Roman Empire's self-destructive civil wars that precipitated
the Western Empire's decline and fall made me rethink what I've learned about the Roman Empire in the past few years of
reading.
Dave's comment (my paraphrase) described
the amazement of neighboring nations that Rome would squander its strength
on needless, inconclusive, self-inflicted civil conflicts over which political faction would gain control of the Imperial
central state.
It was a sea change in Roman history. Before the age of endless political in-fighting, it was incomprehensible that Roman
armies would be mustered to fight other Roman armies over Imperial politics. The waste of Roman strength, purpose, unity and
resources was monumental. Not even Rome could sustain the enormous drain of civil wars and maintain widespread prosperity and
enough military power to suppress military incursions by neighbors.
I now see a very obvious trajectory that I think applies to all empires that have been too successful, that is, empires
which have defeated all rivals or have reached such dominance they have no real competitors.
Once there are no truly dangerous rivals to threaten the Imperial hegemony and prosperity, the ambitions of insiders turn
from glory gained on the battlefield by defeating fearsome rivals to gaining an equivalently undisputed power over the
imperial political system.
The empire's very success in eliminating threats and rivals dissolves the primary source of political unity: with no
credible external threat, insiders are free to devote their energies and resources to destroying political rivals.
It's difficult not to see signs of this same trajectory in the U.S. since the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1990.
With the primary source of national unity gone, politics became more divisive. After 9/11, new wars of choice were pursued,
but the claims of a mortal threat to the nation never really caught on. As a result, the unity that followed 9/11 quickly
dissipated.
I have long held that America's Deep State--the permanent, un-elected government and its many proxies and public-private
partnerships--is riven by warring elites. There is no purpose in making the conflict public, so the battles are waged in
private, behind closed doors.
Competing nations must be just as amazed as Rome's neighbors at America's seemingly unquenchable drive to self-destruct
via the in-fighting of entrenched elites and the battle for supremacy between various parasitic elites who hold the power and
privilege to squander the nation's resources on needless self-destructive wars of choice and on domestic in-fighting.
I suspect this trajectory of great success leading to self-destructive waste of resources is scale-invariant, meaning
it works the same on individuals, families, communities, enterprises, cities, states, nations and empires.
It reminds me of former Intel CEO Andy Grove's famous summary of this dynamic:
"Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive."
An empire weakened by self-inflicted internal conflicts may appear mighty, but it becomes increasingly vulnerable
to an external shock.
The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) may well have collapsed from the devastating
effects of the extreme weather circa 535 AD and the great plague of Justinian in 541 AD had it been weakened by internal
in-fighting. But despite the staggering losses caused by these external catastrophes, the Byzantine Empire survived.
Rome, on the other hand, burned while self-absorbed factions jockeyed for power.
Thanks Charles..it's about karma, first and foremost, and then, a
sense of entitlements, selfishness, greed, illusions, delusions,
and reduced thinking capacity..
Folks have forgotten that
"sharing" was what made America great - sharing of burdens that
is..
As for karma with a capital K, no escaping that one, it's as
certain as the sunrise, we just don't know how it'll arrive, but
as to what to expect, the exact same effects on the victims of US
exceptionalism..
As for illusions, and delusions, well, when you substitute
indoctrination for education, expect the expected thus..
Reduced thinking ability, and now, with GMO foods, a true
genetic degeneration, so there you have it..
All we know, is that God is just, and the mere mention of God,
gets some folks in a tizzy, even amongst those who claim belief in
God, in fact, especially amongst them and why?
They know..that..there'll be..hell..to pay, literally. Hell
must be paid, and God will allow the devil collect its dues, in
full, no mitigation granted, cheers...
The majority of American never voted for or wanted an empire. The
US becoming an "empire" is directly against the interests of
Americans. With an empire the average citizen has to compete with
foreign governments and those who want to over throw governments.
And our politicians go where the money is, and that is not the
average voter. Those who foisted this empire on the US are
traitors who are looting the US all the while using our out sized
military to achieve their ends. **** empire and the traitorous
scum that want it.
Civil war was the standard Roman way to change governments. It was
one of the weak points Rome failed to fix. Their army got large
because they lost battles. They lost battles because their tech
stayed the same and the enemies learned how to counter it. Farmers
in Gaul paid such high taxes they welcomed the rule of the
invaders. Which is to say the producers were abused so much they
didn't have loyalty to corrupt Rome.
In the USA we the people
seem to have no power to change the war monger government. Our
army is way too expensive. It hasn't won a war in a long time. The
government taxes away and wastes much of what we produce on
corrupt programs. The borders are being over run by invaders and
the government refuses to stop it.
Many are still loyal to our government but the lies are
becoming more clear. We are abused but not ready to welcome a
collapse.
Empires only benefit greatly a chosen few, this and ineptitude
always leads to their downfall, and every empire has said that it
was/is divinely orchestrated too, but Humpty Dumpty always has a
hard fall and the US is no different.
Empires fall once the easy pickings are taken from the populace
the loot. A republic is the easiest way to run empire. Patrick
Henry warned about this. Since a republic is rule of the elite,
it must claim divine authority (god gave us our leaders), since
the divine right to rule by the self declared 'offspring of the
gods' no longer worked, and got the tyrants killed. Let fools
vote, and they think they can 'fix' the system. That trick
never works.
as i said before, trump has overplayed his hand, and China, India,
Mexico, EU are caught by the tails. Short of world war 3, i can't
tell the future but certain that us global hegemony is at the apex
and can't go any higher. Our financial system will be
circumvented. All post war US created rule based institutions will
be either reformed or rendered completely useless.
Four eye will
put up a half-hearted fight but everyone in the world has awakened
to the fact that wasp and jews are taking over the world agenda.
blow back ensures.
de-dollar and de-coupling will be a thing to watch.
the catch phrase is multipolar or sovereignty. if other
countries don't see the benefits of being members of wto,
why bother? imf and world bank are controlled by us anyway,
they got no votes.
I'm not sure that all nations crumble the same way. I view
America's downturn as a series of moral compromises. First, we
kick out God. Then we restructure the family unit, first with
"women's empowerment" by getting them into the workforce (for
lower wages), then by telling them that reproduction without a
father present is not only preferable, but financially and
institutionally encouraged -- if even that's too much of a hassle,
just extract the child from your womb and throw it in the garbage.
We must be "compassionate" of course to anybody who crosses the
border for whatever reason by enabling that and while we're at it
we should hand out clean needles to the homeless. Our compassion
extends to our children as well, so if they don't like their
gender, we can give them hormones and later the means to mutilate
their genitals. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
Then
we wonder, "how on earth did we arrive at such madness!?" "It's
just like Rome!"...or WW1, the Civil War, or whatever. In the end,
there is only one way to fix this. You start where you began and
invite Christ back into your life. When we try to make heaven by
our own hand, we end up creating hell.
"We see in Europe and the United States, that is the "West",
have taken the way where they deny their own roots, including
their Christian roots which form the basis of Western
Civilization.
In these countries the moral basis
and any traditional identity are being denied, national,
religious, cultural, and even gender identities are being
denied or relativised.
These policies treat a family with many children as equal
to a same-sex partnership speaking judiciously. Faith in God is
equal to faith in Satan.
The excesses and exaggerations of Political Correctness
in theses countries indeed leads to serious consideration for
the legitimization of parties that promote the propoganda of
certain types.
The people in the West are actually ashamed of their
religious affiliation and are indeed frightened to speak about
them.
Christian Holidays and Celebrations are abolished or
neutrally renamed as if they were ashamed of those Christian
Holidays. With this method one hides away the deeper moral
value of theses celebrations.
And those countries try to force this model onto other
countries, globally. I am deeply convinced that this is a
direct way to the degradation and primitivation of culture.
This leads to a deeper demographic and moral crisis in the
West.
What can be a better evidence for the moral crisis of a
human
cheap
ativan 1mg
society in the West than the loss of its
reproductive function. And today in nearly all "developed"
Western countries can not survive reproductively not even with
the help of migrants.
Without the moral values rooted in Christianity and
other world religions, without rules and moral values which
have formed and developed over millennia people will inevitably
lose their human dignity and become "brutes and beasts"
We think it is right and natural to defend and preserve
our moral Christian values.
One has to defend the right of every minority to
self
determination
, but at the same time there cannot there
cannot be any doubt about the rights of the majority."
Vladimir Putin
**** Christianity nonsense. The Roman Empire was super great
before Christianity has poisoned their culture and
traditions going back to the Great ancient Greece.
All nations fail because of 'moral compromise'. The rulers
can't control themselves, and the unwary take on elitist
affectations. It's not compassion. It's corruption. Socrates
was put to death for corrupting the youth. His protege, Plato,
wrote the treatise on the rule of the elite, called the
Republic. Socrates is credited with the origination of the
straw man argument, and Plato's 'man in the cave' is the most
glaring example of a straw man. As for inviting 'Christ' back,
Catholicism was created to legitimize the republic. Wake up.
America was great when the only people who could vote had their
own skin and some brains in the game. They voted for fiscally
sane candidates who would uphold good fiscal practices and
abide by the meaning of the plain words of the US Constitution.
At America's founding, you had to be a male landowner (white or
black) to vote.
Then they allowed women to vote.
Then allowed anyone on welfare to vote.
Then allowed convicted felons and those in jail into vote.
And now they will let illegals to vote.
It is any wonder that US politicians today ignore the US
Constitution and pander to the free **** army now matter how
fiscally insane their polices are? And why taxes are now at
slave levels for anyone who has a productive job?
History does repeat. It also rhymes. It's not difficult to see the
parallels. Every empire follows the same trajectory. It's the sad
legacy of human's willful ignorance.
Every single president of the US, as far as I have been able to
determine, is a descendant of Constantine. It is not
'parallels'. It is the same game. If you don't understand the
game, you can't tell who the players are.
"Before the age of endless political in-fighting, it was
incomprehensible that Roman armies would be mustered to fight
other Roman armies over Imperial politics."
Utter ********.
The author should have red some Roman history ahead of writing
this article.
Augustus, for example, ultimately the second Roman emperor
after Caesar, first battled Brutus and Cassus (together with Marc
Anthony), then he battled Lucius, then Pompeius, and finally Marc
Anthony. Under his subsequent rule Rome expanded and flourished like
never before. It took another 400 years for (Western) Rome to
collapse.
Primarily, it's not the petty civil wars. It's decadence (along
with mass immigration, deflation, suicidal external wars, etc.)
that takes Empires down.
Augustus (real name is Octavian) benefited from the resources
that developed generations of early Romans. His internal wars
did not increase the state's wealth, on the contrary they
drastically reduced it.
There was one Roman mint on the Capitol until the times of
Octavian. He created them in almost every city.
Every war needs money and consumes it.
Yes, he increased Rome's possession, but he could do it only
thanks to the strength that Rome built in previous centuries.
Of course he didn't start from scratch. But Augustus was far
from being Rome's gravedigger, despite all of his civil war
campaigns. On the contrary, Rome's most glorious and
powerful days were yet to come.
It's difficult not to see signs of this same trajectory
in the U.S. since the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1990.
Trying to scan this. Perhaps a first draft? Comparison to
other nations economies in different periods with USSA. Scant
evidence here. But the sentiment is appreciated. USSA is an
Empire. USSA is full of emotion, division, lobbying, money, money
creation for State Capitalism & Finance Capitalism, Real Estate
Industry is stronger than Manufacturing, Monopoly power & pricing
power is never discussed, State prefers the Investment
opportunities of Monopoly Corporations,...
In the ever growing complexity of our society we are facing ever
growing rules and regulations, or Laws as we call them.
January 1st. 2010 was a big milestone in this scary look into the
future with the introduction of 40,627 new laws that went into
effect throughout the nation and its territories. That is some 800
on average per state in the union, covering as widely diverse
topics as texting while driving to mold removal in homes and
criminal laws against people who scam other people.
If a ruling
class that is only good at producing worthless laws is your
leadership, the down the toilet is your inevitable
destination.........
"Self-inflicted" conflicts, my foot. The rest of the G20 unites
under a banner of "Make the Americans Pay for It" and it's somehow
our fault? How come all journalists, bloggers, pundits, and
Professional Hot Take Spewers are invariably retarded faggots?
A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But
it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is
less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners
openly against the city.
But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely,
his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very
halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents
familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their
garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown
in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the
body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is
less to be feared. The traitor is the plague. -- Marcus Tullius
Cicero, from a speech given to the Roman Senate, recorded in
approximately 42 B.C. by Sallust.
Failure of men to work together with younger generations...
failure of managers, team leaders to communicate... larger
failures in relationships between groups like Unions,
Environmentalists with Govt & industry for truth/reality based
wage levels/executive & management compensation levels, product or
service pricing that allows commoners to access products...
-
Don't communication and relationship failures in a Nation lead to
professional moralizers, involvement of lawyers & lobbyist, Human
Resources & Personnel interventions... Unions & even corrupt
middle men... govt intervention... court intervention...
Activist... protestors... mass political movements like communism,
socialism, Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party, Constitution Party,
Justice Party, Yellow Vest Movement??
As well as forcing a political/economic system onto a
population who don't want it. That resentment doesn't just
disappear in one or two generations. Even as a child obsessed
with ancient civilizations and mythology I rejected anything
Roman outright, as if dislike of them is somehow embedded in my
DNA (English and Scottish).
American elites may have
convinced themselves they're bringing Freedom and Democracy to
central Asia or North Africa or Latin America - that system
doesn't work for them.
Yes. Seems predatory or parasitic. Zero Sum Gain. But
Empires prefer concentration of wealth & power so they can
react militarily or raise an army, navy, or bribe foreigners
and other power players.
the usa is the first empire to truly rule the entire
world. this is not sustainable.
DREAM ON....if it did there would be no need for USSA wars
and war=mongering against countries such as Russia, China and
Iran for example....those countries ON THIS PLANET that REFUSE
TO BEND THE KNEE TO USSA EMPIRE.
I suggest you rephrase your statement to reflect REALITY!
Like a thunderbolt that penetrates the dark fog of ideological confusion, American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News -- From
the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror , illuminates the hidden spaces of the official
story of the territory that came to be known as the United States of America.
Meticulously researched, American Exceptionalism and American
Innocence utilizes a de-colonial lens that debunks the distorted, mythological liberal
framework that rationalized the U.S. settler-colonial project. The de-colonized frame allows
them to critically root their analysis in the psychosocial history, culture, political economy,
and evolving institutions of the United States of America without falling prey to the
unrecognized and unacknowledged liberalism and national chauvinism that seeps through so much
of what is advanced as radical analysis today.
That is what makes this work so "exceptional" and so valuable at this moment of
institutional and ideological crisis in the U.S. This crisis is indeed more severe and
potentially more transformative than at any other moment in this nation's history.
With unflinching clarity, Sirvent and Haiphong go right to the heart of the current social,
political, economic, and ideological crisis. They strip away the obscurantist nonsense pushed
by liberal and state propagandists that the Trump phenomenon represents a fundamental departure
from traditional "American values" by demonstrating that "Trumpism" is no departure at all, but
only the unfiltered contemporary and particular expression of the core values that the nation
was "founded" on.
What Sirvent and Haiphong expose in their work is that American exceptionalism and its
corollary American innocence are the interconnected frames that not only explain why the crude
white nationalism of a Donald Trump is consistent with the violence and white supremacy of the
American experience, but also why that violence has been largely supported by large sections of
the U.S. population repeatedly.
As the exceptional nation, the indispensable nation, the term President Obama liked to evoke
to give humanitarian cover to the multiple interventions,
destabilization campaigns, and unilateral global policing operations on behalf of U.S. and
international capital, it is expected and largely accepted by the citizens of the U.S. that
their nation-state has a right and, actually, a moral duty to do whatever it deems appropriate
to uphold the international order. It can do that because this cause is noble and righteous.
Lest we forget the words of Theodore Roosevelt, considered a great architect of American
progressiveness, "If given the choice between righteousness and peace, I choose
righteousness."
In a succinct and penetrating observation, Sirvent and Haiphong point out:
American exceptionalism has always presumed national innocence despite imposing centuries of
war and plunder. The American nation-state has been at war for over ninety percent of its
existence. These wars have all been justified as necessary ventures meant to defend or expand
America's so-called founding values and beliefs. A consequence of centuries of endless war has
been the historical tendency of the U.S. to erase from consciousness the realities that
surround American domestic and international policy, not to mention the system of imperialism
that governs both.
But the acceptance of state violence in the form of economic sanctions and direct and
indirect military interventions is not the only consequence of the cultural conditioning
process informed by the arrogance of white privilege, white rights, and the protection of white
Western civilization. The racist xenophobia, impunity for killer-cops, mass incarceration, ICE
raids and checkpoints, left-right ideological convergence to erase "blackness," are all part of
the racial management process that still enjoys majoritarian support in the U.S.
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence 's focus on the
insidious and corrosive impact of white supremacy throughout the book is a necessary and
valuable corrective to the growing tendency toward marginalizing the issue of race, even among
left forces under the guise of being opposed to so-called identity politics.
Centering the role of white supremacist ideologies and its connection to American
exceptionalism and innocence, Sirvent and Haiphong argue that "communities and activists will
be better positioned to dismantle them." American exceptionalism and notions of U.S. innocence
not only provide
ideological rationalizations for colonialism, capitalism, empire, and white supremacy, but
also a normalized theoretical framework for how the world is and should be structured that
inevitably makes criminals out of the people opposing U.S. dominance, within the nation and
abroad.
Paul Krugman, a leading liberal within the context of the U.S. articulates this normalized
framework that is shared across the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative and even
among some left forces. I have previously referred to this view of the world as representative
of the psychopathology of white supremacy:
"We emerged from World War II with a level of both economic and military dominance not seen
since the heyday of ancient Rome. But our role in the world was always about more than money
and guns. It was also about ideals: America stood for something larger than itself -- for
freedom, human rights and the rule of law as universal principles . . . By the end of World War
II, we and our British allies had in effect conquered a large part of the world. We could have
become permanent occupiers, and/or installed subservient puppet governments, the way the Soviet
Union did in Eastern Europe. And yes, we did do that in some developing countries; our history
with, say, Iran is not at all pretty. But what we mainly did instead was help defeated enemies
get back on their feet, establishing democratic regimes that shared our core values and became
allies in protecting those values. The Pax Americana was a sort of empire; certainly America
was for a long time very much first among equals. But it was by historical standards a
remarkably benign empire, held together by soft power and respect rather than force."
1
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence refutes this
pathological view of the U.S. and demonstrates that this view is a luxury that the colonized
peoples of the world cannot afford.
The bullet and the bomb -- the American military occupation and the police occupation -- are
the bonds that link the condition of Black Americans to oppressed nations around the world.
This is the urgency in which the authors approached their task. The physical and ideological
war being waged against the victims of the colonial/capitalist white supremacist patriarchy is
resulting in real suffering. Authentic solidarity with the oppressed requires a
rejection of obfuscation. The state intends to secure itself and the ruling elite by legal
or illegal means, by manipulating or completely jettisoning human freedom and democratic
rights. Sirvent and Haiphong know that time is running out. They demonstrate the intricate
collaboration between the state and the corporate and financial elite to create the conditions
in which ideological and political opposition would be rendered criminal as the state grapples
with the legitimacy crisis it finds itself in. They know that Trump's "make America great
again" is the Republican version of Obama's heralding of U.S. exceptionalism, and that both are
laying the ideological foundation for a cross-class white neofascist solution to the crisis of
neoliberal capitalism.
The U.S. is well on its way toward a new form of totalitarianism that is more widespread
than the forms of neofascist rule that was the norm in the Southern states of the U.S. from
1878 to 1965. Chris Hedges refers to it as "corporate totalitarianism." And unlike the sheer
social terror experienced by the African American population as a result of the corporatist
alignment of the new Democratic party and national and regional capital in the South, this
"new" form of totalitarianism is more benign but perhaps even more insidious because the
control rests on the ability to control thought. And here lies the challenge. Marxist thinker
Fredrick Jamison shares a very simple lesson, "The lesson is this, and it is a lesson about
system: one cannot change anything without changing everything." This simple theory of system
change argues that when you change one part of a system you by necessity must change all parts
of the system, because all parts are interrelated.
The failure of the Western left in general and the U.S. left in particular to understand the
inextricable, structural connection between empire, colonization, capitalism, and white
supremacy -- and that all elements of that oppressive structure must be confronted, dismantled,
and defeated -- continues to give lifeblood to a system that is ready to sweep into the
dustbins of history. This is why American Exceptionalism and American
Innocence is nothing more than an abject subversion. It destabilizes the hegemonic
assumptions and imposed conceptual frameworks of bourgeois liberalism and points the reader
toward the inevitable conclusion that U.S. society in its present form poses an existential
threat to global humanity.
Challenging the reader to rethink the history of the U.S. and to imagine a future,
decolonial nation in whatever form it might take, Sirvent and Haiphong include a quote from
Indigenous rights supporter Andrea Smith
that captures both the subversive and optimistic character of their book. Smith is quoted
saying:
Rather than a pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness that depends on the deaths of others .
. . we can imagine new forms of governance based on the principles of mutuality,
interdependence, and equality. When we do not presume that the United States should or will
continue to exist, we can begin to imagine more than a kinder, gentler settler state founded on
genocide and slavery.
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence gives us a weapon to
reimagine a transformed U.S. nation, but it also surfaces the ideological minefields that we
must avoid if we are to realize a new possibility and a new people.
"... America has shown itself to be so implacably hostile to both countries that Divide And Rule will never work. It is clearly intent on the destruction of both. ..."
"... BigB . Am certainly no fan of China or Russia (or pretty much anyone actually) but for now; I don't see them rampaging round the world overthrowing Govts, endlessly threatening countries with war, throwing sanctions against any country that dosn't get on its knees, maintaining over 800 military bases around the planet and behaving like demented psychopaths. ..."
"... Russia and China are not deranged and arrogant enough to want to rule the world, or spend trillions on a series of crazy wars for the Zionist Apartheid Regime. Unlike certain other people. ..."
"... To argue that both Russia and China are capitalist economies is true enough, but to say that they are imperialist stretches credulity to breaking point. It was I think Condoleeza Rice who opined that "Russia's interests end at Russia's borders"- pretty much a flat fact, no value-judgement implied. If Russia was ever an empire it has long been stripped of its dominions and economies. Same goes for China whose invasions against neighbouring countries – India 1962, and Vietnam in 1978 – followed by quick withdrawal was about the limits of its imperial ambitions. ..."
"... Russia was forced into a semi-peripheral economic status relying on the extractive commodities of oil and case; some recovery has taken place but this is a slow process given the outflow of capital resulting from the actions of the oligarchic cliques still in evidence despite Putin's efforts at reform. ..."
"... Russia may be a capitalist country, it may not fully democratic in the full sense of the word (who in this benighted age is?) but it must have the right to be sovereign, self-governing and free to follow its own economic and political policies, and not to be surrounded and threatened by real imperialist powers who seem determined not to let it. ..."
"... the main purpose of US imperial might is in the 'global policeman' role: keeping the neoliberal capitalist core, semi-periphery, periphery, and excluded/exploited hierarchical tiers exactly as they are. ..."
"... But Russia is the exception that breaks the rule. I'm sure you are aware Russia is owned offshore – estimated usually at 80% – much of it in Londongrad. Shaxson even uses this as a creation myth for the genesis of the euro$ markets. Russia is still bleeding from capital flight, even though it slowed recently. Michael Hudson puts the figure at $25bn a year since the early 90s – over $1tn total funding Chelsea FC instead of Russian recovery. ..."
"... The world is a rich man's paradise: unionised labour and democracies have been smashed; the world totally re-ordered by class racism and financial imperialism; we have been de-politicised and de-sovereigntised – our rights and freedoms 'offshored'; what labour is left is about to be lost to AI; wages have been stagnabt for decades; the poor are getting poorer, the underdeveoloped more underdeveloped; the extractivism, expansionism, and hyper-exploitation of today and tomorrow is perhaps at its zenith: and the globalist model is killing the host. ..."
"... Modernity is murder by debt money East and West. ..."
"... you can not be manipulated or make to buy "humanitarian interventions", defense of human rights through bombings and coupe de etat. Nor with being free because you can wear Prada or have access to so call "advance" gadgets . ..."
"... 'International rules based order' Such quaint language to disguise the real meaning: blood drenched Imperialism, blatant thuggery, the theft of other countries resources, invading and bombing and overthrowing Govts, the ever increasing use of sanctions against those countries that refuse to be puppets; like Iran and Syria, the portrayal of resistance movements as 'terrorists' such as Hezbollah for example. ..."
"... It isn't "fake news" to report on geopolitical realities, or the undeniable fact that since WW2, the US has been effecting coups, regime change, wars all around the globe and has been responsible for millions of deaths, not to mention its use of chemical weapons – Iran Iraq War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq 2003. ..."
On June 4th the Chinese government issued a travel alert for Chinese tourists thinking of
visiting the United States, a day after it issued a similar advisory to Chinese students thinking of studying in
the US over concerns for their safety and security.
Chinese in the US are reporting harassment and interrogations by US immigration authorities and many now have
the impression they are not welcome in the US.
The Global Times
, speaking on behalf of the government stated:
The Chinese people find it difficult to accept the fact that they are being taken as thieves. The US boasts
too much superiority and has been indulged by the world. Due to its short history, it lacks understanding of and
respect for the rules of countries and laws of the market. The Americans of the early generations accumulated
prosperity and prestige for the US, while the current US administration behaves like a wastrel generation by
ruining the world's respect for the US."
It seems to me they are being generous to the US since the "early prosperity" of the US was built on the backs
of slave labour, extermination of the indigenous peoples and theft of their lands, colonization and exploitation of
other countries, including China, and two hundred years of continual warfare to secure the resources and markets of
first the western hemisphere, then the world.
Their "prestige" comes out of the barrel of a gun. The US economic and military aggression against those nations
that refuse to obey American demands to serve their interests ever increases and never abates.
A few days ago Mike Pompeo stated, with feigned innocence, that the US was willing to talk to Iran "without
preconditions" when the real conditions Iran faces include an almost total embargo of its trade and threats of
immediate attack by US forces, including nuclear attack. The Iranians quickly rejected this hypocrisy.
In the Balkans the US and its NATO war machine have again stirred up problems in Serbia where, in the NATO
occupied province of Kosovo-Metohija, Serbs and Russians were detained and beaten up by Albanian security forces
designed to put further pressure on Serbia to fall into the NATO camp so that the NATO machine will have complete
control of the Balkans to complete the encirclement of Russia.
The war goes on in Syria, goes on in Ukraine, goes on in Afghanistan. The terrible situation of the Palestinians
becomes even worse as the US plans the final solution for them-their disappearance as a people to be absorbed as
citizens of other states, while Israel continues its aggressive expansion and acts as agent of the US bully in the
region; the threats against Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea continue.
But the principle preoccupation of the US is still China and Russia.
On May 30th the US Department of Defense released its strategy paper for the Indo-Pacific region in which, after
several pages of lies about its role in the world as savior and benefactor, set out America's intentions to
dominate China and Russia.
It is another item of evidence that the United States government and its allies are conspiring to commit crimes
against peace by planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression against those nations.
These designs by the American leadership reflect not only the desire of the owners of capital in the US to
dominate the world. They also reflect the Americans' preoccupation with themselves as "exceptional" people, as the
"exceptional" nation, above all others, answerable to none, which has been a characteristic of their culture since
its foundation.
The aggressive objectives of the successive American governments were and are not accidents or mistakes arising
out of immediate political circumstances but are a deliberate and necessary part of American foreign policy.
From its inception the American political leadership has claimed to unite the American people with a
consciousness of their mission and destiny to dominate the world. War is seen as inevitable or highly probable to
accomplish these objectives where intimidation and bribery fail.
To accomplish its objectives the United States has done all it can to disrupt the world order established after
World War Two when world nations joined together for world peace in the United Nations Charter in 1946.
Within 3 years the US set up the NATO military alliance to threaten the Soviet Union, soon waged wars across
south east Asia and overthrew governments the world over.
The rise to power of President Trump has resulted in the United States withdrawing from a series of treaties
designed to reduce the threat of war and of nuclear armaments, or promote free trade, in order to free the United
States from its obligations under the treaties involved to allow it to pursue its objectives using any means
necessary. They have rejected international law and diplomacy in interstate relationships and now rely on threats
and violence.
The
Indo-Pacific Strategy Report
, of June 1, 2019 begins with the claim that:
Inter-state strategic competition, defined by geopolitical rivalry between free and repressive world order
visions, is the primary concern for U.S. national security. In particular, the People's Republic of China, under
the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, seeks to reorder the region to its advantage by leveraging
military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce other nations."
Time and again the Report ascribes to China the actual behavior of the United States for is it not the United
States that has sought to reorder the world since it became a world power; has it not used all these methods and
more to coerce other nations? The world knows it. Yet once again their sense of being exceptional makes them blind
to their stupefying arrogance and hypocrisy.
The Report then warns that,
We will not accept policies or actions that threaten or undermine the rules-based international order – an
order that benefits all nations. We are committed to defending and enhancing these shared values".
What they mean by "rules based international order" is not the order of international law as accepted by the
world governments in the United Nations Charter and other international agreements but a US imposed international
order, – an order that does not yet exist except in the fantasies of these gangsters-but which they never stop
trying to impose on the world, an order of militarism, fear, and tyranny for the rest of the world.
The balance of the Report sets out their strategy of building up a "networked region" that is, a US controlled
system of vassal states to prepare for war with China by prepositioning ammunition, equipment, logistics supplies,
transportation networks, intelligence sharing and rapid deployment of forces to threaten China.
The vassal states; Japan, South Korea, Australia New Zealand, Canada, Indonesia, The Philippines, Thailand,
Singapore, Taiwan, are all patted on the head for assisting the United States and promised they will be rewarded
with peace and prosperity so long as they accept their subservient role to the saintly United States.
Other southeast Asia nations are referred to as potential "partners" for the future as they try to brag that
they have Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Laos and Cambodia on their side when all they have are courtesy
arrangements and cooperation on a low level that all nations have with each other. Their vision of their influence
is greater than the reality.
But the three targets remain the same for according to the Report, China is a
"Revisionist Power"
,
Russia is a
"Revitalized Malign Actor,"
while the DPRK, keeps its status as a "Rogue State,"
all
of which the Americans claim are intent on challenging their fictional
"rules based order."
There then follows, in each case, paragraph after paragraph of distortions of the facts about the nature and
behavior of these three nations so that one feels compelled to break into laughter when reading these ludicrous
labels that seem to come from a very bad 1950's Hollywood film script.
But finally, after all the verbiage, they get down to it and set out their real objectives by referencing the US
Defense Strategy of 2018 which sets out the four pillars of their hegemonic designs:
1. Defend the Homeland;
This is a curious phrase we have been seeing the past number of years in American parlance, this concept of
'homeland," but in contradistinction to what is never stated. Well, the to the rest of the world, of course, which
they now consider their lands as well, their outlands, and so the need for a phrase to identify the US as the
"homeland". What could more display their colonial mindset than the use of this phrase?
2. Remain the preeminent military power in the world;
This is a threat to the world, to humankind, and can only be maintained by the pauperization of its own people.
3. Ensure the balances of power in key regions remain in our favour;
Meaning that they intend to keep playing one nation off against another and create chaos where necessary, to
play both sides against the middle, whatever it takes so that the United States maintains the ruling hand,
4. Advance an international order that is most conducive to our security and prosperity
And here we have their principle objective, meaning that, despite all the rhetoric about shared values, shared
goals and friendships with its vassal allies, the world is meant to enrich and serve the United States.
To make sure the world knows of their power and what they are willing to do with it the Report states:
In the region, US INDOPACOM currently has more than 2,000 aircraft; 200 ships and submarines; and more than
370,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, DoD civilians, and contractors assigned within its area of
responsibility. The largest concentration of forces in the region are in Japan and the ROK. A sizable contingent
of forces (more than 5,000 on a day-to-day basis) are also based in the U.S. territory of Guam, which serves as
a strategic hub supporting crucial operations and logistics for all U.S. forces operating in the Indo-Pacific
region. Other allies and partners that routinely host U.S. forces on a smaller scale include the Philippines,
Australia, Singapore, and the United Kingdom through the island of Diego Garcia".
Other bases are planned in Australia and New Guinea.
In describing its relations and military cooperation with its vassal allies it places special emphasis on Taiwan
and uses language that in direct terms violates the One China Policy of China, which the US pays lip service to. It
is tantamount to a declaration that Taiwan is a US protectorate instead of an integral part of China.
They state:
The objective of our defense engagement with Taiwan is to ensure that Taiwan remains secure, confident, free
from coercion, and able to peacefully and productively engage the mainland on its own terms."
So when US, Australian, French, or British naval forces claim they are traversing the Straight of Taiwan as an
exercise in "freedom of navigation" we know that what they are really doing is using force to divide China, to
treat it as if it were still the weak China of the 19th century when American gunboats until as late as 1949 ran up
and down the Yangtze River as if they owned it; to slap it in the face, to dare it with insults.
The situation has become so tense that the Global Times on June 6,th in an op ed by Wei Jianguo, said:
China is able to withstand US maximum pressure, due to the country's economic resilience, and Chinese
people's resolute determination. Suffering from a century of humiliation, the Chinese nation has been accustomed
to such pressure, as shown in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, as well as the Korean War or
the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea. The unity of Chinese people is a vital reason for the country's
fundamental victory in history."
The Peoples' Daily stated,
"America is the enemy of the world."
Russia and China, in their defence, are intensifying their economic and military cooperation but the threat
remains and is increasing. The answer may lie in the fact that the US strategy is ultimately self-defeating. The
more they try to dominate the world, the more intense the resistance becomes.
Even their alliances are coming apart at the seams as the thieves bicker about their share of the loot. But the
question remains, what to do about this enemy of the world, this outlaw power.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number
of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel
Beneath the Clouds
. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the
online magazine
New Eastern
Outlook
.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We
are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the
smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Frank Speaker
I really don't understand the apparent logic of only criticising our own western totalitarian
supra-national state and then either keeping quiet, or possibly glorifying, the other totalitarian states
dominating much of the other two tri-spheres of our planet.
Totalitarian regimes in each of the world's
tri-spheres are pretty much the same, ultimately, and all are displaying the failings of humanity across
millenia. Suggesting that our NATO-centered one is worse than the Russian or Chinese one is rather
academic, after all, they are all evil bastards and happy to kill those who disagree with them.
Especially if we measure their inhumanity across the last 105 years, each group has probably killed as
many innocents as the other, more or less.
Harry Law
Trump spoke today about the forthcoming G20 meeting, stressing that if Chinese President Xi Jinping does
not meet the US leader at the event, tariffs on $300 billion worth of Chinese goods will become
immediately effective.
Trump also mentioned Asian tech giant Huawei, emphasising that it could be part of a trade agreement
between Washington and Beijing. The remark comes at a time when the White House has been lobbying its
European allies against granting Huawei access to its networks
https://sputniknews.com/us/201906101075775522-trump-china-devalues-its-currency/
Can Trump never cease to be such an arrogant fool, can anyone imagine European countries and others
severing trade with Huawei because Trump told them Huawei were a national security risk just last week,
then having done so, and having to withstand all the negative blow back from China, for the US to turn
around a week later and declare Huawei could be part of a US/China deal. The man is a genuine moron.
Antonym
Am I the only one finding that China and Russia are
not
natural allies? Two totally different
cultures, as different as Germany and Russia or Japan and China.
The US Cabal is presently driving them
in each others arms: stupidity, dumb or clever planned?
mark
They are complementary in every way. Their differences create a multiplier effect in their strengths
through their informal alliance, which is an entirely logical and natural development that will only
grow stronger with time.
China is short of energy and raw materials. Russia can supply these in
spades, easily and efficiently as a neighbouring country, for their mutual benefit. Russia is a
reliable supplier, China is a reliable customer and partner. This can render any US maritime blockade
of China ineffective. It also renders US economic warfare against Russia's energy sector and trade
ineffective.
China benefits from Russian high technology products and military equipment that it currently
lacks, though it is making rapid progress in these areas. China can supply the investment Russia
requires, and all the products previously imported from western countries, consumer goods of all
kinds.
Both countries are threatened by US military aggression, economic and financial boycotts, political
subversion and terrorism, and propaganda vilification. Washington has provided ample evidence that it
cannot and never will be a friend and partner to either. If they stand together, they can neutralise
US hostility and aggression. By cooperating in the new Silk Road, they can if necessary completely
insulate themselves from the US and its EU satellites.
America has shown itself to be so implacably hostile to both countries that Divide And Rule will
never work. It is clearly intent on the destruction of both.
Jen
The cultures of the US, Japan and South Korea are very different, as different as Russia and China are
from each other, yet the US is allies with both Japan and South Korea. What point are you trying to make?
Indeed, some totalitarianism is preferred by some 'enlightened' western 'intelligensia' than other
totalitarianism: they appear to want to be shafted by a panda or a bear rather than shafted by a
neoliberal politician in their own country which they can vote in or out of office every 4-5 years,
unlike the panda or the bear.
andyoldlabour
This is a superb article, which IMHO sums up the feelings of enlightened people around the World.
The "unenlightened" would be those who hang on every sperge of lies and propaganda from the MSM, and
implicitly believe all that our politicians (from all parties) tell us.
I have today read quite a disturbing article by Peter Brookes (of the Heritage Foundation – I urge you to
read up about this organisation founded in the Reagan years), where he rants about the dangers of WMD's
in the Middle East and the threats posed by Iran and Syria.
We know that the three main threats in the Middle East are US, Saudi Arabia and Israel, who all use
"terrorist groups" – radical Islam, to sow chaos, death and destruction in the region.
Among ground nesting birds: a basic survival adaptation is common. The mother feigns a broken wing, to
draw attention away from the nest. It seems to me an analogously similar theme is developing on this
site: America bad = China good? OK as a superficial analysis: but is actually eventually obfuscatory of
the neoliberalsised fully integrated global economy. One that seems to have developed over the last half
century without anyone ever noticing.
Criticism of China is taboo here: and a blind eye is turned to
China's sub-imperial position in the neoliberal global economy. Just some of the facts I have posted to
support this empirical position are: China's finance is a sub-imperial extension of the post-BW
Washington Consensus; China manipulates its currency daily (despite official denials) to stay 'in band';
the currency differential supports the USD – keeping it over-valued and the CNY (yuan) under-valued – to
aid China's export trade-driven economy;
China/Russia are fully committed to the WTO/IMF/WB "rules based
global order" – a re-commitment they state on every joint communique (including the recent BRI Forum);
the so-called 'BRICS alternative' financial institutions – NDB, AIIB, and CRA – are all dollarised for
loans (this is easily verifiable or refutable) [This means sub-imperial loans force poor countries into
dollar vassalship and export led production – aka the resource curse];
the BRICS countries refinanced the
IMF – easily verifiable; the CRA loans are neoliberal 'strings attached' loans – 30% from the CRA plus a
Structural Adjustment Plan from the IMF; the AIIB and IMF co-fund many projects together (11, I think –
without checking); the IMF, UNSC, and WB all endorse the BRI as a business opportunity for the neoliberal
global economy.
Last but not least, BRIC was a Goldman Sachs alternative globalisation ploy dreamt up by
'Lord Jim' O'Neil – Baron Gatley and ex-Tory Minister all facts that I have linked to multiple times.
So, in fact: I'm just messin' with you. It becomes a lesson in epistemology to see how long people can
refuse to accept the facts of the alternative globalisations of the world economy. Intra-neoliberal
capitalist squabbles aside: the world economy globalised decades ago. The TNCs have been building up a
trans-national powerbase for 70 years. One that is very well established, if not complete. Offshore is
where the real global hegemon resides. Check out their BRICS communiques: China/Russsia are committed to
'Global Governance'. One of the tenets of which is Multi-Stakeholder Governance – the TNCs; international
CSOs; and local NGOs taking corporate control of global issues – particularly climate change. Anyone who
thinks this is desirable is either already on, or is in urgent need of medication.
The US/China Trade War – despite this article – is largely phoney. If it gets real: expect the
shortest currency war in history precipitating financial crisis. The yuan and dollar are joined at the
hip by the euro$ – they share the same fate. This is all about 'tech transfers' – AI, 5G, cybersecurity,
fintech; etc – where China is way ahead of the US and they will not share or budge on US demands to do
so. Why should they? But they are not about to go to war over it: and a real trade war would be
internecine for the systemically fragile global neoliberal economy [see Jack Rasmus, for instance].
Everyone gets the dollar is toilet paper: the same everyone will argue the yuan is not. This amuses me
no end – the fact that people think they are separate. Debts matter. Debts are unrepayable. Paying down
debt counter-intuitively reduces economic activity. The size of the debt does not matter: the
serviceability – debt management – is all that counts. China – like every other country – subsidises the
US national debt and US imperialism: as a sub-imperial vassal. They have to support the euro$ – the
world's reserve currency – to support world trade. Whether they like it or not. The fact that they have
gone to considerable lengths to jump through Lagarde's hoops to place the yuan in the SDR basket shows
they do not like it. But the alternative: the SDR as world reserve with a new centralised reserve bank
is the globalists mastubatory dream of TNC self-financing self-governance with a 'Corporate
Self-Responsibility' 'voluntarist' ethic aka the NWO. Anyone who thinks this is desirable needs
medication and a long holiday in an asylum.
All this Vltchek/Escobar/Korybko crypto-globalism that has colonised the 'progressive' imaginary is,
wittingly or unwittingly, globalist NWO propaganda. Yes, Americanism's exceptionalist imperialism is as
great an evil as you can find but it is built on sub-imperialism, peripheralisation, and exclusionary
tiers of the neoliberal globalised world system. The real powerbase is offshore and trans-national (the
TNS = Trans-National Suprastate) – financed by Black Market euro$. I haven't even mentioned the City or
the ecological murder by debt money aspect but obsessive focus on America Bad/China Better is
proto-globalist and crypto-capitalist in its lack of any real analysis as to why the US can sustain its
imperialism. Because the world economy supports the 'exorbitant privilege' afforded by the euro$. To
which the globalists of all countries – including China and Russia – want to replace with an even more
anti-humanitarian biocidal alternative – the centralised control of the SDR.
Anyone who thinks this is desirable needs medication and a long holiday in an asylum and
lobotomising
mark
This is just the standard Washington Hymn Sheet.
Repeat after me:
US investment good, Chinese investment bad!
US investment good, Chinese investment bad!
Four legs good, two legs bad!
Baa! Baa!! Baa!!!
Frank Poster
Eloquent and excellent riposte BigB. It's a refreshing viewpoint which cuts through the rose tinted
perspective of may here, and elsewhere. You might want to consider starting your own blog.
BigB . Am certainly no fan of China or Russia (or pretty much anyone actually) but for now; I don't
see them rampaging round the world overthrowing Govts, endlessly threatening countries with war,
throwing sanctions against any country that dosn't get on its knees, maintaining over 800 military
bases around the planet and behaving like demented psychopaths.
I also am uneasy about Andre Vltchek's
rose tinted views about countries like China, especially his use of the word 'socialist' to describe
them when clearly they're not. Under the Neoliberal economic system, we are well down the path of a
corporate fascist dystopia. In fact, we're pretty much there already. And its been integrated right
thruout the World's economy for decades, as you point out, along with the relentless propaganda.
Ramdan
I agree with you Gezza. Is not much of China-Russia support as is the fact that at this moment in history when people
has started to realize US (+ all other colonial powers) mendacious behaviour and all the lies, manslaughter, destruction, etc
then the reaction is sort of 'anything but US' and as you said, China and Russia are not threatening global war and death
every other minute.
People go with 'best option' at hand.
BigB is right, that China-Russia alternative might be a kind of same dog different collar but . All in all, the real
options are not even US, China, Russia or Timbuktu .but a deeper personal transformation that moves away from egocentric,
materialistic perspective and make room for a new, non-materialistic and really enlightened consciousness.
Thanks Ramdan, agree with your sentiments, especially your last paragraph. Try to live as simply
as possible, without screwing people over or grasping for more and more possessions, and simply
treating others how you'd like to be treated yourself. Its tough tho in this Neoliberalist
society when all around its just rampant narcissism and hedonism and being bombarded with ads
24/7 to buy your new 'lifestyle'. I try to be like a stone in a pond – the ripple effect.
mark
Russia and China are not deranged and arrogant enough to want to rule the world, or spend
trillions on a series of crazy wars for the Zionist Apartheid Regime. Unlike certain other
people.
Frank Speaker
China are doing a great job of buying up countries around the world for their mineral and
other resources. Can't blame them really.
Francis Lee
"BigB is right, that China-Russia alternative might be a kind of same dog different collar but "
Glad that you mentioned the "but" But this sort of imagined symmetry touted as existing between
different nation states, in this instance, between the Eurasian bloc, and the Anglo-Zionist bloc
does not come near to the actually existing asymmetry. The first cold war was not just a war
against communism but a war against the right of countries to pursue their own economic goals
that might not serve US interests. Communist states were merely the strongest offenders.
To argue that both Russia and China are capitalist economies is true enough, but to say that
they are imperialist stretches credulity to breaking point. It was I think Condoleeza Rice who
opined that "Russia's interests end at Russia's borders"- pretty much a flat fact, no
value-judgement implied. If Russia was ever an empire it has long been stripped of its dominions
and economies. Same goes for China whose invasions against neighbouring countries – India 1962,
and Vietnam in 1978 – followed by quick withdrawal was about the limits of its imperial
ambitions.
Self-evidently, imperial nations have large military machines and a penchant for using them.
The sheer asymmetry Russia's military capacity between Russia on the one hand and NATOs on the
other is vast. NATOs 28 members operate military bases in 80 countries spanning the world from
the South Atlantic to the north Pacific, whilst Russia maintains military facilities, mostly
nominal and defensive, in precisely 10 countries. The combined population which adds up to much
the same levels as Russia itself, who share borders with it. Does this sound like an imperialist
country?
Moreover, in economic terms Russia's GPD is smaller than that of Italy or Brazil and barely
bigger than Australia or Spain. This came about due to the loss or productive power which took
place during the Yeltsin catastrophe. Russia was forced into a semi-peripheral economic status
relying on the extractive commodities of oil and case; some recovery has taken place but this is
a slow process given the outflow of capital resulting from the actions of the oligarchic cliques
still in evidence despite Putin's efforts at reform. Again, does this sound like an imperialist
country? A strong case could be made out for Russia being a semi-peripheral economy, at least in
economic terms.
Turning the the bona fide imperialist bloc In order to subordinate any recalcitrant states
the empire constructed various institutions -IMF, World Bank and WTO which are under its direct
and indirect control. This has been instantiated on more than one occasion. But let's stick to
the Russian Loan to the Ukraine which refused to pay back given the support of the IMF.
The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine:
(1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the loan (the "No More
Argentinas" rule, adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend
to a country that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to
enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3) Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed,
destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan.
Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF's austerity "conditionalities.
" Ukraine did agree to override democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta
proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted. Nevertheless IMF
head Christine Lagarde made a new loan to Ukraine in spring 2015, she merely expressed a verbal
hope for peace. Ukrainian President Porochenko announced the next day that he would step.
The IMF is now willing to countenance countries repudiating their official
debts to Russia or China. Thus changing its rules to clear a path for making loans to Ukraine,
or any other NATO-friendly countries being the latest development in the escalation of the new
cold war.
If Russia had been an Imperialist power no doubt a gunboat would have been on its way to
recover its pound of flesh.
Russia may be a capitalist country, it may not fully democratic in the full sense of the word
(who in this benighted age is?) but it must have the right to be sovereign, self-governing and
free to follow its own economic and political policies, and not to be surrounded and threatened
by real imperialist powers who seem determined not to let it.
This is an old (rather tedious) debate on the left, particularly the Trotskyist left. as to
whether or not the Soviet Union was capitalist and/or imperialist state. The 'state-caps'as they
were called, decided that the USSR was capitalist, and not just capitalist, but a particularly
pernicious form of capitalism, actually worse than US capitalist-imperialism. Some quite clever
polemicists like Sidney Hook. But sadly they many ended up in the neo-con camp. Irving Kristol,
Christopher Hitchens, and our own lovely Guardian polemicist, 'Let's bomb Russia' Paul Mason.
harry law
Francis Lee, never took much notice of Paul Mason so looked him up, could go no further than
this paragraph from an article in the New Statesman .
"To bring the perpetrators of the war crime in Douma to justice means unblocking the
multilateral system at the UN and the International Criminal Court. That in turn means
persuading the Russian people to elect a government that does not sanction torture, chemical
weapons attack, the assassination of opponents and the conquest of territory by brute force".
He should stop running away from the orderlies, they are only trying to help him.
BigB
Francis:
I respect your economic knowledge and really appreciate your detailed response.
With respect, the state-structuralist view you put forward is exactly the model that needs
revision: ecologically and economically – in light of entropy; modern market theory; and the
existence of the euro$ markets – that mediate as much as 90% of world trade according to
Shaxson. Including extractivism.
Indeed, you reviewed his latest book: so perhaps I should bring the City into
consideration as the core of the tributary accumulation of the global neoliberal market
fundamentalism?
First: I should make clear that I use the broadest definition of imperialism – of
lifestyle; credit; technological, resource, and financialisational and not just military
imperialism. Though the main purpose of US imperial might is in the 'global policeman' role:
keeping the neoliberal capitalist core, semi-periphery, periphery, and excluded/exploited
hierarchical tiers exactly as they are.
So, Russia and China are not traditionally imperialistic: which is why I would prescribe
Marini's term 'sub-imperial' terminology extending the credit and financialisation
imperialism of the core over the periphery. As academics like Professor Patrick Bond and
William I Robinson have detailed.
Above even the core: the Trans-National Suprastate (TNS) – of the uber-capitalist
billionaires; the top 140 TNCs (including the worst polluting extractivist corporations); and
the trans-national financial institutions (banks; shadow banks; hedge funds; etc) – would
rank as ultra-imperialist even though, strictly speaking, they do not even have any guns.
Second: I should include the hegemonic neoliberal extractivist, expansionist, and
super-exploitation model the current global world system follows. In line with numerous other
comments I have made: I view this materialistic model as lifestyle imperialism – not just for
today – but as commodifying and consuming the future. I'd like to keep hope alive, but must
nevertheless note that is if the current extractivist oil fueled materialistic paradigm
leaves much of a future. Is it not an imperialism to live profligate consumer lifestyles now
– expecting the coming 'Z generation' and their unborn children to socialise and foot the
bill? I would say it is.
I did not draw any symmetries – or assymetries – I said the world system is falsely
conceived of as such. The current world system is not easily bifurcated into neat East or
West assemblies: and is best considered as a whole. Elsewhere, I maintain I would much rather
focus on world system ecology and economy – and dispose of nation state analysis in general.
This makes diagnosis of the world system economy as imperialist and omnicidal all the more
easy. And I would say, irrefutably so.
In fact: the whole misconception of two hemispheres, or two contrasting ways of life is
generally to refute the irrefutability as when Vltchek builds the imaginary conception of an
'Ecological Civilisation' rising through Eurasian integration into the 'supercontinent' or
Mackinder's 'World Island'. Which, as I am sure you know, would peripheralise the US/UK (just
the City – extended to 'ZUSUK' to include Zurich and the lowland 'offshore' secrecy
jurisdictions – such as Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, etc in the City's financial sphere).
Which would overturn the current hegemonic order. Which is why both countries are ringed by
bases: to keep them in their sub-imperial place. As the Atlanticist integration takes place
in parallel.
Indeed: Russia is the one country seeking seccession from the current imperial euro$
order. As VVP recently said: "We are not abandoning the dollar: the dollar is abandoning us".
Russia dumped the bulk of its Treasuries (USTs) without fuss: the markets did not collapse;
the dollar got stronger, in fact. Now they are using yuan as reserves – fearing sanctions –
trading in currency swaps. But this is a drop in the ocean of the reserve markets (>2% as far
as I am aware). Above the euro and yen – the dollar reigns supreme for a worthless Fiat.
[There are smaller 'euro-euro' and 'euro-yen' unregulated markets too: but let's not
complicate it].
But Russia is the exception that breaks the rule. I'm sure you are aware Russia is owned
offshore – estimated usually at 80% – much of it in Londongrad. Shaxson even uses this as a
creation myth for the genesis of the euro$ markets. Russia is still bleeding from capital
flight, even though it slowed recently. Michael Hudson puts the figure at $25bn a year since
the early 90s – over $1tn total funding Chelsea FC instead of Russian recovery.
As you raised the question – what is the answer? Just who is sovereign? When fealty has to
be paid to the dollar; when trade is mediated in a foreign currency – enforcing vassalship
and export driven econometrics; when there is a huge unregulated offshore pool of petro- and
illicit capital offshore challenging regulated banking onshore; whenthis has given rise to
'casino capitalism' shadow banking; when FTAs, RTAs, customs unions, and regional trading
blocs facilitate the borderless flows of goods, services, labour, and capital; when the
neoliberal WTO rules in favour of TNCs; when the IMF/WB development loans come with
neoliberalising strings attached; when resources are a curse; and financialisation is
expanding with fintech to make us all poorer? It is not the people, is it Francis? The
offshore TNCs have become highly influential "Shadow Sovereigns" – to coin Susan Georges
phrase. And their influence is extending into 'Global Governance'. Where will that leave us?
The world is a rich man's paradise: unionised labour and democracies have been smashed;
the world totally re-ordered by class racism and financial imperialism; we have been
de-politicised and de-sovereigntised – our rights and freedoms 'offshored'; what labour is
left is about to be lost to AI; wages have been stagnabt for decades; the poor are getting
poorer, the underdeveoloped more underdeveloped; the extractivism, expansionism, and
hyper-exploitation of today and tomorrow is perhaps at its zenith: and the globalist model is
killing the host.
I know we realise this: perhaps that makes the 'grass is greener' syndrome explicable?
Even though 'over there' is exactly the same model of extractivism, expansionism, and
hyper-exploitation. Add in entropic ecological analysis: and that 'greener' is a
pseudo-ecological civilisation.
As the global markets – except the magic stock market – invert and implode; the G7 central
banks prepare to 'ease' with rate cuts. The extractivist model is broken: capitalism died
between 07-09 to be replaced with perpetual debt monetisation and cosmetic 'Global
Destruction Protocol' growth. One final point: surely it must have crossed the mind that the
assembling armies may not be going to fight each other? Or possibly the parallel
globalisations might not be parallel and alternative at all ?
There is nothing I can do, but lament the lack of anti-capitalist, anti-globalist,
critique. But I do not have to cheer on the extractivist, expansionist, materialistic
oppressors as they debt-fund the anti-future. Making the case that China/Russia's neoliberal
extractivist methodology is slightly more humane and humanitarian when, in the
meta-analysis, it is just as quickly killing the planet seems somewhat unnecessary, don't you
think? It is all part of the lifestyle imperialism we are witnessing over today and tomorrow.
Modernity is murder by debt money East and West.
Frank Speaker
I'd love to read more of your excellent insights. As I said it would be great if you were
to ever find inclination and time to start your own blog. I'm intrigued as to your
background, you have a wide and deep knowledge of the physical and metaphysical.
Ramdan
Francis, thanks for your reply and clearly explaining your point.
For me the choice is
simple: Peace and no-violence, no plaundering and respect for life in all its forms. With
that inside, you can not be manipulated or make to buy "humanitarian interventions", defense
of human rights through bombings and coupe de etat. Nor with being free because you can wear
Prada or have access to so call "advance" gadgets .
Ultimately, the actual revolution, change, has to happened within ourselves, inside a
change from self-centered, materialistic, idiotic consumption to a more spiritual-based
conception that sees reality beyond any and all man-created categories.
We are all one and the same. This life is not a possibility to achieve anything material but
just a learning path, a liberating path.
Norcal
Was this moment America's turning point? I think so, and it got JFK Assassinated
I think the US will eventually break up into five or six balkanized states which can only be a good thing
for the world. The thirteen deep south Confederate States can export tobacco and cotton for example,
while Oregon and Washington State might export timber and the mid-west exports grain. New England could
attract tourists while California, a large state on its own, could continue developing technology.
Americans should be made to bicker with each other and left unable to unite to attack the world again.
Frank Speaker
That would be karma if that ever were to occur, since that's exactly what the Neocons are planning for
Russia.
Harry Stotle
People who tell the truth about the Washington concensus tend end up in a maximum security prison (or on
the run) while the media manipulate the public into being suspicious about the motives of whistleblowers
rather than the terrible crimes they unearth.
Israel can turn Gaza into an open air prison camp while
murdering Palestinian children in front of the cameras yet the vast majority of those in the west simply
haven't got a clue what is going on there (because of an orchestrated news blackout).
Or if we turn back the clock the US can drop atom bombs on defenseless citizens and it isn't regard as
a crime, or even as an immoral thing to do.
It goes without saying they will keep getting away with it until the first western leader is hung from
a lampost but as it stands they are more likely to be given regular columns in the Guardian or invited to
prestigious speaking events while being paid handsomely for inane homilies about world peace.
Capricornia Man
If you look at things that are happening on every inhabited continent today, you could be excused for
thinking we face the prospect of a world-wide fascist dictatorship.
The MSM play an important part in
promoting this lurch away from democracy – except, of course, when the state turns around and bites THEM
(whereupon they expect our support for "freedom of the press").
'International rules based order' Such quaint language to disguise the real meaning: blood drenched
Imperialism, blatant thuggery, the theft of other countries resources, invading and bombing and
overthrowing Govts, the ever increasing use of sanctions against those countries that refuse to be
puppets; like Iran and Syria, the portrayal of resistance movements as 'terrorists' such as Hezbollah for
example.
What pure evil resides in the United States. All for us and a few crumbs for you as long as you
follow orders. Living in Australia, its shameful how low the Australian Govt will bow and grovel to their
masters in Washington. And the total mind numbing hypocrisy .
Antonym
Surely Bolton US is the no.1 bully but Xi China is no damsel in distress; just ask the neighboring
countries about the border changes demanded by Beijing, or their very one sided financial contracts.
By only highlighting US aggression the whole article becomes a kind of fake news, and we have had enough
of that.
China just blocked On-Guardian and would not blink an eye to do cut of Off-Guardian too; self censorship
is deadly in the long run.
andyoldlabour
It isn't "fake news" to report on geopolitical realities, or the undeniable fact that since WW2, the
US has been effecting coups, regime change, wars all around the globe and has been responsible for
millions of deaths, not to mention its use of chemical weapons – Iran Iraq War, Vietnam, Desert Storm,
Iraq 2003.
No other country/empire in the history of the World has come anywhere near the crimes committed by the
US.
Francis Lee
Okay, but small beer really and actually irrelevant. In a global poll conducted by Pew regarding who
was the most dangerous country to world peace guess who came out on top? Who is the rampaging bull
elephant and threat to world peace and order? Who wants to create a world empire? When asked what he
thought of western (i.e., British) civilization Ganhdi replied, 'I think that it would be a very good
idea'. The Anglo-zionist empire want's to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states, the
Anglo-zionist empire wants to start a war, the Eurasian bloc doesn't – that the alpha and omega of
things. As for the rest, 'manifest destiny' 'spreading democracy' 'humanitarian intervention' – this
is just grade one BS.
The now discarded Westphalian principles about non-interference in the internal affairs of
sovereign nations is now unfortunately defunct. This means that war becomes inevitable if this path
continues to be pursued by the AZ empire. Russia and China are obliged to defend themselves and are
doing so.
eddie
Most of us in China use a vpn, so yes, the Guardian is accessible for those wishing to read the latest
GCHQ / CIA propaganda.
BTW, how are your 16 spy agencies working out for you, there in the 'land of the free' ?
Purgatory
Surely Bolton US is a bully, but don't paint Xi China as a fragile damsel in distress: just ask its
neighboring countries about its aggression and border change claims.
Why try to counter balance biased Western MSM with pro "poor" China stuff? That comes close to fake news
and too many have had enough of that. Show
both
side of this coin.
harry law
The shining city on a hill, the exceptional and indispensible nation and also the nation that wants
hegemony over the whole world, good luck with achieving that. Bolton, Pompeo and Pence are Neocons who
think the United States should have a military and economic advantage over the whole world, therefore
because Trump appointed them he is responsible for all the bellicose noise coming from them, the idea
that war against either Russia or China could be won without destroying all combatants is preposterous.
It is true that the US could destroy both Russia and China 10 times over because of its greater number of
nuclear weapons, whereas Russia/China could only destroy the US 4 times over. There are probably some
leaders in the US that think they are good odds, rather like the General in the film Dr Strangelove
General Turgidson: "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more
than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks". The notion that a country which has
spent the last two decades fighting a losing battle against the sandal wearing Taliban thinking a war
against Russia, China or even Iran could be a winning proposition is lunacy on steroids. Even considering
the mine shaft gap. Maybe the Pentagon planners are writing a script for a sequel to Dr Strangelove, because the characters
today are far more convincing, both funnier and scarier than Peter Sellers et al 55 years ago. Pompeo and
Pence are 'end time' believers who think that Trump might be on a mission from God. Thankfully we have
two first class cowards in Commander- in -Chief Donald 'bone spurs' Trump and his advisor John Bolton,
the former said that his reasons for avoiding service in Vietnam were his feet, and that his personal
Vietnam at the time was his ability to avoid sexually Transmitted diseases. John Bolton said "I confess I
had no desire to die in a southeast paddy" "I considered the war in Vietnam already lost", what he
probably omitted to say was I am at ease with others going to die in Vietnam, just so long as it is not
me. Must not forget Elliot Abrams struggling to get a part in this new production a convicted war
criminal who presided over the 1980s 'dirty war' era, when US-backed death squads murdered hundreds of
thousands in Latin America. You could not make it up.
Trump is acting like a mafia boss, the problem is when one nation big or small decides not to pay
'protection money', Germany is continuing with the Nord Stream 2 gas Pipe line despite threats of
sanctions, it is not buying the F35 lemon, nor is it contributing 2% of GDP [Trump wants 4%] to NATO.
Trump is going ape shit about this, but what can he do?
Turkey are withstanding the threats [so far] by buying Russia's S400 anti aircraft system, same with
India, how long can the Empires credibility be tested before those states get more than a severed horses
head placed in their beds? Russia/China and most of the world seem to have the measure of the beast, the
US empire is still powerful and can do a lot of harm, what is at stake is the independent sovereignty of
and self respect of nations, if that is lost, all is lost. My advice to nations who want to keep their
self respect, is when they are told to 'follow the leader of the free world' and told to do something
that damages the interests of their own country, is to say Go Fuck Yourselves. Diplomatically of course.
wardropper
Surely Peter Sellers was scary enough ?
Admittedly, as with most Sellers movies, things do get funny, but Kubrick's message is, to me, 100%
prophetic and shows us more than half a century later exactly what we should be scared of.
Yet the thugs in today's Washington have probably never even seen the movie, let alone understood its
excoriating satire.
wardropper
I agree that the damning Chinese criticism quoted above is pretty euphemistic and, yes, generous to the
U.S., but the Chinese have, as they say themselves, a long history, and with that come some refinements,
like basic diplomacy.
And it's still a damning criticism.
Frankly, it's a relief to read amidst our daily rations of American
exceptionalism.
Michael Leigh
All thanks to lawyer/writer Christopher Black for this " Global Times " citation here which surely
deserves the " exceptionally widest " circulation as it should be published, somehow worldwide throughout
every corner of the Globe in whatsoever language and mode is appropiuate, and certainly being filed
firstly with the Secretariat of the totality of the UNO General Assembly State membership.
Fair dinkum
After the crescendo comes the silence.
Forever.
Hug your loved ones now.
alt media-verse is currently on fire with the news that the US State Dept's answer to Al Capone, Mike Pompeo, has been caught
promising "Jewish leaders" to send the boys round to Jeremy Corbyn if he should get elected and subsequently prove to be uppity and
out of line. According to the
WaPo , who broke the story:
The remarks, which are contained in audio of a private meeting leaked to The Washington Post, make Pompeo the second senior U.S.
official to comment on Britain's turbulent leadership succession in the past week.
During his meeting with Jewish leaders in New York, Pompeo was asked if Corbyn "is elected, would you be willing to work with
us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the U.K.?"
In response, Pompeo said, "It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It's possible. You should
know, we won't wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best," he said to fervent applause
from attendees.
"It's too risky and too important and too hard once it's already happened," he said.
Of course the idea the "Jewish leaders" harbor any real fear that Jeremy Corbyn (Jeremy Corbyn!) is going to make life "difficult"
for British Jews if elected is simply risible. They know, just as every moderately informed person knows, that that's absurd. They
know Corbyn has no wish to make life difficult for anybody – except possibly the uber wealthy and the profiteer class.
They know the "antisemitism" fear is just a cover for the very very real fear that a Corbyn government will break the unwritten
rules of modern western governance and reject the agenda of austerity, exploitation and perpetual war that has been creating huge
profits and ideological thrills for the blessed few over the last twenty years.
They know that what Pompeo is promising is action to prevent this possibility coming about.
People are up in arms about this, and some seem quite shocked. Apparently the idea the neoliberal elites would try regime change
or regime-control on a relatively prosperous western country was something they didn't previously think possible.
Unfortunately it's more than possible. The state apparatus of the different western nations are a tight bond of mutual regard
and interest, just as likely to foment regime change on their own or their allies' elected representatives as on those of impoverished
or "developing" countries, if they believe those representatives threaten the perceived interests of the state. Of course it
isn't too often necessary, since the same western state apparatus also works to ensure that only governments that don't threaten
perceived state interests manage to get elected. But, when the unthinkable happens, MI5 and the CIA are quite happy to step up
to the plate and throw their own or their allies' democratic governments out the window. It's happened – or nearly happened –
at least twice in the last fifty years.
In the 1960s the UK security agencies, senior military and members of the royal family were apparently
contemplating
a fullblown coup against Labour prime minister Harold Wilson.
In 1975 it was
Australia's turn , when democratically elected reforming prime minister Gough Whitlam was overthrown in a bloodless constitutional
coup organised jointly by the US and UK .
The old empire and the new have form in this regard, and this means no one should take Pompeo's words (spoken in private let's
not forget) lightly.
It's also interesting to look at how the WaPo frames the revelation. There's no sense of outrage or surprise there. In fact it's
an almost matter-of-fact piece, written with no awareness of its potential impact. Even those in the comments who object in some
form are mostly doing it within the permissible current language of dissent – blaming Trump , because in these identity politics-saturated
times, your morality resides in who or what you are NOT in what you do.
To the WaPo – and many of its readers – there's nothing intrinsically either wrong or surprising in the idea a US secretary of
state should be overtly promising to interfere in the democratic governance of another country.
"... Across-the-board rivalry with China is becoming an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies. ..."
"... An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened. ..."
"... The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers, attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order. ..."
The disappearance of the Soviet Union left a big hole. The "war on terror" was an inadequate replacement. But China ticks all boxes.
For the US, it can be the ideological, military and economic enemy many need. Here at last is a worthwhile opponent. That was the
main conclusion I drew from this year's Bilderberg meetings.
Across-the-board
rivalry with China is becoming
an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies.
Whether it is Donald Trump's organizing principle is less important. The US president has the gut instincts of a nationalist and
protectionist. Others provide both framework and details. The aim is US domination. The means is control over China, or separation
from China.
Anybody who believes a rules-based multilateral order, our globalised economy, or even harmonious international relations, are
likely to survive this conflict is deluded. The astonishing
white paper on the
trade conflict
, published on Sunday by China, is proof. The -- to me, depressing -- fact is that on many points Chinese positions are right.
The US focus on
bilateral imbalances is economically illiterate. The view that theft of intellectual property has caused huge damage to the US
is
questionable . The proposition that China has grossly violated its commitments under its 2001 accession agreement to the World
Trade Organization is hugely exaggerated.
Accusing China of cheating is hypocritical when almost all trade policy actions taken by the Trump administration are in breach
of WTO rules, a fact implicitly conceded by its determination
to destroy the
dispute settlement system .
A dispute over the terms of market opening or protection of intellectual property might be settled with careful negotiation. Such
a settlement might even help China, since it would lighten the heavy hand of the state and promote market-oriented reform.
But the issues are now too vexed for such a resolution. This is partly because of the bitter breakdown in negotiation. It is still
more because the US debate is increasingly over whether integration with China's state-led economy is desirable. The fear over Huawei
focuses on national security and technological autonomy.
[Neo]liberal commerce is increasingly seen as "trading with the enemy".
A framing of relations with China as one of zero-sum conflict is emerging. Recent remarks by Kiron Skinner, the US state department's
policy planning director (a job once held by cold war strategist George Kennan) are revealing. Rivalry with Beijing,
she suggested at a
forum organised
by New America , is "a fight with a really different civilisation and a different ideology, and the United States hasn't had
that before".
She added that this would be "the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian". The war with Japan
is forgotten.
But the big point is her framing of this as a civilizational and racial war and so as an insoluble conflict. This cannot be accidental.
She is also still in her job. Others present the conflict as one over ideology and power.
Those emphasising the former point to President Xi Jinping's Marxist rhetoric and the reinforced role of the
Communist party . Those emphasising the latter point to China's rising economic might. Both perspectives suggest perpetual conflict.
This is the most important geopolitical development of our era. Not least, it will increasingly force everybody else to take sides
or fight hard for neutrality. But it is not only important. It is dangerous. It risks turning a manageable, albeit vexed, relationship
into all-embracing conflict, for no good reason. China's ideology is not a threat to liberal democracy in the way the Soviet Union's
was. Rightwing demagogues are far more dangerous.
An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the
Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives
might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened.
Moreover, the rise of China is not an important cause of western malaise. That reflects far more the indifference and incompetence
of domestic elites. What is seen as theft of intellectual property reflects, in large part, the inevitable attempt of a rising economy
to master the technologies of the day. Above all, an attempt to preserve the domination of 4 per cent of humanity over the rest is
illegitimate.
This certainly does not mean accepting everything China does or says. On the contrary, the best way for the west to deal with
China is to insist on the abiding values of freedom, democracy, rules-based multilateralism and global co-operation. These ideas
made many around the globe supporters of the US in the past.
They still captivate many Chinese people today. It is quite possible to uphold these ideas, indeed insist upon them far more strongly,
while co-operating with a rising China where that is essential, as over protecting the natural environment, commerce and peace.
A blend of competition with co-operation is the right way forward. Such an approach to managing China's rise must include co-operating
closely with like-minded allies and treating China with respect.
The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers,
attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order.
Today's attack on China is the wrong war, fought in the wrong way, on the wrong terrain. Alas, this is where we now are.
Trump was eager to boast about Moscow's withdrawal of its troops from Venezuela, but it
turned out that he or someone else in the administration just made it up:
The Kremlin said on Tuesday it didn't know where U.S. President Donald Trump had got the
idea Moscow had removed most of its military specialists from Venezuela, who it said
continued to work there.
Trump tweeted on Monday that Russia had told the United States it had removed "most of
their people" from Venezuela, where Moscow has maintained close military and economic ties
with socialist President Nicolas Maduro.
Trump's Venezuela policy is a shambles, and Russia previously brushed off his ultimatum to
remove their forces from the country. It isn't surprising that he would try to spin any
development in his favor, but in this case it seems that he just invented something out of thin
air so that his Venezuela policy wouldn't look quite so feckless. He has no genuine successes
that he can talk about, so he has to have pretend victories instead. The original tweet is
still up:
Claiming that "Russia informed" him of this thing that didn't happen makes it even sillier,
because it immediately prompted the Russian government to announce that they couldn't have
informed Trump about something that hadn't occurred. Now that Russia has corrected the record,
the president looks even more ridiculous than usual.
This episode isn't that important by itself, but it shows how easily Trump can be convinced
of the reality of things that haven't happened and how readily he will accept any story, no
matter how unfounded it may be, if it flatters him and bolsters his agenda. That makes him
unusually easy to manipulate and provoke, and it makes him an exceptionally easy mark for
misinformation. That puts the president's decision-making completely at the mercy of the
advisers that control what he sees and hears.
that his Venezuela policy wouldn't look quite so feckless.
Not a Trump fan, but is Trump's Venezuela policy feckless? Or just Trump somehow
understands that it is not our problem and/or military intervention is just a bad investment.
For the life of me, I don't understand why Russia desires to part of the Venezuelan mess, but
most of their interference is minimal in nature and really has little impact on the
situation. I get the Bay Of Bolton was half assed coup that probably did more damage to
Guaido chances for new elections. (Guaido is being painted as the Trump Imperialism candidate
which is not popular.)
The big question is why this is not China's problem? At this point, Venezuela is
completely with them.
Re: "Trump's Venezuela policy is a shambles, and Russia previously brushed off his
ultimatum to remove their forces from the country."
Agree. But the larger subtext is that the U.S. now has zero credibility with
anything . The assumption by every country on the planet has to be that the U.S. word
is not worth squat.
Fat Pompeo with his big mouth, "We lie, cheat and steal" mind-dump says it all. The
Russians are anything but saints, but they knew that the U.S. planned on having Russia
ejected from its Crimean Naval Base in Sevastopol after the coup that Nitwit Nuland and her
barrel of CIA monkeys engineered.
Similarly, the Russians know that if/when the U.S. puts sock puppet Guaido in power, they
will ensure he stiffs the Russians out of all of their claims and assets in Venezuela.
The Russians don't want to wrestle with the Gorilla, but they have no other choice.
Given the way the dealings with North Korea have gone, I expect that Trump will soon be
announcing that Kim Jong-Un has destroyed all his nuclear weapons and pledged not to build
any more. Needless to say, it will not have happened.
But, as they say, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me. The question
really becomes why so many of Trump's followers continue to believe everything he says when
he lies so blatantly so often.
"The question really becomes why so many of Trump's followers continue to believe
everything he says when he lies so blatantly so often."
I don't know that they do. I tend to think that they just hate what has happened to the
country since Reagan and Clinton so much that they just want Trump to keep bashing Congress
over the head, even with stupidity.
Not to mention that humans have an innate exploitable weakness: the desire to transfer
someone else's perceived greatness on to themselves. Hence the inclination of sports fans and
adoration of the military.
So "Team America" is great, therefore I am great, and Trump represents us, therefore Trump
is great.
One should not wish ill on any other human being, even though i have contemplated several
slapstick scenarios involving certain politicians, however
Donald Trump is in the process of discovering that one cannot ignore Reality, since it
Bites, that live is not a reality TV show (the most unreal thing on television), and that
chickens do indeed come home to roost.
Unfortunately, it's been a difficult learning curve, and pathetic boasts to the contrary,
he has managed to turn both the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party into a pile of
smoking rubble.
It conservatism can be rebuilt in a score of years, it would be a miracle. More like, a
generation.
Trump's Venezuelan policy is a series of hallucination's. This article just describes the
most recent. It begins with the hallucination that Maduro is a dictator, when in reality he
won an election in May 2018 with 67% of the vote in an election that more than 150
international election observers unanimously agreed met all international standards for
democratic elections. It follows with the hallucination that the Venezuelan military would
join the US in rising up against their elected president rather than support the
constitutional government. It continues with the hallucination that the people of Venezuela
would join a US-inspired coup against the president they had just re-elected rather than join
a 2 million person plus civilian militia to defend against a US attack. And, it continues
with the hallucination that Juan Guaido is the interim president when his self-appointment
violated the Venezuelan Constitution and the United Nations and Venezuelan law recognize
Nicolas Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela.
The antidote of these ongoing hallucinatory experiences is for Trump to no longer trust
his advisors and end the US coup attempt, which has already failed multiple times in
Venezuela. John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Elliot Abrams have made Trump see hallucinations
that are complete falsehoods. They have led the president into an embarrassing trap that he
now needs to get out of. They have made Trump look like a fool.
It is time for Trump to take steps to normalize relations with Venezuela. That begins with
a mutual Protecting Power Agreement between the US and Venezuela for Switzerland to be a
Protecting Power of the US Embassy in Caracas and Turkey to be a Protecting of the Venezuelan
Embassy in Washington, DC. Following from that the US and Venezuela should negotiate the sale
of Venezuelan resources, primarily oil, in return for the end of the illegal unilateral
coercive measures (inaccurately called sanctions) against Venezuela. Negotiating with
Venezuela will be less expensive than a war that will become a quagmire that will end in
failure after costing more than $1 trillion and causing chaos in the region. Then, Trump and
Maduro should meet to chart a course that begins with mutual respect for the independence and
sovereignty of each nation and then determines where the two nations interests are consistent
with each other. It is time to leave the hallucinations behind and come back to reality.
The ease with which Trump is manipulated and provoked can be added to the explanation of why
Bibi is now in possession of Jerusalem and war against Iran is a high probability. That
should terrify Americans.
Mark Meadows confirmed what many have suspected about the Trump-Russia for a long time; the FBI knew early on that the foundation
of its counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign was built on 'a foundation of sand,' reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck
Ross.
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows (R) told Hannity Friday night that the FBI knew "within 60 days of them opening the investigation,
prior to [Robert] Mueller coming on, the FBI and the [Department of Justice] knew that Christopher Steele was not credible, the dossier
was not true, George Papadopoulos was innocent."
Meadows did not elaborate on why he believes the FBI knew their investigation was built on a mountain of lies, however according
to The Hill 's John Solomon last month, memos which were retroactively classified by the DOJ reveal that a high-ranking government
official who met with Christopher Steele in October 2016 determined that
information in the Trump-Russia dossier was inaccurate , and likely leaked to the media.
Meadows also suggested that the FBI had exculpatory information on Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who was fed the
rumor that Russia had negative information on Hillary Clinton, and later bilked for said information by a Clinton-linked Australian
diplomat. Papadopoulos would later be subject to a spying operation in which the FBI sent in two operatives to trick the Trump adviser
in a failed business / honeypot operation.
The bureau opened its investigation of the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016, after receiving a tip about Papadopoulos from the
Australian government. Within those two months, the FBI team leading the investigation received information from Steele's dossier.
The FBI also dispatched a longtime FBI informant,
Stefan Halper , to meet with
Papadopoulos.
The pair met in London in mid-September 2016 after Halper offered Papadopoulos $3,000 to write a policy paper. Halper, a former
Cambridge professor, was accompanied by a woman he claimed was his assistant,
Azra Turk . She is reportedly
a government investigator.
Meadows in the past has suggested the FBI had exculpatory information on Papadopoulos that showed the Trump aide was not working
with Russia. - Daily Caller
The FBI relied on the Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, ostensibly
allowing the Obama administration to surveil those Page was in contact with.
Obummer put it all together......Little mr community organizer.....He had nothing to lose as he wasn't going to be able
to run again.
PS....did you hear about the half a BILLION dollars in travel and security perks obummer ok's for himself into "retirement"
on the taxpayers' dime? obummer is a puke. Fortunately, Trump undid that little executive order.
I wish I was George Papadopoulos -- he is going to be a multi millionaire from legal judgements against Comey, Brennen, US
Govt, McCabe and hopefully, the Clintons and Obama. Every week in jail is an extra million....no wonder he didnt get a pardon.
All those *** holes pensions should be made payable to all the injured parties--Stone, Papadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, and all
the Trumps that had to use so much of their time fighting false accusations.
They will never pay him any restitution, though he is the one who deserves it the most. They thought they were just dealing
with stupid twerp who would grab the bait - using a boobalicious woman as the lure. Turns out he was sharper than the pros - says
alot. The FBI thinks it is the sharpest ax in the shed, which has been proven otherwise...
Now, if Barr only does not cover for Mueller because they are best buds, like he seemed to do when Mueller made that very queer
statement a few weeks back, in what seemed to be an herculean effort to confuse the restless public even more.
Confirmatiom bias. You have to say stuff like that in advance while also considering other situations that could cause the same outcome. Its not easy, but becomes easier with practice.
YOU MEAN......It took $40 Million Investigation, to tell us what we already knew : "FOUNDATION OF SAND".....Created by them, their boss, OBAMA, & his MOB Syndicate.....???
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is
less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his
sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor;
he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies
deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars
of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
The Former Bureau of Investigation knew from the start since it was in on the whole thing. It's not dissimilar from all the
entrapment scenarios they used to be involved in when the agency existed desperately trying to pad the stats on how wonderful
a job it was doing stopping terrorists.
Every activity for quite some time now, as with 100% of all now global former so called law enforcement, are felonies under
color of law/authority. And now that the global judiciary were permanently relieved of duty and all courts dissolved nobody can
pretend to either pull together a fake prosecution or ignore the sedition, treason and real crimes and pretend those don't deserve
prosecution.
When did alleged so called prosecutors first delusionally pretend that only these jobs could move something along legally?
No problems it will be disclosed publicly at your trials. ALL types of immunity were permanently eliminated longer ago than any
have been working so don't hold a false sense of security.
The FBI knew their investigation was based on a mountain of lies because they were the ones who lied to get the fake investigation
going. Does not take any monumental logic to state. I watched last night - it was Bongino sitting in for Sean. By the time you
get done listening, you almost get a bit confused because they need to use so many words/mental snares to describe the actions
that took place, when it is really that simple.
US navy plays dangerous games. Sooner or later Russia or China or Iran maybe, or any hot spot
in the world - encounters the situation wherein the US both must and can be slapped.
Notable quotes:
"... Apparently the US had an ASW capable chopper in the air which was a treat to the UUV so the Russians gently reminded the US that they should back off. ..."
"... This happens with all sides regularly without too much of a fuss. The Russians have decades of history of warning off the US and UK in this way, and it never involves anyone getting hurt or even weapons getting pointed. It is just a firm but non-violent way of getting the other side to back off. ..."
"... Rarely is a fuss kicked up and the crews on both sides often use these encounters as a photo op, so why the Americans have decided to make an issue out this one is anyones guess. ..."
"... I call bullshit on the "recovering an helicopter" excuse. The vision shown is from a helicopter positioned well ahead of the intersection of the two tracks. Helicopters are recovered at the rear deck, not the front. Clearly the helo was not trying to land at the time of the incident ..."
"... If the yankees were on a recovery maneuver exercise they should have detected a hazard approaching and in range of being serious and simply deferred the exercise until it could be conducted free of distraction. They had ample time to display appropriate flags. The yankees have a serious blind spot as evidenced by two previous collisions referenced in posts above. ..."
"... "The ship should display the signals required by Rules 27(b)(i) and (ii) of the IMO International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). Alternatively, International Code Flag 'D' may be flown." ..."
"... In my experience US Navy Public Affairs Officers are ignorant of what they are commenting on by design. They can't give up too much if they know nothing beyond the party line and enough jargon to dazzle the journalists. ..."
"... There's a checklist for going to flight ops. Part of the checklist is to tell the signalmen to fly the "H" flag and to raise the restricted in ability to maneuver day shapes (ball-diamond-ball). ..."
Judging by the comment thread, these boys are hard at work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_communication_specialist
"Mass Communication Specialist (abbreviated as MC) is a United States Navy occupational
rating. MCs practice human-centered design to develop creative communication solutions and
align communication strategies and tactics to leadership's intent; conduct research and
develop audience profiles; prepare, process, and print publications and media products;
create sketches, storyboards, and graphics; design publications; produce still imagery, and
written, audio, video, and multimedia information products; collect, analyze, and report
media project and communication plan feedback and performance information; create media
project plans; conduct community outreach, news media operations, leadership communication
operations, and organizational communication operations; plan and direct communication
campaigns and events and serve as communication advisors to commanders; and develop content
strategies, create data stories, and ensure communication products and experiences are
designed to enhance understanding and discoverability. MCs serve aboard ships, in
expeditionary units and at shore commands in the United States and overseas.[1]"
My guess is the Russian anti submarine ship was on a parallel course to keep track of the US
attack submarines with the carrier group. US ship was sent out to push it away. As you say,
the helicopter may have been sent out to capture some video or stills that could be used to
back up the 'US is innocent' propaganda already planned.
One thought on this - If the Russian ship did not change course, with the US ship slowing
under reverse thrust, the Russian ship most likely would have hit it somewhere near the
center. A great video of a Russian ship aggressively ramming a 'peaceful and innocent' US
ship.
A 1:49 video filmed from the US vessel. The cameraman was taking leisurely close in shots of
the Russian vessel's comms systems. The two vessels were sailing close to parallel for all
this time and there is a view of the infamous Russian sunbathers on the helicopter landing
platform.
There was something on Press TV about the US ship getting too close to a Russian UUV
undergoing trials / on a covert op which caused the Russian escort ship to intercept the US
ship.
Apparently the US had an ASW capable chopper in the air which was a treat to the UUV so the
Russians gently reminded the US that they should back off.
This happens with all sides regularly without too much of a fuss. The Russians have decades
of history of warning off the US and UK in this way, and it never involves anyone getting
hurt or even weapons getting pointed. It is just a firm but non-violent way of getting the
other side to back off.
Rarely is a fuss kicked up and the crews on both sides often use these encounters as a photo
op, so why the Americans have decided to make an issue out this one is anyones guess.
Apparently you didn't read "b" post and know nothing about Russian vs US ship
construction:
"The crew of the Chancellorsville should call itself lucky. Russian ships are build with a
strong bow to travel in icy waters. Had the Admiral Vinogradov not made the emergency turn to
its right, its bow would have cut their ship in half."
I call bullshit on the "recovering an helicopter" excuse. The vision shown is from a
helicopter positioned well ahead of the intersection of the two tracks. Helicopters are
recovered at the rear deck, not the front. Clearly the helo was not trying to land at the
time of the incident
82 sums it up nicely. The Yanks f..ked up, yet again.
My sympathies are with the crew too. The reckless heroics of the bridge gang are
deplorable. These encounters do not happen at high speed. Minutes go by. Both vessels should
have been aware of their potential for close encounter.
If the yankees were on a recovery maneuver exercise they should have detected a hazard
approaching and in range of being serious and simply deferred the exercise until it could be
conducted free of distraction. They had ample time to display appropriate flags. The yankees
have a serious blind spot as evidenced by two previous collisions referenced in posts
above.
The Russians could easily have adjusted course to pass behind the yankee vessel. All these
ships have more than adequate electronics and personnel to calculate converging course and
time of encounter. That they chose to come so close could indicate a FU attitude or perhaps
they were on a 'collision stations' maneuver in real time. It is also probable they were
monitoring US communications systems that are limited in range and only detected up close.
Understanding those systems enables one to build a jamming device. The crew on that vessel
would have been mighty anxious too.
Hyped egos, poor training and warships are a very stupid mix. See the Forrestal debacle
where the ships fire crew were wiped out in the first response and untrained sailors sprayed
the deck with water rather than foam thus washing fuel below decks and setting the stern
ablaze.
Here we have
manual : Helicopter-Ship-Operations . From page 37, Section 5.4.1:
"The ship should display the signals required by Rules 27(b)(i) and (ii) of the IMO
International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). Alternatively, International Code
Flag 'D' may be flown."
"D" translates as "Keep clear of me." From COLREGS, "Day shapes" mentioned above would be
"1 ball+1 diamond+1 ball" organized vertically, which translates as "Restricted in ability to
maneuver" (
here ).
But none of what the Regs require is visible--none! Russia wins its case, and it was all
too easy!
In my experience US Navy Public Affairs Officers are ignorant of what they are commenting on
by design. They can't give up too much if they know nothing beyond the party line and enough
jargon to dazzle the journalists.
The failure to mention USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) had the appropriate day shapes flying
is simply too in the weeds for the PAOs and admiral's staff who wrote the press
release/story.
There's a checklist for going to flight ops. Part of the checklist is to tell the
signalmen to fly the "H" flag and to raise the restricted in ability to maneuver day shapes
(ball-diamond-ball).
Even if the officer of the deck & the helicopter control officer did fail to tell the
signalman to do those things, the vast majority of signalmen would have reminded the OOD.
Signalmen have relatively few things to pay attention to, so they are pretty self
directed.
"... Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike Whitney and Philip Giraldi described the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. ..."
"... The CIA spies in England and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies. ..."
"... It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did. ..."
"... Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war. ..."
"... In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych. They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad. The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown. ..."
"... You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient. ..."
"... Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult to deal with them. ..."
"... People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and media men should know their place. ..."
"... How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy? ..."
"... These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation. ..."
"... Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI. ..."
"... It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes. If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers. ..."
"... It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control. The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control; it's firmly IN control. ..."
"... It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism – depending on the case. ..."
"... And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money, because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism ..."
"... The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance. ..."
"... Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA. ..."
"... Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors, but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor is a spook and he does what he wants. ..."
"... John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves. ..."
"... A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country, its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion and terror. ..."
"... Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses. ..."
"... Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments. ..."
"... While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control. They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it. ..."
Conspiratorially-minded writers envisaged the Shadow World Government as a board of evil sages surrounded by the financiers and
cinema moguls. That would be bad enough; in infinitely worse reality, our world is run by the Junior Ganymede that went berserk.
It is not a government, but a network, like freemasonry of old, and it consists chiefly of treacherous spies and pens-for-hire, two
kinds of service personnel, that collected a lot of data and tools of influence, and instead of serving their masters loyally, had
decided to lead the world in the direction they prefer.
German Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the last head of the Abwehr, Hitler's Military Intelligence, had been such a spy with political
ambitions. He supported Hitler as the mighty enemy of Communism; on a certain stage he came to conclusion that the US will do the
job better and switched to the Anglo-American side. He was uncovered and executed for treason. His colleague General Reinhard Gehlen
also betrayed his Führer and had switched to the American side. After the war, he continued his war against Soviet Russia, this time
for CIA instead of Abwehr.
The spies are treacherous by their nature. They contact people who betrayed their countries; they work under cover, pretending
to be somebody else; for them the switch of loyalty is as usual and normal as the gender change operation for a Moroccan doctor who
is doing that 8 to 5 every day. They mix with foreign spies, they kill people with impunity; they break every law, human or divine.
They are extremely dangerous if they do it for their own country. They are infinitely more dangerous if they work for themselves
and still keep their institutional capabilities and international network.
Recently we had a painful reminding of their treacherous nature. Venezuela's top spy, the former director of the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service (Sebin), Manuel Cristopher Figuera , had switched sides during the last coup attempt and escaped abroad
as the coup failed. He discovered that his membership on the Junior Ganymede of the spooks is more important for him than his duty
to his country and its constitution.
Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though
they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike
Whitney and Philip Giraldi described
the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. In
the conspiracy, foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, played an important role. As by law, these spies aren't
allowed to operate on their home ground, they go into you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back routine. The CIA spies in England
and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to
unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies.
It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal
to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is
good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the
Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians
and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did.
Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of
JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq
war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war.
Russian spooks are in a special relations mode with the global network – for many years. In Russia, persistent rumours claim the
perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the KGB chief (1967 – 1982)
Yuri Andropov . He and his appointees
dismantled the socialist state and prepared the takeover of 1991 in the interests of the One World project.
Andropov (who had stepped into Brezhnev's shoes in 1982 and died in 1984) had advanced Gorbachev and his architect of glasnost,
Alexander Yakovlev . Andropov
also promoted the arch-traitor KGB General Oleg Kalugin
to head its counter-intelligence. Later, Kalugin betrayed his country, escaped to the US and delivered all Russian spies he knew
of to the FBI hands.
In late 1980s-early 1990s, the KGB, originally the guarding dog of the Russian working class, had betrayed its Communist masters
and switched to work for the Network. But for their betrayal, Gorbachev would not be able to destroy his country so fast: the KGB
neutralised or misinformed the Communist leadership.
They allowed Chernobyl to explode; they permitted a German pilot to land on the Red Square – this was used by Gorbachev as an
excuse to sack the whole lot of patriotic generals. The KGB people were active in subverting other socialist states, too. They executed
the Romanian leader Ceausescu and his wife; they brought down the GDR, the socialist Germany; they plotted with Yeltsin against Gorbachev
and with Gorbachev against Romanov. As the result of their plotting, the USSR fell apart.
The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened
calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play
the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards. Years later, Vladimir
Putin came to power in Russia with the blessing of the world spooks and bankers, but being too independent a man to submit, he took
his country into its present nationalist course, trying to regain some lost ground. The dissatisfied spooks supported him.
Only recently Putin began to trim the wild growth of his own intelligence service, the FSB. It is possible the cautious president
had been alerted by the surprising insistence of the Western media that the alleged attempt on Skripal and other visible cases had
been attributed to the GRU, the relatively small Russian Military Intelligence, while the much bigger FSB had been forgotten. The
head of
FSB cybercrime department had been arrested and sentenced for lengthy term of imprisonment, and two FSB colonels had been arrested
as the search of their premises revealed immense
amounts of cash , both Russian and foreign currency. Such piles of roubles and dollars could be assembled only for an attempt
to change the regime, as it was demanded by the Network.
In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych.
They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad.
The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support
of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown.
In the US, the spooks allowed Donald Trump to become the leading Republican candidate, for they thought he would certainly lose
to Mme Clinton. Surprisingly, he had won, and since then, this man who was advanced as an easy prey, as a buffoon, had been hunted
by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry.
You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were
and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the
plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient.
Their knowledge of official leaders' faults gives them their feeling of power, but this knowledge can be translated into actual
control only for weak-minded men. Strong leaders do not submit easily. Putin has had his quota of imprudent or outright criminal
acts in his past, but he never allowed the blackmailers to dictate him their agenda. Netanyahu, another strong man of modern politics,
also had managed to survive blackmail. Meanwhile, Trump defeated all attempts to unseat him, though his enemies had used his alleged
lack of delicacy in relation to women, blacks and Jews to its utmost. He waded through the deep pond of Russiagate like Gulliver.
But he has to purge the alphabet agencies to reach safety.
In Russia, the problem is acute. Many Russian spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other
countries than to their fellow citizens. There is a freemasonic quality in their camaraderie. Such a quality could be commendable
in soldiers after the war is over, but here the war is going on. Russian spooks are particularly besotted with their declared enemies;
apparently it is the Christian quality of the Russian soul, but a very annoying one.
When Snowden reached Moscow after his daring escape from Hong Kong, the Russian TV screened a discussion that I participated in,
among journalists, members of parliament and ex-spies. The Russian spooks said that Snowden is a traitor; a person who betrayed his
agency can't be trusted and should be sent to the US in shackles. They felt they belong to the Spy World, with its inner bond, while
their loyalty to Russia was a distant second.
During recent visit of Mike Pompeo to Sochi, the head of SVR, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Mr Sergey Naryshkin
proposed the State Secretary Mike Pompeo, the ex-CIA director,
to expand contacts between Russian and US special services at a higher level. He clarified that he actively interacted with Pompeo
during the period when he was the head of the CIA. Why would he need contacts with his adversary? It would be much better to avoid
contacts altogether.
Even president Putin, who is first of all a Russian nationalist (or a patriot, as they say), who has granted Snowden asylum in
Moscow at a high price of seriously worsening relations with Obama's administration, even Putin has told Stone that Snowden shouldn't
have leaked the documents the way he did. "If he didn't like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further",
a response proving he didn't completely freed himself from the spooks' freemasonry.
While the spooks plot, the scribes justify their plots. Media is also a weapon, and a mighty one. In Richard Wagner's opera
Lohengrin , the protagonist is defeated by the smear campaign in the media. Despite his miraculous arrival, despite his glorious
victory, the evil witch succeeds to poison minds of the hero's wife and of the court. The pen can counter the sword. When the two
are integrated, as in the union of spooks and scribes, it is too dangerous tool to leave intact.
In many countries of Europe, editorial international policies had been outsourced to the spooky Atlantic Council, the Washington-based
think tank. The Atlantic Council is strongly connected with NATO alliance and with Brussels bureaucracy, the tools of control over
Europe. Another tool is
The
Integrity Initiative , where the difference between spies and journalists is
blurred
. And so is the difference between the left and the right. The left and the right-wing media use different arguments, surprisingly
leading to the same bottom line, because both are tools of warfare for the same Network.
In 1930s, they were divided. The German and the British agents pulled and pushed in the opposite directions. The Russian military
became so friendly with the Germans, that at a certain time, Hitler believed the Russian generals would side with him against their
own leader. The Russian spooks were befriended by the Brits, and had tried to push Russia to confront Hitler. The cautious Marshal
Stalin had purged the Red Army's pro-German Generals, and the NKVD's pro-British spooks, and delayed the outbreak of hostilities
as much as he could. Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult
to deal with them.
If they are so powerful, integrated and united, shouldn't we throw a towel in the ring and surrender? Hell, no! Their success
is their undoing. They plot, but Allah is the best plotter, – our Muslim friends say. Indeed, when they succeed to suborn a party,
the people vote with their feet. The Brexit is the case to consider. The Network wanted to undermine the Brexit; so they neutralised
Corbyn by the antisemitism pursuit while May had made all she could to sabotage the Brexit while calling for it in public. Awfully
clever of them – but the British voter responded with dropping both established parties. So their clever plot misfired.
People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected
legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and
media men should know their place.
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Spymasters are usually renowned for their inscrutability and for playing their cards close to their vests.
These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created
the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of
a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation.
Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution
to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI.
Forthcoming books will no doubt get into all the remarkable and bizarre details.
Donald Trump has demonstrated the ability to troll and goad many of his opponents into a state of imbecility. It's a negotiating
tactic -- knock them off balance, provoke them to lose control. No matter how smart they are, some people take the bait.
I am sitting here pointing to my nose. Spies run the world – contemporary history in a nutshell. A few provisos:
– It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes.
If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal
biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers.
– It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control.
The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control;
it's firmly IN control.
– There is a crucial difference between US and Russian spies. Russians can go over the head of their government to the world.
That's the only effective check on state criminal enterprise like CIA. Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says "in the Russian
Federation rights and freedoms of person and citizen are recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles
and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution." Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person
and citizen are directly applicable, which prevents the kind of bad-faith tricks the USA pulls, like declaring "non-self executing"
treaties, or making legally void reservations, declarations, understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article
46(3) guarantees citizens a constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms
if internal legal redress has been exhausted. Ratified international treaties including the ICCPR supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise.
Isn't it just collusion that holds certain elite groups together, including in some businesses where a lot of chicanery goes on.
The most important thing is to be in on it as one of them, not as a person who can be trusted not to say anything, but as one
of the gang. It's exactly how absenteeism-friendly offices full of crony parents with crony-parent managers work.
The only problem for the guy at the tippy top is what would happen if such a tight group turned on him / her? Maybe, some leaders
see the value in protecting a few brave individuals, like Snowden, letting any coup-stirring spooks know that some people are
watching the Establishment's rights violators, too. Those with technical knowledge have more capacity than most to do it or, at
least, to understand how it works.
In a country founded on individual liberties, including Fourth Amendment privacy rights that were protected by less greedy
generations, the US should have elected leaders that put the US Constitution first, but that is too much to ask in an era when
the top dogs in business & government are all colluding for money.
In Russia, persistent rumours claim the perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the
KGB chief (1967 – 1982) Yuri Andropov.
FWIW, I have heard the exact same thing from Russian commenters myself. Some have insisted that, if Andropov had lived long
enough, he would have carried glasnost and perestroika himself.
Spies are loathsome bunch, with questionable loyalties and personal integrity. But I believe that overall they play a positive
role. They play a positive role because they help adversaries gain insight into their adversary's activities.
If it wasn't for the spies, paranoia about what the other side is doing can get out of hand and cause wrong actions to take
place. The problem with the spies is also that no one knows how much they can be trusted and on whose side they are really on.
It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected
to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism
– depending on the case.
And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money,
because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism.
The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial
espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage
them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR
close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance.
Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization
of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA.
An aspect of the rule of spies that Mr. Shamir does not touch on is the legitimization of this rule through popular culture.
This started with the James Bond novels and movies and by now has become ubiquitous. Spies and assassins are the heroes of the
masses. While secrecy is still needed for tactical reasons in the case of specific operations, overall secrecy is not needed nor
even desirable. So you have thugs like Pompeo actually boasting of their villainy before audiences of college students at Texas
A&M and you have the Mossad supporting the publication of the book Rise and Kill First which is an extensive account of their
world-wide assassination policy. They have the power; now they want the perks that go with it, including being treated like rock
stars.
dear mr Shamir, the criminals are not only stupid but also utterly wicked. they will be stricken down in the twinkling of the
eye and will cry out why God? all the righteous will shout for joy and give thanks to the Almighty for judging Babylon. woe unto
them! they will have no place to hide or run to.
Ezekiel 9 (NKJV)
The Wicked Are Slain
9 Then He called out in my hearing with a loud voice, saying, "Let those who have charge over the city draw near, each with a
deadly weapon in his hand." 2 And suddenly six men came from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with his
battle-ax in his hand. One man among them was clothed with linen and had a writer's inkhorn at his side. They went in and stood
beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub, where it had been, to the threshold of the temple. And He
called to the man clothed with linen, who had the writer's inkhorn at his side; 4 and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst
of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations
that are done within it."
5 To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.
6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and
begin at My sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were before the temple. 7 Then He said to them, "Defile the temple,
and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!" And they went out and killed in the city.
8 So it was, that while they were killing them, I was left alone; and I fell on my face and cried out, and said, "Ah, Lord
God! Will You destroy all the remnant of Israel in pouring out Your fury on Jerusalem?"
9 Then He said to me, "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great, and the land is full of bloodshed,
and the city full of perversity; for they say, 'The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!' 10 And as for Me also,
My eye will neither spare, nor will I have pity, but I will recompense their deeds on their own head."
11 Just then, the man clothed with linen, who had the inkhorn at his side, reported back and said, "I have done as You commanded
me."
E Michael Jones was just warning President Trump about the possibility of this in the Straits of Hormuz.
https://youtu.be/iIm3WuJAVEE?t=272
Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors,
but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor
is a spook and he does what he wants.
John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves.
@Antares that's because the Mossad
isn't like "our" spy agencies. it's closer to the old paradigm of the hashishim or true assassins. Mossad "agents" don't gad around
wearing dark glasses and tapping phones; they run proper deep cover operations. "sleepers" is a term used in the USA. they have
jobs. they look "normal". They integrate
Do spies run the world? No not really, bankers run the world.
Bankers constitute most of the deep state in the US/UK in particular and most of Europe. It is the bankers/deep state which
control the intelligence agencies. The ethnicity of a hefty proportion of said bankers is plain to see for anyone with functioning
critical faculties. How else can a tiny country in the middle east have such influence in the US? How else do we explain why 2/3
of the UK parliament are "friends of Israel" How come financial institutions can commit felonies and no one does jail time? why
is Israel allowed to commit war crimes and break international law with total impunity? who got bailed out of their gambling debts
at the expense of inflicting "austerity" on most of the western world?
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks
who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country,
its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion
and terror.
Since winning, Trump has been hunted by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry. <fallacy is that Trump could have gained the assistence
of every American, had Trump just used his powers to declassify all secret information and make it available to the public, instead
he chases Assange, and continues to conduct the affairs of his office in secret.
Propaganda preys on belief.. it is more powerful than an atomic weapon.. when the facts are hidden or when the facts are changed,
distorted or destroyed.
Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their
fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule
making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence
of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/08/josh-gottheimer-democrats-yemen/
<i wrote IRT to the article, that contents appearing in private media supported monopoly powered corporations and distributed
to the public, direct the use of military and the willingness of soldiers of 22 different countries.
Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended
to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately
owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments.
I am bothered by you article because it looks to be Trumped weighted and failes to make clear it is these secret apolitical,
human rights abusers, that direct the contents of the media distributed articles that appear in the privately owmed, media distributed
to the public. Also not explained is how the cost of advertising is shared by the monopoly powered corporations, and it is that
advertising that is the source of support that keeps the fake news in business, the nation state propaganda in line, and the support
of robin -hood terror.
Monopoly powered global corporation advertising funds the fake and misleading private media, that is why the open internet
has been shut in tight. In order for the evil, global acting, high technology nomads to continue their extortion and terror activities
they need the media, its their only real weapon. I have never meet a member of any of the twenty two agencies that was not a trained,
certified mental case terrorist.
I think the interplay between the spooks and scribes warrants a deeper explanation. Covert action refers to anything in which
the author can disclaim his responsibility, ie it looks like someone else or something else. The handler in a political operation
cannot abuse his agent because the agent is the actor. The handler in an intelligence gathering operation can abuse his agent
because the agent merely enables action.
The political operations in this case are propaganda. The Congress of Cultural Freedom is the most clearly described one to
date. Propaganda is necessary in any mass society to ensure that voters care about the right issues, the right way, at the right
time. Propaganda can be true, false, or a mix of the two. Black propaganda deals in falsehoods, ie the Steele Dossier. Black propaganda
works best when it enables a pre-planned operation, but it pollutes the intelligence gathering process with disinformation.
Intelligence gathering is colloquially called investigative reporting. If anyone knows about Gary Webb, Alan Frankovich, or
Michael Hastings they know you can't really do that job well for very long. So how do the old timers last so long? It's a back
and forth. The reporter brings all of his information on a subject to his intelligence source (handler). The source then says,
"print this, print that, sit on that, and since you've been a good boy here's a little something you didn't know." The true role
of the investigative reporter is to conduct counterintelligence and package it as a limited hangout.
While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control.
They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care
as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it.
@Sean McBride And now Trump should
have then all rounded up and hung from the trees in the front of the Whitehouse. Anything less should be seen as encouragement.
The worst among us rule over the rest of us. As Plato said, this needs to change. How to do that? We don't know, but we desperately
need to find out ..
Obama was a very effective promoter of what might be called the "globalist" agenda. He of course didn't invent it but did appoint
those three.
Wayne Madsen gave a convincing account in his speculation that both Obama's parent's were CIA operatives. So it's "all
the family" and in the details one might conclude with the author that indeed "spies run the world."
"... Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing , just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk. ..."
Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And
their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath
he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing
, just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our
opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk.
Here's Trump's hero ..
"One day, from his sniper nest, Chief Gallagher shot a girl in a flower-print hijab who
was walking w/ other girls on the riverbank. She dropped, clutching her stomach, & the
other girls dragged her away."
A mass murderer according to Senior Seals: "Would order needless risks, to fire rockets at
houses for no apparent reason. He routinely parked an armored truck on a Tigris River bridge
& emptied the truck's heavy machine gun into neighborhoods on twith no discernible
targets."
"Platoon members said he spent much of his time in a hidden perch with a sniper rifle,
firing three or four times as often as other platoon snipers. They said he boasted about the
number of people he had killed, including women."
Two other snipers said, the chief shot an unarmed man in a white robe with a wispy white
beard. They said the man fell, a red blotch spreading on his back."
Gallagher ordered a hatchet & a hunting knife" before 2017 deployment. He texted the
man who made them (a Navy Seal veteran) shortly after arriving in Iraq: "I'll try and dig
that knife or hatchet on someone's skull!"
May 2017, a SEAL medic was treating a wounded 15 y/o Islamic State fighter. "He's mine,"
Gallagher said. "Gallagher walked up without a word and stabbed the wounded teenager several
times in the neck and once in the chest with his hunting knife, killing him."
He didn't even try to hide the murder of the 15 y/o. He brought other seals around minutes
later & took a photo over the body. Later, he texted the photo to a fellow SEAL in
California: "Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/navy-seals-crimes-of-war.html
Now Trumpies bear in mind that Gallagher's own fellow Seals testified against him
that's how depraved this guy Trump is pardoning is.
Here's Gallagher if you live in a stand your ground state and run into him shoot the
bastard, he'll have his hunting knife on him so you can claim self defense.
"... From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran. ..."
"... This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA. ..."
"... Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us, and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies. ..."
"... It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy. ..."
John Bolton
repeats one of the Trump administration's biggest and most important lies:
Donald Trump's national security adviser said Wednesday there was "no reason" for Iran to back out of its nuclear deal with
world powers other than to seek atomic weapons, a year after the U.S. president unilaterally withdrew America from the accord.
Bolton and other administration officials have promoted the lie that Iran seeks nuclear weapons for months. Unfortunately, members
of Congress and the press have largely failed to call out these lies for what they are. There is no evidence to support the administration's
claims, and there is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, but if they can get away with saying these things without being
challenged they may not need evidence to get the crisis that Bolton and others like him want.
In this case, the AP story just relays Bolton's false and misleading statements as if they should be taken seriously, and their
headline trumpets Bolton's dishonest insinuations as if they were credible. This is an unfortunate case of choosing the sensationalist,
eye-catching headline that misinforms the public on a very important issue. Bolton's latest remarks are especially pernicious because
they use Iran's modest reactions to Trump administration sanctions as evidence of Iran's imaginary intent to acquire weapons. The
U.S. has been trying to push Iran to abandon the deal for more than a year, and at the first sign that Iran begins to reduce its
compliance in order to push back against the administration's outrageous economic warfare Bolton tries to misrepresent it as proof
that they seek nuclear weapons. Don't fall for it, and don't trust anything Bolton says. Not only does he have a record of distorting
and manipulating intelligence to suit his purposes, but his longstanding desire for regime change and his ties to the Mujahideen-e
Khalq (MEK) make him an exceptionally unreliable person when it comes to any and all claims about the Iranian government.
The story provides some context, but still fails to challenge Bolton's assertions:
Bolton said that without more nuclear power plants, it made no sense for Iran to stockpile more low-enriched uranium as it
now plans to do. But the U.S. also earlier cut off Iran's ability to sell its uranium to Russia in exchange for unprocessed
yellow-cake uranium [bold mine-DK].
Iran has set a July 7 deadline for Europe to offer better terms to the unraveling nuclear deal, otherwise it will resume
enrichment closer to weapons level. Bolton declined to say what the U.S. would do in response to that.
"There's no reason for them to do (higher enrichment) unless it is to reduce the breakout time to nuclear weapons," Bolton
said.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration ended the sanctions waivers that enabled Iran to ship its excess low-enriched uranium
out of the country. They made it practically impossible for Iran to do what they have been reliably doing for years, and now Bolton
blames Iran for the consequences of administration actions. The administration has deliberately put Iran in a bind so that they
either give up the enrichment that they are entitled to do under the JCPOA or exceed the restrictions on their stockpile so that
the U.S. can then accuse them of a violation. Left out in all of this is that the U.S. is no longer a party to the deal and violated
all of its commitments more than a year ago. Iran has patiently remained in compliance while the only party to breach the agreement
desperately hunts for a pretext to accuse them of some minor infraction.
Iran's record of full compliance with the JCPOA for more than three years hasn't mattered to Bolton and his allies in the slightest,
and they have had no problem reneging on U.S. commitments, but now the same ideologues that have wanted to destroy the deal from
the start insist on treating the deal's restrictions as sacrosanct. These same people have worked to engineer a situation in which
Iran may end up stockpiling more low-enriched uranium than they are supposed to have, and then seize on the situation they created
to spread lies about Iran's desire for nukes. It's all so obviously being done in bad faith, but then that is what we have come
to expect from Iran hawks and opponents of the nuclear deal. Don't let them get away with it.
The reason that Iran is threatening to enrich its uranium to a higher level is that the U.S. has been relentlessly sanctioning
them despite their total compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. The Trump administration has done all it could to deny Iran the
benefits of the deal, and then Bolton has the gall to say that they have no other reason to reduce their compliance. Of course Iran
does have another reason, and that is to put pressure on the other remaining parties to the deal to find a way to get Iran the benefits
it was promised. It is a small step taken in response to the administration's own destructive policy, and it is not evidence of
anything else. Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, and it is grossly irresponsible to treat unfounded administration claims about
this as anything other than propaganda and lies.
From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured
in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the
US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran.
This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target
on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA.
Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us,
and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies.
It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never
acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy.
I think NK has it right to assert that Bolton is a defective human product.
Have brought up Gabbard's sticking with the lies and false narratives regarding Russia and Ukraine, clearly one of her blind
spots in her "antiwar" political campaign, that along with the massive and unrelenting war OF terror. That letter is a rather disgusting
display of imperialist obfuscation by the duopoly political parties, fully supporting the lies about Maduro and what's happening
in VS and in effect providing cover for future actions. You can't claim to be against military action while also lying about the
reasons. Of course they can, that's how they prep the public for imperial advances. up 4 users have voted.
i totally endorse zuesse's theory, but oh my, he'd brought in a lot of moving parts at the time. paranoid conspiracy theory
or 'coincidence theory', as some brilliant mofo used to ask. (i'l think of his name later.) the russian defense ministry's contentions
are in conflict with zuesse's (buk missiles v. another jet with missiles), but i sure as hell know that the dutch report
decision in advance was bullshit. i'd think that one would have to be willfully blind to accept it at face value, esp.
if any of them like gabbard were on the defense and intel committees at the time. same with madurro's venezuela, to pretend
that it's not mainly the egregious sanctions and blockades that are responsible for the estimated 40,000 citizens who've died
for lack of medicines and food. and now their CLAP food delivery system is under attack...again.
i get that the intel they're fed is rubbish, but they all have the duty to look further than what lies they're spoon fed.
CEPR has been incredibly valuable a resource for one, and it's pretty mainstream.
but he's right about one thing: yanukovitch was overthrown due to his refusal to sign the EU association memo, and when Imperialists
speak of how 'russia stole crimea', or refuse to see why the separatists in the donbass formed their own independent nation-states,
it's utter hypocrisy.
thanks for reading and commenting, big al.
oh, and do you know if tulsi's FP is still at her house.gov site? i looked at all her press releases that were dated after
that offensive letter, but i'd found nothing new.
@wendy davis I mean, there's the establishment/government narrative and there's the truth, that's about all I need to
know. It's like that saying "trust, but verify". I say fuck that, "don't trust, and verify that".
I don't know about Gabbard's FP, she's done some housecleaning and avoided certain things since becoming the CFR's choice for
2024. Again, I've already done enough research, what, for over 3 years now?, to see what she's all about, something I failed
to do in 2007/8 regarding Obama. Lo and behold, all the clues were there just waiting to be uncovered, but I wasn't in the same
place as now.
...by the Russians, who were not allowed to participate in the Dutch investigation. The information and data was presented
to the Dutch and to the Western media in September 2018. Everything one could hope to see in physical evidence is here. There
is additional evidence not in this article that adds to the details and forensics presented here.
This information was not published in the West or in the Vassal State of Netherlands. The US possesses satellite photos of
the incident. But it has classified those photos and refuses to release them.
As for means, motive and opportunity:
• MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, not over Russia.
• It was shot down with a missile owned by Ukraine, not by Russia.
• It had propaganda value for Ukraine and its CIA masters, none for
• The missile was fired from territory controlled by the neo nazi Kiev regime.
But the best evidence of what took place, as far as I'm concerned, is right here:
Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, falling in the rebel-held part of
the country. The crash claimed the lives of 283 passengers and 15 crew members, most of them Dutch nationals. Russia
was blamed by Western media in the first days after the tragedy, even before any evidence had been collected on the ground.
and thank you. your memory is prodigious, and having the 2018 RT news is srsly helpful, as is your M,M, & O formula. blame
first, then fail to allow russia (and malaysia) to be able to run investigations. good to know as well that the malaysian minister
knew of the serial numbers and that ukraine owned the missiles.
eric zuesse had said that even dutch journalists were raising havoc with the JIT back in the day. but just think what this
false blame resulting in mega-sanctions began, then onto the skripals, russia-gate in many guises, and tra la la.
mr. wd laughed this mornin' and said he wishes he had a choice to vote for sergei lavrov for prez; i second that!
dunno if the EU still wants a compact with ukraine, but NATO sure wants the neo-nazi nation as a member. ping: if i have
the energy and time, i'll try to find in zuesse's tome admissions by snipers in 2014, as well.
Must admit I didn't hunt down her Ukraine position, but my personal take is Obummer and the CIA set out to foment problems
and managed to get a fascists regime elected in order to oppose Russia. The new Ukrainian president may take things in a more
pro-Russia direction?
site, at her election site. well, check out Russia , for now. and i do thank you; i was lookin' in all the wrong places.
; )i'll check out more soon as i have time, but zounds: russia: crimea, the nation's interference in our election, wooof. of
course jill stein raised boatloads of bucks for recounts in three states on the basis of russian interference, later 'foreign
interference' against the wishes of the green party board and her own running mate, so...there's that, but it was just a dodge
against trump winning, not hillary. sorry, tulsi.
for being in such a hurry i hadn't even registered your speculation about zelenskiy, but nah, he wants crimea and the donbass
self-declared republics that Putin stole from him...back. he's being lauded and applauded for 'standing up to KGB Putin'. ;
)
and the IMF's bailin' em out again so they have enough to pay their NATO dues and join the EU. (just saw that tryin' to remember
how to sorta spell the comic's name.)
maybe it was passengers', was returned to Malaysia ... but in a sealed coffin, that even family members were refused to open.
At the time an OSCE member was the first to arrive at the crash site. Some 20 minutes after the downing. The photos taken
by him, or so it was attributed, showed round holes (not shrapnel) shot in the pilot area. Sorry I don't have any links handy
on either of these, but I'm pretty sure this is correct.
as i understand it, the hole size was not in contention. but weather it had been the pilot or a passenger: '...but in a sealed
coffin, that even family members were refused to open.'
is that perhaps a malaysian custom? is the truth out there somewhere?
eric zuesse remind us, the holes in the cockpit were likely from machine guns on the ukrainian fighter jet sent to make sure
the ukie buk missiles had (omg) killed the plane, which if i'm getting it right (a big IF) was changing direction as it went
down. my apologies for not getting all the moving parts and claims right on this thread.
but the 21st century wire shows charts and evidence that the flight crew was ordered to change course by the air traffic
control tower (as per the later censored bbc plus recordings).
...was involved in the downing of MH17, which was the opinion of many aviation experts and others, who found bullet holes
in the cockpit, wings, and fuselage. This in addition to Buk damage.
Recordings were captured by multiple sources of a frightened and stressed Ukrainian pilot, who radioed, "I shot the wrong
plane!" He sounded as if he was commanded to shoot down a military target plane and was misled into shooting a passenger jet.
That pilot, named Voloshyn, later committed suicide.
The typical recollection of the incident is:
A fighter was also sent up to 'make sure' the target plane was shot down. If I remember rightly, the plane was hit, but
was still flying and it began to turn back. If the plane story (which I tend to believe) is true, it's at that point that
the fighter jet opened fire on the cockpit and wings.
That would also account for Buk damage to the Boeing, as well as fighter machine gun damage to the cockpit.
You can find many references to this incident along with transcripts of the conversation between the fighter pilot and the
ground base.
video confessions from the snipers at maidan (i assume ukrainians firing on protestors in front of the trades union building
that was eventually...burned to the ground.
but this?
"For instance, Moscow said a theory was never tested that the airliner could have been downed by a fighter jet spotted
by Russian radar stations near flight MH17. The theory was later proven false by the discovery of debris from the Buk rocket.
Though Russia doesn't possess those black boxes ( which, by chance, were handed by the pro-Russian separatists to the
Malaysian Government's representative, and yet that Government handed them to Netherland's Government instead of to Russia's
-- apparently trusting Netherlands more than trusting Russia or even themselves), Russia does possess, and publicly reveals,
evidence that's conclusive on its own; and it is 100% consistent with Haisenko's reconstruction of the event, regardless
whether a Buk was involved or not."
one of his links went to ' MH17 Verdict: Real Evidence Points to US-Kiev Cover-up of Failed False Flag '
July 25, 2014 , 21stcenturywire.com
"As MH17 moved into Ukrainian air space, it was moved by ATC Kiev approximately 200 miles north – putting it on a new
course, heading directly into a war zone, a well-known dangerous area by now – one that's hosted a number of downed military
craft over the previous 3 weeks. Robert Mark, a commercial pilot and editor of Aviation International News Safety magazine,
confirmed that most Malaysia Airlines flights from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur would normally travel along a route significantly
further south than the route MH17 was diverted onto.
Data on all airline flight records can be found here. The BBC reported on July 17th: " Ukraine's SBU security service
has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner,
a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency."
a great (and lengthy) collaborative investigation by 21st century wire. thanks, obomba, thanks, tulsi, thanks Pierre and
vickie nuland. and even the new guy can't control his neo-nazis. but then again, at least yulia tymoshenko didn't win.
but NATO will add them to the roster soon, which is one of the reasons that the atlantic council had recommended him: to
root out poroshenko's oligarchs' corruption.
but i almost wish i hadn't it's sooooo long and full of twists and turns, news reports, videos, but in general the theme
is that mikhail saakashvilli hired them, then stiffed them.
' The "Snipers' Massacre" in Kiev -- Another False Flag? ',
January
13, 2015 , granvillepost.com, eric zuesse
you may remember him best john Mccains buddy: 'today we are all georgians'? like ahmed chalabi, he's the proverbial bad penny
who keeps returning in whatever guise needed (after expulsions), and the
big news this week is that zelenskiy's reinstated his ukrainian
citizenship after promising to give up his former ambitions and work with the new prez.
"... The long, dense economic relationship appears to have passed its peak, writes Patrick Lawrence. ..."
"... The fallout from these mutually imposed taxes on trade will be considerable all by itself. Global supply chains will inevitably be disrupted -- a potential threat to worldwide economic stability. U.S. importers are expected to start shifting purchases away from China in favor of alternative suppliers with lower cost structures. American investors are likely to reconsider the mainland as a production platform, in many cases diverting investment dollars elsewhere. ..."
"... In the financial markets, this process is termed "decoupling." The long, dense economic relationship between the U.S. and China, the reasoning runs, appears to have passed its peak. ..."
"... With bilateral trade talks stalled, both sides have begun to indicate -- directly or by inference -- that they are now prepared to draw blood. Once the long-term damage begins, as appears increasingly likely, it is difficult to see how there will be any turning back from it. ..."
"... The only known back door into Huawei systems was created by the National Security Agency, which hacked its servers at some point between 2010 and 2012; this was revealed in the documents Edward Snowden made public in mid -- 2013. In effect, the U.S. accuses China of doing what it has already done. ..."
"... "When it comes to policy caprice motivated by paranoia and Deep State lies, the attack on Huawei is in a class all by itself," David Stockman, the former White House budget director, wrote on his blog earlier this month. "The whole case has been confected by Washington-domiciled economic nationalists who think prosperity stems from the machinations of the state and that state-sponsored 'national champions' are essential to winning the race for global economic and technological dominance." ..."
"... Last week the president suggested that the Huawei dispute can be negotiated as part of a broader agreement on trade. At the same time, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has been crisscrossing the country to warn U.S. companies, universities, and other institutions of the perils of doing business with China. Coats's focus is on the high-technology sector. ..."
"... There are two lessons to draw from this spectacle. Trump's position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing. Equally, Coats's barnstorming tour is a clear indication that the national security apparatus is actively seeking to cast China as a strategic threat to the U.S. -- as the Pentagon declared it to be in a defense review earlier this year. ..."
"... Turning off the supply of rare earths is not the "nuclear option" China may consider it, as there are alternative suppliers. At the same time, the mainland accounts for nearly three-quarters of world supplies. When it blocked sales to Japan during a diplomatic dispute in 2010, prices rose precipitously and there was mayhem among manufacturers dependent on Chinese supplies. ..."
"... Xi made a remark in Jiangxi that is not to be missed. "We are now embarking on a new Long March," he said, referencing the famous retreat Mao led after Chinese Nationalists defeated the Red Army in 1934. "And we must start all over again." ..."
"... Unless Washington opens to a more cooperative partnership with Beijing -- an unlikely prospect -- this could be the moment China begins to displace the U.S. as the preeminent power in the western Pacific. ..."
"... The US has to regain a real economy and stop the insane military spending. Regardless of China. ..."
"... ‘”Trump’s position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing.” Absolutely the case. Trump has been caught before in this same kind of contradictory stance, as with tariffs on steel and aluminum. ..."
"... Trump seems to think he can command the wind and the waves. He has an immense ego, and there is the fact that he is a good deal less clever than he thinks he is. ..."
"... Trump believes that by intimidation and threats, he can make something happen that cannot happen through the ordinary operations of the economies. In this we see him most like the thugs that came to run a number of European countries in the 1930s. ..."
"... Trump’s “MAGA” is nothing more than thinking you can make that heart-warming post-WWII slogan, “the American Dream,” come alive again, many decades later and in an entirely different set of circumstances. “The American Dream” was based in a world where almost every competitor was prostrate from war while America remained relatively unscathed. So, America supplied, for a while, a huge share of the world’s demands, but its share has been declining ever since. ..."
"... Naturally, many Americans want to believe otherwise. Trump’s base – the nation’s Wal-Mart shoppers and the residents of its huge gulag of trailer parks – certainly does, and its hopes comes tinged with everything from superstition to religiosity. ..."
"... America’s elites, the members of its power establishment, do not believe in the same way, but they are deeply concerned about America’s relative decline. ..."
"... They do believe that America’s still great remaining strength can be used to extract concessions from the world without sacrificing anything at home and without sacrificing its role as the center of world empire, a role that comes with many perks and privileges ..."
"... One thinks of the infamous German industrialists and bankers’ – as well as notable American ones – early support for Hitler, although I do not mean to say the situations are identical. ..."
"... You can try fighting by the methods Trump is using, but those methods risk, through acts like the blithe laying on of massive new tariffs and sanctions, not only reduced economic activity in the world, they risk ultimately real wars. ..."
"... The real pity is that Trump at his core is not that much different from the rest of the fools who have been leading this country for the past several decades. He’s just “old school” in his style: he doesn’t wear soft kid gloves whilst attempting to strangle his geopolitical competitors the way all his chums before him did, the sonorous Barack Obama included. ..."
"... Constant warfare is a big part of US consumption. ..."
"... It is becoming increasingly clear that the US is subject to an arms industry racket which is draining its resources and ruining its real potential. ..."
"... We are becoming a country of idle over-weight vets running around on motorcycles wearing red MAGA hats, supported by billionaires, while the rest toil. ..."
"... This will likely come to a head sooner rather than later, and the conflict can be understood in broader terms as between a hegemonic global model and a multi-polar global model ..."
"... While confidence that such measures can inflict enormous harm is justified, the corresponding confidence that America’s preeminent position atop the world’s economic structures is not subject to challenge or change is misguided. The challenge has been ongoing for over five years now, and the change will likely appear suddenly. The preference would be for the U.S. guided to a soft landing into a multi-polar world, but Washington’s policy hawks seem committed to rolling the dice. ..."
"... Washington’s policy setters are gangsters who operate largely through intimidation, extortion and racketeering. ..."
"... This trade war sounds dangerous – didn’t the Smoot Hawley tariffs precipitate the great depression? And the inevitable economic war (even if it is a faux war based on lies, driven by the neocons) could well lead to a real war if we let it….. ..."
"... But trade wars are easy to win! Our very smart cheeto-in-chief has told us. You wouldn’t doubt him would you? ..."
"... The US has abdicated their manufacturing and innovative technologies, shutting down heavy industry under Reagan and Bush I (replacing it with a “service economy”) while outsourcing high end technology and offshoring technical jobs, initially to China mostly under Clinton and Bush II. ..."
"... It’s tempting to conclude that tariffs and action against Huawei are part of the same strategy. I don’t think they are. The tariffs are playing to Trump’s voter gallery. ..."
"... So long as the Chinese can find a way to save face AND give face to Trump, compromise is possible. Huawei is about the Deep State being unable to access Huawei’s facilities. Its a double bluff. The NSA etc (via 5 Eyes) have great access to western controlled telecoms. ..."
The long, dense economic relationship appears to have passed its peak, writes Patrick
Lawrence.
Special to Consortium News
P resident Donald Trump's trade war with China is swiftly taking a decisive turn for the
worse.
Step by step, each measure prompting retaliation, a spat so far limited to tariff increases,
now threatens to transform the bilateral relationship into one of managed hostility extending
well beyond economic issues. Should Washington and Beijing define each other as adversaries, as
they now appear poised to do, the consequences in terms of global stability and the balance of
power in the Pacific are nearly incalculable.
The trade dispute continues to sharpen. Later this week Beijing is scheduled
to raise tariffs already in place on $60 billion worth of American exports -- the latest in
a running series of escalations Washington set in motion nearly a year ago. Two weeks later the
U.S., having increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese products earlier this month, is
to consider imposing levies on an additional $325 billion worth of imports from the
mainland.
The fallout from these mutually imposed taxes on trade will be considerable all by
itself. Global supply chains will inevitably be disrupted -- a potential threat to worldwide
economic stability. U.S. importers are expected to start shifting purchases away from China in
favor of alternative suppliers with lower cost structures. American investors are likely to
reconsider the mainland as a production platform, in many cases diverting investment dollars
elsewhere.
For its part, China is already rotating its gaze westward toward the Middle East and Europe.
As if to underscore the point, the East Hope Group, a large Chinese manufacturer, announced
late last week that it plans to
invest $10 billion in Abu Dhabi's industrial sector. Beijing is already drawing Western
Europe into its trillion-dollar Belt
and Road Initiative . In time, Europe could begin to replace the U.S. as a source of the
foreign investment capital China needs.
Decoupling
In the financial markets, this process is termed "decoupling." The long, dense economic
relationship between the U.S. and China, the reasoning runs, appears to have passed its
peak.
With bilateral trade talks stalled, both sides have begun to indicate -- directly or by
inference -- that they are now prepared to draw blood. Once the long-term damage begins, as
appears increasingly likely, it is difficult to see how there will be any turning back from
it.
Two weeks ago, the White House issued an executive order barring
purchases of telecommunications equipment from any foreign company deemed to pose a threat to
U.S. national security. It also requires American companies to obtain licenses before exporting
U.S. telecoms technology to such firms. While an administration official described the order as
"company and country agnostic," it is all but explicitly intended to damage the global position
of Huawei, the highly competitive Chinese company that is a leader in cellular telephone sales
and 5G telecommunications networks.
Huawei has long been in Washington's sights. Chief among the allegations against it , the
company is accused of providing China with a "back door" into its telecoms networks, so
allowing Beijing to spy on any entity using Huawei equipment. The U.S. has never provided
evidence of this, and both Huawei and Beijing vigorously deny any such arrangement. The
only known back door into Huawei systems was created by the National Security Agency, which
hacked its servers at some point between 2010 and 2012; this was revealed in the documents
Edward Snowden made public in mid -- 2013. In effect, the U.S. accuses China of doing what it
has already done.
"When it comes to policy caprice motivated by paranoia and Deep State lies, the attack
on Huawei is in a class all by itself," David Stockman, the former White House budget director,
wrote on his blog earlier this month. "The whole case has been confected by
Washington-domiciled economic nationalists who think prosperity stems from the machinations of
the state and that state-sponsored 'national champions' are essential to winning the race for
global economic and technological dominance."
Contradictory Narrative
There is little question that freezing Huawei out of the U.S. market and depriving it of
U.S. -- made components will do damage, in all likelihood lasting, to the company. The
Eurasia Group terms the administration's executive order "a grave escalation with China
that at a minimum plunges the prospect of continued trade negotiations into doubt." But as it
has on other policy questions, the Trump administration is tripping over its own contradictory
narratives at this point.
Last week the president suggested
that the Huawei dispute can be negotiated as part of a broader agreement on trade. At the same
time, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has been crisscrossing the country
to
warn U.S. companies, universities, and other institutions of the perils of doing business
with China. Coats's focus is on the high-technology sector.
There are two lessons to draw from this spectacle. Trump's position on Huawei gives the
game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as
a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing. Equally, Coats's barnstorming tour is a
clear indication that the national security apparatus is actively seeking to cast China as a
strategic threat to the U.S. -- as
the Pentagon declared it to be in a defense review earlier this year.
Beijing has so far shown restraint in its responses, but there are signs it is stiffening
its spine. On Friday it issued a draft of its own set of
tighter regulations governing potential cyber-security breaches.
Xi Jinping had earlier visited a rare-earth processing facility in Jiangxi Province -- a
move read as the Chinese leader's subtle suggestion that Beijing may consider blocking exports
of minerals that are essential components in a variety of high-tech devices.
Turning off the supply of rare earths is not the "nuclear option" China may consider it,
as there are alternative suppliers. At the same time, the mainland accounts for nearly
three-quarters of world supplies. When it blocked sales
to Japan during a diplomatic dispute in 2010, prices rose precipitously and there was
mayhem among manufacturers dependent on Chinese supplies.
Xi made a remark in Jiangxi that is not to be missed. "We are now embarking on a new Long
March," he said, referencing the famous retreat Mao led after Chinese Nationalists defeated the
Red Army in 1934. "And we must start all over again."
With formal talks lapsed for the time being, there is now no shortage of signaling from
either Washington or Beijing. But Xi, China's most assertive leader since the Great Helmsman,
appears to understand the moment as larger than mere gestures. U.S. -- China relations have
entered a decisive phase. America cannot win in a long-term confrontation with China.
Unless Washington opens to a more cooperative partnership with Beijing -- an unlikely
prospect -- this could be the moment China begins to displace the U.S. as the preeminent power
in the western Pacific.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time
No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist . His web site is www.patricklawrence.us.
Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
If you value this original article, please considermaking a donationto Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
dean 1000 , May 31, 2019 at 11:12
The Empire the US built and acquired after WWII could not last no matter who is president.
We have been advised of this coming reality for 30 or 40 years. Washington can’t adjust
b/c it is controlled by a two party system that is owned by the 10%.
Since wall street bought a bunch of manufacturing companies and exported them to China the
US hasen’t had a real economy. It has been one bubble economy after another. A stock
bubble, tech bubble, dot com bubble, and a killer 8 trillion $ housing bubble, and a
completely unnecessary bank bailout.
The US has to regain a real economy and stop the insane military spending. Regardless of
China.
Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:14
Trump, in effect, is walling the US off from the rest of the world, as Ming-Qing dynasty
China did until 1911.it turned out badly for Chinese people. It’s likely to turn out
badly for the US.
Truth , May 29, 2019 at 17:27
One solution to rare minerals is to break the illegal clinton & bush era mining
agreements around the Grand canyon and Nevada which has turned our resources into cash from
russia and canada into the pockets of the deep state “elected” in D<C and
these states. It would be nice if every now and then a real journalist who publishes a full
story would get a complete story published. Consortium does better than most but still needs
to step up their game.
An article that includes explaining why all NAFTA and trade agreements since Kennedy have
been total sellouts of USA in exchange for party owned companies of the "elected"
‘”Trump’s position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is
truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in
trade talks with Beijing.” Absolutely the case. Trump has been caught before in this same kind of contradictory stance, as with tariffs on
steel and aluminum.
I think the truth is that he is a man ready to use any gimmick to get what he wants,
regardless of logic or facts or principle. Another way to say that is to speak of a criminal
mentality.
It is exactly what the mob has always done in making someone an offer they can’t
refuse. “Don’t want to pay protection money? Well, don’t be surprised if
your joint gets burned down.”
Trump essentially wants to transfer huge amounts of trade surplus from China to the United
States, not by any change in the economic activity or policies of the two countries but by
fiat.
But of course, the world doesn’t work that way.
The United States’ trade deficits are its own doing, not China’s. The United
States doesn’t save, and it doesn’t tax adequately. It consumes, and a productive
country like China is only too pleased to supply what it wants. That makes a flow of goods in
one direction and a flow of money in the other. Economics 101.
Trump seems to think he can command the wind and the waves. He has an immense ego, and
there is the fact that he is a good deal less clever than he thinks he is.
Trump believes that by intimidation and threats, he can make something happen that cannot
happen through the ordinary operations of the economies. In this we see him most like the
thugs that came to run a number of European countries in the 1930s.
He genuinely does not understand – or if he understands, he doesn’t care
– what is behind the surpluses and deficits and just insists that they will be changed
as a matter of his personal will. Does that not remind us of anyone from history?
At any rate, it comes down to his admiring “the strong man” and believing he,
and he alone, can play that role for the United States. And there are more than a few
Americans that believe him too. After all, the great American journalist and historian who
documented the rise and fall of the Nazis, William L. Shirer, once said that he thought the
United States might be the first country to go fascist voluntarily. He based that thought on
his observation of many attitudes and beliefs and trends in the United States.
Trump’s “MAGA” is nothing more than thinking you can make that
heart-warming post-WWII slogan, “the American Dream,” come alive again, many
decades later and in an entirely different set of circumstances. “The American
Dream” was based in a world where almost every competitor was prostrate from war while
America remained relatively unscathed. So, America supplied, for a while, a huge share of the
world’s demands, but its share has been declining ever since.
In today’s world, all the old competitors have not only come roaring back, but a lot
of new ones have come into being, and that reality is the future.
Naturally, many Americans want to believe otherwise. Trump’s base – the
nation’s Wal-Mart shoppers and the residents of its huge gulag of trailer parks –
certainly does, and its hopes comes tinged with everything from superstition to
religiosity.
America’s elites, the members of its power establishment, do not believe in the same
way, but they are deeply concerned about America’s relative decline. They have been
working away for years on the problem, as in their past bashing of Japan or China, but they
are not ready to work for fundamental change in America, as, for example, in its tax and
savings structures and its grotesque inequalities.
They do believe that America’s still great remaining strength can be used to extract
concessions from the world without sacrificing anything at home and without sacrificing its
role as the center of world empire, a role that comes with many perks and privileges. And
while most of them do not like Trump’s style or background, I think for now they are
willing to see whether he can get the ugly job done. One thinks of the infamous German
industrialists and bankers’ – as well as notable American ones – early
support for Hitler, although I do not mean to say the situations are identical.
You can try fighting by the methods Trump is using, but those methods risk, through acts
like the blithe laying on of massive new tariffs and sanctions, not only reduced economic
activity in the world, they risk ultimately real wars.
Even if they don’t go so far as war, they are shaking up some fundamental post-WWII
arrangements that America is going to miss. Decades-old allies, like some of those in Europe,
are beginning to re-think their relationship with such a hostile, single-minded America and
to glance around in other directions, as towards the very China Trump attacks and towards
Russia, a country whose openness to business would have resembled a miracle under the
communists and whose wealth of natural resources offers altogether new opportunities.
Realist , May 30, 2019 at 01:32
The real pity is that Trump at his core is not that much different from the rest of the
fools who have been leading this country for the past several decades. He’s just
“old school” in his style: he doesn’t wear soft kid gloves whilst
attempting to strangle his geopolitical competitors the way all his chums before him did, the
sonorous Barack Obama included.
The problem that bothers the US policy makers is real: what to do about the balance of
payments deficit? The Trump team seems to be nit-picking areas where imports can be reduced,
for instance by blocking Chinese tech exports.
All of these moves are nonsense because they
miss the real problem: the US economy has a long standing structural quandary. It devotes so
much of its resources to flashy, ornamental and useless defense high tech weapons and gismos
that it is running itself into the ground.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the US is
subject to an arms industry racket which is draining its resources and ruining its real
potential. What needs to be done is to cut the military budget in half and redirect the
resources to improving the infrastructure of the country and making investment once again
profitable inside the USA. Where is the politician who dares make these proposals? Wake up
America. We are becoming a country of idle over-weight vets running around on motorcycles
wearing red MAGA hats, supported by billionaires, while the rest toil.
bardamu , May 29, 2019 at 00:07
It is strange to discuss confrontation with China only in terms of trade deals so soon
after Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” Trump’s militarism with respect to
North Korea, and the militarism of both the Obama and Trump regimes as regards Russia and
also through western and central Asia, which are clearly areas in which China has no less
natural interest than the United States.
Among these, surely tariffs are the least of most anyone’s worries.
jaycee , May 28, 2019 at 16:27
This will likely come to a head sooner rather than later, and the conflict can be
understood in broader terms as between a hegemonic global model and a multi-polar global
model.
The hegemonic global model has been an American project since the demise of the Soviet
Union, usually presented in euphemism – “globalization”, the
“exceptional” nation, the “rule-based international system”, etc. In
recent years, US politicians have overstepped by a reckless use of the international
financial system to deter designated adversaries.
Presently moving through Congress are bills
designed to use sanctions (“maximum pressure”) to attack both Russia’s Nordstream natural gas pipeline to Europe and China’s claims in the South China Sea.
While confidence that such measures can inflict enormous harm is justified, the corresponding
confidence that America’s preeminent position atop the world’s economic
structures is not subject to challenge or change is misguided. The challenge has been ongoing
for over five years now, and the change will likely appear suddenly. The preference would be
for the U.S. guided to a soft landing into a multi-polar world, but Washington’s policy
hawks seem committed to rolling the dice.
Realist , May 28, 2019 at 17:41
Washington’s policy setters are gangsters who operate largely through intimidation,
extortion and racketeering. If you look up the definitions of those words you will see they
describe to a tee what the American government does. Shutting down Nordstream (and all the
other sanctions over transparently absurd claims) is meant entirely to damage the Russian
economy and destabilise the country’s government, plus to steal away customers in the
energy sector.
They are protecting nobody’s “rights of navigation” in the
South China Sea, rather they are telegraphing to Bejing that Chinese trade with the world can
be shut down on a moment’s notice by Uncle Sam, specifically they are trying to put the
kibosh on the Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative.” The cusses in Washington have
gone so far as to tell Canada that it does not have control over the Northwest Passage, long
considered to be within its internal waters–you know, all those islands connected by
ice for most of the year. Hence forth, Washington decreed that they are international waters
and that it would control them. If that’s being a good neighbor to a country that has
supported your every crazed demand for over 200 years, the “Great White North”
needs to get a restraining order from the World Court against Uncle Sam, plus they need to
find better friends elsewhere on the planet.
I tend to substitute the euphemism “rogue nation” for those others.
Excellent comment.
Realist , May 28, 2019 at 16:22
India, Vietnam, and the Philippines will thank China for the opportunity to manufacture
schlock for sale at Wal*Mart and for the major investments that new Chinese shareholders will
have made in their companies. These countries will now have wares to trade along the Belt and
Road linking all of Eurasia where everyone keeps getting richer by the day. Since people the
world over, except for congenitally retarded neocons, know a good deal when they see one, all
these countries will start telling Uncle Sam to cram it when he keeps demanding they sanction
their new found friends and trading partners because freedom and democracy, Putin and the
other names on Sam’s shit list. They’ll start deciding that all those American
bases give them no clout, no influence, no pay-off and no security… nothing useful at
all, unless prosecuting the crimes and repairing the damage caused by the garrison soldiers
provides local entertainment. It will be time to relocate those rat-holes to the American
side of Trump’s Wall.
Will the silver lining be new American self-sufficiency in manufacturing? The development
of needed resources using new innovative technologies? A plethora of jobs at good pay for
working American men and women? Will American oligarchs once again begin investing in America
itself? If you can arrange that with American greenbacks now buying a tenth as many Yuans,
Euros, Yen, Rupees, Rubles and even Pesos than they once did because Trump decided to
“shake things up,” maybe you can sell all those treasuries needed to run the
government in Washington to the Tooth Fairy.
It’s not true that “you can never go
home again:” just watch the dollars come flooding back to North America when the whole
rest of the world stops trading in them. This whole bit of history should be engaging to
watch on some future television show similar to James Burke’s
“Connections.”
If only Barack Obama had eased up on the extreme Trump bashing at
that White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
Harpo Kondriak , May 28, 2019 at 20:13
“Watch those dollars come flooding back” – when the real fun starts.
Those that don’t understand why there has been little inflation from the bank bailouts
will get their answer. And they won’t like it.
Seamus Padraig , May 28, 2019 at 14:46
As a life-long protectionist, I always believed that our foolish dependence on imports
would ultimately end in tears, and it is now clear how right I was. Just to think: we could
have saved ourselves all this trouble and misery simply by voting down NAFTA and declining to
extend Most-Favored Nation trade status (as it used to be called) to China 25 years ago. But
now, putting our industry back on track is really gonna hurt. Pity …
Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:39
Any US reindustrialization is likely employ robots. The homeless will just keep on
increasing.
Godfree Roberts , May 28, 2019 at 12:29
“Europe could begin to replace the U.S. as a source of the foreign investment
capital China needs.”?
China is the leading recipient of FDI but its need for foreign capital is rapidly diminishing
and it is the world leader in IP
Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:40
A fair amount of foreign investment is laundered bribe money from China.
evelync , May 28, 2019 at 11:28
This trade war sounds dangerous – didn’t the Smoot Hawley tariffs precipitate
the great depression?
And the inevitable economic war (even if it is a faux war based on lies, driven by the
neocons) could well lead to a real war if we let it…..
I can’t help but secretly imagine that perhaps the retaliation that Patrick Lawrence
writes about – namely China’s shift to other trade partners – happens
smoothly and quickly enough to deprive our neocons of their super power resources to put an
end to what Charles Misfeldt in his comments refers to as Crooks, liars, thieves, cowards and
traitors running things…..errr ruining things.
I know that’s not the answer because it could be devastating too.
It’s up to the electorate to shift away from the ideologues, both neoliberal and
neocons.
But will we demand better government?
Most politicians in power have been too afraid to challenge the idea of
“exceptionalism” which is used to keep the primitive war machine going.
Thanks for the article and the interesting and informative comments….much
appreciated…
Jeff Harrison , May 28, 2019 at 11:19
But trade wars are easy to win! Our very smart cheeto-in-chief has told us. You
wouldn’t doubt him would you?
Actually, one wonders why anyone takes the US and its accusations seriously. Especially by
the European vassal states. Yes, your equipment/software will have a backdoor if the US wants
one there. That much is clear from the Snowden releases. And a Reuters report this morning
gives a hint at how it’s done. Huawei apparently is continuing to make the mistake of
sending things out via FedEx. Magically, two of the parcels wound up in the US without the
benefit of Huawei changing their shipping request. Huawei would never have known if they
hadn’t looked at the routing of the parcel after they got it. Hopefully, there
wasn’t any sensitive information in the documents routed to the US because it’s a
sure thing that the USG now has copies of them. Same for the European vassals. Angela
Merkel’s phone hacked. Electronic interception equipment installed on undersea
telephone cables. That’s before we get to the NSA office in all the telecoms spying on
us. Most of the world’s telecommunications run through the US. So, not only do we get
to listen in on a phone call from Paris to Des Moines, we get to listen in on one from Paris
to Shanghai.
And the European vassals continue to toe the American line albeit a bit more
reluctantly.
michael , May 28, 2019 at 11:15
The US has abdicated their manufacturing and innovative technologies, shutting down heavy
industry under Reagan and Bush I (replacing it with a “service economy”) while
outsourcing high end technology and offshoring technical jobs, initially to China mostly
under Clinton and Bush II.
Short-term profits soared with the cheaper labor, but giving away
high end technologies leading to innovations for China was resoundingly stupid. Chinagate was
(is) much more dangerous than Russiagate to National Security.
Having given away
America’s capabilities to China, no amount of negotiating will “level the playing
field” . We can no longer compete with China not because of labor costs, but because of
the improvements the Chinese have made in so many fields over twenty years, while America sat
stagnant (except of course for overpriced weapons and surveillance tools to watch American
citizens).
Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:47
The US has always imported its Einsteins and Teslas. We Americans are educated to be
cannon fodder in wars of vanity. At best, we’re educated to be Trump – Romney
style connivrrs and crooks.
Historically, when two hegemonic powers clash the result is always war. What we are
witnessing between Washington and Beijing today is no different. But Washington will not
allow China to ‘displace the US as the preeminent power in the western Pacific.’
The trade war will become world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
does not have a valid certificate (Firefox warned me).
Charles Misfeldt , May 28, 2019 at 08:44
I look at this picture and see all the representative’s on America’s side of
the table are conservative scumbags who have no intention of engaging in behavior that
benefits myself or the majority in America. Crooks, liars, thieves, cowards and
traitors…
MichaelWme , May 28, 2019 at 06:55
“a spat so far limited to tariff increases”
Not quite. The US has announced that any Chinese person travelling outside of China can be
arrested, as it had Meng Wanzhou arrested in Canada for selling Huawei phones to Iranians.
China threatened to execute 3 Canadians in retaliation, so Canada released Ms Meng from
prison and put her under house arrest while the legal processes of extradition are now
thought to require many years.
China hasn’t executed the 3 Canadians, and Ms Meng is in
her C$20 million home, and is likely to remain there for the foreseeable future. What
happened to Ms Meng can happen to any Chinese executive who travels outside China to the EU
or the Americas or Japan.
E Wright , May 28, 2019 at 04:50
It’s tempting to conclude that tariffs and action against Huawei are part of the
same strategy. I don’t think they are. The tariffs are playing to Trump’s voter
gallery.
So long as the Chinese can find a way to save face AND give face to Trump,
compromise is possible. Huawei is about the Deep State being unable to access Huawei’s
facilities. Its a double bluff. The NSA etc (via 5 Eyes) have great access to western
controlled telecoms.
They don’t want to lose that access by allowing an outside
operator, so they accuse Huawei of what they are doing, on the assumption that Beijing does
what they do.
President Trump loves to blame China for the job losses that have devastated American
workers under globalization. But the truth is that Trump is blaming the wrong party. Trump's
reckless trade war against China is misguided and amounts to a colossal charade that will not
solve the actual problem.
Yes, it is true that numerous American manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas to
China, thereby leaving American workers jobless and suffering. But China did not steal these
jobs.
No. These jobs were given to China. It was all legal and legitimate. China merely accepted
the gift.
What would anyone expect China to do? Accepting these jobs was a perfectly rational course
of action.
China was an underdeveloped nation with a large population of poor people willing to work
for a fraction of the hourly wages of American workers. And then corporations came along and
presented China with an attractive offer: We would like to build manufacturing plants in China
and hire droves of your unemployed people to work there. What was China supposed to do?
Naturally, China said yes.
This is hardly stealing.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
It is true that these new jobs in China were intended to displace American workers. But does
that concern belong to China? Does China have the responsibility to care for the well-being of
American workers? Is China supposed to prioritize American workers over its own workers?
Of course not.
China is supposed to look out for itself and for its own workers, not for American workers.
Thus it was perfectly proper for China to allow the manufacturing plants to be built in China
and employ Chinese workers. China did not steal these jobs.
So if China is not at fault, then who is to blame for the devastation caused to American
workers?
The answer is plain to see, and it lies within our own shores. The fault belongs squarely
with corporate America.
It was corporate America that made these decisions. Corporate America decided to close their
American plants and open new plants in China. Corporate America decided to lay off multitudes
of American workers and ruin entire American communities.
And who profited from the destruction to American workers? It was the wealthy executives and
shareholders of American corporations. They earned millions of dollars for themselves by
cutting the costs of their workforce.
This is part of the larger trend of economic inequality that is eroding the entire middle
class in America. Wealth is being shifted away from the workers down below and transferred up
into the hands of the wealthy executives and shareholders at the top.
Trump blaming China is nonsense. China is not at fault. To be sure, China is hardly an angel
and indeed engages in improper trade practices. But even if China agreed to whatever
bone-headed demands Trump is seeking, the problem still would not be solved. The truth is that
America cannot possibly compete against China on labor costs. The standard of living is much
lower in China and thus Chinese workers are willing to accept wages far below living wages in
America. So corporate America will continue to transfer more and more jobs to China and
elsewhere. If we do not address this fundamental economic reality, then we will never solve the
problem.
Trump blaming China has an insidious aspect to it as well. Focusing all the ire upon China
is a grand misdirection that conceals the true culprit, namely, the super-rich corporate
executives and shareholders in America.
This is part of Trump's standard playbook. Trump falsely proclaims to be fighting for
blue-collar workers, when in truth, Trump acts entirely in favor of the rich at the top.
Surprisingly, this seems to work. Some of the hard-working Americans who are being crushed
by Trump's idiotic trade war and who should be denouncing Trump, nonetheless praise him for
standing up to China, believing that Trump is fighting for blue-collar jobs. It is painful to
witness such good people falling victim to Trump's despicable con job.
In order to actually save the middle class, we need to focus on the true cause of the
problem. We must direct our great powers of reform where they belong -- upon the wealthy
executives and shareholders of corporate America who caused this problem in the first
place.
The nature of the problem is that corporate America has no incentive to protect American
workers. In fact, corporate America has every incentive to harm American workers by shifting
their jobs overseas.
So the financial incentives must be reconfigured. If corporate America is going to ship
American jobs overseas, it must not be permitted to pocket all the profits themselves and leave
their displaced workers with nothing. Instead, corporations that send jobs offshore must be
required to sufficiently compensate their displaced American workers. Executives and
shareholders must not be permitted to enrich themselves unless and until their workers are
financially secure.
Our society must favor people over profits, not profits over people.
This article was
originally published by "
Salon " -
"... Brissot's dilemma when facing the French nationalists of his time was precisely the dilemma of contemporary neoconservatives when Donald Trump was elected president. Trump's criticism of the Iraq war and his nationalistic America First rhetoric was a direct repudiation of the central tenet of neoconservatism, the need to spread universal ideals with American military power. Or, as George W. Bush speechified, to seek "the expansion of freedom in all the world." ..."
"... In reaction to Trump's criticisms, some of the less-savvy neoconservatives, such as Max Boot and Bill Kristol, simply went out into the public square and lit themselves on fire in protest. These self-immolating Never Trumpers will likely never wield power again. ..."
"... continue to treat all non-democratic regimes with belligerence, continue to disparage the traditions of all other nations and cultures by asserting American moral superiority -- but adopt and co-opt the language of Trumpian nationalism. ..."
"... Cotton and Pompeo are, after all, good Straussians, admirers of the late political theorist Leo Strauss. They understand that the masses live in dark ignorance and that smart philosophers can manipulate them into supporting universal ideals through the use of cant phrases like "Make America Great Again." ..."
"... Like Brissot, Pompeo accomplished this bait and switch by rewriting history. He argued that the framers of the American Constitution were not skeptical of entangling alliances, standing armies and global commitments; they were actually warlike neoconservative crusaders. ..."
"... Pompeo argued, as forever war: "Conflict is the normative experience for nations." ..."
"... Adams's admonition was to respect other nations. Pompeo turned this upside down by warning other nations to respect us -- or else. ..."
"... He then, like Brissot, laid out the threats and conspiracies that erode "America's power." The only solution to this challenge was to "proudly" associate with "nations that share our principles and are willing to defend them." How about George Washington's warning against permanent alliances? ..."
"... There is here not even a faint resemblance to what Washington actually believed, but Pompeo's ideological hucksterism drew a warm reception from the Claremont audience, composed in part by people considering themselves scholars of 18th-century America. ..."
"... Toward the end of the speech, Pompeo proceeded to redefine the meaning of "America First" to make it agree with a neoconservative agenda. "Here is what this really means," he said. While Trump has expressed no desire to spread the American model, "America is exceptional -- a place and history apart from normal human experience " (emphasis mine) and "among political ideas, there is none better than the American idea." As compared with this metaphysical American Exceptionalism, the cultures, traditions, and political histories of all other nations shrink into illegitimacy and nothingness. ..."
Given contemporary events, one of the most interesting figures of the 18th-century French revolutionary period was Jacques-Pierre
Brissot, a leader of the Girondins, the neoconservatives of revolutionary France.
Brissot believed that the animating universal ideals of the Revolution had made France, as one of his allies put it, "the foremost
people of the universe," not just better than all earthlings, better even than Martians. Yet, despite France's position as the exceptional
nation, the Girondins worried that universal ideals were under siege by a complex array of conspiracies hatched by the absolutist
powers surrounding France.
The only way to confront these foreign conspiracies, he believed, was preemptive war. Robespierre, who hated Brissot, was skeptical.
Robespierre believed that war would strengthen the monarchy, which was wobbly but still intact in 1791, and that foreign adversaries
would be formidable military opponents. Robespierre famously quipped: "No one loves armed missionaries." In true neoconservative
fashion, Brissot countered that the people of many nations who were longing for liberty, especially the Dutch and Flemish, would
welcome France's revolutionary army with open arms. Sound familiar?
But, Brissot had a problem. When he rose to prominence in the Assembly in 1791, the monarchists and other traditionalists still
held significant sway, and Louis XVI was still on the throne. How to persuade these traditional French nationalists to launch crusading
wars to spread universal ideals when these retrogrades understood the only sound French foreign policy to be one that advanced France's
interests, its raison d'état?
Brissot's dilemma when facing the French nationalists of his time was precisely the dilemma of contemporary neoconservatives
when Donald Trump was elected president. Trump's criticism of the Iraq war and his nationalistic America First rhetoric was a direct
repudiation of the central tenet of neoconservatism, the need to spread universal ideals with American military power. Or, as George
W. Bush speechified, to seek "the expansion of freedom in all the world."
In reaction to Trump's criticisms, some of the less-savvy neoconservatives, such as Max Boot and Bill Kristol, simply went out
into the public square and lit themselves on fire in protest. These self-immolating Never Trumpers will likely never wield power
again.
But the clever neoconservatives, such as Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo, adopted the Brissot strategy. Continue the military
crusade for universal ideals, continue to treat all non-democratic regimes with belligerence, continue to disparage the traditions
of all other nations and cultures by asserting American moral superiority -- but adopt and co-opt the language of Trumpian nationalism.
Cotton and Pompeo are, after all, good Straussians, admirers of the late political theorist Leo Strauss. They understand that the
masses live in dark ignorance and that smart philosophers can manipulate them into supporting universal ideals through the use of
cant phrases like "Make America Great Again."
In Pompeo's May 11
speech at the Claremont Institute, the bastion of the West Coast Straussians, the Brissot strategy was on full display and,
understandably, was met with raucous cheering by the neoconservatives in the audience who understood that Pompeo and John Bolton
had succeeded in hijacking Trump's foreign policy for neoconservatives, a significant accomplishment. While Trump's rhetoric is
still the husk of American foreign policy, when it comes to core principles and political practice, "America First" is out, the
" Freedom Agenda " is in.
"Getting
along" with other nations is out; regime change and belligerence is in.
Like Brissot, Pompeo accomplished this bait and switch by rewriting history. He argued that the framers of the American Constitution
were not skeptical of entangling alliances, standing armies and global commitments; they were actually warlike neoconservative crusaders.
He argued that the "foreign policy of the early republic" could be characterized by three words: "realism, restraint, and respect."
This is fine as far as it goes, but he then proceeded to define these terms in ways that would have made them unrecognizable to
the Framers. Alexander Hamilton defined realism, Pompeo argued, as forever war: "Conflict is the normative experience for nations."
Quoting Thomas Jefferson, he defined "restraint" as the willingness to go to war, because "the temper and folly of our enemies may
not leave this in our choice." Finally, without a hint of irony as the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group was steaming
to the Persian Gulf in search of monsters to destroy, Pompeo quoted John Quincy Adams on the need for respect in international relations.
Adams's admonition was to respect other nations. Pompeo turned this upside down by warning other nations to respect us -- or else.
He then, like Brissot, laid out the threats and conspiracies that erode "America's power." The only solution to this challenge
was to "proudly" associate with "nations that share our principles and are willing to defend them." How about George Washington's
warning against permanent alliances? What Washington really meant in his Farewell Address, Pompeo said, is to have many, many alliances
"based on 'policy, humanity and interest.'" If he were president today, Washington would welcome America's alliances with Israel,
Australia, India, Japan, and South Korea in order to make certain, for example, that "each Indo-Pacific nation can protect its sovereignty
from coercion." Washington was really a neoconservative, you see.
There is here not even a faint resemblance to what Washington actually believed, but Pompeo's ideological hucksterism drew a
warm reception from the Claremont audience, composed in part by people considering themselves scholars of 18th-century America.
Pompeo's rhetoric represents the transvaluation of the Framers' foreign policy restraint into those of neoconservatism. It
is hard to know if Trump is aware that his foreign policy principles have been hijacked, but given his apparent disdain of intellectual
pursuits, the answer is probably in the negative.
Toward the end of the speech, Pompeo proceeded to redefine the meaning of "America First" to make it agree with a neoconservative
agenda. "Here is what this really means," he said. While Trump has expressed no desire to spread the American model, "America is
exceptional -- a place and history apart from normal human experience " (emphasis mine) and "among political ideas,
there is none better than the American idea." As compared with this metaphysical American Exceptionalism, the cultures, traditions,
and political histories of all other nations shrink into illegitimacy and nothingness.
George Washington's view of Pompeo's puffed up triumphalism would be that a nation that hubristically pounds its chest and claims
exceptional moral purity and righteousness may just be a nation that has lost its virtue. The American Framers were well aware that
the great republican experiments in ancient Greece and Rome ended with prideful imperial overreach.
In 1792, when Louis XVI read,
"in a flat, faltering
voice," the war proclamation against Austria he understood it to be a death sentence for the French monarchy. We should know
that if neoconservatives are able actually to carry out the wars that their ideology and will to power suggest, it would be a death
sentence for the American republic.
William S. Smith is Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University
of America
"... Most diplomats, officials, and journalists were shocked that Bolton (evading confirmation with a recess appointment) had actually become the U.S. representative, given his long, public disdain for the UN ..."
"... It's been the strategy of Republican administrations to appoint the fiercest critic to head an agency or institution in order to weaken it, perhaps even fatally. ..."
"... Bolton possesses an abiding self-righteousness rooted in what seems a sincere belief in the myth of American greatness, mixed with deep personal failings hidden from public view. ..."
"... It is more than an ideology. It's fanaticism. Bolton believes America is exceptional and indispensible and superior to all other nations and isn't afraid to say so. ..."
"... Bolton's all too willing to make his bullying personal on behalf of the state. He implicitly threatened the children of José Bustani, who Vice President Dick Cheney wanted out of his job as head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons because Bustani had gotten Iraq to agree to join the chemical weapons protocol, thereby making it harder for the U.S. to invade Iraq. ..."
"... We saw a pattern of Mr. Bolton trying to manipulate intelligence to justify his views. If it had happened once, maybe. But it came up multiple times, and always it was the same underlying issue: he would stake out a position, and then, if the intelligence didn't support it, he would try to exaggerate the intelligence and marginalize the officials who had produced it." ..."
"... Bolton is no fan of democracy if things don't go his way. He is a vociferous instigator of the so-far failed U.S. coup in Venezuela and of course Bolton organized the "Brooks Brothers riot" that disrupted the recounting of votes in Florida in the disputed 2000 presidential election ..."
"... This is a common ruling class tactic in the U.S. to portray disobedient leaders ripe for overthrow as Hitler. Saddam was Hitler, Milosevic was Hitler, Noriega was Hitler and Hillary Clinton called Putin Hitler. It is a false revival of U.S. glory from World War II to paint foreign adventures as moral crusades, rather than naked aggression in pursuit of profits and power. ..."
"... Bolton is the distillation of the pathology of American power. He is unique only in the purity of this pathology. ..."
"... Two months after Bolton was appointed national security adviser, in June 2018, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the six-nation deal that has seen Tehran curtail its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for relaxation of U.S. and international sanctions. ..."
"... Both Israel and Saudi Arabia, lacking the military firepower of the United States, have long tried to get the U.S. to fight its wars, and one no more important than against its common enemy. ..."
"... It is the typical provocation of a bully: threaten someone with a cruise missile and the moment they pick up a knife in self-defense you attack, conveniently leaving the initial threat out of the story. It then becomes: "Iran picked up a knife. We have to blow them away with cruise missiles." ..."
"... The New York Times that day reported : "Privately, several European officials described Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo as pushing an unsuspecting Mr. Trump through a series of steps that could put the United States on a course to war before the president realizes it." ..."
"... Pompeo told a radio interviewer after the briefing that the U.S. had still not determined who attacked two Saudi, a Norwegian and an Emirati oil tanker in the Gulf last week, which bore the hallmarks of a provocation. Pompeo said "it seems like it's quite possible that Iran was behind" the attacks. ..."
"... But also last Sunday he told Fox News that the "military-industrial complex" is real and "they do like war" and they "went nuts" when he said he wanted to withdraw troops from Syria. Trump said he didn't want war with Iran, here possibly reflecting Israel's views. ..."
"... Joe, nice piece of work covering the psycho-pathology of America's leading nazi! ..."
"... To correct one of your statements: Trump DID NOT appoint him National Security Adviser, but Adelson and Mercer did. Trump is a brain-dead, blackmailed puppet who fancies himself as POTUS ..."
"... Everybody I know who is following the Washington Beltway histrionics of Trump et al know full-well that a certain intelligence agency of a small Middle East domiciled country have THE definitive dossier on Trump and have been building it for the last five decades. ..."
"... The Bolton-Pompeo-Pence presidency is destined to go down in history as one of infamy and treason. Trump? dead-man walking, more than likely by a stroke-heart attack when he's popping out one of his idiotic and manic tweets! ..."
"... John Bolton is a psychopath, He should be dismissed immediately, but I think that he should be institutionalized. ..."
"... Yeah Joe, it wasn't just you and other reporters who were stunned by Bolton's recess appt to the UN by W -- - many of us were staggered by the jaw-dropping inappropriateness of it, ..."
"... But, as you accurately mentioned, the Republicans had long-ago (I recall first hearing about it during Nixon's reign, with Earl Butz) used that gambit to effectively sabotage regulatory agencies & depts. Rather than try to dissolve an agency that most people want, they can neutralize it by appointing some hack or lobbyist for the entity being regulated so that nothing meaningful gets done, AND it has the 'beneficial' effect of discrediting the agency involved, and government in general, which is what many libertarian-inclined Republicans like. ..."
"... Israel doesnt want the US to attack Iran Well that is BS! Israel and its Fifth Column in the US have agitated for the US to attack Iran for years .we've all seen and heard it .and now they want to try to wipe our memories of their war mongering with their typical hasbara in the NYT and Netanyahu claiming .'oh we have nothing to do with it." ..."
"... Bolton is a psychopath but he is Sheldon Adelson's errand boy .who Bolton met with in Las Vegas the week before Trump appointed him and Adelson is the Orange carnival barker's 100 million dollar donor. ..."
"... Trump's incoherent mixture of neoconservative & isolationism almost make him a Bush! ..."
"... I assume Trump knows what a 'neocon' but is so indebted to Israel and intoxicated by Islamophobic rhetoric that he cannot free himself from his addiction to surrounding himself with more neo-cons ..."
"... The progression from Flynn to McMaster to Bolton was just selecting between neocon flavors for his National Security Advisers. What a joke of a nation! ..."
"... I appreciate the article, but it doesn't mention Israel, which is the fountainhead of the agenda to take out Iran, Iraq, and Syria. ..."
"... "Overall, 28 sitting senators have received sizable contributions from John Bolton PAC during the election cycle, as have nine representatives on the House defense, foreign affairs, and homeland security subcommittees." ..."
"... Don't forget who told Donald Trump to hire John Bolton. It was Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes. ..."
"... They like Bolton because he is "incapable of empathy and good on Israel." ..."
"... The NYT has indeed supported wars but it is not alone nor is this a recent trend. There is a very old trend of the commercial news establishments becoming war hawks and regurtitators of official propaganda whenever the USA wants to pick a fight. It goes back to the period after the establishment of the nation when expansionism set its roots down and what grew out of that is pretty much the same kind of nationalistic propaganda we see today. ..."
John Bolton has been saying for years he wants the Iranian government overthrown, and now he's made his move. But this time he
may have gone too far, writes Joe Lauria.
I knew John Bolton and interacted with him on a nearly daily basis with my colleagues in the press corps at United Nations headquarters
in New York when Bolton was the United States ambassador there from August 2005 to December 2006.
Most diplomats, officials, and journalists were shocked that Bolton (evading confirmation with a recess appointment) had
actually become the U.S. representative, given his long, public disdain for the UN. But that turned out to be the point.
It's been the strategy of Republican administrations to appoint the fiercest critic to head an agency or institution in order
to weaken it, perhaps even fatally.
Bolton's most infamous quote about the UN followed him into the building. In 1994 he had
said : "The Secretariat building
in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
But a more telling comment in that same 1994 conference was when he said that no matter what the UN decides the U.S. will do
whatever it wants:
Bolton sees such frank admissions as signs of strength, not alarm.
He is a humorless man, who at the UN at least, seemed to always think he was the smartest person in the room. He once gave a
lecture in 2006 at the U.S. mission to UN correspondents, replete with a chalk board, on how nuclear enrichment worked. His aim,
of course, was to convince us that Iran was close to a bomb, even though a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate being prepared
at the time said Tehran had
abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
I thought I'd challenge him one day at the press stakeout outside the Security Council chamber, where Bolton often stopped to
lecture journalists on what they should write. "If the United States and Britain had not overthrown a democratically elected government
in Iran in 1953 would the United States be today faced with a revolutionary government enriching uranium?' I asked him.
"That's an interesting question," he told me, "but for another time and another place." It was a time and a place, of course,
that never came.
More Than an Ideology
Bolton possesses an abiding self-righteousness rooted in what seems a sincere belief in the myth of American greatness, mixed
with deep personal failings hidden from public view.
He seemed perpetually angry and it wasn't clear whether it was over some personal or diplomatic feud. He seems to take personally
nations standing up to America, binding his sense of personal power with that of the United States.
It is more than an ideology. It's fanaticism. Bolton believes America is exceptional and indispensible and superior to all
other nations and isn't afraid to say so. He'd have been better off perhaps in the McKinley administration, before the days
of PR-sugarcoating of imperial aggression. He's not your typical passive-aggressive government official. He's aggressive-aggressive.
And now Bolton is ordering 120,000 troops to get ready and an aircraft carrier to steam towards Iran.
Bolton's all too willing to make his bullying personal on behalf of the state. He implicitly
threatened the children
of José Bustani, who Vice President Dick Cheney wanted out of his job as head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons because Bustani had gotten Iraq to agree to join the chemical weapons protocol, thereby making it harder for the U.S. to
invade Iraq.
After Bolton's failed 2005 confirmation hearings, Tony Blinken, the then staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
told The New Yorker
's Dexter Filkins:
"We saw a pattern of Mr. Bolton trying to manipulate intelligence to justify his views. If it had happened once, maybe.
But it came up multiple times, and always it was the same underlying issue: he would stake out a position, and then, if the
intelligence didn't support it, he would try to exaggerate the intelligence and marginalize the officials who had produced it."
Bolton is no fan of democracy if things don't go his way. He is a vociferous instigator of the so-far failed U.S. coup in
Venezuela and of course Bolton organized
the "Brooks Brothers riot" that disrupted the recounting of votes in Florida in the disputed 2000 presidential election.
What is alarming about the above video is not so much that he justifies lying, but the example he gives: lying to cover up military
plans like the invasion of Normandy. This is a common ruling class tactic in the U.S. to portray disobedient leaders ripe for
overthrow as Hitler. Saddam was Hitler, Milosevic was Hitler, Noriega was Hitler and Hillary Clinton called Putin Hitler. It is
a false revival of U.S. glory from World War II to paint foreign adventures as moral crusades, rather than naked aggression in pursuit
of profits and power.
Bolton is the distillation of the pathology of American power. He is unique only in the purity of this pathology.
Regime Change for Iran
The U.S. national security adviser has been saying for years he wants the Iranian government overthrown, and now he's made his
move. But this time John Bolton may have flown too high.
He was chosen for his post by a president with limited understanding of international affairs -- if real estate is not involved
-- and one who loves to be sucked up to. Trump is Bolton's perfect cover.
But hubris may have finally bested Bolton. He had never before maneuvered himself into such a position of power, though he'd
left a trail of chaos at lower levels of government. Sitting opposite the Resolute desk on a daily basis has presented a chance to implement
his plans.
At the top of that agenda
has been Bolton's stated aim for years: to
bomb and
topple
the Iranian government.
Thus Bolton was the driving force to get a carrier strike force sent to the Persian Gulf and, according to The New York Times,
on May 14 , it was he who
"ordered" a Pentagon
plan to prepare 120,000 U.S. troops for the Gulf. These were to be deployed "if Iran attacked American forces or accelerated its
work on nuclear weapons."
Two months after Bolton was appointed national security adviser, in June 2018, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the six-nation
deal that has seen Tehran curtail its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for relaxation of U.S. and international sanctions.
At the time of Bolton's appointment in April 2018, Tom Countryman, who had been undersecretary of state for arms control and
international security, as had Bolton,
predicted
to The Intercept that if Iran resumed enrichment after the U.S. left the deal, it "would be the kind of excuse that a
person like Bolton would look to to create a military provocation or direct attack on Iran."
In response to ever tightening sanctions, Iran said on May 5 (May 6 in Tehran) that it would indeed
restart partial nuclear enrichment. On the same day, Bolton
announced the carrier strike group was headed to the Gulf.
Bolton Faces Resistance
If this were a normally functioning White House, in which imperial moves are normally made, a president would order military
action, and not a national security adviser.
"I don't think Trump is smart enough to realize what Bolton and [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo are doing to him,"
former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel told RT's Afshin Rattansi
this week.
"They have manipulated him. When you get the national security adviser who claims that he ordered an aircraft carrier flotilla
to go into the Persian Gulf, we've never seen that. In the days of Henry Kissinger, who really brought sway, he never ordered
this, and if it was ordered it was done behind closed doors."
Bolton claimed he acted on intelligence that Iran was poised to attack U.S. interests close to Iran.
Both Israel and Saudi Arabia, lacking the military firepower of the United States, have long tried to get the U.S. to fight
its wars, and one no more important than against its common enemy. An
editorial on May 16 in the Saudi English-language news
outlet, Arab News , called for a U.S. "surgical strike" on Iran. But The New York Times reported on the
same day that though Israel was behind Bolton's "intelligence" about an Iranian threat, Israel does not want the U.S. to attack
Iran causing a full-scale war.
The
intelligence alleged Iran was fitting missiles on fishing boats in the Gulf. Imagine a government targeted by the most powerful
military force in history wanting to defend itself in its own waters.
Bolton also said Iran was threatening Western interests in Iraq, which led eventually to non-essential U.S. diplomatic staff
leaving Baghdad and Erbil.
It is the typical provocation of a bully: threaten someone with a cruise missile and the moment they pick up a knife in self-defense
you attack, conveniently leaving the initial threat out of the story. It then becomes: "Iran picked up a knife. We have to blow
them away with cruise missiles."
But this time the bully is being challenged. Federica Mogherini, the EU's high representative for foreign affairs and security
policy,
resisted the U.S. on Iran when she met Pompeo in Brussels on May 13.
"It's always better to talk, rather than not to, and especially when tensions arise Mike Pompeo heard that very clearly today
from us," said Mogherini. "We are living in a crucial, delicate moment where the most relevant attitude to take – the most responsible
attitude to take – is and we believe should be, that of maximum restraint and avoiding any escalation on the military side."
The New York Times that day
reported
: "Privately, several European officials described Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo as pushing an unsuspecting Mr. Trump through a series
of steps that could put the United States on a course to war before the president realizes it."
Ghika: No new threat from Iran. (YouTube)
British Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika then said on May 14: "There has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or
Syria." Ghika was
rebuked by U.S. Central Command, whose spokesman said, "Recent comments from OIR's Deputy Commander run counter to the identified
credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region."
A day later it was Trump himself, however, who was said to be resisting Bolton. On May 15 The Washington Post reported:
"President Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisers, who he thinks could rush the United States into a military
confrontation with Iran and shatter his long-standing pledge to withdraw from costly foreign wars, according to several U.S.
officials. Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly with Iran's leaders."
"President Trump has told his acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, according
to several administration officials, in a message to his hawkish aides that an intensifying American pressure campaign against
the clerical-led government in Tehran must not escalate into open conflict."
Then it was the Democrats who stood up to Bolton. On Tuesday Pompeo and Shanahan briefed senators and representatives behind
closed doors on Capitol Hill regarding the administration's case for confronting Iran.
"Are they (Iran) reacting to us, or are we doing these things in reaction to them? That is a major question I have, that I still
have," Sen. Angus King told reporters after the briefing. "What we view as defensive, they view as provocative. Or vice versa."
Democratic Representative Ruben Gallego told reporters after the briefing: "I believe there is a certain level of escalation
of both sides that could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The feedback loop tells us they're escalating for war, but they could
just be escalating because we're escalating."
Pompeo told a radio interviewer after the briefing that the U.S. had still not determined who attacked two Saudi, a Norwegian
and an Emirati oil tanker in the Gulf last week, which bore the hallmarks of a provocation. Pompeo said "it seems like it's quite
possible that Iran was behind" the attacks.
Bolton was conspicuously absent from the closed-door briefing.
It's Up to Trump
Trump has pinballed all over the place on Iran. He called the Times and Post stories about him resisting Bolton
"fake news."
"The Fake News Media is hurting our Country with its fraudulent and highly inaccurate coverage of Iran. It is scattershot, poorly
sourced (made up), and DANGEROUS. At least Iran doesn't know what to think, which at this point may very well be a good thing!"
Trump tweeted on May 17.
The Fake News Media is hurting our Country with its fraudulent and highly inaccurate coverage of Iran. It is scattershot,
poorly sourced (made up), and DANGEROUS. At least Iran doesn't know what to think, which at this point may very well be a good
thing!
Then he threatened what could be construed as genocide against Iran. "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of
Iran. Never threaten the United States again!" he tweeted on Sunday.
But also last Sunday he told Fox News that the
"military-industrial complex" is real and "they do like war" and they "went nuts" when he said he wanted to withdraw troops from
Syria. Trump said he didn't want war with Iran, here possibly reflecting Israel's views.
On Monday he implied that the crisis has been drummed up to get Iran to negotiate.
"The Fake News put out a typically false statement, without any knowledge that the United States was trying to set up a negotiation
with Iran. This is a false report ."
The Fake News put out a typically false statement, without any knowledge that the United States was trying to set up
a negotiation with Iran. This is a false report....
John Bolton must be stopped before he gets his war. It is beyond troubling that the man we have to count on to do it is Donald
Trump.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street Journal,
Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at [email protected]and followed on Twitter @unjoe .
Or as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is US." As in the lies that created the Vietnam war and the waste of 58,000
American soldiers and thousand of Vietnamese. Or the lie that Iran is our enemy when we funded and encouraged Saddam to attack
them and destroyed their attempt to have a secular government.
Or the lie of the WMD's and the 9/11 attack which was funded by Saudi Arabia, and run by Saudis and NOT Iraq.
Or the lies of Afghanistan which was economically and culturally better off when it was controlled by the USSR...
John Hawk , May 26, 2019 at 16:56
Joe, nice piece of work covering the psycho-pathology of America's leading nazi!
To correct one of your statements: Trump DID NOT appoint him National Security Adviser, but Adelson and Mercer did. Trump
is a brain-dead, blackmailed puppet who fancies himself as POTUS.
It can't get any more delusional than this. Everybody I know who is following the Washington Beltway histrionics of Trump
et al know full-well that a certain intelligence agency of a small Middle East domiciled country have THE definitive dossier
on Trump and have been building it for the last five decades.
After all, deception is their game and they use it liberally, like feeding their agenda to Bolton as 'intelligence' info
of the highest order. The Bolton-Pompeo-Pence presidency is destined to go down in history as one of infamy and treason.
Trump? dead-man walking, more than likely by a stroke-heart attack when he's popping out one of his idiotic and manic tweets!
Zhu , May 26, 2019 at 03:20
If Bolton were struck by lightning tomorrow morning, would anything change much? I doubt it. We Americans are as warlike
as the ancient Assyrian. We've been slaughtering Indians, Koreans, SE Asians, Central Americans, and multiple Middle Eastern
people for a looong time. It is flattering to blame this individual or th t country, but no. We, as a community, are all responsible
to some degree. Even me, on the far side of the world.
Alex , May 25, 2019 at 21:50
Bolton's choosing destroyed IRAN but staying friends with Saudi Arabia it's so contradicting, and so obvious that he is influenced
to behave this way is because Israelies influence. Saudy Kingdom using Bolton to get IRAN so Saudy will be only country promote
Extreme version of Wahhabi Islam which is didn't existed In Islam's history.
So Bolton's obsession with destruction of Iran is ignorance as its best. September 11th suspects were most of them Saudy
nationals, yet nobody wanted to talk about it, because there is irony that, George W Bush was and probably still doing business
with Saudy. So how can you explain that to American people? No you can not.
Perhaps collectively hypnotism !
OlyaPola , May 26, 2019 at 02:58
" So how can you explain that to American people?"
Given that useful fools are useful, why would you want to?
" No you can not."
An illustration of the benefits of dumbing down do not accrue solely to those actively engaged in dumbing down, facilitating
the minimising of blowback during implementation of strategies based on "How to drown a drowning man with the minimum of blowback",
given that many believe that critical mass is a function of linear notions of 50% +1 and above; a further conflation of quantity
with quality to which the opponents are prone.
William , May 25, 2019 at 19:06
John Bolton is a psychopath, He should be dismissed immediately, but I think that he should be institutionalized.
Put him in a strait jacket and keep him in a padded cell. He poses a threat to millions of people.
Eddie S , May 25, 2019 at 11:26
Yeah Joe, it wasn't just you and other reporters who were stunned by Bolton's recess appt to the UN by W -- - many of
us were staggered by the jaw-dropping inappropriateness of it, IF it was assessed from a pro-peace perspective.
But, as you accurately mentioned, the Republicans had long-ago (I recall first hearing about it during Nixon's reign,
with Earl Butz) used that gambit to effectively sabotage regulatory agencies & depts. Rather than try to dissolve an agency
that most people want, they can neutralize it by appointing some hack or lobbyist for the entity being regulated so that nothing
meaningful gets done, AND it has the 'beneficial' effect of discrediting the agency involved, and government in general, which
is what many libertarian-inclined Republicans like.
Good article about a reprehensible politician.
renfro , May 25, 2019 at 11:18
"But The New York Times reported on the same day that though Israel was behind Bolton's "intelligence" about an Iranian
threat, Israel does not want the U.S. to attack Iran causing a full-scale war. "
________________________________
Israel doesnt want the US to attack Iran Well that is BS!
Israel and its Fifth Column in the US have agitated for the US to attack Iran for years .we've all seen and heard it .and now
they want to try to wipe our memories of their war mongering with their typical hasbara in the NYT and Netanyahu claiming .'oh
we have nothing to do with it."
Bolton is a psychopath but he is Sheldon Adelson's errand boy .who Bolton met with in Las Vegas the week before Trump
appointed him and Adelson is the Orange carnival barker's 100 million dollar donor.
Seriously, how stupid do they think we are? If we attack Iran it will be for the Zionist and Saudis and we all know it.
Luther Bliss , May 25, 2019 at 10:57
Trump's incoherent mixture of neoconservative & isolationism almost make him a Bush!
Remember it wasn't until Bush JR's second term that he asked his father, "What's A Neocon?" to which Pappy Bush replied,
"Israel."
I assume Trump knows what a 'neocon' but is so indebted to Israel and intoxicated by Islamophobic rhetoric that he cannot
free himself from his addiction to surrounding himself with more neo-cons.
The progression from Flynn to McMaster to Bolton was just selecting between neocon flavors for his National Security
Advisers. What a joke of a nation!
Mark , May 25, 2019 at 02:30
I appreciate the article, but it doesn't mention Israel, which is the fountainhead of the agenda to take out Iran, Iraq,
and Syria. Bolton stands out for his extremity among extremists, but he's a means rather than the end. The agenda is something
into which he bought, passionately by all indications, but which a paucity of other people created strictly to advance their
own, tiny, exclusive clan, not for the benefit of the United States.
Hank , May 25, 2019 at 09:43
To think that this administration campaigned on a promise to restrict future wasteful and needless interventions and then
hired this dinosaur of a warmonger makes my blood curl! Everyone with half a brain knows what Bolton's agenda is yet here he
is leading the USA into a war at the behest of a foreign nation led by a felon and terrorist! The American people who want peace
and their tax dollars invested into improving the USA have once again been stabbed in the back by a conniving administration.
Will this cycle of non-democracy ever end? Until it does, future administrations will continue on just like previous ones- kowtowing
to special interests, in particular the military/industrial mafia and the apartheid criminal state of Israel! All this massive
business of holding "elections" in the USA, all the talk about "Russian collusion" and the REAL collusion is right there in
front of us all- the US administration has once again COLLUDED to go back on a campaign promise and once again open the money
trough for the military/industrialist pigs!
Mark , May 26, 2019 at 05:31
I get the idea, but it's necessary to look 'behind' back-stabbing, conniving, colluding administrations, and Bolton, and
the military/industrial complex, and to bring Israel and some barely known U.S. history, at least back to World War I, explicitly
to the fore for public scrutiny. That's a monumental task, to say the least, owing to American attention spans and the contrary
interests of the powers that be.
Taras77 , May 24, 2019 at 20:24
Bolton has his own well funded PAC, from which he is free to "contribute" (bribe) sychophant congress individuals. What a
situation for the fix for war.
"Overall, 28 sitting senators have received sizable contributions from John Bolton PAC during the election cycle, as
have nine representatives on the House defense, foreign affairs, and homeland security subcommittees."
ricardo2000 , May 24, 2019 at 17:29
By far the most productive, and most verifiable, way to eliminate weapons is at a negotiating table. The easiest way to start
a war is with ignorant blather.
O Society , May 24, 2019 at 16:09
Don't forget who told Donald Trump to hire John Bolton. It was Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes.
They like Bolton because he is "incapable of empathy and good on Israel."
Trump initially declined on Bolton because "he doesn't like Bolton's moustache."
Kool Aid drinkers and idiots. We're being lead by a cult of morons who worship the bombs, money, and a white separatist state.
i doubt the iranians will test a nuke until after djt is out of office. after that you might wake up one morning and everything
you knew before becomes quite obsolete.
my guess is israel has stealth cruise missiles with h bombs. it would be very foolish of them to not have them. those descendants
of egyptian slaves are anything but foolish.
Sam , May 27, 2019 at 00:33
@ CitizenOne: Thank you for your long comment. I agree with much of what you wrote, but would like to know why you claimed,
"Iran is surely guilty of vowing the destruction of Israel " . According to what I've read, Iran has not initiated hostilities
with any nation for over a century – a clear, peaceful contrast to the rogue states of Israel & the U.S. Are you referring to
the long-ago-debunked claim that Iran claimed to 'wipe Israel off the map'?
(See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155
? "So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors,
the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague
wish for the future.
"A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option – the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" –
with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel.
")
Or perhaps you're referring to Revolutionary Guard deputy leader Hossein Salami's warning that if Israel starts an aggressive
war against Iran, it 'will end with {Israel's} elimination from the global political map'? IMHO, warning an extremely aggressive,
self-obsessed, Apartheid-practicing rogue state against trying to attack your nation is wise ;-) .
I look forward to your response. Thanks very much.
Sam F , May 27, 2019 at 06:12
Sam: please use an identifier initial as I do, to prevent confusion.
I have asked you twice before; perhaps not the same person.
It is unfair to expect others to make the clarification, and easy to prevent.
How is it that crazies like Bolton can end up high in our government hierarchy? It is because the whole damned government
is crazy through and through
Joe , May 23, 2019 at 20:48
His Dad probably made a huge donation to Yale just like Bush's Dad. That's what happens when the system is gamed.
Art Thomas , May 25, 2019 at 09:22
Yes, in my opinion. The state stripped of patriotic rhetoric and other obfuscations that keep us devoted to it is nothing
more than a criminal gang that hides behind the law.
Some basic examples. 1. The law: taxation, the crime: theft. 2. The law: monetary credit expansion, i.e. debt financing,
the crime: counterfeiting, i.e. creating money out of thin air. 3. The invasion of countries not a threat to the invading state.
Etc. etc.
Tiu , May 23, 2019 at 18:30
If the US "political establishment" was working for America's benefit, things would look very different.
They are instead working on the "globalist" agenda, which will, if successful, destroy all nations as we know them today and
what remains will be ruled over by a bunch of sociopaths who are the same group that has inflicted John Bolton on the world.
Bolton's a tool, a bit like a hammer, to get their project done. The Democrats have equivalent tools e.g. H R Clinton.
Mark Thomason , May 23, 2019 at 18:04
The problem is if he hasn't gone too far. If he gets his war.
Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 16:53
John Bolton should get to ride the missile in the remake of Dr. Strangelove.
evelync , May 23, 2019 at 19:53
hah hah hah
I loved that movie :)
and yes Bolton is a perfect caricature of Slim Pickens AKA Dr Strangelove.
I also refer to him as Yosemite Sam
one difference for our current real life war monger is that the movie character was simply insane and didn't justify his
craziness with explanations.
Bolton, OTOH, blames "national Security" and "the national interests" of this country .say what????
if we look at the horrific human costs and the enormous financial costs of the wars that were fought for U.S. "national interests"
one would want to ask, once the rubble had cleared, what "interests" were actually served and whose "security" did they actually
improve?
The answers always take us back to Eisenhower's MIC and Ray McGovern's MICIMATT (maybe I got a couple of these letters wrong?).
Whoever profited from the mayhem don't represent either our "national interest' or our "national security" IMO and yet those
two phrases are used to shut down any discussion or criticism in the lead up .
whew
Mork D , May 25, 2019 at 01:20
Strictly about the movie – Slim Pickens plays the ranking officer on the B-52 (I think?) which is actually dropping the bomb.
Dr Strangelove is a totally different character, one of a few played by Peter Sellers in that movie, and is a (mostly!) wheelchair-bound
German scientist.
And the wheelchair bound psychopathic scientist of Dr. Strangelove was inspired by Kubrick meeting Henry Kissinger at a cocktail
party and recognizing that Kissinger was the most evil person on this planet because he looked and sounded so responsible and
rational.
Now that Saddam, bin Laden, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler are dead, Kissinger holds the record of the person still alive who has
needlessly killed more people, both Americans and non-Americans, than any other person on this planet.
Hillary's idea of destabilizing Libya and creating a political vacuum there was from her training when working for Kissinger.
Abe , May 23, 2019 at 16:51
The Pathology:
John Bolton
Senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Chairman of Gatestone Institute (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Former board member of Project for the New American Century (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Former Adviser to Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (pro-Israel Lobby organization) https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/john-bolton/
Mike Pompeo
Christian Zionist: "We will continue to fight these battles, it is a never ending struggle until the Rapture."
Associate of Center for Security Policy (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Sponsor of ACT! for America (pro-Israel Lobby organization) https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/mike-pompeo/
Sam , May 27, 2019 at 00:38
@ Abe: Thanks for the info!
Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 16:42
John Bolton is obviously a very sick puppy.
This is patently obvious to any observer with the least desgree of psyhological sophistication and insight.
If he lived on your block and made such statements about his neighbors, or a woman living nearby, he would be looking at restraining
orders.
He is an out-of-control abusive pig who belongs in an institution where a course of shock therapy might actually help him. I
reckon any basic psychological test would find that he has a least borderline personality and at worst is actually insane and
incapable of taking responsibility for the consequences of his action.
Bolton has permanent termporary insanity.
Letting this tortured, psychopathic individual run the military is itself an enormous crime, one of murderous negligence, one
for which Trump truly should and could be impeached. Congress must take all possible steps to get this man out of the Executive
Branch.
Threaten Trump with impeachment if he doesn't fire Bolton.
His appointment of Bolton is reckless negligence and endangers this country.
James , May 23, 2019 at 19:09
I wonder how good American politicians of the past, if there were any, would react to the appointment of this psychopath
as what he is now. Whom should be blamed for it? Donald Trump? The pro-Israeli lobbies? Or the American nation? A glance at
the man's face is enough to realize that he is deeply sick. To me, he doesn't look like a human being at all! He looks like
a monkey out of a stuffy room. Why don't psychotherapists do anything about him? Shouldn't he be hospitalized for the safety/security
of the world population? By the way, I wonder where Netanyahu, the psychopath's provoker, is. He has been very quiet for about
a month or so. Maybe he is waiting for the war to ignite without getting himself directly involved in it. Let Americans and
Iranians kill one another while he waits to pick up the fruit in the end.
Mork D , May 25, 2019 at 01:27
Where does the blame lie? Who hired him? Who's the chief of the executive branch? Who's a person who could actually fire
him (as he's so famous for doing on reality TV shows) instead of wringing his hands on friendly TV networks declaring he doesn't
want to actually go to war, but if he's 'forced' to, he'll erase Iran from the map?
Druid , May 26, 2019 at 03:16
He would have to get permission from Adelson and the Mercers first.
CitizenOne , May 24, 2019 at 20:52
Bolton and Pompeo are the only things keeping him from impeachment. As long as Trump satisfies the bloodthirsty war mongers
and the insatiable appetite of the MIC and the Pro Israel lobby and the Oil Lobby or Koch Industries he cannot lose. So far
Trump is bangin on all cylinders. I really think he knows what he needs to do to survive. All this impeachment talk is just
fantasy by the left dreaming about getting him out of office "somehow".
bjd , May 23, 2019 at 16:13
That the mono-maniacal psychopath Bolton is a walking exhibit of the Dunning–Kruger effect is no surprise to me. It is extra
frightening though.
Realist , May 23, 2019 at 16:00
What was Bolton's day job before he started mucking around in politics and foreign policy? Master waterboarder or testicular
electrificator in extraordinary renditions for the CIA? He seems the sort to have spent much time at Abu Ghraib, and not just
to take notes. Honestly, his major goals seem to be the eradication of entire cultures and societies, which will somehow redound
to the magnificence of the United States of America. Clearly a sociopathic personality. A lot in common with Cheney.
Jimmy G , May 23, 2019 at 15:57
Again the panic is stirred by .. The NYT! (The source of such good info regarding Russia gate) .
The statement regarding Bolton " ordering" anything is just one more example of the media and the intel bureaucrats trying to
put the President in a jam politically . (Remember how a month ago we were invading Venezuela?)
Bolton is doing nothing more than getting enough rope to hang himself, and the military intelligence service, congressional
and media Trumpophobes are willing to stir this to the very edge, and we all know Congress could (if it could act in good Constitutional
faith, rather than pretending to be the judicial branch) unite for the good of this country and Trump would be amenable to whatever
they came up with. Trump is far less of a warmonger than any POTUS we've had in a very long time.
Realist , May 23, 2019 at 16:18
If Congress is the only branch of government with the constitutional power to declare a war, surely it has the power to FORBID
the executive branch from fomenting such a war against their judgement.
In fact, wasn't the Boland Amendment such a legislative act passed with the intent of preventing the Reagan administration
from pursuing military action in Central America, most notably Nicaragua and El Salvador?
What's to prevent the Congress, if it were so inclined (which I doubt it is) to instruct the president (especially if he
seems trigger-happy) to refrain from initiating any unprovoked attacks upon Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or any other country,
for that matter?
Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 16:56
Ollie North worked for Reagan, didn't he?
RnM , May 25, 2019 at 17:27
Trump is very aware that 'Stache Bolton and Mike "Mumbles" Pompeo are significant threats to his re-election. Would not be
surprised to see them removed before January.
CitizenOne , May 25, 2019 at 21:02
The NYT has indeed supported wars but it is not alone nor is this a recent trend. There is a very old trend of the commercial
news establishments becoming war hawks and regurtitators of official propaganda whenever the USA wants to pick a fight. It goes
back to the period after the establishment of the nation when expansionism set its roots down and what grew out of that is pretty
much the same kind of nationalistic propaganda we see today.
I agree with your statement that Trump is far less vulnerable based on his history but I am sure that the war planners are
always concocting special information diets that are carefully prepared to appeal to the particular tastes of the leader of
the day. Whatever Trumps opinion is he will be surrounded by the hand picked lunatics of the day who will entice and enjoin
him to agree with plans for war based on their carefully prepared menu of propaganda specifically designed to be appealing to
the palate of whoever is in charge.
It is less certain that Trump's long history of opposing military action will have real staying power as he is served up
courses of a sumptuous meal prepared specially for his palate designed to engage him in support for military action all over
the World.
Trump is particularly susceptible to flattery and appeals to his greatness and his very stable genius. He wants to be the
great leader and for that he needs a plan to deal with the geopolitical situation in many countries.
Trump is a man who knows what to do too.
He advised Germany that it was a puppet of Russia until he didn't
He advised Teresa May how to do Brexit the right way until he didn't
He announced to the World he had forged deep connections with North Korea until he didn't
He had high hopes for an alliance with Russia until he didn't.
He specified the right type of fire fighting to be used to fight the Notre Dame Cathedral fire until he didn't
He wanted to walk away from the fight in Syria until he didn't
He wanted to walk away from the war in Syria again until he didn't
He wanted to cut the military budget until he didn't
Ordinarily if we were in the middle of a democratic presidency the press would be raising the "flip flopper" argument every
second of their available airtime.
Democrats are the flip floppers but never a republican even when he is. It all depends on the way the flips and the flops
land. If they land on conservative positions then a flop or a flip never occurred. With republicans, flip flopping is just a
corrective action to realign the president on the correct course. If it is a democrat then their hypocrisy and flip flopping
are broadcast 24/7 and are portrayed a fundamentally disqualifying events which demonstrate a fundamental lack of principles
and weakness of character deserving of condemnation. When errant republicans flip flop over to the "correct" vision they are
welcomed with open arms into the fold.
Trump wants to be accepted so badly that the democrats hounding him are in fact herding him into the fold of the conservatives
who will shelter him and support him at all costs and the media will never ever ever never call this flip flopping.
In short, if a political candidate shifts to the left his integrity will be destroyed as his character will be portrayed
as weak and built on shifting sands. He will be deemed not to be trusted like some loose cannon.
On the other hand, if a political candidate shifts to the right he will be greeted as a prodigal son returning to the fold
and will be welcomed with open arms.
So I am not as sure as you that Trump's background will be any indicator of his future ideas about how to succeed in the
environment he is in where both democrats by their antagonism and republicans by their defense of him both push him over to
the right.
He may once have been far less of a war hawk but politicians on both sides of the aisle are pushing him further to the right
every day.
Consortium News editor Joe Lauria may wish to contribute a follow up series of articles detailing the purity of pro-Israel
Lobby pathology exemplified by Bolton, Pompeo, and the beyond troubling Trump preferably before the next war.
Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 19:33
"the wider extent of pro-Israel Lobby pathology in the US government. "
That's it in a nutshell.
KiwiAntz , May 24, 2019 at 18:46
Thanks Joe for the great article. Bolton (aka the moustache) truly is a humourless, warmongering, depraved psycho? This is
a cowardly man who dodged the Vietnam draft as he didn't want to die in some foreign patty field! But this lunatic has no qualms
to send other peoples sons & daughters into a Iranian war zone as cannon fodder to satisfy his deluded & perverted bloodlust
to destroy Iran? If "the moustache" wants a War with Iran he should be forced to fight on the frontlines with his troops along
with POTUS Bonespurs Trump, another cowardly draft dodger? Let the moustache & the Dotard make a stand, like Jon Snow in the
Battle of the bastards, sword in hand, facing down the so called Iranian, bogeyman enemy, but this would never happen as cowards
& bastards like Bolton & Trump don't personally fight in the battles they start, they hide in safety in a Washington situation
room, as far away from any War zone as possible! If Bolton gets his War with Iran, Trump will pay the price for this suicide
mission because he would be blamed for the fallout of any Military defeat! America's already sorry record of Military humiliation
& defeat in Regime change operations around the Globe would reach a crescendo if they ever dared to try to attack & overthrow
Iran as it would be the endgame of the US Empire!
mark , May 23, 2019 at 22:28
Trump is just Israel's bitch.
incontinent reader , May 24, 2019 at 01:08
Good comment, Abe. We've missed you. Keep posting more of the same.
Zhu , May 25, 2019 at 01:37
We Americans were bloodthirsty long before Israel existed.
anon , May 25, 2019 at 06:35
What an absurd zionist troll post. Try it with someone dumb, Zhu.
Michael Steger , May 23, 2019 at 15:17
First Joe, McKinley did not implement American submission to British Imperialism, though it began with the end of Grant's
administration as with the twice elected Groucher Cleveland, but it's confirmation as US policy began with Teddy Roosevelt.
The Roosevelt Corollary destroyed JQA's Community of Principle in the Americas which should be known as the true Monroe Doctrine,
contrary to popular opinion today which has incorrectly replaced the Monroe Doctrine with the Roosevelt Corollary (as Bolton
is especially want to do). TR signalled the end of the Lincoln Era of American industrial development and global cooperation,
which was best represented by Grant, the most overlooked of great Presidents (and perhaps we see similarities of Grant to Trump
today). Bolton indeed is Captain Kangaroo, presiding over his Court as the Queen of No Hearts would in Alice's confrontation
with British rule once she penetrates behind the facade of British Lockean empiricism. With insight only equalled to Lincoln's,
who said "We can't fight two wars at once, so first the Confederacy and then the British," Trump has identified the fascist
nexus within our government as that same British foe, a nexus led by Brennan, Rice, Clapper, Jarrett, et al, which works on
behalf of what Eisenhower (another overlooked great President and General) called the Military Industrial Complex. The MIC is
a British Intelligence deployment to fundamentally undermine our Constitution and put the US into a state of perpetual war and
police surveillance. It is now over 70 years in the making, and is enforcing a new Cold War and attempted coup of our elected
Government, and yet, it may have finally found its match, not just in Trump, but in Trump's intended cooperation with Putin
of Russia and Xi of China. These three nations, along with Modi of India (just reelected) are a true threat to this rotten British
system, from Fabian liberals to Bolton chickenhawks, the true enemy is this British System. If we move on that effectively,
we may just have a chance to win this revolutionary moment now unfolding throughout the trans-Atlantic world. Let us return
to JQA's community of principle for the entire world. Let us work with Trump to end this fascist British nexus. Let us celebrate
our true heritage as Americans!
Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 16:51
Your comments read with interesting and well taken.
BUT: The bottom line is that Trump hired Bolton (and Pompeo) and has wound him up and set him loose goosewalking across the
globe.
Why?
The buck for Bolton's suicidal buffonery stops with Trump.
So, I can't see him as a genuine foe of the Deep State-MIC as you describe.
Michael Steger , May 23, 2019 at 18:10
Bolton is loyal to Trump, even though he is a failed chickenhawk. Look at McMaster, at the leaking, and outright betrayal
of the President. Same with Tillerson, betrayal. Pompeo and Bolton have ridiculous views and bloated war rhetoric, but they're
personally loyal, perhaps opportunistically, and even temporarily, but nonetheless right now they are, and when they're not,
I bet they're gone. But Trump does control the policy. Look at North Korea, any war? Media said there would be, then worked
to undermine a deal. Venezuela, war? They're talking in Norway now, how'd that happen? Syria, troops out? MIC, Dems and Media
opposed, and Trump called them out for the first time since Eisenhower! Pompeo to Sochi to see Putin, progress. How'd that happen?
Trump is fighting the MIC and too many good Americans are spinning so fast from the propaganda machine they can't see straight.
anon4d2 , May 24, 2019 at 18:40
Interesting, but it is easy for a president to fight the MIC: simply fire and arrest anyone who acts against efforts to control
them. He could send any federal enforcement agency, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, reserves, national guard, or even the Coast
Guard, Secret Service, DC police, or private guards to arrest them and prosecute any resisters as traitors. It is not one man
against the MIC.
And they cannot assassinate him once he has announced that intention, without exposing their hand and unleashing a generation
of purges and strict controls. If he is surrounded by traitors, he has only to say that and fire the lot of them. He could leak
that anonymously to Wikileaks or tweet it and they would be terrified.
Mork D , May 25, 2019 at 01:48
Bolton has been working DC bureaucracy like a pro for decades. He's using Trump like a marionette while he runs circles around
the amateur. He was helping orchestrate foreign wars of choice back when Trump was still playing a pretend boss on TV. Bolton
has no loyalty except as a facade for those he needs to suck up to.
Your examples of non-wars are terrific. Trump is amazing! – because he's running the government so badly that the State Dept
doesn't know what the Pentagon is doing doesn't know and vice versa. He chose to ignore the Iran nuclear deal, which had prevented
Iran from developing nuclear weapons. So now, the Iranians declare (out of self defense) that they're now going to pursue nuclear
weapons. Trump then says that he doesn't want to attack Iran, but they must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This
is a circular argument exactly of the type the MIC uses to engage in war. Pompeo then indicates that laughable, ineffectual
attempts at sabotage are most likely Iranian. This grave threat to our nation can't even do enough damage to an oil tanker to
make it take on water.
Just because someone fails to do something doesn't mean that they were against it the whole time. Maybe they're just awful
at it. Sure, Trump says some things that are heartening to the anti-war and anti-interventionist crowd. But the next day he'll
say something heartening to rabid neocons. He needs to grow a spine, but it's far too late. He's a dandy, a spoiled rich kid
fop who's never had to answer for his mishaps, because why, when you have inherited money and a stout legal team?
anon4d2 , May 24, 2019 at 19:06
The idea that "the MIC is a British Intelligence deployment" is fantastical, as the US MIC is several times the size of UK's
entire MIC, and such a secret could never be kept. The US MIC has engaged UK secret agencies to subvert the US Constitution
by serving as agents to pass intercepted US communications back to the US to pretend that the MIC didn't do it, or that it was
foreign intel. But that is a long way from UK controlling the US MIC.
There are certainly confluences of interests between the US and UK oligarchies, but I see no basis for the contention that
"American submission to British Imperialism began with the end of Grant's administration" when the US prosecuted Britain for
building the Alabama etc. to break the Union blockade, and was outraged that Britain considered recognition of the Confederacy
until it lost at Gettysburg. The US under TR was not submitting to anyone when it sent the Great White Fleet on tour, or when
it seized Cuba and the Philippines. Nor under Wilson when it stayed out of WWI until very late in the war, despite the Lusitania
loss. Nor under FDR when it stayed out of WWII until attacked, despite the passionate pleas of Churchill.
Some detailed argument with credible references would be needed to support those assertions.
Zhu , May 25, 2019 at 01:44
Scapegoating is real popular with lefties & rughties alike. American Exceptionalism forbids we ever accept respobility for
what we've done.
Zhu , May 25, 2019 at 01:45
No, the rest of humanity is not any better.
anon4d2 , May 25, 2019 at 06:48
The commenter was searching for causes, and some UK conspiracy is simply too far from any available evidence. In fact it
much appears to be a wild attempt to distract from the obvious causes including zionism, which you pretend is "scapegoating."
No, zionism is a principle corrupting factor in US politics, especially foreign policy.
If you don't see that, you must start learning the evidence, rather than relying on the presumption that it is mere scapegoating.
Otherwise you are serving their wrongful and racist tribal purposes, and others will presume that you know that.
Oscar Shank , May 26, 2019 at 07:24
Zhu knows it.
Vera Gottlieb , May 23, 2019 at 14:56
How much more peaceful the life on our entire planet would be if the Americans weren't around.
Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 16:58
Extend that to all humans, and the head of PETA would support the project.
David G. Horsman , May 23, 2019 at 17:16
I doubt that. Nature hates a void.
Bethany , May 24, 2019 at 17:50
Exactly. Very well put.
Abe , May 23, 2019 at 14:19
Brazilian diplomat Jose Bustani, the first director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
only served about one year of his second term.
Bustani was forced out by the U.S. government in April 2002 because he wanted international chemical weapons monitors inside
Iraq and thus was seen as impeding the US push for war against Iraq. The US accused Bustani of "advocacy of inappropriate roles
for the OPCW".
Since 2011, the United Nations has stood by a US-Saudi-Israeli Axis financed and armed the mercenary terrorist forces attacked
Syria. In addition to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, major support for terrorist mercenaries has provided
via NATO-member state Turkey, as well as Jordan. Israel has launched repeated air attacks and provided direct support for terrorist
forces in Syria.
From July 2010 to 2018, the Director-General of the OPCW was Turkish career diplomat Ahmet Uzumcu. Uzumcu served ambassador
to Israel from 1999 to 2002, and as the Permanent Representative of Turkey to NATO between 2002 and 2004.
Turkey has been the primary channel for mercenary terrorist forces assaulting the Syrian state. The remaining terrorist forces
in the Idlib Governorate continue to be supplied through Syria.
Since Uzumcu announced the creation of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria on 29 April 2014, not a single OPCW report
has acknowledged these basic facts concerning the conflict in Syria.
Following a consensus recommendation by the OPCW Executive Council in October 2017. Spanish career diplomat Fernando Arias
was appointed to replace Uzumcu as Director-General of the OPCW. Previously, Arias served as Ambassador of Spain to the Netherlands
and the Permanent Representative of Spain to the OPCW. He also has served as Permanent Representative of Spain to the United
Nations in New York.
Uzumcu, and now Bustani, obviously understand that the appropriate role of the OPCW is to provide propaganda support for
"regime change" operations, and to say nothing contrary to the "narrative" endorsed by the US-Saudi-Israeli Axis.
David G. Horsman , May 23, 2019 at 17:52
The OPCW has certainly disgraced themselves in Syria. What a sham.
Randal Marlin , May 23, 2019 at 13:48
John Bolton's questioner in the second clip should have made the distinction between deception used to lead the country into
war, and deception used to pursue a war already constitutionally declared and already underway.
In the first case there is a violation of democratic principle. When the people are the ultimate sovereign, they need to be
properly informed. They can agree to deception, like where and when D-Day will occur, during war; but not in the case of leading
the people into war. Lying to Congress is always unacceptable, and those who do lie to Congress should be made to suffer serious
penalties.
zhenry , May 24, 2019 at 02:13
I read a report that the aircraft carrier strike force and preparation of 120,000 US troops, to Persian Gulf was ordered
sometime ago and that Bolton took advantage of that fact to make it look that 'Bolton ordered it'?
vinnieoh , May 24, 2019 at 10:54
What I'd read is that the carrier strike force and bomber detachment were previously scheduled: there had been a previous
drawdown and this deployment represents a return to a level similar to the end of the Iraq war, and that does sound like Bolton/Pompeo
opportunism. The 120,000 troops plan sounds like something Bolton prodded pentagon scribes to produce. How to interpret when
Bolton says that then Trump denies it, and then a new troop deployment (1% of the previous) is announced/suggested/leaked? I
see it as Trump taking his dogs out for a walk to snarl at the neighbors.
David G , May 23, 2019 at 13:07
"Thus Bolton was the driving force to get a carrier strike force sent to the Persian Gulf and, according to The New York
Times, on May 14, it was he who 'ordered' a Pentagon plan to prepare 120,000 U.S. troops for the Gulf."
That the National Security Advisor, irrespective of whether the job is currently held by a lunatic like Bolton, may be giving
such orders should in and of itself be a subject of serious inquiry by Congress and the media.
The National Security Advisor is, as the title states, merely an advisor – not confirmed by the Senate, and therefore not,
in constitutional terms, an "officer of the United States" with the authority to carry out the policy of the government. Other
than his assistant fetching him lunch, nobody in government should be following Bolton's orders at all while he holds this job.
But this is nothing new. I had the same concern, on an even larger scale, during the first Bush Jr. administration when Cheney
was running around reshaping the government in his own warped image. Despite the Vice President's elected status, he has no
executive power under the Constitution – no power at all, in fact, except when sitting as President of the Senate. There was
a time when everyone knew that.
With all the perennial crowing we see about the greatness of the Constitution, and the mewling about how Trump is degrading
it, it would be nice if Congress and the media could spare a moment to care about whether the people giving orders to the world's
largest military and covert/intelligence apparatus are legally empowered to do so.
Ash , May 23, 2019 at 17:17
> That the National Security Advisor, irrespective of whether the job is currently held by a lunatic like Bolton,
> may be giving such orders should in and of itself be a subject of serious inquiry by Congress and the media.
It does kind of have an Alexander Haig flavor to it, doesn't it?
David G , May 23, 2019 at 22:08
When Bolton gets up and says "I'm in control here", I'm definitely finding a rock to hide under.
Zenobia van Dongen , May 23, 2019 at 13:06
The question that Joe Lauria asked of John Bolton, i.e. "If the United States and Britain had not overthrown a democratically
elected government in Iran in 1953 would the United States be today faced with a revolutionary government enriching uranium?"
seems to imply that Iran seeks revenge against the US for the CIA's 1953 coup d'état against prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq.
However the current leaders of Iran are not entitled to consider themselves the heirs of Mossadeq, nor are they morally justified
in avenging him, since the CIA coup relied largely on support from the very same clerical establishment that now rules Iran.
As a matter of fact in the 1950s and 60s Shia clerics in Iran were routinely considered CIA agents. Consequently the Iranian
elite's pretense of carrying on Mossadeq's anti-imperialist struggle is profoundly hypocritical. I grant that the current reactionary
clique that governs Iran defends Iran's sovereignty against US imperialism as Mossadeq did. But the underlying concept of the
Iranian nation is profoundly different. The present régime has no respect for the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty
that pervaded Iran's anti-imperialist struggle in the 1950s and was derived from the democratic ideals of the Persian constitutionalist
revolution of 1909. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Constitutional_Revolution
Indeed, Iran has no hesitation in crushing underfoot the aspirations to independence of other nations. It ruthlessly conducts
ethnic cleansing in Syria, commits assassinations in South America, and in general behaves with imperialist ruthlessness that
is moreover unmitigated by any concern for human rights or international law.
vinnieoh , May 23, 2019 at 14:27
As to your last paragraph please provide proof for your allegations. As to your second paragraph you assume to know the meaning
behind the question Mr. Lauria asked. Could it be possible (this I believe is more likely) that what Mr. Lauria meant or realizes
that absent the '53 coup would there now be an Islamic theocracy ruling Iran?
Again making the disclaimer that I'm no expert on the region or Iran particularly I have followed many leads of reading and
investigation to understand the ramifications of that seminal event (the '53 coup.) What I believe I've understood is that Iran
prior to and until the '53 coup was on its own unique trajectory of reclaiming its sovereignty and rejecting its status as a
(UK) colonial vassal. There seemed to be a somewhat fluid acceptance of the rising democratic movement of Mosaddeq et. al.,
a fading nod to the former royal house, and an acceptance of Shiite religiosity of some considerable social legitimacy.
So, three centers of power and influence working its unique way to an unique Iranian future.
With the US/UK engineered coup the imperialists destroyed the legitimate democratic evolution happening there. With the re-installation
of the Shah Reza Pahlavi as the puppet ruler of the US, that traditional center of power and legitimacy was likewise forever
delegitimized in the eyes of most Iranians. That sentiment was cemented with the creation of SAVAK by the US, UK, and Israel
to be the iron fist of the Shah and his new imperial master.
That left only one center of power or authority which retained legitimacy in the eyes of Iranians – the Shiite theocrats,
and that is why when Iranians kicked the US out it was the Islamic theocracy doing the booting. You are correct that there was
at least one Shiite cleric (I've forgotten his name,) jealous and fearful of the rising influence of democratic governance,
who is a known and recorded collaborator with the US/UK machinations of the coup. Without the help of the US/UK his part in
the affair would probably have been inconsequential.
It is not Iran that is funding and establishing Islamic madrasses in Pakistan, India, China, Indonesia, Africa and elsewhere.
It is the Wahhabist Sunnis and they preach intolerance and violent jihad. Furthermore, of the total global population of adherents
of Islam, 75% are Sunni affiliated, and 25% are Shiite affiliated. Those percentages hold true in the immediate region of the
ME as well. The repeated claims of Iranian desires of empire are a shibboleth emanating from KSA and UAE.
The leaders of the Islamic Revolution used Mossadegh's image to help get people on board against the Shah, The National Front
was allowed to be a party again for a short time, and a Street in Tehran was renamed post-revolution for Mohammad Mossadegh.
This was a cynical ploy by the Mullahs to get people on board with their revolution and make people believe that they were indeed
the true heirs of Mossadegh and committed to democracy. It was all a sham. The National Front was made illegal again at some
point in the 80s, and the street named for Mossadegh was renamed around the same time. These people are the heirs of the Shah
whether they like it or not.
anon4d2 , May 23, 2019 at 16:59
Joe's question points out that, had the US not overthrown Mossadegh, there would have been a secular democratic government.
That is true throughout the Mideast, where in the 1950s-70s the US supported radical Islamic movements that suppressed secular
movements and overthrew secular governments, pretending that the USSR was moving in. There was no evidence of USSR interest
there, as it was preoccupied with such factions in its central Asian republics, and apparently only some arms from the USSR
in Egypt were ever found as "evidence."
Similar US actions have continued to date, almost 30 years after the collapse of the USSR, the US always supporting fanatics
against moderates like Assad and Ghaddafi, and pretending to support "democracy."
Compare the US support of Saudi Arabia, a fanatical fundamentalist monarchy engaged in terrorism throughout the region, including
against their only neighbor that defends minority rights, Syria. Again falsely claiming the need to protect oil supply, which
it can buy anywhere without bombing anyone, like any other oil buyer. Again falsely claiming to support democracy which it overthrows
everywhere at the pleasure of its own oligarchy, always to "protect Israel" or attack socialism, which is always to get political
bribes.
There is no evidence of any "ethnic cleansing" by Iran in Syria or elsewhere. Where do you get that idea? Iran is majority
Shiah, defending the majority Sunni population of Syria from Sunni fundamentalists. You certainly have no evidence that Iran
"commits assassinations in South America" or opposes "aspirations to independence of other nations" and made that up to deceive
others. Your comments on this site have been knowingly false.
zhenry , May 24, 2019 at 03:44
The above, re the current Iranian religious govt, very informative, thankyou.
Re Joe's article I cannot take seriously that Trump is against war and the Deep State.
If Trumps rhetoric during his electioneering, supporting the middle class (deeply deprived after the US corporations abandoned
them for low paid Chinese labour) was in any way honest he would not have chosen the cabinet he did (and keeps on choosing).
Trump has not chosen one cabinet member that would support that supposed sympathy for the middle class.
Reporting that assumes Trump is fighting for moderation (against his own cabinet) and to establish policies in the direction
of that sympathy, is without evidence, it seems to me, regardless of what he might suggest to Fox News.
Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 17:00
"The present régime has no respect for the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty that pervaded Iran's anti-imperialist
struggle in the 1950s and was derived from the democratic ideals of the Persian constitutionalist revolution of 1909."
And the American government has equal respect for the Constitution.
Bolton didn't order a carrier group to the Persian Gulf. He doesn't have the authority. The carrier group left because of
the deployment was already planned. Bolton does not have the power that has been ascribed to him. He is a grandiose clown who
knows how to play the press. I don't think he will have his job six months from now.
David G , May 23, 2019 at 12:16
"At the time of Bolton's appointment in April 2018, Tom Countryman predicted to The Intercept that if Iran resumed enrichment
after the U.S. left the deal, it 'would be the kind of excuse that a person like Bolton would look to to create a military provocation
or direct attack on Iran.' In response to ever tightening sanctions, Iran said that it would indeed restart partial nuclear
enrichment."
Two problems with this part of the article:
• The link in the main text here goes to an Intercept article about Bolton, but it has no mention of Tom Countryman, or even
of Iran.
• It isn't accurate to say that Iran may now, or is saying it will, "resume" or "restart" nuclear enrichment, since it never
ceased, nor did it ever commit to cease, such activity. The JCPOA merely imposed strict *limits* and monitoring on nuclear enrichment
and stockpiling, some of which Iran is saying it will now depart from.
I also disagree with the imputation elsewhere in the article that Donald Trump has a good understanding of real estate. His
disastrous, decades-long record in that business suggests otherwise. But I suppose some people will always believe what they
see on TV.
lou e , May 23, 2019 at 12:06
Creeping fascism works like fishing with a rod and reel. You hook the fish and it runs off 100 ft of line . You reel in 50
ft and the fish takes 30 feet back. Do the Math! Some times burning down the village IS the only way to get rid of the infestation.
Bit hard on the USSA, but as Ben Franklin put it you have a democratic republic IF ypu can Keep It.
Remember at an earlier time with Bolton, someone described him as a kiss up kick down kind of guy, i.e., a real jerk. I defended
Trump against Russiagate because it was a threat to the office of the president. Unless, he gets his head straight, his "political"
moves in the Middle East and Southwest Asia can spin out of control. He is not negotiating a new deal with some city to build
another hotel, and his rhetoric makes him sound like that is the way he thinks he should act with other countries.
One can defend him by saying maybe it will work, but then maybe not and it is not a matter of your target taking his papers
and leaving the room.
Great article, Mr. Lauria. Have you posted your resume on your site? Interested in your confrontation with Bolton.
Trump wants to be reelected more that being the President but in his defense we know what he will face if he decides to enter
into honest negotiations. He's going to have a heck of a time finding people to cover his back. He can count on one presidential
aspirant, Tulsi Gabbard but she's on the other side.
Jeff Harrison , May 23, 2019 at 11:42
If we have to rely on Thump for anything other than social controls, we're screwed.
David G , May 23, 2019 at 11:40
These personal reminiscences of Bolton at the U.N. by Joe Lauria unfortunately only confirm the man's very public record.
The fact that such a creature has been accepted for so long in the heart of U.S. foreign "policy" is yet more evidence that
the country's crisis of political culture started long before Trump came on the scene.
I don't quite accept the slight comfort implied in the formulations here that this time Bolton has "gone too far", or "flown
too high", since to me they imply that there is some moral or rational bedrock that he has struck beneath which the establishment
is not willing to go.
I don't think that's true, as a general proposition. For example, the U.S. continues less noisily but inexorably on its long-term
collision course with China, which will be even more catastrophic than war with Iran, not to mention the ultimate one with the
planet's environmental limits.
For me it's enough that, for a number of contingent reasons, Bolton's (and MBS's and Netanyahu's) lunge at Iran has fallen
flat with both U.S. and European policy and media elites – for now, and I hope forever.
I just called WH 202-456-1111 to tell President Trump that Bolton should be fired; had to wait 8 min to talk. Trump certainly
has lots of problems, but he'll have plenty more if he starts a war! Pox Americana!
Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 16:58
Great idea.
I'll do the same.
vinnieoh , May 23, 2019 at 11:04
Thank you Mr. Lauria. I'm tending to believe that not only has Bolton flown too high, but Trump's predictable method of trying
to get what he wants was completely miscalculated wrt Iran. There is no better treaty or deal to be had concerning keeping Iran
from developing a nuclear weapon. The failures of the JCPOA that Trump is probably griping about all have to do with matters
of Iran's necessary and legitimate right to security and self-defense. No sane nation would willingly give in to this bullying.
Thanks again.
vinnieoh , May 23, 2019 at 11:44
Also, wrt Trump's predictable patterns, note that little if anything has changed regarding the US and the DPRK, so if he
is a crafty and effective negotiator I'm having a hard time seeing it.
David G. Horsman , May 23, 2019 at 18:22
Good example Vinnieoh. NK and SK are reaching out and (more importantly) shoving out the US. More winning.
I love Trump. He is useful. Fascism, NAFTA, generic racism you name it, he really shines a light on issues.
Here again. (Currently) SA, GAZA, Israel, Syria and of course Iran. Hell, the entire region. What a train wreck he is.
What about the dollar? The EU? Yikes.
By gosh this man could single handedly take down an empire! MAGA!
Well done, Joe Lauria. Of course our dilemma is Donald Trump says one thing and contradicts himself 5 minutes later. You
could say he "changes his mind" but I do not think his mind is stable to begin with. He's far too nuts to put any faith in for
"doing the right thing,"
Bolton and his neoconservative pox on the world serve the interests of the war machine and fossil fuel corporations. When
will be rid of them? When We the People grow a set of testicles and throw them all into prison. Trump isn't going to save us,
but he might let Bolton get us all killed.
Seems that Trump is so small minded that what we observe cannot be explained mechanistically, we need quantum mechanics.
Rather that a particular state of mind we have a stochastic distribution, wave patterns and spin.
Yes, Joe Lauria has presented the problem very well.
A major factor is certainly the persuasiveness of the NSC and other MIC entities which surround the president, and comprise
much of official DC. Try persuading anyone in the MIC that war is ever inappropriate: they are all full of extreme scorn and
false accusations, and have endless "evidence" of threats behind every tree, and rationales to attack this or at least that,
just to make "statements" and "warnings" to invisible foreign monsters. The MIC is a completely and permanently logic-proof
subculture of bullying, which bullies every member of its own tribe to line up behind tyrants like Bolton and a million other
puerile bullies devoid of humanity.
No doubt you know that this was all well understood by the founders of the US, who restricted federal military powers to
repelling invasions and knew that any standing military was a threat to democracy. The Federalist Papers should be required
reading in the US. All of those understandings were gradually lost after the War of 1812 and the 1820s, as the founders died
off. As the US became confident that it could repel any invasion, it lost the sense of the necessity of unity and cooperation
of regions, and Congress degenerated into a battle of intransigent factions leading to the completely unnecessary Civil War.
With the ebullient emergence of the middle class, no effort was made to correct the defects of the Constitution in failing to
protect the institutions of democracy from the rising power of economic concentrations. With WWI and WWII, the power of oligarchy
over mass media was consolidated, and by WWII the oligarchy and MIC effectively controlled elections, mass media, and the judiciary,
the tools of democracy. Democracy has been a facade ever since.
The US has zero security problems that the MIC has not created, and could at any time re-purpose 80% of the MIC to developing
infrastructure in the poorest nations with positive effects upon its security. Had it done so since WWII, we would have rescued
the poorest half of humanity from poverty, ignorance, malnutrition, and disease, and would have had a true American Century.
Instead we have killed over 20 million innocents and mortgaged the lives of our children to serve the infantile psychopaths
of the MIC.
The solution is not only to eliminate the 2000-member NSC, cut the military by at least 80 percent, prohibit acts of war
or surveillance by the executive branch, tax the rich so that no one has income above upper middle class, and demand amendments
to the Constitution restricting funding of the mass media and elections to limited and registered individual donations. We also
desperately need a fourth branch of federal government, which I am calling the College of Policy Debate, to conduct moderated
textual debates of policy issues in all regions, protecting and representing every viewpoint, in which all views are challenged
and must respond, and all parties must come to common terms. The CPD should produce commented debate summaries available to
the public with mini-quizzes and discussion groups. Without that rational analysis and access to the core debates, we do not
have a democracy at all, we are all no more than the fools and pawns of these oligarchy scammers, who must be actively excluded
from all government capacities.
Sorry for the lecture.
Linda Wood , May 24, 2019 at 01:59
Please don't apologize, Sam F. Your brilliant and humane words give me hope at a time in which I am in shock at the blatancy
of fascism in our government.
Doggrotter , May 23, 2019 at 10:33
Where is a drone strike when you need one?
OlyaPola , May 23, 2019 at 10:23
" seemed to always think he was the smartest person in the room."
Useful fools are often most useful when they are believers that they are not fools.
Once upon a time there was a discussion of which of the opponents' should be proposed for the Nobel Peace Prize – the list
being relatively long.
After extensive analysis and discussion the short-list consisted of two opponents in alphabetical order Mr. John Bolton and
Mr. Karl Rove.
However in light of the notion "Do you think your opponents are as stupid as you are? " the proposal question was left in
abeyance, not only as a function of decorum but also through understanding that "Useful fools are often most useful when they
are believers that they are not fools." and that even small dogs can seem tall when you are lying on your stomach.
OlyaPola , May 24, 2019 at 17:33
Since omniscience can't exist perhaps Mr. Bolton was/is subject to misrepresentation and misunderstanding?
"Pompeo told a radio interviewer after the briefing that the U.S. had still not determined who attacked two Saudi, a Norwegian
and an Emirati oil tanker in the Gulf last week, which bore the hallmarks of a provocation. Pompeo said "it seems like it's
quite possible that Iran was behind" the attacks."
What possible advantage could accrue to Iran from putting a few dents in the ships? Smells of another false flag.
I would not be so sure. A delicate signal that Iran has more capabilities concerning stopping in-out-Gulf traffic than naive
people like Bolton realize has a sobering potential. By the way of contrast, what kind of black flag it is if it is instantly
put in doubt, "we do not know" etc. When there were "chemical incidents" in Syria, no one in Washington claimed the need for
more facts, uncertainty etc.
Instead, UAE initially denied that it happened at all, subsequently, together with KSA, they did not have any "certain knowledge".
Somehow no government appears to promote the incident. Even USA.
BTW, the allegation that Iran is placing missiles on fishing boats staggers the mind. First of all, "missile boats" of which
Iran has plenty are small ships, BUT NOT VERY small, ca. 500-800 tons, which are fast, 40 kt, but not as fast as their predecessors,
torpedo boats (200-300 tons, 50-60 kt). They are still faster than any of the larger naval vessels, can trail them, and attack
from small distance in the case of start of hostilities. That Iran places missiles on such boats can be learned from videos
proudly provided by PressTV.ir.
Using "fishing boats" for that purpose is dubious, and the largest question mark would be: WHY? The reason that missile boats
are larger and heavier than torpedo boats is that you need more stability to launch missiles than torpedoes. Then you need a
radar etc. Placing missiles on fishing boats would be a waste of missiles. Hardly an escalation.
OlyaPola , May 23, 2019 at 12:47
"Hardly an escalation."
Perhaps you are being deflected by framing?
One of the escalations is the escalation of belief in, requirement of, and resort to, the dumbed-downess of the "target audience".
One of the salient questions being deflected is why, and as ever investigation requires some knowledge of Mr. Heisenberg
and his principles.
mark , May 23, 2019 at 22:34
Perhaps the Iranians are putting missiles on fishing boats to stun the fish and catch them that way. Fishing boats aren't
exactly very fast.
Anyone who actually believes the oil tanker incidents were carried by Iran should seek an immediate consultation with their
doctor. These blatant false flags clearly are the work of fools and Iranians are not fools.
Brian , May 23, 2019 at 17:22
Exactly. According navel personnel, Iran has been using fishing boats to transfer rockets from land to it's vessels for years,
supposedly because the gulf is too shallow. I don't have hydrographic maps of the area, anyone know if this is true?
Clearly, Persian Gulf has routes for the largest ships on Earth, but the supply bases for missiles may be away from ports,
and it would make sense to place them so they are not easily accessible to a big ship navy, and in general, to disperse them.
Tim , May 26, 2019 at 06:43
"Thomas"
> These blatant false flags clearly are the work of fools
Since neither you nor I know who did it, and there are a whole slew of plausible suspects, we don't know why they did it,
either. So it is silly to claim they are fools.
Since the Saudis and UAE are in the midst of waging war on Yemen, the most obvious suspects are their enemies there, al-Ansara.
(And by the way, contrary to what another commentator claimed, it was not a "few dents", but a gaping hole in the hull just
below the waterline. And since the local authorities spoke of an impact by an unidentified object, these were presumably torpedo
strikes.)
OlyaPola , May 26, 2019 at 07:58
"What possible advantage could accrue to Iran from putting a few dents in the ships?"
Quite a few including but not limited to further data on the opponents' perception of what constitutes plausible belief for
the opponents' target audience, and the opponents' increasing resort to, amplitude, scope and velocity of "misrepresentations".
As is the case with the benefits of dumbing down not accruing solely to those actively engaged in dumbing down, the benefits
of creation and implementation of "false flags" do not accrue solely to those engaged in "false flags", and are enhanced when
the creators and implementers of "false flags" are immersed in amalga of projection and notions of sole/prime agency, facilitating
potential benefits to many others not restricted to Iran.
Note Firefox does not pickup the user name in Zero hedge anymore. So user names in comments were omitted... BTW comments from
Zerohedge reflect very well the level of frustration and confusion of common Americans with the neoliberal social system. Neoliberal
elites clearly lost most of the legitimacy in 2016.
While this is pretty poignant critique of American empire it does not ask and answer the key question: "What's next?" The crisis
of neoliberalism and the end of cheap oil probably will eventually crush the US led global empire and dollar as the reserve currency.
Although it probably will be much slower and longer process then many expect.
Are we talking about 20, 40 or 80 years here?
But what is the alternative to the neoliberal and the US dominated global neolinberal empire established after dissolution of the
USSR in 1991? That's the question.
Notable quotes:
"... Empire understands nothing except ruthless expansion. It has no other raison d'etre. In the past this meant the violent acquisition of lands and territories by a militarized system where [miliraty] caste was very apparent and visible. But today the dealings of empire are far more duplicitous. The ruling order of this age expands empire via the acquisition of capital while using the military industrial complex to police its exploits. But there is an insidious social conditioning at work which has led the general public to where it is today, a state of "inverted totalitarianism" as political philosopher Sheldon Wolin explained. Indeed, capitalism has morphed into the unassailable religion of the age even among the working class. Its tenets are still viewed as sacrosanct. ..."
"... There is mass compliance to the dictates of the ruling class and this occurs most often without any prompting or debate whatsoever. In this dictatorship of money the poor are looked at with ridicule and contempt, and are often punished legally for their imposed poverty. ..."
"... Most Americans still believe they live in the greatest country on the planet. They believe the American military to be noble and that they always reluctantly go into or are forced into war. Indeed, both the Democrats and Republicans possess an uncanny ability to bridge their ideological distances when it comes to defending US militarism, the Pentagon and the war machine of imperialism. But this is tied to the defense of capitalism, the ruling class, and the ultimate reason for war: the protection of that class's global capital investments. ..."
"... Today Iran and Venezuela are once again in the crosshairs of the American Empire's belligerence. Their defiance to the dominant [neoliberal] socioeconomic order will simply not be tolerated by the global ruling caste, represented as the unquestioned "interests" of the United States. ..."
"... To be sure the American Empire, which has seldom seen a year without pillage of another nation or region, is now facing its greatest nemesis. Unheeded lessons of the past have made it thoroughly inoculated to its own demise. In short, it is drunk on its hubris and unable to grapple with its inevitable descent. ..."
"... The American Empire, one of the shortest lived in human history, has become the biggest threat to humanity ..."
"... But like all empires it will eventually fall. Its endless and costly wars on behalf of capital investments and profiteering are contributing to that demise ..."
"... The US Republic has come and gone - the Empire is failing rapidly despite massive spending to support it. Cecil Rhodes and his heirs dreamed of restoring Anglo American domination of the world yet despite all of the technology employed the US is losing grip. By sheer numbers (and a far more efficient dictatorship) China is moving to a dominant role. ..."
"... In the end, the elite has no problem to rebrand themselves any color it needs to take to rule again, and become totalitarian state. As it becomes in the Soviet Union and China. ..."
"... Another blame America article that fails to mention the International Banksters. They have the finger-pointing thingy down to an art form. ..."
"... How do you begin to change that? Most Americans have been brainwashed and zombified by Hollywood and MSM into revering and lionizing the military without question. The sheer amount of waste in the MIC is not only negligent, but criminal. By the time the sheep awaken, the empire will have run out of their money to pillage. The beast of empire requires new victims to feed off in order to sustain - it devours entire nations, pilfers resources and murders people. Is this really what the founding fathers wanted? ..."
"... Precisely right. It's as if we've painted ourselves into the proverbial corner ..."
" Capitalism's gratuitous wars and sanctioned greed have jeopardized the planet and filled it with refugees. Much of the
blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of the government of the United States. Seventeen years after invading Afghanistan,
after bombing it into the 'stone age' with the sole aim of toppling the Taliban, the US government is back in talks with the
very same Taliban. In the interim it has destroyed Iraq, Libya and Syria. Hundreds of thousands have lost their lives to war
and sanctions, a whole region has descended into chaos, ancient cities -- pounded into dust."
– Arundhati Roy
"As naturally as the ruled always took the morality imposed upon them more seriously than did the rulers themselves, the
deceived masses are today captivated by the myth of success even more than the successful are. Immovably, they insist on the
very ideology which enslaves them. The misplaced love of the common people for the wrong which is done to them is a greater
force than the cunning of the authorities. "
― Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military
force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period,
I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was
a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism ."
― Smedley Butler, War is a Racket
"It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. And the
alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a greater suspension of nuclear tests, the alternative to strengthening the
United Nations and thereby disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation, and
our earthly habitat would be transformed into an inferno that even the mind of Dante could not imagine."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution, 31 March 1968
Empire understands nothing except ruthless expansion. It has no other raison d'etre. In the past this meant the violent acquisition
of lands and territories by a militarized system where [miliraty] caste was very apparent and visible. But today the dealings of
empire are far more duplicitous. The ruling order of this age expands empire via the acquisition of capital while using the military
industrial complex to police its exploits. But there is an insidious social conditioning at work which has led the general public
to where it is today, a state of "inverted totalitarianism" as political philosopher Sheldon Wolin explained. Indeed, capitalism
has morphed into the unassailable religion of the age even among the working class. Its tenets are still viewed as sacrosanct.
Violence is the sole language of empire. It is this only currency it uses to enforce its precepts and edicts, both at home and
abroad. Eventually this language becomes internalized within the psyche of the subjects. Social and cultural conditioning maintained
through constant subtle messaging via mass media begins to mold the public will toward that of authoritarian conformity. The American
Empire is emblematic of this process. There is mass compliance to the dictates of the ruling class and this occurs most often
without any prompting or debate whatsoever. In this dictatorship of money the poor are looked at with ridicule and contempt, and
are often punished legally for their imposed poverty.
But the social conditioning of the American public has led toward a bizarre allegiance to its ruling class oppressors. Propaganda
still works here and most are still besotted with the notion of America being a bastion of "freedom and democracy." The growing gap
between the ultra-wealthy and the poor and the gutting of civil liberties are ignored. And blind devotion is especially so when it
comes to US foreign policy.
Most Americans still believe they live in the greatest country on the planet. They believe the American military to be noble
and that they always reluctantly go into or are forced into war. Indeed, both the Democrats and Republicans possess an uncanny ability
to bridge their ideological distances when it comes to defending US militarism, the Pentagon and the war machine of imperialism.
But this is tied to the defense of capitalism, the ruling class, and the ultimate reason for war: the protection of that class's
global capital investments.
The persecution of Chelsea Manning, much like the case of Julian Assange, is demonstrative of this. It is a crusade against truth
tellers that has been applauded from both sides of the American establishment, liberal and conservative alike. It does not matter
that she helped to expose American war crimes. On the contrary, this is seen as heresy to the Empire itself. Manning's crime was
exposing the underbelly of the beast. A war machine which targeted and killed civilians and journalists by soldiers behind a glowing
screen thousands of miles away, as if they were playing a video game.
Indeed, those deadened souls pulling the virtual trigger probably thought they were playing a video game since this is how the
military seduced them to serve in their ranks in the first place. A kind of hypnotic, addictive, algorithmic tyranny of sorts. It
is a form of escapism that so many young Americans are enticed by given their sad prospects in a society that has denuded the commons
as well as their future. That it was a war based on lies against an impoverished nation already deeply weakened from decades of American
led sanctions is inconsequential....
... ... ...
Today Iran and Venezuela are once again in the crosshairs of the American Empire's belligerence. Their defiance to the dominant
[neoliberal] socioeconomic order will simply not be tolerated by the global ruling caste, represented as the unquestioned "interests"
of the United States. The imposed suffering on these nations has been twisted as proof that they are now in need of American
salvation in the form of even more crippling sanctions, coups, neoliberal austerity and military intervention. As the corporate vultures
lie in wait for the next carcass of a society to feed upon, the hawks are busy building the case for the continuation and expansion
of capitalist wars of conquest.
Bolton and Pompeo are now the equivalent of the generals who carved up Numidia for the wealthy families of ancient Rome, with
Trump, the half-witted, narcissistic and cruel emperor, presiding over the whole in extremis farce. Indeed, the bloated orange Emperor
issued the latest of his decrees in his usual banal fashion, via tweet:
"If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!"
One can query when Iran, or any other nation has ever "threatened" the United States, but that question will never be asked by
the corporate press who are also in service to Empire. They are, in fact, its mouthpiece and advocate. The US has at least 900 military
bases and colonial outposts scattered around the planet, yet this is never looked at as imperialistic in the least by the establishment,
including its media. Scores of nations lie in ruins or are besieged with chaos and misery thanks to American bellicosity , from Libya
to Iraq and beyond. But the US never looks back in regret at any of its multiple forays, not even a few years back.
To be sure the American Empire, which has seldom seen a year without pillage of another nation or region, is now facing its
greatest nemesis. Unheeded lessons of the past have made it thoroughly inoculated to its own demise. In short, it is drunk on its
hubris and unable to grapple with its inevitable descent.
... ... ...
American Empire knows no other language sans brutality, deceit and belligerence...
... ... ...
The American Empire, one of the shortest lived in human history, has become the biggest threat to humanity ...
But like all empires it will eventually fall. Its endless and costly wars on behalf of capital investments and profiteering
are contributing to that demise . After all, billions of dollars are spent to keep the bloated military industrial complex afloat
in service to the ruling class while social and economic safety nets are torn to shreds...
Nowadays the US has a massive military and little else. And "when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to
look like a nail" - Wesley Clark, Former US General.
14 hours ago
Twaddle. Capitalism has lifted out of poverty more people around the globe than all other "successful" systems combined; and
in a fraction of the time. Education. Health. Wealth. Not to mention Arts and Sciences.
Go demand a refund for your liberal education. And stop spreading lies.
11 hours ago (Edited)
Poppycock! Capitalism has traded real sovereign wealth for fiat debt backed funny money at the barrel of a gun! You assholes
have been forcing otherwise healthy communities into poverty for decades so you could steal their resources and molest their children!
Why? Because children are the only people impressed by your tiny d!cks!
The organization described the average sex tourist as a middle-aged white male from either Europe or North
America who often goes online to find the " best deals. " One particular Web site promised "nights of sex with two
young Thai girls for the price of a tank of gas."
Sowmia Nair, a Department of Justice agent, said the Thai government often "turns a blind eye" to child sex tourism because
of the country's economic reliance on the tourist trade in general . He also said police officers are often corrupt.
" Police have been known to guard brothels and even procure children for prostitution," Nair said. "Some police
directly exploit the children themselves."
A report from the International Bureau for Children's Rights said the majority of child prostitutes come from poor families
in northern Thailand, referred to as the "hill tribes." With limited economic opportunities and bleak financial circumstances,
these families, out of desperation, give their children to "recruiters," who promise them jobs in the city and then force the
children into prostitution.
Sometimes families themselves even prostitute their children or sell them into the sex trade for a minuscule sum of money.
This is not by accident! This is by design!
14 hours ago
Capitalism has nothing to do with this. For the average American the empire is a losing proposition.
13 hours ago (Edited)
Empire good. Emperor bad. Kingdom good. King bad. Country good. President bad. Village good. Idiot bad.
13 hours ago (Edited)
Empire is cancer. Especially the present one that leaves a trail of failed states and antangonism in its wake.
16 hours ago
We are part of a scientific dictatorship - the 'Ultimate Revolution' Huxley spoke of in 1962 where the oppressed willingly
submit to their enslavement. Social conditioning - promoted by continuous propaganda stressing that the state is their protector,
reinforced by endless 'terrorist threats' to keep the masses fearful is but one part of the system.
The state no longer has to use threats and fear of punishment to keep the masses under control - the masses have been convinced
that they are better off as slaves and serfs than they were as free men.
The US Republic has come and gone - the Empire is failing rapidly despite massive spending to support it. Cecil Rhodes
and his heirs dreamed of restoring Anglo American domination of the world yet despite all of the technology employed the US is
losing grip. By sheer numbers (and a far more efficient dictatorship) China is moving to a dominant role.
18 hours ago
Capitalism and corporatism are not the same. When corporate interests effectively wield gov power, you have corporatism, not
Capitalism.
14 hours ago
Corporatism=Fascism.
18 hours ago 'Muricanism is the gee-gaw of the chattering classes.
18 hours ago (Edited)
The US is its own worst enemy. They have no idea what they are doing. 2008 – "Oh dear, the global economy just blew up"
Its experts investigate and conclude it was a black swan.
It is a black swan if you don't consider debt. They use neoclassical economics that doesn't consider debt.
They can't work out why inflation isn't coming back and the real economy isn't recovering faster.
Look at the debt over-hang that's still left after 2008 in the graph above, that's the problem. The repayment on debt to banks
destroy money pushing the economy towards debt deflation.
QE can't enter the real economy as so many people are still loaded up with debt and there are too few borrowers.
QE can get into the markets inflating them and the US stock market is now at 1929 levels. They have created another asset price
bubble that is ready to collapse leading to another financial crisis.
We need a new scientific economics for globalisation, got any ideas?
What if we just stick some complex maths on top of 1920s neoclassical economics?
No one will notice.
They didn't either, but it's still got all its old problems.
The 1920s roared with debt based consumption and speculation until it all tipped over into the debt deflation of the Great
Depression. No one realised the problems that were building up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at private
debt, neoclassical economics.
What's the problem?
The belief in the markets gets everyone thinking you are creating real wealth by inflating asset prices.
Bank credit pours into inflating asset prices rather than creating real wealth (as measured by GDP) as no one is looking
at the debt building up
1929 and 2008 look so similar because they are; it's the same economics and thinking.
The 1920s problem in the US is now everywhere, UK, US, Euro-zone, Japan and China.
20 hours ago (Edited)
Capitalism is based on darwinian economic competition driven by a desire to accumulate material wealth. When a capitalist becomes
sufficiently rich, he can (and does) buy politicians and armies to do his bidding. Ironically, although capitalism is based on
the assumption of competition, capitalists actually hate competition and harbor the urge to put competitors out of business. The
true goal of a capitalists is monopoly-- as long as it is them.
Imperialism is a logical (and historically predictable) expansion of capitalism.
18 hours ago
Capitalism may not be the path to peace, but just about every other ism, including socialism and communism delivered worse.
Attacking capitalism for common failings is off base.
15 hours ago
Socialism and ultimately communism appear when capitalism goes rampant, and it is normal for the socium to embrace socialism
when the inequality becomes too large.
In the end, the elite has no problem to rebrand themselves any color it needs to take to rule again, and become totalitarian
state. As it becomes in the Soviet Union and China.
So don't mistake the people's desire for equal world with totalitarian capitalism masked as socialism.
14 hours ago
the real issue is NO GROUP OF HUMANS can be trusted will any form of power. ever. period.
so it goes that no "xyz"ism" will ever work out for the whole. yet humans are social animals and seek to be in groups governed
by the very people that strive to lead that exhibit sociopathic tendencies, which are the worst possible leaders. how fuked up
is that?
so how can that work? it does for a while. then we end up in the same spot every time, turmoil, the forth turning.
the luck of life is the period of time you live during, where and what stage of human turmoil the society is in...
21 hours ago (Edited)
" Capitalism's gratuitous wars and sanctioned greed have jeopardized the planet and filled it with refugees".
Capitalism did all that huh? It had nothing to do with corrupt politicians in bed with corporations and banks. Now they even
have the military singing the same stupidity. Governments make these messes, not capitalism. Someone who risked their life for
a corrupt government giving the pieces of **** that put him there a free pass by blaming it on capitalism. What a moron. When
politicians hear this stupidity, it's like music to their ears. They know they've successfully shifted the blame to a simple ISM.
Governments want to blame the very thing that will fix all of this, for the sake of self-preservation.
18 hours ago
Every system acts to centralise power, even anarchism. So you say it was wealth that enabled what was to follow but it was
really power.. something every -ism will centralise and enable.
22 hours ago
Another blame America article that fails to mention the International Banksters. They have the finger-pointing thingy down
to an art form.
16 hours ago
Really! Did you miss the Smedley Butler quote?
22 hours ago
Could you please distinguish between capitalism and political, monetary, fiscal, press, and legal aberrations that can occur
in capitalist systems because of government sloth and malfeasance? Media monopoly, mass illegal immigration, and offshoring are
not the essence of capitalism. And socialist systems can see hideous abuses.
Please read something more than **** and Jane adventures.
23 hours ago
"... is still the owner of the world's biggest nuclear arsenal."
===
Here is the list of all nine countries
with nuclear weapons in descending order, starting with the country that has the most nuclear weapons at hand and ending with
the country that has the least amount of nuclear weapons
China is negotiating a militarybasein a strategic port of Djibouti, the president said, according to
the AFP news agency. The move raises the prospect of US and Chinesebases side-by-side in the ...
Oct 10, 2017 · China and the small African nation of Djibouti reached an agreement in July to let the People's Liberation Army
establish up its first overseas militarybase there. The base on Africa's east ...
China is building its first militarybaseinAfrica . America should be very nervous. ... In
Africa , China has found not just a market for money but for jobs and land -- crucial components of ...
23 hours ago (Edited)
Oh noes! 1 base in Africa.....meanwhile the empire has 800 outposts around the world and despite that, like a snowflake, is
bitching about China's one.
Isn't it fascinating how the Chinese do not find it necessary to resort to retarded regime change projects and stoopid kikery
to "win" influence? Easy peasy. Methinks the Anglo-Zionists can learn a trick or two from China.
23 hours ago
The empire of 800 outposts is puny compared to the 1960's and 1970's. I can provide the information if you'd like. Almost all
the 800 have company sized or smaller contingents. Still, I'd like to see much of it dismantled. No world Policeman.
23 hours ago
The entire world is in favor of a more peaceful planet Earth, except the military-industrial complex. Ron Paul
War puts money in their pockets. Lots of money. It's in the trillions of dollars.
23 hours ago (Edited)
How do you begin to change that? Most Americans have been brainwashed and zombified by Hollywood and MSM into revering
and lionizing the military without question. The sheer amount of waste in the MIC is not only negligent, but criminal. By the
time the sheep awaken, the empire will have run out of their money to pillage. The beast of empire requires new victims to feed
off in order to sustain - it devours entire nations, pilfers resources and murders people. Is this really what the founding fathers
wanted?
Now you know why wars happen. If "we the people" can't stop this beast, another nation's military will.
21 hours ago
@BH II
Precisely right. It's as if we've painted ourselves into the proverbial corner. The only way out of the morass is
to find men of very high character to correctly lead the way out. America needs a Socrates.
"... No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq. Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster by the Zio-American bully. ..."
"... For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable. ..."
"... Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region. ..."
"... As shown in a previous article, "The Return of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight. ..."
"... When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war. ..."
"... I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME. ..."
"... The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity. There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel? ..."
"... However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises. ..."
"... I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they might not. ..."
"... "War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read. As true today as it was back when he wrote it. ..."
"... "The Axis of Sanity" – I like it, I like it! Probably quite closely related to the "reality-based community". ..."
"... "Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets. ..."
"... He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000. ..."
"... Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed. ..."
"... first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies, controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of the seats of power at the 527 person USA. ..."
"... This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push things too far. Karma can be a bitch. ..."
No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq.
Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken
chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster
by the Zio-American bully.
In the politics of the Middle East, however, money is at the heart of all matters. As such, this ring of defensive nations is
collectively and quickly shifting towards the new Russo/Sino sphere of economic influence. These countries now form a geo-political
defensive perimeter that, with Iraq entering the fold, make a US ground war virtually impossible and an air war very restricted in
opportunity.
If Iraq holds, there will be no war in Iran.
In the last two months, Iraq parliamentarians have been exceptionally vocal in their calls for all foreign military forces- particularly
US forces- to leave immediately. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq's divided parliament
called
for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter ."Parliament must clearly
and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty," said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker
loyal to the populist cleric
Moqtada al-Sadr
.
Iraq's ambassador to Moscow, Haidar Mansour Hadi, went further saying that Iraq "does not
want a new devastating war in the region." He t old a press conference in Moscow this past week, "Iraq is a sovereign
nation. We will not let [the US] use our territory," he said. Other comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi agreed.
Other MPs called for
a timetable for complete US troop withdrawal.
Then a motion was introduced
demanding
war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and
somehow failing to find those "weapons of mass destruction."
As Iraq/Iran economic ties continue to strengthen, with Iraq recently signing on for billions of cubic meters of Iranian natural
gas, the shift towards Russian influence- an influence that prefers peace- was certified as Iraq sent a delegation to Moscow to negotiate
the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.
To this massive show of pending democracy and rapidly rising Iraqi nationalism, US Army spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon, provided
the kind of delusion only the Zio-American military is known for, saying,
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government."
Good luck with that.
US influence in Iraq came to a possible conclusion this past Saturday, May 18, 2019, when it was reported that the Iraqi parliament
would vote
on a bill compelling the invaders to leave . Speaking about the vote on the draft bill, Karim Alivi, a member of the Iraqi parliament's
national security and defense committee, said on Thursday that the country's two biggest parliamentary factions -- the Sairoon bloc,
led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fatah alliance, headed by secretary general of the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri --
supported the bill. Strangely, Saturday's result has not made it to the media as yet, and American meddling would be a safe guess
as to the delay, but the fact that this bill would certainly have passed strongly shows that Iraq well understands the weakness of
the American bully: Iraq's own US militarily imposed democracy.
Iraq shares a common border with Iran that the US must have for any ground war. Both countries also share a similar religious
demographic where Shia is predominant and the plurality of cultures substantially similar and previously living in harmony. Both
also share a very deep seeded and deserved hatred of Zio- America. Muqtada al-Sadr, who, after coming out first in the 2018 Iraqi
elections, is similar to Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah in his religious and military influence within the well trained and various
Shia militias. He is firmly aligned with Iran as is Fattah Alliance. Both detest Zio- America.
A ground invasion needs a common and safe border. Without Iraq, this strategic problem for US forces becomes complete. The other
countries also with borders with Iran are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All have several good
reasons that they will not, or cannot, be used for ground forces.
With former Armenian President Robert Kocharian under arrest in the aftermath of the massive anti-government 2018 protests, Bolton
can check that one off the list first. Azerbaijan is mere months behind the example next door in Armenia,
with protests increasing and indicating
a change towards eastern winds. Regardless, Azerbaijan, like Turkmenistan, is an oil producing nation and as such is firmly aligned
economically with Russia. Political allegiance seems obvious since US influence is limited in all three countries to blindly ignoring
the massive additional corruption and human rights violations by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and
Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow .
However, Russian economic influence pays in cash. Oil under Russian control is the lifeblood of both of these countries.
Recent developments and new international contracts with Russia clearly show whom these leaders are actually listening to.
Turkey would appear to be firmly shifting into Russian influence. A NATO member in name only. Ever since he
shot down his first-
and last – Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thumbed his nose at the Americans. Recently
he refused to succumb to pressure and will receive Iranian oil and, in July, the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/missile system. This
is important since there is zero chance Putin will relinquish command and control or see them missiles used against Russian armaments.
Now, Erdogan is considering replacing his purchase of thirty US F-35s with the
far superior Russian SU- 57 and a few S-500s for good measure.
Economically, America did all it could to stop the Turk Stream gas pipeline installed by Russia's Gazprom, that runs through Turkey
to eastern Europe and will provide $billions to Erdogan and Turkey
. It
will commence operation this year. Erdogan continues to purchase Iranian oil and to call for Arab nations to come together against
US invasion in Iran. This week, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar renewed Turkey's resolve, saying his country
is preparing for potential American
sanctions as a deadline reportedly set by the US for Ankara to cancel the S-400 arms deal with Russia or face penalties draws
near.
So, Turkey is out for both a ground war and an air war since the effectiveness of all those S-400's might be put to good use if
America was to launch from naval positions in the Mediterranean. Attacking from the Black Sea is out since it is ringed by countries
under Russo/Sino influence and any attack on Iran will have to illegally cross national airspace aligned with countries preferring
the Russo/Sino alliance that favours peace. An unprovoked attack would leave the US fleet surrounded with the only safe harbours
in Romania and Ukraine. Ships move much slower than missiles.
Afghanistan is out, as the Taliban are winning. Considering recent peace talks from which they walked out and next
slaughtered a police station near the western border with
Iran, they have already won. Add the difficult terrain near the Iranian border and a ground invasion is very unlikely
Although new Pakistani President Amir Khan has all the power and authority of a primary school crossing guard, the real power
within the Pakistani military, the ISI, is more than tired of American influence
. ISI has propagated the Taliban for years and often gave
refuge to Afghan anti-US forces allowing them to use their common border for cover. Although in the past ISI has been utterly mercenary
in its very duplicitous- at least- foreign allegiances, after a decade of US drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis, the chance of
ground-based forces being allowed is very doubtful. Like Afghanistan terrain also increases this unlikelihood.
Considerations as to terrain and location for a ground war and the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously
when, in 2006 Hizbullah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy armour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon.
In further cautionary detail, this failure cost PM Ehud Olmert his job.
For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer
military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings
of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line
their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable.
For Iran, the geographic, economic and therefore geo-political ring of defensive nations is made complete by Syria, Lebanon and
Iraq. Syria, like Iraq, has every reason to despise the Americans and similar reasons to embrace Iran, Russia, China and border neighbour
Lebanon. Syria now has its own Russian S-300 system which is already bringing down Israeli missiles. It is surprising that Lebanon
has not requested a few S-300s of their own. No one knows what Hizbullah has up its sleeve, but it has been enough to keep the Israelis
at bay. Combined with a currently more prepared Lebanese army, Lebanon under the direction of Nasrallah is a formidable nation for
its size. Ask Israel.
Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across
the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region.
Friendly airspace will also be vastly limited, so also gone will be the tactical element of surprise of any incoming attack. The
reality of this defensive ring of nations means that US military options will be severely limited. The lack of a ground invasion
threat and the element of surprise will allow Iranian defences to prioritize and therefore be dramatically more effective. As shown
in a previous article, "The Return
of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons
and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Regardless, a lengthy public ramp-up to stage military assets for an attack by the US will be seen by the vast majority of the
world- and Iran- as an unprovoked act of war. Certainly at absolute minimum Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, throwing the price
of oil skyrocketing and world economies into very shaky waters. World capitalist leaders will not be happy. Without a friendly landing
point for ground troops, the US will either have to abandon this strategy in favour of an air war or see piles of body bags of US
servicemen sacrificed to Israeli inspired hegemony come home by the thousands just months before the '20 primary season. If this
is not military and economic suicide, it is certainly political.
Air war will likely see a similar disaster. With avenues of attack severely restricted, obvious targets such as Iran's non-military
nuclear program and major infrastructure will be thus more easily defended and the likelihood of the deaths of US airmen similarly
increased.
In terms of Naval power, Bolton would have only the Mediterranean as a launch pad, since using the Black Sea to initiate war will
see the US fleet virtually surrounded by nations aligned with the Russo/Sino pact. Naval forces, it should be recalled, are, due
to modern anti-ship technologies and weapons, now the sitting ducks of blusterous diplomacy. A hot naval war in the Persian Gulf,
like a ground war, will leave a US death toll far worse than the American public has witnessed in their lifetimes and the US navy
in tatters.
Trump is already
reportedly
seething that his machismo has been tarnished by Bolton and Pompeo's false assurances of an easy overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela.
With too many top generals getting jumpy about him initiating a hot war with Iraq, Bolton's stock in trade-war is waning. Trump basks
in being the American bully personified, but he and his ego will not stand for being exposed as weak. Remaining as president is necessary
to stoke his shallow character. When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war
with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren
political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
In two
excellent articles in Asia times by Pepe Escobar, he details the plethora of projects, agreements, and cooperation that are
taking place from Asia
to the Mid-East to the Baltics . Lead by Russia and China this very quickly developing Russo/Sino pact of economic opportunity
and its intentions of "soft power" collectively spell doom for Zio-America's only remaining tactics of influence: military intervention.
States, Escobar:
"We should know by now that the heart of the 21 st Century Great Game is the myriad layers of the battle between
the United States and the partnership of Russia and China. The long game indicates Russia and China will break down language and
cultural barriers to lead Eurasian integration against American economic hegemony backed by military might."
The remaining civilized world, that which understands the expanding world threat of Zio-America, can rest easy. Under the direction
of this new Russo/Sino influence, without Iraq, the US will not launch a war on Iran.
This growing Axis of Sanity surrounds Iran geographically and empathetically, but more importantly, economically. This economy,
as clearly stated by both Putin and Xi, does not benefit from any further wars of American aggression. In this new allegiance to
future riches, it is Russian and China that will call the shots and a shooting war involving their new client nations will not be
sanctioned from the top.
However, to Putin, Xi and this Axis of Sanity: If American wishes to continue to bankrupt itself by ineffective military adventures
of Israel's making, rather than fix its own nation that is in societal decline and desiccated after decades of increasing Zionist
control, well
That just good for business!
About the Author:Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news
agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis
that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL
Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan's Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene
((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk
When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they
want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute
instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
I believe you are far
too generous in your estimation of his ability to distinguish between flavors of any type. Otherwise, your analysis is insightful
and thorough.
The U.S. is in the same position today that we were aboard Nimitz back in 1980. Too far from Tehran to start a war or even to
find our people. We are perhaps in even a far worse position in that today, Iran holds no hostages. There's nothing so 'noble'
as 44 hostages to inspire war today. This here is merely at the behest of Israel and the deep state profit centers for mere fun
and games and cash and prizes. Iran, overall, is nothing. Obama put Iran away for what, a billion-five? And Jared, Bolton and
Pompeo dredged it all back up again? Care to guess the first-night expense of a shock and awe on Tehran? It's unthinkable.
I used to like Israel. The Haifa-Tel Av-iv-Jerusalem-Galili loop was pretty cool. The PLO hadn't quite started their game,
we could move freely about the country. It's where the whole thing started. And, unlike Italy and Spain, they treated us Americans
ok. They were somewhat war torn. But now? They're a destructive monolith, they're good at hiding it and further, they make disastrous
miscalculations. Eliminating Saddam was huge. Turns out, Saddam was the only sane one. The last vestiges of Saddam's nuclear program
went up in the attacks on the Osirak reactor that Israel bombed in 1981. Why did they push for the elimination of Saddam afterwards?
Why the lies? Miscalculation.
This here with Iran won't travel further than threats and horseshit. I hope. Lots of bleating and farting. Someone agrees.
Oil dropped three or four bucks today.
"the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2016 Hezbollah virtually obliterated its ground
attack, heavy amour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon."
I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake
for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing
failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME.
Threatening Iran is now simply grotesque.
Concerning the article. The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity.
There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel?
However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions
on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism
is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual
spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises.
Is the author unaware of the nation of Saudi Arabia and the fact that they are new BFFs with Israel. They have come out quite
openly they'd like to see Iran attacked. That whole Sunni Wahabism vs. Shia thing is a heck of alot older than this current skirmish.
Being that SA has a border w/ the Persian Gulf and that Kuwait who is even CLOSER may be agreeable to be a staging area, why
the hand wringing about this nation & that nation, etc. The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases
followed up by amphibious troop deployment if need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as
a land bridge, in a pinch.
So will we expect the follow up article discussing this glaring omission, or am I missing some great development re: S.Arabia's
disposition and temperament regarding all this.
The transformed relationship between Russia and Turkey illustrates perfectly the shifting sands of strategic alliances as we cross
the desert towards destiny. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even
covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they
might not.
As for the costs of taking on Iran, while one cannot underestimate the cocksuredness of Uncle to take on Iran with a 2003 "Iraq
will be a cakewalk" attitude, the resulting air war will likely not be as costly to Uncle as the author believes, but the thought
of flag-draped coffins in the thousands will certainly deter a land invasion. If there is any action at all, it will be air interdiction
and missile attack.
It is curious that Uncle has not already resorted to his favorite tactic of declaring a No-Fly zone already but instead merely
hinted that airliner safety cannot be guaranteed; this is likely just another form of sanction since Iran receives money for each
airliner that transits its airspace, and a couple of Uncle's putative allies supply Iran with ATC equipment and services.
Uncle's Navy has already demonstrated a willingness to shoot down an airliner in Iranian airspace, so it is no idle threat,
kind of like the mobster looking at a picture of your family and saying, "Nice family you have there; it would be a shame if anything
happened to them."
"War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read.
As true today as it was back when he wrote it.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Stasi " Merkel muss weg " (Merkel must go) is too weak to even think about taking Germanstan into such a foolish adventure.
Maybe the Kosher Kingdom of simpletons, especially under American-born Turkish "Englishman" (((Boris Kemal Bey))), another
psycho like (((Baron Levy's))) Scottish warmonger Blair.
Iraqi MP: US after Turning Ain Al-Assad into Central Airbase in Iraq
FARSNEWS
"Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase
which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets.
He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from
the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000.
Al-Mohammadawi said that Washington does not care about Iraq's opposition to using the country's soil to target the neighboring
states.
In a relevant development on Saturday, media reports said that Washington has plans to set up military bases and increasing
its troops in Iraq, adding the US is currently engaged in expanding its Ain al-Assad military base in al-Anbar province."
The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases followed up by amphibious troop deployment if
need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as a land bridge, in a pinch.
Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated
massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed.
Also minor point, LOL, but Kuwait is a "landbridge" between Saudi Arabia and Iraq Unless you are proposing the US attacks
Iraq (again!) which it would have to do to achieve a "landbridge" to Iran. Another good reason Iraq is acquiring the S-400.
More minor points: 1. South Iraq is ALL shiite. 2. Kuwait is SMALL i.e. a BIG target for thousands of missiles
@Ilyana_Rozumova
your question of responsibility is very intuitive.. two general answers.. both need deep analysis..
first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations
enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated
place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas
distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water
provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies,
controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of
the seats of power at the 527 person USA.
2nd is the impact of the laws that deny competition in a nation sworn to a method of economics (capitalism) that depends on
competition for its success. Another group of massive in size mostly global corporations again owned from Jerusalem, NYC, City
of London, etc. financed at wall street, use rule of law to impose on Americans and many of the people of the world, a blanket
of economic and anti competitive laws and monopoly powers. These monopolist companies benefit from the copyright and patent laws,
which create monopolies from hot thin air. These laws of monopolies coupled to the USA everything is a secret government have
devastated competitive capitalism in America and rendered American Universities high school level teaching but not learning bureaucracies.
Monopolies and state secrets between insider contractors were suppose to deny most of the world from competing; but without
competition ingenuity is lost. Monopoly lordships and state secrets were supposed to make it easy for the monopoly powered corporations
to overpower and deny any and all would be competition; hence they would be the only ones getting rich.. But China's Huawei will
be Linux based and Tin not Aluminium in design, far superior technology to anything these monopoly powered retards have yet developed
especially in the high energy communications technologies (like 5G, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics). In other words copyrights,
patents and the US military were suppose to keep the world, and the great ingenuity that once existed in the person of every American,
from competing, but the only people actually forced out of the technology competition were the ingenious, for they were denied
by copyright and patents to compete. Now those in power at the USA will make Americans pay again as the corporations that run
things try to figure out how to catch up to the Chinese and Russian led Eastern world. Modi's election in India is quite interesting
as both China and Russia supported it, yet, Modi says he is going to switch to the USA for copyrighted and patented stuff?
on the issue of continued USA presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, ..
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government." <that's a joke, first off, I never desired to be in Iraq, and I do not desire USA military or American
presence in Iraq, do You? <blatant disregard for the needs of America.. IMO. Bring the troops home. If the USA would only leave
Iraq to the Iraqis and get to work making America competitive again they would once again enjoy a great place in the world. But
one thing i can tell you big giant wall street funded corporations, and reliance on degree credentials instead of job performance,
will never be the reason America is great.
This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most
of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation.
Trump has allowed madmen
Bolton and Pompeo to get this country into an awful mess – all for the sake of Israel and the Zionists.
He needs to find a face-saving
way to get out before Washington gets its long needed comeuppance. But how can Trump accomplish this as long as Bolton, in particular,
continues to be the man who most has his ear? If Titley is correct, then Trump had better start listening to his military leaders
instead.
Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push
things too far. Karma can be a bitch.
"... Newsweek unearthed another clue as to the provenance of the claims. The magazine said that it learned from one Pentagon official that the satellite imagery of loading missiles into fishing dhows was not produced by U.S. intelligence but rather had been provided by Israel. ..."
"... Ravid's Israeli sources acknowledged that it wasn't hard intelligence or even an intelligence assessment based on evidence. Instead, as one Israeli official acknowledged, Mossad "drew several scenarios for what Iran might be planning." Ravid's sources ultimately admitted that Israel's Mossad doesn't really know "what the Iranians are trying to do." ..."
"... That April 15 meeting was only the most recent one between top U.S. and Israeli national security officials over the past year, according to Ravid. These meetings were conducted under a still-secret U.S.-Israeli agreement on a joint plan of action against Iran reached after two days of unannounced meetings at the White House between Ben Shabbat and then-national security advisor H.R. McMaster on December 12, 2017. ..."
"... It also creates a new incentive for the Israelis and Saudis to provoke military responses by Hamas in Gaza or the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
@renfro Remember
Iraq .with visions of WMDs, yellow cake and dancing Israelis in your head.
"In meetings in Washington and Tel Aviv in the past few weeks," the paper's Jerusalem
correspondent wrote, "Israeli intelligence warned" U.S. officials that "Iran or its proxies
were planning to strike American targets in Iraq." The report cited a "senior Middle Eastern
intelligence official" -- the term traditionally used to describe an Israeli intelligence
official–as the source.
Newsweek unearthed another clue as to the provenance of the claims. The magazine said that
it learned from one Pentagon official that the satellite imagery of loading missiles into
fishing dhows was not produced by U.S. intelligence but rather had been provided by
Israel.
Reporting by the leading Israeli diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid, now of Channel 13
but also filing for Axios, provides more detailed evidence that Israel was the original
source of all three alleged Iranian threats. Ravid's story reports that an Israeli
delegation, led by national advisor Meir Ben Shabbat, met with Bolton and other U.S. national
security officials in the White House on April 15 and passed on to them "information about
possible Iranian plots against the U.S. or its allies in the Gulf," according to "senior
Israeli officials."
Bolton confirmed the meeting with Ben Shabbat in a tweet after it happened, but revealed
nothing about what was discussed.
Ravid's Israeli sources acknowledged that it wasn't hard intelligence or even an
intelligence assessment based on evidence. Instead, as one Israeli official acknowledged,
Mossad "drew several scenarios for what Iran might be planning." Ravid's sources ultimately
admitted that Israel's Mossad doesn't really know "what the Iranians are trying to do."
This is the obvious explanation for why U.S. officials were so unwilling to reveal the
provenance of what has loosely been called "intelligence." It also tallies with one Pentagon
official's revelation to Newsweek that the satellite imagery cited as evidence of missiles in
fishing boats had been "provided to U.S. officials by Israel ."
That April 15 meeting was only the most recent one between top U.S. and Israeli national
security officials over the past year, according to Ravid. These meetings were conducted
under a still-secret U.S.-Israeli agreement on a joint plan of action against Iran reached
after two days of unannounced meetings at the White House between Ben Shabbat and
then-national security advisor H.R. McMaster on December 12, 2017. Ravid reported the
details of that agreement in late December based on information from a "senior U.S. official"
and confirmation from senior Israeli officials.
Ravid's story provided details on the four working groups that were formed under the
agreement, including one on "Joint U.S.-Israeli preparation for different escalation
scenarios in the region, concerning Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza." The
Mossad "scenarios" apparently provided the central ideas with which to justify the Trump
administration's subsequent escalatory moves against Iran, including ostentatiously moving an
aircraft carrier and a B-52 bomber group into the region.
Bolton's May 5 statement warning of "unrelenting force" against Iran in response to any
attack by either Iranian or "proxy" forces added a very significant new element to America's
retaliatory threats. It referred to an attack "on United States interests or on those of our
allies." That broadening of the range of scenarios that could be cited to justify a U.S.
strike against Iran, which has so far been studiously ignored by major news media, represents
a major concession to the Israelis and Saudi Arabia.
It also creates a new incentive for the Israelis and Saudis to provoke military responses by
Hamas in Gaza or the Houthis in Yemen. And it poses the problem of incidents that could be
blamed on Iran or a "proxy" but for which actual responsibility is ambiguous, such as the
apparent "limpet mine" attack on oil tankers on May 12 -- or the rocket fired into Baghdad's
Green Zone within a mile of the U.S. embassy there Sunday night.
These deceptions are part of a dangerous game being run by Bolton in which Israel is
apparently playing a crucial role. That should prompt some serious questioning as to Bolton's
claims and the role of the alleged secret U.S.-Israeli understandings.
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and
other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Because they serve those who dispense such power. That is their job.
And those whom they serve make sure that checky/balancey oversight–say in the form
of chief executive of the United States of America, or an honest Congressman or
journalist–is destroyed if it threatens not to align with those masters or even
questions/reveals these individuals or these structures.
Look at how they've reacted to Donald Trump's trolling both before and while in
office.
They make sure that "the intelligence bureaucracy" reifies that exclusionary principle in
every hire, every action, every policy. Like many bureaucracies and institutions it becomes a
factory for its own viral replication rather than anything that is traditionally considered
"intelligence."
Look at their prime creation of the new millennium: Barack Obama.
"... However, nothing in the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.) ..."
"... These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared. ..."
"... South China Morning Post ..."
"... This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan. ..."
"... Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor because it is winning. ..."
"... Until the reserve currency issue favoring the "exceptional" nation changes, the economic terrorism will continue.. ..."
"... What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other markets. ..."
"... The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary. ..."
"... Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional, accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random pot-shots, lead to what? ..."
"... The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that will destroy his 2020 hopes. ..."
However, nothing in
the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries
and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.)
The British processor company ARM, which licenses its design to Huawei, cites U.S. export controls as the reason to stop cooperation
with Huawei:
The conflict is putting companies and governments around the world in a tough spot, forcing them to choose between alienating
the United States or China .
Arm Holdings issued its statement after the BBC reported the firm had told staff to suspend dealings with Huawei.
An Arm spokesman said some of the company's intellectual property is designed in the United States and is therefore " subject
to U.S. export controls ."
Additionally two British telecom providers quote U.S. restrictions as reason for no longer buying Huawei smartphones:
BT Group's EE division, which is preparing to launch 5G service in six British cities later this month, said Wednesday it would
no longer offer a new Huawei smartphone as part of that service. Vodafone also said it would drop a Huawei smartphone from
its lineup. Both companies appeared to tie that decision to Google's move to withhold licenses for its Android operating software
from future Huawei phones.
These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual
piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared.
That the Trump administration says it has security reasons for its Huawei ban does not mean that the claim is true. Huawei
equipment is as good or bad as any other telecommunication equipment, be it from Cisco or Apple. The National Security Agency
and other secret services will try to infiltrate all types of such equipment.
After the sudden ban on U.S. entities to export to Huawei, chipmakers like Qualcomm temporarily stopped their relations with
Huawei. Google said that it would no longer allow access to the Google Play store for new Huawei smartphones. That will diminish
their utility for many users.
The public reaction in China to this move was quite negative. There were many calls for counter boycotts of Apple's i-phones
on social media and a general anti-American sentiment.
The founder and CEO of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, tried to counter that. He gave a
two hour interview (vid, 3 min excerpt with subtitles)
directed at the Chinese public. Ren sounds very conciliatory and relaxed. The Global Times and the South China Morning
Post only have shortexcerpts
of what he said. They empathize that Huawei is well prepared and can master the challenge:
I do not believe this is precisely what will happen. Huawei already has its licenses purchased. In addition they could decide
to disrespect the IP if this was the case.
Huaweis's suppliers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (ROC), and Britain are examining if they can continue to make business with
Huawei, while some have already declared a suspension in cooperation.
The issue is that these non-American companies nonetheless use some American components of technology, and if they proceed
they will be sanctioned by the US themselves.
It is the same reason why Russia's Sukhoi did not in the end sell its SSJ-100 airliners to Iran -- East Asian tech companies
can hardly be expected to be more gung-ho on defying the US than Russia's leading defense plant......
@p #2 - Huawei surely has their processors *as of now*.
That - if USA would not ban Huawei (HiSilicon) processors, because of using that ARM technology. Thing is, Huawei would be
isolated from next-generation ARM processors. They are locked now in their current generation.
Even Qualcomm today, for what I know, bases their processors on ARM's "default" schemes, instead of doing their development
"from scratch", in a totally independent way. It would push for slow but steady decline as "top" smartphone vendor into "el cheapo"
niche.
Boeing is the counter-part in the contest to destroy Huawei. China has great leverage over Boeing's future. It is the nation with
the biggest market now and downstream for 10-20 years. China need planes, thousands of them.
As for Huawei's chief doubting the prowess of the Chinese students, he only needs to look at the rapidity of the conversion
of his nations' economy to a 98% digital economy. All that conversion was done by local, entrepreneurial innovators in the software
and hardware tech sector. It happened only in China and completely by Chinese young people who had phones and saw the future and
made it happen.
It has been Chinese minds building Chinese AI on Chinese Big Data.
Yes, they need Russian technologists and scientists. Those Russian minds in Russia, in Israel, in South Korea are proven difference
makers.
The need China now has will meet the solution rapidly. For five years, the Double Helix of Russia-China has been coming closer
in education and R&D institutes in both nations. China investors and Chinese sci-tech personnel are in the sci-tech parks of Russia,
and Russians are in similar facilities in China. More will happen now that the Economic War against China threatens.
Huawei will have solutions to replace all US components by the end of the year. It will lose some markets. but it will gain
hugely in the BRI markets yet to be developed.
In the long run, the US makers will rue the day Trump and his gang of Sinophobes and hegemonists took aim at Huawei and China's
tech sector.
This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American
market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan.
Besides, it's not like Europe is prospering either. Those post-war days are long gone.
And there's no contradiction between what the CEO said and the Government line: both are approaching the same problem from
different points of view, attacking it from different fronts at the same time. "Patriotism" is needed insofar as the Chinese people
must be prepared to suffer some hardships without giving up long term prosperity. "Nationalism" ("politics") is toxic insofar
as, as a teleological tool, it is a dead end (see Bannon's insane antics): the Chinese, after all, are communists, and communists,
by nature, are internationalists and think beyond the artificial division of humanity in Nation-States.
Talking Digital and security in the same sentence is laughable.... NOTHING Digital is 'secure',,, never has,,, never will.
Digital destroys everything it touches. At present, excepting for now the low wage States, it is destroying economies ever
so slowly one sector at a time. This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the dying West, especially the
USA which is trying desperately to save what's left of its production whether it be 5G, Steel plants or Nord Stream. The West
created China when it happily allowed and assisted Western corporations to move the production there in order to hide the inflation
that was being created for wars and welfare and now has to deal with the fallout which eventually will be their undoing.
A full-blown trade war was probably inevitable, driven by geopolitical concerns as much or more than economics.
One wonders what each of China and US has been doing to prepare. It seems like the answer is "very little" but since it's USA
that is driving this bus, I would think that USA would've done more to prepare (than China has).
PS It's not just Boeing. China also supplies the vast majority of rare earth minerals.
Her captivity and probable imprisonment in the US explain his attitude. She is a high profile pawn. The US must convict her
in order to justify what they have done to her so far. She may not serve time, in the US prisons, but she will be branded a guilty
person, guilty of violating the Empire's rules (laws).
Imagine Ivanka in the same situation. Her daughter singing in Mandarin would be little help. The Trump Family will be a number
one target for equal treatment long after "45" leaves office.
The US Empire is wild with Power. All of that Power is destructive. And all the globe is the battlefield, except USA. But History
teaches that this in-equilibrium will not last long.
We've seen how Europe caved to US pressure to stop trading with Iran. Now Japan and others are caving to pressure to stop trading
with China. There is already pressure and negotiation to stop Nordstream. And all of the above leads to questions about Erdogan's
resolve.
Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor
because it is winning.
The ramifications of trade war with China (where the supply and manufacturing chain of most consumer electronics is these days)
is disruptive. Trump has created uncertainty for many manufacturers since there is Chinese part content is just about everything
these days. Some manufacturers might relocate production to the US but most will try to simply decouple from the US entirely.
Exposure to the US is really the problem not exposure to China.
The trade war with Iran was also unlikely to persist. But it has persisted, and deepened as European poodles pretended to resist
and then pretended not to notice that they didn't.
A new Bloomberg opinion piece agrees with that view
No, it doesn't b. You say USA trade war will fail because it lacks international support. Bloomberg says USA should get international
support to make it more effective. The difference is that it is highly likely that USA will get international support. It already
has support from Japan.
USA has proven that it can effectively manipulate it's poodle allies. Another example is Venezuela where more than two dozen
countries recognized Guido only because USA wanted them to.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not Trump but the US Deep State that causes US allies to fall in line. Any analysis that relies on Trump as President
is bound to fail as his public persona is manipulated to keep Deep State adversaries (including the US public) off-balance.
Like President's before him, Trump will take the blame (and the credit) until another team member is chosen to replace him
in what we call "free and fair elections".
What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router
and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite
happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other
markets.
So the Huawei ban hits first and foremost the US' partners.
China can only undo the US-exceptionalsim if and when it can visibly project military power. The only way to achieve
that is tt has to make great haste in building a few fleets of aircraft carriers, fregats and destroyers, etc. It must
build a grand, visibly magnificent Chinese Navy.
Modi wins in India, another victory for the world oligarchs. Exactly mimicking conditions in the U$A. Media and governmental
capture by the uber wealthy...
The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership
with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary.
Afaik, the entire smart-phone industry is 'integrated' and 'regulated' by FTAs, the WTO, the patent circuit, the Corps. and
Gvmts. who collaborate amongst themselves.
Corps. can't afford to compete viciously because infrastructure, aka more encompassing systems or networks (sic) are a pre-requisite
for biz, thus, Gvmts. cooperate with the Corps, and sign various 'partnerships,' etc.
sidebar. Not to mention the essential metals / components provenance, other topic. see
Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional,
accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random
pot-shots, lead to what?
As I wrote in the Venezuela thread, major US corps are already belt tightening by permanently laying off managers, not already
cut-to-the-bone production staff, and another major clothing retailer is closing its 650+ stores. And the full impact of Trump's
Trade War has yet to be felt by consumers. As Wolff, Hudson and other like-minded economists note, there never was a genuine recovery
from 2008, while statistical manipulation hides the real state of the US economy. One thing that cannot be hidden is the waning
of revenues collected via taxes which drives the budget deficit--and the shortfall isn't just due to the GOP Congress's tax cuts.
The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic
strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and
most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that
will destroy his 2020 hopes.
Data for 2019 is probably slightly different, but the trends should keep on. That data also does not separate Android-based
phones from non-Android phones. So, segmenting Android into Google and China infrastructures would mean
1) Huawei retains a $152B market - China
2) Huawei retains an unknown share in $87B market - APAC
3) Huawei loses a $163,9B market - all non-China world.
At best Huawei looses 40,7% of world market. That if all APAC population would voluntarily and uniformly drop out of Google
services into Huawei/China services (which they would not). At worst Huawei retains 37,7% of the marker (if APAC population would
uniformly follow Google, which they would not either).
War between the United States and Iran looms, even though the latter poses no threat to the
former. President Donald Trump says he doesn't want war but for the Iranians to call him.
Perhaps his entire campaign is an elaborate effort to scare Tehran to the negotiating table. Or
perhaps he hopes to win political support by fomenting a foreign crisis. How ironic that would
be: in 2011, Trump warned via tweet that "Barack Obama will attack Iran in the not too distant
future because it will help him win the election."
However, the president already ran against the Islamic Republic, in 2016. Moreover, his
words have been incendiary, threatening "the official end of Iran." Although U.S. intelligence
officials admit that Tehran's confrontational rhetoric is largely a response to Washington's
aggression, the administration's military moves are sharply increasing tensions as well as the
possibility of a costly mistake or misjudgment.
The War Party is active again in the Imperial City. Before joining the administration,
National Security Advisor John Bolton forthrightly called for an attack on the Islamic
Republic. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also demanded regime change in Iran. More recently, he
admitted that sanctions were intended to induce the Iranian people to "change the government."
While claiming not to seek war, he threatened retaliation for any attack by Iranian "proxy
forces" and on "American interests."
Tehran has long been a favorite target of influential neoconservatives and ultra-hawks. The
invasion of Iraq almost immediately led to calls for a turn to Tehran. Several years ago,
Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy suggested staging a false flag
operation: if "the Iranians aren't going to compromise," he said, "it would be best if somebody
else started the war." Today, Senator Tom Cotton predicts an easy American
victory.
Advertisement
The Saudis also openly favor an American war against Iran. (Defense Secretary Robert Gates
once quipped that Riyadh would fight Iran "to the last American.") A newspaper owned by the
royal family last week called on Washington to "hit hard." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu has worked tirelessly to inflate the Iranian "threat" and told a TV interviewer that
he'd convinced Trump to abandon the nuclear deal.
Yet conflict with Iran would be a disaster, far worse than with Iraq. Even the Council on
Foreign Relations' Max Boot, a vocal neoconservative and uber-hawk, has warned against this.
And Americans would not be the only casualties. Jason Rezaian, TheWashington
Post reporter who spent more than a year in an Iranian prison, observed: "those who will
suffer most have little say in the matter. It's the Iranian people who have borne the brunt of
40 years of enmity between the United States and the Islamic republic, and in the current
standoff, they stand to lose the most yet again."
The possibility that the chief executive might rush or be pushed into such a disastrous war
is exactly why the Founders obliged presidents to go to Congress for approval. The Constitution
places the power to declare war in the hands of the legislature.
Yet modern presidents routinely claim monarchical powers, using the military without proper
authority. Legislators often avoid taking responsibility for wars that might turn unpopular.
But neither unconstitutional nor irresponsible behavior justifies chief executives doing the
same.
Trump has proven no more faithful to the Constitution than his predecessors. For instance,
Pompeo refused to commit the administration to going to Congress for the authority to attack
Iran. (The secretary did the same when earlier questioned about the administration's military
threats against Venezuela.) Pompeo suggested that the president might rely on the post-9/11
authorization for use of military force, an even more ludicrous reach than the Obama
administration's appeal to the same measure for its fight against the Islamic State and strikes
on Syria.
The refusal to obey the Constitution is evidence of weakness. In contrast, many of America's
strongest chief executives recognized Congress's authority. George Washington declared: "The
Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition
of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and
authorized such a measure."
Abraham Lincoln praised the Founders for recognizing war "to be the most oppressive of all
Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold
the power of bringing this oppression upon us." Dwight Eisenhower was equally insistent on the
need for legislative approval for war.
Delegates to the constitutional convention insisted they were not recreating the king of
England or replicating his powers, especially to start wars. After all, war is the hallmark of
unlimited government. Warned James Madison: "Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is,
perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War
is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes
are the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
The Founders knew this problem well, since a succession of European kings and queens had
launched a succession of unnecessary and even frivolous conflicts. The price was paid in blood
and treasure by the common folk. John Jay observed that kings were often led "to engage in wars
not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people." Pierce Butler insisted
that the president not be invested with the authority to start wars, like a monarch who enjoyed
the "opportunity of involving his country in a war whenever he wished to promote her
destruction."
Madison explained the principle incorporated in the Constitution: "Those who are to conduct
a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be
commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great
principle in free governments, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or
the power of executing from the power of enacting laws."
Thus, the Constitution gives to Congress most military powers: raising an army, funding the
military, issuing letters of marquee, approving rules of war, ratifying treaties, and, of
course, taking America into war. Article 1, Section 8 (11) states: "Congress shall have the
power to declare war." Observed Madison: the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the
power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature."
Despite this history, some modern analysts bizarrely contend that Congress only ever gets to
"declare" that the president had started a war. In fact, the Founders changed the operative
word from "make" to "declare" merely to ensure that the commander-in-chief could respond to a
surprise attack. They did not even believe the president could launch a reprisal without legal
authority. They certainly didn't intend to enable the president to wander the globe smiting
nations hither and yon at his sole discretion.
Despite their many disagreements, the Founders agreed on this point. The president commanded
the military but could only prosecute wars authorized by Congress . Said George Mason,
the chief executive "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to start wars, which
required "clogging rather than facilitating war." Thomas Jefferson cited the Constitution's
"effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose." Explained
James Wilson: "It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve
us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is in the legislature at
large."
Even Alexander Hamilton, who leaned toward monarchy, emphasized that the commander-in-chief
was just the "first general and admiral." The president's authority was "in substance much
inferior to" that of Britain's monarch, and "would amount to nothing more than the supreme
command and direction of the land and naval forces while that of the British king extends to
the declaring of war."
Trump is bound by the Constitution when confronting Iran. Indeed, the not insubstantial
possibility of him and his officials lying America into another irresponsible war of choice is
why the Founders placed the decision with Congress. Americans have learned at a high cost that
presidents cannot be trusted to act like kings.
With a presidential election approaching, Americans should seriously ponder whether they
want to entrust the presidency to someone who believes he's empowered to make war without
constraint. It's time to choose a chief executive who's prepared to follow the
Constitution.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
(Xulon Press). He is a graduate of Stanford Law School and a member of the California and
Washington, D.C. bars.
"... The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war." ..."
"... From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we -- not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or near Washington, D.C. ..."
"... Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever). ..."
"... Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers, including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent counted for nothing. ..."
"... Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall," provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help ..."
"... There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.) ..."
"... In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR existed. ..."
"... I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA) ..."
The Great Power Game is On and China is Winning If America wants to maintain any influence in Asia, it needs to wake
up. By Robert W. Merry •
May 22,
2019
President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, Thursday,
November 9, 2017, in Beijing, People's Republic of China. (
Official White House Photo
by Shealah Craighead) From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out
in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn't just a trade war, says The Economist in
a major cover package. "Trade is not the half of it," declares the magazine. "The United States and China are contesting every domain,
from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration." The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win
world are gone.
For its own cover, The Financial Times ' Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, "Trade is just an opening shot in a
wider US-China conflict." The subhead: "The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence." Writes Stephens: "The
trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on
almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential
threat."
Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled "Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge,"
released last year by President Donald Trump's Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, "China has
mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there."
The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is "Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United
States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."
The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more
intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war."
... ... ..
Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American
alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America's inability
to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain
its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.
The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China's global rise is to be thwarted,
it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it
feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been
part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries.
Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing
assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within
Russia's natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to
accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli
-- and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.
Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can't be
sure, but that certainly wouldn't be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it's never been tried? We now understand that
allegations of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it's time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin's
strategic aims. That's impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.
NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on
that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist.
The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe's doorstep are gone as
well.
So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union's GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia's,
while Russia's per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe's. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe's 512 million. Does
anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as
in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo -- Europe as subservient
to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.
This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn't be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led,
not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe's calculation of that will inform
us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever
a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO's Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked,
should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization
itself.
And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations
in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively -- absent, of course,
any Russian provocations.
Pragmatic isolationalism is a better deal then the current neocon foreign policy. Which Trump is pursuing with the zeal similar
to Obama (who continued all Bush II wars and started two new in Libya and Syria.) Probably this partially can be explained by
his dependence of Adelson and pro-Israeli lobby.
But the problem is deeper then Trump: it is the power of MIC and American exeptionalism ( which can be viewed as a form of
far right nationalism ) about which Andrew Bacevich have written a lot:
From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we --
not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant
to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living
in or near Washington, D.C.
If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse
of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could
explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.
Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification
for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore
required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever).
"If we have to use force," Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, "it is because
we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington's belated
and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate
change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China. Rather than seeing far into
the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often than not, they get even that
wrong.
Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global
leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers,
including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent
counted for nothing.
Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful
run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely
approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall,"
provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether
irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help.
There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense
the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider
neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.)
In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia
and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when
the USSR existed.
I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat
suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in
China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA)
"... Before and during the nuclear negotiations that led to the JCPOA, American opponents of the talks kept insisting that Iran couldn't be trusted to keep their word and they would cheat on any agreement they made. ..."
"... It is fitting that they have been the ones to urge the U.S. to break its word and betray our negotiating partners, and in so doing guarantee that the U.S. is seen as the unreliable deal-breakers that Iran's government was supposed to be. In the future, other governments may want to have some "snap-back" mechanisms of their own to ensure that the U.S. will be penalized if it breaches its obligations. ..."
"... Iran isn't interested in photo-op summits ..."
"... A real negotiation would involve making a compromise and offering concessions to Iran. Iran would have to believe that it has something to gain from the exchange, and right now it has no reason to believe anything of the kind. Trump has no desire to make concessions, only to receive them, and he won't compromise because he can't conceive of a mutually beneficial agreement. Because he sees everything as a zero-sum contest, Trump perceives anything less than the other side's capitulation as a "loss" for the U.S. In the absence of a real "win," Trump is willing to settle for the made-up kind that he claims after every unsuccessful summit. ..."
"... The next administration will have their work cut out for them. A future president won't only have to repair the damage to America's reputation, but will have to rebuild tattered relationships with allies and other major economic powers that have been frayed by years of senseless economic warfare. Over the longer term, the U.S. will face the growing problem that our commitments will be called into question every time there is a change in party control. The seesaw between increasingly hard-line unilateralists that want to tear up one agreement after another regardless of the merits and the rest of us will make it so that no one will be able to trust the U.S. to commit to anything for more than four or eight years. That will give presidents strong incentives not to burn political capital on securing agreements that they know their successors will just throw away, and it will eventually mean that U.S. diplomacy continues to atrophy from lack of use. ..."
Zarif told CNN this week Iran had "acted in good faith" in negotiating the deal that Washington abandoned. "We are
not willing to talk to people who have broken their promises.".
Before and during the nuclear negotiations that led to the JCPOA, American opponents of the talks kept insisting that
Iran couldn't be trusted to keep their word and they would cheat on any agreement they made.
It is fitting that they have
been the ones to urge the U.S. to break its word and betray our negotiating partners, and in so doing guarantee that the
U.S. is seen as the unreliable deal-breakers that Iran's government was supposed to be. In the future, other governments
may want to have some "snap-back" mechanisms of their own to ensure that the U.S. will be penalized if it breaches its
obligations.
Iran hawks are always complaining about the "fatally flawed" nuclear deal, but they are the ones that
exploited what was perhaps its only true flaw, namely the built-in assumption that our government would observe the terms
of the agreement in good faith as long as Iran did what it promised to do. Other major powers and Iran now know they
shouldn't expect the U.S. to be a reliable partner in future talks, and they will reasonably conclude that offers to "talk"
from the administration that seeks to destroy the JCPOA are just so much hot air.
As I was
saying
yesterday,
Iran isn't interested in photo-op summits:
Trump has said Washington is not trying to set up talks but expects Tehran to call when it is ready. A U.S. official
said last week Americans "were sitting by the phone", but had received no call from Iran yet
Foad Izadi, a political science professor at Tehran University, told Reuters that phone call is not coming.
"Iranian officials have come to this conclusion that Trump does not seek negotiations. He would like a phone call
with Rouhani, even a meeting and a photo session, but that's not a real negotiation," Izadi said.
A real negotiation would involve making a compromise and offering concessions to Iran. Iran would have to believe that
it has something to gain from the exchange, and right now it has no reason to believe anything of the kind. Trump has no
desire to make concessions, only to receive them, and he won't compromise because he can't conceive of a mutually
beneficial agreement. Because he sees everything as a zero-sum contest, Trump perceives anything less than the other side's
capitulation as a "loss" for the U.S. In the absence of a real "win," Trump is willing to settle for the made-up kind that
he claims after every unsuccessful summit.
The next administration will have their work cut out for them. A future president won't only have to repair the damage
to America's reputation, but will have to rebuild tattered relationships with allies and other major economic powers that
have been frayed by years of senseless economic warfare. Over the longer term, the U.S. will face the growing problem that
our commitments will be called into question every time there is a change in party control. The seesaw between increasingly
hard-line unilateralists that want to tear up one agreement after another regardless of the merits and the rest of us will
make it so that no one will be able to trust the U.S. to commit to anything for more than four or eight years. That will
give presidents strong incentives not to burn political capital on securing agreements that they know their successors will
just throw away, and it will eventually mean that U.S. diplomacy continues to atrophy from lack of use.
Related to "America the Untrustworthy" is the economic total war that the U.S. has declared on the rest of the
planet. Very complex business relationships and supply chains are being destroyed. The Trump administration's
objectives are to economically strangle China and Russia and do economic beat-downs on any country that gets in
the way. No company or country wants to do business with that kind of political volatility. And what can't go on
forever – won't.
What the idiots in Washington don't realize is that the Chinese and the Russians have suffered
100x mores deprivation than Americans. They will suck it up now and then do whatever it takes to decouple
themselves economically from the United States. (See what happens in the U.S. when the Chinese tell Apple to pound
sand.)
And to think that the Chinese don't have the organic capability to technically compete with the U.S. now is
nuts. China has the resources and intellectual horsepower to compete with the U.S. regardless of what the arrogant
"City on a Hill" exceptionalists in Washington think. And given that China has 5X the number of STEM grads, it's
easy to do the math.
America the Untrustworthy on the economic front is telling the rest of the planet to find other partners
because doing business with an erratic Gorilla is more trouble than its worth.
At some point, Americans are going to be outraged when they realize that most of the world doesn't view us as
someone to admire but rather a rogue nation.
I wonder if it ever occurred to Trump–or any of his advisers–that pulling out of a deal for no other reason than
"we didn't like the terms that everyone agreed to" (rather than noncompliance by Iran) only makes it impossible
for anyone to trust a new deal he wants to make later. But I guess this is why it's unwise to govern based on what
Fox and Friends tells you each morning.
"A future president won't only have to repair the damage to America's reputation, but will have to rebuild
tattered relationships with allies and other major economic powers that have been frayed by years of senseless
economic warfare. "
I don't think that any future president will be able to do this. Dubya was a shock to the
rest of the world, in that they realized that there was indeed 'no there there'. Congress isn't helping.
Obama was a relief, but then along came Trump. At this point, all other countries know that (a) any competent
Democratic President will be followed by a destructive and reckless GOP president, and (b) that the GOP Congress
will aid and abet this.
A reputation for reliability has to be maintained.
U.S. ships are involved in provocative "freedom of navigation" exercises in the South China
Sea and other ships gather ominously in the Mediterranean Sea while National Security Advisor
John Bolton and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo along with convicted war criminal Elliot
Abrams conspire to save the people of Venezuela with another illegal "regime change"
intervention. But people are drawn to the latest adventures of Love and Hip-Hop, the Mueller
report, and Game of Thrones. In fact, while millions can recall with impressive detail the
proposals and strategies of the various players in HBO's latest saga, they can't recall two
details about the pending military budget that will likely pass in Congress with little debate,
even though Trump's budget proposal represents another obscene increase of public money to the
tune of $750 billion.
This bipartisan rip-off could not occur without the willing collusion of the corporate
media, which slants coverage to support the interests of the ruling elite or decides to just
ignore an issue like the ever-expanding military budget.
The effectiveness of this collusion is reflected in the fact that not only has this massive
theft of public money not gotten much coverage in the mainstream corporate media, but also it
only received sporadic coverage in the alternative media. The liberal-left media is distracted
enough by the theatrics of the Trump show to do the ideological dirty work of the elites.
Spending on war will consume almost 70% of the budget and be accompanied by cuts in public
spending for education, housing, the environment, public transportation, jobs trainings, food
support programs like food stamps and Meals on Wheels, as well as Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security. Most of the neoliberal candidates running in the Democratic Party's electoral
process, however, haven't spoken a word in opposition to Trump's budget.
The public knows that the Democratic Party's candidates are opposed to Trump's wall on the
southern border, and they expect to hear them raise questions about the $8.6 billion of funding
the wall. But while some of the Democrats may oppose the wall, very few have challenged the
details of the budget that the
U.S. Peace Council indicates . For example:
"$576 billion baseline budget for the Department of Defense; an additional $174 billion
for the Pentagon's Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), i.e., the war budget; $93.1 billion
for the Department of Veterans Affairs; $51.7 billion for Homeland Security; $42.8 billion
for State Department; an additional $26.1 billion for State Department's Overseas Contingency
Operations (regime change slush fund); $16.5 billion for the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration (nuclear weapons budget); $21 billion for NASA (militarizing
outer space?); plus $267.4 billion for all other government agencies, including funding for
FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice."
The Peace Council also highlights the following two issues: First, the total US military and
war budget has jumped from $736.4 billion to $989.0 billion since 2015. That is a $252.6
billion (about 35%) increase in five years. Second, thesimultaneous cuts in the government's
non-military spending are reflected in the proposed budget.
Here are some of biggest proposed budget cuts:
+ $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, implementing work requirements as well
as eliminating the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. The budget instead adds
$1.2 trillion for a "Market Based Health Care Grant" -- that is, a block grant to states,
instead of paying by need. It's not clear whether that would be part of Medicaid.
+ An $845 billion cut to Medicare over 10 years. That is about a 10 percent cut .
+ $25 billion in cuts to Social Security over 10 years, including cuts to disability
insurance.
+ A $220 billion cut to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP) over 10 years ,
which is commonly referred to as food stamps, and includes mandatory work requirements. The
program currently serves around 45 million people.
+ A $21 billion cut to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , an already severely
underfunded cash-assistance program for the nation's poorest.
+ $207 billion in cuts to the student loan program, eliminating the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program and cutting subsidized student loans.
+ Overall, there is a 9 percent cut to non-defense programs , which would hit Section 8
housing vouchers, public housing programs, Head Start, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
nutrition program, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program , among others.
The working classes and oppressed peoples of the U.S. and around the world can no longer
afford the unchallenged ideological positions of the Pentagon budget and the associated
expenditures for so-called defense that are considered sacrosanct in the U.S. They cannot
afford that much of the U.S. public is not concerned with issues of so-called foreign policy
that the military budget is seen as part.
The racist appeals of U.S. national chauvinism in the form of "Make America Great" and the
Democrats' version of "U.S. Exceptionalism" must be confronted and exposed as the cross-class,
white identity politics that they are. The fact that supposedly progressive or even "radical"
politics does not address the issue of U.S. expenditures on war and imperialism is reflective
of a politics that is morally and political bankrupt. But it also does something else. It
places those practitioners firmly in the camp of the enemies of humanity.
The objective fact that large numbers of the public accept that the U.S. can determine the
leadership of another sovereign nation while simultaneously being outraged by the idea of a
foreign power interfering in U.S. elections demonstrates the mindboggling subjective
contradictions that exist in the U.S. For example – that an Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez can
assert that she will defer to the leadership of her caucus on the issue of Venezuela or that
Barbara Lee can vote to bring Trump's budget proposal out of committee or that Biden can
proudly support Trump's immoral backing of a neo-fascist opposition in Venezuela and
they will all get away with those positions – reveals the incredible challenge that we
face in building an alternative radical movement for peace, social justice and
people(s)-centered human rights.
So, we must join with
U.S. Peace Council and the other members of the Anti-war, pro-peace, and anti-imperialist
communities in the U.S. to "resist and oppose this military attack on our communities, our
livelihoods and our lives." This is an urgent and militant first step in reversing the cultural
support for violence and the normalization of war that currently exists in the U.S. Now is the
moment to demand that Congress reject and reverse the Trump Administration's military budget
and the U.S. Government's militaristic foreign policy. But now is also the moment to commit to
building a powerful countermovement to take back the power over life and death from the
denizens of violence represented by the rapacious 1%. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Ajamu Baraka
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016
candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch
magazine.
"... There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the truth. ..."
"... There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare. Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out "legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions. The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote against a defense spending increase. ..."
"... Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus. ..."
"... When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed. ..."
"... I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. ..."
"... If the Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global recession is a certainty. ..."
"... These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans. They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others. They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head, MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the president. ..."
"... The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want to puke. ..."
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the
right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a
minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"" – Bill Hicks
Anyone who frequents Twitter, Facebook, political blogs, economic blogs, or fake-news
mainstream media channels knows our world is driven by the "Us versus Them" narrative. It's
almost as if "they" are forcing us to choose sides and believe the other side is evil. Bill
Hicks died in 1994, but his above quote is truer today then it was then. As the American Empire
continues its long-term decline, the proles are manipulated through Bernaysian propaganda
techniques, honed over the course of decades by the ruling oligarchs, to root for their
assigned puppets.
Most people can't discern they are being manipulated and duped by the Deep State
controllers. The most terrifying outcome for these Deep State controllers would be for the
masses to realize it is us versus them. But they don't believe there is a chance in hell of
this happening. Their arrogance is palatable.
Their hubris has reached astronomical levels as they blew up the world economy in 2008 and
successfully managed to have the innocent victims bail them out to the tune of $700 billion,
pillaged the wealth of the nation through their capture of the Federal Reserve (QE, ZIRP),
rigged the financial markets in their favor through collusion, used the hundreds of billions in
corporate tax cuts to buy back their stock and further pump the stock market, all while their
corporate media mouthpieces mislead and misinform the proles.
There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social
issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The
real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it
appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the
Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare.
Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort
whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The
proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as
the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of
Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out
"legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions.
The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote
against a defense spending increase.
Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing
from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too
Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy
in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as
people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus.
When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are
bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed
billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge
tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in
every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no
legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed.
I've never been big on joining a group. I tend to believe Groucho Marx and his cynical line,
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". The "Us vs. Them" narrative
doesn't connect with my view of the world. As a realistic libertarian I know libertarian ideals
will never proliferate in a society of government dependency, willful ignorance of the masses,
thousands of laws, and a weak-kneed populace afraid of freedom and liberty. The only true
libertarian politician, Ron Paul, was only able to connect with about 5% of the voting public.
There is no chance a candidate with a libertarian platform will ever win a national election.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Bill Hicks somewhat foreshadowed the last
election by referencing another famous cynic.
"I ascribe to Mark Twain's theory that the last person who should be President is the one
who wants it the most. The one who should be picked is the one who should be dragged kicking
and screaming into the White House." ― Bill Hicks
Hillary Clinton wanted to be president so badly, she colluded with Barack Obama, Jim Comey,
John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch and numerous other Deep State sycophants to ensure
her victory, by attempting to entrap Donald Trump in a concocted Russian collusion plot and
subsequent post-election coup to cover for their traitorous plot. I wouldn't say Donald Trump
was dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, but when he ascended on the escalator
at Trump Tower in June of 2015, I'm not convinced he believed he could win the presidency.
As the greatest self-promoter of our time, I think he believed a presidential run would be
good for his brand, more revenue for his properties and more interest in his reality TV
ventures. He was despised by the establishment within the Republican and Democrat parties. The
vested interests controlling the media and levers of power in society scorned and ridiculed
this brash uncouth outsider. In an upset for the ages, Trump tapped into a vein of rage and
disgruntlement in flyover country and pockets within swing states, to win the presidency over
Crooked Hillary and her Deep State backers.
I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. I hadn't voted for a Republican since
2000, casting protest votes for Libertarian and Constitutional Party candidates along the way.
I despise the establishment, so their hatred of Trump made me vote for him. His campaign
stances against foreign wars and Federal Reserve reckless bubble blowing appealed to me. I
don't worship at the altar of the cult of personality. I judge men by their actions and not
their words.
Trump's first two years have been endlessly entertaining as he waged war against fake news
CNN, establishment Republicans, the Deep State coup attempt, and Obama loving globalists. The
Twitter in Chief has bypassed the fake news media and tweets relentlessly to his followers. He
provokes outrage in his enemies and enthralls his worshipers. With millions in each camp it is
difficult to find an unbiased assessment of narrative versus real accomplishments.
I'm happy he has been able to stop the relentless leftward progression of our Federal
judiciary. Cutting regulations and rolling back environmental mandates has been a positive.
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement and TPP, forcing NATO members to pay their fair share, and
renegotiating NAFTA were all needed. Ending the war on coal and approving pipelines will keep
energy costs lower. His attempts to vet Muslims entering the country have been the right thing
to do. Building a wall on our southern border is the right thing to do, but he should have
gotten it done when he controlled both houses.
The use of tariffs to force China to renegotiate one sided trade deals as a negotiating
tactic is a high-risk, high reward gamble. If his game of chicken is successful and he gets
better terms from the Chicoms, while reversing the tariffs, it would be a huge win. If the
Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global
recession is a certainty. Who has the upper hand? Xi is essentially a dictator for life
and doesn't have to worry about elections or popularity polls. Dissent is crushed. A global
recession and stock market crash would make Trump's re-election in 2020 problematic.
I'm a big supporter of lower taxes. The Trump tax cuts were sold as beneficial to the middle
class. That is a false narrative. The vast majority of the tax cut benefits went to
mega-corporations and rich people. Middle class home owning families with children received
little or no tax relief, as exemptions were eliminated and tax deductions capped. In many
cases, taxes rose for working class Americans.
With corporate profits at all time highs, massive tax cuts put billions more into their
coffers. They didn't repatriate their overseas profits to a great extent. They didn't go on a
massive hiring spree. They didn't invest in new facilities. They did buy back their own stock
to help drive the stock market to stratospheric heights. So corporate executives gave
themselves billions in bonuses, which were taxed at a much lower rate. This is considered
winning in present day America.
The "Us vs. Them" issue rears its ugly head whenever Trump is held accountable for promises
unkept, blatant failures, and his own version of fake news. Holding Trump to the same standards
as Obama is considered traitorous by those who only root for their home team. Their standard
response is that you are a Hillary sycophant or a turncoat to the home team. If you agree with
a particular viewpoint or position of a liberal then you are a bad person and accused of being
a lefty by Trump fanboys. Facts don't matter to cheerleaders. Competing narratives rule the
day. Truthfulness not required.
The refusal to distinguish between positive actions and negative actions when assessing the
performance of what passes for our political leadership by the masses is why cynicism has
become my standard response to everything I see, hear or he read. The incessant level of lies
permeating our society and its acceptance as the norm has led to moral decay and rampant
criminality from the White House, to the halls of Congress, to corporate boardrooms, to
corporate newsrooms, to government run classrooms, to the Vatican, and to households across the
land. It's interesting that one of our founding fathers reflected upon this detestable human
trait over two hundred years ago.
"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental
lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity
of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has
prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." – Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine's description of how moral mischief can ruin a society was written when less
than 3 million people inhabited America. Consider his accurate assessment of humanity when over
300 million occupy these lands. The staggering number of corrupt prostituted sociopaths
occupying positions of power within the government, corporations, media, military, churches,
and academia has created a morally bankrupt empire of debt.
These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans.
They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't
care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others.
They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their
unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of
controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every
politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head,
MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the
president.
The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them. The answer to that question
will strongly impact the direction and intensity of the climactic years of this Fourth Turning.
What I've noticed is the shunning of those who don't take an all or nothing position regarding
Trump. If you disagree with a decision, policy, or hiring decision by the man, you are accused
by the pro-Trump team of being one of them (aka liberals, lefties, Hillary lovers).
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the Trumpeteers. I
don't want to be Us or Them. I just want to be me. I will judge everyone by their actions and
their results. I can agree with Trump on many issues, while also agreeing with Tulsi Gabbard,
Rand Paul, Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi on other issues. I don't prescribe to the cult of
personality school of thought. I didn't believe the false narratives during the Bush or Obama
years, and I won't worship at the altar of the Trump narrative now.
In Part II of this article I'll assess Trump's progress thus far and try to determine
whether he can defeat the Deep State.
"The scientific and industrial revolution of modern times represents the next giant
step in the mastery over nature; and here, too, an enormous increase in man's power over
nature is followed by an apocalyptic drive to subjugate man and reduce human nature to the
status of nature. Even where enslavement is employed in a mighty effort to tame nature, one
has the feeling that the effort is but a tactic to legitimize total subjugation. Thus,
despite its spectacular achievements in science and technology, the twentieth century will
probably be seen in retrospect as a century mainly preoccupied with the mastery and
manipulation of men. Nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and militarism,
cartelization and unionization, propaganda and advertising are all aspects of a general
relentless drive to manipulate men and neutralize the unpredictability of human nature. Here,
too, the atmosphere is heavy-laden with coercion and magic." --Eric Hoffer
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the
Trumpeteers
That's not true. When Trump kisses Israeli ***, most "Trumpeteers" are outraged. That does
not mean they're going to vote for Joe "I'm a Zionist" Biden, or Honest Hillary because of
it, but they're still pissed.
These predators (((them))) need to fear the Victims, us! That is what the 2ND Amendment is
for. It's coming, slowly for now, but eventually it speeds up.
Any piece like this better be littered with footnotes and cited sources before I'm
swallowing it.
I'll say it again: this is the internet, people. There's no "shortage of column space" to
include links back to primary sources for your assertions. Otherwise, how am I supposed to
distinguish you from another "psy op" or "paid opposition hit piece"?
"The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them."
If you still ponder this question, then you are pretty frickin' thick. It is obvious at
this point, that he betrayed everything he campaigned on. You don't do that and call yourself
one of "us".......damn sure aren't one of "me".
If I couldn't keep my word and wouldn't do what it takes to do what is right.....then I
would resign. But I would not go on playing politics in a world that needs some real
leadership and not another political hack.
The real battle is between Truth and Lie. No matter the name of your "team" or the "side"
you support. Truth is truth and lies are lies. We don't stand for political parties, we stand
for truth. We don't stand for national pride, we take pride in a nation that is truthful and
trustworthy. The minute a "side" or "team" starts lying.....and justifying it.....that is the
minute they become them and not one of us.
Any thinking person in this country today knows we are being lied to by the entire
complex. Until someone starts telling the truth.....we are on our own. But I be damned before
I am going to support any of these lying sons of bitches......and that includes Trump.
Dark comedy. All the elections have been **** choices until the last one. Take a look at
Arkancide.com and start counting the
bodies.
Anyone remember the news telling us how North Korea promised to turn the US into a sea of
fire?? Trump absolutely went to bat for every single American to de-escalate that
situation.
Don't tell me about Arkancide or the Clintons. I grew up in Arkansas with that sack of
**** as my governor for 12 years.
NK was never a real threat to anyone. Trump didn't do ****. NK is back to building and
shooting off missiles and will be teaming up with the Russians and Chinese. You are a duped
bafoon.
I don't think anybody thought NK was an existential threat to the US. It has still been
nice making progress on bringing them back into the world and making them less of a threat to
Japan and S. Korea. Trump did that.
Dennis Rodman did that, or that is to say, Trump an extension thereof ..
Great theater..
Look, i thought it was great that Trump went Kim Unning. I mean after all, i had talked
with a few elderly folks that get their news directly from the mainstream of mainstream,
vanilla news reportage. Propaganda central casting. I remember them being extremely
concerned, outright petrified about that evil menace, kim gonna launch nukes any minute now.
If the news would have been announced a major troop mobilization, bombing campaigns, to begin
immediately they would have been completely onboard, waving the flag.
Frankly, it is only a matter of time, and folks can speculate on the country of interest,
but it is coming soon to a theater near you. So many being in the crosshairs. Iran i suspect
.. that's the big prize, that makes these sociopaths cream in their panties.
Probably. In the second term .. and so far, if ones honestly evaluates the "brain trust" /
current crop of dimwit opposition, and in light of their past 2 plus years of moronic
posturing with their hair on fire, trump will get his second term ..
Until the last one? You are retarded, the last election was a masterpiece of Rothschilds
Productions. The Illuminati was watching you at their private cinema when you were voting for
Trump and they were laughing their asses off.
The author does not realize that everyone in America, except Native American Indians, were
immigrants drawn towards the false promise of hope that is the American Dream, turned
nightmare..
Owning your own home, car, & raising a family in this country is so damn expensive
& risky, that you'd have be on drugs or an idiot to even fall for the lies.
I don't see an us vs them, I see the #FakeMoney printers monetized every facet of life,
own everything, & it truly is RENT-A-LIFE USSA, complete with bills galore, taxes galore,
laws galore, jails & prisons galore, & the worst fkn country anyone would want to
live in poverty & homelessness in.
At least in many 3rd world nations there is land to live off of & joblessness does not
= a financial death sentence.
Sure. Lets all go back to living in huts.....off the land....no cars.....no
electricity.....no running water......no roads....
There is a price to pay for things and it is not always in the form of money. We have
given up some of our freedom for the ease and conveniences we want.
The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare
because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want
to puke.
There is a balance. Don't take the other extreme or we never find balance.
This article is moronic. One can easily prove that Trump is not like all the others in the
poster. Has this author been living under a rock for the last 2.5 yrs? The past 5 presidents
represent a group that has been literally trying to assassinate Trump, ruin his family, his
reputation, his buisness and his future, for the audacity to be an ousider to the power
network and steal (win) the presidency from under their noses. He's kept us OUT of war. He's
dissolved the treachery that was keeping us in the middle east through gaslighitng and a
proxy fake war that is ISIS, the globalists' / nato / fiveys / uk's fake mercenary army
The greatest threat to the USA is its own dumbed down drugged up citizens who cannot
compete with anyone. America is a big military powerhouse but that doens't make successful
countries
Notice how modern narrative is getting manipulated. What is being reported and referenced
is completely different from how things are. And knowing that we can assume that the entire
history is a fabricated lie, written by the ruling class to support its status in the minds
of obedient citizens.
This article is garbage propaganda that proves that they think we aren't keeping score or
paying attention. The gaslighting won't work when it relies on so much counterthink, willful
ignorance, counterfacts and weaponized omissions
The reality is the de-escalation of wars, the stability of our currency and our economy,
and the moral re-grounding of our culture does not occur until we do what over 100 countries
have done over the centuries, beginning in Carthage in 250AD.
The congress are statusquotarians. If they solved the problems they say they would,they'd
be out of a job. and that job is sitting there acting like a naddler or toxic post turtle
leprechaun with a charisma and skill level of zero. Their staff do all the work, half of them
barely read, though they probably can
I still think 1st and 2nd ammedment is predicated on which party rules the house. If a Dem
gets into the WH, we're fucked. Kiss those Iast two dying amendments goodbye for good.
If we rely on any party to preserve the 1st or 2nd Amendments, we are already fucked. What
should preserve the 1st and 2nd Amendments is the absolute fear of anyone in government even
mentioning suppressing or removing them. When the very thought of doing anything to lessen
the rights advocated in these two amendments, causes a politician to piss in their pants,
liberty will be preserved. As it is now citizens fear the government, and as a result tyranny
continues to grow and fester as a cancer.
You may very well be right. I still hold out hope, but upon seeing what our society is
quickly morphing into, that hope seems to fade more each and every day.
If you think the 1st and 2nd amendments are reliant on who is in office, then you are
already done. Why don't you try growing a pair and being an American for once in your
life.
I will always have a 1st and 2nd "amendment" for as long as I live. Life is meaningless
without them.....as far as I am concerned. Good thing the founders didn't wait for king
George to give them what they "felt" was theirs.....by the laws of Nature and Nature's
God.
I hope the democrats get the power......and I hope they come for the guns......maybe then
pussies like you will finally have to **** or get off the pot......for once in your life.
There are worse things than dying.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Unless we get rid of *** influencing
from abroad and domestically. Getting rid of English King few hundred years ago was a joke!
this would be a challenge because dual-citizens masquerading as locals.
Last revolution (1776) we targeted the WRONG ENEMY.
We targeted King George III instead of the private bankers who owned of the Bank of
England and the issued of the British-pound currency.
George III was himself up to his ears in debt to them by 1776, when the bankers installed
George Washington to replace George III as their middleman in the American colonies, by way
of the phony revolution.
Phony because ownership of the central bank and currency (Federal-Reserve Banks,
Federal-Reserve notes) we use, remains in the same banking families' hands to this day. The
same parasite remains within our government.
It is this strangely incomplete calculus that creates the shifting Loser world of
rifts and alliances. By operating with a more complete calculus, Sociopaths are able to
manipulate this world through the divide-and-conquer mechanisms. The result is that the
Losers end up blaming each other for their losses, seek collective emotional resolution,
and fail to adequately address the balance sheet of material rewards and losses.
To succeed, this strategy requires that Losers not look too closely at the non-emotional
books. This is why, as we saw last time, divide-and-conquer is the most effective means for
dealing with them, since it naturally creates emotional drama that keeps them busy while
they are being manipulated.
The fiasco of the latest obviously unsuccessful US attempt to topple twice
democratically-elected President Nicolas Maduro made a laughing stock of the US government
throughout the world and is now exposing new splits in the Trump administration in Washington.
It is also exposing a dangerous but also ridiculous myth that Washington has credulously
swallowed for generations – the idea that National Security Adviser John Bolton is
actually competent.
No one among the carefully trained castrated geldings of the US mainstream news media and
their pseudo-liberal and libertarian outliers has ever dared to ask how able Bolton actually
is. He is held in awe and even fear for his supposed brilliant intellect and for his undoubted
energy and relentless determination to push the policies he supports with tunnel vision and
fanatical relentlessness as hard as he can.
Yet given such undeniable "qualities" what is truly astonishing is how useless Bolton has
been in pursuing his own primary foreign policy goals for more than 40 years. He failed to
prevent the first president to take him seriously, Ronald Reagan to conduct sweeping nuclear
arms reductions with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and to push ahead with Gorbachev to
dismantle the Cold War. These policies were anathema to Bolton who prophesied – falsely
– that war and catastrophe would flow from them. But Reagan ignored him and pushed them
through anyway.
Now Bolton has destroyed Reagan's legacy of peace by convincing current President Donald
Trump to scrap one of Reagan's greatest achievement, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
(INF) Treaty.
He succeeded in helping provoke the US invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq under
President George W. Bush in 2003 but failed to persuade even Bush, Junior and his top foreign
policy adviser, National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to pull out
of any arms control treaties whatsoever.
Then, the Iraq misadventure was so appallingly bungled that Bolton failed to get any
traction whatsoever for his priority project of toppling the government of Iran, even if it
took a full scale war to do it.
In Washington, even Bolton's greatest critics among libertarians and paleo-conservatives
have spoken for decades with awe of his supposed brilliant intellect, command of all details,
endless energy and ability to read and keep track of everything. But now, the latest failed
coup in Venezuela instead reveals an ignorant, simplistic rash adventurer and gambler who
charges head on into dangerous situations and who relies on bullying and bluster alone to get
his way.
Bolton showed none of the ruthless, devious subtlety of a Dwight D. Eisenhower in
masterminding a coup and fragrant breach of international law without appearing to have
anything to do with it (a skill which Ronald Reagan, though far less masterful than the revered
Eisenhower also attempted in Iran-Contra).
Bolton's fingerprints were all over the hard-charging policy of propping up ridiculous Juan
Guiado as America's cardboard cutout puppet to run Venezuela, even though he had no credibility
whatsoever.
Bolton is in fact is an awesomely bad judge of choosing his own allies in other countries.
His combination of recklessness and vanity means he is always a sucker for whatever
smooth-talking sociopath can worm his way into his presence.
This explains how the late, unlamented Ahmed Chalabi was able to convince Bolton and his
neocon friends that he (Chalabi)) would be welcomed by tens of millions of Iraqis as soon the
US armed forces invaded ("liberated" was the politically approved term) his country and how
Zalmay Khalizad, a catastrophic clown, was acclaimed as an infallible guru on Afghanistan.
Bolton is widely known to have no small talk, private interests, charm or social skills
whatsoever. Far from confirming his "genius", as his many worshipful courtiers claim, this only
confirms his haplessness.
If Bolton played poker he would be skinned alive. He cannot read people and being an
obsessive courtier and flatterer himself, he always falls flat on his face for the flattery of
others. The arch-manipulator is in reality the easiest of figures to manipulate.
Once the strange miasma of worshipful myth is stripped from Bolton, all the confusions and
bungles of the April 30 Coup That Never Was in Venezuela become clear.
On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Democratic Presidential candidate Mike
Gravel who discusses why he is joining the race to pull the debate to the left, the nature of
his contenders such as Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders, US regime change attempts
in Venezuela and escalating tension with Iran, Julian Assange's imprisonment in the UK and the
US' extradition request. Next we speak to Chris Williamson MP, in his first international
interview since being suspended by the Labour Party.
He discusses NHS privatisation by stealth with the new GP contracts due to be signed next
week, Israeli oppression of Palestinians, Trump's escalation against Iran and Julian Assange's
on-going imprisonment in Belmarsh Prison.
Love Mike gravel, honest, good, genuine person with pure heart and soul! Donate dollar to
get him on the debates! Love Chris Williamson also a great men we need more people like
these! This channel should have way more subs and views, great show!
The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the largest in the world, totaling
297 billion barrels . They are going to be INVADED by the real world terrorists, the
USA,BRITAIN, and their puppet allies !!!! Need I say more?
Those are pretty strong words from the official agency...
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. side is perhaps narcissistic about its "art of deal," yet its tainted records in failing to keep its own words have alarmed the world. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, China is not the first victim of America's acts of bad faith and trade bullyism. Over more than a year, the U.S. side has wielded a "big stick" of protectionism, and coerced many of its trade partners, including South Korea, Canada and Mexico, into re-negotiating their long-existing trade agreements. ..."
"... When Washington decided to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union (EU) last year, the European Commission rebutted in a tweet, saying that "The EU believes these unilateral U.S. tariffs are unjustified and at odds with World Trade Organization rules. This is protectionism, pure and simple." ..."
"... Since the Trump administration took power, Washington has backed away from a string of major international agreements and multilateral bodies, including the Paris climate accord, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the Universal Postal Union. ..."
"... In the aftermath of the World War II, the United States helped establish the existing global trade and finance order. As a result, Washington has benefited enormously from such a system that is based on the U.S. dollar's supremacy. However, Washington is in no way justified to abuse its superpower status. ..."
"... Instead, it needs to fulfill its duties as an equal member of the international community. It is worth noting that the U.S.-led global order may collapse once Washington's credibility goes bankrupt. This dangerous prospect is in no one's interests. ..."
Source: Xinhua | 2019-05-20 17:11:21 | Editor: Xiang Bo
BEIJING, May 20 (Xinhua) -- Modern international trade relations are based on credibility
and the spirit of the contract. However,in the year-long China-U.S. trade negotiations,
Washington repeatedly reneged on its promises and played "face changing" tricks, leaving stark
stains on its credibility.
During Chinese Vice Premier Liu He's visit to Washington last May, Beijing and Washington
agreed not to engage in a trade war. Only days later, the Trump administration said it will
impose a 25-percent tariff on 50 billion U.S. dollars' worth of Chinese imports which contain
industrially significant technology.
Soon after the recent setbacks in China-U.S. trade consultations, the Trump administration,
in the name of "national security," rolled out measures to hit Chinese tech firms. The White
House's executive order will kill many business contracts between Chinese and U.S. firms.
The U.S. side is perhaps narcissistic about its "art of deal," yet its tainted records in
failing to keep its own words have alarmed the world.
As a matter of fact, China is not the first victim of America's acts of bad faith and trade
bullyism. Over more than a year, the U.S. side has wielded a "big stick" of protectionism, and coerced
many of its trade partners, including South Korea, Canada and Mexico, into re-negotiating their
long-existing trade agreements.
These bullying behaviors have sent a clear signal: one can arbitrarily tamper with the
original contracts regardless of cooperation partners' interests and concerns, as long as it
has the power to do so. That is "the logic of gangsters" and "the law of jungle." Such bullying
tactic has stirred global opposition, including from Washington's allies in Europe.
When Washington decided to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union (EU) last
year, the European Commission rebutted in a tweet, saying that "The EU believes these
unilateral U.S. tariffs are unjustified and at odds with World Trade Organization rules. This
is protectionism, pure and simple."
Also, America's bullying actions have gone far beyond multilateral economic and trade
realms.
Since the Trump administration took power, Washington has backed away from a string of major
international agreements and multilateral bodies, including the Paris climate accord, the UN
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the
Universal Postal Union.
These self-serving moves have disgraced Washington's credibility as a responsible major
country, and seriously eroded the foundation for international cooperation.
In the aftermath of the World War II, the United States helped establish the existing global
trade and finance order. As a result, Washington has benefited enormously from such a system
that is based on the U.S. dollar's supremacy. However, Washington is in no way justified to
abuse its superpower status.
Instead, it needs to fulfill its duties as an equal member of the international community.
It is worth noting that the U.S.-led global order may collapse once Washington's credibility
goes bankrupt. This dangerous prospect is in no one's interests.
"... More broadly, Wilkerson pegs the ramping up of confrontation with China as "all about keeping the [military-industrial] complex alive" that Wilkerson explains "the military was scared to death would disappear as we began to pay the American people back" a peace dividend at the end of the cold war. US government efforts against terrorism, explains Wilkerson, have also been used to ensure the money keeps flowing. ..."
Former Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell in the George W. Bush administration,
warns in a new The Real News interview with host Sharmini Peries that the United States government is driving down a "highway to
war" with China -- a war for which Wilkerson sees no sound justification.
The drive toward war is not undertaken in response to a real threat posed by China to the people of America. Instead, argues Wilkerson,
the US government is moving toward war for reasons related to money for both the military and the broader military-industrial complex,
as well to advance President Donald Trump's domestic political goals.
Wilkerson, who is a member of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity's Academic Board, elaborates on the US military's
money-seeking motivation to advance the new China scare, stating:
All of this right now, first and foremost, is a budget ploy. They want more money.
And that's largely because their personnel costs are just eating their lunch. And, second, it's an attempt to develop - and
this has something to do with money too of course - another threat, another cold war, another feeding system .
The military just hooks up like it is hooking up to an intravenous, you know, an IV system and the money just pours out-slush
fund money, appropriated money, everything else.
More broadly, Wilkerson pegs the ramping up of confrontation with China as "all about keeping the [military-industrial] complex
alive" that Wilkerson explains "the military was scared to death would disappear as we began to pay the American people back" a peace
dividend at the end of the cold war. US government efforts against terrorism, explains Wilkerson, have also been used to ensure the
money keeps flowing.
Blooming Barricade , May 17, 2019 3:32:07 PM |
link
A bit off topic, I thought b and barflies would find it in their wheelhouse...
French researchers have completed their Map of Neoconservative Networks. It's interactive
and gives links to each neocon/neocon group. Most of who you would expect feature
prominently: Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, BHL, but it also connects neoconservatives to the
Great Replacement theorists showing strong links between them and fascists. https://anticons.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/anticons9.pdf
Along similar lines, Swiss Propaganda Research released the Media Navagator earlier this
year. b will be happy to know that MoA ranks in the hard anti-establishment camp alongside
MintPress and the WSWS. There is also a European version
"... The neocon faction in the US is usually (and reasonably) regarded as the motivator behind much of the western aggression in the Middle East. ..."
"... Granted the US has been looking for excuses to intervene ever more overtly in Syria since 2013, and in that sense this Douma "initiative" is a continuation of their longterm policy. It's also true Russia was warning just such a false flag would be attempted in early March. But in the intervening month the situation on the ground has changed so radically that such an attempt no longer made any sense. ..."
"... A false flag in early March, while pockets of the US proxy army were still holding ground in Ghouta would have enabled a possible offensive in their support which would prevent Ghouta falling entirely into government hands and thereby also maintain the pressure on Damascus. A false flag in early April is all but useless because the US proxy army in the region was completely vanquished and nothing would be gained by an offensive in that place at that time. ..."
"... The US media has been similarly, and uncharacteristically divided and apparently unsure. Tucker Carlson railed against the stupidity of attacking Syria. Commentators on MSNBC were also expressing intense scepticism of the US intent and fear about possible escalation. ..."
"... The official story is a hot mess of proven falsehoods, contradictions, implausible conspiracy theories, more falsehoods and inexplicable silences were cricket chirps tell us all we need to know. ..."
"... The UK government has lied and evaded on every key aspect. ..."
"... Indeed if current claims by Russian FM Lavrov turn out to be true, a "novichok" (whatever that precisely means in this case) may not have been the only substance found in those samples, and a compound called "BZ", a non-lethal agent developed in Europe and America, has been discovered and suppressed in the OPCW report (more about that later). ..."
"... The Skripals themselves were announced to be alive and out of danger mere days after claims they were all but certain to die. Yulia, soon thereafter, apparently called her cousin Viktoria only to subsequently announce, indirectly through the helpful agency of the Metropolitan Police, that she didn't want to talk to her cousin – or anyone else – at all. ..."
"... She is now allegedly discharged from hospital and has "specially trained officers helping to take care of" her in an undisclosed location. A form or words so creepily sinister it's hard to imagine how they were ever permitted the light of day. ..."
"... If a false flag chemical attack had taken place in Syria at the time Russia predicted, just a week or two after the Skripal poisoning, a lot of the attention that's been paid to the Skripals over the last month would likely have been diverted. Many of the questions being asked by Russia and in the alt media may never have been asked as the focus of the world turned to a possible superpower stand-off in the Middle East. ..."
"... So, could it be the Skripal event was never intended to last so long in the public eye? Could it be that it was indeed a false flag, or a fake event, as many have alleged, planned as a sketchy prelude to, or warm up act for a bigger chemical attack in Syria, scheduled for a week or so later in mid-March – just around the time Russia was warning of such a possibility? ..."
"... This would explain why the UK may have been pushing for the false flag to happen (as claimed by Russia) even after it could no longer serve much useful purpose on the ground, and why the Douma "attack" seems to have been so sketchily done by a gang on the run. The UK needed the second part to happen in order to distract from the first. ..."
"... If this is true, Theresa May and her cabinet are currently way out on a limb even by cynical UK standards. Not only have they lied about the Skripal event, but in order to cover up that lie they have promoted a false flag in Syria, and "responded" to it by a flagrant breach of international and domestic law. Worst of all, if the Russians aren't bluffing, they have some evidence to prove some of the most egregious parts of this. ..."
"... But even if some or all of our speculation proves false, and even if the Russian claims of UK collusion with terrorists in Syria prove unfounded, May is still guilty of multiple lies and has still waged war without parliamentary approval. ..."
"... The UK were the most vocal about Syria, and desperately tried to drum up support over Skripal, but it all came to nothing much in the end. ..."
"... Theresa May's political career still hangs by a thread, and her "Falklands moment", at best, staved off the inevitable for a few months. A washout in the EU elections, a very real threat from Farage's Brexit party, and rumblings inside her own party, make her position as unstable as ever. ..."
"... In the US, generally speaking, it seems that the Trump admin – or at least whichever interested parties currently have control of the wheels of government – have called time on war in Syria. Instead, they've moved on to projects in Venezuela and North Korea, and even war with Iran. ..."
"... The failure of the Douma false flag to cause the war it was meant to cause, and the vast collection of evidence that suggests it was a false flag, should be spread far and wide. Not just because it's a truth which vindicates the smeared minority in the alternate media. ..."
In view of the latest revelations from the leaked report, which seem to prove that at least some elements of the Douma "chemical
attack" were entirely staged, we want to take look back at the chaotic events of Spring 2018.
What was the agenda behind the Douma false flag?
Why was the US response seemingly token and ineffective?
Why was the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson fired?
What agenda tied the Skripal case to the Douma attack?
The following is an extract from an article by Catte originally published April 14th last year, which takes on a greater weight
in light of certain evidence – not only that the Douma attack was faked, but that the OPCW is compromised.
The neocon faction in the US is usually (and reasonably) regarded as the motivator behind much of the western aggression
in the Middle East.
Since at least 2001 and the launch of the "War on Terror" the US has led the way in finding or creating facile excuses to fight
oil wars and hegemonic wars and proxy wars in the region. But this time the dynamics look a little different.
This time it really looks as if the UK has been setting the pace of the "response".
The fact (as stated above) that Mattis was apparently telegraphing his own private doubts a)about the verifiability of the
attacks, and b)about the dangers of a military response suggests he was a far from enthusiastic partaker in this adventure.
Trump's attitude is harder to gauge. His tweets veered wildly between unhinged threats and apparent efforts at conciliation.
But he must have known he would lose (and seemingly has lost) a great part of his natural voter base (who elected him on a no-more-war
mandate) by an act of open aggression that threatened confrontation with Russia on the flimsiest of pretexts.
Granted the US has been looking for excuses to intervene ever more overtly in Syria since 2013, and in that sense this
Douma "initiative" is a continuation of their longterm policy. It's also true Russia was warning just such a false flag would
be attempted in early March. But in the intervening month the situation on the ground has changed so radically that such an attempt
no longer made any sense.
A false flag in early March, while pockets of the US proxy army were still holding ground in Ghouta would have enabled
a possible offensive in their support which would prevent Ghouta falling entirely into government hands and thereby also maintain
the pressure on Damascus. A false flag in early April is all but useless because the US proxy army in the region was completely
vanquished and nothing would be gained by an offensive in that place at that time.
You can see why Mattis and others in the administration might be reluctant to take part in the false flag/punitive air strike
narrative if they saw nothing currently to be gained to repay the risk. They may have preferred to wait for developments and plan
for a more productive way of playing the R2P card in the future.
The US media has been similarly, and uncharacteristically divided and apparently unsure. Tucker Carlson railed against
the stupidity of attacking Syria. Commentators on MSNBC were also expressing intense scepticism of the US intent and fear about
possible escalation.
The UK govt and media on the other hand has been much more homogeneous in advocating for action. No doubts of the type expressed
by Mattis have been heard from the lips of an UK government minister. Even May, a cowardly PM, has been (under how much pressure?)
voicing sterling certitude in public that action HAD to be taken.
Couple this with the – as yet unverified – claims by Russia of direct UK involvement in arranging the Douma "attack", and the
claims by Syria that the perps are in their custody, and a tentative storyline emerges. It's possible this time there were other
considerations in the mix beside the usual need to "be seen to do something" and Trump's perpetual requirement to appease the
liberal Russiagaters and lunatic warmongers at home. Maybe this time it was also about helping the UK out of a sticky problem.
THE SKRIPAL CONSIDERATION
Probably the only thing we can all broadly agree on about the Skripal narrative is that it manifestly did not go according
to plan. However it was intended to play out, it wasn't this way. Since some time in mid to late March it's been clear the entire
thing has become little more than an exercise in damage-limitation, leak-plugging and general containment.
The official story is a hot mess of proven falsehoods, contradictions, implausible conspiracy theories, more falsehoods
and inexplicable silences were cricket chirps tell us all we need to know.
The UK government has lied and evaded on every key aspect.
It lied again and again about the information Porton Down had given it
Its lawyers all but lied to Mr Justice Robinson about whether or not the Skripals had relatives in Russia in an unscrupulous
attempt to maintain total control of them, or at least of the narrative.
It is not publishing the OPCW report on the chemical analyses, and the summary of that report reads like an exercise in
allusion and weasel-wording. Even the name of the "toxic substance" found in the Skripals' blood is omitted, and the only thing
tying it to the UK government's public claims of "novichok" is association by inference and proximity.
Indeed if current claims by Russian FM Lavrov turn out to be true, a "novichok" (whatever that precisely means in this
case) may not have been the only substance found in those samples, and a compound called "BZ", a non-lethal agent developed in
Europe and America, has been discovered and suppressed in the OPCW report (more about that later).
None of the alleged victims of this alleged attack has been seen in public even in passing since the event. There is no film
or photographs of DS Bailey leaving the hospital, no film or photographs of his wife or family members doing the same. No interviews
with Bailey, no interviews with his wife, family, distant relatives, work colleagues.
The Skripals themselves were announced to be alive and out of danger mere days after claims they were all but certain to
die. Yulia, soon thereafter, apparently called her cousin Viktoria only to subsequently announce, indirectly through the helpful
agency of the Metropolitan Police, that she didn't want to talk to her cousin – or anyone else – at all.
She is now allegedly discharged from hospital and has "specially trained officers helping to take care of" her in an undisclosed
location. A form or words so creepily sinister it's hard to imagine how they were ever permitted the light of day.
Very little of this bizarre, self-defeating, embarrassing, hysterical story makes any sense other than as a random narrative,
snaking wildly in response to events the narrative-makers can't completely control.
Why? What went wrong? Why has the UK government got itself into this mess? And how much did the Douma "gas attack" and subsequent
drive for a concerted western "response" have to do with trying to fix that?
IS THIS WHAT HAPPENED?
If a false flag chemical attack had taken place in Syria at the time Russia predicted, just a week or two after the Skripal
poisoning, a lot of the attention that's been paid to the Skripals over the last month would likely have been diverted. Many of
the questions being asked by Russia and in the alt media may never have been asked as the focus of the world turned to a possible
superpower stand-off in the Middle East.
So, could it be the Skripal event was never intended to last so long in the public eye? Could it be that it was indeed
a false flag, or a fake event, as many have alleged, planned as a sketchy prelude to, or warm up act for a bigger chemical attack
in Syria, scheduled for a week or so later in mid-March – just around the time Russia was warning of such a possibility?
Could it be this planned event was unexpectedly canceled by the leading players in the drama (the US) when the Russians called
them out and the rapid and unexpected fall of Ghouta meant any such intervention became pointless at least for the moment?
Did this cancelation leave the UK swinging in the wind, with a fantastical story that was never intended to withstand close
scrutiny, and no second act for distraction?
So, did they push on with the now virtually useless "chemical attack", botch it (again), leaving a clear evidence trail leading
back to them? Did they then further insist on an allied "response" to their botched false flag in order to provide yet more distraction
and hopefully destroy some of that evidence?
This would explain why the UK may have been pushing for the false flag to happen (as claimed by Russia) even after it could
no longer serve much useful purpose on the ground, and why the Douma "attack" seems to have been so sketchily done by a gang on
the run. The UK needed the second part to happen in order to distract from the first.
It would explain why the US has been less than enthused by the idea of reprisals. Because while killing Syrians to further
geo-strategic interests is not a problem, killing Syrians (and risking escalation with Russia) in order to rescue an embarrassed
UK government is less appealing.
And it would explain why the "reprisals" when they came were so half-hearted.
If this is true, Theresa May and her cabinet are currently way out on a limb even by cynical UK standards. Not only have
they lied about the Skripal event, but in order to cover up that lie they have promoted a false flag in Syria, and "responded"
to it by a flagrant breach of international and domestic law. Worst of all, if the Russians aren't bluffing, they have some evidence
to prove some of the most egregious parts of this.
This is very bad.
But even if some or all of our speculation proves false, and even if the Russian claims of UK collusion with terrorists
in Syria prove unfounded, May is still guilty of multiple lies and has still waged war without parliamentary approval.
This is a major issue. She and her government should resign. But it's unlikely that will happen.
So what next? There is a sense this is a watershed for many of the parties involved and for the citizens of the countries drawn
into this.
Will the usual suspects try to avoid paying for their crimes and misadventures by more rhetoric, more false flags, more "reprisals"?
Or will this signal some other change in direction?
We'll all know soon enough.
* * *
Back to today...
...and while things have moved on, we're still puzzling over all the same issues.
What was the purpose of the Skripal attack?
What was the original plan of the Douma attack?
Is there, as it appears, an internal power struggle in the Trump administration?
Has that resolved? Who is running the United States?
Seeing as the OPCW has been shown to cover-up evidence in Douma, can we trust them on Skripal? Or anything else?
Speaking of which, where on Earth IS Sergei Skripal?
All these questions stand, and are important, but more important than all of that is the lesson: They tried it before, and just
because it didn't work doesn't mean they won't try it again.
Last spring, the Western powers showed they will deploy a false flag if they need too, for domestic or international motives.
And they have the motives right now.
The UK were the most vocal about Syria, and desperately tried to drum up support over Skripal, but it all came to nothing
much in the end.
Theresa May's political career still hangs by a thread, and her "Falklands moment", at best, staved off the inevitable for
a few months. A washout in the EU elections, a very real threat from Farage's Brexit party, and rumblings inside her own party, make
her position as unstable as ever.
Britain had the most to gain, of all NATO countries, and that is still true. We don't know what they might do.
This time they might even receive greater support from France this time around – since Macron is facing a revolution at home and
would kill (possibly literally) for a nice international distraction.
In the US, generally speaking, it seems that the Trump admin – or at least whichever interested parties currently have control
of the wheels of government – have called time on war in Syria. Instead, they've moved on to projects in Venezuela and North Korea,
and even war with Iran.
That's not to say Syria is safe, far from it. They are always just one carefully place false-flag away from all-out war. Last
year, Mattis (or whoever) decided war with Syria was not an option – that it was too risky or complicated. That might not happen
next time.
Clearly, the US hasn't totally seen sense in terms of stoking conflict with Russia – as seen by the decision to pull out of the
INF Treaty late last year. And further demonstrated by their attempts to overthrow Russia's ally Nicolas Maduro. Another ripe candidate
for a false flag.
The failure of the Douma false flag to cause the war it was meant to cause, and the vast collection of evidence that suggests
it was a false flag, should be spread far and wide. Not just because it's a truth which vindicates the smeared minority in the alternate
media.
But because recognising what they were trying to do last time , is the best defense when they try it again next time .
The US is closer to war with Iran
than it has been since the Bush years, or perhaps ever. And Bolton is largely to blame
But Bolton is on a fast track, seemingly aware that Trump's time in office may be limited.' Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters Donald
Trump's national security adviser John Bolton wants the United States to go to war with
Iran .
And everything that the Trump administration has done over its Iran policy, particularly since Bolton became Trump's top foreign
policy adviser in April of 2018, must be viewed through this lens, including the alarming US military posturing in the Middle East
of the past two weeks.
Just after one month on the job, Bolton
gave Trump
the final push he needed to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, which at the time was (and still is, for now) successfully
boxing in Iran's nuclear program and blocking all pathways for Iran to build a bomb. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
– as the Iran deal is formally known – was the biggest obstacle to Bolton's drive for a regime change war, because it eliminated
a helpful pretext that served so useful to sell the war in Iraq 17 years ago.
Since walking away from the deal, the Trump administration has claimed that with a "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, it
can achieve a "better deal" that magically turns Iran into a Jeffersonian democracy bowing to every and any American wish. But this
has always been a fantastically bad-faith argument meant to obscure the actual goal (regime change) and provide cover for the incremental
steps – the crushing sanctions, bellicose rhetoric, and antagonizing military maneuvers – that have now put the United States closer
to war with Iran than it has been since at least the latter half of the Bush administration, or perhaps ever.
In his White House statement 10 days ago announcing (an already pre-planned) carrier and bomber deployment to the Middle East,
Bolton cited "a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings" from Iran to justify the bolstered US military presence.
But multiple sources who have seen the same intelligence have since
said
that Bolton and the Trump administration blew it "out of proportion, characterizing the threat as more significant than it actually
was". Even a British general operating in the region pushed back this week,
saying he has seen no evidence of an increased Iranian threat.
What's even more worrying is that Bolton knows what he's doing. He's "a
seasoned bureaucratic infighter
who has the skills to press forcefully for his views" – and he has a long history of using those skills to undermine American
diplomacy and work toward killing arms control agreements.
As a senior official in the George W Bush administration,
he played key role
in the collapse of the Agreed Framework, the Clinton-era deal that froze North Korea's plutonium nuclear program (the North Koreans
tested their first bomb four years later).
He said
he "felt like a kid on Christmas day" after he orchestrated the US withdrawal from the international criminal court in 2002.
And now as a senior official in the Trump administration, he
pushed
for the US to withdrawal from a crucial nuclear arms treaty with Russia.
While it's unclear how much of a role he played in scuttling Trump's negotiations with Kim Jong-un in Hanoi last year, he publicly
called for the so-called
"Libya model" with the North Koreans (in other words, regime change by force). Just months before joining the administration, he
tried to make the
legal case for a preventive war against Pyongyang. And if you think he cares about the aftermath of war with North Korea, he
doesn't. Bolton was reportedly
"unmoved" by a presentation during his time in the Bush administration of the catastrophic consequences of such a war. "I don't
do war. I do policy," he said then.
So far, Bolton has been successful in moving the United States toward his desired outcome with Iran – if getting the Pentagon
to draw up plans to send
120,000 US troops to the region to confront Iran is any indication. There are hopeful signs that we can avoid war, as US officials
and our European allies, seemingly alarmed by what Bolton is up to, are
sounding the alarm about
the Trump administration skewing intelligence on Iran.
But Bolton is on a fast track, seemingly aware that Trump's time in office may be limited. The question, ultimately, is whether
the president can stick to his instincts of avoiding more military conflict, or acquiesce to a man hellbent on boxing him into a
corner with no way out other than war with Iran.
Ben Armbruster is the communications director for Win Without War and previously served as National Security Editor at ThinkProgress
So, what is the representative of Allmighty Nation doing un Russia? Why bothering to hint
on better relations? Noted in the press conference was the absence of Pompeo's moralizing,
limiting itself on US position on issues. What is the point in this flying back and
forth?
Yes, Iran -- and arms control. Venezuela -- and arms control. North Korea -- and arms
control. I think they are paranoid about Russian weapons. And if Iranians by any chance have
some of the new weaponry, providing perfect testing ground, would Russia own to that? What
was obvious, no concessions on any issue from Moscow. Not even softened language.
This time,
it is different. The economic and military power has shifted east, Europeans forever without
a spine this time are spineless in all directions, and it will come as a shock to the
establishment that the presumed animosity towards Iran in Gulf, will nowhere to be found. Wil
Saudis host US troops against Iran, Doubt that deeply.
"If President Trump had ever read Mackinder -- and there's no evidence he did -- one might
assume that he's aiming at a new anti-Eurasia integration pivot centered on the Persian Gulf.
And energy would be at the heart of the pivot.
If Washington were able to control everything, including "Big Prize" Iran, it would be
able to dominate all Asian economies, especially China. Trump even said were that to happen,
"decisions on the GNP of China will be made in Washington."...
...Arguably the key (invisible) takeaway of the meetings this week between Foreign
Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Wang Yi, and then between Lavrov and Pompeo, is that Moscow made
it quite clear that Iran will be protected by Russia in the event of an American showdown.
Pompeo's body language showed how rattled he was.
What rattled Pomp: "Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it
small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our
country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,"
Trump may not have read Mackinder but Kissinger sure would have.
True but tariffs have always been applied to protect sectors of an economy that a nation
feels is important until the free trade era. Countries still use tariffs and probably always
will in some instances. In my lifetime I saw the destruction of the working class in the US
accelerate. To the Trump voter tariffs are the simple and logical answer.
I have always suspected that Nixon's rapprochement with China had as much to do with
breaking the enormous union power of that era that counterbalancing the Soviets.
Interestingly enough, Kissinger's brother was a big time union busting consultant in those
days.
That would make innovation important but with some thoughts and ideas can be plagiarized
and manufactured. The US is in decline and China is ascending and nothing is going to stop
that from happening at this point. It is cyclical and the Europeans have had their 500 years
of planetary dominance. If the Anglo American Europeans are smart they will let that cycle
flow without a world war. I do not think they are smart.
What we need is a true and functional global community of nations and people, where
governments truly work together to balance out the stronger world powers.
The US national security state which enjoys a huge military budget and 800 overseas bases
necessarily sees the world in a masculine competitive sense, not in a feminine cooperative
sense. So winning the competition takes precedence over working together, and diplomacy is
reduced to making and enforcing US demands.
from the recent US National Defense Strategy. . .
We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing
rules-based international order -- creating a security environment more complex and
volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition,
not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security. China is a strategic
competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing
features in the South China Sea. . .
here
Thanks to everyone who replied to my comment @ 25.
I certainly agree with Peter AU 1 @ 33 and 40 that the Western (or more specifically the
English) mentality of the period in which the US was founded as a set of colonies and then
later became a nation was a significant influence on the US' later conception of its place in
the world. The Pilgrims must have certainly felt themselves blessed by God in surviving (with
the help of native individuals like Squanto) their early years of crop failures and famines;
at the same time they regarded their new environment as theirs for the taking (in their
mind-set, God had willed it so) and the native people, being non-Christian, as their enemies.
The Pilgrims may have seen themselves as God's Chosen people cast into the wilderness like
the Israelites wandering in the Sinai under Moses for 40 years. This is one root of 'Murica's
belief in itself as the Exceptional Nation. (It probably also is the root of the Special
Relationship between the US and Israel.)
Overthrowing British monarchical rule and replacing it with a republican form of
government (and nicking the idea of federal government from the Iroquois confederacy of
indigenous nations around the Great Lakes region) no doubt reinforced this self-belief in
being the Exceptional Nation. Add to that the territorial expansion across the prairies and
the Rockies, then receiving waves of immigrants from northern, central and eastern Europe
(mostly German-speaking) through the 19th century, wars (War of 1812 and the American Civil
War) in which the British are either the enemy or aid the Confederate States, the genocide of
indigenous peoples by the US government in the late 1800s and the legacy of slavery (which
American slave-owning states claimed was supported by the Bible) and you have the foundation
for a nation that believes that everyone around the world looks up to it for moral and
spiritual leadership.
The mentality of a nation founded by people who considered themselves God's Chosen
probably also finds unusual parallels in the superhero phenomenon. Most comic superheroes
like Superman, Spiderman et al are "chosen" in some way (even if by accident as in the case
of Spiderman). They are blessed with unusual powers and make a choice as to how to use their
powers, whether for good or evil. They nearly always work alone and if they work together,
they don't necessarily collaborate well but tend to work in parallel against evil.
Superheroes like Batman work alone (or with a junior partner) aided by loads of technology
which require his alter ego to be an insanely wealthy and eccentric industrialist. As Wage
Laborer @ 35 says, all this definitely is internalised: I didn't even have to look up
anything on Batman to be able to say all this!
"... The REAL REASON behind the TRADE WAR: Israhell: "I want Iran embargoed and starved to death." China: "I will buy Iran's oil." BAM! Trade War! ..."
The 'play of the day' above comes against a backdrop of markets trying to accentuate the
positive in the latest US-China trade war deterioration. Indeed, Moody's has declared a trade
deal will still be done and a Bloomberg survey of US economists shows around two thirds think a
deal will be signed by year-end, a fifth by 2020, and only 13% don't see a deal for at least
five years. Field Marshall, please take these men and women out and have them shot, there's a
good chap.
The rhetoric from China has turned starkly, aggressively nationalist. The Global Times is
calling for a "People's War", a 1930's Mao reference to repelling Japanese imperialism; "trade
war" now fills Chinese media, having been largely absent for months; and Tuesday's People's
Daily mouthpiece posted an image of the Chinese flag with "Talk -- fine! Fight -- we'll be
there! Bully us -- delusion!" superimposed on it. US President Trump is also not backing down
in a further set of trade-related tweets, again stating tariff revenues will support 'patriot'
farmers and adding: "China will be pumping money into their system and probably reducing
interest rates, as always, in order to make up for the business they are, and will be, losing.
If the Federal Reserve ever did a "match," it would be game over, we win! In any event, China
wants a deal!"
A huge fiscal deficit; trade tariffs; a rapid increase in military expenditure; 'Patriot'
farmers; and a political call for lower interest rates for a national struggle. It all sounds
very Chinese, doesn't it? But that shouldn't be a surprise. Last year's ' The Rise and Fall and
Rise of the Great Powers (and Great Currencies)' argued the historical lessons of the economics
of past power struggles are that one must have low borrowing costs, spend a lot on a large
military, and be mercantilist if your enemy is. True, one also needs to be economically
vibrant, and that isn't assured with mercantilism, militarism and large fiscal deficits. Yet
real free trade, pacifism, and austerity is *ruinous* for Great Power . Which is why the EU is
not a Great Power but a Great Whinger.
Some in the markets are starting to get this.
Regular Bloomberg commentator Noah Smith yesterday published an article --'The Grim Logic
Behind Trump's Trade War With China'-- that admits he was wrong to expect a trade deal, that
Trump is doubling down, and concludes "There may be a grim sort of logic to this approach If
Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do
it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might
conclude that the former are acceptable losses. Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity
for Americans, might be the president's true objective . if weakening China really is the goal,
then this could be just the opening rounds of a long and grinding trade war." That's' what I
argued back in November 2017's 'On Your Marx' special reports, which stressed a New Cold War
was likely ahead.
However, many in markets are still acting like a Treasury clerk telling Churchill that
Badolf Hissler can offer him a great deal on cut-price bullets, ships, and planes .
On a related front, we see reports of an alleged Iranian drone attack on Saudi oil
pipelines(!); also hear Iran's leader say there will be no war with the US; and Trump has
stated reports of 120,000 US troops moving to the region are fake news -- because if he were to
send troops it would " a hell of a lot more ." Mixed messages to put it mildly.
for 40 years, western liberals and capitalists have had a nebulous idea of China
developing, opening and "liberalizing." It hasn't usually occurred in the ways they wanted,
but China certainly has become a big market and has moved towards a more open economy and
somewhat, more open society overall, while still maintaining a "fascist" structure.
But we can all agree - that process is done. China's economy, society and politics are
what they are. The country is "grown-up." Do not ever expect the communist party to change
the tight, top-down structure it has. Do not expect changes to politics, do not expect anyone
in China to give up control, and certainly don't expect foreigners to have any say or
influence within China. China will always do exactly what benefits China and the CCP.
Trump is merely being a realist. So accept that, and trade/invest/exchange
accordingly.
Is it any surprise that a "Noah Smith" of Bloomberg would attribute all the wrong
motives and strategy behind President Trump's and America's trade dispute with China's
totalitarian regime?
That he sees the Chinese Communist Party as honest, good faith partners in this
scenario?
There is nothing Trump could ever do to please the internationalist media.
I seriously doubt if "weakening" China is Trump's primacy here. Perhaps a by-product but
let's finally admit one thing: The US-China trade arrangement is egregious at best. What no one is willing to discuss yet is the fact that this "philosophy" of evening out
trade with China will soon take on a life of its own: With the US consumer. We need to bring back a lot of jobs back to the US economy and that's not rocket science.
It won't happen overnight but it will indeed happen.
What is the point of this piece? To demonstrate the author’s wit and historical
knowledge (was that entire little playlet not invented)?
To maximize American prosperity long term, should the US simply allow China to cheat,
manipulate and intimidate its way to the top? China has proven that, unlike the US, its
growth is a zero sum game. It adds nothing to the equation of global growth except cheap
labor, which subtracts wealth from other nations by taking away their well-paid manufacturing
jobs. It contributes almost no raw materials, imports its food and energy, and has stolen
most of its technology at enormous cost to Western innovators.
The US has always provided net inputs to the system of global growth. Natural resources,
renewable materials (crops, renewable energy), and the relentless innovation and productivity
increases of its workforce. China is an extractor. Thus it needs to expand its borders
through exploitative economic imperialist initiatives under their One Belt One Road scam, and
their militaristic imperialism in the South China Sea. The US is a machine that puts out far
more than it takes in. China is the opposite. If the US directs its economic output away from
China’s vast and relentless maw, China’s machine will slow and sputter.
The real point of the trade war is to end the vacuum of Western and Asian prosperity by
China’s greedy and imperialist machine of economic destruction. China knows and
implements that its economic growth by definition comes at the cost of others’
prosperity. That the US took 20 years to wake the **** up is astonishing.
"... Fox News contributor Ralph Peters suggested Tucker was like a Nazi sympathizer for wondering whether Russia and the US should work together against ISIS. Another critic mostly agrees with Peters - and Tucker takes him on ..."
"... Max Boot is an example of someone who takes himself so seriously that they become a joke. ..."
"... Max Boot is never right! He had so many idiotic opinions! A man who wants to intervene in every part of the world and sod the consequences! He's a real neo con extremist! Dangerous! ..."
Fox News contributor Ralph Peters suggested Tucker was like a Nazi sympathizer for wondering
whether Russia and the US should work together against ISIS. Another critic mostly agrees with
Peters - and Tucker takes him on
Max Boot is never right! He had so many idiotic opinions! A man who wants to intervene in
every part of the world and sod the consequences! He's a real neo con extremist!
Dangerous!
"... While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews have simultaneously endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others and the great majority support an ethno-nationalist Israel. They have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is ruthless, uncompromising Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena. ..."
"... Jewish writer David Cole recently questioned the wisdom of this strategy of using non-Whites as “golem” to protect the Jews from a recrudescence of National Socialism. He notes that many of the Jews’ non-White pets (like Ilhan Omar) have a disconcerting tendency to turn on their Jewish masters ..."
"... In the minds of Jewish leaders and activists nurtured since birth on the cult of “the Holocaust,” White nationalism is still the most ominous threat to Jewish survival. This is reflected in the unquestioning commitment of the vast majority of Jewish activists and intellectuals (Cole excepted) to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in all historically White nations. ..."
Despite the Jewish domination of the American Left in the post-War period, Mendes notes that "most Americans do not appear to
have adhered to the same anti-Semitic assumptions about Jewish links with communism that dominated public opinion in parts of Europe."
[80] Ibid .,
229.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014),
250.) As evidence of this, Mendes cites the decidedly muted public response to the conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg for selling atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Despite the recognizably Jewish identity of the couple (given their name)
and of all of their co-conspirators (David Greenglass, Ruth Greenglass, and Morton Sobell), and the fact the Rosenberg spy network
consisted almost exclusively of Jews from the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the case "provoked remarkably little overt anti-Semitism."
[81] Ibid .,
230. Nor, he observes, did the "significant number of Jews -- including teachers and Hollywood actors -- who were victims of anti-communist
purges" and the prominence of Jews amongst those subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, lead to a significant
reaction. All public opinion polls conducted during this period showed a consistent decline in "anti-Semitism," and only a small
minority of those surveyed (about 5 percent) identified Jews with communism.
[82] Ibid .
The lack of any real backlash to Jewish prominence in the New Left is ascribed to various factors: that many members of the public
were not aware of the Jewish background of many of the radical leaders; that these Jewish radicals were ostensibly "not campaigning
about any specifically Jewish issues that would have focused attention on Jews per se;" and to the "general decline in anti-Semitism
since World War Two."
[83] Ibid .,
257. This latter shift in public opinion (unsurprisingly) coincided with the Jewish seizure of the commanding heights of American
(and Western) culture in the 1960s, and the growing emergence of the culture of "the Holocaust." The combined effect was to banish
overt critical discussion of Jewish power to the margins of public discourse. While Americans rejected communist activities during
the Cold War, unlike in Europe, they did not widely equate communism with Jews (at least publicly), or view Jewish participation
in leftist politics with particular concern.
Neoconservatism
Neoconservative leaders were among those who feared that the Jewish prominence in the New Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s
would fuel a conservative backlash against Jewish radicalism. For example, Norman Podhoretz, the editor of
Commentary magazine, attacked leading Jewish
leftists as alleged self-hating Jews and completely unrepresentative of the Jewish community.
[84] Ibid .,
22.
Mendes ascribes the defection of many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism in the 1970s to a growing misalignment between
modern Leftist politics and Jewish ethnic interests: the key factor being "the creation of the State of Israel which transformed
Jewish dependence from international to national forces."
[85] Ibid .,
viii. With the advent of the state of Israel, Jewish interests were no longer exclusively represented by the universalistic agendas
of the Left. According to Mendes: "Most Jews have lost their faith in universalistic causes because they do not perceive the Left
as supportive of Jewish interests, and have turned instead to nationalist solutions."
[86] Ibid .,
235.
The creation of a Jewish national entity featuring (thanks to US taxpayers) a strong and powerful army meant that Jews all over
the world could look to the Zionist state to safeguard their interests, rather than depending on internationalist movements and ideologies
(i.e. communism and the Soviet Union) which had often proven to be unreliable allies. Even many left-wing Jews, who might have been
anti-Zionist prior to World War Two, shifted their position after the birth of Israel. For example, the long-time Austrian Jewish
leftist Jean Amery commented in 1976:
There is a very deep tie and existential bond between every Jew and the State of Israel Jews feel bound to the fortunes and
misfortunes of Israel, whether they are religious Jews or not, whether they adhere to Zionism or reject it, whether they are newly
arrived in their host countries or deeply rooted there The Jewish State has taught all the Jews of the world to walk with their
head high once more Israel is the virtual shelter for all of the insulted and injured Jews of the earth.
[87] Ibid
., 236-37
The perceived anti-Zionism of the New Left from the 1967 onwards served to alienate many Jews and confirm their commitment to nationalist,
rather than internationalist solutions. An additional factor was the 1967 Six Day War in the Middle East, which provoked fears of
"another Holocaust," and galvanized even non-Zionist Jews in support of Israel. There were rallies in support of Israel throughout
the Western world accompanied by large donations. American Jews held massive fundraising campaigns and reportedly raised 180 million
dollars. Numerous volunteers travelled to Israel to support the Jewish State. In Australia, more than 20 per cent of a total Jewish
population of 34,000 in Melbourne -- attended a public rally to express their support for Israel, and 2500 attended a youth rally.
750 young Jews volunteered to go to Israel. According to Taft,
there was a widespread, almost universal, absorption in the Middle East Crisis of June among the Jews of Melbourne. This absorption
took the form of extreme concern about the safety of Israel, emotional upsets, obsessive seeking of news, constant discussion
of events and taking spontaneous actions to support Israel's cause.
[88] Ibid
., 238.
The rise of left-wing anti-Zionism after the Six Day War furthered alienated sections of Western Jewry from the social democratic
Left. Another factor that pushed American Jews in a neoconservative direction, identified by Mendes, was the decline in Black–Jewish
relations. The emergence of the Black Power movement in the mid-1960s led to the removal of Jews from the leadership of organizations
like the NAACP. Black hostility was viewed by some Jews as evidence of the failure of the strategy of courting non-White groups to
advance Jewish interests. This ostensible failure prompted many Jews to concentrate on a narrower ethnic self-interest in the future.
[89] Ibid .,
243.
This, in turn, contributed to the creation of "pragmatic alliances" with conservative political parties such as the Republicans
and evangelical groups such as Christians United for Israel which "have been consistent supporters of Israel in the USA." An associated
factor was that pro-Israel perspectives within Western countries increasingly emanated from mainstream conservatives, rather than
from the moderate or radical Left. This occurred despite "many in these groups hold socially conservative views on issues such as
abortion, homosexuality, the environment, multiculturalism, state support for the poor and disadvantaged, and refugees, which are
anathema to many Jews."
[90] Ibid .,
287.
Mendes makes the point that "These alliances were based solely on the latter's position of support for Israel, irrespective of
their conservative views on social issues such as abortion, homosexuality and the welfare state, which were often sharply at odds
with the more liberal opinions of most Jews."
[91] Ibid .,
239.
Despite the defection on many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism, the great majority of American Jews still see their
ethnic interests as basically aligning with the Democratic Party. Their willingness to prioritize their ethnic interests over their
personal economic interests is reflected in the fact that "high numbers of affluent Jews compared to others of the same socioeconomic
status still vote for moderate left parties that do not seem to favor their economic interests." Today, the structural factors which
historically drew many Jews to the Left no longer exist. Most Jews sit comfortably in middle- or even higher-income categories. This
"middle-classing" of Jews throughout the West has meant that the "Jewish proletariat that motivated Jewish identification with left-wing
beliefs no longer exists."
[92] Ibid .,
239. Consequently, "the specific link between Jewish experience of class oppression and adherence to left-wing ideology has ended."
[93] Ibid .,
241.
Most Western Jews still support parties on the Left
Despite the widespread break with the radical Left over support for Israel, Jews nevertheless remain
a “massively significant presence” in the Left in terms of their numbers and fundraising, their organizational capacity, and their
impact on popular culture.[94]Ibid.,
287. It was estimated that about a quarter of the world’s leading Marxist and radical intellectuals in the 1980s
were still Jews, including Ernest Mandel, Nathan Weinstock, Maxime Rodinson, Noam Chomsky, Marcel Liebman, Ralph Miliband, and the
founder of deconstructionism, Jacques Derrida. Despite continuing to comprise much of the intellectual and financial backbone of
the Left, today’s Jews, “an influential and sometimes powerful group, with substantial access to politics, academia and the media,”
no longer must “rely on the Left to defend their interests and wellbeing.”[95]Ibid.,
286.
The primary reason most Western Jews still vote overwhelmingly
for parties on the left is the perceived threat posed by the “social conservatism” of parties further to the right of the political
spectrum in nations whose majorities are European-derived and nominally at least Christian:
With the possible exception of ultra-orthodox groups, Jews
seem to prefer social liberal positions on issues such as religious pluralism, abortion, feminism, illicit drugs, same-sex marriage,
the science of climate change and euthanasia. Another significant factor is the long history of Christian anti-Semitism has led
Jews to remain suspicious of any attempts by Christian religious groups to undermine the separation of church and state. This
fear of organized religion [and of the White people who practice it] seems to explain the continued strong support of American
Jews for the Democratic Party in presidential elections. A further complicating factor is the growing universalization of Jewish
teachings and values, including the lessons of the Holocaust, in support of social liberal perspectives. … For example, Berman
(2006) presents evidence that the younger Jewish generation in Australia have been influenced by the experience of the Holocaust
into taking a strong stand against any forms of racial or religious discrimination. Many are active in campaigns for indigenous
rights, and to support refugees from Afghanistan, Sudan, and Middle Eastern countries seeking asylum in Australia.[96]Ibid.,
288-89.
This advocacy is, of course, entirely hypocritical and cynical.
While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews
have simultaneously endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others and the
great majority support an ethno-nationalist Israel. They have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations
of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within
their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is ruthless, uncompromising
Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena.
The ideological preoccupations of organized Jewry today are
reflected in comments by
Boston Globe writer, S.I. Rosenbaum, who insisted the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could
turn on us at any moment,” and the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in
Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political
engagement in Western societies, she insists, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American
Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.”
Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If
Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”
Jewish writer David Cole recently
questioned the wisdom of this strategy of using non-Whites as “golem” to protect the Jews from a recrudescence of National Socialism.
He notes that many of the Jews’ non-White pets (like Ilhan Omar) have a disconcerting tendency to turn on their Jewish masters:
For decades, leftist Jews have been flooding the West with
Third World immigrants, “Hey here’s a plan—lets dump a hundred thousand Somalis in the whitest parts of the U.S.
That’ll
save us from Fargo Hitler!” Inundating the West with non-White immigrants is seen by Jews as an insurance policy against “white
supremacy.” The idea is that these immigrants will act as a wedge, diluting “white power” while remaining small enough to be manageable.
Jews have done this everywhere—playing two groups against
each other as a way of assuring Jewish security. Let’s play Hamas against the Palestinian authority. Let’s play ISIS against Assad.
… But today we live in a world in which even the lowliest bark-eater in the Kalahari can have internet access. It’s not as easy
to fool entire groups anymore (individuals, sure, but not an entire race, ethnicity or faction). …
And now we Jews, so worried that Minnesota might become the
Frozen Fourth Reich if left in the hands of evil whites, have created for ourselves a good old-fashioned golem in Ilhan Omar (and
a bunch of the other Third World freshman congressthingies). Yeah, Omar hates whites. Yeah, she thinks white supremacy lurks behind
every glass of milk and “OK” finger sign. But she hates Jews a hell of a lot more…
In a perfect world, the Rabbinical Rain Men would finally
get the fuck over the Holocaust and end their war of hostility against the West. They’d see that whites are no longer the enemy,
but indeed the opposite. They’d see that importing foreign mud to mold golem in traditionally white regions of the U.S is bad
strategy.
In the minds of Jewish leaders and activists nurtured since birth on the cult of “the Holocaust,” White nationalism
is still the most ominous threat to Jewish survival. This is reflected in the unquestioning commitment of the vast majority of Jewish
activists and intellectuals (Cole excepted) to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in all historically White nations.
Conclusion
While Jews and the Left offers a useful catalogue
of Jewish involvement in radical political movements throughout the world over the last two centuries, it recycles many of the same
apologetic tropes that permeate the work of other Jewish historians and intellectuals. Mendes mischaracterizes the Jewish identity
and affiliations of important Jewish communist leaders (like Lazar Kaganovich), and offers no examination of their often-murderous
actions. He provides feeble apologies for the Jewish practices that engendered hostility among the native peasantry in the Pale of
Settlement. The inherent weakness of his position necessitates specious argumentation and desperate resort to that evergreen of Jewish
apologetic historiography: the innate irrationality and malevolence of the European mind and character. This is the invariable fallback
position in any quest to exculpate Jews from responsibility for the crimes of communism in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern
Europe. Though less inclined than Brossat and Klingberg in Revolutionary Yiddishland to glorify Jewish communist militants,
Mendes is equally keen to evade, whitewash and excuse disproportionate Jewish involvement in some of the worst crimes of the twentieth
century.
Trump provided to be another Obama -- master of "bait and switch". His promise to disengage from foreign wars remains an
unfulfilled promise. Due to thefact that he is owned by pro-Israel lobby he broung into his administrations such rabid neocons as
chickenhawk Bolton and smug ruthless careerist masquerading as
far-right zealot as Pompeo (and before them Haley). His promises to raise the standard of living of middles
class (which is impossible without cutting the military budget) remains fake. He is a fake. The second fake after obama --
Republican Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... While the national debt of the United States was recorded at 22.03 trillion as of April 2019, Washington's going ahead with its hawkish policies worldwide with recent NATO summit pushing for further unity against China, Russia and Iran. NATO's annual overall military budget was US$ 957 billion in 2017 where the US's share was US$ 686 billion, accounting for 72 percent of the total. This number is pressed by the US to rise in the years to come. ..."
"... According to The Guardian, Trump takes more than $1tn in taxpayer money and allocates $750bn to the military. In other words, out of every taxpayer dollar, 62 cents go to the military and Department of Homeland Security and seven cents to Veterans affairs. It leaves just 31 cents for all the rest: education, job training, community economic development, housing, safe drinking water and clear air, health and science research and the prevention of war through diplomacy and humanitarian aid. ..."
"... In 2017, US spent US$ 685,957 billion with 3.6 of its GDP on military spending while the UK stood second at US$ 55,237 billion with 2.1 per cent of GDP. France and Germany allocated US$ 45,927 billion and 45,472 billion respectively with 1.8 and 1.2 percent of their GDPs. The NATO member states are pressured for raising their defense spending to 2 percent and gradually up to 4 percent in five years. ..."
While the national debt of the United States was recorded at 22.03 trillion as of April
2019, Washington's going ahead with its hawkish policies worldwide with recent NATO summit
pushing for further unity against China, Russia and Iran. NATO's annual overall military budget
was US$ 957 billion in 2017 where the US's share was US$ 686 billion, accounting for 72 percent
of the total. This number is pressed by the US to rise in the years to come.
According to The Guardian, Trump takes more than $1tn in taxpayer money and allocates $750bn
to the military. In other words, out of every taxpayer dollar, 62 cents go to the military and
Department of Homeland Security and seven cents to Veterans affairs. It leaves just 31 cents
for all the rest: education, job training, community economic development, housing, safe
drinking water and clear air, health and science research and the prevention of war through
diplomacy and humanitarian aid.
The Trump budget finds vast billions for militarization, while it cuts "smaller" poverty
alleviation projects and other programs, claiming the goal is to save money.
Rutherford Institute's founder and director John W. WhiteHead writes in his institute's
website that the American nation is being preyed upon by a military industrial complex that is
propped up by war profiteers, corrupt politicians and foreign governments. He remarks:
"Don't be fooled into thinking that your hard-earned tax dollars are being used for
national security and urgent military needs".
He writes "you know what happens to tax dollars that are left over at the end of the
government's fiscal year? Government agencies – including the Department of Defense
– go on a 'use it or lose it' spending spree so they can justify asking for money in the
next fiscal year".
"We are talking about $97 billion worth of wasteful spending"
He maintains that the nation's educational system is pathetic, the infrastructure is
antiquated and growing more outdated by the day and the health system is overpriced and
inaccessible to those who need it most.
The tax cuts on super-rich, outflow of huge sums in interest payment for debt and more
spending are plunging the US economy into a new crisis, according to many authors. The US
economy faces a deficit which means the spending especially on military and defence is far
exceeding the tax revenues.
In 2017, US spent US$ 685,957 billion with 3.6 of its GDP on military spending while the UK
stood second at US$ 55,237 billion with 2.1 per cent of GDP. France and Germany allocated US$
45,927 billion and 45,472 billion respectively with 1.8 and 1.2 percent of their GDPs. The NATO
member states are pressured for raising their defense spending to 2 percent and gradually up to
4 percent in five years.
According to a study regarding world powers' overseas military bases
China retains twelve military bases;
France runs nine military bases including in Germany, Lebanon and UAE;
Germany has two military bases in France and United States;
India has seven bases including in Tajikistan and Maldives;
Israel possesses one military base in Syria's Golan Heights;
Pakistan has a military center with 1,180 personnel in Saudi Arabia;
Russia runs eight military facilities including in Armenia, Georgia, Syria and some
Central Asian countries;
UK controls ten military bases including in Bahrain, Canada, Germany, Singapore and
Qatar;
t he US is leading nearly 800 military bases across the world that run in full swing with
the highest budget.
In other words, the US possesses up to 95 per cent of the world's military bases . The
Department of Defense says that its locations include 164 countries. Put another way, it has a
military presence of some sort in approximately 84 percent of the nations on this
planet.
The annual cost of deploying US military personnel overseas, as well as maintaining and
running those foreign bases, tops out at an estimated US$ 150 billion annually. The US bases
abroad cost upwards of US$ 50 billion only for building and maintenance, which is enough to
address pressing needs at home in education, health care, housing and infrastructure.
In 2017 and 2018, the world's largest military spenders were the United States, China, Saudi
Arabia, Russia and India. The UK took over France as sixth largest spender in 2018 while Japan
and Germany stood at eighth and ninth positions.
In early 2018, Pentagon released a report saying that Afghan war costs US$ 45 billion to
taxpayers in the preceding year. Of this amount, US$ 5 billion has been spent on Afghan forces,
US$ 13 billion towards US forces in Afghanistan and the rest on economic aid.
But these costs are far lower than the time when the US military was highly engaged in
Afghanistan. With nearly 100,000 soldiers in the country from 2010 to 2012, the price for
American taxpayers surpassed US$ 100 billion each year. For now, there are around 16,000 US
troops in Afghanistan. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars have gone into Afghanistan, the
US admits it failed in war against militants in Afghanistan.
In November 2018, another study published by CNBC reported that America has spent US$ 5.9
trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001 including in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Syria. The study also reveals that more than 500,000 people have been killed in the wars and
nearly 10 million people have been displaced due to violence.
The US has reportedly spent US$ 1.07 trillion in Afghanistan since 2001 which include
Overseas Contingency Operations funds dedicated to Afghanistan, costs on the base budget of the
Department of Defense and increase to the budget of the Department of Veteran Affairs.
In Afghanistan, the US costs of war in 2001 commenced with US$ 37.3 billion that soared to
US$ 57.3 billion in 2007 and US$ 100 billion in 2009. The year with record spending was 2010
with US$ 112.7 billion that slightly plummeted to US$ 110.4 billion in 2011 but took downwards
trend in the later years.
Due to skyrocketing military costs on the US government, Trump Administration recently
decided to pack up some of its military bases in Afghanistan and Middle East to diminish
expenditures, though it doesn't mean the wars would end at all.
According to Afghanistan Analysts Network, the US Congress has appropriated more than US$
126 billion in aid for Afghanistan since financial year 2002, with almost 63 percent for
security and 28 percent for development and the remainder for civilian operations, mostly
budgetary assistance and humanitarian aid. Alongside the US aid, many world countries have
pumped millions of dollars in development aids, but what is evident for insiders and outsiders
is that a trickle of those funds has actually gone into Afghanistan's reconstruction.
With eighteen years into Afghan war, the security is deteriorating; Afghan air force is
ill-equipped; poppy cultivation is on the rise; roads and highways are dilapidated or
unconstructed; no mediocre hospital and health care has been established; weekly conflict
causalities hit 150-250; electricity is still imported from Central Asian countries; economy
remains dependent upon imports; unemployment rate is at its peak; more than three quarters of
population live under poverty line and many, many more miseries persist or aggravate.
The US boasts of being the largest multi-billion dollar donor for Afghanistan, but if one
takes a deeper look at the living standards of majority and the overall conditions, it can be
immediately grasped that less than half of that exaggerated fund has been consumed. The US-made
government of Afghanistan has deliberately been left behind to rank as the first corrupt
country in the world. Thanks to the same unaddressed pervasive corruption, a hefty amount of
that fund has been either directed back to the US hands or embezzled by senior Afghan
officials.
Afghanistan's new Living Conditions Survey shows that poverty is more widespread today than
it was immediately after the fall of Taliban regime, or in other words, in the early days of US
invasion.
Next month, Kabul will host a Consultative Loya Jirga attended by around 2,000
representatives from Afghanistan which will cost the Afghan Ministry of Finance AF 369 million
(equivalent to five million US$). Even as the past has proved that these events are only
symbolic and further complicating the achievement of peace, a country with great majority under
poverty line doesn't deserve to organize such costly gatherings.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Masud Wadan is a geopolitical analyst based in Kabul. He is a frequent contributor to
Global Research.
What is funny is that MARGARET BRENNAN is to the right of Pompeo. That's a real
achievement. Pompeo probably was surprised that he was put on the defensive from his right-wing position by this warmongering
female neocon.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You've got the whole world as your portfolio so let's
move on to Venezuela and Russia. There was this phone call between Vladimir Putin and President
Trump that just happened. The president described it to us in an Oval Office spray. Why didn't
he bring up election interference on this phone call when he said he did discuss the findings
of the Mueller Report which found sweeping and systematic Russian interference in 2016?
SEC. POMPEO: Well you'll have to ask the White House that question. The president's been
very clear. The administration has taken great action. I wish the previous one had stopped the
election interference that took place in 2016. They failed to do so. Between 2017 when
President Trump came into office and 2018, we had a successful election year, a set of midterm
elections. We're working diligently to ensure that the elections in 2020 aren't interfered with
by Russia, by Iran, by North Korea or anyone else. We have enormous resource deployed against
that challenge. And the American people should be sure that their government is working hard to
keep our election safe and secure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said, this week, that Moscow has hundreds of people in Venezuela and
you were very clear that you think it was Russia that convinced Nicolas Maduro not to get on a
plane and to flee the country. Here's what the president said during his- after his phone call
with Vladimir Putin.
*Take SOT*
MARGARET BRENNAN: There seems to be a difference in how the president described the
situation and how you and Ambassador Bolton have described it.
SEC. POMPEO: No, no difference, no difference. The- the president has said, I think he in
fact tweeted, that the Russians must leave Venezuela. We've asked every nation that is in-
interfering with Venezuelan democracy- you've seen this. I- I was down on the border. We saw
mothers who couldn't feed their children, fleeing the country. We saw families that had sick
kids but couldn't get medicines, all sitting, was sitting within 50 miles of where we were
located. And Maduro won't allow it to come in. The president's been very clear, we want the
Cubans out. There are Iranians on the ground there. We want the Russians- we want everyone out
so that the Venezuelan people can get the democracy they deserve. That includes Mr. Maduro
leaving.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So when he says, the president says, "Putin is not looking to get involved
at all in Venezuela," that is not the president accepting him at face value?
SEC. POMPEO: You'll- you'll have to leave- you'll have to look at--
MARGARET BRENNAN: He knows that that's not the case?
SEC. POMPEO: The- the president has tweeted that he wants the Russians out of Venezuela.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So he was just putting a positive spin on things in that moment?
SEC. POMPEO: We- we are working very diligently to ensure that Maduro leaves and we get free
and fair elections in Venezuela. That will require the 2,300 Cuban security personnel, the-
frankly, the people closest to Maduro who are protecting the in- tight security for Maduro,
they've got to leave. We're working on that as well. We're working with the Cubans to try and
get an outcome that will let the Venezuelans have this opportunity.
MARGARET BRENNAN: On this, I know you'll be meeting with the Russian foreign minister in the
coming days. Is there a deal to be struck with Russia on this front? I mean, Russia benefits,
right, by having Venezuelan oil off the market, by having a level of influence in America's
backyard. Is the U.S. going to negotiate a deal with Russia on Venezuela?
SEC. POMPEO: I'll certainly bring up Venezuela, be one of many topics that Foreign Minister
Lav- Lavrov and I speak about- speak about. Whether there's a particular deal that can be
reached? Only time will tell.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina who I know you
know well tweeted this week, "Cuba, Russia sent troops to prop up Maduro in Venezuela while we
talk and have sanctions. Where's our aircraft carrier?" He seems to be calling a bluff here on
your mention and mention from others that military options aren't off the table. What is
actually being considered here because you can't refer to the use of military force lightly. Is
there an actual option that you are considering deploying in the coming days?
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed a broad number of security
related issues in Sochi on Tuesday ranging from nuclear arms control to ratcheting US tensions with Iran to Venezuela to Ukraine.
Importantly, the two top diplomats traded warnings against election meddling and interference in their respective countries -- though
we might add that Lavrov's message was packed with more sarcasm following the Mueller report clearing Trump of "collusion".
In response to Pompeo's reportedly warning Russia to never interfere in what he described as America's "sacred" elections, specifically
warning against any 2020 presidential election interference, Lavrov shot back with: "We can discuss this topic forever, but until
we have cold hard facts on the table, we cannot have a grown-up discussion about it," according to Russia's
RT .
Speaking to reporters afterward, Lavrov said proudly that he had handed Pompeo a "memorandum" on US interference in Russia but
didn't reveal its precise contents, only saying, "we're prepared to talk on this topic."
Though both expressed hope for improved ties between Washington and Moscow, Reuters characterized it as a testy and impatient
exchange :
Visiting Russia for the first time as secretary of state, Pompeo publicly clashed with Lavrov on issues from Ukraine to Venezuela.
After their meeting, both men said they had been far apart on many issues .
"I made clear to Foreign Minister Lavrov... that interference in American elections is unacceptable. If the Russians were engaged
in that in 2020 it would put our relationship in an even worse place than it has been ," he said.
"I'd encourage them not to do that. We would not tolerate that."
However, soon after the summit, Russian President Putin in public statements indicated his belief that "Trump is in the mood to
restore ties with Russia."
He also indicated it's his own desire to "fully restore" Russia-US ties, according to the AP, and interestingly also praised the
"quite objective" Mueller report in statements to reporters
.
"As you know, just a few days ago, I had the pleasure of talking with the US president on the phone," Putin told Pompeo during
the Tuesday summit in Sochi. "I got the impression that the [US] president was inclined to re-establish Russian-American relations
and contacts to resolve together the issues that are of mutual interest to us."
Pompeo, for his part, appeared to say as much following the meeting, saying, "The United States stands ready to find common ground
with Russia as long as the two of us can engage seriously on those issues."
President Trump has made clear that his expectation is that we will have an improved relationship between our two countries.
This will benefit each of our peoples. And I think that our talks here today were a good step in that direction.
However, Pompeo still went through a litany of disagreements he had with Russia, especially centering on multiple hot spots around
the globe where the Trump administration has exercised a big stick approach.
At Lavrov-Pompeo presser, around 28:30, Lavrov says something significant: Russia recently offered to publish info from a US-Russia
channel on cyberspace that he claims would address the allegations of Russian election meddling. He says the US declined:
https://t.co/o4MbqQlwCy
Below is a brief run-down of key points to the two briefed reporters on afterwards.
Nuclear treaty
At the top of the agenda, Lavrov signaled Russia could be open to a new arms control treaty after the recent US withdrawal from
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, countered by Russia suspending its obligations under the Reagan-era pact which
crucially served to keep missile build-up out of Europe.
Pompeo stressed China had to be part of any future sweeping deal, also considering rapid advances in defense technology. Lavrov
expressed hope that any future agreements will be "positively received by both nations."
The New START nuclear arms reduction treaty will expire in February of 2021, giving greater impetus for both sides to work through
the current impasse.
No common ground on Venezuela
Predictably the Venezuela hawk Pompeo slammed Russia's "interfering" in the Latin American country's internal affairs, adding
also to that list China, Cuba and Iran.
"Maduro has brought nothing but misery to the Venezuelan people," Pompeo stated. "We hope that Russian support for Maduro will
end." Lavrov defended the right of Venezuelans to choose their own president and refused to recognize US-declared "Interim President"
Juan Guaido.
"Democracy cannot be done by force," Lavrov told reporters. "The threats that we hear against the Maduro government, threats that
come from the mouths of US officials this has nothing in common with democracy."
* * *
No desire for war with Iran
"We fundamentally do not see a war with Iran," Secretary of State Pompeo said, but added: "We've made it clear to the Iranians
that if American interests are attacked, we will certainly respond in an appropriate fashion."
On Tuesday President Trump denied a prior
New York
Times report which alleged the White House was planning to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East should conflict erupt
between Iran and the United States. The president called the report "fake news" but still added that should war actually break out
he would send "a hell of a lot more," according to Reuters.
Lavrov stated that Russia hopes "reason will gain the upper hand," and added that Moscow opposed the US pullout of the 2015 Iran
nuclear deal (JCPOA), and further that Europe is right in attempting to stick to the deal.
Ukraine standoff
Pompeo informed Lavrov that the US hadn't budged in its position regarding Moscow's "illegal" annexation of the Crimea in 2014,
saying economic sanctions would remain in place until Russia reverses course.
Following the Ukrainian election of comedian turned unlikely politician Volodymyr Zelensky, Pompeo said Russia should now "work
with Ukraine's new president-elect to bring peace to eastern Ukraine," according to a paraphrase of Pompeo's words by Reuters, and
further that Russian authorities should release Ukrainian sailors captured in last year's dangerous
Kerch Strait incident .
"... The film also shows war crimes that implicate the entire structure of the U.S. military, as everyone involved was acting under orders, seeking permission to fire, waiting, then getting it before once more blasting away. The publication of this video, plus all the Wikileaks publications that followed, comprise the whole reason everyone in the U.S. who matters, everyone with power, wants Julian Assange dead. They also want him hated. Generating that hate is the process we're watching today. ..."
"... "Everyone" in this case includes every major newspaper that published and received awards for publishing Wikileaks material; all major U.S. televised media outlets; and all "respectable" U.S. politicians -- including, of course, Hillary Clinton, who was rumored (though unverifiably) to have said, "Can't we just drone this guy?" ..."
"... Please watch it. The footage shows not only murder, but bloodlust and conscienceless brutality, so much of it in fact that this became one of the main reasons Chelsea Manning leaked it in the first place. As she said at her court-martial : "The most alarming aspect of the video for me, was the seemingly delight of bloodlust they [the pilots] appeared to have. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging with, and seemed to not value human life in referring to them as 'dead bastards,' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers." ..."
Yves
here. Even though this post covers known territory, it seems worthwhile to encourage those of
you who haven't watched the "Collateral Murder" footage to view the full version. It's
important not only to keep the public (and that includes people in your personal circle)
focused on what Assange's true hanging crime is in the eyes of the officialdom .and it ain't
RussiaGate. That serves as a convenient diversion from his real offense. That effort has a
secondary benefit of having more people watch the video.
Before
and after images of the van that came to pick up the bodies of eleven men shot to death by
circling American helicopters in Iraq in 2007. Both children in the van were wounded. "Well,
it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle," said one of the pilots. "That's right,"
replies another. From the videoCollateral Murder.
Below is a full video version of Collateral Murder , the 2007 war footage that was
leaked in 2010 to Wikileaks by Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning. This version was posted to the Wikileaks YouTube
channel with subtitles. It will only take about 15 minutes of your life to view it.
It's brutal to watch, but I challenge you to do it anyway. It shows not just murder, but a
special kind of murder -- murder from the safety of the air, murder by men with heavy machine
guns slowly circling their targets in helicopters like hunters with shotguns who walk the edges
of a trout pond, shooting at will, waiting, walking, then shooting again, till all the fish are
dead.
The film also shows war crimes that implicate the entire structure of the U.S.
military, as everyone involved was acting under orders, seeking permission to fire, waiting,
then getting it before once more blasting away. The publication of this video, plus all the
Wikileaks publications that followed, comprise the whole reason everyone in the U.S. who
matters, everyone with power, wants Julian Assange dead. They also want him hated. Generating that hate is the process we're watching today.
"Everyone" in this case includes every major newspaper that published and received awards
for publishing Wikileaks material; all major U.S. televised media outlets; and all
"respectable" U.S. politicians -- including, of course, Hillary Clinton, who was rumored (though
unverifiably) to have said, "Can't we just drone this guy?"
Yes, Julian Assange the person can be a giant douche even to his supporters, as this exchange
reported by Intercept writer Micah Lee attests. Nevertheless, it's not for being a
douche that the Establishment state wants him dead; that state
breeds, harbors and honors douches everywhere in the world . They want him dead for
publishing videos like these.
Please watch it. The footage shows not only murder, but bloodlust and conscienceless
brutality, so much of it in fact that this became one of the main reasons Chelsea Manning
leaked it in the first place. As she
said at her court-martial : "The most alarming aspect of the video for me, was the
seemingly delight of bloodlust they [the pilots] appeared to have. They dehumanized the
individuals they were engaging with, and seemed to not value human life in referring to them as
'dead bastards,' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers."
The Wikileaks page for the video is here . A transcript is here .
This was done in our name, to "keep us safe." This continues to be done every day that we
and our allies are at "war" in the Middle East.
Bodies pile on bodies as this continues. The least we can do, literally the least, is to
witness and acknowledge their deaths.
Neoliberal corruption in full display. As we see forms of nepotism evolve with time...
Notable quotes:
"... Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem. And just like his Ukraine scandal , it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries. ..."
"... Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now Secret Empires discovered that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5 billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the New York Post . ..."
"... Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned entities. ..."
"... Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner ..."
"... It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers . ..."
"... It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs. ..."
"... The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont. ..."
"... "We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive, who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous." ..."
"... Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal. ..."
"... The vice president was bringing with him highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy. ..."
"... The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any background or experience in the energy sector. - New York Post ..."
"... Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world. ..."
Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem.
And just like his
Ukraine scandal
, it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries.
Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the
New York Post .
" If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son -- who has scant experience in private
equity -- clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that's because it is " -
Peter Schweizer
Perhaps this is why Joe Biden - now on the 2020 campaign trail - said last week that China wasn't a threat.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took a shot at Biden's comment during a speech at the Claremont Institute's 40th anniversary gala,
saying "Look how both parties now are on guard against the threat that China presents to America -- maybe except Joe Biden."
Back to Hunter...
Schweizer connects the dots, writing that "without the aid of subpoena power, here's what we know :"
Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned
entities.
The primary operation was Rosemont Seneca Partners - an investment firm founded in 2009 and controlled by Hunter Biden, John
Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz, and Heniz's longtime associate Devon Archer. The trio began making deals "through a series of overlapping
entities" under Rosemont.
In less than a year, Hunter Biden and Archer met with top Chinese officials in China , and partnered with the Thornton Group
- a Massachusetts-based consultancy headed by James Bulger - son of famed mob hitman James "Whitey" Bulger.
According to the Thornton Group's Chinese-language website, Chinese executives "extended their warm welcome" to the "Thornton
Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden."
Officially, the China meets were to "explore the possibility of commercial cooperation and opportunity," however details of
the meeting were not published to the English-language version of the website.
"The timing of this meeting was also notable. It occurred just hours before Hunter Biden's father, the vice president, met
with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington as part of the Nuclear Security Summit ," according to Schweizer.
Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two
to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial
behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of
investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner .
It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the
son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers .
Chris Heinz claims neither he nor Rosemont Seneca Partners, the firm he had part ownership of, had any role in the deal with
Bohai Harvest. Nonetheless, Biden, Archer and the Rosemont name became increasingly involved with China.
Archer became the vice chairman of Bohai Harvest, helping oversee some of the fund's investments. -
New York Post
National Security implications
As Schweizer also notes, BHR became an "anchor investor" in the IPO of China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN) in December 2014.
The state-owned energy company is involved with the construction of nuclear reactors.
In April 2016, CGN was charged by the US Justice Department with stealing nuclear secrets from the United States , which prosecutors
warned could cause "significant damage to our national security." CNG was interested in sensitive, American-made nuclear components
that resembled those used on US nuclear submarines, according to experts.
More China dealings
It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government
for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such
as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs.
Also in December 2014, a Chinese state-backed conglomerate called Gemini Investments Limited was negotiating and sealing deals
with Hunter Biden's Rosemont on several fronts. That month, it made a $34 million investment into a fund managed by Rosemont.
The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was
buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager
to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont.
"Rosemont, with its comprehensive real-estate platform and superior performance history, was precisely the investment opportunity
Gemini Investments was looking for in order to invest in the US real estate market," said Li Ming, chairman of Sino-Ocean Land Holdings
Limited and Gemini Investments. "We look forward to a strong and successful partnership."
That partnership planned to use Chinese money to scoop up US properties.
"We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive,
who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous."
Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation
of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee
of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal.
Tying it back to Ukraine
While we have previously reported on the Bidens' adventures in Ukraine, Schweizer connects the dots rather well here ...
Consider the facts. On April 16, 2014, White House records show that Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's business partner in the Rosemont
Seneca deals, made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. Five days later, on April 21, Joe
Biden landed in Kiev for a series of high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials . The vice president was bringing with him
highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry
and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping
more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy.
The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas
company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any
background or experience in the energy sector. -
New York Post
Hunter was paid as much as $50,000 per month while Burisma was under investigation by officials in both Ukraine and elsewhere.
Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired
his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma
Holdings.
Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting
the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
Joe Biden says that he had no idea Hunter was on the board of Burisma (for two years after he joined), and that the two never
spoke about the Burisma investigation. The former VP claims that Shokin's removal was required due to his mishandling of several
cases in Ukraine.
As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very
potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world.
Biden is another scumbag Democrat Lawyer who's the original 'pay for play' politician...A 40+ year history in Political Office
with Zero accomplishments except enriching himself and his family...A complete fraud and hypocrite liar.....Lawyers should have
never been allowed to run for Office at any level.....Look at all the corruption that has been and is being exposed at the different
bureaucracies...Virtually all the corruption has been willfully committed by Lawyers....Pathetic....
Interesting.... I put: "The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow
an elected President because he stands in " the way of "profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected
councils and retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
But came out:The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow an elected
President because he stands in the profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected councils and
retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
To make it sound as if it is Trump profiting.... By no means is that true... Its the " long term" Washington officals that
have been profiting. Not a possible 8 year President.
My phone also wont let me thumbs up people i would like to but only a few and also replying is " verboten".
These algorhythms and blocks and censorship is an abuse of constitutional rights which is bad enough, but even worse is that
these rights got monopolized by various corporations who bought stock in facebook/ googles options that was stolen from Leader
technologies source code ( which Mark zukerberg couldnt write on a good day... He is a front guy and again we have British privy
council involed with Clegg head of facebook now voice for Mark... Because Mark is a cut out).
This whole social media internet thing has been hijacked and weaponized by Washingtons same people as Dossier scandel... James
Chandeler attorney and backstaber of Leader technology.
See leader technology vs facebook..... But i digress.
Michael T. McKibben's career spans two phases: international Christian music ministry, and technology innovation. In 2006,
he was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for what is now called "social networking."
Biden & Kerry aren't the only ones with a China problem. "Secret Empires" also listed Mitch McConnell having a huge China problem
through his wife's shipping company. I bet he doesn't run for re-election. Winning.
they all own one another - that's the essence of the problem in politics. and why they have tried so hard to get that outsider,
trump, out of the country club.
China funded Bill Clinton's election campaigns through James Riady, an Indonesian Chinese man involved in hard drug smuggling
and arms trafficking. The money was laundered through Little Rock banks and corporations. (See Victor Thorn's Hillary and Bill
, all three volumes.)
"Come on man! This is a joke! He's my son and he's a great buddy. I mean yeah he was drummed out of the Naval Reserve because
of his cocaine habit, but come on man, you know, everybody does it! Just ask my good friend Barack, he's a clean, good looking
darkie whose done his share of blow. And yeah Hunter fucked his dead brother's widow, but come on man! Have you seen her ****
and ***. I might have made a move on her myself, but hey man I'm married."
Joe Biden, From the endless Fear and Mongering Presidential campaign of 2020.
IRS/SEC/FBI are not investigatory agencies. They are barrier agencies. They protect the anointed, letting them do as they wish,
and stomp on anyone else who tries to get in on the gravy train.
Sociopaths are the reason all governments, regardless of the particular 'ism', eventually fail...
Looking at human history, fascism is the most common form of government for humans. At least it is the most honest - that the
sociopaths are ******* everyone else.... These days we try to hide it by lofty idealism that is incompatible with a predator/prey
real world.....
Representative democracy, socialism and communism all fail and all fail for the same reason - sociopaths...
We should be honest with ourselves that there is a small, but statistically significant percentage of the human population
that are sociopaths (and more are being born every generation). We can call them predators and we are the prey...any concentration
of power attracts sociopaths regardless of the fancy label we put on the political system. Within a short time the system is inundated
with sociopaths who invariably game the system to death for their own individual benefit....
Don't like the reality in which you find yourself? Stop voting for sociopaths, stop giving them power...
What political party or system even acknowledge the sociopath problem? That's right, none...so don't expect anything to change
after the reset...the pleubs will chose a new sociopath for their leader, who will **** them, and things will go on as they always
have...
Only way to combat this is to decentralize power as much as possible...this doesn't solve the sociopath problem, but it does
spread them out and keeps them from ganging up together to **** over the peasants...but I won't hold my breath....
Is this a good time to take a look at 1) Front Men 2) Front Companies 3) Shell Companies 4) Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV/SPE)
5) Offshore Accounts, Offshore Donations, Offshore Campaign or PAC or Party Contributions, Paradise Papers, Panama Papers 6) USA
as Tax Haven for foreign accounts 7) USA as an Empire 8) The Rise Of The Fourth Reich notes in book by Jim Marrs
@FB Yeah brother that
POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to
anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced
to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
@SeekerofthePresence
Thank you your comment is very much appreciated. But I'm definitely not a spokesman for moral truth, just the truth. I just watch
in amazement from Mexico at what the US government has become. A den of the most vile people ever assembled in the world far worse
than the people that demanded the crucification of Jesus Christ. We just went through a serious political conversion, but the
people had to hit the streets for it to succeed. I just don't think the American people feel they are in a do or die situation,
and they couldn't more wrong.
U.S. Foreign Policy used to have only two instruments in
dealing with rest of the world, namely carrots and sticks. Since the fall of Soviet Union and
certainly after 9/11, only sticks remain. Now the World including the so-called allies are
getting tired of the threats and start ignoring the Empire, hence the diminishing
effectiveness, paving the way for polymorphic World. This transition is fraught with dangers as
pointed out by the Author.
Lovely post by Ret. Col. Douglas Macgregor on the end of empire:
"John Bolton is the problem"
"Trump's national security adviser is getting dangerous particularly to the president's
ideals"
Douglas Macgregor https://spectator.us/john-bolton-problem/
Could also be titled, "How to Exhaust an Empire."
Sun Tzu warned of the same demise in the "Art of War."
Didn't they used to teach that book at West Point?
@El Dato
And also the 90 minute Trump-Putin phone call, where Venezuela was the main subject
From the way I understand Trump's comments afterward, it seems the military option is off
the table the two presidents agreed that humanitarian aid is the priority
This is great news I have to give Trump credit here Justin Raimondo presciently opined a
week ago that Trump may have been giving the 'walrus' just enough rope on Venezuela to hang
himself
I have to wonder what Vlad whispered in carrot top's ear
When we take a close look at the American Government and it's elected officials, we can only
come to one conclusion. The US is a thriving criminal enterprise that uses force to get what
they want. The military's role is that of enforcers and the US President is no different than
a Mafia Don. In no other time in US history has Government and Organized Criminal Gangs been
so indistinguishable. George H.W. Bush with his New World Order announcements, his CIA drug
dealing operations and military invasion of Panama to steal the drug cartel's money deposited
in that county's banks, came close. Bill Clinton working with George H.W. Bush protecting
drug shipments smuggled into Mena, AK, the cover up of murdered witnesses and numerous sexual
assault allegations also came pretty close.
But when George W. Bush, Dick Chaney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld came into power,
that was a Mafia if there was ever one. That group of criminals stole more money and murdered
more people than any criminal organization in history. They even conned the American people
into believing some rag-heads in Afghanistan hiding in caves did it. It was the first time
since Pancho Villa that anyone attacked the US on its own soil. Not only did they steal all
the gold stored in bank vaults located in the Twin Towers, but they put money on the stock
market. In true gangster fashion the next move was to retaliate against the Muslim Mafia who
was fingered by Mayer Lanski (Benjamin Nuttenyahoo) and their own paid snitches (MSM). It was
time to hit mattresses and send their enforcers to get payback so the Purple Gang (Israel)
can take over their territory.
There is a big difference between the US Government and the Mafia when it comes to war,
the Mafia adheres to a strict code of ethics, they do not target their enemies families.
In 2016 the American people elected a true gangster from New York city. A known con man, a
swindler, a tax evader and known associate of the criminal underground. A man with numerous
court cases and 23 accusations of sexual assault. A man who was screwing a porn star while
his wife was given birth. A man who's mentor was Roy Cohen a mob attorney and practicing
homosexual who died of AIDS. A man that surrounded himself with the most perverted group of
people in New York such as: Roger Stone a well known swinger and gay pride participant. Paul
Manafort a convicted criminal and swinger who attended the same clubs as Stone along with
their wives. They liked to watch their wives get screwed by other men. Lets not forget John
Bolton who was exposed by Larry Flint for also being a swinger. His ex-wife accused him of
forcing her to perform sex acts with multiple men at the same clubs the other 2 cuckolds
attended. A Russian agent once commented that the best place to find government people to
blackmail was the New York swingers scene.
Jeffery Epstein tops the list of perverted friends of Donald Trump. Epstein is the worst
kind of perverted human being. The predator pedophile that uses his money to lure young girls
into his sick world. Epstein holds the key to uncovering the nation wide pedophile ring that
include some of the most famous people in the US. This is Trump's Mafia, a Mafia not like the
Gambinos or Luchesis. A Mafia full of Perverts, Criminals, Pedophiles and Cuckolds. These are
just a few of the people in Trump's circle of friends. If these are your leaders, what does
that say about the American people!
My dad used to tell me tell me who you hang around with, and I'll tell you who you are!
Every single person in DC government is compromised! And this incompetent Mafia of Perverts
want you to believe that Madurro is a corrupt leader and Iran is a threat to the US!
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
There were some reports quoted in Alexander Mercouris has a much rosier
view of Trump's intentions
that the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran. The Pentagon has found
its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't defend themselves, and that's not Iran.
@Endgame Napoleon Americans
probably don't understand Russia. Americans don't even mostly understand their own history. "
and they inquire why they hate us .
Don Bacon | May 11, 2019 11:56:00 AM | 23
@ ToivoS 16
the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran.
Yes, for the reasons I noted in my 4 above. The Pentagon has found its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't
defend themselves, and that's not Iran. The recent US defeats in Iraq and Syria also sent a message. So the Pentagon is now content
with aerial bombing of Afghanistan and Somalia while spending big bucks to (supposedly) contend with Russia and China, which of
course is also out of the question when it comes to execution.
The Pentagon materiel acquisition system is riddled with corruption and poor management, the army is handicapped by low recruiting,
drugs and obesity, the navy suffers from performance and maintenance problems, and the air force has been decimated by personnel
problems and by an overly zealous procurement of useless F-35 prototypes. So bombers dropping bombs on villages in poor countries
is as far as the Pentagon can go.
On May 14/2019 Pompeo is to meet Lavrov in Sochi! ..."Pompeo is scheduled to meet with Putin and Lavrov, the Russian foreign
minister, in Sochi on May 14 to “discuss the full range of bilateral and multilateral challenges.” Before that, he will meet with
officials at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow."...
A messenger boy on the errant trip overseas from his handlers. Something to tell in person, mano a mano no less.
..."“On May 13, he will arrive in Russia to meet with his team at U.S. Embassy Moscow before meeting with U.S. business leaders
and U.S. exchange alumni. Secretary Pompeo will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,” State Department spokeswoman
Morgan Ortagus said."... That's rich, a nobody faces an unknown.
This was true about Iraq war. This is true about Venezuela and Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books , Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. ..."
"... Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. ..."
"... Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back to 1959 . ..."
"... Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.) ..."
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small c rappy little country and
throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.
- Michael
Ledeen , holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
Actually, the U.S. had been beating Iraq's head against the wall for a dozen years, with
sanctions and bombing. The
sanctions alone killed over a million Iraqis, far more than have been done in by weapons of
mass destruction throughout history. But Ledeen's indiscreet remark, delivered at an AEI
conference and reported by Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online , does capture some
of what the war on Iraq is about.
And what is this "business" Ledeen says we mean? Oil, of course, of which more in a bit.
Ditto construction contracts for Bechtel. But it's more than that - nothing less than the
desire, often expressed with little shame nor euphemism, to run the world. Is there anything
new about that?
The answer is, of course, yes and no. In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books ,
Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had
excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when
earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. Anderson, who's edited New Left Review for years, but who has almost no
connection to actual politics attributed this strange explosion not to a popular outburst of
anti-imperialism, but to a cultural antipathy to the Bush administration.
Presumably that antipathy belongs to the realm of the " merely cultural ," and is of no great
political significance to Anderson. But it should be. U.S. culture has long been afflicted with
a brutally reactionary and self-righteous version of Christian fundamentalism, but it's never
had such influence over the state. The president thinks himself on a mission from God, the
Attorney General opens the business day with a prayer meeting, and the Pentagon's idea of a
Good Friday service is to invite Franklin Graham , who's pronounced Islam a "wicked and
evil religion," to deliver the homily, in which he promised that Jesus was returning soon. For
the hard core, the Iraq war is a sign of the end times, and the hard core
are in power.
Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also
recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. Though the
administration has been discreet, many of its private sector intellectuals
have been using the words "imperialism" and " empire " openly and with
glee. Not everyone of the millions who marched against the war in the months before it started
was a conscious anti-imperialist, but they all sensed the intensification, and were further
alarmed.
While itself avoiding the difficult word "empire," the Bush administration has been rather
clear about its long-term aims. According to their official national security strategy and the
documents published by the Project
for a New American Century (which served as an administration-in-waiting during the Clinton
years) their goal is to assure U.S. dominance and prevent the emergence of any rival powers.
First step in that agenda is the remaking of the Middle East - and they're quite open
about this as well. We all know the countries that are on the list; the only remaining issues
are sequence and strategy. But that's not the whole of the agenda. They're essentially
promising a permanent state of war, some overt, some covert, but one that could take
decades.
Imperial returns?
Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its
public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction
have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues
believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were
really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear
reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the
billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington
supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as
many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back
to 1959
.
Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why
it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much
tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.)
It now looks
fairly certain that the U.S. will, in some form, claim some large piece of Iraq's oil. The
details need to be worked out; clarifying the legal situation could be very complicated, given
the rampantly illegal nature of the regime change. Rebuilding Iraq's oil industry will be very
expensive and could take years. There could be some nice profits down the line for big oil
companies - billions a year - but the broader economic benefits for the U.S. aren't so clear. A
U.S.-dominated Iraq could pump heavily and undermine OPEC, but too low an oil price would wreck
the domestic U.S. oil industry, something the Bush gang presumably cares
about. Mexico would be driven into penury, which could mean another debt crisis and lots of
human traffic heading north over the Rio Grande. Lower oil prices would be a boon to most
industrial economies, but they'd give the U.S. no special advantage over its principal economic
rivals.
It's
sometimes said that U.S. dominance of the Middle East gives Washington a chokehold over oil
supplies to Europe and Japan. But how might that work? Deep production cutbacks and price
spikes would hurt everyone. Targeted sales restrictions would be the equivalent of acts of war,
and if the U.S. is willing to take that route, a blockade would be a lot more efficient. The
world oil market is gigantic and complex, and it's not clear how a tap could be turned in
Kirkuk that would shut down the gas pumps in Kyoto or Milan.
Writers like David Harvey argue
that the U.S. is trying to compensate for its eroding economic power by asserting its military
dominance. Maybe. It's certainly fascinating that Bush's unilateralism has to be financed by
gobs of foreign money - and he gets his tax cuts, he'll have to order up even bigger gobs. But
it's hard to see what rival threatens the U.S. economically; neither the EU nor Japan is
thriving. Nor is there any evidence that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about
economic policy, domestic or international, or even thinking at all. The economic staff is
mostly dim and marginal. What really seems to excite this gang of supposed conservatives is the
exercise of raw state power.
Jealous rivals
And while the Bushies want to prevent the emergence of imperial rivals , they may only be encouraging that. Sure, the EU
is badly divided within itself; it has a hard enough time picking a top central banker , let alone deciding on a common
foreign policy. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is already semi-apologizing to Bush for
his intemperate language in criticizing the war - not that Bush has started taking his calls.
But over the longer term, some kind of political unification is Europe's only hope for acting
like a remotely credible world power. It's tempting to read French and German objections to the
Iraq war as emerging not from principle, but from the wounded narcissism of former imperial
powers rendered marginal by American might. Separately, they'll surely hang. But a politically
united Europe could, with time, come to challenge U.S. power, just as the euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
(Speaking of the euro, there's a theory circulating on the net that the U.S. went to war
because Iraq wanted to price its oil in euros, not dollars. That's grossly overheated
speculation. More on this and related issues when LBO begins an investigation of the
political economy of oil in the next issue.)
An even more interesting rivalry scenario would involve an alliance of the EU and Russia.
Russia is no longer the wreck it was for most of the 1990s. The economy has been growing and
the mildly authoritarian Putin has imposed political stability. Russia, which has substantial
oil interests in Iraq that are threatened by U.S. control, strongly opposed the war, and at
least factions within the Russian intelligence agency were reportedly feeding information
unfriendly to the U.S. to the website Iraqwar.ru . There's a lot recommending an EU-Russia
alliance; Europe could supply technology and finance, and Russia could supply energy, and
together they could constitute at least an embryonic counterweight to U.S. power.
So the U.S. may not get out of Iraq what the Bush administration is hoping for. It certainly
can't want democracy in Iraq or the rest of the region, since free votes could well lead to
nationalist and Islamist governments who don't view ExxonMobil as the divine agent that Bush seems to. A
New York Times piece celebrated the outbreak of democracy in Basra, while conceding that
the mayor is a former Iraqi admiral appointed by the British. The lead writers of the new
constitution are likely to be American law professors; Iraqis, of course, aren't up to the task
themselves.
Certainly the appointment of Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner (Ret.) - one of the
few superannuated brass not to have enjoyed a consulting contract with a major TV network - to
be the top civilian official guiding the postwar reconstruction of Iraq speaks volumes. A
retired general is barely a civilian, and Garner's most recent job was as president of
SY Technology , a military
contractor that worked with Israeli security in developing the Arrow antimissile system. He
loves antimissile systems; after the first Gulf War, he enthused about the Patriot's
performance with claims that turned out to be nonsense. He's on record as having praised
Israel's handling of the intifada. If that's his model of how to handle restive subject
populations, there's lots of trouble ahead.
lightness
In the early days of the war, when things weren't going so well for the "coalition,"
it was said that the force was too light. But after the sandstorm cleared and the snipers
were mowed down, that alleged lightness became a widely praised virtue. But that force
was light only by American standards: 300,000 troops; an endless rain of Tomahawks,
JDAMs, and MOABs; thousands of vehicles, from Humvees to Abrams tanks; hundreds of
aircraft, from Apaches to B-1s; several flotillas of naval support - and enormous
quantities of expensive petroleum products. It takes five gallons of fuel just to start
an Abrams tank, and after that it gets a mile per gallon. And filling one up is no
bargain. Though the military buys fuel at a wholesale price of 84¢ a gallon, after
all the expenses of getting it to the front lines are added in, the final cost is about
$150 a gallon. That's a steal compared to Afghanistan, where fuel is helicoptered in,
pushing the cost to $600/gallon. Rummy's "lightness" is of the sort that only a $10
trillion economy can afford.
The Bush gang doesn't even try to keep up appearances, handing out contracts for Iraq's
reconstruction to U.S. firms even before the shooting stopped, and guarding only the oil and
interior ministries against looters. If Washington gets its way, Iraq will be rebuilt according
to the fondest dreams of the Heritage Foundation staff, with the educational system reworked by
an American contractor, the TV programmed by the Pentagon, the ports run by a rabidly antiunion
firm, the police run by the Texas-based military contractor Dyncorp , and the oil taken out of
state hands and appropriately privatized.
That's the way they'd like it to be. But the sailing may not be so smooth. It looks like
Iraqis are viewing the Americans as occupiers, not liberators. It's going to be hard enough to
remake Iraq that taking on Syria or Iran may be a bit premature. But that doesn't mean they
won't try. It's a cliché of trade negotiations that liberalization is like riding a
bicycle - you have to keep riding forward or else you'll fall over. The same could be said of
an imperial agenda: if you want to remake the world, or a big chunk of it, there's little time
to pause and catch your breath, since doubt or opposition could gain the upper hand. Which
makes stoking that opposition more
urgent than ever.
Losing it all
There's a feeling around that Bush is now politically invulnerable . Certainly the atmosphere
is one of almost coercive patriotism. That mood was nicely illustrated by an incident in
Houston in mid-March. A teenager attending a rodeo failed to stand along with the rest of the
crowd during a playing of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American," a dreadful country song
that has become a kind of private-sector national anthem for the yahoo demographic, thanks to
its truculent unthinking jingoism. A patriot standing behind the defiantly seated teen started
taunting him, tugging on his ear as an additional provocation. The two ended up in a fight, and
then under arrest.
There's a lot of that going around, for sure. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get disinvited
from events, websites nominate
traitors for trial by military tribunal, and talk radio hosts organize CD-smashings. But things
aren't hopeless. A close analysis of Greenwood's text might suggest why. The song's core
argument is contained in its two most famous lines: "I'm proud to be an American/where at least
I know I'm free." But the oft-overlooked opening reads: "If tomorrow all the things were
gone/I'd worked for all my life," the singer would still be a grateful patriot. That's
precisely the condition lots of Americans find themselves in. More than two million jobs have
disappeared in the last two years. Millions of Americans have seen their retirement savings
wiped out by the bear market, and over a million filed for bankruptcy last year. Most states and
cities are experiencing their worst fiscal crises since the 1930s, with massive service cuts
and layoffs imminent. In the song, such loss doesn't matter, but reality is often less
accommodating than a song.
As the nearby graphs show, W's ratings are much lower than his father's at the end of Gulf
War I, and his disapproval ratings much higher. Their theocratic and repressive agenda is
deeply unpopular with large parts of the U.S. population. Spending scores of billions on
destroying and rebuilding Iraq while at home health clinics are closing and teachers working
without pay is potentially incendiary. Foreign adventures have never been popular with the
American public (much to the distress of the ruling elite). An peace movement that could draw
the links among warmongering, austerity, and repression has great political potential. Just a
month or two ago, hundreds of thousands were marching in American streets to protest the
imminent war. Though that movement now looks a bit dispirited and demobilized, it's unlikely
that that kind of energy will just disappear into the ether.
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
Neoconservativsm is a distinct ideology brought into being by U of Chicago professor Leo
Strauss and his ex-Trotskyist acolytes. It is American exceptionalism on steroids and its
core tenet is that American society needs elite rulers to guide the retarded masses who are
too stupid to know what their best interests are.
To keep them in line the masses need to be fed grandiose myths they can believe in and
rally around.
This is where America the Good as the shining beacon on the hill, slaying evil wherever it
is found to make the world safe for freedom comes in.
George H.W. Bush, Dubya's daddy, called them "the crazies in the basement."
First, the neocons and some Israeli strategists had long seen the Shia as "outsiders"
opposed to the mainstream Arab (read: Sunni) nationalist current, and over decades had
developed an affinity for the Shia as potential allies in the region, much as they saw the
Lebanese Maronite Christians and other minorities in the Arab world.
"There existed a supercilious 'Shiaphilia' among certain academics, Iraqi political
exiles, policy wonks and policymakers linked to the Bush administration," wrote Ahmed
Hashim, author of Insurgency and Counter-insurgency in Iraq and a professor of strategic
studies at the U.S. Naval War College. At the American Enterprise Institute and among
partisans of Chalabi's INC, it was routine to speak of "de-Arabizing" Iraq after the fall
of Saddam Hussein, a favorite theme of the INC's favored intellectual, Kanan Makiya.
Second, the neocons had been seduced by Chalabi, who convinced them that Iraq's Shia
leaders would abandon their ties to Iran and rush to embrace a secular, pro-American
political culture. Vali Nasr, author of The Shia Revival and a professor at the Naval
Postgraduate School, attributes this to the neocons' "reading of the Israeli experience in
the invasion of south Lebanon in 1982. That's why they had this vocabulary of 'They're
going to greet us with flowers,' because that's what happened in south Lebanon -- the
Israeli army was greeted by Shia villagers with flowers and rice."
Third, the neocons believed that moderate, nonpolitical Shia in Iraq would establish
Najaf, the Iraqi shrine city that is the holiest place in Shia Islam, as a new center of
gravity that would overpower Qom, the clerical powerhouse city in Iran. They believed that
the "good Shia," supposedly "quietist" ayatollahs such as Ali al-Sistani, would emerge to
present a frontal challenge to Iran's militant "bad Shia," followers of the Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini. A leading proponent of this theory was David Wurmser, a radical neocon
who is currently Vice President Cheney's top Middle East adviser. "They deluded themselves
into thinking that these links operated only one way -- with Najaf undermining Qom," says
Nasr. "They assumed that it was Iraq that would influence Iran, not that Iran would
influence Iraq."
"... Particularly shameless was Florida Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, who went on Tucker Carlson's show to peddle half-baked innuendo as brazen as anything claimed in the lead up to the Iraq War. If Maduro's government survived, he claimed, it would be "a green light, an open door for the Russians and for the Chinese and for others to increase their activity against our national security interest right here in our hemisphere." ..."
Russiagate hysteria is already being used to push Trump into an act of armed aggression against Venezuela. It's a disastrous result
of a pointless delusion.
One of the things Russiagate skeptics found unsettling about the frenzy over supposed "collusion" was that it made war more likely.
Not only did the now-debunked conspiracy theories and resulting political climate push officials into a more aggressive posture toward
Russia, but once the Kremlin was returned to its status as the foreign policy elite's Big Bad, it was easy to imagine a situation
where the threat of a Russian bogeyman could be used to justify any number of unrelated foreign adventures. This appears to be exactly
what's happening with
Venezuela
right now.
First there was Fareed Zakaria, who two months ago
tried to goad Trump into attacking Venezuela by pointing to Russia's support for Maduro. "Putin's efforts seem designed to taunt
the United States," he said (it might also have something to do with the
billions of dollars Russia
sank into the country), making reference to the Monroe Doctrine. He asked if Washington would "allow Moscow to make a mockery of
another American red line," warning that "if Washington does not back its words with deeds" the country could become another Syria.
Zakaria concluded: "will Venezuela finally be the moment when Trump finally ends his appeasement?"
More recently, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
charged that Russia had "invaded" Venezuela before claiming the Kremlin had dissuaded Maduro from fleeing the country at the
last moment, something Pompeo has provided no evidence for but much of the media has treated as fact since.
National Security Advisor
John Bolton has
said that "this is our hemisphere"
and "not where the Russians ought to be interfering." Democratic Sen. Doug Jones
echoed this sentiment on CNN, praising the Trump
administration for saying "all options are on the table" to deal with Venezuela, something he suggested may have to be acted on "if
there is some more intervention [by] Russia."
The national press, taking a break from warning about Trump being a dangerous authoritarian, has been
demanding to know why he hasn't been more aggressive toward the country over this.
Particularly shameless was Florida Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, who went on Tucker Carlson's show to
peddle half-baked
innuendo as brazen as anything claimed in the lead up to the Iraq War. If Maduro's government survived, he claimed, it would be "a
green light, an open door for the Russians and for the Chinese and for others to increase their activity against our national security
interest right here in our hemisphere."
He went on to claim that Russia had already placed nuclear missiles in the country, and that it could lead to a Cuban missile
crisis-like conflict. There is no evidence this is true, and Díaz-Balart didn't provide any.
Of course, no coverage of the Trump administration's relations with Russia would be complete without a trip into Rachel Maddow's
fractured psyche. After Trump repeated Putin's personal assurances that he wasn't interested in getting involved in Venezuela --
contradicting Pompeo and Bolton -- Maddow addressed the two
officials :
Hey John Bolton, hey Mike Pompeo, are you guys enjoying your jobs right now? You each thought your job this week was to name
and shame and threaten and counter Russian government involvement in Venezuela while saber-rattling about how everybody else better
get out of the way because the US is really mad about it. Guys, turns out your actual job is figuring out how and why you work
for a president who says whatever Vladimir Putin tells him.
Maddow went on to express her sympathy for one of the
most unhinged warmongers
in a city teeming with them ("I mean, John Bolton, God bless you"), and again seemed to suggest that Bolton's "job" of "push[ing]
Russia back because of what they're doing in Venezuela" was the correct course of action.
It's now clear there is nothing -- not Trump's years-long belligerence toward Russia's Venezuelan ally, not his
near-constant
bellicosity toward Russia since taking office, not
Robert Mueller's failure
to indict a single person for conspiring with Russia, not even his report's explicit and implicit denial that any such conspiracy
existed -- that will make these people give up the talking point that Trump is secretly in bed with Putin. If Mueller himself denied
it, they would claim he was a Russian in disguise. It's simply too convenient an attack line, and too professionally embarrassing
to admit otherwise.
There is also an Orwellian level of doublethink going on here. Russia, a Venezuelan ally, has sent personnel and equipment to
the country with the consent of its government at a time when it's being threatened by multiple hostile regional powers. Meanwhile
the US, one of those hostile powers, has for years been
laying siege to the country
and killing its people, trying to destabilize and oust its leadership, and even threatening to invade it.
Yet according to the media and political class, it's Russia's actions that are an unacceptable intrusion into another country's
affairs -- an "invasion," even. They are holding up four fingers to your face and telling you you're seeing five.
Meanwhile, these same quarters, after spending close to three years hyperventilating about Russia's meddling in domestic US affairs
-- an "act of war," in some minds -- have now seamlessly pivoted to cheering Trump as he attempts to
engineer a change
of Venezuela's government, even calling for him to possibly attack the country. This is glaringly hypocritical, but the
Russiagate
frenzy was never about principled outrage or any sort of moral consistency.
Lastly and most significantly, the rhetoric around Venezuela is now taking on an explicitly imperialistic character, in the most
literal sense of that word. Zakaria invoked the Monroe Doctrine to urge Trump to intervene in Venezuela; National Security Advisor
John Bolton "proudly proclaim[ed]" upon
launching
a fresh round of sanctions that "the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well," and one MSNBC guest
insisted the Trump administration was "right in being completely flabbergasted" at Russia's presence in the country because "this
is our hemisphere," echoing
Bolton
.
When these figures talk about "our hemisphere," they don't mean the hemisphere in which the US happens to be located; they mean
this is literally their hemisphere. The US is the imperial power with dominion over this part of the world, and only it has
the right to interfere in the countries that populate it.
Their objection is not that an outside power is involving itself in a Latin American country's business, but that this outside
power isn't the one in Washington. The fact that the US has been doing this very thing for years in Russia's part of the world --
expanding NATO right up to its
border, sending weapons to Ukraine -- goes conveniently unmentioned.
Russiagate skeptics were criticized for being hyperbolic in
comparing that scandal to the bogus
WMD tale that led to the Iraq War; the latter, after all, killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized an entire region. But the
full consequences of Russiagate will not be felt immediately; they will unfold over time. And while floating the specter of Russia
might not work this time, expect it to be used over and over in the coming years to justify all manner of
military aggression
.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it."
― Upton Sinclair
As more evidence is being uncovered like the the Kathy Kavalec contemporaneous notes &
email to FBI on her meeting with Steele, it is getting more & more apparent that there
was a program to entrap and smear Trump as a Putin stooge by top officials in the Obama
administration, directly interfering in a presidential election.
Mueller was conflicted right from the very beginning. The fact that Strzok, Page &
Weisman were on his initial staff points to that conflict. Considering the inherent bias it
should be instructive that they could not find any evidence and had to conclude that the
Trump campaign did not collude with agents of the Russian government.
Brennan role in weaponizing dossier now became more clear.
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, Fusion GPS hiring of Nellie Ohr -- the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr -- also shows that Steele's role in producing the dossier may be exaggerated. Ohr is a Stanford Ph.D. whose expertise is Russia and she appears to be fluent in Russian. She may have conducted interviews or written parts of the dossier. ..."
"... The dossier, however, only has Steele's name on it -- helping to credential the research as an "intelligence product." ..."
"... A Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra Chalupa, told the Clinton campaign about Manafort's work for Yanukovich. "I flagged for the DNC the significance of his hire," Chalupa told CNN in July of this year. ..."
"... Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS in April, shortly after Trump hired Manafort. Manafort's role now allowed Simpson to highlight corruption that he already knew to exist, from his reporting. A line from the dossier states: ..."
"... Steele -- it notes -- had not lived or worked in Russia for nearly 25 years, but his name "at a minimum" would be useful in marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Plus, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI and could "spill secrets" to journalists. ..."
"... it is likely that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook cited Fusion GPS's work in a July 22 interview after embarrassing leaks of Democratic National Committee emails. He told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos that "some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." ..."
"... The FBI did launch an investigation into possible collusion, however, known by "only a dozen or so people at the FBI," including then-director James Comey and Peter Strzok, who was chosen to supervise the investigation. ..."
"... She said by August 2016, the CIA had "verified the key finding of the dossier" to the point that it was having "eyes only" top secret meetings with President Obama about it. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan had also briefed top lawmakers on Russian efforts to help Trump last summer and had said the CIA had limited legal ability to investigate Russian connections to Trump, prompting Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to write a public letter to the FBI -- which collects domestic intelligence -- about the threat of Russian interference. ..."
"... It appears that Brennan was briefing Reid on the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Brennan apparently sent the dossier to the White House, prompting the "eyes only" meetings. ..."
"... The Post also writes that the "material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president's daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad." ..."
"... But as Tablet asks, "if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate majority leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?" ..."
Did the Obama administration launch an investigation into the Trump campaign based solely off of unverified political opposition
research? And was that "research" dressed up and given more credibility than it should have? It appears that way
based on an
investigation of open-source information by Tablet.
The outlet's investigation begins with a June 24, 2017, Facebook post by Mary Jacoby, the wife of Glenn Simpson, the former
Wall Street Journal reporter who started Fusion GPS, the firm behind the dossier.
Jacoby, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who once shared bylines with Simpson, bragged how her husband was not getting
the credit he deserved for the dossier.
"It's come to my attention that some people still don't realize what Glenn's role was in exposing Putin's control of Donald Trump,"
she wrote on Facebook. "Let's be clear. Glenn conducted the investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn."
Until this day, the dossier is often referred to as the "Steele dossier," named after the former British spy Christopher Steele
who is believed to have authored the document.
Steele's background has been used by collusion-believers to argue that the document is credible. But Jacoby's post suggests that
Steele might not have played as big of a role in the dossier as he is given credit.
Indeed, Fusion GPS hiring of Nellie Ohr -- the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr -- also shows that Steele's
role in producing the dossier may be exaggerated. Ohr is a Stanford Ph.D. whose expertise is Russia and she appears to be fluent
in Russian. She may have conducted interviews or written parts of the dossier.
The dossier, however, only has Steele's name on it -- helping to credential the research as an "intelligence product."
Tablet also took a look at Simpson and Jacoby's work for the WSJ . In April 2007 -- in the lead-up to the 2008 election
-- they co-wrote a story about Republican links to Russians.
In that story, titled "How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington," they detail how prominent Republicans helped open doors
for "Kremlin-affiliated oligarchs and other friends of Vladimir Putin."
They reported on Viktor Yanukovich, who had paid political fixer Paul Manafort to introduce Yanukovich to powerful Washington,
DC, figures. They later reported on May 14, 2008, that Manafort's lobbying firm was escorting Yanukovich around Washington. Yanukovich
would later become president of Ukraine in 2010.
Tablet explains how their reporting may have been the origins of the Trump dossier:
So when the Trump campaign named Paul Manafort as its campaign convention manager on March 28, 2016, you can bet that Simpson
and Jacoby's eyes lit up. And as it happened, at the exact same time that Trump hired Manafort, Fusion GPS was in negotiations
with Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, to see if there was interest in the firm continuing
the opposition research on the Trump campaign they had started for the Washington Free Beacon. In addition to whatever sales pitch
Simpson might have offered about Manafort, the Clinton campaign had independent reason to believe that research into Manafort's
connections might pay some real political dividends: A Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra
Chalupa, told the Clinton campaign about Manafort's work for Yanukovich. "I flagged for the DNC the significance of his hire,"
Chalupa told CNN in July of this year.
Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS in April, shortly after Trump hired Manafort. Manafort's role now allowed Simpson to highlight
corruption that he already knew to exist, from his reporting. A line from the dossier states:
Ex-Ukrainian President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorised (sic) kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged
in western media Assures Russian President however there is no documentary evidence/trail.
Tablet notes that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would later find corruption by Manafort related to money laundering (before he
joined the Trump campaign). It also points out that Tony Podesta -- Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's brother -- worked
for Manafort at the time he represented Yanukovich. (The Podesta Group disbanded this year after those connections were made public,
and the special counsel is reportedly investigating Podesta too.)
Tablet notes that while Simpson had begun working on the dossier on Trump collusion with Russia, he was also working for a Russian
lawyer to undermine an American law called the Magnitsky Act and that Steele may have been hired to disguise that contradiction.
Steele -- it notes -- had not lived or worked in Russia for nearly 25 years, but his name "at a minimum" would be useful in
marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Plus, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI and could "spill secrets" to journalists.
Ohr -- Simpson's next hire -- also hadn't lived in Russia for decades and was "not a spy, or even a journalist." "In this world,
she was definitely an amateur," Tablet writes.
"Presumably, as a result of all the above, much of the reporting in the dossier is recognizably the kind of patter that locals
in closed or semi-closed societies engage in to impress expats -- the kind of thing you hear in a bar, or on the cab ride from the
airport to the hotel," it says.
Tablet then goes into the bad shape of U.S. intelligence on Russia -- likely making officials less skeptical of the dossier even
though, to date, they have not been able to confirm any of its allegations on collusion.
And Tablet notes that it is likely that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook cited Fusion GPS's work in a July 22 interview
after embarrassing leaks of Democratic National Committee emails. He told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos that "some experts are
now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
At that point, a tech firm had attributed the leaks to Russia but was not able to explain why. The FBI was looking at the leak
but had not yet publicly determined political motivation.
"But the DNC and Clinton campaign did have an oppo-research firm under contract that was in the middle of putting together a file
that would claim that the Russians were trying to get Trump elected," Tablet notes.
The FBI did launch an investigation into possible collusion, however, known by "only a dozen or so people at the FBI," including
then-director James Comey and Peter Strzok, who was chosen to supervise the investigation.
But by late October, they had not yet found any evidence that showed Russia was working to elect Trump. So, ten days before the
election, angry Clinton supporters and unnamed intelligence officials
spoke to
the New York Times in an October 31, 2016, story about what the investigation had found so far.
Jacoby would post that story in her June 24 Facebook post, slamming the FBI and accusing it of "ineptitude," while the CIA "hopped
to and immediately worked to verify" the dossier.
She said by August 2016, the CIA had "verified the key finding of the dossier" to the point that it was having "eyes only"
top secret meetings with President Obama about it.
Thus, while the document could not be verified and was not used in any intelligence assessment because of its inability to be
verified, it was now the topic of meetings with the president.
CIA Director John Brennan had also briefed top lawmakers on Russian efforts to help Trump last summer and had said the CIA
had limited legal ability to investigate Russian connections to Trump, prompting Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to write a public letter
to the FBI -- which collects domestic intelligence -- about the threat of Russian interference.
Reid then wrote another letter to Comey after he reopened the investigation into Clinton's emails -- accusing him of letting Trump
slide.
"It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his
top advisers, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every
opportunity," he wrote.
"I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public and yet, you continue to resist calls
to inform the public of this critical information."
That "information" Reid was referring to was the dossier, according to Tablet:
According to David Corn's Oct. 31, 2016, article in Mother Jones , the Nevada lawmaker was referencing the findings
of "a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence."
Corn now explains that the "former Western intelligence officer -- who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters
and who now works with a U.S. firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients" is Christopher Steele. According
to Corn, Steele said that "in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources,
contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump."
It appears that Brennan was briefing Reid on the Steele dossier.
Brennan apparently sent the dossier to the White House, prompting the "eyes only" meetings.
"An envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried 'eyes
only' instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides," the
Washington
Post
reported on June 23, 2017.
"So was the Steele dossier in the envelope?" Tablet asks.
The Post writes that inside that envelope "was an intelligence bombshell" -- a report drawn from sourcing deep inside
the Russian government that detained Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the presidential race,
defeat or at least damage Hillary Clinton, and help elect Donald Trump.
The Post also writes that the "material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president's
daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad."
But as Tablet asks, "if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate majority
leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?"
Tablet writes:
Sources and methods are the crown jewels of the American intelligence community. And yet someone has just told a major American
newspaper about a "report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that captured Putin's specific instructions."
If the CIA had a human intelligence source that close to Putin, publication of the Post article could have exposed that
source -- doing incalculable damage to American national security. He and many of his loved ones would then have presumably died
horrible deaths.
Or, as Mary Jacoby surmised, it was her husband's handiwork that landed on the president's desk.
Newly released evidence suggests Ukraine played key role in creating
Trump–Russia collusion narrative at behest of Obama officials
As Ukraine underwent dramatic changes
in 2014, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden played a critical role in the Obama
administration's involvement in the revolution that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych.
Following the revolution, Biden would use his influence to help force the creation of the
troubled National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). Notably, during the 2016 election campaign,
information leaked from NABU about Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort that helped to create
the false narrative that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election.
Biden also would use the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to
pressure Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor general. At the time, the
prosecutor had been investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas giant that had appointed
Biden's son, Hunter, as a board member.
President Donald
Trump 's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, recently said, "Keep your eye on Ukraine." In his
comments to the
Washington Examiner , Giuliani highlighted the "plot to create an investigation of
President Trump, based on a false charge of conspiracy with the Russians to affect the 2016
elections."
Obama Administration's 2014 Involvement
On or shortly before Feb. 4, 2014, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary for European and
Eurasian affairs in the Obama State Department, had a conversation with the U.S. ambassador to
Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, which was intercepted and leaked .
In the call, Nuland and Pyatt appeared to be discussing the ouster of Yanukovych and the
installation of opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk as prime minister.
Nuland favored opposition leader Yatsenyuk over his main rivals Vitali Klitschko and Oleh
Tyahnybok, telling Pyatt: "I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the
governing experience. He's the what he needs is Klitschko and Tyahnybok on the outside."
Toward the end of the conversation , then-Vice President Biden
was discussed as being willing to help cement the changeover in Ukraine:
Geoffrey Pyatt: "We want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come
out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to
Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into
place."
Victoria Nuland: "So, on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [Biden's national security
adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need Biden, and I said
probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's
willing."
Nuland and Pyatt met with Ukrainian opposition leaders Klitschko and Yatsenyuk, along with
then-President Yanukovych, just days later on Feb. 7, 2014.
Events then moved swiftly. On Feb. 22, 2014, Yanukovych was
removed as president of Ukraine and fled to Russia. On Feb. 27, 2014, Yatsenyuk, the
candidate favored by Nuland, was installed as prime minister of Ukraine.
Klitschko was left out. Notably, Yatsenyuk would later resign
in April 2016 amid corruption accusations.
Biden's Involvement in Ukraine
In April, Biden would get personally involved, as would his son, Hunter. On April 18, 2014,
Hunter Biden was
appointed to the board of directors for Burisma–one of the largest natural gas
companies in Ukraine.
Four days later, on April 22, 2014, Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine ,
offering his political support and $50 million in aid for Yatsenyuk's shaky new government.
Poroshenko, a billionaire politician, was elected as president of Ukraine on May 25, 2014.
Biden became close to both men and helped Ukraine obtain a four-year, $17.5
billion IMF package in March 2015.
In October 2016, Foreign Policy wrote a lengthy article, "
What Will Ukraine Do Without Uncle Joe ," which described Biden's role in the removal of
Ukraine's general prosecutor, Victor Shokin. Shokin, the choice of Poroshenko, was portrayed as
fumbling a major corruption case and "hindering an investigation into two high-ranking state
prosecutors arrested on corruption charges."
The United States pushed for Shokin's removal, and Biden led the effort by personally
threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. In an interview
with The Atlantic, Biden recalled telling Poroshenko: "Petro, you're not getting your billion
dollars. It's OK, you can keep the [prosecutor] general. Just understand -- we're not paying if
you do." Shokin was removed by
Poroshenko shortly thereafter, in early 2016.
But according to reporting by The Hill, at the time of his firing, Shokin had been
investigating Burisma. Shokin's investigation into Burisma had previously been
disclosed in June 2017, by Front News International.
Burisma is
owned by Nikolai Zlochevsky (also known as Mykola Zlochevsky), the former minister of
ecology for Ukraine. According to
Front News , Zlochevsky issued
a "special permit for the extraction of a third of the gas produced in Ukraine" to his own
company, Burisma.
According to the Ukrainian nonprofit Anti Corruption Action Center, Zlochevsky owns 38
permits held by 14 different companies -- with Burisma
accounting for the majority with 33 of the permits. Zlochevsky left Ukraine after
Yanukovych fled to Russia during the Ukrainian Revolution known as
Euromaidan.
Investigation Into Burisma
In the spring of 2014, the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office opened an investigation at
the behest of the UK prosecutors office, which was investigating money laundering allegations
against Zlochevsky and had
just frozen $23.5 million in assets allegedly belonging to him in early April 2014. Shokin,
who wasn't appointed as general prosecutor until February 2015, wasn't yet involved in the
case.
Ukrainian prosecutors
refused to provide the UK with needed documents, and in January 2015, a British court
ordered the assets unfrozen. This action was pointedly called out in a
speech by Pyatt, who stated, "In the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the
UK authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian
people."
Instead of receiving cooperation from Ukrainian prosecutors, they "sent letters to
Zlochevsky's attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was
freed by the UK court, and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus."
On Feb. 10, 2015, Shokin was appointed prosecutor general of Ukraine, and he picked up the
investigation into Burisma, which reportedly continued until his formal resignation in February
2016.
Around the same time that Zlochevsky's assets were being frozen in the UK, Burisma appointed
Hunter Biden to its board on April 18, 2014. Hunter's compensation had never been disclosed by
Burisma, which is a private company, but Ryan Toohey, a Burisma spokesman,
told The New York Times that Biden's compensation was "not out of the ordinary" for similar
board positions.
However, according to The Hill's
reporting , Hunter Biden's firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, was receiving regular
payments -- "usually more than $166,000 a month" -- from Burisma. The payments ran from the
spring of 2014 through the fall of 2015 and reportedly totaled more than $3 million.
The Hill article included a written answer from Shokin, who told Solomon that his
investigation into Burisma had included plans for "interrogations and other crime-investigation
procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden."
According to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, following Shokin's forced
dismissal, the Burisma investigation was transferred to Sytnyk's NABU, which then reportedly
closed the investigation sometime in 2016.
The Kyiv Post on March 27 published an
editorial written by three members of the Anti-Corruption Action Center in Kyiv that
disputed Lutsenko's interview with The Hill. They claim that two cases relating to Burisma are
still being investigated by NABU:
"Two cases regarding the extraction of licenses by Zlochevsky's companies and embezzlement
of public funds at the ministry's procurements during Zlochevsky's Ministerial tenure remain
active and are investigated by NABU."
They also claim that "none of the criminal proceedings against Burisma were closed by NABU."
They acknowledged that the case concerning illegal issuance of licenses to extract natural
resources were transferred to NABU in December 2015, but claim that SAP missed procedural
deadlines for a lawsuit on canceling those licenses.
The politics within Ukraine are extremely complicated, and corruption is endemic, often
leading to conflicting accounts of events.
US Pressure to Investigate Manafort
In January 2016, top Ukrainian corruption prosecutors and officials from Obama's National
Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ) met in
Washington, according to an April 26
article by The Hill.
The meeting, which was reportedly billed as "training," apparently also touched on two other
matters -- the revival of a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine's
Russia-backed Party of Regions and the closure of an ongoing Ukrainian investigation into
Burisma.
According to The Hill's reporting, the Ukrainian Embassy confirmed that meetings were held,
but said it "had no record that the Party of Regions or Burisma cases came up in the
meetings."
A Jan. 22, 2016, NABU press
release confirmed that NABU Director Artem Sytnyk was in Washington from Jan. 19 to 21.
At the same time as the NABU meeting with Obama officials, Vice President Biden
also met with senior Ukrainian officials. On Jan. 21, 2016, Biden
met with Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine. According to the
White House release , the two leaders agreed "to continue to move forward on Ukraine's
anti-corruption agenda."
Just six days earlier, on Jan 15, 2016, Biden had met with Ukrainian Prime Minister
Volodymyr Groysman, promising to commit $220 million in new assistance to Ukraine that
year.
Notably, several months later, Sytnyk and Ukrainian Member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko
would
publicly disclose the contents of the Ukrainian "black ledger" to the media, which
implicated Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort. The revelation would force Manafort from
the campaign.
Leshchenko also served as a source for various individuals, including journalist Michael
Isikoff and Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative Alexandra Chalupa. In addition,
Leshchenko served as a direct source of information for Fusion GPS -- and its researcher,
former CIA contractor Nellie Ohr.
Another Ukrainian-related meeting also took place in January 2016 when Chalupa, a
Ukrainian-American, informed an
unknown senior DNC official that she believed there was a Russian connection with the Trump
campaign. Notably, this theme would be picked up by the Clinton campaign in the summer of 2016.
Chalupa also told the official to expect Manafort's involvement in the Trump campaign.
How Chalupa knew to expect Manafort's involvement with the Trump campaign in January remains
unknown, but her forecast proved prescient, as Manafort
reached out to the Trump campaign shortly after, on Feb. 29, 2016, through a mutual
acquaintance, Thomas J. Barrack Jr. According to Manafort, he and Trump hadn't been in
communication
for years until the Trump campaign responded to Manafort's offer.
As The Epoch Times
previously reported , on May 30, 2016, Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr sent an email to
her husband, high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr, and three other DOJ officials to alert them
of the discovery of the "Reported Trove of Documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions' 'Black
Cashbox.'" It was this discovery that led to Manafort's resignation from the Trump campaign in
August 2016.
On Aug. 14, 2016, The New York Times published an article
alleging that payments to Manafort had been uncovered from the Party of Regents' "black box" --
the 400-page handwritten ledger released by Leshchenko. The article proved to be a fatal blow
for Manafort, who resigned from the Trump campaign just days later.
NABU Ties to FBI
Following the successful overthrow of Yanukovych, Joe Biden had a direct hand in the
formation of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), as he personally "pushed for the
creation of an independent anti-corruption bureau to combat graft," according to an Oct. 30,
2016, article by
Foreign Policy .
NABU was formally established in October 2014 in response to pressure
from not only the U.S. State Department and Biden, but also by the International Monetary Fund
and the European Commission.
Despite the international push, the fledgling anti-corruption unit took more than a year to
actually become a functioning unit. During this time, NABU officials began establishing a
relationship with the FBI. In early 2016, NABU Director Sytnyk announced
that his bureau was very close to signing a memorandum of cooperation with the FBI and by
February
2016 , the FBI had had a permanent representative onsite at the NABU offices.
On June 5, 2016, Sytnyk met with U.S. Ambassador Pyatt to
discuss a more formalized relationship with the FBI and, on June 30, 2016, NABU and the FBI
entered into a
memorandum of understanding that allowed for an FBI office onsite at NABU offices to focus on
international money laundering cases. The relationship was renewed
for an additional two years in June 2017.
NABU has repeatedly refused to make the memorandum of understanding with the FBI public and
went
to court in 2018 to prevent its release. After receiving an unfavorable opinion from the
Kyiv District Administrative Court, NABU appealed the ruling, which was overturned in its favor
by the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal.
Sytnyk, along with parliamentarian Leshchenko, became the subject of an investigation in
Ukraine and in December 2018, a Kyiv court
ruled that both men "acted illegally when they revealed that Manafort's surname and
signature were found in the so-called black ledger of ousted President Viktor Yanukovych's
Party of Regions," the Kyiv Post
reported on Dec. 12, 2018.
The court noted the material was part of a pre-trial investigation and its release "led to
interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests
of Ukraine as a state."
Leshchenko had publicly adopted a strong anti-Trump stance, telling the Financial
Times in August 2016 that "a Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American
foreign policy" and that it was "important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he
is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world." Leschenko
noted that the majority of Ukrainian politicians were "on Hillary Clinton's side."
In December 2017, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko
accused Sytnyk of allowing the FBI to conduct illegal operations in Ukraine, claiming that
the "U.S. law enforcers were allegedly invited without the permission required and in breach of
the necessary procedures." Lutsenko
continued by asking, "Who actually let the foreign special service act in Ukraine?"
Taras Chornovil, a Ukrainian political analyst, also questioned the FBI's activities,
writing that "some kind of undercover operations are being conducted in Ukraine with direct
participation (or even under control) of the FBI. This means the FBI operatives could have
access to classified data or confidential information."
Lutsenko called for an audit of NABU,
claiming to "possess information of interest to the auditors" and was pushing for Sytnyk's
resignation, along with that of Nazar Kholodnitskiy, the Specialized Anti-Corruption
Prosecutor's Office (SAP). According to
reporting by Euromaidan Press, Lutsenko's efforts failed "thanks to the reaction from
Ukraine's American partners."
Michael Carpenter, an adviser to Joe Biden, personally issued a public warning to Lutsenko
and others pushing for Sytnyk's removal, stating, "If the Rada votes to dismiss the head of the
Anticorruption Committee and the head of the NABU, I will recommend cutting all U.S. government
assistance to #Ukraine , including security
assistance."
Sytnyk remains in his position as NABU's director.
Pinchuk's Ties to Leshchenko,
Clintons
On April 11, 2019, Greg Craig, Obama's former White House counsel and a partner at law firm
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, was indicted
for lying about and concealing his work in Ukraine. Craig, who reportedly worked closely with
Manafort, was paid
more than $4 million to produce an "independent" report justifying Ukraine's trial and
conviction of the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. Notably, Craig's name was not
included in the "Black Ledger" leak from Leshchenko and Sytnyk.
The indictment notes that "a wealthy private Ukrainian" was fully funding the report. In a
recent YouTube video
, Craig publicly stated that "it was Doug Schoen who brought this project to me, and he told me
he was acting on behalf of Victor Pinchuk, who was a pro-western, Ukrainian businessman who
helped to fund the project."
"The Firm understood that its work was to be largely funded by Victor Pinchuk," Skadden
wrote in recent FARA filings .
Pinchuk put out a statement on Jan. 21, denying any financial involvement:
"Mr. Pinchuk was not the source of any funds used to pay fees of Skadden in producing their
report into the trial and conviction of Yulia Tymoshenko. He was in no way responsible for
those costs. Neither Mr. Pinchuk nor companies affiliated with him have ever been a client of
Skadden. Mr. Pinchuk and his team had no role in the work done by Skadden, including in the
preparation or dissemination of the Skadden report."
Pinchuk is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He owns Credit Dnipro Bank,
several ferroalloy plants and a media empire. He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of
former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
Pinchuk has been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Between April 4 and April 12,
2016, Ukrainian parliamentarian Olga Bielkova had
four meetings , with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies), Liz
Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Department), and David Kramer
(McCain Institute).
FARA documents
filed by Schoen showed that he was paid $40,000 a month by Pinchuk (page 5) -- in part to
arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with congressmen and media (page 10). It's
unknown how many of these meetings, if any, took place.
Schoen also helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street
Journal reported on
March 19, 2015, how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in
order to pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Tymoshenko–a political
rival of Yanukovych–from jail. And the relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons
continued. According to the Kyiv
Post :
"Clinton and her husband Bill, the 42nd U.S. president, have been paid speakers at the
annual YES and other Pinchuk events. They describe themselves as friends of Pinchuk, who is
known internationally as a businessman and philanthropist."
Although exact numbers aren't clear,
reports filed by the Clinton Foundation indicate that as much as $25 million of Pinchuk's
donations went to the Clinton organization.
Pinchuk also has ties to Leshchenko, the Ukrainian MP who leaked the information on
Manafort. Leshchenko had been a frequent speaker at the Ukrainian Breakfast , a traditional private event
held at Davos, Switzerland, and hosted by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation and has also been
pictured with Pinchuk at multiple other events.
"... DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016, report by the Office of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review. ..."
"... The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016. ..."
"... After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing numerous "about query" violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and reported his findings to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are not "to" or "from" the target. ..."
"... On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally informed the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings of his audit. ..."
"... Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant. ..."
"... The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page. ..."
"... While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director. ..."
Admiral Mike Rogers, while director of the NSA, was personally responsible for
uncovering an unprecedented level of FISA abuse that would later be documented in a 99-page
unsealed FISA
court ruling . As the FISA court noted in the April 26, 2017, ruling, the abuses had been occurring since at least November 2015:
"The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to private contractors.
"Private contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.
"Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests."
The FISA Court report is particularly focused on the FBI:
"The Court is concerned about the FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported."
The FISA Court
disclosed that illegal NSA database searches were endemic. Private contractors, employed by the FBI, were given full access to
the NSA database. Once in the contractors' possession, the data couldn't be traced.
In April 2016, after Rogers became aware of
improper
contractor access to raw FISA data on March 9, 2016, he
directed the NSA's Office
of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702."
On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information -- specifically outside contractors
working for the FBI.
DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was
part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the Office
of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose
Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review.
The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin
announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016.
After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing
numerous "about query"
violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and
reported his findings
to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are
not "to" or "from" the target.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI sought and received a Title I FISA probable-cause order authorizing electronic surveillance
on Carter Page from the FISA Court.
At this point, the FISA Court was still unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally
informed
the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings
of his audit.
The FISA Court had been unaware of the query violations until they were presented to the court by Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions
at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a
recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director.
The move to fire Rogers, which ultimately failed, originated sometime in mid-October 2016 -- exactly when Rogers was preparing
to present his findings to the FISA Court.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
The insurance policy was the false flag operation directed at establishing the Trump–Russia collusion
narrative. The key part was the appointment of Special Prosecutor in which McCabe played an important if not the decisive role.
Notable quotes:
"... The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion narrative. It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the Steele dossier and James Clapper's leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation into the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe would end up running the investigation. ..."
Ever since the release of FBI text messages revealing the existence of an "insurance
policy," the term has been the subject of wide speculation.
Some observers have suggested that the insurance policy was the FISA spy warrant used to
monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and, by extension, other members of the Trump
campaign. This interpretation is too narrow and fails to capture the underlying meaning of the
text.
The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion
narrative. It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the
Steele dossier and James Clapper's leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The
intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation into the Trump
campaign.
The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe
would end up running the investigation.
The Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, served as the foundation for the Russia narrative.
The
intelligence community, led by CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper, used the
dossier as a launching pad for creating their Intelligence Community assessment.
This report, which was presented to Obama in December 2016, despite NSA Director Mike Rogers
having only moderate confidence in its assessment, became one of the core pieces of the
narrative that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
Through intelligence community leaks, and in collusion with willing media outlets, the
narrative that Russia helped Trump win the elections was aggressively pushed throughout
2017.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be
followed on Twitter @themarketswork.
"... On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath regarding authorization of the leaking to The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe. ..."
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe held a pivotal role in what has become known as "Spygate."
He directed the activities of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and was involved in all aspects of the
Russia investigation. He was also mentioned in the infamous "insurance policy" text
message.
McCabe was a major component of the insurance policy.
On April 26, 2017, Rosenstein found himself appointed as the new deputy attorney general. He
was placed into a somewhat chaotic situation, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recluses
himself from the ongoing Russia investigation a little less than two months earlier, on March
2, 2017. This effectively meant that no one in the Trump administration had any oversight of
the ongoing investigation being conducted by the FBI and the DOJ.
Additionally, the leadership of then-FBI Director James Comey was coming under increased
scrutiny as the result of actions taken leading up to and following the election, particularly
Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memorandum recommending that Comey be fired. The subject
of the memo was "Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI." Comey was fired that day.
McCabe was now the acting director of the FBI and was immediately under consideration for
the permanent position.
On the same day Comey was fired, McCabe would lie during an interview with agents from the
FBI's Inspection Division (INSD) regarding apparent leaks that were used in an Oct. 30, 2016,
Wall Street Journal article, "FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe" by Devlin
Barrett. This would later be disclosed in the inspector general report, "A Report of
Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe."
At the time, nobody, including the INSD agents, knew that McCabe had lied, nor were the
darker aspects of McCabe's role in Spygate fully known.
In late April or early May 2016, McCabe opened a federal criminal investigation on Sessions,
regarding potential lack of candor before Congress in relation to Sessions's contacts with
Russians. Sessions was unaware of the investigation.
Sessions would later be cleared of any wrongdoing by special counsel Robert Mueller.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein reportedly suggested to McCabe that he secretly
record President Trump. This remark was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced
from memos from the now-fired McCabe, along with testimony taken from former FBI general
counsel James Baker, who relayed a conversation he had with McCabe about the occurrence.
Rosenstein issued a statement denying the accusations.
The alleged comments by Rosenstein occurred at a meeting where McCabe was "pushing for the
Justice Department to open an investigation into the president."
An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the
conversation somewhat differently, noting Rosenstein responded sarcastically to McCabe, saying,
"What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
Later, on the same day that Rosenstein had his meetings with McCabe, President Trump met
with Mueller, reportedly as an interview for the FBI director job.
On May 17, 2017, the day after President Trump's meeting with Mueller -- and the day after
Rosenstein's encounters with McCabe -- Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.
The May 17 appointment of Mueller in effect shifted control of the Russia investigation from
the FBI and McCabe to Mueller. Rosenstein would retain ultimate authority for the probe and any
expansion of Mueller's investigation required authorization from Rosenstein.
Interestingly, without Comey's memo leaks, a special counsel might not have been appointed
-- the FBI, and possibly McCabe, would have remained in charge of the Russia investigation.
McCabe was probably not going to become the permanent FBI director, but he was reportedly under
consideration. Regardless, without Comey's leak, McCabe would have retained direct involvement
and the FBI would have retained control.
On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath
regarding authorization of the leaking to The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew
McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe.
On Aug. 2, 2017, Rosenstein secretly issued Mueller a revised memo on "the scope of
investigation and definition of authority" that remains heavily redacted. The full purpose of
this memo remains unknown. On this same day, Christopher Wray was named as the new FBI
director.
Two days later, on Aug. 4, 2017, Sessions announced that the FBI had created a new leaks
investigation unit. Rosenstein and Wray were tasked with overseeing all leak
investigations.
That Aug. 2 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller may have been specifically designed to remove
any residual FBI influence -- specifically that of McCabe -- from the Russia investigation. The
appointment of Wray as FBI director helped cement this. McCabe was finally completely
neutralized.
On March 16, 2018, McCabe was fired for lying under oath at least three different times and
is currently the subject of a grand jury investigation.
"... Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers. In the following year, Hannigan abruptly announced his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration. ..."
"... Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele retains close ties with Dearlove. ..."
"... Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter Page to attend. ..."
"... Dearlove knows Halper through their mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and retains close ties to UK intelligence services. ..."
"... Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. ..."
"... Downer, who met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting established through a chain of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times. ..."
"... Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations -- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia. ..."
"... Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016 Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known each other for years and maintain several mutual associations. ..."
"... Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with Page. Current information suggests there was only one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named in the Buryakov case. ..."
"... Page, who cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was deported to Russia. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said in August that exculpatory evidence on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case. ..."
"... If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated. ..."
UK and Australian intelligence agencies also played meaningful roles during the 2016 presidential election.
Britain's GCHQ was involved in
collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States. In the summer of 2016, Robert
Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, flew from London to
meet personally
with then-CIA Director John Brennan, The Guardian reported.
Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers.
In the following year, Hannigan
abruptly announced
his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration.
As GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted
after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant
Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly
so.
Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele
retains close ties with Dearlove.
Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to
work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at
the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter
Page to attend.
Dearlove knows Halper through their
mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is
an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence
and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and
retains close ties to UK intelligence services.
Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books.
Downer, who
met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting
established through a chain
of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt
from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still
maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish
the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times.
The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former
British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later
relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute,
to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017,
statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey.
Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations
-- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can
we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia.
In a Twitter post , Trump wrote that
the "key Allies called to ask not to release" the documents.
Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified
documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest
idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents?
Britain and Australia appear to know full well what those documents contain, and their attempt to prevent their public release
appears to be because they don't want their role in events surrounding the 2016 presidential election to be made public.
Fusion GPS/Orbis/Christopher Steele
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is co-founder of Fusion GPS, along with Peter Fritsch and Tom Catan. Fusion
was hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign through law firm Perkins Coie to produce and disseminate the Steele dossier used against
Trump. The dossier would later be the primary evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016.
Christopher Steele, who retains close ties to UK intelligence, worked for MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009, when he
and his partner, Chris Burrows, founded Orbis Intelligence. Steele
maintains contact with British intelligence,
Sir Richard Dearlove
, and UK intelligence firm Hakluyt.
Steele appears to have been
represented
by lawyer Adam Waldman, who also represented Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. We know this from
texts sent by Waldman. On April 10, 2017, Waldman sent this to Sen. Mark Warner:
"Hi. Steele: would like to get a bi partisan letter from the committee; Assange: I convinced him to make serious and important
concessions and am discussing those w DOJ; Deripaska: willing to testify to congress but interested in state of play w Manafort.
I will be with him next tuesday for a week."
Steele also appears to have
lobbied on behalf of Deripaska, who was discussed in
emails between Bruce Ohr and Steele that were recently
disclosed by the Washington Examiner:
"Steele said he was 'circulating some recent sensitive Orbis reporting' on Deripaska that suggested Deripaska was not a 'tool'
of the Kremlin. Steele said he would send the reporting to a name that is redacted in the email."
Fusion GPS was also employed by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in a previous case. Veselnitskaya was involved in litigation
pitting Russian firm Prevezon Holdings against British-American financier William Browder. Veselnitskaya hired U.S. law firm BakerHostetler,
who, in turn, hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Browder. Veselnitskaya was one of the participants at the June 2016 Trump Tower
meeting, at which she discussed the
Magnitsky Act .
Fox News reported on Nov. 9, 2017, that Simpson
met with Veselnitskaya immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
A declassified top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report released on April 26, 2017, revealed that government
agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and NSA, had improperly accessed Americans' communications. The FBI specifically provided outside
contractors with access to raw surveillance data on American citizens without proper oversight.
Communications and other data of members of the Trump campaign may have been accessed in this way.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr have
known Simpson since at least 2010 and have known Steele since at least 2006. The Ohrs and Simpson worked together on a
DOJ report in 2010 . In that report, Nellie Ohr's biography
lists her as working for Open Source Works, which is part of the CIA. Simpson met with Bruce Ohr
before and after the 2016 election.
Bruce Ohr had been in
contact repeatedly with Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign -- while Steele was constructing his dossier. Ohr later
actively shared information he received from Steele with the FBI, after the agency had terminated Steele as a source. Interactions
between Ohr and Steele stretched for months into the first year of Trump's presidency and were documented in a number of FD-302s
-- memos that summarize interviews with him by the FBI.
Spy Traps
In an effort to put forth evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it appears that several different spy traps
were set, with varying degrees of success. Many of these efforts appear to center around Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
and involve London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, who has
ties to Western intelligence, particularly in the UK.
Papadopoulos and Mifsud
both worked
at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP). Mifsud appears to have joined LCILP around
November
2015 . Papadopoulos reportedly
joined
LCILP sometime in late February 2016 after leaving Ben Carson's presidential campaign. However, some
reports indicate Papadopoulos joined LCILP in November
or December of 2015. Mifsud and Papadopoulos reportedly never crossed paths
until March 14, 2016, in Italy.
Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos to several Russians, including Olga Polonskaya, whom Mifsud introduced as "Putin's niece," and
Ivan Timofeev, an official at a state-sponsored think tank called the Russian International Affairs Council. Both Papadopoulos and
Mifsud were interviewed by the FBI. Papadopoulos was ultimately charged with a process crime and was recently sentenced to 14 days
in prison for lying to the FBI. Mifsud was never charged by the FBI.
Throughout this period, Papadopoulos continuously pushed for meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian contacts but
was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing any meetings.
Papadopoulos met with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer on May 10, 2016. The Papadopoulos–Downer meeting has been portrayed
as a
chance encounter in a bar. That does not appear to be the case.
Papadopoulos was introduced
to Downer through a chain of two intermediaries who said Downer wanted to meet with Papadopoulos. Another individual happened
to
be in London at exactly the same time: the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap. The purpose of Priestap's visit
remains unknown.
The Papadopoulos–Downer
meeting was later used to establish the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. It was repeatedly
reported that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Hillary Clinton's emails. This is incorrect.
According to Downer, Papadopoulos at some point
mentioned the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
"During that conversation, he [Papadopoulos] mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the
lead-up to the election, which may be damaging,'' Downer told
The Australian about the Papadopoulos meeting in an April 2018 article. "He didn't say dirt, he said material that could be damaging
to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn't say what it was."
Downer, while serving as Australia's foreign minister, was
responsible for one of the largest foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation: $25 million from the Australian government.
Unconfirmed media reports, including a Jan. 12, 2017,
BBC article , have suggested that the FBI attempted
to obtain two FISA warrants in June and July 2016 that were denied by the FISA court. It's likely that Papadopoulos was an intended
target of these failed FISAs.
Interestingly, there is no mention of Papadopoulos in the Steele dossier. Paul Manafort, Carter Page, former Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, Gen. Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski are all listed in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos may have started out assisting the FBI or CIA and later discovered that he was being set up for surveillance himself.
After failing to obtain a spy warrant on the Trump campaign using Papadopoulos, the FBI set its sights on campaign volunteer Carter
Page. By this time, the counterintelligence investigation was in the process of being established, and we know now that it was formalized
with no official intelligence. The FBI needed some sort of legal cover. They needed a retroactive warrant. And they got one on Oct.
21, 2016. The Page FISA warrant would be renewed three times and remain in force until September 2017.
Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016
Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known
each other for years and maintain several mutual associations.
Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with
Page. Current information suggests there was only
one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named
in the Buryakov case.
Page, who
cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted
by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov
pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was
sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was
deported to Russia.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes
said in August that exculpatory evidence
on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence
likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case.
If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application
to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated.
Page has not been arrested or charged with any crime related to the investigation.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
In some respects, the media has played the most disingenuous of roles. Areas of investigation that historically would have proven
irresistible to reporters of the past have been steadfastly ignored. False narratives have been all-too-willingly promoted and facts
ignored. Fusion GPS personally made a
series of payments to several as-of-yet-
unnamed reporters .
The majority of the mainstream media has represented positions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Steele met with members of certain media with relative frequency. In
September 2016 ,
he met with a number of U.S. journalists for "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo! News, the New Yorker and CNN," according
to The Guardian. It was during this period that Steele met with Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
In mid-October
2016, Steele returned to New York and met with reporters again. Toward the end of October, Steele spoke via Skype with Mother
Jones reporter David Corn.
Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the unredacted
version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the intelligence
community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical pattern
that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken.
On April 3, 2017, BuzzFeed reporter Ali Watkins wrote the article "
A Former Trump Adviser Met With a Russian Spy ." In the article, she identified "Male-1," referred to in
court documents
relating to the case of Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov, as Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had provided the FBI with assistance
in the case. Just over a week later, on April 11, 2017, a Washington Post article, "
FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Monitor Former Trump Adviser Carter Page ," confirmed the existence of the October 2016 Page FISA
warrant.
The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security for
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and
charged with one count of lying
to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment
alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time.
Reporter
Ali Watkins likely received the undredacted FISA application on Carter Page from James Wolfe.
It appears probable that Wolfe leaked unredacted copies of the Page FISA application.
According to the indictment
, Wolfe exchanged 82 text messages
with Watkins on March 17, 2017. That same evening they engaged in a 28-minute phone call.
The original Page FISA application is 83 pages long, including one final signatory page.
In the public version of the application, there are 37 fully redacted pages. In addition to that, several other pages have redactions
for all but the header. There are only two pages in the entire document that contain no redactions.
Why would Wolfe bother to send 37 pages of complete redactions? It seems more than plausible that Wolfe took pictures of the original
unredacted FISA application and sent them by text to Watkins.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has repeatedly
stated that evidence within the FISA application
shows the counterintelligence agencies were abused by the Obama administration. Most of the mainstream media has known this.
Despite this, most major news organizations for over two years have promoted the Russia-collusion narrative. Despite ample evidence
having come out to the contrary, they have not admitted they were wrong, likely because doing so would mean they would have to admit
their complicity.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided
by Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
It may be Secretary Pompeo, the ghost of Secretary Tillerson or President Trump himself, but
someone in the Trump Administration is wielding the economic might of this country as a
foreign policy tool in a manner that has not been effectively utilized by prior administrations.
Considering the costs associated with flexing a strong economy vs. flexing a strong military the
country is again put in the position where it cannot lose regardless of whether the Iranian and
Venezuelan people overthrow their corrupt governments, whether North Korea disarms or Iraq chooses to
distance itself from Iran.
"... The CIA, with the knowledge of the Director of National Intelligence, worked with British counterparts starting in the summer of 2015 to collect intelligence on Republican and at least one Democrat candidate. John Brennan was probably hoping that his proactive steps to help the Hillary Clinton campaign would ensure him taking over as DNI in the new Clinton Administration. Regardless of motives, the CIA enlisted the British intelligence community to start gathering intelligence on most major Republican candidates and on Bernie Sanders. This initial phase of intelligence gathering goes beyond opposition research. The information being gathered identified the key personnel in each campaign and identified the people outside the United States receiving their calls, texts and emails. This information was turned into intelligence reports that then were passed back to the United States intel community as "liaison reporting." This was not put into normal classified channels. This intelligence was put into a SAP, i.e. a Special Access Program. ..."
"... One person who needs to be called on the carpet and asked some hard questions is current CIA Director Gina Haspel. She was CIA Chief of Station in London at the time and was a regular attendee at the meeting of the Brit's Joint Intelligence Committee aka the JIC. I suppose it is possible she was cut out of the process, but I believe that is unlikely. ..."
"... I am confident that a survey of NSA and CIA liaison reporting will show that George Papadopoulos was identified as a possible target by the fall of 2015. Initially, his name was "masked." But we now know that many people on the Trump campaign had their names "unmasked." You cannot unmask someone unless their name is in an intelligence report. ..."
"... Sater's communication with Rozov were intercepted by western intelligence agencies -- GCHQ and NSA. I do not know which agency put it into an intel report, but it was put into the system. The Sater FD-1023 will tell us whether or not Sater did this at the direction of the FBI or acted on his own initiative. The key point is that the "bait" to do something with the Russians came from a registered FBI informant. ..."
"... That's good, sooner it's clarified the better, and the stronger the better, ..."
"... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin , but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria ..."
"... Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's Henry Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking " ..."
"... I do not believe that it is a mere coincidence that Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, was the one credited by the FBI for launching the investigation into George Papadopolous : It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired," The Times reported. ..."
"... Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory board since 2008. Officially, he had to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network reported in a January 2016 exclusive: ..."
"... I'm curious why they went after minor characters in the Trump campaign and not Jared or one of Trump's sons? From what I've read of Hoover, it seems he was constantly building "dossiers" of the powerful and those he considered "subversives" so that he would remain preeminent. Then there was the Church Committee investigation. Is this qualitatively different? Can we ever expect that law enforcement & intelligence with so much secretive power are not the 4th branch of government? ..."
"... Also involved - and I think Judge Ellis was very well aware of this - is a fundamental distinction relating to what law enforcement authorities are trying to achieve. If Mueller was honestly - even of perhaps misguidedly - trying to get witnesses to 'sing', that is hardly a mortal sin. If he was trying to get them to 'compose', then the question becomes whether he should be under indictment for subversion of the Constitution. ..."
"... Why aren't the MSM having a hissy fit about the real, documented election interference by the British Commonwealth/5 Eyes spooks in the 2016 campaign (and before)? The hoax of projecting onto Putin what they themselves have done must be exposed before the country move forward on any front. ..."
"... So, was Skripal one of Steele's so-called Kremlin insiders? I see Pablo Miller is connected to both Porton Down and Steele via the ironically titled II's media pods. And Miller is certainly connected to Skripal. ..."
Do not focus on July 2016 as the so-called start of the counter intelligence investigation of Donald Trump. That is a lie. We
know, thanks to the work of Judicial Watch, that the FBI had signed up Christopher Steele as a Confidential Human Source (aka CHS)
by February of 2016. It is incumbent on Attorney General Barr to examine the contact reports filed by Steele's FBI handler (those
reports are known as FD-1023s). He also, as I have noted in a previous post, needs to look at the FD-1023s for Felix Sater and Henry
Greenberg. But these will only tell a small part of the story. There is a massive intelligence side to this story.
The CIA, with the knowledge of the Director of National Intelligence, worked with British counterparts starting in the summer
of 2015 to collect intelligence on Republican and at least one Democrat candidate. John Brennan was probably hoping that his proactive
steps to help the Hillary Clinton campaign would ensure him taking over as DNI in the new Clinton Administration. Regardless of motives,
the CIA enlisted the British intelligence community to start gathering intelligence on most major Republican candidates and on Bernie
Sanders. This initial phase of intelligence gathering goes beyond opposition research. The information being gathered identified
the key personnel in each campaign and identified the people outside the United States receiving their calls, texts and emails. This
information was turned into intelligence reports that then were passed back to the United States intel community as "liaison reporting."
This was not put into normal classified channels. This intelligence was put into a SAP, i.e. a Special Access Program.
One person who needs to be called on the carpet and asked some hard questions is current CIA Director Gina Haspel. She was
CIA Chief of Station in London at the time and was a regular attendee at the meeting of the Brit's Joint Intelligence Committee aka
the JIC. I suppose it is possible she was cut out of the process, but I believe that is unlikely.
This initial phase of intelligence collection produced a great volume of intelligence that allowed analysts to identify key personnel
and the people they were communicating with overseas. You don't have to have access to intelligence information to understand this.
For example, you simply have to ask the question, "how did George Papadopoulos get on the radar." I am confident that a survey
of NSA and CIA liaison reporting will show that George Papadopoulos was identified as a possible target by the fall of 2015. Initially,
his name was "masked." But we now know that many people on the Trump campaign had their names "unmasked." You cannot unmask someone
unless their name is in an intelligence report. We also know that Felix Sater, a longtime business associate of Donald Trump
and an FBI informant since December 1998 (he was signed up by Andrew Weismann), initiated the proposal to do a Trump Tower in Moscow.
Don't take my word for it, that's what Robert Mueller reported:
In the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately
September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen (i.e., Michael Cohen) on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company (I.C. Expert),
a Russian real-estate development corporation controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov. Sater had known Rozov since approximately
2007 and, in 2014, had served as an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov's purchase of a building in New York City. Sater later
contacted Rozov and proposed that I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert would license the name and
brand from the Trump Organization but construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with Rozov and another employee
of I.C. Expert. (see page 69 of the Mueller Report).
Sater's communication with Rozov were intercepted by western intelligence agencies -- GCHQ and NSA. I do not know which agency
put it into an intel report, but it was put into the system. The Sater FD-1023 will tell us whether or not Sater did this at the
direction of the FBI or acted on his own initiative. The key point is that the "bait" to do something with the Russians came from
a registered FBI informant.
By December of 2015, the Hillary Campaign decided to use the Russian angle on Donald Trump. Thanks to Wikileaks we have Campaign
Manager John Podesta's email exchange in December 2015 with Democratic operative Brent Budowsky:
" That's good, sooner it's clarified the better, and the stronger the better, " Budowski replies, later adding: "
Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin , but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria ."
The program to slaughter Donald Trump using Russia as the hatchet was already underway. This was more the opposition research.
This was the weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence assets to attack political opponents. Hillary had covered the opposition
research angle in London by hiring a firm comprised of former MI6 assets--
Hakluyt: there was a second, even more powerful and mysterious opposition research and intelligence firm lurking about
with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign for president against
Donald Trump.
Meet London-based Hakluyt & Co. , founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums. . . .
Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's
Henry
Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6
[British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking "
I do not believe that it is a mere coincidence that Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, was the one credited by the FBI
for launching the investigation into
George Papadopolous : It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving factors that
led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's
associates conspired," The Times reported.
Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory board since 2008. Officially,
he had to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network
reported in a January 2016 exclusive:
But it can be revealed Mr. Downer has still been attending client conferences and gatherings of the group, including a client
cocktail soirée at the Orangery at Kensington Palace a few months ago.
His attendance at that event is understood to have come days after he also attended a two-day country retreat at the invitation
of the group, which has been involved in a number of corporate spy scandals in recent times.
Much remains to be uncovered in this plot. But this much is certain--there is an extensive documentary record, including TOP SECRET
intelligence reports (SIGINT and HUMINT) and emails and phone calls that will show there was a concerted covert action operation
mounted against Donald Trump and his campaign. Those documents will tell the story. This cannot be allowed to happen again.
Having watched interviews of Papadopoulos on TeeVee I would say that this creature would be easy to manipulate. His ego is so
enormous that a minimal effort would be required.
I'm curious why they went after minor characters in the Trump campaign and not Jared or one of Trump's sons? From what
I've read of Hoover, it seems he was constantly building "dossiers" of the powerful and those he considered "subversives" so that
he would remain preeminent. Then there was the Church Committee investigation. Is this qualitatively different? Can we ever expect
that law enforcement & intelligence with so much secretive power are not the 4th branch of government?
The guts of the matter was well expressed by Judge T.S. Ellis when he made the distinction between different results which
can be expected from exerting pressures on witnesses: they may 'sing' - which is, commonly, in the interests of justice - but,
there again, they may 'compose', which is not.
Also involved - and I think Judge Ellis was very well aware of this - is a fundamental distinction relating to what law
enforcement authorities are trying to achieve. If Mueller was honestly - even of perhaps misguidedly - trying to get witnesses
to 'sing', that is hardly a mortal sin. If he was trying to get them to 'compose', then the question becomes whether he should
be under indictment for subversion of the Constitution.
Yes, indeed, many a composition have been elicited by prosecutors in criminal cases. The issue is there is no penalty for prosecutorial
misconduct while the advancement points ratchet up with each conviction. The incentives are aligned perfectly for the "institution"
to run rough shod on ordinary Americans. Only those wealthy enough to fight the unlimited funds of the government have a chance.
But of course in matters relating to national security there is the added twist of state secrets that protects government malfeasance.
I don't know how the national security state we continue to build ever gets rolled back. A small victory would be for Trump
to declassify all documents and communications relating to the multifaceted spying on his campaign and as Larry so eloquently
writes to frame him as a Manchurian Candidate. At least the public will learn about what their grandchildren are paying for. But
it seems that Trump prefers tweeting to taking any kind of action. Not that it would matter much as half the country will still
believe that Trump deserves it until the tables are turned on their team. While most Americans will say to use Ben Hunt's phrasing
Yay! Constitution. Yay! Liberty. they sure don't care as the state oligarchy tighten their chokehold.
Yes, he seems young and ambitious enough to be easy (and willing) prey. Having been involved in some local political campaigns
though, I've observed that more and more than before, young people like him are hyper-concerned with networking. Papadopoulos'
ego aside, of course he and many people who sign on hope to make self-serving connections. Not only that, it's also been my observation
that casual sexual hook-ups go with the territory, and not only among young, single guys like him. I have to say I've been shocked
a few times by how risky and cavalier some liaisons have been that've come to my attention, considering "public figures" are involved.
No doubt that's why a "honeypot" was dispatched to try to help entrap Papadopoulos.
Why aren't the MSM having a hissy fit about the real, documented election interference by the British Commonwealth/5 Eyes
spooks in the 2016 campaign (and before)? The hoax of projecting onto Putin what they themselves have done must be exposed before
the country move forward on any front.
So, was Skripal one of Steele's so-called Kremlin insiders? I see Pablo Miller is connected to both Porton Down and Steele
via the ironically titled II's media pods. And Miller is certainly connected to Skripal.
Papadopolos was very young hence the nativity getting sucked in. The ego helped for sure. Probably exciting to be part of something
important probably for the first time since he started working for Trump campaign
One thing that's always concerned me about Larry's informative and insightful essays on these matters is how can we be assured
that the IC documentation mentioned has been filled out honestly and accurately -- or that the forms even still exist and haven't
been conveniently "lost" or surreptitiously destroyed?
As usual. When
it suits, the rule book goes out the window. But equally when it suits they will quote rule after rule from the very
same book when it suits their agenda.
When a CIA-backed military coup is attempted by a long term CIA puppet, roared on by
John Bolton and backed with
the offer of Blackwater mercenaries, in the country with the world's largest oil reserves,
I have no difficulty whatsoever in knowing which side I am on.
Juan Guaido has been
groomed for 15 years as a long-term CIA project. His coup attempt yesterday, which so far
appears to have stalled, was the culmination of these efforts to return Venezuela's oil
reserves to US hegemony.
It is strange how the urgent installation of liberal democracy by force correlates so often
with oil reserves not aligned to the USA, as in Libya, Iraq or Venezuela, while countries with
massive oil reserves which permit US military domination and align with the West and Israel can
be as undemocratic as they wish, eg Saudi Arabia. Venezuela is an imperfect democracy but it is
far, far more of a democracy than Saudi Arabia and with a much better human rights record. The
hypocrisy of Western media and politicians is breathtaking.
Hypocrisy and irony are soulmates, and there are multiple levels of irony in seeing the
"liberal" commentators who were cheering on an undisguised military coup, then complaining
loudly that people are being injured or killed now their side is losing. Yesterday the MSM had
no difficulty in calling the attempted coup what anybody with eyes and ears could see it
plainly was, an attempted military coup. Today, miraculously, the MSM line is no coup attempt
happened at all, it was just a spontaneous unarmed protest, and it is the evil government of
Venezuela which attempts to portray it as a coup. BBC Breakfast this morning had the headline
"President Maduro has accused the opposition of mounting a coup attempt" Yet there is no doubt
at all that, as a matter of plain fact, that is what happened.
The MSM today is full of video of water cannons against "protestors" and a horrible video of
a military vehicle ramming a group. But it has all been very carefully edited to exclude hours
of footage of the same military vehicles being pelted and set alight with molotov cocktails,
and shot at. The presentation has been truly shocking.
In any civilised country, attempting to mount a military coup would lead to incarceration
for life, and that is what should now happen to Juan Guaido. The attempt by the West to protect
their puppet by pretending the failed military coup never happened, must be resisted, if only
in the cause of intellectual honesty.
The resort to violence forces binary choice. I have been and am a critic of Maduro in many
respects. I believe the constitutional changes to bypass Parliament were wrong, and the
indirectly elected Constituent Assembly is not a good form of democracy. Venezuela does have a
rampant corruption problem. US sanctions exacerbate but are not the root cause of economic
mismanagement. There are human rights failings. But Chavez made revolutionary changes in
educating and empowering the poor, and it is a far better governed country for the mass of its
population than it would ever be under a US installed CIA puppet regime. Maduro was
legitimately elected. The attempt at violence forces a binary choice.
I know which side I am on. It is not Guaido and the CIA.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the
Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no
source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary
subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles,
but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Sure. Let's invade Venezuela. Another jolly little war. It's full of commies and has a sea
of oil. The only thing those Cuban-loving Venezuelans lack are weapons of mass destruction.
... ... ...
Venezuela is in a huge economic mess thanks to the crackpot economic policies of the Chavez
and Maduro governments – and US economic sabotage. But my first law of international
affairs is: 'Every nation has the absolute god-given right to mismanage its own affairs and
elect its own crooks or idiots.'
"... We absolutely have won most of those little wars it's just that majority of the population doesn't have the same definition of victory that our Neocon masters do. As long as we leave a county in ruins so it's development is set back for decades and there are multiple factions fighting for power, the Neocons cobble together a wonderful democratic election and call it a victory. ..."
"... Stay as long as it takes to make sure no major faction is strong enough to set nationwide policy, bomb everything that's required for a 20th Century society, then leave. If one faction plays nice by scraping and bowing to the US, fine, let them have a bit of electricity and running water. Otherwise, leave the factions to fight one another in the rubble and enjoying their new found freedom and democracy. ..."
"... Considering all the oil Venezuela has, they're just begging for some freedom and democracy. ..."
Sure. Let's invade Venezuela. Another jolly little war. It's full of commies and has a sea of oil. The only thing those Cuban-loving
Venezuelans lack are weapons of mass destruction.
This week, leading US neocons openly threatened that if the CIA's latest attempts to stage a coup to overthrow Venezuela's Maduro
government failed, Washington might send in the Marines.
Well, the coup was a big fiasco and the Venezuelan army didn't overthrow President Maduro. The CIA also failed to overthrow governments
in Moscow, Tehran and Damascus. Its only 'success' to date has been in overthrowing Ukraine's pro-Moscow government and putting a
bunch of corrupt clowns in its place at a cost near $10 billion.
The US has not waged a major successful war since World War II – unless you count invading Grenada, Panama and Haiti, or bombing
the hell out of Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Libya. That's a sobering thought given the Pentagon's recent announcement that it is cutting
back on little colonial wars (aka 'the war on terror') to get ready for real big wars against Russia and China, or even North Korea.
Venezuela is in a huge economic mess thanks to the crackpot economic policies of the Chavez and Maduro governments – and US economic
sabotage. But my first law of international affairs is: 'Every nation has the absolute god-given right to mismanage its own affairs
and elect its own crooks or idiots.'
Now, however, the administration's frenzied neocons want to start a war against Venezuela, a large, developed nation of 32.7 million,
at the same time we are threatening war against Iran, interfering all around Africa, and confronting Russia, China and perhaps North
Korea. Large parts of the Mideast and Afghanistan lie in ruins thanks to our 'liberation' campaigns.
Invading Venezuela would not be much of a problem for the US military: half the population hates the current government and might
welcome the Americans. Venezuela's military has only limited combat value. Right-wing regimes in neighboring Colombia and Brazil
might join the invasion.
But what then? Recall Iraq. The US punched through the feeble Iraqi Army whose strength had been wildly exaggerated by the media.
Once US and British forces settled in to occupation duties, guerilla forces made their life difficult and bloody. Iraqi resistance
continues today, sixteen years later. The same would likely happen in Venezuela.
There is deep anti-American sentiment in Latin America that existed long before Col. Chavez. Recall, for example, the large anti-American
riots that greeted Vice President Nixon's visit to Caracas in 1958.
'Yankees Go Home' is a rallying cry for much of Latin America. Blundering into Venezuela, another nation about which the Trump
administration knows or understands little, would stir up a hornet's next. Their ham-handed efforts to punish Cuba and whip up the
far right Cuban-American vote in Florida would galvanize anti-American anger across Latin America. Beware the ghost of Fidel.
ORDER IT NOW
Talks over Venezuela are underway between Washington and Moscow. Neither country has any major interest in Venezuela. Moscow is
stirring the pot there to retaliate for growing US involvement in Russia's backyard and Syria. Both the US and Russia should get
the hell out of Venezuela and mind their own business.
Instead, we hear crazy proposals to send 5,000 mercenaries to overthrow the Maduro regime. How well did the wide-scale use of
US-financed mercenaries work in Iraq and Afghanistan? A complete flop. The only thing they did competently was wash dishes at our
bases, murder civilians, and play junior Rambos.
For those who don't like the American Raj, a US invasion of Venezuela would mark a step forward in the crumbling of the empire.
More aimless imperial over-reach, more lack of strategy, more enemies generated.
The big winner would, of course, be the Pentagon and military industrial complex. More billions spent on a nation most Americans
could not find on a map if their lives depended on it, more orders for 'counter-insurgency' weapons, more military promotions, and
cheers from Fox News and wrestling fans.
Worst of all, the US could end up feeding and caring for wrecked Venezuela. How did we do with storm-ravaged Puerto Rico? It's
still in semi-ruin. Few want Venezuela's thick, heavy oil these days.
Venezuela could turn out to be a big, fat Tar Baby.
The "crackpot economic policies" of Chavez and Madero increased the health of the people through access to medical care, improved
housing, brought the literacy rate to one of the highest in Latin Americs, added years to average lifespan among other things
by emphasizing that the country's resources should improve the lives of Venezuela's citizens. This was accomplished by selling
resources in the capitalistic market -crackpot I grant you. The American sanctions and the seizure of Venezuelan assets are all
illegal under American law and Constitution given the treaties we have signed, but then if you want to know what those laws mean
all you have to do is ask any Native American tribe.
Who would pay Eric Prince's 5000 Blackwater hired assassins? Would the cash come from the pirate booty war chest or would the
citizens of America be stuck with the tab, once again?
@Walter Duranty Something
seems different. With Russian and Chinese intelligence help, the Guaido coup was a laughable joke. It made the US look like bozos.
I think Venezuela and allies tipped their hand there, and it is a strong one. I fear the US may be walking into a trap
It is interesting but several Pentagon/military officers are saying the Pentagon is not enthusiastic about invading Venezuela.
It is a rugged, jungle cloaked, country that is quite large and an American effort may end up being like the one in Vietnam.
I wonder how many are aware that Venezuela owns a majority of the oil company Citgo?
I wonder how many Americans know that for many years during Winter Citgo gave free heating oil to a large number of low income
households in the US northeast? while our own government was cutting back on low income heating oil subsidies.
We absolutely have won most of those little wars it's just that majority of the population doesn't have the same definition
of victory that our Neocon masters do. As long as we leave a county in ruins so it's development is set back for decades and there
are multiple factions fighting for power, the Neocons cobble together a wonderful democratic election and call it a victory.Stay as long as it takes to make sure no major faction is strong enough to set nationwide policy, bomb everything that's required
for a 20th Century society, then leave. If one faction plays nice by scraping and bowing to the US, fine, let them have a bit
of electricity and running water. Otherwise, leave the factions to fight one another in the rubble and enjoying their new found
freedom and democracy.Considering all the oil Venezuela has, they're just begging for some freedom and democracy.
It may be true that neither the US or Russia 'has any major interest in Venezuela', and that Putin may be 'stirring the pot'.
The real danger is, and globally the evidence points to this, an eventual clash between the major nuclear powers (world war).
It is ominous if Washington is getting for 'ready for real big wars against Russia and China, or even North Korea.' https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Pentagon serves Wall Street and is controlled by CIA which is actually can be viewed as a
Wall Street arm as well.
Notable quotes:
"... This time, though, the general got to talking about Russia. So I perked up. He made it crystal clear that he saw Moscow as an adversary to be contained, checked, and possibly defeated. There was no nuance, no self-reflection, not even a basic understanding of the general complexity of geopolitics in the 21st century. ..."
"... General It-Doesn't-Matter-His-Name thundered that we need not worry, however, because his tanks and troops could "mop the floor" with the Russians, in a battle that "wouldn't even be close." It was oh-so-typical, another U.S. Army general -- who clearly longs for the Cold War fumes that defined his early career -- overestimating the Russian menace and underestimating Russian military capability . ..."
"... The problem with the vast majority of generals, however, is that they don't think strategically. What they call strategy is really large-scale operations -- deploying massive formations and winning campaigns replete with battles. Many remain mired in the world of tactics, still operating like lieutenants or captains and proving the Peter Principle right, as they get promoted past their respective levels of competence. ..."
"... If America's generals, now and over the last 18 years, really were strategic thinkers, they'd have spoken out about -- and if necessary resigned en masse over -- mission sets that were unwinnable, illegal (in the case of Iraq), and counterproductive . Their oath is to the Constitution, after all, not Emperors Bush, Obama, and Trump. Yet few took that step. It's all symptomatic of the disease of institutionalized intellectual mediocrity. ..."
"... Let's start with Mattis. "Mad Dog" Mattis was so anti-Iran and bellicose in the Persian Gulf that President Barack Obama removed him from command of CENTCOM. ..."
"... Furthermore, the supposedly morally untainted, "intellectual" " warrior monk " chose, when he finally resigned, to do so in response to Trump's altogether reasonable call for a modest troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
The two-star army general strode across the stage in his rumpled combat fatigues, almost
like George Patton -- all that was missing was the cigar and riding crop. It was 2017 and I was
in the audience, just another mid-level major attending yet another mandatory lecture in the
auditorium of the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The general then commanded one of the Army's two true armored divisions and had plenty of
his tanks forward deployed in Eastern Europe, all along the Russian frontier. Frankly, most
CGSC students couldn't stand these talks. Substance always seemed lacking, as each general
reminded us to "take care of soldiers" and "put the mission first," before throwing us a few
nuggets of conventional wisdom on how to be good staff officers should we get assigned to his
vaunted command.
This time, though, the general got to talking about Russia. So I perked up. He made it
crystal clear that he saw Moscow as an adversary to be contained, checked, and possibly
defeated. There was no nuance, no self-reflection, not even a basic understanding of the
general complexity of geopolitics in the 21st century. Generals can be like that --
utterly "in-the-box," "can-do" thinkers. They take pride in how little they discuss policy and
politics, even when they command tens of thousands of troops and control entire districts,
provinces, or countries. There is some value in this -- we'd hardly want active
generals meddling in U.S. domestic affairs. But they nonetheless can take the whole "aw shucks"
act a bit too far.
General It-Doesn't-Matter-His-Name thundered that we need not worry, however, because
his tanks and troops could "mop the floor" with the Russians, in a battle that "wouldn't even
be close." It was oh-so-typical, another U.S. Army general -- who clearly longs for the Cold
War fumes that defined his early career -- overestimating the Russian menace and
underestimating Russian military
capability . Of course, it was all cloaked in the macho bravado so common among
generals who think that talking like sergeants will win them street cred with the troops.
(That's not their job anymore, mind you.) He said nothing, of course, about the role
of mid- and long-range nuclear weapons that could be the catastrophic consequence of an
unnecessary war with the Russian Bear.
I got to thinking about that talk recently as I reflected in wonder at how the latest
generation of mainstream "liberals" loves to fawn over generals, admirals -- any flag officers,
really -- as alternatives to President Donald Trump. The irony of that alliance should not be
lost on us. It's built on the standard Democratic fear of looking "soft" on terrorism,
communism, or whatever-ism, and their visceral, blinding hatred of Trump. Some of this is
understandable. Conservative Republicans masterfully paint liberals as "weak sisters" on
foreign policy, and Trump's administration is, well, a wild card in world affairs.
The problem with the vast majority of generals, however, is that they don't think
strategically. What they call strategy is really large-scale operations -- deploying massive
formations and winning campaigns replete with battles. Many remain mired in the world of
tactics, still operating like lieutenants or captains and proving the Peter Principle right, as they
get promoted past their respective levels of competence.
If America's generals, now and over the last 18 years, really were strategic thinkers,
they'd have spoken out about -- and if necessary resigned en masse over -- mission sets that
were unwinnable, illegal (in the case of Iraq), and counterproductive . Their oath is to
the Constitution, after all, not
Emperors Bush, Obama, and Trump. Yet few took that step. It's all symptomatic of the
disease of institutionalized intellectual mediocrity. More of the same is all they know:
their careers were built on fighting "terror" anywhere it raised its evil head. Some, though no
longer most, still subscribe to the faux intellectualism of General Petraeus and his legion of
Coindinistas
, who never saw a problem that a little regime change, followed by expert counterinsurgency,
couldn't solve. Forget that they've been proven wrong time and again and can count
zero victories since 2002. Generals (remember this!) are never held accountable.
Flag officers also rarely seem to recognize that they owe civilian policymakers more than
just tactical "how" advice. They ought to be giving "if" advice -- if we invade Iraq,
it will take 500,000 troops to occupy the place, and even then we'll ultimately destabilize the
country and region, justify al-Qaeda's worldview, kick off a nationalist insurgency, and become
immersed in an unwinnable war. Some, like Army Chief General Eric Shinseki and CENTCOM head
John Abizaid, seemed to
know this deep down. Still, Shinseki quietly retired after standing up to Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Abizaid rode out his tour to retirement.
Generals also love to tell the American people that victory is
"just around the corner," or that there's a "light at the end of the tunnel." General
William Westmoreland used the very same language when predicting imminent victory in Vietnam.
Two months later, the North Vietnamese and Vietcong unleashed the largest uprising of the war,
the famed Tet Offensive.
Take Afghanistan as exhibit A: 17 or so generals have now commanded U.S. troops in this,
America's longest war. All have commanded within the system and framework of their
predecessors. Sure, they made marginal operational and tactical changes -- some preferred
surges, others advising, others counterterror -- but all failed to achieve anything close to
victory, instead laundering failure into false optimism. None refused to play the same-old game
or question the very possibility of victory in landlocked, historically xenophobic Afghanistan.
That would have taken real courage, which is in short supply among senior officers.
Exhibit B involves Trump's former cabinet generals -- National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster, Chief of Staff John Kelley, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis -- whom adoring and
desperate liberals took as saviors and canonized as the supposed adults
in the room . They were no such thing. The generals' triumvirate consisted ultimately of
hawkish conventional thinkers married to the dogma of American exceptionalism and empire.
Period.
Let's start with Mattis. "Mad Dog" Mattis was so anti-Iran and bellicose in the Persian
Gulf that President Barack Obama
removed him from command of CENTCOM.
Furthermore, the supposedly morally untainted, "intellectual" " warrior
monk " chose, when he finally resigned, to do so in response to Trump's altogether
reasonable call for a modest troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria.
Helping Saudi Arabia terror bomb Yemen and starve 85,000 children to death? Mattis rebuked
Congress and
supported that. He never considered resigning in opposition to that war crime. No, he fell
on his "courageous" sword over downgrading a losing 17-year-old war in Afghanistan. Not to
mention he came to Trump's cabinet straight from the board of contracting giant General
Dynamics, where he collected hundreds of thousands of military-industrial complex dollars.
Then there was John Kelley, whom Press Secretary Sarah Sanders implied
was above media questioning because he was once a four-star marine general. And there's
McMaster, another lauded intellectual who once wrote an interesting book and taught history at
West Point. Yet he still drew all
the wrong conclusions in his famous book on Vietnam -- implying that more troops, more
bombing, and a mass invasion of North Vietnam could have won the war. Furthermore, his work
with Mattis on Trump's unhinged
, imperial National Defense Strategy proved that he was, after all, just another devotee of
American hyper-interventionism.
So why reflect on these and other Washington generals? It's simple: liberal veneration for
these, and seemingly all, military flag officers is a losing proposition and a formula for more
intervention, possible war with other great powers, and the creeping militarization of the
entire U.S. government. We know what the generals expect -- and potentially
want -- for America's foreign policy future.
Just look at the curriculum at the various war and staff colleges from Kansas to Rhode
Island. Ten years ago, they were all running war games focused on counterinsurgency in the
Middle East and Africa. Now those same schools are drilling for future "contingencies" in the
Baltic, Caucasus, and in the South China Sea. Older officers have always lamented the end of
the Cold War "good old days," when men were men and the battlefield was "simple." A return to a
state of near-war with Russia and China is the last thing real progressives should be
pushing for in 2020.
The bottom line is this: the faint hint that mainstream libs would relish a Six Days in May– style military coup is more than a little disturbing, no matter what you think
of Trump. Democrats must know the damage such a move would do to our ostensible republic. I
say: be a patriot. Insist on civilian control of foreign affairs. Even if that
means two more years of The Donald.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to Truthdig . His
work has also appeared in Harper's, the Los Angeles Times , The Nation , Tom Dispatch , and The
Hill . He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and later taught history at his alma
mater, West Point. He is the author of Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
As soon as nations learn to avoid dollar transactions that will dramatically weaken the USA
neoliberal empire. Bulling using technology transfer prohibitions is not effective as Germany and
Japan are now fully recovered from WWII destruction and post immediate threat to the USA
technological hegemony.
We the people needn't worry about our vote for president in as much as we the people
should investigate the people who surround our president's. Trump has been overtaken from his
campaigns foreign policy rhetoric by the same cabal of those who have captured the other
previous presidents from they're living up to their promises, whether by choice or by
compromise. I wish that a presidential campaign requirement were that each presidential
candidate would divulge the cabinet choices they would make as secretary's of our national
agencies. I wish for a lot of things that never will happen but still it would be nice to
know such substantial appointments as opposed to knowing about their personality disorders
wish are always disclosed for further review and constant discussion.
I've said it before that the US is going to sanction itself into obscurity. These
sanctioned nations are many and still growing if you include our allies. It's all sticks and
no carrots. When it all collapses the collapse may be blamed on US arrogance and profit.
"... They're my age. They were stupid liars 50+ years ago. The media they trusted was a fraud. In 1961, I stopped buying or reading the NY Times, because it lied then by fact and ommision. They educated/indoctrinated a stupider next generation. ..."
"... Embarrassing him and the U.S. the way John Bolton and Mike Pompeo did this week with Operation Bay of Fat Pigs will not sit well with Trump. He's been asked to sell a policy it doesn't look like he believes in. ..."
"... The problem with passing things on to younger heads is that in America those younger heads have no brains, they also believe in " Exceptional America ", many are those who see strength where only weakness exists.. ..."
"... The post-WWII order does seem to be dissolving to some degree. I'm surprised it took this long after the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Like the Chinese traditionally say, old institutions lose the "mandate of heaven" and start to collapse of their own weight. Unless renewal takes place, things go bad. ..."
The post WWII institutional order and political elite are old.
And the old institutional order is failing.
The outdated and old enmities between the U.S. and Russia led to a series of disastrous
decisions by men and women who are obsessed with overcoming their thwarted expectations of
enhanced power and prestige.
There was Operation Bay of Fat Pigs, coup-attempt which unfolded in real time in Caracas on
Tuesday. John Bolton was "snookered" ( H/T to Moon
of Alabama for excellent reporting on this ) by Venezuelan officials into thinking they had
the military and supreme court on their side.
When Juan "Random Fall Guy" Guaido made his move and no one else did, the U.S. was caught
televising live their own ineptitude. And then laughably tried to blame the Russians for
it.
While it is clear that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro had outwitted him, Bolton
apparently continues to rail on U.S. Southern Command leadership and President Trump to
invade.
Why? Because John Bolton is old, inflexible and well past his use-by date for coherent
foreign policy decisions.
Lindsay Graham wandered in out of the bathhouse to wonder where our aircraft carriers were
and why weren't they sending a clear message to those pesky Russians?
And everyone else around the world is wondering what the hell are people in D.C.
smoking?
If that wasn't enough for you, how about the ridiculous spectacle of Democratic senators
venting their desperation and vitriol at Attorney General William Barr for raining on their
impeachment parade.
Mueller, his staff of hatchetmen, the Obama administration and the rest of the corrupt
old-guard in D.C. fully expected to be allowed free rein to convict Trump politically of
Obstruction of Justice based on an interpretation of Federal Statutes that could only be
justified in the world of Philip K. Dick's Minority Report.
When that didn't happen they are now looking at potential blowback from a vain and
vindictive man occupying the supposedly most powerful office in the world.
But is that really the case anymore? It seems John Bolton has been more president than Trump
recently.
The Federal Reserve revealed they have no answers to the rapidly brewing dollar liquidity
problem they created and can't extricate themselves from. Dropping Interest on Excess Reserves
was pure window dressing on a problem far deeper than they can publicly admit to.
Crossing the pond we have the insistence of Theresa "Baghdad Bob" May that she's still
working towards a real Brexit after the complete wipeout of her Tory party in local council
elections across the whole of England.
Then there's the latest scandal with May firing adolescent Defense Minister Gavin Williamson
for leaking her cabinet's corrupt relationship with Chinese mobile technology leader
Huawei.
If May's goal is to destroy the British government in preparation for selling the country
lock, stock and two smoking barrels to the European Union, then she may be the only truly
competent politician left in the West.
They all just look so old and like a bunch of sorry has-beens getting together for a Love
Boat 30th anniversary special instead of serious people with serious policy solutions.
The DNC is in the midst of a coup attempt of its own by Cenk Uygur and the Justice
Democrats. Their only choice is to rally around Pedo Joe Biden who is fully implicated in the
RussiaGate mess with his deep ties to Ukraine where so many of the lies about Trump
originated.
Biden is 78. Bernie Sanders is is about to be.
The European Union is staring at the worst kind of blowback to its brutal strategy to deny
Brexit. The latest polling has Nigel Farage's Brexit party pulling from all parts of the
British electorate to become the dominant party heading into the polls in three weeks.
If this keeps up he'll completely change the face of British politics and all of this EU
inevitability will dissipate like a fart in a hurricane of populist anger.
Lastly, don't think that Trump will not put as much pressure as he can on these people. Barr
has already begun the process going after Nellie Ohr. There is a possibility we'll see Trump
actually get a few scalps here.
And that may include telling Sheldon Adelson to get stuffed and begin reversing course on
the insane levels of aggression emanating from the White House.
There comes a point when you look around and realize something isn't working. None of the
people I've talked about here can or will admit that they've failed. They are politicians, they
can't show weakness.
Trump has the opportunity here to use all of this to his egregious advantage. While the
Democrats lose their collective minds Trump took a long phone call with Russian President
Vladimir Putin and immediately made it public.
Embarrassing him and the U.S. the way John Bolton and Mike Pompeo did this week with
Operation Bay of Fat Pigs will not sit well with Trump. He's been asked to sell a policy it
doesn't look like he believes in.
Trump is in re-election mode now. And Venezuelan regime change is not a winning strategy,
neither is letting RussiaGate go. The key for him now is to undo a lot of the damage that's
been done by his staff, disloyal cabinet members and recalcitrant bureaucracy who are all
wedded deeply to the old way things are done.
Those old ways aren't working anymore. And if any of these people want to remain in power
and pass it along to the next generation they better start acting like the humanitarians they
purport to be. That means giving the people what they want -- Hillary Clinton's head on a pike,
Brexit, and an end to the creeping technocratic totalitarianism outsourced to Google, Facebook,
Twitter and Apple to get around the Constitution.
Houses divided into as many factions as we see all across the west will not stand. They not
only invite the crises on our horizon they accelerate them.
They're my age. They were stupid liars 50+ years ago. The media they trusted was a fraud.
In 1961, I stopped buying or reading the NY Times, because it lied then by fact and ommision.
They educated/indoctrinated a stupider next generation.
There is no noble ruling class and there never will be a good ruling class.
Embarrassing him and the U.S. the way John Bolton and Mike Pompeo did this week with
Operation Bay of Fat Pigs will not sit well with Trump. He's been asked to sell a policy it
doesn't look like he believes in.
He believed in the policy when he thought it was an easy win he could claim credit for.
Now that the reality is that many will die by his hand he probably sees things
differently. A military option in Venezuela will have consequences not just in the Americas..believe it
Tom.
The problem with passing things on to younger heads is that in America those younger heads
have no brains, they also believe in " Exceptional America ", many are those who see strength
where only weakness exists...lets push this button and see what happens.
Like the Chinese traditionally say, old institutions lose the "mandate of heaven" and
start to collapse of their own weight. Unless renewal takes place, things go bad.
"... US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five continents. ..."
"... The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial rulers imposed following independence. ..."
"... The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's. ..."
US global power in the Trump period reflects the continuities and changes which are
unfolding rapidly and deeply throughout the world and which are affecting the position of
Washington.
Assessing the dynamics of US global power is a complex problem which requires examining
multiple dimensions.
We will proceed by:
Conceptualizing the principles which dictate empire building,
specifically the power bases and the dynamic changes in relations and structures which shape
the present and future position of the US. Identifying the spheres of influence and power and
their growth and decline. Examining the regions of conflict and contestation. The major and
secondary rivalries. The stable and shifting relations between existing and rising power
centers. The internal dynamics shaping the relative strength of competing centers of global
power. The instability of the regimes and states seeking to retain and expand global power.
Conceptualization of Global Power
US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in
World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five
continents.
The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its
hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and
New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial
rulers imposed following independence.
US global power was built around encircling the USSR and China, undermining their economies
and defeating their allies militarily via regional wars.
Post WWII global economic and military superiority created subordinated allies and
established US global power, but it created the bases for gradual shifts in relations of
dominance.
US global power was formidable but subject to economic and military changes over time and in
space.
US Spheres of Power: Then and Now
US global power exploited opportunities but also suffered military setbacks early on,
particularly in Korea, Indo-China and Cuba. The US spheres of power were clearly in place in
Western Europe and Latin America but was contested in Eastern Europe and Asia.
The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and
disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation
of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's.
US ideologues declared the coming of a unipolar empire free of restraints and challenges to
its global and regional power. The US turned to conquering peripheral adversaries. Washington
destroyed Yugoslavia and then Iraq – fragmenting them into mini-states. Wall Street
promoted a multitude of multi-national corporations to invade China and Indo-China who reaped
billions of profits exploiting cheap labor.
The believers of the enduring rule of US global power envisioned a century of US imperial
rule.
In reality this was a short-sighted vision of a brief interlude.
The End of Unipolarity: New Rivalries and Global and Regional Centers of Power: An
Overview
US global power led Washington into 'overreach', in several crucial areas: it launched a
series of costly prolonged wars, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had three negative
consequences: the destruction of the Iraq armed forces and economy led to the rise of the
Islamic State which overtook most of the country; the occupation in Afghanistan which led to
the emergence of the Taliban and an ongoing twenty year war which cost hundreds of billions of
dollars and several thousand wounded and dead US soldiers; as a result the majority of the US
public turned negative toward wars and empire building
The US pillage and dominance of Russia ended, when President Putin replaced Yeltsin's vassal
state. Russia rebuilt its industry, science, technology and military power. Russia's population
recovered its living standards.
With Russian independence and advanced military weaponry, the US lost its unipolar military
power. Nevertheless, Washington financed a coup which virtually annexed two thirds of the
Ukraine. The US incorporated the fragmented Yugoslavian 'statelets' into NATO. Russia countered
by annexing the Crimea and secured a mini-state adjacent Georgia.
China converted the economic invasion of US multi-national corporations into learning
experiences for building its national economy and export platforms which contributed which led
to its becoming an economic competitor and rival to the US.
US global empire building suffered important setbacks in Latin America resulting
from the the so-called Washington Consensus. The imposition of neo-liberal policies
privatized and plundered their economies, impoverished the working and middle class, and
provoked a series of popular uprising and the rise of radical social movements and center-left
governments.
The US empire lost spheres of influence in some regions (China, Russia, Latin America,
Middle East) though it retained influence among elites in contested regions and even launched
new imperial wars in contested terrain. Most notably the US attacked independent regimes in
Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Sudan via armed proxies.
The change from a unipolar to a multi polar world and the gradual emergence of regional
rivals led US global strategists to rethink their strategy. The Trump regime's aggressive
policies set the stage for political division within the regime and among allies.
The Obama – Trump Convergence and Differences on Empire Building
By the second decade of the 21 st century several new global power alignments
emerged: China had become the main economic competitor for world power and Russia was the major
military challenger to US military supremacy at the regional level. The US replaced the former
European colonial empire in Africa. Washington's sphere of influence extended especially in
North and Sub Sahara Africa: Kenya, Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia. Trump gained leverage in the
Middle East namely in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Jordan.
Israel retained its peculiar role, converting the US as its sphere of influence.
But the US faced regional rivals for sphere of influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and
Algeria.
In South Asia US faced competition for spheres of influence from China, India, Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
In Latin America sharp and abrupt shifts in spheres of influence were the norm. US influence
declined between 2000 – 2015 and recovered from 2015 to the present.
Imperial Power Alignments Under President Trump
President Trump faced complex global, regional and local political and economic
challenges.
Trump followed and deepened many of the policies launched by the Obama- Hillary Clinton
policies with regard to other countries and regions . However Trump also radicalized and/or
reversed policies of his predecessors. He combined flattery and aggression at the same
time.
At no time did Trump recognize the limits of US global power. Like the previous three
presidents he persisted in the belief that the transitory period of a unipolar global empire
could be re-imposed.
Toward Russia, a global competitor, Trump adopted a policy of 'rollback'. Trump imposed
economic sanctions, with the strategic 'hope' that by impoverishing Russia, degrading its
financial and industrial sectors that he could force a regime change which would convert Moscow
into a vassal state.
At the beginning of his Presidential campaign Trump flirted with the notion of a business
accommodation with Putin. However, Trump's ultra-belligerent appointments and domestic
opposition soon turned him toward a highly militarized strategy, rejecting military –
including nuclear – agreements, in favor of military escalation.
Toward China, Trump faced a dynamic and advancing technological competitor. Trump resorted
to a 'trade war' that went far beyond 'trade' to encompass a war against Beijing's economic
structure and social relations. The Trump regime-imposed sanctions and threatened a total
boycott of Chinese exports.
ORDER IT NOW
Trump and his economic team demanded China privatize and denationalize its entire state
backed industry. They demanded the power to unilaterally decide when violations of US rules
occurred and to be able to re-introduce sanctions without consultations. Trump demanded all
Chinese technological agreements, economic sectors and innovations were subject and open to US
business interests. In other words, Trump demanded the end of Chinese sovereignty and the
reversal of the structural base for its global power. The US was not interested in mere 'trade'
– it wanted a return to imperial rule over a colonized China.
The Trump regime rejected negotiations and recognition of a shared power relation: it viewed
its global rivals as potential clients.
Inevitably the Trump regime's strategy would never reach any enduring agreements on any
substantial issues under negotiations. China has a successful strategy for global power built
on a 6 trillion-dollar world-wide Road and Belt (R and B) development policy, which links 60
countries and several regions. R and B is building seaports, rail and air systems linking
industries financed by development banks.
In contrast, the US banks exploits industry, speculates and operates within closed financial
circuits. The US spends trillions on wars, coups, sanctions and other parasitical activities
which have nothing to do with economic competitiveness.
The Trump regime's 'allies' in the Middle East namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are parasitic
allies who buy protection and provoke costly wars.
Europe complains about China's increase in industrial exports and overlook imports of
consumer goods. Yet the EU plans to resist Trump's sanctions which lead to a blind alley of
stagnation!
Conclusion
The most recent period of the peak of US global power, the decade between 1989-99 contained
the seeds of its decline and the current resort to trade wars, sanctions and nuclear
threats.
The structure of US global power changed over the past seven decades. The US global empire
building began with the US command over the rebuilding of Western European economies and the
displacement of England, France, Portugal and Belgium from Asia and Africa.
The Empire spread and penetrated South America via US multi-national corporations. However,
US empire building was not a linear process as witness its unsuccessful confrontation with
national liberation movements in Korea, Indo China, Southern Africa (Angola, Congo, etc.) and
the Caribbean (Cuba). By the early 1960's the US had displaced its European rivals and
successfully incorporated them as subordinate allies.
Washington's main rivals for spheres of influence was Communist China and the USSR with
their allies among client state and overseas revolutionaries.
The US empire builders' successes led to the transformation of their Communist and
nationalist rivals into emergent capitalist competitors.
In a word US dominance led to the construction of capitalist rivals, especially China and
Russia.
Subsequently, following US military defeats and prolonged wars, regional powers proliferated
in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Regional blocs competed with US
clients for power.
The diversification of power centers led to new and costly wars. Washington lost exclusive
control of markets, resources and alliances. Competition reduced the spheres of US power.
In the face of these constraints on US global power the Trump regime envisioned a strategy
to recover US dominance – ignoring the limited capacity and structure of US political ,
economic and class relations.
China absorbed US technology and went on to create new advances without following each
previous stage.
Russia's recovered from its losses and sanctions and secured alternative trade relations to
counter the new challenges to the US global empire. Trump's regime launched a 'permanent trade
war' without stable allies. Moreover, he failed to undermine China's global infrastructure
network; Europe demanded and secured autonomy to enter into trade deals with China, Iran and
Russia.
Trump has pressured many regional powers who have ignored his threats.
The US still remains a global power. But unlike the past, the US lacks the industrial base
to 'make America strong'. Industry is subordinated to finance; technological innovations are
not linked to skilled labor to increase productivity.
Trump relies on sanctions and they have failed to undermine regional influentials. Sanctions
may temporarily reduce access to US markets' but we have observed that new trade partners take
their place.
Trump has gained client regimes in Latin America, but the gains are precarious and subject
to reversal.
Under the Trump regime, big business and bankers have increased prices in the stock market
and even the rate of growth of the GDP, but he confronts severe domestic political instability,
and high levels of turmoil among the branches of government. In pursuit of loyalty over
competence, Trump's appointments have led to the ascendancy of cabinet officials who seek to
wield unilateral power which the US no longer possesses.
Elliot Abrams can massacre a quarter-million Central Americans with impunity, but he has
failed to impose US power over Venezuela and Cuba. Pompeo can threaten North Kore, Iran and
China but these countries fortify alliances with US rivals and competitors. Bolton can advance
the interests of Israel but their conversations take place in a telephone booth – it
lacks resonance with any major powers.
Trump has won a presidential election, he has secured concessions from some countries but he
has alienated regional and diplomatic allies. Trump claims he is making America strong, but he
has undermined lucrative strategic multi-lateral trade agreements.
US 'Global Power' does not prosper with bully-tactics. Projections of power alone, have
failed – they require recognition of realistic economic limitations and the losses from
regional wars.
This is a fine synopsis but it leaves out the most fundamental of issues.
The American People don't want to be an Empire, .never asked to be an Empire and despise,
to the core, our ruling elites who defrauded us into becoming one.
We do live in an Empire now, to our chagrin, but it is (in truth) a malevolent empire .an
Empire of Fraud, Belligerence .. and Heinous
F#cking Debt .
Show me one American, anywhere, who is happy about it .
Our ruling elites have "lied" us into multiple wars of "never ending" criminal aggression
..wars which have all but exterminated the solvency of the nation and reaped untold carnage
and misery on tens of millions of people who never attacked us (and never intended to).
This "War Fraud", foisted upon us , has been a catastrophic disaster for our country and
the world.
A "mind -bending, catastrophic, . disaster".
Every single belligerent "oligarch" , "plutocrat" and "establishment elite", who conspired
to defraud us into these "illegal wars", should be rounded up and thrown in federal prison
Every single penny of their assets should be seized to pay down the cost of wars they lied us
into.
This is , hands down, the most meaningful step we could take, as a nation.
Not only would it change the direction of the world, almost overnight, but it would lay
the groundwork for the United States to rebuild itself.
Once we make "Accountability for War Fraud" our nations highest priority, we can repair
and rebuild.
If we don't, we won't and(tragically) might never be able to.
America's word has never been taken seriously. Ever heard of our treaties with the Native
Americans? Clinton abrogated the accords between Gorbachev and Reagan, that NATO would not
move one inch to the East. Clinton set up the drunken Yeltsin as his puppet, interfering with
Russia's elections and raping their economy.
Bush II desperately wanted to finish his father's Gulf War, ignoring the UN weapons
inspectors. He also unilaterally pulled the US out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
America promised Ghaddafi that if he did not pursue nuclear weapons and supporting
terrorists (like Saudi Arabia and Israel), he would be left alone. Soon he was dead from
bayonet rape with a gleeful chortling Hillary impressing American spooks with her "Libya
Model", touted by Bolton, Pence and Pompeo to Kim's face.
Obama's deal with Iran was hated even more by Hillary (and most members of Congress) than
by Trump, and was doomed when Obama left office (one of his few achievements, however
fleeting).
The Establishment clowns Bolton, Pence and Pompeo will keep Trump on track.
"... It’s also a white thing or Republican thing (Nikki Haley). But frankly, political Zionism is just as pro-Israel and is pervasive among nearly D.C. establishment politicos. People like Hillary, Samantha Power, Susan Rice are every bit as warmongering for Israel as John Hagee. ..."
"... My only interest in the “State of Israel” is they should keep their hands out of our federal treasury, i.e. our tax dollars, and quit spreading lies that they are “just like us.” They are not. ..."
"... Christian Zionism is a minor problem. The major one is the Zionist fifth column in this country that infests and largely controls the government, the economy, the mass media, etc. ..."
Pompeo: "My Faith in Jesus Christ Makes a Real Difference"
Pompeo says
God may have sent Trump to save Israel from Iran
"As a Christian, I certainly believe that's possible," said Mr Pompeo ."I am confident that
the Lord is at work here,"
Pence, a Catholic Evangelical who almost became a priest: "I made a commitment to
Christ."
Christians? These Christians support a war on Yemen in which huge numbers of people are
dying of mutilation, cholera, and starvation, a war they could stop with a telephone call. They
similarly support butchery of Afghans from the air, massive killing in Syria, bombing of
Somalis, and torture chambers around the world. Such is their Christianity. They lack even a
shred of human decency. But they are Christians.
OLD TESTAMENT, THE ROOT OF CHRISTIANITY = PURE EVIL.
Thanks for the article, Fred. You are so right. But when I see the Pope kissing the feet
of alien invaders and Pence groveling to Israel, I remember these:
The 18th-century Anglo-American philosopher Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and
torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible
[i.e. the Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of
a demon, than the Word of God.” When he says Bible, Paine is referring to the OT.
“There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament….–books like
Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus*. The Quran pales in comparison.”–Jewish
author Dr. Samuel Benjamin Harris.
We have Pompeo, a malignant manatee looking to start wars in which he will not risk his
flabby amorphous ass also parading his Christianity
Actually Pompeo served in the military for five years, reaching the rank of captain. Now
he’s 55, so yes, he will not be risking his “flabby ass,” only his job.
Fred should really do more research, ‘cuz he just seems lazy.
Whatever Pompeo’s shortcomings, the guy’s resume is top-notch: first in his
class at West Point, STEM degree, Harvard law, veteran, successful businessman, yada yada. I
do find it odd that someone of his ilk believes in the Rapture; my only guess is that
he’s playing to his (former) Kansas electoral base, and he can’t back out now. No
way he believes this stuff.
Protestantism is pseudo-Christianity. It started 1500 years after the Christian Church was
founded and now has over 40K different splinter groups (denominations) in the U.S. alone.
This Johnny-come-lately of heresies began because of greed and lust, and as usual, a Jewish
revolutionary spirit (read E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit ).
But on Trump’s über-neocon turn E. Michael Jones sums it up well in this
Sputnik News interview of March 22, 2019:
I am not in favor of christian zionism but the irrational has always played a prominent role
in human politics, that being said I am a great fan of Fred Reed.
The one nice thing is that Israelophilia amongst young Americans rapidly drops off along with
secularization and Europeanization of social attitudes, as well as of course greater
diversity (Latinos couldn’t care less about creating Greater Israel). There was a
recent survey which showed that even young Republicans are not much more pro-Israel than
young Democrats. This Christian Zionism thing is very much a boomer thing.
There’s a good chance that the Trump administration is a last hurrah for the Israel
First agenda.
Christians didn’t invent hypocrisy, nor are they the only ones who apply it.
However, they are the one group that knows and professes to do better, so they are easy
target.
The closest to original Christianity is the Eastern Orthodox brand which is less corrupted
compared to Romanism with its heavy doses of ‘pagan’ influences.
Christian Zionism is a fraud like most American heresies including those snake-handling
‘churches’, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Identity, Christian
Science, Jehovah Witnesses plus countless Jim Jones-like cults.
In fact Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was initially a ‘Zionist’ till
he saw the ‘light’, prompting him to pen On the Jews and Their Lies (Von den
Juden und ihren Lügen) . The modern apostate Lutheran church has since been
compromised.
Besides the ‘perks’ of being philo-Semitic are terrible. Take the Brits. After
they failed to fulfill the fraudulent Balfour Declaration, Zionists turned nasty –
terror groups like the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang resorted to letter bombs, blowing up
hotels and hanging British troops with piano wire.
By contrast, Mr. Reed is one of these: https://www.marines.com/who-we-are/our-values.html
DUCTUS EXEMPLO
A Latin term that means “lead by example,”
it’s about behaving in a manner that inspires others.
Don’t know about you, but I am not inspired by a fat body who brags about lying,
cheating and stealing, just for starters.
He is also welcome to peddle his crazed religious beliefs somewhere else.
As an agnostic, I really do not give a rat’s ass what happens to the terrorist state of
Israel.
Israel’s battles are not my battles, and I resent anyone attempting to tell me they
are.
I also do have Iranian friends, but no Iranian enemies.
Notice to Mr. Pence: Iran is not my enemy. Israel’s enemies are not my enemies. I do NOT “stand with Israel.”
The United States of America is a separate country from the State of Israel, with
far different values.
I stand with the United States, the country of my birth, so long as it adheres to the
principles embodied in its founding documents, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the
U.S. Constitution. Lately, it does not appear to be doing much of that, no thanks to
shitheads like Mr. Pompeo, and his compadre in crime, Mr. Bolton.
This Christian Zionism thing is very much a boomer thing.
I disagree.
In my opinion, “Christian Zionism” is very much an ignorance thing.
Snake handlers and “young earth creationists” are probably its major
constituency. I was born in 1949, turned 21 and graduated university in 1970.
None of my friends past or present, Christian or not, believe such absolute nonsense.
Unfortunately, it appears there are all too many who do.
@turtle You’re
pretty naive if you think the CIA doesn’t lie. Every intelligence outfit across the
world lies. You think MI6 doesn’t lie, like every day of its life?
Since you’re so interested in Israel, you might want to know that Fred Reed is a
total Johnny come lately on critiquing Israel. He used to make fun of people e-mailing him
about Israel. In 2005, he wrote a hugely embarrassing positive review of a book claiming that
Israel was getting a raw deal in the press because Palestinians were orchestrating the
coverage. Imagine shilling for a book like that. Fred Reed did.
In my opinion, “Christian Zionism” is very much an ignorance thing.
Snake handlers and “young earth creationists” are probably its major
constituency.
I was born in 1949, turned 21 and graduated university in 1970.
None of my friends past or present, Christian or not, believe such absolute nonsense.
Unfortunately, it appears there are all too many who do.
It’s also a white thing or Republican thing (Nikki Haley). But frankly, political
Zionism is just as pro-Israel and is pervasive among nearly D.C. establishment politicos.
People like Hillary, Samantha Power, Susan Rice are every bit as warmongering for Israel as
John Hagee.
But the rapid demographic shift and the the decline of whites in large metro areas will
certainly reduce future support for Israel and the U.S. kowtowing to Israel.
70 percent of school district’s newest students are immigrants, legal status
unknown
Seven of 10 new students in a Baltimore-Washington area school district are immigrants,
their legal status unknown and their second language English, according to a series of new
media reports about the impact of surging immigration on local communities.
A recent Baltimore Sun report said that of the 5,000 new students jamming Baltimore
County schools in the past five years, 3,500 are “recent immigrants or children whose
family speak another language.”
That has helped to double the percentage of students who speak English as a second
language, part of a national trend.
You’re pretty naive if you think the CIA doesn’t lie.
I never said that, or believed it either.
What I said:
I am not inspired by a fat body who brags about lying, cheating and stealing
Nor is Pompeo the only Pointer known to lie.
There was a certain General Powell, for example.
Perhaps the USMA should change their motto – truth in advertising, etc.
FWIW, I had two close friends in HS who were both USMA, Class of 1970.
I know for a fact neither of them would stoop to Mr. Pompeo’s level.
Since you’re so interested in Israel
My only interest in the “State of Israel” is they should keep their hands out
of our federal treasury, i.e. our tax dollars, and quit spreading lies that they are
“just like us.” They are not.
@Anatoly KarlinChristian Zionism is a minor problem. The major one is the Zionist fifth column in this
country that infests and largely controls the government, the economy, the mass media, etc.
Whatever Pompeo’s shortcomings, the guy’s resume is top-notch: first in his
class at West Point, STEM degree, Harvard law, veteran, successful businessman, yada
yada.
I would not consider a degree in engineering management a STEM degree
“This puts Evangelicals in the curious position of being pro-Israel but
anti-Semitic.”
Tuning around Freesat in Europe, particularly the UK, get you get a lot of religious
channels, mostly Muslim, but also more than a few Christian. One day I tuned past a Christian
guy standing in front of a phone bank and a flag of Israel, asking for money while expressing
his solidarity with Israel.
You make a good point Fred: They don’t care so much about the Jews, they just want
to get their hands on the Holy Lands, even if it takes every Jewish and Muslim life they can
throw at the problem.
“Actually Pompeo served in the military for five years, reaching the rank of
captain.”
The top of a Service Academy class only “reaching” the rank of Captain
(Railroad Tracks, not Bird) after five years of active service is hardly an accomplishment
… it is fulfilling the service requirement in exchange for a free-ride on the
taxpayers teat. He conveniently ended his service just before he might have been dragooned
into Gulf War 1, and if he did reserve time, it was while at Harvard Law; while many other
reserve officers had their civvy careers interrupted by an increasing ops tempo of
deployments that followed GW1, Mike did just fine.
Having been given seed money for his business by the Kochs and Bain Capital, he was
plucked, like B. Hussein Obama, out of relative obscurity and fast-tracked to greatness. Kind
of like a poorer George H.W. Bush.
@Swede55 There was a
Byzantium, but it wasn’t as Chi-Chi as Rome at the time of Christ. Making Rome the
centre of the Gurch then would be like making it New York or DC now. I would be hard-pressed
to see Christ himself embracing Rome as the seat of Christendom then, but it would not be
much of a reach for his followers who wanted to be closer to the cosmopolitan action of the
day.
I guess you’d call me one of those detestable fundamentalists, Fred. You see, I take
very seriously what Jesus says in the New Testament. The authority of the Son of God makes
clear that His interpretations are the ones that those really transformed and following Him
would model.
Now people who’ve never directly experienced things for themselves can be misled by
others, who will use the disguise of faith. As for love of country, patriotism is also
misused to become the first refuge of scoundrels: instead of loving your neighbors, used by
them as Mark Twain pointed out to require hating others in countries further away.
But what happens when you find out you’ve been lied to? For me, having had some
involvement with the military in the computer industry during the Cold War, it was clear
after the Russians abandoned sovietism that the American corporations involved cared not a
whit for liberty – war meant profits. Then came the lies justifying the Iraq war and
all its cousins, along with the Abu Ghraib tortures approved to the highest levels –
which because of my own involvement I knew had to follow the chain of command. Both religious
leaders and political leaders approved of these tortures. But although I had believed these
folks, the revelations and the excuses made did not jibe with my Savior’s clear
speaking in scripture – quite the opposite. This was not the Jesus I know, nor the
witness of the Holy Spirit who leads me.
Now these manifestations of political cooperation and human organizations calling
themselves Christian, are self identifying. They claim the name Christian, but when they defy
Christ’s own example and teaching, they are in fact anti-Christian, either
self-deceived or knowingly deceiving others.
All along, there have been those who truly were following His path and taking up His
cross, even where weeds choked the Gospel as best they could, and wolves moved among the
sheep in disguise. Often those with the power to do so marginalized, persecuted and even
tortured and murdered these, while masquerading as Christians while defying His every
command.
I am evangelical, in that I would like to see others meet the real Jesus, not substitute
false idols like the War Jesus constructed by merely human hands. But I also know that
despite billions supposedly Christian, Jesus warned the path is narrow, the road to
destruction broad, and that those taking up His cross would ever only be a minority –
and that such a minority would be persecuted, even by religious authorities. Such folks
cannot be conflated with membership rolls on institutional records, but are known to God.
My orientation of faith is identical to that of the anabaptists who were the Christians
persecuted by Catholics and Protestants alike, reformers who refused to take up arms against
either. They often rescued their own pursuers, yet were rewarded with burning, drowning,
throttling, dismemberment, along with wives and children by those who pretended they were
serving Christ by doing so.
So I appreciate your pointing out how wicked it is to do evil things in the name of
Christ, but I would like to remind you that just as the counterfeit can’t exist without
the genuine, that there are those who won’t participate in these things, because they
are determined to follow Christ, the Holy Spirit and the conscience this dictates, regardless
of both those who hate Christ and those who worship a false Christ whose actions bear more
resemblance to the methods of Satan himself.
@turtle The honor
code at West Point was always taken seriously. Like so much else it has deteriorated lately,
but it’s still observed.
Unfortunately, once the plebs graduate and become officers they enter the United States
Army, in which lying is required to advance your career. The entire officer corps as a result
is dishonest, and the higher your rank the greater the lying.
John T. Reed refused to sign false reports as a junior officer in Vietnam, the result of
which was that he was never promoted (highly irregular) and his commanding officer attempted
to get him killed.
Fred Reed was an enlisted Marine, but he has said similar things about officers and
especially brass.
@Thorfinnsson Thank
you for the link to Mr. John T. Reed’s site.
He evidently embodies the sort of integrity we should expect from leaders, but seldom
get.
they enter the United States Army, in which lying is required to advance your career.
The entire officer corps as a result is dishonest, and the higher your rank the greater the
lying.
That bears an awesome similarity with dating and romance. I wonder how come.
Excellent piece by Mr Reed…he really tore a righteous strip of bacon off that walking
side of pork Pompeo…
There are millions of evangelical Christians that fanatically support Israel for the
reason of this end times nonsense, as stated in the article…so that is a very large
base…and not all of them insist that Jews must convert…that is just one slice
of a very wide spectrum…
In fact not all evangelical Christians support Israel…there is a very wide spectrum
on the Israel issue…right up to those that see Iran and Russia [especially] in a
positive light…which is encouraging…
These American Christians sympathize with Russia’s Christianity and also with the
conservatism they see in Russian society, and the sobriety of Russian politics…I have
no idea how the numbers stack up for these various slices of the spectrum…but the
mainstream is probably along the lines of the Pences and Pompeos of the world…
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to
me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive
out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly,
‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
N
Christian fundamentalism is full of whack jobs and Dr. Strangeloves and Pompeo and Pence are
two shining examples. I just hope they don’t get us all blown to smithereens.
In Fred’s adopted nation a six year old was just caught in the crossfire of drug
cartel gunfire in Cancun and has died of his injuries. This is hard to believe as Fred tells
us that in addition to being a nation on the cutting edge of technology, it also has the most
bookstores per square mile of any nation. So the bookish Mexican people should be reading
books and not dealing drugs and shooting people, especially kids:
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/04/26/cartel-gunfire-in-cancun-kills-6-year-old-wounds-parents/
Mexico has 33K homicides annually but Fredrico gets peeved if American whites don’t
want these problems in America.
@Anonymous
“the schism of Eastern Orthodoxy” is an odd way to put it; the Roman Catholics
flounced out from the old church in the schism of 1054. Or to put it another way, the Pope
flounced out from the other Patriarchs.
“Ss. Peter and Paul went to Rome”: Paul yes; he had no choice, being under
arrest. Peter: of course he didn’t, that’s just another of those old religious
fabrications.
If the earliest Christians had a True Home it was either Jerusalem or Galilee, of
course.
@Brabantian
“the 3 Abrahamic religions … all founded by the same kind of desert tribals used
to life and death battles for control of a single watering hole.
Hardly. It would seem that the earliest Hebrews were probably settled villagers in the
hills of Palestine. The earliest Christians were villagers in Galilee.
It’s not at all clear who the earliest Moslems were, since the initial conquerors
were referred to as Saracens: the witness statements to their success make no reference to
their having a distinct religion or distinct holy book. They do seem to have had a general
called Mahomet, though, who had earlier been a merchant. Where they were from is also
unclear. There’s a fair chance that they were originally from around Petra, which is on
the edge of cultivation, not deep in the Arabian desert.
@turtle West Point
honor grad here. Also a conscientious objector. It took me a bit to overcome my childhood
indoctrination into the cult of imperialism, but before long, I realized that imperialism was
in no way defending the people who reside in the USA.
The sad reality of current US culture is that West Point is extremely proud of lying,
cheating, and stealing Pompeo, and considers me to be an embarrassment. The true mission of
West Point is not “Duty, Honor, Country” as far as I can tell, but to bait
idealistic young men and women into attending college there in an attempt to turn them into
soulless, self-serving, corporate bag men like they did to Mike Pompeo.
(FWIW, my money is on Pompeo having somewhat cheated his way through West Point. I have
seen it with my own eyes, and Pompeo does not seem that intelligent to me)
@KenH Christian
fundamentalism is also full of con-artists who take the gullible for a ride. Pence seems
quite dull. He might really believe that stuff. Pompeo is the wolf in sheep’s clothes.
I have enough faith to at least hope that short of complete repentance (as likely as him
getting knocked off a horse by God) – short of that, a special hell awaits him
@The scalpel Porker
Pompeo on a horse…?…being a horse lover that mental image sends shivers down my
spine…
OTOH…a well placed back hoof to the nether regions of the ‘malignant
manatee’ [classic coinage right there…thanks Mr Reed]…would be divinely
appreciated…let us hope and, dare I say it, pray…
The top of a Service Academy class only “reaching” the rank of Captain
(Railroad Tracks, not Bird) after five years of active service is hardly an accomplishment
…
@Truth Captain after
5 years is the most common result. The rank of Major is used as an incentive to stay in after
one’s (typically 5 year) obligation. Looking at Plumpeo, I’d guess one of the
reasons he got out was because he couldn’t pass his fitness tests
@tex tickles If the
Torah isn’t for Christians, why is it quoted 695 times and referenced a total of 4,105
times in the New Testament?
How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in
the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old
Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many
other passages where the Old Testament is referred to , as in cases where an Old Testament
figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which
scholar’s work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New
Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. I, p. 617
The Inquisition: It’s prolly best to begin at the beginning, with Moses, the first, and
deadliest, inquisitor.
Moses, the 1st inquisitor ordered killed 23 thousand one day (Exodus 32)
Moses, the 1st Inquisitor, ordered killed 24 thousand one day (Numbers 25).
Forty Seven Thousand ordered killed by The First Inquisitor, Moses, in two days, including
women and children.
Non-Catholic historian Edward Peters:, in his work, “Inquisition” (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1989, p. 87),
The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its
victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more
restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the
same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried
out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that
in comparable secular courts.
++++++++++++++
Mr. Reed is an odd individual whose understanding of Christianity suffers from a lack of
knowledge.
He seems to think that Christian Catholics have no right to defend themselves and he also
suffers from the error of Presentism.
Of course, secular governments were far worse during the era when torture was acceptable
and, of course, one must note that heretics were treated then as today’s traitors ought
be treated.
If Germany had an Inquisition, wed have never heard of Hitler, but men like Fred hated
that which men like Fred have never understood
@Anonymous
Christianity itself, in all forms, is pseudo-Jewdaism, from the very start of it, even for
you ever-kvetching Jew-worshiping Catholics.
• “ To the Jews ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the
giving of the law, the worship …’” Catechism of the Catholic
Church
• “ We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews
.” John 4:22
• “For it is we [Christians] who are the Circumcision.” Philippians 3:3
@Patrick
“Christian Zionism” has been woven into the fabric of the Jew-worshiping cult of
Christianity, from the very beginning, with Jewish storytellers writing these Zionist
principles the Jew Testament:
• Matthew 21:5 “Say to Daughter Zion , ‘See, your king comes to
you.”
• John 12:15 “Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion ; see, your king is
coming.”
• Romans 9:33 “See, I lay in Zion a stone…”
• Romans 11:26 “The deliverer will come from Zion …”
• Hebrews 12:22 “Mount Zion , to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem.”
• 1 Peter 2:6 “See, I lay a stone in Zion .”
• Revelation 14:1 “Standing on Mount Zion , and with him
144,000.”
@Mick Jagger gathers no
Mosque The Inquisition started in 12th-century France . The Spanish
Inquisition wasn’t the only region of Inquisition. Stop trying to minimize the horrors.
@The scalpel
Christianity was started by con -artists who take the gullible for a ride. As Hebrews
11:1 says, “Now faith is con fidence in what we hope for and assurance about
what we do not see.” That sounds exactly like a sales pitch from con fidence
man Bernie Madoff, another one of the Hebrews.
@dearieme The
earliest Christians were villagers in Galilee? Bible says Syria; “Christians first
in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26) Not surprisingly, it seems Muslims got their start from
Syria too; as the Quran was substantially derived from Syriac Christian liturgy. ( Luxenberg, 2007 )
Let’s not forget Christians and Muslims from Syria both like to shout “Aloha
Snackbar!”
@Mick Jagger gathers no
Mosque Teachers refer to that as the “everybody’s doing it” excuse.
Stay after class, to explain how those inquisitions too weren’t so awfully bad.
@Mick Jagger gathers no
Mosque Sadly, none of the three Abrahamic religions were started by Whites, who need
their own native religion that better fits their evolutionary biology.
@anon Torture has
never been anything out of the ordinary throughout history, when the police of the day took
you in for questioning they wouldn’t offer treats in exchange for a confession, torture
has been standard operating procedure, it was the normal, expected course of any
investigation. Why don’t people blame the governments of today for what the countries
they rule now used to do in the past?
If you can trust the History channel, there is no proof of an Iron Maiden device ever
having been used, rather, it was used as a fear inducing object having a profound
psychological impact.
@The scalpel Major
after 5 years? When, during WW2? The War Between the States? Whether you agree with his
politics, or not, being promoted to captain after 5 years in peace time is perfectly normal.
The man was an athlete in high school, graduated first in his class at West Point, was an
infantry officer then was on the Harvard Law Review before being elected to Congress. And not
as a liberal pantywaist. Give him his due, the man’s led a remarkable life.
@Rich He found that
affirmative action was not as good as lying, cheating, and stealing. I will grant that he is
pretty smart, (though I am suspicious that he is not smart enough to have graduated 1st in
his West Point class without cheating.)
Take a smart person who wisely uses lying, cheating, and stealing without any remorse as a
means to outcompete his friends and enemies alike, and you have someone who, with a little
luck and without being caught, can slither their way to the top of some competetive
hierarchies. These people are known as psychopaths, or more precisely, antisocial personality
disorders.
Do I respect psychopaths? No. They generally are purely takers, and make very few
contributions to humanity. Additionally, I would like to believe in things like truth, honor,
and justice, and no matter how “successful” these psychopaths are, they are
complete and utter failures on criteria I value. Then again, most government officials score
very low on those scales. Sadly, it almost seems that they must in order to obtain such
positions. We are governed by psychopaths.
@The scalpel What
evidence do you have that Mr Pompeo is a psychopath? Look, you don’t like the
guy’s politics, that’s okay, but why do you guys all of a sudden become Sigmund
Freud and start psychoanalyzing people you’ve never met? It’s almost impossible
to get through West Point cheating, lying or stealing. If anyone sees you doing anything even
slightly dishonorable, they’ll rat you out faster than a Kapo would run to a German
guard if he saw someone doing something wrong. The guy is obviously a very intelligent and
hard working man who’s looked out at the world and drawn different conclusions than
you. Doesn’t make him “evil” or a “psychopath”. Just makes him
a powerful guy you don’t agree with.
am suspicious that he is not smart enough to have graduated 1st in his West Point class
without cheating.
Maybe not cheating, per se, but at least picking his (academic) battles.
In my experience, it is frequently the case (though not always) that those who major in
“management” are those who cannot hack it in a technical discipline, or choose
not to work quite that hard.
Evidently Harvard Law places great importance on undergraduate GPA.
Speculation:
An outstanding GPA in a soft major might carry more weight at Harvard than a lower GPA
in a more demanding field. I emphasize this is speculation, as I do not actually know.
I do know that I scored 786 out of 800 on LSAT in 1970 and was not admitted to
Harvard Law. My undergraduate grades at a small technical school farther down the Charles
were only average among my peers.
All of the world’s religions can be associated with killings. They are either deeds of
evil individuals, policy wrongs that do not involve direct murder, self defense or the
defense of an attacked nation. Political policy can be rendered unto Cesar, while murder is
accurately blamed on the individuals who do it. Mass murder is particularly evil, spawning
military action that can affect innocents in other nations when it gets as heinous as the
murdering of 3,000 innocent office workers on 9/11 by Muslims.
Sure, Christians have done some heinous & barbaric things over the centuries. After
making a big deal of religion, Henry the Eighth beheaded some of his wives.
But when we get past what happened 500 years ago, we see a succession of evil mass murders
committed in the recent past by non-Christian religious zealots, shouting Allah Akbar: the
concert and nightclub massacres in France, England and America; the mass shooting of office
workers on the American West Coast; the mass shootings & random mass stabbings in
American Midwestern malls and in England; the Christmas market massacre in Germany; the mass
murder of military personnel in office settings in the American South & the Midwest; the
mass murder in Belgium; the bombing of a New England sporting event; the truck-ramming mass
murders in France, Sweden and Canada; the mass murder of churchgoers in Sri Lanka, etc., etc,
etc.
World wars have been started over only one incident, with much less extensive losses of
life.
In some centuries, the beheading and stabbing by radical Islamic terrorists of two
innocent, Danish girls, hiking in Morocco, or the beheading of an 85-year-old priest in the
middle of mass might have provoked military action.
The murderers who did all of those evil deeds (and others) in the last few years knew that
they were taking the chance of a military response that might hurt innocent people in the
non-Christian countries that they purport to care about, and yet, they still did it, showing
that they regarded potential casualties in Muslim lands as collateral damage.
The cause was the only thing that counted to them, not the people, even when the people
were fellow Muslims.
@Rich No they use to
rat you out, but like all things that are subject to change they have to,now it wasen’t
so long ago that they had the very large cheating affair at west point,and to put it bluntly
the man is a lying,cheating,stealing(his words when he worked for the C.I.A.) whore that
would do anything to further his cause of hurrying along the rapture, that he and Pence and
Bolton dream about.!!!
@bluedog Do you guys
really think men who have risen to the heights Pompeo, Pence, and Bolton have, aren’t
realists? Don’t you think that if they wanted to be ministers, they’d have
followed a different path? I can’t read other people’s minds, but I sincerely
doubt any of the three you mentioned is trying to bring about the “rapture”.
That’s just silly. They simply see Israel as a close ally and some of the Islamic
nations as enemies as well as seeing various other states as friends or enemies. You have
your opinion on how the world should be run, I have mine and they have theirs, that’s
just the way it.
You haven’t figured out yet that the more you are immune to reality, the better your
chances in DC…?
Tell me one single thing that Pompeo or Pence has ever said or done that is even remotely
connected to reality…
Trump is capable of spurts of realism, I’m convinced of that…but those
impulses are quickly blocked and checked by the likes of Pompeo and Pence…
Look at the North Korea debacle…it was Porker Pompeo that torpedoed that last
summit…Trump was going to remove him from the DPRK file, but Porker announces to the
world that he ‘can’t’ be sidelined…directly contradicting the
POTUS…how fucking ‘realistic’ is that…?
So once again the latest Korea initiative is set to sink, despite a president who is a
realist…problem is he’s surrounded by complete fantasists like
Pompeo…
@Rich “What
evidence do you have that Mr Pompeo is a psychopath?”
Well, I have his behavior, which, owing to the fact that he is a public figure is, well,
public knowledge. For one, he brags about his ability to lie,cheat, and steal. For two, he
does those things without remorse.
@turtle You are
correct. I was at West Point the same time as Plumpeo. In those days, there were 2 academic
divisions MSE and BSL which stood for Math, Science, and Engineering and Behavioral Sciences
and Leadership aka Bullshit and Lies. (Seriously that’s what we called it). For MSE
guys like me, when we had to take a BSL course like management, it was usually a breather and
a relatively easy “A” versus our MSE courses, so you might have a point there.
Do you know the man personally?
I do not know size of class at West Point.
Bullshit and Lies. (Seriously that’s what we called it)
Sounds appropriate to me. In my opinion, Benjamin Nutandyahoo is another “piece of work” in the same
mold .
Born in 1949 SB (Course IV – Architecture) MIT 1975 SM (Course XV – Management) 1976 Both IV & XV would be considered “soft” majors compared to School of Science
or School of Engineering. Just smart enough to think he can BS the rest of the world.
Lives by making a career of deceit.
At least one known alias.
No surprise he and Pompous-e-o are best buds.
turtle Born 1949 SB MIT 1970 (School of Science)* Graduated in June, turned 21 in September Junior author of one published scientific paper for undergraduate work.
*I would state my Course #, but prefer to retain a degree of anonymity on this site.
There are only a few possibilities, all of which are tougher than Architecture or the Sloan
School.
Sloanies actually had “coat and tie practice,” in which they were required to
play “dress up” and carry a briefcase to class on certain days. Most of the rest
of us thought that was rather silly.
@The scalpel If
that’s what you’re going by, every single national leader throughout history is a
psychopath. And maybe that’s true, but who cares? The world is what it is and we have
to deal with its realities. You may be a pacifist, another may believe the Israelis are the
problem, Pompeo and his fellows disagree with you. I don’t think that makes them any
“crazier” than anyone else. And I have to give the man his due, he has done very
well for himself.
@G. Poulin
It’s long to overdue to expose this fraud-in-Jesus.
If Vatican excommunicates Tony Blair, the profiteer and mega-war criminal, and similar
“Christian” arch-enemies of humanity, then your irritation would be vindicated.
IF .
"... the Huawei controversy is part of a wider conflict, with America determined to stop the Chinese changing the world's power structure, moving it from under America's control. When China was just a cheap manufacturing centre for low-tech goods, that was one thing. But when China started developing advanced technologies and began to dominate global trade, that was another. China must be put back in its box. ..."
"... America failed to bring Russia to her knees, so now the focus is directly on destroying, or at least containing China. China has already outspent America in Africa, Central and South America, buying influence away from America in her traditional spheres of influence. Attempts to neutralise North Korea are coming unstuck. ..."
"... Behind the cyber war, there is a financial war. In the financial war, America has the advantage of its currency hegemony, which it exercises to the full. It has allowed Americans to have lived beyond their means by importing more goods than they export, and the government spends more than it receives in taxes. In order to achieve these benefits, inward capital flows are necessary to finance them. To date, these have totalled in current value-terms some $25 trillion, being total foreign ownership of dollar assets and deposits. ..."
"... In 2017, Hong Kong was the third largest recipient of foreign direct investment (substantially property) after the US and China. FDI inflows rose by £104bn to total nearly $2 trillion. Largest investors were China, followed by corporate money channeled through offshore centers. ..."
"... China is sure to see the financial and monetary stability of Hong Kong as being vital to the Mainland's interests. Apart from the Bank of China's Hong Kong subsidiary being the second largest issuer of bank notes, the Peoples' Bank itself maintains reserve balances in Hong Kong dollars, which in the circumstances Kyle Bass believes likely, they can increase to support the HKMA's management of the currency peg. ..."
"... The alternative is for Washington to recognise and accept that its days of being a uni-polar global power are coming to an end but that is not possible when power is in the hands of maniacal psychos like Bolt-on. ..."
"... Bretton Woods, World Bank, IMF, BIS, just for starters. The US/UK built the present financial system. Of which most of the world has joined, because in the main it profits them. ..."
"... What are the benefits? Being enslaved by a bunch of inbred assholes in Switzerland? ..."
Behind the Huawei story, we must not forget there is a wider financial war being waged by
America against China and Russia. Stories about China's banks being short of dollars are
incorrect: the shortage is of inward capital flows to support the US Government's budget
deficit. By attracting those global portfolio flows instead, China's Belt and Road Initiative
threatens US Government finances, so the financial war and associated disinformation can be
expected to escalate. Hong Kong is likely to be in the firing line, due to its role in
providing China with access to international finance.
Introduction
Huawei is hitting the headlines. From ordering the arrest of its Chief Financial Officer in
Vancouver last December to the latest efforts to dissuade its allies from adopting Huawei's 5G
mobile technology, it has been a classic deep state operation by the Americans. Admittedly, the
Chinese have left themselves open to attack by introducing a loosely-drafted cybersecurity law
in 2016/17 which according to Western defence circles appears to require all Chinese technology
companies to cooperate with Chinese intelligence services.
Consequently, no one now knows whether to trust Huawei, who have some of the leading
technology for 5G. The problem for network operators is who to believe. Intelligence services
are in the business of dissembling, which they do through political puppets, all of which are
professionals at being economical with the truth. Who can forget Weapons of Mass Destruction?
More recently there was the Skripal poisoning mystery: the Russians would have been
bang-to-rights, if it wasn't for Skripal's links through Pablo Miller to Christopher Steele,
who put together the dodgy dossier on Trump's alleged behaviour in a Russian hotel.
The safest course is to never believe anything emanating from a government security agency,
which does not help hapless network operators. They, and the rest of us, should look at
motives. The attack on Huawei is motivated by a desire to impede China's technological
progress, which is already eclipsing that of America, and America is using her leadership of
the 5-eyes intelligence group of nations to impose her geostrategic will on her allies. The row
in Britain this week escalated from a cabinet-level security breech on this subject, to
American threats of withholding intelligence from the UK if UK companies are permitted to order
Huawei 5G equipment, to the sacking of the Minister of Defence.
A threat to withhold intelligence sharing, if carried out, only serves to isolate the
Americans. But you can see how desperate the Americans are to eliminate Huawei. Furthermore,
the Huawei controversy is part of a wider conflict, with America determined to stop the Chinese
changing the world's power structure, moving it from under America's control. When China was
just a cheap manufacturing centre for low-tech goods, that was one thing. But when China
started developing advanced technologies and began to dominate global trade, that was another.
China must be put back in its box.
So far, all attempts to do so appear to have failed. Control of Afghanistan, seen as an
important source of minerals ready to be exploited by China, has been a costly failure for the
West. Attempts to wrest control of Syria from Russia's sphere of influence also failed. Russia
is China's economic and military ally. America failed to bring Russia to her knees, so now the
focus is directly on destroying, or at least containing China. China has already outspent
America in Africa, Central and South America, buying influence away from America in her
traditional spheres of influence. Attempts to neutralise North Korea are coming unstuck.
In truth, there is an undeclared war between China and Russia on one side, and America and
her often reluctant allies on the other. It will now escalate, mainly because America
increasingly needs global portfolio flows to cover her deficits.
America's financial war
strategy
Behind the cyber war, there is a financial war. In the financial war, America has the
advantage of its currency hegemony, which it exercises to the full. It has allowed Americans to
have lived beyond their means by importing more goods than they export, and the government
spends more than it receives in taxes. In order to achieve these benefits, inward capital flows
are necessary to finance them. To date, these have totalled in current value-terms some $25
trillion, being total foreign ownership of dollar assets and deposits.
America's policy of living beyond its means now requires more than just recycled trade
flows: inward portfolio flows are required as well. Global portfolios, comprised of commercial
cash balances as well as investment money, periodically increase their exposure to other
regions, potentially leaving America short. The problem is resolved by destabilising the region
that has most recently benefited from capital investment, to encourage money to return to
dollars and thus America's domestic markets. Now that she is due to escalate infrastructure
spending both in China and along the new silk roads, it is China's turn.
This will be the opinion of Qiao Liang, who was a Major-General in the PLA and one of its
chief strategists. It was his explanation for the South-East Asian crisis of 1997, when a run
started on the Thai baht and spread to all neighbouring countries. In the decade prior to the
crisis, the region saw substantial inward capital flows, so much so that countries such as
Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia ran significant deficits on their balance of payments.
This conflicted with the US's trade balance, which was beginning to deteriorate. The solution
was the collapse of the South-east Asia investment story, which stimulated the re-allocation of
investment resources in favour of the dollar and America.
Qiao Liang cites a number of other examples from the Latin-American crisis in the
early-1980s to Ukraine, whose yellow revolution reversed investment flows into Central Europe.
This did not go to plan, with over a trillion dollars-worth of investment coming out of Europe,
most being redirected to the Chinese economy, which was the most attractive destination at that
time. Through the new Shanghai-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect, in April 2014 China
facilitated inward investment and the ability for foreign investors to realise profits without
going through exchange controls.
Being the gateway for foreign investors, our story now moves to Hong Kong. According to
Chinese and Russian intelligence sources, America tried to destabilise it with covert support
for the Occupy Hong Kong movement between September and December 2014. The Fed ended its QE
that October, and international capital was needed back in the US. The Americans had also
escalated the row over the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal at the beginning of that year,
which effectively halted free trade negotiations between China, Japan, South Korea, Macau,
Taiwan and Hong Kong. The Chinese hoped this potential free trade area could be expanded to
include the ASEAN FTA, which would then have been the largest in the world by GDP and an area
in which they could develop the renminbi as the reserve currency.
These plans were effectively scuppered, but China was not provoked into a public response by
these actions. Instead, they started reducing their US Treasury holdings in their dollar
reserves from $1.27 trillion to $1.06 trillion in 2016 – not a great fall, but
demonstrating they were not recycling their trade surpluses into dollars.
All that happened at a time when both the American and global economies were expanding
– admittedly at muted rates. Trump's trade protectionism has changed that, and early
indications are that the US economy is now stalling. Tax revenues are falling short, while
government expenditures are rising. America now urgently needs more inward capital flows to
finance the growing budget deficit.
If Qiao Liang were to comment, doubtless his conclusion would be that America will increase
its attack on China to precipitate disinvestment and reallocation to the dollar. And so, the
attacks have begun; first by trying to break Huawei. Now, the mainstream media, perhaps with
off-the-record briefings, are claiming China and Hong Kong are facing difficulties.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an article claiming China's banks are running
out of dollars. Clearly, this is untrue. China's banks can acquire dollars any time they want,
either by selling other foreign currencies in the market, or by selling renminbi to the
People's bank. They have their dollar position because they choose to have it, and furthermore
all commercial banks use derivatives, which are effectively off-balance sheet exposure.
Furthermore, with the US running a substantial trade deficit with China, dollars are flooding
in all the time.
Following the WSJ article, various other commentators have come up with similar stories. How
convenient, it seems, for the US Government to see these bearish stories about China, just when
they need to ramp up inward portfolio flows to finance the budget deficit.
There is, anyway, a general antipathy among American investors to the China story, so we
should not be surprised to see the China bears restating their case. One leading China bear, at
least by reputation for his investment shrewdness, is Kyle Bass of Hayman Capital Management.
According to , he has written his first investment letter in three years, saying of Hong Kong,
"Today, newly emergent economic and political risks threaten Hong Kong's decades of stability.
These risks are so large they merit immediate attention on both fronts."
If only it were so simple. It is time to put the alternative case. Hong Kong is important,
because China uses Hong Kong and London to avoid being dependent on the US banking system for
international finances. And that's why the US's deep state want to nail Hong Kong.
Lop-sided
analysis
Bass is correct in pointing out the Hong Kong property market appears highly geared, and
that property prices for office, residential and retail sectors have rocketed since the 2003
trough. To a large extent it has been the inevitable consequence of the currency board link to
the US dollar, which broadly transfers the Fed's inflationary monetary policy to Hong Kong's
more dynamic economy. Bass's description of the relationship between the banks, the way they
finance themselves and property collateral is reminiscent of the factors that led to the
secondary banking crisis in the UK in late-1973. Empirical evidence appears to be firmly on
Bass's side.
Except, that is, for a significant difference between events such as the UK's secondary
banking crisis, and virtually every other property crisis. Hong Kong is a truly international
centre, and the banks' role in property transactions is as currency facilitator rather than
lender. In 2017, Hong Kong was the third largest recipient of foreign direct investment
(substantially property) after the US and China. FDI inflows rose by £104bn to total
nearly $2 trillion. Largest investors were China, followed by corporate money channeled
through offshore centers.
So, yes, Hong Kong banks will be hurt by a property crisis, but not as much as Bass implies.
It is foreign and Chinese banks that have much of the property as collateral. It is not the
Hong Kong banks that have fuelled the property boom with domestic credit, but foreign
money.
Bass fails to mention that a collapse in property prices and the banking system is unlikely
to be confined to Hong Kong. Central banks have made significant progress in ensuring all
banking systems are tied into the same credit cycle. Unwittingly, they have simply guarenteed
that the next credit crisis will hit everyone at the same time. It won't be just Hong Kong, but
the EU, Japan, Britain and America. Everyone will be in difficulty to a greater or lesser
extent.
Interestingly, the Lehman crisis, which occurred after Hong Kong property prices had already
doubled from 2003, caused strong inflows to develop, driving the Hong Kong dollar to the top of
its peg. The situation appears to be similar today, with US outward investment at low levels,
but near-record levels of foreign ownership of dollar assets. Despite Hong Kong's foreign
direct investment standing at $2 trillion, the prospect of capital repatriation to Hong Kong
should not be ignored.
Probably the most important claim in Bass's letter is over the future of the currency peg
operated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA). He claims that the "aggregate balance",
which is a line-item in the HKMA's balance sheet, is the equivalent of the US Fed's excess
reserves, and that "Once depleted, the pressure on the currency board will become untenable and
the peg will break."
The aggregate balance on the HKMA's balance sheet has declined significantly over the last
year, from HK$180bn to HK$54.4bn currently. The decision about changes in aggregate balances
comes from the banks themselves, and for this reason they are commonly taken to reflect capital
flows into and out of the Hong Kong dollar. This is different from aggregate balances
reflecting actual pressures on the peg, as suggested by Bass.
The HKMA maintains a US dollar coverage of 105%-112.5% of base money (currently about 110%)
and has further unallocated dollar reserves if necessary. The peg is maintained by the HKMA
varying its base money, not just by managing a base lending rate giving a spread over the Fed's
fund rate, not just by influencing the commercial banks' aggregate balances, but by addressing
the three other components that make up the monetary base. These are Certificates of
Indebtedness, Government notes and coins in circulation and Exchange Fund Bills and Notes
(EFBNs). In practice, it is the EFBNs in conjunction with the aggregate balances that are used
to adjust the monetary base and keep the currency secured in the Convertibility Zone of 7.75
and 7.85 to the US dollar.
In maintaining the peg, the HKMA prioritises maintaining it over managing the money supply.
There is little doubt this goes against the grain of mainstream Western economists who believe
inflation good, deflation bad. Over the last year base money in Hong Kong contracted from
HK$1,695bn to HK1,635bn. Does this worry the HKMA? Not at all.
How the Chinese will act in the circumstances of a new global credit crisis is yet to be
seen, but we should bear in mind that they are probably less Keynesian in their approach to
economics and finance than Westerners. Admittedly, they have freely used credit expansion to
finance economic development, but theirs is a mercantilist approach, which differs
significantly from ours. We simply impoverish our factors of production through wealth transfer
by monetary inflation. We think this can be offset by fuelling financial speculation and asset
inflation. China enhances her production and innovation by generating personal savings. Wealth
is created by and linked more directly to production.
The objectives and effects of monetary and credit inflation between China's application of
it and the way we do things in the West are dissimilar, and it is a common mistake to ignore
these differences. The threat to China's ability to manage its affairs in a credit crisis is
significantly less than the threat to Western welfare-dependent nations whose governments are
highly indebted, while China's is not.
China is sure to see the financial and monetary stability of Hong Kong as being vital to the
Mainland's interests. Apart from the Bank of China's Hong Kong subsidiary being the second
largest issuer of bank notes, the Peoples' Bank itself maintains reserve balances in Hong Kong
dollars, which in the circumstances Kyle Bass believes likely, they can increase to support the
HKMA's management of the currency peg.
Conclusions
It is a mistake to think the Hong Kong property market is as much of a systemic danger as it
first appears. Expectations of a devaluation of the peg appear to be wishful thinking by the
bears.
Far more important are the consequences of the cyber and financial war being pursued against
China and Russia, its close ally, by the American deep state. Under President Trump it was
accelerated by his trade tariff policies, which are fundamentally an attack on China's economy.
China will be a hard nut to crack, and the effect of America's trade protectionism has been to
trigger a diminution in international trade, which is now becoming apparent. The negative
effects on the American economy appear to be being underestimated.
The attempt to destroy Huawei's 5G global ambitions is both the current and most visible
part of an undeclared cyber and financial war. Trade protectionism was only a step along the
way. The financial war is now escalating with the global economy facing at least a significant
recession, almost certain to trigger an overdue credit crisis. The Chinese have long been on a
financial war footing, as shown by Qiao Liang's analysis of how America needs global portfolio
flows and what they are prepared to do to attract them. Western thinking that the Chinese and
their Russian allies are vulnerable to American hegemony has been disproved time and again.
Financial analysts consistently fail to understand the Chinese are not muppets.
China will not be provoked, and by standing firm, they are sure to protect Hong Kong and get
on with diverting investment flows from a failing US economy into its Belt and Road Initiative.
This will force a financial crisis on the Americans of their own making. At least, that's how
China has always seen it and they see no need for their passive financial war strategy to
change.
The Washington strategy described here to prevent China from becoming a global player in
geo-politics and technology is doomed to failure as more and more countries side with China
(including Russia, which wants its own share of the action). It will lead to a hot war and I
believe Washington knows this and is stepping in that direction.
The alternative is for Washington to recognise and accept that its days of being a
uni-polar global power are coming to an end but that is not possible when power is in the
hands of maniacal psychos like Bolt-on.
Bretton Woods, World Bank, IMF, BIS, just for starters. The US/UK built the present
financial system. Of which most of the world has joined, because in the main it profits
them.
All clubs have rules. All clubs have requirements. Or else, by by.
China wants in the club, wants the club facilities, the club benefits, wants to go to the
parties and be warmly accepted at the bar. But it doesn't like the rules. But it doesn't like
being outside the club either.
The Communist Chinese government, decades used to treating its own people as dirt. This is
how they roll.
So too Iran, Maduro, Cuba, Putin.
They want the benefits of the west, but not the strings. State Street, as we say in
Massachusetts ( State Street in Boston is where the state capital is, and it is one way
only)
"...financial war being waged by America against China and Russia."
And by China and Russia against America. Lets not pretend the Russians and Chinese are
innocent victims here. Its a competition. Thats the way the world works. Were all competing
for trade, money and resources.
Over the weekend, more than 5,000 delegates from across the world met in Beijing for The
Second Belt and Road Forum For International Cooperation. The conference provided an
opportunity for public and private investors to learn more about Xi Jinping's "signature
infrastructure project" that is reshaping trade relations across Europe, Asia, Latin America
and Africa. According to journalist Pepe Escobar, "The BRI is now supported by no less than 126
states and territories, plus a host of international organizations" and will involve "six major
connectivity corridors spanning Eurasia." The massive development project is "one of the
largest infrastructure and investment projects in history, .including 65% of the world's
population and 40% of the global gross domestic product as of 2017." (Wikipedia) The
improvements to road, rail and sea routes will vastly increase connectivity, lower shipping
costs, boost productivity, and enhance widespread prosperity. The BRI is China's attempt to
replace the crumbling post-WW2 "liberal" order with a system that respects the rights of
sovereign nations, rejects unilateralism, and relies on market-based principles to effect a
more equitable distribution of wealth. The Belt and Road Initiative is China's blueprint for a
New World Order. It is the face of 21st century capitalism.
The prestigious event in Beijing was barely covered by the western media which sees the
project as a looming threat to US plans to pivot to Asia and become the dominant player in the
most prosperous and populous region in the world. Growing international support for the
Chinese roadmap suggests that Washington's hegemonic ambitions are likely to be short-circuited
by an aggressive development agenda that eclipses anything the US is currently doing or plans
to do in the foreseeable future.
The Chinese plan will funnel trillions of dollars into state of the art transportation
projects that draw the continents closer together in a webbing of high-speed rail and energy
pipelines (Russia). Far-flung locations in Central Asia will be modernized while standards of
living will steadily rise. By creating an integrated economic space, in which low tariffs and
the free flow of capital help to promote investment, the BRI initiative will produce the
world's biggest free trade zone, a common market in which business is transacted in Chinese or
EU currency. There will be no need to trade in USD's despite the dollar's historic role as
the world's reserve currency. The shift in currencies will inevitably increase the flow of
dollars back to the United States increasing the already-ginormous $22 trillion dollar National
Debt while precipitating an excruciating period of adjustment.
Chinese and Russian leaders are taking steps to "harmonize" their two economic initiatives,
the Belt and Road and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This will be a challenging task as
the expansion of infrastructure implies compatibility between leaders, mutual security
guarantees, new rules and regulations for the common economic space, and supranational
political structures to oversee trade, tariffs, foreign investment and immigration. Despite the
hurtles, both Putin and Xi appear to be fully committed to their vision of economic integration
which they see as based on the "unconditional adherence to the primacy of national sovereignty
and the central role of the United Nations."
It comes at no surprise that US powerbrokers see Putin's plan as a significant threat to
their regional ambitions, in fact, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted as much
in 2012 when she said, "It's going to be called a customs union, it will be called the Eurasian
Union and all of that, but let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are
trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it." Washington opposes any free
trade project in which it is excluded or cannot control. Both the EEU and the BRI fall into
that category.
The United States continues to demonize countries that simply want to use the market to
improve the lives of their people and increase their prospects for prosperity. Washington's
hostile approach is both misguided and counterproductive. Competition should be seen as a way
to improve productivity and lower costs, not as a threat to over-bloated, inefficient
industries that have outlived their usefulness. Here's an excerpt from an article that Putin
wrote in 2011. It helps to show that Putin is not the scheming tyrant he is made out to be in
the western media, but a free market capitalist who enthusiastically supports
globalization:
"For the first time in the history of humanity, the world is becoming truly global, in
both politics and economics. A central part of this globalization is the growing importance
of the Asia-Pacific region as compared to the EuroAtlantic world in the global economy.
Asia's rise is lifting with it the economies of countries outside Asia that have managed to
latch onto the "Asian economic engine" .The US has also effectively hitched itself to this
"engine", creating an economic and financial network with China and other countries in the
region
The "supercontinent" of Eurasia is home to two-thirds of the world's population and
produces over 60 percent of its economic output. Because of the dramatic opening of China and
the former Soviet Union to the world, almost all the countries in Eurasia are becoming more
economically, politically, and culturally interdependent.
There is huge potential for development in infrastructure, in spite of some formidable
bottlenecks. A unified and homogeneous common power market stretching from Lisbon to Hanoi
via Vladivostok is not necessary, because electric power markets do not function in that way.
But the creation of infrastructure that could support a number of regional and sub-regional
common markets would do much for the economic development of Greater Eurasia." (Russian
newspaper, Izvestia, 2011)
Keep in mind, the article was written back in 2011 long before Xi had even conjured up his
grand pan-Asia infrastructure scheme. Putin was already a committed capitalist looking for ways
to put the Soviet era behind him and skillfully use the markets to build his nation's power and
prosperity. Regrettably, he has been blocked at every turn. Washington does not want others to
effectively use the markets. Washington wants to threaten, bully, sanction and harass its
competitors so that outcomes can be controlled and more of the world's wealth can be skimmed
off the top by the noncompetitive, monopolistic corporate behemoths that diktat foreign policy
to their political underlings (in congress and the White House) and who see rivals as blood
enemies that must be ground into dust.
Is it any wonder why Russia and China have emerged as Washington's biggest enemies? It has
nothing to do with the fictitious claims of election meddling or so-called "hostile behavior"
in the South China Sea. That's nonsense. Washington is terrified that the Russo-Chinese
economic integration plan will replace the US-dominated "liberal" world order, that cutting
edge infrastructure will create an Asia-Europe super-continent that no longer trades in dollars
or recirculates profits into US debt instruments. They are afraid that an expansive free
trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok will inevitably lead to new institutions for
lending, oversight and governance. They are afraid that a revamped 21st century capitalism will
result in more ferocious competition for their clunker corporations, less opportunity for
unilateralism and meddling, and a rules-based system where the playing field is painstakingly
kept level. That's what scares Washington.
The Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union represent the changing of the
guard. The US-backed 'neoliberal' model of globalisation is being rejected everywhere, from the
streets of Paris, to Brexit, to the rise of
Color revolution is a military operation in which protesters are just a tip of the iceberg. the key
players are Embassy staff, three letter agencies, NGOs, bought and foreign owned neoliberal press,
some oligarchs (who might be pressed into submission with the threat of confiscating their
assets), compradors and bought players within the government.
The initial crash with police was organized by one of such players (supposedly Lyovochkin). One of the key instruments were huge cash
flows in diplomatic mail that feed the protest ("bombing country with dollars"). In a
sense in any neoliberal republic color revolution is designed to be a success, the fact which
EuroMaidan proved quite convincingly.
Ukraine actually was a very easy target. Yanukovich was
essentially neutralized and paralyzed by threats from Biden. Security services were
infiltrated and partially work for Americans. Several bought members of the government (Lyovochkon?)
did their dirty job in organizing the necessity clashes with policy to feed the protest.
Notable quotes:
"... The script writers of the Maidan, in his opinion, were Americans. ..."
Former Prime Minister Azarov explained his version of events on the Maidan. The script
writers of the Maidan, in his opinion, were Americans.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov told the NTV about how coup d'état of February of
the last year was organized. According to him, the script of the coup d'état was written at the
U.S. Embassy.
"The main puppeteers were not on the Maidan," Azarov said. The protests started because of the
decision of Ukrainian authorities to suspend the signing of the Association agreement with the EU.
"There was, of course, the enormous pressure from the leaders of the European Union, from
several European countries. The meaning of this pressure was the fact that we must put aside
all doubts and to sign this agreement," said the former Prime Minister. "They just needed an
excuse, a reason to overthrow our government. Because we were frankly told: "If you do not you sign
this agreement, it will sign another government, another President,"
In this regard, according to Azarov, they needed a provocation to start protest and such a
provocation became the use of force on Independence square in Kiev, where supporters of European
integration were staying for several nights. "The action was slow. The organizers understood
that without the sacred victims they will be unable to ignite the crowd. Suddenly around 3 am
several TV crews arrive, set lights, camera. What to shoot? This ordinary situation, when people
spend the night at the square?" - said Azarov.
Ukrainian people were cynically played. According to Azarov at this moment
"prepared by gunmen in masks" arrived to the square. They started beating on duty policemen with
metal sticks. When police called reinforcements instigators quickly disappeared. And when riot
police began detention, "they detain generally innocent people who spend night at the square as a
part of peaceful protest."
Speaking about the negotiations Yanukovich with the opposition, Azarov noted that the current
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk "every day spend most of his time in the American Embassy and
following their instructions to the letter."
In the end, an agreement was signed between the President and opposition leaders on the peaceful
resolution of the conflict, the guarantor which were several European countries, but no one except
the Yanukovich, fulfilled their obligations. "I still do not understand, how foreign Ministers of
Poland, Germany, France, which signed an agreement on February 21 feel themselves. In the history
of diplomacy this agreement will be included as an example of the utmost degree of cynicism and
deceit," said Azarov.
"... "What I am saying is that I am confident that the people of Venezuela know a thing or two about what happened in Chile." ..."
"... They also know what happened when the "militares" took over in Argentina (Videla), Paraguay (Stroessner), Brazil (1964-1985), Nicaragua (Somoza), Dominican Republic (Trujillo), Guatemala (1954), Honduras (2009) Panama 1983 (Noriega – see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man on plane crash of Omar Torrijos), and on and on. ..."
"... If there is a US military attack on Venezuela one thing's for sure; many, many young men and women will be making their way from all over Latin America to take on the Gringos. ..."
"... I'm sure the Venezuelan govt knows all about Operation Condor and how that lost the entire South American continent a generation of its best people and degraded its progress and development. ..."
"... Bolton and Abraham are senile. They are totally out of touch with the new realities of the new millenium. they stupidly think that their old tricks still work... in my view both and also Pompeo are near the door out of the White House for good... they won't survive the summer. ..."
"... Clearly, Venezuelans take their oaths of allegiance far more seriously. By comparison, the Outlaw US Empire's entire Neocon and Neoliberal cabal are traitors to their nation and their oaths of office. And it's that very major distinction that's known by the vast majority of Venezuelans that's the real difference maker whereas the US public's mostly illiterate. ..."
"... One curious aspect of the recent events in Venezuela is the lack of signs of wider support for Guaido compared with "energetic" demonstrations and riots few years ago. ..."
"... Initially, some thugs were mobilized to support "humanitarian relief", but it was a smallish crowd and their most spectacular achievement was torching a "relief truck". ..."
"... Then there were "electricity protests", I have no data about their scope. I would theorize that electricity issue decreased the support for Guaido ..."
"... Seems that Russia acted in a characteristically minimalist fashion. Security of power system was improved, gasoline supplies* were improved, and a subtle security operation was launched. Bear in mind that when dealing with domestic opposition Putin is highly flexible, no "one hammer fits all", similarly with "near abroad". Letting Guaido walk around and repetitively make idiot of himself has a resemblance of handling Navalny and similar folks in Russia. ..."
@ 36 William Gruff "What I am saying is that I am confident that the people of Venezuela know a thing or two
about what happened in Chile."
They also know what happened when the "militares" took over in Argentina (Videla),
Paraguay (Stroessner), Brazil (1964-1985), Nicaragua (Somoza), Dominican Republic (Trujillo),
Guatemala (1954), Honduras (2009) Panama 1983 (Noriega – see Confessions of an Economic
Hit Man on plane crash of Omar Torrijos), and on and on.
If there is a US military attack on Venezuela one thing's for sure; many, many young
men and women will be making their way from all over Latin America to take on the
Gringos.
I really do not know Maduro. I do not know how ideologically grounded he is. But I heard
stories about corruption and connections with drug syndicates. I hope that is not true.
Otherwise, his apparent weakness will be exploited to the hilt by his ideological
enemies.
I'm sure the Venezuelan govt knows all about Operation Condor and how that lost the
entire South American continent a generation of its best people and degraded its progress and
development.
Bolton and Abraham are senile. They are totally out of touch with the new realities of the
new millenium. they stupidly think that their old tricks still work...
in my view both and also Pompeo are near the door out of the White House for good... they
won't survive the summer.
Yes, most certainly wasn't lost on Chavez. The changes he made after 2002 to the military
and other security-related areas of government are now serving Maduro well. If there was the
sort of 5th Column anti-government feelings required of a coup, they would have manifested
themselves when the armed demonstrations first began to beset Maduro in 2014, a year after
Chavez's passing, which in essence is when the slow moving coup began. Condor and other
operations were certainly used in educating higher level officers about the importance of
loyalty to Constitutional methods and that one owes their allegiance to the Constitution not
the individual just as it's supposed to be within the USA
Clearly, Venezuelans take their oaths of allegiance far more seriously. By comparison,
the Outlaw US Empire's entire Neocon and Neoliberal cabal are traitors to their nation and
their oaths of office. And it's that very major distinction that's known by the vast majority
of Venezuelans that's the real difference maker whereas the US public's mostly
illiterate.
One curious aspect of the recent events in Venezuela is the lack of signs of wider support
for Guaido compared with "energetic" demonstrations and riots few years ago.
Initially, some thugs were mobilized to support "humanitarian relief", but it was a
smallish crowd and their most spectacular achievement was torching a "relief truck".
Then there were "electricity protests", I have no data about their scope. I would
theorize that electricity issue decreased the support for Guaido . First, the tales that
the troubles were due to mismanagement and neglect look not so probable if you look at the
timing of incidents: a wave of incidents at the time "convenient" for the "cause of Guaido"
preceeded and followed by rather normal situation. Government surely spend effort to explain
the incidents with transmission lines and transformer stations as vile sabotage, ruthlessly
inflicting severe hardships on the entire population (including the middle class that should
be the social base of Guaido).
Seems that Russia acted in a characteristically minimalist fashion. Security of power
system was improved, gasoline supplies* were improved, and a subtle security operation was
launched. Bear in mind that when dealing with domestic opposition Putin is highly flexible,
no "one hammer fits all", similarly with "near abroad". Letting Guaido walk around and
repetitively make idiot of himself has a resemblance of handling Navalny and similar folks in
Russia.
Who supported 12 hours of revolution? Videos showed a motorcycle gang, few hundred of
energetic young men who blocked a highway bridge and a smallish crowd of housewives and other
non-violent type -- I must stress that I wholly approve non-violent types, but in part
because this is not a coup material. Why so little? (a) Guaido was never popular, he was in a
most histrionic of several opposition parties, popular mobilization without support of the
rest of the opposition was a flop. (b) The first two episodes of his "revolution" did not
approve his support, to the contrary. (c) On the gangland front that could provide armed
muscle and provoke bloody incidents Maidan style, the government probably did some
preparatory homework.
"... I know the Venezuelan military; I've trained some of them .... The majority of them, if the U.S. military arrives in Venezuela, will take to the hills – very formidable hills, with jungle-like backdrops – and they will harass, kill, take prisoner from time to time, and generally hold out forever or until the "gringos" leave. We might remember how the North Vietnamese and the Taliban accomplished this; well, so will the Venezuelans. ..."
Venezuela is not an easy target. Colonel (ret.) Larry Wilkerson, the former Chief of Staff
for Secretary of State Colin Powell, writes
:
I know the Venezuelan military; I've trained some of them ....
The majority of them, if the U.S. military arrives in Venezuela, will take to the hills
– very formidable hills, with jungle-like backdrops – and they will harass, kill,
take prisoner from time to time, and generally hold out forever or until the "gringos" leave.
We might remember how the North Vietnamese and the Taliban accomplished this; well, so will
the Venezuelans.
Many believe U.S. troops could ignite internal conflicts within the military, irregular
forces linked to Maduro and criminal cartels. Intervention would also undermine
Guaidó's claim to be a grass roots Venezuelan leader by seeming to confirm that he's
exactly what Maduro has claimed: A puppet of the United States.
A U.S. military intervention would "bring more problems than solutions, " said Carlos
Valero, a Guaidó supporter in the National Assembly.
...
Political analyst Felix Seijas, director of the Delphos polling agency in Caracas, says fewer
than a fifth of the Venezuelans he has surveyed this year support a military intervention.
The numbers have gone up only slightly since the beginning of the year.
There were more warnings from Russia during a Trump-Putin phone call today :
While exchanging views on the situation around Venezuela, the President of Russia underscored
that only the Venezuelans themselves have the right to determine the future of their country,
whereas outside interference in the country's internal affairs and attempts to change the
government in Caracas by force undermine prospects for a political settlement of the crisis.
The planning and decision making for the next phase of the U.S. attack on Venezuela will
take time.
Meanwhile we can continue to analyze why the U.S. coup plan failed so devastatingly.
"... Well. There you have Andrew McCabe calling Rod Rosenstein a liar. Can't wait for the Inspector General's report. Apparently some doo-doo is hitting the fan. ..."
"... The FBI has history of sedition, how do you J. Edgar Hoover stayed in charge for long? The FBI (Deepthroat, Deputy Director Mark Felt) brought down Nixon by leaking to the Washing Post. This stuff going on now is part of a long standing tradition at the FBI. ..."
"... McCabe and Rosenstein are enemies within! ..."
"... When law enforcement is involved in politics that is just like banana republics and communist countries. If these people can plan to remove a Republican President they can do it to a democrat president. THAT should alarm CNN and all the democrats, but it won't. These FBI folks were acting under the orders of Obama and probably through Hillary. The FBI big-shots only work under orders they don't think on their own. ..."
"... Mccabe is a weasel beyond a doubt, and the FBI is complicit in there doing nothing about it until the fool admits to it on primetime TV for the whole world to see!! He tarnished your agency along with comey, strozk, and the other traitors. Own it FBI he is one of yours. ..."
"... The bureaunazis are so protected in their deep state they have no fear of admitting their collusion efforts against Trump. A special counsel needs to investigate the FBI and DOJ connections to Russia and Democrats. Nothing changes if no one goes to jail. These bureaunazis watch too much Game of Thrones and House of Cards. ..."
"... Mueller, while FBI Director, turned the FBI into an intelligence agency from that of a crime fighting agency. Which was then used by the political class to support their positions of power. ..."
"... Deep State poster boy. Full of hubris and entitlement. Power corrupts. ..."
"... McCabe has totally self admited for a deep state coup attempt against a duly elected president. ..."
"... So McCabe appointed himself the FBI, Pratorian Guard, to protect us against Russia? ..."
Kevin Brock, former FBI assistant director for intelligence, and Terry Turchie, former
deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division, fire back at former FBI Director
Andrew McCabe.
Well. There you have Andrew McCabe calling Rod Rosenstein a liar. Can't wait for the
Inspector General's report. Apparently some doo-doo is hitting the fan.
The FBI has history of sedition, how do you J. Edgar Hoover stayed in charge for long?
The FBI (Deepthroat, Deputy Director Mark Felt) brought down Nixon by leaking to the Washing
Post. This stuff going on now is part of a long standing tradition at the
FBI.
When law enforcement is involved in politics that is just like banana republics and
communist countries. If these people can plan to remove a Republican President they can do it
to a democrat president. THAT should alarm CNN and all the democrats, but it won't. These FBI
folks were acting under the orders of Obama and probably through Hillary. The FBI big-shots
only work under orders they don't think on their own.
Mccabe is a weasel beyond a doubt, and the FBI is complicit in there doing nothing
about it until the fool admits to it on primetime TV for the whole world to see!! He
tarnished your agency along with comey, strozk, and the other traitors. Own it FBI he is one
of yours.
The fix was in. The bureaunazis are so protected in their deep state they have no fear of
admitting their collusion efforts against Trump. A special counsel needs to investigate the
FBI and DOJ connections to Russia and Democrats. Nothing changes if no one goes to jail.
These bureaunazis watch too much Game of Thrones and House of Cards.
Mueller, while FBI Director, turned the FBI into an intelligence agency from that of a
crime fighting agency. Which was then used by the political class to support their positions
of power. Mr Trump upset their world with his electoral victory. President Trump is hated by
the political class because he has come as the destroyer of their world.
McCabe has totally self admited for a deep state coup attempt against a duly elected
president. He should be behind bars rather than selling his book on TV. Lock up McCabe,
Rosenstein and the rest of the Deep State coup gang and DRAIN-THE-SWAMP.
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe discussed his career, the FBI, and his firing from
the Bureau. He was interviewed by New York Times reporter Adam Goldman.
Sanctions are the foreign policy equivalent of obstruction of justice traps. Sanctions
are initiated in the hope the sanctioned country then commits some actionable trepidation, a
Casus belli. They say the first casualty of war is the truth but that casualty comes way
before war starts and continues long after war ends.
"... Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran. ..."
"... Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an act of war. ..."
"... Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually. ..."
"... Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to attack and hinder a foreign corporation. ..."
"... Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history. ..."
"... Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP. ..."
The U.S. missile strike on Shayrat Airbase on 7 April 2017 was the first time the U.S.
became a deliberate, direct combatant against the Syrian government and marked the start of
a series of deliberate direct military actions by U.S. forces against the Syrian government
and its allies in May -- June 2017 and February 2018.
Trump *escalated* the war from covert support to insurgents to direct intervention and
official *invasion* in Syria. This is the equivalent of going from financing and supporting a
faction in a so called proxy war in say Vietnam to leading the US to go full Iraq WMD and
become a warring and invading faction in the conflict. Again, this is an escalation.
The number of boots on the ground vs Obama's is data you just took out of your bottom.
Sources for your cheap PR shilling? You don't have any because this statement of yours is a
blatant lie.
Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling
towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said
direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for
USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly
suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the
Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran.
Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a
terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an
act of war.
Trump's administration ended the Iran deal without any objective reasons, ie Obama's
effort to deescalate the Israel firsters driven Iran-US conflict
Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in
the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare
a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in
itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually.
Trump administration declared Golan Heights part of Israel brought US embassy to
Jerusalem, increasing the tensions and animosity towards the US in the ME.
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, increasing
the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This includes non Arab
country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took power.
Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de
facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to
attack and hinder a foreign corporation.
Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history.
Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate
America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is
moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two
parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG
in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Non intervention and "pacifist" policies the same. How many GOP supporters were against
the Vietnam and Iraq war? Not many yeah.
Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern countries in a comparable
period of time than any modern U.S. President. Presidents Bush, Obama and now [2017] Trump
have dropped nearly 200,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan,
Yemen and Somalia. Trump's rate of bombing eclipses both Bush and Obama; and Trump is on a
pace to drop over 100,000 [180,000 to be precise] bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern
countries during his first term of office -- which would equal the number of bombs and
missiles dropped by Obama during his entire eight-year presidency.
Here's more perspective:
The United States Government, under the Trump administration, reportedly drops a bomb
every 12 minutes, which means that 121 bombs are dropped in a day, and 44,096 bombs per year.
The Pentagon's data show that during George W. Bush's eight years he averaged 24 bombs
dropped per day, that is, 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama's time in office, his
military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. This shows that even though American
presidents are all war criminals, Trump is the most vicious of them all.
Yes, Trump is dropping almost FOUR TIMES MORE BOMBS than Barack Obama and over FIVE TIMES
MORE BOMBS than G.W. Bush -- which included military invasions of two countries.
We also know that Trump expanded America's wars in Afghanistan and Syria (and, no, he is
NOT bringing U.S. troops home from Syria) and is ramping up America's war machine against
Venezuela, Iran, China and Russia. And this does not even take into account the way Trump has
given Benjamin Netanyahu's raunchy racist regime the green light to expand its wars against
the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Iran or the U.S./Israeli proxy war (with Saudi Arabia
taking the lead) in Yemen.
Then there is Somalia:
In the age of Donald Trump, wasn't that [the Battle of Mogadishu -- Black Hawk Down] a
million presidencies ago? Honestly, can you even tell me anymore what in the world it was all
about? I couldn't have, not without looking it up again. A warlord, starvation, U.S.
intervention, 18 dead American soldiers (and hundreds of dead Somalis, but that hardly
mattered) in a country that was shattering. President Clinton did, however, pull out those
troops and end the disastrous mission -- and that was that, right? I mean, lessons learned.
Somalia? Africa? What in the world did it all have to do with us? So Washington washed its
hands of the whole thing.
And now, on a planet of outrageous tweets and murderously angry white men, you probably
didn't even notice, but more than two years into the era of Donald Trump, a quarter-century
after that incident, American airstrikes in yep, Somalia, are precipitously on the rise.
Last year's 47 strikes, aimed at the leaders and fighters of al-Shabaab, an Islamist
terror outfit, more than tripled the ones carried out by the Obama administration in 2016
(themselves a modest increase from previous years). And in 2019, they're already on pace to
double again, while Somali civilians -- not that anyone (other than Somali civilians) notices
or cares -- are dying in significant and rising numbers.
And with 500 troops back on the ground there and Pentagon estimates that they will remain
for at least another seven years, the U.S. military is increasingly Somalia-bound, Congress
hasn't uttered a peep on the subject, and few in this country are paying the slightest
attention.
So consider this a simple fact of the never-ending Global War on Terror (as it was once
called): the U.S. military just can't get enough of Somalia. And if that isn't off the
charts, what is? Maybe it's even worth a future book (with a very small print run) called not
Black Hawk Down II but U.S. Down Forever and a Day.
And now that I've started on the subject (if you still happen to be reading), when it
comes to the U.S. military, it's not faintly just Somalia. It's all of Africa.
After all, this country's military uniquely has a continent-wide Africa Command (aka
AFRICOM), founded in 2007. As Nick Turse has often written for TomDispatch, that command now
has its troops, thousands of them, its planes, and other equipment spread across the
continent, north to south, east to west -- air bases, drone bases, garrisons, outposts,
staging areas, you name it. Meanwhile, AFRICOM's outgoing commanding general, Thomas
Waldhauser, only recently told Congress why it's bound to be a forever outfit -- because,
shades of the Cold War, the Ruskies are coming! ("Russia is also a growing challenge and has
taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.")
And honestly, 600-odd words in, this wasn't meant to be a piece about either Somalia or
Africa. It was meant to be about those U.S. wars being off the charts, about how the Pentagon
now feeds eternally at the terror trough, al-Shabaab being only a tiny part of the slop it
regularly digests.
And, while America's wars are way up, according to Gallup, church attendance in America is
way down:
As Christian and Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Easter and Passover, respectively,
Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or
mosque at an all-time low, averaging 50% in 2018.
U.S. church membership was 70% or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an
average of 68% in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in
the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change
occurring since the start of the current decade.
Most interesting is this Gallup observation:
Although the United States is one of the more religious countries, particularly among
Western nations, it is far less religious than it used to be. Barely three-quarters of
Americans now identify with a religion and only about half claim membership in a church,
synagogue or mosque.
The rate of U.S. church membership has declined sharply in the past two decades after
being relatively stable in the six decades before that. A sharp increase in the proportion of
the population with no religious affiliation, a decline in church membership among those who
do have a religious preference, and low levels of church membership among millennials are all
contributing to the accelerating trend.
Obviously, America's Jewish and Muslim populations pale compared to its Christian
population. The vast decline of attendance to religious services, therefore, primarily means
church attendance. Notice, also, that this steep decline commenced at the beginning of this
century (2000) -- when G.W. Bush became President of the United States.
I tried to warn readers -- and listeners to my nationwide radio talk show -- that due to
his insatiable war fever, G.W. Bush was going to forever warp the perception in people's
minds of Christianity. And, sadly, I was absolutely right. After eight years of the
warmongering G.W. Bush in the White House, millions of Americans came to associate
Christianity with wars of aggression. As a result, the exodus out of America's churches began
in earnest.
Enter Donald Trump.
As noted above, Trump has expanded Bush's war fever exponentially. But Trump has done more
than that: He has aggressively put the United States smack dab in the middle of Israel's
wars. It could even be argued that Donald Trump has turned the U.S. military into a proxy
army for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Don't get me wrong: I am very cognizant of the fact that G.W. Bush's "war on terror" was
nothing more than a proxy war for Israel. But the Israeli connection was covert and
completely covered up. Not anymore. Donald Trump is unabashedly and explicitly partnering the
mission of the U.S. military with that of the IDF. No wonder Benjamin Netanyahu promises to
name a community in the Israel-seized, Israel-occupied Golan Heights after Donald Trump.
(Trumplinka would fit Netanyahu's concentration-style occupation nicely.)
So, not only are millions of Americans now associating Christianity with G.W. Bush's wars
of aggression, they are associating Christianity with Donald Trump's wars of aggression for
the racist apartheid State of Israel. The result: the steepest decline in church attendance
and church affiliation in U.S. history.
The longer evangelical Christians continue to support Donald Trump's radical pro-Israel,
pro-war agenda, the deeper America will plunge into an anti-Christian country.
The good news is that all over America, people are waking up to the Israel deception.
Support for the erroneous doctrine of dispensational eschatology is in a giant free fall; the
myth of Zionist Israel being a resurrected Old Testament Israel is being repeatedly exposed;
the attempts by Israel's toadies to characterize people whose eyes are open to the truth of
Zionism as being "anti-Semitic" is losing more and more credibility by the day; and more and
more people are becoming aware of the utter wickedness of the Zionist government in Israel.
Plus, more and more people are beginning to understand the plight of the persecuted people
(including Christian people) in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine.
Ron, maybe your shipmates on the USS LIBERTY didn't die in vain after all.
From an historical perspective, overextended wars are the downfall of any empire; from a
financial perspective, warfarism is the precursor to an economically depressed middle class;
and from a Scriptural/spiritual perspective, God cannot and will not bless a warmongering
nation.
Let's be clear: God is not building a "Greater Israel." God is not building a third Jewish
temple. God is not speaking through phony prophets who are attributing some sort of divine
calling to Trump's pro-Israel warmongering. God is not blessing America because we are
blessing Zionist Israel. Just the opposite: The more America aligns itself with Israel's
belligerence, bullying and bombing of innocent people, the more God will deliver us over to
becoming an antichrist country. After all, one cannot idolize and partner with antichrists
without becoming one himself.
Burning down the house. Driving like a madman on the road to nowhere has put the nation on a
path to its own demise. Our foreign policy is a disaster that does nothing to promote
democracy anywhere in the world. Our military has provided nothing but instability in the
world since the end of world war 2. Ask yourself, why are we involved in so many useless wars
that don't make the world a better place?
Don't you feel like we are being used by war hawks who see every skirmish as a threat to our
national security? Why can't we cut out all the military BS and just trade with with nations
that want to trade, and ignore those who want to kill each other. Let them figure it out on
their own. Social Capitalism is the only policy we should be supporting.
"All statements of Trump do not count. All Trump statements are results from stress of
torture by Democrats, and deep state."
When this president stated during the campaign,
that christians don't have to forgive their enemies, I rolled my eyes stated he wrong, and
understood well he doesn't know what christianity means and supported him anyway
that he supported same sex marriage, I rolled my eyes, rebuffed the the silliness of his
comments and understood, he is not a conservative and beyond that he doesn't know what
christianity means
when it was uncovered that he had in fact had relations outside of marriage, I rolled my
eyes, and understood that alone could be a disqualifying factor in light of the competition
and supported him anyway
when some of the most respected departments of government leaders said he colluded with
Russians, based on the evidence, I said "poppycock" and supported him anyway
when media swirled with tales of Russian bath houses and carousings abounded, I thought
nonsense and supported hum anyway
when the rumors of underage girls and same sex parties and orgies seped into the main, I
rolled my eyes and supported him anyway . . .
when he spouted off about Charlottesville prematurely, I supported him anyway . . .
when became clear he actually advocated torture, I choked, spat and supported him anyway,
afterall he's not schooled in international relations and the consequences for our service
personnel, much less apparently the basics of tortures effectiveness, especially in large
scale strategies such as the US is engaged in
when it came to light he was completely ignorant of how our criminal justice system gets
it wrong as exampled by the Cen 5 case, I supported him anyway . . .
I supported him in spite of his comments about the poor and people like me who supported
him
There's a long list of tolerance is support of this president based on his advocacy
regarding turning the attention to the US welfare . . .
And when he actually agreed that the Russians had sabotaged the US elections and even
engaged in murder in the states of our European allies -- I knew, that in all liklihood the
turn inward was dead.
Here' a man who beat all the odds because of stalwart support of people like me, who
repeatedly bit the sides of our cheeks in the understanding that the returns would exceed the
price only to discover that the man who beat the odds doesn't seem to have a spine to stand
on ideologically which were the foundations of my advocacy: national security, less reckless
spending, holding business and financial organizations accountable for misbehavior, investing
in the US citizen, restructuring our trade deals to benefit the US, not merely shooting up
tarrifs that would in turn be priced to the citizens the supposed tarrifs were intended to
protect, tax cuts that actually gave middle americans less, no evidence of a draw down in our
careless ME behaviors, i even gave him some room to deal with israel as perhaps a new way
forward -- it's a new way alright – no pretense of acting as honest brokers –
that's new, Immigration is worse and by worse he might as well be serving tea and crumpets at
the border welcoming illegals . . .
If the man you elected to turn the corner actually becomes the vehicle for of what you
elected him to reject and change, eventually one has to acknowledge that fact. he beat the
deep state, he just either had not the courage, the integrity, or the ability, perhaps all
three to withstand the victory and do the work. Of course he had opposition and not much of
it very fair and nearly all of it damaging to the country. But he had support to stand
against it -- he chose an easier path.
And while I support him still, I have no intention of pretending that he is fulfilling the
mandate for which he was elected. I would be lying to myself and doing a disservice to
him.
I have not changed, I knew he was a situational leader, I knew what that meant, but I
voted for a particular agenda, he left the reservation on his own accord and the "deep
state", the establishment", the democrats, the liberals, the libertarians, can only be held
to blame for so much --
But several weeks ago, on top of a complete failure to ensure US order security, the armed
forces paid homage to Mexicans on US territory by relinquishing their weapons and
surrendering -- and given the tenure thus far -- - it devastatingly fitting that this
occurred under this admin.
And in the midst of all this, he is pandering to those engaged in same sex behavior --
– deep state my eye . . .
the path of least resistance. I cling to the belief that having voting for any of the
other candidates -- matters would have been far worse.
I make no apologies for being a conservative and Christian and holding a loyalty to the
US.
I reject your whine, it had legs and even some salience still, but at this stage, very
little.
Now he is bed with Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz and others on mucking around in SA -- I can only
consider your comments as an attempt at humor.
FBN's Trish Regan and Trump 2020 Strategic Communications Director Marc Lotter discuss a new
report that the Obama administration sent spies to gather dirt on the Trump campaign in
2016.
FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information
across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York --
the business capital of the world -- FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business
network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year.
The network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States.
Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London.
Barack Hussein O gave the order to Spy on the Trump Campaign and on President Trump. BHO
is up to his Ears with all this Spying, Russia Gate, and making dirty deals with Ukraine.
We already know Obama weaponized the IRS, the CIA and the DOJ... the Obamanation is
corrupt to the core, so why would it be a surprise that he also weaponized the FBI?
Pencil Neck Adam Schiff is cleaning up all the CRAP left over from Barack Hussein O. This
weasel is running interference and making all the noise he can against A.G. William Barr who
is a good and decent man. God Bless A.G. Barr and his Family.
Obama weaponized just about all departments during his term. He used the EPA against
farmers and land-owners. He used the IRS against conservative groups. He used the
Intelligence groups against the American people, and the FBI and DOJ against anyone else that
annoyed him. Obama and his people need to be investigated and if warranted, charged. But,
this is what the left does.
Good Lord!! Obama.. Hillary.. Biden.. The FBI.. Then we have Omar, and Tlaib, and AOC
getting all of the new praise. The media CONTINUES to cover it up. Amazing that the NYT ran
it.
Joe Friday 2 hours ago
"what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."
DEM's think, 'Obama anti-Trump crimes in Ukraine STAY IN UKRAINE'.
"... As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams, things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain. ..."
"... The answer here is simple. When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered the murders inside those sovereign states -- ..."
"... He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least election were stifled until that moment. ..."
"... Sanctions and blockades are acts of war. Try doing it to Washington or one of its vassals, and watch the guns come out. ..."
"... Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it. Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation. ..."
"... All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer. ..."
"... Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly can someone not see that. ..."
"... Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another. The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas. ..."
"... Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet! ..."
"... America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords. ..."
"... Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture. ..."
"... If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion. ..."
"... Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus. ..."
"... The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change wars. ..."
"... I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the globalists. ..."
Venezuela illustrates why a 3.0 movement is necessary.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at
articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change
wars.
The Trump administration's interventions in Syria and Venezuela are victimizing mainly poor
brown people in Third World countries. And yet, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is extremely
animated and stirred up in a rage at the neocons who are currently running Blompf's foreign
policy. Similarly, it has cheered on the peace talks between North Korea and South Korea.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians
while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol are less adverse
to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die than the
"racists"?
It is ironic. There is also the issue of economic-based US interventionism, particularly in
the oil-gifted nations mentioned. It's their oil. Since the US economy is oil-dependent --
and since fracking is a short-lived "miracle" of unprofitable companies that have already
extracted the easy pickings -- it is the role of US leaders to make sure that we can buy oil
from nations like Venezuela, keeping relations as good as possible for those means. But US
leaders have no business telling them who should rule their country, much less stirring up
trouble that can end up in bloodshed.
There's a comment on here about US forces and the Kurds in Syria, helping themselves to
oil, while Syrians wait in long lines for gas in a country that is an oil fountain. I have no
idea whether or not it is true, and since the US press would rather gossip than report, we'll
probably never know. But since oil prices have gone up recently in the USA, it might be true,
especially since politicians always want to pacify the serfs facing other unaffordable
expenses, like rent. If true you can see how that would make the people in an oil-rich
country mad.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol
are less adverse to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people
die than the "racists"?
There is nothing ironic about your simple statement of fact. The humanitarians you mention
are about as much interested in human rights as John Wayne Gacy. There is gold in them there
hills, and their "friends" no longer control that gold. So we must go to war.
Rubio is running neck and neck in my mind as one of the most disgusting political whores
of all time.
As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams,
things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his
generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain.
How is that working out now?
Those are rocks those guys are throwing..right?
Why not let THEM do the fighting and keep the guys from Ohio and Alabama here?
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela
What Trump administration military intervention? Number of Boots on the ground:
Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
Iran -- ZERO
Venezuela -- Again ZERO
It is quite amazing that Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] can take ZERO troops and falsely
portray that as military intervention. In the real, non-deranged world -- Rational thought
shows ZERO troops as the absence of military intervention.
Trying to use non-military sanctions to convince nations to behave better is indeed the
exact opposite of military intervention. If the NeoConDem Hillary Clinton was President. Would the U.S. have boots on the ground in
Iran And Venezuela?
Why is the Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] crowd so willing to go to war for Hillary
while misrepresenting TRUMP's non-intervention?
Those who pathologicially hate Trump are simply not rational.
The answer here is simple.
When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of
Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our
leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the
US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered
the murders inside those sovereign states --
He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian
influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our
European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least
election were stifled until that moment.
Until that moment foreign policy could have been shifted, but after that moment
Don't forget the genocide in Yemen. Wanting to exclude Yemenis from the USA means you're an
evil racist, but turning a blind eye to mass murder is A-OK.
Gold, Black Gold and Pirates : all about wealth and people getting in the way of the 21st
Century Privateers who will stop at nothing including overthrowing governments in Syria,
Libya, Iraq and elsewhere.
@A123Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it.
Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an
invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation.
I appreciate the fact that Team Trump has not actually sent in the tanks yet, whereas
Hellary probably would have by now. Believe me, that is probably one of the very few good
arguments in favor of Trump at this point. But if we want to make sure that he never does
attack, then now is the time to make some noise– before the war starts.
All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on
it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to
start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran
install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer.
If we weren't on the brink of economic collapse I could never see the Washington Elites
risking it all with a game of nuclear chicken with Russia and China over Ukraine and
Taiwan.
This commentator lost me when he decided Guaido was as socialist as Maduro. Nope. He would
not have US backing were that the case.
I checked out Telesur on Youtube on April 30 – its continued functioning was one sign
the coup attempt had failed. The comments section was full of Guaido supporters ranting about
how much they hated Chavistas and socialists and some were asking where Maduro was, probably
trying to sustain the myth that he had fled.
"When was the last time we successfully meddled in the political life of another country" The
answer to that, Tucker, depends on who you ask. While Syria, Iraq and Libya were "failures"
because we were told we would bring peace and prosperity to those countries, that was not the
goal of the architects of those wars, neither was it oil. The primary goal was to pacify
these countries and neuter them so they would not stand up to their neighbor and enemy
Israel. And if they had to be destroyed to accomplish that, that's fine. Minus Egypt, those
three countries were Israel's primary enemies in the three Arab-Israeli wars. Venezuela is
not "another" war for oil, but it might be the first.
Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the
real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those
companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that
is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous
power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly
can someone not see that.
@EliteCommInc.
The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the yankees
are nor european .
If the yankees were the allies of the europeans , why they should need hundreds of
military occupation bases in Europe ? why they should impose on europeans self defeating
trade sanctions against Russia ? , strange " allies " .
@conatus
you are late conatus , the russians are building in Venezuela a factory of Kalasnikov rifles
, and Maduro is traing a militia of two million men , to help the army .
@conatusVenezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still
lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another.
The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house
to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas.
@War
for Blair Mountain{If JFK were alive ..and POTUS in 2019 he would give the order to
overthrow the Maduro Goverment .}
JFK was alive way back then, when he gave the order to overthrow Castro and the result was
the Bay of Pigs disaster. And – for better or worse – Cubans are still running
their own country, not some foreign installed puppet.
'The order to overthrow Maduro' today would have the same disasterous end.
It should be obvious by now, that despite all the hardships, majority of Venezuelans don't
want a foreign installed puppet.
Carlson is right on Venezuela but was wrong on 911 truthers which he said back in September
2017, that 911 truthers were nuts! 911 which was done by Israel and the zionist controlled
deep state lead to the destruction of the mideast for Israel and the zionist NWO!
Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the
zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like
obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet!
America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would
add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords.
One more thing, if Venezuela did not have oil the zio/US would not give a damn about
it!
Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from
them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture.
If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to
the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful
contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will
lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion.
Jews are a people who fit the opening sentence of the preceding paragraph. The WASP Elites
fit the second sentence.
If "no one is more opposed to destructive regime-change wars than the Alt-Right", it means
that the Alt-Right are traditional conservatives, paleo-(as opposed to neo)conservatives.
Real conservatives have always opposed getting into foreign wars that posed no threat to the
U.S. They opposed Wilson lying us into WW1, Roosevelt lying us into WW2. When the
neo-conservatives (American Jews loyal to Israel) got Washington under their thumb, we
started our decades of disastrous regime-change wars based on lies, starting with the
invasion of Iraq. Those neocon mf ers are still in charge.
An Alt Right 2.0 concept that is compassionate with the damage done by US war and economic
exploitation against the poorest people of the world who are mostly brown people is an
interesting concept.
But I think it will ultimately fail, since so many of the white people who make up the Alt
Right are angry with minorities and see them as a lower race. And these white people are more
interested in playing the victim card anyways.
@A123
You speak truth and cite facts, these loons go bananas.
Thank God they have no real power.
Hopefully they don't even own a hamster . probably would make the little fella read Mien
Kempf.
Because a hamster reading is just as cogent and linear as their arguments.
They are frustrated they cannot find a way to blame the Jews! for Maduro being a greedy
murdering sweathog who lets zoo animals starve while he looks like animated male
cellulite.
Funny- in their prostrations to dictators ( these retards actually defend and admire
Jong-Un) they conveniently have omitted Putin is cutting Russia from the WWW- the
Internet.
They will have a Russia intranet.
Pointing out to the obtuse daily commenters that under the tyrants that practically
fellate- they would be arrested and tortured for their Unz hissy fits and word diarrhea
Nationwide radio talk show? Wow! What's the station name, number and air time?
If you listen to people with actual media shows, they don't call people TROLL just because
they have a different opinion. They don't engage in female hysterical ranting because someone
has a different idea about the mechanics of the world.
Who are your sponsors? I can't imagine you would not want the free publicity .
I agree, there is irony in labels, in trying to tell who is more disposed towards 'bloodshed
and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die'. Why do we fight? It is
for power. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past
– no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might
change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin,
nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our
principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above
concepts, that is the cause of war. And that is what is leading the world to nuclear
Armageddon. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@TKK
My sponsors are truth and America first. All Zionist hucksters are on my hit list. Again, I
suggest you and yours consider "making aliyah". https://www.nbn.org.il/
Number of Boots on the ground:
-- Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
-- Iran -- ZERO
-- Venezuela -- Again ZERO
We will see in the future. Trump has to stir the pot. The foaming at the mouth media and his political opposition, in
both parties, need something to blather on about. Jus like rasslin'. Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus.
@TKK
Oh, I see a point there, and it's an interesting one – openly Christian presidents
discredit their Christianity by engaging in non-righteous wars. After contemplating the
point, I don't think the foreign policy of W or Trump is anywhere close to being the primary
factor in the decline in church attendance. After all, the Catholic Church and other
denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals, the internet pulls people from God with
private depravity, science offers compelling hows if not whys, entertainment options abound,
and so on. Nonetheless, an orthodox and faithful Christian president committed to peace and
not fighting for oil or foreign interests would be a thing to behold. With caveats relating
to perceived sanity, that person would get my vote.
"The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the
yankees are nor european . "
These comments don't make any sense to me based on what I wrote. My comments have no
bearing on whether the Russians are an actual threat or not. I see them as competitors with
whom there are some places to come to some agreements. They doesn't mean I truth them.
Furthermore, my comments have no bearing on the territorial nature of Russian ethos.
That's not the point. Europeans have been at each other since there were Europeans. From the
Vikings and before to Serbia and Georgian conflicts. But none of that has anything to do with
my comments.
You might want to read them for what they do say as opposed to what you would like them to
say.
Jul 26, 2017 CIA director hints US is working to topple Venezuela's elected government
CIA Director Mike Pompeo indirectly admitted that the US is pushing for a new government
in Venezuela, in collaboration with Colombia and Mexico.
Feb 22, 2019 An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela: Abby Martin & UN Rapporteur Expose
Coup
On the eve of another US war for oil, Abby Martin debunks the most repeated myths about
Venezuela and uncovers how US sanctions are crimes against humanity with UN investigator and
human rights Rapporteur Alfred De Zayas.
"After all, the Catholic Church and other denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals . .
."
Not even to the tune of 4%, and I am being generous. The liberals have managed to make the
Church look a den of NAMBLA worshipers -- hardly. In the west the Churches are under pressure
from the same sex practitioners to reject scriptural teachings on the behavior, but elsewhere
around the world, Catholic institutions, such as in Africa -- reject the notion.
@TKK
Thanks. Ignoring mindless trolls is a necessary skill for the site.
____
Given the end of the Mueller exoneration, both Trump and Putin are looking to strengthen
ties. Thus it is:
-- Unlikely that Putin is heavily committed to helping Maduro. The numbers are too small
for that. Also, what would Putin do with Maduro? The last thing Putin needs is a spoiler to
the developing detente.
-- Much more likely the troops have a straightforward purpose. Brazilian
military/aerospace technology would jump ahead 20 years if they could grab an intact S-300
system. Russia doesn't want a competitor in that market, so they have a deep interest in
reclaiming or destroying S-300 equipment as Maduro goes down.
@EliteCommInc.
You are certainly right. I have no doubt that the vast majority of priests are good men
innocent of these charges, and that there are more public school sex scandals (by both raw
numbers and percentage) then similar Church scandals. The scandals do have public currency
and legs, though, and are one reason often cited as to why the pews are empty. I am at fault
for helping to keep this ruinous perception alive with my online rhetoric, and thank you for
pointing it out.
' It's the oil ' canard has always been the excuse cultivated for suckers, and boy
do suckers fall for it.
US oil companies have not received the big oil deals in countries where the US, at the
behest of "that shitty little country", have interfered militarily. However, Russia, China,
& to a limited degree, a few European companies have.
@PeterMX
Bibi's biggest enemy, his main prize, has always been Iran. He is afraid that, if Trump
refuses to do his bidding now, it may well be too late in an election year. One way or
another Bolton and Pompeo are going to convince their token boss to green light a massive
bombing campaign, especially if Iran attempts to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. It will
happen this year if Trump fails to come to his senses.
@Scalper
In the first place, your bizarre partisan rant is a little out of place. There aren't too
many QAnons here at Unz, and there are probably a fair number of regulars here who wouldn't
even identify as Republicans or 'conservatives' (whatever that term means today).
Secondly, some of your talking points aren't even accurate:
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation,
increasing the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This
includes non Arab country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took
power.
If Trump were truly to declare the Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization, a lot of
Arab rulers would actually thank him. You see, the Brotherhood is actually illegal in
most Arab countries today, precisely because it has a history of collaborating with foreign
intelligence services such as MI6, the CIA and Mossad. More recently, it was strongly
associated with failed régime-change projects in countries like Egypt and Syria; so
with a few exceptions (like Qatar), the Brotherhood is not well liked by Arab rulers.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Traditionally leftist? Sure up until the Hart-Celler Act of 1965! The sad fact is,
we don't an anti-immigration party in the US at all today. Neither the Republicans nor the
Democrats have any interest whatsoever in halting–or even just slowing
down–immigration.
@PeterMX
It's obvious that FOX is giving Tucker a lot of latitude. They continued to support him when
advertisers left, and when accusations of racism emerged from a radio interview he'd done
years ago with a shock jock. They dare not fire him as he has the largest and most fervent
base of supporters on cable news. But Tucker knows that there is one big issue, the Elephant
in the room, of which he dare not speak. It's that shitty little country calling the shots,
whose name begins with an I.
@Anonymous
I think there may be more alt-righters opposed to foreign wars and exploitative 'free' trade
treaties than you assume. Most of the alt-righters I know oppose the current régime's
"invade the world, invite the world" policies (to borrow a phrase from our own Steve Sailer).
But unlike the anti-imperialist left (with whom they often do ally), they usually argue
against such policies based on popular self-interest rather than abstract universal morality.
They usually choose to argue that being a mighty world empire has worked to the
detriment of the majority of people in America; that the whole thing is just a scam to
enrich and empower a small, corrupt élite.
what goes unremarked here and elsewhere is the ethnic composition of Venezuela. From a few
searches, Whites are only about one-third of V.
The Tipping Point for chaos is clear. Brazil is half White, Argentina is near 100 % White,
ditto Chile.
(Argentina ca. 1900 exterminated a large number its "Indigenous." )
The most stable of Latin America is Costa Rica, which is apparently about three quarters
White.
Meanwhile the jewyorktimes reports the narco-traffickers in the Maduro administration.
Hopeless. Any Brown or Black Country is doomed. Brazil works cuz Whites know how to
control the 45% mulattos and 5 % Blacks. For now anyway. Mexico is a narco-state with the
only 9% Whites able to control the half breeds and Indigenous thru co-option. Wait for Mexico
to blow up.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed
at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime
change wars.
That's an amazing point. I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current
shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the
globalists.
@Avery
The Deep state/CIA did the Bay of Pigs. JFK was not informed about it before it happened. JFK
was fighting the CIA and deep state throughout his presidency. He wanted to shatter the CIA
into a million pieces. Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. His peace speech
on June 10, 1963 was too much for our deep state. That speech was the biggest triggers that
set the motion for his assassination.
Whatever anyone thinks about the Alt-Right it did expose a lot of things about our current
era, our history, our politics, and power paradigms that once seen can not be unseen.
And what are you going to do about it? What can anyone really do, honestly?
Not too much at least in America. Eastern Europe still has a good chance.
In America, the trajectory and machinations of power have been set for a long time and
revolutionary romanticism tends to work better for the Left than the Right. A quick look at
the data easily reveals this.
So what do you do when you realize how so much of everything that's presented as real and
true isn't real or true? And there are so many truly bad human beings with major power over
our culture, politics, and society?
Well, when has that not been the case in human history? At some point, acknowledging all
the black pills is sort of like accepting your human limits, your finitude, your genetics,
the unanswered mysteries of existence, the nothingness of Earth in the grand scheme, and just
basic gravity.
You could become a courageous online revolutionary and eventually trigger some unstable
person to get things shut down and deplatformed.
Or you could organize with socially and psychologically healthy and mature adults who try
to prioritize attainable and realistic goals and gain some moralizing victories that can
buffer against the demoralizing defeats.
Luckily, out of the winter of our discontent have emerged many healthy tendrils of new
growth.
Obama launched and coordinated the color revolution against Trump. He appointed Hillary as the Secreaty of Sate. He is a
CIA-connected neocon scoundrel
Notable quotes:
"... Projection: Obama escalated the war on Russia with regime change in Ukraine in 2014. Is he ******* kidding here? ..."
"... Another projection. Clinton rigged the primary against Sanders. Obama tried to overthrow Trump. ..."
"... And they DID reject it soundly. Clinton is the same scummy NEOLIBERAL warmonger that Obama was. After 8 years of Citigroup, & other banksters that filled his cabinet as well as Obama's war crimes, accelerating wars in the Middle East, the American people finally realized what they do not want . ..."
"... I hope he lives with that REJECTION the rest of his miserable life! ..."
"... It is difficult to understand Obama's complaints about Hillary Clinton's "scripted, soulless" campaign strategy, when he seemed to allow himself to be manipulated by her all along, ever since he worked out the deal to have her as his Secretary of State in 2008. ..."
"... Obama really allowed Clinton a lot of free reign, when she was Secretary of State too, something most other presidents would not have done. Maybe he knew something about her penchant for rage and revenge and didn't want to end up in her body bag count? ..."
"... Hillary was certainly very ill-suited for the diplomatic job as U.S. Secretary of State, and that was so well demonstrated during her first year of office ..."
New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker has published an updated edition of his
book "Obama: The Call of History", and it includes several embarrassing details about President
Obama's reaction to Donald Trump's historic electoral triumph, as well as Obama's complaints
about Hillary Clinton's "scripted, soulless" campaign strategy.
According to the Daily Mail, which published some of the excerpts on Friday, Obama
interpreted Trump's victory as a "personal insult", and whined to his aides and family that the
loss "stings" and that the American people had "turned on him" while bashing Clinton for
"bringing her many troubles on herself."
As Baker wrote, as Obama saw it, the "real blame" for Clinton's loss "lay squarely with
Clinton" - despite her many well-documented attempts to make every conceivable excuse, from
blaming Bernie Sanders and his misogynistic "Bernie Bros" to misogynistic Trump supporters.
But as Obama vented, nobody forced Clinton to take money from Goldman Sachs, or set up an
illicit private email server at her house in Chappaqua.
In a stinging passage Baker writes: 'To Obama and his team, however, the real blame lay
squarely with Clinton.
'She was the one who could not translate his strong record and healthy economy into a
winning message.
'Never mind that Trump essentially ran the same playbook against Clinton that Obama did
eight years earlier, portraying her as a corrupt exemplar of the status quo.
'She brought many of her troubles on herself. No one forced her to underestimate the
danger in the Midwest states of Wisconsin and Michigan.
'No one forced her to set up a private email server that would come back to haunt her.
'No one forced her to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs and other
pillars of Wall Street for speeches.
'No one forced her to run a scripted, soulless campaign that tested eighty-five slogans
before coming up with 'Stronger Together'.
Feeling secure in Clinton's impending victory, Obama and his top aide Valerie Jarrett
retreated to the White House movie theater to watch the Marvel Movie Dr. Strange. Michelle
Obama went to bed early that night, but later in the evening, as results from Florida started
coming in, Obama checked the results, and was suddenly struck by a sinking feeling.
He watched in abject horror as Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - formerly
Democratic strongholds.
In the weeks after Trump's victory, Obama vacillated from philosophical contemplation to
rage, and complained to his speech writer Ben Rhodes that he was about to hand the nuclear
codes over to a "cartoon character" and a "huckster straight out of Huckleberry Finn".
Obama tried to keep his cool in the weeks afterwards and texted his speechwriter Ben
Rhodes: 'There are more stars in the sky than sand on the earth'.
But soon he was unable to contain his rage which escalated after he met Trump in the Oval
Office.
Baker writes that despite being cordial in public he afterwards summoned Rhodes who told
him that Trump 'peddles in b*******'
Rhodes said: 'That character has always been part of the American story. You can see it
right back to some of the characters in Huckleberry Finn'.
Obama replied: 'Maybe that's the best we can hope for'.
As the weeks went by Obama went through 'multiple emotional stages', at times being
philosophical and other times he 'flashed anger'.
He also showed a rare self-doubt and wondered if 'maybe this is what people want', Baker
writes.
Obama told one aide: 'I've got the economy set up well for him. No facts. No consequences.
They can just have a cartoon'.
Of particular interest considering the Mueller report's findings, which have been endlessly
relitigated since the redacted report was released last month, Baker explains Obama's decision
not to come out harder against Russia during the campaign, after US intelligence warned about
the Kremlin's attempts to 'interfere' in the US election.
As Baker tells it, Obama's "don't-do-stupid-shit" instincts made him reluctant to bash
Russia over the meddling, as did his confidence that Clinton would surely prevail. As Obama saw
it, if he made a big deal about Russian interference, Trump would simply complain to his voters
that the whole election was rigged.
Baker's book also gives new insight into why Obama was so hesitant about criticizing
Russia for meddling in the 2016 election before vote took place.
Obama was led by his 'cautious don't-do-stupid-s**t instincts' and feared that a forceful
response would make Russia 'escalate' its operation.
Then there was the question of how Trump would react and Obama admitted that 'if I speak
out more, he'll just say it's rigged'.
Obama wrongly assumed that Clinton would win the election and Obama said in one meeting
that Russian President Vladimir Putin 'backed the wrong horse'.
When it came time to meet his successor and start planning the transition, Obama was
cordial. But he never could get past the unshakeable feeling that the American people had
rejected his legacy.
Hmmm, first the NYT reports the story about the CIA's Papadopoulos "honey pot" spy, which
they've been sitting on for two years while insisting the Trump campaign wasn't spied upon.
They had to get the story out now, ahead of Horowitz' report. And now they're essentially
giving permission to take out the knives against the Clintons to save the Obamas. The next
few weeks or even years are going to be fun.
Obama simply can't see himself clearly. He had no real talent for the job. He was the
first black president, and everybody cut him slack because of that. His speeches to 'folks',
delivered in a phony southern preacher accent were disingenuous at best. He compromimsed too
far, until his programs didn't even make sense. He lived at an intellectual level, not even
realizing now that the world does not run on theories or philosophies. It runs on
actions.
His biggest error was indulging his a soft spot for Islam. As a complete social order that
is religious, moral, financial, governmental and miltary, Islam has more in common with
Marxism than Christianity.
Obama failed to understand that America has been set by history squarely against the
Islamic social order. This is not about religion, it's about the correct way to run the
world. We have the better way, the more successful way and it's going to stay that way.
That is why the people actually want Trump. Trump is deliberately not an intellectual, and
focuses on direct uncompromsing action. And he tells you what he's doing a couple of times a
day.
"Baker's book also gives new insight into why Obama was so hesitant about criticizing
Russia for meddling in the 2016 election before vote took place.
BECAUSE HE KNEW IT NEVER HAPPENED.
Obama was led by his 'cautious don't-do-stupid-s**t instincts' and feared that a forceful
response would make Russia 'escalate' its operation.
Projection: Obama escalated the war on Russia with regime change in Ukraine in 2014. Is he
******* kidding here?
Then there was the question of how Trump would react and Obama admitted that 'if I speak
out more, he'll just say it's rigged'.
Another projection. Clinton rigged the primary against Sanders. Obama tried to overthrow
Trump.
Obama wrongly assumed that Clinton would win the election and Obama said in one meeting
that Russian President Vladimir Putin 'backed the wrong horse'.
No way he could believe that ****
"When it came time to meet his successor and start planning the transition, Obama was
cordial. But he never could get past the unshakeable feeling that the American people had
rejected his legacy."
And they DID reject it soundly. Clinton is the same scummy NEOLIBERAL warmonger that Obama
was. After 8 years of Citigroup, & other banksters that filled his cabinet as well as
Obama's war crimes, accelerating wars in the Middle East, the American people finally
realized what they do not want .
I hope he lives with that REJECTION the rest of his miserable life!
LibertarianRevolutionary
Another book of lies to feed the sheeple. Author thinks we're all just plain stupid, and the people at the head of the
demoncrat party are just 'good folks'.
He–Mene Mox Mox
It is difficult to understand Obama's complaints about Hillary Clinton's "scripted, soulless" campaign strategy, when
he seemed to allow himself to be manipulated by her all along, ever since he worked out the deal to have her as his Secretary
of State in 2008.
It was reported 11 years ago that Obama was pressured to give Hillary an important paying job in his administration,
because of her 2008 presidential campaign owed $8.7 million in unpaid debts. Didn't he have a strong enough character to know
otherwise and resist her, or was he politically owing to her in someway? Obama really allowed Clinton a lot of free
reign, when she was Secretary of State too, something most other presidents would not have done. Maybe he knew something
about her penchant for rage and revenge and didn't want to end up in her body bag count?
Hillary was certainly very ill-suited for the diplomatic job as U.S. Secretary of State, and that was so well
demonstrated during her first year of office in August 2009, when she opened up on an African-Congolese Boy's question
to her: See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJEMX_iuCXE ...
Obama should have fired Hillary right then and there for that outburst......but didn't have the strong character to do it.
"... That report is going to be a bombshell. It is going to open up the investigation on a very high note, and there are going to be criminal referrals in it. ..."
"... The FISA court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power, and the chief judge in that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the justice department, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for national security all knew about it and lied to the FISA court about it... ..."
"... He [Rogers] discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA court and briefed the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA court has already told the Justice Department who lied to that court and that has been given to [Attorney General] Bill Barr already. ..."
It is about the rule of law and privacy. The Obama administration for more than four years
before the 2016 election allowed four contractors working for the FBI to illegally surveil
American citizens -- illegally. The FISA court has already found that. There is the Horowitz
report coming out in May or possibly early June. There's another report that everyone has
forgotten about involving James Comey alone. That will be out in two weeks. That report is
going to be a bombshell. It is going to open up the investigation on a very high note, and
there are going to be criminal referrals in it.
The FISA court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power, and the chief
judge in that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the
head of the justice department, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for
national security all knew about it and lied to the FISA court about it...
There's a hero in this story and it is not a lawyer. There is a hero. His name is Admiral
Mike Rogers. He was the head of the National Security Agency.
He [Rogers] discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA court and briefed
the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA court
has already told the Justice Department who lied to that court and that has been given to
[Attorney General] Bill Barr already.
"... Will the overthrow of disputed President Nicolas Maduro make Venezuela a more stable and prosperous country? More to the point, would it be good for the United States? Lots of people claim to know the answer to that, but they don't. They have no idea. If recent history is any guide, nothing will turn out as expected. Few things ever do. ..."
"... Are we prepared for the refugees a Venezuelan war would inevitably produce? A study by the Brookings Institution found that the collapse of the Venezuelan government could force eight million people to leave the country. Many of them would come here. Lawmakers in this country propose giving them temporary protected status that would let even illegal arrivals live and work here, in effect, permanently, as many have before, with no fear of deportation. Are we prepared for that? ..."
TUCKER CARLSON: There is much we don't know about the situation in Venezuela. What we do
know is that Venezuela's current government has done a poor job of providing for its own
people. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, yet it remains one of the most
impoverished and the most dangerous places on the planet. That is beyond dispute.
Everything else is up for debate. Will the overthrow of disputed President Nicolas Maduro
make Venezuela a more stable and prosperous country? More to the point, would it be good for
the United States? Lots of people claim to know the answer to that, but they don't. They have
no idea. If recent history is any guide, nothing will turn out as expected. Few things ever
do.
But that has not stopped the geniuses in Washington. It has not even slowed them down. On
Tuesday afternoon, on a bipartisan basis, they agreed that the United States ought to jump
immediately, face-first, into the Venezuelan mess. When asked whether U.S. presence in
Venezuela would make any difference, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida told Neil Cavuto the following:
"Absolutely. I was down at the Venezuelan border last Wednesday. This is just pure genocide.
Maduro is killing his own citizens."
When asked whether Venezuela was worth risking American troops' lives, Scott said, "Here is
what is going to happen. We are in the process, if we don't win today, we are going to have
Syria in this hemisphere. So, we can make sure something happens now, or we can deal with this
for decades to come. If we care about families, if we care about the human race, if we care
about fellow worldwide citizens, then we've got to step up and stop this genocide."
All right, I just want to make sure that it is clear. If you care about families and you
care about the human race -- if you want to stop genocide -- you will send your children to
Venezuela to fight right now, without even thinking about it, without even weighing the
consequences. You will just do it. Assuming you are a good person, of course.
If you don't care about families or the human race -- if for some reason you despise human
happiness and support genocide -- then you will want to join Satan's team and embrace
isolationism, the single most immoral of all worldviews. That is what they're telling you. That
is what they are demanding you believe.
Message received. We've heard it before. But before the bombers take off, let's just answer
a few quick questions, starting with the most obvious: When was the last time we successfully
meddled in the political life of another country? Has it ever worked? How are the democracies
we set up in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, and Afghanistan right now? How would Venezuela be
different? Please explain -- and take your time.
Are we prepared for the refugees a Venezuelan war would inevitably produce? A study by the
Brookings Institution found that the collapse of the Venezuelan government could force eight
million people to leave the country. Many of them would come here. Lawmakers in this country
propose giving them temporary protected status that would let even illegal arrivals live and
work here, in effect, permanently, as many have before, with no fear of deportation. Are we
prepared for that?
Are we prepared to absorb millions of new Venezuelan migrants? All of them great people, no
question, But many would have little education or skills or would not speak English.
Finally, how, exactly, is any of this good for the United States? Our sanctions on Venezuela
have already spiked our gas prices. That hurts our struggling middle class more than virtually
anything we could do. So what's is the point of doing that? So our lawmakers can feel like good
people?
And if they are, indeed, good people, why do they care more about Venezuela than they care
about this country, the one that they run? They are happy to send our military to South America
at the first sign of chaos. But send U.S. troops to our own border to stem the tide of a
hundred thousand uninvited arrivals a month? "No way," they tell us. "That is crazy talk!"
"... If Maduro doesn't have iron-clad intelligence, then the Russians better provide significant help in this regard, because I sense heavy black ops (CIA) in the works. ..."
Hope everyone saw Blitzer's interview with Pompeo! Pompeo stated that Maduro was getting
ready to leave for Cuba; as in FLEE!, and his plane was on the tarmac and Pompeo claimed THE
RUSSIANS TALKED HIM OUT OF IT! When asked whether the U.S. could guarantee Maduro safe
passage to Cuba; Pompeo EQUIVOCATED! This is CRAZY.
Bolton also answered questions from the press earlier and lies were coming out of both
sides of his mouth. Both Pompeo and Bolton refused to answer questions on details relating to U.S. involvement
at this time but there were veiled threats all over the place.
If Maduro doesn't have iron-clad intelligence, then the Russians better provide
significant help in this regard, because I sense heavy black ops (CIA) in the works.
The only similarity of this chapuza coup with "Bay of Pigs" event, is in the quality
of organizers, orchestrators and perpetrators of this new intend on coup in Venezuela,
outright fascist pigs...
Some out there, of course, are excited, since they have felt nostalgias from their times
at "Assault Brigades" and "Hunters Battalions".... Even though they try sometimes to disguise themselves as democrats and constitutionalists, it
is in these times when they show all the way their real colors.
To talk about alleged repressions by socialist governments from the US, when they are
currently oppressing every nation and peoples in the world who do not pledge to their
interests, is not like calling the kettle black, but worst, and exercise of projection of
Olympic size.
Are we seeing the end of Pompeo and Bolton approaching after the humiliating failure of the latest coup d'état? How long can
Trump endure looking like à fool with these two incompetent advisors.
Pompeo and Bolton have blown up the North Korea dialog initiated by Trump? With the Venezuela circus, Trump will probably terminate
their services .
"What absolute joy it is to picture the faces of the Three Stooges when they realized they had been snookered."
Life imitates art: Similar to the two comedians who snookered Abrams and then Macron.
Ha ha ha. The vanity of these marks is so predictable that a pair of comedians can take them in easily and get them to divulge
state secrets (there won't be a military invatins of Ven) on the phone! Same dynamic with Bolton & cie is pretty easy to imagine.
The guy is so full of himself and clueless---that kind of fool is easily taken in.
B, I fully agree with you that Guaido, and Pompeo, Bolton, Trump, etc., got snookered.
This, however, makes the situation all the more dangerous. People like these don't take public humiliation very well. Added
to the frustration of not being able to act at will in their own hemisphere, they are likely to be beside themselves with fury.
Perhaps this is why Trump struck out at Cuba with threats of a total blockade.
They will not give up on Venezuela, and given their level of frustration and humiliation, their next actions could be both
irrational and dangerous.
Make no mistake, Russia's move to start handing out passports to Donetsk and Luhansk inhabitants is intimately linked to events
in Venezuela. And the fate of Ukraine rests on whether the US undertakes direct action vs Caracas or not. The moment Bolton justified
possible invasion by the duty to protect US citizens in Venezuela was also the moment Moscow made the final decision to create
similar pretext for the dismantling of the Ukraine. Russians had already proven their ability to take quick advantage of American
moves against its allies by taking symmetrical action against vulnerable vassals of Washington. Kosovo was reciprocated by Abkhazia
and South Ossetia. Takeover of Kiev - by severing of Crimea and Donbass. Invasion of Venezuela will inevitably result in Ukraine
losing all of Black Sea coast and becoming completely unviable. And unlike US Special Forces, Russian troops will actually be
greeted with flowers and genuine popular support in Kherson and Odessa.
Villains of the day: Random Guy, Pompeo, and nefarious band of willie, barovsky etc.
Pompeo is perhaps green with envy, why Boris Johnson should keep the mantle of the most
clownish top diplomat of a major state? He can do better! But once the tall tale was said, it
was duly echoed in supine media. NYT made a paragraph, and actually noted how Pompeo
explained his alleged knowledge of Maduro preparing for departure: >>Pressed about the
source of this information, Mr. Pompeo said it was drawn from "open-source material," and
conversations with "scores and scores of people on the ground," including members of the
military and opposition leaders. "He was headed for Havana," he said of Mr. Maduro.<<
The Guardian made a separate article on the topic, with no notes of caution, damn the
torpedoes, copy with full speed!
So "people on the ground" could have reliable, ha ha, info on the conversations between
Maduro and "Russians". "Scores of people" were interviewed, hm., seems that the wily Maduro
eschew a usual step of information blockade, letting the little golpistas -- and him -- look
silly. I actually do not believe in those "scores of interviews", Most generously, there were
that many conversations from which his people could "draw" a rumor prepared ahead of time,
probably by his own Department.
Finally, the nefarious long linkers. Is it really THAT hard to learn how to make neat
links this
one ? Join lines and remove all spaces from the text below
"... Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela ..."
"... It's so frustrating to see the current lunacy in the mainstream media, and the idiotocracy at work in Washington DC, regardless of political party or who's fat ass sits in the oval office. Tulsi Gabbard is about the only sane person in DC right now on foreign affairs - forget Sanders, Warren and 'regular guy' Joe Biden ..."
< somewhat surprising to me at first glance, but with a little further thought, as to be
expected - the US media is corporate controlled, pro-militarism, pro-interventionism,
pro-armaments sales, and totally pro-regime change - anywhere in the world. All
editorialists are neo-colonialists and imperialists at heart, regardless of who occupies
the white house>
Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela
A FAIR survey of US opinion journalism on Venezuela found no voices in elite corporate
media that opposed regime change in that country. Over a three-month period (1/15/19 --
4/15/19), zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti --
regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position.
Not a single commentator on the big three
Sunday morning talkshows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás Maduro
stepping down from the Venezuelan government.....
Let's make a mess of Venezuela, you know, like the US has done across the middle
east/north Africa since.... well since almost forever....
It's so frustrating to see the current lunacy in the mainstream media, and the idiotocracy
at work in Washington DC, regardless of political party or who's fat ass sits in the oval
office. Tulsi Gabbard is about the only sane person in DC right now on foreign affairs -
forget Sanders, Warren and 'regular guy' Joe Biden
"... The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in practice. ..."
"... Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. ..."
"... Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either. ..."
"The Empire only appears to be strong. In reality it is weak, confused, clueless"
The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in
China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in
practice.
Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. Almost
all of Latin America now has pro-US governments. CIA linked Bolsonaro took over in Brazil.
Turkey is in deep recession and Erdogan lost the big cities.
India is moving closer to the US. Europe remains a vassal. Russian economic growth is
weak. The US won the trade war against China as Andrei Martyanov himself admitted.
Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third
of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage
crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either.
There is no doubt that they will be weaker in the future, but they will fight hard to stop
this and gain time.
"... The opposition's hoped-for split in the military didn't emerge, a plane that the United States claimed was standing by to ferry Maduro into exile never took off and by nightfall one of the government's bravest opponents, who defied house arrest to join the insurrection, had quietly sought refuge with his family in a foreign embassy. ..."
"... Those that didn't take explicit positions nonetheless wrote articles blaming all or most of Venezuela's woes on Maduro and Chávez. Economics wiz Paul Krugman (New York Times, 1/29/19) gave his spiel: ..."
"... Hugo Chávez got into power because of rage against the nation's elite, but used the power badly. He seized the oil sector, which you only do if you can run it honestly and efficiently; instead, he turned it over to corrupt cronies, who degraded its performance. Then, when oil prices fell, his successor tried to cover the income gap by printing money. Hence the crisis. ..."
"... Note that Krugman failed to mention the 57 percent reduction in extreme poverty that followed Chávez's replacement of management of the state-owned oil industry ..."
"... The total failure of the coup is obvious when one looks at what happened to Leopoldo López, the mentor of Juan Guaidó. He was under house arrest for leading the violent demonstrations and deadly riots in 2014 ..."
"... The generals in the Pentagon will not like the rhetorical build-up at all. They will look at their maps and find that Venezuela is twice the size of Iraq and 30% larger than Afghanistan. ..."
"... It is unlikely that Trump wants to launch a war on Venezuela. He likely knows that it would not be a cake walk, and that it would be a severe risk for his reelection. But who knows what Bolton or Pompeo might tell him to get their way. They just got snookered by the Maduro government. Why would they not snooker Trump? ..."
gjohnsit on Wed, 05/01/2019 - 12:50pm Juan Guaido's U.S.-backed coup
failed pitifully yesterday.
He called it the moment for Venezuelans to reclaim their democracy once and for all. But as
the hours dragged on, opposition leader Juan Guaidó stood alone on a highway overpass
with the same small cadre of soldiers with whom he launched a bold effort to spark a military
uprising and settle Venezuela's agonizing power struggle...
The opposition's hoped-for split in the military didn't emerge, a plane that the United
States claimed was standing by to ferry Maduro into exile never took off and by nightfall one
of the government's bravest opponents, who defied house arrest to join the insurrection, had
quietly sought refuge with his family in a foreign embassy.
Guaido's mentor Leopoldo Lopez sought refuge in Chile's embassy in Caracas, while at least
25 pro-Juan Guaido troops asked Brazil for refuge.
President Nicolas Maduro is actually in a stronger position now than a week ago.
So does the U.S. give up this imperialist project?
Nope.
We simply take it to the next level. Juan Guaido must die .
He has been a kind of a hapless figure so far. He calls for mass protests and no one shows
up. I don't think he realizes right now that he is actually now worth more dead than alive
not only to the CIA, but also to his own opposition people. A shot in the crowd or something
like that to take Guaido out. It might shock you, Dr. Paul, but the CIA is pretty good at
this kind of things.
Juan Guaido probably only has days or weeks to live.
I wonder if he realizes the danger he is in?
It's unlikely
that the Trump Administration will wait long before putting a bullet in their CIA
puppet.
"The President has been crystal clear and incredibly consistent. Military action is possible.
If that's what's required, that's what the United States will do," Pompeo said on Fox
Business Network. "We're trying to do everything we can to avoid violence. We've asked all
the parties involved not to engage in the kind of activity. We'd prefer a peaceful transition
of government there, where Maduro leaves and a new election is held.
But the President has
made clear, in the event that there comes a moment -- and we'll all have to make decisions
about when that moment is -- and the President will have to ultimately make that decision. He
is prepared to do that if that's what's required."
@dfarrah
Thinks arresting Guaido triggers a US military invasion. Eric Prince is trying to put
together a mercenary force if the US troops don't go in.
calling for the same results that Pompous, Bolton, tRump etc. advocate, the 'liberals'
just use nicer language. (highlights are mine)
"...Francisco Rodríguez and Jeffrey D. Sachs (New York Times, 2/2/19) envision
similar efforts for a "peaceful and negotiated transition of power," and (Ro) Khanna made
sure to characterize Maduro as "an authoritarian leader who has presided over
unfair elections, failed economic policies, extrajudicial killings by police, food shortages
and cronyism with military leaders."
In other words, Maduro the Dictator must be overthrown -- but don't worry, the US would be
diplomatic about it.
Those that didn't take explicit positions nonetheless wrote articles blaming all or most
of Venezuela's woes on Maduro and Chávez. Economics wiz Paul Krugman (New York Times,
1/29/19) gave his spiel:
Hugo Chávez got into power because of rage against the nation's elite, but used the
power badly. He seized the oil sector, which you only do if you can run it honestly and
efficiently; instead, he turned it over to corrupt cronies, who degraded its performance.
Then, when oil prices fell, his successor tried to cover the income gap by printing money.
Hence the crisis.
Note that Krugman failed to mention the 57 percent reduction in extreme poverty that
followed Chávez's replacement of management of the state-owned oil industry (.
I picked the examples above from the article above but it would be a mistake to not point
out that this is about all of the media but the NY Tool really stands out, of course Wapoop
is never far behind.
However to not make this post too long I'll put up just two of the opening paragraphs and it
gets a lot better...
"A FAIR survey of US opinion journalism on Venezuela found no voices in elite corporate media
that opposed regime change in that country. Over a three-month period
(1/15/19–4/15/19), zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took
an anti–regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position. Not a single commentator on the
big three Sunday morning talkshows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás
Maduro stepping down from the Venezuelan government.
Of the 76 total articles, opinion videos or TV commentator segments that centered on or
gave more than passing attention to Venezuela, 54 (72 percent) expressed explicit support for
the Maduro administration's ouster. Eleven (14 percent) were ambiguous, but were only
classified as such for lack of explicit language. Reading between the lines, most of these
were clearly also pro–regime change. Another 11 (14 percent) took no position, but many
similarly offered ideological ammo for those in support.
@aliasalias a choice between corrupt socialists and corrupt capitalists. Yay.
So now I'm watching tv, and oh noes, some guy says that Caracas is a war zone! But all I
see is a bunch of people and some sort of smoke bombs going off. But no one yet is shooting.
People are throwing rocks at some military vehicles.
@aliasalias I'm also willing to bet he was perfectly fine with the US ordering its
client states in the Middle East to ramp up oil production to manipulate prices.
What I find particularly laughable is the fact that so many idiots on and offline think
Venezuela is socialist despite the fact that their economy is 70 percent private, or mixed,
like ours used to be before the capitalist pigs sold off the commons to the highest bidders
piece by god damn piece.
Liberals and conservatives are just 2 sides of the same fascist coin at this point.
Even after an effective multi-year economic embargo that's caused hyperinflation in
Venezuela, and despite a plague of Stuxnet-like viruses that took down most of the country's
electrical and communications grid, all the CIA has managed to do is make itself look
ineffectual at what really matters. Same in Iran.
All we really still do well is wreck stuff, cause starvation, and cut down the supply of
oil going to the world market.
The Agency doesn't really confuse and intimidate anyone, anymore, except The New York
Times.
Or is the American public missing the obvious? All I see from the folks advocating for a
coup in Venezuela is that
1) people are starving,
2) Maduro is a "dictator" (supported by
what evidence I don't know) and
3) something must be done. They have no evidence for the
counter argument that
4) they are comprador elites who want nothing more than
5) to get their
hands on PdVSA's oil after 6) their American sponsors take the lion's share and that
7) it's
perfectly obvious that, apart from the end of the US-led embargo, nothing is going to get any
better for the vast majority of Venezuelans if the comprador elites are allowed to take over
the country. This is because their methods are
9) at least as dictatorial as those they
accuse Maduro of employing. And then we have the undemocratic idea that
10) the United States
government should somehow have a "say" in who rules Venezuela, a proposition that appears to
have the open assent of most of the world's governments.
Generals promised him that they were with him, but they were not.
US failed again. And the world knows it.
The total failure of the coup is obvious when one looks at what happened to Leopoldo
López, the mentor of Juan Guaidó. He was under house arrest for leading the
violent demonstrations and deadly riots in 2014. Yesterday morning the guards let him go.
While the circumstances are not clear, the police chief responsible for the guards has been
fired. López promised his followers that he would go to the Miraflores Presidential
Palace. But he wasn't even able to leave eastern Caracas.
Yesterday evening López,
with his wife and daughter, fled into the Chilean embassy. They seem to have disliked the
accommodations. Two hours later they moved into the Spanish embassy.
While the embassy food
may be good, it will be a quite different life than in their own comfortable mansion. A few
of the soldiers who supported Guaidó took refuge in the Brazilian embassy.
Guaidó is still free.
The generals in the Pentagon will not like the rhetorical build-up at all. They will
look at their maps and find that Venezuela is twice the size of Iraq and 30% larger than
Afghanistan. It has impenetrable jungles, mountains and slums that even Venezuelan troops
do not dare to enter. It has a functioning army and halfway decent air defenses which were
recently upgraded by Russian specialists.
It is unlikely that Trump wants to launch a war on Venezuela. He likely knows that it
would not be a cake walk, and that it would be a severe risk for his reelection. But who
knows what Bolton or Pompeo might tell him to get their way. They just got snookered by the
Maduro government. Why would they not snooker Trump?
There are absolutely no vital U.S. interests at stake in Venezuela, and the Venezuelan government poses no threat to the United
States. There is no way under these circumstances that military action could be "required," so when Pompeo suggests that it could
happen we are clearly talking about a war of choice divorced from any U.S. security interests. It would be a war fought solely for
the purpose of achieving regime change, and the only reason why the U.S. would do that is to vindicate the Trump administration's
reckless blunder of taking sides in an internal political dispute. No Americans should die for the sake of Trump's ego or for the
ambitions of hawkish senators.
Attacking the Venezuelan government would be a terrible error and a violation of international law. It would be a calamity for
the people of Venezuela, who would bear many of the costs of turning their internal crisis into an international war, and it would
likely cause more displacement and increase the number of people fleeing the country in the short term. I suspect it would also be
a more difficult and costly war than most of us expect, and it would be a massive waste of U.S. resources and American lives in an
unjustified and unnecessary war. If all that isn't enough, an unauthorized Venezuelan war would also be completely illegal under
U.S. law. The American people have no appetite for a new war for regime change anywhere in the world, and there is not much support
for it even in Congress. If Trump tries to take the U.S. to war in Venezuela, he will be in clear violation of the Constitution and
should be impeached for it.
The thing I really don't understand about Venezuela here is why is this not China's problem while the US and Russia doing old
cold war dance here? They are in debt to their eyeballs here with them.
At this point, Bolton and Pompeo are doing everything to suck President Trump into the battle for Venezuela and we must be
not support military action. (I fear the talking heads at Fox News here.) Because it appears the people, or majority, of Venezuela
are generally tiring of Maduro government but they do not want US military assistance. (Note any truth the CIA dropped weapons
to the Guiadro forces? They do have US guns but this stuff get trade fairly easily without US government doing.)
If America goes to war in Venezuela, Trump loses my vote in 2020. If we don't get out of at least one more unnecessary war like
Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, etc, he's on thin ice. Getting OUT of foreign wars was one of his major campaign promises.
It seems that wars of opportunity are the only kind we engage in over the past few decades. If we don't have a war with either
Venezuela or Iran, I will be shocked and very relieved.
However, I am not optimistic. Our foreign policy seems to be completely controlled by NeoCons, arms merchants, and Saudi / Israeli
interests, with no honest benefits to our own nation's security or strategic interests.
Apologies to b, but today's Xymphora post really tickled my fancy.>
Bay of piglets, Tuesday, April 30, 2019
"Venezuelan coup attempt 'directly planned in Washington' – FM". Guido's cute little
coup-let. If you stage a coup and nobody notices as it is so half-assed, is it really a coup?
"Venezuela: Military Uprising in Caracas (in Development)".
"Venezuela - Bay of Pigs Redux?" (Lang).
Obviously, the government can no longer tolerate Guido's shenanigans, which have become a
public safety matter.
I look forward to the embassy video showing them skateboarding in their quarters. I don't,
however, believe any self-respecting cat will befriend either one of these tools.
Correction to 114 above. The Venezuela Analysis tweet linking to the Chile Today story
claiming that both Guaidó and López had taken refuge in the Chilean embassy has
been removed, and the story only claims that López is there. Miscommunication in a
rapidly developing situation? In any case, surely Guaidó is seeking refuge SOMEplace.
multiple sources are reporting similar information to telesur's update:
UPDATE: 3:11
pm Chile's Foreign Affairs Minister Roberto Ampuero confirmed that Venezuelan opposition
politician Leopoldo Lopez and his family requested asylum at the Chilean embassy in
Caracas.
"Lilian Tintori and her daughter entered as guests of our diplomatic mission in
Caracas. A few minutes ago her spouse, Leopoldo Lopez, joined his family in that place. Chile
reaffirms commitment with Venezuelan democrats," Minister Ampuero tweeted.
that seems that this iteration of the coup has fizzled. stay tuned for what comes
next.
The difference with EuroMaydan is that there is no distinct region of the country which supports the opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... US media will milk this to increase sanctions and economic blockade on the country. ..."
"... The show will go on produced and directed by US intelligence. They are using psychological warfare not only on Venezuelans but on American and European citizens. ..."
So called "coup" attempt was just a show for American and European audience consumption.
You can easily tell by watching the Western coverage the last couple of days(CNN, fox,
European news) and compare it to actual reality on the ground seen through interviews with
Venezuelans and social media videos.
US media will milk this to increase sanctions and economic blockade on the country.
It seems Guaido and even López were used as pawns in this scheme by US intelligence
and/,or Venezuelan and Russian intelligence. You can tell by looking at their faces on photos
taken that early morning and by the fact that López immediately ran to the Chilean
embassy. They knew they'd been duped and used as pawns.
The show will go on produced and directed by US intelligence. They are using psychological
warfare not only on Venezuelans but on American and European citizens.
Be aware US
intelligence is running the show they don't spend 100 billion in Intelligence to let an idiot
like Guaido run the show. Guaido is their dancing monkey. Watch the monkey dance. Dance
monkey! Dance!
Is Maduro put in Yanukovich situation by Washington. If so he is doomed...
Notable quotes:
"... Cue the snipers on rooftops. Not wishing for this, but that's what history suggests. Naturally, Maduro would then be blamed. ..."
"... The carnage was blamed on Yanukovich and the Berkut, but the actual killers were from the rebels. ..."
"... All that's needed are a few snipers killing some actually innocent protestors, and blame for the carnage would be pinned on Maduro. Like others in this blog, I think that Maduro should immediately arrest Guaido et al., and not allow the situation to progress further. He should be wary of repeating Yanukovich' mistake. ..."
"... That said, I agree with previous commenters that Guaidó and his clique have gone beyond seditious "baiting" and advocating violent rebellion to engaging in armed insurrection-- however staged and phony. ..."
"... My guess - the CIA want Guaido out of the way to start a serious run at Madura. Sacrifice Guaido and blame Madura (he'll be dead in a week I guess) ..."
Beware of snipers on the roof alla the Takism massacre in Turkey 1977 May Day with the Ecevit (leftist) gov't in power.
Of course Bengazi and Kiev come to mind as well.
Jackrabbit | Apr 30, 2019 12:00:05 PM | 37
Cue the snipers on rooftops. Not wishing for this, but that's what history suggests.
Naturally, Maduro would then be blamed.
Absolutely correct, Prince's mercs could not actually win territory and hold it. Their
attack would just be a "bloody their nose" sort of thing that American psychos are so fond
of. Basically Prince's attack dogs create chaos as long as they can get away with and when
the Venezuelan military begins a methodical counterattack they retreat to Colombia. Beyond
destabilizing the government somewhat I don't see what it could accomplish, though.
I think the concern raised by others is much more likely; that is snipers killing dozens
or hundreds of people celebrating May Day in such a way that the mass media can spin it as
the government's doing. Most Americans do not know what May Day is and will assume that any
Venezuelan crowds their TVs show them will be Random Guaido's faithful flock protesting
against Maduro. Guaranteed that's how the New York Langley Times will spin
it tomorrow. If mystery snipers (CIA death squads) shoot up the festival-goers it will not be
difficult to fool Americans into thinking that the mystery snipers are pro-Maduro forces
trying to kill a few Guaidog supporters for some reason.
What further suggests this possibility is that the US State Department's astroturf Twitter
army has been trying to force the meme that Random Guaido is actually a socialist and is more
left than Maduro. This is to seed the idea among people who actually do know what May Day is
about that Maduro would oppose May Day celebrations and thus reinforce the forced meme that
Maduro loyalists are responsible for tomorrow's sniper attacks.
Still, selling it to the gullible American public is one thing. It is another entirely to
fool the Venezuelans since many of them will be seeing this happen firsthand. If the
Venezuelan people don't buy that the government is behind the sniper attacks then they will
close up ranks around Maduro rather than throw their lot in with Guaidog's coup attempt.
@jayc (68) Are the coup planners and advisors smart or dumb? In one sense, they are smart,
because they can reason from some basic assumption and reach a conclusion that seemingly
flows from the rules of logic. OTOH, they are dumb, because the basic assumption from which
their reasoning begins is a steaming pile of crap. So, I vote for DUMB.
This is a very dangerous situation. Recall the leaked conversation between Cathering Ashton
and Umas Paet, indicating that Maidan sniping was coming from the hotel occupied by the
protestors.
The carnage was blamed on Yanukovich and the Berkut, but the actual killers were from the
rebels.
All that's needed are a few snipers killing some actually innocent protestors, and blame
for the carnage would be pinned on Maduro. Like others in this blog, I think that Maduro
should immediately arrest Guaido et al., and not allow the situation to progress further. He
should be wary of repeating Yanukovich' mistake.
This is just to further confirm that this stunt is being hyped by US mass-media as if it is
"the big one", i.e. that Guaidó and his "revolutionary" forces are practically
storming the presidential palace.
I listen to the local all-news radio station at the top of the hour. It's a reliable
indicator of the tune du jour being played on the mass-media Mighty Wurlitzer.
This morning, as noted, it was the "top story"-- and presented as if the long-anticipated
nation-wide coup was raging. Despite the usual overwrought sensationalism, I suspected that
there was less than met the ear: this local station didn't throw over to their parent network
for a Special Report, as it typically would if the conflict had actually escalated into open
rebellion.
"Special Report" mode is announced with dramatic theme music, and Team Coverage featuring
the Usual Suspect celebrity network correspondents and a gaggle of house "experts".
So I correctly concluded that despite the breathless tone, this was much ado about
little. ____________________________________________________
That said, I agree with previous commenters that Guaidó and his clique have gone
beyond seditious "baiting" and advocating violent rebellion to engaging in armed
insurrection-- however staged and phony.
It seems to have intentionally crossed a line to
further test the Maduro government's patience and resolve.
I'm not one of those who finds fault with embattled statesmen for refusing to act
precipitously in response to obvious provocations. Maduro and loyal Venezuelans know
perfectly well that even a reasonable response to blatant illegal and illicit provocations
may be used by the golpistas (which includes the US/Western sponsors and enablers) as
a pretext for foreign intervention.
But the prudent policy of tolerance and forbearance cannot continue indefinitely in the
face of outright treasonous provocations, since this will eventually be perceived as the
government turning a blind eye, or winking at, the rule of law upon which it relies for
legitimacy.
It's a difficult dilemma.
William Gruff | Apr 30, 2019 3:25:23 PM | 93
psychohistorian @87 said
"...with very few shots being fired."
This is an important point. The Russians and Chinese seem to have the psycho empire psychoanalyzed and are offering good
guidance to Venezuela, assuming Venezuelans themselves are not also clued into how the psycho empire works.
In essence, America needs a pretext to attack. Americans need to maintain the delusion that they are the victims, and that
it was their victims who forced America to attack against America's bogus peace-loving will.
The pretext doesn't need to be very convincing, but it needs to exist. For this reason it could be wiser to just leave
Random Guaido alone, but arrest and court martial the military personnel who took part in this little stunt. Lopez should also
be re-arrested and tried for violating the terms of his detention.
This arresting should be done by regular police for Lopez and military police for the military personnel who violated the
chain of command. No shooting or even guns drawn. Just calmly take them into custody and let the legal process work on them.
NOBTS | Apr 30, 2019 3:34:39 PM | 96
Now that CIA poster boy Leopoldo is available to take charge Juan Doe is prime sniper fodder!
The Unconventional Warfare Manual sets out the techniques of subversion the US uses in targeting nation states
that don't toe the line.
Although the document is of recent date, the policy has clearly existed for a long time.
Based on Church Committee hearings, it has been estimated that the US has carried out tens of thousands of covert
operations since WW2.
Guaido is just an opportunity for Bolton to stir up trouble.
He has never been part of a CIA long term regime change plan. If he was then his wikipedia page would not have been
created just 2 weeks before Trump recognised him as President (or at least it would have been manipulated to appear a lot
older).
And he would have been mentioned in WaPo a hundred times in the last 2 years instead of only a week before Trump
recognition.
My guess - the CIA want Guaido out of the way to start a serious run at Madura. Sacrifice Guaido and blame Madura
(he'll be dead in a week I guess).
"... it was Russia that attacked Iraq on the basis of lies? ..."
"... It must have been Russia that turned Libya into a failed state, complete with slave markets? ..."
"... Instead of spinning fantasies about Maduro going into exile or being overthrown by some kind of joint (and illegal) Latin American task force, how's about we consider the very reasonable idea of Guaidó being arrested and tried for treason? ..."
Please refrain in using the term "democracy" so easily. US is a republic with the surface of
elected representative system, and we know exactly how that works. See the election of Truman
as VP instead of Wallace in 1944 or so or very recently the election of Hillary Clinton as
democratic representative.
A true democracy is done via a sortition system that selects randomly from the roster of
eligible citizens to represent the will of the people.
Imagine that in the Second Amendment instead of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" we would have: "A well educated Citizenry, being necessary to the security and
well-being of a free, moral, and ethically sound State, the right of the people to get a
sound Education in Philosophy, Ethics, Civics, Logic, Finance, and Health, shall not be
infringed".
it was Russia that attacked Iraq on the basis of lies?
It is China that is gleefully assisting the Saudi tyrants to commit genocide?
It must have been Russia that turned Libya into a failed state, complete with slave
markets?
Is China now that is frantically threatening war on Iran?
Russia must have been responsible for supporting jihadists to turn Syria into another failed
state, right?
For that matter, is it Russia and China that are threatening war on the elected and UN
recognized government of Venezuela?
Seriously, after America's long and bloody track record of failed and bloody
interventions, it baffles me that anyone could say something so ridiculous.
" fearmongering about the "Yankee" empire to the north."
What, this isn't justified?
Instead of spinning fantasies about Maduro going into exile or being overthrown by some
kind of joint (and illegal) Latin American task force, how's about we consider the very
reasonable idea of Guaidó being arrested and tried for treason?
Guaidó seems to have neither a base nor large scale military support nor access
to significant military equipment. If that does not change this coup attempt is likely to
fail within a few hours.
We may have jumped the shark in to the realm of the monthly
coup attempt. Mostly a media event to see if they can get a buy-in. Didn't work? Not to
worry we will try again next month!
Can you imagine a force of 5000 or so mercs staging a combat assault on a large and
reasonably well armed country?
If it didn't involve so much killing and dying it would be amusing to watch the "private
army" get pinned down and butchered.
Seriously without air cover it would turn into bloody squalor. Meanwhile Russia and
perhaps China are likely providing signal intel fo the Venezuelan military and keeping a
close eye on what the gringoes are up to. Much like the RAND document on destabilizing
other nations it will probably be a slow bleed by sabotage and scarcity.
I can't see either Guaido, the US, or any other of the coup fomentors ceasing their
attempts until they've achieved some kind of result. Guaido running around, and I can see
the rationale behind allowing him to do so, is an ongoing problem. Too much is at stake for
the powerful interests to let go of any of their global plans. People everywhere do not
really matter all that much.
Looks like the Neo-Cons just replied with their unavoidable escalation, this smacks of
desperation. I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams told Random Guy to announce a coup and even
if it fails the US will protect him or use it as an excuse to invade. Once this coup fails
Maduro should stick both of these traitors in a "real" prison and see if that loosens their
tongues a bit, neither of these fools have experienced real hardship so just taking away
their sliver spoons and private aircraft would convince them to rat out their fellow
traitors
While everyone is aware of the existence of fake news, we are less aware of how
editorial conflicts of interest can be used to sway public opinion, particularly in the
case of a highly influential and widely read newspaper like the New York Times.
Harvard Law School
Barack Obama, an alumni of Harvard Law School, was the United States President who ordered
the destruction of Africa's richest, most literate and developed country, Libya, and
reduced that country to rubble and a state of lawlessness. Thousands died.
The sovereign wealth fund of the oil rich country has disappeared without trace. Libya's
premier medical facilities that were the envy of it's continent and it's neighbours in the
Middle East have been destroyed, precisely at the time that it's citizens required them.
Many of the doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, as highly trained as their counterparts in
Europe, have also disappeared without trace, many presumed drowned in the waters of the
Mediterranean trying to flee to save their lives. Libya is now the poorest state in Africa.
The leader who had united it and raised the infrastructural standards to be on a par with
the first world, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, never had his day in a court of any description,
he was beaten, tortured and sodomised with a knife, before being murdered on the blood
soaked streets by a mob.
We have to wonder what it is that they are teaching at the Harvard Law School? In the
1980's the tiny countries of Central America, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua suffered
from their own brutal civil wars. Extreme, right wing governments and militias were either
trying to hold onto power or to seize it for themselves from the impoverished indigenous
citizenries who sought democracy and guarantees of their fundamental civil and human
rights. The United States sent in Elliot Abrams, now to be found lurking in the jungles of
Venezuela, to support the fascistic regimes in the brutal battle against their own
civilians. Mr Abrams was another product of the esteemed Harvard Law School. By the end of
his time there, hundreds of thousands of some of the world's poorest people and been
murdered, their bodies tossed into mass graves if they were lucky. There was no rule of
law, in spite of the fact that there were constitutions and courts, judges and the concept
of jurisprudence.
The current Secretary of State of the United States, Mr Mike Pompeo, recently addressed
an audience of American students and told them that his former department, the Central
Intelligence Agency, of which he was the Director from 2017 until 2018, routinely "lied,
cheated and stole" as and when it suited or the occasion demanded. Mike Pompeo is another
American official who studied at and graduated from the Harvard Law School.
This Massachusetts institution has had scores of it's students graduate and pass
through, onwards and upwards into positions of authority in the halls of power. It is
difficult to see what ethical foundations were laid down in those formative years of
studying the law in the seminars of that Cambridge campus. Three alumni of Harvard Law
School who have recently served and continue to serve in some of the highest offices of the
United States, have done irreparable damage to a number of countries and have done so by
breaking every international law that existed to protect them. They did this
unapologetically, in order, as Secretary of State Pompeo admitted in a rare moment of
candour, to "cheat and steal" from defenceless nation states and their helpless
populations.
Perhaps Harvard Law School is not the best place to send one's kids to learn about
ethics, democracy and the rule of law.
Couldn't help noticing that Guyaido looks like a frightened little bunny which just soiled
its underwear or is about to. Lopez seems to be in a similar state of near-panic. I don't
know why the govt doesn't just disappear them. They could be stuffed and embalmed and put
on display in the National Museum as a reminder that abject stupidity isn't a virtue in
Venezuela.
OK, both Random Guy and Lopez are openly committing armed insurrection and high treason.
Now is the time to arrest both, try in the courts (public and televised) for high treason.
Unlimited military force (as required) is fully justified in making the arrests. Not to do
so is appeasing the criminal actions of a foreign force attempting to use violence to usurp
the legitimate and democratically elected government of a sovereign state.
Until now there have been legitimate strategic grounds for holding off from arresting
Random Guy. No longer. They must be crushed with the full force of the law backed by
military power if necessary, and immediately prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Limit the prosecution in the first instance to Random Guy and Lopez, and to High Treason
and military insurrection. All other charges and defendents can be tried later in a
separate trial, but these two need a straightforward and legally watertight conviction as
quickly as possible, so that there is then no rotting carcase of ambiguity left.
Trump won't be gaining any "wave" from attacking Venezuela. In fact, it stands to alienate
a large part of his base and energize the meekly antiwar Democrats.
It might be moot since it looks like this putsch has failed to get more support, and if
so Guadó will spend the next months in a cage.
Maduro didn't arrest random guy to deny the US an excuse to invade. The US was bluffing I
think but simply ignoring random dudecwas wise at that point.
But things have changed now. Lopez and Guaidó must be arrested and tried now.
Failure to do so would encourage additional coups.
This does indeed smack of desperation as a previous poster observed.
Remember the (if I remember correctly) supposed 1800+ Venezuelan soldiers being kept in
hotels in Cucuta, Colombia across the border? This and the white house rejection of the
Prince scheme show that some combination of the US, the Colombians, and Guaidó's
people have had little faith in the route of using that as the core of a contra force. Now
they might have to.
As for our boy Juan, presidente encargado, unless something drastic happens very soon,
he'll be wishing for some black helicopters to show up and pluck him off that bridge.
Unless, of course, being arrested is the plan. This may be a case of believing your own
propaganda - the opposition claims it's 90% of Venezuela. Maybe Guaidó truly
believed all he needed to do was orchestrate something like Prince's "dynamic" event and
the army would rally to Altamira with the masses in tow.
About a month ago, when his motorcade went outside of his east Caracas haunts and got
pelted by rocks, you had all the internet trolls denouncing it as staged.
You see, there are mafialike Chavista bosses, Cubans all, forcing the barrios to act
like they hate their beloved interim president. Maybe instead of taking the hint and
changing strategy, Juan believed his own spin.
Or maybe he did take the hint, and figures the struggle against Cuban oppression is
better waged from the dock than the streets, where he can force action from his allies and
supporters by claiming abuse. Time will tell.
The US media is really talking up this latest coup attempt by random guy, but I still don't
see the meat on it. successful coups are fast moving and depend on quickly seizing key
targets like media centers, power generators and most importantly of all seizing high value
government officials. Currently, it looks like Random Guy just found some more random guys
to stand around him and pose while he declares a coup. so this looks doomed to failure
within a few more hours (6-8), what really matters is what does the US do once it fails,
realistically, there aren't anymore sanctions they can put on Venezuela and Colombia has
made it clear they won't send their own army in to fight the US's war.
That basically leaves just Erik Prince's planned mercenary army or a direct US invasion,
previously Prince's plan had faced a lot of opposition so it is interesting that this
failure of a coup is launched right now. If Trump was ever serious about not starting
anymore stupid wars (and thus won't invade Venezuela before the 2020 elections) I imagine
he'll now be more supportive of the idea of loaning money to Random Guy's backers so that
they can buy Erik Prince's mercenaries and use them. Even if they use Prince's troops I
doubt that they will succeed, Prince's mercenaries might be good at massacring civilians,
but Venezuela has a massive civilian militia made up of the poorest citizens they will know
right away what Random Guy's mercenaries will do to them and their families if their coup
succeeds. So they will fight very, very hard. This could setup another Bay of Pigs type
situation for the US and their mercenaries.
Trump will be lied to by CIA and NSC and State, so if he okays this or really wants
this, it does not matter. He was couped and the Deep State uses him. He's happy being
POTUS. That is all that matters to Trump.
The uprising will depend on hundreds of thousands in the streets, not several
thousand.
The goal is hundreds of dead protesters.
Maduro has to snatch Guaido and put him on trial.
Looks like they are massing the people successfully.
The question for the moment is will the US agents and officers on the ground turn this
into a Venezuelan Tiananmen 2. They certainly know how.
Imagine trying to overthrow your elected government at the behest of John Bolton?
If anyone in the United States pulled a stunt like this - and, remember, the US is
packed with armed extremist loons like militias and survivalists and Aryan churches - they
would be stormed with federal agents and soldiers and either dragged away to prison in
chains or shot.
I am not exaggerating in the least. He would be charged with treason, and I think we all
know, from our memories of how the United States has treated prisoners at Guantanamo what
kind of treatment he would receive in prison for treason.
But the same United States not only thinks this is just fine to do in another country,
they encourage it.
Simply the most lawless of all advanced nations, that's America. Utter contempt for rule
of law and blind belief that American laws should overrule everything else everywhere.
So, what is Canada's Foreign Minister, Ms Chrystia Freeland - someone who has shamed
Canada with her fervent support for Washington's illegal activities in Venezuela - doing
today to assist Bolton and his unelected, self-appointed "president?"
If I were a Russian or Chinese strategist, I would be salivating at the thought of the US
willfully creating another Vietnam right on its own doorstep and throwing the only
Continent connected to it by a landbridge into complete upheaval and stark class warfare.
Class-based Civil War could easily spread to Brazil, Colombia, and beyond, throwing the
lives of hundreds of millions of people into upheaval, all on Uncle Sam's dollar.
After the failures of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and the Ukraine, the several
million Latino refugees and the expenditure of another 6 trillion or so over the next
decade should be enough to throw the US itself into Civil War and Coup territory and finish
off its hegemony over EurAsia for good.
Don't give Maduro too much aid just yet. Sucker the US to commit its hand and go in,
then, as elsewhere, give just enough aid to keep the US in perpetual zugzwang as it slowly
bleeds itself to death.
Austerity and War for the Americas, OBOR and peaceful development for EurAsia.
"Maduro has to snatch Guaido and put him on trial."
This might be exactly what the U.S. wants Maduro to do. The arrest and/or imprisonment
of Guaido by the "repressive regime" could be the pretext for a sudden "popular uprising"
to which the "Venezuelan State" (ie. CIA operatives and hired assassins) responds
"violently." A small gathering in any city square suddenly disrupted by the gunfire death
of a dozen or so innocents--all miraculously captured "live" on cell-phone video and
streamed direct to social media--is all that it would take to give the US sufficient
domestic support for any further action. I suspect this action would not take the form of
direct US military action but rather the freeing of Erik Prince and his mercenaries upon
the dirty brown socialist peasants.
Maduro surely has anticipated that his arrest of Guaido is likely to play into US hands.
Guaido may be too stupid to know he is being used as live bait, or he may be simply being
coerced by his handlers to undertake increasingly reckless actions until Maduro bites.
I think the best thing Maduro might do would be to arrange for a public meetin and
reconciliation between him and Guaido away from his U.S. handlers. The US is not expecting
that and would then have to explain why they are opposed to the peaceable reconciliation of
the conflict. If Guaido feels he has become disposable to the US, he may not be
disagreeable to some kind of pardon and face-saving but largely superficial compromise.
The Rovian dictat We make our own reality (mutter it in growling mafia accent) is
shredded to confetti, or almost.
Look at Ukraine, a comedian who acts the part of a nobody guy propelled to a
presidential position in a TV show, is elected as president in RL!
Coluche was a French comedian who stood for president, 1980. Polls showed 16 to 25% of
the vote. (He was supported by Charlie Hebdo.. them again..)
His manager was murdered and Coluche withdrew.
He was then himself killed (1985) in mysterious, highly suspicious, circumstances. Won
awards for Best Actor and died because.. a truck..
Beppe Grillo is another comedian who created a Pol Party, the 5 Star, Cinque Stelle,
party in Italy (with another guy.) Grillo could not be elected, by law, because he has a
conviction on his blotter, for manslaughter.
Random Guy-do is within this landscape a feeble contender - a clown who pretends to be
serious! He has no acting credentials, nada. No self proclamation presence. A confused,
hapless, manipulated placeholder.
No way that is going to end well. For him. Maybe night - school acting classes? Ouch..
Idk. Operation Freedom, anyone who takes that on is pushed offstage..
Better to be a real clown! One can live on (Grillo) or die an honorable death
(Coluche)!
Venezuela's FM is wisely playing down the guilt of the thirty or so military personnel
involved in the coup. Such personnel were first described as likely deceived or misled by
Guaido and now the FM is explicitly claiming plan and execution of coup came from
Washington. The military personnel were not involved in its planning and so can be treated
mercifully. (Who knows if some of them weren't blackmailed to join in? We are dealing with
the CIA after all.)
MediaLens has this story today:
"A new report on April 25 by a respected think tank has estimated that US sanctions imposed
on Venezuela in August 2017 have caused around 40,000 deaths."
The question for Canadians is whether Freeland and Trudeau are ready to take ownership for,
say, 5,000 of those deaths..and counting. Toss them in with the thousands killed thanks to
Canadian assistance in Ukraine and a share of the daily carnage in Yemen and the bloody
nature of the Ottawa cabal begins to become clear.
According to reports, a group from Venezuela's Sebin intelligence service freed Leopoldo
Lopez from house arrest early Tuesday morning.
Lopez and Guaido could have been set up in a stunning black op. Get Lopez and Guaido to
come out openly and claim they're running a coup which is treason. If they stayed out of
jail previously will they stay out of jail now? Probably not.
BTW, it's interesting that today's events are being called a coup. The coupist, Guaid
and Lopez, have maintained the fiction that Guaido is president of Venezuela so in their
narrative, how can this be a coup implying they're the usurpers. Surely it should be a
counter-coup, which it obviously isn't so someone has fucked up big time. Perhaps John
Bolton and/or Elliott Abrams as they're both stupid and arrogant enough to do so.
Now, finally, after letting the clown run around creating a lot of noise, now that they
tried a hapless attempt at a military uprising will the government of Venezuela arrest,
imprison, and put on trial for treason the moron Guaido and the idiot Lopez?
Christian J Chuba , Apr 30, 2019 1:38:40 PM |
link
Where is the money we stole from Venezuela?
We keep hearing the Neocons saying that Maduro and his 'thugs' are thieves and robbing
the 'Venezuelan people'. The Administration has stolen many of their assets like Citgo and
given them to Guaido.
So where is that money, his bank account? I'd love to hear someone in the MSM ask Pompeo
that question.
Despite the sanctions, the Lima Group, the OAS, and the relentless public relations stunts,
all the self-declared "government" has to show for itself is thirty recruits standing on a
bridge. That's a poor result. Maybe all the smart think-tank people who dreamed up the
Guaido charade aren't actually so smart, or place too much faith in PR optics as opposed to
actual politics. The lack of smarts certainly characterizes the Venezuelan opposition - who
would want these people to be in charge of anything?
Credit to Mexico for retaining clearly articulated principles, as displayed at OAS
recently.
to steve keith # 7 and anitspin # 12 - School of International Atrocities is just right.
Remember Haaahvaaad gave us napalm which was field tested in North Korea, along with other
such treats as Larry "Garbagemen" Summers, and MacGeorge "Green Ford Foundation" Bundy. "
Fight fiercely Harvard, do...." ah yes, and Geo "Is Our Children Learning" Bushboy.
Wonderful.
Photograph Source: US State Department – Public Domain
If you're in the market for a troika of tyranny, Donald Trump, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo
certainly fit the bill. Or, if you'd rather focus on countries not individuals, you might
single out Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt as the three most likely
candidates. Perhaps, if you're in a confessional mood, how about Christian fundamentalism,
Jewish extremism, and Salafist Wahhabism?
A troika, for those who haven't read any 19th-century Russian novels recently, is a carriage
drawn by three horses. So, the ultimate troika of tyranny, from the point of view of the planet
as a whole, would feature the three horsemen of the ongoing apocalypse: climate change, nuclear
proliferation, and global pandemic.
But no, that's not what National Security Advisor John Bolton had in mind when he talked
last week of a "troika of tyranny." In a rehash of a speech he gave
in November in Miami , Bolton declared
last week that the "troika of tyranny -- Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua -- is beginning to
crumble." Further laying on the insults, Bolton called Cuba's Miguel Díaz-Canel,
Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega "the three stooges of
socialism."
Ever since George W. Bush included Iraq, Iran, and North Korea in an "axis of evil,"
speechmakers have been in search of the holy grail of geopolitical matchmaking (for instance,
Condoleezza Rice's "outposts of tyranny").
Bush's phrase, which proved so enduring, was an extraordinarily flawed piece of work. The
three countries he grouped together had little to no relationship at the time. Iraq and Iran
had fought a nearly decade-long war that left them bitter regional rivals. North Korea, which
has no ideological affinity to either country, was probably included in the list so that it
didn't appear anti-Islamic. This particular axis didn't have a leg to stand on.
Bolton's more alliterative phrase suffers from the same conceptual problems. Worse, it
revives an anti-Communist crusade that could easily expand to include North Korea, China, and
any left-leaning country (New Zealand?) that makes the mistake of looking at Bolton funny.
A New Monroe Doctrine?
Trump understands the world in terms of three types of leaders. There are the autocrats he
like. There are the autocrats he doesn't like. And then there are all the rest: the democrats
he doesn't respect.
Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel is one of those autocrats that Trump doesn't like.
It's not Díaz-Canel's ideology that rubs the American president the wrong way. After
all, Trump has no problem praising China's Xi Jinping or falling in love with North Korea's Kim
Jong Un. Rather, Cuba made the unpardonable error of negotiating a détente with Trump's
predecessor, Barack Obama. So, by the logic of the Trump administration, Cuba is guilty by
association.
Over the last two-plus years, Trump has rolled back the elements of the agreements that the
Obama administration negotiated with Cuba that culminated in diplomatic recognition in July
2015. The Trump administration has restricted travel to the country, the amount of money that
Cubans in America can remit to their families back home, and the deals that U.S. businesses can
negotiate with Cuban counterparts. Also, the administration will now allow U.S. entities to
file lawsuits against foreign companies operating on property appropriated by the state after
the 1959 revolution.
The Obama policy was all about nudging Cuba in a particular direction. More people-to-people
contact would increase the free flow of information. More business deals would encourage the
growth of market activities. Meanwhile, unrestricted remittances would help Cubans deal with
the myriad difficulties of everyday life.
The Trump administration isn't interested in nudging Cuba in a particular direction. Its
punitive measures are designed to encourage regime change, pure and simple. The decision to
allow lawsuits to go forward is aimed at scaring off European investors in particular who've
been operating in Cuba despite decades of U.S. sanctions and embargo. In response, Spain
wants the
EU to challenge the new U.S. policy at the World Trade Organization.
Bolton never liked Cuba. When he was undersecretary of state for arms control in the George
W. Bush administration, Bolton
accused the country of making biological weapons. This accusation came only two months
after Bush had inaugurated the "axis of evil," and Bolton was eager to shoehorn Cuba into the
new group. But his efforts to designate the Caribbean island a "terrorist threat" -- and
prepare the ground for yet another U.S. invasion -- foundered when a congressional
investigation
turned up no evidence of a biological weapons program in the country.
Now Bolton is excited to have a second chance to group Cuba with two other countries that
have fallen afoul of the United States: Venezuela and Nicaragua.
Like the original members of the "axis of evil," they don't have much in common with one
another. Cuba is avowedly Marxist in orientation, with a Third World agrarian spin. Venezuela,
on the other hand, is a corrupt petro-state led by a leader who calls himself socialist but is
really just a klutzy kleptocrat. Then there's Daniel Ortega, who was once a socialist
revolutionary but has transformed himself into a Catholic dictator along the lines of Francisco
Franco.
None of these countries poses even the remotest threat to the United States. They have
dismal human rights records, but that hasn't been a concern for the Trump administration
anywhere else in the world.
So, why is Bolton bothering to waste his rhetorical flourishes on the trio? The national
security advisor claims that Cuba is propping up Maduro. He hints that Ortega's days are
numbered. Is Bolton campaigning to revive what had once been the traditional U.S. approach to
Latin America: invasion, occupation, regime change?
After all, his most recent "troika of tyranny" speech was timed to coincide with the
anniversary of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba on April 17, 1961. And the audience for
his speech was similarly chosen with care: the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association.
When it comes to Bolton, war is always a possibility pretty much anywhere in the world. But
with the Trump administration focusing most of its wrath against Iran , the
"troika of tyranny" speech is probably not the opening salvo of a new, hyper-militarist Monroe
Doctrine.
Bolton likely has a longer game plan in mind.
Expanding the Troika
You can almost see the lips beneath the walrus moustache purse in displeasure when Donald
Trump shakes hands with Xi Jinping, murmurs sweet nothings to Kim Jong Un, and has quiet
confabs with Vladimir Putin.
John Bolton has never concealed his
profound antipathy to the current government in North Korea. He wants to
rewrite the one-China policy and is willing to use military force against Beijing as part
of that effort. As for Russia, Bolton
believes that Putin is a liar and Moscow represents a serious long-term strategic threat to
the United States.
This, then, is the shadow "troika of tyranny" that John Bolton would roll out in a speech if
only Donald Trump's personal predilections didn't get in the way.
But that isn't stopping the national security advisor from carefully preparing the ground to
do just that as soon as Trump gets frustrated with Kim, Xi, and/or Putin.
Toward that end, Bolton carefully chose "troika" for his phrase: a Russian word that can
later be repurposed to suggest that Moscow is in fact at the root of these problems. And Bolton
is hammering away at the "socialist-communist" nature of the three Latin American countries,
which will prove enormously useful later on when expanding the troika to include North Korea
and China.
In the end, Bolton is after nothing short of a new Cold War.
Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are small countries with no desire or means to attack the
United States. North Korea with its nuclear weapons, China with the world's second largest
military, and Russia with its geopolitical ambitions, on the other hand, are much worthier
adversaries.
Prolonged conflict with these three will keep militarists like Bolton in business for
decades. As importantly, Bolton can use these larger confrontations to unravel all
international institutions, all forms of international cooperation, in fact anything that
smacks of an international community.
With all eyes focused these days on Trump and his myriad crimes, John Bolton's speeches are
a reminder that even worse options are waiting in the wings. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: John Feffer
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy
In Focus , where this article originally appeared.
"... It's the US ruling elite that are the true deplorables. ..."
"... The war on civilization is never a failure for as long as the invader wins. Winning in this case means toppling a government, destabilizing an economy and dividing a population then leaving a country in chaos. It's not a foreign policy failure for the U.S. That is the policy working exactly as intended. All the talk later, where they claim that they had "bad intel" or they "made mistakes" or "miscalculated" is complete bullshit. They know what they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep doing it over and over in the exact same way. ..."
"... {A titular ruler, or titular head, is a person in an official position of leadership who possesses few, if any, actual powers. Sometimes a person may inhabit a position of titular leadership and yet exercise more power than would normally be expected, as a result of their personality or experience} ? ..."
"... They'd follow the money if they really wanted to end the terrorism. In that regard, bombing Raqqa to hell was sure convenient as USA destroyed all the evidence - or at least they can make that claim. ..."
"... So he gets trotted out just in time to revive the "ISIS threat", and take the blame for various recent funny-smelling terrist attacks, people going to odd places like New Zealand and Sri Lanka to vent their spleens at Muslims and Christians, respectively. I have half-a-suspicion somebody is trying to get a religious war of some sort going. ..."
"... we're talking 1 and a half million dead so far in Iraq and Afghanistan...and that's being conservative. ..."
"... Where? Where was it published? On what platform? Is it really that hard to trace the IPs? Turkey is really determined to get those S-400s. The Empire first threatened to withhold F-35s, then to impose sanctions, then to expel Turkey from NATO, then to move its bases to Greece. Still, Turkey wouldn't budge. Time to deploy some good old terrorism, so that the Empire will be obliged to come in and "help". ..."
"... I have long believed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi actually is associated either with Moss ad or the CIA. That's why he's had so many miracle escapes. That's why they never catch him and often don't even know where he is. And we know that his ISIS never, never attacks Israeli targets or fat Saudi Prince targets. ..."
"... Those would in fact be the targets of choice for any genuine jihad movement. Not Syria or Iraq, which are two states Israel has wanted to harm or eliminate for years. ISIS has always been a fraud, a very complex and deadly one, but a fraud. ..."
"... Many years ago, even before this character posed as a "Syrian rebel" who was photographed meeting with John McCain, he was outed as a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliot. ..."
"... Al Jazeera "can't confirm the authenticity of the video." ..."
"... A history of Wahhabism which is a problem for the globe; https://ahtribune.com/religion/155-a-history-of-wahhabism.html The KSA, whose ass the empire kisses daily, is the main funder for these clowns. ..."
What's the Wonder my dear?
Duh!
He is in CIA safe house in Al-Anbar.
ISI is looking for this CIA's "Patsy" hide out. Watch this space, he has blood of 14
Pakistani soldiers on his hands via Iran hit. We will end this MOSSAD Agent.
The one hundred thousand people that died in Iraq and Afghanistan due to terrorist
activities would certainly agree that the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the
War on Terror has done very little to remove the spectre of terrorist activities from their
homes, cities and nations.
Sally Snyder: The war on terror is a war of terror and in that sense, though morally
reprehensible and costly, has been success. Regime change and the destabilization of the
Middle East has been the goal.
It's the US ruling elite that are the true deplorables.
War on terror was the war on an entire civilization. Association/Replacement of the word
terror was just for the public consumption. It's a simple strategy that makes the
aggressors appear like the good guys who are there to defend themselves or the values they
hold.
The war on civilization is never a failure for as long as the invader wins. Winning in
this case means toppling a government, destabilizing an economy and dividing a population
then leaving a country in chaos. It's not a foreign policy failure for the U.S. That is the
policy working exactly as intended. All the talk later, where they claim that they had "bad
intel" or they "made mistakes" or "miscalculated" is complete bullshit. They know what
they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep doing it over and over in the exact same
way.
War on the civilizations yields massive benefits. It's the shortcoming of the model of
the western civilization that it continuously requires massive input that can't be achieved
by the legal means of business and trade.
Auntie Gina the tit ular head of Al-CIA-duh/ Al Qaeda/ ISIS?
{A titular ruler, or titular head, is a person in an official position of leadership
who possesses few, if any, actual powers. Sometimes a person may inhabit a position of
titular leadership and yet exercise more power than would normally be expected, as a result
of their personality or experience} ?
They'd follow the money if they really wanted to end the terrorism.
In that regard, bombing Raqqa to hell was sure convenient as USA destroyed all the
evidence - or at least they can make that claim.
So he gets trotted out just in time to revive the "ISIS threat", and take the blame for
various recent funny-smelling terrist attacks, people going to odd places like New Zealand
and Sri Lanka to vent their spleens at Muslims and Christians, respectively. I have
half-a-suspicion somebody is trying to get a religious war of some sort going.
They don't seem to be having that much success with getting that war going, so I expect
the attacks will go on.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self declared caliph of ISIS, appeared in new video
published today.
Where? Where was it published? On what platform? Is it really that hard to trace the
IPs? Turkey is really determined to get those S-400s. The Empire first threatened to withhold
F-35s, then to impose sanctions, then to expel Turkey from NATO, then to move its bases to
Greece. Still, Turkey wouldn't budge. Time to deploy some good old terrorism, so that the
Empire will be obliged to come in and "help".
I have long believed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi actually is associated either with Moss ad
or the CIA. That's why he's had so many miracle escapes. That's why they never catch him and often don't even know where he is. And we know that his ISIS never, never attacks Israeli targets or fat Saudi Prince
targets.
Those would in fact be the targets of choice for any genuine jihad movement. Not Syria
or Iraq, which are two states Israel has wanted to harm or eliminate for years. ISIS has always been a fraud, a very complex and deadly one, but a fraud.
Many years ago, even before this character posed as a "Syrian rebel" who was photographed
meeting with John McCain, he was outed as a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliot.
The guy in recent picture looks like one of Rita Katz's actors.
It is a show to threaten Turkey with the same as Sri Lanka (where they refine lots of
Iranian crude...and more...look it up). Many ties to Iran/Sri Lanka....and to Turkey.
Typical nazi thugs....bribes, arson, dynamite...and patsies...in this case maybe mossad
actor? Why not> Cui Bono?
As to the locus of the actor? Paramount? Warner Bros? Probably not. Does it matter?
They're parading a ringer...don't fall for the gag. Erdo won't fall for it either.
Baghdadi has nice toys by his side and not just the AK-47 with the camo bit over the
barrel. It looks like a camo case on night vision gear (or vidcam?) just below that, too.
To quote the Joker: "Where does he get those wonderful toys?"
Ahh a new game of "where in the world is ..." except instead of bin Laden (or his
stand-in) the guest in Pakistan living near a military base we have Baghdadi. Maybe
Baghdadi lives in that area, too. (awaiting his execution for the media and masses). I
doubt it though. I'm thinking Turkey or even Saudi Arabia.
... This move by Baghdadi could backfire in a big way. Got my popcorn ready. Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 29, 2019 5:06:26 PM | 19
It does seem unnecessarily cheeky/ fishy.
If 'they' had fiendishly brilliant plan, why wouldn't they'd just do it and leave it to the
intel wonks to figure out what went wrong?
It's big news in the J-C International media.
Al Jazeera "can't confirm the authenticity of the video."
"Russiagate without Russia" actually means "Isrealgate". This individual points that he mentions below does not matter. Russiagate was a carefully planned and
brilliantly executed false flag operation run by intelligences
agencies (with GB agencies playing an important in some episodes decisive role) and headed probably by Obama himself via Brennan. There
were two goals: (1) to exclude any possibility of detente with Russia and (2) to block any Trump attempts to change the USA foreign
policy including running foreign war that enrich Pentagon contractors and justify supersized budget for intelligence agencies. As such
is was a great success.
The fact that no American was indicted and that Mueller attempt to prosecute Russian marketing agneces failed does not matter. The
atmosphere is now posoned for a generation. Americans are brainwashed and residue of Russiagate will stay for a long, long time. Neocons
Bolton and Pompeo now run Trump administration foreign policy with Trump performing most ceremonial role in foreign policy domain.
In this sense Skripals poisoning was another false flag operation, which was the logical continuation of Russiagate. And Magnitsky
killing (with Browder now a primary suspect) was a precursor to it. Both were run from Great Britain.
It is actually interesting how Mueller report swiped under the carpet the role of Great Britain in unleashing the Russiagate hysteria.
Two important foreign forces in the 2016 US Presidential elections was the Israel lobby and Great Britain. Trump proved to be a
marionette not of Russia but of Israeli lobby. so sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's report does answer that question: There were effectively no "Kremlin intermediaries." The report contains no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later). ..."
For more than two years, leading US political and media voices promoted a narrative that Donald Trump conspired with or was compromised
by the Kremlin, and that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would prove it. In the process, they overlooked countervailing evidence and
diverted anti-Trump energies into fervent speculation and prolonged anticipation. So long as Mueller was on the case, it was possible
to believe that " The Walls Are Closing In " on the
traitor /
puppet / asset in the
White House
.
The long-awaited completion of Mueller's probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative -- and the expectations
it fueled -- to be unfounded. No American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller's report
does lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation, but it declines to issue a verdict on obstruction.
It presents no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with an alleged effort by the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton,
and instead renders this conclusion: "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] Campaign coordinated or conspired
with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." As a result, Mueller's report provides the opposite of what
Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what
amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.
1. Russiagate Without Russia
The most fundamental element of a conspiracy is contact between the two parties doing the conspiring. Hence, on the eve of the
report's release, The New York
Times noted that among the "outstanding questions" that Mueller would answer were the nature of "contacts between Kremlin
intermediaries and the Trump campaign."
Mueller's report does answer that question: There were effectively no "Kremlin intermediaries." The report contains no evidence
that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian
ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later).
It should be no surprise, then, to learn from Mueller that, when "Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen
began trying to make inroads into the new administration" after Trump's election victory, they did not know whom to call. These powerful
Russians, Mueller noted, "appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect."
If top Russians did not have "preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with" the people that they supposedly conspired with,
perhaps that is because they did not actually conspire.
To borrow a phrase from Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen, when it comes to the core question of contacts between
Trump and the Russian government, we are left with a "Russiagate without Russia." Instead we have a series of interactions where
Trump associates speak with Russian nationals, people with ties to Russian nationals, or people who claim to have ties to
the Russian government. But none of these "links," "ties," or associations ever entail a member of the Trump campaign interacting
with a Kremlin intermediary. Russiagate promoters have nonetheless fueled a dogged media effort to track
every
known instance in which someone in Trump's orbit
interacted with " the Russians ," or
someone who can be linked
to them . There is nothing illegal or inherently suspect about speaking to a Russian national -- but there is something xenophobic
about implying as much.
2. Russiagate's Predicate Led Nowhere
The most glaring absence of a Kremlin intermediary comes in the case that ostensibly prompted the entire Trump-Russia investigation.
During an April 2016 meeting in Rome, a London-based professor named Joseph Mifsud reportedly informed Trump campaign aide George
Papadopoulos that "the Russians" had obtained "thousands of emails" containing "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. That information made its
way to the FBI, which used it as a pretext to open the "Crossfire Hurricane" probe on July 31, 2016. Papadopoulos was later indicted
for lying to FBI agents about the timing of his contacts with Mifsud. The case stoked speculation that Papadopoulos acted as an
intermediary between
Trump and Russia
.
But Papadopoulos played no such role. And while the Mueller report says that Papadopoulos "understood Mifsud to have substantial
connections to high-level Russian government officials," it never asserts that Mifsud actuall y had those connections.
Since Mifsud's suspected Russian connections were the purported predicate for the FBI's initial Trump-Russia investigation, that
is a conspicuous non-call. Another is the revelation from Mueller that
Mifsud made false statements to FBI investigators
when they interviewed him in February 2017 -- but yet, unlike Papadopoulos, Mifsud was not indicted. Thus, even the interaction that
sparked the Russia-collusion probe did not reveal collusion.
3. Sergey Kislyak Had "Brief and Non-Substantive" Interactions With the Trump Camp
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's conversations with Trump campaign officials and associates during and after the 2016 election
were the focus of intense controversy and speculation, leading to the recusal of
Jeff Sessions, then attorney
general, and to the indictment of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
After an exhaustive review, Mueller concluded that Kislyak's interactions with Trump campaign officials at public events "were
brief, public, and non-substantive." As for Kislyak's
much –
ballyhooed meeting which Sessions in September 2016, Mueller saw no reason to dispute that it "included any more than a passing
mention of the presidential campaign." When Kislyak spoke with other Trump aides after the August 2016 Republican National Convention,
Mueller "did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."
The same goes for Kislyak's post-election conversations with Flynn. Mueller indicted Flynn for making "false statements and omissions"
in an interview with the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak during the transition in December 2016. The prevailing supposition was
that Flynn lied in order to hide from the FBI an
election-related payoff or "
quid pro quo
" with the Kremlin. The report punctures that thesis by reaffirming the facts in Flynn's indictment: What Flynn hid from agents
was that he had "called Kislyak to request Russian restraint" in response to sanctions imposed by the outgoing Obama administration,
and that Kislyak had agreed. Mueller ruled out the possibility that Flynn could have implicated Trump in anything criminal by noting
the absence of evidence that Flynn "possessed information damaging to the President that would give the President a personal incentive
to end the FBI's inquiry into Flynn's conduct."
4. Trump Tower Moscow Had No Help From Moscow
The November 2018 indictment of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was widely seen as damning, possibly impeachment-worthy,
for Trump. Cohen admitted to giving false written answers to Congress in a bid to downplay Trump's personal knowledge of his company's
failed effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. To proponents of the collusion theory, Cohen's admitted lies were proof that "
Trump is compromised by
Russia ," " full stop ."
But the Mueller report does not show any such compromise, and, in fact, shows there to be no Trump-Kremlin relationship. Cohen,
the report notes, "requested [Kremlin] assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to build the project and with
financing." The request was evidently rejected. Elena Poliakova, the personal assistant to Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov,
spoke with Cohen by phone after he e-mailed her office for help. After their 20-minute call, the report says, "Cohen could not recall
any direct follow-up from Poliakova or from any other representative of the Russian government, nor did the [Special Counsel's] Office
identify any evidence of direct follow-up."
5. and Trump Didn't Ask Cohen to Lie About It
The Mueller report not only dispels the notion that Trump had secret dealings with the Kremlin over Trump Tower Moscow; it also
rejects a related impeachment-level "bombshell." In January, BuzzFeed News
reported that Mueller had evidence that Trump "directed" Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow project. But according to
Mueller, "the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen's false testimony," and that
Cohen himself testified "that he and the President did not explicitly discuss whether Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower Moscow
project would be or was false." In a de-facto retraction, BuzzFeed updated its story with an
acknowledgment
of Mueller's conclusion .
6. The Trump Tower Meeting Really Was Just a "Waste of Time"
The June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was
widely
dubbed
the
" Smoking
Gun ." An e-mail chain showed that Donald Trump Jr. welcomed an offer to accept compromising information about Clinton as "part
of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." But the pitch did not come from the meeting's Russian participants, but instead
from Rob Goldstone, a British music publicist acting on their behalf. Goldstone said that he invented "publicist puff" to secure
the meeting, because in reality,
as he told NPR , "I had no idea what I was talking about."
Mueller noted that Trump Jr.'s response "showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist
candidate Trump's electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer's presentation did not provide such information [emphasis mine]."
The report further recounts that during the meeting Jared Kushner texted then-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort that it was a "waste
of time," and requested that his assistants "call him to give him an excuse to leave." Accordingly, when "Veselnitskaya made additional
efforts to follow up on the meeting," after the election, "the Trump Transition Team did not engage."
7. Manafort Did Not Share Polling Data to Meddle in the US Election
In January, Mueller accused Manafort of lying to investigators about several matters, including sharing Trump polling data and
discussing a Ukraine peace plan with a Ukrainian-Russian colleague, Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 campaign. According to Mueller,
the FBI "assesses" that Kilimnik has unspecified "ties to Russian intelligence." To collusion proponents, the revelation was dubbed
" the closest we've seen yet to real, live, actual
collusion " and even the "
Russian collusion smoking gun ."
Mueller, of course, reached a different conclusion: He "did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling
data and Russia's interference in the election," and, moreover, "did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian
government on its election-interference efforts." Mueller noted that he "could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing"
the polling data, but also acknowledged (and bolstered) the explanation of his star witness, Rick Gates, that Manafort was motivated
by proving his financial value to former and future clients.
Mueller also gave us new reasons to doubt the assertions that Kilimnik himself is a Russian intelligence asset or spy. First,
Mueller did not join
media pundits in asserting such about
Kilimnik. Second, to support his vague contention that Kilimnik has, according to the FBI, "ties to Russian intelligence," Mueller
offered up a list of " pieces of the Office's
Evidence" that contains no direct evidence. For his part, Kilimnik has repeatedly stated that he has no such ties, and recently
told The Washington Post that Mueller never attempted to interview him.
8. The Steele Dossier Was Fiction
The Steele dossier -- a collection of Democratic National Committee-funded opposition research alleging a high-level Trump-Russia
criminal relationship -- played a critical role in the Russiagate saga. The FBI relied on it for leads and evidentiary material in
its investigation of the Trump campaign ties to Russia, and prominent
politicians ,
pundits , and
media
outlets promoted it as
credible .
The Mueller report,
The New York Times
noted last week , has "underscored what had grown clearer for months some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared
to be false, and others were impossible to prove." Steele reported that low-level Trump aide Carter Page was offered a 19 percent
stake in the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft if he could get Trump to lift Western sanctions. In October 2016 the FBI, citing
the Steele dossier, told the FISA court that it "believes that [Russia's] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other
individuals associated with" the Trump campaign. The Mueller report, however, could "not establish that Page coordinated with the
Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."
The Steele dossier claimed that Michael Cohen visited Prague to meet Russian agents in the summer of 2016. In April 2018, McClatchy
reported to much fanfare that Mueller's team "has evidence" that placed Cohen in Prague during the period in question. Cohen later
denied the claim under oath, and Mueller agreed, noting that Cohen "never traveled to Prague."
After reports emerged in August 2016 that the Trump campaign had rejected an amendment to the Republican National Committee platform
that called for arming Ukraine, Steele claimed that it was the result of a quid pro quo. The Mueller report "did not establish that"
the rejection of the Ukraine amendment was "undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia."
9. The Trump Campaign Had No Secret Channel to WikiLeaks
In January, veteran Republican operative and conspiracy theorist Roger Stone caused a stir when he was indicted for lying to Congress
about his efforts to make contact with WikiLeaks. But Mueller's indictment actually showed that Stone
had no communications with WikiLeaks
before the election and no privileged information about its releases . Most significantly, it revealed that Trump officials were
trying to learn about the WikiLeaks releases through Stone -- a fact that underscored that the Trump campaign neither worked with
WikiLeaks nor had advance knowledge of its e-mail dumps.
Mueller's final report does nothing to alter that picture. Its sections on Stone are heavily redacted, owing to Stone's pending
trial. But they do make clear that Mueller conducted an extensive search to establish a tie between WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign,
and Stone -- and came up empty. New
reporting from The Washington Post underscores just how far their farcical efforts went. The Mueller team devoted
time and energy to determine whether far-right conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, best known for promoting the false claim that Barack
Obama was born outside the United States, served as a link between Stone and WikiLeaks. Mueller's prosecutors "spent weeks coaxing,
cajoling and admonishing the conspiracy theorist, as they pressed him to stick to facts and not reconstruct stories," the Post
reports. "At times, they had debated the nature of memory itself." It is unsurprising that this led Mueller's prosecutors to
ultimately declare, according to Corsi's attorney, "We can't use any of this."
10. There Was No Cover-Up
The Mueller report does not just dispel the conspiracy theories that have engulfed political and media circles for two years;
it puts to rest the most popular, recent one: that Attorney General William Barr engaged in a
cover-up . According to the dominant narrative, Barr was
somehow concealing Mueller's damning evidence
, while Mueller, even more improbably, stayed silent.
One could argue that Barr's summary downplays the obstruction findings, though it accurately relays that Mueller's report does
"not exonerate" Trump. It was Mueller's decision to leave the verdict on obstruction to Barr and make clear that if Congress disagrees,
it has the power to indict Trump on its own. Mueller's office assisted with Barr's redactions, which proved to be, as Barr had pledged,
extremely limited. Despite containing numerous embarrassing details about Trump, no executive privilege was invoked to censor the
report's contents.
In the end, Mueller's report shows that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative embraced and evangelized by the US political and
media establishments to be a work of
fiction . The American public
was presented with a far different picture from what was expected, because leading pundits, outlets, and politicians ignored the
countervailing facts and promoted maximalist interpretations of others. Anonymous officials also leaked explosive yet uncorroborated
claims, leaving behind many stories that were subsequently discredited, retracted, or remain unconfirmed to this day.
It is too early to assess the damage that influential Russiagate promoters have done to their own reputations; to public confidence
in our democratic system and media; and to the prospects of defeating Trump, who always stood to benefit if the all-consuming conspiracy
theory ultimately collapsed. The scale of the wreckage, confirmed by Mueller's report, may prove to be the ultimate Russiagate scandal.
"... The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with Iran. ..."
"... We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they are ready to pull out from the deal. ..."
"... He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition. ..."
It's hard to foresee how US efforts to bring Iranian oil exports to zero will play out in
future, Vladimir Putin admitted, saying OPEC members should live up to their obligation to keep
output as low as possible if it comes true. Russia has an agreement with the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to cut their output by 1.2 million barrels per day,
which remains in effect until July of this year, Putin said. But the US waivers – which
gave a host of countries an exemption from the existing anti-Iran sanctions – expire much
earlier, he reminded.
I don't imagine how the global energy market will react to that.
In November, the US re-imposed sanctions on Iran's energy, shipbuilding and banking sectors
in a bid to deprive Tehran of its main sources of revenue. But it simultaneously issued waivers
to China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey – the main importers of Iranian crude
– so that they can find alternative vendors of oil.
The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions
beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American
restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with
Iran.
Commenting on the issue, Putin said he hopes the market will eventually avoid the deficit of
Iranian oil and that Iran will still be able to sell it. The comment came on the heels of
conflicting reports that Donald Trump persuaded Riyadh to ramp up oil output this lowering fuel
costs; these reports were denounced by OPEC officials.
Nevertheless, there is "no evidence" that any country is going to withdraw from the
OPEC+ agreement to drop oil outputs, Putin said.
We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they
are ready to pull out from the deal.
He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed
by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to
withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition.
So oil prices with rise which threaten Trump bid in 2020. Interesting times.
Notable quotes:
"... As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its new patron's will. ..."
The announcement by India's Oil Minister that his country will replace US-sanctioned
Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" despite the dramatic Bollywood show that New Delhi has made up until this point out of "defying" US sanctions makes
one seriously wonder whether India's preparing to ditch Russia next if the US imposes CAATSA
sanctions against it over the S-400s.
Shattering The "Indian Illusion"
The "
Indian Illusion " has been shattered after India's Oil Minister tweeted that his country will
replace US-sanctioned Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" such
as the Islamic Republic's hated GCC foes of Saudi
Arabia and the UAE that America said will
step up their exports in order to stabilize global prices after Washington announced that
it won't renew its anti-Iranian oil sanction waivers. New Delhi made a dramatic Bollywood-like
show over the past year out of "defying" US sanctions, with External Affairs Minister Sushma
Swaraj announcing last May that India will
only obey UNSC sanctions and not those unilaterally imposed by the US in contravention of
international law.
The Oil Minister himself said back in October before the waivers were issued that India will
continue buying Iranian oil in spite of the US sanctions, later
crediting Prime Minister Modi a month later when the US eventually granted it the waiver.
Adding "credibility" to the illusion that India's perception managers were masterfully
creating, it was then reported that the country will
use rupees instead of dollars when trading with Iran, a bold move that even fooled an RT
columnist who headlined his op-ed on this development as a " response to US global
bullying ".
As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality
the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its
new patron's will.
Some pretty strange ideas if we are taking about oil. What they are smiling at RAND?
Notable quotes:
"... That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms. ..."
"... of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is all so very sad.. ..."
"... No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian ethos.) ..."
"... I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced. ..."
"... Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give “free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets? ..."
According to RAND the best option to overextend and unbalance is to produce more oil:
Expanding U.S. energy production would stress Russia's economy, potentially constraining its government budget and, by extension,
its defense spending. By adopting policies that expand world supply and depress global prices, the United States can limit Russian
revenue. Doing so entails little cost or risk, produces second-order benefits for the U.S. economy, and does not need multilateral
endorsement.
That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make
a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production
comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields
at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There
is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to
survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms.
The second best option says RAND is to increase sanctions of Russia. This also doesn't make much sense. Russia can produce everything
it needs and it has free access to the world's largest markets, China and India.
The best military options listed by RAND are all useless. All the new weapon systems Russia has revealed over the last two years
are way more capable than anything the U.S. is able to field. If the U.S., as RAND advocates, invest more in certain fields, it will
only be to catch up. That does not impose any new costs on Russia.
... ... ...
In all I find it a bit impertinent to publicly argue for "overextending and unbalancing Russia". Where is the need to do such?
The study demonstrates again that strategic analysis by U.S. think tanks is woefully shallow-minded. The "experts" writing these
have no deep understanding of Russia, or even of the economic-political complexity of the real world.
Four of the eight best options the RAND study found start with the words "Invest more in ...". It is a sign that the foremost
motive its writers had in mind is to grab more taxpayer money. Fine. Give it to them already. Overextending and unbalancing the U.S.
by more abstruse expenditure for weapon systems that do not work will neither hurt me nor Russia.
thanks b.. of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools
for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more
money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is
all so very sad..
@1 steven.. well, as i read you, you are essentially supporting a continuation of the usa pouring endless
money into the military then, regardless the accuracy of the accounts on the new Russian weapons.. do i have that right?
No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think
it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is
the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian
ethos.)
However, since I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think
pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced.
>> The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production
beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers.
Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give
“free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal
subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets?
Of course, the money is not “free”. Depreciating the currency, an inflation tax, shows up in lower-quality goods (like frankenfood—
we cannot afford healthy food any more) and higher prices in everything. But, again, who’s counting? The BLS and the media? Yep.
Considering that this 'study' is an overblown version of the Real Men Go to Tehran
delusion (which is STILL in the pondering phase) it's hard to ignore the trepidation revealed
in an assessment divided into pseudo business-like categories of...
1. Likelihood of Success
2. Benefits
3. Costs & Risks
...when there are sufficient unresolved uncertainties to be fine-tuned to keep this plan
bogged down in the pondering phase for even longer than the unconsummated Real Men Go To Iran
nothing-burger.
The Trump administration once again has graphically demonstrated that "international law" and "national sovereignty" already belong to the Realm
of the Walking Dead.
Notable quotes:
"... The full – frontal attack on Iran reveals how the Trump administration bets on breaking Eurasia integration via what would be its weakeast node; the three key nodes are China, Russia and Iran. These three actors interconnect the whole spectrum; Belt and Road Initiative; the Eurasia Economic Union; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; the International North-South Transportation Corridor; the expansion of BRICS Plus. ..."
"... A plausible scenario involves Moscow acting to defuse the extremely volatile U.S.-Iran confrontation, with the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense trying to persuade President Donald Trump and the Pentagon from any direct attack against the IRGC. The inevitable counterpart is the rise of covert ops, the possible staging of false flags and all manner of shady Hybrid War techniques deployed not only against the IRGC, directly and indirectly, but against Iranian interests everywhere. For all practical purposes, the U . S . and Iran are at war. ..."
As if a deluge of sanctions against a great deal of the planet was not enough, the latest
"offer you can't refuse" conveyed by a gangster posing as diplomat, Consul Minimus Mike Pompeo
, now essentially orders the whole planet to submit to the one and only arbiter of world trade:
Washington.
First the Trump administration unilaterally smashed a multinational, UN-endorsed agreement,
the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal. Now the waivers that magnanimously allowed eight nations to
import oil from Iran without incurring imperial wrath in the form of sanctions will expire on
May 2 and won't be renewed. The eight nations are a mix of Eurasian powers: China, India,
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Italy and Greece.
Apart from the trademark toxic cocktail of hubris, illegality, arrogance/ignorance and
geopolitical/geo – economic infantilism inbuilt in this foreign policy decision, the
notion that Washington can decide who's allowed to be an energy provider to emerging superpower
China does not even qualify as laughable. Much more alarming is the fact that imposing a total
embargo of Iranian oil exports is no less than an act of war.
Ultimate Neocon Wet Dream
Those subscribing to the ultimate U.S, neocon and Zionist wet dream – regime change in
Iran – may rejoice at this declaration of war. But as Professor
Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran has elegantly argued,
"If the Trump regime miscalculates, the house can easily come crashing down on its
head."
Reflecting the fact Tehran seems to have no illusions regarding the utter folly ahead, the
Iranian leadership -- if provoked to a point of no return, Marandi additionally told me -- can
get as far as "destroying everything on the other side of the Persian Gulf and chasing the U.S.
out of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the U.S. escalates, Iran escalates. Now it depends on the
U.S. how far things go."
This red alert from a sensible academic perfectly dovetails with what's happening with the
structure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- recently branded a "terrorist
organization" by the United States. In perfect symmetry, Iran's Supreme National Security
Council also branded the U.S. Central Command -- CENTCOM -- and "all the forces connected to
it" as a terrorist group .
The new IRGC commander-in-chief is Brigadier General Hossein Salami, 58. Since 2009 he was
the deputy of previous commander Mohamamd al-Jafari , a soft spoken but tough as nails
gentleman I met in Tehran two years ago. Salami, as well as Jafari, is a veteran of the
Iran-Iraq war; that is, he has actual combat experience. And Tehran sources assure me that he
can be even tougher than Jafari.
In tandem, IRGC Navy Commander Rear Admiral Alireza
Tangsiri has evoked the unthinkable in terms of what might develop out of the U.S. total
embargo on Iran oil exports; Tehran could block the Strait of Hormuz.
Western Oblivion
Vast swathes of the ruling classes across the West seem to be oblivious to the reality that
if Hormuz is shut down, the result will be an absolutely cataclysmic global economic
depression.
Warren Buffett, among other investors, has routinely qualified the 2.5 quadrillion
derivatives market as a weapon of financial mass destruction. As it stands, these derivatives
are used -- illegally -- to drain no less than a trillion U.S. dollars a year out of the market
in manipulated profits.
Considering historical precedents, Washington may eventually be able to set up a Persian
Gulf of Tonkin false flag. But what next?
If Tehran were totally cornered by Washington, with no way out, the de facto nuclear option
of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would instantly cut off 25 percent of the global oil
supply. Oil prices could rise to over $500 a barrel, to even $1000 a barrel. The 2.5
quadrillion of derivatives would start a chain reaction of destruction.
Unlike the shortage of credit during the 2008 financial crisis, the shortage of oil could
not be made up by fiat instruments. Simply because the oil is not there . Not even Russia would
be able to re-stabilize the market.
It's an open secret in private conversations at the Harvard Club – or at Pentagon
war-games for that matter – that in case of a war on Iran, the U.S. Navy would not be
able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
Russian SS-NX-26
Yakhont missiles -- with a top speed of Mach 2.9 -- are lining up the Iranian northern
shore of the Strait of Hormuz. There's no way U . S . aircraft carriers can defend a barrage of
Yakhont missiles.
Then there are the
SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles -- already exported to China and India --
flying ultra-low at 1,500 miles an hour with dodging capacity, and extremely mobile; they can
be fired from a flatbed truck, and were designed to defeat the U . S . Aegis radar defense
system.
What Will China Do?
The full – frontal attack on Iran reveals how the Trump administration bets on
breaking Eurasia integration via what would be its weakeast node; the three key nodes are
China, Russia and Iran. These three actors interconnect the whole spectrum; Belt and Road
Initiative; the Eurasia Economic Union; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; the
International North-South Transportation Corridor; the expansion of BRICS Plus.
So there's no question the Russia-China strategic partnership will be watching Iran's back.
It's no accident that the trio is among the top existential "threats" to the U.S., according to
the Pentagon. Beijing knows how the U . S . Navy is able to cut it off from its energy sources.
And that's why Beijing is strategically increasing imports of oil and natural gas from Russia;
engineering the "escape from Malacca" also must take into account a hypothetical U . S .
takeover of the Strait of Hormuz.
A plausible scenario involves Moscow acting to defuse the extremely volatile U.S.-Iran
confrontation, with the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense trying to persuade President Donald
Trump and the Pentagon from any direct attack against the IRGC. The inevitable counterpart is
the rise of covert ops, the possible staging of false flags and all manner of shady Hybrid War
techniques deployed not only against the IRGC, directly and indirectly, but against Iranian
interests everywhere. For all practical purposes, the U . S . and Iran are at war.
Within the framework of the larger Eurasia break-up scenario, the Trump administration does
profit from Wahhabi and Zionist psychopathic hatred of Shi'ites. The "maximum pressure" on Iran
counts on Jared of Arabia Kushner's close WhatsApp pal Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) in Riyadh and
MbS's mentor in Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Zayed , to replace the shortfall of Iranian oil in the
market. Bu that's nonsense -- as quite a few wily Persian Gulf traders are adamant Riyadh won't
"absorb Iran's market share" because the extra oil is not there.
Much of what lies ahead in the oil embargo saga depends on the reaction of assorted vassals
and semi-vassals. Japan won't have the guts to go against Washington. Turkey will put up a
fight. Italy, via Salvini, will lobby for a waiver. India is very complicated; New Delhi is
investing in Iran's Chabahar port as the key hub of its own Silk Road, and closely cooperates
with Tehran within the INSTC framework. Would a shameful betrayal be in the cards?
China, it goes without saying, will simply ignore Washington.
Iran will find ways to get the oil flowing because the demand won't simply vanish with a
magic wave of an American hand. It's time for creative solutions. Why not, for instance, refuel
ships in international waters, accepting gold, all sorts of cash, debit cards, bank transfers
in rubles, yuan, rupees and rials -- and everything bookable on a website?
Now that's a way Iran can use its tanker fleet to make a killing. Some of the tankers could
be parked in -- you got it -- the Strait of Hormuz, with an eye on the price at Jebel Ali in
the UAE to make sure this is the real deal. Add to it a duty free for the ships crews. What's
not to like? Ship owners will save fortunes on fuel bills, and crews will get all sorts of
stuff at 90 percent discount in the duty free.
And let's see whether the EU has grown a spine -- and really turbo-charge their
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) alternative payment network conceived after the Trump
administration ditched the JCPOA. Because more than breaking up Eurasia integration and
implementing neocon regime change, this is about the ultimate anathema; Iran is being
mercilessly punished because it has bypassed the U.S. dollar on energy trade.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Pepe Escobar , a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong
Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is
"
2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .
The Russians, having had the experience of Soviet overreach know the territory well. A
strategy that worked against Napoleon and Adolph. overreach. Not a few Americans agree the US
empire needs to collapse as have all the prior ones.
Since this was the strategy of the 70s and 80s against USSR, it's quite clear that Russian
leaders are well aware of them and know the risk. It's obvious in the restrained manner in
which Putin acts in foreign affairs, specially in foreign conflicts - many here have lamented
Putin's "lack of backbone" in confronting US aggressions, after all.
Like you said, B, most of the military options won't overextend Russia. It's just the US
catching up with Russia's higher level technology in these fields.
And since you pointed it out yourself, "investing more" in these R/D fields, and in military
build-up, will cost a lot. At a time when the US is already spending like there's no tomorrow
and is edging closer to financial abyss. Pushing your enemy to spend more money and resources
is exactly what you do if you want it to overextend and collapse; to an extent, it happened
to USSR. To an extent, this very paper from Rand is tacit acknowledgement that the USA face
such a threat. Makes one wonder if Putin's announcement of new weapons and technologies in
many areas wasn't a deliberate way of challenging the US to waste more money and to push them
closer to overextension and bankruptcy.
Parachuting Harvard mafia on Russia was a more powerful weapon and led to more destruction of Russian economy then direct
bombardment would
Notable quotes:
"... Concerning the capability of wrecking finances of other states, USA is not a slouch, the most powerful weapon is economic advise. If I interpret news correctly, it were experts of Goldman Sachs that help Greek government to borrow about twice as much as they could handle in the long run. The wreckage in Russia was as impressive, but, alas, hard to repeat, so now it remains to carp about their "bad behavior". ..."
I think that at least some weapon systems that USA makes or develops can be indeed
superior. The most acute loss from the approach of "invest in over-extending and un-balancing
the opponent" is that USA, while powerful, cannot do everything in the same time.
My favorite comparison chart is timeliness of subway systems in major metropolitan areas.
Honestly, I cannot find it, because the search is swamped with the tales of woe of subway
commuters in NYC. As befits the greatest financial center, cultural metropolis etc. etc., NYC
has a transportation system that is comparable in its extend to other metropolitan areas like
Tokyo, Paris or London. However, the performance is uninspiring. On the chart in NYT that I
can't find out at the moment, only Mexico City had a lower percentage of train rides delayed
by less than 10 minutes. I checked Moscow that has a larger subway system (compared to NY)
and which was not on the chart. They pride themselves with frequency of delays that is 5
times smaller than in Paris (50 times smaller than in NYC?). Moscovites can actually plan
their daily lives assuming that their commutes will arrive on time.
This is the most glaring example of a lost opportunity to take care of domestic needs, but
the quality of education, healthcare etc. is mediocre compared with the rest of OECD,
although there is always the southern neighbor that saves USA from being dead last.
Incidentally, NYC subway is not exactly underfunded, instead, it may have the most
irrational management among major metropolitan areas which accurately reflects deficiencies
of American political system. Bloated costs are pervasive across many areas, surely in
military, healthcare and broadly meant policing, and their originate in lobbo-cracy, a
plethora of lobbies grabbing chunks of monies either directly spent or (mis)regulated by the
government. The activity of these lobbies is tightly regulated by elaborate rules, but the
end effect is as if USA were pathetically corrupted (say, half as corrupted as Nigeria).
Concerning the capability of wrecking finances of other states, USA is not a slouch, the
most powerful weapon is economic advise. If I interpret news correctly, it were experts of
Goldman Sachs that help Greek government to borrow about twice as much as they could handle
in the long run. The wreckage in Russia was as impressive, but, alas, hard to repeat, so now
it remains to carp about their "bad behavior".
Sanctions are also powerful when directed at small/medium size economies. Russia, although
disparaged as "a smaller economy than Italy", but in actuality, Italy has "GDP per capity
PPP" that is 40% larger than Russia, and Russia has 2.4 times larger population, so quite a
bit larger economy in terms of "purchasing parity", and the most glaring domestic production
deficiency are fruit and vegetables that, according to latest news, have a number of
potential suppliers that are most glad when they can sell their produce.
As the US continues to attack the Maduro government, keep these special interests in mind.
Think about who gets rich off of the regime-change agenda. It's the same people that said we
had to invade Iraq in order to prevent nuclear apocalypse. It's the same people who said the
world would stop turning on its axis if we didn't carpet bomb Libya and Syria.
Now they're trying to get us to support war in Venezuela. You won't be any freer or more
prosperous after the Maduro government is toppled. It's just war propaganda.
Saddle the Venezuelan people with enormous debt to the IMF
The trojan horse for the return of neoliberalism in Venezuela, Juan Guaido, stated that he's
going to borrow money from the IMF to fund his government, which would make all Venezuelans
indebted to this predatory institution. Guaido spends the money and the poor and working people
work to pay taxes that pay off the principal and the interest.
The IMF was created in New Hampshire in 1945 to internationalize and standardize capitalism and
its rules in an increasingly globalized and US-dominated world.
Its primary function is acting as an international lender-of-last-resort to indebted countries.
IMF member states decide which countries will receive loans, but the member states with the
largest say are the ones with the largest share of the IMF's funds, which have always been the
United States and its allies.
This is why the IMF's standard "structural adjustment program" is based on the so-called
Washington Consensus. A set of 10 economic policies entirely concocted by US think tanks, the
IMF, the World Bank and the Treasury Department.
The Washington Consensus is as follows:
In exchange for a loan, often with a high-interest rate that many would call predatory, the IMF
overhauls the protective and redistributive policies of a country for neoliberal policies,
making the target country ripe for finance capital investment and profit-making.
Control the oil reserves
There's little doubt that the oil industry is pushing the US to overthrow the Maduro
government, especially when John Bolton openly states this on national television.
Bolton was himself once part of the oil industry, serving as the director of Diamond Offshore
Drilling, Inc. in 2007. So, he is no stranger to advocating for the interests of the
fossil-fuel industry.
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world by far and Washington won't let that wealth
go unexploited, or worse, be shared among its enemies like the Maduro government, Russia,
China, or Iran.
And with so many politicians, Republican and Democratic, bought off by industry players --
companies like ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and Chevron -- it's impossible to imagine anyone in
Washington advocating for Venezuela maintaining ownership over its own sovereign natural
resources.
Establish military dominance and arm your puppet
One of the most bizarre things about America is that it created one of the world's largest
private industries around arms dealing. And like any industry, whether it be JDAM bombs or
beef, private businesses often resort to lobbying Congress to squeeze political favors out of
the government in the form of subsidies. Or, in the case of the military industrial complex, a
foreign policy of endless war, one based on elusive ideas like combating terrorism or defending
democracy.
You can see that wherever the US goes, expensive construction projects follow. Behind every
multi-billion dollar base construction, some private contractor is there reaping the
profits.
Once the US military presence is firmly established, the weapons sales begin. And we all know
no US ally, or puppet state, is complete without a full fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16s. Then
they'll be able to fend off all of those pesky leftist rebels with freedom missiles.
With Venezuela's neighbors, Colombia and Brazil, growing closer to NATO and accepting US
military presence in their countries, we can only assume Venezuela is Washington's next
target.
As the strategic approach of regime change evolves, new industries arise to meet these
needs.
After the massive anti-war protests following the invasion of Iraq, outright invasion and
occupation were no longer viable strategies due to negative public opinion. Washington sought
to disguise war propaganda using humanitarian rhetoric.
Create the humanitarian alibi
Privately owned NGOs dedicated to human rights and promoting "American style" democracy have
played a much larger role in regime-change operations in recent years. They serve as soft-power
institutions, which attempt to subtly sway a population against its own government through
propaganda laced with words like 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'human rights'.
These NGOs are given the full blessing of the US government and the two often work in
tandem.
The US Agency for International Development's regime-change arm, the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED), funded opposition groups in Nicaragua, Venezuela (during the 2002 coup),
Haiti, Ukraine, and most recently China and North Korea. And whenever US foreign policy sets
its sights on a certain target, private industries usually develop to help meet that goal as
well as make a quick buck along the way.
For example, Thor Halvorssen -- the first cousin of Leopoldo Lopez, the founder of Juan
Guaido's party, Popular Will -- calls himself a human-rights activist. He founded the notorious
Human Rights Foundation (HRF) and makes a living giving speeches and TV appearances, talking
about why the governments of Venezuela or North Korea are not legitimate and need to be
overthrown.
Unsurprisingly, the HRF is funded by the conservative Sarah Scaife Foundation, which is itself
funded by think tanks like the top neoconservative think tank, the American Enterprise
Institute, as well as the Heritage Foundation. HRF is also funded by the Donors Capital Fund
and the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation, which are also funded by the American Enterprise
Institute. It's one big web of moving money that all leads back to the same cast of
characters.
The crisis in Venezuela has been a huge gift for people like Halvorssen, who use the US's war
on Venezuela to promote themselves and their organizations.
Buy the facts from the think tanks funded by the Military Industrial Complex
Like NGOs, think tanks also play an important role in giving regime change a sense of
legitimacy -- in their case, intellectual legitimacy. Think tanks rely on donations to operate
and many find willing donors among the capitalist class. These fat cats pay for fancy looking
reports meant to justify their desired goal: the delegitimization of socialist governments and
the legitimization of coup governments that uphold the Washington Consensus.
The Cato Institute has been deeply involved in the attempted overthrow of the Venezuelan
government. In 2008, Cato awarded Venezuelan opposition leader, Yon Goicoechea, the Milton
Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty and $500,000 for his role in disrupting a constitutional
referendum in Venezuela. That money was used to finance the political rise of Juan Guaido, and
his clique known as Generation 2007.
These seemingly independent research groups have intimate networks that they leverage to
amplify the message their donors have given them.
Whether it was the bank bailouts following the 2008 crisis, or the lack of action on climate
disaster, in America it seems the government always puts the interests of the rich ahead of the
poor and working class, and the situation in Venezuela is no different.
"... The real test for having an “unprecedentedly high level” relationship would be to coordinate diplomatic campaigns against U.S. policies. Working together they are more likely to split off American allies and friends from unpopular initiatives, such as unilateral sanction campaigns. ..."
"... Lets all mindlessly repeat the platitudes of Thinktankistan entities like CATO... Russian economy is smaller than new York... Russian relies on oil sales and doesn't make anything.... These sock puppets must think we are imbeciles. ..."
"... He's an Atlantacist fool. Senior fellow at the CATO institute, pretty much says it all. His style is to drop the odd truth-bomb (like criticizing the ill-advised NATO expansion and US geopolitical belligerence) but he still sticks to the main planks of Euro-Atlantic narratives. ..."
...Beijing and Moscow share one very big objective: resist U.S. dominance. Washington
expanded NATO up to Russia's borders; America's navy patrols the Asia-Pacific and treats those
waters as an American lake. Elsewhere there is no issue upon which Washington fails to
sanctimoniously pronounce its opinion and piously attempt to enforce its judgment.
Unfortunately, for quite some time Washington has seemed determined to give both China and
Russia good cause for discontent. Instead, in response, Washington should do its best to
eliminate behaviors which bring its two most important competitors together. Then the United
States wouldn't need to worry what Presidents Putin and Xi were saying to one another
.
Thus, Washington has done much to bring its two leading adversaries together. However,
hostility is a limited basis for agreement. There is no military alliance, despite Chinese
participation in a Russian military exercise last fall. Neither government is interested in
going to war with America and certainly not over the other’s grievances. A shared sense
of threat could change that, but extraordinarily sustained and maladroit U.S. policies would be
required to create that atmosphere.
When the two countries otherwise act for similar purposes, it usually is independently, even
competitively, rather than cooperatively. For instance, both are active in Cuba, contra
Washington’s long-failed policy of starving the regime into submission. Beijing and
Moscow also are both supporting Venezuela’s beleaguered Maduro government. However, China
and Russia appear to be focused on advancing their own government’s influence, even
against that of the other.
Both nations have a United Nations Security Council veto, though the PRC traditionally has
preferred to abstain, achieving little, rather than cast a veto. However, working together they
could more effectively reshape allied proposals for UN action. They could do much the same in
other multilateral organizations, though usually without having a veto.
The real test for having an “unprecedentedly high level” relationship would
be to coordinate diplomatic campaigns against U.S. policies. Working together they are more
likely to split off American allies and friends from unpopular initiatives, such as unilateral
sanction campaigns. Europe is more likely to cooperate if the PRC, valued for its economic
connections, joined Russia, still distrusted for its confrontation with Ukraine and
interference in domestic European politics. So far this former communist “axis” has
been mostly an inconvenience for the United States, rather than a significant hindrance,
Still, that could change if the Trump administration makes ever more extraordinary
assertions of unilateral power. Washington officials appear to sense the possibilities, having
periodically whined about cooperation between China and Russia, apparently ill-prepared for any
organized opposition to U.S. policies.
... ... ...
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
"China appears poised to absorb Russia’s sparsely populated east."
Good Lord, but when does this endless BS end? Seriously, no-one really believes this
yet these clowns and fools keep trotting out these absurd canards.
"In a sense, the Putin-Xi meeting was much ado about nothing. The relationship
revolves around what they are against, which mostly is the United States. They would have
little to talk about other than the latest grievance about America to express or American
activity to counter."
Yeah sure... no reason why Putin and Xi wouldn't want to talk about economic links
given that Russia-China trade is now over $100B per year equivalent.... a figure reached
more than 5 years earlier than Western "experts" had predicted, and which is growing very
strongly.
Lets all mindlessly repeat the platitudes of Thinktankistan entities like CATO...
Russian economy is smaller than new York... Russian relies on oil sales and doesn't make
anything.... These sock puppets must think we are imbeciles.
Orwell predicted "It is a warfare of limited aims between
combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause
for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference."
He's an Atlantacist fool. Senior fellow at the CATO institute, pretty much says it
all. His style is to drop the odd truth-bomb (like criticizing the ill-advised NATO
expansion and US geopolitical belligerence) but he still sticks to the main planks of
Euro-Atlantic narratives.
Colonel, I would appreciate your comments about John Huntsman and his remarks " each of the
carriers operating in the Mediterranean as this time represent 100,000 tons of
international diplomacy", "Diplomatic communication and dialogue, coupled with the strong
defenses these ships provide, demonstrate to Russia that if it truly seeks better relations
with the United states, it must cease its destabilizing activities around the world."
Strange words coming from a "diplomat". It might be informative to see the kind of a
reception he will get when he returns to Russia as "ambassador". Ishmael Zechariah
"... Nazar Kholodnytskyy, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told me he attended some but not all of the January 2016 Washington meetings and couldn't remember the specific cases, if any, that were discussed. ..."
"... But he said he soon saw evidence in Ukraine of political meddling in the U.S. election . Kholodnytskyy said the key evidence against Manafort -- a ledger showing payments from the Party of Regions -- was known to Ukrainian authorities since 2014 but was suddenly released in May 2016 by the U.S.-friendly NABU, after Manafort was named Trump's campaign chairman: "Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious." ..."
"... "I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding Paul Manafort." ..."
"... Kulyk said Ukrainian authorities had evidence that other Western figures , such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, also received money from Yanukovych's party. But the Americans weren't interested: "They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else." ..."
"... According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Ukraine's chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut down. ..."
"... The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Thursday confirmed the Obama administration requested the meetings in January 2016, but embassy representatives attended only some of the sessions. ..."
"... But Telizhenko's claim that the DOJ reopened its Manafort probe as the 2016 election ramped up is supported by the DOJ's own documents, including communications involving Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, his wife, Nellie, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele. ..."
"... DOJ emails show Nellie Ohr on May 30, 2016, directly alerted her husband and two DOJ prosecutors specializing in international crimes to the discovery of the "black ledger" documents that led to Manafort's prosecution. ..."
"... The efforts eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked Deripaska if he could help prove Manafort was helping Trump collude with Russia. Deripaska laughed off the notion as preposterous. ..."
"... Now we have more concrete evidence that the larger Ukrainian government also was being pressed by the Obama administration to help build the Russia collusion narrative. And that onion is only beginning to be peeled. ..."
"... But what is already confirmed by Ukrainians looks a lot more like assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed in the Mueller report . ..."
As Donald Trump began his meteoric rise to the presidency,
the Obama White House summoned Ukrainian authorities to Washington to coordinate ongoing anti-corruption efforts inside Russia's
most critical neighbor.
The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine's top corruption
prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama's National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department
and Department of Justice (DOJ).
That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative
and one of the first to involve the Obama administration's intervention.
Spokespeople for the NSC, DOJ and FBI declined to comment. A representative for former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice
did not return emails seeking comment.
Nazar Kholodnytskyy, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told me he attended some but not all of the January 2016
Washington meetings and couldn't remember the specific cases, if any, that were discussed.
But he said he soon saw evidence in Ukraine of
political meddling in the U.S. election . Kholodnytskyy said the key evidence against Manafort -- a ledger showing payments from
the Party of Regions -- was known to Ukrainian authorities since 2014 but was suddenly released in May 2016 by the U.S.-friendly
NABU, after Manafort was named Trump's campaign chairman: "Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it
to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious."
Kholodnytskyy said he explicitly instructed NABU investigators who were working with American authorities not to share
the ledger with the media. "Look, Manafort's case is one of the cases that hurt me a lot," he said.
"I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published
themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding Paul Manafort."
"For me it was the first call that something was going wrong and that there is some external influence in this case. And there
is some other interests in this case not in the interest of the investigation and a fair trial," he added.
Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Ukraine prosecutor general's international affairs office, said that, shortly after Ukrainian
authorities returned from the Washington meeting, there was a clear message about helping the Americans with the Party of the Regions
case.
"Yes, there was a lot of talking about needing help and then the ledger just appeared in public," he recalled.
Kulyk said Ukrainian authorities had evidence
that other Western figures , such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, also received money from Yanukovych's party.
But the Americans weren't interested: "They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else."
Manafort joined Trump's campaign on March 29, 2016, and then was promoted to campaign chairman on May 19, 2016.
NABU leaked the existence of the ledgers on May 29, 2016. Later that summer, it told U.S. media the ledgers showed payments to
Manafort, a revelation that forced him to resign from the campaign in August 2016.
A Ukrainian court in December concluded NABU's release of the ledger was an illegal attempt to influence the U.S. election. And
a member of Ukraine's parliament has released a recording of a NABU official saying the agency released the ledger to help Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign.
The other case raised at the January 2016 meeting, Telizhenko said, involved
Burisma Holdings , a
Ukrainian energy company under investigation in Ukraine for improper foreign transfers of money. At the time, Burisma allegedly was
paying then-Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter as both a board
member and a consultant. More than $3 million flowed from Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden in 2014-15,
bank records show .
According to Telizhenko, U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the
FBI to take it over. The Ukrainians did not agree. But then Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to
fire Ukraine's chief prosecutor in March 2016, as I previously reported. The Burisma case was transferred to NABU, then shut
down.
The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington on Thursday confirmed the Obama administration requested the meetings in January 2016,
but embassy representatives attended only some of the sessions.
"Unfortunately, the Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, D.C., was not invited to join the DOJ and other law enforcement-sector meetings,"
it said. It said it had no record that the Party of Regions or Burisma cases came up in the meetings it did attend.
Ukraine is riddled with corruption, Russian meddling and intense political conflicts, so one must carefully consider any Ukrainian
accounts.
But Telizhenko's claim that the DOJ reopened its Manafort probe as the 2016 election ramped up is supported by the DOJ's own
documents, including communications involving Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, his wife, Nellie, and ex-British spy Christopher
Steele.
Nellie Ohr and Steele worked in 2016 for the research firm, Fusion GPS, that was hired by Clinton's campaign and the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) to find Russia dirt on Trump. Steele wrote the famous dossier for Fusion that the FBI used to gain a warrant
to spy on the Trump campaign. Nellie Ohr admitted to Congress that she routed Russia dirt on Trump from Fusion to the DOJ
through her husband during the election.
DOJ emails show Nellie Ohr on May 30, 2016, directly alerted her husband and two DOJ prosecutors specializing in international
crimes to the discovery of the "black ledger" documents that led to Manafort's prosecution.
"Reported Trove of documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions' Black Cashbox," Nellie Ohr
wrote to her husband and federal prosecutors
Lisa Holtyn and Joseph Wheatley, attaching
a news article
on the announcement of NABU's release of the documents.
Bruce Ohr and Steele worked on their own effort to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, who had a soured
business relationship with him. Deripaska was "almost ready to talk" to U.S. government officials regarding the money that "Manafort
stole," Bruce Ohr wrote in notes from his conversations with Steele.
The efforts eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the
FBI asked Deripaska if he could help prove Manafort was helping Trump collude with Russia. Deripaska laughed off the notion as
preposterous.
Previously, Politico reported
that the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington assisted Clinton's campaign through a DNC contractor. The Ukrainian Embassy acknowledges
it got requests for assistance from the DNC staffer to find dirt on Manafort but denies it provided any improper assistance.
Now we have more concrete evidence that the larger Ukrainian government also was being pressed by the Obama administration
to help build the Russia collusion narrative. And that onion is only beginning to be peeled.
But what is already confirmed by Ukrainians looks a lot more like assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed
in the Mueller report .
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence
failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous
cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow
him on Twitter @jsolomonReports
Zakariah is an interesting example of the immigrant neocon class. Khalilzad is another.
Sebastian Gorka and Varney are others. They like the US, but, if only it were more
aggressive, less federal.
Khalizad told me once that you WASP types have no idea of the real uses of power. Etc.
Gorka may be in the "immigrant neocon class," but as harmful to USA foreign policy as is
Khalilzad, Gorka is not in his league: Gorka is a mediocre-talent, blowhard Wannabe.
--
re Mr. Bolan's critique of US "diplomacy" with Iran: a threshold question I ask is, By
what right?
What right has USA to demand that Iran "change its behavior."
The response from the neocon community was voiced most recently in a discussion titled,
Countering Violent Extremism
https://www.c-span.org/video/?460029-1/us-institute-peace-hosts-forum-combating-violent-extremism
moderated by David Ignatius and including such stellar 'diplomats' as Bushites Madeleine
Albright, Michael Singh and Stephen Hadley: USA created the "international order" post-WWII
and the institutions and values of that "international order" have maintained "peace,
stability and prosperity" in the world ever since. The proof: "there have been no major wars
between European powers since WWII." Democracy and stability are the keys to defeating
"violent extremism" and maintaining the international order.
To maintain that Pax Americana, the US is entitled undermine the sovereignty of-; destabilize
- , and impoverish any and all nations that resist its stabilizing efforts.
"... Russia is preparing for war and I know the mood there. If it starts, it will start conventionally with strikes on US forces in Europe, especially naval assets in Med. Russia has a control of escalation there. US military knows this and already calculated the "weight" of the first salvo from Russian side on US Navy assets. ..."
"... Nothing would be gained for US interests in such a thing. It would merely be an example of the domination of the US by Zionist fantasies. ..."
"... IMO you are right in thinking that the present inhabitants of the leadership of the BORG are a sub-species of the classic Straussian ideology driven race. The Old Ones were driven by their madcap exotericism and were entertaining. These are merely imperialists. ..."
What is gained for US interests to start a war that puts the entire middle east in flames?
That causes oil prices to spike to over $200 a barrel? That kills probably hundreds of
thousands and immiserates millions?
DO these guys see a massive depression coming and think the only way out is to go to war
as in WW2? Is it population control? Surely there is a better way to get rid of surplus male
population than total war - can't they figure out a way to game it so that warriors fight
warriors and total populations are not destroyed?
This thing looks so wrong and counter-productive to me, stupid and evil and needing
massive amounts of lies and propaganda to get people onboard. WHo benefits? I say no one but
obviously I am wrong - the people who are prosecuting this thing seem to think that they and
their sponsors will benefit mightily.....
Russia would have to choose between acceptance and the risk of utter destruction. The US
neocons would have already chosen for us if they were able to persuade Trump.
Russia would have to choose between acceptance and the risk of utter destruction. The US
neocons would have already chosen for us if they were able to persuade Trump.
Russia is preparing for war and I know the mood there. If it starts, it will start
conventionally with strikes on US forces in Europe, especially naval assets in Med. Russia
has a control of escalation there. US military knows this and already calculated the "weight"
of the first salvo from Russian side on US Navy assets.
IMO you are right in thinking that the present inhabitants of the leadership of the BORG
are a sub-species of the classic Straussian ideology driven race. The Old Ones were driven by
their madcap exotericism and were entertaining. These are merely imperialists.
Is it liberal to complain about not being hard enough on Russia?
Interesting that Hillary Clinton said Trump was a "Russian puppet" (probably after
Obama sent the FBI after the GOP campaign) and NBC's Holt (Nov 9 2016) said the US
election was a Russian coup. Since when (except maybe if Joe McCarthy were a
democrat).
A parallel maybe. In Ukraine since 2004 the popularly elected president was deposed
twice by extreme right wing ultra nationalists. In 2014 the popular Yanukovych was
deposed in the Maidan revolution with help from the US replaced with no election by Petro
Poroshenko.
Sunday we hear that a comedian Zelenskiy soundly beat Poroshenko in a popular
vote.
To this Poroshenko: "Poroshenko said on social media he thought Zelenskiy's win would
spark celebrations in the Kremlin."
"They believe that with a new inexperienced Ukrainian president, Ukraine could be
quickly returned to Russia's orbit of influence," he wrote.
Clinton and Holt could be writing for Poroshenko, a far right wing ultra
nationalist!
I worry a lot about Obama's spying on the Trump campaign and the supposed liberals in
this country sounding like far right, ultra nationalist, looking for a new, expensive
cold war!
Bolton? NSA? Do you mean NSC? Everything we hear about Bolton lately is ideological
labeling as a so-called Neocon, more ambiguous bullshit, or tainting him by association with
Israelis. Funny how everybody just forgot what Bolton did at the UN, when Bush shoehorned him
in there without congressional consent. Bolton personally constipated the drafting of the
Summit Outcome Document to remove awkward mentions of the magic word impunity. The old perv
put up 700 amendments to obstruct the process.
Now, who cares that much about impunity? And why would it be such a big deal, unless you
had impunity in municipal law but the whole world was committed to ending impunity? Cause if
you think about it, that's what the whole world has been doing for 70 years, codifying the
Pre-CIA Nuremberg Principles as international criminal law and developing state
responsibility for internationally wrongful acts as customary and then conventional
international law. Who doesn't want that?
CIA. Impunity is CIA's vital interest. They go to war to keep it all the time.
@DESERT FOX
Wisely, DESERT FOX recalled Colonel Fletcher Prouty, and wrote: " the CIA is the zionist
chain dogs that rule America!"
Dear DESERT FOX,
As you know, for some very dramatic time, Attorney Garrison held Clay Shaw's
feet-to-the-fire while demonstrating the latter businessman's connection to the Israeli
company, Permindex.
So naturally, a reasonable & respectful question arises, for which there is likely no
available & conclusive determination.
Are CIA, Mossad, and M16 joined as one (1) ruling and globally unaccountable
"(Western) Zionist chain dog" link? Tough one, D.F., but am confident you can intelligently
handle it. Thanks & salud!
@ChuckOrloski
From what I have read, MI6 is under zionist control and is the template for the CIA and the
Mossad and is the controller of both the CIA and the Mossad and all three are under zionist
control.
Another good book is The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman a former officer in MI6 and
his videos on youtube.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton have vowed to
strangle Iran and cut off all oil exports. They claim it's because of Iran's pursuit of nuclear
weapons and missiles and its support for terrorism. In a recent speech at Texas A&M
University he finally told the truth about the CIA and the neocons - they lie and cheat and
steal. So should we believe him now?
April 12, 2019 Back in April 2017, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo
delivered a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In this speech,
he made some very pointed comments about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange that provide us with a
glimpse into the mindset that currently inhabits the Department of State in particular and
Washington as a whole and why the events of April 11th, 2019 occurred.
Here are some key quotes from the rather lengthy speech which looked at America's intelligence
community. Early in the speech, he makes this comment:
" As a policy, we at CIA do not comment on the accuracy of purported intelligence
documents posted online. In keeping with that policy, I will not specifically comment on the
authenticity or provenance of recent disclosures. But the false narratives that increasingly define our public discourse cannot be
ignored.There are fictions out there that demean and distort the work and achievements
of CIA and of the broader Intelligence Community. And in the absence of a vocal rebuttal, these
voices -- ones that proclaim treason to be public advocacy -- gain a gravity they do not
deserve." (my bolds)
It is important to note that Mr. Pompeo will not comment on the authenticity of documents that
are disclosed by whistleblowers but that, in the next breath, he states that these documents
are part of a false narrative that demean and distort the work of America's intelligence
community.
He goes on to note that the CIA does admit to making mistakes and that it is accountable to the
"free and open society that they help to defend" and that the CIA is willing to make its
mistakes public to a degree that other nations cannot match.`
Here's what he has to say about WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange:
" And that is one of the many reasons why we at CIA find the celebration of entities like
WikiLeaks to be both perplexing and deeply troubling. Because while we do our best to quietly
collect information on those who pose very real threats to our country, individuals such as
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seek to use that information to make a name for themselves.
As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage
they cause to national security. WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence
service. It has encouraged its followers to find jobs at CIA in order to obtain
intelligence.It directed Chelsea Manning in her theft of specific secret
information. And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from
anti-democratic countries and organizations. It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile
intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this
year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence -- the GRU --
had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber
operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia's
primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. Now, for those of you who read the editorial page of the Washington Post -- and I have a
feeling that many of you in this room do -- yesterday you would have seen a piece of sophistry
penned by Mr. Assange. You would have read a convoluted mass of words wherein Assange compared
himself to Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning work of
legitimate news organizations such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. One can only
imagine the absurd comparisons that the original draft contained. Assange claims to harbor an overwhelming admiration for both America and the idea of
America. But I assure you that this man knows nothing of America and our ideals. He knows
nothing of our third President, whose clarion call for life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness continue to inspire us and the world. And he knows nothing of our 34th President, a
hero from my very own Kansas, who helped to liberate Europe from fascists and guided America
through the early years of the Cold War. No, I am quite confident that had Assange been around in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, he would
have found himself on the wrong side of history. We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes,
they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and
privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is
clickbait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement
through the destruction of Western values. They do not care about the causes and people they claim to represent. If they did, they
would focus instead on the autocratic regimes in this world that actually suppress free speech
and dissent. Instead, they choose to exploit the legitimate secrets of democratic governments
-- which has, so far, proven to be a much safer approach than provoking a tyrant. Clearly, these individuals are not especially burdened by conscience. We know this, for
example, because Assange has been more than cavalier in disclosing the personal information of
scores of innocent citizens around the globe. We know this because the damage they have done to
the security and safety of the free world is tangible. And the examples are numerous." (my bolds)
Actually, when it comes to Russia and the "pass" that it has been given by WikiLeaks, Mr.
Pompeo could not be more wrong. On September 19, 2017, WikiLeaks published its " Spy Files Russia " documents which
provided insight into Russia's surveillance contractors. In the case of Russia, Russias
communication providers are required by law to install components for surveillance which is
provided by the FSB which are linked to the FSB, Russia's Federal Security Service. And,
perhaps we can attribute WikiLeaks ability to release information on America's intelligence
community because it is far more prone to leaks than the intelligence communities of other
nations.
Mr. Pompeo also provided his audience with a direct link between WikiLeaks and terrorism:
" As for Assange, his actions have attracted a devoted following among some of our most
determined enemies. Following a recent WikiLeaks disclosure, an al Qa'ida in the Arabian
Peninsula member posted a comment online thanking WikiLeaks for providing a means to fight
America in a way that AQAP had not previously envisioned. AQAP represents one of the most serious terrorist threats to our country and the world. It
is a group that is devoted not only to bringing down civilian passenger planes, but our way of
life as well.That Assange is the darling of terrorists is nothing short of
reprehensible." (my bold)
Here is Mr. Pompeo's three part solution to the Assange "problem": 1.) It is high time we called out those who grant a platform to these leakers and so-called
transparency activists. We know the danger that Assange and his not-so-merry band of brothers
pose to democracies around the world. Ignorance or misplaced idealism is no longer an
acceptable excuse for lionizing these demons. 2.) There are steps that we have to take at home -- in fact, this is a process we've already
started. We've got to strengthen our own systems; we've got to improve internal mechanisms that
help us in our counterintelligence mission. All of us in the Intelligence Community had a
wake-up call after Snowden's treachery. Unfortunately, the threat has not abated. I can't go
into great detail, but the steps we take can't be static. Our approach to security has to be
constantly evolving. We need to be as clever and innovative as the enemies we face. They won't
relent, and neither will we. 3.) We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude
to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated
secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now."
Let's close with two brief items. First, here's what the ACLU has to
say about the arrest and potential American prosecution of Julian Assange:
Second, after Assange's arrest, Donald Trump had this to say about WikiLeaks:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5ztxcRHCHj4
" I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing and I know there is something having to
do with Julian Assange. I've been seeing what's happened with Assange and that will be a
determination I would imagine mostly by the Attorney General who is doing an excellent
job." Here's what the
President had to say about WikiLeaks during the 2016 Presidential election cycle:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/xnEoVzLKNPw
While it may have taken a few days less than two years to complete his dream of getting rid of
Julian Assange, it is abundantly clear from the CIA Director's speech that Mr. Assange's fate
was sealed once Mike Pompeo had direct access Washington's power brokers no matter what Donald
Trump had to say about WikiLeaks back in 2016. Fortunately for those of us on the outside that
rely on WikiLeaks to learn more about the hidden secrets of governments and the corporate
world, the group will continue to exist with or without its founder.
Posted by A Political Junkie at
8:30 AM Labels: Julian Assange ,
Mike
Pompeo , Wikileaks2
comments:
Dedicated to revealing facts that allows the public to "see" the truth is Julian
Assange, a man of integrity that is lacking in many of our politicians. They say the
"truth" hurts but it is the only way to gain wisdom to improve our world.
For
decades, Washington's favourite means of punishing nations that do not subscribe to its
narrative has been through the imposition of economic sanctions. This has become particularly
apparent with the ongoing and increasing sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea. While
sanctions against these governments have garnered headlines for the past few years, in fact,
there are far more sanctions that we rarely hear about.
In 1950, the Office of Foreign
Assets Control was formed as part of the United States Department of the Treasury. OFAC
administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions that are based on U.S. foreign policy and
national security goals. Sanctions have been imposed for the following reasons:
1.) terrorism
2.) international narcotics trade
3.) proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
4.) threats to national security, foreign policy and/or economy of the United States
Economic sanctions, in their most basic form, are defined as the withdrawal of trade and
financial relations with a targeted nation for foreign and security policy purposes. Economic
sanctions can take many forms including freezing of assets, arms embargoes, trade restrictions
and bans, capital restraints, foreign aid reductions and travel bans. According to the Council on
Foreign Relations , the United States uses economic and financial sanctions more than any
other nation.
In the United States, sanctions can originate in either the Executive or Legislative branches
of government. Presidents begin the process by issuing an Executive Order or EO which affords
the president social powers to regulate commerce with a given entity. Under the EO, the
president declares that there is a national emergency in response to "unusual and
extraordinary" foreign threats, for instance, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States. In addition to Executive actions,
Congress can also pass legislation to both modify and impose sanctions. Most sanctions programs
are administered by the previously mentioned OFAC, however, other government departments may be
involved including Homeland Security, Justice, State and Commerce.
On the OFAC website interested parties can search for information on federally mandated
sanctions programs. Under each sanctions program there is an exhaustive listing of changes to
the programs, guidelines that must be followed under penalty of law. There is also a listing of
"General Licences" which are issued in order to authorize activities that would otherwise be
prohibited under law. Here is a
list from OFAC showing active sanctions programs and the date of their last update:
OFAC also tracks " Specially
Designated Nationals (SDNs) and Blocked Individuals ". This list contains the names of
individuals and companies that are owned, controlled by or acting on behalf of targeted nations
as well as the names of terrorists and narcotics traffickers that are not affiliated with any
nation. The assets of these SDNs are blocked and American citizens and permanent residents are
prohibited from doing business with them. Here is a very small sampling of SDNs from the PDF
version of the complete listing:
In total, there are 1157 pages listing the names of over 6000 SDNs and blocked individuals.
Here is a specific person showing how difficult it is to ensure that you are not dealing with a
SDN with an unknown number of aliases:
In this case, the SDGT following his name indicates that he is sanctioned under the Global
Terrorism Sanctions Regulations.
OFAC can impose civil penalties on individuals and organizations that act in contradiction to
the imposed sanctions. So far in 2018, there have been two penalties imposed as shown
here
for doing business with Iran:
...and here for doing business with Sudan:
During 2017 , 16 OFAC
Enforcement Actions resulted in penalties of $119,527,845, up substantially from penalties
totalling $21,609,315 in 2016.
Let's now look at the sanctions programs that are currently in place from the Council on
Foreign Relations. Here is a graphic showing the current U.S. sanctions programs and their year
of inception:
With this background on Washington's use of sanctions, let's look at what the World Economic
Forum (WEF) has to say about the effectiveness of
sanctions . The key factor in the effectiveness of sanctions is the size and capacity of
the nation being sanctioned and the power of the sanctioning nation or coalition. Applying
sanctions is a double-edged sword; for instance, in the case of Iran, China and Russia have
stepped in to develop Iran's massive natural gas reserves whereas American oil companies are
banned from investing and profiting from their potential investments in Iran. There are also
longer term impacts of sanctions as show in this quote from the WEF:
" The consequences of this trend are evolving, but they potentially include companies'
"de-globalization". That is, as companies are increasingly forced to think of themselves as
tied to their home governments, they will think twice before investing in certain markets
abroad. Other consequences include changes in traditional foreign trade patterns in line with
new geopolitical alignments. Faced in 2006 with the Russian wine embargo, Georgia had to
look for new markets in the West, where it was headed politically. When in 2014 Russia faced
Western sanctions, it accelerated its rapprochement with China, the one major power that
refused to condemn its actions and shared Moscow's opposition to US global dominance. The outcome of these geo-economic campaigns is not a zero-sum game. The stronger economy
backed by other forms of power can incur more damage on the target country than it will sustain
in return, but it does not always alter the political behaviour of the government to be
"punished". Sometimes sanctions can make that behaviour even more problematic. Ironically,
the true winner may be a third party that jumps into the opening: European countries in the
initial phases of US-Iran sanctions; China in the case of current Western sanctions against
Russia; Russia in the case of the post-Tiananmen Western weapons ban on China; Turkey in the
situation when EU pressure made Russia abandon its South Stream gas pipeline project. " (my
bolds)
In many cases (i.e. Iran, Syria and North Korea), the ultimate desired impact of sanctions is
to create an atmosphere where the targeted government is subjected to "regime change". As well,
sanctions are generally less effective against nations that are adversaries since the sanctions
may create a political climate where there is a stiffening of resolve of the people being
punished by an outside power. We need look no further than the example of Vladimir Putin who,
despite nearly five years of sanctions, still retains the backing of the majority of Russians
as shown here :
One would think that Washington would have concluded that economic sanctions have not
necessarily proven to be an effective means of getting its way in the world and, in fact, may
have punished domestic businesses more than they punished foreign adversaries. The lessons
taught by nearly 70 years of American economic isolation against Cuba are a prime example;
while the sanctions have been painful, they resulted in a nation that has maintained its
resolve in the face of economic difficulties and a leader that outlived and out ruled the
reigns of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I,
Clinton and Bush II.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019US Power
Wielding - Unconventional Warfare and Financial Power Back in December 2008, WikiLeaks
released a relatively little-noted document "
US Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare ". This 248-page, nine chapter
publication was the September 2008 revision of the U.S. Army Field Manual 3-05.130, the
keystone doctrine for Army special operations forces operations in unconventional warfare.
This document defines unconventional warfare as:
" Operations conducted by, with or through irregular forces against a variety of state and
no-state opponents. "
These operations are conducted:
" ...in support of a resistance movement, an insurgency, and ongoing or pending conventional
military operations "
Such operations have the following common conceptual core:
". ..working by, with, or through irregular surrogates in a clandestine and/or covert manner
against opposing actors. "
In Chapter 2, the document outlines the instruments of United States national power which help
the United States to achieve its national strategic objectives. These instruments of national
power include diplomacy, information, intelligence, economic, financial, law enforcement and
military. For the purposes of this posting, let's focus on one of these instruments as follows,
the Financial Instrument of National Power . Here's how the document describes this
instrument:
" The financial instrument of national power promotes the conditions for prosperity and
stability in the United States and encourages prosperity and stability in the rest of the
world. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is the primary federal agency responsible
for the economic and financial prosperity and security of the United States and as such is
responsible for a wide range of activities, including advising the President on economic and
financial issues, promoting the President's growth agenda, and enhancing corporate governance
in financial institutions. In the international arena, the Treasury works with other federal
agencies, the governments of other nations, and the international financial institutions to
encourage economic growth; raise standards of living; and predict and prevent, to the extent
possible, economic and financial crises." I like that " encourages
prosperity and stability intherest of the world ". That is true, unless you
happen to live in a nation which doesn't share Washington's viewpoint. Just ask people living
in one of many nations who are currently subject to one or another of Washington's long list of
sanctions as shown here (current to
mid-2017):
The document proceeds to note the following:
" T he application of economic or financial incentives is among the most powerful ideas
in the U.S. arsenal of power. Although some U.S. adversaries are irreconcilable to
accommodation with U.S. interests and must be engaged in other ways, many declared or
potential adversaries can be persuaded or dissuaded by economic or financial means to become
declared or potential allies (or at least neutralized) the ability of the United States
government to affect the economic environment is enormous, and it has economic weapons at its
disposal. Unconventional warfare planners must carefully coordinate the introduction and
withholding of economic and financial assets into the Unconventional Warfare Operational Area
(UWOA) with their interagency partners. For example, direct application of USAID grants to
specific human groups can alter negative behaviors or cement positive affiliations. At the
highest levels of diplomatic and financial interaction, the United States Government's ability
to influence international financial institutions -- with corresponding effects to exchange
rates, interest rates, credit availability, and money supplies -- can cement multinational
coalitions for unconventional warfare campaigns or dissuade adversary nation-state governments
from supporting specific actors in the UWOA. " (my bolds)
As you can see, the United States is willing to use financial blackmail including exchange and
interest rate manipulation, credit availability and the supply of money to either persuade
certain nations to join its unconventional warfare campaign or to dissuade adversarial nations
from supporting the "other side" of an unconventional warfare strategy.
Here is a screen capture of page 2-8 of the document outlining how the United States can use
financial incentives to manipulate other nations (ARSOF = Army Special Operations Forces and UW
= Unconventional Warfare, DOS = Department of State, IC = Intelligence Community):
Note this sentence:
" Government can apply unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive
influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms
of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors
."
It is also interesting to note that the document clearly states that the World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Bank for
International Settlements are basically functioning as organizations that Washington can use to
drive its global agenda and as yet another tool in America's quest for global hegemony. This
isn't terribly surprising in the case of the World Bank since we find the following on its
website:
In addition, the Treasury Department's
Office of Foreign Assets Control whose sole responsibility is as follows:
". ..to administer and enforce economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and
national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists,
international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction and other threats the national security... "
...has a " long history of conducting economic warfare valuation to any Army Special
Operations Forces unconventional warfare. ".
This Army manual, leaked over a decade ago by WikiLeaks, gives us a very clear view of how
Washington uses financial manipulation through its influence on the World Bank, IMF, OECD and
other "global" groups to wage unconventional warfare on any nation that doesn't share its view
of how the world should function and that threatens America's control of the globe. The use of
financial blackmail to bend countries to America's narrative and overthrow nations who do not
succumb to America's wishes is not terribly surprising, however, it is interesting to actually
see one key aspect of Washington's unconventional warfare methodology in print.
For anyone of a social democratic (or lefter) persuasion, and/or see war as something that
should only be used as an absolute last resort (due to it invariably being a moral horror),
then the Democrats have indeed been the lesser of two evils, and Republican-lite.
Take Obama for instance. He ran a cleverly ambiguous campaign where he sounded to many as
being progessive and left, a breath of fresh air, something finally that would put a stop to
limitless capitalism and unwind the Bush era. But in fact he's a 'centrist', which really means
thoroughly neoliberal. He's prepared to file some of the sharp edges off capitalism, but he
neither promised nor offered a genuine alternative to a lightly regulated free market.
I mean, look at his most famous legacy: the health care reforms. This is a thoroughly
market-based solution that leaves the marketplace largely as it was. Nationalization was
nowhere in sight. And the policy was based on one his elecotoral opponent enacted when he was
governing Massachusetts! It is literally the case that voting in Democrats at the national
level gets you the policy of Republican presidential candidates.
Also, he's quite happy to unilaterally blow up stuff, including innocent people, in other
countries, in order to crush his enemies and to look good domestically. We have no problems in
calling this 'evil' when our enemies do anything like this.
Brian 04.21.19 at 2:43 pm (no link)
I think the real question is not whether Trump is successful or not. That question is a red
herring in American politics today. The real question is whether or not the Democratic
"leadership" can allow nomination of a candidate that the Democrat rank and file want. Bernie
Sanders should have won the nomination last time. But the superdelegate system gives a
literal handful of mandarins the ability to fake the primary process. (I say that as someone
who has significant issues with some of Sanders positions.)
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump
won because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a
government of the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got
screwed. Black people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the heart
of the DNC was exposed for all to see in the emails. Trump win because of the Obama
administration making a trade deal top secret classified and trying to force a vote through
congress. Not seeing any point in voting, Democrats didnt.
All the evidence since shows the DNC leadership didn't learn anything. They are just as
contemptuous of voters, just as manipulative with their window dressing as ever. The
Democratic party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a party
that stopped every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and North
Korea. There's now 2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle east
ideas.
Put some solar energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights bullshit and
it's "Democrat". But the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just as wildly right
wing war mongering.
The 1960's is long over. The Democratic party hasn't seen a new idea since and has
converted to govern to the right of Nixon. Way to Nixon's right. The Democratic party is the
tool of the Uber-ization of not just America, but the whole world. Flour and break the law to
pauperize the working class, and suck money to a few in the SF Bay Area. That's policy
now.
You can see it already. Sanders is ahead. But Buttigieg is being anointed. He's the
perfect candidate. He's gay! He's out of the closet! And he's a corporate tool who can talk
smoothly without speaking a clear word. Best of all, he has ZERO foreign policy experience or
positions. So he'll be putty in the hands of the corporations that want endless war for
profits. Wall Street wants him. And the street owns the Democratic party. Will he give a
flying f*@k about the middle and working class? Will he be anything but another neo-liberal
who can be differentiated from a neo-conservative only by mild difference in racism? (Overt
vs.covert)
At least Buttigieg isn't Beto O'Rourke, the most completely empty skin in Congress.
There's that.
All the evidence I see is no. The Democrat "leadership" don't understand. I predict a
Trump win, or else a squeaker election that barely scrapes by with a win.
No matter what, the idiot Democrats won't get it. Pelosi will do her best to cast the
Republicans anti-tax anti-government (federal) government culture war in concrete with
balanced budget horse manure. The Democrats will continue to force a new cold war on Russia.
They will keep backing companies that steal from the middle and working class. (Yes, Uber and
Lyft are massive theft operations. They implemented taxi service without licenses. Those
licenses cost a lot of money to those who bought them. They put the public at risk causing
multiple deaths and assaults from unlicensed taxi drivers.)
Trump's appeal is that he at least talks a game of "f*@k you". Domestically it's all lies
on all sides. He lies to everyone. But at least he doesn't lie smoothly like the "good
Democrat" candidates do.
"... IMO, the numerous studies done over the decades since the Iranian Revolution and the futile attempt to overthrow it by waging war upon it via Iraqi proxy has proven to the US military that waging war again on Iran's a fatal policy mistake. ..."
It's not the amount per se; rather, it's who would be affected -- Deep State actors, not
deplorables. That such entities would find themselves victimized by Trump's actions provides
motivation to deter same.
IMO, the numerous studies done over the decades since the Iranian Revolution and the
futile attempt to overthrow it by waging war upon it via Iraqi proxy has proven to the US
military that waging war again on Iran's a fatal policy mistake.
The Bully Foursome--Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, and Trump--seem to believe they can get Iran to
submit where all other previous efforts have failed. Instead, their bullying tactics and
gifts to Zionistan generated blowback that's enlarging the Arc of Resistance, while
alienating Europe.
What's a Deep State actor to do? Pence is even more of a tyro than Trump and his rise to
POTUS must be avoided. If they could both be impeached and removed, then they'd get Pelosi,
which would likely be a relief.
With her as POTUS, it might be possible to derail Sanders.
But it must be admitted, grave damage to the Empire's facade's been done that's beyond
repair.
Understand this if nothing else, Khalifa Haftar is a terrorist hand puppet of the CIA. He
is a thief, a liar, a thug, and a traitor to Libya. He threatens legitimate Libyans daily and
uses the NSA listening equipment (brought into Libya in 2011) to target any Libya who speaks
his name. Khalifa Haftar would not ever be supported by Russia. This lie has been perpetrated
in the mainstream for years. Now they have stepped up their game and have stated that Russian
mercenaries are in Libya supporting Haftar at the behest of the leader of Russia. Nothing
could be farther from the truth.
The Great Tribes have confirmed to me everything that I have written.
Libya has lost their country to terrorist thugs, their infrastructure has been destroyed,
their wealth has been stolen and continues to be stolen. They have had one million Libyans
killed....
It is the assets and geographical location that they would own. The ruination, destruction
and death of Libya and her people are just acceptable collateral damage to achieve their evil
agenda.
"... Plenty of people still fool themselves into believing Trump has been captured by the deep state and is only going along with them to stay alive. Bunk. Ever since Trump sat in the power chair he willingly joined the deep state. He's even going one further and his goal is a one world government led by the US. He knows the American populace won't condone a new war so his weapons are sanctions, the dollar, and trade wars. All viable tools as long as the US continues to control the financial system. ..."
It's complete fiction that the US is going after Venezuelan oil so as to confront Iran. If
Maduro goes so does Venezuela as civil war erupts and spreads to other countries. No oil
company is going to put itself and it's employees in such a danger zone.
It is also complete fiction that Trump was against going after Venezuela as he has been on
them almost from day one and every time Trump announces more sanctions or makes threats he's
as giddy as a kid in a candy store and relishes handing out the pain. In one of his latest
speeches to a gathering of the faithful he not only gleefully stomped on Venezuela but also
announced the US is going to overthrow the governments of Cuba and Nicaragua.
Trump was barely in office when the US undid the efforts by Obama to normalize relations
with Cuba and as of the first of the year put sanctions on Nicaragua.
This after NED and USAID last summer brought radicals from Nicaragua to DC for training in
riots and rabble rousing. Which they did after returning home. In his speech Trump claimed
that by overthrowing those governments this hemisphere will be the "only totally free
hemisphere in the world". If the plan was to get Venezuelan oil so as to shut off Iran the US
would have supported Maduro, Venezuela is no danger to US security, and offered to send in
the best engineers to get the oil industry rolling. The US is now sanctioning the tankers so
as to cut off even more revenue to Venezuela and deprive Cuba of oil.
Plenty of people still fool themselves into believing Trump has been captured by the deep
state and is only going along with them to stay alive. Bunk. Ever since Trump sat in the
power chair he willingly joined the deep state. He's even going one further and his goal is a
one world government led by the US. He knows the American populace won't condone a new war so
his weapons are sanctions, the dollar, and trade wars. All viable tools as long as the US
continues to control the financial system.
If the US does attack Iran it will be a Libya affair using only air power to cripple them
and cause internal chaos.
I found it particularly interesting that nations like Germany, Japan, Mexico and South Korea
which have traditionally been viewed as pro-American overwhelmingly found that the United
States was a greater threat to their nation than Russia. Not surprisingly, only a very small 15
percent of Israelis felt that the United States was a greater threat compared to 28 percent who
felt that Russia was a greater threat, however the percentage of Israelis that are concerned
about American power is up from only 9 percent in 2013.
Looking back in time, more people now believe that the United States is a greater threat to
their nation than in 2013 and 2017; in 2018, a median of 45 percent of all respondents believed
that the United States was a major threat to their nation, up from 38 percent in 2017 and 25
percent in 2013.
... ... ...
Once again, it is interesting to observe that nations like France and Germany that have
traditionally been viewed as pro-American have seen the highest increase in their assessment of
the threat posed by American power.
The growing power and influence wielded by the United States is now rather widely viewed by
the world as a far greater threat than the power and influence wielded by Russia, particularly
when one looks back to 2013. Respondents in just over 70 percent of the 26 nations in the study
feel that America forms a greater threat to their home nation than the much-vilified Russia, a
result that is not terribly surprising given the events of the past two years in
Washington.
Looks like tail wags the dog -- CIA controls the US foreign policy and in the last elections
also played active role in promoting Hillary. A the level of top brass we have
several people mentioned by Giraldi who are probably as dangerous as Allen Dulles was. Brennan
is one example.
The parade of rogues that Philip describes is really
alarming. Each with agenda that directly harms
the USA as a country promoting the interest of military-industrial complex and neocon
faction within the government...
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter. ..."
"... Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level would appear to be fully on board with that effort. ..."
"... Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was revealed in the press two weeks ago. ..."
"... Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of totally bereft of his senses. ..."
"... Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting attended by Pompeo, he told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent (one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down. ..."
"... And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration. Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been some Russian recruitment of Trump people. He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan, and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time. ..."
"... Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia. ..."
"... The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like the British MI5. The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words. ..."
"... As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants of the Deep State. ..."
"... The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary to its purposes. ..."
"... The CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service, long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has done. ..."
"... The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. ..."
"... While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies, it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos, the bankster mafiosi. ..."
"... I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are – Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments. The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too well the truth about the Clintons and Obama. ..."
"... Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally oblivious to their own uselessness. ..."
"... How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries. On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN. ..."
"... Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began. ..."
"... Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside the group consensus. ..."
"... So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to face. ..."
"... Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set himself up for success in the next elections. ..."
"... What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink" in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles' thought pattern & subsequent action. ..."
"... To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically sworn in on a bible. ..."
Long ago, when I was a spear carrying middle ranker at CIA, a colleague took me aside and said
that he had something to tell me "as a friend," that was very important. He told me that his wife
had worked for years in the Agency's Administrative Directorate, as it was then called, where she
had noticed that some new officers coming out of the Career Trainee program had red tags on their
personnel files. She eventually learned from her boss that the tags represented assessments that
those officers had exceptional potential as senior managers. He added, however, that the reverse
appeared to be true in practice as they were generally speaking serial failures as they ascended
the bureaucratic ladder, even though their careers continued to be onward and upward on paper. My
friend's wife concluded, not unreasonably, that only genuine a-holes had what it took to get promoted
to the most senior ranks.
I was admittedly skeptical but some recent activity by former and current Directors and Acting
Directors of CIA has me wondering if something like my friend's wife's observation about senior management
might indeed be true. But it would have to be something other than tagging files, as many of the
directors and their deputies did not come up through the ranks and there seems to be a similar strain
of lunacy at other U.S. government intelligence agencies. It might be time to check the water supply
in the Washington area as there is very definitely something in the kool-aid that is producing odd
behavior.
Now I should pause for a moment and accept that the role of intelligence services is to identify
potential threats before they become active, so a certain level of acute paranoia goes with the job.
But at the same time, one would expect a level of professionalism which would mandate accuracy rather
than emotion in assessments coupled with an eschewing of any involvement in the politics of foreign
and national security policy formulation. The enthusiasm with which a number of senior CIA personnel
have waded into the Trump swamp and have staked out positions that contradict genuine national interests
suggests that little has been learned since CIA Director George Tenet sat behind Secretary of State
Colin Powell in the UN and nodded sagaciously as Saddam Hussein's high crimes and misdemeanors were
falsely enumerated.
Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who
have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than
anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war
and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter.
Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money
flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being
made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed
by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority
of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been
sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been
selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's
defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level
would appear to be fully on board with that effort.
The most recent inexplicable comments come from the current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speaking
at the Aspen Institute Security Forum. He began by asserting that Russia had interfered in the U.S.
election
before saying that the logic behind Russia's Middle Eastern strategy is to stay in place in Syria
so Moscow can "stick it to America." He didn't define the "it" so one must assume that "it" stands
for any utensil available, ranging from cruise missiles to dinner forks. He then elaborated, somewhat
obscurely, that "I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think
they find that something that's useful."
Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting
ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged
in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It
just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been
fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate
has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency
to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors
which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was
revealed in the press two weeks ago.
Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of
totally bereft of his senses. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee back in May,
he suggested that some Trump associates might have been recruited by the Russian intelligence service.
He testified that
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions
between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about
because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether
or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."
In his testimony, Brennan apparently forgot to mention that the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs
on American citizens. Nor did he explain how he had come upon the information in the first place
as it had been handed over by foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians,
and at least some of it had been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first
place. Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected,
which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate started.
Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting
attended by Pompeo, he
told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials
should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent
(one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down.
A lesser known former CIA senior official is
John McLaughlin,
who briefly served as acting Director in 2004. McLaughlin was particularly outraged by Trump's recent
speech to the Boy Scouts, which he described as having the feel "of a third world authoritarian's
youth rally." He added that "It gave me the creeps it was like watching the late Venezuelan [President
Hugo] Chavez."
And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied
to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration.
Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose
show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been
some Russian recruitment of Trump people.
He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify
vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr.
Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr.
Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
I and others noted at the time that Putin and Trump had never met, not even through proxies, while
we also wondered how one could be both unwitting and a recruited agent as intelligence recruitment
implies control and taking direction. Morell was non-plussed, unflinching and just a tad sanctimonious
in affirming that his own intelligence training (as an analyst who never recruited a spy in his life)
meant that "[I] call it as I see it."
One could also cite Michael Hayden and James Clapper, though the latter was not CIA They all
basically hew to the same line about Russia, often in more-or-less the same words, even though no
actual evidence has been produced to support their claims. That unanimity of thinking is what is
peculiar while academics like Stephen Cohen, Stephen Walt, Andrew Bacevich, and John Mearsheimer,
who have studied Russia in some depth and understand the country and its leadership far better than
a senior CIA officer, detect considerable nuance in what is taking place. They all believe that the
hardline policies current in Washington are based on an eagerness to go with the flow on the comforting
inside-the- beltway narrative that paints Russia as a threat to vital interests. That unanimity of
viewpoint should surprise no one as this is more of less the same government with many of the same
people that led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They all have a vested interested in the
health and well-being of a fully funded national security state.
And the other groupthink that seems to prevail among the senior managers except Pompeo is that
they all hate Donald Trump and have done so since long before he won the election. That is somewhat
odd, but it perhaps reflects a fear that Trump would interfere with the richly rewarding establishment
politics that had enabled their careers. But it does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CIA
employees. Though it is admittedly unscientific analysis on my part, I know a lot of former and some
current CIA employees but do not know a single one who voted for Hillary Clinton. Nearly all voted
for Trump.
Beyond that exhibition of tunnel vision and sheer ignorance, the involvement of former senior
intelligence officials in politics is itself deplorable and is perhaps symptomatic of the breakdown
in the comfortable bipartisan national security consensus that has characterized the past fifty years.
Once upon time former CIA officers would retire to the Blue Ridge mountains and raise Labradors,
but we are now into something much more dangerous if the intelligence community, which has been responsible
for most of the recent leaks, begins to feel free to assert itself from behind the scenes. As Senator
Chuck Schumer
recently warned "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways
from Sunday at getting back at you."
In jumping this fascist nihilist shark, the groupthinkers have closed themselves off from the
logical conclusion to their viewpoint, which is final annihilation.
Brennan, Morell, and Pompeo should better find ways to justify their salaries: the U.S. has
suffered the greatest breach in cybersecurity on their watch:
" an enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members
of Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump, but t he media avoids
providing nightly updates about these 5 spies that have compromised Congress ."
"In total, Imran's firm was employed by 31 Democrats in Congress, some of whom held extremely
sensitive positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House
Committee on Foreign Affair s."
Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and
blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan,
and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time.
And back to reality we have VIPS Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the
United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking
came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia.
That is war, World War Three and it would seem now that Congress is marching that way, but
the report below hold the key to fighting back.
One of the VIPS is William Binney fomer NSA Technical Director, an important expert. leading
the group is Ray McGovern with some whit and grace, well yes how about some sanity, to which humor
is important to the insight and to stay in the sights of what is clever thievery and worse. Much
worse,
and there is a twinkle in the eye when realize that it is straight forward.
And Congress could stop it tout sweet, but well old habits but they have taken an Oath of Office,
so, so what, yeah they did go after Bernie, so will you challenge your elected officials, either
do their sworn duty or resign, for what this sanctions bill against Russia and Iran is a declaration
of war, not only against Russia and Iran, but a declaration of war against the United States.
for there is no reason to do this against Russia when indeed there are great opportunities to
get along, but war is the insanity as it is sedition and treason. Tell them that,
I wonder if groupthink exists.
In any organisation people know quite well why the organisation exists, what the threats are to
its existence.
If they think about this, I wonder.
The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like
the British MI5.
The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words.
If indeed Trump changes USA foreign policy, no longer trying to control the world, the CIA is
obsolete, as obsolete as NATO.
" but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA
had any say in the matter."
Not to defend the CIA, but didn't Rumsfeld, doubt the enthusiasm of the CIA for providing the
slanted, bogus, "sexed up" intelligence the Executive required to make its "destroy Iraq now"
case ? So Rumsfeld therefore set up an independent intelligence agency within the Defence Dept
to provide/create the required "intelligence" ?
I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think they find
that something that's useful."
Yeah, because that's what resource-constrained countries with limited ability to tap the global
capital markets do. Methinks Mr. Pompeo is projecting his and the neocons' fantasies on the Russians.
As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor
decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep
State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who
make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants
of the Deep State.
Being resistant to jargon and catch phrases it is only slowly that I have accepted that "Deep
State" is not entirely pretentious waffle when used to describe aspects of the US. However I may
not be your only reader PG who would appreciate a clear explanatory description of the American
Deep State and how it works.
Here are some suggested parameters.
The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in
the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal
of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary
to its purposes.
And its origins imply that it is not just one in a number of major influences ln government or
those who vote for it.
So one has to acknowledge that in the US the Deep State has to be different in the important
respect that levers of power are observably wielded by lobbies for the aged, gun owners and sellers,
Israel, Wall Street, bio fuels, sugar and other ag, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, the arms industry,
Disney and other Hollywood and media, health insurers and the medical profession, and I could
go on.
These are all relevant to legal events like votes on impeachment or to hold up appointments.
The CIA and FBI together completely united (and note how disunited 9/11 showed them to be) wouldn't
remotely approach the old Turkish Deep State's ability to stage a coup. Are all of the putative
elements of the Deep State together today as powerful as J.Edgar Hoover with his dirt files on
everyone? (A contrast and compare exercise of today's presumed Deep State configuration and modus
operandi with the simpler Hoover days might shine some light on who does what and how today. And
how effectively).
To avoid lack of focus can a convincing account of the US Deep State be best given in terms
of a plausible scenario for
getting rid of Trump as President and/or
maintaining the lunacy and hubris which has the US wasting its substance on totally unnecessary
antagonistic relations with China and Russia and interference in the ME?
I would read such accounts with great interest. (Handwavers need not apply).
Of course the US Deep State must hate Russia. First, Jews have a very long history of hating Russia and Russians. That never changed. The
USSR was not Russia; the USSR was Marxism replacing Russia. Jews tended to love that. Rich Jews
from across the world, from the US and the UK of most interest to us, sent money to support the
Bolshevik Revolution.
Russia managed to survive the USSR and is slowly coming back around to Russian common sense
from the Christian perspective. Neither Jews nor their WASP BFFs can ever forgive that. They want
Russia to act now to commit cultural and genetic suicide, like Western Europe and the entire Anglosphere
are doing.
@polistraThe CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service,
long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has
done.
The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence
Presidency.
While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies,
it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos,
the bankster mafiosi.
But doing so would mean a voluntary end to playing the role of Sauron, determined to find and
wear the One Ring to Rule Them All. The average Elite WASP, and his Jewish BFF, definitely would
prefer to destroy the world, at least outside their gated compounds of endless luxury, than to
step down from that level of global domination.
@Wizard
of Oz Wiz – Here is an article I did on the Deep State two years ago. It was one of the first
in the US media looking at the issue. It would have to be updated now in light of Trump, but much
of what it states is still more-or-less correct.
But we need to make certain that your use of the word 'mafiosi' does not lead anyone to assume
that group has more than a handful of Italians. Jews, WASPs, and continental Germanics each will
outnumber Italians by at least 30 to 1.
I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are –
Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments.
The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans
who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too
well the truth about the Clintons and Obama.
Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the
Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success
balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead
and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally
oblivious to their own uselessness.
Well before he was elected I had a letter delivered to President Trump in which I outlined in
detail what would happen to him if he did not immediately purge the CIA of these assholes. I know
that at least some people on his staff read it but, of course, my advice was ignored. Trump has
paid dearly for not listening to an ordinary CIA guy who wanted to give him a reality brief on
those vicious snakes.
Historical facts teach humanity that Anglo-Saxon group of Nations was built on slavery, thuggery
and theft of other peace loving Civilizations.
We Slavs are the New "niggers", hate is the glue that holds you "toGether".
People of color have been successfully conditioned and practice it as well.
Time will tell how well it holds when balloon bursts and 99% gets called to serve as cannon fodder.
Terrorizing UNARMED and WEAKER is not true test of "superiority" and "exceptionalism".
Tiny, extremely tiny minority of Anglo-Saxons and Satraps understand this.
How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they
had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries.
On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed
to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the
DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN.
Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes
of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then
and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because
of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in
the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption
and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began.
It probably does as do group psychoses and group fantasies.. Anyone who's ever served in a beuaracracy
knows that groupthink exists.
Take a bunch of mediocre minds. And, they do exist, as Garrison Keiler once famously made a
joke out of with his line Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.
Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career
advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside
the group consensus. If everyone is wrong, then there is safety in the group. After all, if they
are wrong, so was everyone else in the organization. Thus they are immune to attack and censure
for being wrong. But if someone takes a position outside of the group consensus, that can be a
career-ending move if they are wrong, as now everyone else will be in the I-told-U-So camp. And
even if they are correct, they will still be hated and shunned just for being the person who pointed
out to the group that they are wrong.
So, you take your typical average mind, and not only do they not have any great insights of
their own, but they tend to stick to the group out of sheer survival and then when you take a
mass of these mediocre minds you have 'groupthink'.
If only Trump would really clean the swamp - particularly the neo-cons and other traitors and
globalists. One can dream ....
What we've learned from Trump is that 'Draining the Swamp' will
take more than an individual. It will take a political movement.
One sees this on the fringes of politics. Someone gets the idea of running for President, and
they point out all that is wrong. But, they focus only on their own campaign, their own goal,
and they thus gloss over the fact that they'll be outnumbered and powerless even if they win.
Seen this often on the Left. The most recent example is Bernie Sanders. Likewise, had Bernie
been elected President, he too would face an entrenched establishment and media with only a small
fraction of the Congress supporting him.
Change has to be built from the bottom up. There are no shortcuts. Electing a Trump, or a Nader
or a Bernie does not lead to real change. Step one is to build the political movement such that
it has real voting block power and which has already won voting majorities in the legislature
before the movement achieves the election of a President.
What Trump has needed to be doing for this first two years is to form clear divisions that
he could then take to his voters in the mid-term elections. He's needed to lay out his own agenda.
So what if he loses votes in Congress? He then takes that agenda back to the voters in 2018 with
a nationwide slate of Congressional candidates who support that agenda and runs a midterm campaign
asking the voters to help him drain that swamp.
So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who
cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless
war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support
me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer
to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to
face.
Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set
himself up for success in the next elections.
It is a serious error to consider President Trump "naive."
What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink"
in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles'
thought pattern & subsequent action.
To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by
the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically
sworn in on a bible.
Mr. Trump is neither naive nor stupid. Sheldon Adelson would not donate $millioms to any POTUS
wannabe who could not effectively lead the American Groupthink tradition. Subsequently, the political
horror show is brought to you in the understandable form of the perpetually elusive Deep State
which gets annual Academy Award.
" Venezuela tops the list with 300.9 billion barrels of oil in reserve – but even
this vast wealth in natural resources has not been enough to save the country from its
recent economic and humanitarian crisis."
LOL, good one. It's BECAUSE of their vast wealth that they cannot operate a country free
of external interference, internal sabotage and the world's biggest bully attacking its
electrical generation and grid. We can't have a successful socialist economy with THAT much
oil, now, can we? And while Maduro did make some mistakes with the economy, it wasn't enough
to bring about this "economic and humanitarian crisis." No, that level of shitstorm requires
the intervention of the Yoo Nited States of America and "experts" on the region like Elliot
Abrams (why isn't he in jail again? Oh yeah never mind, two systems of law in this country)
and Mike Pom-Pom-Peon.
If the U.S. hadn't attempted coup after coup after coup, and actually let Venezuela's
little experiment in Chavismo socialism play out on its own, we'd probably be seeing a South
American version of Libya - at one time the richest country in Africa with healthcare for
everyone - before France and the Yooo Nited States decided to destroy it. Of course it's too
much to ask for a blog called "Visual Capitalist" to acknowledge this, and it's also pretty
much par for the course with the sour right who comes to ZH for their daily fix of liberal
bashing and rah, rah America is great! And so are (((they))). Of course.
You're way out of your depth on this topic. You wouldn't be able to point to a single
thing that Maduro did which would have had long-lasting consequences such as what we are
seeing now. Total moron - the Venezuelan masses wealth was stolen by the landed former
Spanish colonialists and their offspring, who then were given all the good oil leases, and
bailed on the country (sabotaged it on their way out - along with the food supply) as Chavez
started giving wealth BACK to the masses. You know NOTHING about Venezuela and like many
other things you parade around pretending to be some kind of expert while you're just a
typical zionist moron.
The US and our buddies have been cutting VZ off from any external capital, but more
importantly FREEZING their assets and preventing them from accessing THEIR OWN gold. If that
was happening to one of our so-called allies, we'd be calling it THEFT. You idiot.
But let's play - find me a source that backs your assertions. Point to paragraph and
sentence where your claims are laid out clearly for all to see. How did Maduro COMPLETELY
**** up Venezuela? Your turn...
The Bolivarian Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms that dramatically
reduced poverty and
illiteracy while greatly improving health and other living conditions for millions of
Venezuelans, drew worldwide acclaim. The reforms, which included
nationalizing key components of the nation's economy as part of an agenda of socialist
uplift, made Chávez a hero to millions of people and the enemy of Venezuela's
oligarchs. The exportation of the Bolivarian Revolution, which included forging stronger,
more peaceful inter-American relations and even the provision of
free home heating oil for hundreds of thousands of needy people in the United States,
made Chávez a marked man in Washington.
The administration of George W. Bush -- whom Chávez infamously called "the
devil" in a speech before the United Nations -- backed a failed military
coup against Chávez in 2002. The attempted coup was closely linked to prominent
neoconservatives including
Elliott Abrams , the disgraced Iran-Contra criminal who played a key role in covering up
massacres committed by US-backed death squads in Central America and Otto Reich, a staunch
supporter of Cuban exile terrorists who have
killed at least hundreds of innocent men, women and children throughout the Americas. Two
key coup plotters, Army commander Efraín Vasquez and Gen. Ramirez Poveda, were
trained at the US Army
School of the Americas. The coup briefly ousted Chávez but loyalist forces and popular
support restored his rule 47 hours later.
Barack Obama continued Bush's policy of demonizing Chávez, whose government he
called "authoritarian." This, despite the fact that former president Jimmy Carter, who won
the Nobel Peace Prize for his work at the election-monitoring Carter Center,
called Venezuela's election process "the best in the world." In 2015, Obama
declared Venezuela an "extraordinary threat to national security," a bewildering
assertion considering the country has never started a war in its history. The United States,
on the other hand, has intervened in, attacked, invaded or occupied Latin American and
Caribbean nations more than 50 times and, as Obama spoke, the US military was busy bombing
seven countries in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. For decades, successive US
administrations have also lavished Venezuela's neighbor Colombia -- which has been condemned
for its government and paramilitary
death squad massacres and deadly corporate-backed crackdowns on
indigenous peoples and workers -- with
billions upon billions of dollars in military and economic aid.
How would they reinstate that "talent" if it was being blocked and bribed not to go to
Venezuela by....you know who?
Chavez purged the firm because it was the same rich elites running it and threatening to
use it as a form of blackmail.
Failure to regrow human capital base? Is that a repeat of what you just said about PDVSA?
What does that even mean?
What about the US sanctions, freezing of their access to their own money, coup attempts,
sabotage, the rich cutting off the food supply chain, etc? Which of these things contributed
more to the current state of VZ?
President Chávez had to withstand three successive attempts to remove him -- the
2002 coup, 2002-03 bosses' lockout and the 2004 recall referendum. Five times he was
elected president, never with less than 55 percent of the vote, and overall he won 16 of 17
elections and referendums in which his movement participated. The election system put in
place by the Chávez government was declared by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's
Carter Center to be "
the best in the world ." None of this prevented the late president from being furiously
denounced as a "dictator."
The latest, issued on January 28, freezes all property and interests of PDVSA subject to
U.S. jurisdiction -- in other words, blocking Venezuela from any access to the profits
generated by PDVSA's U.S. subsidiary, Citgo, or any PDVSA activities in the United States.
The Trump administration expects Venezuela
to lose US$11 billion this year, The New York Times reports.
and Maduro being a "dictator"
President Maduro is repeatedly called a "dictator," an epithet endless repeated across
the corporate media. But when a portion of the opposition boycotts, can it be a surprise
that the incumbent wins? The opposition actually asked the United Nations
to not send observers , a sure sign that they expected to lose a fair election despite
their claims that the election would be rigged. Nonetheless, a coalition of Canadian
unions, church leaders and other officials declared the election to be "a transparent,
secure, democratic and orderly electoral and voting process."
So yeah, you're on the same side of this issue as Barack Obama, George Soros and Hillary
Kkklinton. Hope you're happy with that company.
The Trump administration is poised to tell five nations, including allies Japan, South
Korea and Turkey, that they will no longer be exempt from U.S. sanctions if they continue to
import oil from Iran.
U.S. officials say Secretary of State Mike Pompeo plans to announce on Monday that the
administration will not renew sanctions waivers for the five countries when they expire on
May 2.
Refusing to offer new sanctions waivers is the latest sign that Trump is once again giving
in to the most extreme Iran hawks. When sanctions on Iran's oil sector went into effect last
November, the administration initially granted waivers to the top importers of Iranian oil to
avoid a spike in the price of oil, but that is now coming to an end. The economic war that the
U.S. has been waging against Iran over the last year is about to expand to include some of the
world's biggest economies and some of America's leading trading partners. It is certain to
inflict more hardship on the Iranian people, and it will damage relations between the U.S. and
other major economic powers, including China and India, but it will have no discernible effect
on the Iranian government's behavior and policies. India, China, and Turkey are practically
guaranteed to ignore U.S. demands that they eliminate all Iranian oil imports.
The decision to end waivers has implications for world oil markets, which have been
eagerly anticipating President Trump's decision on whether to extend waivers. The officials
said market disruption should be minimal for two reasons: supply is now greater than demand
and Pompeo is also set to announce offsets through commitments from other suppliers such as
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Trump spoke about the issue Thursday with the
UAE's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan.
Between the administration's Venezuela and Iran oil sanctions and increased instability in
Libya (also supported by the Trump administration), oil prices are nonetheless likely to rise.
Even if they don't, Trump's Iran obsession is causing significant economic dislocation for no
good reason as part of a regime change policy that can't and won't succeed. It cannot be
emphasized enough that the reimposition of sanctions on Iran is completely unwarranted and
represents a betrayal of previous U.S. commitments to Iran and our allies under the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action. The decision to refuse any new sanctions waivers is a clear sign
that the most fanatical members of the Trump administration have prevailed in internal debates
and U.S. Iran policy is held hostage to their whims.
Maybe Trump will reap the benefits of this if oil prices go up a lot and it torpedos his
reelection in 2020.
One thing I'm really not clear on how are these proposed sanctions against third parties
(e.g. Japan, etc etc) not a violation of trade agreements? Are there escape clauses in those
agreements that allow the US to do these things, or is it merely that these other countries
are (usually) not willing to rely on the trade agreements' protections because, at the end of
the day, it would mean a trade war with the US, which they're not willing to countenance?
Iran policy ??? What about foreign policy in general ?? Interventionism is NOT what Americans
want, or can afford! No more lives & limbs (and dollars) for foreign countries!!
"Between the administration's Venezuela and Iran oil sanctions and increased instability
in Libya (also supported by the Trump administration), oil prices are nonetheless likely to
rise. Even if they don't, Trump's Iran obsession is causing significant economic dislocation
for no good reason "
But there is a good reason. Forcing up oil prices is a shot in the arm for the Saudi
economy. Remember "Israel first, and Saudi Arabia second". That formula explains most of
Trump's foreign policy, the rest being a jumble of random impulses and the consequences of
infighting among his advisors.
Gas is already $3.20 in the Chicago suburbs, and we are not into the summer driving season
yet. Overseas – India is going to the poll. India imports most of its oil, and Iran is
a major supplier. Yes, the Saudis have been trying to get India to switch over to more Saudi
imports – but it would look like "strong" Modi is giving in to Trump and MBS.
We are going to sanction China for buying Iranian oil? Does anyone seriously think they are
going to submit to that gracefully? Japan and Korea might, they are much smaller and stuck
with us. But China?
And I seriously doubt that sanctioning India for buying Iranian oil will advance our
strategic alliance with them, either.
"Yet so desperate are America's neo-liberals, as well as neo-conservatives to topple
democratically twice –elected President Maduro that they are pulling off their bright
smiling wholesome masks that are the public face of globalization to reveal the snarling,
cowardly, crazed little creeps behind them.
"We saw this phenomenon last week when Fareed Zakaria, the Golden Pin-Up Boy of global
liberalism, used his two supposedly most influential platforms – his talk show on CNN
and op-ed page access in The Washington Post to call for the immediate toppling of Maduro and
then for a full superpower confrontation with Russia as well."
The article is actually quite fitting for Easter--Global death of the fealty to the Outlaw
US Empire while those nations seek resurrection and far better prospects with BRI/EAEU.
National leaders unwilling to see the Devilish/Satanic nature of the Outlaw US Empire that's
so evident for all to see must think hard on what they're partnering with. If they continue
their partnership, then their citizenry will do the proper thing and exorcize such leaders
from their body politic. Globally, there's only one entity that's similar in nature to the
Outlaw US Empire--Zionistan--two equally, evilly possessed threats to humanity.
Trump is the chosen representative of the Oligopoly & elite top ten per cent of the
wealth transferring opportunist class that make their financial gains from participation
within the cartel & concomitant rigged system.
If P.T. Barnum II cannot manage to drum up the requisite market volatility in an
across-the-board Secular Stagnation global market the United States of America will fall prey
to competition from the alternative superpowers that are currently poised to interlope on
previously controlled territories that the USA has traditionally held as their own. T
he GFC ushered in an about face for USD hegemony & USA exceptionalism [read manifest
destiny] that needs to be reassessed in light of dwindling market share & trade
deficits.
The Duck has been placed in office for purposes of churn for markets because of the
deflationary pressures brought about from uncertainty on the finance side of America's
balance sheets & finance ledgers.
P.T. Barnum II would only be turfed from office if Wall Street started to implode the dark
pool derivatives universe again as they did in 08 when Obama was ushered into office as an
apologist for the incompetency of his peers on Wall Street & the Republican Party. The
banking sector knew full well that the default government of Obama was guaranteed in light of
the market crash that ended the Bush era totalitarianism.
RW I agree with a lot of what you say. But I would say that Hillary was the chosen rep,
the problem being that she lost the election. So, while Trump may not have been the number
one pick, the opportunist class, as you call them, will make do. So far, and especially with
the corporate tax cut, I think he's been ok for them and as a further example I point to his
arguing for lower interest rates to keep the Wall Street party going.
As to deflationary pressures, I presume you're talking about downward pressure on asset
prices.
I can't imagine that the banking sector was disappointed by Obama's policies w.r.t. QE,
suppression of interest rates, and especially his policy of "too-big-to-jail". And his
appointment of Mary Jo White. In my view appointing Mary Jo was as laughable as appointing a
mafia lawyer or consigliere as a big city police commissioner.
And, yes, we knew Obama was just another slick operator, installed as "cover". The average
voter never took the time to wonder, "Where TF did *he* come from?", or bothered to check who
was stuffing his war chest with filthy lucre.
Hornswoggled again!
The fine trick is never to give the voters anyone to vote for; this way the status quo is
maintained and the public is kept at each others throats.
We should probably be concerned that the end of Empathy Road crumbles into a vast, cold
waste that stretches endlessly away. Those who tread there are no longer human. At the rate
we're approaching that waste, there will be no need for plunging off of any cliff.
HRC was the chosenite before she slipped & fell helplessly in front of cameras owned
by publishers intent on getting a scoop presidential race ending snapshot of the Democratic
frontrunner ending her whole career in one fell swoop on international news networks all over
the world.
When the networks ran the newsreels on Hillary falling into the arms of campaign personnel
that was a game over moment in history. Hillary just did not have the health to be a
presidential candidate and The Duck was still waddling on duck's feet at that juncture on the
clock.
Heck, even the bookies knew that HRC was too lame to run after she was conspicuously
hospitalized with an infection that was immediately treated by her physician. Americans don't
want presidential candidates that are not healthy enough to run the gauntlet of elections.
She lost on the basis of her poor health and national news reels that showed her incapable of
even walking to a parked waiting van. 'Mericans don't vote for raggedy Ann or Andy. To be
presidential is to be able to stand on one's own two feet at all times. Hillary could not
pass the standing on her own two feet clause in the tacit agreement that she was attempting
to make with the American voter at that time in history.
The irony of all these arguments is so obvious to those of us who have been around long
enough to witness or be involved in the Cold War. Russia was an archenemy because they were a
socialist state opposed to private ownership capitalism. We had just fought a war against two
totalitarian states.
The irony is that the Russian Federation has become privatized over the last two decades
and the US more socialized. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren et al are very close to
converting this country to a Communist State. That will be the end result if the Left's coup
is successful in 2020.
The reaction of the Red States to the control by the Deep State will be interesting.
On this big picture, Trump is unimportant. Try to picture a post Trump America after a
coup, Pence will be the next target, think Buttigieg, until the capitalist basis of the
country is destroyed.
The real problem is that the Liberals will just keep coming, being financed by the
globalists, and coming and coming until they have their way. We are currently witnessing it.
What can be done to stop them, permanently.
The irony again is that the Left has convinced a large part of America that Trump and the
Deplorables are responsible for the Russian "takeover", yet the real source of the takeover
is the result of the Leftist campaigns.
The last attempted overthrow of the US basic tenets created the civil war and history
shows what it took to stop the Confederacy.
The American public's stupidity cannot be overestimated. I know this, but still find it
hard to believe that it would elect the likes of Bernie, Liz and Buttplug (BLB).
Keep in mind, the only elected Massachusetts politician in the past 100 years was JFK, but
he was a phenomenon and might have lost in 1964. Coolidge never ran, Dukakis lost and so did
Kerry. We've never elected a self-described socialist, either. Buttplug is too weird for the
typical American. AOC is too young.
No, we'll probably have a mainstream, same old-same old president.
I can't agree with this theory of candidate change .
Obama, and then Trump is all the evidence you need that the carbon dioxide expelled by
American voters is reaching toxic levels. The old Milankovitch cycles of American political
economy are long gone.
A fellow related today that he thought Boot-edge-edge would be rejected for being too gay.
Sentiments like this have front-run historical campaigns for the last 12 years.
At some point even the morbidly obese have to push away from the buffet table. Expect the
candidate change.
I asked the Captain the same thing. He doesn't know or doesn't want to know. Or he knows
and doesn't know at the same time, depending on which helps him stay the same and in denial.
Double think as Orwell put it.
>>> The end of the the Mueller probe doesn't in the least mean that it's
over.
Oh we never expected collusionist Dems to go gentle into that good night. I mean did the
birthers ever accede to reality?
But all Dems can do now is spin while the rest of the nation moves on. And you better hope
they move on. The alternative is that Team Trump starts
going after the conspirators of this soft coup.
Powerful video about US propaganda machine. Based on Iraq War propaganda efforts. This is a
formidable machine.
Shows quite vividly that most US politicians of Bush era were war criminal by Nuremberg
Tribunal standards. Starting with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They planned the war of aggression
against Iraq long before 9/11.
"... Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. ..."
"... The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment, as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player. ..."
"... Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time. The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence of NATO, for instance. ..."
"... Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown. Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline. ..."
"... Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues, will consolidate its economic domination. ..."
"... A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its different dimensions ..."
"... Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous combination. ..."
Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite
that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite
inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. Alternative social forces, like
the ones behind Trump's presidential triumph, only have a limited impact on domestic and ultimately
on foreign policy. A conceptual detour and a brief on history and on Trump's domestic setting when
he was elected will help clarifying these theses.
Beyond the different costumes that it wears (dealing with ideology, international law, and even
religion), foreign policy follows domestic policy. The domestic policy actors are the social forces
at work at a given point of time, mainly the economic agents and their ambitions (in their multiple
expressions), including the ruling power elite. Society's aspirations not only relate to material
welfare, but also to ideological priorities that population segments may have at a given point of
time.
From America's initial days until the mid 1800s, there seems to have been a broad alignment of
US foreign policy with the wishes of its power elite and other social forces. America's expansionism,
a fundamental bulwark of its foreign policy from early days, reflected the need to fulfill its growing
population's ambitions for land and, later on, the need to find foreign markets for its excess production,
initially agricultural and later on manufacturing. It can be said that American foreign policy was
broadly populist at that time. The power elite was more or less aligned in achieving these expansionist
goals and was able to provide convenient ideological justification through the writings of Jefferson
and Madison, among others.
As the country expanded, diverging interests became stronger and ultimately differing social forces
caused a significant fracture in society. The American Civil War was the climax of the conflicted
interests between agricultural and manufacturing led societies. Fifty years later, a revealing manifestation
of this divergence (which survived the Civil War), as it relates to foreign policy, is found during
the early days of the Russian Revolution when, beyond the ideological revulsion of Bolshevism, the
US was paralyzed between the agricultural and farming businesses seeking exports to Russia and the
domestic extractive industries interested in stopping exports of natural resources from this country.
The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the
ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's
aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic
forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment,
as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War
II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player.
Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War
II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces
shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time.
The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence
of NATO, for instance.
Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable
to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown.
Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in
the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the
bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened
and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict
across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline.
Trump won his presidency because he was able to get support from the country's growing frustrated
white population. His main social themes (bringing jobs to America by stopping the decline of its
manufacturing industry, preventing further US consumer dependence on foreign imports and halting
immigration) fitted well with the electors' anger. Traditional populist themes linked to foreign
policy (like Russophobia) did not play a big role in the last election. But whether or not the Trump
administration can align with the ruling power elite in a manner that addresses the key social and
economic needs of the American people is still to be seen.
Back to foreign policy, we need to distinguish between Trump's style of government and his administration's
actions. At least until now, focusing excessively on Trump's style has dangerously distracted from
his true intentions. One example is the confusion about his initial stance on NATO which was simplistically
seen as highly critical to the very existence of this organization. On NATO, all that Trump really
cared was to achieve a "fair" sharing of expenditures with other members and to press them to
honor
their funding commitments.
From immigration to defense spending, there is nothing irrational about Trump's foreign policy
initiatives, as they just reflect a different reading on the American people's aspirations and, consequently,
they attempt to rely on supporting points within the power elite which are different from the ones
used in the past.
Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge
it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues,
will consolidate its economic domination. A far-reaching lesson, although still being ignored, is
that China's economic might is showing that capitalism as understood in the West is not winning,
much less in its American format. It also shows that democracy may not be that relevant, as it is
not necessarily a corollary or a condition for economic development. Perhaps it even shows the superiority
of China's economic model, but this is a different matter.
As Trump becomes more aware about his limitations, he has naturally reversed to the basic imprints
of America's traditional foreign policy, particularly concerning defense. His emphasis on a further
increase in defense spending is not done for prestigious or national security reasons, but as an
attempt to preserve a job generating infrastructure without considering the catastrophic consequences
that it may cause.
On Iran, Obama's initiative to seek normalization was an attempt to walk a fine line (and to find
a less conflictive path) between supporting the US traditional Middle East allies (mainly the odd
combination of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and recognizing Iran's growing aspirations. Deep
down, Obama was trying to acknowledge Iran's historical viability as a country and a society that
will not disappear from the map, while Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, may not be around in a few
years. Trump's Iran policy until now only represents a different weighing of priorities, although
it is having far reaching consequences on America's credibility as a reliable contractual party in
international affairs.
In the case of Afghanistan, Trump's decision to increase boots on the ground does not break the
inertia of US past administrations. Aside from temporary containment, an increasing military presence
or a change in tactics will not alter fundamentally this reality.
Concerning Russia, and regardless of what Trump has said, actions speak more than words. A continuous
deterioration of relations seems inevitable.
Trump will also learn, if he has not done so already, about the growth of multipolar forces in
world's events. Russia has mastered this reality for several years and is quite skillful at using
it as a basic tool of its own foreign goals. Our multipolar world will expand, and Trump may even
inadvertently exacerbate it through its actions (for instance in connection with the different stands
taken by the US and its European allies concerning Iran).
While fulfilling the aspirations of the American people seems more difficult within the existing
capitalist framework, there are also growing apprehensions coming from America's power elite as it
becomes more frustrated due to its incapacity of being more effective at the world level. America's
relative adolescence in world's history will become more and more apparent in the coming years.
A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its
different dimensions. The US has never suffered the consequences of an international conflict in
its own backyard. The American Civil War, despite all the suffering that it caused, was primarily
a domestic event with no foreign intervention (contrary to the wishes of the Confederation). The
deep social and psychological damage caused by war is not part of America's consciousness as it is,
for instance in Germany, Russia or Japan. America is insensitive to the lessons of history because
it has a very short history itself.
Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there
is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined
with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous
combination.
Oscar Silva-Valladares is a former investment banker that has lived and worked in North and
Latin America, Western & Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the Philippines and Western Africa.
He currently chairs Davos International Advisory, an advisory firm focused on strategic consulting
across emerging markets.
Have you ever noticed how whenever someone inconveniences the dominant western power
structure, the entire political/media class rapidly becomes very, very interested in letting us
know how evil and disgusting that person is? It's true of the leader of every nation which
refuses to allow itself to be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized power alliance, it's
true of anti-establishment political candidates, and it's true of WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange.
Corrupt and unaccountable power uses its
political and
media influence to smear Assange because, as far as the interests of corrupt and
unaccountable power are concerned, killing his reputation is as good as killing him. If
everyone can be paced into viewing him with hatred and revulsion, they'll be far less likely to
take WikiLeaks publications seriously, and they'll be far more likely to consent to Assange's
imprisonment, thereby
establishing a precedent for the future prosecution of leak-publishing journalists around
the world. Someone can be speaking 100 percent truth to you, but if you're suspicious of him
you won't believe anything he's saying. If they can manufacture that suspicion with total or
near-total credence, then as far as our rulers are concerned it's as good as putting a bullet
in his head.
Those of us who value truth and light need to fight this smear campaign in order to keep our
fellow man from signing off on a major leap in the direction of Orwellian dystopia, and a big
part of that means being able to argue against those smears and disinformation wherever they
appear. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any kind of centralized source of information
which comprehensively debunks all the smears in a thorough and engaging way, so with the help
of hundreds of
tips from my
readers and social media followers
I'm going to attempt to make one here. What follows is my attempt at creating a tool kit people
can use to fight against Assange smears wherever they encounter them, by refuting the
disinformation with truth and solid argumentation.
This article is an ongoing project which will be updated regularly where it appears on
Medium and caitlinjohnstone.com as new information comes in and new smears spring up in need of
refutation.
As he does nearly every day, Max Boot, the
Washington Post
's in-house neocon columnist, wrote some words today. As has been the case quite a few times
before, none of his latest words, even when strung together into a coherent sentence, were particularly good. For
this very reason, several of those sentences were noteworthy. So let's (OK,
let me
) look at just what that beautiful, smooth organ in Boot's skull considers a "neoconservative."
According to Merriam-Webster, a neoconservative is a person who cites dictionary definitions in their writing.
It's also, simply put, someone in American politics who's conservative on economic issues, hews to the middle or
even center-left on social issues, and also really, really likes to Do War. That last one is a big requirement, so
don't forget it -- war equals a strong, responsible nation.
Boot opened his column with a critique of
Rep. Ro Khanna's recent op-ed in the
Post
,
with Boot writing that Khanna's position -- that neocons were responsible for the Iraq War -- is little more than an
oft-repeated "canard" that plagues the American discourse. He then proceeded to take the reader through what a
real neoconservative looks like by rewriting the top-summary of
the neoconservatism Wikipedia page
.
Boot started by citing a group of 1970s characters he classified as the True Neocons. (Initially, the term was
embodied by folks who were a little more skeptical of the Soviet Union than some of their Democratic
counterparts.) Boot then argued neocons simply were not in power at the time the Iraq War was being decided on (a
fact that is demonstratively untrue) by citing Bush administration officials widely credited as architects of the
Iraq War:
The "neocons" -- second-tier officials such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of
Defense Douglas Feith, and vice-presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby -- were not the decision-makers. The
decision to invade was made by President George W. Bush in consultation with Vice President Dick Cheney,
national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Colin
Powell. None of them would ever label themselves a "neocon."
Note the last sentence -- Boot frames his argument in a way that hangs the burden of proof that one is a
neoconservative, or acts in a neoconservative fashion, on the stipulation that they publicly identify themselves
as such, which, plainly, is so fucking dumb that I'm going to show you him doubling down on this line of thinking
just because it's so unbelievably shallow.
Moreover, a bipartisan majority of both houses approved the use of military force. Are Democratic then-Sens.
Joe Biden, John Kerry, Charles E. Schumer, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein
neocons?
To state the obvious: Yes! All of those people are absolutely neocons, at least in some way.
The idea that Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden don't at the very least actively display numerous neoconservative
tendencies is an outright rejection of what Americans have watched play out in the political realm since the
national Democratic Party imploded in the 70s. Democrats can be neocons; Republicans can be neolibs. Neos of some
sort or the other are probably around you, right this very second, and no, not
the good kind
!
The concept that political identity is wholly defined as being a list of beliefs a person writes down in their
diary or says aloud during a campaign ad, and not by the actions conducted by said person, is one that has needed
to die for at least the past half-century of American politics. But, again, Boot's column is not engaging in a
discussion about what a neocon actually is in 2019. It's a deceptive and even laudatory tactic, but Boot is
purposefully choosing to frame his argument around how politicians frame themselves. And that's a major problem if
you happen to be employed to write down your opinions for one of the major news outlets in a nation and not for
the political operatives themselves.
If anything, the fact that this batshit lazy argument permeated the top three-fourths of his column offered a
bit of relief with how it would end. Then this sentence appeared and I ascended to heaven:
I am by no means suggesting that everyone who uses the neocon label is doing so as an anti-Semitic smear,
but...
Gordon begins her
comparison by exploring the main charge levied against Nazis during the Nuremberg trials, which was
committing a crime against peace due to Germany's breach of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, which, she
explains, "essentially outlawed war." American prosecutors in the mid-20th century insisted that this
initial crime was the unlawful act from which all other crimes committed by the Nazis originated.
"By comparison," the author tells Scheer, "I look at the Bush-Cheney administration's decision to make
an unnecessary and illegal war, both in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq.
"It's very clear from the documentary record that exists that the main reason people were being
tortured [by the U.S. before the Iraq War began] was because they wanted to get somebody somewhere to say
that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaida, so that there could be an excuse for invading Iraq,"
Gordon says.
Throughout the so-called war on terror, the ethics expert says, the U.S. has also violated several
rules set forth in just-war theory, including what constitutes collateral damage and proportionality, in
its slaughter of countless Iraqi civilians.
"We took what had been one of the most vibrant, developed and cosmopolitan countries in that part of
the world -- which was Iraq -- and we essentially did what [U.S. military officials] used to say they wanted to
do to North Vietnam: bombed it back to the Stone Age," Gordon says.
Listen to Scheer and Gordon discuss a range of moral issues that Americans for several generations
have swept under the rug as the government both openly and secretly commits crimes in their name abroad.
You can also read a transcript of the interview below the media player.
Robert Scheer:
Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence.
The intelligence comes from my guests. In this case, it's Rebecca Gordon. And she has her doctorate in
ethics and social theory. I teach ethics at USC; you teach at the University of San Francisco, which is a
Catholic school, so presumably with all their difficulties they're still concerned about ethics. And
actually we have a good pope, in major ways, who's dealing with the subject I want to talk to you about:
the ethics of war making, and the violence that has been unleashed on the world. And you wrote two very
important books, maybe the most important in some ways. One is called
Mainstreaming Torture,
and
another is called
American Nuremberg.
So the question I want to ask you, you know, because we've
always treated the crimes of others, particularly the Germans, the worst crimes of modern history, as an
aberration in the development of the human race. Those people went berserk, crazy, and they were evil;
now we have another category, Muslims are evil, they do terrible things. We're recording this on a day
where in New Zealand, some 48 people trying to practice their religion were killed. So we see a lot of
crime against Muslims, as there was obviously a lot of crimes against Jews and other people. And in your
writing, you're very clear that the crimes of Nuremberg, of the Nazis, are a low level of evil. But the
real question is, the Germans are so much like Americans. They were–largest number of immigrants in this
country were Germans; they're a white, Anglo-Saxon population; they're highly educated, probably the
highest level of music and science at that point. And can it happen here?
Rebecca Gordon:
And that, of course, is the question many of us have been asking at
least since the election of 2016, and probably before that. And the answer in some ways, of course, is
that it did happen here with the invasion of the Americas by people from Europe, and the destruction of
all the peoples who were living here at the time. So there has been a genocide on this continent and in
South America that, you know, we just forget about, because it happened a while ago. But coming to
Nuremberg, what I was trying to do in the book is to say how important the principle was that was
established at Nuremberg, which is that international law is real law. And when you break international
law, there are genuine consequences, and people can and should be held accountable. So what I looked at
was the conduct of this so-called War on Terror in the post-September 11th period, and asked: Could the
United States be accused of the same categories of crimes for which the Nazi leadership were held
accountable? And there were three categories that were established by the prosecution, and these were
crimes against peace; ordinary war crimes, which had already been well described in the body of
international law; and a new category, crimes against humanity, which was created in order to take in the
enormity of what had been done in Europe by the Nazis. But what was very interesting is that it was
Americans who insisted that the first of these crimes should be crimes against peace. So what's that?
That means making an aggressive war. It means starting a war that was not a war of self-defense, that was
not a war of so-called necessity, but making an aggressive war. Why was that illegal? It was illegal
because Germany and the United States and many other countries in Europe had signed a treaty in 1928
called the Kellogg–Briand Treaty, which essentially outlawed war. It said that nations will not use war
to settle their disputes. And the argument that the U.S. prosecutors made was that all the other crimes
that the Germans committed actually sprang from this first crime of making this aggressive, unnecessary,
illegal war. And so by comparison, I look at the Bush-Cheney administration's decision to make an
unnecessary and illegal war, both in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq. And just as the Nazi crimes
arose from this making of a war that was wrong and illegal, the U.S. crimes–and specifically now because
my area of expertise is torture, I look at the reasons why the United States became involved in torture.
And in the beginning, it's very clear from the documentary record that exists, that the main reason
people were being tortured, both in the CIA dark sites and also at Guantanamo under the Department of
Defense, was because they wanted to get somebody somewhere to say that Saddam Hussein was in league with
Al-Qaeda, so that there could be an excuse for invading Iraq. And so the other crimes–
RS:
But wait, let's be very clear about that. This would be like the Nazis saying,
Jewish bankers destroyed our economy and colluded with Western powers, and therefore made life untenable
in Germany. That was the vicious scapegoating argument to justify Nazi expansion and destruction of other
societies. So this thing of whether Bush–you know, it's kind of become part of folklore–they lied us into
the war in Iraq. But what you're saying, and very clearly, the very idea of going to war in Iraq over the
9/11 incident, which not only did Saddam Hussein have–
RG:
Nothing to do with.
RS:
–nothing to do with, but actually he was opposed to Al-Qaeda, and it was the one
country where Al-Qaeda could not operate in, was Iraq. But instead of going to war with Pakistan, or
going to war, you know, elsewhere–no. We–
RG:
Or Saudi Arabia.
RS:
Well, of course, Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers–
RG:
Came from.
RS:
–came from. You could actually make an argument to go into–hey, you attacked us,
you supplied the money and so forth. No, we whitewashed the Saudi Arabia thing and went to war with Iraq.
So your analogy, listeners should understand, is very precise. It is inventing an excuse, a defensive
excuse, to engage an offensive invasion.
RG:
Exactly. And from that spring all of these other kinds of crimes. So then I look
at ordinary war crimes, and if you go over the Geneva Conventions and the various other laws of war, you
can see that there are a number of categories of crimes. Many of them have to do with failing to make the
distinction between civilians and fighters, combatants. And of course the Bush-Cheney administration very
early on decided to create a third, nonexistent category called unlawful combatants. But this designation
doesn't exist in the International Red Cross's understanding; it doesn't exist in the Geneva
Convention's. It was just a convenient way of saying this particular group of people, whoever it is that
we choose to capture, detain forever, torture–they have no legal standing in the world. They exist
outside of international law.
RS:
So let me pick up on that also. And I don't want to lose the earlier thread of
the invention of war, and connecting with this incredibly important work you've done on torture. And you
made the statement, which I think people should ponder: the reason we were torturing these people was not
to get information about a future attack. We already had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and everything, we knew
everything about it, and so forth. The real reason for it was to invent an alibi for the invasion, to get
somebody to say Saddam Hussein was backing them. And I think that's a very important–a reason, by the
way, to read your book,
Mainstreaming Torture
; let me give a plug here. But this other argument
is also interesting, the whole idea of the noncombatant. And we are doing this interview at a time when
Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning, is in prison–
RG:
Yes.
RS:
–again, because they want to fabricate a story about WikiLeaks and all that, and
get everybody off the hook for all of the crimes and torture and everything they've done. But the
interesting thing is, if you look at what did WikiLeaks–and they were just like in the position of the
Washington Post
with the Pentagon Papers, they're the publisher–what did Chelsea Manning reveal?
She revealed the death of noncombatants, including journalists. So why don't you develop that a little
bit, because that is so critical to the moment, that no one–no one has been prosecuted for those attacks
that she revealed with the data. But she is now sitting in prison.
RG:
And this is, of course–the fate of whistleblowers all over the world, and
certainly in this country, is exactly that. That the matters that they have revealed disappear in a story
that becomes about the crimes of the revealer. And of course in the war in Iraq, there was tremendous
amounts of civilian death. And it falls into a number of categories; one category is those people who had
actually been detained and were being held by U.S. forces. And for example at Abu Ghraib, we know–which
is the prison outside of Baghdad that had been Saddam Hussein's major torture site, and which the U.S.
decided in its wisdom would be the perfect place to hold detainees, and where we know a group of
reservists ended up torturing people. But the real torture was going on upstairs, by the employees of
various C.I.A. contractors, and by the C.I.A. itself. And that's where people actually died. So there's
that whole category of people, but that's a much smaller category than the category of ordinary civilians
whose lives were either ended or destroyed by the regular U.S. use of warfare in places like Fallujah and
other cities. So that we took what had been one of the most vibrant, developed, and cosmopolitan
countries in that part of the world–which was Iraq–and we essentially did what they used to say they
wanted to do to North Vietnam, bombed it back to the Stone Age. And so in just war theory, there are
these rules about discriminating between combatants and noncombatants, and you are permitted a certain
number of civilian deaths as long as they are side effects of your attempt to go after some legitimate
military target. And this is called collateral damage; it's, collateral means on the side, right? But in
fact, in Iraq, we don't know because there are many different counts, but anywhere between 500,000 and a
million people have died in the U.S. invasion and occupation in Iraq. And when you lay that against the
3,000 people who died on September 11th, none of whom were killed by anyone even from Iraq, you also see
that we have violated another rule of just war theory, which is proportionality. We have destroyed human
life out of all proportion.
RS:
And let me just–you know, it's so difficult to grapple with these questions. And
you are teaching at one of the major Catholic universities here.
RG:
It's a Jesuit university, and that's a little different. And these are the
left-wing Jesuits.
RS:
I'm not putting down your school. [Laughter] Hey, I teach ethics at the
University of Southern California–
RG:
Enough said.
RS:
–and clearly, yes, we are ethically challenged at this moment. I was about to
actually celebrate the pope in this regard. And so there is a certain necessity for being consistent in
the application of these principles, or they mean nothing.
RG:
Exactly.
RS:
And I think that's the body of your life's work, to remind us of that. So in a
sense, you are at a good place where you're teaching. I'm just wondering, how is this disregarded so
widely? I mean, people make a big deal about don't kill the unborn child. You know, I could see arguments
about that. But if that's the beginning of a consistent, pro-life position, yes, it makes certain sense.
If it's the end of a pro-life position, and then you end welfare and you don't care what happens to the
baby and so forth, you're into a deep immorality. And it seems to me you're at a very interesting place.
Because for better or worse, this pope seems to be the only one able to challenge, let's call it U.S.
imperialism or imperial ventures, on a moral basis.
RG:
I think that's right. He certainly is doing a better job of that than either of
his last two predecessors.
RS:
Or the major–
RG:
Other major, yeah. No, I think that's right. And I think, you know, it's
interesting that at USF, we have Reserve Officers' Training Corps. We have people who are training to be
second lieutenants when they leave university in the U.S. Army. And I have had students tell me, I had a
student from Guam who told me, you know, Professor Gordon, I know that when they send me to basic
training, they're going to try to take me apart and change me from being a person into being a soldier.
And I just want you to know that I'm not going to let them do that to me. He said, but you know, ROTC was
my ticket off the island, and I have a duty now to follow through with my promise. And I just, my heart
broke for him. Because what they do to you in basic training is actually a slightly lighter version of
what they do when they train torturers. Everyone who becomes a torturer–and people don't just torture on
a whim; people are trained to be torturers. And part of that training involves being brutalized first
yourself, and having survived that ordeal, you emerge with this sense of yourself as an elite person who
therefore has the right, as a superior being, and now the skills, to turn around and abuse and torture
people who come along behind you. And the U.S. has its own methods of training, and its own locations
where this happens.
RS:
[omission for station break] I'm back after our break with Professor and Doctor
Rebecca Gordon. And we were just talking about how we train people to be torturers. And this is
fascinating, because if you don't consider this question, that you're getting basically good people to do
horrible things, you're missing the whole point. But I just want to say something about the good German.
Because the basic appeal of Hitler was the solid–you know, he was going to make Germany great again. And
this is, I'm not demonizing Germans here, but Donald Trump's father was obviously familiar with this in
his lineage, in that tradition. And the whole appeal, even though this dictator Hitler was this
funny-looking guy, hardly the Aryan model–was to a notion of order. And even in the concentration camps,
keeping direct bookkeeping of how many teeth you pulled and gold you found in the teeth, and so forth.
But it's not–manners. They had the manners. And what bothers me about the very simplistic Trumpwashing
that we're going through now, that Trump is uniquely evil–it's all about manners. He's crude, he's
boorish, he's a misogynist, he says these things, he does these things, he grabs people's private parts,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That's not his crime. His crime is he's continuing a tradition of
bombing people who we have no right to bomb. And so I want to push this a little bit more, the whole
question of manners. Because what Nuremberg did is unmask the manners. And this was also true in the
Eichmann trial that Hannah Arendt talked about, when she talked about the banality of evil. Evil can be
masked by manners. Smile while you learn to kill, right?
RG:
That's exactly right. And I especially know, when you talk about the meticulous
records that they kept, this is a hallmark of torture regimes all over the world. This very careful
record-keeping, this documentation of the work that's been done–because there's no shame about the work.
The process of becoming a torturer includes developing a sense of yourself as doing something uniquely
courageous, uniquely necessary, a unique sacrifice that you as the torturer, more in sorrow than in
anger, are being forced to do by the tremendous evil that confronts you. And so you're absolutely right
that especially among upper-class liberals in the United States, the objection to Trump is his manner,
and his manner is crude and obnoxious, as you say. But what he's really doing is not only continuing to
kill people, and in fact increasing the number of drone strikes, for example, over the already great
number that the Obama administration–
RS:
A man of impeccable manners. Barack Obama. I even feel that way about Bill
Clinton. When Bill Clinton's on television, I smile. I like him. He's warm, he's encouraging. And then I
forget, he's the guy that ended the welfare system, for example. Yes.
RG:
Exactly. Exactly right. And you know, Trump is now with his, I don't know if
you've taken a look at his so-called budget, but he's planning to take away our Medicare and Medicaid,
just in case you might have wanted to have healthcare. Obviously, that's dead on arrival. But
nonetheless, the point is that he is masking what he is actually doing by distracting us with this
bombastic display. And in fact, one of his officials in the EPA actually recently said exactly that, that
they've been able to make all these regulatory changes because every time it looks as though the press is
going to notice, Trump fires off a tweet, and everybody's like, ooh, shiny!
RS:
This is a really important point. Because if you look at the Nuremberg Trial or
you look at the Eichmann trial, these people all hid behind manners. They were well spoken, they were
well educated, and they were following a Charlie Chaplinesque figure, a ludicrous figure; Hitler was
certainly a, yes, he was a more ludicrous figure than Trump, in terms of manners and style and
everything. But his popularity was largely based on being a sort of comic figure, in a way. He inspired a
whole nation of logical, scientific, well-educated–probably the best-educated population in the world.
And so I've had this experience, I've talked to people in the business community and they say well, you
know, but Trump is good for business. And we did have a mess before, and then look at what's happened to
unemployment, and so forth and so on. And so we are really at the limit of manners as a guide. And that's
really what Nuremberg is about. Nuremberg was unmasking manners. Now, we didn't continue after that; we
had the brief Eichmann trial. But what we didn't really ever do in this country–and this is why I want
people to listen or to read your book, better to read it, although listening is great–we never really
took apart the Nazi experience. Because we wanted the ex-Nazis and other Germans to be our allies in the
Cold War. So we have never had that investigation of how an incredibly well-educated, Christian,
law-and-order nation goes into madness.
RG:
Not only that, we never did what the next step was supposed to be, which is
establish a venue in which U.S. war crimes could also be examined in World War II. And there were a
number of people who developed the Nuremberg principles, and worked on the original trial, who really
honestly believed that this would be the prelude to establishing an international court for trying
offenses committed during war, and expected that the United States would in fact be held accountable, not
only for the firebombing of German cities, but for the destruction of up to 60 Japanese cities which were
constructed of wood and paper and reduced to ashes, in a campaign that really very few people in this
country even know about. Although Robert McNamara actually describes it in that excellent documentary–
RS:
The Fog of War
, yeah.
RG:
--
The Fog of War.
RS:
And it's excellent because you see that McNamara was involved in designing the
bombing of Japan and Germany. But also, I mean–like, we talk about Korea. Oh, North Korea, animals, and
Kim Il-sung and his progeny–nobody I ever run into knows we leveled every single structure in North Korea
during the Korean War. Again, a war that was not needed; it was an attempt to get a Chinese communist who
had come to power the year before. I mean, it's bizarre. Then you look at what we did to North Vietnam,
and the carpet bombing, and everything. So this is critical. American exceptionalism–I've mentioned this
a number of times on this podcast–to my mind, is a really, it's the most profound problem that American
people have to face.
RG:
It's a vicious idea. And it's been taken up in different ways by both the liberal
democratic world, and by the, you know, the hard right in this country. The idea that by definition, the
United States can do no wrong, because we are the leader of the so-called free world. Which is a locution
I don't even understand anymore, given that we're not competing anymore with the unfree communist world
that supposedly we were in opposition to. But the idea that–and this was the argument, actually, that the
Bush administration made about torture. By definition, the United States is a country that does not
torture. Therefore, whatever it is that you are observing, it cannot be torture, because that would be a
logical contradiction, because we are the nation that doesn't do that. And it's almost impossible to
enter into that understanding of the world, because no amount of evidence that you can present to the
person who believes that is going to break that worldview. And so American exceptionalism allows us not
only to have military bases in over 100 countries around the world; not only to conduct secret wars that
the people in this country don't even know about–we just suddenly woke up and said, oh my gosh, we're
having a war in Somalia! Who knew. And not to mention Yemen–I was very heartened to see that the Senate
had actually voted with the House to reprimand the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. But leave
that aside. This whole idea that we are a unique bearer of human rights and democracy in the world–it's
very hard to break, because it's a concealed, hermetically sealed worldview that people imbibe in grade
school. And they imbibe it as they grow up, and it takes a lot of effort to break through. And one of the
sad things that I see, especially with younger people that I've worked with in organizations like War
Times/Tiempo de Guerras, is that once you've broken through, it then becomes very hard to imagine that
the United States is not permanently and always going to be the hegemon. It almost, having made the
effort and understood the danger the U.S. actually presents to the world, it becomes almost impossible to
recognize when the U.S. actually loses one. And I think it's very important we claim our victories.
RS:
Well you know, you hit it clearly with this, the abandonment by the Democratic
Party of any serious oppositional role. [With] control of the House now, there should be hearings about
what are we doing in these different countries. And instead they're actually criticizing Trump for being,
kind of selling out by getting out of Afghanistan, or not fighting more aggressively in Syria. And we've
actually sort of lost the peace movement, in a way, is a theme I get back to once in a while here. And we
forget, actually, most of the terrible wars since World War II have been fought under democrats, and
financed enthusiastically. So I want to get back to basic moral principles, because they don't mean
anything if you're not consistent. You have to call out people on the left or on the right, you have to
call out war crimes, you have to call out the attacks on homosexuals, black people, Jewish
people–anybody, any other, and so forth. It's something that Jesus reminded us of in the tale of the Good
Samaritan, if you can believe that Luke is the word of God, and not the others, [Laughter] where the Good
Samaritan doesn't appear. I don't want to get into your whole Catholic university thing here. But it's
interesting to me, this notion of consistency. Because it's painful to be consistent. It requires
examining the motives of people you voted for. And this was the problem of Germany: people forget Hitler
was elected. People forget Germany had all the trappings of a–
RG:
Of a democracy.
RS:
–of a democracy. And more important, the conceit that somehow
education–education, and manners–will prevent genocide is a lie. Maybe it's time to recognize this whole
notion of American greatness is the end of thought; if you are by definition great, there's nothing to
question. And it seems to me that main religions that we've had, their one demand that they have in
common is you must question not only your nation's morality, but your own. The devil is in you. We have
to struggle with this devil, we have to struggle with these forces. Yet as a nation, we think America the
beautiful absolves us all. And that's what you're saying in your torture book. That basically, you take
these young recruits that have a very limited knowledge of our history, and you convince them that they
are the agents, really, of a higher power.
RG:
Absolutely right. And in doing that, you pervert the very virtues that we say the
United States is supposed to represent. The virtue of courage, for example, becomes the courage to
suppress your squeamishness at causing pain to another human being. And justice becomes the idea that you
give the punishment first and the trial later, if ever. Right? And this is exactly what we see in the way
our detainees have been treated. And honestly, another locus of this that we don't often recognize is
what goes on on the U.S. soil prisons and jails in this country, where we have 2.2 million people locked
up in cages, and where torture is a regular feature of prison life. It's no accident that the reservists
who were downstairs at Abu Ghraib, they were from West Virginia, and most of them in their civilian life
were prison guards. They were corrections officers. And there's a famous email that one of the
ringleaders, Charles Graner, sent home which said: The Christian in me knows it's wrong, but the
corrections officer in me loves to see a grown man piss himself. And that is exactly the attitude of the
people who are caging up 2.2 [million] largely, vastly disproportionately, black and Latino, Latinx,
people in this country today. And so torture actually is a red thread that runs through the entire
history of the United States, beginning with the Native American population. Slavery itself would not
have been as successful as it was at allowing the amassing of capital–which is, you know if you're a good
Marxist, the congealed labor of these unpaid, captive people, who when they got to the United States, or
what was not even yet the United States, would not work unless, the farmers figured out, they were caused
physical pain. And it was the use, the concerted, intentional, well-documented use of physical pain in
the cotton fields a century later that forced people to develop a physical technology of their bodies
that allowed them, in the course of 40 years, to multiply by eight times the amount of cotton a human
being could pick in a day, because the alternative was to have the skin taken off your back with a whip.
RS:
You know, increasingly in my life I have been a bad Marxist. And I've embraced
some truths that seemed to come out of these religions that, growing up, really frightened me or were
intimidating, and also were on the wrong side. But let's take it back to the pope, let's take it back to
the Jesuit school, University of San Francisco, where you teach. There's a wisdom that I daresay Karl
Marx did not sufficiently embrace. It is that we all have a capacity for evil. That we have virtue; we
care, we bring children into this world, we nurture them, we care about others, we can cry over a
refugee. On the other hand, the 2.2 million–I've been on Death Row quite recently interviewing Kevin
Cooper, who I believe is an innocent man. And fortunately, the governor of California has suspended the
death penalty, and I think Gavin Newsom deserves great credit for his courage. But–and it is a cage, and
we don't care; we don't care about these people. And we don't care about the people we bomb, and we don't
care–they're expendable, they're throwaway people. You want them out of sight, out of mind. It's very
deliberate. And the problem is, if Marxism were accurate [Laughter]–I don't know, not too many people
care, anyway, but since the two of us are talking about it–you know, if it was just the economic motive,
we'd probably do better. The libertarians, for instance–to the degree that they're right, they're right,
yes. But the wars don't make sense. And growing that cotton that way didn't ultimately make sense. And
slavery didn't make sense. Except–except if we have a barbaric part of our nature, if we have a need to
exploit others. Not just for economic reasons; if power corrupts. And this, not to quote Marx, but to
quote Jefferson or Washington, these people who came to power in this great experiment of ours, with all
its contradictions–I repeat this ad nauseum on these podcasts. All their, yes, white, male, I got it, I
got it, slave owners, the whole thing–they were on to a wisdom about their own corruption. And the reason
we have the First Amendment, the reason we have all the amendments, the reason we have separation of
powers, is that power corrupts.
RG:
Absolutely.
RS:
And what comes through in these torture stories and so forth–I talked, I have one
student, just like you, I've had students go off to these wars. I had one who ended up at Abu Ghraib and
at Guantanamo, a reserve officer. He was outside with the families. I'm not going to compromise his
privacy. But he told me what shook him up was he was being told all these things about the people inside
the jail, but his job was to herd the families that were trying to visit. And he could not deny that
there was some kind of humanity going on with these people inside, or why would all these people care so
much about them. And I think we need to be reminded of our own capacity for evil. I think that's what
Nuremberg was about, that the people who commit evil don't present as evil and are not inherently more
evil than we are.
RG:
Exactly.
RS:
And we have to struggle with this. And the good liberals who accommodate this,
and say well, you know, Barack Obama had to do this with the drones, and governor so-and-so had to kill
these people even though he didn't believe in the death penalty–we have to challenge that. Because that
is the fount of evil.
RG:
So, my favorite virtue, Aristotle calls it phronesis, or practical wisdom. St.
Thomas Aquinas calls it prudentia, prudence. But what it really is, is that capacity of the mind that
allows you to actually understand the moral questions that are in front of you. And not to be fooled by
the fog of American exceptionalism, by the distraction of a Trumpian tweet, but to be able to actually
examine and really see, in this case, the effects of U.S. policy on actual human beings around the world.
And this requires a kind of courage to be willing to accept that your own self-understanding, and the
understanding of your people, your country, might be wrong. But it also requires a willingness to look,
to actually see and examine what's in front of you. And if there's one virtue I would like to see
developed, and that I try to develop in my own students, it's this virtue of practical wisdom, where you
actually are responsible for what the effects of your actions can reasonably be foreseen to be. And this
is something that we in the United States really don't have. It's trained out of us, we don't have it.
And part of it, yes, is that capacity to understand that the ability to do evil things exists in all of
us, and it's also to understand that when you multiply that capacity by the technological and economic
power that a country like the United States has, the results–well, the results
"... Do you know, by the way, speaking of meddling, that Biden went to Moscow and told Putin not to return to the presidency in 2012? ..."
"... One recent Democratic presidential candidate was taped asserting "we should not have held the election unless we could determine the outcome" in another foreign country. ..."
"... If Russia did not meddle significantly in the US election, the political class may have had to ponder that possibly the Russians believed that the decline of the US in the world stage did not merit the effort. ..."
"... To paraphrase the late Leona Helmsley, "Democracy is for little people", not for the meddling-in-foreign-democracies policymakers of the Bos-Wash corridor. ..."
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, just stay for one minute on Russia, because the China thing is
worth talking about too. But he says, almost alone, for the first time–how long has it
been since we had a president really pursue detente? It's been a very long time. Obama called
it a reset, but it was fraudulent. It was basically saying to the Russians, "Give us
everything, and we aren't going to give you anything." It was doomed from the beginning. Plus,
they wagered that Putin wouldn't return to the presidency. Do you know, by the way, speaking of
meddling, that Biden went to Moscow and told Putin not to return to the presidency in 2012?
PAUL JAY : No.
STEPHEN COHEN : Wrap your head around that a minute. The vice president of the United
States goes to Moscow and tells Putin, who's now prime minister because he termed out, but he
could return, "We don't think you should return to the presidency." So you know what I'm
wondering, I'm wondering whether Biden's calling up Putin today and asking Putin whether Biden
should get into the presidential race here. I mean, what the hell? What the hell? And we talk
about meddling? So the point about Trump, to finish this, is for the first time in many, many
years, a presidential candidate, one that I didn't vote for and didn't care for, had said it's
necessary to cooperate with Russia.
Perhaps the assumption of Russia meddling in our election is a simple case of
projection.
As has been documented, the USA has frequently meddled in other countries' elections or
election outcomes (Iran, Russia, Chile, Central America).
One recent Democratic presidential candidate was taped asserting "we should not have held
the election unless we could determine the outcome" in another foreign country.
If Russia did not meddle significantly in the US election, the political class may have
had to ponder that possibly the Russians believed that the decline of the US in the world
stage did not merit the effort.
To paraphrase the late Leona Helmsley, "Democracy is for little people", not for the
meddling-in-foreign-democracies policymakers of the Bos-Wash corridor.
"... Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures for the various departments. ..."
"... I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet. ..."
"... A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies). ..."
It is not about politics, but Trump's peculiar management style, Timofey Bordachev, Director
of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the Faculty of World Economy
and International Affairs at Russia's High School of Economics, told RIA Novosti.
"Those who have been studying the business biography of the newly elected president have
noted that he has always played off his high-ranking employees against each other. While doing
so he remained above the fight," he said.
And
Gevorg Mirzayan, an assistant professor of the Political Science department at the Financial
University in Moscow pointed out two purposes for the nominations.
The above brings rationality to the diverse selections made by Trump.
However, the black swan event will be an economic collapse (fast or protracted over several
years). That will be the defining event in the Trump presidency. I have no inkling how he or those
who may replace him would respond.
I had guessed myself that Trump was going to run the government as a business corporation. Surrounding
himself with people of competing viewpoints, and hiring on the basis of experience and skills
(and not on the basis of loyalty, as Hillary Clinton might have done) would be two ways Trump
can change the government and its culture. Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity
of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow
and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with
Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures
for the various departments.
If running the US government as a large mock business enterprise brings a change in its culture
so it becomes more open and accountable to the public, less directed by ideology and identity
politics, and gets rid of people engaged in building up their own little empires within the different
departments, then Trump might just be the President the US needs at this moment in time.
Interesting that Russian academics have noted the outlines of Trump's likely cabinet and what
they suggest he plans to do, and no-one else has. Does this imply that Americans and others in
the West have lost sight of how large business corporations could be run, or should be run, and
everyone is fixated on fake "entrepreneurship" or "self-entrepreneur" (whatever that means) models
of running a business where it's every man, woman, child and dog for itself?
I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet.
Trump may have noted how Putin did an incredible turnaround of Russia and it all started with
three objectives: restore the integrity of the borders, rebuild the industrial base and run off
the globalists/liberals/kreakles. I am certainly not the first one to say this and I think that
there is a lot of basis for that analysis. However, Trump will have a far more difficult challenge
and frankly I don't think he has enough allies or smarts to pull it off.
A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions
remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected
and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies).
The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains
why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get
worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic
phrase "leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of
the world has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading
them.
Anarcissie , April 19, 2019 at 11:12
I suppose, then, that that would mean going back to the earliest days of the 20th
century, when the British leadership, considering that its future navy, a main pillar of
its empire, would have to be fueled with oil instead of coal, and that there was a lot of
oil in the Middle East, began its imperial projects there, which of course involved wars,
police, spies, economic blackmail, and other tools of empire. The US seized or wangled or
inherited the imperial system from the British and thus acquired the associated regional,
ethnic, and religious hostilities as well. Since the Arabs and other Muslims were weak
compared with the Great Powers, resistance meant terrorism and guerrilla warfare on one
side and massive intervention and the support of local strongmen, Mafia bosses, dictators,
and so on on the other.
After 9/11. mentioning this important fact became 'justifying bin Laden' or 'spitting on
the graves of the dead' so you couldn't talk about it.
But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a
conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the
open. Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other
conspiracies as well.
And the neocon-ization of the Trump administration continues.
While The Donald is packing away Big Macs and Diet Cokes, his neocon secretary of state is
appointing likeminded warmongers.
Ortagus has been a fixture of the GOP foreign policy establishment for more than a decade.
She has served as a press officer at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), a
financial intelligence officer at the Treasury Department and an intelligence officer in the
US Naval Reserve. She has also worked with several political campaigns, as well as a
political action committee, and has experience working on Wall Street and in foreign policy
consulting.
In addition to working with spooks and a federal agency that undermines elections
and foments coups in foreign lands, Ortagus "served on the boards" at the Institute for the
Study of War (ISW), a coven of warmongers run by Kimberly Kagan, wife of notorious neocon
Frederick Kagan.
ISW is funded by the death merchants -- Raytheon, General Dynamics, DynCorp, and others --
and it pushes the concept of the indispensable nation engaged in forever war around the world,
a conflict promoted in the name of "democracy," which is code for mass murder campaigns waged
by the financial elite in its quest for total domination and theft of everything valuable on
planet Earth.
Naturally, some folks over on the so-called "New Right" support the appointment of an ardent
neocon -- a former pretty face from Fox News -- at the State Department, thus demonstrating
they are little different than establishment Republicans, or for that matter Democrats.
' doesn't this prove I was wrong about Trump and his movement all along?
I was very wrong to discount the role of character, personality, and intelligence: Trump
is simply not fit to be President '
Raimondo's reaction to Dump's incredible imbecility re the Syria 'chemical attacks
'
' A child could see through the fake "chemical attack" supposedly launched by Bashar
al-Assad just as his troops defeated the jihadists and Trump said he wanted out of Syria
'
Yes anyone watching that white helmets footage is immediately cringing for those poor kids
being abused as props in a macabre stage play
So he's not just stupid, and crazy – he's also a coward. He refuses
to confront the War Party head on, despite his campaign trail rhetoric. Just the other day he
was telling crowds in Ohio how we were on the way out of Syria because "we have to take care
of our own country." The crowd cheered. Would he go back to that same audience and tell them
we need to intervene in a country that's been wracked by warfare for years, with no real hope
of a peaceful settlement? Of course not.
Coulter:
He is a shallow, lazy ignoramus who just wants Goldman Sachs to like him.
We get words; the neocon banker NY scum, running and ruining this world on the fast track
since 9-11, get action. They also own the congressional swamp with its amazingly high
approval rating of 15%. They own the former liberal left, now the Resistance, that can turn
out half a million bleeding hearts in pussy hats but the same oddly can't be bothered to
protest war.
Although I believe the timing of the raid on Trump's lawyer's office to be convenient to
help persuade him to ignore his base and appease his owners, at this point I won't be
troubled when they throw him away.
The only US president to complete his term without war, military attack or occupation has
called the United States "the most warlike nation in the history of the world."
During his regular Sunday school lesson at Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of
Plains, Georgia, Jimmy Carter
revealed that he had recently spoken with President Donald Trump about China. Carter, 94,
said Trump was worried about China's growing economy and expressed concern that "China is
getting ahead of us."
Carter, who normalized diplomatic relations between Washington and Beijing in 1979, said he
told Trump that much of China's success was due to its peaceful foreign policy.
"Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?" Carter
asked.
"None, and we have stayed at war." While it is true that China's last major war -- an invasion
of Vietnam -- occurred in 1979, its People's Liberation Army pounded border regions of Vietnam
with artillery and its navy battled its Vietnamese counterpart in the 1980s. Since then,
however, China has been at peace with its neighbors and the world.
Carter then said the US has been at peace for only 16 of its 242 years as a nation. Counting
wars, military attacks and military occupations, there have actually only been five years of
peace in US history -- 1976, the last year of the Gerald Ford administration and 1977-80, the
entirety of Carter's presidency. Carter then referred to the US as "the most warlike nation in
the history of the world," a result, he said, of the US forcing other countries to "adopt our
American principles."
China's peace dividend has allowed and enhanced its economic growth, Carter said. "How many
miles of high-speed railroad do we have in this country?" he asked. China has around 18,000
miles (29,000 km) of high speed rail lines while the US has "wasted, I think, $3 trillion" on
military spending. According to a November 2018
study by Brown University's Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, the US
has spent $5.9 trillion waging war in Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nations since 2001.
"It's more than you can imagine," Carter said of US war spending. "China has not wasted a
single penny on war, and that's why they're ahead of us. In almost every way."
"And I think the difference is if you take $3 trillion and put it in American infrastructure
you'd probably have $2 trillion leftover," Carter told his congregation. "We'd have high-speed
railroad. We'd have bridges that aren't collapsing, we'd have roads that are maintained
properly. Our education system would be as good as that of say South Korea or Hong Kong."
While there is a prevalent belief in the United States that the country almost always wages
war for noble purposes and in defense of freedom, global public opinion and facts paint a very
different picture. Most countries surveyed in a 2013 WIN/Gallup poll
identified the United States as the greatest threat to world peace, and a 2017 Pew Research
poll
found that a record number of people in 30 surveyed nations viewed US power and influence
as a "major threat."
The US has also invaded or bombed dozens of
countries and supported nearly every single right wing dictatorship in the world since the
end of World War II. It has overthrown
or attempted to overthrow dozens of foreign governments since 1949 and has actively sought to
crush nearly every single people's liberation movement over that same period. It has also
meddled in scores of elections, in countries that are allies and adversaries alike.
Join
the debate on Facebook More articles by: Brett Wilkins
Brett Wilkins is editor-at-large for US news at Digital Journal. Based in San Francisco,
his work covers issues of social justice, human rights and war and peace.
The military offensive against Tripoli is more political than in fact a military offensive
to overwhelm the enemy. Of course battles are fought but just the fact that heavy weapons
(tanks, artillery etc...) were not used in the first few weeks could indicate that the attack
was somehow aiming to be fast, to aim fo tribal allegiance shifts or just to make a point.
Only in the past week or so we have seen tanks and air strikes taking place, which seems an
escalation of the conflict.
Haftar's LNA has won this war, though many battles will be fought ahead, the LNA has
brought a very united support from Egypt, KSA and UAE and with that it brings France, Russia
and now the US in supporting it, either as opportunistic, individual agenda or simply to
speed up the peaceful process.
The fact is the GNA is becoming seriously isolated, very few support besides Turkey, Qatar
and Italy, all the indication that there is a good chance for Tripoli to saved from
destruction in a mix of military/political solution in weeks to come. Key tribal vocal and on
the ground support, like Zittan's, will be crucial for this peace process.
Then Misrata will be a totally different animal, here Muslin Brotherhood/al Qaeda and ISIS
are packed and strong, support from Turkey and Qatar is abundant, there is no peaceful
solution for Misrata, only annihilation of the filthy terrorists, like in Idlib in Syria.
Trump is supporting Haftar because he is STILL a CIA asset and to keep Russia's hands off
Libya. Haftar is also friends with the Egyptian Zionist Sissy and likewise, MbinSaw.
So now, there's only one smart thing for Putin to do; support THE OTHER SIDE. If he
doesn't do this, the U.S. has a CIA stooge ruling Libya, who is friends with all its allies
including the most lunatic state of the 3 -- Israel, though all three are ruled by despot
nutjobs.
Putin should at worst remain neutral or support the other side to mess with Trump's
geo-engineering.
Now that Putin and Kim will be holding a summit soon; it would be nice to see Putin f...ck
up U.S. plans in Libya too!
It's about putting up roadblocks to the Empire's geopolitical grab. That's the way you
balance power. If ever war breaks out, you want to have as many allies, friendly air space
and allied ports as possible. It doesn't mean a World War will happen again, but it could,
and geostrategy is good INSURANCE. The U.S. will never be Russia's natural ally, not even
close, therefore Putin better play it smart always planning for the worst while hoping for
the best.
Alas, I'm not sure what Putin's thinking lately allowing the lunatic state to attack
Iranian military assets in Syria! Too many Zionist oligarchs in Putin's sphere. One day Putin
will utter Caesar's last words: Et tu, Brute? Because you sure as hell can't trust a Zionist
when it comes to securing your own power!
But only the LNA and GNA are mentioned. I thought there were 3 governments in Libya - one
west, one east, and one pushed by the UN. Wikipedia's Libyan Civil War entry adds the
National Salvation Army to the LNA and GNA. But the NSA may no longer play a part with the
militias rising to the fore. And do the militias support the UN-backed GNA? From what I've
read the militias are working together against "one-man rule" of Haftar.
Libya is a broken country, Haftar brings stability, the end of the militias, Islamists and
slavery. Haftar has already won that is why the US are now supporting him.
Russia has had a long standing dialogue with Haftar. Haftar will probably gain some sort
of independence by balancing these conflicting powers (Russia and US). The US will get oil at
the price they want (need) but I expect that Russia will gain most from Haftar coming out on
top.
Haftar was part of the revolution that brought Gadaffi to power - I doubt that he is a CIA
poodle.
Haftar was part of the revolution that brought Gadaffi to power - I doubt that he is a CIA
poodle.
Posted by: ADKC | Apr 19, 2019 5:30:50 PM
Hogwash. You left out the part where Haftar joined the revolution that deposed and
murdered Gaddafi after returning to Libya from Langley! Haftar is a ruthless power-lusting
butcher and not trustworthy at all!
Yes he was part of the forces that overthrew Gaddafi and also connected to the CIA - I
didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I would very much prefer Gaddafi to still be in power -
Libyans almost certainly feel the same (the vast majority felt the same when the uprising
happened).
But Haftar has won and the alternative to Haftar is criminal gangs and Islamist militias.
So what choice is there really? Haftar brings a much greater likelihood of peace and
stability. But, he won't be bringing back the life that Libyans had when Gaddafi was in
charge.
It appears that he instigated his war in 2015 without the agreement/support of US &
CIA and this may well indicate that he is his own person - but this might just be a
smokescreen. Regardless, what real choice is there for ordinary Libyans - continuing war,
chaos and conflict or accepting that Haftar has won?
But Haftar has won and the alternative to Haftar is criminal gangs and Islamist
militias. So what choice is there really?
Wrong. It's not an either Haftar or terrorists situation, dynamic whatever. This falsehood
is UAE, SAUDI bullshet propaganda. Wahhabism is trying to take over Libya and Sudan! Wherever
the Saudis are involved trouble follows lest you forget Syria and Yemen!
Haftar is bad for Libya PERIOD. More proof is that before Trump called Haftar to offer his
support, he spoke with UEA's MBZ. It all stinks! Leave Libya alone -- hands off! All foreign
influence out! That's the best option.
financial matters , Apr 19, 2019 7:08:35 PM |
link
Nice to see Russia and the US on the same side actually fighting real terrorism. This is a
win against the deep state.
The US doesn't care what murderous thug is in charge.
Posted by: BraveNewWorld | Apr 19, 2019 3:22:46 PM | 9
My first thought was -- now they are telling us?
Of course, HRC put it nicely in a debate with Trump: "you will never see me singing
praises for a dictator or strongmen who does no love America." Qaddafi, RIP, did not love
America, so he had to go once an opportunity emerged. Maduro does not love America. Sisi may
have a kind word now and then etc.
Given that Russia's economy today is smaller than Italy's and its military budget wouldn't
buy a toilet seat or hammer in the U.S. military procurement system, the question of why Russia
would seem a great mystery outside of history. And left unstated is that the U.S. defense
industry needs enemies to survive. 'Radical Islam,' an invention of oil and gas industry flacks
that turned out to be serviceable for marketing Tomahawk missiles and stealth fighter jets as
well, lost some of its luster when ISIS and Al Qaeda came over to 'our side.' And humanitarian
intervention ain't what it used to be with Libya reduced to rubble and open-air slave markets
now dotting the landscape.
From 1948 through the early 1990s Russia was Pennywise the evil clown, helping to sell
bananas, nuclear weapons and cut-rate underwear around the globe wherever American empire
alighted. Costumed 'communists,' locals paid a day-rate to dress up and shout whatever slogans
conveyed evil most effectively, were a staple of CIA interventions from Iran to Guatemala to
the streets of New York, Boston and Los Angeles. Never mind that the slayer of monsters is more
monstrous than an army of evil clowns, as the Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians,
Nicaraguans, El Salvadorans, Chileans, Iraqis, Afghanis, Yemenis and on and on, were to
learn.
The big why (?) here would suggest an eternal mystery were it not for the arithmetic we
learned as tykes. The U.S. has an annual military budget that is larger than the next seven
evil empires combined. Killing people and blowing shit up is what America does. Stated
reverse-wise, what is the point of being able to end all human life on earth more than once?
Yet the U.S. can do it 3X -- 5X or 30X -- 50X, depending on which analysis is chosen. And while
it would be anti-historical to remove mal-intent as motive, an alternative explanation of the
militarization of the police is 'overstock,' that there is nothing else to do with the stuff
that the Pentagon produces.
This would seem a tremendous waste of resources under any reasonable theory of their
efficient use (e.g. capitalism). The explanation of 'national defense' reads as legitimate
until history is brought back in. For a few thousand years, the argument against maintaining a
standing army was that standing armies tend to get used. Preparations for armed conflict
facilitate armed conflict. The mobilizations for WWI and WWII were mobilizations, not drawdowns
from existing military inventory. There is something to be said for wars requiring large
expenditures of time, effort and resources from everyone for whom they are undertaken.
Otherwise, they are likely to be started lightly.
The U.S. has long been the most militaristic
nation in the world. This probably doesn't read right to most Americans. 'We' are a
peace-loving nation that only sends in the military as a last resort, goes the myth. And 'we'
changed the name from the Department of War to the Department of Defense. It was early in the
twentieth century that U.S. General Smedley Butler proclaimed that 'war is a racket' (racket =
organized crime) as he described his military career as a ' gangster for capitalism .' The business of war in support
of capitalism had long been a business in its own right, just ask Wall Street.
When the George W. Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security following
9/11, the obvious question from people who thought about such things was: what are these people
going to do all day? With daily briefings presented to Mr. Bush entitled ' Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.
'before 9/11, the only intelligence failure, if that is what it was, occurred in the White
House. Mr. Bush's entourage had been rumbling about going back to Iraq to 'finish the job'
since the end of his father's war. How much of a leap was it then to assume that Mr. Bush's WMD
scam was a pretext for re-invading Iraq?
But the question isn't rhetorical. With 240,000 people employed by DHS to find terrorists,
terrorists will be found. The basic insight is that justifying one's employment is crucial to
keeping it. In this light, the FBI counter-terrorism unit spent its time since 2001 enticing
poor and desperate people to claim each other as terrorists. The first person to point out that
there are no terrorists would be the first to receive a pink slip. And the same is true of
government contracting. Brave entrepreneurs who feed at the trough of military largesse need to
justify their existences. If they don't, some other proud patriot will step forward and do so.
A logic of necessity becomes a legitimating belief system More broadly, one could argue that
manufacturing terrorists has been the strategic goal of U.S. military operations for much of
the last century. If you bomb enough villages and wedding parties, people will fight back.
Wasn't this the implied storyline of anti-communist agitprop like Red Dawn and anti-Muslim
agitprop like Zero Dark Thirty -- if you invade 'our' country and / or bomb 'our' villages and
wedding parties, we will fight back. As a business proposition, the more people that are
killed, the more legitimate the operation is made to appear. Make the weapons, then employ
hundreds of thousands of people to explain why 'we' need to bomb villages. Then make more
weapons.
Graphic: Time Magazine was the voice of post-War liberalism in the 1970s -- it reflected
the opinions emanating from American officialdom through a faux-critical lens. This cover
featuring Muammar Gaddafi presaged the Obama administration's destruction of Libya by 35 years.
The main difference then was relative honesty about U.S. motives -- 'Oil' was the lede in 1973,
where 'humanitarian' concerns drove the American propaganda effort in 2011. Note: 'Arab' was
replaced by 'Muslim extremist' following the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Source: Time,
Inc.
Propaganda theory is relevant here because of the ease with which the Russiagate story was
sold -- all evidence, no matter how contradictory, was claimed to point in only one direction.
Contrariwise, Russia isn't the Soviet Union. America's political leaders have long supported
strongmen and dictators. The biggest threat to free and fair elections in the U.S. is American
oligarchs followed by Israel. The Democrat running in the 2016 presidential election openly
manipulated the 1996 Russian presidential election. Russia today is a neoliberal petrostate.
Vladimir Putin is admired in Russia because he booted out corrupt American 'advisors' who were
looting the country. In other words, Russia today isn't Russia!
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and ostensible end of the first Cold War, a '
peace dividend ' of
reduced military spending was expected to fund increased domestic spending, the classic 'guns
versus butter' formulation shifted in favor of butter. A drop to pre-WWII levels of military
spending would have meant 95%+ of the military-industrial complex went away. Following a very
brief drop in the rate of growth of military spending in the early 1990s, a recession caused by
the looting of Savings & Loans and its aftermath led to the argument that 'the economy'
couldn't withstand a reduced military. September 11 th , 2001 was the best day ever
for U.S. military contractors. America was back in the business of industrial-scale
slaughter.
Early on, the American defense industry tried a few new enemies on for size. The George W.
Bush administration's WMD scam targeted an audience that had been primed by several decades of
anti-Muslim propaganda (see Time cover above) tied to oil geopolitics. The only WMDs found in
Iraq had come from the Reagan administration in its effort to keep Iraq warring with Iran in
the Iran-Iraq war. Current American amnesia over the genesis of Islamophobia is quaint. The New
York Times has been demonizing
Muslims since the 1970s . It was hardly incidental that 'reporting' on the Iraq war
contained breathless descriptions of newly created instruments of mass slaughter.
However, there were two tacks that propelled the Iraq War forward. Humanitarian intervention
had been the liberal formulation for selling the carpet bombing of civilian populations as in
the interest of those being bombed. The term was used for the aerial bombardment of civilian
populations in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the mid-1990s. And it was the back-up explanation for the
American war against Iraq -- to remove an evil dictator in order to liberate the people of
Iraq. It was also used to justify the U.S. / NATO bombing of Libya in 2011. To the certain
dismay of the defense industry, none of those interventions retained the patina of good
intentions once it became known that the target nations had been functionally destroyed.
Russiagate has been a godsend for those who profit from destruction. As the story goes, the
wily Russian bear, led by an evil dictator and newly trained in the technologies of modernity,
set loose a witch's brew of inter-continental ballistic internet messages to sow dissent
amongst the brothers and sisters of die Vaterland united by their common bond of loving
America. For younger readers, the claim that foreign 'agitation' motivated the Civil Rights and
anti-War movements, and more broadly, the American Left, has been a mainstay of CIA and FBI
propaganda since these agencies were created. Old playbooks are good playbooks?
Those with a sense of humor, if humor includes installing a drunken buffoon to head a
nuclear armed foreign power, might offer that 'Trump' is the English translation of 'Yeltsin.'
In 1996 the American President colluded with people inside the Russian government to overturn
the democratic will of the Russian people to install Boris Yeltsin as President of Russia. Yuk,
yuk -- an unstable jackass was installed to head a foreign government. The 'payback' narrative
no-doubt motivated true belief amongst some American officials after 2016. But alas, as with
bombed villages and wedding parties, unless you just will not stop fucking with other people,
they generally have other things to do than plot revenge.
None of the propagators of the phony WMD stories suffered from passing off state propaganda
as news. The New York Times and Washington Post found themselves on the winning side of the
'fake news' scam to shut down the opposition press. Even Judith Miller, brief heroine of the
free press for being 'stove-piped' by Dick Cheney, went on to a well-paid gig at Fox News,
wrote an autobiography that more than just her immediate family read and now lives as a
'celebrity.' Heroes of the #Resistance like David Corn, Rachel Maddow and Michael Isikoff have
the proceeds from book sales and television appearances to sustain them until their services
are needed to sell the next scam-with-a-purpose.
The economic role of American defense spending will lead to endless iterations of WMD and
Russiagate scams until the Pentagon is shut down. And that's the good part. The wars that these
scams support are the bane of humanity. Their true costs, in terms of lives destroyed, appear
to be meaningless to people living in twenty-room houses who want to live in thirty room
houses. Winding down the warfare state would be less politically fraught if people had
non-murderous ways of paying their bills. But how was this not understood as the warfare state
was being built?
Finally,
apologists for Russiagate claim that it has been nowhere near as dangerous as WMD lies.
Let's see: a cadre of national security officials spent two-and-one-half years claiming that it
has secret evidence that the President of the U.S. colluded with the leader of a foreign
government to assume power and then use his office for the benefit of that foreign leader.
Following, the domestic press claimed that the U.S. 'was under attack' and 'was at war' with
this foreign power. Meanwhile, the U.S. went about arming anti-Russian militias on Russia's
border while unilaterally abrogating a short-and-intermediate range nuclear weapons treaty
after publicly announcing that it was 'modernizing' its stockpile of
short-and-intermediate-range nuclear weapons.
Respectfully, this has all been a tad less than constructive.
The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains
why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get
worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic
phrase "leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of
the world has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading
them.
China has risen explosively, from being clearly a "Third World" country forty years ago to
become a very serious and rapidly advancing competitor to America. Anyone who has seen today's
China (I recently spent two weeks there, traveling muchly) will have been astonished by the
ubiquitous construction, the quality of planning, the roads and airports and high-speed rail,
the sense of confidence and modernity. Compare this with America's rotting and dangerous
cities, swarms of homeless people, deteriorating education, antique rail, deindustrialized
midlands, loony government, and ahe military sucking blood from the economy like some vast
leech, and America will seem yesterday's country. The phrase "national suicide" comes to
mind.
A common response to these observations from thunder-thump patriots is the assertion that
the Chinese can't invent anything, just copy and steal. What one actually sees is a combination
of rapid and successful adoption of foreign technology (see Shanghai maglev below) and,
increasingly, cutting edge science and technology. More attention might be in order.
This year. A couple of decades ago, Chinese students in the US often refused to return to a
backward and repressive country. It now appears that Asia is where the action is and they want
to be part of it.
All those things you mentioned are micro-innovations, not macro ones.
China hasn't come up with a game-changer like the internet.
But we must keep in mind that most of the West hasn't been all that innovative either.
Rather, there have been spurts and sudden explosions followed by little activity.
Look at the Greeks. So creative long long ago but what happened to that fire during
Byzantine yrs? And what are Greeks today? And Italians? And Renaissance was mostly about few
parts of Northern Italy. Italy made some great films in the 20th century but hasn't been a
key player in much of anything.
And most European peoples haven't been all that innovative. It was only pockets of places
in UK, France, and Germany mostly in the modern era. What big thing came out of Poland,
Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and etc? There are surely exceptions, but they weren't major
players.
Innovations are about sparks. Sparks of inspiration, ingenuity. But for sparks to catch
fire, there has to be dry wood. The problem for East Asia was it tended to suppress
spark-mentality and, besides, the wood was wet with tradition and customs.
But then, a nation that defines itself by genius and innovation alone will fail too. Why?
Because only a tiny number of people are genius or innovative. Most people are 'lame'. If a
nation comes to define itself mainly by wealth, smarts, and genius, then most people will
have no value. Also, the top smarties will identify mainly with smarties in other parts of
the world than with their own 'lame' folks. This is why Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and
Singapore are going the wrong path. They've emphasized excellence so much that only elites
have value, and these elites feel closer to Western elites than with their own 'lame' masses
who are to be replaced like white folks in US and EU.
Certain sectors are doing better than ever. Also, US continues to be the top magnet of
talent around the world.
But in other ways, it is falling apart.
Much of US will end up worse but much of it will get richer.
US will be like a hyper Latin American nation with great riches and great poverty.
A common response to these observations from thunder-thump patriots is the assertion
that the Chinese can't invent anything, just copy and steal.
Well, let's do a thought exercise and simply assume that this is 100% true, that the
Chinese can't invent anything, just copy, steal and maintain what whites invent. Does that
change your opinion that China will overtake the West? It shouldn't.
The West is slowly (at least for now) imploding. We are importing the 3rd world, while we
demonize whites. The West has managed to avoid dramatic decline because whites were still a
large majority of the citizens. That is changing. Whites are less than 50% of births in the
United States. Non-whites account for 1 in 3 births in England. Muslims account for at least
20% of births in France with Sub-Saharan Africans making up between 5% and 10% of the
births.
We'll reach a tipping point at some point where things start to noticeably decline. China
doesn't need to outdo the West. It just has to avoid declining with the West. If China simply
maintains the technology and societal organization of the West while the West falls into
tribal warfare – hot or cold – China will become the dominate power.
@Anon I'd agree with that.
But under that scenario, China will still become the dominant world power. We're on our way
to be a sort-of Brazil of the North. Well, Brazil doesn't do much on the world stage.
We simply won't have the money or talent to maintain a global military and cultural
presence. Then again, we'll probably still be run by Jews, so we'll like remain a presence in
the Middle East.
"... I fear that in the new liberalist oligarchic Russia they have managers (generally trained in very expensive western universities/think thank) but not statesmen and overall statesmen with an original strategic view for a national independent interest like the old USSR had. ..."
"... It means TPTB already have a generation of brainwashed liberal narratives in key positions in Russia. It takes a 15-20 years to build up a new generation of nationalists and defenders of their heritage, so this could easily take 50-100 years to change if ever ..."
I don't completely agree . or perhaps I should say, I am concerned, mostly for Russia.
Good management practices can be applied to anything, positive or negative, and Orlov points
out that there seems to be a new generation of "professional" politicians developing in
Russia. This worries me as such people have a way of wanting to stay in power at almost any
cost, and not always considering the well being of the country.
Will they have the real world experience of Putin? I don't know. Will they be fooled by
the West's propaganda? Have to wait and see.
The Russian leaders who went through WW2 had a vision and experience which you can't buy
and this saved the world many times over.
But one thing I am certain of, Russia is a greater hope for the world than is the US.
I fear that in the new liberalist oligarchic Russia they have managers (generally trained in
very expensive western universities/think thank) but not statesmen and overall statesmen with
an original strategic view for a national independent interest like the old USSR had.
For the near future a simple copy of a normal western state (colony). And perhaps that future is already here.
"new liberalist oligarchic Russia have managers (generally trained in very expensive western
universities/think thanks)".
If thats true, its depressing. Shiny globo-homo eyes having Europe in their heart.
It means TPTB already have a generation of brainwashed liberal narratives in key positions
in Russia.
It takes a 15-20 years to build up a new generation of nationalists and defenders of their
heritage, so this could easily take 50-100 years to change if ever
British propaganda is clearly as close to neofascist propaganda as one can get... British neocons are even closer to neofascists then the US neocons. And British security services are closer to
the Third Reich security services then any other.
Skripals is a such a grandiose false flag operation that Gellen (of operation Gladio fame) probably would be amazed and humbled.
Notable quotes:
"... The official narrative of the Salisbury incident is ever-fluctuating. Seemingly each and every article, news segment, official statement or documentary about any element of the case contains new information, requiring the established account to be at least partially rewritten and/or contradicting established elements of the story.... ..."
"... If nothing else, that Haynes was willing to transmit an apparently obvious fiction speaks volumes about the willingness of mainstream journalists to parrot each and every fresh claim in the Skripal case, even if it wildly conflicts with what they themselves have written previously. ..."
"... Oh dear oh dear.. It appears the UK may be denying there were any poor ducks involved... https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1118409471754153984 ..."
It seems highly reasonable to conclude the NY Times item has blown away any remaining
truthfulness to the Skripal Saga and the entire Saga--like Russiagate--can be concluded to be
a very serious hoax, and that there's no reason whatsoever to trust anything said by UK's
Tory government.
"The official narrative of the Salisbury incident is ever-fluctuating. Seemingly each and
every article, news segment, official statement or documentary about any element of the case
contains new information, requiring the established account to be at least partially
rewritten and/or contradicting established elements of the story....
"If nothing else, that Haynes was willing to transmit an apparently obvious fiction speaks
volumes about the willingness of mainstream journalists to parrot each and every fresh claim
in the Skripal case, even if it wildly conflicts with what they themselves have written
previously."
"Difficult to verify your version of events given it involves nameless officials. Knowing
you're often used by security services to peddle propaganda seemed a reasonable assumption
they'd urged you to backtrack your earlier advocacy as story detonates official #Skripal
narrative."
It seems highly reasonable to conclude the NY Times item has blown away any
remaining truthfulness to the Skripal Saga and the entire Saga--like Russiagate--can be
concluded to be a very serious hoax, and that there's no reason whatsoever to trust anything
said by UK's Tory government.
"... Skripal was just one more effort to tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State. ..."
"... The significance of the NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do for itself. ..."
Craig Murray has a piece on this today. There is nothing very new in what he writes but he
sees the significance of this story, which is not about ducks or children or Donald Trump's
personality but a concerted and thorough campaign, carried out largely by British state
actors, to deepen the 'west's' isolation of Russia.
The real story of both the Cold War and the continually recurring propaganda stories about
the "millions" of "victims of communism" is that the Soviet Union was manipulated throughout
its history by capitalist control over the international economy. Like a demonic organist
capitalist governments pulled out all the stops to control the moods and the policies of a
state that the Bolsheviks never did get to rule.
In the end the Politburo gave in and did what the 'west' had always been wanted which is
to hand over the country, lock, stock and population to the cannibals of capital.
The result being what was probably, after the 1930-45 war, the largest kill off of
Russians in modern history: Yeltsin plus Harvard Business School being responsible for many
more deaths than even the intoxicated propagandist Robert Conquest ever dreamed of.
It is that total control over Russia, through the manipulation of its economy, and the
direction of its capitalists, that is behind the long series of sanctions, which are being
added to every day: their purpose is to re-invent Yeltsinism, re-empower the Fifth Column in
the Kremlin, and, in a stroke, re-establish the inevitable and eternal hegemony of the
Washington centered Empire.
In this work the assistance of the 'cousins'in MI6 and GCHQ, plus the entire British
military establishment has been crucial in a period in which the subservience of POTUS to the
Deep State was, thanks to the underestimation of his electoral chances, very much in
question. During a period in which Trump had to be tamed and brought under control the UK
Establishment's assistance in coming up with a series of highly publicised interventions was
crucia l.
Lysias points out that Haspel had acted as the CIA's Head of Station in London in 2016. It
was in London that the entire "Russiagate" nonsense was put together, with British based
actors continually prodding Congress, the media and the Democrats to act on revelations
regarding Papadopolous, Mifsud, Stefan Halper.
Skripal was just one more effort to
tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from
foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State.The significance of the
NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of
Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living
off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do
for itself.
The Saker: What will happen once Nord Stream II is finished? Where is Europe heading
next, especially in its relationship with the USA and Russia?
Dmitry Orlov: The new pipelines under the Baltic and the Black Sea will be completed, along
with the second LNG installation at Sabetta, and Russia will go on supplying natural gas to
Europe and Asia. I suspect that the fracking extravaganza in the US is entering its end game
and that the dream of large-scale LNG exports to Europe will never materialize.
The nations of Europe will gradually realize that its relationship with Russia is mostly
beneficial while its relationship with the US is mostly harmful, and will make certain
adjustments. The Ukraine, its natural gas pipeline system decrepit and beyond repair, will
continue to import natural gas from Europe, only now the methane molecules will actually flow
to it from the west rather from the east.
Way to brave predictions, I think... I think he grossly underestimates
durability of neoliberal state like the USA. May be in 20 years the USA will really start
experiencing huge problems like he described due to the end of cheap oil". But before that only
huge exogenous shock can crash such a society.
Notable quotes:
"... It will be interesting to see how public and government workers, as a group, react to the realization that the retirements they have been promised no longer exist; perhaps that will tip the entire system into a defunct state. ..."
"... And so, Trump or no Trump, we are going to have more of the same: shiny young IT specialists skipping and whistling on the way to work past piles of human near-corpses and their excrement; Botoxed housewives shopping for fake organic produce while hungry people in the back of the store are digging around in dumpsters ..."
"... well-to-do older couples dreaming of bugging out to some tropical gringo compound in a mangrove swamp where they would be chopped up with machetes and fed to the fish; and all of them believing that things are great because the stock market is doing so well. ..."
"... But he simply does not understand the USA. He’s been predicting collapse for some time and it has not occurred or come close to happening. Washington is filled with smart kleptocrats who understand they cannot afford to destroy the country that keeps on giving them the wealth and power they crave. Trump, can flounce around Washington and the rest of the country and do and say outrageous things and it has no effect on life whatsoever. ..."
"... While, on the surface, people support ideas like higher minimum wage, universal health-care and other aspects of social democracy, it their masters say “no” then they’ll forgo it and take pride in their ability to endure suffering, early death, their children on heroin or meth, and so on. ..."
"... Since I’m fairly “connected” to the lower/working class and its struggles in my part of the world I can assure you people almost enjoy suffering to a degree that foreigners easily miss and seldom ascribe it to the thieves and criminals who run our society. ..."
"... Will there be a civil war in the US, like in the 1861-1865 period ? No, I don’t think so. Will there be severe social disturbances ? Yes, these I do expect, leading to the break up of the US. The only part of the US which probably will emerge as a cohesive force will be the old South, Dixie land, which has history and tradition behind it. The US has been kicking the financial can down the road for a long time. This cannot last for ever. ..."
"... with people like Siluanov and Nabiullina in charge of the nation’s money, I am not optimistic… ..."
"... The acceleration of economic collapse in the West will be likely bring (overt) fascism and war–world war. ..."
"... In particular, the AngloNazi sorry Anglosphere nations (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and of course America) are a clear and present threat that should not be underestimated, discounted, or spin-doctored away. ..."
"... But the Anglos studiously avoid facing the reality that their precious way of life, capitalist system, and Anglo-American world order itself are premised upon their own ruthless exploitation of the Global South and developing nations in general. ..."
"... Trump and the MAGA hordes, as well as similar xenophobic and nationalist movements throughout the Anglosphere and Europe, are only a precursor to what is coming. They represent the grievances of the lower-middle classes within the Anglo American Empire and Europe who want a greater cut of the economic loot of empire for themselves–which necessitates an even more aggressive and militaristic grab for global resources, markets, and geopolitical power. ..."
"... He’s way too negative on the USA’s domestic prospects. Despite its absurdities, the US system is fundamentally robust and unlikely to suffer any major, sudden collapse, at least for many decades. It will certain decline further, plumbing the depths of depravity more than it has to date, but the system will chug along. The US has vacuumed up talent from all over the world, bolstering it’s economic capacity and the rents extracted by oligo. It’s day to day institutions, such as courts, post offices and the like function better now than they did in the 80s or 90s. ..."
"... All the incentives are there to keep the thing together, with little real risk of some sort of succession movement or serious insurrection. The main advantages the US has on this score are it’s mass surveillance system, policing infrastructure and media. The US media can make the great bulk of the people believe absolutely anything, if given enough time. ..."
The Saker: You recently wrote an article titled " Is the USS
Ship of Fools Taking on Water? " in which you discuss the high level of stupidity in
modern US politics? I have a simple question for you: do you think the Empire can survive Trump
and, if so, for how long?
Dmitry Orlov: I think that the American empire is very much over already, but it hasn't been
put to any sort of serious stress test yet, and so nobody realizes that this is the case. Some
event will come along which will leave the power center utterly humiliated and unable to
countenance this humiliation and make adjustments. Things will go downhill from there as
everyone in government in media does their best to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. My
hope is that the US military personnel currently scattered throughout the planet will not be
simply abandoned once the money runs out, but I wouldn't be too surprised if that is what
happens.
The Saker: Lastly, a similar but fundamentally different question: can the USA (as
opposed to the Empire) survive Trump and, if so, how? Will there be a civil war? A military
coup? Insurrection? Strikes? A US version of the Yellow Vests?
Dmitry Orlov: The USA, as some set of institutions that serves the interests of some
dwindling number of people, is likely to continue functioning for quite some time. The question
is: who is going to be included and who isn't? There is little doubt that retirees, as a
category, have nothing to look forward to from the USA: their retirements, whether public or
private, have already been spent. There is little doubt that young people, who have already
been bled dry by poor job prospects and ridiculous student loans, have nothing to look forward
to either.
But, as I've said before, the USA isn't so much a country as a country club. Membership has
its privileges, and members don't care at all what life is like for those who are in the
country but aren't members of the club. The recent initiatives to let everyone in and to let
non-citizens vote amply demonstrates that US citizenship, by itself, counts for absolutely
nothing. The only birthright of a US citizen is to live as a bum on the street, surrounded by
other bums, many of them foreigners from what Trump has termed "shithole countries."
It
will be interesting to see how public and government workers, as a group, react to the
realization that the retirements they have been promised no longer exist; perhaps that will tip
the entire system into a defunct state.
And once the fracking bubble is over and another third of the population finds that it can
no longer afford to drive, that might force through some sort of reset as well. But then the
entire system of militarized police is designed to crush any sort of rebellion, and most people
know that. Given the choice between certain death and just sitting on the sidewalk doing drugs,
most people will choose the latter.
And so, Trump or no Trump, we are going to have more of the same: shiny young IT specialists
skipping and whistling on the way to work past piles of human near-corpses and their excrement;
Botoxed housewives shopping for fake organic produce while hungry people in the back of the
store are digging around in dumpsters; concerned citizens demanding that migrants be allowed
in, then calling the cops as soon as these migrants set up tents on their front lawn or ring
their doorbell and ask to use the bathroom; well-to-do older couples dreaming of bugging out to
some tropical gringo compound in a mangrove swamp where they would be chopped up with machetes
and fed to the fish; and all of them believing that things are great because the stock market
is doing so well.
At this rate, when the end of the USA finally arrives, most of the people won't be in a
position to notice while the rest won't be capable of absorbing that sort of upsetting
information and will choose to ignore it. Everybody wants to know how the story ends, but that
sort of information probably isn't good for anyone's sanity. The mental climate in the US is
already sick enough; why should we want to make it even sicker?
I love Orlov’s wit and general cynical attitude as it mirrors mine (perhaps not the
wit). I think he seems to understand the Ukraine and Russia relatively well though I’m
not in a position to question him on that but I do know something about the politics of
NATO/EU/USA and their intentions and that Orlov gets.
But he simply does not understand the USA. He’s been predicting collapse for some
time and it has not occurred or come close to happening. Washington is filled with smart
kleptocrats who understand they cannot afford to destroy the country that keeps on giving
them the wealth and power they crave. Trump, can flounce around Washington and the rest of
the country and do and say outrageous things and it has no effect on life whatsoever.
If
anything the economy actually is “better” not as good as the cooked statistics
indicate but things have improved for people I know in that area. Americans, despite the
obvious propaganda nature of the media still are true-believers in the official Narrative
because meaning and myth always trumps reality.
While, on the surface, people support ideas
like higher minimum wage, universal health-care and other aspects of social democracy, it
their masters say “no” then they’ll forgo it and take pride in their
ability to endure suffering, early death, their children on heroin or meth, and so on.
Since
I’m fairly “connected” to the lower/working class and its struggles in my
part of the world I can assure you people almost enjoy suffering to a degree that foreigners
easily miss and seldom ascribe it to the thieves and criminals who run our society. Americans
strut around but feel powerless and don’t have a plan or think they can have a plan
because they lack the conceptual frameworks to understand that their leadership is thoroughly
rotten.
Having said that, I agree with Auslander, Americans don’t need the central
government and would do better, initially, in a highly chaotic situation and establish their
own order in their communities and rig up a new set of arrangements very quickly.
In some
ways the fall of Washington would be the best thing to ever happen in my country.
I am afraid you are wrong. Orlov does understand the US, just like I do, as I have lived
in the US. Yes, Orlov has been predicting the collapse of the US, and it will happen. I would
like to direct your attention to the following video (the second part is very
interesting):
Will there be a civil war in the US, like in the 1861-1865 period ? No, I don’t
think so. Will there be severe social disturbances ? Yes, these I do expect, leading to the
break up of the US. The only part of the US which probably will emerge as a cohesive force
will be the old South, Dixie land, which has history and tradition behind it. The US has been
kicking the financial can down the road for a long time. This cannot last for ever.
“The only part of the US which probably will emerge as a cohesive force will be the old
South, Dixie land, which has history and tradition behind it. ”
Maybe, but actually I would say most regions of the USA have some kind of “old
tradition” —and a lot nicer ones than that of the old racist South. I’ll
take New England and the Maritimes any day over the steamy South where the kudzu creeps over
I mean *everything*, the snakes proliferate, and you can’t survive the summer without
AC 24/7.
Well…I just started in on this piece and already I have a major
beef…Orlov’s notion that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was good for
Russia…
China was [and arguably still is] an empire of diverse regions, ethnicities and
religions…but how is that holding China back today, or during previous centuries of
imperial glory…?
Clearly China doesn’t fit into Orlov’s idea of an empire as a ‘wealth
pump’ that sucks from the periphery to enrich the center…this is true of course
of exploitation-based imperial projects such as western colonialism…but is clearly not
applicable to the Chinese model, which has been both the biggest and most durable empire in
human history…so that is a big hole in Orlov’s ‘theory’…
It is true that the USSR was a fundamentally different kind of empire from the
exploitative western colonialism…and it is also true that it ultimately did not
succeed…although it managed to accomplish almost incomprehensible progress in
modernization, science and technology…and industrialization…the foundations of
Russian strength today rest squarely on the foundations put in place during the Stalin
era…
Elsewhere on this site there is a brilliant series of essays by Ramin Mazaheri about the
tumultuous cultural revolution of the 1960s…and why it was necessary…Russia
also needed a cultural revolution around this time…the system needed to be rejigged to
better serve the people…in living standard…fairness and
justice…opportunity for social advance…etc…
But it never happened…instead the system became more sclerotic than ever…and
the welfare of the people stagnated…at the very moment in time when the capitalist
west, especially the United States, was able to reign in the appetites of its parasite class
and provide the people with a decent share of its [largely ill-gotten, by means of global
finance colonialism] gains…[during the postwar decades, the share of national wealth
of the 0.1 percent fell to an all time low of about 7 percent…about a quarter of
historic, and current levels]…
This was the golden age in the US…well paying jobs in industry were plentiful and
the company president made perhaps ten times what the shop floor worker took home…a
second household income was completely unnecessary…university education at state
colleges was practically free…
The life of the Soviet citizen in the1960s was not too far behind…Stalin’s
five year plans in the1930s had created an industrial powerhouse…it was Russia’s
ability to produce that allowed it to prevail over Germany in the existential war…and
despite the devastation of the people, cities and countryside Russia was able to quickly
become a technological superpower…as an aerospace engineer I have a deep appreciation
of the depth and breadth of Russian technical achievements and the basic scientific advances
that made that possible…the US was laughably left in the dust, despite having skimmed
the cream of Nazi Germany’s technical scientific talent…and contrary to what US
propaganda would have the people believe…
... ... ...
Of course the massive Chinese empire has been adapting like this for centuries, if not
millennia…Russia with the Soviet Union only needed to make similar smart
adjustments…instead they threw out the baby with the bathwater…let’s see
where Russia goes from here, but with people like Siluanov and Nabiullina in charge of the
nation’s money, I am not optimistic…
But back to Orlov…let’s see where he goes after starting off very clumsily.
.
The acceleration of economic collapse in the West will be likely bring (overt) fascism and
war–world war.
In particular, the AngloNazi sorry Anglosphere nations (Britain, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and of course America) are a clear and present threat that should not be
underestimated, discounted, or spin-doctored away.
As collapse intensifies, these Anglo American entities led by the USA will surely lash out
in even more aggressive wars to maintain their unipolar world order that they have ruled over
since the fall of the Soviet Union. The use of tactical nuclear weapons, bio-warfare, and
other "exotic" weapons should not be ruled out.
At base, the Anglo Americans possess an inbred sense of economic entitlement. They whine
like snowflakes about the foreign outsourcing of jobs or "illegal immigrants stealing our
jobs" as a chauvinistic demand for a greater share of the economic spoils of imperialism.
But the Anglos studiously avoid facing the reality that their precious way of life,
capitalist system, and Anglo-American world order itself are premised upon their own ruthless exploitation of the Global
South and developing nations in general.
And God forbid that the Anglos lose their parasitic way of life and (horror) are compelled
to live like the vast majority of humanity in the developing world from Africa to Asia to
Latin America to the Middle East.
The disaffected middle classes and labor aristocracy of the Anglosphere will comprise the
grassroots basis for 21st-century fascism, similar to how these socio-economic classes were
the grassroots support for the German Third Reich or Mussolini's Italy in the 1930s-40s.
Trump and the MAGA hordes, as well as similar xenophobic and nationalist movements
throughout the Anglosphere and Europe, are only a precursor to what is coming. They represent
the grievances of the lower-middle classes within the Anglo American Empire and Europe who
want a greater cut of the economic loot of empire for themselves–which necessitates an
even more aggressive and militaristic grab for global resources, markets, and geopolitical
power.
As Martin Lee has put it, the Beast reawakens.
Boswald Bollocksworth on April 17, 2019 · at 9:37 pm EST/EDT
He’s way too negative on the USA’s domestic prospects. Despite its absurdities, the US system is fundamentally robust
and unlikely to suffer any major, sudden collapse, at least for many decades. It will certain decline further, plumbing the
depths of depravity more than it has to date, but the system will chug along. The US has vacuumed up talent from all over the
world, bolstering it’s economic capacity and the rents extracted by oligo. It’s day to day institutions, such as courts, post
offices and the like function better now than they did in the 80s or 90s.
All the incentives are there to keep the thing together, with little real risk of some sort of succession movement or
serious insurrection. The main advantages the US has on this score are it’s mass surveillance system, policing infrastructure
and media. The US media can make the great bulk of the people believe absolutely anything, if given enough time.
The US capacity to meddle overseas will wither, after all how well can a submarine filled with drag queens and single
mothers operate? And who’d be willing to endure shelling for a monstrosity like contemporary America?
But the domestic system is brilliantly designed, not going anywhere.
Not sure if extensive Lavrov interview earlier in April was reported on saker
..extract
"Question: Have you seen any grounds for optimism in the results of the first round of the
presidential election in Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: To be honest, I haven't seen any grounds for either optimism or pessimism.
What's the point of guesswork? This is a process that should take place and will be
completed. I do not doubt this or that the West will recognise this election.
OSCE observers released their preliminary report on the results of the first round of the
presidential election, which abounds in examples of flagrant violations: corruption, bribery,
pressure on voters and many other things. However, all this is described in a neutral tone. I
think if they wrote about us, they would present these facts emotionally. Now they are doing
it in an understated way and conclude that this did not affect the legitimacy of the
election. Neither was it affected by the flagrant violation of OSCE rules when our observers
were kicked out and over three million Ukrainians working and living in Russia were deprived
of the right to vote. These are facts of life in Ukraine.
I think that the results of the election and the way it was organised came as no surprise
to those who have been following domestic developments in Ukraine and its external ties. They
are already calling each other puppets It's probably interesting to watch from the side but I
don't think that Ukrainian citizens are happy about this kind of democracy.
Question: Are the prospects of Russia-Ukraine cooperation still vague?
Sergey Lavrov: We are open to dialogue if the aim is not chatting and looking for excuses
to do nothing but rather the practical implementation of the Minsk agreements. I have no
doubt that Petr Poroshenko does not want to do this and won't do this. When Viktor Medvedchuk
just suggested seriously discussing what autonomous rights may be granted to Donbass, he was
called a traitor. Poroshenko said this will never happen although he himself signed a
document on the special status of Donbass, which is described with sufficient detail in the
Minsk agreements.
These provisions on what rights Donbass should have were formulated by German Chancellor
Angela Merkel personally, among others, but her ward has got out of hand. This is a fact. On
the one hand, he doesn't listen to Germany or France because he has American "patrons". On
the other hand, they find it embarrassing to pressure him in public because by doing so they
will admit that what they call their "mediation" has failed.
However, there is no other document except for the Minsk agreements. They can certainly be
supplemented. For instance, it is possible to provide OSCE observers with UN armed guards, as
we suggest in response to the apprehensions of Ukrainians about their safety. But the core of
these agreements must remain unchanged. The main point is that all issues are settled
directly between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk .."
The Toltec sages used to say: "To really know something means that it must also entail the
knowledge of what course of action to take. And once you know what to do, you actually do
it". So they firmly stated that the only worthy knowledge is a functional one. Normally, the
trascendental matters were integrally consulted with the "Eagle" (i.e. the Entity out there
with limitless consciousness, which sounds pretty much like "God") through a link that in the
west is ignorantly dismissed as "intuition". This to remark that the big decisions must not
rely entirely on the rational part, because it is too prone to make mistakes.
We all know who the adversary is: it's not the AZE (AngloZionist Empire) per se, it's who
rule the Empire. And what they are doing in Ukraine is pretty clear:
* The endgame is to carve another Poland from the Russian population, as a means to weaken
the Russian State. The steps are obvious and unfortunately, maybe definitive: zioimposed
religious schism, forceful and exclusive use of "Ukrainian" from 2020 on, denial to belong to
other country different from "Ukraine" (a patchwork assembled through land thefts).
Fortunately Russia recovered Crimea, and the mining/industrial regions are disputed, but the
Khazarians control 2 critical assets: the other coastal oblasts and the chernozem soils.
* Stating that Russia cannot absorb Novorossiya is bullsh¡t. Germany, a smaller economy
with no sovereign government could absorb the RDA. If Russia doesn't decide, the situation
will decide by itself. Russia is already receiving a lot of displaced Russians, plus tons of
Russians in Ukraine who became the source of cheap labor for Russian companies. And what
about the costs of humanitarian assistance and military support to Russians under the Ukraine
dictatorship? Let's say it takes 30 years to revert the decay, so what? Russia has been
around longer and has had successful comebacks under way more destruction.
* The Donbass people already decided twice, by clear majority of the popular vote, to become
part of the Russian Federation. The right thing to do is simply accepting them. Not doing so
sends the signal that no matter what the other southwestern Oblasts do, they will not be
accepted either. Russia should openly support the Russians in the southeast of Ukraine who
want to secede and reintegrate with the Russian Federation.
For example, financing a
reunification party, granting contracts and jobs to the Russian allies there, logistically
supporting a secession movement, even militarily, because the Khazarians will not let go
without bloodshed.
"... Thus, there is an objective reason to prefer Zelensky over Poroshenko, which is that Poroshenko is a major thief while Zelensky isn't one yet, but it must be understood that this difference will begin to equalize the moment after Zelensky's inauguration. In fact, the elites in Kiev are currently all aquiver over their ingenious plan to sell off all of Ukraine's land to foreign investors (no doubt pocketing a hefty "fee"). ..."
"... The platforms of all the 30+ candidates were identical, but this makes no difference in a country that has surrendered its sovereignty. In terms of foreign relations and strategic considerations, the Ukraine is run from the US embassy in Kiev. ..."
"... n terms of its internal functioning, the main prerogative of everyone in power, the president included, is thievery. Their idea is to get their cut and flee the country before the whole thing blows up. ..."
"... Another option would be for Poroshenko to cheat his way past the second round (in an even more heavy-handed manner, since this time he is behind by over 30%), in which case Zelensky could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would invalidate the entire election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather, rinse, repeat. Are you excited yet? ..."
"... None of this matters, because we don't know which of the two is the US State Department's pick. Depending on which one it is, and regardless of the results of any elections or lawsuits, a giant foot will come out of the sky and stomp on the head of the other one. ..."
The Saker: What is your take on the first round of Presidential elections in the
Ukraine?
Dmitry Orlov: The first round of the elections was an outright fraud. The object of the
exercise was to somehow allow president Poroshenko to make it into the second round. This was
done by falsifying as many votes as was necessary. In a significant number of precincts the
turnout was exactly 100% instead of the usual 60% or so and counted votes from people who had
moved, died or emigrated. All of these fake votes went to Poroshenko, allowing him to slither
through to the second round.
Now the fight is between Poroshenko and a comedian named Vladimir Zelensky. The only
difference between Poroshenko and Zelensky, or any of the other 30+ people who appeared on the
ballot, is that Poroshenko has already stolen his billions while his contestants have not had a
chance to do so yet, the only reason to run for president, or any elected office, in the
Ukraine, being to put oneself in a position to do some major thieving.
Thus, there is an objective reason to prefer Zelensky over Poroshenko, which is that
Poroshenko is a major thief while Zelensky isn't one yet, but it must be understood that this
difference will begin to equalize the moment after Zelensky's inauguration. In fact, the elites
in Kiev are currently all aquiver over their ingenious plan to sell off all of Ukraine's land
to foreign investors (no doubt pocketing a hefty "fee").
The platforms of all the 30+ candidates were identical, but this makes no difference in a
country that has surrendered its sovereignty. In terms of foreign relations and strategic
considerations, the Ukraine is run from the US embassy in Kiev. I
n terms of its internal
functioning, the main prerogative of everyone in power, the president included, is thievery.
Their idea is to get their cut and flee the country before the whole thing blows up.
It remains to be seen whether the second round of elections will also be an outright fraud
and what happens as a result. There are many alternatives, but none of them resemble any sort
of exercise in democracy. To be sure, what is meant by "democracy" in this case is simply the
ability to execute orders issued from Washington; inability to do so would make Ukraine an
"authoritarian regime" or a "dictatorship" and subject to "regime change." But short of that,
nothing matters.
The machinations of Ukraine's "democrats" are about as interesting to me as the sex lives of
sewer rats, but for the sake of completeness, let me flowchart it out for you. Poroshenko got
into second round by outright fraud, because the loss of this election would, within the
Ukrainian political food chain, instantly convert him from predator to prey. However, he was
none too subtle about it, there is ample proof of his cheating, and the contender he squeezed
out -- Yulia Timoshenko -- could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would
invalidate the entire election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather,
rinse, repeat.
Another option would be for Poroshenko to cheat his way past the second round (in an even
more heavy-handed manner, since this time he is behind by over 30%), in which case Zelensky
could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would invalidate the entire
election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather, rinse, repeat. Are you
excited yet?
None of this matters, because we don't know which of the two is the US State Department's
pick. Depending on which one it is, and regardless of the results of any elections or lawsuits,
a giant foot will come out of the sky and stomp on the head of the other one.
Of course, it
will all be made to look highly democratic for the sake of appearances. The leadership of the
EU will oblige with some golf claps while choking back vomit and the world will move on.
KIEV, April 17. /TASS/. The Ukrainian State Investigation Bureau launched a criminal case on
"the intentional surrender" of Crimea against Verkhovna Rada Speaker Andrei Paruby, Secretary
of the Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense Alexander Turchinov, former Prime
Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk and others, the Ukrainian law union Aver Lex told TASS on
Wednesday.
READ ALSO
Court finds Yanukovich not guilty of 'losing Crimea' -- attorney
"The State Investigation Bureau opened a criminal case on the intentional surrender of
Crimea, violent upheaval, treason and the organization of mass murders on the 'maidan' in
2014 by Ukraine's top officials, in particular by Arseny Yatsenyuk, Alexander Turchinov,
Andrei Paruby, [former head of Ukraine's Security Service] Valentin Nalivaichenko, [Verkhovna
Rada member] Sergei Pashinsky, [Permanent Representative to the UN] Yuri Sergeyev, [Kiev
Mayor] Vitaly Klichko, [head of the Freedom nationalist party] Oleg Tyagnibok, [former Acting
Defense Minister] Igor Tenyukh, [Prosecutor General] Yuri Lutsenko, [Defense Minister] Stepan
Poltorak and others," Aver Lex said.
Well after reading the entire piece, I must admit I'm not impressed
The main global dynamic right now is the Chinese industrial and economic juggernaut a
geopolitically resurgent Russia and the unraveling of the dollar dominated global financial
order
The problem with the west is not so much cultural as it is economic the west is a giant
Ponzi scheme that must ultimately collapse as all 'financialized' economies have collapsed
since the beginning of money as any careful reader of Michael Hudson can tell you
One morning we will wake up and the machine will be out of gas simple as that no money no
funny
That's why the rest of the world is moving toward a trading system that circumvents the
dollar, or any kind of so-called 'reserve' currency the US itself is shoving this process
forward by weaponizing trade and finance by means of sanctions gone wild
There does not need to be any kind of universal trading currency in the digital age it is
simply a matter of putting the settlement mechanisms in place and more important, bypassing
the HUMAN exchange networks now in place ie the old boys club through which dollar
denominated global trade now flows
Once these processes mature, there will be no way of perpetuating the western financial
Ponzi scheme it has crashed before most recently a decade ago but has been kept on life
support by negative interest rates, plus further impoverishment of the marginal class but
once the reserve currency is gone, and with it the ability to print free money the machine is
dead for good
At that point the west needs to earn its living the honest way that may be a tough
transition
"The media's interest in the well-being of a foreign population is directly proportional
to the West's interest in toppling its government, while editorial standards are inversely
proportional to its enemy status."--John McEvoy
So, lets employ this maxim to Russiagate and the Skripal Saga and the respective national
media. In the first case, the Russian public's completely ignored unless it's a member of the
so-called opposition while Putin and Russia get slandered constantly. The same treatment goes
for the UK media and a case could be made that the two act in tandem, implying
innerconnectivity between their spy agencies as suspected.
"... I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. ..."
"... Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power. ..."
"... American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government. ..."
"... If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!" ..."
"... I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them. ..."
"... She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect. ..."
"... furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition? ..."
"... Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words. ..."
Nothing will say more about who we are, across three American administrations -- one that demanded torture, one that covered it
up, and one that seeks to promote its bloody participants -- than whether Gina Haspel becomes director of the CIA.
Haspel oversaw the
torture of human beings in Thailand as the chief of a CIA black site in 2002. Since then, she's worked her way up to deputy director
at the CIA. With current director Mike Pompeo slated to move to Foggy Bottom, President Donald Trump has proposed Haspel as the Agency's
new head.
Haspel's victims waiting for death in Guantanamo cannot speak to us, though they no doubt remember their own screams as they were
waterboarded. And we can still hear former CIA officer
John Kiriakousay : "We did
call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because
they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."
It was Kiriakou who exposed the obsessive debate over the effectiveness of torture as false. The real purpose of torture conducted
by those like Gina Haspel was to seek vengeance, humiliation, and power. We're just slapping you now, she would have said in that
Thai prison, but we control you, and who knows what will happen next, what we're capable of? The torture victim is left to imagine
what form the hurt will take and just how severe it will be, creating his own terror.
Haspel won't be asked at her confirmation hearing to explain how torture works, but those who were waterboarded under her stewardship
certainly could.
I met my first torture victim in Korea, where I was adjudicating visas for the State Department. Persons with serious criminal
records are ineligible to travel to the United States, with an exception for dissidents who have committed political crimes. The
man I spoke with said that under the U.S.-supported military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee he was tortured for writing anti-government
verse. He was taken to a small underground cell. Two men arrived and beat him repeatedly on his testicles and sodomized him with
one of the tools they had used for the beating. They asked no questions. They barely spoke to him at all.
Though the pain was beyond his ability to describe, he said the subsequent humiliation of being left so utterly helpless was what
really affected his life. It destroyed his marriage, sent him to the repeated empty comfort of alcohol, and kept him from ever putting
pen to paper again. The men who destroyed him, he told me, did their work, and then departed, as if they had others to visit and
needed to get on with things. He was released a few days later and driven back to his apartment by the police. A forward-looking
gesture.
The second torture victim I met was while I was stationed in Iraq. The prison that had held him was under the control of shadowy
U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. Inside, masked men bound him at the wrists and ankles and hung him upside-down. He said they
neither asked him questions nor demanded information. They did whip his testicles with a leather strap, then beat the bottoms of
his feet and the area around his kidneys. They slapped him. They broke the bones in his right foot with a steel rod, a piece of rebar
ordinarily used to reinforce concrete.
It was painful, he told me, but he had felt pain before. What destroyed him was the feeling of utter helplessness, the inability
to control things around him as he once had. He showed me the caved-in portion of his foot, which still bore a rod-like indentation
with faint signs of metal grooves.
Gina Haspel is the same as those who were in the room with the Korean. She is no different than those who tormented the Iraqi.
As head of a black site, Haspel had sole authority to halt the questioning of suspects, but she allowed torture to continue.
New information
and a redaction of earlier reporting that said Haspel was present for the waterboarding and torture of Abu Zubaydah (she was
actually the station chief at the black site after those sessions) makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture
of all of the prisoners there, but pay it little mind. The confusion arises from the government's refusal to tell us what Haspel
actually did as a torturer. So many records have yet to be released and those that have been are heavily redacted. Then there are
the tapes of Zubaydah's waterboarding, which Haspel later pushed to have destroyed.
Arguing over just how much blood she has in her hands is a distraction from the fact that she indeed has blood on her hands.
Gina Haspel is now eligible for the CIA directorship because Barack Obama did not prosecute anyone for torture; he merely signed
an executive order banning it in the future. He did not hold any truth commissions, and ensured that almost all government documents
on the torture program remained classified. He did not prosecute the CIA officials who destroyed videotapes of the torture scenes.
Obama ignored the truth that sees former Nazis continue to be hunted some 70 years after the Holocaust: that those who do evil
on behalf of a government are individually responsible. "I was only following orders" is not a defense of inhuman acts. The purpose
of tracking down the guilty is to punish them, to discourage the next person from doing evil, and to morally immunize a nation-state.
To punish Gina Haspel "more than 15 years later for doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told
were lawful orders, would be a travesty and a disgrace,"
claims one of
her supporters. "Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well,"
said Michael Hayden,
who headed the CIA during the height of the Iraq war from 2006-2009.
Influential people in Congress agree. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will soon review
Haspel's nomination,
said , "I know Gina personally and she has the right skill set, experience, and judgment to lead one of our nation's most critical
agencies."
"She'll have to answer for that period of time, but I think she's a highly qualified person,"
offered Senator
Lindsey Graham. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson
defended Haspel's
actions, saying they were "the accepted practice of the day" and shouldn't disqualify her.
His fellow Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, signaled her likely acceptance,
saying , "Since my concerns were raised over the torture situation, I have met with her extensively, talked with her She has
been, I believe, a good deputy director." Senator Susan Collins
added that Haspel "certainly has the expertise and experience as a 30-year employee of the agency." John McCain, a victim of
torture during the Vietnam War,
mumbled only that Haspel would have to explain her role.
Nearly alone at present, Republican Senator Rand Paul says he will
oppose Haspel's nomination. Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, have told Trump she is unsuitable and will
likely also vote no.
Following World War II, the United States could have easily executed those Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, or thrown them
into some forever jail on an island military base. It would have been hard to find anyone who wouldn't have supported brutally torturing
them at a black site. Instead, they were put on public trial at Nuremberg and made to defend their actions as the evidence against
them was laid bare. The point was to demonstrate that We were better than Them.
Today we refuse to understand what Haspel's victims, and the Korean writer, and the Iraqi insurgent, already know on our behalf:
unless Congress awakens to confront this nightmare and deny Gina Haspel's nomination as director of the CIA, torture will have transformed
us and so it will consume us. Gina Haspel is a torturer. We are torturers. It is as if Nuremberg never happened.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.
Covering up torture is quite possibly the worst thing Obama did. (I'd put it neck-and-neck with targeted killing.) This nation
desperately needs a president who will expose all of these horrors, and appoint an attorney general who will prosecute these acts
as war crimes.
Trump likes waterboarding. He said so himself. One assumes he meant, being a whimpering coward himself, when someone else does
it to someone else. But who knows? Enjoy judge Gorsuch.
"doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders"
To complete the parallel, we would need to prosecute and punish those who asked her to do it, and those who told her those
orders were lawful. Instead, some are doing paintings of their toes, some are promoted to be Federal judges, and some are influential
professors at "liberal" law schools. Why punish *only* her?
I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation.
Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. I am in full support of Mr. Van Buren's thesis. However, Pro Publica, which seems
to have been the source of much reporting of Haspel's torture record, has retracted the claim that Haspel had tortured in Thailand.
Mr. Van Buren quotes another source from his blog that supports the thesis that Haspel is a torturer. How does one know what to
believe? Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate
and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of
Power.
Its because we lost our sense of what makes us who we are. We are an empire that dances for private interests. In Rome they were
called families and led by patricians, they had money private guards, gladiators, and even street people supporting them. In the
Modern USA they are called Interest Groups and/or Corporations. They are lead by CEOs and instead of gladiators they have Lawyers.
Our being better matters less then their own squabbles which is why a torturer could reach the highest seat in intel. The majority
of Americans have lost their sense of being Americans instead they are Republicans, Democrats, etc, etc. Things that once use
to be part of an American have come to define us.
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always
virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military
governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."
At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs.
When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human.
Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in
the neighborhood of following international law.
CIA has purposefully refused to disclose Haspel's role for a decade+ They have selectively released information last week to discredit
those criticizing her. I don't think we should play their game, letting them set the agenda. Instead, I declaim torture itself
and any role she played in it, whether she poured the water or kept the books.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?
In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie
(Martine McCutcheon):
"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? –
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do – the SAS are absolutely charming – ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."
It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that – in reality – the security services have
the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.
Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect
Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even
for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.
Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing
of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against
Trump:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful
place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America
will triumph over you."
Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this:
"Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must
necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.
After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?
New information makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners at her black site, but pay it little
mind. The confusion is because the government refuses to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. Arguing over just how
much blood she has on her hands is a distraction when she indeed has blood on her hands.
The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency. If the
Agency wishes to clarify her role, as was done via trial for the various Nazis at Nuremberg, we can deal with her actions more
granularly.
Since we have not had any more successful attacks on the scale of 9-11, it is very easy to be scrupulous regarding rough treatment
of terrorists.
But if we had suffered a dozen or more such attacks, of increasing magnitude and maybe involving nuclear weapons, how many
of you would still be condemning Mrs Haspel et al.? Or would you then be complaining they had not used water-boarding enough?
The 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, was caught weeks before 9-11. Investigators figured out he was up to no good, tried
to get permission to search his computer, but were denied. The U.S. Government carefully protected his privacy rights. So are
you pleased with the outcome, Mr van Buren?
I'm sorry – this whole piece is a massive non sequitur. Ms. Haspel has no 'blood' on her hands as US extreme interrogation techniques
(sleep deprivation, uncomfortable positions, waterboarding) didn't draw any. They are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating
the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones. US techniques might have been bad policy – won't argue – but lets not fall
for a false equivalency.
Ms. Haspel was an agent of her government, acting on it's orders under it's policies and guidelines. Which leads to
Nuremberg. The Nuremberg tribunals (they were military tribunals – not trials) were conducted by a victorious military force
against a defeated military force. They were widely criticized as vengeance even by such august people as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court Stone and associate Justice Douglas. There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the
United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government.
And lastly there's this from a comment of the authors: "The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient
to disqualify her from heading the Agency." Utter nonsense. That was the mission of the Agency at that time. It's like saying
a 33yr old Drone Pilot who takes out an ISIS/Al Qaida operative as well as 15 civilians is disqualified to be the Sec Def 2 decades
later.
If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth
that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!"
We demonize Russia at every opportunity, but I don't see Russia rewarding torturers by appointing them to high office.
I didn't know too much about this woman's background until I read that Rand Paul opposes her nomination. I tend to take notice
whenever Rand Paul holds forth on any subject. All I can say is that if her actual record even approximates what has been alleged,
then this woman is unfit for the post–Nuremberg or no Nuremberg.
"As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them." Oh, -PLEASE-, spare us the hyperbole! WE burn alive captives held
in cages? WE saw off their heads?
Thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape
(S.E.R.E.) training programs.
All of the torturers should be brought to justice. So should all of the officials who ordered or authorized torture.
There is no statute of limitations on capital Federal crimes. For a U.S. citizen to kill via torture is a capital Federal crime,
no matter where the torture took place. If statutes of limitations make it too late to prosecute some acts of torture, it is not
too late to bring about some measure of justice by making torturers pariahs. As many sexual harassers have recently learned, there
is no statute of limitations in the court of public opinion.
The story linking her to torture has been formally retracted. She had nothing to do with torture anywhere. How about a retraction
of this story and an apology.
I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School
of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know
better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them.
Personally,
I prefer that the cruelty should be, as Lincoln once put it, "unalloyed by the base metal of hypocrisy"
bob sykes: you should read Pro Publica's retraction (
https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture
) of the claim that Haspel was in charge of the Thai black site when Abu Zubaydeh was tortured. She was put in charge there
not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding
at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect.
Winston: why do you suppose "thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion,
Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs"? Is it not to prepare them for the possibility of what we call torture when
used by our adversaries?
furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals,
pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states "
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition?
Wilfred, the problem was not that the Feds protected Zacarias Moussaoui's right to privacy. The problem is that it let any of
the 20 Arab Muslims into the US in the first place. Closing our borders and mass deportations would have been the best thing to
do in the aftermath of 9/11, not torture and invasions.
Very well put. Lest we forget: Bush also delivered the stern warning that "war crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be
punished, and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."
Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter
and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be
considered in the contexts of these words.
Chris Mallory (Mar 19 @1:47 p.m.), I agree with you. We shouldn't be letting them in.
But if someone had sneaked-a-peek at Moussaoui's laptop during the 3 weeks they had him before 9-11, we might have been able
to thwart the attack altogether. (And the Press has been strangely incurious about investigating whoever it was who issued the
injunction protecting Moussie's precious computer). This type of hand-wringing cost us 3,000 lives. Even more, considering the
Afghan & 2nd Iraq wars would never have been launched, were it not for 9-11.
You're right. I see people like Robert Kagan's opinions being respectfully asked on foreign affairs, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams
being hired to direct our foreign policy.
The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and
flourishing careers. Now they're angling for war with Iran.
It's preposterous and sickening. And it can't be allowed to stand, so you can't just stand off and say you're "wrecked". Keep
fighting, as you're doing. I will fight it until I can't fight anymore.
Fact-bedeviled JohnT: “McCain was a problem for this nation? Sweet Jesus! There quite simply is no rational adult on the planet
who buys that nonsense.”
McCain had close ties to the military-industrial complex. He was a backer of post-Cold War NATO. He was a neoconservative darling.
He never heard of a dictator that he didn’t want to depose with boots on the ground, with the possible exception of various Saudi
dictators (the oil-weaponry-torture nexus). He promoted pseudo-accountability of government in campaign finance but blocked accountability
for the Pentagon and State Department when he co-chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs with John
Kerry.
And, perhaps partly because of the head trauma and/or emotional wounds he suffered at the hands of Chinese-backed Commies,
it’s plausible to think he was regarded by the willy-nilly plotters of the deep state as a manipulable, and thus useful, conduit
of domestic subversion via the bogus Steele dossier.
Unfortunately, the episode that most defines McCain’s life is the very last one–his being a pawn of M-16 in the the deep state’s
years-long attempt to derail the presidency of Donald Trump.
Measuring success means determining goals. The goals of most wars is to enrich the people in charge. So, by this metric, the war
was a success. The rest of it is just props and propaganda.
“Pyrrhic Victory” look it up the Roman Empire Won but lost if the US is invaded and the government does not defend it I would
like to start my own defense: But the knee jerk politics that stirs America’s cannon fodder citizens is a painful reminder of
a history of jingoist lies where at times some left and right agree at least for a short moment before the rich and powerful push
their weight to have their way.
If All politics is relative Right wingers are the the left of what? Nuclear destruction? or Slavery?
My goodness! I am also a veteran, but of the Vietnam war, and my father was a career officer from 1939-1961 as a paratrooper first,
and later as an intelligence officer. He argued vigorously against our Vietnam involvement, and was cashiered for his intellectual
honesty. A combat veteran’s views are meaningless when the political winds are blowing.
Simply put, we have killed thousands of our kids in service of the colonial empires left to us by the British and the French
after WWII. More practice at incompetent strategies and tactics does not make us more competent–it merely extends the blunders
and pain; viz the French for two CENTURIES against the Britsh during the battles over Normandy while the Planagenet kings worked
to hold their viking-won inheritance.
At least then, kings risked their own lives. Generals fight because the LIKE it…a lot. Prior failures are only practice to
the, regardless of the cost in lives of the kids we tried to raise well, and who were slaughtered for no gain.
We don’t need the empire, and we certainly shouldn’t fight for the corrupt businessmen who have profited from the never-ending
conflicts. Let’s spend those trillions at home, so long as we also police our government to keep both Democrat and Republican
politicians from feathering their own nests. Term limits and prosecutions will help us, but only if we are vigilant. Wars distract
our attention while corruption is rampant at home.
Thanks, I appreciate this article.
I’ll make two points, my own opinion:
it’s the same story as Vietnam, the bull about how the politicians or anti-war demonstrators tied the military ‘hand,’ blah, blah.
Nonsense. Invading a nation and slaughtering people in their towns, houses…gee…what’s wrong with that, eh?
The average American has a primitive mind when it comes to such matters.
Second point I have, is that both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Trump should be dragged to a world court, given a fair trial
and locked up for life with hard labor… oh, and Cheney too,for all those families, in half a dozen nations, especially the children
overseas that suffered/died from these creeps.
And, the families of dead or maimed American troops should be apologized to and compensation paid by several million dollars to
each.
The people I named above make me sick, because I have feelings and a conscience. Can you dig?
Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it.
Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain.
America’s wars are prosecuted by a military that includes Christians. They seldom question the killing their country orders
them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. Is that a safe assumption for them to make? German
Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed,
including the chaplains. (The Southern Baptist Convention declared the invasion of Iraq a just war in 2003.) These wars need to
be assessed by Just War criteria. Christian soldiers need to know when to exercise selective conscientious objection, for it is
better to go to prison than to kill without God’s approval. If Just War theory is irrelevant, the default response is Christian
Pacifism.
“Iraq Wrecked” a lot of innocent people. Millions are dead, cities reduced to rubble, homes and businesses destroyed and it was
all a damned lie. And the perpetrators are Free.
Now there is sectarian violence too, where once there was a semblance of harmony amongst various denominations. See article link
below.
“Are The Christians Slaughtered in The Middle East Victims of the Actions of Western War Criminals and Their Terrorist Supporting
NATO ‘Allies’”?
We are a globalist open borders and mass immigration nation. We stand for nothing. To serve in this nation’s military is very
stupid. You aren’t defending anything. You are just a tool of globalism. Again, we don’t secure our borders. That’s a very big
give away to what’s going on.
If our nation’s military really was an American military concerned with our security we would have secured our border after 9/11,
reduced all immigration, deported ALL muslims, and that’s it. Just secure the borders and expel Muslims! That’s all we needed
to do.
Instead we killed so many people and imported many many more Muslims! And we call this compassion. Its insane.
Maybe if Talibans get back in power they will destroy the opium. You know, like they did when they were first in power…. It seems
that wherever Americans get involved, drugs follow…
“Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very
structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In Eisenhower’s televised farewell address January 17, 1961.
Rational thought would lead one to believe such words from a fellow with his credentials would have had a useful effect. But it
didn’t. In point of fact, in the likes of Eric Prince and his supporters the notion of war as a profit center is quite literally
a family affair.
The military-industrial complex couldn’t accomplish this all by its lonesome self. The deep state was doing its thing. The two
things overlap but aren’t the same. The deep state is not only or mainly about business profits, but about power. Power in the
world means empire, which requires a military-industrial complex but is not reducible to it.
We now have a rare opportunity to unveil the workings of the deep state, but it will require a special counsel, and a lengthy
written report, on the doings in the 2016 election of the FBI (Comey, Strzok, et. al.), and collaterally the CIA and DIA (Brennan
and Clapper). Also the British government (M-16), John McCain, and maybe Bush and Obama judges on the FISA courts.
"... The U.S. alone expelled 60 Russian officials. Trump was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year ago the Washington Post described the scene: ..."
"... Today the New York Times portraits Gina Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position. They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its own purpose: ..."
"... Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives. ..."
"... Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option. ..."
"... If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked. ..."
"... The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to manipulate him: ..."
"... The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own policies. ..."
"... The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma all agency owned men. ..."
"... The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead. ..."
"... It is interesting to see that nations that have traditionally been pro-American feel that the threat posed by American power is growing. ..."
"... Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter. ..."
"... Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn, completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold for their putative boss. ..."
"... Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War. ..."
"... after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the msm will not be talking about integrity initiative.. ..."
"... once Teresa May has spoken in Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative version of the truth is possible. ..."
"... Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger one to blame the Russians. ..."
"... The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about both. ..."
"... Haspel will not be fired. ..."
"... It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). .. ..."
"... The actors in government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. ..."
An ass kissing portrait of Gina Haspel,
torture
queen and director of the CIA, reveals that she lied to Trump to push for more
aggression against Russia.
In March 2018 the British government asserted, without providing any evidence, that the
alleged 'Novichok' poisoning of Sergej and Yulia Skripal was the fault of Russia. It urged
its allies to expel Russian officials from their countries.
The U.S. alone expelled
60 Russian officials. Trump
was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year
ago the Washington Post described the scene:
President Trump seemed distracted in March as his aides briefed him at his Mar-a-Lago
resort on the administration's plan to expel 60 Russian diplomats and suspected spies.
The United States, they explained, would be ousting roughly the same number of
Russians as its European allies -- part of a coordinated move to punish Moscow for the
poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil.
"We'll match their numbers," Trump instructed, according to a senior administration
official. "We're not taking the lead. We're matching."
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials
said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian
officials -- far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on.
The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely
equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the
media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia.
The expulsion marked a turn in the Trump administration's relation with Russia:
The incident reflects a tension at the core of the Trump administration's increasingly
hard-nosed stance on Russia: The president instinctually opposes many of the punitive
measures pushed by his Cabinet that have crippled his ability to forge a close
relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The past month, in particular, has marked a major turning point in the
administration's stance, according to senior administration officials. There have been
mass expulsions of Russian diplomats, sanctions on oligarchs that have bled billions of
dollars from Russia's already weak economy and, for the first time, a presidential tweet
that criticized Putin by name for backing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Today the New York Timesportraits Gina
Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position.
They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her
shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its
own purpose:
Last March, top national security officials gathered inside the White House to discuss
with Mr. Trump how to respond to the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal,
the former Russian intelligence agent.
London was pushing for the White House to expel dozens of suspected Russian
operatives, but Mr. Trump was skeptical. ... During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump.
She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told
the president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not
the only victims of Russia's attack.
Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals.
She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently
killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but
pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the
pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he
embraced the strong option.
The Skripal case was widely covered and we
followed it diligently (scroll down). There were no reports of any children affected by
'Novichok' nor were their any reports of dead ducks. In the official storyline the
Skripals, before visiting a restaurant,
fed bread to ducks at a pond in the Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury.
They also
gave duck-bread to three children to do the same. The children were examined and their
blood was tested.
No
poison was found and none of them fell ill . No duck died. (The duck feeding episode
also disproves
the claim that the Skripals were poisoned by touching a door handle.)
If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British
government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced
policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked.
The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were
fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to
manipulate him:
The outcome was an example, officials said, of how Ms. Haspel is one of the few people
who can get Mr. Trump to shift position based on new information.
Co-workers and friends of Ms. Haspel push back on any notion that she is manipulating
the president. She is instead trying to get him to listen and to protect the agency,
according to former intelligence officials who know her.
The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own
policies. Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game:
Ms. Haspel won the trust of Mr. Pompeo, however, and has stayed loyal to him. As a
result, Mr. Trump sees Ms. Haspel as an extension of Mr. Pompeo, a view that has helped
protect her, current and former intelligence officials said.
Posted by b on April 16, 2019 at 08:37 AM |
Permalink
I don't see how it's possible to manipulate someone (and especially the US president) into
doing something they don't want to do with lies like the ones described here. On the
contrary presidents, CEOs etc. favor the staffers who tell them the kind of lies they want
to hear in order to reinforce what they wanted to do in the first place.
I've never seen any reason to alter my first position on Trump, that like any other
president he does what he wants to do.
The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create
trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life
with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma
all agency owned men.
The joke 7in the final scene Robert Redford tells See Eye A man Cliff Robertson that he
gave all the evidence to the NY Times. What a joke. The NY Times and the Wash Post are the
mouthpieces for the SEE Eye A. The AP news sources most of their stories from those two
papers and other lackey See Eye A newspapers.
One final criticism in moon's story. The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the
President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead.
After this, she got the top job, so what is the real lesson here? Sociopathic liars get
promoted....or you can tell the truth, try to be honorable and fade into obscurity.. In a nest of psychos, you have to really be depraved to become the top psycho...
Nuke it for orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
Backing up Russ's point, when will you realise the "buck stops" on Trump's desk for any
and all departments he oversees, which are run by his appointees? Trump is dedicated to
creating a neoconservative foreign policy melded to a neoliberal economic policy favouring
his corporate fascist sponsors. Recently, you've been all over the Assange indictment,
Trump's relationship with Nuttyahoo and the related rollback of JCPOA. Is this what you
want to see continued into a second term?
There is much evidence to show Trump and the GOP working steadily towards a "democracy"
where Congress is castrated (one might say the system castrates Congress anyway), opposing
candidates are jailed, opposition votes are suppressed and the media is weakened to the
point where no one can tell the difference.
They haven't got there quite yet but once the judiciary is controlled by GOP ideologues
it's game over. And McConnell is dedicating his life to make that the reality ASAP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch we are dedicated to knocking down any and all potential
opposition to this GOP hostile takeover for some reason I've yet to fathom.
Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire
Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game[Pompeo]
Hopefully yes to all four propositions. Why am I sceptical though (except conceivably
the first)?
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. He's the first POTUS in decades I
believe to not even pretend to like dogs by having an official White House dog and every
policy his Administration can take against animals, they have taken. I'm not even sure I
buy the spin that he cared about dead kids either. And NYT readers know this about him, so
I don't understand what the point of peddling this fiction is other than to paint Torture
Queen in some kind of good light (and we KNOW that she certainly doesn't care about dead
anything).
another example of trump's stupidity and pathological inability to think for himself. he
gets his views from fox and his policy from bolton. his equally vapid daughter and kushner
whine to him about sooper sad syria pictures they saw in a sponsored link while googling
for new tmz gossip.
even worse that this is the twat in charge of one of russiagate's main instigating "deep
state" agencies. he spent the entirety of his presidency railing against their various lies
then takes this wankery at face value. it's just like the "chinese soldiers in venezuela";
if those pictures were legit they'd have been splattered over every front page and
permanently attached to screeching cnn and msnbc segments demanding trump "finally get
tough" on "putin's russia".
my only surprise is that she didn't tell him about british babies ripped from incubators
and dipped in anthrax powder.
the nyt shilling for a soCIopAth? not that surprising.
The consultant in emergency medicine at Salisbury hospital wrote to The Times, shortly
after the Skripal incident. His choice of words was odd, and some have said they indicate
no novichok poisoning occurred. Leaving that to one side, his letter certainly puts paid to
the idea that more than three people (the Skripals and the policeman, DCI Bailey) were
poisoned.
https://www.onaquietday.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DocSaysNoNerveAgentInSalisbury.jpg
" the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal, "
There was no attack on the Skripals. or on anyone else.
The Russophobia in whose context it falls, is of a higher order, in which a fabricated
narrative of a Skripal-like attack had an important function.
The Skripals were perfectly happy to lend their name to the fabrication, and are living
happily, probably in New Zealand.
The Daily Beast article that b linked to describes how many serious, well-informed people
felt that Haspel was unsuitable to lead the CIA. Even more strange and troubling was that Haspel was supported by Trump's nemesis,
John Brennan.
Despite all that, MAGA Trump still nominated her. Any notion that Trump is at odds with, or "manipulated" by, Haspel, Bolton, or Pompeo is
just propaganda. We've seen such reporting before (esp. wrt Bolton) and Trump has taken no
action.
I see that Trump derangement is alive and well here at MoA. Commenters talk as if Trump is
the first president stupid enough to be manipulated by the security agencies and shadow
government sometimes referred to as a "deep state". People don't have to be historians or
look back to Rome, just read the books about how the great general who "won WWII" was used
by the oligarchy which had full control of US foreign policy throughout Eisenhower's term in
office.
Works produced after WWII, C. Wright Mills, The Power elite was written in 1956,The
Brothers and The Divil's Chessboard each about the Dulles Brothers and how they operated US
foreign policy for the interests of the oligarchy, and the work Peter Phillips, GIANTS: The
Global Power Elite and the work of David Rothkopf which thoroughly describes the feudal
system under which the Western cultures are ruled.
The US government is a pantomime it is a show it has no power.
How many here can honestly say they understand that the US dollar itself and the ENTIRE
GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM is privately owned. Why do you think the "banks were bailed out"?
because the banks were in power not the government. The US is 22 trillion in debt - the
oligarchy is the creditor - take over the US gov. and you have a powerless pile of
debt.
Around 6,000 people control 85% of global assets until that changes nothing will change.
The oligarchy won virtually all the mines and control the price of all basic commodities
necessary for modern life, the internet, oil of course and more.
What is failing and what has failed over and over for 500 years is Western Civilization and
its three "great religions" which preach obedience, oppression, domination by a one god
suffocating mythology.
But the oligarchy doesn't own just the basic commodities, it owns the religions and it owns
the drugs and all illegal trade as well.
Western "civilization" is really nothing more than one vast feudal kingdom, with royal
courts in DC, Tel Aviv and Ryiadh. Wheather there is a god or not, religion is made of
flesh and blood not miracles. No Rabbi or Priest or Imam claims visitations by god to
instruct them on doctrine - they are flesh and blood and they want power so they behave
like sycophants to the money they need to expand their power...all for the good souls under
their care.
Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired
to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more
likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter.
What can we expect from a tv personality who became a US president? A man who ran with an
advertisement worthy of a business man like him, "Make America Great Again." How does he go
about doing it? Giving more money to the military industrial-Congressional complex, even
though we are really flat broke. Using aggressive tactics used by Wall Street in hostile
company takeovers to really intimidate other nations. And hire and place those he really
agrees with in important positions who really reflect his true feelings. I'm sure when he
spoke with Haspel before offering her the job, he brought up the topic of torture and
agreed with her on its use on terrorists.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that they conspired not to stop Trump but
to further speculation of Trump's "collusion" with Russia (what would later be known as
Russiagate). The "collusion" and "Russia meddled" accusations are what fueled the new
McCarthyism.
I'll just add to Jerry's comment at #3 that the final line in the movie "Day of the Condor"
is something like "But will they print it?" which really spoke to the message of the film
in its entirety. The condor being an endangered bird for whom the hero is named, and the
beginning outrage being the brutal murder of book lovers researching useable plot details
for the 'company'makes this message current and applicable to what we see in the Skripal
case. And instead of librarians, we now have online commenters, a doughty breed, and we
have Assange.
Instead of 'Will they print it?' I am wondering 'Will they make another movie about
it?'
Remind me, where is Yulia Skripal these days? Well and truly 'disappeared' it seems. The
mask is off. the snarling face of the beast is there for all to see.
What a total waste of an article discussing a story published in NYT or WaPo.
b, the World has divided itself into those who consume alternative media such as this
and stupidos who consume MSM. There is nothing in-between that you are attempting to
discuss and dissect here. NYT = cognitive value zero.
Fake News not worth one millisecond of our time, not even to decode what the regime
wants us to know, we know all that already. Personally, I am only interested in the new
methods of domestic repression, what is next after the warning of Assange arrest, future
rendition and torture. The Deep Stare appears to be coming out into open, will it soon get
rid of the whole faux democracy construct and just use iron fist to rule? It already impose
its will as the rule of law. All of the Western block is heading in this direction.
Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn,
completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its
contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold
for their putative boss.
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. Mataman | Apr 16, 2019 9:45:30 AM
This assumes that Trump would primarily care about the ducks (and children) when he
approved a massive expulsion, rather that his image and "ah, in that case it would look bad
if we do not do something really decisive".
In any case, I was thinking why NYT would disclose something like that. The point is
that readers of Craig Murray (not so few, but mostly Scottish nationalists who are also
leftist and have scant possibilities and/or inclination to vote in USA) and MoonOfAlabama
would quickly catch a dead fish here, but 99.9% of the public is blissfully unaware of any
incongruences in the "established" Skripal narrative.
BTW, it is possible that the journalist who scribbled fresh yarn obtained from CIA did it
earnestly. Journalists do not necessarily follow stories that they cover -- scribbling from
given notes does not require overtaxing the precious attention span that can be devoted to
more vital cognitive challenges. I am lazy to find the link, but while checking for news on
Venezuela, I stumbled on a piece from Express, a British tabloid, where Guaido was named a
"figurehead of the oposition" supported by "450 Western countries". My interpretation was
that more literate journalists were moved for to more compelling stories as Venezuela went
to the back burner.
Yes, indeed, the Skripal Affair is one of the obviously contrived stunts we've seen.
Just outrageous in its execution. On a par with the US having a man who didn't even run for president of Venezuela swear
himself in and then pressure everyone to accept him as president.
Interesting, I had no idea Gina Haspel - aka, The Queen of Blood - played a role. I
thought it was all original dirty work by Britain's Theresa May. Boy, I hope people are through with the false notion that if women just get into
leadership, the world will become a better gentler place.
Macron was (afaik?) the only EU 'leader' who was quoted in the MSM as bruiting re. the
Skripal affair a message like:
.. no culpability in the part of Russia has been evidenced .. for now...
I suppose he was enjoined to shut his gob right quick (have been reading about brexit so
brit eng) as nothing more in that line was heard.
Hooo, the EU expelled a lot of Russ. diplomats, obeying the USuk, which certainly
created some major upsets on the ground.
Some were expelled, went into other jobs, other places, but then others arrived, etc.
The MSM has not made any counts - lists - of names numbers - etc. of R diplos on the job -
anywhere. As some left and then others arrived.
Once more, this was mostly a symbolic move, if extremely nasty, insulting, and
disruptive.
Theresa May's speech re. Novichok, Independent 14 March 2018:
.. on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability,
combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including
against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK
Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and
despicable act. ..
imo, the media has, once again, simply taken its lead from trump himself, & started
making things up completely. & you're absolutely correct in pointing out that, much
like trump's true believers, the msm's targeted audience never even notices...
Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY
Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of
which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power
sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter
hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War.
after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the
msm will not be talking about integrity initiative..
what i didn't know is what @18 lysias pointed out.."Haspel was CIA station chief in
London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In
her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it.
That Brennan supported her argues for the latter." ditto jr's speculation @20 too...
so gaspel shows trump some cheap propaganda that she got from who??
my main problem with b's post - i tend to see it like kiza @23) is maintaining the idea
trump isn't in on all of this.. the thought trump is being duped by his underlings.. if he
was and it mattered, he would get rid of them.. the fact he doesn't says to me, he is in on
it - get russia, being the 24/7 game plan of the west here still..
Please stop listening to idiot libertarians and their "US is flat broke" meme.
The reality is that: so long as Americans transact in dollars, the United States government
can tax anytime it feels like by issuing new dollars via the Fed.
Equally, so long as 60% of the world's trade is conducted in dollars, this is tens to
hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxation surface area.
The MMT people - I don't agree 100% with everything they say, but they do understand the
actual operation of fiat currency.
The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion to
hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that currency
devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy.
I doubt Haspel knew the ducks were fake - she was probably just given stuff to pass up
the chain.
It is a lot like John Kerry who was shown convincing satellite data of the BUK launch that
hit MH17 - but no one could be bothered to pass on even the launch site coordinates to the
JIT. I'm sure this stuff goes on all the time, and of course, once Teresa May has spoken in
Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative
version of the truth is possible.
Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to
get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might
have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger
one to blame the Russians.
The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both
originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about
both.
"The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion
to hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that
currency devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy."
The useful idiocy is most surprising among US farmers. In the 19th century they broadly
understood that fiat money was good for chronic low-wealth debtors like themselves, while
hard money was bad and a gold standard lethal. This was the basis of the Populist movement.
Nothing has changed financially, but today's farmers, and the low-wealth debtor class in
general, seem more likely to be goldbuggers than to have any knowledge of economics or of
their own political history.
karlof1 36
Once a faction becomes submerged in the Mammon theocracy and becomes nothing but
mercenary nihilists, thinking is no longer necessary or desirable, except to come up with
attractive, pseudo-plausible lies.
This certainly characterizes "the right" (including liberals), but they have no monopoly
on it. By now "the left" is nearly as thoughtless and instrumental on behalf of Mammon,
except to the extent that a few people are starting to really grapple with what it means to
have an intrinsically ecocidal and therefore suicidal civilization. That's really the only
thought frontier left, all else has been engulfed in Mammon, productionism, scientism and
technocracy.
I remind that Mussolini wasted his legislature.. 1 balmy after noon @ a roadside spot.
it made his government stronger.?
It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no
one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes
anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). ..
The actors in
government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the
rest of the world. Everyone in the government is covering for the behaviors of someone else
in government, the MSM has raised the price of a pencil to just under a million, stock
markets are bags of hot thin air, and everyone in side and outside of the centers of power
at all levels of government have lied thru their teeth so much that their teeth are melting
from the continuous flow of hot deceitful air.
Corrupt is now the only qualification for
political office, trigger happy screwball the only qualification for the police and the
military and . making progress is like trying to conduct a panty raid at a female nudist
camp.
John Anthony La Pietra , Apr 16, 2019 3:47:03 PM |
link
China has come out swinging after Mike Pompeo's three-day Latin
America tour in which the Secretary of State
publicly called out China for spreading "disorder" in Latin America alongside Russia.
Pompeo identified the two countries, both of which have over the past two months condemned US
efforts toward regime change in Venezuela, of backing failing investment projects that only
fuel corruption and undermine democracy, especially in Venezuela.
China's ambassador to Chile, Xu Bu, quickly lashed out in response to America's top diplomat
blaming China for Latin America's economic woes which first came last Friday while standing
alongside Chilean President Sebastian Pinera. Ambassador Xu told the Chilean
newspaper La Tercera : "Mr Pompeo has lost his mind."
Pompeo had asserted during his tour that Chinese investment and economic intervention in
Venezuela, now facing financial and infrastructural collapse amidst political turmoil, had
"helped destroy" the country and said Latin American leaders must therefore see who their "true
friend" is.
"China's bankrolling of the Maduro regime helped precipitate and prolong the crisis in that
country," Pompeo had stated , and further
described Maduro as "a power-hungry tyrant who has brought ruin to his country and to his
people".
"I think there's a lesson to be learned for all of us: China and others are being
hypocritical calling for non-intervention in Venezuela's affairs. Their own financial
interventions have helped destroy that country," Pompeo added.
China is Venezuela's biggest foreign creditor has provided up to $62bn in loans since 2007,
according to estimates.
The Chinese foreign ministry didn't hold back in its response: "For some time, some US
politicians have been carrying the same version, the same script of slandering China all over
the world , and fanning the flames and sowing discord everywhere," Ministry spokesman Lu Kang
said in a
Monday statement .
"The words and deeds are despicable. But lies are lies, even if you say it a thousand times,
they are still lies. Mr Pompeo, you can stop, " the spokesman said.
Hinting at Washington's Cold War era record of overthrowing governments in Latin America --
a longstanding tradition that can be traced all the way back to the Cold War, the statement
added: "The Latin American countries have good judgment about who is their true friend and who
is false, and who is breaking rules and making trouble," Lu said.
The Chinese Ambassador to Chile's remarks had also remotely invoked a continued Monroe
Doctrine mentality on the part of US officials, saying "Pompeo's body has entered the 21st
century but his mind remains in the 20th century, full of thoughts about hegemony and the cold
war ," Amb. Xu told La Tercera .
In addition to being the Maduro government's single largest creditor, China has recently
offered to help Venezuela with its failing power grid, after a series of devastating mass
outages over the past month has resulted in "medieval" conditions amidst an already collapsing
infrastructure. This as Pompeo and Bolton came close to positively celebrating the mass outages
as proof of the ineptness of the Maduro regime.
Beijing also recently denied it has deployed troops to Venezuela after media reports a week
ago cited online photos which appeared to show a Chinese military transport plane deployed to
Caracas.
Given how boldly and directly Chinese officials' Monday statements were, it appears
Beijing's patience with Pompeo is running thin, to the point of giving up on a positive avenue
with the White House, also amidst a broader trade war. It appears the proverbial gloves are
coming off.
China's ambassador Xu Bu is certainly correct that "Mr Pompeo has lost his mind" like the
rest of US supremacist elites. Another good example is the demented Nikki Haley. Then there
is Bolton that is in a class of his own.
Trump also hoped the Sisi meeting would re-invigorate his idea of an "Arab NATO", the
proposed Middle East Security Alliance (MESA), raised at the beginning of his Presidency. MESA
would, U.S. planners believed, align the Gulf Arab states -- particularly Saudi Arabia -- with
Jordan and Egypt to strategically balance and oppose Iran. Cairo cannot realistically support
such a position in black and white terms (neither can Qatar or Jordan, at this stage).
Cairo is actually open to improved relations with Iran, particularly because the Egyptian
Government feels less than secure that the current Saudi regime is stable and reliable.
Trump, during the White House meeting, strenuously attempted to support Saudi Arabia and
MbS, but received strong pushback from al-Sisi on that account.
The measure of Egypt's rejection of the U.S. pressure was indicated when al-Sisi,
immediately upon returning to Cairo on April 10, 2019, formally withdrew Egypt from MESA. Egypt
had very deliberately not sent a delegation to the MESA summit in Riyadh on April 8, 2019.
...
The ongoing belief in the U.S. that Egypt's defenses are existentially dependent on
Washington is something which Cairo cannot comprehend. Washington policy thinking is that Cairo
would obey U.S. diktat because it needed spare parts for U.S.-supplied equipment, or because it
so needed the relatively small contribution offered by the Camp David Accord aid payments.
The author says very little about Egypts relations with Syria. I remember when the US
agent Morsi tried to push Egypt to fight against Assad. Genral Al Sisi stopped this because
it would have torn also Egypt apart, especially the Army which has very friendly ties with
the Syrian army.
General Al Sisi and President Assad have something very basic in common. Both want to
preserve the culture of their countries which are multi religious, representing the
developments in these areas over thousands of years. AL Sisi was acting swiftly to protect
the Copts which is a christian religion, maybe the true birthplace of christianity. The copts
have deep roots in the old Egyptian religion. In a speech Al Sisi said that the copts are an
essential part of Egypt and that they are the link to Egypts great past.
You sure as hell can't say trump isn't trying! He just vetoed the Senate bill to end all
aid to continue the war on Yemen! What did Yemen ever do to us? Not a damn thing! His true
colors are shining more every day. His followers will say it's a trick! It's 4d chess! It's
disgusting!
The area around Venezuela is actually now the richest "oil region" in the world.
You know... I often ponder how must simpler and peaceful the world could and SHOULD be
were the ziombie United States not such a belligerent force. Our Founding Fathers would be
outrageously appalled at their descendants to whom they bequeathed responsibility for
maintaining and championing their original philosophy.
The question now is who in the Washington bureaucracy will take the blame for pushing
Trump to insist on actions by al-Sisi which any fundamental analysis of the situation points
to being infeasible and against Egypt's view of its own strategic interests.
i think the question now is whether Trump is such an idiot Zionist that he takes his
orders from Sheldon Adelson Bolt-on, and Pompous. MIGA.
Already answered,and the ***-whipping when he takes on Iran will be well deserved,no way
to
win short of using nukes. Iran is far too important to Russia and China for that to be
allowed. Logistics and demographics are not on the US's side, even the Pentagram wants
nothing to do with an actual war with Iran.
This is an interesting but probably way too simplistic view. The USA as a neoliberal
superpower can't change its course. It now depends and it turn needs to support all the
neoliberal empire superstructure no matter what. Or vanish as en empire. Which is not in
Washington and MIC or Wall Street interests.
So "Empire Uber Alles" is the current policy which will remain in place. Even a slight
deviation triggers the reaction of the imperial caste (Mueller witch hunt is one example,
although I do not understand why it lasted so long, as Trump folded almost instantly and became
just Bush III with the same set of neocons driving the USA foreign policy )
The internal logic of neoliberal empire is globalization -- enforcing opening of internal
markets of other countries for the US multinationals and banks. So the conflict with the
"nationalist" (as as neocon slur them "autocratic") states, which does not want to became the USA
vassals ( like the Russia and China ) is not the anomaly, but the logical consequence of the USA
status and pretenses as imperial center. Putin tried to establish some kind of détente
several time. He failed: "Carnage needs to be destroyed" is the only possible attitude and it
naturally created strong defensive reaction which in turn strains the USA resources.
Meantime the standard of living of workers and middle class dropped. While most of the drop
is attributable to neoliberalism redistribution of wealth up, part of it is probably is
attributable to the imperial status of the USA.
The USA neoliberal elite after 1991 became completely detached from reality (aka infected
with imperil hubris) and we have what we have.
Those 700 billions that went to Pentagon speak for themselves.
And in turn create the caste of imperial servants that are strongly interested in maintaining
the status quo and quite capable to cut short any attempts to change it. The dominance of neocons
(who are essentially lobbyists of MIC) in the Department of State is a nice illustration of this
mouse trap.
So the core reason of the USA current neocon foreign policy is demands and internal dynamics
of neoliberal globalization and MIC.
In other words, as Dani Rodik said "...today's Sino-American impasse is rooted in
"hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to foreign companies,
regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models."
The American foreign policy Blob's latest worry is that Venezuela's radical leftist
government is
reaching out to the Middle East for support against growing pressure from Washington.
Specifically, President Nicolás Maduro is reportedly trying to establish extensive
political and financial links with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his ally in Lebanon,
Hezbollah . The
latter has repeatedly condemned
U.S. policy towards Maduro , and already appears to have
shadowy economic ties to Caracas. There are indications that Maduro's regime may be
utilizing Hezbollah to launder funds from the illegal drug trade.
Washington's fear is that lurking behind an Assad-Hezbollah-Maduro alliance is America's
arch-nemesis, Iran, which has close relations with both Assad and Hezbollah. Tehran's apparent
objective would be to strengthen the Venezuelan regime, boost anti-U.S. sentiment in the
Western Hemisphere, and perhaps acquire some laundered money
from a joint Maduro-Hezbollah operation to ease the pain of U.S. economic sanctions
re-imposed following the Trump administration's repudiation of the nuclear deal.
Although Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah remain primarily concerned with developments in their
own region, the fear that they want to undermine Washington's power in its own backyard is not
unfounded. But U.S. leaders should ask themselves why such diverse factions would coalesce
behind that objective.
Advertisement
It is hardly the only example of this to emerge in recent years, and the principal cause
appears to be Washington's own excessively belligerent policies. That approach is driving
together regimes that have little in common except the need to resist U.S. pressure.
Washington's menacing posture undermines rather than enhances American security, and especially
in one case -- provoking an expanding entente between Russia and China -- it poses a grave
danger.
The current flirtation between Caracas and anti-American factions in the Middle East is not
the first time that American leaders have worried about collaboration among heterogeneous
adversaries. U.S. intelligence agencies and much of the foreign policy community warned for
years about cooperation between Iran
and North Korea over
both nuclear and ballistic missiletechnology
. During the Cold War, a succession of U.S. administrations expressed frustration and anger at
the de facto alliance between the totalitarian Soviet Union and democratic India. Yet the
underlying cause for that association was not hard to fathom. Both countries opposed U.S.
global primacy. India was especially uneasy about Washington's knee-jerk diplomatic and military support for
Pakistan , despite that country's history of dictatorial rule and aggression.
Alienating India was a profoundly unwise policy. So, too, has been Washington's longstanding
obsession with weakening and isolating Iran and North Korea. Those two countries have almost
nothing in common, ideologically, politically, geographically, or economically. One is a weird
East Asian regime based on dynastic Stalinism, while the other is a reactionary Middle East
Muslim theocracy. Without the incentive that unrelenting U.S. hostility provides, there is
little reason to believe that Tehran and Pyongyang would be allies. But Washington's vehemently
anti-nuclear policy towards both regimes, and the brutal economic sanctions that followed, have
helped cement a de facto alliance between two very strange bedfellows.
Iranian and North Korean leaders have apparently reached the logical conclusion that the
best way to discourage U.S. leaders from considering forcible regime change towards either of
their countries was to cooperate in strengthening their respective nuclear and missile
programs. Washington's
regime change wars , which ousted Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Moammar Gaddafi -- and
the unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Syria's Assad -- reinforced such fears.
The most worrisome and potentially deadly case in which abrasive U.S. behavior has driven
together two unlikely allies is the deepening relationship between Russia and China.
Washington's
"freedom of navigation" patrols in the South China Sea have antagonized Beijing, which has
extensive territorial claims in and around that body of water. Chinese protests have grown in
both number and intensity. Bilateral relations have also deteriorated because of Beijing's
increasingly aggressive posture toward Taiwan and
Washington's growing support for the island's de facto independence. The ongoing trade war
between the United States and China has only added to the animosity. Chinese leaders see
American policy as evidence of Washington's determination to continue
its status of primacy in East Asia, and they seek ways to undermine it.
Russia's grievances against the United States are even more pronounced. The expansion of
NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation, Washington's repeated trampling of Russian
interests in the Balkans and the Middle East, the imposition of economic sanctions in response
to the Crimea incident, the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear
Forces treaty,
U.S. arms sales to Ukraine , and other provocations have led to a new
cold war . Russia has moved to increase diplomatic,
economic, and even military cooperation with China. Beijing and Moscow appear to be
coordinating
policies on an array of issues,
complicating Washington's options .
Close cooperation between Russia and China is all the more remarkable given the extent of
their bitterly competing interests in Central Asia and elsewhere. A mutual fear of and anger
toward the United States, however, seems to have overshadowed such potential quarrels -- at
least for now.
There even appears to be a "grand collusion" of multiple U.S. adversaries forming. Both
Russia and China are increasing their economic links with
Venezuela , and Russia's military involvement with the Maduro regime is also on the rise.
Last month, Moscow dispatched two nuclear-capable bombers to Caracas
along with approximately 100 military personnel. The latter contingent's mission was to
repair and refurbish Venezuela's air defense system in light of Washington's menacing rhetoric.
That move drew a
sharp response from President Trump.
Moscow's policy toward the Assad government, Tehran, and Hezbollah has also become more
active and supportive. Indeed, Russia's military intervention in Syria, beginning in 2015, was
a
crucial factor in tilting the war in favor of Assad's forces, which have now regained
control over most of Syria. Washington is thus witnessing Russia getting behind two of its
major adversaries: Venezuela and an Iran-led coalition in the Middle East.
This is a classic example of
balancing behavior on the part of countries worried about a stronger power that pursues
aggression. Historically, weaker competitors face a choice when confronting such a power:
bandwagon or attempt to balance against that would-be hegemon. Some very weak nations may
have little choice but to cower and accept dependent status, but most midsize powers (and even
some small ones) will choose the path of defiance. As part of that balancing strategy, they
tend to seek any allies that might prove useful, regardless of differences. When the perceived
threat is great enough, such factors are ignored or submerged. The United States and Britain
did so when they formed the Grand Alliance with the totalitarian Soviet Union in World War II
to defeat Nazi Germany. Indeed, the American revolutionaries made common cause with two
reactionary autocracies, France and Spain, to win independence from Britain.
The current U.S. policy has produced an array of unpleasant results, and cries out for
reassessment. Washington has created needless grief for itself. It entails considerable
ineptitude to foster collaboration between Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of adding
Assad's secular government and Maduro's quasi-communist regime to the mix. Even worse are the
policy blunders that have driven Russia to support such motley clients and forge ever-closer
economic and military links with a natural rival like China. It is extremely unwise for any
country, even a superpower, to multiply the number of its adversaries needlessly and drive them
together into a common front. Yet that is the blunder the United States is busily
committing.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at , is the author of 12 books and more than 800 articles. His latest book
is Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements (2019).
"I never thought I'd be saying this, but if the Soviet Union still existed, the United States
would not dare to do what it is doing now" – said to me by an anti-Communist Romanian
who had fled Romania when it was still Communist ruled. We were attending a demonstration
against the Clinton air war which was the final death blow to Yugoslavia.
The emergence of a powerful anti-American world coalition is a good thing; US world
hegemony has been good neither for the US nor for the world. The main danger is that the US,
seeing its power slip away, will resort to all out war, even nuclear war. I pray that the US
rulers are at least sane even if they are quite evil and over-bearing.
Current US foreign policy, set by the White House and Commander-in-Chief, reflects the beliefs
of the Deplorables who put Trump into office: sadly, most of these dupes believe the myth of
American Exceptionalism [copyright Sarah Palin]. The nexus of confusing social media and
reality TV with genuine reality, and 1950s Hollywood jingoism, has them waiting for a crisis
[possibly a gay Star Wars/Kardashian-type monster] that can only be saved before the final
commercial by their 'Hero'.
Hello,
Let's see here.
It's gotten to the point where the great United States is ruled by Trump and the strangest of
people, like freak Bolton and Pompeo and the Presidents son in law?
Are the voters nuts? The lousy choices of war mongers Hillary and Trump?
Look at the foreign leaders in the pictures.
Then look at the nasty hate filled, historically ignorant bums I named above.
The difference?
They, the leaders of those four nations threaten no one and no other nation, but clown Trump
and his advisers do every day.
Take away any power from Trump and his advisers, yeah, wishful thinking, I know, and read a
book by Noam Chomsky or an article or three by Bernie Sanders and maybe you will see what a
circus the white house is, of this nation. Ironically, America has never been LESS great. What
a damn crying shame, know what I mean?
There is a diverse coalition of weaker countries opposing the U.S. because
A. Each have been the target of regime change and figure they they better pool their resources
and help each other when they can 'the axis of resistance'.
or
B. The wolves are waiting at the wood's edge just waiting to humiliate the United States, the
last flickering light of all that is good.
Well since we are a nation of narcissists we believe B because we cannot fathom that other
countries act in their own interests.
Defending The
Revolution a short film about the People's Militia in Venezuela. Not gonna be easy.
And one more time,
Whitney Webb is doing a bang up job with this series:
This article is Part II of a multi-part investigative series examining the efforts of the
global elite, as well as powerful elements of the global Zionist lobby and the government
of Israel, to create an independent state out of Argentina's southern Patagonia region in
order to plunder its natural resources and to fulfill long-standing Zionist interest in the
territory that dates back to the "founding father" of Zionism, Theodore Herzl. Part I,
which focuses on the de facto "parallel state" created by British billionaire Joe Lewis in
Argentina's Patagonia, can be read here. Part II focuses on Eduardo Elsztain -- one of
Argentina's wealthiest businessmen, who is deeply connected to the global elite and global
Zionist lobbies -- and his role in a scheme to undercut Argentina's democracy by hijacking
its voting system.
See my "lost" comment at the end of OT 2019-20, #167
Those numbers make Bernie a pauper relative to other Congress people. I hope that this
pulls on two threads - one is more pressure on Donald Trump to release his, and two, to
make it more uncomfortable for the Nancy Pelosis to be so "independently wealthy."
@dkmich from a big Wall St. firm (to repay his generosity to them and make sure that
future Presidents will know that they will be amply rewarded for being Wall St. friendly). So
Obama makes more for an hour's speech than Bernie made in 2015.
"The current U.S. policy has produced an array of unpleasant results, and cries out for
reassessment."
"RE-assess" implies there was an original assessment. I've seen no evidence that this
revolving-door administration ever "assessed" any foreign policy principles in the first
place.
With no strategy to pursue, they mostly just react to random events around the world,
treating each as equally meaningful -- like a dog chasing its tail.
As generations replace generations, the world forgets which country has saved them again and
again. Just wait until they cry-out for someone in a Red MAGA hat to save them just one more
time –
Well, it is the correct assessment of to-day's reality. But is it something new? Back in 1994
great Samuel Huntington published well known article "Clash of Civilizations?" and predicted
literally all what happened to USA if we will choose the road of being world policeman and
"big brother". Among all – Russia and China united against America and even events in
Ukraine as complete trouble for us. Alas, he was not listened and now almost forgotten. It is
a shame!
Alliances are forged out of interest, like the 'dynastic Stalinism' of North Korea and the
'Muslim theocracy' of Iran. As Ted Galen Carpenter points out: 'The most worrisome and
potentially deadly case is the deepening relationship between Russia and China.' Interest
cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology,
politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is
what serves our interest. An alliance between Moscow and Beijing is the one most likely to
drag us into global confrontation. It is the interconnectedness of disputes that can turn a
localized flashpoint into a world war. The pattern of history shows the pursuit of interest
frequently 'undermines rather than enhances' those interests. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
The Israeli military officers have an inside joke that Hasan Nasrallah is unable to lie.
Indeed, the Hezbollah leader is one of the most truthful and straightforward leader in the
world. What else could explain the US Mainstream media making absolutely sure that deplorable
American citizens never hear his speeches? They might notice that he makes a lot of sense,
fights terrorism, and protects the people of Lebanon: Christians, Shiite muslims and Sunni
muslims. I have seen Nasrallah answer a question about accusations of Hezbollah trafficking
in the drug trade. I believe his unequivocal denial far more than I do the empty accusations
that are linked and parroted by the author of this article.
"... For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork??? ..."
"... I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy ..."
"... To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't be president. ..."
"... Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field (medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that catch the errors. ..."
"... Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors. ..."
"... "Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did not come home; all died at their own hands." ..."
"... Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government in the world on their side. ..."
"... It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many times! ..."
"... The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way? Not possible. ..."
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake of historic dimensions. The "weapons of mass destruction" excuse was a lie. When I see George
W. Bush smiling on TV, I want to puke. Likewise, I cannot view an image of Lyndon Johnson without revulsion. They are both responsible
for much death and suffering. I have heard people try to excuse both of them, with the statement that "they meant well." The road
to Hell is paved with good intentions.
For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional
sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to
need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork???
I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with
more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy.
The war In Afghanistan would have ended 15 years ago if the sons of members of Congress were being drafted. "It's easy to send
someone else's sons to war."
You left out the phrase "anything other than" following the phrase "have served this nation with" in your last sentence.
You forgot to express your confidence in John McCain. Good luck with that. McCain's top aide flew to a foreign city to receive
the Steele dossier, gave it to the senator, who then gave it to the FBI–as per Steele's script, I assume. It's another reason
why we need a special counsel to look into the FBI's role. A special counsel can hardly omit the McCain piece of the puzzle, whereas
a regular prosecutor can easily ignore it and cover McCain's keister.
To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able
to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't
be president.
More than anything else concerning the FBI's election shenanigans, the McCain-Steele nexus–specifically the report written
about it by a special counsel–could expose the deep state's modus operandi. Not even an inspector general's report can do that
as well as a special counsel's report.
Your book will go out of print. In 10 to 20 years it will be reprinted and sell well. It takes that long for people to remove
their heads from their nether regions and be willing to contemplate the errors made.
The real irony is that we know better. There is a vast body of literature on major cognitive errors, and the whole catalog
is on display in the debacle described. Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field
(medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though
systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you
have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that
catch the errors.
Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional
complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors.
I commiserate with your disillusioning journey because I went through a similar odyssey into self-awareness like yours many decades
ago. I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31 May 1967 – 31 May 1968). It's all been downhill from there. A gradual slide
down the slippy slope of history in our decline as a nation. There's not much one can really do. But at my age, I will be long
gone when our country hits burns and crashes as it hits bottom.
"Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world
and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't
matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did
not come home; all died at their own hands."
Enough books and movies about those poor damaged American boys yet?
The navel gazing never stops.
Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions
of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government
in the world on their side.
Get over yourselves! Honestly! It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many
times!
The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did
you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way?
Not possible.
Just a cynical take, but implying that there are lessons to be learned from previous or present wars that should keep us from
engaging in future wars presumes that the goal is to, where possible, actually avoid war.
It also suggests a convenient, simplistic narrative that the military/DOD is incompetent and stupid, and unable to learn from
previous engagements.
I wonder if the Middle East is nothing more than a live-fire laboratory for the military; if it seems as though there is no
plan, no objective, no victory for these engagements, maybe that is because the only objectives and victory are to provide practical
war training for our troops, test equipment and tactics, keep defense contractors employed and the Pentagon's budget inflated,
and to project power and provide a convenient excuse for proximity to our 'real' enemies.
Draping these actions under a pretense of spreading 'peace and democracy' is just a pretense and, as we can see by our track
record, has nothing to do with actual victory. "Victory", depending on who you ask, is measured in years of engagement and dollars
spent, period.
And because it is primarily taking place in the far away and poorly understood Middle East, it is never going to be enough
of an issue with voters for politicians to have to seriously contend with.
This person is a crybaby. At 49 he went to a war that most rational people knew already, was an immoral, illegal waste of people,
time and money. But now he wants to whine about PTSD. I have the same opinion about most soldiers who fought there also. Nobody
made them volunteer for that junk war so quit whining when things get a little hard
"This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through
economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of
life, through the economic hit men."
John Perkins
'Whatever happens, the [1997 Asian currency] crisis probably signaled the beginning of the
end of the American empire and a shift to a tripolar world in which the United States, Europe,
and East Asia simultaneously share power and compete for it.'
Chalmers Johnson, Blowback , 2004
"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their
leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political
mythology."
I recently spoke to some college students who, I realized, were in fifth grade when I got on
a plane to Iraq. They now study that stuff in history classes like "Opportunities and Errors:
21st-Century America in the Middle East." About halfway through our conversation, I realized
it's coming up on 10 years since I first went to Iraq. Now that's real history.
I was a Foreign Service Officer then, a diplomat, embedded with the U.S. Army at a series of
forward operating bases and in charge of a couple of reconstruction teams, small parts of a
complex failure to rebuild the Iraq we wrecked. I ended up writing a book about it all,
explaining in tragicomic terms how we failed (those "Errors").
The book, We Meant Well: How I Helped
Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People was -- and wasn't --
well-received. People laughed at the funny parts, but my message -- it didn't work and here's
why -- was largely dissipated at the time (2012) by government and media propaganda centered on
The Surge. That was David Petraeus's plan to pacify the Sunnis and push al-Qaeda away, while
clearing, holding, and building across the country, apparently to make room so ISIS and the
Iranians could move in.
Meanwhile, the new American president, elected in part based on his "no" vote on the war in
2003, proclaimed it all a victory and started bringing the troops home even while I was still
in Iraq. Meanwhile my employer, the U.S. Department of State, was unhappy with my book. After a
year-long
process , State pushed me into early retirement. My career was history.
Advertisement
Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that
traveling to the other side of the world and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing
witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't matter that I
might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in,
three soldiers did not come home; all died at their own hands. Around us, Iraqis blew
themselves up alongside children. Everyone was a potential killer and a potential target. I did
this at age 49, on antidepressants and with a good family waiting back home. I cannot imagine
what it would have done to 18-year-old me. And I had it easier than most, and much easier than
many.
People asked in line at Trader Joe's and in interviews on semi-important TV shows, "Was it
all worth it to you?" I always answered yes. I'm not important, I said, but the story is. And
now we're making the same mistakes in Afghanistan. The only way to even start to justify it was
to think there might be some meaning behind it all. It didn't do anything for me but fill my
soul with vodka but maybe somehow it helped?
See, my book wasn't aimed at cataloging the failures in Iraq per se, but in trying to make
sure we didn't do the same thing in Afghanistan. The initial title wasn't We Meant Well,
but Lessons for Afghanistan from the Reconstruction of Iraq . The early drafts were
pretentious scholarly stuff, outlining our mistakes. Harvard Business School-like case studies.
Maps. Footnotes. It would have sold maybe five copies, and so my editors encouraged me to add
more funny parts. NPR's Fresh Air actually added a laugh track to my
interview . I figured I'd get the lessons across with humor more effectively anyway. In
such situations, you have to think that way. You can't believe that what you went through
didn't matter and keep getting out of bed every morning.
I now know officially that it did not matter. It was pointless. SIGAR shows I accomplished
nothing.
SIGAR is the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, a government oversight
body that is supposed to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement of the billions of dollars
being spent rebuilding Afghanistan but that has its hands full just keeping a CVS
receipt-length history of what's wrong. Sound familiar?
SIGAR just released its " 2019 High-Risk List ," which
points out especially egregious things that will follow in the wake of any peace agreement in
Afghanistan. Here are some quoted highlights:
set the
cash ablaze on the streets of Kabul for all the good it will do."
That last line really got me. In my book, I'd written, "While a lot of the money was spent
in big bites at high levels through the Embassy, or possibly just thrown into the river when no
one could find a match to set it on fire ." Had SIGAR read what I'd written? Or was the
joke just so obvious that we'd both come to the same punchline 10 years and two countries
apart?
Word for word as in Iraq, and after over 17 years of American effort, the U.S. has failed to
establish a viable government in Afghanistan, eliminate the local
insurgents/patriots/residents, establish a civil society, tamp down corruption, and ensure some
sort of national defense. Afghanistan has almost no chance of survival except as a Taliban
narcoland with financial support needed indefinitely to avoid whatever "worse" would be in that
calculus.
But there still are semi-believers. One former State Department colleague is on her fourth
assignment in Kabul, roughly half her career. Her job is to liaise with the few NATO officials
still hanging around. She says it's easy work; they've known each other for years. She's heard
we're making progress.
Around the same time as the SIGAR report, the Army War College released its history of the Iraqi Surge, a quagmire of dense
prose that I'm only about halfway through, but so far no mention of the impact of
reconstruction. The theme seems to be that the Army had some good ideas but the politicians got
in the way. Fair enough, but they misspelled Vietnam as I-r-a-q all throughout.
The post-9/11 wars have metastasized across three presidencies so far. Pick the thing you
detest most about Bush, Obama, and Trump, and complain about how it was never investigated
enough and how there weren't enough hearings. And then I'll disagree, for most everything that
happened and continues to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone uninvestigated, unheard of,
and unpunished. It's ancient history.
We all want to believe that what we did, what we didn't do, the moral injury, the PTSD, the
fights with spouses, the kid at home we smacked too hard when she wouldn't eat her green beans,
all of what we saw and heard, mattered. You read that SIGAR report and tell me how. Because
basically I'm history now.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan.
"... Even if Maduro were forced out by his current supporters in the military, it does not follow that Guaido or any other opposition figure would take over later. At that point, does the policy of forcing regime change continue shuffling forward like a zombie, or will the U.S. then accept a military government in Venezuela that is run by someone not named Maduro? How long does the U.S. keep trying to install its preferred government in power before admitting that it won't work? ..."
"... Since these haven't occurred, they have no plan except to strangle Venezuela's economy further through sanctions. Perhaps the best part is that the administration claims that Guaido is president of Venezuela, but that his presidency hasn't actually started yet. The administration's special representative, Elliott Abrams, claimed this in a press briefing last month , saying that the 30-day "interim" period of Guaido's "presidency" won't begin until after Maduro leaves office. ..."
"... Abrams' comments remind us of the shaky legal basis for everything that Guaido has been doing this year. As Noah Feldman pointed out shortly after this started, the provision in the Venezuelan constitution that Guaido invoked to claim his position as "interim" president was intended to apply in cases of death or incapacity of the incumbent president. It wasn't a loophole for declaring the presidency vacant when it is still very much occupied. Now because it is occupied, the official line is that Guaido's "interim" presidency hasn't really begun. Judging from how the regime change effort has been going so far, it probably never will. ..."
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Credit: StringerAL/Shutterstock
The Trump administration's statements about Venezuela are beginning to
sound eerily like Western governments' pronouncements about Syria over the last seven years:
The United States has no timeline for a change in government in Venezuela, a U.S. top official said, but is certain embattled
President Nicolas Maduro will not remain in power.
Almost three months have passed since the U.S. threw its support behind Guaido as "interim" president. During that tine, the opposition
has made no discernible progress in taking over, and the military remains firmly on Maduro's side for now. The administration has
no "timeline" for when Maduro will leave power because they and the opposition have no idea how to achieve the regime change they
are seeking, but that isn't stopping them from pursuing it anyway. Like the confident Western assertions from 2012 that Assad "must
go," the administration is "certain" of an outcome that seems increasingly unlikely to happen.
It is possible that the top military brass will eventually decide that it is better for them to rid themselves of the unpopular
ruler and retain power for themselves, just as Algeria's military did with Bouteflika and Sudan's military did with Bashir recently,
but there is no guarantee that this would lead to a "restoration of democracy."
On the contrary, a transition that depends so heavily on the military is much more likely to produce another dictatorship.
Even if Maduro were forced out by his current supporters in the military, it does not follow that Guaido or any other opposition
figure would take over later. At that point, does the policy of forcing regime change continue shuffling forward like a zombie, or
will the U.S. then accept a military government in Venezuela that is run by someone not named Maduro? How long does the U.S. keep
trying to install its preferred government in power before admitting that it won't work?
The absurdity of the administration's current policy is quite remarkable. They insist that Maduro is no longer president, but
the president they recognize controls nothing. The success of their ill-conceived regime change "plan" depended almost entirely on
mass defections from the military, but they have
found no way to spur
these defections.
Since these haven't occurred, they have no plan except to strangle Venezuela's economy further through sanctions. Perhaps
the best part is that the administration claims that Guaido is president of Venezuela, but that his presidency hasn't actually started
yet. The administration's special representative, Elliott Abrams, claimed this in a
press briefing last month , saying that the 30-day
"interim" period of Guaido's "presidency" won't begin until after Maduro leaves office. According to them, Guaido is the "legitimate"
president but has not yet assumed office:
QUESTION: So Juan Guaido is the interim president of an interim that doesn't exist yet?
MR ABRAMS: The 30-day end to his interim presidency starts counting. Because he's not in power, that's the problem [bold
mine-DL]. Maduro is still there. So they have decided that they will count that from when he actually is in power and Maduro's
gone. I think it's logical.
QUESTION: So then he really isn't interim president, then?
MR ABRAMS: He is interim president, but he's not --
QUESTION: With no power.
MR ABRAMS: -- able to exercise the powers of the office because Maduro still is there.
Abrams' comments remind us of the shaky legal basis for everything that Guaido has been doing this year. As Noah Feldman
pointed out shortly after this started, the provision in the Venezuelan constitution that Guaido invoked to claim his position
as "interim" president was intended to apply in cases of death or incapacity of the incumbent president. It wasn't a loophole for
declaring the presidency vacant when it is still very much occupied. Now because it is occupied, the official line is that Guaido's
"interim" presidency hasn't really begun. Judging from how the regime change effort has been going so far, it probably never will.
Nearly three months later, Venezuela's top-heavy military remains largely intact under
President Nicolás Maduro. The once-brisk pace of defections to neighboring Colombia
has slowed to a trickle. Fewer than 1,500 Venezuelan soldiers, relieved by the Colombian
government of their weapons and uniforms and housed in sparsely furnished hotel rooms near
the border, now sit waiting for something to happen.
The idea that the Venezuelan army would defect was always crazy. Anyone with a bit of
knowledge of Venezuela could predict that it would never do so. Reports of lonely soldiers
isolated in fourth class hotels in Columbia will not incite any further defections. While the
random opposition guy promised amnesty for any soldier moving to his site, the U.S. seeks to
arrest one of the few who did:
Venezuela's longtime spy chief was arrested Friday in Madrid by Spanish police acting on a
U.S. drug warrant a few weeks after he threw his support behind opponents of President
Nicolas Maduro.
...
The opposition saw Carvajal's criticism of Venezuela's socialist government as a stimulus to
prod other military figures to defect, but the country's armed forces have remained largely
loyal to current Maduro.
With the situation stalled the U.S. is ramping up talk of a military attack on
Venezuela:
EXCLUSIVE: Away from the public eye, the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS) think tank hosted a top-level, off-the-record meeting to explore US military options
against Venezuela.
Such talks are poor attempts to create some psychological pressure. There are no sound
military options. The U.S. is not going to invade Venezuela. It will ramp up sanctions and
press its 'allies' to do the same. Venezuela and its people will suffer but they will not give
up on resisting U.S. pressure. The current situation will only resolve itself when the regime
in Washington or in one of Venezuela's neighboring countries changes.
"... While Russia is being set up as the scapegoat of the collapsing western liberal establishment, this most recent red alarm by Freeland and Canada's response to the "danger" is useful for two reasons: ..."
"... First and foremost, Freeland's shameless warnings over "foreign interference" have become so loud that an irony has become unavoidable. She has after all been caught red handed behind the destabilization of both Ukraine and Venezuela. Secondly, by reviewing the mechanisms being created by Canada to counter-act this "threat", a clear insight is provided into the inner workings of the actual foreign influences which infiltrated Canada many decades ago. ..."
"... On the first point, Freeland's role as a co-architect of the nazi-fueled overthrow of a pro-Russian government in February 2014 is now well known. Aside from her family's Nazi connections going back to her grandfather Michael Chomiak's leading role as a Nazi collaborator in WWII, and her own mother's role in helping to draft Ukraine's neo-liberal constitution, Freeland herself not only befriended leading neo-Nazi collaborators such as Canadian Ukrainian Congress' president Paul Grod and but has also promoted NATO's anti-Russian expansion across eastern Europe. ..."
"... Freeland set up a program for regime change which involved a two-part formula of 1) mobilizing mass direct support for the overthrow of a government, and 2) gaining international support for said overthrow. ..."
"... Canada itself was infiltrated by a foreign player many years ago and what we will briefly see is that Canada can only be called the "world's first post national-state nation" because it never really became a genuine nation in the first place, but was always manipulated by a foreign power... although not the one you think. ..."
"... It is from this cybernetics central node that the web of governance both in Canada and also across other British infiltrated territories in the Trans-Atlantic system is coordinated under the directives of London. ..."
In the midst of one of the
most de-stabilizing scandals to rock Canada in years, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland
announced on April
5 that the threat of "Foreign interference" going into the October 2019 elections was at an all-time high. Sitting beside her UK
counterpart at a G7 meeting in France, Freeland stated:
"Interference is very likely and we think there have already been efforts by malign foreign actors to disrupt our democracy"
. Her warning was echoed by an embattled puppet Prime Minister in Ottawa who
stated it is "very clearly that countries like Russia are behind a lot of the divisive campaigns that have turned our politics
even more divisive and more anger-filled than they have been in the past. "
The Measures to Defend the British Deep State
In order to counteract this "foreign threat", several Canadian mechanisms have been announced to "keep democracy safe" in alignment
with the G7, Five Eyes and NATO. These mechanisms are:
The creation of an " Incident
Public Protection Panel " run by five Privy Council bureaucrats under the Clerk of the Privy Council which will exist outside
of the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, whose job is to maintain the integrity of elections. In defense of this
mysterious group, Canada's Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould stated that "it won't be one person who will decide what
Canadians will be allowed to know" (apparently having five people decide is more democratic). The new Clerk of the Privy Council
is Ian Stugart, who served as former deputy minister to Chrystia Freeland until just a few weeks ago.
A
Security and Intelligence Election Threats Task Force which will incorporate all of Canada's intelligence agencies such as the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and Freeland's Global Affairs Canada.
All of these agencies are Privy Council organizations.
The Rapid
Response Mechanism of the G7 created in June 2018 and headquartered in Ottawa Canada in Freeland's Global Affairs Office and
Privy Council Office.
While Russia is being set up as the scapegoat of the collapsing western liberal establishment, this most recent red alarm
by Freeland and Canada's response to the "danger" is useful for two reasons:
First and foremost, Freeland's shameless warnings over "foreign interference" have become so loud that an irony has become
unavoidable. She has after all been
caught red handed
behind the destabilization of both Ukraine and Venezuela. Secondly, by reviewing the mechanisms being created by Canada to counter-act
this "threat", a clear insight is provided into the inner workings of the actual foreign influences which infiltrated Canada many
decades ago.
Chrystia Freeland: Regime Change Princess of Ukraine and Venezuela
On the first point, Freeland's role as a co-architect of the nazi-fueled overthrow of a pro-Russian government in February
2014 is now well known. Aside from her family's Nazi connections going back to her grandfather Michael Chomiak's leading role as
a
Nazi collaborator in WWII, and her own mother's role in helping to draft Ukraine's neo-liberal constitution, Freeland herself
not only befriended leading neo-Nazi collaborators such as Canadian Ukrainian Congress'
president Paul
Grod and but has also promoted NATO's anti-Russian expansion across eastern Europe.
Working alongside fellow Oxford operative Ben Rowswell (now head of the Canadian International Council/ Chatham House of Canada)
during his three year tenure as Ambassador to Venezuela (2014-2017), Freeland set up a program for regime change which involved
a two-part formula of 1) mobilizing mass direct support for the overthrow of a government, and 2) gaining international support for
said overthrow.
Rowswell's on-the-ground work was designed to achieve the former as he himself admitted in
a 2017 interview saying "We became one of the
most vocal embassies in speaking out on human rights issues and encouraging Venezuelans to speak out" . Before leaving his post to
become the head of the Chatham House of Canada,
he tweeted "I don't think they (anti-Maduro forces) have anything to worry about because Minister Freeland has Venezuela way
at the top of her priority list" .
Working on fulfilling the 2nd part of the formula, Freeland directed the creation of the "Lima Group". A
Global News article of
January 24 described the group in the following terms:
"Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido
the night before Maduro's swearing-in ceremony to offer her government's support should he confront the socialist leader".
It shouldn't be too surprising in our day and age that a nation with such a high reputation as "polite Canada" is actuality, an
active agency for regime change and global governance. Canada's very Prime Minister
did assert in 2016 that
"Canada is the world's first post national-state nation" . What may surprise some readers is that Canada itself was infiltrated
by a foreign player many years ago and what we will briefly see is that Canada can only be called the "world's first post national-state
nation" because it never really became a genuine nation in the first place, but was always manipulated by a foreign power... although
not the one you think.
The "Foreign Influence" Controlling Canada
While a longer presentation is needed to do this story justice, it is enough to note for now that neither Freeland, nor Rowswell
are operating on behalf of Canada's interests, but are rather both operatives run by an entity that took over Canada many decades
ago and are currently directed by two interlocking organizations: The Privy Council Office and the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Group
.
The Privy Council Office
The Privy Council office was set up in 1867 in order to act as the British hand guiding its newly formed confederacy (Canada nearly
became a part of Lincoln's America in the wake of the Civil War. The only thing stopping that outcome was Britain's creation of a
confederation. The full story is told in the
Imperial Myth of Canada's National
Policy. ). While its power was always great, there was still room for independent policy making by nationalistic elected officials
when the international conditions were favorable.
This was nearly entirely destroyed during the reign of technocratic golden boy Pierre Elliott Trudeau during his
1968-1973 reform of the Federal Government
under the guidance of the OECD's
Sir Alexander King. It was during this time Sir King's Club of Rome (Ottawa branch) was set up in Ottawa under the guidance of
Trudeau and his clerk of the Privy Council Michael Pitfield, and other neo-Malthusian technocrats such as Privy Council President
Michel Lamontagne, Maurice Strong, and Governor General Roland Mitchener.
It was from this control point in Ottawa in 1971 that the work later to become known as Limits to Growth was funded by tax payers
and which became the bible for the new Malthusianism and blueprint for the "post-industrial society". It is from this cybernetics
central node that the web of governance both in Canada and also across other British infiltrated territories in the Trans-Atlantic
system is coordinated under the directives of London.
this whole world wide medeling thing after our govs have been unashamedly meddling everywhere for years , it just shows thier
fear, they are loosing thier populaces and looking for scapegoats, i love it, times are changing
...will Canada follow suit in order to become a true sovereign nation freed of all foreign imperial influence once and for
all?
Ha ha (Bart Simpson style). Canada has, and will always be, a British-USA vassal-state (with a veneer of democratic elections).
Washington tells the Ottawa government to jump! After asking permission from the UK, Canada negotiates with America as to how
high - since the country is technically insolvent there isn't that much jumping room.
Russia is charged with bringing things in the open, to the light, instead of letting creatures of the dark skulk in shadows,
plotting, backstabbing, poisoning and conducting their "business" as usual. Because apparently democracy flourishes in darkness
and ignorance...
"... In SUPERCLASS we learn that this class of people actually own and control the three largest Western religions and many of the secondary ones - they all preach obedience to authority as paramount. They also own the drugs trade around the world. 95% of the world supply of opium comes out of Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the Elite through use of the US military. ..."
"... And just as an aside to any historians out there, Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-first Century shows how a critical mass of capital was had formed 500 years ago and has grown consistently at a rate greater than the general economy ever sense. He showed that before, during and after the French Revolution and later the US "revolution" the core capital of the west made profits. These revolutions, like government today, were pantomimes whilew the real power profited from the slaughter. The Elite prosper from war that is why there has been continual war and slaughter on their behalf sinse August 6, 1945. The nuclear weapons belong to them. ..."
You ask a question about European political class's perception and defence of European
interests that is as perplexing here as it is in regard to Libya and Syria, to name just
these. There was at least some coherent defence of international law and principle during
Bush II's lead up to the Iraq war, but Europe's defence of law and Europe's common interests
seem to have ceased at some point since then.
Because, like the US European government is a tool of the Global Power Elite, it is
nothing more than pantomime. The West is fully owned and operated by the global elite.
In books going back to C Wright Mills' The Power Elite in 1956 to SUPERCLASS by David
Rothkopf, and GIANTS: The Global Power Elite by Peter Phillips clearly outline just how
powerful the Global Elites really are.
In SUPERCLASS we learn that this class of people actually own and control the three
largest Western religions and many of the secondary ones - they all preach obedience to
authority as paramount. They also own the drugs trade around the world. 95% of the world
supply of opium comes out of Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the Elite through use of
the US military.
There is one and only one Western empire - that of the Global Elites.
85% of the valuable assets in the world are controlled by the Global Elites.
There is no offsetting force against them, there simply does not exist today a force
capable of challenging their ownership of the world.
And just as an aside to any historians out there, Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the
Twenty-first Century shows how a critical mass of capital was had formed 500 years ago and
has grown consistently at a rate greater than the general economy ever sense. He showed that
before, during and after the French Revolution and later the US "revolution" the core capital
of the west made profits. These revolutions, like government today, were pantomimes whilew
the real power profited from the slaughter. The Elite prosper from war that is why there has
been continual war and slaughter on their behalf sinse August 6, 1945. The nuclear weapons
belong to them.
This slur "authoritarian state" is now peddled by neocons as synonym for the "countries we do not like"
This neocons in not very inventive... We already saw this line from Robert Kagan, who
actually is a better writer. This neocon/neolib pressitute can't even use proper terms such as
"neoliberalism" and "Washington consensus"
And slide to far-right nationalism and neo-fascism is direct result of neoliberalism
dominance for the last 40 years (since Carter) and sliding of the standard of living of workers
and the middle class.
Notable quotes:
"... Both countries have touted the virtues of their systems, while arguing that Western values are a source of decadence, amorality and disorder in the Western world. ..."
As international rivalry intensifies, the core strategic task for the U.S.-led democratic
community is to contain the geopolitical influence and political disruption caused by
authoritarian great powers, namely China and Russia. Yet that task is made all the harder
because illiberalism -- and sympathy for those illiberal powers -- is simultaneously surging
among key actors on the political right. If the U.S. and its allies are to succeed in the great
global rivalry of the 21st century, the right must confront the threat of illiberalism within
its ranks -- just as the left did during a previous twilight struggle in the 20th century.
... ... ...
This time, the threat is not expansionist communism, but a combination of autocracy and
geopolitical revisionism. China has been moving toward a dystopian future of high-tech
authoritarianism, as it pushes for greater power and influence overseas. Putin's Russia has
consolidated an illiberal oligarchy, while using information warfare, political meddling and
other tools to subvert liberal democracies in Europe, the U.S. and beyond.
Both countries have touted the virtues of their systems, while arguing that Western
values are a source of decadence, amorality and disorder in the Western world.
... ... ...
It is not for nothing that the political scientist Marc Plattner has
written that the gravest threat to liberal democracy today is “that it will end up
being abandoned by substantial segments of the right.” And even in the U.S., there are
alarming signs that conservative commitment to the norms of liberal democracy is under
strain.
Communism was not a threat, but actually benefited the world in many ways.
It was communism that put pressure on capitalism to provide labor a fair share of wealth and
income. As soon as Soviet communism collapsed, capitalism returned to its avaricious roots,
resulting in stagnant wages for the working class. And the pauperization of the working class
in recent decades is the cause for the current revolt against liberal capitalism.
So it was the competition from communism that was helping capitalism to stay healthy. Without
it capitalism has degenerated into a Dickensian dystopia. We should therefore welcome any
alternative socio-economic models to liberal capitalism.
It was communism that put pressure on capitalism to provide labor a fair
share of wealth and income. As soon as Soviet communism collapsed,
capitalism returned to
Thats a great point Che.
I have never ever looked at it from that angle.
Interesting.
Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, who has long been a leading conservative
intellectual, warns that this disillusion with liberal democracy “is clearly present
among American conservatives, and not just among the ‘alt-right.’
Honest and real conservatives are far and fewer in today's MAGA/tea party infested GOP.
Forget career politicians like Ted Cruz or McConnell, even the previously decent conservative
think tanks/pundits like from NR or Erik Erickson or others have all given up on any
principles and just bow at the altar of Trump now.
No they haven’t, Trump decided to put McConnell in charge so of course the
#neverTrumpers like the McConnell presidency...which consists of appointing Republican judges
at record pace and little else.
The biggest need is to resist holy warriors like Hal Brands who want to destroy the world
if it resists their version of revealed truth. They are the biggest threat to the human
future. The United States has to learn to live in a world that it cannot control. The
American goal should be to work towards a constructive human future not some kind of holy war
to impose American control on the rest of the world. The United States is the biggest
military spender. In recent history, It has been the world's global aggressor.
It has an
history of wars that have made little difference whether America won or lost them. Perhaps
the United States could succeed with some kind of genocide that wiped out all of the parts of
the world that refuse to accept American supremacy. But, short of that kind of disgrace, the
United States is not going to succeed in achieving any meaningful goal through war. As long
as America does not destroy the world, the future is going to be determined by economic
competition and the destinies that the people of different parts of the world choose for
themselves.
I had wondered if it was noticed the Liberalism was dying. The world has turned hard
right, with all the anger, nationalism, do-as-I-say, and social intolerance.
I don't even the children of today.
I might suggest that liberals themselves are destroying their freedoms with illogical
illiberal liberalism.
YOU can't do that, say that, act like that, think like that...no no no...we must act and
be correct, nice, polite, all forgiving and never critical.
Huh?
The freedoms that so many of us marched for, fought for, voted for, sang about (thank gawd
the music still lives), got bloody for, even died for, are slipping away quicker than you can
say me, me, me...it's all about me.
Maybe...small maybe...our youth can once again awaken America and the world's conscience.
Maybe? Maybe not!
Wha? It seems our LIttle Cultural Revolution is just warming up. Wait till AOC et al are
all growed up.
"This is a moment when the “free world” needs to be strong and united."
Is this the same "free" world that jails grandmothers over contested historical views?
That has reneged on free speech?
Thanks to a truly ethnomasochistic immigration policy, I assure you that this will not
happen. The West will be lucky if squeaks through this period without a civil war.
It will be interesting to see if Ocasio-Cortez-if elected–sticks to her principles
or succumbs to the shekel storm headed her way.
Radical Jews of the Hasidic type are also acting thuggish on American streets, like in
Brooklyn where they committed assault, battery and kidnapping on a bicyclist.
These kind of fanatics are growing in numbers all over the USA.
If you think Trump is spineless towards Israel, wait until Israel's next choice for
POTUS, Nutty Nikky Haley steals the WH.
" it seems the usa is no longer willing to go full on.."
What is being missed by most is that we entered a new era March 2018 when Putin unveiled
his new toys. The u.s. is no longer the presumed supreme military power on the planet. Of
course they will not not admit this, but I believe we are approaching the moment when the
U.S. will be told to stand down or suffer the consequences, whether it be in Syria, Venezuela
or Ukraine.
"I want to tell all those who have fueled the arms race over the last 15 years, sought
to win unilateral advantages over Russia, introduced unlawful sanctions aimed at containing
our country's development: Everything that you wanted to impede with your policies has
already happened," he said. "You have failed to contain Russia."
"No one listened to us then. So listen to us now," Putin said to thunderous applause in
the speech, which was held at a venue just outside the Kremlin and televised live
nationwide.
The pentagon has admitted it has no defense against those hypersonic missiles.
"If that happens, what kind of defense do we have against the hypersonic threat?"
Inhofe asked.
Hyten replied, "We have a very difficult -- well, our defense is our deterrent
capability. We don't have any defense that could deny theemployment of such a weapon against
us, so our response would be our deterrent force, which would be the triad and the nuclear
capabilities that we have to respond to such a threat."
Putin has quite clearly stated the what the Russian response will be should the U.S.
resort to the use of nuclear weapons.
"Only when we know for certain – and this takes a few seconds to understand
– that Russia is being attacked we will deliver a counter strike. This would be a
reciprocal counter strike. Why do I say 'counter'? Because we will counter missiles flying
towards us by sending a missile in the direction of an aggressor. Of course, this amounts to
a global catastrophe but I would like to repeat that we cannot be the initiators of such a
catastrophe because we have no provision for a pre-emptive strike. Yes, it looks like we are
sitting on our hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear weapons against us. Well, yes,
this is what it is. But then any aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable and
they will be annihilated. And we as the victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would go to
paradise while they will simply perish because they won't even have time to repent their
sins. "
Russia is not going to allow the U.S. to destroy Venezuela, Iran, Syria or Ukraine. It makes
sense because Ru cannot allow the United States and vassals to continually put Ru in the
position of one step forward two steps backs via their destructive policies and I firmly
believe that Putin will not allow the u.s. time to develop counters to their new missiles.
That would be foolish as the u.s. has shown what they are capable of when there is no serious
threat to their military. It will be a world war and the unites states has been pushing hard
to keep its allies on a short tether.
U.S. has been stalemated in Syria, (soon to be ejected) Ukraine is about to fall back into
ru orbit after the elections next week. Venezuela has Russians on the ground. They dare not
go into Iran, because the iron dome is rusty and one direct hit by the foab about 13k
southeast of dimona is going to make a large part of that illegal settlement called israel
uninhabitable .
There is much room for miscalculation, and I believe war is an almost certainty. At the
same time, I think we need a few tens to hundreds of millions to meet their maker as the
human race is only growing more stupid by the minute and eliminating a large portion of the
race will likely extend its survival. Sad but true.
"... Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing In Defense of Empire . Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any representation. ..."
"... Hitler's empire was not, of course, simply a continuation of the Habsburg legacy. There were many other factors, not least the persistent envy in German circles after 1919 of the other imperial powers: empire still seemed attractive to those who did not have one, or one large enough, and Mazower shows how Japanese and Italian imperial ambitions meshed with German in trying to divide the world up anew, as it had been divided by European states for four hundred years. The absence of any clear planning or forethought also found Hitler dragging ex-colonial officials back into public life to try to rule Eastern Europe the way they had ruled Africa. ..."
"... Elites who have never worked a day in their lives....never served in the military (right or wrong)....have a one dimensional view of social justice.... ..."
"... The actual kinship of zionism and US-imperialism is based on both israel and the US are settler-societies that never came to be nations. ..."
"... So the USA never became a nation. The settler-state of freedom of private property was directly converted to an empire-state ruled by a corporative elite of oligarchs, military staff and a serfing legion of descendant bureaucratic personnel. ..."
"... This is why amerika had a civil war. The southern elites wanted to continue as always importing African slaves and paying them nothing, while providing the bare minimum for survival as food & shelter. The factory and retail giant owning Northen elites couldn't give a flying fuck about 'the rights of man' they wanted to get richer that is why they went to war. ..."
"... Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. Just more dumbing down the "stupid class". ..."
"... The Ziocon Jews Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Leo Strauss were the earlier founders of the so-called neoconservatism movement, and were vehemently opposed to relaxing foreign policy in regards to the Soviet Union and communism in general. ..."
"... In the early nineties the Ziocon torch was passed on to the likes of William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. And we all know what followed next...years of endless war. ..."
"... And so Israel was not created by the likes of Herzl, it was created by the force (monetary and military) of British empire, and such creations by the British was not peculiar to middle east and Israel, the British had many other such wonderous feats of crime all over the globe, of which Israel constitutes but a single example! The British did not create Israel because they were in love with the Jews or were obssessed with Jewish nationalism. They did it because it was PROFITABLE. Hegemony is always profitable. And they did in the middle east, what they had done all over the globe to maintain their hegemony and increase their profit. NOTHING MORE. ..."
"... You can blame the British all you want but around the late 50s early 1960s, again, while Kennedy was a rising star and becoming President, Zionists were in charge of their affairs, and the worst crimes of Zionism, the worst unilateral attacks on neighboring countries happened under Zionist sovereignty. Zionist were so in charge of their fiefdom that they started developing nuclear weapons behind Kennedy's back; that's how powerful they were becoming. ..."
"... It's very convenient for you, Arnold, to blame simply "US imperialism", as if it fell out of the sky. It didn't. It was directed by finance capital, which is not an impersonal force but a collection of individual investors, more than a few of whom are interested particularly in Jewish welfare, as they conceive it: that is to say, they want to use Jewish issues, to which the general US public is already well conditioned, to push through an entire program of global domination by force. ..."
Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing
In Defense of Empire
. Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any representation. The lunacy of his arguments can
be show best when one substitute the object of his essay:
Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery, Western or Eastern. Anarchy reigned
in the interregnums. To wit, the British may have failed in Baghdad, Palestine, and elsewhere, but the larger history of the British
slaveholdership is one of providing a vast armature of stability, fostered by sea and rail communications, where before there
had been demonstrably less stability.
...
But slavery is now seen by global elites as altogether evil, despite slaveholdership having offered the most benign form of
order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum.
Compared
with slaveholdership, democracy is a new and uncertain phenomenon. Even the two most estimable democracies in modern history,
the United States and Great Britain, were slaveholdership for long periods. "As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership
was born before the United States," writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto. Following their
initial settlement, and before their incorporation as states, the western territories were nothing less than slaveholdership possessions
of Washington, D.C. No surprise there: slaveholdership confers a loose and accepted form of sovereignty, occupying a middle ground
between anarchy and full state control.
...
Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of slavery
order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic
heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.
...
That, I submit, would be a policy direction that internalizes both the drawbacks and the benefits of slaveholdership, not as
it has been conventionally thought of, but as it has actually been practiced throughout history.
It is somewhat frightening that people believing such nonsense have influence in political circles.
In October of 2001, Max Boot wrote a Weekly Standard piece, "
The Case for
American Empire ," that featured perhaps the most representative neoconservative-authored sentence of all time:
Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by
self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets ."
GENERAL PLAN EAST Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe
By Mark Mazower (Allen Lane 2008)
"Hitler's empire was not, of course, simply a continuation of the Habsburg legacy. There were many other factors, not least
the persistent envy in German circles after 1919 of the other imperial powers: empire still seemed attractive to those who did
not have one, or one large enough, and Mazower shows how Japanese and Italian imperial ambitions meshed with German in trying
to divide the world up anew, as it had been divided by European states for four hundred years. The absence of any clear planning
or forethought also found Hitler dragging ex-colonial officials back into public life to try to rule Eastern Europe the way they
had ruled Africa."
isn't he married to Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland?
if it was Kagan , yes, but as already pointed above, it's Robert "how we would fight china" KaPLan... Let's say it's the KK
brotherhood of lunatic warhawks
Racism is not at all a legacy of slavery but a constitutive and sustaining element of the White Supremacy system estab lished
by European power during the centuries of trans-Atlantic enslavement of Black Africans. Hence its extreme resistance to eradication.
Racism is, certainly, not a "residual legacy" in the passive sense of the dead hand of the past. It is not like a motion imparted
to an object by an impulse withdrawn long ago; a motion sustained entirely by inertia. Because it is a constitutive element, it
has been necessary to systematically apply force and fraud to maintain, in mutant forms, this vital pillar of white supremacy.
Accordingly, new forms of "slave trade" and slavery as well as new structures of raci
sm are still being elaborated and justified, even today, as they have been, whenever needed, since the 16th century.
For example, on Nov. 11, 2006, in Philadelphia, at a Wharton Business School conference on business in Africa, World Trade
Organization representative Hanniford Schmidt announced the creation of a WTO initiative for "full private stewardry of labor"
for the parts of Africa
that have been hardest hit by the 500 years of Africa's free trade with the West. "Full, untrammelled stewardry is the best
available solution to African poverty, and the inevitable resu
lt of free-market theory," Schmidt told more than 150 attendees.
Schmidt acknowledged that the stewardry program -- which will require Western companies doing business in some parts of Africa
to own their workers outright-- was similar in many ways
to slavery, but explained that just as "compassionate conservatism" has polished the rough edges on labor relations in industrialized
countries, full stewardry, or "compassionate slavery," could be a similar boon to developing ones.
Elites who have never worked a day in their lives....never served in the military (right or wrong)....have a one dimensional view
of social justice....and on and on...
Anyone else notice the picture that went with the article? Its a picture of a man holding up the world. The same bollocks that people 150 years ago claimed that Great Britain was 'Holding Up The World' by killing Africans and ruling
over India. Such bollocks. The rhetoric of 2 centuries ago is the same rhetoric of today. Nothing ever changes, but people never learn
to see the propaganda for what it is.
Kaplan is Jewish, and it is utterly bizarre
that he can write positively about empire, given that the paradigmatic empire, the Roman one, colonized the area now called Israel,
with the Jews revolting, to which Rome responded by destroying the Temple in Jerusalem, an event which forced Kagan's religion
to be reconstituted, since up until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, Judaism centered around the Temple.
Kagan seems to be completely unaware of his own heritage, or at least not to care about it: but then why does he start his
piece with a pogrom? This reminds me of something that Putin has said in a
speech :
Today, many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples
and cultures. Society is now required not only to recognise everyone's right to the freedom of consciousness, political views
and privacy, but also to accept without question the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite
in meaning. This destruction of traditional values from above not only leads to negative consequences for society, but is also
essentially anti-democratic, since it is carried out on the basis of abstract, speculative ideas, contrary to the will of the
majority, which does not accept the changes occurring or the proposed revision of values.
It's symptomatic that certain hasbara troll missed no opportunity to take up strategic position and drop some initial disinfo
in order to block here any inquiry into who really were the masters of the slave trade over centuries ?
Robert kagan or Robert Kaplan both are lunnies and unfortunately, in the past several US administrations, these cooks have risen
to the top. These guys are a product of nazi Germany at its worst where the thinking that the powerful nations have a god given
mission to rule and the rest of the world is here to be slaves to be taken care of.
Not sure how many people caught this, but
the prince of Wales, on a visit to Iraq was filmed during a visit to British troops saying just that. "These people are happy
to have us here to rule them just like we did before".
Neocons are today's version old British imperial superiority which led to the Second World War along with nazi ideology.
Someday we are going to have an overwhelming US neocon administration and this will be the end.
I think this is definitely the direction the neoliberal neocons want to take us -- back to slavery. I was struck by a statement
made by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Thomas Perkins (who created a stir in January with a letter published in the WSJ comparing
the 1% in the U.S. to Jews persecuted by the Nazis during Kristallnacht). In this statement, Perkins is calling for suffrage based
on the total number of tax dollars the voter pays.
Perkins gave a
talk titled "The War on the 1%" last month at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:
Mr. Perkins' interlocutor, Adam Lashinsky, soon had the frustrated look of a man trying to swim in a vat of molasses.
Mr. Lashinsky pointed out, for instance, that it was ridiculous to equate powerless Jews in the Third Reich with extremely
powerful tech overlords in present-day America.
"No, I think the parallel holds," Mr. Perkins said calmly. For one thing, "If you pay 75 percent of your life's earnings
to the government you are being persecuted."
He had a better plan: "You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar in taxes. later he added, "A million in taxes, you
get a million votes." He said he was kidding about that last part, kind of.
One could argue that Citizens United already creates the dollarocracy system Perkins imagines. Slavery can't be far off.
Personally I think the Neos would be fine with a modified Feudalism: Serfs are easier to control than slaves.
But the difference is minimal and largely rhetorical. Ultimately neither has much freedom.
Anyway, what Perkins was advocating (different amounts of votes depending on wealth) isnt new. Some folks advocated that in
the 1800s.
But its so weird to see a modern person advocating that openly. Thats supposed to be a thing youre only supposed to talk about
behind closed doors. But I guess times are changing and some kind of NeoFeudalism will probably be endorsed publicly by the mainstream
in a few decades.
I personally do not think bush was a neocon. He was a patsy who was manipulated by neocons. He didn't have the brains, the
ability to plot or the vision of these two loonies and the neocon masses that seems to be growing everyday in the US. Bush was
a twit. A neocon administration is what we will see with hitlery Clinton if she is elected. Nothing worse that an intelligent,
motivated, self entered, ambitious neocon to set the road for a PNAC scenario.
But Cheney was a Neocon, and he and Rumsfeld hired the whole PNAC crew and set all that crap in motion. He was also trying
to make up for damned near bankrupting what then became Halliburton. And he succeeded on both counts. There isn't a person in
the US today with any "serious" foreign policy creds who has any business running anything. So our choice next time will be...
bad and worse.
Kaplan effectively believes that the Empire is AngloZionist:
the British had their hands full in Mesopotamia in 1941: given the tendency of the Arab masses toward anti-Western and anti-Zionist
ideologies (a tendency that was itself at least in part a reaction to British dominance)
So maybe I was unfair to the Saker when I said in an earlier thread that I regretted his using this term.
Kaplan/Kagan is an amusing slip, but they're equally insane and the point is well made - that supremacists are a bit too eager
to fall in love with their own bullshit.
"As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership was born before the United
States," writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto.
Actually, I think these neocons fail on their on there own terms. I mean that they're actually very poor imperial strategists
even if one accepts the neocon argument that empire is a good thing. If anything, it's the neocons who have no grasp of realpolitik
and who are blinded by an ideology that is far more pro-Israel than pro-American. All the wars they've promoted have been debacles
that have diminished not increased America's standing. Unconditional support for Israel (which earns successive American administrations
only Israeli contempt, never gratitude) and the obsession with punishing and destabilizing Iran totally distorts not only American
Middle East policy but American foreign policy as a whole. Pushing for a new Cold War with Russia creates a powerful enemy where
previously there was none. So for all their seemingly shameless promotion of empire, these people will one day be noted only for
their contribution to American decline.
Robert Kagan is Victoria Nuland's husband no? My question would be how did Ms. Nuland get promoted to Under-Secretary? Hillary
Clinton had to have signed off on that.
" the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable
minimum"
Am i mistaken? Because I am quite certain sectarian wars have never been worse. Syria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Rwanda, and DRC.
These countries became mixed at some point. And now they are being torn apart.
Finally, we get to discuss the poisonous, rotten core of Imperial Supremacy and who authored, promotes it and is the main driving
force behind it. Hallelujah! This is exactly where we must begin. Finally, the purpose of all these discussions becomes more defined.
I'm not sure if your error in the author's name was really so bad. Maybe it was meant this way for all to investigate further
, because that is precisely what everyone is failing to do in these discussions on imperial supremacy: to research the authors
of this evil ideological foreign policy and there are many behind it in different arenas: politics, finance, media, lobbies, religious
groups, all honing the message, driving the narrative, driving policy, bribing politicians to push this twisted ideology forward.
Your error, intentional or otherwise was nonetheless so timely and auspicious at a moment in history when we are starting to
see , what evil injustice is being advanced in our name against other nations, and this article falls into our lap in an
almost prophetic manner with such perfect timing as a warning to us all: to look for the root and squash it before it's too late,
because unless we see where it originates, we are powerless. The fact that your error perplexed many here already can only be
a good thing, because it peaks their curiosity: hey, wait a minute; this is not the author, what's going on here? And then
upon further research, they discover two names to familiarize themselves with, and then three, and then a pattern starts to emerge,
and then they go further connecting the dots until they finally get the big picture that: the advancement of imperial supremacy
in this day and age...is most definitely a Zionist-driven operation.
So they have similar names, and are no relation but they're united in the cause of Zionism and the imperial project
that will shelter Zionism permanently.:
This individual, Kaplan, is obviously trying to make the case for imperial supremacy which sets the stage for justifying
the injustice that Zionism has wrought in Israel and that Zionists want to permanently legitimize by any means possible.
These Ziocons will bombard us and the world from left, right and centre with an argument designed for every political persuasion
to justify legitimizing imperial supremacy where Zionism can exist comfortably with permanent impunity and be cleansed of its
ongoing and future crimes.
Now I know I'm going to have fun here separating the chaff from the wheat on this issue. This is a subject that Zionists, whether
liberal (a non-existent creatures in Zionism; because Zionism turns all who embrace it into fascists) or conservative, are irresistably
drawn to and at the same time it's a subject that draws out their duplicitous nature. Those who are secretly with Zionism's goals
will do ANYTHING to steer us off course and prevent us from visualizing the pattern, and if we dare to; they'll hurl their most
convenient slander; A.S.
Thank you for making us aware of this article which lays the foundation for all discussions on what we are witnessing in Ukraine
and the Middle East with advancing imperial supremacy and which hopefully will motivate everyone to further explore the depth
and scope of Zionist involvement in this expanding foreign operation that is evil to its core.
And don't worry, apparently you're not the first to mix up these names and make this fortunate mistake, because in essence,
whether one author is blunt and the other doublespeaks liberal jargon they are united in their cause and we should be aware of
what we're up against to tear their structure down and derail their agenda.
It's great to see others stumble upon the truth that was begging to be found. If not for this timely omen, I might have given
up trying to make everyone see and have started doubting even the sound of my own fury.
Who set these wheel in motion Robert Kagan and William Kristol or Dick and Rummy? Come on...the authors of the PLAN of course.
Sure Cheney's a lunatic, but even he couldn't come up with this. Cheney's part of the muscle.
We've been fighting this fight, Kalithea, for a long time now, every way we can. So you'll not find me defending a one of them.
But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. We're "just" dealing with the current
crop, and hopefully we'll somehow succeed before there's no Palestine, Palestinians or olive trees left. Or Syrians, or Iraqis,
or Ukrainians, or... Just don't think for a minute that these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews,
low and high, who share the same damned values even if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen". And they've
ALL got to be stopped.
This is from a 2004 article by Uri Avnery at Counterpunch:
The "oligarchs" are a tiny group of entrepreneurs who exploited the disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the treasures
of the state and to amass plunder amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. In order to safeguard the perpetuation of their
business, they took control of the state. Six out of the seven are Jews.
In the first years of post-Soviet Russian capitalism they were the bold and nimble ones who knew how to exploit the economic
anarchy in order to acquire enormous possessions for a hundredth or a thousandth of their value: oil, natural gas, nickel and
other minerals. They used every possible trick, including cheating, bribery and murder. Every one of them had a small private
army.
But the most intriguing part of the series recounts the way they took control of the political apparatus. After a period
of fighting each other, they decided that it would be more profitable for them to cooperate in order to take over the state.
At the time, President Boris Yeltsin was in a steep decline. On the eve of the new elections for the presidency, his rating
in public opinion polls stood at 4%. He was an alcoholic with a severe heart disease, working about two hours a day. The state
was, in practice, ruled by his bodyguard and his daughter; corruption was the order of the day.
The oligarchs decided to take power through him. They had almost unlimited funds, control of all TV channels and most of
the other media.
Vladimir Putin, the taciturn and tough ex-KGB operative, assumed power, took control of the media, put one of the oligarchs
(Mikhail Khodorkovsky) in prison, caused the others to flee (Berezovsky is in England, Vladimir Gusinsky is in Israel, another,
Mikhail Chernoy, is assumed to be hiding here.
George W. Bush and John Kerry both brag about their talent for raising enormous sums of money. From whom? From pensioners?
From the mythical "old lady in tennis shoes"? Of course not, but from the cabals of billionaires, the giant corporations and
powerful lobbies (arms dealers, Jewish organiztions, doctors, lawyers and such). Many of them give money to both candidates–just
to be on the safe side.
All of these expect, of course, to receive a generous bonus when their candidate is elected. "There is no such thing as
a free lunch", as the right-wing economist Milton Friedman wrote. As in Russia, every dollar (or ruble) invested wisely in
an election will yield a ten- or hundred-fold return.
Even educated Americans speak of Putin as a "thug". All he has done is restore the rule of law, what Germans used to call a
Rechtsstaat .
It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously a man
of the people. He also takes the political ideas that European civilization was built on seriously, something that can be said
for no Western leader I know of.
It is turning out as the nineteenth century Slavophiles thought it would: Russia has become the last defender of Western civilization.
Someone above mentioned the Robert Kaplan piece in the Atlantic "how we would fight china" that appeared in 2005. This was not
lunatic but a very interesting article on US military plans on how to confront China just off of China's territorial waters (I
think the lunacy is the notion that US national interests require us to maintain a war footing in the Western Pacific, but that
is an argument we have lost here in the US). I hadn't seen this before. In any case it should be read by anyone interested in
US plans against China. It explains Hillary's 'pivot to Asia' policy.
By the same token, Ukrainians can be understood when they kick out a president who wants to bring them into the Russian orbit
against their will.
I was surprised to read that. I should have thought that Avnery has a concept of the rule of law. Also, is Avnery so uninformed
not to know that most Ukrainians do not want to join NATO?
"Even educated Americans". That must be either a relative term, or the voice of the educated is never heard. It is difficult for
me to imagine how an "educated" person could be so ill-informed. Back on planet earth, this would never happen.
Maybe this is far-fetched and I know that Putin bailed out some the the Russian Oligarchy during the 2008 recession so they would
owe him support at this crucial time. But recently I watched an interview on 60 Minutes with businessman Bill Browder who trashed
talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder who at one point alleges
being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country. Anyway I'm not sure what kind of subterfuge
he was up to when he stayed in Russia but he made some nasty accusations against Putin.
A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during
Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the Soviet
Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.
Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless revolution.
Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.
I believe it is during this time Putin became aware of the power of Zionist media to destroy political careers.
In October, in an interview in Le Figaro, Putin announced that he would no longer tolerate criticism of the government by media
controlled by the oligarchs. "If necessary we will destroy those instruments that allow this blackmail", he declared.
There's no doubt in my mind that Zionist influence had a hand in what is happening in Ukraine and the protests that tried to
interfere with Putin's re-election. Maybe Putin pissed off some other Zionist oligarchs. I haven't been able to research more
on this issue but hopefully some of you will look further.
But this just reinforces the point I've been trying to make that Zionists are involved in this imperial global expansion, in
this case because the capitalist system feels threatened by Putin and potential reforms. Zionists are up to their eyeballs in
this imperial advance and I still believe they're in the driver's seat.
Are you kidding me? Do you think the U.S. could ever dream of reining 1.3 billion stray cats with nukes and a formidable army?
For gawd's sake this article is practically a manifesto on Zionism supremacy, it's that transparent. But of course, you'll never
admit it.
Oh the Neocons were absolutely behind this Ukrainian gambit, and I'm thinking their goals were twofold: to keep Russia preoccupied
and get hold of Sevastopol. That way, it would be very difficult for her to help Syria and, of course, Iran -- still the main
goals for those creeps. And yeah, find me one Neocon, anywhere, who does not support Israel. So yeah, Zionists.
remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 11:37:51 PM |
58
really, read some history? u s imperialism is the single most dangerous threat to humanity
israel is a vassal state
exactly as indonesia was under suharto, or colombia under any of its creep compradors
your sense of disproportion amazes me truly, maybe it is because you are american, you want to blame someoen else for your
barbarity, 'the smart jew' is again the perfect target for imbeciles
it is a puppet state, it is a non state, who does exactly what washington wants it to do. it effects only only middle east
policy & even that it is by far the junior party, if washington told israel to go live in the sudetenland, the state of israel
would, is is a pantin, a puppet increasingly with more bark than bite
you choose anti semitism because as american you are frightened of being obliged to burn your shithouse down
Oh no, rememberringgiap, no. It's the combination of the two. And for gosh sakes, I've known how bad America was since I was a
kid, and spent most of my life trying to do something about it so I'm hardly afraid to admit it. We see the end coming, it's gonna
be UGLY, and we know we deserve it; not a nice place to be but it's honest. And Israel is equally nasty, sometimes in the lead,
sometimes as a follower, and I don't hate Jews but I sure do loathe Zionists, whatever faith they may be. (And again, in America,
there are a lot more Christians blindly supporting Israel than Jews.)
remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 11:49:14 PM |
60
they are puppets, nothing more nothing less. the actual state of israel began criminally with deir yassin & that state gets worse,
it is little surprise, that its population is leaving in droves, more than at any other time, so would i with nutcases like lieberman
& netanyahu
but they are no more than donkeys
pakistan on the other hand frightens the living shit out of those united states
In the atlantic.com article In Defense of Empire the words "slave" or "slavery" in fact do not exist.
or example, in the above quoted text, we find this phrase: "Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often
been provided by slavery ...". From the atlantic.com url, instead we find: "Throughout history, governance and relative
safety have most often been provided by empires ...".
The same types of differences exist in every single case. Obviously, this is a huge problem. Either the quotes are wrong in
this post or they have been edited out in a later version of the atlantic.com version and replaced with the words "empires," "imperialism",
etc.
Which lets Israel/zionist Jewish fascists off the hook for the war crimes they are responsible for. "They're just pawns of
a larger poer, pity them, but don't condemn them. And for god's sakes, don't do anything meaningful that might interfere in their
sacred mandate from the godhead."
Which is essentially what Jewish zionist hasbara is all about, whether from the zionist left or the zionist right.
It's never "us", it's always "them".
Excuse me while I go puke, Charles Manson in drag.
@48 Yes, totally not lunatic for the United States to go to war with one of the most populated countries on the planet.
Wanting to go to war with enormous countries like China, Russia or even Iran (not as big, but still what, over twice as big
as iraq and afghanistan combined?) is totally and completely rational.
Thank goodness Putin did some house-cleaning, but he no doubt made enemies among Zionists no doubt on Wall Street as well.
They must have had capital tied up in these Zionist-run Russsian companies.
@62 WHAT Zionist left? There is none. All the Democrats or whatever that are zionists are also right wing. They just dress up
imperialism in fancy words like 'humanitarianism', thats all.
There hasnt been a zionist left since the last communist zionists in Israel retired or died decades ago.
@57 You realize that critiquing zionism, which is a modern political ideology, is NOT the same as critiquing Judaism, the religion,
right? Right? Guess not.
Because there are zionist Christians (probably more than there are zionist jews) and nonzionist jews (a growing number of young
jews realize Israel is an apartheid state).
So stop trying to slur anti-zionists as anti-semites, thats just slander.
Hey kalithea, the Russians let Khodorkovsky out of prison early. Almost the first thing the loyal Israeli citizen did was go to
the Ukraine and encourage the neo-nazis running the place now to get even more brutal and nazi like.
I could ask what's up with that, but I think everybody here knows the answer.
@65: I think b made it very clear. He used the word "substitute", and the title of the post was directly followed by the same
title, but without the substitution.
This kind of snark is just part of leftist blog culture. (I don't know if right wingers do it.)
I'm beginning to think that the substitution of "Kagan" for "Kaplan" was snark too, but that I didn't pick up on.
Do Michelle and her speechwriters really think that Chinese rulers don't take that as a big joke? I'm sure they're laughing
their heads off behind her back. I hope that the reason speechwriters put stuff like that in there is for the domestic American
audience.
And yet another Zionist oligarch who bilked Russia and hates Putin.:
On 23 August 2003, Gusinsky travelled from Israel to Athens, where he was arrested under a Greek-Russian treaty for fraud amounting
to millions in damages.[5] Intense pressure from American leaders (mainly from US ambassador in Athens Tomas Miller), Israeli
officials and the European Jewish Congress on the Greek government led to Gusinsky's release within five days.[6]
Mr Gusinsky says we will all pay the price if western leaders appease President Putin. He likens the situation apocalyptically
to the 1930s and the world's treatment of Hitler. Mr Putin's hands, he says, are already red with the blood of murdered Chechens.
Mr Putin's popularity comes in part from his promise to do away with the oligarchs, a group of 20-odd billionaire businessmen
who got rich stripping assets from privatised companies they bought for nothing.
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22, 2014 12:46:04 AM | 75
"just read strormfront that enough - that's the level of research repeated ad finitum - whether its lagos or louisiana"
It's well known stormfront is a zionist front/agent provocateur site, much like freerepublic, though tailored to the more hardcore
freak. Why promote them?
Maybe Zionists deserve to rule, they're smarter, they work harder and are better organized. You folks couldn't organize an ice
cream social. Just sayin'
But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. ... Just don't think for a minute that
these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews, low and high, who share the same damned values even
if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen".
Testify Sister! Tell us who set the wheels in motion, tell us all what the plan is. What tricks did the Jews pull on us non-Jews
way back then, how are non-Jews enabling their diabolical worldwide plan?
WTF are you trying to say? The Zionist have no position on US-China relations as far as anyone can see. I read that article
by Robert Kaplan and he reported the views of officers in the US Navy. I am quite sure that Israel has not penetrated the US Navy.
This is a perspective of good old fashioned US imperialism. I know that the Zionist work in the background and try to influence
US policy, but they do not control it. Especially inside the US Navy. You have no idea how power is distributed inside the US.
"... I have told the whole truth in that, and only dead men can tell the truth in this world ..." Mark Twain
Eugenics is evil ... however, in Kagans case, his removal from the gene pool and his ilk, could only be seen as a darwinian,
evolutionary advancement for humanity.
thank you, rememberinggiap, for your calmness. you are correct in saying that many of us (and that includes myself look for causes
outside our internal history. perhaps the fixed point should be the Dulles brothers, who if they did not set us down this infernal
path, gave us a mighty and prolonged push. Mark Twain had it all figured out over a century ago. as to American zionists, Jews
of my and Nora's generaton lived through the discrimination of convenanted housing tracts, university quotas and professional
exclusions down to the Vietnam war, and they can't put it out of their mind. they probably don't know that they were not the only
ones. when I was a student at Yale living with George Bush Sr.'s aunt in New Haven, Catholics and most of the Yale professors
were excluded from the lawn tennis club situated just behind the new school of management on Whitney avenue. No Irish or italians
need apply. the us is a swarm of internal contradictions, and it's history is out of control.
Nora at 45: Kindly cancel that request. Just answer this. Do you agree with this quote from Pragma:
Neither is it coincidence that (before the creation of izrael but about the time of the balfour deal ...) Russia was poisoned
by zionist "communists" (just another projection), nor is it coincidence that Germany was relentlessly pushed into war and
later broken and crushed and not reinstated until this very day ...
If that's a good summary of them, maybe there's no need for you to tell us about your 'historical' beliefs.
Also, in fact I only think Pragma is the actual 'destroy moonofalabama' operative here. You and his other supporters seem to
hold your beliefs sincerely. FWIW and for what they're worth which is less than zero.
The US Navy has known it Carriers are simply very large targets for many, many years, and so do the PLAN.
Carrier battle groups are for projecting brute military force and creating invasive sovereignity(sic) in support of Empire
around the globe ... NEVER , in the modern era to be risked against 1st world powers. All those billions upon billions
of $ would be lost in the briefest moment of conflict with the PLAN. See: Anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM).
I must admit I didn't compare the original text with what b cited, I still had too much of a confidence into him which now vanished
totally. Others @6) and Massinissa discovered the bluff immediately, so they deserve the honour. I really don't know what the
purpose of this double bluff is: changing the text and the author??? I would say just stupid...
It also damages people like Chinweizu @10), the famous nigerian writer who presented a case of REAL stewardry of labour by
WTO close to slaveholdership
maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of
us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes to the commenters here confusing all of us.... I
think the whole blog here is really disintegrating, from top to bottom...
Knut at 83: Lenin had this figured out, imperialism is a stage of capitalism, a reaction to excess production and internal markets
being exhausted of opportunities for excess profits. The European capitalist countries began struggling with this phenomenon in
the late 19th century and the US a few decades later. There's really no solution other than ending capitalism and/or social democracy.
In that context, pinning responsibility for imperialism on Jews is just idiotic, and pinning things on the US will just make
folks less wary of its natural successor, China. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing when there is multi-polar world, because
that coincided in the post-war era and may coincide again with greater 'space' for independent, populist, democratic regimes to
arise.
And that also doesn't mean I accuse Russia of being an imperialist. Lenin was making a general observation (I think) and there
are exceptions. Regimes under attack by 'big imperialism' sometimes produce sincere democratic/populist nationalists. I hope/think
Russians are lucky enough to have one of those running their country now. The people should be aware they'll likely need to struggle
'some day soon' to avoid reverting to the 'imperialist norm'.
@87) where is the enlightment of readers doing this? all empires, great and less great, historically have been founded on slaveholdership,
now changing to a form of forced labour like in most of the arabic monarchistic countries or work without the minimum ILO standards
like in the case of the Sotchi Olympic workers....
Human Trafficking and Slavery by the US Government, Military and Corporations for MASSIVE PROFIT is very, very real,
in a 'literal' sense, too ... all of it corrupt and illegal even under US Law ... and no one will ever be prosecuted ...
12 years a Slave , indeed ... as I recall,
no individual, business or official involved was ever held accountable for the multiple crimes, even then illegal, committed against
Solomon Northup , then a Freeman ... one hundred and
sixty years has passed and where are we now ?
But if Congress approves, the Army would drop from today's active-duty force of 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000
over the next three years.
"Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged" ground wars, the Army is larger than required and "larger than we
can afford," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who announced the plan, said at the Pentagon.
California may win more than it loses in the shift of resources as older aircraft are phased out and new ones are brought
on board.
Spending for cyberwarfare will increase under the plan. That could benefit larger government contractors in Silicon Valley,
including Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Oracle Corp. and a growing number of start-ups in defense-related equipment
and software.
In addition, Northrop Grumman Corp. uses a facility in Palmdale to build the unmanned RQ-4 Global Hawk drone aircraft that
will replace the high-flying U-2 spy planes, famous in the early Cold War but now proposed for retirement. The company has
about 2,500 employees on the program in Southern California.
The Pentagon previously had planned to mothball a version of the Global Hawk and keep the U-2 flying. But Hagel said
the operating costs of the drone had fallen and that with its greater range and endurance, it "makes a better high-altitude
reconnaissance platform for the future."
The Air Force has 32 U-2s based at Beale Air Force Base in Marysville, Calif.
Hagel also called for retiring the Air Force's entire fleet of A-10 "Warthog" ground attack fighters, as well as mothballing
half of the Navy's fleet of 22 cruisers, and building only 32 of the Navy's littoral combat ships, not 52 as previously planned.
The shallow-draft, lightly armed warship is designed for clearing mines and anti-submarine warfare. Hagel said it might not
be heavily armed enough and called for studying whether a new frigate would be better.
The only military force to grow would be special operations forces. Increasingly used for training and counter-terrorism
missions around the world, the elite force would increase by several thousand to 69,700 .
Which would give the US a spoiling, blackmail power to push for its interests but no imperial power.
Rather than Obama's post-imperialism, in which the secretary of state appears like a lonely and wayward operator encumbered
by an apathetic White House, I maintain that a tempered imperialism is now preferable.
No other power or constellation of powers is able to provide even a fraction of the global order provided by the United
States. U.S. air and sea dominance preserves the peace, such as it exists, in Asia and the Greater Middle East. American military
force, reasonably deployed, is what ultimately protects democracies as diverse as Poland, Israel, and Taiwan from being overrun
by enemies. If America sharply retrenched its air and sea forces, while starving its land forces of adequate supplies and training,
the world would be a far more anarchic place, with adverse repercussions for the American homeland.
Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of imperial
order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic
heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.
He seems to realize his argument is an uphill struggle as he adds this
This by no means obliges the American military to repair complex and populous Islamic countries that lack critical components
of civil society. America must roam the world with its ships and planes, but be very wary of where it gets involved on the
ground. And it must initiate military hostilities only when an overwhelming national interest is threatened. Otherwise, it
should limit its involvement to economic inducements and robust diplomacy -- diplomacy that exerts every possible pressure
in order to prevent widespread atrocities in parts of the world, such as central Africa, that are not, in the orthodox sense,
strategic.
That he goes back to "White Man's Burden" in his arguments presumably means he is too old and
out
of touch with US demography .
There is a great
RT interview
by Anastasja Churkina - the daughter of the Russian UN ambassador - with Amy Goodman on the role of corporate media - when
corporations profit from war.
It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously
a man of the people.
Indeed. It's also instructive to compare a Putin speech and say an obama or merkel speech. While Putin *evidently and doubtlessly*
really addresses the people and explains what has been, or must be, done and why, the western puppets merely utter system standard
pieces of text and are ignoring the people.
kalithea (53)
Bill Browder who trashed talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder
who at one point alleges being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country.
Well, depending on whom you ask, weztern media and even (reliably and confrontingly jew defending) wikipedia, or Russian investigators,
witnesses, and victims, the answer will be very different.
Actually browder was deeply and dirtily linked to a concerted crime operation that tried to steal Russias (mostly hydrocarbon)
resources in a "professional" way. This, of course *had* to be understood for what it was, a direct attack on Russias life blood,
which maybe was not even the goal of browder and accomplices but at least a non issue for them. Looking closer you will also find
khodorkovsky and the "devils advocate" magnitsky in those circles.
Funnily the wezt and wikipedia paint browder as a gently minded businessman who got thrown out by evil Putin for unmasking
Putin and his crime gang (well noted, that's how the weztern thugs paint it).
A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during
Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the
Soviet Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.
Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless
revolution. Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.
berezovsky didn't stick to the deal, he left the frame so clearly - and wisely - assigned by Putin. Quite possibly berezovsky
is the symbol of the "political oligarchs" which, of course, were not at all happy about Putin stopping their free looting of
Russia.
It is noteworthy - yet widely "forgotten" - that berezovsky later, in London, more or less confessed his crimes and evil spirited
attacks and asked Putin to forgive him and to please, pretty please, let him go back to Russia.
One might also have a good case here for the difference between jews and zionists. Yes, most oligarchs are jews but that's
not the point. The point is that extremely greedy people with a large crime register wanted to and still want to earn ever more
billions, jew or not jew. But that's it. And one can make agreements with them, even agreements in favour of Russia and even agreements
basically employing those oligarchs for the good of Russia.
Not so with the zionists. The zionist oligarchs never respected Putin, nor the people, nor Russia herself. To them Russia was
but a helpless but very rich lady they would loot and rob with utmost brutality. And as soon as anyone dared to stop them they
would scream "anti-semites!" and leave to izrael or another zio controlled country.
For those oligarchs who stuck and stick to the agreements one must not care about jew or not and indeed there are non-jews,
too. The most brutal and despicable criminals though are zio-jews, each and all of them.
Ad "zusa attacking China":
That must be a joke. Anyone with some basic knowledge about military issues will tell you a simple truth: zusa must hope and
pray that none of their protectees, namely japan, sk, and taiwan, ever comes in a situation to ask for zusa help. For a simple
reason. zusa would be doomed.
Japan being the least dangerous, sk would pretty much be lost before zusa could fire some shots, and taiwan (and largely sk)
are basically denied zones.
Not only are 100% of taiwan covered by Chinese anti-air systems but worse for zusa, zusa would be stopped dead in its tracks
because China can interdict the ca. 600 - 750km wide "belt" around taiwan needed for zusa air operations. About the only tool
not interdicted would be zusa firing cruise missiles; as those are old tech., and slow China would comfortably kill at least 80%
(and more realistically around 90%) of those. Would do zusa that, would zusa protect taiwan knowing there is little they could
do but there would be a very considerable risk of China (rightfully!) destroying major parts of the zusa fleet? I strongly doubt
that.
About the most realistic and favourable (for zusa) scenario I see would be a China japan war with zusa interfering somewhat.
And even that is doubtful as it might "invite" nk to use China supplied weapons against both japan and the much hated zusa.
maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of
us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes
maybe? MAYBE? What an incompetent asshole! OF COURSE I'm a programm! But not by b; I've been programmed by KGB on a rusty typewriter.
izrael should ask zusa for more funds or they should ask one of the zio-controlled countries. Obviously izrael *urgently* needs
funds for better agents. Current ones like thomas miss even the most obvious points.
Ceterum censeo israel americanamque vehementer delenda esse!
He has been an active supporter of Jewish initiatives in Russia and Europe. In 1996 Fridman was one of the founders of the
Russian Jewish Congress, now sitting on the RJC Presidium. He makes large contribution to the work of the European Jewish Fund,
a non-profit organization aimed at developing European Jewry and promoting tolerance and reconciliation on the continent.[5]
Presently, a member of the Public Chamber of Russia. Was presented with an award by Bill Clinton, uber-supporter of Zionism.
What is this? A case of keep your friends close and enemies closer? I wouldn't trust a Zionist as far as I can spit! How many
Zionists are in his entourage? I hope Putin doesn't end up like Caesar - stabbled in the back by those close to him - et tu Brute?
Mikhail Fridman and his fellow Russian Jewish philanthropists are ponying up some serious cash to create what is being touted
as a "Jewish Nobel Prize." The Russian billionaire and co-founder of the five-year-old Genesis philanthropy group announced
the creation of a $1 million prize that will be awarded to Jews who win global recognition for their professional achievements,
including in the world of science and the arts. The prize, launched in collaboration with the Israeli government, was announced
on Tuesday, which coincided with the visit of Russian president Vladimir Putin to Israel. The award will be presented annually
by the Israeli prime minister around Passover time. As if the world was short on Jewish Nobel Prize winners.
Neocon Zionists, aka Israeli Firsters, and most of the One Percent on Wall Street have owned Congress and the mainstream media
propaganda machine since the beginning of modern print, and then broadcast media. By this control of what people read, hear, and
see, they have been able to control what people believe and think. Game set match, until now.
Now, the internet has opened the Pandora's box of Truth, and as people have an instinct for the truth, they are beginning to
see what was concealed from them before. (And they're inevitably getting smarter, developing the skill needed to distinguish noisy
nonsense from correct information.) So Robert Kagan and other neocon Zionists like him whose first loyalty is to Israel, are rightly
worried that when the "tapestry of lies" is stripped away, and the American people see the extent of the Zionist subversion, there
will be consequences.
This is the pattern of five-thousand years of Jewish history: they go somewhere, do very well by themselves and the locals,
then they get powerful, and they overreach and become abusive, at which point the locals accost them, or holocaust them. This
is how Jewish talent becomes Jewish self-destruction.
This is sad enough, but as an American, I'm particularly dismayed, because the American Jews in my surrounding community have
-- too easily I must confess -- been hoodwinked into supporting the Zionist criminal enterprise.
Stealing someone else's country to start your own -- despite all the historical precedent -- is not a good strategy, particularly
when the folks whose country you stole have a billion and a half co-religionists out there unhappy about the theft.
Let's get some definitions right, ok. Zionism in this day and age means no more and no less than a strong supporter of the state
of Israel. It simply doesn't mean "Jew", but it does mean condoning increased settlements and outrageous attacks against Gaza,
etc. The entire movement is a bit more than 100 years old; it began at roughly the same time that TR and his lovely "White Fleet"
sailed the Pacific to do some of the same lovely stuff to the Philippines that we'd been doing to North America since the 1600's
and the rest of the Americas since the 1800s (the entire purpose of the Monroe Doctrine was to legitimize it).
Okay, a bit more history: our entry into WWI was, among other things, closely related to the Balfour Doctrine. We did it for
many mercantile reasons as well (DuPont vs. Krupp, etc.), but the point is, just like the Yalies in OSS whose families had been
bankrolling Hitler before (and during, see: Prescott Bush) WWII then snarfed up a bunch of leading Nazis afterwards, different
people w/different goals and beliefs, can work together when it suits their purposes. And "Israel returning to Zion" was and is
a MAJOR theme for the Puritans, both here and in England (look up Dispensationalism; it's a big deal) and various other groups
of Christians.
So yes, no CT here at all, but why waste time separating out blame: it's a many-headed monster that's easily judged simply
by its effects, summed up as harm to innocent people in the furtherance of... whatever.
fairleft, I left some stuff for you that you may not have read. I'm putting it here but will not engage you again until you've
digested at least one of the readings I suggested.
I have an honest question I wish you'd really think about. I'm assuming you're an American, like me. And we have no compunction
praising our fellow Americans when they do something in accord with our values, and criticizing them when they don't. I.e., we're
not blindly zenophobic, right? And I think that's pretty generally true for most of the people here, whatever their ethnicity:
they can criticize "their own" when they find it warranted, based on what the person, or group of people, did. So I'm wondering
about your blind spot: are all Jews blameless just by definition, or might some of them, sometimes, do something objectionable?
And if so, why is no one allowed to say so? In my family's background are lots of different peoples who at various times were
subjected to hideous repression, ethnic cleansing and yes, genocide, but I still see no reason not to criticize them when they're
doing something wrong -- why can't you? And please don't invoke the Holocaust: I can trump you in my own background by hundreds
of years and millions of people. Really: not all Jews are perfect or blameless, and we're not really talking Jews anyhow, we're
talking support for criminal acts by the state of Israel, supported here in America by a LOT more Christians than Jews. I.e.,
Zionism.
Sometimes this knee-jerk respose is just group-think by otherwise decent people who've been frightened and brainwashed their
entire lives and might possibly be reachable. Gilad Atzmon, Israel Adam Shamir and Philip Weiss, to name just three, all started
out like that too -- and then grew. I was trying to give fairleft an opportunity to open his mind a bit; he can take it not, as
he chooses.
You seem like a decent person: please read these. It won't be easy for you -- it's hard to challenge deeply-ingrained beliefs
-- but reading these books with a mind open to seeing things differently is more than worth it.
In all friendliness, it seems you just don't get it. Yes, fairleft is somewhat more professional than, say thomas, in not exclusively
relying on crude attacks and gross propaganda.
He is, however, nevertheless and evidently a fervent pro-zionist and trying his best to do their work here.
(But of course, this is but some friendly sentences. Feel free by all means to continue your endeavour)
Just giving him the benefit of the doubt this one last time.
But those two books and Allison Weir's piece imo are important for anyone who wants to be informed; there's a lot of data in
each of them that simply cannot be refuted. And Shahak's book is still available online, I think.
Imperialism benefits no one but a small slice of the ruling class. But it's always defended as if it's the only thing providing
food for the average person. It's been true since the Roman empire. The looting oriented British Raj stripped away so much and
somehow almost none of it ended up in the hands of the average Briton. Same for the Kingdoms of Spain and Portugal. It's just
no good. I don't know how long it will take for average people to understand it.
The interest in slavery is not just neo-connish etc. but in a way, underground, an interest of Big Corporations (1).
Not, imho, in first place because of the 'cheap labor' but because of issues of control.
Right now we are living in a world that is organized in part by nation-states (as a kind of ultimate authority) and for another
part, not well coordinated with the first, by Big Corporations, who increasingly control Banking and Finance, thus also say pol.
contributions in the US, territory (2) and its uses, supra-territorial matters such as communications and benchmarks (internet,
the control of space, rating agencies, for ex.), and other related matters like patent laws.
Slavery as an official doctrine is not in their interests, cheap labor is already available thru modern slavery. So they keep
a low profile, and let their 'elected' representatives take the flack.
Such clashing interests are well illustrated in the case of Ukraine, where the confusion of the Western 'nation-states' has
become pathetically ridiculous, as they cannot make public their lack of power and attendant subservience to Corporate interests.
They are kind of 'holding on' to keep some hand in the game, and mobilizing their 'electorate' with propaganda, as that is where
their livelihood come from.
1. Shell, BP, Total, plus many others in the energy field. Also the likes of Glencore Xstrata, Cargill, AXA, Monsanto, Nestlé,
JP Morgan, etc. etc. all entwined in a kind of global network.
2. Straight out buying and leasing land; owning thru investments and 'deals', exploration rights, mineral rights, agriculture,
transport hubs (pipelines, shipping, ports, the machines that implement the transport, etc.)
In the tiny minds of these neocons, it is possible that in some simplified way, the marxist theory of the falling rate of profit
penetrated, at least sufficiently for this one to infer that wage labour is inexorably doomed by its own internal contradictions.
However, applying the same marxian analysis, it is possible to prove that an economy based on slave labour generates no capitalist
profits at all.
Israel (in the form of its present Govmt, and past as well) is US State number 51, a splinter outpost on foreign lands.
Its continuing existence in the shape of its crazily belligerent and racist, apartheid stance, and all the dire cruelties we
know about, is maintained by the unwavering support and investment from the US, though EU poodles have followed along. (See e.g.
UN vetos, etc.) It is a sick, symbiotic relationship, with one party acting the thug, encouraged by the backer. It is economically
dependent on its masters so cannot stop, and leaders of course join for their own personal interests.
Not to minimize the influence of the "Jewish / Isr. lobby" e.g. Walt and Mearsheimer, etc. whatever - exists because it is
welcomed, and then provides strange grist to many lunatic mills.
NBC News: New U S. State Dept travel warning tells citizens to defer travel to east regions
of Kharkiv, Donetsk and Lugansk in Ukraine .......................so is west ukraine safe?>!!
Good points. The sorrow is, average people have rarely been in a position to do anything anyhow; they're generally too busy
just trying to survive. What we're seeing now in both the EU and US is the steep downward slope of economic and political disempowerment
while (hopefully) heading upwards is the shallower slope of public understanding. Will they intersect in time, i.e., while people
still have enough power to do something about it? Who knows. And what can people do? In the US the angry folks with guns have
been successfully brainwashed to ultimately support TPTB -- while believing they're rebelling against them. (Some really clever
work there, worth of Goebbels at his best.)
This is the pattern of five-thousand years of Jewish history: they go somewhere, do very well by themselves and the locals,
then they get powerful, and they overreach and become abusive, at which point the locals accost them, or holocaust them. This
is how Jewish talent becomes Jewish self-destruction.
Hi Cynthia! Are you part of Pragma's takedown of moonofalabama or are you just a stupid solo anti-Semite? If the latter, how
did you find your way here?
Nora @ 108: Your're on a roll today it seems. Your expression at 108 truly fits MOST folks here at MOA, at least I sincerely hope
so. Like society in general, there are people afoot in this world, who get PAYED to disrupt objectivity on the Internet and the
Media.
@126 - true. it would be nice if folks ignored those who they believe are full of shite too, lol.. i think b would benefit correcting
the kagan verses kaplan issue.. both of them are friggin nutso's but still..
In 2003, Rabbi Saadya Grama of the Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned Talmudic school of Lakewood, NJ, published a book in which
he claimed that Gentiles were completely evil and that Jews constituted a separate, genetically superior species.
The book published under the Hebrew Title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarsahat Hagalut" quoted numerous classical Jewish sources to
prove Jewish superiority over the rest of humankind.
The difference between Jews and gentiles, he argued, is not religious, historical, cultural, or political. It is rather
racial, genetic, and scientifically unalterable. The one groups is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil"
while the other is "totally good"
If gentiles (goyem) are inherently inferior to Jews, and if their very humanity is presumed to be denied, it is axiomatically
inferred from this that these gentiles have inherently lesser rights than Jews do.
Indeed, some Talmudic references do refer to gentiles as "animals walking on two feet instead of four".
Even today, some Rabbis, such as David Batsri, invoke the "bestiality" of non-Jews, claiming that the Creator created them
with two legs instead of four in deference to Jews, because it is not appropriate that Jews be served with four-legged animals.
Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that "the difference between a Jewish soul and
souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul
and the souls of cattle." (Reuters Photo)
Remarks by the Israeli Minister of Interior Yaakov Neeman suggesting that the Jewish religious law (Halacha) should be adopted
as the "law of the land" in the Jewish state has drawn strong reactions from both Jews and non-Jews.
"Step by step, we will bestow upon the citizens of Israel the laws of the Torah and we will turn Halacha into the binding
law of the nation," Neeman told Rabbis at a Jewish law convention in occupied Jerusalem in December 2009.
"We must bring back the heritage of our fathers to the nation of Israel," he said. "The torah has the complete solution
to all of the questions we are dealing with."
Neeman's statements were met applauds from participants who included high-ranking Rabbis, as well as representatives of
religious parties.
However, for non-Jews, who now constitute nearly 50 percent of the total population in occupied Palestine, Neeman's remarks
are a serious cause for concern since Halacha, at least according to the Orthodox Jewish interpretation, does not recognize
the full humanity of non-Jews.
Hence, non-Jews living under Halacha must accept to live under a perpetual state of inferiority, if not persecution.
Lesser in Every Aspect
According to Orthodox Judaism, a non-Jew (goy) is inferior to a Jew in every conceivable aspect. This inferiority is absolute,
inherent, intrinsic, and not subject to any related or unrelated factors.
Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that "the difference between a Jewish soul and
souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul
and the souls of cattle."
The teachings of Kook are based on the Lurianic Cabala (Jewish mysticism), which teaches the absolute superiority of the
Jewish soul and body over the non-Jewish soul and body. This means, according to one Rabbi who is member of the Chabadi Lubovitcher
sect, that "every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity and is part of God."
In 2003, Rabbi Saadya Grama of the Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned Talmudic school of Lakewood, NJ, published a book in
which he claimed that Gentiles were completely evil and that Jews constituted a separate, genetically superior species.
The book published under the Hebrew Title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarsahat Hagalut" quoted numerous classical Jewish sources to
prove Jewish superiority over the rest of humankind.
The difference between Jews and gentiles, he argued, is not religious, historical, cultural, or political. It is rather
racial, genetic, and scientifically unalterable. The one groups is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil"
while the other is "totally good"
"Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face
total catastrophe, Jews do experience good fortune."
"The Jews themselves brought about their own destruction during the Holocaust, since they arrogantly endeavored to overcome
their very essence, dictated by divine law."
While castigated by many Jewish figures, religious and secular, for its brazen racism, Grama's thesis is not really in conflict
with the Rabbis of Gush Emunim (the settler camp) and the rest of the National religious movement in Israel today.
He readily applies Torah passages against idolaters, other pagans to Christianity and Islam, and other monotheists who worship
the God of Abraham, the very God proclaimed by the Torah.
He also ignores extensive Rabbinic deliberations during the medieval period, which concluded that both Islam and Christianity
as "licit, monotheistic faiths."
Hence, Muslims and Christians could not be lumped in one category with the idol-worshipers of earlier times.
Sub-human Slaves
If gentiles (goyem) are inherently inferior to Jews, and if their very humanity is presumed to be denied, it is axiomatically
inferred from this that these gentiles have inherently lesser rights than Jews do.
Indeed, some Talmudic references do refer to gentiles as "animals walking on two feet instead of four".
Even today, some Rabbis, such as David Batsri, invoke the "bestiality" of non-Jews, claiming that the Creator created them
with two legs instead of four in deference to Jews, because it is not appropriate that Jews be served with four-legged animals.
It is true that this view is not shared by all Rabbis, especially the enlightened ones. However, it is also true that some
prominent sages holding both Halachic and historical weight are among the main advocates of this pure racism.
For example, according to the code of Maimonides (Rambam): "A Jew who killed a non-Jew is exempt from human judgment, and
has not violated the prohibition of murder."
This code is implicitly practiced by Jewish settler judges when dealing with Jews convicted of killing Palestinians, which
explains the extremely light punishments meted out to the perpetrators, especially in comparison to Arabs convicted of the
same felony.
And here's the perfect explanation for ummm...imperial supremacist hegemony:
"Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face
total catastrophe, Jews do experience good fortune."
"Non-Jews were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world-only to serve the People of Israel."
In Israel, death has no dominion over them With gentiles, it will be like any person-They need to die, but God will give
them longevity. Why? Imagine that one's donkey would die, they'd lose their money.
"This is his servant That's why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew."
"why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap; and we will sit like an effendi and eat."
"That is why gentiles were created."
And settler Rabbi Abraham Kook (great last name!):
"The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper
than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."
Teach your children well; to load Kalashnikovs write on bombs that kill and main Palestinian children and kick and spit on
their poor grandmothers while you pull off their hijab.
This is what the new generation of Zionists are learning.
The actual kinship of zionism and US-imperialism is based on both israel and the US are settler-societies that never came
to be nations.
The expression "nation-state" inverses the factual notions of nation and state. Though a state can enforce submission
it can't establish sovereignty. Souvereignty has to be effected by mental and ideological submission of the subject itself to
his master and therefore its not fully established without the rule of law.
While the American secession war is duly called a civil war, because it established rule of law within the union states
it left the relation of union states to the federal state widely outside this rule. The rule of the federal state became and stayed
a military and mafia-like hegemony established on constant war and the amalgamation of military, political and economic clout
in corporative elite clans, families, alumnis and the union bureaucracy itself.
The force, that drove this rule of war and corporative hegemony in the American federation after the civil war was accomplishment
of the genocide of native cultures. It followed (selection): Spanish-American war, Philippine war, the enforcement of the Monroe
Doctrine in Cuba, Hawai, Samoa, Venezuela. But it had another component: The federal war on the working class and their partly
imported organizations. Then followed WWI and WWII, which were essentially wars against the French and British empire.
So the USA never became a nation. The settler-state of freedom of private property was directly converted to an empire-state
ruled by a corporative elite of oligarchs, military staff and a serfing legion of descendant bureaucratic personnel.
It is easy to see, that the never established and unestablishable "Jewish State", the corporative military rule of a zionist
Oligarchy in Israel follows roughly the same pattern.
This is a kind of basic line in a history full of contradictions. Mind the suez-war followed by the nuclear armament of Israel
by France against the will of the american hegemon. And mind that Israel nowadays has but one enemy it has to fear: The faction
of US-elite, which wants to establish a new and stable order in the middle east instead of "creative" chaos in favour of Israel
and SA. The faction that would welcome an iranian gas-pipeline from South Pars to the mediterranian, try to keep the integrity
of Syria and Lebanon and split the GCC.
...
I tried my best to bring forward my thougts in a tongue that never became mine although I read it every day, because there
was nobody deconstructing the "zionist evil"-talk without referring to quasi-religious attitudes and delusive facts and figures
that tell nearly nothing about their coherence. If it was too bad - just tell me and I won't follow up or try again.
Okay, thank you, then I want ro add an inference though it needed a bunch of constituents and chain-links to corroborate it:
The US Federal State is warring for it's very existance. If it ends being the executive power of imperialistic metropolises
it will probably fall apart, even in the most favorable circumstances you might think of, because of its lack of national substance.
Thats the interface to the fight of the zionist oligarchy for their status as "villa in the jungle", their rule as warlords
who can and "must" project power in all the near and middle east and even north africa to stay the ruling power in Palestine.
This strongly associates them to the before mentioned faction of the US-elite, especially the MIF(inancial)C.
There is no other evil as the evil of war and it's cause in freedom and accumulation of competing private property.
I've cut-and-pasted everything bc I just can't give it the time it deserves right this afternoon. I will though, I
promise: it just may take me a little while bc it's a very different way of looking at things and I really need to examine it
more carefully. And again, thank you, it's really good food for thought and I'll give it my best.
@137 /144 - tomgard. i 2nd nora's response to you in that i find your commentary highly educational in so far as you articulate
a similar viewpoint of mine, but from a very different angle. i am curious what you mean by MIF(inancial)C. - that sounds like
what i tend to think military/industrial/financial/complex.. they are definitely rolled into one, even though people look at these
entities as being separate and not connected..
The result of the neocon meddling in Ukraine has created, as usual, a terrible mess for the "west" and even more so for the
Ukrainians. Is there any way to prevent a repeat of such misdeeds?
Yeah, sticking the neocons under water for a week.
The American political Elite consists of both Zionists and Anglophiles. Just as Lindbergh said.
Now, as far as the Iraq War,
as Congressman Moran said, the Jews were not even nearly solely responsible for driving the United States in, based on WMD lies,
but as a group they could have politically vetoed the move, dominant and decisive. On other foreign/domestic matters, your fractional
mileage may vary.
Dan Gertler's grandfather, Moshe Schnitzer (d. November 2007), was known in Israel as "Mr. Diamond;" in youth he joined the
pre-state underground organization Etzel (Irgoun), an Israeli military cell self-defined as an "untra-nationationalist Jewish
militia," but one that committed acts of terrorism in service to the Israeli cause.8 Moshe Schnitzer assumed a major role in
the Africa-Israeli diamond trade in the 1950's in a partnership business called Schnitzer-Greenstein. Schnitzer later founded
the Israel Diamond Exchange in Tel Aviv in 1960, which today brings Israel $14 billion annually in blood business, and is the
country's second-largest industry, but Israel's top export. King Leopold III of Belgium decorated Schnitzer in recognition
of his activities favoring the close relationship of Belgium, Israel and the DeBeers diamond cartels, and Schnitzer was also
President of the Harry Oppenheimer Diamond Museum in Israel.80
The diamond jewelry trade in the United States is more than $30 billion annually, and 99% -- everything that is not synthetic
or artificial diamonds -- involves blood diamonds and the above organized crime syndicates. Israel buys more than 50% of the
world's rough diamonds, and the U.S. buys two-thirds of these. The diamond factories are located in Nethanya, Petach Tikvah,
Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Jerusalem, and other cities around the country, but most of the offices were in Tel Aviv in the financial
district on Ahad Ha'am Street.81 Dan Gertler's father, Asher Gertler, and his uncle, Shmuel Schnitzer, manage the original
family business, and Shmuel is Vice-Chairman of the Belgian-based World Diamond Council -- the entity that spends more money
promoting the false image of "conflict-free" diamonds than it does helping any of the people dispossessed or brutalized by
the diamond industry.48
On August 16, 2007, Rabbi Bentolila in Kinshasa received a communication asking: "What does the Torah say about men exploiting
other men for vast profits while other men are starving and dying all around them? Is there some hierarchy to the Torah that
suggests, for example, that black people or Africans are lesser beings, and therefore not to be a concern where profound profits
are being made?"
There was no reply from Rabbi Bentolila, he was apparently busy readying for another Bar Mitsvah in Belgium. Unfortunately
for Dan Gertler and his spiritual advisers, the Torah says that a Jew can keep a slave, but a Jew kept as a slave must be redeemed,
and that -- an empty, foolish justification for exploiting innocent people -- is how religion falsifies spirituality.
The confusion began when b did one of his usual deliberate substitutions to provoke a bit of thought by substituting slavery
for empire.
The normal confusion, generally engendered by the more pedantic of us whenever b does a semantic substitution, was hugely increased
when b himself confused two asshole neocons of similar name with each other.
Normally b's substitutions generate thought because the concept summoned by the original wording is considerably different
to the concepts generated by its replacement.
This is not the way it is with empire and slavery - two concepts I have always believed to be pretty much indistinguishable
from one another.
That is the heart of the issue here, but but adding the confusion from the juxtaposition of similar terms is the confusion
many people have about slavery.
For me slavery is enforced labour where a human, regarded as the property of another, is forced to live in a way that is beneficial
to his/her 'masters' wants, with no regard for his/her own needs.
Amerikan slavery just like the slavery instituted by the original english colonisers, also featured no payments or wages be
given the slaves.
That isn't always the case slaves who are paid are still slaves and may be worse off because of that. The Greek slaves who
worked as doctors, secretaries, and retail assistants in imperial Rome frequently were paid for their work, but they were still
slaves - their lives were not their own. They were humans who belonged to someone else.
Berkeley is correct at #118 where he points out that slavery without pay ultimately destroys capitalism.
This is why amerika had a civil war. The southern elites wanted to continue as always importing African slaves and paying them
nothing, while providing the bare minimum for survival as food & shelter. The factory and retail giant owning Northen elites couldn't give a flying fuck about 'the rights of man' they wanted to get
richer that is why they went to war.
The northern elites preferred the form of slavery that had been evolving in Europe since the industrial revolution, where slaves,
imported from Europe and more culturally acclimated to factory work than Africans, whose culture and sense of self had been deliberately
destroyed, leaving the recipients of that horror in a vacuum.
The 'new slaves' would be responsible for their own upkeep receiving minimum payment to keep themselves in food and shelter,
just enough to (a) keep them highly motivated at work and (b) for the elites to profit by taking it back.
Both forms are slavery - the vast majority of humans born into poverty in so-called 'developed' nations such as amerika, england,
or israel, have as little say in their own destiny as does a domestic slave in Saudi Arabia.
The biggest difference is that the rules are unwritten & unstated allowing the western elites great flexibility in fucking
everyone else over.
They don't need to be written because once the responsibility for feeding yourself and your family is put onto your shoulders
in the opprressive and domineering manner which neo-liberal unsocieties put on individuals, the majority follow the same well
worn path to personal impoverishment and elite enrichment.
Those who veer off the path - climb outta the rut - can be picked off one by one as needs must. Occasionally one may achieve
independence in the form of what seems to be economic self determination, but with few exceptions that is because their divergence
suits (& enriches), the slave owners.
This egregious exploitation of ordinary, normal, unsociopathic, humans by the sociopathic elites has been around a lot longer
that the organised political movement created to enable followers of Judaism to colonise the Jordan Valley.
If permitted to, ruthless domination of the decent by the greedy will continue long after the zionists have been driven out
of the area and the land returned to its original indigenous owners.
Palestinians are the descendants of the people who stayed on, minding their farms and orchards when the despotic monarchists
who had comprised Jerusalem's ruling elite fled from their Roman replacements.
It isn't merely incorrect to put the cart before the horse by blaming amerikan imperialism on the corrupt israeli regime, it
is fucking dangerous and destructive - firstly because it causes too much time and energy be spent upon a mob of petty crims (yes
they are psychopaths, but in comparison to the crimes of amerika, israeli leaders are petty crims), but most importantly because
blaming 'the jews' for the world's ills is so destructive to resistance against the asshole elites.
If the elites are to be beaten it will be when all the 'normal' humans have stuck together in common cause against those who
consciously butcher any/all of us for profit.
Once we have learned not to be distracted by deliberately nurtured divisive arguments about race, gender, nationality etc -
then we will rid ourselves of the leeches and then, that time, provided we have managed to do so without making any scapegoats,
maybe then we will be able to asshole-proof our communities ensuring no new sociopaths slink in again under cover of saving us
from oldies, 'those kids', morbidly obese, anorexics, gypsies, kaffirs, niggers or jews.
How many inhabitants does Israel have? How many the US? What percentage of US citizens are Jewish? You must have a theory of Jews being the superior race if you think they can dominate. Of course Israel is a puppet state. What people are trying with their "anti-zionist" theories of "zionist" rulership of the world is very transparent. They are either crazy and obsessed or they try to intentionally disrupt the discussion. They sure don't know anything about
history, about who got killed and why.
The recipe is so simple. Tell the stupid class xy people are responsible for their trouble, make them fight each other and
rule them.
Substituting exploitation of labor-power for slavery, then the rule of law in trade and exchange for rule of a "greedy", "indecent",
"sociopathic" (and, as many consequently say: mentally ill) elite introduces one tribe ("lunatics") for another ("Jews")
and therefore an alternative racist doctrine. Both are manifestations of still the same patriarch pattern of subjugation of one
gender to the other (slavery of women), "order" vs. "chaos", rule of command vs. rule of reason, rule of decalogue over collective
knowledge and judgement,"good" over "evil", and, following up this pattern, rule of a pristhood over patriarchs, of "God" over
"men", of intellectual workforce ("Kopfarbeit) over handcraft and, ultimately, the worship of psyche. It's religion combined with
the everyday racist interpretation of competition- results by a mix of functionally allocated benchmarks of (awe of) "success"
and (worship of) "virtue". The slightly "modern" manifestations, mythologies and patterns are toothless against the inquisitional
redoctrination of "good" and "evil" in times of war, that shows up in a renaissance and reconstruction of tribal thought.
Don't know if this rant was kind of understandable, so, simply:
There is no such THING as "common cause" . That's the simple source and agent of racism! But if it's so one has to infer:
There is a common source of the delusion of "common cause" that is transformed in tribal or racist thought. I name this
common source: Negation of class struggle. Wage-labor is a historical formation of slavery, thats right, and its based on sheer
military power like antique slavery, thats right as well. Its usefull and even necessary to remind those roots, but, since the
social fundament of wage-labor slavery is not only different, but antithetic to elder formations, its criticism and scandalization
has to be different and even antithetic. "Freedom" is not a cause, even less a "common" one, there is no such THING as freedom
except freedom of private property. Walking freely is a cause of lust, convenience and a resulting desire. If it becomes obligative
and necessary freedom is over and delusion comes in, solemnizing free movement against the bondage of slavery. Americans could
have learned this of native leaders they preferred to stab when they couldn't break them in cages.
the poor are many, the rich are few. Why do the rich control their lives as well as those of all the poor? What is the ratio
of guards to prisoners in a jail? by your logic the prisoners should be in control.
seriously, you can do better than that.
regardless, there is way too much time and effort spent on blaming the jews for this mess. there was plenty of inequality before
Moses led the slaves out of Egypt.
166) Of course, numbers translate into political influence.
But in the last analysis power is in the end of a gun. Money gets you nothing if you cannot defend it. So let's compare the
sizes of the US army and the Israeli army, shall we?
The "zionist conspiracy" theory is designed for the "stupid class".
[...] But in the last analysis power is in the end of a gun. Money gets you nothing if you cannot defend it. [...]
Sure, no guns no power, but at the same token, no money no guns. You see, one needs the money first, and thats where your friendly
neighborhood banker comes into the picture. But before it gets too conspiratorial for you, I better won't elaborate any further.
[...] So let's compare the sizes of the US army and the Israeli army, shall we? [...]
Why? Would only make sense to do so if we'd assume those two are enemies. But they are not. They are close allies, to the point
that if Israel would be attacked by any force strong enough to cause sweat in Tel Aviv the US would without blinking once have
its military might come to the rescue.
That's why I called NATO Israel's ultimate henchmen, troops it knows it can call on should things get hairy one day.
Since the start of the 20th century no country was allowed to attack the US Navy without getting its teeth kicked in, just
Israel. Nearly sinking in 1967 the USS Liberty, killing 34 US sailors and wounding more than a 100, but still best friends. Weird
relationship to say the least, better not think too much about it.
The reason the above argument is irresolvable is that neither side is willing to query the relatively PC term "Zionists" in favour
of the more inclusive "Jews". They say that to do this would be "divisive of the class struggle", which obviously is supposed
to be against "the bourgeoisie", whoever they are - technically, I should say, all those who live off profits or as they call
them 'dividends'. But anyway, this brings us back to the weakness in Marx himself which I mentioned before, namely the apparently
deliberate neglect of the power of bankers over industrial capitalists, which even in the 1860s must have been quite evident.
So we have to ask, who are the bankers, specifically, the 'merchant bankers' who financed the development of western colonialism,
and after them the 'international bankers' who orchestrate the global pecking order under neo-colonialism. There cannot be more
than a few tens of thousands of these specialised creatures, worldwide, and one would like to know whether, by the ruse of history,
many of them are Jewish. Then the artificial question of 'Zionists' versus 'Non-Jewish USAian Imperialists' would resolve itself,
because we would be able to see who was pulling the money strings, which ultimately decide all questions great and small.
Kagan, while he is of Jewish belief, has Zionist tendency, his and his kind ultimate aim, is the resurrection of the Khazar empire,
the control of the desert religions, the destruction of the Rus as a nation state.
Somebody, you keep referring to the stupid class. By doing so you're putting yourself right in it, subset "chardonnay sipping
intellectual up themselves bozos".
Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. [...]
You are stuck in this idea that one country dominates the other. What would help our discussion along is if you would open your
mind to the possibility a third party dominates both countries. Once you allow for this reality the weird and opaque relationship
the US and Israel have, or the EU for that matter, starts to make sense.
The fact that there is this seemingly never ending discussion going on about which country is the dog and which one the tail
should tell you that there are enough arguments to be found to make either theory appear plausible. The only way that is possible
is if there is a third "unifying" theory, one which explains those arguments without confusion.
And I am afraid to tell you man, the reason those two countries act in unison so often and have each others back in all important
international affairs is because the top echelons in both countries live at the whim of someone far more powerful than them. A
group of people who with their extended family have say 10 trillion dollars in assets, that's three times Germany's GDP, and control
a network of influence so wide and ingrained it knows no rival.
Rowan @170
[...] But anyway, this brings us back to the weakness in Marx himself which I mentioned before, namely the apparently deliberate
neglect of the power of bankers over industrial capitalists, which even in the 1860s must have been quite evident. So we have
to ask, who are the bankers, specifically, the 'merchant bankers' who financed the development of western colonialism, and
after them the 'international bankers' who orchestrate the global pecking order under neo-colonialism. [...]
Great summary. Their fingerprints are all over the history of wars.
I don't believe its tens of thousands, at the very tip of the pyramid, where there isn't much room left for competition as
wealth is so concentrated a clash would cause death to all, I expect a couple of hundred at the most.
They are either crazy and obsessed or they try to intentionally disrupt the discussion. They sure don't know anything about
history, about who got killed and why.
The only person trying to intentionally disrupt is YOU.
I haven't posted consistently on this blog since the Ukraine crisis, so I didn't much analyze the intentions of every poster.
But it didn't take me long to have you pegged. You are as transparent as Zionists come. You divert, you distract all discussion
away from the real guilty party. That's your main mission here. A hasbara spy in the house of free speech.
FYI, it's not the percentage, buddy, it's the power. Occupy was protesting against the 1% holding all the power and hoarding
all the wealth.
If I do a run-down of the heads of all the top banks, equity capital and venture capital firms; I'm talking those that have
hundreds of billions invested in the whole spectrum of American industry I come up with at least 80% run by supporters of Zionism.
That's a whole lot of power behind Zionism!
So don't give me the percentages bullshit, what level of intelligence quotient do you think we own around here??? Quit insulting
our intelligence!
boy, this "zionism" discussion is getting a but much, lately...
Uh, no. IMO, the subject of Zionism has been way too neglected everywhere, especially considering the gravity of our situation
and the increasing threat that Zionism presents to the integrity of justice and our own freedoms in the West, and security in
this day and age. Never mind the Palestinians; WE are at risk now. Our own rights are under fire here!
The start of Neoconism led by Kagan, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith and others (the majority, Zionists) was the start of the Zionization
of America and subsequently the Zionization of other Western nations, the U.S., Canada and U.K being the most affected with Australia
and others now catching up.
Of course it started quietly, sinuously working its way through the system trying not to attract too much attention. But ever
since the exposé on the Lobby, we're starting to discover just how rampant is Zionism's influence and hold and how much control
is exerted on the public's perception and how it's already started chiseling away at rights we used to take for granted.
We are so bombarded with propaganda now in the Zionist media that we've all turned to the internet because we no longer trust
the media. But now, they're after our rights and freedom here!
I read a saying the other day that went something like this: The Palestinians will never be free until America is freed. How
true! But this problem isn't only America's any more.
Today I posted somewhere else a modified version of MLKs quote on justice: An injustice to someone anywhere is an injustice
to us all everywhere. Because it's so true, that if we allow that injustice to fester indefinitely, in particular, the injustice
against Palestinians and ignore or smother the problem; eventually the rest of us will be subjected to a version of that injustice.
I'll tell you something, every airport in the world is starting to ressemble Ben Gurion. When I travel now; I feel like I'm
at an Israeli checkpoint; I can almost taste the abuse! I can only imagine the level of humiliation and pain Palestinians endure
daily.
Our freedom of speech is also on the line; the internet is no longer a free speech zone; we are monitored; we are censored;
we are bombarded with junk. When I research now, I feel like the results have been altered, like what may appear to be offensive
events or fact has been relegated to back pages or altogether removed to pink wash or whitewash what is happening. It almost feels
like the search engine is laundering information and spitting it out in the cleanest order. Is it my imagination? I don't think
so; I've been using the internet for quite some time and I'm noticing a change; something's off now.
Our privacy is threatened more than ever. Our intuitive intellect is being smothered or ridiculed. Our financial system is
dominated by individuals who not only are supporting a grave injustice, which I believe is supremacist imperialism emerging from
Zionism, but they're intent on creating a uniform system globally that is affecting the livelihoods of millions everywhere with
a selfish supremacist intention in mind based on monopolization. This is as well as I can express it given my limited economic
understanding; but I'm witnessing the results and I like everyone else is in the position to judge and criticize and stop this
outrage.
The Federal Reserve has been run by a succession of Zionists, as is the IMF and the top 1%, well just look it up; it's all
there; it's disheartening.
Honestly, wherever one looks, one sees a Zionist driving the system. What can I say, if they had honorable, decent, altruistic
intentions; personally I might not give a shit; but I really don't like where we're heading; I really don't like where they're
steering and I feel my rights and everyone's rights are being threatened and diminished and I don't want my country and the world
heading down this destructive path.
When they started accusing Occupy of anti-Semitism it appeared like Zionism was trying to control the 99%'s right to protest,
in order not to discover how really rampant Zionism is at the top 1%. I see it; everyone knows it, but we're being muzzled and
wrist tied with that pity card "anti-Semitism" that has turned into a whip against our rights instead of a means to protect people
from hate crimes.
Maybe, you and those who want to shield Zionism try to deny what our eyes plainly recognize as a threat to our freedom! Do
our eyes deceive us? You want us to stop seeing by telling us our lying eyes deceive us or we're anti-Semites? Bullshit!
Our eyes and our intuition don't deceive us! And we won't be robbed of our rights so that a supremacist ideology can exist, be
legitimized and carry on with impunity permanently!
There is the chaff and the wheat here. The wheat see without denying their inner voice and the chaff are here to ridicule that
voice and distract from the truth.
Well I see the hasbara reinforcements have arrived!
The "zionism" discussion is no discussion at all, but a constant, percussive irritant.
And expect it to get progressively more constant, progressively more irritating and percussive. This is but the beginning
of Ravel's bolero, my friend because we're still at the beginning, it's still a whisper, but it's gonna turn into a ROAR.
Zionism is going to be exposed for all it is, for the criminal supremacist, racist ideology that it is. It's really to bad
for your that it's so fatally flaw and that it's expiry date is already is view! You're on the wrong side of history and I
can't wait til you eat your words. It's coming!
kalithea, i tend to agree with copeland fwiw.. does every conversation have to turn into a discussion on zionism? as for mr.
pragma's creative use of the letter z, it is a bit inane on another level. i am willing to accept and agree with the fact it is
a large issue and of concern, but that to bring it into every conversation seems redundant. while it is true the thread title
makes for a natural fit here, but that is not the case with every thread. i think that is partly what copeland is getting at and
i agree with them on this.
So, some people have no qualms about zusa wanton mass murdering thousands and thousands ... but they are gravely irritated
by someone adding a letter too often?!
Whenever I think the zionists have finally hit the bottom of the pit they somehow manage to pierce through to an ever deeper
level.
But I'm a well minded man, so I make you an offer: As soon as zionists stop slaughtering innocent people I shall refrain from
adding the of so harmful and evil letter 'z' to words, OK.
No, seriously, I hope I never will have to deal with your "argument".
I got bad news for you and your fellow legion of hasbarists: expect my argument, ie the truth about Zionism, to grow exponentially,
and to get more constant and more persuasive and to go viral with millions more. You can't stop this cause anymore; you can't
stop the truth from busting loose and becoming the pain in your ass it'll be until it's acknowledged.
Before Obama was first elected in 08, I was being censored and labelled an anti-Semite for referring to The Zionist Lobby as
a den of spies and political browbeaters and hustlers for Zionism. And wo' and behold, turns out they've ruined careers, and were
being investigated by the FBI for espionage. Few dared type Aipac or Zionism in a negative context for fear of being banned. Now,
we can justifiably attack these from every angle because they're proving exactly what they are and many of us predicted they were.
We've come a long way, baby! And this is going all the way until Zionism goes down into the pages of historical INFAMY, and
nothing less will suffice!
You can ridicule all you want, but I won't rest and neither will the growing number, who believe as I do that Zionism is a
threat to us all and not just to Palestinians!
james @185:
The Zionist connection redundant? Not a chance! What it is, is pivotal in getting to the heart of these foreign interventions.
Lest you forget, we're usually discussing a consistent policy of foreign meddling: in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, possibly Russia
and Iran next, each one practically rebounding off the other because Syria was the road to Iran and Russia, and Ukraine
is to Russia what Syria is to Iran in this agenda; the proxies; it's all connected and if you don't get this; you're dumber
than I thought or pretending to be.
Russia doesn't only have a port at stake in Syria, Russian companies are involved in gas and oil exploration off Syria's coast,
an area that Zionists want to hoard for themselves, and Russia was heavily involved in Libya and Iraq until the mess created in
both which weakened Russian influence in both, although Russia's trying to recover it, another reason Russia's a thorn in Zionism's
side. And Ukraine is the strategy to get Russia mired in a problem on its own doorstep to take Russia's focus off Syria, deprive
it of Tartus, and again try to weaken its influence in the Middle East, and at the same time weaken Russia's economy so that it
will never be a competitive threat again in the Middle East! So you bet Zionism's fingerprints are all over this! And the connections
to Zionism go beyond what I've just stated which I've already outlined in other posts.
All these incursions even Ukraine are linked to ZIOCON foreign agenda; forget neocon forever; the term "Neocon" was always
a red herring; a Zionist euphemism used to disguise how many Zionists are actually involved in the hegemonic operation.
So don't give me that redundant crap. Neocons are ZIONISTS with an aggressive global initiative based on neutralization; and
they're driving this policy and you better believe I'm going to harp on that!
It's easy to see the mental disturbance occurring in the writings of a polemicist, in the mindless overuse of a particular
word in any given tract. It's obvious kalithea, that an abundance of couple of these words, is not a question of style in your
writing, but of obsession. First of all, this is a literate group, composed of a lot of longtime readers. Another thing is that
your irresponsible use of "hasbara" is nothing but a smear against those who have a record here of opposing the outrages of Israeli
governments, and their war crimes, about which you bark. This doesn't make you look so good.
What you remind me of most, is an enforcer of party discipline, whose job it is to crack the whip, and to hand out censures,
in other words, to excoriate and verbally abuse anyone who doesn't keep to your dogma.
The issue of the injustices handed out to Palestinians has been focused upon by most of us here for a long time; but it is
not courageous, or good of you, to fire polemic broadsides, or to dispense wantonly,
the charges of hasbara, upon anyone who hasn't tipped over into your particular fantasies.
I don't have time for those who seek to use the crimes committed against jews by europeans to excuse the crimes committed by israel
against the indigenous people of the Jordan Valley, but I don't believe that is what Tom G is doing. I supposed he was pointing
out that having half yer family knocked off by assholes tends to focus the mind (there is a lesson in there for israelis but if
they haven't learned by now its unlikely they ever will).
Pragma et al may have confused predecessors with ancestors. Predecessor is not another word for ancestor; it is someone who
precedes someone else in an office or title.
When I read Tom G's post which alluded to kalithea's predecessors I assumed that he was referring to the last mob of cheerleaders
for judeophobia - the nazis.
At no stage did I consider Tom G had some sorta special insight into the mindset of kalithea's primogenitors.
Those people who focus upon a persons race rather than the person's actions are always gonna be susceptible to believing that
others operate on the same basis.
I'm all for kicking alla the talk of antisemitism into touch as long as we can stick to considering people by what they say
and do rather than what we believe their genetics to be.
Occupy Wall Street was on the right track. People of the world need to rise up against the 1% banksters AND Zionism although they're
one and the same. These forces are driving the Ziocon imperial advance. If Occupy hadn't dissolved because of winter; Zionists
were ready to kill it because they were very worried that the Occupy Movement would eventually merge with the BDS movement against
Zionism and gain momentum on a larger scale and this is exactly what was starting to happen. People are starting to feel like
the Palestinians under Zionism; they're starting to feel like their leaders are collaborators with Zionism like Abbas and the
PA negotiating to screw their people. People are feeling like they no longer have a voice against the powerbrokers in Washington
and on Wall Street. They're feeling like they can't trust the media, because it's full of Ziocon propaganda. We are watched; we
are listened to; we are monitored. We are now the OCCUPIED of Wall Street and Zionism.
There are all kinds of articles on the web written by Zionists condemning Occupy as anti-Semitic. Google Zionism and Occupy
Wall Street. Why were Zionists so scared of Occupy? Because they know Wall Street is run by Zionists and everyone at Occupy knew
saw this; that's why they're next target was The Lobby; and they were planning to occupy Aipac. Zionists realized that the Occupy
movement getting closer and closer to the cause of Occupied Palestine. The Occupy Movement was starting to move against Zionism.
Zionism has no clothes and because we all see this FACT; they accuse us of anti-Semitism. Occupy Wall Street needs to mobilize
again, and occupy not only Wall Street, but the Zionist Lobby as well as it planned to and join with the BDS movement, because
if we don't mobilize soon against Ziocon expansion we will become the empire of Orwellian slavery that this Zionist Kaplan dreams
of. Maybe that's Zionism's PROMISED LAND.
"It isn't merely incorrect to put the cart before the horse by blaming American imperialism on the corrupt Israeli regime,
it is fucking dangerous and destructive - firstly because it causes too much time and energy be spent upon a mob of petty
crimes
(yes they are psychopaths, but in comparison to the crimes of America, Israeli leaders are petty criminals), but most importantly
because blaming 'the Jews' for the world's ills is so destructive to resistance against the asshole elites."
Thank god finally some one other than myself said this, and in a much more eloquent way than I could ever do; because I am
afraid what 'mearsheimer and walt' are doing is precisely that : "putting the cart before the horse" and the direct implication
of that is "blaming 'the jews' for the world's ills".
Sadly this is an inevitable consequence that very often is neglected by decent progressive people, in a way that I some times
feel being a part of a very small minority even on this site!
I find your argument naive*, but I won't argue it, except for the short paragraph below; and whether he meant predecessors
as in people he thinks held my beliefs, or he meant ancestors - it's still slanderous crap, because he doesn't know me and I am
not no Nazi-lover just as I'm no Zionist lover! What I am sick to death of is that bloody victim card and having it shoved in
my face like so much shit, and hung over me like the sword of Damocles! I am not German and even if I were I wouldn't be responsible
for the crap Nazis pulled. That was then and this is now. I know what I see, I see Zionist supremacy, and I always call things
as I see them and if he's offended. Tough, scroll or get lost.
I don't buy into exclusivity, exceptionalism or choseness bullshet of any kind and if that's some genetic bias than too bad
get off the f*cking chosen pedestal! I can't stand monarchies either. And I really can't stand people who don't get the concept
of universality.
Oh well, predecessor, ancestor, whatever. I think everyone could understand what I was meaning.
Anyway TomGard can hardly know
about kalitheas predecessors, ancestors, or whatever-cestors.
Debs is dead brought up an interesting point, which I'd like to extend.
Actually I remember quite well, what my first thought was when I for the first time didn't simply brush off as "oh well, palestinians
are terrorists anyway" (I should mention that I was a young man then, quite innocent or stupid, depending on ones pov) but actually
began to understand what israelis did there.
It was "Hell no! If anyone on earth is to know how evil it is to terrorize others for being of this or that race or for believing
in this that God, then it must certainly be the israelis!"
For while my anger grew and I began to despise jews. Until one day a patient elderly french jew explained it me. He showed
me the smearings on their synagogue and explained "whenever israel commits cruelties the smearings here in at our cemetery increase
in frequency and anger".
That was my lesson about the jews and the israelis and about them not always being one and the same.
And although I had all I needed to understand more I still somehow didn't arrive at the conclusion that there might be evil
planning behind it. It took me again several years and a coincidence to understand that the "jewish" in "jewish state" (israel)
might actually be a really evil disguise and a perfidious one at that.
Perfidious because israel willfully abused the negative image of "the jews" for which they were responsible in the first place.
But perfidious also because israel greatly profits from anti-semitism, both real and grossly attributed anti-semitism because
it perfectly fits israels "jews should come to israel to live there" credo.
kiev is just another case of that in a series of cases.
There is a lot more to tell but I will cut it at that point for the moment.
But although it took me long to pervade through that complex matter and often disguised by different layers and tricks, I made
it a habit to tell zionists who tried the "half of my family was killed by nazis" plot to mute someone that may dare to create
demands on history once they have proven to themselves have learned from the nazi time what is to be learned, namely that racial
or religious based terror is cruel, inhumane, and utterly despicable. Someone supporting a regime that acts not that much different
from what the nazis have been accused have simply no right to recur on that time, and even less to base demands on it, as long
as their very fucking own actions prove that, if at all, they only learned to be the criminals themselves in the very crime they
complain about.
As far as I'm concerned israel can burn and so can all its supporters.
What you guys don't understand, is that "Zionism" is the manifestation of the global Western imperialism in middle
east. It is nothing more. Is it ugly? Yes! Is it criminal? Yes! Is it responsible for all the crimes in the world? NO! Was
Zionism
responsible for the coup of 1953 in Iran? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism behind the coup in Guatemala
in 1954? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism responsible for the coup against Sukarno? NO!
Was Zionism responsible for the Vietnam war? NO! Who was responsible it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism behind the coup
against Allende? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism!
IN FACT: Was Zionism behind Zionism? NO! It was the Western imperialism and its ambitions to hegemonize the world energy resources
which was behind Zionism to begin with (Balfour declaration)!
Israel's birth predates 1948! Its real birth was in 1939 when *BRITISH IMPERIALISM* massacred Palestinians and suppressed the
Arab revolt! Zionism is the manifestation of the Western imperialism *in middle east* and not the other way around!
What a load of crock! Guys like Herzl and Jabotinsky were behind Zionism so don't gimme that crap.
I already wrote in another post here that power in the U.S. started turning Zionist sometime during Kennedy's Presidency, not
that I blame him he was otherwise very occupied. So you could have saved yourself some time screaming all those historical references
at me. And why are you so freakin' defensive anyway?
The Ziocon Jews Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Leo Strauss were the earlier founders of the so-called neoconservatism
movement, and were vehemently opposed to relaxing foreign policy in regards to the Soviet Union and communism in general.
In the early nineties the Ziocon torch was passed on to the likes of William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and
Richard Perle. And we all know what followed next...years of endless war.
All these "neocons" were Zionists and Jews and were instrumental in influencing foreign policy.
So as you can see Zionists and Zionism was leading the charge. Maybe you should read Paul Wolfowitz's speech at West Point.
Wolfowitz Doctrine...Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992,[1] and sparked
a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the
document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations
and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.
A real manifesto for authored by a Zionist for supremacy and imperialiam.
But this is not all the Zionist cabal authored as you well know: Zionist Pnac members also authored another document called:A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
This subject has been talked about extensively, and I really don't have the desire to get into a useless and endless
debate recounting the history especially when people want to obstinately shut their eyes to the most obvious facts going on right
before their eyes; facts such as what's going on in Ukraine and the bloody war waged to disintegrate Yugoslavia which has/had
nothing to do with zionism.
I will just go over a couple of points in your argument which were quite nonsense (well your whole comment was nonsense but
I will just go over a couple of points).
First of all US imperialism in particular and the Western imperialism in general did not start with Kennedy, the coup against
Mosaddegh in 1953, the coup against Arbenz in 1954, the first indochina war (with absolute and active support of the French by
the USA), the Korean war and the attrocities commited by USA in Korean peninsula, the whole hearted support for Batista and brutal
suppression of the cubans, the coup against Patrice Lumumba, The colonization of India and brutal suppression of Indians by the
british, the coup after coup made against the constitutional revolution in Iran etc. etc. ALL PREDATE Kennedy. In fact in case
of USA its very inception was based on imperialism, land grab, ethnic cleansing, genocide and slavery, all happening LONG before
Kennedy and having ZERO to do with zionism.
Secondly guys like Herzl and Jabotinsky are nothing but clowns. Ineffective idiots who without the active support and the absolute
control and management of the Western imperialism would not be able to make an autonomous village let alone making an independent
country based on ethnic cleansing and mass murder. Land grab through ethnic cleansing, mass murder of the native population and
wars against all local nations require CAPITAL and MILITARY. And No capitalist invests such huge sums of capital without any rate
of return. Capital is invested for RATE OF RETURN and a hegemony to make possible the continous flow of that rate of return, not
for some nationalistic, racial or religious motive!
And so Israel was not created by the likes of Herzl, it was created by the force (monetary and military) of British empire,
and such creations by the British was not peculiar to middle east and Israel, the British had many other such wonderous feats
of crime all over the globe, of which Israel constitutes but a single example! The British did not create Israel because they
were in love with the Jews or were obssessed with Jewish nationalism. They did it because it was PROFITABLE. Hegemony is always
profitable. And they did in the middle east, what they had done all over the globe to maintain their hegemony and increase their
profit. NOTHING MORE.
Had the geology followed a different trend and all that oil been formed some where other than middle east -say in the region
of Tibet- Herzl and Jabotinsky would not have been even remembered today!
Omg, where do I start? I won't; I don't even want to dignify most of that. First, if you want to be taken seriously, paragraphs
might help.
Second, I never said imperialism started with Kennedy; at least quote me for God's sakes; it's in front of you! I said that
power in the U.S. get it? i.e. those who wield power in the US , such power started changing hands from Anglo to Zionist
during Kennedy's presidency, and I'm talking about the top of the corporate food chain, the super-wealthy who influence power
in Washington, and the evolution of the Ziocon movement. But it started discreetly without becoming obvious. Only in the 1980s
did it start becoming obvious, because it had grown so much and it's influence was becoming more transparent. The flaw with Zionists
is that they're control freaks (rig every corner of the system as much as possible in Zionism's favor) maybe it has to do with
latent paranoia, but that's the reality; don't blame me.
As far as the other wars you mention; most were to fight communism; but guess why the Ziocons, Kristol sr., Podhoretz and Strauss
formed this Ziocon movement? To prevent Communism from spreading! They broke with the Democratic party because they saw these
liberals trying to relax relations with the Soviet Union and they wanted to go in another direction: neutralize; using force.
You can blame the British all you want but around the late 50s early 1960s, again, while Kennedy was a rising star and becoming
President, Zionists were in charge of their affairs, and the worst crimes of Zionism, the worst unilateral attacks on neighboring
countries happened under Zionist sovereignty. Zionist were so in charge of their fiefdom that they started developing nuclear
weapons behind Kennedy's back; that's how powerful they were becoming.
I stated over and over again that I'm not concerned with ancient history; I'm concerned with post-WWII after the Partition,
when Zionists started bombing Palestinian villages, ethnic cleansing and massacre upon massacre. Okay Zionists started their terrorism
before, but that was only to set the stage for frustrating the British to impose their rule over the Palestinians with brutal
force.
Let's agree to disagree; you and r'giap and TomGuard can't stand my attacking Zionism, and the power it wields to keep perpetuating
the longest-running most brutal occupation in modern history and committing crimes with total impunity. You don't get to subert
the rule of law without astounding power and influence.
Your not so cogent narrative only serves to protect Zionism, and thus perpetuate this horrific injustice.
Dont' bother replying; you will never change my mind; I know what I see; and I'm going to call it as I see it: based on the
obvious exponential growth of Zionist power in the U.S.; cause I repeat; you don't get away with such crimes with TOTAL impunity
without pretty significant power, and stiffling that truth is what perpetuates Zionist Injustice against Palestine. That power
sustains injustice!
Defense of slavery and the slave trade -- the most inhuman form of exploitation conceivable. Defense of United States imperialism. One and the same. Arnold Lockshin, political exile from the US living in Moscow
It's very convenient for you, Arnold, to blame simply "US imperialism", as if it fell out of the sky. It didn't. It was directed
by finance capital, which is not an impersonal force but a collection of individual investors, more than a few of whom are interested
particularly in Jewish welfare, as they conceive it: that is to say, they want to use Jewish issues, to which the general US public
is already well conditioned, to push through an entire program of global domination by force. One wonders who these individuals
are, and why they chose Jewish issues as their cover, if they're not Jews.
"... I MET ONE JEWISH OFFICER IN COMBAT ARMS, PERIOD!!!!! ..."
"... Compare that to their ever-presence in politics and, in particular, among the Neocons who are ceaselessly starting wars and sending non-Jews to die for them. It's disgusting. ..."
"... Here's a quote from Kissinger which neatly sums it up: "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." ..."
"... "The dislike is profoundly visceral, not rational" ..."
"... Let's see Fred.. Heard of the Neocons, near exclusively Jews, running US foreign policy to establish Israel's hegemony in the Middle East a la Oden Yinon? Who openly acknowledges running Hollywood, Freddie? How about the moral quality of what Hollywood produces. ..."
"... "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." ..."
"... Also, there's the paraphrased quote from the Godfather Movie; "men in suits and ties make better bank robbers than men with guns." ..."
I thought Mr. Reed provided a good summary of the situation. The diversity of responses
suggests that he struck a nice balance in presenting his observations.
I am a mixed-ethnicity Roman Catholic but starting with college and ever since, most of my
closest associates and many of those with whom I work and play, except for immediate family,
have been middle class Jews. I have found these individuals to be generous and kind and not
at all clannish. All regard themselves as and in fact are patriotic Americans. Many have
achieved extraordinary success and contributed to the commonweal. Many have gone out of their
way to help and comfort me in times of personal crisis.
I find my personal experiences with individual Jews hard to reconcile with the – to
me – obvious observation that, considered as a group, American Jews have had a
disastrous impact on the United States in many areas including invidious control of (1) the
news media, publishing, and entertainment industries, (2) culture generally, (3) finance, (4)
legal institutions. (5) the government generally, and (6) foreign policy in particular.
In high school I monitored a college course on democratic political theory (excluding
Rousseau's totalitarian version) and democracy's totalitarian opponents, i.e., communism and
fascism. The readings on fascism included lengthy sections from Rosenberg's "Myth of the
Twentieth Century".
At the time, I thought that even the less hyperbolic of Rosenberg's rants verged on
insanity. Now, after observing our Jewish-dominated late republic hurtling towards utter
ruination, I'm not so sure.
"What have Jews actually done to you? Hacked your bank account? Gypped you out of your house?
Shot your dog?" and the answer will likely be, "Nothing."
Simple. I served in the Marines for about 7 years as an infantry officer. I met, worked
with and greatly valued many 10s of thousands of Marines.
Infantry is combat arms as are artillery, special ops, missile forces, Marine Air,
etc.
I MET ONE JEWISH OFFICER IN COMBAT ARMS, PERIOD!!!!!
Now, they were everywhere in professional positions in our sister service, the Navy.
Doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc. But almost none in combat arms in America but well
represented in the armed forces of Israel.
Compare that to their ever-presence in politics and, in particular, among the Neocons
who are ceaselessly starting wars and sending non-Jews to die for them. It's
disgusting.
Onward Christian soldier is the new Jewish American national anthem. They're disloyal
cowards and they're a fifth column for Israel here in the U.S. If they vaporized tomorrow
we'd be better off.
Here's a quote from Kissinger which neatly sums it up: "Military men are just dumb,
stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."
No wonder to me why they were burned in the crematoriums in German during WWII.
I've long wondered how that 2% number was arrived at. Who is counted as Jewish? If it's
only those who actively practice the religion, then I'd guess 2% is about right. But how many
more are there whose ancestors were Jewish but who aren't religious (like me) or practice
Christianity (like my brother)?
Granted, the number of non-religious Jews is shrinking, as Corvinus pointed out upthread.
My brothers and I would all be considered Jewish by ancestry, but none of our children are,
because their mothers aren't.
I suspect that support for Israel and Zionism is much stronger among religious Jews than
my sort. I've never been to Israel, and you'd have to pay me a lot of money to get me to go
there. My parents' opinion was that the state of Israel should never have been created.
This article should be entitled "1000 Reasons why Fred Reed is a Complete Moron".
"The dislike is profoundly visceral, not rational"
Let's see Fred.. Heard of the Neocons, near exclusively Jews, running US foreign
policy to establish Israel's hegemony in the Middle East a la Oden Yinon? Who openly
acknowledges running Hollywood, Freddie? How about the moral quality of what Hollywood
produces.
Fred apparently slept through Bible class, but the New Testament refers to it as devouring
widow's houses.
Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a
pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
Also, there's the paraphrased quote from the Godfather Movie; "men in suits and ties
make better bank robbers than men with guns."
let the US give itself back to the Indians, and then ask Israel to act the same way
Give the US back to the amerindians! Give Aus back to the abos! This does not work; it's
called 'moral relativism' and/or the 'tu quoque' [appeal to hypocrisy] fallacy.
Then ask Israel to act err, hello? Israel has been 'asked,' over 100 times by some
counts, to 'get legal' under UN resolutions. Israel is an outlaw.
Kindly consider the I/J/Z-plex's 10 steps to utter, criminal ignominy:
Herzl; coveting, expropriation (1897+)
Balfour; aid Zs, no consult Ps
Jabotinsky; colonise by force
Ben-Gurion: "we are the attackers and the Arabs own the land" [points 1 - 4 all
pre-WW2]
UNGA181: "an area shall be evacuated" (invalid + no UNSC action = not law)
Meir; $US50mio for arms + Plan Dalet&Co = premeditated, murdering to steal
aggression
When immigrants (=aliens) attack natives, it's *not* civil war but Nuremberg-class
crime
Z-terrorism; down to today; alien invaders' highest-tech vs. besieged & blockaded,
basically unarmed natives
US-support incl. UNSC vetoes; also down to 'current moment'
Z-hasbarah = mostly lies, designed and deployed to deceive
More: Post-WW2, Nuremberg trials, hanging perpetrators for murdering invasions for
Lebensraum predate King David Hotel bombing, Plan Dalet with outrages like the Deir
Yassin massacre, etc.. Similar outrages continue to be perpetrated by the illegitimate
entity, into 'the current moment.'
Lemma: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories,
apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a)
restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in
active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt.
Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory, like all
residents in the 'illegitimate entity,' say.
Also post WW2, we got the post-colonial era; the illegitimate entity fulfils the
'premeditated supreme international crime' criteria. RoR+R*3 NOW! QED
PS Showing 'support' for criminals adopts part guilt for those criminals' crimes via the
accessory process; why would anyone in their 'right' = correct mind do that?
If a nuclear device is "lit off" in an American or European city, it will have Israel's
fingerprints all over it. Israel is desperate to keep the American money spigot running, as
well as sabotaging the Palestinian "peace process" that the world wants it to take seriously.
In fact, if a nuclear device is "lit off" anywhere in the world, it will have come from
Israel's secret nuclear "stockpile".
The "power outage" in Atlanta was a convenient excuse for Israel to perform a logistical
"sleight of hand", as an Israeli plane was allowed to land and take off during the "power
outage" without receiving customs clearance or inspection. This is one of many Israeli
companies that possesses a "special exemption" granted by the U S government that frees it
from customs inspections. Just maybe another one of Israel's nukes was just being
pre-positioned or nuclear triggers (tritium) were being renewed, getting ready for "the big
one". As most Americans are tired of all of the foreign wars being fought for Israel's
benefit, another "incident" on American soil would be enough to galvanize the American
public, once again, (just like WTC 9-11) to support another war for Israel's benefit.
Israel's "samson option" is a real threat to "light one off" in a European or American city,
if Israel's interests are not taken seriously.
Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as they are already
distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them as most of them
are not in Israel, proper. No delivery systems are needed as Israel's nukes are already "in
place". Look for another "false flag" operation with the blame being put on Iran or Syria.
You can bet that some Iranian or Syrian passports will be found in the rubble.
Israel also threatens to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities. Talk about total
INSANITY; the so-called "Samson Option" is it.
As an aside, American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has
not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International
Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel
does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American "foreign aid". This
prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their "agents of a foreign
government" with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its "American
Israel Political Action Committee" (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of
American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks"
infecting the U S government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship
must be strictly prohibited. Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said
foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of
American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should never be allowed
to serve in any American governmental capacity.
When Netanyahu addressed both houses of congress, it was sickening to see our politicians
slobber all over themselves to PROVE that they were unconditional supporters of Israel just
who the hell do they work for? Certainly not for the interests of the American people and the
United States they should renounce their United States citizenship and be deported to
Israel
Giraldi is here-unlike in most of his regularly anti-Semitic texts- right about one crucial
thing: American Gentile cow-towing to (real or imagined) Jewish power in the US, as
illustrated by absurd Baron Cohen's episode.
However, I don't blame most of US Jews for that. Jewish ethnocentrists are to be suspect,
sure, but the main question for US gentile politicians & public figures remains: why are
you such suckers, anyway?
Between Jessica at #23, and Anon at #45 lay two paramount pieces of instruction which Phil
Giraldi ought to heed.
Ordinary Jews are no more required to register their objections over AIPAC's actions than
are Christians over the actions of their top leaders including the POTUS, domestic MIC
lobbies, the Gun Lobby and the Oil lobby; no more that is, beyond what each citizen expresses
through her vote. Individuals may choose; to go beyond, into political activism; yet
choice is the operative notion.
And no, Geokat, Power isn't listening to Phil over the sound of crickets for the simple
reason that Power does not read the UR, couldn't care less if they did, as the Review quite
rapidly degenerates to the station of an unrelenting hate rag frequented by dubious IQ
cultists, antisemites and White Nationalism apologists.
"Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it (Israel) had
considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with
Washington."
And according to Jimmy Carter Israeli intelligence had advance information of the suicide
attack on the US barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed 243 US servicemen (one of whom was a
member of my family). The Israelis decided to not inform US intelligence in the hope that a
major attack on US personnel would precipitate a commitment of US troops and arms into the
region. So much for our Israeli "ally".
You are, of course, correct that the US committed either genocide or near-genocide
(depending on your definition of the term) against Native Americans. However, NOW, in the
21st century, any Native American who is a US citizen is free to buy property in any part of
America and live where he chooses. Native Americans are no longer confined to reservations.
While poverty is a fact of life for many Native Americans, some tribes have profited
substantially from gambling. In Florida, Seminoles may receive upward of 40,000 a year (each
man, woman, and child) as their share of the gambling revenues. They can certainly afford to
buy property just about anywhere.
(Note that I am not denying that much discrimination and inequality still persist and that
most reservations with gambling offer very little to tribal members.)
In Israel, however, Palestinians cannot return to their home towns and buy property. They
are not free to live where they choose. Many are still confined to refugee camps. Housing
discrimination continues to persist for Israeli Arabs. Yes, the High Court ruled it illegal,
but few remedies are in place, which means the practice continues largely unabated.
If you want to use historical analogies, I believe you should use them in full.
Cohen's performance is instructive. A man shows up in Israeli uniform, claims to be a
terrorism expert or even a Mossad agent, and he gains access to powerful Americans who are
willing to do anything he says.
It is very telling about the human material on the right in America. Complete morons. Now
think about it. It was a prank, right? But I can imagine that real negotiations with Israelis
are very similar and produce similar positive outcomes for Israelis. Israelis play Americans
anyway they want on all levels of federal and local administrations. They have the same
attitude towards Americans as Jack Abramoff had towards his counterparts at Indian
reservations. Why shouldn't they? It works.
he called his Indian clients "troglodytes" and "morons" and "monkeys," "the stupidest
idiots in the land." In one particularly damning e-mail he counseled Scanlon, "The key
thing to remember with all these clients is that they are annoying, but that the
annoying losers are the only ones which have this kind of money and part with it so
quickly . So, we have to put up with this stuff."
At best American are annoying losers who part with their money quickly.
Mr. Giraldi, why do you bother with your articles? You still have illusions that you can
educate the monkeys?
It smacks of supremacism, doesn't it? It means the US must favor Zionist occupiers in West
Bank over Palestinians, the very people who are being occupied.
It means the US must favor Israel, a nation that stole uranium from US and has 300 nukes,
over Iran, a nation that passed all inspections and has no nukes.
This special relationship is a form of worship. It is never discussed rationally
WHY Israel is so crucial to us. Instead, politicians and pundits gush about it with fanatical
devotion, as if it's a sacred truth. Anyone who questions it even slightly is marginalized or
destroyed. Some might Giraldi has been too strident, but even mild criticism of Israel or
Zionism can get you banned from media or politics.
I find it odd that Jews always remind us that Old America was 'racist' because it favored
Europeans over non-whites, especially in immigration and foreign policy. After all, the US
often sided with European imperialists over non-white subjects of colonialism.
In New America, there is supposed to no Special Treatment for any group, but Jews and
Israel get it all the time. In asylum(Save Soviet Jews), in immigration, in college
admission, in foreign policy -- not just in supporting Israel at every turn but in waging
Wars for Israel and hating on any nation hated by Jews, esp Russia, Iran, and Syria.
While secular "cultural nationalism" is probably essential to the survival of the nation, far right nationalism is a
cancer.
There is a vicious spiral: Israel actions, which are essentially American-style colonization of the territory, radicalize
Palestinians, and their actions in turn radicalize Jews feeling far right nationalism.
The early Zionists were mostly atheist. Zionists quoting the Bible for legitimacy of their land claims I'd take with a pinch of
salt regarding their sincerity.
Notable quotes:
"... "No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore. I think I was primarily compelled [to speak out] on moral grounds because I could only imagine if 60 people were shot and killed in Ferguson. Or if 60 people were shot and killed in the West Virginia teachers' strikes. The idea that we are not supposed to talk about people dying when they are engaging in political expression just really moved me." ..."
"... I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs. It also means that the United States is being played for a patsy by people who believe themselves to be superior in every way to Americans. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
"... I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs ..."
"... As Kevin Macdonald would point out Middle Eastern peoples are extreme in their ethnocentricism, explaining the chronic instability in the region, but Jews are at the extreme end of that extremism. The media does a good job of covering up the hypoethnocentricism evident in Jewish life in Israel and the West. ..."
One paragraph in particular in the
article I read was highly suggestive, the claim that Ocasio-Cortez had been strongly opposed to the
Israelis' routine slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, which has by now become of such little import that it
is not even reported any more in the U.S. media. She is also allegedly a supporter of the Boycott,
Divestment and Sanction movement (BDS), which pressures Israel to end its theft and occupation of
Palestinian land. The article expressed some surprise that anyone in New York City would dare to say
anything unpleasant about Israel and still expect to get elected.
This is what Ocasio-Cortez, who called the shooting of more than 130
Gazans a "massacre," actually
said
and
wrote
:
"No state or entity is absolved of
mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity,
as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore. I think I was primarily compelled [to speak
out] on moral grounds because I could only imagine if 60 people were shot and killed in Ferguson. Or if
60 people were shot and killed in the West Virginia teachers' strikes. The idea that we are not supposed
to talk about people dying when they are engaging in political expression just really moved me."
Five hours later, when I arrived home in
Virginia I went to pull up
the article
I had read in the morning to possibly use it in a piece of my own and was somewhat surprised
to discover that the bit about Israel had been excised from the text. It was clearly yet another example of
how the media self-censors when there is anything negative to say about Israel and it underlines the
significance of the emergence of recent international media reporting
in The Guardian
and elsewhere regarding how Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson largely dictates U.S.
foreign policy in the Middle East. That means that the conspiracy of silence over Israel's manipulation of
the United States government is beginning to break down and journalists have become bold enough to challenge
what occurs when pro-Israel Jews obtain real power over the political process. Adelson, for what it's worth,
wants war with Iran and has even suggested detonating a nuclear device on its soil to "send a message."
I personally would have liked to see
Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by
a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes
to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs. It also means that the United States is being
played for a patsy by people who believe themselves to be superior in every way to Americans.
The question of the relationship with
Israel comes at a time when everyone in America, so it seems, is concerned about children being separated
from their parents who have illegally crossed the border from Mexico into the United States. The concern is
legitimate given the coarse and sometimes violent justifications coming out of the White House, but it's a
funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met with the same opprobrium. When a
Jewish fanatic/Israel settler kills Palestinian children and is protected by his government in so doing,
where is the outrage in the U.S. media? Settlers and soldiers kill Palestinians, young and old, with
impunity and are almost never punished. They destroy their orchards and livestock to eliminate their
livelihoods to drive them out. They bulldoze their homes and villages. The Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agency does none of that and is yet subject to nonstop abuse in the mainstream media, so what
about Israel?
A recent story illustrates just how
horrible the Israelis can be without any pushback whatsoever coming from Washington objecting to their
behavior. As the United States is the only force that can in any way compel Israel to come to its senses and
chooses not to do so, that makes U.S. policymakers and by extension the American people complicit in
Israel's crimes.
The particularly horrible
recent account
that I am referring to describes how fanatical Jewish settlers burned alive a Palestinian
family on the West Bank, including a baby, and then celebrated the deaths while taunting the victims'
surviving family when they subsequently appeared in court. The story was covered in Israel and Europe but
insofar as I could determine did not appear in any detail in the U.S. mainstream media.
Israeli Jewish settlers carried out
their shameful deed outside a court in the city of Lod,
chanting
"'Ali was burned, where is Ali? There is no Ali. Ali is burned. On the fire. Ali is on the
grill!" referring to the 18-month old baby Ali Dawabsheh, who was
burnt alive
in 2015 by Jewish settlers hurling Molotov cocktails into a house in the West Bank town of
Duma. Ali's mother Riham and father Saad also died of their burns and were included in the chanting "Where
is Ali? Where is Riham? Where is Saad? It's too bad Ahmed didn't burn as well." Five year-old Ahmed, who
alone survived the attack with severe burns, will have scars for the rest of his life.
The settlers were taunting Ali's
grandfather Hussein Dawabsheh, who accompanied Ahmed, at a preliminary hearing where the court
indicted
a man who confessed to the murders and a minor who acted as an accomplice. A video of the
chanting shows Israeli policemen standing by and doing nothing. The court appearance also revealed that
there have been another Molotov cocktail attack by settlers on another Dawabsheh family house in May that
may have been an attempt to silence testimony relating to the first attack. Fortunately, the family managed
to escape.
And by all accounts this outrage was
not the first incident in which the burning of the Palestinian baby was celebrated. A December 15
th
wedding video
showed
settlers engaged in an uproarious party that featured dances with Molotov cocktails and waving
knives and guns. A photo of baby Ali was on display and was repeatedly stabbed. A year later, 13 people from
what became known as the "murder wedding" were
indicted
for incitement to terrorism, but as of today no one has actually been punished. Israelis who
kill Arabs are rarely indicted or tried. If it is a soldier or policeman that is involved, which occurs all
too often, the penalty is frequently either nothing at all a slap on the wrist. Indeed, the snipers who
fired on Gazans recently were actually ordered to shoot the unarmed civilians and directed to take out
anyone who appeared to be a "leader," which included medical personnel.
The Trump Administration could, of
course, stop the Israeli brutality if it chooses to do so, but it does not think Benjamin Netanyahu's crimes
against humanity are on the agenda. Nor did Clinton, Bush and Obama dare to confront the power of Israel's
lobby, though Obama tried a little pushback in a feeble way.
Someone in Washington should be asking
why the United States should be fighting unnecessary wars and becoming an international pariah defending a
country and people that believe they are "chosen" by God? One can only hope that the shift in perceptions on
the Middle East by liberal Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez has some legs and will lead to some real change in
U.S. foreign policy. To succeed the liberal Democrats will need to push against some formidable obstacles
within their own party, most notably the Clinton wing and people like Senator Chuck Schumer, Minority leader
in the Senate, who describes himself as Israel's "shomer" or defender in the Upper House. Perhaps someone on
the
New York Times
editorial board should publicly suggest to Schumer that he go and run for office
in Israel since he seems to prefer it to the country that has made him rich and powerful. But of course, the
Times
and all the other mainstream media, which is responsible for what we are not allowed to know
about Israel and its American mouthpieces, will never entertain that suggestion or anything like it.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is
Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation
that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
[email protected].
I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where
conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which
has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs
Better to be a minority in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country. The two settlers guilty of arson
are disgusting zealots. But their type is exponentially more common in Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on.
The criticism of Israel in Western media is disproportionately
extremely
high given the much higher
rates of this type of thing in the majority of the rest of the world.
As for sniping the leaders of a huge mob trying to invade your country/storm your borders, doesn't that seem
like the most humane way to
deal
with it? What does Giraldi suggest they do?
I suppose Western anti-Semites see Western countries going down because they are unable to deal with this
type of thing and get jealous and want to drag Israel down with them. I prefer that America follow the example
of Matteo Salvini. Giraldi prefers 'abolish borders' Cortez. Indeed, he'd like her to "go a lot farther".
Washington is not spineless. Washington is bought and paid for. In America, the general rule is that money
rules, and the people (and their political representatives!) follow.
" I could only imagine if 60 people were shot and killed in Ferguson. Or if 60 people were shot and
killed in the West Virginia teachers' strikes."
Only 60? We really have become a nation of p
*****
s. If we're going to be an empire that
pushes the rest of the world around, we need to act like one. The Byzantine General Belisaurius, under
Justinian I, put down the Nika riots by killing as many as 30,000 people, and the Byzantine empire went on for
another 900 years. If we dither over 60 people, we won't last another 50 years.
As for the Israelis, they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, but given the number of nukes they
are reputed to have and the global reach they seem to have, they are going to take the rest of us with them if
the US simply walks away from them and leaves them on their own.
As Kevin Macdonald would point out Middle Eastern peoples are extreme in their ethnocentricism, explaining
the chronic instability in the region, but Jews are at the extreme end of that extremism. The media does a good
job of covering up the hypoethnocentricism evident in Jewish life in Israel and the West.
That crazed looking group of young fanatical Zionists taunting a Palestinian mother and child is a classic. ZOG
has got to be defeated!
However , speaking of that 'Latina' who beat a political hack in Queens and the Bronx, she's already started to
edit some of her internet posts. She knows who rules and will get in line with the 'mainstream' Zionist party
line. She's also an 'open borders' radical which doesn't sit well with the likes of me and most Americans.
She's also a 'Bronx girl' by way of suburban Westchester county, lol. As phony as phony gets.
The verse in question was specifically regarding the
church
in Jerusalem. In other words, financial help
by gentile believers for Jewish followers of Jesus who were impoverished at that time.
It is not to be
interpreted as a general charity for Jews, most of whom are hostile to Christianity both then and today. Bible
verses have to be read within the context of the surrounding text.
Better to be a minority in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country.
Better yet to be a Jewish minority in any place but Israel.
It's weird how the vast majority of Jews themselves can't be persuaded into moving to Israel, but would
rather be a minority elsewhere. Why is that so? Not so great a place as you purport?
The total number of people who hold or are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return is
estimated at around 23 million, of which 6.6 million were living in Israel as of 2015. wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country
Well, where do the people get their ideas anyway? The mass media.
In Germany there was recently a bad case of antisemitism which was reported widely in the media. A large
newspaper had a long article telling how a Jewish pupil in an elite school in Berlin was harassed or bullyed
for months and that the school didn't do enough to protect him. It's a school to which the sons of ambassators,
of diplomatic personal and of the international high class community in Berlin go. The article brought many
details about the case: how they told the pupil that Ausschwitz wasn't far away (or something similar) and so
on. The case even came in the television news of the main German channel (I only watched the late news, but I
think that the case also came in the absolutely main news of German television at 8 o'clock P.M.). The media
spoke of "antisemitism in Berlin." A pupil was harassed and told a few unpleasant things in a school in Berlin
and this came in the main tv news of the country! The most important weekly magazine had also an article about
"antisemitism in Berlin". At the end of the long article they told something that the other midia hadn't told.
The pupil had been harassed because he favoured the Palestinians! The colleagues who bullyed him were probably
American Jews.
but it's a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met with the same
opprobrium.
Also the intentional starving of children in Yemen. And the huge pile of dead babies in Iraq, Libya and
Syria. All of them murdered by Imperial Washington.
I much prefer President Trump to any of the candidates he defeated in the primaries and general election.
But I regret that he is a Jew.
Newly popular Democratic politician hero and nominee for a seat in the U.S. Congress Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez used to have these words on her website:
A Peace Economy
"Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation
throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. According to the Constitution, the right to
declare war belongs to the Legislative body, not the President. Yet, most of these acts of aggression have
never once been voted on by Congress. Alex believes that we must end the forever war by bringing our troops
home and ending the air strikes and bombings that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism and occupation
throughout the world."
Now they're gone. Asked about it on Twitter, she replied:
"Hey! Looking into this. Nothing malicious! Site is supporter-run so things happen -we'll get to the
bottom of it."
It will be interesting to see if Ocasio-Cortez will/can maintain her position on Israeli crimes. Public figures
have a long history of backpedaling after getting the riot act read to them from the hebrew masters.
"The two settlers guilty of arson are disgusting zealots."
Correction. They're unrepentant
murderers, empowered by disgusting zealots tolerated (if not pampered) by Likud.
"But their type is exponentially more common in Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on"
The 'they do it too' defense? So what? How many F-35s is the US giving Iraq, Syria, Iran?
Why should Likud conduct be excused by comparing it to those Israel routinely condemns?
"As for sniping the leaders of a huge mob trying to invade your country/storm your borders, doesn't
that seem like the most humane way to deal with it?"
Does "sniping" mean shooting/killing/maiming unarmed people from a safe distance? Without risk to the
sniper?
That's "more humane" than water-cannon, tear gas, and other non-lethal restraint? For the sniper, perhaps,
but for the victim?
Sounds like the same rationalization murderers used at Babi-Yar.
"The criticism of Israel in Western media is disproportionately extremely high given the much higher
rates of this type of thing in the majority of the rest of the world."
American media is disproportionately silent in criticism of Likud compared with Israeli media. Why?
"I suppose Western anti-Semites see Western countries going down because they are unable to deal with
this type of thing and get jealous and want to drag Israel down with them."
In other words, Trump should use snipers and live fire on illegal immigrants crossing borders? Wow!
These people used to be called Judeonazis by Hebrew University chemistry professor Israel Shahak and by the
noted "radio rabbi", Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz. Both predicted that the occupation would be Israel's downfall.
Likely it is the downfall of the Palestinian people and possibly the rest of us. (Note that Israel has nuclear
weapons and its policy of "nishtagea" – pulling down the temple around Sampson-type threat – is meant to
guarantee its hegemony in the region. That suits the US down to the ground, where the oil is.
What are we to expect from a criminal state, founded by international terrorists like Ben Gurion, Begin,
Yitzakh Shamir, etc.?
If it had been Palestinian terrorists who had blown up the King David Hotel, murdered Lord Moyne and Count
Folke Bernadotte, and Jewish women and children in Deir Yassin, you would see monuments to these victims all
over the western world, Hollywood films by the score, and the kvetching from the usual suspects would only have
been amplified over time. If it had been Palestinian terrorists who concocted the Lavon Affair false flag plan,
or Palestinian naval and air forces which attacked an American naval vessel in broad daylight, flying a large
American flag and attempted to murder the entire crew, likewise. There would be memorials in Arlington, and all
over the U.S., to the brave crew members and their captain, whose actions saved the vessel. Instead all we get
are crickets chirping.
For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the
Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim.
It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there;
all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own
sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a
university for budding crooks.
How prescient and prophetic these words were, written decades before the founding of the criminal entity in
Palestine! Israel does not serve as a Jewish homeland, it serves as a base of criminal operations, a weapons
depot, and a sanctuary for international fugitives from justice
Now that the Israeli-backed head choppers and liver eaters have been defeated, Syria has returned to the the
multi-confessional, pluralistic paradise it always was when compared with the abomination West of the Jordan
River. Before the establishment of the Zionist state, Jews as well as Christians were welcome in Arab states.
Even after 1948, Sephardim did not immediately flock to Israel.
When Ashkenazi Zionists discovered they had created a labor shortage by ethnically cleansing Palestinians,
they embarked on a propaganda and false flag campaign to get Sephardim to migrate to Israel, where many of
those well-educated and formerly wealthy Jews were discriminated against and forced to take menial jobs. The
false flags designed specifically to stampede Jews out of Iraq are well documented, so don't lie about it,
Tyrion. Jews were among the wealthiest of Iraqis, and had little organic reason to emigrate. The propaganda of
Arab governments expelling the Sephardim is largely false.
The racist, European (white) supremacist narrative (what Edward Said called "Orientalism") that Arabs and
Muslims are always killing each other and Europe must intervene for humanitarian reasons is actively cultivated
by Israel in order to justify its own ethno-supremacist society. That's why Israel encourages Wahhabi terrorism
emanating from the Gulf.
Better to be a minority in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country. The two settlers guilty of arson
are disgusting zealots. But their type is exponentially more common in Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on.
The minority groups in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, would laugh at you and the Jew of Iran prefer Iran to
Israel. These sorts of lunatics, without Israeli, West interference, are rare in Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on.
Israel is dominated by disgusting zealots. Israel is a zealot state of zealots.
Why I am all for wire tapping and all other spying by the CIA and FBI ...get all the uber Jews
and all the politicians and make it public.
Would be delighted if all the news channels did nothing but play the tapes on the daily news.
Following is a transcript of the Oct. 22, 1992 conversation with President David Steiner
of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) recorded without his knowledge by New
York businessman Haim (Harry) Katz. Its existence was first revealed to the Washington Times
and its release triggered Steiner's resignation.
(sample)
HK: Let me tell you, I was planning, I was planning to, to . . . Inouye, by the way, is in
real trouble? He's been there forever. . .
DS: Yeah! Well, we might lose him. There's been such a sea change, such trouble this year, I
can't believe all our friends that are in trouble. Because there's an anti-incumbency mood,
and foreign aid has not been popular. You know what I got for, I met with [U.S. Secretary
of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know
they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear . .
.
HK: Right.
DS: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in
foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people
don't even know about .
HK: Such as?
DS: $700 million in military draw-down, from equipment that the United States Army's going
to give to Israel; $200 million the U.S. government is going to preposition materials in
Israel, which Israel can draw upon; put them in the global warning protection system; so when
if there's a missile fired, they'll get the same advanced notification that the U.S., is
notified, joint military exercises -- I've got a whole shopping list of things .
Interesting but very controversial. Jewish people do possess business acumen and are more oriented toward money success. Just
look what happened in the USSR after its dissolution and Yeltsin privatization. Most "oligarchs" turned to be Jewish ;-)
Also the achievement of Jewish people in science should be be underestimated. This nation gave world a lot of top
physicists mathematicians and philosophers.
Notable quotes:
"... Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats' by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for its war crimes in occupied Palestine. ..."
"... It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia' – clearly another example of the Jewish genius. ..."
"... A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews. Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion. ..."
"... All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street. ..."
Ethno-religious (ER) beliefs and practices have been harmless when individuals or
groups linked to those practices have limited influence over the state and economy. In contrast,
when such groups exercise a disproportionately powerful influence over the state and economy, they
dominate and exploit majorities while forming closed self-replicating networks.
Examples of powerful ethno-centric regimes in the 1930's are well known for their brutality and
devastating consequences. These include the white Christians in the US, Germany and the European
colonial settlement regimes in Rhodesia, South Africa, India and Indonesia, as well as the Japanese
imperialists in Asia.
In the post-colonial or neo-colonial era, ethno-centrism has taken the form of virulent anti-Islamic
hysteria resulting in predatory Western regimes embarking on wars and military occupations in the
Middle East.
The rise of Judeo-centrism, as an economic and political force, occurred in the last half of
the 20th century. The Jewish-Zionist seizure, occupation and ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine
and their rising economic and political influence within the United States has created a formidable
power bloc with significant implications for world peace.
The rise of Jewish ethnocentrism (JE) has confounded its proponents as well as its adversaries;
Zionists and anti-Semites alike are surprised by the scope and depth of JE.
Advocates and adversaries, of all persuasions, conflate the power of what they call 'the Jews',
for their own purposes. Advocates find proof of 'Jewish genius' in every prestigious position and
attribute it to their own unique culture, heredity and scholarship, rather than the result of a greater
social-cultural context. The anti-Semites, for their part, attribute all the world's nefarious dealings
and diabolic plots to 'the Jews'. This creates a strange duality of illusions about the exceptionalism
of a minority group.
In this paper I will focus on demystifying the myths buttressing the power of contemporary Judeo-centric
ideology, belief and organizational influence. There is little point in focusing on anti-Semitism,
which has no impact on the economy and the exercise of state power with the possible exception of
Saudi Arabia. Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from
engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City
of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular
pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited
from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular
Iraq and Syria.
Fake Anti-Semitism: Operational Weapon of the Ethno-Centric Jews
Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats'
by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism
in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the
US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European
regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for
its war crimes in occupied Palestine. Widespread fake anti-Semitic attacks divert attention to Judeo-ethno
centrists and validate their claims to be the first among the history's victims. Second, widely publicized
'fake' acts of anti-Semitism arouse the ethnocentric foot soldiers and increase rich donor contributions
to the illegal Jewish settlements and the Israeli military. Third, 'fake anti-Semitism' is used to
threaten, repress and outlaw any organizations and individuals who criticize Israel and the influence
of Jewish ethnocentric organizations in their home countries.
How many 'anti-Semitic' acts are staged is uncertain: On March 23, 2017, an Israeli-American
man was arrested in Israel for sending hundreds of fake anti-Semitic threats to Jewish institutions
and schools in four European countries and nine US states. Such threats led to the emergency grounding
of two US airlines and the panicked evacuation of countless schools and cultural centers. This man
used a sophisticated system of cloaking accounts to appear to originate in other countries. Despite
his high skills at cyber-terrorism, Israeli authorities preposterously described him as a 'teenager
with a learning disability'. The Israeli-American cyber-terrorist's arrest made the 'back-pages'
news in the US for one day while his (and others') fake threats continued to make international headlines
for weeks.
These scores of fake anti-Semitic bomb threats were cited by the major ethnocentric leaders in
the US to pressure the US President and hundreds of Congressional leaders, University Presidents,
etc. to mindlessly echo their clamor for greater police state investigations against critics of Israel
and to offer special 'protection' for potential 'Jewish victims'. Moves to outlaw criticism of Israel
as 'anti-Semitism' and a 'hate crime' increased.
Not surprisingly the leading Jewish organizations never backed down or called on the US government
to investigate the source of the fake anti-Semitic threats: that is Israeli-American Zionists, who
carry both nations' passports and can enter and exit with total ease and enjoy immunity from extradition.
It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered
the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the
culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded
that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia'
– clearly another example of the Jewish genius.
It is more likely that the hundreds of false-anti-Semitic
threats were part of an Israeli state operation identified by the FBI who 'diplomatically' pressured
Tel Aviv to cut out the monkey business. The news report of the lone-wolf teenager in Israel allowed
the Israeli intelligence to cover-up their role. Once the Israelis passed off the unbelievable tale
of a brilliant, if troubled, young 'lone wolf', the entire US mass media buried the story forever.
In due time the so-called perpetrator will be released, amply rewarded and his identity re-cycled.
In the meantime the US government, as well as several European governments, was forced to allocate
tens of millions of dollars to provide extra security to Jewish institutions in the wake of these
fake threats.
Jewish Power: The Top 25 American Multi-Billionaires
In February 2017, Forbes magazine compiled a list of the world's billionaires, including a country-by-country
account. The top five countries with multi-billionaires among its citizens are: the US with 565,
China with 319, Germany with 114, India with 101, and Russia with 96. Moreover, since 2016 the net
worth of the multi-billionaires grew 18% to $7.67 trillion dollars.
While the US has the greatest number of billionaires, China is fast catching up.
Despite China's advances, the US remains the center of world capitalism with the greatest concentration
of wealth, as well as the greatest and growing inequalities. One reasonably can argue that who controls
US wealth controls the world.
'Jews' among the Top 25 Multi-Billionaires in the US
A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg
with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey
Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews.
Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less
rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion.
Of the top 25 multi-billionaires in the US, 11 of the 25 are Jews. In other words 'the Jews'
represent 44% of the top 25 biggest billionaires – outnumbered by Gentiles but catching up.
Analysis of the 'Richest Jews'
We place 'Jews' in quotation marks because this is a doubtful signifier – more useful to both
Zionist fanatics and anti-Semitic polemicists. Most are not 'practicing' or are completely disinterested
in tribal religions. Nevertheless, half of secular Jews in the US are active supporters of Israel
or involved in Fifth Column Israeli 'front groups'.
In other words, about half of the richest 'Jews' do not consider themselves to be religiously
or ethnically 'Jewish'. Super rich Jews are divided regarding their ethnic loyalties between the
US and Israel.
Moreover what is murkier, many of the richest so-called 'Jews' were born to 'mixed marriages'.
Strictly religious Jews do not recognize the children of such marriages as Jews because their mothers
are not Jewish. The omnivorous Zionists, on the other hand, classify all of them as Jews on the basis
of their actual or potential contribution to the State of Israel. In other words, the Zionist classification
of 'Jews' becomes arbitrary, politicized and dependent on organizational affiliation. Religious practice
and ethno-cultural purity are less important.
Judeo-Centrism and the Intrinsic Superiority Fallacy
Among the many zealous advocates of the Judeo-centric world, the most tiresome are those who
claim they represent the product of superior genetics, culture and heritage – unique and intrinsic
to Jews.
For many centuries most Jews were illiterate believers of religious tribal myths, taught by anti-scientific
rabbis, who closed off the ghettos from the accomplishments of higher culture and forbade integration
or mixed marriages. The high priests punished and expelled any Jews who were influenced by the surrounding
Hellenistic, Romanized, Arabic, Renaissance and Rationalists cultures, like the great Spinoza.
In other words, Jews who had rejected Jewish law, the Scriptures and the Torah were expelled
as apostates. But these 'apostates' were most open to the modern ideas of science. Jews greatly benefited
from the emancipatory laws and opportunities following the French Revolution. Under Napoleon, Jews
became citizens and were free to advance in science, the arts and finance by attending secular universities
away from the primitive, superstitious Rabbi-controlled ghetto 'schools'.
The dramatic growth of intellectual excellence among Jews in the 19th century was a result of
their ceasing to be Jews in the traditional closed religious sense. Did they suddenly switch on their
'genius genes' or invent a fake history or religion, as the ethno-centrist would have us believe?
It seems far more likely that they took great advantage of the opportunities opened to them with
major social and political developments in the greater society. As they assimilated and integrated
in secular traditions, they ceased to be Jews in the tribal religious sense. Their scientific, medical
and financial success came from learning, absorbing and exchanging scientific ideas, high culture
and conservative, liberal and socialist ideas with the larger progressive non-Jewish society.
It is no coincidence that 'great Jewish achievers' like the totally secular Albert Einstein were
educated in German universities by German professors and drew on scientific knowledge by German and
non-Jewish scholars. His intellectual development was due to his free association with the great
scientists and scholars of Germany and Europe, not closeted away in some ethno-tribal commune.
The Jews who remained embedded in the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian ghettos, under the reign
of the leading Rabbis, remained illiterate, poor and backward. Most of the claims of 'superior' cultural
heritage or traditions are the creation of a mythical folk history serving ethno-national supremacists.
The Myth of the Contemporary Genius
The modern ethnocentric ideologues ignore the 'dilution of Jewishness' in their celebratory identification
with successful 'Jews'.
Many of the best thinkers, writers, scientists and political leaders were conversos (Christian
converts), or integrated European secular nationalists, socialists, monarchists, bankers and professionals.
Some remained 'reformed Jews' or later transformed into secular Zionists: nationalists who despised
non-Europeans as inferior and couldn't even conceive of Arab Palestine as their 'homeland'. It wasn't
until the 20th century that Zionism was in part 'Judacized'. Early Zionists looked at various locations
for a homeland, including Argentina and parts of Africa and Russia.
These ethno-chauvinist ideologues lay claim to all brilliant individuals, no matter how tenuous
as examples of 'Jewish genius'. Even those personally opposed Jewish ethno-religious beliefs and
indifferent to tribal loyalties end up being claimed as examples of the 'Jewish genius'. Once some
'matrilineal link' could be found, their success and brilliance was tied to the mystical lineage,
no matter how tenuous.
This bizarre practice became even more commonplace following the Jewish military conquest and
brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the military, political and financial backing of non-Jewish
Europe and the United States. With myths and inflated ideas of unique virtue and brilliance, Israel
was established as a racist apartheid state. A new militant, ethnocentric Judaism converted Israel and its overseas backers into an ethno-ideological
international power with religious trappings, based on the myth of its 'exceptionalism'. To maintain this myth, the personal histories of all prominent 'Israel Firsters' were sanitized
and scrubbed of anti-social and destructive behavior.
All Jewish billionaires were to be portrayed as uniquely philanthropic, while the exploits of
Jewish billionaire swindlers (Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky) were not to be mentioned
in polite company. The conquests of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, rapist-procurer head of
the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Congressman Anthony Weiner and other similar
perverts quietly slithered off the edge of the planet although all had once been hailed as examples
of 'ethnocentric genius'.
Major Jewish political donors to US-UK-French electoral parties were hailed while their work
on behalf of Israel was naturally assumed but not discussed. The dizzying shifts between open adulation
and selective whitewash served to reinforce the illusion of superiority. Anyone, Jew or Gentile,
bold enough to point out the obvious hypocrisy would be immediately censored as 'self-hating' (Jew)
or 'anti-Semite' (Gentile).
Return to the Beginning: Judeo-Centric Power
As mentioned above, Jews represent a substantial minority among the top multi-billionaires, but
they are still a minority. Below the top level of wealth are the single digit billionaires and triple
and double digit multi-millionaires; here the proportion of 'Jews' increases. These 'less-than-super-billionaires'
are among the most active and the biggest financial and political supporters of the ethno centric
ideology and tribal cohesion.
Los Angeles-based Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban contributed tens of millions of dollars
to support of the Jewish state's occupation of Palestine and brutal colonial land grabbing 'settlers'.
His wealth is largely based on his 'genius' in pushing culturally vacuous Japanese cartoons (Mighty
Morphing Power Rangers) on the nation's children. He is the primary donor to the Democratic Party
pushing Israel's agenda – his number one priority as an American citizen.
The lesser 'foot soldiers' of the Zionist power structure are the millionaires and affluent professionals,
dentists, stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors and impresarios. The middle and lower levels of wealth and
power are a diverse group – mostly ethno-religious and secular, but very self-identified ethno-Jews.
A minority is totally secular or converted to non-Jewish religions (especially Buddhism, Christianity)
Despite the constant drumbeat of ethnocentric identity, an increasing number of young US 'Jews'
do not identify with Judaism or Israel. Their influence however is minimal.
The wealthy ethno-religious and secular ethnic Jews may or may not constitute a numerical majority
but they are the best organized, most political and most adamant in their claims to 'speak for and
represent the Jewish community' as a whole, especially during waves of (fake) 'anti-Semitism'!
The many former-Jews, anti-tribal Jews and 'non-Jewish' Jews are no match for the ethnocentric
political apparatus controlled by the chauvinists.
When the tribalists appropriate the glory of a secular non-Jewish Jewish scientist or major 'prize
winner' they claim his or her tribal affiliation in order to impress the 'goys' and to seduce younger
more skeptical Jews about the advantages of ethno-chauvinism.
All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view
themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge
from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street.
Upward mobility within academia, government and business circles is automatically assumed by
the tribalists to be a reward for superior merit – 'Jewish genius' – rather than nepotism or connections.
Tribal networks and 'understandings' play a powerful unspoken role in career success and immunity
from the consequences of failure, incompetence or dishonesty.
Multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires prospered because they entered establish lucrative
fields or made their career choices highly profitable.
Early on, many powerful Gentile bankers provided entry for talented Jews to succeed. This is
despite revisionist history bemoaning the exclusion of US Jews on Wall Street and their degrading
denial of membership in select WASP country clubs. These myths of brutal oppression on Wall Street
or Long Island yacht clubs have empowered generations of American Jews to assume the role of spokespersons
for the oppressed everywhere. The expression 'crying all the way to the bank' comes to mind.
By the last quarter of the 20th century and especially in the 21st century, deindustrialization
and the shift to financialization in the US economy increased the power and privilege of a disproportionate
number of multi-billionaire/millionaire Jews. This seismic shift has coincided with the pervasive
impoverishment of the marginalized working class in the former 'rust belt' and central parts of the
country and the incredible concentration of national wealth at the top 1%. This is a demographic
shift and ethno-class apartheid of huge, but unstudied, significance.
The most important political question is not how many Jews are super-wealthy but what proportion
of them are influential political donors and active in the Democratic or Republican Parties in order
to intervene on behalf of clan, tribe and motherland (Israel). Majorities among Jews are not crucial
– most are not politically active. What is decisive is the percentage of all the super-wealthy who
are politically active, organized and contribute substantially to influence and control the mass
media to promote their ethno-centric ideology and punish critics.
Conclusion
Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional
intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and
later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.
The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations
by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing
inequalities of wealth, education and political power!
Historically favored minorities tend to overreach and, like the eyeless Sampson, bring down the
Temple on everyone. Power corrupts and absolute ethno-chauvinist power corrupts absolutely. Intelligent
Jews of principle are abandoning
By the "reasoning" of the likes of Noam Chomsky, for the countries in which U.S.
presidents meddled, the default setting was a state of affairs that tended towards long-term
stability, peace and prosperity.
@wayfarer Good share wayfarer. January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass
Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent *It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys*
No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent,
and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.
Trump administration still is playing old color revolution game: accusing somebody of corruption is the best way to endure the regime
change.
Unfortunately for them the game is well known now, and as such is less effective.
It might succeed this time though, as Venezuela is their backyard, so to speak. But after Libya there will be a fight and it it
will cost the USA. .
Looks like they are now trying to bribe China.
Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo and Pińera also generally discussed the U.S.-China trade war and Beijing's "Belt and Road" initiative, with Pompeo suggesting he was optimistic about solving the tariff war with China. But the focus remained finding a US-desired outcome to the Venezuela crisis. ..."
Speaking Friday in Chile upon the start of his three-day South American tour, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called out China
and Russia for spreading "disorder" in Latin America through failing investment projects that only fuel corruption and undermine
democracy , especially in places like Venezuela.
According to
Bloomberg , Pompeo specifically listed a failing dam project in Ecuador, police advisory programs in Nicaragua, and Chinese loans
to the Maduro government, which goes further back to Chavez.
Pompeo asserted Chinese loans in Latin America "often injects corrosive capital into the economic bloodstream, giving life to
corruption, and eroding good governance." Both Beijing and Moscow have ultimately spread their economic tentacles into the region
to "spread disorder," he added.
In what appears an effort to sustain momentum toward pressuring regime change in Caracas, America's highest diplomat met Chilean
President Sebastian Pinera earlier Friday, and will hit Paraguay, Peru next, and finally on Sunday will travel to a Colombian town
on the border with Venezuela.
Pompeo and Pińera also generally discussed the U.S.-China trade war and Beijing's "Belt and Road" initiative, with Pompeo
suggesting he was optimistic about solving the tariff war with China. But the focus remained finding a US-desired outcome to the
Venezuela crisis.
As part of the broader pressure campaign on Maduro, Pompeo said the U.S. has revoked visas for 718 people and sanctioned over
150 individuals and entities. On Friday, the U.S. sanctioned four companies it says transport much of the 50,000 barrels of oil
that Venezuela provides to Cuba each day.
This is a pretty accurate description of "Myth about the USA" which is very common in xUSSR area too.
Notable quotes:
"... The farther you are from the US, the more mythical it becomes. Here in Ea Kly, most people have never been to Saigon, much less California, New York or Las Vegas, so their faith in the US can become childishly fanatical. This week, I met three brothers who still regret not jumping on a boat to escape, forty years ago. Every Vietnamese they know who ended up in the US had become fabulously rich, they insisted, and they cited a man who returned to build a road for his village as a typical example. ..."
"... A man in his 40's asked me if wife swapping is common in the US. As evidenced by every movie and music video, America is this insanely sexed up place where everybody is always jumping into everybody else's bed, not the land of widespread porn addiction, compulsive masturbators, bitter divorcees, smart phone exhibitionism, paid cuddlers and the never married growing old alone. ..."
"... A woman told me that she had a friend in the US who was making "only" $2,400 a month, "How can you live on so little?" "Many Americans make less than that," I answered. "I sure did most of my time there." ..."
"... She looked amused. She had no idea most Americans have to pay around 20% of their incomes on taxes, and that housing and transportation costs eat up half of their paychecks. ..."
"... As New York, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles become covered with feces from homeless Americans, American colonies will be set up not just on Mars, but Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, in whatever order, for they're all as near as Hollywood, or your computer, assuming you'll still have one. ..."
America's most enduring export has been its image. Self-infatuated, it seduces everyone into
worshipping its self-portrait. In 1855, Walt Whitman wrote, "The United States themselves are
essentially the greatest poem," then set out to define this "greatest poem" to the rest of the
world, a monumental achievement. In 2005, Harold Pinter said, "I put to you that the United
States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and
ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most
saleable commodity is self-love. It's a winner."
The farther you are from the US, the more mythical it becomes. Here in Ea Kly, most people
have never been to Saigon, much less California, New York or Las Vegas, so their faith in the
US can become childishly fanatical. This week, I met three brothers who still regret not
jumping on a boat to escape, forty years ago. Every Vietnamese they know who ended up in the US
had become fabulously rich, they insisted, and they cited a man who returned to build a road
for his village as a typical example.
These aborted
boat people looked at me with scorn when I told them there are plenty of poor Americans,
with many in such despair they drug themselves to death, and life in the US is often a very
lonely experience, even for the native-born, with roots going back generations. I was
besmirching these naïfs' religion.
A man in his 40's asked me if wife swapping is common in the US. As evidenced by every movie
and music video, America is this insanely sexed up place where everybody is always jumping into
everybody else's bed, not the land of widespread porn addiction, compulsive masturbators,
bitter divorcees, smart phone exhibitionism, paid cuddlers and the never married growing old
alone.
A woman told me that she had a friend in the US who was making "only" $2,400 a month, "How
can you live on so little?" "Many Americans make less than that," I answered. "I sure did most of my time there."
She looked amused. She had no idea most Americans have to pay around 20% of their incomes on
taxes, and that housing and transportation costs eat up half of their paychecks.
Most people in Ea Kly have never even seen an American. In the next town, Krong Buk, there's
a white resident, the only one in a 30 mile radius. Most of his neighbors know him as simply
ông Tây, Mr. Westerner, though some do call by his first name, Peter.
A man said to Peter, "Merci, madame," the only Western phrase he knew.
Most have no idea that Peter is actually
Swiss
, and not American, but he's rich enough, by local standards, so he's more or less an
American.
White people are rich, live in fabulous countries, travel all over and can suddenly show up
even in Krong Buk to buy a nice piece of land by the lake, build an elegant house, with a guest
bungalow next to it. Whereas the locals only
fish
in this lake ,
the white man swims daily, for he knows how to enjoy life.
The apex of whiteness, though, is the United States of America, a country that didn't just
drop seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, as well as 20 million gallons
of herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, but sent twelve tall, clean cut and good intentioned white
men to the moon, a transcendental feat that's still unequaled after half a century, and it's a
safe bet that neither the Russians, Chinese nor anyone else will be able to accomplish this for
a while, maybe ever. Of course, Americans can return to the moon tomorrow if they want to, but
they're already looking way beyond it.
As New York, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles become
covered with feces from homeless Americans, American colonies will be set up not just on Mars,
but Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, in whatever order, for they're all as
near as Hollywood, or your computer, assuming you'll still have one.
That happened often when a second rate provincial lawyer became the Secretary of State. At least Kerry knows French. Pompeo
knows absolution nothing and is capable only of repeating old cliché.
Today's special word is: Projection
Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!. ..."
"... Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture. ..."
Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to
shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!.
I luv my country, but I hate my government.
beemasters
This must have been the most transparently crooked administration ever in the US history! Ain't that the pot calling the
kettle black!
2willies
Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture.
Idaho potato head
At some point even the most deluded sheep has got to realize he is being lied to. Or is it just as in the Matrix, there is
an age limit as to when a mind can be awoken.
After reading CYMS1 below I retract that question.
The other mistake I see people make is that they toil away for 80% of the year in a job they
hate, so they can splurge for a few days in an Americanized luxury resort.
Why not make every
day exotic and truly get a feel for the local atmosphere by moving somewhere for a year
instead?
So true.
If all else fails, just buy a bus ticket to Minnesota and see what it's like to live in
Somalia for a day.
This will at least wake up those morons at places like Breitbart that Trump is nothing more
than a neocon swine. I mean how much more evidence do they need to see that he is invite the
world, invade the world. On top of that mass censorship being unleashed under Trump, how can
anyone still be conned into supporting him.
This is why Anglo-Saxon propaganda is so very effective. They have freedom of speech,
see? Though of course saying politically incorrect things might socially kill you, so it's
understood you won't do that. You will say PC (including anti-Russian, etc.) platitudes
always. So people will not even notice PC propaganda, like fish don't notice they're wet.
And when trying to convince a normie, you have to break a very long, almost infinite chain
of assumptions, which you won't know how to do.
Take a look at the career of Charles Austin Beard, for example.
He was one of the single most highly-regarded historians in America; his contributions to
the field were well-known and massively important. But even he could not break through the
pillars of propaganda when he published his book about the folly of Franklin Roosevelt's
foreign policy. The "court historians" like Samuel Eliot Morison and Schlesinger, et al,
blackballed his work and dismissed it with the most flippant arrogance and lack of care for
detail. The major newspapers and periodicals followed suit. Overnight he became all but a
pariah. Only a few regional newspapers were willing to treat his work with serious care. To
his credit, Beard had anticipated this reaction, but published his works anyway.
After World War 1, revisionism became par for the course in America – the vast
majority of historians, journalists, together with the public as a whole, came to agree that
America's entry into that conflict had been a selfish mistake. But during and after World War
Two, what you call "Anglo-Saxon propaganda" tightened up to a remarkably successful degree,
and to this day the pro-interventionist myth of the "great crusade" is all but unimpeachable
among the masses. In fact, the anti-revisionists, the "court historians," even managed to
defeat the old inter-war consensus about World War One, so that even it is now regarded as an
idealistic crusade for democracy! Very remarkable stuff, though sad!
I would probably do the same thing in Putin's situation. At a very basic level you simply
cannot trust people like Assange. Giving refuge to a spy is one thing; you're not going to
let him near any state secrets so it's not like he could betray you even if he wanted to (and
it's easy to keep an eye on him). For somebody like Assange there's the constant threat that
he could turn against you: acquire damaging information and use it as leverage, or simply
release it for the sake of his own ego or murky ideals. Too much potential for embarrassment.
Snowden was closer in spirit to a spy imo; Assange is more like bin Laden or a mafia boss,
the head of a shadowy international organization with significant reach and resources.
It's sort of like the French Foreign Legion: they take a dim view of British and American
recruits and generally won't let them join unless they speak French or have prior military
experience. The reason is psychological unsuitability: no sensible British or American person
interested in a military career would volunteer to be a mercenary for a foreign country over
serving in his own country's well-funded armed forces. Romantics and escapists are inherently
flaky and unreliable people. That's also why Brazilians are regarded as the best Legion
soldiers: they just do it to get EU citizenship
Ecuador rented a house opposite their main offices in Knightsbridge, and had three agents
in the house to permanently monitor Assange on cameras (for a cost of $1 million a year).
So they might be more intelligent than we think?
At the same time, Ecuador's politicians had problems justifying the costs of this to their
media.
Perhaps it seems more like this was perceived by Ecuador, as an intelligence operation, to
monitor Assange, and get intelligence information they could would use as leverage with the
Americans.
Today, the Ecuadorian interior minister is suddenly boasting about how they monitored and
have knowledge about two hackers who worked with Assange.
@reiner Tor Scotland yard
tried to play down their own costs of hanging outside the Ecuadorian embassy, which in 2015
was already estimated to be well over £10m over the prior three years, by saying that a
lot of that cost was money they would have spent on policing anyway: Tell that to the rapidly
increasing numbers of families of murder victims in the Capital. Oops, careful about saying
that in the UK, as the police there will pick you up for a thought-crime.
Elites around the globe protect each other more than they protect the interests of non-elites
in their own nations and any who side with non-elites in any non-trivial way, so it makes
sense that Latin American elites side with US elites who favor the mass immigration that has
driven down wages for 40 years and the mass exportation of US jobs to Latin American since it
1) boosts the profits of American elites and 2) relieves pressure on Latin American elites.
Ecuador seemed to get fed up with Assange – cutting him off from the world, badmouthing
him in MSM, etc – early 2018 when he was mostly tweeting about Catalonia. Spain is
supposedly Ecuador's closest partner in Europe. The timing could've been coincidental but
probably not.
@neutral He was always
scum but he was still the better choice than Hillary Clinton. He may still be better than his
opponent in 2020. That's how bad things are at the centre of the American empire.
Trump had the potential to be better than he is now but Washington has pushed his back
against the wall and his shitty character has thus shown itself in full. He could have been a
better President under different circumstances; even with these same character flaws.
@neutral Trump was and
still is the chaos candidate. When a better option than sabotage presents itself, then Trump
will become the second best choice.
Many, if not most, people knew he was the sabotage candidate when they supported him.
Hillary was understood to be worse because she'd maintain and even strengthen a bad system
while Trump would bugger it up.
@Thorfinnsson The Deep
State might already be beyond repair. So perhaps, come the Revolution, new, revolutionary
state organs will need to be set up in a clean break with the obscurantist blank slatist
regime. The state secrets of these new, revolutionary organs should be protected by any means
necessary. But then we'll have free countries for ourselves.
Until then, we don't need to protect the secrets of the oppressive obscurantist
regime.
Disagree here, he's energised the left to a degree that wouldn't have happened had he not
been elected and his policies are now no different to what Clinton's would have been. In
American politics, what you say appears to matter much more than what you do, so we've now
got the perfect storm of someone who talks like a right wing populist, and the resulting
backlash, but nothing to show for it. I remember ak mentioning that the only saving grace of
his administration being that it had alienated allies, but even that hasnt materialised. The
guy is a conman and a sellout, but he's very clearly noticed the fact that European
governments will unquestionably obey the US, so it's pointless to treat them with any respect
whatsoever: THATs the one and only positive thing I can say about him. Still not looking
forward to his successor.
@The
Alarmist Trump said he liked Wikileaks at that time, because they released some
embarrassing emails about Hilary Clinton during the 2016 Presidential election.
If they released embarrassing emails about Trump, he would have said the opposite.
Trump will not have any specific principles that would make him support asylum for
leakers, or generalized protection for dissidents, unless it might specifically be explained
that it would help him in some way (and unless there are emails to leak about his opponent in
2020, how will it help him?).
@reiner Tor But Trump
would say anything that would get him elected, and he would do many of these things. But, as
plutocrat surrounded by plutocrats, he'll never open the market for housing (allow easier
re-zoning), or transportation (dismantle the dealership racket), or hospitals / doctors.
Yeah, apparently he lacks the levers to reduce housing costs, but he can always fix, or
promise to fix, something about Assange, or about Christian-Obamacare conflicts –
despite them being equally remote from his mandate. Watch the idiotic boomers drooling all
over unz.com about Trump's "efforts" to fix immigration.
These being the highest expenses of an American, I can see who is the idiot here.
@simple_pseudonymic_handle
The most obvious parallel was the UK's refusal to extradite Gary McKinnon to the US.
McKinnon gained access to 97 US military and NASA networks between early 2001 and 2002. he
was also very very shit at covering his tracks.
The US sought extradition; McKinnon's lawyers challenged it on a bunch of grounds;
McKinnon won.
Part of the range of stuff that got him off was the refusal of the US to make guarantees
that he would not be housed in a SuperMax and that he would not be placed in solitary
confinement, That, plus McKinnon's "Asperger's" (diagnosed after he was arrested), was
enough for the system to tell the US government to pound sand.
I as among the people who warned JA not to go to the UK when he was leaving Sweden. (I've
known the guy as a nodding acquaintance since the 1980s and WANK; I'm in he & Suelette's
book, under a different pseudonym).
He was warned against one of the classic blunders.
The first two classic blunders are known to all –
① never start a land war in Asia , and
② never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line .
The third is less well-known:
③ when you've been honeypotted, DO NOT SEEK REFUGE ON A FUCKING ISLAND
.
When he ignored us, he was dropped from several DMSes.
For a very smart bloke, his judgement was always suspect: he allowed a fucking nappy like
Dumb Shitberg (Domscheit-Berg) inside his circle of confidants.
This whole damn country is a pile of lies. I don't know how you guys keep your sanity.
I think America may crack in the next ten years.
I live in a "minority-majority" area. It is all bullshit.
Hey, let's take all the worlds nations, races, ethnicities, religions, cultures, lifestyles,
sexual orientations, etc and stick them in one place!
On top of this we have a government that doesn't listen, ruled by special interest group.
My god, how long America?
I can't stand this place anymore.
It's going to be very interesting to see the next 10 years. The country is cracking up.
For my part, I'm learning a foreign language right now, it will come in handy when I have
enough money to bail.
Gentleman, there is nothing here worth left of preserving, only rot.
I miss a consideration, that wikileaks could be a Mossad/Unit8200 operation.
If I look at the wikileak's site, menu "partners", all is clear to me, "Der Spiegel" and
truth are mutually exclusive.
Wikileaks "revealed" an EU plan to use military against the poor human traffickers and
Israeli NGOs who bring in these Africans and "refugees". Fascinating, they have once in their
evil life a good plan in Brussels, and wikileaks shoots against it.
I think the question for Russian asylum is the same question why Russia did not spell the
beans on 911.
@Meimou The leader of
progressives, the dual-loyalty opportunist and CIA stooge Schumer:
Chuck Schumer
@SenSchumer
Now that Julian Assange has been arrested, I hope he will soon be held to account for his
meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian government.
@Hyperborean Trumpstein
and his sleazy family keep delivering for the vile jooies and the JudenPresse, JudenTV, and
JudenNet will make sure he gets reelected especially if he attacks Iran. Where is Titus now
that we need him?
Not to mention more than a few paedo-grooming ring members who are still awaiting
deportation
How convenient these immigrants are when a good smokescreen is needed.
And how about a paedophile UK Prime Minister never investigated ?
"Sir Edward Heath WAS a paedophile, says police chief: Astonishing claim is made
that the former PM is guilty of vile crimes 'covered up by the Establishment'"
Some comments look like from April 1 and are textbook demonstration of the American exceptionalism, but still some comments are very insightful and come from people with real
experience of living in Russia at least for a short period of time.
Notable quotes:
"... "Any touch to an American is taken as a violation of his personal space, so in the U.S., as a rule, people do not take each other by the elbow and do not tap each other on the shoulder if they" do not want to be charged with harassment or domestic vio and end up in American gulag. ..."
"... But if "to a white guy from the West their politeness felt like fakeness and I was stressed out because of it" then this "is how many black people feel when hanging around white people. What we see as just common courtesy, comes off as" 'microaggression' and 'cultural appropriation' to them. To each his own. And not YOUR own. ..."
"... No wonder the "biggest breath of fresh air that comes to mind, is the absence of PC culture". ..."
"... One of the more endearing compliments I ever received was from an old Russian girlfriend, who told her friends, "He's one of the good ones he has a Russian soul." She and her friends were just as described above, generous to a fault despite what was an obvious wealth gap. ..."
"... Should have married that girl. Then again, I might have dodged the Babooshka bomb. Interestingly enough, she had no desire to ever go to the US, so that was not a part of the calculus. ..."
"... Have some sympathy for our poor consular officers abroad they spend far too much time face to face with the wretched refuse of the world trying to scam their way into the US. ..."
"... is seems that all our governments just end up being dictatorships sooner or later anyway; so that being the case, I would prefer a sane dictatorship (like Russia or Singapore) to an insane one, which is what we Americans have at the moment. ..."
"... I reckon you're young and mixing with a set a bit more affected by Western media propaganda than they or you realise. Some of what you write about your adopted home comes across as a bit churlish as well ..."
"... Given Aussie and Danish cultures are very similar in many respects, that suggests 2 years for a Westerner in either Japan or Russia is way too little. I'm taking what you say on specifics with a grain of salt but the overall message the gist of it is accurate all the same. ..."
"... I'd say six years is about the mean for getting the hang of a new culture if as you are living it. ..."
"... To understand Russia you have to see the other cities. You can't just go to Moscow and St Petes. It's a huge country, some parts of which are decaying due to migration and demographic collapse (e.g., Perm). Other parts are vibrant and fun. I've seen about 1/3rd of the larger cities, but never Siberia or the far East, nor Chechnya/Dagestan/Ingushetia/Adygea. Hard to travel to some of those places as a foreigner. ..."
"... If you think that Russian food is bad, you are either an idiot or don’t know what to order. If you go to Omsk and order sashimi, you are going to be disappointed. But native Russian dishes such as solyanka, borsch, kulebiaka, kholodets, etc etc are excellent. Not to mention the Georgian and Uzbek dishes that are as common in Russia as Mexican and Chinese are in ‘Murika. And you can eat well in a workers’ cafeteria, not just in an expensive restaurant. ..."
"... In all other respects, you can’t even begin to compare Russia and Ukraine with a straight face – be that infrastructure, law and order, average incomes ..."
"... Yep, I'm 25% Russian, more like 15% as I had some German Nordic Russian nobility on that side. This Slavic gene is always there to call BS on idiot Liberals or worse Libertarians that want to talk, talk, talk make excuses for the worst Paki sexual groomers. Nah, the Russian way is better. ..."
"... Just realistically looking at all the places I have lived, the US would be the last place I'd go to, it's an empire in decline. Morally, spiritually, economically, politically educationally and socially. (And I have lived in the US for 20 years) The only part of American life that seems appealing is the kind of homesteading movement that is occurring in some states. ..."
"... Whatever beefs one may have with Russia or Putin, corruption, noise, etc. The fact is Russia is holding it's own and improving its diplomatic relations and increasing it's allies and trade partners, has become militarily a force to be reckoned with and therefore more secure, it has become more self sufficient in many areas such as agriculture, is improving it's infrastructure, people are earning more, it has almost no external debt, huge reserves of gold, is beginning to attract tourism, is expanding in fields of science, and has the reputation of being a reliable partner. ..."
"... As the author mentions, people in Russia are very generous and family oriented. I think this gives more meaning of life and an overall feeling of well being than striving for more and more income to buy more and more stuff. Especially as particularly in the US and Europe, people are living so much on credit. ..."
"... Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country ..."
"... Although discriminated against, most Americans, except maybe those down on their luck and real life losers without any skills, live in nice, clean suburbs and in many cases they don't even need to lock their doors ..."
"... While it's not Germany or Sweden when garbage is concerned, America utilizes its trash quite properly, and about 75 to 85% is incinerated. ..."
"... Meanwhile in Russia: "If government officials continue ignoring the problem, in a few years the Russians will live in a landfill, as it is now happening with the residents of Haiti" ..."
"... Americans in the US now total about 55% of the population: Wikipedia says: "197,285,202 (Non-Hispanic: 2017), 60.7% of the total U.S. population"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American , however this number is flawed as they count various non-whites like Berbers, or Turkic people like Albanians, Turks, Kurds, Georgians, and Azerbaijanis as whites. ..."
"... Then we have: "About 46 million Americans live in the nation's rural counties, 175 million in its suburbs and small metros"- http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/ . Which seems to confirm that Americans (Whites) live in either suburban or rural areas. ..."
Most places you apply to online won't take your overseas application serious, just like I
don't take my" pseudonymous fictional interview serious. The Kreutzer Sonata it ain't. All
the same, if you have "a Russian husband, who has himself published some essays about some of
the unexpected cultural differences a Russian encounters in America", make sure your Zlobin
doesn't turn out to be a Pozdnyshev.
So maybe is true this "Russian concept is that you're safe when you're with the
crowd."
At least in some situations. And yes,
"Any touch to an American is taken as a violation of
his personal space, so in the U.S., as a rule, people do not take each other by the elbow and
do not tap each other on the shoulder if they" do not want to be charged with harassment or
domestic vio and end up in American gulag.
But if "to a white guy from the West their politeness felt like fakeness and I was
stressed out because of it" then this "is how many black people feel when hanging around
white people. What we see as just common courtesy, comes off as" 'microaggression' and
'cultural appropriation' to them. To each his own. And not YOUR own.
No wonder the "biggest breath of fresh air that comes to mind, is the absence of PC
culture".
Not a bad deal for 99.9999% of the Earth's population who would do anything to
escape it.
Or "if all else fails, just buy a bus ticket [from] Minnesota" to Washington P.C.
& see what it's like to live in Tel Aviv for two years.
One of the more endearing compliments I ever received was from an old Russian girlfriend, who
told her friends, "He's one of the good ones he has a Russian soul." She and her friends were
just as described above, generous to a fault despite what was an obvious wealth gap.
But the funniest thing she ever did was to use her bare hand to kill a cock-roach that had
dared to cross our table at a restaurant.
Should have married that girl. Then again, I might have dodged the Babooshka bomb.
Interestingly enough, she had no desire to ever go to the US, so that was not a part of the
calculus.
Have some sympathy for our poor consular officers abroad they spend far too much time face
to face with the wretched refuse of the world trying to scam their way into the US.
The thing is, I don't want a "benevolent dictatorship" like Singapore or Russia. I want
to live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended.
Pick a number: everybody wants to "live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America
intended," probably even the Founding Fathers themselves did. But is seems that all our
governments just end up being dictatorships sooner or later anyway; so that being the case, I
would prefer a sane dictatorship (like Russia or Singapore) to an insane one, which is what
we Americans have at the moment.
The other mistake I see people make is that they toil away for 80% of the year in a job
they hate, so they can splurge for a few days in an Americanized luxury resort. Why not
make every day exotic and truly get a feel for the local atmosphere by moving somewhere for
a year instead?
So true.
If all else fails, just buy a bus ticket to Minnesota and see what it's like to live in
Somalia for a day.
Russian tourist visas are a little complex, best to use a private agency. Cost should run
around $200-300, takes about 10-14 days. Can get a multi entry visa good for 5 years with a
180 day stay per visit.
One can enter Belarus without a visa for up to 7 days if flying into Minsk.
Now also possible to stay in Belarus for 30 days during certain sporting events, same in
Russia
Ukraine is visa free for most citizens of advanced countries.
Tourists on ships can stay up to 72 hours in St Petersburg
I lived in the "benevolent dictatorship" of Singapore, and it was pretty nice:
Clean, orderly, low-crime, prosperous. Since I worked and didn't engage in socially
unacceptable behaviour, it was very accomodating and Big Brother Goh left me more in peace to
go about my life there than my crazy jealous girlfriend, Uncle Sam. In some ways, it is much
freer.
I went back a few years ago to visit, and while waiting for the light to cross the street,
the guy next to me threw a piece of trash on the ground, so I looked at him and said, "You
wouldn't do that if Lee Kuan Yew was still in charge." He sheepishly picked it up.
I reckon you're young and mixing with a set a bit more affected by Western media propaganda
than they or you realise. Some of what you write about your adopted home comes across as a
bit churlish as well. Also a couple of years is no time at all to get to know any place let
alone the culture.
I've spent 3 times as long on average getting to know my new homes and
they were no more distant than Denmark on one occasion.
I'd say I barely reached a plateau of
understanding and appreciation after a cycle of admiration, loathing, frustration and finally
reappraisal after 6 years!
Given Aussie and Danish cultures are very similar in many
respects, that suggests 2 years for a Westerner in either Japan or Russia is way too little.
I'm taking what you say on specifics with a grain of salt but the overall message the gist of
it is accurate all the same.
Still I'd like to see you cut those apron strings to yankee land before seeing too much
more of your advice about other cultures. I mean that, I'd like it because your insight is
interesting all the same, you are clearly smart and thoughtful so this is not an attack. In
my experience you have not even begun to scratch the surface until you begin to dream in the
language of your new home.
I'm currently trying to find communion between my Western and South Asian culture of my
wife and after 7 years am far from getting it. This is due to living in my country not hers
though.
I'd say six years is about the mean for getting the hang of a new culture if as you
are living it.
You should see the guy who works for me in marketing. More metal crap in his face and small
scooter rubber tires in his ear lobes as best I can tell, than you'd want to know about.
Absolute freak show brother. He is unfortunately also extremely intelligent and competent at
what he does. I say unfortunately because if his performance matched his appearance it would
be easy to say bye bye, but fact is he's brilliant and a nice bloke too. Beats me why this
kid would do this to himself.
He's a very handsome young man with mixed Chinese/Aussie
parents. Yet his face looks like a junkyard tossed across a picturesque park. It would make
more sense if he was gay but he is even straight, just like this kid writing the article
appears to be. They don't even look like men when they do this, so it beats me.
I've spent a lot of time in both, although last time I saw Ukraine was 3 years ago. The food
in Ukraine is great, Russia well, horrendous. Peasant food, basically, and not particularly
good peasant food either. There's a markedly different feeling in Ukraine these days, losing
population like mad, poor economy, etc.
To understand Russia you have to see the other cities. You can't just go to Moscow and St
Petes. It's a huge country, some parts of which are decaying due to migration and demographic
collapse (e.g., Perm). Other parts are vibrant and fun. I've seen about 1/3rd of the larger
cities, but never Siberia or the far East, nor Chechnya/Dagestan/Ingushetia/Adygea. Hard to
travel to some of those places as a foreigner.
I like Ekaterinburg, but my wife refuses to move there.
Plato's Dream says: March 26, 2019 at 1:59 pm GMT • 100 Words
@jbwilson24
If you think that Russian food is bad, you are either an idiot or don’t know what to order. If you go to Omsk and order
sashimi, you are going to be disappointed. But native Russian dishes such as solyanka, borsch, kulebiaka, kholodets, etc etc
are excellent. Not to mention the Georgian and Uzbek dishes that are as common in Russia as Mexican and Chinese are in
‘Murika. And you can eat well in a workers’ cafeteria, not just in an expensive restaurant.
In all other respects, you can’t even begin to compare Russia and Ukraine with a straight face – be that
infrastructure, law and order, average incomes etc. It’s like Barbados and Jamaica – both speak English, both are in the
Caribbean; but that’s where the similarity ends.
Maybe they are. After all, I can guarantee if something like Rotherham or Cologne
happened in Russia, they wouldn't wait for the right paperwork and lawyers to get justice.
They would beat the living shit out of everyone in a 5KM radius and not bother navigating
red tape like we do.
Overly optimistic. Such episodes are very much the exception, not the rule.
The authorities are trouble averse, so they tend to turn a blind eye to Caucasian
malfeasance.
The sound waves are not uniform, but rather polarized sharp spikes. Blaring techno with
bone rattling bass at 3AM. Screaming couples at 1AM. Hammering and drilling at 9AM. I
finally figured out why. My girlfriend's brother told me that there's no word for "privacy"
in Russian.
... ... ...
However, you should note that 11pm – 7am (I think, I might be off by an hour) are
supposed to be "quiet hours" in Moscow and you have the right to complain to your neighbors
about their noise, and, if they do not desist, to contact the police.
"Maybe they are. After all, I can guarantee if something like Rotherham or Cologne happened
in Russia, they wouldn't wait for the right paperwork and lawyers to get justice. They would
beat the living shit out of everyone in a 5KM radius and not bother navigating red tape like
we do."
America used to have people like that. Primarily they were southerners. Secondarily they
were European Catholic immigrants and the children of European Catholic immigrants. And then
the Yank WASP Elites and their Jewish BFFs spent decades and billions of dollars forcing
those people to start thinking and acting like WASP peasants bowing to the Anglo-Zionist
Empire.
Where can I personally meet this hip, tell it like it is Vietnamese guy and some of his
subjects?
I love the way –Michael Kreutzer (28-years-old) just sums up the eternal Russian way
of thinking about alien rapists, Islamic terrorists that sort of thing:
" I can guarantee if something like Rotherham or Cologne happened in Russia, they wouldn't
wait for the right paperwork and lawyers to get justice. They would beat the living shit out
of everyone in a 5KM radius and not bother navigating red tape like we do. The immigrants
from the CIS countries know this and behave."
I respond:
Yep, I'm 25% Russian, more like 15% as I had some German Nordic Russian nobility on that
side. This Slavic gene is always there to call BS on idiot Liberals or worse Libertarians
that want to talk, talk, talk make excuses for the worst Paki sexual groomers. Nah, the
Russian way is better.
Just realistically looking at all the places I have lived, the US would be the last place I'd
go to, it's an empire in decline. Morally, spiritually, economically, politically
educationally and socially. (And I have lived in the US for 20 years) The only part of
American life that seems appealing is the kind of homesteading movement that is occurring in
some states.
Whatever beefs one may have with Russia or Putin, corruption, noise, etc. The fact is
Russia is holding it's own and improving its diplomatic relations and increasing it's allies
and trade partners, has become militarily a force to be reckoned with and therefore more
secure, it has become more self sufficient in many areas such as agriculture, is improving
it's infrastructure, people are earning more, it has almost no external debt, huge reserves
of gold, is beginning to attract tourism, is expanding in fields of science, and has the
reputation of being a reliable partner.
These things would make it a much better place to
be/go then a declining country/empire, such as the US, Europe and possibly China.
As for being poorer or wealthier, I can truly and emphatically from experience state, that
wealth does not create or provide happiness. As the author mentions, people in Russia are
very generous and family oriented. I think this gives more meaning of life and an overall
feeling of well being than striving for more and more income to buy more and more stuff.
Especially as particularly in the US and Europe, people are living so much on credit.
Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country
Although discriminated against, most Americans, except maybe those down on their luck and
real life losers without any skills, live in nice, clean suburbs and in many cases they don't
even need to lock their doors, except for areas that are adjacent to urban, Hispanic, or
Black neighbourhoods, which they have abandoned and given up on decades ago following the
anti American Civil Rights movement. Show me a place in America where garbage trucks don't
come every week.
While it's not Germany or Sweden when garbage is concerned, America utilizes its trash
quite properly, and about 75 to 85% is incinerated.
Americans in the US now total about 55% of the population: Wikipedia says: "197,285,202
(Non-Hispanic: 2017), 60.7% of the total U.S. population"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American
, however this number is flawed as they count various non-whites like Berbers, or Turkic
people like Albanians, Turks, Kurds, Georgians, and Azerbaijanis as whites.
I think most people, (especially Russians), can relate to this sentiment. The average Ruski
is incredibly hard on their own country. But it's like how you can make fun of your siblings,
but when someone else does you knock their teeth in. I'd like to say I always respected this,
but it's not true. I was more brazen in my earlier days of travel, and hypocritically
complained about Japan with the very Muslim I referred to earlier. It's not just me, though. Go
on any expat forum, and it's full of gripes.
The first thing ESL teachers talk about when they meet is how much they miss peanut butter
or how they hate the pollution or whatever. And yet, they don't go home. The same is true of
Mexican immigrants in America and Africans in Europe, if you ever take the time to chat with
them. (Which is part of what made me more rightwing and nationalist.) The vast majority who
don't go home are economic migrants. Economic in terms of balancing the supply & demand of
money, or balancing sexual market value.
... ... ...
What is some advice you have for Americans who also want to get out?
YOU ARE INCREDIBLY LUCKY!!!
It really can't be overstated how blessed you are to have American citizenship. You can be
in tons of debt, have zero dollars in the bank, and several misdemeanors, and you'll still get
an automatic 90 day visa on arrival. Even with a one way plane ticket. This is unheard of and
will likely not be the case in the near future if current demographic trends continue. So seize
the day!
Seriously. In these past 8 years, I've met so many wealthy, well educated, amazing
[Russian] people who have to jump through so many hoops and sacrifice so much for the mere
chance of a USA tourist visa. If you only knew
... ... ...
Or "life happens" and you'll need to pay for the broken water heater or flat tire. So just
run away while you still can. The other mistake I see people make is that they toil away for
80% of the year in a job they hate, so they can splurge for a few days in an Americanized
luxury resort. Why not make every day exotic and truly get a feel for the local atmosphere by
moving somewhere for a year instead? In my experience, the most expensive part of travel is the
plane ticket. So be smart and just get a one way ticket and find a job once you get there.
have peace of mind knowing the American Embassy will take care of your spoiled ass.
Pfft. What an idiot! The State Dept employees at my local embassy wouldn't piss on me if I
was on fire – mostly because they would spend half the day researching what the proper
protocol is, and if wasn't in the book(which is most often the case) their un-thinking ass
wouldn't know whether to shit or wind their watch.
If you needed a big headed egotistical asshole for whatever reason you'd be in the right
place.
One of the more endearing compliments I ever received was from an old Russian girlfriend, who
told her friends, "He's one of the good ones he has a Russian soul." She and her friends were
just as described above, generous to a fault despite what was an obvious wealth gap.
But the funniest thing she ever did was to use her bare hand to kill a cock-roach that had
dared to cross our table at a restaurant.
Should have married that girl. Then again, I might have dodged the Babooshka bomb.
Interestingly enough, she had no desire to ever go to the US, so that was not a part of the
calculus.
Have some sympathy for our poor consular officers abroad they spend far too much time face
to face with the wretched refuse of the world trying to scam their way into the US.
The thing is, I don't want a "benevolent dictatorship" like Singapore or Russia. I want
to live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended.
Pick a number: everybody wants to "live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America
intended," probably even the Founding Fathers themselves did. But is seems that all our
governments just end up being dictatorships sooner or later anyway; so that being the case, I
would prefer a sane dictatorship (like Russia or Singapore) to an insane one, which is what
we Americans have at the moment.
The other mistake I see people make is that they toil away for 80% of the year in a job
they hate, so they can splurge for a few days in an Americanized luxury resort. Why not
make every day exotic and truly get a feel for the local atmosphere by moving somewhere for
a year instead?
So true.
If all else fails, just buy a bus ticket to Minnesota and see what it's like to live in
Somalia for a day.
Excellent Short Film About the Separatist Fighters of Donbas by Russell 'Texas'
Bentley (Video)
A monastery near the Donetsk airport was strategically important to hold for the fighter,
so a bitter shooting battle erupted over it, taking many lives on both sides. The monastery
was badly damaged in the process.
That happened often when a second rate provincial lawyer became the Secretary of State. At least Kerry knows French. Pompeo
knows absolution nothing and is capable only of repeating old cliché.
Today's special word is: Projection
Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!. ..."
"... Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture. ..."
Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to
shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!.
I luv my country, but I hate my government.
beemasters
This must have been the most transparently crooked administration ever in the US history! Ain't that the pot calling the
kettle black!
2willies
Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture.
Idaho potato head
At some point even the most deluded sheep has got to realize he is being lied to. Or is it just as in the Matrix, there is
an age limit as to when a mind can be awoken.
After reading CYMS1 below I retract that question.
The other mistake I see people make is that they toil away for 80% of the year in a job they
hate, so they can splurge for a few days in an Americanized luxury resort.
Why not make every
day exotic and truly get a feel for the local atmosphere by moving somewhere for a year
instead?
So true.
If all else fails, just buy a bus ticket to Minnesota and see what it's like to live in
Somalia for a day.
"Assange was reduced from one of the few towering figures of our time – a man who will
have a central place in history books, if we as a species live long enough to write those
books "
-- The presstituting crowd of stenographers (MSM) and the zionized X-tian war profiteers
have made everything in their power (inadvertently) to ensure that Assange is and will be a
towering figure of our time.
Even in distress, Assange has been fighting for truth and dignity; the ongoing show of
lawlessness exposes the rot. The moral and creative midgets constituting the core of MSM and
the satanic deciders are upset. Good!
The idiotic Senior District "Judge" Emma Arbuthnot (a wife and beneficiary of a mega-war
profiteer Lord Arbuthnot -- Arbuthnot served as Chairman of the Defence Select Committee from
2005 to 2014) and the no less idiotic District "Judge" Michael Snow have entered the history
books as well. As scoundrels: http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1555064882.html
Snow does his best to bring the Judiciary into disrepute by playing to the gallery. He
comments on the extradition in the same vein in a totally unprofessional manner. He is of
course in a long line of disreputable members of the judiciary Snow's place in history is
now secured – he chose to abuse the defendant rather than perform his role which was
really quite straightforward. He is the narcissist and guilty of self interest not Julian
Assange.
"... "The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said. ..."
"... "The US and its allies are trying to impose their approaches on others," Lavrov noted. ..."
"... "They are guided by a clear desire to preserve their centuries-long dominance in global affairs although from the economic and financial standpoint, the US – alone or with its allies – can no longer resolve all global economic and political issues," he said. ..."
"... "In order to preserve their dominance and recover their indisputable authority, they use blackmail and pressure. They don't hesitate to blatantly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states." ..."
"... Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence. ..."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared today that the Western, liberal model of society is dying, and a new world order
is taking its place.
Lavrov made the comments at his annual meeting with students and professors at the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy, reported
Russian state news agency TASS.
"The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this
is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is
no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov
said.
According to him, global development is guided "by processes aimed at boosting multipolarity and what we call a polycentric world
order."
"Clearly, multipolarity and the emergence of new centers of power in every way requires efforts to maintain global stability
and search for a balance of interests and compromises, so diplomacy should play a leading role here," Lavrov went on to say.
"Particularly because there are a lot of issues that require generally acceptable solutions."
These include regional conflicts, international terrorism, food security and environmental protection. This is why we believe
that only diplomacy can help make agreements and reach sustainable decisions that will be accepted by all.
"The US and its allies are trying to impose their approaches on others," Lavrov noted.
"They are guided by a clear desire to preserve their centuries-long dominance in global affairs although from the economic
and financial standpoint, the US – alone or with its allies – can no longer resolve all global economic and political issues,"
he said.
"In order to preserve their dominance and recover their indisputable authority, they use blackmail and pressure. They don't
hesitate to blatantly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states."
Perry Colace
When I was a kid, the Soviet Union was the enemy. Now Russia (with an economy, population, military and world influence the
fraction of the United States) seems to be one of the few places in the world that makes any bit of sense and ACTUALLY cares a
little bit about its culture and people.
Fluff The Cat
"The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is
what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is
no more viewed as a perfect model for all.Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov
said.
A Judaic-Masonic world order is the end goal. It entails the complete loss of sovereignty for all Western nations and the slow
genocide of white Christians via miscegnation and displacement by third-worlders.
lnardozi
I can't think of a man more American than Putin.
Sell the bases, come home, stop bothering others and trying to run world affairs.
Then we can spend a nice nice century or so rebuilding our infrastructure and trimming our out-of-control federal government.
The clue is right there in the name - the united STATES of America. A state is a sovereign country with its own laws - except
for those powers enumerated in the Constitution which the federal government should have.
That's the whole point - competition in government. You don't like the state you're in - you're guaranteed the choice of 49
others, along with all your possessions.
notfeelinthebern
Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence.
johnnycanuck
Western global dominance, US took over from the British Empire with the assistance of the banksters class. It's all there in
the history books, you just need to spend time
consider me gone
As much as I hate to say it, this was Winston Churchill's idea. Even as the war was just starting, he was a major advocate
for the West controlling the globe after WWII.
But I'll bet he had no idea that the West would abandon traditional Western values in the process. He wouldn't watch TV and
predicted it would turn society into unthinking idiots. He nailed that one anyhow.
The Alliance
"...many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said.
Skeptical?
I, for one, would show up early and highly motivated to march against, and to destroy, these treasonous, malevolent, collectivist
Globalists.
The Globalists within the United States government are traitors--traitors, by definition. They have declared war on our republic.
CDN_Rebel
Russia works because they have a ruthless tyrant who happens to be incredibly competent. That same system with a weak ruler
will collapse entirely in a matter of months. I like Putin, but he needs to groom an ironfisted successor pronto.
As for the chows - they need to print half a trillion a month to stay afloat and that's your model?
The west is only fucked because the sleeping masses refuse to acknowledge that Marxists have undermined our institutions...
It would take only a few years to scrub these subversive ***** from our society if we had the balls to do it
johnnycanuck
yadda yadda yadda.. marxists, subversives, commies, all the catch phrases of ye old Joe McCarthy. Russia works because Russians
have a history of enduring adversity. Unlike Americans.
Moribundus
It is eventually end of era of western imperialism, era that lasted 900 years. Game is over
"... A great many American expats are blacks who served in the military or have a pension who can live in an Asian subdivision instead of in low-income housing with crack dealers and gangs. ..."
"... Overall, your observation is correct. The wealth divisions in the US are so vast that lower class white Americans are essentially living in an internal third world even it is only 20 miles from the suburbs. ..."
"... Asia might be more corrupt and the people materially poorer, but you are far safer in Singapore or ANYWHERE in SEA than in the urban US. None of this applies to suburban whites and hicks from the sticks. ..."
"... The average public school in any US city or exurb is MUCH WORSE than Asia. I grew up in Ann Arbor and Warren, hardly the ghetto, and even in these public schools were bad. ..."
"... I have personally known of people trapped in Kuwait and Bahrain, federal contractors who got fired and could not leave because of phone bills. Just in limbo on someone's couch hoping someone else would come up with the money from home. ..."
"... I also know of two female military contractors who got sentenced to TWENTY-FIVE years for selling a few grams of marijuana. ..."
"... I lived in the Arab Gulf for years, like Truth, and although they are the most openly opposed to Jews, they are not wallowing in porn, poverty, out-of-wedlock single mothers, drug abuse, promiscuity, petty crime, hopelessness. ..."
"... Whites are increasingly stricken with all of these things. Yet Muslims, who openly detest Jews and Zionism are not suffering these social pathology. ..."
"... If you obey the laws in Kuwait or Oman or Bahrain you are going to be safer than in any US city. I know, as well as you know, that if you had to choose between walking around at night in Dubai or LA or Flint or Baltimore, you'll choose Dubai. ..."
"... The occasional terrorist threat does not destroy a country as fast as narco-economies run by warring gangs of Hispanics or feral inner-city blacks. ..."
"... Drug trafficking is a brutal game, involving kidnapping, common assault, robbery, harrasment and gang wars. It only leads to more criminality as well. Drugs breed criminality. It corrupts the mind of the youth, and it ruins the mind of the single mother who has to take care of her kid, or the father. ..."
"... Most drug addicts in these countries do not become drug dealers. In Western countries, every regular coke head or stoner ends up dealing to cover the cost of their own use. But in Muslim countries, the penalties for dealing are so severe that very few druggies ever sell drugs. They just remain users. ..."
I've seen loads of American men who blew their wad on hookers and booze at the Manila
Embassy trying this.
You'll be on the street for about a month waiting for the papers to clear. Don't expect to
be staying with the US Ambassador at his house while you're waiting either, you'll be on the
street and in SEA or Eastern Europe (Which is cold as hell) and this is no fun.
The Embassy will make you call relatives in the US and determine that nobody will pay for
your return flight.
You'll have to repay the US government for the cost of the ticket and your passport will
be cancelled for two years as a punishment you won't even be able to fly to Puerto Rico.
MILITARY SPACE AVAILABLE
One American I knew in the Philippines was named Clinton Macbeth and he was a hardcore
drunk and pothead who'd been stationed in the Philippines and figured he would just take
military space available on a DC 10 or whatever.
The US GOVERNMENT has now cancelled this program and you cannot take military space
available back to your own country.
The US Embassy will, eventually, cover the cost of your ticket back. But they make this a
lonnnggg unpleasant process to prevent everyone who wants to be repatriated from simply
coming into the Embassy and saying "send me home Business class".
Try sleeping for a week outside a US Embassy. Invariably the US Consular director will
tell you "it will take some time for these papers to clear".
Believe me, you won't be flown back in 24 hours.
And the Marine Embassy Guards will then make sure you don't hang around. You'll be giving
an appointment at the Embassy about a week after you report in. In the interim. the Marine
Embassy Guards etc. will behave like bouncers to make sure you don't come back inside the
Embassy.
Ken was an older American from NYC who married a Filipino woman of 23. He was an architect
and he spent most of his life savings building a hotel for his wife with the intent of
renting rooms to Japanese tourists-which would have set him up for life.
In the Philippines, all property belongs to the wife of the expat under law. He was kicked
out by security guard after their marriage collapsed-which May/September marriages in the
Philippines usually do.
He was 60 and his wife and her family simply threw him on the road-no passport, money in
his pocket, clothes on his back. Ken did not even have ID to prove he was an American. The
first night on the road, he was mugged by Filipino street kids and did not have a peso.
Finally, he managed to get his passport. His wife had his bank card and withdrew all his
savings by then. A sympathetic American paid his way to Manila where he got his brother to
send him a ticket.
We are invariably male, urban and lower middle class.
A great many American expats are blacks who served in the military or have a pension
who can live in an Asian subdivision instead of in low-income housing with crack dealers and
gangs.
For lower class whites, it is not so much dangerous as sordid in poor white exurbs or
rural areas. I knew one white scrap dealer named Clayton whose son was a hopeless meth addict
who beat the shit out of him in his house and robbed him. Opoid addicts in the nearby trailer
park burglarized his house. Whiggers spray painted his house. He lived in a gated community
in the Philippines with mostly merchant Chinese-Filipino families and was pretty glad to be
away from white trash.
I've observed the following about American white expats, myself included.
1) We are generally male. I've never MET a permanent white expat female in Southeast
Asia.
2) I've never met a Mexican of either gender or any black woman in Asia. And few in Europe
or Dubai. The only Native American I ever met overseas was a female married to an English
guy. I've never met a white American woman who was living permanently overseas.
3) The real white trash or Cholos or Hood Rats cannot live overseas. If you are on parole,
probation, on welfare or a junkie you cannot get on a plane for 14 hours.
4) On the other hand I've never met a bona fide upper middle class American in Southeast
Asia either. Most of the Americans I met were tradespeople-plumbers, mechanics, factory
foreman, postal workers, commercial fisherman.
5) Americans under 35 are fairly rare in Asia.
Philippines is not very attractive to backpackers. You meet them in other parts of Asia,
of course, but not there.
Overall, your observation is correct. The wealth divisions in the US are so vast that
lower class white Americans are essentially living in an internal third world even it is only
20 miles from the suburbs.
One Brit in Goa I heard of had gotten Indian credit cards and got WAYYY overextended. He
also had a medical bill he could not pay. They would not let him out of the country even
though he had a return ticket.
When he was sleeping rough one night, some thirsty Indian men who were drunk simply rolled
him over and pinned him and 9 of them serially sodomized him.
The Indian Tourist Police called the British Embassy and demanded they do something. So he
was repatriated. But he will be wearing adult diapers for the rest of his life.
If you are a foreigner sleeping rough in India or Dubai, you might be raped by prowling
queers. Even if you're the toughest MMA fighter if you are malnourished and exhausted from
being on the street for two weeks and 9 thirsty sodomites jump you you are going to end up
buggered.
Hands down I was MUCH safer than I had been as a white post-college entry-level Graphic
Artist in Phoenix living in Tempe on the border of the Guadalupe barrio.
Born in Ann Arbor and raised in Warren, I've seen black crime.
Asia might be more corrupt and the people materially poorer, but you are far safer in
Singapore or ANYWHERE in SEA than in the urban US. None of this applies to suburban whites
and hicks from the sticks.
America is not a police state because of the Founding Fathers, but because of Mestizos and
Hood Rats and redneck tweakers who can only be contained by a constant police presence.
Perhaps Singapore would have slightly more crime if it was not a dictatorship, but not like
the US.
I moved to Dubai directly from Phoenix and believe me, riding the public transport there
and living in modest-income housing was MUCH SAFER than Phoenix or Warren.
I've been in an expat for 20 years and was never again menaced by Mestizos or witnessed
black crack dealers chimping out at a bus stop or was followed by a desperate redneck
tweaker.
The average public school in any US city or exurb is MUCH WORSE than Asia. I grew up in
Ann Arbor and Warren, hardly the ghetto, and even in these public schools were bad.
Finally, I've worked overseas my entire life and I never had to worry about a pink slip by
some HR female who is 23 and was blowing every Frat guy two years earlier because I said the
word "fag".
Overseas, you can say what you want (Except about them or their government) and nobody
cares. You don't even have to PRETEND that you are PC.
@jeff
strykerI have personally known of people trapped in Kuwait and Bahrain, federal
contractors who got fired and could not leave because of phone bills. Just in limbo on
someone's couch hoping someone else would come up with the money from home.
I also know of two female military contractors who got sentenced to TWENTY-FIVE years
for selling a few grams of marijuana.
Kuwaitis will forgive a home brewer making some beer for himself and his expat friends.
But if you get caught selling hashish, you are screwed. And to be honest anyone who is dumb
enough to sell hashish or smoke it in Kuwait is not intelligent enough to be overseas.
I've known some potheads in U.A.E. who refuted the statement that cannabis is not
addictive. In a country where penalties include spending years in jail for a couple of
joints, they STILL went out and scored pot.
They don't screw around with debt under Muslim law. If you cannot pay a phone or medical
bill, you're stuck. It goes out as a warrant and you won't be able to leave the country
through the airport.
You know TRUTH, being an expat is a learning curve. Some people just don't make it and do
something INCREDIBLY STUPID like the kid in MIDNIGHT EXPRESS.
I want to add something. The Americans who do these things are mostly white hicks from the
sticks who have no idea how to act overseas.
Marijuana is not habit forming, which is why so many Westerners cannot even go for six
months without risking a MIDNIGHT EXPRESS jail to smoke a lousy joint.
4 foot
average-looking Filipino women become the sexiest females alive to thirsty males. And
sometimes these Filipino women have a penis.
White hicks who would be white trash by
Archie Bunker's standards come to believe they have special privileges because they are
American in countries where anti-Western sentiment is right under the surface.
Someone
forgot to tell Kuwaitis that Jews were the chosen people given their arrogance. .
The
brotherhood of Islam does not apply to South Asians. .
Americans who feel that whites are
racist never met an Arab.
Pakistani workers guzzle perfume.
For such chaste women, Arab
women have more anal sex than Stormy Daniels.
@jeff
stryker Many good points, although it may be evil (I don't think so) the total block
every block of the writing, it is bullshit, sorry, I have no conscience re. Moslems, I have
had enough threats to my life from them, have had personal attacks on myself and loved ones,
Tarrant was perfectly logical.
How many Muslims kill and terrorize how many others?
I lived in the Arab Gulf for years, like Truth, and although they are the most openly
opposed to Jews, they are not wallowing in porn, poverty, out-of-wedlock single mothers, drug
abuse, promiscuity, petty crime, hopelessness.
Whites are increasingly stricken with all of these things. Yet Muslims, who openly
detest Jews and Zionism are not suffering these social pathology.
In Dubai, I never was menaced by street criminals, which was a fairly common experience
for me in both Phoenix and Warren, Michigan.
Mestizos in Phoenix had NO motive. They were not menacing or assaulting whites over drug
deals or gang territory or even some vague religious reason. "Cholos" as these Mexicans were
called, simply enjoyed assaulting or terrorizing middle-class whites for lack of anything
better to do.
Whites will complain about the IQ of Mestizos or US ghetto blacks but it is a good thing
they are not intelligent enough to be organized criminals like Russian or Italian mafias. If
they were capable of building bombs like Muslim terrorists than they would be blowing up
buildings over rival dealers selling crack on the street corner.
If you obey the laws in Kuwait or Oman or Bahrain you are going to be safer than in any
US city. I know, as well as you know, that if you had to choose between walking around at
night in Dubai or LA or Flint or Baltimore, you'll choose Dubai.
Much is made of the drug laws in Arab countries and the film MIDNIGHT EXPRESS but try
being followed around by redneck tweakers who are desperate to get more meth.
I'm not discounting terrorism. But America, and I cannot speak for other countries, will
never face the threat of extinction from Muslims.
The occasional terrorist threat does not destroy a country as fast as narco-economies
run by warring gangs of Hispanics or feral inner-city blacks.
@jeff
stryker Asia always has nepotism, my experience, almost half life, it is less. Even the
idea that 'Asia' is a term with any meaning, it does not.
I also never got all the outrage coming from everyone in particular regarding the
"draconian" laws regarding drug trafficking and drugs in general, in the Asian countries,
particularly, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines,etc. People keep telling us that
these are "victimless" crimes, and that these are non-violent crimes. We all know that is
simply not the case.
Drug trafficking is a brutal game, involving kidnapping, common assault, robbery,
harrasment and gang wars. It only leads to more criminality as well. Drugs breed criminality.
It corrupts the mind of the youth, and it ruins the mind of the single mother who has to take
care of her kid, or the father.
It leads to domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and many other things. It makes
me quite confused when they, the rabid liberals, try to downplay these things, and claim that
these are "victimless" or "non-violent". Also, does the Italian Mafia still "exist"? Why
would they, weren't they just the result of discrimination and the sorts and lack of
opportunities? One would think that kind of stuff is all gone ..
The brotherhood of Islam does not apply to South Asians.
It certainly does not apply to the low level cleaners and all the deplorables at least. I
would beg to disagree on this one. I am very close with many Arabs in that region and friends
with others and as are other South Asians who are not working the menial jobs which I have
mentioned. Class-ism is very much a thing, and it exists here.
If the Indian guy is a higher class guy, they'll treat you like a brother. This is coming
from yours truly ;-) I feel like I would fit right in. I sneer at the peasants and all the
deplorables, and we openly joke about them.
Pakistani workers guzzle perfume
This is certainly true, they bathe in that stuff. Ever visited Muscat?
Lets take Brampton. Italians used to completely run the prostitution, trucking, extortion,
drugs etc. in Ontario in industrial towns like Brampton because Anglo Canadians were
basically pleasant middle-class people.
Then came Sikhs, Tamils, Jamaicans. But especially Sikhs. Sikh separatists and Tamil
Tigers were not afraid of some middle-aged portly Italian men like Tony Soprano scarfing down
pizza at a strip joint.
By the end of the eighties, the Italians simply decided to move into white-collar fraud
like "Pump and Dump" stock scams. It was not worth getting their asses shot off by crazy
gun-toting Sikhs or Tamils who would tie someone to an anthill just to prove that nobody's
life mattered to them but their own.
This is why Crips and Bloods and Mexican street gangs never got a foothold in Vancouver or
Ontario. Sikhs and Tamils have a reputation for being bloodthirsty maniacs that even
redoubted US gangs avoid.
The same occurred in the US, really.
As for drugs, anybody who has walked through East Vancouver once has seen the end-result
of a decriminalization.
That is not to say that drugs will not be consumed in Muslim countries. I've known hashish
smokers my entire time in Dubai and even chewed Khat once with a Yemeni taxi driver to see
what it was about (It has the kick of three cans of Red Bull but lasts longer).
But pot smokers and Khat chewers in Dubai or U.A.E. won't get a gun and try to kill
somebody to get more. For one thing, chronic hashish smokers have no energy and are spaced
out. Crackheads in US cities or heroin addicts in Grandville will.
Meth addicts are not so much dangerous as horribly annoying. When I first moved to Phoenix
I lived in low-income housing and one meth addict ex-convict simply followed me around
pleading for money every time I walked out my front door. Like some kind of stray dog, he
also tore through my garbage to get my returnables. When I moved out of the apartment to
share a condo with some IT guys, he injured himself breaking into my apartment trying to
sleep somewhere and my ex-landlord called me to tell me he had been injured by the window
glass.
I was a hashish myself as a young man of course .Like all Goras who are employed in India,
as soon as I had my paycheck I got the hell to Goa and got stoned. Every white employed in
India will take their pay and go to Goa and buy hashish from some Kashmiri carpet shop.
Goan police know full well that 100% of the Westerners there are smoking pot. Goa is
India's Amersterdam.
But in Dubai or other Muslim countries, the police simply don't allow crack houses or
staggering half-mad meth addicts. You cannot "corner deal" in Dubai or Jakarta.
Most drug addicts in these countries do not become drug dealers. In Western countries,
every regular coke head or stoner ends up dealing to cover the cost of their own use. But in
Muslim countries, the penalties for dealing are so severe that very few druggies ever sell
drugs. They just remain users.
Like most demented cowards he was totally logical. He did not approach armed Muslim men
and challenge them one-to-one.
He shot unarmed women and children.
This makes sense, because at the bottom of it, on average, white Christian men usually
don't have the courage of most other fanatics to be willing to die trying to kill others who
are capable of murdering them, like Tamil Tigers.
As a result, Anglo-Saxon terrorism has a sickeningly cowardly streak to it.
The Tamil extremist blows herself up to kill the Indian Prime Minister, for example.
But the white extremist like Tim McVeigh or Dylan the church bomber either sets a fire or
like Brevik shoots unarmed civilians and then surrenders, lacking the courage to take his own
life even though it is effectively over.
@jeff
stryker You're not wrong about the Punjabis and Tamils. There many reports or claims
years ago during the Sri Lankan Civil War of the Tamil Eelam separatists receiving funding
from the Tamil gangs in the GTA( Greater Toronto Area).
The Khalistani movement in the Punjab has some modest support amongst the natives in
India, however, it is well known that most of their support comes from the Punjabi(Sikh)
diaspora. The NDP leader himself, a man by the name of Jagmeet Singh, is a proud Khalistani
supporter, and he had not disavowed the terrorism espoused by these groups.
He is an open suppprter. And I want you to realize the same guy is the leader of the third
largest, politically relevant part in Canada, which is the NDP. Guess his constituency it's
Burnaby.
The positive side of this is that US black and Mexican gangs have never been able to get a
significant foothold in Canada. Even re-doubted LA Crips and Bloods think that Canadian Sikh
gangs in Surrey or Brampton are bloodthirsty maniacs.
Sikh separatism was never possible in India because New Delhi is located in Punjab and the
province is also a border state with Pakistan. I've been there.
In my opinion, East Vancouver is what happens when drugs are decriminalized. Anybody who
would like to see drugs legalized can visit Grandville and Hastings.
Potheads really are not a threat to the public; they are too sluggish and spaced out.
Thr idea of decriminalization is a bad one, as well as the idea ofbopen injection
sites.
Toronto has a couple of these kind of areas if I am to remember correctly, and it's a
mess. There have been needles everwhere, which increase the likelihood of infection, and
people just don't care anymore. How does it look on the kids, who are shown adults openly
injecting drugs? It's a mess. Quite literally as well on the ground.
It discourages businesses in the area, and it brings down the neighbourhoods surrounding
it.
Has it solved our problems or Vancouver's? We both know the answer.
The areas that were clean and empty, around these spots have turned into literal drug
hubs, and places where violence occurs frequently.
I do think Sikh seperatism was possible at one point, but the Sikh terrorists hiding in
the Gurdwara was a turning point. That was put down brutally as I'm sure you remember, which
lead to some destruction of that site. All hope was lost when the Sikh bodyguards killed her
as well. But at one point, it was possible
@BengaliCanadianDude
I knew Burnaby in the '80's and early '90's. Decent working class area in transition I
thought, although it looked like a place to find hashish even then. I am not really that good
on Canada. Mostly Burnaby/Vancouver with a some time in the middle of Ottawa and by lake
Erie; my cousin owned a small lakefront palace in Mississauga.
@jeff
stryker Hell, East Vancouver was full of junkies even back in mid-90s, I assume before
de-criminalization Drug deals done in broad light right on the corner of Hastings and
Commercial But at the time Burnaby was almost exclusively white – that's where I lived
for 2 years so I'd know Indians were all in surrey.
@Philip
Owen I also lived in Burnaby in early 90s when I was enroled at sfu it was a decent if
boring lower middle class suburb. The only seedy place was North Burnaby Inn on E. Hastings,
the only place for miles to get a beer – where you could get an eyeful at the same time
Fiendish killers like Pickton and grotesque pimps like Paul Snider were committing crimes
in the seventies and by the nineties the place had the highest AIDS rate in North
America.
Most of the druggies are either Natives or from places back East like Ontario or
Quebec.
The low-life drug dealers in Vancouver are usually internal migrants from California or
Newfoundland who came to Vancouver to ply their trade because. When I lived in Ontario I knew
a guy whose Dad had made a great deal of money operating a pawn shop; if you are a drug
dealer or pawn shop owner you can get rich at the expense of the junkie populace even if you
are a shaved monkey.
My experience in Canada as an American was that the Natives in Canada were worse off than
they are in the States.
I found Natives in Canada to be some of the most dangerous underclass people around. After
living in Norther Ontario for two years I was shocked at how brazen their criminality
was.
In regards to your gun laws, I had a female friend who accidentally offended some Natives
and they brazenly walked over to her house to attack her on her property. She pulled a 22
repeater on them and saved her life (This was in Northern Ontario) but had to move from there
afterwards.
Most Americans and perhaps even people from Southern Canada have no idea how dangerous
Natives can be.
I don't know why Natives in the US are less of a threat on the street. Maybe because there
are less of them.
Canadian aboriginals are also unintelligent. They might even be less intelligent than
ahem, other underclasses.
@jeff
stryker I'm not actually Canadian, I was in Vancouver for 2 years while studying. Didn't
have any dealings with the natives (no big loss based on what you say! )
@Plato's
Dream I never went to a city with more open drug use or more aggressive homeless people
than East Vancouver. Okay, its not Detroit and you won't be shot, but its a bad place.
@The
Anti-Gnostic The entire American industrial workforce had to be retrained for new work
from the 1970s onward, so really, a 28-year-old without a family should be able to train for
a career well before he needs his first colonoscopy.
With personal anectodes for perspective, my wife went to med school at 35 and is now a
radiologist at 52.
Perhaps you were a Ho Ho-eating degenerate at 28, but the rest of non-alcoholic, non-drug
addicted, non-obese, non-mentally ill Homo sapiens seems to adjusts well to the demands of
reality and to challenges unforeseen.
Too old for the trades? Really? Have you been to a gym lately-or ever?
"... The "founding fathers" did their founding for their own benefit under various "do-gooder" pretexts like everything else power hungry people typically do. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and governments are generally instituted to keep things that way despite the rhetoric and mythology. ..."
"... The slow death of the USA, or shall we say its metamorphosis into the full-fledged Anglo-Zionist Empire, was ongoing no later than the John Quincy Adams election, after the arch-Judaizing heretics Unitarians and Universalists (who were small minority groups even in New England, but were very rich and acted with precision behind the scenes) had gained total control over Harvard, Yale, Williams and several other 'elite' colleges. ..."
"... I preferred your "America is a government" comment. America is most definitely not a country. It is an Empire based on usury and militarism like so many before it. ..."
"... Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country ..."
"... Although discriminated against, most Americans, except maybe those down on their luck and real life losers without any skills, live in nice, clean suburbs and in many cases they don't even need to lock their doors ..."
"... While it's not Germany or Sweden when garbage is concerned, America utilizes its trash quite properly, and about 75 to 85% is incinerated. Meanwhile in Russia: "If government officials continue ignoring the problem, in a few years the Russians will live in a landfill, as it is now happening with the residents of Haiti" ..."
"The idea of a nation where people from all over the world live is a political
absurdity. If has no logical unifying basis "
Very well said. Indeed, the United States is not a country, rather it is a government.
And I despise that government.
Things are going to change swiftly after Trump is replaced. The 'coalition of the fringes'
is real. It's game over for America. The people living in that country have been too
distracted to notice.
America is a deeply delusion society held together by a deeply delusional government.
I want to live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended.
The dude has come a long way, but he's still a bit brainwashed. I should read, "as the f f
supposedly intended."
The "founding fathers" did their founding for their own benefit under various
"do-gooder" pretexts like everything else power hungry people typically do. In other
words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and governments are generally instituted
to keep things that way despite the rhetoric and mythology.
"I want to live in a country like the Founding Fathers of America intended."
That is not possible without the conditions that prevailed in the late 18th century, which
featured rebellion against the British Empire and therefore against Elite WASP culture.
The
slow death of the USA, or shall we say its metamorphosis into the full-fledged Anglo-Zionist
Empire, was ongoing no later than the John Quincy Adams election, after the arch-Judaizing
heretics Unitarians and Universalists (who were small minority groups even in New England,
but were very rich and acted with precision behind the scenes) had gained total control over
Harvard, Yale, Williams and several other 'elite' colleges.
@Baxter A
nation is different than a country. A country is geographical area with boundaries. A nation
is the people within a geographical area who have lived together for a long time and have
shared experiences. Nation from the French naître – to be born.
The US, like most other European based populations, was a nation. It has become a
country.
I
preferred your "America is a government" comment. America is most definitely not a country.
It is an Empire based on usury and militarism like so many before it.
Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country
Although discriminated against, most Americans, except maybe those down on their luck and
real life losers without any skills, live in nice, clean suburbs and in many cases they don't
even need to lock their doors, except for areas that are adjacent to urban, Hispanic, or
Black neighbourhoods, which they have abandoned and given up on decades ago following the
anti American Civil Rights movement. Show me a place in America where garbage trucks don't
come every week.
While it's not Germany or Sweden when garbage is concerned, America utilizes its trash
quite properly, and about 75 to 85% is incinerated. Meanwhile in Russia: "If government officials continue ignoring the problem, in a few
years the Russians will live in a landfill, as it is now happening with the residents of
Haiti"- http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/124947-russia_garbage/
or http://www.pravdareport.com/society/5701-recycling/
.
Americans in the US now total about 55% of the population: Wikipedia says: "197,285,202
(Non-Hispanic: 2017), 60.7% of the total U.S. population"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American
, however this number is flawed as they count various non-whites like Berbers, or Turkic
people like Albanians, Turks, Kurds, Georgians, and Azerbaijanis as whites.
Money quote (from comments): This GOP/Israel connection stinks to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with
Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling
pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain sight with Israel.
Notable quotes:
"... As usual, Trump made the announcement of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials: ..."
"... After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do. ..."
"... Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be responsible for carrying out his policies ..."
"... There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors. ..."
"... Once again, Trump has put narrow political ambitions and the interests of a foreign government ahead of the interests of the United States. That seems to be the inevitable result of electing a narcissist who conducts foreign policy based on which leaders flatter and praise him. ..."
"... Bolton is usually the culprit responsible any destructive and foolish policy decision over the last year, and his baleful influence continues to grow. We can also see the harmful effects of the administration's Iran obsession at work. In the end, the Syria "withdrawal" hasn't happened and apparently isn't going to, but Trump nonetheless gives Israel whatever it wants in exchange for nothing so that they will be "reassured" of our unthinking support. ..."
"... I wonder what Mr. Kagan has to say now about "authoritarian" regimes?! ..."
"... Trump is making one hell of a mess for the next president to clean up. ..."
"... The decision to leave the INF treaty was taken in a similar way and with a total disregard for the consequences. The leaders of the European NATO countries have shown utter spinelessness in going along with it. ..."
"... I am shocked and horrified by what I've seen under Trump. I am deeply disappointed that so few Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) have stood up to him on foreign policy, and I will never vote Republican again. This GOP/Israel connection stinks to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain sight with Israel. ..."
"... To be fair, it ain't just Team R that has the sloppy crush on Israel. Team D is just as bad, even if they don't gush quite so publicly. In fact, episodes such as this one are useful in a way, as they make it hard to pretend that this is just a one-off, a misguided decision that we have to go along with to appease a powerful friend. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Israel should be very concerned about Northern Syria. If war breaks out and the US is forced to go to war with its own NATO ally as a result, Israel should prepare to kiss its alliance with the US goodbye. ..."
"... Many (rightfully or not) will blame Israel due to its connections to neoconservatism and Saudi jingoism, and consequently we may end up seeing BOTH parties becoming unfriendly to Israel over the subsequent generation. ..."
"... All of this could be prevented if President Trump would just tell Saudi Arabia to STOP the nonsense. But no. He's too focused on MIC profits. He's not America First. And quite frankly, I'm starting to think Benjamin Netanyahu is not Israel-first either, because if he were he'd be warning Trump about the mess he's going to end up getting America, Israel, and much of Europe and the Middle East into. ..."
As usual, Trump
made the announcement
of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials:
President Donald Trump's tweet on Thursday recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory surprised members of his own
Middle East peace team, the State Department, and Israeli officials.
U.S. diplomats and White House aides had believed the Golan Heights issue would be front and center at next week's meetings
between Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. But they were unprepared for any presidential
announcement this week.
No formal U.S. process or executive committees were initiated to review the policy before Trump's decision, and the diplomats
responsible for implementing the policy were left in the dark.
Even the Israelis, who have advocated for this move for years, were stunned at the timing of Trump's message.
After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone
that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably
sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do.
Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be responsible for carrying out his policies and dealing
with the international fallout, and that is probably why so many of his policy decisions end up being exceptionally poor ones. The
substance of most of Trump's foreign policy decisions was never likely to be good, but the lack of an organized policy process on
major decisions makes those decisions even more haphazard and chaotic than they would otherwise be.
There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical
political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at
shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors.
Whatever short-term benefit Israel gains from it, the U.S. gains nothing and stands to lose quite a bit in terms of our international
standing.
There has been no consideration of the costs and problems this will create for the U.S. in its relations with other regional states
and beyond because Trump couldn't care less about the long-term effects that his decisions have on the country.
Once again, Trump has put narrow political ambitions and the interests of a foreign government ahead of the interests of the
United States. That seems to be the inevitable result of electing a narcissist who conducts foreign policy based on which leaders
flatter and praise him.
Trump's bad decision can be traced back to Bolton's visit to Israel earlier this year:
Administration officials said that National Security Advisor John Bolton was instrumental to the decision, after visiting Israel
in January to assure officials there that the United States would not abandon them in Syria despite Trump's sudden withdrawal
of troops from the battlefield.
Nervous Israeli officials saw an opportunity. "It was an ask," one Israeli source said, "because of the timing -- it suddenly
became a relevant issue about Iran."
Bolton is usually the culprit responsible any destructive and foolish policy decision over the last year, and his baleful
influence continues to grow. We can also see the harmful effects of the administration's Iran obsession at work. In the end, the
Syria "withdrawal" hasn't happened and apparently isn't going to, but Trump nonetheless gives Israel whatever it wants in exchange
for nothing so that they will be "reassured" of our unthinking support.
Well, of course Trump puts America last. There is one and only one person he is interested in -- himself. As you say this is his
narcissistic personality at work.
My never ending question is always, "Why does any Republican with a conscience remain silent? Are they really all this shallow
and self absorbed? Is there nothing Trump does that will finally force them to put country before party and their own ambition?"
It's a really sad state of events that has put this country on the road to ruin.
Trump is making one hell of a mess for the next president to clean up. Straightening out all this stupidity will take
years. Here's hoping that Trump gets to watch his foreign policy decisions tossed out and reversed from federal prison.
The decision to leave the INF treaty was taken in a similar way and with a total disregard for the consequences. The leaders
of the European NATO countries have shown utter spinelessness in going along with it.
The administration says that a Russian missile violates the treaty but it will not tell us what the range of the missile is.
Nor will it allow its weapons inspectors to go and look at it.
The reason is clear: Fear that the weapons inspectors' findings would contradict the administration's claims.
I voted Republican ever since I started voting. I voted for Bush I, Dole, Dubya, and McCain. I couldn't vote for either Obama
or Romney, but I voted for Trump because of Hillary Clinton.
I am shocked and horrified by what I've seen under Trump. I am deeply disappointed that so few Republicans (or Democrats,
for that matter) have stood up to him on foreign policy, and I will never vote Republican again. This GOP/Israel connection stinks
to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm
bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain
sight with Israel.
To be fair, it ain't just Team R that has the sloppy crush on Israel. Team D is just as bad, even if they don't gush quite
so publicly. In fact, episodes such as this one are useful in a way, as they make it hard to pretend that this is just a one-off,
a misguided decision that we have to go along with to appease a powerful friend.
Europoliticians tell that last one a lot. "We really don't want to but the Americans twisted our arms ZOMG Special Relationship
so sorry ZOMG!" Only with a lot more Eurobureaucratese.
I agree with the article's premise, but not because of this move regarding Israel.
Personally, I believe this move will have little impact on the outcome of the crisis in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the
other Arab monarchies are too focused on containing Iran and Turkey to give a crap about what Israel does. The only Arab states
that I can see objecting to this move are Syria (obviously) and the others who were already allied with Iran and/or Turkey to
begin with.
Right now, the REAL center of attention in the region should be Northern Syria. THAT's where the next major war likely will
begin. In that area, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are the ones doing the major escalations,
while Israel has virtually no role at all aside from sideline cheer-leading. And of course, Trump is doing nothing to stop what
could become the next July Crisis. What's "America First" about that?
Nevertheless, Israel should be very concerned about Northern Syria. If war breaks out and the US is forced to go to war
with its own NATO ally as a result, Israel should prepare to kiss its alliance with the US goodbye.
There is no way our international reputation will come out of this war unscathed, and odds are we'll be in a far worse position
diplomatically than we were at any point in our history, even during the Iraq war. When that happens, the American people will
be out to assign blame. Many (rightfully or not) will blame Israel due to its connections to neoconservatism and Saudi jingoism,
and consequently we may end up seeing BOTH parties becoming unfriendly to Israel over the subsequent generation.
All of this could be prevented if President Trump would just tell Saudi Arabia to STOP the nonsense. But no. He's too focused
on MIC profits. He's not America First. And quite frankly, I'm starting to think Benjamin Netanyahu is not Israel-first either,
because if he were he'd be warning Trump about the mess he's going to end up getting America, Israel, and much of Europe and the
Middle East into.
@ Grieved with the UN/Pence story....here is China's take on the situation
"
UNITED NATIONS, April 10 (Xinhua) -- The Chinese ambassador to the United Nations on
Wednesday rejected U.S. Vice President Mike Pence's accusation against China over Venezuela.
"China categorically rejects the accusation," Ma Zhaoxu, China's permanent representative
to the United Nations, told a Security Council meeting on the situation in Venezuela.
"Earlier in his intervention, the U.S. representative leveled an unfounded accusation on
China's position on Venezuela in the Security Council," he said, referring to Pence's remarks
that Russia and China obstructed Council action on Venezuela with their veto power.
China has all along maintained friendly and cooperative relations with other countries
around the world, including Venezuela, on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence, he said.
"We support peoples of all countries in independently choosing their development paths
that cater to their national conditions. We never interfere in other countries' internal
affairs, nor do we impose anything on other countries," Ma added.
Members of the Security Council should faithfully abide by the purposes and principles of
the UN Charter and the universally recognized norms of international relations, genuinely
respect the choices of peoples of other countries, and do more positive and practical things
for the people of Venezuela rather than the opposite, said the Chinese envoy."
"... On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions ..."
"... John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy despite his explicit campaign promises to do so. ..."
"... More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of Americans is totally unacceptable. ..."
On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they
disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC
to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions. These three entities have been linked to various kinds of corruption
including sanctions evasion for Iran, money laundering on behalf of drug cartels, provision of banking services to backers of Islamic
terror organizations and controversial donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The financial ties between Bolton and these institutions highlight serious ethical concerns about his suitability for the position
of National Security Advisor.
I. Victor Pinchuk Foundation
John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including
one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy
despite his explicit campaign promises to do so.
The Victor Pinchuk Foundation was blasted in 2016 over their donation of $10 to $25 million to the
Clinton Foundation between 1994 and 2005. The donations lead to accusations
of influence peddling after it emerged that Victor Pinchuk had been invited
to Hillary Clinton's home during the final year of her tenure as Secretary of State.
Even more damning was Victor Pinchuk's participation in activities that constituted evasions of sanctions levied against Iran
by the American government. A 2015 exposé by Newsweek highlighted the fact
that Pinchuk owned Interpipe Group, a Cyprus-incorporated manufacturer of seamless pipes used in oil and gas sectors. A now-removed
statement on Interpipe's website showed that they
were doing business in Iran despite US sanctions aimed to prevent this kind of activity.
Why John Bolton, a notorious war hawk who has called for a hardline approach to Iran, would take money from an entity who was
evading sanctions against the country is not clear. It does however, raise serious questions about whether or not Bolton should
be employed by Donald Trump, who made attacks on the Clinton Foundation's questionable donations a cornerstone of his 2016 campaign.
II. HSBC Group
British bank HSBC paid Bolton $46,500 in June and August 2017 to speak at two gatherings of hedge fund managers and investors.
HSBC is notorious for its extensive ties to criminal and terror organizations for whom it has provided illegal financial services.
Clients that HSBC have laundered money for include Colombian drug traffickers
and Mexican cartels who have terrorized the country and recently
raised murder rates to the highest levels in Mexico's history . They have
also offered banking services to Chinese individuals
who sourced chemicals and other materials used by cartels to produce methamphetamine and heroin that is then sold in the United
States. China's Triads have helped open financial markets in Asia to cartels
seeking to launder their profits derived from the drug trade.
In 2012, HSBC was blasted by the US Senate for for allowing money from
Russian and Latin American criminal networks as well as Middle Eastern terror groups to enter the US. The banking group ultimately
agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine for this misconduct as well as their involvement
in processing sanctions-prohibited transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.
Some of the terror groups assisted by HSBC include the notorious Al Qaeda. During the 2012 scrutiny of HSBC, outlets such as
Le Monde , Business Insider
and the New York Times revealed that HSBC had maintained ties to Saudi
Arabia's Al Rajhi Bank. Al Rajhi Bank was one of Osama Bin Ladin's "Golden Chain" of Al Qaeda's most important financiers. Even
though HSBC's own internal compliance offices asked for the bank to terminate their relationship with Al Rajhi Bank, it continued
until 2010.
More recently in 2018, reports have claimed that HSBC was used for illicit
transactions between Iran and Chinese technology conglomerate Huawei. The US is currently seeking to extradite Huawei CFO Meng
Wanzhou after bringing charges against Huawei related to sanctions evasion
and theft of intellectual property. The company has been described as a "backdoor" for elements of the Chinese government by certain
US authorities.
Bolton's decision to accept money from HSBC given their well-known reputation is deeply hypocritical. HSBC's connection to
terror organizations such as Al Qaeda in particular is damning for Bolton due to the fact that he formerly served as the chairman
of the Gatestone Institute , a New York-based advocacy group that purports
to oppose terrorism. These financial ties are absolutely improper for an individual acting as National Security Advisor.
III. Deutsche Bank
John Bolton accepted $72,000 from German Deutsche Bank to speak at an event in May 2017.
Deutsche Bank has for decades engaged in questionable behavior. During World War II, they
provided financial services to the Nazi Gestapo and financed construction
of the infamous Auschwitz as well as an adjacent plant for chemical company IG Farben.
Like HSBC, Deutsche Bank has provided illicit services to international criminal organizations. In 2014
court filings showed that Deutsche Bank, Citi and Bank of America had all
acted as channels for drug money sent to Colombian security currency brokerages suspected of acting on behalf of traffickers.
In 2017, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a $630 million fine after working with
a Danish bank in Estonia to launder over $10 billion through London and
Moscow on behalf of Russian entities. The UK's financial regulatory watchdog
has said that Deutsche Bank is failing to prevent its accounts from being used to launder money, circumvent sanctions and
finance terrorism. In November 2018, Deutsche Bank's headquarters was raided
by German authorities as part of an investigation sparked by 2016 revelations in the "Panama Papers" leak from Panama's Mossack
Fonseca.
Two weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, the Bush administration signed
an executive order linking a company owned by German national Mamoun Darkazanli to Al Qaeda. In 1995,
Darkazanli co-signed the opening of a Deutsche Bank account for Mamdouh
Mahmud Salim. Salim was identified by the CIA as the chief of bin Laden's computer operations and weapons procurement. He was
ultimately arrested in Munich, extradited to the United States and
charged
with participation in the 1998 US embassy bombings.
In 2017, the Office of the New York State Comptroller opened an investigation into accounts that Deutsche Bank was operating
on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is defined by both the United States and the European
Union as a terrorist organization. It is ironic that Bolton, who is a past recipient of the "Guardian of Zion Award" would accept
money from an entity who provided services to Palestinian groups that Israel considers to be terror related.
IV. Clinton-esque Financial Ties Unbecoming To Trump Administration
Bolton's engagement in paid speeches, in some cases with well-known donors to the Clinton Foundation, paints the Trump administration
in a very bad light. Donald Trump criticized Hillary Clinton during his
2016 Presidential campaign for speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs that were
labeled by her detractors as "pay to play" behavior. John Bolton's acceptance of money from similar entities, especially the Victor
Pinchuk Foundation, are exactly the same kind of activity and are an embarrassment for a President who claims to be against corruption.
More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches
hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly
flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National
Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of
Americans is totally unacceptable.
It is embarrassing enough that Donald Trump hired Bolton in the first place. The next best remedy is to let him go as soon
as possible.
"... It is literally the supreme act of projection for Max Boot to accuse anyone of lacking courage, as this particular think tank warmonger is the living, breathing personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice . Unlike Snowden -- who sacrificed his liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs -- the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for one war after the next, but always wanting to send his fellow citizens of his generation to die in them, while he hides in the comfort of Washington think tanks, never fighting them himself. ..."
"... All of that is just garden-variety neocon cowardice, and it's of course grotesque to watch someone like this call someone else a coward. ..."
"... It's not surprising that someone whose entire adult life is shaped by extreme cowardice would want to accuse others of lacking courage, as it distracts attention away from oneself and provides the comfort of company. Nor is it surprising that government-loyal journalists spew outright falsehoods to smear whistleblowers. But even neocon rags like Commentary shouldn't be able to get away with this level of blatant lying. ..."
"... Being a neocon coward means never having to admit error. ..."
In the neocon journal
Commentary , Max Boot today complains that the New York Times published
an op-ed by Edward Snowden . Boot's objection rests on his accusation that the NSA whistleblower is actually a "traitor." In
objecting, Boot made these claims:
Oddly enough nowhere in his article -- which is datelined Moscow -- does he mention the surveillance apparatus of his host,
Vladimir Putin , which far exceeds in scope anything created by any Western country. . . .That would be the same FSB that has
taken Snowden into its bosom as it has previously done (in its earlier incarnation as the KGB) with previous turncoats such as
Kim Philby. . . .
But of course Ed Snowden is not courageous enough, or stupid enough, to criticize the dictatorship that he has defected to.
It's much easier and safer to criticize the country he betrayed from behind the protection provided by the FSB's thugs. The only
mystery is why the Times is giving this traitor a platform.
It is literally the supreme act of projection for Max Boot to accuse anyone of lacking courage, as this particular think tank
warmonger is
the living, breathing personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice . Unlike Snowden -- who sacrificed his
liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs -- the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for
one war after the next, but always wanting to send his fellow citizens of his generation to die in them, while he hides in the comfort
of Washington think tanks, never fighting them himself.
All of that is just garden-variety neocon cowardice, and it's of course grotesque to watch someone like this call someone
else a coward. But it's so much worse if he lies when doing so. Did he do so here? You decide. From Snowden's NYT op-ed today:
Basic technical safeguards such as encryption -- once considered esoteric and unnecessary -- are now enabled by default in
the products of pioneering companies like Apple, ensuring that even if your phone is stolen, your private life remains private.
Such structural technological changes can ensure access to basic privacies beyond borders, insulating ordinary citizens from the
arbitrary passage of anti privacy laws, such as those now descending upon Russia.
The meaning of that passage -- criticisms of Russia's attack on privacy -- is so clear and glaring that it caused even
Time magazine to publish this today :
The first sentence of Time 's article: "Former CIA officer and NSA contractor Ed Snowden has taken a surprising swing at his new
home, accusing Russia of 'arbitrarily passing' new anti-privacy laws ." In other words, in the very op-ed to which Boot objects,
Snowden did exactly that which Boot accused him of lacking the courage to do: "criticize" the country that has given him asylum.
This is far from the first time Snowden has done exactly that which the Tough and Swaggering Think Tank Warrior proclaimed Snowden
would never do. In April, 2014, Snowden wrote
an
op-ed in The Guardian under this headline:
With Max Boot's above-printed accusations in mind, just re-read that. Did Boot lie? To pose the question is to answer it. Here's
part of what Snowden wrote in that op-ed:
On Thursday, I questioned Russia's involvement in mass surveillance on live television. . . . I went on to challenge whether,
even if such a mass surveillance program were effective and technically legal, it could ever be morally justified. . . . In his
response, Putin denied the first part of the question and dodged on the latter. There are serious inconsistencies in his denial.
In countless speeches, Snowden has said much the same thing: that Russian spying is a serious problem that needs investigation
and reform, and that Putin's denials are not credible. Boot simply lied about Snowden.
It's not surprising that someone whose entire adult life is shaped by extreme cowardice would want to accuse others of lacking
courage, as it distracts attention away from oneself and provides the comfort of company. Nor is it surprising that government-loyal
journalists spew outright falsehoods to smear
whistleblowers. But even neocon rags like Commentary shouldn't be able to get away with this level of blatant lying.
UPDATE : In typical neocon fashion, Boot first
replies by minimizing his own error to a mere innocent oversight, and implying that only hysteria could cause anyone to find
what he did to be problematic. Even then, the facts negate his self-justification. But
then he says he was actually right all along
and his "point stands":
Being a neocon coward means never having to admit error.
The Russians are not very worried about crossing the British but I cannot imagine what
the fallout would be if one of their spies got caught got caught killing someone here.
Sir, you are a rare breed. I didn't believe who believe that nonsense about the Russians
killing Litvinenko or Skripals actually existed. You have a remarkable capacity of swallowing
a large pile of BS.
"... Trump has reneged on all these promises and in many cases done the exact opposite. I suspect that part of this was deliberate lying on Trump's part but a lot of it is due to his sheer, mind-boggling incompetence, coupled with modest intelligence, and some rather severe personality disorders that have manifested themselves more clearly over time. ..."
"... In his own words, Donald Trump reveals his hypocrisy about Iraq, immigration, health care, abortion, Libya, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and more. ..."
@WorkingClass
Alex Graham is right. I voted for Trump because he promised:
(1) to end the wars the US is fighting as a sock puppet of Israel and her domestic agents,
the so-called neocons and the traitorous Zionist fifth column in this country, exemplified by
Adelson, Saban, Kushner, et al.;
(2) to restore the rule of law regarding illegal aliens in this country by removing these
criminals post haste;
(3) to restore order at the border and end the massive stream of illegals and contraband
entering our country every day;
(4) to establish reasonable laws and policies regulating immigration and naturalization so
that new immigrants and citizens improve rather than diminish the quality of life for current
citizens; and
(5) to eliminate and/or restructure trade agreements so they are bilateral and not
destructive of the USA's industrial and economic base.
Trump has reneged on all these promises and in many cases done the exact opposite. I
suspect that part of this was deliberate lying on Trump's part but a lot of it is due to his
sheer, mind-boggling incompetence, coupled with modest intelligence, and some rather severe
personality disorders that have manifested themselves more clearly over time.
By all means, do not vote for Trump ever again. I don't intend to. But please don't
consider voting for a Democrat. They will just more efficiently screw us than Trump is doing
now.
@Thomm
That's so true that it's almost incredible, Andrew Anglin of the daily stormer has been
campaigning for Tulsi Gabbard & Andrew Yang for well over a month
He could be said to be instrumental in putting Yang on the democratic primaries and
possibly Tulsi as well all the while using his weaponized memes against Trump!! I'm in
disbelief.
Gabbard: Assange arrest is a threat to journalists
By Rachel Frazin – 04/11/19 06:10 PM EDT
Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) condemned the arrest of
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday, calling the arrest a threat to
journalists.
"The arrest of #JulianAssange is meant to send a message to all Americans and
journalists: be quiet, behave, toe the line. Or you will pay the price," Gabbard
tweeted.
The Democrat's remark came hours after police in London arrested Assange, citing charges
he is facing in the U.S.
Assange is accused of conspiring to hack into computers in connection with WikiLeaks's
release of classified documents from former Army private and intelligence analyst Chelsea
Manning.
@AnonJ ust for a
more important record -- no surprise here -- my quick scan of the index of file names of that
"massive data dump at Wikileaks" found quite a few files about Scientology, one about tuition
increase at "uofa," another concerning Hawaii's announcement about Obama's birth certificate,
and a "yes-we-can mp4," but nothing at all about the World Trade Center or 9/11 that I could
find.
The Russians are not very worried about crossing the British but I cannot imagine what
the fallout would be if one of their spies got caught got caught killing someone here.
Sir, you are a rare breed. I didn't believe who believe that nonsense about the Russians
killing Litvinenko or Skripals actually existed. You have a remarkable capacity of swallowing
a large pile of BS.
Unfortunately, the near totality of this country's populace is effectively illiterate
and poorly equipped to think critically and independently, preferring to accept the
verdicts of their oleaginous talking heads at face value without ever troubling themselves
to examine why.
(The dubious products of the glorified diploma mills we call "higher education" are
often the most gullible and dim-witted.)
Someday, when we all have multiple degrees from prestigious institutions of exalted
learning, our collective I.Q. will be substantially higher than it is today, and we will
understand everything.
"... He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague ..."
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner
openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling
through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears
not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and
their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots
the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of
the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to
fear. The traitor is the plague."
If you haven't picked up a copy of Vicky Ward's book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story
of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump , you really should.
I haven't read Mr. Graham's essay yet, but I thought those two links would fit in nicely. I stay in a low boil, like it is,
and having plodded through both those reviews, I can't stand reading too much on this topic at once.
Something's gotta give. Or are the brainless goy just going to let themselves be led off a cliff?
Oh, yes. There's an interview with Ward on
BookTV .
Thanks for sharing the links on the Kushner Crime Family. It has been quite an adventure watching the MAGA man "transition"
into the MIGA man. What amazes me are the number of dumb f*ck Americans who still worship this ass hat, all the while he is driving
the betrayal dagger deeper into their back.
"Nearly a quarter million people were killed between 1962 and 1996 in Guatemala, 93 percent at the hands of pro-government forces.
The UN-backed Commission for Historical Clarification classified the massacre of Mayan Indians, treated by the military as a potential
constituency for guerrillas, as genocide, including the destruction of up to 90 percent of the Ixil-Mayan towns and the bombing
of those fleeing. In El Salvador, 988 of the 75,000 killed between 1980 and 1992 -- also overwhelmingly by pro-government forces
-- were massacred in the Morazán Department in the "El Mozote" case, whose prosecution is at risk.
Most of the victims were children, who were shot down, burned and raped en masse or hung upside down and bled from their throats.
Refuting claims by defendants that victims were combatants, the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team has stated: "We only found
marbles, toys, coins, cooking utensils, sandals and flip-flops next to their bodies." It was the largest single documented massacre
in modern Latin American history.
What the ruling class wants to be "forgotten" is the fact that their only response to the crisis of global capitalism is dictatorship,
war and barbarism."
There are always pick-and-shovel men like Abrams around to do the wet work – for their part, because they like it, and are contemptuous
of those who shrink from violence. But they are singularly useful for the reigning government, as well, since it has to sing soothing
songs of respect for human rights and pretend to view violence as repugnant and unnecessary. It would be, if the government had
forever to achieve its aims. But it usually has to bank on putting America in the place it wants it to be in four years. Sometimes
that means a bunch of people have to be eliminated, or else you run out of time.
People like Elliott Abrams are seldom kept around after the goals are won, though – too much danger they might develop loose
lips. So, often, something 'happens' to them. In this case, it couldn't 'happen' to a righter guy.
Trump had 4 bankruptcies let him run your economy !!
2+ years into his presidency, there is little room left for doubt about his competency. I
regret having supported him, although arguably, the alternative was worse.
On a lighter note, here is Trump singing from Eurythmics, courtesy of Google AI:
Russian research team which claimed to have detected signs of intelligent life in Washington has now discovered the life there
not to be quite so intelligent after all.
A Russian spokesman, who wishes to remain anonymous, told our Moscow science correspondent -- who also wishes to remain anonymous
-- that the Washington atmosphere has been poisoned by huge clouds of putrid hot air belching from the corporate media. He explained
that such a hostile environment makes it almost impossible for intelligent life to survive, let alone evolve a sustainable culture.
The Russian team believes there may still be small pockets of intelligent life elsewhere on the North American continent but without
the necessary conditions they need to thrive they are destined to disappear without trace.
Speaking off the record, the Russian spokesman, who asked us not to disclose his identity, added that hopes of finding intelligent
life in London, Paris, Berlin and other Western European locations, where it might be expected to flourish, are fading fast. Though
it is believed intelligent life once existed in Occiental Europe, an atmosphere suitable for the maintenance of such life has all
but evaporated.
"On Friday, the United Nations Security Council, following a closed-door meeting, issued a
statement to the press calling for Hifter's LNA to "halt its military activity" near Tripoli.
When Britain proposed a formal resolution along these lines, however, Russia opposed it, no
doubt fearing that it could become the pretext for a fresh Western intervention in Libya.
The British draft included a passage calling "for those who undermine Libya's peace and
security to be held to account."
What hypocrisy! There was no such call when the UK joined with France and the United
States to overthrow the country's government and inflict death upon its population and
destruction upon its infrastructure.
*****No one, from Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron on down, was ever held
accountable for a criminal war of aggression that turned the country into a living
hell.****
Launched under the pretext of a UN resolution authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone
over Libya to halt the supposed (but non-existent) threat of a massacre in the eastern city
of Benghazi, the war saw money and arms poured into Islamist militias and lavished on Al
Qaeda operatives, who were backed by a relentless bombing campaign, which included nearly
30,000 sorties in the course of seven months.
A war launched on the pretext of protecting civilians culminated in the carpet bombing of
Sirte, a bastion of popular support for Gaddafi, and the lynch-mob torture and murder of the
Libyan leader, over which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughingly gloated, "We
came, we saw, he died."
"In the intervening eight years, the attempts to install a pro-Western puppet regime in a
devastated country controlled by clashing Islamist, tribal and other militias have failed
miserably. The regime headed up by Sarraj, recognized as Libya's "legitimate" government,
barely controls even Tripoli. Under its supposed rule, the country's education and health
systems have collapsed, while inflation is ravaging living standards, the unemployment rate
has reached 30 percent, and fully a third of the population lives below the poverty line.
Conditions of life for masses of Libyans have deteriorated dramatically since the overthrow
of Gaddafi."
Just to point out once again, it is a war crime and a violation of the International Rules of
Armed Conflict for the ENEMY to cut civilians off from the services they need to live. And he
wants to lead the country??!!
Certainly getting the poor and the middle class on his side. Here's an NPR interview with
Ari Shapiro, on the Colombian border with Venezuela. Along with bigging up the impression
that there is a shitload of military deserters just waiting to have a crack at Maduro,
including the 80% who want him gone but don't dare say so out of fear – by the simple
device of interviewing some young men we know nothing about, not even their names because
their identities must be kept secret – he says this:
"This is the Colombian ambassador to the U.S., Francisco Santos. Ambassador Santos
insists there is still time for what we'll call plan A – international pressure and
sanctions to force Maduro out. Venezuela would then hold elections, and Guaido would take
power."
Guaido would take power. Oh, wait, wait: we have to have an election first.
Obviously it is inconceivable that anyone else might win. The guy most of the country had
never heard of a year ago, now is a shoo-in for the presidency. Isn't democracy fun
???? You just never know what's going to happen!
The USA and its 'partners' are moving forward with a debt-restructuring plan for Venezuela
– which you just know is going to include massive loans by the IMF and arm-twisting of
allies to persuade them to forgive debt to help the US State Department's newest plaything
– just as if Guaido is inevitable.
Well, he's not. And few things would give me as much pleasure as seeing the smirk slapped
off their faces.
"And I repeat, the cessation of darkness will definitely come with the cessation of
usurpation," culminates the self-proclaimed Juan Guaidó"
It's odd that the sabotage includes that element of blackmail, i.e., "put me in office,
and I will turn the lights on again." How would he expect to do that, if the grid has been
damaged?
Such blackmail only makes sense if Guaidó had, like, the secret password that would
turn off the viruses(?)
Because, if the damage is physical, then it will take a while to fix, even if Guaidó
and the American engineers worked at it night and day.
Even if he has no control over it, he is talking it up like he has, more like "I know
people". Which tends to make it sound more as if it is his backers doing it.
I would say he is well on his way to making himself the most hated man in Venezuela, at
least barring those who hope to sweep him into power.
I know. How can you even imagine being that guy? Who deprives your neighbors of their
electricity and then asks them to vote for you, so you would turn it on again?
A person like that would be lynched!
As Grayzone Project's Max Blumenthal says, the irony is that Nicolas Maduro's government
is protecting Guaido and his freedom to travel around Caracas through the police. So much for
Maduro being a tyrannical dictator
PressTV: How Zionism Infiltrated The United States
Interview with Scholar and Journalist, Mark Bruzonsky. Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American Scholar and Journalist, has been
a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President
Anwar Sadat and with Palestinian officials. In this exclusive interview with Press TV's Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky talks about the
challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions
and organizations.
He goes further to explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC lobby, and how President Obama would never
dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.
a so-called Virginia-Israel Advisory Board (VIAB) has actually been funded by the
Commonwealth of Virginia taxpayers to promote and even subsidize Israeli business in the
state, business that currently runs an estimated $500 million per annum in favor of
Israel.
According to the documents, VIAB, which avoids any public disclosure of its activities,
is currently also being scrutinized by the state Attorney General over its handling of
government funds.
VIAB was founded in 2001 but it grew significantly under governor Terry McAuliffe's
administration McAuliffe, regarded by many as the Clintons' "bag man," received what were
regarded as generous out-of-state campaign contributors from actively pro-Israeli
billionaires Haim Saban and J.B. Pritzker, who were both affiliated with the Democratic
Party.
The Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR) reports that VIAB is "the only Israel
business promotion entity in the United States embedded within a state government and
funded entirely by the state's taxpayers.
In terms of the overall state budget, VIAB's direct share is small ($209,068 for fiscal
years 2017 and 2018). However, VIAB's diversion of state, federal and private grants, as
well as demands on state-funded entities like colleges and universities to collaborate in
projects designed primarily to benefit Israel, run in the millions of dollars per year.
a so-called Virginia-Israel Advisory Board (VIAB) has actually been funded by the
Commonwealth of Virginia taxpayers to promote and even subsidize Israeli business in the
state, business that currently runs an estimated $500 million per annum in favor of
Israel.
Russian research team which claimed to have detected signs of intelligent life in Washington has now discovered the life there
not to be quite so intelligent after all.
A Russian spokesman, who wishes to remain anonymous, told our Moscow science correspondent -- who also wishes to remain anonymous
-- that the Washington atmosphere has been poisoned by huge clouds of putrid hot air belching from the corporate media. He explained
that such a hostile environment makes it almost impossible for intelligent life to survive, let alone evolve a sustainable culture.
The Russian team believes there may still be small pockets of intelligent life elsewhere on the North American continent but without
the necessary conditions they need to thrive they are destined to disappear without trace.
Speaking off the record, the Russian spokesman, who asked us not to disclose his identity, added that hopes of finding intelligent
life in London, Paris, Berlin and other Western European locations, where it might be expected to flourish, are fading fast. Though
it is believed intelligent life once existed in Occiental Europe, an atmosphere suitable for the maintenance of such life has all
but evaporated.
Trump had 4 bankruptcies let him run your economy !!
2+ years into his presidency, there is little room left for doubt about his competency. I
regret having supported him, although arguably, the alternative was worse.
On a lighter note, here is Trump singing from Eurythmics, courtesy of Google AI:
With Jared kushner ( Bibis bff and playing the role of **** Cheney) and Aldonson Trumps
private banker ( aka Vegas buddies) what could go wrong in PEACE negotiations?
... ... ...
Apparently Bibi sleeping in Jareds bed wasn't a metephor but a foreign policy
statement!💊🐍 the house of Kushner that Trump built.
Establishment
historians claim that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt never wanted war and made every reasonable effort to prevent war. This
article will show that contrary to what establishment historians claim, Franklin Roosevelt and his administration wanted war and
made every effort to instigate World War II in Europe.
The Germans seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs when they invaded Warsaw in late September 1939.
The documents were seized when a German SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular
German army. Von Kuensberg's men took control of the Polish Foreign Ministry just as Ministry officials were in the process of burning
incriminating documents. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. They
also reveal the forces behind President Roosevelt that pushed for war.
[1] Weber, Mark,
"President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents," The Journal of Historical Review, Vol.
4, No. 2 , Summer 1983, pp. 136-137, 140. Some of the secret Polish documents were first published in the United States
as The German White Paper . Probably the most-revealing document in the collection is a secret report dated January 12, 1939
by Jerzy Potocki, the Polish ambassador to the United States. This report discusses the domestic situation in the United States.
I quote (a translation of) Ambassador Potocki's report in full:
There is a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of Fascism, and above all of Chancellor Hitler
and everything connected with National Socialism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the]
radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible–above
all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited–this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the
public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor
Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent
platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who with a great many words and with
most various calumnies incite the public. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states. It is
interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet
Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented
in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever
propaganda the sympathies of the American public are completely on the side of Red Spain. This propaganda, this war psychosis
is being artificially created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is inevitable.
At the same time the American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America also must take an active part
in order to defend the slogans of liberty and democracy in the world. President Roosevelt was the first one to express hatred
against Fascism. In doing so he was serving a double purpose; first he wanted to divert the attention of the American people from
difficult and intricate domestic problems, especially from the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating
a war psychosis and by spreading rumors concerning dangers threatening Europe, he wanted to induce the American people to accept
an enormous armament program which far exceeds United States defense requirements. Regarding the first point, it must be said
that the internal situation on the labor market is growing worse constantly. The unemployed today already number 12 million. Federal
and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency
labor projects, are keeping a certain amount of peace in the country. Thus far only the usual strikes and local unrest have taken
place. But how long this government aid can be kept up it is difficult to predict today. The excitement and indignation of public
opinion, and the serious conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other,
have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights. As to point two, I can only say that President
Roosevelt, as a clever player of politics and a connoisseur of American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from
the domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand,
to enhance the war menace overhanging the world on account of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by
talking about the attack of the totalitarian states on the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as a godsend.
He described it as the capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As was said here: Hitler compelled Chamberlain
at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace. The prevalent hatred against everything
which is in any way connected with German National Socialism is further kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews in Germany
and by the émigré problem. In this action Jewish intellectuals participated; for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New
York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau, and
others who are personal friends of Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion
and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-mongers. These groups, people who want to pose as representatives
of "Americanism" and "defenders of democracy" in the last analysis, are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to put the President of the United
States at this "ideal" post of champion of human rights, was a clever move. In this manner they created a dangerous hotbed for
hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a mysterious
manner. Roosevelt has been forcing the foundation for vitalizing American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring
enormous stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is extremely
convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity
of defending faith and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
[2] Count
Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the
Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 29-31.
On January 16, 1939, Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry a conversation he had with American Ambassador to France William
Bullitt. Bullitt was in Washington on a leave of absence from Paris. Potocki reported that Bullitt stated the main objectives of
the Roosevelt administration were:
1. The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President Roosevelt, severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries. 2. The United States preparation for war on sea, land and air which will be carried out at an accelerated speed and
will consume the colossal sum of $1,250 million. 3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put
[an] end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not let themselves in for any discussions aiming
at any kind of territorial changes. 4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will leave the policy of isolation
and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth
of money and raw materials at their disposal."
[3] Ibid
., pp. 32-33. (Count Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents
Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp.
29-31.)
Juliusz (Jules) Łukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador to France, sent a top-secret report from Paris to the Polish Foreign Ministry
at the beginning of February 1939. This report outlined the U.S. policy toward Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, W. Bullitt, returned to Paris after having spent three months holiday in America.
Meanwhile, I had two conversations with him which enable me to inform Monsieur Minister on his views regarding the European situation
and to give a survey of Washington's policy . The international situation is regarded by official quarters as extremely serious
and being in danger of armed conflict. Competent quarters are of the opinion that if war should break out between Britain and
France on the one hand and Germany and Italy on the other, and Britain and France should be defeated, the Germans would become
dangerous to the realistic interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from
the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally after some time had
elapsed after the beginning of the war. Ambassador Bullitt expressed this as follows: "Should war break out we shall certainly
not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it."
[4] Juliusz
Lukasiewicz to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin
Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 43-44.
On March 7, 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent another remarkably perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to the Polish government.
I quote Potocki's report in full:
The foreign policy of the United States right now concerns not only the government, but the entire American public as well. The
most important elements are the public statements of President Roosevelt. In almost every public speech he refers more or less
explicitly to the necessity of activating foreign policy against the chaos of views and ideologies in Europe. These statements
are picked up by the press and then cleverly filtered into the minds of average Americans in such a way as to strengthen their
already formed opinions. The same theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in Europe and saving the democracies
from inundation by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements there is normally only a single theme, that is, the danger
from Nazism and Nazi Germany to world peace. As a result of these speeches, the public is called upon to support rearmament and
the spending of enormous sums for the navy and the air force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an armed conflict
the United States cannot stay out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a result of the effective speeches of President
Roosevelt, which are supported by the press, the American public is today being conscientiously manipulated to hate everything
that smacks of totalitarianism and fascism. But it is interesting that the USSR is not included in all of this. The American public
considers Russia more in the camp of the democratic states. This was also the case during the Spanish civil war when the so-called
Loyalists were regarded as defenders of the democratic idea. The State Department operates without attracting a great deal of
attention, although it is known that Secretary of State [Cordell] Hull and President Roosevelt swear allegiance to the same ideas.
However, Hull shows more reserve than Roosevelt, and he loves to make a distinction between Nazism and Chancellor Hitler on the
one hand, and the German people on the other. He considers this form of dictatorial government a temporary "necessary evil." In
contrast, the State Department is unbelievably interested in the USSR and its internal situation and openly worries itself over
its weaknesses and decline. The main reason for the United States interest in the Russians is the situation in the Far East. The
current government would be glad to see the Red Army emerge as the victor in a conflict with Japan. That's why the sympathies
of the government are clearly on the side of China, which recently received considerable financial aid amounting to 25 million
dollars. Eager attention is given to all information from the diplomatic posts as well as to the special emissaries of the President
who serve as ambassadors of the United States. The President frequently calls his representatives from abroad to Washington for
personal exchanges of views and to give them special information and instructions. The arrival of the envoys and ambassadors is
always shrouded in secrecy and very little surfaces in the press about the results of their visits. The State Department also
takes care to avoid giving out any kind of information about the course of these interviews. The practical way in which the President
makes foreign policy is most effective. He gives personal instructions to his representatives abroad, most of whom are his personal
friends. In this way the United States is led down a dangerous path in world politics with the explicit intention of abandoning
the comfortable policy of isolation. The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own
personal ambition. He listens carefully and happily to his echo in the other capitals of the world. In domestic as well as foreign
policy, the Congress of the United States is the only object that stands in the way of the President and his government in carrying
out his decisions quickly and ambitiously. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Constitution of the United States gave the highest
prerogatives to the American parliament which may criticize or reject the law of the White House. The foreign policy of President
Roosevelt has recently been the subject of intense discussion in the lower house and in the Senate, and this has caused excitement.
The so-called Isolationists, of whom there are many in both houses, have come out strongly against the President. The representatives
and the senators were especially upset over the remarks of the President, which were published in the press, in which he said
that the borders of the United States lie on the Rhine. But President Roosevelt is a superb political player and understands completely
the power of the American parliament. He has his own people there, and he knows how to withdraw from an uncomfortable situation
at the right moment. Very intelligently and cleverly he ties together the question of foreign policy with the issues of American
rearmament. He particularly stresses the necessity of spending enormous sums in order to maintain a defensive peace. He says specifically
that the United States is not arming in order to intervene or to go to the aid of England or France in case of war, but because
of the need to show strength and military preparedness in case of an armed conflict in Europe. In his view this conflict is becoming
ever more acute and is completely unavoidable. Since the issue is presented this way, the houses of Congress have no cause to
object. To the contrary, the houses accepted an armament program of more than 1 billion dollars. (The normal budget is 550 million,
the emergency 552 million dollars). However, under the cloak of a rearmament policy, President Roosevelt continues to push forward
his foreign policy, which unofficially shows the world that in case of war the United States will come out on the side of the
democratic states with all military and financial power. In conclusion it can be said that the technical and moral preparation
of the American people for participation in a war–if one should break out in Europe–is proceeding rapidly. It appears that the
United States will come to the aid of France and Great Britain with all its resources right from the beginning. However, I know
the American public and the representatives and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility
that America will enter the war as in 1917 is not great. That's because the majority of the states in the mid-West and West, where
the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They remember the declaration of
the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty
nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of
unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.
[5] Germany.
Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten
Staaten . Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943. Translated into English by Weber, Mark, "President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite
War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , pp.
150-152.
These secret Polish reports were written by top-level Polish ambassadors who were not necessarily friendly to Germany. However, they
understood the realities of European politics far better than people who made foreign policy in the United States. The Polish ambassadors
realized that behind all of their rhetoric about democracy and human rights, the Jewish leaders in the United States who agitated
for war against Germany were deceptively advancing their own interests. There is no question that the secret documents taken from
the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw are authentic. Charles C. Tansill considered the documents genuine and stated, "Some months
ago I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents
in the German White Paper are authentic."
[6] Tansill,
Charles C., "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 184 (footnote 292). William H. Chamberlain wrote , "I
have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy
of the documents, so far as he was concerned."
[7] Chamberlain,
William Henry, America's Second Crusade , Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 60 (footnote 14). Historian Harry Elmer Barnes also
stated, "Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents."
[8] Barnes,
Harry Elmer, The Court Historians versus Revisionism , N.p.: privately printed, 1952, p. 10. Edward Raczyński, the Polish
ambassador to London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed in his diary the authenticity of the Polish documents. He wrote in his entry on
June 20, 1940: "The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
consisting of reports from Potocki from Washington, Łukasiewicz in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we
were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part
the Germans got hold of the originals and not merely copies."
[9] Raczynski,
Edward, In Allied London , London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963, p. 51. The official papers and memoirs of Juliusz Łukasiewicz
published in 1970 in the book Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939 reconfirmed the authenticity of the Polish documents. Łukasiewicz
was the Polish ambassador to Paris, who authored several of the secret Polish documents. The collection was edited by Wacław Jędrzejewicz,
a former Polish diplomat and cabinet member. Jędrzejewicz considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine,
and quoted from several of them. Tyler G. Kent, who worked at the U.S. Embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, has also confirmed the
authenticity of the secret Polish documents. Kent says that he saw copies of U.S. diplomatic messages in the files which corresponded
to the Polish documents.
[10] Weber,
Mark, "President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents," The Journal of Historical Review,
Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , p. 142. The German Foreign Office published the Polish documents on March 29, 1940. The Reich
Ministry of Propaganda released the documents to strengthen the case of the American isolationists and to prove the degree of America's
responsibility for the outbreak of war. In Berlin, journalists from around the world were permitted to examine the original documents
themselves, along with a large number of other documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry. The release of the documents caused an
international media sensation. American newspapers published lengthy excerpts from the documents and gave the story large front-page
headline coverage.
[11] Ibid
., pp. 137-139. (Weber, Mark, "President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents," The Journal
of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , p. 142.) However, the impact of the released documents was far
less than the German government had hoped for. Leading U.S. government officials emphatically denounced the documents as not being
authentic. William Bullitt, who was especially incriminated by the documents, stated, "I have never made to anyone the statements
attributed to me." Secretary of State Cordell Hull denounced the documents: "I may say most emphatically that neither I nor any of
my associates in the Department of State have ever heard of any such conversations as those alleged, nor do we give them the slightest
credence. The statements alleged have not represented in any way at any time the thought or the policy of the American government."
[12] New
York Times , March 30, 1940, p. 1. American newspapers stressed these high-level denials in reporting the release of the
Polish documents. These categorical denials by high-level U.S. government officials almost completely eliminated the effect of the
secret Polish documents. The vast majority of the American people in 1940 trusted their elected political leaders to tell the truth.
If the Polish documents were in fact authentic and genuine, this would mean that President Roosevelt and his representatives had
lied to the American public, while the German government told the truth. In 1940, this was far more than the trusting American public
could accept.
While the secret Polish documents alone indicate that Roosevelt was preparing the American public for war against Germany, a large
amount of complementary evidence confirms the conspiracy reported by the Polish ambassadors. The diary of James V. Forrestal, the
first U.S. secretary of defense, also reveals that Roosevelt and his administration helped start World War II. Forrestal's entry
on December 27, 1945 stated:
Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Roosevelt's Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the war]. I asked
him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in 1938 was that
England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler would
have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of
war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't
fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews
had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling
him to put some iron up Chamberlain's backside. Kennedy's response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless
the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not . What Kennedy told me in this conversation jibes substantially
with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to me already, to the general effect that Roosevelt had asked him in some manner to
communicate privately with the British to the end that Chamberlain should have greater firmness in his dealings with Germany.
Dillon told me that at Roosevelt's request he had talked with Lord Lothian in the same general sense as Kennedy reported Roosevelt
having urged him to do with Chamberlain. Lothian presumably was to communicate to Chamberlain the gist of his conversation with
Dillon. Looking backward there is undoubtedly foundation for Kennedy's belief that Hitler's attack could have been deflected to
Russia ."
[13] Forrestal,
James V., The Forrestal Diaries , edited by Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, New York: Vanguard Press, 1951, pp. 121-122.
Joseph Kennedy is known to have had a good memory, and it is highly likely that Kennedy's statements to James Forrestal are accurate.
Forrestal died on May 22, 1949 under suspicious circumstances when he fell from his hospital window. Sir Ronald Lindsay, the British
ambassador to Washington, confirmed Roosevelt's secret policy to instigate war against Germany with the release of a confidential
diplomatic report after the war. The report described a secret meeting on September 18, 1938 between Roosevelt and Ambassador Lindsay.
Roosevelt said that if Britain and France were forced into a war against Germany, the United States would ultimately join the war.
Roosevelt's idea to start a war was for Britain and France to impose a blockade against Germany without actually declaring war. The
important point was to call it a defensive war based on lofty humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage hostilities with a minimum
of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property. The blockade would provoke some kind of German military response,
but would free Britain and France from having to declare war. Roosevelt believed he could then convince the American public to support
war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United States was still neutral
in a non-declared conflict.
[14] Dispatch
No. 349 of Sept. 30, 1938, by Sir Ronald Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy , (ed.). Ernest L. Woodard, Third Series,
Vol. VII, London, 1954, pp. 627-629. See also Lash, Joseph P., Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941, New York: Norton, 1976,
pp. 25-27. President Roosevelt told Ambassador Lindsay that if news of their conversation was ever made public, it could mean
Roosevelt's impeachment. What Roosevelt proposed to Lindsay was in effect a scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution by illegally
starting a war. For this and other reasons, Ambassador Lindsay stated that during his three years of service in Washington he developed
little regard for America's leaders.
[15] Dallek,
Robert, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945 , New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 31, 164-165.
Ambassador Lindsay in a series of final reports also indicated that Roosevelt was delighted at the prospect of a new world war. Roosevelt
promised Lindsay that he would delay German ships under false pretenses in a feigned search for arms. This would allow the German
ships to be easily seized by the British under circumstances arranged with exactitude between the American and British authorities.
Lindsay reported that Roosevelt "spoke in a tone of almost impish glee and though I may be wrong the whole business gave me the impression
of resembling a school-boy prank." Ambassador Lindsay was personally perturbed that the president of the United States could be gay
and joyful about a pending tragedy which seemed so destructive of the hopes of all mankind. It was unfortunate at this important
juncture that the United States had a president whose emotions and ideas were regarded by a friendly British ambassador as being
childish. [16]
Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed , Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989,
pp. 518-519. Roosevelt's desire to support France and England in a war against Germany is discussed in a letter from Verne Marshall,
former editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette , to Charles C. Tansill. The letter stated:
President Roosevelt wrote a note to William Bullitt [in the summer of 1939], then Ambassador to France, directing him to advise
the French Government that if, in the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland, France and England did not go to Poland's aid, those
countries could expect no help from America if a general war developed. On the other hand, if France and England immediately declared
war on Germany, they could expect "all aid" from the United States. F.D.R.'s instructions to Bullitt were to send this word along
to "Joe" and "Tony," meaning Ambassadors Kennedy, in London, and Biddle, in Warsaw, respectively. F.D.R. wanted Daladier, Chamberlain
and Josef Beck to know of these instructions to Bullitt. Bullitt merely sent his note from F.D.R. to Kennedy in the diplomatic
pouch from Paris. Kennedy followed Bullitt's idea and forwarded it to Biddle. When the Nazis grabbed Warsaw and Beck disappeared,
they must have come into possession of the F.D.R. note. The man who wrote the report I sent you saw it in Berlin in October, 1939.
[17] Tansill,
Charles C., "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 168.
William Phillips, the American ambassador to Italy, also stated in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration in late
1938 was committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France. Phillips wrote: "On this and many other occasions, I would
have liked to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States
would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my official position, I could not properly make such a statement
without instructions from Washington, and these I never received."
[18] Phillips,
William, Ventures in Diplomacy , North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952, pp. 220-221. When Anthony Eden returned
to England in December 1938, he carried with him an assurance from President Roosevelt that the United States would enter as soon
as practicable a European war against Hitler if the occasion arose. This information was obtained by Senator William Borah of Idaho,
who was contemplating how and when to give out this information, when he dropped dead in his bathroom. The story was confirmed to
historian Harry Elmer Barnes by some of Senator Borah's closest colleagues at the time.
[19] Barnes,
Harry Elmer, Barnes against the Blackout , Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1991, p. 208. The American
ambassador to Poland, Anthony Drexel Biddle, was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a good friend of William Bullitt.
Roosevelt used Biddle to influence the Polish government to refuse to enter into negotiations with Germany. Carl J. Burckhardt, the
League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar memoirs on a memorable conversation he had with Biddle. On
December 2, 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt with remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. Biddle predicted
that in April a new crisis would develop, and that moderate British and French leaders would be influenced by public opinion to support
war. Biddle predicted a holy war against Germany would break out.
[20] Burckhardt,
Carl, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 , Munich: Callwey, 1960, p. 225. Bernard Baruch, who was Roosevelt's chief advisor,
scoffed at a statement made on March 10, 1939 by Neville Chamberlain that "the outlook in international affairs is tranquil." Baruch
agreed passionately with Winston Churchill, who had told him: "War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you [the United States]
will be in it."
[21] Sherwood,
Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate History , New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948, p. 113. Georges Bonnet, the
French foreign minister in 1939, also confirmed the role of William Bullitt as Roosevelt's agent in pushing France into war. In a
letter to Hamilton Fish dated March 26, 1971, Bonnet wrote, "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could
to make France enter the war."
[22] Fish,
Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 62.
Dr. Edvard Beneš, the former president of Czechoslovakia, wrote in his memoirs that he had a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde
Park with President Roosevelt on May 28, 1939. Roosevelt assured Beneš that the United States would actively intervene on the side
of Great Britain and France against Germany in the anticipated European war.
[23] Beneš,
Edvard, Memoirs of Dr. Edvard Beneš , London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954, pp. 79-80. American newspaper columnist Karl
von Wiegand, who was the chief European newspaper columnist of the International News Service, met with Ambassador William Bullitt
at the U.S. embassy in Paris on April 25, 1939. More than four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt told Wiegand: "War in Europe
has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany.
America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it."
[24] "Von Wiegand
Says-," Chicago-Herald American , Oct. 8, 1944, p. 2. When Wiegand said that in the end Germany would be driven into the
arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, Ambassador Bullitt replied: "What of it. There will not be enough Germans left when the war
is over to be worth Bolshevizing."
[25] Chicago-Herald
American , April 23, 1944, p. 18. On March 14, 1939, Slovakia dissolved the state of Czechoslovakia by declaring itself an
independent republic. Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha signed a formal agreement the next day with Hitler establishing a German
protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the Czech portion of the previous entity. The British government initially
accepted the new situation, reasoning that Britain's guarantee of Czechoslovakia given after Munich was rendered void by the internal
collapse of that state. It soon became evident after the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia that the new regime
enjoyed considerable popularity among the people living in it. Also, the danger of a war between the Czechs and the Slovaks had been
averted. [26]
Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed , Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989,
p. 250. However, Bullitt's response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was highly unfavorable.
Bullitt telephoned Roosevelt and, in an "almost hysterical" voice, Bullitt urged Roosevelt to make a dramatic denunciation of Germany
and to immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.
[27] Moffat,
Jay P., The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 , Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 232. Washington journalists
Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported in their nationally syndicated column that on March 16, 1939, President Roosevelt "sent
a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that the British government strongly oppose Germany. Pearson and Allen reported that
"the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy
continued."
[28] Pearson, Drew and Allen, Robert S., "Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald , April 14, 1939, p. 16.
Responding to Roosevelt's pressure, the next day Chamberlain ended Britain's policy of cooperation with Germany when he made a speech
at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Chamberlain also announced the end of the British "appeasement" policy, stating that from
now on Britain would oppose any further territorial moves by Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally committed itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities. Roosevelt also attempted to arm Poland so that Poland would be more willing to go to
war against Germany. Ambassador Bullitt reported from Paris in a confidential telegram to Washington on April 9, 1939, his conversation
with Polish Ambassador Łukasiewicz. Bullitt told Łukasiewicz that although U.S. law prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, the
Roosevelt administration might be able to supply warplanes to Poland indirectly through Britain. Bullitt stated: "The Polish ambassador
asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and airplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed
the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States to Poland, but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland."
[29] U.S. Department
of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I, Washington: 1956, p. 122.
Bullitt also attempted to bypass the Neutrality Act and supply France with airplanes. A secret conference of Ambassador Bullitt with
French Premier Daladier and the French minister of aviation, Guy La Chambre, discussed the procurement of airplanes from America
for France. Bullitt, who was in frequent telephonic conversation with Roosevelt, suggested a means by which the Neutrality Act could
be circumvented in the event of war. Bullitt's suggestion was to set up assembly plants in Canada, apparently on the assumption that
Canada would not be a formal belligerent in the war. Bullitt also arranged for a secret French mission to come to the United States
and purchase airplanes in the winter of 1938-1939. The secret purchase of American airplanes by the French leaked out when a French
aviator crashed on the West Coast.
[30] Chamberlain,
William Henry, America's Second Crusade , Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 101-102. On August 23, 1939, Sir Horace Wilson,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, went to American Ambassador Joseph Kennedy with an urgent appeal from Chamberlain to President Roosevelt.
Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned to Roosevelt as a last
hope for peace. Kennedy telephoned the State Department and stated: "The British want one thing from us and one thing only, namely
that we put pressure on the Poles. They felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could."
Presented with a possibility to save the peace in Europe, President Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate plea out of hand.
With Roosevelt's rejection, Kennedy reported, British Prime Minister Chamberlain lost all hope. Chamberlain stated: "The futility
of it all is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will
mean the destruction of all Europe."
[31] Koskoff,
David E., Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times , Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974, p. 207; see also Taylor, A.J.P.,
The Origins of the Second World War , New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005, p. 272.
U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. This is
proven by the secret Polish documents as well as numerous statements from highly positioned, well-known and authoritative Allied
leaders who corroborate the contents of the Polish documents.
When these documents were published, their authenticity was denied by both Bullitt and by the Polish Ambassador to the
U.S. The Polish Ambassador later informed Hoover that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department.
@Paul More than four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt told Wiegand: "War in Europe has been decided upon.
Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be
in the war soon after Britain and France enter it."[24] When Wiegand said that in the end Germany would be driven into the
arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, Ambassador Bullitt replied: "What of it. There will not be enough Germans left when
the war is over to be worth Bolshevizing."
those behind the wars do not serve ideology or democracy. they serve their own interests. then and now. they rule by
dividing the rest of the world. by pitting germany against russia, in this case, they worked toward their own domination.
their short term goal is the elimination of competitions by all means. their long tern goal is their hegemony and domination
of the world. they believe that they are that superior.
Roosevelt was no incompetent or fool. he knew exactly what he was doing. he was executive and ran his show.
Roosevelt was elite and smart enough to know how to compromise and neutralize the american socialist cat until he had
a war to smash all worker opposition, directing it into war and depopulation of the capitalist opposition.
@Wally
The Nazis very clearly did dismember Czechoslovakia, which is what destroyed Hitler's credibility with the British. It's also
what German_reader found objectionable about the original piece.
I'm not a supporter of the Icebreaker thesis, though obviously Bolshevism had aggressive intentions.
If true, that's indeed interesting, I might have to look into this. The arguments in the article above (referring to
a lot of pretty weak sources like newspaper articles or much later reminiscences) don't seem convincing to me though.
What would have been Roosevelt's reasoning for pushing for a European war? I know he was pathologically anti-German and
soft on communism, but that doesn't seem like a sufficient rationale.
Commenters here would of course argue that he was a mere puppet of the Jews, but I don't buy that either (during the war
the Holocaust doesn't seem to have been a central preoccupation for him).
It may be down simply to politics.
Roosevelt's New Deal proved to be a failure, and the Roosevelt Recession was especially damaging to his power and prestige.
While it could be a coincidence (or merely a response to increasingly assertive German policy), it's noteworthy that the aggressive
turn in Roosevelt's foreign policy coincided with the Roosevelt Recession.
It's forgotten today, but many of the policies of the New Deal were not Keynesian and were actually inspired by WW1 planning.
FDR's prewar budget deficits were on average lower than American fiscal deficits are today. Thus rearmament appeared to offer
a way out of the intractable Depression.
That Roosevelt himself was a Germanophobe, an Anglophile, a naval enthusiast, and extremely weak on communism no doubt contributed.
Biographers have also noted that FDR always wanted to be a wartime President, comparing himself to Lincoln.
Roosevelt was also influenced by the theories of Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford John Mackinder. Thus he subscribed to the
idea that the US needed to prevent any one power from controlling the "heartland". Wartime American propaganda reflects these
ideas by noting the strategic need to prevent the Axis powers from completely controlling two of the world's three "industrial
regions".
I know about those sentiments on the other hand his policy made the US the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest
casualties among WW2 combatants.
Personally I've come to view US post-war dominance quite negatively (not least because it facilitated the spread of US liberalism
with its particularly demented manifestations like Negrophilia, which may well lead to the eventual destruction of the entire
pan-European world), but from the point of view of most Americans FDR's foreign policy must be seen as highly successful
imo.
This American views FDR's foreign policy very negatively, and the domestic effects of America's strategic reorientation
must be considered in any assessment. The perceived requirements of WW2 and the subsequent Cold War led to the replacement
of America's "white nationalism" with "civil rights". It also led to the dismantling of America's formidable protective barriers
and those which existed between the other industrial powers, which in turn allowed them to converge with America's level of
economic development.
FDR simply converted latent potential into military and diplomatic power. What actually turned America into the world's
greatest power was seizing the best parts of the North American continent, populating it with white people, a good legal and
economic system, and a consistent pro-manufacturing policy orientation until 1945.
WW2 in fact planted the seeds for the end of America (via the destruction of its racial identity) and its eclipse as the
world's foremost power by China (via its unification).
It's also worth pointing out that other than the capital expenditures made during the war Americans got nothing out of victory.
Just a bunch of vassal states to garrison with troops and propped up with ruinous economic concessions. The only actual gains
were German scientists and intellectual property.
This fundamental reorientation of America has persisted for more than seventy years and is destroying the country. It has
also had decidedly negative consequences for Europe as you note.
@jacques
sheeteHitler was to blame? Tell us about how blameless the Marxist "world revolution" fanatics and their Wall Street
backers were. Then you can enlighten us about the Treaty of Versailles and how that played so little part in the ensuing hostilities.
Long standing British imperialistic policies? No problem, eh? Zionist intrigue? Never happened, right? (Ever hear of "rabbi"
Stephen Wise? G-wd's messenger on Earth, right?)
The problem with such uber-contextual logic is that everyone can blame the world for all his actions. He can say the World
made me do it.
Yes, there was Versailles Treaty, communism, and British fears of Germany. All of that is true.
But there was also this. Brits came around to feeling that Germans got a raw deal after WWI. British hostility mostly ebbed
away by the time of Hitler's rise.
It's true that World Jewry hated the rise of Hitler and tried to hurt Germany. But Jews back then didn't have the power
to force world governments to strangulate Germany.
The fact is France and UK let Germany retake the Rhineland. They allowed the unification of Germany and Austria. And they
let Germany take Sudetenland. And when Germany overstepped its bounds and took Crezh territory, UK made a deal with Germany.
But Germans went beyond that and invaded Poland. They didn't just invade but made a pact with USSR. Now, this was an evil
pact but very smart on Hitler's part. He knew that aggression against Poland could set UK and France against him. So, as backup,
it was good to have Russia on his side.
People say World War II began with invasion of Poland but no so. Poland was quickly quelled, and German-French war ended quickly.
With most of Western allied with Germany, occupied by Germany, or neutral and with USSR on his side, the smart thing for Hitler
was to wait it out in a war of contrition with UK. But Hitler decided to attack Russia, and that set off the real WWII in 1941,
esp sealed after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought US into the war.
Even if FDR wanted war or hostility, the fact is most American didn't want war, and FDR had run on peace. He couldn't bring
US to war against Germany UNLESS Germans(and their Japanese allies) did something spectacularly foolish.
If Germany hadn't attacked USSR and hadn't emboldened Japan to make a even dumber move against the US, WWII could have been
avoided.
Some argue that Hitler invaded USSR because Stalin planned to attack first, and their evidence is offensive Soviet positions
against German lines. But knowing Stalin, it's difficult to imagine he was willing to risk everything. Stalin was more a scavenger
than hunter. He looked for weak spots and easy opportunities. He didn't like to risk all. If Soviet positions had really been
placed offensively against Germany, it was likely a bluff to force Germans into defensive position, making them less likely
to take the offensive initiative. Stalin was a mind-gamer like Hitler, who was also a mind-gambler.
From the article above, it's instructive to know that the events that led to WWII weren't entirely Hitler's fault and that
he was working within the context of larger world politics, but as John Lukacs said, HE was the main driver of events that
led to WWII. It wasn't FDR or Stalin or Churchill even though some of their actions made things worse. A more cautious and
sensible Hitler could have prevented the war from turning into a total war.
It's like events in the Middle East since end of Cold War must be mostly blamed on Jewish Globalists. They were the main
drivers. Sure, Iran, Iraq, and etc. did their part to destabilize the region, but the main drivers were Zionists who took the
initiative to turn the whole place upside down to serve Zionist supremacism.
However, I know the American public and the representatives and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the
opinion that the possibility that America will enter the war as in 1917 is not great. That's because the majority of the
states in the mid-West and West, where the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at
all costs. They remember the declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the
world for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For
millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America
.
the average American was bitter because of unpaid billions still owed or because they lost a father, a brother, or another
relative in that war?
Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha signed a formal agreement the next day with Hitler establishing a German protectorate
over Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the Czech portion of the previous entity.
It might have had something to do with Hitler's threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn't give in to his blackmail.
It soon became evident after the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia that the new regime enjoyed considerable
popularity among the people living in it.
Lol. Sure, Czechs must have been thrilled at losing their independence and being occupied by a foreign power, at least some
of whose representatives eventually developed extremely sinister plans for the future of Czechs (Heydrich during his time in
the protectorate thought that about 50% of Czechs had to be "deported", while 50% could be Germanized, but Czech nationhood
had to disappear in any case).
I don't know why Ron Unz keeps publishing these absolutely retarded "revisionist" pieces which are little more than full-on
Nazi apologetics, completely unconvincing in their arguments (the documents cited above are totally unremarkable imo and in
no way show Roosevelt "instigated" WW2 it was Hitler's decision to start a war with Poland).
Best book about these events is The Forced War by David Hoggan. He goes over many of these same events with a great attention
to detail, though certainly from a pro-German stance.
He said Chamberlain's position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going
to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had
not been for Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland
Stalin understood that he was freeing Hitler to strike in the west by making a pact with Hitler. In effect he facilitated
it. The British considered the Soviet Union to be the real problem. Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts
of Finland and Romania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war
with Germany. The British guarantee to Poland originally covered only their independence not territory ; the British
thought allowing Germany to take Polish land was acceptable and it would make war between Germany and the USSR quite likely
(Chamberlain's strategy was to let Hitler and Stalin into conflict). Only after the Nazi-Soviet Pact was announced was the
guarantee extended to Poland's territory because at that point the British decided war was necessary; Germany and the USSR
being friendly was not acceptable as it meant Hitler was going to go West instead of East.
Clearly Stalin wanted to sit the war between the capitalists out and reap the rewards. Neville Chamberlain wanted to see
the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies, we know he thought that because he said so to a meeting of important Tories.With
the the Nazi-Soviet pact the powerful Soviet deterrent to any aggression was out of the equation and the British realized the
balance of power had moved against them, which was unacceptable in a way that war between the Nazis and Soviets was not. If
Hitler didn't have to worry about the Soviets at his back that suddenly made all the previous calculations obsolete.
Although Stalin may have anticipated territorial demands or military pressure such as border incidents he was astounded
when Hitler subjected the USSR to an all out attack with the promethean goal of conquering the Soviet state. Everybody underestimated
the effectiveness of the combination of Weimar reforms increasing centralised revenue raising for military purposes, Hitler's
decisiveness and the German army's fighting power.
@German_reader
As thrilled as the Germans were when Bohemia and Moravia was taken from them (Austria) and over three million Germans forcibly
became Czech citizens in a newly created state that never existed before.
This video is banned here in Europe, where the lies are upheld by the law, but it can be viewed in the USA.
1942 – At a mass meeting in Prague, 200,000 Czechs pledge loyalty to their homeland and to the German Reich. Czech Minister
Emanuel Moravec addresses the large rally on July 3, 1942, on Wenceslas Square, near the historic statute of St. Wenceslas.
He concludes with an expression of confidence in a better future for the Czech people, and of support for the "new Europe,"
the "National Socialist revolution," "our leader, Adolf Hitler," and "our state president, Dr. Hacha." Emil Hacha, head of
the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia government is present, along with many other officials. The meeting concludes with the
crowd singing the Czech national hymn. Three minute newsreel clip, with Czech narration.
@anonthe average American was bitter because of unpaid billions still owed or because they lost a father, a brother, or another
relative in that war?
The Wikipedia says that 4,000,000 American soldier were mobilised and 111,000 killed – mostly by disease.
That is absolutely nothing compared to the losses of Imperial Russia (12,000,000), France (8,900,000) and the British Empire
(9,000,000). The demographics of France will never recover.
The USA entered the war only 18 months before it ended. Of course, it took months before the troops even got there.
I fear that the average educated American has no idea what war is like when it is fought in their homeland. Putin warned
the Americans that the next war will not be fought on Russian soil. The American elites think that he means it will be fought
in Europe. LOL
a German SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army
Nonsense. Gruppe Künsberg was sent into Warsaw in October 1939 after the unconditional surrender at the end of September
of Warsaw's defenders.
U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II.
Also nonsense. Preparing for a (by that time foreseeable) war is not the same as instigating it. Unless you can show that
the US was behind Hitler breaching the Munich Agreement & later attacking Poland, you have no case.
There is a lot of interesting information in the article and reports hitherto not familiar to me but I think the author has
too limited a focus and certainly doesn't justify the big claims that WW2 was aimed for and caused by FDR. You only have to
suppose that, in Roosevelt's judgment Hitler was going to make war and that the US had to be in it for its long term security.
He may eell have regarded the Soviet Union as weak and vulnerable enough for their to be no reason to be actively anti Bolshevik.
And – maybe alternatively – he would have had the Japanese well in mind and applauded the Soviet Union having recently given
them a licking.
Most of the information in this article was gathered together by Herbert Hoover who wrote it up in long book form in the 1950s.
He worked from Polish documents captured in Warsaw as the article says. Hoover's Ms remained unpublished for many years. After
it was published, as Freedom Betrayed a few years ago, I wrote to the editor, Stephen Nash who did not reply. I also called
the publisher's editor who would not discuss it with me. I concluded that they were hostile because my German histories, Other
Losses and Crimes and Mercies, by and large confirmed that the tales told by court historians such as Nash, Stephen E Ambrose.
"Sir" Michael Howard, Martin Gilbert and so on are sweet-smelling fantasies laid on the rotting corpses of the people who died
because of the mistakes made and hatred fomented by leaders on all sides. The leaders included Roosevelt in a gallery of the
guilty running from him through Churchill, and Hitler to Stalin and Henry C Morgenthau, deviser of the infamous Morgenthau
Plan for the destruction of the German people.
US and USSR emerged as superpowers.
Post-war Europe recovered fast and living standards improved greatly.
Jews lost a great deal in the war. Shoah.
If Jews emerged victorious, it was because they took over institutions in the US. It would have happened even without WWII
though, minus the Shoah narrative, Jewish power would have had less of a moral shield.
@German_readerthese absolutely retarded "revisionist" pieces which are little more than full-on Nazi apologetics, completely unconvincing
in their arguments (the documents cited above are totally unremarkable imo and in no way show Roosevelt "instigated" WW2 it
was Hitler's decision to start a war with Poland).
These revisionist pieces are 50% kooky but offer up kernels of facts and insights that reveal aspects of the time mostly
buried by the Judeo-centric media. It has elements of Nazi apologia, but keep in mind that much of US narrative is Jewish Supremacist
propaganda.
Now, there is something to be learned from the Jewish Narrative as it isn't all lies either.
If we can select the truths from the Jewish Supremacist narrative and truths from the Nazi-sympathizing narrative, we can
construct a truer narrative. Of course the lies and distortions of both.
The recent events in Iraq and Syria and the whole Russia Collusion hysteria go to show that the 'liberal'corporate media
can be just as full of BS as any totalitarian press.
Of course, the difference is Putin and Assad are NOT Hitlers whereas Hitler was truly a hitler, a pathological demagogue.
Hitler is mainly to blame for WWII, and one could argue that FDR's hostility toward Hitler was well-grounded given Hitler's
actions against Poland and then against the USSR, an ally. Also,Hitler was someone with whom diplomacy was often impossible
since he regarded the compromise of others as weakness to exploit.
But it's also true that the US, for ideological, imperial, and tribal reasons of its own, believed Germany must be toppled
first before its preferred world order could prevail.
This is another great article and both the author and UR deserve to be highly commended.
Potocki's reports (according to the translations given) were amazingly perceptive on all points.
The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own personal ambition.
That's a conclusion that, while obvious, is almost never addressed but should be. It also sounds a lot like the doofus,
Woody Wilson, and his fake messianic "idealism." Both of those clowns were amoral narcissistic fools to the max and menaces
to world peace. Both were functionally crazy, cunning and downright evil.
It's interesting to note that FDR was taken to task for essentially sitting out WW1 at a desk job by Teddy Roosevelt ( another
militaristic, blowhard, self stroking fool) while Teddy's 4 sons were fighting in Europe, so he took a "playtime" tour of the
battlefields to bolster his "war" credentials.
He also
was enjoying every aspect of being a man of authority in a government at war. Early on he had confided to a friend, "It
would be wonderful to be a war president."
– Thomas Fleming,
The Illusion of Victory, p254 (2003)
For me, one of the morals of all that is that men cannot be trusted in positions of power and "we" must act accordingly.
Another lesson learned is that the US government has long acted against the interests of the American prols, peasants, peons
and pissants, and no doubt shall as long as it exists. What to do about it appears to be, at this point, an individual thing.
It might have had something to do with Hitler's threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn't give in to his blackmail.
Credible source, please.
Now go back and read the article and try to find out who was threatening whom. You could also review the causes of WW1,
but that may be asking too much.
Also, it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the report that New York "Jews" declared war on Germany in 1933, years
before the Nazis did anything (they were subsequently accused of) to the Jews.
I concluded that they were hostile because my German histories, Other Losses and Crimes and Mercies, by and large confirmed
that the tales told by court historians are sweet-smelling fantasies laid on the rotting corpses of the people who died
because of the mistakes made and hatred fomented by leaders on all sides.
@German_reader
The Nazi apologism of these pieces is unfortunate (e.g. casually glossing over the German destruction of Czechoslovakia as
you cite), but other than that they're quite valuable. The standard narrative is that America was completely neutral until
the outbreak of war, after which it adopted pro-British neutrality.
The reality is that the Roosevelt Administration actively worked to foment war, and once war had broken out its policy was
to commit America to the war.
That obviously does not absolve the Axis powers. If the US had maintained its neutrality, perhaps the Poles would've accepted
German demands. It of course doesn't follow that this would've preserved the peace in Europe.
This also has special relevance for American politics as Roosevelt has long been a despised figure on the American right.
Preparing for a (by that time foreseeable) war is not the same as instigating it.
Duh.
That's a classic straw man fallacy. Unless you can show that the author claimed what you said he did, you have no case.
And since the Dizzard agreed with you, it's almost certain that you have none.
No doubt the Roosevelt administration was agitating for war. Between the Soviets, the Nazis and FDR's chums what chance
did Europe have? Always found the US saving Britain meme particularly offensive.
somehow you left the belligerent Churchill out of this mix
note that he was on the hook to some jew bankers for the solvency of his entire estate, also note the quip by a Rothschild
woman "if my sons didn't want wars there would be no wars"
Maybe a few little ones did, but the bigshot moneybag crowd probably did not.
Here's an anecdote to ponder.
The new [Jewish] prosperity was born in rearmament, and that was begun in the name of anti-Communism and anti-Semitism.
Abyssinia, Spain and China have already shown that the new armaments race spells death, not for Jews, but for indiscriminate
millions of helpless Gentiles, Africans, Chinese and whatnot. The profits from the armaments race will go largely into
the pockets of Jews, because of their preponderant share in retail trade Such is Hitler's achievement in the cause of
antiSemitism.
I was talking one day to Z, a Jewish journalist expelled from Germany who has settled in Vienna, where he has a pleasant
home and a motor car. He talked with bitter resentment of Germany. 'Ah', he complained, 'the Poles murdered us, but the
Germans have robbed us', and it was quite clear from his tone which was the worse thing for him. Then he told me how his
son was still working for a big German film company in Berlin and had thrice had his salary raised to induce him not to
leave and emigrate, as he desired, wishing to join his father. The Jews. As I write, in Vienna, they are all about me, watching
with non-committal, veiled, appraising eyes the comedy that is going on in Insanity Fair. They know that when Hitlerism
has passed away they will still be trading in the Kärntnerstrasse.
Hitler is mainly to blame for WWII, and one could argue that FDR's hostility toward Hitler was well-grounded
Hitler was to blame? Tell us about how blameless the Marxist "world revolution" fanatics and their Wall Street backers were.
Then you can enlighten us about the Treaty of Versailles and how that played so little part in the ensuing hostilities. Long
standing British imperialistic policies? No problem, eh? Zionist intrigue? Never happened, right? (Ever hear of "rabbi" Stephen
Wise? G-wd's messenger on Earth, right?)
I don't think so, imo those pieces without exception are so stupid that they'll actually be counter-productive and reinforce
existing narratives.
I actually think there are some areas of WW2 where revisionism might be justified (and you don't even have to go to kooky "revisionists"
for it, the gap between the mythology and the writings even of many quite mainstream historians is often wide) but Unz review
has nothing to contribute in this regard.
The reality is that the Roosevelt Administration actively worked to foment war
I don't think the article above demonstrated that, tbh the documents cited in it appear to be totally unremarkable to me
and don't support such a thesis.
Maybe someone else has made a better case for it, but that Roosevelt actively wanted a European war seems unlikely to me.
If the US had maintained its neutrality, perhaps the Poles would've accepted German demands.
But the US didn't really do anything in 1939/40, it was just words. iirc even Lend-Lease was only adopted after the fall
of France.
The backing of Britain and France (still seen as premier world powers at the time, and in the case of France with a large army
with modern equipment) was probably enough for Poland, I don't think the remote possibility of American intervention (which
was years away anyway) was decisive.
A fundamental issue was of course that Hitler had already shown with the destruction of Czechoslovakia (so casually dismissed
in the article above) in March 1939 that his ambitions went beyond merely uniting all majority German areas in the Reich and
that he wasn't trustworthy at all.
In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which
was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during
World War I pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side
of the war.
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than
to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is
mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
from the up-to-date history of the second world war it is now possible to see the utter madness, irrelevance really of white
people! from Churchill and the English, to Roosevelt, the Germans, the Russians.. and all others at the top of the white countries..the
white elites..what on earth are they, what are they about on planet earth, what do they want?
they smash, beat, poison, blow up, lie all the time, cheat, steal, draw all human profit off into few hands, bring world
economy to a standstill then create wars for all and every socially controlling purpose including the reduction of ordinary
people..all working people. war is to protect the money grubbers and economic slavers from the mess they make in their own
profit taking and exploitation of the people..to reduce the people to easy captivity, their numbers as a fighting force capable
of social revolution and on and on, permitting the restart of another profit taking cycle and the same flow of events again
and again and again
by new information when properly considered Hitler comes of a relatively sane man who did not want war..but look at the
things he did himself!
and over all of this, like mad directors of a horror movie are the fake Jews, the Khazars who collectively must be the devil
himself, directing a MADD movie of existence.
LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE ALL COLLECTIVELY DOING -HAVE DONE. IT IS CONSTANT CENTURIES LONG LUNACY, PURE NAKED INSANITY THAT
THEY HAVE MANAGED TO PUT OR PULL A CONSISTENT PATINA OVER, THAT ALLOWS THE REST OF US TO TAKE THEIR BEHAVIOR AS SANE AND TO
ACCEPT WHITE PEOPLE AS LOGICAL AND RIGHT IN THE WORLD..THE ACTUAL OPPOSITE OF WHO/WHAT THEY ARE
I don know of anything historically like the 19 century. from the Japanese Russian war, the first world war, the Russian
revolution, the economic games of the years between 1920-39 they call the great crash, the second world war..all the way to
currently when white people appear to be finally tired of themselves and are ready to end it all in another explosion of war
with nuclear weapons..we have had such a show of absolutely human insanity there are negative words capable of describing that
flow of human time and the people involved.
Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Churchill, Chamberlin, Mussolin, DeGaulle,..all, an endless flow of terrible human beings..and it
has not stopped, all the way through the Clintons, Obama, Macron..and on and on and on, the same carnage, the same insanity..it
never stops, never ever. nothing depresses me as human history does..the white part of it..the rise of the white man. there
is no way out of it..white outlook and socially dominant power, will not allow for anything positive in the human potential
to manifest. only genocide, human engineering and the development of social grotesque forms of social organization looms for
the human future
and they say some god made this life..a supreme and good god worked all this out and made ot, let it be. and of course that
is more grotesque nonsense that leads to more hell for humanity.
I dont see the point to life. the ancient Africans had a point. they developed a life in nature, accepted nature as the
template and flowed accordingly. in that way they gave us all a chance by developing the basis of survival, of social organization
and spiritual sanity. the white man took that and poisoned it, twisted it into all the insane religious nonsense that drives
human suicide currently.
but with the rise of the white male into global power for 500 years now humanity has gone totally insane..impenetrably insane,
comprehensively insane. we have all been made nuts by white logic. we have ringed ourselves by that same logic with every conceivable
weapon that can kill all humanity. we have actually set the stage for the possible rise out of nature itself organic mutations
that may wipe humanity all on their own..mutations changed by what we have routinely thrown into the world as waste for which
humanity has no biological defense.
that is the white mans logic..operating on the principle that there is a free lunch, always looking for on and causing existential
chaos in the process. I want to cite the obvious stupidity in that approach..a collectively arsine approach..but it is far,
far, far, far .. worse than that. the condition of the white man appears to be irreversible, cannot be changed and with the
destructive means the white elites now have it is totally unlikely that humanity comes out of the experience of white power,
white global domination, alive..or in one piece. we may crawl out alive but we wont be human anymore
SCREW ROOSEVELT. HE WAS THE WORST FROM THE START! I KNEW THAT SINCE I WAS MUCH YOUNGER AND COULD CONSIDER REALITY. ROOSEVELT
HAS BEEN BUILT INTO A HERO, HE IS A FAKE HERO!.
I HOPE TO LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE HIS STATUE TORN DOWN AS LENIN'S STATUE WAS WITH THE FALL OF RUSSIAN STATE CAPITALISM
The myth that the US and their henceforth junior partner UK- along with the Soviet Union- "liberated" Europe ought to be
put to rest. There was no "liberation" of Europe from Germany, unless massive civilian deaths and the unprecedented destruction
of property and cultural landmarks equates to "liberation." As an American, this is disturbing to me, but it is the truth.
FDR was an ignoramus and an ingenue surrounded, in his later years, by communists and their sympathizers. Had he adopted
National Socialist economic policies here in the US, he could have ended the depression and brought America to unprecedented
prosperity and the ultimate fulfillment of its great providential mission to be an impregnable continental power. Instead,
he squandered all that and doubled down on the catastrophically error of his predecessor Wilson.
In both cases- FDR's and Wilson's- Europe lost. Disastrously and tragically.
I tend to concetrate on Rosenfeldt's actions in the Pacific, knew about many non-neutral actions in the Atlantic, non-neutrality
of 'lend-lease', but most (all )of the content of this article is new to me.
Very interesting.
Changing the subject a little for entertainment, I enjoy reading Charles Bukowski (RIP) at times.
His account of the behaviour of young men post-Pearl Harbour is hilarious, he is drinking (and drunk) on a park bench, suddenly
sees them start shouting 'godawar' and frantically running around.
I forget the title, but it is a very laconic and funny description.
When seeing Starship Troopers by Verhoeven, I always think that at least one of the scriptwriters must have read
Bukowski.
The very good profits of the 17 year long and continuing global war for profits has spent the
US into no longer being dominant in the US' preferred way of war!
"The most dogmatic, tautological, egregiously unsubstantiated assertion, and the one most
likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, comes in four parts: 1) The United States is
emerging from a period of strategic atrophy; 2) Our competitive military advantage has been
eroding; .."
The US has had a huge amount of housing abandoned, or turned into "slums", as a result of
increasing profits by outsourcing jobs outside the traditional heart of US production, the
Midwest.
Case-shiller does not reflect housing abandoned because the house prices fell below labor
costs.
Just as stock indexes remove the shares of stock that start losing price so the continuing
price losses do not drag down the market index.
Ie, GE drove up the indexes while stock prices rose, but as it restructures from decades
of pillaged and plunder of its most valuable capital, its workers with culture of innovation,
it has been removed from indexes so it does not correct the indexes its bad management
inflated by fake profits when GE was really losing value.
"The confluence of their interests as Jews in promoting the policies of the Israeli right
wing and their construction of American interests allows them to submerge or even deny the
relevance of their Jewish identity while posing as American patriots. [ ] Indeed, since
neoconservative Zionism of the Likud Party variety is well known for promoting a
confrontation between the United States and the entire Muslim world, their policy
recommendations best fit a pattern of loyalty to their ethnic group, not to America."
[4]
Kevin McDonald, Cultural Insurrection, op. cit., p. 66.
The neocons' U.S. foreign policy has always coincided with the best interest of Israel as
they see it. Before 1967, Israel's interest rested heavily on Jewish immigration from Eastern
Europe. From 1967, when Moscow closed Jewish emigration to protest Israel's annexation of Arab
territories, Israel's interest included the U.S. winning the Cold War. That is when the
editorial board of Commentary, the monthly magazine of the American Jewish Committee,
experienced their conversion to "neoconservatism," and Commentary became, in the words
of Benjamin Balint, "the contentious magazine that transformed the Jewish left into the
neoconservative right . " [5]
Benjamin Balint, Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine That Transformed the Jewish
Left into the Neoconservative Right, Public Affairs, 2010. Irving Kristol explained to
the American Jewish Congress in 1973 why anti-war activism was no longer good for Israel: "it
is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the
United States. [ ] American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to
say, no, we don't want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget
big, so that we can defend Israel." [6]
Congress Bi-Weekly, quoted by Philip Weiss, "30 Years Ago, Neocons Were More Candid
About Their Israel-Centered Views," Mondoweiss.net, May 23, 2007:
mondoweiss.net/2007/05/30_years_ago_ne.html This tells us what "reality" Kristol was
referring to, when he famously defined a neoconservative as "a liberal who has been mugged by
reality" ( Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea, 1995).
With the end of the Cold War, the national interest of Israel changed once again. The
primary objective became the destruction of Israel's enemies in the Middle East by dragging the
U.S. into a third world war. The neoconservatives underwent their second conversion, from
anti-communist Cold Warriors to Islamophobic "Clashers of Civilizations" and crusaders in the
"War on Terror."
The neocons' capacity to deceive the American public by posturing as American rather than
Israeli patriots required that their Jewishness be taboo, and Carl Bernstein, though a Jew
himself, provoked a scandal by citing on national television the responsibility of "Jewish neocons" for the Iraq
war. [14]
April 26, 2013, on MSNBC, watch on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRlatDWqh0o. But the
fact that the destruction of Iraq was carried out on behalf of Israel is now widely accepted,
thanks in particular to the 2007 book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby
and U.S. Foreign Policy . And even the best liars betray themselves sometimes. Philip
Zelikow briefly dropped the mask during a conference at the University of Virginia on September
10, 2002:
Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief of Commentary (and father-in-law of Elliott
Abrams), said that after June 1967, Israel became "the religion of the American Jews."
[16]
Norman Podhoretz, Breaking Ranks: A Political Memoir, Harper & Row , 1979, p.
335. That is, at least, what he started working at. But, naturally, such religion had
better remain discreet outside the Jewish community, if possible even secret, and disguised as
American patriotism. The neocons have perfected this fake American patriotism wholly profitable
to Israel, and ultimately disastrous for Americans -- a pseudo-Americanism that is really a
crypto-Israelism or crypto-Zionism.
On a less exalted note, I've long found it a convincing theory that as Jews have ceased to take
Judaism seriously and have become culturally almost indistinguishable from gentile whites,
Israel and Zionism have become increasingly important as the sole remaining touchstone of
Jewish identity. Like as not, a modern American Jew has only his loyalty to Israel as evidence
that he remains a good Jew.
For most Jews, Judaism and its strictures have ceased to be compelling. One can get modern
secular Jews to eat pork, or marry gentiles, or cease practicing their religion entirely; but
for that very reason, there are few who are prepared to renounce Israel outright.
For the moment I will only make this observation. The UN did not base their establishment of
Israel on the promises of the OT – certainly not formally. And nothing about the state of
Israel relations with God makes her exempt from international law. And to my knowledge nothing
about the current rules regarding international law demand that Israel do anything to disobey
God.
So if the article is intended to be informative – ok. But what of a prescription is
intended to promote, if any is unknown to me.
This film goes in detail through the untold history of The Project for the New American
Century with tons of archival footage and connects it right into the present.
Jun 29, 2016 Neoconservatives Endorse Hillary Clinton for President Because They Know She's
One of Them
Neoconservatives like Iraq warmonger Robert Kagan aren't endorsing Hillary Clinton for
president merely because they want rid of Donald Trump, but because she's one of them, writes
Trevor Timm at The Guardian.
@Matt07924
It doesn't matter. When a group of people can get together and find psychic connection to one
another through some talisman, no matter how inconsequential, they form a group of self
interested individuals who can and do control their own destiny.
As we see in the west today, they can, by controlling the money, take over the leadership of
the area where they live. Thereby dictating that which can be discussed in polite company. i.e.
Political Correctness.
There are other, less effective groups that have done the same thing. But not recently.
Excellent article. Brilliant! This is why Unz.com is now my favorite website. Guyénot
has already written several fine articles for Unz, but this is probably his best yet. Keep 'em
coming!
I have been exposed to elements of Guyénot's thesis before in various different
contexts. For example, I understand that many of the original Gnostic sects of Christianity
also rejected the idea that Yahweh and the Creator God were one and the same being. Many
Gnostics seemed to have regarded the former as a 'lesser god', or as a Platonic demiurge, or
even as a completely diabolical entity. In their view, Jesus had come to rebuke the
Israelites–the Pharisees especially–for worshipping a false god, and for putting
themselves on a pedestal relative to the goyim. (He often spoke sympathetically of the
Samaritans, for example, who were a race of lowly converts.)
All of which makes me wonder about Christianity and the Abrahamic religions generally. I,
personally, am sure that there is a God or a supreme spirit of some sort; but I really just
don't buy the catechism I was raised with at all. And if, once upon a time, I might have gone
along with it in public anyway, accepting its theological anomalies as the price that had to be
paid for preserving the moral foundations of civilization, now that I no longer believe it does
our civilization any good, I have lost all interest in it whatsoever.
But what shall replace Christianity now that it is dead? Nihilism is an inherently unstable
state; nature–including human nature–abhors a vacuum. We need some kind of civic
religion to provide moral order. At the moment, 'Holocaustianity' serves as our overarching
civic religion, and so we get a modern version of the old faith vs. good-works dichotomy (i.e.,
Zionism vs. SJWism). Generally speaking, the hardline Protestants prefer the former, while the
remaining denominations prefer the latter. Virtually all of our remaining 'Christian' churches,
it seems, have lined up behind one or the other; but either way you go, it's all for the
benefit of another people–not our own.
Very interesting article. Informative throughout. Purely on a political level, this piece has
given me a much greater understanding of the psychic sources of historical abuses by those who
call themselves Jews...
I think this is another very important concept. Its not that Jews don't hold themselves to
moral standards, but it's that sin cannot alter their fundamental 'rightnes'. They are Chosen
– if they sin they will be punished mercilessly, but they are fundamentally and basically
'justified' unto eternity.
Catholics used to have this concept as well, and it was also a source of immense strength
for them – first, you are saved through Jesus. Jesus took on the sins of humanity.
Nothing you can do will make you any less saved, provided you accept Jesus's gift.
Second, by confessing your sins you are absolved.
So the old Christian is eternally justified and his sins cannot fundamentally put him on the
'wrong' side of life.
This also led to that absolutely crucial thing – in Jungian terms, acceptance of the
Shadow, the bad and weak side of man. People were not afraid to accept the dirty and bad and
weak about themselves without collapsing into self hatred, because they knew they were
fundamentally right anyways. This is an immense source of strength and integrity.
When the modern Western world lost this ability to accept the Shadow, and strove to become
God itself, it very easily fell into a crushing sense of guilt and self hatred at its 'sins',
as it no longer has a theology that allowed to accept its common human frailty without
collapsing into self hatred.
The Jews never abandoned their theory of being 'saved' – and so their evil and
weakness does not result in self hatred, but is more accepted.
@AaronB
This is too divorced from reality & is basically some kind of dubious philosophy of
history.
Simply, traditional Jewish culture is not that different from other traditional cultures.
Jews' behavior & position in pre-modern Europe was not determined by some metaphysical
ingredient in their belief, or their ethnic-religious peculiarity. They were middle-eastern
tolerated aliens in Christian Europe, and they survived because medieval Christian order had
found a place for them (unlike Muslims, who were not tolerated).
After assimilation in 19th C, we can't speak of a unified (more or less) "Jewish culture".
True, some branches like ethno-psychology could find common traits among them (professions
oriented, eager to get educated, politicized, showbiz & entertainment,..), but they are not
too adaptable -- persons of Jewish ancestry are, perhaps, but many/most of them are not Jews
anymore. Assimilated individuals of Jewish ancestry do not show any more flexibility than their
co-nationals of other faiths.
As for Zionism, this is a typical late 19th C national ideology from central- & eastern
Europe. It differs from pre-modern Jewish historical mass movements.
@Anon
Theologically Jesus came to offer a new message of universal brotherhood to replace the
tribalism and overly legalistic Law of Moses.
The reason the New Testament quotes so heavily from the Old Testament is that the early
church sought to cement it's legitimacy by establishing that Jesus was the one prophesied
about.
Simply, traditional Jewish culture is not that different from other traditional
cultures
Agreed. What was distinctively 'modern' in European culture was the one-sided development of
abstract reason and the increasing neglect of the emotional, aesthetic, and spiritual side of
man. At first the imaginative arts responded to this challenge – producing masterpieces
– and attempted to incorporate or ameliorate this development. Eventually, in our day,
the 'managerial' movement became exclusively dominant, as was bound to happen.
So we can turn to any traditional culture, not just Jewish. What is unusual about Jews
perhaps is that they went further than other traditional cultures in adopting European abstract
reason and participating in European culture.
I am unclear yet what the author's point besides making a claim that Israel has no right to be
a state based on false notions of scripture. But that has very little to do with why Israel is
a state in the secular understanding.
One can complain about Israel from now till doomsday, but until you make a case to Israel's
supporting states that Israel is out of line -- the complaint doesn't have much weight. They
exist by international law. And they engage in tactics to their own interests – no
kidding.
Israel is not going to change course if what she is doing yields her results. The attempt to
decouple support for Israel by engaging in arguments about how "rotten" she is only fuels the
complaint that Israel is surrounded by enemies that seek her destruction. Which is fed into the
"holocaust" pipeline, which in the secular is why Israel was afforded the statehood she now
has.
Theologically Communism came to offer a new message of universal brotherhood to replace
the tribalism and overly legalistic Law of nationalism.
Fixed it for you.
As with communism, Christianity was written by the very same nationalists (Jews) who wrote
it to use as a cultural and political weapon against their enemies and peoples they wished to
eventually rule. Such international domination being the expressed primary goal of the Jewish
god as described in the Jewish Torah.
@Digital
Samizdat'This. Jewish 'leftism' historically is mostly about destroying the church, the
(goy) family and the (goy) nations. It is almost never about helping the working class or
making life better for the goyim generally.'
I don't think that's fair -- but at the same time, there is something mindlessly destructive
about Jewish radicalism.
I'm reminded of More Powerful than Dynamite -- a fairly good book about the radical
upheavals that beset New York City around 1915.
The author doesn't seem to notice, but a disproportionate number of his protagonists are
young Jewish immigrants, fresh out of the shetl. The young Jewesses seem to have been
the worst; those girls had the devil in them somehow.
I think it probably all had more to do with a rebellion against the traditional authorities
of Judaism more than anything; the rabbis et al who had held Eastern Jewry in thrall for so
long. I'm not saying they actually wished gentiles well -- but I don't think destroying
gentile society was really the motive.
Maybe it's one of those secrets like, deligitimizing Israel's right to exist. That if one
dismantles the Zionist pose, then the UN will simply reneg the 1948 resolution and Israel will
be no more. I think I can keep that secret.
I have news for you. It's not going to happen. Not even the Russians or the Chinese are on
that band wagon
But what shall replace Christianity now that it is dead? Nihilism is an inherently
unstable state; nature–including human nature–abhors a vacuum. We need some kind
of civic religion to provide moral order.
Atheists in the real world don't act like the Christian belief about them. This suggests
that atheists didn't invent nihilism; instead Christians imagined nihilism late in history as a
new Christian doctrine about atheism in response to the growth of nonbelief among quite
functional people in Western countries since the Enlightenment, and they did so as a new
strategy to try to recover from their loss of power and status.
Of course, real atheists, as opposed to Christians' fantasy atheists, face no obligation to
live according to the Christian stereotype. And atheists have made enormous contributions to
civilization in recent generations. You have to wonder why they would have bothered if they
suffered from "nihilism."
Dr. Guyenot, your book is excellent and so are your sources/recommendations. What needs to be
sorely addressed is Zionist exploitation of Christ in the free world. Jewish and Christian
Zionists are no different than Al Sharpton never did see the first relavent issue (he/they)
couldn't exploit. It's all about Israel first and nothing second. That is they ONLY seek to
possess, enslave and then destroy (their) host friend or foe conquering nation or friendly host
for the Zionist parasite. Good job as always. Like Douglas Reed your prior preparations have
brought you to your most important work.
@Laurent
Guyénot You are treading a thin line. I wish too that they could be convinced to
recant their belief in a vengeful, merciless, whimsical, jealous, nepotistic,
'variable-geometry' God. The world would be spared a lot of suffering.
Tough talk about the need to punish Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election is running into the reality that
Congress's enthusiasm for additional sanctions is waning.
"We face a little bit of sanctions fatigue around here these days," said Republican Senator Marco Rubio of
Florida, the sponsor of one of the bills aimed at Russia. "Hopefully we'll get more people on board."
Two main proposals are circulating aimed at increasing pressure on Russian individuals and companies by
restricting their access to U.S. markets and capital. Both Senate bills received significant attention in 2018
after President Donald Trump failed to condemn Russia for its election meddling, but they lost steam after
November's midterm elections and aren't moving any faster in this year's Congress.
Many lawmakers still want Russia to face stronger consequences for its actions in the U.S. and elsewhere, but
there's no clear consensus on how to send the right message to the Kremlin. Two other factors add to the
hesitation: concern about unintended
economic
consequences, and the difficulty of passing legislation in a divided Congress when the measures don't
have the president's support.
"Sanctions can often be a double-edged sword," said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, chairman of
the Homeland Security Committee. "So we really should take a little bit of a step back and assess where we are and
what we can really do."
Sovereign Debt
Markets are closely watching the next U.S. moves on sanctions, since any action may
affect
Russia's sovereign debt. The ruble has depreciated against the dollar since 2014, when the U.S. imposed
sanctions on during the Obama administration.
Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, in February
reintroduced their
DASKA Act
, which would impose sanctions on Russian individuals, cyber operations and liquid natural gas export
facilities. The legislation calls for the president to "
prescribe
regulations
" for sanctions on sovereign debt issued 90 days after the law is enacted. The bill would also
reinforce support for NATO, and would create a new office in the State Department to respond to cyber threats.
The other Senate bill, the
DETER Act
, was reintroduced last week by Rubio and Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. It would
require the Director of National Intelligence to tell Congress on any foreign interference within 60 days of a
federal election. If a Russian violation is found, sanctions would target that country's political figures and its
energy and defense sectors. Sanctions could also extend to government and state-owned company bonds issued after
the bill is signed into law.
Van Hollen said the current version of his bill includes an
option
for the president to waive sanctions in the interest of "national security." Senators considered adding
this provision in 2018 as an escape valve that would improve its chances of getting a floor vote, after the
Treasury Department
warned of
potential economic spillover.
Previous versions of both bills failed to advance at the end of 2018 as Congress turned its focus to government
spending measures, judicial nominations and a farm bill.
Van Hollen said the new version would deter Russian misbehavior because it would punish future action.
"We're not talking about adding new sanctions now, we're sending a clear signal that if you screw around in our
elections again, there's going to be swift and severe punishment," he said. "It makes much more sense to tie a
sanction to future conduct to deter the conduct."
The U.S. has
sanctioned
roughly 700 Russian entities since 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and fostered unrest in eastern
Ukraine. Other sanctions were imposed
following
the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the
poisoning
of a former Russian agent and his daughter in the U.K. in March 2018.
Lawmakers last year stepped up the push for legislation compelling new sanctions after Trump sparked bipartisan
outcry
when he stood beside Russian President Vladimir Putin following a one-on-one summit in Helsinki and
said he believed Putin's denial of Russia interference in U.S. elections.
Mueller Momentum
While senior lawmakers now express mixed feelings about what to do next, the upcoming release of portions of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the 2016 election and the Trump campaign could bring renewed
attention to the sanctions bills.
"You'll see more interest in this from other members who may not have been as involved when they can see the
full Mueller report," said Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia and vice chairman of the Intelligence
Committee.
Some key lawmakers are taking their time, though, as they try to decide the best next steps. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, said he isn't backing any particular proposal at this
time.
'It's Getting Worse'
"The purpose is to persuade people to adjust their conduct, and it's not happening," Risch said. "In fact, if
anything it's getting worse. That's what is causing the discussion."
Risch said he couldn't "really judge what the appetite is" in the Senate for more sanctions, but he'd like to
see a strong stance from the U.S. "I'm interested in seeing Russia change their conduct," he said. "And the
Russian administration, they're not nice people. They do bad things."
Jim Risch
Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, a Democrat on Risch's committee, said Congress's willingness to
further punish Russia will also hinge on that country's participation in other conflicts around the world.
"We're seeing their activities in Venezuela," Shaheen said of Russia's support for the faltering Nicolas Maduro
regime
that the U.S. has sought to transition out of power. "If we see those kinds of activities continue,
that there will be a growing appetite for additional sanctions."
Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat also on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Congress should be
thinking "a little more creatively about how to make Russia pay a price." Murphy said the focus should be on how
to address underlying geopolitical problems, rather than focusing on isolated punitive measures.
"We could spend our time talking about actual long-term strategies to try to combat Russia's influence, or we
could spend all our time slapping sanctions on Russian individuals and banks," Murphy said. "The former is
probably more important than the latter."
Russiagate is about keeping Russian down via additional sections. As simple as that. Epidemics of Neo-McCarthyism also
helps to cement cracks in the US neoliberal facade and, as such, is very helpful for the US elite.
It also absolves Neoliberal Democrats of the political fiasco of the century -- rejection of establishment candidate by
the majoring of working Americans which happened when Hillary Clinton was defeated by a person with zero political experience and no
political patty behind him.
Notable quotes:
"... "The results of Mueller's investigations are a disgrace to the U.S. and their political elite. It's now confirmed that all their allegations have been plucked out of thin air. The media have played a shameful role of lie-mongers in a campaign built on lies. The adherents of this conspiracy theory are discredited. Only an idiot can believe them now." ..."
"... We've seen anti-Russian xenophobia spread into the American mainstream. Etched in our minds are comments like the one James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, made in an interview when he said that Russians are "almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever." ..."
"... To those of us who paid attention to American media and politics over the past two years, it quickly became clear that too many in the United States know nothing about our country. ..."
Alexey Pushkov, a former diplomat and a political analyst,
tweeted to his 360,000 followers on Tuesday
, following the release of Attorney General William Barr's summary of the report:
"The results of Mueller's investigations are
a disgrace to the U.S. and their political elite. It's now confirmed that all their allegations have been plucked out of thin air.
The media have played a shameful role of lie-mongers in a campaign built on lies. The adherents of this conspiracy theory are discredited.
Only an idiot can believe them now."
To the Kremlin and its supporters, Russia is the aggrieved party here, and the government's consistent denials of interfering
in America's internal affairs have been fully vindicated. Appearing on the Russian talk show "60 Minutes," Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman
for the foreign ministry, said the ministry was preparing a report to name and shame the "brigade of propagandists" -- pointing at,
among others, Fareed Zakaria -- who tried to tie Mr. Trump to Russia. She added that "apologies are expected."
... ... ...
...it becomes clear that whatever the outcome of
the Mueller investigation, our relationship with America has changed.
We've seen anti-Russian xenophobia spread into the American mainstream. Etched in our minds are comments like the one James
Clapper, the former director of national intelligence,
made in an interview when he
said that Russians are "almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever."
... ... ...
In the atmosphere where "contacts with Russians" has become cause for suspicion, every bank transaction and visa application faces
extra scrutiny. I've heard from people I know about how exchange programs, conferences and businesses are suffering.
To those of us who paid attention to American media and politics over the past two years, it quickly became clear that too many
in the United States know nothing about our country. Ominous images of onion-shaped domes
taking over the
White House baffled us; St. Basil's Cathedral is not part of the Kremlin complex and has no political connotation. The ubiquity
of hammers and sickles in visuals accompanying Trump-Russia reports seemed likewise absurd. Our country hasn't been Communist for
about 30 years.
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are
started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me
share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars
against so many foreign nations.
Thank you in spades for bringing our attention to that truth.
"... The seeds sown in the US' "Long War"* are terrible. Libya discord gave arms and bases for US support to Salafi jihad in Syria, ISIS is US sown, Iraq is to be a permanent occupation more dangerous than South Korea, Afghanistan is a tottering escapade each new commander bringing a fresh set of objectives none connected to an end to the blood shed. ..."
"... The press is at fault, they work for the empire's war profiteers. ..."
"... *Many commentators on the US' military horrors since 9/11/01 stopped saying "global war on terror" and use "Long War". ..."
7 years after the US - led by Obama, Hillary & @SamanthaJPower - bombed Libya in the
name of "humanitarianism" along with the UK & France & then utterly ignored it, the
country is so violent, unstable & dangerous that US troops can no longer safely
remain
American troops in Libya moved out of country as violence escalates near capital
The announcement comes as the U.N.-backed government in Tripoli vowed to defend the
capital against a renegade militia seeking to storm its way into the city, a showdown that
threatened to spill into bloody urban combat in the streets of Tripoli.
How come none of this is on page one above the fold?
EMichael, goes after Chinese oppression of Muslims, but never a word about humanitarian
tragedies US spreads from Caracas to Yemen through Kandahar to Pyongyang.
Russia doing any of this to Ukraine or Georgia would be howled about!
The seeds sown in the US' "Long War"* are terrible. Libya discord gave arms and bases for
US support to Salafi jihad in Syria, ISIS is US sown, Iraq is to be a permanent occupation
more dangerous than South Korea, Afghanistan is a tottering escapade each new commander
bringing a fresh set of objectives none connected to an end to the blood shed.
The press is at fault, they work for the empire's war profiteers.
*Many commentators on the US' military horrors since 9/11/01 stopped saying "global war on
terror" and use "Long War".
Note: Michael Hudson published and forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure, and
Redemption From Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year in November of last year. It is the
first volume in what will be a trilogy on the long history of the tyranny of debt. I have
interviewed him extensively as he writes the second volume, The Collapse of
Antiquity.
John Siman : Michael, in the first volume of your history of debt -- "
ORDER IT NOW
and forgive them their debts , dealing with the Bronze Age Near East, Judaism and
early Christianity -- you showed how over thousands of years, going back to the invention of
interest-bearing loans in Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC, many kings from a variety of
Mesopotamian civilizations proclaimed Clean Slate debt cancellations on a more or less regular
basis. And you showed that these royal proclamations of debt amnesty rescued the lower classes
from debt bondage, maintaining a workable economic balance over many centuries. Because these
kings were so powerful -- and, let's say, enlightened -- they were able to prevent the social
and economic polarization that is inevitable when there is no check on an oligarchic creditor
class extracting exponentially increasing interest from debtors.
But now, as you write the second volume, your theme gets turned upside down. You are showing
how the Greeks and the Romans learned about interest-bearing debt from their contacts with
Middle Eastern civilizations, but tragically failed to institute programs of Clean Slate debt
amnesty. Their failure has been a kind of albatross around the neck of Western economies ever
since.
So I'd like to start this conversation in the late 500s BC, because we can see at that time
the beginnings of both the Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic, plus of two more
important civilizations. First was the Athens of Cleisthenes, who had led the overthrow the
"tyrant" Hippias and became the father of Athenian democracy. Second, there was the Roman
Republic of Lucius Junius Brutus, who overthrew the last of Rome's legendary kings, the
"tyrant" Tarquinius Superbus.Third was the Persian civilization of Cyrus the Great. He was a
"divine king," in many ways in the ancient tradition of Hammurabi. Fourth were the post-exilic
Jews of Ezra and Nehemiah, who returned to Jerusalem, rebuilt the Temple and redacted the
Bible. They were the inventors of the Jubilee years of Clean Slate debt forgiveness, even
though they depicted the teaching as coming from Moses.
So, beginning with the late 500s BC, to what extent was the notion of Clean Slate debt
amnesty remembered, and to what extent was it rejected?
Michael Hudson : Every kind of reform, from Mesopotamia to Greece, was put forth as
if it simply restored the way things were in the beginning. There was no concept of linear
progress in Antiquity. They thought that there was only one way to do things, so any reform
must be the way the world was meant to be in the very beginning. All reformers would say that
in the beginning everybody must have been equal. Their reform was aimed at restoring this state
of affairs.
That's why, when Plutarch and even the Spartan kings in the third century BC talked about
canceling debts and promoting equality, they said that they were simply restoring the original
system that Lycurgus had created. But there was no sign that Lycurgus had really done these
things. It was made up. Lycurgus was a legendary figure. So was Moses in the Jewish tradition.
When the Bible was redacted and put together after the return from Babylon, they put debt
cancellation and land redistribution -- the Jubilee Year -- right in the center of Mosaic Law.
So it seemed that this was not an innovation, but what Moses said in the beginning. They
created a Moses figure much like the Greeks created a Lycurgus figure. They said that this is
how things were meant to be. This is how it was in the beginning -- and it just happened to be
their own program.
This was a projection backwards: a retrojection. Felix Jacoby wrote that Athenian history
was that way, basically party pamphleteering projecting their ideal program back to Solon or to
whomever one might choose as a good guy to model. Writers would then say that this original
good guy supported the program that they were proposing in their epoch. This was the ancient
analogy to "Constitutional Originalism" in the United States as a frame for right-wing
policies.
JS : So, ever since the 500s BC, the surefire way to critique the status quo has been
to say you are trying to go back to the Garden of Eden or to some other pristine Saturnian
Golden Age.
MH : Yes, you want to say that the unfair world around you isn't what was meant, so
this couldn't have been the original plan, because the past had to be a successful takeoff. So
the program that reformers always turned out to be what the Founding Fathers meant.
JS : That's veryinspirational!
MH : The key is to appear as a conservative, not a radical. You accuse the existing
status quo as being the beneficiaries of the radicals who have distorted the original Fair Plan
that you're trying to restore.
JS : So in the 500s BC we have Cyrus -- and his inscription on the Cyrus Cylinder --
boasting that he freed the Babylonians from their tax debt and bonds, and we have the
post-exilic Jews proclaiming d'ror
[דְּרֹ֛ור] in Leviticus 25, proclaiming
"liberty throughout the land." We also have the reforms of Cleisthenes in Athens,
isonomia [ἰσονομία, literally, equality
under the law], a genuine attempt at democracy. But let's start with Rome. What do you want to
say about the nova libertas , the "new liberty" proclaimed in Rome after the last king
was expelled and the Republic was founded? Didn't Brutus and his wellborn friends boast that
they were the institutors of true liberty?
MH : Liberty for them was the liberty to destroy that of the population at large.
Instead of cancelling debts and restoring land tenure to the population, the oligarchy created
the Senate that protected the right of creditors to enslave labor and seize public as well as
private lands (just as had occurred in Athens before Solon). Instead of restoring a status
quo ante of free cultivators -- free of debt and tax obligations, as Sumerian amargi
and Babylonian misharum and andurarum meant -- the Roman oligarchy accused anyone
of supporting debtor rights and opposing its land grabs of "seeking kingship." Such men were
murdered, century after century.
Rome was turned into an oligarchy, an autocracy of the senatorial families. Their "liberty"
was an early example of Orwellian Doublethink. It was to destroy everybody else's
liberty so they could grab whatever they could, enslave the debtors and create the polarized
society that Rome became.
JS : OK, but this program worked. The Republic grew and grew and conquered everyone
else for century after century. Then the Principate became the supreme power in the Western
world for several more centuries.
MH : It worked by looting and stripping other societies. That can only continue as
long as there is some society to loot and destroy. Once there were no more kingdoms for Rome to
destroy, it collapsed from within. It was basically a looting economy. And it didn't do more
than the British colonialists did: It only scratched the surface. It didn't put in place the
means of production that would create enough money for them to grow productively. Essentially,
Rome was a financial rentier state .
Rentiers don't create production. They live off existing production, they don't
create it. That's why the classical economists said they were supporting industrial
capitalists, not British landlords, not monopolists and not predatory banks.
JS : This has all been forgotten, both in the United States and in England --
MH : Let's say, expurgated from the curriculum.
JS : Worse than forgotten!
MH : That's why you don't have any history of economic thought taught anymore in the
United States. Because then you'd see that Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and the "Ricardian
socialists" and indeed most of the 19th century had a completely opposite idea of what
constituted a free market.
JS : Opposite? How so?
MH : Opposite from the neoliberal idea that freedom means freedom for the wealthy to
indebt and destroy the economy. Opposite from the liberty of Brutus to overthrow the Roman
kings and establish an autocratic oligarchy.
JS : So do we want to see the Roman kings as defenders of the people -- defending
them from predatory oligarchs?
MH : Yes, especially Servius Tullius. There was a great flowering of Rome, making it
attractive to immigrants by making the city livable for newcomers. They did this because at
that time, in the 6th century BC, all societies had a shortage of labor. Labor was the factor
of production in short supply, not land. Not even in Athens was land in short supply in the 6th
and 5th centuries. You needed labor, and so you had to make it attractive for immigrants to
join your society instead of having your people run away, as they would in a society run by
creditors reducing clients to bondage.
JS : So you are writing about how Roman liberty was actually the liberty of
oligarchic creditors from populist pressures for debt forgiveness. What of the
d'ror of Leviticus 25 -- the liberty of the postexilic Jews? Did they actually proclaim
years of Jubilee in which debts were forgiven and bondservants were returned to their
families?
MH : After the Babylonian Jews returned to Jerusalem, I'm sure that they said that it
was time for the land to be returned to its original owners -- and their families, by the way,
were the original owners who were exiled in the Babylonian Captivity. I rely largely on Baruch
Levine for this idea of the ge'ullah
[גְּאֻלָּה], saying give us back our
ancestral lands. [See thecolloquium Levine and Hudson co-edited on Land and Urbanization in
the Ancient Near East , and their preceding volume on ancient privatization.] There must
have been some kind of settlement along those lines. Unfortunately, the Judaic lands did not
keep their records on on clay tablets that could be thrown out and recovered thousands of years
later. We don't have any record of their economic history after the Return.
JS : Now I've brought along the transcriptions of several Egyptian papyri for you to
look at. I also want to show you a papyrus in Aramaic from Judæa. It's not direct
evidence that the post-exilic Jews were having Jubilee years, but it's indirect evidence,
because it says that a particular debt has to be paid, even during a time of general debt
amnesty, even if it falls due in a shmita [שמיטה], a
sabbath year. So it sounds like the Jews were finding loopholes --
MH : It certainly sounds like it! Babylonian creditors tried a similar ploy, but this
was disallowed. (We have court records confirming the realm's misharum acts.)
JS : In the Mosaic commandments to forgive debt, can we infer that there was some
sort of program of debt forgiveness in place already in place in postexilic Jerusalem?
MH : Yes, but it ended with Rabbi Hillel and the Prozbul clause. Debtors had to sign
this clause at the end of their debt contracts saying that they waived their rights under the
Jubilee year in order to get a loan. That was why Jesus fought against the Pharisees and the
rabbinical leadership. That's what Luke 4 is all about [ And there was delivered unto him
the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it
was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the
gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the
captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to
preach the acceptable year of the Lord" = the Jubilee year.] Luke also pointed out that the
Pharisees loved money!
JS : Let me ask you about Egypt here. Unfortunately, as you said, the postexilic Jews
did not leave us any clay tablets and almost no papyri, but we do have loads of papyri
concerning the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt. So from, say, 300 B.C. to the death of Cleopatra, we
have official evidence that the Egyptian kings proclaimed debt amnesties. Maybe one of the
reasons, or perhaps the main reason for this, is because they were so powerful, like the
Mesopotamian kings. So even though the Ptolemaic kings were biologically and genetically
Macedonian Greek -- married to their sisters, too -- they aspired to rule in the ancient
Egyptian pharaonic tradition of We Are God-Kings and We Own Everything in the Kingdom.
MH : Certainly the Hellenistic kings had the ancient pharaonic Sed festivals, which
go back thousands of years and were a kind of jubilee. The Egyptians had regular debt
cancellations, because under the pharaohs the debts that would have been cancelled were
basically tax debts. They were owed to the crown, so he was cancelling debts owed to himself
ultimately. And we see this thousands of years later in the trilingual stone, the Rosetta
Stone, which the priests wrote for that young boy who was Ptolemy V. They explained to him that
this is how Egypt always had done it, and to act as a pharaoh, he had to do the same.
JS : And I think it is worth pointing out here that the same verb-plus-noun
combination for forgiving debts that the priests used in Greek on the Rosetta Stone is also
used by Matthew in the Lord's Prayer
[ἀφῆκεν/ἄφες
ὀφειλήματα, aphēken/aphes
opheilēmata]. It shows up in lots of papyri. The same Greek verb and noun, again and again
and again.
But let's go back to the Greeks of the 500s BC. They are a couple of hundred years out of
their Dark Age, so their society has been reconstituted after the demographic wipeout. It's
been reconstituted, but without Near Eastern-style "divine kingship" and its Clean Slate
proclamations. Just the opposite. Socrates had conversations with the rhapsodes who had
memorized and recited the Iliad . Even in their great epic, the Greeks' legendary king
of kings Agamemnon comes across as a kind of narcissistic loser. How would you describe Greek
kingship, especially the so-called tyrants?
MH : There never really were Greek kings of the type found throughout the Bronze Age
Near East and surviving into the first millennium in Assyria and even in Persia. The Greek
polities that emerged from their Dark Age were run by what shrewd Classicists call
mafiosi , something like the post-Soviet kleptocrats. They formed closed political
monopolies reducing local populations to clientage and dependency. In one polity after another
they were overthrown and exiled, mainly by aristocratic reformers from the elite families
(often secondary branches, as was Solon). Later oligarchic writers called them "tyrants" as an
invective, much as the word rex -- king -- became an invective in oligarchic Rome.
These tyrant-reformers consolidated their power by redistributing land from the leading
families (or in Sparta, land conquered from Messenia, along with its population reduced to
helotage) to the citizen-army at large all over Greece – except in Athens. That was one
of the most reactionary cities in the 7th century, as shown by what is known about the laws of
Draco. After some abortive coups in the seventh century, Solon was appointed in 594 to avoid
the kind of revolution that had led reformer "tyrants" to overthrow narrow aristocracies in
neighboring Megara and Corinth. Solon decreed a half-way reform, abolishing debt slavery (but
not the debtor's obligation to work off debts with his own labor), and did not redistribute
Athenian land from the city's elites.
Athens was one of the last to reform but then because it was such a badly polarized
autocratic society, it swung -- like Newton's Third Law of Motion: every action has an equal
and opposite reaction -- it swung to become the most democratic of all the Greek polities.
Some historians in the past speculated that Solon might somehow have been influenced by
Judaic law or other Near Eastern practice, but this is not realistic. I think Solon was simply
a pragmatist responding to widespread demands that he do what the reformers -- the so-called
tyrants -- were doing throughout Greece. He didn't redistribute the land like they did, but he
at least ended outright debt slavery. Free debtors (mainly cultivators on the land) were being
seized and sold outside of Athens to slave dealers. Solon also tried to recover some of the
land that wealthy families had grabbed. At least, that's what he wrote in his poems describing
his actions.
So to answer your question, I think debt cancellations were not a diffusionist policy from
the East, but a spontaneous pragmatic response such as was being widely advocated as far west
as Rome with its Secession of the Plebs a century later -- followed by much of Greece in the
4th century BC, and Sparta's kings in the late 3rd century BC.
Poorer Athenians were so angry with Solon for being not revolutionary enough that he went
into exile for 10 years. The real creators of Athenian democracy were Peisistratos [died 528/7
BC], his sons, also called tyrants, and then Cleisthenes in 507. He was a member of the wealthy
but outcast family, the Alcmaeonidae, who had been expelled in the 7th century. Solon had
allowed them to return, and they were backed by Delphi (to which the family contributed
heavily). Cleisthenes fought against the other oligarchic families and restructured Athenian
politics on the basis of locality instead of clan membership. Servius Tullius is credited for
enacting much the same reform in Rome. Lewis Henry Morgan's Ancient Society [1877]
described this restructuring of voting districts as the great watershed creation of
western-style democracy.
JS : Let me go back now to the way Athens and the other poleis emerged from
the Dark Age.
MH : Judging from the art and pottery, Greece didn't begin to recover until the 8th
century BC.
JS : So we're talking about the 700s BC. As Greece was learning from the Near Eastern
civilizations, everything from mythology to the alphabet to weights and measures --
MH : And commercial practices, credit practices.
JS : Yes, all this came from the Near East, including the practice of charging
interest. But what about Clean Slate debt amnesty? I want to argue logically here -- not from
any hard historical evidence, but only deductively -- that the Greeks would have wanted the
concept of Clean Slate debt forgiveness, they would have wanted to learn this too from the Near
East, but they could not do it because they were always going to lack a Hammurabi-style "divine
king."
MH : I think you miss the whole point of how Western civilization evolved here. First
of all, who "wanted" Near Eastern kingship? Certainly not the emerging oligarchies. The ruling
elites wanted to use interest-bearing debt to enrich themselves – by obtaining control
over the labor power of debtors.
Second, I don't think the Greeks and Italians knew about Near Eastern royal proclamations,
except as an alien practice much further East than Asia Minor. Falling into debt was a disaster
for the poor, but a means for their Western patrons to gain power, land and wealth. There is no
record of anyone suggesting that they should be in the Near East. The connection between the
Near East and Greece or Italy was via traders. If you're a Phoenician or Syrian merchant with
the Aegean or Italy, you're going to set up a temple as an intermediary, typically on an
island. Such temples became the cosmopolitan meeting places where you had the oligarchs of the
leading families of Greek cities visiting each other as part of a Pan-Hellenic group. You could
say that Delphi was the "Davos" of its day.
It was through these trading centers that culture diffused – via the wealthiest
families who travelled and established relationships with other leading families. Finance and
trade have always been cosmopolitan. These families learned about debt obligations and
contracts from the Near East, and ended up reducing much of their local populations to
clientage, without kings to overrule them. That would have been the last thing they wanted.
JS : So absent Hammurabi-style "divine kingship," is debt bondage and brutal
polarization almost inevitably going to happen in any society that adopts interest-bearing
debt?
MH : We see a balance of forces in the ancient Near East, thanks to the fact that its
rulers had authority to cancel debt and restore land that wealthy individuals had taken from
smallholders. These kings were powerful enough to prevent the rise of oligarchies that would
reduce the population to debt peonage and bondage (and in the process, deprive the palace of
revenue and corvée labor, and even the military service of debtors owing their labor to
their private creditors). We don't have any similar protection in today's Western Civilization.
That's what separates Western Civilization from the earlier Near Eastern stage. Modern
financialized civilization has stripped away the power to prevent a land-grabbing creditor
oligarchy from controlling society and its laws.
So you could characterize Western Civilization is being decadent. It's reducing populations
to austerity on a road to debt peonage. Today's new oligarchy calls this a "free market," but
it is the opposite of freedom. You can think of the Greek and Roman decontextualization of Near
Eastern economic regulations as if the IMF had been put in charge of Greece and Rome, poisoning
its legal and political philosophy at the outset. So Western Civilization may be just a vast
detour. That's what my forthcoming book, The Collapse of Antiquity, is all about. That
will be the second volume in my trilogy on the history of debt.
JS : So are we just a vast detour?
MH : We have to restore a balanced economy where the oligarchy is controlled, so as
to prevent the financial sector from impoverishing society, imposing austerity and reducing the
population to clientage and debt serfdom.
JS : How do you do that without a Hammurabi-style "divine kingship"?
MH : You need civil law to do what Near Eastern kings once did. You need a body of
civil law with a strong democratic government acting to shape markets in society's overall
long-term interest, not that of the One Percent obtaining wealth by impoverishing the 99
Percent. You need civil law that protects the population from an oligarchy whose business plan
is to accumulate wealth in ways that impoverish the economy at large. This requires a body of
civil law that would cancel debts when they grow too large for the population to pay. That
probably requires public banking and credit – in other words, deprivatization of banking
that has become dysfunctional.
All this requires a mixed economy, such as the Bronze Age Near Eastern economies were. The
palace, temples, private sector and entrepreneurs acted as checks and balances on each other.
Western Civilization isn't a mixed economy. Socialism was an attempt to create a mixed economy,
but the oligarchs fought back. What they call a "free market" is an unmixed monolithic,
centrally planned financialized economy with freedom for the oligarchy to impoverish the rest
of society. That was achieved by landlordism monopolizing the land in feudal Europe, and it is
done by finance today.
John Siman : Could you define what you mean by a mixed economy ?
Michael Hudson : There are many degrees of how "mixed" an economy will be -- meaning
in practice, how active its government sector will be in regulating markets, prices and credit,
and investing in public infrastructure.
In the 20 th century's Progressive Era a century ago, a "mixed economy" meant
keeping natural monopolies in the public sector: transportation, the post office, education,
health care, and so forth. The aim was to save the economy from monopoly rent by a either
direct public ownership or government regulation to prevent price gouging by monopolies.
The kind of "mixed economy" envisioned by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and other classical
19 th century free market economists aimed at saving the economy from land rent paid
to Europe's hereditary landlord class. Either the government would tax away the land's rent, or
would nationalize it by taking land out of the hands of landlords. The idea was to free markets
from economic rent ("unearned income") in general, including monopoly rents, and also to
subsidize basic needs to create a price-competitive national economy.
Long before that, in the Bronze Age -- which I describe in and forgive them their
debts -- the palace reversed the buildup of personal and agrarian debts by annulling them
on a more or less regular basis. This freed the economy from the overgrowth of debt that tended
to build up chronically from the mathematical dynamics of compound interest, and from crop
failures or other normal "market" phenomenon.
In all these cases a mixed economy was designed to maintain stability and avoid exploitation
that otherwise would lead to economic polarization.
JS: So a mixed economy is still a market economy?
MH : Yes. All these degrees of "mixed economy" were market economies. But their
markets were regulated and subordinated to broad social and political objectives rather than to
personal rent-seeking or creditor gains. Their economic philosophy was long-term, not
short-term, and aimed at preventing economic imbalance from debt and land monopoly.
Today's "mixed economy" usually means an active public sector undertaking investment in
infrastructure and controlling money and credit, and shaping the context of laws within which
the economy operates. This is best understood by contrasting it to what neoliberals call a
"pure" or "market" economy – including what the Trump administration accuses China of
when it proposes countervailing tariffs to shape the U.S. and international market in a way
that favors American corporations and banks.
So it is necessary to clear the terminological slate before going into more detail. Every
economy is a "market economy" of some sort or another. What is at issue is how large a role
governments will play -- specifically, how much it will regulate, how much it will tax, how
much it will invest directly into the economy's infrastructure and other means of production or
act as a creditor and regulator of the monetary and banking system.
JS: What can we learn from the mixed economies of the Ancient Near East? Why were
they so prosperous and also stable for so long?
MH : The Bronze Age mixed economies of Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt and their Near Eastern
neighbors were subject to "divine kingship," that is, the ability of kings to intervene to keep
restoring an economy free of personal and rural debt, so as to maintain a situation where the
citizenry on the land was able to serve in the military, provide corvée labor to create
basic infrastructure, and pay fees or taxes to the palace and temples.
Mesopotamian rulers proclaimed Clean Slates to keep restoring an idealized status quo
ante of free labor (free from debt bondage). Babylonian rulers had a more realistic view of
the economy than today's mainstream economists. They recognized that economies tended to
polarize between wealthy creditors and debtors if what today are called "market forces" are not
overridden -- especially the "market forces" of debt, personal liberty or bondage, and land
rent. The task of Bronze Age rulers in their kind of mixed economy was to act from
"above" the market so as to prevent creditors from reducing the king's subjects (who were their
military defense force) to bondage from appropriating their land tenure rights. By protecting
debtors, strong rulers also prevented creditors from becoming an oligarchic power in opposition
to themselves.
JS: What kind of economic theories and economic models are the critics of mixed
economies trying to advance?
MH : Opponents of a mixed economy have developed an "equilibrium theory" claiming to
show that markets come to a natural, fair and stable balance without any government
"interference." Their promise is that if governments will refrain from regulating prices and
credit, from investing and from providing public services, economies will settle naturally at a
highly efficient level. This level will be stable, unless "destabilized" by government
"interference." Instead of viewing public investment as saving the economy from monopoly rent
and debt peonage, the government itself is described as a "rent seeker" exploiting and
impoverishing the economy.
JS: But is this sort of economic theory legitimate, or just a libertarian-sounding
camouflage for neoliberal pillage?
MH : It's Orwellian Doublethink. Today's neoliberal theory justifies oligarchies
breaking free of public control to appropriate the economic surplus by indebting economies to
skim off the economic surplus as interest and then foreclose on personal landholdings and
public property, overthrowing "mixed economies" to create a "pure oligarchy." Their idea of a
free market is one free for creditors and monopolists to deny economic freedom to the rest of
the population. The political extension of this approach in antiquity was to unseat kings and
civic regimes, to concentrate power in the hands of an increasingly predatory class reducing
the economy to bondage, impoverishing it, and ultimately leaving it to be conquered by
outsiders. That is what happened to Rome in Late Antiquity.
Advocates of strong government have a diametrically opposite mathematical model. Ever since
the Bronze Age, they recognized that the "natural" tendency of economies is to polarize between
a wealthy creditor and land-owning class and the rest of society. Bronze Age rulers recognized
that debts tend to grow faster than the ability to pay (that is, faster than the economy).
Babylonian rulers recognized that if rulers did not intervene to cancel personal debts (mainly
agrarian debts by cultivators) when crops failed, when military action interfered, or simply
when debts built up over time, then creditors would end up taking the crop surplus and even the
labor services of debtors as interest, and finally foreclosing on the land. This would have
deprived the palatial economy of land and labor contributions. And by enriching an independent
class of creditors (on their way to becoming large landowners) outside of the palace, financial
wealth would express itself in economic and even military power. An incipient financial and
landholding oligarchy would mount its own military and political campaign to unseat rulers and
dismantle the mixed palatial/private economy to create one that was owned and controlled by
oligarchies.
The result in Classical Antiquity was economic polarization leading to austerity and
bondage, grinding the economy to a halt. That is the tendency of economies in "unmixed"
economies where the public sector is privatized and economic regulation is dismantled. Land and
credit was monopolized and smallholders became dependent clients and ultimately were replaced
by slaves.
Mixed economies by the late 19 th century aimed at minimizing market prices for
real estate and monopoly goods, and for credit. The economic aim was to minimize the cost of
living and doing business so as to make economies more productive. This was called "socialism"
as the natural outgrowth of industrial capitalism protecting itself from the most burdensome
legacies of feudalism: an absentee landlord class, and a banking class whose money-lending was
not productive but predatory.
JS: So mixed economies require strong and ultimately good governments.
MH : Any "mixed" economy has some basic economic theory of what the proper role of
government is. At the very least, as in the 20 th century, this included the
limitation of monopoly rents. The neoclassical (that is, anti-classical) reaction was to
formulate a euphemistic theory of consumer "demand" -- as if American consumers "demand" to pay
high prices for pharmaceuticals and health care. Likewise in the case of housing prices for
renters or, for owner-occupied housing, mortgage charges: Do renters and home buyers really
"demand" to pay higher and higher rents and larger and larger mortgages? Or are they compelled
to pay out of need, paying whatever their suppliers demand ( e.g ., as in "Your money or
your life/health").
So to answer your question, a mixed economy is one in which governments and society at large
realize that economies need to be regulated and monopolies (headed by credit and land
ownership) kept out of the hands of private rent-seekers in order to keep the economy free and
efficient.
JS : Has there ever been a civil society that effectively implemented a mixed economy
since, say, 500 BC?
MH : All successful economies have been mixed economies. And the more "mixed" they
are, the more successful, stable and long-lasting they have been as a result of their mutual
public/private checks and balances.
America was a mixed economy in the late 19th century. It became the world's most successful
industrial economy because it didn't have an absentee landlord class like Europe did (except
for the railroad octopus), and it enacted protective tariffs to endow a domestic manufacturing
class to catch up with and overtake England.
JS : Other countries?
MH : Germany began to be a mixed economy in the decades leading up to World War I.
But it had a mentally retarded king whom they didn't know how to restrain, given their cultural
faith in royalty. China is of course the most successful recent mixed economy.
JS : Isn't it pretty brutal in China for most of the population?
MH : Most of the population does not find it brutal there. It was brutal under
colonialism and later still, under Mao's Cultural Revolution. But now, most people in China
seem to want to get rich. That's why you're having a consolidation period of trying to get rid
of the local corruption, especially in the rural areas. You're seeing a consolidation period
that requires clamping down on a lot of people who became successful through shady
operations.
JS : So how would you describe an ideal society without a Hammurabi-style "divine
kingship"? An ideal mixed economy?
MH : The credit system would be public. That way, public banks could create credit
for socially productive purposes -- and could cancel the occasional overgrowth of debts without
causing private creditors to lose and protest. The public sector also would own and operate the
natural infrastructure monopolies. That was the basic principle of classical economics from
Adam Smith to Marx, even for erstwhile libertarians such as Henry George. Everybody in the 19th
century expected a mixed economy with governments playing a growing role, replacing absentee
landlords, bankers and monopolists with public collection of economic rent, public control of
the credit system and provider of basic needs.
JS : How extensive should the public sector be?
MH : A classical public sector would include the natural monopolies that otherwise
would engage in price gouging, especially the credit and banking system. These sectors should
be public in character. For one thing, only a public bank can write down the debts -- like
student debts today -- without hurting an independent oligarchic financial class. If student
debts and mortgage debts were owed to public banks, they could be written down in keeping with
the reasonable ability to be paid. Also, public banks wouldn't make junk mortgage loans to
NINJA borrowers, as did Citibank and the other crooked banks. A public bank wouldn't make
predatory corporate raiding and takeover loans, or finance and speculate in derivative
gambles.
Most of all, when the debt overhead becomes too large -- when a large corporation that is
essential to the economy can't pay its debts -- public banks can write down the debt so that
the company isn't forced into bankruptcy and sold to an American vulture fund or other vulture
fund. It can keep operating. In China the government provides this essential service of public
banks.
The key public concern throughout history has been to prevent debt from crippling society.
That aim is what Babylonian and other third-millennium and second-millennium Near Eastern
rulers recognized clearly enough, with their mathematical models. To make an ideal society you
need the government to control the basic utilities -- land, finance, mineral wealth, natural
resources and infrastructure monopolies (including the Internet today), pharmaceuticals and
health care so their basic services can be supplied at the lowest price.
All this was spelled out in the 19 th century by business school analysts in the
United States. Simon Patten [1852-1922] who said that public investment is the "fourth factor
of production." But its aim isn't to make a profit for itself. Rather, it's to lower the cost
of living and of doing business, by providing basic needs either on a subsidized basis or for
free. The aim was to create a low-cost society without a rentier class siphoning off
unearned income and making this economic rent a hereditary burden on the economy at large. You
want to prevent unearned income.
To do that, you need a concept to define economic rent as unearned and hence unnecessary
income. A well-managed economy would do what Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Marx
and Veblen recommended: It would prevent a hereditary rentier class living off unearned
income and increasing society's economic overhead. It's okay to make a profit, but not to make
extractive monopoly rent, land rent or financial usury rent.
JS : Will human beings ever create such a society?
MH : If they don't, we're going to have a new Dark Age.
JS : That's one thing that especially surprises me about the United States. Is it not
clear to educated people here that our ruling class is fundamentally extractive and
exploitative?
MH : A lot of these educated people are part of the ruling class, and simply taking
their money and running. They are disinvesting, not investing in industry. They're saying, "The
financial rentier game is ending, so let's sell everything and maybe buy a farm in New
Zealand to go to when there is a big war." So the financial elite is quite aware that they are
getting rich by running the economy into the ground, and that this must end at the point where
they've taken everything and left a debt-ridden shell behind.
JS : I guess this gets back to what you were saying: The history of economics has
been expurgated from the curriculum.
MH : Once you strip away economic history and the history of economic thought, you
wipe out memory of the vocabulary that people have used to criticize rent seeking and other
unproductive activity. You then are in a position to redefine words and ideals along the lines
that euphemize predatory and parasitic activities as if they are productive and desirable, even
natural. You can rewrite history to suppress the idea that all this is the opposite of what
Adam Smith and the classicaleconomists down through Marx advocated.
Today's neoliberal wasteland is basically a reaction against the 19 th century
reformers, against the logic of classical British political economy. The hatred of Marx is
ultimately the hatred of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, because neoliberals realize that
Smith and Mill and Ricardo were all leading to Marx. He was the culmination of their free
market views -- a market free from rentiers and monopolists.
That was the immediate aim of socialism in the late 19 th century. The logic of
classical political economy was leading to a socialist mixed economy. In order to fight
Marxism, you have to fight classical economics and erase memory of how civilization has dealt
with (or failed to deal with) the debt and rent-extracting problems through the ages. The
history of economic thought and the original free-market economics has to be suppressed.
Today's choice is therefore between socialism or barbarism, as Rosa Luxemburg said.
JS : Let's consider barbarism: When I observe the neoliberal ruling class -- the
people who control the finance sector and the managerial class on Wall Street -- I often wonder
if they're historically exceptional because they've gone beyond simple greed and lust for
wealth. They now seek above all some barbaric and sadistic pleasure in the financial
destruction and humiliation of other people. Or is this historically normal?
MH : The financial class has always lived in the short run, and you can make
short-term money much quicker by asset stripping and being predatory can by being productive.
Moses Finley wrote that there was not a single productive loan in all of Antiquity. That was
quite an overstatement, but he was making the point that there were no productive financial
markets in Antiquity. Almost all manufacturing, industry, and agriculture was self-financed. So
the reader of Finley likely infers that we modern people have progressed in a fundamental way
beyond Antiquity. They were characterized by the homo politicus , greedy for status. We
have evolved into homo œconomicus , savvy enough to live in stable safety and
comfort.
We are supposedly the beneficiaries of the revolution of industrial capitalism, as if all
the predatory, polarizing, usurious lending that you had from feudal times (and before that,
from Antiquity), was replaced by productive lending that finances means of production and
actual economic growth.
But in reality, modern banks don't lend money for production. They say, "That's the job of
the stock market." Banks only lend if there's collateral to grab. They lend against assets in
place. So the result of more bank lending is to increase the price of the assets that banks
lend against -- on credit! This way of "wealth creation" via asset-price inflation is the
opposite of real substantive progress. It enriches the narrow class of asset holders at the top
of the economic pyramid.
JS : What about the stock market?
MH : The stock market no longer primarily provides money for capital investment. It
has become a vehicle for bondholders and corporate raiders to borrow from banks and private
funds to buy corporate stockholders, take the companies private, downsize them, break them up
or strip their assets, and borrow more to buy back their stocks to create asset-price gains
without increasing the economy's tangible real asset base. So the financial sector, except for
a brief period in the late 19th century, especially in Germany, has rarely financed productive
growth. Financial engineering has replaced industrial engineering, just as in Antiquity
creditors were asset strippers.
The one productive activity that the financial sector engaged in from the Bronze Age onward
was to finance foreign trade. The original interest-bearing debt was owed by merchants to
reimburse their silent partners, typically the palace or the temples, and in time wealthy
individuals. But apart from financing trade – in products that were already produced
– you've rarely had finance increase the means of production or economic growth. It's
almost always been to extract income. The income that finance extracts is at the expense of the
rest of society. So the richer the financial sector is, the more austerity is imposed on the
non-financial sector.
JS : That's pretty depressing.
MH : When I did the show with Jimmy Dore [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSvcB55R8jM
], he saw that the most important dynamic to understand is that debts grow more rapidly than
the economy at large. The rate of interest is higher than the rate of growth. It may not be
higher than the profit rate, but it's higher than the rate of growth. So every society that has
interest-bearing debt is going to end up deeper and deeper in debt. At a certain point the
creditors are paid at the expense of production and investment -- and soon enough they
foreclose.
JS : And then?
MH : Then you have debt deflation. That is the norm. Austerity. It is not an anomaly,
but the essence. The Babylonians knew this, and they tried to avoid debt deflation by wiping
out the predatory personal debts, not the business debts that were commercial and productive.
Only the non-commercial debts were wiped out.
JS : How could Modern Monetary Theory be used now, effectively?
MH : The main way is to say that governments don't have to borrow at interest from
existing financial "savers," mainly the One Percent. The government can do what America did
during the Civil War: print greenbacks. (The MMT version is the Trillion-dollar platinum coin.)
The Treasury can provide the money needed by the economy. It does that by running a budget
deficit and spending money into the economy. If you don't do that, if you do what Bill
Clinton did in the last years of his presidency and run a budget surplus, then you force the
economy to depend on banks for credit.
The problem is that bank credit is essentially predatory and extractive. The same thing
happens in Europe. The Eurozone governments cannot run a budget deficit of more than 3 percent,
so the government is unable to spend enough money to invest in public infrastructure or
anything else. As a result, the Eurozone economy is subject to debt deflation, which is
exacerbated by people having to borrow from the banks at high interest rates that far exceeds
the rate of growth. So Europe is suffering an even more serious debt deflation than the United
States.
JS : Is any of this going to change, either in Europe or here?
MH : Not until there's a crash. Not until it gets serious enough that people realize
that there has to be an alternative. Right now Margaret Thatcher and the neoliberals have won.
She said there was no alternative, and as long as people believe There Is No Alternative,
they're not going to realize that it doesn't have to be this way, and that you don't need a
private banking sector. A public banking sector would be much more efficient.
JS : How would you sum up Wall Street right now? Is it entirely predatory? Entirely
parasitical? What are Wall Street's essential functions now?
MH : Number one, to run a casino. By far the largest volume at stake is betting on
whether interest rates, foreign exchange rates or stock prices will go up or down. So the
financial system has turned into a gambling casino. Its second aim is to load the economy down
with as much debt as possible. Debt is the banking system's "product," and the GDP counts its
"carried interest" penalties and late fees, its short-term trading gains as "financial
services" counted as part of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The aim is to get as much of these financial returns as possible, and finally to foreclose
on as much property of defaulting debtors as possible. The business plan -- as I learned at
Chase Manhattan years ago -- is to transfer all economic growth into the hands of financial
investors, the One Percent. The financial business plan is to create a set of laws and mount a
campaign of regulatory capture so that all the growth in the economy accrues to the One
Percent, not the 99 Percent. That means that as the One Percent's rentier income grows,
the 99 Percent gets less and less each year, until finally it emigrates or dies off, or is put
into a for-profit prison, which looks like a growth industry today.
JS : Is there a single good thing that Wall Street does? Is there anything good that
comes out of Wall Street?
MH: You have to look at it as a system. You can't segregate a particular action from
the overall economy. If the overall system aims at making money in predatory ways at somebody
else's expense, then it is a zero-sum game. That is essentially a short-run business model. And
politically, it involves opposing a mixed economy. At least, the "old fashioned" socialist
mixed economy in which governments subordinate short-term gain-seeking to long-term objectives
uplifting the entire economy.
As the Greek philosophers recognized, wealthy people define their power by their ability to
injure the rest of society, so as to lord it over them. That was the Greek philosophy of
money-lust [πλεονεξία, pleonexia ]
and hubris [ὕβρις] -- not merely arrogance, but behavior that was
injurious to others.
Rentier income is injurious to society at large. Rentiers define a "free
market" as one in which they are free to deny economic freedom to their customers,
employees and other victims. The rentier model is to enrich the oligarchy to a point
where it is able to capture the government.
John Siman : It seems that unless there's a Hammurabi-style "divine king" or some
elected civic regulatory authority, oligarchies will arise and exploit their societies as much
as they can, while trying to prevent the victimized economy from defending itself.
Michael Hudson : Near Eastern rulers kept credit and land ownership subordinate to
the aim of maintaining overall growth and balance. They prevented creditors from turning
citizens into indebted clients obliged to work off their debts instead of serving in the
military, providing corvée labor and paying crop rents or other fees to the palatial
sector.
JS : So looking at history going back to 2000 or 3000 BC, once we no longer have the
powerful Near Eastern "divine kings," there seems not to have been a stable and free economy.
Debts kept mounting up to cause political revolts. In Rome, this started with the Secession of
the Plebs in 494 BC, a century after Solon's debt cancellation resolved a similar Athenian
crisis.
MH : Near Eastern debt cancellations continued into the Neo-Assyrian and
Neo-Babylonian Empires in the first millennium BC, and also into the Persian Empire. Debt
amnesties and laws protecting debtors prevented the debt slavery that is found in Greece and
Rome. What modern language would call the Near Eastern "economic model" recognized that
economies tended to become unbalanced, largely as a result of buildup of debt and various
arrears on payments. Economic survival in fact required an ethic of growth and rights for the
citizenry (who manned the army) to be self-supporting without running into debt and losing
their economic liberty and personal freedom. Instead of the West's ultimate drastic solution of
banning interest, rulers cancelled the buildup of personal debts to restore an idealized order
"as it was in the beginning."
This ideology has always needed to be sanctified by religion or at least by democratic
ideology in order to prevent the predatory privatization of land, credit, and ultimately the
government. Greek philosophy warned against monetary greed
[πλεονεξία, pleonexia ] and
money-love [φιλοχρηματία,
philochrêmatia ] from Sparta's mythical lawgiver Lycurgus to Solon's poems
describing his debt cancellation in 594 and the subsequent philosophy of Plato and Socrates, as
well as the plays of Aristophanes. The Delphic Oracle warned that money-love was the only thing
that could destroy Sparta [Diodorus Siculus 7.5]. That indeed happened after 404 BC when the
war with Athens ended and foreign tribute poured into Sparta's almost un-monetized regulated
economy.
The problem, as famously described in The Republic and handed down in Stoic
philosophy, was how to prevent a wealthy class from becoming wealth-addicted, hubristic and
injurious to society. The 7 th -century "tyrants" were followed by Solon in Athens
in banning luxuries and public shows of wealth, most notoriously at funerals for one's
ancestors. Socrates went barefoot
[ἀνυπόδητος, anupodêtos ] to
show his contempt for wealth, and hence his freedom from its inherent personality defects. Yet
despite this universal ideal of avoiding extremes, oligarchic rule became economically
polarizing and destructive, writing laws to make its creditor claims and the loss of land by
smallholders irreversible. That was the opposite of Near Eastern Clean Slates and their
offshoot, Judaism's Jubilee Year.
JS : So despite the ideals of their philosophy, Greek political systems had no
function like that of Hammurabi-like kings -- or philosopher-kings for that matter -- empowered
to hold financial oligarchies in check. This state of affairs led philosophers to develop an
economic tradition of lamentation instead. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, Livy and Plutarch
bemoaned the behavior of the money-loving oligarchy. But they did not develop a program to
rectify matters. The best they could do was to inspire and educate individuals -- most of whom
were their wealthy students and readers. As you said, they bequeathed a legacy of Stoicism.
Seeing that the problem was not going to be solved in their lifetimes, they produced a
beautiful body of literature praising philosophical virtue.
MH : The University of Chicago, where I was an undergraduate in the 1950s, focused on
Greek philosophy. We read Plato's Republic , but they skipped over the discussion of
wealth-addiction. They talked about philosopher-kings without explaining that Socrates' point
was that rulers must not own land and other wealth, so as not to have the egotistical tunnel
vision that characterized creditors monopolizing control over land and labor.
JS : In Book 8 of the Republic , Socrates condemns oligarchies as being
characterized by an insatiable greed [ἀπληστία,
aplêstia ] for money and specifically criticizes them for allowing polarization
between the super-rich
[ὑπέρπλουτοι, hyper-ploutoi
] and the poor [πένητες, penêtes ], who are made
utterly resourceless [ἄποροι, aporoi ].
MH : One needs to know the context of Greek economic history in order to understand
The Republic 's main concern. Popular demands for land redistribution and debt
cancellation were resisted with increasing violence. Yet few histories of Classical Antiquity
focus on this financial dimension of the distribution of land, money and wealth.
Socrates said that if you let the wealthiest landowners and creditors become the government,
they're probably going to be wealth-addicted and turn the government into a vehicle to help
them exploit the rest of society. There was no idea at Chicago of this central argument made by
Socrates about rulers falling subject to wealth-addiction. The word "oligarchy" never came up
in my undergraduate training, and the "free market" business school's Ayn Rand philosophy of
selfishness is as opposite from Greek philosophy as it is from Judeo-Christian religion.
JS : The word "oligarchy" comes up a lot in book 8 of Plato's Republic . Here
are 3 passages:
1. At Stephanus page 550c "And what kind of a regime," said he, "do you understand by
oligarchy [ὀλιγαρχία]?" "That based on a
property qualification," said I, "wherein the rich
[πλούσιοι] hold office [550d] and the poor man
[πένης, penês ] is excluded.
2. at 552a "Consider now whether this polity [ i.e . oligarchy] is not the first that
admits that which is the greatest of all such evils." "What?" "The allowing a man to sell all
his possessions, which another is permitted to acquire, and after selling them to go on living
in the city, but as no part of it, neither a money-maker, nor a craftsman, nor a knight, nor a
foot-soldier, but classified only as a pauper [πένης, penês
] and a dependent [ἄπορος, aporos ]." [552b] "This
is the first," he said. "There certainly is no prohibition of that sort of thing in
oligarchical states. Otherwise some of their citizens would not be excessively rich
[ὑπέρπλουτοι, hyper-ploutoi
], and others out and out paupers [πένητες,
penêtes ]."
3 at 555b: "Then," said I, "is not the transition from oligarchy to democracy effected in
some such way as this -- by the insatiate greed
[ἀπληστία, aplêstia ] for that which
oligarchy set before itself as the good, the attainment of the greatest possible wealth?"
MH : By contrast, look where Antiquity ended up by the 2 nd century BC.
Rome physically devastated Athens, Sparta, Corinth and the rest of Greece. By the Mithridatic
Wars (88-63 BC) their temples were looted and their cities driven into unpayably high debt to
Roman tax collectors and Italian moneylenders. Subsequent Western civilization developed not
from the democracy in Athens but from oligarchies supported by Rome. Democratic states were
physically destroyed, blocking civic regulatory power and imposing pro-creditor legal
principles making foreclosures and forced land sales irreversible.
JS: It seems that Greek and Roman Antiquity could not solve the problem of economic
polarization. That makes me want to ask about our own country: To what extent does America
resemble Rome under the emperors?
MH: Wealthy families have always tried to break "free" from central political power
-- free to destroy the freedom of people they get into debt and take their land and property.
Successful societies maintain balance. That requires public power to check and reverse the
excesses of personal wealth seeking, especially debt secured by the debtor's labor and land or
other means of self-support. Balanced societies need the power to reverse the tendency of debts
to grow faster than the ability to be paid. That tendency runs like a red thread through Greek
and Roman history.
This overgrowth of debt is also destabilizing today's U.S. and other financialized
economies. Banking and financial interests have broken free of tax liability since 1980, and
are enriching themselves not by helping the overall economy grow and raising living standards,
but just the opposite: by getting the bulk of society into debt to themselves.
This financial class is also indebting governments and taking payment in the form of
privatizing the public domain. (Greece is a conspicuous recent example.) This road to
privatization, deregulation and un-taxing of wealth really took off with Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan cheerleading the anti-classical philosophy of Frederick von Hayek and the
anti-classical economics of Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys.
Something much like this happened in Rome. Arnold Toynbee described its oligarchic land grab
that endowed its ruling aristocracy with unprecedented wealth as Hannibal's Revenge. That was
the main legacy of Rome's Punic Wars with Carthage ending around 200 BC. Rome's wealthy
families who had contributed their jewelry and money to the war effort, made their power grab
and said that what originally appeared to be patriotic contributions should be viewed as having
been a loan. The Roman treasury was bare, so the government (controlled by these wealthy
families) gave them public land, the ager publicus that otherwise would have been used
to settle war veterans and other needy.
Once you inherit wealth, you tend to think that it's naturally yours, not part of society's
patrimony for mutual aid. You see society in terms of yourself, not yourself as part of
society. You become selfish and increasingly predatory as the economy shrinks as a result of
your indebting it and monopolizing its land and property. You see yourself as exceptional, and
justify this by thinking of yourself as what Donald Trump would call "a winner," not subject to
the rules of "losers," that is, the rest of society. That's a major theme in Greek philosophy
from Socrates andPlato and Aristotle through the Stoics. They saw an inherent danger posed by
an increasingly wealthy landholding and creditor ruling class atop an indebted population at
large. If you let such a class emerge independently of social regulation and checks on personal
egotism and hubris, the economic and political system becomes predatory. Yet that has been the
history of Western civilization.
Lacking a tradition of subordinating debt and land foreclosure from smallholders, the Greek
and Italian states that emerged in the 7 th century BC took a different political
course from the Near East. Subsequent Western civilization lacked a regime of oversight to
alleviate debt problems and keep the means of self-support broadly distributed.
The social democratic movements that flowered from the late 19 th century until
the 1980s sought to re-create such regulatory mechanisms, as in Teddy Roosevelt's trust
busting, the income tax, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, postwar British social democracy. But
these moves to reverse economic inequality and polarization are now being rolled back, causing
austerity, debt deflation and the concentration of wealth at the top of the economic pyramid.
As oligarchies take over government, they lorded it over the rest of society much like feudal
lords who emerged from the wreckage of the Roman Empire in the West.
The tendency is for political power to reflect wealth. Rome's constitution weighted voting
power in proportion to one's landholdings, minimizing the voting power of the non-wealthy.
Today's private funding of political campaigns in the United States is more indirect in
shifting political power to the Donor Class, away from the Voting Class. The effect is to turn
governments to serve a financial and property-owning class instead of prosperity for the
economy at large. We thus are in a position much like that of Rome in 509 BC, when the kings
were overthrown by an oligarchy claiming to "free" their society from any power able to control
the wealthy. The call for "free markets" today is for deregulation of rentier wealth,
turning the economy into a free-for-all.
Classical Greece and Italy had a fatal flaw: From their inception they had no tradition of a
mixed public/private economy such as characterized in the Near East, whose palatial economy and
temples produced the main economic surplus and infrastructure. Lacking royal overrides, the
West never developed policies to prevent a creditor oligarchy from reducing the indebted
population to debt bondage, and foreclosing on the land of smallholders. Advocates of debt
amnesties were accused of "seeking kingship" in Rome, or aspiring to "tyranny"(in Greece).
JS: It seems to me that you're saying this economic failure is Antiquity's original
sin as well as fatal flaw. We have inherited a great philosophic and literary tradition from
them analyzing and lamenting this failure, but without a viable program to set it right.
MH: That insight unfortunately has been stripped out of the curriculum of classical
studies, just as the economics discipline sidesteps the phenomenon of wealth addiction. If you
take an economics course, the first thing you're taught in price theory is diminishing marginal
utility: The more of anything you have, the less you need it or enjoy it. You can't enjoy
consuming it beyond a point. But Socrates and Aristophanes emphasized, accumulating money is
not like eating bananas, chocolate or any other consumable commodity. Money is different
because, as Socrates said, it is addictive, and soon becomes an insatiable desire
[ἀπληστία, aplêstia ].
JS: Yes, I understand! Bananas are fundamentally different from money because you can
get sick of bananas, but you can never have too much money! In your forthcoming book, The
Collapse of Antiquity , you quote what Aristophanes says in his play Plutus (the god
of wealth and money). The old man Chremylus -- his name is based on the Greek word for money,
chrêmata [χρήματα] -- Chremylus and his slave
perform a duet in praise of Plutus as the prime cause of everything in the world, reciting a
long list. The point is that money is a singular special thing: "O Money-god, people never get
sick of your gifts. They get tired of everything else; they get tired of love and bread, of
music and honors, of treats and military advancement, of lentil soup, etc., etc. But they never
get tired of money. If a man has thirteen talents of silver -- 13 million dollars, say -- he
wants sixteen; and if he gets sixteen, he will want forty, and so forth, and he will complain
of being short of cash the whole time."
MH: Socrates's problem was to figure out a way to have government that did not serve
the wealthy acting in socially destructive ways. Given that his student Platowas an aristocrat
and that Plato's students in the Academy werearistocratsas well, how can you have a government
run by philosopher-kings? Socrates's solution was not practical at that time: Rulers should not
have money or property. But all governments were based on the property qualification, so his
proposal for philosopher-kings lacking wealth was utopian. And like Plato and other Greek
aristocrats, they disapproved of debt cancellations, accusing these of being promoted by
populist leaders seeking to become tyrants.
JS: Looking over the broad sweep of Roman history, your book describes how, century
after century, oligarchs were whacking every energetic popular advocate whose policies
threatened their monopoly of political power, and their economic power as creditors and
privatizers of the public domain, Rome's ager publicus , for themselves.
I brought with me on the train Cæsar's Gallic War . What do you think of
Cæsar and how historians have interpreted his role?
MH: The late 1 st century BC was a bloodbath for two generations before
Cæsar was killed by oligarchic senators. I think his career exemplifies what Aristotle
said of aristocracies turning into democracies: He sought to take the majority of citizens into
their own camp to oppose the aristocratic monopolies of landholding, the courts and political
power.
Cæsar sought to ameliorate the oligarchic Senate's worst abuses that were stifling
Rome's economy and even much of the aristocracy. Mommsen is the most famous historian
describing how rigidly and unyieldingly the Senate opposed democratic attempts to achieve a
role in policy-making for the population at large, or to defend the debtors losing their land
to creditors, who were running the government for their own personal benefit. He described how
Sulla strengthened the oligarchy against Marius, and Pompey backed the Senate against Caesar.
But competition for the consulship and other offices was basically just a personal struggle
among rival individuals, not rival concrete political programs. Roman politics was autocratic
from the very start of the Republic when the aristocracy overthrew the kings in 509 BC. Roman
politics during the entire Republic was a fight by the oligarchy against democracy and the
populace as a whole.
The patricians used violence to "free" themselves from any public authority able to check
their own monopoly of power, money and land acquisition by expropriating smallholders and
grabbing the public domain being captured from neighboring peoples. Roman history from one
century to the next is a narrative of killing advocates of redistributing public land to the
people instead of letting it be grabbed by the patricians, or who called for a debt
cancellation or even just an amelioration of the cruel debts laws.
On the one hand, Mommsen idolized Cæsar as if he were a kind of revolutionary
democrat. But given the oligarchy's total monopoly on political power and force, Mommsen
recognized that under these conditions there could not be any political solution to Rome's
economic polarization and impoverishment. There could only be anarchy or a dictatorship. So
Caesar's role was that of a Dictator -- vastly outnumbered by his opposition.
A generation before Caesar, Sulla seized power militarily, bringing his army to conquer Rome
and making himself Dictator in 82 BC. He drew up a list of his populist opponents to be
murdered and their estates confiscated by their killers. He was followed by Pompey, who could
have become a dictator but didn't have much political sense, so Caesar emerged victorious.
Unlike Sulla or Pompey, he sought a more reformist policy to check the senatorial corruption
and self-dealing.
The oligarchic Senate's only "political program" was opposition to "kingship" or any such
power able to check its land grabbing and corruption. The oligarchs assassinated him, as they
had killed Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in 133 and 121, the praetor Asellio who sought to
alleviate the population's debt burden in 88 by trying to enforce pro-creditor laws, and of
course the populist advocates of debt cancellation such as Catiline and his supporters.
Would-be reformers were assassinated from the very start of the Republic after the aristocracy
overthrew Rome's kings.
JS: If Caesar had been successful, what kind of ruler might he have been?
MH: In many ways he was like the reformer-tyrants of the 7 th and 6
th centuries in Corinth, Megara and other Greek cities. They all were members of the
ruling elite. He tried to check the oligarchy's worst excesses and land grabs, and like
Catiline, Marius and the Gracchi brothers before him, to ameliorate the problems faced by
debtors. But by his time the poorer Romans already had lost their land, so the major debts were
owed by wealthier landowners. His bankruptcy law only benefited the well-to-do who had bought
land on credit and could not pay their moneylenders as Rome's long Civil War disrupted the
economy. The poor already had been ground down. They supported him mainly for his moves toward
democratizing politics at the expense of the Senate.
JS: After his assassination we get Caesar's heir Octavian, who becomes Augustus. So
we have the official end of the Republic and the beginning of a long line of emperors, the
Principate. Yet despite the Senate's authority being permanently diminished, there is continued
widening of economic polarization. Why couldn't the Emperors save Rome?
MH: Here's an analogy for you: Just as nineteenth-century industrial reformers
thought that capitalism's political role was to reform the economy by stripping away the legacy
of feudalism -- a hereditary landed aristocracy and predatory financial system based mainly on
usury -- what occurred was not an evolution of industrial capitalism into socialism. Instead,
industrial capitalism turned into finance capitalism. In Rome you had the end of the senatorial
oligarchy followed not by a powerful, debt-forgiving central authority (as Mommsen believed
that Caesar was moving toward, and as many Romans hoped that he was moving towards), but to an
even more polarized imperial garrison state.
JS: That's indeed what happened. The emperors who ruled in the centuries after
Cæsar insisted on being deified -- they were officially "divine," according to their own
propaganda. Didn't any of them have the potential power to reverse the Roman economy's
ever-widening polarization of the, like the Near Eastern "divine kings" from the third
millennium BC into the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and even the Persian Empire in the first
millennium?
MH: The inertia of Rome's status quo and vested interests among patrician nobility
was so strong that emperors didn't have that much power. Most of all, they didn't have a
conceptual intellectual framework for changing the economy's basic structure as economic life
became de-urbanized and shifted to self-sufficient quasi-feudal manor estates. Debt amnesties
and protection of small self-sufficient tax-paying landholders as the military base was
achieved only in the Eastern Roman Empire, in Byzantium under the 9 th – and
10 th -century emperors (as I've described in my history of debt cancellations in
and forgive them their debts ).
The Byzantine emperors were able to do what Western Roman emperors could not. They reversed
the expropriation of smallholders and annulled their debts in order to keep a free tax-paying
citizenry able to serve in the army and provide public labor duties. But by the 11
th and 12 th centuries, Byzantium's prosperity enabled its oligarchy to
create private armies of their own to fight against centralized authority able to prevent their
grabbing of land and labor.
It seems that Rome's late kings did something like this. That is what attracted immigrants
to Rome and fueled its takeoff. But with prosperity came rising power of patrician families,
who moved to unseat the kings. Their rule was followed by a depression and walkouts by the bulk
of the population to try and force better policy. But that could no be achieved without
democratic voting power, so faith was put in personal leader -- subject to patrician violence
to abort any real economic democracy.
In Byzantium's case, the tax-avoiding oligarchy weakened the imperial economy to the point
where the Crusaders were able to loot and destroy Constantinople. Islamic invaders were then
able to pick up the pieces.
The most relevant point of studying history today should be how the economic conflict
between creditors and debtors affected the distribution of land and money. Indeed, the tendency
of a wealthy overclass to pursue self-destructive policies that impoverish society should be
what economic theory is all about. We'll discuss this in Part 4.
John Siman: I want to spell out the implications of the points that Socrates brought
up, and with which you and I agree. That leaves the question facing us today: Is the American
oligarchy and state as rapacious as that of Rome? Or is it universally the nature of oligarchy
in any historical setting to be rapacious? And if so, where is it all leading?
Michael Hudson : If Antiquity had followed the "free market" policies of modern
neoliberal economics, the Near East, Greece and Rome would never have gained momentum. Any such
"free market" avoiding mutual aid and permitting a wealthy class to emerge and enslave the bulk
of the population by getting it into debt and taking its land would have shrunk, or been
conquered from without or by revolution from within. That's why the revolutions of the 7
th century BC, led to reformers subsequently called "tyrants" in Greece (and "kings"
in Rome) were necessary to attract populations rather than reduce them to bondage.
So of course it is hard for mainstream economists to acknowledge that Classical Antiquity
fell because it failed to regulate and tax the wealthy financial and landowning classes, and
failed to respond to popular demands to cancel personal debts and redistribute the land that
had been monopolized by the wealthy.
The wealth of the Greek and Roman oligarchies was the ancient counterpart to today's
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector, and their extractive and predatory behavior
is what destroyed Antiquity. The perpetuation of this problem even today, two thousand years
later, should establish that the debt/credit dynamic and polarization of wealth is a central
problem of Western civilization.
JS : So what were -- and are -- the political and social dynamic at work?
MH : The key is the concept of wealth addiction and how it leads to hubris --
arrogance that seeks to increase power in ways that hurt other people. Hubris is not merely
over-reaching; it is socially injurious. The wealthy or power injure other people knowingly, to
establish their power and status.
That is what Aristophanes meant when his characters say that wealth is not like bananas or
lentil soup. Wealth has no object but itself . Wealth is status -- and also political
control. The creditor's wealth is the debtor's liability. The key to its dynamic is not
production and consumption, but assets and liabilities -- the economy's balance sheet. Wealth
and status in the sense of who/whom. It seeks to increase without limit, and Socrates and
Aristotle found the major example to be creditors charging interest for lending "barren" money.
Interest had to be paid out of the debtor's own product, income or finally, forfeiture of
property; creditors did not provide means of making interest to pay off the loan.
This is the opposite of Austrian School theories that interest is a bargain to share the
gains to be made from the loan "fairly" between creditor and debtor. It also is the opposite of
neoclassical price theory. The economics taught in universities today is based on a price
theory that does not even touch on this point. The liberty that oligarchs claim is the right to
indebt the rest of society and then demand full payment or forfeiture of the debtor's
collateral. This leads to massive expropriations, as did the Junk Mortgage foreclosures after
2008 when President Obama failed to write down debts to realistic market values for real estate
financed on loans far beyond the buyer's ability to pay. The result was 10 million
foreclosures.
Yet today's mainstream economics treats the normal tendency to polarize between creditors
and debtors, the wealthy and the have-nots, as an anomaly. It has been the norm for the last
five thousand years, but economics sidesteps actual empirical history as if it is an anomaly in
the fictional parallel universe created by the mainstream's unrealistic assumptions. Instead of
being a science, such economics is science fiction.It trains students in cognitive dissonance
that distracts them from understanding Classical Antiquity and the driving dynamics of Western
civilization.
JS: This gets us back to the question of whether universities should just be shut
down and started up all over again.
MH: You don't shut them down, you create a new group of universities with a different
curriculum. The path of least resistance is to house this more functional curriculum in new
institutions. That's what America's Republican and pro-industrial leaders recognized after the
Civil War ended in 1865. They didn't shut down Harvard and Yale and Princeton and the Christian
free-trade Anglophile colleges. They created state colleges funded by land grants, such as
Cornell in upstate New York, and business schools such as the Wharton School at the University
of Pennsylvania, endowed by industrialists to providing an economic logic for the state's
steel-making and related industrial protectionism. The result was an alternative economics to
describe how America should develop as what they saw as a new civilization, free of the
vestiges of Europe's feudal privileges, absentee ownership and colonialist mentality.
The Republicans and industrialists saw that America's prestige colleges had been founded
long before the Civil War, basically as religious colleges to train the clergy. They taught
British free trade theory, serving the New England commercial and banking interests and
Southern plantation owners. But free trade kept the United States dependent on England. My book
America's Protectionist Takeoff describes how the American School of Political Economy,
led by Henry Carey and E. Peshine Smith (William Seward's law partner), developed an
alternative to what was being taught in the religious colleges.
This led to a new view of the history of Western civilization and America's role in fighting
against entrenched privilege. William Draper's Intellectual Development of Europe , and
Andrew Dixon White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology saw the United
States as breaking free from the feudal aristocracies that were a product of the way in which
antiquity collapsed, economically and culturally.
JS : So business schools were originally progressive!
MH : Surprising as it may seem, the answer is Yes, to the extent that they described
the global economy as tending to polarize under free trade and an absence of government
protectionism, not to become more equal. They incorporated technology, energy-use and the
environmental consequences of trade patterns into economic theory, such as soil depletion
resulting from plantation monocultures. Mainstream economics fought against such analysis
because it advocated markets "free" for polluters, "free" for nations to pursue policies that
made them poorer and dependent on foreign credit.
JS : So this is how the Wharton School's first professor of economics, Simon Patten,
one of the founders of American sociology, fits into this anti- rentier tradition! That
is such a revelation to me! They developed an analysis of technology's effects on the economy,
of monopoly pricing and economic rent as unearned income that increases the cost of living and
cost of production. They explained the benefits of public infrastructure investment. Today that
is called "socialism," but it was industrial capitalists who took the lead in urging such
public investment, so as to lower their cost of doing business.
MH : The first U.S. business schools in the late 19 th century described
rentiers as unproductive. That is why today's neoliberals are trying to rewrite the
history of Institutionalism in a way that expurgates the Americans who wanted the government to
provide public infrastructure to make America a low-cost economy, undersell England and other
countries, and evolve into the industrial giant it became by the 1920s.
JS : That was Simon Patten's teaching at the Wharton School -- government-subsidized
public infrastructure as the fourth factor of production.
MH : Yes. America's ruling political class tried to make the United States a dominant
economy instead of a rentier economy of landlords and financial manipulators.
JS : How did the robber barons fit into this story?
MH : Not as industrialists or manufacturers, but as monopolists opposed by the
industrial interests. It was Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting and the Republicans that enacted
the Sherman antitrust act. Its spirit was continued by Franklin Roosevelt.
JS :Is today's economy a second age of robber barons?
MH : It's becoming a second Gilded Age. An abrupt change of direction in economic
trends occurred after Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were elected in 1979/80. The result
has been to invert what the 19 th -century economists understood to be a free market
-- that is, a market free from a privileged hereditary class living on unearned income in the
form of land rent, monopoly rent and financial extraction.
JS : I was in my first few years of college when Thatcher came in in 1979, and when
Reagan was elected in 1980. I asked my economics professors what was going on, but I could not
find a single professor to coherently describe the U-turn that was occurring. It certainly
wasn't in Paul Samuelson's textbook that we were given.
MH : There's little logic for neoliberalism beyond a faith that short-term greed is
the best way to optimize long-term growth. It is natural for the wealthiest classes to have
this faith. Neoliberalism doesn't look at the economy as a social system, and it excludes as
"externalities" concerns with the environment, debt dependency and economic polarization. It
only asks how to make a short-term hit-and-run gain, regardless of whether this is done in a
way that has a positive or negative overall social effect. Realistic economic logic is social
in scope, and distinguishes between earned and unearned income. That is why economists such as
Simon Patten and Thorstein Veblen decided to start afresh and create the discipline of
sociology, to go beyond narrow individualistic economics being taught.
Today's mathematical economics is based on circular reasoning that treats all that has
happened as having been inevitable. It is all survival of the fittest, so it seems that there
is no alternative. This policy conclusion is built into economic methodology. If we weren't the
fittest, we wouldn't have survived, so by definition (that is, circular reasoning), any
alternative is less than fit.
Regarding the fact that you had to read Samuelson when you were in college, he was famous
for his Factor Price Equalization Theorem claiming to prove mathematically that everybody and
every nation tends naturally to become more and more equal (if government stands aside). He
denied that the tendency of the global economy is to polarize, not equalize. The political
essence of this equilibrium theory is its claim that economies tend to settle in a stable
balance. In reality they polarize and then collapse if they do not reverse their polarizing
financial and productivity and wealth dynamics are.
The starting point of economic theorizing should explain the dynamic that lead economics to
polarize and collapse. That is the lesson of studying antiquity that we have discussed in our
earlier talks. Writers in classical antiquity, like Bronze Age Near Eastern rulers before them
and the Biblical prophets, recognized that a rentier economy tends to destroy the
economy's productivity and widespread prosperity, and ultimately its survival. In today's world
the Finance, Insurance,and Real Estate [FIRE] sector and monopolies are destroying the rest of
the economy, using financial wealth to take over the government and disable its ability to
prevent their operating in corrosive and predatory ways.
JS : Why aren't more people up in arms?
MH : They're only up in arms if they believe that there is an alternative. As long as
the vested interests can suppress any idea that there is an alternative, that matters
don't have to be this way, people just get depressed. In our third interview you spoke about
Socrates and the Stoics producing a philosophy of lamentation and resignation. By his day there
seemed no solution except to denounce wealth. When matters got much worse in the Roman Empire,
wealth was abhorred. That became the message of Christianity.
What is needed is to define the scope of the alternative that you want. How can the economy
grow when households, business, and government have to pay more and more of their revenue to
the financial sector, which then turns around and lends its interest and related income out to
indebt the economy even more? The effect is to extract even more income. Rising government debt
and tax cuts for the rentiers lead to the privatization of public infrastructure and
natural monopolies. Higher prices are charged for tolls to pay for public healthcare,
education, roads and other services that were expected to be provided for free a century ago.
Financialized privatization thus creates a high-rent, high-cost economy -- the opposite of
industrial capitalism evolving into socialism to finally free society from rentier
income.
JS: Wouldn't that be based on the insatiable desire
[ἀπληστία, aplêstia ] for money and the
super-rich [ὑπέρπλουτοι,
hyper-ploutoi ] oligarchs in Book 8 of Plato's Republic ? So we get back to my
question: Is the behavior of the super-rich a constant in human nature?
MH: Money-love
[φιλοχρηματία,
philochrêmatia ] has always been extreme because wealth is addictive. But their
dynamic of credit -- other peoples' debts -- increasing at compound interest is mathematized
and the economy is put on automatic pilot to self-destruct. Its business plan to "create
wealth" by making financial gains at somebody else's expense, without limit. This kind of
financial wealth is a zero-sum activity. The wealth of the creditor class, the One Percent, is
achieved by indebting the 99 Percent.
JS: Why is it a zero-sum activity?
MH: A zero-sum activity is when one party's gain is another's loss. Instead of income
paid to creditors being reinvested in means of production to help the economy grow, it's spent
on buying more assets. The most wasteful examples are corporate stock buyback programs and
financial raids. And the largest effect of financialization occurs as loans and Quantitative
Easing simply bid up the price of real estate, stocks, bonds and other assets. The effect is to
put housing and a retirement income further out of range of people who have to live by working
for wages and salaries instead of living off absentee ownership, interest and financial
asset-price gains.
JS: Why is this being done instead of investing in the economy to help the population
live a better and more prosperous life?
MH: The tax and regulatory system is set up to make financial gains or create
monopoly privileges. That is quicker and more certain, especially in an economy shrinking as a
result of financialization and the austerity it imposes. It's hard to make profits by investing
in a shrinking economy suffering from debt deflation and a squeeze on family budgets to pay for
health care, education and other basic needs.
JS: So it becomes more about extraction. Let's come back to Global Climate Change and
rising sea levels as a foundation of American foreign policy.
MH: Since the 19th century, American policy has been based on the recognition that
GDP growth reflects rising energy use per capita. Rising productivity is almost identical with
the curve of energy use per worker. That was the basic premise of E. Peshine Smith in 1853, and
subsequent writers, whom I describe in America's Protectionist Takeoff: 1918-1914 . The
policy conclusion is that if you can control the source of energy -- which remains mainly oil
and coal -- then you can control global GDP growth. That is why Dick Cheney invaded Iraq: to
grab its oil. It is why Trump announced his intention to topple Venezuela and take its oil.
If other nations are obliged to buy their oil from the United States or its companies, then
it's in a monopoly position to turn off their electricity (like the United States did to
Venezuela) and hurt their economies if they don't acquiesce in a world system that lets
American financial firms come in and buy out their most productive monopolies and privatize
theirpublic domain. That's why America's foreign policy is to monopolize the world's oil, gas
and coal in order to have a stranglehold on the rate of growth of other countries by being able
to deny them energy. It's like denying countries food in order to starve them out. The aim isto
exploit Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America what Rome exploited its Empire.
JS: Would you be comfortable using words like evil to describe what's going on
now?
MH : Evil essentially is predatory and destructive behavior. Socrates said that it
ultimately is ignorance, because nobody would set out intentionally to do it. But in that case,
evil would be an educational system that imposes ignorance and tunnel vision, distracting
attention from understanding how economic society actually works in destructive ways. On that
logic, post-classical neoliberal economics and the Chicago Boys are evil because their ideology
breeds ignorance and leads its believers to act in ways that are injurious to society,
preventing personal fulfillment through economic growth. Evil is a policy that makes most of
society poorer, simply in order to enrich an increasingly wealth-addictive rentier layer
at the top. Werner Sombart described the bourgeoisie as floating like a globules of fat on top
of a soup.
JS: This is now happening on a path that follows an exponential extreme. I guess
global warming makes it particularly evil. We're not simply talking about taking advantage of
other people within a society, we're talking about destruction of the planet and its
environment.
MH: Economists dismiss this as an "externality," that is, outside the scope of their
models. So these models are deliberately ignorant. You could say that this makes them evil.
JS: That is what I've suspected since we started the Iraq War in 2003.
MH: America's military buildup, its anti-environmental policy and global wars are
part of the same symbiotic strategy. The reason why America will not be part of a real effort
to mitigate global warming is that its policy is still based on grabbing the oil resources of
the Near East, Venezuela, and everywhere else that it can. Also, the oil industry is the most
tax-exempt and politically powerful sector. If it also happens to be the primary cause of
global warming, that is viewed as just collateral damage to America's attempt to control the
world by controlling the oil supply. In that sense the environmental impasse is a byproduct of
American imperialism.
JS: What's hopeful in the United States right now? What is a possible good
outcome?
MH: T he precondition would be for people to realize that there is an
alternative. Starting with wiping out of student debts, they can realize that the overall debt
overhead can be wiped out without hurting the economy -- and indeed, rescuing it from the
financial rentier class inasmuch as all debts on the liabilities side of the balance
sheet have their counterpart on the asset side as the savings of today's financial oligarchy,
which is doing to the U.S. economy what Rome's Senate did to the ancient world.
JS: How can people proceed from here?
MH: Understanding must come first. Once you have to have a sense of history, you
realize that there is an alternative. You also see what happens when a creditor
oligarchy gets strong enough to prevent any public power from writing down debts and to prevent
attempts to tax it.
You have to do to America today what the Republicans did after the Civil War: You have to
have a new university curriculum dealing with economic history, the history of economic thought
and the real world's long-term development.
JS: And what would be the premise for such economic history?
MH: T he starting point is to realize that civilization began in the ancient Near
East, and made a turn to oppose a strong public regulatory sector in Classical Greece and Rome.
The long-term tension is the eternal fight by the oligarchy of creditors and large land owners
to reduce the rest of society to serfdom, and to oppose strong rulers empowered to act in the
economy's long-term interest by creating checks against this polarization.
JS : So how much longer does this go on -- for months, for years, for decades?
MH : It always goes on longer than you think it will. Inertia has a great elastic
self-reinforcing power. Polarization will widen until people believe that there is an
alternative and decide to fight for it. Two things are required for this to happen: First, a
large proportion of people need to see that the economy is impoverishing them, and that the
existing picture of what is happening is misleading. Instead of wealth trickling down, it is
defying gravity and sucking income up from the base of the economic pyramid. People are having
to work harder just to stay in place, until their life style breaks down.
Second, people must realize that it doesn't have to be this way. There is an
alternative
JS : Right now most people think that government regulation and progressive taxation
will make things worse, and that the wealthy are job creators, not job destroyers. They think
that the system needs to be bolstered, not replaced, because the alternative is "socialism" --
that is, what the Soviets did, not what Franklin Roosevelt was doing. But today bailing out the
banks and giving subsidies to new employers is said to be for our own good.
MH : That's what the Romans told their provinces. Everything they did was always to
preserve "good order," meaning open opportunities for their own wealth grabbing. They never
said they were out to destroy and loot other societies. Madeline Albright followed this
rhetorical pattern in describing as being, like the Romans and France's brutal mission
civilisatrice , a program to uplift the world free-market efficiency. For performing this
service, the imperial power takes all the money that its colonies, provinces and allies can
generate. That's why the U.S. meddles in foreign politics, as we have just seen in Ukraine,
Libya and Syria.
JS : You've described the greatest meddling as distorting the narrative of history to
depict creditor and rentier drives toward oligarchy as being democratic and helping to raise
living standards and culture. Your books show just the opposite.
MH : Thank you. (Republished from
Naked Capitalism by permission of author or representative)
Questions for Dr. Hudson: Why should a public banking system charge interest at all on loans?
Could they not merely charge a one-time service fee to cover the cost of loan administration
and a one-time insurance fee to cover the costs of defaulting on the loan? After all, they
are not actually loaning money – they are creating money at minimal risk to the bank.
Charging interest to create money strikes me as mere theft.
Charging interest to create money strikes me as mere theft.
The school of Salamanca is where this idea of interest on money was codified, where the
Jesuit priests proclaimed it as a loss of wants. That is, since people loaned out their
money, they didn't get use of it, so they should be paid for their loss.
If you examine how banking works, banks hypothecate new money the moment you sign a debt
instrument. Both the new bank credit and debt instrument pop into being simultaneously.
To ask for compounding interest on this simple legerdemain is an outrageous abuse, so you
are right it is theft.
There are situations where it is not usurious. For example, Schacht's MefoBills scheme,
the interest fluxed outward from Reichsbank to the bill holder. A bill would be
presented to industry, and said industry would then start work making goods. Bill would then
be presented for discount, which is fancy way of saying paid for, or paid off. Upon discount,
bill would be examined to see if goods were produced. Then the bill would be paid its full
face value AND the interest it accrued.
Reichsmarks flowed from Reichsbank to the bill holder, who was paid interest. The bill
holder then spent his new Reichsmarks into the money supply.
Benjamin Franklin's public bank spent into the commons the extra money necessary
for debtors to pay interest on their loans. The commons were improved, so one could view this
as non usurious, even though it was positive interest. For the most part, FEES are all that
should accompany new loans, not compounding interest.
Canada had a quasi sovereign economy 1938 to 1974 and spent debt free into the
commons and on public infrastructure, their economy did not polarize toward creditors. The
Ministry of Finance owned all the common shares of Bank of Canada. BOC was a crown bank.
Note in all the "good" examples, interest flowed outward from an exogenous creator toward
the population. In bad examples of interest, it drains purchasing power from the
population.
By the way, a MEFOBILL scheme today could be used to release debts. The bill is created
exogenously by Treasury or even a shell company. The bill has a drawer, payee and drawee. It
is like a check. It channels toward a specific goal. For example, if you wanted to pay off
student debts, then the bill would aim at the student, who then presents bill to bank holding
student's debt instrument. Bill would eventually make its way to the FED through bank reserve
loops, and FED would expand their ledger. FED would use their keyboard to make new dollars,
which flow back into private bank system to pay off the students debt instrument. So double
entry mechanic laws are not abrogated. Student's debt disappeared, and Mefobill stays on FED
ledger forever, not accruing interest. Or, you could specify a small amount of interest to
the bank as a fee for their operations.
U.S. could use Mefobill scheme to lure industry back to the U.S. as it specifically
channels toward a goal.
The money system is something we humans created, it can be used for good or ill. To
paraphrase Michael, we need good civil law that codes for morality.
That was a soul-transforming read. It put into words what I could never put into words, but
on an instinctive level I have always felt these things. I have always had this irrational
hatred of bankers, landlords, capitalists, and any one else who dances to that faggy Gordon
Gekko tune. But I could never figure out why, let alone explain it clearly. This article has
done that for me right here and right now today. I am so grateful. This one is a keeper, now
I finally understand my hate. And I am proud of it. This is why Hitler was a good person, he
made these little bitch finance fags squeal and screech like the untermenschen they really
are.
It is interesting to note that the facts explored in this article corroborate and
synchronize with the facts explored in an amateur work titled "The Sumerian Swindle: How the
Jews Betrayed Mankind." If you look you can print the book free off the internet
somewhere.
From now on I only see humans in two distinct groups: productive people who work for a
living, and parasitic leeches who exploit the former. Twas ever thus. Let us successfully
genocide the latter in the near future.
The book sounds extremely interesting. I will probably get it, but that thing about the
Kaiser is a bad mistake. The German nation had been subjected to France and its proxies
marching across it for centuries. As always happens it unified in the face of threat, but
financially the structure was still harking back to the Holy Roman Empire. Being
decentralised as far as raising revenues was concerned, the Kaiser was unable to exert the
full strength of Germany. The Weimar government instituted reforms were intended to remedy
that for defensive purposes, but unfortunately Hitler inherited those reforms and that extra
wherewithal was a major reason for the early military successes in WW2 that set the world
agog.
Germany began to be a mixed economy in the decades leading up to World War I. But it had
a mentally retarded king whom they didn't know how to restrain, given their cultural faith
in royalty. China is of course the most successful recent mixed economy.
Dubious.France had financed massive military preparation by Russia, and Poincaire (cousin
of the brilliant physicist) was fixated with recovering Alsace and Lorraine (where he was
born). The military situation was gravely deteriorating for Germany partly because Germany.
The Kaiser did not attack France in 1905 when Britain had a tiny army and Russia was in
chaos. That was the craziest thing he did as leader.
Mr. Hudson thinks we can get the desirable results of Divine Kingship without having Divine
Kings, simply by enacting "laws" that promote a broad distribution of wealth. But he also
says that the oligarchy makes the laws and appoints the "elected" lawmakers. So he's engaged
in an exercise in wishful thinking. There is no democratic path to his desired result.
An excellent tour de force completely relevant to the major problems we face today, so
thank you , Ron Unz!
and turn the government into a vehicle to help them exploit the rest of society.
It's extremely obvious that's is exactly what our "constitution" was designed to do.
Hudson's insistence that debt must be government controlled runs into the problem
consistently, which both he and the interviewer discuss.
Essentially, the problem is that whoever gets the power will abuse it. "The government" is
no more a disinterested group of parties than the oligarchs or the plutocrats. The best
answer is to have a noble ruling class, but good luck with that; it will never happen at
least on a permanent basis.
So what's the answer? I wish I knew
The best [the Greek philosophers] could do was to inspire and educate individuals
I highly doubt anyone can do much more, but the last thing to do is to hope for some
Messiah, especially a rich one. Are you tRumpeteers listening?
PS: I liked the mention of Aristophanes. All of his plays are as instructive as they are
amusing and should be read by all. Same with Lucian of Samosata and Juvenal to mention just a
few.
JS said: "Right now most people think that government regulation and progressive taxation
will make things worse,"
Er, no, most people do not "think" that [ if they "think" at all].
They mostly "think" the exact opposite.
Due to their public [ie government funded] er,"education" [ie brainwashing], they are
actually dumb enough to believe that more government, and more regulations will make things
better for them, despite the fact that more than any other factor, it is the size and scope
of government that has directly caused the financial problems most of them are now
experiencing. "Stupid is a stupid does".
In fact, more, bigger government and more regulations will only further increase poverty
and make things even worse for them all than they are today.
This just in:
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
Government doesn't work" Harry Browne
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Everything government touches turns to crap" Ringo Starr
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
There was no concept of linear progress in Antiquity. They thought that there was only
one way to do things, so any reform must be the way the world was meant to be in the very
beginning.
The Hebrews had their liberation from captivity, Hesiod had his three prior ages "before
there was iron," Odysseus travels the world observing the various ways of men, Plato
envisions a radical transformation of human society, Aristotle compares the constitutions of
various Greek city-states, Thucydides resorts to archaeology to show that the Athenians were
not the original inhabitants of the Attic Peninsula.
It's not difficult to come up with what seem to be counter examples to Hudson's assertion
that there was no "linear progress" and no vision of other ways of doing things in Antiquity.
Ancient Mediterranean societies did see humanity as moving in a direction, evolving by
discovery and by making new institutions to address novel problems.
I found that peculiar as well. Another thing that was out of place was the "deification"
of Teddy Roosevelt and his so called trust busting as well as FDR's continuously "evolving"
New Deals. Both Roosevelts and their programs were tRump-like frauds whose main interest was
self aggrandizement at whatever cost.
Like tRump, the rhetoric was grand but the motive and execution left much to be desired.
While I get what Hudson is saying when he sez "there oughta be a law," I think history has
proven, repeatedly, that while there's a possibility that there ought to be one, it's not
likely it'll do much good, and certainly no permanent good.
The greatest debt creator in the history of America is the zionists privately owned FED and
the zionist owned central banks in every country in the world that create money out of thin
air and charge the goyim/proles for the use of this zionist created charade, which started in
1913 here in the zio/US with the diabolical draconian demonic FED.
Free America, abolish the FED and return to government created , debt free money as was
the case prior to December 23, 1913!
@G.
Poulin G. Poulin says: "Mr. Hudson thinks we can get the desirable results of Divine
Kingship without having Divine Kings, simply by enacting "laws" that promote a broad
distribution of wealth. "
Yup. The whole, as per usual, "benevolent dictator" fantasy writ large, yet once again. It
never stops.
You'd think that by now, this late in the game, and given history, that most people would
have finally figured out that government "solutions" never worked , and never can, or
will.
But no, luckily for governments, there's always a plentiful supply of new, brainwashed
dreamer/fantasists [or "suckers" as P.T Barnum reportedly called them], who are ever more
eager for a government that does what they think it should do, and who "think" that it/they
actually will, despite all the historical evidence directly contradicting their inane
fantasies.
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the
government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the
government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of
kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
" idealists and realists begin to get on each other's nerves. But the real difference is
in the capacity for appreciating the immense gap of blue inane which separates earth from
heaven, and in the realist's unwillingness to assume that men have angels' wings. "
@onebornfree
oneborn free, your screed is you projecting fears about abusive government.
Hudson just explained in historical terms that it is only properly constructed government
that can reign in Oligarchy. It is clear that society WILL polarize toward creditors if
certain safeguards are not put in place.
So, you will have to come to grips with your cognitive dissonance.
Hudson also sets the framework for governments "proper role." Anything outside of that
role is government overstepping its bounds.
By providing the framework, Hudson is doing the world a tremendous service, and as such he
will go down as one of the great men of history.
New glasses are being put on your nose, but you prefer to wear your old glasses that make
you see improperly?
It reminds me of all the wishful thinking about China, how their ghost cities are going to
do them in, and their economy cannot keep doing so well, and so on. It is people not
believing what is right in front of their eyes, or their inability to see outside of their
brainwashed mentality.
Hudson says that public banks are an option for erasing debts.
China does this now with their state banks, which is one of their secret weapons.
In the mid 90's China swept all of their old communist era debt into the trash can. This
then made their "books" look good to Western Finance standards, and China was essentially
given MFN status.
Then it was game on! Wall Street soon greenmailed American industry to leave for China, to
then get some of that wage arbitrage. We are living in the aftermath of this civilization
destroying decision making by our ruling finance class.
China has helped the wall street finance class loot America, as China creates new Yuans
from their state banks to match their countries growth rate. These new Yuans have to be there
in order to swap for dollars won in trade. The dollars end up in China's state banks, and are
recycled back to the U.S. to buy TBills instead of buying goods from mainstreet.
Today and reality is staring you in the face. Look at it. America's finance class did
indeed export jobs and our patrimony, and china did indeed use their public banking system.
China is working for their people's benefit, while a traitor class of finance oligarchy is
working against the public interest in America.
Those of you who are against Public banks need to get real and look at actual data. For
example, the bank of North Dakota is a public bank and has a good track record. Please, use
data and think for yourself rather than being a brainwashed dupe.
Another way is to continue to use PRIVATE BANKS, and have public money. The money supply
is nationalized, not the bank. All new money comes into being from a monetary authority or
Treasury as per the constitution. Banks then become gyro, which is a fancy word for
inter-mediation. Banks stop making money with a new debt instrument, but instead only match
up new creditors and debtors with existing money.
Within each private bank are two piles of numbers: 1) Pile A is people's savings, which
preferably was debt free at inception 2) Pile B is government credit, or national credit.
National Credit can be channeled toward specific goals that the country has agreed is in
its interests.
You as a debtor can borrow from either pile. The national credit creates a debt instrument
that can be easily jubileed in the same easy way as could a debt instrument hypothecated at a
public bank.
Public banks to my mind are a little too close to government even though they have a good
history. Nationalizing the money supply instead is better. Why? A good percentage of supply
becomes floating money (debt free) and this component becomes a permanent inheritance to the
people, giving them freedom to do commerce. An economically free people are also politically
free.
@onebornfreeSavior? Nothing can stop what has been set in motion, namely, Earth's Sixth Mass
Extinction, as the climate shifts rapidly to a
New Cretaceous "hothouse" climate. Neither voting nor your anarchism can invalidate
scientific evidence. Apparently, you can't read, because McPherson's Paradox
explains humanity's conundrum in plain terms: (a) continuing to evaporate Earth's coal beds
and oil fields into the atmosphere ensures our quick extinction from global warming, and (b)
stopping fossil fuel use only hastens our demise, because of "global masking effect" or "
global dimming
." Do you really think that evaporating coal beds and oil fields into the atmosphere has no
consequences?
"[T]heir complete extinction (in the co-extinction scenario) was abrupt, and
happened far from their tolerance limits, and close to global diversity collapse (
around 5 °C of heating )"
Co-extinctions annihilate planetary life during extreme environmental change
(Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 16724, published 13 November 2018) http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35068-1
Remember, Trump has already promised 4 °C of heating is baked into the cake,
and stopping fossil fuel use would remove the "global dimming" effect of air pollution and
lead to a near instantaneous rise of 2°C. A true paradox has no solution.
1. Please use your commenting privilege to address the substance of the articles. The
sentence that you first quote is ancillary to this one, but you've plucked it out as a wedge
for your umpteenth anarchic strut.
2. Why so frequently insulting? I happen to share your general perspective, but if you're
prosletyzing your style stinks.
3. If nothing else, please realize that you only need to piss once on each hydrant to
leave your mark.
@Dutch
Boy Unfortunately, Dr. Hudson never attacks the "Elephant in the Room -- –The
Control of Economies by the Magic Jews." The Jews control all pathways including media,
social and economic which they will never relinquish because with the money they make they
control the world's politicians by using the greed of mankind against them.
The Jews use the Holocaust to intimidate stupid whites in Western Civilization with guilt
and control everything including our foreign policy to immigration. Civilization will not
survive as long as the power of the Jews continue to rule mankind.
@Dutch
Boy Consider that a 10 year loan at 4% now would then have a fee (simple, not even
compound interest) of 40% of the principle.
It defeats the purpose of a loan paying over time. Even the 20% down is for equity, not
prepayment of interest.
Or you could simply roll the fees in. There is a House for sale for $200,000. The bank
buys it but then to get ownership with lein, and you have to pay the bank $300,000 to cover
everything (do you get any equity before going positive?).
How about just saving money including gold in your mattress until you can afford
something?
@MEFOBILLS
Federal Reserve, TARP, and QE – the debts of the banksters were erased and they paid
themselves bonuses, and it took more cash that would pay off every mortgage of those who lost
their homes
Unfortunately, Dr. Hudson never attacks the "Elephant in the Room -- –The Control
of Economies by the Magic Jews."
Hudson does but in a peripheral way. See below. Our (((friends))) like to use their
capital rather than labor. They use usury as a weapon, and tend to be among the Oligarch
class. Why? Because their religion gives cover and sanction for predatory behavior. Note that
our friends adore Hillel. Jewish religion went off the rails after Hillel, and is now an
apologist for the creditor class, and hence against a balanced logos type world.
Hudson cannot go after the Jews, but I can and so can you. It is ok to point out where
Jewish ideology becomes "Crime Inc." In fact, I find the most moral people to be
anti-semites, so Hudson who obviously has a strong moral basis, is smart enough to NOT touch
the Jewish third rail, or he would become persona non-grata.
There is no question Hudson possesses a first class mind, and by not touching the third
rail he is preserving his career. It is up to us to decode what he is saying and we can be
more blunt about things.
You don't have to be Jewish to be a predator, and by association most of us can decode
what he is saying.
MH: Yes, but it ended with Rabbi Hillel and the Prozbul clause. Debtors had to sign this
clause at the end of their debt contracts saying that they waived their rights under the
Jubilee year in order to get a loan. That was why Jesus fought against the Pharisees and
the rabbinical leadership. That's what Luke 4 is all about
@jacques
sheete He also seems very keen on China's policy. From what I can make out this is
because the government loans the money and can cancel the debt. So China being locked into
growth by massively Keynesian policies that cannot be haltet for fear of global economic
collapse is a good thing it seems. Hmmm.
@tz1
Federal Reserve, TARP, and QE – the debts of the banksters were erased and they paid
themselves bonuses, and it took more cash that would pay off every mortgage of those who lost
their homes
Yes of course. It would have been much better to take over the banks and give the "bond
holders" a haircut.
What the haircut means is that the debt instrument cannot make claims on the future. The
amount it can claim is written down to what the real economy can pay.
Our financial oligarchy did not want to take a haircut, and since they own the government,
they made their politician puppets dance.
We cannot see what is in the bill till we pass the bill.
Some here have pointed out that democracy is a joke. Yes it is. Universal Suffrage
democracy, where any rube can vote is especially bad.
You do need a ruling class which looks like the people it rules over. This ruling class
also has to be servants of their people.
China's ruling class is constantly polling their people to get data on how they are doing.
If a politician is found to be corrupt, they are killed or ejected. Think of it like your
body, bad elements and parasites are attacked by the immune system, otherwise you (the host)
will die.
@Biff
"You're a broken record that needs to be tossed up in the air in front of a twelve gauge."
Seem like a lot of trouble to go to – especially as I might be carrying a 12 gauge,
or similar, myself
This just in: there's an "ignore" button – I suggest you learn how to use it.
But regardless of whether the "commniunist" label is completely accurate or not, he's just
yet another in a long line of naive intellectuals who thinks that the government can solve
problems, problems it alone created.
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
@tz1
Fee's on a loan should cover the bank's cost, which is a tiny fraction of what they take now
in the form of usury.
Think closely on this, the bank makes a loan, and it is only a matter of typing of a debt
instrument. Today with computers that amounts to a few minutes of work. They then on-sale the
debt instrument to another, usually TBTF bank, and get rid of any risk.
The better way is for people to pool their savings, and the bank is gyro. Debtor then buys
a house borrowing your savings. The old savings and loan system worked like this.
In Canada, when they had a sovereign banking system (1938 to 1974) they used trusts. Banks
were not allowed to hypothecate new housing loans. Trusts and savings and loans both pool
existing money and loan it out.
It was a beneficial cycle where the young borrowed from the old, and the old benefited
from some interest income, to then buy goods and services produced by the young.
Interest isn't always bad, but you have to look at it in context. About 70% of debt
instruments resident at banks are hypothecated against land. This is so finance oligarchy can
GRAB THE LAND in a depression via swaps or other schemes. Depressions are inevitable when M2
is always draining to pay debts at interest.
In the case of Canada's trust system, the interest was cycling back to the young (interest
was pointing outward to the population) to buy goods and services they produced.
@MEFOBILLS
MEFOBILLS says: "Hudson just explained in historical terms that it is only properly
constructed government that can reign in Oligarchy. It is clear that society WILL polarize
toward creditors if certain safeguards are not put in place.So, you will have to come to
grips with your cognitive dissonance. Hudson also sets the framework for governments "proper
role." Anything outside of that role is government overstepping its bounds."
Short answer: "The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is
always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
MEFOBILLS says: "Hudson also sets the framework for governments "proper role.""
This just in: it's "proper role" [ in the US] was already [supposedly ]"set" via
the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and more famously via a coup
d'etat which resulted in the scam called "The Constitution and Bill of Rights" .
Although the Constitution remains a scam to this day, a return to its supposed limits
would, at least temporarily, drastically downsize the federal government, which would be step
in the right direction.
For government is the problem, never the solution.
But of course, yourself [and most others here] remain too brainwashed [by the government,
and with your money] to ever understand that
Ya gotta watch out when someone takes Marx's economic observations (which were impressive) as
an automatic pass for his social prescriptions (which were a gateway to hell on earth).
@Dutch
Boy As a matter of logic aren't those creators of money reducing the value of the money
held by those who have saved to get it? So doesn't fairness require that they use interest
rates to maimtain the stability of the currency's value?
@Max So
you advocate euthanasia (when you are feeling nice rather than cruel and vengeful) of the
rapidly increasing retired population? Understood that you need to support the infant
generation but Hitler had the answer for that one didn't he: euthanasia of those who wouldn't
be able to contribute. How long do we indulge people with an unemployment benefit?
@jacques
sheete Which US subsidy programs might be regarded as proleptic jubilees? And writeoffs
like that massive solar energy disaster under Obama are surely equivalent to the jubilees.
And welfare payments are surely jubilees in advance.
@Sollipsist
Sollipsist says: "Ya gotta watch out when someone takes Marx's economic observations
(which were impressive) as an automatic pass for his social prescriptions (which were a
gateway to hell on earth)."
Wrongo. Marx's economic theories were as as idiotic as his social prescriptions- in fact,
his "social prescriptions" were directly derived from his idiotic economic theories, which is
exactly why such "social prescriptions" are, as you say, "a gateway to hell on earth".
As for the author of this article , pure Marxist or not, his own "social prescriptions"
are, like Marx's , the mere pontifications of a pseudo-intellectual statist, fantasizing
about solving social problems via that which he worships and adores , that is , yet more
government [of the "right" kind, mind you, and despite its obvious failure to do any such
thing to date].
Another case of "the blind leading the blind", I'm afraid, just more of the same old
hackneyed "government should do this- government can solve this " claptrap .
Hudson spent half the article talking about mixed economies being the best and only type
to work.
Also, it was the JEWISH CREDITOR CLASS, that funded Bolshevism. Wall Street Jews and some
London money funded the Bolsheviks.
Bolshevism in turn was not what Marx had intended.
Marx thought that industrial capitalism, especially that of the type he witnessed in
Germany, would evolve into an advanced form of socialism mixed economy. It would evolve after
industrial capitalism failed, or industrial capitalism would have evolved.
Instead, finance capitalism, that of the rentier credit class won out .
When Marx died, he said "I am a most unhappy man."
Instead of getting caught up in labels, look at the data or what they actually believe in.
It takes a little bit more energy and effort, rather than falling for simple platitudes.
Hudson's childhood background was Bolshevik, but he didn't pick his parents. If you look
at his actual body of work, he is analyzing where all economic systems fail.
Russian and Chinese communism failed because markets are not purely inelastic. You cannot
pretend that every market type needs government control, especially when pricing signals will
work. Systems that are predicated on lies, will not survive in the long term.
For government is the problem, never the solution.
Simple minded platitudes.
ALL COMPLEX SYSTEMS HAVE HIERARCHY!
All advanced civilizations have hierarchy.
There has to be a "brain" for any complex organization, it will not self organize.
This whole market is your god, or gold is your god is the rentier class duping you with
hypnosis.
Funny thing about Libertarian-tards and their junk economics, the very thing they want
they cannot have because their ideology brings about what they don't want – economic
slavery.
Free markets are free for the rentier to take his gains on your life energy and turn you
into his debt slave.
• This is the "anarchy" of the future stateless society which Marx and Engels had
accepted in 1872. Man becomes "his own master – free". The first condition for this
full-fledged freedom is: freedom from the state, not of the state, nor merely in the state.
As far as Marx's eye could see, the state is not the guarantor of freedom http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1970/xx/state.html
This is one the most brilliant things I've ever read here. I've read a great deal about the
various facts and events Mr. Hudson talks about but I've never been able to put them together
like Mr. Hudson. He's provided a framework for realizing how all these seemingly disparate
events fit together. I'm very grateful.
@Wizard of
Oz Retirees weren't regarded as parasites by National Socialism, Schlomo. Your
parasitic ilk, however, were.
"The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance , rent
supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes the NSV often
refused to provide aid to Jews " – National Socialist
People's Welfare
This is fake history. Mythology becoming history. A Jewish speciality.
1- The Jews were never in Ancient Egypt – or the Egyptians would have documented
it.
2- There is absolutely no archeological artifact from the Palestine region that show that
they were there before their exile. Plenty of proof that the Egyptians had been there earlier
on.
3- Palestine was desert at that time and had been abandoned by the Egyptians as it was
infertile – not a land of milk and honey. Yemen was agricultural and prosperous.
4- The Jews were exiled from Yemen – because they and non-Jewish Arabs (the Jews and
Arabs were the same people at that time), continued to raid the caravans bringing goods from
Yemen to Petra. The Babylonians punished them by taking them back to Babylon. After the
Persians liberated them, some went back to Yemen and some went to Palestine.
5- Locations in the Old Testament correspond to places in Yemen and Hejaz. Even their
names.
The best counter to Robert Michels's iron law of oligarchy (whatever the ostensible form of
government, it turns out in practice to be oligarchic rule by the group that has the real
power) was devised by Cleisthenes in Athens shortly before 500 B.C.: give power to average
citizens by appointing to offices ordinary citizens randomly chosen. It worked, as is shown
by how deeply resented it was by oligarchs like Plato.
Is a U.S. Presidential Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933 , by President
Franklin D. Roosevelt forbidding the hoarding of gold within the continental United
States .
It required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount
of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve
, in exchange for $20.67 (consumer price index, adjusted value of $400 today) per troy
ounce. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed
Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up
to $10,000 (equivalent to $193,548 today) or up to ten years in prison, or both .
Order 6102 specifically exempted "customary use in industry, profession or art", a
provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers among others. The order
further permitted any person to own up to $100 in gold coins (a face value equivalent to 5
troy ounces (160 g) of gold valued at about $6,339 in 2016).
@MEFOBILLS
MEFOBILLS says: "All advanced civilizations have hierarchy.There has to be a "brain" for
any complex organization, it will not self organize. "
So presumably, a half wit such as yourself knows exactly what that hierarchy should be,
who the "brain" "should" be and exactly what and where everyone's "correct" place within it
"should" be, because people cannot self organize.
Sieg Heil, mein fuhrer! You're an even dumber sheep than I had initially suspected!
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Everything government touches turns to crap" Ringo Starr
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
There are several problems with Dr. Hudson's views here. Some have referenced some. I would
point out that we already have laws and practices to restrict the use of wealth from
impoverishing the population. But you have to have a leadership willing to enforce or apply
them. We have had no less than three major financial bailouts of the financial class in the
US. And at no time was the bailout extended to the industries consumers. I am unclear what
the prescription is to divorce the political class from the financial class.
The only new law that would make sense are laws that bar legislators from owning, stocks,
sitting on the boards of stocks or any financial institution they manage. And that would have
to extend to all immediate family members. Further, one has to completely cut off funds from
lobbyists, activists and the corporate class entities.
The economy is already comprised of mixed practices: private ownership and wealth
creation, government employment, non-profit entities and taxation and other programs that
assist citizens, i.e. welfare
The one over riding observation I would make about the economy is that we continue to have a
trade imbalance, which according to an old rule of thumb suggests that economy is not really
growing.
@G.
Poulin Mr. Hudson makes his contribution towards the greater good by educating the
populace. What's your problem? -- He is not a fairy. He is a knowledgeable and honest person;
the former requires a lot of willpower, the second requires courage.
@MEFOBILLS
Libertarians were invented and constructed on purpose to serve as the useful idiots of
oligarchs whom they worship and do everything to protect their right to be oligarchs while at
the same time being sodomized by them.
I am very happy to read this interview, because for me, this is the first time that I have
completely understood Michael Hudson's work. And I say this after watching countless of his
interviews over the past 8 years.
Before this interview here, I had always wanted to ask him if the Clean Slate policies
disappeared over 3000 years ago, then what was he saying in his books and lectures? If the
entirety of Western Civilization is based on oligarchy, rentiers, then what hope is there for
anything? I mean the Romans lasted a thousand years doing this rentier stuff. That's a long
time for misery.
Now, with this interview I understand more fully the period after the Civil War and into
the FDR Presidency as a partially-successful attempt to make things in the country different,
more egalitarian, more correct. And after this interview, I understand Hudson's main point:
the road to change lies in understanding the failures of antiquity.
Looking at things through the rentier oligarchy lens has been the revelation in my life in
the past 10 years. I never undeststood Chile & Allende until then. Likewise with
antiquity and likewise with the history of the United States. But those of us who do
understand these things, thanks in great part to Michael Hudson, are few.
As part of a very late stage college degree I earned 4 years ago, I took an Econ class in
my last semester. The class featured certain films as it related to economics and that was
indeed very interesting (I had never seen Coppola's "Tucker: The Man And His Dream" before so
that was "entertaining"), but the text book for the class was Friedman. I read it and could
not believe how dunderheaded, how wrong it was. And I realized from communication with the
professor that he believed all of it. His attitude seemed to be: who are you to question
economics orthodoxy, you uppity undergrad.
This interview above was both enlightening and depressing. How many decades longer do we
have to go before things change?
Because there is a presidential
election coming up next year, the Donald
Trump Administration appears to be looking for a
country that it can attack and destroy in order to prove its toughness
and willingness to
go all the way in support of alleged American interests. It is a version of the old neocon doctrine
attributed to Michael Ledeen, the belief that every once in a while, it is necessary to pick out
some crappy little country and throw it against the wall just to demonstrate that the United States
means business.
"Meaning business" is a tactic whereby the adversary surrenders immediately in fear of
the possible consequences, but there are a couple of problems with that thinking.
The first is that an opponent who can resist will sometimes balk and create a
continuing problem for the United States, which has a demonstrated inability to start and end
wars in any coherent fashion.
This tendency to get caught in a quagmire in a situation that might have been resolved
through diplomacy has been exacerbated by the current White House's negotiating style, which is
to both demand and expect submission on all points even before discussions begin. That was
clearly the perception with North Korea, where National Security Advisor John Bolton insisted
that Pyongyang had agreed to American demands over its nuclear program even though it hadn't and
would have been foolish to do so for fear of being treated down the road like Libya, which
denuclearized but then was attacked and destroyed seven years later. The Bolton mis-perception,
which was apparently bought into by Trump, led to a complete unraveling of what might actually
have been accomplished if the negotiations had been serious and open to reasonable compromise
right from the beginning.
Trump's
written
demand
that Kim Jong Un immediately hand over his nuclear weapons and all bomb making
material was a non-starter based on White House misunderstandings rooted in its disdain for
compromise. The summit meeting with Trump, held in Hanoi at the end of February, was abruptly
canceled by Kim and Pyongyang subsequently accused Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of
making "gangster-like" demands.
The second problem is that there are only a few actual casus belli situations under
international law that permit a country to attack another preemptively, and they are usually
limited to actual imminent threats.
The current situation with Venezuela is similar to
that with North Korea in that Washington is operating on the presumption that it has a right to
intervene and bring about regime change, using military force if necessary, because of its
presumed leadership role in global security, not because Caracas or even Pyongyang necessarily
is threatening anyone. That presumption that American "exceptionalism" provides authorization to
intervene in other countries using economic weapons backed up by a military option that is "on
the table" is a viewpoint that is not accepted by the rest of the world.
In the case of Venezuela, where Trump has dangerously demanded that Russia withdraw the hundred
or so advisors that it sent to help stabilize the country, the supposition that the United States
has exclusive extra-territorial rights is largely based on nineteenth and early twentieth century
unilaterally declared "doctrines."
The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and the Roosevelt Corollary
of 1904 de facto established the United States as the hegemon-presumptive for the entire Western
Hemisphere, stretching from the Arctic Circle in the north to Patagonia in the south.
John Bolton has been the leader in
promoting
the Monroe Doctrine
as justification for Washington's interference in Venezuela's politics,
apparently only dimly aware that the Doctrine, which opposed any attempts by European powers to
establish new colonies in the Western Hemisphere, was only in effect for twenty-two years when the
United States itself annexed Texas and then went to war with Mexico in the following year
I spent last week at Angelo State University in remote central Texas as a panelist for the
annual All-Volunteer Force (AVF)
Forum . It was a strange forum in many ways, but nonetheless instructive. I was the
youngest (and most progressive) member, as well as the lowest-ranking veteran among a group of
leaders and speakers that included two retired generals, the chief of staff to
former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a few former colonels and several academics. Despite
having remarkably diverse life experiences and political opinions, all concluded that America's
all-volunteer military is not equitable, efficient or sustainable. The inconvenient truth each
of the panel participants had the courage to identify is that the end of the draft in the U.S.
had many unintended -- and ultimately tragic -- consequences for the republic.
... ... ...
Wildly Inefficient
Contrary to early optimistic promises, the U.S. military since 1973 sports a poor efficiency
record . Especially since 9/11 -- the real first test of the new system -- American armed
forces have produced exactly zero victories. Prior to the World Trade Center attack, it can be
argued that a much larger AVF crushed Saddam Hussein's poorly led and equipped Iraqi army in
1991, but it's important to remember that that war was an anomaly -- Saddam's troops fought us
in an open desert, without any air support, and according to the conventional tactics the U.S.
military had been training against for years. I also refuse to count the imperial punishments
inflicted on Panama (1989) and Grenada (1983) as victories, because neither was a necessary or
even a fair fight. Besides, the invasion of the tiny island of Grenada was more
fiasco than triumph .
Worst of all, the AVF is inefficient because it enables the militarization of U.S. foreign
policy, ensuring high costs and much wear and tear on equipment and personnel. The lack of a
draft means the loss of what the co-founder of the AVF Forum, retired Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich,
calls "skin in the game."
When the citizenry isn't subjected to the possibility of military service, it becomes
apathetic, ignores foreign affairs and fails to pressure Congress to check presidential war
powers. Without this check, president after president -- Democrats and Republicans -- have
centralized control of foreign affairs in what has resulted in increasingly imperial
presidencies . With its huge budget, professional flexibility and can-do attitude, the
military has become the primary -- in some ways, the only -- tool in America's arsenal as
presidents move living, breathing soldiers around the world like so many toy
soldiers.
Completely Unsustainable
The AVF could also bankrupt us, or, at the very least, crash the economy. Thanks to the
influence of the military-industrial complex and the militarization of foreign policy, U.S.
defense budgets have soared into the stratosphere. At present, America spends more than $700
billion on defense -- a figure greater than all domestic discretionary spending and larger than
the combined budgets of the next seven largest militaries . As
the Vietnam War should have taught us, skyrocketing military spending without concurrent tax
increases often results in not only massive debt but crippling inflation. After 18 years of
forever global war without any meaningful increase in taxation on the nation's top earners, get
ready for the next crash. Trying to stay a hegemon (a dubious proposition in the first place)
with rising deficits and a paralyzing national debt is a recipe for failure and, ultimately,
disaster.
As recent recruitment shortfalls show, getting volunteers may not be a sustainable certainty
either. This also increases costs -- the military has had to train more full-time recruiters,
pay cash bonuses for enlistment and retention, and hire extremely expensive civilian
contractors to fill in operational gaps overseas. Nor can the AVF count on getting the best and
brightest Americans in the long term. With elites opting out completely and fewer Americans
possessing the combination of capacity -- only 30 percent of the populace is
physically/mentally qualified for the military -- and propensity to serve, where will the
military find the foot soldiers and cyberwarriors it needs in the 21st century?
In sum, throughout this century the U.S. military has won zero wars, achieved few, if any,
"national goals" and cost Americans $5.9 trillion tax dollars, more than 7,000 troop deaths,
and tens of thousands more wounded soldiers. It has cost the world 480,000 direct war-related deaths , including
244,000 civilians, and created 21 million refugees. Talk about unsustainable.
An
Unpopular Proposal
At the recent forum, Laich proposed an alternative to the current volunteer system. To
ensure fairness, efficiency and sustainability, the U.S. could create a lottery system (with no
college or other elite deferments) that gives draftees three options :
serve two years on active duty right after high school,
serve six years in the reserves,
or go straight to college and enroll in the ROTC program .
Additionally, this lottery would apply to both men and women, and would require only one
combat deployment from each reservist. Whether or not one agrees with this idea, it would
create a more egalitarian, representative, affordable and sustainable national defense tool.
Furthermore, with the children of bankers, doctors, lawyers and members of Congress subject to
service, the government might think twice before embarking on the next foolish, unwinnable
military venture.
Few Americans, however, are likely to be comfortable delegating the power of conscription to
a federal government they inherently distrust. Still, paradoxically, the move toward a
no-deferment, equitable lottery draft might result in a nation less prone to militarism and
adventurism than the optional AVF has. Parents whose children are subject to military service,
as well as young adults themselves, might prove to be canny students of foreign policy who
would actively oppose the next American war. Imagine that: an engaged citizenry that holds its
legislators accountable and subsequently hits the streets to oppose unnecessary and unethical
war. Ironic as it may seem, more military service may actually be the only workable formula for
less war. Too bad returning to a citizens' military is as unpopular as it is unlikely.
Money quote: "Instead of protecting people, the Magnitsky case helps the "bad guys" to demonstrate to their Russian compatriots
that the West is rotten to the core, its policies are created by compliant stooges (lying thieves and useful idiots), and more rockets
should be built to confront America's injustice towards Russia and others. A lie can never really protect anyone, in my humble opinion.
But the problem is worse. It turns human rights into a hypocritical ideology to protect the interests of the powers that be, a bit like
the slogans about brotherhood and justice in the Soviet Union. "
Notable quotes:
"... Taught in tandem with William Browder's book Red Notice , this film can provide students with a real-life experience in the practice of critical thinking. The film also allows us to revive a discussion of Hayden White's penetrating analysis of the ways in which the structure of the form necessarily influences the content of any artistic or historical narrative. The vehicle of the docudrama that Nekrasov uses in his film, and the competing narratives about the circumstances leading to Magnitsky's death, merit literary and intellectual analysis, along with geopolitical commentary. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes is about the ways in which the notion of human rights is sometimes used as a fake alibi for white-collar crimes. Though I explore just one case, I think that I have managed to show that those ways are exceptionally sophisticated and efficient, and enlist all the major media, civil society, NGOs, governments, parliaments, and major international organizations. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act, in my view, is not a weapon that can protect people. The Magnitsky Act was designed to punish those deemed murderers and torturers of Magnitsky. Well, if my film demonstrates that Magnitsky was not murdered (by the people Browder claims he was murdered by), nor was he tortured, the Magnitsky Act is nonsensical. You cannot punish someone for something that did not happen. Can you then say, never mind, human rights violations happen, and it's good to have a mechanism to punish violators even if there's no evidence that people named as violators are guilty? I don't think one can say "never mind". Neither legally, nor, morally. ..."
"... There is no evidence whatsoever that the government of the United States conducted independent investigations of the policemen and the judges who were supposedly involved in the death of Magnitsky. And no one seems to be concerned of course about the rights of those on the Magnitsky list, who can't even reply to the accusations, let alone have the accusations verified by an independent investigator or judge. ..."
In 2016, Andrei Lvovich Nekrasov, a well-known Russian film-maker, playwright, theater director, and actor, released a docudrama
entitled, The Magnitsky Act -- Behind the Scenes . Although the film won many artistic accolades, including a special commendation
from the Prix Europa Award for a Television Documentary, public screenings were abruptly canceled in both Europe and the United States.
Political pressure from various constituents and the threat of lawsuits from William Browder, the American-British billionaire and
human-rights activist, ensured the limitation of the film to a single website. To the knowledge of this author, there has been only
one public screening of The Magnitsky Act -- Behind the Scenes in the United States. In June 2016, Seymour Hersch, a renowned investigative
journalist, presided over a showing of the film at the Newseum in Washington, DC, that generated much controversy. The American press
has not been kind to either the film or the director, Andrei Nekrasov. The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker,
and The Daily Beast all seem to agree that the film is an overt work of Russian propaganda that aims to introduce confusion
about the circumstances leading to the death of tax accountant, Sergei Magnitsky, in the minds of the viewers. The Putin administration,
which has been the prime target of both the 2012 Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Accountability Act and the 2016 Global Magnitsky Human
Rights Accountability Act, has good reason to promote a film that questions the circumstances surrounding Magnitsky's untimely death
in Moscow's Butyrka Prison in 2009.
Despite a flood of persuasive articles and editorials by well-known journalists suggesting that this inconvenient film deserves
no more than a quick burial, I was drawn to reconsider both the film and the political controversy that it continues to create for
two main reasons. First, as the collapse of the Soviet Union and our own recent presidential campaigns show, we can never entirely
prohibit the intrusion of propaganda or politically slanted content into the public sphere. Instead, as a historian and faculty member
who serves at a public university, I believe that it is my job to teach our students how to diagnose an issue, and how to consider
the many sides that a story necessarily involves. As an intellectual process this has immense value both in and of itself. Source
criticism is a time tested and reliable means through which we can make sense of an event or a phenomenon. Our students need to learn
both the mechanics and the intellectual value of analyzing a source and should be able to evaluate the nature of political content
whether it is embedded in a Facebook post, a scholarly article, or a documentary.
The Magnitsky Act -- Behind the Scenes can serve as an important vehicle to introduce the contested nature of historical
truth, and as a prism, it allows us to view the multiple modes through which various versions of the truth are disseminated in the
twenty-first century. Taught in tandem with William Browder's book Red Notice , this film can provide students with a
real-life experience in the practice of critical thinking. The film also allows us to revive a discussion of Hayden White's penetrating
analysis of the ways in which the structure of the form necessarily influences the content of any artistic or historical narrative.
The vehicle of the docudrama that Nekrasov uses in his film, and the competing narratives about the circumstances leading to Magnitsky's
death, merit literary and intellectual analysis, along with geopolitical commentary.
Second, I am concerned by the fact that both critics and supporters have turned the debate about the film into a referendum on
William Browder, his business dealings as well as his global human rights activism, and the Putin administration. In this interview
with Andrei Nekrasov, I turn the spotlight back on the film-maker, his motivations for making the film, and on his political experiences
since the release of the film. It is important to remember that in the past Nekrasov has made several politically charged films including
Disbelief (2004), and Poisoned by Polonium: The Litvinenko File (2007) -- films that are extremely critical of the
Putin administration. Nekrasov, a student of philosophy and literature, is in the unique position of having experienced censorship
in the Soviet Union, Putin's Russia, and in the democratic countries of Western Europe and the United States.
1) Why did you want to make a film about the Magnitsky Act? What drew you to this project?
Andrei Nekrasov : I felt that the story of Magnitsky, in its accepted version, was very powerful and important. I thought that
Sergei Magnitsky was a hero, and I wanted to tell the story of the modern hero, my compatriot. His case seemed very special because
Magnitsky, a tax lawyer (in reality, an accountant) had come from the world of capitalism, to symbolize all that is good and moral
in modern Russia. I believed that Magnitsky did not surrender under torture and sacrificed his life fighting corruption.
2) Who has funded the making of this film and what motivated them to invest in this production?
AN : The film was produced by Piraya Film, a Norwegian company. There is a long list of funders, and none are from Russia. (Please
visit www.magnitskyact.com for further information). And they are all
very "mainstream." I believe in the United States and Russia it is easier to construe the specific reasons that motivate funders,
who are mostly private, to support a project. In Europe, where more public money is available for the arts, the state is more or
less obliged to fund the cultural process. So I submit an idea to a producer, and if they like it, they introduce it into a complex
system of funding that is supposed to be politically neutral. Only quality matters, in theory. In practice "quality" has political
aspects, and its interpretation is open to prejudices.
But it would be a simplification to say the film was funded because I had set out to tell Browder's version of the Magnitsky case.
Those funders who were (through their commissioning editors) monitoring the editing process, ZDF/ARTE, for example, became aware
of the inconsistencies in Browder's version and supported my investigation into the truth. What they did not realize was who, and
what, we were all dealing with. They did not realize that Browder was supported by the entire political system of North America and
Western Europe. They realized that only when they were told by politicians to stop the film. And they obeyed, contrary to what I
thought was their principles.
3) How has the role of censorship, both in Russia and the West, affected your artistic career?
AN : Censorship has had a very strong and damaging impact on my career. But while censorship in Russia had never been something
surprising to me, the way that the film T he Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes was treated by western politicians was totally
unanticipated and shocking. Yet, intellectually, the experience was very illuminating. The pro-Western intelligentsia of Russia,
a class to which I have belonged, idolizes the West and believes that the freedom of expression is an essential and even intrinsic
part of Western culture. The notion that the interests of economically powerful groups can set a geopolitical agenda and that easily
overrides democratic freedom of expression is considered to be a remnant of Soviet era thinking. So I had to have a direct and personal
experience of Western censorship to realize that that notion is rooted in reality.
The issue of censorship in Russia is, on the other hand, often misunderstood in the West. There is no direct political censorship
of the kind that existed in the Soviet Union, and that possibly exists in countries like China today. Many popular Russian news outlets
are critical of the government, and of Putin personally as evidenced by the content in media outlets such as Ekho Moskvy, Novaya
Gazeta, Dozhd TV, New Times, Vedomosti, Colta. ru, and others. The internet is full of mockery of Putin, his ministers and of
his party's representatives. There is neither a system nor the kind of wellresourced deep state structures that control the flow
of information. Many Russian media outlets, for example, repeat Browder's story of Magnitsky killed by the corrupt police with the
state covering it up. All that is perfectly "allowed" while Putin angrily condemns Browder as a criminal and Browder calls himself
Putin's number one enemy. In reality, it is not allowed but simply happens because of the lack of consistent political censorship.
However, you will hardly ever hear a proper analysis and criticism in the Russian media of the big corporations, and of the oligarchs
that make up the state. It is also true that such acute crises as military operations, such as Russian-Georgian war of 2008 produce
intolerance to the voices of the opposition. My film Russian Lessons (2008) about the suffering of the Georgians during that
short war and its aftermath wasbanned in Russia. But nationalism is not only a government policy. It's the prevailing mood. The supposedly
democratic leader of the opposition, that the West seems to praise and support, Alexei Navalny, was on the record insulting Georgians
in jingo-nationalistic posts during the war. The film industry is, of course, easier to steer in the "right direction" as films,
unlike articles and essays, are very expensive to produce. But Russia is a complex society, deeply troubled, but also misunderstood
by the West. If my films, such as Poisoned by Polonium: The Litvinenko File , and Russian Lessons (2010) were attacked
by pro-government media, then some of my articles were censored by the independent, "opposition" outlets, such as Ekho Moskvy
.
4) Did you actually begin filming the movie with an outcome of supporting Browder's story in mind, as you represent in the
film, or did you plan from the start of the filming process to end the film as it now stands?
AN : I started filming the story. I totally believed in the story that Browder had told me, and all the mainstream media repeated
after him.
5) You know that there are many more "disappeared" journalists and others listed in the formal US Congress Magnitsky Act
who have suffered from the effects of corrupt power in Russia. Why did you not address the fates of some of those others as well
in your film?
AN : I may be misunderstanding this question, but I do not see how addressing the fates of "disappeared" journalists and others'
would be relevant to the topic of my film in its final version. I obviously condemn the "disappearance" of journalists and others.
In Russia journalists disappear usually by being "simply" shot (not in "sophisticated" Saudi ways), and as far as I remember only
one is referred to in The Magnitsky Act , Paul Khlebnikov. He was the editor of Forbes, Russia , and was shot in 2004
when Bill Browder was a great fan of Vladimir Putin and continued to be for some time. I have not seen any evidence or even claim,
that Putin may have been behind that murder. I was a friend of Anna Politkovskaya, perhaps the most famous of all Russian journalists
who was assassinated in the recent past. She is featured in my film, Poisoned by Polonium .
The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes is about the ways in which the notion of human rights is sometimes used as a
fake alibi for white-collar crimes. Though I explore just one case, I think that I have managed to show that those ways are exceptionally
sophisticated and efficient, and enlist all the major media, civil society, NGOs, governments, parliaments, and major international
organizations.
6) Does William Browder's role in the formulation of the Magnitsky Act invalidate its value and that of the Global
Magnitsky Act, in seeking to provide protection for those suffering from the effects of deadly and corrupt power such as the recently
deceased Saudi Arabian journalist, Jamal Khashoggi?
AN : Let me, for the argument's sake, pose myself what would seem like a version of your question: "Would Browder's role in creating
a weapon that could protect someone like Khashoggi from deadly and corrupt power invalidate that weapon?" My answer would be, no,
it would not invalidate that weapon. However, we are dealing with a fallacy here, in my humble opinion. The Magnitsky Act, in
my view, is not a weapon that can protect people. The Magnitsky Act was designed to punish those deemed murderers and torturers of
Magnitsky. Well, if my film demonstrates that Magnitsky was not murdered (by the people Browder claims he was murdered by), nor was
he tortured, the Magnitsky Act is nonsensical. You cannot punish someone for something that did not happen. Can you then say, never
mind, human rights violations happen, and it's good to have a mechanism to punish violators even if there's no evidence that people
named as violators are guilty? I don't think one can say "never mind". Neither legally, nor, morally.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the government of the United States conducted independent investigations of the policemen
and the judges who were supposedly involved in the death of Magnitsky. And no one seems to be concerned of course about the rights
of those on the Magnitsky list, who can't even reply to the accusations, let alone have the accusations verified by an independent
investigator or judge.
Instead of protecting people, the Magnitsky case helps the "bad guys" to demonstrate to their Russian compatriots that the West
is rotten to the core, its policies are created by compliant stooges (lying thieves and useful idiots), and more rockets should be
built to confront America's injustice towards Russia and others. A lie can never really protect anyone, in my humble opinion. But
the problem is worse. It turns human rights into a hypocritical ideology to protect the interests of the powers that be, a bit like
the slogans about brotherhood and justice in the Soviet Union.
Choi Chatterjee is a Professor of History at California State University, Los Angeles. Chatterjee, along with Steven Marks,
Mary Neuberger, and Steve Sabol, edited The Wider Arc of Revolution in three volumes (Slavica Publishers).
"You see all of these Russian connections -- there's a new one every single day, and increasingly benign explanations
for what the Trump, for what they're up to, benign explanations are just not credible."
Am grateful for your noble stand and having written: " and we know who US support,
Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Nusra, etc."
For your information, come Monday, PreZident t-Rump plans to lie & dangerously declare
Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. (Zigh) Doing so, no doubt, will provoke NSA
Director Boltom to experience an orgasm in his Wall Mart suit pants.
Nonetheless, linked below is a Counterpunch article where William Collins described going
to Iran along with colleagues on a peace mission. A fellow suffered a heart problem, and
entered an Iranian hospital where he was treated successfully. Nonetheless, when it came time
to use his health care plan to pay the bill, Mr. Collins learned the claim was refused
because such transaction (obligation) would violate ZUS economic sanctions!
Am grateful for your noble stand and having written: " and we know who US support,
Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al-Nusra, etc."
For your information, come Monday, PreZident t-Rump plans to lie & dangerously declare
Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. (Zigh) Doing so, no doubt, will provoke NSA
Director Boltom to experience an orgasm in his Wall Mart suit pants.
Nonetheless, linked below is a Counterpunch article where William Collins described going
to Iran along with colleagues on a peace mission. A fellow suffered a heart problem, and
entered an Iranian hospital where he was treated successfully. Nonetheless, when it came time
to use his health care plan to pay the bill, Mr. Collins learned the claim was refused
because such transaction (obligation) would violate ZUS economic sanctions!
"... This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else. ..."
"Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as
European. That's why Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean,
a community referred to by Russian experts as 'the Union of Europe' which will strengthen Russia's potential in its economic pivot
toward the 'New Asia.'" Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, February 2012
The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its tentacles
across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda, but the victim.
The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire Washington political
establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony.
Try to imagine for a minute, that the hacking claims were not part of a sinister plan by Vladimir Putin "to sow discord and division"
in the United States, but were conjured up to create an external threat that would justify an aggressive response from Washington.
That's what Russiagate is really all about.
US policymakers and their allies in the military and Intelligence agencies, know that relations with Russia are bound to get increasingly
confrontational, mainly because Washington is determined to pursue its ambitious "pivot" to Asia plan. This new regional strategy
focuses on "strengthening bilateral security alliances, expanding trade and investment, and forging a broad-based military presence."
In short, the US is determined to maintain its global supremacy by establishing military outposts across Eurasia, continuing to tighten
the noose around Russia and China, and reinforcing its position as the dominant player in the most populous and prosperous region
in the world. The plan was first presented in its skeletal form by the architect of Washington's plan to rule the world, Zbigniew
Brzezinski. Here's how Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor summed it up in his 1997 magnum opus, The Grand Chessboard:
American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives:
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia (p.30) .. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically
axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions.
. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its
enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's
known energy resources." ("The Grand Chessboard:American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives", Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic
Books, page 31, 1997)
14 years after those words were written, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took up the banner of imperial expansion and
demanded a dramatic shift in US foreign policy that would focus primarily on increasing America's military footprint in Asia. It
was Clinton who first coined the term "pivot" in a speech she delivered in 2010 titled "America's Pacific Century". Here's an excerpt
from the speech:
"As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot
point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be
smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership,
secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will
therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific
region
Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge
technology ..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia The region already generates more than
half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015,
we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia and our investment opportunities in Asia's dynamic markets."
("America's Pacific Century", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton", Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)
The pivot strategy is not some trifling rehash of the 19th century "Great Game" promoted by think-tank fantasists and conspiracy
theorists. It is Washington's premier foreign policy doctrine, a 'rebalancing' theory that focuses on increasing US military and
diplomatic presence across the Asian landmass. Naturally, NATO's ominous troop movements on Russia's western flank and Washington's
provocative naval operations in the South China Sea have sent up red flags in Moscow and Beijing. Former Chinese President Hu Jintao
summed it up like this:
"The United States has strengthened its military deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthened the US-Japan military
alliance, strengthened strategic cooperation with India, improved relations with Vietnam, inveigled Pakistan, established a pro-American
government in Afghanistan, increased arms sales to Taiwan, and so on. They have extended outposts and placed pressure points on
us from the east, south, and west."
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been equally critical of Washington's erratic behavior. NATO's eastward expansion has convinced
Putin that the US will continue to be a disruptive force on the continent for the foreseeable future. Both leaders worry that Washington's
relentless provocations will lead to an unexpected clash that will end in war.
Even so, the political class has fully embraced the pivot strategy as a last-gasp attempt to roll back the clock to the post war
era when the world's industrial centers were in ruins and America was the only game in town. Now the center of gravity has shifted
from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and
gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn the applecart by bullying allies and threatening
rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging, and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred
and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end.
Washington has many ways of dealing with its enemies, but none of these strategies have dampened the growth of its competitors
in the east. China is poised to overtake the US as the world's biggest economy sometime in the next 2 decades while Russia's intervention
in Syria has rolled back Washington's plan to topple Bashar al Assad and consolidate its grip on the resource-rich Middle East. That
plan has now collapsed forcing US policymakers to scrap the War on Terror altogether and switch to a "great power competition" which
acknowledges that the US can no longer unilaterally impose its will wherever it goes. Challenges to America's dominance are emerging
everywhere particularly in the region where the US hopes to reign supreme, Asia.
This is why the entire national security state now stands foursquare behind the improbable pivot plan. It's a desperate "Hail
Mary" attempt to preserve the decaying unipolar world order.
What does that mean in practical terms?
It means that the White House (the National Security Strategy) the Pentagon (National Defense Strategy) and the Intelligence Community
(The Worldwide Threat Assessment) have all drawn up their own respective analyses of the biggest threats the US currently faces.
Naturally, Russia is at the very top of those lists. Russia has derailed Washington's proxy war in Syria, frustrated US attempts
to establish itself across Central Asia, and strengthened ties with the EU hoping to "create a harmonious community of economies
from Lisbon to Vladivostok." (Putin)
Keep in mind, the US does not feel threatened by the possibility of a Russian attack, but by Russia's ability to thwart Washington's
grandiose imperial ambitions in Asia.
As we noted, the National Security Strategy (NSS) is a statutorily mandated document produced by the White House that explains
how the President intends to implement his national security vision. Not surprisingly, the document's main focus is Russia and China.
Here's an excerpt:
"China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They
are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress
their societies and expand their influence." (Neither Russia nor China are attempting to erode American security and prosperity."
They are merely growing their economies and expanding their markets. If US corporations reinvested their capital into factories,
employee training and R and D instead of stock buybacks and executive compensation, then they would be better able to complete globally.)
Here's more: "Through modernized forms of subversive tactics, Russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries
around the world." (This is a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black.')
"Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries
target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data." (The western media behemoth is the biggest disinformation
bullhorn the world has ever seen. RT and Sputnik don't hold a candle to the ginormous MSM 'Wurlitzer' that controls the cable news
stations, the newspapers and most of the print media. The Mueller Report proves beyond a doubt that the politically-motivated nonsense
one reads in the media is neither reliably sourced nor trustworthy.)
The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community is even more explicit in its attacks on Russia. Check it out:
"Threats to US national security will expand and diversify in the coming year, driven in part by China and Russia as they respectively
compete more intensely with the United States and its traditional allies and partners . We assess that Moscow will continue pursuing
a range of objectives to expand its reach, including undermining the US-led liberal international order, dividing Western political
and security institutions, demonstrating Russia's ability to shape global issues, and bolstering Putin's domestic legitimacy.
We assess that Moscow has heightened confidence, based on its success in helping restore the Asad regime's territorial control
in Syria, ·Russia seeks to boost its military presence and political influence in the Mediterranean and Red Seas mediate conflicts,
including engaging in the Middle East Peace Process and Afghanistan reconciliation .
Russia will continue pressing Central Asia's leaders to support Russian-led economic and security initiatives and reduce engagement
with Washington. Russia and China are likely to intensify efforts to build influence in Europe at the expense of US interests
" ("The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community",
USG )
Notice how the Intelligence Community summary does not suggest that Russia poses an imminent military threat to the US, only that
Russia has restored order in Syria, strengthened ties with China, emerged as an "honest broker" among countries in the Middle East,
and used the free market system to improve relations with its trading partners and grow its economy. The IC appears to find fault
with Russia because it is using the system the US created to better advantage than the US. This is entirely understandable given
Putin's determination to draw Europe and Asia closer together through a region-wide economic integration plan. Here's Putin:
"We must consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy
complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps
in that direction. These projects have the support of many governments and involve major European energy companies. Once the pipelines
start operating at full capacity, Europe will have a reliable and flexible gas-supply system that does not depend on the political
whims of any nation. This will strengthen the continent's energy security not only in form but in substance. This is particularly
relevant in the light of the decision of some European states to reduce or renounce nuclear energy."
The gas pipelines and high-speed rail are the arteries that will bind the continents together and strengthen the new EU-Asia superstate.
This is Washington's greatest nightmare, a massive, thriving free trade zone beyond its reach and not subject to its rules. In 2012,
Hillary Clinton acknowledged this new threat and promised to do everything in her power to destroy it. Check out this excerpt:
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described efforts to promote greater economic integration in Eurasia as "a move to
re-Sovietize the region." . "We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it,"
she said at an international conference in Dublin on December 6, 2012, Radio Free Europe."
"Slow down or prevent it"?
Why? Because EU-Asia growth and prosperity will put pressure on US debt markets, US corporate interests, US (ballooning) national
debt, and the US Dollar? Is that why Hillary is so committed to sabotaging Putin's economic integration plan?
Indeed, it is. Washington wants to block progress and prosperity in the east in order to extend the lifespan of a doddering and
thoroughly-bankrupt state that is presently $22 trillion in the red but continues to write checks on an overdrawn account.
But Russia shouldn't be blamed for Washington's profligate behavior, that's not Putin's fault. Moscow is merely using the free
market system more effectively that the US.
Now consider the Pentagon's 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) which reiterates many of the same themes as the other two documents.
"Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We
are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order -- creating a
security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition,
not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security."
(Naturally, the "security environment" is going to be more challenging when 'regime change' is the cornerstone of one's foreign
policy. Of course, the NDS glosses over that sad fact. Here's more:)
"Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions
of its neighbors ..(Baloney. Russia has been a force for stability in Syria and Ukraine. If Obama had his way, Syria would have wound
up like Iraq, a hellish wastelands occupied by foreign mercenaries. Is that how the Pentagon measures success?) Here's more:
"China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model
"China and Russia are now undermining the international order from within the system .
Get the picture? China and Russia, China and Russia, China and Russia. Bad, bad, bad.
Why? Because they are successfully implementing their own development model which is NOT programed to favor US financial institutions
and corporations. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. The only reason Russia and China are a threat to the "rules-based system",
is because Washington insists on being the only one who makes the rules. That's why foreign leaders are no longer falling in line,
because it's not a fair system.
These assessments represent the prevailing opinion of senior-level policymakers across the spectrum. (The White House, the Pentagon
and the Intelligence Community) The USG is unanimous in its judgement that a harsher more combative approach is needed to deal with
Russia and China. Foreign policy elites want to put the nation on the path to more confrontation, more conflict and more war. At
the same time, none of these three documents suggest that Russia has any intention of launching an attack on the United States. The
greatest concern is the effect that emerging competitors will have on Washington's provocative plan for military and economic expansion,
the threat that Russia and China pose to America's tenuous grip on global power. It is that fear that drives US foreign policy.
And this is broader context into which we must fit the Russia investigation. The reason the Russia hacking furor has been allowed
to flourish and spread despite the obvious lack of any supporting evidence, is because the vilifying of Russia segues perfectly with
the geopolitical interests of elites in the government. The USG now works collaboratively with the media to influence public attitudes
on issues that are important to the powerful foreign policy establishment. The ostensible goal of these psychological operations
(PSYOP) is to selectively use information on "audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately
the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals."
The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes and
perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the
The emerging Euro-Asian power block is very heterogeneous. Russia, China, and the smaller affiliated players like Central Asia,
Iran, Syria, Turkey don't agree on almost anything. They have different cultures, religions, economies, demographic profiles,
even writing systems. The most rational strategy to prevent the Euro-Asian block from consolidating would be to get them to fight
each other. Alternatively, find the weakest link and attack it in an area where its reluctant allies don't share its interests.
Exactly the opposite has happened in the last 5-10 years: US has seemingly worked overtime to get China-Russia alliance of
the ground. They used to distrust each other, today, after Ukraine, South China See, etc they have become close allies. Same with
Iran and Syria: instead of letting them stew in their own internal problems – mostly religious and having a nepotistic elite –
US has managed to turn the fight into an external geo-political struggle, literally invited Russia to join in, and ended up losing.
Bush turned Iraq from a fanatically anti-Iran bastion to a reliable ally of Iran and started an un-winnable land war in Afghanistan
(incredible!). Obama turned Libya, the richest and most stable African country that threatened no-one and kept African migrants
far away, into a chaotic hellhole where slave trade flourishes and millions of Sub-Saharan Africans can use it to move on to Europe.
Then Obama tried to coup-de-etat Erdogan in Turkey, and – even worse – failed miserably. This gang can't shoot straight
– whatever they put in their position papers is meaningless drivel because they are too stupid to think. They have no patience
to wait for the right time to move, no ability to manage on the ground allies, and an aversion to casualties that makes winning
a war impossible. Today Trump threatens Germany over its energy security (pipelines), further antagonises Turkey and Erdogan,
watches helplessly as EU becomes the next UN (lame and irrelevant), and bets everything on a few small allies like Saudi Arabia
and Izrael that are of almost no use in Euro-Asia.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that ' maybe I had bad information ' is no master of the universe.
And he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or ' information warfare ' – is
a pathetic sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
the russophobia is just drama to keep the MIC spending at $700+ billion per year
there is no way to justify that level of spending and pretend they don't have $25 billion one time to actually help solve the
real problem for the U.S.
"The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes
and perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the battlespace" which they must exploit in order to build public support for their
vastly unpopular wars and interventions. "
Here is a short guide on how to detect subversion of the mind by the media and their handlers by a former military intelligence
officer.
If one recognizes that Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" in replacing
"Lebensraum" with "control over Eurasia", "Tausendjähriges Reich" with "American Primacy" and providing our 'elite' with an "realist"
and "amoral" excuse to act completely and consistently immoral one has to recognize too that this "Grand Chessboard" is an amalgamation
of 'Mein Kampf' and 'Il Principe".
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki himself
proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American Primacy".
Recognizing this however one can't escape the conclusion that this "Grand Chessboard" with its consistent 'amoral realist imperatives'
is serving up inherently immoral 'imperatives' as inescapable options dressed up in academic language and with absolutely abhorrent
arrogance.
Stating that Brennan's Russophobia is somehow a degeneration of Brzezinki's "Grand Chessboard" is completely overlooking how
difficult it would be to outdo Brzezinki's own total moral degeneration.
One has to recognize that by now the only bipartisan aspect of US policy can be found in sharing these despicable and immoral
'imperatives' to maintain that "American Primacy" at all cost (of course to the rest of the world).
"The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its
tentacles across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda,
but the victim. The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire
Washington political establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony."
TRUE!
I would suggest that the initials 'US' in the final sentence be changed to: Anglo-Zionist Empire.
"Now the center of gravity has shifted from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants
in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn
the applecart by bullying allies and threatening rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging,
and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle
Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end."
Just like the Brit Empire – of which the Yank Empire is merely Part 2, the part where it becomes obvious that it is the Anglo-Zionist
Empire, which, like a band of screeching Pharisees standing on the walls of Jerusalem hurling curses at the Romans they inform
that Jehovah will soon wipe out all Romans to save His Chosen Race, would choose utter destruction for all over any common sense
backing down to prevent mass slaughter.
Nothing harmed US more than Brzezinski's ideology. US did build up far east with their investments, while neglecting their own
backyard. US should have build up rather North and South America and make it the envy of the world. Neglecting particularly South
America now created Desperate south American people, who have no jobs and no future and these people are now invading US.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that 'maybe I had bad information' is no master of the universe. And
he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or 'information warfare' – is a pathetic
sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
Testosterone plus steady, unrelenting decline and corruption of American "elites" most of who have no background in any fields
related to actual effective governance especially in national security (military) and diplomatic fields. Zbig's book is also nothing
more than doctrine-mongering based on complete lack of understanding of Russian history.
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki
himself proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American
Primacy".
Zbig was a political "scientist" (which is not a science) by education, fact aggravated by his Russophobia, and thus inability
to grasp fundamentals of military power and warfare–a defining characteristic of American "elites". He, obviously, missed on the
military-technological development of 1970s through 1990s, to arrive to the inevitable conclusion that classic "geopolitics" doesn't
apply anymore. Today we all can observe how it doesn't apply and is made obsolete.
(Jan.1998) US history – "How Jimmy Carter I Started the Mujahideen" – Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor 1977-1981
"Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services
began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security
adviser to President Carter.
Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979
In 1979 Carters National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski went into Pakistans border regions with Afghanistan to give
a little pep talk to some prospective majehadeen (Holy Warriors). In a 1997 interview for CNN's Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted
about the Carter Administration's proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived.
@DESERT FOX Why was it that the Brit Empire kept acting throughout the later 18th, the 19th and early 20th centuries to harm
Russia, even when it technically was allied with Russia? Why the Crimean War, for example?
Why, for example, was Brit secret service all over the assassination of Rasputin and tied in multiple ways to most non-Marxist
revolutionary groups?
This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by
any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks
total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else.
@anon Like the Ukranians, the 'Balts' virtually always are controlled by somebody else. When Russia does not control the Baltic
states, they are controlled by either Poles or Germans. Russians know what that means: the Baltic states are then used as weapons
to attack Russia.
The region is much calmer when Russia controls the Baltic states, and that is before taking into consideration how the Polish-Lithuanian
Empire turned its Jews lose to terrorize all Orthodox Christians and how Germanic states later used Lutheranism as a force in
the Baltics to ignite war with Russia and, under the queer Frederick the Great also used Jewish bankers to finance wars against
Russia.
The best defense, the saying goes, is a good offense.
The key orchestrators of the Big Trump-Russia Collusion Lie seem to have hewed tightly to that tactical advice.
Over the past two years, one of their biggest "tells" has been their hyper-aggressive and gratuitous attacks on the president.
Given that special counsel Robert Mueller 's
investigation found no collusion or obstruction of justice, their constant broadsides now look, in retrospect, like calculated pre-emptive
strikes to deflect attention and culpability away from themselves.
By accusing Mr. Trump of what they themselves
were guilty of, they created a masterful distraction through projection.
We now know that former FBI
Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew
McCabe, are hip-deep in the conspiracy. Both wrote supposed "tell-all" books and carpet-bombed the media with interviews in which
they regularly flung criminal accusations against the president. Whenever asked about their own roles, they reverted to denouncing
Mr. Trump .
With Mr. Mueller 's findings,
Mr. Comey 's and Mr. McCabe's media benders look
increasingly suspicious.
As do those of their comrades in the Obama national security apparatus, including former Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper and his partner in possible crime, former
CIA Director
John Brennan , who, apart from former President
Barack Obama himself, may be the biggest player
of them all.
Any investigation into the origins and execution of the Big Lie must focus on Mr.
Brennan , whose job as the nation's chief spook
would have prohibited him, by law, from engaging in any domestic political spy games.
Of course, the law didn't stop him from illegally spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee by hacking into its computers and
lying repeatedly about it, prompting Democratic senators to call for his resignation.
Once out of Langley, Mr. Brennan tore into
Mr. Trump, accusing him of "treason" (among other crimes) in countless television appearances and bitter tweets. It got so vicious
that Mr. Trump pulled his security clearance.
Consider a few critical data points.
The Obama Department of Justice and
FBI targeting of two low-level
Trump aides, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, was carried out in the spring of 2016 because they wanted to spy on the Trump campaign
but needed a way in. They enlisted an American academic and shadowy
FBI informant named Stefan
Halper to repeatedly sidle up to both Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Page. But complementing his work for the
FBI , Mr. Halper had a side
gig as an intelligence operative with longstanding ties to the
CIA and British intelligence
MI6.
Another foreign professor, Joseph Mifsud, who played an important early part in targeting Papadopoulos, also had abiding ties
to the CIA , MI6
and the British foreign secretary.
A third operative, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, targeted Mr. Papadopoulos in a London bar. It was Mr. Downer's "tip"
to the FBI that provided the
justification for the start of Russia counterintelligence investigation, complete with fraudulently-obtained FISA warrants to spy
on the Trump campaign.
All of these interactions reek of entrapment. Mr. Papadopoulos now says, "I believe Australian and UK intelligence were involved
in an active operation to target Trump and his associates." Like Mr. Halper and Mr. Mifsud, Mr. Downer had ties to the
CIA , MI6 and (surprise!)
the Clintons.
Given the deep intelligence backgrounds of these folks, it's difficult to believe that former DOJ/
FBI officials such as Peter
Strzok or even James Comey and Andrew McCabe
on their own devised the plan to deploy them.
So: who did? How did the relationships with Messrs. Halper, Mifsud and Downer come about? Who suggested them for these tasks?
To whom did they report? How were they compensated?
Any investigation must follow the money -- and the personnel. There were plenty of DOJ/
FBI officials involved, but
what about intelligence officials? Was Mr. Brennan
a central player in the hoax, which would help explain the participation of Mr. Halper, Mr. Mifsud and Mr. Downer? Intel officials
are likely to draw on other intelligence operatives.
There is also a glimpse of a paper trail.
Fox News' Catherine Herridge reported last week that "in a Dec. 12, 2016 text, [
FBI lawyer Lisa] Page wrote
to McCabe: "Btw, Clapper told Pete that he was meeting with
Brennan and Cohen for dinner tonight. Just
FYSA [for your situational awareness ]."
"Within a minute, McCabe replied, "OK."
Ms. Herridge notes that those named are likely Peter Strzok and
Mr. Brennan 's then-deputy, David Cohen. Ms. Herridge
also notes that while we don't yet know what was discussed during the dinner, government sources thought it "irregular" for Mr. Clapper
to be in contact with the more junior-level Mr. Strzok. She also points out that the text came "during a critical time for the Russia
probe."
Indeed. It was right before the publication of the ICA, the official Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian 2016 election
interference.
As Paul Sperry has reported, "A source close to the House investigation said
Brennan himself selected the
CIA and
FBI analysts who worked on
the ICA, and that they included former
FBI counterespionage chief
Peter Strzok.
"Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan
and Comey , and he was one of the authors
of the ICA," according to the source." Recall that the dossier-based ICA was briefed to
Obama , Trump and Congress ahead of Trump's
inauguration.
Post- Mueller report,
Mr. Brennan is spinning wildly that perhaps his
early condemnations of Mr. Trump were based on
"bad information."
These are just some of the threads suggesting Mr.
Brennan may be one of the Masters of the Big Lie, requiring full investigation.
If the devil is in the details, Mr. Brennan
is all over the details.
No wonder he -- and his fellow caballers -- have been so loud. They doth protest too much.
By accusing Mr. Trump of what they themselves
were guilty of, they created a masterful distraction through projection.
Hillary setup a unsecured server and had confidential government information on it, including 20 emails with Obama suspiciously
using an alias. If you're in law enforcement, and get a tip that Papadopolous may get some of those emails from Russians, what
crime has been committed by Papadopolous? Isn't Papadopolous doing the US a favor by obtaining those emails from those who hacked
her server?
If you believe Hillary that her server wasn't hacked (and you don't have any evidence because Obama's people allowed practically
all the evidence to be destroyed) then there's no reason to investigate Papadopolous. If you think Hillary's server was hacked,
shouldn't you be investigating her and examining her server to see who hacked her and what damage was done, such as blackmailing
her and Obama into appeasement and flexibility, like selling 20% of the US's uranium reserves to Russians just before an election?
John Brennan, James Clapper, Strozk, Ohr, Page were only some of Obama's political pythons operating in the jungle of Washington.
Obama orchestrated a symphony of harmful actions that will take the US a generation to recover from. That is if Obama's criminal
actions can be undone and then we get to recover.
@Rurik Upon consideration, what Putin should do is set up a "Free" German government in
Königsburg just like the US is doing with Gaido in Venezuela. Get China to recognize it.
Then they should start negotiating lucrative contracts, treaties and alliances between the
Free Germans and the rest of OBOR. It would be fascinating to see how ZOG reacted.
Oh, and most important of all, declare a new debt free currency, perhaps gold backed. I
could live with the Reichsmark.
@Johnny
Walker Read "People are never so completely and enthusiastically evil as when they act
out of religious conviction."
― Umberto Eco
"What can you say to a man who tells you he prefers obeying God rather than men, and that
as a result he's certain he'll go to heaven if he cuts your throat?"
― Voltaire
"Fanatics can justify practically any atrocity to themselves. The more untenable their
position becomes, the harder they hold to it, and the worse the things they are willing to do
to support it."
― Mercedes
"Religious fanaticism is the most dangerous form of insanity."
― Robert Graves
@anon
As most aggressive and most rotten player in the most rotten and most massmurderous part of
humanity, the Anglosphere, you dare to compare Russian dealing with a Soviet hunger
catastrophe, which occured all over the Soviet Union, btw worst in Kazakhstan and western
Siberia, and in Ukraine, where consfiscation of grain occured mainly by Ukrainian Soviets,
and hunger in Ukraine mostly in eastern Ukraine, where people felt and feel close to Russia,
with USAist ongoing practice of aggressive wars, genocidal supremacy and massmurder?
See as well: Philipp Merl : Sowjetisierung in Wirtschaft und Landwirtschaft, EGO (European
History Online), pdf.
That solid German historians unanimously revealed propagandistic attempts to sell the
1932/33 famine remotely as equivalent to Anglosaxon hunger genocides, like that of the Irish,
Indians and Iranians, has nothing to do with historiography, but with anti-Russian hate
propaganda, can be clearly deduced from publications by the German historians Jürgen
Zarusky and Jörg Ganzenmüller.
The best places to learn about Nazi atrocities is btw Berlin.
However, where is the place where the two intertwined most massmurderous nations of the
planet openly expose their crimes, which are the most horrendous and giant humanity has
committed?
It simply does not exist.
Nobody else has liquidated more than 90% of the indigenous populatio on robbed territory
but USAist and Australians, both degenerated Anglosaxons.
Nobody else has robbed as much territory from a neighbour country than the US has done with
Mexico.
Nobody committed comparable genocidal losses on Indian ground, Iranian ground, even
Chinese
ground – in proportion, Japanese in WW2 could not compete, than Brits. In Africa,
British bloodtoll is likewise unequalled – France and Belgium come close behind, but do
not match that bloodtoll.
No other nation, not even in Europe and not even Nazi Germany, has committed a genocide of
neighbours which resembles what Brits die with their Irish neighbour country, whose
population was three times in history reduced by 50% by them.
From the last genocide in the midst of the 19th century, Ireland has not even recovered
after 150 years: There population of 12 million Irish then was never achieved again.
In comparison: In the Soviet Union, which btw was not identical with Russia, Ukrainian
population was 29.5 million in 1926 and 40.469 million in 1939. This is official Soviet
Census, which Ukraine keeps still as their official national census. And you have the cheek
to suggest with a solely propagandistic term that Georgian Stalin, whatever his
responsibility in the famine was, committed anything comparable with Anglosaxon ongoing
slaughtering?
The US started their history with the eracidation of 90% of native Americans.
They have , in their short history, conducted more than a hundred aggressive wars, were in
wars, which were never against anybody who had remotely threatened USAists on their ground,
325 years in 349 years of US history and have, since 1949 alone, caused further 30 million
causualties minimum.
And in that role, they were since the Round Table of Cecil Rhode the followers of the most
genocidal nation of the planet, Brits, whose suprematist colonialism massmurdered more than
100 million people minimum.
In the Cold War, btw, the US was most willing to conduct a nuclear Holocaust of 200
million western Europeans, 200 million eastern Europeans, including Russians, and 200 million
eastern Asians – if Soviet atomic bombs had not posed the danger that USAists could die
a nuclear death in that case as well. https://www.democracynow.org/2017/12/6/doomsday_machine_daniel_ellsberg_reveals_he
AND YOU HAVE NEVER CEASED TO BE MASSMURDERERS – EVEN WILLING TO COMMIT HUMANOCIDE AS
A WHOLE – TO MAINTAIN HEGEMONY OF THE WORLD's CULTURALLY MOST DISTORTED AND DEGENERATED
NATION.
And you vermin dare to point with a finger on Russians?
"... the behavior of the US after the Cold War suggests NATO was primarily for US hegemony and not for fending off the Evil Empire of the Soviets. ..."
"... After all, Gorbachev and Reagan ended the Cold War. And then communism collapsed(or was collapsed from the top) in Russia. And Russia was reaching out to the West for friendship and aid. Russia was at its weakest position since who knows? And it was totally friendly to the West. It was a tamed bear. But what did the US do when Russia was most pro-Western and most willing to submit(and even surrender its sovereignty)? The US expanded NATO up to Russian borders. ..."
"... Why expand NATO when there's no more Soviet threat and when Russia wants to be a friendly player with the West? It's like the moment when Vito Corleone realizes it had been Barzini all along. ..."
"... It seems NATO was never about the principle of defending free nations from the Soviets. It was about imposing US hegemony on Europe. So, the chances are that, even if Soviets had ended the Occupation of Eastern Europe soon after end of WWII, the US would have created something like NATO and pushed it all the way up to Soviet borders. ..."
"... @Asagirian As Lord Ismay once said: "The purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." ..."
It's been our understanding that NATO was necessary
because of the Iron Curtain. Soviets took over Eastern Europe and denied it freedom, and there
was the danger that Soviets would expand further West.
So, US and Western European nations made a Three Musketeers or Mickey Mouseketeers pact of
'one for all and all for one'.
Now, suppose we do a thought experiment of alternative history: The Soviets withdrew from
Eastern Europe, and Eastern European nations like Poland and Hungary became democratic and
capitalist soon after WWII. And there is no East and West Germany but just democratic
Germany.
Would NATO still have been created? If so, for what? To contain the Soviets? But the Soviets
left Eastern Europe in our hypothetical scenario. If NATO was created even after Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe soon after WWII,
there could be only one reason: US hegemony and domination over Western Europe.
Now, there is no way to validate a 'what if' scenario.
However, the behavior of the US after the Cold War suggests NATO was primarily for US
hegemony and not for fending off the Evil Empire of the Soviets.
After all, Gorbachev and Reagan ended the Cold War. And then communism collapsed(or was
collapsed from the top) in Russia. And Russia was reaching out to the West for friendship and
aid.
Russia was at its weakest position since who knows? And it was totally friendly to the West. It
was a tamed bear. But what did the US do when Russia was most pro-Western and most willing to submit(and even
surrender its sovereignty)? The US expanded NATO up to Russian borders.
Why expand NATO when there's no more Soviet threat and when Russia wants to be a friendly
player with the West? It's like the moment when Vito Corleone realizes it had been Barzini all along.
It seems NATO was never about the principle of defending free nations from the Soviets. It
was about imposing US hegemony on Europe. So, the chances are that, even if Soviets had ended
the Occupation of Eastern Europe soon after end of WWII, the US would have created something
like NATO and pushed it all the way up to Soviet borders.
...NATO is even more of a US
imperialist project. And this time, the 'new cold war' was entirely the fault of the US.
RobinG
says: April 2, 2019
at 11:35 pm GMT 100 Words @Cloak And
Dagger What do they say about Tulsi? Please note in this interview when Cenk asks her
directly if she opposes the Occupation, she says Yes! A true Zio supporter (as some here have
accused her!) would object to even using the word. And she addresses the Adelson question. On
the conflict, her answer is pretty pablum, but probably as far as she can go strategically.
Cenk has been castigated from both sides, either as too harsh or too easy with her. IMO it's
a very good interview. Can you picture for a moment, Tulsi in a debate with Trump? What are her
boosters doing to prepare her for that? She's handling all the animosity with equanimity, and
she'll arrive at the final contest battle-hardened.
Cenk has been castigated from both sides, either as too harsh or too easy with her.
It is a good interview and she handles herself very well and her positions are well
articulated. I remain wary of her, however, but I will keep an open mind and watch her in the
months ahead to see where her funding comes from.
@JR ssaid:
If one recognizes that Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its
Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" in replacing "Lebensraum" with "control over Eurasia",
"Tausendjähriges Reich" with "American Primacy" and providing our 'elite' with an
"realist" and "amoral" excuse to act completely and consistently immoral one has to recognize
too that this "Grand Chessboard" is an amalgamation of 'Mein Kampf' and 'Il Principe".
Except that Germany did not send Germans into the conquered territories during WWII,
though they wanted to do so.
Because of Trump's recent recognition of Israel's ownership of the Golan Heights, I Googled
"Israel six day war," which in turn led me to the page link below. Turns out, Isreal lied
about everything.
1) Both Egypt and Israel claim the other side started it. Israel lied.
2) Israel claims Egyptian forces were assembling for an offensive strike. Israel lied.
3) Israel merely initiated a pre-emptive war, rather than because the two stripes on its
flag represent the boundaries of its nation as the Nile and the Euphrates. Israel lied.
@mark
green I think a deceptively simple exercise would produce surprising results. We should
try to figure out what Anti-Semitism is.
The answer will be that it's a vague concept like 'racism' that is used as a pejorative
and slur, and that it would be very hard to find any real, verifiable 'Anti-Semites' or
'racists' who could be shown to hate all members of their chosen enemy group.
Yes, there are people who imagine that they hate all Jews, or all black people, etc. But I
doubt that they really know who they hate, and would be surprised to find that they mostly
hate a concept, rather than real people.
People who self-identify as 'Jews' are varied, by many different measures, and not all
'semitic', either. And not all people with 'semitic' genes identify as being a 'Jew'.
To those who would say, "well, we still know what we mean by the terms" I would respond,
"I think you do, in the very fuzzy, vague, dangerous sense that characterizes your
thinking."
That's one point. A second is that it's not a crime to hate anyone or anything. If you
hate something or someone, you're within your rights to do so .waste of time and energy that
that usually is.
Zionist colonization of America is nearing culmination. Nothing short of a comprehensive
anti-colonial resistance movement will rid us of the Zio-cancer that is corroding our
national identity, integrity, self determination and independence. The cancer must be
extirpated and the time is now.
Anybody reading from West Virginia? Our Senator Joe Manchin receives six figures of donations
from AIPAC. Don't vote for him.
AIPAC's February 2019 press release stated, "AIPAC commends Congress for strongly
supporting Israeli security and strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship in provisions
included in the new spending bill. Importantly, the legislation increases security assistance
to Israel by $200 million to fully fund the first year of the new 10-year U.S.-Israel
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). These funds help Israel maintain its qualitative military
edge in the region in order to defend itself, by itself, from mounting threats on its
borders." This plundering was co-sponsored by the other West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore
Capito. So don't vote for her either.
So where does that leave West Virginia voters? Staying home and abstaining from voting,
because we never get a good alternative due to the primary election. Which actually solves
nothing.
Yep, looking at our options, the only change is going to come from a coup or
revolution.
In other words Russiagate was a smoke screen over Isrealgate...
Notable quotes:
"... Being a citizen of a country is not just an accident of birth. It requires loyalty to the interests of that country and to one's fellow citizens. ..."
"... The Lobby works assiduously to compel American government at all levels to adopt positions that are beneficial to Israel and almost invariably harmful to U.S. interests. Asserting that the two nations have nearly identical interests is little more than a fraud. ..."
"... Second, there is the claim that Israel benefits American security. That is also a lie. Washington's relationship with Israel, which is now more subservient than it ever has been, is a major liability that is and always has been damaging to both American regional and global interests. ..."
"... Former CIA Deputy Director Admiral Bobby Inman has also rejected the claim that Israel is a security asset by observing that "Israeli spies have done more harm and have damaged the United States more than the intelligence agents of all other countries on earth combined. They are the gravest threat to our national security." ..."
"... Israel and AIPAC have relentlessly pursued their agenda while also corrupting the Congress of the United States to support the Israeli government with money and political cover. ..."
"... There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy wonks. infecting the U S government who hold dual citizenship with Israel. Such dual citizenship must be strictly prohibited. Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should never be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity. ..."
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has just completed its annual summit in
Washington. It claims that 18,000 supporters attended the event, which concluded with a day of
lobbying Congress by the attendees. Numerous American politicians addressed the gathering and
it is completely reasonable to observe that the meeting constituted the most powerful gathering
of people dedicated to promoting the interests of a foreign nation ever witnessed in any
country in the history of the world.
There are a number of things that one should understand about the Jewish state of Israel and
its powerful American domestic lobby. First of all, the charge that the actions of The Lobby
(referred to with capital letters because of its uniqueness and power) inevitably involves dual
or even singular allegiance based on religion or tribe to a country where the lobbyist does not
actually reside is completely correct by definition of what AIPAC is and why it exists. It
claims to work to "ensure
that the Jewish state is safe, strong and secure" through "foreign aid, government
partnerships, [and] joint anti-terrorism efforts ," all of which involve the U.S. as the donor
and Israel as the recipient.
Being a citizen of a country is not just an accident of birth. It requires loyalty to
the interests of that country and to one's fellow citizens. No two countries have
identical interests, something that is particularly true when one is considering Israel, an
ethno-religious autocracy, and the United States, where The Lobby works assiduously to
compel American government at all levels to adopt positions that are beneficial to Israel and
almost invariably harmful to U.S. interests. Asserting that the two nations have nearly
identical interests is little more than a fraud.
Second, there is the claim that Israel benefits American security. That is also a lie.
Washington's relationship with Israel, which is now more subservient than it ever has been, is
a major liability that is and always has been damaging to both American regional and global
interests. The recent decisions to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize
Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights were ill-conceived and have been condemned by the
world community, including by nearly all of America's genuine close allies.
The harm done by the Israeli connection to policy formulation in Washington and to U.S.
troops based in the Middle East has been noted both by Admiral Thomas Moorer and General David
Petraeus, with Moorer decrying how
"If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government,
they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
Petraeus complained to a Senate Committee that U.S. favoritism towards Israel puts American
soldiers based in the Middle East at risk. He was quickly forced to recant, however.
Former CIA Deputy Director Admiral Bobby Inman has also rejected the claim that Israel
is a security asset by observing that "Israeli spies have done more harm and have damaged the
United States more than the intelligence agents of all other countries on earth combined. They
are the gravest threat to our national security." Inman was referring to American Jewish
spy Jonathan Pollard, who stole for Israel an entire roomful of the most highly classified
defense information. Israeli spies, including current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
Hollywood movie producer Arnon Milchan, also participated in the systematic theft of weapons
grade uranium and nuclear triggers in the 1960s so Israel could secretly create a nuclear
weapons arsenal. The FBI, for its part, in its annual counterintelligence report, consistently
identifies Israel as the "friendly" country that spies most persistently against the U.S. FBI
Agents have testified that there are very
few prosecutions of the swarms of Israeli spies due to "political pressure."
Third, there is the myth that the United States and Israel have "shared values," which is
meant to imply that both are liberal democracies where freedom and human rights prevail,
beacons of light offering enlightened leadership in a world where tyranny threatens at every
turn. This was stressed in the opening remarks last weekend by AIPAC Executive Director Howard
Kohr, who described Israel as "A nation
always striving to be better, more just and true to the message of its founders, a nation
dedicated to freedom of religion for people of all faiths. We do our work for all to see. What
unites our pro-Israel movement is the passion for bringing American and Israel closer for the
benefit of both and the benefit of all. We look like America because we are America."
Kohr is, of course, preaching to an audience that wants desperately to believe what he says
in spite of what they have been able to see with their own eyes in the media when it dares to
publish a story criticizing Israel. Jewish hypocrisy about one standard for Israel and Jews
plus another standard for everyone else operates pretty much out in the open if one knows where
to look. Zionist Organization of America's Morton Klein, who once tweeted regarding a "filthy
Arab,"
was interviewed by journalist Nathan Thrall and asked why he believed it was "utterly
racist and despicable" to support a "white nationalist" ethnic group but not racist for Israel
to do the same. He responded "Israel is a unique situation. This is really a Jewish state given
to us by God. God did not create a state for white people or for black people." Senator Charles
Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, who calls himself the Senate's "shomer" or guardian
for American Jews, had a slightly different take on it: "Of course, we say it's our land, the
Torah says it, but they don't believe in the Torah. So that's the reason there is not
peace."
But Kohr, Klein and Schumer all know as well as anyone that Israeli Jews, fortified by their
conceit of being a "Chosen people," are not interchangeable with contemporary Americans, or at
least not "like" the Americans who still care about their country. There are hundreds of mostly
Jewish pro-Israel organizations in America, having a
combined endowment of $16 billion, that are actively propagandizing and promoting Israeli
interests by ignoring or lying about the downside of the relationship. The University of
Michigan affiliate of the Hillel International campus organization alone has a multistory
headquarters supported by a budget of $2 million and a staff of 15. It hosts an emissary of the
Jewish Agency for Israel, an Israeli government supported promotional enterprise.
So, what is the meaning of the "American" in AIPAC? Requiring a religious-ethnic litmus test
for full citizenship and rights is Israeli, not American. Having local government admissions
committees that can bar Israeli-Palestinian citizens based on "social suitability" would not be
acceptable to most Americans. Demanding a unique Israeli right to exist while denying it to
Israel's neighbors; demolishing homes while poisoning Palestinian livestock and destroying
orchards; shooting children for throwing stones; and inflicting death, terror and deprivation
upon the imprisoned people of Gaza are all everyday common practice for the Israeli
government.
Israel and AIPAC have relentlessly pursued their agenda while also corrupting the
Congress of the United States to support the Israeli government with money and political
cover. Israel and friends like Kohr routinely make baseless charges of anti-Semitism
against critics while also legislating against free-speech to eliminate any and all criticism.
This drive to make Israel uniquely free from any critique has become the norm in the United
States, but it is a norm driven by Israeli interests and Israel's friends, most of whom are
Jewish billionaires or Jewish organizations that meet regularly and discuss what they might do
to benefit the Jewish state.
And the fourth big lie is that the American people support Israel on religious as well as
cultural grounds, not because mostly Jewish money has corrupted our political system and media.
Indeed, many Christian fundamentalists have various takes on what Israel means, but their
influence is limited. The Israel-thing is Jewish in all ways that matter and its sanitized
Exodus -version that has been sold to the public is essentially a complete fraud
nurtured by the media, also Jewish controlled, by Hollywood, and by the Establishment.
"This weekend the New York Times
breaks one of the biggest taboos , describing the responsibility of Jewish donors for the
Democratic Party's slavish support for Israel. Nathan Thrall's groundbreaking piece repeats a
lot of data we've reported here and says in essence that it really is about the Benjamins, as
Rep. Ilhan Omar said so famously. The donor class of the party is overwhelmingly Jewish, and
Jews are still largely wed to Zionism– that's the nut." Ben Rhodes, a former deputy
national-security adviser to ex-President Barack Obama recounted in the article how "a more
assertive policy toward Israel" never evolved "The Washington view of Israel-Palestine is
still shaped by the [Jewish] donor class."
And the support for Israel goes beyond money. The Times article included an October
2018
"Survey of 800 American voters who identify as Jewish, conducted by the Mellman Group on
behalf of the Jewish Electoral Institute, 92 percent said that they are 'generally
pro-Israel.' In the same poll -- conducted after the United States closed the Palestinian
diplomatic mission in Washington, moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem, appointed a fund-raiser for the settlements as U.S. ambassador and cut
humanitarian aid to Palestinians -- roughly half of American Jews said they approved of
President Trump's handling of relations with Israel. On what is considered the most divisive
issue in U.S.-Israel relations, the establishment of Israeli settlements in the West Bank,
a November 2018 post-midterm election poll of more than 1,000 American Jews that was
commissioned by J Street, the pro-Israel lobby aligned with Democrats, found that roughly
half said the expansion of settlements had no impact on how they felt about Israel.
According to a 2013 Pew survey , 44 percent of Americans and 40 percent of American Jews
believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, [a] fact that Jews believe they
have rights in historic Palestine that non-Jews do not."
And one only has to listen to the AIPAC speeches made by leading members of the U.S.
government establishment to appreciate the essential hypocrisy over the U.S. wag-the-dog
relationship with the Jewish state of Israel. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
led the parade of Democrats on the first evening of AIPAC, thundering "When someone accuses
American supporters of Israel of dual loyalty, I say: Accuse me, I am part of a large,
bipartisan coalition in Congress supporting Israel -- an overwhelming majority of the United
States Congress. I tell Israel's accusers and detractors: Accuse me."
Well, Steny there is a certain irony in your request and to be sure you should be accused
over betrayal of your oath to uphold the constitution against all enemies "domestic and
foreign." Hoyer is a product of the heavily Jewish Maryland Democratic Party machine that has
also produced Pelosi and Senator Ben Cardin. Pelosi told the AIPAC audience about her
father in Baltimore, a so-called Shabbos goy who would perform services for Jews on the
sabbath and who would also speak Yiddish while at home with his Italian family. Cardin
meanwhile has been the sponsor of legislation to make criticism or boycotting of Israel
illegal, up to and including heavy fines and prison time.
Hoyer, widely regarded as one of the most pro-Israel non-Jewish congressman, also boasted to
AIPAC about the 15 official trips to Israel he's made in forty years in Congress, accompanied
by more than 150 fellow Democrats. "This August, I will travel with what I expect will be our
largest delegation ever -- probably more than 30 Democratic members of Congress, including many
freshmen."
Steny Hoyer will be on an AIPAC affiliate sponsored trip in which any contact with
Palestinians will be both incidental and carefully managed. He also clearly has no problem in
spending the taxpayer's dime to go to Israel on additional "codels" to get further
propagandized. He is flat out wrong about Israel in general, but don't expect him to be
convinced otherwise, which may be somehow related to the $317,525 in pro-Israel PAC
contributions he has received.
There was much more at the AIPAC Summit. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced "the
pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance" while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,
fresh from selling out U.S. interests on a visit to Israel, declared that "We live in
dangerous times. We have to speak the truth. Anti-Semitism should and must be rejected by all
decent people. Anti-Semitism – anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and any nation that
espouses anti-Zionism, like Iran, must be confronted. We must defend the rightful homeland of
the Jewish people."
Vice President Mike Pence, like Pompeo an evangelical Christian, piled on in his Monday
prime time speech,
declaring that "Anyone who aspires to the highest office of the land should not be afraid
to stand with the strongest supporters of Israel in America. It is wrong to boycott Israel. It
is wrong to boycott AIPAC. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Congress of the United States of
America. Anyone who slanders this historic alliance between the United States and Israel should
never have a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee."
Clearly, there is considerable evidence to support the theory that one has to be completely
ignorant to hold high office in the United States. Rejecting Zionism and/or questioning Israeli
policies is not anti-Semitism and the Jewish state is in fact no actual ally of the United
States. Nor is there any mandate to defend it in its questionable "rightful homeland."
Furthermore, dual-loyalty is what the relationship with Israel is all about and it is Jewish
money and political power that makes the whole thing work to Israel's benefit.
But the good news is that all the lying blather from the likes of Steny Hoyer and Howard
Kohr reveals their desperation. They are running scared because "the times they are a
changing." Sure, Congressmen will continue to be bought and sold and Jewish money and the
access to power that it buys will be able to prevail in the short term in a conspiratorial
fashion. But, in the long run, everyone knows deep down that loyalty to Israel is not loyalty
to the United States. And what Israel is doing is evil, as is becoming increasingly clear. It
is trying to convince Washington to make war on Iran, a country that does not threaten the
U.S., while the willingness of the American people to continue to look the other way as
Benjamin Netanyahu uses army snipers to shoot down unarmed demonstrators who are starving will
not continue indefinitely. It must not continue and we Americans should do whatever it takes to
stop it.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box
2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected].
No he chose to. He was a high ranking general nearing retirement. Nobody could touch him
if he really was looking out for the country as he took and oath to do.
It must not continue and we Americans should do whatever it takes to stop it.
Amen, brother Phil!
We are all suffering from cognitive dissonance where our conflicted minds refuse to force
our government to declare AIPAC as an agent of a foreign nation that must be made to register
as such.
But, as I said in a previous post, the foxes are guarding the henhouse. We need to take
them down by hook or by crook. I have made it a mission in my copious free time to confront
every politician that I can and ask them uncomfortable questions about their loyalty to this
nation. So far, success has been limited, but if more people would join me, we could make
these sniveling cowards fear us more than they fear The Lobby.
We have put together a series of articles that explore the candidates’ (and
potential candidates’) Jewish connections — from those who identify as Jews, or
are married to one, to candidates who are not Jewish but have ties to the community in
different ways. We also explore their views on Israel.
Below are links to articles, sorted alphabetically, that our staff has written about some of
the political contenders, mostly those seeking the Democratic nomination. This list will be
updated as additional candidates join the fray.
And you thought Israel only dictated US policy in the ME? Every country knows that to get
anything from the US they have to go thru the Jews. The only thing of value Israel has ever
had to sell is its control of the US. Lets see how long it takes for Trump and congress to
reinstate the aid.
Trump cuts aid to 3 countries with strong relations with Israel
Last week, in his speech at the AIPAC policy conference, said President Juan Orlando
Hernández of Honduras that he would open a commercial office in Jerusalem – but
not an embassy.
By OMRI NAHMIAS Jerusalem Post
April 1, 2019 08:47
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump decided to stop programs of foreign aid for
three states in the Northern Triangle – Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, who are
known to have a strong relationship with Israel. Trump is cutting off nearly $500 million to
put pressure on the three governments to stop their citizens from trying to cross the Mexican
border into the US. However, it could also jeopardize the Israeli efforts to convince
Honduras to move its Embassy to Jerusalem.
Last week, in his speech at the AIPAC policy conference, President Juan Orlando
Hernández of Honduras said that he would open a commercial office in Jerusalem –
but not an embassy.
Just three months ago, things were moving in a positive direction. A trilateral meeting
between Hernández, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary of State Pompeo was followed
by an announcement from the government of Honduras, saying it opened a dialogue with
Netanyahu to explore the possibility of opening an embassy in Jerusalem.
After the trilateral meeting, Israeli media outlets indicated that Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu was trying to mediate a deal between Honduras and United States to secure
the continuing of foreign aid to the country in exchange for opening a Honduran embassy in
Jerusalem.
The Israeli Embassy in Washington, as well Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office did not
respond for a comment request from The Jerusalem Post on that matter. Another country that
would face a cut in foreign aid is Guatemala – the only country that followed the US
and moved the embassy to Jerusalem”
Petraeus is in position to have lucrative –part-time– broadcasting
appearances. He would not get those opportunities, if if he espoused that Israeli-bought US
favoritism was wrong. Bobby Inman while not caring about the media, would be true to his
beliefs.
JFK and LBJ both knew it was wrong three generations ago. The difference was that JFK knew
it, complained to his underlings and at least partially did things that rocked the Israelis.
LBJ just wanted ‘the Jews off my back’ and acted accordingly with regard to
Israel.
while the willingness of the American people to continue to look the other way as
Benjamin Netanyahu uses army snipers to shoot down unarmed demonstrators who are
starving
” In Beit Suhur outside Bethlehem, I have seen IDF troops shoot at Palestinian
Christian women hanging out laundry in their gardens. This was done with tank coaxial machine
guns from within a bermed up dirt fort a couple of hundred yards away, and evidently just for
the fun of it.
In Bethlehem a lieutenant told me that he would have had his men shoot me in the street
during a demonstration that I happened to get caught in, but that he had not because he
thought I might not be a Palestinian and that if I were not the incident would have caused
him some trouble.
I have seen a lot of things like that”……Col Pat Lang
Israel is a crime that makes me wish I was the US President.
The comment on the stealing of nuclear materials in the sixties reminds that Michael
Scheuer’s blog has been pulled, any chance we could have him hosted here?
If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government,
they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don’t have any idea what goes
on.
and
But, in the long run, everyone knows deep down that loyalty to Israel is not loyalty to
the United States.
How long is this “long run” when the people who don’t know finally
know?
Israeli spies, including current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hollywood movie
producer Arnon Milchan, also participated in the systematic theft of weapons grade uranium
and nuclear triggers in the 1960s so Israel could secretly create a nuclear weapons
arsenal.
I’ve been bringing that up for years on various platforms and have yet to get any
comment on it. Why there isn’t enough outrage to barley even address it is inexplicable
to me. Netanyanhoo belongs in solitary for the rest of his miserable days but instead gets
treated better than royalty by our butt-kissing politicians. Sick, sick sick.
As far as the Izzies running our military, the Air Force officer Karen Kwiatkowski has
written about it in the past, and is hardly ever mentioned.
“My fellow escort and I chatted on the way back to our office about how the
[Israeli] generals knew where they were going [in the Pentagon] (most foreign visitors to
the five-sided asylum don’t) and how the [Israeli]generals didn’t have to
sign in. I felt a bit dirtied by the whole thing and couldn’t stop comparing that
experience to the grace and gentility of the Moroccan, Tunisian, and Algerian ambassadors
with whom I worked”.
Thank you for your exceptional and important work. Please allow me to suggest that you
back off a bit from referencing (and elevating) the manipulative term
‘anti-Semitism’. It’s a tendentious phrase designed to stifle much-needed
criticism and much-needed opposition to the world’s most coddled brand of political
extremism.
‘Anti-Semitic theory’ promulgates the false notion that those of us (non-Jews)
who reject the depredations of Organized Jewry are spiritually deformed, mentally ill, or
prone to irrational acts of physical violence. This is a calculated libel.
Ironically, as pro-Zionist violence is embraced by Official Washington, verbal expressions
that are “too critical” of (lethal) Israeli policies–or which dare to
explore the destructive role of Zionist operatives inside Washington–are the kiss of
political death here in the Land of the Free.
Thou shalt not… say that.
How did this happen?
Jewish-manufactured taboos have allowed the perpetrators of serial warfare to snatch
sensitivity points as Israeli missiles fly. This perverse mindset and oddball collection of
modern double-standards have turned the rule of law on its head. Common sense is also a
causality.
People should have the right to think whatever they want. The one red line that must never
be crossed however is initiating aggressive physical violence.
How simple. How appealing. How universal. How old fashioned.
How did we ever forget it?
(Political necessity?)
Indeed, Official Washington now does pretty much the opposite. Contemporary
‘American’ leaders embrace (and vote to subsidize) serial Israeli
warfare/expansion along with Israeli ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, far less powerful US
citizens and political observers get slammed for making mere utterances about Israeli
ruthlessness and the Zionist domination of Washington.
How much longer will these strange delusions last?
Thank you for a very informative, if thoroughly depressing, article.
we Americans should do whatever it takes to stop it
As a first step, stop supporting your two pro-Israel Establishment parties. If you keep
voting for them, they will carry on as before, nothing will change. Politicians only ever sit
up and take notice when their access to power comes under threat.
That said, there is little chance Valerie Plame will be tweeting this one like she
previously did two others of yours.
Excerpts from Former Spy Accused Of Anti-Semitism Eyeing Senate Run :
Former CIA spy Valerie Plame Wilson is considering a run for the United States Senate in
New Mexico, the Washington Examiner reported Friday.
One early obstacle for Plame Wilson, should she choose to run, is an anti-Semitism
controversy: She was criticized in September 2017 for tweeting links to anti-Semitic
articles, including a column titled “American Jews Are Driving America’s
Wars” and another called “The Dancing Israelis” that insinuated the
Mossad was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Plame at first defended her sharing of the
“Jews drive wars” article, arguing, “many neocon hawks ARE Jewish.”
But she eventually apologized and resigned from her position on the board of the
Ploughshares Fund, an anti-nuclear not-for-profit foundation. She has not tweeted
since.
Plame Wilson told the Examiner on Friday that she would “like another
opportunity to serve my country” and would run as a Democrat. The seat will open
up in 2020 after the retirement of incumbent Sen. Tom Udall.
More accurately, she would like to serve those who’ll be funding her campaign.
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy wonks.
infecting the U S government who hold dual citizenship with Israel. Such dual citizenship
must be strictly prohibited. Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said
foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of
American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should never be allowed
to serve in any American governmental capacity.
In addition, any American citizen who serves in a foreign military (Israel Defense Forces)
should automatically lose their American citizenship.
When Netanyahu addressed both houses of congress, it was sickening to see our politicians
slobber all over themselves to PROVE that they were unconditional supporters of Israel. It
was a scene out of the Soviet Politburo where every jewish or Israel supporter tried to outdo
the others with the applause. Just who the hell do they work for? Certainly not for the
interests of the American people and the United States,they should renounce their United
States citizenship and be deported to Israel.
WASP culture was completed, formed fully, finalized, by Puritans and Puritanism, by
Judaizing heresy. WASP culture, therefore, always must gravitate toward Jews, always must
be pro-Semitic, always will feature a drive to neutralize, and preferably destroy, that
which is aligned toward historic Christianity and Christendom, while promoting endless
heretical groups, especially those that reveal a willingness to be subservient to Jews and
to WASP Elites who invariably are staunchly pro-Semitic (either pro-Jewish or
pro-Arabic/Islamic).
I don’t know about that. The Nazis were WASPs, they clearly didn’t get your
memo. The WASPs who are most eager to drink the Jew liberal Kool-aid are all atheists.
I am not fond of the title given the piece, but Mr Giraldi always has something to say worth
listening to.
" But, in the long run, everyone knows deep down that loyalty to Israel is not
loyalty to the United States. And what Israel is doing is evil, as is becoming increasingly
clear. It is trying to convince Washington to make war on Iran, a country that does not
threaten the U.S., while the willingness of the American people to continue to look the
other way as Benjamin Netanyahu uses army snipers to shoot down unarmed demonstrators who
are starving will not continue indefinitely. "
Well said indeed.
I am generally an optimist for the long term., although forced to be a pessimist for the
near future.
Such abuse and oppression just cannot go on forever.
Even the mighty Soviet Union finally collapsed, leaving a peaceful and reasonable Russia
in its place.
And, while not generally noticed, there are many parallels between modern Israel and the
USSR.
You cannot go on proclaiming democracy when half the people you rule cannot even vote.
They could all vote in the USSR, but their votes meant nothing.
You cannot claim to represent our great Western values when oppression is an integral part
of your society.
Millions of prisoners cannot be kept without rights indefinitely. Only a tyranny such as
the USSR is capable even of attempting it.
But in the meantime, many must suffer terribly while the nightmarish events which
represent Israel's behavior play themselves out.
If you are willing to use brutality regularly to get your way, as the USSR did and as
Israel does, you can continue for quite a while, but not indefinitely.
I think this is not true. Only if the person puts interests of the other state above the interests of the home state
such behaviour can be qualified as the fifth column mentality.
Peter Beinart and the rest of the 'Goldstein-Big Brother' tagteam have a cynical hasbara
role to disguise the real fight, which is ending 'Jewish Kahanism'
Screw Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism, the 'Zionists' are KAHANISTS
Peter Beinart's shtick of being a 'Liberal Kahanist' is just his way of conning America
while appearing respectable rather than being shunned
At time of Pollard's release, Fortress America was not completely dominated by
Israel
He was released in November, 2015, only 52 months ago. I don't believe that the Israeli
lobby was much weaker then.
He was release under parole in accordance with US law.
According to the Tel Aviv edited source, wikipedia, Rumsfeld,Cheney,Tenet,several former
sec. of defense, a bi-partisan group of US congressional leaders and members of the US
intelligence community, all opposed clemency for Pollard.
He deeply angered many top Americans, so clemency was not possible. Parole, however
was.
Pollard, I understand sold much information to other nations. Maybe if he had only stolen
information for Israel he could have gotten clemency.
Pollard tried to get asylum in the Israeli embassy in Washington DC, but was refused
entry. His Israeli handlers in Washington DC all fled the US within 24 hours after his
arrest
At the time of his arrest in 1985, Israeli power over Washington was far weaker than it is
today. America apparently still had some patriots at high levels at that time.
"The problem with statements like this is that their very utterance reveals the presence of
the strategically damaging assumption that Israel and Jews can be reasoned with on these
topics."
I am disinclined to relegate but a few to this kind of stricture. The issue not can a
Jewish person be reasoned with, but who has the ability to stand on disagreements that might
not be in line with the ambitions of the other. And certainly all indications are that Jews
can be reasoned with. I don't subscribe to a totalitarian view that this is an impossibility.
I will say what I have said since entering these discussions. Despite where one falls on
Israel's selection by God, they are still responsible for behaving as members of the larger
community and even God says so. In fact Israel should as an agent selected by God, if such be
the case, be the leading actor of responsible behavior. I have made that point before and
their I rest.
She should be responsible and accountable. In the same manner as Christians are
responsible and accountable in the countries in which they live. Those parameters do not in
any manner diminish one's special role or character.
In regards to the secular, the elected and appointed members of the the US represent the
interests of the US first and foremost – period. And they can certainly support
Israel's existence without denying her any sleight of her unique spiritual of scriptural
meaning. Her ability to leverage the three variables to her stead is more a reflection on the
weakness of US representatives to tackle each of those variables head on in relation to how
supports US policy. God is not going to be chagrined about telling Israel, she cannot merely
confiscate land as she wants. But that she must obey/abide by the rules that govern sovereign
states. The holocaust, real or manufactured does make room for running ruff shod over her
neighbors. There are processes by which she could press for more territory that are legal --
she should use that process.
The ability to reason requires the ability to stand against unreason and their in my view
is where the US simply fails. Can one reason with Israel, sure as long as one has the
backbone to stand.
__________________
My love and support for Israel in no manner condones violations of rules that in no manner
contradict spiritual or scriptural truth. And I am confident that includes abiding by the
rules of members states of the international community. No one need be a "jew worshiper" or
"worshiper of Israel" to support Israel or hold her accountable among the nation-state
community.
And no one has to become a Jew to support Israel or be a christian while there are deep
roots, the two are not the same by a long shot.
I remain steadfastly in support of her right to exist, self defense and that others have
no less a right than she. My original position from start to this moment and unlikely to
change.
That is key. The right of others to co-exist alongside Israel the issue. The state of
Israel, regardless of her standing with respect to scripture and christian ethos, as a
nation state she is bound by the same rules as other nation states.
The problem with statements like this is that their very utterance reveals the presence of
the strategically damaging assumption that Israel and Jews can be reasoned with on these
topics.
Even if that reason is by way of potential sanctions, boycotts, and other forms of
political and economic pressure.
The truth of the matter is that anyone who would theoretically be engaging with Israel, or
even the gentile groups that put various forms of pressure on Israel, absolutely has to be
well-educated in Judaism.
To know Judaism is to know that its core thesis is that Jews are not bound by the same
rules as other peoples and nations. It is to know that Judaism's core tenet is that Israel is
the only legitimate nation and therefore the only nation that is destined to survive. It is
to know that it is religiously incumbent on the Jews to not make concessions that would allow
any other nation to survive in the long term.
To know all of this is to come to the strategic conclusion that attempting to reason with
Israel in regard to playing by the rules is a failed effort before it begins. In fact, it
would do nothing more than to waste time and allow Israel an opportunity for further
deception toward its ultimate nation-destroying goals.
Instead, Israel and the wider Jewish nation must be dealt with on an open foundation of
their religiously expressed hostility to all other nations that includes their expressed
domination and genocide goals. Anything else allows them a certain degree of cover that
allows them to maneuver to our detriment.
Thank you for your exceptional and important work. Please allow me to suggest that you
back off a bit from referencing (and elevating) the manipulative term 'anti-Semitism'. It's a
tendentious phrase designed to stifle much-needed criticism and much-needed opposition to the
world's most coddled brand of political extremism.
'Anti-Semitic theory' promulgates the false notion that those of us (non-Jews) who reject
the depredations of Organized Jewry are spiritually deformed, mentally ill, or prone to
irrational acts of physical violence. This is a calculated libel.
Ironically, as pro-Zionist violence is embraced by Official Washington, verbal expressions
that are "too critical" of (lethal) Israeli policies–or which dare to explore the
destructive role of Zionist operatives inside Washington–are the kiss of political
death here in the Land of the Free.
Thou shalt not say that.
How did this happen?
Jewish-manufactured taboos have allowed the perpetrators of serial warfare to snatch
sensitivity points as Israeli missiles fly. This perverse mindset and oddball collection of
modern double-standards have turned the rule of law on its head. Common sense is also a
causality.
People should have the right to think whatever they want. The one red line that must never
be crossed however is initiating aggressive physical violence.
How simple. How appealing. How universal. How old fashioned.
How did we ever forget it?
(Political necessity?)
Indeed, Official Washington now does pretty much the opposite. Contemporary 'American'
leaders embrace (and vot to subsidize) serial Israeli warfare/expansion along with Israeli
ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile, far less powerful US citizens and political observers get
slammed for making mere utterances about Israeli ruthlessness and the Zionist domination of
Washington.
How much longer will these strange delusions last?
The term and multi-tiered concept marketed as 'anti-Semitism' is a deceptive misnomer.
This is no accident.
Where's the 'Jew' in 'anti-Semitism'?
It's missing. But why?
After all, 'anti-Semitism' is basically about one thing: anti-Jewishness.
Yet the J-word is missing.
Did someone forget?
Of course not. The Jews have removed 'Jew' from this manipulative term for a strategic
purpose.
Keep in mind that 'Semites' are a real (and diverse) collection of peoples. So are Semitic
languages which involve millions of mostly-Arab peoples who dwell in different countries,
speak various languages, and practice different religions.
Yet, 'anti-Semitism' in the West means only one thing: 'anti-Jewishness'.
And Jews–unlike 'Semites'–are one cohesive people who claim one exclusive
country with one supreme religion. And they also happen to play an exceedingly powerful role
throughout Europe and America.
So why the linguistic sleight-of-hand with 'anti-Semitism'?
After all, Semitic Arabs get no protection from charges involving 'anti-Semitism'. It's
all about Jews.
Why not call 'anti-Semitism' what it actually is?–'Jew hatred or Jews contempt'?
'Jew fatigue', perhaps?
That's because the shomers who safeguard Jewry don't want anti-Jewish sentiment to
be simple or comprehensible or (most importantly) made legitimate in any way
whatsoever.
After all, hate is a common emotion and it is routinely directed from high above at
certain unpopular groups, ideologies and 'bad' countries. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Not so fast.
Jewry has conflated 'anti-Semitism' with 'genocide' and 'white supremacy' (See: Hitler).
Very clever. This ramps up gentile guilt and Jewish untouchability.
Anti-Jewishness ('anti-Semitism') is therefore designed to be understood as a unique
mental disorder with unique political dangers. This is no small accomplishment,
especially when one considers that Jews aren't exactly the 'innocent victims' that they claim
to be.
Indeed, if anti-Jewish commentary ('anti-Semitic speech') was brought down to earth and
even permitted, this would undermine Israeli power inside America as well as the
effectiveness of the taboos and 'red flags' which have elevated 'anti-Semitism' into a
rarified class of evil–not to mention 'political tool' for it's handlers.
Indeed, without the special shield that 'anti-Semitic theory' accords Jews, they would be
subject to the same harsh criticism often accorded Arabs, Russians, Iranians, Germans or
Muslims.
So the Guardians of Zion have cooked up a theoretical framework to pretty-much prevents
all that. It serves them quite well.
Thus conceptual 'anti-Semitism' is a self-exonerating paradigm. This also empowers Israel
enormously.
Anti-Semitic theory injects voodoo Freudianism and Frankfurt School gobbledegook into all
Jewish historiography. In doing so, it establishes two dubious beachheads.
1) 'Anti-Semitism' is not about Jewish behavior, nor is 'anti-Semitism' about everyday
political and economic conflicts that involve the collective (and conflicting) interests of
Jews and gentiles. No siree. Not that!
Such a bilateral and down-to-earth view is unacceptable. It's far too simple, too
accessible– too empowering for the anti-Semitic rabble.
To truly comprehend 'anti-Semitism' requires the expertise of a psychiatrist (preferably
Jewish) or qualified 'expert'. Please check with the 'Jewish Studies' Dept. for further
information.
These scholars will cleanly explain the dark, hidden forces that drive the periodic
eruptions (pograms, genocides) involving political good (the Jew) and evil (the
'anti-Semite').
Thus 'anti-Semitic theory' communicates the view that Jewish power, Jewish abuse of power
and Jewish crypsis are 'myths and allegations' and not relevant to understanding anti-Jewish
sentiment among the evious goyim.
'Anti-Semitism'? It's all in your head! And those afflicted with it are suffering from
hidden conflicts in their hate-filled twisted minds! Hitler!
('Trust me', says the 'expert'. 'Would I lie about such a thing'?)
Once the kosher 'diagnosis' is established, 'Anti-Semitism' becomes a powerful and handy
political weapon. And they certainly know how to use it.
'Anti-Semitic theory' even flips overdue criticism of Zio-Israeli power into this:
'You people (goys) who have a grievance against God's chosen people are merely
jealous. Jews don't mean any harm. Their violence is all in self-defense.
'You are projecting your own pathetic feelings of inferiority. Your contempt for Jew[ish
conduct and beliefs] is a neurotic projection of your own pathologies.
'So don't muddy the waters with irrelevant references to wars in Europe and Russia and
now in the Middle East that have killed tens of millions.
'And certainly don't discuss the unimportant Jewish role in banking, finance,
immigration policies, education, law, entertainment and the manufacture of 'news'. All that
bigoted discourse is anti-Semitic propaganda and is irrelevant.
'We must strive to assure Jewish safety and Jewish survival.'
@Fran
Taubman The US has been providing a safe and prosperous home for your ungrateful lot. And
yet, the Jews are seemingly not able to be loyal to a country of their dwelling because "next
year in Jerusalem" -- even if the majority of the Jews prefer to admire Jerusalem from a
distance.
It is not just the Jewish treasonous behavior towards the USA citizenry, which is so
repulsive. The problem is the subversive influence of the Lobby towards the western values at
large (such as the First Amendment, including the active suppression of factual information
that is unpleasant for the tribe) -- all while the holo-biz continues encouraging the whining
and wailing about special victimhood of the Jews. This does not work anymore. After
converting tens of thousands of Middle Eastern children into the bags of shredded meat in the
name of Eretz Israel and after supporting military the Kievan neo-Nazi, the Jewish State's
screeching about existential threat and some special dues that western world owes to the
Jewish tribe do not have any power anymore. It's over.
In addition, the cynicism, indecency, and the cruelty displayed by the Jews against
Palestinians, Arabs, and Russians have made the AIPAC, the ADL, and other mighty Jewish
organization into pariahs among decent people.
It has no sense to engage in name-calling ("all the fringe sick people on UNZ"). Look at a
mirror. Your tribe has lost the moral fiber. It does not help that the Jewish mythology
treats non-Jews as subhumans.
"These imbeciles perceive in US-Jews their own human distortion – and hate
themselves in projecting self-hate on a tiny minority within their degenerated
population."
-- Anja, why does this article about the pernicious influence of the Lobby made you so
hysterical? The "tiny minority" has decided to be loyal to the tribal Jewish interests on its
own volition. The tiny minority has a choice to relocate to its "promised land" and thus
leave the US alone. The parasitic and disloyal minority is not welcome by the decent
Americans, whereas the zionized degenerate in the US Congress do behave treasonously towards
the US citizenry. Just take Bolton, Pompeo, Schumer, and Pelosi with you.
Leave the US alone. Sort out your problems with your Arab cousins ((Ishmaels) on your own.
And, by the way, stop murdering the Middle Eastern children; this is a very bad behavior that
is not going to be forgotten by good people.
Israeli nukes were always our government's policy.
First off, Lot, given your passionate attachment to the Zionist Project, you need to be a
little clearer as to whom you are referring when you write "our" government.
Secondly, if you were referring to the policy of the US gov't, as you are no doubt aware,
JFK had several correspondences with David Ben Gurion in which he warned him against the
development of a nuclear program for fear of nuclear proliferation in the region. The issue was
so divisive that it led to DBG's resignation and JFK's demise.
@renfroHow about POTUS making a secret pledge to Israel? Clinton, Bush the younger, Obama,
and Trump have all signed letters pledging never to expose Israel's nuclear arsenal. At last
week's conference, Grant Smith outlined his efforts to stop this practice of subverting both
letter and spirit of US law. For starters, we should demand that all presidential candidates
pledge: No Secret Pledge to a (((Foreign))) Power.
U.S. foreign aid and the Israeli nuclear weapons program – Grant F. Smith
"It's the Benjamins Baby" -- money is everything to the Jew.
Israeli banks screw America – help US Jews to circumvent taxes
US MSM screw America – never tell the American people about it.
Media Blackout as Israel's Largest Banks Pay over $1 Billion in Fines for US Tax
Evasion Schemes
Israel's three largest banks -- Hapoalim Bank, Leumi Bank and Mizrahi Tefahot Bank -- have
all been ordered to pay record fines, which collectively are set to total over $1 billion, to
the U.S. government after the banks were found to have actively colluded with thousands of
wealthy Americans in massive tax-evasion schemes.
80% of the American people are serfs – living paycheck to paycheck – paying
interest on everything – receiving none back – actually, outright owning little of
value.
The American people have gotten extraordinarily tired of the demands, bullying, and blackmail
the American government has received from the fully nuclear armed, viciously apartheid,
theocracy which is what neo-nazi Israel has become in the 21st century.
And we have one word for you: enough!!
We will provide you no more American military to get slaughtered or maimed for life in the
process of "neutralizing" all your alleged existential threats in the Middle East. And of
course, as we both know, that includes all of your neighbors in the region.
And on top of that, sir, we would appreciate it greatly if the US government immediately
pull all financial and military aid from your country immediately, as all this aid is
completely illegal under the Symington Amendment.
We the people would like to see this accomplished and immediately, sir. The days of the
host/parasite relationship between the Us government and that of Israel may well be coming to
a very abrupt halt, and it is damn well about time, sir!!!
Sun comes up, Israel demands money. Sun goes down, Israel demands money. Moon waxes,
Israel demands money. Moon wanes, Israel demands money. Weather is sunny, Israel demands
money. Weather is rainy, Israel demands money. I sense a pattern here!
@Rurik Upon consideration, what Putin should do is set up a "Free" German government in
Königsburg just like the US is doing with Gaido in Venezuela. Get China to recognize it.
Then they should start negotiating lucrative contracts, treaties and alliances between the
Free Germans and the rest of OBOR. It would be fascinating to see how ZOG reacted.
Oh, and most important of all, declare a new debt free currency, perhaps gold backed. I
could live with the Reichsmark.
"... I believe that the current GLOBAL elites do understand exactly what they are doing and the potential consequences to the ongoing existence of private finance. ..."
"... The war that is being waged is an attempt to keep private finance in charge of our world ..."
"But current American elites have no concept of own actions having consequences."
I believe that the current GLOBAL elites do understand exactly what they are doing and the
potential consequences to the ongoing existence of private finance.
The war that is being waged is an attempt to keep private finance in charge of our world
and they are losing I am pleased to report
Sean
says:
April 4, 2019 at 4:51 pm GMT 300 Words I am not aware that anyone has ever considered Syria
a crucial centre of world power, and while Ukraine was once thought of that way back in the
days of Halford Makinder, I am afraid now they are both worthless.
I think you should distinguish between the deep state and the elite. The former are
primarily concerned with US primacy. The elite are economic internationalists and focused on
profit. Carter instituted a decades long policy mandating officials to help trade with China
under the influence of Brzezinski's Russophobia.
They fundamentally miscalculated the ability
of China to rapidly rival the West in productive capacity. Now the Western economies are
dependant on a Keynesian and financially frail China going all out for future growth. The elite
are in no position to lower the boom on China, and I think that is the last thing they
intend.
China is a milch cow for the global capitalists, they are dependant on China
succeeding.
Everyone is in favour of free trade if they think they will be successful in it, so the
Chinese enthusiasm is no evidence of altruism or the absence of a venal elite in their country.
Free trade allocating reward based on merit will benefit the American elite through their
Chinese investments, but it does not sound like good news for the American worker.
If there is pressure for something to stop China it will not just be coming from the rust
belt. The deep state plus the working class versus the financial elite is already ongoing; a
struggle to control American policy as the wealth generated by China is reaped by Western
financial elites and America falls to the status of second rate power.
@Anon
You are no Christians. USAism and all radical Protestantism is abusing the surface of
Christianity for satanic anti-Christianity.
There is no Christianity but what is rooted in the old and everlasting Church of which
Christ is the Head in the Holy Spirit, as laid in apostle's hands and transferred by Church
fathers.
Christianity is genuinely collectivist, it has nothing to do with the perverted
individualism of Anglosaxon background and does not agree with the inherent nihilistic energy
of capitalism.
I hate the Washington doublespeak about "rules-based international order."
When has the Imperial State ever followed any "rules?"
For instance, didn't the Nuremberg trials establish the principle that wars of aggression
constituted international war crimes? Wasn't the invasion of Iraq a violation of "rules-based
international order." And what about UN approval for the use of force. Did the US get UN
approval when they decided to overturn the Assad regime. Wasn't that a violation of
"rules-based international order."
The same can be said about the wars in Afghanistan, Libya and the coming war against
Venezuela.
What Washington really means when they talk about a "rules-based international order"
is "we make up the rules as we go along and those rules don't apply to us."
@Andrei Martyanov All true. And one more point: compared with China, how much of the
present-day US economy is even real – i.e., results in the production of actual
goods that people might want, as opposed to dodgy financial/insurance transactions which may
add a lot of dollar value to GDP, but don't create anything real that enhances the quality of
life for the masses?
Economist used to have a joke: every time you break your leg, you increase GDP. First, you
gotta pay the hospital (transaction), then you gotta pay your doctor (another transaction),
then you gotta pay for your case (yet another transaction). All those transactions make it
look like 'wealth' is being created, because they are–numerically, at
least–increasing per capita GDP. But still: wouldn't you and the country actually be
better off if you hadn't broken your leg in the first place?
China, emerged as an "honest broker" among countries in the Middle East, and used the
free market system to improve relations with its trading partners and grow its economy. The
IC appears to find fault with Russia because it is using the system the US created to
better advantage than the US.
Industrial Capitalism is the system China and Russia are running on. America briefly had
this system from 1868 to 1912; it was called the American System of Economy (Henry
Clay/Peshine Smith).
This type of economy uses state credit (from Treasury not banks) and injects it into
industry. Industry then grows, and people's welfare is increased through improved
productivity.
Finance Capitalism came out of London and hopped to America, especially post WW2. At the
same time Atlantacism and Rim theory hopped. America still runs under this BIZWOG (Britain
Israel World Government) matrix. This matrix depends on finance capitalism.
Finance Capitalism is the placing of EXISTING ASSETS onto a private bank ledger, to then
hypothecate said assets into new bank credit. For example, a ships bill of lading may be used
to create new bank credit, or existing homes are put on double entry ledger to make housing
bubbles.
The closer analogs to China and Russian economy are American System of Economy, not the
current American BIZWOG finance capital. The historical analogs would also be Canada
1938-1974, when Canada had a sovereign economy. Canada post 1974 was converted to finance
capitalism and now are debt laden and suffering like the rest of the west.
Kaiser's Germany used industrial capitalism then Japan's Manchurian Railroad Engineers
copied it for Japan. Mussolini in Italy copied parts of it, and NSDAP in Germany resurrected
Frederick List and the Kaiser's methods.
Finance Capital out of wall street funded the Bolsheviks in what amounted to a looting
operation of Russia. It is any wonder that finance capitalism found succor with communism
since they are both pyramid schemes?
Rim Theory, Atlantacism, Finance Capitalism, and Brzezinsky's chessboard are part of the
same thing, an excuse matrix for gobbling up the world into one double entry private bank
ledger, to then benefit a special (((usury))) finance class of plutocrats.
The "markets" that China and Russia operate on are those of industrial capitalism, using
state credit. China has four large state banks, and they often cancel debt instruments
(housed in the state bank) to then effectively put debt free money into their economy. Russia
injects gold into their Central Bank Reserves, to then emit Rubles. Both China and Russia
inject into industry, their farm sectors, and other sectors to get a desired output to help
their people, not put them into debt servitude.
The BIZWOG matrix will collapse, it is anti-logos and hence against the natural order. It
is on the wrong side of history.
Wealthy politicians and businessmen suspected of corruption in their native lands are fleeing to a safe haven where their wealth
and influence shields them from arrest.
They have entered this country on a variety of visas, including one designed to encourage investment. Some have applied for asylum,
which is intended to protect people fleeing oppression and political persecution.
The increasingly popular destination for people avoiding criminal charges is no pariah nation.
It's the United States.
An investigation by ProPublica, in conjunction with the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University, has
found that officials fleeing prosecution in Colombia, China, South Korea, Bolivia and Panama have found refuge for themselves and
their wealth in this country, taking advantage of lax enforcement of U.S. laws and gaps in immigration and financial regulations.
Many have concealed their assets and real-estate purchases by creating trusts and limited liability companies in the names of lawyers
and relatives.
American authorities are supposed to vet visa applicants to make sure they are not under active investigation on criminal charges.
But the ProPublica examination shows that this requirement has been routinely ignored.
One of the most prominent cases involves a former president of Panama, who was allowed to enter the United States just days after
his country's Supreme Court opened an investigation into charges that he had helped embezzle $45 million from a government school
lunch program.
Ricardo Martinelli, a billionaire supermarket magnate, had been on the State Department's radar since he was elected in 2009.
That year, the U.S. ambassador to Panama began
sending diplomatic cables warning
about the president's "dark side," including his links to corruption and his request for U.S. support for wiretapping his opponents.
Soon after Martinelli left office in 2014, Panamanian prosecutors conducted a widely publicized investigation of corruption in
the school lunch program, and in mid-January 2015, forwarded their findings to the country's Supreme Court.
On Jan. 28, 2015,
just hours before
the Supreme Court announced a formal probe into the charges, Martinelli boarded a private plane, flew to Guatemala City for a
meeting and then entered the United States on a visitor visa. Within weeks, he was living comfortably in the Atlantis, a luxury condominium
on Miami's swanky Brickell Avenue. He is still here.
The State Department declined to comment on Martinelli's case, saying visa records are confidential and it is the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection that decides who is allowed to enter the country. CBP said privacy regulations prevent the agency from commenting
on Martinelli.
Efforts to reach Martinelli, including a registered letter sent to his Miami address, were unsuccessful.
In September this year, Panama asked to extradite Martinelli, but the former president is fighting that request, arguing there
are no legal grounds to bring him back to his home country where the investigation has broadened to include insider trading, corruption
and abuse of authority. Last December, Panama's high court issued a warrant for his arrest on charges that he used public funds to
spy on over 150 political opponents. If found guilty, he could face up to 21 years in jail.
Rogelio Cruz, who is defending Martinelli in Panama's Supreme Court, said that the former president "will return to Panama once
adequate conditions exist with respect to due process, where there are independent judges -- which there aren't."
The United States has explicit policies that bar issuing visas to foreign officials facing criminal charges in their homelands.
In 2004, President George W. Bush issued a proclamation
designed to keep the United States from becoming a haven for corrupt officials. Proclamation 7750, which has the force and effect
of law, directed the State Department to ban officials who have accepted bribes or misappropriated public funds when their actions
have "serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States."
Under the rules implementing Bush's order, consular officers do not need a conviction or even formal charges to justify denying
a visa. They can stamp "denied" based on information from unofficial, or informal sources, including newspaper articles, according
to diplomats and State Department officials interviewed for this report.
The State Department declined to provide the number of times Proclamation 7750 has been invoked, but insisted that it has been
used "robustly."
But numerous other foreign government officials, including former presidents and cabinet ministers, have slipped through the cracks,
according to court documents, diplomatic cables and interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys in the United States and abroad.
The charges involved a wide range of misconduct, from stealing public funds to accepting bribes.
Six months before Martinelli entered the United States, a former Colombian agriculture minister and onetime presidential candidate,
Andres Felipe Arias, fled to Miami three weeks before he was convicted of funneling $12.5 million to wealthy political supporters
from a subsidy program that was intended to reduce inequality in rural areas and protect farmers from the effects of globalization.
The U.S. embassy in Bogota had been following Arias' trial closely and
reporting on the scandal in cables to Washington.
The trial
featured documents and witnesses saying that under Arias' watch, the agriculture ministry had doled out millions in subsidies
to affluent families, some of whom, according to media reports, had donated to Arias' political allies or his presidential campaign.
Subsidies went to relatives of congressmen, companies owned by the richest man in Colombia, and a former beauty queen. One powerful
family and its associates received over $2.5 million, according to records released by prosecutors. Another family, which included
relatives of a former senator, received $1.3 million. Both families had supported Arias' chief political ally, former Colombian President
Alvaro Uribe, with campaign contributions.
The law that
established the program did not ban wealthy landowners from getting grants, but some elite families had received multiple subsidies
for the same farm. They gamed the system by submitting multiple proposals in the names of different family members and by subdividing
their land so they could apply for grants for each parcel, court records indicate.
Yet, in November 2013, while the trial was going on, the U.S. embassy in Bogota renewed Arias' visitor visa. The State Department
refused to discuss the case, saying that visa records are confidential. But a
recent filing in federal court
showed that the U.S. embassy had flagged Arias' application, and asked him to provide documents to support his request to leave the
country while charges were pending. Arias submitted documents from the Colombian court, including a judicial order that allowed him
to travel. In the end, the embassy issued a visa because he had not yet been convicted.
Andres Felipe Arias, a former Colombian agriculture minister, who fled to the United States before he could be convicted
of funneling money from a subsidy program (GDA via AP Images)
On the night of June 13, 2014, three weeks before the judges convicted him of embezzlement by appropriation, a Colombian law that
penalizes the unauthorized use of public funds to benefit private entities, Arias packed his bags and boarded a plane. The following
month, the U.S. embassy in Bogota revoked the visa. But Arias hired an immigration attorney and applied for asylum.
"If you looked up 'politically motivated charges' in the dictionary, there would be a picture of Andres Arias next to it," said
David Oscar Markus, Arias' lead attorney. "The case [against him] is absurd and not even one that is recognized in the United States."
Over the next two years, Arias built a new life in South Florida with his wife and two children, opening a small consulting company
and renting a house in Weston.
On August 24, he was
arrested by U.S.
authorities in response to an extradition request from Colombia. He spent several months in a detention facility until his release
on bail in mid-November. Arias argues that the United States cannot extradite him because it has no active extradition treaty with
Colombia, but the U.S. Attorney's Office disagrees. A plea for asylum does not shield defendants from extradition if they are charged
in Colombia with a crime covered by the treaty between the two countries.
The agency that administers the program, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has adopted regulations designed to prevent
fraud, including requiring foreign investors to submit evidence, such as tax returns and bank statements, to prove they obtained
their money legally.
But these safeguards did not stop the daughter-in-law and grandsons of former South Korean dictator Chun Doo-hwan from using Chun's
ill-gotten gains to get U.S. permanent residency.
In 1996, a Korean court convicted Chun of receiving more than $200 million in bribes while in office in the 1980s, from companies
such as Samsung and Hyundai. He was ordered to return the bribes, but refused.
Part of Chun's fortune was funneled into the United States through his son, who purchased a $2.2 million house in Newport Beach,
California, according to South Korean prosecutors and real-estate records.
Millions of dollars from Chun's bribery proceeds were hidden in bearer bonds, which are notoriously difficult to trace. Unlike
regular bonds, which belong to registered owners, there is no record kept about the ownership or transfer of bearer bonds. The bonds
can be cashed out by whoever has them.
Former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan addresses the press at the White House in 1985. Chun's relatives later gained
permanent residency in the United States by using money Chun obtained through bribes. (Bettmann via Getty Images)
In 2008, Chun's daughter-in-law, a South Korean actress named Park Sang-ah, applied for an immigrant investor visa. Park listed
her husband's bearer bonds as the source of her funds without mentioning that the money had been initially provided to him by Chun.
Eight months later, Park and her children received their conditional U.S. permanent residency cards in the mail.
In 2013, at the request of South Korean prosecutors, the U.S. Justice Department launched an investigation into the Chun family's
wealth in the United States and subsequently
seized $1.2 million of the family's U.S. assets in the United States. The money was returned to South Korea. Despite that, Chun's
family members have retained their residency status.
Chun's relatives obtained their permanent residency by investing in an EB-5 project managed by the Philadelphia Industrial Development
Corporation, a nonprofit company. The PIDC pooled Chun's $500,000 with money from 200 other foreign investors to finance an expansion
of the Pennsylvania Convention Center in downtown Philadelphia.
The same project in Philadelphia also helped to secure permanent residency for Qiao Jianjun, a Chinese government official accused
of embezzling more than $40 million from a state-owned grain storehouse, according to reports in the People's Daily, the Chinese
Communist Party's newspaper. Qiao had divorced his wife, Shilan Zhao, in China in 2001, a fact he did not disclose to U.S. immigration
authorities. When Zhao applied for an EB-5 visa, Qiao qualified for U.S. permanent residency as an applicant's spouse.
The Justice Department launched an investigation only when it was tipped off by Chinese authorities. In January 2014,
a federal grand jury indicted Zhao and her ex-husband, Qiao, for immigration fraud, money laundering and internationally transporting
stolen funds. Zhao was arrested and released on bail. Federal authorities are pursuing Qiao, whose whereabouts remain unknown.
A trial has been set for February 2017. U.S. government attorneys have filed asset forfeiture cases to recover real estate linked
to Qiao and Zhao in Flushing, New York, and Monterey Park, California.
In April 2015, Qiao appeared on the Chinese
government's list of 100 "most wanted" officials who fled abroad after being accused of crimes such as bribery and corruption.
He and 39 other government officials and state-owned enterprise leaders on the list allegedly fled to the United States.
The list, called "Operation Skynet," is part of Chinese President Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign, which has vowed to take
down what Chinese officials describe as corrupt "tigers" and "flies" within the country's ruling Communist Party.
Fengxian Hu was another fugitive on China's list. A former army singer and radio broadcaster, Hu headed the state-owned broadcasting
company that had a joint venture with Pepsi to distribute soft drinks in Sichuan province. In 2002, The Washington Post and The Wall
Street Journal
reported that Pepsi had accused Hu of looting the joint venture and using company funds to buy fancy cars and go on European
tours.
The same year, in a widely publicized move, Pepsi filed a case with international arbitrators in Stockholm, asking that the joint
venture be dissolved. Despite this, Hu was given a visa that allowed him to fly regularly to Las Vegas, where he was a VIP client
at the MGM casino.
In January 2010, Chinese authorities investigated Hu for corruption. But the month before, Hu had entered the United States on
a B1 visitor visa, joining his wife, a U.S. citizen living in New York.
Hu tried to obtain a green card through his wife, but the petition was rejected by U.S. immigration authorities. He applied for
asylum instead.
Meanwhile, he had gotten into trouble in the United States for losing millions in a Las Vegas casino and failing to pay a $12
million gambling debt. In 2012, he was indicted in a Nevada court on two counts of theft and one count of intentionally passing a
check without sufficient funds.
Hu pled not guilty to the charges; his lawyers claimed that his checks bounced because his bank account had been closed by Chinese
authorities. The charges against him in the U.S. were considered an aggravated felony, which is a common basis for deportation. Hu,
however, had a pending asylum case and so could not be deported.
In August 2015, a New York immigration judge denied the asylum claim. But Hu's lawyers argued that he would be tortured if he
returned to China and invoked the United Nations Convention
Against Torture , which says that an alien may not be sent to a country where he is likely to be tortured. In the end, the immigration
court suspended Hu's removal order, allowing him to remain in the United States and work here indefinitely. He will not, however,
be given permanent residency or be allowed to travel outside the country.
The absence of an extradition treaty -- coupled with a high standard of living -- makes the United States a favored destination
for Chinese officials and businessmen fleeing corruption charges.
In April 2015, Jeh Johnson, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security , made a 48-hour trip to Beijing. The visit
was intended to pave the way for Chinese President Xi Jinping's U.S. visit in September 2015, according to a memorandum Johnson wrote,
which was obtained through a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
In the memo, Johnson said the Chinese government is seeking 132 people it said have fled to the United States to avoid prosecution.
This represents a greater number of fugitives than Chinese authorities have publicly acknowledged.
"I'm told that in prior discussions, the Chinese have been frustrated by the lack of any information from us about the 132 fugitives,"
Johnson wrote.
The Chinese request for assistance posed a dilemma for the United States. American officials are concerned about a lack of fairness
in China's criminal justice system. Human rights groups say that China continues to use torture to extract false confessions from
suspected criminals. Torture has also been documented to be part of shuanggui -- a secretive discipline process reserved for
members of the Chinese Communist Party.
Some analysts see the crackdown on corrupt officials as part of a purge aimed at the current regime's political rivals and ideological
enemies. U.S. officials say this makes returning corrupt officials to China a delicate issue for the United States.
In 2003, headlines around the world reported
widespread
street protests in Bolivia that led to security forces killing 58 people, most of them members of indigenous groups. Not long
afterward, as protesters massed up on the streets of La Paz demanding his resignation, Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada
resigned and fled his country along with his defense minister, Jose Carlos Sanchez Berzain.
The two men flew to the United States, where they continue to reside. In 2006, Berzain applied for political asylum, which he
was granted in 2007. On
his application, when the form asked, "Have you or your family members ever been accused, charged, arrested, detained, interrogated,
convicted and sentenced, or imprisoned in any country other than the United States?" Berzain checked the box "no," even though by
then he and de Lozada had been formally accused of
genocide by Bolivia's attorney
general. The indictment was approved
by Bolivia's Supreme Court in 2007. Berzain also stated on his application that the State Department had arranged for his travel
to the United States.
The de Lozada administration was vocally pro-American. Before it was ousted, officials had announced they would facilitate gas
exports to the United States.
After their departure, Bolivia's attorney general
publicly stated
that the administration had embezzled millions from government coffers, but did not formally file charges. He said de Lozada
had taken some $22 million from the country's reserve funds before fleeing.
De Lozada and members of his administration have dismissed the allegations as part of a politically motivated smear campaign,
but there is evidence to suggest irregularities may have occurred in the handling of the reserve funds. The former president signed
a decree shortly before leaving office authorizing the interior and finance ministers to withdraw money from Bolivia's reserve funds
without going through the normal approval process. De Lozada's former interior minister
pleaded guilty in 2004 to embezzlement after $270,000 in cash was found in an associate's home.
De Lozada, a mining mogul before he became president, moved to Chevy Chase, Maryland, an upscale suburb of Washington, D.C. He
now lives in a two-story brick house bought for $1.4 million by Macalester Limited, a limited liability company that was formed in
the British Virgin Islands and lists a post office box in the Bahamas as its principal address.
De Lozada's immigration status is unclear. He said in a sworn deposition in 2015 that he was not a U.S. citizen. His son-in-law,
who spoke to ProPublica on his behalf, would not say whether de Lozada had applied for asylum.
Berzain, meanwhile, settled in South Florida. Records show that he and his brother-in-law personally own or are listed as officers
or members of business entities that together control around $9 million worth of Miami real estate.
Some of the purchases were made in the names of entities that appear to list different variations of Berzain's name in business
records.
In addition, in the purchase of two properties, Berzain's name was added to business records only after the deal had gone through.
Berzain's brother-in-law incorporated a company called Warren USA Corp in October 2010, for example, and the company purchased a
$1.4 million residential property the following month. Three weeks after Warren USA Corp became the owner of an elegant Spanish-style
villa in Key Biscayne, Berzain was added as the company's secretary.
The following year, in May 2011, Berzain's brother-in-law created Galen KB Corp and registered as the company's president. A month
later, Galen KB Corp purchased a $250,000 condo. In August, Berzain replaced his brother-in-law as the company's president, according
to business records. Berzain is no longer listed as a company officer in either company.
During an interview in January, Berzain told ProPublica "I don't have any companies." When asked about several of the companies
associated with his name or address in public records, the former defense minister said he had a consulting firm that helped clients
set up companies and that he was sometimes added to the board of directors. Efforts to reach Berzain's brother-in-law, a wealthy
businessman and the owner of a bus company in Bolivia, were unsuccessful. Berzain's brother-in-law has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
The practice of purchasing real estate in the name of a business entity like a limited liability company, or LLC, is a common
and legal practice in high-end real-estate markets, and one that enables celebrities and other wealthy individuals to protect their
privacy.
But the practice also allows foreign officials to hide ill-gotten gains. U.S. regulations allow individuals to form business entities
like LLCs without disclosing the beneficial owner. The LLCs can be registered in the names of lawyers, accountants or other associates
-- or even anonymously in some states -- and used to purchase real estate, making it nearly impossible to determine the actual owner
of a property.
Government investigators and lawmakers have pointed out persistent gaps in U.S. policy that have enabled corrupt officials to
evade justice and hide their assets in this country. But little has changed.
Last year, a U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation
said it can be "difficult" for immigration officials to identify the true source of an immigrant investor's funds. Immigration
officials told the government auditors that EB-5 applicants with ties to corruption, the drug trade, human trafficking and other
criminal activities have a strong incentive to omit key details about their financial histories or lie on their applications.
"It's very easy to get lost in the noise if you're a bad person," said Seto Bagdoyan, the accountability office's director of
forensic audits, who co-authored the GAO report.
Immigration officials, he added, have an "almost nonexistent" ability to thoroughly evaluate investors' backgrounds and trace
their assets.
Despite such weaknesses, Congress has continually
extended the EB-5
program with minor changes. The program is backed by
real-estate lobbyists who argue that it is a crucial source of financing for luxury condos and hotels. The program is
expected to thrive in a
Trump presidency because the president-elect is a developer and his son-in-law Jared Kushner received $50 million in EB-5 funds to
build a Trump-branded tower in New Jersey.
In 2010, a Senate report described how powerful foreign officials and their relatives moved millions of dollars in suspect funds
into the United States. The report said investors bypassed anti-money laundering regulations with help from U.S. lawyers, real-estate
agents, and banking institutions. Last year, ABC News
reported that lobbyists for real estate and other business groups spent $30 million in 2015 in an effort to protect the EB-5
program.
Senate investigators proposed legislation that would require companies to disclose their beneficial owners and make it easier
for authorities to restrict entry, deny visas and deport corrupt foreign officials.
A few of the proposals have been adopted, but they have not made much difference. Banks have stepped up their efforts to identify
corrupt officials and monitor their accounts. Professional groups such as the American Bar Association have issued non-binding guidelines
for their members on compliance with anti-money-laundering controls. The U.S. government has also worked with the
Financial Action Task Force , an international body set up
to fight money laundering, to bring its anti-corruption controls in accordance with the body's guidelines.
In May, the Treasury Department enacted a new rule that will take full effect in 2018 and will require financial institutions
to identify the beneficial owners of shell companies. Some advocates see the rule as a step backward. The new rule allows shell companies
to designate the manager of the account as the beneficial owner, concealing the identity of the person ultimately exercising control.
The State Department declined to say what progress, if any, it has made on the Senate subcommittee's recommendation to more aggressively
deny visas through Proclamation 7750. "The Department takes seriously congressional recommendations and devotes resources to addressing
corruption worldwide," a State Department official wrote in response to questions.
In 2010, then-Attorney General Eric Holder launched the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. The small unit, which has grown
to include 16 attorneys, aims to recover assets in the United States that are tied to foreign corruption and return the money to
the looted countries.
Over the past six years, the unit has filed around two dozen civil asset forfeiture cases in an attempt to seize money, real estate
and other assets tied to government officials from 16 countries. Assets have ranged from a lone diamond-encrusted glove worn by Michael
Jackson that was purchased by Equatorial Guinea's Vice President, Teodoro Obiang, to a $1 billion fund tied to Malaysian Prime Minister
Najib Razak.
Yet most of the money the Department of Justice has pursued remains in limbo. The case involving Chun, the former president of
South Korea, is one of only two instances in which corrupt gains have been returned to the home country through the Justice Department's
efforts. The other arose when Justice Department officials
returned $1.5 million to Taiwan from property bought with bribes paid to the family of Chun Shui Bian, the former president of
Taiwan.
The agency faces myriad challenges when attempting to seize and return assets acquired by corrupt foreign officials, including
a lack of witnesses, said Kendall Day, head of the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section. These officials
often shield their transactions through shell companies, offshore companies or a network of associates.
"The mission of the Kleptocracy Initiative is really to target what we call grand foreign corruption that impacts the U.S. financial
system," Day said, citing the Chun case as an example.
The 2012 Magnitsky Act gives the government power to deny visas and freeze the assets of Russian nationals accused of corruption
or human rights violations. The Global Magnitsky Act would extend the same sanctions to the rest of the world, but it has yet to
be passed by Congress. Unlike Proclamation 7750, the Magnitsky laws require the government to publish a list of foreign government
officials who are barred from the United States.
In addition, the Treasury Department imposed regulations this year that aim to crack down on the use of shell companies to purchase
real estate in places like Miami and Manhattan. Title insurance companies are now required to identify the real owners of companies
purchasing high-end real estate without a mortgage. These regulations, however, are temporary.
Radio Sputnik's Loud and Clear spoke with Daniel Lazare,
a journalist and author of three books, "The Frozen Republic," "The Velvet Coup" and "America's
Undeclared War," about what we can expect from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
in 2019, its third year of operation.
"A House committee can keep the ball rolling indefinitely," Lazare noted. "Nothing solid has
turned up about collusion in the Russiagate story. Yet, the story keeps going and going, a new
tidbit is put out every week, and so the scandal keeps somehow perpetuating itself. And even
though there's less and less of substance coming out, so I expect that'll be the pattern for
the next few months, and I expect that the Democrats will revv this whole process up to make it
sort of seem as if there really is an avalanche of information crashing down on Trump when
there really isn't."
investigation, noting it had produced little to nothing of substance in support of the
thesis justifying its existence: that Russia either colluded with the Trump campaign or
conspired to interfere in the US election to tilt it in Trump's favor.
Indeed,
report after
report on the data that has been provided to Congress by tech giants like Facebook, Twitter
and Google show an underwhelming performance by any would-be Russian actors. In contrast to the
apocalyptic claims by Democrats and the mainstream media about the massive disinformation
offensive waged by Russian actors, the websites, social media accounts, post reach and ad money
associated with "Russians" is always
dwarfed by the equivalent actions of the Trump campaign and the campaign of its rival in
the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, along with their throngs of supporters
across the US corporate world, both of whom sunk hundreds of millions into winning the
social media game.
Among the chief motivations for Democrats going into 2019 is that "Democrats are now the
party of war," Lazare said, noting that Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi called Trump's
prospective withdrawal from Syria a "Christmas gift to ISIS [Daesh]."
"This is the raison d'etre for Russiagate: they're trying to maneuver Trump into
hostilities with Russia, China, North Korea, etc. I mean, this is foreign policy by
subterfuge it's about keeping 2,000 troops in Syria as well, and getting Americans' heads
blown off in Afghanistan, all of which the Democrats want to do. The whole thing is backroom
government of the worst kind."
"The Zionists have a long historical experience with bringing terror to the world ,
one example being the Zionist/ Bolshevik revolution in Russia where the Bolsheviks killed
some 60 million Russians bringing terror to Russia on an industrial level turning the whole
country into a slaughter house!"
Your excellent narrative is weakened by the above cited & unproved assertion. The
official Zionist narratives of 6 million Jews supposedly singled out and exterminated by
Germans during WW II, or the 60 million Russians killed by the Bolsheviks, ( the Zionists
agree with the 60 million figure-as well), contain numbers that do not add up. They
apparently enjoy citing with the number 6.
You do an excellent job on the phony 6 million narrative, but accept the 60 million
narrative -- without a demur. Does accepting the one allow you to freely declare the
other?
The population of Russia after WW I was an estimated 120 million. By 1979, the population
rose to 137.6 million. It is advised to distinguish between Russian, and Russian Empire
populations. The Tsarist Russian Empire, and the Soviet Union were larger than -- just
Russia. My citations below are of figures for the Russian population, as the official
Propaganda Charge is that "60 million Russians" were murdered.
It appears, that, taking into account (or not) the high Russian casualties of World War
II, (of both civilian and Armed Forces), the "Bolsheviks killed some 60 million Russians" is
clearly FAR more of an impossibility than the sacrosanct '6 million'.
This 60 million figure pushed by the American Zionist owned Mainstream Media, including
Zio-American texts and Hollywood, is most likely highly in error.
Slight digression:
One of the distinguishing features, when one compares the American with the Soviet Gulags,
is that the Soviet leadership viewed their prison system as a source of Cheap Labor, whereas
in America, prisoners are regarded as so much flesh -- to allow to rot away in the all but
Completely Unproductive American Gulag.
The American Gulag is profitable for corporations that build the prisons and supply
America's more than 2 million prisoners. The Russian Gulag had a much healthier -- human use
for their prisoners.
For the most part, Solzhenitsyn' s "GULAG Archipelago" supports this analysis.
After the fall of the Marxist Soviet government in 1990, the Russian Gulag quickly emptied
out, as it was more profitable for Russia to maximize the number of Free Laborers (workers
responsible for their own well being, and raising useful Russian progeny).
In Conclusion:
The Gulag was not a picnic, or Boy Scout Camp, few prison systems are. However there
were no gas chambers (get my attempt at mis-directional humor?). I have no doubt that, as
Solzhenitsyn wrote, millions died -- thru execution, or being worked to death. However:
I fail to see the "60 million Russians" killed by the Bolsheviks. If you can enlighten,
and document, we can continue this discussion.
In America, we must Restore Our Republic! And free all our Prisoners -- inside and
outside of the official Prison Walls.
@Durruti I am using
Alexander Solzhenitsyns figure for the 60 million Russians killed by the Zionist/communists
in Russia and Solzhenitsyn had access to Russian archives for his research and his experience
in the Gulags, and I have read The Gulag Archipelago and that is what I am going on.
I do not accept the Zionist figure of 6 million as the Zionists were pushing that figure
long before WWII in a propaganda effort , however I do think that several million jews were
killed along with Lutherans and Catholics and various other religions and political
dissidents and I base this on books like The Good Old Days by Ernst Klee and Willi Dressen
and Volker Reiss, among others that I have read.
The Zionist perpetrated slaughter house is now in operation in the Mideast and has been
for some 30 years and the Zionists show no signs of slowing down and want to use the Ukraine
as an agent provocateur to get the west into a war with Russia. One sign of how the Zionist
think is a remark by Madeline Albright , when aske if she thought the some 500,ooo thousand
children killed in Iraq were worth it, and she said it was worth it, these Satanists have no
regard for human life !
I believe at some point the Ukraine is going to be the powder keg used to start WWIII and
the Zionists believe they will survive in the DUMBS and this is what they believe will usher
in their messiah ie satan, read The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and The Committee of
300 by Dr. John Coleman.
@Cassander There is no democracy in US. There is civil war between two dysfunctional
parties. How come you did not notice? Or you just came from enchanted kingdom?
This article by late Robert Parry is from 2016 but is still relevant in context of the
current Ukrainian elections and the color revolution is Venezuela. The power of neoliberal
propaganda is simply tremendous. For foreign events it is able to distort the story to such an
extent that the most famous quote of CIA director William Casey "We'll know our disinformation
program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" looks like
constatation of already accomplished goal.
Exclusive: Several weeks before Ukraine's 2014 coup, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Nuland had already picked Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be the future leader, but now "Yats" is no
longer the guy, writes Robert Parry.
In reporting on the resignation of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the major
U.S. newspapers either ignored or distorted Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland's
infamous intercepted
phone call before the 2014 coup in which she declared "Yats is the guy!"
Though Nuland's phone call introduced many Americans to the previously obscure Yatsenyuk,
its timing – a few weeks before the ouster of elected Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych – was never helpful to Washington's desired narrative of the Ukrainian people
rising up on their own to oust a corrupt leader.
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the
Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.
Instead, the conversation between Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
sounded like two proconsuls picking which Ukrainian politicians would lead the new government.
Nuland also disparaged the less aggressive approach of the European Union with the pithy
put-down: "Fuck the E.U.!"
More importantly, the intercepted call, released onto YouTube in early February 2014,
represented powerful evidence that these senior U.S. officials were plotting – or at
least collaborating in – a coup d'etat against Ukraine's democratically elected
president. So, the U.S. government and the mainstream U.S. media have since consigned this
revealing discussion to the Great Memory Hole.
On Monday, in reporting on Yatsenyuk's Sunday speech in which he announced that he is
stepping down, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention the Nuland-Pyatt
conversation at all. The New York Times did mention the call but misled its readers regarding
its timing, making it appear as if the call followed rather than preceded the coup. That way
the call sounded like two American officials routinely appraising Ukraine's future leaders, not
plotting to oust one government and install another.
The Times
article by Andrew E. Kramer said: "Before Mr. Yatsenyuk's appointment as prime minister in
2014, a leaked recording of a telephone conversation between Victoria J. Nuland, a United
States assistant secretary of state, and the American ambassador in Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt,
seemed to underscore the West's support for his candidacy. 'Yats is the guy,' Ms. Nuland had
said."
Notice, however, that if you didn't know that the conversation occurred in late January or
early February 2014, you wouldn't know that it preceded the Feb. 22, 2014 coup. You might have
thought that it was just a supportive chat before Yatsenyuk got his new job.
You also wouldn't know that much of the Nuland-Pyatt conversation focused on how they
were going to "glue this thing" or "midwife this thing," comments sounding like prima facie
evidence that the U.S. government was engaged in "regime change" in Ukraine, on Russia's
border.
The 'No Coup' Conclusion
But Kramer's lack of specificity about the timing and substance of the call fits with a long
pattern of New York Times' bias in its coverage of the Ukraine crisis. On Jan. 4, 2015, nearly
a year after the U.S.-backed coup, the Times published an "investigation" article declaring
that there never had been a coup. It was just a case of President Yanukovych deciding to leave
and not coming back.
That article reached its conclusion, in part, by ignoring the evidence of a coup, including
the Nuland-Pyatt phone call. The story was co-written by Kramer and so it is interesting to
know that he was at least aware of the "Yats is the guy" reference although it was ignored in
last year's long-form article.
Instead, Kramer and his co-author Andrew Higgins took pains to mock anyone who actually
looked at the evidence and dared reach the disfavored conclusion about a coup. If you did, you
were some rube deluded by Russian propaganda.
"Russia has attributed Mr. Yanukovych's ouster to what it portrays as a violent,
'neo-fascist' coup supported and even choreographed by the West and dressed up as a popular
uprising," Higgins and Kramer
wrote . "Few outside the Russian propaganda bubble ever seriously entertained the Kremlin's
line. But almost a year after the fall of Mr. Yanukovych's government, questions remain about
how and why it collapsed so quickly and completely."
The Times' article concluded that Yanukovych "was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by
his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone
else. The allies' desertion, fueled in large part by fear, was accelerated by the seizing by
protesters of a large stock of weapons in the west of the country. But just as important, the
review of the final hours shows, was the panic in government ranks created by Mr. Yanukovych's
own efforts to make peace."
Yet, one might wonder what the Times thinks a coup looks like. Indeed, the Ukrainian coup
had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in
1953 and in Guatemala in 1954.
The way those coups played out is now historically well known. Secret U.S. government
operatives planted nasty propaganda about the targeted leader, stirred up political and
economic chaos, conspired with rival political leaders, spread rumors of worse violence to come
and then – as political institutions collapsed – watched as the scared but duly
elected leader made a hasty departure.
In Iran, the coup reinstalled the autocratic Shah who then ruled with a heavy hand for the
next quarter century; in Guatemala, the coup led to more than three decades of brutal military
regimes and the killing of some 200,000 Guatemalans.
Coups don't have to involve army tanks occupying the public squares, although that is an
alternative model which follows many of the same initial steps except that the military is
brought in at the end. The military coup was a common approach especially in Latin America in
the 1960s and 1970s.
' Color Revolutions'
But the preferred method in more recent years has been the "color revolution," which
operates behind the façade of a "peaceful" popular uprising and international pressure
on the targeted leader to show restraint until it's too late to stop the coup. Despite the
restraint, the leader is still accused of gross human rights violations, all the better to
justify his removal.
Later, the ousted leader may get an image makeover; instead of a cruel bully, he is
ridiculed for not showing sufficient resolve and letting his base of support melt away, as
happened with Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.
But the reality of what happened in Ukraine was never hard to figure out. Nor did you have
to be inside "the Russian propaganda bubble" to recognize it. George Friedman, the founder of
the global intelligence firm Stratfor, called Yanukovych's overthrow "the most blatant coup
in history."
Which is what it appears if you consider the evidence. The first step in the process was to
create tensions around the issue of pulling Ukraine out of Russia's economic orbit and
capturing it in the European Union's gravity, a plan defined by influential American neocons in
2013.
On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has been a
major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington Post and
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
At the time, Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. Congress to the tune of about $100
million a year, was financing scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists, paying for
journalists and organizing business groups.
As for the even bigger prize -- Putin -- Gershman wrote: "Ukraine's choice to join Europe
will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.
Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near
abroad but within Russia itself."
At that time, in early fall 2013, Ukraine's President Yanukovych was exploring the idea of
reaching out to Europe with an association agreement. But he got cold feet in November 2013
when economic experts in Kiev advised him that the Ukrainian economy would suffer a $160
billion hit if it separated from Russia, its eastern neighbor and major trading partner. There
was also the West's demand that Ukraine accept a harsh austerity plan from the International
Monetary Fund.
Yanukovych wanted more time for the E.U. negotiations, but his decision angered many western
Ukrainians who saw their future more attached to Europe than Russia. Tens of thousands of
protesters began camping out at Maidan Square in Kiev, with Yanukovych ordering the police to
show restraint.
Meanwhile, with Yanukovych shifting back toward Russia, which was offering a more generous
$15 billion loan and discounted natural gas, he soon became the target of American neocons and
the U.S. media, which portrayed Ukraine's political unrest as a black-and-white case of a
brutal and corrupt Yanukovych opposed by a saintly "pro-democracy" movement.
Cheering an Uprising
The Maidan uprising was urged on by American neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Nuland, who passed out cookies at the Maidan and reminded Ukrainian
business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European
aspirations."
A screen shot of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland
speaking to U.S. and Ukrainian business leaders on Dec. 13, 2013, at an event sponsored by
Chevron, with its logo to Nuland's left.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, also showed up, standing on stage with right-wing extremists
from the Svoboda Party and telling the crowd that the United States was with them in their
challenge to the Ukrainian government.
As the winter progressed, the protests grew more violent. Neo-Nazi and other extremist
elements from Lviv and other western Ukrainian cities began arriving in well-organized brigades
or "sotins" of 100 trained street fighters. Police were attacked with firebombs and other
weapons as the violent protesters began seizing government buildings and unfurling Nazi banners
and even a Confederate flag.
Though Yanukovych continued to order his police to show restraint, he was still depicted
in the major U.S. news media as a brutal thug who was callously murdering his own people. The
chaos reached a climax on Feb. 20 when mysterious snipers opened fire, killing both police and
protesters. As the police retreated, the militants advanced brandishing firearms and other
weapons. The confrontation led to significant loss of life, pushing the death toll to around 80
including more than a dozen police.
U.S. diplomats and the mainstream U.S. press immediately blamed Yanukovych for the sniper
attack, though the circumstances remain murky to this day and some investigations have
suggested that the lethal sniper fire came from buildings controlled by Right Sektor
extremists.
To tamp down the worsening violence, a shaken Yanukovych signed a European-brokered deal on
Feb. 21, in which he accepted reduced powers and an early election so he could be voted out of
office. He also agreed to requests from Vice President Joe Biden to pull back the police.
The precipitous police withdrawal opened the path for the neo-Nazis and other street
fighters to seize presidential offices and force Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their
lives. The new coup regime was immediately declared "legitimate" by the U.S. State Department
with Yanukovych sought on murder charges. Nuland's favorite, Yatsenyuk, became the new prime
minister.
Throughout the crisis, the mainstream U.S. press hammered home the theme of white-hatted
protesters versus a black-hatted president. The police were portrayed as brutal killers who
fired on unarmed supporters of "democracy." The good-guy/bad-guy narrative was all the American
people heard from the major media.
The New York Times went so far as to delete the slain policemen from the narrative and
simply report that the police had killed all those who died in the Maidan. A typical Times
report on March 5, 2014, summed up the storyline: "More than 80 protesters were shot to death
by the police as an uprising spiraled out of control in mid-February."
The mainstream U.S. media also sought to discredit anyone who observed the obvious fact that
an unconstitutional coup had just occurred. A new theme emerged that portrayed Yanukovych as
simply deciding to abandon his government because of the moral pressure from the noble and
peaceful Maidan protests.
Any reference to a "coup" was dismissed as "Russian propaganda." There was a parallel
determination in the U.S. media to discredit or ignore evidence that neo-Nazi militias had
played an important role in ousting Yanukovych and in the subsequent suppression of anti-coup
resistance in eastern and southern Ukraine. That opposition among ethnic-Russian Ukrainians
simply became "Russian aggression."
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a
Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
This refusal to notice what was actually a remarkable story – the willful unleashing
of Nazi storm troopers on a European population for the first time since World War II –
reached absurd levels as The New York Times and The Washington Post buried references to the
neo-Nazis at the end of stories, almost as afterthoughts.
The Washington Post went to the extreme of rationalizing Swastikas and other Nazi symbols by
quoting one militia commander as calling them "romantic" gestures by impressionable young men.
[See Consortiumnews.com's " Ukraine's
'Romantic' Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers ."]
But today – more than two years after what U.S. and Ukrainian officials like to
call "the Revolution of Dignity" – the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is sinking into
dysfunction, reliant on handouts from the IMF and Western governments.
And, in a move perhaps now more symbolic than substantive, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk is
stepping down. Yats is no longer the guy.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Khalid Talaat , April 16, 2016 at 20:39
Is it too far fetched to think that all these color revolutions are a perfection of the
process to unleash another fake color revolution, only this time it is a Red, White and Blue
revolution here at home? Those that continue to booze and snooze while watching the tube will
not know the difference until it is too late.
The freedom and tranquility of our country depends on finding and implementing a
counterweight to the presstitutes and their propaganda. The alternative is too
destructive in its natural development.
Abe , April 15, 2016 at 18:49
Yats and Porko are the guys who broke Ukraine. By the end of December 2015, Ukraine's
gross domestic product had shrunk around 19 percent in comparison with 2013. Its decimated
industrial sector needs less fuel. Yatsie did a heck of a job.
The timing of "Yats" departure is ominous. Mid-April, six weeks from now would be the
first chance to renew the invasion of DPR Donesk/Lugansk."Yats" failed in 2014, and didn't
try in 2015. Who is "the new guy"? Will the new Prime Minister begin raving about renewing
the holy war to recover the lost oblasts? 2016 is really Ukraine's last chance. Ukraine
refuses to implement Minsk2, and they have been receiving lots of new weapons. I believe
President Putin put the Syrian operation on " standby" not only to avoid approaching the
border, provoking a Turkish intervention, but also so he can give undistracted attention to
DPR Donesk/Lugansk.
Bill Rood , April 12, 2016 at 11:50
I guess I must be inside the Russian propaganda bubble. It was obvious to me when I
looked at the YouTube videos of policemen burning after being hit with Molotov
cocktails.
We played the same game of encouraging government "restraint" in Syria, where we
demanded Assad free "political prisoners," but we now accuse him of deliberately encouraging
ISIS by freeing those people, so that he can point to ISIS and ask, "Do you want that?"
Targeted leaders are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Andrei , April 12, 2016 at 10:26
"the Ukrainian coup had many of the same earmarks as such classics as the
CIA-engineered regime changes in Iran in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954", Romania 1989 Shots
were fired by snipers in order to stirr the crowds (sounds familiar?) and also by the army
after Ceasescu ran away, which resulted in civilians getting murdered. Could it possibly be
that it was said : "Iliescu (next elected president) is the guy!" ?
Joe L. , April 12, 2016 at 11:00
Check out the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela 2002, that is very
similar with protesters, snipers on rooftops, IMF immediately offering loans to the new coup
government, new government positions for the coup plotters, complacency with the media
– propaganda, funding by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy etc. John
Pilger documents how the coup occurred in his documentary "War on Democracy" –
https://vimeo.com/16724719 .
archaos , April 12, 2016 at 09:45
It was noted in the minutes of Verkhovna Rada almost 2 years before Maidan 2 , that
Geoffrey Pyatt was fomenting and funding destabilisation of Ukraine.
All of Svoboda Nazis in parliament (and other fascisti) then booed the MP who stated
this.
Mark Thomason , April 12, 2016 at 06:57
Also, the Dutch voted "no" on the economic agreement the coup was meant to force through
instead of the Russian agreement accepted by the President it overthrew. Now both "Yats" and
the economic agreement are gone. All that is left is the war. Neocons are still happen.
They wanted the war. They really want to overthrow Putin, and Ukraine was just a tool in
that.
Realist , April 12, 2016 at 05:51
You're right, it doesn't have to be the military that carries out a coup by deploying
tanks on the National Mall. In 2000, it was the United States Supreme Court that exceeded
its constitutional authority and installed George W. Bush as president, though in reality he
had lost that election. I wonder when that move will rightfully be characterized as a coup by
the historians.
"On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has
been a major neocon paymaster for decades, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington
Post and called Ukraine "the biggest prize" and an important interim step toward toppling
Russian President Vladimir Putin."
It should be remembered that Victoria Nuland took up the post of Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs in Washington on September 18, 2013.
Coincidentally, two other women closely connected to events in Ukraine were also in
Washington during September 2013.
Friend of Nuland and boss of the IMF, which has its own HQ in Washington, Christine
Lagarde was swift to respond to a Ukraine request for IMF loans on February 27th 2014, just
five days after the removal of Yanukovych on February 22nd. Lagarde is pictured with
Baronness Catherine Ashton in Washington in a Facebook entry dated September 30th 2013.
Ashton was High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy at the
time.
Though visiting Kiev at the same time as Nuland in February 2014 Catherine Ashton never
appeared in public with her, which seems a little odd considering the women were on the same
mission, and talking to the same people. Nevertheless, despite appearing shy of being
photographed with each other the two women weren't quite so shy of being pictured with
leaders of the coup, including the right wing extremist, Oleh Tyahnybok.
Ashton refused to be drawn into commenting on Nuland's "Fuck the E.U.!" outburst,
describing Nuland as "a friend of mine." The two women certainly weren't strangers, they had
worked closely together before. September 2012 saw them involved in discussions with Iran
negotiator Saeed Jalili over the country's supposed nuclear arms ambitions.
The question is not so much whether the three women talked about Ukraine's future –
it would be ridiculous to think they did not – but how closely they worked together,
and exactly how closely they might have been involved in events leading up to the overthrow
of the legitimate government in Kiev. More on this here:
Another failed "regime change". Aren't these guys (Neoconservatives) great. They fail,
piss off/kill millions, yet seem to keep making money and retaining power. Time to WAKE UP
AMERICA.
Skip Edwards , April 11, 2016 at 20:06
Read "The Devil'Chessboard" by David Talbot to understand what has been occurring as a
result of America's Dark, Shadow government, an un-elected bunch of vicious psychopaths
controlling our destiny; unless stopped. Get a clue and realize that "Yats is our guy"
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's "gal." Hillary Clinton is Robert Kagen's "gal." Time to
flush all these rats out of the hold and get on with our lives.
Joe L. , April 11, 2016 at 18:40
Mr. Parry thank you for delving into the proven history of coups and the parallels with
Ukraine. It amazes me how anyone can outright deny this was a coup especially if they know
anything about US coups going back to WW2 (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, attempt in
Venezuela 2002 etc. – and there are a whole slew more). I read before, as you have
rightly pointed out, that in 1953 the CIA led a propaganda campaign in Iran against Mossadegh
as well as financing opposition protesters and opposition government officials. Another
angle, as well, is looking historically back to what papers such as the New York Times were
reporting around the time of the coup in Iran – especially when we know that the
US/Britain overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh for their own oil interests
(British Petroleum):
New York Times: "Mossadegh Plays with Fire" (August 15, 1953):
The world has so many trouble spots these days that one is apt to pass over the odd one
here and there to preserve a little peace of mind. It would be well, however, to keep an eye
on Iran, where matters are going from bad to worse, thanks to the machinations of Premier
Mossadegh.
Some of us used to ascribe our inability to persuade Dr. Mossadegh of the validity of our
ideas to the impossibility of making him understand or see things our way. We thought of him
as a sincere, well-meaning, patriotic Iranian, who had a different point of view and made
different deductions from the same set of facts. We now know that he is a power-hungry,
personally ambitious, ruthless demagogue who is trampling upon the liberties of his own
people. We have seen this onetime champion of liberty maintain martial law, curb freedom of
the press, radio, speech and assembly, resort to illegal arrests and torture, dismiss the
Senate, destroy the power of the Shah, take over control of the army, and now he is about to
destroy the Majlis, which is the lower house of Parliament.
His power would seem to be complete, but he has alienated the traditional ruling classes
-the aristocrats, landlords, financiers and tribal leaders. These elements are
anti-Communist. So is the Shah and so are the army leaders and the urban middle classes.
There is a traditional, historic fear, suspicion and dislike of Russia and the Russians. The
peasants, who make up the overwhelming mass of the population, are illiterate and
nonpolitical. Finally, there is still no evidence that the Tudeh (Communist) party is strong
enough or well enough organized, financed and led to take power.
All this simply means that there is no immediate danger of a Communist coup or Russian
intervention. On the other hand, Dr. Mossadegh is encouraging the Tudeh and is following
policies which will make the Communists more and more dangerous. He is a sorcerer's
apprentice, calling up forces he will not be able to control.
Iran is a weak, divided, poverty-stricken country which possesses an immense latent wealth
in oil and a crucial strategic position. This is very different from neighboring Turkey, a
strong, united, determined and advanced nation, which can afford to deal with the Russians
because she has nothing to fear -and therefore the West has nothing to fear. Thanks largely
to Dr. Mossadegh, there is much to fear in Iran.
My feeling is that the biggest sin that our society has is forgetting history. If we
remembered history I would think that it would be very difficult to pull off coups but most
media does not revisit history which proves US coups even against democracies. I actually
think that the coup that occurred in Ukraine was similar to the attempted coup in Venezuela
in 2002 with snipers on rooftops, immediate blame for the deaths on Hugo Chavez where media
manipulated the footage, immediate acceptance of the temporary coup government by the US
Government, immediately offering IMF loans for the new coup government, government positions
for many of the coup plotters, and let us not leave out the funding for the coup coming from
USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy. I also remember seeing the New York Times
immediately blaming Chavez and praising the coup but when the coup was overturned and US
fingerprints started to become revealed (with many of the coup plotters fleeing to the US)
then the New York Times wrote a limited retraction buried in their paper. Shameless.
SFOMARCO , April 11, 2016 at 15:16
How was NED able to finance "scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists,
paying for journalists and organizing business groups", not to mention to host such
dignitaries as Cookie Nuland, Loser McCain and assorted Bidens? Seems like a recipe for a
coup "hidden in plain sight".
Bob Van Noy , April 11, 2016 at 14:36
Ukraine, one would hope, represents the "Bridge Too Far" moment for the proponents of
regime change. Surely Americans must be catching on to what we do for selected nations in the
name of "giving them their freedoms". The Kagan Family, empowered by their newly endorsed
candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, will feel justified in carrying on a new cold war,
this time world wide. Of course they will not be doing the fighting, they, like Dick Cheney
are the self appointed intellects of geopolitical chess, much like The Georgetown Set of the
Kennedy era, they perceive themselves as the only ones smart enough to plan America's
future.
Helen Marshall , April 11, 2016 at 17:11
I wish. How many Americans know ANYTHNG about what has happened in Ukraine, about Crimea
and its history, and/or could even locate them on a map?
Pastor Agnostic , April 12, 2016 at 04:11
Nuland is merely the inhouse, PNAC female version of Sidney Blumenthal. Which raises the
scary question. Who would she pick to be SecState?
Under neoliberalism any regime change is necessary followed by an economic rape. That was the case with the USSR in 1991,
that was the case in Ukraine in 2014. Only the size and length of the looting varies depending of the strength of new government.
Both the size and the length is maximal if in power are marionette like Yeltsin or Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko.
Saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" now should sound as "Beware of Americans who bring you color revolutions." They bring the
economic rape (aka "Disaster
capitalism") as the second phase. That's the nature of neocolonialism -- now you do not need to occupy the country.
It's enough to make it a debt slave using IMF and install compradors to endure the low of money and continuing impoverishment of the
population.
With such crooked and greedy friends as Biden and Kerry and their narcoaddicts sons you do not need enemies. But the main
danger are not individual sharks but Western financial institutions like IMF and World bank. Those convert countries into debt slaves
and that means permanently low standard (Central African in case of Ukraine, something like $2 a day) of living for generations
to come.
What is interesting is that unlike say German nationalists in 30th, the Ukrainian nationalists proved to be completly
useless in defending the Ukraine from looting. They actually serves as supplementary tool of the same looting.
The standard of living of Ukrainians dropped 2-3 times since 2014. How pensioners survive, on $50 a month pension I simply do not
understand. In any case Neoliberalism proved to be very effecting is keeping "developing" nations economic growth down and converting
them into debt slaves. The fact that Biden use loans as a tool of extortion (as in threat to cancel one billion loan) to close criminal
investigation of his sons company is just an icing on the cake. Poroshenko and his camarilla should be tried in the court of law for
his corruption and pandering to the Western sharks, who were happy to steal from Ukraine as much as then can.
To pay $166K a month for Biden's son cocaine is way too much to such impoverished country as Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... " Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat. ..."
"... The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member. ..."
"... U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. - The Hill ..."
"... And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill: ..."
"... The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's case against Burisma; ..."
"... President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 ..."
"... Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse. ..."
"... Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now! ..."
"... At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski. Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified. ..."
"... Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This is basic stuff. ..."
"... Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$. ..."
Originally from:
Forget 'Creepy'
- Biden Has A Major Ukraine Problem Joe Biden appears to have made a major tactical error last year when he bragged to an
audience of foreign policy experts how he threatened to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy if their top prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin,
wasn't immediately fired, according to
The Hill 's John Solomon.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council
on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden's account, though they claim the pressure was applied
over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day . Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine's
parliament obliged by
ending Shokin's tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not
bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired. -
The Hill
And why would Biden want the "son of a bitch" fired?
In what must be an amazing coincidence, the prosecutor was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas
firm - which Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of directors.
The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm
Burisma Holdings
that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers
into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period
when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. -
The Hill
The Hill 's Solomon reviewed the general prosecutor's file for the Burisma probe - which he reports shows Hunter Biden, his business
partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other
crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact
that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he
insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill:
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office
clearly had to know about the general prosecutor's probe of Burisma and his son's role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's
case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden's office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden's role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the
general prosecutor's Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president's office
suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 , after a popular revolution ousted
Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow
sent military forces into Ukraine's Crimea territory.
***
Key questions for 'ol Joe:
Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work
was performed for the money Hunter Biden's firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced
that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who
very publicly pursued Burisma?
Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization
campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding
Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse.
Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin
during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now!
Amazing that all 3 of them are still alive and that "Song Bird" McCain (#4) was allowed to die from his brain cancer instead
of joining them or being dismembered and put on display when he made these visit(s) (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbfsTcJCKDE ) along
with General Vallely (#5)!!!
Taras Bulba , 1 hour ago
At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski.
Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified.
CarifonianSeven, 2 hours ago
Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This
is basic stuff.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy, 1 hour ago
Joe cheated his way through undergrad and law school. He would be unable to understand any of that.
whittler, 1 hour ago
What? You mean folks will finally care about little Hunter hiring Azov neo-Nazi fighters (oops! security I mean) to protect
his fracking site just north of the 'troubles' in the eastern Ukraine? I'm sure they were working for free and that no Biden money
was ever used to payoff (oops again! I mean pay the wages of) a bunch of Nazis (dang it again, I mean neo-Nazis, it sounds so
much warmer and fuzzier when you add 'neo').
Creepy Joe and all D's agree, 'Nazi' = bad, neo-Nazi = warm, fuzzy and good; heck, they even like to kill Russians Russians
Russians!!!
Cracker 16 , 1 hour ago
Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$.
Last week a Wall Street Journal editorial revealed the incorrigible hypocrisy with which conservatives have long suffered. Conservatives,
of course, have long suffered this malady with respect to domestic policy given their ardent devotion to Social Security, Medicare,
foreign aid, and other welfare-state programs even while decrying the left's devotion to socialism.
But this particular WSJ editorial revealed the incorrigible conservative hypocrisy with respect to foreign policy.
"Vladimir Putin has made a career of intervening abroad and seeing if the world lets him get away with it."
Why is that sentence funny?
Because it also describes ever single U.S. president for the last 100 years!
Every president from Woodrow Wilson through today has made a career of intervening abroad and seeing if the world lets him get
away with it. Indeed, the central feature of the U.S. government for the last 100 years has been and continues to be empire and foreign
interventionism.
Clearly, conservatives do not see anything wrong with foreign interventionism as long as the interventionists are wearing an American
flag on their sleeves and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. They obviously consider foreign interventionism to be
bad only when those pesky Russkies (of Russia-Trump conspiracy fame) do it.
Another humorous aspect to the editorial is the verbiage that the Journal' s editorial writer uses to condemn Putin's interventionism.
The editorial condemns Putin for extending his interventionism in Syria to Venezuela.
Why is that point humorous?
Because the U.S. government, with the full support of conservatives, has also been intervening in both Syria and Venezuela! Thus,
the Journal could just as easily have stated that "Putin pulls a U.S. in Syria and Venezuela," except, well, for one thing: The regimes
in both countries invited Russia into their countries. The U.S. government, on the other hand, is intervening in both countries illegally
with the intent of ousting both regimes from power and installing pro-U.S. regimes in their stead.
The Journal pointed out Russia's intervention in Crimea and Ukraine. Not surprisingly, the Journal failed to point out that after
the end of the Cold War, NATO, that old Cold War-era dinosaur controlled by the U.S., proceeded to absorb former members of the Warsaw
Pact and was threatening to absorb Ukraine, which would then have put U.S. forces on Russia's border. In the eyes of conservatives,
that sort of interventionism just doesn't count because it's U.S. interventionism.
In fact, notice that conservatives, while lamenting Russian and Chinese support of Latin American countries hardly ever lament
U.S. government support of European, Eastern European, and Asian countries. That's hypocrisy in its purest and most incorrigible
form.
Venezuela is an independent country. As such, it has the right to seek and receive help from anyone it wants, including Russia,
China, North Korea, or any other regime, Red or not. Conservative calls to put a stop to this process are a throwback to the old
Cold War mindset that the Reds were coming to get us as part of the supposed worldwide communist conspiracy that was supposedly based
in Moscow. That's what gave rise, of course, to the conversion of our federal government from a limited-government republic to a
national-security state and to an even bigger expansion of an interventionist foreign policy.
That's in fact why the CIA, the Pentagon, and the NSA embarked on a decades-long policy of assassinations of foreign leaders,
invasions, occupations, coups, partnerships with dictatorial regimes, torture, indefinite detention, sanctions, embargoes, regime-change
operations, secret surveillance, and other dark-side practices. The national-security triumvirate said that all this dark-side activity
was necessary to protect us and keep us safe from the Russians (i.e. Soviets), Chinese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Cubans,
and other Reds. In other words, we had to become like the Reds in order to prevent them from taking control of the United States
and teaching communism in America's public (i.e., government-owned) schools.
Which raises the important question : Simply because Russia, China, North Korea, or other foreign regimes engage in foreign interventionism,
assassination, torture, secret surveillance, indefinite detention, or other dark-side practices, does that mean that the U.S. government
must do the same as a defensive or protective measure?
The answer is no. The U.S. government should never have gone down the road to empire and foreign interventionism regardless of
what the Reds were doing, and it should never have become a national-security state, which is a type of dark-side governmental structure
that is inherent to totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
The United States should restore its founding principles of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist foreign policy
regardless of what foreign regimes are doing. The U.S. should be leading the world to freedom by example, not by copying the Russians,
Chinese, North Koreans, or Vietnamese.
"... Slick Willy, recruited by the CIA to report on anti-war activism from Oxford back in 1968. ..."
"... we get America's first Black President, which serves to paralyze the left with identity politics in exactly the same way that the first woman President would. ..."
"... Unfortunately for the CIA and neoliberal establishment, Trump's unexpected win ( "Damn you ornery American voters!" ) has mortally wounded identity politics as an ideology, so the corporate mass media has tons of work ahead of them for getting plans back on track, if it is possible at all. ..."
Here is the way the CIA planned it from way back in Ronald Raygun's presidency:
PotUS 41: Bush Sr, CIA Don.
PotUS 42:Slick Willy, recruited by the CIA to report on anti-war activism from
Oxford back in 1968.
PotUS 43: Bush the Lesser, raised by the CIA.
PotUS 44: Slick Willy's ambitious cling-on who forced her way into the CIA scheme
back in the 1970s. Intended to be the first woman President. This symbolic
faux-progressive "victory" was intended to paralyze what remains of America's left
while she worked for the interests of the capitalist elites. Plan failed, but not too
badly. CIA candidate who was doing the trial run for PotUS 45 and getting some election
cred won instead. "No big deal!" sez the CIA, "44, 45 and 46 are all
interchangeable anyway." Instead we get America's first Black President, which serves
to paralyze the left with identity politics in exactly the same way that the first woman
President would. ( Aside:Obama's mamma was a CIA mule channeling financing to death squads
in Indonesia via the CIA cutout the Ford Foundation. The CIA crime family keeps tabs on
all of their used assets in case they get chatty and need to be quieted down. This
brought boy Obama to their attention and allowed them to groom him from infancy to be
their tool )
PotUS 45: Originally intended to be the "First Black President!" but
switched out for Clinton when plans SNAFUed in 2008. Hey, "First woman President!"
works just as good to choke criticism from the left, right? Right?
PotUS 46 (2024): What can you follow "First Black President!" and
"First woman President!" with to leverage identity politics and render the left
impotent? Why, the "First gay President!" , of course! With a name like Buttgig they
are shoving it right in our faces.
But the American electorate threw a monkey wrench (or an orange buffoon?) into the works
and screwed everything up. Trump was just floated as a "heel" (pro wrestling term)
or "foil" to be beaten, and in the process of being beaten reinforce the identity politics of
the victor and discredit populism.
Not having any better ideas, and not having any idea why their plans failed, the CIA is
just charging ahead with their idea of installing a gay President in 2024 and giving the
electorate some exposure to their tool now.
Unfortunately for the CIA and neoliberal establishment, Trump's unexpected win ( "Damn
you ornery American voters!" ) has mortally wounded identity politics as an ideology, so
the corporate mass media has tons of work ahead of them for getting plans back on track, if
it is possible at all.
"... Trump crushes adderol and snorts the powder. ..."
"... Whereas, Obama maintained a cool composure as he lied - those whoppers!; and as he expanded Corporate and MIC power and Cut Taxes on the rich, while smiling and telling you he was on your side, but gosh darn it - those mean republicans.... ..."
"... Obama seemed the Cyborg. Not on drugs, but who knows? ..."
"... Now Trump and Dubya. These guys share certain drug induced behaviors. Harder to control. Neither is very bright or curious. Bit of a loose cannon, harder to control. So you see these ticks and twitches and highs and lows. ..."
Whereas, Obama maintained a cool composure as he lied - those whoppers!; and as he
expanded Corporate and MIC power and Cut Taxes on the rich, while smiling and telling you he
was on your side, but gosh darn it - those mean republicans....
Obama seemed the Cyborg. Not on drugs, but who knows? He's got Michael's big pecker, so
he's content; and he'll make lots of money and live a jet set lifestyle of the rich and
famous. Easy. He's smart and slicker than cat shite. He guided the USA farther down the path
to the New World Order. No problem.
Now Trump and Dubya. These guys share certain drug induced behaviors. Harder to
control. Neither is very bright or curious. Bit of a loose cannon, harder to control. So you
see these ticks and twitches and highs and lows.
And Kushner. Too Young and inexperienced to do all that he does. It points to puppet masters pulling their strings.
Trump just wanted some good looking pussycats to come up to his suite; and some
hamberders.
"... Putin understands that both the loser and the winner lose in the confrontation. Therefore, he always offers a compromise for a long time, almost to the last opportunity, even to those who clearly do not deserve it, moving to other solutions only after the opponent has clearly crossed all possible red lines and can pose a threat to the vital interests of Russia. An agreement based on consideration of each other's interests is always stronger than any short-term 'victories', which tomorrow will result in the need to reaffirm their status of the winner again and again. It seems to me that Putin understands this well. Hence the effectiveness of his actions. ..."
That's a great piece by Escobar, and it contains snippets from his talk with Ishchenko,
which I recall he said was coming but which I don't think I ever saw anywhere until now.
I have to quote this perfect illustration of Putin from Ishchenko:
Putin understands that both the loser and the winner lose in the confrontation. Therefore,
he always offers a compromise for a long time, almost to the last opportunity, even to
those who clearly do not deserve it, moving to other solutions only after the opponent has
clearly crossed all possible red lines and can pose a threat to the vital interests of
Russia. An agreement based on consideration of each other's interests is always stronger
than any short-term 'victories', which tomorrow will result in the need to reaffirm their
status of the winner again and again. It seems to me that Putin understands this well.
Hence the effectiveness of his actions.
As to Pepe's main theme, that the Pentagon is hardening its stances, it's well reported,
and fits nicely with the latest piece from Whitney Webb, which Escobar linked form his
Facebook page, by the way (I get a lot of good "heads-up" links from there). I'll post it in
the next comment.
Webb's story is about the newly developed RED team, the "sole contractor" to USAID with
regard to Venezuela. The piece illustrates both the exact playbook to be used in Venezuela
and a hardening of stance in the covert activity sphere equal with the military sphere's
hardening that karlof1 cites @73:
For instance, one respondent asserted that the RED Team system would "restore the long-lost
doing capacity of USAID." Another USAID official with 15 years of experience, including in
"extremely denied environments," stated that:
"We have to be involved in national security or USAID will not be relevant. Anybody
who doesn't think we need to be working in combat elements or working with SF [special
forces] groups is just naïve. We are either going to be up front or irrelevant USAID
is going through a lot right now, but this is an area where we can be of utility. It must
happen."
This seems to speak a lot of the Trump administration's true ambitions in the Rambo
theater of fantasy and cruelty. This RED team is armed with cash and weaponry for offensive
violence, along with an entire vocabulary of institutional words that almost seem harmless
until you explore the implications, as Webb does.
I have to say in passing that I just don't know if we've ever been able to see so clearly
before - i.e. at the level of one magazine article citing the published declarations of the
actors - the exact and precise methods by which regime change will attempt to be imposed on a
target country.
Presumably Gerasimov and the rest of the Russia team are hip to every one of these moves,
and will counter effectively and creatively.
"The Supreme Court of Justice of #Venezuela ratifies precautionary measures to Juan
#Guaidó: prohibition to exit the country, prohibition to transfer his property,
blockade and immobilization of bank accounts or any other financial instrument in
Venezuela."
"The Supreme Court of Justice imposes a fine on Juan #Guaidó and asks the National
Constituent Assembly to lift the parliamentary immunity after Guaidó broke the
prohibition of leaving the country."
What will be the next "Or Else" utterance by the Naked Emperor's Agents be? Will they
threaten to throw the table holding all those possibilities? Perhaps also add the chairs?
Meanwhile, China delivers another freighter full of medical supplies.
Looks like the reviewer is a typical neocon. Typical neocon think tanks talking points that
reflect the "Full Spectrum Dominance" agenda.
As for Ukraine yes, of course, Victoria Nuland did not interfere with the event, did not push for the deposing Yanukovich to
spoil agreement reached between him and the EU diplomats ("F**k EU" as this high level US diplomat eloquently expressed herself)
and to appoint the US stooge Yatsenyuk. The transcript of Nuland's phone call actually introduced many Americans to the
previously obscure Yatsenyuk.
And the large amount of cash confiscated in the Kiev office of Yulia Timostchenko Batkivshchina party (the main opposition party
at the time run by Yatsenyuk, as Timoshenko was in jail) was just a hallucination. It has nothing to do with ";bombing with
dollars"; -- yet another typical color revolution trick.
BTW "government snipers of rooftops" also is a standard false flag operation used to instill uprising at the critical moment of
the color revolution. Ukraine was not the first and is not the last. One participant recently confessed. The key person in this
false flag operation was the opposition leader Andriy Parubiy -- who was responsible for the security of the opposition camp.
Google "Parubiy and snipergate" for more information.
His view on DNC hack (which most probably was a leak) also does not withstand close scrutiny. William Binney, a former National
Security Agency high level official who co-authored an analysis of a group of former intelligence professionals thinks that this
was a transfer to the local USB drive as the speed of downloads was too high for the Internet connection. In this light the
death of Seth Rich looks very suspicious indeed.
As for Russiagate, he now needs to print his review and the portrait of Grand Wizard of Russiagate Rachel Maddow, shed both of
them and eat with Borscht ;-)
"... Writing off Brazil (and India and South Africa for that matter) just because the empire has succeeded in swinging an election or two in those places, or because the empire's lawfare scams seem to be working at the moment, is a mistake. ..."
"... These conspicuous successes of the Empire of Chaos , as Escobar calls America, do not significantly change the anti-imperialist attitudes of the populations in these countries. ..."
Writing off Brazil (and India and South Africa for that matter) just because the
empire has succeeded in swinging an election or two in those places, or because the empire's lawfare scams seem to be working at the moment, is a mistake.
These conspicuous
successes of the Empire of Chaos , as Escobar calls America, do not significantly
change the anti-imperialist attitudes of the populations in these countries.
There will be
backlash against the fascists in Brazil, and the right wing leaderships in governments
elsewhere in Latin America that the US has maneuvered into place as these leaders fail to
deliver material gains to their populations. And fail they will considering we are in
late-stage capitalism.
Not since the witchcraft hysteria of the Middle Ages have we seen such a display of human
idiocy, credulity and absurdist behavior. I refer, of course, to the two-year witch hunt
directed against President Donald Trump which hopefully just concluded last week –
provided that the Hillaryites, Democratic dopes and secret staters who fueled this mania don't
manage to keep the pot boiling.
This column has said from Day 1 that claims Trump was somehow a Russian agent were absurd in
the extreme. So too charges that Moscow had somehow rigged US elections. Nonsense. We know it's
the US that helps rig elections around the globe, not those bumbling Russians who can't afford
the big bribes such nefarious activity requires.
What Muller found after he turned over the big rock was a bevy of slithering, slimy
creatures, shyster lawyers, and sleazes that are normally part of New York's land development
industry. No surprise at all that they surrounded developer Trump. Son-in-law Jared Kushner
hails from this same milieu. The Kushners are pajama-party buddies with Israel's leader,
Benjamin Netanyahu.
Now that the Muller investigation found no collusion between the Trump camp and the Kremlin,
we Americans owe a great big apology to Vladimir Putin for all the slander he has suffered. Too
bad he can't sue the legions of liars and propagandists who heaped abuse on him and,
incidentally, pushed the US and Russia to the edge of war.
People who swallowed these absurdist claims really should question their own grasp of
reality. Those who believed that the evil Kremlin was manipulating votes in Alabama or Missouri
would make good candidates for Scientology or the John Birch Society.
They were the simple fools. Worse, were the propagandists who promoted the disgusting
Steele dossier, a farrago of lies concocted by British intelligence and apparently promoted by
the late John McCain and Trump-hating TV networks. One senses Hillary Clinton's hand in all
this. Hell indeed hath no fury like a woman scorned.
It's so laughably ironic that while the witch hunt sought a non-existent Kremlin master
manipulator, the real foreign string-puller was sitting in the White House Oval office
chortling away: Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, behind him, the moneybags
patron of Trump and Netanyahu, American billionaire gambling mogul, Sheldon Adelson, the
godfather of Greater Israel.
The three amigos had just pulled off one of the most outrageous violations of international
law by blessing Israel's annexation of the highly strategic Golan Heights that Israel had
seized in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. This usurpation was so egregious that all 14 members of
the UN Security Council condemned it. Even usually wimpy Canada blasted the US.
Giving Golan to Israel means it has permanently secured new water sources from the Mount
Hermon range, artillery and electronic intelligence positions overlooking Damascus, and the
launching pad for new Israeli land expansion into Lebanon and Syria. Israel is said to be
preparing for a new war against Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
In contrast to this cynical business over Golan, the Trump administration is still
hitting Russia with heavy sanctions over Moscow's re-occupation of Crimea, a strategic
peninsula that was Russian for over 300 years. So Israel can grab Golan but Russia must vacate
Crimea. The logic of sleazy politics.
We also learned last week that according to State Secretary Mike Pompeo, Trump might have
been sent by us by God, like ancient Israel's Queen Esther, to defend Israel from the wicked
Persians. Up to a quarter of Americans, and particularly Bible Belt voters, believe such crazy
nonsense. For them, Trump is a heroic Crusading Christian warrior.
This is as nutty as Trump being a Commie Manchurian candidate. We seem to be living in an
era of absurdity and medieval superstition. No wonder so many nations around the globe fear us.
We too often look like militant Scientologists with nuclear weapons.
Fortunately, the cool, calm, collected Vladimir Putin remains in charge of the other side in
spite of our best efforts to overthrow or provoke him.
"... Given that Guaidó was trained by a group funded by USAID's sister organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) -- and is known to take his marching orders from Washington, including his self-proclamation as "interim president" and his return to Venezuela following the "humanitarian aid" showdown -- it is worth considering that this USAID document may well serve as a roadmap to the upcoming and Guaidó-led "tactical actions" that will comprise "Operation Freedom." ..."
"... Titled "Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) Teams: Demand and Feasibility Assessment," the 75-page document was produced for the U.S. Global Development Lab, a branch of USAID. It was written as part of an effort to the "widespread sentiment" among the many military, intelligence, and development officials the report's authors interviewed "that the USG [U.S. government] is woefully underperforming in non-permissive and denied environments," including Venezuela. Notably, some of the military, intelligence and development officials interviewed by the report's authors had experience working in a covert capacity in Venezuela. ..."
"... The report goes on to state that "RED Team members would be catalytic actors, performing development activities alongside local communities while coordinating with interagency partners." It further states that "[i]t is envisioned that the priority competency of proposed RED Team development officers would be social movement theory (SMT)" and that "RED Team members would be 'super enablers,' observing situations on the ground and responding immediately by designing, funding, and implementing small-scale activities." ..."
"... Also raising the specter of a Venezuela link is the fact that the document suggests Brazil as a potential location for a RED Team pilot study. Several of those interviewed for the report asserted that "South American countries were ripe for pilots" of the RED Team program, adding that "These [countries were] under-reported, low-profile, idiot-proof locations, where USG civilian access is fairly unrestrained by DS [Diplomatic Security] and where there is a positive American relationship with the host government." ..."
"... This January, Brazil inaugurated Jair Bolsonaro as president, a fascist who has made his intention to align the country close to Washington's interests no secret. During Bolsonaro's recent visit to Washington, he became the first president of that country to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. President Donald Trump said during his meeting with Bolsonaro that "We have a great alliance with Brazil -- better than we've ever had before" and spoke in favor of Brazil joining NATO. ..."
"... This is supported by the troubling correlation between a document produced by the NED-funded group CANVAS and the recent power outages that have taken place throughout Venezuela, which were described as U.S.-led "sabotage" by the country's government. A recent report by The Grayzone detailed how a September 2010 memo by CANVAS -- which trained Juan Guaidó -- described in detail how the potential collapse of the country's electrical infrastructure, like that recently seen in Venezuela, would be "a watershed event" that "would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate." ..."
"... The document specifically named the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant at Guri Dam, which failed earlier this month as a result of what the Venezuelan government asserted was "sabotage" conducted by the U.S. government. That claim was bolstered by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's apparent foreknowledge of the power outage. Thus, there is a precedent of correlation between these types of documents and actions that occur in relation to the current U.S. regime-change effort in Venezuela. ..."
With its hands tied when it comes to military intervention, only covert actions - such as those described in the RED Team document
- are likely to be enacted by the U.S. government, at least at this stage of its ongoing "regime change" effort in Venezuela.
Juan Guaidó, the self-proclaimed "interim president of Venezuela" who is supported by the United States government, recently announced
coming "tactical actions" that will be taken by his supporters starting April 6 as part of "
Operation Freedom ," an alleged grassroots effort
to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
That operation, according to Guaidó, will be
led by "Freedom and Aid Committees" that in turn create "freedom cells" throughout the country -- "cells" that will spring to
action when Guaidó gives the signal on April 6 and launch large-scale community protests. Guaidó's stated plan involves the Venezuelan
military then taking his side, but his insistence that "all options are still on the table" (i.e., foreign military intervention)
reveals his impatience with the military, which has continued to stay loyal to Maduro throughout Guaidó's "interim presidency."
However, a document released by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) in February, and highlighted last month in
a report
by Devex, details the creation of networks of small teams, or cells, that would operate in a way very similar to what Guaidó
describes in his plan for "Operation Freedom."
Given that Guaidó
was trained by a group funded by USAID's sister organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) -- and is known to take
his marching orders from Washington, including
his self-proclamation as "interim president" and his return to Venezuela following the "humanitarian aid" showdown -- it is worth
considering that this USAID document may well serve as a roadmap to the upcoming and Guaidó-led "tactical actions" that will comprise
"Operation Freedom."
RED Teams
Titled "Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) Teams: Demand and Feasibility Assessment," the 75-page
document was produced for the U.S. Global Development Lab,
a branch of USAID. It was written as part of an effort to the "widespread sentiment" among the many military, intelligence, and development
officials the report's authors interviewed "that the USG [U.S. government] is woefully underperforming in non-permissive and denied
environments," including Venezuela. Notably, some of the military, intelligence and development officials interviewed by the report's
authors had experience working in a covert capacity in Venezuela.
The approach put forth in this report involves the creation of rapid expeditionary development (RED) teams, who would "be deployed
as two-person teams and placed with 'non-traditional' USAID partners executing a mix of offensive, defensive, and stability operations
in extremis conditions." The report notes later on that these "non-traditional" partners are U.S. Special Forces (SF) and the CIA.
The report goes on to state that "RED Team members would be catalytic actors, performing development activities alongside local
communities while coordinating with interagency partners." It further states that "[i]t is envisioned that the priority competency
of proposed RED Team development officers would be social movement theory (SMT)" and that "RED Team members would be 'super enablers,'
observing situations on the ground and responding immediately by designing, funding, and implementing small-scale activities."
In other words, these teams of combined intelligence, military and/or "democracy promoting" personnel would work as "super enablers"
of "small-scale activities" focused on "social movement theory" and community mobilizations, such as the mobilizations of protests.
The decentralized nature of RED teams and their focus on engineering "social movements" and "mobilizations" is very similar to
Guaidó's plan for "Operation
Freedom." Operation Freedom is set to begin through "Freedom and Aid committees" that cultivate decentralized "freedom cells" throughout
the country and that create mass mobilizations when Guaidó gives the go ahead on April 6. The ultimate goal of Operation Freedom
is to have those "freedom cell"-generated protests converge on Venezuela's presidential palace, where Nicolás Maduro resides. Given
Guaidó lack of momentum and popularity within Venezuela, it seems highly likely that U.S. government "catalytic actors" may be a
key part of his upcoming plan to topple Maduro in little over a week.
Furthermore, an appendix included in the report states that RED Team members, in addition to being trained in social movement
theory and community mobilization techniques, would also be trained in "weapons handling and use," suggesting that their role as
"catalytic actors" could also involve Maidan-esque behavior. This is a distinct possibility raised by the report's claim that RED
Team members be trained in the use of both "offensive" and "defensive" weaponry.
In addition, another appendix states that RED Team members would help "identify allies and mobilize small amounts of cash to establish
community buy-in/relationship" -- i.e., bribes -- and would particularly benefit the CIA by offering a way to "transition covert
action into community engagement activities."
Feeling Bolsonaro's breath on its neck
Also raising the specter of a Venezuela link is the fact that the document suggests Brazil as a potential location for a RED Team
pilot study. Several of those interviewed for the report asserted that "South American countries were ripe for pilots" of the RED
Team program, adding that "These [countries were] under-reported, low-profile, idiot-proof locations, where USG civilian access is
fairly unrestrained by DS [Diplomatic Security] and where there is a positive American relationship with the host government."
This January, Brazil inaugurated Jair Bolsonaro as president, a fascist who has made his intention to align the country close
to Washington's interests no secret. During Bolsonaro's
recent visit to Washington, he became the first president of that country to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. President
Donald Trump said during his meeting with Bolsonaro that "We have a great alliance with Brazil -- better than we've ever had before"
and spoke in favor of Brazil joining NATO.
Though Bolsonaro's government
has claimed late in February that it would not allow the U.S. to launch a military intervention from its territory, Bolsonaro's
son, Eduardo Bolsonaro -- an adviser to his father and a Brazilian congressman --
said
last week that "use of force will be necessary" in Venezuela "at some point" and, echoing the Trump administration, added that
"all options are on the table." If Bolsonaro's government does allow the "use of force," but not a full-blown foreign military intervention
per se, its closeness to the Trump administration and the CIA suggests that covert actions, such as those carried out by the proposed
RED Teams, are a distinct possibility.
Frontier Design Group
The RED Team report was authored by members of Frontier Design Group (FDG) for USAID's Global Development Lab. FDG is a national
security contractor and its mission statement on its website is quite revealing:
Since our founding, Frontier has focused on the challenges and opportunities that concern the "3Ds" of Defense, Development
and Diplomacy and critical intersections with the intelligence community. Our work has focused on the wicked and sometimes overlapping
problem sets of fragility, violent extremism, terrorism, civil war, and insurgency. Our work on these complex issues has included
projects with the U.S. Departments of State and Defense, USAID, the National Counterterrorism Center and the U.S. Institute of
Peace."
FDG also states on is website that it also regularly does work for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Omidyar Group -- which
is controlled by Pierre Omidyar, a billionaire with deep ties to the U.S. national security establishment that were the subject of
a recent MintPress series. According to journalist Tim Shorrock, who mentions the document in
a recent investigation
focusing on Pierre Omidyar for Washington Babylon , FDG was the "sole contractor" hired by USAID to create a "new counterinsurgency
doctrine for the Trump administration" and the fruit of that effort is the "RED Team" document described above.
One of the co-authors of the document is
Alexa Courtney , FDG founder
and former USAID liaison officer with the Department of Defense; former manager of civilian counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan
for USAID; and former counterinsurgency specialist for U.S. intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.
In addition, according to Shorrock, Courtney's name has also been found "on several Caerus [Associates] contracts with USAID and
US intelligence that were leaked to me on a thumb drive, including a $77 million USAID project to track 'licit and illicit networks'
in Honduras." Courtney, according to
her LinkedIn account, was also
recently honored by Chevron Corporation for her "demonstrated leadership and impact on development results." MintPress
recently reported
on the role of Chevron in the current U.S.-led effort to topple Maduro and replace him with Guaidó.
Send in the USAID
Though Devex was told last month that USAID was "still working on the details in formulating the Rapid Expeditionary Development
(RED) Teams initiative," Courtney
stated
that the report's contents had been "received really favorably" by "very senior" and "influential" former and current government
officials she had interviewed during the creation of the document.
For instance, one respondent asserted that the RED Team system would "restore the long-lost doing capacity of USAID." Another
USAID official with 15 years of experience, including in "extremely denied environments," stated that:
We have to be involved in national security or USAID will not be relevant. Anybody who doesn't think we need to be working
in combat elements or working with SF [special forces] groups is just naďve. We are either going to be up front or irrelevant
USAID is going through a lot right now, but this is an area where we can be of utility. It must happen."
Given that the document represents the efforts of the sole contractor tasked with developing the current administration's new
counterterrorism strategy, there is plenty of reason to believe that its contents -- published for over a year -- have been or are
set to be put to use in Venezuela, potentially as part of the upcoming "Operation Freedom," set to begin on April 6.
This is supported by the troubling correlation between a document produced by the NED-funded group CANVAS and the recent power
outages that have taken place throughout Venezuela, which were described as U.S.-led "sabotage" by the country's government. A
recent report by The Grayzone detailed how a September 2010 memo by CANVAS -- which trained Juan Guaidó -- described in detail
how the potential collapse of the country's electrical infrastructure, like that recently seen in Venezuela, would be "a watershed
event" that "would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate."
The document specifically named the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant at Guri Dam, which failed earlier this month as a result
of what the Venezuelan government asserted was "sabotage" conducted by the U.S. government. That claim was bolstered by U.S. Senator
Marco Rubio's apparent foreknowledge of the power outage. Thus, there is a precedent of correlation between these types of documents
and actions that occur in relation to the current U.S. regime-change effort in Venezuela.
Furthermore, it would make sense for the Trump administration to attempt to enact such an initiative as that described in the
document, given its apparent inability to launch a military intervention in Venezuela, despite its frequent claims that "all options
are on the table." Indeed, U.S. allies -- including those close to Venezuela, like Colombia --
have rejected military intervention, given the U.S.' past role in bloody coups and civil wars throughout the region.
Thus, with its hands tied when it comes to military intervention, only covert actions -- such as those described in the RED Team
document -- are likely to be enacted by the U.S. government, at least at this stage of its ongoing "regime change" effort in Venezuela.
"... The purpose is very simple: to create the perception that the government of Russia still somehow controls or manipulates the US government and thus gains some undeserved improvements in relations with the U.S. Once such perception is created, people will demand that relations with Russia are worsened to return them to a "fair" level. While in reality these relations have been systematically destroyed by the Western establishment (CFR) for many years. ..."
"... It's a typical inversion to hide the hybrid war of the Western establishment against Russian people. Yes, Russian people. Not Putin, not Russian Army, not Russian intelligence services, but Russian people. Russians are not to be allowed to have any kind of industries, nor should they be allowed to know their true history, nor should they possess so much land. ..."
"... Russians should work in coal mines for a dollar a day, while their wives work as prostitutes in Europe. That's the maximum level of development that the Western establishment would allow Russians to have (see Ukraine for a demo version). Why? Because Russians are subhumans. ..."
"... The end goal of the Western establishment is a complete military, economic, psychological, and spiritual destruction of Russia, secession of national republics (even though in some of them up to 50% of population are Russians, but this will be ignored, as it has been in former Soviet republics), then, finally, dismemberment of what remains of Russia into separate states warring with each other. ..."
"... The very concept of Russian nation should disappear. Siberians will call their language "Siberian", Muscovites will call their language "Moscovian", Pomorians will call their language "Pomorian", etc. The U.S. Department of State will, of course, endorse such terminology, just like they endorse the term "Montenegrian language", even though it's the same Serbo-Croatian language with the same Cyrillic writing system. ..."
The purpose is very simple: to create the perception that the government of Russia still somehow controls or manipulates
the US government and thus gains some undeserved improvements in relations with the U.S. Once such perception is created, people
will demand that relations with Russia are worsened to return them to a "fair" level. While in reality these relations have been
systematically destroyed by the Western establishment (CFR) for many years.
It's a typical inversion to hide the hybrid war of the Western establishment against Russian people. Yes, Russian people.
Not Putin, not Russian Army, not Russian intelligence services, but Russian people. Russians are not to be allowed to have any
kind of industries, nor should they be allowed to know their true history, nor should they possess so much land.
Russians should work in coal mines for a dollar a day, while their wives work as prostitutes in Europe. That's the maximum
level of development that the Western establishment would allow Russians to have (see Ukraine for a demo version). Why? Because
Russians are subhumans.
Whatever they do, it's always wrong, bad, oppressive, etc. Russians are bad because they're bad. They must be "taught a lesson",
"put into their place". It would, of course, be beneficial and highly profitable for Europeans to break with Anglo-Saxons and
to live in peace and harmony with Russia, but Europeans simply can not overcome their racism towards Russians. The young Europeans
are just as racist, with their incessant memes about "squatting Russians in tracksuits", "drunken Russians", etc., as if there's
nothing else that is notable about a country of 147 million people.
The end goal of the Western establishment is a complete military, economic, psychological, and spiritual destruction of
Russia, secession of national republics (even though in some of them up to 50% of population are Russians, but this will be ignored,
as it has been in former Soviet republics), then, finally, dismemberment of what remains of Russia into separate states warring
with each other.
The very concept of Russian nation should disappear. Siberians will call their language "Siberian", Muscovites will call
their language "Moscovian", Pomorians will call their language "Pomorian", etc. The U.S. Department of State will, of course,
endorse such terminology, just like they endorse the term "Montenegrian language", even though it's the same Serbo-Croatian language
with the same Cyrillic writing system.
Israel is running America into the ground, wrecking Europe and trying to start a war with
Russia. America needs to cut all aid and get away from the nasty little cancer before they
finish the Job and start WW3!
@A123 Palestinain Mandate and Palestine are historically 2 completely separate
entities.
But Jews have a knack of conflating and presenting the mess as the reality that you and me
have to respect. No, we don't.
Long time ago Israel started giving biblical names to certain areas of Palestine to make it
appealing to the ignoramus leaders among the Bible thumping Western crowd of 1900.
It was planted as religious historical archeological realities with deeply emotional arc
that bound lefties conservatives religion secular educated uneducated, local fellow
international citizen and spliced together vast segmented stratified minds of western society
to one theme – positive view about Jew and Zionism-on the sly.
It succeeded. But that success is an abomination. It is travesty, it is moral and
intellectual and ethical failures of western education and politics. it is a dereliction of
academic responsibility .
Now the tide is against the presence of intellectual dishonesty . BDS is part of that , so
is the truth being forced on Democrats voters . Chasm is widening with raw edges .
Conservatives still cling to the old charade at a cost . It hurts them BY allowing continued
presence of the disastrous Zionist views on each and every aspect of their lives, they lose-
religion,economy,society , and values. . It robs them a safe a prosperous future .
"... On March 18, 2019, the military commanders of Iran, Syria, and Iraq convened in Damascus in order to discuss long-term strategic and operational cooperation. The delegations were led by Mohammad Bagheri (Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces), Ali Abdullah Ayyoub (the Syrian Defense Minister), and Othman al-Ghanmi (Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Military). Officially, the summit addressed coordination in counter-terrorism operations, joint securing and opening of borders, and restoring Damascus' control over the en-tire Syrian territory. ..."
"... In mid-March 2019, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Muhterem Ince and his Iranian counterpart, Hussein Zulfiqari, reached "an agreement on launching a simultaneous operation against terror groups that threat-en the security of both countries" during a meeting in Ankara. If successful, this would be the first of many operations. The first joint operation was conducted on March 18-23, 2019, mainly in northern Iraq. In addition to widespread bombing and shelling, around 600 Turkish and Iranian special forces carried out joint raiding operations against Kurdish "terrorist camps". In the last days of the operation, aerial bombings were directed at all Kurdish nemeses in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. On March 24, 2019, Ankara and Tehran announced that they "are determined to continue carrying out such joint counter-terrorism operations". ..."
"... The first priority was to build Qatar's new oil and gas pipelines to the Mediterranean via Iran-Iraq-Syria and also connect to the pipelines in Turkey. These pipelines would substitute for the originally planned "Sunni pipelines" which were to transverse Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Iraq-Syria and which had originally led to the Qatari support for the Syrian jihad. The new pipelines would move to the shores of the Mediterranean -- mainly the Syrian port of Latakia -- gas and oil from both Qatar and Iran. The pipelines would be followed by electricity lines and a fully integrated transportation infrastructure on a regional basis. ..."
"... Taken together, the transportation cooperation agreement between the three bloc members (Qatar, Iran, and Turkey), and the transportation agreement between Iran, Iraq, and Syria, provide for a road and rail-way system linking all these states. This makes Iran the lynchpin of the regional transportation networks, and, thus, a crucial purveyor of access for the PRC. Indeed, PRC senior officials consider Iran to be "a key pivot to China's BRI in the region". ..."
The key to the success of the bloc is the emerging correlation of influence of the great
powers in the aftermath of the wars in Syria and Iraq . Russia and the People's Republic of
China are ready to compromise with the regional powers in order to secure their vital and
global interests, while the US, Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, Israel, are the nemeses
of the bloc.
The roots of "the Middle Eastern Entente" are in Doha. Qatar in Summer 2017 initiated a
myriad of bilat-eral and trilateral discussions with Iran and Turkey after Saudi Arabia and the
GCC allies imposed the siege on Qatar in June of that year. However, it was not until the
second half of 2018, with the initial impact of the siege largely ameliorated, that the
long-term post-war posture of the greater Middle East became a major priority.
It was then that Doha, Tehran, and Ankara started talking about forming a coherent strategic
bloc.
According to Iman Zayat, the Managing Editor of The Arab Weekly, in late November 2018, the
three coun-tries struck a deal in Tehran to create a "joint working group to facilitate the
transit of goods between the three countries". This was the beginning of a profound realignment
of the three regional powers. "Qatar has irrevocably joined with Ankara and Tehran against its
former Arab allies. It has conclusively positioned itself in a regional alliance that pursues
geopolitical dominance by driving instability," Zayat noted.
It did not take long for the three powers to realize that for such a bloc to succeed it must
focus on security issues and not just economic issues.
Hectic negotiations followed. In mid-December 2018, the three foreign ministers -- Muhammad
bin Ab-dulrahman al-Thani, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and Mevlut Çavusoglu -- signed the
protocols and agree-ments for the new bloc on the sidelines of the 18th Doha Forum. In the
Forum, Qatar formally called for "a new alliance that would replace the four-decade-old Gulf
Cooperation Council". Since then, specific and concrete negotiations on the consolidation of
the bloc have been taking place. The final modalities for joint actions and common priorities,
particularly the integration of the Arab states, were formulated in ear-ly March 2019.
Iran was the dominant force in this phase.
The last decisive push for the Arab integration took place during Bashar al-Assad's visit to
Tehran on Feb-ruary 25, 2019. There, he submitted to the demands of the Iranian mullahs and to
tight supervision by Teh-ran. Significantly, during his stay in Tehran, Assad was constantly
escorted by Qassem Soleimani, Mahmoud Alavi, and Ali Akbar Velayati, who attended all his
meetings with Iranian leaders. In Tehran, Assad commit-ted to supporting the new bloc and to
support the greater Middle East the bloc members were trying to create.
The geo-strategic and geo-economic objectives of the bloc are huge, and, as things stand in
late March 2019, largely attainable.
The first objective of "the Middle Eastern Entente" was to quickly consolidate strong
influence, if not he-gemony, over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan before the Fertile Crescent
of Minorities could re-emerge as a viable geo-strategic and political entity. The primary
rôle of the revived Fertile Crescent of Minorities was to constitute a buffer containing
the upsurge of the Sunni Arab milieu and blocking the access of both Iran and Turkey to the
heartlands of al-Jazira.
The greatest fear of the bloc members, however, was the possible ascent of the Kurds as a
regional power once they internalized the US betrayal and were ready to strike deals with
Moscow and Damascus. The overall susceptibility of the four Arab countries to the new regional
posture was evident from their blatant disregard of the US sanctions on Iran. Hence, this
region would soon become the key to a new grand-strategic and grand-economic posture for the
entire greater Middle East.
Tehran emerged as the dominant power in the security posture.
The surge has been conducted under the command of Maj.-Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Commander of
the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC: Pasdaran). Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i on March 11, 2019, awarded Soleimani a unique and high State honor: the
Order of Zolfaghar. [Significantly, this order, established in 1856 as The Decoration of the
Commander of the Faithful by Em-peror Naser al-Din Shah, was awarded until 1925 where it was
renamed as The Order of Zolfaghar by Em-peror Reza Shah I. It had not been awarded since the
downfall of the Shah in 1979 until the award -- pre-sumably in the highest of the three classes
of the Order -- to Maj.-Gen. Soleimani.]
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told the Mehr News Agency that Soleimani received the
award on account of his leading "the fight against terrorism and extremism in the region".
Zarif stressed that So-leimani's achievements "have prepared the grounds for creating a strong
and stable region free from violence and radicalization".
On March 18, 2019, the military commanders of Iran, Syria, and Iraq convened in Damascus in
order to discuss long-term strategic and operational cooperation. The delegations were led by
Mohammad Bagheri (Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces), Ali Abdullah Ayyoub (the Syrian
Defense Minister), and Othman al-Ghanmi (Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Military). Officially, the
summit addressed coordination in counter-terrorism operations, joint securing and opening of
borders, and restoring Damascus' control over the en-tire Syrian territory.
In reality, the tripartite summit discussed the emerging regional posture now that the wars
in Syria and Iraq are nearing their end. Bashar al-Assad addressed the summit and stressed
long-term security and policy issues.
Bagheri explained that the objective of "the tripartite summit between Iran, Syria and Iraq
with the participation of their senior commanders [was] to coordinate efforts on the fight
against terrorist groups in the region. ... Over the last few years, excellent coordination has
been achieved between Iran, Syria, Russia and Iraq, and there has been solidarity with the
Resistance Axis that led to significant victories in counter-ing terrorism, and today, on the
basis of these victories, the consolidation of sovereignty and progress to-wards the liberation
of the rest of Syria is taking place."
Concurrently, the initial indications of things to come were already unfolding.
In mid-March 2019, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Muhterem Ince and his Iranian counterpart,
Hussein Zulfiqari, reached "an agreement on launching a simultaneous operation against terror
groups that threat-en the security of both countries" during a meeting in Ankara. If
successful, this would be the first of many operations. The first joint operation was conducted
on March 18-23, 2019, mainly in northern Iraq. In addition to widespread bombing and shelling,
around 600 Turkish and Iranian special forces carried out joint raiding operations against
Kurdish "terrorist camps". In the last days of the operation, aerial bombings were directed at
all Kurdish nemeses in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. On March 24, 2019, Ankara and Tehran announced that they "are determined
to continue carrying out such joint counter-terrorism operations".
Meanwhile, Qatar has emerged as the dominant power regarding all issues pertaining to the
regional economy.
The first priority was to build Qatar's new oil and gas pipelines to the Mediterranean via
Iran-Iraq-Syria and also connect to the pipelines in Turkey. These pipelines would substitute
for the originally planned "Sunni pipelines" which were to transverse Qatar-Saudi
Arabia-Iraq-Syria and which had originally led to the Qatari support for the Syrian jihad. The
new pipelines would move to the shores of the Mediterranean -- mainly the Syrian port of
Latakia -- gas and oil from both Qatar and Iran. The pipelines would be followed by
electricity lines and a fully integrated transportation infrastructure on a regional
basis.
The long-term strategic infrastructure envisioned by "the Middle Eastern Entente" reflected
the grand-strategic aspirations of Iran and Turkey.
The key arteries would be from Iran to the shores of the Mediterranean, and from western
Turkey to the Red Sea and the Hijaz. Ultimately, these roads would be supplanted by railways.
Iran and Iraq have already started constructing the railway line from the Shalamcheh border
crossing to Basra in Iraq. This is the first segment of a line which would reach Latakia.
Tehran is negotiating with Damascus Iranian management of the civilian port in Latakia (the
Russians control the military facilities) in the next few months as a major outlet for Iran's
international trade.
Taken together, the new railroads would provide access for the New Silk Road to the eastern
Mediterra-nean and the Red Sea; would connect the Russia-Iran north-south route with the
Mediterranean; and would constitute an extension of the Europe-Turkey rail-line much like the
old Baghdad and Persian Gulf railway. The existing Iranian railroad system connects the
north-south rail-line to the Pakistani border and, thus, ultimately to western China.
Both Beijing and Moscow are most interested in the speedy completion of these rail-lines as
part of the extended Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Taken together, the transportation cooperation agreement between the three bloc members
(Qatar, Iran, and Turkey), and the transportation agreement between Iran, Iraq, and Syria,
provide for a road and rail-way system linking all these states. This makes Iran the lynchpin
of the regional transportation networks, and, thus, a crucial purveyor of access for the PRC.
Indeed, PRC senior officials consider Iran to be "a key pivot to China's BRI in the
region".
On March 19, 2019, PRC Minister of Commerce Zhong Shan stressed the rôle of Iran as "the strategic partner" in the greater Middle East for "the further development of economic
and trade ties" with the entire region. "Iran is China's strategic partner in the Middle-East
and China is the biggest trade partner and im-porter of oil from Iran," Zhong said. Ultimately,
this would secure for Iran a central place in the overall PRC strategic and economic
calculations.
The second objective of "the Middle Eastern Entente" was to use the Arab bloc, particularly
its Sunni elements, in conjunction with escalation in Yemen and growing hostility of
(non-Sunni, but Ibadi) Oman, in order to smother and subdue Saudi Arabia. With Saudi Arabia
already near implosion as a result of the erratic reign of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
bin 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Saud, the leaders in Doha, Tehran, and Ankara appear convinced that it
would only take little pressure in order to bring about the break-up and self-dismemberment of
Saudi Arabia.
The key to the bloc's anticipated success was in its capitalizing on heritage-based trends
already growing throughout Saudi Arabia. The aggregate impact of the Turkish-Jordanian and
Islamist-jihadist subversion in the Hejaz, the growing impact of the anti-al-Saud tribal and
jihadist movements organizing in the Nejdi highlands, and the Iran-facilitated radicalization
and militancy of the Shi'ite communities in the Saudi Arabian east would accelerate the
self-dismemberment of Saudi Arabia along traditional lines. Even if the House of al-Saud did
not lose power soon, the myriad of internal problems would prevent Saudi Arabia from playing a
regional rôle against the new bloc and its allies.
A large number of intelligence officials and experts throughout the Middle East concur with
this assessment.
... ... ...
Meanwhile, the Qataris and their allies have made it clear that they do not fear a US
reaction to the emergence of "the Middle Eastern Entente".
Qatari senior officials attribute this to repeated threats from Doha that should the US
interfere with the new bloc and its ascent to prominence, Doha would order the immediate
closure of the huge US base in Al-Udeid, Qatar, and would also stop interceding with Tehran to
prevent Iran-sponsored Shi'ite jihadists from attacking the US Navy base in Bahrain. As well,
the growing dependence of the US Intelligence Community on Turkish Intelligence (Milli
?stihbarat Te?kilat?: MIT) for clandestine operations in Central Asia and in sup-port of the
secessionist Muslim communities of both Russia and China accounts for the US muted reaction to
the Turkish abandonment of NATO.
The same logic would negate US resistance to the ascent of the bloc. Similarly, the US
eagerness for a Trump-Rouhani summit (tailored after the Trump-Kim summit), where Qatar and Oman were the chief mediators, would also restrain a harsh reaction to Iran's growing regional
rôle.
The Trump Administration is cognizant of the US limitations in the greater Middle East.
At the same time, the US remains adamant on preventing the PRC and Russia from consolidating their influence in the greater
Middle East and bringing the New Silk Road into the region. Senior US officials, mainly National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, have warned repeatedly that there could be no compromise with the PRC, nor tolerance of
the ascent of the PRC anywhere. "This is a very big issue, how to deal with China in this
century -- probably the biggest international issue we face," Bolton said on March 21,
2019.
"... On Wednesday while meeting with the wife of opposition leader Juan Guaidó, President Trump called on Russia to pull its troops out of Venezuela, warning that "all options" were on the table to make that happen. ..."
Days after Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded that Russia " cease its unconstructive behavior " by landing a transport
plane
full of Russian troops in Caracas last Saturday, the Kremlin has responded - essentially telling Washington to pound sand - and
that their troops will remain in Venezuela "for as long as needed " according to the
Independent .
In the latest indication the crisis in Venezuela is taking on elements of a proxy battle between the former Cold War rivals,
a spokeswoman for Russia's foreign ministry said the troops had been dispatched to fulfil "military contracts".
" They are involved in the implementation of agreements in the sphere of military and technical cooperation ," said Maria Zakharova,
according to the AFP, adding that the troops would stay there " for as long as needed ".
" Russia is not changing the balance of power in the region, Russia is not threatening anyone ," she said. -
Independent
Last week we also noted that
new satellite images reveal a major deployment of S-300 air defense missile systems to a key air base south of Caracas shortly
after Russia arrived.
On Wednesday while meeting with the wife of opposition leader Juan Guaidó, President Trump called on Russia to pull its troops
out of Venezuela, warning that "all options" were on the table to make that happen.
"... Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, tweeted: "Time to investigate the Obama officials who concocted and spread the Russian conspiracy hoax!" Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican, said "underlying documents" supporting what became Mueller's probe should be released to the public. ..."
"... A McCain associate, David Kramer, acknowledged in a deposition in a libel case that he spread word of the dossier to several news organizations. ..."
President Donald Trump and a key ally, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, said Monday that after Robert Mueller closed
his Russia probe, they want an investigation of the investigators.
Graham said at a news conference that Attorney General William Barr should appoint a new special counsel to examine why the U.S.
government, under President Barack Obama, decided to open an investigation into Russian election interference in 2016, and whether
it was an excuse to spy on Trump's campaign.
"Was it a ruse to get into the Trump campaign?" Graham said at the news conference. "I don't know but I'm going to try to find
out."
Trump told reporters at the White House that unspecified "people" behind the Russia probe would "be looked at."
The remarks show that Trump and some of his allies have retribution and score-settling on their minds after Mueller found no evidence
that the president or his campaign colluded with the Kremlin's election interference. It's unclear whom Trump wants investigated,
but possibilities include former FBI Director James Comey, whom he fired in May 2017; Obama's CIA Director John Brennan, whom Trump
stripped of his security clearance last year; and other former intelligence and Justice Department officials who have vocally criticized
the president.
The stage is also set for dueling and contradictory congressional investigations. In the House, controlled by Democrats, several
committees have opened investigations into the president's financial and business affairs, and Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler
said Sunday he wants Barr to testify soon on his finding that Mueller didn't produce sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed justice
by interfering in the Russia inquiry.
The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, on Monday blocked a vote on a measure by the Democratic leader, Chuck
Schumer of New York, calling for Mueller's report to be made public. McConnell said Barr should have time to consider which portions
of the report can be publicly released given concerns about classified information, ongoing investigations and other information
protected by law.
Republican Allies
Several other Republicans backed Graham and Trump on Monday. Senate Oversight Committee Chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said
he'd like to work with Graham "to get those answers for the American public."
"We need to find out what happened," he said in an interview.
Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, tweeted: "Time to investigate the Obama officials who concocted and spread the Russian
conspiracy hoax!" Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican, said "underlying documents" supporting what became Mueller's
probe should be released to the public.
"Let them decide for themselves whether this investigation was warranted -- or whether it was a two-year long episode of political
targeting, driven by FBI and DOJ executives who wanted to retaliate against a legitimately elected president," Meadows said in an
interview.
Graham said his committee would also look into the FBI's handling of the inquiry into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server, saying that Comey's actions in that investigation "did affect" the 2016 election. Comey held a news
conference in July 2016 to announce that Clinton wouldn't be charged with a crime, and then announced less than two weeks before
the election that the investigation had been re-opened after additional emails were discovered.
'Evil Things'
Trump's indication that unnamed people responsible for the probe would be investigated was vague. He didn't name anyone, and after
he made similar remarks on Sunday, White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley told reporters that Barr hadn't been directed
to open any investigations of Democrats.
"People that have done such harm to our country," Trump complained on Monday. "We've gone through a period of really bad things
happening. Those people will certainly be looked at. I've been looking at them for a long time and I'm saying, why haven't they been
looked at. They lied to Congress. Many of them. You know who they are. They've done so many evil things."
Trump added that he hasn't considered pardoning anyone convicted in connection to Mueller's probe.
Graham said he planned to talk with Barr on Monday and hoped to hold a public hearing with the attorney general to explain his
findings in the Mueller probe. Barr sent a four-page letter to Congress on Sunday summarizing Mueller's findings, which have not
been publicly released.
"I'm asking him to lay it all out," Graham said.
Both Trump and Graham said they support Barr publicly releasing as much of Mueller's report as possible. The investigation turned
out "100 percent" as it should have, Trump told reporters.
Dossier Distribution
Trump has previously singled out individuals over their role in the probe, calling for an investigation into the "
other side " of the investigation. He's mentioned Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI employees Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, and Justice Department attorney Bruce Ohr.
Graham also said he advised his friend and Senate colleague John McCain to give the FBI the so-called Steele dossier on Trump,
rebutting the president's accusations that McCain tried to hinder his 2016 election.
Graham told reporters that McCain, an Arizona Republican who died last year, had shown him the unverified collection of intelligence
reports on Trump's links to Russia that was put together by a former British spy, Christopher Steele. Steele was commissioned to
compile the information by an opposition research firm hired by Democrats.
McCain put the dossier in his safe and handed it over to the FBI the next day, Graham said.
A McCain associate, David Kramer, acknowledged in a deposition in a libel case that he spread word of the dossier to several news
organizations.
-- With assistance by Billy House
( Updates with McConnell blocking Schumer measure in seventh paragraph. ) Published on March 25, 2019 12:37 PM
Updated on March 25, 2019 5:58 PM
Juan Guaido getting a ''warm'' welcome from population in El Valle. Apparently, Venezuelan
masses have had enough of comprador sellouts backed by European powers.
Without police presence, the Yankee puppet would in all likelihood end up lynched and
hanging from lamppost.
Exceptionals are in for a rude awakening, if they attempt to overthrow Chavistas using
direct kinetic operations.
Any invasion will be met with fierce resistance. No volveran to Pre-Chavez years. Orange
dotard and his neo-confederates in the white house fancy themselves crushing ''subhuman''
resistance from shitholes and securing the hemisphere for wall street looters. The gambit
will backfire, and could end up kickstarting hostilites that will span the Continent from
Patagonia to Rio Grande. MAGA the gift that keeps on giving. #winning... https://www.facebook.com/venesolidarite/videos/814971605532561/
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent
political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure
to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf
Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us
so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or
(IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about
private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense
Thanks for the Taibbi link. I hadn't seen it, and found him to be in good form. I do think
he ought to have spoken more about how bad Trump's Primary opponents were.
Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted.
Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have
been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in
the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. More on that for people
with strong stomachs:
Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered,
hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been
proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis
on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent.
The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump,
and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya.
Seems to me what that BigLie's about is this tale: Relations with Russia during the
post-USSR age were going along swell until Russia began involved in the Venezuelan
Crisis.
The attempt is to try a new narrative using a different angle to blame Russia which is the
goal of the BigLie. Signal a new line of approach in dealing with the attitude toward Russia
to the trusty echoers of His Master's Voice.
They lost control of Saudi Arabia, after trying to take down MBS and then betraying him by unexpectedly allowing waivers on
Iranian oil in November.
The U.S. cannot take down Iran without Venezuelan oil. What is worse, right now they don't have access to enough heavy oil
to meet their own needs.
Controlling the world oil trade is central to Trump's strategy for the U.S. to continue its empire. Without Venezuelan oil,
the U.S. is a bit player in the energy markets, and will remain so.
Having Russia block the U.S. in Venezuela adds insult to injury. After Crimea and Syria, now Venezuela, Russia exposes the
U.S. as a loud mouthed-bully without the capacity to back up its threats, a 'toothless tiger', an 'emperor without clothes'.
If the U.S. cannot dislodge Russia from Venezuela, its days as 'global hegemon' are finished. For this reason the U.S. will
continue escalating the situation with ever-riskier actions, until it succeeds or breaks.
In the same manor, if Russia backs off, its resistance to the U.S. is finished. And the U.S. will eventually move to destroy
Russia, like it has been actively trying to do for the past 30 years. Russia cannot and will not back off.
Venezuela thus becomes the stage where the final act in the clash of empires plays out. Will the world become a multi-polar
world, in which the U.S. becomes a relatively isolated and insignificant pole? Or will the world become more fully dominated by
a brutal, erratic hegemon?
"... All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is quite real and extends to the entire population. ..."
"... Decades ago while in a leftist organization debate was raised as to how to find valid information to inform ourselves with. It was well understood that the vast majority of the western corporate mass media was a brainwashing operation to keep the masses clueless and supporting imperialist war but, we reasoned, the ruling class itself would need to be kept informed with quality information in order to feel confident that they were making good decisions. ..."
"... But things change. Note how the Russiagate skeptics in the US were attacked by the desperately faithful: If you focused attention on flaws in the Russiagate conspiracy theory then the general consensus was that you were defending Trump. ..."
"... This condition has arisen from literally generations of propaganda instilling as reality in American media consumers the myth of "American Exceptionalism" . The current crop of American adults have been raised by parents who themselves have been thoroughly indoctrinated in this alter reality. The disease is literally universal across the nation, from lowliest and most oppressed Black transvestites to the CEOs of the biggest corporations. ..."
"... The Washington Post used to be one of the journals that the elites looked to in order to help inform their decisions, but now in the post-truth, or relative truth, world these information sources have increasingly sought to align their information products with the "proper" relative truths that reinforce the myth of "American Exceptionalism" , even if that is in conflict with objective and empirical reality. ..."
"... In short, Washington Bezos Post writers are not moronic or drunk. They are delusional . They are in the grips of a delusion that afflicts the entire United States, and portions of the rest of the world as well ..."
"... WashingtonBezos Post writers are moronic or
drunk."
What ails them is far more complicated and vastly more sinister.
One often hears people say of other countries "It isn't the people of Elbonia whom I
hate, it is their government." It may be difficult for some in Europe, where there
remains a vestige of an imperative to foster a worldview based upon objective reality, to
come to grips with the fact that the problem with America has metastasized and spread to the
level of the individual citizens... all of them, to one degree or another. You don't
like Trump? Bolton? Clinton?
All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are
entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking
cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is
quite real and extends to the entire population.
How did this happen to America?
Decades ago while in a leftist organization debate was raised as to how to find valid
information to inform ourselves with. It was well understood that the vast majority of the
western corporate mass media was a brainwashing operation to keep the masses clueless and
supporting imperialist war but, we reasoned, the ruling class itself would need to be kept
informed with quality information in order to feel confident that they were making good
decisions.
With this in mind we identified journals and sources that the capitalist elites
themselves relied upon to inform their decisions.
Things like the CIA World Factbook,
for instance, even though created by an organization devoted to disinformation, could be
trusted back then to be relatively dependable.
But things change. Note how the Russiagate skeptics in the US were attacked by the
desperately faithful: If you focused attention on flaws in the Russiagate conspiracy theory
then the general consensus was that you were defending Trump. The possibility that you could
be defending reason and truth is still dismissed out of hand. Why is that? Because in America
(it's a mind disease spreading to Europe, apparently) truth is relative and reason has become
just whatever justifies what you wish to be the truth; therefore, those who propose a
"truth" that conflicts with what people want to believe are agents of some enemy.
This condition has arisen from literally generations of propaganda instilling as reality
in American media consumers the myth of "American Exceptionalism" . The current crop
of American adults have been raised by parents who themselves have been thoroughly
indoctrinated in this alter reality. The disease is literally universal across the nation,
from lowliest and most oppressed Black transvestites to the CEOs of the biggest corporations.
As prior generations of the ruling elites from the post WWII era who still retained some
sense for the importance of objective reality have died off they have been replaced by the
newer generation for whom reality is entirely subjective. If they want to believe their
gender is mountain panda then that's their right as Americans! Likewise if they want to
believe that America's bombing is humanitarian and god's gift to the species, then anyone who
suggests otherwise is obviously a KGB troll.
The Washington Post used to be one of the journals that the elites looked to in order to
help inform their decisions, but now in the post-truth, or relative truth, world these
information sources have increasingly sought to align their information products with the
"proper" relative truths that reinforce the myth of "American Exceptionalism" ,
even if that is in conflict with objective and empirical reality.
To do otherwise would be to
aid and give comfort to America's "enemies" (do keep in mind that America is a nation
at war - has been for decades - and that workers in the corporate mass media are very much
conscious of their roles in that ongoing war effort, to the point that they see themselves as
information warriors fighting shadowy enemies that only exist in their own relative reality
bubbles).
In short, WashingtonBezos Post writers are not moronic or drunk.
They are delusional . They are in the grips of a delusion that afflicts the
entire United States, and portions of the rest of the world as well.
Some Americans have
broken free from this Matrix-like delusion, but the numbers remain somewhat small...
certainly less than one or two percent of the population, and those who have broken free of
the delusion will never be given a soapbox to speak to the rest of the population from by the
corporate elites.
I think you have wildly underestimated the number of Americans who are very aware of what is
going on with our country and the world. More than 40% of eligible voters elect not to
participate in elections realizing the futility of it, and withholding their consent to this
regime. It's a feature of propaganda to engender feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and
feelings of isolation by falsely portraying a consensus among the population for the policies
of the regime. Resist!
Interesting information about Cuban lobby and Trump
Notable quotes:
"... George W Bush and the ISRAEL FIRST Jews and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party and the Israel First faction in the Democrat Party led by Hillary Clinton all pushed for the Iraq War. ..."
"... The Iraq War debacle was designed to advance the foreign policy interests of Israel. The Iraq War was never about advancing the strategic foreign policy goals of the United States of America. ..."
"... The Iraq War debacle might have been used to increase the power of Iran in the region, in order to use the fact of increased Iranian influence -- caused by the Iraq War debacle -- to eventually attack and invade Iran. That might be overthinking the situation. ..."
Well now that most everyone knows Trump's ME policy on Iran is run by his Zionists.
We would be remiss in not mentioning the "other foreign lobby" .the Cuban exiles ..who are all very interested in Venezuela.
I challenge anyone to find anything done by congress or Trump that was done for average Americans.
I challenge anyone to find anyone involved in our foreign policy that isn't ethnically connected to a foreign country or paid
by a foreign country's supporters. Hell if you look at their bios half of them weren't even born in the US.
What triggered the escalation of US-Venezuela policy?
For two decades the US was powerless to alter the course of Venezuela's socialist rule. But, in recent weeks Trump has turned
the screws on the Maduro regime. So, what changed? How a casual meeting at Trump Tower and a photo op at the White House, dovetailed
with the evolving crisis inside Venezuela
Two days after taking office in January 2017 President Donald Trump surprised White House staff by asking for a briefing on
Venezuela. At the time, Fernando Cutz was on the National Security Council staff as the President's Director for South America.
"For whatever reason, and honestly I don't know what the reason was, but President Trump started on Day One, literally on Day
One, asking about Venezuela. So, it was a priority of his from the very start," Cutz told a forum at the Wilson Center, a Washington
think tank, after he left government last year.
Cutz didn't know, but the seed was planted a few days before Trump's inauguration during a casual meeting at Trump Tower in
New York. Trump had invited some South Florida friends to pay him a visit, among them Freddy Balsera, a Cuban American Democrat,
who represented the real estate mogul on several South Florida golf projects.
During the meeting, Trump asked Balsera for some advice on what South Floridians would like to see from his presidency, according
to witnesses. Balsera mentioned taking a tougher line on the Maduro regime in Venezuela, adding it would have bipartisan support
and could make for a good foreign policy victory
The president's son-in-law and close advisor, Jared Kushner, was in the room and his ears picked up, the sources said. Balsera
told Trump and Kushner about Venezuela's most famous political prisoner: Leopoldo Lopez. And he had a suggestion: "You should
meet with his wife, Lilian Tintori," he said.
That's precisely what happened a few weeks later, courtesy of another Cuban American – a Republican this time – Senator Marco
Rubio
Rubio's influence has also grown since that White House visit with Lilian Tintori. Despite calling him 'Little Marco' during
the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has now taken to heaping President Donald Trump has lately taken to heaping praise on his
former presidential rival
"I do listen a lot to Senator Rubio on Venezuela, it's close to his heart," Trump told a small group of reporters representing
regional news outlets last month.
Rubio was also instrumental in bringing into the government some key Cuban Americans; Mauricio Claver-Carone at the NSC. Another
John Barsa, is awaiting confirmation to lead USAID's operations in Latin America. Claver-Carone is a longtime activist on Cuba
policy and staunch backer of the economic embargo against Havana's communist government]
Otto Reich, another conservative Cuban American and former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela says the Trump administration clearly
has Cuba in its sights.
"I think that what they are preparing in the government is first of all to use the fall of the Venezuelan dictatorship that has
financed so much violence and subversion in the hemisphere, to later bring about changes, transitions in Cuba and Nicaragua,"
White House to appoint Cuba hardliner to head Latin America policy Mauricio Claver-Carone, a vocal critic of the Obama administration's
engagement with Cuba, is taking over as the National Security Council's influential director for Latin America policy.
I challenge anyone to find anything done by congress or Trump that was done for average Americans.
Well, 'we' got a tax cut. And 'we' are going to have mandated vaccinations from companies exempt from liability. And 'we' will
get the joys of subsidizing the 5G rollout for total internet connectivity from the toilet to the grave. 'We' get total surveillance,
too, so there is that.
I challenge anyone to find anyone involved in our foreign policy that isn't ethnically connected to a foreign country or
paid by a foreign country's supporters. Hell if you look at their bios half of them weren't even born in the US.
But we're a nation of immigrants, so we celebrate all those hyphenated pseudo-Americans hijacking our country for foreign benefit.
Why, I think one of the reasons President Kushner wants immigrants in the largest numbers ever is to provide more boots for all
of our wars. Syria, Iran, Ukraine, Yemen, Venezuela, reduxes on Iraq and Lebanon? Adventures in Africa? Wheel of fortune, who
hurts Ivanka's feelings first?
@chris Two-fer? I don't think so. Trump
will be a popular wartime president . The media has already changed its tone. No, Trump is completely housebroken, a useful
fool. He's good for more than one war, so will probably be re-elected. How many wars do you think we're good for before total
collapse?
President Trump is a complete and total whore for Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson.
Shelly Adelson is an ISRAEL FIRST Jew who wants to use the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the Middle
East and West Asia.
Shelly Adelson wants to flood more mass legal immigration into the United States.
Shelly Adelson wants to give amnesty to upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
Shelly Adelson demanded 4 things from Trump:
1) Adelson wanted the US military to attack and invade Iran.
2) Adelson wanted the US military to detonate a nuclear weapon in Iran as a demonstration of resolve and power.
3) Adelson wanted the US embassy moved to Jerusalem.
4) Adelson wanted the Iran nuclear deal killed and buried.
Trump has killed the Iran nuclear deal and Trump has moved a satellite branch of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Trump and the
US military have refused to detonate a nuclear weapon in Iran. Trump and the US military have refused to attack and invade Iran.
If Trump continues on his whorish course and attempts to accede to all Adelson's demands, I hope there are enough generals
and admirals with guts and balls to tell Trump and Adelson to go to Hell.
@Charles PewittIf Trump continues
on his whorish course and attempts to accede to all Adelson's demands, I hope there are enough generals and admirals with guts
and balls to tell Trump and Adelson to go to Hell.
Sorry but there is not one US general who will act against Israel – period.
@Talha If Jews want to live in Palestine
there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But they have to live as the locals do and without any special favors.
What is BS is the special favors the USA gives them. They even have the gall to say that our giving $5 billion in military
aid to them is a favor to us.
George W Bush and the ISRAEL FIRST Jews and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party and the Israel
First faction in the Democrat Party led by Hillary Clinton all pushed for the Iraq War.
The Iraq War debacle was designed to advance the foreign policy interests of Israel. The Iraq War was never about advancing
the strategic foreign policy goals of the United States of America.
Trump went to a 2016 GOP presidential primary debate in South Carolina and said the US military was dragged into the Iraq War
debacle by George W Bush on false claims.
Trump:
He added, forcefully: "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction – there were none. And they knew there
were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."
The Iraq War debacle might have been used to increase the power of Iran in the region, in order to use the fact of increased
Iranian influence -- caused by the Iraq War debacle -- to eventually attack and invade Iran. That might be overthinking the situation.
Comey was a part of the coup -- a color revolution against Trump with Bremmen (possibly assigned by Obama) pulling the strings. That's right. This is a banana republic with nukes.
Notable quotes:
"... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
"... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
FBI and National
Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an
effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.
FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks
that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta,
The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.
"Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among
us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials
who have seen it.
"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this
issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.
One of the rare early realistic assessments of Trump foreign policy. most were wrong. Circe was right in major points. The
appointment of CIA director was the litmus test and Trump failed it by appointing neocon Pompeo.
Trump foreign policy is a typical neocon foreign policy. People just tried to overlook it in vain hopes that Trump will change the US
foreign policy
Notable quotes:
"... 95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time. ..."
"... And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason. ..."
"... Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,". ..."
"... Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet. The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon -unfriendly President was elected. ..."
"... Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms. ..."
"... And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly. ..."
"... What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense. ..."
"... he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh? ..."
95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated
obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is
a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This
is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.
And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden
is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him
to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already
stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for
treason.
Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the
Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern
of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".
That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.
Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.
b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found
the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke
of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet. The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly
President was elected.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The
'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to
fund security agencies and buy arms.
And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder
until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad
as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military
(note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel
or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?
The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:
>> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?
>> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions?
An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.
>> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?
Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction
or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.
Kristof panic was premature and just shows that he is a really has no political analyst
talent whatsoever. Trump was quickly co-opted by neocons.
It is interesting that Kristof, even at such an early stages of Russiagate was already
"FullOfSchiff"
"... The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and,
according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree
with that conclusion. ..."
"... Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character
by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack
on the United States. ..."
"... Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager.
Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with
Russia's "Order of Friendship." ..."
In 1972, President Richard Nixon's White House dispatched burglars to bug Democratic Party
offices. That Watergate burglary and related "dirty tricks," such as releasing mice at a
Democratic press conference and paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love for a
Democratic candidate, nauseated Americans - and impelled some of us kids at the time to pursue
journalism.
Now in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more staggering.
Russian agents apparently broke into the Democrats' digital offices and tried to change the
election outcome. President Obama on Friday suggested that this was probably directed by
Russia's president, saying, "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin."
In Watergate, the break-in didn't affect the outcome of the election. In 2016, we don't know
for sure. There were other factors, but it's possible that Russia's theft and release of the
emails provided the margin for Donald Trump's victory.
The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and,
according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree
with that conclusion.
Both Nixon and Trump responded badly to the revelations, Nixon by ordering a cover-up and
Trump by denouncing the CIA and, incredibly, defending Russia from the charges that it tried to
subvert our election. I never thought I would see a dispute between America's intelligence
community and a murderous foreign dictator in which an American leader sided with the
dictator.
Let's be clear: This was an attack on America, less lethal than a missile but still
profoundly damaging to our system. It's not that Trump and Putin were colluding to steal an
election. But if the CIA is right, Russia apparently was trying to elect a president who would
be not a puppet exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog - a Russian poodle.
In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely (and unfairly) mocked as President George
W. Bush's poodle, following him loyally into the Iraq war. The fear is that this time Putin may
have interfered to acquire an ally who likewise will roll over for him.
Frankly, it's mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even as he
excoriates everyone else, from CIA officials to a local union leader in Indiana.
Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character
by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its
attack on the United States.
Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager.
Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with
Russia's "Order of Friendship."
Whatever our personal politics, how can we possibly want to respond to Russia's interference
in our election by putting American foreign policy in the hands of a Putin friend?
Tillerson's closeness to Putin is especially troubling because of Trump's other Russia
links. The incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, accepted Russian money to attend
a dinner in Moscow and sat near Putin. A ledger shows $12.7 million in secret payments by a
pro-Russia party in Ukraine to Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. And the Trump
family itself has business connections with Russia.
"... And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist. ..."
"... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. ..."
"... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
"... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
"... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
"... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
"... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
"... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
"... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for
the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then,
let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw
elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.
And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is
who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff
and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.
Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign.
He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably
picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment,
thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment
agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.
On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right"
media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington,
D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't
believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.
To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE
than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State
in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical
New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But
Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting")
Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint
him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.
Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind
(NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he
appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the
swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump
would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.
Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating
and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true
judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of
what we need to know.
What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume
that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because
at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.
There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades.
And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults
against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give
the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.
The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington
establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will
NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.
I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered,
there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.
Comey was a part of the coup -- a color revolution against Trump with Bremmen (possibly assigned by Obama) pulling the strings. That's right. This is a banana republic with nukes.
Notable quotes:
"... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
"... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
FBI and National
Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an
effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.
FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks
that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta,
The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.
"Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among
us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials
who have seen it.
"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this
issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.
That was written in March 2017. Looks like Paul Craig Roberts was completely detached from reality
Notable quotes:
"... By standing up for Americans, Trump alienated the global corporations, their executives and shareholders, all of whom benefit from stealing the economic life of Americans and producing abroad where labor and regulatory costs are lower. Neoliberal junk economists describe this labor arbitrage, which reduces the real incomes of the American labor force, as the beneficial working of free trade. ..."
"... These offshoring firms not only have destroyed the economic prospects of millions of Americans, but also have destroyed the payroll tax base of Social Security and Medicare, and the tax base of local and state governments, with the consequence that numerous pension systems are on the verge of failure. The New York Teamsters Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund has just failed. This failure, experts predict, is the beginning of a tsunami that will spread into municipal and state pension systems. ..."
"... Once Trump put Flynn's blood in the water, he set the situation for the sacrifice of other of his appointees, ending with himself. At the present time, "the Russian connection" black mark is operating against Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. If Sessions falls, Trump is next. ..."
"... Despite the facts, the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and all the rest of the CIA's media whores are consciously and intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Americans do not need any more evidence that the entirety of the American media is totally devoid of integrity and respect for truth. The American media is a collection of whores who lie for a living. The presstitutes are despicable, the scum of the earth. ..."
"... The real question is how has contact with Russian government officials become criminalized, grounds for removing a National Security Adviser, an Attorney General, and impeaching a President himself. President John F. Kennedy had ongoing contact with Khrushchev, the head of the Soviet government, in order to resolve the Cuban/Turkish missile crisis without nuclear war. President Nixon had ongoing contact with the Russians in order to achieve SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. President Carter had ongoing contact with Russians in order to achieve SALT II. President Reagan worked with the Russian leader in order to end the Cold War. I know. I was there. ..."
"... Dear reader, ask yourself, how did communications with Russians in the interest of peace and the reduction of tensions become a criminal act? Have laws been passed that it is forbidden for US officials to speak with Russian officials? Are you so utterly stupid that a presstitute media that has never in your entire life told you anything that was truthful can convince you that those who seek to avoid a conflict between thermo-nuclear powers are "Russian agents"? ..."
"... The entirety of the world has been put on the knife edge of existence by the arrogance, stupidity, and hubris of the neoconservative pursuit of American world hegemony. The neoconservative ideology is perfect cover for the material interest of the military/security Deep State that is driving the world to destruction. ..."
"... W Bush: "Dad, what's a neocon?" HW Bush: "You want names or description?" W: "Description." HW: "Israel." ..."
"... "To see who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -Voltaire ..."
"... Hint: If you criticize them, you're called an anti-Semite. And they're not even Semites. ..."
"... Insouciant is merely Paul Craig Roberts way of registering his extreme disgust, being a gentlemen, unlike me, he doesn't use other, more crude adjectives .. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is calculated, but is driven by desperation.. Trump has resources now that he did not have as a candidate, and he is using them. Yes, it is taking longer than we hoped, but the progressives are doing everything possible to slow if not stop him. I seriously doubt any president has faced such resistance before. We still don't know the story behind Flynn. He surely knew his phones were tapped and is surely smart enough to know they would leak it. And, while he lost his title, he is still there with his team. ..."
"... No, because if he gets too close to anything important his family members start dropping dead. He knows this... he knew it before he ran. If he goes after the rothchild-backed cabal he gets dead. ..."
"... It's war and there is no going back. Trump has the will and the resources, so all we can do is support where possible....and hope. ..."
"... The public does know what is going on. Nobody is being fooled. The problem is that the press presents the narrative (often implicitly) that gives the impression PCR is conveying here. ..."
The question in the title is V.I. Lenin's question. His answer was to create a revolutionary "vanguard" to spread
revolutionary ideas among the workers, the economic class that Karl Marx had declared to be the class rising to the ascendency of
political power. Finally, democracy, frustrated by upper class interests in its earlier manifestations, would become reality. The
workers would rule.
Given the presence of evil and human failing, it did not work out in that way. But Lenin's question remains a valid one.
Americans whose economic life and prospects for their children have been destroyed by the offshoring of American manufacturing and
tradable professional skills jobs, such as software engineering, answered the question by electing Donald Trump.
The Americans, dispossessed by the offshoring corporations, elected Trump, because Trump was the only American running for a political
office who called attention to the problem and declared his intention to fix it.
By standing up for Americans, Trump alienated the global corporations, their executives and shareholders, all of whom benefit
from stealing the economic life of Americans and producing abroad where labor and regulatory costs are lower. Neoliberal junk economists
describe this labor arbitrage, which reduces the real incomes of the American labor force, as the beneficial working of free trade.
These offshoring firms not only have destroyed the economic prospects of millions of Americans, but also have destroyed the
payroll tax base of Social Security and Medicare, and the tax base of local and state governments, with the consequence that numerous
pension systems are on the verge of failure. The New York Teamsters Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund has just failed. This failure,
experts predict, is the beginning of a tsunami that will spread into municipal and state pension systems.
When you add up the external costs of jobs offshoring that are imposed on Americans, the costs far exceed the value of the profits
that flow to the One Percent. Clearly, this is an intolerable situation.
Dispossessed Americans rose up. They ignored the presstitute media, or perhaps were driven to support Trump by
the hostility of the media. Trump was elected by dispossessed America, by the working class.
The working class is out of favor with the elite liberal/progressive/left which abhors the working class as racist, misogynist,
homophobic, gun nuts who oppose transgendered toilet facilities. Thus, the working class, and their chosen representative,
Donald Trump, are under full assault by the presstitutes. "Trump Must Go" is their slogan.
And well he might. Trump, in a fit of stupidity, dismissed his National Security Advisor, Gen. Flynn, because Flynn did what he
should have done and spoke with the Russian ambassador in order to avoid a Russian response to Obama's provocation of expelling Russian
diplomats at Christmas.
Russians have been demonized and ascribed demonic powers. If you speak to a Russian, you fall under suspicion
and become a traitor to your country. This is the story according to the CIA, the Democratic Party, the military/security complex,
and the presstitute media.
Once Trump put Flynn's blood in the water, he set the situation for the sacrifice of other of his appointees, ending with himself.
At the present time, "the Russian connection" black mark is operating against Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. If Sessions
falls, Trump is next.
Let's be clear. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sessions met with the Russian ambassador, just as he met with
a number of other countries' ambassadors. There is nothing unusual or surprising about a US senator meeting with foreign diplomatic
representatives.
Those who accuse Sessions of lying are misrepresenting the facts. Sessions met with ambassadors in his capacity
as a US Senator, not in his capacity as a Trump representative. As a former US Senate staffer, I can attest that it is perfectly
normal for US Senators to meet with diplomats. John McCain and Lindsey Graham even fly to the Middle East to meet with terrorists.
Despite the facts, the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and all the rest of the CIA's media whores are consciously and
intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Americans do not need any more evidence that the entirety of the American media is totally
devoid of integrity and respect for truth. The American media is a collection of whores who lie for a living. The presstitutes are
despicable, the scum of the earth.
The real question is how has contact with Russian government officials become criminalized, grounds for removing a National
Security Adviser, an Attorney General, and impeaching a President himself. President John F. Kennedy had ongoing contact with Khrushchev,
the head of the Soviet government, in order to resolve the Cuban/Turkish missile crisis without nuclear war. President Nixon had
ongoing contact with the Russians in order to achieve SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. President Carter had ongoing
contact with Russians in order to achieve SALT II. President Reagan worked with the Russian leader in order to end the Cold War.
I know. I was there.
But if President Trump wants to defuse the extremely dangerous tensions that the reckless Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes
have resurrected with a powerful thermo-nuclear state that only wants peace with the US, President Trump and any of his appointees
who spoke to a Russian are unfit for office! This madness is the position of the idiot liberal/progressive/left, the CIA,
the Democratic Party, the right-wing morons of the Republican Party such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and the two-bit whores
that comprise the Western media.
Dear reader, ask yourself, how did communications with Russians in the interest of peace and the reduction of tensions become
a criminal act? Have laws been passed that it is forbidden for US officials to speak with Russian officials? Are you so utterly stupid
that a presstitute media that has never in your entire life told you anything that was truthful can convince you that those who seek
to avoid a conflict between thermo-nuclear powers are "Russian agents"?
I have no doubt that the vast bulk of Western populations are insouciant. But if there is no intelligence and
awareness left anywhere in the population, and most certainly there is none whatsoever in the governments of the West or in the Western
media or the Identity Politics of the liberal/progressive/left, then don't expect to be alive much longer.
The entirety of the world has been put on the knife edge of existence by the arrogance, stupidity, and hubris of the neoconservative
pursuit of American world hegemony. The neoconservative ideology is perfect cover for the material interest of the military/security
Deep State that is driving the world to destruction.
Trump needs to tighten up. Get even tougher than he is now. Go out and do more speeches. Take the message STRAIGHT to the masses.........unfiltered.
LET the MSM "fake" that.
W Bush: "Dad, what's a neocon?" HW Bush: "You want names or description?" W: "Description." HW: "Israel."
The neocons are Israel-first fanatics. They did 9/11 and support all terrorist groups. And because Russia came to Syria's aid,
they're after Russia as well.
In Dr Strangelove, the mindblowingly stupid response of the characters played by the generals saying "attack Russia no matter
what they do" was portrayed as a joke, and the audience got it. Nobody could be that stupid, so it looked funny.
We are in desperately sick times when the attitude displayed by those comedically-stupid characters has become our official
policy and our propaganda.
Let's pray the American people are not yet completely stupid, and that there are still enough who see this insanity for the
immediate and extreme danger that it is.
The purpose of all of this "RussiaDidIt" bollocks has long been postulated as having the purpose of starting the Last War.
The question arises: "Who benefits?" (Ordinarily, no-one 'benefits' and only morons think that a 'benefit' could arise)
But, just for a moment, turn it on its head and ask the counter-question: "Who benefits the least ?"
Pretty obviously, the USA and the Russian Federation come out badly. Assume the impossible: that it doesn't spread out and
result in planetdeath.
Who just (quite coincidentally - of course) had its main rivals effectively eliminated? Quietly. Efficiently. Anonymously...
Who, currently quietly colonizing Africa for its resorce base, might now divert their attentions to the (much greater and closer)
resource base to their North, West and East, ostensibly in the name of "reconstruction?"
Naturally, it's just a coincidence that a large slice of Global Manufacturing has recently been transferred to that country
(recent decades)
So congrats are due to the DemoCrud skum who perpetrated this crime against humanity as the willing "useful idiots" of the
PuppetMasters. Burn in Hell you motherfukkerz.
The only way to "drain the swamp" is to eliminate the brainwashed masses who enable the warmongering globalist neocons. Without
the democratic partys' tens of million sheeple, the power hungry devils like Soros, the Clintons, McCain, Pelosi, Feinstein, and
the rest of the "perverted elite" would have no power.
Having considered this FACT, I have decided not to oppose their quest to start a global thermonuclear war with Russia. I saw
war up close and personal in Viet-Nam. I am 71 years old, so not much time remaining to waste in a political battle against the
snowflakes here in Californicate. I feel confident that I have a better chance of surviving than they do.
I have also decided to sit back, with my personal defenses in hand, and watch them experience, up close and personal for themselves,
the horrors of war like they are presently inflicting on the mid-eastern countries. The children of these despots, if they survive,
will finally witness proof that their parents are the cause of their misery.
Then, and only then, will the survivors be able to reconstruct toward a peaceful world.
1. free from concern, worry, or anxiety; carefree; nonchalant.
I agree, we're way past that ... Robert's knows this , all too well ..
Insouciant is merely Paul Craig Roberts way of registering his extreme disgust, being a gentlemen, unlike me, he doesn't
use other, more crude adjectives ..
I cut him slack on his overuse of the word insouciant, because it would just seem so out of place substituting instead, "fucking
assholes," for every place it is prominently used in his writing.
I mean can you imagine?
No, I'm glad he's more refined than me. Makes for a more interesting and gentile world.
Hahaa Dr Strangelove. Strange movie, for even stranger times
"They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist
infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all
of our precious bodily fluids."
What we are witnessing is calculated, but is driven by desperation.. Trump has resources now that he did not have as a
candidate, and he is using them. Yes, it is taking longer than we hoped, but the progressives are doing everything possible to
slow if not stop him. I seriously doubt any president has faced such resistance before. We still don't know the story behind Flynn.
He surely knew his phones were tapped and is surely smart enough to know they would leak it. And, while he lost his title, he
is still there with his team.
Everything is obvious now and I think this is what Trump has been goading them into. Putting blood in the water to draw the
sharks to the surface. We will see.
i hope you're right. i keep wanting to think he's a clever fox but the acceleration of events is mind-boggling. the liberal
onslaught is from all directions and relentless. i pray he's able to withstand their attacks and counter with an epic T-Day rout--one
for the history books--that exposes and annihilates the seditious traitors in the world of public opinion, giving him political
capital to rid our nation of the unconstitutional Patriot Act and Big Brother's illegal 4th Amendment violations of illegal search
and seizure.
it's hard to keep the faith right now... i wanna believe he's got the wherewithall to pull this off. if i get weak and shout
for quick solutions, just downvote my stupid butt bigly.
No, because if he gets too close to anything important his family members start dropping dead. He knows this... he knew
it before he ran. If he goes after the rothchild-backed cabal he gets dead.
Give up guys... there's no winning this. The sooner we accept this the sooner we can maybe fucking DO something.
i think you are suggesting first touch/listen of utah spying. if true, step one. step 2 is to take down the main operatives
and bring them down with all the resources of the justice dept.
this is assuming that all parties stay in the confines of law...hmmm
Exactly, Trump needs to go on TV and speak plainly, layout the thesis as outlined in this article. Make sure the country knows
EXACTLY what is going on and what the stakes are. Most libtards don't have one fucking clue how they are being used by these sick
fucks. Get everything he knows and what he SUSPECTS, even with no direct evidence out into the general public. Time is running
short.
I don't twit. I don't even 'follow' a twit. I don't know how.
But I'm pretty sure this sort of message would take a hell of a lot more characters than, what is it, 140?
That means he would need some other means to deliver a complicated message that by-passes an inherently hostile media yet still
gets viewed by tens of millions.
Couldn't agree more. I fail to fathom how meeting with Russian diplomats constitutes any type of crime. That's what diplomats
do for God's sake. Wake up people before it's too late.
Ah, but everything PCR says is true. It's what he doesn't say that gives away the lie.
All of his articles demonize the west (and he's right). But he's deliberately not looking at the higher dynamics of this globalist,
central bank-led kabuki theater.
I think he's a 'gatekeeper' who's job is to point out the evils of the west and make the east look good in comparison, so that
when the 'reset' comes people will buy into the globalist one world currency that will be offered.
I've never seen him talk disparagingly about either China or Russia or the BRICS. Certainly he has mentioned the FED and the
IMF, but not the big one - the BIS - that I have seen. And until he does, he's just another Rothschild/Rockefeller plant to me.
he takes on the CIA, State Department, Pentagon, NATO, liberals, Ruling Establishment, Obama the War Criminal Butcherer of
Women and Children, Kissinger, pretty much everybody. i agree he's not a Russiaphobe, thankfully someone's got a balanced position.
anyway... we'll have to agree to disagree. i believe he's a patriot true blue... errr, red. nope. red, white and blue.
it's nothing to me and i'm not trying to defend him. i just think he's not what you suggest. professionals feel responsible
for their words and only write about what they know. we can all speculate about 9/11 but without launching our own investigation,
it's just "talk." and at PCR and Stockman's level, they refrain from flapping their lips to hear themselves speak, metaphorically.
> "He is a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy.
> He is a former editor at the Wall Street Journal.
> He was the "first occupant of the William E. Simon Chair for Economic Policy at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies [CSIS], then part of Georgetown University." It's worth noting that Georgetown is a Jesuit institution, and the Board
of Trustees of CSIS includes Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and representatives of Exxon Mobil, Boeing, Coca Cola, AIG,
GlaxoSmithKline, and Morgan Stanley (to name a few).
Looking at the high positions this guy has held in the Washington/Wall Street Establishment, ask yourself this: "Is PCR really
going against all of his lifelong associates or is he simply carrying water for them like he always has?" "
i consider myself open-minded and reviewed your link.
as far as the 3 bullet points the author suggests condemn PCR:
Austrian economics are largely followed by most conservative economists as opposed to Keynesian.
I would also argue the American govt pursues global hegemony, i.e., an American empire
Who among us would not believe there is widespread incompetence in DC? Would anyone use the term "competent" with Obama,
other than describing his knack for telling untruths and perhaps killing innocent Near East women and children?
He was former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Reagan
A strong critic of the Bush (and later
Obama ) administrations' handling of the
War on Terror , he has taken positions strongly at odds
with mainstream politicians: harshly criticising the ineffectiveness, severity and high rates of incarceration associated with
the War on Drugs , excessive police violence and use
of SWAT teams against civilians. He has criticised the
law and order politics and congressional
approval of increased government surveillance associated with the
War on Terror age, which he views as fundamental threats
to the civil liberties and Right to Privacy enshrined
in the US constitution, opening the way for an oligarchic
police state to be imposed upon the US population... --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts
sorry, i just don't see it. as far as his association with the WSJ and Georgetown Univ, that would pretty much be the aspirations
of most journalists. and lastly, here are the closing statements from his newsletter yesterday:
The voice here at this website, my voice, provides perspectives that permit escape from the Matrix, but it depends on your
support. As March is upon us, so is my quarterly request for your support. So far, we have both kept our word. You have supported
the site, and I have continued to ruin my reputation in Washington by writing explanations that are unpopular in the ruling circles.
but even more than that, i read his articles and take what i want and discard the rest. no one is mind controlling me. can't
be brainwashed. got to have a brain first. (;
"I have no doubt that the vast bulk of Western populations are insouciant. But if there is no intelligence and awareness left
anywhere in the population, and most certainly there is none whatsoever in the governments of the West or in the Western media
or the Identity Politics of the liberal/progressive/left, then don't expect to be alive much longer."
The public does know what is going on. Nobody is being fooled. The problem is that the press presents the narrative (often
implicitly) that gives the impression PCR is conveying here.
Stay Out Of Western Hemisphere! Bolton Warns Russia Over Troops In Venezuela
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/29/2019 - 18:25 162 SHARES
The White House has dramatically stepped up its rhetoric threatening action against Russia's
military presence in Venezuela after the Kremlin deployed a troop contingency to Caracas last
Saturday.
Trump's national security adviser John Bolton took tensions to a new level, on Friday
issuing a new Monroe doctrine of sorts, telling Moscow any attempt to establish or expand
military operations in the western hemisphere constitutes a "provocative" and "direct threat"
to international peace and security in the region. "We strongly caution actors external to the
Western Hemisphere against deploying military assets to Venezuela, or elsewhere in the
Hemisphere, with the intent of establishing or expanding military operations," Bolton said in
a statement .
"We will consider such provocative actions as a direct threat to international peace and
security in the region," he added. This follows the president's own warning on Wednesday that
"all options" are on the table regarding potential expanding Russian presence in Venezuela.
Two Russian aircraft carrying about 100 servicemen and 35 tons of cargo arrived in Caracas
last Saturday, led by Russian General Vasily Tonkoshkurov, identified as chief of the Main
Staff of the Ground Forces and First Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Land Forces of
Russia.
This prompted Trump's Wednesday warning to Russia against involvement in the Latin American
nation; he told reporters in
the Oval Office that :
" Russia has to get out."
Kremlin officials responded by explaining that it deployed military specialists merely to
service preexisting arms contracts with Venezuela, and that Russia is not interfering in the
Latin American country's internal affairs.
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a press briefing on Thursday when asked how long the
Russian troop contingency led by a high ranking general will stay:
"How long? As long as they need to, and as long as the Venezuelan government needs them.
It all is being done based on bilateral agreements."
Russia's position is that it is not interfering in Venezuela's internal affairs by merely
cooperating on legal and existing service contracts, and that no other country should do so
either. It said that only "specialists" had entered Venezuela under a pre-existing agreed upon
military cooperation deal .
However, the White House isn't buying it, as Bolton's Friday statement further condemned
Maduro's "use of foreign military personnel in his attempt to remain in power, including the
introduction of Russian military personnel and equipment into Venezuela."
"Maduro will only use this military support to further repress the people of Venezuela;
perpetuate the economic crisis that has destroyed Venezuela's economy; and endanger regional
stability," Bolton
said .
All of this also comes as the Maduro government stripped US-backed opposition leader Juan
Guaido of his position in the National Assembly, further barring
him from holding public office for 15 years .
"... Even though Western Europe has lined up in opposition to any future conflict with Iran, even though Russia and China would rail against it, even though most Washington foreign policy experts would be horrified by the outbreak of such a war, it could happen. ..."
"... Despite growing Trump administration tensions with Venezuela and even with North Korea, Iran is the likeliest spot for Washington's next shooting war. Years of politically charged anti-Iranian vituperation might blow up in the faces of President Trump and his two most hawkish aides, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, setting off a conflict with potentially catastrophic implications. ..."
"... With Bolton and Pompeo, both well-known Iranophobes, in the driver's seat, few restraints remain on President Trump when it comes to that country. ..."
"... On the roller coaster ride that is Donald Trump's foreign policy, it's hard to discern what's real and what isn't, what's rhetoric and what's not. When it comes to Iran, it's reasonable to assume that Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo aren't planning an updated version of the unilateral invasion of Iraq that President George W. Bush launched in the spring of 2003. ..."
"... Yet by openly calling for the toppling of the government in Tehran, by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement and reimposing onerous sanctions to cripple that country's economy, by encouraging Iranians to rise up in revolt, by overtly supporting various exile groups (and perhaps covertly even terrorists ), and by joining with Israel and Saudi Arabia in an informal anti-Iranian alliance , the three of them are clearly attempting to force the collapse of the Iranian regime, which just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution. ..."
"... Until now, the Iranian leadership has avoided a direct response that would heighten the confrontation with Israel, just as it has avoided unleashing Hezbollah, a well-armed, battle-tested proxy force. That could, however, change if the hardliners in Iran decided to retaliate. Should this simmering conflict explode, does anyone doubt that President Trump would soon join the fray on Israel's side or that congressional Democrats would quickly succumb to the administration's calls to back the Jewish state? ..."
The Trump Administration Is Reckless Enough to Turn the Cold War With Iran Into a Hot
One
Here's the foreign policy question of questions in 2019: Are President Donald Trump, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, all severely
weakened at home and with few allies abroad, reckless enough to set off a war with Iran? Could
military actions designed to be limited -- say, a heightening of the Israeli bombing of Iranian
forces inside Syria, or possible U.S. cross-border attacks from Iraq, or a clash between
American and Iranian naval ships in the Persian Gulf -- trigger a wider war?
Worryingly, the answers are: yes and yes. Even though Western Europe has lined up in
opposition to any future conflict with Iran, even though Russia and China would rail against
it, even though most Washington foreign policy experts would be horrified by the outbreak of
such a war, it could happen.
Despite growing Trump administration tensions with Venezuela and even with North Korea, Iran
is the likeliest spot for Washington's next shooting war. Years of politically charged
anti-Iranian vituperation might blow up in the faces of President Trump and his two most
hawkish aides, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton,
setting off a conflict with potentially catastrophic implications.
Such a war could quickly spread across much of the Middle East, not just to Saudi Arabia and
Israel, the region's two major anti-Iranian powers, but Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the
various Persian Gulf states. It might indeed be, as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
suggested last year (unconsciously echoing Iran's
former enemy, Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein) the "mother of all wars."
With Bolton and Pompeo, both well-known Iranophobes, in the driver's seat, few restraints
remain on President Trump when it comes to that country. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly,
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, President Trump's
former favorite generals who had urged caution, are
no longer around . And though the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution last month
calling for the United States to return to the nuclear agreement that President Obama signed,
there are still a significant number of congressional Democrats who believe that Iran is a
major threat to U.S. interests in the region.
During the Obama years, it was de rigueur for Democrats to support the president's
conclusion that Iran was a prime state sponsor of terrorism and should be treated accordingly.
And the congressional Democrats now leading the party on foreign policy -- Eliot Engel, who
currently chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Bob Menendez and Ben Cardin, the two
ranking Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- were opponents of the 2015
nuclear accord (though all three now claim to have
changed their minds ).
Deadly Flashpoints for a Future War
On the roller coaster ride that is Donald Trump's foreign policy, it's hard to discern
what's real and what isn't, what's rhetoric and what's not. When it comes to Iran, it's
reasonable to assume that Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo aren't planning an updated version of the
unilateral invasion of Iraq that President George W. Bush launched in the spring of 2003.
Yet by openly calling
for the toppling of the government in Tehran, by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement
and reimposing onerous sanctions to cripple that country's economy, by
encouraging Iranians to rise up in revolt, by overtly supporting
various exile groups (and perhaps covertly even
terrorists ), and by joining with Israel and Saudi Arabia in an informal
anti-Iranian alliance , the three of them are clearly attempting to force the collapse of
the Iranian regime, which just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic
revolution.
There are three potential flashpoints where limited skirmishes, were they to break out,
could quickly escalate into a major shooting war.
The first is in Syria and Lebanon. Iran is deeply involved in defending Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad (who only recently returned from a visit
to Tehran) and closely allied with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite political party with a potent
paramilitary arm. Weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu openly boasted
that his country's air force had successfully taken out Iranian targets in Syria. In fact,
little noticed here, dozens of such strikes have taken place for more
than a year , with mounting Iranian casualties.
Until now, the Iranian leadership has avoided a direct response that would heighten the
confrontation with Israel, just as it has avoided unleashing Hezbollah, a well-armed,
battle-tested proxy force. That could, however, change if the hardliners in Iran decided to
retaliate. Should this simmering conflict explode, does anyone doubt that President Trump would
soon join the fray on Israel's side or that congressional Democrats would quickly succumb to
the administration's calls to back the Jewish state?
Next, consider Iraq as a possible flashpoint for conflict. In February, a blustery Trump
told
CBS's Face the Nation that he intends to keep U.S. forces in Iraq "because I want to be
looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is the real problem." His comments did not exactly go
over well
with the Iraqi political class, since many of that country's parties and militias are
backed by Iran.
Trump's declaration followed a Wall Street Journalreport
late last year that Bolton had asked the Pentagon -- over the opposition of
various generals and then-Secretary of Defense Mattis -- to prepare options for "retaliatory
strikes" against Iran. This roughly coincided with a couple of small rocket attacks
against Baghdad's fortified Green Zone and
the airport in Basra, Iraq's Persian Gulf port city, neither of which caused any
casualties.
Writing in Foreign Affairs , however, Pompeo blamed Iran for the attacks, which he
called "life-threatening," adding, "Iran did not stop these attacks, which were carried out by
proxies it has supported with funding, training, and weapons." No "retaliatory strikes" were
launched, but plans do undoubtedly now exist for them and it's not hard to imagine Bolton and
Pompeo persuading Trump to go ahead and use them -- with incalculable consequences.
"... When we mix this with the recent India-Pakistan scuffle, a wider message emerges. There was absolutely no interest by Prime Minister Imran Kahn, the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani intelligence, ISI, to launch an attack on India in Kashmir. Pakistan was about to run out of money and about to be bolstered by the U.S., via Saudi Arabia with $20 billion and an IMF loan. ..."
"... At the same time, there were two almost simultaneous terrorist attacks launched from Pakistan – against Iran and against India in mid-February. There's no smoking gun yet, but these attacks may have been manipulated by a foreign intelligence agency. ..."
"... Lavrov explained how Washington was engaged in acquiring mortars and portable air defense systems "in an East European country, and mov(ing) them closer to Venezuela by an airline of a regime that is rather absolutely obedient to Washington in the post-Soviet space." ..."
"... That leaves Plan D – which is essentially to try to starve the Venezuelan population to death via viciously lethal additional sanctions. Sanctioned Syria and sanctioned Iran didn't collapse. Even boasting myriad comprador elites aggregated in the Lima group, exceptionalists may have to come to grips with the fact that deploying the Monroe doctrine essentially to contain China's influence in the young 21stcentury is no "cakewalk." ..."
A hefty case can be made that the Empire of Chaos currently has no allies; it's essentially
surrounded by an assortment of vassals, puppets and comprador 5thcolumnist elites professing varied
degrees of – sometimes reluctant – obedience.
The Trump administration's foreign policy
may be easily deconstructed as a crossover between The Sopranos and late-night comedy
– as
in the whole episode of designating State Department/CIA regime change, lab experiment Random Dude
as President of Venezuela. Legendary cultural critic Walter Benjamin would have called it
"the
aestheticization of politics,"
(turning politics into art), as he did about the Nazis, but this
time it's the Looney Tunes version.
To add to the conceptual confusion, despite countless "an offer you can't refuse" antics
unleashed by psychopaths of the John Bolton and Mike Pompeo variety, there's this startling
nugget
.
Former Iranian diplomat Amir Moussavi has revealed that Trump himself demanded to visit Tehran, and
was duly rebuffed. "Two European states, two Arab countries and one Southeast Asian state" were
mediating a series of messages relayed by Trump and his son-in-law Jared "of Arabia" Kushner,
according to Moussavi.
Is there a method to this madness?
An attempt at a Grand Narrative would go
something like this: ISIS/Daesh may have been sidelined – for now; they are not useful anymore, so
the U.S. must fight the larger "evil": Tehran. GWOT has been revived, and though Hamza bin Laden
has been designated the new Caliph, GWOT has shifted to Iran.
When we mix this with the recent India-Pakistan scuffle, a wider message emerges. There was
absolutely no interest by Prime Minister Imran Kahn, the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani
intelligence, ISI, to launch an attack on India in Kashmir. Pakistan was about to run out of money
and about to be bolstered by the U.S., via Saudi Arabia with $20 billion and an IMF loan.
At the same time, there were two almost simultaneous terrorist attacks launched from Pakistan –
against
Iran
and against India in mid-February. There's no smoking gun yet, but these attacks may have
been manipulated by a foreign intelligence agency. The Cui Bono riddle is which state would profit
immensely from a war between Pakistan and Iran and/or a war between Pakistan and India.
The bottom line:
hiding in the shadow of plausible deniability – according to which
what we understand as reality is nothing but pure perception – the Empire of Chaos will resort to
the chaos of no-holds-barred Hybrid War to avoid "losing" the Eurasian heartland.
Show Me How Many Hybrid Plans You Got
What applies to the heartland of course also applies to the backyard.
The case of Venezuela shows that the "all options on the table" scenario has been de
facto aborted by Russia,
outlined in an
astonishing
briefing
by Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, and then
subsequently
detailed
by Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj at a
crucial RIC (part of BRICS) summit in China, Lavrov said, "Russia keeps a close eye on brazen US
attempts to create an artificial pretext for a military intervention in Venezuela The actual
implementation of these threats is pulling in military equipment and training [US] Special Forces."
Lavrov explained how Washington was engaged in acquiring mortars and portable air defense
systems "in an East European country, and mov(ing) them closer to Venezuela by an airline of a
regime that is rather absolutely obedient to Washington in the post-Soviet space."
The U.S. attempt at regime change in Venezuela has been so far unsuccessful in several ways.
Plan A – a classic color revolution -has miserably failed,
in part because
of a lack of decent local intelligence.
Plan B was a soft version of humanitarian imperialism,
with a resuscitation
of the nefarious, Libya-tested
responsibility to protect (R2P)
; it also failed, especially
when the American tale that the Venezuelan government burnt humanitarian aid trucks at the
border with Colombia was a lie exposed, no less, than by
The New York Times.
Plan C was a classic Hybrid War technique: a
cyberattack
,
replete with a revival of
Nitro
Zeus
, which shut down 80 percent of Venezuela's electricity.
That plan had already been
exposed
by
WikiLeaks, via a 2010 memo by a U.S.-funded, Belgrade-based color revolution scam that helped
train self-proclaimed "President" Random Dude, when he was just known asJuan Guaidó. The leaked
memo said that attacking the Venezuelan power grid would be a "watershed event" that "would
likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever
hope to generate."
But even that was not enough.
That leaves Plan D – which is essentially to try to starve the Venezuelan population
to death
via viciously lethal additional sanctions. Sanctioned Syria and sanctioned
Iran didn't collapse. Even boasting myriad comprador elites aggregated in the Lima group,
exceptionalists may have to come to grips with the fact that deploying the
Monroe
doctrine
essentially to contain China's influence in the young 21stcentury is no "cakewalk."
Plan E -- for extreme -- would be U.S. military action, which Bolton won't take off the
table.
Show Me the Way to the Next War Game
So where do all these myriad weaponizations of chaos theory leave us? Nowhere, if they
don't follow the money.
Local comprador elites must be lavishly rewarded, otherwise you're
stuck in hybrid swamp territory. That was the case in Brazil – and that's why the most
sophisticated hybrid war case history so far has been a success.
In 2013, Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks revealed how the NSA was spying on Brazilian energy giant
Petrobras and the Dilma Rousseff government beginning in 2010. Afterwards, a complex, rolling
judicial-business-political-financial-media coup ended up reaching its two main objectives; in
2016, with the impeachment of Rousseff, and in 2018, with Lula thrown in jail.
Now comes arguably the juiciest piece of the puzzle. Petrobras was supposed to pay $853 million
to the U.S. Department of Justice for not going to trial for crimes it was being accused of in
America. But then a dodgy
deal
was struck
according to which the fine will be transferred to a Brazilian fund as long as Petrobras commits to
relay confidential information about its businesses to the United States government.
Mattis: Wrote on hybrid war in 2005.
Hybrid war against BRICS member Brazil worked like a charm, but trying it against nuclear
superpower Russia is a completely different ball game. U.S. analysts, in another case of culture
jamming, even accuse Russia itself of deploying hybrid war – a concept actually invented in the
U.S. within a counter-terrorism context; applied during the occupation of Iraq and later
metastasized across the color revolution spectrum; and featuring, among others, in an
article
co-authored
by former Pentagon head James "Mad Dog" Mattis in 2005 when he was a mere lieutenant general.
At a recent conference about Russia's military strategy, Chief of General Staff Gen.
Valery Gerasimov stressed that the Russian armed forces must increase both their "classic" and
"asymmetrical" potential.
In the U.S. this is interpreted as subversion/propaganda hybrid
war techniques as applied in Ukraine and in the largely debunked Russia-gate. Instead, Russian
strategists refer to these techniques as "complex approach" and "new generation war".
Santa Monica's RAND Corporation still sticks to good ol' hot war scenarios. They have been
holding "Red on Blue"
war
games
simulations since 1952 – modeling how the proverbial "existential threats" could use
asymmetric strategies. The latest
Red on Blue
was not exactly swell.
RAND analyst
David Ochmanek famously said that with Blue representing the current U.S. military potential and
Red representing Russia-China in a conventional war, "Blue gets its ass handed to it."
None of this will convince Empire of Chaos functionary Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently told a Senate Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon will
continue to
refuse
a "no first use" nuclear strategy.
Aspiring Dr. Strangeloves actually believe the U.S. can start a nuclear war and get away with it.
Talk about the Age of Hybrid Stupidity going out with a bang.
"... There are no agency in the USA, and no one powerful enough, to prosecute a flagrant deviation or to stop a completely fraudulent activity intentionally done in violation of the election promises made and facts presented within the pre election candidate prospectus. What the elected do is so different from what the candidates promise..that.. ? ..."
"... Those elected have not just broken the international law, they have eliminated it. International law and domestic law no longer exist ..."
"... Americans need the power to appoint their own prosecutors, cut the middle man USA out, take the power to appoint the prosecutor away from the USA, and take the power to appoint judges (Article 3) away from the USA, and give that power to the governed Americans, ain't nothing going to change but the candidate names. ..."
"... Without enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, and punishment there is no law capable to reach those who file a prospectus. just a long trail of broken promises and Palin type Caribou caucuses. ..."
Though I would agree that an SEC type full disclosure prospectus required of candidates could be useful. There are no agency
in the USA, and no one powerful enough, to prosecute a flagrant deviation or to stop a completely fraudulent activity intentionally
done in violation of the election promises made and facts presented within the pre election candidate prospectus. What the elected
do is so different from what the candidates promise..that.. ?
Those elected have not just broken the international law, they have eliminated it. International law and domestic law no
longer exist to those who are part of economic zionism (EZ); they use government to establish their monopolies not to prevent
them. Not only have the EZ eliminated International Law, they have given themselves, and each person they allow to be elected,
unlimited get out of jail free cards.
My question Captain Willard is: who would enforce the intentional misrepresentations, glaring omissions, hoax after hoax embedded
within the candidate prospectus you propose? Who who prosecute the lies? Who would prosecute the behaviors done contrary to the
promises made in the prospectus? Can't even get Trump to make public his Tax Returns and half the FBI can't publish an investigation
on el presidente.
Until governed Americans change the constitution to take the power to appoint the judges (article 3) and the Prosecutors that
can prosecute the EZ and the elected from the 450 Article I liars, and the 2 Article BoZoos nothing is going to change.
Americans need the power to appoint their own prosecutors, cut the middle man USA out, take the power to appoint the prosecutor
away from the USA, and take the power to appoint judges (Article 3) away from the USA, and give that power to the governed Americans,
ain't nothing going to change but the candidate names.
Without enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, and punishment there is no law capable to reach those who file a prospectus.
just a long trail of broken promises and Palin type Caribou caucuses.
GOLAN HEIGHTS . Bingo! There goes the Western case on South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Karabakh, Transdnestr and, of course, Crimea.
(One yuuuge difference being, of course, that in the other
cases the locals were consulted.)
"... While Kim has not tested his missiles or nuclear warheads in a year, few believe he will ever surrender the weapons that secure his survival and brought the U.S. superpower to the negotiating table. ..."
"... Is Trump prepared to accept a deal that leaves a nuclear North but brings about a peace treaty, diplomatic relations and a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula? Or are American forces to be in Korea indefinitely? ..."
"... What is our vital interest in Yemen's civil war? Why would Trump not wish to extricate us from that moral and humanitarian disaster? Answer: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his regime would sustain a strategic defeat should the Houthis, supported by Iran, prevail. ..."
"... Before the Warsaw conference called by the U.S. to discuss the Middle East, Bibi Netanyahu's office tweeted: "This is an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran." ..."
"... The "war-with-Iran" tweet was swiftly deleted, replaced with a new tweet that spoke of "the common interest of combating Iran." Like many Americans with whom he is close, Bibi has never hidden his belief as to what we Americans must do to Iran. ..."
"... Today, the U.S. maintains a policy of containment of Russia and China, which are more united than they have been since the first days of the Cold War. We are responsible for defending 28 NATO nations in Europe, twice as many as during the Cold War, plus Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand. ..."
"... We have troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and appear on the cusp of collisions with Venezuela and Iran. Yet we field armed forces a fraction of the size they were in the 1950s and 1960s and the Reagan era. ..."
In the Venezuelan crisis, said President Donald Trump in Florida, "All options are on the table." And if Venezuela's generals
persist in their refusal to break with Nicolas Maduro, they could "lose everything."
Another example of Yankee bluster and bluff? Or is Trump prepared to use military force to bring down Maduro and install Juan
Guaido, the president of the national assembly who has declared himself president of Venezuela? We will get an indication this weekend,
as a convoy of food and humanitarian aid tries to force its way into Venezuela from Colombia. Yet, even given the brutality of the
regime and the suffering of the people -- 1 in 10 have fled -- it is hard to see Trump sending the Marines to fight the Venezuelan
army in Venezuela.
Where would Trump get the authority for such a war? Still, the lead role that Trump has assumed in the crisis raises a question.
Does the reflexive interventionism -- America is "the indispensable nation!" -- that propelled us into the forever war of the Middle
East, retain its hold on the American mind?
Next week, Trump meets in Hanoi with North Korea's Kim Jong Un. While Kim has not tested his missiles or nuclear warheads
in a year, few believe he will ever surrender the weapons that secure his survival and brought the U.S. superpower to the negotiating
table.
Is Trump prepared to accept a deal that leaves a nuclear North but brings about a peace treaty, diplomatic relations and a
withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula? Or are American forces to be in Korea indefinitely?
Nancy Pelosi's House just voted to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Senate may follow.
Yet Trump is prepared to use his first veto to kill that War Powers Resolution and retain the right to help the Saudi war effort.
What is our vital interest in Yemen's civil war? Why would Trump not wish to extricate us from that moral and humanitarian
disaster? Answer: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his regime would sustain a strategic defeat should the Houthis, supported
by Iran, prevail.
Before the Warsaw conference called by the U.S. to discuss the Middle East, Bibi Netanyahu's office tweeted: "This is an open
meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common
interest of war with Iran."
The "war-with-Iran" tweet was swiftly deleted, replaced with a new tweet that spoke of "the common interest of combating Iran."
Like many Americans with whom he is close, Bibi has never hidden his belief as to what we Americans must do to Iran.
Early this week came leaks that Trump officials have discovered that Shiite Iran has been secretly collaborating with the Sunni
terrorists of al-Qaida. This could, headlined The Washington Times, provide "the legal rationale for U.S. military strikes" on Iran.
At the Munich Security Conference, however, NATO allies Britain, France and Germany recommitted to the Iran nuclear treaty from
which Trump withdrew, and to improved economic relations with Tehran.
Trump pledged months ago to bring home the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria and half of the 14,000 in Afghanistan. But he is meeting
resistance in his own party in Congress and even in his own administration. Reasons: A U.S. pullout from Syria would abandon our
Kurdish allies to the Turks, who see them as terrorists, and would force the Kurds to cut a deal with Syria's Bashar Assad and Russia
for their security and survival. This week, Britain and France informed us that if we leave Syria, then they leave, too. As for pulling
out of Afghanistan, the probable result would be the fall of the Kabul government and return of the Taliban, who hold more territory
now than they have since being overthrown 18 years ago. For Afghans who cast their lot with the Americans, it would not go well.
U.S. relations with Russia, which Trump promised to improve, have chilled to Cold War status. The U.S. is pulling out of Ronald
Reagan's INF treaty, which bans land-based nuclear missiles of 300 to 3,000 mile range.
Putin has said that any reintroduction of land-based U.S. missiles to Europe would mean a new class of Russian missiles targeted
on Europe -- and on the United States.
Today, the U.S. maintains a policy of containment of Russia and China, which are more united than they have been since the
first days of the Cold War. We are responsible for defending 28 NATO nations in Europe, twice as many as during the Cold War, plus
Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand.
We have troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and appear on the cusp of collisions with Venezuela and Iran. Yet we field
armed forces a fraction of the size they were in the 1950s and 1960s and the Reagan era.
And the U.S. national debt is now larger than the U.S. economy. This is imperial overstretch. It is unsustainable.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever." Copyright 2019 Creators.com.
"... It gives a formal US stamp of approval to Israel's violation of international law, and, in particular of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilians into occupied territory. Roughly 20,000 Israeli settlers live in the occupied Golan Heights today – now with the unambiguous backing of the US government. ..."
"... Jared Kusher's family is so close Netanyahu that the prime minister once slept in Kushner's childhood bedroom . Between the Trump administration's personnel and rightward lurch in Israeli politics, the pieces that would make the current one-state reality permanent are rapidly falling into place. ..."
No country in the world recognizes Israel's rule over the Golan Heights, occupied by
Israel in 1967 and unilaterally annexed in 1981 – no country,
that is, until now.
Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation on Monday formally recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, still
considered Syrian territory under international law. Standing by President Trump's side during an address by the two heads of state
in Washington DC, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly called Trump's decision "
historic justice " and gifted the president a box of wine from the occupied territory. As they embraced, Israeli forces began
an aerial bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip after rockets launched from Gaza hit a house in a community north of Tel Aviv earlier
that day.
Trump's announcement is unmistakably an election-time favor for Netanyahu. Saddled with multiple corruption charges, including
one for bribery, Netanyahu and his Likud party have been flagging in the polls. Likud increasingly appears threatened by the center-right
Blue and White party, jointly headed by the taciturn retired general Benny Gantz and former TV personality Yair Lapid. Netanyahu's
desperation can be measured by the extremity of his rhetoric. He and his surrogates have spent the past several weeks waging a hateful,
vicious campaign, accusing the Arab political parties of supporting terrorism and explicitly warning that a Gantz and Lapid victory
would lead to dead Israelis.
Many in Israel, however, view Netanyahu, despite his flaws, as a talented statesman and skilled advocate for the country's interests
on the international stage, and Netanyahu has campaigned on achievements such as normalizing relations with the Gulf states and the
US embassy's move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Golan Heights declaration – which initially took even the secretary of state, Mike
Pompeo, who was in Israel at the time, by surprise – is likely meant to bolster this image.
Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights marks the total capture of US policymaking in the Middle East by pro-Israel right
But Trump's Golan Heights proclamation is not just a cynical political gambit. It is a dramatic change in US policy in the Middle
East that could have serious consequences. Trump, unlike his predecessors, has never even pretended to abide by international norms
and conventions. And yet the decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over territory that the international community nearly unanimously
considers occupied, or at the very least disputed, is unprecedented.
It gives a formal US stamp of approval to Israel's violation of international law, and, in particular of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilians into occupied territory. Roughly 20,000 Israeli settlers
live in the occupied Golan Heights today – now with the unambiguous backing of the US government.
This potentially paves the way for Israel's annexation, in part or whole, of the West Bank. It has long been a talking
point on the Israeli hard right that, despite the international community's protestations, there would be few consequences for extending
Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank . Trump's declaration,
it seems, has not only proven them right, but given them an added boost: unlike during the Obama years, they can be confident that
the global hegemon will take their side.
If Netanyahu's Likud wins enough seats on 9 April to form a government, it is very like that annexation, at the very least, will
be on the table for discussion. The Likud's central committee unanimously voted in 2017 in favor of annexing the West Bank. Naftali
Bennett, co-chair of the New Right party, has proposed a plan to annex parts of Area C of the West Bank. And the other rightwing
parties – the extremist Union of Parties of the Right and Moshe Feiglin's Identity party, both of which would almost certainly sit
in a future Likud government – have only more extreme proposals for dealing with "the Palestinian question", including the forced
transfer of Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan.
Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights marks the total capture of US policymaking in the Middle East by pro-Israel right. US
ambassador to Israel David Friedman is an opponent of the two-state solution who previously operated the charitable arm of
a rightwing orthodox religious seminary in the West Bank settlement of Beit El. Jared Kusher's family is so close Netanyahu
that the prime minister once slept
in Kushner's childhood bedroom . Between the Trump administration's personnel and rightward lurch in Israeli politics, the pieces
that would make the current one-state reality permanent are rapidly falling into place.
It is important to remember this in light of the glitz and pablum of the AIPAC policy conference taking place this week in Washington
DC, where the PR hacks and policy flacks are working hard to launder Israel's image, to obscure the fact that there is one sovereign
state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea that determines the lives of roughly 13 million people; that of those 13
million, only half – Israeli Jews – have full citizenship and social rights; and that the other half, the Palestinians, live under
a range of discriminatory systems, from codified discrimination but legal citizenship within Israel, to residency without the right
to vote in East Jerusalem, to military dictatorship in the West Bank.
Donald Trump , his administration, the pro-Israel lobby,
and Netanyahu all intend to keep it that way.
Joshua Leifer is an associate editor at Dissent. Previously, he worked at +972 Magazine and was based in Jerusalem
Russiagate is a story about greed and lust for power manifesting as treachery and corruption.
As a hoax it is notable for it's size and duration and damage done. But it is nothing at all
compared to 9/11. I am impressed by the sheer silliness of Russiagate and the tenacious
ignorance of those who still believe the corporate media.
In a recent thought-provoking article
Gideon Levy, probably one of the last genuine Israeli voices for peace, claims that "It is
not Netanyahu who is responsible for Israeli 'racism, extreme nationalism, divisiveness,
incitement, hatred, anxiety and corruption.'" Behind Netanyahu, Levy says, there's a nation of
voters and other elected officials that aren't very different from their leader.
"Simply put, the people are the problem There are those who have hated Arabs long before
Netanyahu. There are those who despise blacks, detest foreigners, exploit the weak and look
down their noses at the whole world – and not because of Netanyahu. There are those who
believe they are the chosen people and therefore deserve everything."
Levy reaffirms the observation that I have been pushing for two decades. The problem with Israel is
not of a political
kind . The conflict with the Palestinians or the Arabs is not of a political nature as some
delusional characters within the Palestinian solidarity movement have been proclaiming for
years. Israel defines itself as the Jewish state. In order to grasp Israel, its politics, its
policies and the intrusive nature of its lobby, we must understand the nature of
Jewishness. We must learn to define the differences between Jews (the people), Judaism
(the religion) and Jewishness (the ideology). We have to understand how those terms are related
to each other and how they influence Israeli and Jewish politics globally.
Levy writes that "there are those who think that after the Holocaust, they are permitted to
do anything. There are those who believe that Israel is tops in the world in every field, that
international law doesn't apply to it, and that no one can tell it what to do. There are those
who think Israelis are victims – always victims, the only victims – and that the
whole world is against us. There are those who are convinced that Israel is allowed to do
anything, simply because it can."
In order to understand what Levy is referring to we must dig into the core of Jewish
identification and once and for all grasp the notion of Jewish choseness. Levy contends that
"racism and xenophobia are deeply entrenched here, far more deeply than any Netanyahu The
apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure; it probably won't even be
dented. One of the most racist nations in the world cannot complain about its prime minister's
racism." Netanyahu as such, is not the disease. He is a mere symptom.
ORDER IT NOW
The devastating news is that neither the Israeli 'Left' nor the Jewish so-called 'anti'
Zionist league are any less racist than their Zionist foes. The Israeli Left pushes for a 'two
state solution.' It crudely ignores the Palestinian cause i.e. the Right of Return. The Israeli
Left advocates segregation and ghettoization; not exactly the universal message of harmony one
would expect from 'leftists.' Disturbingly, the Diaspora Jewish 'anti' Zionist Left is even
more racially exclusive than the Israeli Right. As I have explored many times in the past,
Corbyn's 'favourite Jewish political group namely, Jewish Voice for Labour
(JVL) is a racially exclusive political cell. It wouldn't allow gentiles into its Jews-only
club. Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is no better. It will happily take donations from Goyim but
will never allow those Goyim to become its board members.
Levy proclaims that "Netanyahu is the best thing to ever happen to Israeli politics –
you can dump everything on him." But in his most astute observation, which has been explored
before by Uri Avnery (may he rest in peace) and yours truly, Levy continues, "It would be great
if some local Nelson Mandela would arise, a brave leader with vision who would change the
country's basic values and lead a revolution. But no such person has been born here, and it's
doubtful he ever will be."
Levy points at the core of the Zionist failure. If early Zionism was a promise to civilise
the diaspora Jew by means of 'homecoming,' Israel happened to do the complete opposite. Not
much is left out of the Zionist promise to make the Jews 'people like all other people': as
Israel is about to perpetrate another colossal war crime in Gaza, we have to admit that we are
dealing with an institutionally racist and dangerous identity like no other.
Another good one Atzmon. I thinks it's hard for people to grasp outside of Israel the
connection you speak of between the religion, the people, and the ideology. Its underreported
for obvious reasons in the media, plus the control the Israel lobby and its donors the
Adelsons, Sabans, and Singers have in the US on what people hear about Israel and its
citizens. All you hear is it's a democracy among hostile states that hate it because of
freedom or democracy or whatever propaganda speak the mouth peace for Israel/Zionism media
uses. You never hear about Israel's and its citizens actions that cause it just the eternal
victim status they have been awarded.
Violent Islam is the Disease, Resistance Leaders are the Symptom
The author makes a good point. Netanyahu is not unique:
– Modi resists violent Islam in Kashmir.
– Jinping resists violent Islam in Xinjiang.
– Orban resists violent Islam in Hungary.
– Trump resists violent Islam in the U.S.
– Netanyhau resists violent Islam in Israel.
And, there are more cases not in the list above
Islam views all non-Muslims as infidels. Violent Islam wages Jihad until the infidels are
killed, converted, or willingly submit as Dhimmi slaves. Until Islam changes, Resistance
leaders will continue to protect their people. Perhaps the collapse of the Iranian government
and its funding of terrorism will open the door to that change.
______
Israel started as a far left venture where the people lived in true communist shared
estates know as Kibbutz. Seventy years of resisting violent Islam has changed the people into
a practical group that will do what is necessary to stay alive.
The upcoming election makes no difference in Israeli survival strategy. Netanyahu's only
serious competitor, Benny Gantz, openly states he will fight Iran's violent Islamic expansion
in Lebanon & Syria (Iranian Hezbollah) and in Gaza (Iranian Hamas).
First:
Yes, do let's differentiate between Jews, judaism and jewishness (lest anyone be accused of
criticizing "Jews the people," which is something only an anti-semite or a self-hating Jew
might do, isn't it?).
The Jews are the people, judaism is their deeply inculcated worldview and ethos, and
jewishness is their inherently logical behavior.
Or the Jews are the computer, judaism is its operating system and jewishness its
applications.
Or the Jews are the rice, while judaism and jewishness are the white on rice.
Second:
The zionism did NOT fail to deliver its promise to make the Jews "people like other people."
It is Atzmon who fails to understand that the Jews' definition of "people" ("nations") is
based on the very Jewish worldview of the model: irrationally hateful, brutal, greedy,
covetous, and ruthless "winners." I would say zionism succeeded remarkably well, but it had
eager students to start with.
Mr. Atzmon has painted himself in a corner on this otherwise tough editorial. But let's
give him some credit. Gilad's taken a hell of a lotta heat for his rough and penetrating
criticisms of the Zionist colony and its endless deceptions. And he (generally) pulls no
punches.
But when all is said and done, and all the hairs are split, and all the (overdue) debates
are finally finished (and we can somehow separate the 'racist' Jews from the good,
'humanitarian' Jews) we are nevertheless left with a core Jewish identity that puts God's
Chosen People forever and eternally above the rest of humanity. God says so!
Basically, the problem is that Jewishness and 'Jewish supremacism' are pretty much one and
the same.
@A123
"Israel started as a far left venture Seventy years of resisting violent Islam has changed
the people into a practical group that will do what is necessary to stay alive."
I wonder why the Palestinians employ violence ? Of course, the State of Israel was born out
of terrorism (King David hotel, multiple assassinations etc) & ethnic cleansing (ie Nakba
). And yes, the Palestinians were also violent.
As for Israel's "survival" -- that's been a none issue since the late 70's, at a minimum.
Israel with its 100's of nuclear weapons & it's US body guard has NO survival issues.
It's all the poor bastards around them who have survival problems : (Syria, Lebanon, Gaza,
Iran, Libya etc)
Typical brain dead Hasbara nonsense. Orban resists third world immigration, which I
support, the problem is about mass non white immigration not Islam. The ultimate problem is
the jew, it is they that push for mass immigration and miscegenation the most.
And the rest of this article just goes on and on about how evil , Israel, Israelis are ,
and as to how they are self-justified and unified in being so. And this is a Jew writing
this.
Wow. What is the world to do? Doesn't seem to be any other option or solution, except a
trip to Wannsee.
@A123
Dancing Isreaeli said to the cops:" We are not your problem . Arabs are "
This guy is shouting at China India Russia and at the God : Israel is not the problem Its
these Muslims.
Question is this : will these guys be allowed on the graves of the 911 victims strewn all
across the world- Germany Soviet Russia, Poland, American rust belt, WW1 and 2 British
cemeteries?
When did they say something that turned out to be true?
Having said that, the world would be a better place if they ended up destroying elite run
US UK . Yes they would cut the branch on which they are sitting . But they would jump the
ship just before taht happening
You know Albert Sasson whow as knighted , who married in Riothchilds family, whose grand
son / nephew or another Sasson – by name Amery gave us the Balfour in part . He was
thrown out of Iraq court for corruption He made it to Raj's India and planted the seed of
opium That soon ate up all the available fertile lands of north India . The opium made him
rich made India poor corrupted British Raj and led to Chinese deprivations rebellion and to
communism
@neutral
Regardless, Jews (definition as provided and all three facets) are the most coherent group
globally. They can muster the most coordination, the strongest drive, the detachment and
loyalty, add as needed,
Since everyone here on unz likes thinking in bursts, to the matter. That makes for
success. No reason to whine about for the loosing party, the WASP, traditional US elites. If
some other group has ambitions, it should acquire that type of quality identity.
Islam is a poor enemy, as Jews see them as target practice, so should other entities
maybe.
Western European descend Whites, and the ambition of enlightenment, (for one, all
individuals across ethnic and religious lines being equals), should stow their ambitions of
principle until they are in charge. That will require appropriating the same acerbic mindset
of the Jew, and not whine publicly about the teacher. White elites have sold out, they are
burdened by a commoner population that far exceeds any asset value. To disconnect their base,
also made them hostages of Jew elites.
From the point of view of the Euro-descend commoner, non-Jew, unpriviledged, as long as
they see themselves as genuine and belonging to the system, the US, and not the trash they
are treated as, as long as the non-Jewish middle classes continue their egocentric quest for
scraps, they deserve the Gaza they are converted into. No Jew should be blamed for pushing an
outsider into demise. The tactics are in the open for grabs, Whites (non-Latino, non-Jew)
have only themselves to blame for their demise.
This is probably the most comprehensive outline of the color revolution against Trump. Bravo, simply bravo !!!
Reads like Agatha Christi Murder on the Orient
Express ;-) Rosenstein role is completely revised from a popular narrative. Brennan role clarifies and detailed. Obama
personal role hinted. Victoria Nuland role and the role of the State Department in Russiagate is documented for the first
time, I think.
Notable quotes:
"... The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation, led by McCabe, could continue unhindered. ..."
"... Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known since at least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr, an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working for Fusion GPS sometime in late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier. ..."
"... The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided by Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's data-sharing order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission. ..."
"... Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken. ..."
"... The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and charged with one count of lying to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time. ..."
"... The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute, to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017, statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey. ..."
"... Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations -- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia. ..."
"... Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents? ..."
Spygate: The True Story of Collusion [Infographic] How America's most powerful agencies were weaponized against President
Donald Trump
Although the details remain complex, the structure underlying Spygate -- the creation of the false narrative that candidate Donald
Trump colluded with Russia, and the spying on his presidential campaign -- remains surprisingly simple:
CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence
and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.
The FBI became the handler of Brennan's intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.
The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of
nondisclosure.
The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.
Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.
The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing
participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.
Let's start with a simple premise: The candidacy of Trump presented both an opportunity and a threat.
Initially not viewed with any real seriousness, Trump's campaign was seen as an opportunistic wedge in the election process. At
the same time, and particularly as the viability of his candidacy increased, Trump was seen as an existential threat to the established
political system.
The sudden legitimacy of Trump's candidacy was not welcomed by the U.S. political establishment. Here was a true political outsider
who held no traditional allegiances. He was brash and boastful, he ignored political correctness, he couldn't be bought, and he didn't
care what others thought of him -- he trusted himself.
Governing bodies in Britain and the European Union were also worried. Candidate Trump was openly challenging monetary policy,
regulations, and the power of special interests. He challenged Congress. He challenged the United Nations and the European Union.
He questioned everything.
Brennan played a crucial role in the creation of the Russia-collusion narrative and the spying on the Trump campaign. (Don Emmert/AFP/Getty
Images)
Brennan became the point man in the operation to stop a potential Trump presidency. It remains unclear whether his role was self-appointed
or came from above. To embark on such a mission without direct presidential authority seems both a stretch of the imagination and
particularly foolhardy.
Brennan took unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts, colleagues, and associates --
primarily from the UK , but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia.
Individuals in official positions in UK intelligence, such as Robert Hannigan -- head of the UK Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ, Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency) -- partnered with former UK foreign intelligence members. Former MI6
head Sir Richard Dearlove
, former Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, and private UK intelligence firm
Hakluyt all played a role.
In the summer of 2016, Hannigan traveled to Washington to
meet with Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. On Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration
-- Hannigan abruptly announced
his retirement. The Guardian openly
speculated that Hannigan's
resignation was directly related to the sharing of UK intelligence.
One method used to help establish evidence of collusion was the employment of "spy traps." Prominent among these were ones set
for Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The intent was to provide or establish connections between the Trump
campaign and Russia. The content and context mattered little as long as a connection could be established that could then be publicized.
The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was another such attempt.
Western intelligence assets were used to initiate and establish these connections, particularly in the cases of Papadopoulos and
Page.
Ultimately, Brennan formed an inter-agency task
force comprising an estimated six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI, Treasury, and DOJ handled the domestic inquiry
into Trump and possible Russia connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency
(NSA) handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
Brennan's inter-agency task force is not to be confused with the July 2016 FBI counterintelligence investigation, which was formed
later at Brennan's urging.
During this time, Brennan also employed the use of
reverse targeting , which relates to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.
This effort was uncovered and
made public by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in a March 2017
press conference :
"I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the president-elect and his team were monitored and disseminated out in
intelligence-reporting channels. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent
foreign-intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
"From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don't know exactly how that was picked up but we're trying
to get to the bottom of it."
As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels -- was gathered, Brennan began a
process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the CIA director pushed
the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation. Brennan repeatedly noted this during
a May 23, 2017, congressional testimony :
"I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump
campaign, was shared with the [FBI]."
Brennan also admitted that his intelligence helped establish
the FBI investigation:
"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and
it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred."
Once the FBI began its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, Brennan shifted his focus. Through a series of meetings
in August and September 2016, Brennan informed the congressional Gang of Eight regarding intelligence and information he had gathered.
Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately, calling into question whether each of the members received the same information.
Efforts to
block the release of the transcripts from each meeting remain ongoing.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of President Donald Trump.
Notably, Admiral Mike Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning only a moderate confidence level.
Although the FBI is technically part of the DOJ, it is best for the purposes of this article that the FBI and DOJ be viewed as
separate entities, each with its own related ties.
The FBI itself was comprised of various factions, with a particularly active element that has come to be known as the "insurance
policy group." It appears that this faction was led by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and comprised other notable names such as
FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and FBI general counsel James Baker.
The FBI established the counterintelligence investigation into alleged Russia collusion with the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.
Comey initially refused to say whether the FBI was investigating possible connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia.
He would continue to refuse to provide answers until March 20, 2017, when he disclosed the existence of the FBI investigation
during congressional testimony.
Comey also testified that he did not provide notification to the Gang of Eight until early March 2017 -- less than one month earlier.
This admission was in stark contrast to actions taken by Brennan, who had notified members of the Gang of Eight individually during
August and September 2016. It's likely that Brennan never informed Comey that he had briefed the Gang of Eight in 2016. Comey did
note that the DOJ "had been aware" of the investigation all along.
Comey opened the counterintelligence investigation into Trump on the urging of CIA Director John Brennan.
Following Comey's firing on May 9, 2017, the FBI's investigation was transferred to special counsel Robert Mueller. The
Mueller investigation remains ongoing.
The FBI's formal involvement with the
Steele dossier began on July 5, 2016,
when Mike Gaeta, an FBI agent and assistant legal attaché at the US Embassy in Rome, was dispatched to visit former MI6 spy Christopher
Steele in London. Gaeta would return from this meeting with a copy of Steele's first memo. This memo was given to Victoria Nuland
at the State Department, who passed it along to the FBI.
Gaeta, who also headed the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime unit, had known Steele since at least 2010, when Steele had provided
assistance to the FBI's investigation into the
FIFA corruption
scandal .
Prior to the London meeting, Gaeta may also have met on a less formal basis with Steele
several weeks earlier.
"In June, Steele flew to Rome to brief the FBI contact with whom he had cooperated over FIFA," The Guardian reported. "His information
started to reach the bureau in Washington."
It's worth noting that there was no "dossier" until it was fully compiled in December 2016. There was only a sequence of documents
from Steele -- documents that were passed on individually -- as they were created. Therefore, from the FBI's legal perspective, they
didn't use the dossier. They used individual documents.
For the next month and a half, there appeared to be little contact between Steele and the FBI. However, the FBI's interest in
the dossier suddenly accelerated in late August 2016, when the bureau
asked Steele "for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify
his sources."
In September 2016, Steele traveled back to Rome to meet with the FBI's Eurasian squad once again. It's likely that the meeting
included several other FBI officials as well. According to a
House Intelligence Committee
minority memo , Steele's reporting reached the FBI counterintelligence team in mid-September 2016 -- the same time as Steele's
September trip to Rome.
The reason for the FBI's renewed interest had to do with an adviser to the Trump campaign -- Carter Page -- who had been in
contact with Stefan Halper, a CIA
and FBI source, since July 2016. Halper
arranged to meet with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page took a trip
to Moscow. Speakers at the symposium included Madeleine Albright, Vin Webber, and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6.
Page was now the FBI's chosen target for a FISA warrant that would be obtained on Oct. 21, 2016. The Steele dossier would be the
primary evidence used in obtaining the FISA warrant, which would be renewed three separate times, including after Trump took office,
finally expiring in September 2017.
Former volunteer Trump campaign adviser Carter Page on Nov. 2, 2017. The FBI obtained a retroactive FISA spy warrant
on Page.
After being in contact with Page for 14 months, Halper stopped contact exactly as the final FISA warrant on Page expired. Page,
who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, was never charged with any crime by the FBI. Efforts for the declassification of the
Page FISA application are currently ongoing through the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were two prominent members of the FBI's "insurance policy" group. Strzok, a senior FBI agent, was the
deputy assistant director of FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, served as special counsel to FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe.
Strzok was in charge of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for government business. He helped
FBI Director James Comey draft the statement exonerating Clinton and was personally responsible for changing specific wording within
that statement that reduced Clinton's legal liability. Specifically, Strzok changed the words "grossly negligent," which could be
a criminal offense, to "extremely careless."
Strzok also personally led the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the alleged Trump–Russia collusion and signed the
documents that opened the investigation on July 31, 2016. He was one of the FBI agents who interviewed Trump's national security
adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn. Strzok met multiple times with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and received information from Steele at those
meetings.
Following the firing of FBI Director James Comey, Strzok would join the team of special counsel Robert Mueller. Two months later,
he was removed from that team after the DOJ inspector general discovered a lengthy series of texts between Strzok and Page that contained
politically charged messages. Strzok would be fired from the FBI in August 2018.
Both Strzok and Page engaged in strategic
leaking to the press. Page did so at the direction of McCabe, who directly
authorized Page to share information with Wall Street
Journal reporter Devlin Barrett. That information was used in an Oct. 30, 2016, article headlined
"FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe ." Page leaked to Barrett thinking she had been granted legal and official authorization
to do so.
McCabe would later initially deny providing such
authorization to the Office of Inspector General. Page, when confronted with McCabe's denials, produced texts refuting his statement.
It was these texts that led to the inspector general uncovering the texts between Strzok and Page.
The two exchanged thousands of texts, some of them indicating surveillance activities, over a two-year period. Texts sent between
Aug. 21, 2015, and June 25, 2017, have been made
public . The series comes
to an end with a final text by Page telling Strzok, "Don't ever text me again."
On Aug. 8, 2016, Stzrok wrote that they would prevent candidate Trump from becoming president:
Page: "[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok sent a text referring to an "insurance policy":
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way [Trump] gets elected --
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation,
led by McCabe, could continue unhindered.
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice, which comprises 60 agencies , was transformed
during the Obama years. The department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation.
However, a
series
of investigative articles by PJ Media published during Eric Holder's tenure as attorney general revealed an unsettling pattern
of ideological conformity among new hires at the DOJ: Only lawyers from the progressive left were hired. Not one single moderate
or conservative lawyer made the cut. This is significant as the DOJ enjoys significant latitude in determining who will be subject
to prosecution.
The DOJ's job in Spygate was to facilitate the legal side of surveillance while providing a protective layer of cover for all
those involved. The department became a repository of information and provided a protective wall between the investigative efforts
of the FBI and the legislative branch. Importantly, it also served as the firewall within the executive branch, serving as the insulating
barrier between the FBI and Obama officials. The department had become legendary for its stonewalling tactics with Congress.
DOJ Official Bruce Ohr on Aug. 28, 2018. Ohr passed on information from Christopher Steele to the FBI.
The DOJ, which was fully aware of the actions being taken by James Comey and the FBI, also became an active element acting against
members of the Trump campaign. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, along with Mary McCord, the head of the DOJ's National Security
Division, was actively
involved in efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn from his position as national security adviser to President Trump.
To this day, it remains unknown which individual was responsible for making public Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador. Flynn
ultimately pleaded guilty to a process crime: lying to the FBI. There have been
questions raised in Congress regarding the possible alteration of FD-302s, the written notes of Flynn's FBI interviews. Special
counsel Robert Mueller has repeatedly deferred Flynn's sentencing hearing.
David Laufman, deputy assistant attorney general in charge of counterintelligence at the DOJ's National Security Division, played
a key role in both the Clinton email server and Russia hacking investigations. Laufman is currently the attorney for Monica McLean,
the long-time friend of Christine Blasey Ford, who recently accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her while in high
school. McLean was also
employed
by the FBI for 24 years.
Bruce Ohr was a significant DOJ official who played a
key role in Spygate. Ohr held
two important positions at the DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force. As associate deputy attorney general, Ohr was just four offices away from then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and he
reported directly to her. As director of the task force, he was in charge of a program described as "the centerpiece of the attorney
general's drug strategy."
Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known
since at
least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr,
an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working
for Fusion GPS sometime in
late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier.
According to testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok, he and Ohr met at least five times during 2016 and 2017. Strzok was working
directly with then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Additionally, Ohr met with the FBI at least
12 times between late November 2016 and May 2017 for a series of interviews. These meetings could have been used to
transmit information from Steele to the FBI. This came after the FBI had formally severed contact with Steele in late October
or early November 2016.
John Carlin is another notable figure with the DOJ. Carlin was an assistant attorney general and the head of the DOJ's National
Security Division until October 2016. His role will be discussed below in the section on FISA abuse.
The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe held a pivotal role in what has become known as "Spygate." He directed the activities of Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page and was involved in all aspects of the Russia investigation. He was also mentioned in the infamous "insurance
policy" text message.
McCabe was a major component of the insurance policy.
On April 26, 2017, Rosenstein found himself appointed as the new deputy attorney general. He was placed into a somewhat chaotic
situation, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from the ongoing Russia investigation a little less than two months
earlier, on March 2, 2017. This effectively meant that no one in the Trump administration had any oversight of the ongoing investigation
being conducted by the FBI and the DOJ.
Additionally, the leadership of then-FBI Director James Comey was coming under increased scrutiny as the result of actions taken
leading up to and following the election, particularly Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memorandum recommending that Comey be fired. The subject of the memo was "Restoring Public
Confidence in the FBI." Comey was fired that day. McCabe was now the acting director of the FBI and was immediately under consideration
for the permanent position.
On the same day Comey was fired, McCabe would lie during an interview with agents from the FBI's Inspection Division (INSD) regarding
apparent leaks that were used in an Oct. 30, 2016, Wall Street Journal article, "FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe"
by Devlin Barrett. This would later be disclosed in the inspector general report, "A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations
Relating to Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe."
At the time, nobody, including the INSD agents, knew that McCabe had lied, nor were the darker aspects of McCabe's role in Spygate
fully known.
In late April or early May 2016, McCabe opened a federal criminal investigation on Sessions, regarding potential lack of candor
before Congress in relation to Sessions's contacts with Russians. Sessions was unaware of the investigation.
Sessions would later be cleared of any wrongdoing by special counsel Robert Mueller.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein reportedly suggested to McCabe that he secretly record President Trump. This remark
was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced from memos from the now-fired McCabe, along with testimony taken from former
FBI general counsel James Baker, who relayed a conversation he had with McCabe about the occurrence. Rosenstein issued a statement
denying the accusations.
The alleged comments by Rosenstein occurred at a meeting where McCabe was "pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation
into the president." An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the conversation somewhat
differently, noting Rosenstein responded sarcastically to McCabe, saying, "What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
Later, on the same day that Rosenstein had his meetings with McCabe, President Trump met with Mueller, reportedly as an interview
for the FBI director job. On May 17, 2017, the day after President Trump's meeting with Mueller -- and the day after Rosenstein's
encounters with McCabe -- Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.
The May 17 appointment of Mueller in effect shifted control of the Russia investigation from the FBI and McCabe to Mueller. Rosenstein
would retain ultimate authority for the probe and any expansion of Mueller's investigation required authorization from Rosenstein.
Interestingly, without Comey's memo leaks, a special counsel might not have been appointed -- the FBI, and possibly McCabe, would
have remained in charge of the Russia investigation. McCabe was probably not going to become the permanent FBI director, but he was
reportedly under consideration. Regardless, without Comey's leak, McCabe would have retained direct involvement and the FBI would
have retained control.
On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath regarding authorization of the leaking to
The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe.
On Aug. 2, 2017, Rosenstein secretly issued Mueller a revised memo on "the scope of investigation and definition of authority"
that remains heavily redacted. The full purpose of this memo remains unknown. On this same day, Christopher Wray was named as the
new FBI director.
Two days later, on Aug. 4, 2017, Sessions announced that the FBI had created a new leaks investigation unit. Rosenstein and Wray
were tasked with overseeing all leak investigations.
That Aug. 2 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller may have been specifically designed to remove any residual FBI influence -- specifically
that of McCabe -- from the Russia investigation. The appointment of Wray as FBI director helped cement this. McCabe was finally completely
neutralized.
On March 16, 2018, McCabe was fired for lying under oath at least three different times and is currently the subject of a grand
jury investigation.
State Department
The State Department, with its many contacts within foreign governments, became a conduit for the flow of information. The transfer
of Christopher Steele's first dossier memo was personally
facilitated by Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland gave approval for
FBI agent Michael Gaeta to travel to London to obtain the memo from Steele. The memo may have passed directly from her to FBI leadership.
Secretary of State John Kerry was also given a copy.
Steele was already well-known within the State Department. Following Steele's involvement in the FIFA scandal investigation, he
began to provide reports
informally to the State Department. The reports were written for a "private client" but were "shared widely within the U.S. State
Department, and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of
the U.S.
response to Putin's annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine," the Guardian reported.
Nuland passed on parts of the Steele dossier to the FBI. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
In July 2016, when the FBI wanted to send Gaeta to visit Steele in London, the bureau
sought permission from the office of Nuland, who provided this version of events during a Feb. 4, 2018,
appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation":
"In the middle of July, when [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short
points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI
if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That's
something for the FBI to investigate."
Steele also
met with Jonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy
for Libya. Steele and Winer had known each other since at least 2010. In an opinion article in The Washington Post, Winer wrote the
following:
"In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the 'dossier.' Steele's sources
suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign."
In a strange turn of events, Winer also received a
separate dossier , very similar to Steele's, from long-time Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This "second dossier" had been
compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer
then met with Steele in late September 2016 and gave Steele a copy of the "second dossier." Steele went on to
share this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it to corroborate his dossier.
Winer passed on memos from Christopher Steele to Victoria Nuland. (State Department)
Other foreign officials also used conduits into the State Department. Alexander Downer, Australia's high commissioner to the UK,
reportedly funneled his conversation
with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos -- later used as a reason to open the FBI's counterintelligence investigation --
directly to the U.S. Embassy in London.
"The Downer details landed with the embassy's then-chargé d'affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal deputy
assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton's State Department," The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel wrote in a May 31, 2018,
article .
If true, this would mean that neither Australian intelligence nor the Australian government alerted the FBI to the Papadopoulos
information. What happened with the Downer details, and to whom they were ultimately relayed, remains unknown.
Curiously, details surprisingly similar to the Papadopoulos–Downer conversation show up in the
first memo written
by Steele on June 20, 2016:
"A dossier of compromising information on Hillary Clinton has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many
years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls. It has not yet
been distributed abroad, including to Trump."
Clinton Campaign and the DNC
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee both occupied a unique position. They had the most to gain but they
also had the most to lose. And they stood willing and ready to do whatever was necessary to win. Hillary Clinton's campaign manager,
Robby Mook, is credited with being the first to raise the specter of candidate Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
The entire Clinton campaign willfully promoted the narrative of Russia–Trump collusion despite the uncomfortable fact that they
were the ones who had engaged the services of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele through their law firm Perkins Coie. Information
flowed from the campaign -- sometimes through Perkins Coie, other times through affiliates -- ultimately making its way into the
media and sometimes to the FBI. Information from the Clinton campaign may also have ended up in the Steele dossier.
Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, in tandem with Jake Sullivan, the senior policy adviser
to the campaign,
took the lead in briefing the press on the Trump–Russia collusion story.
Another example of this behavior can be seen from an instance when Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann
leaked information from Steele and Fusion GPS to Franklin Foer of Slate magazine. This event is described in the House Intelligence
Committee's final report on
Russian active measures
, in footnote 43 on page 57. Foer then published the article
"Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia? " on Oct. 31, 2016. The article concerns allegations regarding a server in the
Trump Tower.
The Slate article managed to attract the immediate attention of Clinton, who posted a
tweet on the same day the article was
published:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."
Attached to her tweet was a
statement from Sullivan:
"This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert
server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.
"This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization
felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists."
These statements, which were later proven to be incorrect, are all the more disturbing with the hindsight knowledge that it was
a senior Clinton/DNC lawyer who helped plant the story. And given the prepared statement by Sullivan, the Clinton campaign knew this.
This type of behavior would be engaged in repeatedly -- damning leaks leading to media stories, followed by ready attacks from
the Clinton campaign.
Alexandra Chalupa is a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee. Chalupa
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.
Chalupa began investigating
Manafort in 2014. In late 2015, Chalupa expanded her opposition research on Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. In January
2016, Chalupa shared her information with a senior DNC official.
Chalupa's meetings with DNC and Ukrainian officials would continue. On April 26, 2016, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff
published a story
on Yahoo News about Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a DNC email leaked
by Wikileaks that Chalupa had been working with Isikoff
-- the same journalist Christopher Steele
leaked to
in September 2016. Manafort would later be indicted for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations that occurred during the Obama
administration.
Perkins Coie
International law firm Perkins Coie served as the legal arm for both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Ties to Perkins Coie extended
beyond the DNC into the Obama White House.
Bob Bauer, a partner at the law firm and founder of its political law practice, served as
White House counsel to President Barack Obama throughout 2010 and 2011. Bauer was also
general counsel to Obama's campaign organization, Obama for America, in 2008 and 2012.
Perkins Coie partners Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann each played critical roles and were the ones who hired Fusion GPS and Steele.
Sussmann
personally handled the alleged hack of the DNC server. He also transmitted information, likely from Steele and Fusion GPS, to
James Baker, then-chief counsel at the FBI, and to several members of the press.
Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann. Sussmann transmitted information to FBI chief counsel James Baker and several
journalists. (Courtesy Perkins Coie)
According to a
letter
dated Oct. 24, 2017, written by Matthew Gehringer, general counsel at Perkins Coie, the firm was approached by Fusion GPS founder
Glenn Simpson in early March 2016 regarding the possibility of hiring Fusion GPS to continue opposition research into the Trump campaign.
Simpson's overtures were successful, and in April 2016, Perkins Coie
hired
Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC.
Sometime in April or May 2016, Fusion GPS
hired Christopher Steele. During
this same period, Fusion also reportedly
hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Steele would complete his first memo on June 20, 2016,
and send it to Fusion via enciphered mail.
Perkins Coie appears to have also been acting as a conduit between the DNC and the FBI.
Documents suggest that Sussmann was feeding information to FBI general counsel James Baker and at least one journalist ahead
of the FBI's application for a FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
The information provided by Sussmann may have been used by the FBI as "corroborating information."
Obama Administration
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is
provided by
Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia Evelyn Farkas on May 6, 2014. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
Clapper leaked information to CNN, after which he publicly condemned the leaks. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Media
In some respects, the media has played the most disingenuous of roles. Areas of investigation that historically would have proven
irresistible to reporters of the past have been steadfastly ignored. False narratives have been all-too-willingly promoted and facts
ignored. Fusion GPS personally made a
series of payments to several as-of-yet-
unnamed reporters .
The majority of the mainstream media has represented positions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Steele met with members of certain media with relative frequency. In
September 2016 ,
he met with a number of U.S. journalists for "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo! News, the New Yorker and CNN," according
to The Guardian. It was during this period that Steele met with Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
In mid-October
2016, Steele returned to New York and met with reporters again. Toward the end of October, Steele spoke via Skype with Mother
Jones reporter David Corn.
Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the
unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the
intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical
pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken.
On April 3, 2017, BuzzFeed reporter Ali Watkins wrote the article "
A Former Trump Adviser Met With a Russian Spy ." In the article, she identified "Male-1," referred to in
court documents
relating to the case of Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov, as Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had provided the FBI with assistance
in the case. Just over a week later, on April 11, 2017, a Washington Post article, "
FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Monitor Former Trump Adviser Carter Page ," confirmed the existence of the October 2016 Page FISA
warrant.
The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security
for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and
charged with one count of lying
to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment
alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time.
Reporter Ali Watkins likely received the undredacted FISA application on Carter Page from James Wolfe.
It appears probable that Wolfe leaked unredacted copies of the Page FISA application. According to the
indictment , Wolfe
exchanged 82 text messages with
Watkins on March 17, 2017. That same evening they engaged in a 28-minute phone call. The original Page FISA application is 83 pages
long, including one final signatory page.
In the public version of the application, there are 37 fully redacted pages. In addition to that, several other pages have redactions
for all but the header. There are only two pages in the entire document that contain no redactions.
Why would Wolfe bother to send 37 pages of complete redactions? It seems more than plausible that Wolfe took pictures of the original
unredacted FISA application and sent them by text to Watkins.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has repeatedly
stated that evidence within the FISA application
shows the counterintelligence agencies were abused by the Obama administration. Most of the mainstream media has known this.
Despite this, most major news organizations for over two years have promoted the Russia-collusion narrative. Despite ample evidence
having come out to the contrary, they have not admitted they were wrong, likely because doing so would mean they would have to admit
their complicity.
Foreign Intelligence
UK and Australian intelligence agencies also played meaningful roles during the 2016 presidential election.
Britain's GCHQ was involved in
collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States. In the summer of 2016, Robert
Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, flew from London to
meet personally
with then-CIA Director John Brennan, The Guardian reported.
Former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan in this file photo. Hannigan transmitted information regarding Donald Trump to John
Brennan in the summer of 2016. (Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images)
Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers.
In the following year, Hannigan
abruptly announced
his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration.
As GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted
after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant
Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly
so.
Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele
retains close ties with Dearlove.
Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to
work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at
the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter
Page to attend.
Dearlove knows Halper through their
mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is
an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence
and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and
retains close ties to UK intelligence services.
Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books.
Downer, who
met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting
established through a chain
of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt
from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still
maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish
the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times.
The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the
former
British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later
relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute,
to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017,
statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey.
Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations
-- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can
we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia.
In a Twitter post , Trump wrote that
the "key Allies called to ask not to release" the documents.
Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified
documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest
idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents?
Britain and Australia appear to know full well what those documents contain, and their attempt to prevent their public release
appears to be because they don't want their role in events surrounding the 2016 presidential election to be made public.
Fusion GPS/Orbis/Christopher Steele
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is co-founder of Fusion GPS, along with Peter Fritsch and Tom Catan. Fusion
was hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign through law firm Perkins Coie to produce and disseminate the Steele dossier used against
Trump. The dossier would later be the primary evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016.
The company was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC–through law firm Perkins Coie–to produce the dossier on Trump.
Christopher Steele, who retains close ties to UK intelligence, worked for MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009, when he
and his partner, Chris Burrows, founded Orbis Intelligence. Steele
maintains contact with British intelligence,
Sir Richard Dearlove
, and UK intelligence firm Hakluyt.
Steele appears to have been
represented
by lawyer Adam Waldman, who also represented Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. We know this from
texts sent by Waldman. On April 10, 2017, Waldman sent this to Sen. Mark Warner:
"Hi. Steele: would like to get a bi partisan letter from the committee; Assange: I convinced him to make serious and important
concessions and am discussing those w DOJ; Deripaska: willing to testify to congress but interested in state of play w Manafort.
I will be with him next tuesday for a week."
Steele also appears to have
lobbied on behalf of Deripaska, who was discussed in
emails between Bruce Ohr and Steele that were recently
disclosed by the Washington Examiner:
"Steele said he was 'circulating some recent sensitive Orbis reporting' on Deripaska that suggested Deripaska was not a 'tool'
of the Kremlin. Steele said he would send the reporting to a name that is redacted in the email."
Fusion GPS was also employed by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in a previous case. Veselnitskaya was involved in litigation
pitting Russian firm Prevezon Holdings against British-American financier William Browder. Veselnitskaya hired U.S. law firm BakerHostetler,
who, in turn, hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Browder. Veselnitskaya was one of the participants at the June 2016 Trump Tower
meeting, at which she discussed the
Magnitsky Act .
Fox News reported on Nov. 9, 2017, that Simpson
met with Veselnitskaya immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
A declassified top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report released on April 26, 2017, revealed that government
agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and NSA, had improperly accessed Americans' communications. The FBI specifically provided outside
contractors with access to raw surveillance data on American citizens without proper oversight.
Communications and other data of members of the Trump campaign may have been accessed in this way.
Nellie Ohr, the wife of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS to work on the dossier on Trump.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr have
known Simpson since at least 2010 and have known Steele since at least 2006. The Ohrs and Simpson worked together on a
DOJ report in 2010 . In that report, Nellie Ohr's biography
lists her as working for Open Source Works, which is part of the CIA. Simpson met with Bruce Ohr
before and after the 2016 election.
Bruce Ohr had been in
contact repeatedly with Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign -- while Steele was constructing his dossier. Ohr later
actively shared information he received from Steele with the FBI, after the agency had terminated Steele as a source. Interactions
between Ohr and Steele stretched for months into the first year of Trump's presidency and were documented in a number of FD-302s
-- memos that summarize interviews with him by the FBI.
Spy Traps
In an effort to put forth evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it appears that several different spy traps
were set, with varying degrees of success. Many of these efforts appear to center around Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
and involve London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, who has
ties to Western intelligence, particularly in the UK.
Papadopoulos and Mifsud
both worked
at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP). Mifsud appears to have joined LCILP around
November
2015 . Papadopoulos reportedly
joined
LCILP sometime in late February 2016 after leaving Ben Carson's presidential campaign. However, some
reports indicate Papadopoulos joined LCILP in November
or December of 2015. Mifsud and Papadopoulos reportedly never crossed paths
until March 14, 2016, in Italy.
Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos to several Russians, including Olga Polonskaya, whom Mifsud introduced as "Putin's niece," and
Ivan Timofeev, an official at a state-sponsored think tank called the Russian International Affairs Council. Both Papadopoulos and
Mifsud were interviewed by the FBI. Papadopoulos was ultimately charged with a process crime and was recently sentenced to 14 days
in prison for lying to the FBI. Mifsud was never charged by the FBI.
Throughout this period, Papadopoulos continuously pushed for meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian contacts but
was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing any meetings.
Papadopoulos met with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer on May 10, 2016. The Papadopoulos–Downer meeting has been portrayed
as a
chance encounter in a bar. That does not appear to be the case.
Papadopoulos was introduced
to Downer through a chain of two intermediaries who said Downer wanted to meet with Papadopoulos. Another individual happened
to
be in London at exactly the same time: the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap. The purpose of Priestap's visit
remains unknown.
The Papadopoulos–Downer
meeting was later used to establish the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. It was repeatedly
reported that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Hillary Clinton's emails. This is incorrect.
Foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign was approached by several individuals with ties to UK and U.S. intelligence
agencies. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
According to Downer, Papadopoulos at some point
mentioned the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
"During that conversation, he [Papadopoulos] mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the
lead-up to the election, which may be damaging,'' Downer told
The Australian about the Papadopoulos meeting in an April 2018 article. "He didn't say dirt, he said material that could be damaging
to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn't say what it was."
Downer, while serving as Australia's foreign minister, was
responsible for one of the largest foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation: $25 million from the Australian government.
Unconfirmed media reports, including a Jan. 12, 2017,
BBC article , have suggested that the FBI attempted
to obtain two FISA warrants in June and July 2016 that were denied by the FISA court. It's likely that Papadopoulos was an intended
target of these failed FISAs.
Interestingly, there is no mention of Papadopoulos in the Steele dossier. Paul Manafort, Carter Page, former Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, Gen. Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski are all listed in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos may have started out assisting the FBI or CIA and later discovered that he was being set up for surveillance himself.
After failing to obtain a spy warrant on the Trump campaign using Papadopoulos, the FBI set its sights on campaign volunteer Carter
Page. By this time, the counterintelligence investigation was in the process of being established, and we know now that it was formalized
with no official intelligence. The FBI needed some sort of legal cover. They needed a retroactive warrant. And they got one on Oct.
21, 2016. The Page FISA warrant would be renewed three times and remain in force until September 2017.
Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016
Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known
each other for years and maintain several mutual associations.
Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with
Page. Current information suggests there was only
one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named
in the Buryakov case.
Page, who
cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted
by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov
pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was
sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was
deported to Russia.
FBI informant Stefan Halper approached Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes
said in August that exculpatory evidence
on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence
likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case.
If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application
to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated.
Page has not been arrested or charged with any crime related to the investigation.
FISA Abuse
Admiral Mike Rogers, while director of the NSA, was personally responsible for
uncovering an unprecedented level of FISA abuse that would later be documented in a 99-page
unsealed FISA
court ruling . As the FISA court noted in the April 26, 2017, ruling, the abuses had been occurring since at least November 2015:
"The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to private contractors.
"Private contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.
"Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests."
The FISA Court report is particularly focused on the FBI:
"The Court is concerned about the FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported."
The FISA Court
disclosed that illegal NSA database searches were endemic. Private contractors, employed by the FBI, were given full access to
the NSA database. Once in the contractors' possession, the data couldn't be traced.
In April 2016, after Rogers became aware of
improper
contractor access to raw FISA data on March 9, 2016, he
directed the NSA's Office
of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702."
On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information -- specifically outside contractors
working for the FBI.
Then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers on May 23, 2017. Rogers uncovered widespread abuse of FISA data by the FBI. (Saul
Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was
part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the Office
of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose
Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review.
The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin
announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016.
After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing
numerous "about query"
violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and
reported his findings
to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are
not "to" or "from" the target.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI sought and received a Title I FISA probable-cause order authorizing electronic surveillance
on Carter Page from the FISA Court.
At this point, the FISA Court was still unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally
informed
the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings
of his audit.
The FISA Court had been unaware of the query violations until they were presented to the court by Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions
at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a
recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director.
The move to fire Rogers, which ultimately failed, originated sometime in mid-October 2016 -- exactly when Rogers was preparing
to present his findings to the FISA Court.
The Insurance Policy
Ever since the release of FBI text messages revealing the existence of an "insurance policy," the term has been the subject of
wide speculation.
Some observers have suggested that the insurance policy was the FISA spy warrant used to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page and, by extension, other members of the Trump campaign. This interpretation is too narrow and fails to capture the underlying
meaning of the text.
The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.
It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the Steele dossier and James Clapper's
leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation
into the Trump campaign.
The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe would end up running the investigation.
The Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, served as the
foundation for the Russia narrative.
The intelligence community, led by CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper, used the dossier as a launching pad for creating
their Intelligence Community assessment.
This report, which was presented to Obama in December 2016, despite NSA Director Mike Rogers having only moderate confidence in
its assessment, became one of the core pieces of the narrative that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
Through intelligence community leaks, and in collusion with willing media outlets, the narrative that Russia helped Trump win
the elections was aggressively pushed throughout 2017.
Spygate
Spygate represents the biggest political scandal in our nation's history. A sitting administration actively colluded with a political
campaign to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Government agencies were weaponized and a complicit media spread
intelligence community leaks as facts.
But a larger question remains: How long has the United States been subject to interference from the intelligence community and
our political agencies? Was the 2016 presidential election a one-time aberration, or is this episode symptomatic of a larger pattern
extending back decades?
The intensity, scale, and coordination suggest something greater than overzealous actions taken during a single election. They
represent a unified reaction of the establishment to a threat posed by a true outsider -- a reaction that has come to be known as
Spygate.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
"... The transfer of Christopher Steele's first dossier memo was personally facilitated by Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland gave approval for FBI agent Michael Gaeta to travel to London to obtain the memo from Steele. The memo may have passed directly from her to FBI leadership. Secretary of State John Kerry was also given a copy. ..."
"... Steele was already well-known within the State Department. Following Steele's involvement in the FIFA scandal investigation, he began to provide reports informally to the State Department. The reports were written for a "private client" but were "shared widely within the U.S. State Department, and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of the U.S. response to Putin's annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine," the Guardian reported. ..."
The State Department, with its many contacts within foreign governments, became a conduit for the flow of information. The transfer
of Christopher Steele's first dossier memo was personally
facilitated by Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland gave approval for
FBI agent Michael Gaeta to travel to London to obtain the memo from Steele. The memo may have passed directly from her to FBI leadership.
Secretary of State John Kerry was also given a copy.
Steele was already well-known within the State Department. Following Steele's involvement in the FIFA scandal investigation, he
began to provide reports
informally to the State Department. The reports were written for a "private client" but were "shared widely within the U.S. State
Department, and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of
the U.S.
response to Putin's annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine," the Guardian reported.
Nuland passed on parts of the Steele dossier to the FBI. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
In July 2016, when the FBI wanted to send Gaeta to visit Steele in London, the bureau
sought permission from the office of Nuland, who provided this version of events during a Feb. 4, 2018,
appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation":
"In the middle of July, when [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short
points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI
if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That's
something for the FBI to investigate."
Steele also
met with Jonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy
for Libya. Steele and Winer had known each other since at least 2010. In an opinion article in The Washington Post, Winer wrote the
following:
"In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the 'dossier.' Steele's sources
suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign."
In a strange turn of events, Winer also received a
separate dossier , very similar to Steele's, from long-time Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This "second dossier" had been
compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer
then met with Steele in late September 2016 and gave Steele a copy of the "second dossier." Steele went on to
share this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it to corroborate his dossier.
Winer passed on memos from Christopher Steele to Victoria Nuland. (State Department)
Other foreign officials also used conduits into the State Department. Alexander Downer, Australia's high commissioner to the UK,
reportedly funneled his conversation
with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos -- later used as a reason to open the FBI's counterintelligence investigation --
directly to the U.S. Embassy in London.
"The Downer details landed with the embassy's then-chargé d'affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal deputy
assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton's State Department," The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel wrote in a May 31, 2018,
article .
If true, this would mean that neither Australian intelligence nor the Australian government alerted the FBI to the Papadopoulos
information. What happened with the Downer details, and to whom they were ultimately relayed, remains unknown.
Curiously, details surprisingly similar to the Papadopoulos–Downer conversation show up in the
first memo written
by Steele on June 20, 2016:
"A dossier of compromising information on Hillary Clinton has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many
years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls. It has not yet
been distributed abroad, including to Trump."
Bush II campaigned on "no nation building" mantra. He lied. Crump campaigned no foreign wars manta. He lied.
Notable quotes:
"... The 16th anniversary of the Iraq war last week was marked by a shortage of people defending the costliest foreign policy blunder of this young century, even in circles where support for that misadventure was once sacrosanct. ..."
"... Yet even as the folly and injustice of Iraq congeals into conventional wisdom inside the Beltway, famously resistant to rethinking bipartisan military interventions no matter how ill-advised, it is an open question whether anything has changed. Dick Cheney's protestations notwithstanding , the presidential wars largely continue unimpeded by the "America First" commander-in-chief. ..."
"... John Bolton seems to have more say about when American troops will leave Syria or Afghanistan than the president of the United States. Trump's second veto will almost certainly be of a bipartisan resolution rebuking -- and terminating -- U.S. support for the war in Yemen. We appear to be escalating in Somalia. Tensions are rising with Iran and Venezuela, with the administration trending toward a functionally neoconservative position on both despite major newspapers publishing pleas to retire that label . ..."
The 16th anniversary of the Iraq war last week was marked by a shortage of people defending the costliest foreign policy blunder
of this young century, even in circles where support for that misadventure was once sacrosanct.
Former George W. Bush mouthpiece Ari Fleischer supplied a
promptly ratioed
tweetstorm that quibbled with the "Bush
lied, people died" mantra concerning his old boss's handling of the intelligence on Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
Never Trumper David French
gamely argued
that Saddam Hussein was a greater source of instability than the chaos brought about by the invasion, followed by Barack Obama's
withdrawal. In so doing, French reminded us that, however off-putting some conservatives find Donald Trump, the president's
criticism
of the war matters more to
many of those who devote their time to denouncing his every utterance.
Yet even as the folly and injustice of Iraq congeals into conventional wisdom inside the Beltway, famously resistant to rethinking
bipartisan military interventions no matter how ill-advised, it is an open question whether anything has changed. Dick Cheney's
protestations notwithstanding , the presidential wars largely continue unimpeded by the "America First" commander-in-chief.
John Bolton seems to have more say about when American troops will leave Syria or Afghanistan than the president of the United
States. Trump's second veto will almost certainly be of a bipartisan resolution rebuking -- and terminating -- U.S. support for the
war in Yemen. We appear to be escalating in Somalia. Tensions are rising with Iran and Venezuela, with the administration trending
toward a functionally neoconservative position on both despite major newspapers publishing pleas to
retire that label .
"The Iraq war began sixteen years ago tomorrow," Fleischer tweeted on March
19. "There is a myth about the war that I have been meaning to set straight for years. After no
WMDs were found, the left claimed 'Bush lied. People died.' This accusation itself is a lie.
It's time to put it to rest."
Fleischer goes on to declare that "The fact is that President Bush (and I as press
secretary) faithfully and accurately reported to the public what the intelligence community
concluded," before noting that "The CIA, along with the intelligence services of Egypt, France,
Israel and others concluded that Saddam had WMD. We all turned out to be wrong. That is very
different from lying."
As a Chief Weapons Inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq from
1991 through 1998, I was intimately familiar with the intelligence used by the U.S.
Intelligence Community to underpin the case for war (which I debunked in June 2002 in an
article published in Arms Control Today ). Armed with the
unique insights that came from this experience, I can state clearly and without any reservation
that Ari Fleischer, once again, has misrepresented the facts when it comes to the Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.
Advertisement
The fact is, the Iraq War was never about WMD. Rather, it was waged for one purpose and one
purpose only -- regime change. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the sole focus of this effort,
and the so-called "intelligence" used to justify this act was merely an excuse for action. Ari
Fleischer knows this, and to contend otherwise -- as he does via twitter -- is simply a
continuation of the lies he told from the very beginning about the U.S. case for war with
Iraq.
UNSCOM had, by the fall of 2002, been relegated to the pages of history, replaced by a new
inspection organization, the United
Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) . It is through the
work of UNMOVIC that Ari Fleischer's defense of George W. Bush collapses. In November 2002 the
Bush administration pushed for the UN Security Council to pass Resolution
1441 , which found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations.
Inspectors from UNMOVIC were dispatched to Iraq shortly thereafter in a last-ditch effort to
account for the totality of Iraq's WMD.
The work of the inspectors was undermined from the start by the Bush administration, led by
Ari Fleischer. "It is very well true that the inspectors who are working as diligently as they
can in an environment made very difficult for them by Iraqi actions, may not be giving notice,"
Fleischer
explained in a press conference, "but that does not mean Iraq is not receiving notice as a
result of their electronic means and other means to know what the inspectors are doing. Which
puts the inspectors in a very hard position."
But Fleischer had no evidence that Iraq was getting advance notice, and the experience of UNMOVIC
inspectors on the ground suggested otherwise. When asked by a reporter about the
possibility of giving the UN weapons inspectors more time to complete their task, Fleischer
fired back, asking "More time for what? More time to be run-around by a regime that has not
complied, that has concealed its weapons, and that has grown throughout the years --
particularly the four years when no one was in the country -- extraordinarily good at hiding
what they have and deceiving those who are there to do their level best."
Left unsaid was the fact that the inspectors had repeatedly asked the U.S. for access to the
very intelligence being used to underpin the American claims that Iraq was holding on to
prohibited WMD and were denied. "If the UK and the U.S. are convinced and they say they have
evidence," Hans
Blix, the head of UNMOVIC, had noted on December 20, 2002, "then one would expect they
would be able to tell us where is this stuff." When asked if they were getting cooperation from
U.S. and Western intelligence agencies, Blix replied, "Not yet. We get some, but we don't get
all we need."
In 2010,
Blix commented on the provisions of Security Council resolution 1441, which had declared
Iraq to be in "material breach" of its obligation to disarm, and which was cited
by Ari Fleischer to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003. "The
declaration, I felt, might give Iraq a chance for a new start," Blix noted, " except that it
was very hard for them to declare any weapons when they didn't have any. "
This is the conclusion that anyone taking umbrage with Ari Fleischer over his attempt to
whitewash the role he played -- as an extension of President George W. Bush -- in facilitating
the Iraq War should rely on. Deflecting blame onto the U.S. intelligence community ignores the
fact that the decision to go to war was the exclusive purview of the Executive Branch that
Fleischer served. Iraq's alleged retention of proscribed WMD were merely an excuse to achieve
the higher goal of regime change. The inspection process initiated in November 2002 to
investigate Iraq's WMD programs was, from the U.S. perspective, a façade created to
justify a decision to go to war that was made long before the inspectors ever set foot on the
ground.
"Intelligence," therefore, was an artifice manufactured by the Bush administration as a
smoke screen. A memorandum prepared by
the head of the British MI-6 intelligence service , Richard Dearlove, following a July 23,
2002 meeting in Washington, DC, underscores this truth: "There was a perceptible shift in
attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through
military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD . But the intelligence
and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Bush knew that the engagement with the United Nations, including the crafting of resolution
1441 and the dispatch of inspectors to Iraq, was simply an elaborate charade, cruel theatrics
meant to dangle the prospects of peace, all the while preparing for war -- something Ari
Fleischer knew all along, as this exchange
with the press aptly demonstrates:
Question: "Does regime change mean that you want to change the leader of Iraq, or you want
to change the nature of the regime?"
Fleischer: "The objective is for Saddam Hussein's Iraq to disarm, to stop threatening its
neighbors, to stop repressing minorities within its own country. And that's why Congress passed
the policy of regime change."
Press: "Well, which of those definitions is correct?"
Fleischer: "Well, let's do it -- let me cut to the bottom line on it. What I would propose
is that in the event Saddam Hussein gives the order, and under his leadership and direction
disarms Iraq, gives up its weapons of mass destruction, has no more chemical weapons, no more
biological weapons, stops using hostility as a way to deal with its neighbors, stops repression
of minorities with his own country, give me a call. After you cover Saddam Hussein doing these
things, let's talk about it. Until then, the president is focused on making sure that these
developments take place as a result either of the UN resolutions being enforced, or by whoever
in Iraq taking these actions to make it happen. But this is probably the mother of all
hypotheticals. Give me a phone call when it happens."
Press: "So Saddam could stay in power if those objectives were carried out?"
Fleischer: "Again, call me up when Saddam Hussein gives the directions for all those factors
to take place."
Press: "So, that's a yes?"
Fleischer: "I think this is a question of how many devils can dance on the head of a
pin."
Press: "It's not. Can he stay in power and have regime change?"
Fleischer: "You're asking the mother of hypotheticals. And I think it's a rather "
Press: "Does it refer to a leader or a government regime change?"
Fleischer: "It refers to actions that have to be taken to keep the peace."
Press: "So it's a question of policy, not personnel?"
Fleischer: "That's a good way to put it."
Press: "So he could stay in power if those things happen?"
Fleischer: "If you want to fool yourselves into believing that that's what Saddam Hussein
would do in policy, that's an interesting way to approach it."
The fact of the matter is that Saddam did, in fact, do everything listed by Ari Fleischer to
effect a change in the policies of Iraq in order to preserve his regime. But President Bush --
whom Fleischer represented -- never had any intention of recognizing such change, even when it
occurred. President Bush, Ari Fleischer and every representative of the U.S. administration
involved in formulating and implementing U.S. policy on Iraq was being dishonest in the extreme
when dangling the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the Iraq problem.
In short, they all lied, and Ari Fleischer was the mouthpiece for disseminating these lies,
a task he continues to perform to this day.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofDeal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road
to War . 14 Responses to Ari Fleischer Lied, and People Died
Thank you for another reminder of what really happened. My only quibble is that this uses
GWB, the figurehead, as the power and decision-maker. Like Bolton & Co today, the ones
calling the plays are not the public face that can get elected by the proles. It was the
Cheney/Wolfy/Rummy cabal, smokescreened by Rove, who sent Iraq back to the stone age at the
behest of Israel.
One down and more to go Iran is the next big target of the same mentality.
It is interesting to note the following requirement: "stops repression of minorities with
his own country". It indicates that Bush administration had a plan B for invading Iraq, on
the template of Kosovo
The writer states: "In short, they all lied, "
Therefore, based on the evidence that the Iraq war was a lie, where are the prosecutions?
Millions of people are dead, soldiers are dead or maimed, Iraq is reduced to rubble in parts
of its land and nothing happens to the perpetrators of lies. What does this say about our
so-called "justice system"? http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/12/will-war-criminals-be-brought-to.html
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
It is the same today with the intelligence being fixed to justify the US exit from the INF
treaty.
Why does the administration not tell us what the range of the disputed missile is?
Why would Russia deploy a land-based missile in breach of the treaty when it could deploy
it at sea and not violate any treaty?
Not surprisingly, this information has not been supplied.
Behind the decision to leave the INF treaty is John Bolton. He also fought to remove Jose
Bustani as the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which
governs the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Bustani was trying to bring Iraq into that treaty. That is why he had to go. If he had
succeeded it would have removed the excuse for war.
It's astonishing that creeps like Fleischer have the temerity to show their faces in public.
His lies caused terrible damage to America and millions of innocent civilians in the Middle
East. He should shut the **** up and thank his lucky stars he wasn't sent to prison for his
part in this disgusting episode.
The War of Lies Against Iraq
By Eric S. Margolis
March 23, 2019
Sixteen years ago, the US and Britain committed a crime of historic proportion, the
invasion and destruction of Iraq. It was as egregious an aggression as Nazi Germany's 1939
invasion of Poland.
Large numbers of Iraqi civilians died from 2003-2007. Iraq's water and sewage systems were
bombed, causing widespread cholera. The UN estimated 500,000 Iraqi children alone died as a
result. Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, said it was 'a price worth paying.'
[read more at link below]
And now we get to do all over again, with the right target this time, Iran. Don't forget that
after 9/11 the first call was to go after Iran and not our trusty allies in the ME who were
the real perps. Iraq was just the consolation prize for these insane ideologues, who should
all be in jailed for war crimes.
If you define weapons of mass destruction as nuclear war capabilities, then Iraq had none. If
you define weapons of mass destruction as chemical, then Iraq historically had these weapons
which it used against Iran, the Kurds, and shot some in Iraq War I at Israel. What happened
to the chemical weapons? They were sold/moved to Syria, where they still are today, and still
being used by the Assad regime. When the US troops got to Iraq in Gulf War II, the chemical
weapons were gone from Iraq, but not from Syria, which is why Iran, has a vested interest in
being involved in Syria, not to mention Israel. Does this help to make more sense of what
seems to be a perpetual war?
Trump just wanted these chemical weapons destroyed and never created again, and the US will
evacuate the Middle East once this is accomplished.
The article and the comments say it all: the lies, nothing else, were used to destroy Iraq!
No intell "mistake" can be offered-it is and was a neo con deception of the country and
the world.
Accountability, however, will not happen. Very ominous for the situation pertaining to
Iran and Venezuela. If the thugs in suits, pompeo, bolton, abrams, feel no consequence will
happen, why worry-it is off to intervention/regime change they go.
American sheeple have the institutional memory of a gnat and the mass media coverup and
malfeseance will continue.
"Liberals were called traitors, we were right
The Bush admin's push for war stank from the beginning"
On the issue of Iraq, there's no hiding behind liberal, democrats, conservative,
republicans, libertarians, etc.
Most of the country was heck bent on war as a matter of revenge, regardless of policy. The
fear mongering for policies adjecent to the actual events and actors of 9/11 was not only
coming out of DC, but main street. New Yorkers were no less intent on war making than the WH,
Congress or various think tanks, businesses or educators from elite or non-elite schools.
And what has occurred since moots any real escape in labels. The group who should have
been the least likely and the most prudent, the most thoughtful – the conservatives had
bent conservatism so out of distortion that even they had no defense against unreason.
I have tended to give the president and those in the WH and Congress the benefit of the
doubt that they sincerely considered a response in the region as a defense. I did not go to
select schools, and the schools I did attend did not require me to Ovid or an overview of the
classics in Greek or Latin. I had not attended a war college class or anything of the kind.
But when the case was presented for war – it simply didn't have the evidence or a
rationale that made sense. In fact, some of those contentions contradicted the what was known
as well as each other. It was deeply disturbing and disappointing. But when I read the
president's response to Dir. Tenet,
"If that's all you got, we can't go to war"
or words to that effect, they reflected my thoughts entirely. And for a long time I
considered that all of this mayhem was part of a diplomatic package. I was already outside
the main on the issue of Afghanistan, which I thought was overkill and strategically unsound
for the what should have been the goal – dealing with the actors of 9/11.
I do agree with Inspector Ritter, it was also quite clear that until the inspectors had
finished their mission, minus any evidence that Pres Hussein was in violation – there
was no case. Nor was there a case for invasion based on any humanitarian crisis or
genocide.
But what I have not been able to do is cross that line that they the president knowing and
deliberately conspired to manufacture (lie) evidence against an innocent party. And I have
been able to cross that line to despite having contemplated this article for two days and I
will no doubt read it again, to include the references. Those of that objected the first go
'round, if not pacifists, have problem read several pools of of information and arguments
regarding the case or lack thereof for war and the misleading the country by the leadership.
And it's frustrating that those who actually got the matter spot on are still battling the
those that got the matter and subsequent similar advances incorrect to this day. It's down
right painful considering the measures that were engaged to not merely silence opposition,
but to destroy people's lives.
What has been broken may not be repairable, one hopes it is, believes it is, but reading
this article is just too deep wound to see it. And what is salt in the wound has been three
years of accusations about Russian collusion for the purposes of undermining the executive
who claimed we should reconsider how we address the adventures. And the near total buy in of
that press by half of the country minus any catastrophic event, makes the wars seem as window
dressing to a much deeper and darker ethic that plagues us.
And then there is the question of what to do about all of this official misrepresentation.
Not only must we filter out whether they knowingly lied, but what to do about it. The
daunting task of arresting so many in so many positions of leadership and research. I
consider it serious business to make a false report, much less doing so on a document of
declaration for official business -- that is purjury. We impeached a president because he
mislead about what was a private intimate indiscretion --
What s described above is devastatingly more egregious by several Everests in
magnitude.
And it implicates our partners in what could only be a crime: Great Britain, Israel,
Australia, Poland and others who aided and abetted in the matter.
Caveat pre-defense: L'est I be called an anti-semite, Israel has a right to exist and self
defense.
They were wrong. And that the factual data contradicted their claims may not be enough to
claim they did not genuinely believe their own "lies" if "lies" they were. Or maybe I am just
unwilling to hold people on my team to account to the standard required. Perhaps, accepting
the idea that they knowingly perjured themselves is just too painful to accept.
Unwilling to call a spade a spade – maybe just too merciful or at the end of the day
-- cowardice.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the collapse of the Empire - who/what survives and
who/what doesn't.
When people talk about collapse, it generally means social/political/economic collapse and
there seems to be a consensus that such a collapse would necessarily mean a military collapse
as well. I'm not convinced.
One key difference between the US today and the Soviet Union at the time of it's collapse
is that the USSR didn't have a military framework that spread out across the globe, the US
does. That framework has the infrastructure, resources, supplies, personnel, and equipment to
maintain itself in the event of collapse. For me, I'd have to put it in the category of
"survives".
The global elite already have their contingencies in place and will be able to ride out
whatever comes in luxury as long as they don't actually blow up the planet. So they go in to
the "survives" category too. Preppers and some form of militarized police would also likely
survive along with those who have a propensity for brutality and violence.
The next question of who/what doesn't survive is too staggering to fully contemplate and
leads me to see collapse as a massive depopulation scheme that will leave the Empire intact.
It would emerge leaner, debt free, unhindered by any pretence of international law, and
having rid itself of the pesky masses and their demands, it would be free to dominate
everything that's left of this world.
A "VFD"? Of the 39
definitions provided , I've only been associated with a few, like Very Fun Day. No, never
had a Facebook account, nor do I want one.
The Overseas Empire of Bases is 100% dependent on monies from home for their survival.
Once the monies cease coming, decamping will commence.
How closely have you examined the previous Big Economic Collapse and the measures put in
place to mitigate its affects if one occurs again? Have you closely examined what made the
USSR/Russian collapse so dire for its populace? Having knowledge related to those questions
answers is rather important in being able to forecast what might occur within the Outlaw US
Empire. Actually, I agree with Hudson that the Executive choice boils down to just two
options: Save the banks as Obama did or Save the People as Hoover and FDR attempted.
As long as the USA "controls" (running up ridiculously massive debt) the money, vis a vis the
Petrodollar, the World Bank and its predatory loans, the dollar as global currency with other
currencies "pegged" to it, thereby creating massive inflation and poverty in Latin America,
the Philippines and every third world shirt hole, AND massive debt in every first world
nation, AND trillionaire individuals running loose - friends of the City of London, the
Rothschilds AND such people who maintain no allegiance to any nation state. They're holding
all the money and the gold.
AND the Massive Military Industrial Congressional Complex which guarantees the value of
the dollar via shock and awe (Shuckin' Y'all!) and full spectrum dominance. AND the ability
to impose economic sanctions to starve children and the elderly, to get all of Europe to go
along with crippling economic sanctions.
Until that changes, the USA is the leader of the free world. It's Morning and America and
the corpse of Reagan is smiling.
"... The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to overturn the results of elections. ..."
"... At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this. ..."
"... I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee – Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this conspiracy. ..."
"... It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' – notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further. ..."
"... They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. ..."
"... Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal. ..."
"... The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue; ..."
"... Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law. ..."
"... It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection" operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.) ..."
There were no major disagreements between Mueller and his managers at the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ).
The Russians who tried to interfere in the 2016 election were exposed and charged -- but no
American was charged with any effort to conspire with Moscow and hijack the election.
the "Steele dossier" that was the main FISA evidence was paid for with funds
from Hillary Clinton
's campaign and the Democratic Party;
Christopher Steele, the dossier's author, had told a senior DOJ official he was desperate to
defeat Trump;
most of the dossier was not verified before it was used as evidence of alleged Trump-Russia
collusion; and
agents collected statements from key defendants such as Papadopoulos and Carter Page during
interactions with an FBI informant that strongly suggested their innocence.
Such omissions are so glaring as to constitute defrauding a federal court. And each and
every participant to those omissions needs to be brought to justice.
An upcoming DOJ inspector general's report should trigger the beginning of that
accountability in a court of law, and President Trump can assist the effort by declassifying
all evidence of wrongdoing by FBI, CIA and DOJ officials. " The Hill
------------
Pilgrims, the seditious conspiracy to depose the elected president of the United States for
conspiracy to commit treason with the Government of the Russian Federation has been
defeated.
The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously
used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make
an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to
overturn the results of elections.
At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary
Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever,
clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the
even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British
intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose
staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this.
The leftist press is already discounting the results of Mueller's investigation while
gloating over how long the Democratic held House of Representatives can continue to search
through Trump's life trying to find criminality.
AG Barr should stand Mueller up next to him at a press conference to make clear the results
of his report and to answer questions about it. After that the prosecutions should begin.
pl
I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee –
Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled
against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this
conspiracy.
It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a
strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' –
notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which
case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further.
The argument that declassification of relevant documentation would harm the intelligence
relationship between the U.S. and U.K. has clearly been made with great emphasis from this
side.
In fact, it is pure bollocks. A serious investigation on your side, which could lead to
the kind of clean-out which should have happened when the scale of the corruption of
intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq became clear, might pave the way for us
to reconstruct reasonably functional intelligence services.
Doing this on both sides of the Atlantic might pave the way for a reconstruction of an
intelligence relationship which was actually beneficial to both countries, as in recent years
it patently has not been.
Whether there is a realistic prospect of people on your side opening the cans of worms on
ours, as well as your own, of course remains a moot point.
I'm glad the Steele affair has been examined at the American end -
"They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with
Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US
political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and
spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York.
"
What about the UK end? We're fussing over some little local difficulties in the UK at the
moment and at our end the questions still remain - Who in the UK authorised it and how high did it go?
The problem with criminal prosecution is one must cite a Brit or US law which was violated.
The only ones in US law that I am aware of stipulate that the plotting must be by means of
violence, "by force". All this appears to me to be only the propagation of rumors.
I think it might be more the investigation of the propagation of rumours. Think back to that election campaign, and to the period before the inauguration.
Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an
odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers
nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it
turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal.
With respect it is not propagating rumours to ask how that happened. As for my own
interest in the affair, it is not propagating rumours to ask how a senior UK ex-Intelligence
Officer comes to be mixed up in it all. I suppose I started to look on it as rather more than a prank or a few cogs slipping when
that senior UK ex-Intelligence Officer got whisked away to a safe house. We're a penny
pinching lot over here and we don't run to that sort of thing for nothing.
An investigation could certainly be predicated on the reasonable suspicion that Steele, et
al, conspired to defraud the United States, in this case a purposeful and knowing smear of a
candidate for office; also, another potential violation could be lying to the FBI, T 18 USC
1001.
The problem, as I see it, is sorting out the malignant from the merely incompetent. As I've
argued many times, the dossier should have been dismissed from the outset as a pile of
garbage, empty of actionable content, because the ultimate sources could not be vetted: the
information could not be said to be either credible or reliable. The information was acted on
by screening it behind the reliabilty and credibility, so called, of Steele. So it would be
necessary to show that Steele knew that the information, point by point, was false. This
could be difficult. Steele's first line of defense would be that he threw everything that he
heard from anyone at all into the mix in the expectation that the "professionals" would
figure it out.
Yes, they were all partisan, Steele, his sources, his bosses, the so called
professionals, and their partisanship would be easy to prove; and yes, almost assuredly their
partisanship contributed, perhaps even explained, their defective judgement as to how to
handle the scurrilous information, especially on the part of the so called professionals, but
proving they actually knew the materials to be false would be difficult.
They couldn't know
that it was false because they had no ability to run down the sources. The professionals
would defend themselves by saying they had no ability to vet the sources but the information
represented such a serious security threat that they had no alternative but to try to vet the
information by launching the investigation against the targets. This puts the cart before the
horse, represents an astonishing lack of judgement, especially considering the "exalted"
positions in the Intel Community the people exercising the bad judgement occupied, but there
it is - "we thought we were doing the right thing."
Perhaps this defense could be overcome by
demonstrating that people at such high and important heights of government could not possible
be so stupid... maybe.
And of course we have the orchestrated leaks to various media, the orchestrated unmaskings,
all of which kept the media frenzy fired up. All in all, it was the greatest political dirty
trick ever attempted in American Politics, and did devastating damage to both domestic
tranquility and national security. Trump survived, but the damage done is incalculable.
So It pains me greatly to think that the reckoning will likely have to be political rather
than criminal because the malice that can be demonstrated is so admixed and even overshadowed
by incompetence and judgement flaws; and even a political reckoning given the state of the
country is so uncertain.
I hope that I am wrong and that some kind of prosecution can be fashioned because of the
sheer enormity of violence that was done to our electoral system, surpassing by far the
chickenshit case Mueller brought against the Russian troll farm; but I fear that I am right.
It hurts to think that so much damage can be caused by scheming little political weasels and
that they all may well walk away scot free; and even be lionized by their political confreres
as having tried to do the right thing. This is the state of American politics today!!!
I see that some of the midgets on horseback are saying that they will bring Mueller before
congress to explain himself. Their knight in shining armor has failed to return with the holy
grail. A couple even suggested that perhaps Mueller has been influenced by the Russians or
somehow intimated by Trump.
The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue;
and that
+ all the crazy Marxism (social and economic), bad immigration policy and Green New Deal is
going to doom the Democrats in 2020. They look like they are jumping off a final sake fueled
banzai charge. Maybe they think the best defense is a good offense re; the prosecutions that
should happen. What is the chance that Mueller will pass *all* he has learned to help get the
criminal cases under way?
On 13 July 2018, when announcing the indictment of 12 Russian military officers by the
Mueller group for "conspiring to interfere" in the 2016 presidential election, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that no "interference" actually happened. In this
video of his announcement, starting at 5 minutes, 52 seconds into it and ending at the 6
minute, 5 second mark, he says--
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result."
Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results
of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly
pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law.
However, I am concerned that the new attorney general, William Barr, will not do so based
on his past associations and work. I hope I am wrong about that, but I am not optimistic.
It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly
unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a
weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection"
operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such
obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.)
I'm wrestling with the idea that 'twas ever thus and now with the internet its workings
are revealed to a "lay" audience with no connection to the dark arts of the spy business. But
I am curious, with the good Colonel's indulgence, if the new tools of the trade have made
things which should be secret not possible to be kept secret?
Amen to the prosecutions. If there is seen to be no accountability for this fraud then we are
seriously damaging what's left of democracy. Who, in their right mind, is going to publicly
support and assist a political candidate who is not "Swamp approved" if they face the threat
of thereby triggering their own, and their family's destruction by the judicial system?
I suggest that even a pardon is not enough for those entrapped in this mess. There needs
to be restitution.
To put that another way, in my opinion, "birther" allegations could be passed off as
political tactics. Nobody got hurt. It is just good luck that Russiagate hasn't resulted in
suicide or worse - so far.
I certainly agree that consequences must be brought to bear: lying politicians without a
shred of evidence, nor did they offer any for their lies; press for their utter and complete
malfeasance and corruption without a shred of evidence, the doj/fbi corrupted and coup
plotting officials,and finally the shame to all who shrieked about "evil" putin, russia the
aggressor, etc. It has set our discourse back decades, forced any critics of this insanity
into the shadows, and completely killed any attempt at normal diplomacy between nations.
I noted one astute writer as equating this russiagate insanity to the lies surrounding wmd
and the destruction of iraq. Close. The damage from this criminality is incalculable!
Will the shrillest of all in the press lose their jobs? Nah, not a chance. Prob get raise
or promotion.Will the brennans, clintons, clappers, et al do the perp walk. Nah, not a
chance. High paid lawyers will tie the courts up for years if not decades.
And america has the institutional memory of a gnat. And of course, the question is as to
high up did this criminality go? I personally do not believe it is a question-it is obvious
to me. The major question for me is how high up the prosecution, if any, will go.
Problem is...who's going to do the prosecuting?
The DOJ - protector of the swamp - has become thoroughly corrupted as an arm of the
Democrat-media party.
Should (can) Trump appoint a special prosecutor as far as possible from the DOJ?
The president might use this and any Republican-led prosecutions as leverage to work out
deals that will allow him to achieve his agenda. I think he'll need to given how the
Democrats intend to use their house majority to launch investigations and hearings to find
something, anything to howl about and impede his agenda.
Still need to see the full report. I hope it is releasable. Otherwise the conspiracy theories
or leaks will never let up. The article cited is a partisan opinion piece, not a news report.
It accepts the fallback stance that yes, crimes were committed but collusion by Trump was not
among them. This actually seems possible if only in light of the chaotic condition of the
campaign.
That said, I would not be surprised to find collusion discounted. Not that the Russians
didn't interfere. That would be entirely in character. But I don't know any reason for
supposing that they would have a better understanding of American political dynamics than the
Americans who make good livings being the best in that arena. The Russians seem to have been
doing the same things as numerous other players. They shouldn't have been in that game, but
there is no strong reason for according them Superman status. Their strongest feature seems
to have been sheer quantity. Outrage over their actions often seems to flow from a poor grasp
of the real nature of normal political process.
"The Russians seem to have been doing the same things..."
Multiple members of the FBI and DOJ seem to have been interfering in the 2016 Presidential
election. How many other federal and state elections did they interfere with?
Can you cite a single piece of hard evidence, not simply allegation, that proves the Russians
interfered in the 2016 election? If so, please cite it, since I know of none. Thank you.
"... Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president ..."
"... The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup. ..."
"... It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. ..."
"... As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry. Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch ..."
"... I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way. ..."
"... Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller to prove. ..."
"... It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the "national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is time to build cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony. Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it. The truth will work better. ..."
Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy
that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump
president. They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who
bragged about "grabbing women by the pussy" and jabbered about building "a big, beautiful
wall" and making the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact
that Donald Trump had zero experience in any political office whatsoever, was a loudmouth
bigot, and was possibly out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people
did not care. They were so disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment
stooges like the Clintons, the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump
in office, because, fuck it, what did they have to lose?
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to
conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every
component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence
agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to
remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of
amounts to an attempted soft coup.
It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was
nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. The Clintons once
again, both Bill and Hillary, have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug in the White
House to the status of some kind of martyr. What a country America it is. One thing should be
clear however. Any politician or media pundit that towed the pro-Clintonista line should be
barred from public office or the media forever.
As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary,
they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry.
Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch. There is one difference between Typhoid
Mary, and Bill and Hillary: Typhoid Mary didn't realize what she was doing, the Clintons did!
sorry to double post, but it just occurred to me that they pulled a classic DC move: if you
have something humiliating or horrible to admit, do it on a friday night.
i have to wonder if the entire western media is cynically praying for a (coincidentally
distracting) school shooting or terrorist attack within the next two days.
I have close friends that have been on the MSNBC/Maddow Kool-Ade for years. Constantly
declaring Mueller was on the verge of closing in on Trump and associates for treason with the
Russians. On Friday night after dinner at our home, the TV was tuned to MSNBC so they could
watch their spiritual leader Rachel Maddow....what a pitiful sight (both Maddow and friends).
No one was going to jail or be impeached for conspiring with Putin.....how on how could that
be true. Putin personally stole the election from Clinton and THEY are just going to let him
walk was the declaration a few feet from my chair. Normally, I would recommend grieve
counseling, but they are still my friends ... now they can go back to blaming Bernie for
Clinton's loss. Maybe I will recommend grieve counseling!
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Mar 23, 2019 2:27:18 PM |
link
@dltravers: Apart from the "goyim" you may be right.. But if you want to claim with that
Trumps opponents where under the pressure of the Zionists, you got it all wrong man.. ;) No
presidents been more under the Zionist thumb than DJT.
That ofc doesnt make Hillarys Saudi and Muslim brotherhood connections better.. ;)
Anyway, cheers to the end of this BS! And lets hope that Trump has now payed off his debts
with Adelson now that he secured Bibis reelection. But dont hold your breath.. ;)
"very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this
moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life".
I wish so, but that's not how the exceptional nation of US of A works, as demonstrated by
the Iraq WMD fiasco case. In fact, very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit
(about Saddam's WMD" BS) is alive and well, spreading more BS. What is even more depressing
is that the huge chunk of this exceptional nation cannot have enough of the BS and is
chanting "give me more, give me more...".
The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion.
However some good things have come out of the investigation. It cost taxpayers 2 million
but recouped over 25 million from those convicted of fraud and tax evasion.
And its not over, Mueller has sent 5 to 7 referrals or evidence/witnesses to SDNY, EDNY, DC,
EDVA, plus the National Security and Criminal Divisions. These from information turned up
crimes unrelated to his Russia probe and allegedly concerning Trump or his family business, a
cadre of his advisers and associates. They are being conducted by officials from Los Angeles
to Brooklyn.
The bad news is it exposed how wide spread and corrupt the US has become...in private and
political circles.
The other bad news is most of the Trump lovers and Trump haters are too stupid to drop
their partisan and personal blinders and recognize that ....ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID.
b you have repeatedly made the case that this whole thing was kicked off by the Steele
dossier. That is factually incorrect. The first investigation was already running before the
dossier ever materialized. That investigation spawned the special prosecutors investigation
when Trump fired Comey and then went on TV and said it was because of the Russia
investigation. The Russia investigation was originally kicked off by Papadopoulos drinking
with the the Australian ambassador and bragging about what the campaign was doing with
Russia. Remember the original evidence was presented to the leadership of both the House and
the Senate when they were both controlled by the Republican party and every one that was
briefed came out on camera and said the Justice dept was doing the right thing in pursuing
this.
I think the Democrats should lose Hillary down a deep hole and not let her near any of the
coming campaign events. But this came about because of the actions of the people around
Trump. Not because Hillary controls the US government from some secret bunker some where.
One could argue Russiagate was on the contrary quite a success. The Elites behind the scheme
never believed it would end up with Trump's impeachment. What they did accomplish though is a
deflection via "Fake News" from the Dem's election failures & shenanigans and refocus the
attention towards the DNC's emerging pedophilia scandals (Weiner, the Podesta's, Alefantis,
etc) & suspicious deaths (Seth Rich, etc) towards a dead-end with the added corollary of
preventing US/Ru rapprochement for more then half an administration..
Blooming Barricade , Mar 23, 2019 3:10:02 PM |
link
The deeply tragic thing about this for the media, the neocons, and the liberals is that they
brought it upon themselves by moving the goalposts continuously. If, after Hillary lost, they
had stuck to the "Russia hacked WikiLeaks" lie, then they probably have sufficient proof from
their perspective and the perspective of most of the public that Russia helped Trump win. In
this case it would be remembered by the Democrats like the stolen election of 2000 (albeit
the fact that it was a lie this time). They had multiple opportunities to jump off this
train. Even the ridiculous DNI report could have been their final play: "Russia helped
Trump." Instead of going with 2000 they went with 2001, aka 9-11, with the same neocon
fearmongers playing the pipe organ of lies. As soon as they accepted the Steele Dossier,
moving the focus to "collusion" they discredited themselves forever. Many of the lead
proponents were discredited Iraq war hawks. Except this time it was actually worse because
the whole media bought into it. This leaves an interesting conundrum: there were at least
some pro-Afghanistan anti-Iraq warmongers who rejected the Bush premise in the media, so they
took over the airwaves for about two years before the real swamp creatures returned. This
time, it will be harder to issue a mea culpa. They made this appear like 9-11, well, this
time the truthers have won, and they are doomed.
Societies collapse when their systems (institutions) become compromised. When they are no
longer capable of meeting the needs of the population, or of adapting to a changing world.
Societal systems become compromised when their decision making structures, which are
designed to ensure that decisions are taken in the best interest of the society as a whole,
are captured by people who have no legitimacy to make the decisions, and who make decisions
for the benefit of themselves, at the expense of society as a whole.
Russia-gate is a flagrant example of how the law enforcement and intelligence institutions
have been captured. Their top officials, no longer loyal to their country or their
institution, but rather to an international elite (including the likes of Soros, the
Clintons, and far beyond) have used these institutions in an attempt to delegitimize a
constitutionally elected president and to over turn an election. This is no less than treason
of the highest order.
Indeed, the actions much of the Washington establishment, as well as a number
international actors, since Trump was elected seems suspiciously like one of the 'Color
Revolutions' that are visited upon any country who's citizens did not 'vote right' the first
time. Over-throw the vote, one way or another, until the result that is wanted is achieved.
None of these 'Color Revolutions' has resulted in anything good for the country involved.
Rather they have resulted in the destruction of each country's institutions, and eventually
societal collapse.
In the U.S. the capturing of systems' decision making structures is not limited to
Russia-Gate and the overturning of the electoral system. Their are other prime examples:
- The capture of the Air Transport Safety System by Boeing that has resulted in the recent
737 Max crashes, and likely the destruction of the reputation of the U.S. aviation industry,
in an industry where reputation is everything.
- The capture of the Financial Regulatory System, by Wall Street, who in 1998 rewrote the
rules in their own favor, against the best interests of the population as a whole. The result
was the 2008 financial crisis and the inability of the U.S. economy to effectively recover
from that crisis.
- This capture is also seen in international diplomatic systems, where the U.S. is
systematically by-passing or subverting international law and international institutions,
(the U.N. I.C.J., I.N.F. treaty) etc., and in doing so is destroying these institutions and
the ability to maintain peace.
The result of system (institution) capture is difficult to see at first. But, in time, the
damage adds up, the ability of the systems to meet the needs of the population disappears,
and societal decline sets in.
It looks today like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of
many indicators.
Your comment on the BBC is on the mild side. I listen to it when I drive in in the morning
and also get annoyed sometimes. When it is reporting on the Westminster bubble it is
factually accurate as far as I can judge. Apart from that, and particularly in the case of
the BBC news, we're in information control territory.
But accept that and the BBC turns into quite a valuable resource. It's well staffed, has
good contacts, and picks up what the politicians want us to think with great accuracy.
In that respect it's better than the newspapers and better also than the American media.
Those news outlets have several masters of which the political elite is only one. The BBC has
just the one master, the political elite, and is as sensitive as a stethoscope to the
shifting currents within that political elite.
So I wouldn't despise the BBC entirely. It tells us how the politicians want us to think.
In telling us that it sometimes gives us a bearing on what the politicians et al are doing
and what they intend to do.
The never-Trumpers will never let their dreams die. Of course, they never oppose Trump on
substantive issues like attempting a coup in Venezuela, withdrawing from the INF treaty,
supporting the nazis in Ukraine, supporting Al Qaeda forces in Syria, etc. But somehow
they're totally against him and ready to haul out the latest stupid thing he said as their
daily fodder for conversation...
renfro @ 10 said;"The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion."
Uh no, just doing their job of distracting the public, while ignoring the real issues
the
American workers care about. You know, the things DJT promised the workers, but has never
delivered.(better health care for all, ending the useless wars overseas, an
infrastructure
plan to increase good paying jobs), to name just a few.
The corporate Dems( which is the lions share of them), are bought and paid for to
distract, and they've done it well.
The Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and most who have come before, are of the same
ilk.
Bend over workers and lube up, for more of the same in 2020...
I profoundly disagree with the notion that Russiagate had anything to do with Hillary's
collusion with the DNC. Gosh, that is naive at best.
1) Hillary didn't need to collude against Sanders - the additional money that she got from
doing so was small change compared the to overall amount she raised for her campaign.
2) Sanders was a long-time friend of the Clintons. He boasted that he's known Hillary
for over 25 years.
3) Sanders was a sheepdog meant to keep progressives in the Democratic Party. He was
never a real candidate. He refused to attack Hillary on character issues and remained loyal
even after Hillary-DNC collusion was revealed.
When Sanders had a chance to total disgrace Hillary, he refused to do so. Hillary
repeatedly said that she had NEVER changed for vote for money but Warren had proven that
she had: Hillary changed her vote on the Bankruptcy Bill for money from the credit card
industry.
4) Hillary didn't try to bury her collusion with the DNC (as might be expected), instead
she used it to alienate progressive voters by bring Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her
campaign.
5) Hillary also alienated or ignored other important constituencies: she wouldn't
support an increase in the minimum wage but accepted $750,000 from Goldman Sachs for a
speech; she took the black vote for granted and all-but berated a Black Lives Matters
activist; and she called whites "deplorables".
Hillary threw the race to her OTHER long-time friend in the race: Trump. The
Deep-State wanted a nationalist and that's just what they got.
6) Hillary and the DNC has shown NO REMORSE whatsoever about colluding with Sanders and
Sanders has shown no desire whatsoever to hold them accountable.
IMO Russiagate (Russian influence on Trump) and accusations of "Russian meddling" in the
election are part of the same McCarthyist psyop to direct hate at Russia and stamp out any
dissent. Trump probably knowingly, played into the Deep State's psyop by:
> hiring Manafort;
> calling on Russia to release Hillary's emails;
> talking about Putin in a admiring way.
And it accomplished much more than hating on Russia:
> served as excuse for Trump to do Deep State bidding;
> distracted from the real meddling in the 2016 election;
> served as a device for settling scores:
- Assange isolated
(Wikileaks was termed an "agent of a foreign power");
- Michael Flynn forced to resign
(because he spoke to the Russian ambassador).
hopehely , Mar 23, 2019 3:49:15 PM |
link The US owes Russia an official apology. And also Russia should get its stolen
buildings and the consulate back. And maybe to get paid some compensation for the injustice
and for damages suffered. Without that, the Russiagate is not really over.
If memory serves me correctly, the initial accusations of collusion between DJT's
presidential campaign and the Kremlin came from Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company hired
by the Democratic National Committee to oversee the security of its computers and databases.
This was done to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a personal
server at home to conduct government business during her time as US State Secretary (2009 -
2013), business which among other things included plotting with the US embassy in Libya (and
the then US ambassador Chris Stevens) to overthrow Muammar Gaddhafi's government in 2011, and
conspiring also to overthrow the elected government in Honduras in 2010.
The business of Christopher Steele's dossier (part or even most of which could have been
written by Sergei Skripal, depending on who you read) and George Papadopoulos' conversation
with the half-wit Australian "diplomat" Alexander Downer in London were brought in to bolster
the Russiagate claims and make them look genuine.
As B says, Crowdstrike does indeed have a Ukrainian nationalist agenda: its founder and
head Dmitri Alperovich is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council (the folks who fund
Bellingcat's crapaganda) and which itself receives donations from Ukrainian oligarch Viktor
Pinchuk. Crowdstrike has some association with one of the Chalupa sisters (Alexandra or
Andrea - I can't be bothered dredging through DuckDuckGo to check which - but one of them was
employed by the DNC) who donated money to the Maidan campaign that overthrew Viktor
Yanukovych's government in Kiev in February 2014.
thanks b... i would like russiagate to be finished, but i tend to see it much like kadath
@2.. the link @2 is worth the read as a reminder of how far the usa has sunk in being a
nation of passive neocons... emptywheel can't say no to this as witnessed by her article
from today.. ) as a consequence, i agree with @14 dh-mtl's conclusion - "It looks today
like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of many indicators."
the irony for those of us who don't live in the usa, is we are going to have watch this
sad state of affairs continue to unravel, as the usa and the west continue to unravel in
tandem.. the msm as corporate mouthpiece is not going to be tell us anything of relevance..
instead it will be continued madcow, or maddow bullshit 24-7... amd as kadath notes @2 - if
any of them are to step up as a truth teller - they will be marginalized or silenced... so
long as the mainstream swallow what they are fed in the msm, the direction of the titanic is
still on track...
@19 hopehely... you can forget about anything like that happening..
What Difference Does it Make?
They don't really need Russia-gate anymore. It bought them time. As we speak nuclear bombers
make runs near Russian borders every day and Russian consulates get attacked with heavy
weaponry in the EU and no Russian outlet is even making a reference,while Israel is ready to
move heavy artillery in to Golan targeting Russia bases in Syria and China raking all their
deals for civilian projects in the Med.
Russia got stuffed in the corner getting all the punches.
What a horrible witch hunt, but the msm will keep on denying and keep creating new hoaxes
about Trump, Russia.
Heck the media even deny there was no collussion, they keep spinning it in different ways!
Thanks for citing Caitlin Johnstone's wonderful epitaph, b--Russiavape indeed!
During the fiasco, the Outlaw US Empire provided excellent proof to the world that it does
everything it accused Russia of doing and more, while Russia's cred has greatly risen.
Meanwhile, there're numerous other crimes Trump, his associates, Clinton, her
associates--like Pelosi--ought to be impeached, removed from office, arrested, then tried in
court, which is diametrically opposed to the current--false--narrative.
Scotch Bingeington , Mar 23, 2019 4:47:39 PM |
link
The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people
anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world.
Yes, absolutely. And not just regarding the world's future, but even if you happen to be
in the same building with one of them and he/she bursts into your already smoke-filled room
yelling that the house is on fire.
Btw, whatever authority has ever ruled that "ex-MI6 dude" Steele (who doesn't remind me of
steel at all, but rather of a certain nondescript entity named Anthony Blair) is in fact
merely 'EX'? He himself? The organisation? The Queen perhaps?
Expose them at every opportunity, they should not get away with this like nothing
happend:
If you think a single Russiagate conspiracist is going to be held accountable for media
malpractice, you clearly haven't been awake the past 2 decades. No one will pay for being
wrong. This profession is as corrupt & rotten as the kleptocracy it serves
defeatism isn't the answer -- should remind & mock these hacks every opportunity.
Just need to be aware of the beast we're up against.
The establishment plays on peoples fears and so we all sink together as we all cling to
our "lesser evils", tribal allegiances, and try to avoid the embarrassment of being
wrong.
Although everyone is aware of the corruption and insider dealing, no one seems to want to
acknowledge the extent, or to think critically so as to reveal any more than we already
know.
It's almost as though corruption (the King's nudity) is a national treasure and revealing
it would be a national security breach in the exceptional nation.
And so to the Deep State cabal continues to rule unimpeded.
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years
Posted by: Ken | Mar 23, 2019 2:09:31 PM | 4
You people don't get it do you?
'The Plan' was to get rid of Turkey-Russia-Israel (and a few others) with one fell
swoop....
Russia gate was both a diversion from the real collusions (Russian Mafia , China and Israel)
and a clever ruse to allow Trump to back off from his campaign promise to improve relations
with Russia. US policy toward Russia is no different under Trump than it was during Obamas
administration. Exactly what the Russia Gaters wanted and Trump delivered.
That Mueller could find nothing more than some tax/money laundering/perjury charges in
which the culprits in the end get pardoned is hardly surprising given his history. Want
something covered up? Put Mueller on it.
To show how afraid Trump was of Mueller he appointed his long term friend Barr as AJ and
pretended he didn't know how close they were when it came out. There is no lie people wont
believe. Lol
Meanwhile Trumps Russian Mafia connections stay under the radar in MSM, Trump continues as
Bibi's sock puppet, the fake trade war with China continues as Ivanka is rolling in China
trademarks .
The Rothschild puppet that bailed out Trumps casinos as Commerce Secretary overseeing
negotiations that will open the doors for more US and EU (they willy piggy back on the deal
like hyenas) jobs to go to China (this time in financial/services) and stronger IPR
protections that will facilitate this transfer, and will provide companies more profits in
which to buyback stocks but wont bring manufacturing jobs back.
The collusion story has been hit badly and it will likely lose its momentum, but I wonder how
far reaching this loss of momentum is. There are many variants. The 'unwitting accomplice' is
an oxymoron which isn't finished yet. The Russians hacking the election: not over. The
Russians sowing discord and division. Not over. Credibility of the Russiagate champions
overall? Not clear. Some could take a serious hit. Brennan and other insiders who made it
onto cable tv?
It is possible that the whole groupthink about Russiagate changes drastically
and that 'the other claims' also lose their credibility but it's far from certain. After
years of building up tension Russia's policies are also changing. I think they have shown
restraint but their paranoia and aggressiveness is also increasing and some claims will
become true after all.
"Russiagate" has always been a meaningless political fraud.
When folks like Hillary Clinton sign on to something and give it a great deal of weight,
you really do know you are talking about an empty bag of tricks. She is a psychopathic liar,
one with a great deal of blood on her hands.
My problem with this official result is that it may tend to give Trump a boost, new
credibility.
The trouble with Trump has never been Russia - something only blind ideologues and people
with the minds of children believe - it is that he is genuinely ignorant and genuinely
arrogant and loud-mouthed - an extremely dangerous combination.
And in trying to defend himself, this genuine coward has completely surrendered American
foreign policy to its most dangerous enemies, the Neocons.
Blaming Russiagate on Hillary is very easy for those who hate her or hope that Trump will
deliver on his faux populist fake-agenda.
No one wants to contemplate the possibility that Hillary and Trump, and the duopoly they
lead, fixed the election and planned Russiagate in advance.
It seems a bridge too far, even for the smart skeptics at MoA.
So funny.
Trump has proven himself to be a neocon. He broke his campaign promise to investigate
Hillary within DAYS of being elected. He has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his
Administration.
Yet every one turns from the possibility that the election was fixed. LOL.
The horrible possibility that our "democracy" is managed is too horrible to contemplate.
Lets just blame it all on Hillary.
Those who have been holding their breath for two years can finally exhale. I guess the fever
of hysteria will have to be attended a while longer. A malady of this kind does not easily
die out overnight. Those who have been taken in, and duped for so long, can not so easily
recover. The weight of so much cognitive dissonance presses down on them like a boulder. The
dust of the stampeded herd behind Russiagate is enough paralyze the will of those who have
succumbed.
As Joseph Conrad once wrote, "The ways of human progress are inscrutable."
Russiagate is a pendulum, it reached the dead point, it would hange in the air for a moment,
then it would start swinging right backwards at full speed crashign everything in the way!
It would be revealed, it was Russia who paid Muller to start that hysteria and stole money
from American tax-payers and make America an international laughing stock. "Putin benefited
from it", highly likely!
Muller's investigation is paid for with Manafort's seized cash and property and Manafort
has made Yanukovich king of Ukraine, so Manafort is Putin's agent, so Muller is working of
Putin's money, so it was Putin's collusion everything that Muller is doing! Highly
likely.
There is no "Liberal Media". Those whom claim to be Liberal and yet support the Warmonger
Democratic Party (Republican lite) are frauds. Liberalism does not condone war and it most
certainly does not support wars of aggression - especially those wars waged against
defenseless nations. Neither can liberalism support trade sanctions or the subjugation of
Palestinians in the Apartheid State of ISreal.
We must be very careful with the words we choose, in order to paint the correct
conjuncture and not to throw the bathtub with the baby inside.
It's one thing to say Bernie Sanders is not a revolutionary; it's another completely
different thing to say he was in cahoots with the Clintons.
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary. Not only he chose to do so, but he only didn't win
because the DNC threw all its weight against him.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist. He's an imperialist who believes the
spoils of the empire should be also used to build a Scandinavian-style Welfare State for the
American people only. A cynic would tell you this would make him a Nazi without the race
theme, but you have to keep in mind societies move in a dialectical patern, not a linear one:
if you preach for "democratic socialism", you're bringing the whole package, not only the
bits you want.
I believe the rise of Bernie Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it
exists. Americans are more aware of their own contradictions (more enlightened) now than
before he disputed those faithful primaries of 2016. And the most important ingredient for
that, in my opinion, was the fact he was crushed by both parties; that the "establishment"
acted in unison not to let him get near the WH. That was a didactic moment for the American
people (or a signficant part of it).
But I agree Russiagate went well beyond just covering the Clintons' dirt in the DNC.
It may have be born like that, but, if that was the case, the elites quickly realized it
had other, ampler practical uses. The main one, in my opinion, was to drive a wedge between
Trump's Clash of Civilizations's doctrine -- which perceives China as the main long term
enemy, and Russia as a natural ally of the West -- and the public opinon. The thing is most
of the American elite is far too dependent on China's productive chain; Russia is not, and
can be balkanized.
There is a funny video compilation of the TV talking heads predicting the end of Trump, new
bombshells, impeachment, etc., over the last two years.
Unfortunately, the same sort of compilation could be made of sane people predicting "this new
information means the end of Russiagate" over the same time period.
The truth is that the truth doesn't matter, only the propaganda, and it has not stopped, only
spun onto new hysteria.
As others have said, hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been
wrong all along. They have too much emotional investment in the grand conspiracy theory to
simply let it go. Rather, they will forever point to what they believe are genuine bits of
evidence and curse Mueller for not following the leads. And the Dems in the House of
Representatives will waste more time and resources on pointless investigations in an effort
to keep the public sufficiently distracted from more important matters, such as the endless
wars and coups that they support. A pox on all their houses, both Democrats and
Republicans.
"...hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been wrong all along."
Wrong about what? There seems to be "narrative" operative here that there are only two
positions on this matter: the "right" one and the "wrong" one and nothing else.
Ben's and other comments might make this a little bit superfluous but it's short.
A case of divide and conquer against the population
This time it was a fabricated scandal.
Continued control over "facts" and narratives, the opportunity for efficient misdirection
and distraction, stealing and wasting other people's time and effort, spurious disagreements,
wearing down relations.
The illusion of choice, (false) opposition, blinded "oversight", and mythical claims
concerning a civilian government (in the case of the US: "of, for, and by" or something like
that).
Who knew or knows is irrelevant as long as the show goes on. There's nothing to prove
anything significant about who if anyone may or may not be behind the curtain and thus on
towards the next big or small scandal we go because people will be dissatisfied and hungry
and ready to bite as hard as possible on some other bait for or against something.
Maybe "Russiagate" was impeccably engineered or maybe it organically outcompeted other
distractions on offer that would ultimately also waste enormous amounts of time and
effort.
Management by crisis
The scandals, crises, "Science says" games and rubbish, outrage narratives, and any other
manipulations attempt and perhaps succeed at controlling the US and the world through
spam.
Jonathan @39: Of course it was fixed. That's what the Electoral College is for.
Well, you can say the same think about money-as-speech , gerrymandering, voter
suppression, etc. Despite all these, Americans believe that their democracy works.
I contend that what we witnessed in 2016 was a SHOW. Like American wrestling. It was
(mostly) fake. The proper term for this is kayfabe .
My advice to the yanks mourning Russiagate: move to the UK. The sick Brits will keep the
Russia hating cult alive even after they spend a decade puking over Brexit.
Jackrabbit @18
So, you don't think HRC qualifies as a nationalist? She can't fake populist, but she can do
nationalist.
I also think she is much too ambitious to have intentionally thrown the election. It was her
turn dammit! Take a look at her behavior as First Lady if you think she's the kind of
personality that is content to wield power from behind the scenes.
They didn't fall for the Steele dossier. I recall that emptywheel had discredited the dossier
during the election as it was known to have been rejected by major media outlets leading up
to the election. I think they merely fell behind the others as the outgoing administration,
the Democrats, the CIA, and the media chose to use the dossier to 'blackmail' Trump.
The most important fruit of russiagate, from the view of the establishment of the hegemon, is
that America has now taken a giant step towards full bore censorship.
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's
that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him
and Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax
returns. Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the
press asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns). Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate,
meaningless astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like
open borders. These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the
Democrats and another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character
issues and to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other
examples: Bernie refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's
well known work to squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer
Flowers), and didn't talk about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make")
and her glee at the overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find
that even a little bit strange?
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him and
Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax returns.
Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the press
asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns) . Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate, meaningless
astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like open borders.
These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the Democrats and
another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character issues and
to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other examples: Bernie
refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's well known work to
squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer Flowers), and didn't talk
about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make") and her glee at the
overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find that
even a little bit strange?
mourning dove @57: Exactly! It's the Electoral College that decides elections, not
voters.
Do you think Hillary didn't know that? She refused to campaign in the three mid-western
states that would've won her the electoral college. Each of the states were won by Trump by a
thin margin.
Gosh and Blimey!
Comment #56 in a thread about an utterly corrupt political system and no-one has mentioned
the pro-"Israel" Lobby?
Words fail me. So I'll use someone else's...
From Xymphora March 21, 2019.
"Truth or Trope?" (Sailer):
"Of the top 50 political donors to either party at the federal level in 2018, 52 percent
were Jewish and 48 percent were gentile. Individuals who identify as Jewish are usually
estimated to make up perhaps 2.2 percent of the population.
Of the $675 million given by the top 50 donors, 66 percent of the money came from Jews and 34
percent from gentiles.
Of the $297 million that GOP candidates and conservative causes received from the top 50
donors, 56 percent was from Jewish individuals.
Of the $361 million Democratic politicians and liberal causes received, 76 percent came from
Jewish givers.
So it turns out that Rep. Omar and Gov. LePage appear to have been correct, at least about
the biggest 2018 donors. But you can also see why Pelosi wanted Omar to just shut up about
it: 76 percent is a lot."
Next up another false flag operation. The thing is, it would have be non-trivial and
involving the harming of people to jolt the narrative back to that favoring the deep state.
And taking off the proverbial media table, that Mueller found no collusion. Yes, election in
2016 no collusion, but Putin was behind the latest horrific false flag, "oh look, Trump is
not confronting Putin"...
Not even getting into the "treason", "putin's c*ckholster", "what's the time on Moscow,
troll!" crap we've been subjected to for 3 years, please enjoy this mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0.
I've said before that she's a terrible strategist and she ran a terrible campaign and she's
terribly out of touch. I think she expected a cake walk and was relying on Trump being so
distasteful to voters that they'd have no other option.
I think Trump legitimately won the election and I don't believe for a second that she won the
popular vote. There were so many problems with the election but since they were on the losing
side, nobody cares. In 2012 I didn't know anyone else who was voting for Jill Stein, way too
many people were still in love with Obama. She got .4% of the vote. In 2016 most of the
people I knew were voting for Jill Stein, she drew a large crowd from DemExit, but they say
she got .4% of the vote. Total bullshit. There was also ballot stuffing and lots of other
problems, but it still wasn't enough.
I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her
elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and
the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way.
Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough
to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has
helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller
to prove.
It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that
Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the
"national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify
the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon.
It is time to build
cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony.
Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it.
The truth will work better.
"... RussiaGate was never a sustainable narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there. ..."
"... And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now worthless. ..."
"... They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. ..."
"... The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time. Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion." ..."
"... It's clear that RussiaGate is a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. ..."
"... If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb. ..."
"... If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate. ..."
"... And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us. ..."
"... Hillary is the epitome of evil. ..."
"... I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch, Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice, Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. ..."
"... Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for becoming elected. ..."
"... Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because it was her turn to get elected". ..."
"... HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH ..."
"... It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be nobody to hold them responsible ..."
"... When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself. ..."
During most of the RussiaGate investigation against Donald Trump I kept saying that all
roads lead to Hillary Clinton.
Anyone with three working brain cells knew this, including
'Miss' Maddow, whose tears of disappointment are particularly delicious.
Robert Mueller's investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of
nothing. It did this admirably.
It was so effective it paralyzed the country for more than two years, just like Europe has
been held hostage by Brexit. And all of this because, in the end, the elites I call The Davos
Crowd refused to accept that the people no longer believed their lies about the benefits of
their neoliberal, globalist agenda.
Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Presidency was to be their apotheosis along with the
Brexit vote. These were meant to lay to rest, once and for all time, the vaguely libertarian
notion that people should rule themselves and not be ruled by philosopher kings in some distant
land.
Hillary's failure was enormous. And the RussiaGate gambit to destroy Trump served a laundry
list of purposes to cover it:
Undermine his legitimacy before he even takes office.
Accuse him of what Hillary actually did: collude with Russians and Ukrainians to effect
the outcome of the election
Paralyze Trump on his foreign policy desires to scale back the Empire
Give aid and comfort to hurting progressives and radicalize them further undermining our
political system
Polarize the electorate over the false choice of Trump's guilt.
Paralyze the Dept. of Justice and Congress so that they would not uncover the massive
corruption in the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the U.K.
Isolate Trump and take away every ally or potential ally he could have by turning them
against him through prosecutor overreach.
Hillary should have been thrown to the wolves after she failed. When you fail the people she
failed and cost them the money she cost them, you lose more than just your funding. What this
tells you is that Hillary has so much dirt on everyone involved, once this thing started
everyone went along with it lest she burn them down as well.
Burnin' Down da House
Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else's life
so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It's the sin of Cain. She envies what Trump has,
the Presidency. And she was willing to tear it down to keep him from having it no matter how
much damage it would do. She's worse than the Joker from The Dark Knight.
Because while the Joker is unfathomable to someone with a conscience there's little stopping
us from excising him from the community completely., even though Batman refuses.
Hillary hates us for who we are and what we won't give her. And that animus drove her to
blackmail the world while putting on the face of its savior.
And that's what makes what comes next so obvious to me. RussiaGate was never a sustainable
narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there
are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there.
Mueller thought all he had to do was lean on corrupt people and threaten them with
everything. They would turn on Trump. He would resign in disgrace from the public outcry. It
didn't work. In the end Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone all held their ground or
perjured themselves into the whole thing falling apart.
Andrew Weissman's resignation last month was your tell there was nothing. Mueller would
pursue this to the limit of his personal reputation and no further. Just like so many other
politicians.
Vote Your Pocketbook
With respect to Brexit I've been convinced that it would come down to reputations. Would the
British MP's vote against their own personal best interests to do the bidding of the EU? Would
Theresa May eventually realize her historical reputation would be destroyed if she caves to
Brussels and betrays Brexit in the end? Always bet on the fecklessness of politicians. They
will always act selfishly when put to the test. While leading RussiaGate, Mueller was always
headed here if he couldn't get someone to betray Trump.
And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his
reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now
worthless.
They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she
has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. The
progressives that were convinced of Trump's treason are bereft; their false hope stripped away
like standing in front of a sandblaster. They will be raw, angry and looking for blood after
they get over their denial.
Everyone else who was blackmailed into going along with this lunacy will begin cutting deals
to save their skins. The outrage over this will not end. Trump will be President when he stands
for re-election.
The Wolves Beckon
The Democrats do not have a chance against him as of right now. When he was caving on
everything back in December it looked like he was done. That there was enough meat on the
RussiaGate bones to make Nancy Pelosi brave. Then she backed off on impeachment talk.
Oops....
... ... ...
The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something
dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time.
Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion."
It's clear that RussiaGate is
a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall
on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. There is only one answer. And Obama's
people are still in place to protect him. I said last fall that " Hillary would
indict herself. " And I meant it. Eventually her blackmail and drive to burn it all down
led to this moment.
The circumstances are different than I expected back then, Trump didn't win the mid-terms.
But the end result was always the same. If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then
all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb.
Because the bigger project, the erection of a transnational superstate, is bigger than any
one person. Hillary is expendable. Lies are expensive to maintain. The truth is cheap to
defend. Think of the billions in opportunity costs associated with this. Once the costs rise
above the benefits, change happens fast. If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this
country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason
anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate.
We all know it's the truth. So, the cheapest way out of this mess for them is to give the
MAGApedes what they want, Hillary.
And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us.
I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch,
Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice,
Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. Think of the
taxpayer money wasted on this ridiculous Mueller investigation! The Roger Stone arrest was an
outrage. Who tipped off CNN? Who ordered it? What was with the attack dogs and machine guns?
And now we have Nadler trying to destroy anyone and everyone who ever did business with
Trump. All those 80 people who got letters from him asking for documents will now be
bankrupted by legal fees.
According to Scott Adams, one recipient is refusing to
cooperate -- he's saying "I can't afford for me and family to be destroyed." He put the request
for documents in a drawer. He has no money for lawyers.
This insanity and abuse of power has
got to stop. Meanwhile, nothing gets done in Congress. We're all looking at censorship,
tilted search engines, de-monetization, being beat up on campus for trying to express an
opinion, being accosted in a restaurant (or, VP Pence, from the stage ("Hamilton"), getting
sucker-punched for wearing a MAGA hat, having elections stolen through myriad Dem cheating
methods, and NOTHING is being done.
Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian
meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate
cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a
Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for
becoming elected.
Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately
sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also
raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The
damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of
treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a
war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections
and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because
it was her turn to get elected".
It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of
Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be
nobody to hold them responsible.
When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to
justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they
were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself.
"... Honestly, I'm a bit surprised. I was sure they were going to go ahead and fabricate some kind of "smoking gun" evidence (like the pee-stained sheets from that Moscow hotel), or coerce one of his sleazy minions into testifying that he personally saw Trump down on his knees "colluding" Putin in the back room of a Russian sauna. ..."
"... This is what Trump is about to do with Russiagate. ..."
"... He is going to explain to the American people that the Democrats, the corporate media, Hollywood, the liberal intelligentsia, and elements of the intelligence agencies conspired to try to force him out of office with an unprecedented propaganda campaign and a groundless special investigation. He is going to explain to the American people that Russiagate, from start to finish, was, in his words, a ridiculous "witch hunt," a childish story based on nothing. Then he's going to tell them a different story. ..."
"... The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. ..."
"... Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup. ..."
"... The Russo-Nazi Terrorists are not coming. The global capitalist ruling classes are putting down a populist insurgency , delegitimizing any and all forms of dissent from their global capitalist ideology and resistance to the hegemony of global capitalism. In the process, they are conditioning people to completely abandon their critical faculties and behave like twitching Pavlovian idiots who will obediently respond to whatever stimuli or blatantly fabricated propaganda the corporate media bombards them with. ..."
If Nietzsche was right, and what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger, we can thank the
global capitalist ruling classes, the Democratic Party, and the corporate media for four more
years of Donald Trump. The long-awaited Mueller report is due any day now, or so they keep
telling us. Once it is delivered, and does not prove that Trump is a Russian intelligence
asset, or that he personally conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the presidency from Hillary
Clinton, well, things are liable to get a bit awkward.
Given the amount of goalpost-moving and
focus-shifting that has been going on, clearly, this is what everyone's expecting.
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised. I was sure they were going to go ahead and fabricate some
kind of "smoking gun" evidence (like the pee-stained sheets from that Moscow hotel), or coerce
one of his sleazy minions into testifying that he personally saw Trump down on his knees
"colluding" Putin in the back room of a Russian sauna. After all, if you're going to accuse a
sitting president of being a Russian intelligence asset, you kind of need to be able to prove
it, or (a) you defeat the whole purpose of the exercise, (b) you destroy your own credibility,
and (c) you present that sitting president with a powerful weapon he can use to bury you.
This is not exactly rocket science. As any seasoned badass will tell you, when you're
resolving a conflict with another seasoned badass, you don't take out a gun unless you're going
to use it. Taking a gun out, waving it around, and not shooting the other badass with it, is
generally not a winning strategy. What often happens, if you're dumb enough to do that, is that
the other badass will take your gun from you and either shoot you or beat you senseless with
it.
This is what Trump is about to do with Russiagate. When the Mueller report fails to present
any evidence that he "colluded" with Russia to steal the election, Trump is going to reach
over, grab that report, roll it up tightly into a makeshift cudgel, and then beat the snot out
of his opponents with it. He is going to explain to the American people that the Democrats, the
corporate media, Hollywood, the liberal intelligentsia, and elements of the intelligence
agencies conspired to try to force him out of office with an unprecedented propaganda campaign
and a groundless special investigation. He is going to explain to the American people that
Russiagate, from start to finish, was, in his words, a ridiculous "witch hunt," a childish
story based on nothing. Then he's going to tell them a different story.
That story goes a little something like this
Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy
that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president.
They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who bragged about
"grabbing women by the pussy" and jabbered about building "a big, beautiful wall" and making
the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact that Donald Trump had
zero experience in any political office whatsoever, and was a loudmouth bigot, and was possibly
out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people did not care. They were so
disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment stooges like the Clintons,
the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump in office, because, fuck it,
what did they have to lose?
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing
a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American
people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every
organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a
daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official
investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy.
Every component of the ruling
establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal
intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president
from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft
coup.
This is the story Donald Trump is going to tell the American people.
A minority of ideological heretics on what passes for the American Left are going to help
him tell this story, not because we support Donald Trump, but because we believe that the mass
hysteria and authoritarian fanaticism that has been manufactured over the course of Russiagate
represents a danger greater than Trump. It has reached some neo-Riefenstahlian level, this
bug-eyed, spittle-flecked, cult-like behavior worse even than the mass hysteria that gripped
most Americans back in 2003, when they cheered on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the murder,
rape, and torture of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children based on a bunch of
made-up horseshit.
We are going to be vilified, we leftist heretics, for helping Trump tell Americans this
story. We are going to be denounced as Trumpenleft traitors ,
Putin-sympathizers, and Nazi-adjacents (as we were denounced as terrorist-sympathizers and
Saddam-loving traitors back in 2003). We are going to be denounced as all these things by
liberals, and by other leftists. We are going to be warned that pointing out how the
government, the media, and the intelligence agencies all worked together to sell people
Russiagate will only get Trump reelected, and, if that happens, it will be the End of
Everything.
It will not be the End of Everything.
What might, however, be the End of Everything, or might lead us down the road to the End of
Everything, is if otherwise intelligent human beings continue to allow themselves to be whipped
into fits of mass hysteria and run around behaving like a mindless herd of
propaganda-regurgitating zombies whenever the global capitalist ruling classes tell them that
"the Russians are coming!" or that "the Nazis are coming!" or that "the Terrorists are
coming!"
The Russo-Nazi Terrorists are not coming. The global capitalist ruling classes are putting
down a
populist insurgency , delegitimizing any and all forms of dissent from their global
capitalist ideology and resistance to the hegemony of global capitalism. In the process, they
are conditioning people to completely abandon their critical faculties and behave like
twitching Pavlovian idiots who will obediently respond to whatever stimuli or blatantly
fabricated propaganda the corporate media bombards them with.
If you want a glimpse of the dystopian future it isn't an Orwellian boot in your face. It's
Invasion of the Body Snatchers . Study the Russiagate believers' reactions to the
Mueller report when it is finally delivered. Observe the bizarre intellectual contortions their
minds perform to rationalize their behavior over the last three years. Trust me, it will not be
pretty. Cognitive dissonance never is.
Or, who knows, maybe the Russiagate gang will pull a fast one at the eleventh hour, and
accuse Robert Mueller of Putinist sympathies (or appearing in that FSB video of Trump's
notorious Moscow pee-party), and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the special
prosecutor. That should get them through to 2020!
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Following the 'red lines' meeting between Ryabkov and Elliot Abrams in Rome a couple of
days ago, after which Ryabkov said bluntly:
"We assume that Washington treats our priorities seriously, our approach and
warnings."
One of those warnings delivered by Ryabkov is understood to have been that no American
military intervention in Venezuela will be tolerated by Moscow.
For his part, Abrams sounded as if he had emerged from the meeting after having been given
a severe reprimand.
"No, we did not come to a meeting of minds, but I think the talks were positive in the
sense that both sides emerged with a better understanding of the other's views," he told
reporters.
"A better understanding of the other's views," means that the American side was given a
red line to back off.
So, the Russian Army advanced party has arrived today, 99 in an Il-62 and goodness knows
what in an An-124 on a direct flight from Syria.
And now, according to journalist Javier I. Mayorca, Colonel General Vasily Tonkoshkurov,
chief of the Main Staff of the Ground Forces - First Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Land
Forces of Russia, arrived in Venezuela.
So we have one of the most significant Russian Generals now in Venezuela with his staff
and protection teams with their equipment coming out the back of the Antonov and I think we
can be certain that there is no beachware included.
This is looking more like the start up of Russian ops in Syria. This is the 'what do you
need, how can we help' team.
This could be Venezuela transforming from a hedgehog into a porcupine.
I bet the An-124 was filled with captured NATO arms, particularly TOWs, of which there're
many warehouses in Syria packed to the rafters--$billions$ in armaments at no charge! In
contrast with France, every Saturday there's a massive Solidarity March in
Caracas and other Venezuelan cities in support of Maduro, the government and the Bolivarian
Constitution. One of the most important differences between Venezuela and other
South-of-the-border regime changes is that an entire generation has grown up under
Chavezismo, the Bolivarian Constitution, and the great social changes--literacy and education
for the masses being #1--that have occurred over the past 20+ years. Those coming of age now
will be even more Anti-USA and Anti-OAS than ever before. This chart shows almost 50% of
the current population's coming of age During the Bolivarian/Chavista Age proves that
point.
As with Iran and Cuba, the Bolivarian Revolution's ingrained into the government's
structure, and perpetuated by society and culture. The penchant for the Outlaw US Empire to
task its vassals with killing off the entire Leftist political spectrum leaving only
reactionaries and their kin has always been genocidal in scope, and in Venezuela's case would
amount to @22 million requiring purging. And let's not kid ourselves--A world filled with
docile reactionaries is exactly the sort of prole-based planet the Outlaw US Empire
craves.
This is the most grandiose False flag propaganda operation known to the mankind. McCarthyism while more vicious was just a blip
of the screen in comparison this this tide of disinformation and insinuations. Iraq WDM resulted in more casualties but was much
more short term. Damage for the USA from this false flag operation might even exceed the damage for Iraq WDM fiasco.
British government and intelligence serves were active participants and in this sense "Skripals poisoning" looks
like a perverted form of "witness protection:" program. A false flag operation on the top of a false flag operation
("Russiagate").
What is amazing is how unapt were the major players.
Notable quotes:
"... Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media. ..."
"... A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in his reports. In a written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished to the world at large." ..."
"... That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States, apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times. ..."
"... The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start. ..."
"... "Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there, and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case." ..."
"... Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check. ..."
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it...
Note to readers: in light of news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation is complete, I'm releasing this chapter
of Hate Inc. early, with a few new details added up top. Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.
As has long been rumored
, the former FBI chief's independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no "
presidency-wrecking
" conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman's definition of "collusion" with Russia.
With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of
the Mueller investigation was best expressed
by the New York Times :
A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.
The Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn
of the Trump presidency in Mueller. Nobody even pretended it was supposed to be a fact-finding mission, instead of an act of faith.
The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with
votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members
singing "
All I Want for Christmas is You " to him featuring the rhymey line: "Mueller please come through, because the only option is
a coup."
The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller's reputation, noting Trump's Attorney General William Barr's reaction was
an "endorsement" of the fineness of Mueller's work:
In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a "witch hunt," Mr. Barr said Justice
Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step.
Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media?
For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia "contacts," inviting readers
to keep making connections. But in a
separate piece by Peter
Baker , the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:
It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress,
for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole
This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing,
emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting "
We don't need to read the Mueller
report " because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: "Have
journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?"
The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like themselves made a galactic
error by betting heavily on a
new, politicized approach , trying to be true to "history's judgment" on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse,
in a brutal irony everyone should have
seen coming , the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.
Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps
thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in
a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a "witch hunt."
Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller's final report might leave audiences "
disappointed
," as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news.
Openly using such language
has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you'd have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not
match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without
pants.
There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn't prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The
Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters ! There's an ongoing grand jury investigation,
and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and
Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.
For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped
every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something "so
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political trouble to prosecute.
The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That's a hell of a long way from what
this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn't so.
The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who'd helped
him win the election.
The betrayal narrative was not reported at first as metaphor. It was not "Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be
a spy for them." It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told
reporters, Trump "
will die in jail ."
In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump's campaign had "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence;
the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies
were withholding intelligence
from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel
not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have "leverages of pressure" on Trump.
CNN told us Trump officials had been in "constant contact" with "Russians known to U.S. intelligence," and the former director
of the CIA, who'd helped kick-start the investigation that led to Mueller's probe, said the President was guilty of "high crimes
and misdemeanors," committing acts "
nothing short of treasonous ."
Hillary Clinton insisted Russians "could not have known how to weaponize" political ads unless they'd been "guided" by Americans.
Asked if she meant Trump, she said, "
It's pretty hard not to ." Harry Reid similarly said he had "no doubt" that the Trump campaign was "
in on the
deal " to help Russians with the leak.
None of this has been walked back. To be clear, if Trump were being blackmailed by Russian agencies like the FSB or the GRU, if
he had any kind of relationship with Russian intelligence, that would soar over the "overwhelming and bipartisan" standard, and Nancy
Pelosi would be damning torpedoes for impeachment right now.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't. If he isn't, news outlets once
again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent
past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC's Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a "
reckoning for the media ."
Of course, there won't be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in
pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can't confirm.
#Russiagate debuted as a media phenomenon in mid-summer, 2016. The roots of the actual story, i.e. when the multi-national investigation
began, go back much further, to the previous year at least. Oddly, that origin tale has not been nailed down yet, and blue-state
audiences don't seem terribly interested in it, either.
By June and July of 2016, bits of the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which
had been funded by the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie (which in turn hired the opposition research
firm Fusion GPS), were already in the ether.
The Steele report occupies the same role in #Russiagate the tales spun by Ahmed Chalabi occupied in the WMD screwup. Once again,
a narrative became turbo-charged when Officials With Motives pulled the press corps by its nose to a swamp of unconfirmable private
assertions.
Some early stories, like a July 4, 2016 piece by Franklin Foer in Slate called "
Putin's Puppet ," outlined future Steele themes in "circumstantial" form. But the actual dossier, while it influenced a number
of pre-election Trump-Russia news stories (notably
one by Michael Isiskoff of Yahoo! that would be
used in a FISA warrant application ), didn't make it into print for a while.
Though it was shopped to
at least nine news organizations during the summer and fall of 2016, no one bit, for the good reason that news organizations
couldn't verify its "revelations."
The Steele claims were explosive if true. The ex-spy reported Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice
of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted. He also said Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague
for "secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers."
Most famously, he wrote the Kremlin had kompromat of Trump "deriling" [sic] a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by "employing
a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show."
The piece didn't have pee, Prague, or Page in it, but it did say Russian intelligence had material that could "blackmail" Trump.
It was technically kosher to print because Corn wasn't publishing the allegations themselves, merely that the FBI had taken possession
of them.
A bigger pretext was needed to get the other details out. This took place just after the election, when four intelligence officials
presented copies of the dossier to both President-Elect Trump and outgoing President Obama.
From his own
memos , we know FBI Director James Comey, ostensibly evincing concern for Trump's welfare, told the new President he was just
warning him about what was out there, as possible blackmail material:
I wasn't saying [the Steele report] was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports
were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give
them the excuse to write that the FBI has the material or [redacted] and that we were keeping it very close-hold [sic].
Comey's generous warning to Trump about not providing a "news hook," along with a promise to keep it all "close-held," took place
on January 6, 2017. Within four days, basically the entire Washington news media somehow knew all about this top-secret meeting and
had the very hook they needed to go public. Nobody in the mainstream press thought this was weird or warranted comment.
Even Donald Trump was probably smart enough to catch the hint when, of all outlets, it was CNN that first broke the story of "Classified
documents presented last week to Trump"
on January 10 .
At the same time, Buzzfeed
made
the historic decision to publish the entire Steele dossier, bringing years of pee into our lives. This move birthed the Russiagate
phenomenon as a never-ending, minute-to-minute factor in American news coverage.
Comey was right. We couldn't have reported this story without a "hook." Therefore the reports surrounding Steele technically weren't
about the allegations themselves, but rather the journey of those allegations, from one set of official hands to another. Handing
the report to Trump created a perfect pretext.
This trick has been used before, both in Washington and on Wall Street, to publicize unconfirmed private research. A short seller
might hire a consulting firm to prepare a report on a company he or she has bet against. When the report is completed, the investor
then tries to get the SEC or the FBI to take possession. If they do, news leaks the company is "under investigation," the stock dives,
and everyone wins.
This same trick is found in politics. A similar trajectory
drove negative headlines in the scandal surrounding New Jersey's Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who was said to be under investigation
by the FBI for underage sex crimes (although some
were skeptical
). The initial story didn't hold up, but led to other investigations.
Same with the so-called "
Arkansas project ," in which millions of Republican-friendly private research dollars produced enough noise about the Whitewater
scandal to create years of headlines about the Clintons. Swiftboating was another example. Private oppo isn't inherently bad. In
fact it has led to some incredible scoops, including Enron. But reporters usually know to be skeptical of private info, and figure
the motives of its patrons into the story.
The sequence of events in that second week of January, 2017 will now need to be heavily re-examined. We now know,
from his own testimony , that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had some kind of role in helping CNN do
its report, presumably by confirming part of the story, perhaps through an intermediary or two (there is some controversy over whom
exactly was contacted, and when).
Why would real security officials help litigate this grave matter through the media? Why were the world's most powerful investigative
agencies acting like they were trying to move a stock, pushing an private, unverified report that even Buzzfeed could see had factual
issues? It
made no sense at the time , and makes less now.
In January of 2017, Steele's pile of allegations became public, read by millions. "It is not just unconfirmed," Buzzfeed
admitted
. "It includes some clear errors."
Buzzfeed's decision exploded traditional journalistic standards against knowingly publishing material whose veracity you doubt.
Although a few media ethicists wondered
at it , this seemed not to bother the rank-and-file in the business. Buzzfeed chief Ben Smith is still
proud of
his decision today. I think this was because many reporters believed the report was true.
When I read the report, I was in shock. I thought it read like fourth-rate suspense fiction (I should know: I write fourth-rate
suspense fiction). Moreover it seemed edited both for public consumption and to please Steele's DNC patrons.
Steele wrote of Russians having a file of "compromising information" on Hillary Clinton, only this file supposedly lacked "details/evidence
of unorthodox or embarrassing behavior" or "embarrassing conduct."
We were meant to believe the Russians, across decades of dirt-digging, had an empty kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, to say
nothing of human tabloid headline Bill Clinton? This point was made more than once in the reports, as if being emphasized for the
reading public.
There were other curious lines, including the bit about Russians having "moles" in the DNC, plus some linguistic details that
made me wonder at the nationality of the report author.
Still, who knew? It could be true. But even the most cursory review showed the report had issues and would need a lot of confirming.
This made it more amazing that the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, held hearings on March 20,
2017 that blithely read out Steele report details as if they were fact. From Schiff's opening statement:
According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. Intelligence,
Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin (SEH-CHIN), CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft
Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company.
I was stunned watching this. It's generally understood that members of congress, like reporters, make an effort to vet at least
their prepared remarks before making them public.
But here was Schiff, telling the world Trump aide Carter Page had been offered huge fees on a 19% stake in Rosneft – a company
with a $63 billion market capitalization – in a secret meeting
with a Russian oligarch who was also said to be "a KGB agent and close friend of Putin's."
(Schiff meant "FSB agent." The inability of #Russiagaters to remember Russia is not the Soviet Union became increasingly maddening
over time. Donna Brazile still hasn't deleted her tweet about how "
The Communists are now dictating the
terms of the debate ." )
Schiff's speech raised questions. Do we no longer have to worry about getting accusations right if the subject is tied to Russiagate?
What if Page hadn't done any of these things? To date, he hasn't been charged with anything. Shouldn't a member of Congress worry
about this?
A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in
his reports. In a
written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He
also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished
to the world at large."
That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this
was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States,
apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times.
I contacted Schiff's office to ask if the congressman if he knew about Steele's admission that his report needed verifying, and
if that changed his view of it at all. The response (emphasis mine):
The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and which was leaked publicly several months
ago contains information that may be pertinent to our investigation. This is true regardless of whether it was ever intended for
public dissemination. Accordingly, the Committee hopes to speak with Mr. Steele in order to help substantiate or refute each of
the allegations contained in the dossier.
Schiff had not spoken to Steele before the hearing, and read out the allegations knowing they were unsubstantiated.
The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet
no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from
Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the
lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start.
For years, every hint the dossier might be true became a banner headline, while every time doubt was cast on Steele's revelations,
the press was quiet. Washington Post reporter Greg Miller went to Prague and led a team looking for evidence Cohen had been there.
Post reporters, Miller said, "literally spent weeks and months trying to run down" the Cohen story.
"We sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there,"
he said, "and came away empty."
This was heads-I-win, tails-you-lose reporting. One assumes if Miller found Cohen's name in a hotel ledger, it would have been
on page 1 of the Post. The converse didn't get a mention in Miller's own paper. He only told the story during a discussion
aired by C-SPAN about a new book he'd published. Only The Daily Caller and a few conservative blogs picked it up.
It was the same when Bob Woodward said, "I did not find [espionage or collusion] Of course I looked for it, looked for it hard."
The celebrated Watergate muckraker – who once said he'd
succumbed to "groupthink"
in the WMD episode and added, "I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder" – didn't push very hard here, either. News that
he'd tried and failed to find collusion didn't get into his own paper. It only came out when Woodward was promoting his book Fear
in a discussion with conservative host Hugh Hewitt.
When Michael Cohen testified before congress and denied under oath ever being in Prague, it was the same. Few commercial news
outlets bothered to take note of the implications this had for their previous reports. Would a man clinging to a plea deal lie to
congress on national television about this issue?
Perhaps worst of all was the episode involving Yahoo! reporter Michael Isikoff. He had already been part of one strange tale:
the FBI double-dipping when it sought a FISA warrant to conduct secret surveillance of Carter Page, the would-be mastermind who was
supposed to have brokered a deal with oligarch Sechin.
In its FISA application, the FBI included both the unconfirmed Steele report and Isikoff's September 23, 2016 Yahoo! story, "
U.S. Intel Officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin ." The Isikoff story, which claimed Page had met with "high
ranking sanctioned officials" in Russia, had relied upon Steele as an unnamed source.
This was similar to a laundering technique used in the WMD episode called "stove-piping," i.e. officials using the press to "confirm"
information the officials themselves fed the reporter.
But there was virtually no non-conservative press about this problem apart from a Washington Post story pooh-poohing the issue.
(Every news story that casts any doubt on the collusion issue seems to meet with an instantaneous "fact check" in the Post .) The
Post insisted the FISA issue wasn't serious among other things because Steele was not the "foundation" of Isikoff's piece.
Isikoff was perhaps the reporter most familiar with Steele. He and Corn of Mother Jones , who also dealt with the ex-spy, wrote
a bestselling book that relied upon theories from Steele, Russian Roulette , including a rumination on the "pee" episode. Yet Isikoff
in late 2018 suddenly said he believed the Steele report would turn out to be "
mostly
false ."
Once again, this only came out via a podcast, John Ziegler's "Free Speech Broadcasting" show. Here's a transcript of the relevant
section:
Isikoff: When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, you know, we have not seen
the evidence to support them. And in fact there is good grounds to think some of the more sensational allegations will never be
proven, and are likely false.
Ziegler: That's...
Isikoff: I think it's a mixed record at best at this point, things could change, Mueller may yet produce evidence that changes
this calculation. But based on the public record at this point I have to say that most of the specific allegations have not been
borne out.
Ziegler: That's interesting to hear you say that, Michael because as I'm sure you know, your book was kind of used to validate
the pee tape, for lack of a better term.
Isikoff: Yeah. I think we had some evidence in there of an event that may have inspired the pee tape and that was the visit
that Trump made with a number of characters who later showed up in Moscow, specifically Emin Agalarov and Rob Goldstone to this
raunchy Las Vegas nightclub where one of the regular acts was a skit called "Hot For Teacher" in which dancers posing as college
Co-Ed's urinated – or simulated urinating on their professor. Which struck me as an odd coincidence at best. I think, you know,
it is not implausible that event may have inspired...
Ziegler: An urban legend?
Isikoff: ...allegations that appeared in the Steele dossier.
Isikoff delivered this story with a laughing tone. He seamlessly transitioned to what he then called the "real" point, i.e. "the
irony is Steele may be right, but it wasn't the Kremlin that had sexual kompromat on Donald Trump, it was the National Enquirer.
"
Recapping: the reporter who introduced Steele to the world (his September 23, 2016 story was the first to reference him as a source),
who wrote a book that even he concedes was seen as "validating" the pee tape story, suddenly backtracks and says the whole thing
may have been based on a Las Vegas strip act, but it doesn't matter because Stormy Daniels, etc.
Another story of this type involved a court case in which Webzilla and parent company XBT sued Steele and Buzzfeed over the mention
their firm in one of the memos. It came out in court testimony that Steele had culled information about XBT/Webzilla from a
2009 post on CNN's "iReports"
page .
Asked if he understood these posts came from random users and not CNN journalists who'd been fact-checked, Steele replied, "
I do not ."
This comical detail was similar to news that the second British Mi6 dossier released just before the Iraq invasion had been
plagiarized in part from a thirteen year-old student thesis from California State University, not even by intelligence people,
but by mid-level functionaries in Tony Blair's press office.
There were so many profiles of Steele as an "
astoundingly
diligent " spymaster straight
out of LeCarre : he was routinely
described like a LeCarre-ian grinder like the legendary George Smiley, a man in the shadows whose bookish intensity was belied
by his "average," "neutral," "quiet," demeanor, being "more low-key than Smiley." One would think it might have rated a mention that
our "Smiley" was cutting and pasting text like a community college freshman. But the story barely made news.
This has been a consistent pattern throughout #Russiagate. Step one: salacious headline. Step two, days or weeks later: news emerges
the story is shakier than first believed. Step three (in the best case) involves the story being walked back or retracted by the
same publication.
That's been rare. More often, when explosive #Russiagate headlines go sideways, the original outlets simply ignore the new development,
leaving the "retraction" process to conservative outlets that don't reach the original audiences.
This is a major structural flaw of the
new fully-divided media
landscape in which Republican media covers Democratic corruption and Democratic media covers Republican corruption. If neither
"side" feels the need to disclose its own errors and inconsistencies, mistakes accumulate quickly.
This has been the main difference between Russiagate and the WMD affair. Despite David Remnick's post-invasion protestations that
"nobody got [WMD] completely right," the Iraq war was launched against the objections of the 6 million or more people who did get
it right, and protested on the streets
. There was open skepticism of Bush claims dotting the press landscape from the start, with people like
Jack Shafer tearing apart every Judith Miller story
in print. Most reporters are Democrats and the people hawking the WMD story were mostly Republicans, so there was political space
for protest.
Russiagate happened in an opposite context. If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically, a fact that made
a number of reporters queasy about coming forward. #Russiagate became synonymous with #Resistance, which made public skepticism a
complicated proposition.
Early in the scandal, I appeared on To The Point, a California-based public radio show hosted by Warren Olney, with Corn of Mother
Jones. I knew David a little and had been friendly with him. He once hosted a book event for me in Washington. In the program, however,
the subject of getting facts right came up and Corn said this was not a time for reporters to be picking nits:
So Democrats getting overeager, overenthusiastic, stating things that may not be [unintelligible] true ? Well, tell me a political
issue where that doesn't happen. I think that's looking at the wrong end of the telescope.
I wrote him later and suggested that since we're in the press, and not really about anything except avoiding "things that may
not be true," maybe we had different responsibilities than "Democrats"? He wrote back:
Feel free to police the Trump opposition. But on the list of shit that needs to be covered these days, that's just not high
on my personal list.
Other reporters spoke of an internal struggle. When the Mueller indictment of the Internet Research Agency was met with exultation
in the media, New Yorker writer Adrian Chen, who broke the original IRA story, was
hesitant to come forward with some mild qualms about the way the story was being reported:
"Either I could stay silent and allow the conversation to be dominated by those pumping up the Russian threat," he said, "or I
could risk giving fodder to Trump and his allies."
"What I meant to write is, I wasn't skeptical," he said.
Years ago, in the midst of the WMD affair, Times public editor Daniel Okrent noted the paper's standard had moved from "Don't
get it first, get it right" to "Get it first and get it right." From there,
Okrent wrote , "the next devolution was an obvious one."
We're at that next devolution: first and wrong. The Russiagate era has so degraded journalism that even once "reputable" outlets
are now only about as right as politicians, which is to say barely ever, and then only by accident.
Early on, I was so amazed by the sheer quantity of Russia "bombshells" being walked back, I started to keep a list. It's well
above 50 stories now. As has been noted by Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept and others, if the mistakes were random, you'd
expect them in both directions , but Russiagate errors uniformly go the same way.
In some cases the stories are only partly wrong, as in the case of the famed "
17 intelligence agencies said Russia was behind the hacking " story (it was actually four: the Director of National Intelligence
"hand-picking" a team from the FBI, CIA, and NSA).
In other cases the stories were blunt false starts, resulting in ugly sets of matching headlines:
" Trump
Campaign Aides had repeated contacts with Russian Intelligence ," published by the Times on Valentine's Day, 2017, was an important,
narrative-driving "bombshell" that looked dicey from the start. The piece didn't say whether the contact was witting or unwitting,
whether the discussions were about business or politics, or what the contacts supposedly were at all.
Normally a reporter would want to know what the deal is before he or she runs a story accusing people of having dealings with
foreign spies. "Witting" or "Unwitting" ought to be a huge distinction, for instance. It soon after came out that people like former
CIA chief John Brennan don't think this is the case. "Frequently, people who are on a treasonous path do not know they're on a treasonous
path,"
he said, speaking of Trump's circle.
This seemed a dangerous argument, the kind of thing that led to trouble in the McCarthy years. But let's say the contacts were
serious. From a reporting point of view, you'd still need to know exactly what the nature of such contacts were before you run that
story, because the headline implication is grave. Moreover you'd need to know it well enough to report it, i.e. it's not enough to
be told a convincing story off-the-record, you need to be able to share with readers enough so that they can characterize the news
themselves.
Not to the Times, which ran the article without the specifics. Months later, Comey blew up this "contacts" story in public, saying,
" in the
main, it was not true ."
As was the case with the "17 agencies" error, which only got fixed when Clapper testified in congress and was forced to make the
correction under oath, the "repeated contacts" story was only disputed when Comey testified in congress, this time
before the
Senate Intelligence Committee . How many other errors of this type are waiting to be disclosed?
Even the mistakes caught were astounding. On December 1, 2017, ABC reporter Brian Ross claimed Trump "as a candidate" instructed
Michael Flynn to contact Russia. The news caused the Dow to plummet 350 points. The story was retracted almost immediately and
Ross was suspended .
Bloomberg reported Mueller subpoenaed Trump's Deutsche Bank accounts; the subpoenas turned out to be of
other
individuals' records. Fortune said C-SPAN
was hacked after Russia Today programming briefly interrupted coverage of a Maxine Waters floor address. The New York Times
also ran the story, and it's
still up, despite C-SPAN insisting its own "internal routing error" likely caused the feed to appear in place of its own broadcast.
CNN has its own separate sub-list of wrecks. Three of the network's journalists
resigned after a story purporting to tie Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund was retracted. Four more
CNN reporters (Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus) were bylined in a story that claimed Comey was expected
to refute Trump's claims he was told he wasn't the target of an investigation. Comey blew that one up, too.
In another CNN scoop gone awry, "
Email pointed Trump campaign to WikiLeaks documents ," the network's reporters were off by ten days in a "bombshell" that supposedly
proved the Trump campaign had foreknowledge of Wikileaks dumps. "It's, uh, perhaps not as significant as what we know now," offered
CNN's Manu Raju in a painful on-air retraction .
The worst stories were the ones never corrected. A particularly bad example is "
After Florida School Shooting,
Russian 'Bot' Army Pounced ," from the New York Times on Feb 18, 2018. The piece claimed Russians were trying to divide Americans
on social media after a mass shooting using Twitter hashtags like #guncontrolnow, #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting.
The Times ran this quote high up:
"This is pretty typical for them, to hop on breaking news like this," said Jonathon Morgan, chief executive of New Knowledge,
a company that tracks online disinformation campaigns. "The bots focus on anything that is divisive for Americans. Almost systematically."
About a year after this story came out, Times reporters Scott Shane and Ann Blinder
reported that the same outfit,
New Knowledge , and in particular that same Jonathon Morgan, had participated in a cockamamie scheme to fake Russian troll activity
in an Alabama Senate race. The idea was to try to convince voters Russia preferred the Republican.
The Times quoted a New Knowledge internal report about the idiotic Alabama scheme:
We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media
by a Russian botnet
The Parkland story was iffy enough when it came out, as Twitter
disputed
it, and another of the main sources for the initial report, former intelligence official Clint Watts, subsequently
said he was "not convinced" on the whole "bot thing."
But when one of your top sources turns out to have faked exactly the kind of activity described in your article, you should at
least take the quote out, or put an update online. No luck: the story remains up on the Times site, without disclaimers.
Russiagate institutionalized one of the worst ethical loopholes in journalism, which used to be limited mainly to local crime
reporting. It's always been a problem that we publish mugshots and names of people merely arrested but not yet found guilty. Those
stories live forever online and even the acquitted end up permanently unable to get jobs, smeared as thieves, wife-beaters, drunk
drivers, etc.
With Russiagate the national press abandoned any pretense that there's a difference between indictment and conviction. The most
disturbing story involved Maria Butina. Here authorities and the press shared responsibility. Thanks to an indictment that initially
said the Russian traded
sex for favors, the Times and other outlets flooded the news cycle with breathless stories about a redheaded slut-temptress come
to undermine democracy, a "real-life Red Sparrow," as ABC put it.
But a judge threw out the sex charge after "five minutes" when it turned out to be based on a
single joke text to a friend who had taken Butina's car for inspection.
It's pretty hard to undo public perception you're a prostitute once it's been in a headline, and, worse, the headlines are still
out there. You can still find stories like "
Maria Butina, Suspected
Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan " online in the New York Times.
Here a reporter might protest: how would I know? Prosecutors said she traded sex for money. Why shouldn't I believe them?
How about because, authorities have been lying their faces off to reporters since before electricity! It doesn't take much investigation
to realize the main institutional sources in the Russiagate mess – the security services, mainly – have extensive records of deceiving
the media.
As noted before, from World War I-era tales of striking union workers being German agents to the "missile gap" that wasn't (the
"gap" was leaked to the press before the Soviets had even one operational ICBM) to the Gulf of Tonkin mess to all the smears of people
like Martin Luther King, it's a wonder newspapers listen to whispers from government sources at all.
In the Reagan years National Security Adviser John Poindexter spread false stories about Libyan terrorist plots to The Wall Street
Journal and other papers. In the Bush years, Dick Cheney et al were selling manure by the truckload about various connections between
Iraq and al-Qaeda, infamously including a story that bomber Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague.
The New York Times
ran a story that Atta was in Prague in late October of 2001, even giving a date of the meeting with Iraqis, April 8, or "just
five months before the terrorist attacks." The Prague story was another example of a tale that seemed shaky because American officials
were putting the sourcing first on foreign intelligence, then on reporters themselves. Cheney cited the Prague report in subsequent
TV appearances, one of many instances of feeding reporters tidbits and then selling reports as independent confirmation.
It wasn't until three years later, in 2004, that Times reporter James Risen definitively killed the Atta-in-Prague canard (why
is it always Prague?) in a story entitled "
No evidence of meeting with Iraqi ." By then, of course, it was too late. The Times also
held a major dissenting piece by Risen about the WMD case, "C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports," until days
after war started. This is what happens when you start thumbing the scale.
This failure to demand specifics has been epidemic in Russiagate, even when good reporters have been involved. One of the biggest
"revelations" of this era involved a story that was broken first by a terrible reporter (the Guardian's Luke Harding) and followed
up by a good one (Jane Mayer of the New Yorker ). The key detail involved the elusive origin story of Russiagate.
Mayer's piece, the March 12, 2018 "
Christopher
Steele, the Man Behind The Trump Dossier " in the New Yorker , impacted the public mainly by seeming to bolster the credentials
of the dossier author. But it contained an explosive nugget far down. Mayer reported Robert Hannigan, then-head of the GCHQ (the
British analog to the NSA) intercepted a "stream of illicit communications" between "Trump's team and Moscow" at some point prior
to August 2016. Hannigan flew to the U.S. and briefed CIA director John Brennan about these communications. Brennan later testified
this inspired the original FBI investigation.
When I read that, a million questions came to mind, but first: what did "illicit" mean?
If something "illicit" had been captured by GCHQ, and this led to the FBI investigation (one of several conflicting public explanations
for the start of the FBI probe, incidentally), this would go a long way toward clearing up the nature of the collusion charge. If
they had something, why couldn't they tell us what it was? Why didn't we deserve to know?
I asked the Guardian: "Was any attempt made to find out what those communications were? How was the existence of these communications
confirmed? Did anyone from the Guardian see or hear these intercepts, or transcripts?"
Their one-sentence reply:
The Guardian has strict and rigorous procedures when dealing with source material.
That's the kind of answer you'd expect from a transnational bank, or the army, not a newspaper.
I asked Mayer the same questions. She was more forthright, noting that, of course, the story had originally been broken
by Harding , whose
own report said "the precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public."
She added that "afterwards I independently confirmed aspects of [Harding's piece] with several well-informed sources," and "spent
months on the Steele story [and] traveled to the UK twice for it." But, she wrote, "the Russiagate story, like all reporting on sensitive
national security issues, is difficult."
I can only infer she couldn't find out what "illicit" meant despite proper effort. The detail was published anyway. It may not
have seemed like a big deal, but I think it was.
To be clear, I don't necessarily disbelieve the idea that there were "illicit" contacts between Trump and Russians in early 2015
or before. But if there were such contacts, I can't think of any legitimate reason why their nature should be withheld from the public.
If authorities can share reasons for concern with foreign countries like Israel, why should American voters not be so entitled?
Moreover the idea that we need to keep things secret to protect sources and methods and "tradecraft" (half the press corps became
expert in goofy spy language over the last few years, using terms like "SIGINT" like they've known them their whole lives), why are
we
leaking news of our ability to hear Russian officials cheerin g Trump's win?
Failure to ask follow-up questions happened constantly with this story. One of the first reports that went sideways involved a
similar dynamic: the contention that some leaked DNC emails were forgeries.
MSNBC's "Intelligence commentator" Malcolm Nance, perhaps the most enthusiastic source of questionable #Russiagate news this side
of Twitter conspiracist Louise Mensch,
tweeted on October 11, 2016: " #PodestaEmails
are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries &
#blackpropaganda not even professionally done."
As noted in The Intercept and elsewhere, this was re-reported by the likes of
David Frum (a key member of the club that has now contributed to both the WMD and Russiagate panics) and MSNBC host
Joy Reid . The reports didn't stop until roughly October of 2016, among other things because the Clinton campaign kept suggesting
to reporters the emails were fake. This could have been stopped sooner if examples of a forgery had been demanded from the Clinton
campaign earlier.
Another painful practice that became common was failing to confront your own sources when news dispositive to what they've told
you pops up. The omnipresent Clapper told Chuck Todd on March 5, 2017, without equivocation, that there had been no FISA application
involving Trump or his campaign. " I can deny it ," he
said.
It soon after came out this wasn't true. The FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page. This was not a small misstatement by Clapper,
because his appearance came a day after Trump claimed in a tweet he'd had his "
wires tapped ." Trump was widely ridiculed for this claim, perhaps appropriately so, but in addition to the Page news, it later
came out there had been a FISA warrant of Paul Manafort as well, during which time Trump may have been the subject of "
incidental " surveillance.
Whether or not this was meaningful, or whether these warrants were justified, are separate questions. The important thing is,
Clapper either lied to Todd, or else he somehow didn't know the FBI had obtained these warrants. The latter seems absurd and unlikely.
Either way, Todd ought to been peeved and demanded an explanation. Instead, he had
Clapper back on again within months and gave him the usual softball routine, never confronting him about the issue.
Reporters repeatedly got burned and didn't squawk about it. Where are the outraged stories about all the scads of anonymous "people
familiar with the matter" who put reporters in awkward spots in the last years? Why isn't McClatchy demanding the heads of whatever
"four people with knowledge" convinced them to
double down on the Cohen-in-Prague story ?
Why isn't every reporter who used "New Knowledge" as a source about salacious
Russian troll stories
out for their heads (or the heads of the congressional sources who passed this stuff on), after reports they faked Russian trolling?
How is it possible NBC and other outlets continued to use
New Knowledge as a source in stories identifying antiwar Democrat Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian-backed candidate?
How do the Guardian's editors not already have Harding's head in a vice for hanging them out to dry on the most
dubious un-retracted story in modern history – the tale that the most watched human on earth, Julian Assange, had somehow been
visited in the Ecuadorian embassy by Paul Manafort without leaving any record? I'd be dragging Harding's "well placed source" into
the office and beating him with a hose until he handed them something that would pass for corroborating evidence.
The lack of blowback over episodes in which reporters were put in public compromised situations speaks to the overly cozy relationships
outlets had with official sources. Too often, it felt like a team effort, where reporters seemed to think it was their duty to take
the weight if sources pushed them to overreach. They had absolutely no sense of institutional self-esteem about this.
Being on any team is a bad look for the press, but the press being on team FBI/CIA is an atrocity, Trump or no Trump. Why bother
having a press corps at all if you're going to go that route?
This posture all been couched as anti-Trump solidarity, but really, did former CIA chief John Brennan – the same Brennan who should
himself have faced charges for
lying to congress about hacking the computers of Senate staff – need the press to
whine on his behalf when Trump yanked his security clearance? Did we need the press to hum Aretha Franklin tunes, as ABC did,
and chide Trump for lacking
R-E-S-P-E-C-T for the CIA? We don't have better things to do than that "work"?
This catalogue of factual errors and slavish stenography will stand out when future analysts look back at why the "MSM" became
a joke during this period, but they were only a symptom of a larger problem. The bigger issue was a radical change in approach.
A lot of #Russiagate coverage became straight-up conspiracy theory, what Baker politely called "connecting the dots ." This was
allowed because the press committed to a collusion narrative from the start, giving everyone cover to indulge in behaviors that would
never be permitted in normal times.
Such was the case with Jonathan
Chait's #Russiagate opus , "PRUMP TUTIN: Will Trump be Meeting With his Counterpart – or his Handler?" The story was also pitched
as "What if Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987," which recalls the joke from The Wire: "
Yo, Herc, what if your mother and father never met ?" What
if isn't a good place to be in this business.
This cover story (!) in New York magazine was released in advance of a planned "face-to-face" summit between Trump and Putin,
and posited Trump had been under Russian control for decades. Chait noted Trump visited the Soviet Union in 1987 and came back "fired
up with political ambition." He offered the possibility that this was a coincidence, but added:
Indeed, it seems slightly insane to contemplate the possibility that a secret relationship between Trump and Russia dates back
this far. But it can't be dismissed completely.
I searched the Chait article up and down for reporting that would justify the suggestion Trump had been a Russian agent dating
back to the late eighties, when, not that it matters, Russia was a different country called the Soviet Union.
Only two facts in the piece could conceivably have been used to support the thesis: Trump met with a visiting Soviet official
in 1986, and visited the Soviet Union in 1987. That's it. That's your cover story.
Worse, Chait's theory was first espoused in Lyndon Larouche's "
Elephants and Donkeys " newsletter
in 1987, under a headline, "Do Russians have a Trump card?" This is barrel-scraping writ large.
It's a mania. Putin is literally in our underpants. Maybe, if we're lucky, New York might someday admit
its report claiming Russians set up an anti-masturbation hotline to trap and blackmail random Americans is suspicious, not just
because it seems absurd on its face, but because its source is the same "New Knowledge" group that admitted to faking Russian influence
operations in Alabama.
This ultimately will be the endgame of the Russia charade. They will almost certainly never find anything like the wild charges
and Manchurian Candidate theories elucidated in the Steele report. But the years of panic over the events of 2016 will lead to radical
changes in everything from press regulation to foreign policy, just as the WMD canard led to torture, warrantless surveillance, rendition,
drone assassination, secret budgets and open-ended, undeclared wars from Somalia to Niger to Syria. The screw-ups will be forgotten,
but accelerated vigilance will remain.
It's hard to know what policy changes are appropriate because the reporting on everything involving the Russian threat in the
last two to three years has been so unreliable.
I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece
of the story seemed "solid," but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered since then, still based on an "
assessment " by the intelligence services that
always had issues, including the use of things like RT's "anti-American" coverage of fracking as part of its case. The government
didn't even examine the DNC's server, the kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous.
We won't know how much of any of this to take seriously until the press gets out of bed with the security services and looks at
this whole series of events all over again with fresh eyes, as journalists, not political actors. That means being open to asking
what went wrong with this story, in addition to focusing so much energy on Trump and Russia.
The WMD mess had massive real-world negative impact, leading to over a hundred thousand deaths and trillions in lost taxpayer
dollars. Unless Russiagate leads to a nuclear conflict, we're unlikely to ever see that level of consequence.
Still, Russiagate has led to unprecedented cooperation between the government and Internet platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and
Google, all of which are censoring pages on the left, right, and in between in the name of preventing the "sowing of discord." The
story also had a profound impact on the situation in places like Syria, where Russian and American troops have sat across the Euphrates
River from one another, two amped-up nuclear powers at a crossroads.
As a purely journalistic failure, however, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations
this time around dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it's led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission. We've become sides-choosers,
obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.
We had the sense to eventually look inward a little in the WMD affair, which is the only reason we escaped that episode with any
audience left. Is the press even capable of that kind of self-awareness now? WMD damaged our reputation. If we don't turn things
around, this story will destroy it
Taibbi is spot on, and in depth with this writing. The main stream media sold Americans on the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Almost 2 decades later, we have spent 6 trillion dollars, 8 millions lives have been lost, and millions of refugees have flooded
out of those countries, causing instability in Europe and beyond. For the past 2 years, 24/7, we have not been able to escape
the claims of Russiagate. He does not mention how the very same media gave Trump 24/7 coverage long before he was elected, and
in fact this free publicity, is probably why Trump is in the White House today. Without the constant press coverage of his campaign,
coverage that was not provided to other candidates, he would most likely not have found his way to the White House. Taibbi does
not go on to tell us what the motivation of the press is, or what he thinks can be done. News shows in the US have become little
more than entertainment. Many of us no longer rely on main stream press for any real news. The mass media has become irrelevant
at it's best, and dangerous, at it's worst. The driving force behind the so called news today, is the advertising dollars, and
the politics of the owners of the networks. How can we have a "free press" when just a few individuals own all the major news
outlets? We are not going to get the real news on tv of from the big newspapers, as long as the power is in the hands of a few
rich and powerful individuals, who decide what is news.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" - Alexander Pope
The rash or inexperienced will attempt things that wiser people are more cautious of.
Finally the libs will agree that guns do have their place in society. These crazy zealots may just blow their own brains out
or just find the nearest cliff. Ace Hardware is loading up on rope.
hmmm....just imagine if - sleyers money contribution fo impeach trump was turned into a movie where a "sponsor" drew up a hit
list of batshit crazy MSM "personalities" to include late night "comfuckedupedians"
Even if you were stupid enough to believe Trump was getting dirt on Hillary from the Russians, what is wrong with that? Is
there a law against that? Why is it OK for Obama and the FBI to get away with wiretapping Trump during the election? Why is it
OK for NSA to wiretap All Americans and store all their conversations and internet traffic on hard drives?
Steele, Orbis, Pablo Miller, Salisbury, Porton Down, golden-shower dossier supposedly written by a native Russian speaker with
an intelligence background....it all makes me wonder what happened to Skripal.
"Skripalgate" is suppressed by UK law. All russians are evil in the UK. The fact that (as with tony Bliar and yellowcake Iraq)
any sitting government can prosecute another country without a trial, witnesses or evidence - as in the Skripals and within the
FUKUS cabal that bombed syria because of - "chlorine barrel bomb attacks on civilians" who later showed up unscathed in Den Haag.
UK governments cannot be held to account for their actions domestically or overseas.
Both parties have been playing up the threat from Russia for decades. The Military Industrial Complex was built on creating
fear about the possibility of war with Russian. The military industrial complex owns Congress, so of course Congress is going
to play up this threat. " The reason why media is working so hard to create the impression that Russia is actively conspiring
against is because conflict with the former Soviet Union is good for business." We can expect this to continue in one form or
another. If Americans were not afraid of Russia, we would not support a defense budget that is equal to all other countries in
the world combined.
Right. The depth of your analysis is impressive. You seem to have an unlimited knowledge of world and national affairs too.
Other than some stalking tendencies, why do you post on ZH? You don't really seem to have any interest in the content, or the
discussion.
I dont want to type up everything that led me to believe this. But the racism, his empathy towards certain muslims groups and
how he treated the war, the prisoner release, the sailors broadcasted on tv about drifting into territorial waters, I mean it
was so obvious how he felt about America.
Pile on his efforts to interfere in the election and eavesdrop, unmasking with Hillary getting and receiving emails from her
home brew server not to mention her foundation pulling in 145 million from Russia.
The CIA is sickening to what has developed over the last 20 years
Blind: If so, it just means it will not be reported on in the MainStream Media(MSM) and soon forgotten.
The same people who own the private central bank and currency, also own the MSM, and they control the narrative on ALL TOPICS.
And control of narrative mean control of what people think.
Control of money and mind means TOTAL control of a country.
Nothing will change until control of minds is returned to the people, then issuance of currency can be returned to the government.
Alex Jones' of Infowars got it right when he said "There's a war on for your mind!" ... even though he became a turncoat himself,
soon after.
Hillary lost a freaking election. After almost 3 freaking years of coup d'état the left deserves mocking humiliation. Mock
them ruthlessly. Never, ever let them forget the horrible thing that they did.
Never stop making fun of them and reminding them how stupid and crazy they acted during this humiliating period of US history.
Never let them forget what they did to the nation or what they cost us all. Never let Democrats forget how much time and energy
they wasted, how very, very wrong they were.
Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this moronic load of Russia! Russia!
Russia! has utterly discredited themselves for life. They executed and failed to accomplish a coup d'état. These are the very
last people anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world or an ice cream truck.
Refuse them, laugh at them, ignore them. They earned it and deserve nothing but the greatest disdain.
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't.
Of course there isn't. But this doesn't mean that a prosecutor like Mueller can prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. In
fact it is quite likely that he cannot. The only charge that should be fairly easy to establish is obstruction of justice.
Without knowing what is in the report, Taibbi really jumps the gun here. Especially given the comparison to WMDs.
I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion because I followed, and chose to believe, a credible diplomat like Hans
Blix over the dog and pony show that Colin Powell put on. But WMDs are very tangible you either find the hardware or you do not.
Yet, what Putin and Trump discuss without a single other American in the room nobody knows but the Kremlin and Trump.
"It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came
together and supported those ideals who have made the difference.
They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We
can do this again ."
Hardly the call for violent civil war at which it has been portrayed.
The most coiffed, manicured, made up sacks of **** ever to glorify the airwaves tell US what THEY think and get paid handsome
salaries for their effort to overthrow the American system. Freedom of Speech? That'll be gone in a heartbeat if THEY get power.
We have an obligation to not just protect it but a greater one to preserve it.
"I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now." - exce
The State Department paused its investigation of the Secretary's emails so as not to interfere with the Mueller investigation.
Here we see Taibbi writes an exhaustive condemnation of the Western press while leaving out the very crux of the story, the very
source of the stolen DNC emails was Clapper and Brennan pretending to be Guccifer 2.0.
Pitiful attempt at redemption there Matt. Seriously, go **** your self.
"After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians communicating in English include: definite
and indefinite articles, the use of presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I
constructed a corpus of Guccifer 2.0's communications
and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The
results of this work
corroborate Professor Connolly's assessment.
Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use inconsistently broken English at
times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken,
did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
To date, Connolly's language study has not drawn any significant objections or criticism."
Here's the goddam thing IMO. There is this thing called freedom of the press, it's constitutionally protected, no different
than the right to bear arms.
But just because I have the right to carry an M+A 9mm around, that doesn't mean I can point it at the guy who cut me off in
traffic. In that case, I go to jail.
For almost three years now, I've been hearing "bombshell" after unsourced "bombshell" from CNN/MSNBC/WaPo/NPR/NYT et. al. Here's
how it usually goes:
"NPR has been unable to independently confirm, but other major news organizations are reporting that . . ."
"CNN is working to confirm a bombshell report from the Washington Post . . ."
"The New York Times, echoing other major news outlets, is reporting that . . ."
And now let's turn to our panel of experts to "unpack" this latest revelation . . .
These people have criminally abused their rights, and those rights need to be taken away.
Otschelnik,
If Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, Judy Woodruff, Chuck Todd, Anderson Cooper, Brian Stelter, Chris Hayes, Mika Brzezinski,
Don Lemon, Alysin Camerota, Lawrence O'Donnell had the slightest inkling of professional integrity, and human conscience -
they'd commit seppuku on national live TeeVee to restore their honor.
A rope leash, 3 hours ago
In his effort to cleanse himself of the slimy residue of his profession, Tiabbi has written a fine piece here, a nice
little documentation of press collusion with government spooks and political operatives.
If a little honest reporting will offer some redemption to damned journalists, his name was Seth Rich.
hooligan2009, 3 hours ago
don't forget that Obama was PERSONALLY and DIRECTLY involved in all aspects of Russiagate.
read between these lines
On Oct. 14, 2016, Page again wrote to McCabe, this time concerning a meeting with the White House.
"Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there,
and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with
her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case."
newworldorder, 3 hours ago
The simple truth here is that most Americans no longer have any critical thinking skills, - all media realized this a long
time ago, and catered to their audience.
The Benjamin Franklin famous quote in answer to the question of "what kind of government have you given us?" rings very hollow
after 240+ years. The "Republic" exists in name only, because its people have not protected it, after the passing of the WW2
generation.
Unrestricted, open borders invasion disguised as alleged migration, and the legalization of an eventual 100+ million new
"migrant" voters will be the final nail on the coffin of the US Republic by 2030.
Mob rule will finally destroy the greatest Republic ever conceived by the mind of men.
Mike Rotsch, 3 hours ago (Edited)
If "open borders" is your measuring stick on Americans' critical-thinking skills, then where does that place Europeans?
They actually have them officially.
Paracelsus, 3 hours ago
Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and
the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check.
Ghaddafi actually warned the west that after him would come a deluge of illegals (okay refugees: young males, black, often
Islamic, with little respect for women or experience with western society).
While I have reservations about Trump and his policies, the MSM owe him a huge mea culpa.
This month marks the 20th anniversary of Operation Allied Force, NATO's 78-day air war against Yugoslavia. It was a war waged
as much against Serbian civilians – hundreds of whom perished – as it was against Slobodan Milošević's forces, and it was a campaign
of breathtaking hypocrisy and selective outrage. More than anything, it was a war that by President Bill Clinton's own admission
was fought for the sake of NATO's credibility.
One Man's Terrorist
Our story begins not in the war-torn Balkans of the 1990s but rather in the howling wilderness of Afghanistan at the end of the
1980s as defeated Soviet invaders withdrew from a decade of guerrilla warfare into the twilight of a once-mighty empire. The United
States, which had provided arms, funding and training for the mujahideen fighters who had so bravely resisted the Soviet occupation,
stopped supporting the jihadis as soon as the last Red Army units rolled across the Hairatan Bridge and back into the USSR. Afghanistan
descended deeper into civil war.
The popular narrative posits that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network, Washington's former mujahideen allies, turned on the
West after the US stationed hundreds of thousands of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia – home to two out of three of Sunni Islam's holiest
sites – during Operation Desert Shield in 1990. Since then, the story goes, the relationship between the jihadists and their former
benefactors has been one of enmity, characterized by sporadic terror attacks and fierce US retribution. The real story, however,
is something altogether different.
From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon flew
thousands of al-Qaeda mujahideen, often accompanied by US Special Forces, from Central Asia to Europe to reinforce Bosnian Muslims
as they fought Serbs to gain their independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Clinton administration
armed and trained these fighters in
flagrant violation of United Nations accords; weapons purchased by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran were secretly shipped to the jihadists
via Croatia, which netted a hefty profit from each transaction. The official Dutch inquiry into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in
which thousands of Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys were slaughtered by Bosnian Serb and Serbian paramilitary forces, concluded
that the United States was "very closely involved" in these arms transfers.
When the Bosnian war ended in 1995 the United States was faced with the problem of thousands of Islamist warriors on European
soil. Many of them joined the burgeoning Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which mainly consisted of ethnic Albanian Kosovars from what
was still southwestern Yugoslavia. Emboldened by the success of the Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians and Bosnians who had won their
independence from Belgrade as Yugoslavia literally balkanized, KLA fighters began to violently expel as many non-Albanians from Kosovo
as they could. Roma, Jews, Turks and, above all, Serbs were all victims of Albanian ethnic cleansing.
The United States was initially very honest in its assessment of the KLA. Robert Gelbard, the US special envoy to Bosnia,
called it "without any question a terrorist
group." KLA backers allegedly included Osama bin Laden
and other Islamic radicals; the group largely bankrolled its activities by trafficking heroin and sex slaves. The State Department
accordingly added the KLA to its list of terrorist organizations in 1998.
However, despite all its nastiness the KLA endeared itself to Washington by fighting the defiant Yugoslavian President Slobodan
Milošević. By this time Yugoslavia, once composed of eight nominally autonomous republics, had been reduced by years of bloody civil
war to a rump of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. To Serbs, the dominant ethnic group in what remained of the country, Kosovo is regarded
as the very birthplace of their nation. Belgrade wasn't about to let it go without a fight and everyone knew it, especially the Clinton
administration. Clinton's hypocrisy was immediately evident; when Chechnya fought for its independence from Moscow and Russian forces
committed horrific atrocities in response, the American president
called the war an internal Russian affair
and barely criticized Russian President Boris Yeltsin. But when Milošević resorted to brute force in an attempt to prevent Yugoslavia
from further fracturing, he soon found himself a marked man.
Although NATO
called
the KLA "the main initiator of the violence" in Kosovo and blasted "what appears to be a deliberate campaign of provocation" against
the Serbs, the Clinton administration was nevertheless determined to attack the Milošević regime. US intelligence confirmed that
the KLA was indeed provoking harsh retaliatory strikes by Serb forces in a bid to draw the United States and NATO into the conflict.
President Clinton, however, apparently wasn't listening. The NATO powers, led by the United States, issued Milošević an ultimatum
they knew he could never accept: allow NATO to occupy all of Kosovo and have free reign in Serbia as well. Assistant US Secretary
of State James Rubin later
admitted that "publicly we had to make clear we were seeking an agreement but privately we knew the chances of the Serbs agreeing
were quite small."
Wagging the Dog?
In 1997 the film Wag the Dog debuted to rave reviews. The dark comedy concerns a Washington, DC spin doctor and a Hollywood
producer who fabricate a fictional war in Albania to distract American voters from a presidential sex scandal. Many observers couldn't
help but draw parallels between the film and the real-life events of 1998-99, which included the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton's
impeachment and a very real war brewing in the Balkans. As in Wag the Dog , there were exaggerated or completely fabricated
tales of atrocities, and as in the film the US and NATO powers tried to sell their war as a humanitarian intervention. An attack
on Yugoslavia, we were told, was needed to avert Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanians.
There were two main problems with this. First, there was no Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanian Kosovars until after NATO
began mercilessly bombing Yugoslavia. The German government
issued several reports confirming this. One, from October 1998, reads, in part:
The violent actions of the Yugoslav military and police since February 1998 were aimed at separatist activities and are no
proof of a persecution of the whole Albanian ethnic group in Kosovo or a part of it. What was involved in the Yugoslav violent actions
and excesses since February 1998 was a selective forcible action against the military underground movement (especially the KLA) A
state program or persecution aimed at the whole ethnic group of Albanians exists neither now nor earlier.
Subsequent German government reports issued through the winter of 1999 tell a similar story. "Events since February and March
1998 do not evidence a persecution program based on Albanian ethnicity," stated one report released exactly one month before the
NATO bombing started. "The measures taken by the armed Serbian forces are in the first instance directed toward combating the KLA
and its supposed adherents and supporters."
While Serbs certainly did commit atrocities (especially after the ferocious NATO air campaign began), these were often greatly
exaggerated by the Clinton administration and the US corporate mainstream media. Clinton claimed – and the media dutifully parroted
– that 600,000 Albanians were "trapped within Kosovo lacking shelter, short of food, afraid to go home or buried in mass graves."
This was completely false . US diplomat David
Scheffer claimed that "225,000 ethnic Albanian men are missing, presumed dead." Again, a
total fabrication . The FBI, International War Crimes
Tribunal and global forensics experts flocked to Kosovo in droves after the NATO bombs stopped falling; the total number of victims
they found was around 1 percent of the figure claimed by the United States.
However, once NATO attacked, the Serb response was predictably furious. Shockingly, NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark declared
that the ensuing Serbian atrocities against the Albanian Kosovar population had been
"fully anticipated" and were apparently of little concern to Washington.
Not only did NATO and the KLA provoke a war with Yugoslavia, they did so knowing that many innocent civilians would be killed, maimed
or displaced by the certain and severe reprisals carried out by enraged Serb forces. Michael McGwire, a former top NATO planner,
acknowledged that "to describe the bombing as a humanitarian intervention is really grotesque."
Bloody Hypocrites
The other big problem with the US claiming it was attacking Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds was that the Clinton administration
had recently allowed – and was at the time allowing – far worse humanitarian catastrophes to rage without American intervention.
More than 800,000 men, women and children were slaughtered while Clinton and other world leaders stood idly by during the 1994 Rwandan
genocide. The US also courted the medievally brutal
Taliban regime in hopes of achieving stability in Afghanistan and with an eye toward building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through
Afghanistan to Pakistan. Clinton also did nothing to stop Russian forces from viciously crushing nationalist uprisings in the Caucuses,
where Chechen rebels were fighting for their independence much the same as Albanian Kosovars were fighting the Serbs.
Colombia, the Western Hemisphere's leading recipient of US military and economic aid, was waging a fierce, decades-long campaign
of terror against leftist insurgents and long-suffering indigenous peoples. Despite
horrific brutality and pervasive human rights violations, US aid to Bogotá increased year after year. In Turkey, not only did
Clinton do nothing to prevent government forces from committing widespread atrocities against Kurdish separatists, the administration
positively encouraged its NATO ally with billions of dollars in loans and arms sales. Saudi Arabia, home to the most repressive fundamentalist
regime this side of Afghanistan, was – and remains – a favored US ally despite having one of the
world's worst human rights
records. The list goes on and on.
Much closer to the conflict at hand, the United States tacitly approved the largest ethnic cleansing campaign in Europe since
the Holocaust when as many as 200,000 Serbs were
forcibly expelled from the Krajina region of Croatia by that country's US-trained military during Operation Storm in August 1995.
Krajina Serbs had purged the region of its Croat minority four years earlier in their own ethnic cleansing campaign; now it was the
Serbs' turn to be on the receiving end of the horror. Croatian forces stormed through Krajina, shelling towns and slaughtering innocent
civilians. The sick and the elderly who couldn't escape were executed or burned alive in their homes as Croatian soldiers machine-gunned
convoys of fleeing refugees.
"Painful for the Serbs"
Washington's selective indignation at Serb crimes both real and imagined is utterly inexcusable when held up to the horrific and
seemingly indiscriminate atrocities committed during the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia. The prominent Australian journalist
John Pilger noted that "in the attack on Serbia, 2 percent of NATO's missiles hit military targets, the rest hit hospitals, schools,
factories, churches and broadcast studios." There is little doubt that US and allied warplanes and missiles were targeting the Serbian
people as much as, or even more than, Serb forces. The bombing knocked out electricity in 70 percent of the country as well as much
of its water supply.
NATO warplanes also deliberately bombed a building containing the headquarters of Serbian state television and radio in the middle
of densely populated central Belgrade. The April 23, 1999 attack occurred without warning while 200 employees were at work in the
building. Among the 16 people killed were a makeup artist, a cameraman, a program director, an editor and three security guards.
There is no doubt that the attack was meant to demoralize the Serbian people. There is also no doubt that those who ordered the bombing
knew exactly what outcome to expect: a NATO planning document viewed by Bill Clinton, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President
Jacques Chirac forecast as
many as 350 deaths in the event of such an attack, with as many as 250 of the victims expected to be innocent civilians living in
nearby apartments.
Allied commanders wanted to fight a "zero casualty war" in Yugoslavia. As in zero casualties for NATO forces, not the people they
were bombing. "This will be painful for the Serbs," Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon sadistically predicted. It sure was. NATO warplanes
flew sorties at 15,000 feet (4,500 meters), a safe height for the pilots. But this decreased accuracy and increased civilian casualties
on the ground. One attack on central Belgrade mistakenly
hit Dragiša Mišović hospital with a laser-guided "precision" bomb, obliterating an intensive care unit and destroying a children's
ward while wounding several pregnant women who had the misfortune of being in labor at the time of the attack. Dragana Krstić, age
23, was recovering from cancer surgery – she just had a 10-pound (4.5 kg) tumor removed from her stomach – when the bombs blew jagged
shards of glass into her neck and shoulders. "I don't know which hurts more," she lamented, "my stomach, my shoulder or my heart."
Dragiša Mišović wasn't the only hospital bombed by NATO. Cluster bombs dropped by fighter jets of the Royal Netherlands Air Force
struck a hospital and a market in the city of Niš on May 7,
killing 15 people and wounding 60 more. An emergency clinic
and medical dispensary were also bombed in the
mining town of Aleksinac on April 6, killing at least five people and wounding dozens more.
Bridges were favorite targets of NATO bombing. An international passenger train traveling from Belgrade to Thessaloniki, Greece
was
blown apart by two missiles as it crossed over Grdelica gorge on April 12. Children and a pregnant woman were among the 15 people
killed in the attack; 16 other passengers were wounded. Allied commander Gen. Wesley Clark claimed the train, which had been damaged
by the first missile, had been traveling too rapidly for the pilot to abort the second strike on the bridge. He then offered up a
doctored video that was sped up more than three times so that the pilot's behavior would appear acceptable.
On May 1, at least 24 civilians, many of them children, were killed when NATO warplanes
bombed a bridge in Lužane just as a bus was crossing.
An ambulance rushing to the scene of the carnage was struck by a second bomb. On the sunny spring afternoon of May 30, a bridge over
the Velika Morava River in the small town of Vavarin was
bombed by low-flying German Air Force F-16 fighters while hundreds of local residents gathered nearby to celebrate an Orthodox
Christian holiday. Eleven people died, most of them when the warplanes returned and bombed the people who rushed to the bridge to
help those wounded in the first strike.
No One Is Safe
The horrors suffered by the villagers of Surdulica shows that no one in Serbia was safe from NATO's fury. They endured some 175
bombardments during one three-week period alone, with 50 houses destroyed and 600 others damaged in a town with only around 10,000
residents. On April 27, 20 civilians, including 12 children,
died when bombs meant to
destroy an army barracks slammed into a residential neighborhood. As many as 100 others were wounded in the incident. Tragedy
befell the tiny town again on May 31 when NATO
warplanes returned to bomb an ammunition depot but instead hit an old people's home; 23 civilians, most of them helpless elderly
men and women, were blown to pieces. Dozens more were wounded. The US military initially said "there were no errant weapons" in the
attack. However, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre later testified before Congress that it "was a case of the pilot getting confused."
The CIA was also apparently confused when it relied on what it claimed was an outdated map to approve a Stealth Bomber strike
on what turned out to be the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Three Chinese journalists were killed and 27 other people were wounded.
Some people aren't so sure the attack was an accident – Britain's Observer later
reported that the US deliberately bombed the
embassy after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications.
There were plenty of other accidents, some of them horrifically tragic and others just downright bizarre. Two separate attacks
on the very Albanians NATO was claiming to help killed 160 people, many of them women and children. On April 14, NATO warplanes bombed
refugees along a 12-mile (19-km) stretch of road between the towns of Gjakova and Deçan in western Kosovo, killing 73 people including
16 children and wounding 36 more. Journalists reported
a grisly scene of "bodies charred or blown to pieces, tractors reduced to twisted wreckage and houses in ruins." Exactly one month
later, another column of refugees was
bombed near Koriša, killing
87 – mostly women, children and the elderly – and wounding 60 others. In the downright bizarre category, a wildly errant NATO missile
struck a residential neighborhood in the Bulgarian capital Sofia, some 40 miles (64 km) outside of Serbia. The American AGM-88 HARM
missile blew the roof off
of a man's house while he was shaving in his bathroom.
NATO's "Murderous Thugs"
As the people of Yugoslavia were being terrorized by NATO's air war, the terrorists of the Kosovo Liberation Army stepped up their
atrocities against Serbs and Roma in Kosovo. NATO troops deployed there to keep the peace often failed to protect these people from
the KLA's brutal campaign. More than 164,000 Serbs fled or
were forcibly driven from the Albanian-dominated province and by the summer of 2001 KLA ethnic cleansing had rendered Kosovo almost
entirely Albanian, with just a few die-hard Serb holdouts living in fear and surrounded by barbed wire.
The KLA soon expanded its war into neighboring Macedonia. Although NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson called the terror group
"murderous thugs," the United States – now with George W. Bush as president – continued to offer its invaluable support. National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice personally
intervened in an attempt to persuade Ukraine to halt arms sales to the Macedonian army and when a group of 400 KLA fighters were
surrounded at Aracinovo in June 2001, NATO ordered Macedonian forces to hold off their attack while a convoy of US Army vehicles
rescued the besieged militants. It later
emerged that 17 American military advisers were embedded with the KLA at Aracinovo.
Credibility Conundrum
The bombing of Yugoslavia was really about preserving the credibility of the United States and NATO. The alliance's saber rattling
toward Belgrade had painted it into a corner from which the only way out was with guns blazing. Failure to follow threats with deadly
action, said President Clinton, "would discredit NATO." Clinton
added
that "our mission is clear, to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose." The president seemed willfully ignorant of NATO's
real purpose, which is to defend member states from outside attack. British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed with Clinton,
declaring on the eve of the war that
"to walk away now would destroy NATO's credibility." Gary Dempsey, a foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute,
wrote that the Clinton administration
"transformed a conflict that posed no threat to the territorial integrity, national sovereignty or general welfare of the United
States into a major test of American resolve."
Waging or prolonging war for credibility's sake is always dangerous and seems always to yield disastrous results. Tens of thousands
of US troops and many times as many Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian soldiers and civilians died while Richard Nixon sought an "honorable"
way out of Vietnam. Ronald Reagan's dogged defense of US credibility cost the lives of 299 American and French troops killed in Hezbollah's
1983 Beirut barracks bombing. This time, ensuring American credibility meant backing the vicious KLA – some of whose fighters had
trained at Osama bin Laden's terror camps in Afghanistan. This, despite the fact that al-Qaeda had already been responsible for deadly
attacks against the United States, including the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
It is highly questionable whether bombing Yugoslavia affirmed NATO's credibility in the short term. In the long term, it certainly
did not. The war marked the first and only time NATO had ever attacked a sovereign state. It did so unilaterally, absent any threat
to any member nation, and without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. "If NATO can go for military action without
international blessing, it calls into question the reliability of NATO as a security partner," Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak,
then Moscow's ambassador to NATO, told me at a San Francisco reception.
Twenty years later, Operation Allied force has been all but forgotten in the United States. In a country that has been waging
nonstop war on terrorism for almost the entire 21st century, the 1999 NATO air war is but a footnote in modern American history.
Serbs, however, still seethe at the injustice and hypocrisy of it all. The bombed-out ruins of the old Yugoslav Ministry of Defense,
Radio Television of Serbia headquarters and other buildings serve as constant, painful reminders of the horrors endured by the Serbian
people in service of NATO's credibility.
Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based author and activist. His work, which focuses on issues of war and peace and human rights,
is archived atwww.brettwilkins.com
But Clintons are mobsters in disguise, so what's the difference. Jared Kushner father is as close to a mobster as one can get (hiring a prostitute to compromise relative is one of his tricks)
Notable quotes:
"... Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale ..."
Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to
work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale
Navi 9:50 AM - 22 Mar 2019
"It's already happening" while the DCCC is trying their best to stop primary challenges is a little shortsighted no? If you
don't call out what is wrong what are you really 'fixing'? We can walk and chew gum at the same time!
As usual, Trump
made the announcement
of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials...
President Donald Trump's tweet on Thursday recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory surprised members of his own
Middle East peace team, the State Department, and Israeli officials.
U.S. diplomats and White House aides had believed the Golan Heights issue would be front and center at next week's meetings
between Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. But they were unprepared for any presidential
announcement this week.
No formal U.S. process or executive committees were initiated to review the policy before Trump's decision, and the diplomats
responsible for implementing the policy were left in the dark.
Even the Israelis, who have advocated for this move for years, were stunned at the timing of Trump's message.
After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone
that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably
sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do. Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be
responsible for carrying out his policies and dealing with the international fallout, and that is probably why so many of his policy
decisions end up being exceptionally poor ones. The substance of most of Trump's foreign policy decisions was never likely to be
good, but the lack of an organized policy process on major decisions makes those decisions even more haphazard and chaotic than they
would otherwise be.
There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical
political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at
shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors.
As usual, Trump
made the announcement
of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials...
President Donald Trump's tweet on Thursday recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory surprised members of his own
Middle East peace team, the State Department, and Israeli officials.
U.S. diplomats and White House aides had believed the Golan Heights issue would be front and center at next week's meetings
between Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. But they were unprepared for any presidential
announcement this week.
No formal U.S. process or executive committees were initiated to review the policy before Trump's decision, and the diplomats
responsible for implementing the policy were left in the dark.
Even the Israelis, who have advocated for this move for years, were stunned at the timing of Trump's message.
After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone
that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably
sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do. Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be
responsible for carrying out his policies and dealing with the international fallout, and that is probably why so many of his policy
decisions end up being exceptionally poor ones. The substance of most of Trump's foreign policy decisions was never likely to be
good, but the lack of an organized policy process on major decisions makes those decisions even more haphazard and chaotic than they
would otherwise be.
There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical
political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at
shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors.
"... Perhaps most dangerous of all is the signal that it sends to Israeli hard-liners that want to annex some or all of the West Bank. ..."
"... Trump's statement is just the latest in a string of bad decisions that are absurdly biased in favor of Israel. No U.S. interests are advanced by doing this, and it discredits any criticisms that the U.S. wants to make of any other government's illegal occupation and annexation of territory. The double standard that the U.S. applies when it comes to violations of international law by itself and its clients could not be more obvious, and it will make it much more difficult to challenge similarly egregious violations in the future. ..."
There were hints
in recent days that U.S. recognition of Israel's claim to the Golan Heights was coming, and now the president has done it. Israel's
control of this territory dates back to the 1967 war, when Israel grabbed this part of Syria and refused to return it. Israel has
no legitimate claim to this territory, and in recognizing Israeli sovereignty over land that it seized during a war the U.S. is sending
a potentially very dangerous message to governments all around the world.
Perhaps most dangerous of all is the signal that it sends
to Israeli hard-liners that want to annex some or all of the West Bank. It tells them that illegal occupation will eventually be
rewarded with full U.S. recognition, and it also tells them that the U.S. isn't going to pay any attention to international law when
it comes to making decisions regarding Israeli control over occupied territories.
Trump's statement is just the latest in a string of bad decisions that are absurdly biased in favor of Israel. No U.S. interests
are advanced by doing this, and it discredits any criticisms that the U.S. wants to make of any other government's illegal occupation
and annexation of territory. The double standard that the U.S. applies when it comes to violations of international law by itself
and its clients could not be more obvious, and it will make it much more difficult to challenge similarly egregious violations in
the future.
Intellectually Max Boot is a loud mouth nothing. I wonder how he managed to graduate from a prestigious university. he might be
able to work as copywriters, but not above that.
Neocon didn't "get it wrong." They understood that this is wrong. It was all about money for MIC which as lobbyists of MIC is
their first priority. That's why they lied the American people into wars. They are war criminals. They should be tried for
war crimes.
Tom Gorman (Feb 15, 8:36 am)–as evidence that Max Boot "has recanted his support of the
Iraq War"–quoted two sentences from Boot's 2018 book. Two sentences earlier in the same
book Boot wrote:
"In truth the decision to go to war had been made by President George W. Bush, in
consultation with colleagues such as Dick Cheney, Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Don
Rumsfeld, none of whom was remotely a 'neocon.'
Those of us who supported the invasion were,
as one of my friends said, like hapless passengers who got into a vehicle with a drunk driver
and could not escape as the car careened across the center divider."
David Kramer, a long-time advisor to late Senator John McCain, revealed that he met with two Obama administration officials
to inquire about whether the anti-Trump dossier authored by former British spy Christopher Steele was being taken seriously.
In one case, Kramer said that he personally provided a copy of the dossier to Obama National Security Council official Celeste
Wallander.
In a deposition on Dec. 13, 2017 that was recently posted online, Kramer said that McCain specifically asked him in early December
2016 to meet about the dossier with Wallander and Victoria Nuland, a senior official in John Kerry's State Department. Senator McCain
asked me to meet with both of them to see if this was being taken seriously in the government," Kramer said.
"And Senator McCain asked you to meet with them?" Kramer was asked to clarify.
"Yes, just to see if this was being taken seriously. I think he wanted to do -- this was his kind of due diligence before he went
to Director Comey."
Kramer testified that in his conversations with Nuland and Wallander he was told by both of them that each were aware of the dossier
and that Nuland "thought Steele was a serious person."
Kramer revealed that he gave a copy of the dossier to Wallander, who was familiar with the contents but did not have a copy.
"I had a subsequent conversation with Ms. Wallander in which I gave her a copy of the document. That was probably around New Year's,"
he said.
"She had not seen it herself until I had shown it to her," Kramer added. "She had heard about it. And she didn't know the status
of it."
In the same testimony, the McCain associate revealed that he held a meeting about the dossier with a reporter from BuzzFeed News
who he says snapped photos of the controversial document without Kramer's permission when he left the room to go to the bathroom.
That meeting was held at the McCain Institute office in Washington, Kramer stated.
BuzzFeed infamously
published Steele's full dossier on January 10, 2017 setting off a firestorm of news media coverage about the document.
Prior to his death, McCain admitted to personally handing the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey but he refused repeated
requests for comment about whether he had a role in providing the dossier to BuzzFeed, including numerous inquiries sent to his office
by this reporter.
In his
book published last year, McCain maintained he had an "obligation" to pass the dossier charges against Trump to Comey and he
would even do it again. "Anyone who doesn't like it can go to hell," McCain exclaimed.
Kramer, meanwhile, also said that he briefed others reporters on the dossier contents, including CNN's Carl Bernstein, in an effort
to have the anti-Trump charges verified.
The same day BuzzFeed released the full dossier, CNN first
reported
the leaked information that the controversial contents of the dossier were presented during classified briefings inside classified
documents presented one week earlier to then-President Obama and President-elect Trump.
Kramer said that he believed McCain was sought out in order to provide credibility to the dossier claims.
"I think they felt a senior Republican was better to be the recipient of this rather than a Democrat because if it were a Democrat,
I think that the view was that it would have been dismissed as a political attack," Kramer stated.
The controversial Fusion GPS firm hired Steele to do the anti-Trump work that resulted in the compilation of the dossier. Fusion
GPS was paid for its anti-Trump work by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee via the Perkins Coie
law firm.
Kramer's testimony sheds a new light on the role of the Obama administration in disseminating the largely-discredited dossier
that was reportedly involved in the FBI's initial investigation into the Trump campaign and unsubstantiated claims of Russian collusion.
Also Comey
cited the dossier as evidence in a successful FISA application to obtain a warrant to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, a
former adviser to President Trump's 2016 campaign. The testimony also revealed how McCain was utilized to give the wild dossier charges
a credibility boost.
Nuland and dossier
Nuland's specific role in the dossier episode has been the subject of some controversy for her.
In their
book , "Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump," authors and reporters
by Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier's
claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.
Steele sought out Rome-based FBI Special Agent Michael Gaeta, with whom he had worked on a previous case. Before Gaeta met with
Steele on July 5, 2016, the book relates that the FBI first secured the support of Nuland, who at the time was assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs specializing in Russia.
Regarding the arrangements for Steele's initial meeting with the FBI about the dossier claims, Isikoff and Corn report:
There were a few hoops Gaeta had to jump through. He was assigned to the U.S. embassy in Rome. The FBI checked with Victoria
Nuland's office at the State Department : Do you support this meeting ? Nuland, having found Steele's reports on Ukraine to have
been generally credible, gave the green light.
Within a few days, on July 5, Gaeta arrived and headed to Steele's office near Victoria station . Steele handed him a copy
of the report. Gaeta, a seasoned FBI agent, started to read . He turned white. For a while, Gaeta said nothing . Then he remarked,
"I have to report this to headquarters."
The book documents that Nuland previously received Steele's reports on the Ukrainian crisis and had been familiar with Steele's
general work.
Nuland faced confirmation
questions
prior to her appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration
talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her
reported changes sought to protect
Clinton's State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in
Benghazi.
Nuland's name surfaced in a flurry of news media reports last year about the dossier and Kerry's State Department.
Sidney Blumenthal
An extensive New Yorker profile
of Steele named another former official from Kerry's State Department for alleged involvement in circulating the dossier. The
magazine reported that Kerry's chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer, obtained the contents of a two-page summary of
the dossier and eventually decided to share the questionable document with Kerry.
Finer received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing
and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with
Nuland.
After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington
Post
oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele.
Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime
Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an "old friend." Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which
Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.
Nuland, Winer Give Conflicting Accounts
There are seeming discrepancies between Winer and Nuland about actions taken involving the dossier.
Nuland described in a Politico podcast
interview
what she claimed was her reaction when she was presented with Steele's dossier information at the State Department.
She said that she offered advice to "those who were interfacing with" Steele, immediately telling the intermediary or intermediaries
that Steele "should get this information to the FBI." She further explained that a career employee at the State Department could
not get involved with the dossier charges since such actions could violate the Hatch Act, which prevents employees in the executive
branch of the federal government from engaging in certain kinds of political activities.
In a second interview, this one with CBS's Face The Nation, Nuland also stated that her "immediate" reaction was to refer Steele
to the FBI.
Here is a transcript of the
relevant
section of her February 5 interview with Susan B. Glasser, who described Nuland as "my friend" and referred to her by her nickname
"Toria":
Glasser: When did you first hear about his dossier?
Nuland: I first heard -- and I didn't know who his client was until much later, until 2017, I think, when it came out. I first
heard that he had done work for a client asserting these linkages -- I think it was late July, something like that.
Glasser: That's very interesting. And you would have taken him seriously just because you knew that he knew what he was talking
about on Russia?
Nuland: What I did was say that this is about U.S. politics, and not the work of -- not the business of the State Department,
and certainly not the business of a career employee who is subject to the Hatch Act, which requires that you stay out of politics.
So, my advice to those who were interfacing with him was that he should get this information to the FBI, and that they could evaluate
whether they thought it was credible.
Glasser: Did you ever talk about it with anyone else higher up at the department? With Secretary Kerry or anybody else?
Nuland: Secretary Kerry was also aware. I think he's on the record and he had the same advice.
Nuland stated that Kerry "was also aware" of the dossier, but she did not describe how he was made aware. She made clear that
she told "those who were interfacing" with Steele to go to the FBI since any State Department involvement could violate the Hatch
Act.
Her Politico podcast interview was not the only time she claimed that her reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI.
On Face The Nation on February 4, Nuland engaged in the following
exchange in which she stated her "immediate" reaction was to refer Steele to the FBI (emphasis added):
MARGARET BRENNAN: The dossier.
VICTORIA NULAND: The dossier, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction
to that was, "This is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI, if there is any concern here that one candidate or the
election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian federation. That's something for the FBI to investigate."
And that was our reaction when we saw this. It's not our -- we can't evaluate this. And frankly, if every member of the campaign
who the Russians tried to approach and tried to influence had gone to the FBI as well in real time, we might not be in the mess
we're in today.
Nuland gave the two interviews after her name started surfacing in news media reports involving Kerry's State Department and the
dossier. Her name also came up in relation to a criminal referral of Steele to the Justice Department in the form of a letter authored
last year by Sen. Chuck Grassley, who at the time chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
contains redacted information that Steele received information from someone in the State Department, who in turn had been in
contact with a "foreign sub-source" who was in touch with a redacted name described as a "friend of the Clintons."
Numerous media reports have since stated that the source of information provided to the State Department that was in turn passed
on to Steele was Cody Shearer, a controversial figure tied to the Clintons who is also an associate of longtime Clinton friend Sidney
Blumenthal. According to sources who
spoke
to CNN, Shearer's information was passed from Blumenthal to Winer, who at the time was a special State Department envoy for Libya
working under Kerry. Winer
says that Kerry personally recruited him to work at the State Department.
It is Winer's version of events that seems to conflict with Nuland's.
In an
oped published in the Washington Post, Winer identified Nuland as the State Department official with whom he shared Steele's
information. Winer writes that Nuland's reaction was that "she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material."
He does not relate any further reaction from Nuland.
Winer wrote in the Washington Post (emphasis added):
In the summer of 2016, Steele told me that he had learned of disturbing information regarding possible ties between Donald
Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials. He did not provide details but made clear the information involved "active measures,"
a Soviet intelligence term for propaganda and related activities to influence events in other countries.
In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the "dossier." Steele's sources
suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.
I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the State Department. I prepared a
two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made
aware of this material.
That was the extent of Winer's description of Nuland's reaction upon being presented with Steele's dossier claims. Nuland's public
claim that her "immediate" response was to refer Steele to the FBI since State involvement could violate the Hatch Act seems to conflict
with the only reaction that Winer relates from Nuland – that she felt Kerry should be made aware of the dossier information.
In Winer's Washington Post oped, he writes that Steele had a larger relationship with the State Department, passing over
100 reports relating to Russia to the U.S. government agency through Winer. Winer wrote that Nuland found Steele's reports to be
"useful" and asked Winer to "continue to send them."
He wrote:
In 2013, I returned to the State Department at the request of Secretary of State John F. Kerry, whom I had previously served
as Senate counsel. Over the years, Steele and I had discussed many matters relating to Russia. He asked me whether the State Department
would like copies of new information as he developed it. I contacted Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who was then assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and shared with her several of Steele's reports. She told me they were useful
and asked me to continue to send them. Over the next two years, I shared more than 100 of Steele's reports with the Russia experts
at the State Department, who continued to find them useful. None of the reports related to U.S. politics or domestic U.S. matters,
and the reports constituted a very small portion of the data set reviewed by State Department experts trying to make sense of
events in Russia.
Kramer and the dossier
In his book, "The Restless Wave," McCain provided an inside account of how he says he came across the dossier.
He wrote that he was told about the claims in the document at a security conference in Canada in November 2016, where he was approached
by Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow and friend of ex-British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier.
McCain wrote that Wood told him Steele "had been commissioned to investigate connections between the Trump campaign and Russian
agents as well as potentially compromising information about the President-elect that Putin allegedly possessed."
McCain, however, did not address the obvious question of whether he was told exactly who "commissioned" Steele to "investigate"
the alleged Russian ties. The dossier was paid for by Clinton's campaign and the DNC.
McCain goes on to describe Wood as telling him Steele's work "was mostly raw, unverified intelligence, but that the author strongly
believed merited a thorough examination by counterintelligence experts."
The politician says the dossier claims described to him were "too strange a scenario to believe, something out of a le Carré novel,
not the kind of thing anyone has ever actually had to worry about with a new President, no matter what other concerns."
Still, McCain says he reasoned that "even a remote risk that the President of the United States might be vulnerable to Russian
extortion had to be investigated."
McCain concedes Wood told him he had not actually read the dossier himself, and writes that he wasn't sure if he ever met Wood
before and couldn't recall previously having a conversation with Wood. Still, McCain took Wood's word for it when Wood vouched for
Steele's credibility. "Steele was a respected professional, Wood assured us, who had good Russian contacts and long experience collecting
and analyzing intelligence on the Kremlin," McCain wrote.
Present at the meeting with Wood and McCain was Kramer, who McCain writes agreed to "go to London to meet Steele, confirm his
credibility and report back to me."
McCain doesn't detail Kramer's visit to London beyond simply writing, "When David returned, and shared his impression that the
former spy was, as Sir Andrew had vouched, a respected professional, and not to outward appearances given to hyperbole or hysteria,
I agreed to receive a copy of what is now referred to as 'the dossier.'''
McCain leaves out exactly where Kramer obtained his dossier copy.
The Washington Post
reported last February that Kramer received the dossier directly from Fusion GPS after McCain expressed interest in it. Those
details marked the clearest indication that McCain may have known that the dossier originated with Fusion GPS, meaning that he may
have knowingly passed on political material to the FBI.
Also, in a New York Times oped in January,
GPS co-founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritch wrote that they helped McCain share their anti-Trump dossier with the Obama-era intelligence
community via an unnamed "emissary."
In his own testimony, Kramer relates conversations with Simpson about the dossier.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author
and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on
Facebook.
Guado looks more and more like Russian Navalny -- another color revolution Trojan Horse.
Notable quotes:
"... Half a BILLION dollars to be spent to overthrow Maduro, and they spent how much time making claims like Putin hacked the election.... Lies, More lies, Damn lies..... Same as it ever was. ..."
"... "The first round of the U.S. 'regime change' change attempt in Venezuela failed but it is far from over. The State Department alone foresees to spend $500 million more on it: ..."
"... The Fiscal Year 2020 budget request includes funding to support democracy in Venezuela and provides the flexibility to make more funds available to support a democratic transition, including up to $500 million in transfer authority." ..."
"... Given the results of the last 70 years of US policies I would say that quote should now be updated to "Trillions for war, but not one cent for the people." ..."
On February 23 the U.S. created a 'humanitarian aid' stunt at the border between Colombia
and Venezuela. The stunt ended in a riot during which the supporters of the self declared
'president' Guaidó burned the trucks that where supposed to transport the 'aid'. Even
the New York Times had to admit that.
The riots also marked the day that Guaidó
lost the legal argument he had used to make himself 'interim president'.
Guaido also lost his original legal position. He claimed the presidency on January 23 under
this paragraph of article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution :
When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his
inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within
30 consecutive days . Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the
President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.
That the "elected President becomes permanently unavailable" was never the
case to begin with. But if article 233 would apply Guaido would have had 30 days to hold
new elections. The 30 days are over and Guaido did not even call for elections to be held.
He thereby defied the exact same paragraph of the constitution that his (false) claim to
the presidency is based on.
The hapless coup plotters in Washington DC were finally put on notice that the issue
creates a legal problem for them. During a March 15 press briefing Elliott Abrams, the
U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela, was asked about the issue:
QUESTION: [C]ould you explain to us the article under which Mr. Guaido declared himself
president? It is said that it has expired last month. Could you explain that to us? What is
the --
MR ABRAMS: As to the Venezuelan constitution, the National Assembly has passed a resolution
that states that that 30-day period of interim presidency will not start ending or counting
until the day Nicolas Maduro leaves power. So the 30 days doesn't start now, it starts
after Maduro. And they – that's a resolution of the National Assembly.
A resolution of the National Assembly, which the Supreme Court of Venezuela holds in
contempt over the seating illegally elected persons, can change the country's constitution?
That does not sound convincing to me. The journalists in the briefing were equally curious of
how the rules could be changed like that during the ongoing game:
During Bosonaro's visit to the US Trump also announced his support for
Brazil's entrance into the NATO alliance, if I was Germany I'd veto that idea outright, the
last thing NATO needs is a basket case like Brazil.
But I imagine the Pentagon is already
counting all the additional arms they can sell to Brazil as a member of NATO without having
to go through all the additional hoops they would while it's just an ally of NATO
Never Mind the Bollocks , Mar 19, 2019 2:39:09 PM |
link
Random Guy also appointed an ambassador, Carlos Vecchio, to the US who just took over the
Venezuela's diplomatic buildings (empty since Venezuela broke off relations with the US over
the attempted coup), including the consular building in New York.
So far it doesn't look like
the US has succeed in replacing Venezuela's representative to the UN with a US stooge, but I
imagine the US is working hard on that front as well.
The US looks just ridiculous doing a
stunt this, but B is right, the US always doubles down, especially on a losing plan.
Half a BILLION dollars to be spent to overthrow Maduro, and they spent how much time making
claims like Putin hacked the election.... Lies, More lies, Damn lies..... Same as it ever was.
thanks b... some crazy talk in that daily press briefing with abrams...
"Q: So Juan Guaido is the interim president of an interim that doesn't exist yet?
A: The 30-day end to his interim presidency starts counting. Because he's not in power,
that's the problem. Maduro is still there. So they have decided that they will count that
from when he actually is in power and Maduro's gone. I think it's logical.
Q: So then he really isn't interim president, then?
A: He is interim president, but he's not --
Q: With no power."
that sounds about par fe the course for the usa... as kadath says - they always double
down on losing plans!
i am a bit mystified as to the plan of maduros to get the cabinet to resign.. what is the
concept there? does he have a number of members that could be persuaded by the logic of
abrams? with a little bribery money, no doubt..
i wonder how brazilians are looking at the stooge they have in power now, sucking up to
the usa-cia..
The optics of groveling to the US and Israel, and military opposition, are not good for our
friend Jair. It's only a matter of time until Bolsonaro starts hemorrhaging support and
Brazilian nationalism abandons him.
- If Maduro is in power, then the office is not vacant. Therefore, Guaidó cannot be
interim president.
- If the office is vacant, then there is no president. Therefore, Guaidó either is or
isn't the interim president (i.e. he can't be the interim president of the interim president,
which in this case is nobody).
If you want to suspend the Constitution, declare a civil war. If you win the civil war,
then you can do whatever you please (including obeying and/or reinterpreting the old
Constitution). In the strict legal sense, Guaidó's position is untenable. Even the
counting of days was wrong: January has 31 days, not 30, therefore his alleged 30-day mandate
was over at the 21st of February, not at the 23rd.
Re:#6 James, normally when you request that your own cabinet resigns it means that you've
either lost faith in their ability to perform their jobs - OR - your making a drastic change
in direction for your government and you need people with a different skill set to run the
various government departments. I imagine Maduros's decision is a mixture of needing to
create a "war government" to fight the economic war the US is waging against him and ensuring
the loyalty of powerful political rivals by giving them cabinet posts. Maduro will probably
announce some major new policies in the coming weeks aimed at 1) resisting US economic
pressure 2) increase Maduro's support among the population (maybe some policies aimed at the
urban middle class to split them off from Random Guy) and 3) announce some foreign
relationship drive to hopefully block more countries from supporting random guy's
pseudo-government and hopefully win some countries back. economic advisors from Russia, Cuba,
China and maybe Iran & Syria will be providing vital support for any economic policies
aimed at avoid US sanctions
"The first round of the U.S. 'regime change' change attempt in Venezuela failed but it is far
from over. The State Department alone foresees to spend $500 million more on it:
The Fiscal Year 2020 budget request includes funding to support democracy in Venezuela and
provides the flexibility to make more funds available to support a democratic transition,
including up to $500 million in transfer authority."
Tell me again how much it will cost to bring clean water to Flint, MI and our other cities
with water problems. You know, the things we don't have money for.
@ lgfocus who asked
"
Tell me again how much it will cost to bring clean water to Flint, MI and our other cities
with water problems. You know, the things we don't have money for.
"
Keep asking those questions and maybe Americans will grow the sentiments necessary to
stand up.
Where are the Bernie crowd that are going to make so much difference in the coming
(s)election?
Even the counting of days was wrong: January has 31 days, not 30, therefore his alleged
30-day mandate was over at the 21st of February, not at the 23rd.
Posted by: vk | Mar 19, 2019 3:33:55 PM | 10
They made their general ops to produce public results specifically at 23 of this month or
for several more months. They obviously wanted to make a point like they were doing at least
since 2016 for almost each consequtive month, only for that period favorable date number was
11. Check events for every 11th of each month since 2016 and check what dominated US and EU
news.
Yet in current Venezuela events there seem to be so much FAIL regarding the US
clandestine strategies.
There's also rising domestic pushback within the Outlaw US Empire while the hypocrisy of
Russiagate rises like a massive iceberg on the horizon. This also puts additional pressure on
Vassal EU governments whose publics see through the Empire's lies and thus further
delegitimizes their national governments.
French Yellow Vests will not surrender until Macron
and his backing Establishment does, and they're motivating other nation's citizens.
Will
Poroshenko get reelected in 12 days or ?
IMO, both Trump and Bolsonaro will be ousted before
Maduro. It appears the Truth Brigades outnumber the liebots thanks to b and a host of other
genuine journalists.
@11 kadath.. thanks for the response to my question.. we will have to wait and see how this
unfolds.. it reminds me a bit of the ukraine 2014 scenario, but different too... in ukraines
case, they already had a split dynamic in the country itself.. here, i don't see it.. the
split seems to be along economics - who are the upper class, with some middle class in tow,
verses everyone else..
@13 lgfocus - that sounds suspiciously like something a COMMUNIST would say!!!!!!! During the
1797 XYZ scandal C.C. Pinckney reportedly said "Millions for defense, but not one cent for
tribute." which has been quoted by the Military Industrial Complex ad nauseam for the last 70
years to justify massive military budgets to fight the forever wars.
Given the results of the
last 70 years of US policies I would say that quote should now be updated to "Trillions for
war, but not one cent for the people."
So if Elliott Abrams is correct, the Venezuelan National Assembly (a now illegitimate entity
by the way) has passed a resolution that Juan Guaido's "interim presidency" only begins AFTER
Nicolas Maduro leaves the presidency? Is that not admitting that Maduro is the legitimate
president?
That Jair Bolsonaro is visiting the CIA to discuss overthrowing Maduro may alarm quite a
few people even among the top tiers of the Brazilian military who otherwise support him.
What's to stop Bolsonaro from discussing with the CIA how to get rid of more than a few top
Brazilian generals who disagree with overthrowing the government of a neighbouring
country?
Now let's all imagine what would happen if Brazil was accepted into NATO like Trump &
the MIC wants and the Brazilian Generals decided to continue their time-honoured tradition of
toppling the current Brazilian President. NATO has no means of ejecting or even suspending a
member so any such crisis in Brazilian leadership would immediately trigger a crisis within
NATO itself on how to respond and accepting a coup government into NATO would kill the
illusion that NATO is some sort of league of Democracies that Bolton hopes to promote as a
replacement to the UN assembly.
Well, Bolsonaro's complete and absolute submission to Donald Trump and the US is probably
surprising even the most optmistic hawks in the White House. The golden shower president will
probably accept anything the US tries to push to Brazil.
It strikes me that the futility of trying to stir up a revolution with an elite constituency
seems completely lost on the coup planners. The Venezuelan elite might want the government
overthrown but there is no way that they'll put their own blood on the line for it. It's
really puzzling trying to understand how they see this playing out. And what will their elite
supporters think if US sanctions mean they can't use their Visa or MasterCard? And the
businesses that cater to the elite?
The Brazil to NATO call sounds awfully like a forecast of significant cross-border
provocations by Brazil which, if responded to by the Venezuelans, could trigger the old
Article 5 musketeers to intervene militarily. Just as ludicrous (and dangerous) as the UK 's
FCE attempt to confer diplomatic status on the BBC Farsi woman jailed in Iran. Student union
politics.
Abrams is attempting to claim that Random Guy is "interim President-in-waiting".
Q: What is that Interim President-in-waiting actually waiting for?
A: He's waiting for the position of President to become vacant.
THAT is the fatal flaw in all of Abrams legal mumbo-jumbo i.e. the articles of the
Venezuelan Constitution that Random Guy invoked to claim the title of Interim President are
only applicable when the office of President (and also Vice President) are VACANT.
Then and only then can the leader of the National Assembly take on the role of "interim
President" until elections take place 30 days later.
Abrams is admitting that the office of President isn't vacant.
This is an important legal point, so it bears repeating: Abrams accepts that someone holds
that position, albeit he is insisting that the current office-holder's claim to that chair is
illegitimate (in Constitutional terms, Maduro is "unfit" to be President).
Again, that exposes Abrams argument as legal mumbo-jumbo, precisely because the leader of
the National Assembly does not possess the authority to declare that a sitting President is
"unfit" for the office. The Venezuelan Constitution is quite clear on that point: that
authority rests with the supreme court, who are perfectly satisfied with Madura's fitness to
be President.
Abrams argument is therefore fraught with danger for Random Guy.
The Constitution clearly states that he can not claim the "interim Presidency" unless the
position is already vacant, which it clearly is not.
The Constitution also clearly states that he does not have the authority to declare the
position to be vacant.
Yet Guaido has done both, and done so at the acknowledged urging of a foreign power.
At the very least that amounts to insurrection, if not treason.
1. Counterpunch
I want to add extra focus on the excellent interview b linked to over at Counterpunch which
was also posted over at Zerohedge.
CG: There's not the chaos US and Trump were expecting. (Opposition leader and
self-proclaimed president Juan) Guaidó is the most hated guy in Venezuela. He has to
stay in luxury hotel in La Mercedes, an expensive neighbourhood of Caracas. They have
electricity there, as they were prepared, so bought generators. That is why Guaidó
went there, and has a whole floor of a luxury hotel for him and his family. While people
are suffering Guaidó is trying on suits for his upcoming trip to Europe. It is a
parallel world.
AG: You think Guaidó will fail?
CG: Venezuelans are making so many jokes with his name, as there's a word similar to
stupid in Spanish – guevon. And look at the demonstration in La Mercedes the other
day (12 March), the crowds didn't manifest. It is becoming a joke in the country. The more
the Europeans and the US make him a president, the more bizarre the situation becomes, as
Guaidó is not president of Venezuela! Interestingly, Chavez predicted what is
happening today, he wrote about it, so people are going back to his works and reading him
again.
2. Military Times
It could well have been me making b's conclusion on the following as well but since it isn't
it gives me an opportunity to warn about and completely disagree when it comes to the content
at Military Times and the conclusions drawn from it: that content if anything is
circumstantial proof that a decision has already been made in favor of a larger war
(technically the US has already launched a war by its actions, or at least according to its
own definitions as it applies it to others attacking them, if I remember correctly they would
even allow themselves to respond with nuclear weapons in such a scenario).
It might not have been the intent of Military Times (I do not know them) but everything
about their content at that link screams war is coming.
Notice how the US congress etc. portrays themselves as unwilling to go to war. We all know
this is untrue.
Notice how "everyone" portray themselves as more or less being forced against their will to
get involved. We all know this is untrue.
"They" love to do this, to wallow in "reluctance", to play innocent, to further the
narrative of "the good guys", because doing so preys on those who still believe they are on
the side of good (or in this case preys on anybody's remaining hope that they have some shred
of sanity left or that they've run out of bloodlust) and more or less guarantees their
support or silent acceptance in the general public. I recognize this all to well because I
fell for it myself in the past. It is a large part of their cherished narrative and has
self-reinforcing properties. They would say it even if no one listened but it is still
completely untrue.
Notice how they constantly hint at what amounts to "if we had to we would".
Notice that despite how every US action mentioned (except for some nebulous bill that might
as well be a unicorn fart) goes against avoiding a war they quote some ex-CIA person on all
of it being the exact opposite and a way to avoid war (but still meet their objective
consisting of unconditional demands).
Notice how at first they claim to believe it would be hard and thus something they obviously
wouldn't want to choose and thus if given no choice then it can't be their fault.
Nevertheless, the crisis is deteriorating rapidly.
Yeah of course it is, as planned and as caused by themselves.
Notice the laundry list of "bad stuff happening".
Notice the appeal to military solutions.
Notice how they then claim it might not be so hard after all, or at least necessary or worth
it.
Notice how they list military options to choose between.
It has already been decided and has already started.
3. Refinery fires
Did anyone else wonder at the sudden pair of refinery fires in Houston?
Posted by: Peter VE | Mar 19, 2019 4:22:48 PM | 19
Yes, since the second larger one went off because I didn't hear about the first one until
then and don't know anything more than that there was one. These things do happen during
normal operation of plants and refineries because every day it doesn't happen
unavoidably breeds some false sense of security and familiarity with the potential energies
involved.
And if that's not what happened then it will be a very hot US summer.
For those who didn't catch it here's all I've got (two measly links). RT
(2nd one)
ZH today (2nd one is now bigger):
This Moderate Rebels Transcript contains excellent revelatory points about Bolsonaro, the
rise of Brazilian Fascism and its connections to the Outlaw US Empire and its ally Zionistan.
I'm uncertain if b linked to it previously as I just stumbled across it.
After the people of Brazil got a taste of power with Lula, their social and national
conscience has risen. A Brazilian military aggression in Venezuela on behalf of American
Imperialism will be viciously opposed by the peoples of Latin America and Spain and Portugal.
The Colombian ELN and Venezuela's Bolivarian militias will unite and begin to attack the US
military in Colombia and fight the vassal state of Colombia. These militias will fight to the
death. Ecuador will catch on fire as well since traitor Moreno backs the US invasion. This
will get ugly.
US will just make up another excuse. These guys don't follow any laws so there is no point
interpreting them. Raw power and a good defense strategy is what it counts now for Venezuela.
They need more S-300, Buk, coastal defense and allies. This is the key for survival of
Venezuela. US will then back down or nuke Venezuela into democracy and freedom of press.
The always interesting Florida Maquis YT channel covers S. America extensively and mentioned
today Trump is putting Brazil forward for OECD membership which may give leverage to their
fascist leader.
The news that Maduro is making a new cabinet could be very important. The current cabinet was
chosen to implement policies designed to prevent a coup by compromising with moderate
elements of the bourgeoisie. Such policies involved the watering down of the revolutionary
policies of 21st Century Socialism, which has led to the erosion of political support for
Maduro without making any perceptible difference the bourgeois commitment to coups and other
antidemocratic measures.
If the revolution is to survive it must continue to deepen, bringing gains to the masses
besides which the inconveniences of sanctions/sabotage are pinpricks which only serve to
deepen popular support of national independence and socialist reform.
If the revolution deepens it will not only increase the strength of the popular movement but
broaden the appeal of Venezuela's policies to the millions of Latin Americans currently
watching in dismay as neo-liberalism cuts into their living standards and aspirations of
security. Nowhere are there millions more sympathetic to revolutionary programmes than in
Colombia, a byword for bad government and inequality and Brazil where the current Presidency
is completely illegitimate.
It will be interesting to see whether Maduro's new cabinet is more attuned to the revolution
and less interested in compromises with a comprador class whose alliance with the US is based
as much on racism and hatred of its own countrymen as it is on greed. Anbd that is saying
something.
Thank you Karlof1 and Zachary Smith, I'll do my best to remember not to go "link crazy" in
the future :D
Aside from all that and on the comments here on Colombia it makes me reconsider if there
was any positive value at all in the mediation by Norway (and others? I think the current
"social democrat" secretary general of NATO was prime minister there at the time...) to
curtail or end the civil war or if it was all a ploy in bad faith. I could be wrong about
this.
I was wrong but I've found out where the confusion stems from; Norway was the second
"guarantor country" after Cuba.
Once the negotiators had been agreed upon, the two sides moved to designate foreign
guarantor countries. Cuba, host to previous encounters, was a logical choice, while Norway
was chosen as the second guarantor country for its active role in international conflict
mediation. Additionally, two facilitator or 'accompanying countries' were also designated.
The FARC chose Venezuela, while the Colombian government chose Chile.[14] Exploratory
meetings continued in Havana in February 2012, with limited [...]
"With more candidates early on, it takes all that energy and diffuses it for petty warfare
instead of a firmly focused "machine" that would take over Congress through the Dem
party."
Well, when your strategy is identity politics you do need a crowd; so all of your supporters
can "identify" with their own special someone and be sad and upset when they lose.
Keep them divided, keep it about race/sexual identity/religion/favorite vegetable if need be,
oh, and of course that favorite mantra; hatred of the "other(s)."
The Dem party is gone, what is left is a divisive machine whose sole purpose seems to be to
separate people into separate boxes with separate identities only united by their hatred of
"other" parties and always completely blind to what is being done in the world in their (US)
name.
Nowhere are there millions more sympathetic to revolutionary programmes than in Colombia, a
byword for bad government and inequality ... bevin | Mar 19, 2019 8:34:12 PM
Current president was elected with rather thin majority -- not as thin as Trump -- and
while economy is "thriving" according to some measures, the fruits of it are even less evenly
distributed than in USA, and the resurgence of the left is fully possible. Importantly,
Colombian society is still very divided in the aftermath of La Violencia of 1950-s, violence
that never truly went away. Colombia and Venezuela are closely connected since colonial times
and troubles easily cross the border. In turn, Venezuelans seems to be easy going
bunglers.
Chavista have "the heart in right place", but even in easier times they had troubles with
the economy. The opposition is all thumbs. The freedom fighters who defected into Colombia
seem to be a bunch of loosers, correctly evicted from a homeless shelter once found useless.
Their putative paymasters seem particularly egregious, good for them to manage to get rid of
the traitors before the latter found a nerve to unionize, but what was the plan anyway?. Sic
sempter traditoribus.
"The Colombian ELN and Venezuela's Bolivarian militias will unite and begin to attack the US
military in Colombia and fight the vassal state of Colombia. These militias will fight to the
death. Ecuador will catch on fire as well since traitor Moreno backs the US invasion. This
will get ugly."
You left out the elephant or rather landmass in the room; Latin America is connected to the
US by land. This US misadventure will come home to roost, it will explode everywhere and
anywhere, finally and at long last IMO the US will reap what it has sown.
lgfocus @ 13 said in part;"Tell me again how much it will cost to bring clean water to Flint,
MI and our other cities with water problems. You know, the things we don't have money for."
This would be a excellent point for all the Dems chasing the POTUS, but, even if they did,
it probably wouldn't get any play on the corporate MSM.
It makes too much sense!
kudos for the relevant mention......
German foreign policy disaster. German freelancer journalist Billy Six jailed in Venezuela,
now back in Germany after intervention by Russian foreign minister Lawrov.
Press conference
with Billy after his arrival in Germany. Must see (German) Germany is accused in the
participation of the drone attack against Maduro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsg5Jx5xzrU
Abrams trying to explain Guano and Venezuelan law is a bit like trying to explain western
democracy VS 'non democratic' Assad and Putin and Maduro. Doesn't matter the majority of
people have voted for them. That's not 'democratic'. A lot of Guano in western so called
democracy.
"The far-right President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil supported that but the military of Brazil,
which holds significant power in the cabinet, vetoed it..."
I would be willing to bet that one of the purposes of Bolsonaro's visit to the CIA and DC
was to see how he could remedy that situation, perhaps by getting rid of just a few of these
troublesome military generals who are opposed to his using the Brazilian military, overt and
covert, against Venezuela....
not to mention of course the usual and disgusting CIA options of subversion and other
covert operations agasint Venezuelan democracy
Maybe Maduro is changing his cabinet to get people in who are not under US sanctions. The US
claims most of it's sanctions are against bad guys but the reality is naming individuals is a
propaganda ruse as the sanctions go far deeper than the individuals. People who don't look
past the headlines believe it's only individuals so they fall for the US line it's Maduro and
his polices not the US that's causing the economic problems in Venezuela. Thus a new cabinet
could give Maduro some breathing room until the US can sanction the new guys.
If the US does shut off Mastercard and Visa it will be huge mistake as I doubt very few of
the governments supporters have credit cards. Those the US claims to be hitting with this
action can get a Russian credit card if it's possible. The upper class Gweedo lovers will be
the ones hardest hit which doesn't bode well for Gweedo boy who spouts guano and promises he
can't keep every time he opens his mouth.
Lots of blather of the citizens of the US should stand against the governments actions in
Venezuela. The US government and it's lap dog press control the narrative thus it won't
happen. But if it came to a military invasion the citizens will come out of cocoons and say
hell no like they did with Syria when Obama wanted to bomb that country into the stone age
when Assad, it was the rebels that used gas, crossed his red line. A military invasion and
resulting guerilla warfare in Venezuela will send American boys and girls home in body bags
and Trump can kiss his reelection goodbye and he knows it. Thus no invasion by the US but
that doesn't rule out covert commando raids and sabotage by US personnel inside the
country.
The attack took place when vehicle traffic was stopped at a train crossing, but whether the
raiders indeed had intended to steal the uranium shipment has yet to be determined. Civil
Police are now trying to establish the motive behind the incident. The attackers have
managed to flee the scene, but police have recovered a 9mm pistol which they are now trying
to trace back to the armed group.
I don't speak Portuguese or Brazilian Portuguese but those that do will likely find more
information in the
Globo article .
The Globo article says an enriched Uranium convoy, sent to the Angra dos Reis nuclear power
plant, was attacked by local criminal gangs. The area of Angra dos Reis, renowned for its
beautiful coastline and luxury resorts, is now roamed by criminal gangs that threaten the
population and overtly defy law enforcement forces. Police forces and armed convoys moving
along the highway are frequently ambushed.
Despite Bolsonaro's campaign promises, gangs seems to remain in charge, even in Angra dos
Reis! From the Globo article:
"One of the most beautiful places of the State of Rio, the county of Angra dos Reis has
experienced an increase in violence, with the presence of fire-armed drug dealers inside
communities that were previously considered peaceful."
There is also an extended version of the press conference where Billy Six answers some
more questions. One is particulary interesting as he points out the economic interests of the
German government in Venezuela. He mentions explicitly SIEMENS, Linde, Lufthansa and DHL
which are excluded from free-convertability into Dollar-reserves since Chavez established
currency controls in 2003.
He also claims that the Federal Government in the person of the now expelled German
ambassador to Venezuela Daniel Kriener has met with the father of Juan Requesens who is/was
member of the National Assembly, associated to the student protest newtwork of 'Generation
2007' to which Juan Guaido belongs, and whose party Primero Justicia is the party of Julio
Borges - the former president of the National Assembly and co-plotter of the 2002 coup on
Chavez. Juan Requesens is under arrest and accused to be part of the drone attack on Maduro
in August last year along with 16 other conspirators. According to Six - who had contact with
several of these plotters in prison - the coup in effect did happen and failed because the
Maduro government was pre-informed about the plot and an anti-drone shield could prevent the
assault.
What made it even worse for Six, according to what was told to him by SEBIN (political police
force of Venezuela), was that the German government was aware of this drone in advance which
is why the German embassy had taken such a stand for Juan Requesens to get him out of prison.
This, however, is suppose to be one of the reasons why, of those foreign ambassadors of
Venezuela who received Guaido at the airport two weeks ago, German ambassador Kriener was the
only one who was to leave the country upon the advice of the Bolivarian Government.
There is certainly more to follow and it is perhaps not wrong to keep an eye on this
I would not trust the Brazilian people or the Brazilian left to take care of the issue.
The non-Venezuelan Latin American left is one of the most innofensive, docile and
innefective lefts of the Third World. This is specially the case of the Brazilian left, which
is also deeply balkanized, torn down in inumerous factions -- from the social liberals to
communists.
Besides, the far-right has genuine and huge popular support in Brazil. Bolsonaro's is not
a political giant by any means, nor is he the novelty/outsider e.g. Trump is (he was a
Congressman for 28 consecutive years before becoming president). The far-right is at least
25% of the voting adult population, most probably around 40%, and this mass will go until the
end with their design. Bolsonaro is no Temer.
Excellent post B. Thanks for keeping Venezuela front and center in your blogs.
From my perspective, it looks like Russia is effectively running Venezuela.
What are the indicators:
- Russia is handling Venezuelan oil sales
- Russia is handling Venezuelan international banking
- Maduro has made no strategic mistakes during the coup attempt. Every U.S. move has been
effectively thwarted.
- With few exceptions, military discipline has been maintained.
- The new government realignment looks like something that Maduro would not have come up with
on his own. It is probably a part of the economic plan the Russia prepared for Venezuela over
the past couple of months.
Venezuela is starting to look a lot like Crimea. The U.S. wanted Crimea in order to take
over the Russian naval base and effectively neutralize Russia's Black Sea Fleet. But Russia
was there first, thwarted the U.S.' every move, and now the U.S., in the Black Sea, is in a
much weaker position than before 2014.
In Venezuela, the U.S. wanted Venezuelan oil. But Russia was there first. So far every
U.S. move has been thwarted and the U.S. is starting to suffer from a scarcity of heavy
crudes. If past is prologue, the U.S. will have no more success in Venezuela than it did in
Crimea. It will not dare to take on Venezuela militarily, as this would mean to take on
Russia militarily.
Venezuela will represent another watershed moment in separating the world into those who
are with the U.S., and those who are against. And the U.S. side will be somewhat smaller than
it was before their Venezuelan adventure started.
There's a mind-boggling Extortiongate scandal going on in Argentina - with links throughout
Latin America including Venezuela, and to Elliot Abrams:
Don't Spy
for Me Argentina In fact, it connects with virtually everything!
Abrams to media....."Constitutional rules? We ain't got no rules! We don't need no rules!
I don't have to show you any stinking rules!" The US cannot be serious, $500 million to take
over Venezuela with the greatest oil reserves on the planet. Victoria Nuland said the US
spent $5 Billion on regime change in Ukraine.. F-----g cheapskates. They will double down,
wait for the secondary sanctions, it is so important that Venezuela keeps its oil markets,
especially Russia and China.
Contrary to what the article states, Brazil has a negligible wheat production. However,
Argentina has, and its main importer until now was Brazil. A huge blow to the Argentinian
economy, whose trade balance will fall even more. The situation in Brazil so calamitous that it produced an extremely rare Chinese
manifestation about the country:
It looks like the US is having to rescue some of the Venezuelan oligarchs from the effect
of the sanctions. This being Fox, it blames socialism, which is utterly backwards, but the
facts are there.
US lifts
sanctions on wives of Venezuela TV magnates
Oh the poor dears. How they must have suffered.
Also, it looks like they (US) are thinking about cutting off credit cards, which as you've
opined, would hurt the middle and upper classes much more than the typical Chavista.
Credit card
sanctions?
That whole press conference exchange has a faintly Mad Hatter Tea Party quality to it.
At one point Abrams says the interim presidency doesn't start counting until "after
Maduro", but the whole raison d'etre of article 233 in the first place is to ensure a
constitutional transition of power in the event that the president becomes unavailable. So
that (the president becoming unavailable) would had to have happened FIRST -- prior to the
implementation of (the relevant passage of) article 233. In other words, that would have to
be the triggering event.
If this seems a bit like stating the obvious -- it is. As the article states,'That the
"elected President becomes permanently unavailable" was never the case to begin with.' That's
end of discussion right there. It never happened. And they have everybody talking in circles
about whether or not the thirty day election requirement was fulfilled? It's absurd.
One thing I'll give the neo-cons credit for is their ability to take obvious lies/complete
fabrications and somehow get people to discuss them as if there was any reality to it. Like
in the case of Iraq they had the whole world discussing the threat of non-existent WMDs. All
these "serious" pundits would prattle on endlessly about the pros and cons of an issue for
which there was not a scintilla of evidence. I think even Goebbels would have to stand back
in awe of what they do.
"The #TrumpRegime is not a government that can provide services. It is a transnational
criminal organization which should be designated as a terrorist group."
Holy crap on a cracker, Batman! Half of all the evil entities in the world are crawling
about within this massive web of crime and treason.
I would beg to make one small change to the exposé; instead of --
" The CIA, under 'extraordinary rendition' proponent Gina Haspel, has become a foot
soldier army for Trump's whims and Bolton's and Pompeo's neo-con dark policies, "
-- I would say that Trump, Bolton, Pompeo and Haspel have become foot-soldiers for the
CIA's neo-con dark policies.
Venezuela: Guaido loyalists seize diplomatic properties in US
Envoys loyal to Venezuela's interim president have taken control of diplomatic buildings
and a consulate. Caracas has severed ties with the US, accusing it of staging a coup against
acting President Maduro.
Don't Spy for Me Argentina. In fact, it connects with virtually everything!
Posted by: BM | Mar 20, 2019 11:35:21 AM | 69
The CIA, under "extraordinary rendition" proponent Gina Haspel, has become a foot soldier
army for Trump's whims and Bolton's and Pompeo's neo-con dark policies. It is clear that
Abrams, Bolton, Pompeo, Rubio, Bannon, and their cohorts, including Macri and Bolsonaro,
are attempting to re-create OPERATION CONDOR, the 1960s, 70s, and 80s alliance of the
intelligence services of the Latin American military dictatorships of Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay, which were full members, with Ecuador and Peru as
associate partners. Tens of thousands of leftist dissidents were tracked down and executed
during CONDOR, which operated with the full approval and involvement of the CIA.
They lost so many opportunities during the 70's. USSR was in their way in so many places.
But now happy days are here again, with Russia, China containment strategies and Trump and
other supremacist leaders being installed everywhere in the West and Americas.
It's about opening Pandora's Box though. 0 latency networks, even negative time ...with
whatever that implicates and a space programe but not the one you see in plain view.
There is a three part video of the UN conference featuring Anya Parampil, Alfred de Zayas and
Max Blumenthal which has debunked the US propaganda on Venezuela at a United Nations Human
Rights Council session in Geneva on March 19.
See also "The Visible Hand of the Market- Economic War in Venezuela" by Pasqualina
Curcio.
Perhaps random guy Guaidó will join other collaborators with the US are just seen as
throw-away pawns by the Empire:
"The Venezuelan military deserters who crossed over to Colombia on February 23, 2019, now
find themselves abandoned both by Colombia and the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees. The UNCHR and the Colombian Government have given the soldiers 4 days to leave the
refugee camp"
The good news is that the health of Venezuelans is improving due to a more healthy diet
due to US led sanctions. Everyone has been forced to have a vegetarian diet substituting
vegetables, lentils, and black beans for meat. Seems that lots of people are growing their
own (organic) vegetables.
From a sociological point of view even the electrical blackouts are bringing the people
together as they spend the time sharing:
"During blackouts, people told stories, played music, or went out and talked on the streets.
It was a paradise, no TVs, smartphones, but real human contact. People cook together. During
the day they're playing board games, dominoes, and kids are having fun."
Thanks for your report! The unintended consequences as you note can be powerful allies for
those being attacked. The well stated case at the UN will also have consequences and generate
more solidarity for Venezuela and condemnation of the Outlaw US Empire, Pompeo, Rubio,
Abrams, Bolton, and Trump.
Merkel might say: "There is definitely a place for Brazil in NATO. They can have ours."
Forget it! Merkel is the most servile lackey that the US could wish for. She is
doing everything her masters in Washington ask her to do. For example the German public is
awaiting a mildly entertaining show of their government on how to work around yesterdays
court decision:
International law is the yardstick for international politics. This has been clarified by
the Higher Administrative Court in Münster in a spectacular ruling on lethal US drone
missions in Yemen. Several relatives of victims who were killed in such attacks had sued.
They hold the Federal Republic of Germany jointly responsible for this because the United
States allegedly also uses the US airbase in Ramstein in Rhineland-Palatinate for these
fatal attacks.
There are important indications that the drone attacks in question violate international
law and the fundamental right to life. The Federal Republic of Germany must protect these
rights and stand up for them. Therefore the Federal Republic must clarify now in a first
step whether the attacks offend against international right.
NOT! Aside from the fact, that the public press largely ignores this decision, our
governments have a long record of doing actually nothing when formally independent judges
even from the highest courts ask them to adhere to the law.
Speaking of embarrassing lackeys, when the empire was seeking a new nodal point to more
efficiently drone bomb Northern Africa the most obvious/nearby European locations like Italy,
France or Greece all said "Nah, better not". But, don't you worry, Missus Merkel was of
course happy to offer Stuttgard in Southern Germany as base for AFRICOM!
Foreign policy is no longer controlled by the President of the USA. It is controlled by the Deep state.
This article is from 2015 but can easily be written about Trump administration
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis communautaire). ..."
"... First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state" officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way? ..."
"... In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe, while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule". ..."
"... Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently in Ukraine. ..."
"... Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all. ..."
"... Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant, ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. ..."
"... Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. ..."
"... Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine – Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. ..."
"... 'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'. ..."
"... "We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED] ..."
Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy... European
democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
The avalanche of commentary since the Ukrainian crisis erupted a year ago has overshadowed any reflections on the immense forgone
benefits (technically speaking, the "opportunity cost") of what might have been if Washington had been working for peace and stability
instead of war and chaos.
Imagine the following: After the unraveling of the Communist bloc, Europe, in partnership with the US, had forged a new security
system in which Russia was treated as a valued and equal partner – one whose interests were respected. Russia, decimated by a century
of wars and Communist imperialism, would doubtless have eagerly reciprocated in kind. Most countries of the former Soviet Union would
have then proceeded to build a new Eurasian structure of which Russia would have served as the natural umbrella, given its long-standing
interaction with the region's diverse nations and cultures.
Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the
pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis
communautaire).
The rising Far Eastern economic powerhouse, with the world's most populous country, China, at its centre, would have linked up
with the world's largest economy (the EU). An enormous Eurasian production and financial bloc would have been created – one that
drew primarily on secure supplies of Russian energy and other natural resources. Untold investment opportunities would have opened
up in Siberia and Russia's Far East as well as in Central Asia. Hundreds of millions of people in Eurasia and elsewhere would have
been lifted out of poverty. And, not least, the EU would have been refashioned as an integral part of the dynamic trans-Eurasian
economy (rather than as a German-centred empire, as appears to be the case today), thereby making a major contribution to overcoming
the ongoing global economic depression.
All of this was not to be, however. Why not? First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a
mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state"
officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to
get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way?
European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started
churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe,
while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule".
Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently
in Ukraine.
And in what is eerily reminiscent of Stalinist "bloc discipline", the EU/NATO nomenclature was ordered to implement the absurd
strategy of severing the Russian economy from the EU. For their part, the cowering Eurocrats willingly obliged by imposing sanctions
on Russia that, perversely, have had a negative impact on their own economies (but, let it be stressed, not that of the US). No questions
raised and no public debate on the wisdom of such a strategy permitted.
Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view
that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil
and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all.
This abuse and humiliation of Europe is unparalleled. The continent that gave the world the wonders of the Antiquity, modern democracy,
the industrial revolution and what is arguably the greatest tradition of philosophy, fine arts and classical music is being bullied
by its oversized offspring. Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant,
ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. War and extermination
camps are etched into the European DNA. America "knows" about them only from afar – and, not least, from the Hollywood entertainment
industry.
Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior
Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. The so-called European "leaders" are colluding with them in plunging
Europe into the abyss and thereby risking nuclear confrontation.
America, too, is a loser
But this is not just a tragedy for Europe and Eurasia. We are also witnessing the wilful misrule of America and, by default, of
the entire West. Indeed, Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy. The
"democracy-promoters" running Washington's foreign-policy apparatus apparently do not understand that America has nothing to lose
and a lot to gain from the Eurasian economic project: the rising tide of global economic welfare would lift everyone's boats, including
its own. Why should it matter to Washington if the rising tide comes from other quarters beyond its control?
Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine
– Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. If it continues to support such
forces against Russia, united Europe will lose not only its backbone but its very soul. The moral consequences of this loss will
be enormous and could lead to the precipitous erosion of Western democracy.
The 'autocrats' want to work with the West, not against it
US and EU leaders believe that the Russian and Chinese "autocrats" are out to destroy the West because the latter hate freedom
(as George W. Bush might have put it). And hence, they argue, the autocrats must be stopped in their tracks. The simple truth is
that Western leaders are too blinkered to understand that far from desiring to destroy the West, Russia and China want it to prosper
so that they can work with it to everyone's benefit. Having enjoyed a privileged position over several centuries and having attained
unprecedented prosperity in recent decades, the West simply cannot understand that the rest of humanity has no interest in fomenting
the "clash of civilizations" but rather craves peace and stability so that it can finally improve its economic lot.
Perhaps, however, all is not yet lost. It is still possible that reason – and economic forces – will prevail and force the West
to correct the errors of its ways. What we need, perhaps, more than ever is the ability to step out of the box, question our fundamental
assumptions (not least about Russia and China) and find the courage to change policies that have proved disastrous. After all, critical
thought, dispassionate analysis and the ability to be open to new ideas is what made the West so successful in the past. If we are
to thrive once again in the future, we must resurrect these most valuable and unsurpassed assets.
What I cannot understand is the naive belief that elected politicians would act in the interests of those whom they represent.
Under what other circumstances do we see human beings act with disinterested altruism? So why would a bunch of people who have
been ruthlessly selected for selfishness, arrogance, and callousness - a bunch of carefully chosen psychopaths, if you will -
behave in that way?
'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to
my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign
aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to
us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'.
- Paul Craig Roberts
jabirujoe
"Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy".
Not only it's foreign policy but it's domestic policy as well. Let's call it for what it really is. The Wall Street/Corporate
policy which is the driving force behind behind everything the US does
Toddrich
"We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
"When we're done with the U.S. it will shrivel up and blow away." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
The welfare or future of the American people are not part of the equation.
Michelle is the same blatant liar as her husband, the king of "bait and switch" Obama. From
comments: "Yea heard the speech - can I throw up now? How can anyone be taken in by the total
insincerity of the whole charade. Hypocrisy rules the political roost and people just love
it."... "Obama's old lady was as cheesy as the rest of them. Shallow words from shallow
people."
Yeah, they are good with words the Obama. They can talk the talk. But they don't walk the
walk. All we got from Obama was more wars, more regime changes, more torture prisons,
hundreds of thousands of more dead women and children in the middle east, more racist killer
cops at home and a new cold war. And Hilary will bring more of the same. Now that is
something to cry about.
Collective amnesia here. The speech brought me to tears also, tears for a once proud Dem
party. The Obamas are backing a person, Clinton, who was "extremely careless" with emails in
relation to national security (FBI words) and who clearly lied under oath to Congress and who
is also clearly behind rigging the Dem nomination process to shaft Sanders and the millions
of young people who supported him, absolutely shameless
Caring Hillary? A woman who said of Gadaffi's murder "We came, we saw, he died." He was,
apparently, sodomised with a bayonet beforehand. And Obama's care for children seems limited
by borders. Doesn't seem to care much about the kids of Afghanistan or Yemen.
" In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in
the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make "the world free from nuclear weapons".
People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was
subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
It was all fake. He was lying.
The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more
nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher
under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1
trillion."
Michelle said (Hillary) "Advocating for kids with disabilities as a young lawyer" This is
the same Lawyer that bragged about getting a 41 year old pedophile off the hook for raping a
12 year old girl.
Where to next Madam Obama ? You have a few months left to scrounge on the taxpayer
dime, so where is the next multi-million dollar all-expenses paid vacation with Mammy, the
kids and the entire entourage gonna be ?
Yea heard the speech - can I throw up now? How can anyone be taken in by the total
insincerity of the whole charade. Hypocricy rules the political roost and people just love
it.
An overpopulated planet, a poisoned biosphere, a militant and violent global insurgency by a
7th Century tribal faith; a potential woman in the Whitehouse (and what a gleaming example of
womanhood she is!)? A complete irrelevance. Bread and circuses and maudlin hyperbole that
will keep the tiny minds of SJWs happy but which won't solve a thing.
Only Obama obviously wasn't the first "African American" president. He was the first
African American who sold out his fellow African Americans to be a president. To big
money.
BTW he's preparing to go on his conference tour. If you think about all the public money
he used to save the banking sector (without any consequence for the banking sector), he
should be touring at the end of his life. Poor Hillary. She so wanted the job Obama got.
The Americans are so good at farce (Trump) or heart-rending tear-jerkers (Michelle) that are
always somewhat repulsive or embarrassing, shall I say, to our European ears. It is a form of
popular catharsis that is second-nature to artists and politicians there.
These conventions seem like well managed cult get together. Both republicans and democrats
seem like mindless zombies. Obama's old lady was as cheesy as the rest of them. Shallow
words from shallow people.
I recall when she came to an inner city girls' school in London a couple of years back, on
what's despairingly referred to as a sink estate. She gave one of those syrupy, nuero
linguistic programming speeches, favoured by her dark arts husband's, TelePrompTer speech
writing team. Full of all that usual suspect; "hopey, changey, reach for the stars, you
can do it if you believe and want it bad enough" nonsense to the assembled teenage girls. And
there in lies the point of the Obamas; they're an antidepressant, a simple and effective
calming drug for sections of the masses.
Credibility of the US government and Justice system was greatly undermined, if not destroyed
by the Russiagate. Inability to investigate more plausible election interference by British an,
Saudi and Israeli actors by Mueller paints him as a despicable political operative working for
Clintons, not an independent Prosecutor, who diligently investigate the foreign interference in
elections.
The role of Rosenstein is the role of co-conspirator in a plot to deprive Trump of the
Presidency or, at least, for force him to pursue the Deep State foreign policy, which is totally
bankrupt policy. And they succeeded in this. Trump wet kiss with neocons was probably the part of
the deal.
Notable quotes:
"... When even Trump who was the victim of the machinations cares only to tweet witch hunt, why would anyone expect that any of those involved in the attempted "coup" would be held to account? ..."
"... I wondered about that myself. When I was doing clan work in Europe, recruiting UK citizens was absolutely forbidden. I needed special dispensation from Bonn Station to not declare my Russian assets to the Brits when they merely traveled to the UK. I think Steele's relationship with the FBI was not as a standard recruited asset or informer. It was a business contract. An article from a year ago sheds some light on that relationship. The first instance concerns his assistance in the FIFA investigation. ..."
When even Trump who was the victim of the machinations cares only to tweet witch hunt, why
would anyone expect that any of those involved in the attempted "coup" would be held to
account?
No one is going to face any consequences - legal or other. Hell, most of them will make money
from writing books about their "dedicated service." When was the last time the swamp applied
the laws to one of it's own. Answer: never.
The laws are enforced on us - the "deplorables out there," not the swamp creature
"elite." We are not governed, we are ruled.
And sadly that situation is as much the result of an indifferent and ignorant populace as
the behavior of the ruling class.
"One other important sidetone--there has been a longstanding agreement among the 5 Eyes
(i.e., US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) to NOT recruit as assets each other's
spies. Christopher Steele's employ with the FBI violates this policy."
I see Steele's surfacing again. Might I put in a minor query. Does this longstanding
agreement cover retired personnel?
I wondered about that myself. When I was doing clan work in Europe, recruiting UK citizens
was absolutely forbidden. I needed special dispensation from Bonn Station to not declare my
Russian assets to the Brits when they merely traveled to the UK. I think Steele's
relationship with the FBI was not as a standard recruited asset or informer. It was a
business contract. An article from a year ago sheds some light on that relationship. The
first instance concerns his assistance in the FIFA investigation.
"Steele might have been expected to move on once his investigation of the bidding was
concluded. But he had discovered that the corruption at FIFA was global, and he felt that it
should be addressed. The only organization that could handle an investigation of such scope,
he felt, was the F.B.I. In 2011, Steele contacted an American agent he'd met who headed the
Bureau's division for serious crimes in Eurasia. Steele introduced him to his sources, who
proved essential to the ensuing investigation. In 2015, the Justice Department indicted
fourteen people in connection with a hundred and fifty million dollars in bribes and
kickbacks."
The second instance of Steele's cooperation with the FBI even had a peripheral
relationship with Trump. "Several years ago, the FBI hired Steele to help crack an
international gambling and money-laundering ring purportedly run by a suspected Russian
organized-crime figure named Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov. The syndicate was based in an apartment
in Trump Tower. Eventually, federal officials indicted more than thirty co-conspirators for
financial crimes. Tokhtakhounov, though, eluded arrest, becoming a fugitive. Interpol issued
a "red notice" calling for his arrest. But, in the fall of 2013, he showed up at the Miss
Universe contest in Moscow -- and sat near the pageant's owner, Donald Trump."
According to the New Yorker magazine article, it was standard Orbis procedure to warn
authorities about national security threats. Steele warned German authorities about IS
militants using the refugee flow to infiltrate Europe. "When Steele took his suspicions about
Trump to the FBI in the summer of 2016, it was in keeping with Orbis protocol, rather than a
politically driven aberration."
Within the FBI, I'm sure Steele was coded as a source in some way as a standard procedure
to use his information. We did the same with our non-asset sources in DOD. Hell, I was even
coded as an intelligence asset when I was a SMU operative/case officer. This was different
from the reporter number all case officers are given.
Philip Giraldi, on March 13, 2018, has an essay about this New Yorker article: 'Christopher
Steele as seen by the New Yorker. Liberal fantasies beatify the messenger.' This is in the
Unz Review.
www.unz.com/pgiraldi/christ... .
Mayer doesn't mention that Steele was almost certainly identified as MI6 during the
years (possibly 1990-1993) that he was stationed in Moscow under diplomatic cover. Russian
counterintelligence agents broke into his apartment, used the toilet, left it unflushed; they
stole his wife's best shoes. He was definitely identified by 1999 when he was in Paris. There
was a DSMA notice. Too late. Then, in 2006, when Steele is said to have had the Russia desk,
there was the highly embarrassing electronic spy rock in a Moscow park. Surely he held some
responsibility for that? And if Steele was a Russian expert why were his talents being wasted
in Afghanistan?
John Helmer quotes some old intelligence hands who deny that he was a particularly
impressive agent or was deeply knowledgeable about Russia. Steele never went back to Russia
after 1992 or 1993. Mayer, in the New Yorker article, makes no mention of what surely were
setbacks for British intelligence regarding Russia in which Steele likely was playing a large
part.
We've been here before in this discussion. The question remains-- was Steele an unwitting
puppet of a Russian master counterstrike, an aikido throw which has badly shaken and
distracted America? DH, we await your comments. Has TTG gone wobbly?
I'm also fairly certain RIS was aware of Steele's status as an MI6 officer when he was
stationed in Moscow. I would think anyone working out of a diplomatic embassy is first
assumed to be an intelligence officer by the host nation. I stayed away from embassies and
other government facilities just to avoid that taint. The one time I was summoned to an
embassy, I conducted extensive surveillance detection measures both before and after the
visit and I wore a disguise.
It was a normal matter for intelligence officers to be cycled through Afghanistan and Iraq
post 9-11, no matter what their former expertise. I did my turn. CIA's "Russia House" was
bitter about their fall from the pinnacle to be replaced by all things CT during that
time.
Was some of the raw information in Steele's dossier planted by RIS? That's very possible.
Several experienced former US intelligence officers have voiced that possibility, especially
about the more salacious bits of the dossier.
That's a nice piece in the New Yorker. They mention the golden shower episode in Moscow,
however, left out Loretta Lynch. "In was in her role as district attorney that her
involvement in the Fifa investigation began. Over the course of five years in Brooklyn..."
See the BBC article on FIFA from 2015: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32912118
So did Loretta Lynch talk to Christopher Steele during this case or did Steele just
talk to the FBI agent who was years later in London? When did then US attorney for New York's
Eastern District Lorretta Lynch get informed and by which FBI agent? Who did that agent tell
about the Steele dossier, when did it get to the AG's ears, and when did she tell
Obama?
"On January 5, 2017, it became clear that at least two Washingtonians remained in the dark
about the dossier: the President and the Vice-President. " Oh, apparently AG Lynch never told
Obama, because????????
Another New Yorker Enigma: "Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.'s intelligence
service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.'s director,
John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump's team and Moscow that had
been intercepted. (The content of these intercepts has not become public.) "
So the UK has been spying on US Presidential candidates? Oh, they said they were "illicit"
communications. What does that mean? Who was communicating with Whom? And how did G.C.H.Q.
decide these communications were "illicit" but others, well they'd have to have them all to
make a comparison, wouldn't they? Put a ribbon on top of that one. DId they also intercept
any of Hilary's communications?
Given that Steele played an important role in at least two major FBI investigations
leading to multiple indictments, I would assume Lynch knew about Steele. Whether they ever
conversed, I don't know.
Comey was not at all sure about Lynch's impartiality. It would not surprise me if he kept
details of the Russian investigation, including the dossier, from her. She probably learned
about it shortly before Obama and Trump were briefed on the dossier. Obama knew enough about
the Russian investigation, without the dossier, to warn Putin to knock it off in September
2016.
I don't know if the Brits spied on our Presidential candidates. I wouldn't doubt it. We
bugged Merkel's phone. What I am sure of is that the Brits spy on every Russian of importance
within their capabilities. If Trump's campaign was in contact with those Russians, the Brits
would know about it. They obviously thought those conversations were illicit enough to inform
their US counterparts and reveal that they did monitor members of the Trump campaign. They
wouldn't have done that just for shits and giggles.
"They obviously thought those conversations were illicit enough to inform their US
counterparts and reveal that they did monitor members of the Trump campaign."
They thought it illicit? Listening is one thing, giving information to aid your country's
government's preferred candidate is interference in an election process - ours. How many
times has our ally the UK interfered with US elections? They had plenty of help from the FBI
and DOJ here in the US in 2016. Who elected GCHQ to be arbiters of US elections? I can't
find them in the US Constitution. Using the FBI and DOJ to sabatouge your party's political
opponents, that's third world government standards.
If the Brits wanted to directly influence the election, they would have publicly released
their information about "illicit' contacts. Keeping it within intelligence channels does
nothing to influence an election. I would hope the Brits would never hold back on information
concerning a possible CI threat.
TTG - thank you for your reply above. The picture one gets of Steele is no longer that of
a loose canon who somehow got himself involved in a presidential election campaign. It is
that of an experienced and respected professional working in tandem, if perhaps
unconventionally, with other professionals.
And perhaps thinking that he or his contacts back home had stumbled over important
information showing that a presidential candidate was compromised. That information possibly
being the tip of the iceberg and urgently demanding further investigation.
But that makes what happened all the more unusual -
1. Why didn't the further investigation happen? Surely the fact that such an important
matter wasn't thoroughly investigated, and that using all possible resources in the States
and abroad, shows that it was no serious investigation in the first place?
And more to the point here -
2. If those involved were professionals working away soberly at a necessary investigation,
what were they doing suddenly branching out into a smear campaign?
For none, even the originators of the dossier, are claiming that the more discreditable
part of the Steele dossier is true. That is not Intelligence material. It is sensationalised
smear material.
This objection has been met in part with the claim that the dossier was all raw unsifted
Intelligence and therefore was released as is.
But surely experienced Intelligence professionals don't suddenly pitch raw unsifted
Intelligence into the middle of the political arena while they are supposed to be still
assessing that intelligence?
Irrespective of the question of whether Trump was compromised the question therefore
arises - what were American officials doing running a smear campaign against a presidential
candidate?
Which leads back to the original question. What officials this side of the Atlantic were
also involved, and how high did the authorisation for their involvement go in England.
.
On a matter I'm better informed about, I don't see the Colonel quietly farming away in
Kent. I see him striding across the limitless expanse of a Scottish grouse moor. If our lot
had known their business they'd have worked that into their offer.
The counterintelligence investigation was in progress through the lead up to the 2016
election and is still in progress. Through 2016, it was done in a remarkably quiet fashion.
That's how these investigations are supposed to work. No one hears about them until there is
an arrest or indictment. That's how Mueller is running his investigation. We hear nothing
from him except for the indictments already issued. And they are characteristically slow and
methodical, usually spanning years before an arrest is made.
None of this investigation, including Steele's reporting was used in a pre-election smear
campaign. In my opinion, the reason the Obama administration did not publicize the idea of
Russian interference with the election and possible involvement of Trump campaign officials
is that it would surely have been seen as a partisan smear campaign. The public did not hear
of the Steele dossier until well after the election was over.
It was not just British intelligence involved in collecting on Russian interference in
the election. The Estonians, the Dutch, the Australians and probably others contributed to
the intelligence picture. We may not learn the full extent of that cooperation for many
years. Given the changing nature of information warfare and social media manipulation, I
sincerely wish the full extent of that intelligence is made public quickly. Sure that would
probably also cramp Western media manipulation capabilities, of which we are far from
innocent, but the sunlight would help inoculate all of us against this malignant
phenomenon.
The retirement farm and the big stipend sounds pretty good. I could do without the best club
and the career assistance. Sounds like they appreciated you a lot more than DIA.
DIA made me an SES-4 with presidential rank (Distinguished). Looks like the Brits expected me
to have a lot of access. They claimed these guys were off the reservation. and that they were
not authorized to pitch me.
Off the reservation my ass. I would say those Brits were a bunch of cheeky blokes who did not
do a thorough enough job of assessing your susceptibility to recruitment.
You seem more upset over this than I was. We accepted their false statements of innocence
betrayed by their own and went right on working with them. Why would they try this? Simple.
As we do they wanted to know what we were not telling them. everyone does it. A basic
principle. Recruit your liaison.
You're right. I never worked out of an embassy or in any long term liaison function. If I was
the target of such a pitch, it would have meant that I was blown along with any operations I
was involved with. For me, it would have been life altering.
Thanks for this. I am wondering what Larry Johnson and the other members of this Committee of
Correspondence make of the possible connection between Christopher Steele, Pablo Miller, and
Sergei Skripal?
Some of Craig Murray's speculations in his latest post on the Skripal incident
regarding the coordinated role of Orbis Intelligence, the BBC, and the British state (which
issued a DSMA notice prohibiting press mention of Pablo Miller) are quite plausible. Murray
is, like the members of this committee, a veteran of the game....
Was Skripal coerced/encouraged by Miller to serve as one of Steele's unattributed
Russian "sources"? Did he later get cold feet? Or did he later attempt to buy his way back
into Russia with the claim that he could provide proof that the Dossier was a fraud? Or was
he working as a triple agent the whole time? Were the two sightseeing Russians "Borishov" and
"Petrov" sent to retrieve something from Skripal?
Try this. This theory ties together all the incoherencies of the official explanation better
than anything I have seen. And, I'm pleased to see it is getting reprinted here and
there.
https://michaelantonyblog.w...
I concur. This is the most plausible explanation of what really happened in Salisbury that I
have read so far.
Colonel - might this theory be worth a dedicated SST post? It is 5,000 words, so perhaps
Patrick, David Habakkuk, or another interested member of the committee would be happy to
summarize the salient details (e.g. that Borisov & Petrov intended to return to Russia
with Sergei Skripal). The author's contact details are in the comments section re reprint
rights.
The comments below is just a small secion of almost 200 comment for the article. Moststrong
opinions are deliberately omitted...
Many people now realize that they live in occupied by neocons for 40 years county and want to
get thier state back. Tulsi Gabbard in this sense is just the pit of the iceberg.
Looks like alt-Right is now turned completely anti-Israeli.
Notable quotes:
"... Senator Lindsey Graham intends to initiate legislative action to compel the United States to actually recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights which has not been recognized as part of Israel by any other country or international body. ..."
@Willie'
They are engaged in a battle for Jewish self determination in a sea of Muslim only countries,
they are going to fight to the death, too bad if civilians get in the way, wars are not
fair.'
What a farcical distortion. The last actual Jewish civilian actually killed within the
actual borders of Israel died over two years ago. It's not a battle for 'Jewish
self-determination' but an endless exercise in vicious oppression. It's about as morally
edifying as the Nazi occupation of Poland.
Israel is a racist apartheid state and I resent that my tax dollars are sent there to buy
bombs to slaughter Palestinians that have never done anything to harm me.
" They are engaged in a battle for Jewish self determination in a sea of Muslim only
countries, they are going to fight to the death, too bad if civilians get in the way, wars
are not fair.'"
The cure is diversity, mass immigration and equality. That is what the Jewish media,
academia, judiciary, US rabbis say, yes to their white hosts in the diaspora. It is virtuous
and noble to listen to Jewish media and do exactly as they wish.
Israel, do unto thy selves as your diaspora insists is the moral thing to do. Make
yourselves a minority in Eretz Yisroel as you wish unto white goyim. KILL YOURSELF.
Recognising the West Bank as part of Israel without risking Arab numbers and fertility having
the consequences to be expected in a modern democratic country would make it impossible for
Israel to escape the description of apartheid state. How is that consideration going to
affect outcomes in the near future?
The Jewish Firster colonization of the United States has been incremental. It is now nearing
completion. Few countries if any, colonized by other (usually more powerful) countries appear
to have accepted colonization with such alacrity as have many Americans in their colonization
by Israel. Most have resisted colonial rule and even launched wars to rid themselves of
their colonial masters.
Question is, if Israel were to be a 51st American state, would she get away with so
many crimes as she does outside the Union? Or is this a case of an informal union of two
criminal gangster nations? We have read in the UR of the compelling evidence of Jewish
collusion in history's two most devastating world wars. The Third one -- and mother of all
wars, is sure to be instigated by Zionist Israel. BTW, this post is not addressed to paid
Hasbara trolls.
Zionist pigs are nothing but FAKE Jews, they are the STATE, and DO NOT represent the majority
of the Israeli people. This action is nothing more than criminal FASCISM with an Imperialist
agenda!
It is not the pig that is disgusting and filthy, it is the Zionist State and the rodents
that control it, such as the Premier. The USA is nothing more than a filthy shit bag whore to
Israel, as is the rest of the West!
Where is the UN and ICC? Eating their pork chops laughing all the way to bank. The sooner
Israel is bombed to rubble, the better the world will be. Hitler new the truth about these
filthy scum, that is why he wanted to remove them from planet earth. The Lords day is coming,
but the Zionist scum's are coming to an end!
AIPAC's annual star-studded gala demonstrates once again that Zio-Israeli influence in
American life is alive and well and operating unopposed.
No foreign or domestic lobby comes even close to The Lobby's baleful impact on American
independence. This includes its shameless role in the manufacture of Zionist-friendly Fake
News, Congressional waste and murderous appropriations, as well as Zio-Washington's
blood-soaked war machinery that rewards one 'democratic ally' way over yonder while it
relentlessly targets that same ally's foes, rivals, and outcasts.
Is this any way to run an Empire?
In any case, one is expected to not examine this phenomena too critically as it's
already Badthink to do so (and possibly even verging on 'anti-Semitism'!)
Just. Don't. Go. There.
Thus the great majority of middle-of-the-road, 'centrist-seeking' Americans have learned
to bow their collective heads in a show of deference when the activist offspring and
well-heeled advocates of a certain downtrodden tribe of Glorious Survivors gather in DC to
make political whoopee by praising the Zionist juggernaut and raising boatloads of
influence-buying shekels for America's next class of political prostitutes. It's who we
are.
And as for you HATERS out there, we have this to say:
Six Million! Six million you Nazi scum! We are coming for you!
Understand?
Therefore Do Not talk back. Do Not get out of line.
Bear in mind that those who do get out of line tend to disappear rapidly from
public life. (worth keeping in mind, eh?)
It is advised therefore to not examine this phenomena too aggressively. (Just be
quiet)
This is America and compromises must be made!
Israel's pampered, moneyed, exclusive, and relentlessly militarized agenda therefore
must get special, praised, and privileged treatment on every DC stage and from the mouth of
every pundit and tastemaker on every American TV.
It's unanimous! Gotta love em!
(or else).
Why spoil the party with needless dissent, unpleasant facts, or contrary opinions?
Really.
Thus when AIPAC's in town, there's glorious bipartisanship and wondrous unanimity. Zionism
is great!
To make political matters even more surreal, Democrat attack-dog, Robert Mueller (with
forward assistance of our Israeli-centric news and entertainment media) is still sniffing
around Google and still turning over rocks on Facebook and elsewhere in hopes of finding
those dastardly Russian fingerprints that will 'prove' (once and for all!) that Putin and a
handful of underpaid Russian propagandist tricked the American people into voting the WRONG
WAY.
The Russkies stole the whole damn election on behalf of Trump and his deplorable base of
rednecks and white supremacists. Just check with the attendees at this season's AIPAC soiree,
they'll splain it to ya. It's Russia!
However, when one considers that the Russian/US cold war has only escalated since
the election of Donald J. Trump, this far Left conspiracy theory does not entirely hold
water.
Oh well.
Thank goodness Israel is intervening here and helping and orchestrating for the good of
America (and for democracy in general) and that the Israeli people stand united and for all
things righteous and democratic and free.
Circumspect, thoughtful and well done. Unfortunately, religion in general, and its relation
to Israel specifically, seem to function as areas of inactivity in our President's otherwise
well-functioning intellect.
It is not Otzma Yehudit that some fascist fraction of Israel or Judaism, no –
exceptionalism is fascism by a simpler name, and those that self declare themselves as the
chosen people of God are all fascists.
@Colin
Wright Israel has no borders defined.
The jews regard greater Israel the borders, Euphrates and Nile, the two blue strips on their
flag.
It is in plain sight, but many can't see it.
Depressing as usual Philip Giraldi, thanks for brightening up my day, lol.
Other leading American politicians who will be at AIPAC in supporting rolls include the
slimy Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and the despicable former U.N.
Ambassador Nikki Haley.
A who's who of Zionist lackeys.
It will also include numerous other congressmen, administration officials and the usual
scumbags who gravitate to these events, including pardoned criminal Elliott Abrams and
unindicted felon Senator Robert Menendez. Abrams, who believes that Jews and gentiles
should not intermarry, is currently engaged in destroying Venezuela and just might be
otherwise occupied.
I live in the Garden State and can't believe Menendez got re-elected, but really I
do.
As for Abrams I have to agree with him there, Jews and Gentiles shouldnt be allowed to
intermarry or have children.
There are many reasons for this, some good and some maybe not so good (in your eyes). Let me
cut to the chase and be as offensive , to some, as I can. Infesting gentile blood
lines (white Christian) with Jew-ish ones only muddies the waters even more in the battle or
right and wrong, from deep philosophical and religious grounds, Christianity versus Judaism
and Islam, to the earthly issue of landing the Zionist Entity right smack on top of
Palestine.
Going back to the big picture, I'm may not be a very good Christian but as a follower of
Christ and knowing of the Book of Revelation and even less of the works of Nostradamus, it
seems that Christian Zionists, for all their stupidity, may be on to something especially
with the approximate timelines of Nostradamus.
I will just hope for the best and that 'the truth shall set me free.'
He has entered into a coalition with the openly racist Kahanist party Otzma Yehudit
Racist and anti-Christian. Its leader, Michael Ben-Ari, tore up a New Testament,
describing it as a despicable book which should be in history's trash can. Activist Benzi
Gopstein has called for churches in Israel to be burned down and has
described Christians as blood-sucking vampires who should be expelled from Israel.
The New Observer
has the story . Ben-Ari's racism was too much even for Israel and he has been banned from
standing in next month's election.
Senator Lindsey Graham intends to initiate legislative action to compel the United
States to actually recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights which has not been
recognized as part of Israel by any other country or international body.
The US has a record of recognizing scumbag regimes, and here's another
example.:
Even after Woody Wilson's attorney general Mitchell Palmer's "Great Red Scare*" of 1919 in
the USA and much opposition to International Commienizm, Stalin-stlye, 'Ol FDR couldn't
wait to recognize the USSR which is something he did shortly after getting elected in
1933 after getting a meaningless "promise" from Stalin that he'd stop supporting Red terror*
in the US. It must not have mattered to him that Lenin and Stalin had been terrorizing their
own for over a decade, and in fact, Stalin had just finished engineering a slow
death-by-starvation holocaust of up to 10 million Ukrainians. He also deported many
adults, leaving their children to starve in the streets.
Americans support Jews and Israel over Muslims, Arabs and Palestine, because they
identify with Jews, and feel a kinship*.
My, how tender. But keep dreaming and scheming; why else do you think AIPAC et al
exist? Thanks for the laughs. It has nothing to do with kinship, but rather much to do about knowing who's "boss," at
least for now.
AIPAC is a seriously threatening organization with income of more than $100 million per
annum, nearly 400 employees, 100,000 members, seventeen regional offices, and a "vast pool of
donors." It clearly includes a lot of smart and savvy folks who know a lot about what is
going on in the Middle East, but its panels will not include a single word about shooting
unarmed protesters, declaring Israel to be a "nation state for Jews alone," its own acceptance
of laws attacking freedom of speech, or its use of Jewish donated money to corrupt the American
political system encouraging "allegiance to a foreign country" on the part of U.S. citizens.
Bibi will undoubtedly pick up on AIPAC's cozy theme of inclusiveness by taking the opportunity
to burnish his credentials as the leader who can continue to deliver on unlimited and
uncritical support from the United States. He will almost certainly meet with President Donald
Trump and the two will undoubtedly mention the terrible wave of anti-Semitism that is sweeping
the globe, justifying still more ethnic cleansing of the diminishing number of Arabs living in
Greater Israel and the bombing of Iran.
Other leading American politicians who will be at AIPAC in supporting rolls include the
slimy Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and the despicable former U.N. Ambassador
Nikki Haley. It will also include numerous other congressmen, administration officials and the
usual scumbags who gravitate to these events, including pardoned criminal Elliott Abrams and
unindicted felon Senator Robert Menendez. Abrams, who believes that Jews and gentiles should
not intermarry, is currently engaged in destroying Venezuela and just might be otherwise
occupied.
A number of the "American" government attendees at the event are actually Israeli citizens.
Sigal Mandelker,
a committed Zionist who holds the perpetually Jewish position of Under Secretary for
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the United States Department of Treasury, is an Israeli
by birth and it is widely believed that a number of Jewish congressmen and government officials
who will be attending the AIPAC conference have dual citizenship. On the conference website's
roster of attendees, it is amusing to see the official photos in which the U.S. legislators and
officials are standing in front of the American flag, seemingly disinterested in the irony that
what AIPAC is doing is destructive of democracy in America and a sell-out to Israeli interests,
undermining those of the United States.
Netanyahu's most serious opposition in the election appears to be
a centrist coalition headed by former Israeli Defense Force chief General Benny Gantz, who
has spoken of his pride in killing 1,364 "terrorists" in Gaza, and former Finance Minister
Yair Lapid. It is the principal challenge to incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's
re-election hopes. Israeli courts have also meanwhile banned several Arab parties while
allowing extreme right-wing Jewish parties to appear on the ballot
Well they are swinging for the fences, what would you like them to do, invite Hezbollah for
tea, these Islamist make no small talk about destroying the Jewish state completely IE the
Jews.
So what would you have them do. If you are in favor of the Jewish state going down, you are
in the minority not because of dual loyalty evil AIPAC.
Americans support Jews and Israel over Muslims, Arabs and Palestine, because they identify
with Jews, and feel a kinship. Jews fought in both World wars, I mean search thru a
microscope for a muslim, and lets face it Shira is anti capitalist, anti women, and anti
separation of church and state.
Nothing like the obvious reasons, yet you like to make it all about the Jews.
They are engaged in a battle for Jewish self determination in a sea of Muslim only countries,
they are going to fight to the death, too bad if civilians get in the way, wars are not fair.
They are engaged in a battle for Jewish self determination in a sea of Muslim only
countries,
Such a shame the zionists did not know about that sea of Muslim only countries in 1897
when they started plotting to take over Palestine.
All those Muslims. who knew?
RFLMAO. That's EXACTLY the line the PR advisers coached you to say, right?
Good boy, Willie. LOL. There's a great film about Israeli propaganda, FREE online. Watch the
Israeli spokesman bleat, "What would you do?"
THE OCCUPATION OF THE AMERICAN MIND
__________________________________ Israel's Public Relations War in the United States
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's main political opponent Benny Gantz, who is heading
the "Blue and White" party that leads in the polls, thinks President Trump could recognize
Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights in order to help Netanyahu win the April 9
elections, three Gantz aides told me.
Why it matters: Israel has occupied the Golan Heights from Syria since 1967. U.S.
recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights would be a huge diplomatic win for
Netanyahu -- no less significant than the moving of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. In the
last year, Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians, including Gantz's political ally Yair
Lapid, have started calling for U.S. recognition of the Golan Heights.
•Gantz's aides told me they think Trump could announce U.S. recognition of the
Golan Heights during Netanyahu's visit to the White House two weeks from now. Gantz's aides
told me that if Trump does this, it will give Netanyahu a huge achievement to campaign
on.
****
Driving the news: Netanyahu discussed the possibility of U.S. recognition of the Golan
Heights during a visit to the territory on Monday with Sen. Lindsey Graham. U.S. Ambassador
to Israel David Friedman attended all of Netanyahu's talks with Graham.
•After the talks, Graham stood next to Netanyahu in front of cameras and said that
once he arrives back to Washington, he will help push Sen. Ted Cruz's initiative to pass a
bill in the Senate for U.S. recognition in the Golan Heights.
****
The White House refrained from commenting and a State Department official told me there is
no change to the U.S. position on the Golan Heights for the moment.
Empire disintegrated because of natural tendency to over-expand. This tendency is almost
impossible for elite to resist, especially neoliberal elite as among them there is a growing and
more and influential strata of "imperial servants".
The collapse of the US empire is intrinsically linked to the collapse of neoliberalism.
The USA has now increasingly dysfunctional political system incapable of wise foreign policy.
The current generation of US political leaders are all poisoned by the dream of ruling the globe
which was a real possibility after the collapse of the USSR and which they were unable to resist.
Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Venezuela in different way way demonstrated the the US empire tend
to commit costly blunders. First of all engaging the empire in unwinnable wars with unexpected
blowbacks.
Notable quotes:
"... Professor Richard Wolff reveals the unexpected truth about imperialism on the Thom Hartmann program! ..."
Fortunately the world today is very different from that of 2003, Washington's decrees are
less effective in determining the world order. But in spite of this new, more balanced division
of power amongst several powers, Washington appears ever more aggressive towards allies and
enemies alike, regardless of which US president is in office.
China and Russia are leading this historic transition while being careful to avoid direct
war with the United States. To succeed in this endeavor, they use a hybrid strategy involving
diplomacy, military support to allies, and economic guarantees to countries under Washington's
attack.
The United States considers the whole planet its playground. Its military and political
doctrine is based on the concept of liberal hegemony, as explained by political scientist John
Mearsheimer. This imperialistic attitude has, over time, created a coordinated and
semi-official front of countries resisting this liberal hegemony. The recent events in
Venezuela indicate why cooperation between these counter-hegemonic countries is essential to
accelerating the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar reality, where the damage US
imperialism is able to bring about is diminished.
Moscow and Beijing lead the world by hindering Washington
Moscow and Beijing, following a complex relationship from the period of the Cold War, have
managed to achieve a confluence of interests in their grand objectives over the coming years.
The understanding they have come to mainly revolves around stemming the chaos Washington has
unleashed on the world.
The guiding principle of the US military-intelligence apparatus is that if a country cannot
be controlled (such as Iraq following the 2003 invasion), then it has to be destroyed in order
to save it from falling into Sino-Russian camp. This is what the United States has attempted to
do with Syria, and what it intends to do with Venezuela.
The Middle East is an area that has drawn global attention for some time, with Washington
clearly interested in supporting its Israeli and Saudi allies in the region. Israel pursues a
foreign policy aimed at dismantling the Iranian and Syrian states. Saudi Arabia also pursues a
similar strategy against Iran and Syria, in addition to fueling a rift within the Arab world
stemming from its differences with Qatar.
The foreign-policy decisions of Israel and Saudi Arabia have been supported by Washington
for decades, for two very specific reasons: the influence of the Israel lobby in the US, and
the need to ensure that Saudi Arabia and the OPEC countries sell oil in US dollars, thereby
preserving the role of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.
The US dollar remaining the global reserve currency is essential to Washington being able to
maintain her role as superpower and is crucial to her hybrid strategy against her geopolitical
rivals. Sanctions are a good example of how Washington uses the global financial and economic
system, based on the US dollar, as a weapon against her enemies. In the case of the Middle
East, Iran is the main target, with sanctions aimed at preventing the Islamic Republic from
trading on foreign banking systems. Washington has vetoed Syria's ability to procure contracts
to reconstruct the country, with European companies being threatened that they risk no longer
being able to work in the US if they accept to work in Syria.
Beijing and Moscow have a clear diplomatic strategy, jointly rejecting countless motions
advanced by the US, the UK and France at the United Nations Security Council condemning Iran
and Syria. On the military front, Russia continues her presence in Syria. China's economic
efforts, although not yet fully visible in Syria and Iran, will be the essential part of
reviving these countries destroyed by years of war inflicted by Washington and her allies.
China and Russia's containment strategy in the Middle East aims to defend Syria and Iran
diplomatically using international law, something that is continuously ridden roughshod over by
the US and her regional allies. Russia's military action has been crucial to curbing and
defeating the inhuman aggression launched against Syria, and has also drawn a red line that
Israel cannot cross in its efforts to attack Iran. The defeat of the United States in Syria has
created an encouraging precedent for the rest of the world. Washington has been forced to
abandon the original plans to getting rid of Assad.
Syria will be remembered in the future as the beginning of the multipolar revolution,
whereby the United States was contained in military-conventional terms as a result of the
coordinated actions of China and Russia.
China's economic contribution provides for such urgent needs as the supply of food,
government loans, and medicines to countries under Washington's economic siege. So long as the
global financial system remains anchored to the US dollar, Washington remains able to cause a
lot of pain to countries refusing to obey her diktats.
The effectiveness of economic sanctions varies from country to country. The Russian
Federation used sanctions imposed by the West as an impetus to obtain a complete, or almost
autonomous, refinancing of its main foreign debt, as well as to producing at home what had
previously been imported from abroad. Russia's long-term strategy is to open up to China and
other Asian countries as the main market for imports and exports, reducing contacts with the
Europeans if countries like France and Germany continue in their hostility towards the Russian
Federation.
Thanks to Chinese investments, together with planned projects like the Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI), the hegemony of the US dollar is under threat in the medium to long term. The
Chinese initiatives in the fields of infrastructure, energy, rail, road and technology
connections among dozens of countries, added to the continuing need for oil, will drive
ever-increasing consumption of oil in Asia that is currently paid for in US dollars.
Moscow is in a privileged position, enjoying good relations with all the major producers of
oil and LNG, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia, and including Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria. Moscow's
good relations with Riyadh are ultimately aimed at the creation of an OPEC+ arrangement that
includes Russia.
Particular attention should be given to the situation in Venezuela, one of the most
important countries in OPEC. Riyadh sent to Caracas in recent weeks a tanker carrying two
million barrels of oil, and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has taken a neutral stance regarding
Venezuela, maintaining a predictable balance between Washington and Caracas.
These joint initiatives, led by Moscow and Beijing, are aimed at reducing the use of the US
dollar by countries that are involved in the BRI and adhere to the OPEC+ format. This
diversification away from the US dollar, to cover financial transactions between countries
involving investment, oil and LNG, will see the progressive abandonment of the US dollar as a
result of agreements that increasingly do away with the dollar.
For the moment, Riyadh does not seem intent on losing US military protection. But recent
events to do with Khashoggi, as well as the failure to list Saudi Aramco on the New York or
London stock exchanges, have severely undermined the confidence of the Saudi royal family in
her American allies. The meeting between Putin and MBS at the G20 in Bueno Aires seemed to
signal a clear message to Washington as well as the future of the US dollar.
Moscow and Beijing's military, economic and diplomatic efforts see their culmination in the
Astana process. Turkey is one of the principle countries behind the aggression against Syria;
but Moscow and Tehran have incorporated it into the process of containing the regional chaos
spawned by the United States. Thanks to timely agreements in Syria known as "deconfliction
zones", Damascus has advanced, city by city, to clear the country of the terrorists financed by
Washington, Riyadh and Ankara.
Qatar, an economic guarantor of Turkey, which in return offers military protection to Doha,
is also moving away from the Israeli-Saudi camp as a result of Sino-Russian efforts in the
energy, diplomatic and military fields. Doha's move has also been because of the fratricidal
diplomatic-economic war launched by Riyadh against Doha, being yet another example of the
contagious effect of the chaos created by Washington, especially on US allies Israel and Saudi
Arabia.
Washington loses military influence in the region thanks to the presence of Moscow, and this
leads traditional US allies like Turkey and Qatar to gravitate towards a field composed
essentially of the countries opposed to Washington.
Washington's military and diplomatic defeat in the region will in the long run make it
possible to change the economic structure of the Middle East. A multipolar reality will
prevail, where regional powers like Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran will feel compelled to
interact economically with the whole Eurasian continent as part of the Belt and Road
Initiative.
The basic principle for Moscow and Beijing is the use of military, economic and diplomatic
means to contain the United States in its unceasing drive to kill, steal and destroy.
From the Middle East to Asia
Beijing has focussed in Asia on the diplomatic field, facilitating talks between North and
South Korea, accelerating the internal dialogue on the peninsula, thereby excluding external
actors like the United States (who only have the intention of sabotaging the talks). Beijing's
military component has also played an important role, although never used directly as the
Russian Federation did in Syria. Washington's options vis-a-vis the Korean peninsular were
strongly limited by the fact that bordering the DPRK were huge nuclear and conventional forces,
that is to say, the deterrence offered by Russia and China. The combined military power of the
DPRK, Russia and China made any hypothetical invasion and bombing of Pyongyang an impractical
option for the United States.
As in the past, the economic lifeline extended to Pyongyang by Moscow and Beijing proved to
be decisive in limiting the effects of the embargo and the complete financial war that
Washington had declared on North Korea. Beijing and Moscow's skilled diplomatic work with Seoul
produced an effect similar to that of Turkey in the Middle East, with South Korea slowly
seeming to drift towards the multipolar world offered by Russia and China, with important
economic implications and prospects for unification of the peninsula.
Russia and China – through a combination of playing a clever game of diplomacy,
military deterrence, and offering to the Korean peninsula the prospect of economic investment
through the BRI – have managed to frustrate Washington's efforts to unleash chaos on
their borders via the Korean peninsula.
The United States seems to be losing its imperialistic mojo most significantly in Asia and
the Middle East, not only militarily but also diplomatically and economically.
The situation is different in Europe and Venezuela, two geographical areas where Washington
still enjoys greater geopolitical weight than in Asia and the Middle East. In both cases, the
effectiveness of the two Sino-Russian resistance – in military, economic and diplomatic
terms – is more limited, for different reasons. This situation, in line with the
principle of America First and the return to the Monroe doctrine, will be the subject of the
next article.
Vesti calls out Pompeo on lying about Russia invading Ukraine [Video]
Secretary Pompeo displayed either stunning ignorance or a mass-attack of propaganda about
what must be the most invisible war in history.
After the 2014 Maidan revolution and the subsequent secessions of
Lugansk and Donetsk in Ukraine, and after the rejoining of Crimea with its original nation of
Russia, the Western media went on a campaign to prove the Russia is (/ was / was about to / had
already / might / was thinking about / was planning to etc.) invade Ukraine. For the next year
or so, about every two weeks, internet news sources like Yahoo! News showed viewers pictures of
tanks, box trucks and convoys to "prove" that the invasion was underway (or any of the other
statuses confirming the possibilities above stated.) This information was doubtless provided to
US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.
Apparently, Secretary Pompeo believed this ruse, or is being paid to believe this ruse
because in a speech recently,
he talked about it as fact:
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Russia's annexation of Crimea and aggression in
eastern Ukraine an attempt to gain access to Ukraine's oil and gas reserves. He stated this
at IHS Markit's CERAWeek conference in Houston, the USA,
Reuters reports.
Pompeo urged the oil industry to work with the Trump administration to promote U.S.
foreign policy interests, especially in Asia and in Europe, and to punish what he called "bad
actors" on the world stage.
The United States has imposed harsh sanctions in the past several months on two major
world oil producers, Venezuela and Iran.
Pompeo said the U.S. oil-and-gas export boom had given the United States the ability to
meet energy demand once satisfied by its geopolitical rivals.
"We don't want our European allies hooked on Russian gas through the Nord Stream 2
project, any more than we ourselves want to be dependent on Venezuelan oil supplies," Pompeo
said, referring to a
natural gas pipeline expansion from Russia to Central Europe .
Pompeo called Russia's invasion of Ukraine an attempt to gain access to the country's oil
and gas reserves.
Although the state-run news agency Vesti News often comes under criticism for rather
reckless, or at least, extremely sarcastic propaganda at times, here they rightly nailed Mr.
Pompeo's lies to the wall and billboarded it on their program:
The news anchors even made a wisecrack about one of the political figures, Konstantin
Zatulin saying as a joke that Russia plans to invade the United States to get its oil. They
further noted that Secretary Pompeo is uneducated about the region and situation, but they
offered him the chance to come to Russia and learn the correct information about what is going
on.
However, the oil and gas side of the anti-Russian propaganda operation by the US is
significant. The US wishes for Europe to buy gas from American suppliers, even though this is
woefully inconvenient and expensive when Russia is literally at Europe's doorstep with easy
supplies. However, the Cold War Party in the United States, which still has a significant hold
on US policy making categorizes the sale of Russia gas to powers like NATO ally Germany as a
"threat" to European security.
It is interesting that Angela Merkel herself does not hold this line of thinking. It is also
interesting and worthy of note, that this is not the only NATO member that is dealing more and
more with Russia in terms of business. It underscores the loss of purpose that the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization suffers now since there is no Soviet Union to fight.
However, the US remains undaunted. If there is no enemy to fight, the Americans feel that
they must create one, and Russia has been the main scapegoat for American power ambitions. More
than ever now, this tactic appears to be the one in use for determining the US stance towards
other powers in the world.
Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon! Continue
Reading
Reminder why should never listen to MadCow show ;-). And BTW MadCow is paid 30K a day... You
decide whether she is lazy and incompetent, or bought and evil...
Before the election, Rachel Maddow pointed out new polling that showed a strong shift
towards Democrats in key "toss up" states, all states Trump won. Jimmy Dore breaks it down.
Subscribe...
CNN is just mouthpiece for intelligence community and MIC
The question of a type "did you finished to beat your wife" are very difficult to ask. So how
skillfully Tulsi handled those "sinking" question comment her skills.
The problem with Jimmy Dore is he has some kind of mental block or is somehow completely
unaware of the reasons we bomb countries that are hostile to Israel and located right on
their border or at least near them. You also have to be completely unaware of the power of
the Jewish lobbies and their obvious bias towards their own interests to ignore Jews role in
promoting wars that benefit Israel. It's not the "military industrial complex" Jimmy, it's
who controls that complex. Jeff Zucker, the head of CNN is a Jew, that like Jake Tapper (also
a Jew) sees any destruction of Syria as beneficial to Israel. The neo-Con Max Boot was born
in Russia and still wants to bomb Russia because he's a Jew that doesn't want Putin
preventing Jewish controlled US from destroying Syria. I can level some similar criticism at
Jimmy that he levels at the mainstream media.
Reminder why should never listen to MadCow show ;-). And BTW MadCow is paid 30K a day... You
decide whether she is lazy and incompetent, or bought and evil...
Before the election, Rachel Maddow pointed out new polling that showed a strong shift
towards Democrats in key "toss up" states, all states Trump won. Jimmy Dore breaks it down.
Subscribe...
"... It appears the FBI, CIA, and NSA have great difficulty in differentiating between Russians and Democrats posing as Russians. ..."
"... Maybe the VIPS should look into the murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who had the security clearance required to access the DNC servers, and who was murdered in the same week as the emails were taken. In particular, they should ask why the police were told to stand down and close the murder case without further investigation. ..."
"... What a brilliant article, so logical, methodical & a forensic, scientific breakdown of the phony Russiagate project? And there's no doubt, this was a co-ordinated, determined Intelligence project to reverse the results of the 2016 Election by initiating a soft coup or Regime change op on a elected Leader, a very American Coup, something the American Intelligence Agencies specialise in, everywhere else, on a Global scale, too get Trump impeached & removed from the Whitehouse? ..."
"... Right. Since its purpose is to destroy Trump politically, the investigation should go on as long as Trump is in office. Alternatively, if at this point Trump has completely sold out, that would be another reason to stop the investigation. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi's announcement two days ago that the Democrats will not seek impeachment for Trump suggests the emptiness of the Mueller investigation on the specific "collusion" issue. ..."
"... We know and Assange has confirmed Seth Rich, assassinated in D.C. for his deed, downloaded the emails and most likely passed them on to former British ambassador Craig Murray in a D.C. park for transport to Wikileaks. ..."
"... This so-called "Russiagate" narrative is an illustration of our "freedom of the press" failure in the US due to groupthink and self censorship. He who pays the piper is apt to call the tune. ..."
"... Barr, Sessions, every congressmen all the corporate MSM war profiteer mouth pieces. They all know that "Russia hacked the DNC" and "Russia meddled" is fabricated garbage. They don't care, because their chosen war beast corporate candidate couldn't beat Donald goofball Trump. So it has to be shown that the war beast only lost because of nefarious reasons. Because they're gonna run another war beast cut from the same cloth as Hillary in 2020. ..."
"... Mar 4, 2019 Tom Fitton: President Trump a 'Crime Victim' by Illegal Deep State DOJ & FBI Abuses: https://youtu.be/ixWMorWAC7c ..."
"... Trump is a willing player in this game. The anti-Russian Crusade was, quite simply, a stunningly reckless, short-sighted effort to overturn the 2016 election, removing Trump to install Hillary Clinton in office. ..."
"... Much ado about nothing. All the talk and chatter and media airplay about "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election only tells me that these liars think the American public is that stupid. ..."
"... Andrew Thomas I'm afraid that huge amounts of our History post 1947 is organized and propagandized disinformation. There is an incredible page that John Simpkin has organized over the years that specifically addresses individuals, click on a name and read about them. https://spartacus-educational.com/USAdisinformation.htm ..."
"... It's pretty astonishing that Mueller was more interested in Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi as credible sources about Wikileaks and the DNC release than Craig Murray! ..."
"... Yes, he has done his job. And his job was to bring his royal Orangeness to heel, and to make sure that detente and co-operation with Russia remained impossible. The forever war continues. Mission Accomplished. ..."
I could not suffer through reading the whole article. This is mainly because I have
watched the news daily about Mueller's Investigation and I sincerely believe that Mueller is
Champion of the Democrats who are trying to depose President Donald Trump at any cost.
For what Mueller found any decent lawyer with a Degree and a few years of experience could
have found what Mueller found for far far less money. Mueller only found common crimes AND NO
COLLUSION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PUTIN!
The Mueller Investigation should be given to an honest broker to review, and Mueller
should be paid only what it would cost to produce the commonplace crimes Mueller, The
Democrats, and CNN has tried to convince the people that indeed Trump COLLUDED with RUSSIA.
Mueller is, a BIG NOTHING BURGER and THE DEMOCRATS AND CNN ARE MUELLER'S SINGING CANARYS!
Mueller should be jailed.
Bogdan Miller , March 15, 2019 at 11:04 am
This article explains why the Mueller Report is already highly suspect. For another thing,
we know that since before 2016, Democrats have been studying Russian Internet and hacking
tactics, and posing as Russian Bots/Trolls on Facebook and other media outlets, all in an
effort to harm President Trump.
It appears the FBI, CIA, and NSA have great difficulty in differentiating between Russians
and Democrats posing as Russians.
B.J.M. Former Intelligence Analyst and Humint Collector
vinnieoh , March 15, 2019 at 8:17 am
Moving on: the US House yesterday voted UNANIMOUSLY (remember that word, so foreign these
days to US governance?) to "urge" the new AG to release the complete Mueller report.
A
non-binding resolution, but you would think that the Democrats can't see the diesel
locomotive bearing down on their clown car, about to smash it to pieces. The new AG in turn
says he will summarize the report and that is what we will see, not the entire report. And
taxation without representation takes a new twist.
... ... ...
Raymond Comeau , March 15, 2019 at 12:38 pm
What else would you expect from two Political Parties who are really branches of the ONE
Party which Represents DEEP STATE".
DWS , March 15, 2019 at 5:58 am
Maybe the VIPS should look into the murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who had the
security clearance required to access the DNC servers, and who was murdered in the same week
as the emails were taken. In particular, they should ask why the police were told to stand
down and close the murder case without further investigation.
Raymond Comeau , March 15, 2019 at 12:47 pm
EXACTLY! But, Deep State will not allow that. And, it would ruin the USA' plan to continue
to invade more sovereign countries and steal their resources such as oil and Minerals. The
people of the USA must be Ostriches or are so terrified that they accept anything their
Criminal Governments tell them.
Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost and perhaps the USA voters will ROAST
when the crimes of the USA sink the whole country. It is time for a few Brave Men and Women
to find their backbones and throw out the warmongers and their leading Oligarchs!
KiwiAntz , March 14, 2019 at 6:44 pm
What a brilliant article, so logical, methodical & a forensic, scientific breakdown of
the phony Russiagate project? And there's no doubt, this was a co-ordinated, determined
Intelligence project to reverse the results of the 2016 Election by initiating a soft coup or
Regime change op on a elected Leader, a very American Coup, something the American
Intelligence Agencies specialise in, everywhere else, on a Global scale, too get Trump
impeached & removed from the Whitehouse?
If you can't get him out via a Election, try
& try again, like Maduro in Venezuela, to forcibly remove the targeted person by setting
him up with fake, false accusations & fabricated evidence? How very predictable & how
very American of Mueller & the Democratic Party. Absolute American Corruption, corrupts
absolutely?
Brian Murphy , March 15, 2019 at 10:33 am
Right. Since its purpose is to destroy Trump politically, the investigation should go on
as long as Trump is in office. Alternatively, if at this point Trump has completely sold out, that would be another
reason to stop the investigation.
If the investigation wraps up and finds nothing, that means Trump has already completely
sold out. If the investigation continues, it means someone important still thinks Trump retains some
vestige of his balls.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:19 pm
By last June or July the Mueller investigation has resulted in roughly 150 indictments
for perjury/financial crimes, and there was a handful of convictions to date. The report did
not support the Clinton wing's anti-Russian allegations about the 2016 election, and was
largely brushed aside by media. Mueller was then reportedly sent back in to "find something."
presumably to support the anti-Russian claims.
mike k , March 14, 2019 at 12:57 pm
From the beginning of the Russia did it story, right after Trump's electoral victory, it
was apparent that this was a fraud. The democratic party however has locked onto this
preposterous story, and they will go to their graves denying this was a scam to deny their
presidential defeat, and somehow reverse the result of Trump's election. My sincere hope is
that this blatant lie will be an albatross around the party's neck, that will carry them down
into oblivion. They have betrayed those of us who supported them for so many years. They are
in many ways now worse than the republican scum they seek to replace.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:26 pm
Trump is almost certain to be re-elected in 2020, and we'll go through this all over
again.
The very fact that the FBI never had access to the servers and took the word of a private
company that had a history of being anti-Russian is enough to throw the entire ruse out.
LJ , March 14, 2019 at 2:39 pm
Agreed!!!! and don't forget the FBI/Comey gave Hillary and her Campaign a head's up before
they moved to seize the evidence. . So too, Comey said he stopped the Investigation , thereby
rendering judgement of innocence, even though by his own words 'gross negligence' had a
occurred (which is normally considered grounds for prosecution). In doing so he exceeded the
FBI's investigative mandate. He rationalized that decision was appropriate because of the
appearance of impropriety that resulted from Attorney General Lynch having a private meeting
on a plane on a runway with Bill and Hillary . Where was the logic in that. Who called the
meeting? All were Lawyers who had served as President, Senator, Attorney General and knew
that the meeting was absolutely inappropriate. . Comey should be prosecuted if they want to
prosecute anyone else because of this CRAP. PS Trump is an idiot. Uhinfortunately he is just
a symptom of the disease at this point. Look at the cover of Rolling Stone magazine , carry a
barf bag.
Jane Christ , March 14, 2019 at 6:51 pm
Exactly. This throws doubt on the ability of the FBI to work independently. They are
working for those who want to cover -up the Hillary mess . She evidently has sufficient funds
to pay them off. I am disgusted with the level of corruption.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 10:50 am
Nancy Pelosi's announcement two days ago that the Democrats will not seek impeachment for
Trump suggests the emptiness of the Mueller investigation on the specific "collusion" issue.
If there were something hot and lingering and about to emerge, this decision is highly
unlikely, especially with the reasoning she gave at "so as not to divide the American
people." Dividing the people hasn't been of much concern throughout this bogus witch hunt on
Trump, which has added to his incompetence in leavening a growing hysteria and confusion in
this country. If there is something, anything at all, in the Mueller report to support the
collusion theory, Pelosi would I'm sure gleefully trot it out to get a lesser candidate like
Pence as opposition for 2020.
We know and Assange has confirmed Seth Rich, assassinated in D.C. for his deed, downloaded
the emails and most likely passed them on to former British ambassador Craig Murray in a D.C.
park for transport to Wikileaks.
We must also honor Shawn Lucas assassinated for serving DNC with a litigation notice
exposing the DNC conspiracy against Sanders.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 3:18 pm
Where has Assange confirmed this? Assange's long-standing position is NOT to reveal his
sources. I believe he has continued to honor this position.
Skip Scott , March 15, 2019 at 7:15 am
It has merely been insinuated by the offering of a reward for info on Seth's murder. In
one breath he says wikileaks will never divulge a source, and in the next he offers a $20k
reward saying that sources take tremendous risk. Doesn't take much of a logical leap to
connect A to B.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:30 pm
Are you aware that Democrats split apart their 0wn voting base in the 1990s, middle class
vs. poor? The Obama years merely confirmed that this split is permanent. This is particularly
relevant for Democrats, as their voting base had long consisted of the poor and middle class,
for the common good. Ignoring this deep split hasn't made it go away.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 3:24 pm
Even more important is how the Democrats have sold out to an Establishment view favoring
neocon theory, since at least Bill Clinton. Pelosi's recent behavior with Ilhan Omar confirms
this and the split you're talking about. My point is it is distinctly odd that Pelosi is
discouraging impeachment on "dividing the Party" (already divided, of course, as you say),
whereas the Russia-gate fantasy was so hot not that long ago. Again it points to a cynical
opportunism and manipulation of the electorate. Both parties are a sad excuse to represent
ordinary people's interests.
Skip Scott , March 15, 2019 at 7:21 am
She said "dividing the country", not the party. I think she may have concerns over Trump's
heavily armed base. That said, the statement may have been a ruse. There are plenty of
Republicans that would cross the line in favor of impeachment with the right "conclusions" by
Mueller. Pelosi may be setting up for a "bombshell" conclusion by Mueller. One must never
forget that we are watching theater, and that Trump was a "mistake" to be controlled or
eliminated.
Mueller should be ashamed that he has made President Trump his main concern!! If all this
investigation would stop he could save America millions!!! He needs to quit this witch-hunt
and worry about things that really need to be handled!!! If the democrats and Trump haters
would stop pushing senseless lies hopefully this would stop ? It's so disgusting that his
democrat friend was never really investigated ? stop the witch-hunt and move forward!!!!
torture this , March 14, 2019 at 7:29 am
According to this letter, mistakes might have been made on Rachel Maddow's show. I can't
wait to read how she responds. I'd watch her show, myself except that it has the same effect
on me as ipecac.
Zhu , March 14, 2019 at 3:37 am
People will cling to "Putin made Trump President!!!" much as many cling "Obama's a Kenyan
Muslim! Not a real American!!!". Both nut theories are emotionally satisfying, no matter what
the historical facts are. Many Americans just can't admit their mistakes and blaming a
scapegoat is a way out.
O Society , March 14, 2019 at 2:03 am
Thank you VIPS for organizing this legit dissent consisting of experts in the field of
intelligence and computer forensics.
This so-called "Russiagate" narrative is an illustration of our "freedom of the press"
failure in the US due to groupthink and self censorship. He who pays the piper is apt to call
the tune.
It is astounding how little skepticism and scientifically-informed reasoning goes on in
our media. These folks show themselves to be native advertising rather than authentic
journalists at every turn.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:33 pm
But it has been Democrats and the media that market to middle class Dems, who persist in
trying to sell the Russian Tale. They excel at ignoring the evidence that utterly contradicts
their claims.
Oh, we're well beyond your "Blame the middle class Dems" stage.
The WINNING!!! team sports bullshit drowns the entire country now the latrine's sprung a
leak. People pretend to live in bubbles made of blue or red quite like the Three Little Pigs,
isn't it? Except instead of a house made of bricks saving the day for the littlepiggies, what
we've got here is a purple puddle of piss.
Everyone's more than glad to project all our problems on "THEM" though, aren't we?
Meanwhile, the White House smells like a urinal not washed since the 1950s and simpletons
still get their rocks off arguing about whether Mickey Mouse can beat up Ronald McDonald.
T'would be comic except what's so tragic is the desperate need Americans have to believe,
oh just believe! in something. Never mind the sound of the jackhammer on your skull dear,
there's an app for that or is it a pill?
I don't know, don't ask me, I'm busy watching TV. Have a cheeto.
Very good analysis clearly stated, especially adding the FAT timestamps to the
transmission speeds.
Minor corrections: "The emails were copied from the network" should be "from the much
faster local network" because this is to Contradict the notion that they were copied over the
internet network, which most readers will equate with "network." Also "reportedin" should be
"reported in."
Michael , March 13, 2019 at 6:25 pm
It is likely that New Knowledge was actually "the Russians", possibly working in concert
with Crowdstrike. Once an intelligence agency gets away with something like pretending to be
Russian hackers and bots, they tend to re-use their model; it is too tempting to discard an
effective model after a one-off accomplishment. New Knowledge was caught interfering/
determining the outcome in the Alabama Senate race on the side of Democrat Doug Jones, and
claimed they were merely trying to mimic Russian methods to see if they worked (they did; not
sure of their punishment?). Occam's razor would suggest that New Knowledge would be competent
to mimic/ pretend to be "Russians" after the fact of wikileaks' publication of emails. New
Knowledge has employees from the NSA and State department sympathetic to/ working with(?)
Hillary, and were the "outside" agency hired to evaluate and report on the "Russian" hacking
of the DNC emails/ servers.
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 5:48 pm
Mueller released report last summer, which resulted in (the last I checked) roughly 150
indictments, a handful of convictions to date, all for perjury/financial (not political)
crimes. This wasn't kept secret. It simply wasn't what Democrats wanted to hear, so although
it was mentioned in some lib media (which overwhelmingly supported neoliberal Hillary
Clinton), it was essentially swept under the carpet.
Billy , March 13, 2019 at 11:11 pm
Barr, Sessions, every congressmen all the corporate MSM war profiteer mouth pieces. They
all know that "Russia hacked the DNC" and "Russia meddled" is fabricated garbage. They don't
care, because their chosen war beast corporate candidate couldn't beat Donald goofball Trump.
So it has to be shown that the war beast only lost because of nefarious reasons. Because
they're gonna run another war beast cut from the same cloth as Hillary in 2020.
Realist , March 14, 2019 at 3:22 am
You betcha. Moreover, who but the Russians do these idiots have left to blame? Everybody
else is now off limits due to political correctness. Sigh Those Catholics, Jews, "ethnics"
and sundry "deviants" used to be such reliable scapegoats, to say nothing of the
"undeveloped" world. As Clapper "authoritatively" says, only this vile lineage still carries
the genes for the most extremes of human perfidy. Squirrels in your attic? It must be the
damned Russkies! The bastards impudently tried to copy our democracy, economic system and
free press and only besmirched those institutions, ruining all of Hillary's glorious plans
for a worldwide benevolent dictatorship. All this might be humorous if it weren't so
funny.
And those Chinese better not get to thinking they are somehow our equals just because all
their trillions invested in U.S. Treasury bonds have paid for all our wars of choice and MIC
boondoggles since before the turn of the century. Unless they start delivering Trump some
"free stuff" the big man is gonna cut off their water. No more affordable manufactured goods
for the American public! So there!
As to the article: impeccable research and analysis by the VIPS crew yet again. They've
proven to me that, to a near certainty, the Easter Bunny is not likely to exist. Mueller
won't read it. Clapper will still prance around a free man, as will Brennan. The Democrats
won't care, that is until November of 2020. And Hillary will continue to skate, unhindered in
larding up the Clinton Foundation to purposes one can only imagine.
Joe Tedesky , March 14, 2019 at 10:02 pm
Realist,
I have posted this article 'the Russia they Lost' before and from time to time but
once again it seems appropriate to add this link to expound upon for what you've been saying.
It's an article written by a Russian who in they're youth growing up in the USSR dreamed of
living the American lifestyle if Russia were to ever ditch communism. But . Starting with
Kosovo this Russian's youthful dream turned nightmarishly ugly and, as time went by with more
and yet even more USA aggression this Russian author loss his admiration and desire for all
things American to be proudly envied. This is a story where USA hard power destroyed any hope
of American soft power for world unity. But hey that unity business was never part of the
plan anyway.
right you are, joe. if america was smart rather than arrogant, it would have cooperated
with china and russia to see the belt and road initiative succeed by perhaps building a
bridge or tunnel from siberia to alaska, and by building its own fleet of icebreakers to open
up its part of the northwest passage. but no, it only wants to sabotage what others propose.
that's not being a leader, it's being a dick.
i'm gonna have to go on the disabled list here until the sudden neurological problem with
my right hand clears up–it's like paralysed. too difficult to do this one-handed using
hunt and peck. at least the problem was not in the old bean, according to the scans. carry
on, sir.
Brian James , March 13, 2019 at 5:04 pm
Mar 4, 2019 Tom Fitton: President Trump a 'Crime Victim' by Illegal Deep State DOJ &
FBI Abuses: https://youtu.be/ixWMorWAC7c
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 5:55 pm
Trump is a willing player in this game. The anti-Russian Crusade was, quite simply, a stunningly reckless,
short-sighted effort to overturn the 2016 election, removing Trump to install Hillary Clinton in office. Trump and the
Republicans continue to win by default, as Democrats only drive more voters away.
Thank you Ray McGovern and the Other 17 VIPS C0-Signers of your National Security Essay
for Truth. Along with Craig Murray and Seymour Hirsch, former Sam Adams Award winners for
"shining light into dark places", you are national resources for objectivity in critical
survival information matters for our country. It is more than a pity that our mainstream
media are so beholden to their corporate task masters that they cannot depart from the
company line for fear of losing their livelihoods, and in the process we risk losing life on
the planet because of unconstrained nuclear war on the part of the two main adversaries
facing off in an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. Let me speak plainly. THEY SHOULD BE
TALKING TO YOU AND NOT THE VESTED INTERESTS' MOUTHPIECES. Thank you for your continued
leadership!
Roger Ailes founder of FOX news died, "falling down stairs" within a week of FOX news
exposing to the world that the assassinated Seth Rich downloaded the DNC emails.
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 6:03 pm
Google the Mueller investigation report from last June or July. When it was released, the
public response was like a deflated balloon. It did not support the "Russian collusion"
allegations -- the only thing Democrats still had left to sell. The report resulted in
roughly 150 indictments for perjury/financial crimes (not political), and a handful of
convictions to date -- none of which had anything to do with the election results.
Hank , March 13, 2019 at 6:19 pm
Much ado about nothing. All the talk and chatter and media airplay about "Russian
meddling" in the 2016 election only tells me that these liars think the American public is
that stupid. They are probably right, but the REAL reason that Hillary lost is because there
ARE enough informed people now in this nation who are quite aware of the Clinton's sordid
history where scandals seem to follow every where they go, but indictments and/or
investigations don't. There IS an internet nowadays with lots of FACTUAL DOCUMENTED
information. That's a lot more than I can say about the mainstream corporate-controlled
media!
I know this won't ever happen, but an HONEST investigation into the Democratic Party and
their actions during the 2016 election would make ANY collusion with ANY nation look like a
mole hill next to a mountain! One of the problems with living in this nation is if you are
truly informed and make an effort 24/7 to be that way by doing your own research, you
more-than-likely can be considered an "island in a sea of ignorance".
We know that the FBI never had access to the servers and a private company was allowed to
handle the evidence. Wasnt it a crime scene? The evidence was tampered with And we will never
know what was on the servers.
Mark McCarty , March 13, 2019 at 4:10 pm
As a complement to this excellent analysis, I would like to make 2 further points:
The Mueller indictment of Russian Intelligence for hacking the DNC and transferring their
booty to Wikileaks is absurd on its face for this reason: Assange announced on June 12th the
impending release of Hillary-related emails. Yet the indictment claims that Guccifer 2.0 did
not succeed in transferring the DNC emails to Wikileaks until the time period of July 14-18th
– after which they were released online on July 22nd. Are we to suppose that Assange, a
publisher of impeccable integrity, publicly announced the publication of emails he had not
yet seen, and which he was obtaining from a source of murky provenance? And are we further to
suppose that Wikileaks could have processed 20K emails and 20K attachments to insure their
genuineness in a period of only several days? As you will recall, Wikileaks subsequently took
a number of weeks to process the Podesta emails they released in October.
And another peculiarity merits attention. Assange did not state on June 12th that he was
releasing DNC emails – and yet Crowdstrike and the Guccifer 2.0 personna evidently knew
that this was in store. A likely resolution of this conundrum is that US intelligence had
been monitoring all communications to Wikileaks, and had informed the DNC that their hacked
emails had been offered to Wikileaks. A further reasonable prospect is that US intelligence
subsequently unmasked the leaker to the DNC; as Assange has strongly hinted, this likely was
Seth Rich. This could explain Rich's subsequent murder, as Rich would have been in a position
to unmask the Guccifer 2.0 hoax and the entire Russian hacking narrative.
Curious that Assange has Not explicitly stated that the leaker was Seth Rich, if it was,
as this would take pressure from himself and incriminate the DNC in the murder of Rich.
Perhaps he doesn't know, and has the honor not to take the opportunity, or perhaps he knows
that it was not Rich.
View the Dutch TV interview with Asssange and there is another interview available on
youtube in which Assange DOES subtly confirmed it was Seth Rich.
Assange posted a $10,000 reward for Seth Rich's murders capture.
Abby , March 13, 2019 at 10:11 pm
Another mistaken issue with the "Russia hacked the DNC computers on Trump's command" is
that he never asked Russia to do that. His words were, "Russia if you 'find' Hillary's
missing emails let us know." He said that after she advised congress that she wouldn't be
turning in all of the emails they asked for because she deleted 30,000 of them and said that
they were personal.
But if Mueller or the FBI wants to look at all of them they can find them at the NYC FBI
office because they are on Weiner's laptop. Why? Because Hillary's aid Huma Abedin, Weiner's
wife sent them to it. Just another security risk that Hillary had because of her private
email server. This is why Comey had to tell congress that more of them had been found 11 days
before the election. If Comey hadn't done that then the FBI would have.
But did Comey or McCabe look at her emails there to see if any of them were classified? No
they did not do that. And today we find out that Lisa Page told congress that it was Obama's
decision not to charge Hillary for being grossly negligent on using her private email server.
This has been known by congress for many months and now we know that the fix was always in
for her to get off.
robert e williamson jr , March 13, 2019 at 3:26 pm
I want to thank you folks at VIPS. Like I have been saying for years now the relationship
between CIA, NSA and DOJ is an incestuous one at best. A perverse corrupted bond to control
the masses. A large group of religious fanatics who want things "ONE WAY". They are the
facilitators for the rogue government known as the "DEEP STATE"!
Just ask billy barr.
More truth is a very good thing. I believe DOJ is supporting the intelligence community
because of blackmail. They can't come clean because they all risk doing lots of time if a new
judicial mechanism replaces them. We are in big trouble here.
Apparently the rule of law is not!
You folks that keep claiming we live in the post truth era! Get off me. Demand the truth
and nothing else. Best be getting ready for the fight of your lives. The truth is you have to
look yourself in the mirror every morning, deny that truth. The claim you are living in the
post truth era is an admission your life is a lie. Now grab a hold of yourself pick a
dogdamned side and stand for something,.
Thank You VIPS!
Joe Tedesky , March 13, 2019 at 2:58 pm
Hats off to the VIP's who have investigated this Russian hacking that wasn't a hacking for
without them what would we news junkies have otherwise to lift open the hood of Mueller's
never ending Russia-gate investigation. Although the one thing this Russia-gate nonsense has
accomplished is it has destroyed with our freedom of speech when it comes to how we citizens
gather our news. Much like everything else that has been done during these post 9/11 years of
continual wars our civil rights have been marginalized down to zero or, a bit above if that's
even still an argument to be made for the sake of numbers.
Watching the Manafort sentencing is quite interesting for the fact that Manafort didn't
conclude in as much as he played fast and loose with his income. In fact maybe Manafort's
case should have been prosecuted by the State Department or, how about the IRS? Also wouldn't
it be worth investigating other Geopolitical Rain Makers like Manafort for similar crimes of
financial wrongdoing? I mean is it possible Manafort is or was the only one of his type to do
such dishonest things? In any case Manafort wasn't charged with concluding with any Russians
in regard to the 2016 presidential election and, with that we all fall down.
I guess the best thing (not) that came out of this Russia-gate silliness is Rachel
Maddow's tv ratings zoomed upwards. But I hate to tell you that the only ones buying what Ms
Maddow is selling are the died in the wool Hillary supporters along with the chicken-hawks
who rally to the MIC lobby for more war. It's all a game and yet there are many of us who
just don't wish to play it but still we must because no one will listen to the sanity that
gets ignored keep up the good work VIP's some of us are listening.
Andrew Thomas , March 13, 2019 at 12:42 pm
The article did not mention something called to my attention for the first time by one of
the outstanding members of your commentariat just a couple of days ago- that Ambassador
Murray stayed publicly, over two years ago, that he had been given the thumb drive by a
go-between in D.C. and had somehow gotten it to Wikileaks. And, that he has NEVER BEEN
INTERVIEWED by Mueller &Company. I was blown away by this, and found the original
articles just by googling Murray. The excuse given is that Murray "lacks credibility ", or
some such, because of his prior relationship with Assange and/or Wikileaks. This is so
ludicrous I can't even get my head around it. And now, you have given me a new detail-the
meeting with Pompeo, and the complete lack of follow-up thereafter. Here all this time I
thought I was the most cynical SOB who existed, and now I feel as naive as when I was 13 and
believed what Dean Rusk was saying like it was holy writ. I am in your debt.
Bob Van Noy , March 13, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Andrew Thomas I'm afraid that huge amounts of our History post 1947 is organized and
propagandized disinformation. There is an incredible page that John Simpkin has organized
over the years that specifically addresses individuals, click on a name and read about
them. https://spartacus-educational.com/USAdisinformation.htm
Mark McCarty , March 13, 2019 at 4:18 pm
A small correction: the Daily Mail article regarding Murray claimed that Murray was given
a thumbdrive which he subsequently carried back to Wikileaks. On his blog, Murray
subsequently disputed this part of the story, indicating that, while he had met with a leaker
or confederate of a leaker in Washington DC, the Podesta emails were already in possession of
Wikileaks at the time. Murray refused to clarify the reason for his meeting with this source,
but he is adamant in maintaining that the DNC and Podesta emails were leaked, not hacked.
And it is indeed ludicrous that Mueller, given the mandate to investigate the alleged
Russian hacking of the DNC and Podesta, has never attempted to question either Assange or
Murray. That in itself is enough for us to conclude that the Mueller investigation is a
complete sham.
Ian Brown , March 13, 2019 at 4:43 pm
It's pretty astonishing that Mueller was more interested in Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi
as credible sources about Wikileaks and the DNC release than Craig Murray!
LJ , March 13, 2019 at 12:29 pm
A guy comes in with a pedigree like that, """ former FBI head """ to examine and validate
if possible an FBI sting manufactured off a phony FISA indictment based on the Steele Report,
It immediately reminded me of the 9-11 Commission with Thomas Kean, former Board member of
the National Endowment for Democracy, being appointed by GW Bush the Simple to head an
investigation that he had previously said he did not want to authorize( and of course bi
partisan yes man Lee Hamilton as #2, lest we forget) . Really this should be seen as another
low point in our Democracy. Uncle Sam is the Limbo Man, How low can you go?
After Bill and
Hillary and Monica and Paula Jones and Blue Dresses well, Golden Showers in a Moscow luxury
hotel, I guess that make it just salacious enough.
Mueller looks just like what he is. He
has that same phony self important air as Comey . In 2 years this will be forgotten.. I do
not think this hurts Trumps chances at re-election as much as the Democrats are hurting
themselves. This has already gone on way too long.
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians.
Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass
media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump, which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein, Brennan, Podesta and Mueller's crusade on behalf
of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. It will be fascinating to
witness how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent
edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was likely in bed with the Winter Hill Gang.
Jack , March 13, 2019 at 12:21 pm
You have failed. An investigation is just that, a finding of the facts. What would Mueller
have to extricate himself from? If nothing is found, he has still done his job. You are a
divisive idiot.
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 1:13 pm
Yes, he has done his job. And his job was to bring his royal Orangeness to heel, and to
make sure that detente and co-operation with Russia remained impossible. The forever war
continues. Mission Accomplished.
@Jack,
Keep running cover for an out of control prosecutor, who, if he had any integrity, would have
hit the bully pulpit mos ago declaring there's nothing of substance to one of the most
potentially dangerous accusations in world history: the Kremlin hacking the election. Last I
checked it puts two nuclear nation-states on the brink of potential war. And you call me
divisive? Mueller's now a willing accomplice to this entire McCarthyite smear and
disinformation campaign. It's all so pathetic that folks such as yourself try and mislead and
feed half-truths to the people.
Drew, you might enjoy this discussion Robert Scheer has with Stephen Cohen and Katrina
vanden Heuvel.
Realist , March 15, 2019 at 3:38 am
Moreover, as the Saker pointed out in his most recent column in the Unz Review, the entire
Deep State conspiracy, in an ad hoc alliance with the embarrassed and embarrassing Democrats,
have made an absolute sham of due process in their blatant witch hunt to bag the president.
This reached an apex when his personal lawyer, Mr. Cohen, was trotted out before congress to
violate Trump's confidentiality in every mortifying way he could even vaguely reconstruct.
The man was expected to say anything to mitigate the anticipated tortures to come in the
course of this modern day inquisition by our latter day Torquemada. To his credit though,
even with his ass in a sling, he could simply not confabulate the smoking gun evidence for
the alleged Russian collusion that this whole farce was built around.
Mueller stood with Bush as he lied the world into war based on lies and illegally spied on
America and tortured some folks.
George Collins , March 13, 2019 at 2:02 pm
QED: as to the nexus with the Winter Hill gang wasn't there litigation involving the
Boston FBI, condonation of murder by the FBI and damages awarded to or on behalf of convicted
parties that the FBI had reason to know were innocent? The malfeasance reportedly occurred
during Mueller time. Further on the sanctified diligence of Mr. Mueller can be gleaned from
the reports of Coleen Rowley, former FBI attorney stationed in Milwaukee??? when the DC FBI
office was ignoring warnings sent about 9/11. See also Sibel Edmonds who knew to much and was
court order muzzled about FBI mis/malfeasance in the aftermath of 9/11.
I'd say it's game, set, match VIPS and a pox on Clapper and the
complicit intelligence folk complicit in the nuclear loaded Russia-gate fibs.
Kiers , March 13, 2019 at 11:47 am
How can we expect the DNC to "hand it " to Trumpf, when, behind the scenes, THEY ARE ONE
PARTY. They are throwing faux-scary pillow bombs at each other because they are both
complicit in a long chain of corruptions. Business as usual for the "principled" two party
system! Democracy! Through the gauze of corporate media! You must be joking!
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 11:28 am
"We believe that there are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to
prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of "evidence," particularly if they become
aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very
different conclusions."
I wish I shared this belief. However, as with Nancy Pelosi's recent statement regarding
pursuing impeachment, I smell a rat. I believe with the help of what the late Robert Parry
called "the Mighty Wurlitzer", Mueller is going to use coerced false testimony and fabricated
forensics to drop a bombshell the size of 911. I think Nancy's statement was just a feint
before throwing the knockout punch.
If reason ruled the day, we should have nothing to worry about. But considering all the
perfidy that the so-called "Intelligence" Agencies and their MSM lackeys get away with daily,
I think we are in for more theater; and I think VIPS will receive a cold shoulder outside of
venues like CN.
I pray to God I'm wrong.
Sam F , March 13, 2019 at 7:32 pm
My extensive experience with DOJ and the federal judiciary establishes that at least 98%
of them are dedicated career liars, engaged in organized crime to serve political gangs, and
make only a fanatical pretense of patriotism or legality. They are loyal to money alone,
deeply cynical and opposed to the US Constitution and laws, with no credibility at all beyond
any real evidence.
Eric32 , March 14, 2019 at 4:24 pm
As near I can see, Federal Govt. careers at the higher levels depend on having dirt on
other players, and helping, not hurting, the money/power schemes of the players above
you.
The Clintons (through their foundation) apparently have a lot of corruption dirt on CIA,
FBI etc. top players, some of whom somehow became multi-millionaires during their civil
service careers.
Trump, who was only running for President as a name brand marketing ploy with little
desire to actually win, apparently came into the Presidency with no dirt arsenal and little
idea of where to go from there.
Bob Van Noy , March 13, 2019 at 11:09 am
I remember reading with dismay how Russians were propagandized by the Soviet Press
Management only to find out later the depth of disbelief within the Russian population
itself. We now know what that feels like. The good part of this disastrous scenario for
America is that for careful readers, disinformation becomes revelatory. For instance, if one
reads an editorial that refers to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or continually refers to
Russian interference in the last Presidential election, then one can immediately dismiss the
article and question the motivation for the presentation. Of course the problem is how to
establish truth in reporting
Jeff Harrison , March 13, 2019 at 10:41 am
Thank you, VIPs. Hopefully, you don't expect this to make a difference. The US has moved
into a post truth, post reality existence best characterized by Karl Rove's declaration:
"we're an empire now, when we act, we create our own reality." What Mr. Rove in his arrogance
fails to appreciate is that it is his reality but not anyone else's. Thus Pompous can claim
that Guaido is the democratic leader in Venezuela even though he's never been elected .
Thank you. The next time one of my friends or family give me that glazed over stare and
utters anymore of the "but, RUSSIA" nonsense I will refer them directly to this article. Your
collective work and ethical stand on this matter is deeply appreciated by anyone who values
the truth.
Russiagate stands with past government propaganda operations that were simply made up out
of thin air: i.e. Kuwaiti incubator babies, WMD's, Gaddafi's viagra fueled rape camps, Assad
can't sleep at night unless he's gassing his own people, to the latest, "Maduro can't sleep
at night unless he's starving his own people."
The complete and utter amorality of the deep state remains on display for all to see with
"Russiagate," which is as fact-free a propaganda campaign as any of those just mentioned.
Marc , March 13, 2019 at 10:13 am
I am a computer naif, so I am prepared to accept the VIPS analysis about FAT and transfer
rates. However, the presentation here leaves me with several questions. First, do I
understand correctly that the FAT rounding to even numbers is introduced by the thumb drive?
And if so, does the FAT analysis show only that the DNC data passed through a thumb drive?
That is, does the analysis distinguish whether the DNC data were directly transferred to a
thumb drive, or whether the data were hacked and then transferred to a thumb drive, eg, to
give a copy to Wikileaks? Second, although the transatlantic transfer rate is too slow to fit
some time stamps, is it possible that the data were hacked onto a local computer that was
under the control of some faraway agent?
Jeff Harrison , March 13, 2019 at 11:12 am
Not quite. FAT is the crappy storage system developed by Microsoft (and not used by UNIX).
The metadata associated with any file gets rewritten when it gets moved. If that movement is
to a storage device that uses FAT, the timestamp on the file will end in an even number. If
it were moved to a unix server (and most of the major servers run Unix) it would be in the
UFS (unix file system) and it would be the actual time from the system clock. Every storage
device has a utility that tells it where to write the data and what to write. Since it's
writing to a storage device using FAT, it'll round the numbers. To get to your real question,
yes, you could hack and then transfer the data to a thumb drive but if you did that the dates
wouldn't line up.
Skip Scott , March 14, 2019 at 8:05 am
Jeff-
Which dates wouldn't line up? Is there a history of metadata available, or just metadata
for the most recent move?
David G , March 13, 2019 at 12:22 pm
Marc asks: "[D]oes the analysis distinguish whether the DNC data were directly transferred
to a thumb drive, or whether the data were hacked and then transferred to a thumb drive, eg,
to give a copy to Wikileaks?"
I asked that question in comments under a previous CN piece; other people have asked that
question elsewhere.
To my knowledge, it hasn't been addressed directly by the VIPS, and I think they should do
so. (If they already have, someone please enlighten me.)
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 1:07 pm
I am no computer wiz, but Binney has repeatedly made the point that the NSA scoops up
everything. If there had been a hack, they'd know it, and they wouldn't only have had
"moderate" confidence in the Jan. assessment. I believe that although farfetched, an argument
could be made that a Russian spy got into the DNC, loaded a thumb drive, and gave it to Craig
Murray.
David G , March 13, 2019 at 3:31 pm
Respectfully, that's a separate point, which may or may not raise issues of its own.
But I think the question Marc posed stands.
Skip Scott , March 14, 2019 at 7:59 am
Hi David-
I don't see how it's separate. If the NSA scoops up everything, they'd have solid evidence
of the hack, and wouldn't have only had "moderate" confidence, which Bill Binney says is
equivalent to them saying "we don't have squat". They wouldn't even have needed Mueller at
all, except to possibly build a "parallel case" due to classification issues. Also, the FBI
not demanding direct access to the DNC server tells you something is fishy. They could easily
have gotten a warrant to examine the server, but chose not to. They also purposely refuse to
get testimony from Craig Murray and Julian Assange, which rings alarm bells on its own.
As for the technical aspect of Marc's question, I agree that I'd like to see Bill Binney
directly answer it.
The final Mueller report should be graded "incomplete," says VIPS, whose forensic work proves the speciousness of the story that
DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Attorney General
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings
Executive Summary
Media reports are predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to give you the findings of his probe into any
links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
If Mueller gives you his "completed" report anytime soon, it should be graded "incomplete."
Major deficiencies include depending on a DNC-hired cybersecurity company for forensics and failure to consult with those who
have done original forensic work, including us and the independent forensic investigators with whom we have examined the data. We
stand ready to help.
We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing
story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking. Given the paucity of evidence to support that story,
we believe Mueller may choose to finesse this key issue and leave everyone hanging. That would help sustain the widespread belief
that Trump owes his victory to President Vladimir Putin, and strengthen the hand of those who pay little heed to the unpredictable
consequences of an increase in tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
There is an overabundance of "assessments" but a lack of hard evidence to support that prevailing narrative. We believe that there
are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of "evidence," particularly
if they become aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very different conclusions.
We know only too well -- and did our best to expose -- how our former colleagues in the intelligence community manufactured fraudulent
"evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We have scrutinized publicly available physical data -- the "trail" that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had
support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom
story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who
worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published
our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media -- an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to
endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago.
This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes
and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below -- as a kind of aide-memoire -- a discussion of some of the key
factors related to what has become known as "Russia-gate." And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data
associated with WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails.
We do not claim our conclusions are "irrefutable and undeniable," a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments,
however, are based on the scientific method -- not "assessments." We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring
that you hear that directly from us.
If the Mueller team remains reluctant to review our work -- or even to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, we fear that many of those yearning earnestly for the truth on Russia-gate
will come to the corrosive conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a sham.
In sum, we are concerned that, at this point, an incomplete Mueller report will fall far short of the commitment made by then
Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "to ensure a full and thorough investigation," when he appointed Mueller in May 2017. Again,
we are at your disposal.
Discussion
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin "interference" in the 2016 presidential election was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic
National Committee emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win. The weeks following
the election witnessed multiple leak-based media allegations to that effect. These culminated on January 6, 2017 in an evidence-light,
rump report misleadingly labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)." Prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only three of
the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, and NSA), the assessment expressed "high confidence" in the Russia-hacking-to-WikiLeaks
story, but lacked so much as a hint that the authors had sought access to independent forensics to support their "assessment."
The media immediately awarded the ICA the status of Holy Writ, choosing to overlook an assortment of banal, full-disclosure-type
caveats included in the assessment itself -- such as:
" When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' they are conveying an analytic assessment
or judgment. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment
is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
To their credit, however, the authors of the ICA did make a highly germane point in introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution."
They noted: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber
operation -- malicious or not -- leaves a trail." [Emphasis added.]
Forensics
The imperative is to get on that "trail" -- and quickly, before red herrings can be swept across it. The best way to establish
attribution is to apply the methodology and processes of forensic science. Intrusions into computers leave behind discernible physical
data that can be examined scientifically by forensic experts. Risk to "sources and methods" is normally not a problem.
Direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement -- the more so when an intrusion is termed "an act of war" and
blamed on a nuclear-armed foreign government (the words used by the late Sen. John McCain and other senior officials). In testimony
to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access
to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, "best practices" dictate direct access.
In June 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr asked Comey whether he ever had "access to the actual hardware
that was hacked." Comey answered, "In the case of the DNC we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic
information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. " Sen. Burr followed up: "But no content? Isn't content
an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" Comey: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks
is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
The "private party/high-class entity" to which Comey refers is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple
conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations. Comey indicated that the DNC hired
CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016.
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – including a possible impeachment battle and greatly increased tension
between Russia and the U.S. -- it is difficult to understand why Comey did not move quickly to seize the computer hardware so the
FBI could perform an independent examination of what quickly became the major predicate for investigating election interference by
Russia. Fortunately, enough data remain on the forensic "trail" to arrive at evidence-anchored conclusions. The work we have done
shows the prevailing narrative to be false. We have been suggesting this for over two years. Recent forensic work significantly strengthens
that conclusion.
We Do Forensics
Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian
Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation
Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive,
before WikiLeaks posted them.
FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation Table. It is used for storage only and is
not related to internet transfers like hacking. Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times
on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbers.
Why is that important? The evidence lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under
the FAT file system the software rounds the time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the
DNC files on WikiLeaks' site ends in an even number.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If
those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The
random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by
WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the
World Wide Web.
This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers
for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the
DNC files to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks -- not electronically via a hack.
Role of NSA
For more than two years, we strongly suspected that the DNC emails were copied/leaked in that way, not hacked. And we said so.
We remain intrigued by the apparent failure of NSA's dragnet, collect-it-all approach -- including "cast-iron" coverage of WikiLeaks
-- to provide forensic evidence (as opposed to "assessments") as to how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks and who sent them. Well before
the telling evidence drawn from the use of FAT, other technical evidence led us to conclude that the DNC emails were not hacked over
the network, but rather physically moved over, say, the Atlantic Ocean.
Is it possible that NSA has not yet been asked to produce the collected packets of DNC email data claimed to have been hacked
by Russia? Surely, this should be done before Mueller competes his investigation. NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving
the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist. (The detailed slides released by Edward Snowden actually show
the routes that trace the packets.)
The forensics we examined shed no direct light on who may have been behind the leak. The only thing we know for sure is that the
person had to have direct access to the DNC computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from
the most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI's curious preference for forensic data from CrowdStrike. No
less puzzling is why Comey would choose to call CrowdStrike a "high-class entity."
Comey was one of the intelligence chiefs briefing President Obama on January 5, 2017 on the "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
which was then briefed to President-elect Trump and published the following day. That Obama found a key part of the ICA narrative
less than persuasive became clear at his last press conference (January 18), when he told the media, "The conclusions of the intelligence
community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to how 'the DNC emails that were leaked' got to WikiLeaks.
Is Guccifer 2.0 a Fraud?
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet
as a result of a spearphishing attack. William Binney, one of VIPS' two former Technical Directors at NSA, along with other former
intelligence community experts, examined files posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those files could not have been downloaded
over the internet. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.
There was a flurry of activity after Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016: "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which
are pending publication." On June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced that malware was found on the DNC server and claimed there
was evidence it was injected by Russians. On June 15, the Guccifer 2.0 persona emerged on the public stage, affirmed the DNC statement,
claimed to be responsible for hacking the DNC, claimed to be a WikiLeaks source, and posted a document that forensics show
was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
Our suspicions about the Guccifer 2.0 persona grew when G-2 claimed responsibility for a "hack" of the DNC on July 5, 2016, which
released DNC data that was rather bland compared to what WikiLeaks published 17 days later (showing how the DNC had tipped the primary
scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders). As VIPS
reported in a wrap-up
Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017 (titled "Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence)," forensic examination of the
July 5, 2016 cyber intrusion into the DNC showed it NOT to be a hack by the Russians or by anyone else, but rather a copy onto an
external storage device. It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks
might later publish from the DNC, by "showing" it came from a "Russian hack." WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three
days before the Democratic convention.
As we prepared our July 24 memo for the President, we chose to begin by taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value; i. e., that the documents
he posted on July 5, 2016 were obtained via a hack over the Internet. Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained
in the posted documents and compared that metadata with the known capacity of Internet connection speeds at the time in the U.S.
This analysis showed a transfer rate as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than was possible from a remote online
Internet connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincided, though, with the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate.
Binney, assisted by colleagues with relevant technical expertise, then extended the examination and ran various forensic tests
from the U.S. to the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest Internet rate obtained -- from a data center in New Jersey
to a data center in the UK -- was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the capacity typical of a copy onto a thumb
drive.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the WikiLeaks data does not indicate who copied the information
to an external storage device (probably a thumb drive). But our examination does disprove that G.2 hacked into the DNC on July 5,
2016. Forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data adds to other evidence that the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing
attack. The data breach was local. The emails were copied from the network.
Presidential Interest
After VIPS' July 24, 2017 Memorandum for the President, Binney, one of its principal authors, was invited to share his insights
with Mike Pompeo, CIA Director at the time. When Binney arrived in Pompeo's office at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017 for an
hour-long discussion, the director made no secret of the reason for the invitation: "You are here because the President told me that
if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk with you."
Binney warned Pompeo -- to stares of incredulity -- that his people should stop lying about the Russian hacking. Binney then started
to explain the VIPS findings that had caught President Trump's attention. Pompeo asked Binney if he would talk to the FBI and NSA.
Binney agreed, but has not been contacted by those agencies. With that, Pompeo had done what the President asked. There was no follow-up.
Confronting James Clapper on Forensics
We, the hoi polloi, do not often get a chance to talk to people like Pompeo -- and still less to the former intelligence
chiefs who are the leading purveyors of the prevailing Russia-gate narrative. An exception came on November 13, when former National
Intelligence Director James Clapper came to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington to hawk his memoir. Answering a question during
the Q&A about Russian "hacking" and NSA, Clapper said:
" Well, I have talked with NSA a lot And in my mind, I spent a lot of time in the SIGINT business, the forensic evidence
was overwhelming about what the Russians had done. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever." [Emphasis added]
Clapper added: " as a private citizen, understanding the magnitude of what the Russians did and the number of citizens in our
country they reached and the different mechanisms that, by which they reached them, to me it stretches credulity to think they didn't
have a profound impact on election on the outcome of the election."
(A transcript of the interesting Q&A can be found
here and a commentary
on Clapper's performance at Carnegie, as well as on his longstanding lack of credibility, is
here .)
Normally soft-spoken Ron Wyden, Democratic senator from Oregon, lost his patience with Clapper last week when he learned that
Clapper is still denying that he lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the extent of NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens.
In an unusual outburst, Wyden said: "James Clapper needs to stop making excuses for lying to the American people about mass surveillance.
To be clear: I sent him the question in advance. I asked him to correct the record afterward. He chose to let the lie stand."
The materials brought out by Edward Snowden in June 2013 showed Clapper to have lied under oath to the committee on March 12,
2013; he was, nevertheless, allowed to stay on as Director of National Intelligence for three and half more years. Clapper fancies
himself an expert on Russia, telling Meet the Press on May 28, 2017 that Russia's history shows that Russians are "typically,
almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever."
Clapper ought to be asked about the "forensics" he said were "overwhelming about what the Russians had done." And that, too, before
Mueller completes his investigation.
For the steering group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney , former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals
Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black , Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division,
Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Girald i, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel , former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the
Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson , former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
John Kiriakou , former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski , former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture
of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis , Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
David MacMichael , Ph.D., former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern , former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray , former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA
political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce , MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren , US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton , CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe , former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Ann Wright , retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq
War
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers
and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington's justifications for launching
a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived
threats promoted for largely political reasons. An archive of
VIPS memoranda is available at Consortiumnews.com.
A newly declassified US intelligence memo has been unearthed this week and featured in a bombshell
Wall
Street Journal
report. It proves that the year prior to the Bush administration's 2003
invasion of Iraq the White House was expressly warned in great detail of all that could and would
go wrong in the regime change war's aftermath, including
the Sunni-Shia sectarian chaos and
proxy war with Iran
that would define Iraq and the whole region for years following. And
crucially, it reveals that seven months
before
the US invasion of Iraq, American
intelligence officials understood that
Osama bin Laden was likely "alive and well and
hiding in northwest Pakistan"
--
important given that a key Bush
admin claim to sell the war was that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were
"in league"
against the
United States.
The
July 2002 memo
was authored by William Burns, then serving as assistant secretary of state for near eastern
affairs, and though clearly dismissed by the Bush neocons making the case for war, proved prescient
on many levels.
"Following are some very quick and informal thoughts on how events before,
during and after an effort to overthrow the regime in Baghdad could unravel if we're not careful,
intersecting to create
a 'perfect storm'
for American interests,"
Burns wrote
in the memo, classified 'Secret' and sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The classified memo's existence was first brought to the public's attention through
Knight Ridder's reporting
in July 2003, which sought to reveal at the time there were pockets
of dissenting voices in the State Department and intelligence community pushing back against the
absurd White House claim that the whole operation would be a
"cakewalk"
and US troops would be greeted as "liberators". And there's Vice President Dick Cheney's infamous
declaration that the military effort
would take
"weeks rather than months."
Now, sixteen years after the start of the war the "perfect storm" intel briefing has been made
public in fully redacted form and it affirms, as the
WSJ reports
, "Diplomats accurately forecast many setbacks:
sectarian violence, attacks
on U.S. troops, Iranian intervention and long road to structural change
." Out of this came
the rise of ISIS and the continued unleashing of regime change and sectarian chaos on neighboring
Syria.
The ten page memo outlines a litany of
catastrophic doom and gloom scenarios
resulting from the invasion which would destabilize not only Iraq, but
unleash sectarian
hell on the entire region
.
Here are but a handful of the memo's many warnings which later proved right on target, as
summarized by the military reporting website
Task
& Purpose
:
Iran increasing aid to anti-American groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan because it
feared being "next on US hit list."
Security in Iraq collapsing following regime change because Iraqi troops and police would
be too afraid to patrol while Iraqis aligned with the United States would prove to be inept.
U.S. troops coming under increasing attacks as they patrol both Shiite and Sunni cities.
"If they intervene to stop disputes, they are perceived to have sided with one party or
another in a tribal dispute, thus incurring the wrath of the opposing party."
Afghanistan's security situation simultaneously deteriorating, creating the need for more
U.S. troops there.
"Carpetbaggers, bill collectors, expats and exiles," arriving in Iraq. "It will be a wild
mix."
"I don't mean to be pessimistic, because I really do believe that if we do it right this could
be a tremendous boon to the future of the region, and to U.S. national security interests," the
memo stated. "But we should have no illusion that it will be quick or easy."
And further contradicting Cheney's "weeks rather than months" claim, the memo accurately
predicted that U.S. troops would have to stay for,
"Five years – maybe four if we're lucky,
ten if we're not."
Some further interesting highlights from the July 2002 'Secret' report are below.
* * *
Osama bin Laden hiding in Pakistan
(the Bush admin claimed Saddam
and bin Laden were in cahoots)
"Osama bin Laden turns out to be alive and well and hiding in NW Pakistan. We press Paks,
internal stresses grow in Pakistan."
Iran and Syria targeted next
"Following US warnings that it would take the war on terrorism to all groups with global
capabilities, Iran and Syria hold summit meeting, decide US has targeted them."
Iran and Syria "strengthen positions in face of perceived US threat against them following
action in Iraq."
Sectarian score settling and Shia uprising
"This means night becomes the time for revenge, all over Iraq. A horrible wave of bloodletting
and private vengeance begins... US forces are helpless to stop the countrywide phenomenon. Police,
intelligence, senior military, and Baath Party officials effectively go into hiding..."
"Shia religious and political leaders, unhappy with composition of provisional government and
determined to secure greater share of power in post-Saddam Iraq... This leads to more violent
confrontations, and deaths, and the riots become a political tool to demonstrate power and increase
leverage against Sunnis and Kurds..."
Long US quagmire to put down sectarian powder keg
"Faced with inchoate and escalating disorder in the provinces, the US faces an agonizing
decision: step up to a more direct security role, or devolve power to local leaders."
"The Shia in the south, quietly aided by Iran, stage major revolt, taking over local government
offices and killing interim officials."
Weapons from Saddam's army will disappear (to be later used against US occupation)
"Law and Order, collecting weapons. We won't get them, most will go to ground."
"All for one, one for all, free for all - deals, short-term scrambles. It will be every clan for
itself."
Venezuela production is not only being hit by the blackout – which seems to have
damaged their overall grid capacity – but by new sanctions. Their diluent supplier has
just stated they will stop business.
Perhaps useful to note that Maduro was just as incompetent 6 months ago as presumably he is
now. He was just as incompetent 9 months ago as presumably he is now. And indeed, he was just
as incompetent three months ago as he is now. In fact we could take it back years.
Thus, it surely is just a coincidence that their blackout occurred at a point in time when
a foreign coup attempt was underway, rather than 9 or 6 or 3 months ago. Sabotage could not
be involved because we're told that incompetence and corruption is responsible, of the sort
that just happened to manifest itself at this point in time.
The 20 folks who are alleged to have died in hospitals from lack of power just
coincidentally died at this particular point in time. Because it is merely coincidence, the
saboteurs probably cannot be tried for murder.
Power has apparently been restored. Oil will resume its flow at whatever magnitude.
Of course there are no coincidences, just the things that the CIA, the Illuminati, the
freemasons, the jewish bankers and the Martians wanted to happen.
"Thus, it surely is just a coincidence that their blackout occurred at a point in time when a
foreign coup attempt was underway, rather than 9 or 6 or 3 months ago. Sabotage could not be
involved because we're told that incompetence and corruption is responsible, of the sort that
just happened to manifest itself at this point in time."
I am sure the US is trying to speed up the process. After all, those Aid buses were not
torched by Mo or his supporters but by Western agents. Its difficult to know who is really to
blame for the blackout, but the US has an agenda to take control over VZ. I would not rule
out the US causing it.
Hate of Russia national runs deep with the infected bowels of the State Department. Sounds
like Neo-cons saber rattling and wanting to start WWIII over a bunch of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis
installed thanks to Victoria Nuland.
So much for detente with Russia. Trump proved to be just a marionette of MIC...
Sentiments about Trump at Zerohedge noticeably deteriorates since 2016
The US State Department announced on Friday that it would be joining
the European Union and Canada to impose new sanctions against Russia in response to the
Kremlin's "continued aggression in Ukraine."
Sanctions will apply to six "individuals who orchestrated the unjustified November 25 attack
on three Ukrainian naval vessels near the Kerch Strait."
Also sanctioned by the United States are eight companies, including six Russian defense
firms, "including shipbuilding companies; two individuals involved in the NOvember sham
"elections" in Russia-controlled eastern Ukraine; and two Russian energy and construction
companies operating in Crimea."
Read the State Department announcement below:
Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) designated six Russian individuals and eight entities in response to Russia's
continued and ongoing aggression in Ukraine. Today's action targets individuals and entities
playing a role in Russia's unjustified attacks on Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait,
the purported annexation of Crimea, and backing of illegitimate separatist government elections
in eastern Ukraine. These actions complement sanctions also taken today by the European Union
and Canada, and underscore the strength and commitment of the transatlantic partnership to
counter Russia's continued destabilizing behavior and malign activities.
"The United States and our transatlantic partners will not allow Russia's continued
aggression against Ukraine to go unchecked. This joint initiative with our partners in the
European Union and Canada reinforces our shared commitment to impose targeted and meaningful
sanctions in response to the Kremlin's attempts to disregard international norms and
undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said Treasury Secretary Steven T.
Mnuchin. "The international community is strongly aligned against Russia's naval attacks in
the Kerch Straight, purported annexation of Crimea, and support for the illegitimate
separatist-conducted elections in eastern Ukraine."
OVERVIEW
Five years after its invasion of Ukraine and its attempted annexation of Crimea, Russia
continues to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity while failing to
implement its obligations under the Minsk agreements. On November 25, 2018, Russian authorities
opened fire on and rammed three Ukrainian ships off the coast of Crimea, seizing the ships and
capturing 24 Ukrainian crew members, who remain illegally detained in Russia. Russia also
continues its occupation of Crimea, and the Kremlin has also backed illegitimate elections held
by Ukrainian separatists in the so-called Donetsk People's Republic on November 11, 2018.
As a result of today's designations, all property and interests in property of the
designated individuals and entities are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from
transacting with them. Moreover, any entities owned 50 percent or more by these designated
persons are also blocked by operation of law.
Designations Related to Russia's Attack in the Kerch Strait
OFAC today sanctioned four Russian officials who were involved in the Kerch Strait attack.
OFAC designated Gennadiy Medvedev, the Deputy Director of the Border Guard Service of Russia's
Federal Security Service; Sergey Stankevich, the Head of the Border Directorate of Russia's
Federal Security Service; and Andrey Shein, the Deputy Head of the Border Directorate and Head
of the Coast Guard Unit of Russia's Federal Security Service. Medvedev and Stankevich directly
controlled and organized the attack against the Ukrainian ships and their crew, while Shein
participated in the operation against the seized Ukrainian ships and crew.
OFAC also designated Ruslan Romashkin, the Head of the Service Command Point of the Federal
Security Service of the Russian Federation for the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.
Medvedev, Stankevich, Shein, and Romashkin are being designated pursuant to Executive Order
(E.O.) 13661 for being officials of the Government of the Russian Federation.
DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO RUSSIA'S PURPORTED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA
Today's action also targets six Russian defense firms with operations in Crimea, several of
which misappropriated Ukrainian state assets to provide services to the Russian military. Four
of these entities are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the defense and
related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy, and two entities are being
designated pursuant to E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
Yaroslavsky Shipbuilding Plant is a Russian state-owned shipbuilding plant that has built
vessels for Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Yaroslavsky Shipbuilding Plant is also the project developer for a naval vessel that was
completed at the Federal SUE Shipyard "Morye" in Crimea. Yaroslavsky Shipbuilding Plant is
being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the defense or related materiel sector
of the Russian Federation economy.
Zelenodolsk Shipyard Plant, named after A.M. Gorky, is one of the largest ship manufacturers
in Russia and has produced missile frigates and corvettes for the Russian Navy. The Zelenodolsk
Shipyard Plant has collaborated with Crimea-based enterprise Skloplastic, which was unlawfully
nationalized by the Russian government following its illegal invasion of Crimea in 2014. The
Zelenodolsk Shipyard Plant is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the
defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy.
AO Kontsern Okeanpribor (Okeanpribor) is a producer of hydroacoustic equipment and has
supplied components to the Russian Navy. Okeanpribor has also collaborated on a naval project
at the Federal SUE Shipyard "Morye" in Crimea. Federal SUE Shipyard "Morye" was designated by
OFAC on September 1, 2016. Okeanpribor is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating
in the defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy.
PAO Zvezda (Zvezda) is a supplier of diesel engines to the Russian Navy. Zvezda has also
supplied components for Russian naval vessels that were being built at the Federal SUE Shipyard
"Morye" in Crimea. Zvezda is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the
defense and related materiel sector of the Russian Federation economy.
AO Zavod Fiolent (Fiolent) is a Crimea-based electronics manufacturer that has supplied
parts for use in Russian military equipment. Fiolent was unlawfully seized by the Russian
Federation following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Fiolent is being designated pursuant to
E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
GUP RK KTB Sudokompozit (Sudokompozit) is a Crimea-based producer of defense components that
are supplied for Russian military use. Sudokompozit was unlawfully seized by the Russian
Federation following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Sudokompozit is being designated
pursuant to E.O. 13685 for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
OFAC also designated the following two entities pursuant to E.O. 13685, due to their
activities in Crimea.
LLC SK Consol-Stroi LTD is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine.
LLC SK Consol-Stroi LTD, a limited liability company registered in the city of Simferopol,
Crimea, is one of Crimea's largest construction companies. LLC SK Consol-Stroi LTD is engaged
in the construction of residential and commercial real estate in cities throughout the Crimea
region including, among others, Feodosia, Kerch, Yalta, Simferopol, Sevastopol, and
Yepatoria.
LLC Novye Proekty is being designated for operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine. In
2016, Russian authorities awarded the private company Novye Proekty an oil and gas exploration
license for the Crimean Black Sea shelf. The Crimean shelf is believed to be rich in
hydrocarbons and authorities in Ukraine have reported that Ukraine lost about 80 percent of its
oil and gas deposits in the Black Sea due to Russia's purported annexation of Crimea. Novye
Proekty's license permits geological studies, prospecting, and the extraction of raw
hydrocarbon materials from the Black Sea's Glubokaya block. Prior to Russia's purported
annexation of Crimea the Glubokaya block was estimated to hold reserves of 8.3 million tons of
crude and 1.4 billion cubic meters of natural gas.
DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO ILLEGITIMATE SEPARATIST GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE
Today's action also targets two Ukrainian separatists who were involved in the organization
of the November 2018 illegitimate elections in the so-called Donetsk People's Republic. These
illegitimate elections clearly contradict Russia's commitments under the Minsk agreements, and
were strongly opposed by the United States and EU.
Aleksey Alekseevich Naydenko is the Deputy Chair of the Central Election Commission of the
so-called Donetsk People's Republic. Naydenko is being designated for being responsible for or
complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten
the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Vladimir Yurievich Vysotsky is the Secretary of Central Election Commission of the so-called
Donetsk People's Republic. Vysotsky is being designated for being responsible for or complicit
in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that threaten the peace,
security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine.
View identifying information on the individuals designated today.
" DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO RUSSIA'S PURPORTED ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA"
purported
/pərˈpôrdəd/
adjective
appearing or stated to be true, though not necessarily so; alleged.
There is nothing "purported" about it, it was true and as legitimate as it could possibly
be.
Then under "DESIGNATIONS RELATED TO ILLEGITIMATE SEPARATIST GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS IN
UKRAINE" they claim that Russia violated its committments under Minsk 2, which the US never
officially recognized. Minsk 2 intended increased sovereignty for the Oblasts under a new
Ukraine Federal constitutional arrangement. That constitutional amendment has never been
initiated by Kiev, with the blessing of Uncle Sam. It is the Ukraine puppet government who is
in violation of Minsk 2.
If the US wrote this, assume the opposite to be true.
[Article]: " Sanctions will apply to six "individuals who orchestrated the unjustified
November 25 attack on three Ukrainian naval vessels near the Kerch Strait." "
Translation: "The propaganda lunacy will continue". "We will keep telling the same old
same old lies until people believe them".
My understanding of that incident is that the Ukrainian boats had some unexplained special
forces people on board and they refused to pull over when ordered to. From Russia's view,
there was a real risk of these people planning to plant explosives to blow up the Kerch
bridge.
Now it appears that no matter which government is in power they go along with the
aggressive agenda of the US.
Been like that since the '50's, just that you believed that the economy and world was
good.
Voting matters ZERO. The lie you are made to believe is that there is a choice when
voting, when in fact the ruling party is the financial engineers and bankers behind all
governments.
Voting is a waste of time. The heart of the beast is the USD reserve and the Rothschild
empire. Once we abolish that pig, all western governments implode under their own weight of
cheap talk and empty "policy".
The evidence that the orange swine is a Rothschild Trojan Horse is overwhelming at this
point. Only a scumbag or an absolute imbecile would fail to see it. Fvck you orange
roach.
I didn't read your comments at that time but I tip my hat to you. I realised that
everything he said during the campaign was bullsh!t after he started appointing Goldman Sachs
bankers to his cabinet...
Well Pelosi, here we have attempted murder as a high crime to Impeach Trump, Pence,
Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams with, or is that something too "trivial" for you!
Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding
Venture for America , which helps
college graduates become entrepreneurs. However, he is now gaining recognition for his
signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.
ORDER IT NOW
Yang promises a
universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be
funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that
it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and
actually save billions of dollars. Yang also
notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice
between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."
As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left.
Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent libertarians because it would replace the far
more inefficient welfare system. Charles Murray called for
this policy in 2016. [ A guaranteed income
for every American, AEI, June 3, 2016]
Milton Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley,
though Friedman called
it a "negative income
tax."
It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013
VDARE.com Webinar, I
called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would
build a new nationalist majority and deconstruct Leftist power. I've
retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.
However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for citizens only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously
argued in a piece attacking Jacobin's
disingenuous complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't
support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal basic income while still demanding mass
immigration.
Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly
forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic
unemployment," Yang has directly spoken about
the demographic collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from
substance abuse and suicide ."
Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of
white Americans.
Of course, Yang has foolish, even flippant policies on other issues. He wants to make Puerto
Rico a state . He supports a path to citizenship
for illegal aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with pledges
to secure the border and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He
wants to create a
massive bureaucratic system to track gun owners, restrict
gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to
subsidize local journalists with
taxpayer dollars, which in practice would mean just paying Leftist activists to dox people in
their communities.
(Though as some have pointed out, with a thousand dollars a month no matter what,
right-wingers wouldn't have to worry as much about being targeted by
journofa ).
Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's
online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars.
(Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are "far right" by Main
Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and
wrist-flapping about the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the
candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism [are] a threat to the
core ideals of what it means to be an American". [ Presidential
candidate Andrew Yang has a meme problem, by Russell Brandom, The Verge,
March 9, 2019]
But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is
described as racist, and even national symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest,
"America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity. Increasingly,
"America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring
tribes that occupy it except money.
President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this
process, especially by limiting mass immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars,
for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has repeatedly endorsed more
legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and
whine about unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.
The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to
the Left, but to the failed Conservative Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President
Trump specifically pledged
to protect entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure
plan. However, once in office, his main legislative accomplishment is a tax cut any other
Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of
entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [ Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget
cuts all 3, by Tara Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has
already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.
Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path
to the Republican nomination, now embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message.
Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans about "free
markets" even as they have appear to have lost an
entire generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free
market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately trying to tell his followers not to cheer
for Tucker Carlson because Carlson had suggested a nation should be
treated like a family, not simply a marketplace .
Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most
fervent online supporters have turned on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to
come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is beyond saving.
Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like
those policies are coming anyway. If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world
is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get something out of this
System before the bones are picked clean.
National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's
candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers ability to affect the vote count "has been
overstated" [ Rise of the pink
hats, March 12, 2019]. Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of
the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him.
When President Donald Trump announced in December that he wanted an immediate withdrawal of
U.S. troops from Syria, there was more silence and opposition from the Left than approval. The
2016 election's highest-profile progressive, Senator Bernie Sanders, said virtually nothing at
the time. The 2018 midterm election's Left celeb, former congressman Beto O'Rourke, kept mum
too. The 2004 liberal hero, Howard Dean, came out against troop withdrawals, saying they would
damage women's rights in Afghanistan.
Advertisement
The liberal news outlet on which Warren made her statement, MSNBC, which had already been
sounding more like Fox News circa 2003, warned that withdrawal from Syria could hurt national
security. The left-leaning news channel has even made common cause with Bill Kristol and other
neoconservatives in its shared opposition to all things Trump.
Maddow herself has not only vocally opposed the president's decision, but has become
arguably more popular than ever with liberal viewers by peddling
wild-eyed anti-Trump conspiracy theories worthy of Alex Jones. Reacting to one of her
cockamamie theories, progressive journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted , "She is Glenn Beck
standing at the chalkboard. Liberals celebrate her (relatively) high ratings as proof that
she's right, but Beck himself proved that nothing produces higher cable ratings than feeding
deranged partisans unhinged conspiracy theories that flatter their beliefs."
The Trump derangement that has so enveloped the Left on everything, including foreign
policy, is precisely what makes Democratic presidential candidate Warren's Syria withdrawal
position so noteworthy. One can safely assume that Sanders, O'Rourke, Dean, MSNBC, Maddow, and
many of their fellow progressive travelers' silence on or resistance to troop withdrawal is
simply them gauging what their liberal audiences currently want or will accept. Warren could
have easily gone either way, succumbing to the emotive demands of the Never Trump mob. She
instead opted to stick to the traditional progressive position on undeclared war, even if it
meant siding with the president.
Can anyone confirm what will happen when Germany will shut down those US Command Center
(NATO) because Germany is able to finance their own. (US Personal has to go) Nato support Act
is an US Law and not an authorized NATO Law
Washington announced late Monday that it is withdrawing all of its embassy personnel from
Caracas in what may signal preparations for a direct US military intervention to consummate
the protracted regime change operation unleashed against Venezuela.
"This decision reflects the deteriorating situation in Venezuela as well as the conclusion
that the presence of U.S. diplomatic staff at the embassy has become a constraint on U.S.
policy," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement.
Pressed at a State Department press conference Tuesday as to what Pompeo meant by
"constraint," Elliott Abrams, the Trump administration's special envoy for regime change in
Venezuela, said that it was "prudent to take these folks out" because their presence made it
"more difficult for the United States to take the actions that it needed to do to support the
Venezuelan people."
Asked whether military intervention was being prepared and if the Maduro government should
see Pompeo's statement as a threat, Abrams, a former Reagan administration State Department
official who oversaw vast war crimes in Central America in the 1980s and was convicted of
lying to Congress about an illegal operation to fund the "contra" terrorist war against
Nicaragua, responded that he would "continue to say, because it is true, all options are on
the table."
"... When Guaido returned to Venezuela on March 4 he was greeted at the airport by several foreign diplomats. Among the receiving dignitaries was Germany's envoy Daniel Kriener. ..."
"... What's more, the explicit backing of Juan Guaido by Germany's envoy was carried out on the "express order" of Foreign Minister Heiko Maas , according to Deutsche Welle. ..."
"... Russia's envoy to the UN Vasily Nebenzia, at a Security Council session last month, excoriated the US for its gross violation of international law with regard to Venezuela. Moscow's diplomat also directed a sharp rebuke at other nations "complicit" in Washington's aggression, saying that one day "you will be next" for similar American subversion in their own affairs. ..."
"... German politicians, diplomats and media were apoplectic in their anger at perceived interference by the US ambassador in Berlin's internal affairs. Yet the German political establishment has no qualms whatsoever about ganging up – only weeks later – with Washington to subvert the politics and constitution of Venezuela. ..."
Germany has
taken the lead among European Union member states to back Washington's regime-change agenda for
Venezuela.
Berlin's hypocrisy and double-think is quite astounding.
Only a few weeks ago, German politicians and media were up in arms protesting to the
Trump administration for interfering in Berlin's internal affairs.
There were even
outraged complaints that Washington was seeking "regime change" against Chancellor Angela Merkel's
government.
Those protests were sparked when Richard Grenell, the
US ambassador to Germany,
warned
German
companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline with Russia that they could be hit with
American economic sanctions
if they go ahead with the Baltic seabed project.
Earlier, Grenell provoked fury among Berlin's political establishment when he openly gave his
backing to opposition party Alternative for Germany. That led to consternation and denunciations of
Washington's perceived backing for regime change in Berlin. They were public calls for Grenell to
be expelled over his apparent breach of diplomatic protocols.
Now, however, Germany is shamelessly kowtowing to an even more outrageous American
regime-change plot against Venezuela.
Last week, the government of President Nicolas Maduro ordered the expulsion of German ambassador
Daniel Kriener after he greeted the US-backed opposition figure Juan Guaido on a high-profile
occasion. Guaido had just returned from a tour of Latin American countries during which he had
openly called for the overthrow of the Maduro government. Arguably a legal case could be made for
the arrest of Guaido by the Venezuelan authorities on charges of sedition.
When Guaido returned to Venezuela on March 4 he was greeted at the airport by several
foreign diplomats. Among the receiving dignitaries was Germany's envoy Daniel Kriener.
The opposition figure had declared himself "interim president" of Venezuela on January 23 and
was immediately recognized by Washington and several European Union states. The EU has so far not
issued an official endorsement of Guaido over incumbent President Maduro. Italy's objection blocked
the EU from adopting a unanimous position.
Nevertheless, as the strongest economy in the 28-member bloc, Germany can be seen as de facto
leader of the EU. Its position on Venezuela therefore gives virtual EU gravitas to the geopolitical
maneuvering led by Washington towards the South American country.
What's more, the explicit backing of Juan Guaido by Germany's envoy was carried out on
the "express order" of Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
,
according
to
Deutsche Welle.
"It was my express wish and request that Ambassador Kriener turn out with representatives of
other European nations and Latin American ones to meet acting President Guaido at the airport,"
said Maas.
"We had information that he was supposed to be arrested there. I believe that the presence
of various ambassadors helped prevent such an arrest."
It's staggering to comprehend the double-think involved here.
Guaido was hardly known among the vast majority of Venezuelans until he catapulted on to
the global stage by declaring himself "interim president".
That move was clearly executed
in a concerted plan with the Trump White House. European governments and Western media have
complacently adopted the White House line that Guaido is the legitimate leader while socialist
President Maduro is a "usurper".
That is in spite of the fact that Maduro was re-elected last year in free and fair
elections by a huge majority of votes.
Guaido's rightwing, pro-business party boycotted
the elections. Yet he is anointed by Washington, Berlin and some 50 other states as the legitimate
leader.
Russia, China, Turkey, Cuba and most other members of the United Nations have refused to
adopt Washington's decree of recognizing Guaido.
Those nations (comprising 75 per cent of
the UN assembly) continue to recognize President Maduro as the sovereign authority. Indeed, Russia
has been highly critical of Washington's blatant interference for regime change in oil-rich
Venezuela. Moscow has warned it will not tolerate US military intervention.
Russia's envoy to the UN Vasily Nebenzia, at a Security Council session last month,
excoriated
the
US for its gross violation of international law with regard to Venezuela. Moscow's diplomat also
directed a sharp rebuke at other nations "complicit" in Washington's aggression, saying that one
day "you will be next" for similar American subversion in their own affairs.
Germany's hypocrisy and double-think is, to paraphrase that country's national anthem,
"über alles" (above all else).
German politicians, diplomats and media were apoplectic in their anger at perceived interference
by the US ambassador in Berlin's internal affairs. Yet the German political establishment has no
qualms whatsoever about ganging up – only weeks later – with Washington to subvert the politics and
constitution of Venezuela.
How can Germany be so utterly über servile to Washington and the latter's brazen
criminal aggression towards Venezuela?
It seems obvious that Berlin is trying to ingratiate itself with the Trump
administration. But what for?
Trump has been pillorying Germany with allegations of "unfair trade" practices. In particular,
Washington is recently stepping up its threats to slap punitive tariffs on German auto exports.
Given that this is a key sector in the German export-driven economy, it may be gleaned that Berlin
is keen to appease Trump. By backing his aggression towards Venezuela?
Perhaps this policy of appeasement is also motivated by Berlin's concern to spare the
Nord Stream 2 project from American sanctions.
When NS2 is completed later this year, it
is reckoned to double the capacity of natural gas consumption by Germany from Russia. That will be
crucial for Germany's economic growth.
Another factor is possible blackmail of Berlin by Washington.
Recall the
earth-shattering revelations made by American whistleblower Edward Snowden a few years back when he
disclosed that US intelligence agencies were tapping the personal phone communications of
Chancellor Merkel and other senior Berlin politicians.
Recall, too, how the German state
remarkably
acquiesced
over what should
have been seen as a devastating infringement by Washington.
The weird lack of action by Berlin over that huge violation of its sovereignty by the Americans
makes one wonder if the US spies uncovered a treasure trove of blackmail material on German
politicians.
Berlin's pathetic kowtowing to Washington's interference in Venezuela begs an ulterior
explanation. No self-respecting government could be so hypocritical and duplicitous.
Whatever Berlin may calculate to gain from its unscrupulous bending over for Washington,
one thing seems clear, as Russian envoy Nebenzia warned: "One day you are next" for American
hegemonic shafting.
Germany already forgot, how they blew up Yugoslavia.
It was
because of German diplomacy plotting and meddling, that Croatia
and Slovenia announced their abandonment of federation of Balkan
states - which Yugoslavia de facto was.
Another reason for this, was to destroy a forming Hexagonale -
an alliance of central and southern european states.
As long as Germany has its imperial resentements, there will be
no peace in Europe.
They want in on the Venezuelan petroleum game if/when regime
change happens, obviously. Aruba (controlled by the Dutch) is
about 20miles off the coast of Venezuela and and there is a small
but significant population of German Venezuelans in Venezuela.
CITGO was was trying to restart the large refinery located in
Aruba not long back, haven't heard anything about it lately.
The Strategic Culture Foundation. A culture of strategy? That
sounded interesting. So I dug.
". . . Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet,
we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and
progressive
ideas
."
That explains why I'm seeing
socialists defending socialists. What a surprise. Not very
critical if you ask me, but definitely "progressive" to the
core.
And as for the author, nearly every one of his articles attack the
US and its allies. You'd think that if he's writing for the
Strategic Culture Foundation, he'd be into
critical thought
.
Meaning, we'd see some minuses
and
pluses in his
work. The fact that we don't, makes him a propagandist, not a
journalist. Then again,
is there such a thing as a journalist
anymore these days
?
I'd like to think so. Yet, when you evaluate someone's work and
see little more than the fermenting of hatred and discontent,
there has to be a motive. For him, it could be personal, given
the amount of passion and conspiracy theory that he puts into his
hatred. For his employers, though, the motive seems to be
strategic
.
Anyway, it's disappointing to find it here at ZH, but I guess the
bills must get paid somehow.
"Military intervention in
Venezuela is totally unacceptable."
She opposed the US and the self-appointed Guaido.
It follows that she had to act not only with the consent of
Berlin and Paris, but in their mandate. This suggests that the EU
has reassessed the situation and changed its position on President
Maduro.
Berlin has come to know that the EU has created an
international contact group, including Germany and France. The
group is conducting talks with the Venezuelan government and with
the opposition, aiming to achieve a peaceful solution to the
critical situation in Venezuela, and as the group spokesman said,
everything will be done to make the solution democratic.
The unnamed French source claims that Beijing and Moscow are
behind the change of Berlin and Paris.
"Hypocrisy" or "getting it right for a change" - that is the
question ! Merkel, the putative Conservative, has sold her own
people down the river many times in the last few years. She has
demonstrated the George W Bush style, over the people in her own
Party. And the results are obvious.
Now, after ruining her
country both culturally and financially, she makes ONE correct
decision. Hardly HYPOCRISY; more like contrition for her
ineptitude.
Well, Merkel is doing a good job of protecting Germany's interests
by opposing the U.S. regarding North Stream 2. The German stand on
Venezuela is disappointing, but they might be figuring no skin off
their back, since Venezuela is not in Europe, so might as well
appease cheeto head.
Shocking, right? Lol. I could have written this article myself.
Just had this conversation with a friend here regarding German
hypocriscy. Germany is a true vassal nation run by puppets.
Highlights the total lack of coordination at the highest levels of
German government. They just can't concieve that anyone is onto
their game but it is blatanly obvious to anyone who can chew gum
and walk simultaneously. The link to the demographic crisis (and
by exstension the coming pension crisis) to the importation of
"refugees" is a bit harder for many to see but still plainly
obvious if one tries just a little. Truly sad state of affairs in
all of Europe only masked over by the ECB. At least for now.
After almost 1 week it seems Venezuela is still around
85%
to 90% blacked-out
'We call it survival': Venezuelans improvise solutions as
blackout continues
With the crisis in its sixth day, neighbors are sharing
generators, contraband supplies and skills for survival
Joe Parkin Daniels and Patricia Torres in Caracas
Tue 12 Mar 2019
18.30 AEDT
Last modified on
Wed 13 Mar 2019
03.06 AEDT
People use their mobile phones at the Distribuidor Altamira
-main exit of Francisco Fajardo highway- where they can get
telephone service during a partial power outage in Caracas on
March 9, 2019.
At a street corner in eastern Caracas, Rosa Elena stepped
from her car and started picking handfuls of leaves from a
modest tree growing at the roadside. "This is neem," she said.
"It's high in sugar and great in a tea." Her interest was more
than academic: Rosa Elena is diabetic, and when the lights went
out in Venezuela last Thursday, she began to worry that the
blackout would ruin her insulin supply, which must be kept
refrigerated. Since then she has been making rounds of the
city, stockpiling neem leaves, which some people believe can be
used to control diabetes.
As a crippling blackout drags into a sixth day,
Venezuelans are being forced to improvise solutions for a
crisis that is affecting every aspect of daily life. Although
there is intermittent power in the capital, some neighbourhoods
have been in the dark since last week, and schools and
businesses will remain closed on Tuesday.
Food has rotted in refrigerators, hospitals have struggled
to keep equipment operating, and people gather on street
corners to pick up patchy telephone signals.
At Residencias Karina, an apartment complex in the
south-eastern municipality of Baruta – the power was still off
on Monday evening, and residents had come together to share
expertise and survival tactics. One elderly resident has lent
his generator to the operation, with cables running up the side
of the red-brick building into a flat where neighbours charge
their phones. To stop the device overheating or getting rained
out, they have fashioned a cover out of cardboard and
tarpaulin.
In ordinary times, petrol is practically free in Venezuela,
due to government subsidies. But power cuts have put many pumps
out of action, and fuel is hard to come by. It is illegal to
fill jerry cans at petrol stations, so people are often forced
to resort to the black market to obtain fuel for generators.
"The government calls it contraband – we call it survival,"
said Carolina, one resident who preferred not to give her
surname for fear of reprisals.
Members of the Bolivarian National Police escort a tanker as
they help organize the distribution of drinking water to
residents of San Agustin neighbourhood in Caracas on March 11,
2019, while a massive power outage continues affecting parts of
the country.
Another neighbour, Pedro Martínez, was once a farmer in the
country's vast western plains, and has brought his own unique
skillset to the team. "I'm a campesino," he said. "I don't know
about phones and I can live without them. But I do know how to
salt meat." Martínez has been turning the residents' supplies
of beef into jerky, so food supplies can last longer. "The
chicken and the fish people had is already rotten," he said.
Late on Sunday night, the housing complex was rocked by a
string of explosions after an electrical substation caught fire
in circumstances which remain unexplained. "It sounded like a
plane taking off," said Carolina, as the stench of burnt
plastic drifted across from the smouldering power plant. The
explosion added to a sense of desperation in a neighbourhood
that had already seen outbreaks of looting. Residents have
mounted lookouts to warn of the government security forces and
paramilitary gangs called colectivos, who they fear will take
down their jerry-rigged infrastructure. "It's like Jumanji
here," Martínez said. "Except instead of elephants and lions
running around it's the national guard and colectivos."
Residents have started pumping water from a well behind the
front gate, and taking turns to carry supplies to elderly
neighbours on higher floors. Water is in short supply across
the city: at a pharmacy in the upmarket commercial
neighbourhood of Las Mercedes, the queue for bottled water
stretched for several blocks – longer than the line outside
some petrol stations. Moisés de Lima, a homeowner and new
father, loaded gallon bottles of water into his car. He was
stockpiling in expectation of a prolonged crisis.
"We are in a wartime economy now," De Lima said, his
voice trembling with anger. "This is what this government has
done to us, and it has the nerve to just make excuses and play
the blame game."
On Monday night Maduro made a
conspiratorial televised address to the nation,
claiming the
power cut was part of a "demonic" plot dreamed up in the White
House by Donald Trump
in an attempt to plunge Venezuela
into chaos and justify a military invasion and occupation.
Most locals, however, are convinced the cause is years of
under-investment, mismanagement and corruption. "Chavistas have
been in power for 20 years and we have had 20 years of energy
crises," said De Lima
, who paid for his water in dollars,
which swiftly became the de facto currency as cashpoints and
card-readers went out of action.
"After 20 years, you can't
blame other people for your problems."
Outside La Carlota military airbase near the centre of the
city, locals had descended on a tap outside a local police
station, bringing empty bottles, jugs and tubs. Waiting in line
was Jeancary Lugo, a business administrator, who was dismayed
by the efforts of some storekeepers to profit from the crisis.
"On Friday, I bought a bag of ice from a store for $1.50.
Yesterday they wanted $8," she complained. "There's a lot of
solidarity here but there's also people taking advantage. I
feel like they are [trying to] rob us."
Across the road, dozens of national guardsmen lined up,
with riot shields and gas masks at the ready. "Is this what
Venezuela deserves?" one person in line shouted at a police
officer by the station house. The officer shrugged. "In the
command centre there's no water either, and electricity comes
and goes. We're all suffering the same," he said.
Venezuela: Guaidó under investigation for 'sabotage' of
power grid
Tom Phillips Latin America correspondent
Wed 13 Mar 2019
06.20 AEDT
First published on Wed 13 Mar 2019 05.13 AEDT
Venezuelans head to collect water from a sewage canal at the
river Guaire in Caracas. President Nicolás Maduro has alleged a
US attack crippled the country's electrical system.
Venezuela's chief prosecutor has asked the country's supreme
court to open an investigation into opposition leader Juan
Guaidó for alleged involvement in the "sabotage" of the
country's power grid. Tarek Saab announced the inquiry on
Tuesday, a day after the embattled president, Nicolás Maduro,
accused Donald Trump of masterminding a "demonic" plot with the
country's opposition to force him from power.
Guaidó – who most western governments now recognize as
Venezuela's legitimate interim leader – is already under
investigation for allegedly fomenting violence, but authorities
have not tried to detain him since he violated a travel ban and
then returned home from a tour of Latin American countries.
Saab said the case against Guaidó also involves messages
allegedly inciting people to robbery and looting during the
crippling blackout which began on Thursday.
Maduro's political foes and many specialists believe the
nationwide blackout is the result of years of mismanagement,
corruption and incompetence. "We are in the middle of a
catastrophe that is not the result of a hurricane, that is not
the result of a tsunami," Guaidó told CNN on Sunday. "It's the
product of the inefficiency, the incapability, the corruption
of a regime that doesn't care about the lives of Venezuelans."
But in a televised nationwide address on Monday night
Maduro accused the White House of launching an imperialist
"electromagnetic attack".
Critics condemned it as a cynical
attempt to deflect criticism of his regime's responsibility.
"The United States' imperialist government ordered this
attack," Maduro claimed in his 35-minute speech, only his
second significant intervention since the crisis began last
week. "They came with a strategy of war of the kind that only
these criminals – who have been to war and have destroyed the
people of Iraq, of Libya, of Afghanistan and of Syria – think
up." Maduro alleged the US had conducted the attack – in league
with "puppets and clowns" from the Venezuelan opposition – to
create "a state of despair, of widespread want and of conflict"
that would justify a foreign intervention.
Maduro, who gave no evidence for his claims, gave little
hint that an end was in sight to a crisis that the opposition
blames for at least 21 deaths and many fear could plunge the
country into violence and turmoil.
On Tuesday, the foreign
minister, Jorge Arreaza, ordered US diplomats to leave the
country within 72 hours. "The presence on Venezuelan soil of
these officials represents a risk for the peace, unity and
stability of the country," the government said in a statement.
The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, had announced on Monday
night that Washington was withdrawing all remaining diplomatic
staff from Caracas. "This decision reflects the deteriorating
situation in Venezuela as well as the conclusion that the
presence of US diplomatic staff at the embassy has become a
constraint on US policy," Pompeo tweeted.
Maduro has been fighting for political survival since
January when Guaidó declared himself Venezuela's legitimate
leader and was swiftly recognised as interim president by
dozens of western nations including the US and Britain.
Maduro's many opponents –
who blame him for an economic
collapse that has triggered the most severe migration crisis in
recent Latin American history
– ridicule his claims that
the outage is part of a White House conspiracy. Anna Ferrera, a
student activist in Caracas, said:
"They go around and
around saying this was sabotage and how the US always sabotages
things and the empire is going against Venezuela. But they
haven't given any [credible] explanation. "They always make up
stories to explain the flaws of the system. This is
outrageous," added Ferrera, who said she feared many might
accept Maduro's version because the blackout had knocked out
communication systems across the country, giving his
administration a monopoly on information.
Dimitris Pantoulas, a Caracas-based political analyst, said
Maduro had appeared "worried, anxious and absolutely
desperate" in his Monday night broadcast,
suggesting the
situation was dire. "It is clear, from what he said, that
the government does not control the situation (nobody does) and
they do not have any plan or strategy,"
Pantoulas tweeted.
In his speech, Maduro, who inherited Hugo Chávez's
Bolivarian revolution after his 2013 death, vowed that the
supposed attack on Venezuela's grid would be thwarted. "Victory
belongs to us," he declared. "What you can be certain of is
that sooner rather later, in the coming days, we will win this
battle definitively. We will win – and we will do it for
Venezuela. We will do it for our homeland. We will do it for
you. We will do it because of our people's right to happiness."
An epic cautionary tale of the danger of electing loony left
governments, led by hopey water-melons and warped and insane
neo-communist idiots. These poor sad scared people are going to be
stuffed for at least the next generation.
Germany excuse in WWII: "just obeying orders"
Germany excuse in VZ: "just obeying orders"
Some people never learn. It is obvious that Germany after ww2
became a US vassal following the dictamenes from WDC otherwise
it will face the consequences.
With Germany awash with migrant crime - no go areas - their
women and children afraid to go to swimming pools, concerts,
new year celebrations, rather than deal with their own horrific
issues they want to overthrow a democratically elected leader -
just another USA poodle state
Nah, the Orange Messiah doesn't need an excuse. He'll cut SS
and Medicare for the poor while giving trillions to his
oligarch buddies in tax cuts and crony capitalist MIC
contracts, while spending huge treasury to advance ZioNazism
and Bolshevism worldwide. TrumpTARDs suck his mushroom to his
satisfaction in any event.
Virologists are working around the clock to map the genome of this scurrilous scourge, about
which very little is known, other than that it has a sudden onset, and attacks the language
center of the brain, causing the sufferer to express opinions about "Zionism," "globalism,"
"the Israel lobby," "banks," and other code words for "Jews." Patients appear to be unaware
that they are spouting these anti-Semitic code words until they are told they are by the
corporate media, or their colleagues, or some random account on Twitter, at which point their
symptoms alter dramatically, and they suffer a series of petit mal seizures, causing them to
repeatedly apologize for unintentionally advocating the extermination of the entire Jewish
people and the establishment of a worldwide Nazi Reich.
At the moment, Britain is taking the brunt of it. Despite the best efforts of the ruling
classes and the media to contain its spread, several new cases of anti-Semitism have been
reported throughout the Kingdom, or at least among the Labour Party, which, at this point, has
been so thoroughly infected that it resembles a
neo-Nazi death cult .
Jeremy Corbyn, who contracted the virus more or less the moment he assumed the leadership,
is now exhibiting symptoms of late-stage disease. Reliable sources close to the party, reached
for comment at a brunch in Qatar with Tony Blair and a bunch of Saudis, report that Corbyn is
running around Momentum HQ in full Nazi regalia, alternately heiling Hitler and looking for
journalists to apologize to.
Another Labour MP, Chris Williamson, had to be summarily quarantined after publicly
apologizing for not apologizing for inciting a gathering of Labour members to stop apologizing
for refusing to apologize for being disgusting anti-Semites or something basically along those
lines. Owen Jones is fiercely denying denying that the party is a hive of Nazis, and that he
ever denied that denying the fact that there is zero
actual evidence of that fact is essential to preserving what is left of the party, once it
has been cured of anti-Semitism, or disbanded and reconstituted from scratch.
Emergency measures are now in effect. A full-scale Labour Party lockdown is imminent. Anyone
not already infected is being advised to flee the party, denounce anyone who hasn't done so as
"a Hitler-loving Corbyn-sympathizer," and prophylactically apologize for any critical
statements they might have made about Israel, or "elites," or "global capitalism," or
"bankers," or anything else that anyone can construe as anti-Semitism (
preferably in the pages of The Guardian ).
Nor has the Continent been spared! What at first appeared to be a series of spontaneous
protests against Emmanuel Macron, economic austerity, and global capitalism by the so-called
"Yellow Vests" in France has
now been officially diagnosed as a nationwide anti-Semitism outbreak. In a heroic attempt
to contain the outbreak, Macron has dispatched his security forces to shoot the eyes out of
unarmed women , pepper spray paraplegics in wheelchairs , and
just
generally beat bloody hell out of everyone . Strangely, none of these tactics have worked,
so France has decided to join the USA, the UK, Germany, and the rest of the empire in
defining anti-Zionism as form of anti-Semitism , such that anyone implying that Israel is
in any way inherently racist, or a quasi-fascist Apartheid state, or making jokes about
"elites" or "bankers," can be detained and prosecuted for committing a "hate-crime."
Meanwhile, in the United States (where Donald Trump, "U.S. patient zero," had already
single-handedly infected the vast majority of the American populace, and transformed the nation
into an unrecognizable, genocidal Nazi Reich), the anti-Semitism virus has now spread to
Congress, where Representative Ilhan Omar (reputed to be a hardcore member of the infamous "
Axis of
Anti-Semitism ") has apparently totally lost her mind and started talking about the Israel
lobby, and the billions of dollars the U.S. government provides to Israel on an annual basis,
and other Israel-related subjects one simply does not talk about (unless one writes for The
New York Times and isn't a hijab-wearing Muslim, in which case it's completely fine to
characterize support for Israel as being "
bought and paid for by the Israel lobby ").
OK, I know, you're probably questioning the fact that this anti-Semitism pandemic just
sprang up out of the ether one day, more or less in perfect synch with the Russian plot to
destroy democracy that Vladimir Putin set in motion the moment the Global War on Terror seemed
to be running out of steam. If you are, you need to close this essay, pull up either MSNBC or
The Guardian website on your phone, and inoculate yourself against such thoughts. That
conspiratorial type of thinking is one of the early warning signs that you have been infected
with anti-Semitism! Unless you act now to protect yourself, before you know it, you'll be
raving about "the ruling classes," "globalist elites," "austerity," "neoliberalism," "the
Israel lobby," or even "Palestinians."
... ... ...
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"Anti-semite" has lost its sting, because every justified criticism of the fully nuclear
armed, viciously apartheid, theocratic Zionist Israeli government is declared to be
anti-semitism. The word is so overused and misapplied as to be useless. Indeed, to be
declared "anti-semite" by the Israel Lobby is to be declared a person of high moral
conscience.
"Another Labour MP, Chris Williamson, had to be summarily quarantined after publicly
apologizing for not apologizing for inciting a gathering of Labour members to stop
apologizing for refusing to apologize for being disgusting anti-Semites or something
basically along those lines. Owen Jones is fiercely denying denying that the party is a
hive of Nazis, and that he ever denied that denying the fact that there is zero actual
evidence of that fact is essential to preserving what is left of the party, once it has
been cured of anti-Semitism, or disbanded and reconstituted from scratch."
brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! y, it's much the same here across the pond.
Nikki2 comment on Youtube: "GUYS! Tulsi needs 65,000 individual donations to get into the
debates. Even if she's not your #1 candidate, please donate a small amount so she can bring the
foreign policy/regime change conversation to the debates"
@ChuckOrloski
Chelsea Manning is imprisoned (from the article you cited) "for refusing to testify in front
of a secretive Grand Jury." The regime is after Julian Assange, so they're trying to squeeze
Manning. Not happening!
Is there any other nation that wields such a stranglehold on any other as Israel does the
United States? Is there any other nation that has so completely surrendered its sovereignty
to another as has the United States to Israel. Does any other country (size of Israel) strike
fear and dread into the hearts of its lawmakers to the point of complete serfdom as Israel
does the US? Can any other country allow any foreign country to override its head of state to
address lawmakers as Israel has done to the US in the case of Obama, despite his complete
servility to Israel, thereby rendering himself a victim of dual abuses: racism and disregard
of American sovereignty? Has any other country sacrificed so many of its citizens for wars on
behalf of any other country as we have done for Israel? Can any other country receiving
billions of dollars of taxpayers money in aid and military hardware shamelessly call the
shots as Israel does with America, with America not as much as questioning orders from
Israel? Can we realistically celebrate Independence Day with so much fanfare when another
country has us so completely by the balls as to make a mockery of the word "independence".
Can any country strip any other of its sovereignty as Israel has done to the US, including
undermining its constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, with our total collusion?
Having raised all these questions, can there be realistic grounds for hoping for a ray of
light at the end of the tunnel, short of a comprehensive revolution that would rehabilitate a
nation led by quislings into one of principled men and women?
anyone here who chooses to hate me. I recognize that that you have the right to do so. And
that that right s Constitutionally protected. You are entitled to your feelings.
What I must object to and call into question is your attempt to engage in acts that in any
threaten, thwart, disrupt my right as a US citizen to access every aspect of what is
guaranteed to me by the US constitution. That includes manufacturing false claims to
undermine the same.
I will defend your right to your feelings and your right to express them in a manner in
accordance with the first amendment. I cannot support acts that deprive myself my
constitutional rights in any manner.
I am not a promoter of hate, but I certainly recognize the right that people have for
their feelings and the desire to one's express them.
[Bret Stephens] attributes to her "insidious cunning" and "anti-Jewish bigotry"
observing how "she wraps herself in the flag, sounding almost like Pat Buchanan when he
called Congress "Israeli-occupied" territory."
If what Rep. Omar said wasn't too different from what Mr. Buchanan said previously, why
haven't we heard a peep out of him on this issue?
a liar and a hypocrite, and that alone should disqualify them for office.
Hello?
Where the bleep have you been, Pardner? You got that exactly backwards; mendacity
and hypocrisy are mandatory minimum qualifications for the positions.
Ms. Omar is dis qualified because she is honest enough to speak the truth.
Now, go learn to shoot straight before shooting off yer mug, and you can start with
this,
I must take issue with your observation that Mr. Truman is an habitual liar, not because
I disagree with you, but because I disagree with your manner in presenting it as a
derogatory statement. Is not the ability of lying necessary to political
leadership ?
And this, which illustrates several points regarding politicians, their characteristics
and motives.:
Two candidates for political office in a debate
SAUSAGE-SELLER
No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the
allies at will that you reckon; you wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist,
that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for
his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort
himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the
blessings you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with
hatred and rage, he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only
too well; it is for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.
until there is a much larger block of anti israel congresspeople nothing is going to change.
What is the USs interest? They sure are not interested in making things better for the
majority/middle class. All the while continuing to enrich the already too wealthy ever more.
Media is a lying POS and yet people still watch Fox or Cnn or msnbc. All of them produce
nothing but propaganda garbage. Unfortunately, it seems like most in the USA just don't care.
In Venezuela look at the protesters the US media sets up and/or loves so much, try that in
the USA and you'll end up in jail.
For me, Ilhan Omar's statements were the most exciting political event in decades. I'm not
surprised that she is being punished, but the viciousness of the attacks have certainly gone
up a notch.
America's big mistake: allowing all the media to congeal into one big bullhorn that is
controlled by Jewish interests. As long as they control the media there will be no national
debate of zionist power in America.
Another great article by Giraldi. He is consistently the most forceful and articulate
writer regarding the subversion of America's national interests to Israel.
As much as I despise Omar's politics, in this case she is right to expose the dirty politics
that Israel uses on it's "friend and ally" the United States of America.
AIPAC is the most powerful foreign lobby in the United States and has done more to influence
and damage the American political process than just about any other lobby. It is a
loosely-guarded secret that, in order to garner jewish support, prospective politicians must
sign a loyalty oath promising support for Israel. This, in itself is un-American and borders
on treason. Failure to sign the loyalty oath almost always assures a political death. AIPAC
will spend millions to elect a candidate as long as he "toes the Israeli line".
Remember the USS Liberty (GTR-5), the American naval vessel that was deliberately attacked
with massive loss of American lives (an act of war) by "our friend and ally" Israel on June
8, 1967. If I had my way, Israel would have been turned into a "glass parking lot" on June 9,
1967.
As an aside, we must constantly hit our politicians with charges of treason, citing the
"loyalty oaths" to Israel that almost all of them have signed.
Dual citizens of Israel are through out the US government and have given America unending
wars and debt and an unconstitutional FED and IRS. No dual citizen from any nation should be
able to hold office in any government or state or county or city government in the US, no one
can serve two masters and citizens of Israel serve Israel and that is why America has been at
war for 18 years and counting in the Mideast!
Israel was everywhere at the Jewish day school I attended in New York. The Israeli and
American flags were proudly displayed together, no matter that I, like the majority of my
classmates, was not Israeli.
This alone might be innocuous, a loose cultural affinity that would be familiar in a
French or German language academy. But in Jewish day school life, outright political
mobilization for Israel and its policies was a requirement.
Every year we would be "strongly encouraged" to attend the Salute to Israel parade on
New York's Fifth Avenue. Teachers were marshals, and mocking stories about pro-Palestinian
activists were exchanged in class the following day.
One year, we were outright required to join a protest in support of Israel, during the
school day, at the United Nations.
This school-mandated allegiance seeped into even the most casual conversations. I
remember once debating with my group of friends whether we'd rather serve with the Israeli
Defense Forces or the U.S. military. Even though all of us, and our parents, were born and
raised in the United States, we were unanimous: we'd rather fight for Israel.
With any other cultural group in America, for any other country, these statements
would be shocking. After all, when was the last time you heard of an Italian-American
birthright trip to Sicily? But for American Jews, the centrality of allegiance to Israel in
our communal organizations is the norm.
There is one big omission in your article PG. If you read more than the tweet from Rep. Juan
Vargas that you linked as
"Questioning support for the US-Israel relationship is unacceptable."
you must have been pleased by the deluge (maybe hundreds) of Tweets uniformly condemning
him and including many from people claiming believably to be Jews.
BTW Australia doesn't allow dual citizenship by its national MPs and senators and has had
in the last few years a previously unparalleled spate of challenges to members already seated
in Parliament. The courts have interpreted the constitutional provision strictly and MPs
whose Italian born mothers filled in a form which gave them Italian citizenship without their
knowledge have been caught (or at least been taken to court).
I would tend to argue that dual citizenship should be declared but that it is up yo the
voters to decide whether they want to be represented by someone who isn't only an Australian.
There are counterarguments however and avoidance of America's Israel First situation is
certainly one of them.
It is simple, really. The US needs a law prohibiting anyone with dual citizenship to hold
public office. Stated allegiance to any other country should be treated as high treason,
which it is. However, I don't see Congress doing any of this: we all know what happens when
the improvements in henhouse safely is in the hands of foxes.
Anyway All US political system is running on bribery. So the bribery is legal and cannot be
tackled.
The only way to go is to distinguish the bribery and divide it into two groups.
Patriotic bribery and non patriotic bribery.
Here is a funny thing!!!!!!!!!
The Arabs have a proper English word for bribery: Backshish.
1 It is done in the back, so nobody sees it.
2 Shish means you should be quiet about it.
What bribery you may ask.
So what are those prepayed trips to Israel where the Congress people are treated as kings,
and they have chance to make love to the Jewish wall of the temple. They stick their wishes
written on paper into crevices of the wall. (Not too many records if the wall did take care
of their wishes.}
@AnonFromTN You
dont have to be a dual citizen be a traitor.
So what the US needs is an amendment to the Constitution expanding the definitions of
treason and subversion to better reflect the modern day realities of our political
system.
Perhaps suggest to the Magnificent Three that they put forth a bill calling for that.
What makes this piece meaningful is he is 100% correct. Representative Ilhar Omar should
be applauded for her bravery. She truly is courageous, as she not only risks her political
career but also her life. And by doing so she leaves open the door for others to follow.
We'll soon see how serious the Zionists take this matter.
JFK called for AIPAC to register as a foreign agent, however sense his murder not one
politician has ever mentioned it again. I think this says a lot about how much influence that
particular lobby has. Too much.
Dual loyalty is a fuzzy term. Why not go back to the tried-and-true fifth column? These
domestic Zionazis are Israel's fifth column. They constitute the vanguard of an
international, and their program is clearly shown here:
Israel leads a counterrevolutionary plan and conspiracy for bad-faith subversion of all
your human rights including your human right to peace. Israel's existence depends on domestic
Apartheid, totalitarian repression in client states such as the US, and continual threats to
peace worldwide. The government of Israel has forfeited its sovereignty by shirking its
responsibility to protect with the crime against peace of aggression and the crime against
humanity of extermination. In consequence, it must give way to a free Palestine.
The only way you're going to shake off Israel's fifth column is end Israel. You've got to
do to Israel what we did to South Africa.
"No politician can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or
he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve America and Israel."
@jo6pac There
are 40 Jews in the house and senate .that is not 89% of the total 500 congressmen and
senators.
Crap claims like this are actually harmful to the effort to get the Jewish Fifth Column
and Israel out of the US because the lie will be pointed out and much fun made of the
nutcases by the uber Jews.
Duel citizenship is only acceptable if one citizenship is from where you were born, over
which you had no choice, and the other is where you have chosen to live, made your home, and
become a citizen thereof. Two citizenship by choice is a sham: getting the benefactors of one
but maintaining your loyalty to another.
[Stephens] attributes to her "insidious cunning" and "anti-Jewish bigotry" observing how
"she wraps herself in the flag, sounding almost like Pat Buchanan when he called Congress
"Israeli-occupied" territory." And it's all " how anti-Zionism has abruptly become an
acceptable point of view in reputable circles. It's why anti-Semitism is just outside the
frame, bidding to get in.
Let's examine how and why the cunning and bigotry of Bret Stephens gets projected by him
onto Ilhan Omar.
1. Charge, sans evidence, your opponent with your own crimes and repeat the charge ad
nauseam.
2. In lieu of refutation of your opponent's argument, train your reader to identify his
argument as galling chutzpah and your galling chutzpah as an argument.
3. Double down on the accusatory inversion and invoke anti- Semitism: It is not the Jewish
demand that the USA shut-up and bow down before Israel which is threatening to provoke an
anti-Semitic reaction; no: anti-Semitism results from acknowledging as legitimate a scrutiny of
the claims and aims of the Zionist state.
Mr. Stephen's rhetoric is an admission that he and his kind hate Jews, insisting as it does
on the implicit acceptance of Jewish identity as irrational and homicidal. His rhetoric also
represents an ultimatum to the USA: honor Israel's irrational hatred and killing of its
neighbors or you are guilty of irrationally killing Jews.
This is known as desperation and is an infallible sign that yet another false Jewish messiah
– Neoconservatism-has failed.
"... I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters – "one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors " ..."
I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations
have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters –
"one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors "
Anti-Semitism theater – a carefully staged social movement organized by Government
owned media to divide the peons and make them hate each other. Real hate-group profit lies in
charging for vast quantities of militarism but making just enough to kill women and children
overseas.
Back home the flag waving patriots insist they need a giant military with weapons
for anyone who can pay to protect them and their families. Dual loyalty to the Jewish lobby
and the defense lobby.
We do not know the value of 30 pieces of silver today, but I do presume that Jewish
bribes of Congress people are also hit by inflation. (like food). Or not?
US military spending is always by far the largest on the planet, several times the amount of
the next highest spending, China. But while other nations like China and Russia are scaling
back their budgets, the Pentagon's budget, as ever, continues to rise.
Trump's proposal would bring the overall defense budget for 2020 to $750 billion. This
includes a $544 billion base-line defense budget, which is not in and of itself a huge
increase. But on top of that
will be a nearly $100 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Fund , and a $9
billion "emergency" funding request meant to make up for the money already taken from the
military to build the border wall.
Using the OCO budget as an avenue for driving military spending up has been a common tactic
in recent decades, though it had fallen out of favor in the past few years. The OCO has been
heavily criticized because its nature makes it effectively a black hole, allowing the Pentagon
to shuffle money around to different projects as it sees fit.
Exploding the OCO, nearly tripling it from the current year's levels, while keeping base
funding roughly in line, seems meant to allow the administration to present themselves as
keeping past commitments, while fueling a precipitous spending increase all the same.
Zionist-controlled US carried out globalist-pogroms or globogroms all over the world, esp
against Muslim nations. Just ask the Iraqis and Syrians. (As for Palestinians, they got it
bad from Ziogroms.)
Jewish elite love to talk about 'Munich', but the Munich moment in our world is about
stopping Judeo-Nazi supremacists from hatching another war, such as against Iran.
Someone must draw a line in the sand and say NO. Jewish Power has crossed too many
lines.
If there is World War III, it will have been instigated mainly by the Tribe.
"... I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters – "one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors " ..."
I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations
have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters –
"one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors "
Anti-Semitism theater – a carefully staged social movement organized by Government
owned media to divide the peons and make them hate each other. Real hate-group profit lies in
charging for vast quantities of militarism but making just enough to kill women and children
overseas.
Back home the flag waving patriots insist they need a giant military with weapons
for anyone who can pay to protect them and their families. Dual loyalty to the Jewish lobby
and the defense lobby.
We do not know the value of 30 pieces of silver today, but I do presume that Jewish
bribes of Congress people are also hit by inflation. (like food). Or not?
The Solons on Capitol Hill are terrified of the expression "dual loyalty." They are afraid
because dual loyalty means that one is not completely a loyal citizen of the country where one
was born, raised and, presumably, prospered. It also suggests something more perverse, and that
is dual citizenship, which in its present historic and social context particularly refers to
the Jewish congressmen and women who just might be citizens of both the United States and
Israel. There is particular concern over the issue at the moment because a freshman
congresswoman Ilhan Omar has let the proverbial cat out of the bag by alluding to
American-Jewish money buying uncritical support for a foreign country which is Israel without
any regard to broader U.S. interests, something that everyone in Washington knows is true and
has been the case for decades but is afraid to discuss due to inevitable punishment by the
Israel Lobby.
Certainly, the voting record in Congress would suggest that there are a lot of congress
critters who embrace dual loyalty, with evidence that the loyalty is not so much dual as skewed
in favor of Israel. Any bill relating to Israel or to Jewish collective interests, like the
currently fashionable topic of anti-Semitism, is guaranteed a 90% plus approval rating no
matter what it says or how much it damages actual U.S. interests. Thursday's 407 to 23 vote in
the House of Representatives on a meaningless and almost unreadable
"anti-hate" resolution was primarily intended to punish Ilhan Omar and to demonstrate that
the Democratic Party is indeed fully committed to sustaining the exclusive prerogatives of the
domestic Jewish community and the Jewish state.
The voting on the resolution was far from unusual and would have been unanimous but for the
fact that twenty-three Republicans voted "no" because they wanted a document that was only
focused on anti-Semitism, without any references to Muslims or other groups that might be
encountering hatred in America. That the congress should be wasting its time with such nonsense
is little more than a manifestation of Jewish power in the United States, part of a long-sought
goal of making any criticism of Israel a "hate" crime punishable by fining and imprisonment.
And congress is always willing to play its part. Famously, American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) official Steven Rosen once boasted that he
could take a napkin and within 24 hours have the signatures of 70 Senators on it, reflective of
the ability of the leading pro-Israel organization to impel the U.S. legislature to respond
uncritically to its concerns.
Ilhan Omar has certainly been forced to apologize and explain her position as she is under
sustained attack from the left, right and center as well as from the White House. One
congressman told her that "Questioning support for the
US-Israel relationship is unacceptable." Another said "there are many reasons to
support Israel, but there is no reason to oppose Israel" while yet another one declared that
all in Congress are committed to insuring that the "United States and Israel stand as one."
But Omar has defended herself without abandoning her core arguments and she has further
established her bona fides as a credible critic of what passes for U.S. foreign policy
by virtue of an astonishing attack on former President Barack Obama, whom she criticized
obliquely
in an interview Friday , saying "We can't be only upset with Trump. His policies are bad,
but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more
polished than he was. That's not what we should be looking for anymore. We don't want anybody
to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies
that are behind the pretty face and the smile." Presumably Omar was referring to Obama's death
by drone program and his destruction of Libya, among his other crimes. Everything she said
about the smooth talking but feckless Obama is true and could be cast in even worse terms, but
to hear the truth from out of the mouth of a liberal Democrat is something like a revelation
that all progressives are not ideologically fossilized and fundamentally brain dead. One
wonders what she thinks of the Clintons?
The Democrats are in a tricky situation that will only wind up hurting relationships with
some of their core constituencies. If they come down too hard on Omar – a Muslim woman of
color who wears a head covering – it will not look good to some key minority voters they
have long courted. If they do not, the considerable Jewish political donations to the
Democratic Party will certainly be diminished if not slowed to a trickle and much of the media
will turn hostile. So they are trying to bluff their way through by uttering the usual
bromides. Senator Kristin Gillibrand of New York characteristically tried to cover both ends
by
saying "Those with critical views of Israel, such as Congresswoman Omar, should be able to
express their views without employing anti-Semitic tropes about money or influence." Well, of
course, it is all about Jews, money buying access and obtaining political power, with the
additional element of supporting a foreign government that has few actual interests in common
with the United States, isn't it?
As Omar put it, "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it
is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country " She also tweeted to a
congressional critic that "I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a
foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee." Gilad Atzmon,
a well known Jewish critic of Israel,
observed drily that "How reassuring is it that the only American who upholds the core
values of liberty, patriotism and freedom is a black Muslim and an immigrant "
But such explicatory language about the values that Americans used to embrace before
Israel-worship rendered irrelevant the Constitution clearly made some lightweights from the GOP
side nervous. Megan McCain, daughter of thankfully deceased "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"
Senator John McCain appears on a mind numbing talk-television program called The View
where she
cried as she described her great love for fellow Israel-firster warmonger former U.S.
Senator Joe Lieberman as "like family," before launching into her own "informed" analysis: "I
take the hate crimes rising in this country incredibly seriously and I think what's happening
in Europe is really scary. On both sides it should be called out. And just because I don't
technically have Jewish family that are blood-related to me doesn't mean that I don't take this
seriously and it is very dangerous, very dangerous what Ilhan Omar is saying is very scary to
me."
The New York Times also had a lot to say, covering the story on both its news and
op-eds pages daily. Columnist Michelle Goldberg, who is usually sensible,
criticizes Omar because of her "minimizing the legacy of the holocaust" and blames her
because "she's committed what might be called, in another context, a series of microaggressions
-- inadvertent slights that are painful because they echo whole histories of trauma." In other
words, if some Jews are indeed deliberately corrupting American politics on behalf of Israel
and against actual U.S. interests using money to do so it is not a good idea to say anything
about it because it might revive bad historical – or not so historical – memories.
It is perpetual victimhood employed as an excuse for malfeasance on the part of Jewish groups
and the Jewish state.
Another Times columnist Bret Stephens also takes up the
task of defenestrating Omar with some relish, denying that "claims that Israel uses money
to bend others to its will, or that its American supporters 'push for allegiance to a foreign
country'" are nothing more than the "repackage[ing] falsehoods commonly used against Jews for
centuries." He attributes to her "insidious cunning" and "anti-Jewish bigotry" observing how
"she wraps herself in the flag, sounding almost like Pat Buchanan when he called Congress
"Israeli-occupied" territory." And it's all " how anti-Zionism has abruptly become an
acceptable point of view in reputable circles. It's why anti-Semitism is just outside the
frame, bidding to get in." He concludes by asking why the Democratic Party "has so much trouble
calling out a naked anti-Semite in its own ranks."
Stephens clearly does not accept that what Oran claims just might actually be true. Perhaps
he is so irritated by her because he himself is a perfect example of someone who suffers from
dual loyalty syndrome, or perhaps it would be better described as single loyalty to his tribe
and to Israel. Review some of his recent columns in The Times if you do not believe that
to be true. He has an obsession with rooting out people that he believes to be anti-Semites and
believes all the nonsense about Israel as the "only democracy in the Middle East." In his op-ed
he claims that "Israel is the only country in its region that embraces the sorts of values the
Democratic Party claims to champion." Yes, a theocratic state's summary execution of unarmed
protesters and starving civilians while simultaneously carrying out ethnic cleansing are
traditional Democratic Party programs, at least as Bret sees it.
People like Stephens are unfortunately possessors of a bully pulpit and are influential. As
they are public figures, they should be called out regarding where their actual loyalties lie,
but no one in power is prepared to do that. Stephens wears his Jewishness on his sleeve and is
pro-Israel far beyond anyone else writing at The Times . He and other dual loyalists, to
be generous in describing them, should be exposed for what they are, which is the epitome of
the promoters of the too "passionate attachment" with a foreign state that President George
Washington once warned against. If the United States of America is not their homeland by every
measure, they should perhaps consider doing Aliyah and moving to Israel. We genuine
Americans would be well rid of them.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East. Website is <a://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org%2C/"
title="http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org%2C/"
href="http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org%2C/">www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
<a:[email protected]" title="mailto:[email protected]"
href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected].
Stephens wears his Jewishness on his sleeve and is pro-Israel far beyond anyone else
writing at The Times
Amazingly the Times has actually improved from 30 years ago, when their op-ed page included
Abe Rosenthal and William Safire, two of the most repulsive Zionists to ever appear in print.
I still remember Safire's campaign against Bobby Inman. Inman's 1994 press conference is
still a classic. (The good part begins at 23:00)
Weirdly, Trump abruptly attacked Ann Coulter , one of his earliest
and
most eloquent backers , on Twitter Saturday night, perhaps signaling he is repudiating the
immigration patriotism he won on -- or perhaps that he knows Ann is right:
In reality of course, "major sections of the wall" have not been built. And the
administration suffered yet another defeat in the courts last week over its attempts to enforce
immigration law. [ In another blow to Trump, judge rules in favor of ACLU in family separations case ,
by Maria Sacchetti, The Washington Post , March 8, 2019] Trump is fighting, to his
credit, but he simply is not winning on the border.
Congressional Republicans also seem uninterested in immigration patriotism.
Many Republicans want to block President Trump's national emergency declaration on the
border -- the one good thing Trump has recently done on immigration–because it goes
against their " principles ."
Thirteen House Republicans voted to block the executive order last month. "The president
doesn't get to just declare an emergency for something that Congress has deliberated many times
over the past several years," Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian, said of why he
sponsored legislation to stifle the national emergency. [ Rep. Justin
Amash: 'The President Doesn't Get To Just Declare an Emergency' , by Joe Seyton,
Reason, February 26, 2019]. Amash was joined by a group primarily made up of squishy
Republicans. [ Meet the 13
Republicans who rebuked Trump over his national emergency , by Bridget Bowman, Roll
Call , February 26, 2019]
Trump's executive order is receiving even more pushback from Senate Republicans. Senators
such as Shelly Moore-Capito (R-West Virginia) and Susan Collins think the national
emergency is "concerning" and believe Trump already has enough wall money without the
declaration. [ GOP
wants Trump to back off on emergency , by Alexander Bolton, The Hill , March 6,
2019]
Four Republican Senators have announced their intention to vote for legislation to block the
national emergency: Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis, and usual Trump ally Rand Paul. More
are likely to announce their support for this measure as the vote approaches this week. Pat
Toomey and Todd Young, both who are close with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, want to
propose resolutions to give
cucky Republicans a way to voice their disapproval without voting with the Democrats.
The resolutions would convey the message that Republicans want border security, but don't
want to take the necessary actions to fund said border security. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wants to
pass a resolution that would restrict the president's emergency powers and place a 30-day or
60-day time limit on how long they can be in effect without congressional approval.
McConnell announced Monday that he could not prevent passage of legislation blocking Trump's
national emergency declaration. The New York Times declared this announcement as proof
that Trump has lost influence within his own party. [ Trump's Grip
Shows Signs of Slipping as Senate Prepares to Block Wall Emergency , By Sheryl Gay
Stolberg and Emily Cochrane, The New York Times , March 4, 2019]
The good news is that Trump will most likely veto this legislation and Congress doesn't have
enough votes to override the veto. The President is also threatening senators who vote for the
block with stiff consequences. [ Senate Republicans divided ahead of vote on disapproval of national emergency , by
Ted Barrett, CNN , March 7, 2019] There is little chance the President will sign a bill
that overrides his own action, even if his close advisers tell him to do so. Trump's instincts
would never allow such behavior.
The bad news: it's a sign congressional Republicans have no will to support immigration
patriotism at the moment. This is very bad considering the immigration bills that may come
before them in the near future, including the possible White House measure on guest worker
visas. House Democrats are set to introduce a new DREAM Act that will legalize at least 1.8
million illegals and extend Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of foreign
nationals.
Congressional Republicans need to get their act together to kill these pieces of
legislation. But
they may be at the forefront in support of them. Last fall, multiple Republican senators,
including the appalling
Thom Tillis, proposed a bill that would double the number of H-2b visas and screw over
low-skilled American workers. And last month, several Republicans -- alas, including supposed
immigration patriot
Tom Cotton -- championed the easement of some regulations on H-1b visas.
The better hope for killing a guest worker expansion lies with the Democrats. Anyone with a
brain realizes this would be bad for American workers and benefits greedy corporations.
Democrats have never been too fond of this plan, as evidenced by their skepticism about its
expansion in the Gang of Eight Amnesty. [ Gang
of 8 defends guest worker plan , by Seung Min Kim, Politico , May 13, 2013].
What better way to portray Trump as a phony populist in 2020 than to skewer him for this gift
to the cheap labor lobby?
The House Democrats' proposed DREAM Act will probably go nowhere–unless Trump includes
that idea in his immigration package. There are some positive signs that the White House won't
do this; and that Republicans would block its passage. Kushner floated the idea of giving green
cards for Dreamers in exchange for wall funding during shutdown negotiations earlier this year.
That plan was firmly opposed by conservative senators who thought it was insanity [ A "go big" idea to end the shutdown , by Jonathan Swan, Axios , January 23,
2019]
Though Congress and the White House seem set on terrible immigration ideas, it's worth
remembering there are alternative patriotic immigration proposals they could push. All of these
ideas would not likely pass the current Congress, but they would shape the immigration debate
in a positive direction ahead of the 2020 election.
El Chapo Act:
This bill proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz would confiscate the money of drug lords like Joaquin
"El Chapo" Guzman and allocate it to building the wall. Cruz reintroduced the proposal in
February and believes the government could obtain $14 billion out of El Chapo's drug profits
through this law [ Sen. Ted Cruz's solution to border wall impasse: Make El Chapo pay for it , by
Deanna Paul, The Washington Post , February 13, 2019]. This would be more money than
Trump currently has for wall construction and would send a strong message to the cartels. The
president himself has said Sen. Cruz's idea is "interesting." There is no reason Republicans
shouldn't hold a vote on this bill and make Democrats stand up for drug cartels.
Kate's Law:
This bill, named after Kate Steinle who was murdered by an illegal alien, would institute
harsher penalties for illegals caught re-entering the country. This measure passed the House in
2017, but it died in the (n.b. GOP-controlled)Senate [ Senate Has Not Voted On Kate's Law Five Months After It Passed The House With Bipartisan
Support , by Will Racke, The Daily Caller , December 1, 2017].
Trump should resurrect the bill. Yes, it's passage is less likely with a Democrat-controlled
House. That doesn't matter. The president needs to convey he still wants to crack down on
illegal immigration and that his opponents favor criminal aliens over American citizens.
Along with the El Chapo Act, probably has the best chance at passage among the ideas the
Trump admin could push as multiple Democrats voted for it back in 2017. There is still a chance
enough Democrats would vote for it again to achieve passage.
No Sanctuary for Criminals Act:
This act would cut Sanctuary Cities off from federal law enforcement funds and it was also
passed by the House in 2017, albeit by a smaller margin than Kate's Law. It also went nowhere
in the (GOP-controlled) Senate. If Republicans want to highlight the chaos created by Democrat
policies, they should revive this bill and remind Americans that Trump stands up for law and
order. This act, however, does have less chance of passage as it was more strongly opposed by
Democrats [ Dems
block Senate vote on sanctuary cities , by Alexander Bolton, The Hill , February
13, 2018]
Mandatory e-Verify:
Requiring all American companies to use e-verify seems almost too good of an idea for
Republicans. The bill explicitly protects American workers and puts the onus on employers to
make sure they only hire those who are here legally. This should receive bipartisan support as
both parties want to portray themselves as the true protectors of American workers.
House Republicans included the measure in their DACA deal last year, so they are aware of
this proposal [ Goodlatte offers E-Verify mandate, farm worker fix for immigration bill , by John
Bresnahan, Politico , June 26, 2018]. We just need one patriot Republican to stand up
and offer mandatory e-Verify. This proposal also has a decent chance of passage.
Override the Flores Settlement:
This 1997 court decision has handcuffed the Trump administration's ability to enforce
immigration law and is directly responsible for the current border collapse. It has allowed
liberal judges to deem it unlawful for the government to detain illegal alien minors for more
than 20 days. It also has allowed for these minors to have better access to asylum as they
remain in America undetained. Some Republican lawmakers, including Ted Cruz, suggested
legislative action in the last congressional session to correct this loophole [ The History of the Flores
Settlement , by Matt Sussis, Center for Immigration Studies , February 11,
2019].
A bill to end this policy would not likely pass as many Republicans shrank from the Trump's
family detention policies last summer [ Here
Are the Republicans Opposing Migrant Family Separation , by Jeff Cirillo, Roll
Call , June 19, 2018]. That doesn't change the fact that the Trump administration needs
this legislation to avoid further court losses and to shift public discussion on family
detention to focus on Democratic preference for illegal immigrants.
Eliminating birthright citizenship:
There is no way that this idea would pass Congress, but it does have the backing of the
President and one prominent Republican senator. Trump said he may eliminate birthright
citizenship by executive order and
Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed a bill to do so right before the 2018 election. [ Lindsey
Graham Seconds Trump Proposal to End Birthright Citizenship , by Niels Lesniewski,
Roll Call , October 30, 2018]
Those plans, however, seem to have disappeared since then. But Trump still seems interested
in the issue -- he mentioned it in his speech to CPAC -- and events may prompt the president to
revisit the topic. A bill would cause an uproar within Congress and among the Republican
caucus, let alone an executive order. And that's good. If Trump wants to have a serious
discussion on citizenship and reduce the negative effects of mass immigration, then he must
force this issue into the public square.
Javanka would likely oppose any such effort, so perhaps their White House influence would
have to be minimalized from what it is today for this to happen.
The RAISE Act:
The RAISE
Act would halve America's yearly immigration intake and structure our system to be more
"merit-based." It would also cap annual refugee numbers at 50,000 and eliminate the diversity
visa lottery. The bill was introduced by Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue with Trump's backing
in August 2017. But (again, despite GOP control of Congress) nothing happened.
If Trump wants to show he still puts America first ahead of 2020, he could resurrect the
RAISE Act. There is no chance it would pass, but it would force Republicans to run on the plan
and win the seats necessary to pass it in Trump's second term.
These are some positive things Trump and Republicans can do. Whether they choose to do them
is up to them.
It's not looking good.
Washington Watcher [ email him ] is an anonymous source
Inside The Beltway.
"... Since neither Russia nor China's leaders habitually swagger around threatening, insulting and lying about other countries, one may speculate that Neocons are considered to be a superfluous luxury in Cn & Ru. ..."
"... It's probably relevant that AmeriKKKa, in particular/ uniquely, elevates intellectual pygmies/ certfiable morons to the post if Prez; wheras Ru & Cn install leaders capable of coherent thought and the natural ability to distinguish Good ideas from Lousy, Stupid, Evil ideas, without help from a semi-anonymous Peanut Gallery. ..."
"... Our democracy is a largely a mirage. In practice, Western society operates as a plutocracy that is administered by the Deep State. ..."
"... Lastly, the reluctance of Russia and China to be 'assimilated' into the Borg Empire is actually likely to be beneficial for ordinary people as it may cause our ruling elites to treat us better - just as they did in the first Cold War. ..."
"... So no, I don't think we need to fear and loath the oligarchs of Russia and China. Instead, we need to fear the callousness of our own elites much more as it is their deep wish to have total control that is most dangerous to us. ..."
"... At this point, it really matters if your state is rule stupidly or with at least a mediocre level of competence. ..."
"... China very willingly buys US debt in order to subsidise the US consumer's creditworthiness at very low interest rates. In turn the insanely materialistic US consumer continues to happily buy tons of ever more sophisticated cheap Chinese merch while the staggering amount of total US consumer debt continually metastasizes through the roof ( mixed metaphor alert ). ..."
"... And a stunning amount of this capital moves secretly through opaque, quasi-legal and outright illegal processes ("money laundering") to evade taxes and invest preferred assets backed by the safest reserve currencies internationally at optimal rates of return. These are games played by oligarchs of all nations with impunity to the detriment of the non-capital owners of all nations. ..."
"... Here is where Russian oligarchical collusion with Trumpworld meet head on and have for decades. Here is where Trump and Putin are on the friendliest terms imaginable. Here is where Xi and Trump will come to an easy accommodation on trade sooner rather than later. They back the same system because the system works for them and their main constituencies. ..."
"... It's just a matter of timing. Both Russia and China have populations increasingly agitated by growing/sustained wealth inequality. They need to keep their populations under control. Conflict with the US provides Xi and Putin with excuses and a unifying nationalist support. Both countries, like the US and Eu/UK are moving ahead full speed with implementing the technological tools for ultimate technocratic authoritarian control. ..."
@Jackrabbit | Mar 10, 2019 5:35:29 PM | 17
(Oligarchs)
There are similarities between Western oligarchs and 'other' oligarchs. It would seem that all oligarchs invest in
nominally pro-govt think tanks. One significant difference between Western and 'other' think tanks is that the highest
profile Western variety are known for producing unhinged and aggressive pro-war threats, narratives and talking points via
the revolving door of Neocon-ism.
Since neither Russia nor China's leaders habitually swagger around threatening, insulting and lying about other
countries, one may speculate that Neocons are considered to be a superfluous luxury in Cn & Ru.
It's probably relevant that AmeriKKKa, in particular/ uniquely, elevates intellectual pygmies/ certfiable morons to
the post if Prez; wheras Ru & Cn install leaders capable of coherent thought and the natural ability to distinguish Good
ideas from Lousy, Stupid, Evil ideas, without help from a semi-anonymous Peanut Gallery.
Politics in the West is such an effing insult to voters that I'm sure our pollies convene regular meetings just Roll On The
Floor Laughing Their Arses Off. At us.
Are Chinese and Russian ruling classes just another group of capitalist oligarchs that
we (mere mortals) should fear and loath?
donkeytale (and maybe a few others) seem to think so. After all, Russia and China
are both capitalist now and each has a very wealthy group of oligarchs.
donkeytale writes :
... I fail to invest global capitalism with any [make-believe] sheen of a nationalistic
morality.
Capitalism is evil. In all its national currency manifestations.
So why is there a conflict between the Empire of capitalists and these two capitalist
nations? Why don't they get on with it? Why are we not already not enslaved by the New
World Order of oligarchic control?
There is something beyond capitalism that makes Russia and China reluctant to join the
Empire's NWO: a deep distrust. While Western propaganda depicts the West as a welcoming
democratic meritocracy, anyone that scratches the surface finds that the reality is very
different.
>> The Empire provides overwhelming political and military support for autocrats
and rascists ; Examples: apartheid Israel; wealthy white Venezuelans; takfiri proxy armies; Ukrainian
Nazis; dictators; etc..
>> Democratic safeguards (even Constitutional 'checks and balances')
no longer meaningfully constrain Western elites . Our democracy is a largely a mirage. In practice, Western society operates as a
plutocracy that is administered by the Deep State.
If this were not enough, it's clear by now that the allure of mutually-beneficial joint
capitalist conspiracy against ordinary people is not enough to entice Russian and Chinese
ruling classes into a submissive position. This may stem from the great suffering they
experienced during WWII when the fought off a more virulent form of fascism.
Lastly, the reluctance of Russia and China to be 'assimilated' into the Borg Empire is
actually likely to be beneficial for ordinary people as it may cause our ruling elites to
treat us better - just as they did in the first Cold War.
So no, I don't think we need to fear and loath the oligarchs of Russia and China.
Instead, we need to fear the callousness of our own elites much more as it is their deep
wish to have total control that is most dangerous to us.
Jackrabbit | Mar 10, 2019
5:35:29 PM | 17 (Oligarchs)
There are similarities between Western oligarchs and 'other' oligarchs. It would seem
that all oligarchs invest in nominally pro-govt think tanks. One significant difference
between Western and 'other' think tanks is that the highest profile Western variety are
known for producing unhinged and aggressive pro-war threats, narratives and talking points
via the revolving door of Neocon-ism.
Since neither Russia nor China's leaders habitually swagger around threatening,
insulting and lying about other countries, one may speculate that Neocons are considered to
be a superfluous luxury in Cn & Ru. It's probably relevant that AmeriKKKa, in
particular/ uniquely, elevates intellectual pygmies/ certfiable morons to the post if Prez;
wheras Ru & Cn install leaders capable of coherent thought and the natural ability to
distinguish Good ideas from Lousy, Stupid, Evil ideas, without help from a semi-anonymous
Peanut Gallery.
Politics in the West is such an effing insult to voters that I'm sure our pollies
convene regular meetings just Roll On The Floor Laughing Their Arses Off. At us.
Piotr Berman | Mar 10, 2019 7:29:48 PM | 23
Concerning the differences between oligarchies.
Being rich does not make you safe, and clearly, you may loose more than the poor fellah. There are two main routes to
achieve that safety:
1. Controlling a military force so powerful that even utter stupidity cannot undermine you too much. Once your state is so
powerful, it suffices to maximize benefits for yourself, your company etc. in part by supporting the most pliable individuals
to "positions of power", be it executive, legislative or whatever.
1b. Latching your state to the one with military force so powerful.... think about EU, most of Latin America etc.
2. The oligarchy of type 1/b does not like you. At this point, it really matters if your state is rule stupidly or
with at least a mediocre level of competence.
Jaackrabbit - Thanks for the shout out. Welcome to the donkeyhole. Now duck into your
rabbithole because you are about to get splattered. Lol. And no, as you cherry pick pieces
of my argument and reply with non-sequitors and strawmen I will not further respond. This
is my all-encompassing argument. For now. I know you hate lengthy replies too!!
You misunderstand or maybe choose to ignore the differing roles of nationalism, national
politics, and the class interests of individual elites within the global capitalist
system. I suspect you disregard the easy utility of international financial
structures, especially the sheer amount of private held capital traversing over, under,
around and through borders without regard to any patriotic or national priorities
whatsoever because this damages your argument of "national oligarchs" pitted against other
national oligarchs.
China very willingly buys US debt in order to subsidise the US consumer's
creditworthiness at very low interest rates. In turn the insanely materialistic US consumer
continues to happily buy tons of ever more sophisticated cheap Chinese merch while the
staggering amount of total US consumer debt continually metastasizes through the roof ( mixed metaphor alert ).
And a stunning amount of this capital moves secretly through opaque, quasi-legal and
outright illegal processes ("money laundering") to evade taxes and invest preferred assets
backed by the safest reserve currencies internationally at optimal rates of return. These
are games played by oligarchs of all nations with impunity to the detriment of the
non-capital owners of all nations.
Here is where Russian oligarchical collusion with Trumpworld meet head on and have for
decades. Here is where Trump and Putin are on the friendliest terms imaginable. Here is
where Xi and Trump will come to an easy accommodation on trade sooner rather than later.
They back the same system because the system works for them and their main
constituencies.
I say the Russian and Chinese people need to fight back against their own oligarchs
because these are their elites directly oppressing them just as we non-capital owning
westerners need to push back against our own .01%. Clearly, this is well past due. Why are
we even arguing who has the better elites on a national level, or wtf? Beside the point JR.
Well beside the point.
How much Russian capital has exited Russia and ended up in European and US real estate
assets as example, when this treasure could be invested beneficially in developing Mother
Russia's own economy? Why, because the Russian oligarch will receive a much safer, and
greater tax-free ROI elsewhere, that's why.
Likewise, we need to fight back against our own oligarchs who hoard the majority of the
incredible amount of wealth this country generates without any flowing down to more
than 90% of the population (the Deplorables) who live better today than our parents only
because the trinkets we buy at low interest rates are better quality.
If we could somehow align class interests across borders and fight together with our
non-capitalist brothers/sisters in a global united front against the oligarchs in all
countries that would be optimal in terms of class struggle, IMHO.
But we have been brainwashed and I believe too many here (sadly) agree with the lie of
the poor, darkskinned foreign national as the enemy of the good American and European
[caucasian] bloke.
The global financial system exists to further enrich global oligarchs at expense of the
non-owners of capital. Nationalism exists to obfuscate the reality of the oppression of
non-owners of capital by the owners of capital and sidetrack our discontment with the
status quo into promoting nothing burgers such as border walls, Brexits, racial divisions,
etc.
Nations exist for many reasons of course but foremost of which is to protect the
economic interests of those who most benefit from the prevailing socioeconomic system. When
the government is controlled by, say, multinational corporate special interest groups then
the government responds mostly to the interests of its multinational corporations.
The owners of those multinationals (shareholders) are themselves multinational. That is,
they reside in many nations. And they move around freely wherever a private jet can land or
a yacht can set anchor.
They exist in a closed society to which we will never be allowed to enter.
"So why is there a conflict between the Empire of capitalists and these two capitalist
nations? Why don't they get on with it? Why are we not already not enslaved by the New
World Order of oligarchic control?"
Good questions. Short answer "Fake Wrestling".
It's just a matter of timing. Both Russia and China have populations increasingly
agitated by growing/sustained wealth inequality. They need to keep their populations under
control. Conflict with the US provides Xi and Putin with excuses and a unifying nationalist
support. Both countries, like the US and Eu/UK are moving ahead full speed with
implementing the technological tools for ultimate technocratic authoritarian control.
Once 5G and the IoT surveillance and control concepts are fully developed globally, and
information on the internet is completely sanitized, along with a cashless digital
transactional system the elites will pull back the curtain and announce the NWO that is
basically Global Governance and had been agreed to 30 years ago when Soviet and Chinese
elites decided to go capitalists and become as rich as western elites on the road to
partnership in the future Global Government
Trump plays a key role in all this because in order for the rest of the worlds
population to accept this they must be assured the US elites are not in control. The US is
being painted as the Evil Empire, with capitalism and democracy discredited, and the US
will be forced to pay reparations under a modern version of the Versailles treaty. Of
course, the US elites, like the Nazi and Japanese elites will mostly be free to resume
their activities, so this is a ruse. The US people will be sacrificed and its national
assets globalized and shared among the rest of the 95%. The US peoples sacrifice will allow
global support for this New New World Order resulting from the defeat of the Evil Empires
National Democratic Capitalism by the Green Globalists who saved the planet from Global
Warming caused by the Evil Empires greedy overconsumption
The New New World Order will not be democratic, it will not be capitalist either. The
elites rule, and those who are ruled work. In return the ruled are fed and allowed to live
within their allotted carbon credits. There are no freedoms, just rules and
responsibilities. Technology gives the elites the ultimate control. 1984 on steroids. There
will be far fewer people given robotics and AI will eliminate the need of much labor, which
will allow for less consumption of resources. donkeytale
You probably think I'm going to disagree. But much of what you say is right. The problem
is, you're dancing around the main issue: why is there such discord between the West and
Russia-China? You ask that we not believe the tension we see with our own eyes...
because capital flows. But the complexity of global asset holdings is proof only of how
close the Empire came to achieving their NWO goals.
And that's the problem with the donkeyhole, it's just a special kind of memory-hole. It
hits some important points (oligarchs are bad and exploit their own people first) but asks
that we ignore the Cold War elephant in the room as well as the absence of an explanation
of: why THERE MUST BE a uni-polar world? Sadly, tale-chasers caught in the
donkeyhole lose the presence of mind necessary to formulate such questions.
Kissinger warned in 2014 that his cherished 'world order' could break into spheres of
interest. Cry me a river Dr. K! Russia and China's experience in WWII makes them
wary of the fascist-racist nature of the Empire as it is today. (Hasn't Putin essentially
said the same?) We are seeing the Empire adjusting to that painful reality in ways that are
both practical/predictable and frightening. For example:
> fixing the 2016 Presidential election;
> neoMcCarthyism;
> the plan to charge a 'tax' for US troop presence which can be used to pay for
German LNG imports, Ukrainian arms imports, replacing Iranian oil imports; etc.
In short, they are doubling-down because all they know is the self-licking
ice-cream cone of the control-paranoia DOOM LOOP.
IMO there should be more focus on the DOOM LOOP insanity. Even oligarchs can see the
danger that such thinking poses.
On the NYT story, you have to love how transparent the propaganda is, and yet they (Bolton, Pompeo, Rubio) don't care whatsoever.
Oh, and not one critical word about people throwing Molotov cocktails. Like that's a perfectly normal, non-violent means of protest.
"... The multi-polar world is quickly becoming a reality and the US empire is in decline. Doubtful this brouhaha about 'protection money' will change that trend in any meaningful way. ..."
Trump has driving desire to be seen as the first businessman president.
The appeal of Trump making 'allies pay their fair share' any reality check on how counterproductive the effort is to the
waning US empire
Trump's unique candidacy put him in the White House without any real foreign policy staff who would have long ago gotten
Trump to abandon the silly idea - at least after he was elected.
The multi-polar world is quickly becoming a reality and the US empire is in decline. Doubtful this brouhaha about 'protection
money' will change that trend in any meaningful way.
The only other explanation is this really is 4D chess on Trump's part where he sees these silly shakedown attempts as the most
efficient way of getting the US out of NATO.
Thanks B. This is how empires end, or at least one way. Hubris gets them every time. I for
one will be glad to see US troops at the very least reduced in Italy, and for all of Europe
for that matter.
Especially now that the INF is dead. And I hear that Italy is now looking at
embracing China's B&R Initiative. I say have at it! There's the shiver waiting to run up
Washington's spine. You might find this amusing, too: >
https://thesaker.is/us-treats-luxembourg-like-a-vassal-state-or-us-imperial-hubris-gone-bonkers/
Little Luxembourg. It does bring a big smile. Keep going, Trump. You're on the right track.
More Art of the Deal, anyone?
This will be good for every one. Trump demands the Germans and Japanese pay for US
protection, which they reject and the US military goes home. Isn't that an excellent outcome
for all parties?
The only section that is slightly unclear is, "The only sound reason to keep the 30,000
U.S. troops in Germany is to prevent them from moving to Poland from where they could
threaten the country."
Surely the US occupation of Germany has been tacitly or latently threatening and
controlling and dominating and bullying and extorting Germany for around 74 years?
So what major difference would it make if they were moved a few hundred kilometers
away?
Kick 'em out! Germany has more than served her sentence!
The European people should support Trump in his desire to eliminate NATO. Of course the Deep
State in both Europe and the US will fight it tooth and nail. Maybe the #GiletsJaunes who
have been erased from western media will finally topple the Party of Davos candidate Macron.
And similar populist movements in other European countries can topple other Deep State
stooges from western Europe. Merkel is already on her way out as the CDU/CSU combine and the
Social Democrats implode in Germany.
Extortion because you're broke. We don't have the money to pay for it, so this
administration resorts to mob tactics to keep the scam going. "The government and us are cut
from the same cloth." Sam Giancana, former Chicago mob boss.
If that graphic is any indication of public opinion in Germany, things are even worse than
I'd heard.
There has been a small series of events where the German Government gave the US meddlers a
shove-off. First was the new gas pipeline Nord 2 - they refused to fold for perfectly good
economic reasons. Next was the German rejection of the horrible F-35. Recently I'm seeing
headlines about Germany and the Chinese 5G company.
Given all of this, I'm beginning to doubt if the Germans will allow the US to plant new
short-range nuclear missiles on their soil. Becoming a WW3 target for no good reason except
to please the US of A Imperia wouldn't seem to be a very clever move on their part.
I agree with Elliott A that it is better to have the US troops in Poland than in Germany -
and better that the inviters of the US troops then become the target for the defensive
nuclear missiles they force Russia to deploy rather than Germany.
Furthermore, if Poland is forced to pay the full cost of their invited US guests, maybe
their voters will eventually come to their senses and vote in more rational Polish
politicians.
The Poles are generally pseudo-Catholic and mercenary, pro-American in-name-only; as soon
as it could hit them in the pocket, they will pipe down very quickly and balk/bridle.
Hence Poland is a worthy (temporary) stopover for the US (including the NSA) when evicted
from Germany. The fact that Merkel is out soon is dangerous because she doesn't really G/A/F,
and will defer the decision to the next poor blighter.
There could be a treaty in place that says American troops can remain in Germany until the
year 2500 but Trump's just shot himself in the foot again by giving Germany a get-out
clause.
Zero hedge is reporting that Pence went a bit further than that and urged Germany To provoke
Russian Navy in the Kerch Strait by sending ships there in a freedom of navigation exercise.
Strangely enough Merkel said she was willing to provoke Russia, but thought doing it wouldn't
accomplish anything so she didn't want to provoke Russia for no reason. God, how insane are
these idiots. And now it looks like in response Pence/Trump will extort Germany for not being
mindlessly obedient enough.
Merkel is already on her way out as the CDU/CSU combine and the Social Democrats implode
in Germany.
Posted by: ab initio | Mar 8, 2019 11:49:49 AM | 6
The problem is though, that the Deep State have already reserved their places in Merkel's
successors, the AfD. All of these right-wing "populist" parties acros Europe seem to be no
more than a cynical vehicle for the Deep State to hijack popular discontent and channel it
into a new form of slavery to replace the old. Hence Steve Banner's dubious and highly
dangerous politicking for the so-called populist movement in Europe.
A real future lies in Jeremy Corbyn and maybe also a few other left-wing parties in Europe
(as long as they don't become compradors like Syriza) - but the Deep State is fighting Corbyn
tooth and nail. In Germany there is Die Linke who have some good people and some good
policies (from my limited knowledge!) - but their popularity is still in the doldrums,
unfortunately.
And of course, the extortion must be paid in US Dollars. Clearly, the threat is all about
keeping Dollar Hegemony alive by reducing the massive trade deficit. I see AfD making capital
thanks to this. As for Japan, Russia will not sign a Peace Treaty with it until all foreign
military forces are removed--a condition that's been reiterated several times over the last
few months to which I've linked. Okinawans are furious at being twice colonized and are at
the end of their rope. So far they've been peaceful, but I think it's clear to them by now
that the only way to remove the foreign vermin is to literally push them into the sea.
Korea's situation's been discussed on that thread.
For the domestic Outlaw US Empire, shutting down the Overseas Empire of Bases and the
related destabilization projects globally would save @ $1 Trillion/year--an utter wastage of
monies for projects that are decidedly NOT in the National Interest. And as most here
understand, the world would be more peaceful if the Outlaw US Empire would cease being an
Outlaw and an Empire. And it would become cleaner too as the US Military is the most
polluting entity on the planet.
Isn't Poland offering to pay the United States $2 billion to establish a base called Fort
Trump?
BTW, perhaps this is a ruse to remove all U.S. troops from Syria. I'd love to be there
when Elliott "debt collector" Abrams turns up demanding the money from Assad. There is an
opportunity for one of the greatest reality TV programs ever (I'm a neo-con, get me out of
here) which makes me wonder if that's Trump's reason for this scheme.
All Americans needs to protect Americans in the US is a coast guard and a border patrol.
Everything else is either protection for corporations doing business [which should be added
to the price of their products/services to reflect true costs] or empire.
Yes, it's another damp squib, another no-win, another over-promise, another posture, like all
the others.
This is all Trump knows and integrity never enters the equation.
Any sign of that border wall, that the Mexican government was going to pay for?
Not exactly "The Art of The Deal". more like one long and embarrassing suicide note.
I don't exactly dislike Trump particularly as he has "Mullered" a number of cretinous
insiders whom required a reality check but he is hindbound by his capinet; none of his plans
went through and he is in it well over his depth particularly since he appears to be
suffering from ADHD, dementia and schizophrenia - just what you need in the
Commander-in-Chief?
On the bright side, you can get a bigly discount for being a faithful toady and swearing
allegiance to the US of A. Wonder where the US 'leaders' got the idea of swearing allegiance
to a foreign power?
....the world would be more peaceful if the Outlaw US Empire would cease being an Outlaw
and an Empire....
Trump's just demonstrated that by staying out of the very recent Indo-Pakistan incident.
Maybe he didn't want Americans dying in the shithole that is the sub-continent. Maybe he
didn't see any opportunity to line his own pocket. Whatever his reason, he did the right
thing. Would Hillary have done the same? I don't know.....
Empire is getting the rest of its plates spinning so that must mean that the end is
getting closer. I don't think that the Philippine's plate is spinning fast enough so Trump
needs to give it some special love.
Pretty soon we will need a plate spinning scorecard just to keep track of all the
action.
Syria
Iran
Ukraine
Venezuela
Russia
China
Korea
EU w/ NATO
and now Germany and Japan
What plates am I missing?
Think about how much of the peoples resources are going to keeping these plates
spinning.
Who are going to come to the table with what arguments when the debt music stops?
* Trump has driving desire to be seen as the first businessman president.
* The appeal of Trump making 'allies pay their fair share' any reality check on how
counterproductive the effort is to the waning US empire
* Trump's unique candidacy put him in the White House without any real foreign policy staff
who would have long ago gotten Trump to abandon the silly idea - at least after he was
elected.
The multi-polar world is quickly becoming a reality and the US empire is in decline.
Doubtful this brouhaha about 'protection money' will change that trend in any meaningful
way.
The only other explanation is this really is 4D chess on Trump's part where he sees these
silly shakedown attempts as the most efficient way of getting the US out of NATO.
American troops pack up your shit and get the f*ck out, oh and here's an invoice for $100
billion to cover the cost of cleaning up your toxic waste.
Thanks for your business.
The only Germans that want them are restaurants and shops located near the bases and other
businesses that cater to them.
Yes, Trump's new policy is very welcome if it gets Germany to kick them out or, better
yet, get out of NATO. I wonder if Trump intends it - or is he just plain stupid?
Victor Cha, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington, said the administration was sending a deliberate message by demanding "Cost
Plus 50" from South Korea first , even though that effort fell short.
Ouch, poor SK. What a timing, straight after 'successful' NK talks.
With allies like that, who needs enemies?
Perhaps this will finally get the EU to kick the US and its NATO out.
But I don't underestimate the ability of EU elites to crawl to the US. It's like second
nature. And they get their pockets stuffed full of dollars to be kept in line.
Let me guess the free loading douche bag country that gets the most support from the US will
magically be excluded from these demands yet again.
I sure hope they try this protection racquet in Iraq. The government is already under huge
pressure to kick the Americans out after Trumps visit there last month.
What's America's plan to maintain economic wealth at the end of the debt spiral and dollar
collapse????
I have an idea!! Tribute! Hey, it worked for the Aztecs. Soon many countries will
see it as a small price to pay to avoid having democracy brought to their countries. Previous
versions of this scheme, such as buying US treasury debt knowing full well it will never be
repaid wont cut it anymore. So we are moving towards the real thing.
When I used to play football in my young days (i.e. soccer for the american lads here), I had
to pass by a huge US military base in the south of Germany each time in order to reach the
training ground. But strangely, I never challenged the necessity of that base in the first
place - probably due to my lack of geopolitical, historical consciousness. Only after they
build a second, even bigger base directly on the opposite side of the road and after two
combat helicopters - for the first time - flew directly above my head, I finally became aware
and started to question things. I wonder how many people that drive the same road each day
actually do feel the same...
Anyway, thank you b and thanks to all the well-experienced forumites for providing the vital
informations and inputs that helped me to better understand what is going on after all.
This is quite a slap in the face as the US has been raising tensions with Russia and any
conflict with Russia would likely cause the destruction of Europe.
Wondering how this will play out in places such as the Persian Gulf state of Bahrain where
the U.S. actually pays the dictator to lease the Navy and Air Force bases? Where the U.K.
pays the dictator for a British naval facility, too, which is shared?
Remember when Bahrain and other Arab countries in the Persian Gulf didn't want bases to be
called bases? Instead they were each a Regional Operations Support Establishment, aka ROSE.
Surely there's a different term now, but we still pay to lease bases.
Give trump credit: he raises the issue. And by doing so he gives people the opportunity to be
thrust into the act of questioning.
I continue to believe that this is really the overriding attribute of his presidency. What
people like the Germans do with this opportunity is entirely incumbent on them. But it is an
opportunity nonetheless, and as b correctly asserts, this is a welcomed change from the
political grab ass of the preceding administrations.
We should wish good luck to the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) in hosting US
bases: not only will they have to foot the cost of hosting US forces but their entire
economies by now must be revolving around being open-air military barracks. All while their
own citizens are voting with their feet.
Psychohistorian @ 22: You're missing large parts of Africa (possibly Djibouti where there's a
US base; Rwanda which is a US satrapy under President Paul Kagame; western Africa where there
are offshore oil and gas deposits) and Georgia where the US operates a bioweapons laboratory.
Once again, on the surface this is obvious extortion. But I can't help but think this is
really a purposeful 'own goal.' I know this is likely giving Trump too much credit, but in a
parallel universe this is exactly what you would do if you had a hidden agenda to enfeeble
the US to cause our eventual pull back. There's no political way to slowly scale back our
involvement, but there is a way to overreach under everyone's noses and get the same end
result. Is this a 666d chess move or just what happens as empire descends into chaos,
grasping at straws? Either way I'm fine with the obvious result!
We are seeing the true colors. What we now have are Co-Presidents: Bolton, Trump; and Co-Vice
Presidents Pompous and Pence. The 4 morons do not realize they are isolating the U.S.A. and
hastening rejection of the USD.
Adhere my diktat and keep purchasing our T-bills.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has allegedly stood up to pressure from Washington as she
declined a proposal by Vice President Mike Pence to send German Navy ships towards Russia's
Crimea, Bloomberg reports, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter. Pence
allegedly wanted German ships to sail through the Kerch Strait separating Crimea from
mainland Russia. France, [.]
next, trump asks venezuela to pay in advance for the invasion. in usd.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Mar 8, 2019 3:59:51 PM |
link
This is an utterly brilliant Empire-killing move by Trump. Speaking of the UK I wonder how
much we will be asked to pony up for the US air bases and troops still in the UK 75 years
after D-day. This should hit just after Brexit and we may have a different government in the
chair......
the germans would be owned by the russian,gadaffi saddam hussein serbia and hitler if it was
not for uk and usa.
we keep the world safe and stop irania and the hamas terroist pushing israel into the sea.
i say to the germans pay the man or be invaded by evil doers
Although I didn't read or watch, it appears most major BigLie Media have published/aired this
story, a point I was curious about since Friday's usually a slow news day, thus begging the
question: What's the public's reaction? Might there be a groundswell calling for returning
the troops home so that both the occupied nation and the occupier save monies? And what of
the opposite argument, that even more troops and bases are needed to defend against the Red
and Yellow Menace?
If I was a president who could not step too far out of line due to powerful forces all around
me, I would take the ideas of neocons et al and push them even further over the line past
reasonable.
No-one in power could argue against me because I'm implementing their ideas, even though I'm
taking them too far.
But pushing things too far creates real resistance, and makes the real policies obvious, and
brings about the end of the empire.
I might decide to:
1. Move the US embassy to Jerusalem, to make it clear who calls the shots
2. Demand that NATO countries pay more and publicly disrespect their leaders
3. Demand that Germany and Japan pay for their occupation
4. Obviously attack Venezuela (in contrast to previous less-obvious attacks)
5. and other increasingly outrageous demands until the vassals get fed up
Meanwhile I'd do other things that I have to do to keep the powerful forces happy.
I may be a terrible person with no 3-d chess master plan, but perhaps things would be
different after my term. And "different" might approximate "better".
"Obama
was a smiling murderer, says Ilhan Omar" And of course, she's 100% correct. As Ben Norton
noted in this tweet , Omar's
words were citied in a Politico article that he linked. You'll note, that by extension
she also called Trump a murderer, just not as "polished."
There's merit in your argument. For example, the so far small contingent of anti-war
Progressive Democrats either were elected or emboldened thanks to Trump, Rep. Omar being the
most prominent example. The same could be said of pushing the far-right's policy goals, as
that's also generated resistance. Too bad the initial call for resistance was based on the
Russiagate hoax. Time will tell!
Okay. If you don't get your weekly payola, then shut down the foreign bases. Only thing is,
what do we do with all these armed people trained to kill on command, looking for some action
in between saying the Pledge of Allegiance and painting Bible verses on bombs?
I sure as shit don't want them all coming back here, loitering around in the US. Got too
many cops on steroids as it is.
@ teri who wrote
"
I sure as shit don't want them all coming back here, loitering around in the US. Got too many
cops on steroids as it is.
"
Its called karma
I live here too....the energy needs to be refocused on planet rehab and going to the stars
along with my standard make global finance public
It sure will.
Especially the Neocons as they scramble around trying to collect all the rust flakes to glue
them back onto dilapidated USA's dilapidated Foreign Policy.
I'm sorry, but many people posting here are delusional about Trump's motives.
For a start, none of the issues discussed in this post would cause the American people
much in the way of dispute. Broadly, most Americans would think that other countries should
pay for US "support". Americans disagree quite a bit about "The Wall" and gender issues
around public restrooms; but not so much about the issues raised in this post. So there IS NO
RESISTANCE, and WILL NOT BE ANY RESISTANCE, within the US, on getting countries to pay.
Other countries might have problems but what other countries think has never been much of
an issue for Americans.
The issue of getting other countries to pay is about cost and the out-of-control US debt.
And, also, about Trump electioneering.
Should other countries refuse to pay (or request US troops to leave), then they can expect
to be sanctioned or economically damaged. Just consider how France (a US ally) had one of
their prize jewel (world-beating) nuclear technology intellectual assets, Alstom's
Arabelle steam turbine , taken from them by the US. This happened way before Trump so
demonstrates how the US operates (the art of the [coercive] deal is the way the US rolls).
France, and in particular Macron, who was French Finance/Economic Minster, at the time, had
no choice but to accept the takeover. Macron actually appeared quite gleeful about it (Macron
was effectively working for US, not French, interests).
Can Columbia or Kosovo afford to pay? Or will Washington increase the financial support they
give to those countries to cover the bill.
As for NATO, the core system was based on the countries that are members providing a
reliable easily-secured base for American expeditionary forces to attack and invade one of
the two countries that are at the heart of the Eurasian landmass. In exchange for that the
United States bankrolled NATO. If Trump breaks that bargain, what incentive is there for the
core members of NATO to allow wars to be fought on their territory particularly now that
Putin has said he is focused on improving the lives of ordinary Russians rather than going to
war with Europe but will make sure that the decision centres of any countries that attack or
are somehow involved in an attack on Russia will be destroyed. None as far as I can see, so
it looks like it'll be goodbye NATO.
@55ADKC - why would other countries pay to have the usa military on their soil? this explains
the whole agenda of fearmongering that has been in overdrive 24/7 since i was a kid...
nothing else explains it.. keep the fear up to justify this craziness.. i can't see anyone
paying for it.. i sure wouldn't want that if i was german, japanese or south korean for
example... now, maybe the leaders of these countries are going to be faced with a stark
choice... side with this b.s., or get removed from office... i praise trump for bringing this
forth and hope that he strikes a big fat zero from the countries that have usa bases on
them...
I think Trump believes the hype fed to Americans forever that the US soldiers are the good
guys and they really are protecting these countries. He also has a reputation for squeezing
contractors etc.
To MAGA he thinks it needs better deals and more people sending money in.
@59. I think that's right. He genuinely believes US forces are out there protecting 'our
allies' and keeping the world safe for democracy etc. But he also thinks 'our allies' are
taking advantage of American generosity. This is a common sentiment among Trump voters.
I think most Americans think they are protecting the world.
iv> i agrees we are the white hatters many folks hate the uk and usa and
norway for are freedoms.
we need to be able to affords a big bat to stomp the evil doers if we cannot afford the big bat
folks must suffer.
the uk and usa tax payers are sick of paying for new bats to protect the world if the world
does not pay for protection new hitlers arrafats,gadaffis and hezbollah terrosits will be along
soon to take are democrasy
Posted by: chuck newsum , Mar 8, 2019 6:50:20 PM |
link
i agrees we are the white hatters many folks hate the uk and usa and norway for are
freedoms.
we need to be able to affords a big bat to stomp the evil doers if we cannot afford the big
bat folks must suffer.
the uk and usa tax payers are sick of paying for new bats to protect the world if the world
does not pay for protection new hitlers arrafats,gadaffis and hezbollah terrosits will be
along soon to take are democrasy
Posted by: chuck newsum | Mar 8, 2019 6:50:20 PM |
link
Because they are (particularly, in Europe) occupied countries and many things can be done
to ensure compliance (economic, gladio operations, sanctions, theft of assets, prosecution
for any offence [no matter how small, incidental, or accidental] if a dollar is involved,
influx of refugees, war [directly or adjacent to target country], removal of post-colonial
areas of influence, instigating financial collapse [Deutche Bank is supposed to be very
vulnerable and would effect the entire EU/world], etc).
Why couldn't France protect Alstom? Would France be able to resist if the US targeted the
African CFA countries (which are France's neo-colonial milk-cows and essential to the
economic well-being of France and detrimental to the African people subject to the CFA
franc)?
You "praise Trump" for raising this issue but it's just the same old, same old.
The only place relatively secure is the Chinese/Russia milieu but that's the other side of
the real "wall" and restricts the expansion of OBOR. And the price (for Russia and China) is
having the entire western nuclear arsenal aimed at you.
Whether or not any payments are actually made will make no difference; US troops will
remain in occupied territory. (BTW: Europe will pay, the key is Germany. If Germany refuse to
pay the rest will follow. But Germany can't fudge this; it would amount to open resistance
and a re-negotiation of the outcome of the 2nd World War and, unless the US want to give up
the fruits of their 1945 victory, I don't see that happening. Germany will realise that, if
the US insist, they will have to comply; it's the direct consequence of losing the war and
being occupied.]
Moving American troops to Poland? Surely, the benefits are many. First, since the size of the
military is much smaller than in Warsaw block times, there are many military grounds.
Particularly in areas where forests are larger, climate harsher, and local men are fond of
beating up strangers when they get drunk. Local roads are crappy and American soldiers are
prone to hit side road trees. To summarize, martial skills and spirit are bound to improve.
For even better results, they should be moved to Estonia, Latvia and Finnmark, areas
bordering Russian Federation. OTOH, fleecing Balts would be like squeezing blood from stone.
E.g. Lithuania is an exemplary NATO member, spending 2% of GDP on the military, and yet they
cannot afford a tank.
He's already said he doesn't believe the hype. He said it 60 Minutes after his
inauguration...
"We've spent 6 Trillion dollars in the Middle East....6 Trillion! We could have rebuilt
America twice. It's unfair what's happened to the American people, and we're gonna put a stop
to it."
The countries Trump wants to hit with fees are those he wanted the US military to pull out of
anyway. The cold war relics. Europe, Korea ect. Any bases to do with Israel Iran Venezuela
will not be hitting up the host country for extortion money. Bases he wants to use to
pressure China will also likely be exempt.
Those that do get hit with the fees, Trump doesn't give a shit if the US stays or leaves, so
long as the US is well paid if it stays.
I don't think Corbyn is the Messiah you take him for. He has sound ideas on not bombing
foreigners - unusual in a British politician - but apart from that he's a busted flush. Not
even close observers care to predict who will come out on top in the mud wrestling at
Westminster but if Corbyn makes it watch him accommodate.
.
With great respect, "b", and as happens rarely, I don't believe this article is on target.
America is the spine and most of the muscle of European defence. Forget Aachen. It'll be a
long time before any purely European defence force is up to scratch.
The Europeans are hoping that America will hold the fort in the meantime. That's not an
alliance. It's a marriage of temporary convenience.
Of course the other problem with this is it makes the American forces official mercenaries
rather than national forces and all the legal consequences that flow from that.
History first as tragedy and later as a farce. Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "Beria reported only
to Stalin and Stalin reported only to Satan." Now Bolton reports only to Trump and Chump
reports only to Sreadsheets. So much winning and multi-dimensional chess... It's deplorable.
Lol
@59 and @60 This is why the shock will be all the more stunning to the Americans.
Its "allies" have no problem with Uncle Sam spending like a drunken sailor. As far as they
are concerned, well, who cares.
But if Trump insists THEY pay for American profligacy then they are going to say "no".
American pundits will then pontificate on how much MORE it would cost those allies, and
the response will be: don't be stupid, we won't spend money to protect ourselves against a
threat that doesn't exist.
Because - and let's be honest here - in a post-NATO world the only military threat to
Europe will be the USA, and the US Army will be on the other side of the Atlantic.
I see a number of comments where the question's begged: Just what nation intends to invade
Europe such that the continuing Outlaw US Empire's occupation's warranted? Putin and Xi want
Europe to join the EAEU/BRI confab--invasion via commerce?!
It appears the Anti-Communist Crusade is having a hard time dying in some quarters,
particularly where continually invoking it is required dogma by controlling interests.
I think Trump and his MAGA boils everything down to money. Money goes out and money comes in.
His job is to slow the money going out and get more money coming in. I think it is that
simple. You get bombed by our smart freedom and democracy bombs then you should be decent
enough to pay for it. Also our bases are protecting you from getting bombed by evildoers
bombs. You should definitely pay for that. Why are we?
I'd like to see a study of the amount of money spent into the local economy by the occupation
forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea. Not just by the military but by the servicemen,
families, civilian contractors for housing, travel, schools, food, entertainment, etc
Obviously paying to be occupied is not happening, but there is some logic to the idea that
the occupied receive some economic benefits from being occupied, including but not limited to
a reduction in spending on their own military.
Any spending into the local economy is dwarfed by the amount of ecological damage
done--just look at Subic Bay or Okinawa. And yes, studies have been done into both aspects;
I've read them, but have no links.
." It's unfair what's happened to the American people, and we're gonna put a stop to
it."
Trump just does not believe in others hype, only his own hype. So show me evidence he is
stopping the spending which was his main point in what was infaur to Americans. Spending on
the military is even higher, 6 trillion is now 8 trillion even if the accountants still cant
tell who got paid
If Trump has shown us anything it is that he believes in the hype that whats good for Big
Business is good for America. Even his request for more money from NATO countries is a
request/demand to buy more from the MIC and not money to offset US military spending.
Sure, the reasons for the increased military spending are bogus, but he adds fuel to
supposed conflicts with Iran, Russia, China, North Korea that allows him to justify more
spending. Trumps just replaced Obama/Bush hype with his own personal hype. Call it Trump
hype.
Pft, that's what economist Michael Hudson has been saying:
The US military spending overseas during the Vietnam war resulted in a balance of payments
crisis, with the surprise solution being the recycling of USD from offshore economies back
into the US financial sector.
And it's been going on ever since.
I'll try to get a link ... Super
Imperialism also recently linked by the indefatigable karlof1.
The larger America's balance-of-payments deficit becomes, the more dollars end up in the
hands of European, Asian and Near Eastern central banks, and the more money they must
recycle back to the United States by buying U.S. Treasury bonds.
It's worthwhile to read any and all of Hudson's writings, including his autobiographical
essay. He has worked in the belly of the beast; Chase Manhattan bank and Standard Oil (Exxon)
just for starters, the Treasury and Finance departments of USA and Canada amongst others.
People, people!...Where will the military go? It's so obvious, it is staring us in the
face...
Space!
Ah, but not just space --
Mars!
The War Planet!
And best of all -- there's no people there! They can have their war games ad infinitum!!!
To boldly go...ok, I know, that dates me...
But oh my, blow it up! Blow it all up!! Keep on making horrible weapons, ship them off to
Mars! Raytheon on steroids; what's not to love????? Trump will go down in history - no - up,
up, and AWAY!!! [Just think - he'll have to visit the troops at Thanksgiving, take them a
turkey - oh and take any Bushes and Boltons and Obamas and Clintons with him as it is rather
far, a few Thanksgivings away but who's counting?]
People are really thinking too hard.
The Trump strategy is simple a la "The Apprentice":
Get a bunch of ambitious people to commit to deliver to outlandish goals. These goals are set
such that achieving or failing them, the blame goes to the failure but the success goes to
the leader.
If they fail: "You're Fired"
If they succeed: "I'm Brilliant"
This proposal broadens USA's demand that Germany terminate its plans to obtain energy imports
from Russia via Northstream. Trump has already asserted publicly (weeks ago) that the added
cost of LNG imports should be viewed as a defense-related cost. Via this new mechanism, the
cost will be not be borne 100% by Germany.
To understand why this new approach is likely to work, please read ADKC's comments.
Pundits may poke fun but the AZ Empire is deadly serious and most AZ elites will be
supportive. Especially when they are insulated from the cost (as they are).
@6ADKC... i agree with arbys view on this... trump and an undue number of americans probably
think they are doing some good protecting others.. it's laughable! now, as to your question
about france and alstrom... i don't know the specifics, but i know how easily euro
politicians, and politicians in general can be bought... i think it is excellent trump is
raising this issue, as i hope the leadership in these poodle countries recognize their goose
will be cooked soon enough, as ordinary people won't stand for it.. so, i am simplifying here
and i have to race out and will be back later to add more.. i see what you and jackrabbit are
getting at, but at some point this mafia-gangster strategy is going to collapse.. maybe i am
too naive, or idealistic.. i will give you that!
Your assessment is fine and not without merits but the other variable you seem to be
missing is the German people and others in Europe, themselves.
Will this cowtowing to the US bullying not in the end fully ensconse their leaders as the
globalist shills they truly are and thus lead to their demise? That is what b us alluding to.
We are unaware of Trump's motivations, here, but that is inconsequential when we are talking
about him waking up the people of Europe to finally give US the boot.
While cruising around the internet tubes I ran into a casual remark about Syria to the effect
that since the US is doing an occupation there, aren't "we" entitled to payment? If there is
any truth to a spate of recent headlines, the neocons have already solved that one.
How would ISIS have acquired any tonnage of gold? Perhaps it was part-payment for the oil
they sold until the Russians intervened. (the US sure didn't bother those sales!) More likely
they stole it from citizens and businesses. There have been LOTS of reports about the US
secretly rescuing ISIS fighters. Now here is yet another motive for those airlifts. I predict
any such gold will be quickly melted down so as to make it forever untraceable. Would Pompeo
or Bolton do such a thing?
It's bad enough that Omar tackled AIPAC, but to dump on Saint Obama is likely to get her
pegged as a "self-hating negro". Wonder what Speaker Nancy will do this time? Threaten to
waterboard her?
*** NO UPFRONT PAYMENT - We provide Fake, Counterfeit, Novelty, Duplicate passports of
United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Spain, Italy & any country fake documents, such as
driving license, utility bills, any identity card, birth certificates. Use it to travel
internationally if you have good connections with airports immigration, who can allow you to
travel to your dream country & you can use the fake passports to find cash in hand jobs
in Canada, the United Kingdom, USA & to find accommodation & to open a bank account
& more benefits. Contact Mr. Raja Thakur on WhatsApp 0044 7477 1170 28. Delivery within 2
weeks! Total fee is $2000 paid upon when you receive your high-quality fake passport.
*** કોઈ અગાઉ
ચુકવણી જરૂરી
નથી - અમે
યુનાઈટેડ
કિંગડમ, કેનેડા,
જર્મની, સ્પેન,
ઇટાલી અને કોઈપણ
દેશના નકલી,
બનાવટી,
નોવેલ્ટી,
ડુપ્લીકેટ
પાસપોર્ટ અને
ડ્રાઇવિંગ
લાઇસેંસ,
યુટીલીટી બિલ,
કોઈપણ ઓળખપત્ર,
જન્મ
પ્રમાણપત્રો
જેવા કોઈપણ નકલી
દસ્તાવેજો
પ્રદાન કરીએ
છીએ. જો તમારી
પાસે એરપોર્ટ
ઇમિગ્રેશન સાથે
સારા કનેક્શન
હોય તો
આંતરરાષ્ટ્રીય
મુસાફરી માટે
તેનો ઉપયોગ કરો
જે તમને તમારા
સ્વપ્નના
દેશમાં મુસાફરી
કરવાની તક આપી
શકે છે અને તમે
કૅનેડા,
યુનાઇટેડ
કિંગડમ, USA માં કેશ
ઇન હેન્ડ નોકરીઓ
શોધવા માટે અને
બેંક એકાઉન્ટ
ખોલાવવા માટે
અને અન્ય લાભો
મેળવવા માટે આ
નકલી
પાસપોર્ટનો
ઉપયોગ કરી શકો
છો. શ્રી રાજા
ઠાકુરનો
વ્હોટ્સએપ પર
સંપર્ક કરો: 0044 7477 1170 28.
ડિલિવરી માત્ર 2
અઠવાડિયામાં!
કુલ ફી છે $2000 જે
તમે તમારા હાઈ
ક્વોલિટીવાળા
નકલી પાસપોર્ટ
પ્રાપ્ત કરો
ત્યારે જ
ચુકવવાની
રહેશે.
ہم
انگلینڈ،کینڈا،جرمنی،اسپین،
اٹلی اور کسی
بھی دوسرے ملک
کے ڈپلیکیٹ اور
فیک پاسپورٹ،
کسی بھی قسم کا
آڈی کارڈ،
ڈرائیونگ
لائسنس،یوٹیلیٹی
بلز،برتھ
سرٹیفکیٹ اور اس
کے علاؤہ بھی
کوئی بھی
ڈاکیومنٹ قلیل
مدت میں بنا کے
دیتے ہیں۔
اگر آپ کے
ایئرپورٹ
امیگریشن
اہلکاروں سے
اچھے تعلقات ہیں
تو آپ اپنے پسند
کے ممالک میں
سفر کر سکتے
ہیں۔
آپ ان ڈاکیومنٹ
سے کینیڈا،
انگلینڈ،
امریکہ اور کسی
بھی دوسرے ملک
میں نوکری اور
رہاہیش حاصل کر
سکتے ہیں اور
اپنا بینک
اکاؤنٹ کھلوا
سکتے ہیں۔
ہم صرف دو ہفتوں
میں آپ کو یہ
ڈاکیومنٹ بنا کے
دیں گیے۔
پاسپورٹ بنانے
کا معاوضہ صرف
دو ہزار ڈالر ہے
اور وہ بھی آپ
پاسپورٹ ملنے کے
بعد ادا کیجئے۔
مزید معلومات کے
لیے ہمارے واٹس
ایپ نمبر پر
رابطہ کریں:
مسٹر راج ٹھاکر
00447477117028
This was sent to me yesterday by a concerned Indian, with the tag of..."Be careful with
your country"
He's right!
Re: "America is the spine and most of the muscle of European defence."
Defence against whom exactly? People pushing the narrative that the Russian Federation is
a menace never mention the numbers involved. The European countries have roughly 3 times the
population, 5 times the military spending and a massive advantage in GDP, look it up. If you
add the US to the equation then more like 5 times the population and 15 times the military
spending. The Russians have nukes of course but with the odds stacked up so spectacularly
against them I don't blame them for thinking they need them as a deterrent. If you had
another adversary in mind don't be shy.
Thanks for the links. I have been following Hudson for the last 12 years and agree with
much of what he says. I do disagree that dollar holdings are a tax on other countries. These
dollars for the most part are paid to companies for goods and services. They exchange some of
this with their central bank to invest locally or pay expenses. The central bank then prints
their local currency out of thin air to exchange. The USD are then counted as reserves which
allows them to create more local currency by 10+ times, depending on their reserve
requirements. This money is spent or invested in the local economy.
The USD reserves can also be used to fund their own trade deficits with other countries,
or pay of USD denominated loans
A lot has changed since 1971. After the Vietnam War was winding down the US pulled out of
Bretton Woods as Hudson anticipated. They then established the Petrodollar which was not
anticipated. This put more USD into the hands of OPEC nations as they were told to accept
only USD and in return would be allowed higher oil prices, and much was recycled back to the
US, but they and the rest of the world had other options.
This option was the Eurodollar which began in the 60's in a limited fashion . A later
sub-option was Eurodollars in the many tax havens, which developed first on British
territories and then in the Carribean.
These options being exercised limited the amount of dollars coming back to the US and
caused higher interest rates in order to attract some more of the dollars back.
The 1985 Plaza accord put in place an agreement to weaken the dollar with the US to buy
more imported goods as they encouraged more US companies to move offshore to produce in low
wage countries to keep inflation down. In return the deficits would be funded by other
countries resending back the USD they received by buying treasuries. This was when the US
realized they could spend and run up fiscal/trade deficits without consequences, and so they
did. Oh my.
Then after the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent looting bu oligarchs the
Eurodollar Market, especially in the tax havens , exploded even further as these oligarchs
and western investors transferred their stolen loot to these offshore tax havens which were
already loaded with dollars from the criminal drug trade (mafia-five eyes) and multinational
corporations evading taxes at home
In 1990 the Fed then made it easier for US banks to import and use these Eurodollars by
setting a zero reserve requirement (same as Fed Funds) on Eurodollar deposits which they
could then loan out at many order of magnitudes. This fueled the great credit and asset
bubbles using drug money and stolen Soviet asset money which came in to buy Trumps property
and stocks. It also allowed banks to increase credit to cash strapped consumers who felt the
pinch of neoliberalism and globalization, since the banks were flush with cheap cash. This
led to the Great Collapse in 2008
Added to this Eurodollar supply from 1993 was Chinas own oligarchs growing increasingly
rich from US investment/trade and from converting the peoples assets to individual party
members who wanted a safe place to hide their loot and evade taxes in China
Quantitative Easing following the crash of 2008 provided another source of a cash influx
for the US. Toxic waste from foreign and local banks were bought with USD printed from thin
air.
Recent Quantitative Tightening meant trouble though. So Trumps new tax measures made it
possible for US corporations to return Eurodollars hidden offshore which is fueling stock
buybacks and propping up the market. If not for this a 2008 collapse would be here.
When the next crash happens, I am sure the US will surprise us yet again. Pretty sure the
fix will be named Green something or another and a Carbon Dollar/Tax
@70 english outsider.. i agree with @13 BM... however, the msm in the uk is so warped, maybe
they will succeed in marginalizing corbyn.. i thought
this article today from jonathan cook was pretty good.. as for the usa being the backbone
of europe military and etc.. europe needs to grow a spine themselves and stop taking it in
the rear from the usa.. this suggestion from trump is a good place to start by saying no...
maybe the poodles are incapable.. that sounds like what you are saying..
@pft... i think i agree with you, although i don't study the financial dynamics enough..
the bailout from 2008 will be followed by more bailouts.. they will just be bigger... that is
the name of the game - bust and bailout.. bailing out the banks, until the world asks for
something different..
From the University of Chicago Magazine (believe it or not), October, 1999:
" who invented the Holocaust the first place? Who decided to capitalize the noun
"holocaust" and transform genocide into a political weapon and fund raising tool? "
" its message of an exclusivity in suffering-serving to promote a Zionist agenda ."
Why would only blacks object to existence of these monuments? What about the purported
victors of that war? They could have objected but did not. The people attacking these
monuments are effectively declaring that they want a civil war, as I see it.
Icons of outstanding accomplishment seem nearly always to be about war.. and the political
figures that made the Oligarchs filthy rich prosecuting a war that killed millions. The more
dead, the bigger the statute.
Where are the monuments to Watson and Crick, Newton, the persons that discovered penicillin,
the engines that convert energy from one form to a more usable other form or statutes of the
persons that founded our great universities or the persons that discovered how to capture
electricity and make available in every household?
Few icons to those that have made the quality of our lives better are ever produced,
Why?
Probably because the war mongers would have none of that.. Oligarchs own 90% of the press,
the media, and
means of communicating their wars, no damn invention that makes life better for the
displicibles is going to get into the way of profit making wars that fund so much of Economic
Zionism.
Consider the recent invention at the U of Australia where hard work discovered 2,200
different places in the world, where a combination of sunlight and wind energy can produce
and store sufficient energy to supply 24/7 all the energy the entire world needs on the power
grid. Not a word of it in the media. Soon I expect to see a monument to the shock and awe
bastards?
Many people I talk to seem to think American foreign policy has something to do with
democracy, human rights, national security, or maybe terrorism or freedom, or niceness, or
something. It is a curious belief, Washington being interested in all of them. Other people
are simply puzzled, seeing no pattern in America's international behavior. Really, the
explanation is simple.
Last year marked the 40th anniversary of the publication of Edward W. Said's pioneering
book, Orientalism , as well as fifteen years since the Palestinian-American
intellectual's passing. To bid farewell to such an important scholar shortly after the 2003
U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Said fiercely criticized until his dying breath before succumbing
to leukemia, made an already tremendous loss that much more impactful. His seminal text forever
reoriented political discourse by painstakingly examining the overlooked cultural imperialism
of colonial history in the West's construction of the so-called Orient. Said meticulously
interrogated the Other-ing of the non-Western world in the humanities, arts, and anthropology
down to its minutiae. As a result, the West was forced to confront not just its economic and
political plunder but the long-established cultural biases filtering the lens through which it
viewed the East which shaped its dominion over it.
His writings proved to be so influential that they laid the foundations for what is now
known as post-colonial theory. This became an ironic category as the author himself would
strongly reject any implication that the subjugation of developing countries is a thing of the
past. How apropos that the Mandatory Palestine-born writer's death came in the midst of the
early stages of the 'War on Terror' that made clear Western imperialism is very much alive.
Despite its history of ethnic cleansing, slavery, and war, the United States had distinguished
itself from Britain and France in that it had never established its own major colonies within
the Middle East, Asia or North Africa in the heart of the Orient. According to Said, it was now
undergoing this venture as the world's sole remaining superpower following the end of the Cold
War with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Today's political atmosphere makes the Bush era seem like eons ago. Thanks to the shameful
rehabilitation of neoconservatism by centrist extremists, Americans fail to understand how
Trumpism emerged from the pandora's box of destructiveness of Bush policies that destabilized
the Middle East and only increased international terrorism. Since then, another American enemy
has been manufactured in the form of the Russian Federation and its President, Vladimir Putin,
who drew the ire of the West after a resurgent Moscow under his leadership began to contain
U.S. hegemony. This reached a crescendo during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election with the
dubious accusations of election interference made by the same intelligence agencies that sold
the pack of lies that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. The establishment has even
likened the alleged intrusion by Moscow to 9/11.
If a comparison between the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans and the still
unproven allegations of Russian meddling seems outrageous, it is precisely such an analogy that
has been made by Russiagate's own biggest proponents, from neoconservative
columnist Max Boot to Hillary
Clinton herself . Truthfully, it is the climate of hysteria and dumbing down of discourse
to such rigid dichotomies following both events where a real similarity can be drawn. The 'with
us or against us' chasm that followed 9/11 has reemerged in the 'either/or' post-election
polarity of the Trump era whereby all debate within the Overton window is pigeonholed into a
'pro vs. anti-Trump' or 'pro vs. anti-Russia' false dilemma. It is even perpetrated by some on the
far left , e.g. if one critiques corporate media or Russiagate, they are grouped as
'pro-Trump' or 'pro-Putin' no matter their political orientation. This dangerous atmosphere is
feeding an unprecedented wave of censorship of dissenting voices across the spectrum.
In his final years, not only did Edward Said condemn the Bush administration but highlighted
how corporate media was using bigoted tropes in its representations of Arabs and Muslims to
justify U.S. foreign policy. Even though it has gone mostly undetected, the neo-McCarthyist
frenzy following the election has produced a similar travesty of caricatures depicting Russia
and Vladimir Putin. One such egregious example was a July 2018 article in the
Wall Street Journal entitled "Russia's Turn to Its Asian Past" featuring an illustration
portraying Vladimir Putin as Genghis Khan. The racist image and headline suggested that Russia
is somehow inherently autocratic because of its past occupation under the Mongol Empire during
its conquest of Eastern Europe and the Kievan Rus state in the 13th century. In a conceptual
revival of the Eurocentric trope of Asiatic or Oriental despotism, the hint is that past
race-mixing is where Russia inherited this tyrannical trait. When the cover story appeared,
there was virtually no outcry due to the post-election delirium and everyday fear-mongering
about Russia that is now commonplace in the media.
The overlooked casual racism used to demonize Russia in the new Cold War's propaganda
doesn't stop there. One of the main architects of Russiagate, former Director of National
Intelligence James R. Clapper, in an
interview with NBC's Meet the Press on the reported meddling stated :
"And just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were
concerned."
Clapper, whose Office of the DNI published the Intelligence Community Assessment
(ICA) "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections", has been widely
praised and cited by corporate media as a trustworthy source despite his previous history of
making intentionally false statements at a public hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee
denying that the National Security Agency (NSA) was unconstitutionally spying on U.S.
citizens.
The disclosures of NSA activities by whistleblower Edward Snowden that shocked the world
should have discredited Clapper's status as a reliable figure, but not for mainstream media
which has continuously colluded with the deep state during the entire Russia investigation. In
fact, the scandal has been an opportunity to rehabilitate figures like the ex-spymaster
complicit in past U.S. crimes from surveillance to torture. Shortly after the interview with
NBC, Clapper repeated his prejudiced sentiments against Russians
in a speech at the National Press Club in Australia:
"But as far as our being intimate allies, trusting buds with the Russians that is just not
going to happen. It is in their genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed, to the United
States and to Western democracies."
The post-election mass Trump derangement has not only enabled wild accusations of treason to
be made without sufficient evidence to support them, but such uninhibited xenophobic remarks to
go without notice or disapproval.
In fact, liberals have seemingly abandoned their supposed progressive credence across the
board while suffering from their anti-Russia neurological disorder. In an exemplar of yellow
journalism, outlets like NBC News published sensational articles
alleging that because of the perceived ingratiation between Trump and Putin, there was an
increase in Russian 'birth tourism' in the United States. More commonly known by the pejorative
'anchor babies', birth tourism is the false claim that many immigrants travel to countries for
the purpose of having children in order to obtain citizenship. While there may be individual
cases, the idea that it is an epidemic is a complete myth -- the vast majority of
immigration is motivated by labor demands and changes in political or socio-economic factors in
their native countries, whether it is from the global south or Eastern Europe. Trump has been
rightfully criticized for promoting this falsehood regarding undocumented immigrants and his
executive orders targeting birthright citizenship, but it appears liberals are willing to
unfairly apply this same fallacy toward Russians for political reasons.
This connected continents of Europe and Asia have 70% of the world population, so it is the
center of the world. But the United States is not a local power, it's thousands of miles away
from it. Therefore, the US NEEDS conflicts in Europe and Asia to maintain its influence in
the world stage and its status of "safe haven for capita", as it found out in WW2 that can be
very profitable.
Peace and integration in Europe and Asia is the last thing the US wants. This is why it'd
try its hardest to stir up tension in Europe, Asia and MiddleEast. The Russians were naive to
believe it was about Communism.
World dominance has been very profitable for the capital class, whether the cost for world
dominance worth it for the working class, is open for debate, as citizens of the dominate
nation enjoy nice benefits too.
Just how
weak a president has Donald Trump become? For an illustration, see a terrific Washington
Post article on the
foreign-policy decision-making process since John Bolton became Trump's national security
adviser. Or, rather, the absence of anything resembling a process.
As Heather Hurlburt
pointed out when Bolton took the job, he's ill-suited for it. Bolton is a policy advocate,
not the honest broker that the position calls for. That's a particular problem for Trump.
Because the president is inexperienced in national-security matters, he doesn't know whether
Bolton is speaking for the experts on a policy question or just advocating for his own
preferences. Because Trump knows little about the executive branch, Bolton can use his
bureaucratic skills to advance his own agenda -- including impeding Trump's plan to withdraw
U.S. troops from Syria.
This isn't to say that Bolton's policies are necessarily wrong; that's for others to judge.
But it creates a real problem for the presidency when top advisers are looking out for their
own interests and not the president's.
On this point, Ronald Reagan's administration is instructive. By all accounts, Reagan was
more informed about policy than Trump is. He was also a pragmatic politician, capable of
compromising or even backing down entirely when it was in his interests. Reagan's weakness,
however, was that he could be curiously passive at times, and (like many presidents) too easily
swayed by anecdotes. That meant he needed high-level staffers who could serve as honest
brokers. His first-term chief of staff, James Baker, allowed him to make good decisions.
Baker's replacement, Donald Regan, failed to do so. Partly as a result, Reagan's presidency had
almost completely collapsed by the time Regan was fired amid the Iran-Contra scandal.
"Russians are brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to
invade them at any moment. " Oh rather you're brainwashed daily that Russia is an awful place
where Russians are brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to
invade them at any moment.
I'm pretty sure not a single Russian believes that the west is going to invade. For
reasons that are obvious, or should be obvious.
You must be joking ! 70 per cent of Americans do not know what the Constitution is, and
six per cent don't even know when Independence Day falls. In a recent survey just over a half
of Americans didn't know what the Taliban are , despite the fact they led the charge in
Afghanistan.
When looking at a map of the world, young Americans had a difficult time correctly
identifying Iraq (1 in 7) and Afghanistan (17%). This isn't that surprising, but only a slim
majority (51%) knew where New York was. According to Forbes and National Geographic, an
alarming 29% couldn't point to the Pacific Ocean.
Many didn't know where Europe is let alone Spain.
Americans cultural ? What a hoot !
runner911 -> jezzam 5 Sep 2015 04:09
Be assured Russia is more than capable of defending itself against Western ( USA )
aggression, plus they hold the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet , so lets be clear
no-one is going to attack Russia and risk nuclear annihilation in return. As regards being
surrounded by NATO, how do you think the yanks would react if the same were to apply to the
USA and that sad corrupt country was surrounded by Russian Forces ? The last time it happened
in 1962, as I recall the yanks were whining like whipped dogs, but eventually agreed to
dismantle their missiles in Turkey provided the Russians did the same in Cuba.
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 5 Sep 2015 11:59
You lost the argument, so you are trying to change the subject. Now we can see why Western
media doesn't allow an open discussion - you don't have much to say.
East-central Europe was invaded by Germans, Russians, Ottomans, French, even the Swedes.
Germans murdered about 15 million people here. Ottomans (Turks) about 10 million. Russians
liberated us from a murderous German occupation after WWII and stayed way too long...
Russian victims are in tens of thousands. Given that Russians lost about 1.5 million
soldiers liberating us from Germans and saved us from planned extermination by Nazis over
time, we keep some perspective about it. But I am not sure your ideological and slogan-driven
thinking would understand any of it...
EugeneGur -> zenithmaster 5 Sep 2015 11:43
This has zero to do with Russia's poor relations with the EU and everything to do the
Russians' smaller spending power.
This is not quite true. You underestimate the power of the sentiment. One example:
Russian tourism to Estonia dropped 60% after the scandal with the Bronze soldier in 2007,
long before any decrease in the buying power, and it never recovered.
You are right, of course, that the decreased value of the ruble affected mass tourism,
but the effect was multiplied by the anger towards Europe, believe me, it was. Going through
the visa process was always annoying and humiliating but under the present circumstances it
became unbearable. This one thing that affects all European countries whether its Bulgaria or
Italy.
MaoChengJi -> jezzam 5 Sep 2015 09:56
Yeah, something like what thecorporateclass said above.
I'll add this: deep down even people like you don't believe in any Russian 'invasion'
in Ukraine. They know: if Russia did invade, it would've been over long time ago. The
question, rather, is about Kiev regime's control of the border, which would amount to a
blockade of Donetsk-Lugansk republics; blocking all the supplies, attacking from all
directions, and exterminating people who feel ethnically Russian.
This can not happen: it would've brought the Russian government down, and therefore no
Russian government could participate in it; be it led by Putin, Dugin, or Navalny, or anyone
at all. It's just a physical impossibility. IMO.
TheCorporateClass -> jezzam 5 Sep 2015 06:37
The West agrees to drop this missile shield, Putin agrees to stop his military
interference in Ukraine.
This needs correcting IF it is to work as a solution.
The West agrees to drop this missile shield, agrees to stop it's interventions into
Ukrainian government and it's politics, agrees to stop FUNDING and GUIDING far right neo-nazi
militias and their political wings, agrees to stop making intentionally
false/unproven/fictional accusations against Russia & Putin's Government, stops providing
military intelligence to Ukraine (a non-Nato country), and admits to the direct connection
between the externally caused "political and social" instability in Ukraine begun by EU/NATA
and the externally caused "political and social" instability and then Civil War in Syria with
oil/gas supplies from Russia and Qatar ... then that would be a great first step towards the
truth of matters bullshit.
Then all of Russia and Putin at their ELECTED President would no doubt agree to stop his
humane military interference in Ukraine on behalf of those people having their human rights
and lives taken by ideologically driven psychopaths and their corrupt crazies from
Washington, Berlin, Riyadh, Doha, and Tel Aiv.
Simple really.
HollyOldDog -> raffine 5 Sep 2015 04:59
Whereas there are convoys of Russian trucks that are stopping the East Ukrainians of
starving to death. The only 'gifts' that West Ukraine gives to their East compatriates is
constant shelling, grad missile fire, mine fields and snipers that shoot any East Ukrainians
on sight whether they are men ,women or children.
MaoChengJi -> jezzam 4 Sep 2015 23:48
I believe the western anti-missile installations along the Russian borders give the
impression that the US is trying to break the MAD balance and create, at some point in the
future, a defense against retaliatory nuclear strike. That seems like the only rational
explanation for those installations. For do you think they are for?
MaoChengJi -> andy4248 4 Sep 2015 22:10
"Russians are brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to
invade them at any moment. "
Oh rather you're brainwashed daily that Russia is an awful pleace where Russians are
brainwashed daily that the West is an awful place and we are going to invade them at any
moment.
I'm pretty sure not a signle Russian believes that the west is going to invade. For
reasons that are obvious, or should be obvious.
crackling -> MaoChengJi 4 Sep 2015 22:03
fingerprints is copying GWBush's data collection on citizens and visitors to the US - last
night I just had my photo and fingerprints taken on customs entry to Taiwan - I expect it's
becoming the norm these days.
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 21:22
Address Obama's admission that "US assisted in the transition of power", why do you skip
over it? $15 billion was a loan and it was used for the Ukrainian budget. If someone stole
some of it, prove it and charge them.
I never said that Russians didn't try to influence Kiev, but so did US - listen to the
recording, it assigns roles for different protest leaders. Ashton was an EU official and she
was standing with the protestors - so were many others, incl. Nuland, ambassador, etc... -
that goes way beyond "trade agreement".
I am a Slovak and I comment on anything I feel like. If you have a problem with that,
maybe you don't understand democracy and freedom of speech. By the way, most people in my
part of Europe (from Budapest to Vienna to Prague) roughly share my view of the situation. We
know Russians, we know Ukrainians, and we can judge for ourselves.
Popeyes -> andy4248 4 Sep 2015 19:45
It's very sad but Russians are for more aware of what's going on politically than their
Western counterparts. The fact that they have a low opinion of Westerners is hardly
surprising and they certainly don't have to be " brainwashed ' by the Kremlin to know what's
going on. They only have to look at Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Ukraine the list is endless to
figure it out. You could blame GM food for the fact that Americans seem to be pretty dim and
clueless on Europeans affairs, but as for the rest of Europeans I guess they are the ones
that are really "brainwashed".
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 19:32
Thou protest too much.
The "baroness" was an EU foreign secretary, that's pretty high up. In addition: US
ambassador, assistant sec for Europe (Nuland), and a number of other officials were at the
Maidan protests - videos and all.
The recording was very specific about who (Yats) should be Prime Minister and how it
should be done. If US also does that in Spain, that's even a bigger problem.
$5bn is a lot of "civil organizations" - most of it in the last 5-10 years. Russia gave a
loan - that is very different.
Finally, Obama literally said "we assisted with the transition of power in Ukraine"
what other proof can one possible have than an admission by the chief?
By the way I used the term "assist in an overthrow". To "orchestrate" is more pro-active.
Given what has been made public there definitely was "assistance" (see Obama's statement
above), whether that amounts to "orchestrate" like in 1953 Iran, I would leave to the
historians.
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 18:52
There are videos of dozens of Western leaders standing on the podium with the
demonstrators on Maidan (just imagine Lavrov joinig an Occupy protest in New York or
London).
There are recordings of Nuland deciding on who will run Ukraine ("f...k Europe").
US spent 5 billion in 20 years on "civil groups" in Ukraine.
If you prefer an infantile denial, I can't help you. Just don't be surprised if you become
irrelevant.
Beckow -> dmitryfrommoscow 4 Sep 2015 18:34
Yes it was always mostly about the visa-free access to EU. Ukrainians want to move to
Europe for jobs, benefits, school, etc... That was what drove Maidan energy (and US took
advantage of it).
But your numbers are off. There are about 1 million Ukrainians now in EU, mostly in UK,
Czech, Hungary and Poland. E.g. Poland has about 400,000 new Ukrainian migrants. The real
large numbers are yet to come. I think they will - they are watching the Syrians and getting
jealous, worried that all the empathy will be used up. Slovakia (my country) has camps ready
on the border. We also suddenly have a lot of Ukrainians who have discovered the Slovak (or
Czech) heritage. The same thing is going on in Poland, Romania and Hungary.
Millions are coming. And they won't be tourists or have money for Italian hotels. But I am
sure the Western media will find a way to blame it on Russia. Such are the pleasures of
dead-end ideologies, everything is very simple: "Putin did it!."
Beckow -> notoriousANDinfamous 4 Sep 2015 18:26
"US didn't orchestrate a coup in Ukraine and hasn't offered Kiev a military
alliance"
I suppose that would depend on your definition of "orchestrate" and a "coup". Most
rational observers would agree that US at a minimum assisted with the Maidan revolution (or a
coup). There are videos, recordings, financial transfers. Until the whole Maidan thing went
bad, the US State Department was very open about the assistance that they had provided on
Maidan, Obama said "we assisted with the transition of power in Ukraine" (actual quote).
US has said since 2008 that Ukraine will join Nato. They reiterated it last year and
Ukraine has an official policy of joining Nato. There are joint exercises and training with
Nato. It is rather conclusive that US and Ukraine are having a "military alliance".
Given those two facts how can you deny it? Or do you also deny the nose between your
eyes?
magicmirror1 4 Sep 2015 18:11
Fingerprints to get a visa.
Welcome to democratic EU. This is the future European leaders are building and I cannot
understand why.
dmitryfrommoscow -> Ola Smith 4 Sep 2015 16:46
Ola, the problem is there are no 45 million people in Ukraine these days. As many as 2.8
million people with Ukrainian passports work and live in Russia alone. And I think twice as
many live and work in the EU. And about five to seven million are in a crouch start position
to rush elsewhere at the first opportunity that avails itself. After all the Maidan
hullabaloo was about getting free access to European -- and probably North American -- job
markets and disappearing there for good. Let's throw aside all that talk about 'democracy and
values' and be honest about it.
Memorandum of Agreement on Security Cooperation
(October 31, 1998)
"The United States Government would view with particular gravity direct threats to Israel's
security arising from the regional deployment of ballistic missiles of intermediate range or
greater.
In the event of such a threat, the United States Government would consult promptly with the
Government of Israel,
with respect to what support, diplomatic or otherwise, or assistance, , it can lend to
Israel."
Realize as an indirect result of the USA withdrawing from the INF and accusing Russia of
having IRBM's(600 mile range , and the Crimiea being only 800 miles from Israel , this
immediately gave Israel carte' blanche for any and all defense "requests" the foreseeable
future. This goes beyond even the previous status of Iran for all concerns presenting an IRBM
threat as well.
There is also the default alliance created by the USA recently building an Airbase inside
the bounds of Israel's Mashabim Air Base, near Dimona, that any air or actual missile attack on
Israel will be considered an attack that threatened or was toward a US military
installation.
They got the US permanently allied/tied covering their butts . No need for further
acknowledgment in writing required IMO.
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves
for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next
Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
You nailed it. Even if they do eventually succeed in foiling Trump, things will never be the same again. The whole world is watching
the circus in Washington, and so Washington's brand ('democracy') is now shot. 2016 was indeed an annus mirabilis! " things will
never be the same again. The whole world is watching the circus in Washington.."
It looks and sounds like dementia – as if a sick person behaving inappropriately, showing unprovoked aggression (like some
Alzheimer patients), using silly or senseless phrasing, and having the unreasonable demands and uncontrolled fits of rage like
a spoiled child. The marasmic McCain, marasmic Pelosi, and hysterical Max Boot, the openly lying Clapper and the hate-filled profiteer
Brennan.
As I have written here and elsewhere, President Swamp Drainer needs to get control of the DoJ. He got rid of Comey, which was
good, but got Rosenstein and Mueller in response. Meanwhile Jeff Sessions is twiddling his thumbs re the Russia witch hunt. Perhaps
his recusal was appropriate, but he's not doing anything whatsoever regarding Swamp Draining. So it feels like he's a disingenuous
old guard GOPer, who wants to obstruct any real progress, while dragging his feet with do-nothingness obscured behind a facade
of law enforcement community boosterism. By this tactic the GOP attempts to stall until 2020, when it can then point at Trump's
failures (failures they have enabled by their stalling, wink wink) and then campaign to take "their" party back. In short, Sessions
may just be an anti-Trump "mole" planted in the single most important position with regard to swamp draining, in order to ***prevent***
any swamp draining.
Let me be clear: in the last 24 years the DC political class has gone almost entirely criminal, with the last 13 years dedicated
to serial war crimes. In this sort of situation the DoJ, AG, and FBI head, becomes corrupted, and turns away from the rule of
law to become a shield for the DC criminal despotism.
So watch closely what happens next. Just today rumors have come out -- though I've been speaking of this for several weeks
now -- that there is talk in the White House about ***recess appointments*** . We have reached the crucial moment, and I for one
am surprised that, as important as this is, it has not been prominent in public discussion until now. The "August" was scheduled
to begin at the end of business tomorrow, July 28th. Because of the health care business, McConnell has postponed it for two weeks,
so let's call it for close of business Friday, August 11th. That's fifteen days from now.
When Congress goes home fifteen days from now, this country and the world may very well change forever. Go to Wikipedia and
look up "recess appointment". Here's what you will find:
" a recess appointment is an appointment by the President of a federal official while the U.S. Senate is in recess.
Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session .
If Trump is the fighter I think he is, then this is what he has been waiting for, ever so patiently these last six months.
Notice that the Congress cannot countermand recess appointments. Recess appointments end by expiration, and then only at the end
of the following Congressional session. Other than impeachment, Congress cannot stop Trump from doing this .
So Trump dumps Sessions, purges the anti-Trump prosecutors from previous administrations, and appoints a new FBI head and dozens
of fire-breathing swamp-draining prosecutors who immediately start doling out orange jumpsuits. He could -- not saying that he
would execute this "nuclear option" -- but he could lock up virtually the entire Congress on war crimes charges; Neocons for conspiracy
to commit war crimes; Cheney, Addington, Yoo, and Bybee to the Hague for torture; Hillary and Obama for Libya.
Control of the DoJ is the key.
The next two weeks will show whether Trump is the real deal, or just another schlub.
Now they do not even pretend that Justice exists in the USA: only kangaroo courts
Why they are sill waving a dead chicken ? Because they are crooks and can't prosecute Trump for his real misdeeds. Or investigate
influence of MI6 and Israeli lobby on the USA elections. Crooks. all of them.
Notable quotes:
"... This is not a standard beltway tit for tat investigation. Even before Trump took office, the tools of government were used against him. What is more interesting is that the inquisitors have unchecked authority. There is no limit imposed on the inquisitors either in scope or frankly legality. ..."
"... The Republican Party has consistently undermined him. It is the American electorate that will not turn on him. Do you blame them!.? They are slowly realizing that a war has been waging against them. Their way of life, the American way of life, is being dismantled. Years and years of compromise and lofty adherence to reasonable principles by the American electorate have done not a damn thing to abate the onslaught against them. ..."
"... Your timing as well as details are off. Iran-Contra was in the 80s. Laundering money from arms sales to Iran to fund the Contras in violation of the Boland amendement is far different than the Affaire de coeur Russia, which is now turning into an investigation of every financial deal Trump ever did. ..."
"... "The tradition" is using investigative powers to politicaly attack ones opponents when you are in power. ..."
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who would eventually lead any impeachment proceedings, on Sunday
signaled a significant escalation into congressional inquiries into the President.
The New York Democrat plans on Monday to request documents from 60 people and entities close to Trump, including from the Department
of Justice, the White House and the Trump Organization. The document trawl will be used "to present the case to the American people
about obstruction of justice, about corruption and abuse of power, " Nadler said on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday.
Nadler stuck to the House Democratic position that impeachment "is a long way down the road," apparently in order to avoid
Republican arguments that the decision has already been made to try to oust Trump. The document requests are not taking place
under the auspices of an official impeachment investigation."
Nadler could not be more clear. He and the other kangaroos in the Democrat herd (flock?) will search through every aspect of Trump's
life for the purpose of finding something that will cause a revulsion against Trump among the American people. If they can find that,
their allies among the press and TeeVee agitprop apparatchiks will make judgments evident as to whether or not a bill of impeachment
would result in a conviction in the senate. This method is reminiscent of the attempt to impeach President Andrew Johnson. Remember
him? The Radical Republicans hated this Southern War Democrat simply because he was Southern without regard for his well demonstrated
hatred for the planter class in the greater South as opposed to his east Tennessee anti-slavery home. So, pilgrims, American tradition
is to be reversed. The Democrats will seek for confirmation bias of Trump's "crimes" because of their "progressive" hatred of his
perhaps cynical leadership of a popular revolution against them and the idiot college kids. pl
IMO, Trump could blow the kangaroos off the range by declassifying it all and allowing the American people to see the details
of the attempted coup. And the collusion among the kangaroos. But he chooses to not do that. Very puzzling.
Clearly it can't be because of Mueller and the potential charge of obstruction of justice, as the kangaroos are running hard
towards getting him and his family in any case. So what's behind his strategy of just tweeting witch hunt, which he's been doing
for 2 years, and not doing what could blow this all up which is his prerogative as POTUS?
This is the politics necessary to continue to govern a largely unified country as if it were deeply divided:
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The minorities that both of our parties represent have had their way for forty years, the majority is fed up by not being represented
and increasingly absurd distractions are required to maintain this status quo.
This has been standard beltway politics since at least the Iran-Contra and Whitewater investigations. It hit hot and heavy once
the Republicans regained control of the Congress in 2014 and hit Obama/Clinton with the Benghazi hearings. I think the political
purpose behind all these investigations, including the current crop of investigations into Trump can best be summed up in this
quote concerning the Benghazi hearings. "In September 2015, Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy famously said Clinton's
"numbers are dropping" because "we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee." I doubt Nadler will ever pursue
an impeachment. His goal is to tear at Trump until the 2020 elections. Anyways, I can't think of anything Trump could have done
or will do that would persuade the Republican party to turn on him. Nothing. You're right. Whoever wins that election will be
subject to the same scrutiny.
This is not a standard beltway tit for tat investigation. Even before Trump took office, the tools of government were used
against him. What is more interesting is that the inquisitors have unchecked authority. There is no limit imposed on the inquisitors
either in scope or frankly legality.
The Republican Party has consistently undermined him. It is the American electorate that will not turn on him. Do you blame
them!.? They are slowly realizing that a war has been waging against them. Their way of life, the American way of life, is being
dismantled. Years and years of compromise and lofty adherence to reasonable principles by the American electorate have done not
a damn thing to abate the onslaught against them.
2020 elections will be won by a Democrat. Trump won by razor thin margins, and those margins will be erased as a malignant
crop of woke young voters will come of age. Frankly I am curious if his health can hold up for another campaign.
Your timing as well as details are off. Iran-Contra was in the 80s. Laundering money from arms sales to Iran to fund the Contras
in violation of the Boland amendement is far different than the Affaire de coeur Russia, which is now turning into an investigation
of every financial deal Trump ever did.
The Republicans didn't control the House until the mid-90s and lost it in 2007. The invasion and occupation of Iraq played
a big part in losing the House then.
The Congressional investigation of Iran-Contra was also referred to as a witch hunt by Republicans. So that usage of the term
was around since the 80s. Reagan's Tower Commission was a different animal altogether. We'll probably never see something as introspective
as that again.
I mentioned both Iran-Contra and Whitewater to point out the longstanding tradition of politically tinged Congressional investigations.
The Whitewater Congressional investigations went into overdrive up after the Republicans won the House in 1994. The Republican
controlled both the House and Senate in 2014. That's when the Benghazi hearings really ramped up. The ramp up of Congressional
investigations with the Democratic winning of the House last year is just following in that tradition.
Selling weapons to Iran was a crime. "The tradition" is using investigative powers to politicaly attack ones opponents when
you are in power. Kind of like using the executive branch of government to hinder opponents activities, such as preventing
IRS non-profit status, or spying on them like the NSA has been doing. All done by the Obama administration. Then there is the
conduct of the FBI. I haven't seen Trump do any of those things with executive branch powers.
TTG hit the nail on the head. Since Clinton and Whitewater, investigations have been the method to hit back at the Presidency
you don't support. The only thing I would add is the Iran-Contra investigation was much more relevant than Whitewater, the Clinton's
Christmas card list, or Benghazi; officials were actually convicted from the Iran-Contra investigation. The sad fact is that some
investigations that are BS successfully work to rile up the investigator's supporters, example Benghazi. I would only add that
Trump's past history provides a lot of fuel for the investigatory fire.
This is from 2015, but it show that fight again ISIS was a sham from the very beginning. It wqas all about "regime change" and ISIS
was an instrument to facilitate this change. Obama was a closet supporter of Muslim Brotherhood all his tenure. While hillary was just
a bloodthrusty maniak ("We came, we saw, he died")
Money do not smell...
Notable quotes:
"... Why then don't we impose sanctions on the IS and block their banks, and freeze their accounts? ..."
"... This goes on to demonstrate that the IS is a useful tool for American foreign policy, and if they didn't create it, at least they don't strive for its eradication. ..."
Maurizio Blondet is an Italian blogger. In
this article [in Italian] he ironically
suggests to Obama two different solutions to eradicate the Islamic State.
The first one is to bomb the road between Mosul (Iraq) and Batman (Turkey). Along this 344 km road, the IS sends every
day 20000 barrels of oil (see map in the article). The oil is sold for 30$ a barrel and under, and refined in Batman before
being sold. The alleged reason why the US has not bombed this road so far, is that it wanted to avoid civilian casualties.
This is quite amusing from the same country that did not hesitate to carpet bomb Sirte in Libya (not to mention the Iraq war).
But Blondet pretends to buy into this excuse, so goes on to notice that the IS controls 24 banks between Syria and Iraq.
These banks make financial transactions every day, including international transactions. Why then don't we impose sanctions
on the IS and block their banks, and freeze their accounts?
This goes on to demonstrate that the IS is a useful tool for American foreign policy, and if they didn't create it, at
least they don't strive for its eradication.
@Felix
Keverich You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little
fart ? are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or
do you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
The Ukraine certainly had all kinds of 'entrepreneurs' they're called OLIGARCHS who
very capably enriched themselves unfortunately 'entrepreneurs' are what normal people would
call parasites, flim-flam men and hucksters
As for Ukrainian workers lacking 'marketable skills' I guess that would be 'skills' like
TROLLING, your specialty and making retarded statements on discussion fora
Ukraine had more very qualified engineers per capita than any country in Europe a huge
amount of intellectual capacity, and a very good industrial base especially in high tech
areas like aerospace and propulsion their problem was that they chose to play games with the
rotten west, instead of friendship with Russia, with which their industry was
integrated
You're a complete wanker in the A. Karlin mold. Get lost you have nothing to
contribute
@Big
Bill They fought that it was Russia, that was holding them back, and by separating they
could quickly achieve Western European standard of living. The first guy to become
president of independent Ukraine promised people that they were going to "live like France"
.in 5 years (!). lol
So their plan was something like this:
Lately, they began to think that the Ukraine's path to prosperity goes through EU
membership, hence popular support for Euromaidan, and you know the results
You're full of shit what the heck do you know about industry you useless little fart
? are you an industrial engineer do you have any technical qualifications whatsoever or do
you just pull buzzwords like 'marketable skills' out your wazoo, as needed ?
Your industries are worth ZERO, if you're unable to sell your products, and the Ukraine
struggled to sell its manufactured goods after 1991. Its traditional customer – Russia
began to import Western goods.
You sound like Martyanov. lol It doesn't take any "special qualification" to figure out
that Soviet-era factories were churning out worthless crap – there is a reason why that
system fell apart, you know.
Just three examples. All those people would have troubles in the USA now. And that tells us
something about the USA:
The wealthy Jews control the world, in their hands lies the fate of governments and
nations. They set governments one against the other. When the wealthy Jews play, the nations
and the rulers dance. One way or the other, they get rich."
'The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and
spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social
obligations, knows no order nor discipline.'
'The enterprising spirit of the Jew is irrepressible. He refuses to remain a
proletarian. He will grab at the first opportunity to advance to a higher rung in the social
ladder.'
The comments above weren't made by Adolf Hitler or a member of the Nazi party but by some of
the most dedicated early Zionists:
"... Face it. Mass production of consumer electronics in the USA is almost non-existent. An entire important industry has been lost forever based on wage arbitrage. But even if there were not a 10:1 wage disparity, the skill level and work ethic of Americans is pathetic compared to the diligent Asian worker bees. Reality is a cruel mistress ..."
"... Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year on year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands rich in minerals, timber, water, etc. ..."
"... With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock therapy (induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real enemy is. Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to influence politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the Rothschild gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off, etc. ..."
"... The Western European based US economy is fast draining out (along with people of Western European descent) and the days of US world manufacturing leadership (1950's) are a distant memory. ..."
"... Maybe the takeaway from US/Chinese history is that the US needs its own Maoist style Cultural Revolution. Nothing short of US Maoism is needed to root out every aspect of the current rotten system and get a fresh start from zero. ..."
War, in this model, begins when the first shots are fired.
Well, think again in this new era of growing great-power struggle and competition.
It all war, all the time and another point to remember is that there is always a war between
the .001% and the rest of us.
Another thing is that we proles, peasants and peons should give some serious thought to
having the "elite" fight their own battles, on their "own" (though mostly stolen) shekels for
once. Read More Agree: foolisholdman Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Feb 15, 2019 Next Phase, Xi & Trump, Coordinate The Transition
US industrial production plunges, this doesn't mean that manufacturing jobs are not coming
back to the US this means the [CB] is deteriorating quickly as Trump brings back
manufacturing.
Feb 16, 2019 Pentagon Warns of Chinese Space Lasers | China News Headlines
A new Pentagon report says #China and Russia have developed #laser weapons to target US
satellites. Need a Space Force?
governing elites have developed other means of warfare -- economic, technological, and
covert -- to achieve such strategic objectives. Viewed this way, the United States is
already in close to full combat mode with respect to China.
Looked at this way, there are countless wars all the time as well as a huge gray area that
is debatable. I think there is merit in defining war as actual kinetic weapons firing in both
directions. Even then, there are gray areas, but at least they are minimized
"The time and investment required to rebuild/replace supply chains in a JIT world means
much of what's left of America's real economy would disappear within weeks.
American trade negotiators are apparently oblivious to this. I find that very weird."
Of course they're not oblivious, as you can see everytime the stock market goes down, some
US official came out to say a deal/talk is on the way. Both the negotiators and the market
know.
They're just betting on enough pressure will force China to surrender, like Japan did in
the 80s.
@Erebus In the distant past
there were at least 1000 PC Board manufacturers in the US .now there are only 2 or 3. Most US
PCB houses are actually a middleman with an iphone fronting for one of the many Chinese PCB
factories. You supply the Gerber Files and the payment, of course, and your finished PC
Boards come back by air the next day.
Now here is the kicker: our US PC Board supplier is
located in Illinois and owned by you guessed it Hindus. Half the staff are also Hindus. In
general, the Chinese PCBs are of higher quality than the Hindu .er US PCBs.
Face it. Mass
production of consumer electronics in the USA is almost non-existent. An entire important
industry has been lost forever based on wage arbitrage. But even if there were not a 10:1
wage disparity, the skill level and work ethic of Americans is pathetic compared to the
diligent Asian worker bees. Reality is a cruel mistress
Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year on
year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands rich
in minerals, timber, water, etc.
With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock therapy
(induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real enemy is.
Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to influence
politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the Rothschild
gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off, etc.
Russia could go further in their symphony of church and state, and copy Justinian
(Byzyantine empire) and prevent our (((friends))) from teaching in schools,bein control of
money, or in government.
With regards to China, they would be not be anywhere near where they are today if the West
had not actively transferred their patrimony in the form of transplanted industry and
knowledge.
China is only temporarily dependent on export of goods via their Eastern seaboard, but as
soon as belt and road opens up, she will pivot further toward Eurasia. If the U.S. factories
withdrew from China tomorrow, China already has our "knowledge" and will find markets in
Eurasia and raw materials in Africa, etc.
People need to stop whistling past the graveyard.
The atalantacist strategy has run its course, internal development of U.S. and linking up
with belt and road would be in America's best future interests. But, to do that requires
first acknowledging that money's true nature is law, and not private bank credit. Further,
the U.S. is being used as whore of Babylon, where her money is "Federal Reserve Notes" and
are international in character. The U.S is not sovereign. Deep state globalism does not
recognize national boundaries, or sovereignty.
@Alfa158 Alternatively, one
could examine a nations ability to rapidly expand their economy to meet wartime needs. In
this scenario, other factors such as access to raw materials come into play. In this
perspective, the equations would change dramatically.
I think there is merit in defining war as actual kinetic weapons firing
Why limit it to that? I'd say there's plenty of merit in the author's definition especially since it would tend
to shed some lights on the origins of major conflicts.
That US elites that are split on who to go after first compromised by going after both Russia
and China at the same time is a definition of insanity. The US doesn't have a chance in hell
of subduing or defeating the Russia/China alliance. The US is already checkmated. The more it
goes after some big win the worse will be its defeat.
So the question (for me) is not which side will win, the question is the scenario of the
decline of the US Empire. Someone here mentioned the EU turning East. At some point the EU
will decide that staying a US vassal is suicide and it will turn East. When that happens then
the virus of US insanity will turn inwards into itself.
The US has recently focused on South America by installing several fascist regimes and is
now trying to get Venezuela. But the US backed regimes are laying the groundwork for the next
wave of revolution soon to come. Wherever I look the US is its own worst enemy. The big
question is how much suffering before it ends.
@jacques
sheete The author's definition makes the term a purely rhetorical one tantamount to an
angry child saying "this means war!" to another angry child, or "The War on Drugs" or "The
Battle of the Sexes" etc.
Admittedly, this is all semantics, so have it your way if you want, as it is not worth the
time of further debate. As for me, I prefer to have terms as precise as possible.
Klare discovers the US crusade against China – 8 years after the Obama/Hillary "pivot"
to East Asia sending 2/3 of the US Navy there and putting together the TPP to excluded China.
As usual he is right on top of things.
And he begins with this gem: " "The media and many politicians continue to focus on
U.S.-Russian relations, in large part because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016
American presidential election and the ongoing Mueller investigation." Huh? Does he mean the
$4700 in Google ads or the $50,000 in Facebook ads traced to some alleged Russian sources? A
Russiagater from the start.
I remember some years ago before the shale revolution Klare was warning us about "peak oil."
I think we were supposed to have run out of it by now.
Klare is a hack who cycles things that any conscious person reading the newspapers would have
known long ago.
P.s. He says that Apple is the number one cell phone. No longer. He should improve his
Google search skills or his set of assumptions which have turned him into a Russiagater.
Huawei now sells more cell phones worldwide than Apple ( https://gearburn.com/2018/08/huawei-smartphone-sales-2018/
). And Huawei does this even though it is effectively excluded from the US market (You cannot
find it in stores) whereas Apple has unfettered access to the enormous Chinese market. You
find Huawei everywhere – from Italy to Tanzania. How would Apple fare if China stopped
purchases of its products? Not so well I am afraid.
Usa is at war against everyone , from China to Latinamerica , from Europe to India , from the
islamic world to Africa . Usa is even at war against its own citizens , at least against its
best citizens .
I don't think it's simple "Eastern" vs "Western" Europeans; my take is Protestants vs
Catholics vs Orthodox. In that order. The biggest difference is between Protestant and
Orthodox. Catholics are, sort of, in the middle.
Or, in practical terms, don't see much difference between Austrians and Slovenes.
That's for Europe.
When we speak of the culture war or the war on drugs or the war between the sexes or a trade
war we are misusing the word war.
War with China means exactly shooting and bombing and killing Chinese and American people.
Expanding the meaning of the word only makes it meaningless.
Admittedly, this is all semantics, so have it your way if you want, as it is not worth
the time of further debate. As for me, I prefer to have terms as precise as possible.
I agree on all four points.
However, if you didn't want a debate, or at least a response, then why did you bother
bringing it up? (That's a rhetorical question, since I neither expect nor really care what
the response would be; now I'm asking myself why I bothered !!!)
Russia under Putin is an exporter of non GMO grains where as the U.S. exports GMO grains
thatt the Chinese do not want as these GMO grains are a destuctive to humans and
animals.
I hope that's true. To Hell with that GMO crap!!! Anyone using it for farming ought to be forced to drink
glyphosate straight for breakfast.
As far as the war with China goes, we ain't seen nothing yet. It won't be pretty, especially
considering that the US is starting it with severe self-inflicted wounds.
Yes, and the ads were often absurd – one somehow featuring Yosemite Sam and gun rights
and another for a dildo, I believe. Great for click bait maybe but not real winners for a
campaign.
As the incomparable Jimmy Dore says on his show, which should be required watching for
everyone, if the Russians can swing an election with such modest resources against maybe $1-2
billion spent by the Donald and the Hillary together, then every candidate for offices high
and low should run not walk with $54,700 in hand to secure a cheap and easy victory from the
Russobots.
I don't think China stands the chance. As we all know diversity is strength and China is
mono-cultured rather than the obviously superior multi. So China will continue to decline,
while US goes from strength to strength thanks to its brilliant, brilliant multicultural
philosophy.
China was dumb enough to try real socialism, while obviously the fake one is the way to
go. You convince your domestic population of your humanitarian credentials – via the
phony socialism, plus you don't have to share a cent with them. How clever is that? Phony
socialism is the way to go – it eliminates the need for the real one.
At some point one must consider that this is all a fraud. In Washington Ocasio-Cortez and the
Democrats are proposing to eviscerate the US economy with their Green New Deal. While here we
find Washington launching a long term struggle for economic, political, and military
superiority over China.
As was once said in another context by an individual remembered in history, "What is
truth?" A question which either revealed his own puzzlement or was simply a rhetorical
dismissal of the question altogether. Likely both at the same time. One can be simply bemused
by the turn of events.
Is all this activity simply a song and dance to entertain, terrify, confuse, and amuse the
public while the real ordering of the world takes place behind closed doors? Put
Ocasio-Cortez together with the Pentagon and we have apparently a commitment by the US to
force the entire world to immolate itself. No state shall be superior to the US and the US
shall be a third world hellhole. Cui bono?
@joe
webb Russia and China are certainly not natural allies. However, deranged international
banditry of the US (called foreign policy in the DC bubble) literally forced them to ally
against a common threat: dying demented Empire.
As you call Chinese "Chinks", I suggest you stop using everything made in China, including
your clothes, footwear, tools, the light bulbs in your house, etc. Then, using your likely
made in China computer and certainly made in China mouse, come back and tell us how great
your life has become. Or you can stick to your principles of not using China-made stuff,
write a message on a piece of paper (warning: make sure that neither the paper nor the pen is
made in China), put it into a bottle, and throw it in the ocean. Be patient, and in a few
centuries you might get an answer.
In the halls of the Kremlin these days, it's all about China -- and whether or not
Moscow can convince Beijing to form an alliance against the West.
Russia's obsession with a potential alliance with China was already obvious at the
Valdai Discussion Club, an annual gathering of Russia's biggest foreign policy minds, in
2017.
At their next meeting, late last year, the idea seemed to move from the speculative to
something Russia wants to realize. And soon
Seen from Moscow, there is no resistance left to a new alliance led by China. And now
that Washington has imposed tariffs on Chinese exports, Russia hopes China will finally
understand that its problem is Washington, not Moscow.
In the past, the possibility of an alliance between the two countries had been hampered
by China's reluctance to jeopardize its relations with the U.S. But now that it has already
become a target, perhaps it will grow bolder. Every speaker at Valdai tried to push China
in that direction.
Another hurdle, reported in the journal Nature this week, is that China is cleaning up
its air pollution. That sounds great for pollution-weary Chinese citizens. But
climatologists point out that some of that air pollution had actually been cooling the
atmosphere, by blocking out solar radiation. Ironically, less air pollution from China
could mean more warming for the Earth.
@AnonFromTN Frankly, I
really don't give a damn about what you say. But do not use racial slurs FIRST. I use racial
slurs ONLY in RESPONSE to the comments that contain them, in retaliation. If you don't use
racial slurs, I wouldn't either.
@DB
Cooper DB,
Thanks for the PCB mfg video. Asian roboticized surface mount assembly plants are even more
impressive. At one time supplied specialized instrumentation to the FN factory in South
Carolina where the 50 cal machine guns are made, and received a tour. Crude by Asian
standards, but efficient in its own way. Base price on a 50 LMG at the time was $5k without
any of the extras: tripod, flash suppressor, water cooling, advanced night vision sights,
etc. Base price would be $10k by now. The US Guv does not allow this kind of production to go
offshore .but apparently cares not a jot about the production of consumer electronics, a
massive and growing worldwide market.
Have read the Chinese shops assemble $1000 I-pods for
as little as $5 each including parts sourcing, making domestic production here impractical.
Surprisingly, the Germans manage to produce high end electronics and their manufacturing
labor rates are even higher than North America. Says something about the skill and diligence
level of the US workforce ..where just passing a drug test and not having felonies or bad
credit is a major achievement.
@Anonymous Yes, it is quite
off putting, even though most of the article is quite sound. Possibly Klare was obliged to
add this bit of nonsense in order to get it published in TomDispatch but who knows.
@nsa
A good friend supplies hi-end PCBs to EU & RU electronics mfrs, particularly in DE.
Judging by the numbers I hear, hi-end electronics is still very much alive in Europe while
it's all but dead in NA.
It's a capital intensive business, and raw labour cost is a minor component in the total
cost of doing business. NA has put so many socio-political obstructions & regulatory
costs in the way that even at min wage it makes no business sense to locate there. I doubt it
would make sense even with free labour.
As Steve Jobs told Obama point blank, "Those jobs aren't coming back". NA's manufacturing
ecosystem (rather than mere infrastructure), which includes social-cultural aspects as well
as physical plant has been disappeared, and only dire necessity will build a new one. I
explicitly avoid the word "rebuild", as that train left the station years ago. NA still
"assembles" stuff, but it doesn't manufacture except on a small, niche scale.
Manufacturing is a difficult and very demanding business. 21st C manufacturing is not
simply an extension of the 20th's. It's a radically different hybrid of logistics, design
& production engineering, "smart" plant, and financial mgmt.
Not for the faint of heart. Much easier to flip burgers/houses/stocks/used
cars/derivatives/credit swaps/ until there's nothing left to flip.
Where a war begins – or ends – can be hard to define. Michael Klare is right,
'War' and 'peace' are not 'polar opposites'. We often look at wars in chronological
abstraction: the First World War started on the 28th July 1914. Or did it only become a
global war one week later when Great Britain declared war on Germany? The causes can be of
long duration. The decline of the Ottoman Empire, for which the other Great Powers were
positioning themselves to benefit, might have begun as far back as 1683 when the Turks were
defeated at the Battle of Vienna. It ultimately led to the events of 1914.
Great power rivalry has always led to wars; in the last hundred years world wars. Graham
Allison wrote that the US can 'avoid catastrophic war with China while protecting and
advancing American national interests' if it follows the lessons of the Cold War. History
shows that wars are caused by the clash of interests, that's always at some else's expense.
When core interests collide there is no alternative to war – however destructive. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
The real conflict is a cultural/ideological war in which liberal democracy tries to apply
its system worldwide under the delusion that egalitarianism, freedom, your definition of
rights, is universal.
China will never accept this. Russia is already fighting back. Nor does any developing
country look like they will ever truly embrace western values. It's gonna be SWPLs + WEIRDs
vs The Rest of Humanity.
The new Cold War will last much longer than any trade issue and conflict over values will
always be the underlying motivation, until the west either ends its universalist crusade, or
abolishes liberal democracy within its own borders.
I would be more sympathetic with Klare's fear of cold war with China if he could just assure
me that Chinese writers are equally able to voice concern with their own government's side of
the equation.
History shows that wars are caused by the clash of interests, that's always at some
else's expense. When core interests collide there is no alternative to war – however
destructive.
Pretty much, BUT, with one little difference re "some else's expense" now. M.A.D.
scenario.
Even limited exchange of thermonuclear M.I.R.V.s could affect everyone (even if somebody
can define that "limited" in the first place).
My take: we haven't developed, as species, along our capability for destruction.
Cheerful thought, I know.
Pepe Escobar says:
'US elites remain incapable of understanding China'
That's B.S., Pepe should've known better .
They dont 'misunderstand', they'r simply lying thru their teeth.
The following are all bald faced lies,
Classic bandits crying robbery.
Lawmaker: Chinese navy seeks to encircle US homeland
[bravo, This one really takes the cake !]
US Accuses China Of Preparing For World War III
US accuses China of trying to militarise and dominates space
USN have to patrol the SCS to protect FON for international shipping..
tip of an iceberg
Those who uttered such nonsense aint insane, stupid or cuz they 'misunderstand'
[sic] China. They know we know they'r telling bald faced lies
but that doesnt stop them lying with straight face .
This is the classic def of psychopaths:
people who'r utterly amoral, no sense of right or wrong, there's no such word as
embarrassment in their vocab.
Is it sheer coincidence that all the 5lies have been ruled by such breeds ?
Ask Ian Fleming's fundamental law of prob .
but why couldnt they produce one decent leader
in all of three hundred years.
5lies have more than their fair share of psychopaths no doubt, but surely not everybody is
like joe web and co., I know this for a fact. ?
Trouble is .
Washington DC is a veritable cesspool that
no decent man would want to dip his foot into it.
They might as well put it in the job requirement, 'Only psychopaths need apply '
Thats why in the DC cesspool, only the society's dregs rise up to the top.
A case of garbage in, garbage out .
A vicious circle that cant be fixed, except to be broken.
1) People from China PRC has as a people on the whole become quite disgusting. But please
exclude ppl from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibetans, Uyghurs etc. I confirm that PRC China people by
and large are now locusts of the world. I am one of them by birth. how did it happen? Deep
question for philosophers. It wasn't like this 60 years ago. some poisonous element entered
the veins of the collective, infected at least 70 percent. I worry for Russia due to its
inflated self confidence when dealing with PRC. Lake Baikal deal was almost sealed before it
got shelved. Still, using racial curses don't hurt anyone but yourself. All the big internet
advocates for Russia such as Orlov and Saker and Karlin don'tunderstand The Danger of China
PRC. If you understand then you have a responsibility to keep yourself décent and
respectable.
2) USA aside from its liberals and Zionist Jews etc. Has become a slowly stewing big asylum
for psychologically infantile and demented big babies. How did it happen again is a big
philosophical myth to me. Western Europe is sinking primarily because they came to resemble
the US. especially French and Brits and Spanish.
3) Russia is ruled by a few individuals with brains and maybe a bit of conscience but the
elite ruling class behave in such a way that one would conclude that they share the China PRC
virus, just not as advanced. Your basic Russian people are in a state of abject degradation
dejection, not changed all that much since 1990s. Only slightly ahead of the Ukrainians. If
one cares about Russia then shove aside 19th century naive romanticism and face reality.
4) A sustained and massive war by USA against China maybe the only miniscule chance
Greek/Christian civilization can be saved. Otherwise descend of history into thousand year
dark age. The latter is more likely due to advanced stage of brain dead disease gripping the
entire West.
If you have observed cities like Detroit or Greater Los Angeles than you know that "white
flight" as oppose to sycophancy is the end result of black or Hispanic populations reaching a
certain level. Whites leave and the US then has another internal third world like Detroit or
East LA.
It is a game of musical chairs where the white move into remote hinterlands, which develop
into suburbs or exurbs, then of course as these become population centers the blacks and
Hispanics enter them and the whites flee again.
What you will see is white flight from the US with the wealthiest whites simply moving to
other developed countries. The 1% would move to New Zealand or Tasmania.
The handicap for the USA in the confrontation is twofold its élite are in conflict
(and afraid, and contemptuous of) at least half of their own populace.
Plus, all the resources of all kinds directed to enterprises in the Middle East, subtracted
thusly from other enterprises.
Furthermore, there is the occasional bullying of Europe, and the continuous bullying of
Russia, yet more resource drains.
The USA spreads itself too thin, perhaps.
@peterAUS Chinese are
neither for money nor for ethnic power, Chinese is for 5 principles of peaceful coexistence,
treating all nations large and small as equal with respect.
Chinese believes we are now living in a rapidly changing world Peace, development,
cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times,
we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging
to the past stalled in the oldays of colonialism, and constrained by the zero-sum Cold War
mentality.
Chinese is determined to help the world to achieve harmony, peace and prosperity thru the
win-win approaches.
@Китайский
дурак 2) The riddle reads simply: democracy,
multiracialism, economic welfare (no-limit printing of currency made possible by uncontested
military "overmatch").
I lived in the Philippines and would chalk that up to fairly typical of a country run by
China since it is effectively controlled by a syndicate of Fujian family cartels.
First, you have a choke-hold on the economy and wages are depressed to near starvation
levels.
Second, Chinese will bring corruption to the nth degree by bribing whichever politician
will serve their own interests at the expense of the public.
Thirdly, those Chinese who cannot succeed in business will get into the drug trade and
China and Taiwan has created the Philippines drug war by making meth.
Fourth, there are fiery pogroms when the local population react with "burnouts" and
innocent Chinese are killed.
This is on the horizon in Africa. Probably.
In the West, Chinese were held in check by Jews and WASPS and to some degree by
Malaysians. I see Africa becoming like the Philippines once Chinese can become citizens
there, however.
@Biff The Romans create a
desert and call it peace; British Empire imitated Roman Empire, USA is born out of British
Empire; so only the White People particular the Anglo-Saxon is not ready for peace or
salvation. But rest of the world has been waiting for peace or salvation for a long long
time.
Chinese are neither for money nor for ethnic power, Chinese is for 5 principles of
peaceful coexistence, treating all nations large and small as equal with respect.
Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our
times.
Chinese is determined to help the world to achieve harmony, peace and prosperity thru
the win-win approaches.
Three options here:
Preferably,you are just pulling our legs. Not bad attempt, actually. Got me for a second.
Most likely, you are simply working. Sloppy and crude but, well, "you get what you pay
for". 50 Cent Army. Retired but needing money. Sucks, a?
Crazy and the least probable, you really believe in all that. Ah, well
@jeff
stryker Obviously you are brain washed by the 'god-fearing' morally defunct evil
'Anglo-Saxon', blaming every of your own failure on the Chinese just like what the Americans
and their Five-Eyes partners are doing right now.
The Filippino, the Malay and all the SE Asia locals have the guns not the Chinese, if the
Chinese do not hand over their hard earned money they will use what their ex-colonial masters
taught them since Vasco da Gama discovered the East Indies, masscared the Chinese and took it
all. The Dutch, Spanish, English, Japanese and the American all have done it before in order
to colonized the East Indies.
Before WWII, the American is just one of the Western imperialists ravaged and wreaked
havoc of Asia with barbaric wars, illicit drugs like Opium, slavery, stealing, robbing,
looting, plundering, murdering, torturing, exploiting, polluting, culture genocide, 'pious'
fanaticism, unmatchable greed and extreme brutality. In fact it is hard to tell the
difference between the American and the unrepentant war criminal Japanese who is more lethal
and barbaric to Asians until the Pearl Harbour incident.
For over seventy years the US has dominated Asia, ravaging the continent with two major
wars in Korea and Indo-China with millions of casualties, and multiple counter-insurgency
interventions in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Timor, Myanmar, Pakistan and
Afghanistan. The strategic goal has been to expand its military and political power, exploit
the economies and resources and encircle China.
USA is 10,000 miles away on the other side of the Pacific. USA is not an Asian nation, and
American is an alien to Asia. American is a toxin and a plague to Asian, They have done
enough damage to Asian already, they are not wanted, not invited and not loved in Asia, go
home Yankee.
@peterAUS You should know
the White man has some fallacies built into their culture, such as they believe that the
White man's words must be taken as given truth, only the White man can invent and the White
man can succeed, and the Whte man's culture is the final form of civilization.
The West (Europeans and their offshoots like the American, Aussie, etc.) is where is now,
because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and
murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of
the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theatres,
train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and
amalgamated by tears.
The West squandered all the wealth they obtained thru stealing, looting and murdering
hundreds of millions of people all over the world in the scrabbling of a dog-eat-dog play
rough over the monopoly to plunder the rest of the world through two World Wars, one on the
edge of Armageddon, and on the verge of another Armageddon. It proves the West is incapable
of bringing peace and prosperity to the mankind because of their flawed culture, civilization
and religion. The chaos and suffering of the world in the last few hundreds of years under
the dominance the West proves they are a failure.
Human beings deserve better, we need to depart from the chaotic and harmful world order
and path established by the moronic West. China proposed a new way of life, a win-win
approach for the well-being of mankind like Belt-Road-Initiative to build and trade the world
into peace, harmony and prosperity. The West should not be the obstacle for achieving such
refreshing winner for all initiative. The West should embrace the new approach proposed by
China because the West will benefit from it. I call upon you, let go the old, obsolete,
failed and detrimental believe passed onto you by your colonialist forebears please, welcome
the new era.
As Steve Jobs told Obama point blank, "Those jobs aren't coming back". NA's
manufacturing ecosystem (rather than mere infrastructure), which includes social-cultural
aspects as well as physical plant has been disappeared, and only dire necessity will build
a new one. I explicitly avoid the word "rebuild", as that train left the station years ago.
NA still "assembles" stuff, but it doesn't manufacture except on a small, niche scale.
Manufacturing is a difficult and very demanding business. 21st C manufacturing is not
simply an extension of the 20th's. It's a radically different hybrid of logistics, design
& production engineering, "smart" plant, and financial mgmt.
Not for the faint of heart. Much easier to flip burgers/houses/stocks/used
cars/derivatives/credit swaps/ until there's nothing left to flip.
All true, leaving the question of what happens to North America before it reaches the
African street market economy (low tech, low investment, low trust, basic products, vibrant
and over each morning).
The Western European based US economy is fast draining out (along with people of Western
European descent) and the days of US world manufacturing leadership (1950's) are a distant
memory.
Maybe the takeaway from US/Chinese history is that the US needs its own Maoist style
Cultural Revolution. Nothing short of US Maoism is needed to root out every aspect of the
current rotten system and get a fresh start from zero.
If Chinese took over the world it would look like the Philippines.
Shabu labs everywhere? Corrupt politicians blowing away homeless squatters when some
Chinese guy wanted to build a shopping center or Chinese arsonists setting squats on fire?
Dictators living off wages Chinese don't want to pay exploited peasants?
No thanks, the whites don't want Chinese family cartels running our economies. We can see
the harm you have done in Burma, Philippines etc.
@jeff
stryker This Joe Wong is obviously a WuMao (professional trolls paid by Beijing to parrot
their government's pathological propaganda). Any mainland Chinese who can read will confirm
this fact. It is not worth your time to deal with folks like him.
@jeff
stryker Australians, Philippines, Singaporeans, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Russians,
Italians, Japanese,Mongolians, Koreans, New Zealanders, a tiny anguished minority of mainland
Chinese themselves, everyone has gotten the mail, everyone has seen them on the streets,
everyone understood -- what a Beijing lorded world shall be like, coffee beans in the
morning. Americans are last in getting the news. Americans can be dim witted. Too many Nobel
winning economists and globalist bankers in America. And China is the gift of these white
people to the world.
@peterAUS thanks and if you
are a young man, congrats for your rationality. I am old, but probably have ten or 20 years
left, if not all those years real fit.
The young guys need to not fuc themselves up with regard to earning a living .keep your
mouth shut , sort of, and your name protected.
I hope a new generation of "White Nationalists" come along sans Hitlerism. Stay rational,
with just the facts M'am if you don't recall that line it was Dragnet and Detective Jack Webb
I think .you are young, Congrats.
Stick to the facts, keep your ego under control, keep a smile on your face .. Buddhist
wisdom to spread a little love around and it is essential for snaring a woman.
The Facts are with us. The Future is with us, including hard times, civil war, and so on.
The Sentimental Lie (Joseph Conrad) of race equality cannot stand for long.
@jeff
stryker Australian people nowadays are far less wrapped up in America than at any time
that I can remember but Australian politicians are just as bought and paid for as are those
in the US.
Australians generally are much more well travelled than most Americans and have been to
various places both in Asia and Europe, especially the UK. Despite having seen the longer
term results of "diversity" with their own eyes they overwhelmingly seem to think that things
will somehow work out differently in Australia. To even suggest that mass immigration from
the third world is a ticking time-bomb is to be branded a racist of the very worst kind.
"The best way for the US to win a war over China is not to outsource their labor
there."
Too bad you don't get to decide what "the best way for the US" is, no matter how many
times you vote America has owners, and the owners aren't the average Americans.
PS. Philippines is just the poor-man version of USA. Does the American capitalist class
have many concerns for their working class? The money class are all the same.
Your rant about Chinese of SE Asia is also quite similar with that of American Whites for
the Jews, or South African Blacks for the Whites, just only on economic side, not
politics.
Filipinos are nothing but semi retarded 85 IQ trying hard Americans, the vast majority who
are too stupid to copy the better parts of US high culture, and so ape and cargo cult the
trashiest and lowest of the low parts of US culture, or maybe low IQ Austronesians are just
prone to overall trashiness unless they are regulated by a somewhat draconian conservative
culture like Muslim Malays are.
@Китайский
дурак Perhaps some Russians like you are willing to live
under the Anglo-Saxon's dominance, submitted to Anglo-Saxon's zero-sum, beggar-thy-neighbour,
negative energy infested cult culture, and try to talk like them and walk like them, but not
everybody is like those feeble Russians. Other people has their long history, culture and
identity to protect. Please do not smear other people's integrity because you are lack of it.
If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs [surface-to- air
missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace We dictate the way they
live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now . It's a good thing,
especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need.
Comments about the bombing of Iraq in the late 1990s, which he directed. Interview
Washington Post (August 30, 1999); quoted in Rogue State, William Blum, Common Courage Press,
2005, p. 159.
William Blum,
RIP
Somebody should do an autopsy on him !
In korea, a UN coaliton force , bristling with bombers, jet fighters, complete air
superiority.no less. Tanks, artilleries, carbines, couldnt subdue the PLA fighting with ww1
vintage rifles.
There is never any UN coalition force in Korea war. Its a illegal US led aggression, known
as Unified/United Command, in violating of UNSC charter. US deceived UN by using 'United
Command' in its letterhead when communicating. And then go ahead to lie shamelessly using UN
name.
By acting before the Security Council could act, the US was in violation of Article 2(7)
of the UN Charter which requires a Security Council action under Chapter VII before there
is any armed intervention into the internal affairs of another nation unless the arms are
used in self-defense. (See Article 51 of the UN Charter. The US armed intervention in Korea
was clearly not an act of self defense for the US.) Also the actions of the UN have come to
be referred to as the actions of the "United Nations Command"(UNC), but this designation is
not to be found in the June and July 1950 Security Council resolutions authorizing
participation in the Korean War. (3) What is the significance of the US using the UN in
these ways?
The current US military command in South Korea claims to wear three hats: Command of US
troops in South Korea, Combined Forces Command (US and South Korean troops), and "United
Nations Command" with responsibilities with respect to the Armistice. The United Nations,
however, has no role in the oversight or decision making processes of the "United Nations
Command". The US Government is in control of the "United Nations Command". The use by the
US of the designation "United Nations Command", however, creates and perpetuates the
misconception that the UN is in control of the actions and decisions taken by the US under
the "United Nations Command".
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (more commonly referred to as North Korea) has
called for disbanding the "United Nations Command"(UN Command). At a press conference held
at the United Nations on June 21, 2013, the North Korean Ambassador to the UN, Ambassador
Sin Son Ho argued that the actions of the US Government using the designation "United
Nations Command" are not under any form of control by the United Nations. (4) Since the UN
has no role in the decision making process of what the US does under the title of the
"United Nations Command", North Korea contends the US should cease its claim that it is
acting as the "United Nations Command".
Anyway, there is hardly a tree left in China and since 2006, China has been the world's
largest emitter of CO2 annually and though they pay lip service they accept no binding
target for reduction; quite the opposite.
Pls has slight decency to check before spewing nonsense.
According to Nasa, China has planted & expanded forest the size of Amazon,
contributing 1/4 of global greenery effort.
Its now working on massive irrigation projects in Tibet & Xinjiang, including dams
that will overshadow 3Gorges. These will convert arid Xinjiang into another green agriculture
pasture & food basket providing economic to it landlocked natives.
China's effort to roll back desertification is also very impressive, converting thousands
of hectares deserts into green forest using proprietary planting method.
It has built world most hydropower stations & dams in China, and help built in Asia,
Africa with grants & subsidized loan. Forefront in reusable energy, EV, solar.
And China is the staunchest supporter of CO2 emission control with solid actions, when US
write off Kyoto treaty in Paris as hoax.
what's about Spore that have 75% majority Chinese mainly come from Fujian too, HK,
Taiwan!? Do they fare well & very safe, or a shithole filled with drugs & crimes that
you projected to be?
And then compare with Chinese minority countries:
Msia with 25% Chinese contributing 70% economy, Indonesia 3% Chinese contributing 70%
economy.
Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, .
It seems that the more Chinese % a country has, the more its prosperous & safe, vice
versa. So Chinese is in fact the main economic & safety contributing factor, instead of
the other way round you painted.
If Chinese are indeed as evil as you make out to be, then China will be worst than India,
dysfunctional like Philippines, completely crimes & drugs infested like Mexico. Yet China
today is biggest growing economy in real ppp, and world safest country well surpassing nearly
all whites countries. No?
Vietnam tried to purge Chinese ethics under Ho Chih Min anti-China policy, ended paralyzed
its entire economy until Chinese were brought back to help. Today its still the Chinese
ethics controlling its majority economy & ruling elites.
Indonesia Prez Suharto slaughtered million of Chinese ethics under Yanks CIA instigation
to coup pro-China Prez Sukarno, and their economy suffered. Suharto later brought back
Chinese to run 70% of economy, while his cronies suck off remaining.
Malaysia Mahatir had forthright admonished his disgruntled Malays complaining about 20%
Chinese controlling 70% economy. He famously said Malays race by inheritance is lazy and bad
in economic, screwing up every gov granted projects & handouts. So let the skillful
Chinese take care of all business, and Malays can tax on them to make Malaysia prosperous.
All subsequent leaders follow that policy, and the result is continuous economy growth.
Myanmar purged Chinese after independent, immediately encountered dysfunction economy.
Today its still relying on Chinese ethic to support the main economy behind.
Thailand, Cambodia, Laos didn't purge Chinese ethics, and Chinese are similarly their main
economy contributors.
There is one common observation in all these countries, where ever Chinese live, they are
mostly law obedient, work diligently and eventually established in businesses contributing to
most prosperity.
Whereas in majority Catholics Philippines, are literally controlled by Vatican appointed
bishops, who forbid contraceptive & divorce, directly causing its explosive population,
leading to grave poverty & crimes. These bishops are also colluding with corrupted
politicians to dictate election outcome using their churh influence.
When pro-China Prez Duerte declared war on drugs with China help is achieving good result,
these West-appointed bishops are leading their followers in full force to oppose, all in syn
with West govs 'human rights'. Dont that smell fishy?
So will Philippines be better off without Chinese? Im not sure, just like whites, some
Chinese are also ruthless crimals. But your sweeping statements & allegation certainly is
fundamentally flawed.
But CIA has been plotting anti-Chinese ethic riots in Asean for a long time as part of
China containment plan. Previously Denk posted one article on this.
@TT
Your description of Malaysians as lazy and stupid is why Indonesians kill ethnic Chinese and
not some CIA plot. That's the thinking right there that motivates Malays to dislike ethnic
Chinese.
China did not help Duterte. China makes the drugs there or in Taiwan. Duterte pleaded with
them to stop sending shabu to the Philippines but China does not care and so Filipinos
continue to stagger around like zombies in their squats.
Philippines has the additional post-colonial curse of Mestizo half-breed Spanish
landowning and political class of "Hacienderos" while Malaysians are unified under Islam.
Since these Spanish-blooded elite are part-white, some of the blame for the problems in the
Philippines can be attributed to whites.
As for CIA containment plans, you'll probably say that the reason Singapore immigration
allowed so many Indians in was because the US government wanted to import a competitive
ethnic group to prevent Chinese in Singapore from controlling all of Southeast Asia.
"An emboldened China could someday match or even exceed U.S. power on a global scale, an
outcome American elites are determined to prevent at any cost."
They will fail. The United States, like Carthage, is doomed to lose its struggle for
dominance; too many things are running against it. Not only does China have the far larger
population, but consider the following factors that run in their favor:
1. Like the US, China has a highly advanced and productive agriculture industry, making
them all but immune to nation-killing food blockades.
2. China has an average IQ that may approach Japan's before it levels out; Japan is
insanely outsized in terms of competitiveness, mainly due to its intelligent, group-oriented
population, so imagine how much stronger China could be.
3. China is geographically situated in the heart of the world's economic engine, Asia.
This puts China in prime position to break out from US dominance and, potentially, even
surround the Americans by making their trading partners their vassals.
4. The US is located far away and in a fairly unimportant region of the world. It will be
difficult for the US to get reinforcements to the Asian theater in the advent of a conflict.
American allies know this, so they will be predisposed to making peace with the Chinese as
the power balance continues to shift in China's favor.
5. Universalist dogma outsourced to American satellites Australia and New Zealand will
eventually make both countries Chinese vassals. Sometime in this century both countries will
have majority Asian populations due to immigration. Polls have repeatedly shown that Asian
immigrants have positive feelings towards the Chinese, despite the propaganda efforts of the
Americans. Take a look at what the Israel Lobby has accomplished and imagine what a future
China Lobby in those countries will do. Also, there is virtually no way to stop this from
eventually happening as this diversity dogma is spouted by the US at the highest level and is
now deeply ingrained in its future Chinese satellites. Before the end of the century, the
Chinese will have naval bases in both countries and the US will have none.
6. China is free from the social-trust killing, national ethos-sapping political
divisiveness seen in the US – no feminism, no attacks on its majority Han population.
America, on the other hand, is beset with hundreds of hate hoaxes targeted at its most
important demographic, white males – the group that disproportionately dies in its
wars, invents its best technology, and exports the best elements of its culture. If there is
a military conflict between China and the United States ten years hence, expect the critical
white male demographic to sit it out.
7. The Chinese are deeply patriotic and nationalistic. The US has experienced an
unprecedented decline in patriotism according to polls; that trend will continue. Therefore,
there is little appetite in the US for confrontation. This as a hungry China chomps at the
bit to show everyone who "the real ruler of the world is", a concept I sometimes see floated
on their social media.
8. The US is rapidly losing cultural influence due to a diminished Hollywood. The last
several American tent poll films, for instance, have crashed in Asia. Meanwhile movies like
Alita: Battle Angel (adapted from a Japanese anime) have done well in that market while doing
not so well in the US (and coming under immense fire from SJW gatekeepers for portraying a
female as something other than a weirdo). This means that tastes are diverging between the
two markets, a trend the Chinese can exploit in the future due to shared tastes across the
region and American inability to make anything other than low-quality superhero movies.
Hollywood is also now pretty much incapable of making the kinds of movies Asians (and
Europeans) used to see – science fiction, fantasy, and action/adventure movies –
due to rampant anti-white male hate and an industry focused on other demographics. Gone are
the movies like Robocop, Aliens, Jurassic Park, Die Hard, The Terminator, The Lord of The
Rings, and the Matrix. Gone because the white guys who made them are aging out of the
industry (or changing genders) and now all Hollywood wants to make are infantile superhero
movies for the Idiocracy demographic.
And did you see the Oscars this year? What an embarrassment. They actually nominated Black
Panther for Best Picture. I can't imagine anyone in Asia cares. They couldn't even get a
host.
9. The Chinese are primed to dominate influential cultural industries like video games in
a way that the Americans cannot due to checklist diversity requirements and the many
anti-male gatekeepers within the industry.
The video game industry is now three times the size of Hollywood and much more influential
than Hollywood for the youth. When technology and budgets are not a limiting factor,
politically-incorrect nations like Japan dominate over large American corporations like
Microsoft. The American video game industry, led by Microsoft, has effectively zero influence
in Asian nations due to American corporate greed, developer laziness, checklist diversity,
feminism, and a short-sighted strategy of broadly targeting low quality material to low
quality people (stupid FPS games).
Microsoft has been crushed so badly by the Japanese that they are now putting their
software on the Nintendo Switch; they simply cannot compete on any level. Meanwhile, Chinese
cultural influencers grow in power. They await only a maturation in Chinese taste and a
forward-thinking export policy but it will come. China's Tencent already owns a significant
stake in Epic Games, a streaming platform that will compete with America's Steam for
dominance of the huge online market.
One day, China will dominate their inferior American competition just as the Japanese and
Koreans have done. This bodes very badly for the US in the future, especially when you stop
to consider that all movies may be CGI in the future. The Chinese market is still immature,
but when it does mature, it will dominate – games, movies, music everything.
10. Divisive rhetoric promoted by the American elite and aimed at white European-Americans
– an effort to suppress white group solidarity – will eventually drive a wedge
between Europe and America that the Chinese, through their Russian ally, can exploit. You
already see a bit of this in Germany's refusal to cancel their gas pipeline (Nordstream 2, if
I recall), and Italy's defiance of the Empire over Venezuela. When racist American
politicians like Kamala Harris begin stealing money from European Americans and handing it to
blacks through reparations schemes, expect the Europeans to start thinking twice about their
relationship with this country.
After Trump loses in 2020, European elites will celebrate but not for long. Over the
following decade, both the far left (for economic reasons) and the far right (for ethnic
reasons) may unite against the United States. That will be made all the easier once the
United States is no longer able to elect a competent European as president. Europe isn't
going to want to be ruled over by someone of a different ethnic group that hates their
own.
11. China is unified in a way the US never can be again. China is 90% Han Chinese. The US
gets more diverse and divided by the day. Therefore, the Chinese public is more resilient to
conflict with rivals.
12. China's political model is far superior to their American counterpart. The Americans,
for instance, elect incompetent leaders through national popularity contests; said leaders
then rule only for favored interests. China, on the other hand, is run by smart people for
the benefit of all Chinese – the nation-state.
13. China's economic model is far superior to the corrupt, inefficient American corporate
model. Whereas China is a meritocracy not beset with crippling diversity requirements and
feminism. Tellingly, whenever the two models have gone head-to-head, such as in Africa, the
Chinese have won by a large margin. I see nothing that will change that in the future as that
would require a wholesale rethinking in the US of their basic philosophies, both on the left
and the right and that is impossible at this point.
The US is a proposition nation, so dogma lies at the heart of civic life. The Chinese, in
contrast, are free to pick and chose from the best of each ideology and apply it where
warranted because they are a blood and soil nation – group interest comes first, not
allegiance to dogma. Everyone in the US is an extremist of some sort – socialist,
corporatist, environmentalist, etc. That's no way to run a government.
14. The US will soon lose the moral high ground. As the US devolves into a police state,
as it continues kicking dissidents off the internet and silencing whistle blowers (and
attacking nations like Iran and Venezuela), nations around the world will cease to see a
difference between the US and China. At that point, they my either go independent (perhaps in
alliance with India or Russia) or openly start to flirt with a Chinese alliance. After all,
what does it matter if both states are authoritarian? At least the Chinese don't have a
history of invading their competition.
15. The divided American public may not support more military spending over social service
spending; this likelihood will only increase in the future due to demographic changes. They
see that China has a competent single-payer medical program and will want the same for
themselves, not pay for missiles and guns for other people.
16. The US cannot pursue relationships with vital nations like Russia due its anti-male
and anti-European dogma, now infused into society at the highest levels. It will take decades
to erase that and by then it will be too late.
"Someone here mentioned the EU turning East. At some point the EU will decide that staying a
US vassal is suicide and it will turn East. When that happens then the virus of US insanity
will turn inwards into itself."
True. One day someone like Kamala Harris or Stacey Abrams will be president. Will Europe
want to be ruled by non-Europeans who hate Europeans, want to tear down their monuments, and
steal their money for reparations payments?
"The USA has lost strategic air superiority, as well as strategic brain power. I wonder
how the USA would look after a week of retaliatory aerospace strikes?"
Like New Orleans after Katrina – a breakdown in the social order as all the diverse
groups start fighting each other and shooting at rescue efforts because they're morons and
thieves.
"Open the USA borders wide open and encourage 1 billion South Aemricans, Africans, SE
Asians and South Asians into the USA is the fastest and easiest way to close the human
resource gap between the USA and China."
How exactly is an efficient democracy supposed to work in that instance? Seems like
dysfunction, low social trust, and corruption would reign. Besides, the Chinese population
will still be far more intelligent overall, so no gap will be closed. The US should have
focused on immigration from Europe and increasing its white birth rate back in the 1970s.
They'd be in a far stronger position now if they had done that then.
@Anon Which West European
nations willing to move to dysfunctional disUnited States filled with crimes &
unemployment en masse?
May be some poor cousins of East European. But they will soon find US is worst than their
country, no good jobs, homeless without affordable accommodation, crime infested, their
whites is actually marginalized by diversification, LGBT conflict with their WASP value. Most
will want go back soon.
So its left with only choice of finest selection of 1.3B poor Indians, Latino, South
Americans, Africans & ME refugees willing to go anywhere just to get out of their
countries shithole.
When they arrived, hundreds of millions whites, Chinese & Asians will flee like been
no tomorrow.
Here it go, United States of Asshole is founded. Pls handover all nukes to UNSC before
implementing lest been exchange for food or use for heating in winter.
@jeff
stryker Its Malaysia PM Mahatir who said Malays are inheritingly lazy. Im just quoting.
Do educate yourself about CIA & Muslim politicians instigated riots against ethnic
Chinese before writing off in ignorant.
Spore was shielded from all these info distorted with West msm propaganda. I had only
learned about these details from Indonesian Chinese friends whose family had suffered these
trauma. After some readings, also Indonesia under current Chinese ethnic President Jokowi,
did all these CIA-Muslims Generals collision genocides been publicized. How about you, where
you got yours?
China did not help Duterte. China makes the drugs there or in Taiwan. Duterte pleaded
with them to stop sending shabu to the Philippines but China does not care and so Filipinos
continue to stagger around like zombies in their squats.
Why did you say China didn't help Prez Duerte in drugs war, your Chinese philippino
mistress told you? Pls cite your evidence.
Its widely publicized in our msm, West msm that China gov working with Philippines police
to track & dry up many drugs supply, even donated rehab centers as part of long term
solution. So you mean all these West msm are lying to help China.
In your word, these shabu are make & sold by China gov? Or they are part of global
drug syndicates that operated in every countries including all West?
As for CIA containment plans, you'll probably say that the reason Singapore immigration
allowed so many Indians in was because the US government wanted to import a competitive
ethnic group to prevent Chinese in Singapore from controlling all of Southeast Asia.
Let these unequal US FTA & India CECA speak itself. These were shoved into our PM LEE
ass to screw SG, allowing unlimited Indians of all kinds & their families to live &
work in SG, with their mostly internationally unrecognized qualifications mandatory to be
accepted.
Also both US & India nationals enjoy tax free in property investment, while Sporeans
& all foreigners subjected to 3% + 7% + 7% tax regimes, literally giving them a 10~17%
profits upfront.
Indians as " competitive " ethnic group to suppress SG Chinese, you are joking or
seriously think Indians IQ80 & its education is superior to Sg Chinese IQ107 that rank
consistently Top in SAT, PISA & Olympiad?
These are the dredge of India, violent drunkard, not those US get. Numerous are caught
with fake certificates when they simply could not even do the most basic task, near
illiterate. A documentary show was make to investigate how widespread & complex is it in
India, even there are someone stationed to pick up call as reference to certify everything.
These including medical MD cert, aka fake Indian Drs that India Health Ministry condemn
openly been so rampant up to 80% of India Drs(that was posted in one of Unz old discussion
2yrs ago)
@Erebus If both US &
China go on full trade war 100% tariff, to the brim of stop trading, who do you think can
last longer?
As you said, in mere wks, US will be paralyzed with every shelves empty & factories
shut down. Emergency declared with imports from other sources with much chaos. Frustrated,
nation wide civil riots may ensue with states like California, Texas, demanding
independent.
Whereas for China its life as usual with some restructuring, since it can live without
yanks useless financial services, msm & few chips easily replaced by EU/Jp or live
without. Airbus will be happy to replace Boeing.
China total export to US is ~$500B, 50% are imported components, so $350B damage is passed
back to US $250B(total US export to China) & global suppliers $100B.
That make China actual impact only $150B, $4T reserved, it can theoretically offset the
trade loss for >20yrs, while continue to expand its domestic consumption, BRI & global
trade to fuel growth.
But the world will be in chaos to get double impact of a totally collapsed US $21T GDP
& China import cut. With all economies stunt, global financial mkt burst, consumption all
dive, US allies turning to China for leadership & trade, a WW3 look imminent as yank is
left with only one product – weapons!
But not to worry, it should be very short one in yelling, as no yanks want to die with
empty belly, nor there are $ to pump vessels & bombers or resources to prepare long war.
Military is quickly paralyzed with desertion, & split between seperated states. There go
51 disUnited states of America.
So China is indeed discussing with yanks from great strength. But with farsight, they
prefer to settle yanks brinkmanship in Chinese humble & peaceful way.
I hope China can drag on until US can no longer conceal its pain with fake data,
screamming out loudly for truce to sign China dictates trade agreement. China need to teach
yank a painful lesson to humble it once & for all, including a WTO style unequal treaty
that yank shoved down china throat.
For all the refugees the US creates in the Mideast, it doesn't except many of them. Most
Iraqi and Afghani refugees have no hope of entering the US; European countries that protested
the war in Iraq end up absorbing the human cost.
As for the CIA cooperating with Muslims in anti-Chinese anything, I am skeptical. My
feeling about Indonesia is that a 3% minority owning everything and displaying contempt for
the natives as lazy savages is enough fuel ethnic hatred and Chinese backing of Suharto
didn't help things.
Indians don't represent job competition for Singapore, they are simply a basic menace to
your society. And it is possible that the US government, not wanting to see Singapore become
a vassal state of China, wanted your country's population to become more well,
diversified.
If both US & China go on full trade war 100% tariff, to the brim of stop trading,
who do you think can last longer?
China would take a hit, but not greater than the whole world could be expected to take.
Probably quite a bit less.
There's little doubt in my mind that China is in a much stronger position to both survive
and to be in a position to take advantage of the world's eventual recovery. As you note
$4T reserved, it can theoretically offset the trade loss for >20yrs
It also has the world's widest and deepest industrial infrastructure.
It's not only the $4T and the infrastructure. China also has a lot of gold within its
domestic system, which it can mobilize to make purchases from the the rest of the world's
staggered economies. Approx 20kT, by some quite carefully done estimates. Mobilizing that
gold, of course, is where things get tricky. The world would be awash with useless dollars
and how all that liability gets unwound would cause a lot of Central Bankers and their govts
a lot of sleepless nights.
"Which West European nations willing to move to dysfunctional disUnited States filled with
crimes & unemployment en masse?"
Quite a number of Europeans would have moved to the US circa 1965 – 1990 with the
countries then demographics, which was the point being made in the comment. The US is a huge
country with lots of space. In 1980, virtually all Eastern Europeans would have been better
off in almost any place in the US over where they were. The US Ruling Class had the chance
but cast it aside for lesser and more divisive groups so they could win elections and stiff
their workers. Even the US now is a mostly a better place to live than virtually any place in
Eastern Europe, and quite a number of places in overcrowded Western Europe – now filled
with Muslim invaders, rising crime, higher unemployment than the US, and yearly riots.
@Erebus One TV celebrity
went on crusade to expose Monsanto GMO toxicity impact in food chain few yrs ago.
He visited US & collected clinical evidences of GMO cancer causing from several US
professors, publicized them online. These force China gov to investigate, and their clinical
test too revealed mice & animals fed with GMO have huge tumors growing all over
shortly.
China agriculture minister was investigated, found to hold lucrative high pay job in
Monsanto taking bribery, and blanket approved all untested Monsanto GMO seeds, grains &
weed killer. Even those used as domestic animals feed but banned for wild animals in US were
introduced into food chain. Some also passed off as non GMO to plant in vast land not
approved for GMO.
About 30% of China food chain & vast agriculture lands contaminated, no longer
productive. That agri minister got arrested. No sure what China gov is doing about it. But
Prez Xi is hailing organic food. Tibets & Xinjiang have mega irrigation projects on going
now, might be to open up new agri lands to offset.
@jeff
stryker Tonnes of evidences on CIA-Muslim generals instigated riots & massacre since
1965. You choose to see otherwise.
A trove of recently released declassified documents confirms that Washington's role in the
country's 1965 massacre was part of a bigger Cold War strategy. https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/543534/
I couldn't find one article published in one unz comment by Denk?, where West msm
interviewing Indonesia biggest opposition party. Their chiefs had audacity to brag how they
will instigate another massive anti-Chinese riots to win next election.
The jews are much more vicious & open in controlling US, but you won't see CIA staged
riots & protest against their jewish masters Aipac.
Thailand Chinese ethnic are holding most economy too, but their politicians elites been
Chinese don't instigate riot against own ethnic to meddle election.
US government, not wanting to see Singapore become a vassal state of China, wanted your
country's population to become more well, diversified.
Its not diversification, its complete indianized with Weapon of Mass Migration, by jews
controlled US to push back China influence. As China refused to let jews control them!!! Its
also happening for Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Mauritius now.
Its Top to bottom all indians now in SG, 9% Indians with India new migrants controlling
75% Chinese & 15% Malays. Since when Indians have turn so great well surpass all Chinese
capability, over a short span of 10yrs since Obama's new balance in Asia Pacific started. Its
a regime change, silent coup.
Starting from Indian Prez, Indian DPM(a ex-criminal for leaking state secret data, he was
highly touted as best future PM to test voter response, but a Chinese PM candidate was
eventually selected for coming election as voters brainwashing not yet complete), national
DBS bank CEO chairman Indian. Central bank MAS chief Indian. Law, Home Affair, Foreign
Minister all Indians. High court judges flooded Indians. Chief judge Indian. Top senior
counsels(equivalent to Queen Councils) many Indians. MPs also new india migrants. MSM
journalist & writers flooded Indians.
Some are India newly arrived Indians of no credential. Yet no msm reporting on that. Its
near complete regime change in stealth.
@Erebus In addition to the
herbicide and insecticide resistance some plants are modified to withstand prolonged dry
conditions, or to produce more of certain proteins or vitamins, or to increase yields.
The corn or maize we now have started from an indigenous plant in Central and South
America. Twenty plants would produce a tablespoon of grain. The native corn plant can still
be found. Over thousands of years these were bred for increased size and yields but probably
for other reasons as well like drought resistance. That's genetic modification over many
generations.
In this country the Food and Drug Admin. and Dept. of Agriculture have studied the
genetically modified plants extensively. Not that government agencies always get it right but
it would be interesting to see a real life example of these plants actually harming people,
or animals and insects. Sometimes the fear of Frankenfoods is related to a fear of lower cost
imports and a sop for the local farmers.
Having an interest in horticulture I produced greenhouse bedding plants for the most part.
One significant expense was pesticides. We took great pains to carefully watch the crops. If
the aphids, or other creatures, showed up we would strive to isolate the affected plants and
only treat the ones with aphids and some that were nearby. Lots of hours with a bright light
and magnifying glass. We didn't proactively apply these because of the expense. Sometimes an
entire greenhouse required several treatments and there goes much of the profit. On the other
hand refusing to use pesticides leads to total crop failures. Nobody applies pesticides if
there are no pests. Without pesticides the world population would be much smaller and the
remaining living people would know about famines.
In terms of space, most Europeans would immigrate to US cities. Chicago was popular with
Slavs, for instance. And of course Silicone Valley. Very few immigrants move to rural
wide-open areas. There is nothing to do there and Norwegians in 1990 were no longer
homesteading on the North Dakota plains.
By 1990, few Irish wanted to immigrated to Boston or Italians to New Jersey. Europe was
actually safer and more prosperous when I was young than the US.
Europeans prior to 1965 were attracted to the US middle-class standard of living and that
has shrunken precipitously.
The refugee crisis in Europe is relatively recent. As for unemployment, indeed this is
bad. But the social safety net is slightly better and there is less poverty overall in
Western Europe.
"Very few immigrants move to rural wide-open areas."
Sure, if you're talking Nevada or New Mexico desert. But there are areas considered
"rural" in the US that have relatively mid-sized cities nonetheless. Oklahoma City has a
population roughly equal to the population of Latvia's capital, for example. And I'm sure
that Eastern Europeans could have been coaxed to leave Europe for the US had America pursued
a deal with the Soviets – white South Africans, too. Certainly, this could have been
done with success post Soviet breakup. Some Western Europeans could also have been coaxed,
perhaps a few million, with the right financial incentives. Along with substantial efforts to
increase the native European birthrate and targeted, gender-imbalanced ~skills-based
immigration* from emerging market, high IQ countries, US demographics would be in a far
better place today. The country would be less divided and more rational on a global stage
(and probably friends with Russia, too).
*In other words, purposely encourage 2 to 1 female immigration from places like Korea and
China back when they were both poor and filled with people ready to emigrate and compliment
that with an equal but reversed ratio elsewhere (Vietnam, Laos). This forces interbreeding
and prevents formation of divisive ethnic communities, while also having the benefit of
harming your competitor's demographics down the road. Actor Keanu Reeves is something like
1/8th Japanese. But most people just think he's a white guy.
If that kind of policy had been adopted in 1965, along with my plan above (and a few other
things not mentioned), things would be better for the US now. The US would be overwhelmingly
white with a small admixture of smart Asian while leaving descendants who look European; the
kind of internecine racial strife we see now could have been avoided. However, that kind of
plan requires a competent, and rational, near-authoritarian to be in charge. As Fred Reed has
pointed out, that kind of plan is not capable in Western countries that choose their leaders
via popularity contest with a birthright citizenship voting base.
That's genetic modification over many generations.
One wonders how many fish genes made their way into corn over those generations, and how
they got in there.
it would be interesting to see a real life example of these plants actually harming
people, or animals and insects.
Pesticides of increasing toxicity are surely not good for insects. As for harming people,
I doubt we'd see any more harm than the fructose and aspartame etc, or the growth hormones
and rampant anti-biotic use in husbandry that those agencies approved have caused. Of course,
genetics is much more complex, and so who knows what will turn up in humans a few generations
from now.
Without pesticides the world population would be much smaller and the remaining living
people would know about famines.
I'm of the firm opinion that a smaller population would be a very, very good thing, and
we'll be seeing famines soon enough anyway, but on a scale that will dwarf all other
famines.
"Pesticides of increasing toxicity are surely not good for insects. As for harming people, I
doubt we'd see any more harm than the fructose and aspartame etc, or the growth hormones and
rampant anti-biotic use in husbandry that those agencies approved have caused. Of course,
genetics is much more complex, and so who knows what will turn up in humans a few generations
from now.'
The pests who feed on domesticated crops lived in nature before people were around. When
they stumble upon thousands of acres of corn or wheat they rapidly reproduce to exploit the
windfall. The pesticides will hopefully kill or drive off many of these insects but their
total number would probably be higher than in a pre-human environment. There is a balance of
power.
Utilizing the "precautionary principle" one could say any technical advance might have
some unanticipated detrimental effect in the near or distant future. Therefore let's stop all
new technology. For now we have the methods of physical science to guide us. These aren't
perfect but it's the best we have and more sensible than the precautionary principle, also
called the paralysis principle.
"..a smaller population would be a very, very good thing, and we'll be seeing famines soon
enough anyway, but on a scale that will dwarf all other famines.".
I'm hoping my family and I (and you) are not among the culled billions. Death by
starvation is not a pleasant way to go, so I've heard.
their total number would probably be higher than in a pre-human environment. There is a
balance of power.
Probably? Pre-human? Yours is the disingenuity of a pesticide salesman.
The insect world is in a massive die off, losing of ~75% its flying population over 3
decades, as attested by countless studies. The studies tell us what we already know. 40 yrs
ago, a 2 hr drive in the countryside at night meant 30 min spent scraping insects off your
windshield and headlights. Every lonely streetlight in the middle of nowhere had a cloud
around it. Screens to protect the radiator, or even the entire front of the car were sold by
every automotive shop and gas station. Seen one lately?
Utilizing the "precautionary principle" one could say any technical advance might have
some unanticipated detrimental effect in the near or distant future.
One could say it, and one would often be right for doing so. As the complexity of the
technological advance increases, so do its effects. Who considered 50 years ago that
pesticide use would devastate the insect world? Who knows with any level of certainty what
the effect of that will be on the ecosystem we live in? What we know is it ain't gonna likely
to be good, and may be devastating. They're now found in mother's milk with potential effects
we lack the tools and brain power to comprehend, never mind predict.
When it comes to playing with complex, chaotic systems that support our life on the
planet, humans are like a monkey with a hand-grenade. To borrow a phrase "If the planet's
ecosystem was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it. " Our
myopia & hubris will kill us, if our stupidity and belligerence doesn't do it first.
The insect "die off" is an interesting occurrence. Puerto Rico lost a large percentage of
insects while at the same time they decreased pesticide use by 80%. This die off is observed
in a limited number of regions of the world. It isn't known exactly what caused the drop in
insect population. Some say pesticides, others say climate change (the theory that explains
all things), are killing the bugs.
Pesticides have been overused in the past but there have been impressive improvements in
the technology which reduces the amounts required. There are herbicides and pesticides
designed with chemical half lives. These kill the weeds or pests then break down into
harmless components and in 10-14 days can no longer be detected in the field. Unfortunately
for some any improvements will require some kind of technology.
We are all going to die eventually, hopefully later rather than sooner.
In his highly acclaimed 2017 book, Destined for
War , Harvard professor Graham Allison assessed the likelihood that the United States
and China would one day find themselves at war. Comparing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to
great-power rivalries all the way back to the Peloponnesian War of the fifth century BC, he
concluded that the future risk of a conflagration was substantial. Like much current analysis
of U.S.-Chinese relations, however, he missed a crucial point: for all intents and purposes,
the United States and China are already at war with one another. Even if their present
slow-burn conflict may not produce the immediate devastation of a conventional hot war, its
long-term consequences could prove no less dire.
To suggest this means reassessing our understanding of what constitutes war. From Allison's
perspective (and that of so many others in Washington and elsewhere), "peace" and "war" stand
as polar opposites. One day, our soldiers are in their garrisons being trained and cleaning
their weapons; the next, they are called into action and sent onto a battlefield. War, in this
model, begins when the first shots are fired.
Well, think again in this new era of growing great-power struggle and competition. Today,
war means so much more than military combat and can take place even as the leaders of the
warring powers meet to negotiate and share
dry-aged steak and whipped potatoes (as Donald Trump and Xi Jinping did at Mar-a-Lago in 2017).
That is exactly where we are when it comes to Sino-American relations. Consider it war by
another name, or perhaps, to bring back a long-retired term, a burning new version of a cold
war.
Even before Donald Trump entered the Oval Office, the U.S. military and other branches of
government were already gearing up for a
long-term quasi-war, involving both growing economic and diplomatic pressure on China and a
buildup of military forces along that country's periphery. Since his arrival, such initiatives
have escalated into Cold War-style combat by another name,
with his administration committed to defeating China in a struggle for global economic,
technological, and military supremacy.
This includes the president's much-publicized "trade war" with China, aimed at hobbling that
country's future growth; a techno-war designed to prevent it from overtaking the U.S. in key
breakthrough areas of technology; a diplomatic war intended to isolate Beijing and frustrate
its grandiose plans for global outreach; a cyber war (largely hidden from public scrutiny); and
a range of military measures as well. This may not be war in the traditional sense of the term,
but for leaders on both sides, it has the feel of one.
Why China?
The media and many politicians continue to focus on U.S.-Russian relations, in large part
because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016 American presidential election and the
ongoing Mueller investigation. Behind the scenes, however, most senior military and foreign
policy officials in Washington view China, not Russia, as the country's principal adversary. In
eastern Ukraine, the Balkans, Syria, cyberspace, and in the area of nuclear weaponry, Russia
does indeed pose a variety of threats to Washington's goals and desires. Still, as an
economically hobbled petro-state, it lacks the kind of might that would allow it to truly
challenge this country's status as the world's dominant power. China is another story
altogether. With its vast economy, growing technological prowess, intercontinental "Belt and
Road" infrastructure project, and rapidly modernizing military, an emboldened China could
someday match or even exceed U.S. power on a global scale, an outcome American elites are
determined to prevent at any cost.
Washington's fears of a rising China were on full display in January with the release of the
2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, a synthesis of the views
of the Central Intelligence Agency and other members of that "community." Its conclusion: "We
assess that China's leaders will try to extend the country's global economic, political, and
military reach while using China's military capabilities and overseas infrastructure and energy
investments under the Belt and Road Initiative to diminish U.S. influence."
To counter such efforts, every branch of government is now expected to mobilize its
capabilities to bolster American -- and diminish Chinese -- power. In Pentagon documents, this
stance is summed up by the term "overmatch," which translates as the eternal preservation of
American global superiority vis-à-vis China (and all other potential rivals). "The
United States must retain overmatch," the administration's National
Security Strategy insists, and preserve a "combination of capabilities in sufficient scale
to prevent enemy success," while continuing to "shape the international environment to protect
our interests."
In other words, there can never be parity between the two countries. The only acceptable
status for China is as a distinctly lesser power. To ensure such an outcome, administration
officials insist, the U.S. must take action on a daily basis to contain or impede its rise.
In previous epochs, as Allison makes clear in his book, this equation -- a prevailing power
seeking to retain its dominant status and a rising power seeking to overcome its subordinate
one -- has almost always resulted in conventional conflict. In today's world, however, where
great-power armed combat could possibly end in a nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation,
direct military conflict is a distinctly unappealing option for all parties. Instead, governing
elites have developed other means of warfare -- economic, technological, and covert -- to
achieve such strategic objectives. Viewed this way, the United States is already in close to
full combat mode with respect to China.
Trade War
When it comes to the economy, the language betrays the reality all too clearly. The Trump
administration's economic struggle with China is regularly described, openly and without
qualification, as a "war." And there's no doubt that senior White House officials, beginning
with the president and his chief trade representative, Robert
Lighthizer , see it just that way: as a means of pulverizing the Chinese economy and so
curtailing that country's ability to compete with the United States in all other measures of
power.
Ostensibly, the aim of President Trump's May 2018 decision to impose $60 billion in tariffs
on Chinese imports ( increased
in September to $200 billion) was to rectify a trade imbalance between the two countries, while
protecting the American economy against what is described as China's malign behavior. Its trade
practices "plainly constitute a grave threat to the long-term health and prosperity of the
United States economy," as the president put it when
announcing the second round of tariffs.
An examination of the demands submitted to Chinese negotiators by the U.S. trade delegation
last May suggests, however, that Washington's primary intent hasn't been to rectify that trade
imbalance but to impede China's economic growth. Among the stipulations Beijing must acquiesce
to before receiving tariff relief, according to leaked documents
from U.S. negotiators that were spread on Chinese social media:
halting all government
subsidies to advanced manufacturing industries in its Made in China 2025 program, an endeavor
that covers 10 key economic sectors, including aircraft manufacturing, electric cars, robotics,
computer microchips, and artificial intelligence; accepting American restrictions on
investments in sensitive technologies without retaliating; opening up its service and
agricultural sectors -- areas where Chinese firms have an inherent advantage -- to full
American competition.
In fact, this should be considered a straightforward declaration of economic war.
Acquiescing to such demands would mean accepting a permanent subordinate status
vis-à-vis the United States in hopes of continuing a profitable trade relationship with
this country. "The list reads like the terms for a surrender rather than a basis for
negotiation," was the way Eswar
Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell University, accurately described these
developments.
Technological Warfare
As suggested by America's trade demands, Washington's intent is not only to hobble China's
economy today and tomorrow but for decades to come. This has led to an intense, far-ranging
campaign to deprive it of access to advanced technologies and to cripple its leading
technology firms.
Chinese leaders have long realized that, for their country to achieve economic and military
parity with the United States, they must master the cutting-edge technologies that will
dominate the twenty-first-century global economy, including artificial intelligence (AI),
fifth-generation (5G) telecommunications, electric vehicles, and nanotechnology. Not
surprisingly then, the government has invested in a major way in science and technology
education, subsidized research in pathbreaking fields, and helped launch promising startups,
among other such endeavors -- all in the very fashion that the Internet and other American
computer and aerospace innovations were originally financed and
encouraged by the Department of Defense.
Chinese companies have also demanded technology transfers when investing in or forging
industrial partnerships with foreign firms, a common practice in international development.
India, to cite a recent example of this phenomenon, expects
that significant technology transfers from American firms will be one outcome of its
agreed-upon purchases of advanced American weaponry.
In addition, Chinese firms have been accused of
stealing American technology through cybertheft, provoking widespread outrage in this country.
Realistically speaking, it's difficult for outside observers to determine to what degree
China's recent technological advances are the product of commonplace and legitimate investments
in science and technology and to what degree they're due to cyberespionage. Given Beijing's
massive investment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at the
graduate and post-graduate level, however, it's safe to assume that most of that country's
advances are the result of domestic efforts.
Certainly, given what's publicly known about Chinese cybertheft activities, it's reasonable
for American officials to apply pressure on Beijing to curb the practice. However, the Trump
administration's drive to blunt that country's technological progress is also aimed at
perfectly legitimate activities. For example, the White House seeks to ban Beijing's government
subsidies for progress on artificial intelligence at the same time that the Department of
Defense is
pouring billions of dollars into AI research at home. The administration is also acting to
block the Chinese acquisition of U.S. technology firms and of
exports of advanced components and know-how.
In an example of this technology war that's made
the headlines lately, Washington has been actively seeking to sabotage the efforts of
Huawei , one of China's most
prominent telecom firms, to gain leadership in the global deployment of 5G wireless
communications. Such wireless
systems are important in part because they will transmit colossal amounts of electronic
data at far faster rates than now conceivable, facilitating the introduction of self-driving
cars, widespread roboticization, and the universal application of AI.
Second only to Apple as the world's supplier of smartphones and a major producer of
telecommunications equipment, Huawei has sought to take the lead in the race for 5G adaptation
around the world. Fearing that this might give China an enormous advantage in the coming
decades, the Trump administration has tried to prevent that. In what is widely described as a "
tech
Cold War ," it has put enormous
pressure on both its Asian and European allies to bar the company from conducting business
in their countries, even as it sought the arrest in Canada of Huawei's chief financial officer,
Meng Wanzhou, and her extradition
to the U.S. on charges of tricking American banks into aiding Iranian firms (in violation of
Washington's sanctions on that country). Other attacks on Huawei are in the works, including a
potential
ban on the sales of its products in this country. Such moves are regularly described as
focused on boosting the security of both the United States and its allies by preventing the
Chinese government from using Huawei's telecom networks to steal military secrets. The real
reason -- barely disguised -- is simply to block China from gaining technological parity with
the United States.
Cyberwarfare
There would be much to write on this subject, if only it weren't still hidden in the shadows
of the growing conflict between the two countries. Not surprisingly, however, little
information is available on U.S.-Chinese cyberwarfare. All that can be said with confidence is
that an intense war is now being waged between the two countries in cyberspace. American
officials accuse
China of engaging in a broad-based cyber-assault on this country, involving both outright
cyberespionage to obtain military as well as corporate secrets and widespread political
meddling. "What the Russians are doing pales in comparison to what China is doing,"
said Vice President Mike Pence last October in a speech at the Hudson Institute, though --
typically on the subject -- he provided not a shred of evidence for his claim.
Not disclosed is what this country is doing to combat China in cyberspace. All that can be
known from available information is that this is a two-sided war in which the U.S. is
conducting
its own assaults. "The United States will impose swift and costly consequences on foreign
governments, criminals, and other actors who undertake significant malicious cyber activities,"
the 2017 National Security Strategy affirmed. What form these "consequences" have taken has yet
to be revealed, but there's little doubt that America's cyber warriors have been active in this
domain.
Diplomatic and Military Coercion
Completing the picture of America's ongoing war with China are the fierce pressures being
exerted on the diplomatic and military fronts to frustrate Beijing's geopolitical ambitions. To
advance those aspirations, China'sleadership is relying heavily on a much-touted
Belt and Road Initiative , a trillion-dollar plan to help fund and encourage the
construction of a vast new network of road, rail, port, and pipeline infrastructure across
Eurasia and into the Middle East and Africa. By financing -- and, in many cases, actually
building -- such infrastructure, Beijing hopes to bind the economies of a host of far-flung
nations ever closer to its own, while increasing its political influence across the Eurasian
mainland and Africa. As Beijing's leadership sees it, at least in terms of orienting the
planet's future economics, its role would be similar to that of the Marshall Plan that cemented
U.S. influence in Europe after World War II.
And given exactly that possibility, Washington has begun to actively seek to undermine the
Belt and Road wherever it can -- discouraging allies from participating, while stirring up
unease in countries like Malaysia and Ugandaover the enormous
debts to China they may end up with and the heavy-handed
manner in which that country's firms often carry out such overseas construction projects.
(For example, they typically bring in Chinese laborers to do most of the work, rather than
hiring and training locals.)
"China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in
Africa captive to Beijing's wishes and demands," National Security Advisor John Bolton
claimed in a December speech on U.S. policy on that continent. "Its investment ventures are
riddled with corruption," he added, "and do not meet the same environmental or ethical
standards as U.S. developmental programs." Bolton promised that the Trump administration would
provide a superior alternative for African nations seeking development funds, but -- and this
is something of a pattern as well -- no such assistance has yet materialized.
In addition to diplomatic pushback, the administration has undertaken a series of
initiatives intended to isolate China militarily and limit its strategic options. In South
Asia, for example, Washington has abandoned its past position of maintaining rough parity in
its relations with India and Pakistan. In recent years, it's
swung sharply towards a strategic alliance with New Dehli, attempting to enlist it fully in
America's efforts to contain China and, presumably, in the process punishing Pakistan for its
increasingly enthusiastic role in the Belt and Road Initiative.
In the Western Pacific, the U.S. has stepped up its naval patrols and forged new
basing arrangements with local powers -- all with the aim of confining the Chinese military to
areas close to the mainland. In response, Beijing has sought to escape the grip of American
power by establishing miniature bases on Chinese-claimed islands in the South China Sea (or
even
constructing artificial islands to house bases there) -- moves widely condemned by the
hawks in Washington.
To demonstrate its ire at the effrontery of Beijing in the Pacific (
once known as an "American lake"), the White House has ordered an increased pace of
so-called freedom-of-navigation operations (FRONOPs). Navy warships regularly sail within
shooting range
of those very island bases, suggesting a U.S. willingness to employ military force to resist
future Chinese moves in the region (and also creating situations in which a misstep
could lead to a military incident that could lead well, anywhere).
In Washington, the warnings about Chinese military encroachment in the region are already
reaching a fever pitch. For instance, Admiral Philip Davidson, commander of U.S. forces in the
Pacific, described the
situation there in recent congressional testimony this way: "In short, China is now capable of
controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States."
A Long War of Attrition
As Admiral Davidson suggests, one possible outcome of the ongoing cold war with China could
be armed conflict of the traditional sort. Such an encounter, in turn, could escalate to the
nuclear level, resulting in mutual annihilation. A war involving only "conventional" forces
would itself undoubtedly be devastating and lead to widespread suffering, not to mention the
collapse of the global economy.
Even if a shooting war doesn't erupt, however, a long-term geopolitical war of attrition
between the U.S. and China will, in the end, have debilitating and possibly catastrophic
consequences for both sides. Take the trade war, for example. If that's not resolved soon in a
positive manner, continuing high U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will severely curb Chinese
economic growth and so
weaken the world economy as a whole, punishing every nation on Earth, including this one.
High tariffs will also increase costs for American consumers and endanger
the prosperity and survival of many firms that rely on Chinese raw materials and
components.
This new brand of war will also ensure that already sky-high defense expenditures will
continue to rise, diverting funds from vital needs like education, health, infrastructure, and
the environment. Meanwhile, preparations for a future war with China have already become the
number one priority at the Pentagon, crowding out all other considerations. "While we're
focused on ongoing operations," acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan reportedly
told
his senior staff on his first day in office this January, "remember China, China, China."
Perhaps the greatest victim of this ongoing conflict will be planet Earth itself and all the
creatures, humans included, who inhabit it. As the world's top two emitters of climate-altering
greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China must work together to halt global warming or all of us are
doomed to a hellish future. With a war under way, even a non-shooting one, the chance for such
collaboration is essentially zero. The only way to save civilization is for the U.S. and China
to declare peace and focus together on human salvation.
Michael T. Klare, aTomDispatch
regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security
studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. His
most recent book isThe Race for What's
Left. His next book, All Hell Breaking Loose: Climate Change, Global Chaos, and
American National Security , will be published in 2019.
The genuinely expert panelists could not articulate America's demands beyond the familiar
'level playing field' that America created by shackling China with uniquely humiliating
conditions before admitting it to the WTO.
Today, China generates 20% of global GDP (the US 15%), its imports and exports are in
balance, its currency fairly valued, its economy one third larger and growing three times
faster than America's and it produces essential technology that America needs and cannot
provide.
It is almost impossible to imagine a war scenario that the US could win, short of China
invading America.
Excellent article Mister Klare, but would like to raise a few quibbles.
1) As far as "economic" war, China has been fighting one for decades. It's called competing
and trying to do the best to improve your people's lot. The US is finally starting to fight
back but some of it's measures are inappropriate and/or ineffective.
2) As far as the US trying to confine the Chinese military to its own region, I really
haven't seen that the Chinese military is particularly interested in operation outside their
own region anyway. It seems to be focused on protecting China and its own neighborhood and
interests, and the Chinese aren't stupid enough to bleed away their wealth and blood in
distant misadventures.
3) I'd gotten the impression from the Deep State's rhetoric that they are much hotter on
fighting a shooting war with Russia than with China. In an extended struggle, as long as it
doesn't go nuclear, US chances are much better against a Russia whose economy is only a
fraction of China's.
Keynes says this, "All trade is only barter." The Wall Street/China Gambit is key to
understanding today. Clinton signed MFN trade status with China, screwing over NAFTA. Those
Zenith TV's that were supposed to be made in Mexico became Chinese made electronics.
Balanced trade was also thrown out the window, as Wall Street was in on the gambit. Trade
in goods was unbalanced, and America supplied dollars to China to make up the difference.
China then recycled those mercantile won dollars back to the U.S. to buy Tbills, helping keep
interest rates low, and acting as a prime variable in forming U.S. housing bubble. Returning
dollars then spun out into the American economy, so American's could buy more Chinese goods
from transplanted American factories.
The wall street China gambit turned mainstreet American's into Zeros, while wall street
became heroes.
Any discussion of China current economic status cannot overlook the role of Wall Street
exporting of jobs, to then get wage arbitrage. Immigrating third world people into America is
also a function of this "finance capitalism" as it wants wage arbitrage from third world
labor as well.
Finance Capitalism in turn is part of Zion and Atlantacism. International credit "banking"
will send its finance capital anywhere in the world to get the lowest price. In the case of
China, overhang of communist labor in the mid 90's was available to make things, and then
export Chinese made goods back to U.S. (at the China price.)
China still uses Atlantic doctrine, where raw materials come in by ship, and finished
goods with increment of production value add leave by ship. (Value add is key element to
making any economy thrive. Just extracting raw materials turns a country into Africa, witness
the attempt at turning Russia into an extraction economy in the 90's.)
Note difference in American policy in the 90's: Russia was to become extraction, and China
was to become value add. As Tucker Carlson says, America is run by a ship of fools.
For China, "Eurasia" beckons, and raw materials can be had from China's interior and via
overland routes. This then is a pivot away from London/Zion Atlantacism (finance capital) and
toward industrial capitalism.
In other words, both U.S. and the West have hoisted themselves on their own petard. People
that wax poetic about China's gains overlook this important mechanism of "gifting" of our
patrimony to China. It is very easy to copy or be a fast follower, it is beyond difficult to
invent and create.
Wall Street and greed gave away our patrimony, which was hard won over the ages in order to
make wage arbitrage today, and gave away the future.
China uses state banks, and also forgives debts lodged in their state banks. This is
actually one of the secret methods used to rope-a-dope on the west. The Chinese economy is
not debt laden, and what public debts there are, are lodged in a State Bank, where they can
be jubileed or ignored.
The U.S. and the West had better take a long hard look at finance capital method, which
uses only "price signals" to make economic decisions, as pricing is main vector from which
jobs were exported, and which China cleverly used to climb up its industrial curve. Sovereign
money/Industrial Capitalism IS the American System of Peshine Smith and Henry Clay.
Atlantacism/Zionism/Finance Capital is not American – the parasite jumped to the U.S.
from London.
China is wisely in control of its money power via its state banks and is pivoting away
from Atlantacism now that it has served its purpose. The belt and road routes are mostly
overland, with some coastal sea routes, and there isn't a thing sea power (((atlantacists)))
can do about it.
China has played the game well, but don't overlook the gifting of Western patrimony caused
by a false neo-liberal finance capital economic ideology, which blinds Western adherents.
@joe
webb Yeah, so America can topple China and go after Russia immediately afterwards? I
don't think the Russians are so stupid.
There is only 1 way Russia survives the 21st century without being broken up and ruined,
and that is allying itself with China. The same is true for China.
The only way China can survive intact is to ally itself with Russia.
Pretty simple stuff I am sure each country understands.
China's real economy, of course dwarfs that of the US'.
The author touches on a nuclear trade option China holds over the US that I see little
mention of elsewhere. High tariffs are one thing, but a closure of trade in components and
raw materials would do far more than
endanger the prosperity and survival of many firms that rely on Chinese raw materials
and components.
Should China block exports of everything other than finished goods to the US, almost every
US factory would close due to lack of parts and materials. The time and investment required
to rebuild/replace supply chains in a JIT world means much of what's left of America's real
economy would disappear within weeks.
What then?
Unlike Russia, the US is highly vulnerable to targeted sanctions. American trade
negotiators are apparently oblivious to this. I find that very weird.
author Klare said: "The media and many politicians continue to focus on U.S.-Russian
relations, in large part because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016 American
presidential election and the ongoing Mueller investigation."
– What "revelations"? "What meddling"?
– He tipped his hand right off the bat. Klare is just another run of the mill
Communist with a case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, complete with Communism's favorite
scam, 'global warming'.
Klare said: "Ostensibly, the aim of President Trump's May 2018 decision to impose $60
billion in tariffs on Chinese imports (increased in September to $200 billion) was to rectify
a trade imbalance between the two countries "
– No, the aim is to encourage China to removes it vastly more & extreme tariffs
on US goods & services.
Klare said: " continuing high U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will severely curb Chinese
economic growth and so weaken the world economy as a whole, punishing every nation on Earth,
including this one. High tariffs will also increase costs for American consumers and endanger
the prosperity and survival of many firms that rely on Chinese raw materials and
components."
– Nonsense, all China needs to do is remove it's many times over more severe
tariffs.
– If the US's lesser tariffs on Chinese goods / services 'hurt the US', then why
don't China's massive tariffs on US goods / services hurt China?
And to think some take this fraud, Klare, seriously.
The media and many politicians continue to focus on U.S.-Russian relations, in large
part because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016 American presidential election
and the ongoing Mueller investigation.
It's not the economy stupid. According to many "experts" on this site, since the US economy
and military expenditures are 10 times bigger than Russia's, it seems "logical" to those
experts that the US army is 10 times better. I would argue that not only is not 10 times
better, it's not even equal to Russia's army. Again, according to the same types of "experts"
Russia's economy is the size of Italy. Why don't then someone break the good news to Italy
and encourage them to go to war with Russia? Since their economies are equal – it seems
that Italy stands a fair chance of beating Russia, thus eliminating the need of the 10 times
superior army to fight them. The moronity on this site, man – it's unbelievable.
China is not suffering from massive degeneration as the US is. Instead of trying to prevent
China from becoming a leading nation of the world, why could the US not accept China's coming
prominence and concentrate on strengthening its own population ? Unlike the US, China is not
interested in "ruling the world", it is only interested in expanding its economy. For the
rest, it is dedicated to stability and cooperation. No threat to the world at all, except for
some compulsive hegemonists in the Pentagon.
This article is pure propaganda and as such is based upon lies, misconceptions and pure
fantasy.
If there already is a war it is all in the minds of Anericans, and they have already lost
that war because America needs allies and can only create enemies amongst people that were
its friends.
Europe will join with Russia as soon as it can get away from the US bully. That means
550million Europeans will join 160 million Russians. 710 million people with Russian
technology and Chinese investment (China already runs Btitain's North Sea gas), will produce
an economic power that will humiliate the USA at every turn.
All of South America wants to break with the US, the entire Orient hates the US. America is
actually doing to Africa what the US accuses Russia and China of doing.
If there really is a war between the US and China then the US has already lost it. The rest
of the world wants only one thing: the absolute collapse of the entire US. Everyone hates the
US. No one will ever support you US dictators and bullies 100%.
You stab everyone in the back sooner or later and your only interest is supporting the
fascist and racist Israel that is genociding the true Semites, the Palestinians.
I'm amazed Fred Unz publishes this sort of trash. It is unadulterated lies, brainless
stupidity and total hog wash. Pure drivel.
It is often said that, had the Western and Eastern Europeans formed a coalition rather
than fight WW I, they would still be dominant.
And if I had wings, I could fly to the moon.
The Eastern Europeans had never accepted the Western Enlightenment (still haven't), and to
have done so would have destabilized their family structure -- the deep structure of their
society -- exactly as it has finally destabilized ours, today. The nature of authority and
organization in Eastern Europe differed considerably from that of Western Europe. Their forms
of organization were different enough to make integration impossible, and perhaps to make
formation of a coalition impossible.
China's organizational forms, family structure, and and social assumptions in general
differ even more from the present day form of the Western Enlightenment than did those of
East Europe c.a. AD 1900.
It's at times like these we get to test the assumption that reason and fear of death can
lead to agreement on a modus vivendi.
I will never believe the Zionist controlled U.S. will go to war with China as long as one
U.S. company remains in China and damn near all the major U.S. companies are in business in
China, this is a ploy for the zionist controlled MIC to loot the America taxpayer!
I didnt read the article but I dont think china needs the US for anything they are well on
their way to be the dominant world power the US and ist zionist occupied government are
losers the zionists want never ending wars which stupid USA has done,,china and all the rest
will eventually dump the rothchild banking system and form its own which will in all likely
hood benefit more than the zionist one does
No mention of an ideological battle, and no wonder, as "the Chinks" et al have apparently
already won that one, as evidenced by the fact that the last US general election was merely
yet another idiotic, meaningless [ yet highly entertaining], cat fight over blue socialism
versus red socialism.
The US vs China trade war is just another power/domination battle scam between two
competing, wholly criminal orgs, both totally against anything ever resembling truly free
trade ..nothing more.
"The US and China must work together to halt global warming or all of us are doomed to a
hellish future." Really? If this doesn't prove this guy is a lefty shill, nothing does. Even
the clowns raking in grants and trying to impoverish everyone with higher taxes have seen the
light and have been saying "climate change" lately. Many scientists are now arguing that we
may be headed into a new cooling period rather than a "hellish" warming period that brought
us so much prosperity. This "global warming" religion with its hockey stick icons and polar
bear mythology is worse than the Heaven's Gate religion.
"The rest of the world wants only one thing: the absolute collapse of the entire US.
Everyone hates the US. No one will ever support you US dictators and bullies
100%. You stab everyone in the back sooner or later and your only interest is supporting
the fascist and racist Israel that is genociding the true Semites, the Palestinians."
Well yes. As history has shown, occupation and rule by Jahweh's Chosen People tends to
bring this fate down upon the host country.
Oh, for Pete's sake:
1. It will always be China+Russia vs. the US. The EU, site of WWIII, will just soil
itself.
2. The Debt Bubble US economy will collapse. At some point. Changes every calculation.
3. The US will devolve into a state of civil war. Of some sort. Paralyze the place.
Momentum is with China and Russia. The US is sliding into history's toilet.
Just give it a few more years. And the whole world sees and knows it. The whole world can
get along very well without the US. And would very much like that to be.
Global warming my azz! But the rest of it rings pretty true. If nukes arn't used, Russia and
China will win this war simply because they have the gold now and the US has spread its fiat
petro dollar all over the world which will come back big time to bite them. That is if China
and Russia are smart enough to go on a gold exchange standard.
since the US economy and military expenditures are 10 times bigger than Russia's, it
seems "logical" to those experts that the US army is 10 times better. I would argue that
not only is not 10 times better, it's not even equal to Russia's army.
I would argue the same.
Russia is a land power. This means using a land army and area denial. Russia does not need
to power project with a blue water Navy and she does not follow Atlantacist doctrine.
Atlantacist doctrine got its start when our (((friends))) evolved the method during the
Levantine Greek City State period, where our tribal friends would be stationed in various
entrepot cities ringing the Mediterranean. They would use their tribal connections to Launder
pirated goods, and to push their "international" usurious money type, which in those days was
silver. Simultaneously they were taking rents on their secret East/West mechanism, whereby
exchange rates between gold and silver were exploited. Gold was plentiful in India and Silver
more plentiful in the West, so the Caravan's took arbitrage on exchange rates as silver
drained east and gold drained west.
The U.S. inherited Atlanticist method after WW2. The U.S. is not an island economy like
England – it does not need to go around the world beating up others to then extract raw
materials. The U.S. is actually more like Russia in that U.S. can afford to have economic
autarky and be independent. The U.S. does not need to power project with a blue water navy,
despite the false narrative (((inheritance))) passed down to us, especially after WW2. Nobody
likes being punked with false narrative.
U.S. military expenditures are so heavy because of this tendency of finance capital to
search the world for gains, and this means posting overseas military bases, which in turn are
expensive to operate. Russia only has a "close in" defensive posture of area denial. This is
far less expensive than power projecting.
Also, GDP figures are misleading. In the U.S. if housing prices go up it reflects in GDP
growth, when in reality – the house didn't improve. GDP figures are lies. If finance
takes 50% cut of the economy, they are only pushing finance paper back and forth at each
other this is not the real economy, but it shows up in GDP because finance paper is an
"asset".
Russia's economy is much larger than their GDP, probably it is closer to Germany's in real
terms. Real terms = real economy = the making of goods and services.
China is not America's natural ally, Russia is. Atlantacist doctrine sold America's
patrimony to China for cheap, and then the ((international)) will just jump to another
host.
America has been parasitized by false doctrine and the output is thus that of an infected
brain – an output that is crazy. Finance plutocracy typically will not let go
willingly, but has to be removed forcefully.
Russia is a country of vodka drunks and Dubai prostitutes run by a syndicate of Israel
oligarchs and ex-KGB who kill their journalists in foreign countries.
China is dependent on outsourcing and if the US factories were to withdraw tomorrow the
Chinese economy would take a huge hit.
@Erebus The US is vulnerable
in so many other ways too, see how fast the store shelves empty just on the news of an
approaching big storm. Panic buying is rife and some people keep minimal food available at
home. I know people who have to stop at an ATM to get $20. All kinds of vital distribution of
food, water, power, fuel and more seems to pass through a myriad of often vulnerable
bottle-necks real or virtual. Easy targets for low cost, low tech sabotage teams I'd think.
I'm inclined to think also that this threatening hysteria possibly is a deep state psy-op
designed to prime Americans prior to the enactment of some sort of "democracy"
modifications.
America is the most powerful country solely because it has the most powerful economy in the
world, and that was in no small measure due to America's abundance of arable land, navigable
waterways, natural resources ect ect. . In a few decades China has rocketed close to US level
and is in a global hegemon trajectory solely on the quality and size of its population .
There is not much doubt about the outcome of any competition between China and the West,
especially as much of the profits of the ruling class in the West has come from offshoring
and investment in China and their economy of scale production suppressing labour's power in
the West. The Chinese and their Western collaborators will just wait Trump out. Trump is a
populist not a creature of the Deap State alarmed at China's rise. The leading strategists of
America's foreign policy establishment still don't realise what they are dealing with in
China.
Perhaps the greatest victim of this ongoing conflict will be planet Earth itself and all
the creatures, humans included, who inhabit it. As the world's top two emitters of
climate-altering greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China must work together to halt global
warming or all of us are doomed to a hellish future.
Better to reign in hell. Anyway, there is hardly a tree left in China and since 2006,
China has been the world's largest emitter of CO2 annually and though they pay lip
service they accept no binding target for reduction; quite the opposite.
Even if their present slow-burn conflict may not produce the immediate devastation of a
conventional hot war, its long-term consequences could prove no less dire.
The manufacturing should be done in the most advanced regions of Earth ie the West,
because that is where the technology and will exists to protect the environment. China is
trying to churn out cheaper goods and does not care what damage they do in cutting
environmental corners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_China
China still supports the "common but differentiated responsibilities" principle, which
holds that since China is still developing, its abilities and capacities to reduce
emissions are comparatively lower than developed countries'. Therefore, its emissions
should not be required to decrease over time, but rather should be encouraged to increase
less over time until industrialization is farther along and reductions are feasible
In other words the global environment is going to continue to be ripped apart like a car
in a wrecking yard by China. "Industrialization is farther along" is obviously Chinese speak
for "when China is able to dominate the world with enormous productive capacity and we do not
even have to pay lip service any more".
In today's world, however, where great-power armed combat could possibly end in a
nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation, direct military conflict is a distinctly
unappealing option for all parties. Instead, governing elites have developed other means of
warfare -- economic, technological, and covert -- to achieve such strategic objectives.
Viewed this way, the United States is already in close to full combat mode with respect to
China.
No, the appeal of a real war will increase precipitously for any clear loser in the
economic competition who has a rapidly declining military advantage (especially in
thermonuclear first strike capacity due to proximity fuses and sub location tech), and we all
know who that is going to be. A shooting war will come, and the sooner it comes the
better for the whole world. Reassuring Russia that it will not be subjected to the same
treatment by the West at some point in the future will be the main problem inhibiting the
coming military take down (and nuking if necessary) of China.
As to bringing in Hindoos and Pakis into to the America-China conflict with a singular
example of the demand for defense related technology transfer by the former
India is a mediocrity but Pakistan is a nightmare for all concerned, given that after
imbibing religious mumbo jumbo from moronic Arabs, with which havocs were created in
Afghanistan via neoconnish America, now they are fellating uncircumcised Chinese for crumbs
the ungodly Chinese will play the idiotic Pakis like a fiddle to the detriment of the
West!
This just in .Saint Obama is no longer infallible among Dems. Winds of change are blowing. Six months ago, you couldn't get
away with saying this kind of thing.
"The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Obama will receive the sum - equal to his annual pay as president - for a speech
at Cantor Fitzgerald LP's healthcare conference, though there has been no public announcement yet."
=======================================
Sheer coincidence that what Obama campaigned on and what Obama governed on appear to be influenced by rich people. Physics prevents
single payer health care .dark energy, dark matter, dark, dark, money ..
Until a strong majority of dems are ready to say what is patently obvious to anyone even mildly willing to acknowledge reality,
i.e., that policy is decided not by a majority of voters, but by a majority of dollars, than there is simply no hope for reform.
Just three examples. All those people would have troubles in the USA now. And that tells us
something about the USA:
The wealthy Jews control the world, in their hands lies the fate of governments and
nations. They set governments one against the other. When the wealthy Jews play, the nations
and the rulers dance. One way or the other, they get rich."
'The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and
spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social
obligations, knows no order nor discipline.'
'The enterprising spirit of the Jew is irrepressible. He refuses to remain a
proletarian. He will grab at the first opportunity to advance to a higher rung in the social
ladder.'
The comments above weren't made by Adolf Hitler or a member of the Nazi party but by some of
the most dedicated early Zionists:
The USA in decline needs friends. Instead it got a powerful and well armed afversary, that
stupid neocon jerks (including academic jerks like Summers) tried to play to get some dollars in
theirs pockets... Add to this tentions with china and Harvard boys should probably be hanged on
lampposts.
As the incomparable Jimmy Dore says on his show, which should be required watching for
everyone, if the Russians can swing an election with such modest resources against maybe $1-2
billion spent by the Donald and the Hillary together, then every candidate for offices high and
low should run not walk with $54,700 in hand to secure a cheap and easy victory from the
Russobots.
When you beat a person who is down with boots and this person survive, you should not expect
any mercy in the next fight.
Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year
on year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands
rich in minerals, timber, water, etc.
With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock
therapy (induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real
enemy is. Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to
influence politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the
Rothschild gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off,
etc.
Russia could go further in their symphony of church and state, and copy Justinian
(Byzyantine empire) and prevent our (((friends))) from teaching in schools,bein control of
money, or in government.
With regards to China, they would be not be anywhere near where they are today if the West
had not actively transferred their patrimony in the form of transplanted industry and
knowledge.
China is only temporarily dependent on export of goods via their Eastern seaboard, but
as soon as belt and road opens up, she will pivot further toward Eurasia. If the U.S.
factories withdrew from China tomorrow, China already has our "knowledge" and will find
markets in Eurasia and raw materials in Africa, etc.
People need to stop whistling past the graveyard.
The Atlantics strategy has run its course, internal development of U.S. and linking up
with belt and road would be in America's best future interests. But, to do that requires
first acknowledging that money's true nature is law, and not private bank credit. Further,
the U.S. is being used as whore of Babylon, where her money is "Federal Reserve Notes" and
are international in character. The U.S is not sovereign. Deep state globalism does not
recognize national boundaries, or sovereignty.
That US elites that are split on who to go after first compromised by going after both
Russia and China at the same time is a definition of insanity. The US doesn't have a chance
in hell of subduing or defeating the Russia/China alliance. The US is already checkmated. The
more it goes after some big win the worse will be its defeat.
So the question (for me) is not which side will win, the question is the scenario of the
decline of the US Empire. Someone here mentioned the EU turning East. At some point the EU
will decide that staying a US vassal is suicide and it will turn East. When that happens then
the virus of US insanity will turn inwards into itself.
The US has recently focused on South America by installing several fascist regimes and
is now trying to get Venezuela. But the US backed regimes are laying the groundwork for the
next wave of revolution soon to come. Wherever I look the US is its own worst enemy. The big
question is how much suffering before it ends.
Huawei now sells more cell phones worldwide than Apple ( https://gearburn.com/2018/08/huawei-smartphone-sales-2018/
). And Huawei does this even though it is effectively excluded from the US market (You cannot
find it in stores) whereas Apple has unfettered access to the enormous Chinese market. You
find Huawei everywhere -- from Italy to Tanzania. How would Apple fare if China stopped
purchases of its products? Not so well I am afraid.
Usa is at war against everyone , from China to Latinamerica , from Europe to India , from the
islamic world to Africa . Usa is even at war against its own citizens , at least against its
best citizens .
When we speak of the culture war or the war on drugs or the war between the sexes or a trade
war we are misusing the word war.
War with China means exactly shooting and bombing and killing Chinese and American people.
Expanding the meaning of the word only makes it meaningless.
@joe
webbRussia and China are certainly not natural allies. However, deranged
international banditry of the US (called foreign policy in the DC bubble) literally forced
them to ally against a common threat: dying demented Empire.
As you call Chinese "Chinks", I suggest you stop using everything made in China, including
your clothes, footwear, tools, the light bulbs in your house, etc. Then, using your likely
made in China computer and certainly made in China mouse, come back and tell us how great
your life has become. Or you can stick to your principles of not using China-made stuff,
write a message on a piece of paper (warning: make sure that neither the paper nor the pen is
made in China), put it into a bottle, and throw it in the ocean. Be patient, and in a few
centuries you might get an answer.
In the halls of the Kremlin these days, it's all about China -- and whether or not
Moscow can convince Beijing to form an alliance against the West.
Russia's obsession with a potential alliance with China was already obvious at the
Valdai Discussion Club, an annual gathering of Russia's biggest foreign policy minds, in
2017.
At their next meeting, late last year, the idea seemed to move from the speculative to
something Russia wants to realize. And soon
Seen from Moscow, there is no resistance left to a new alliance led by China. And now
that Washington has imposed tariffs on Chinese exports, Russia hopes China will finally
understand that its problem is Washington, not Moscow.
In the past, the possibility of an alliance between the two countries had been hampered
by China's reluctance to jeopardize its relations with the U.S. But now that it has already
become a target, perhaps it will grow bolder. Every speaker at Valdai tried to push China
in that direction.
Where a war begins -- or ends -- can be hard to define. Michael Klare is right, 'War' and
'peace' are not 'polar opposites'. We often look at wars in chronological abstraction: the
First World War started on the 28th July 1914. Or did it only become a global war one week
later when Great Britain declared war on Germany? The causes can be of long duration. The
decline of the Ottoman Empire, for which the other Great Powers were positioning themselves
to benefit, might have begun as far back as 1683 when the Turks were defeated at the Battle
of Vienna. It ultimately led to the events of 1914.
Great power rivalry has always led to wars; in the last hundred years world wars. Graham
Allison wrote that the US can 'avoid catastrophic war with China while protecting and
advancing American national interests' if it follows the lessons of the Cold War. History
shows that wars are caused by the clash of interests, that's always at some else's expense.
When core interests collide there is no alternative to war -- however destructive.
God, that Trish Regan is a moron on steroids. But, it was very heartening to see Russia
stepping up with aid. Certainly, the physical aid is important to Venezuela but, more
important, is the knowledge that they are not facing the US alone – cautiously
optimistic that Venezuela can survive the assault.
Soooo many bullshit moments, my head is reeling. "The ones who are the aggressors here are
the RUSSIANS, the United States supports a peaceful transition of power". Yes, to the leader
it picked for the country, in a process about as far from democracy as an egg is from an
eggplant. "Russia might not have the same good sweet deals, there would be a more competitive
landscape, and they don't like that". Trish, baby – your National Security Advisor is
on record as publicly stating it would make a big difference to the US economy if the USA
could invest in and produce Venezuela's oil. It already has complete control of the refining
end – if it were also investing in it and producing it what would be left for the
Venezuelans?
It is important to Americans that they always are doing the right thing, the just thing,
the altruistic thing, and that nothing so smutty as American profit and financial gain come
into it. It is for this reason they are fed such self-serving pablum daily by their news
media.
But why should someone as wealthy and well known as Robert Kraft visit a massage parlor in a
strip mall? He could have top whores from around the world flown in to his penthouse . For
god's sake, he could have gone to that private Caribbean Island where the insiders go for
illicit sex with whomever/whatever they could imagine. Something is weirder than average
here.
Log books show Bill Clinton just loved Island hospitality as evidenced by his numerous
visits. Odd, how utterly quiet the MSM is about this – y'ld think that industrial scale
rape of young girls would be newsworthy in the MSM. No, just the Covington Kid get them
going. Eyes Wide Shut at work here.
I think it's the thrill of the chase that appeals, plus knowing that you did something
illegal (either secretly or in full view) and got away with it. Having whores flown to your
place wouldn't have the same appeal.
Well, I suppose being a Peeping Tom could his next adventure. Nevertheless, it still makes
little sense from a psychological aspect. Some say he was somehow set up as a lot of NFL
owners are tired of his team winning the Superbowl every other year and wanted to take him
down a notch or two.
I suspect that most super rich, if not perverts from a young age, end up being perverted
– the power of money and a highly developed market offering perversion is just too much
to resist for most humans. That is a major reason why capitalism or free markets or whatever
you want to call a system that encourages accumulation of vast amounts of wealth is (drum
roll) perverted.
Again, the only defense needed by a cop in killing a suspect was "I thought my life was in
danger" regardless if that were actually the case. In the particular instance, I do think the
cops may have thought such but they were apparently trigger happy and reacted to a "flash of
light" or glint off some something metallic. They thought it was a muzzle blast. Really? They
offered confusing statements as well – the suspect advanced on them in a shooting
stance but refused to show his hands. What kind of shooting stance would that be?
I don't think it was cold blooded murder in this case – just manslaughter. They
ought to be charged accordingly and kicked off the force. But no, everything is OK, nothing
to see. Besides, it would have a chilling effect on police everywhere if they were fearful of
being charged every time they killed someone. I mean, like, who would want to be a cop?
I note that in this instance, though, the deceased was committing a crime; a series of them,
in fact. Nothing he needed to be killed for, certainly, but a case removed from all the other
black men who have been shot with their cell phone in their hand, or nothing at all, while
the cops who decided to 'question' them ( sometimes for nothing more than walking on the
sidewalk in a mostly-white neighbourhood) had no apparent reason to be bothering them. Police
intervention was certainly called for here, although it is hard to believe it could not have
been carried out without any real violence at all. The list of people who actually decided to
go for their gun when ordered to put their hands up by police who already have their weapons
out must be a short one.
Police in America seem uniformly convinced that black men they detain will try to kill
them. I wonder why? Have a lot of police officers been shot to death by black men? I bet the
list of black men killed by police is a lot longer.
To partially address the question of how many police are killed by felonious acts (shot, run
over, etc.) versus how many they have killed by shooting (not counting fatalities from
crashes during police chases), its roughly 65 to 1,000+. or better than a 15 to 1 kill ratio.
31% of the civilian victims were black.
In Britain and Japan, there were a few civilians killed by police last year. China had 4
(US rate was 1,500 times higher per capita). Could not find info on Russia. Philippines was
way higher than the US rate apparently due to the drug war and terrorists may be included in
that data as well.
"... I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.) ..."
"... IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU. ..."
"... 'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"' ..."
"... In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office. ..."
"... The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much. ..."
"... If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that. ..."
"... My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney. ..."
"... "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." ..."
"... Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms ..."
"... Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting? ..."
I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia.
(My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another
place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.)
IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted
to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might
have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his
own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU.
Which I am sure he will do once everyone recognizes that that is the appropriate thing to do.
But as we well know everyone else will have to do the heavy lifting of figuring that out before
he will even acknowledge the possibility.
In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter
and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he
goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go
the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office.
In this case, Obama is probably too vain and Michelle being the saner of the two might rein
him in? Best of any world would, as you say, STFU. (As the Ex Prez. Obamamometer, that is probably
not in the cards.)
Maybe he will end up like Geo Bush, sitting in the bathtub drooling while he paints childish
self-portraits
Or maybe he will end up like OJ, where he tries to go hang out with all his cool friends and they
tell him to get lost
Ppl still mention him as a master orator, etc. Lots of post presidency speaking engagements
I suppose. I'd prefer him not to but then again if he makes enough annually from it to beat the
Clintons we might get the satisfaction of annoying them
"My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach,
finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that
the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values
and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow
exactly our approach." What Obama is saying is he wants Russia to join America in bombing
hospitals, schools, children, doctors, public facilities like water treatment plants, bridges,
weddings, homes, and civilians to list just few – while arming and supporting terrorists for regime
change. And if anyone points this out, Russia like the US is supposed to say "I know you are but
what am I?"
Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so
enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international
norms
Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things
like that without vomiting?
Is this the same Russia that just hacked our election and subverted our fine democracy? Why,
President Obama, I believe it behooves you to stand up to Russia yourself. Show President-Elect
Trump how it is done sir!
First vices about the color revolution against Trump were heard on December 2016
Notable quotes:
"... Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you. ..."
"... Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House. ..."
"... There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. ..."
"... On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging. ..."
"... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so. ..."
"... on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement. ..."
"... Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party. ..."
Several months ago I was asked what advice I would give to the Trump campaign.
I said, only half joking, that he had better pick a vice presidential candidate the establishment
hates more than it hates him. That would be his only insurance against impeachment. Those drums have
already begun to beat, be it ever so subtly.
Is anyone surprised how quickly the establishment that Donald Trump campaigned against has announced
opposition to much of his policy agenda? No. But few understand that the passionate opposition includes
a willingness to impeach and remove President Trump if he does not come to heel on his America First
goals.
Ferocious opposition to Trump from the left was expected and thus surprises nobody. From the comical
demands for vote recounts to street protests by roving bands of leftist hate-mongers and condescending
satire on late-night television, hysterical leftist opposition to Trump is now part of the cultural
landscape.
But those are amusing sideshows to the main event, the Republican establishment's intransigent
opposition to key pillars of the Republican president's agenda.
Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our
business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you.
If you think talk of impeachment is insane when the man has not even been sworn into office yet,
you have not been paying attention. Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after
Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to
win concession after concession from the Trump White House.
What are the key policy differences that motivate congressional opposition to the Trump agenda?
There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could
generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans
Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's
immigration laws.
On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump.
But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises
were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging.
Yet, while the President-elect 's transition teams at the EPA, State Department and Education
Department are busy mapping ambitious changes in direction, Congress's Republican leadership is busy
doubling down on dissonance and disloyalty.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms.
Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers"
from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan
Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting
to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite
five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power
to do so.
And then, on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to
campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and
most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement.
It is no exaggeration to say that Trump's success or failure in overcoming the opposition to immigration
enforcement will determine the success or failure of his presidency. If he cannot deliver on his
most prominent and most popular campaign promise, nothing else will matter very much.
So, the bad news for President Trump is this: If he keeps faith with his campaign promises on
immigration, for example to limit Muslim immigration from terrorism afflicted regions, which is within
his legitimate constitutional powers as President, he will risk impeachment. However, his congressional
critics will face one enormous hurdle in bringing impeachment charges related to immigration enforcement:
about 90 percent of what Trump plans to do is within current law and would require no new legislation
in Congress. Obama disregarded immigration laws he did not like, so all Trump has to do is enforce
those laws.
Now, if you think talk of impeachment is ridiculous because Republicans control Congress, you
are underestimating the depth of Establishment Republican support for open borders.
The first effort in the 21st century at a general amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens came
in January 2005 from newly re-elected President George Bush. The "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill passed
by the US Senate in 2013 did not have the support of the majority of Republican senators, and now
they are faced with a Republican president pledged to the exact opposite agenda, immigration enforcement.
And yet, do not doubt the establishment will sacrifice a Republican president to protect the globalist,
open borders status quo.
The leader and spokesman for that establishment open borders agenda is not some obscure backbencher,
it is the Republican Speaker of the House. Because the Speaker controls the rules and the legislative
calendar, if he chooses to play hardball against Trump on immigration he can block any of Trump's
other policy initiatives until Trump abandons his immigration enforcement goals.
What all this points to is a bloody civil war within the Republican Party fought on the battlefield
of congressional committee votes.
Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning
with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation
of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican
Party.
The attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the military supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process.
The evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate with Mueller appointment very rapidly.
Notable quotes:
"... In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'. ..."
"... Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly. ..."
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from
taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup'
is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.
The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to
the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to
the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.
The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional
and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives,
mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.
The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that
the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential
political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and
legitimacy.
The Coup as 'Process'
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in
Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife'
for these 'regime changes'.
Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted
through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies
in Congress and the Judiciary.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part
of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American
coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking
office in January.
While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within
a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump
of
being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his
Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party
prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.
The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green
Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass
media.
In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green
Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George
Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money
financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media.
The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American
Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.
Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia,
the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like
Jill Stein.
The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question
Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention:
The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties,
and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they
all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative
warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and
social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation
of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival
'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia
and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry'
Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.
ORDER IT NOW
The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called
on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election
– essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused
to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.
President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy
and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and
place of our choosing".
Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the
jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian
Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo –
and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.
Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance
Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress.
He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three
retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the
highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been
key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them
with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.
Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported
the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his
cabinet who had their own allied business associations.
One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL,
George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This
was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as
Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced
with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect
named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security
and intelligence positions.
The Coup: Can it succeed?
In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation'
on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the
very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already
oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort
will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well
and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with
Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque
policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election
and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with
his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among
the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires
his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic
agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed
to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger
of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.
If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack
support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies,
but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').
He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among
the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to
the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire',
not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.
A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power.
But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the
whole system?
If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists
eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a
failure.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids?
Replies:
@Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). ,
@animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred
of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces
in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and
it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being
questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?
Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic
than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country
Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises
by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and
the Trump campaign was a failure.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the
term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since
before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans
are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the
books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with
this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to
assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was
the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?]
of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That
could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is
real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws.
–Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of
"man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could
be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and
substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws.
--Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!
It needs to be published as a feature story.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
• Replies:
@El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all
the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some
balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or
will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say.
Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and
qualifications, though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to
confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set
about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive
amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that
Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not
until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game. , @map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.
How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors. ,
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile... The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS
directly.
The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although
Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now
be tied by all the traitors that run the US.
You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped
the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying
slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.
(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing
the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.
You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country
or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality:
are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?
This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter
is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want
to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest
policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo
loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
• Replies:
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to
file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are
not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups
The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic.
In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for
a coup.
If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will
just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be
from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white
interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up
to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.
Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media.
While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law
which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press
For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth"
in George Orwell's book 1984.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president. An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred
of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity -- If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8
million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and
NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American
voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term;
this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before
Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed
up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books,
but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is
that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent
by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it
was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula
@Karl
the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before
Dr Stein's recount circuses.
They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.
Nothing else they try will fly.
Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
@Max Havelaar
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to
revenge Aleppo loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites"
in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the
US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does
not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is
the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and
never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated
opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do? ,
@Max Havelaar
A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.
I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as
to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .
The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John
F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2
million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert
Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.
Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.
Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There
are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass
Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for
the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.
I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below,
for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute
new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy
destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically
elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments
have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the
Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.
In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class,
by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence
wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long
decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well
as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without
a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the
nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has
been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings
cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700
military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the
nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military
and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the
Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous
administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens
of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act
and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions
of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population;
the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is
bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government,
with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for
imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts
owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts,
will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their
own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of
the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead
and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government
which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression,
freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which
will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means
a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people.
We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians
of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic! Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
@annamaria
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do?
• Replies:
@Bill Jones
The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.
My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and
pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two
palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious
explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?
The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation
certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess
who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?
As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.
Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:
My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year
contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered
that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years
I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.
At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.
If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably
split the same way.
The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined
these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects,
and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.
Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can
set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require
massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced
that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action.
Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game.
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel
has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words
in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and
Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.
Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to
undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds
of hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt"
you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff ..like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
@Tomster
What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have
sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous
brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@Art
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to
Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power
two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia
– hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Peace --- Art
"If we get past the inauguration ."
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up
before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at
war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on
Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It
is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if
Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis
to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
• Replies:
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb ,
@RobinG
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash."
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the
Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably
did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but
Joe Webb
• Replies:
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
@Realist
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented
any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers.
Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the
zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last
month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their
supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on." Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes: "... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
Hi RobinG,
This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really – how pissed off can they be?
Peace - Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced
the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek
inside the Democrat machine.
Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This
shall not stand!
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
Hi Art,
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see
https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .
@annamaria
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and
war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ...
the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted
last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut
their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their
land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not
change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a
comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on
board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose
a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
• Replies:
@Tomster
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them.
,
@joe webb
good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim
Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs.
Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything
for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there
were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty
will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like
Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as
Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their
jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other
race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the
Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:
Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker
https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ ,
@alexander
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow
today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the
American people over the last sixteen years...
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to
shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge
his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back.....four times...
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?
"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist
policies. "
The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has
for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."
A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist.
A black mark on both countries' report cards.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by?
The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash."
Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians,
while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at
the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of
hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you
seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff.....like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes
to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains
are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined
with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people
over the last sixteen years
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut
Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his
bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back ..four times
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of
affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns
anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere
that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under
discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way
humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like
Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just
as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for
their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any
other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain. Joe Webb
Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking
heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian
hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.
January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.
Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically
important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.
I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions
to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.
"... The Puppet show display by Pence & Pompeo to rap Europeans over the knuckles for everything from not exiting the Iran Nuclear deal to not stopping the Nordstream pupeline & trying to contain Hiawei is blowing up in the Trump Administration's faces as these so called Allies or Vassals of the American Empire are refusing to tow the line? ..."
"... A failure for US oligarchy foreign policy is a win for the US and the rest of the world. ..."
The "Exceptional Nation" has now become the "Detestable Nation"!
The Puppet show display
by Pence & Pompeo to rap Europeans over the knuckles for everything from not exiting the
Iran Nuclear deal to not stopping the Nordstream pupeline & trying to contain Hiawei is
blowing up in the Trump Administration's faces as these so called Allies or Vassals of the
American Empire are refusing to tow the line?
Trump has alienated & disgusted it's
Allies, so much that they can now see how deranged, unworkable & destructive is the
Americans Foreign Policy & its bankrupt disfunctional , delusional Policies?
It's
ridiculous, irrational & pathological hatred for Iran has shown that the US is the main
Terrorist Nation on Earth not Iran who has never invaded anyone unlike the hypocritical US
Empire!
Meanwhile in Sochi, the real Diplomacy for peace is taking place with Russia, Iran,
Turkey & Syria having won the War against the US Empire & its cowardly, crony white
helmeted, ragtag bunch of proxy Army misfits made up of Israel, ISIS, SDF & the Kurds now
scurrying out of the Country like rats leaving a sinking ship!
And what was really laughable
about VP Pences speech in Warsaw was the defeating silence to the pauses in that speech
expecting people to clap on demand which never happened?
How embarrassing & really showed
the lack of respect & utter contempt that everyone has for America these days!
Sam F, February 20, 2019 at 12:32 pm
A failure for US oligarchy foreign policy is a win for the US and the rest of the world.
Let's hope we see the end of NATO as an excuse for US bully tyrants to "defend" us with greedy aggression.
Perhaps that will lead to strengthening the UN and isolating it from the economic power of US tyrants.
The UN would be far stronger if it taxed its members instead of begging for support, on pain of embargo by all members, and
monitored for corrupt influence.
It'll eventually dawn on the Yanks that it was NK's Nukes which brought AmeriKKKa to the
negotiating table; NOT US sanctions which brought NK to the table.
The ability to "Manhattan" Manhattan is too strong a negotiating position to swap for some
insulting threats and vague non-binding promises. The biggest problem for the US now will be
the impossibility of "proving" that it can be trusted.
Just more grist for the bullshit mill that is US foreign policy, i.e. the US government can
never be trusted at the negotiating table. Ridiculous to demand N. Korea dismantle their
nuclear reactor before sanctions are lifted. Fucking ridiculous demand, why in the hell would
N. Korea do that? They need it to produce energy, and to make plutonium to defend themselves
from total asshole country USA which, as everybody knows has been on a 25 year
sanctioning/bombing/country destroying rampage, leaving entire countries laid to waste. Rest
assured, that if N. Korea gets rid of all its nukes as USA wants -- before the drop of a hat
USA will totally, completely wipe N. Korea off the map with its own nukes and massive military
buildup surrounding N. Korea. As usual, the USA is the biggest problem for the entire world's
progress towards peace and prosperity :-(((
The Korean people have paid a very heavy price simply because of their unfortunate
geographic location immediately adjacent to the world's largest Communist state.
Outstanding comment under Tom Engelhardt's article Ant linked to:
F. G. Sanford
February 22, 2019 at 2:48 pm
Rome didn't fall in a day. Those plutocrat Romans held sway.
Building Hadrian's wall didn't quite end it all,
Waging wars helped to lead them astray!
They plundered and stole prime resources. They had chariots, soldiers and horses.
They engaged in some trade, easy money was made,
All their taxes would pay for those forces!
The forum was full of those cronies. They solemnly held ceremonies.
Their ships plied the waves, they imported more slaves,
They fooled Plebs with their false testimonies!
Gladiators the stadiums filled. It was fun watching people get killed.
While somewhat sadistic, perhaps narcissistic,
It kept all the poor people thrilled!
The empire's borders got broader. The spectacles got even odder.
When the legions got thin, they let foreigners in-
There was need for more battlefield fodder!
Foreign wars kept the rabble impressed. Bread and circus would keep them repressed.
A TV show host could be Cicero's ghost,
An apprentice by Nero possessed!
Just denounce any real criticism, and instead propagate populism.
Take free trade nihilism, neocon cronyism,
If it fails he could blame socialism!
They'd claim real democracy fails. We'd steal Christ and come back for the nails.
We'd want more free stuff and it's never enough,
Without war they can't balance the scales!
But the Empire always succeeds. It provides for the rich and their needs.
A petroleum gala awaits Venezuela,
Even Nancy Pelosi concedes!
The emperor got some new clothes. He's got Democrats hooked by the nose-
They'll go right along so the dollar stays strong,
There's never a war they oppose!
Nero was just a dictator. Caligula's evil was greater.
They killed Julius Caesar, that much loved crowd pleaser
To the plutocrats, he was a traitor!
For the moment the Empire's stable. The emperor seems strong and able.
Maxine Waters will screech that it's time to impeach,
But Nancy says that's off the table!
As long as the profits boost war firms, the emperor still could get two terms.
Kamala may scheme and Warren can dream,
But both parties are neo-conned worms.
Bernie and Tulsi raise hopes. But Beto and Booker are dopes.
Those flyover regions have loyalist legions,
And they cater to Biblical tropes!
The emperor said he'd tell all. He'd explain how those towers could fall.
In the end he would blink when he got to the brink,
Ever since he's continued to stall.
He's in bed with those evil deep staters. He'll install some more Latin dictators.
Venezuela will boil with regime change turmoil-
And Abrams will bribe perpetrators!
The Democrats know they will profit. They won't lift a finger to stop it!
They'll bank on Guaido for regime overthrow,
Both parties will make money off it!
We're just like the Roman Empire. We believe that we'll never expire.
We've got ruins galore, check downtown Baltimore,
Or Detroit if it's proof you require!
"... This facilitated and required certain cultures and practices including the culture of conformance/wanting to belong maintained by restricting variance within acceptable parameters through notions of social norms – "The American Way". ..."
"If I were one of the New World Order boys and wanted to destroy or weaken the United
States I couldn't choose a better group of incompetent leaders than Pompous, Pence, Bolton,
Trump, etc."
The systemic errors were inherent in the design of the social relations self described as
"The United States of America" from inception, and in large part the history of these social
relations have been coercive attempts to maintain these social relations within linear frames
both internally and externally.
This facilitated and required certain cultures and practices including the culture of
conformance/wanting to belong maintained by restricting variance within acceptable parameters
through notions of social norms – "The American Way".
When these acceptable parameters were questioned, the predictable outcomes were Messrs.
Bolton, Pence, Pompeo and Trump.
No external forces were required to encourage such choices, these choices were made by and
facilitated by "We the people hold these truths to be self-evident.
Some may seek to extend their illusions by a return to an elysium which never existed
through "reform" of "The United States of America" and cooperation with others, however some
realise that transcendence of "The United States of America" is required to facilitate
cooperation.
OlyaPola , February 22, 2019 at 7:11 am
"When these acceptable parameters were questioned, the predictable outcomes were Messrs.
Bolton, Pence, Pompeo and Trump."
OlyaPola
February 1, 2019 at 6:24 am
""You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you should
concentrate on."
"The Washington favorite"
Some of the opponents have an assay of emotionalism as well asssays of notions of utility,
including the utility of having insurance policies in the amalgam, since the opponents'
"intelligence agencies" as subscribers to the means justify the ends persuasion do not
typically subscribe to the "We the people hold these truths to be self-evident" illusion;
except when in interaction with those of the people who hold these truths to be
self-evident.
Amongst the clauses typically included in the insurance policies are:
1. He who giveth can also take away.
2. Useful fools have a shelf-life often co-terminous with their utility as useful
fools.
3. Assets have a shelf-life often co-terminous with their utility as assets.
4. Bearers of information have a shelf-life often co-terminous with their utility of
bearing information.
5. Engagement in emotionalism including favouritism will arrogate the policy of
insurance.
As a prologue to the insurance policies there is sometimes a reminder that policy renewal
is often contingent in not demystifying the conditions above especially to third parties
including but not restricted to believers of "We the people hold these truths to be
self-evident."
Messrs Bolton, Pence, Pompeo and Trump have qualitative similarities to other useful fools
including Mr. Guaido, and some quantitative differences.
Sheep who think they can swim with sharks often drown, where as sharks don't tend to
attack sharks unless the attacked shark proves to be a significant threat to the environment,
and "threats" are functions of perception.
Perhaps investigating "What ever happened to Mr. Mitrone ?" or "What ever happened to Mr.
Bandera?" may prove illuminating.
Some have different purposes and hence have different evaluations of the utility of useful
foolery.
The goal of any attack would be containment of the Iranian threat.
(sigh) Yeah, I'm sure any day now Persians are going to be landing boats, D-Day style, on
Coney Island I'm certain my cat has nightmares about this, which is why he meows strangely at
night for no apparent reason.
I know, I know, I've been through the drill enough times now; "if we don't fight them over
there "
This is from 2015. Not much changed... But relevant for Venezuela. So what will happen with Venesuellians if
the color revolution suceeed, is easy to predict using Ukrainian example
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources, 19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look at the US-Ukraine Business Council. ..."
"... Meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West, Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire... ..."
"... This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian mongrels. ..."
"... Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them with their private foreign mercenary force. ..."
"... Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds, no doubt with promises of power sharing. ..."
"... She no doubt got her position not by intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor, Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. ..."
"... The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics. ..."
"... The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are in order for such dedication. The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved to the temptation to report news. Too bad. ..."
"... Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing. False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say. ..."
"... Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces. They favour ethnic cleansing. ..."
"... The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they succeeded ..."
"... The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian! ..."
"... this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi. ..."
"... the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony. ..."
"... Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc. Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative! ..."
"... The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will easily find it. The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from investigating Maiden shooters. ..."
"... have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia (next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language. She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe. ..."
"... This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina - the video is still on the BBC website. ..."
"... As predicted the real civil war in Ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and the ordinary Ukrainian was largely manufactured ..."
"... "When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?" ..."
"... in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution -- with regret and cynicism. ..."
"... Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by their own admission! These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy. Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law, Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards. ..."
The Georgian authorities have asked Interpol to put a Red notice on Mikheil Saakashvili as the
request to Ukraine to return him for trial in Georgia was refused.
ww3orbust PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 20:22
That does not detract from the fact that the Ukrainian cabinet has been chosen by the US state
department. Natives of the US, Georgia and Lithuania were hastily granted Ukrainian citizenship
in order to maintain an iron grip on Ukraine, while accusing Putin of appointing majors or governors
- in his capacity as head of state?
ww3orbust 13 Jul 2015 20:16
Amazing, nothing at all mentioned by the BBC. It does not fit in to their narrative to see the
country descend into a new stage of anarchy, between the people who murdered police and protesters
on Maidan square, and the US state department installed cabinet. Presumably if Right Sector refuse
to disarm and continue torturing civilians and murdering police, the BBC will continue to ignore
it and focus instead on its Russo-phobic narrative, while accusing Russia of propaganda with the
self-righteous piety that only the BBC are capable of. Or god forbid, more stories about what
colour stool our future king has produced this week.
The thing is, Ukraine is unique in allowing their Nazi thugs to be armed and have some semi-official
status. Everywhere else (including Russia), governments are looking to constrain the activities
of Nazis and prosecute them where possible.
jgbg Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 18:26
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
Them and Svoboda. If it had just been Orange Revolution II, with a simple change of Jewish
oligarchs in charge, there might have been some complaints but little more. It is the Russian-hating
far right that has brought about the violence and everything that has happened since.
PrinceEdward GreatMountainEagle 13 Jul 2015 18:22
Last I heard, Ukraine owes China billions for undelivered Grain.
HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 18:11
But the Euro Maidan press is just an Ukrainian rag that invents stories to support its corrupt
government in Kiev.
jgbg PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 17:54
I forget the article, but in the comments I mentioned that multiple Georgians were being
appointed to high level positions by Kiev, and some Russophobe called me a liar.
Not a few days later, Shakashvilli was appointed governor of Odessa. An ex-president of another
country, as governor of a province in another one! Apparently, none of the millions upon millions
of Ukrainians were qualified for the job.
Sakashvilli's former Minister of Internal Affairs in Georgia, Eka Zguladze, is First Deputy
Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Of course, the Georgian people removed these chumps from
power the first chance they got but the Ukrainian electorate haven't had any say in the appointments
of foreigners in their country.
Well ... when it comes to Ukraine, the need to stock up on popcorn. This bloody and unpredictable
plot is not even in the "Game of Thrones." And this is only the middle of the second season.
Today Speaker of the "RS" Andrew Sharaskin, said: Sports Complex in Mukachevo where the shooting
occurred, was used as the base of the separatists DNR.
- A place 1,000 kilometers from Donetsk! But it's a great excuse to murder the guard in the café
and wounded police officers.
I think tomorrow will say that there have seen Russian Army tanks and Putin - 100%
"Ukraine is part of Europe" - the slogans of the Maidan in action...
Pravyi Sektor were not wrong. However, you cannot have armed groups cleaning up corruption
outside the law...that only works in Gotham City.
Right Sector weren't trying to clean up corruption, they were simply trying to muscle in on
the cigarette smuggling business. If Right Sector cared about crime and public order, they wouldn't
be driving around, armed to the teeth, in vehicles stolen in the EU. (In the video linked in the
article, all of their vehicles have foreign number plates. At least one of those vehicles is on
the Czech police stolen vehicle database:
http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pravy-sektor-mel-v-mukacevu-auta-s-ceskymi-spz-fqj-/zahranicni.aspx?c=A150713_102110_zahranicni_jj)
The EU and the US have stated on many occasions that there are "No Right Wing Nationalists" operating
in Ukraine and its simply propaganda by Putin.
So there shouldn't be anything to worry about should there ?
Stas Ustymenko hfakos 13 Jul 2015 15:15
Yes, yes. You seem to tolerate Medvedchuk and Baloga mafias way better, for years.
Transcarpathian Region is the most corrupt in all of Ukraine (which is quite a fit). What we see
here is a gang war in fatigues.
tanyushka Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 15:14
sorry i posted the same above... i was just to hasty.. sorry again...
in the main picture of the same article it's interesting to notice the age of most of the conscripted
soldiers... they are in their 30's, theirs 40's and even in their 50's... it's forced conscription,
they are not volunteers... while all the DPR & LPR soldiers are real volunteers...
an uncle, the father of a cousin, was conscripted in Kherson... my cousin had to run away to South
American to say with an aunt to avoid conscription... many men are doing it in Ukraine nowadays...
not because they are cowards but because they don't want to kill their brothers & sisters for
the benefit of the oligarchs and their NATO masters (and mistresses...)
did you know that all the conscripts have to pay for their own uniforms and other stuff, while
in the National Guard and the oligarchs batallions everything is top quality and for free... including
bulletproof vests and other implements courtesy of NATO
Demi Boone 13 Jul 2015 15:13
Well finally they reveal themselves. These Ukraine Nationalists are the people who instigated
the anarchy and shootings at Maidan and used it as an excuse to wrongfully drive out an elected
President and in the chaos that followed bring in a coup Government which represents only West-Ukraine
and suppress' East-Ukraine. You are looking at the face of the real Maidan and not the dream that
a lot of people have tried to paint it to be.
Stas Ustymenko MartinArvay 13 Jul 2015 15:11
Many Right Sector members are indeed patriots. But it looks like the organisation itself is,
sadly, much more useful for providing thugs for hire than "justice".
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:20
But seriously, the naval base is probably the reason, it is too important for some interests
to have a less-reliable (Ukrainian) in charge, this is a job only for the most trusted poodles.
If things had gone differently, the tie-eatimng chap would have been appointed Mayor of Sebastopol.
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:15
There appears to be a Quisling-shortage in Ukraine at present.
Stas Ustymenko obscurant 13 Jul 2015 13:32
More accurately, Kolomoyskiy is Ukrainian oligarch. Who happens to be ethnically, culturally
and, by all accounts, religiously, a Jew.
Stas Ustymenko Kaiama 13 Jul 2015 13:24
Ukrainian Volunteer Corps of the Right Sector fighting in Donbass is two battalions. How is
this a "key organization"? They are a well-known brand and fought bravely on some occasions, but
the wider org is way too eager to brandish arms outside of combat or training. They will be reigned
in, one way or another, and soon.
GameOverManGameOver Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 12:02
Shh shh shh. This news does not exist yet in the western media, therefore it's nothing but
Russian propaganda.
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 11:54
It gets worse - soldiers from the UA are now refusing to follow orders in protest against the
total anarchy sweeping the chain of command, and their lack of rest and equipment.
Tensions have been rising between the government and the Right Sector militia that has
helped it fight pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.
Finally, the Guardian decided to report the actual new after satisfying itself with ample discussion
of the quality of Russian cheeses. Right sector "helped" to fight "separatists"? Really? Does
Alec Luhn know that there are currently two (!) RS battalions at the front and 19 (!) inside Ukraine?
They are some warriors. Now they are occupying themselves fighting as criminals they are for the
control of contraband.
At the ATO zone, they help consists of plundering, murdering and raping the local population.
They enter a village, take everything of value from houses and then blow them up. They rape women
and girls as young as 10 years old. They've been doing this for more than a year, and we've been
telling you that for more than a year. But apparently in the fight against "pro-Russian separatists"
everything is good. These crimes are so widespread, even the Ukrainian "government" is worried
this will eventually becomes impossible to deny. Some battalions such as Shakhtersk and Aidar
have been officially accused of crimes and ompletely or partially reformed.
Examples: http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR50/040/2014/en/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1413804655
Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources,
19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look
at the US-Ukraine Business Council. It bring NATO, Monsanto and the Heritage Foundation under
one roof:
You'd be surprised, but I like Bandera (controversial as he was) way more than I trust some
people who wrap themselves in his red-and-black Rebel banner. Yarosh included. Banderite rebellion
ended 60 years ago. Its major goal was establishing a "united, free Ukrainian state"; by contrast,
stated ultimate goals of the Right Sector are way murkier; I'm not sure even most of the movement's
members are clear on what these are.
With present actions, Right Sector has a huge image problem in the West. If it will come to all-out
conflict, no doubt the West will back Poroshenko government over a loose confederation of armed
dudes linked by the thin thread of 30ies ideology (suspect even then). And the West will be right.
Stas Ustymenko Nik2 13 Jul 2015 11:03
Methinks you're way overselling a thug turf war as "major political event. Truth is, the region
has been long in the hands of organized crime. The previous regime incorporated and controlled
almost all organized crime in the country, hence no visible conflict. Now, individual players
try to use temporary uncertainty to their advantage.
Right Sector claims they were trying to fight
the smuggling, but this doesn't sound plausible. The word is, what's behind the events is struggle
for control over lucrative smuggling between two individuals (who are both "businessmen" and "politicians",
members of Parliament). Both are old-school players, formerly affiliated with Yanukovitch party.
One just was savvy enough to buy himself some muscle under Right Sector banner. Right Sector will
either have to straighten out its fighters (which it may not be able to do) or disappear as a
political player. I fail to see how people see anything "neo-Nazi" in this gang shootout.
PaddyCannuck Cavirac 13 Jul 2015 10:21
Nobody here is an apologist for Stalin, who was a brutal and cruel despot, and the deportations
of the Crimean Tatars were quite indefensible. However, a few observations might lend some perspective.
1. Crimea has been invaded and settled by an almost endless succession of peoples over the
millennia. The Crimean Tatars (who are of Turkic origin) were by no means the first, nor indeed
the last, and cannot in any meaningful sense be regarded as the indigenous people of Crimea.
2. The Crimean Tatars scarcely endeared themselves to the Russians, launching numerous raids,
devastating many towns, including the burning of Moscow in 1571, and sending hundreds of thousands,
if not millions of Russians into slavery in the Ottoman Empire.
3. The deportations took place in 1942 - 1943 against the backdrop of World War II, when a lot
of bad stuff happened, including -
4. The American (and also Canadian) citizens of Japanese ethnicity who had their property confiscated
and were likewise shipped off to camps. Their treatment, if anything, was worse.
Sevastopol, Pearl Harbor. What's the difference? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West,
Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden
by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't
explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it
was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire...
Nik2 6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:53
Not exactly. By now, BBC has made good coverage of these events in Ukrainian and Russian languages,
but not in English. It looks like BBC considers that Western public does not deserve the politically
sad truth about armed clashes between "champions of Maidan Revolution" and "new democratic authorities,
fighting corruption". Western public should not be in doubt about present-day "pro-European" Ukraine.
And "The Guardian" still has only one article on the issue that could be a turning point in Ukrainian
politics. This is propaganda, not informing about or analyzing really serious political events.
VictorWhisky 13 Jul 2015 09:51
This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters
in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian
and non-Ukrainian mongrels.
Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial
positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose
help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them
with their private foreign mercenary force.
Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department
bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds,
no doubt with promises of power sharing.
So madame Nuland was perfectly willing to get in bed
with the Ukrainian NAZI devils (her Jewish friend should be proud) and when the dirty deed was
done, she is now turning against Ukrainian nationalists in the attempt to have outside forces
in control of Ukraine. Madame Nuland is not as intelligent or capable as portrayed, because if
she was, she would have known Ukraine has a very delicate and very complicated political structure
and history with nearly half the country speaking Russian and more loyal to the Russians than
to the US.
An intelligent person familiar with Ukrainian history would know any attempt of placing
a US stooge in Kiev would certainly result in a civil war.
She no doubt got her position not by
intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and
children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor,
Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. That intelligent idiot's policies resulted in the
death of 3 million Vietnamese and 50,000 young Americans. Does madame Nuland intend to sacrifice
that many Ukrainians to prove her ultimate stupidity?
Jeremn Luminaire 13 Jul 2015 09:51
The conscripts didn't want to shoot their fellow Ukrainians. The nationalists don't believe
the people in the east are their fellow Ukrainians.
Because they were lovely guys, evidently, and their "popularity" has nothing to do with armed
thugs beating you up if you say anything against them (or the state prosecuting you for denying
or questioning their heroism).
Jeremn jezzam 13 Jul 2015 09:35
Ukrainian media, reporting Ukrainian government official:
12 police dead in two days, 180 wounded with gunshot wounds.
Still Kremlin lies?
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 09:30
Thank God Ukraine is finally free and democratic. The old autocratic regime actually had the
gall to make running street battles illegal - but those dark days are in the past. In the liberated
Ukraine you are free spend the dollar a day you get paid on a bullet proof vest so the rampant
Nazi street gangs don't kill you.
Jeremn SHappens 13 Jul 2015 09:26
You'd be surprised, there are Bandera-lovers in the UK too. There's a Bandera museum. And there
is this lot, teaching Christian values to children. And telling them that Bandera was a hero.
Future Right Sector supporters being crafted as we type.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:24
The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics. Luckily, the Russians have liberated Crimea so piracy on the high seas isn't an option for
the Ukrainians.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:18
Apparently, UAVs generously supplied to Ukrainians by the Canadian taxpayers are being put
to good use smuggling cigarettes into Slovakia.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:12
The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are
in order for such dedication.
The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved
to the temptation to report news. Too bad.
aucontraire2 13 Jul 2015 08:36
Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with
all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical
and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a
say.
SomersetApples 13 Jul 2015 08:25
The country is bankrupt; the Kiev putschists are selling off the country's assets to their
New York allies, the oligarchs and Nazis are at war against each other and the illegal putschist
government and now toilet mouth Nuland is back on the scene. Looks like a scene form Dante's Inferno.
todaywefight Polvilho 13 Jul 2015 07:54
Which Russian invasion will this be the of he approximately 987 mentioned by Poroshenko and
our man Yatz...or are you referring to the people of the AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA's (yes
that was what was called after the 1994 referendum) massive wishes to (like Donbass) go against
a government who illegally dismissed an elected president a wish that was reflected on a referendum
which was allowed by their constitution 18(7)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 13 Jul 2015 07:38
Yes. Most of the protesters are good people who just want a better deal in life.
monteverdi1610 13 Jul 2015 06:54
Remember all those CIF threads when those of us who pointed to the neo-Nazis in Ukraine were
immediately called ' Putinbots ' ?
PS/ Apologies would be the order of the day , perhaps ?
Sturney 13 Jul 2015 06:49
Apparently this conflict is over. Temporarily over. Anyway in ever-contracting economy, in
a Mariana trench between Russia and EU, in the most totalitarian country in history, such conflicts
will continue. Since Nuland tossed yeast in the outhouse nobody can stop fermentation of sh*t.
Help yourself with some beer and shrimps. I am looking forward when these masses splash out to
EU, preferably to Poland. Must be fun to watch. (Lipspalm)
Justin Obisesan 13 Jul 2015 06:33
In the run-up to the Euro 2012 football tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine, I
remember how the media in this country worked themselves into a frenzy harping on about the presence
of violent neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. After the removal of Mr Yanukovych from office, the same
media organisations changed their tune by describing any talk of neo- Nazis in Ukraine as "Russian
propaganda". The Western media coverage of the Ukrainian crises has been so blatantly pro-Kiev
and anti-Donbass that their claims of impartiality and objectivity cannot be taken seriously anymore.
Jeremn jgbg 13 Jul 2015 06:16
It is fine when they are shooting at Donetsk, but not so good when they use the same tactics
in western Ukraine.
Azov are the same, violent neo-Nazi thugs given authority, and this article notes that PrivatBank
is the bank that services requests for donations to the Azov funds, using J P Morgan as intermidiary.
Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in
Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces.
They favour ethnic cleansing.
Jeremn William Fraser 13 Jul 2015 06:10
The people who support Bandera are in western Ukraine. They are the ones who say Stalin starved
the Ukrainian people.
Trouble is, in the 1930s, western Ukraine belonged to Poland.
It was the Russians, eastern Ukrainians and other Soviet people who starved, not the western
Ukrainians.
Kefirfan 13 Jul 2015 06:02
Good, good. Let the democracy flow through you...
Pwedropackman SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:53
It will be interesting to see which side the US and Canada will support. Probably Poroshenko
and the Oligarchs because the Right Sector is not so happy about the ongoing sales of Ukraine
infrastructure to US corporates.
SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:14
Harpers' babies are out manifesting, supporting the good guys:
"Supporters of Ukraine's Right Sector extremist group rallied in Ottawa Sunday amid the
radicals' ongoing standoff with police in western Ukraine."
The rally outside the Ukrainian embassy was organized by the Right Sector's representative
office in the Canadian capital, 112 Ukraine TV channel reported, citing the Facebook account of
the so-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps.
careforukraine 13 Jul 2015 05:09
I wonder how long it will be before the us denounces nazi's in ukraine?
Kind of seems like we have seen this all before.
Almost like how ISIS were just freedom fighters that needed our support until ?.....
Well we all know what happened there.
Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 05:04
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 04:41
Yes, I agree, they do wreck the economy. That was my point. Russia want's strong economies
to do business with, not broken economies that only ask for financial aid.
Like I said, no evidence of Russian troops in Donbass and South Ossetia asked for the presence
of Russian troops to deter the Georgian government from trying another invasion.
And organisations like CIS are meant to expand economic ties. Just like the EU I suppose. They
function in pretty much the same way with everyone getting a chance to lead. So I don't know why
that should be a bad thing. Since the EU is not interested in admitting Russia why can't Russia
go to other organisations?
VladimirM Dmitriy Grebenyuk 13 Jul 2015 04:26
It's a poisonous sarcasm, I think. But I've heard that RS accuse the Ukrainian government of
being pro-Putin as the government accuse them of being Russian agents. Surreal a bit.
stewfen FOHP46 13 Jul 2015 04:24
The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington
wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they
succeeded
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 03:54
I'll admit that frozen conflicts could be useful to Russia. But only from a security point
of view. And why not, exactly? NATO is Russia's biggest threat, so it would make sense for the
government to want to avoid it expanding any further. I understand your misgivings since you're
speaking from the position that NATO should expand to deter Russi I mean 'Iran', but surely you
understand that Russia wanting to prevent that makes logical sense? Sure, it's at someone else's
expense but let's not pretend that big countries doing something at someone else's expense is
a new and revolutionary concept reserved only to Russia. And the Georgian conflict dates back
to the very early 90's.
From an economic point of view though, no sense at all. Frozen conflicts usually bring economic
barriers. Believe it or not Russia's priority isn't expansion, but the economy. And trade with
it's neighbours is an important element of the Russian economy. It's very hard to trade with areas
that are in the middle of a frozen conflict. So in that sense the last thing Russia would want
are profitable areas in a frozen conflict around it's borders hampering it's economic growth.
And none of this has anything to do with Marioupol.
Debreceni 13 Jul 2015 03:38
The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in
Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was
cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian!
Kaiama PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 02:50
We don't know if PS were also doing it as well or just poking their noses into someone else's
business. Who started it? I doubt the correct answer will ever be known. Two unsavoury groups
arguing about an illegal business. The problem is that the MP is an MP whereas PS is a national
organisation.
It's never the US....it's never the West.....
(you know, to balance things) : )
todaywefight 13 Jul 2015 01:53
If any one on the other side, the dark side, ever thought that these lot will hold hands with
any one, lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya, uou are either utterly naive or willfully ignorant.
Apparently, these lot have 23 battalions, armed to their teeth, the added bonus for the Privy
Sektor is that , due to expedience and cowardice , they have just made legal and incorporated
into the Ukrainian army, Kyiv is in a highway to nowhere.
Incidentally, unlike the maidan demonstrations which essentially were only in Kyiv there are
demonstrations in more than a dozen cities, and have established dozen of check points already
and Yarosh a member of the VT. have clearly instructed them to fight if necessary.
GameOverManGameOver Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 01:35
So? Yes there are nationalists in Russia, just like everywhere else. You get a gold star for
googling. Shall I get some articles with European and American nationalists to parade around to
make a vague point? If you want I can get you an article of Lithuanians dressed up as the Waffen
SS parading around Vilnius. That's Lithuania the EU and Nato member. Funny how EU principles disappear
when it's one of their own violating them.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. While all countries have their nationalists, those
nationalists are a very small minority, have no power, have no popular support, have no seats
in government, usually derided by the majority of the population and they certainly aren't armed
to the teeth roaming around the country killing, torturing and kidnapping people with the blessing
of their government
HollyOldDog Joe way 13 Jul 2015 00:09
The Right Sector were / are Ukrains Storm Troopers who have had more advanced training by the
Americans. If the Right Sector turn on the Kiev Government they will be difficult to defeat, and
who knows if the civilian population of Ukraine may join in the 'fun' by ousting the current unpopular
Ukrainian government.
sorrentina 12 Jul 2015 23:35
this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement
Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like
Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor
Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists
were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi.
annamarinja jgbg 12 Jul 2015 23:31
The threshold has been guessed impatiently by the US neocons (while the provocateur Higgins/
Bellingcat fed the gullible the fairy tales about Russian army in Ukraine). The US needs desperately
a real civil war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians be damned. Just look what the US-sponsored "democracy
on the march" has produced in the Middle East. Expect the same bloody results in eastern Europe.
annamarinja obscurant 12 Jul 2015 23:25
perhaps you do not realize that your insults are more appropriate towards the poor Ukrainians
that have been left destitute by the cooky-carrying foreigners and their puppets in Kiev. The
Ukrainian gold reserve has disappeared... meanwhile, the US Congress has shamed the US State Dept
for collaborating with Ukrainian neo-nazis. Stay tuned. But do not expect to hear real news from
your beloved Faux News.
annamarinja quorkquork 12 Jul 2015 23:14
the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's
cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial
lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony.
Bud Peart 12 Jul 2015 22:59
Well we always knew it would end this way. With a stalemate in the war with the East the Right
wing paramilitaries and private oligarch militias (whom the west funded and trained) have gone
completely feral and are now in fighting directly with whats left of the Ukrainian National Army.
This is pretty much the rode to another breakaway in Galacia which would effectively end the Ukraine
as a functional state.
The government should move as fast as possible to get a decent federal structure (copy switzerland)
in place before the whole of the West goes into revolt as well.
DelOrtoyVerga LostJohnny 12 Jul 2015 22:38
That is what you get when you put fascists in your government.
I rather reword it to
That is what you get when you enable and rely on thugish pseudo-fascist radical para-military
groups to impose order by force and violence against dissident segments of your own population
(which is armed to the teeth probably by Russia)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 22:37
What do you think it is?
There were several people identified directly or indirectly in this BBC story whose stories should
have been formally pursued by legal authorities in Kiev.
If you lived in the West you would understand that we call these references as possible 'leads'
- you follow these 'leads' and see where they take you. That is what Western police do.
The story says that Kiev didn't want to follow up any of these points. Why? What harm could this
do?
You state that you do not understand the point that this BBC journalist was making. But I have
in a fair way tried to to explain the point that the BBC was making.
This story caused quite a stir went it came out - and the BBC chose to stick with it and support
their British reporter. In an edited and shorter form the story is still on the BBC - the editing
is also acknowledged by the BBC.
Do you think the BBC should have blocked or not published this investigative piece?
If so - why?
And why hasn't Kiev followed up these issues?
Have I addressed your point yet?
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 21:34
I am just watching a program recorded earlier. Hiroshima: The Aftermath. I have got past the
part when the Japanese 'survivors' had to drink from the pools of Black Rain ( highly radioactive)
and watched the part when American Army Tourists visited the city to take a few photos ( no medical
help though) while gawking at the gooks. In fact the Japanese civilians recieved no medical assistance
at all from the Americans. The commentator just said that they were just there to study the effects
of nuclear radiation on a civilian population. These nuclear bombs were just dropped on Japan
to save One Day of the surrender of the Japanese forces.
The next documtary I will watch another day is the sinking of the Tirpitz by the RAF using
Tallboy bombs. At least this had a useful pupose in helping to stop the destruction of the North
Atlantic convoys, sending aid to Russia. That aid along with the rebuilding of the Soviet Armies
helped the Soviet Union to destroy the invading Nazi forces and provided a Second Front to the
Western Allies to invade Normandy. A lot of good can be achieved when the East and West work together
- maybe avoiding the worst effects of Global Warming but the Americans only seem to want to spend
Trillions $ building more powerful nuclear weapons. Is this all that America has now, an Arms
Industry - I can see it now, cooling the planet with a Nuclear Winter.
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 20:33
The USA caused the chaos in Ukraine so they must pay the billions of $ to fix it then leave
Ukraine alone.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:29
One of the amusing features of the Soviet media was the long silences it maintained on possibly
embarrassing breaking news until it became clear what the Party Line was.
Eventually, a memo would go out from Mikhail Suslov's office to various media outlets and the
silence would be broken.
At least everyone knew exactly how that system worked. What is happening with the British media
is much more murky.
The beeb/graun seem to be the Pravda/Izvestia, whilst the torygraph is a sort of Trybuna Ludu
- ie real news very occasionally appears in it.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:08
So, after a mere 24 hours the Graun ran a story on Mukachevo. The Torygraph actually had the
nerve to run the AFP wire report more or less straight away.
The BBC are still keeping shtum.
The Beeb/Graun complex have well and truly had the frighteners put on them.
PrinceEdward Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 20:07
There's no doubt. I agree that the MP was probably running cigarettes, but also Right Sektor
was going to muscle in.
If you asked somebody 3 years ago if Ukraine would be rocked by armed bands with RPGs and Light
Machine Guns fighting in towns, they would have thought you were crazy.
This isn't Russia, this is the Ultranats/Neo-Nazis.
PrinceEdward obscurant 12 Jul 2015 20:05
Right, it's the people in Donbass who bury 14th SS Division veterans with full honors, push
for full pensions to surviving Hiwi and SS Collaborators... not those in Lvov. Uh huh.
BMWAlbert 12 Jul 2015 20:04
11 months of investigations by the newKiev regime, attempting to implicate the the prior one
for the murder of about 100 people in Kiev early last year was unsuccessful. There may be better
candidates here.
fragglerokk ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 19:55
It always amazes me that the far right never learn from history. The politicians and oligarchs
always use them as muscle to ensure coup success then murder/assasinate the leaders to make sure
they dont get any ideas about power themselves. Surprised its taken so long in ukraine but then
the govt is barely hanging onto power and the IMF loans have turned to a trickle so trouble will
always be brewing, perhaps theyve left it too long this time. Nobody will be shedding any tears
for the Nazis and Banderistas.
Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created
Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed
a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started
a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc.
Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative!
Kaiama gimmeshoes 12 Jul 2015 19:53
If you think Pryvi Sektor want to "clean up" then yes, but not in the way you imagine - they
just want the business for themselves.
Geordiemartin 12 Jul 2015 19:51
I am reminded of AJP Taylor premise that Eastern Europe has historically had either German
domination or Russian protection.
The way that the Ukrainian government had treated their own Eastern compatriots leaves little
reason to believe they would be welcome back into the fold and gives people of Donbass no reason
to want to rejoin the rest of the country.
If government is making an effort to reign in the likes of Right sector it is a move in the
right direction but much much more will be needed to establish any trust.
Some Guy yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:45
just because they are nazis doesnt mean they are happy about doing any of this... now. look
at greece and the debacle that has unfolded over the past week has been . the west ukraine wanted
to be part of the euro zone and wanted some of that ecb bail out money. now they are not even
sure if they could skip out on the bill and know they are fighting for nothing . russia gave them
14 bil dollars . the west after the coup only gave the 1 bil
Andor2001 Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 19:44
According to the eyewitnesses the RS shot a guard when he refused to summon the commanding
officer. It was the beginning of the fight.
Andor2001 yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:41
Remember Shakespeare "Othello"? Moor has done his job, Moor has to go..
The neo-Nazis have outlived their usefulness.
Bosula caaps02 12 Jul 2015 19:39
The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately
started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will
easily find it.
The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from
investigating Maiden shooters.
Maybe the BBC is telling us a lie? The BBC investigation is worth a read - then you can make up
your own mind.
Bosula William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 19:29
Kazakhstan had the highest percentage of deaths from Stalin's policies in this period when
he prevented the nomad herders moving from the mountains to the planes to take advantage of the
benefits of seasons and weather.
Stalin forced the nomads to stay in one area and they perished in the cold of the mountains or
the heat of the summer plains (whichever zone they were forced to stay in).
Some of my family is Ukrainian and some recognise that Stalin's policies weren't specifically
aimed at Ukrainians - the people of Kazakhstan suffered the most (as a percentage of population).
Either way, there is no genetic difference between Slavs or Russian or Ukrainian origin in Ukraine
or Russia - they are all genetically the same people.
This information should be better taught in Ukraine.
The problem is that it would undermine the holy grail story of right wing nationalism in Ukraine.
It's been one of the biggest mistakes ( although Ukraine's military started in a desperately
poor condition ) , to allow militia groups to get so powerful. Right sector should not have arms
and guns... The national Ukraine military should, If members of Right sector want to fight , they
should leave Right sector and join the army.
This was and will happen if they don't disband such armed groups.
annamarinja silvaback 12 Jul 2015 18:18
have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia
(next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard
about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the
civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you
may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language.
She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his
name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs
to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing
that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe.
Bev Linington JJRichardson 12 Jul 2015 18:10
Ukrainians shot down the plane. East, West does not matter as they were all Ukrainians before
the government overthrow. Leaders of the new government could not look past some Ukrainian citizens
ethnicity, instead of standing together united, they decided to oppress which lead to the referendum
in Crimea and the rise of separatists in the East.
jgbg Chirographer 12 Jul 2015 17:53
And for the Pro-Russian posters the newsflash is that could also describe the situation
inside the Donbass.
It certainly describes the situation in Donbass where Right Sector or the volunteer battalions
are in charge. In Dnepropetrovsk, Right Sector would simply turn up at some factory or other business
and order the owner to sign document transferring the enterprise to them. In other cases, they
have kidnapped businessmen for ransom. Some people have simply disappeared under such circumstances.
The Ukrainian National Guard simply break into homes left empty by people fleeing the war and
steal the contents. Such was the scale of looting, the Ukrainian postal service have now refused
to ship electrical goods out of the ATO area unless the senders have the original boxes and receipts.
jgbg AlfredHerring 12 Jul 2015 17:45
Maybe Kiev just needs to bomb them some more.
Putin promised to protect the Russian speaking people in Ukraine - but he hasn't really done
that. His government has indicated that they would not allow Kiev to simply overrun or obliterate
the people of Donbass. Quite where their threshold of actual intervention lies is anyone's guess.
The "pro-Russian" government that you refer to was only elected because it promised to sign
the EU trade agreement. It then reneged on that promise...
Yanukovych's government was elected the previous one was useless and corrupt.
Yanukovych wanted to postpone the decision to sign for six months, while he attempted to extract
more from both the EU and Russia. Under Poroshenko, the implementation of the EU Association Agreement
has been delayed for 15 months, as the governments of Ukraine, the EU and Russia all recognised
that Russian trade (with the favourable terms which Ukraine enjoys) are vitail to Ukraine's economic
recovery. Expect that postponement to be extended.
.... severely and brutally curtailing freedom of speech and concentrating all power in the
hands of Yanukovich's little clan...
As opposed to sending the military to shell the crap out of those who objected to an elected
government being removed by a few thousand nationalists in Kiev.
There was no "coup".
An agreement had been signed at the end of February 2014, which would see elections in September
2014. The far right immediately moved to remove the government (as Right Sector had promised on
camera in December 2013). None of the few mechanisms for replacing the president listed in the
Ukrainian constitution have been followed - that makes it a coup.
The Maidan protesters were not armed
This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on
Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina
- the video is still on the BBC website.
....the interim government that was put in place by the parliament in late February and
the government that was elected in May and Oct. of 2014 were and are not fascist.
The interim government included several ministers from Svoboda, formerly the Socialist Nationalist
Party of Ukraine. These were the first Nazi ministers in a European government since Franco's
Spanish government that ended in the 1970's. In a 2013 resolution, the EU parliament had indicated
that no Ukrainian government should include members of Svoboda or other far right parties.
pushkinsideburn vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 16:45
There has been a marked change in rhetoric over the last few weeks. Even CiF on Ukraine articles
seems to attract less trolls (with a few notable exceptions on this article - though they feel
more like squad trolls than the first team). Hopefully a sign of deescalation or perhaps just
a temporary lull before the MH17 anniversary this week?
pushkinsideburn calum1 12 Jul 2015 16:38
His other comments should have been the clue that arithmetic, like independent critical thinking,
is beyond him.
normankirk 12 Jul 2015 16:19
Right sector were the first to declare they wouldn't abide by the Minsk 2 peace agreement.Nevertheless,
Dmitry Yarosh, their leader is adviser to Ukraine's Chief of staff. Given that he only received
about 130,000 votes in the last election, he has a disproportionate amount of power.
As predicted the real civil war in Ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and
the ordinary Ukrainian was largely manufactured . In the long term no body would be able to live
with the right sector or more precisely the right sector cant share a bed with anyone else.
sashasmirnoff RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 15:44
"When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as
it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules
all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at
that time?"
This may be why:
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - former CIA Director William
Colby
Alexander_the_Great 12 Jul 2015 15:43
This was so, so predictable. The Right Sector were the main violent group during the coup in
2014 - in fact they were the ones to bring the first guns to the square following their storming
of a military warehouse in west Ukraine a few days before the coup. It was this factor that forced
the Police to arm themselves in preparation.
Being the vanguard of the illegal coup, they then provided a useful tool of manipulation for
the illegal Kiev government to oppress any opposition, intimidate journalists who spoke the truth
and lead the war against the legally-elected ELECTED governments of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Having failed in the war against the east, western leaders have signalled the right sector
has now outlived its usefulness and has become an embarrassment to Kiev and their western backers.
The Right Sector meanwhile, feel betrayed by the establishment in Kiev. They have 19 battalions
of fighters and they wont go away thats for sure. I think one can expect this getting more violent
in the coming months.
SHappens jezzam 12 Jul 2015 15:40
Putin is a Fascist dictator.
Putin is not a dictator. He is a statist, authoritarian-inclined hybrid regime ruler that possesses
some democratic elements and space for opposition groups.
He has moderate nationalist tendencies in foreign affairs; his goal is a secure a strong Russia.
He is a patriot and has a charismatic authority. Russians stay behind him.
ploughmanlunch samuel glover 12 Jul 2015 15:31
'this notion that absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up
in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome'
Agreed.
As is everything is Russia's fault.
ConradLodziak 12 Jul 2015 15:26
This is just the latest in a string of conflicts involving the right sector, as reported by
RT, Russian media and until recently many Ukrainian outlets. The problem, of course, is that Porostinko
has given 'official' status to the right sector. Blow back time for him.
CIAbot007 William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:06
Yes, Russia (USSR) from the USSR foundation had been forcing people of the then territory of
Ukraine to identify themselves as Ukrainians under the process of rootisation - Ukrainization,
then gave to Ukraine Donbass and left side Dniepr and Odessa, Herson and Nikolaev, and then decided
to ethnically cleane them.. It doesn't make sense, does it? Oh, wait, sense is not your domain.
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:05
let me help you with arithmetics: 72 years ago Europe was inflamed with the WWII.
There was a considerable number of Ukrainians that collaborated with Hitler' nazis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)
In short, your government finds it is OK to glorify the perpetrators of genocide in Europe during
the WWII.
Nik2 12 Jul 2015 15:04
These tragic events, when YESTERDAY, on Saturday afternoon, several civilians were unintentionally
wounded in gun battles in previously peaceful town near the Hungary and Slovakia borders, vividly
exposes Western propaganda. Though mass media in Ukraine and Russia are full of reports about
this from the start, The Guardian managed to give first information exactly 1 day later, and BBC
was still keeping silence a few minutes ago. Since both sides are allies of the West (the Right
Sector fighters were the core of the Maidan protesters at the later stages, and Poroshenko regime
is presumably "democratic"), the Western media preferred to ignore the events that are so politically
uncomfortable. Who are "good guys" to be praised? In fact, this may be the start of nationalists'
revolt against Ukrainian authorities, and politically it is very important moment that can fundamentally
change Ukrainian politics. But the West decides to be silent ...
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 14:59
Do your history book tell you that the Holodomor was a multiethnic endeavor? That the Ukrainians
were among the victims and perpetrators and that the whole huge country had suffered the insanely
cruel policies of multiethnic bolsheviks? The Holodomor was almost a century ago, whereas the
Odessa massacre and the bombardments of civilian population in east Ukraine by the neo-nazi thugs
(sent by Kiev), has been going during last year and half. Perhaps you have followed Mr. Brennan
and Mrs. Nuland-Kagan too obediently.
foolisholdman zonzonel 12 Jul 2015 14:58
zonzonel
Oops, the presumably fascist govt. is fighting a fascist group.
What is a poor troll to do these days??
Antiukrainian copywriting just got more difficult, perhaps a raise is needed? Just sayin.
What's your problem? Never heard of Fascist groups fighting each other? Never heard of the
"Night of the Long Knives"? Fascists have no principles to unite them. They believe in Uebermenschen
and of course they all think that either they themselves or their leader is The Ueberuebermensch.
Anyone who disagrees is an enemy no matter how Fascist he may be.
samuel glover ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 14:55
Y'know, I'm no fan of the Russophobic hysteria that dominates English-language media. I've
been to Ukraine several times over the last 15 years or so, and I'm sorry to say that I think
that in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution
-- with regret and cynicism.
That said, this notion that everything, absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master
script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome. Most post-revolution regimes purge
one end or the other of the current ideological wings. Kiev has already tangled with the oligarch
and militia patron Igor Kolomoisky. So perhaps this is another predictable factional struggle.
Or maybe, as another comment speculates, this is a feud over cigarette tax revenue.
In any case, Ukraine is a complex place going through an **extremely** complex time. it's too
soon to tell what the Lviv skirmish means, and **far** too soon to lay it all on nefarious puppetmasters.
TheTruthAnytime ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 14:49
The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country,...
Is the CIA their country? So far they've only seemed to serve the interests of American businesspeople,
not Ukrainian interests. Also, murdering eastern Ukrainians cannot really be considered such a
great service to Ukraine, can it?
annamarinja ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:44
Maidan was indeed a popular apprising, but it was utilized by the US strategists for their
geopolitical games. The Ukrainians are going to learn hard way that the US have never had any
interest in well-being of the "locals" and that the ongoing civil war was designed in order to
create a festering wound on a border with the Russia. The Iraqization of Ukraine was envisioned
by the neocons as a tool to break both Russia and Ukraine. The sooner Ukrainians come to a peaceful
solution uniting the whole Ukraine (for example, to federalization), the better for the general
population (but not for the thieving oligarchs).
vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 14:38
"Couple of hundred Right Sector supporters demonstrated in Kiev?" Come on! Over the last week,
there have been enough of videos of thousands of people in fatigues trying to block access to
government buildings and shouting rather aggressive demands. The entire battalions of "National
Guard." This is much bigger than just 100 people on a peaceful rally. Ukraine might be heading
towards Maidan 3.0.
ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:26
The situation in Ukraine has been unravelling for months and this news broke on Friday evening.
The Minsk II cease fire has not been honoured by Poroshenko, who has not managed to effect
any of the pledges he signed up to. The right sector who rejected the cease-fire from the start
are now refusing the rule of their post coup president in Kiev.
Time for Victoria Nuland to break out the cookies? Or maybe it's too late for that now. The
country formerly know as Ukraine is turning out to be another outstanding success of American
post -imperial foreign policy.
Meanwhile in UFA the BRIC's economic forum is drawing to a close, with representatives from
the developing world and no reporting of the aspirations being discussed there of over 60% of
the world's population. It's been a major success, but if you want to learn about it, you will
have to turn to other media sources - those usually reported as Russian propaganda channels or
Putin's apologists.
The same people who have been reporting on the deteriorating situation in Kiev since the February
coup. Or as Washington likes to call it a popular up rising.
'The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country'
Don't get me wrong. I detest the fascist militias and their evil deeds.
However, despite their callousness, brutality and stupidity, they have been the most effective
fighting force for Kiev ( more sensible Ukrainians have been rather more reluctant to kill their
fellow countrymen ).
Deluded ? Yes. Cowardly ? No.
Even more reprehensible, in my opinion are the calculating and unprincipled Kiev Government
that have attempted to bully a region of the Ukraine that had expressed legitimate reservations,
using those far right battalions, but accepting no responsibility for the carnage that they carried
out.
mario n 12 Jul 2015 12:52
I think it's time Europe spoke up about dangers of Ukrainian nationalism. 72 years ago Ukrainian
fascists committed one of the most hideous and brutal acts of genocide in the human history. Details
are so horrifying it is beyond imagination. Sadly not many people remembers that, because it is
not politically correct to say bad things about Ukraine. Today mass murderers are hailed as national
heroes and private battalions and ultranationalist groups armed to the teeth terrorise not only
Donbas but now different parts of the country like Zakarpattia where there is strong Hungarian,
Russian and Romanian minority.
How many massacres and acts of genocide Europe needs before it learns to act firmly?
SHappens 12 Jul 2015 12:49
Kiev has allowed nationalist groups including Right Sector to operate despite allegations
by groups like Amnesty International, that Right Sector has tortured civilian prisoners.
You know what, you dont play with fire or you will get burnt. It was written on the wall that
these Bandera apologists would eventually turn to the hand that fed them. I wonder how Kiev will
manage to blame the russians now.
RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 12:33
Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by
their own admission! These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government
of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly
cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy. Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law,
Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards.
The US neocons are losing interest in their attempted land grab of Ukraine - and the EU cretins
who backed the coup, thinking it would be a nice juicy further territorial acquisition for the
EU, are desperately looking the other way, now that both the US and EU realize that Ukraine is
a financial black hole.
When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is,
in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western
mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?
jgbg 12 Jul 2015 12:15
The move came after a gunfight broke out on Saturday, when about 20 Right Sector gunmen
arrived at a sports complex controlled by MP Mikhail Lano. They had been trying to stop the
traffic of cigarettes and other contraband, a spokesman for the group said.
Put another way, one group of gangsters tried to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling operation
of another group of gangsters. Smuggling cigarettes into nearby EU countries is extremely lucrative. Here's some video of some of the events:
Note the registration plates driven by both Right Sector and the other gangsters i.e. not Ukrainian.
In all likelihood, these cars are all stolen. Right Sector and fighters from "volunteer battalions" have become accustomed to muscling in
on other people's activities (legal or not) in Donbass. This sort of thuggery is routine when
these folk come to town. It is only when since they have continued such activities on their home
turf in west and central Ukraine that the authorities have taken any notice.
Like a gilded coating that makes the dullest things glitter, today's thin veneer of
political populism covers a grotesque underbelly of growing inequality that's hiding in plain
sight. And this phenomenon of ever more concentrated wealth and power has both Newtonian and
Darwinian components to it.
In terms of Newton's first law of motion: those in
power will remain in power unless acted upon by an external force. Those who are wealthy will
only gain in wealth as long as nothing deflects them from their present course. As for Darwin,
in the world of financial evolution, those with wealth or power will do what's in their best
interest to protect that wealth, even if it's in no one else's interest at all.
In George Orwell's iconic 1945 novel, Animal Farm ,
the pigs who gain control in a rebellion against a human farmer eventually impose a
dictatorship on the other animals on the basis of a single commandment
: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." In terms of the
American republic, the modern equivalent would be: "All citizens are equal, but the wealthy are
so much more equal than anyone else (and plan to remain that way)."
Certainly, inequality is the economic great wall between those with power and those without
it.
As the animals of Orwell's farm grew ever less equal, so in the present moment in a country
that still claims equal opportunity for its citizens, one in which
three Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom half of society (160 million people),
you could certainly say that we live in an increasingly Orwellian society. Or perhaps an
increasingly Twainian one.
After all, Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner wrote a classic 1873 novel that put an
unforgettable label on their moment and could do the same for ours. The Gilded Age: A Tale
of Today depicted the greed and political corruption of post-Civil War America. Its
title caught the spirit of what proved to be a long moment when the uber-rich came to dominate
Washington and the rest of America. It was a period saturated with robber barons, professional
grifters, and incomprehensibly wealthy banking magnates. (Anything sound familiar?) The main
difference between that last century's gilded moment and this one was that those robber barons
built tangible things like railroads. Today's equivalent crew of the mega-wealthy build
remarkably intangible things like tech and electronic platforms, while a grifter of a president
opts for the only new infrastructure in sight, a great wall to nowhere.
In Twain's epoch, the U.S. was emerging from the Civil War. Opportunists were rising from
the ashes of the nation's battered soul. Land speculation, government lobbying, and shady deals
soon converged to create an unequal society of the first order (at least until now). Soon after
their novel came out, a series of recessions ravaged the country, followed by a 1907 financial
panic in New York City caused by a
speculator-led copper-market scam.
From the late 1890s on, the most powerful banker on the planet, J.P. Morgan, was called upon
multiple times to bail out a country on the economic edge. In 1907, Treasury Secretary George
Cortelyou provided him with
$25 million in bailout money at the request of President Theodore Roosevelt to stabilize
Wall Street and calm frantic citizens trying to withdraw their deposits from banks around the
country. And this Morgan did -- by helping his friends and their companies, while skimming
money off the top himself. As for the most troubled banks holding the savings of ordinary
people? Well, they folded. (Shades of the 2007-2008 meltdown and bailout anyone?)
The leading bankers who had received that bounty from the government went on to cause the
Crash of 1929 .
Not surprisingly, much speculation and fraud preceded it. In those years, the novelist F. Scott
Fitzgerald caught
the era's spirit of grotesque inequality in The Great Gatsby when one of his characters
comments: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me." The same
could certainly be said of today when it comes to the gaping maw between the have-nots and
have-a-lots.
Income vs. Wealth
To fully grasp the nature of inequality in our twenty-first-century gilded age, it's
important to understand the difference between wealth and income and what kinds of inequality
stem from each. Simply put, income is how much money you make in terms of paid work or any
return on investments or assets (or other things you own that have the potential to change in
value). Wealth is simply the gross accumulation of those very assets and any return or
appreciation on them. The more wealth you have, the easier it is to have a higher annual
income.
Let's break that down. If you earn $31,000 a year, the median salary for an
individual in the United States today, your income would be that amount minus associated taxes
(including federal, state, social security, and Medicare ones). On average, that means you
would be left with about $26,000 before other expenses kicked
in.
If your wealth is $1,000,000, however, and you put that into a savings account paying
2.25%
interest , you could receive about $22,500 and, after taxes, be left with about $19,000,
for doing nothing whatsoever.
To put all this in perspective, the top 1% of Americans now take home, on average, more than
40 times the incomes of the bottom 90%. And if you head for the top 0.1%, those figures only
radically worsen. That tiny crew takes home more than 198 times the income of the
bottom 90% percent. They also possess
as much wealth as the nation's bottom 90%. "Wealth," as Adam Smith so classically noted
almost two-and-a-half-centuries ago in The Wealth of Nations , "is power," an adage that seldom, sadly, seems outdated.
A Case Study: Wealth, Inequality, and the Federal Reserve
Obviously, if you inherit wealth in this country, you're instantly ahead of the game. In
America, a third to nearly a half of all wealth is
inherited rather than self-made. According to a New York Times investigation, for
instance, President Donald Trump, from birth, received an estimated
$413 million (in today's dollars, that is) from his dear old dad and another
$140 million (in today's dollars) in loans. Not a bad way for a "businessman" to begin
building the empire (of bankruptcies
) that became the platform for a presidential campaign that
oozed into actually running the country. Trump did it, in other words, the old-fashioned
way -- through inheritance.
In his megalomaniacal zeal to declare a national emergency at the southern border, that
gilded millionaire-turned-billionaire-turned-president provides but one of many examples of a
long record of abusing power. Unfortunately, in this country, few people consider record
inequality (which is still growing) as another kind of abuse of power, another kind of great
wall, in this case keeping not Central Americans but most U.S. citizens out.
The Federal Reserve, the country's central bank that dictates the cost of money and that
sustained Wall Street in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007-2008 (and since), has finally
pointed out that such extreme levels of inequality are bad news for the rest of the country. As
Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said at a
town hall in Washington in early February, "We want prosperity to be widely shared. We need
policies to make that happen." Sadly, the Fed has largely contributed to increasing
the systemic inequality now engrained in the financial and, by extension, political system. In
a recent research paper , the Fed
did, at least, underscore the consequences of inequality to the economy, showing that "income
inequality can generate low aggregate demand, deflation pressure, excessive credit growth, and
financial instability."
In the wake of the global economic meltdown, however, the Fed took it upon itself to reduce
the cost of money for big banks by chopping interest rates to zero (before eventually raising
them to 2.5%) and buying $4.5 trillion in Treasury and mortgage bonds to lower it further. All
this so that banks could ostensibly lend money more easily to Main Street and stimulate the
economy. As Senator Bernie Sanders noted though, "The
Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the
largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world a
clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone
else."
The economy has been treading water ever since (especially compared to the stock market).
Annual gross domestic product growth has not surpassed
3% in any year since the financial crisis, even as the level of the stock market
tripled , grotesquely increasing the country's inequality gap. None of this should have
been surprising, since much of the excess money went straight to big banks, rich investors, and
speculators. They then used it to invest in the stock and bond markets, but not in things that
would matter to all the Americans outside that great wall of wealth.
The question is: Why are inequality and a flawed economic system mutually reinforcing? As a
starting point, those able to invest in a stock market buoyed by the Fed's policies only
increased their wealth exponentially. In contrast, those relying on the economy to sustain them
via wages and other income got shafted. Most people aren't, of course, invested in the stock
market, or really in anything. They can't afford to be. It's important to remember that nearly
80% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck.
The net result: an acute post-financial-crisis increase in
wealth inequality -- on top of the income inequality that was global but especially true in the
United States. The crew in the top 1% that doesn't rely on salaries to increase their wealth
prospered fabulously. They, after all, now own
more than half of all national wealth invested in stocks and mutual funds, so a soaring
stock market disproportionately helps them. It's also why the Federal Reserve
subsidy policies to Wall Street banks have only added to the extreme wealth of those
extreme few.
The Ramifications of Inequality
The list of negatives resulting from such inequality is long indeed. As a start, the only
thing the majority of Americans possess a greater proportion of than that top 1% is a mountain
of debt.
The bottom 90% are the lucky owners of about three-quarters of the country's household debt.
Mortgages, auto loans, student loans, and credit-card debt are cumulatively at a
record-high $13.5 trillion .
And that's just to start down a slippery slope. As Inequality.org reports, wealth and
income inequality impact "everything from life expectancy to infant mortality and obesity."
High economic inequality and poor health, for instance, go hand and hand, or put another way,
inequality compromises the overall health of the country. According to academic findings,
income inequality is, in the most literal sense, making Americans sick. As one study put it ,
"Diseased and impoverished economic infrastructures [help] lead to diseased or impoverished or
unbalanced bodies or minds."
Then there's Social Security, established in 1935 as a federal supplement for
those in need who have also paid into the system through a tax on their wages. Today, all
workers contribute 6.2% of their annual earnings and employers pay the other 6.2% (up to a cap
of $132,900 ) into the Social
Security system. Those making far more than that, specifically millionaires and billionaires,
don't have to pay a dime more on a proportional basis. In practice, that means about 94%
of American workers and their employers paid the full 12.4% of their annual earnings toward
Social Security, while the other 6% paid an often significantly smaller fraction of their
earnings.
According to his
own claims about his 2016 income, for instance, President Trump "contributed a mere 0.002
percent of his income to Social Security in 2016." That means it would take nearly
22,000 additional workers earning the median U.S. salary to make up for what he doesn't
have to pay. And the greater the income inequality in this country, the more money those who
make less have to put into the Social Security system on a proportional basis. In recent years,
a staggering $1.4 trillion
could have gone into that system, if there were no arbitrary payroll cap favoring the
wealthy.
Inequality: A Dilemma With Global Implications
America is great at minting millionaires. It has the highest concentration of them, globally
speaking, at 41%. (Another 24% of that millionaires' club can be found in Europe.) And the top
1% of U.S. citizens earn 40 times the national average and
own about 38.6 % of the country's total wealth. The highest figure in any other developed
country is "only" 28%.
However, while the U.S. boasts of epic levels of inequality, it's also a global trend.
Consider this: the world's richest 1% own 45% of total wealth on
this planet. In contrast, 64% of the population (with an average of
$10,000 in wealth to their name) holds less than 2%. And to widen the inequality picture a bit
more, the world's richest 10%, those having at least $100,000 in assets, own 84% of total
global wealth.
The billionaires' club is where it's really at, though. According to Oxfam, the richest
42 billionaires have a combined wealth equal to that of the poorest 50% of humanity. Rest
assured, however, that in this gilded century there's inequality even among billionaires. After
all, the 10 richest among them possess $745
billion in total global wealth. The next 10 down the list possess a mere $451.5 billion , and why even
bother tallying the next 10 when you get the picture?
Oxfam also recently
reported that "the number of billionaires has almost doubled, with a new billionaire
created every two days between 2017 and 2018. They have now more wealth than ever before while
almost half of humanity have barely escaped extreme poverty, living on less than $5.50 a
day."
How Does It End?
In sum, the rich are only getting richer and it's happening at a historic rate. Worse yet,
over the past decade, there was an extra perk for the truly wealthy. They could bulk up on
assets that had been devalued due to the financial crisis, while so many of their peers on the
other side of that great wall of wealth were economically decimated by the 2007-2008 meltdown
and have yet to fully
recover .
What we've seen ever since is how money just keeps flowing upward through banks and massive
speculation, while the economic lives of those not at the top of the financial food chain have
largely remained stagnant or worse. The result is, of course, sweeping inequality of a kind
that, in much of the last century, might have seemed inconceivable.
Eventually, we will all have to face the black cloud this throws over the entire economy.
Real people in the real world, those not at the top, have experienced a decade of ever greater
instability, while the inequality gap of this beyond-gilded age is sure to shape a truly messy
world ahead. In other words, this can't end well.
I read a stat in Mother Jones magazine that 90% of Americans have an average income of
$31,000 a year and the richest .1 percent have an average income of $27 million dollars. So
how does one pay all these living expenses and various debts with $26,000 after taxes? The
Trump tax cuts just exacerbated the problem by giving more money to the wealthy and
practically nothing to the 90% (at the bottom, which is almost everyone else). A good book on
the subject of wealth inequality is "Billionaire's Ball."
"... Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all the major media. ..."
"... I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him and destroyed his country ..."
"... There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect folks to fall for it. ..."
Bernie is no socialist, neither are any Democrats, just controlled puppets to keep the
American people docile, keep up the illusion that things will actually get better one day. He
may be an FDR capitalist, giving you just enough socialism to keep the capitalist system
afloat, keeping the pitchforks and torches at bay.
Bernie is a pro-war imperialist, just look at his tweets about Maduro recently, or his
views on Palestine-Israel. He may be the best "candidate" in 2020, but he is far from a
socialist. Same deal with Tulsi, if you are pro-Israel, you are a pro-war imperialist
period.
Notice she always makes a point to say "regime change wars" but what about drones? What
about covert CIA-mercenary assassinations? What about the war OF terror? She has no problem
with these types of war apparently. Colonialism and imperialism (theft of other people's and
nation's resources) are not true socialist policies. Capitalism by definition is stealing the
surplus value of the labor of other people – it cannot lead anywhere but to where we
are today.
Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the
working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such
as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all
the major media.
There is now no Left left in America, although plenty people here now think "left" means
identity stuff. It does not. Left is giving priority to the welfare if the working class
majority and protecting them from predatory capitalists. Race, gender and deviancies did not
define the authentic socialist agenda.
I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco
Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him
and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat to Maduro. You
don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our country, the most
powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're foolish enough to think
voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't stop until they're either
in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because you ask them to, which is all
voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
I wish it wasn't true. I wish we could vote Bernie or Tulsi in and things change for the
better, but from what I've seen the past 30 years, it ain't happening. Their silence on 9-11
truth, knowing full well they know better is pretty telling.
It doesn't take an Einstein to
see those buildings were blown up with explosives, if they're not willing to call that out,
what makes you think they're willing to do what needs to be done once in office? Sadly I'm
afraid either collapse, armed revolt, or China or Russia invading and/or nuking us is the
only way out of this evil system.
There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the
same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect
folks to fall for it.
This is a great
article which effectively exposes Sanders as being fatally compromised by his role as
Clinton lackey after the evidence emerged that the party engaged in fraud securing the
predicted result. I also fully endorse Hooch's response to the commentary. Great job on both
counts.
"... This is where Sanders will come to help: he will help US citizens, by helping corporations to be able to sell their stuff to US citizens. Sanders calls that socialism, but it is, as Chomsky explained, new dealism. ..."
"... As of 3 min ago, https://berniesanders.com/ was just a splash screen. He had 4 yrs to update his website. He should not run. Tulsi Gabbard went to the mat for him in 2016, he should have sat this one out and endorsed her. Bernie is a typical narcissistic baby boomer who believes only he can save the world he has spent his life F-ing up. ..."
@Bern I think that
Sanders is able to change half of the USA. He is likely to do something about inequality,
unemployment, health care, but he will not touch the MIC.
The US is a rich country, and if the US wants stay rich it has to do something about this
third world-isation of the USA that is in play since the 1990s (outsourcing of jobs, leaving
the home population with less and less means to buy stuff US corporations produce abroad).
This is where Sanders will come to help: he will help US citizens, by helping corporations to
be able to sell their stuff to US citizens. Sanders calls that socialism, but it is, as
Chomsky explained, new dealism.
Socialism would be if Sanders promoted that workers would
take over the corporations, or would allow to re-open factories, warehouses, and farmland
where the workers were in control, not the bosses. Sanders is not promoting any of that.
Sanders may be a Roosevelt, but he is not an Upton Sinclair (who nearly became governor of
California in the 1930s by running a truly socialist platform). And, as said, he will
certainly not touch the MIC.
IMO he is the lesser evil of candidates who run for the 2020 US elections, but to consider
him a socialist, as Sanders calls himself, will lead to disappointment.
Here is Michael Parenti talking about his former compatriot:
As of 3 min ago, https://berniesanders.com/ was just a splash screen. He had 4
yrs to update his website. He should not run. Tulsi Gabbard went to the mat for him in 2016, he
should have sat this one out and endorsed her. Bernie is a typical narcissistic baby boomer who
believes only he can save the world he has spent his life F-ing up.
Oh great, Bernie -- another Sunday Socialist. The road to Hell is trodden bare by his
type, downhill all the way. Bernie's assigned role is to "suck up all the oxygen". Provide
the necessary razzle-dazzle for the war democrats, police state liberals and austerity
progressives to suck up the attention and energy of the disaffected.
That's what they get paid to do. This layer of burn-outs, has beens and traitors. The
ever-odious staffers, full-timers, consultants, aides, advisors, policy wonks, publicity
hounds. Ever advancing themselves as spokespeople for all the causes. Always ready to turn
viciously on any regular people who have the impertinence to say otherwise. Generals without
an army.
Always anything but class with the Bernie boosters. Furiously beating their drums for
feminism, gay whatever, racism, the environment. But never for mobilization of the working
class. Never for fighting against real capitalism. The Bernie Sunday Socialists live
comfortably, haven't walked a picket line in ages, buy sweat shop labour designer clothes and
are as tough as jello.
Life has a way of paying you out. And the future for the Bernie boosters and those dumb
enough to buy their bilge is -- the Ukraine.
While the Bernie crowd serve as their apologists the class elites grind on. They have no
limit and the Bernie bunch will swallow anything so long as they keep their place and
privileges as police for the working poor. But, at some point, Ukrainization hits the
tipping point. As it is heading for in Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Mexico. When the shit
hits the fan, the Bernie boosters will be on the wrong side of the barricades.
@redmudhooch "See how
the faithful city has become a prostitute! She once was full of justice; righteousness used
to dwell in her -- but now murderers!"
(Isaiah 1:21-23)
Bernie is not a magic socialist. He is a fraud: he was cheated out of nomination, and then
supported the cheater. Shame on him! He will never get my vote, period.
Barr is CIA's shyster lawyer, Mueller is CIA's cleaner. Both FBI and DoJ are completely
controlled by CIA "focal points" (Dulles' term) or dotted-line reports (Bush-era
Newspeak.)
What's more, Hill and Bill work for CIA too: Hill got her start purloining documents for
CIA's "Watergate" purge of Nixon; Cord Meyer recruited Bill at Oxford.
CIA brainwashing makes Republicans blame Democrats for what CIA does to you, and makes
Democrats blame Republicans for what CIA does to them. CIA runs your country while party
loyalists tear each other's throats out. Divide et impera.
Nobody will be doing a fine job for the country because CIA doesn't give a rat's ass about
the country. They've got a business to run: drug-dealing, gun-running, child trafficking and
pedophile blackmail, money-laundering, foreign asset-stripping.
I honestly think that had the media and the deep state treated Trump fairly, they would have still have some credibility
now. But the blatant attempt to derail his candidacy only egged on his supporters. Then, the concerted attempts to nullify the
election results convinced people all over the political spectrum that our "democracy" is only a "simulation of democracy" as
Hopkins points out.
Don't the people pulling the strings behind the media understand what they have done? They have convinced a large part of the
nation that everything that they were taught from childhood is a fraud.
Civilizations are only held together by the "glue" of shared beliefs. The deep-state-media-complex has just applied a solvent
to the very glue that holds the entire culture together.
This is going to make the next couple of years very interesting.
Attempts by Russian gov. to intimidate Amb. Wallace & @UANI are unacceptable. If
President Putin is serious about stabilizing the Middle East, confronting terrorism &
preventing a nuclear arms race in the region, he should stand with UANI & against
Iran.
Why would the national security advisor care what the Russian Foreign Ministry has to say
about a New York-based nonprofit's letter writing campaign, especially when those remarks got
virtually no notice in the media?
Bolton's personal finances and the president's biggest campaign funder offer a couple
clues.
Bolton's financial disclosures show that between September 2015 and April 2018, he
received $165,000 from the Counter-Extremism Project (CEP), a group with overlapping
staffers, board members, and finances with UANI. According to the Bolton's disclosures, the
payments were "consulting fees."
@Asagirian I've read that
she is still in line to primary Trump. Surely someone will, so it might as well be a neocon
Israel-first Sikh woman who is even more ignorant and psychotic that our current
Tweeter-in-Chief. If she wins, she can even keep Pompeo and Bolton to finish off Iran and
start WWIII.
@animalogic I don't
know if you live in the US, sounds like you don't, but one could argue that the healthcare
system has already been nationalized. Consumers must shop for policies that meet
Obamacare standards which include coverage for gender reassignment and other things
that 10 years ago no private insurer would dream of paying for. This is a direct result of
government's boot on the market's throat. (And the market likes it, based on HMO stock
prices)
It is illegal for any insurer to offer a bare bones catastrophic plan that doesn't
cover Obama's hopey-changey list of progressive surgical procedures. 15 years ago, those
catastrophic plans were everywhere, and very affordable.
And to your point about providing healthcare to people who can't afford it. We already
have that, it's called Medicaid. When those receiving it die, the government comes in and
grabs all of their estate's assets, because they used a government program that was
forced on them. Like I said, it's been taken over.
"That might have left people with the false impression that their votes mean absolutely
nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy, and
in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire
administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until
they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image."
Now that's writing worth reading. If the Nobel committee did not serve the Global Empire,
it would give the Literature Prize to Hopkins.
The late 19th and 20th century Russians had the horror of dealing with Nihilists running
amuck in their country. Now the Nihilists rule the world as multi-billionaire Globalists.
The DNC takes Deep State to a whole new level. They have this thing called "Superdelegates",
which has veto power over the little people.
The SJWs and Bernie bots may be too dumb to know who their real daddies are, but the
Superdelegates know exactly whose ring they need to kiss to regain power: the same globalist
capitalist Davos scums who now have Trump exactly where they want him, between their legs
sucking up while busy implementing their agendas of endless wars and endless immigration.
The Superdelegates will never let things get too far with the socialists, they're good for
entertainment, to give off the pretense of a real race. I'm betting my money on Kirsten
Gillibrand -- Dems know if there's a woman who could beat Trump, she needs to be a blonde.
Uncle Joe has too many skeletons in his closet. It's just a matter of time before the
cockroaches come out of the woodwork and #MeToo him into the orbits.
Oh great, Bernie -- another Sunday Socialist. The road to Hell is trodden bare by his
type, downhill all the way. Bernie's assigned role is to "suck up all the oxygen". Provide
the necessary razzle-dazzle for the war democrats, police state liberals and austerity
progressives to suck up the attention and energy of the disaffected.
That's what they get paid to do. This layer of burn-outs, has beens and traitors. The
ever-odious staffers, full-timers, consultants, aides, advisors, policy wonks, publicity
hounds. Ever advancing themselves as spokespeople for all the causes. Always ready to turn
viciously on any regular people who have the impertinence to say otherwise. Generals without
an army.
Always anything but class with the Bernie boosters. Furiously beating their drums for
feminism, gay whatever, racism, the environment. But never for mobilization of the working
class. Never for fighting against real capitalism. The Bernie Sunday Socialists live
comfortably, haven't walked a picket line in ages, buy sweat shop labour designer clothes and
are as tough as jello.
Life has a way of paying you out. And the future for the Bernie boosters and those dumb
enough to buy their bilge is -- the Ukraine.
While the Bernie crowd serve as their apologists the class elites grind on. They have no
limit and the Bernie bunch will swallow anything so long as they keep their place and
privileges as police for the working poor. But, at some point, Ukrainization hits the
tipping point. As it is heading for in Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Mexico. When the shit
hits the fan, the Bernie boosters will be on the wrong side of the barricades.
Bernie is no socialist, neither are any Democrats, just controlled puppets to keep the
American people docile, keep up the illusion that things will actually get better one day. He
may be an FDR capitalist, giving you just enough socialism to keep the capitalist system
afloat, keeping the pitchforks and torches at bay.
Bernie is a pro-war imperialist, just look at his tweets about Maduro recently, or his
views on Palestine-Israel. He may be the best "candidate" in 2020, but he is far from a
socialist. Same deal with Tulsi, if you are pro-Israel, you are a pro-war imperialist
period.
Notice she always makes a point to say "regime change wars" but what about drones? What
about covert CIA-mercenary assassinations? What about the war OF terror? She has no problem
with these types of war apparently. Colonialism and imperialism (theft of other people's and
nation's resources) are not true socialist policies. Capitalism by definition is stealing the
surplus value of the labor of other people – it cannot lead anywhere but to where we
are today.
Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the
working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such
as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all
the major media.
There is now no Left left in America, although plenty people here now think "left" means
identity stuff. It does not. Left is giving priority to the welfare if the working class
majority and protecting them from predatory capitalists. Race, gender and deviancies did not
define the authentic socialist agenda.
I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco
Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him
and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat to Maduro. You
don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our country, the most
powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're foolish enough to think
voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't stop until they're either
in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because you ask them to, which is all
voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
I wish it wasn't true. I wish we could vote Bernie or Tulsi in and things change for the
better, but from what I've seen the past 30 years, it ain't happening. Their silence on 9-11
truth, knowing full well they know better is pretty telling.It doesn't take an Einstein to
see those buildings were blown up with explosives, if they're not willing to call that out,
what makes you think they're willing to do what needs to be done once in office? Sadly I'm
afraid either collapse, armed revolt, or China or Russia invading and/or nuking us is the
only way out of this evil system.
There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the
same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect
folks to fall for it.
Transcript
of Valdai Club Hanoi Meeting of Lavrov's opening remarks and press Q&A is now
available. Yes, they are long and quite detailed, and contain a great amount of information
about what's been happening behind the scenes that seldom gets reported. The portions devoted
to Kim-Trump and that overall situation are just one topic amongst several discussed--no,
Venezuela wasn't specifically discussed. I found Lavrov's recap of actions related to
Eurasian integration very helpful as much has been accomplished over the past few months. The
following comment relates to Korea but can be extended to fit overall international
relations:
"I believe that at the end of the day, the multilateral format will prove to be
indispensable. Safety guarantees that must be given to North Korea, should full
denuclearisation take place, must be absolutely reliable, although this will not guarantee
anything – excuse me for tautology. I have cited the examples of UN Security Council
decisions being simply put aside and new rules, on which nobody had ever agreed with anyone,
invented ." [My Emphasis]
In a recent essay, Caitlin Johnstone described the Outlaw US Empire as Godzilla. I think
she's 100% correct.
"... There are foundations in Washington, all closely linked to Israel and its lobby in the U.S., that are wholly dedicated to making the case for war against Iran. ..."
"... The Times suggests how it all works as follows: "Congressional and legal sources say the law may now provide a legal rationale for striking Iranian territory or proxies should President Trump decide that Tehran poses a looming threat to the U.S. or Israel and that economic sanctions are not strong enough to neutralize the threat." The paper does not bother to explain what might constitute a "looming threat" to the United States from puny Iran but it is enough to note that Israel, as usual, is right in the middle of everything and, exercising its option of perpetual victim-hood, it is apparently threatened in spite of its nuclear arsenal and overwhelming regional military superiority guaranteed by act of the U.S. Congress. ..."
"... So going after Iran is the name of the game even if the al Qaeda story is basically untrue. The stakes are high and whatever has to be produced, deduced or fabricated to justify a war is fair game ..."
Observers of developments in the Middle East have long taken it as a given that the United
States and Israel are seeking for an excuse to attack Iran. The recently terminated conference
in Warsaw had that objective, which was clearly expressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, but it failed to rally European and Middle Eastern states to support the cause. On
the contrary, there was strong sentiment coming from Europe in particular that normalizing
relations with Iran within the context of the 2015 multi party nuclear agreement is the
preferred way to go both to avoid a major war and to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.
There are foundations in Washington, all closely linked to Israel and its lobby in the U.S.,
that are wholly dedicated to making the case for war against Iran. They seek pretexts in
various dark corners, including claims that Iran is cheating on its nuclear program, that it is
developing ballistic missiles that will enable it to deliver its secret nuclear warheads onto
targets in Europe and even the United States, that it is an oppressive, dictatorial government
that must be subjected to regime change to liberate the Iranian people and give them democracy,
and, most stridently, that is provoking and supporting wars and threats against U.S. allies all
throughout the Middle East.
Dissecting the claims about Iran, one might reasonably counter that rigorous inspections by
the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirm that Tehran has no nuclear
weapons program, a view that is supported by the U.S. intelligence community in its recent
Worldwide Threat Assessment. Beyond that, Iran's limited missile program can be regarded as
largely defensive given the constant threats from Israel and the U.S. and one might well accept
that the removal of the Iranian government is a task best suited for the Iranian people, not
delivered through military intervention by a foreign power that has been starving the country
through economic warfare. And as for provoking wars in the Middle East, look to the United
States and Israel, not Iran.
So the hawks in Washington, by which one means National Security Adviser John Bolton,
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and, apparently President Donald Trump himself when the subject
is Iran, have been somewhat frustrated by the lack of a clear casus belli to hang their
war on. No doubt prodded by Netanyahu, they have apparently revived an old story to give them
what they want, even going so far as to develop an argument that would justify an attack on
Iran without a declaration of war while also lacking any imminent threat from Tehran to justify
a preemptive strike.
What may be the new Iran policy was recently outlined in a Washington Times article,
which unfortunately has received relatively little attention from either the media, the
punditry or from the few policymakers themselves who have intermittently been mildly critical
of Washington's propensity to strike first and think about it afterwards.
The article is entitled "Exclusive: Iran-al Qaeda alliance May Provide Legal Rationale
for U.S. military strikes." The article's main points should be taken seriously by anyone
concerned over what is about to unfold in the Persian Gulf because it is not just the usual
fluff emanating from the hubris-induced meanderings of some think tank, though it does include
some of that. It also cites government officials by name and others who are not named but are
clearly in the administration.
As an ex-CIA case officer who worked on the Iran target for a number of years, I was shocked
when I read the Times ' article, primarily because it sounded like a repeat of the
fabricated intelligence that was used against both Iraq and Iran in 2001 through 2003. It is
based on the premise that war with Iran is desirable for the United States and, acting behind
the scenes, Israel, so it is therefore necessary to come up with an excuse to start it. As the
threat of terrorism is always a good tactic to convince the American public that something must
be done, that is what the article tries to do and it is particularly discouraging to read as it
appears to reflect opinion in the White House.
As I have been writing quite critically about the CIA and the Middle East for a number of
years, I am accustomed to considerable push-back from former colleagues. But in this case, the
calls and emails I received from former intelligence officers who shared my experience of the
Middle East and had read the article went strongly the other way, condemning the use of both
fake and contrived intelligence to start another unnecessary war.
The article states that Iran is supporting al Qaeda by providing money, weapons and
sanctuary across the Middle East to enable it to undertake new terrorist attacks. It is doing
so in spite of ideological differences because of a common enemy: the United States. Per the
article and its sources, this connivance has now "evolved into an unacceptable global security
threat" with the White House intent on "establishing a potential legal justification for
military strikes against Iran or its proxies."
One might reasonably ask why the United States cares if Iran is helping al Qaeda as both are
already enemies who are lying on the Made in U.S.A. chopping block waiting for the ax to fall.
The reason lies in the Authorization to Use Military Force, originally drafted post 9/11 to
provide a legal fig leaf to pursue al Qaeda worldwide, but since modified to permit also going
after "associated groups." If Iran is plausibly an associated group then President Trump and
his band of self-righteous maniacs egged on by Netanyahu can declare "bombs away Mr.
Ayatollah." And if Israel is involved, there will be a full benediction coming from Congress
and the media. So is this administration both capable and willing to start a major war based on
bullshit? You betcha!
The Times suggests how it all works as follows: "Congressional and legal sources say
the law may now provide a legal rationale for striking Iranian territory or proxies should
President Trump decide that Tehran poses a looming threat to the U.S. or Israel and that
economic sanctions are not strong enough to neutralize the threat." The paper does not bother
to explain what might constitute a "looming threat" to the United States from puny Iran but it
is enough to note that Israel, as usual, is right in the middle of everything and, exercising
its option of perpetual victim-hood, it is apparently threatened in spite of its nuclear
arsenal and overwhelming regional military superiority guaranteed by act of the U.S.
Congress.
Curiously, though several cited administration officials wedded to the hard-line against
Iran because it is alleged to be the "world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" were willing
to provide their opinions on the Iran-al Qaeda axis, the authors of the recent Worldwide Threat
Assessment issued by the intelligence community apparently have never heard of it. The State
Department meanwhile sees an Iranian pipeline moving al Qaeda's men and money to targets in
central and south Asia, though that assessment hardly jives with the fact that the
only recent major attack attributed to al Qaeda was carried out on February 13
th in southeastern Iran against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a bombing that
killed 27 guardsmen.
The State annual threat assessment also particularly condemns Iran for funding groups like
Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are, not coincidentally, enemies of Israel who would care
less about "threatening" the United States but for the fact that it is constantly meddling in
the Middle East on behalf of the Jewish state.
And when in doubt, the authors of the article went to "old reliable," the leading neocon
think tank the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which, by the way, works closely with
the Israeli government and never, ever has criticized the state of democracy in Israel. One of
its spokesmen was quick off the mark: ""The Trump administration is right to focus on Tehran's
full range of malign activities, and that should include a focus on Tehran's long-standing
support for al Qaeda."
Indeed, the one expert cited in the Times story who actually is an expert and
examined original documents rather than reeling off approved government and think tank talking
points contradicted the Iran-al Qaeda narrative. "Nelly Lahoud, a former terrorism analyst at
the U.S. Military Academy and now a New America Foundation fellow, was one of the first to
review documents seized from bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. She wrote in an
analysis for the Atlantic Council this fall that the bin Laden files revealed a deep strain of
skepticism and hostility toward the Iranian regime, mixed with a recognition by al Qaeda
leaders of the need to avoid a complete break with Tehran. In none of the documents, which date
from 2004 to just days before bin Laden's death, 'did I find references pointing to
collaboration between al Qaeda and Iran to carry out terrorism,' she concluded."
So going after Iran is the name of the game even if the al Qaeda story is basically untrue.
The stakes are high and whatever has to be produced, deduced or fabricated to justify a war is
fair game. Iran and terrorism? Perfect. Let's try that one out because, after all, invading
Iran will be a cakewalk and the people will be in the streets cheering our tanks as they roll
by. What could possibly go wrong?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
Israel has a population of approximately 8.7 million, roughly equal to the state of New
Jersey. It is among the world's most affluent nations, with a per capita income slightly
below that of the European Union. Israel's unemployment rate of 4.3% is better than
America's 4.4%, and Israel's net trade, earnings, and payments is ranked 22nd in the world
while the US sits in last place at a dismal 202nd.
Yet, Israel receives more of America's foreign aid budget than any other nation. The US
has, in fact, given more aid to Israel than it has to all the countries of sub-Saharan
Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean combined – which have a total population of
over a billion people.
And foreign aid is just one component of the staggering cost of our alliance with
Israel.
Given the tremendous costs, it is critical to examine why we lavish so much aid on
Israel, and whether it is worth Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. But first, let's take a
look at what our alliance with Israel truly costs.
given the constant threats from Israel and the U.S.
And it has been more than threats: the Stuxnet virus and Mossad assassinations. While I
think even Trump may be reasonably nervous about a potential attack, if he has cheerleaders
like Kushner, Friedman, MBS, AIPAC, et al, it does seem almost a certainty. Is this not what
NSA Bolton has been waiting for most of his career?
And the neocon media crew will likely be out in full force soon doing their "mushroom
cloud" thing.
I saw Rubin, Boot, Pletka, Todd in shock over what Rep Omar had said. Poor David Brooks felt
the Democrats had "slapped him the face (PBS Newshour)."
Democrats need to be talking about this early. They can't let this happen. As for the GOP
I'm sure the words at the AIPAC convention will be supportive.
The patent absurdity of the 'indispensable nation,', in one administration, making peace with
Iran and then, in the very next (on the basis of no palpable facts) making war, should
eventually wake even the most catatonic to the monstrous activities that have led us to this
point.
I suspect that this (seemingly imminent) attack on Iran will, also become the noose to
hang Trump with. Thus, the Neocons, with Stalinesque subtlety will have killed two birds with
one shot.
But in a world of America attacking countries over non-existent weapons of mass
destruction or over supposed destruction of democracy, both plainly false claims, does it
make any difference?
America will do what it wants to do. Simply because it can.
The European powers allowed World War II to unfold by wringing their hands rather than
taking a stand while Hitler built up his forces, threatened his neighbors and bit off
chunks of their territory.
You have to be kidding. You're re-spouting nearly century old war propaganda as fact. You
need to go back and read the article and focus on the parts where pretexts are made up.
Here, start with this.:
So the hawks in Washington, by which one means National Security Adviser John Bolton,
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and, apparently President Donald Trump himself when the
subject is Iran, have been somewhat frustrated by the lack of a clear casus belli to
hang their war on. No doubt prodded by Netanyahu, they have apparently revived an
old story to give them what they want, even going so far as to develop an argument that
would justify an attack on Iran < /blockquote>
@renfro Thanks for the
tweets renfro .
I saw the news of Iran's FM Zarif's resignation yesterday and I was immediately alarmed. If
Zarif is actually removed from power a Western educated man with TV charisma will be taken
off the 'airs'. Iran will lose a big positive public relations asset with Zarif's departure
to the glee of Netanyahu and the rabid Zionists in Isra-hell and here in Trump's
administration and the Beltway. Bad news.
In any case US needs a proxy group to attack Iran. Who could be interested?
I agree. Who'd be stupid enough to "ally" themselves with the money bags "one world" crowd
after seeing so many others get tossed under the bus?
CAIRO, Egypt, May 27, -- The last hope of 30,000,000 Arabs to win freedom for their race
without further bloodshed vanished when cables from Washington announced that the United
States had concluded an agreement with Great Britain The Arabs came into the war on the
side of the allies against their Turkish co-religionists in- response to the
allies' promise of freedom The Arab support" was determined and effective."
Newspaper article by Junius B. Wood on the American recognition of Britain's mandate in
Palestine, Chicago Daily News,27 May 1922 (also The Sunday Star, Washington)
When the smoke of [WW2] cleared only three purposes had been achieved, none of them
disclosed at its start: the world-revolution, with Western arms and support, had
advanced to the middle of Europe; Zionism had been armed to establish itself in Palestine
by force; the "world-government", obviously the result which these two convergent
forces were intended to produce, had been set up anew in embryo form, this time in New
York. The war behind the war was the true one; it was fought to divert the arms,
manpower and treasure of the West to these purposes.
-Douglas Reed, "the Controversy of Zion," p 333 (written ~1955 ) https://archive.org/stream/TheControversyOfZion/TheControversyOfZi
Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years
"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years,
starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."
I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I
saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you
that memo! I didn't show it to you!"
July 23, 2006 Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon
Bush's Plan for "Serial War" revealed by General Wesley Clark. "[The] Five-year campaign
plan [includes] a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya,
Iran, Somalia and Sudan" (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to
General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.
The problem with this (sky is falling) analysis is the number of troops available to wage a
war over there. We're in 150 countries with 165,000 people deployed OCONUS. There's no
150,000 here for this potential war, 150,000 there for that potential war (and the list of
wars we're apparently going to start is pretty long, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran,
Venezuela ).
And there's no draft. The composition of a US division has significantly fewer trigger
pullers than support people and nobody thinks the mechanics and admin people are going to
conquer another country.
I think that before indulging in paranoia it would seem like you'd want to be looking for
mass mobilizations and significant movements of armored vehicles. You can't hide it and
troops are dumb about social media None of that's happening now.
@Colin
Wright Before the US psychopaths start bombing Iran, Russia and China need to step up to
the plate and just tell them NO, your world empire will NOT expand further. I'd rather see
the US nuked than to see it kill millions of innocent Persians and wipe out their ancient
society.
If war with Iran can somehow be prevented before the coming presidential election, I'd
rather see any of the Dems far-left loony candidates elected than to hear the rantings of
psychos like Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo for one more day. God, the US and Israel are horrible,
evil countries that must be stopped!
@wraith67 That's why all US
wars are now fought with bombs and missiles, not infantry. The US no longer has to invade
countries to destroy them – witness Libya where there were no military casualties. As
for the draft – bring it on and draft the wymyn. I'd love to see middle class parents
start rioting in the streets once their 19 year-old daughters were drafted. I've read, also,
that there is a dire shortage of qualified pilots. Perhaps our high schools and universities
are not graduating enough psychos willing to kill great numbers of civilians from high
altitude for no reason. I've heard that a lifetime PTSD is a bitch, as the veteran suicide
rate of 22 a day demonstrates.
I'm actually not sure that is inaccurate. If trends continue in the current way, there may
well eventually be a push to force all Palestinians out of the West Bank. There is nothing
controversial about this:
"Over the past 50 years, Israel has demolished tens of thousands of Palestinian properties
and displaced large swathes of the population to build homes and infrastructure to illegally
settle its own population in the occupied territories. It has also diverted Palestinian
natural resources such as water and agricultural land for settlement use."
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/
"Nearly half of Jewish Israelis agree that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from
Israel The survey makes no distinction between Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank and
citizens of Israel in its question about whether Arabs should be expelled from Israel. And
yet, 48% of Jewish Israelis said they were in favor, 46% were opposed, and 6% said they
didn't know. Breaking it down into religious groups, the Modern Orthodox (the report uses the
Hebrew term dati'im), were the most likely to support such a measure, at 71%."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/
If that number grows (and there is little to doubt it will because of demographic patterns
in the Jewish populace) and it eventually becomes the case, then Daniel's statement will just
be a statement of fact; Palestinians used to live there and now they do not because they were
killed or forced out. So the jury is still out on that as far as I'm concerned. Maybe
slightly hyperbolic, but – meh – it's the internet. Hardly qualifies as "hate
speech" though.
@Wizard
of Oz Of course there are numerous options but containment only works if the targeted
country does not strike back, which would instantly escalate the conflict. Bear in mind that
all the pre war estimates of what would happen with Iraq were wrong. Assumptions that a
conflict with Iran would be manageable or containable are likely to be equally misplaced
particularly as there are hardliners on both sides that would welcome a shooting war
What no one, not even in alternative media, has picked up on is the real reason for Iran
being a threat.
An Iran war is itself a distracting event for the real issue: Palestinians.
Israel always tries to provoke a war with Iran. This is to stoke unifying nationalism
among the Israelis. Iran is a far preferable opponent than the Palestinians.
Furthermore, in the event of an actual war, you now have a global state of emergency which
allows you to expel the remaining Palestinians. The world powers will all be occupied with
fighting Iran. So will the regional powers. The Palestinians will be a legitimate security
threat in the event of a war with Iran. So an expulsion would be justified.
But of course the instigators of such a conflict would be Israelis and their toadies among
the idiot Christians of the GOP.
There is a high degree of cognitive dissonance here. I do not think that even Netanyahu
can admit to himself this is why he keeps on hyping the Iran threat. But deep down, this is
why. Otherwise, Israel has made its bed among the Palestinians. Jews are a white minority
governing and oppressing a brown Muslim majority. Their only population growth is coming from
the religious ultra orthodox, who they view with disdain and disgust.
Israel needs Iran more than anyone else in the world.
@Philip
Giraldi If I recall, the Iranian leadership has made it clear that any direct attack on
it of this magnitude will be considered an attack by proxy by Israel and they will respond in
kind. Am I correct?
@NoseytheDuke Agree. The
continued destruction of the economy and social fabric has no downside for the people who
plan to rule through globalized tyranny. It's a feature, not a bug. Middle class America
still has memory of freedoms. Not much of an impediment to real power, but nonetheless they
must go.
Act I – Remove Sunni regimes (e.g., Iraq, Libya) that are hostile to the Zionist
Project
Act II – Take a Sunni Turn by funding, arming, advising Sunni "terrorist" groups
(e.g., al Qaida, IS) to attack Shia regimes (e.g., Syria, Iran) that are hostile to the
ZP
Act III – push the KSA-led Sunni coalition to wage an eternal war against the
Iranian-led Shia coalition, while the ZP continually expands.
"has likely been the goal from the get-go" of what?
"Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to
safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The
object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power
is power."
Al Qeada=CIA created BS. The smarter sort of zombies know this. Americans, however are one of
the most heavily propagandized populations outside of 1984, a true story. The media reliably
spreads fear of groups like al Qaeda, ISIS, the Viet Cong, Iraqis, Iranians, Martians, New
America Foundation you name it – fear, credulity and obedience sustains the taxpaying
class of war mongering morons. The US needs to end trying to run every country. It costs the
hard working and mostly underpaid voters a lot of money to overthrow foreign Governments with
CIA fake revolutions. Moreover, every time the military drops a bomb the tax payers pay to
replace it and a billionaire profits.
There are tons of reasons to continue all the wars or start a new one, all related to
Profit, the central concept of Capitalism. War means Profit. The propaganda war means the
rich get to loot other countries without any complaints from the confused, moronic voting
class who pay for it and support it while they debate the merits of the latest CIA prepared
Al Qeada narrative. Usually pro-Jew Giraldi does a better job faking a divisive meme with his
propaganda. Another "debate" that misses the real questions.
Anyone who knows anything about the Muslim world would know this link between Al Qaeda and
Iran is a complete sham. Al Qaeda is Sunni, Iran is Shia. They are mortal enemies. Al Qaeda
is about as likely to ally themselves with the Shias they are with the Jews, which is to say,
over their dead bodies.
But this Jew driven war machine is definitely hard at work building its case, not just
drumming up support from the left, but even more so, from the right, through their Zionist
mouthpieces esp. Breitbart. Jews are now in total control of America, controlling both sides
of the aisle in congress, and both sides of the debate in the media.
If Trump is dumb enough to invade Iran, he'll have signed his own death warrant.
In any case US needs a proxy group to attack Iran. Who could be interested?
The US and Israel already have a proxy group–the MEK– who has been doing
assassinations. bombings and false flags for them for years.
The MEK (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran or the Mojahedin-e Khalk is a Iranian
political–militant organization that advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic of
Iran leadership and installing its own government.
It was listed as a terrorist group by the US for blowing up American embassies and killing
americans.'
Just who has been killing Iran's nuclear scientists? | The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk
› Voices › Comment
Oct 6, 2013 – Is it a last-minute attempt by Israel or the Iranian dissident group the
Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) to sabotage talks – or at least to show that they
As of 2018, MEK operatives are believed to be still conducting covert operations inside
Iran to overthrow Iran's government. Seymour Hersh reported that "some American-supported
covert operations continue in Iran today," with the MEK's prime goal of removing the current
Iranian government.
The MEK use to be anti Israel . BUT THEN . Israel offered them a deal they couldnt
refuse .the Jewish lobby would get them of the terrorist list in exchange for them ceasing to
support Palestine.
"In the beginning, MEK used to criticize the Pahlavi dynasty for allying with Israel and
Apartheid South Africa, calling them racist states and demanding cancellation of all
political and economic agreements with them. MEK opposed and was anti-Zionist.
The Central Cadre established contact with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), by
sending emissaries to Paris, Dubai, and Qatar to meet PLO officials. In one occasion, seven
leading members of MEK spent several months in the PLO camps in Jordan and Lebanon. On 3
August 1972, they bombed the Jordanian embassy as a means to revenge King Hussein's
unleashing his troops on the PLO in 1970.
After their exile, the MEK changed into an 'ally' of Israel in pursuit of its ideological
opportunism"
I could write all week about how Israel uses its control of the US to further its goal of
being the Super Power of the ME .coming into play now also is how they offering their control
of the US to help Egyptian mad man, General Sisi, to implement his President of Egypt for
life plan in exchange for being Israel's side kick.
Makes you want to vomit doesnt it?.. to know what the US has become.
@Philip
Giraldi There are hardliners in Alaska, Texas, North Dakota and other oil-producing
states that wouldn't be too troubled if the horse manure hit the fan in Iran.
Haven't the Iranians said they would pulverize Saudi Arabian oil installations if they are
attacked by Israel or the United States?
Two hundred dollar a barrel oil could buy a lot of joy in the USA oil patch!
"I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at
Narco Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC
murdered him and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat
to Maduro. You don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our
country, the most powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're
foolish enough to think voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't
stop until they're either in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because
you ask them to, which is all voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
Mafia is the correct description. And you are right, they will never willingly give up
their power. It has to be taken from them. And anyone who expects voting to do that job
better find themselves a Elliot Ness to put in the WH.
Barr is CIA's shyster lawyer, Mueller is CIA's cleaner. Both FBI and DoJ are completely
controlled by CIA "focal points" (Dulles' term) or dotted-line reports (Bush-era
Newspeak.)
What's more, Hill and Bill work for CIA too: Hill got her start purloining documents for
CIA's "Watergate" purge of Nixon; Cord Meyer recruited Bill at Oxford.
CIA brainwashing makes Republicans blame Democrats for what CIA does to you, and makes
Democrats blame Republicans for what CIA does to them. CIA runs your country while party
loyalists tear each other's throats out. Divide et impera.
Nobody will be doing a fine job for the country because CIA doesn't give a rat's ass about
the country. They've got a business to run: drug-dealing, gun-running, child trafficking and
pedophile blackmail, money-laundering, foreign asset-stripping.
"... When we suggest turning to universally approved OSCE documents that reject as unacceptable any obstacles standing in the way of the public or journalists getting access to information, we are told that this was the case in 1990 and should remain there. ..."
"... It wasn't us that bombed Libya and turned it into a "black hole." It still remains such and through it bandits, terrorists and arms traffickers travel to the Sahara-Sahel zone whereas migrants are heading to the north. Therefore, we leave it up to them to deal with those who are responsible for this. ..."
"... Apparently, the international legal space is being fragmented – the US is doing this all along the way while the EU is isolating itself when it comes to a number of issues. The processes that are taking place in Eurasia may also be interpreted as isolation at some point but in reality we want to launch something that will become all-embracing. ..."
"... Maybe, there is a rational idea in everything that is taking place. As Vladimir Lenin used to say, "before uniting it is necessary resolutely to draw lines of demarcation." Maybe, we should be fragmented to understand who the main global players are. ..."
We are now saying that the world is changing and the interdependence of states is growing. Do you think international regulation,
for instance, in communications, can be radically improved in perspective? Because of fake news navigation in the sea of information
leaves much to be desired. Is it possible to regulate a host of other things related to migration flows and capital management?
Is it possible to raise international regulation to a new level or is this altogether impossible? Will countries continue to strike
unstable alliances for shorter or longer periods of time or are there grounds to hope for an improvement of this situation?
Sergey Lavrov:
This question is fairly controversial. In brief, currently this regulation that should be ideally based on universal principles
of international law is being replaced with narrowly interpreted rules elaborated in a narrow circle of states.
As for fake news, France, for example, adopted a law that filters the media space the way it wants. The Russian media Russia Today
and Sputnik are political outcasts. They are not allowed to visit the Elysee Palace or attend any special events. When we address
French officials in this context, they tell us that everything is correct because in their view these are propaganda instruments
rather than news agencies. This is what regulation is all about.
When we suggest turning to universally approved OSCE documents that reject as unacceptable any obstacles standing in the way
of the public or journalists getting access to information, we are told that this was the case in 1990 and should remain there.
There are other examples as well. When France failed to use the OPCW exclusively for passing remotely a verdict on who is guilty
and who is not in violation of all conceivable norms of the Chemical Weapons Convention, it took the initiative to establish an International
Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons that was not linked with any international structures. A few months
later the EU made a decision to the effect that if the new structure reveals violators, Brussels will impose sanctions on them. This
is, of course, regulation but this regulation is based on the narrow interpretation of broad interests by an individual group of
countries.
As for the internet, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has been talking for years, if not decades, about the way
the internet should function so as to not offend anyone. No results have been produced and there will not be any in the foreseeable
future for obvious-to-all reasons. I have practically no doubts about this. Likewise, for the same reason virtually not a single
Western country supported our proposals that were endorsed by the UN General Assembly at the onset of work on the rules of responsible
conduct in cyberspace.
You mentioned migration. There is the Global Compact for Migration that was adopted last year. The West was fighting for it to
include a provision on the equal and divided responsibility for the migration crisis. Russia and other countries objected. It
wasn't us that bombed Libya and turned it into a "black hole." It still remains such and through it bandits, terrorists and arms
traffickers travel to the Sahara-Sahel zone whereas migrants are heading to the north. Therefore, we leave it up to them to deal
with those who are responsible for this.
We are now talking about the formation of the multipolar international order. Its development was preceded by a whole historical
era.
Apparently, the international legal space is being fragmented – the US is doing this all along the way while the EU is isolating
itself when it comes to a number of issues. The processes that are taking place in Eurasia may also be interpreted as isolation at
some point but in reality we want to launch something that will become all-embracing.
Maybe, there is a rational idea in everything that is taking place. As Vladimir Lenin used to say, "before uniting it is necessary
resolutely to draw lines of demarcation." Maybe, we should be fragmented to understand who the main global players are.
Not those that established the UN in 1945 but those that are playing today, in the middle of the 21 st century. Only
after this we should think what to do next, for instance, with the UN. It is absolutely clear that the UN Security Council requires
a reform because the world's developing regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America are not properly represented in it. Today, up to
one third of the UN Security Council is represented by EU countries. I don't think that if more countries from the historical West
are added to this structure, it will gain the diversity we want to see in it.
We live in a goon-run surveillance economy, backed up by the strong arm of a mighty
surveillance state apparatus, and nobody -- I mean nobody -- really stands up to it, calling
out the real economic problems without a politically correct overlay that focuses on
drummed-up social issues or other media-driven diversion tactics. As much as Hollywood
theatrics are used as a way to sell the current setup as a functioning Republic to the serfs,
none of our never-been-so-wealthy elected leadership has the morality to challenge the
corrupt system. There's a reason for their crumbly back bones.
Despite the fake-morality play, using kids and babies as props in this fake-feminist era,
we don't even have leaders morally uncompromised enough to take on the Swamp in minor ways,
not in a surveillance state / surveillance economy, where all of the morally blemished
political elites have a lot to lose -- financially.
Political elites have a lot to lose financially, even though few of them ever took the
classic road to riches, including taking on financial risk to create quality jobs for US
citizens, as opposed to using cheap foreign wage slaves whose low wages are pumped up by
welfare for US-born kids, making it easy for them to work cheaply for elites.
Most of our rich political elites have never started businesses, employing US citizens to
make tangible items, like cake mixes or ketchup, but somehow in this finacialized
surveillance economy, all of our political leaders are flat-out rich with a lot to lose from
speaking out against the rigged system, much less actually doing something about it.
Even without extra, ratings-boosting, sexual or other Swamp-exploitable foibles, that
means a lot of leverage for surveillance goons to hold over political decision-makers' heads
if they don't do their bidding, especially in a survelliance state / survelliance economy,
wherein every nook and cranny of their lives is scrutinized to the hilt.
And it's perfectly okay for our power couples to put riches over morality because, like
the aristocrats producing golden heirs to assume the throne in other eras when aristocratic
couples and static wealth reigned supreme, our business and political leaders have all
reproduced, putting them as above firing and above morality as other elites in the
family-friendly, fake-feminist era. Everything elites do is for their babies, regardless of
how venal it is.
Despite all of the surveillance that renders the Fourth Amendment null and void for
cash-strapped serfs no less than elites and that stymies the First Amendment, suppressing the
serfs from calling out the economic situation for what it is no less than elites, corruption
is at all time highs.
Think that has anything to do with the brass-knuckle silencing tactics, made possible by
the surveillance state?
Our so-called leaders don't even bother to challenge the most basic threats to
constitutional liberty, much less the shaky foundation of our part-time / temp / churn-job
economy, with its welfare-subsidized legal & illegal immigrant workforce and our
single-mom & married-mom workforce, able to work part-time and in temp jobs for beans,
thereby supplementing spousal income, rent-covering child support or the welfare they collect
by staying under the earned-income limits for multiple welfare programs during working months
in single-breadwinner households with US-born kids.
It is not even semi-quality jobs that support most households at the growing bottom. It is
the already intact socialist system propping up a willing, cheap labor force for big
corporations, that supports a large percentage of American households. Who needs Bernie's
socialism when we already have a platter of 100%-free, non-contributory, pay-per-birth
socialism, offered up by the Republican and Democratic Uniparty to drive down wages for
non-welfare-eligible citizens 40 years?
Bernie is no stand-out Rebel. American corporations love socialism.
Even though the rebel Bernie has never held more than one senate seat, single-breadwinner
households with US-born kids are already supplied with hundreds in free EBT food,
reduced-cost housing, hundreds in monthly cash assistance, free electrcity and up to $6,431
in refundable child tax credit cash when they are willing to work part time or in temp
positions for low wages, staying below the earned-income limits for welfare during working
months. That's how they undercut millions of underemployed citizens who lack unearned income
streams from .gov, and no corporate-owned political rebel in the surveillance state is
willing to stand up to it.
No politician on the right or the left is free enough from the surveillance economy /
surveillance state's goon squad to say what that means for vanquished middle-class prosperity
in the USA.
It's not just student loans, either, no matter how much the establishment wants that to be
the main problem so that they can blow another housing bubble with the mostly unmarried
Millennials in their part-time / churn jobs. Truth is: Few of those college grads except the
dual-high-earner parents in their family-friendly / absenteeism-friendly jobs -- keeping two
of the few jobs with benefits and good wages under one roof and halving the size of the
house-buying and rent-covering middle class while low-wage daycare workers or grandparents
raise their kids -- can afford to buy a house. The above-firing group in the top 20%,
however, can afford more palatial houses than any non-rich group of non job creators in US
history.
In the long-gone America with the broad middle class and the mostly married, stay-at-home
moms, most couples paid off modest houses by retirement, and most single earners with one,
earned-only income stream could afford the dignity of a modest apartment, whereas most of
today's working women will face insurmountable rent costs in retirement, just like they do
during working years.
That is what the fake feminists have accomplished for the bottom 80%, but the
family-friendly princesses in their palaces have not made any compromises. They humanize that
by adding layers of absenteeism privileges for low-wage mommies in discriminatory
voted-best-for-moms jobs, plus welfare and cash handouts through the progressive tax code to
soften the brutality of this churn-job economy. But those womb-privileged single moms find
themselves in the same dismal economic boat with the single, childless women in the bottom
80% after their kids turn 18, and the wage-supplementing, pay-per-birth freebies from
goverment dry up.
Lacking a student loan debt does not overcome the insurmountable cost of housing for
single breadwinners, whether they are male or female, non-custodial parents, middle-aged or
older with no kids, older with no kids under 18 or younger in the years before family
formation beefs up their income with cash-check tax code privileges, monthly welfare access
and crony-parent workplace privileges. With none of the unearned income streams accruing to
womb-productive single earners, the single earners relying relying on earned-only income from
one person cannot even afford rent for a one-room apartment in a safe or unsafe area, much
less a house. And there are more single earners than ever; we are the majority.
The childbearing-aged Millennials will be the focus of every economist and of all
political hacks, seeking votes from the mostly older and middle-aged citizens who bother to
show up on voting day, not the Xers with one, earned-only income stream and no kids under 18
and, thus, no handouts from Uncle Sam and the Treasury Department pumping up their wages in
this dismal scam landscape of a churn-job gig economy.
Thanks to feminism, there are more & more of us in that category in this era of
single, "independent" career women, and it is going to get worse and worse as this group hits
retirement age. It will be worse for everyone except the dual-high-earner parents -- the
tax-advantaged, "needs-the-job," above-firing "talent" who were needed at work because of
their talent, but who were somehow on a an expensive, lengthy, family-friendly vacation every
couple of months during their above-firing, childbearing-aged working years, not to mention
all of the mornings and afternoons of excused absenteeism (for kids, for kids!) and their
multiple pregnancy leaves.
These working-parents-in-charge, with their libertine, back-watching, family-friendly work
schedules, sure do fire a lot of the non-family-friendly non culture fits whose every day,
all-day hard work helps to keep their bonus numbers up. They fire away for the most trivial
and pettiest of infractions in the churn machine of America's unprofessional-to-the-max
corporate workplaces. Use and lose. Churn and burn. It equals family-friendly job
security.
But regardless of how they did it, they will still retire into their luxury apartments or
cathedral-ceiling homes, with two streams of SS income and two 401k streams.
Whereas, however hard they work and however much they help to pump up the crony-parent
managers' bonuses, a huge number of divorced or never-married, single-breadwinner Xers who,
since they did not have kids, did not need tax credit handouts to boost up their low wages,
nor above-firing absenteeism privileges, benefits, decent-paying jobs or even a modicum of
job security will retire into the most spartan and hopeless of "retirement" situations.
They will have nothing but one stream of very inadequate, non-rent-covering SS, into which
they contributed either 7.5% or 15.3% of every dime they earned, unlike these glorified
single moms and immigrants, raking in 100%-free monthly welfare by the truckloads, in
addition to bigly, refundable cash-assistance welfare checks from the progressive tax code
that top out at $6,431 all through their childbearing years, even though they do not pay
income taxes in many cases and even though they work part time .
The average employed person in the USA is a part-time worker. That is the
reality of automation, fake womb-productivity-based feminism and 4 decades of
welfare-supported mass immigration.
Retirement will be just as bad, if not worse, for the even bigger group of hear-them-roar,
fake-feminist, ever-more-never-married, part-time-job-holding, pink-hatted "career" women --
with all of their hypocritical, un-feminist, womb-focused demands of .gov and their
much-maligned soy-boy sperm providers -- in the equally underemployed Millennial
generation.
But in an anti-individual, anti-liberty and corrupt-to-the-core survelliance state
economy, with a Constitution based on individual liberty in suspension, all that counts is a
functioning feudal structure for aristocratic baby makers in the top 1 -- 20%, pumping out
heirs to the thrones in a financialized economy that favors static wealth, and the illusion
of benevolence that they create by throwing lots of mom-pampering cake crumbs to their
womb-productive, welfare-qualified, legal & illegally-in-this-country cheap, groveling
servants. A ton of Hollywood-lite, weepy-eyed media concern for the mommies and babies around
the globe adds gloss to this fake-morality veneer.
Trump said something about the immigration part of this corrupt equation, saying it
loudly enough to divert attention from the fact that he is not really doing anything about
the onslaught of 40 years of mass-scale, welfare-aided legal & illegal immigration that
keeps wages at rock bottom for cashing-in employers.
Turns out, Bernie, however saintly by comparison with other politicians in the
surveillance state / surveillance economy, was not without goon-exploitable human foibles,
like a $600,000 rustic lake house needing "help" from interior designers and a spousal-income
controversy. Bernie fans should not forget that the Deep State cutthroats are not at all
above exploiting it with no mercy, no matter how many cutesy baby pics they wave around to
prove their humanity. They are shameless enough to use it against him, no matter how
knee-deep in Swamp dollars they are.
That goes for the lovely, family-friendly leaders in both of our corrupt, Swamp-controlled
parties. And it would not matter if a truly kick- *** superhero arose to take on the Swamp
Goliath.
This Surveillance Swamp is too deep even for Mister Rodgers to wade through. If he ran for
office on a platform of true reform, the Surveillance Swampers would be accusing him of
bacchanalian bathroom activity, telling him they have video conformation of that, along with
proof from credit-rating agencies of his cardigan sweater-buying shopaholic sprees right down
to his last bank transaction.
We live in KGB country, where it is easy to pull politicians off of any real reformist
path. No wonder, swampers are so concerned with Russia, thirty years after the Cold War
ended. Rich US politicians, in a rigged surveillance economy, live in Stalinist Russia --
Stalinist Russia with an increased surveillance capacity, whereas the serfs live under the
same economic & government surveillance without even the reward of a quality non-churn
job, an independent roof over their heads or a safe neighborhood.
What a great trade off: our liberty and our widespread middle class in return for
end-to-end financial security for the top 1 -- 20% and womb-productivity-based welfare
security for some part-time-working, womb-productive citizens and noncitizens in the bottom
80% during their baby-making years. Oh, we serfs also get to hear the virtue-signaling chorus
of the racism and sexism fighters, and a few of them make bank off of discrimination
lawsuits.
"... Socialism is government by the ruling honchos who have figured out how to appear as altruistic saviors while living the life of Riley and holding the carrot of prosperity in front of the noses of the disenfranchised peasants. ..."
"... If I understand you correctly, we are in the best of all worlds? ..."
@Commentator Mike
Today's system is a hybrid of a late finance-stage global capitalism and cultural–not
economic–Marxism. Instead of class struggle, we have identity politics. Instead of the
ownership of the means of production, we have tranny bathrooms.
So the right-wingers (like Peter Hitchens) who say that 'Marxism won' are half right
culturally, not economically. What causes all the confusion (among the libertarian types
especially) is that capitalism in reality does not in any way resemble how it ought to
work according to libertarian theories and never did. But when you point out to them
that capitalism never worked in practice to begin with, they answer: 'But true
capitalism has never even been tried!' And of course, they're right. 'True' capitalism (i.e.,
what libertarian theory calls capitalism) really never has been tried, and for exactly the
same reason that perpetual motion machines have never been tried either: they're
impossible.
None of which means I'm a 'pure' socialist. I'm open to mixed-economies and new
experiments. I usually characterize myself more as a national socialist, mostly to
differentiate myself from the 'world revolution' Trotskyite socialists who now predominate on
the far-left.
That means I also take some inspiration from some fascists and national-syndicalists,
although I don't regard any of them as holy writ, either.
In my opinion, the number one success factor for a civilization is not what theory
it professes, but rather who controls it. Theories will always have to be modified to
suit the circumstances; but the character of a people is much harder to change.
China's prospering because it's controlled by Chinese engineers; our civilization is
suffocating because it's controlled by Jew-bankers and Masonic lawyers. Get rid of them
first, and we can debate monetary theory till we're blue in the face.
@Captain Willard You
must be under the delusion we live in a Constitutional Republic.
Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία
(oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos),
meaning 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning 'to rule or to
command')[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of
people. These people may be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or
corporate, religious, political, or military control. Such states are often controlled by
families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance
is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
@redmudhooch "
Socialism is government by the working class"
Socialism is government by the ruling honchos who have figured out how to appear as
altruistic saviors while living the life of Riley and holding the carrot of prosperity in
front of the noses of the disenfranchised peasants.
Your transparent mindset of : Socialism never worked because the wrong people were in
charge of every attempt to actualize it, and if the right folks go at it in the "right"
manner it will finally work., has been exposed as the lie it is.
This nonsense of : the Russians, Chinese, all of East Europe, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc.
they really did not understand Marx, and they really did not want to establish a true "
Farmers and Workers paradise", as according to Marx, so if we, the new generation of "Woke"
"Jungsozialisten", if we go at it, there will be no failure this time, this nonsense has run
it time and more and more otherwise unknowing peoples are finally waking up it's the lies and
madness
Myself, I spent time in the seventies behind the "Iron Curtain" before the wall came down
and I will never forget the morgue-like atmosphere of the grey cities and the dead eyes of
the hopeless natives, and ignoranti like you are striving to repeat these humans tragedies
over and over, regardless of how many time they fail and how much travail and suffering they
generate.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
artist.
@Stephen Paul Foster "
The profit motive" after being replaced with the Socialist rubber-stamp which holds power of
life or death over it's hapless subjects, and make no bones about wielding it's ruthless
fatal power, would seem like altruism and benevolency in retrospect.
@ploni almoniT
he runaway over-use of the narcissism cliché has been fueled mostly by copy-cats with
weak vocabularies who use it deliriously as a general purpose put-down of men who aren't
slobs.
@Digital Samizdat
Excellent intelligence. As opposed to the "high IQ" idiocy promulgated on here.
You may like the way an acquaintance, a PhD from Chicago School of Business, who had just
finished working on a project for Big Pharma, observed when I brought up the concept of "free
market."
"'Free market?!'" he exclaimed. "No such thing. Because it's all crooked."
"Poor lil Hitler was a good boy. He dindu nuttin."
Already after the turn of the last century Southern Iran became a British "sphere of
influence". Through the 1920's, after making the world free for democracy, and fighting the
war to end all wars, England was gassing and murdering the kurds and Iraqi's with in their
"mandate".
The British wars in the middle east in the 1920's, after ending "all war" at Versailles,
mercilessly waged against less technologically developed countries, were all highly
aggressive.
The world slipped closer to nuclear war. Big false flags -- actual, suspected, and
anticipated -- were a key factor. But hardly anybody noticed. Everyone was riveted by the story
of actor Jussie Smollet, who supposedly paid a couple of Nigerian-American bodybuilders for a
staged racist-homophobic near-lynching. The ostensible motive: Add a zero to Smollet's pathetic
little million-a-year salary.
In England and in France, as well as in the US, the Jews became a symbol of the present
neo-liberal regime, as the scams and hoaxes make it apparent.
The pride and pressure of Jews as high-achievers could be fueling the scams and frauds in
so many fields.
Non-Jews don't feel particularly bad if they don't achieve much. But Jews have this
reputation, indeed a point of pride among Jews, as being intelligent and high-achieving. So,
it seems like many many Jews come under the pressure to be high-achieving or at least appear
so. To be a 'loser' Jew is far more humiliating that it is to be a loser goyim. It's like a
black guy losing to a white guy in boxing or one-on-one basketball. Unheard of. Consider the
movie BOILER ROOM where lesser Jews resort to fraud to make easy money and seem
successful.
Shamir, you missed a very simple point. This Jussie Smollett is Jewish. His father is a Jew.
He isn't black, he is bi-racial and since Judaism is not a race (like being black) but an
ethnicity Jussie actions are more that of a jew than it is as a black person. In fact a lot
of black people didn't believe him and show his actions as a means to exploit the black
identity even before his actions where exposed as a hoax
@swamped
I believe he's pointing out the supremacy that the Jews enjoy in Israel/Palestine is due to
the role that Jews play in the neoliberal institutions – that Israel is dependent on
corporate patronage, trade concessions, capital flow from the West, etc.
Thank you Mr. Shamir, for a very informative and interesting article.
In many ways the exposure of the "Smollett Hoax" as a "hoax" is a watershed event in post
9-11 America.
It is, perhaps , the first time that the deliberate defrauding of the public through the
enacting of a "staged event" has been given the media attention for being uncovered "as
such".
And actually prosecuted.
Amazing.
But to many of us, increasingly aware we are living in (what could only be fairly
described as) an Empire of Fraud the "Smollett Hoax"attention is akin to one noticing a tiny
chipmunk urinating on your toe while standing, hapless, under a torrential deluge raining
down from the mammoth elephant above you.
We live in the great age of fraud, Mr. Shamir, and Mr. Smollett's phony act was but a drop
in the bucket.
Consider the fact that nearly every pretext for war, especially since 9-11, has been
proven to be founded on fraudulent narratives , hoaxes, lies , and staged events . and you
will see what I mean.
Do I need to remind you of the media's "iron clad" certainty it was "Saddam's Anthrax"
deposited in both Tom Brokaw and Senator Leahy's office in the run up to the Iraq war ?
Why they even had the 'matching spores from Baghdad' to prove it .Right ?
How about the "Yellow Cake" from Niger ? .or the "aluminum tubes" ? .or the impending
"mushroom clouds" from Saddam's imminent WMD's ?.
All "hoaxes" .All "lies" A veritable cornucopia of war and terror "fraud" which has led to
the unconscionable death of millions of innocent people and the greatest debt crisis our
country has ever faced.
Were it only that our leaders and the oligarchs (for whom they serve) be faced with same
accountability from their "defrauding" as Jussie Smollett ..we would be living in a much
different world , today.
ex.: "Jewish, black and gay actor Jussie Smollett was charged Wednesday with making a
false police report, after he had told Chicago police last month that two men physically
attacked him and yelled racial and homophobic slurs at him."
' In England, seven (now eight) Jewish and Judeophile MPs have stormed out of the Labour
Party claiming Labour has been 'infected' with 'anti-Jewish racism' '
I noted some details on the latest of these, an Ian Austin, who supposedly quit because of
'anti-semitism.'
His recorded foreign trips over the last three years:
'Kurdistan', AIPAC conference in Washington DC, Jerusalem, Israel, Israel, 'Kurdistan',
AIPAC conference in Washington DC, Israel, Israel Admittedly, there's also a visit to
Auschwitz.
Sponsors: Nokan Group, Labour Friends of Israel, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Australia Israel Cultural Exchange Ltd -- all multiple times.
The data comes from a site somewhat ironically called 'They Work for You.'
"He threatened the head of OPCW I believe as well."
Your belief is correct; The one threatened was José Bustani, then --- head of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
"Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International
Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a
warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words.
'Cheney wants you out,' Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president
of the United States. 'We can't accept your management style.'
Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: 'You have 24 hours to leave the
organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to
retaliate against you.'
There was a pause. 'We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York'."
It might have been brighter to have integrated Iran tightly into the Euro-American
econosphere, but Israel would not have let America do this. The same approach would have
worked with Russia, racially closer to Europe than China and acutely aware of having vast
empty Siberia bordering an overpopulated China.
Russia is more than racially closer, Russia is culturally much closer and by culturally I
don't mean this cesspool of new "culture". But, as you brilliantly noted:
The US chooses its government by popularity contests among provincial lawyers rather
than by competence.
To be a real Jew, you have to born a Jew. It is the same for Hindus. Someone should tell
Tulsi Gabbard she cannot convert to Hinduism -- she will not be accepted by most Hindus.
This is the key reason why Hindus do not believe in propagating their religion.
LOL I don't think Tulsi got the memo. Neither did Ivanka. She thinks it's for real.
"... The U.S. fears that China will soon be able to compete with it in computer chip design and fabrication. It is trying to block China from building its own chip factories and Congress even wants to block chip exports to specific Chinese companies. It is race that the U.S. will lose. Technology and the means of producing it inevitably proliferate. ..."
For several centuries China had a monopoly on silk. It was exported along the silk road to
Persia and from there to Europe. Silk production was highly profitable. The export of silkworms
and their production method was prohibited. in the mid 6-th century two monks made their way
from Europe to China and found out how silk was produced. They reported back to the Byzantine
emperor Justitian I who induced them to secretly acquire silkworms and to smuggle them back
home. The monks managed to do that and soon thereafter the Chinese silk monopoly, and Persia's
monopoly of silk trade with Europe, were no
more .
The U.S. fears
that China will soon be able to compete with it in computer chip design and fabrication. It is
trying to block China from building its own chip factories and Congress even wants to block
chip exports to specific Chinese companies. It is race that the U.S. will lose. Technology
and the means of producing it inevitably proliferate.
The 5G mobile data networks will use new frequencies and algorithms to deliver gigabit data
streams from, to and between mobile devices. This will allow for completely new applications
like direct communication between (semi-)autonomous cars at any road crossing. Worldwide a
number of companies are working to provide 5G technology. That involves antennas, base
stations, new hard- and software in the periphery and in the core telecommunication systems.
Main providers of such systems are US companies like Motorola, Qualcomm and Cisco. Others are
Ericsson and Samsung. One of the largest one is the Chinese company Huawei.
Currently Huawei is the most advanced company in the 5G field. It started early and invested
huge sums into research and development for 5G technology. It owns some 15% of all relevant
patents. It is currently the only provider that can deliver an end-to-end solution for 5G
networks. As it serves the huge market of China it can produce on a large scale and sell its
equipment for less than other companies do. The other dominant telecommunication equipment
provider, including those in the United States, are lagging in 5G technology. They did not
invest early enough and are now late to deliver.
Instead of investing in faster development and better technology the U.S. is trying to block
Huawei from selling its goods. This hurts the development of other countries that want to
provide 5G networks to their people.
The US has long pressed its allies not to use Chinese equipment in their phone networks.
It falsely claims that Huawei equipment is a security threat.
Australia and New Zealand followed the US order and prohibited the use of Huawei equipment
in their 5G networks. The US also tried to press the big European countries to shun Huawei.
So far it failed. Germany resisted US pressure to not use Huawei stuff. It fears delays in 5G
deployment should it ban Huawei. Yesterday Britain also
pushed back :
Western Oligarchs raped Russia in the 90's. OK, most of them were Jews – but still
Western. The (((harvard))) boys foisted dollar debts on Russia, and then converted Russia to
an extraction economy. Putin cleverly taxed the Oligarchs and prevented them from further
predations.
No country can survive if it has an internal hostile elite. Nobody here can claim that
Russia's government is hostile to its people. A fair claim can be made that the
"international" elite that infest America IS HOSTILE. Why would you immigrate a replacement
population if not hostile? Why would you export your industry if not hostile?
You don't dig out and convert your economy to first world standards overnight.
So, the trend lines are clear. The West and U.S. is a finance oligarchy in decline, while
Russia is on a ascendant path. These lines will cross over at some point in near future. One
could even squint and say that Russia is no longer an Oligarchy of special interests, and is
moving into Byzantium mode e.g. symphony of Church and State. Many Russian thinkers are
projecting another 40 years or so to consolidate the gains.
Fracking has helped the USA boost oil production, but that is pressuring to get oil out of
older wells. Once those have been sucked dry, we'll need to import lots more. You read news
about occasional big new discoveries in the USA, but read the details to see that each
amounts only to a few days of oil consumption in the USA.
The world still runs on oil and the USA wants to control it all. If you doubt the
importance, look at a freeway or airport or seaport to see oil at work.
@onebornfree You are
probably the most whacked out idealist on this site. In your mind all the ills of society is
because of socialism.
Well next time your toilet backs up, don't use that socialist phone network to call a
plumber to clean those socialized drainpipes that keeps your stinky shit flowing down hill
and away to be socially treated – just move to certain parts of India where none of
that takes place – it's your idealist utopia. Wallow in it.
And please refrain from that socialized, government organized power grid – it's the
only thing that keeps you on this site spewing your nonsense. And stay off those socialized
roads.
I don't think the American decline is self inflicted. America became the most powerful
country and has 800 foreign (literally) bases solely because it has the most powerful economy
in the world, and that was in no small measure due to America's abundance of arable land,
navigable waterways, natural resources ect.
The US's population was high quality but it was
prime real estate that others could only dream about. The USA developed advanced technology
not because it had a particular system and set of beliefst let Americans innovate and
cooperate better than other people, or because Americans are more individualistic and freedom
loving than Chinese. Indeed the performance of the Chinese in the Korean war if anything
showed the Chinese could do more with less.
In a few decades China has rocketed close to US level and is in a global hegemon
trajectory solely on the quality and size of its population. With access to Russian resources
and no intention of giving the US any excuse for a war, China is going to gain on the US and
perhaps overtake it in technology. That is their plan and why wouldn't they? This giant
awakening had to happen sooner or later.
There is not much doubt about the outcome of any competition between China and the
West, especially as much of the profits of the ruling class in the West has come from
offshoring and investment in China and their economy of scale production suppressing labour's
power in the West. The Chinese and their Western collaborators will just wait Trump
out.
I wouldn't give up on America yet. There are pockets of resistance to the PTB popping up
around the country.
Here we have a Arkansas newspaper suing the state over the Israel Boycott ban .. that it is a
newspaper doing the suing is significant.
ACLU and ACLU of Arkansas to Appeal Ruling on Boycott Ban
February 21, 2019
LITTLE ROCK –The Arkansas Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation today filed a notice of appeal in their lawsuit challenging a
state law that requires government contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel or reduce
their fees by 20 percent. The lawsuit, which was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge in
January, was filed on behalf of the Arkansas Times LP. The Times was penalized by the
government after it refused to certify that it is not boycotting Israel or Israel-controlled
territories.
The case is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
"The district court's decision would radically limit the First Amendment right to boycott
if allowed to stand," said Rita Sklar, ACLU of Arkansas executive director. "Allowing the
government to force people to relinquish their First Amendment rights or pay a penalty for
expressing certain political beliefs disfavored by the government would set a dangerous
precedent. This 'pay-to-say' tax is blatantly unconstitutional and we're committed to seeing
the law struck down."
To be a real Jew, you have to born a Jew. It is the same for Hindus. Someone should tell
Tulsi Gabbard she cannot convert to Hinduism -- she will not be accepted by most Hindus.
This is the key reason why Hindus do not believe in propagating their religion.
LOL I don't think Tulsi got the memo. Neither did Ivanka. She thinks it's for real.
An update to my post about Putin's speech. Today, Putin engaged in a working lunch/press
conference with the heads of Russian media for the purpose of asking questions related to
the speech since at the time there wasn't any opportunity to do so. Unfortunately as I type,
the transcript's incomplete, but what's available already is quite worthy. IMO, this one's
most important and related to Putin asking Bolton, et al to do the math:
"The second, does this mean that today you have declared the right to deliver a
pre-emptive strike if we believe that the missiles deployed near us pose a real threat?"
Putin's answer: "We have a nuclear weapon strategy or concept that does not stipulate
pre-emptive strikes. We are talking here about commensurate matters related to threats facing
us, commensurate primarily in terms of time periods. If we have more time, we may not have to
make pre-emptive strikes. It is in this connection and for this reason that I have asked our
partners if they can count. Yes, they can, so let them calculate the speed and range of our
future arms systems."
He continues to elaborate on the issue and provides a further example showing again that
Russia has the upper hand in the matter regardless of what the Outlaw US Empire does. At the
end of his further explanation, Putin says:
"By the way, we have openly told them so behind closed doors long ago."
Yet, the idiots in charge--that would be Obama's team--disregarded that information and
boxed themselves in. Exceptional they are all right--Exceptional Fools!
According to Peter Koenig, Russia has two nuclear capable bombers, TU-160, deployed to the Venezuelan Caribbean
island of la Orchila, where Moscow will establish, with the agreement of Venezuela, a permanent military base. Both
Russia and China have tens of billions worth of investments in Venezuela's hydrocarbon industry as well as other
commercial interests.
With US withdrawing from INF and Russia and US able to deploy intermediate missiles capable
of wiping out Europe and Russia. Putin says Russia "will be forced to create and deploy types of weapons which can
be used not only in respect of those territories from which the direct threat to us originates but also in respect
of those territories where the centers of decision-making are located" If real then things could get interesting.
Cuban Missile Crisis/ Bay of Pigs repeat? Trump is no JFK though.
..empire, the desire for which is an ancient and innate part of mankind's cerebral
package. Parthian, Roman, Aztec, Hapsburg, British. It never stops.
When the Soviet Empire collapsed, America appeared poised to establish the first truly
world empire.
Current foreign policy openly focuses on dominating the planet.
For the Greater Empire to prevail, Russia and China, the latter a surprise contender, must
be neutralized.
To paraphrase a great political thinker, "It's the Empire, Stupid."
Minor quibble:
.
..the developed countries were American vassals in effect if not in name, many of them
occupied by American troops: Among others, Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Latin America,
Saudi Arabia, and Australia.
Canada, United Kingdom and Australia are not occupied by American troops. Those
troops, and not that many in the first place, are stationed there. Majority of
Australians do not mind that at all. Well, depending on skin colour, that is.
As for:
The present moment is an Imperial crunch point.
and
It is now or never.
Not so sure about that.
Because
Another decade or two of this ..
is a long time. A lot of things can happen, including some bad , to Russia and/or
China.
Can't argue with that! Usually, I read Fred for amusement, but this is all spot on. I
particularly liked:
The American decline is largely self-inflicted. The US chooses its government by
popularity contests among provincial lawyers rather than by competence. American education
deteriorates under assault by social-justice faddists. Washington spends on the military
instead of infrastructure and the economy.
We've all been deceived. Almost everything "we're told" is a lie. It's up to each of us to
discern the truth.
Notable quotes:
"... Like Rome, the US has hollowed itself out ..."
"... Perhaps some do wish the US Empire's collapse will come sooner rather than later, and even that some other empire will replace it. I simply see its collapse as both inevitable, and imminent (in historical terms, of course), but I don't see another global Empire rising to take its place, much less wish it. ..."
"The United States once dominated economically by making better products at better prices,
ran a large trade surplus, and barely had competitors." Wrong. The United States once
dominated by NOT competing – until around 1970, foreign trade was a negligible fraction
of the economy. The United States historically was a functional autarky. With a modest
population, abundant resources, and no need to worry about competing with slave-labor level
wages, America's economy and power boomed.
"The US chooses its government by popularity contests among provincial lawyers rather than
by competence." Utterly false. Our government is one of oligarchy, democratic elections have
essentially zero impact on policy. Our government is not incompetent because of 'democracy'
but because our elites and their institutions are corrupt and insulated from the consequences
of their decisions. One is reminded that Chinese industry is still overwhelmingly US industry
that was moved their because US elites wanted quick shot-term profits – and were just
too greedy to think about the long-term consequences of giving away the work of centuries to
a large competitor nation.
Good to see an article that doesn't blame only the "Jews" seems some people here have a
terrible time believing that there can be more than 1 single cause of wars or other troubles.
I thought all our military heros were required to read and understand Sun Tzu's Art of
War? Seems they skipped a few chapters and cheated on the exam.
Capitalism always fails. Capitalism is growing and the white population is dying
.hmmmm
The 'flaw' (intentional) in capitalism is that it was never intended to improve the
conditions of the common man. Capital, was only ever intended to fill the coffers of princes,
kings, dukes, barons and lesser nobles so that they would have a medium of exchange for
services that they, themselves, were incapable of producing/providing.
And, as we now see the full long term 'effects' of capitalism, wealth disparity,
homelessness, drug addiction, increased suicide rates, lowered longevity, stagnant wages,
staggeringly high personal, corporate, and sovereign debt levels, increases in personal
bankruptcy (particularly health care related), predatory lending, a monopolistic private
sector, corporate dominance of government (think ALEC and uncontrolled corporate lobbying),
unrestricted immigration (think removal of sanctions on employers for illegals), destruction
of unions (& pensions), encouragement of offshoring and destructive mergers and
acquisitions via changes to the tax code, massive overspending on the military along with an
aggressive empire-building posture, trickle down economics, etc.
The current situation in the U.S. should not be a surprise it started about 38 years ago.
You voted for it and now you will have to live with it. China is indeed kicking our ass, our
"leaders" are far too corrupt to change course, we've hit the iceberg already.
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will
be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Welcome to the Saint Reagan Revolution. Have a nice day.
country that is 15% black and 25% Mestizo (and growing) will not rebound to the former
heights of a country that was 90% white. Won't happen.
Why not? Where are all the high ability whites gonna go? Will they just vanish? They're
still around, and aren't going anywhere. The talent pool will continue to have the same
absolute number of people, even if a lower fraction of the whole.
There is a difference between percentages and absolute numbers. All that will have
happened is that a large number of slightly less able people will have been added to the pie.
That doesn't diminish the number of more able people. They're still around.
Here's another little secret. A country is great because of its top 15% of people. The
average Chinese, or the lower class Chinese, is far from impressive.
If the gap between the top 15 percent and everyone else is too large, that may create some
problems, but Hispanics are a fairly capable people.
This doesn't mean I support immigration. But adding say 50 million slightly less able
people to 250 million slightly more able isn't exactly going to ruin a country,
realistically. And other countries may have more serious deficiencies.
Interesting article, and good timing too. China's president today reiterated China's
commitment to developing its strategic partnership with Iran. The US may have pulled out of
the Iran Nuclear Deal, but China remains committed to that deal, and EU doesn't seem quite
ready to jettison it either.
WSJ reported today that India is ignoring US warning about Huawei and will use their
equipment for 5G anyway. Germany is reportedly doing the same.
Thanks to the Zionist stranglehold on the US and UK, I see the world developing into two
factions, one of US-UK-Israel-Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim countries, and the other of
Russia-China-Iran, and potentially India, with EU sitting uncomfortably in the middle. F is
on the Ziocon side as long as Macron is in office, but once he leaves, France could well join
Germany and the rest of the EU and switch side.
The Europeans were not too enamored with Pence at the recent Munich Security Conference,
they all know what a Jew puppet he is, esp. after he used a visit to Auschwitz to convey to
the Europeans that if they do not join the US on our antagonism towards Iran, they are as
good as anti-Semites. The only 2 people who gave him a standing O after his speech were
Javanka. Sad.
Zionists will turn America into an international pariah, as isolated and alone as
Israel.
@Harold Smith
Socialism means equalizing and socializing – of rich and poor – at the expense of
the rich who got that way at the expense of the poor, so you can say – it's little bit
of a payback time. Americans have very clear minds about socialism – that's because
they have been brainwashed during decades long running propaganda.
Then they got introduced to a wrong kind of "socialism" – where they were forced to
socialize with a wrong kind of people – from alien lands and cultures. That's not
socialism, that's cheap propaganda stunt, worthy of the Adolf himself.
I think they were introduced to that type of "socialism" under the motto: "Fake it, so you
don't have to make it". I think that the time will eventually come, where the more
traditional motto will come into play: "Fake it, until you make it".
Just because this produce has the label "United States" doesn't mean that it's the same
as the old product. Grow up.
No, it definitely won't be the same product. But nations change character fairly often.
Elizabethan England was very different than Georgian England. The one was known as merry and
licentious and highly emotional, the other was melancholy, stiff and inexressive, and more
Puritan. Nations literally flip over into their opposites. In the past century Jews went from
being physical cowards to tough physical adventurers in the Middle East. The Germans went
from being the land of poets and thinkers to the land of blood and iron and war.
America will change, very drastically. Immigration will eventually stop, and the new
people absorbed and integrated. Something new will emerge to replace a European civilization
that had grown old. Something partly European and probably very capable.
And yes, I know that ethnic changes aren't the same thing. And I don't supplier
immigration. I'm just pointing out realities.
That's because the America see no advantage in placing its boot upon Canada's neck as
long as Canada, recognizing its absolute dependence on the US for its territorial integrity
and economic prosperity, remains subservient, sending token military forces wherever NATO
directs, extraditing foreign nationals as America requires, and assimilating every
appalling American cultural meme.
LOL how true. Canada to the US is like NZ to Australia. They just don't matter.
How old is Fred Reed anyway? I first became aware of him in late 2001. Back then he posted
his picture at the top of his articles and I thought he looked ancient even back then.
Could it be because that their religious elites correctly figure that it would be
difficult to sell rapist/gay/androgynous deities, phallus/vagina/devil/animal worship,
etc., to the world, except to some whitey hippies (e.g. Tulsi's mother)? They feel ashamed
to proselytise except to braindead whitey hippies.
LOLOL. You really have to wonder what kind of people could be dumb/crazy enough to follow
a religion with 33 million gods! It's no wonder India is such a fucked up country, completely
ungovernable. The worst thing is, these nutcases are now invading the US en masse (and soon
to be let in by tens of millions more courtesy of Trump), are increasingly running for
office, and winning as zealous socialist leftists running in uber liberal districts.
These bullshit artist nutjobs are not satisfied having completely destroyed their own
country, they now want to destroy ours. We are on our way to becoming the next India,
completely with people defecating out in the open like our growing homeless population, just
like in Mumbai.
@flashlight joe Agree
with Flashlight Joe on the duties and imposts and the Civil War. That was the major cause of
the war as far as I can tell from reading books. Of course there were other factors including
slavery as a lesser cause. What a waste of lives and treasure.
@Harold Smith I find
it hard to believe the masses in the US will choose Bernie's socialism. It doesn't work and
the evidence for failure is overwhelming just in the last 100 years. We should stop the
migrations of impoverished third worlders. Lacking any education these migrants would be most
susceptible to hair brained socialism.
@Biff Socialist phone
network? Last I heard the phone companies are 100% privately owned.
All those sewage pipes were privately built and private companies collect your water and
sewer bill.
The definition of socialism: the government or community owns the means of production.
Some nations have more regulations than others but successful nations are capitalist,
including Scandinavians.
Roads are built by private contractors. Missiles and jets as well.
The Jews think far too much of themselves and are screwed. Their hollowing out of the
manufacturing of the US was premature before they could guarantee a home in China. The
Chinese thing of course is not working out so well. The Chinese are not nice individualist
like Europeans that they can manipulate with "caring" for others as the Chinese don't "care"
and will laugh at Jewish cries of "victimization".
Jewish parasitism is only functionally
able to work among Europeans and only last so long in each region they go to. I suspect the
Western Ukraine take over was to have a plan "B" place to go if they get overrun in Israel.
I'm not so sure that will work out in the long run either.
I noted your impressions, but Asia is a big place. There's a great variety of peoples and
cultures between Japan and Saudi Arabia, and I'm curious which you're actually commenting
on.
The US is having a little bit of a bad period, and everyone is rushing to say it's
completely finished for all time.
It isn't simply a "bad period" from where I sit, and I don't think any serious person
would claim "it's completely finished for all time". In the first place it's not that "bad"
(yet), and it has a long way to go before it gets genuinely bad for no greater reason than
that it's starting its decline from a fully developed state. A lot of things have to go to
hell for it to become hell.
And its debatable just how bad a period the US is going through. I think its overstated,
although there are undoubtedly some serious problems that need to be addressed.
The issue for America is that having lost its civilizational strengths, it's running on
the fumes of Empire. So, we're really talking about just how much of those fumes there are
left. The former didn't simply get weakened. For the elites and approx half the population
they seem to have been replaced by something alien and corrosive. "Freedom", "Democracy",
"Rule of Law" and even "American Know-how" have visibly dissipated to invisibility for those
looking honestly for them. The fumes it's running on are the preeminence of the U$ dollar
system and such fear as the USM is able to generate. Both are past their tipping point, and
well into decline.
great nations go through bad periods, and then rise again.
They do, but Empires generally don't. It's all about resource flow, and when the flow
stops, or worse reverses, the nation at the core of empire rarely survives in anything like
its original form. Greece, Italy, Mongolia or Iran are very different than simply diminished
versions of their former selves at the core of Empires. The original versions
disappeared.
In any case, America wasn't great for long enough to be called a historically great
nation. Great nations build civilizations that endure through trials such as the loss of
Empire. Russia and China have, and arguably remain modern versions of their original
selves.
In 4thC Rome, things didn't look so bad either. There was lots of asset speculation for
the rich, and bread 'n circuses for everyone else, while the Empire's ability to bring
resources in from the periphery shrank a little every day. Without new resources being
brought in, the Empire inevitably ate its tail. The people remained blithely certain that
there would be even more bread 'n circuses in the future. So Americans are today. They'll
stay quite certain until a modern-day Alaric hammers on the Imperial Gates and says "It's
over". Rome never recovered its Empire, and the city itself went from a population of ~1M to
<50,000 at its depths. It and the area that became Italy took centuries to recover a
halfway decent standard of living.
Like Rome, the US has hollowed itself out and became dependent on such tithes a shrinking
Empire can deliver to keep the bread 'n circuses going. Rome, however, had no peers and so
could continue on well beyond its sell-by date. America, through a breathtaking series of
strategic blunders, has lost that advantage. There's more peers now than America can hope to
deal with and they, not America control the clock. The resources the Empire needs to continue
have been taken off the table. It needed Russia's natural resources, and China's human
resources. It lost both, and what's worse forced them into partnership. As the recent Warsaw
"conference" so vividly exposed, even its vassals know that the Empire has lost its mojo, if
DC's brain-trusts don't.
Can it recover and become a normal country again? Absolutely, though I give it less chance
of coming through the process intact than either Russia or China did. Cultural homogeneity is
what carries a civilization through hard times, and the US ain't got much of that. Perhaps it
will undergo a similar split to Rome's, where the Eastern Empire went on to develop a very
different society than the one it split off from. Rome split along more or less logistical
and administrative lines, whereas the US' fissures are marbled across the continent. It'll
take some serious statesmanship to hold it together.
As for wishing
Perhaps some do wish the US Empire's collapse will come sooner rather than later, and even
that some other empire will replace it. I simply see its collapse as both inevitable, and
imminent (in historical terms, of course), but I don't see another global Empire rising to
take its place, much less wish it.
Maybe one will arise in the fullness of time, but not in mine, or in anyone's that's
currently alive. The resource base just ain't there any more. A Eurasian Empire? Maybe.
Global? Nah.
I changed the term Capitalism to Neoliberalism, as Capitalism has multiple forms incliudong
New DealCapitalism and Neoliberlaism. It is Neoliberlaism that won in 1980 with "Reagan
revolution."
Good to see an article that doesn't blame only the "Jews" seems some people here have a
terrible time believing that there can be more than 1 single cause of wars or other troubles.
I thought all our military heros were required to read and understand Sun Tzu's Art of
War? Seems they skipped a few chapters and cheated on the exam.
Neoliberalism always fails. Neoliberalism is growing and the white population is dying
.hmmmm
The 'flaw' (intentional) in Neoliberalism is that it was never intended to improve the
conditions of the common man. Capital, was only ever intended to fill the coffers of princes,
kings, dukes, barons and lesser nobles so that they would have a medium of exchange for
services that they, themselves, were incapable of producing/providing.
And, as we now see the full long term 'effects' of Neoliberalism, wealth disparity,
homelessness, drug addiction, increased suicide rates, lowered longevity, stagnant wages,
staggeringly high personal, corporate, and sovereign debt levels, increases in personal
bankruptcy (particularly health care related), predatory lending, a monopolistic private
sector, corporate dominance of government (think ALEC and uncontrolled corporate lobbying),
unrestricted immigration (think removal of sanctions on employers for illegals), destruction
of unions (& pensions), encouragement of offshoring and destructive mergers and
acquisitions via changes to the tax code, massive overspending on the military along with an
aggressive empire-building posture, trickle down economics, etc.
The current situation in the U.S. should not be a surprise it started about 38 years ago.
You voted for it and now you will have to live with it. China is indeed kicking our ass, our
"leaders" are far too corrupt to change course, we've hit the iceberg already.
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will
be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Welcome to the Saint Reagan Revolution. Have a nice day .
@TKK immigrate a
replacement population if not hostile? Why would you export your industry if not hostile?
You don't dig out and convert your economy to first world standards overnight.
So, the trend lines are clear. The West and U.S. is a finance oligarchy in decline, while
Russia is on a ascendant path. These lines will cross over at some point in near future. One
could even squint and say that Russia is no longer an Oligarchy of special interests, and is
moving into Byzantium mode e.g. symphony of Church and State. Many Russian thinkers are
projecting another 40 years or so to consolidate the gains.
"... When the Soviet Empire collapsed, America appeared poised to establish the first truly world empire. The developed countries were American vassals in effect if not in name, many of them occupied by American troops: Among others, Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Latin America, Saudi Arabia, and Australia. The US had by far the dominant economy and the biggest military, controlled the IMF, NATO, the dollar, SWIFT, and enjoyed technological superiority.. Russia was in chaos, China a distant smudge on the horizon. ..."
"... Current foreign policy openly focuses on dominating the planet. The astonishing thing is that some people don't notice. ..."
"... A major purpose of the destruction of Iraq was to get control of its oil and put American forces on the border of Iran, another oil power. The current attempt to starve the Iranians aims at installing a American puppet government. The ongoing coup in Venezuela seeks control of another vast oil reserve. It will also serve to intimidate the rest of Latin America by showing what can happen to any country that defies Washington. Why are American troops in Nigeria? Guess what Nigeria has. ..."
"... America cannot compete with China commercially ..."
"... Beijing's advantages are too great: A huge and growing domestic market, a far larger population of very bright people, a for-profit economy that allows heavy investment both internally and abroad, a stable government that can plan well into the future. ..."
"... Increasingly America's commercial power is as a consumer, not a producer. Washington tells other countries, "If you don't do as we say, we won't buy your stuff." ..."
"... As America's competitiveness declines, Washington resorts to strong-arm tactics. It has no choice. A prime example is the 5G internet, a Very Big Deal, in which Huawei holds the lead. Unable to provide a better product at a better price, Washington forbids the vassals to deal with Huawei–on pain of not buying their stuff. In what appears to be desperation, the Exceptional Nation has actually made a servile Canada arrest the daughter of Huawei's founder. ..."
When the Soviet Empire collapsed, America appeared poised to establish the first truly world
empire. The developed countries were American vassals in effect if not in name, many of them
occupied by American troops: Among others, Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Latin America,
Saudi Arabia, and Australia. The US had by far the dominant economy and the biggest military,
controlled the IMF, NATO, the dollar, SWIFT, and enjoyed technological superiority.. Russia was
in chaos, China a distant smudge on the horizon.
Powerful groups in Washington, such as PNAC, began angling towed aggrandizement, but the
real lunge came with the attack on Iraq. Current foreign policy openly focuses on dominating
the planet. The astonishing thing is that some people don't notice.
The world runs on oil. Controlling the supply conveys almost absolute power over those
countries that do not have their own. (For example, the Japanese would soon be eating each
other if their oil were cut off.) Saudi Arabia is an American protectorate,and, having seen
what happened to Iraq, knows that it can be conquered in short order if it gets out of line.
The U. S. Navy could easily block tanker traffic from Hormuz to any or all countries.
A major purpose of the destruction of Iraq was to get control of its oil and put American
forces on the border of Iran, another oil power. The current attempt to starve the Iranians
aims at installing a American puppet government. The ongoing coup in Venezuela seeks control of
another vast oil reserve. It will also serve to intimidate the rest of Latin America by showing
what can happen to any country that defies Washington. Why are American troops in Nigeria?
Guess what Nigeria has.
Note that Iraq and Iran, in addition to their oil, are geostrategically vital to a world
empire. Further, the immensely powerful Jewish presence in the US supports the Mid-East wars
for its own purposes. So, of course, does the arms industry. All God's chillun love the
Empire.
For the Greater Empire to prevail, Russia and China, the latter a surprise contender, must
be neutralized. Thus the campaign to crush Russia by economic sanctions. At the same time
Washington pushes NATO, its sepoy militia, ever eastward, wants to station US forces in Poland,
plans a Space Command whose only purpose is to intimidate or bankrupt Russia, drops out of the
INF Treaty for the same reasons, and seeks to prevent commercial relations between Russia and
the European vassals (e.g., Nordstream II).
China of course is the key obstacle to expanding the Empire. Ergo the trade war. America
has to stop China's economic and technological progress, and stop it now, as it
will not get another chance.
The present moment is an Imperial crunch point. America cannot compete with China
commercially or, increasingly, in technology. Washington knows it. Beijing's advantages are too
great: A huge and growing domestic market, a far larger population of very bright people, a
for-profit economy that allows heavy investment both internally and abroad, a stable government
that can plan well into the future.
America? It's power is more fragile than it may seem. The United States once dominated
economically by making better products at better prices, ran a large trade surplus, and barely
had competitors. Today it has deindustrialized, runs a trade deficit with almost everybody,
carries an astronomical and uncontrolled national debt, and makes few things that the world
can't get elsewhere, often at lower cost.
Increasingly America's commercial power is as a consumer, not a producer. Washington tells
other countries, "If you don't do as we say, we won't buy your stuff." The indispensable
country is an indispensable market. With few and diminishing (though important) exceptions, if
it stopped selling things to China, China would barely notice, but if it stopped buying, the
Chinese economy would wither. Tariffs, note, are just a way of not buying China's stuff.
Since the profligate American market is vital to other countries, they often do as ordered.
But Asian markets grow. So do Asian industries.
As America's competitiveness declines, Washington resorts to strong-arm tactics. It has no
choice. A prime example is the 5G internet, a Very Big Deal, in which Huawei holds the lead.
Unable to provide a better product at a better price, Washington forbids the vassals to deal
with Huawei–on pain of not buying their stuff. In what appears to be desperation, the
Exceptional Nation has actually made a servile Canada arrest the daughter of Huawei's
founder.
The tide runs against the Empire. A couple of decades ago, the idea that China could compete
technologically with America would have seemed preposterous. Today China advances at startling
speed. It is neck and neck with the US in supercomputers, launches moonlanders, leads in 5G
internet, does leading work in genetics, designs world-class chipsets (e.g., the Kirin 980 and
920) and smartphones. Another decade or two of this and America will be at the trailing
edge.
The American decline is largely self-inflicted. The US chooses its government by popularity
contests among provincial lawyers rather than by competence. American education deteriorates
under assault by social-justice faddists. Washington spends on the military instead of
infrastructure and the economy. It is politically chaotic, its policies changing with every new
administration.
The first rule of empire is, "Don't let your enemies unite." Instead, Washington has pushed
Russia, China, and Iran into a coalition against the Empire. It might have been brighter to
have integrated Iran tightly into the Euro-American econosphere, but Israel would not have let
America do this. The same approach would have worked with Russia, racially closer to Europe
than China and acutely aware of having vast empty Siberia bordering an overpopulated China. By
imposing sanctions of adversaries and allies alike, Washington promotes dedollarization and
recognition that America is not an ally but a master.
It is now or never. If America's great but declining power does not subjugate the rest of
the world quickly, the rising powers of Asia will swamp it. Even India grows. Either sanctions
subdue the world, or Washington starts a world war. Or America becomes just another
country.
To paraphrase a great political thinker, "It's the Empire, Stupid."
"Washington has pushed Russia, China, and Iran into a coalition against the Empire."
Turkey may soon join them, then Iraq might revolt. South Korea has tired of the
warmongering and may join too, which is why Washington is giving them the lead in dealing
with North Korea. But a united Korea identifes more with China than the USA, so the USA wants
to block that idea. The Germans are unhappy too, with all the warmongering, immigration, and
American arrogance.
Sorry Fred, but you're too late. It's all over. Just that your maniacal rulers, i.e. Pompeo,
Bolton et al can't see it. Or, Cognitive Dissonance being painful, refuse to.
Warsaw recently was a case in point. The two biggest European countries, Germany and France
refused to even send a senior representative. All people did was listen in an embarrassed
silence while Pompeo tried to make like a latter day Julius Cesear. At the same time, Russia,
Turkey and Iran met in Sochi, and worked out how they were going to take the next solving the
mess in Syria, the way they want it.
Incidentally, you could also go onto YouTube and watch RT's subtitled [also horrible voice
over, but you can't have everything I guess] of President Putin's "Address to Parliament and
the Nation". It runs for close to 1.5 hours. You will hear the problems Russia has, how Putin
addresses the concerns of the people, their complaints re poor access in country areas to
medicine, and his orders on how this is to be fixed.
But you will also hear the moves forward, that Russia now has a trade surplus [remember
those?] and can afford all the programs it needs. It's the world leading exporter of Wheat,
and other commodities are catching up.
Then he will tell you and show videos of the latest 2 defense weapons – and they are
things America cannot defend against. He also in light of the US withdrawing from the INF
treaty made a very clear statement, should the US be so stupid as to think it can use Europe
as it's war ground, and have Europeans get killed instead of Americans. "Put Intermediate
sites in Europe and use just one, and not only will we fire on the European site that sent
it, but we will also take out the "decision making centre", wherever this is".
Ponder that for a while. There is nothing US can do. The dollar is slowly being rejected and
dumped. The heartland is reamed out after billions took the productive facilities and put
them in China [so kind]. The homeless and desperate are growing in numbers.
It's all over, Fred. Time to start planning what to do when the mud really hits the fan.
Can't argue with that! Usually, I read Fred for amusement, but this is all spot on. I
particularly liked:
The American decline is largely self-inflicted. The US chooses its government by
popularity contests among provincial lawyers rather than by competence. American education
deteriorates under assault by social-justice faddists. Washington spends on the military
instead of infrastructure and the economy.
Incredible. US government cooks up lies to invade and wreck Iraq, destroy Libya, and subvert
Syria. It pulled off a coup in Ukraine with Neo-Nazis. US and its allies Saudis and Israel
gave aid, direct and indirect, to ISIS and Al-Qaida to bring down Assad or turn Syria upside
down.
But, scum like Pompeo puts forth hard-line stance against terrorists. What a bunch of vile
phonies and hypocrites.
It might have been brighter to have integrated Iran tightly into the Euro-American
econosphere, but Israel would not have let America do this. The same approach would have
worked with Russia, racially closer to Europe than China and acutely aware of having vast
empty Siberia bordering an overpopulated China.
Russia is more than racially closer, Russia is culturally much closer and by culturally I
don't mean this cesspool of new "culture". But, as you brilliantly noted:
The US chooses its government by popularity contests among provincial lawyers rather
than by competence.
Britain's time of full spectrum dominance (well trade, industry and navy really) did not
emerge fully formed from isolation as did America. England and the UK played balance of power
politics. The US can still do that for a very long time, given some basic diplomatic sense.
India, China & Pakistan present an interesting triangle. Indonesia and Vietnam are no
friends of China. Nigeria is heading for 400m people and will want to exert its own power,
not take instructions from Peking, etc, etc. Balance of power requires more fluidity than the
US has shown to date. Seeing Russia as an hereditary enemy illustrates this failure.
Can the US make the changes necessary to play balance of power politics?
The astonishing thing is that some people don't notice.
.
Not to notice (or rather, not to notice one's own noticing) what the majority doesn't
notice (OK: they don't notice that they notice, actually) is part of humankind's cerebral
package too.
You once called it the law of the pack. It can be given innumerable names -- just it doesn't
change.
The American decline is largely self-inflicted.
.
It's what follows ripe democracy, invariably -- meanjng that it can arguably not be
helped.
@Godfree Roberts
Finally a bright spot in an otherwise depressingly-fairly-truthful article. Less Government
spending is a GOOD thing, I mean, unless you are a flat-out Communist, of course ohhhhh .
And yes, the scale is WAY off. How could those 0.8 to 2.05% numbers seem even close to
reality to anyone who has a clue. I can't vouch for China, but the US number is off by a
factor of 20 to 25 . Come on, Godfree, you're (a tad bit) better than that!
That's not a bad article in general, but, as usual, Mr. Reed doesn't really have that
analytical mind to know what's really been, and is, going on.
1) There were PLENTY of Americans, many of them even politicians who wanted a "peace
dividend" after the Cold War was won. G.H.W Bush and the neocons put the kibosh on that. The
current version of empire-building didn't have to be. The Israeli-influenced neocons are most
of the reason for the post-Cold-War empire building.
2) It's not ALL about oil anymore – it seems to be a diminishing factor, what with
the US producing more oil than it imports, at this point. Mr. Reed could use a dose of
Zerohedge.com, as, along with their gloom-and-doom, they have opened my eyes to the American
meddling around the world to keep support of the Reserve Currency, the US dollar. Lots of the
countries in which the US causes trouble were trying to get out of the dollar world with
their trade.
3) Related to (2) here, China and Russia both want to eliminate the use of the dollar in
trade, including with each other. That bothers a lot of people who understand how bad the
outlook for the US economy really is, and what it would mean for the dollar to no longer be
used around the world for trade.
4) American government has handed China a completely one-sided deal (FOR China) in trade
since the mid-1990's and Bill Clinton. It's time to end that, which is what the trade war is
about. I don't dispute that American could be in a whole lot more pain over it than the
Chinese, but it's like medicine – take it now, or suffer even more later.
America? It's power is more fragile than it may seem. The United States once
dominated economically by making better products at better prices, ran a large trade
surplus, and barely had competitors. Today it has deindustrialized, runs a trade deficit
with almost everybody, carries an astronomical and uncontrolled national debt, and makes
few things that the world can't get elsewhere, often at lower cost.
@peterAUS I agree ..
Canada is "not" under America's boot. As a Canadian I respect the security America provides
Canada on the world stage but it would be a cold day in hell when i would submit to an
America with a gun in his hand. And im pretty sure our best buddies in jolly ol England might
have something to say. This isnt a pissing match. Empire is a fickle bitch.
@Bruce County Pretty
much.
As far as Australia and New Zealand are concerned it's crystal clear. Somebody has to provide
security for our way of life here; before it was United Kingdom, now it's USA.
Hehe definitely preferable to China.
Or Japan.
Or anyone here in Pacific.
If Americans want to deploy a full corps, whatever, no prob. Again, as far as "fair
skinned" English speaking citizens here are concerned. I'd even say it applies to Polynesians
around.
Now, can't say it applies to our Mohammedan citizens, and definitely not to Chinese.
It's amusing to see Westerners around here keen on replacing USA empire with Chinese. Hehe
talking about self-hate.
Granted, there are people among them who really believe in all that propaganda coming from
Beijing. Well better than taking Prozac or similar, I guess, so all good.
"Current foreign policy openly focuses on dominating the planet. The astonishing thing is
that some people don't notice." That is pretty astonishing, given that most of the columns on
sites like this & even in more MSM-style publications rehash this theme ad infinitum. It
may, in fact, be more a matter of people simply getting tired of hearing it over and over
that leads them to shrug and turn to something different. It's not news anymore. How many
columns can anyone squeeze out of the same threadbare topic. Many years ago, during first
Cold War, it was still somewhat daring to expose this partially hidden truth; but now it's
old hat on both the left & right.No one really needs someone to tell them again what
everyone already knows, that's easy – but what to do about it, that's the hard part!
@Philip Owen This is
a subset of government spending and only covers R&D.
It doesn't cover corporate R&D spending, though I'm guessing that in that regard, the
two countries are even. If anyone has the numbers I'd be grateful if they'd share them.
Incredible. US government cooks up lies to invade and wreck Iraq, destroy Libya, and subvert
Syria. It pulled off a coup in Ukraine with Neo-Nazis. US and its allies Saudis and Israel
gave aid, direct and indirect, to ISIS and Al-Qaida to bring down Assad or turn Syria upside
down.
But, scum like Pompeo puts forth hard-line stance against terrorists. What a bunch of vile
phonies and hypocrites.
I think that Bernie Sanders was the best hope that US had in the last 50 years. And they
killed that hope by stealing his nomination and highly probable presidency from him. I don't
care what the orange clown says about "US will never be a socialist country". One other
individual of his ethnic background once prognosticated a 1000 year Reich – and we all
know how that turned out.
I don't know what Bernie views on immigration are, but on social and economic issues
– he is bang on. And I just heard on the news that Bernie new campaign for 2020, has
broken all previous records – raising 6 million $ in the first 24 hours.
All that nonsensical talk about empire is just a product of idle (and deranged) minds of
individuals who have achieved personal wealth and success based on rules of questionable
fairness, and now have nothing better to do than play some retarded game of world domination
– which doesn't benefit the average American at all. It's just a way for the
degenerates to achieve "immortality" and get into the history books – where they don't
belong – certainly not based on their abilities.
"Yeah right. Sanders is just another scammer, like Trump and all the rest of them:"
Yes of course they're all scammers, but there's a reason they picked the orange clown
scammer rather than the Sanders scammer or the Clinton scammer. And I think that reason is
because orange clown is actually the most evil of the three; evil enough to risk planetary
extinction in pursuit of world domination and control, whereas Sanders probably isn't.
So in a sense Sanders probably is "the best hope that the U.S. had in the last 50
years."
Britain's time of full spectrum dominance (well trade, industry and navy really) did not
emerge fully formed from isolation as did America. England and the UK played balance of power
politics. The US can still do that for a very long time, given some basic diplomatic sense.
India, China & Pakistan present an interesting triangle. Indonesia and Vietnam are no
friends of China. Nigeria is heading for 400m people and will want to exert its own power,
not take instructions from Peking, etc, etc. Balance of power requires more fluidity than the
US has shown to date. Seeing Russia as an hereditary enemy illustrates this failure.
Can the US make the changes necessary to play balance of power politics?
China of course is the key obstacle to expanding the Empire America cannot compete with
China commercially or, increasingly, in technology. Washington knows it. Beijing's advantages
are too great: A huge and growing domestic market, a far larger population of very bright
people, a for-profit economy that allows heavy investment both internally and abroad, a
stable government that can plan well into the future.
But all the bright minds come to the US. There is no brain drain in China's way, but the
best and brightest in Asia come to the US. Also, as the Asian mind respects power and status
above all, most Asians in the US become loyal servitors of Empire. Asians will serve Asian
power only in Asia where they are dominant. When they are in a non-Asian land, they will suck
up to the non-Asian power. In this, they are unlike Jews. Even in Ancient Times, Jews always
felt as #1 even when surrounded by much bigger powers. They were defined by the Covenant with
the one and only God. Wherever Jews go, they expect others to revolve around them. In
contrast, wherever Asians go, they revolve around the dominant power, whatever it is. Asians
lack the centrism of Jews. Maybe Hindus do a little bit, but Chinese don't. China regarded
itself as the Middle Kingdom only in the Middle Kingdom. But outside it, they feel as strays
who must serve another master. (To be sure, Chinese resist assimilation into foreign nations
when they regard the natives as inferior. Chinese see Southeast Asians as inferior and don't
assimilate much with them. But Chinese regard whites as superior, and so, they try to serve
and be white in the West. And trashy Chinese try to imitate blacks, the masters of badass
coolery in Pop Culture and Sports.) East Asians mainly define themselves by service and
loyalty? To what? To whatever happens to be the most powerful.
Here's the difference between Jews and East Asians.
If the US were to turn anti-Israel and made war against it, American Jews will NOT join in
the effort to kill fellow Jews in Israel. No way in hell, and this is the admirable aspect of
Jewish consciousness. Jews will not be manipulated by goyim to kill other Jews.
But Asian dogs in the US will gladly serve the US empire in killing tons of Asians in
Asia, even ethnic kin. Muslims are the same way. Look at those Muslims in US military who
bombed and killed Muslims in the 'Wars on Terror'. There's no way any American Jew will
participate in US war on Israel that kills tons of Jews, but Asians will gladly kill fellow
Asians in the service to what they deem to be the highest power. Look at Japanese during and
after WWII. During WWII, Japanese loyally served the Emperor, the symbol of power. After the
way, they loyally served Uncle Sam as the New Top Power.
... ... ...
US has lots of problems, but most smart people around the world want to move to the US to
work in Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Real Estate, and etc. There are foreigners in
China, but the system is rigged by nationalism to keep top positions in Chinese hands. But in
the US, due to demise of white race-ism and nationalism, non-white newcomers can rise to the
very top very fast. Look at all the obscenely rich Hindus in Silicon Valley. Also, white
goyim who made America let Jews take over. The Jewish takeover of a majority white Christian
nation sent a message to the world that ANYONE can come to the US and reach the top. If
Chinese elites still favor fellow Chinese, white elites no longer favor white folks and
prefer to do business with non-white elites. So, most of the top talents will flow to the
US.
Also, tons of peons are willing to move to the US to do jobs Americans won't do. So, US
will have tons of brains and tons of peons. (The Middle will suffer though as it's hard for
the middle class and working class to have bargaining power if they can be replaced by
foreigners or if their jobs can be shipped overseas.) US population is likely to be 700 or
800 million by 2100. Also, America has much more resources than China. It has more oil,
better land, more minerals. And US also has Alaska, a world unto itself. (Russians sure were
stupid to sell it.)
@Asagirian That's a
very selective reading of things, and a lot of debatable generalizations about other nations
the US one it seems is all you know personally. Too much to challenge it all but just the
point about Jews not killing other Jews has to be questioned. Jewish elites sacrifice Jews
without qualms when they see it as a means to an end, witness the "Holocaust" which was
instigated and fed by Jewish elites who did all they could to ensure Jewish refugees from
Europe only went to Palestine or back to oppression.
There were Jews in armies on both sides
of the two world wars. Over 150,000 German Jews fought in WWII in the Wehrmacht. Then there
have been the instances of Zionist false flag terrorism in various Middle Eastern countries
to drive yet more Jews to Palestine.
As for the best and brightest making a beeline for the USA that was yesterday. These days
that flow is slowing and by no means are the best and brightest headed that direction and
more to the point, many of America's best and brightest are beginning to emigrate to greener
pastures as the writing on the wall becomes more obvious.
What you describe as a US
renaissance is no such thing. Although the demographics are probably about right. It
represents the end of the USA in it's traditional self perception and the aftermath of empire
collapse. History doesn't support the rosy outlook you project.
"... Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her ..."
"... Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn. ..."
"... The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you should all agree with Gabbard here. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic
cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her. She said:
" We must stand up
against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up
new wars to wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and
hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy, our security, and destroying our
middle class."
It is too early to formulate a complete opinion on Gabbard, but she has said the right thing
so far. In fact, her record is better than numerous presidents, both past and present.
As we have documented in the past, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, and she knew what
happened to her fellow soldiers who died for Israel, the Neocon war machine, and the military
industrial complex. She also seems to be aware that the war in Iraq alone will cost American
taxpayers at least six trillion dollars.
[1] She is almost certainly aware of the fact that at least "360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans may have suffered brain injuries."
[2]
Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and
destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the
Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle
East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn.
The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both
parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about
you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that
matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of
the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you
should all agree with Gabbard here.
[1] Ernesto Londono, "Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion," Washington
Post , March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars," The Nation , March 29,
2013; "Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson
Institute Study," Huffington Post , May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, "The $5 Trillion War
on Terror," Time , June 29, 2011; "Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have
been done?," LA Times , March 18, 2013.
[2] "360,000 veterans may have brain injuries," USA Today , March 5, 2009.
"We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new
places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy,
our security, and destroying our middle class."
"... US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class ..."
...Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the
power of the Israel Lobby to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the
Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
The media in most countries report the news in a neutral manner. Since the Judaists bought
the media, they turned media into weapons of terror, by:
a. Fake news -- outright lies (eg. calling alien invaders "migrants").
b. Manufacturing scandals that THEY make up eg. blackface.
c. Harassing and abusing patriots and others and calling them racists, getting them fired from
jobs, etc.
None of these are legitimate jobs of the media. The New York Times and most Zionists
controlled media in this country are therefore criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations
and these criminals belong in prison.
Most of the US attendees might better be described as sincere American patriots. Former
Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), whom I personally recruited for the conference, is widely
acknowledged as an all-American hero for his principled stance against the Vietnam war, his
role in exposing the Pentagon Papers, and his courageous advocacy of 9/11 truth.
Merlin Miller, a family values oriented filmmaker who once ran for president, is another
all-American hero who attended the Hollywoodism Conference. Merlin Miller's pro-American,
anti-Zionist-Hollywood perspective is as patriotic as it gets.
And then there was Culture Wars editor E. Michael Jones, another conservative
American patriot who wants to take his country back.
While all three all-American heroes are in varying degrees critical of Israel and its
occupation of American politics and media, none could possibly be viewed as America haters.
Notes
[1] I
was witch-hunted in 2006 by State Rep. Steve Nass for "teaching 9/11 conspiracy theories" at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But in fact I had never done so, nor had I any plans to do
so. While teaching African Studies, Folklore, and Religious Studies at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison between 2001 and 2006, I had never once revealed to students my personal
views of 9/11, nor did I ever discuss the research that gave rise to those views.
None of my students up to that point even knew what my views of 9/11 were, unless they had
stumbled upon one of my occasional teach-ins, or read my published work on the issue, which I
did not bring into the classroom.
Yet Stanley
Fish lied brazenly about me in his NYT op-ed , libelously claiming: "Mr. Barrett, who has a
one-semester contract to teach a course titled 'Islam: Religion and Culture' acknowledged on a
radio talk show that he has shared with students his strong conviction that the destruction of
the World Trade Center was an inside job perpetrated by the American government."
I immediately wrote to The New York Times urging them to correct their libelous
error. They refused to do so. Instead, they published several other
letters all taking for granted Fish's outrageous and utterly baseless lie.
"... Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes vote. ..."
"... how being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure, for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic? ..."
Foreign policy is more than just war and peace, it is a nuanced and complex issue that
directly affects us here at home. In this interview, Dr. Jane Sanders sits down with
Representative Tulsi Gabbard to talk about U.S. foreign policy and how it affects us here at
home.
Tulsi this is the first I've explored who you are. This conversation felt like a life
giving refreshment. The constant war and regime change policy of every administration since I
was a young child has been utterly confounding. We are bankrupting our society and
civilization with military expenditure exactly like a life destroying heroin addict except
it's on a global scale. These people in the powers that be together with the masses that back
them are literal sociopaths and they're entirely in control at both the highest and base
levels. The only other time I've felt as nourished by a public figure that somehow pierced
through the mainstream media was Bernie Sanders actually expressing the fact that we are an
oligarchy not a democracy. Like oligarchy, anti-war and imperialism is just not talked about.
US Americans won't acknowledge the scale of our imperialism.
Tulsi should run and both Sanders should follow her lead. As much as I love him, Bernie's
too old to be president - when it gets to the stage against Trump, we need a young, vibrant
face. Add onto that the fact that she's a veteran who actually asked to be deployed in
comparison to him, a draft dodger - he looks like an old fat pathetic septogenarian next to
an early 40s real populist. Ultimately it is up to Sanders whether this whole thing is about
a man or a movement. If he runs, he'll probably win the primary but it is not a guarantee
that he'd win - Tulsi would win and she'd be around for decades to come as a standard barer
too.
"Sensible politics" seems to be an oxymoron these days and pretty much throughout the
history of our country. It's so refreshing to see a politician who has a vision for the
future that the majority of us can get behind. It scares me though. I've read quite a bit
about JFK the past few years, and he amassed a number of very powerful and dangerous enemies.
They won't just stand by and allow someone in a position of influence to get the truth out
about our immoral and illegal wars. Tulsi, I support your efforts to bring peace to the
Middle East and elsewhere, but please do be careful. You're a fighter and I admire that, but
we all want you to be safe and healthy for many years to come.
Tulsi Gabbard, I am thrilled to have someone like you running for president. I am a fellow
Veteran dealing with disability and I am glad to have a candidate who understands the issues
Veterans are dealing with. I also realize that the voting public will support the person who
resonates with their personal lives and issues that don't exist in their life they will
disregard.Thank you for you're support.
The DNC will lie cheat and steal the election from Tulsi Gabbard just like they did Bernie
Sanders, and the 15 million Americans who Left the un-Democratic party will double and
triple....DEMEXIT
Tulsi Gabbard needs to be the president of the United States of America period. If she not
the president of our country will not survive. That is a fact, how stupid can our government
be. I guess very stupid, what else can I say. We don't hear that in main news media, the
reason we do hear it the media . The news media is totally brought, the main news media love
money and the devil, simple as that. How are you going to hear about wars from main news
media. They do care about the citizens or the country. We really don't have a real news
media, it all propaganda. All fake news, that why one doesn't hear anything from the new
medias.
Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one
responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime
change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes
vote.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Bernie is a sell-out - a sheeple-herder that never intended to win. He
was a gatekeeper for Hillary because she is AIPAC-beloved and he is an Israel-firster. He
threw his supporters under the bus as they told him in real time that the nomination was
being stolen. He's part of the con, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.
BERNIE WORKS FOR DEMOCRATS. Vote Third Party (REAL third parties, not the Bernie Sanders'
kind).
Kinky, 2 months ago
Tulsi - re your comment about our veterans who have "served and sacrificed for their country," could you clarify how
being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure,
for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our
country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic?
"... The anti Semitism ploy is used to shield the Zionists from any criticism and to place them in a special place kind of like in Orwell's Animal Farm ..."
Ilhan Omar quickly understood that she had touched a live wire, surrendered, and
recanted. She apologized by Monday afternoon, 18 hours after her original tweet, saying
"Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating
me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my
constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and
think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my
identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize."
What does that sound like? A Stalin-era confession? 'I have betrayed the Party. I have
betrayed the Revolution. I humbly request to be sent to Joo-lag.'
The anti Semitism ploy is used to shield the Zionists from any criticism and to place them in
a special place kind of like in Orwell's Animal Farm and in fact the Zionists are in fact in
that special place here in America where they reign above all and none dare call them out for
their genocide of the Palestinians or the fact they did 911 and murdered some 3000 Americans.
So great is the Zionist control of the US government that no congressman who values his
position in congress dares criticize Zionists and goes along with everything that Israel and
the Zionists do, and if fact congress would be more accurately called the lower house of the
Knesset!
Accusations of so-called "anti-Semitism" are used by the JEW/WASP ruling class to cover up
the treasonous activities of the JEW/WASP ruling class.
When CIA Leprechaun Boy Buckley wanted to attack Pat Buchanan because Buchanan was
skeptical of wars that benefited Israel, Buckley the whore called Buchanan an "anti-Semite."
In fact, the CIA Leprechaun scumbag Buckley wrote a whole book screaming about so-called
"anti-Semitism" and Pat Buchanan. Buckley is a disgusting Leprechaun rat who is now roasting
in the hottest pits of fiery Hell!
When disgusting rat whores in the US Congress such as Charles Schumer want to cover the
fact that they are pushing JEW NATIONALISM by pushing to continue to use the US military as
muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel, they accuse those who call them out on their
actions by the swear word of the ruling class: "anti-Semite."
Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the power of the Israel Lobby
to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
"... The epithet 'anti-semitic' continues to have a lot of clout. Measuring this in the most accurate way -- how effectively it cows one into silence -- I've realized it's quite effective. ..."
It was manufactured outrage, with political leaders from both parties latching on to a media
frenzy to score points against each other. Even though it is perfectly legitimate for a
Congresswoman on the Foreign Affairs Committee to challenge what AIPAC does and where its money
comes from, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi complained that Omar's "use of anti-Semitic
tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel's supporters" was "deeply offensive." Chelsea
Clinton
accused Omar of "trafficking in anti-Semitism." President Donald Trump, who
has admitted that his Mideast policy is intended to serve Israeli rather than U.S.
interests, also jumped in, saying "I think she should either resign from congress or she should
certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee."
Ilhan Omar quickly understood that she had touched a live wire, surrendered, and recanted.
She
apologized by Monday afternoon, 18 hours after her original tweet, saying "Anti-Semitism is
real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful
history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish
Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism,
just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I
unequivocally apologize." But she also bravely wrote "At the same time, I reaffirm the
problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel
industry. It's gone on too long and we must be willing to address it."
Pelosi approved of the apology. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota who is
running for president in 2020, chimed in to make sure that everyone knew how much she loves
Israel, saying "I'm glad she apologized. That was the right thing to do. There is just no room
for those kinds of words. I think Israel is our beacon of democracy. I've been a strong
supporter of Israel and that will never change."
Two days later,
a motion sponsored by Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York passed by a 424 to 0 vote. It was
specifically intended to serve as a rebuke to Omar. It
stated that "it is in the national security interest of the United States to combat
anti-Semitism around the world because there has been a significant amount of anti-Semitic and
anti-Israel hatred that must be most strongly condemned."
Congressional votes professing love for Israel notwithstanding, the fact is that there is a
massive
, generously funded effort to corrupt America's government in favor of Israel. It is
euphemistically called the Israel Lobby even though it is overwhelmingly Jewish and it boasts
fairly openly of its power when talking with its closest friends about
how its money influences the decisions made on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Its
combined budget exceeds one billion dollars per year and it includes lobbying powerhouses like
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which alone had $229 million
in income in 2017, supporting more than 200 employees. It exists only to promote Israeli
interests on Capitol Hill and throughout the United States with an army of lobbyists and its
activities include using questionably legal all expenses paid "orientation" trips to Israel for
all new congressmen and spouses.
McCarthy and the other stooges in Congress deliberately sought to frame the argument in
terms of Ilhan Omar having claimed that he personally was receiving money from pro-Israel
sources and that money influenced his voting. Well, the fact is that such activity does take
place and was documented three years ago by the respected Foreign
Policy Journal , which published a piece entitled "The Best Congress AIPAC can Buy" as well
as more recently in an al-Jazeera investigative expose using a concealed camera.
And Kevin McCarthy does indeed receive money from Israel PACs –
$33,200 in 2018 . The amount individual congressmen receive is dependent on their actual or
potential value to Israel. Completely corrupt and enthusiastically pro-Israel Senator Robert
Menendez of New Jersey received
$548,507 in 2018 . In the House, Beto O'Rourke of Texas received $226,690. The numbers do
not include individual contributions of under $200, which are encouraged by AIPAC and can be
considerable. In general, congressmen currently receive over $23,000 on
average from the major pro-Israel organizations while Senators get $77,000.
But, of course, direct donations of money are not the whole story. If a congressman is
unfriendly to Israel, money moves in the other direction, towards funding an opponent when
re-election is coming up. Former Rep. Brian Bard has observed that "Any
member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of
campaign spending if you're with them, and significant amounts against you if you're not with
them." Lara Friedman, who has worked on the Hill for 15 years on Israel/Palestine, notes how
congressmen and staffs of "both parties told me over and over that they agreed with me but
didn't dare say so publicly for fear of repercussions from AIPAC."
A good example of how it all worked involves one honest congressman, Walter Jones of North
Carolina, who recently passed away. In 2014, "Wall Street billionaires, financial industry
lobbyists, and neoconservative hawks" tried to unseat Jones by bankrolling
his primary opponent . The "dark money" intended to defeat him came from a PAC called "The
Emergency Committee for Israel," headed by leading neoconservative Bill Kristol. Jones' war
views, including avoiding a war with Iran, were clearly perceived as anti-Israel.
And one should also consider contributions directly to the political parties. Israeli/U.S.
dual nationals Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are the largest single donors to the GOP and to
the Democrats, having contributed
$82 million and
$8,780,000 respectively in the 2016 presidential campaign. Both have indicated openly that
Israel is their top priority.
If they have demonstrated fealty to Israel while in office, many Congressmen also find that
loyalty pays off after retirement from government with richly remunerated second careers in
Jewish dominated industries, like financial services or the media. And there are hundreds of
Jewish organizations that contribute to Israel as charities, even though the money frequently
goes to fund illegal activity, including the settlements. Money also is used to buy newspapers
and media outlets which then adhere to a pro-Israel line, or, where that does not work, to buy
advertising that is conditional on being friendly to Israel. So the bottom line is indeed "the
Benjamins" and the corruption that they buy.
Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Education Trust
said in January that "One person questioning the truth of the Holocaust is one too many."
That is nonsense. Any, and all, historical events should be questioned regularly, a principle
that is particular true regarding developments that carry a lot of emotional baggage. The
Israel Lobby would have all Americans believe that any criticism of Israel is motivated by
historic hatred of Jews and is therefore anti-Semitism. Don't believe it. When the AIPAC crowd
screams that linking Jews and money is a classic anti-Semitic trope respond by pointing out
that Jews and money are very much in play in the corruption of congress and the media over
Israel. Terrible things are being done in the Middle East in the name of Jews and of Israel and
it all comes down to those Benjamins and the silence they buy by accusing all critics of
anti-Semitism. Just recall what the Israeli minister admitted, "It's a trick, we always use
it."
Israel has a population of approximately 8.7 million, roughly equal to the state of New
Jersey. It is among the world's most affluent nations, with a per capita income slightly
below that of the European Union. Israel's unemployment rate of 4.3% is better than
America's 4.4%, and Israel's net trade, earnings, and payments is ranked 22nd in the world
while the US sits in last place at a dismal 202nd.
Yet, Israel receives more of America's foreign aid budget than any other nation. The US
has, in fact, given more aid to Israel than it has to all the countries of sub-Saharan
Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean combined – which have a total population of
over a billion people.
And foreign aid is just one component of the staggering cost of our alliance with
Israel.
Given the tremendous costs, it is critical to examine why we lavish so much aid on
Israel, and whether it is worth Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. But first, let's take a
look at what our alliance with Israel truly costs.
Here's Nancy Pelosi on what's most important about America.
"I have said to people when they ask me, if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the
one thing that would remain would be our commitment to our aid, I don't even call it our aid,
our cooperation with Israel. That's fundamental to who we are."
.Jews and money are very much in play in the corruption of congress and the media
over Israel.
Absolutely, and this 4 part documentary, "The Israel Lobby in the U.S." proves it's every
bit as bad as you imagine, maybe worse.
Start with this, Part 2, which focuses on Congress. (Part 1 introduces the undercover
reporter, and shows how the Israel Lobby operates on college campuses.)
The Israel Lobby in the U.S. – Documentary by Al Jazeera (Part 2 of 4
)
@Marcus
Aurelius Tarkus If you watch Al Jazeera's The Lobby you would obviously be pleased to
learn that the lobbyists are lamenting the falling effectiveness of the anti-Semitism
accusation. It stands to reason that under 30s do not have the reliably implanted mindset
about the shame of antisemitism that the, say, over 55s are likely to have.
A lot of pro-Israel pressure comes from some decidedly un-Jewish sources. Namely, the
"Rapture Ready" crowd among evangelical Christians. They support Israel because they think
Israel's existence is a precondition for Jesus' return. They want to go to Heaven, but don't
want to die, and think that the "Rapture" is a way around that.
Rashida Tlaib believes that US States must be banned from making geopolitical considerations
a part of which companies they do business with. She calls it a free speech issue.
On the other hand, she also believes that States, and the Federal Government, must
discriminate in favour of companies not owned by white people. She calls that an
equality issue.
She often calls into question all manner of other people's loyalties, while she is also
endlessly talking about Palestine, and how Israel must become majority Palestinian.
In a one off piece of consistency, she also supports the same thing for America though, as
she want to abolish immigration enforcement. Which would obviously directly lead to
abolishing America itself.
Meanwhile, Philip Giraldi pretends that he thinks $23,000 of campaign contributions will
buy a US Congressman. In which case, Jezz Bezos could have bought 10 literally every
single minute with the money he made in 2018.
People disagree with you. They have reasons. Cluelessly implying it is because they are
all bought by the Jews makes you look dumb, especially to them.
Israel came into being because Britain needed to get America into the WW1, and the American
leadership were glad of the the PR/ Media and political wherewithal of Jews to help get the
USA in. Even Germany felt it had to match the Balfour Declaration. The Jewish community has
not declined in influence since WW1.
If the US had nothing better to worry about they could, and would, deal with the
subjugation of the whole political system on the issue, but the fact is the priorities lie
elsewhere. The Israel Lobby are an opponent best avoided, and the West has to concentrate on
China.
If one were to read the U.S. mainstream media one would think that there has been a
dramatic increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, but that claim is incorrect. What has been
taking place is not hatred of Jews but rather a confluence of two factors
As well as the factors you mention -- Israeli behaviour and broadening the definition of
anti-Semitism -- the Internet has enabled millions of gentiles to become 'Jew woke', which
inevitably leads to a rise in what Jews perceive as anti-Semitic comment.
The Irish Savant recently blogged about a
lecture by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim: 'He sees Jews as having no moral obligations to us
[gentiles] at all, we're there to be robbed, exploited and, where possible, physically
destroyed.'
Memo to Jews: Has it crossed your minds that anti-Semitism is your fault?
I'd always reckoned myself soundly philo-semitic, based mainly on my father's dealings with
British Jews, backed up by my own acquaintanceships amongst them.
I've cooled in the last few years. That's because two or three times one website comment
threads I've made factual remarks about Palestine that have led to vituperative responses
from commenters who have presumably been Jewish, perhaps Israelis.
I'm not so daft as to think that a few internet nutters or crooks should outweigh personal
experience but it has made me a little more sensitive to institutionalised bullying on behalf
of Israel. An example was the pressure recently put on the (British) Labour Party to adopt
Israel's favoured definition of anti-semitism. I accept, of course, that there are lots of
disgusting anti-semites in that party but I'm damned if I see why a whole political party
should be expected to swallow uncritically some other buggers' definition of
anti-semitism.
In Warsaw, Pompeo urges Poland to pass Holocaust restitution law Poland is the only EU member without comprehensive legislation to return, or provide
compensation for, private property confiscated by the Nazis
By JTA
14 Feb 2019
As part of his remarks, Pompeo called on the Polish government to resolve outstanding
restitution issues.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo raised the issue of Holocaust-era property restitution
during his first official visit to Poland.
"We also appreciate the importance of resolving outstanding issues of the past, and I
urge my Polish colleagues to move forward with comprehensive private property restitution
legislation for those who lost property during the Holocaust era," he said.
Gideon Taylor, chair of operations for the World Jewish Restitution Organization, said
he welcomed Pompeo's "expression of his commitment to securing justice for Holocaust
survivors and their families. This is a powerful affirmation of the importance of this
issue to the United States."
His first state visit and he makes this the key issue.
1. stop blaming Jews for your own stupidity, corruption, greed & whoredom
2. Jews, as a national collective, have some unpleasant traits, among them, recently,
emotional blackmail misusing the shoah to extort money from most white/Euro-derived nations.
This behavior, similar to divorced women's scheming, should be publicly exposed &
denounced. OK guys, you suffered, we admit, but others suffered too, so to hell with this
game
3. US political system, Jews & Gentiles, is too plutocratic, with all these PACs, big
donors, super PACs & whatnot. This should be reformed because the very system perpetuates
corruption & suicidal policy at all levels
Thus, is there a significant difference, ethical or otherwise between being bought by
the NRA, the health insurers, the organised aged, the arms industry, the
sugar/biofuels/cattle lobbies, trial lawyers etc as compared with Israel?
Well wiz, while it's true that the arms industry and Big Sugar, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma
and others, are responsible for the deaths of millions of people, including Americans,
there's no evidence that they deliberately murdered Americans in cowardly and treacherous
acts of war, as Israel has done repeatedly, as with the cowardly and treacherous attack on
the USS Liberty, and the cowardly and treacherous false flag attack on 9/11.
So as to your query over the ethical question of extorting Americans to lavish lucre on an
enemy state with the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands, this question should
answer itself.
Why are Americans looted to fund an enemy state that murders Americans with fiendish glee,
as the "dancing Israelis" so egregiously demonstrates.
It's like the people of Iraq being taxed to pay for Tony Blair or Dubya's new private jet.
Forcing the victims of war crimes to fund their abusers.
Lobbyists for Big Tobacco are saints by comparison.
American mass media is especially two faced when it comes to outing intolerance. A good
deal has been made over over Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's comments on the influence
of AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee). The anti-Russian establishment hack
journalist Julia Ioffe tweeted her belief that Omar's comments are "anti-Semitic"
(anti-Jewish). I'm not too familiar with what Omar has said about Jews over the course of
time. I doubt that it['s more repugnant than what Ioffe has stated about Russians.
There has been no letting up with Ioffe. In one recent mass media TV appearance, she
said (in a joking tone) that a relaxation of Russian gun laws isn't a good idea because
Russians drink too much. In another prominent TV segment, Ioffe stated that when the
Russians call someone corrupt, that person must be pretty bad.
Some generalizations are hypocritically more acceptable than others. A good number of
Western reared Russians see thru this gross hypocrisy. On the subject of Russia, these
individuals regularly get limited coverage in Western mass media.
A lot of pro-Israel pressure comes from some decidedly un-Jewish sources. Namely, the
"Rapture Ready" crowd among evangelical Christians. They support Israel because they
think Israel's existence is a precondition for Jesus' return. They want to go to Heaven,
but don't want to die, and think that the "Rapture" is a way around that.
Aaahhh the beauty of religion ..a very old method for controlling people.
This is Protestantism, which was a Jewish revolutionary movement.
1. stop blaming Jews for your own stupidity, corruption, greed & whoredom
Who's blaming them for that?
Here's what they get the blame for
"Goyim [non-Jews] were born only to serve us." Explaining why God allowed non-Jews long
lives, he added: "Imagine that your donkey would die, you'd lose your income. [The donkey]
is your servant. That's why he [the gentile] gets a long life, to work well for the
Jew."
This summer, Yosef Elitzur and Yitzhak Shapira, who head an influential seminary in the
West Bank settlement of Yitzhar, published The King's Torah, a 230-page guide to how Jews
should treat non-Jews.
The two rabbis concluded that Jews were obligated to kill anyone who posed a danger,
immediate or potential, to the Jewish people, and implied that all Palestinians were to be
considered a threat. On these grounds, the pair justified killing Palestinian civilians and
even their babies.
@Wizard of
Oz'If you watch Al Jazeera's The Lobby you would obviously be pleased to learn that
the lobbyists are lamenting the falling effectiveness of the anti-Semitism accusation. It
stands to reason that under 30s do not have the reliably implanted mindset about the shame of
antisemitism that the, say, over 55s are likely to have.'
The epithet 'anti-semitic' continues to have a lot of clout. Measuring this in the most
accurate way -- how effectively it cows one into silence -- I've realized it's quite
effective.
Islamophobes feel entirely free to publically walk their dog these days. Speaking for
myself, I feel entirely free to express my opinions about blacks, and frequently do. I'd do
the same with respect to other groups if I felt strongly enough.
But to be labelled anti-semitic? I'll caught myself hesitating to click 'publish' when I
notice that my post could reasonably be read as 'anti-semitic.'
The United States of America must have political leaders who will stop the JEW/WASP ruling
class rats from using accusations of so-called "anti-Semitism" to stop debate on policy
issues. The rats who screech about so-called "anti-Semitism" must be ignored!
With all the dirty cash swirling around the Swamp, it's almost hard to believe that Kevin
McCarthy can be bought for $33,200. Seems to me the figure has to be much higher,
probably in the mid 6 figures per year. Those sub-$200 donations need to be reported, with
names attached. I wonder how many of them are precisely $198, since the Saturday people love
gifts that are a multiple of 18. Funny since 18 is also the alphanumeric code for a famous
world leader.
Marco Rubio is a treasonous rat whore for Israel First Jews.
Marco Rubio puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States. Jew billionaires pay Marco Rubio to put the interests of Israel over the interests of the
United States.
The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire will screech on about so-called
"anti-Semitism" if you call Marco Rubio a treasonous rat whore for Israel First Jew
billionaires.
They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power,
Empire and war. That they really care about.
I disagree. Empire is always dominated by a group, and US empire is dominated by Jews. If
the US is merely after Empire, why not cook up excuses to sanction, invade, and destroy
Israel? After all, the world community has condemned Israel many times over for its myriad
crimes. Also, why not invade and smash Saudi Arabia as well? If US is just after empire and
more wars, why not wage war on Israel and Saudis? More bucks for the military industrial
complex.
In truth, the US empire is selective. It is not empire for empire's sake but empire for
Zion's sake. That is why US empire targets Russia, Syria, and Iran while hailing Israel and
protecting Saudi Arabia. US empire is premised on the biases and hatreds of its ethnic
super-elites. "Is it great for the Jews?"
"... Trump ought to know that accusations of anti-Semitism are absolutely, total hogwash. ..."
"... Trump is a recipient of the 'The Tree of Life Award' "the highest humanitarian award the Jewish National Fund* presents to one individual or family each year in appreciation of their outstanding community involvement, their dedication to the cause of American-Israeli friendship, and their devotion to peace and the security of human life". ..."
"President Trump continued to condemn the Saturday shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh that killed at least
11 people.
"The hearts of all Americans are filled with grief following the monstrous killing of Jewish Americans at the Tree of
Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pa., you've all seen it, you've been watching it, it's horrible," he said at a rally in Murphysboro,
Ill.
"This evil anti-Semitic attack is an attack on all of us, it is an assault on humanity. It will require all of us working
together to extract the hateful poison of anti-Semitism from our world. This was an anti-Semitic attack at its worst," Trump
added. "The scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored, cannot be tolerated, and it cannot be allowed to continue It must be
confronted and condemned everywhere it rears its very ugly head."
Through the centuries, the Jews have endured terrible persecution And those seeking their destruction, we will seek their destruction.
And when you have crimes like this, whether it's this one or another one on another group, we have to bring back the death penalty,"
he said. [the audience exploded in wild ovations].
Trump is a recipient of the 'The Tree of Life Award' "the highest humanitarian award the Jewish National Fund* presents to
one individual or family each year in appreciation of their outstanding community involvement, their dedication to the cause of
American-Israeli friendship, and their devotion to peace and the security of human life".
*The Jewish National Fund (Hebrew: קֶרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, Keren Kayemet LeYisrael, previously הפונד הלאומי,
Ha Fund HaLeumi) was founded in 1901 to buy and develop land in Ottoman Palestine (later the British Mandate for Palestine, and
subsequently Israel and the Palestinian territories) for Jewish settlement.
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and
the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
Okay, in theory, a third option is possible (never say never!) but I see that as highly unlikely: Tulsi Gabbard follows in the
footsteps of Trump and gets elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House
she does what Trump failed to do and appeals directly to the people of the USA to back her in a ruthless campaign to "drain the swamp"
(meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially, when he came to power,
by the way. Frankly, for all her very real qualities she does not strike me as a "US Putin" nor does she have the kind of institutional
and popular backing Putin had. So while I will never say never, I am not holding my breath on this one
Finally, if Gabbard truly is "for real" then the Deep State will probably "Kennedy" her and blame Russia or Iran for it.
Still, while we try to understand what, if anything, Tulsi Gabbard could do for the world, she does do good posting messages like
this one:
I don't know about you, but I am rather impressed!
At the very least, she does what "Occupy Wall Street" did with its "1%" which was factually wrong. The actual percentage is much
lower but politically very effective. In this case, Gabbard speaks of both parties being alike and she popularizes concepts like
" warmongers in ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage and new places for people to die ". This is all very good and useful
for the cause of peace and anti-imperialism because when crimethink concepts become mainstream, then the mainstream is collapsing
!
The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't give a
damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans"
or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they
really care about.
Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are hell bent on power, empire and war. They
also will stop at nothing to prevent the USA from (finally!) becoming a "normal" country and they couldn't care less about the fate
of the people of the USA. All they want is for us all to become their serfs.
All of this is hardly big news. But this hysterical reaction to Gabbard's candidacy is a very powerful and useful proof of the
fact that the USA is a foreign-occupied country with no real sovereignty or democracy. As for the US media, it would make folks like
Suslov or Goebbels green with envy. Be it
the ongoing US aggression
against Venezuela or the reaction to the Tulsi Gabbard phenomenon, the diagnostics concur and we can use the typical medical
euphemism and say with confidence: "the prognosis is poor".
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
– Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign
– Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
I think it is unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard caves in so soon. The way she has started her campaign, she is certainly aware that
she has cut off herself from the normal donors of Democrats, and the way she talks shows that she is not afraid of alienating
them even more because she won't get money from them, anyway. The plan is to do the same like Bernie Sanders 2016 and raise small
donations. Many Democratic candidates now say they don't take PAC money, but there are different ways of getting money from big
donors – Tulsi Gabbard is probably one of those who are more serious about avoiding reliance on big donors. It could work. In
2016, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton regularly had to interrupt her campaign in order to attend dinners with superrich
donors, while Bernie Sanders asked people to donate as a part of his campaign on social media, and Sanders regularly outraised
Clinton. Of course, 2016, we just saw that for the primaries, but it might also work for the general election (and numbers are
not everything, Hillary Clinton spent far more than Donald Trump and still lost, so even if small donations would lead to a somewhat
lower sum, she could still win with a popular message). And not only could it work, I think it would be the only way for Tulsi
Gabbard to succeed because she has probably already been too outspoken about some things to ever gain back the trust of the neocons
and their allies in the media and the billionaire donor class.
Of course, if Tulsi Gabbard advances in the primaries, she will be attacked most viciously in the media. I am not so sure what
the effect will be. On one hand, Trump's victory in the primaries and the general election showed that being hated by mainstream
media does not have to be an obstacle that cannot be surmounted, and as long as there are so many primary candidates, such vicious
attacks can also make her seem more interesting to some people. On the other hand, her main hurdle are probably the Democratic
primaries, and, according to polls, Democrats have lost trust in the mainstream media to a lesser degree than the general public.
But then again, vilifying her too much in the liberal media (as it has already started) is also a certain risk for them because
it could become too obvious to see that the decisive feature that leads to such attacks is that someone is not seen as reliably
pro-neocon, and that could also lead to doubts about the media in leftists who readily accepted the attacks on Trump because they
hated him for other reasons. Therefore, I think the main hope of the establishment is that Tulsi Gabbard can be treated as a „minor
candidate" and won't get far, in case she becomes a serious contender for the nomination, they are in trouble.
If Tulsi Gabbard wins the nomination, we can almost be certain that the pro-neocon establishment will a) see a re-election
of Trump as the lesser evil and b) they will support a pro-establishment third party candidate (already last time, Michael Bloomberg
threatened to run if the two major candidates are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, now Howard Schultz seems to have positioned
himself that way, though I think he is too ridiculous and ineffective and will be replaced by someone else if the establishment
needs a third party candidate because they lose the Democratic primaries). Such a third party candidate probably increases the
chances of Trump's re-election (probably a desired side-effect, many of these liberal oligarchs probably prefer Trump to Gabbard
and Sanders by far, but it would be difficult for them to support Trump in public, supporting a third party candidate is much
easier), but a populist campaign against both Trump and that third party candidate as representatives of a corrupt billionaire
class might well be successful.
Then, if Tulsi Gabbard is elected, she certainly runs the risk of ending like JFK, but the fact that so many people now already
talk and write about this risk might also protect her to some degree – the danger is so obvious that many people won't believe
theories about a lonewolf terrorist easily (and blaming Russia and Iran after Tulsi Gabbard had been vilified as an Assadist and
Russian trolls' favorite candidate would also be difficult, if for some reasons relations with Saudi Arabia are not seen as so
important any more, the more realistic option of blaming Saudi terrorists may be chosen). Another option would be to impeach her,
though that could also be a big risk for the establishment, and depending on who would be her VP, it would not be enough. Of course,
there could be bipartisan agreement about blocking all of her initiatives.
Even if she is extremely smart and tough, alone against the united forces of the deep state, establishment media and the bipartisan
war party, Tusli Gabbard probably could not achieve very much – of course, she would still be commander in chief and probably
could prevent new wars, and she could open some people's eyes about who really holds power, but she could hardly achieve very
much. The question is whether she still might get some institutional support like Putin when he became president. I think that
is not so unlikely because there are indications that the deep state is internally divided (one small example is that the communications
of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were published) and that the neocons' grip on power is far from total. Therefore, it does not seem
impossible that with a combination of support in the general public (and she certainly has the potential of becoming very popular)
and the support of parts of the deep state that have not been subdued by the neocons, she might be successful – it would be a
very harsh power struggle.
As far as caving in to Israel is concerned, Tulsi Gabbard has never been too critical of Israel – there was some relatively
mild criticism of attacks on Gaza (in a way that is fairly common among progressives), but in general, she has not been too critical
of Israel and has also had some friendly contacts with the pro-Israel lobby. So, while she is very strong and consistent in rejecting
neocons and their regime change wars, as far as Israel and Palestinians' rights are concerned, people should probably not expect
too much from her. But if she is serious about fighting the neocons and limiting the power of the military-industrial complex
and still could win an election, that would already be a big achievement.
After witnessing the temper tirades and the teeth gnashing of the deep states media minions after the anti-war-lite Donald Trump
got elected, I'm guessing Tulsi Gabbard is in for one of two things:
1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
I don't think American Democracy(AKA Empire) is in any mood for another spoiler
By the way, check out how Rep. Ilhan Omar grills that sorry SOB Abrams here:
http://thesaker.is/rep-ilhan-omar-vs-elliott-abrams/
. This young lady clearly has more courage and integrity that all her colleagues taken together!
This is one of the few things I agree with Ilhan Omar about. Abrams is a felonious, warmongering prick.
She is very photogenic. So is Kamala Harris.
Projecting an anti-war position against promoting the bonafides of her army service will be quite the balancing act of cognitive
dissonance, but opposite the hyper-masculine affect a candidate like Trump or Hillary must emote to neutralize an absence of military
experience in their résumé.
Then there's that first husband and her family's political machine.
But damn, Tulsi and Kamala photograph impeccably well from every angle.
What are the chances outside of India that three potential presidential candidates of the female persuasion all share a common
ethnic background, Nimrata Haley, Tulsi and Kamala? No coincidence there.
Finding all this information below takes less time than burning a cigarette.
United Christians for Israel, founded and led by pastor John Hagee, have millions of members and call themselves "the largest
pro-Israel charity in the United States." The organization was an important factor in the decision of US President Donald Trump
in 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to transfer the US embassy there.
Gabbard sponsored the resolution of the Congress criticizing Amnesty International for revealing Israeli atrocities against
civilians in his blitzkrieg in Gaza in 2014. The resolution stated that Israel "focuses on terrorist targets" and "goes to extraordinary
efforts to attack only terrorist actors". https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/22/gaza-and-the-bi-partisan-war-on-human-rights/
Zionism and Islamophobia Gabbard have gained recognition and support from all kinds of unpalatable characters – like right-wing
billionaire and Zionist Sheldon Adelson, who loudly declared that "all Muslims are terrorists".
In addition to Israel's loyal defender, Gabbard has also proved to be a credible servant of Adelson's business interests. Introduced
regulations against online gambling to protect the casino's empire from competition on the Internet. Adelson thanked her, giving
her the Champion of Freedom award. http://time.com/3695948/sheldon-adelson-online-gambling/
Her prejudices against Islam directly stem from her Hindu fundamentalism. Gabbard became one of the main American political
supporters of Narendra Modi, the leader of the Hindu sectarian party Bharatiya Janata (BJP) and the current Prime Minister of
India.
Being the main minister of the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, Modi helped spark a pogrom against Muslims, in which they killed
2,000 people and displaced over 200,000 people in the ethnic cleansing campaign. Since his victory in the 2014 elections, Modi
has been a decidedly pro-Israeli Indian politician and has strong relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the invitation of Modi, Gabbard traveled through India for three weeks during which various Hindu fundamentalists greeted
her as their American master. In probably the worst part of the tour, the India Foundation, a formation tuned to the Hindu fascist
group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), hosted Gabbard to discuss the future of Indian-American relations. After the reactionary
lovefest, the Indian newspaper Telegraph called it "the American Sangha mascot" https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/sangh-finds-a-mascot-in-american-tulsi/cid/1579985
After returning to the USA, Gabbard defended Modi against any criticism. She was one of the few democrats who spoke against
the federal government's decision to refuse a Modi visa in 2014 because of his abolition of religious freedom
As with other leading liberal democrats, Gabbard's alleged progressive values do not extend to the Palestinian struggle for
freedom. While she may support the resistance of Indian Native at Standing Rock, she will not support the indigenous people of
Palestine and her struggle for self-determination against Israeli colonialism. http://socialistworker.org/2014/08/13/liberal-champions-of-apartheid
Yawn. Tulsi, Bernie, Corbyn – doesn't matter. The ruling elites have the power to co-opt, demonize or kill them. And, that regime
is desperate enough to do this.
We are all waiting for the tectonic impact of some external shocks. Because the system is fragile, over-ripe. Collapse of debt
bubbles, an infectious disease epidemic, a rogue general fires off some nukes. Whatever. Just passes the Global Tipping Point,
then, everything disintegrates. The centre cannot hold. And at that point the tensions release and people go nuts. The regime
divides against itself; the roof falls in. The whole world is waiting, expecting this to happen in some way or form.
Go and max out your credit card, get hard stuff, don't pay, stop buying anything. A few millions doing that. Empty your bank
account. Stop paying your mortgage and car loan. Make them chase you. Work to precipitate the Big One. Help tear the fabric beyond
its tensile strength. Do your bit.
Don't expect to see Tulsi on your side of the barricades.
@Rich1234
Nimrata Randhawa Haley is of Punjabi Sikh ancestry on both sides, genetically closer to southern Europeans than to most Indians.
Kamala Harris is descended from South Indian brahmins on her mother's side. You can't get more Aryan than that – look up the
word. And she is Jamaican on her father's side. I haven't seen a picture of him but I imagine he's about as black as fellow Jamaican
Colin Powell. An octoroon to use that old-fashioned term. But Negro blood was considered so polluting that just a smidgeon put
you with the lower race. It's still working like that, but in victim politics less is more.
Tulsi Gabbard had a WASP mother who became a member of Swami Bhaktivedanta's Krishna devotees. Her father was Polynesian. There's
no genes from India. It's a mistake to think of her religion as Hindu, but it's her mistake as well as that of many Indians. Hinduism
is not *a* religion because Hinduism is the liberating realization that the idea of *a* religion is very shallow. It is a pleasure
to see Tulsi, in videos, going about her devotions.
.. "drain the swamp" (meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially,
when he came to power, by the way.
a good article, overall.
Especially:
USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism and war; folks who
don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside the USA
and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
Apparently, US public figures like Gabbard and Trump still don't understand the simple fact that NO amount of grovelling
will EVER appease the Neocons or the Ziolobby
the so-called "liberals" don't give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities,
don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what
they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they really care about.
It's interesting to see the prompt [13] Democrat party oppo based on the "right-wing Indian agent" smear. It's exactly analogous
to Democrat/CIA attack on "Russian puppet" Trump, when Democrats had absolutely nothing to offer in lieu of a famous loathsome
TV asshole they hand-picked to beat like a drum and then lost to.
If it were the case that Tulsi were an Indian fifth-column traitor, like Rubio is a Israeli fifth-column traitor, So what?
Objective indicators of world-standard state responsibilities show that the state of India is more developed, more legitimate,
and more entitled to responsible sovereignty than the US government. India exceeds US performance on most of the top-level human
rights indicators.
You can see for yourself, in whatever level of detail you desire, with NGO input exhaustively compiled by elected independent
international experts acting in their personal capacity.
Tulsi's exposure to superior Indian human-rights compliance is likely to build her capacity in terms of Responsibility to Protect
Pillar 2. She will have a better understanding of rights and rule of law than provincial goober candidates with no international
exposure. That will necessarily influence her evolving stance on systematic and widespread Israeli extermination of Palestinian
indigenous peoples.
I have never voted for a Democrat. I plan to vote for Gabbard. I have contributed to her campaign. I cringe at her progressive
agenda, but I fully support her positions on non-intervention.
@der einzige
Hope is such a frail and tenuous emotion.
That said, l'm investing some of my dwindling reserves of hope in Tulsi. Your comments are very considered, and l share your concerns
for peace with the current play of Theo-politics. Modi is an unapologetic Hindu chauvinist who has successfully incited brutal
communalism for electoral gain. But my personal loathing of him has ameliorated over time (I shock myself!) because he has steered
a pretty independent course for India, maintaining friendly relations with China for example,despite U.S. pressure to use India
as a wedge. His Hinduva ideology appears to be a domestic political tool. This is a cunning but pragmatic approach and is distinct
from a religious ideology with global ambitions. The latter is the province of Zionism which is not really a religion but has
(other) religious affiliations or "allies",including Hinduism but most importantly Christian zionism (or evangelicism or dispensationalism
et al). It seems to me that a lot of what Trump is doing re. "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is to appease the Christian
Zionists who comprise a large chunk of his support base, and not American Jewry.(They are democrats as a foregone conclusion).There
is great irony in this if you follow the fantastical narrative of the Christian evangelical apocalypse.
Political ambitions are the scourge of religion.I attend an Anglican Church,very traditional, because my preferred form of worship
is hymn singing-the sung mass for Eucharist.I do this in contradistinction(!) to evangelicism. Unfortunately Islam too undergone
a political makeover in recent history which has led to un utter corruption of prophet Mohammad's words.It's apogee is Wahhabism,
a fad made manifest through money and power and war. Shia is also Islam, but not according to Wahhabis,who do not even relate
to Shia as "self-hating Moslems."And do not imagine that the Moslem brotherhood is any better for all the acceptable styling.
Sunnism needs to detach itself from ideology.God is in the poetry and not the small print.
Thanks for your patience with my digression. The Saker suggests we examine the Tulsi phenomenon as a diagnostic tool.
This may be useful. But Tulsi as a Hindi wooden horse?
She cannot be anti war without being anti Israel. Her candidacy is going nowhere.
It would be nice to have an anti war voice in the debates but Gabbard will be adrift in a sea of idiots. How many candidates
will there be for the Democratic nomination? Twenty? Eighty? All of them competing for who hates whitey the most. Featuring as
a side show Biden and Bernie expressing their shame at their skin color.
If Gabbard wants to be heard she should switch parties and primary Trump. Let him defend his Israel first foreign policy.
She is the only prominent politician in the commander-in-chief discussion who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is there a poll
on her standing with the military demographic? An argument can be made that her credibility on fighting more war or fighting less
war is an order of magnitude higher than a dozen Trumps, Clintons, et al all put together.
She has seen firsthand the pointlessness of the waste of blood and treasure. How can you root against Gabbard? She is near
the only elected official to get any positive press at anitwar.com.
I have a somewhat contrary analysis although admittedly, it's not based on much.
Tulsi's speech patterns closely resemble Hillary Clinton's. I put this down to various leadership classes they attended which
likely have a common source. I think we are seeing a divergence of opinion in the Deep State with some wanting Globalism, while
others are unwilling to accept the destruction of the United States as a price for Globalism. Call them the Fortress America
wing of the Deep State. They want to rebuild America and preserve its wealth and autonomy while moving toward a world government.
In other words, Tulsi could emerge as the candidate of the MAGA section of the Deep State.
As for Trump, he is waist deep in the Swamp fighting for his life against pretty much everybody. If Omar had her way he would
be impeached. Trump's support among Republicans is the only thing keeping from being impeached. His partisan attacks are probably
designed to signal his willingness to lead the fight for Republicans, hoping they will defend him in return.
You make such a convincing case that you've painted yourself into a corner. Your point is that the Ziocons or whatever you call
them are so bent on war and empire that they'll destroy anyone who tries to get in their way.
To be credible, because your claim is so extreme, you'd need to explain the abnormal psychology that drives this will to domination.
Can you do that? If not, your article -- and a number of your others -- come off as routine Jew- and liberal-bashing. The bashing
may or may not be deserved depending on your point of view. But that would be all it is: standard prejudice and bigotry in what
you seem to take as a good cause.
We see from where we've been. I supported Ron Paul. He was ignored, and then cheated.
Voting for Washington wannabes is like watching just the "good programs" on TV, or patronizing the non-disgusting movies that
manage to emerge from Hollywood. Those doing so endorse and prop up the tottering, rotten Establishment.
Another very important thing Tulsi is doing is being a completely different person from Trump but hammering home the same Trump
campaign message against the war-lusting elites.
If it wasn't for her, the media and elite mafia could marginalize this entire argument. They'll never let the population vote
on these points because then, the jig will be up.
A media blackout of Tulsi will only work if people continue to get their information from the boob tube and newspapers. Why is
anyone still expecting to get the truth from the MSM? Anyone with half a brain and an internet connection should be able to follow
her. Tell all of your grandparents, uncles, and other old fogies to throw away CNN, NYT, Fox, WaPo, NBC, etc. and find the truth
online.
@jacques
sheete The Anti-federalist's never had a chance, nor would Aloha Tulsi. The Boston tea party itself was a false flag attempting
to pass blame on to the Indians. How typically American. Lexington was caused by the that same Sam Adams and his free masons from
the green dragon, who were firing at both the British and the Militia's, just like they did in Maidan 5 years ago. The US revolution
in 1776 was just another Masonic color revolution on behalf of the Rothschild's. These are the same guys who killed Kennedy and
pulled off 9/11. Now they have Trump 100% corralled and black balled, and he is one of them anyway.
That was when Wonder Woman Tulsi came surfin' into the Washington swamp, all ready to drain it.
True – "The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't
give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking
our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire
and war. That they really care about. Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are
hell bent on power, empire and war."
The average Liberal voter thinks that Conservatives love Empire while Liberals oppose empires. Likewise, the average Middle
American Republican voter thinks America is anything but the new British Empire and that America is always fighting against those
bad empires and so must be very active globally to do good and prevent even worse bad.
True – "As for the US media, it would make folks like Suslov or Goebbels green with envy."
The Anglo-Zionist Empire: the inherent fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism that was not stopped dead in its tracks.
It will get worse before it can get better. It cannot be corrected without a rejection of WASP culture, which is replaced with
an authentically Christian culture.
Tulsi Gabbard presents bill to stop Trump from pulling out of INF treaty
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill to Congress which would prevent President Donald Trump
from withdrawing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).
Speaking at a press conference on Friday morning, Gabbard said that Trump's decision to pull out of the 1988 treaty was
"reckless," was "exacerbating a new Cold War" with Russia, and could spark another arms race.
"Walking away from this agreement doesn't solve our problems, it makes them worse. It doesn't bring us closer to peace,
it moves us closer to war," she said.
I am hoping that Gabbard is the next president because it would mean Hindus beat Jews to the White House, and if she serves a
full term she will be the first nonprotestant* president to serve a full term, take that Catholics. She will be sworn in with
her hand on the Bhagavad Gita, bah ha hah ha. The Evangelicals will go berserk (I hope). She declared herself Hindu as a teen,
was she baptized?
* Jimmy Carter was 'born again' so he might be the first non main line Protestant or even nonProtestant.
@JL
I think both the anti-war Left and anti-war Right are sizeable and growing. Speaking of the Dissident Right, which I am more in
tune with, we just need a courageous leader to rally around. Right now the Dissident Right is more reliably anti-war than any
other faction.
But, really, the dissident right is not doctrinaire right at all as they are against Big Business and reject Libertarianism.
Tulsi probably doesn't even want the open support of the dissident right (very few are racist white supremacists, although the
media has tarred us all with that brush)...
@Biff1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
But what about social media? The MSM mostly ignored Bernie Sanders but he got a huge boost.
I think the real problem with Tulsi is she comes across as too calm for politics. She's not low-energy like Jeb, but she lacks
fire.
Also, I'm not sure most progs would be interested in her anti-war platform. They liked Bernie because his message was mostly
domestic: Free Stuff!
Americans are anti-war only when too many Americans are getting killed overseas. In the Obama yrs, the US perfected a new way
of Open Borders War where US uses proxies to destroy other nations. So, most Americans don't care.
@Robert
Bruce It's the same 'bait and switch' strategy, that occurs every 4 years. Why change a strategy when the old one works so
well? To date, Trump holds the record for fooling the largest number of people, with anti-war candidate, John Kerry coming in
a distant 2nd.
I suppose there is also a fourth option: Tulsi Gabbard keeps her no-war stance, and follows in the footsteps of Trump and gets
elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House she does what Trump did
and caves.
Well, as we all saw, the putatively "liberal" legacy Ziomedia hates Tulsi Gabbard with a passion. Maybe not as much as that legacy
Ziomedia hates Trump or Putin, but still – the levels of hostility against her are truly amazing. This may seem bizarre until you
realize that, just like Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard has said all the right things about Israel, but that this was not nearly "enough"
to please the US Ziolobby. Check out the kind of discussions about Gabbard which can be found in the Israeli and pro-Israeli press:
This is just a small sample of what I found with a quick search. It could be summed up "Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough". But
is that really The Main Reason for such a hostility towards her? I don't think so. I believe that Gabbard's real "ultimate sin" is
that she is against foreign wars of choice. That is really her Crime Of Crimes!
The AngloZionists wanted to tear Syria apart, break it up into small pieces, most of which would be run by Takfiri crazies and
Tulsi Gabbard actually dared to go and speak to "animal Assad", the (latest) "New Hitler", who "gasses his own people". And this
is an even worse crime, if such a thing can even be imagined! She dared to disobey her AngloZionist masters.
So, apparently, opposing illegal wars and daring to disobey the Neocons are crimes of such magnitude and evil that they deserve
the hysterical Gabbard-bashing campaign which we have witnessed in recent times. And even being non-Christian, non-White, non-male
and "liberal" does not in any way compensate for the heinous nature of "crimes".
What does this tell us about the real nature of the US society?
It is also interesting to note that the most vicious (and stupid) attacks against Gabbard did not come from "conservative" media
outlets or journalists. Not at all! Most of the attacks, especially the more vicious ones, came from supposedly "liberal" sources,
which tell us that in 2019 USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism
and war; folks who don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside
the USA and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
"... The turning point may well have been John F Kennedy's assassination in November 1963. After that event - which some say was organized by various individuals and groups, of which Mossad and the Israeli government may have been two co-conspirators -- a great deal changed. ..."
<
>if we say fly mentally back to early nineteen sixties, the admiration>
> for America was still very strong, even in the USSR.
> Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Feb 16, 2019 1:34:44 PM | 38
My uncle was in the US Navy in the early sixties. He made many ports of call in the
Mediterranean basin, where he and his mates were warmly greeted. Not so much now, I'm
sure.
Some here might recall that Ike was extremely pissed off at the British, French, and
Israelis for attacking Egypt and creating the 1956 Suez crisis. He threatened to dump UK
bonds and crash their financial system. That's pretty serious stuff!
So how did the Israelis manage to shift US policy 180 degrees, like a parasite taking over
the host's brain? Perhaps the answer to that could yield clues as to how to remove said
parasite without killing the host. Although the host is already brain-dead, so maybe it
wouldn't matter...
The turning point may well have been John F Kennedy's assassination in November 1963.
After that event - which some say was organized by various individuals and groups, of which
Mossad and the Israeli government may have been two co-conspirators -- a great deal changed.
The US began to escalate its war in Vietnam and the cost of pursuing that war eventually led
to the US government in 1971 taking the US dollar off the gold standard and allowing it to
create fiat money.
Something must have happened well before 1967 when the USS Liberty was strafed by Israeli
fighter jets in the intent to destroy it and all its crew and the incident blamed on the
Egyptians in an effort to draw the US into the Six Day War.
Gino Santa Maria /
Shutterstock.com Pence
repeated his tone-deaf demands to our allies to quit the nuclear deal at the Munich
Security Conference over the weekend. The response from the Europeans was even frostier than it
had been in Warsaw:
European officials brushed off U.S. Vice President Mike Pence's call this week for the
bloc to ratchet up pressure on Iran, saying they will continue defending the 2015 nuclear
deal and stay engaged with Iran's government.
World leaders gathered at the annual Munich Security Conference on Friday to debate a
range of issues from the Middle East, to trade, Europe's future and cyberwarfare. Speaking at
the conference on Saturday, Mr. Pence, who is on a diplomatic trip to Europe, said the
European Union should follow the U.S. in leaving the Iran nuclear deal.
U.S.-European relations are lower than they have been at any time since the the run-up to
and immediate aftermath of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Just as the Bush administration
berated and insulted longtime allies for refusing to fall in line behind their destructive and
reckless war, the Trump administration is berating and insulting some of our closest allies
over their refusal to capitulate to unreasonable American demands on Iran and the nuclear deal.
Many of the elements of these two rifts are
similar : an irrational American fixation on a wildly exaggerated or non-existent threat in
the Middle East, an arrogant assumption that our allies are obliged to do whatever our
government tells them to do, and open expressions of contempt for the allies that disagree with
the course being set by the irresponsible U.S. administration. In both cases, some of our
closest allies unsuccessfully try to stop the administration from making terrible, costly
errors, and they are rewarded for their efforts with condemnation and threats.
The most worrying similarity between the 2002-03 breach with our European allies and today
is the willingness of administration officials to promote obvious lies in the service of their
destructive policy. Like other members of the administration, Pence has been pushing the
dishonest claim that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. He said this in his
Warsaw speech :
But beyond its hateful rhetoric, the Iranian regime openly advocates another Holocaust and
it seeks the means to achieve it. Iran seeks to recreate the ancient Persian Empire under the
modern dictatorship of the ayatollahs.
Iran's government neither advocates for this, nor does it "seek the means to achieve it."
Any work that Iran did on nuclear weapons research took place more than fifteen years ago, and
it has not resumed since then. Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, and the IAEA has confirmed
Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal more than a dozen times in a row. The talking points of
Iran hawks remain unchanged from the mid-2000s, but in the meantime the rest of the world has
moved on.
If Pence really believed what he was saying, he wouldn't be urging our allies to tear up the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The nuclear deal has ensured that Iran cannot
develop and build nuclear weapons, and anyone genuinely worried about Iran's acquisition of
such weapons would not try to destroy the agreement that makes that outcome practically
impossible. The only reason to promote the lie that Iran seeks nuclear weapons is to create a
pretext for war. Iran hawks hate the nuclear deal so passionately because it deprives them of
that pretext. That is why they are determined to do whatever they can to kill the deal even if
that means badly damaging relations with our most important treaty allies.
Europe will not bend in this one. Too much at stake, inside the EU (elections) as well as
outside the EU (geoplitics, Brexit).
As mr. Larison so often points out, the Iran obsession is the weirdest irrational thing in
US foreign policy. Shooting oneself in the foot time after time.
A lot of special interests by special people underneath that I presume.
Between the progressives and the conservatives, the conservatives are often the ones talking
about religion, God and morality, and accuse the Left to be Godless and immoral. Yet it does
not seem to vex them their side had started the war in Iraq with false pretense, which led to
disastrous economic, geopolitical, and human costs. Now, as Larison observed, they are poised
to repeat it.
What averagely decent human beings can inflict such sufferings on others with such
impunity and without conscientious qualms?
Pence lacks basic loyalty and good judgment. He's abandoning and betraying our oldest allies,
and he isn't even doing it for a compelling reason of state.
Indeed, after watching the degrading spectacle of 2016 and 2018 campaign donations, it's
hard not to suspect that Pence is doing it to keep Israel money flowing to GOP candidates,
possibly for a future presidential run of his own. That he's putting America and American
lives at risk for the Israel money.
Would it not be in American interest to demonstrate compliance with the existing agreement if
it sought further agreement on ballistic missiles and involvement with their neighbors
internal affairs? It not only precludes diplomacy for the nuclear issue, but any and all
other conflicts of interest
Yes, it is increasingly clear that our recent actions with respect to Iran are for the
purpose of preparing for, and conjuring a pretext for, war.
Mr. Larison, I am sure your efforts are a major contributor to the recent Congressional
resolution regarding the Yemen war. You were a lone voice crying in the wilderness for years.
Please keep up on this Iranian issue as well. Many, many lives are at stake. You are an
unsung hero.
"[Pence] is abandoning and betraying our oldest allies, and he isn't even doing it for a
compelling reason of state. "
That's what blows my mind. There seems to be no reason for what Pence is doing, except
perhaps to please Binyamin Netanyahu or Muhammed bin Salman. And does Pence really expect
Europe to risk its basic security by following the lead of corrupt American politicians
bobbing for Israel dollars?
Being pro-Zionism is New York way of being militarist
Notable quotes:
"... Trump just appointed John Bolton ! Trump has betrayed us ! How did they turned him ? Blah blah blah .. Forchrissake ! ..."
"... It boggles the mind that even at this stage, so many peoples are still bamboozled by this duopoly dog and pony show , aka the mukkan election ! ..."
The USA state of continuous war has been a bipartisan phenomenon starting with Truman in Korea and proceeding with Vietnam,
Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. It doesn't take a genius to realize that these limited, never ending
wars are expensive was to enrich MIC and Wall Street banksters
Notable quotes:
"... Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our republic. ..."
The one thing your accurate analysis leaves out is that the goal of US wars is never what the media spouts for its Wall Street
masters. The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives,
create more enemies to be fought in future wars, and to provide a rationalization for the continued primacy of the military class
in US politics and culture.
Occasionally a country may be sitting on a bunch of oil, and also be threatening to move away from the petrodollar or talking
about allowing an "adversary" to build a pipeline across their land.
Otherwise war is a racket unto itself. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "
― George Orwell
Also we've always been at war with Oceania .or whatever that quote said.
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into
an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously
pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our
republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and
Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters:
if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked
Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A
republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Why would Max Boot and Bill Kristol want to conquer the middle east in order to spread
Americanism while at the same time having nothing but disdain for actual Americans
themselves?
Hmm (strokes beard)
Hmmmmm (strokes beard more rapidly)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (tears out beard furiously without abandon)
1. Bolton is evil, 2. Pompeo is a liar, 3. Pence is a moralizing buffoon.
I detest them all but who do I hate the least? I'm going to go with Bolton.
Since I believe that Pence is an honest man, it twists my mind how someone can stand on a
stage and seriously believe that other countries have a moral obligation to obey the U.S. in
who they do and don't do business with. How dare you undermine U.S. sanctions he thunders,
and the look on his face, priceless.
At least Bolton embraces the fact that he is simply
exerting power over others without the insufferable moralizing of a Mike Pence.
Feb. 14, 2019 (EIRNS) -- Responding to the U.S. Senators' efforts to impose new sanctions on
Russia by proposing a bill on Feb. 13 called the "Defending American Security from Kremlin
Aggression Act (DASKA)" of 2019, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said behind such proposals
"there is an absolutely concrete, pragmatic and aggressive trading approach, having
nothing to do with international trade rules.... This policy sometimes borders on
racketeering. I mean various provisions of the draft law aimed at disrupting various energy
projects of Russian companies, undermining the activities of Russian banks with state
participation,"
Peskov said, reported TASS.
The proposed legislation, an updated version of an earlier bill that did not muster enough
support, seeks to increase economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Russia "in response
to Russia's interference in democratic processes abroad, malign influence in Syria, and
aggression against Ukraine, including in the Kerch Strait," said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who
proposed the bill with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among other members of the Foreign Relations
Committee.
That's probably why Max Boot is considered one of the "world's leading authorities on armed
conflict,"y et never appears to have served in any branch of the armed forces
Bottomfeeders like Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Max Boot are just peddlers of MIC interests.
Perhaps the benjamins from another middle eastern nation, that can't be named, has something to
do with their worthless opinions.
They are not paid to be experts. They're paid to use thier meaningless credentials to enhance
their credibility of MIC policies of perpetual war for perpetual peace. They're PROPAGANDISTS,
not experts.
The Bush/Clinton/Obama coalition runs DC – controls the federal workforce, and colludes
to run the Federal government for themselves and MIC
So why are these professional war peddlers still around? For the same reason that members of
the leadership class who failed and continue to fail in the Middle East are still around.
There has not been an accounting at any level. There is just more talk of more war.
Just like Eliot Abrams, John McCain, GWB, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld or any other neocon, there is
no justice or punishment or even well deserved humiliation for these parasites. They are
always misinformed, misguided, or "well intentioned."
The US can interfere with sovereign governments and elections at will I guess and not be
responsible for the the unintended consequences such as 500k+ killed in the Middle East since
the Iraq and Afghan debacle.
There are sugar daddies from the MIC, the Natsec state (aka the Swamp), AIPAC, and even
Jeff Bezos (benefactor of WaPo) that keep these guys employed.
You need to be more critical of Trump also as he is the one hiring these clowns. But other
than that, keep up the good work Mr. Carlson!
The article states: " but by 2011 Boot had another war in mind. 'Qaddafi Must Go,' Boot
declared in The Weekly Standard. In Boot's telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat
to the American homeland."
-- -- -
There is reported evidence that Libya was a war crime. And the perpetrators are Free. See
info below:
"They Speak "
"The destruction of Libya by NATO at the behest of the UK, the US and France was a crime,
one dripping in the cant and hypocrisy of Western ideologues " John Wight, November 27,
2017.
They speak of "The Rule of Law" while breaking the law themselves
They are the dangerous hypocrites that bombed Libya, and created hell
Thousands upon thousands are dead in this unfortunate country
Many would still be alive, if our "leaders" had not been down and dirty
Libya is reportedly a war crime and the war criminals are free
Some of them are seen posturing on the world stage and others are on T.V.
Others have written books and others are retired from public office
And another exclaimed: "We came, we saw, he died" as murder was their accomplice
They even teamed up with terrorists to commit their bloody crimes
And this went unreported in the "media": was this by design?
There is a sickness and perversion loose in our society today
When war crimes can be committed and the "law" has nothing to say
Another "leader" had a fly past to celebrate the bombing victory in this illegal war
Now Libya is in chaos, while bloody terrorists roam secure
And the NATO gang that caused all this horror and devastation
Are continuing their bloody bombings in other unfortunate nations
The question must be asked: "Are some past and present leaders above the law?
Can they get away with bombing and killing, are they men of straw?
Whatever happened to law and order in the so- called "democracies"?
When those in power can get away with criminality: Is that not hypocrisy?
There is no doubt that Libya was better off, before the "liberators" arrived
Now many of its unfortunate people are now struggling to exist and survive
The future of this war torn country now looks very sad and bleak
If only our "leaders" had left it alone; but instead hypocrisy: They Speak
"The cause of the catastrophe in Libya in Libya was the seven month US-NATO blitzkrieg
from March to October 2011 in which thousands of bombs and rockets rained down on that
unfortunate land which was governed by President Muammar Ghaddafi whom the West was
determined to overthrow by assisting a rebel movement." Brian Cloughley, 12.02.2019
The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any
rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to
apologize for is the lack of sales.
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling
the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.
"... It is easy for them to make the recommendation to head into to war for two very simple reasons. The first is that it will not require any personal sacrifice. The other reason is that it will not require any sacrifice of those closest to them. ..."
It is easy for them to make the recommendation to head into to war for two very simple
reasons. The first is that it will not require any personal sacrifice. The other reason is
that it will not require any sacrifice of those closest to them.
And I say this as a Veteran that also thought Iraq was a good idea back in 2001. The
difference is that I then went there to serve. As a result I have learned hard fought
lessons. Tucker is spot on. Maybe the follow up article can be a piece that discusses why we
need more "combat" Veterans up in the beltway. And it is good that more veterans are now
serving in Congress but not all are combat veterans.
...[Trump] administration is still filled with Hawks ...
1) The administration action in Iran is aggressive and counter-productive to long term peace. The nuclear deal was an effective
way of ensuring Iran controlling behavior for 15 years as the other parties, Europe and China, wanted to trade with Iran. (Additionally
it makes our nation depend more on the Saudia relationship in which Washington should be slowly moving away from.)
2) Like it or not, Venezuela is another mission creep for the Trump Administration. Recommend the administration
stay away from peace keeping troops and suggest this is China's problem. (Venezuela in debt to their eyeballs with China.)
3) Applaud the administration with peace talks with NK but warn them not to overstate their accomplishments. It is ridiculous
that the administration signed big nuclear deals with NK that don't exist.
"... Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant low level set of global conflicts is perfect. ..."
"... The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to apologize for is the lack of sales. ..."
Why Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around? Pundits like Max Boot and Bill
Kristol got everything after 9/11 wrong but are still considered "experts."
1. The goal of the neocons was to exploit 9/11 to destroy countries in the Middle East
that posed a threat to Israel. As Wesley Clarke told us a long time ago, they were going to
"do" Iraq first, and after that, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and finally Iran. Most
of this has been accomplished. We are now in the end game and Iran is in their
cross-hairs.
From the perspective of the neocons, everything has gone their way.
2. The only people who got everything thing wrong were useful idiots like Rod Dreher,
Tucker Carlson and Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones who were too dense to see what the neocons
were really up to. You did not a PhD from Harvard to see that Bush and Blair had no evidence
to back up their claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or to figure out the true
intentions of the neocons.
So why are Boot and Kristol still around? Because Iran is not yet reduced to an ash-heap,
courtesy of USA!USA!USA! so they still have work to do.
Why have they paid no price? Let's all pretend like we don't know the answer to this. And
don't forget to condemn Ilhan Omar for her tweets just to be on the safe side.
It's difficult to live in a post-America America where American interests are subordinate to
Israel and AIPAC and lunatics like Bolton and Pompeo, now have replaced the president in
matters of foreign policy.
Trump has done a 180 and given in completely.
I like Tulsi Gabbard
and hope that she might have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination in spite of the
fact that she now is being attacked by members of her own party, along with the
representative from Minnesota who has the courage to talk of the power of the Israel lobby
that functions solely in the interest of Israel. It seems the Democrats are not so tolerant
of strong women after all. And its time for everyone to stop being intimidated by the charge
of anti-Semitism. When Israeli interests are not those of America and Americans.
Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the
bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant
low level set of global conflicts is perfect.
The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any
rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to
apologize for is the lack of sales.
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling
the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into
an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously
pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our
republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and
Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters:
if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked
Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A
republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Why would Max Boot and Bill Kristol want to conquer the middle east in order to spread
Americanism while at the same time having nothing but disdain for actual Americans
themselves?
Hmm (strokes beard)
Hmmmmm (strokes beard more rapidly)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (tears out beard furiously without abandon)
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Kristol and Boot work for the CIA and MI6. They tend to lead
with placed stories, either before or after events, helping to persuade those who have yet to
make up their minds or those looking to have someone else do their thinking for them.
With the ongoing internet reformation we are experiencing, its a lot easier for the masses
to see the bigger picture, the parties involved and the corrupt characters playing the puppet
strings for the media.
Glad to see these shysters exposed for what they are propagandists.
"... In interviews to boost his forthcoming book, fired former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe confirms that Obama holdovers repeatedly discussed removing President Donald Trump under the pretext of the 25th Amendment, and that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein more than once seriously offered to "wear a wire" in meetings with the President. After Trump fired James Comey as FBI Director in May 2017, McCabe, Comey's deputy director, launched a phony "obstruction of justice" investigation, and said that he began to accumulate files of memos on that and the "Russia Collusion" investigation, to try to ensure that the investigations would continue if he were fired as well. ..."
In interviews to boost his forthcoming book, fired former FBI
Acting Director Andrew McCabe confirms that Obama holdovers repeatedly discussed removing
President Donald Trump under the pretext of the 25th Amendment, and that Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein more than once seriously offered to "wear a wire" in meetings with the
President. After Trump fired James Comey as FBI Director in May 2017, McCabe, Comey's deputy
director, launched a phony "obstruction of justice" investigation, and said that he began to
accumulate files of memos on that and the "Russia Collusion" investigation, to try to ensure
that the investigations would continue if he were fired as well.
Now, after its own two years of investigation and 200 interviews, Chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee Richard Burr (R-NC) has said, "There is no factual evidence of collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russia." Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA) said he disagrees
with the way Burr characterized the evidence, but declined to give his own assessment.
Veteran criminal attorney John Dowd, a member of Trump's legal team from June 2017 to March
2018, said,
"I know exactly what he [Mueller] has. I know exactly what every witness said, what every
document said. I know exactly what he asked. And I know what the conclusion or the result
is."
What will be the result of the probe?
"It's been a terrible waste of time.... This is one of the greatest frauds the country has
ever seen. I'm just shocked that Bob Mueller didn't call it that way and say, 'I'm being
used.' I would've done that.
"I'd have gone to [then Attorney General] Sessions and Rosenstein and said, 'Look. This is
nonsense. We are being used by a cabal in the FBI to get even.' "
Asked about Mueller's final report, he responded, "I will be shocked if anything regarding
the President is made public, other than, 'We're done.' "
At the same time, former NSA Technical Director William Binney has published new evidence
which shows that the DNC documents posted by WikiLeaks in July 2016, were probably not hacked
over the internet, by Russians or anyone else -- rather, the only available forensic evidence
indicates that they were downloaded from within the DNC's network. His evidence is summarized
in an article he co-authored with former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on Col. Pat Lang's "Sic
Semper Tyrannis" blog yesterday.
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
"... The precedent was established in Italy with assistance to non-Communist candidates from the late 1940s to the 1960s. "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their expenses," said F. Mark Wyatt, a former C.I.A. officer, in a 1996 interview . ..."
"... A self-congratulatory declassified report on the C.I.A.'s work in Chile's 1964 election boasts of the "hard work" the agency did supplying "large sums" to its favored candidate and portraying him as a "wise, sincere and high-minded statesman" while painting his leftist opponent as a "calculating schemer." Advertisement ..."
"... C.I.A. officials told Mr. Johnson in the late 1980s that "insertions" of information into foreign news media, mostly accurate but sometimes false, were running at 70 to 80 a day. In the 1990 election in Nicaragua, the C.I.A. planted stories about corruption in the leftist Sandinista government, Mr. Levin said. The opposition won. ..."
"... Over time, more American influence operations have been mounted not secretly by the C.I.A. but openly by the State Department and its affiliates. For the 2000 election in Serbia, the United States funded a successful effort to defeat Slobodan Milosevic, the nationalist leader, providing political consultants and millions of stickers with the opposition's clenched-fist symbol and "He's finished" in Serbian, printed on 80 tons of adhesive paper and delivered by a Washington contractor. ..."
"... Similar efforts were undertaken in elections in wartime Iraq and Afghanistan, not always with success. After Hamid Karzai was re-elected president of Afghanistan in 2009, he complained to Robert Gates, then the secretary of defense, about the United States' blatant attempt to defeat him, which Mr. Gates calls in his memoir "our clumsy and failed putsch." ..."
"... At least once the hand of the United States reached boldly into a Russian election. American fears that Boris Yeltsin would be defeated for re-election as president in 1996 by an old-fashioned Communist led to an overt and covert effort to help him, urged on by President Bill Clinton. It included an American push for a $10 billion International Monetary Fund loan to Russia four months before the voting and a team of American political consultants (though some Russians scoffed when they took credit for the Yeltsin win). ..."
"... In 2016, the endowment gave 108 grants totaling $6.8 million to organizations in Russia for such purposes as "engaging activists" and "fostering civic engagement." The endowment no longer names Russian recipients, who, under Russian laws cracking down on foreign funding, can face harassment or arrest. ..."
"... What the C.I.A. may have done in recent years to steer foreign elections is still secret and may not be known for decades. It may be modest by comparison with the agency's Cold War manipulation. But some old-timers aren't so sure. ..."
"... "I assume they're doing a lot of the old stuff, because, you know, it never changes," said William J. Daugherty, who worked for the C.I.A. from 1979 to 1996 and at one time had the job of reviewing covert operations. "The technology may change, but the objectives don't." ..."
Bags of cash delivered to a Rome hotel for favored Italian candidates. Scandalous stories leaked to foreign newspapers to swing
an election in Nicaragua. Millions of pamphlets, posters and stickers printed to defeat an incumbent in Serbia.
The long arm of Vladimir Putin? No, just a small sample of the United States' history of intervention in foreign elections.
On Tuesday,
American intelligence chiefs warned the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russia appears to be preparing to repeat in the 2018
midterm elections the same full-on chicanery it unleashed in 2016: hacking, leaking, social media manipulation and possibly more.
Then on Friday, Robert Mueller, the special counsel, announced the indictments of 13 Russians and three companies, run by a businessman
with close Kremlin ties, laying out in astonishing detail a three-year scheme to use social media to attack Hillary Clinton, boost
Donald Trump and sow discord.
Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system. But intelligence
veterans, and scholars who have studied covert operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view.
"If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,"
said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States
"absolutely" has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, "and I hope we keep doing it."
Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence
scholars , who began his career in the 1970s investigating the C.I.A. as a staff member of the Senate's Church Committee, says
Russia's 2016 operation was simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades, whenever American officials
were worried about a foreign vote.
"We've been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947," said Mr. Johnson, now at the University of Georgia.
"We've used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you name it. We've planted false information in foreign newspapers. We've used
what the British call 'King George's cavalry': suitcases of cash."
The United States' departure from democratic ideals sometimes went much further. The C.I.A. helped overthrow elected leaders in
Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s and backed violent coups in several other countries in the 1960s. It plotted assassinations and supported
brutal anti-Communist governments in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
But in recent decades, both Mr. Hall and Mr. Johnson argued, Russian and American interferences in elections have not been morally
equivalent. American interventions have generally been aimed at helping non-authoritarian candidates challenge dictators or otherwise
promoting democracy. Russia has more often intervened to disrupt democracy or promote authoritarian rule, they said.
Equating the two, Mr. Hall says, "is like saying cops and bad guys are the same because they both have guns -- the motivation
matters."
This broader history of election meddling has largely been missing from the flood of reporting on the Russian intervention and
the investigation of whether the Trump campaign was involved. It is a reminder that the Russian campaign in 2016 was fundamentally
old-school espionage, even if it exploited new technologies. And it illuminates the larger currents of history that drove American
electoral interventions during the Cold War and motivate Russia's actions today.
"I'm not in any way justifying what the Russians did in 2016," Mr. Levin said. "It was completely wrong of Vladimir Putin to intervene
in this way. That said, the methods they used in this election were the digital version of methods used both by the United States
and Russia for decades: breaking into party headquarters, recruiting secretaries, placing informants in a party, giving information
or disinformation to newspapers."
His findings underscore how routine election meddling by the United States -- sometimes covert and sometimes quite open -- has
been.
The precedent was established in Italy with assistance to non-Communist candidates from the late 1940s to the 1960s. "We had bags
of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their expenses," said F. Mark Wyatt, a former C.I.A. officer, in
a 1996 interview .
Covert propaganda has also been a mainstay. Richard M. Bissell Jr., who ran the agency's operations in the late 1950s and early
1960s, wrote casually in his autobiography
of "exercising control over a newspaper or broadcasting station, or of securing the desired outcome in an election."
A self-congratulatory
declassified report on the C.I.A.'s
work in Chile's 1964 election boasts of the "hard work" the agency did supplying "large sums" to its favored candidate and portraying
him as a "wise, sincere and high-minded statesman" while painting his leftist opponent as a "calculating schemer."
Advertisement
C.I.A. officials told Mr. Johnson in the late 1980s that "insertions" of information into foreign news media, mostly accurate
but sometimes false, were running at 70 to 80 a day. In the 1990 election in Nicaragua, the C.I.A. planted stories about corruption
in the leftist Sandinista government, Mr. Levin said. The opposition won.
Over time, more American influence operations have been mounted not secretly by the C.I.A. but openly by the State Department
and its affiliates. For the 2000 election in Serbia, the United States funded
a successful effort to defeat Slobodan Milosevic, the nationalist leader, providing political consultants and millions of stickers
with the opposition's clenched-fist symbol and "He's finished" in Serbian, printed on 80 tons of adhesive paper and delivered by
a Washington contractor.
Vince Houghton, who served in the military in the Balkans at the time and worked closely with the intelligence agencies, said
he saw American efforts everywhere. "We made it very clear that we had no intention of letting Milosevic stay in power," said Mr.
Houghton, now the historian at the International Spy Museum.
Similar efforts were undertaken in elections in wartime Iraq and Afghanistan, not always with success. After Hamid Karzai was
re-elected president of Afghanistan in 2009, he complained to Robert Gates, then the secretary of defense, about the United States'
blatant attempt to defeat him, which Mr. Gates
calls in his memoir
"our clumsy and failed putsch."
At least once the hand of the United States reached boldly into a Russian election. American fears that Boris Yeltsin would be
defeated for re-election as president in 1996 by an old-fashioned Communist led to an overt and covert effort to help him, urged
on by President Bill Clinton. It included an American push for a $10 billion International Monetary Fund loan to Russia four months
before the voting and a team of American political consultants (though some Russians scoffed when they took credit for the Yeltsin
win).
That heavy-handed intervention made some Americans uneasy. Thomas Carothers, a scholar at the Carnegie Institute for International
Peace, recalls arguing with a State Department official who told him at the time, "Yeltsin is democracy in Russia," to which
Mr. Carothers said he replied, "That's not what democracy means."
But what does democracy mean? Can it include secretly undermining an authoritarian ruler or helping challengers who embrace democratic
values? How about financing civic organizations?
Advertisement
In recent decades, the most visible American presence in foreign politics has been taxpayer-funded groups like the National Endowment
for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which do not support candidates but
teach basic campaign skills, build democratic institutions and train election monitors.
Most Americans view such efforts as benign -- indeed, charitable. But Mr. Putin sees them as hostile. The National Endowment for
Democracy gave a $23,000 grant in 2006 to an organization that employed Aleksei Navalny, who years later became Mr. Putin's main
political nemesis, a fact the government has used to attack both Mr. Navalny and the endowment.
In 2016,
the endowment
gave 108 grants totaling $6.8 million to organizations in Russia for such purposes as "engaging activists" and "fostering civic
engagement." The endowment no longer names Russian recipients, who, under Russian laws cracking down on foreign funding, can face
harassment or arrest.
It is easy to understand why Mr. Putin sees such American cash as a threat to his rule, which tolerates no real opposition. But
American veterans of democracy promotion find abhorrent Mr. Putin's insinuations that their work is equivalent to what the Russian
government is accused of doing in the United States today.
"It's not just apples and oranges," said Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute. "It's comparing someone
who delivers lifesaving medicine to someone who brings deadly poison."
What the C.I.A. may have done in recent years to steer foreign elections is still secret and may not be known for decades. It
may be modest by comparison with the agency's Cold War manipulation. But some old-timers aren't so sure.
"I assume they're doing a lot of the old stuff, because, you know, it never changes," said William J. Daugherty, who worked for
the C.I.A. from 1979 to 1996 and at one time had the job of reviewing covert operations. "The technology may change, but the objectives
don't."
Correction : Feb. 18, 2018
An earlier version of this article stated incorrectly that Aleksei Navalny, a political opponent of the Russian president,
Vladimir V. Putin, had received grants from the National Endowment for Democracy. In fact, an organization employing him received
one $23,000 grant from the endowment in 2006.
Scott Shane is a national security reporter for The Times and a former Moscow correspondent.
A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 18, 2018 , on Page SR 4 of the New York edition with the headline: America
Meddles in Elections, Too.
Gabbard is going nowhere, and while it's true that the powers that be will try to bury her,
they don't need to. The simple truth is this: the American public largely doesn't care about
the wars and never has. There hasn't been an anti-war movement of any significance since Bush
left office, and that was mostly a phony anti-war movement in the first place. It was
primarily an anti-Bush movement, and the bulk of the people screaming 'no blood for oil'
would've just been screaming some other anti-Bush slogan had our current path of destruction
through the Mideast never occurred.
Yes, there has always been a small, independent-minded minority on both the right and left
who genuinely oppose American interventionism.
The vast majority of voters, though, don't care much, don't have strong opinions and will
largely just follow their leaders. Rank and file Democrats now oppose drawing down from Syria
and Afghanistan and want to 'contain' Russia.
This is solely because Trump has made noises in the opposite direction, even if he hasn't
done much of anything. And a good portion of the Republicans who say they want out of these
wars would support them if Jeb or Rubio were in the White House.
There is a fair bit more genuine antiwar sentiment on the right now than there was 15
years ago. But it's not a dominant issue for many people on the right who didn't always
oppose the wars from the get-go. And the mainstream left, again, has totally abandoned the
issue.
Only a tiny proportion of the American public considers the endless wars to be the most
important issue facing America today.
You don't win campaigns focusing on issues that are regarded as unimportant and where most
of the voters in your party oppose you on this point. There is no real antiwar movement.
Another full-scale invasion of a previously stable country would generate some serious
opposition, sure, but the current slow bleed of endless occupations and occasional
opportunistic attacks on already destabilizing regimes can continue forever with little
pushback from the public at large.
How anyone could live through the last 15 years of American politics and not realize this
is beyond me.
That one trick happens to the most important trick that America is facing.
No Art, that would be unchecked legal and illegal immigration and as far as I can tell
Tulsi Gandhi is pretty dreadful on that subject. True, the likudniks in the diaspora don't
like her because she would be bad for an expansionist Israel...
If elected Tulsi would probably become a Jew tool just like Trump has become. If not, then
they'll have another special counsel ready to take her down. That's how the (((deep state)))
operates.
@ariadna
"What other organization/group is capable of such as perfect job of covering their tracks."
It is the organization that controls the government and the media that is capable of doing
this. In other words, the same organization that was responsible for 9/11 and other major
deceptions. It compartmentalizes knowledge of operational details using the need-to-know
rule, but it can still be regarded as the same overall entity carrying out all of these
deceptions, with the same general goals always applying.
There is a tendency, especially among dissenters and conspiracy theorists, to equate the
Kennedy family with the Gracchi brothers of the great late Roman republic, a model of a good
opportunity for the Republic to evolve for the best and that was missed thanks to timely
assassinations. Unfortunately that's not the case : JFK was rather a behavioural model of
utter political servility, to the point of psychic codependence, towards the media sphere. He
was actually the first American president to have been entirely made by the media, and
especially by the most intensively Jewish ones as well as by the Hollywood actors' milieu :
people even worse than the power elite proper. Anyway the American presidential institution
was designed right from the start as a hidden imperial monarchy by adoption where none is
admitted except from families having being initiated into the inner occult circles of the
oligarchy and consecrated their whole progeny to come for one century and more : there never
was the slightest risk that a US President disobey. The fact that the father had slight
pro-Nazi inclinations should fool no one : Israel's Likud party has always collaborated with
such figures among the non-Jews and anyway JFK's family is nearly Jewish on his mother's
side. The American republic, though draping in Roman architecture and symbols, is clearly far
more Carthaginian in outlook.
If JFK is to be compared with a Roman character it would be more with a kind of Nero,
judging by his general private conduct, his lavish use of public money for private luxuries,
and his abundant use of secret services to dispose of no longer useful women. He was all
shape and no substance, and also known for a preference for false flags as the royal way to
disentangle all diplomatic quandaries, and some of those false flags were so ridiculous that
they fell flat, like the Bay of Pigs operation where he had given the orders to simulate the
return of Christ. JFK had been put into power to accomplish a very specific mission :
highjacking the Catholic Church into a religion 100% compliant with American interests and
values (not an easy task) and also with Zionist theology : a most preposterous (and pervert)
task but which he carried out in a brillant way. Up to then that religion had been the most
opposite to the American enterprise, even more so than the communist enterprise, after the
VII Council which that president was made to supervise as a nominal Catholic, the religion
was made into some kind of neo-episcopalian thing. JFK did it mostly through the
assassinations of countless prelates who would oppose such a turn. JFK also launched the
Moonlanding mission in perfect knowledge, through Van Allen and Von Braun, that it was not
feasible due to the impossibility to send any living being into space beyond a quite low
orbit : he just counted on Hollywood. What he didn't realize is that it would be simpler for
the American secret services to ensure the perfect secrecy of his own scheme to eliminate him
once all orders to make it work were given. Had he escaped or survived the assassination in
Dallas he would have been rapidly known as the very disappointing false liberal and real
decadent machiavellian prince he was, one year of tabloid media coverage would have revealed
him as an embarrassment to America, even though he was most probably due to die from his
chronic illness before campaining for reelection. Thanks to his assassination he was
transfigurated from the Nero he was into a kind of perfect tragic hero he was to become in
the American dreamworld. In brief he was killed for obeying just to well, to the point of
being more useful after death as a model, not for dissent of any kind (even though like all
corrupt politicians who feel death to be impending he started making timid regrets and
confessions about the power structure around him just a few days before, but in doing so he
did no better than for instance FBI's Hoover or France's Mitterrand or Israel's Sharon just
before entering mysterious coma).
Let us not be fooled by some allegations as to him having envisioned to do away with the
FED by giving back the American state the right to print money : all he did in reality was
allowing the American state to emit BONDS (not currency units) payable in metallic silver
rather than in USD proper, a way different thing, actually a first move (by avowing the USD
was subject to inflation in metallic terms as a judicial precedent to impose other decisions
later on) to stealthily undo the convertibility of the dollar into precious metal as was to
be finalized under Nixon. Let us not be deluded he envisioned doing away with the CIA : if
anything JFK was an overuser of its assassination services, he just wished for the agency,
which was then quite decentralized, to be eventually conflated with the FBI. And let us not
imagine he was anti-Israel : when he refused Israel the authorization to go nuclear that was
under the American Nuclear Industry Lobby's pressure which was then a more Jewish thing than
its Israeli counterpart : Israel was seen as too young, too lefty, too hippie-like to be
entrusted with everything at once, the real Jewish capital of the world was Manhattan, not
Tel Aviv. Israel as an offshore power centre was still in construction and JFK's only
concern, shared by his close Jewish appointees as well as by most conservative American Jews,
was that it might fall under Soviet pressure for lack of maturity in operating secret
services. In those kinds of affairs JFK heeded and obeyed the voice of best-established
moneyed interests without delving too much deeply. Thanks to the JFK perfect model of
media-tailored politicians the way was paved for Clinton and Obama to come thereafter as
natural heirs.
Let's move on to the next question: how dedicated was John to getting to the bottom of his
father's assassination?
According to testimonies from his friends, John Junior was haunted by the death of his
father and quite knowledgeable about independent investigations contradicting the Warren
Report. In 1999, he was not a newcomer to JFK conspiracy theories; his quest for truth had
started as early as the late 1970s. His old high school girlfriend Meg Azzoni, in her
self-published book, 11 Letters and a Poem: John F. Kennedy, Jr., and Meg Azzoni (2007),
writes that as a teenager, JFK, Jr. was questioning the official version of his father's death:
"His heartfelt quest was to expose and bring to trial who killed his father, and covered it
up." [28] Quoted
in John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination, Chronos Books, 2018,
kindle k. 540-45. Don Jeffries, author of Hidden History, claimed that "another
friend of JFK, Jr.'s adult inner circle, who very adamantly requested to remain anonymous,
verified that he was indeed quite knowledgeable about the assassination and often spoke of it
in private." [29] Quoted
in Koerner, Exploding the Truth, op. cit., k. 540-5. JFK Jr., said Jeffries in a
radio interview, was on "a Shakespearian quest," "to avenge his father's death," like young
Hamlet. [30]
https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-093-donal...fk-jr/
John is the only Kennedy to have shown a serious determination to pursue this truth, besides
his uncle Bobby. And he took the risk of making his interest public in October 1998, when he
released a special "Conspiracy Issue" of George magazine , which included an
article by Oliver Stone titled "Our Counterfeit History," introduced on the cover as "Paranoid
and Proud of It!"
If Joe Kennedy Jr had not died in WW2, they would have killed him, because he was the
smartest and toughest of the four brothers.
The WASPs and their Jewish allies assumed they could control JFK because of his war injury
and resulting lifetime of medication, as well as from his having chosen to be a playboy when
he assumed Joe Jr would be President. But in the White House, JFK began to understand that US
was going to have major troubles if it did not pull out of Vietnam sooner rather than later
and it if did not rein in Israel. He likely would have dumped LBJ in '64, and that was enough
to guarantee his death.
Bobby Kennedy had to go because he was indispensable to John's movements in understanding
how the Brits and their Jewish allies had cost the America that was neither WASP Elite nor
Jewish a great deal. Plus, from his time working on organized crime, Bobby Kennedy knew that
all big time organized crime was significantly funded by Jews and that at some point,
virtually all major Jewish American big business and prominent law firms had direct ties to
Jewish organized crime. And as President, Bobby Kennedy would have applied such knowledge to
Israel. And so Bobby Kennedy had to be killed.
I have long assumed that some alliance of CIA and Mossad, meaning WASP and Jewish, was
behind Chappaquiddick. No need to kill Teddy, because he was the least intelligent Kennedy
brother, as well as the only coward.
Why risk JFK Jr? Get rid of him before he holds any office. Do not risk any movement
growing up around him, because he might turn out to be some combo of his dad and dead
uncles.
I have long assumed that some alliance of CIA and Mossad, meaning WASP and Jewish, was
behind Chappaquiddick. No need to kill Teddy, because he was the least intelligent Kennedy
brother, as well as the only coward.
What makes you think that he was not supposed to die in that crash? He got out by the skin
of his teeth, could not save his companion. What would be a better smear on the Kennedys that
Teddy died with some woman in his lap?
As it turned out, he survived but forever smeared anyway
Interesting article. I believe JFK Jr.'s death was the result of a conspiracy, but the
author's assertion that Mossad was responsible leaves me with doubt. Hillary Clinton was the
person who had the most to gain from JFK Jr.'s demise; they were both on the same trajectory:
the open New York senate seat, followed by a run to the White House. The Clintons have been
shadow government players since at least the 1980s when, while governor, Bill helped
facilitate the CIA's trafficking of guns and drugs in Arkansas, which is a state with a
significant Rockefeller presence. The demoness Hillary is where investigators of JFK Jr.'s
death should start. Whether that leads to the Mossad, I don't know. My guess would be a
domestic CIA network.
I very much like the writing by Laurent Guyénot and I have read all of the articles by
him that I have come across including purchasing his book, "From Yaweh to Zion".
And I have no doubt that some insidious form of foul play was what killed JFK Jr. and his
wife.
As one who flew aircraft many years ago I can attest to the fact that on a fog-ridden
night it is very easy to succumb to vertigo and crash your plane into the ground. You can do
this very easily as well with the current bevy of highly sophisticated aircraft simulations
that are available.
However, JFK Jr. was, to my knowledge, a consummate pilot and would have never attempted
such a flight unless he was intsrument rated. As a result, he would have not succumbed to to
the effects of vertigo since he would have been concentrating on his instruments.
Also, I understand that this was basically a night flight, which by law required an
instrument rating.
From these generalizations alone one can see that JFK Jr. would have known how to fly his
plane.
If the eyewitnesses to the explosion are credible along with other supporting evidence
than there is no way any legitimate investigation could have concluded with verdict of "pilot
error", unless of course JFK Jr. knowingly took a bomb on board his plane with the intent of
blowing himself and his passengers up. A highly unlikely scenario.
If one were to look at the "only available picture" of JFK Jr.'s aircraft in this piece,
even a layperson could see that there is no scarring anywhere to be seen on the debris, which
would have been used then to support the stupidity of "pilot error".
You can see the same nonsense with the 911 pictures of the Pentagon after it was struck.
There is literally no debris in any of those pictures from an aircraft freshly blown to
pieces by its strike on the E-wing of the Pentagon.
Considering the insidiousness of the Clintons, especially Hillary herself, the author
paints an excellent portrait of a likely pathway for the support and implementation of an
assassination of JFK Jr through her. Given Hillary's background (and rabid incompetence) in
nefarious operations such as the destruction of Libya, I wouldn't put it past this women to
work with other planners to prevent JFK Jr. from obstructing her planned ascent into the US
Senate from New York.
Despite her popularity in New York State, which was somewhat overrated in the media, many
never considered her a welcome representative of our state. And JFK Jr. would have wiped the
floor with her in a political contest.
As a former flyer myself, it is aviation law that you cannot fly any aircraft at night or
non-VFR conditions without being instrument rated. If this was a night flight as stated then
the moon could have been out lighting up every aspect of earth and still only
instrument-rated pilots could fly.
And the airport he flew out of would have never allowed such a flight-plan for a
non-instrument rated pilot unless they wanted to lose their license to operate an
airport.
If JFK Jr. could send a message from the other world – it should probably be: "Don't
cry for me Argentina".
Just because his father was a president (of dubious quality and of dubious control over
the deep state – it probably was, as usual – vice versa, the deep state
controlled him), doesn't mean that they had presidential DNA in their genes.
Sons of presidents are usually worse than their fathers in the same role. I have only 2
examples but they are adequate enough to prove the point. GW Bush was 10 times the disaster
of a president his father was. And also Justin Trudeau is not even 1% the prime minister his
father was. In fact, if JFK jr, lived long enough to be elected a president – he
probably would have been the American Justin Trudeau.
Our media ignored breaking news a few years ago that Kennedy's TWA "conspiracy theory" was
proven true. TWA Flight 800 did not explode in mid-air because of an electrical short. It was
accidentally hit by a US Navy anti-aircraft missile during a training exercise.
An outstanding 2013 documentary: "TWA Flight 800" appeared on Netflix, but was removed
after just a few weeks. It featured two senior federal NTSB investigators of TWA 800 who
declared the investigation was a cover-up by the Clinton administration, and waited until
they retired to speak out. Several books have appeared that provide undeniable evidence, such
as:
@SunBakedSuburb
Agree, the book Compromised, Clinton, Bush and the CIA by Terry Reed shows the connection
between the Bushes and Clintons and the CIA and FBI and their CIA hit teams, or just read the
customer comments on the book at Amazon.com.
@Diversity
Heretic As a 30 year instrument rated pilot myself I would agree except for .."and the
overstressed airframe comes apart."
In light civilian air craft that is very rare and usually caused by some defect already
existing.
Unless the NTSB itself is lying and the radar records and the recovery divers are lying I go
with their determination.
First, the debris field was only 120 feet, if the plane had exploded or broken up in the air
it would have been scattered over a larger area.
Second, records show the plane entered a banking turn in excess of 45 degrees, which is not
recommended and dangerous .It can cause a accelerated stall and if you don't have the
altitude to recover from it before you hit the ground or you panic you go 'spiraling' down
and smash into whatever is below, you like the ocean.
So I really am not into the plane being blown up theory.
'A performance study of the radar data revealed that the target began a descent from 5,500
feet about 34 miles west of MVY. The speed during the descent was calculated to be about 160
knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), and the rate of descent was calculated to have varied
between 400 and 800 feet per minute (fpm). About 2138, the target began a right turn in a
southerly direction. About 30 seconds later, the target stopped its descent at 2,200 feet and
began a climb that lasted another 30 seconds. During this period of time, the target stopped
the turn, and the airspeed decreased to about 153 KIAS. About 2139, the target leveled off at
2,500 feet and flew in a southeasterly direction. About 50 seconds later, the target entered
a left turn and climbed to 2,600 feet. As the target continued in the left turn, it began a
descent that reached a rate of about 900 fpm. When the target reached an easterly direction,
it stopped turning; its rate of descent remained about 900 fpm. At 2140:15, while still in
the descent, the target entered a right turn. As the target's turn rate increased, its
descent rate and airspeed also increased. The target's descent rate eventually exceeded 4,700
fpm. The target's last radar position was recorded at 2140:34 at an altitude of 1,100 feet.
(For a more detailed description of the target's [accident airplane's] performance, see
Section, "Tests and Research," Subsection, "Aircraft Performance Study.")
WRECKAGE INFORMATION
On July 20, 1999, the airplane wreckage was located by U.S. Navy divers from the recovery
ship, USS Grasp, at a depth of about 120 feet below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean.
According to the divers, the recovered wreckage had been distributed in a debris field
about 120 feet long and was oriented along a magnetic bearing of about 010/190 degrees.
The main cabin area was found in the middle of the debris field.
At 2139:50, the airplane entered a left turn, while slightly increasing altitude to 2,600
feet. The airplane reached a maximum bank angle of 28 degrees left-wing-down (LWD) and a
maximum vertical acceleration of 1.2 Gs in this turn. When the maximum LWD bank angle was
obtained, the altitude started to decrease at a descent rate close to 900 fpm. The LWD
attitude was maintained for approximately 15 seconds until the airplane was heading towards
the east. At 2140:07, the airplane bank angle returned to wings level. At 2140:15, with the
airplane continuing towards the east, it reestablished a descent close to 900 fpm and then
started to increase its bank angle in a RWD direction at nearly a constant rate. As the
airplane bank angle increased, the rate of descent increased, and the airspeed started to
increase. By 2140:25, the bank angle exceeded 45 degrees , the vertical acceleration
was 1.2 Gs, the airspeed increased through 180 knots, and the flightpath angle was close to 5
degrees airplane nose down. After 2140:25, the airplane's airspeed, vertical acceleration,
bank, and dive angle continued to increase, and the right turn tightened until water
impact
Creating conspiracy theories is lots of fun, and sometimes can even be productive, but for
this one you really do have to go overboard ignoring Occam's Razor:
In reality, everyone who has ever acquired any kind of pilot's licence has been told
repeatedly in training something like: "Understand, that without getting sufficient
instruction to qualify for an instrument rating, if you lose visual reference to the ground,
during the day or at night, you will be toast. Experiments have consistently shown that, even
the world's most brilliant and experienced pilots, if they lose visual reference to the
ground and cannot see the instruments to assess carefully what they are saying, in every case
lose control of the aircraft in less than 45 seconds. And, having lost control, do not
realize it, and are unable to figure out that they need to regain it, let alone what they
need to do."
Most people find this surprising, which is why in the later stages of basic training a
demonstration is usually done in which the pilot wears a hood that prevents him from seeing
outside the aircraft, and is instructed to maintain straight and level flight. The instructor
removes the student's hood when the aircraft is in a rapidly accelerating, 45 degree bank,
descending turn, when the pilot had imagined he was still flying straight and level. I can
vouch that this is a persuasive demonstration!
This isn't mere speculation. Loss of control is the inevitable consequence of a
non-instrument rated pilot losing sight of the ground. It is enormously probable that this
was JFK Jr's issue.
I remember a little after JFK was assassinated a report of a statement by an government
official, I think someone in the FBI, saying there is evidence of a conspiracy to kill JFK
and other Kennedy family members. What happens is that after an attack or bombing the media
filters are not coordinated for hours or days but then controls and directives kick in the
narratives get stabilized. I always watch the news reports right after the event to catch
leaks. The above reported statement was never again reported by anyone.
It is certainly looking like Israel had a hand in many operations inside the US to control
its foreign policy and make sure major narratives are pro-Israel like the UK has a long
history (at least from WW2 on) of using dirty tricks to control the US. Since US foreign
policy is substantially controlled by the UK, Saudis, and Israel, we must suspect any of them
of trying to keep control of the US with all sorts of dirty tricks. Israel in a prime
candidate for assassinations and false flag operations in the US as they certainly knew by
the 1960's that the survival of Israel depended on US support. There are just too many dual
passport holders in these events to ignore this any longer.
Implicitly, this article takes the position that Jackie Kennedy was not involved in the JFK
assassination conspiracy, but there is an intriguing connection between the Bouvier family
and the assassination via a person named George de Mohrenschildt, who was a close friend of
both the Bouviers and Oswald.
@Steve
Naidamast That isnt correct.
There are 3 types of licenses a person can get:
Sport Flyer license restricted to local area and only certain types of small aircraft.
Recreational License restricted to local area and daylight hours only.
Private Pilot License ..not restricted, can fly at night . at their own risk
I did a lot of night time flying before I got my instrument rating. But wasn't stupid
enough to fly in bad weather day or night.
@Sean
I have no idea if JFK Jr. was bombed out of the sky by our friends in the Mossad, CIA, or
other wonderful entities. But years ago an ex CIA guy told me bluntly that the reason the CIA
and intelligence agencies get away with stuff is because much of it no one would be believe
they would even try thus the invention of the Conspiracy Theory.
The Kennedys were family of egomaniacs and were often careless and their itinerary through
life was filled with many people they destroyed and cast by the side of the road. They
believed they were really the chosen ones and their opinion and their way of doing things
were right and everyone else was wrong. So they mirrored the Jews except they were Irish.
@Peredur
Mohrenschildt seems to have been Oswald's CIA handler for a while, but months before the JFK
assassination he went off to Haiti. There's nothing to connect him with the JFK
assassination, especially if -- as seems likely -- Oswald was not the shooter who killed JFK.
@Carlton
Meyer TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie
A new film claims the official government report on the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 is an
elaborate fabrication, but the most shocking part of the story is that charges are being
leveled by the very investigators who put the report together.
A new film claims the official government report on the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 is an
elaborate fabrication, but the most shocking part of the story is that charges are being
leveled by some of the very investigators who put the report together. Six experts who appear
in the film were members of the National Transportation Safety Board investigation team that
concluded the crash was an accident, but they now claim they were silenced by their
superiors. The movies, "TWA Flight 800" will debut on EPIX TV next month, on the 17-year
anniversary of the crash. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/twa-flight-800-film-coverup/314092/
@Che
Guava JFK junior was really just not that bright. He failed the bar exam at least once.
As Larry Elders once said, the best thing you could say about JFK junior was that he was a
down-to-earth guy who never pretended to be more than an average person who happened to be
rich.
Supposedly he loved alcohol and was obsessed with porn-he was friends with Irish-America's
one porn mogul in a gallery of Jews, Larry Flint.
He was handsome-some say that his father was Onassis and not Kennedy, believable
considering his Mediterranean looks which were nothing like Kennedy's fair Irish looks
(Though JFK junior was eternally proud of his Irish roots).
His magazine was alright, supposedly advised under-the-table by Larry Flynt again.
@Che
Guava The magazine was in big trouble financially. It never did break even although the
Kennedy PR machine and the Kennedy worshiping media pushed it for years
George was financed by the big French International publisher Hachette. Hachette was getting
ready to stop financing a losing publication. The combination of People and New Republic just
never worked.
I don't remember any announcements that JFKjr planned to run for any office. It was just
speculation and part of the endless media coverage of JFKjr which increased a thousand times
after he got married
There's a book Nemesis that claims that Jackie visited Onassis on his yacht in September?
October? 1963 and they arranged that Jackie would divorce jack and marry Onassis ic Hack lost
the 64 election
"... Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War. ..."
"... Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive Democrats boycotted. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. ..."
"... What's her angle about immigration? This: https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197137/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-on-congress-to-pass-the-dream-act#.XGXEplUza1s Not optimistic. ..."
"... What's her angle about "outsourcing" jobs overseas? This: https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25011 Not bad, but, still .. ..."
"... Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. ..."
"... Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. ..."
"... She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. ..."
"... Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war" ? ..."
"... Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'" and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back ..."
"... Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater. Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance. ..."
"... De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What a load of crap that turned out to be ..."
"... Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following. ..."
The lineup of Democrats who have already declared themselves as candidates for their party's presidential nomination in 2020 is
remarkable, if only for the fact that so many wannabes have thrown their hats in the ring so early in the process. In terms of electability,
however, one might well call the seekers after the highest office in the land the nine dwarfs. Four of the would-be candidates –
Marianne Williamson a writer, Andrew Yang an entrepreneur, Julian Castro a former Obama official, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman
John Delaney – have no national profiles at all and few among the Democratic Party rank-and-file would be able to detail who they
are, where they come from and what their positions on key issues might be.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has a national following but she also has considerable baggage. The recent revelation
that she
falsely described herself as "American Indian" back in 1986 for purposes of career advancement, which comes on top of similar
reports of more of the same as well as other resume-enhancements that surfaced when she first became involved in national politics,
prompted Donald Trump to refer to her as "Pocahontas." Warren, who is largely progressive on social and domestic issues, has been
confronted numerous times regarding her views on Israel/Palestine and beyond declaring that she favors a "two state solution" has
been somewhat reticent. She should be described as pro-Israel for the usual reasons and is not reliably anti-war. She comes across
as a rather more liberal version of Hillary Clinton.
And then there is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, being touted as the "new Obama," presumably because he is both black and progressive.
His record as Mayor of Newark New Jersey, which launched his career on the national stage, has both high and low points and it has
to be questioned if America is ready for another smooth-talking black politician whose actual record of accomplishments is on the
thin side. One unfortunately recalls the devious Obama's totally bogus Nobel Peace Prize and his Tuesday morning meetings with John
Brennan to work on the list of Americans who were to be assassinated.
Booker has carefully cultivated the Jewish community in his political career, to include a close relationship with the stomach-churning
"America's Rabbi" Shmuley Boteach, but has recently become more independent of those ties, supporting the Obama deal with Iran and
voting against anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) legislation in the Senate. On the negative side, the New York Times likes
Booker, which means that he will turn most other Americans off. He is also 49 years old and unmarried, which apparently bothers some
in the punditry.
California Senator Kamala Harris is a formidable entrant into the crowded field due to her resume, nominally progressive on most
issues, but with a work history that has attracted critics concerned by her hard-line law-and-order enforcement policies when she
was District Attorney General for San Francisco and Attorney General for California. She has also
spoken at AIPAC , is anti-BDS, and is considered to be reliably pro-Israel, which would rule her out for some, though she might
be appealing to middle of the road Democrats like the Clintons and Nancy Pelosi who have increasingly become war advocates. She will
have a tough time convincing the antiwar crowd that she is worth supporting and there are reports that she will likely split the
black women's vote even though she is black herself, perhaps linked to her affair with California powerbroker Willie Brown when she
was 29 and Brown was 61. Brown was married, though separated, to a black woman at the time. Harris is taking heat because she clearly
used the relationship
to advance her career
while also acquiring several patronage sinecures on state commissions that netted her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where
she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer
with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In
the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus
on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay
over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
Not afraid of challenging establishment politics,
she called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the war to overthrow Assad
is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government
of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis,
and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus
in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are serious about pursuing peace."
She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American
interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and more recently has criticized President Donald
Trump's withdrawal from the deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, but one presumes that,
like nearly all American politicians, she also has to make sure that she does not have the Israel Lobby on her back. Gabbard
has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation
that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon
Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which
many progressive Democrats boycotted.
Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless
in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only
genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years.
What Tulsi Gabbard is accomplishing might be measured by the enemies that are already gathering and are out to get her. Glenn
Greenwald at The Intercept
describes how NBC news published a
widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia
have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge,
which was exposed by no less
than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest
that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind
this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called
Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that
claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD
website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is
loaded with a full complement of Zionists
and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims,
innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia
to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.
It might just resonate with the majority of American who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related
frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States. We the people can always hope.
Just those two. We can leave the rest of "globo-homo" agenda off the table, for the moment. And, the last but not the least,
that nagging angle about automation and (paid) work in general. Let's not get too ambitious here. Those two, only, should suffice
at the moment.
I like Tulsi. but she hasn't been tested in a presidential campaign yet. At least we will have someone who could put peace on
the ballot. She should write a book pulling her policies together and use it to get some publicity.
Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. 2008, an important reason for Obama's victory against
Hillary Clinton and John McCain was that he had been against the Iraq war. 2000, George W. Bush said he was against nation building.
Then, after they are elected, the neocons remain in power. Something similar again with Donald Trump who campaigned against stupid
wars in the Middle East and now has surrounded himself with some of the most extreme neocons.
Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates
in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should
be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. However, if she is serious about this and is elected,
she will be fought by the deep state and its allies in the media much more harshly than Trump, who isn't even consistently anti-neocons,
just not reliably pro-neocon. What they would probably do to her would make spygate, the Russiagate conspiracy theory, and the
Muller investigation look harmless. She might end like JFK (a VP who is just as anti-neocons might increase the chances of survival).
But despite all the risks, I think it is worth trying. If the US was a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation
and the neocons had their own party, it would hardly have more than a handful of seats in Congress. Although they don't have,
a significant base of their own, neocons have remained in power for a long time, whoever was elected. At the moment, Tulsi Gabbard
is probably the best hope for ending their long reign.
She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate
which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. She won't
have a chance. Besides, the Dem party has gotten radical and out of touch with the majority of Americans so who really wants them
in? There's no cause for optimism anywhere one looks.
Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war"
? Greenwald himself has questionable backers and the WWF good guy/bad guy character creations (like Trump's pre-election
talking points concerning illegal wars , now stuffed down the memory holes of many), all the FAKE and distracting "fights" etc
etc
Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist
guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'"
and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back.
Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.
Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance.
In that way she calls the bluff of her opponents: Just how confident are they that in the end the public will prefer war to peace?
These points add up to a realistic chance of success but given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a
long shot.
De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What
a load of crap that turned out to be, but I do understand that not all politicians are cut from the same dung heap, so it
is probably best to find out who is funding the little pricks while they are campaigning – for once they are elected, payback
is due.
In the case of Obama it was Robert Rubin( of Goldman Sachs) who bankrolled him, and of course, once elected it was bank bailout
time. Then once Ghaddaffi's gold back Dinar became a monetary powerhouse, he committed another crime for the bankers.
"Is she the real deal?"
Elect her and you'll find out, and there lies the problem – you get to find out when it's too late. On the other hand, she
could actually be honest and sincere, but that alone disqualifies her as a politician (the kind that Americans are used to anyway).
NTL, she's got people's attention and if for anything else – the people are anti-war, but the monied power brokers are definitely
not which begs the question – will democracy actually happen?
Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get
into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following.
She will need to use tactics from both the Sanders & Trump play-books. She will need to appeal to a good number in both the
Sanders & Trump constituencies. Regardless, she will need an iron-will & tsunami of charisma .
@Biff Obama was a creation
of the Pritzker and Crowne families, although the puppet did decide he wanted to somewhat act on his own. Gabbard is certainly
taking flak from the Israel firsters, and her debating Trump on foreign policy in a US Presidential election would be a real paradigm
shift.
@renfro Where do you get
this "obsessive hatred of Muslims and Islam?"
She's been [insistent and consistent] using the term 'radical Islamic terrorists' which, unfortunately, is an accurate description
of ISIS (the bane of the ummah). OTOH, last year Tulsi was a featured speaker at a Moslem conference in NJ, and she has been outspoken
about freedom of religion and mutual respect. If you've got some evidence that she excludes Islam from that, please show it.
[Gabbard's] policy views are already too good to be true.
Not really. Too good to be true would be if she understood Putin in the context of the US and oligarch rape of Russia in the
1990's and how he has restored the Russian economy and dignity; and if she recognized (openly) the US role in the Maidan coup
and accepted the validity of the Crimean decision to return to Russia.
Unfortunately, even though she's taken a brave position on ending US regime-change war on Syria, in many other respects she
remains quite conventional. She also promotes fear of DPRK, and who knows what she thinks about China.
she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.
Aggressive? Composed, confident, yes. Aggressive, no. Calm under fire is more like it. Take a look at the whole interview on
Morning Joe. She really outclasses those squirming bitches. BUT, notice her (short) responses on Putin and Assad ("adversary"
and "no"), real Judas moments. Does she believe that, or is she clinging to the Overton Window? https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/rep-gabbard-assad-is-not-an-enemy-of-the-us-1438093891865
Tulsi's presidential timber but she's wasting her life with the Democrats. Their consulting apparatchiks are going to stuff a
bunch of incoherent slogans up her butt. If she wants a real antiwar platform she should steal it wholesale from Stein and Ajamu
Baraka. Baraka built a complete and consistent law-and-order platform. He's the only real antiwar candidate in this country.
Of course the Democrat's CIA handlers will crush Tulsi if she starts to make sense, so she's going to have to take her supporters
and jump to the Greens.
She will lose, but arbitrary forcible repression of the party will discredit bullshit US electoral pageantry once and for all.
Then we move into the parallel government zone in conformity with world-standard human rights law and destroy the parasitic kleptocratic
USA.
@jack daniels You know .there
IS one thing nobody wants, really, to talk about.
.given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a long shot
Why, in this age, the "stronghold on the media" is so decisive? A person who gets the most of media exposure wins? That's how
it works?
Or, do anyone reading and posting here gets his/her information from the "media"? I'd say not.
Isn't the bottom, the very heart of the matter NOT a Deep State, Dem Joos, Anglo-Saxons, Masons, Illuminati and .whatever but
simple, eternal, laziness and stupidity of an average person?
Or, even worse: the real, true, needs and wants of an average person are simply "breads and circuses". Nothing more.
Combine those two and here we are.
I am aware that throws the spanner into works of those into Aryans, White supremacy, Western man and similar stuff, but, the
conclusion seems inevitable.
That's the heart of the problem "we" face at the moment. How to fix it, or even is it possible, I don't know. Have some ideas,
of course.
CIA Giraldi probably has more Cherokee DNA than Warren. Another fact he failed to provide to the Government during the security
clearance process. The troll has supported the republican establishment all his career, this distinguishes him from the trolls
that support the democratic establishment all of their careers. The fact that people can debate the relative merits of political
leaders from the dark lagoon reveals their complete lack of rational thought. No politician decides anything important.
@Anonymous No, then she is
toast in Hawaii politics, and she is probably running not because she plans on winning, but to raise her profile and perhaps open
doors for herself on the national or state level, which won't happen if you shoot yourself in the foot at the same time.
Besides, leaving aside Krishna consciousness, she is too close to Sanders to get any traction among the Republicans. I suppose
getting the bipartisan support of the Internet kook vote is something, but hard to translate into political office.
You're never going to get anything worthwhile from a Democratic politician because they're indoctrinated worse that the brightest
little Pioneer in Juche class. Take Ro Khana's meaningless pap.
What is this 'we should' crap? The law is perfectly clear. The right to self-defense is subject to necessity and proportionality
tests, and invariably subject to UN Charter Chapter 7 in its entirety. See Article 51. Instead of this 'restraint' waffle, just
say, the president must commit to faithfully execute the supreme law of the land, including UN Charter Chapter 7 and Article 2(4).
That means refrain from use or threat of force. Period.
Second, national security is not a loophole in human rights. Khana uses the legally meaningless CIA magic word 'threat.' Under
universal jurisdiction law, it is a war crime to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and
actions of the nationals of the hostile party. Domestic human rights are subject to ICCPR Article 4, HRC General Comment 29, and
the Siracusa Principles. Instead of CIA's standard National Security get-out clause, state explicitly that US national security
means respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights. To enforce that, ratify the Rome Statute or GTFO.
Third, internationalism is OK as far as it goes, but Ro Khana doesn't deal with the underlying problem: CIA has infested State
with focal points and dotted-line reports, and demolished the department's capacity for pacific resolution of disputes. You have
to explicitly tie State's mission to UN Charter Chapter 6, and criminalize placement of domestic CIA agents in State.
Fourth, Congressional war-making powers are useless with Congress completely corrupted. Bring back the Ludlow Amendment, war
by public referendum only, subject to Article 51.
Tulsi is a far Left democrat. She supports raising taxes to pay for free college for people earning less than 125K and universal
health care, she actually joined protesters against the Dakota Access Pipeline, has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood,
supports homosexual marriage (changed her previous position in 2012), and has an F rating from the NRA. She's a Lefty. Not for
me, anyway.
I like the one on here who says the Democrat party has "gotten radical."
I assume this is sarcasm, but there is no denying the fact that the neocons(radical whack jobs) have jumped ship from the Republicans
and attached themselves to the Democrats (although there are filtering back into the Trump administration – drunk with power they'll
suck up to anyone)
The DNC NeverTrump crowd is all but calling for a nuclear exchange with Russia because they colluded with Trump to throw the
election, and they pose a National Security threat to the United States(in their head). Hillary also went on to say that Russians
Hacking the DNC is another 9/11. The radical Antifa crowd is made up of 99.999999% of Democratic voters.
The article states: " but by 2011 Boot had another war in mind. 'Qaddafi Must Go,' Boot
declared in The Weekly Standard. In Boot's telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat
to the American homeland." -- -- - There is reported evidence that Libya was a war crime. And
the perpetrators are Free. See info below:
They speak of "The Rule of Law" while breaking the law themselves They are the dangerous
hypocrites that bombed Libya, and created hell Thousands upon thousands are dead in this
unfortunate country Many would still be alive, if our "leaders" had not been down and
dirty
Libya is reportedly a war crime and the war criminals are free Some of them are seen
posturing on the world stage and others are on T.V. Others have written books and others are
retired from public office And another exclaimed: "We came, we saw, he died" as murder was
their accomplice
They even teamed up with terrorists to commit their bloody crimes And this went unreported
in the "media": was this by design? There is a sickness and perversion loose in our society
today When war crimes can be committed and the "law" has nothing to say
Another "leader" had a fly past to celebrate the bombing victory in this illegal war Now
Libya is in chaos, while bloody terrorists roam secure And the NATO gang that caused all this
horror and devastation Are continuing their bloody bombings in other unfortunate nations
The question must be asked: "Are some past and present leaders above the law? Can they get
away with bombing and killing, are they men of straw? Whatever happened to law and order in
the so- called "democracies"? When those in power can get away with criminality: Is that not
hypocrisy?
There is no doubt that Libya was better off, before the "liberators" arrived Now many of
its unfortunate people are now struggling to exist and survive The future of this war torn
country now looks very sad and bleak If only our "leaders" had left it alone; but instead
hypocrisy: They Speak
"... There was a desperately weakened and impoverished Russia (still with its nuclear arsenal more or less intact) that, as far as they were concerned, had been mollycoddled by President Bill Clinton's administration. There was a Communist-gone-capitalist China focused on its own growth and little else. And there were a set of other potential enemies, "rogue powers" as they were dubbed, so pathetic that not one of them could, under any circumstances, be called "great." ..."
"... It was as clear as glass that the world -- the whole shebang -- was there for the taking ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer who, in February 2001, six months before the ... attacks of September 11th, wrote a piece swooning over the new Bush administration's "unilateralism" to come and the "Bush Doctrine" which would go with it. In the process, he gave that administration a green light to put the pathetic Russians in their nuclear place and summed the situation up this way: ..."
"... "America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations, and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will." ..."
"... "How did USA's oil get under Iraq's sand?" said a typical protest sign ..."
"... And yet, wrong as they may have been on such subjects, don't sell Krauthammer and the rest of that neocon crew short. They were, in their own way, also prophets, at least domestically speaking. After all, Rome, like the United States, had been an imperial republic. That republic was replaced, as its empire grew, by autocratic rule, first by the self-anointed emperor Augustus and then by his successors. Arguably, 18 years after Krauthammer wrote that column, the American republic might be heading down the same path. After all, so many years later, the neocons, triumphantly risen yet again in Washington ( both in the administration and as its critics), finally have their Caesar. ..."
"... All of this not only gave Americans a visibly unhinged president -- think of him, in axis-of-evil terms, as a rogue state of one -- but an increasingly unhinged country. ..."
"... Think of it not as an obituary for a single loopy president, a man who, with his "great, great wall," has indeed been an opiate of the masses (for his famed base, at least) in the midst of an opioid crisis hitting them hard. Yes, Donald J. Trump, reality TV star and bankruptee , he of the golden letters, was elevated to a strange version of power by a troubled republic showing signs of wear and tear. It was a republic feeling the pressure of all that money flowing into only half-noticed distant wars and into the pockets of billionaires and corporate entities in a way that turned the very idea of democracy into a bad joke. ..."
"... Someday, if people ask the obvious question -- not who lost Afghanistan, but who lost America? -- keep all those failed imperial wars and the national security state that went with them in mind when you try to answer. Cumulatively, they had a far more disruptive role than is now imagined in toppling the dominos that sent us all careening on a path to nowhere here at home. And keep in mind that, whatever Donald Trump does, the Caesarian die was cast early in this century as the neocons crossed their own Rubicon. ..."
What dreamers they were! They imagined a kind of global power that would leave even Rome at its Augustan height in the shade.
They imagined a world made for one, a planet that could be swallowed by a single great power. No, not just great, but beyond anything
ever seen before -- one that would build (as its
National Security Strategy put it in 2002)
a military "beyond challenge." Let's be clear on that: no future power, or even bloc of powers, would ever be allowed to challenge
it again.
And, in retrospect, can you completely blame them? I mean, it seemed so obvious then that we -- the United States of America --
were the best and the last. We had, after all, outclassed and outlasted every imperial power since the beginning of time. Even that
other menacing superpower of the Cold War era, the Soviet Union, the "
Evil Empire
" that refused to stand down for almost half a century, had gone up in a puff of smoke.
Imagine that moment so many years later and consider the crew of neoconservatives who, under the aegis of George W. Bush, the
son of the man who had "won" the Cold War, came to power in January 2001. Not surprisingly, on viewing the planet, they could see
nothing -- not a single damn thing -- in their way. There was a desperately weakened and impoverished Russia (still with its nuclear
arsenal more or less intact) that, as far as they were concerned, had been mollycoddled by President Bill Clinton's administration.
There was a Communist-gone-capitalist China focused on its own growth and little else. And there were a set of other potential enemies,
"rogue powers" as they were dubbed, so pathetic that not one of them could, under any circumstances, be called "great."
In 2002, in fact, three of them -- Iraq, Iran, and North Korea -- had to be cobbled together into an "
axis of evil
" to create a faintly adequate enemy, a minimalist excuse for the Bush administration to act preemptively. It couldn't have been
more obvious then that all three of them would go down before the unprecedented military and economic power of us (even if, as it
happened, two of them didn't).
It was as clear as glass that the world -- the whole shebang -- was there for the taking.
... ... ...
As President
Bush would put it in an address
at West Point in
2002,
"America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other
eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."
In other words, jihadists aside, it was all over. From
now on, there would be an arms race of one and it was obvious who that one would be. The National Security Strategy of that year
put the same thought this way:
"Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up
in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."
Again, anywhere on the planet ever .
Look at more or less any document from the period and you'll sense that they weren't shy about touting the unprecedented greatness
of a future global Pax Americana . Take, for instance, columnist Charles Krauthammer who, in February 2001, six months before the
... attacks of September 11th, wrote
a piece swooning over the new Bush administration's "unilateralism" to come and the "Bush Doctrine" which would go with it. In
the process, he gave that administration a green light to put the pathetic Russians in their nuclear place and summed the situation
up this way:
"America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly,
America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations, and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations
of will."
"How Did USA's Oil Get Under Iraq's Sand?"
And soon enough after September 11th, those unapologetic, implacable demonstrations of will did, in fact, begin -- first in Afghanistan
and then, a year and a half later, in Iraq.
Goaded by Osama bin
Laden, the new Rome went into action.
Of course, in 2019 we have the benefit of hindsight, which Charles Krauthammer, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and the rest of that crew didn't have as they applied their Roman-style
vision of an imperial America to the actual world. It should be added, however, that the
millions of people who hit the streets globally to protest the coming invasion of Iraq in the winter of 2003 -- "How did USA's
oil get under Iraq's sand?" said a typical protest
sign (which Donald Trump would have
understood
in his own way) -- had a far better sense of the world than did their American rulers-to-be. Like the Soviets
before them ,
in fact, they would grievously confuse military power with power on this planet.
More than 17 years later, the U.S. military remains stuck in Afghanistan, bedeviled in Iraq, and floundering across much of the
Greater Middle East and Africa on a planet with a resurgent Russia, and an impressively rising China. One-third of the former axis
of evil, Iran, is, remarkably enough, still in Washington's
gunsights , while another third (North
Korea) sits uncomfortably in a presidential bear hug. It's no exaggeration to say that none of the dreams of a new Rome were ever
faintly fulfilled. In fact, if you want to think about what's been truly exceptional in these years, it might be this: never in history
has such a great power, at its height, seemed quite so incapable of effectively applying force, military or otherwise, to achieve
its imperial ends or bring its targets to heel.
And yet, wrong as they may have been on such subjects, don't sell Krauthammer and the rest of that neocon crew short. They
were, in their own way, also prophets, at least domestically speaking. After all, Rome, like the United States, had been an imperial
republic. That republic was replaced, as its empire grew, by autocratic rule, first by the self-anointed emperor Augustus and then
by his successors. Arguably, 18 years after Krauthammer wrote that column, the American republic might be heading down the same path.
After all, so many years later, the neocons, triumphantly risen yet again in Washington (
both in the administration and as its
critics), finally have their Caesar.
Hail, Donald J. Trump, we who are about to read your latest tweet
salute you!
A Rogue State of One
Let's note some other passing parallels between the new Rome and the old one. As a start, it's certainly accurate to say that
our new American Caesar has much gall (divided into
at least three parts). Admittedly, he's no Augustus, the first of a line of emperors, but more likely a Nero, fiddling while, in
his case, the world quite
literally burns . Still,
he could certainly say of campaign 2016 and what followed: Veni, Vidi, Tweeti (I came, I saw, I tweeted). And don't forget the classic
line that might someday be applied to his presidency, " Et tu , Mueller?" -- or depending on who turns on him, you can fill in your
name of choice.
One day, it might also be said that, in a country in which executive power has become ever more imperial (as has the
power
of the Senate's majority leader), blowback from
imperial acts abroad
has had a significant, if largely hidden, hand in crippling the American republic, as was once true of Rome. In fact, it seems
clear enough that the first republican institution to go was the citizen's army. In the wake of the Vietnam War, the draft was thrown
out and replaced by an "all-volunteer" force, one which would, as it came to fight on ever more distant battlefields, morph into
a home-grown version of an imperial police force or
foreign legion . With
it went the
staggering sums that, in this century, would be invested -- if that's even the word for it -- in what's still called "defense,"
as well as in a vast
empire of
bases abroad and the national security state, a rising locus of power at home. And then, of course, there were the never-ending
wars across much of the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa that went with all of that. Meanwhile, so much else, domestically
speaking, was put on the equivalent of austerity rations. And all of that, in turn, helped provoke the crisis that brought Donald
Trump to power and might, in the end, even sink the American system as we've known it.
The Donald's victory in the 2016 election was always a sign of a deep disturbance at the heart of an increasingly
unequal and
unfair system of wealth and power. But it was those trillions of dollars -- The Donald
claims seven trillion of them -- that the neocons began
sinking into America's "
infinite
" wars, which cost Americans big time in ways they hardly tracked or
noticed
. Those
trillions didn't go into shoring up American infrastructure or health care or education or job-training programs or anything
else that might have mattered to most people here, even as untold tax dollars -- one estimate:
$15,000 per middle-class family
per year -- went into the pockets of the rich. And some of those dollars, in turn,
poured back into the American political system (with a helping hand from the Supreme Court's 2010
Citizens United decision) and, in the end, helped
put the first billionaire in the Oval Office. By the 2020 election campaign, we may achieve another all-American first: two or
even three of the candidates could be billionaires.
All of this not only gave Americans a visibly unhinged president -- think of him, in axis-of-evil terms, as a rogue state
of one -- but an increasingly unhinged country. You can feel so much of this in President Trump's confused and confusing attempts
to both end American wars and
ratchet them
up , 17-and-a-half -- he always claims
" almost 19 " -- years
after the invasion of Afghanistan. You can feel it in his gut-level urge to
attack the "deep state"
and yet fund it beyond its wildest dreams. You can feel it in his attempts to
create a corps of "my generals" and then fire
them all. You can feel the unhinged nature of events in a world in which, after so many years of war, America's enemies still seem
to have the formula for staying afloat, no matter what Washington does. The Taliban in Afghanistan is
on the rise ; al-Shabaab
in Somalia, is still going
strong ; the Houthis in Yemen
remain functional
in a sea of horror and starvation; ISIS, now without its caliphate, has from Syria to the
Philippines ,
Africa to
Afghanistan , become a distinctly
global brand ; al-Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula thrives ,
while terror groups more generally continue to
spread .
You can feel it in the president's confused and confusing explanations for his urges to withdraw American troops in
days or
four months
or
whenever from Syria and do the same or
maybe not exactly in Afghanistan. (As he
said in
his State of the Union address, American troops would both withdraw and "focus" on "counterterrorism" in that country.) You can feel
it in the way, after so many years of visible failure, the neocons are once again
riding high in Washington,
ascendant both in his administration and as critics of its global and military policies.
These days, who even remembers that classic early Cold War question -- who lost China? -- that rattled American domestic politics
for years, or later, the similar one about Vietnam? Still, if Donald Trump ever truly does withdraw American forces from Afghanistan
(undoubtedly leaving this country's allies in a Vietnam-style ditch), count on foreign policy establishmentarians in Washington and
pundits around the country to ask an updated version of the same question: Did Donald Trump lose Afghanistan?
But no matter what happens, don't make the mistake of blaming him. It's true that he tweeted endlessly while the world burned,
but he won't be the one who "lost" Afghanistan. It was "lost" in the grisly dreams of the neocons as the century began and it's never
truly been found again.
Of course, we no more know what's going to happen in the years ahead than the neocons did in 2001. If history has taught us anything,
it's that prediction is the diciest of human predilections. Still, think of this piece as an obituary of sorts. You know, the kind
major newspapers write about those still living and then continually update until death finally occurs.
Think of it not as an obituary for a single loopy president, a man who, with his "great, great wall," has indeed been an opiate
of the masses (for his famed base, at least) in the midst of an
opioid crisis
hitting them hard. Yes, Donald J. Trump, reality TV star and
bankruptee , he of the
golden letters, was elevated to a strange version of power by a troubled republic showing signs of wear and tear. It was a republic
feeling the pressure of all that money flowing into only half-noticed distant wars and into the pockets of billionaires and corporate
entities in a way that turned the very idea of democracy into a bad joke.
Someday, if people ask the obvious question -- not who lost Afghanistan, but who lost America? -- keep all those failed imperial
wars and the national security state that went with them in mind when you try to answer. Cumulatively, they had a far more disruptive
role than is now imagined in toppling the dominos that sent us all careening on a path to nowhere here at home. And keep in mind
that, whatever Donald Trump does, the Caesarian die was cast
early in this century as the neocons crossed their own Rubicon.
"... As Trump found himself accused of improper ties to Vladimir Putin, Boot agitated for more aggressive confrontation with Russia. Boot demanded larger weapons shipments to Ukraine. ..."
"... Boot's stock in the Washington foreign policy establishment rose. In 2018, he was hired by The Washington Post as a columnist. The paper's announcement cited Boot's "expertise on armed conflict." ..."
"... Republicans in Washington never recovered. When Trump attacked the Iraq War and questioned the integrity of the people who planned and promoted it, he was attacking them. They hated him for that. Some of them became so angry, it distorted their judgment and character. ..."
"... Almost from the moment Operation Desert Storm concluded in 1991, Kristol began pushing for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In 1997, The Weekly Standard ran a cover story titled "Saddam Must Go." If the United States didn't launch a ground invasion of Iraq, the lead editorial warned, the world should "get ready for the day when Saddam has biological and chemical weapons at the tips of missiles aimed at Israel and at American forces in the Gulf." ..."
"... Under ordinary circumstances, Bill Kristol would be famous for being wrong. Kristol still goes on television regularly, but it's not to apologize for the many demonstrably untrue things he's said about the Middle East, or even to talk about foreign policy. Instead, Kristol goes on TV to attack Donald Trump. ..."
"... Trump's election seemed to undo Bill Kristol entirely. He lost his job at The Weekly Standard after more than 20 years, forced out by owners who were panicked about declining readership. He seemed to spend most of his time on Twitter ranting about Trump. ..."
"... By the spring of 2018, Kristol was considering a run for president himself. He was still making the case for the invasion of Iraq, as well as pushing for a new war, this time in Syria, and maybe in Lebanon and Iran, too. Like most people in Washington, he'd learned nothing at all. ..."
"... Creating complex and convincing false narratives to support demonic purposes is HARD WORK, and requires big pay. ..."
"... Lots of spilled ink here that's pretty meaningless without an answer to the following: Why does Trump employ John Bolton and Elliot Abrams? Explain Trump and Pence and Pompeo's Iran obsession and how it's any better than Kristol/Boot? ..."
One thing that
every late-stage ruling class has in common is a high tolerance for mediocrity. Standards
decline, the edges fray, but nobody in charge seems to notice. They're happy in their sinecures
and getting richer. In a culture like this, there's no penalty for being wrong. The talentless
prosper, rising inexorably toward positions of greater power, and breaking things along the
way. It happened to the Ottomans.
Max Boot is living proof that it's happening in America.
Boot is a professional foreign policy expert, a job category that doesn't exist outside of a
select number of cities. Boot has degrees from Berkeley and Yale, and is a fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations. He has written a number of books and countless newspaper columns
on foreign affairs and military history. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, an
influential British think tank, describes Boot as one of the "world's leading authorities on
armed conflict."
None of this, it turns out, means anything. The professional requirements for being one
ofthe world's Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict do not include relevant experience with
armed conflict. Leading authorities on the subject don't need a track record of wise
assessments or accurate predictions. All that's required are the circular recommendations of
fellow credential holders. If other Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict induct you into their
ranks, you're in. That's good news for Max Boot.
Boot first became famous in the weeks after 9/11 for outlining a response that the Bush
administration seemed to read like a script, virtually word for word. While others were
debating whether Kandahar or Kabul ought to get the first round of American bombs, Boot was
thinking big. In October 2001, he published a piece in The Weekly Standard titled "The
Case for American Empire."
"The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition,"
Boot wrote. "The solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their
implementation." In order to prevent more terror attacks in American cities, Boot called for a
series of U.S.-led revolutions around the world, beginning in Afghanistan and moving swiftly to
Iraq.
"Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in
Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul," Boot wrote. "To turn Iraq into a beacon of hope
for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East: Now that would be a historic war aim. Is this an
ambitious agenda? Without a doubt. Does America have the resources to carry it out? Also
without a doubt."
In retrospect, Boot's words are painful to read, like love letters from a marriage that
ended in divorce. Iraq remains a smoldering mess. The Afghan war is still in progress close to
20 years in. For perspective, Napoleon Bonaparte seized control of France, crowned himself
emperor, defeated four European coalitions against him, invaded Russia, lost, was defeated and
exiled, returned, and was defeated and exiled a second time, all in less time than the United
States has spent trying to turn Afghanistan into a stable country.
Things haven't gone as planned. What's remarkable is that despite all the failure and waste
and deflated expectations, defeats that have stirred self-doubt in the heartiest of men, Boot
has remained utterly convinced of the virtue of his original predictions. Certainty is a
prerequisite for Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict.
In the spring of 2003, with the war in Iraq under way, Boot began to consider new countries
to invade. He quickly identified Syria and Iran as plausible targets, the latter because it was
"less than two years" from building a nuclear bomb. North Korea made Boot's list as well. Then
Boot became more ambitious. Saudi Arabia could use a democracy, he decided.
"If the U.S. armed forces made such short work of a hardened goon like Saddam Hussein,
imagine what they could do to the soft and sybaritic Saudi royal family," Boot wrote.
Five years later, in a piece for The Wall Street Journal , Boot advocated for the
military occupation of Pakistan and Somalia. The only potential problem, he predicted, was
unreasonable public opposition to new wars.
"Ragtag guerrillas have proven dismayingly successful in driving out or neutering
international peacekeeping forces," he wrote. "Think of American and French troops blown up in
Beirut in 1983, or the 'Black Hawk Down' incident in Somalia in 1993. Too often, when outside
states do agree to send troops, they are so fearful of casualties that they impose rules of
engagement that preclude meaningful action."
In other words, the tragedy of foreign wars isn't that Americans die, but that too few
Americans are willing to die. To solve this problem, Boot recommended recruiting foreign
mercenaries. "The military would do well today to open its ranks not only to legal immigrants
but also to illegal ones," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times . When foreigners get
killed fighting for America, he noted, there's less political backlash at home.
♦♦♦
American forces, documented or not, never occupied Pakistan, but by 2011 Boot had another
war in mind. "Qaddafi Must Go," Boot declared in The Weekly Standard . In Boot's
telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat to the American homeland. "The only way this
crisis will end -- the only way we and our allies can achieve our objectives in Libya -- is to
remove Qaddafi from power. Containment won't suffice."
In the end, Gaddafi was removed from power, with ugly and long-lasting consequences. Boot
was on to the next invasion. By late 2012, he was once again promoting attacks on Syria and
Iran, as he had nine years before. In a piece for The New York Times , Boot laid out
"Five Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now."
Overthrowing the Assad regime, Boot predicted, would "diminish Iran's influence" in the
region, influence that had grown dramatically since the Bush administration took Boot's advice
and overthrew Saddam Hussein, Iran's most powerful counterbalance. To doubters concerned about
a complex new war, Boot promised the Syria intervention could be conducted "with little
risk."
Days later, Boot wrote a separate piece for Commentary magazine calling for American
bombing of Iran. It was a busy week, even by the standards of a Leading Authority on Armed
Conflict. Boot conceded that "it remains a matter of speculation what Iran would do in the wake
of such strikes." He didn't seem worried.
Listed in one place, Boot's many calls for U.S.-led war around the world come off as a
parody of mindless warlike noises, something you might write if you got mad at a country while
drunk. ("I'll invade you!!!") Republicans in Washington didn't find any of it amusing. They
were impressed. Boot became a top foreign policy adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign
in 2008, to Mitt Romney in 2012, and to Marco Rubio in 2016.
Everything changed when Trump won the Republican nomination. Trump had never heard of the
International Institute for Strategic Studies. He had no idea Max Boot was a Leading Authority
on Armed Conflict. Trump was running against more armed conflicts. He had no interest in
invading Pakistan. Boot hated him.
As Trump found himself accused of improper ties to Vladimir Putin, Boot agitated for more
aggressive confrontation with Russia. Boot demanded larger weapons shipments to Ukraine. He
called for effectively expelling Russia from the global financial system, a move that might be
construed as an act of war against a nuclear-armed power. The stakes were high, but with
signature aplomb Boot assured readers it was "hard to imagine" the Russian government would
react badly to the provocation. Those who disagreed Boot dismissed as "cheerleaders" for Putin
and the mullahs in Iran.
Boot's stock in the Washington foreign policy establishment rose. In 2018, he was hired by
The Washington Post as a columnist. The paper's announcement cited Boot's "expertise on
armed conflict."
It is possible to isolate the precise moment that Trump permanently alienated the Republican
establishment in Washington: February 13, 2016. There was a GOP primary debate that night in
Greenville, South Carolina, so every Republican in Washington was watching. Seemingly out of
nowhere, Trump articulated something that no party leader had ever said out loud. "We should
never have been in Iraq," Trump announced, his voice rising. "We have destabilized the Middle
East."
Many in the crowd booed, but Trump kept going: "They lied. They said there were weapons of
mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none."
Pandemonium seemed to erupt in the hall, and on television. Shocked political analysts
declared that the Trump presidential effort had just euthanized itself. Republican voters, they
said with certainty, would never accept attacks on policies their party had espoused and
carried out.
Republican voters had a different reaction. They understood that adults sometimes change
their minds based on evidence. They themselves had come to understand that the Iraq war was a
mistake. They appreciated hearing something verboten but true.
Rival Republicans denounced Trump as an apostate. Voters considered him brave. Trump won the South Carolina primary, and shortly after that, the Republican nomination.
Republicans in Washington never recovered. When Trump attacked the Iraq War and questioned
the integrity of the people who planned and promoted it, he was attacking them. They hated him
for that. Some of them became so angry, it distorted their judgment and character.
♦♦♦
Bill Kristol is probably the most influential Republican strategist of the post-Reagan era.
Born in 1954, Kristol was the second child of the writer Irving Kristol, one of the founders of
neoconservatism.
The neoconservatism of Irving Kristol and his friends was jarring to the ossified liberal
establishment of the time, but in retrospect it was basically a centrist philosophy: pragmatic,
tolerant of a limited welfare state, not rigidly ideological. By the time Bill Kristol got done
with it 40 years later, neoconservatism was something else entirely.
Almost from the moment Operation Desert Storm concluded in 1991, Kristol began pushing for
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In 1997, The Weekly Standard ran a cover story titled
"Saddam Must Go." If the United States didn't launch a ground invasion of Iraq, the lead
editorial warned, the world should "get ready for the day when Saddam has biological and
chemical weapons at the tips of missiles aimed at Israel and at American forces in the
Gulf."
After the September 11 attacks, Kristol found a new opening to start a war with Iraq. In
November 2001, he and Robert Kagan wrote a piece in The Weekly Standard alleging that
Saddam Hussein hosted a training camp for Al Qaeda fighters where terrorists had trained to
hijack planes. They suggested that Mohammad Atta, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was actively
collaborating with Saddam's intelligence services. On the basis of no evidence, they accused
Iraq of fomenting the anthrax attacks on American politicians and news outlets.
Under ordinary circumstances, Bill Kristol would be famous for being wrong. Kristol still
goes on television regularly, but it's not to apologize for the many demonstrably untrue things
he's said about the Middle East, or even to talk about foreign policy. Instead, Kristol goes on
TV to attack Donald Trump.
Trump's election seemed to undo Bill Kristol entirely. He lost his job at The Weekly
Standard after more than 20 years, forced out by owners who were panicked about declining
readership. He seemed to spend most of his time on Twitter ranting about Trump.
Before long he was ranting about the people who elected Trump. At an American Enterprise
Institute panel event in February 2017, Kristol made the case for why immigrants are more
impressive than native-born Americans. "Basically if you are in free society, a capitalist
society, after two, three, four generations of hard work, everyone becomes kind of decadent,
lazy, spoiled, whatever." Most Americans, Kristol said, "grew up as spoiled kids and so
forth."
In February 2018, Kristol tweeted that he would "take in a heartbeat a group of newly
naturalized American citizens over the spoiled native-born know-nothings" who supported
Trump.
By the spring of 2018, Kristol was considering a run for president himself. He was still
making the case for the invasion of Iraq, as well as pushing for a new war, this time in Syria,
and maybe in Lebanon and Iran, too. Like most people in Washington, he'd learned nothing at
all.
Trump isn't the only one hated by useless establishment Republicans – with essays like
this so will Tucker. Thanks for this takedown of these two warmongering know-nothings. I wish
Trump all the time was like he was at that debate in S Carolina where he said what every
American knows: the Iraq invasion was stupid and we should not have done it!
So why are these professional war peddlers still around? For the same reason that members of
the leadership class who failed and continue to fail in the Middle East are still around.
There has not been an accounting at any level. There is just more talk of more war.
Well, the headline pretty much answers its own question if you know the purpose of Experts.
In any subject matter from science to economics to politics, Experts are paid to be
wrong. Nobody has to be paid to observe reality accurately with his own senses and rational mind.
Every living creature does that all the time. It's the basic requirement of survival.
Creating complex and convincing false narratives to support demonic purposes is HARD WORK,
and requires big pay.
""The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition,"
Boot wrote. "The solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their
implementation.""
In other words, if we had only squandered even more blood and treasure, why, everything
would have been fine.
Why do so many true believers end up with some variation on the true believer's wheeze:
"Communism didn't fail ! It was never tried!" Then again one can't be sure that Boot
is a true believer. He might be a treacherous snake trying to use American power to advance a
foreign agenda.
Max Boot has indeed been an advocate of overseas intervention, but you fail to point out
that he has recanted his support of the Iraq War. In his 2018 book "The Corrosion of
Conservatism: Why I left the American Right," he states:
". . . I can finally acknowledge the obvious: it (The Iraq War) was all a big mistake.
Saddam Hussein was heinous, but Iraq was better off under his tyrannical rule than the chaos
that followed. I regret advocating the invasion and feel guilty about all the lives lost. It
was a chastening lesson in the limits of American power."
I'm glad to see that Boot, along with yourself and other Republicans, realize that
American use of force must have a clear objective with reasonable chance of success. I
suggest you send this article to John Bolton. I'm not sure he agrees with you.
Excellent article. It's a shame that the Bush era GOP took Boot and Kristol seriously. That
poor judgment led Bush to make the kinds of mistakes that gave Democrats the opening they
needed to gain power, which in turn led them to make even more harmful mistakes.
Being against the Iraq 2 I find this populist arguing very 'eye-rolling' as you were pimping
this war to death back in the day. (In fact I remember Jon Stewart being one of the few
'pundits' that questioned the war in 2003 & 2004.) And has dovish as Trump as been, his
administration is still filled with Hawks and if you are concerned about wars then maybe use
your TV show for instead of whining for past mistakes:
1) The administration action in Iran is aggressive and counter-productive to long term
peace. The nuclear deal was an effective way of ensuring Iran controlling behavior for 15
years as the other parties, Europe and China, wanted to trade with Iran. (Additionally it
makes our nation depend more on the Saudia relationship in which Washington should be slowly
moving away from.)
2) Like it or not, Venezuela is starting down the steps of mission creep for the Trump
Administration. Recommend the administration stay away from peace keeping troops and suggest
this is China's problem. (Venezuela in debt to their eyeballs with China.)
3) Applaud the administration with peace talks with NK but warn them not to overstate
their accomplishments. It is ridiculous that the administration signed big nuclear deals with
NK that don't exist.
I find it amazing that Boot is considered one of the "world's leading authorities on armed
conflict,"yet never appears to have served in any branch of the armed forces, nor even heard
a shot fired in anger. He is proof that academic credentials do not automatically confer
"expertise."
Any war, anytime, any place, and cause just so long as American boys and girls can be in the
middle of it.
Welcome to the American NeoCon movement, recently joined by Republican Never Trumpers,
elected Democrats, and a host of far too many underemployed Beltway Generals &
Admirals.
From a reformed Leftist, thank you Tucker for calling out the stank from the Republicans. The
detailed compilation of lowlights from Max Boot and Bill Kristol (don't forget Robert Kagan!)
should be etched in the minds of the now pro-war Democratic Party establishment.
I laughed out loud while reading this, and continued laughing through to the end, until I
saw who had the audacity to tell the truth about these utter incompetent failures (who have
failed upwards for more than a decade now) who call themselves "foreign policy experts."
Yeah -- "experts" at being so moronically wrong that you really start wondering if perhaps
the benjamins from another middle eastern nation, that can't be named, has something to do
with their worthless opinions, which always seem to do made for the benifit of the nameless
nation.
So hurrah for you!!!
Let the truth set us all free!
Praise the Lord & Sing Songs of Praise to his Name!!!!
Literally that's how great it is to hear the pure & unvarnished TRUTH spoken out loud in
this publication!
I hope you get such awesome feedback that you are asked to continue to bless us with more
truths!
Thank you! You totally made my day!
And thank you for your service to this country, where it used to be considered patriotic
to speak the truth honestly & plainly!
"Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in
Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul," Boot wrote.
To which the reader might reasonably reply, "What do you mean we , Paleface?"
When I see Max Boot or Bill Kristol in uniform, carrying a rifle, and trudging with their
platoon along the dusty roads of the Middle East, I'll begin to pay attention to their bleats
and jeremiads.
Until that day, I'll continue to view them as a pair of droning, dull-as-ditchwater
members of the 45th Word-processing Brigade. (Company motto: "Let's you and him fight!")
It is my understanding that HRC led the charge to overthrow and hang Gaddafi in spite of a
reluctant Obama administration. Did Boot, in fact, influence her?
"Most Americans, Kristol said, "grew up as spoiled kids and so forth."" Unintentional irony, one must presume. Still it is astonishing that it took someone as addled as DJT to point out the
obvious–Invading Iraq was a massive mistake.
Just like Eliot Abrams, John McCain, GWB, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld or any other neocon, there is
no justice or punishment or even well deserved humiliation for these parasites. They are
always misinformed, misguided, or "well intentioned."
The US can interfere with sovereign governments and elections at will I guess and not be
responsible for the the unintended consequences such as 500k+ killed in the Middle East since
the Iraq and Afghan debacle.
There are sugar daddies from the MIC, the Natsec state (aka the Swamp), AIPAC, and even
Jeff Bezos (benefactor of WaPo) that keep these guys employed.
You need to be more critical of Trump also as he is the one hiring these clowns. But other
than that, keep up the good work Mr. Carlson!
These Chairborne Rangers in Washington know nothing about war. They are the flip side of the radical Dems. "Hey, we lost in 2016. Let's do MORE of what
made us lose in the first place!"
The GOP is as much an enemy to the Trump revolution
as the left. The Bush/Clinton/Obama coalition runs DC – controls the federal workforce, and
colludes to run the Federal government for themselves and their pet constituents.
Trump should have stuck it out on the shutdown until those federal workers left. I think
it was called RIF wherein after 30 days, he could dump the lot of em.
THE GOP IS NOT THE PARTY OF LESS GOVERNMENT. That's there motto for busy conservatives who
don't have the time or inclination to monitor both sides of the swamp.
Lots of spilled ink here that's pretty meaningless without an answer to the following:
Why does Trump employ John Bolton and Elliot Abrams? Explain Trump and Pence and Pompeo's Iran obsession and how it's any better than
Kristol/Boot?
Funny how when liberals said it was wrong to be in Iraq they were vilified. Yes some
conservatives changed their minds. Trump however is all over the map when it comes to wars.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176527/
"... "Whether under your watch a genocide will take place and you will look the other way because American interests were being upheld is a fair question because the American people want to know that anytime we engage in a country that we think about what our actions could be and how we believe our values are being furthered," Omar said. ..."
"... After again downplaying her question, Abrams said "the entire thrust of American policy in Venezuela is to support the Venezuelan people's effort to restore democracy to their country." ..."
As assistant secretary of state during the Reagan administration, Abrams was involved in a
secret arms deal in which the U.S. sought to trade missiles and other weapons to Iran and use
the funds to support right-wing paramilitaries known as the "contras," who were seeking to
topple a leftist government in Nicaragua. In a 1991 plea agreement with an independent
commission tasked with probing the scandal -- which became known as the Iran-Contra affair --
Abrams admitted to lying to members of Congress about the clandestine deal. In 1992, he and
other Reagan administration officials embroiled in the scandal were pardoned by former
President George H. W. Bush.
Omar also pressed Abrams about his role in shaping an interventionist American foreign
policy in other Latin American countries during his first stints at the State Department.
During the Cold War, the U.S. supported various violent coups in Latin America, including some
against democratically-elected governments.
The freshman Democrat asked Abrams about a remark he made in 1993, when he called the Reagan
administration's record in El Salvador a "fabulous achievement." Between 1979 and 1992, the
U.S. backed a right-wing military government in El Salvador during a civil war against leftist
guerrillas that resulted in the deaths of more than 75,000 people, according to the Center for Justice and
Accountability , an international human rights group.
Omar specifically cited the massacre of hundreds of civilians by the American-trained El
Salvadoran army at the El Mazote village in 1981.
"Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a 'fabulous achievement' that happened under our
watch," she asked.
"That is a ridiculous question," Abrams responded, again accusing Omar of crafting a
"personal attack."
Omar continued her questioning, asking Abrams if he would be in favor of the U.S. supporting
armed groups in Venezuela that participate in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide
if he believed it would serve America's interests. Abrams refused to answer the specific
question, saying it was not a "real" question.
"Whether under your watch a genocide will take place and you will look the other way because
American interests were being upheld is a fair question because the American people want to
know that anytime we engage in a country that we think about what our actions could be and how
we believe our values are being furthered," Omar said.
But Maduro and other leftist leaders in the region, including in Bolivia and Cuba, have
accused the American government of trying to stage a coup in Venezuela. Standing alongside
diplomats from Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran, Venezuela's foreign
minister Jorge Arreaza told CBS News' Pamela Falk Thursday that Maduro's government has formed
a coalition to oppose interference in his country's affairs.
After again downplaying her question, Abrams said "the entire thrust of American policy in
Venezuela is to support the Venezuelan people's effort to restore democracy to their
country."
In her final question, Omar asked Abrams whether American foreign policy prioritized
upholding human rights and protecting people against genocide.
"That is always the position of the United States," he replied.
"... Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . ..."
"... At this point the US government barely even bothers to cover itself with plausible stories but just goes ahead with it's open violence. Who is there to stop it? ..."
In 2011, the U.S. regime, then under a
different
nominal
leader than in the Iraq invasion,
invaded
and
destroyed
Libya -- also on the basis of lies that its press (which is controlled by the same billionaires
who control the nation's two political Parties) stenographically published from the Government and refused
ever to expose as being lies.
On February 8th, the Latin American
Geopolitical Strategic Center (CELAG) issued their study,
"The Economic Consequences of the Boycott of Venezuela"
, and reported that throughout the five-year
period of 2013-2017, Venezuela's "economy and society suffered a suffocation [of] $ 22.5 billion in annual
revenues, as a result of a deliberate international strategy of financial isolation [of Venezuela].
Evidently, this financial pressure intensified since 2015 with the fall in the price of crude oil." So:
that's a total loss of over $112 billion from Venezuela during the entire 5-year period, and the result has
become (especially after 2014) the impoverishment of the country. The U.S. regime and its allies and their
propaganda-media blame, for that, not themselves, but the very same Government they're trying to take down.
The U.S. regime and its allies have contempt for the public everywhere. The more that Venezuelans blame
their own Government for this impoverishment, instead of blame America's Government for it, the more that
their exploiters will have contempt for them, but also the more that their exploiters will benefit from
them, because the exploiters' taking control of the Government will then be much easier to do.
The U.S-and-allied exploiters are
attempting to install in Venezuela
a man who has absolutely no justification under the Venezuelan Constitution to be claiming to be the
country's 'interim President'
. For some mysterious reason, Venezuela's President isn't calling for that
traitor to be brought up on charges of treachery -- attempting a coup -- and facing Venezuela's Supreme
Judicial Tribunal on such a charge, which Tribunal is the Constitutionally authorized body to adjudicate
that matter. So, Venezuela's Government is incompetent -- but so too have been all of its predecessors since
at least 1980, and incompetence alone is
not
Constitutional grounds for replacing Venezuela's
President by
a foreign-imposed coup
. At least Venezuela's actual President is no traitor, such as his would-be
successor, Juan Guaido,
definitely
is
.
Did Venezuela invade America so as for
America's economic war against it
to be justified? Did Iraq invade America so as for America's
destruction of it to be justified? Did Libya invade America so as for America's destruction of it to be
justified? Did Syria invade America so as for America's destruction of it to be justified? Did Ukraine
invade America so as for America's destruction of it to be justified? None of them did, at all. In each and
every case, it was pure aggression, by America, the international rogue nation.
Back in 1986, regarding America's
international relations including its coups and invasions, the U.S. quit the International Court of Justice
(ICJ), when that Court ruled against the U.S. in the Iran-Contra case,
Nicaragua v. United States
, which concerned America's attempted coup in that country. But though
the U.S. propaganda-media reported the Government's rejection of that verdict in favor of Nicaragua, they
hid the more momentous fact: the U.S. Government stated that it would not henceforth recognize any authority
in the ICJ concerning America's international actions. The public didn't get to know about that. Ever since
1986, the U.S. Government has been a rogue regime, simply ignoring the ICJ except when the ICJ could be
cited against a country that the U.S. regime is trying to destroy ('democratize'). And then, when the ICJ
ruled on 9 March 2005 against the U.S. regime in a U.S. domestic matter where the regime refused to adhere
to the U.S. Constitution's due-process clause regarding the prosecutions and death-sentences against 51
death-row inmates, and the Court demanded retrials of those convicts,
the U.S. regime, in 2005, simply withdrew completely from the jurisdiction of the ICJ
. Ever since 9
March 2005, the U.S. regime places itself above, and immune to, international law, regarding everything.
George W. Bush completed what Ronald Reagan had started.
This rogue regime has
no real legitimacy
even as a representative of the American people. It
doesn't really represent the American public at all
. It is destroying the world and lying through its
teeth all the while. Its puppet-rulers on behalf of America's
currently 585 billionaires
are not in prison from convictions by the International Court of Justice in
the Hague. They're not even being investigated by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. That's a
U.N. agency. Does the U.N. have any real legitimacy, under such circumstances as this? Can an international
scofflaw simply refuse to recognize the authority of the international court? This mocks the U.N. itself.
The U.S. places itself above the U.N.'s laws and jurisdiction and yet still occupies one of the five
permanent seats on the U.N's Security Council and still is allowed to vote in the U.N.'s General Assembly.
Why doesn't the U.N. simply expel America? It can't be done? Then why isn't a new international legal body
being established to
replace
the U.N. -- and being granted legal authority everywhere
regardless
of whether a given national regime acknowledges its legal authority over matters of international law? Why
is Venezuela being internationally isolated and sanctioned, instead of the U.S. being internationally
isolated and sanctioned?
On top of all that, this is the same
U.S. regime that has blocked the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and that has broken one international
agreement after another -- not only NAFTA, and not only the nuclear agreement on Iran, and not only many
nuclear agreements with first the Soviet Union and then Russia, but lots more -- and all with total impunity.
And it's not only the countries that
the U.S. invades or otherwise destroys, which are being vastly harmed by this international monster-regime.
How many millions of the flood of asylum-seekers who are pouring into Europe have done that in order to
reach safety from America's bombs and proxy-troops -- jihadists and fascist terrorists -- which have ravaged
their own homelands? What is that flood of refugees doing to Europe, and to European politics -- forcing it
ever-farther to the right and so tearing the EU apart? Why are not Europeans therefore flooding their own
streets with anti-American marches and movements for their own Governments to impose economic sanctions
against all major American brands, and demanding prosecution of all recent American Presidents, starting at
least with G.W. Bush -- or else to vote out of office any national politicians who refuse to stand up against
the American bully-regime?
It isn't only weak nations such as
Nigeria
that are corrupt and rotten to the core. The entire U.S. empire, and
especially
its U.S.
masters, are.
How much more will the peoples of the
world remain suckers to the vast corporate propaganda-operation by that out-of-control beast of a rapacious
regime, which displays the Orwellian nerve to label as being a 'regime' each and every Government that it
seeks to overthrow and to call itself a
'democracy'
? The U.S. regime is itself actually allied the most closely with the world's most barbaric
rulers, the Saud family, that own Saudi Arabia. The U.S. regime is also allied with the apartheid and
internationally aggressive regime in Israel. Is such an international gang, as this is, going to get off
scot-free, as if there were no international law -- or at least none that applies to itself?
And, if the U.S. regime is so concerned
to 'protect democracy' and 'protect human rights' all over the world (as that perennially lying bunch always
claim to be the 'justification' for their invasions and coups), then why isn't it starting first by
prosecuting itself? (Or, maybe, by prosecuting Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud, for his many crimes
-- and prosecuting his predecessors for
financing the 9/11 attacks
against Americans?) Well, of course, Hitler didn't do anything of the sort.
(Nor did he prosecute his allies.) He set the standard. Maybe, ideologically, Hitler and Mussolini and
Hirohito actually won the war, though this has happened after they first physically lost what everyone had
thought
was the end of WW II. After all, nobody is prosecuting the U.S. regime today. Isn't that
somewhat like a global victory for fascism -- the Axis powers -- after the fact? Maybe "we" won the war, only
to lose it later. Doesn't that appear to be the case? Mussolini
sometimes called fascism "corporationism"
, and this is how it always functions, and functions today by
agreement amongst the controlling owners of international corporations that are headquartered in the U.S.
and in its vassal-nations abroad.
Is this to go on interminably? When will
this international reign of fascism end?
What would happen if all the rest of
the world instituted an international legal and enforcement system (under a replacement U.N.) in which all
commitments and contractual proceeds to benefit American-based international corporations and the U.S.
Government were declared to be immediately null and void -- worthless except as regards the claims
against
the U.S. entities? (The owners of those entities have been the beneficiaries of America's international
crimes.) Contracts can be unilaterally nullified. The U.S. Government does it all the time, with no
justification except lies. Here, it would be done as authentically justifiable penalties, against actually
massive global crimes.
The U.S. militarily occupies the world;
this is a global empire; it has over a thousand military bases worldwide. Why aren't the people in all of
those occupied countries demanding their own governments simply to throw them out -- to end the military
occupation of their land?
You can't have a world at peace, and
anything like international justice, without enforcing international law. This is what doing that would look
like.
What we know right now is actually a
lawless world. That's what every international gangster wants.
America is a Corporate Fascist Military Industrial-Intelligence Police State. The Intelligence Agencies are
inseparable from the Corporations, The Bankers, and The Billionaires they work for. Most of the
economic-social-media pathways are controlled by the Magic Jews. Elections are a fraud. You have seen what
happened when the person they picked, Hillary didn't win. Trump may be an idiot but he won fair and square.
The entire Mueller Fiasco is a demonstration of the Intelligence State and a warning for anyone who doesn't
play their game. The Super Jew Zionist Senator Shumer warned Trump in a Freudian Slip about upsetting the
Intelligence agencies which the Jewish Media quickly tried to hide.
This is the county where dimwits like
Cortez complain about Mexican kids on the border while Obama and his associates bombed 7 Muslim countries,
murdered and starved hundreds of thousands of children including those in Yemen and not a fucking thing was
said by anyone on the left.
America and the world are headed for the dark ages. I doubt if anyone will really survive. Think Tanks
for the super rich run by Intel know this and are preparing for the worse case scenario are you!
"Total lockdown against truth and for internatio al conquest . . .mass murder and destruction on the basis
of sheer lies. That's today's U. S. Government, that's it's reality."
It worked so well in WWI and WWII,
why mess with a sure thing?
To behave otherwise, that is, honestly and decently would return a heap of millionaires to their
rag-picker tin-peddlar origins.
Ever since 1986, the U.S. Government has been a rogue regime
Why the leniency for a regime that has been led by gangsters of varying shades for the best part of the
post-WWII era, hands down? Unless the Vietnam war and the companion Gulf of Tomkin lie, the mass murder in
Laos and Cambodia and the Korean war are brushed aside. As was the kidnapping of Aristide of Haiti and
Panama's Noriega are trivial mobster rule blips and the sodomising of Ghadhafi's cadaver by "rebels" after
relentless bombing that left a once prosperous nation in utter ruin regarded as an unfortunate "aberration".
The tainting of American hands with the blood of millions of innocents extends well beyond the leaders who
presided over arguably the worst atrocities and crimes of the post-WWII era. For a nation that takes pride
in its slogan of a government of, for and by the people, the people cannot escape responsibility for the
horrendous crimes committed in their name.
Reasonable article but US a fascist country? And I was reading elsewhere that this same US is now a
communist country, with those billionaires apparently secret communists. Really!?! How can we have a
meaningful debate if we can't agree even on basic definitions of what we're arguing about?
I think some of this is over the top. However, I am not sure that one can excuse challenging the case based
on news reports. The case on its face had little of any supporting material. But there were news agencies
that provided a counter narrative, they just weren't the mainstream sources. Which is why I think your
giving an out where none exists.
Instead, a better case could be made as to how those that questioned the case got the boot and in some
cases got it good. Those voices were not only muted out by the media, the advocates, but the public as well.
One cannot ignore the palpable anger after 9/11. The country wanted revenge. And they would have it. Unlike
Mr. Neeson, we did not restrain ourselves from acting out, against anyone of we held suspect as similar in
nature -- we lashed out with few reservations.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Now I have to admit that the questions of international order are tricky. Who wants to take on enforcing
the rule of law against the US when she violates the very rules she helped create and espouses. When the
leadership bends, breaks or ignores the rules in the name of country. It's hard to make a case that everyone
else abide by the rules if you yourself breaks them. Maybe people pf conscience will hire people who
actually abide by what they say they will do when applying for the job of leadership.
But I have to be honest, I am cautious when it comes bodies of international order: UN, IMF, World Bank,
WTO, NAFTA, and others. I appreciate the value of NATO, but I am a bit dubious about the agitation that the
US take the lead in addressing Europe's security, at our expense. And while I would like to avoid what
about, most nations treat the international bodies of justice with no small amount of reticence on their own
account. I am unclear of China has backed away from provoking the Phillipines after the UNCLOS ruling
regarding commercial development zones. They have made a point to say they will abide by UNCLOS except where
they disagree. The short answer is that ultimately the developed world has to operate with some integrity.
There's a lot of complaining about the Saudis and Israel. But those states can simply point to the US or the
Europeans states and make a constituent claim,
"What's good for the gander . . ."
There is a manner of discipline and that is to our failures and the cost. We are at the moment large
enough to absorb them (not sure that is not more face saving facade than truth). Iraq is a failure. Libya is
a failure. Afganistahn most likely a failure, even we end up with some manner of negotiated settlement, it
will still be far short of our objective(s). The Ukraine still threatens to fall into a full blown civil
war. After five years plus of bombing Yemen, the end is nowhere in sight. If the Saudis think the Yemenis a
threat, then they should deal with it. The Syria gambit was never a smart move and it has cost us. I am a
firm believer that part of these issues results in not having a national draft system where our entire
population is bought in on the US project and in so doing have an incentive to hold its government
accountable. Because there is no body count to shock the public into reality as in previous military
engagements.
We simply are not electing enough men such as representative Walter Jones into office, who upon
recognizing an error will seek to change course. And I like him, I suspect, get increasingly restless about
how our unrequited hypocrisy (if continued) will play out for us in the end. I think there are signs of
trouble, just hints, that we need to get our ducks in order.
We honor and protect our sovereignty by respecting that of others (minus some outstanding extreme
circumstance).
Note: not all of the US military programs are about the use of force. The US does huge amounts of
humanitarian aide, independently and in conjunction with with are numerous aid depts. And as a nation we
remain the most effectively generous (giving nations) on the planet to others in need, including private
charitable organizations, no small number of them faith and practice based.
How many multitudes of sins that will cover is unknown to me.
A typical piece of American racism. Naturally, the peoples of all these countries are far too primitive and
far too stupid to see that they are being manipulated!
To quote your first para: 'In 2003, America (and its lap-dog UK) invaded and destroyed Iraq on
the basis of lies to the effect that the U.S. (and UK) regime were certain that Saddam Hussein had and was
developing weapons of mass destruction.'
It should read: 'In 2003, the UK (and its lap dog USA) invaded and destroyed Iraq. I know you Americans like to think that the USA is sovereign in its bullying of the world, but many
people apart from myself, see it differently.
Rothschild runs the 'free west' and he is based in The City of London where he operates the world's drug
money laundering operation. Yes, even all the drugs moved out of Afghanistan by his private drug army you
call the CIA, those profits are laundered in London.
It is Rothschild in London that decides who to invade and why. The USA is Rothschild's private supply of
canon fodder, weaponry and congenital idiots who think Jesus of Nazareth, that you erroneously call Jesus
Christ, condones the violence, the blood baths and the pure evil that is the USA.
Your nation and its corrupt state is the puppet of Rothschild. I can understand it is especially hard for
you to finger one of your own, especially as you consider yourself to be the goyim's friend, but that is not
actually true is it?
What sort of idiot would want to get involved in a three year old war in 1917? What sort of buffoon would
want to get involved in a Europe in the 1940s and in the Orient at the same time, if there were not vast
profits to be made?
Everything that has happened since 1914 when the Fed came in to existence right up to the attacks on
Venezula today, only make sense if you are Rothschild.
I'm not into America-bashing. Life's too short, and, besides, I did half-seriously think of
emigrating from the States, and didn't do it.
But–but–I think there's enough evidence to support the writing of a "black book" of American democracy
since 1945, a hit piece modeled on a similarly titled book about Communism's depredations that, I think, was
first published in France maybe thirty years ago.
Better observers than I can probably offer a laundry list of American cruelties worth including, and some
of those better observers comment here on
Unz Review
.
American military interventions, a Constitution drained of effectiveness and meaning, the "ethnic
cleansing" of American cities, the gratuitous cruelties of American health care,
etc
.
Keep the book short, about 250-350 pp., and include good front and back matter to focus the reader's
attention.
@niteranger
If the author of this piece a child who believes in fairy stories about American exceptionalism . America is
more powerful than other countries and if it is "The International Rogue Nation" then it is solely as a
result of being more powerful that other countries, for were they as strong as America they all would do the
same as America.
This is the county where dimwits like Cortez complain about Mexican kids on the border while Obama
and his associates bombed 7 Muslim countries, murdered and starved hundreds of thousands of children
including those in Yemen and not a fucking thing was said by anyone on the left.
The Democrats want future voters to swamp the votes of native-born Americans. The kids in Yemen are
irrelevant. So are the innocent kids in countries like Syria.
America is a Corporate Fascist Military Industrial-Intelligence Police State
That is just a long winded way of saying it is a state. Like any other state America can't call 911 if it
gets into trouble so it has to do its own dirty work. Or, of course. America could just surrender to moral
imperatives and live as tree huggers in perpetual peace. Except it would come to an end, just as it did for
the Tibetans (and their trees).
These U.S. allegations were based on provable falsehoods when they were stated and published, but the
regime's 'news'-media refused to publish and demonstrate (or "expose") any of these lies.
Back in the late summer of 2003, when Washington finally admitted there were no WMD in Iraq, the Danish
Public Broadcaster had invited four of the heaviest hitters in Danish MSM, four foreign policy editors of
the largest news outlets in Denmark.
The conversation was supposed to be about something else, but the WMD-news had dropped that same morning,
and at one point they discuss the missing WMD. One guy spontaneously says: "I never believed in the
WMD-story anyway." The three others quickly agree, because they don't want to be seen as the slow, gullible
kid in the class.
So they'd been peddling this WMD-nonsense aggressively since the invasion, but they didn't actually
believe that story themselves? The broadcast was taken off the internet 24 hours later, but I have their
names in my little book.
What we know right now is actually a lawless world. That's what every international gangster wants.
Well yes, but they also want not only a monopoly on violence and compliant tax, debt, wage and dollar
slaves, but also "legal" support for it all, hence "gubbermint." Keep payin' dem taxes and hoping for da Messiah in the forms of the likes of the Cacklin' Hyena, The
Trumpster, and "Bibi."
And another thing: back in the day, the PM, Anders "Fogh of War" Rasmussen spoke frequently about Saddam in
the Danish parliament. But he never said "weapons of mass destruction", he said "dangerous weapons" – didn't
want to be caught lying to the legislature, would you? Nobody ever called him out on it; you'd think
journalists were familiar with sleazy rhetoric, but not on this occasion. He went on to become secretary
general of NATO.
Rather than presenting a balanced viewpoint where we hear both sides of the story regarding nuclear
treaty violations by both sides, we are subjected to what can best be termed "fake news".
"Is this to go on interminably? When will this international reign of fascism end?"
The plutocrat criminal elite are working fast and furiously to import a new electorate and slave labour
force: At some point they will no longer be able to finance the machine, because you get what you pay for,
and bread and circuses aren't cheap, and at that point the machine will pull back from the world, if not
outright devolve into mayhem in its streets.
Just came across these powerful words from Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman's brother.
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the
world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade
uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to
establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil
war even though it is. Something like that.
Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons
around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them
with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few "bad
apples" in the military.
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a
picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra
pad in a helmet. It's interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing
from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a
helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes
apart and his skin melts to the seat.
Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an
illegal invasion they started. Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and
illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the
ground.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.
Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.
Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that
it is.
Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most
irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.
Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active
ignorance.
Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge
of this country.
Somehow this is tolerated.
Somehow nobody is accountable for this.
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don't be shocked when our
grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely,
they will come to know that "somehow" was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country
vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It
can start after Pat's birthday.
Global empires rise because of the desire for power, which is also their Nemesis. Power gives prestige,
status, wealth, security and a sense of invincibility: the opposite of what is feared most. But they cannot
hold that power forever, though they try, and eventually they end up getting the war they have always
dreaded: utter defeat. But their leaders are deluded, blindly leading their people to annihilation – even
nuclear – because power is the one thing they will destroy themselves and everyone else over. The pattern of
history is clear.
Feb 11, 2019 Venezuelans' message to the US: Hands off our country
The Grayzone reports from inside
Venezuela, where millions of people waited in long lines to sign an open letter to the US public, strongly
rejecting foreign intervention in their country.
15.04.2017 Americans Are No Different Than Germans Were (and Are)
Daniel Goldhagen blamed the Holocaust on "the Germans" (by which he meant the German people), and said
that they perpetrated the Holocaust because they positively enjoyed murdering "the Jews".
Feb 18, 2013 Corporatocracy, Globalization, An Empire Expands
A short video clip from the Documentary
Zeitgeist: Addendum, in it a Corporatocracy is explained. "A Incredible cozy relationship between Government
and Corporations"
@niteranger
I think this sums up things pretty well:
"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering
into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has
never yet melted." D. H. Lawrence.
Reasonable article but US a fascist country? And I was reading elsewhere that this same US is now a
communist country, with those billionaires apparently secret communists. Really!?! How can we have a
meaningful debate if we can't agree even on basic definitions of what we're arguing about?
Fascist country, Communist country – a more understandable definition would be a Mafia run state.
The US regime uses violence and threats (local and international) to get its way. It corrupts and
terrorizes politicians and forces through its projects. It's all about money and power and it rubs
traditional Anglo society's face in the mud while its getting looted.
@Justsaying
You have a pointy head, but rubbish conclusions I am also tired of hearing 'sodomy' or 'sodomized' re.
Ghaddafi, assaulting the anus and rectum with bayonets is not 'sodomy'.
Hillary Clinton enjoyed it, I world prefer not to repeat her moronic statement, but will because of the
many morons are on this site now, 'we came, we saw, he died, (cackle, cackle, cackle'). She liked to pretend that this is her classical education. She clearly has none.
But she sure has an ugly pair of cankles.
Fifth Column:
Is any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in
favour of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces
gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack. This term is also extended to
organised actions by military personnel. Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of
sabotage, disinformation, or espionage executed within defense lines by secret sympathizers with an
external force.
He's a
lying
New York idiot Israel firster who demonstrates a new meaning to the concept of
winning fair and square and "won" the position as Cuck-in-Chief of the Corporate Fascio-Commie Military
Industrial-Intelligence Police State, that's all. He should have saved us all a lot of trouble and just eloped with the Cackling Hyena instead.
Mrs Ilhan Omar Is the voice from the graves of Millions of Muslims murdered by US Military under leadership
of US politicians (purchased for pennies), and ordered by Israel.
@exiled off mainstreet
Interesting for me it's all known for several years, so I was about to say myself "same old, same old".
Then I read your comment and think to myself "well, contrary to my belief, obviously publishing this article
does make sense"
@Asagirian
Most of the european business and population do NOT agree with the yankee sanctions to Russia ( or to
Venezuela , or to Iran , Cuba .. ) . Nothing ideological , it is just that the EU has no oil , the EU needs
russian , iranian , venezuelan oil and gas , and the EU countries NEED to sell products to any country
willing to buy them . The abusive yankee pressure on the EU to santion any country that the US wants will
backfire .
"This rogue regime has no real legitimacy even as a representative of the American people. It doesn't
really represent the American public at all. It is destroying the world and lying through its teeth all
the while."
Words seem insufficient to describe the situation, don't they? What we're witnessing, apparently, is the
fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. The Satanic cult known from the Book of Revelation as the "beast from the
sea" is attempting to rise to the top of the world by "giving worth to evil" (i.e. worshiping Satan). To put
it another way, the beast rises to the top by bringing everyone and everything else down.
Being relatively small in number, the Satanic cult operates primarily by deception, corruption and
manipulation. If the beast cannot get the people to destroy themselves, it resorts to mass murder, but the
end result is always destruction.
"Its puppet-rulers on behalf of America's currently 585 billionaires are not in prison from
convictions by the International Court of Justice in the Hague."
Money has nothing to do with it (other than being another tool in the Satanists' tool box). They do what
they do because they're evil. Evil is both the means and the end. To put it in Biblical terms, the Satanists
seek to do to the whole world what Satan did to Eve. Only when whole world is brought down can evil claim
victory over good (as per the Satanic agenda set forth in Isaiah 14:13,14).
How can we have a meaningful debate if we can't agree even on basic definitions of what we're arguing
about?
Excellent question, but the two, fascism and the various forms of big "C" Communism, are not necessarily
mutually exclusive even though fascism as often used today was intended as a catch-all smear word by the
Marxist cornballs a century ago.
In fact, Marxism, Bolshevism and Stalinism are can all be or become forms of fascism. Likewise, as Orwell
saw, there is no essential difference between various iterations of capitalism and the various forms of
communism that they oftentimes supported and promoted and still do.
Also, I highly doubt whether a meaningful debate regarding politics is possible whether or not
definitions are agreed upon.
[During the war]words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.
Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious
cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question,
inaptness to act on any.
– Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, Chap X, ~400 BC
"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and
division of society."
– John Adams, letter to J. H. Tiffany, Mar. 31, 1819.
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to
Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of
solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
IOW, it's pretty much all bullsh!t. Reader and listener beware.
The gangster laughs in your face: "Whadda going to do about it, kid?". Answer is nothing can be done.
At
this point the US government barely even bothers to cover itself with plausible stories but just goes ahead
with it's open violence. Who is there to stop it?
The pattern actually goes back 121 years to the
Spanish-American war when the US smelled weakness and pounced. It's been on a roll ever since, sometimes
slowly, sometimes quickly. The barriers to the US having a completely free hand are Russia, China, Iran,
countries about which there's much heavy propaganda being thrown about. Their areas are limited though and
they can't help the Venezuelans or most of the others. The US has a huge budget for internal spying and
security to ensure that the people in charge stay that way so don't get optimistic. This supposed democracy
is rigged from start to finish. The US has been very efficient in brainwashing it's residents into thinking
it is all legit.
What sort of idiot would want to get involved in a three year old war in 1917? What sort of buffoon
would want to get involved in a Europe in the 1940s and in the Orient at the same time, if there were not
vast profits to be made?
Talk about sweet summaries; yours is masterful!
Anyone who doubts it would do well to read Fish's,
Tragic Deception,
FDR and America's involvement in World War II
@Stephen Paul Foster
This thread is uncommonly full of great comments and yours is another. Excellent.
This question [about the UN] is proof that the author needs psychiatric assistance.
And more than a brief stay in a reprogramming (anti-brainwashing) camp.
The UN was formed by the usual One World (globalist) crowd to serve their ends and theirs only. Anyone
who fails to see that needs to be questioned deeply, no matter how correct he or she is about other matters.
Like any other state America can't call 911 if it gets into trouble so it has to do its own dirty
work. Or, of course. America could just surrender to moral imperatives
This is exactly right. The UN member nations are ready to replace the UN with an organization that can curb
criminal regimes like the US. This has been the case since the 80s.
Considering the terminal degeneracy of the criminal enterprise that runs the US, it's going to take a
war. Classified US policy is to use urban populations as human shields for the CIA COG autocracy. COIN
drills like Watertown are dry runs for CIA martial law during war with Russia.
The one hopeful sign is superior SCO missile technology, which allows kinetic warheads to be substituted
for nuclear ones. This permits regime decapitation by somewhat less destructive means. Most of you are still
going to die, of course. But Russia and China will leave some habitable zones for people they can trust.
Make sure you know human rights and humanitarian law,
and you can demonstrate a record of sticking up for them, and the postwar criminal tribunals will let you
reconstruct a peaceful and lawful American state.
It's a shame it's going to take a couple hundred million dead, mostly American, to stop the CIA regime,
but the world knows it's got to be done. If we're too chicken to storm Langley and hang those criminal
scumbags, we're going to have to pay.
This continuous harping on international law should be wearing thin even with you, Mr. Zuesse. The US
outspends the next 24 nations combined on arms, I understand. For the US might is right. Until you and those
who oppose US policy have an army that can break the US military might you have no hope.
You really need
to think this through and stop the empty posturing. The bird flipped to the International Court of Justice
by John Bolton for the third time apparently should teach you a lesson. Three strikes and you're out. Go
home.
"Elections are a fraud. You have seen what happened when the person they picked, Hillary didn't win.
Trump may be an idiot but he won fair and square."
If elections are a fraud (which they obviously are) how can orange clown be said to have won "fair and
square"? It's a contradiction. The evil orange clown had to lie to win the election; he had to completely
misrepresent himself. What orange clown did was tantamount to stealing ballots/rigging voting machines.
Orange clown is nothing but Satanic low-life scum.
Also, how do you know Clinton was "the person they picked [to win]"? That's very speculative, IMO. A
solid argument can be made that orange clown was actually the chosen one.
"What sort of idiot would want to get involved in a three year old war in 1917?"
An evil idiot.
"What sort of buffoon would want to get involved in a Europe in the 1940s and in the Orient at the
same time, if there were not vast profits to be made?"
An evil buffoon.
"Everything that has happened since 1914 when the Fed came in to existence right up to the attacks on
Venezula (sic) today, only make sense if you are Rothschild."
@Commentator Mike
Fascists, communist, liberal and conservative. Those terms don't have as much meaning as you might think. In
fact they are used as tools.
@Harold Smith
The Rothschild's are the Kings of the Jews. They have conquered the Bourbon, Habsburgs, the Hohenzollern,
the Romanovs. They have merged with the house of Windsor. They have been mercilessly harvesting the entire
planet for 200 years. They send Moslems against Christians, Christians agains Moslems, Moslems against
Hindu's, Chirstians against Christians, Christians against Chinese, Christians against Hindus, Japanese
against Chinese, US Christians against Japanese, Zulu against white, and on and on. Wars are the jews
harvest.
They also sent all of these groups to get slaves from each other in raids and wars to provide
human material from all the other races, except jewish, to sell on these jewish run slave markets. For
centuries.
They extracted blood and organs from the children of the victims for use in the kabalistic rituals.
America's lying to get us into wars goes farther back than the 1950's to 2000's. The reasons for WW2 against
Germany was based on devilish lies. So we claimed Hitler had to be stopped because he planned on taking over
the whole world and that he had killed millions of innocent people(which he hadn't) but then turned around
and helped the real murderers of millions of people which was the Soviet Union. And it goes on and on and
there will be more lies and more wars to follow.
@DESERT FOX
You can almost tell just how important the issue of private central banking is by the fact that you can't
get anyone to really explain it, or even talk about it. Right now I would settle for just knowing exactly
who owns it.
America's lying to get us into wars goes farther back than the 1950's to 2000's. The reasons for WW2
against Germany was based on devilish lies
All true.
So we claimed Hitler had to be stopped because he planned on taking over the whole world
When in fact it was a handful of mafiosi financial oligarchs, many based in New Yoik, who desired to
control the whole world via co-opted Marxist principles. One of their tools was the "holy" UN which the
author seems to think is some sort of Messiah. A Rockefeller "donated" the land for the UN Headquarters
building, and the UN was formed under the direction of Commies and their sympathizers associated with FDR.
I'm convinced that WW2 was instigated partly to begin imposing globalism on the rest of us, just as the
constitution of Uncle Shylock was rammed down our throats. All for the benefit of us lowly proles, peasants
and peons, of course.
I'm giving about 1.8 cheers for this piece. I agree with much of it, but I surely don't share the author's
enthusiasm for this International Court of Justice, not for the workings of the United Nations in general.
Give one of these international legal outfits any actual power in America, and "hate crime" laws? You
ain't seen nothin' yet. In much of the world, "anti-Semitism" (whatever that's construed to mean) is already
a criminal offense. Hell, leave it up to these international bodies, and the Unz Review goes dark -- and
quickly, too. No, thanks.
@Hank
The owners are the Rothschilds, the Rockerfellers. the Warburgs , the Schiffs, etc., all satanic zionists
and they control every central bank in the world including the FED and the Bank of England.
"They send Moslems against Christians, Christians agains Moslems, Moslems against Hindu's, Chirstians
against Christians, Christians against Chinese, Christians against Hindus, Japanese against Chinese, US
Christians against Japanese, Zulu against white, and on and on. Wars are the jews harvest."
The Satanists are small in number and generally cowardly so their general modus operandi is to get their
victims to destroy themselves. To put it in Biblical terms, their goal is to do to the whole world what
Satan did to Eve; they deceive, corrupt, manipulate and ultimately stand tall over the destruction they've
brought about. They're destroyers.
Speaking of the UN and war, Douglas Reed provides a lot of great info about the two; too much to summarize
here, but I offer a sample for the curious.
The Second War produced a third result, additional to the advance of the [Marxist permanent]
revolution into Europe and the establishment by force of the Zionist state: namely,
the second attempt
to set up the structure of a "world government", on the altar of which Western nationhood was to be
sacrificed.
This is the final consummation to which the parallel processes of Communism and Zionism
are evidently intended to lead; the idea first emerged in the Weishaupt papers, began to take vigorous
shape in the 19th Century, and was expounded in full detail in the Protocols of 1905. In the First War it
was the master-idea of all the ideas which Mr. House and his associates "oozed into the mind" of
President Wilson, and sought to make the president think were "his own". It then took shape, first as
"The League to Enforce Peace" and at the war's end as "The League of Nations".
Well yeah. The Anglo/Zionist Empire is an evil empire indeed. I've known that since serving under President
Johnson in the mid sixties.
The geniuses over at ZeroHedge will be surprised to learn about imperial aggression against Venezuela.
They believe the explanation for Venexuela's troubles is "Socialism doesn't work".
I'm a Nationalist. So I say screw your International Court of Justice. What the U.S. needs is a New
Republic complete with a new constitution. Failing that, secession will be the way forward.
"... Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations. ..."
"... The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to slaughter people who do not obey. ..."
Venezuela invasion thing is double-faceted: a trap for Trump & a bluff. if the
invasion is, then bye-bye 2020 election, mission accomplished. if no invasion on sight then
the bluff of Pompeo-Bolton-Abrams is called & the 2020 reelection assured. Venezuela in
the role of bait.
The real issue lies in the voting class which cowers in fear all day long and
seeks saviors every four years via rigged circus. Trump = Obama = CIA meddling in every
country. Presidents never change, only the perception of the morons changes.
Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every
country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka
morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations.
The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to
slaughter people who do not obey. Freedom at the point of a gun. Nothing quite says
democracy like having the US president tell the Venezuelans how to run their country.
US Representative Ilhan Omar's (D-Minnesota) tweet is a critique of US-Israel collusion in
the Middle East, Institute for Public Accuracy's Sam Husseini tells RT America's Manila Chan.
#RTAmerica#InQuestionRT#QuestionMore
Democratic Congressmember Ilhan Omar of Minnesota is facing
criticism today after commenting on a tweet by Glenn Greenwald. On Sunday, Greenwald tweeted,
"GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their
criticisms of Israel.
It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it
means attacking free speech rights of Americans." Rep. Omar retweeted his post and added the
line: "It's all about the Benjamins baby."
She later named AIPAC as the organization paying American politicians to be pro-Israel.
BRAVO OMAR ..2 nd time in my life I have seen balls in congress.
Venezuela Envoy Elliott Abrams Lose His Cool During Tense Exchange With Rep. Ilhan
Omar
Watch the video at link
"Mr. Abrams, in 1991 you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from
Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, for which you were later
pardoned by president George H.W. Bush," began Omar. "I fail to understand why members of
this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be
truthful."
"If I could respond to that " interjected Abrams.
"It was not a question," shot back Omar.
After a brief exchange in which Abrams protested "It was not right!" Omar cut Abrams off,
saying "Thank you for your participation."
"... So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live under. ..."
"... Notwithstanding what the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous, self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was supposed to mean, exactly). ..."
"... Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever. What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces, media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in Venezuela. ..."
"... And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. ..."
Maybe Donald Trump isn't as stupid as I thought. I'd hate to have to admit that publicly,
but it does kind of seem like he has put one over on the liberal corporate media this time.
Scanning the recent Trump-related news, I couldn't help but notice a significant decline in the
number of references to Weimar, Germany, Adolf Hitler, and "
the brink of fascism " that America has supposedly been teetering on since Hillary Clinton
lost the election.
I googled around pretty well, I think, but I couldn't find a single
editorial warning that Trump is about to summarily cancel the U.S. Constitution, dissolve
Congress, and
proclaim himself Führer . Nor did I see any mention of Auschwitz , or any other Nazi
stuff which is weird, considering that the Hitler hysteria
has been a standard feature of the official narrative we've been subjected to for the last two
years.
So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He
did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the
bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist
empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live
under.
I'm referring, of course, to Venezuela, which is one of a handful of uncooperative countries
that are not playing ball with global capitalism and which haven't been "regime changed" yet.
Trump green-lit the attempted coup purportedly being staged by the Venezuelan "opposition," but
which is obviously a U.S. operation, or, rather, a global capitalist operation. As soon as he
did, the corporate media immediately suspended calling him a fascist, and comparing him to
Adolf Hitler, and so on, and started spewing out blatant propaganda supporting his effort to
overthrow the elected government of a sovereign country.
Overthrowing the governments of sovereign countries, destroying their economies, stealing
their gold, and otherwise bringing them into the fold of the global capitalist "international
community" is not exactly what most folks thought Trump meant by "Make America Great Again."
Many Americans have never been to Venezuela, or Syria, or anywhere else the global capitalist
empire has been ruthlessly restructuring since shortly after the end of the Cold War. They have
not been lying awake at night worrying about Venezuelan democracy, or Syrian democracy, or
Ukrainian democracy.
This is not because Americans are a heartless people, or an ignorant or a selfish people. It
is because, well, it is because they are Americans (or, rather, because they believe they are
Americans), and thus are more interested in the problems of Americans than in the problems of
people in faraway lands that have nothing whatsoever to do with America. Notwithstanding what
the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous,
self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were
brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he
sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was
supposed to mean, exactly).
Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a
fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less
buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever.
What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a
decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national
governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces,
media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in
Venezuela.
The entire global capitalist empire is working in concert to force the elected president of
the country out of office. The US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Denmark,
Poland, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Argentina have officially recognized
Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela, in spite of the fact that no one elected
him. Only the empire's official evil enemies (i.e., Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and other
uncooperative countries) are objecting to this "democratic" coup. The global financial system
(i.e., banks) has frozen (i.e., stolen) Venezuela's assets, and is attempting to transfer them
to Guaido so he can buy the Venezuelan military. The corporate media are hammering out the
official narrative like a Goebbelsian piano in an effort to convince the general public that
all this has something to do with democracy. You would have to be a total moron or hopelessly
brainwashed not to recognize what is happening.
What is happening has nothing to do with America the "America" that Americans believe they
live in and that many of them want to "make great again." What is happening is exactly what has
been happening around the world since the end of the Cold War, albeit most dramatically in the
Middle East. The de facto global capitalist empire is restructuring the planet with virtual
impunity. It is methodically eliminating any and all impediments to the hegemony of global
capitalism, and the privatization and commodification of everything.
Venezuela is one of these impediments. Overthrowing its government has nothing to do with
America, or the lives of actual Americans. "America" is not to going conquer Venezuela and
plant an American flag on its soil. "America" is not going to steal its oil, ship it "home,"
and parcel it out to "Americans" in their pickups in the parking lot of Walmart.
What what about those American oil corporations? They want that Venezuelan oil, don't they?
Well, sure they do, but here's the thing there are no "American" oil corporations.
Corporations, especially multi-billion dollar transnational corporations (e.g., Chevron,
ExxonMobil, et al.) have no nationalities, nor any real allegiances, other than to their major
shareholders. Chevron, for example, whose major shareholders are asset management and mutual
fund companies like Black Rock, The Vanguard Group, SSgA Funds Management, Geode Capital
Management, Wellington Management, and other transnational, multi-trillion dollar outfits. Do
you really believe that being nominally headquartered in Boston or New York makes these
companies "American," or that Deutsche Bank is a "German" bank, or that BP is a "British"
company?
And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. Ask yourself,
honestly, what have the "American" regime change ops throughout the Greater Middle East done
for any actual Americans, other than get a lot of them killed? Oh, and how about those bailouts
for all those transnational "American" investment banks? Or the billions "America" provides to
Israel? Someone please explain how enriching the shareholders of transnational corporations
like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin by selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabian
Islamists is benefiting "the American people." How much of that Saudi money are you seeing?
And, wait, I've got another one for you. Call up your friendly 401K manager, ask how your
Pfizer shares are doing, then compare that to what you're paying some "American" insurance
corporation to not really cover you.
For the last two-hundred years or so, we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as the
citizens of a collection of sovereign nation states, as "Americans," "Germans," "Greeks," and
so on. There are no more sovereign nation states. Global capitalism has done away with them.
Which is why we are experiencing a "neo-nationalist" backlash. Trump, Brexit, the so-called
"new populism" these are the death throes of national sovereignty, like the thrashing of a
suffocating fish before you whack it and drop it in the cooler. The battle is over, but the
fish doesn't know that. It didn't even realize there was a battle until it suddenly got jerked
up out of the water.
In any event, here we are, at the advent of the global capitalist empire. We are not going
back to the 19th Century, nor even to the early 20th Century. Neither Donald Trump nor anyone
else is going to "Make America Great Again." Global capitalism will continue to remake the
world into one gigantic marketplace where we work ourselves to death at bullshit
jobs in order to buy things we don't need, accumulating debts we can never pay back, the
interest on which will further enrich the global capitalist ruling classes, who, as you may
have noticed, are preparing for the future by purchasing luxury
underground bunkers and post-apocalyptic compounds in New Zealand. That, and militarizing
the police, who they will need to maintain "public order" you know, like they are doing in
France at the moment, by
beating, blinding, and hideously maiming those Gilets Jaunes (i.e., Yellow Vest) protesters
that the corporate media are doing their best to demonize and/or render invisible.
Or, who knows, Americans (and other Western consumers) might take a page from those Yellow
Vests, set aside their political differences (or at least ignore their hatred of each other
long enough to actually try to achieve something), and focus their anger at the politicians and
corporations that actually run the empire, as opposed to, you know, illegal immigrants and
imaginary legions of Nazis and Russians. In the immortal words of General Buck Turgidson, "I'm
not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed," but, heck, it might be worth a try, especially
since, the way things are going, we are probably going end up out there anyway.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
A debate about the power in Washington of the pro-Israel lobby is underway, after Rep. Ilhan
Omar, D-Minn., responded sharply to reports that Republican leader Kevin McCarthy was targeting
both Omar and fellow Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan.
Omar quoted rap lyrics -- " It's all about the Benjamins baby
" -- to suggest McCarthy's move was driven by the lobby's prolific spending. Asked specifically
who she was referring to, Omar responded, " AIPAC !"
The debate over the influence of pro-Israel groups could be informed by an investigation by
Al Jazeera, in which an undercover reporter infiltrated the Israel Project, a Washington-based
group, and secretly recorded conversations about political strategy and influence over a
six-month period in 2016. That investigation, however, was never aired by the network --
suppressed
by pressure from the pro-Israel lobby .
In November, Electronic Intifada obtained and published the four-part
series, but it did so during the week of the midterm elections, and the documentary did not get
a lot of attention then.
In it, leaders of the pro-Israel lobby speak openly about how they use money to influence
the political process, in ways so blunt that if the comments were made by critics, they'd be
charged with anti-Semitism.
"Congressmen and senators don't do anything unless you pressure them."
David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to American Israel Public
Affairs Committee's annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors
organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money
doesn't show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. He describes one group that
organizes fundraisers in both Washington and New York. "This is the biggest ad hoc political
group, definitely the wealthiest, in D.C.," Ochs says, adding that it has no official name, but
is clearly tied to AIPAC. "It's the AIPAC group. It makes a difference; it really, really does.
It's the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal." (Ochs and AIPAC did not
immediately return The Intercept's requests for comment.)
Without spending money, Ochs argues, the pro-Israel lobby isn't able to enact its agenda.
"Congressmen and senators don't do anything unless you pressure them. They kick the can down
the road, unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money," he
explains.
He describes a fundraiser for Anthony Brown, a Democrat running for Congress in Maryland, as
typical. "So we want the Jewish community to go face to face in this small environment, 50, 30,
40 people, and say, 'This is what's important to us. We want to make sure that if we give you
money, that you're going to enforce the Iran deal.' That way, when they need something from him
or her, like the Iran deal, they can quickly mobilize and say look, we'll give you 30 grand.
They actually impact," Ochs tells the reporter.
Such a claim is not so different from what Omar was describing, and for which she was
roundly condemned. In the wake of Omar's tweets, the Washington Post,
for instance, reported , "The American Jewish Committee demanded an apology, calling her
suggestion that AIPAC is paying American politicians for their support 'demonstrably false and
stunningly anti-Semitic.'" (On Monday, Omar apologized for her tweets, but
insisted that AIPAC and other lobbyist groups are harmful to U.S. politics.)
In the censored documentary, Ochs went on to describe a fundraiser hosted by
Jeff Talpins , a hedge fund giant, as similar as well. "In New York, with Jeff Talpins, we
don't ask a goddamn thing about the fucking Palestinians. You know why? 'Cause it's a tiny
issue. It's a small, insignificant issue. The big issue is Iran. We want everything focused on
Iran," Ochs says. "What happens is Jeff meets with the congressman in the back room, tells them
exactly what his goals are -- and by the way, Jeff Talpins is worth $250 million -- basically
they hand him an envelope with 20 credit cards, and say, 'You can swipe each of these credit
cards for a thousand dollars each.'"
Ochs explains that the club in New York required a minimum pledge of $10,000 to join and
participate in such events. "It's a minimum commitment. Some people give a lot more than
that."
AIPAC, on its own
website , recruits members to join its "Congressional Club," and commit to give at least
$5,000 per election cycle.
Eric Gallagher, a top official at AIPAC from 2010 to 2015, tells the Al Jazeera reporter
that AIPAC gets results. "Getting $38 billion in security aid to Israel matters, which is what
AIPAC just did," he notes at one secretly recorded lunch. "Everything AIPAC does is focused on
influencing Congress."
The film, called "The Lobby," was produced by Al Jazeera's investigative unit, and features
hidden-camera footage obtained by the reporter, who posed as a Jewish, pro-Israel activist from
Britain who wanted to volunteer with the Israel Project. Join Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in Outfitted with a
luxury apartment in Dupont Circle, the reporter hosted multiple gatherings and otherwise
socialized broadly within the pro-Israel community, winning the confidence of senior officials,
who divulged insider details, many of which have been leaked and created international
news.
A companion version of the film, which looked at the Israel lobby's influence in the United
Kingdom, did make it to air and was the subject of intense controversy. It exposed a plot by an
Israeli embassy official in the United Kingdom to "take down" pro-Palestinian members of
Parliament, leading to his resignation.
That film, however, included a snippet of footage from the United States. Officials here
quickly realized that they, too, had been infiltrated. In the U.K., the Israel lobby lodged an
official complaint claiming the series was anti-Semitic, but the U.K.'s communications agency
rejected the claim, finding that "the allegations in the programme were not made on the grounds
that any of the particular individuals concerned were Jewish and noted that no claims were made
relating to their faith."
Pro-Israel officials in the United States, rather than file an official complaint, exerted
political pressure. A bipartisan group of 19 lawmakers
wrote to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into "the full range of
activities undertaken by Al Jazeera in the United States," and suggesting that the organization
be made to register as a foreign agent. Ultimately, Qatar bent to the pressure and killed the
documentary.
"... But if someone has joint US/Israel citizenship I guess the rules are different as Rahm Emanuel served as White House chief of staff - can't get much higher level government job.. ..."
During the VN War Canada stripped Canadians of their citizenship if they fought for the US
although they had had no problem having US citizens in their ranks in both world wars with no
penalty from the US. One of my uncles did that in WW1. I did not know I was a Canadian
citizen until after I had left active US government service and no longer had a US government
information security clearance.
It is possible to be a dual national in the US government but
this requires individual judgments to be made by heads of agencies and it would probably bar
someone from high level jobs.
It used to be against US law to hold a second citizenship but
the law changed to accommodate US/Israeli citizenship and of necessity now applies to all. If
you act to the detriment of the US for the benefit of your second country I would say that is
prima facie proof of dual loyalty.
But if someone has joint US/Israel citizenship I guess the rules are different as Rahm
Emanuel served as White House chief of staff - can't get much higher level government job..
You must be new here. We have been through the issue of US information security clearances
several times. This security clearance system foe access to classified information is
entirely an artifact of Executive Orders, not of laws. therefore the president as the
ultimate executive can give anyone he wants access at any level.
Members of congress and
federal judges do not have access under this system.
They have access by virtue of their
constitutional office outside the Executive Branch.
The USSR had elections of various types. They meant nothing because the Party owned
everybody.
We have elections that are far more like Soviet elections than the average 'conservative'
voter can allow himself to imagine. The great difference Soviet elections and ours today is
who – what entity – owns the system, meaning which cultural values rule,
dictate.
Ours is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. This is the end game of the Judaizing heresies that
destroyed Christendom. This nightmare is where WASP culture leads and always lead.
- Ilhan Omar tweeted that AIPAC plays a role in encouraging a lot of Jewish Americans to
contribute campaign funds to congressional candidates? Is that a serious question? AIPAC is not
a PAC in American law and thus cannot make political contributions, but it illegally controls a
lot of real PACs and has a lot of political influence in the Jewish community.
- Ralph Northam said on TeeVee that the very first blacks brought to Virginia were initially
considered to be "indentured servants" in English law? He is correct although within a few
decades the colonists realized that it would be more profitable to keep them permanently as
slaves. One must remember that Northam is only now learning some actual Virginia history
- Lindsey Graham is IMO correct in suggesting that Trump should "pocket" the barrier money
in the negotiated bill, keep the government fully open, and then proceed to used additional
funds available to him as CinC to continue to build the barrier system.
- The National Guard of several states is probably serving on the border with federal
funding support although still under state control. There is a law which provides for that. If
the governors order a withdrawal from the border, Trump should IMO call these National Guard
forces into federal service. The governors would then have no control over this matter at all.
pl
To me, repeat, to me, the issue is less,, much less, what AIPAC does, or Israelis, or
American Jews do, than what the pols making policy do. I fully expect the three groups above
will try their damndest to do what they believe is in Israel's interest . I get that. I might
not like it that they are so damn successful...but that's another issue. But American pols
that betray their own Nation's interest is what bugs me. They are the ones selling their
people out. The Lobbyists are just doing their job. Dirty and counter productive job as I
think it will prove to be in the long run...
With friends like Marco Rubio, the United States doesn't need enemies. I still remember very
well, when then-candidate Donald Trump ridiculed Rubio as "little Marco" during the 2016
debates. He was perfectly right. Like Phil Giraldi demonstrated Rubio's "intellectual"
capability, It seems he has a birdbrain. Joke aside, Rubio's political busyness Israel is
concerned raises the question who owns his true loyalty. Instead of working for his
constituency, he is on the road primarily for Israel. As it seems he loves Israel more than
his birthplace the United States, and he despises Cuba that political system is more
social-oriented that the American one.
The problem with the Florida senator is his absolute blind obedience towards the Zionist
state, his engagement against the BDS movement and his loyalty to Israel's stalwarts in the
US. He is not the only US politician in Congress who is in the pocket of the Zionist lobby.
At least the American Middle Eastern policy is run by the Zionist Israel Lobby in the US. But
from all walks of life, their influence is also not to be underestimated.
The so-called unbreakable bond between the US and Israel is mere rhetoric, but most
members of Congress believe in this nonsense just out of mere political survival. Israel is
not an ally but a massive liability to US national interest in the region. The Zionist
political class uses the American political system to its advantage and pays nothing in
return. The opposite is true. The State of Israel is massively spying on the US and cause the
American people a lot of damage.
There are not only the assassinations of JFK and RFK, but also the killing of JFK, Jr.
who's private plane crashed into the sea right of the coast of Martha's Vineyard. It was the
same cover-up as in the case of his father and his uncle. There are persistent rumors in the
wind that the Israeli Mossad was behind it, such as Laurent Guyénot laid out in his
two excellent articles on UNZ Review. Among large parts of the truther movement, some
segments make a strong argument that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, although with the
collaboration of sections of the Bush/Cheney administration.
To refer to Israel as a friend or ally such as Rubio does is just a joke. Israel is
nothing more than an albatross like an ally. The whole American-Israeli relationship must be
put to the test. There is no room for romance because such romanticism is for the sole
detriment of the United States and the American People.
How such a lightweight came to be a Senator of the United States of America eludes
me.
I know this question is meant to be a bit rhetorical but let me try and answer it.
This senator, and the vast majority of his ilk in the Congress, are venal lying whores in
thrall to a foreign party and to money interests. He is not unique in this regard but only
one of many lying whores in power.
And the American people–by and large–are so dumbed down by a dumbed down
culture and a dumbed down media that they cannot recognize these treacherous weasels for the
traitors that they are.
The Senator is using contentions meant to protect us citizens from unfair business
practices by state and enterprise to launch protections against free speech for a foreign
entity.
That is painfully funny. I hope it is only a feeling, a sensation, but our political
leadership seems to have abandoned their collective minds. But this is convenient for the
Sen. because nullifying the constitution is one way of nullifying borders.
Zionists control our money via the unconstitutional FED and that gives the Zionist banking
cabal total control over the U.S. government and we the goyim/proles!
Nathan Rothschild infamously said, I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of
England for the man who controls the money supply controls the British Empire and I am that
man!
It is the same here in America and every country in the world that has a Zionist central
bank and that is almost all of them!
Rubio is just another puppet of the Zionist banking kabal and is just like the rest of
congress and in fact congress would be better named as the lower house of the Knesset.
Marco Rubio Is A Complete And Total Politician Whore For Jew Billionaires Norman Braman and
Paul Singer and Shelly Adelson.
Marco Rubio does the bidding of Jew Billionaires by putting the interests of Israel ahead
of the interests of the United States.
Jew Billionaires Norman Braman and Paul Singer and Shelly Adelson all push nation-wrecking
mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.
Marco Rubio pushes nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien
invaders.
Jew Billionaires Shelly Adelson and Paul Singer and Norman Braman have bought the mass
legal immigration policies and the amnesty for illegal alien invaders immigration policy of
the Republican Party ruling class and Marco Rubio and Shyster Boy Trump.
Marco Rubio and New York City Shyster Boy Trump have been bought and paid for like common
whores by Jew Billionaires Shelly Adelson and Paul Singer and Norman Braman.
Israel is powerful only to extent its goals are well correlated with the goal of the US MIC.
So like neocons Israel serves as a collective lobbyist of MIC. If this would not be the case, all
power of AIPAC and similar organizations would disappear, and the organization itself would be
put under FARA where it belongs.
The same is true for Zionists billionaires. The minute they turn against MIC would the minute
some dirty dealing and connections with organized crime would be exposed and some pedophile
scandals put on the front pages of MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... There wouldn't be calls for BDS movement if the US wasn't providing 3.8 billion per to a country whose domestic policy is apartheid and foreign policy goal is an attack on Iran. ..."
All these anti-Semitic articles fail a basic logical test :
i) If gentiles are so smart, why are Zionists, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the
combined Western World, able to control everything? The entire premise of White Nationalism
fails.
ii) If Israel is able to manipulate the US government this totally, why can't someone like
China, with deeper pockets, do the same? Conversely, why can't Israel manipulate Russia or
the EU?
iii) Virtually everything that White Nationalists say about Zionists is what blacks say about
whites. Given the small number of Zionists and no prior history of enslavement, the WN claim
is even weaker.
There is a reason that the conspiracy theories regarding Zionists don't get any purchase
outside of a small fringe.
@Thomm i) It's not so
surprising given the wholesale lies pedaled by the predominantly Zionists media and
entertainment sectors of Western civilization, compounded by the outright censorship of
opposing views by those same groups with the assistance of the ADL, SPLC, et al. Add to that
the altruistic nature and generally independent spirit of Whites as opposed to the *dare I
say tribal* nature of Zionists.
ii) China's recent ascent to global dominance was not built on usury and manipulation of
foreign nation states through a diaspora of what has been described as "nations within
nations." I'd say Zionists in Russia (ever hear of the Holodomor?) manipulated that part of
the world for over a century quite completely, and in Eastern Europe for slightly less time,
to the tune of 100 million dead White Christians.
iii) Interesting you bring up Blacks but leave out the part about Zionists manipulating
Whites with "Birth of a Nation" being the first movie many arriving White immigrants viewed.
Shock status: imagined. Clearly, that's but one of a laundry list of things any reasonably
educated White person could hold up as an example of manipulation of public opinion.
Calling truisms tropes doesn't absolve ... crimes committed against humanity.
Every single day Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Han Chinese, are criticized and critiqued for
all sorts of reasons and all manner of circumstances. Only one category of people is immune
from criticism: Zionists. It's a double standard, and it must end.
> If gentiles are so smart, why are Zionists, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the
combined Western World, able to control everything? The entire premise of White Nationalism
fails.
WN's largely agree that Zionists are more intelligent, so they are not surprised that
Zionists have been able to achieve outsized influence (to "control everything," in the
language of this lame troll).
ii) If Israel is able to manipulate the US government this totally, why can't someone
like China, with deeper pockets, do the same? Conversely, why can't Israel manipulate
Russia or the EU?
If the Chinese attempted the same thing, Americans would be permitted to notice .
Noticing Zionists political activity is "anti-semitic", so many Americans don't notice it (or
pretend not to).
There are far fewer Zionists in the EU and Russia, but they enjoy outsized influence in
those lands too – just not to the same extent as in the U.S.
iii) Virtually everything that White Nationalists say about Zionists is what blacks say
about whites. Given the small number of Zionists and no prior history of enslavement, the
WN claim is even weaker.
Incorrect. WN's admit that Zionists are more intelligent than white gentiles; blacks who
accuse whites of racism seldom admit that whites are more intelligent than blacks.
Ultimately, WN's want separation from Zionists. Blacks who accuse whites of racism virtually
never desire separation from whites. I'm not even a WN, but it really shouldn't be
controversial to admit these obvious facts.
Why does Phil have such a hard time banning moronic trolls like this clown? (Who everybody
suspects is just a sad little hindoo, but it's possible is a deranged little zionut.)
There wouldn't be calls for BDS movement if the US wasn't providing 3.8 billion per to a
country whose domestic policy is apartheid and foreign policy goal is an attack on Iran.
I was disappointed to see that one of my two senators voted for the bill. And I would have
to say the biggest surprise was Sen. Gillibrand who probably wanted to say 'aye' but
didn't.
The next step is likely to be that any public disagreement with the state of Israel is
akin to antisemitism. Which I'm certain that the Republicans will be happy to throw at the
Dem. congress.
"... However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute. ..."
Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. died at the age of 76 on Sunday after an extended illness for which was a granted a leave of absence from
Congress last year.
The Republican representative for North Carolina's 3rd congressional district since 1995 had initially been a strong supporter
of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and even became well-known for getting french fries renamed as "freedom fries" in the House cafeteria
as a protest against French condemnation of the US invasion.
... ... ...
However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret
over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism
abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute.
Remembering Jones as a tireless advocate of peace, Ron Paul
notes that he " turned
from pro-war to an antiwar firebrand after he discovered how Administrations lie us into war . His passing yesterday is deeply mourned
by all who value peace and honesty over war and deception." The Ron Paul Institute has also called him "a Hero of Peace" for both
his voting record and efforts at shutting down the "endless wars".
And Antiwar.com also describes Jones as having been among the "most consistently antiwar members of Congress" and
a huge supporter
of their work:
By 2005, Jones had reversed his position on the Iraq War. Jones called on President George W. Bush to apologize for misinforming
Congress to win authorization for the war. Jones said, "If I had known then what I know today, I wouldn't have voted for
that resolution."
Jones went on to become one of the most antiwar members of Congress, fighting for ending US involvement in Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, and Yemen.
Also the BBC describes Rep. Jones' "dramatic change of heart" concerning the Iraq war starting in 2005, after which he began reaching
out to thousands of people who had lost loves ones in combat.
Rep. Walter Jones led an effort in the House to call French Fries "Freedom Fries" instead, but came to profoundly regret his role
in supporting Bush's war.
Noting that "no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq" and that the war was justified by the Bush administration based
entirely on lies and false intelligence, the BBC describes:
At the same time, Mr Jones met grieving families whose loved ones were killed in the war. This caused him to have a dramatic
change of heart, and in 2005 he called for the troops to be brought home.
He spoke candidly on several occasions about how deeply he regretted supporting the war, which led to the deaths of more than
140,000 Iraqi and American people.
"I have signed over 12,000 letters to families and extended families who've lost loved ones in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,"
he told NPR in 2017. "That was, for me, asking God to forgive me for my mistake."
In total he represented his district for 34 years, first in the North Carolina state legislature, then in Congress. He took a
leave of absence last year after a number of missed House votes due to declining health.
"... The "New World Order" is responsible for what is happening. In this new religion, you have the grand priests (the elite to be found in Davos) and the common. They don't want to see that the diversity of the common is the main source of the creativity of the human species. Furthermore, the previous religious systems, even if they were packed with big lies, never cut the link between people and the sky. Today, in cutting this link, they have reduced people to a level even below the animal state since with the intelligence, human behavior can be worse than most animals' behavior. ..."
The "New World Order" is responsible for what is happening. In this new religion, you
have the grand priests (the elite to be found in Davos) and the common. They don't want to
see that the diversity of the common is the main source of the creativity of the human
species. Furthermore, the previous religious systems, even if they were packed with big lies,
never cut the link between people and the sky. Today, in cutting this link, they have reduced
people to a level even below the animal state since with the intelligence, human behavior can
be worse than most animals' behavior.
This human sickness is now pandemic and to save humanity will require some kind of a
tsunami. Nobody today wants to loose anything, and in doing so everybody is just pushing the
system down the drain.
Another point: families, clans, nations are structures allowing people to develop roots.
They are not the causes of war but it is true that these structures can be manipulated to
generate wars in the interest of some "elite" (the poor get killed and the elite, gets
richer). Reconciliation between people does not require to erase structures but to eliminate
the bad guys manipulating them (the Jihadists, the terrorists and their Bosses which are
today mostly in Washington, Wall Street and Riyadh)
and essence of Christianity and Christian civilization is reason and objective reality,
necessary basis of TRUTH (= Christ)
My goodness! The essence of any religion -- - basically a mix of unsubstantiated
superstition and blind faith depending on no verifiable evidence -- - to be equated with
reason and objective reality, phenomena more aligned with the scientific method and culture
is patently absurd. And to quote a book written when the earth was still thought a flat,
anthropocentric mass and stars perched in the heavens as glittering divine ornaments? I rest
my case.
"... Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group. ..."
"... Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn. ..."
"... Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to change. ..."
"... If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times [1] (or as the self supporting tercio was during the 30 Years War). ..."
The third trend is the only place where hope can reside. This trend – what I have
previously ascribed to a group I call the "dissenters" – understands that radical new
thinking is required. But given that this group is being actively crushed by the old
liberal elite and the new authoritarians, it has little public and political space to
explore its ideas, to experiment, to collaborate, as it urgently needs to.
Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter
the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old
elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively
crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group.
Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy
people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that
hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the
US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn.
Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian
propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to
change.
Example: Reaction to yellow vests in France, which drew the reactions described in Cook's
article (at the root of this comment thread). "Back to your kennels, curs!" isn't effective
in situations like this, but it seems to be the only reply the EU has.
New groups take over when the old group has rotted away. At some point, Cook's third
alternative will be all that is left. The real question is what will be happening world wide
at that point. If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough
shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in
its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times [1] (or as the self supporting tercio was
during the 30 Years War).
Counterinsurgency
1] To understand contemporary effect of WW I on survivors, think of a the survivors of a
group playing paintball who accidentally got hold of grenade launchers but somehow didn't
realize that until the game was over. WW II was actually worse -- people worldwide really
expected another industrialized war within 20 years (by AD 1965), this one fought with
nuclear weapons.
The parading of liberalism's humanitarian credentials has entitled our elites to leave a
trail of carnage and wreckage in their wake in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria
" I am a Syrian Living in Syria: "It Was Never a Revolution nor a Civil War. The
Terrorists Are Sent by Your Government"
"American soldiers and people should not be supporting barbarian al Qaeda terrorists
who are killing Christians, Muslims in my country and everyone .
Every massacre is committed by them. We were all happy in Syria: we had free school and
university education available for everyone, free healthcare, no GMO, no fluoride, no
chemtrails, no Rothschild IMF- controlled bank, state owned central bank which gives 11%
interest, we are self-sufficient and have no foreign debt to any country or bank. "
[ ]
" I do not understand how the good and brave American people can accept to bomb my
country which has never harmed them and therefore help the barbarian al Qaeda. These animals
slit throats and behead for pleasure they behead babies and rape young kids.
" They are satanic. Our military helped by the millions of civilian militias are
winning the battle against al Qaeda. But now the USA wants to bomb the shit out of us so that
al Qaeda can get the upper hand. "
"Please help us American people. They are destroying the cradle of civilization. Stop your
government. "
A Serbian activist on Wednesday threw a pie in the face of Jewish French intellectual
Bernard-Henri Levy at a showing of his film "Peshmerga" in Belgrade. He is promoting
'Kurdistan' which is part of Israel's EXPANSIONIST policy.
He will talk at the Cambridge public library, a propaganda center, on February 20th, 2019
He should be exposed further. Jewish French philosopher gets pied in face in Belgrade
'Populism' is just democracy in action and most people seem to think democracy is a good
thing. So what's the problem? Apparently the masses don't want what's being shoved down their
throats by undemocratic rulers so now we have this ongoing conflict. One can only hope that
the populists get the upper hand in all this. We need a new political terminology because it
seems strange to use the label "liberal" for a group of people that are such aggressive
war-mongers. There doesn't seem to be much that's liberal about them.War lovers and
anti-democratic, they have much in common with fascism.
anarchyst says:
February 3, 2019 at 2:24 pm GMT • 300 Words
The debasement of European societies is deliberate. The elites want destruction, period
they want their "New World Order"
Very true.
The intent of this article is to blame [neo]Liberals. I would hardly call Europe's
[neoliberal] elite liberals. A liberal would defend freedom of expression and thought. A
liberal would defend the right of an individual or group to express viewpoints that are
unpopular.
Western Europe is hardly liberal. It is ... repressive when it comes to dissent, mildly
totalitarian. Political leaders who advocate for the rights of indigenous Europeans in Europe
are persecuted and imprisoned. Political parties are banned or bankrupted.
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically fascinating as now.
Appointment on Bolton essentially confirms Fred Reed diagnose of Trump: "profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law.
Notable quotes:
"... Until Bush II, those governing were never lunatics. Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Obama, Clinton had their defects, were sometimes corrupt, and could be disagreed with on many grounds. They weren't crazy. ..."
"... The problem with the current occupants of the White House is not that they are conservatives, if they are. It is that they are nuts. ..."
"... Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate con man who danced just out of reach of the law ..."
"... A particularly loathsome sort of politician is one who dodges his country's wars when of military age, and then wants to send others to die in later wars. This is Pussy John, arch hawk, coward, amoral, bully, willing to kill any number while he prances martially in Washington. Speaking as one who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, I would like to confine this fierce darling for life in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda. ..."
"... I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth ..."
"... The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive & inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation. The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's & naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer competitors. ..."
American government has become a collection of sordid and dangerous clowns. It was not
always thus. Until Bush II, those governing were never lunatics. Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Obama, Clinton had their defects, were sometimes corrupt, and could be
disagreed with on many grounds. They weren't crazy. Today's administration would seem
unwholesome in a New York bus station at three in the morning. They are not normal American
politicians.
In particular they seem to be pushing for war with Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And
-- this is important -- their behavior is not a matter of liberals catfighting with
conservatives. All former presidents carefully avoided war with the Soviet Union, which
carefully avoided war with America.
It was Reagan, a conservative and responsible president,
who negotiated the INF treaty, to eliminate short-fuse nuclear weapons from Europe. By
contrast, Trump is scrapping it. Pat Buchanan, the most conservative man I have met, strongly
opposes aggression against Russia. The problem with the current occupants of the White House is
not that they are conservatives, if they are. It is that they are nuts.
Donald the Cockatoo
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in fury at this.
All politics being herd politics, the population has coalesced into herds fanatically pro-Trump
and fanatically anti-Trump. Yet Trump's past is not a secret. Well-documented biographies
describe his behavior in detail, but his supporters don't read them. The following is a bit
long, but worth reading.
"I always get even," Trump writes in the opening line of that chapter. He then launches
into an attack on the same woman he had denounced in Colorado. Trump recruited the unnamed
woman "from her government job where she was making peanuts," her career going nowhere. "I
decided to make her somebody. I gave her a great job at the Trump Organization, and over time
she became powerful in real estate. She bought a beautiful home.
"When Trump was in financial trouble in the early nineties .."I asked her to make a phone
call to an extremely close friend of hers who held a powerful position at a big bank and
would have done what she asked. She said, "Donald, I can't do that." Instead of accepting
that the woman felt that such a call would be inappropriate, Trump fired her. She started her
own business. Trump writes that her business failed. "I was really happy when I found that
out," he says.
"She had turned on me after I did so much to help her. I had asked her to do me a favor in
return, and she turned me down flat. She ended up losing her home. Her husband, who was only
in it for the money, walked out on her and I was glad. Over the years many people have called
me asking for a recommendation for her. I always gave her bad recommendation. I can't stomach
disloyalty. ..and now I go out of my way to make her life miserable."
All that because (if she exists) she declined to engage in corruption for the Donald. That
is your President. A draft dodger, a pampered rich kid, and Ivy brat (Penn, Wharton). This
increasingly is a pattern at the top: Ivy, money, no military service.
A particularly loathsome sort of politician is one who dodges his country's wars when of
military age, and then wants to send others to die in later wars. This is Pussy John, arch
hawk, coward, amoral, bully, willing to kill any number while he prances martially in
Washington. Speaking as one who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, I would like to confine this
fierce darling for life in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda.
Pussy John, an Ivy flower (Yale) wrote in a reunion books that, during the 1969 Vietnam War
draft lottery, "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered
the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton explained that he decided to avoid
service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me
that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no
great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to
take it away from."
This same Pussy John, unwilling to risk his valuable being in a war he could have attended,
now wants war with Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Syria, and Afghanistan. In these wars millions
would die while he waggled his silly lip broom in the West Wing. His truculence is pathological
and dangerous.
Here is PJ on
Iran: which has not harmed and does not threaten America: "We think the government is under
real pressure and it's our intention to squeeze them very hard," Bolton said Tuesday in
Singapore. "As the British say, 'squeeze them until the pips squeak'."
How very brave of him. He apparently feels sadistic delight at starving Venezuelans,
inciting civil war, and ruining the lives of millions who have done nothing wrong. Whence the
weird hostility of this empty jockstrap, the lack of humanity? Forgot his Midiol? Venezuela of
course has done nothing to the US and couldn't if it wanted to. America under the Freak Show is
destroying another country simply because it doesn't meekly obey. While PJ gloats.
Bush II
Another rich kid and Yalie, none too bright, amoral as the rest, another draft dodger, (he
hid in the Air National Guard.) who got to the White House on daddy's name recognition. Not
having the balls to fight in his own war, he presided over the destruction of Iraq and the
killing of hundreds of thousands, for no reason. (Except oil, Israel, and Empire. Collectively,
these amount to no reason.) He then had the effrontery to pose on the deck of an aircraft
carrier and say, "Mission accomplished." You know, just like Alexander the Great. Amoral. No
empathy. What a man.
The striking pattern of the Ivy League avoiding the war confirmed then, as it does now, that
our present rulers regard the rest of America as beings of a lower order. These armchair John
Waynes might have called them "deplorables," though Hillary, another Yalie bowwow hawk, had not
yet made the contempt explicit. This was the attitude of Pussy John, Bushy-Bushy Two, and
Cockatoo Don. Compare this with the Falklands War in which Prince Andrew did what a country's
leadership should do, but ours doesn't..
Wikipedia: "He (Prince Andrew)
holds the rank of commander and the honorary rank of Vice Admiral (as of February 2015) in the
Royal Navy, in which he served as an active-duty helicopter pilot and instructor and as the
captain of a warship. He saw active service during the Falklands War, flying on multiple
missions including anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy, and casualty evacuation"
The Brits still have class. Compare Andrew with the contents of the Great Double-Wide on
Pennsylvania Avernus.
Gina
A measure of the moral degradation of America: It is the only country that openly and
proudly engages in torture. Many countries do it, of course. We admit it, and maintain torture
prisons around the globe. Now we have a major government official, Gina Haspel, head of the
CIA, a known sadist. "Bloody Gina." Is this who represents us? Would any other country in the
civilized world put a sadist publicly in office?
Think of Gina waterboarding some guy, or standing around and getting off on it. You don't
torture people unless you like it. The guy is tied down, coughing, choking, screaming, begging,
desperate, drowning, and Gina pours more water. The poor bastard vomits, chokes. Gina adds a
little more water .
What kind of woman would do this? Well, Gina's kind obviously. Does she then run off to her
office and lock the door for half an hour? Maybe it starts early. One imagines her as a little
girl, playing with her dolls. Cheerleader Barbie, Nurse Barbie, Klaus Barbie .
Michael Pompeo
Another pathologically aggressive chickenhawk. In a piece in Foreign Affairs he describes Iran as a "rogue state that America must eliminate
for the sake of all that is good. Note that Pompeo presides over a foreign policy seeking to
destroy Venezuela's economy and threatens military invasion, though Venezuela is no danger to
the US and is not America's business; embargoes Cuba, which in no danger to the US and is not
America's business; seeks to destroy Iran's economy, though Iran is no danger to the US and
none of Americas business; sanctions Europe and meddles in its politics; sanctions Russia,
which is not a danger to the United States, in an attempt to destroy its economy, pushes NATO
up to Russia's borders, abandons the INF arms-control treaty and establishes a Space Command
which will mean nuclear weapons on hair trigger in orbit, starts another nuclear arms race;
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress; sanctions North
Korea; continues a seventeen-year policy of killing Afghans for no discernible purpose; wages a
war against Syria; bombs Somalis; maintains unwanted occupation forces in Iraq; increasingly
puts military forces in Africa; supports regimes with ghastly human-rights records such as
Saudi Arabia and Israel; and looks for a war with China in the South China Sea, which is no
more America's business than the Gulf of Mexico is China's.
But Pompeo is not a loon, oh no, and America is not a rogue state. Perish forfend.
Nikki Haley
A negligible twit -- I choose my vowel carefully -- but characterized, like Trump, PJ, and
Pompeo Mattis
"After being promoted to lieutenant general, Mattis took command of Marine Corps Combat
Development Command. On February 1, 2005, speaking at a forum in San Diego, he said "You go
into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a
veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun
to shoot them. Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun
to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."
Perhaps in air-to-air combat you want someone who regards killing as fun, or in an
amphibious assault. But in a position to make policy? Can you image Dwight Eisenhower talking
about the fun of squaring a man's brains across the ground?
The Upshot
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically
fascinating as now. Again, it is not a matter of Republicans and Democrats. No administration
of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively toward war with so many
countries. These people are not right in the head.
I remember in high school one of my teachers stating how weird it seems that it would be the
leadership of the US military who would call for the American government to intervene less in
the affairs of other countries and to not be so quick to use military force. This was, of
course, decades ago.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with one of my colleages. He remarked how scary it
was that so many American politicians were calling for war with Russia (with Hillary Clinton
leading the pack?). I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought
in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth (Vietnam).
Fred is absolutely correct: the current administration is pathological & insane.
However, it's worth remembering that their insane behavior is based on the same Imperial
goals that have been in play since at least 1945.
The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive &
inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation.
The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's &
naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer
competitors.
China & Russia are real novelties -- & as such, damn scary. Taken together, they
are near equal military & economic rivals of the US.
To US elites this is almost incomprehensible. How ? How did China suddenly become leaders
in cutting edge tech? How did Russia suddenly appear with hypersonsic missiles ?
It's impossible ! Given the already existing moral & psychological inadequacies of
individual Trump team members, insanity & juvenile behavior are fairly predictable
responses .
The fact that you left Bill Clinton off this list (you know, the president that fired
Tomahawk missiles into the country of Sudan to take attention away from the Lewinsky
hearings, sexually assaulted subordinate women for decades, and spent time banging underage
sex slaves via the Lolita Express, pardons a bunch of Puerto Rican terrorists in 2000 to help
swing PR votes to his bag of shit wife in the New York Senate race and was, oh yeah, a draft
dodger) is pathetic even for you , Kiko. I guess NAFTA makes up for all that rapey shit, huh?
And when can we expect a detailed critique of the Mexican political climate, Kiko? Is it
still never? A little too worried about that knock on the door if you bring up all the
inconvenient murder going on down there, and all of the gutless politicians and law
enforcement that turn a blind eye to it, you insufferable hypocrite?
No administration of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively
toward war with so many countries. These people are not right in the head.
Now there, I will certainly agree with Mr. Reed, but in a qualified way. The Trump
administration is somewhat more warlike and interventionist in its talk than previous ones
have been. But, so far, all talk (except for its repudiation of the Iran nuclear deal, which
is ominous).
Also, even in terms of the bellicose hot air, the current regime's increase over its
predecessors is a matter of degree, not of kind. Even the increase itself I'd call
incremental.
Also, I wrote, "So far, all talk." That doesn't mean I'm not concerned. As the man who
jumped off a skyscraper said, when passing the 2nd floor, "All right so far!"
So what's the difference between Trump's neocons and the neocons who would have run Hillary?
Nothing. There is no one more chicken hawkish, and slavish to Israel than Hillary.
Give Trump some credit. He tried to ease ties with Russia and end war in Syria. But look how
the Jewish supremacists in media and Deep State goons all jumped on him. And almost no one in
the Establishment came to his side.
Obama and his goons pushed the Russia Collusion Hoax. Obama and Bush II have more in
common.
@Sean
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress
"About time too. Nixon deciding the US would getting pally with China was a hostile act as
far as Russia was concerned."
Exactly right. Glad someone else remembers things as they were. Getting pally with China
will turn out to be the most disastrous mistake the USA has ever made in foreign policy.
Arrogantly thinking that we could make them our junior partners we have given or sold them
everything which made us great. Our industries, technology, patents, education at premier
research institutions etc. Now, utilizing everything we provided them, they will surpass and
then suppress us. Meanwhile our ignorant politicians, blinded by traitorous, dual-citizen
economists and bankers who promised a new economy based upon finance and "information", plod
along, single file, to oblivion.
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a
real-estate con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in
fury at this.
Most of us knew that Trump is a flawed man but were willing to overlook that because he
was the only one talking sense on immigration and offering solutions that would benefit white
America. Of course, after two years Trump has been all tweet and little action on immigration
and appears poised to sell out out to Javanka, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers and the
Business Roundtable.
He's narcissistic and a bit of a con man but not profoundly ignorant. Profoundly ignorant
people don't become billionaires and will themselves to the presidency.
Trump has done a 180 on his campaign foreign policy and filled his administration with
Israel first neocon retreads from the George W. Bush era instead of America firsters. People
like Bolton deserve all the hate and condemnation heaped upon them by Fredrico.
Fredrico just hates Trump because he doesn't worship Mexico and Mexicans like Fredrico
does and spoke the truth about many Mexican illegals being predisposed to violent crime.
Fredrico and his hispandering Bobbsey twin Ron Unz get easily triggered at the slightest
criticism of hispanics, even if based in fact, and fly into a foaming at the mouth rage.
@KenH
The first priority of any president is staying alive, which probably explains why every US
president, including Donald Trump ends up doing the exact opposite of what they promise on
the campaign trail. As to Trump's neocon advisors, I suspect they were appointed by the deep
state, with him having no say in the matter.
@Asagirian
Clinton wasn't a lunatic? I wonder what Fred thinks about his deranged Jewish Secretary of State Madeline Albright.
She famously
told Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, due to Clinton's years of punative sanctions, was
"worth it."
Doesn't seem like those preventable deaths of innocent children bothered Billy Boy too much. With the Clinton's, we
get two lunatics for the price of one.
@NoseytheDuke
Face it -- he neither believed nor understood those Stephen Miller speeches. Coming from the
mouth of Donald Trump, they were lies.
Why do so many of you intelligent people still buy into the political puppet show,
expecting BigGov to fix itself? Electoral politics, judicial confirmations, etc, are
orchestrated conflict to keep dissidence channeled and harmlessly blown off as the Empire
lurches along.
There are other columnists here at Unz who have been calling the Beltway BS for years. For
example:
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war
abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his
election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
"... Vidal's view was that liberation from this system will come about as a result of an economic collapse possibly a global one. He further said as far as the US is concerned "This is inevitable, on the basis of the colossal debts we have been building up. This must lead to monetary breakdown at some stage. The writing is on the wall." ..."
America has bankrupted its economy, abandoned its original ideals, its sense of decency, its
core morality, that's what it looks like anyway.
One book that predicted and encapsulated the description of what America used to be and will
be was published in July 2002, it was in fact a series of essays written over 10 years. Its
name 'The Decline and Fall of the American Empire' written by the outstandingly unique genius,
the late Gore Vidal.
Vidal explained in his book how the pillars of the US constitution have been eroded and are
gone forever, until we force a violent people's revolution, something akin to the revolts all
across France today. Necessary, not least, to stop the latest idea of regime change in places
like Venezuela and Iran.
There has sadly been what looks like a silent coup in America – that has surrounded
Trump with warmongers, bringing the NeoCons of the 1990s back!
Trump appears to have been, to a degree, marginalised somehow.
In the first part of the 21st Century, resulting and triggered by 9/11, we witnessed the
destruction of the US constitution, due process of law and tragically the end of 'fair play' by
Britain as She became a mere US satellite or as Blair was described when Prime Minister, a lap
dog to American (and Israeli) interests.
Endless wars like Afghanistan. Why pray tell.
This fall of the American Republic in a worse case scenario could eventually lead to a
totalitarian State.
In Gore's opinion, "the [American] Republic ended in 1950. Since then we have had an
imperial system." What are the chief characteristics of this system?
First, the USA intervenes in an aggressive way in almost every part of the world. According
to Vidal research, since 1776, the USA has waged over 100 interventions and wars in different
parts of the globe. Yet the Constitution stipulates that any war must be approved by Congress,
not one of these wars or conflicts has been so approved. In fact, the last time an American
President sought and obtained congressional approval for a war was in 1941, after the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbour.
Vidal points out something that has been long known to academics and historians but has
never been publicly admitted, namely that President Roosevelt deliberately provoked the
Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. "Roosevelt wanted the USA to enter the war against Hitler, but
he knew that 80 percent of Americans were against this. He knew that the only way to change
this was by a major shock, and therefore set out to provoke the Japanese – who were the
allies of Germany and Italy – to attack the US.
False flags have always been around one seems to be able to deduce.
Vidal then explained how President Truman got the USA involved in the Korean War ("which we
lost like Vietnam") by presenting it as a "police operation" (or 'stopping communism' in the
case of Indo-China) that did not require the approval of Congress.
The US military aggression in Korea took place under the banner of the UN – like many
many subsequent adventures.
Now we have wars called 'humantarian interventions' like Libya and soon could be in
Venezuela.
Its important to reflect that Vidal was a most effective raconteur, who also possessed the
necessary sense of humour. In his hands, wit is a deadly weapon, as sharp as a dagger. The
young George W. Bush ("How I love that man!") provides him with an endless source of anecdotes,
one of which was new to me and very worth repeating. Bush's opinion of the French: "The trouble
with those guys is that they just don't have a word for entrepreneur!"
If one is a pessimist, it wouldn't be difficult in surmising that the US 'Elite', 'the Deep
State' would seems to support a US led world akin to an 'Empire'.
US interventions are connected with only money; mega-projects, gas and oil.
Worth mentioning is another of Vidal's books 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace', which was
published in the USA, but then, as he remarked wryly, it 'vanished' to all intent and purposes.
Not a single American newspaper was prepared to review the book. There was no publicity and no
advertisements were accepted. As a well-known public figure and broadcaster, he received seven
invitations to appear on different television programmes. Five of these were soon cancelled.
CNN had invited him to debate his views, but the programme was cancelled half an hour before it
was due to commence. The instructions evidently came from the top level in Washington. Do the
words Orwellian or totalitarianism spring to mind and of course covert censorship seems far
more prevalent today than it was then.
Citizens' rights were demolished (the knee jerk after 9/11) when they passed the US Patriot
Act, a document of 300 odd pages that Vidal stated "nobody bothered to read". Rest of Europe
and Britain followed with similarly intrusive laws.
Vidal's view was that liberation from this system will come about as a result of an economic
collapse possibly a global one. He further said as far as the US is concerned "This is
inevitable, on the basis of the colossal debts we have been building up. This must lead to
monetary breakdown at some stage. The writing is on the wall."
So if you want to know what will happen next and for the rest of this century, should we see
it out without a nuclear Armageddon, just read Gore Vidal and also books and articles written
in the 1930s and 40s by Huxley, Orwell.
You will conclude the future looks pretty bleak. Let's hope not.
@anon1
I would not condemn them out of hand. Most enlisted men never went to college. They come from
poor rural areas, where they would be lucky to get a part-time job at McDonalds. Their
mothers were probably on welfare, drug-addicted with no father in the home.
Compared to their
options, the military offers fame and fortune, and military recruiters are duplicitous
snakes, just out to fill their quotas.
Only later do many of them realize they were duped.
Hence, their suicide rate of 20 vets per day.
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically fascinating as now.
Appointment on Bolton essentially confirms Fred Reed diagnose of Trump: "profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law.
Notable quotes:
"... I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth ..."
"... The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive & inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation. The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's & naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer competitors. ..."
American government has become a collection of sordid and dangerous clowns. It was not
always thus. Until Bush II, those governing were never lunatics. Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Obama, Clinton had their defects, were sometimes corrupt, and could be
disagreed with on many grounds. They weren't crazy. Today's administration would seem
unwholesome in a New York bus station at three in the morning. They are not normal American
politicians.
In particular they seem to be pushing for war with Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And
-- this is important -- their behavior is not a matter of liberals catfighting with
conservatives. All former presidents carefully avoided war with the Soviet Union, which
carefully avoided war with America.
It was Reagan, a conservative and responsible president,
who negotiated the INF treaty, to eliminate short-fuse nuclear weapons from Europe. By
contrast, Trump is scrapping it. Pat Buchanan, the most conservative man I have met, strongly
opposes aggression against Russia. The problem with the current occupants of the White House is
not that they are conservatives, if they are. It is that they are nuts.
Donald the Cockatoo
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in fury at this.
All politics being herd politics, the population has coalesced into herds fanatically pro-Trump
and fanatically anti-Trump. Yet Trump's past is not a secret. Well-documented biographies
describe his behavior in detail, but his supporters don't read them. The following is a bit
long, but worth reading.
"I always get even," Trump writes in the opening line of that chapter. He then launches
into an attack on the same woman he had denounced in Colorado. Trump recruited the unnamed
woman "from her government job where she was making peanuts," her career going nowhere. "I
decided to make her somebody. I gave her a great job at the Trump Organization, and over time
she became powerful in real estate. She bought a beautiful home.
"When Trump was in financial trouble in the early nineties .."I asked her to make a phone
call to an extremely close friend of hers who held a powerful position at a big bank and
would have done what she asked. She said, "Donald, I can't do that." Instead of accepting
that the woman felt that such a call would be inappropriate, Trump fired her. She started her
own business. Trump writes that her business failed. "I was really happy when I found that
out," he says.
"She had turned on me after I did so much to help her. I had asked her to do me a favor in
return, and she turned me down flat. She ended up losing her home. Her husband, who was only
in it for the money, walked out on her and I was glad. Over the years many people have called
me asking for a recommendation for her. I always gave her bad recommendation. I can't stomach
disloyalty. ..and now I go out of my way to make her life miserable."
All that because (if she exists) she declined to engage in corruption for the Donald. That
is your President. A draft dodger, a pampered rich kid, and Ivy brat (Penn, Wharton). This
increasingly is a pattern at the top: Ivy, money, no military service.
A particularly loathsome sort of politician is one who dodges his country's wars when of
military age, and then wants to send others to die in later wars. This is Pussy John, arch
hawk, coward, amoral, bully, willing to kill any number while he prances martially in
Washington. Speaking as one who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, I would like to confine this
fierce darling for life in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda.
Pussy John, an Ivy flower (Yale) wrote in a reunion books that, during the 1969 Vietnam War
draft lottery, "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered
the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton explained that he decided to avoid
service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me
that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no
great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to
take it away from."
This same Pussy John, unwilling to risk his valuable being in a war he could have attended,
now wants war with Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Syria, and Afghanistan. In these wars millions
would die while he waggled his silly lip broom in the West Wing. His truculence is pathological
and dangerous.
Here is PJ on
Iran: which has not harmed and does not threaten America: "We think the government is under
real pressure and it's our intention to squeeze them very hard," Bolton said Tuesday in
Singapore. "As the British say, 'squeeze them until the pips squeak'."
How very brave of him. He apparently feels sadistic delight at starving Venezuelans,
inciting civil war, and ruining the lives of millions who have done nothing wrong. Whence the
weird hostility of this empty jockstrap, the lack of humanity? Forgot his Midiol? Venezuela of
course has done nothing to the US and couldn't if it wanted to. America under the Freak Show is
destroying another country simply because it doesn't meekly obey. While PJ gloats.
Bush II
Another rich kid and Yalie, none too bright, amoral as the rest, another draft dodger, (he
hid in the Air National Guard.) who got to the White House on daddy's name recognition. Not
having the balls to fight in his own war, he presided over the destruction of Iraq and the
killing of hundreds of thousands, for no reason. (Except oil, Israel, and Empire. Collectively,
these amount to no reason.) He then had the effrontery to pose on the deck of an aircraft
carrier and say, "Mission accomplished." You know, just like Alexander the Great. Amoral. No
empathy. What a man.
The striking pattern of the Ivy League avoiding the war confirmed then, as it does now, that
our present rulers regard the rest of America as beings of a lower order. These armchair John
Waynes might have called them "deplorables," though Hillary, another Yalie bowwow hawk, had not
yet made the contempt explicit. This was the attitude of Pussy John, Bushy-Bushy Two, and
Cockatoo Don. Compare this with the Falklands War in which Prince Andrew did what a country's
leadership should do, but ours doesn't..
Wikipedia: "He (Prince Andrew)
holds the rank of commander and the honorary rank of Vice Admiral (as of February 2015) in the
Royal Navy, in which he served as an active-duty helicopter pilot and instructor and as the
captain of a warship. He saw active service during the Falklands War, flying on multiple
missions including anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy, and casualty evacuation"
The Brits still have class. Compare Andrew with the contents of the Great Double-Wide on
Pennsylvania Avernus.
Gina
A measure of the moral degradation of America: It is the only country that openly and
proudly engages in torture. Many countries do it, of course. We admit it, and maintain torture
prisons around the globe. Now we have a major government official, Gina Haspel, head of the
CIA, a known sadist. "Bloody Gina." Is this who represents us? Would any other country in the
civilized world put a sadist publicly in office?
Think of Gina waterboarding some guy, or standing around and getting off on it. You don't
torture people unless you like it. The guy is tied down, coughing, choking, screaming, begging,
desperate, drowning, and Gina pours more water. The poor bastard vomits, chokes. Gina adds a
little more water .
What kind of woman would do this? Well, Gina's kind obviously. Does she then run off to her
office and lock the door for half an hour? Maybe it starts early. One imagines her as a little
girl, playing with her dolls. Cheerleader Barbie, Nurse Barbie, Klaus Barbie .
Michael Pompeo
Another pathologically aggressive chickenhawk. In a piece in Foreign Affairs he describes Iran as a "rogue state that America must eliminate
for the sake of all that is good. Note that Pompeo presides over a foreign policy seeking to
destroy Venezuela's economy and threatens military invasion, though Venezuela is no danger to
the US and is not America's business; embargoes Cuba, which in no danger to the US and is not
America's business; seeks to destroy Iran's economy, though Iran is no danger to the US and
none of Americas business; sanctions Europe and meddles in its politics; sanctions Russia,
which is not a danger to the United States, in an attempt to destroy its economy, pushes NATO
up to Russia's borders, abandons the INF arms-control treaty and establishes a Space Command
which will mean nuclear weapons on hair trigger in orbit, starts another nuclear arms race;
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress; sanctions North
Korea; continues a seventeen-year policy of killing Afghans for no discernible purpose; wages a
war against Syria; bombs Somalis; maintains unwanted occupation forces in Iraq; increasingly
puts military forces in Africa; supports regimes with ghastly human-rights records such as
Saudi Arabia and Israel; and looks for a war with China in the South China Sea, which is no
more America's business than the Gulf of Mexico is China's.
But Pompeo is not a loon, oh no, and America is not a rogue state. Perish forfend.
Nikki Haley
A negligible twit -- I choose my vowel carefully -- but characterized, like Trump, PJ, and
Pompeo Mattis
"After being promoted to lieutenant general, Mattis took command of Marine Corps Combat
Development Command. On February 1, 2005, speaking at a forum in San Diego, he said "You go
into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a
veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun
to shoot them. Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun
to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."
Perhaps in air-to-air combat you want someone who regards killing as fun, or in an
amphibious assault. But in a position to make policy? Can you image Dwight Eisenhower talking
about the fun of squaring a man's brains across the ground?
The Upshot
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically
fascinating as now. Again, it is not a matter of Republicans and Democrats. No administration
of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively toward war with so many
countries. These people are not right in the head.
I remember in high school one of my teachers stating how weird it seems that it would be the
leadership of the US military who would call for the American government to intervene less in
the affairs of other countries and to not be so quick to use military force. This was, of
course, decades ago.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with one of my colleages. He remarked how scary it
was that so many American politicians were calling for war with Russia (with Hillary Clinton
leading the pack?). I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought
in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth (Vietnam).
Fred is absolutely correct: the current administration is pathological & insane.
However, it's worth remembering that their insane behavior is based on the same Imperial
goals that have been in play since at least 1945.
The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive &
inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation.
The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's &
naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer
competitors.
China & Russia are real novelties -- & as such, damn scary. Taken together, they
are near equal military & economic rivals of the US.
To US elites this is almost incomprehensible. How ? How did China suddenly become leaders
in cutting edge tech? How did Russia suddenly appear with hypersonsic missiles ?
It's impossible ! Given the already existing moral & psychological inadequacies of
individual Trump team members, insanity & juvenile behavior are fairly predictable
responses .
The fact that you left Bill Clinton off this list (you know, the president that fired
Tomahawk missiles into the country of Sudan to take attention away from the Lewinsky
hearings, sexually assaulted subordinate women for decades, and spent time banging underage
sex slaves via the Lolita Express, pardons a bunch of Puerto Rican terrorists in 2000 to help
swing PR votes to his bag of shit wife in the New York Senate race and was, oh yeah, a draft
dodger) is pathetic even for you , Kiko. I guess NAFTA makes up for all that rapey shit, huh?
And when can we expect a detailed critique of the Mexican political climate, Kiko? Is it
still never? A little too worried about that knock on the door if you bring up all the
inconvenient murder going on down there, and all of the gutless politicians and law
enforcement that turn a blind eye to it, you insufferable hypocrite?
No administration of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively
toward war with so many countries. These people are not right in the head.
Now there, I will certainly agree with Mr. Reed, but in a qualified way. The Trump
administration is somewhat more warlike and interventionist in its talk than previous ones
have been. But, so far, all talk (except for its repudiation of the Iran nuclear deal, which
is ominous).
Also, even in terms of the bellicose hot air, the current regime's increase over its
predecessors is a matter of degree, not of kind. Even the increase itself I'd call
incremental.
Also, I wrote, "So far, all talk." That doesn't mean I'm not concerned. As the man who
jumped off a skyscraper said, when passing the 2nd floor, "All right so far!"
So what's the difference between Trump's neocons and the neocons who would have run Hillary?
Nothing. There is no one more chicken hawkish, and slavish to Israel than Hillary.
Give Trump some credit. He tried to ease ties with Russia and end war in Syria. But look how
the Jewish supremacists in media and Deep State goons all jumped on him. And almost no one in
the Establishment came to his side.
Obama and his goons pushed the Russia Collusion Hoax. Obama and Bush II have more in
common.
@Sean
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress
"About time too. Nixon deciding the US would getting pally with China was a hostile act as
far as Russia was concerned."
Exactly right. Glad someone else remembers things as they were. Getting pally with China
will turn out to be the most disastrous mistake the USA has ever made in foreign policy.
Arrogantly thinking that we could make them our junior partners we have given or sold them
everything which made us great. Our industries, technology, patents, education at premier
research institutions etc. Now, utilizing everything we provided them, they will surpass and
then suppress us. Meanwhile our ignorant politicians, blinded by traitorous, dual-citizen
economists and bankers who promised a new economy based upon finance and "information", plod
along, single file, to oblivion.
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a
real-estate con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in
fury at this.
Most of us knew that Trump is a flawed man but were willing to overlook that because he
was the only one talking sense on immigration and offering solutions that would benefit white
America. Of course, after two years Trump has been all tweet and little action on immigration
and appears poised to sell out out to Javanka, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers and the
Business Roundtable.
He's narcissistic and a bit of a con man but not profoundly ignorant. Profoundly ignorant
people don't become billionaires and will themselves to the presidency.
Trump has done a 180 on his campaign foreign policy and filled his administration with
Israel first neocon retreads from the George W. Bush era instead of America firsters. People
like Bolton deserve all the hate and condemnation heaped upon them by Fredrico.
Fredrico just hates Trump because he doesn't worship Mexico and Mexicans like Fredrico
does and spoke the truth about many Mexican illegals being predisposed to violent crime.
Fredrico and his hispandering Bobbsey twin Ron Unz get easily triggered at the slightest
criticism of hispanics, even if based in fact, and fly into a foaming at the mouth rage.
@KenH
The first priority of any president is staying alive, which probably explains why every US
president, including Donald Trump ends up doing the exact opposite of what they promise on
the campaign trail. As to Trump's neocon advisors, I suspect they were appointed by the deep
state, with him having no say in the matter.
Both Haley and Mattis are no longer serving with the Administration; apparently news of this
has not reached Fred's watering hole in Ajijic, where I hear the Internet is slow and dodgy.
And does he really think the Brits have "class?"
Harry showed up for a photo op in Helmand province and promptly got two American GIs
killed, a result that Reed probably found thrilling.
The classy Brits promptly created tall tales of this dimwitted ginger dodging bullets and
blasting insurgents to bits, like a modern day Flashman. All this in the run-up to the big
wedding. Classy, and not propaganda at all!
It looks like a specialist on illegal transferee of weapons is needed to make the color revolution a success...
Notable quotes:
"... Elliott Abrams got a new high level job last month, Special Envoy on Venezuela. Within weeks, the United States recognized a new President of Venezuela while the elected Venezuelan President is still in office. Chatter and rumor from the White House suggests that military intervention is possible. The "new" recognized-by- the-US-President of Venezuela is a veteran of color revolution type regime change, groomed for service with the help of the snakelike National Endowment for Democracy (NED). ..."
It's a sad fact that the full and unconditional
pardon given by President George H.W. Bush to Elliott Abrams (a member of the second
generation neo-conservative royalty by way of marriage to the daughter of neo-con co-creator,
Midge Decter), protected him from disbarment and possible prison. Abrams, who pled guilty to
the crime of lying to Congress in the investigation of the Iran-Contra, embraced the plea
option reportedly in order to avoid heavier charges from the office of then independent
counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, prosecutor in the Iran-Contra cases. Bush is gone, Walsh is gone,
but Mr. Bush's Attorney General William Barr is – surprise – now Attorney General
of the United States.
What that portends for future regime change adventures remains to be seen, but the
historical record is ominous.
In 1992, when Bush issued the Iran-Contra pardons on the eve of his leaving office after
losing reelection to President Bill Clinton, William Barr fully supported the pardons.
Presidential pardons are, after all, Constitutional. But, Lawrence Walsh said at the time,
reported NPR, "It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious
crimes in high office, deliberately abusing the public trust without consequences."
Now the Iran-Contra era neo-cons and the Dick Cheney/Iraq Invasion 2003 era neo-cons are
marching back into the institution of the Presidency.
Elliott Abrams got a new high level job last month, Special Envoy on Venezuela. Within
weeks, the United States recognized a new President of Venezuela while the elected Venezuelan
President is still in office. Chatter and rumor from the White House suggests that military
intervention is possible. The "new" recognized-by- the-US-President of Venezuela is a veteran
of color revolution type regime change, groomed for service with the help of the snakelike
National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Regime change, putting in questionable, if not nefarious new leaders, seems to be Abrams'
delight: Nicaragua, Iraq while a government official. Many others in his dreams.
In 1986, even before the Iran-Contra debacle was revealed, as Assistant Secretary of State
for Inter-American Affairs, Elliott Abrams told Congress that Nicaraguan "Contras" involved in
drug running didn't have the okay from Contra leaders. It was just underlings. This, while
Abrams and company were busy doing end-runs around the Boland Amendment and other Congressional
actions that barred military supplies to the Contras. Even Khomeini's Iran was not off limits
in getting money for the Nicaraguan fight.
In another time and place, i.e., Saudi Arabia, present day, where regime change in Syria was
a high priority, we've heard excuses similar to those made by Elliott Abrams about the Contras,
about the responsibility for the killing and butchering of the corpse of Saudi journalist Jamal
Khashoggi, and about the financing and arming of ISIS and Al Nusra terrorists by Saudi Arabia
in Syria. Deja vu.
With more neo-cons in the Administration, the trajectory is more wasted blood and
treasure.
This 20 year old satire looks like it was written yesterday...
Notable quotes:
"... In the past, the underworld was ill-equipped to handle the new breed of sinners flooding our gates -- downsizing CEOs, focus-group coordinators, telemarketing sales representatives, and vast hordes of pony-tailed entertainment-industry executives ..."
"... Among the tortures the Corpadverticus Circle of Total Bastards boasts: the Never-Ending Drive-Thru Bank, the Bottomless Pit of Promotional Tie-In Keychains, and the dreaded Chamber of Emotionally Manipulative Home Shopping Network Products. ..."
"... condemned TV-exercise-show personalities, clad in skin-tight Spandex outfits soaked in flesh-dissolving acid, are forced to exercise for centuries on end ..."
"... In a nearby area, corporate raiders are forced to carry the golf clubs of uneducated Hispanic migrant workers from hole to hole for eternity, withering under a constant barrage of verbal abuse ..."
"... "In life, I was a Salomon Brothers investment banker," one flame-blackened shade told reporters. "When I arrived here, they didn't know what to do with me. They put me in with those condemned to walk backwards with their heads turned all the way around on their necks, for the crime of attempting to see the future. But then I sent a couple of fruit baskets to the right people, and in no time flat, I secured a cushy spot for myself in the first circle of the Virtuous Unbaptized. Now that was a sweet deal. But before long, they caught on to my game and transferred me here to the realm of Total Bastards. I've been shrieking for mercy like a goddamn woman ever since." ..."
After nearly four years of construction at an estimated cost of 750 million souls,
Corpadverticus, the new 10th circle of Hell, finally opened its doors Monday.
Tenth Circle Added To Rapidly Growing Hell
The Blockbuster Video-sponsored circle, located in Nether Hell between the former eighth and
ninth levels of Malebolge and Cocytus, is expected to greatly alleviate the overcrowding
problems that have plagued the infernal underworld in recent years. The circle is the first
added to Hell in its countless-millennia history.
"A nightmarishly large glut of condemned spirits in recent years necessitated the expansion
of Hell," inferno spokesperson Antedeus said. "The traditional nine-tiered system had grown
insufficient to accommodate the exponentially rising numbers of Hellbound."
Adding to the need for expansion, Antedeus said, was the fact that a majority of the new
arrivals possessed souls far more evil than the original nine circles were equipped to handle.
"Demographers, advertising executives, tobacco lobbyists, monopoly-law experts retained by
major corporations, and creators of office-based sitcoms–these new arrivals represent a
wave of spiritual decay and horror the likes of which Hell has never before seen," Antedeus
said.
Despite the need for expansion, the plan faced considerable resistance, largely due to the
considerable costs of insuring construction projects within the Kingdom Of Lies. Opposition
also came from Hell purists concerned about the detrimental effect a tenth level would have on
the intricate numerology of Hell's meticulously arranged allegorical structure. In 1994,
however, funding was finally secured in a deal brokered between Blockbuster CEO Wayne Huizenga
and Satan himself.
Prior to the construction of the tenth circle, many among the new wave of sinners had been
placed in such circles as Hoarders and Squanderers, Sowers of Discord, Flatterers and Seducers,
Violent Against Art, and Hypocrites. Hell authorities, however, say that the new level, the
Circle of Total Bastards, located at the site of the former Well of Giants just above the
Frozen Lake at Hell's center, better suits their insidious brand of evil.
Frigax The Vile, a leading demonic presence, is one of the most vocal supporters of the new
circle.
" In the past, the underworld was ill-equipped to handle the new breed of sinners
flooding our gates -- downsizing CEOs, focus-group coordinators, telemarketing sales
representatives, and vast hordes of pony-tailed entertainment-industry executives
rollerblading and talking on miniaturized cell-phones at the same time. But now, we've finally
got the sort of top-notch Pits of Doom necessary to give such repellent abominations the
quality boilings they deserve."
Pausing to tear off the limbs of an Access Hollywood host, Frigax added, "We're all
tremendously excited about the many brand-new forms of torture and eternal pain this new
level's state-of-the-art facilities will make possible."
Among the tortures the Corpadverticus Circle of Total Bastards boasts: the Never-Ending
Drive-Thru Bank, the Bottomless Pit of Promotional Tie-In Keychains, and the dreaded Chamber of
Emotionally Manipulative Home Shopping Network Products.
The Circle also features a Hall of Aerobics, where condemned TV-exercise-show
personalities, clad in skin-tight Spandex outfits soaked in flesh-dissolving acid, are forced
to exercise for centuries on end , covered in vomit and prodded with the distended ribs of
skeletal, anorexic demons, accompanied by an unending, ear-splittingly loud dance-remix version
of the 1988 Rick Astley hit "Together Forever."
In a nearby area, corporate raiders are forced to carry the golf clubs of uneducated
Hispanic migrant workers from hole to hole for eternity, withering under a constant barrage of
verbal abuse from their former subservients as crows descend from trees to peck at their
eyes. In one of the deepest and most profane portions of the circle, unspeakable acts are said
to be committed with a mail-order Roly-Kit.
"In life, I was a Salomon Brothers investment banker," one flame-blackened shade told
reporters. "When I arrived here, they didn't know what to do with me. They put me in with those
condemned to walk backwards with their heads turned all the way around on their necks, for the
crime of attempting to see the future. But then I sent a couple of fruit baskets to the right
people, and in no time flat, I secured a cushy spot for myself in the first circle of the
Virtuous Unbaptized. Now that was a sweet deal. But before long, they caught on to my game and
transferred me here to the realm of Total Bastards. I've been shrieking for mercy like a
goddamn woman ever since."
His face contorted in the Misery of the Damned, a Disney lawyer said: "It's hell
here–there are no executive lounges, I can't get any decent risotto, and the suit I have
to wear is a cheap Brooks Brothers knock-off. I'm beeped every 30 seconds, and there's no way
to return the calls. Plus, I'm being boiled upside down in lard while jackals gnaw at the soles
of my feet. If I could just reach the fax machine on that nearby rock, I could contact some
well-placed associates and work something out, but it's just out of my grasp, and it's out of
ink and constantly blinking the message, 'Replace Toner Cartridge, Replace Toner Cartridge,
Replace Toner Cartridge.'"
He then resumed screaming in agony.
Grogar The Malefic, a Captain in Hell's elite Demon Corps and supervisor in charge of
admissions for the new circle, said Hell's future looks bright, thanks to the new circle.
"Things are definitely looking up," Grogar said. "We're now far better equipped, and we're
ready to take on the most Unholy Atrocities humanity has to offer."
"We're really on the grow down here," Grogar added. "This is an exciting time to be in
Hell."
"... "Constrained by the treaty's provisions, the United States has been prevented from deploying new weapons to counter China's efforts to cement a dominant position in the Western Pacific and keep American aircraft carriers at bay. China was still a small and unsophisticated military power when Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of a rapidly-weakening Soviet Union, negotiated the INF agreement." ..."
"... Over the past two years, the American military establishment has grown increasingly alarmed at the rapidity of China's technological development, which the United States sees as a threat not only to the profitability of its corporations, but the dominance of its military. ..."
"... As the latest US Worldwide Threat Assessment warns, "For 2019 and beyond, the innovations that drive military and economic competitiveness will increasingly originate outside the United States, as the overall US lead in science and technology shrinks" and "the capability gap between commercial and military technologies evaporates." ..."
"... The United States hopes that, by leveraging its military, it will be able to contain the economic rise of China and shore up US preeminence on the world stage. ..."
"... Nearly 75 years ago, the United States, after having "scorched and boiled and baked to death," in the words of General Curtis Lemay, hundreds of thousands of civilians in a genocidal "strategic bombing" campaign over Japan, murdered hundreds of thousands more with the use of two nuclear weapons: an action whose primary aim was to threaten the USSR. ..."
"... But ultimately, the continued existence of the Soviet Union served as a check on the genocidal impulses of US imperialism. ..."
"... Despite the triumphalist claims that the dissolution of the Soviet Union would bring about a new era of peace, democracy and the "end of history," it has brought only a quarter-century of neocolonial wars. ..."
"... the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria have not achieved their intended purpose. Having spent trillions of dollars and killed millions of people, the global position of US imperialism is no better than when it launched the "war on terror" in 2001. ..."
"... Now, the United States is upping the ante: setting "great-power conflict" with Russia and China on the order of the day. In its existential struggle for global hegemony, US imperialism is going for broke, willing to employ the most reckless and desperate means, up to and including the launching of nuclear war. ..."
In an article that fully backs the White House's accusations against Russia, the New
York Times ' David Sanger, a conduit for the Pentagon, spells out with perfect lucidity
the real reasons why the United States is leaving the INF treaty:
"Constrained by the treaty's provisions, the United States has been prevented from deploying
new weapons to counter China's efforts to cement a dominant position in the Western Pacific and
keep American aircraft carriers at bay. China was still a small and unsophisticated military
power when Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of a rapidly-weakening Soviet
Union, negotiated the INF agreement."
Sanger's own words make perfectly clear why the United States wants to leave the treaty,
which has nothing to do with Russia's alleged violations: Washington is seeking to ring the
island chain surrounding the Chinese mainland with a hedge of nuclear missiles. But Sanger
somehow expects, without so much as a transition paragraph, his readers to believe the hot air
spewed by Pompeo about Russia's "bad behavior."
Over the past two years, the American military establishment has grown increasingly alarmed
at the rapidity of China's technological development, which the United States sees as a threat
not only to the profitability of its corporations, but the dominance of its military.
Two decades ago, at the height of the dotcom bubble, China was little more than a cheap
labor platform, assembling the consumer electronics driving a revolution in communications,
while American companies pocketed the vast bulk of the profits. But today, the economic balance
of power is shifting.
Chinese companies like Huawei, Xiaomi and Oppo are capturing an ever-greater portion of the
global smartphone market, even as their rivals Samsung and Apple see their market share slip.
The Shenzhen-based DJI is the uncontested global leader in the consumer drone market. Huawei,
meanwhile, leads its competitors by over a year in the next-generation mobile infrastructure
that will power not only driverless cars and "smart" appliances, but the "autonomous" weapons
of the future.
As the latest US Worldwide Threat Assessment warns, "For 2019 and beyond, the innovations
that drive military and economic competitiveness will increasingly originate outside the United
States, as the overall US lead in science and technology shrinks" and "the capability gap
between commercial and military technologies evaporates."
It is the economic decline of the United States relative to its global rivals that is
ultimately driving the intensification of US nuclear war plans. The United States hopes that,
by leveraging its military, it will be able to contain the economic rise of China and shore up
US preeminence on the world stage.
But a consensus is emerging within the US military that Washington cannot bring its rivals
to heel merely with the threat of totally obliterating them with its massive arsenal of
strategic missiles. Given the fleet of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines possessed by
both Russia and China, this option, even ignoring the effects of nuclear winter, would result
in the destruction of the largest cities in the United States.
Rather, the US is working to construct a "usable," low-yield, "tactical" nuclear arsenal,
including the construction of a new nuclear-capable cruise missile. This week, a new low-yield
US nuclear warhead went into production, with a yield between half and one third of the "little
boy" weapon that leveled the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and hundreds of times smaller than the
United States' other nuclear weapons systems.
The Trump administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released last year, envisions using such
weapons to turn the tide in conflicts that begin with conventional weapons, under the pretense
(whether the Pentagon believes it or not) that such wars will stop short of full-scale nuclear
exchanges.
Nearly 75 years ago, the United States, after having "scorched and boiled and baked to
death," in the words of General Curtis Lemay, hundreds of thousands of civilians in a genocidal
"strategic bombing" campaign over Japan, murdered hundreds of thousands more with the use of
two nuclear weapons: an action whose primary aim was to threaten the USSR.
But ultimately, the continued existence of the Soviet Union served as a check on the
genocidal impulses of US imperialism.
Despite the triumphalist claims that the dissolution of the Soviet Union would bring about a
new era of peace, democracy and the "end of history," it has brought only a quarter-century of
neocolonial wars.
But the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria have not achieved their intended
purpose. Having spent trillions of dollars and killed millions of people, the global position
of US imperialism is no better than when it launched the "war on terror" in 2001.
Now, the United States is upping the ante: setting "great-power conflict" with Russia
and China on the order of the day. In its existential struggle for global hegemony, US
imperialism is going for broke, willing to employ the most reckless and desperate means, up to
and including the launching of nuclear war.
"... Trump has no interest in democracy promotion. He's not a foreign policy realist . He's reflexively hostile to alliances and treaties. There's no sign he favors military restraint in dealing with recalcitrant rivals on the world stage. ..."
America's relations in the world are in a state of severe flux in the Trump era. The
president loves to denounce NATO, but the alliance is expanding
. He also delights in expressing warm feelings for Vladimir Putin at the same time that the
administration's policies often put us on a collision course with the country Putin leads.
We're preparing to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan at the same time that we're
saber-rattling with Iran and Venezuela. And Trump is preparing for negotiations with North
Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, a man Trump once threatened with nuclear annihilation but whom he
now considers a pen pal.
Despite occasional impressive
efforts to make this mishmash of impulses and reactions cohere, there is very little about
it that makes any kind of broader strategic sense -- at least not that the president or leading
members of his team have attempted to articulate. Trump has no interest in democracy
promotion. He's not
a foreign policy realist . He's reflexively hostile to alliances and treaties. There's no
sign he favors military restraint in dealing with recalcitrant rivals on the world stage.
He hates some dictators (the Iranian mullahs, Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, Kim 18 months
ago) and loves others (Putin, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Kim today). And so on and
so forth through a long list of clashing words and actions.
If you hope to break the stranglehold of the bipartisan pro-interventionist consensus on
foreign policy thinking in the nation's capital and devise a more
sustainable and humane alternative , then there may be cause for expressions of modest
support for at least some of the Trump administration's moves. (That's why I've sometimes
cautiously praised them.) But that shouldn't blind us to just how confused the U.S. looks and
sounds on the world stage -- or to the deepest sources of that confusion, which go far beyond
the ignorance and impulsiveness of Donald Trump himself.
... ... ...
...America's global game of brinksmanship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War led to
us to adopt contradictory positions. Rhetorically, we insisted that countries within the
American sphere of influence were free to determine their own fates, and we defended the right
of countries within the Soviet sphere of influence to do the same, certain they would choose to
follow the liberal democratic path if given the choice. But in our actions -- in Korea, in
Vietnam, in Chile, in Nicaragua, and in many other places -- we were quite willing to impose
our own (overt and covert) will on weaker powers if they didn't make the "right" choices.
... ... ...
Like a behemoth surrounded by a swarm of wasps -- or a superpower suffering from an acute
case of collective PTSD -- the U.S. has spent the past 18 years swatting at insects capable of
inflicting pain but falling far short of the capacity to pose an existential threat.
But that hasn't stopped fears that they could. For a country of control-freaks, allowing
other peoples to pursue national self-determination looks like an unacceptable risk -- a luxury
incompatible with American security. Which means, in effect, that the nations of the world must
be divided into two camps: those that are with us and those that are against us. Just as George
W. Bush said we needed to do.
That is where we are -- with Donald Trump haphazardly moving countries back and forth
between the two camps as his ill-informed instincts (and the ideological obsessions of his
advisers) dictate and demand. Meanwhile, the peoples of the world stand by, wondering whether
the capricious commander in chief of the most powerful military on the planet will rain fire on
their homes and their heads from the other side of the world if they fail to defer to our
self-proclaimed leadership of the "free world."
Precisely how long this arrangement can go on is anyone's guess -- but we know it can't last
forever, or anything close to it. The U.S. is indisputably in relative decline, bound to be
challenged for preeminence by a lengthening list of rising powers, each one of which can and
will use Jefferson's quintessentially American principles against our own efforts at imperial
domination.
We can't control the peoples of the world; we can only protect ourselves. The sooner we
learn to accept that accomplishing the latter doesn't require trying (and failing) to achieve
the former, the better.
"I take it as a given that President Trump is an incompetent nitwit, precisely as his critics
charge. Yet his oft-repeated characterization of those wars as profoundly misguided has more than
a little merit." As many have said, Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
Notable quotes:
"... Still, I find myself wondering: If a proposed troop drawdown in Afghanistan qualifies as a "mistake," as O'Hanlon contends, then what term best describes a war that has cost something like a trillion dollars, killed and maimed tens of thousands, and produced a protracted stalemate? ..."
"... And, if recent press reports prove true, with U.S. government officials accepting Taliban promises of good behavior as a basis for calling it quits, then this longest war in our history will not have provided much of a return on investment. Given the disparity between the U.S. aims announced back in 2001 and the results actually achieved, defeat might be an apt characterization. ..."
I don't wish to imply that political leaders and media outlets ignore our wars altogether.
That would be unfair. Yet in TrumpWorld, while the president's performance in office receives
intensive and persistent coverage day in, day out, the attention given to America's wars has
been sparse and perfunctory, when not positively bizarre.
As a case in point, consider the op-ed
that recently appeared in the New York Times (just as actual peace talks between the
U.S. and the Taliban seemed to be progressing
), making the case for prolonging the U.S. war in Afghanistan, while chiding President Trump
for considering a reduction in the number of U.S. troops currently stationed there. Any such
move, warned Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, would be a "mistake" of the first
order.
The ongoing Afghan War dates from a time when some of today's recruits were still in
diapers. Yet O'Hanlon counsels patience: a bit more time and things just might work out. This
is more or less comparable to those who suggested back in the 1950s that African Americans
might show a bit more patience in their struggle for equality: Hey, what's the rush?
I don't pretend to know what persuaded the editors of the Times that O'Hanlon's
call to make America's longest war even longer qualifies as something readers of the nation's
most influential newspaper just now need to ponder. Yet I do know this: the dearth of critical
attention to the costs and
consequences of our various post-9/11 wars is nothing short of shameful, a charge to which
politicians and journalists alike should plead equally guilty.
I take it as a given that President Trump is an incompetent nitwit, precisely as his critics
charge. Yet his oft-repeated characterization of those wars as profoundly misguided has more
than a little merit. Even more striking than Trump's critique is the fact that so few members
of the national security establishment are willing to examine it seriously. As a consequence,
the wars persist, devoid of purpose.
Still, I find myself wondering: If a proposed troop drawdown in Afghanistan qualifies as
a "mistake," as O'Hanlon contends, then what term best describes a war that has cost something
like a trillion dollars, killed and maimed tens of thousands, and produced a protracted
stalemate?
Disaster? Debacle? Catastrophe? Humiliation?
And, if recent press reports prove true, with U.S. government officials accepting
Taliban promises of good behavior as a basis for calling it quits, then this longest war in our
history will not have provided much of a return on investment. Given the disparity between the
U.S. aims announced back in 2001 and the results actually achieved, defeat might be an apt
characterization.
Yet the fault is not Trump's. The fault belongs to those who have allowed their immersion in
the dank precincts of TrumpWorld to preclude serious reexamination of misguided and reckless
policies that predate the president by at least 15 years.
You have to compare Trump with the alternative. The D's /progs make war on free speech,
attack the presumption of innocence, want essentially uncontrolled mass immigration and
relentlessly push in the direction of war with Russia. Add their cynical Russiagate
hoax-witch hunt for further illustration
of the danger they present. As many have said, Trump is the symptom, not the disease.
"I take it as a given that President Trump is an incompetent nitwit, precisely as his critics
charge. Yet his oft-repeated characterization of those wars as profoundly misguided has more
than a little merit."
I'm with Bacevich on the insanity of Endless War, but I question why he has to denigrate
Trump in his lead in. The cynical side of me believes that Bacevich thinks he has to be a
Trump-hater if he is to be listened to.
Hey Andrew sir Democracy is messy. But DJT is on your team and the MSM/Liberal
progs/Neocons aren't. Worth reflecting on
@fnn "As many have said,
Trump is the symptom, not the disease"
Actually, Trump is the microbe not the virus. He's the opportunistic microbe that attaches
itself to a sick and diseased body-politic. As to symptoms, they are borne by society
at-large and now manifest themselves in the majority of Americans who one way or the other
are "Lost in TrumpWorld"
This 20 year old satire looks like it was written yesterday...
Notable quotes:
"... In the past, the underworld was ill-equipped to handle the new breed of sinners flooding our gates -- downsizing CEOs, focus-group coordinators, telemarketing sales representatives, and vast hordes of pony-tailed entertainment-industry executives ..."
"... Among the tortures the Corpadverticus Circle of Total Bastards boasts: the Never-Ending Drive-Thru Bank, the Bottomless Pit of Promotional Tie-In Keychains, and the dreaded Chamber of Emotionally Manipulative Home Shopping Network Products. ..."
"... condemned TV-exercise-show personalities, clad in skin-tight Spandex outfits soaked in flesh-dissolving acid, are forced to exercise for centuries on end ..."
"... In a nearby area, corporate raiders are forced to carry the golf clubs of uneducated Hispanic migrant workers from hole to hole for eternity, withering under a constant barrage of verbal abuse ..."
"... "In life, I was a Salomon Brothers investment banker," one flame-blackened shade told reporters. "When I arrived here, they didn't know what to do with me. They put me in with those condemned to walk backwards with their heads turned all the way around on their necks, for the crime of attempting to see the future. But then I sent a couple of fruit baskets to the right people, and in no time flat, I secured a cushy spot for myself in the first circle of the Virtuous Unbaptized. Now that was a sweet deal. But before long, they caught on to my game and transferred me here to the realm of Total Bastards. I've been shrieking for mercy like a goddamn woman ever since." ..."
After nearly four years of construction at an estimated cost of 750 million souls,
Corpadverticus, the new 10th circle of Hell, finally opened its doors Monday.
Tenth Circle Added To Rapidly Growing Hell
The Blockbuster Video-sponsored circle, located in Nether Hell between the former eighth and
ninth levels of Malebolge and Cocytus, is expected to greatly alleviate the overcrowding
problems that have plagued the infernal underworld in recent years. The circle is the first
added to Hell in its countless-millennia history.
"A nightmarishly large glut of condemned spirits in recent years necessitated the expansion
of Hell," inferno spokesperson Antedeus said. "The traditional nine-tiered system had grown
insufficient to accommodate the exponentially rising numbers of Hellbound."
Adding to the need for expansion, Antedeus said, was the fact that a majority of the new
arrivals possessed souls far more evil than the original nine circles were equipped to handle.
"Demographers, advertising executives, tobacco lobbyists, monopoly-law experts retained by
major corporations, and creators of office-based sitcoms–these new arrivals represent a
wave of spiritual decay and horror the likes of which Hell has never before seen," Antedeus
said.
Despite the need for expansion, the plan faced considerable resistance, largely due to the
considerable costs of insuring construction projects within the Kingdom Of Lies. Opposition
also came from Hell purists concerned about the detrimental effect a tenth level would have on
the intricate numerology of Hell's meticulously arranged allegorical structure. In 1994,
however, funding was finally secured in a deal brokered between Blockbuster CEO Wayne Huizenga
and Satan himself.
Prior to the construction of the tenth circle, many among the new wave of sinners had been
placed in such circles as Hoarders and Squanderers, Sowers of Discord, Flatterers and Seducers,
Violent Against Art, and Hypocrites. Hell authorities, however, say that the new level, the
Circle of Total Bastards, located at the site of the former Well of Giants just above the
Frozen Lake at Hell's center, better suits their insidious brand of evil.
Frigax The Vile, a leading demonic presence, is one of the most vocal supporters of the new
circle.
" In the past, the underworld was ill-equipped to handle the new breed of sinners
flooding our gates -- downsizing CEOs, focus-group coordinators, telemarketing sales
representatives, and vast hordes of pony-tailed entertainment-industry executives
rollerblading and talking on miniaturized cell-phones at the same time. But now, we've finally
got the sort of top-notch Pits of Doom necessary to give such repellent abominations the
quality boilings they deserve."
Pausing to tear off the limbs of an Access Hollywood host, Frigax added, "We're all
tremendously excited about the many brand-new forms of torture and eternal pain this new
level's state-of-the-art facilities will make possible."
Among the tortures the Corpadverticus Circle of Total Bastards boasts: the Never-Ending
Drive-Thru Bank, the Bottomless Pit of Promotional Tie-In Keychains, and the dreaded Chamber of
Emotionally Manipulative Home Shopping Network Products.
The Circle also features a Hall of Aerobics, where condemned TV-exercise-show
personalities, clad in skin-tight Spandex outfits soaked in flesh-dissolving acid, are forced
to exercise for centuries on end , covered in vomit and prodded with the distended ribs of
skeletal, anorexic demons, accompanied by an unending, ear-splittingly loud dance-remix version
of the 1988 Rick Astley hit "Together Forever."
In a nearby area, corporate raiders are forced to carry the golf clubs of uneducated
Hispanic migrant workers from hole to hole for eternity, withering under a constant barrage of
verbal abuse from their former subservients as crows descend from trees to peck at their
eyes. In one of the deepest and most profane portions of the circle, unspeakable acts are said
to be committed with a mail-order Roly-Kit.
"In life, I was a Salomon Brothers investment banker," one flame-blackened shade told
reporters. "When I arrived here, they didn't know what to do with me. They put me in with those
condemned to walk backwards with their heads turned all the way around on their necks, for the
crime of attempting to see the future. But then I sent a couple of fruit baskets to the right
people, and in no time flat, I secured a cushy spot for myself in the first circle of the
Virtuous Unbaptized. Now that was a sweet deal. But before long, they caught on to my game and
transferred me here to the realm of Total Bastards. I've been shrieking for mercy like a
goddamn woman ever since."
His face contorted in the Misery of the Damned, a Disney lawyer said: "It's hell
here–there are no executive lounges, I can't get any decent risotto, and the suit I have
to wear is a cheap Brooks Brothers knock-off. I'm beeped every 30 seconds, and there's no way
to return the calls. Plus, I'm being boiled upside down in lard while jackals gnaw at the soles
of my feet. If I could just reach the fax machine on that nearby rock, I could contact some
well-placed associates and work something out, but it's just out of my grasp, and it's out of
ink and constantly blinking the message, 'Replace Toner Cartridge, Replace Toner Cartridge,
Replace Toner Cartridge.'"
He then resumed screaming in agony.
Grogar The Malefic, a Captain in Hell's elite Demon Corps and supervisor in charge of
admissions for the new circle, said Hell's future looks bright, thanks to the new circle.
"Things are definitely looking up," Grogar said. "We're now far better equipped, and we're
ready to take on the most Unholy Atrocities humanity has to offer."
"We're really on the grow down here," Grogar added. "This is an exciting time to be in
Hell."
Go to a large library and cross-reference James Jesus Angleton, Kim Philby, Miles Copeland and Nicholas Elliott in the "spy" books.
Soon you will begin to see that MI6 was there at the OSS and later CIA inceptions.
At the hidden deep levels, both these agencies serve the GLOBALIST' enterprise, and have since the start.
Then you will understand Steele and the "five eyes" involvement in the Russia hoax.
Nations should explore better system to break US hegemony
"The US dollar is used for the international oil and gas trade and a wide part of global
trade. This gives the US an exorbitant privilege to sanction countries it opposes.
..
The latest sanctions on Venezuela's state-owned oil company aim to cut off source of foreign
currency of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro's government and eventually force him to step
down.
..
A new mechanism should be devised to thwart such a vicious circle"
My question is really about those at the top of the power pyramid (those few hundred
families who own the controling share of the wealth of the world) -- those who position
idiots like Bolton to do their work, do they comprehend 'exergy' decline ?
If we can, then can they not? I agree with Parenti that they are not
'somnambulists'. They are strategists looking out for their own interests, and that means
scrutinising trends in political movements, culture, technology and, well, just about
everything. I find it hard, the idea that all these people -- people who have seen their
businesses shaped by resource discovery, exploitation and then depletion, have no firm grasp
on the realities of dwindling returns on energy.
The models were drawn up 47 years ago. I think that some of them at least, do
understand that economic growth is coming to a halt, and have understood for decades. If true
then they are planning that transition in their favour.
These hard to swallow facts about oil are still on the far fringes of any political
conversation. The neoliberal cultists are deaf to them for obvious reasons; the socialist
idealists believe that a 'New Deal' can lead us off the death train, but mostly ignore the
intractable relationship between energy decline and financial problems; even the anarchists
want their work free utopia run by robots and AI but stop short of asking whether solar
panels and wind turbines can actually provide the power for all that tech. It's the news that
nobody wants to think about, but which they will be forced to thinking about in the very near
future.
The Twitter feed 'Limits to Growth' has less than 800 followers (excellent though it
is).
I do not want to get into the mind of the Walrus of Death Bolton! I do not want to know
what he does, as he does. But at lower levels of government, and corporatism, there is an
awareness of surplus energy economics. And as Nafeez has also pointed out, the military (the
Pentagon) are taking an interest. And though it could rapidly change, who really appreciates
the nuances of EROEI? I'm guessing at less than a single percent of all populations? And how
many include its effects in a integrated political sense?
Its appreciation is sporadic: ranging from tech-utopia hopium to a defeated fatalism of
the inevitability of collapse. Unless and until people want to face the harshness of the
reality that capitalism has created: we are going to be involved in a marginal analysis.
There are very few people who have realised that capitalism is long dead.
Dr Tim Morgan estimates that world capitalism has conservatively had $140tn in stimulus
since 2008 -- without stimulating anything or reviving it at all. In fact, that amounts to
the greatest robbery in history -- the theft of the future. Inasmuch as they can, those
unrepayable debts -- transferred to inflate the parasitic assets of capitalists -- will be
socialised. Except they cannot be. Not without surplus energy.
Brexit, gilets jaunes, Venezuela, unending crises in MENA, China's economic slowdown, etc
-- all linked by EROEI.
It is a common socio-politico-economic energy nexus -- but linked together by whom? And
the emergent surplus energy-mind-environmental ecology nexus? All the information is
available. The formation of a new political manifesto started in the 1960s with the New Left
but it seems to have been in stasis since. Perhaps this might stimulate the conversation.
According to Nate Hagens: there is 4.5 years of human muscle power leveraged by each
barrel of oil. We are all going to be working for a very long time to pay back the debts
the possessing classes have built up for us -- with absolutely no marginal utility for
ourselves.
We are subsidising our own voluntary slavery unless we develop an emergent ecosocialist
and ecosophical alternative to carbon capitalism. We cannot expect paleoconservative carbon
relics like Bolton -- or anyone else -- to do it for us. The current political landscape is
dominated by a hierarchical, vested interest, carbon aristocracy. We can't expect that to
change for our benefit any time ever. Expect the opposite.
Graeber has a point, though. We could already have a post-scarcity, post-production society
but for the egregious maldistribution of resources and employment. Andre Gorz said as much 50
years ago (Critique of Economic Reason). Why do we organise around production: it makes no
sense but for the relations of production are, and remain, the relations of hierarchical
rule. So long as we assign value to a human life on the basis of meritocratic productivity --
we will have dehumanisation, marginalisation, and subjugation (haves and have nots). So why
not organisation around care, freedom and play?
Such a solution would require the transversalistion of society and not-full-employment: so
that no part of the system is subordinate, and no part is privileged. All systems and
sub-ordinate (care) systems would be co-equal, of corresponding value and worth. So, without
invoking EROEI, that would go a long way to solve our exergy, waste, pollution, and
inequality problems. It is the profligate, unproductive superstructure: supporting rentier,
surplus energy accumulating, profit-seeking suprasocieties -- that squanders our excess
energy and puts expansive spatio-temporal pressures on already stretched biophysical
ecological systems that engenders potential collapse. It is their -- the possessing classes
-- assets that are being inflated, at our environmental expense. When it comes to
survivability, we cannot afford a parasitic globalised superstructure draining the host --
the ecologically productive base. Without the over-accumulation, overconsumption, and wastage
(the accursed share) associated with the superstructure of the advanced economies -- and
their cultural, credit, military imperialisms I expect we could live quite well. Without the
pressures of globalised transportation networks, and unnecessary military budgets -- the
pressure on oil is minimised. It could be used for the 1001 other uses it has, rather than
fuelling Saudi Eurofighters bombing Yemeni schoolchildren, for instance. The surplus energy
could be used to educate, clothe and feed them instead. That would be a better use of
resources, for sure.
If we took stock of what we really have, and what we really are -- a form of spiritual
neo-self-sufficiency, augmented and extended into co-mutual care and freedom valorising
ecologies we wouldn't need to chase the perceived loss all over the globe, killing everything
that moves. The solutions are not hard, they are normative, once we are shocked out of this
awful near-life trance state of separationism. Thanks for the link.
It seems to me that there are two parallel arguments going on.
One is about social organisation, attitudes towards and policies determining work, money,
paid employment, technological development and the distribution of weath.
The other is fundamentally based on the laws of thermodynamics and concerns resource limits,
energy surpluses, the role of 'stored sunlight' in producing things and doing work for each
other, pollution and projections about these into the future.
I am surprised that Graeber (just as an example) seems to basically ignore the second of
these even though he clearly is an incisive thinker and makes good points about the first. It
is taken as a given that, theoretically at least, human civilisation could re-organise around
a new ethic, transform the economy into a 'caring economy', re-structure money, government
and do away with militarism. In terms of what to do now, as an individual, what choices to
make, it is disconcerting to me when talk of these ideals seems to ignore those latter
questions about overshoot.
I wonder if the egalitarian nature of much of indiginous North American society was
inescapably bound with the realities of a low population density, low technology,
intimate relationship with the natural world and a culture completely steeped in reverence
for Mother Earth.
The talk I hear from Bastani or Graeber along the lines of 'we could be flying around in jet
packs on the moon, if only society was organised sensibly' rings hollow to me.
Welcome to my world! Apart from as a managerial tool, systems thinking has yet to catch on
in the wider population. According to reductive materialism: there are two unlinked
arguments. According to Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) there is only one integrated argument --
with two inter-connected correlative aspects. We can only organise around what we can
energetically afford. Consequently, we cannot organise around what we cannot afford -- that
is, global industrialised production with a supervenient elitist superstructure.
Let's face it : ethical arguments carry little weight against organisation around
hierarchical rule. The current talk of an ethical capitalism -- in mixed economies with
'commons' elements -- is an appeasement. and distractional to the gathering and ineluctable
reality.
The current (2012) EROI for the UK is 6.2:1 -- barely above the 'energy cliff' of 5:1. The
GDP 'growth' and bullshit jobs are funded by monetised debt (we borrow around £5 to
make every £1 -- from Tim Morgan's SEEDS). From the Earth Overshoot Day website: the UK
is in economic overshoot from May 8th onward.
These are indicators that we will not be "flying jetpacks on the moon": even if we
reorganise. Everyone, and I mean everyone, will have to make do with less. A lot less.
Everything would have to be localised and sustainable. Production would be minimised, and not
at all full. Two major systems of production -- food (agroecology) and energy -- would have
to be sustainable and self-sovereign. And financialisation and the rentier, service economy?
Now you can see why no one, not even Dave the crypto-anarchist, is talking about reality.
Elitism, establishment and entitlement do not figure in an equitable future. We can't afford
it, energetically or ethically.
So when will the debate move on? Not any time the populace is bought into ideational
deferred prosperity. All the time that EROEI is ignored as the fundamental concept governing
dwindling prosperity -- no one, and I mean no one, will be talking about a minimal surplus
energy future. The magic realism is that the economic affordances of cheap oil (unsustainably
mimicked by debt-funding) will return sometime, somehow (the technocratic superfix). The
aporia is that the longer the delay, the less surplus energy we will have available to
utilise. Something like the Green New Deal -- that has been proposed for around two decades
now -- may give us some quality of life to sustain. Pseudo-talk of a Customs Union, 'clean'
coal, and nuclear power, will not.
An integrated reality -- along the model of Guattari's 'Three Ecologies' -- of mind,
economy, and environment is well, we are not alone, but we are ahead of the curve. The other
cultural aporia is that we need to implement such vision now. Actually, about thirty years
ago but let's not get depressive!
We are going to need that cooperative organisation around care and freedom just to get
through the coming century.
As mentioned elsewhere here, Venezualan oil deposits are not all that the hype cracks them up
to be. They are mostly oil sands that produce little in the way of net energy gain after the
lengthy process of extraction.The Venezuala drama is about the empire crushing democracy
(i.e. socialism), not oil. [not that this detracts from Kit's essential point in the
article].
The Left (as well as the Right), by and large have not come to terms with the realities of
the decline in net surplus energy that is unfolding around the world and driving the
political changes that we see. So they still view geopolitics in terms of the oil economy of
pre-2008.
The productive economies of Europe are falling apart (check Steve Keen's latest on Max and
Stacy -- although even i he doesn't delve into the energy decline aspect).
The carbon density of the global economy has not changed in the 27 years since the founding
of the UNFCCC.
The Peak Oil phenomenon was oversimplified, misrepresented and misunderstood as a simple
turning point in overall oil production. In truth it was a turning point in energy
surplus.
I predict that by the end of this or next year, everyone will be talking about ERoEI.
Everyone will realise that there is no way out of this predicament. Maybe there are ways to
lessen the catastrophe, but no way to avert it. This will change the conversation, and even
change what 'politics' means (i.e. you cannot campaign on a 'new start' or a 'better,
brighter future' if everyone knows that that physically cannot happen).
Everyone will understand that their civilisation is collapsing.
Does Bolton understand this?
If you were referring to my earlier comments about Venezuelan extra heavy crude: it's
still massively about the oil. The current carbon capitalist world system does not understand
surplus energy or EROEI, as it is so fixated on maximal short term returns for shareholders.
It can't comprehend that their entire business model is unsustainable and self cannibalising.
Which is bad for us: because carbon net-energy (exergy) economics it is foundational to all
civilisation. The ignorance of it and subsequent environmental and social convergence crises
threatens the systemic failure of our entire civilisation. The Venezuelan crisis affects us
all: and is symptomatic of a decline in cheap oil due to rapidly falling EROEI.
I can't find the EROEI specifically for Venezuelan heavy oil: but it is only slightly more
viscous than bitumen -- which has an EROEI of 3:1. Let's call it 4:1: the same as other tight
oils and shale. Anything less than 5:1 is more or less an energy sink: with virtually no net
energy left for society. The minimum EROEI for societal needs is 11:1. Does Bolton understand
this? Francis hit the nail on the head there.
Do any of our leaders? No. If they did, a transition to decentralisation would be well
under way. Globalised supply chains are systemically threatened and fragile. A globalised
economy is spectacularly vulnerable. Especially a debt-ridden one. Which way are our leaders
trying to take us? At what point will humanity realise we are following clueless Pied Pipers
off the Seneca Cliff -- into globalised energy oblivion?
The rapid investment -- not in a post-carbon transition -- but in increased
militarisation, and resource and market driven aggressive foreign intervention policies
reveal the mindset of insanity. As people come to understand the energy basis of the world
crisis: the fact of permanent austerity and increased pauperisation looms large. What will
the outcome be when an armed nuclear madhouse becomes increasingly protectionsist of their
dwindling share? Too alarmist, perhaps? Let's play pretend that we can plant a few trees and
captive breed a few rhinos and it will all be fine. BAU?
The world runs on cheap oil: our socio-politico-economic expectations of progress depend
on it. Which means that the modern human mind is, in effect, a thought-process predicated on
cheap oil. Oleum ergo sum? Apart from the Middle East: we are already past the point where
oil is a liability, not a viability. Debt funding its extraction, selling below the cost of
production -- both assume the continual expansion of global GDP. Oil is a highly subsidised
-- with our surplus socialisation capital -- negative asset. We foot the bill. A bill that
EROEI predicts will keep on rising. At what point do we realise this? Or do we live in hopium
of a return to historical prosperity? Or hang on the every word of the populist magic realism
demagogue who promises a future social utopia?
EROEI = Energy Returned on Energy Invested (also known as EROI = Energy Return on Investment)
EROEI refers to the amount of usable energy that can be extracted from a resource compared
to the amount of energy (usually considered to come from the same resource) used to extract
it. It's calculated by dividing the amount of energy obtained from a source by the amount of
energy needed to get it out.
An EROEI of 1:1 means that the amount of usable energy that a resource generates is the
same as the amount of energy that went into getting it out. A resource with an EROEI of 1:1
or anything less isn't considered a viable resource if it delivers the same or less energy
than what was invested in it. A viable resource is one with an EROEI of at least 3:1.
The concept of EROEI assumes that the energy needed to get more energy out of a resource
is the same as the extracted energy ie you need oil to extract oil or you need electricity to
extract electricity. In real life, you often need another source of energy to extract energy
eg in some countries, to extract electricity, you need to burn coal, and in other countries,
to extract electricity you need to build dams on rivers. So comparing the EROEI of
electricity extraction across different countries will be difficult because you have to
consider how and where they're generating electricity and factor in the opportunity costs
involved (that is, what the coal or the water or other energy source -- like solar or wind
energy -- could have been used for instead of electricity generation).
That is probably why EROEI is used mainly in the context of oil or natural gas
extraction.
@Sean
According to this comment, "The government does not take orders from the CIA or the FBI. The
President controls both." Well, only if the President is a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations and a Rockefeller's puppet. For a well-documented, quite different analysis of the
Kennedy assassination see "Partners in Crime: The Rockefeller, CFR, CIA and Castro Connection
to the Kennedy Assassination."
The C.I.A. IS all about Regime Change. I am not convinced that they are all bad just a clique
within. They are inexplicably connected with that government behind the Government. They are
not connected with the office of the Executive but follow the orders of a few that have no
regard for The People, constitutionally. If they were, drugs would have been squashed,
decades ago.
Edward Curtain writes for the CIA about the CIA. Amazing that a bunch of academics would
"criticize" the CIA and leave out all the real facts about the CIA.
ISIS, Al Qaeda, Pornhub, Facebook, Google – or whatever the CIA calls themselves and
their weapons isn't in the business of informing you about anything at all.
Read 1984, it will explain it to you, another psychological warfare treatise written by a
Government agent.
March 19, 2017 The CIA's 60-Year History of Fake News How the Deep State Corrupted Many
American Writers
Whitney's new book, "Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers," explores how
the CIA influenced acclaimed writers and publications during the Cold War to produce subtly
anti-communist material. During the interview, Scheer and Whitney discuss these manipulations
and how the CIA controlled major news agencies and respected literary publications (such as
the Paris Review).
JANUARY 18, 2017 CIA Publishes About 13 Million Pages of Declassified Files Online
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) published nearly 13 million pages of declassified
files on its official website for the first time in its history. The declassified files were
previously publicly available only at the National Archives in Maryland.
You'd think that US and Venezuela have lot in common and that they should build their
relationship based on some similar bad experiences that they have suffered in the last few
years.
After all, both countries had their presidents installed by an unfriendly foreign power
– in the case of US – that was Russia and in the case of Venezuela – that's
US that did them the favor of choosing the proper president for them.
It's common knowledge now that without the Russian interference in the US electoral system
– which as we all know works like a clockwork (orange), Trump would have never been
elected as president of US – because that's not who they are.
And now the US – embittered by that experience -has decided to do the same thing to
Venezuela. I see bad Russian influence everywhere. I think that indirectly – Russia is
responsible for the crisis in Venezuela. If they hadn't elected Trump for president in US, it
would have never occurred to the Americans that it could be done. That's not how democracies
work.
@Ilyana_Rozumova Despite huge increases in domestic oil production in the last years the
USA is still the second largest net oil importer in the word (behind China).
Also the USA is extracting its proven reserves at a much faster rate than any other large
producer (a pattern it also had in the past, leading to high fluctuation in its production)
so unless new reserves are discovered US production will likely start to decline again within
a few years.
@Ilyana_Rozumova Condensate, not oil. Only good for gas or lighter fluid. It may be
called oil but that's a deliberate misnomer.
Only financial engineering makes it appear profitable. Its a money losing psychopaths
power play, not a business. Without a heavy real oil to blend it with its useless, heavy oil
is where Venezuela comes in.
@Ilyana_Rozumova "Main factor here is that US due to fracking become self sufficient,
what actually nobody could foresee. Just a bad luck".
Bad luck for the USA. They have fallen into an elephant trap, because fracking has already
become unprofitable and is only being financed by ever-increasing debt.
Admittedly this gives them some advantage, but only in the very short term.
Of course, it doesn't really matter – in the short to medium term – whether
fracking is profitable or grossly unprofitable. They can still pay for it by printing more
dollars, as long as the "greater fools" (or heavily bribed officials) in other countries go
on accepting dollars.
"America's energy security just got a lot more secure . Located in the Wolfcamp Shale
and overlying Bone Spring Formation, the unproven, technically recoverable reserves are
officially the largest on the planet."
None of these breathlessly optimistic articles say how expensive it will be to get this
oil. If a dollar's worth of oil costs you more than a dollar to recover, you are obviously
losing in the deal. If you print the dollars, your entire economy loses.
@50 bobzibub... your link doesn't bring me to the article, but i suspect it is more then just
crystallix - the canuck gold mining company - that are pushing for a change in power in
venezuala.. as i understand it, there are a number of canuck mining and oil related interests
where they would like to exploit venezuala and can't seem to get around the democractically
elected gov't of maduros..
looks like
this might be related, or the article you were trying to post? an american judge says
crystallex can have citgo, lol....
We just got done conquering Iraq. We haven't stayed to loot the oil.
The US has NOT successfully conquered Iraq (has not pacified the country). Oil is not like
a bag of diamonds, which you can grab and run. In order to steal a worthwhile amount of the
greasy stuff, you have to make a substantial investment up front, in wells and shipping
terminals. Not even the greediest thief will risk his money if there is even the slightest
chance that his wells and terminals will be blown up by righteous nationalists. This is why
the US hasn't stolen much from Iraq.
So now you believe we're going to Venezuela to take their crappy heavy oil?
That the US hasn't been able to steal much from Iraq tells us little about whether the
Americans have larcenous motives with regard to Venezuela. Especially as Trump has been
talking loudly about the oil.
It would be easier for us just to build a pipeline to Alberta and import all their
cheap, shut-in heavy crude.
" Second, Venezuela's central bankers were persuaded to pledge their oil reserves and all
assets of the state oil sector (including Citgo) as collateral for its foreign debt. This
meant that if Venezuela defaulted (or was forced into default by U.S. banks refusing to make
timely payment on its foreign debt), bondholders and U.S. oil majors would be in a legal
position to take possession of Venezuelan oil assets."
Solid proof that it was the empire who invented the practice of "debt trap" and is still
flourishing with it.
hunor, February 7, 2019 at 6:24 am GMT
Thank you ! Made it very clear. Perfect reflection of the " Values of Western Civilization ".
Reaching to grab the whole universe, with no holds barred . And never show of any interest for the " truth". They are not
even pretending anymore , awakening will be very painful for some.
Reuben Kaspate, February 7, 2019 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words
Why would the U. S. based White-Protestant aristocracy care a hoot about the Brown-Catholic elites in the far off land?
They don't! The comprador aristocracy in question isn't what it seems It's the same group that plagues the Americans.
The rootless louts, whose only raison d'ę·tre is to milk everything in sight and then retire to coastal cities, i.e. San
Francisco, if you are a homosexual or New York City and State, if you are somewhat religious.
Poor Venezuelans don't stand a chance against the shysters!
You'd think that US and Venezuela have lot in common and that they should build their
relationship based on some similar bad experiences that they have suffered in the last few
years.
After all, both countries had their presidents installed by an unfriendly foreign power
– in the case of US – that was Russia and in the case of Venezuela – that's
US that did them the favor of choosing the proper president for them.
It's common knowledge now that without the Russian interference in the US electoral system
– which as we all know works like a clockwork (orange), Trump would have never been
elected as president of US – because that's not who they are.
And now the US – embittered by that experience -has decided to do the same thing to
Venezuela. I see bad Russian influence everywhere. I think that indirectly – Russia is
responsible for the crisis in Venezuela. If they hadn't elected Trump for president in US, it
would have never occurred to the Americans that it could be done. That's not how democracies
work.
As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump lambasted America's endless and wasteful wars. But
as president, he has surrounded himself with individuals who have made defending and advancing
American empire a full-time career. Why did Trump cave and what could be the consequences for
him and his presidency?
CrossTalking with George Szamuely, Jeff Deist, and Lee Spieckerman.
That Lee guy demonstrated perfectly why the world should fear the USA. Dangerous stupid.
71 Likes
You are correct!
21 Likes
The danger comes from the arrogance with the stupidity. American exceptionalism at its
ugliest, on par with bolton and pompeo for sure.
I don't think tRump really knows what he is saying, as in big disconnect between brain and
mouth. More empty bluster than arrogance with his 5th grader stupidity.
23 Likes
The scary part is a lot of Americans are like him
23 Likes
Show 2 more replies
The "Lee" entity encapsulates everything that is wrong with consecutive US governments:
arrogant, obnoxious, I'll mannered, undiplomatic, belligerent, misinformed and dangerously
stupid.
43 Likes
Thanks for having this Lee Spieckerman on. It proves RT tries to show all sides and is a
shocking example of how crazy the far right is.
Keep it real!
37 Likes
Spickerman is living in cuckoo land with his claim US is a force for good and billions are
so happy to live under a bunch of mobster's Wrong
22 Likes
Lee Spickerman is a typical Sociopath
18 Likes
Lee Spickerman is mad like the US Governement.!!
The Monroe Doctrine gets evoked yet again. In written form it was "anti-colonial", but in
practice it was "imperial anti-colonialism" and used as a declaration of hegemony and a right
of unilateral intervention over the Americas.
This is why I feel we need to stop using the term "regime change" which also hides the
reality of what are really coup d'etats and imperialist wars. It's not a regime being changed,
but a regime trying to do the changing. Like Peter says at the end, it would take a long show
to talk about them all.
Do us all a favor and take Mr. Spieckerman off your guest list. He advances our knowledge
not a bit. He is merely one of the Bush claque. As for his admired public servant, John Bolton,
rarely does this country produce so maniacal a political operator. Giving Bolton a responsible
position was Trump's most egregious personnel error.
Radio Sputnik's Loud and Clear spoke with Daniel Lazare,
a journalist and author of three books, "The Frozen Republic," "The Velvet Coup" and "America's
Undeclared War," about what we can expect from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
in 2019, its third year of operation.
"A House committee can keep the ball rolling indefinitely," Lazare noted. "Nothing solid has
turned up about collusion in the Russiagate story. Yet, the story keeps going and going, a new
tidbit is put out every week, and so the scandal keeps somehow perpetuating itself. And even
though there's less and less of substance coming out, so I expect that'll be the pattern for
the next few months, and I expect that the Democrats will revv this whole process up to make it
sort of seem as if there really is an avalanche of information crashing down on Trump when
there really isn't."
investigation, noting it had produced little to nothing of substance in support of the
thesis justifying its existence: that Russia either colluded with the Trump campaign or
conspired to interfere in the US election to tilt it in Trump's favor.
Indeed,
report after
report on the data that has been provided to Congress by tech giants like Facebook, Twitter
and Google show an underwhelming performance by any would-be Russian actors. In contrast to the
apocalyptic claims by Democrats and the mainstream media about the massive disinformation
offensive waged by Russian actors, the websites, social media accounts, post reach and ad money
associated with "Russians" is always
dwarfed by the equivalent actions of the Trump campaign and the campaign of its rival in
the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, along with their throngs of supporters
across the US corporate world, both of whom sunk hundreds of millions into winning the
social media game.
Among the chief motivations for Democrats going into 2019 is that "Democrats are now the
party of war," Lazare said, noting that Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi called Trump's
prospective withdrawal from Syria a "Christmas gift to ISIS [Daesh]."
"This is the raison d'etre for Russiagate: they're trying to maneuver Trump into
hostilities with Russia, China, North Korea, etc. I mean, this is foreign policy by
subterfuge it's about keeping 2,000 troops in Syria as well, and getting Americans' heads
blown off in Afghanistan, all of which the Democrats want to do. The whole thing is backroom
government of the worst kind."
"... "Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you didn't come across as crazy so... ..."
This woman had NO CLUE what she was talking about. She thought she was on a show that would just tow the party line and let
her get away with wrong statements. She's just repeating what critics say with no idea of the truth. What a fool. As a woman,
THIS IS WHY I WON'T JUST VOTE FOR ANY WOMAN. We are just as capable of being stupid as anyone else.
Bari: "I think Tulsi Gabbard is an Assad toadie." Joe: "What do you mean by toadie?" Bari: "Oh, I don't know what that means."
Joe: "Okay, I looked it up, and it's like a sycophant." Bari: "Then Tulsi is like an Assad sycophant." Joe: "So what do you mean
by that?" Bari: "I'm not sure what sycophant means either." Joe: "I looked up the definition, it's like a suck-up." Bari: "All
right, Tulsi is an Assad suck-up." Joe: "Could you explain that further?" Bari: "I don't know what suck means." Joe: "It's what
you're doing right now."
"Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job
is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and
the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you
didn't come across as crazy so...
I will be very surprised if neocons would not frame her Putin toady as well. This is how this
system works. It eliminates undesirable to the neoliberals candidates with 100% efficiency.
They
serve as local STASI and some former STASI official might well envy neocons efficiency of
silencing opponents (with much less blood and overt repression, by pure magic of neocon
propaganda ).
Notable quotes:
"... She has "monstrous ideas, she's an Assad toady," Weiss tells Rogan. ..."
"... Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven -- known -- about her." ..."
"... When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant, Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details." ..."
"... Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in the country's civil war as "terrorists." ..."
"... She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile attacks by the US and its allies against the country. ..."
Monday to discuss current events, but
things got embarrassing when she went in on Gabbard, a progressive Democrat whose foreign
policy positions have turned more than a few heads.
Neocon NY Times columnist Bari Weiss smeared Tulsi Gabbard (who bravely opposed regime
change and US support for Salafi-jihadist contras) as an "Assad toady," then couldn't
spell/define toady or offer any evidence to prove her smear. Embarrassingly funny pic.twitter.com/m0MLaHFPiX
When Rogan asks for clarification, she says, "I think that I used that word correctly." She
then asks someone off camera to look up what toady means. "Like toeing the line," Rogan says,
"is that what it means?" "No, I think it's like, uh " and Weiss drones off without an answer.
She then attempts to spell it, and can't even do that. "T-O-A-D-I-E. I think it means what I
think it means "
Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters
or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss
exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven --
known -- about her."
When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant,
Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details."
"We probably should say that before we say that about her -- we should probably read it,
rather, right now, just so we know what she said," Rogan notes. "I think she's, like, the
motherlode of bad ideas," Weiss then says. "I'm pretty positive about that, especially on
Assad. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I'm wrong." It seems to us here at Sputnik that such
claims should be made with a bit more confidence than this. So let's set the record
straight.
Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts
of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January
2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in
the country's civil war as "terrorists."
She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's
government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile
attacks by the US and its allies against the country.
"Initially I hadn't planned on meeting him," Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, told CNN's Jake
Tapper following the meeting. "When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I
felt it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their
suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a
possibility that we could achieve peace. And that's exactly what we talked about."
"I have seen this cost of war firsthand, which is why I fight so hard for peace," Gabbard
said. "And that's the reality of the situation that we're facing here. It's why I have urged
and continue to urge [US President Donald] Trump to meet with people like Kim Jong Un in North
Korea, because we understand what's at stake here. The only alternative to having these kinds
of conversations is more war."
Moreover, in a March 2016 speech before Congress, Gabbard called Assad
"a brutal dictator," noting that her opposition to what she called a "war bill" was over the
legal ramifications that she feared would lead to the overthrow of Assad, which she opposes on
anti-interventionist grounds.
"[T]oppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and
strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations, in those countries,"
Gabbard
said at the time.
Gabbard has been thoroughly demonized for her pro-peace views by global liberal media, as
Trump has been for his moves to end the war in Syria and avoid another on the Korean Peninsula.
For example, The Daily Beast's
article announcing her candidacy called Gabbard "Assad's Favorite Democrat" in its
headline; a Haaretz
headline from last week say she had "Tea With Assad," and the Washington Post has
called her "Assad's Mouthpiece in Washington." The UK Independent
called her a "defender of dictators."
It's not clear what Weiss had in mind when she called Gabbard a "sycophant" and a "toady,"
since the congresswoman's rhetoric about Assad has consisted of skepticism and opposition to
intervention, and she hasn't hesitated to call the Syrian president a "brutal dictator." What
Gabbard's treatment has demonstrated is that a Democrat who steps out of line from the party's
pro-regime change agenda in Syria and who condemns Muslim extremists associated with Daesh and
al-Qaeda should be prepared to suffer for it in the mainstream media.
I love Tulsi; her ad was great. She's the only dem I would vote for at this point. Kamala is an evil hypocrite. And Tulsi's
right, love is the most powerful force in the planet.
Wake up folks -Tulsi would not have run if Bernie was going run. Bernie will endorse her early on and she will have a much
tougher fight than he did, because while Sanders caught the corporate establishment sleeping in 2016, they are now frightened
and see Gabbard coming. They will use every dirty trick at their disposal to keep her from catching fire -and that begins with
dividing progressives like us. Tulsi is not perfect because no one is perfect. But she is young, bright and fucking fearless compared
to other politicians about putting the long term good of the American people above the moneyed interests who think they own our
media and our government. This is why the establishment despises her more than even Sanders. 2020 will reveal weather or not we
can retake ownership of our media and our government. That fight will require all of us - so Kyle get on the bus!
Tulsi is an amazing candidate in her own right, but IMO she would be a perfect VP pick for Bernie. She has the amazing foreign
policy cred and would really shore up Bernie's weakest areas.
Tulsa Gabbard's ad doesn't mention the people who die in the countries we invade. That's 600k people in Iraq for example. A
significant omission me thinks.
The Aloha Spirit Law is a big deal in Hawaii. Government officials are required to approach dignitaries from other countries
or states with the spirit of aloha. "Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation
in return. Aloha is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence.
I think that's what we want in a President or a diplomat.
She's great and unique as she doesnt fall back to identity politics and sjwism as much as the standard left politicians. I
hope she doesnt bend her ethics when the sjws come for her. I'm putting my trust in her. I hope she wins. And if she isn't in
the race, i wont be voting.
The question I would love her to address specifically is will her campaign focus on decreasing military spending like Bernie
Sanders? She has a military background and the US loves war. This ad is good but it is tip toing around the MIC ( military industrial
complex) She can be non interventionist but not decrease military spending is what worries me
This is why we need Gabbard on the debate stage. She will push the Overton window on revealing to the public what our military
is actually doing overseas. She's also a staunch progressive. Bernie/Tulsi 2020. Their weakness match well with each other, and
Tulsi was one of the first to jump ship on the sinking DNC ship when Hillary got caught cheating being the DNC. Keep small donations
going into your favorite progressive candidates to hear their voice. It doesn't work any other way folks.
Intervention isn't only an issue about morality. As Dwight Eisenhower put it (even though he himself was far from an anti imperialist),
you can't have an endless stream of money dedicated to military endeavors AND a sufficient investment in domestic public priorities.
This easily explains why we have increasingly decrepit infrastructure, increasingly worse performing education, increasingly worse
performing health care, absurdly insufficient regulation between government and business (although the pay to play system certainly
is the top reason) and a generally decaying public atmosphere. Beyond the fact that getting involved everywhere creates humanitarian
crises, countless dead people, hopelessly destroyed countries, and so much more, even if other countries haven't in return bombed
our shores from sea to sea, even if generally speaking those who consider not only the US but Americans the "enemies" haven't
overwhelmed with non stop attacks, this non stop and ever growing appetite for more money for more war priorities has created
the very decline we see in our country today. Until there is a change in priorities in general, these problems in the US will
only continue to get worse.
Man, Tulsi made me tear up. She's my girl. This message reminds me more of the message of Jesus than many of the fundamentalists.
She's not even Christian, yet represents Christ very well. I love this woman.
Prepare for BAE, Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other weapons corporations and their bum lickers to launch a viscous
smear campaign against her suggesting she's somehow a Neo Nazi communist anti Semitic islamophobic islamist.
Tulsi 2020 she's saying some of the same things Trump said in his 2016 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't deliver. Per the
corporate Democrates, making America better is a bad thing.
Tulsi can actually beat Trump...if she gets the nomination. The wars are the elephant in the room, and whoever is willing to
take that on full force, can win.
Meanwhile, the modern Republican Party is all about cutting taxes on the rich and benefits for the poor and the middle class.
And Trump, despite his campaign posturing, has turned out to be no different.
Hence the failure of our political system to serve socially conservative/racist voters who also want to tax the rich and preserve
Social Security. Democrats won't ratify their racism; Republicans, who have no such compunctions, will -- remember, the party establishment
solidly backed Roy Moore's Senate bid -- but won't protect the programs they depend on.
Paul Krugman is a baby boomer, pissant globalizer bastard, but he has made reasonable comments about immigration in the past.
Paul Krugman is a high IQ moron who has occasional bouts of clarity on the anti-worker aspects of mass legal immigration and illegal
immigration. Krugman had it right in 2006 when he said that mass immigration lowers wages for workers in the USA.
Krugman in NY Times 2006:
First, the benefits of immigration to the population already here are small. The reason is that immigrant workers are, at least
roughly speaking, paid their "marginal product": an immigrant worker is paid roughly the value of the additional goods and services
he or she enables the U.S. economy to produce. That means that there isn't anything left over to increase the income of the people
already here.
My second negative point is that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That's just
supply and demand: we're talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production,
so it's inevitable that this means a fall in wages. Mr. Borjas and Mr. Katz have to go through a lot of number-crunching to turn
that general proposition into specific estimates of the wage impact, but the general point seems impossible to deny.
However, Krugman is also a relentless partisan hack. So his expert analysis always ends up supporting the current Democrat
talking points -- whatever they may be.
Here, Krugman is disparaging any move to the center as the DNC wants to keep the Dems unified on the left and keep Schultz
(or anyone like him) out of the race. Of course, the real reason Schultz has massively negative polling is because the Democrat
establishment has been savaging him for precisely this reason.
Likewise, to Krugman a "Racist" politician is anyone who holds the same immigration position as Krugman did in 2006, which
is now anathema to the Dem's new Open Borders electoral strategy.
It's only a matter of time until Krugman starts talking up Kamala Harris as the best thing that could happen for the economy.
Bottom line: Krugman – like any economist who was gifted with a fake Nobel Prize in Economics by his wealthy patrons (the Nobel
Prize in Economics does not exist – check out wikipedia!) – is a whore whose only function is to protect the left flank of our
corrupt and rapacious elite.
He's not a moron, and he's certainly not a liberal. His job – which pays very well mind you – is to pretend to be a sorta-kinda
Keynesian New Dealer, but in reality, anything that the rich wants, he will end up defending. And even if he sorta kinda claims
to be opposing something that the rich want which will impoverish the rest of us, when it comes to the bottom line, he will ruthlessly
attack any opposition to these policies.
"... Around the same time, an unnamed Israeli official was quoted as being "in shock" at the president's decision. Obviously Trump hadn't read his intelligence briefing, explained the Israeli: after all, there were Iranians in Syria! But so what? Perhaps President Trump decided that Washington doesn't have to do everything for everyone in the Middle East. There is a very powerful, nuclear-armed nation next door to Syria that so far has done quite well protecting itself. Perhaps that country could take care of the Iran-in-Syria problem, in the unlikely event that it poses a serious threat. ..."
"... It is not just foreign leaders who complain about U.S. policy. There is hardly a war that some foreigner somewhere is not busy advocating that Washington join or start. ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Truth be told, Iran is a weak regional power that uses irregular warfare because it lacks conventional strength. Missiles are its deterrence against better armed, threatening neighbors. It certainly doesn't endanger America, with the globe's greatest military. Israel, too, can launch a devastating retaliation against any attack. Saudi Arabia alone spends more than five times as much on its armed forces as Iran. ..."
America's policymakers should ignore this advice, no matter how fervently it's offered. And
if any president is willing to tell this self-interested chorus to shut up, it is Donald
Trump.
Among the notable nations lobbying for America's attention are Israel and Taiwan, otherwise
isolated and vulnerable governments that seek Washington's military backing. Greece and Turkey
have carried their battle in the eastern Mediterranean back to D.C., as they fight over
America's role there. Kosovar insurgents worked with ethnic Albanians in the U.S. to push
Washington into the Yugoslav civil war in 1999. Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates, spread cash lavishly around the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to pressure
American policymakers into such atrocities as the Yemen war.
The consequences can be long-lasting. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
governments of the newly freed Eastern European states lobbied to join NATO. Their diasporas in
the United States -- derisively called "hyphenated Americans" during World War I -- helped win
Washington's support. The result was a rapid expansion of NATO to Russia's borders, compounding
humiliation with hostility, which continues to bedevil the West's relations with Moscow
today.
Advertisement
Sometimes foreigners talk as if they should be consulted and heeded whenever U.S.
policymakers act. In many cases, Washington has created this problem. Alliances in which other
states theoretically have authority over American military deployments encourage foreign
meddling. For instance, the Obama administration intervened in Libya at least partially in
response to pressure from Rome and Paris, which wanted to use the transatlantic alliance to
oust Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi. Europeans were essentially returning the favor by which
Washington had dragged them into the seemingly endless Afghan war, which never made sense for
them.
NATO is particularly problematic, since it's made ever less sense as foreign threats have
diminished, Europeans' capabilities increased, and gaps between allies' interests expanded.
Although America remains the big kahuna, recently empowered "friends" assert authority over
U.S. decisions and behavior. Today, the transatlantic alliance is made up of one transcendent
military power, America, and eight moderately important nations with serious, or at least
potentially serious, militaries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the
United Kingdom.
The remaining score of NATO members are, well, largely irrelevant. That doesn't mean they
don't contribute to and suffer losses in Western military operations -- as The Netherlands has,
for example. But what they do doesn't and never will make much of a difference. Yet they sit at
the NATO table as nominal equals. Of these 20, three have populations of less than one million,
while another 11 come in at under 10 million. Incoming member (Northern) Macedonia barely
breaks the two million barrier.
Why the pretense that the opinions of micro-states Iceland, Luxembourg, and Montenegro
matter to Washington? Why should governments with more than their shares of controversies --
Albania, Romania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and even Poland -- theoretically have a say on
the use of the alliance's one military that really matters? Imagine if Georgia, which helped
provoke war with Russia in 2008, and Ukraine, which ended up in conflict with Moscow after a
street putsch backed by the West ousted their elected president, joined NATO. Tbilisi and Kiev
would push to borrow the U.S. military to fight their wars. Who would blame them? But it
certainly would not be in America's interest to let them.
This presumptuousness reaches beyond European security. French President Emmanuel Macron
apparently called President Donald Trump to complain about the latter's decision to withdraw
from Syria, which he said he "deeply" regretted. Added Macron, "An ally must be dependable,"
which apparently means that America must forever maintain a deployment illegal under both U.S.
and international law. Macron said that French troops would remain, proclaiming: "To be allies
is to fight shoulder to shoulder." But that fight should stop when the justification for
fighting has ended.
Around the same time, an unnamed Israeli official was quoted as being "in shock" at the
president's decision. Obviously Trump hadn't read his intelligence briefing, explained the
Israeli: after all, there were Iranians in Syria! But so what? Perhaps President Trump decided
that Washington doesn't have to do everything for everyone in the Middle East. There is a very
powerful, nuclear-armed nation next door to Syria that so far has done quite well protecting
itself. Perhaps that country could take care of the Iran-in-Syria problem, in the unlikely
event that it poses a serious threat.
Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked complained that the withdrawal would hurt the Kurds,
whom she characterized as "allies" and "great heroes." Moreover, the pull-out "strengthens
[Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, an antisemitic war criminal who carries out massacres
of the Kurdish people, and does so with a wink from the international community." Well, why
doesn't her country -- the one with nuclear weapons and a strong conventional military force --
rescue the Kurds? Israel is there and has far greater interests at stake than does America.
It is not just foreign leaders who complain about U.S. policy. There is hardly a war
that some foreigner somewhere is not busy advocating that Washington join or start.
For instance, TheEconomist , a British magazine, recently headlined an
article: "A deal to end the insurgency in Afghanistan would be wonderful: As long as it is not
a figleaf to cover an American retreat." Really? After 17 years of unsuccessfully trying to
plant a liberal democracy in Afghanistan, the only logical U.S. policy is to exit -- with
figleaf if possible, but without if necessary.
After the president announced his intent to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria, the
Financial Times , a United Kingdom newspaper, declared that the decision made America
appear "erratic and inconsistent." Indeed, the United States needed a new defense secretary "to
stand up to the president's wilder impulses," like making sure America stayed involved in the
Syrian war as long as the FT thought necessary. The paper was horrified that the
withdrawal "constitutes, too, an abandonment of key allies" and "signals, more broadly, a US
retreat from the Middle East." Perhaps the anonymous FT writers should form a
volunteer unit to patrol the Mideast in America's stead. After all, it was British and French
line-drawing post-World War I that created the current national boundaries that are failing so
badly.
Roger Boyes, diplomatic editor of The Times of London, headlined his article: "Only
the US can rein in ambitions of Iran." And not just "can." Boyes explained, "As the Syrian war
nears its end, Trump must find ways to loosen Tehran's grip on the region." Frankly, I don't
remember Americans asking him for his advice. Why the U.S.? Is there no one else available?
Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey? That unnamed country that already
possesses nukes? Toss in a little assistance from the Brits and French, too.
Truth be told, Iran is a weak regional power that uses irregular warfare because it
lacks conventional strength. Missiles are its deterrence against better armed, threatening
neighbors. It certainly doesn't endanger America, with the globe's greatest military. Israel,
too, can launch a devastating retaliation against any attack. Saudi Arabia alone spends more
than five times as much on its armed forces as Iran.
Perhaps Americans should be honored that so many overseas "friends" have so much free advice
to offer. However, much of it is bad. Policy should be based on the interests of the U.S. --
protecting its people, territory, prosperity, and system of constitutional liberties. That
means advancing peace first and making war a last resort. Desiring to do good abroad cannot
justify sacrificing American lives, wealth, and security in never ending war.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire.
WASHINGTON -- In an impassioned call for preemptive action against the Middle Eastern
nation, United States national security advisor John Bolton insisted Thursday that Iran was
likely harboring the dangerous terrorist Osama bin Laden. "For the good of our nation, we must
act immediately," said Bolton, citing several intelligence reports providing significant
evidence that Iran is currently providing sanctuary to the Al-Qaeda leader and mastermind of
the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We must never rest until this fugitive is brought to justice, and the only way to achieve
that is through repeated and prolonged military strikes on Iran.
We have reason to believe that he's living in a compound there where he's training a legion
of bloodthirsty Iranian civilians to take up arms as the next generation of terrorists. It is
our solemn duty as the international safeguard of freedom to prevent this at all costs."
At press time, Bolton had left the podium to follow up on an important tip that Iranian
leaders had hired American nuclear physicist Otto Gunther Octavius.
"... The GOP has always been a fraud, philosophically.' ..."
"... Boot was pretty clueless when he arrived in the US so I kind of give him a little break compared with our home grown rightwingers. ..."
"... Very interesting piece, and it taught me something that I didn't know about Boot, namely, that he is a member, like myself (albeit a half-generation older), of the Soviet emigre community. Well, that explains so much, really: you'd be hard-pressed to find a more reactionary bloc in all of American politics. ..."
Anyone who has spent time with Pentecostal/Evangelical Christians is familiar with public
confessions of pre-Salvation sin. The greater the sinning, the more impressive and prized the
conversion. If the sinner was a notable atheist, Satanist, evolutionist or communist, the
story of his or her conversion can become a lucrative career on the church lecture circuit.
(Pity the poor convert trying to attract attention with nothing more than a battle with
youthful lust.)
Mainmata 01.26.19 at 2:34 am (no link)
This is a really good article (as usual). I think the essential core is that Boot
misunderstood that conservatives and the GOP, in particular, were the party of ideas. Buckley
summarized it best when he stated that the role of conservatives was to stand astride the
course of history and stay "stop". The GOP has never been the party of ideas or at least not
any ideas that are all rational or workable. They claimed to be about "small government" in
an economy dominated by large multinational corporations and cartels. The GOP has always been
a fraud, philosophically.' Nowadays, they're mainly about racism, misogyny and aggressive foreign policy.
Boot was pretty clueless when he arrived in the US so I kind of give him a little break
compared with our home grown rightwingers.
abd 01.26.19 at 4:35 am (no link)
Norman Finkelstein's essay on the serial chameleon, Hitchens has many
useful insights:
A sharp political break must, for one living a political life, be a wrenching emotional
experience. The rejection of one's core political beliefs can't but entail a rejection of
the person holding them: if the beliefs were wrong, then one's whole being was wrong.
Repudiating one's comrades must also be a sorrowful burden. It is not by chance that
"fraternity" is a prized value of the left: in the course of political struggle, one
forges, if not always literally, then, at any rate, spiritually, blood bonds No doubt he
imagines it is testament to the mettle of his conviction that past loyalties don't in the
slightest constrain him; in fact, it's testament to the absence of any conviction at
all.
Bob Michaelson 01.26.19 at 2:45 pm (no link)
"Throughout his three decades on the right, it appears, Boot believed in the tenets of a book
he never read."
When Yale philosophy professor Paul Weiss was a guest on the Dick Cavett Show he pointed out
that when Buckley was a student of Yale he would typically talk about books that he had never
actually read. Indeed Buckley continued to do so for the rest of his life.
Jerry Vinokurov 01.28.19 at 2:22 pm (no link)
Very interesting piece, and it taught me something that I didn't know about Boot, namely,
that he is a member, like myself (albeit a half-generation older), of the Soviet emigre
community. Well, that explains so much, really: you'd be hard-pressed to find a more
reactionary bloc in all of American politics. It's "funny" because many of them are plainly
anti-religious but they make (wittingly or un-) common cause with evangelicals because
they're virulently opposed to the very concept of a public good or an active state attempting
to mitigate social ills. I need to finish the article before having further reactions, but
this was a revelation to me.
Jerry Vinokurov@ 23 : A
small potatoes objection/question. Considering only Soviet emigres, not the community,
including US born descendants of emigres, just the emigres themselves; does this group of
individuals make up a more reactionary bloc than its Cuban counterpart?
Considering only Soviet emigres, not the community, including US born descendants of
emigres, just the emigres themselves; does this group of individuals make up a more
reactionary bloc than its Cuban counterpart?
It's hard for me to say because I don't really have much exposure this culture's Cuban
counterparts. My impression with regard to a lot of the Cuban emigres is that they're
substantially more socially conservative than those who came from the former USSR. Not that
the latter group is any kind of bastion of wokeness, but for them most of the culture war
stuff isn't a huge motivator. I can't think of anyone from this group who, for example, ever
stated that abortion or opposition to gay marriage was the main motivator for any kind of
vote or other political activity.
They may not care much for it and I'm sure being e.g. LGBT
in this community is no picnic, but it's not a driver for them that, say, anti-tax mania is.
I can't possibly count how many conversations I've had with relatives complaining about this
or that "onerous" regulation or tax or whatever that they have to pay and listen to the same
"why are they wasting our money" and "I don't want to pay for this" tirade.
Needless to say
the vast majority of them, like most American in general, have only the foggiest notion of
how American governments (federal, state, local, etc.) operate, but that doesn't stop them
from hating it and knowing deep in their heart that whatever it's doing, it's doing it
wrong.
Glen
has it right. Trump is nasty and ignorant and a stunningly incompetent President (as he was an
incompetent businessman) but his very disdain for high-falutin' principle is what makes him, in
foreign policy, an old-fashioned Republican isolationist. And the imperialists in the GOP
cannot stomach that, though they're happy to stomach his general nastiness and ignorance.
January 25, 2019 I've been thinking about political converts
for a long time . At The New
Yorker , I take up the problem of Max Boot, who probably needs no introduction, and Derek
Black, who was a leading white supremacist and then renounced it all.
Here's a taste:
Max Boot, a longtime conservative who recently broke with the right over the nomination and
election of Donald
Trump , registered as a Republican in 1988. At the time, Boot writes in " The Corrosion of
Conservatism: Why I Left the Right ," he wanted to join the "party of ideas." A movement
of highbrows, conservatism was the work of the "learned, worldly, elitist, and eccentric lot"
of writers at National Review , "far removed from the simple-minded, cracker-barrel
populists who have taken control of the conservative movement today." It was a movement, Boot
explains at the outset, "inspired by Barry Goldwater's canonical text from 1960, The
Conscience of a Conservative . I believed in that movement, and served it my whole
life."
A hundred and seventy-five pages later, Boot inadvertently lets slip that reading
Goldwater's "actual words" was something he hadn't done until after Trump's election.
Throughout his three decades on the right, it appears, Boot believed in the tenets of a book
he never read.
But it turns out that the problem of Boot and Black goes much deeper than what
books were or weren't read. If you compare the conversions from left to right -- think Arthur
Koestler, James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and so on -- with those from right to left, you
find something interesting.
Curiously, the movement from right to left has never played an equivalent role in modern
politics. Not only are there fewer converts in that direction, but those conversions haven't
plowed as fertile a field as their counterparts have.
As your piece alludes to but does not say outright, Boot was a right-wing intellectual
because he said he was a right-wing intellectual. He celebrated, but hadn't actually
read , Goldwater and Buckley; his grasp of his other icons was equally weak. I
remember reading his stuff in UC Berkeley's The Daily Californian back in the middle
1980s and getting the impression that Boot was another dope-with-a-thesaurus like George F.
Will, with added militarist bloodthirst.
The bar for being a right-wing intellectual has traditionally been low, and in the present
day we see examples like Jonah Goldberg and Megan McArdle putting out high school
current-events assignments and being lauded as original thinkers. It's probably a reflection
of the preferences of the people who own the presses.
BruceJ 01.25.19 at 9:26 pm (no link)
Personally, I rather doubt Boot is truly repenting, but is rather merely taking advantage of
the zeitgeist.
"Anti-Trump Repentant Right" sells books, gets him on teevee, etc. The proof of the
pudding will be what he does when the neocons are ascendant again.
The likes of Michael Gerson and David Frum sliding from the Bush II White House to
"George Boosh?? Never heard of him!" critics of the right always seemed awfully
convenient for their post-WH careers.
As DocAmazing says, it's a reflection of the people who own the presses, of which there
has always been an orders of magnitude greater number, prominence and paychecks on the right
rather than the left.
The vast ( hugely interconnected, almost incestuously so) network of RW "Think Tanks" and
publishing houses funded by wealthy oligarchs pretty much guarantees a safe haven for
Left->Right apostates.
There really isn't such a network for the reverse. The L->R crownd don't have to spend
the long years in the wilderness atoning for their sins, like the R->L side does. (And
given the damage the Right has done over recent decades, there is much atonement needed )
b9n10nt 01.25.19 at 11:25 pm (no link)
Here's the lesson I'd expect from Corey: reactionaries need to continually contrive new
rationalizations for reaction, and might thus be inspired by Leftist rhetoric for the task.
The Left does not need to similarly borrow from the Right because there's no need to hide its
pursuit of liberty, equality, and solidarity before a popular audience. Hence, left
–> right converts are useful to the right in ways that right–>left converts
are not. & then you've got your empirical evidence to support the theory.
The emphasis, however, was on experience: the right needs to experience the vitality of
revolution to understand it and inform counter-revolution. This seems like a weaker
explanation, but perhaps the stronger argument would have seemed too shrill for the New
Yorker?
Mainmata 01.26.19 at 2:34 am (no link)
This is a really good article (as usual). I think the essential core is that Boot
misunderstood that conservatives and the GOP, in particular, were the party of ideas. Buckley
summarized it best when he stated that the role of conservatives was to stand astride the
course of history and stay "stop". The GOP has never been the party of ideas or at least not
any ideas that are all rational or workable. They claimed to be about "small government" in
an economy dominated by large multinational corporations and cartels. The GOP has always been
a fraud, philosophically.'
Nowadays, they're mainly about racism, misogyny and aggressive foreign policy.
Boot was pretty clueless when he arrived in the US so I kind of give him a little break
compared with our home grown rightwingers.
abd 01.26.19 at 4:35 am (no link)
Norman Finkelstein's essay on the serial chameleon, Hitchens has many
useful insights:
A sharp political break must, for one living a political life, be a wrenching emotional
experience. The rejection of one's core political beliefs can't but entail a rejection of
the person holding them: if the beliefs were wrong, then one's whole being was wrong.
Repudiating one's comrades must also be a sorrowful burden. It is not by chance that
"fraternity" is a prized value of the left: in the course of political struggle, one
forges, if not always literally, then, at any rate, spiritually, blood bonds No doubt he
imagines it is testament to the mettle of his conviction that past loyalties don't in the
slightest constrain him; in fact, it's testament to the absence of any conviction at
all.
Bob Michaelson 01.26.19 at 2:45 pm (no link)
"Throughout his three decades on the right, it appears, Boot believed in the tenets of a book
he never read."
When Yale philosophy professor Paul Weiss was a guest on the Dick Cavett Show he pointed out
that when Buckley was a student of Yale he would typically talk about books that he had never
actually read. Indeed Buckley continued to do so for the rest of his life.
abd 01.26.19 at 8:34 pm (no link)
@3 re neocons, this quote of Boot from Corey Robin's article:
"That my parents and hundreds of thousands of other Soviet Jews were finally able to
leave was due largely to neoconservative foreign policy," Boot writes. "In later life I
would support giving moral concerns a prominent place in US foreign policy, a stance that
has been associated with neoconservatism."
reminded me of an answer that E.L. Doctorow gave to following question from Bill Moyers in
1988:
How do you explain that so many intellectuals today are in service to orthodoxy?
The third element is very interesting, and I think it's been under-reported–and
that is the immense influence of the émigré, Eastern European intellectuals
who've come over here in the past fifteen or twenty years. Many of them are quite brilliant
writers and professors of different disciplines. They have tended to see American life in
terms of their own background and suffering, which has been considerable, as people in
exile from regimes that have done terrible things to them and their families. They come of
the terrible European legacy of monarchism and the reaction to it. So every attempt we make
to legislate some advance in our American society, some social enlightenment, they see as a
dangerous left-wing weakness leading toward totalitarianism. They've had enormous influence
in the American intellectual community. They tend to see things as either/or and feel that
you must be rigidly against any idea of improvement because the idea of perfection is what
kills society and creates totalitarianism. The Utopian ideal leads to revolution. They seem
to forget we had our revolution two hundred years ago. Our history is not theirs.
We've always gone out into the barn of the Constitution and tinkered. That's our very
pragmatic history. I don't think these people understand that. So any time we tune
something up and fix something and make it more just, make it work a little better, they
become alarmed.
I think the most reasonable account of Boot's conversion is that he hasn't converted. He's
profoundly angry at Trump because Trump, to the everlasting shame of our side, is the first
political figure in generations to dare to question US imperialism, and US imperialism is
what Boot is really about. He's mostly a military enthusiast. Were Trump to gin up a war with
Venezuela and/or Iran, Boot would be back on his side in a heartbeat. Blood and Iron!
abd 01.26.19 at 8:49 am (no link)
@13, You may have a point there, given the gullibility of folks in these parts. Finkelstein,
almost admiringly, noted the case of "the Polish émigré hoaxer, Jerzy Kosinski,
who, shrewdly siz[ed] up intellectual culture in America" and plied his rusty wares on the
university lecture with brio until his past caught up with him (many other European
émigrés, e.g. Man Ray, Bruno Bettelheim, etc. also come to mind; google for the
sordid details).
Heck, the moral beacon whom Corey Robin never tires of citing, Hannah Arendt, was also a
habitual "lifter" of material from others
laboring in the archives, not to mention the free ride , intellectually speaking, she got
because of "the widespread belief that philosophical murkiness signals philosophical
profundity."
The direction in which the intellectual impostures listed by Pankaj
Mishra below are "adjusting" to the prevailing winds is something to be expected from
their ilk:
Many journalists have been scrambling, more feverishly since Trump's apotheosis, to
account for the stunningly extensive experience of fear and humiliation across racial and
gender divisions; some have tried to reinvent themselves in heroic resistance to Trump and
authoritarian 'populism'. David Frum, geometer under George W. Bush of an intercontinental
'axis of evil', now locates evil in the White House. Max Boot, self-declared
'neo-imperialist' and exponent of 'savage wars', recently claimed to have become aware of
his 'white privilege'. Ignatieff, advocate of empire-lite and torture-lite, is presently
embattled on behalf of the open society in Mitteleuropa. Goldberg, previously known as
stenographer to Netanyahu, is now Coates's diligent promoter.
DocAmazing #1: "The bar for being a right-wing intellectual has traditionally been low "
Excepting for the brilliance of Corey Robin and a few others, it is no lower than the bar
on the left, but I think you correctly point to the asymmetry in the general acceptance of
the two piles of bosh that are usually produced. But going beyond BruceJ's fingering (at #3)
of the presses and thinktanks for embracing the right bosh, there is a cause in the basic
asymmetry of their political preferences, because the right justifies and praises the system,
while the left does not. This makes it easier for the productions of the right to slide by,
without critical inspection by the large mass of people who just want to get on with their
lives.
More complicated still: in our era the left (or most of it) doesn't want to tear down the
system; it would prefer a mixed economy with more redistribution than we have at present, but
not the destruction of private capitalism. This more nuanced preference can only explain
itself by wading into the deeper ends of economic explanation, while it's still much easier
for the moneyed right to demonize the left using the psychological critique of mere laziness
or lack of initiative. This leaves the left with a more complex rhetorical problem in dealing
with voter preferences than the right has, which, again, is another asymmetry.
I think the winds are not merely shifting, but we are approaching a different and less
stable era. The industrial economy is so successful that its winner-take-all mechanics is
increasing inequality. In the US, the intellectual disaster of the right fabricated its bad
policy of tax cuts and "smaller" government under Reagan, and the contradictions Reagan
engineered took 30 years to crack up the Republican Party until a grifter named Trump could
drive a plough through it. And he of course has come a cropper. At the same juncture, the
presses and thinktanks have fallen in influence due to the internet where everyone is drowned
out regardless of the viability of their ideas. In such a new, unstable, untested environment
perhaps the best approach is the one taken by Warren, AOC, etc. -- hammer on a few big ideas
with broad appeal.
The original bronze disks of Rome circulated as currency. The metal money of U.S.
Confederacy circulated that is until the Confederacy became no more.
The point? Money's true nature is law. When a country collapses, then its money
collapses.
Paper money that was good? Lincoln's greenbacks circulated at par. Massachusetts Bills
circulated as money and prevented Oligarchs from England and their attempted takeover. The
colony used the money to make iron goods (like Cannons) and do commerce.
The real statement is this: Money when it becomes unlawful, always collapses.
Massive money printing can happen when too many loans are made, as in the case today as
all private bank credit notes come into being with loan activity -- a little more that
98%.
Driving a currency down with shorts causes new money to be loaned into existence, which in
turn is the underlying cause of hyperinflations. The new credit creation covers the short.
This mechanism always goes along with exchange rate pressures, where your country has to pay
a debt in a foreign currency.
If you had an internal gold currency, which is recognized internationally, then your debts
would be paid in gold, which would collapse your country into depression instead of
inflation.
Bottom line is that money's true nature is law, and making claims about "paper" or "metal"
obscures this fact.
Since both the Fed and your local bank create money from nothing
They also impose some obligations: repayment of principle and interest. Since we
can't create money from nothing, this payback has to come from money somehow created by the
banks as well.
I'm less worried about "disappearing" tax money than I am about misallocated spending
and its consequences -- eg the 'black budget' of the NSA and 'deep state' generally.
Can't we worry about everything ?
Good point about the 'black budget'. But the last time some sort of DOD audit was
attempted the Pentagon accountants' offices got hit by a missile, I mean airliner, on
911.
"... Tucker is an interesting thinker who doesn't tow a party line. We need more people like Jimmy and Tucker in the news. This is easily the 10th video of Jimmy taking Tucker's side ..."
I don't agree with Jimmy Dore on much, but he and Tucker are 100% right about Syria. There is a segment of the left and right
that aren't that far apart, but we keep getting manipulated to hate each other.
Jimmy, Just admit that you like and agree with Tucker. Every Tucker video has the premise of, "I disagree with 99% of what
Tucker says" or "If Tucker sees this then everyone should see it." Tucker is an interesting thinker who doesn't tow a party
line. We need more people like Jimmy and Tucker in the news. This is easily the 10th video of Jimmy taking Tucker's side
.
Why are we there? To destabilize and baulkanize the remaining Middle East Who are we there for? For the greater 1srae1 project.
Who is isis? Massads people. What is our objective? Oil pipelines for 1srae1. Who are we going after next? Iran
Why are we there? To destabilize and baulkanize the remaining Middle East Who are we there for? For the greater 1srae1 project.
Who is isis? Massads people. What is our objective? Oil pipelines for 1srae1. Who are we going after next? Iran
Jimmy Dore: the only leftist journalist with any integrity. I legitimately believe that while he's wrong all the time (to my
far-right view), he's not lying.
Most important part in my opinion is comment about christians celebrating Christmass in Damascus. They wouldn't celebrate under
Al Nusra or Isis or other wahabi supported fractions, but they are celebrating under Assad. By the way US government is in some
way protecting HTS in Idlib wich is rebranded Al Nusra, Syrian ofshoot of Al Kaida so Assad army is not attacking them.
Pro war people don't just want to be there for the sake of it. They want to have US forces on the ground there for a whole
host of reason all related to maintaining US hegemony wherever they can. We have forces deployed throughout the middle east because
we want to be the primary hegemon in the middle east. Our primacy is threatened by no one nation but by a coalition of anti US
nations particularly Iran, Syria and Syria's longstanding alliance with Russia.
I find it a shame that the western nations are vilifying Russia as Putin hates the globalists and is fighting against the terrorists.
It appears that Russia should be our allies rather than Isra Hell and the Saudi regime. Putin was invited by Assad to help him
rid his country of the terrorists but the US weren't asked and just illegally invaded. Out of interest why does the US support
Isra hell when it has over 300 nukes but it thinks Iran is a problem? Isn't it more that Iran doesn't have a central (Rothschild)
bank? Just like North Korea, Cuba and now, Russia due to paying them off and ridding his country of the Rotschilds! They don't
own Russia like they do the US. Edited as I forgot to say I love Tucker and his common sense.
The best part by far of this was when Jimmy yelled, we are in these countries ILLEGALLY!! Jimmy I love you bc you are unbiased
but for you to complain we are somewhere illegally is rich considering how much you defended ILLEGAL immigration in America. Must
have been a freudian slip.
The best part by far of this was when Jimmy yelled, we are in these countries ILLEGALLY!! Jimmy I love you bc you are unbiased
but for you to complain we are somewhere illegally is rich considering how much you defended ILLEGAL immigration in America. Must
have been a freudian slip.
This guy can't admit that the Obama Administration started the Syrian civil war and created ISIS. What he really wants is to
PROTECT ISIS because after Syria they were trained to attack Russia in the Caucasus. Russia is sensibly wiping out ISIS in Syria
so they don't have to fight them in Chechnya. The Democrats and the neocons created Russiagate to prevent Trump from pulling out
two years ago, now Trump doesn't care, because they will invent shit about him regardless.
You're missing a major point -- I S R A E L These neocon and establishment democrats have tightened ass cheeks because Trump's
decision bypasses these Zionists' fervent wishes of keeping the US there in a proxy war as Israel's protectors.
Tucker is slowly but surely becoming increasingly sympathetic towards the third position.He's the only figure on the MSM who
thinks critically and asks uncomfortable questions. I wonder when the Zionists over at Fox News will pull the plug on him? You
should have Tucker on if it's at all possible. He is actually aligned with the left somewhat on economic issues.
The freezing of Venezuelan gold by the Bank of England is a signal to all countries out of
step with US interests to withdraw their money, according to economist and co-founder of
Democracy at Work, Professor Richard Wolff. He told RT America that Britain and its central
bank have shown themselves to be "under the thumb of the United States."
"That is a signal to every country that has or may have difficulties with the US, [that
they had] better get their money out of England and out of London because it's not the safe
place as it once was," he said.
"... Many of us, actually most of us, were pleased with candidate Trump's declared intent to end our involvement in endless foreign interventions. He would put America first and refrain from sending our troops where they don't belong. Once elected, his record was mixed. ..."
"... PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: [W]e spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem. ..."
"... There also appears to be an effort to keep the Rojava Kurds as a proxy force after our troops withdraw to Iraq. We continue sending combat and engineering equipment into Rojava and fully intend to continue providing air support to the YPG. We just can't let it go. ..."
"... I see a confrontation in our future, especially with all the Iraqi PMS units in western Iraq. ..."
Many of us, actually most of us, were pleased with candidate Trump's declared intent to end our involvement in endless foreign
interventions. He would put America first and refrain from sending our troops where they don't belong. Once elected, his record was
mixed.
We launched an ineffective volley of cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase in response to a trumped up gas attack, but we never
sought to establish a no fly zone and risk war with Russia. For a while we were well on our way to establish an enduring client state
in east Syria. We assumed this was all the doing of the cabal of manipulating neocons that Trump surrounded himself with. His call
for immediate withdrawal of troops from Syria surely proved this true. Finally Trump was allowed to be Trump. He was even seeking
a way out of Afghanistan, after a literal lifetime of war in that godforsaken land.
The neocons are fighting back bigly. The pace of withdrawal from Syria was slowed and there is no indication we would ever
give up our outpost on the Baghdad-Damascus highway at Tanf. Why? I think Trump laid out HIS thoughts on the matter during the traditional
pre-super bowl presidential interview.
-- -- -- --
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have to protect Israel. We have to protect other things that we have...
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you want to keep troops there [Iraq] now?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: [W]e spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the
reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Whoa, that's news. You're keeping troops in Iraq because you want to be able to strike in Iran?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, because I want to be able to watch Iran. All I want to do is be able to watch. We have an unbelievable
and expensive military base built in Iraq. It's perfectly situated for looking at all over different parts of the troubled Middle
East rather than pulling up. And this is what a lot of people don't understand. We're going to keep watching and we're going to
keep seeing and if there's trouble, if somebody is looking to do nuclear weapons or other things, we're going to know it before
they do.
-- -- -- --
So, We are staying in Iraq to keep an eye on Iran and we are doing this to protect Israel. It was not any of the neocons who said
this. It was Trump himself. So much for America first. There also appears to be an effort to keep the Rojava Kurds as a proxy force
after our troops withdraw to Iraq. We continue sending combat and engineering equipment into Rojava and fully intend to continue
providing air support to the YPG. We just can't let it go.
However, Baghdad has thrown a monkey wrench into this developing Trump doctrine. Iraqi President Barham Salih has told Trump to
slow his roll.
-- -- -- --
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi President Barham Salih said on Monday that President Donald Trump did not ask Iraq's permission for
U.S. troops stationed there to "watch Iran."
Speaking at a forum in Baghdad, Salih was responding to a question about Trump's comments to CBS about how he would ask troops
stationed in Iraq to "watch" Iran. U.S. troops in Iraq are there as part of an agreement between the two countries with a specific
mission of combating terrorism, Salih said, and that they should stick to that. (Reuters)
-- -- -- --
I see a confrontation in our future, especially with all the Iraqi PMS units in western Iraq.
"... The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it. ..."
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her
latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the
democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York
rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to
overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report
it.
She's being paid no doubt by the usual suspects. She is personally 1 million in debt and
has signed with a Speakers agency to give speeches for 200,000 a pop.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCIV)
"Haley is currently quoting $200,000 and the use of a private jet for domestic speaking
engagements, according to CNBC
In October 2018, when Haley resigned, she said, she would be taking a "step up" into the
private sector after leaving the U.N. According to a public financial disclosure report based
on 2017 data, at the rate quoted for her engagements, just a handful would pay down more than
$1 million in outstanding debt that was accrued during her 14 years
PoliticsTaxes/regulation (Dan here lifted from
Robert's Stochastic Thoughts ) Reagan's Tax Cuts and the Volcker Recession Max Boot is a
candidate member of the Rubin Gerson can't be a conservative anymore, because I always agree
with them club of Washington Post columnists. But he is a bit confused about US macroeconmic
history and macroeconomics. He wrote"The deficit spending of the Reagan years was at least
justified because it boosted the economy out of a deep recession " As a matter of timing, this
can't be right. The Kemp Roth tax cut was enacted in 1981. Real GDP peaked in 1981q3 -- the tax
cut corresponds to the beginning of the recession not the end.
The part that Boot misses (because it has been unimportant for the past 10 years) is
monetary policy. It is possible to cause a severe recession in spite of fiscal stimulus by
driving the Federal Funds rate up over 19 %. The combination of loose fiscal and very tight
monetary policy caused huge real interest rates and a collapse of investment. It also caused an
over-valued dollar, a huge surge in imports and deindustrialization.
pgl, January 30, 2019 5:05 pm
Towards the end of 1980 Volcker was backing off his initial tight monetary policy and
the economy inched towards a recovery from that initial recession. But when Volcker saw
Kemp-Roth, he feared excess aggregate demand and overreacted which led to the 1982. If Max
Boot does not understand this – he is just another uninformed idiot. Now if he does
get this – he is just another supply side liar.
Likbez
@pgl January 30, 2019, 5:05 pm
> ...when Volcker saw Kemp-Roth, he feared excess aggregate demand and overreacted which led to the
1982. If Max Boot does not understand this – he is just another uninformed idiot. Now if he does get this – he is just
another supply-side liar. "
That's probably the most concise explanation which is enough for the given case. Thank you!
Max Boots is a "wardog" --a rabid lobbyist of MIC, and, as such, is as far from economics (even voodoo
supply side economics) as one can get.
Also like all neocons, he is statist par excellence. If not MIC money, he would probably be forced to
paint houses for a living, instead of writing nonsense in Bezos blog.
This article from 2017 looks like it was written yesterday. Trump betrayal of his elctorate on multiple levels, essentially on all
key poin of his election program mkes him "Republican Obama".
What is interesting about Trump foreign policy is his version of neoliberal "gangster capitalism" on foreign arena:
might is right principle applied like universal opener. Previous administrations tried to put a lipstick on the pig. Trump
does not even bother.
In terms of foreign policy, and even during the transition before Trump's inauguration, there were other, more disturbing signs
of where Trump would be heading soon. When Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016,
Trump seemed jubilant as if he had somehow been vindicated, and took the opportunity to slander Castro as a "brutal dictator" who
"oppressed his own people" and turned Cuba into a "totalitarian island".
Notable quotes:
"... However, when he delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the government's back on a long-standing policy of cultural imperialism , stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first". ..."
"... Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat. ..."
"... The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. ..."
"... Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from wars for regime change, Trump sold out again. "I love WikiLeaks -- " -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding. ..."
"... AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States? ..."
"... AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing? ..."
"... AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange? ..."
"... While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US, witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to them. ..."
"... Since NAFTA was implemented, migration from Mexico to the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately drove them away from agriculture ..."
"... As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact, per capita GDP is nearly a flat line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures that have been implemented, the US leads the world . ..."
"... To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only when the US reaps the greater share of benefits. ..."
"... As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son -- then what an abysmally poor choice he is ..."
"... On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism, which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced. ..."
"... As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism . Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics. ..."
"... As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition. ..."
Trump could have kept quiet, and lost nothing. Instead what he was attacking -- and the irony was missed on his fervently right
wing supporters -- was someone who was a leader in the anti-globalist movement, from long before it was ever called that. Fidel Castro
was a radical pioneer of independence, self-reliance, and self-determination.
Castro turned Cuba from an American-owned sugar plantation and brothel, a lurid backwater in the Caribbean, into a serious international
actor opposed to globalizing capitalism. There was no sign of any acknowledgment of this by Trump, who instead chose to parrot the
same people who would vilify him using similar terms (evil, authoritarian, etc.). Of course, Trump respects only corporate executives
and billionaires, not what he would see as some rag-tag Third World revolutionary. Here Trump's supporters generally failed, using
Castro's death as an opportunity for tribal partisanship, another opportunity to attack "weak liberals" like Obama who made minor
overtures to Cuba (too little, too late).
Their distrust of "the establishment" was nowhere to be found this time: their ignorance of Cuba and their resort to stock clichés
and slogans had all been furnished to them by the same establishment they otherwise claimed to oppose.
Just to be clear, the above is not meant to indicate any reversal on Trump's part regarding Cuba. He has been consistently anti-communist,
and fairly consistent in his denunciations of Fidel Castro. What is significant is that -- far from overcoming the left-right divide
-- Trump shores up the barriers, even at the cost of denouncing others who have a proven track record of fighting against neoliberal
globalization and US interventionism. In these regards, Trump has no track record. Even among his rivals in the Republican primaries,
senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul had more of an anti-interventionist track record.
However, when he delivered his inaugural address
on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the
government's back on a long-standing policy of
cultural imperialism
, stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill
with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations
to put their own interests first".
Russia
Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office
-- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy
conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat.
Instead, Trump continued the sanctions, as if out of meek deference to Obama's policy, one founded on lies and antagonism
toward Trump himself. Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency,
Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice. To be clear,
Trump has done precisely nothing
to dampen the near mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention".
His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia,
have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point (Putin agreed: "I would say the level of
trust [between Russia and the US] is at a workable level, especially in the military dimension, but it hasn't improved. On the contrary,
it has degraded " and his spokesman called
the relations " deplorable ".)
Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin
a top priority, Trump has again done nothing , except escalating tensions. The entire conflict with Russia that has
developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. Russia had actively facilitated
the US' war in Afghanistan for over a decade, and was a consistent collaborator on numerous levels. It is up to thinking American
officials to honestly explain what motivated them to tilt relations with Russia, because it is certainly not Russia's doing. The
only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of
total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international
affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination.
WikiLeaks
Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from
wars for regime change, Trump sold out again.
"I love WikiLeaks --
" -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding.
After finding so much use for WikiLeaks' publication of the Podesta emails, which became incorporated into his campaign speeches,
and which fuelled the writing and speaking of journalists and bloggers sympathetic to Trump -- he was now effectively declaring WikiLeaks
to be both an enemy and a likely target of US government action, in even more blunt terms than we heard during the past eight years
under Obama. This is not mere continuity with the past, but a dramatic escalation. Rather than praise Julian Assange for his work,
call for an end to the illegal impediments to his seeking asylum, swear off any US calls for extraditing and prosecuting Assange,
and perhaps meeting with him in person, Trump has done all of the opposite. Instead we learn that Trump's administration may
file arrest charges against Assange
. Mike Pompeo ,
chosen by Trump to head the CIA, who had himself
cited WikiLeaks as a reliable source of proof about how the Democratic National Committee had rigged its campaign, now declared
WikiLeaks to be a "
non-state hostile intelligence service ," along with vicious personal slander against Assange.
Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks was one that he defended in terms that were not just a deceptive rewriting of history, but one
that was also fearful -- "I don't support or unsupport" WikiLeaks, was what Trump was now saying in his dash for the nearest exit.
The backtracking is so obvious in this
interview
Trump gave to the AP , that his shoes must have left skid marks on the floor:
AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on
Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with
the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?
TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying
is, "Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff." You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC,
but we had good defenses. They didn't have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack
both of them. They weren't able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said,
"Wow." It was just a figure of speech. I said, "Well, look at this. It's good reading."
AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing?
TRUMP: No, I don't support or unsupport. It was just information .
AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to
arrest Julian Assange?
TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision,
but if they want to do it, it's OK with me.
First, Trump invents the fictitious claim that WikiLeaks was responsible for hacking the DNC, and that WikiLeaks also tried to
hack the Republicans. Second, he pretends to be an innocent bystander, a spectator, in his own administration -- whatever others
decide, is "OK" with him, not that he knows about their decisions, but it's all up to others. He has no power, all of a sudden.
Again, what Trump is displaying in this episode is his ultimate attachment to his class, with all of its anxieties and its contempt
for rebellious, marginal upstarts. Trump shuns any sort of "loyalty" to WikiLeaks (not that they ever had a working relationship)
or any form of gratitude, because then that would imply a debt and therefore a transfer of value -- whereas Trump's core ethics are
those of expedience and greed (he admits that much).
This move has come with a cost , with members of Trump's support base openly denouncing the betrayal. 6
NAFTA
On NAFTA , Trump claims he has not changed his position -- yet, from openly denouncing the free trade agreement and promising
to terminate it, he now vows only to seek modifications and amendments, which means supporting NAFTA. He appeared to be
awfully quick to obey the diplomatic pressure of Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and Mexico's President, Enrique Peńa
Nieto. Trump's entire position on NAFTA now comes into question.
While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US,
witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support
for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to
them.
This really deserves to be treated at length, separately from this article. However, for now, let's keep in mind that when
Trump complains about Canadian softwood lumber and dairy exports to the US, his argument about NAFTA is without merit. Neither commodity
is part of the NAFTA agreement.
Moreover, where dairy is concerned, the problem is US overproduction.
Wisconsin alone has more
dairy cows than all of Canada . There is a net surplus , in the US' favour, with respect to US dairy exports to Canada.
Overall,
the US has a net surplus in the trade in
goods and services with Canada. Regarding Mexico, the irony of Trump's denunciations of imaginary Mexican victories is that he
weakens his own criticisms of immigration.
Since NAFTA was implemented,
migration from Mexico to
the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately
drove them away from agriculture.
As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact,
per capita GDP is nearly a flat
line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures
that have been implemented, the
US leads the world .
To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims
he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only
when the US reaps the greater share of benefits.
His arguments with respect to Canada are akin to those of a looter or raider. He wants to block lumber imports from Canada, at
the same time as he wants to break the Canadian dairy market wide open to absorb US excess production. That approach is at the core
of what defined the US as a "new empire" in the 1800s. In addition, while Trump was quick to tear up the TPP, he has said nothing
about TISA and TTIP.
Mexico
Trump's argument with Mexico is also disturbing for what it implies. It would seem that any
evidence of production
in Mexico causes Trump concern. Mexico should not only keep its people -- however many are displaced by US imports -- but it should
also be as dependent as possible on the US for everything except oil. Since Trump has consistently declared his antagonism to OPEC,
ideally Mexico's oil would be sold for a few dollars per barrel.
China
Trump's turn on China almost provoked laughter from his many domestic critics. Absurdly, what figures prominently in most renditions
of the story of Trump's change on China (including his own), is a big piece of chocolate cake. The missile strike on Syria was, according
to Wilbur Ross, the "
after-dinner entertainment ". Here, Trump's loud condemnations of China on trade issues were suddenly quelled -- and it is not
because chocolate has magical properties. Instead it seems Trump has been willing to settle on
selling out citizens' interests , and
particularly those who voted for him, in return for China's assistance on North Korea. Let's be clear: countering and dominating
North Korea is an established favourite among neoconservatives. Trump's priority here is fully "neocon," and the submergence of trade
issues in favour of militaristic preferences is the one case where neoconservatives might be distinguished from the otherwise identical
neoliberals.
North Korea
Where North Korea is concerned, Trump chose to manufacture a "
crisis ". North Korea has actually done nothing
to warrant a sudden outbreak of panic over it being supposedly aggressive and threatening. North Korea is no more aggressive than
any person defending their survival can be called belligerent. The constant series of US military exercises in South Korea, or near
North Korean waters, is instead a deliberate provocation to a state whose existence the US nearly extinguished. Even last year the
US Air Force publicly boasted of having
"nearly destroyed" North Korea -- language one would have expected from the Luftwaffe in WWII. The US continues to maintain roughly
60,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, and continues to refuse to formally declare an end to the Korean War and
sign a peace treaty
. Trump then announced he was sending an "armada" to the Korean peninsula, and boasted of how "very powerful" it was. This was in
addition to the US deploying the THAAD missile system in South Korea. Several of his messages in Twitter were written using highly
provocative and threatening language. When asked if he would start a war, Trump glibly replied: "
I don't know. I mean, we'll see ". On another occasion Trump stated, "There is a chance that we could end up having a
major, major conflict with North
Korea. Absolutely". When the world's leading military superpower declares its intention to destroy you, then there is nothing you
can do in your defense which anyone could justly label as "over the top". Otherwise, once again Trump posed as a parental figure,
the world's chief babysitter -- picture Trump, surrounded by children taking part in the "Easter egg roll" at the White House, being
asked about North Korea and responding "they gotta behave". Trump would presume to teach manners to North Korea, using the only tools
of instruction that seem to be the first and last resort of US foreign policy (and the "defense" industry): bombs.
Syria
Attacking Syria , on purportedly humanitarian grounds, is for many (including vocal supporters) one of the most glaring contradictions
of Trump's campaign statements about not embroiling the US in failed wars of regime change and world policing. During the campaign,
he was in favour of Russia's collaboration with Syria in the fight against ISIS. For years he had condemned Obama for involving the
US in Syria, and consistently opposed military intervention there. All that was consigned to the archive of positions Trump declared
to now be worthless. That there had been a change in Trump's position is not a matter of dispute --
Trump made the point himself :
"I like to think of myself as a very flexible person. I don't have to have one specific way, and if the world changes, I go
the same way, I don't change. Well, I do change and I am flexible, and I'm proud of that flexibility. And I will tell you, that
attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me -- big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching
it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it's very, very possible -- and I will
tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. And if you look back over the last
few weeks, there were other attacks using gas. You're now talking about a whole different level".
Bending to the will of the prevailing Cold War and neo-McCarthyist atmosphere in the US, rife with anti-Russian conspiracy theories,
Trump found an easy opportunity to score points with the hostile media, ever so mindful as he is about approval ratings, polls, and
media coverage. Some explain Trump's reversals as arising from his
pursuit
of
public adulation -- and while the media play the key role in purveying celebrity status, they are also a stiff bastion of imperialist
culture. Given his many years as a the host of a popular TV show, and as the owner of the Miss Universe Pageant, there is some logical
merit to the argument. But I think even more is at work, as explained in paragraphs above.
According to Eric Trump it was at the urging of Ivanka that Donald Trump decided to strike a humanitarian-militarist pose. He
would play the part of the Victorian parent, only he would use missiles to teach unruly children lessons about violence. Using language
typically used against him by the mainstream media, Trump now felt entitled to pontificate that Assad is "evil," an "
animal ," who would
have
to go . When did he supposedly come to this realization? Did Assad become evil at the same time Trump was inaugurated? Why would
Trump have kept so silent about "evil" on the campaign trail? Trump of course is wrong: it's not that the world changed and he changed
with it; rather, he invented a new fiction to suit his masked intentions. Trump's supposed opponents and critics, like the Soros-funded
organizer of the women's march Linda Sarsour, showed her
approval of even more drastic
action by endorsing messages by what sounded like a stern school mistress who thought that 59 cruise missiles were just a mere "slap
on the wrist". Virtually every neocon who is publicly active applauded Trump, as did most senior Democrats. The loudest
opposition
, however, came from Trump's
own base , with a number of articles
featuring criticism from Trump's
supporters , and one conservative publication calling him outright a "
weakling
and a political ingrate ".
Members of the Trump administration have played various word games with the public on intervention in Syria. From unnamed officials
saying the missile strike was a "one off," to named officials
promising more if there
were any other suspected chemical attacks (or use of barrel bombs -- and this while the US dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in
existence on Afghanistan); some said that
regime change was not the goal,
and then others made it clear that was the ultimate
goal ; and then Trump saying, "Our policy is the same, it hasn't changed.
We're not going into Syria " -- even
though
Trump himself greatly increased the number of US troops he deployed to Syria , illegally, in an escalation of the least
protested invasion in recent history. Now we should know enough not to count this as mere ambiguity, but as deliberate obfuscation
that offers momentary (thinly veiled) cover for a
renewal of neocon policy .
We can draw an outline of Trump's liberal imperialism when it comes to Syria, which is likely to be applied elsewhere. First,
Trump's interventionist policy regarding Syria is one that continues to treat that country as if it were terra nullius ,
a mere playground for superpower politics. Second, Trump is clearly continuing with the
neoconservative agenda and its hit list of
states to be terminated by US military action, as famously confirmed by Gen. Wesley Clark. Even Trump's strategy for justifying the
attack on Syria echoed the two prior Bush presidential administrations -- selling war with the infamous "incubator babies" myth and
the myth of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). In many ways, Trump's presidency is thus shaping up to be either the seventh term
of the George H.W. Bush regime, or the fifth straight term of the George W. Bush regime. Third, Trump is taking ownership of an extremely
dangerous conflict, with costs that could surpass anything witnessed by the war on Iraq (which also continues). Fourth, by highlighting
the importance of photographs in allegedly changing his mind, Trump has placed a high market value on propaganda featuring dead babies.
His actions in Syria will now create an effective demand for the pornographic trade in pictures of atrocities. These are matters
of great importance to the transnational capitalist class, which demands full global penetrability, diminished state power (unless
in the service of this class' goals), a uniformity of expectations and conformity in behaviour, and an emphasis on individual civil
liberties which are the basis for defending private property and consumerism.
Venezuela
It is very disturbing to see how Venezuela is being framed as ripe for US intervention, in ways that distinctly echo the lead
up to the US war on Libya. Just as disturbing is that Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, has a clear conflict of interest
regarding Venezuela, from his recent role as CEO of
Exxon
and its conflict with the government of Venezuela over its nationalization of oil. Tillerson is, by any definition, a clear-cut
member of the transnational capitalist class. The Twitter account of the
State
Department has a battery of messages sternly lecturing Venezuela about the treatment of protesters, while also pontificating
on the Venezuelan Constitution as if the US State Department had become a global supreme court. What is impressive is the seamless
continuity in the nature of the messages on Venezuela from that account, as if no change of government happened between Obama's time
and Trump's. Nikki Haley, Trump's neocon ambassador to the UN, issued
a statement that read like it had been written by her predecessors, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, a statement which in itself
is an unacceptable intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs. For Trump's part, from just days
before the election, to a couple of weeks
after his inauguration, he has sent explicit
messages of support for anti-government
forces in Venezuela. In February, Trump
imposed sanctions on Venezuela's
Vice President. After Syria and North Korea, Venezuela is seeming the likely focus of US interventionism under Trump.
NATO
Rounding out the picture, at least for now (this was just the first hundred days of Trump's presidency), was Trump's outstanding
reversal on NATO -- in fact, once again he stated the reversal himself, and without explanation either: "
I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete ". This came just days after the US missile strike against Syria, and just as
Ivanka Trump was about to represent
his government at a meeting of globalist women, the
W20 . NATO has served as
the transnational military alliance at the service of the transnational capitalist class, and particularly the military and political
members of the TCC. 7
Saving Neoliberalism?
Has Trump saved neoliberal capitalism from its ongoing demise? Has he sustained popular faith in liberal political ideals? Are
we still in the dying days of liberalism
? If there had been a centrally coordinated plan to plant an operative among the ranks of populist conservatives and independents,
to channel their support for nationalism into support for the persona of the plant, and to then have that plant steer a course straight
back to shoring up neoliberal globalism -- then we might have had a wonderful story of a masterful conspiracy, the biggest heist
in the history of elections anywhere. A truly "rigged system" could be expected to behave that way. Was Trump designated to take
the fall in a rigged game, only his huge ego got in the way when he realized he could realistically win the election and he decided
to really tilt hard against his partner, Hillary Clinton? It could be the basis for a novel, or a Hollywood political comedy. I have
no way of knowing if it could be true.
Framed within the terms of what we do know, there was relief by the ousted group of political elites and the liberal globalist
media at the sight of Trump's reversals, and a sense that
their vision had been vindicated.
However, if they are hoping that the likes of Trump will serve as a reliable flag bearer, then theirs is a misguided wishful thinking.
If someone so demonized and ridiculed, tarnished as an evil thug and racist fascist, the subject of mass demonstrations in the US
and abroad, is the latest champion of (neo)liberalism, then we are certainly witnessing its dying days.
Is Trump Beneficial for Anti-Imperialism?
Once one is informed enough and thus prepared to understand that anti-imperialism is not the exclusive preserve of the left (a
left which anyway has mostly shunned it over the last two decades), that it
did not originate with the
left , and that it has a long and distinguished history
in the US itself , then we can move
toward some interesting realizations. The facts, borne out by surveys and my own online immersion among pro-Trump social media users,
is that one of the
significantreasons
why Trump won is due to the growth in popularity of basic anti-imperialist principles (even if not recognized under that name): for
example, no more world policing, no transnational militarization, no more interventions abroad, no more regime change, no war, and
no globalism. Nationalists in Europe, as in Russia, have also pushed forward a basic anti-imperialist vision. Whereas in Latin America
anti-imperialism is largely still leftist, in Europe and North America the left-right divide has become blurred, but the crucial
thing is that at least now we can speak of anti-imperialism gaining strength in these three major continents. Resistance against
globalization has been the primary objective, along with strengthening national sovereignty, protecting local cultural identity,
and opposing free trade and transnational capital. Unfortunately, some anti-imperialist writers (on the left in fact) have tended
to restrict their field of vision to military matters primarily, while almost completely neglecting the economic and cultural, and
especially domestic dimensions of imperialism. (I am grossly generalizing of course, but I think it is largely accurate.) Where structures
such as NAFTA are concerned, many of these same leftist anti-imperialists, few as they are, have had virtually nothing to say. It
could be that they have yet to fully recognize that the transnational capitalist class has, gradually over the last seven decades,
essentially purchased the power of US imperialism. Therefore the TCC's imperialism includes NAFTA, just as it includes open borders,
neoliberal identity politics, and drone strikes. They are all different parts of the same whole.
As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son --
then what an abysmally poor choice he is. 8
On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism,
which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now
contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced.
In addition to that, given that his candidacy aggravated internal divisions in the US, which have not subsided with his assumption
of office, these domestic social and cultural conflicts cause a serious deficit of legitimacy, a loss of political capital. A declining
economy will also deprive him of capital in the strict sense. Moreover, given the kind of persona the media have crafted, the daily
caricaturing of Trump will significantly spur anti-Americanism around the world. If suddenly even Canadian academics are talking
about boycotting the US, then the worm has truly turned. Trump can only rely on "hard power" (military violence), because "soft power"
is almost out of the question now that Trump has been constructed as a barbarian. Incompetent and/or undermined governance will also
render Trump a deficient upholder of the status quo. The fact that nationalist movements around the world are not centrally coordinated,
and their fortunes are not pinned to those of Trump, establishes a well-defined limit to his influence. Trump's antagonism toward
various countries -- as wholes -- has already helped to stir up a deep sediment of anti-Americanism. If Americanism is at the heart
of Trump's nationalist globalism, then it is doing all the things that are needed to induce a major heart attack.
As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism
. Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner
in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics.
As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power
of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation
of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition.
@Johnny Rico Thanks for that Johnny. I'm sure that you also know that Saddam Hussein has
weapons of mass destruction, Gadaffi is killing his own people, there is a civil war underway
in Syria, Russia has invaded Ukraine and Israel is the only democracy in the ME.
Oh, and there are no potholes in the roads of America, it being the worlds number one
economy.
"So let me get this straight: The Russians brought America to its knees with a few Facebook
ads, but Uncle Sam's concerted and ongoing efforts to overthrow governments around the world
and interfere with elections is perfectly fine? Because democracy? Riiiiiiight." :
NEOCON America does not want Russian bombers in South America.
Real America doesn't give a f*ck. Bombers are so last century, might as well put up
machine-gun equipped Union Pacific Big Boys to make it marginally more steampunk and become a
real danger for the USA.
"... That reflects geographical knowledge of a typical American, who sincerely believes that the world consists of three roughly equal parts: Main Street, out-of-town, and overseas. ..."
CNN journos placed Ukraine somewhere in Pakistan on live TV.
That reflects geographical knowledge of a typical American, who sincerely believes
that the world consists of three roughly equal parts: Main Street, out-of-town, and
overseas. The less the population knows, the easier it is to lie to it.
"... This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top positions. ..."
"... The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight " and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures. ..."
Remember the almost universal reaction of horror when Bolton was appointed as National
Security Advisor? Well, apparently, either the Neocons completely missed that, which I doubt,
or they did what they always do and decided to double-down by retrieving Elliott Abrams from
storage and appointing him US Special Envoy to Venezuela. I mean, yes, of course, the Neocons
are stupid and sociopathic enough not to ever care about others, but in this case I think that
we are dealing with a "Skripal tactic": do something so ridiculously stupid and offensive that
it places all your vassals before a stark choice: either submit and pretend like you did not
notice or, alternatively, dare to say something and face with wrath of Uncle Shmuel (the
Neocon's version of Uncle Sam).
And it worked, in the name of "solidarity" or whatever else, the most faithful lackeys of
the Empire immediate fell in line behind the latest US aggression against a sovereign nation in
spite of the self-evident fact that this aggression violates every letter of the most sacred
principles of international law. This is exactly the same tactic as when they make you clean
toilets with a toothbrush or do push-ups in the mud during basic training: not only to
condition you to total obedience, but to make you publicly give up any semblance of
dignity.
...Finally, these appointments also show that the senior-Neocons are frightened and paranoid
as there are still plenty of very sharp junior-Neocon folks to chose from in the US, yet they
felt the need to get Abrams from conservation and place him in a key position in spite of the
strong smell of naphthalene emanating from him. This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the
Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top
positions.
The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian
Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White
House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight "
and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all
their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures.
It is very difficult for normal people to understand that one of distinguishing feature of psychopaths is that they simply do
not care about the laws and about moral principles. The only thing they care about is being caught, but even this is often not the
case for some of them. There is a category of psychopaths who display wanton disregard for laws ignoring possible consequences,
despite the fact that they are not completely stupid. For them they not only doe not exist, or they are just for
"deplorables" to borrow Hillary epithet for common people.
If this is the case for a female psychopath this is vey dangerous and not that easy to detect as we intuitively prescribe to
female less aggressiveness and better law obedience. Huge disappointments may follow.
Notable quotes:
"... I think your folly is that you are trying to rationalize greed. Greed is irrational, we inherited it from our irrational aggressively territorial cousins, monkeys. Remember Soros: he looks like he died a couple of weeks ago (I wish he did), but still grabs for more loot and resents those who get in his way, including Trump. When greed is powerless, it is simply ridiculous. When greed has power, it becomes evil. ..."
"... That's the downside of so-called market economy: the driving force is greed (apologists like to call it profit, bit semantics don't change the matter). Unregulated greed, like unregulated power of wind (hurricanes) and water (floods), is destructive, whereas properly regulated it can produce some good. ..."
"... Greedy elites are liars and mass murderers because they have no moral scruples: they would think nothing of lying or murdering people just to get more money. If they can enrich themselves by doing something good, they won't pass up that opportunity, either. ..."
I think your folly is that you are trying to rationalize greed. Greed is
irrational, we inherited it from our irrational aggressively territorial cousins, monkeys.
Remember Soros: he looks like he died a couple of weeks ago (I wish he did), but still grabs
for more loot and resents those who get in his way, including Trump. When greed is powerless,
it is simply ridiculous. When greed has power, it becomes evil.
That's the downside of so-called market economy: the driving force is greed (apologists
like to call it profit, bit semantics don't change the matter). Unregulated greed, like
unregulated power of wind (hurricanes) and water (floods), is destructive, whereas properly
regulated it can produce some good.
You also ignore the fact that all those MIC profiteers don't really want WWIII. They want
to keep stealing huge amounts of taxpayers' money on military contracts. For that they scare
the common folk with dangers that do not exist and regale them with "patriotic" BS they don't
believe in. Deep down they know that to enjoy their loot they must stay alive: unlike
pathetic politicians, the gods do not take bribes.
As to those people throwing rocks from the overpass of I-75, I think "Beavis and
Butt-Head" answers your question. Hopeless stupidity of people totally lacking imagination,
when it becomes active, is evil. But the people themselves are just unimaginative morons.
So, my point is there is no such thing as evil per se, there is greed and stupidity (often
the combination of the two) that leads to evil actions.
Greedy elites are liars and mass murderers because they have no moral scruples: they
would think nothing of lying or murdering people just to get more money. If they can enrich
themselves by doing something good, they won't pass up that opportunity, either.
You can call them evil, if you wish, but that worldview is the dead end: if there are
inherently good and inherently evil people, you simply cannot do anything about that. You can
promise rewards or punishments in the afterlife, but that would not prevent any crimes or get
murdered people back to life here on Earth.
If you look for causes of evil behavior instead, you have a chance to minimize or
eliminate those causes, thereby minimizing evil behavior. That does not negate the spiritual
nature of humans, unless by "spiritual" you mean supernatural.
So, from my perspective, the views you propound are essentially defeatist. Personally, I
do not think anyone is inherently predisposed to good or evil, you have to look for motives.
Then you have a chance to motivate good behavior and demotivate evil one.
However, let me tell you what I tell my students: if you are conventionally religious, you
don't want to discuss religion with me.
Internally, a national currency has a value corresponding to demand placed by the
government, such as money for the taxes the state requires of its people. The ups and downs
of Lincoln's Greenback fiat currency, especially its interaction with the value of gold,
demonstrates how currency is tied to confidence in the government, as you suggest.
Externally, a nation's currency usually has value to the extent that a nation has
something to offer others, which makes the currency useful for making a desired purchase.
Today, the "desired purchase" is oil. The dollar is valued because you need dollars to buy
oil, as formerly enforced by diplomatic pressure. Because of US sanctions, trade in oil is
now beginning using rubles, yuan, and most unforgivably, Venezuelan currency! (Like Iraq,
Libya and Syria). If this keeps up, countries will no longer need dollars for their oil, and
$ will have to compete internationally based on other considerations. That won't be pretty.
IMHO, US leaders have dangerously eroding the dollar's pre-eminence by profligate use of
sanctions.
I need to remedy my own deficiencies in this area, but advocates of Modern Monetary
Theory, like Michael Hudson, Steve Keene, and like-minded economists who often post at
nakedcapitalism, make a strong case for a fiat money system, issued and controlled by
state banks, in contrast to the private banks as now.
But objecting to the fact that private bankers charge us interest, and act above the law
and democratic accountability, is such a quaint complaint.
Feb 2, 2019 The REAL Reason The U.S. Wants Regime Change in Venezuela. The U.S. and its
allies have decided to throw their weight behind yet another coup attempt in Venezuela. As
usual, they claim that their objectives are democracy and freedom. Nothing could be farther
from the truth.
Feb 3, 2019 Venezuela's Oil Enough for World's 30 Year Energy Needs
The long bankrupt fiat financial system is pushing the Deep State to target Venezuela for
the latter's natural resources that dwarfs that of its satellite province Saudi Arabia.
"... An indefinite military presence in Iraq makes no more sense for the U.S. than it does to have one in Syria. Keeping troops in Iraq isn't going to give the U.S. any knowledge about what Iran's government is doing inside its borders, and announcing that their mission is an anti-Iranian one exposes them to potential attack from militias aligned with Tehran ..."
"... Another country with a large permanent garrison of US Troops to join Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc. how long will this occupation of Iraq last? Five years? Fifty years? We have had Troops in Germany and Japan for 73 years. How long will this continue? For another 100 years? ..."
"... The neocons will not rest until we have US boots on the ground in every nation on earth. Enough of this foolishness. ..."
Trump wants to
keep U.S. forces in Iraq so they can "watch" Iran:
President Trump plans to keep United States troops in Iraq to monitor and maintain pressure on neighboring Iran, committing
to an American military presence in the region's war zones even as he moves to withdraw forces from Syria and Afghanistan.
"I want to be able to watch Iran," Mr. Trump said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We're going to
keep watching and we're going to keep seeing and if there's trouble, if somebody is looking to do nuclear weapons or other things,
we're going to know it before they do."
An indefinite military presence in Iraq makes no more sense for the U.S. than it does to have one in Syria. Keeping troops
in Iraq isn't going to give the U.S. any knowledge about what Iran's government is doing inside its borders, and announcing that
their mission is an anti-Iranian one exposes them to potential attack from militias aligned with Tehran.
Many Iraqis already want U.S. forces out of the country now that ISIS has been dealt with, and there will probably be even more
demanding our withdrawal if Trump tries to keep U.S. forces there for this purpose.
Trump's suggestion that Iran might "do nuclear weapons" is more of the same propaganda that he and his officials have been pushing
for months. Iran is unable to develop and build nuclear weapons because it is complying with the nuclear deal that Trump reneged
on. Thanks to the nuclear deal, the IAEA is able to conduct very intrusive inspections as part of the most rigorous verification
regime, and they would be the first to know if Iran were violating the restrictions set down in the JCPOA.
It is unlikely that the Iraqi government is going to agree to a U.S. presence that is being justified by hostility to its neighbor.
Iraq's president has already said that the U.S. military presence is permitted in the country only for the purposes of counter-terrorism:
Iraq's government wants to maintain good relations with Iran, and it isn't going to go along with an anti-Iranian agenda that
can only harm Iraq's economic and security interests. Many of Iran's neighbors are not as obsessed with and hostile to Iran as the
Trump administration, and Iraq definitely doesn't want to be a front-line state in some anti-Iranian coalition. Trump's proposal
would needlessly put U.S. troops at greater risk in Iraq, and it would gain the U.S. nothing except more resentment from Iraqis.
Another country with a large permanent garrison of US Troops to join Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc. how long will this
occupation of Iraq last? Five years? Fifty years? We have had Troops in Germany and Japan for 73 years. How long will this continue?
For another 100 years?
The neocons will not rest until we have US boots on the ground in every nation on earth. Enough of this foolishness.
@Bill Instead of looking at this issue using a microscope, reading history about how
Empires fall lends wisdom and insight. Arrighi's book, (I believe) is called "The Long
Twentieth Century." He details how empires and huge trading giants rise and fall.
He details the rise of Italy's banking system during the Middle Ages as well as Spain's
Empire, the Dutch trading hegemonies and most enlightening how the British Empire rose and
fell.
We are seeing tell-tale symptoms of a US that's in trouble with a slow erosion of the US
$$ hegemony. The financial growth of China has begun degrading the US market with hi-tech and
other products. Thusly, you see Tim Cook of Apple apoplectic over China's Huwaii (sp?)
flooding the European market with less expensive computers, cellulars, notebooks, etc.
We see the practical nature of Exxon Mobile that views the short geographic distance
between the US (its military) to Venezuela's oil and mineral-rich soil. An easy pick, rather
than becoming further embroiled in the Middle East.
Targeting Venezuela suggests a geopolitical shift away from the Middle East (and Israel)
to countries that are less expensive to plunder yet with vast resources to be stolen. A
telling sign in the slow deteriorating US Hegemony.
Remember the almost universal reaction of horror when Bolton was appointed as National
Security Advisor? Well, apparently, either the Neocons completely missed that, which I doubt,
or they did what they always do and decided to double-down by retrieving Elliott Abrams from
storage and appointing him US Special Envoy to Venezuela. I mean, yes, of course, the Neocons
are stupid and sociopathic enough not to ever care about others
But in this case I think that
we are dealing with a "Skripal tactic": do something so ridiculously stupid and offensive that
it places all your vassals before a stark choice: either submit and pretend like you did not
notice or, alternatively, dare to say something and face with wrath of Uncle Shmuel (the
Neocon's version of Uncle Sam).
And it worked, in the name of "solidarity" or whatever else,
the most faithful lackeys of the Empire immediate fell in line behind the latest US aggression
against a sovereign nation in spite of the self-evident fact that this aggression violates
every letter of the most sacred principles of international law.
This is exactly the same
tactic as when they make you clean toilets with a toothbrush or do push-ups in the mud during
basic training: not only to condition you to total obedience, but to make you publicly give up
any semblance of dignity.
@Johnny Rico Thanks for that Johnny. I'm sure that you also know that Saddam Hussein has
weapons of mass destruction, Gadaffi is killing his own people, there is a civil war underway
in Syria, Russia has invaded Ukraine and Israel is the only democracy in the ME.
Oh, and there are no potholes in the roads of America, it being the worlds number one
economy.
"... That reflects geographical knowledge of a typical American, who sincerely believes that the world consists of three roughly equal parts: Main Street, out-of-town, and overseas. ..."
CNN journos placed Ukraine somewhere in Pakistan on live TV.
That reflects geographical knowledge of a typical American, who sincerely believes
that the world consists of three roughly equal parts: Main Street, out-of-town, and
overseas. The less the population knows, the easier it is to lie to it.
"... This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top positions. ..."
"... The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight " and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures. ..."
Remember the almost universal reaction of horror when Bolton was appointed as National
Security Advisor? Well, apparently, either the Neocons completely missed that, which I doubt,
or they did what they always do and decided to double-down by retrieving Elliott Abrams from
storage and appointing him US Special Envoy to Venezuela. I mean, yes, of course, the Neocons
are stupid and sociopathic enough not to ever care about others, but in this case I think that
we are dealing with a "Skripal tactic": do something so ridiculously stupid and offensive that
it places all your vassals before a stark choice: either submit and pretend like you did not
notice or, alternatively, dare to say something and face with wrath of Uncle Shmuel (the
Neocon's version of Uncle Sam).
And it worked, in the name of "solidarity" or whatever else, the most faithful lackeys of
the Empire immediate fell in line behind the latest US aggression against a sovereign nation in
spite of the self-evident fact that this aggression violates every letter of the most sacred
principles of international law. This is exactly the same tactic as when they make you clean
toilets with a toothbrush or do push-ups in the mud during basic training: not only to
condition you to total obedience, but to make you publicly give up any semblance of
dignity.
...Finally, these appointments also show that the senior-Neocons are frightened and paranoid
as there are still plenty of very sharp junior-Neocon folks to chose from in the US, yet they
felt the need to get Abrams from conservation and place him in a key position in spite of the
strong smell of naphthalene emanating from him. This reminds me of the gerontocrats of the
Soviet Politburo in the worst stagnation years who had to appoint the likes of Chernenko to top
positions.
The one thing the Mr MAGA's administration has in common with the late Brezhevian
Politburo is its total inability to get anything done. My wife refers to the folks in the White
House (since Dubya came to power) as the " gang that couldn't shoot straight "
and she is right (she always is!): they just can't really get anything done anymore – all
their half-assed pseudo-successes are inevitably followed by embarrassing failures.
LOL Deep State is a term used by the simple minded. There is no 'deep state' there is
however a shadow government and it is made up of various groups all jockeying for
their own interest.
We have the 'Establishment..i.e. the two parties who want to maintain
their political power. We have the Corporate Elites and Globalist ' who want to control the
world's commerce and economies. We have Wall Street who doesnt want any restrictions on their
financial crimes. We have Domestic Business Interest who want laws and policies favorable to
them. We have Foreign Interest who want to use the US for their country.
Sometimes they join forces when their interest coincide, sometimes they don't.
Outside of this shadow government we have Ideological Activist of various kinds that can
be useful or not to the Establishment, the Globalist, Wall Street, Domestic Business Interest
and Foreign Interest.
All of the above are why we cant and don't have coherent policies on anything foreign or
domestic.
People like you who want to ascribe everything to some giant conspiracy in the CIA help to
dumb people down , its easier for the lazy to have one or two big scary entities to blame.
You cant even explain what the CIA conspiracy is can you? Tell us how the CIA maintains their
conspiracy against the US and what their goal is. How does the CIA maintain their secret
agenda when the CIA is subject to new CIA directors with every change of presidents and
parties?
Orwell, in his book, 1984 wrote that the government had two terms: Oldspeak and Newspeak. One
was not permitted to use old speak.
" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating
undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so
far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.
To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be
used in such statements as "This dog is free from lice" or "This field is free from
weeds."
It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free,"
since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were
therefore of necessity nameless."
Were sliding down a slippery, ever-darkening slope. When I step back and try to examine
the whole picture, it's very concerning. Take, for instance, [MORE]
The article had a link to a WordPress article, penned by John Whitehead, The Rutherford
Institute about what has crept into America, via the Militarization of the Police Force.
I subscribed to his newsletter, years ago when Bush and, then, Obama gave Military
Armament to Civilian Police forces. When the "FBI raids Stone's Home" story hit, complete
with CNN presence, I realized that we do, in fact have policing by fear in the U.S.,
advertised by Cable News. I'm not an alarmist but, I am taking this all in and it doesn't
look good for us. I've also read that millions of Americans are leaving this country, yes, in
droves. I've thought about it, before but, don't know if I can convince Wifey this is what we
need to do since were in our 70s.
Whiteheads sight has an ongoing ledger of Police incompetence, armed to the teeth just to
deliver a warrant, often going to the wrong house, creating chaos, shooting people and their
animals and then finding out that they raided the wrong house and killed the wrong person. A
flash-band grenade was launched into the wrong residence, landed on a toddler in a crib and
burned a hole in its stomach. The scales are tipped in the favor of cops and, if a homeowner
attempts to defend himself, he's prosecuted to the full extent of the "law."
Our 4th amendment is gone. Our First and Second Amendment Rights are under heavy attack.
There's a call for a Constitutional Convention with almost all of the States sign on for an
Article Five Convention.
Were all in deep shit. It doesn't matter if you are guilty of a crime or not. If they'll
go after an unarmed Roger Stone, guns pointed, in front of his family, terrorizing them for
National TV, what do YOU think is their intent? With 10 Zillion Super-Cop shows on TV for the
last forty years, where they always get their man, never make errors and show how violent
they are, legally, what do you think is the intent?
Nothing happens on the government level by accident NOTHING
First, Myspace sucked in all of the youngsters and they learned how easy it was to
communicate, online. Then, Twitter and Facebook arrived as beacons of free speech. Then,
other commentary friendly web site pop up everywhere, allowing you to spew your agitated
heart out and argue with each other and call each other names and then opposite ideologies
manifested in separate sites on the net with "moderators" that throw registrants off
(banning/banishing) them for defending their positions echo chambers for the "alt" Right or
the politically correct Left Trump bashers. Sometime, I suggest you go to these and read the
commenters' remarks. They're literally insane. I was even banned from a DISCUSS site for
suggesting some civil discourse, identifying myself as a Trump Voter.
Do you really believe that all of these issues simply morphed to lock out Conservatives?
No way. This was all planned, possibly to I.D. individuals who are "potential" adversaries of
a different ideology or possible "problem people" that get put on a watch list. If the DNA
Ancestry sights are GIVING your DNA results to the Government, what good can come of it?
"... More and more heretics and skeptics have been removed from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, but still people insist on sharing their ideas. So now they are stomping harder. Picture it as a ruling class boot, stomping on a human face. ..."
It is true that censoring social media platforms will be very harmful to actual democracy.
There can be no real democracy without an informed public, and the marketplace of ideas must
be open to all IF you want an informed, thinking public who are capable of shifting through
differing views and logically deciding which position to support.
But the catch, of course, is that our ruling overlords actually hate an informed and logical
public. They prefer gullible cretins who swallow whatever ruling class propaganda is beamed
to them through radio or TV, into each individual house or car.
For decades, people have been subject to one-way, top-down propaganda beamed to each
individual, with no way for each person to know how other people were reacting to said
propaganda, no way of checking the "facts" given to them, and no way of hearing skeptics
debunk the fallacies.
That changed with social media. It is my opinion that social media was launched as a way for
our rulers to monitor our opionions and reactions to their propaganda. It was to be a billion
person focus group, with instaneous results to each new ploy.
But millions of people seized upon this new communication device to start communicating with
each other! People around the country and around the world started talking to each other,
laughing at the most outlandish ruling class claims, spread clever memes to ridicule the
nonsense, and sharing opinions and facts between each other.
For the first time, we could communicate horizontally and we did.
Our overlords grew increasingly alarmed. They started telling us about Fake News, and the
harmful effects of hearing Non-Approved opinions and "conspiracy theorists" who used
dangerous facts and science to debunk Official Stories.
The Empire is Striking Back. For the last 2 years, the repression has gotten more and more
intense, with multiple people losing access to social media, and the rest of us being told it
is our "moral duty" to leave Facebook, so as not to contaminate the mass mind with unapproved
messages.
Personally, I think that we have lost. I see even people who are alarmed at the repression
personalizing it, such as blaming Mark Zuckerberg, personally, for bowing to the ruling class
pressure we ALL watched him undergo!
It is true that restricting information and debate is bad public policy, but only if you want
a vibrant and informed democracy.
It is clear to me that our ruling overlords want to such thing, and the last two years of
increasingly shrill denunciations of a free and open internet are proof of that.
For decades our owners were able to transmit their propaganda vertically, top down, into
each individual's house or car. No person receiving the propaganda was able to know how other
people were reacting, or to judge the veracity of the facts or to share their skepticism at
outright lies and obvious falsehoods.
It is my opinion that social media was created by our rulers to monitor our opinions and
reactions to their propaganda, as sort of a billion-person, real time focus group.
But millions of us started using it as a horizontal communication tool, a way to share our
information, opinions and skepticism with each other, with people all over the world, with no
interference from the moderators.
This is why we have been subjected to a couple of years of increasing denunciations of
"fake news" and warnings of Wrong Opinions and admonitions that it is our moral duty to stay
away from Facebook, so as not to contaminate our minds with unapproved ideas.
More and more heretics and skeptics have been removed from Twitter, Facebook and
YouTube, but still people insist on sharing their ideas. So now they are stomping harder.
Picture it as a ruling class boot, stomping on a human face.
Politics is the very art of conspiracy although conspiracy is not confined to politics.
Official conspiracy theories (Russiagate, to give a current example) should inspire much more
skepticism than dissident conspiracy theories. But any theory should be subject to analysis
and challenge. If a theory is impossibly convoluted or unfalsifiable, ignore it. Also, the
vague generalization "it's all part of the conspiracy" is not helpful at all. It suggests
that there is only one conspiracy and that conspiracy explains everything – sort of
like Divine Providence, but malevolent.
I recall seeing a video c. 2010, wherein following a boring speech by Cass Sunstein, Luke
Rudkowski (of We Are Change), who was in the audience, asked Mr. Sunstein about some of the
views he had expressed in his original article. I believe the original article was published
c. 2007. Sunstein claimed that he did not remember having written such an article ("I write a
lot of articles, how can I remember, yadda, yadda ") and slunk off as quickly as possible to
his coward's hidey hole. I guess he remembered later, and padded it out to a book length
piece of excrement, which gets a 61% 1-star ratings by Amazon reviewers.
Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, former 'information czar' of the White House staff in
the Barack Obama administration, is discussed in the Dept of Justice
Inspector General file on crimes involving Robert Mueller , in quite appalling terms,
Sunstein described as supporting a campaign of lying against his own undergraduate Harvard
classmate, an ex-DOJ employee described in the DOJ file as a victim of threats of murder
indulged by former FBI Director Mueller. From page 24 of that DOJ report:
Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, Hillary propagandist, supporting threats to kill
his own Harvard classmate. One of the corrupt Obama administration officials, was
'information czar' Cass Sunstein A man with apparently no ethics except his wishing to
serve the Hillary Clinton wing of the powerful, Cass Sunstein was able to receive a portion
of bribes, for indulging the campaign of terrorism, extortion, and defamation against his
classmate.
Sunstein is a leading propagandist for the network planting lies on the internet to
attack common people. Along with Sunstein refusing to write or sign even a one-sentence
note asking for prosecution of those menacing to murder his classmate, Sunstein has
declined to modify or amend his oily propaganda for 'wiki world' and 'nudging', as
euphemisms for what Sunstein knows are criminals spreading lies to destroy and kill people,
including the attack on someone Sunstein knew as a boy.
"Obviously conspiracism must present some extraordinary threat. So what might that
threat be? Oddly, he never explains."
Given that Sunstein is a noted expert on disinformation, the obvious answer is that
conspiracy theories tend more often than not to hit too close to the truth for the comfort of
TPTB.
@Brabantian Its not a Dep of Justice report . No idea what this website is about .
Another fake news ? Int doesn't mean Muller or Sunstein are not bunch of liars. They are.
Excellent, thought-provoking article. I especially like how the author points to the Official
Conspiracy Theories that been tearing humanity apart. i.e. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction. Kudos to the author.
"... Now add numerous different 'companies' with their own books and stupendous amounts of transfers between them. That in a nutshell is not just the Pentagon but the whole US financial economy. ..."
"... It also smacks of distorted priorities when the US military can fund and construct a small town sized base with a private 18 hole golf course, a multi room cinema, a McDonalds and a Burger King in faraway Iraq while the US government can't find enough funds to re pave a major road just outside of Washington DC. ..."
@bluedog There are thousands of examples, but here is a recent one from my blog:
Feb 2, 2019 -- USAF to Reopen Unneeded Airbase
A great example of waste and corruption in the US military is the plan to rebuild and
reopen Tyndall Air Force base. The number of aircraft in the USAF has fallen nearly in half
over the past 20 years, so it has far too many airbases that are expensive to operate. For
example, after F-22 bases were selected only half as many F-22s were procured as planned, so
all F-22 bases have ample room for more aircraft.
Last year, Tyndall Air Force F-22 base in Florida was destroyed by a hurricane. Tyndall's
F-22s were quickly relocated to other bases. Some questioned why such expensive aircraft were
based in an area with hurricanes since several F-22s undergoing maintenance were destroyed.
Nevertheless, the Air Force just announced at least $3 billion will be spent over five years
to rebuild and reopen unneeded and poorly located Tyndall!
Politics are important and the base is a mess, but the Air Force should have proposed
spending a couple billion to clean up Tyndall and prepare it for industrial or other
productive private sector uses. But our Congress and Pentagon are so selfish and corrupt they
don't give a damn about wasting money. Just bill the taxpayers and always blame poor
readiness and accidents on a lack of funding!
@bluedog As much as I support the notion that the Pentagon is awash in corruption, the
media reports about missing trillions are incorrect and the result of either deliberate
misrepresentation or (more likely) the lack of competence on the part of those reporting to
comprehend complicated material.
The reports originated from the recent audit work done on the Pentagon. I'm not sure
exactly how long a period this covered (and to be honest, can't be bothered to look it up
right now) but it was a 10-20 year period.
Included in the preliminary reports was the unaccounted for adjustments totaling up to
several trillions of dollars. Here's the thing most people reporting on this fail to grasp,
adjustments are not expenditures. There a bookkeeping gimmick to balance the books.
The debit and credit side need to be balanced out. This is what adjustments do. They
balance the books. But as they can appear on either the credit or the debit side and on both
sides at the same time, they can be used to artificially inflate the books (to make a company
look more valuable than it is) or to hide real expenses. More likely in the case of the
Pentagon, due to systemic failures of accurately forecasting (real) expenditures, inability
to stick to budgets and ignoring (at least some) of the financial paperwork needed to satisfy
the accountant, they had to make numerous adjustments all over the place to balance their
books.
In addition, it is highly likely that these trillions include the same adjustment multiple
times, not because 'it' (what ever it is) happened multiple times, but because it is included
in the books of each level in the Pentagon hierarchy that reports its finances
independently.
For example, a specific ship in the Navy spends more on their operational cruise than it
should have. This means adjustments on its financial report. The fleet it belongs to also has
to adjust its books. The US Navy also has to include the adjustment and ultimately the
overall Pentagon books will include it too. The same adjustment reported multiple times.
It also works if the ship spends LESS than was budgeted for. A surplus also requires an
adjustment in the books with the same result as above.
Last (purely theoretical) example; let's say you have 3 companies. You put $ 1 million in
company A.
You transfer this in batches to company B. You put in the books (of company A) as
'reservations', ie money to be spend later. When this comes into company B, you put it in the
books as 'investments' ie implying the money is to used by company B for expenditures. Again
you transfer this in batches, this time to company C, again as 'reservations'. You book them
as 'investments' in company C and guess what, you then transfer these into company A as
'reservations'.
Company A now has an additional $ 1M coming into it which you label 'investments'. The
value of company A now appears to be $ 2M ($ 1M investments from company C and $ 1M in
reservations) as it it not evident from the books of ONLY company A that it is the same $ 1M.
You need to see all of the books to make sense of what is happening, in this case to
distinguish between what are real revenue and expenses and what is just pumping around of the
same money.
Now add numerous different 'companies' with their own books and stupendous amounts of
transfers between them. That in a nutshell is not just the Pentagon but the whole US
financial economy.
Note for the accountants out there, I know, the last example is extremely simplified. It
merely serves to illustrate the subject in an easily understood manner.
@Johnny Rico I believe they are referring to the practice of diverting funds that would
otherwise go to maintain vital infrastructure, health care services and sanitation to over
purchase military equipment by the billions in order to maintain a high level of income for
the armaments industry.
It also smacks of distorted priorities when the US military can fund and construct a
small town sized base with a private 18 hole golf course, a multi room cinema, a McDonalds
and a Burger King in faraway Iraq while the US government can't find enough funds to re pave
a major road just outside of Washington DC.
They could also be talking about the weird practice of US tax money getting flushed down
the toilet by funding one army project after another that always, always goes over budget,
under delivers on promises, breaks down too easy and can't fight off decade old tech if they
don't cancel it after a billion or so is lost.
As for me, when I look at the US, I shake my head when I notice that the military
industrial complex and the Government have become one and the same thanks to the revolving
door between private companies and US Gov offices.
@AnonFromTN Just imagine for a second that everything "Made in China" disappears from the
US stores. Then ask: why is the superior indispensable democratic country cannot supply its
citizens with all this crap? Why does it have to rely on communist dictatorship to produce so
much, from nails, electric bulbs, and appliances to clothes?
I can answer this, and it wasn't always that way. Listen to Linda Ronstadt's lyrics.
The superior indispensable country became a liberal democracy in 1912 with the advent of
Wilson's progressive era reforms. The 16'th amendment is used to back up the instability of
banks -- remember TARP? 17'th is used to make Senators into populists and hence break state
power. Senators then become easy to bribe and maneuver as they cannot be recalled by their
state Legislature, and no longer do the bidding of their voters. Federal Reserve Act, IRS,
March to War, and so on. Women's suffrage made easy to maneuver and emotionally driven women
prey for the tribe.
It takes awhile for some things to manifest. The U.S. export of Jobs and American
Patrimony began under Clinton. The idea was for Wall Street to make some wage arbitrage. The
Wall Street China/China gambit then began, and transplanted companies exported from China at
just under the American price. The Patrimony of America was gifted to China, all of the
knowledge from the past was monetized for today, so the future was screwed.
This is yet another reason (how many do you need) for our hand rubbing friends to be
disallowed from ever being near money or finance.
Justinian of Byzantium prevented Jews from being in government, teaching in schools, or in
counting houses -- what goes for banking today.
This still didn't work for us, because their descendants from Pale of Settlement,
immigrated to U.S. to become today's Neo-Cons.
"... Unfortunately things are moving in the opposite direction. YouTube's effort to make "conspiracy videos" invisible is being pushed by powerful lobbies, especially the Zionist lobby, which seems dedicated to singlehandedly destroying the Western tradition of freedom of expression. ..."
"... The epithet 'conspiracy theorist' is used to tarnish those who challenge authority and power. ..."
A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on
an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power
of Dissent in Life and Business by Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the
People Who Believe Them , edited by Joseph E. Uscinski
On January 25 2018 YouTube unleashed the latest salvo in the war on conspiracy theories,
saying "we'll
begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in
harmful ways -- such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming
the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11."
At first glance that sounds reasonable. Nobody wants YouTube or anyone else to recommend bad
information. And almost everyone agrees that phony miracle cures, flat earthism, and blatantly
false claims about 9/11 and other historical events are undesirable.
But if we stop and seriously consider those words, we notice a couple of problems. First,
the word "recommend" is not just misleading but mendacious. YouTube obviously doesn't really
recommend anything. When it says it does, it is lying.
When you watch YouTube videos, the YouTube search engine algorithm displays links to other
videos that you are likely to be interested in. These obviously do not constitute
"recommendations" by YouTube itself, which exercises no editorial oversight over content posted
by users. (Or at least it didn't until it joined the war on conspiracy theories.)
The second and larger problem is that while there may be near-universal agreement among
reasonable people that flat-earthism is wrong, there is only modest agreement regarding which
health approaches constitute "phony miracle cures" and which do not. Far less is there any
agreement on "claims about 9/11 and other historical events." (Thus far the only real attempt
to forge an informed consensus about 9/11 is
the 9/11 Consensus Panel's study -- but it seems unlikely that YouTube will be using the
Consensus Panel to determine which videos to "recommend"!)
ORDER IT NOW
YouTube's policy shift is the latest symptom of a larger movement by Western elites to -- as
Obama's Information Czar Cass Sunstein put it -- " disable
the purveyors of conspiracy theories ." Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule's 2008 paper
" Conspiracy Theories ,"
critiqued by David
Ray Griffin in 2010 and developed into a
2016 book , represents a panicked reaction to the success of the 9/11 truth movement. (By
2006, 36% of Americans thought it likely that 9/11 was an inside job designed to launch wars in
the Middle East, according to a Scripps poll.)
Sunstein and Vermuele begin their abstract:
Many millions of people hold (sic) conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people
have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some
terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that
the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States.
Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of
violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and
law.
Sunstein argues that conspiracy theories (i.e. the 9/11 truth movement) are so dangerous
that some day they may have to be banned by law. While awaiting that day, or perhaps in
preparation for it, the government should "disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories"
through various techniques including "cognitive infiltration" of 9/11 truth groups. Such
"cognitive infiltration," Sunstein writes, could have various aims including the promotion of
"beneficial cognitive diversity" within the truth movement.
9/11 Contradictions An
Open Letter to Congress and the Press David Ray Griffin • 2008 • 110,000 Words
What sort of "cognitive diversity" would Cass Sunstein consider "beneficial"? Perhaps 9/11
truth groups that had been "cognitively infiltrated" by spooks posing as flat-earthers would
harbor that sort of "beneficial" diversity? That would explain the plethora of expensive,
high-production-values flat earth videos that have been blasted at the 9/11 truth community
since 2008.
Why does Sunstein think "conspiracy theories" are so dangerous they need to be suppressed by
government infiltrators, and perhaps eventually outlawed -- which would necessitate revoking
the First Amendment? Obviously conspiracism must present some extraordinary threat. So what
might that threat be? Oddly, he never explains. Instead he briefly mentions, in vapidly
nebulous terms, about "serious risks including the risk of violence." But he presents no
serious evidence that 9/11 truth causes violence. Nor does he explain what the other "serious
risks" could possibly be.
Why did such highly accomplished academicians as Sunstein and Vermuele produce such an
unhinged, incoherent, poorly-supported screed? How could Harvard and the University of Chicago
publish such nonsense? Why would it be deemed worthy of development into a book? Why did the
authors identify an alleged problem, present no evidence that it even is a problem, yet
advocate outrageously illegal and unconstitutional government action to solve the
non-problem?
The too-obvious answer, of course, is that they must realize that 9/11 was in fact a
US-Israeli false flag operation. The 9/11 truth movement, in that case, would be a threat not
because it is wrong, but because it is right. To the extent that Americans know or suspect the
truth, the US government will undoubtedly find it harder to pursue various "national security"
objectives. Ergo, 9/11 "conspiracy theories" are a threat to national security, and extreme
measures are required to combat them. But since we can't just burn the First Amendment
overnight, we must instead take a gradual and covert "boil the frog" approach, featuring plenty
of cointelpro-style infiltration and misdirection. "Cognitive infiltration" of internet
platforms to stop the conspiracy contagion would also fit the bill.
Cognitive Infiltration
An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory David Ray Griffin • 2011
• 66,000 Words
It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that Sunstein and Vermeule are indeed
well-informed and Machievellian. But it is also conceivable that they are, at least when it
comes to 9/11 and "conspiracy theories," as muddle-headed as they appear. Their irrational
panic could be an example of the bad thinking that emerges from groups that reflexively reject
dissent. (Another, larger example of this kind of bad thinking comes to mind: America's
disastrous post-9/11 policies.)
The counterintuitive truth is that embracing and carefully listening to radical dissenters
is in fact good policy, whether you are a government, a corporation, or any other kind of
group. Ignoring or suppressing dissent produces muddled, superficial thinking and bad
decisions. Surprisingly, this turns out to be the case even when the dissenters are wrong.
ORDER IT NOW
Scientific evidence for the value of dissent is beautifully summarized in Charlan Nemeth's
In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business (Basic Books,
2018). Nemeth, a psychology professor at UC-Berkeley, summarizes decades of research on group
dynamics showing that groups that feature passionate, radical dissent deliberate better, reach
better conclusions, and take better actions than those that do not -- even when the dissenter
is wrong.
Nemeth begins with a case where dissent would likely have saved lives: the crash of United
Airlines Flight 173 in December, 1978. As the plane neared its Portland destination, the
possibility of a problem with the landing gear arose. The captain focused on trying to
determine the condition of the landing gear as the plane circled the airport. Typical air crew
group dynamics, in which the whole crew defers to the captain, led to a groupthink bubble in
which nobody spoke up as the needle on the fuel gauge approached "E." Had the crew included
even one natural "troublemaker" -- the kind of aviator who joins Pilots for 9/11 truth -- there
almost certainly would have been more divergent thinking. Someone would have spoken up about
the fuel issue, and a tragic crash would have been averted.
Since 9/11, American decision-making elites have entered the same kind of bubble and engaged
in the same kind of groupthink. For them, no serious dissent on such issues as what really
happened on 9/11, and whether a "war on terror" makes sense, is permitted. The predictable
result has been bad thinking and worse decisions. From the vantage point of Sunstein and
Vermeule, deep inside the bubble, the potentially bubble-popping, consensus-shredding threat of
9/11 truth must appear radically destabilizing. To even consider the possibility that the 9/11
truthers are right might set off a stampede of critical reflection that would radically
undermine the entire set of policies pursued for the past 17 years. This prospect may so
terrify Sunstein and Vermeule that it paralyzes their ability to think. Talk about "crippled
epistemology"!
Do Sunstein and Vermeule really think their program for suppressing "conspiracy theories"
will be beneficial? Do YouTube's decision-makers really believe that tweaking their algorithms
to support the official story will protect us from bad information? If so, they are all doubly
wrong. First, they are wrong in their unexamined assumption that 9/11 truth and "conspiracy
theories" in general are "blatantly false." No honest person with critical thinking skills who
weighs the merits of the best work on both sides of the question can possibly avoid the
realization that the 9/11 truth movement
is right . The same is true regarding
the serial assassinations of America's best leaders during the 1960s . Many other
"conspiracy theories," perhaps the majority of the best-known ones, are also likely true, as
readers of Ron Unz's American Pravda series are
discovering.
Final Judgment The Missing
Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Michael Collins Piper • 2005 • 310,000 Words
Second, and less obviously, those who would suppress conspiracy theories are wrong even in
their belief that suppressing false conspiracy theories is good public policy. As Nemeth
shows, social science is unambiguous in its finding that any group featuring at least one
passionate, radical dissenter will deliberate better, reach sounder conclusions, and act more
effectively than it would have without the dissenter. This holds even if the dissenter is wrong
-- even wildly wrong.
The overabundance of slick, hypnotic flat earth videos, if they are indeed weaponized
cointelpro strikes against the truth movement, may be unfortunate. But the existence of the
occasional flat earther may be more beneficial than harmful. The findings summarized by Nemeth
suggest that a science study group with one flat earther among the students would probably
learn geography and astronomy better than they would have without the madly passionate
dissenter.
We could at least partially solve the real problem -- bad groupthink -- through promoting
genuinely beneficial cognitive diversity. YouTube algorithms should indeed be tweaked to
puncture the groupthink bubbles that emerge based on user preferences. Someone who watches lots
of 9/11 truther videos should indeed be exposed to dissent, in the form of the best arguments
on the other side of the issue -- not that there are any very good ones, as I have discovered
after spending 15 years searching for them!
9/11 Ten Years Later When
State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed David Ray Griffin • 2011 • 116,000 Words
But the same goes for those who watch videos that explicitly or implicitly accept the
official story. Anyone who watches more than a few pro-official-story videos (and this would
include almost all mainstream coverage of anything related to 9/11 and the "war on terror")
should get YouTube "suggestions" for such videos as September 11: The New Pearl Harbor ,
9/11
Mysteries , and the work of Architects
and Engineers for 9/11 Truth . Exposure to even those "truthers" who are more passionate
than critical or well-informed would benefit people who believe the official story, according
to Nemeth's research, by stimulating them to deliberate more thoughtfully and to question
facile assumptions.
The same goes for other issues and perspectives. Fox News viewers should get "suggestions"
for good material, especially passionate dissent, from the left side of the political spectrum.
MSNBC viewers should get "suggestions" for good material from the right. Both groups should get
"suggestions" to look at genuinely independent, alternative media brimming with passionate
dissidents -- outlets like the Unz Review!
Unfortunately things are moving in the opposite direction. YouTube's effort to make
"conspiracy videos" invisible is being pushed by powerful lobbies, especially the Zionist
lobby, which seems dedicated to singlehandedly destroying the Western tradition of freedom of
expression.
ORDER IT NOW
Nemeth and colleagues' findings that "conspiracy theories" and other forms of passionate
dissent are not just beneficial, but in fact an invaluable resource, are apparently unknown to
the anti-conspiracy-theory cottage industry that has metastasized in the bowels of the Western
academy. The brand-new bible of the academic anti-conspiracy-theory industry is Conspiracy
Theories and the People Who Believe Them (Oxford University Press, 2019).
Editor Joseph Uscinski's introduction begins by listing alleged dangers of conspiracism: "In
democracies, conspiracy theories can drive majorities to make horrible decisions backed by the
use of legitimate force. Conspiracy beliefs can conversely encourage abstention. Those who
believe the system is rigged will be less willing to take part in it. Conspiracy theories form
the basis for some people's medical decisions; this can be dangerous not only for them but for
others as well. For a select few believers, conspiracy theories are instructions to use
violence."
Uscinski is certainly right that conspiracy theories can incite "horrible decisions" to use
"legitimate force" and "violence." Every major American foreign war since 1846 has been sold to
the public by an official theory, backed by a frenetic media campaign, of a foreign conspiracy
to attack the United States. And all of these Official Conspiracy Theories (OCTs) -- including
the theory that Mexico conspired to invade the United States in 1846, that Spain conspired to
sink the USS Maine in 1898, that Germany conspired with Mexico to invade the United States in
1917, that Japan conspired unbeknownst to peace-seeking US leaders to attack Pearl Harbor in
1941, that North Vietnam conspired to attack the US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and
that 19 Arabs backed by Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and everybody else Israel doesn't like
conspired to attack the US in 2001 -- were false or deceptive.
Well over 100 million people have been killed in the violence unleashed by these and other
Official Conspiracy Theories. Had the passionate dissenters been heeded, and the truths they
told about who really conspires to create war-trigger public relations stunts been understood,
none of those hundred-million-plus murders need have happened.
Though Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them generally pathologizes the
conspiracy theories of dissidents while ignoring the vastly more harmful theories of official
propagandists, its 31 essays include several that question that outlook. In "What We Mean When
We Say 'Conspiracy Theory' Jesse Walker, books editor of Reason Magazine , exposes the
bias that permeates the field, pointing out that many official conspiracy theories, including
several about Osama Bin Laden and 9/11-anthrax, were at least as ludicrously false and
delusional as anything believed by marginalized dissidents.
In "Media Marginalization of Racial Minorities: 'Conspiracy Theorists' in U.S. Ghettos and
on the 'Arab Street'" Martin Orr and Gina Husting go one step further: " The epithet
'conspiracy theorist' is used to tarnish those who challenge authority and power. Often,
it is tinged with racial undertones: it is used to demean whole groups of people in the news
and to silence, stigmatize, or belittle foreign and minority voices." (p.82) Unfortunately,
though Orr and Husting devote a whole section of their article to "Conspiracy Theories in the
Muslim World" and defend Muslim conspiracists against the likes of Thomas Friedman, they never
squarely face the fact that the reason roughly 80% of Muslims believe 9/11 was an inside job is
because the preponderance of evidence
supports that interpretation .
Another relatively sensible essay is M R.X. Dentith's "Conspiracy Theories and Philosophy,"
which ably deconstructs the most basic fallacy permeating the whole field of conspiracy theory
research: the a priori assumption that a "conspiracy theory" must be false or at least dubious:
"If certain scholars ( i.e. the majority represented in this book! –KB ) want to
make a special case for conspiracy theories, then it is reasonable for the rest of us to ask
whether we are playing fair with our terminology, or whether we have baked into our definitions
the answers to our research programs." (p.104). Unfortunately, a few pages later editor Joseph
Uscinski sticks his fingers in his ears and plays deaf and dumb, claiming that "the
establishment is right far more often than conspiracy theories, largely because their methods
are reliable. When conspiracy theorists are right, it is by chance." He adds that conspiracy
theories will inevitably "occasionally lead to disaster" (whatever that means). (p.110).
We
Are NOT Charlie Hebdo! Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11 Kevin Barrett • 2015
• 90,000 Words
I hope Uscinski finds the time to read Nemeth's In Defense of Troublemakers and
consider the evidence that passionate dissent is helpful, not harmful. And I hope he will look
into the issues Ron Unz addresses in his American Pravda series.
Then again, if he does, he may find himself among those of us exiled from the academy and
publishing in The Unz Review.
Seriously, Ron Paul or Tulsi Gabbard speaking of democracy is one thing, but having
gangsters and psychopathic thugs like Pompeo, Bolton or Abrams in charge really sends a message
and that message is that we are dealing with a banal case of highway robbery triggered by two
very crude considerations:
First, to re-take control of Venezuela's immense natural
resources. Second, to prove to the world that Uncle Shmuel can still, quote , " pick up some small crappy
little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business ",
unquote.
The obvious problem is that 1) nobody takes the US seriously because 2) the US has not been
capable of defeating any country capable of resistance since many decades already. The various
US special forces, which would typically spearhead any invasion, have an especially appalling
record of abject failures every time they stop posing for cameras and have to engage in real
combat. I assure you that nobody in the Venezuelan military cares about movies like "Rambo" or
"Delta Force" while they carefully studied US FUBARs in Somalia, Grenada, Iran and elsewhere.
You can also bet that the Cubans, who have had many years of experience dealing with the (very
competent) South African special forces in Angola and elsewhere will share their experience
with their Venezuelan colleagues.
Well people you need to explore this move to take over Venezuela in the context of what
having that oil control will mean for the US and Israel in the increasingly likely event we
blow up Iran and up end the ME for Israel.
So what could happen that might make control of oil rich Venezuela necessary? Why has
Venezuela become a Bolton and Abrams project? Why is Netanyahu putting himself into the
Venezuela crisis ?
We, otoh, would need all the oil we could get if we blew up the ME, specifically Iran,
figuratively or literally. The US signed a MOU with Israel in 1973 obligating us to supply
Israel with oil ( and ship it to them) if they couldn't secure any for themselves.
"... Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS. ..."
"... I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control over the world it would give them to control it. ..."
"... It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about, follow the money. ..."
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did
Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student
of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose
Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked
the economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the
constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela,
perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those
tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by
all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish
friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate
"government" we have here. We let them get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let
them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a mess in Africa. All
the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA
crimes, more will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all
of them are, and there are lots of Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long
before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one one group, I think
Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St,
Corporations, Banks, The MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all
evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists.
I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold
in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't
create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control
over the world it would give them to control it.
Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists" here
are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can
claim to be a Jew. So how do you solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I
think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want.
Capitalism is the problem always has been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral,
unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force is maximizing
profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced
form of capitalism because it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us,
taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money while paying little to no
taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody
dares say it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it,
again paying little or no taxes on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back
to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and they used the money for the
people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors
running our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system
of ours, don't you think we should try something else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about.
Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about,
follow the money. Just muh opinion
The opposition hates me. I can do no right. The
Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong. There are not enough independent thinkers
to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every minute,
meaningless issue. I can pretty much do as I please without consequence ..like pay off all my
buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
I'd add: and by doing the last, I could cut a deal with the real TPTBs as to for what happens
after I leave White House.
"So let me get this straight: The Russians brought America to its knees with a few Facebook
ads, but Uncle Sam's concerted and ongoing efforts to overthrow governments around the world
and interfere with elections is perfectly fine? Because democracy? Riiiiiiight." :
NEOCON America does not want Russian bombers in South America.
Real America doesn't give a f*ck. Bombers are so last century, might as well put up
machine-gun equipped Union Pacific Big Boys to make it marginally more steampunk and become a
real danger for the USA.
"Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing
things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a
madman."
Imagine the response of the USA Goobermint if, in an obverse scenario of the Venezuelan
fiasco, the Roosians and Chai-nese decided Trump was an undemocratic dictator and declared
they are depositing all USA payments they owe into Bernie Sander's accounts?
Oh, I'm sorry, bad analogy: unlike Guaido, Sanders actually ran and would be hanging
around the oval office if we had a democracy.
I note by other sources "Acting President of The United State", John Bolton, has stated he
will send President Murado to Gitmo .....Apparently, a coup took place and Trump has been
demoted from Chief Moron to Acting Moron of the United States.
Expect the Venezuelan White Helmets to appear real soon. This "project" is being run using
the same plan as Syria. This means that shortly there will be reports that the Bolivarian
government has used chemical weapons it doesn't have against the "freedom fighters".
"... Afghanistan is now the longest war in U.S. history, making any withdrawal seem anything but "precipitous." Syria hasn't even been authorized by Congress. In both cases, our men and women in the armed forces have already achieved the goals that are militarily attainable. "It doesn't get much more pathetic," Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said of the Senate vote. ..."
"... taken at face value, it inverts Congress's constitutional war powers by allowing lawmakers to shirk their power to declare war while frustrating presidential efforts to pursue peace. ..."
"... When Trump twice bombed Syria without congressional approval, the Beltway applaude ..."
"... The one bright spot in the Senate vote was that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar were all on the side of withdrawal. ..."
"... Trump has heeded the hawks in his party -- and inside his own administration -- on Yemen, Iran, and perhaps soon Venezuela. Breaking free of their stranglehold could help put his presidency back on track. Otherwise he will end up ceding foreign policy to the progressives who want to usher him out of office either by impeachment or electoral defeat. ..."
"... Trump's call to bring the troops home has left him isolated in Washington. If he makes withdrawal a priority in the State of the Union, he may find that he has more company throughout the country than he thinks. ..."
"... Seriously, he's got too many warmongers in his administration to go after Congress. If he's serious about ending these wars he needs to clean house in his administration of the perpetual warmongers. Once he's done that then go after Congress. To do anything less is Trump talking it one way, while his administration does something completely different. ..."
"... I believe the above quote shows that there are lawbreakers and warmongers in both political parties. None of the above countries "Afghanistan and Syria" invaded or attacked America. Therefore I believe they are in violation of international law. ..."
Who says Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything? Washington closed ranks Thursday
behind two wars President Donald Trump has proposed winding down as the Senate voted 68-23 to
advance a resolution warning against "precipitous withdrawal" from Afghanistan and Syria.
Afghanistan is now the longest war in U.S. history, making any withdrawal seem anything
but "precipitous." Syria hasn't even been authorized by Congress. In both cases, our men and
women in the armed forces have already achieved the goals that are militarily attainable. "It
doesn't get much more pathetic," Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said of the
Senate vote.
The resolution is non-binding, like the Democrats' toothless measures to stop George W.
Bush's Iraq "surge" over a decade ago. Still, taken at face value, it inverts Congress's
constitutional war powers by allowing lawmakers to shirk their power to declare war while
frustrating presidential efforts to pursue peace.
When Trump twice bombed Syria without congressional approval, the Beltway applaude
d. Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward's book repeats the president's probing questions
about how long we must stay in Afghanistan with an air of disbelief better suited to "fake
news" shared on Facebook. Trump's call late last year to bring troops home from both war-torn
countries elicited bipartisan criticism and the abrupt resignation of Pentagon chief James
Mattis.
To make matters worse, only three Republican senators -- Ted Cruz of Texas, John Kennedy of
Louisiana, and Mike Lee of Utah -- voted to stand with their president against these endless
nation-building exercises. Kentucky's Rand Paul, who was not present for the vote, would surely
have been a fourth. Even Chuck Schumer, the third straight Senate Democratic leader to have
voted for the Iraq war, opposed this anti-withdrawal amendment.
During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump should call Congress's bluff.
He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars -- or
he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional
duties.
Trump may find that he has unlikely allies in his would-be 2020 Democratic presidential
foes. The one bright spot in the Senate vote was that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren,
Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar were all on the side of
withdrawal. How many ambitious Democrats will vote to give a Republican president a blank
check for war as an election year approaches?
GOP lawmakers will have to decide whether they stand with their president -- who wants to
cut America's multi-trillion dollar losses in the Middle East -- and
rank-and-file Republican voters in ending these wars. Those who want to stay in Syria and
Afghanistan quite likely cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.
Up until now, Trump's big fight with the establishment has been over immigration and the
border wall. Amid his belated turn towards the more populist parts of his program, he should
not forget to spend political capital on America's wars as well. Trump
now says Republican congressional leaders misled him on the wall. It has been even worse on
foreign policy.
Partisans are dug in on the border. But on war, Trump has some opportunities to win over
converts. Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sit stone-faced behind him as he agrees with the
Progressive Caucus on foreign policy?
Much is riding on whether a course correction is possible in Afghanistan and Syria.
Trump has heeded the hawks in his party -- and inside his own administration -- on Yemen,
Iran, and perhaps soon Venezuela. Breaking free of their stranglehold could help put his
presidency back on track. Otherwise he will end up ceding foreign policy to the progressives
who want to usher him out of office either by impeachment or electoral defeat.
Trump's call to bring the troops home has left him isolated in Washington. If he makes
withdrawal a priority in the State of the Union, he may find that he has more company
throughout the country than he thinks.
Mearsheimer has some main tenets of realist foreign policy include:
The lobby and its fellow travelers are not used to being told no. Time for them to create
and fund volunteer corps and do their own dirty work on their dime and at their own risk.
Trump should demand Congress debate and authorize the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. It
would be good policy and good politics. And good for the Constitution.
Wouldn't hold my breath on Trump doing any such thing on ending of the Middle Eastern Wars.
Seriously, he's got too many warmongers in his administration to go after Congress. If he's
serious about ending these wars he needs to clean house in his administration of the perpetual
warmongers. Once he's done that then go after Congress. To do anything less is Trump talking it
one way, while his administration does something completely different.
The article states: "Who says Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything? Washington
closed ranks Thursday behind two wars President Donald Trump has proposed winding down as the
Senate voted 68-23 to advance a resolution warning against "precipitous withdrawal" from
Afghanistan and Syria."
-- -- -- -
I believe the above quote shows that there are lawbreakers and warmongers in both
political parties. None of the above countries "Afghanistan and Syria" invaded or attacked
America. Therefore I believe they are in violation of international law. More info at link
below.
I am extremely disappointed that both of my State's Democratic Senators voted to keep the wars
going.
However, I'm sure they did so only to spite Trump.
They don't either of them support more Long War. Of course, they don't want to be blamed
either in the case of another terrorist attack for not being tough enough. But this vote was
not one of principle.
That means they would not fight for it. They just did it. I suspect much of the vote in the
Senate was like that, and that the rather large number of non-votes is because of that.
During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump should call Congress's bluff.
He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars -- or
he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional
duties.
Would that he would but he won't.
Mr. Trump shan't read this good advice because it seems he only reads what the Kushners put
in front of him and (for the most part) hires only people who despise him–people who are
married to the pro-war Blob in DC.
While the Senate's Thursday vote against withdraval from Syria does not prevent the president from pursuing his plans, it puts congressional
Republicans on the record as being at odds with Trump's Middle East policy. In the past, the Senate has backed similar bipartisan measures
expressing support for NATO in the face of Trump's criticisms and threats to withdraw from the alliance. Earlier this month, the House
overwhelmingly passed a measure to prevent Trump from using any federal funds to execute a withdrawal from NATO
Notable quotes:
"... When Trump was elected, I wondered if the "forever war" was too deeply entrenched in the borg/deep state or even someone like Trump to be able to push back against it. I wondered if there were any realists left In significant enough numbers to be willing to stand with Trump and buck their borg compadres. Because I knew Trump couldn't do it alone. The Borg is many-tentacled and yuuuuge! ..."
"... The wording is utterly astonishing, conflating al-Qaeda and ISIS with Iranian and Russian influence - pure Ziocon drivel. Troops must remain until the Administration can "..certify that conditions have been met for the enduring defeat of al Qaeda and ISIS..". I'd like Sen. McConnell to show me a historic example of an ideology that was enduringly defeated (without the complete extermination of the host population). So depressing that over 2/3 of the Senate felt the need to support this garbage. ..."
The vast majority of Senate Republicans backed Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday in a rebuke of President Trump's
rationale for withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, voting to declare that the Islamic State's continued operations
in both countries poses a serious threat to the United States. Democrats who voted against the measure characterized it as a commitment
to endless war.
While the Senate's Thursday vote does not carry the weight of law or prevent the president from pursuing his plans, it puts
congressional Republicans on the record as being at odds with Trump's Middle East policy. In the past, the Senate has backed similar
bipartisan measures expressing support for NATO in the face of Trump's criticisms and threats to withdraw from the alliance. Earlier
this month, the House overwhelmingly passed a measure to prevent Trump from using any federal funds to execute a withdrawal from
NATO.
-----------------------------
When Trump was elected, I wondered if the "forever war" was too deeply entrenched in the borg/deep state or even someone
like Trump to be able to push back against it. I wondered if there were any realists left In significant enough numbers to be
willing to stand with Trump and buck their borg compadres. Because I knew Trump couldn't do it alone. The Borg is many-tentacled
and yuuuuge!
Looks to me like the neocon/neolibs imperialists are not going to let Trump do what he was elected to do. Most Americans of
both parties would welcome less war but that appears to be irrelevant to the political class.
Couldn't agree more Valissa. The wording is utterly astonishing, conflating al-Qaeda and ISIS with Iranian and Russian influence
- pure Ziocon drivel. Troops must remain until the Administration can "..certify that conditions have been met for the enduring
defeat of al Qaeda and ISIS..". I'd like Sen. McConnell to show me a historic example of an ideology that was enduringly defeated
(without the complete extermination of the host population). So depressing that over 2/3 of the Senate felt the need to support
this garbage.
Trump's only chance seems to be to ensure the withdrawal(s) are completed before this amendment is added to the bill and it
becomes law. WaPo don't even include a link, so here it is for anyone with the stomach to read it:
"... President Trump on Sunday ratcheted up his attacks on the news media as the "enemy of the people," saying they "can also cause War." He accused journalists in an early morning tweet of "purposely" causing "division & distrust" in the country. ..."
"... "The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it's TRUE," he said. "I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People." ..."
"... "They purposely cause great division & distrust," he added. "They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!" ..."
"... I have so many news sources @ TV, radio, social media, internet, direct source as much as possible (all vetted for accuracy) so I will state who I NEVER use as a news source: CNN, MSNBC. The following I watch for comparison with the grain of salt only: ABC, CBS. Never read NYT, WAPO ..."
"... There are really great journalists out there especially the investigative ones that do a terrific job digging and bringing the truth to light. However these journalist that we know of took $ to keep Hillary in the headlines and are in trouble because of it! Fake news is lies! ..."
President Trump on Sunday ratcheted up his attacks on the news media as the "enemy of the
people," saying they "can also cause War." He accused journalists in an early morning tweet of "purposely" causing "division &
distrust" in the country.
"The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know
it's TRUE," he said. "I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American
People."
"They purposely cause great division & distrust," he added. "They can also cause War!
They are very dangerous & sick!"
The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know
it's TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They
purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous
& sick!
I have so many news sources @ TV, radio, social media, internet, direct source as much as
possible (all vetted for accuracy) so I will state who I NEVER use as a news source: CNN,
MSNBC. The following I watch for comparison with the grain of salt only: ABC, CBS. Never read NYT,
WAPO
There are really great journalists out there especially the investigative ones that do a
terrific job digging and bringing the truth to light. However these journalist that we know of took $ to keep Hillary in the headlines and are in trouble because of it! Fake news is lies!
Imagine the response of the USA Goobermint if, in an obverse scenario of the Venezuelan
fiasco, the Roosians and Chai-nese decided Trump was an undemocratic dictator and declared
they are depositing all USA payments they owe into Bernie Sander's accounts?
Oh, I'm sorry, bad analogy: unlike Guaido, Sanders actually ran and would be hanging
around the oval office if we had a democracy.
I note by other sources "Acting President of The United State", John Bolton, has stated he
will send President Murado to Gitmo .....Apparently, a coup took place and Trump has been
demoted from Chief Moron to Acting Moron of the United States.
Expect the Venezuelan White Helmets to appear real soon. This "project" is being run using
the same plan as Syria. This means that shortly there will be reports that the Bolivarian
government has used chemical weapons it doesn't have against the "freedom fighters".
"... This included "unprecedented steps going far beyond our obligations," Lavrov said, and noted that part of Washington's "systematic" attempts to undermine the treaty included "testing drones that matched the characteristics" of ground-based cruise missiles banned in the treaty, as well as installing "MK 41 launching systems for the defense shield in Europe that can be used to fire mid-range Tomahawk cruise missiles without any modification." ..."
"... Putin noted further in the midst of Lavrov's remarks, "This is a direct a violation of the INF." And Lavrov also added, "Such launchers have already been completed in Romania, more are scheduled to be put into service in Poland and Japan." ..."
"... Alarmingly, Putin concluded his remarks by saying Washington could be imperiling in the long term the landmark New START treaty, set to expire in 2021. ..."
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) has effectively collapsed following the
US announcing Friday that it's suspending all obligations under the treaty. Predictably
Moscow's response has been swift, with President Vladimir Putin saying in a meeting with his
foreign and defense ministers that Russia will now pursue missile development previously banned
under its terms .
Putin said "ours will be a mirror response" in a tit-for-tat move that the Russian president
ultimately blames on Washington's years-long "systematic" undermining of the agreement. "Our US
partners say that they are ceasing their participation in the treaty, and we are doing the
same," the Russian president said . "They say that they are doing
research and testing [on new weapons] and we will do the same thing."
Crucially, however, he noted that there were no plans to deploy short and mid-range missiles
to Europe unless the US does it first -- a worst nightmare scenario that has rattled European
leaders ever since talk began from Trump that the 1987 treaty could be scrapped.
Putin still seemed to allow some degree space for last minute concessions as "still on the
table" possibly in line with the Trump administration's desire to modernize and update a new
treaty taking into account new technological and geopolitical realities, such as China's
ballistic missile capabilities.
"Let's wait until our partners mature sufficiently to hold a level, meaningful conversation
on this topic, which is extremely important for us, them, and the entire world," Putin said.
But also lashing out during the press conference that followed the meeting with top officials
Putin
described :
Over many years, we have repeatedly suggested staging new disarmament talks, on all types
of weapons. Over the last few years, we have seen our initiatives not supported. On the
contrary, pretexts are constantly sought to demolish the existing system of international
security .
Specifically he and FM Sergei Lavrov referenced not only Trump's threats to quit the
agreement, which heightened in December, but accusations leveled from Washington that the
Kremlin was in violation. The White House has now affirmed the bilateral historic agreement
signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan will be suspended for 180 days. Lavrov insisted
that Moscow "attempted to do everything we could to rescue the treaty."
This included "unprecedented steps going far beyond our obligations," Lavrov said, and noted
that part of Washington's "systematic" attempts to undermine the treaty included "testing
drones that matched the characteristics" of ground-based cruise missiles banned in the treaty,
as well as installing "MK 41 launching systems for the defense shield in Europe that can be
used to fire mid-range Tomahawk cruise missiles without any modification."
Putin noted further in the midst of Lavrov's remarks, "This is a direct a violation of the
INF." And Lavrov also added, "Such launchers have already been completed in Romania, more are
scheduled to be put into service in Poland and Japan."
Alarmingly, Putin concluded his remarks by saying Washington could be imperiling in the long
term the landmark New START treaty, set to expire in 2021.
" as well as installing "MK 41 launching systems for the defense shield in Europe that can
be used to fire mid-range Tomahawk cruise missiles without any modification."
US trying to get from Russia top position first-response list and get Europe on that
position.
Neocons should be remembered as oldcons because their bag of tricks is so well known that
they don't fool anyone. Think about this Reagan era fossil who tries to arrange his little
coup in Venezuela and will fall flat on his face. Think also about these Pompeo and Bolton
who are so desperate that they didn't even spend the necessary time to learn the checkers
rules before trying to take on Putin in his favorite chess play. No really, the level of
mediocrity and the lack of strategy or even sheer preparedness of these dudes is so low that
they may even be hung by their own subordinates who can't even stand that stench of fool
play. Trump should be ashamed he hired these clowns to ride their one trick ponies while the
titanic goes down. History will not be kind with him.
Additionally, just last week the Russian Ministry of Defense invited foreign military
attachés and journalists to inspect the new Iskander 9M729 cruise missile. This is the
one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of the US and NATO
were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up.
Interestingly, the 9M729 has a heavier warhead, and thus shorter range, than the older
9M728, which the US has not claimed violates the INF treaty. See it for yourself:
This is the one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of
the US and NATO were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up .
About standard to ignore what doesn't fit the agenda.
Additionally, just last week the Russian Ministry of Defense invited foreign military
attachés and journalists to inspect the new Iskander 9M729 cruise missile. This is the
one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of the US and NATO
were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up.
Interestingly, the 9M729 has a heavier warhead, and thus shorter range, than the older
9M728, which the US has not claimed violates the INF treaty. See it for yourself:
This is the one that the US claims is in violation of the INF treaty. Representatives of
the US and NATO were invited and expected to be there, but they never showed up .
About standard to ignore what doesn't fit the agenda.
"... The humble-petit-bourgeois dream is not a bad one, and seems realistic if globalist-oligarch forces are kept in check. Europe has shown this is workable, with a number of societies over decades, with essentially zero poverty amongst legal residents. But the wrecking ball has been brought to that. ..."
"... And perhaps the contentedness of so many Europeans for so long, has left them weakened in spirit, and vulnerable to all the propaganda and manipulations now being used to destroy what they have had. Perhaps it's just one more round of the famous cycle ..."
Populism by itself cannot hold together for a lack of common values. However, Christian
Populism can hold the long road by emphasising the common values of French Christians and
European Christians.
Globalist mass-migration theology was an obvious attempt to suppress or replace common
European Christian values. In direct opposition to the Globalist screed -- Christian
Populists are rising up in France, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Austria, and elsewhere. All with a
common, unifying Christian cause and true European Values.
This movement is different from those that have come before. In the past, Anti-Christian,
Leftist, Socialism has managed to hijack Populist efforts. Here the Christian backbone of the
movement prevents that fate.
It's not true that people as a whole are driven by endless greed and 'bottomless human
desire'.
In general, people understand the limits of the world, and the mass of commoners merely
want something small and safe a nice little home, the ability to raise a family, a safe
neighbourhood and decent schools, no worries about medical care – and stability in all
of this, knowing that their little petit bourgeois lives will not be undermined or destroyed.
That is it.
There may be a little 'dreaming' about wealth and expensive toys, cars, homes, apparel,
but that is not very 'driven'. People are overall content with something humble, a safe,
stable little corner, having 'enough' and no worries.
The problem is that people are not given this, they don't have their stable little corner
in security, they see and watch what little they have being undermined. Oligarchs demand
'more', sponsoring progressive impoverishment as they extract more profit; as well as seeking
control by sponsoring social turmoil, in part via waves of invited arrivals who create great
difficulties for humble working class lives and stability.
The humble-petit-bourgeois dream is not a bad one, and seems realistic if
globalist-oligarch forces are kept in check. Europe has shown this is workable, with a number
of societies over decades, with essentially zero poverty amongst legal residents. But the
wrecking ball has been brought to that.
And perhaps the contentedness of so many Europeans for so long, has left them weakened
in spirit, and vulnerable to all the propaganda and manipulations now being used to destroy
what they have had. Perhaps it's just one more round of the famous cycle
Hard times make strong people
Strong people make good times
Good times make weak people
Weak people make hard times
Everybody is analyzing analyzing ..and nobody is coming out in the end with solution
not even with the hint of solution.
Everything is becoming so superficial, Speeches of politicians are totally superficial now.
News station propagate superficiality.
Accusations against Trump supporters are examples of superficiality.
..
We are living in abstract world, There is no more reality.
..
And I am net even talking about comments here.
We left the reality so far behind that if we look back we do not even see it.
Everybody is analyzing analyzing ..and nobody is coming out in the end with solution
not even with the hint of solution.
Everything is becoming so superficial, Speeches of politicians are totally superficial now.
News station propagate superficiality.
Accusations against Trump supporters are examples of superficiality.
..
We are living in abstract world, There is no more reality.
..
And I am net even talking about comments here.
We left the reality so far behind that if we look back we do not even see it.
@anon A lot of truth in what you say. Personally, I'm ashamed to admit that I bought into
the 'Red peril' nonsense when I was young. When leftists–yeah, back then it was the
leftists–tried to warn us that the elites were going to bust the unions, export jobs and
roll-out 'free trade', I didn't believe them. I actually couldn't then imagine that any
non-communist would be so diabolical! I was a pretty naïve kid, all in all. But then, I
guess most kids by nature are.
I detect more than a whiff of National Review in this article. How come whenever Joe
Blow (or Jacques Bonhomme) wants something essential like healthcare, transportation or an
affordable dwelling, he is denounced as 'greedy' for demanding a bunch of 'gibmedats', but when
the big multi-national corporations want another free-trade treaty or another tax cut, this is
labelled 'progress'?
I guess that's why I just can't get into conservatism.
All of this actually helps the EU, which is not a globalist project but a regionalist
alternative to globalism. Globalism was imposed on a very reluctant EU in the 1980s by a then
hyperdominant US (I'm old enough to remember!) with Margaret Thatcher acting as an American
Trojan horse within the EU. It has never worked precisely because it contradicts the inherent
regionalist logic that underlies the whole idea of European integration.
Thus, the more the US globalist project goes under, the more the EU and similar regionalist
projects in other parts of the world come to the fore.
Just as Trumpmania spawned the pro-US and pro-globalist Brexiteers in the summer of 2016,
Trump's bull in a china shop blundering and the self-destruction of American power that has
entailed has empowered the various protest movements we've seen in Europe, none of which are
calling for the withdrawal of their countries from the EU.
People instinctively sense that Trump has defeated the notorious "TINA" argument, which in
Europe meant "the US won't let us do anything else". The ongoing collapse of American power
makes for a very turbulent and unstable situation in the world but fundamentally, we're all on
the right track. For European integration, that doesn't mean collapse but a return to the
original post-WWII project, designed to allow us to have our respective nationalisms without
killing each other at regular intervals.
That concept is so alien to the American experience that it is unsurprising that Americans
have difficulty in understanding it. Americans need to stop lumping themselves together with
Europeans and calling us all "Westerners".
@obwandiyag Contrary to obwandiyag, Durocher came over to me as the sort of sour
conservative who can't deliver goods for the people and therefore reflects that, well, people
oughtn't to demand so much goods.
Well, both kinds, the libertarian and the sour conservative, have a certain disregard for the
average guy.
The average guy is by no means crying "me,me,me" all the time and he doesn't demand the best
and the most of everything. Also, he is quite prepared too work for life, if his work is within
his range of capabilities and if it doesn't develop into a kind of modern slave labour.
But he sees, and reads, that technology improves which means that life should become easier
not more difficult.
And he too often sees that in fact he has to live worse than his father – or, if he is
the father, he sees that his sons will live worse than he. And he asks why. And the media can
give no honest explanation. (Nor can Durocher.)
In the " west " , the working people are extracted to the last cent with the all the locals IRS
and varied taxes . This surplus goes to pay faraonic governement bureaucracies which live on
the taxpayers and humiliate them , goes to subvention tax free oligarchs , and goes to
subvention all kind of stupid utopias and a wide array of social bums national and foreign .
They have killed the hen of the golden eggs . The CCCP fell in the 1990`s , our EUUSACCCP will
fall in the 2020`s ?
By the way will the Cesar of the western Roman Empire Trumpo Maximo order you Microncito
Napoleonis to go away like he is doing with his rebelius consul Maduro Petrolero ? After all
Microncito is very mean with his subdits , and after all he is not supported by the Cesar of
the eastern Roman Empire Putinos Bizantinii like Maduro Petrolero is , it would be an easy coup
, and very popular .
@Jewish minds Trump Zionism. Completely agree on "representative" democracy being a sham,
and on the feasibility and great importance of direct democracy. Realistically, though, one
still needs legal specialists who can draft workable laws and ensure their compatibility with
existing laws and constitutions. Some sort of hybrid system – a lawmaking institution, be
it elected or appointed – with oversight and ultimate arbitration by the citizens will
probably work better in practice.
Probably just as important is the media – the kind of oligarchic concentration we have
right now in the mass media is going to interfere with any kind of democracy, however much
improved over the current dysfunctional and discredited system.
I'll tell you what the average Joe Blow(Yellow Vest)wants, and it is not just more "Shiny
stuff".
1) He/She wants to be left alone. H/S is sick of breaking some law every time H/S merely
sets foot out of their house. Police forces have become nothing more than revenue sources for
the ever growing police state and have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the common man.
Pulling a cell phone out of your pocket at the wrong time is enough to get you killed by tyrant
with a badge.
2) H/S wants to be able to make enough money to raise a family and live comfortably. H/S is
sick of watching the top 1% steal everything that is not nailed down through such scams as
fractional reserve banking and stock market swindles. As the old saying goes: Give a man a gun
and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
3)H/S wants a REAL form "affirmative action", where every man/woman is chosen for their
ability not the color of their skin or their ethnicity. A world where an an individual is
judged on their ability and nothing more.
4) H/S wants to be safe in their neighborhoods as they watch them being flooded by
uncivilized and criminal immigrants. All the while his and hers own government is confiscating
their means of self protection through such things as gun control.
5) H/S is sick of watching programs such as Social Security and Medicare being bled dry by
people who have never contributed a dime to such programs, while H/S has contributed to these
programs their entire working lives.
6)H/S is sick of these never ending wars, which are started but never fought by the men in
suits. They are tired of watching the blood suckers of war stealing not only the treasure of
their country, but the very lives of their sons and daughters. All they are saying is give
peace a chance.
So you see, it is much more than a bunch of whiny socialist wanting more free stuff.
I detect more than a whiff of National Review in this article.
Yeah. You could have replaced the byline with any one of Conservative, Inc.'s generic hack
writers and other than Durocher's improved erudition, nobody would have known the
difference.
@Michael Kenny I agree . We europeans are not " westeners " ( " occidentales " , "
occidentaux " ) ,we are just europeans , greco-roman europeans .
To call western europeans " westeners " is an English fraud , followed by the US , made to
isolate Russia from the rest of Europe and preventing the formation of a strong continental
Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok .
We europeans , produced the greco-roman culture , the Christian culture , we consider
ourselves the land of Christian and greco-roman civilization . We consider ourselves the
fathers of most of the Americas .
For us ,europeans , at least for old ones , the " westeners " were the half mexican people
from Texas to California , the cowboys , the vaqueros . And the US easteners were the yankees
.
We always liked the cowboys , the soul of north America , the roots of north America , and
we always felt some uneasiness and distrust of the yankees , those excentric , warmonger ,
greedy , rootless ex-europeans .
All this shows the limits both of official Europeanism and short-sighted demotic populism.
The goal of both is to distract the French from their real problems, namely their spiritual
and demographic collapse. The EU as such is not the source, or even a significant cause, of
France's problems.
Germany passes immigration law to lure non-EU skilled workers . It is silly to call for
cohesion unless you halt immigration and have the strength to sacrifice for that end. France is
much further down the road to dissolution than they are over the Rhine. Germany has not
suffered much so mar, they can take far more immigration than France. Germany' business class
has reasons for increasing immigration into Germany, which is becoming ever more powerful
though building up its economic strength by abandoning ll nuclear capacity and defence against
other countries, and keeping labour costs low–by any means necessary. The USA is turning
away from defending Germany (which tried to claim the costs of it taking million refugees
should be counted as a defence contribution). For now, Germany thinks it has enough cohesion in
reserve to sacrifice some to building up its economic strength and productive capacity in
particular. In the EU, France will be subjected to German priorities.
The troubles that our society is experiencing are also sometimes due and related to the
fact that too many of our fellow citizens believe that they can earn without effort . . .
It is comparative. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants and refugees, come from
countries where if you don't work you starve. But those countries lack the flexibility
conferred by the gentrified, relaxed and complex societies of Europe.
Going all out rather than tepidly for native demographic strength is probably a bad idea,
because we don't know what national or personal qualities are going to be needed to cope with
the unexpected type of challenges that will certainly be posed in our future.
@Johnny Walker Read You are essentially right, but some of your points speak more to
America than France. In particular, police tends to be a lot less trigger-happy and generally
more lenient in France. Considering the scale of the French protests, I would say overall the
number of people who got hurt by police is very low. I even suspect that the few really bad
cases were committed not by regular police but by special agents provocateurs, trying to incite
violence in order to create a pretext for cracking down.
Amusing anecdote – I spent a couple of months in Paris a goodish number of years ago.
One French guy told me that he was stopped while driving drunk by police. He explained to them,
"it is the last night before I will be thirty years old." Police told him, "o.k., you be
careful now while driving home" and let him go.
With a monetary system based on debt, and the counterfeiting and issuance of money privately
controlled, it was inevitable that globalization and the elimination of state sovereignty would
result. Global financial capitalism is the maximizing of profit for private gain and the
socialization of losses by the state. Although, nation-states are now nothing more than
subsidiaries of the global banking cartel. As debt levels grow well beyond the ability of
states to service, let alone repay, the banking cartel need seamless access to other nation's
resources to keep the ponzi going – hence the unified global banking cartel, always
acting in concert.
The counterfeiting racket is quite ingenious. The public demanding more and more state
subsidies to ensure their standards of living, as high paying jobs disappear, never to return,
give the political class free rein to borrow well beyond tax levels, or their ability to ever
repay. Of course, there isn't sufficient savings to fund this level of borrowing on a global
scale (public and private) so it must be manufactured, or more bluntly, counterfeited. The
banking cartel then takes it's skim off the top in fees, seniorage, and interest. Over time,
this enormous skim has allowed them to buy whatever, and whomever, they want.
We live in an age of money illusion, where the enormous amount of phony money has corrupted
every aspect of society, and disguises late-stage, economic collapse. It's just as likely the
the global economy has been going nowhere in the last ten years but we can't tell because GDP,
being a measure of money transactions, presents a false picture of growth, disguised by the
enormous quantities of money counterfeited over the decade, and indeed since Mr. Greenspan took
the helm at the Fed.
It has been very successful, however, in inflating all asset classes, other than commodities
(controlled by futures derivatives trading), to increase collateral for even more debt
issuance. Of course, all these assets are tightly controlled by the counterfeiters.
Unfortunately, we have reached a point where even interest can't be paid, let alone principle.
And the underlying asset values look to be poised for collapse. Counterfeiting more money, ie.
QE, will most certainly be redeployed, but should result in collapsing currencies around the
globe, as all are in the same boat.
In effect, the western world has created a neo-feudal order, with money counterfeiters being
the overlords, rather than the land-holding thugs of the past.
A rather sad piece from someone not quite au fait with current thinking though understandable
under the circumstances.
Politics today is no longer of the 'left' or the 'right', but of globalism or nationalism. Yes,
groups like Antifa cling to the old while supporting the fascist Establishment with fascist
action. Odd lot those people.
Essentially you can't have a just society where usuary, share dealing and currency speculation
take place. The termites that practice this sort of lifestyle need to be given a spade to dig
the earth and grow their own veggies!
And democracy is just a smoke screen permitting special interest groups to over ride the
popular consensus. To have it clarified by a popular vote one way or the other is a good idea,
but can only work where the local culture supports the concept as in Switzerland, as opposed to
California where it doesn't really work properly, since the culture is alien to that sort of
concept.
Old man Le Pen's daughter is a wiley old solicitor that speaks like a fisherman's wife. The old
man won't be bothered about what has happened to his party, though it is surprising things have
stagnated a bit for National Rally.
The EU should not have expanded in to Eastern Europe and it should never have permitted the
sort of third rate politicians such as Junkers, Moderini, the Kinnocks to have the power and
the gravy they have got. The ultimate weakness is having Rothschild control all the banks and
operate his money laundering business in the City of London. The EU is just another scam and
the 520 million people in the EU are sick of it.
If you think the US is a poisoned chalice, the EU by comparison drank the Coudenhove-Calergi
poison fifty years ago and is just about to go tits up and expire. Immigrants or no immigrants,
the Austro-Japanese Richard Coudenhove-Calergi brand of pure poison has destroyed everything of
worth in Europe.
This writer touches on the edges of the truth without actually pointing a finger at the cause:
greed through usuary, share dealing and currency speculation. Until you deal with this cancer
and the termites that promote it you will never find an answer.
"... My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945 have now become like the people we fought. ..."
The launch of INSTEX -- "Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges" -- by France, Germany, and the UK
this week
to allow "legitimate trade" with Iran, or rather effectively sidestep US sanctions and bypass SWIFT after Washington was able
to pressure the Belgium-based financial messaging service to cut off the access of Iranian banks last year, may be too little too
late to salvage the Iran nuclear deal .
Tehran will only immediately press that more than just the current "limited humanitarian" and medical goods can be purchased on
the system, in accordance with fulfilling the EU's end of the 2015 JCPOA -- something which EU officials have promised while saying
INSTEX will be "expansive" -- while European companies will likely continue to stay away for fear of retribution from Washington,
which has stated it's "closely following" reports of the payment vehicle while reiterating attempts to sidestep sanctions will "risk
severe consequences" .
As a couple of prominent Iranian academics
told Al Jazeera this week: "If [the mechanism] will permanently be restricted to solely humanitarian trade, it will be apparent
that Europe will have failed to live up to its end of the bargain for Iran ," said political analyst Mohammad Ali Shabani. And another,
Foad Izadi, professor at the University of Tehran, echoed what is a common sentiment among Iran's leaders: "I don't think the EU
is either willing or able to stand up to Trump's threat," and continued, "The EU is not taking the nuclear deal seriously and it's
not taking any action to prove to Iran otherwise... People are running out of patience."
But Iranian leadership
welcomed the new mechanism as merely a small first step: "It is a first step taken by the European side... We hope it will cover
all goods and items," Iranian Deputy FM Abbas Araqchi told state TV, referencing EU promises to stick to its end of the nuclear deal.
The European side also acknowledged it as a precondition to keeping the nuclear deal alive, which EU leaders sea as vital to their
security and strategic interests : "We're making clear that we didn't just talk about keeping the nuclear deal with Iran alive, but
now we're creating a possibility to conduct business transactions," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
told reporters on
Thursday . "This is a precondition for us to meet the obligations we entered into in order to demand from Iran that it doesn't
begin military uranium enrichment," Maas said.
What is INSTEX?
A "special purpose vehicle" that will allow European businesses to trade with Iran, despite strict US sanctions.
According to media reports, INSTEX will be based in Paris and will be managed by German banking expert Per Fischer, a former
manager at Commerzbank. The UK will head the supervisory board.
The European side intends to use the channel initially only to sell food, medicine and medical devices in Iran. However,
it will be possible to expand it in the future. --
DW.com
Technically US sanctions allow some limited humanitarian trade and limited goods; however the White House's "maximum pressure"
campaign on Iran has still scared away European giants like Seimens, Maersk, Total, Daimler, Peugeot, Renault, and others.
This brings up the central question of whether skittish European countries will actually return to doing business with Iran, the
entire purpose on which the new mechanism rests. The dilemma was summarized at the start of this week by outspoken Iran hawk Sen.
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who told the AP
"The choice is whether to do business with Iran or the United States." He warned, "I hope our European allies choose wisely."
Thus far a number of analysts and observers have remained far less optimistic than the European sponsors of INSTEX. One particular
interview with geopolitical analyst and journalist Luc Rivet, cited in Russian media, outlines
the likelihood for failure of the new payment
vehicle : "I don't know what companies will make use of that mechanism to sell to Iran," Rivet said, noting that countries still
consider it "dangerous" to be caught working with Iran.
Addressing the current restriction of INSTEX facilitating medical and pharmaceutical goods transactions, he continued:
Who produces this equipment? You think that Siemens will sell to Iran? Never, because they sell to America many other things
as well And Siemens is afraid of losing the American market.
No matter if a handful of companies resume or continue business with Iran he explained that an "incredible number of companies"
won't. He added: "It's much easier for Chinese and Russian companies to make deals with Iran. The Europeans are scared in an incredible
way. The companies are afraid by ricochet of being in the eye of the storm with the Americans."
He concluded, "That's very dangerous for European companies," and repeated, "I don't know anybody who will dare to go with this
Instex system."
And the New York Times in asking the same question --
But Will Anyone Use
It? -- concludes similarly that "given that most large companies have significant business in the United States, very few --
if any -- are likely to use the trading mechanism for fear of incurring Washington's wrath."
However, the test will be whether or not a steady trickle of small companies gives way to bigger companies. The NYT report
continues :
But the financial mechanism could make it easier for smaller companies with no exposure in the United States to trade with
Iran and could promote trade in medicine and food, which are not subject to sanctions. European diplomats say that, in the beginning,
the concentration will be on goods that are permitted by Washington, to avoid an early confrontation .
But much could also depend on just how fierce the White House reaction will be. If the past months' Trump administration rhetoric
is any indicator, it will keep large companies scared and on the sidelines.
Europe has had double the tariffs on American cars than we had for theirs. It's time for us to quadruple the tariff on European
cars, to make up for the tariff imbalance that Europe has taken advantage of for decades.
Before World War II the question was, "Who will stand up to the demands of Germany?" Now the question is, "Who will stand up
to the demands of the United States?" It is clear that as far as means and methods are concerned Washington flies the swastika.
History has come full circle.
The following quote from J. R. R. Tolkien makes the point, "Always after a defeat and a respite," says Gandalf, "the shadow
takes another shape and grows again." The irony of our times is that the shadow has moved from Germany to the US.
Consternation and craven refusal to confront the reality of our times is again in vogue. We are walking towards madness crying,
"Let the other fellow fix this!"
My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945
have now become like the people we fought.
It appears that Venezuela is just the opening act in a plan to remake Latin America in our
image. Here's the opening paragraph of Yves Smith's piece that jumps off from the paywalled
WSJ article on the subject:
The Wall Street Journal has just published an important, disheartening story. . . The Trump
Administration has apparently decided to embark on a large-scale interventionist campaign
to reverse supposed undue influence of Russia, China, and Iran in Latin America. Venezuela
and Cuba are the first targets, and Nicaragua is next on the list. John Bolton, in too
obvious a nod to Bush's "axis of evil" has called them the "troika of tyranny"
Yves' perspective is from the social democratic left which is decidedly not that of the
faux leftist Democratic Party establishment and, sadly, much of its present day base Yves'
describes thusly:
. . the top 10% professional class that has become the base of the Democratic party are now
heavy employers of servants, in the form of nannies and yard men. When I was a kid, even
the few times we lived in middle/upper middle class suburbs full of senior corporate
managers and professionals, no one had servants. Men worked full time and wives did the
housework; the most you'd see would be a housekeeper in once a week to give the wife some
relief.
Wow. Yves is drowning in koolaid. "remake Latin America in our image." We should send them
the plaque for the Statue of Immigration. Then pay the caravan of dreams to go South to the
land of Socialist opportunity.
BTW you left out the part in that quote that has Yves blaiming St. Sanders:
"Bernie Sanders was browbeaten into holding his tongue after pointing out early in his
Presidential campaign that "open borders" is a Koch Brothers position, and that the top 10%
......"
"... with minor exceptions the 5 eye countries are no different.. ..."
"... His History has often been applied as analogous to the post-cold war era, with the US empire usually compared to the arrogant, bullying, tyrannical, over-stretched Athenian empire. The speeches of the Corinthian and Theban ambassadors trying to convince Sparta to join them in war could be transposed almost word for word to anyone who fiercely opposes the empire today. ..."
"... Interesting times, or as one source said today, an Arch Duke moment could well be here. ..."
"... Why Venezuela? Why now? We've looked at these questions before. The answer to the first is, I think, most interesting: It represents a return of the Empire to its natural sphere of influence. It is as untenable for Russia to control Venezuela as it is for the US to run Ukraine. Or Syria. Or Afghanistan, for that matter. ..."
This article at https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/29/the-empires-propagandists/
may be of interest to some. Not saying that any of it is new to readers here nor is it
exhaustive but imo a decent piece that pulls together a lot and might be interesting to those
who mainly follow MSM.
An extract:
"The ruling class of the US imperium will simply not tolerate any government that opposes
its financial and geopolitical dominance, attempts socialism, or transfers its nexus to
another powerful state entity, like Russia or China for instance. If one chooses to do so it
is instantly targeted for assault either by crippling economic sanctions or embargoes, which
make governance nearly impossible and primarily harms the general population, or covert
subversion, or by direct and indirect military intervention. And the corporate media, when it
chooses to cover these issues, generally parrots State Department and Pentagon talking points
and obfuscations about the intentions of the US government, the role of corporations and
global capitalism, and the character of the governments the US happens to be opposing at the
time. And all of this is done with virtually no historical analysis. But of course none of
this is new."
It is interesting, the seeming rush to mess with Venezuela.
I guess whether it was in fact rushed, depends on how much we want to believe the data we are
fed.
I believe it was and suspect that that was the reason for resumption of operation of the
government - to support the intervention in Venezuela. Otherwise, it seemed like too sudden a
reversal by Trump.
I think in their analysis of where to intervene next, they look at an array of
factors:
Venezuela is weak
Venezuela espouses something like socialism
Venezuela has been associating with unsavory "competitors"
Venezuela is nearby (and very nearby our asset, Colombia)
Venezuela can be portrayed as in need of humanitarian intervention
Maduro has said some unkind things about U.S. government (Bush)
Venezuela holds a grand prize
In there discusions, I assume the issue of right/wrong is not mentioned.
Imagine someone attempting to raise the issue:
- But what will the media say?
- But what will the U.N. say?
- But what will the Pope say?
- But what will the voters say?
- But what will the other party say?
- But is it really the moral thing to do, what would God say?
with minor exceptions the 5 eye countries are no different..
i suppose the main
difference is not being served up a regular diet of 'we are the greatest' bs, accounts for
some of it.. the general curiousity about what the fuck is going on outside of the usa seems
sorely lacking in people who live in the usa... maybe the media can be blamed for a chunk of
this... generally canucks know a lot more about the usa, then the usa people know about
canada.. that is something i have witnessed in my life.. but, the simple answer to your
question is there isn't a lot of difference.. and yes - trudeau senior must be really
disappointed in tru dope jr... he is nothing compared to his dad... canada is on a downhill
trajectory and fast with this buffoon.. i expect worse in the next election too.. we will get
our trump as we are one cycle behind..
His History has often been applied as analogous to the post-cold war era, with the US
empire usually compared to the arrogant, bullying, tyrannical, over-stretched Athenian
empire. The speeches of the Corinthian and Theban ambassadors trying to convince Sparta to
join them in war could be transposed almost word for word to anyone who fiercely opposes the
empire today.
Also, similar to some who get impatient with the seeming over-conservatism of Russia and
China today, so the aggressive, hot-headed Corinthians and Thebans often get frustrated with
the more conservative Spartans.
I wonder when/if there'll be an American version of the Athenians' disastrous Sicilian
expedition.
Attached to that Venezuelanalysis.com that CE linked to @ 2 was this odd piece of
information:
"EREPLA deal "unusually favourable to foreign company"
... [A] 25-year deal was signed with unknown US based firm EREPLA in November 2018,
which has been described by financial firm Argus as "unusually favourable" to the US
company.
Little is known of EREPLA or its board of directors, with Reuters claiming that Harry
Sargeant III, magnate and ex-Financial Chairman of the US Republican Party, is one of their
owners. The small company, which was only legally registered in the US on November 8,
2018, a mere day before signing the PDVSA deal, has managed to extract a contract from PDVSA
which revives a number of practices, previously eliminated in the Chavez-era, of oil
so-called service contracts. PDVSA is yet to make any official comment on the deal, and analysts have already expressed concern that the deal violates Venezuela's 2001
Hydrocarbons Law.
The deal, which is extendable for a further 15 years, is due to bring US $500 million
of investment to the Tia Juana, Rosa Mediano fields in Maracaibo Lake and the Ayacucho 5
field in the Orinoco Belt. It assigns 49.9 percent of the new mixed company to EREPLA, and
passes 100 percent of the output to the US firm, which is expected to repatriate 50.1 percent
of sale profits back to PDVSA.
Day to day running, purchasing, exporting, and the sale of the oil produced is to be
completely controlled by EREPLA, except in the case of fulfilling PDVSA's hefty oil quota to
China, which will be agreed upon by both parts.
Whilst EREPLA is due to supply the rigs and crews for the fields, other costs will be
split between the two partners, whilst the US firm find themselves exempt from Venezuelan
labour laws under the Service Contract clause, as well as from paying its share of the 30
percent oil royalty which PDVSA is due to cover.
"We believe that the new model created in this agreement is in the national interest of
the United States," stated a Harry Sargeant Oil Management Group lawyer who signed the
documents on behalf of EREPLA.
An EREPLA statement on the deal describes how it looks to "revitalise" Venezuela's oil
industry. It goes on to explain that new terms and conditions have been applied as previous
contracts "fermented corruption and bad management." EREPLA also argued that the deal will
help prevent "US adversaries" such as Chinese and Russian firms from gaining further ground
in the oil-rich country.
It is unclear at this point how the new deal will function in light of US financial
sanctions against Caracas, as a license from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
is still pending, but the statement assures that the company's work "will be carried out in
accordance with the economic sanctions enforced by the U.S. Treasury Department."
Oil deals in Venezuela were notoriously favourable to foreign firms until 2001, in
terms of profit [repatriation], labour laws, running costs, and local accountability, until
Hugo Chavez' Hydrocarbons Law broke the tradition, ensuring Venezuelan control over joint
ventures. Another Chavez decree in 2007 capped foreign participation in oil deals at 40
percent. However, in December 2017 the National Constituent Assembly approved a "Foreign
Investment Law" meant to improve conditions for foreign capital investments in
Venezuela.
A company that is incorporated only a day before it signs a major oil extraction and
production deal (parts of which violate Venezuela's own laws governing working conditions and
pay for Venezuelan workers and national control over joint ventures) with Venezuela? Does
anyone else not smell a rat?
What could PDVSA have been thinking? Did it not enter their
heads that EREPLA could be a front acting for elements in the US government?
Venezeula has become the tipping point for loss of GRC for the USD.
Venezeulan oil is being shipped to India, refined by the new Rosneft refinery then being
sold in anything but USD.
Added to the now over 100 country's that are rejecting the USD by using bi-lateral trade,
KSA already selling in yuan, the desperation of Uncle Scam is palpable.
Interesting times, or as one source said today, an Arch Duke moment could well be here.
Why Venezuela? Why now?
We've looked at these questions before. The answer to the first is, I think, most
interesting:
It represents a return of the Empire to its natural sphere of influence. It is as untenable
for Russia to control Venezuela as it is for the US to run Ukraine. Or Syria. Or Afghanistan,
for that matter.
It seems to me that the major blocs might be pulling back, and settling for easy gains.
Not that this coup is likely to be easy, it may prove to be impossible. It may even prove to
be the spark that sets Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil and the rest of Latin America alight.
But the way the clowns in the White House- who haven't had a new idea since 1981-see it all
resources will be mobilised to make the region safe for imperialism: Venezuela, Cuba,
Nicaragua and Bolivia: in the proverbial cross hairs.
The second question |Why now?) could be a reflection of the fact that the neo-conservative
axis has only recently re-established full spectrum domination over the White House. As the
Hitler Youth Freeland has been hinting: the running in this matter has been made by the Lima
Group in which Canada has been playing a leading and thoroughly despicable role. It was they
who did the pseudo legalistic groundwork for the coup. No doubt Bolton et al found it
convenient to have the Lima group demands presented to it on a plate. That meant that even
Ponce, who together with Bolton and Pompeo takes the role of the Three Weird Sisters in this
tragedy, could trigger the crisis with a phone call to Guido. Whose role is clearly to be
martyred, probably by a CIA sniper, so that he can die, if not for his country at least for
its corrupt elites.
We've seen this movie before.
Melians. As we think, at any rate, it is expedient--we speak as we are obliged, since
you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest -- that you should not destroy
what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is
fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid. And you are as much
interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an
example for the world to meditate upon.
Athenians. The end of our empire, if end it should, does not frighten us: a rival
empire like Lacedaemon, even if Lacedaemon was our real antagonist, is not so terrible to the
vanquished as subjects who by themselves attack and overpower their rulers. This, however, is
a risk that we are content to take. We will now proceed to show you that we are come here in
the interest of our empire, and that we shall say what we are now going to say, for the
preservation of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire over you without trouble,
and see you preserved for the good of us both.
Melians. And how, pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to
rule?
Athenians. Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the
worst, and we should gain by not destroying you.
Melians . So that you would not consent to our being neutral, friends instead of
enemies, but allies of neither side.
Athenians. No; for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be
an argument to our subjects of our weakness, and your enmity of our power.
Melians. Is that your subjects' idea of equity, to put those who have nothing to do
with you in the same category with peoples that are most of them your own colonists, and some
conquered rebels?
Athenians. As far as right goes they think one has as much of it as the other, and
that if any maintain their independence it is because they are strong, and that if we do not
molest them it is because we are afraid; so that besides extending our empire we should gain
in security by your subjection; the fact that you are islanders and weaker than others
rendering it all the more important that you should not succeed in baffling the masters of
the sea.
Melians. But do you consider that there is no security in the policy which we
indicate? For here again if you debar us from talking about justice and invite us to obey
your interest, we also must explain ours, and try to persuade you, if the two happen to
coincide. How can you avoid making enemies of all existing neutrals who shall look at case
from it that one day or another you will attack them? And what is this but to make greater
the enemies that you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have
never thought of it?
Athenians. Why, the fact is that continentals generally give us but little alarm;
the liberty which they enjoy will long prevent their taking precautions against us; it is
rather islanders like yourselves, outside our empire, and subjects smarting under the yoke,
who would be the most likely to take a rash step and lead themselves and us into obvious
danger.
Melians. Well then, if you risk so much to retain your empire, and your subjects to
get rid of it, it were surely great baseness and cowardice in us who are still free not to
try everything that can be tried, before submitting to your yoke.
Athenians. Not if you are well advised, the contest not being an equal one, with
honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question of self-preservation and of not
resisting those who are far stronger than you are...
Jason Raimondo's hopes that the tide slowly was turning against the War
Party with Trump's appointment of Tillerson are dashed for good with the appointments of
Abrams, Bolton and Pompeo. The thugs for Wall Street have taken DC. Trump might as well go
home. Raimondo wrote of Abrams in 2017 in "The End of Globalism":
Excerpt:
Oh yes, the times they are a changin', as Bob Dylan once put it, and
here's the evidence :
"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has ordered his department to redefine its mission and
issue a new statement of purpose to the world. The draft statements under review right now are
similar to the old mission statement, except for one thing – any mention of promoting
democracy is being eliminated."
All the usual suspects are in a tizzy .
Elliott Abrams , he of
Contra-gate fame , and one of the purest of
the neoconservative ideologues , is cited in the
Washington Post piece as being quite unhappy: "The only significant difference is the
deletion of justice and democracy. We used to want a just and democratic word, and now
apparently we don't."
Abrams' contribution to a just and democratic world is
well-known : supporting a
military dictatorship in El Salvador during the 1980s that slaughtered thousand s, and then
testifying before Congress that massive human rights violations by the US-supported regime were
Communist "propaganda." US policy, of which he was one of the principal architects, led to the
lawlessness that now plagues that country, which has a higher murder rate than Iraq: in Abrams'
view, the Reagan policy of supporting a military dictatorship was "a fabulous achievement." The
same murderous policy was pursued in
Nicaragua while Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Affairs, as the US tried to overthrow a democratically elected government and provoked a civil
war that led to the death of many thousands . In
Honduras
and Guatemala
, Abrams was instrumental in covering up heinous atrocities committed by US-supported
regimes.
And, now, Venezuela. The economic hit man has arrived.
" 'I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I
spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a
decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light
to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras
right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." --
Smedley Butler
Brazen Heist II, 4 hours ago (Edited)
...The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in some
cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that.
napper, 4 hours ago (Edited)
He will, if he gets a second term!!!
Abrams' appointment is no accident or mistake. By now even the most casual (but intelligent) observer should have seen
through Donald Trump's contemptuous disregard for legal institutions and a criminal propensity for lawlessness.
Brazen Heist II, 4 hours ago(Edited)
And most American sheeple are dumb as a pile of rocks. The few good people left are largely powerless and have to deal
with so much BS in all directions. I hope they will get through the coming implosion with their sanity intact.
Glad I left that shithole. I saw it coming. What's coming won't be pretty.
CananTheConrearian1, 3 hours ago
OK, Great Mind, name a populace that is as smart as Americans. Europeans? Chinese? We're glad you left, ********.
It's not hard to see the parallels of how the US is treating China today compared with
Japan in 1939. The US sanctioned Japan and stopped them from importing Iron and Oil and today
China is being technologically sanctioned throughout the West with Huawei.
The US is bludgeoning every Govt throughout the world to get its own way both allied and
contested. This attitude can only lead to War eventually. Venezuela today, Iran tomorrow
which will continue to box in China and Russia.
The US is needing a war to rally its people around the flag and to attempt to keep its
hand on the Rudder of the world.
China will be forced to sink an American ship or shoot down an American Jet to save face
re Taiwan and their Islands in the China Sea.
The West is begging for war and the parallels now and before WW11 is scary.
"... The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they come across a particularly adorable baby. ..."
"... I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's books and media appearances. ..."
"... George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one). ..."
"... That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems these people don't have a conscience. ..."
"... Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking, oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's. ..."
"... The Deep State Guardian. Why don't they just change their name to 'The Daily Thatcherite' and have done with it. ..."
"... They should just show it's full title: The Guardian Of The Establishment ..."
"... well, yeah. but for us mad people it goes deeper even than that: https://geopolitics.co/2018/12/02/in-memoriam-george-h-scherff-jr-aka-george-hw-bush-sr/ ..."
British and most western media are either in the direct or indirect pay of their governments. What journalist can expose this
for us? Any of you willing to make the biggest scoop of the 21st century? Tom Bradbury at ITN must be on the spook payroll, for
starters? MI6 had foreign correspondents for years, but domestic mouthpieces must now be on the take too? All paid to demonise
Russia and Putin.
The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and
roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they
come across a particularly adorable baby.
Simon 'white helmets' Tisdall is especially egregious – one can imagine him throwing darts at a picture of Putin while
producing his latest homily to the murderous actions of gangsters like Bush and his crime family.
Its hard not to despair now this has become the official face of Britains so-called liberal media.
I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's
books and media appearances. As with Michael White, with whom I had a very illuminating argument via email a few years back.
He *is* an asset, not a journalist (and a massive dick, to boot)
I thought the attitude of the Bush family to their fellow Americans was best illustrated by Barbara's response to the plight of
the homeless victims of Katrina who had been transported to the Houston domed stadium. They spent their nights there sleeping
on hard benches and when good ole Babs heard of it, she opined that they probably had never had it so good so why were they complaining.
Could Mother Theresa have had greater generosity of spirit?
Not just one article, the awful Guardian is full of contents eulogising [yet another] mongrel of a president.
But look at conservative media. The crazy Infowars.com described this Bush as an Anti-American Globalist and Traitor!! .. and
zerohedge.com is celebrating: "The Evil Has Died" and "In 2016 he voted for Hillary Clinton, because the Deep State Swamp sticks
together". https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-02/exploring-dark-side-bush-41
Just tell me, who is the rabid neo-con right-wing rag that is glorifying wars and mass murderers?
The late Robert Parry, sad to say. Maybe that now both the 'MacBeths' are stains on the tarmac – Parry's notes of the bloodstained
legacy of that dynasty can finally be displayed? That Barbara was one cold blooded mother! Would have happily pulled a trigger
on JFK, MLK herself (some think).
Just about the whole century from the setup of the Fed, the two world wars, the depression,
Hitler, Korea, Cuba all of it, had a a Bush hand in it. He was the self crowned Caesar having publicly executed the whole of Camelot
and left us with a poison toad, reminds us how low the Bush's took the USA.
George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual
beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one).
That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems
these people don't have a conscience. If you surround yourself with people of similar mindset and in a climate where war
is considered obligatory for US Presidents, you go into self denial. Wars are probably like an addiction for these people and
once you get to that stage you no longer have a conscience.
During John McCain's funeral where all living ex-presidents were in attendance, someone remarked on Twitter, 'Quick, lock the
church doors and hold the war crimes trial in the church!'. This was a far more realistic observation than the sickening McCain
apologist BBC coverage we were subjected to.
At the weekend I went to the place where Oliver Cromwell lived. There was an American tourist who told us she was shocked about
Oliver Cromwell being dug up from his grave and his head stuck on a pike. She said it was gruesome. I was tempted to say that
at least that was 350 years ago, and similar things are happening today in Iraq, Syria and Libya – all places where the US has
instigated the chaos and supports the perpretators. I resisted the temptation.
I note that Cromwell thought he was chosen by God to do what he did. But again that was in different times and there were some
redeeming factors in what he did, Probably on par with Obama – who wreaked havoc on the Middle East but reached agreements on
Iran and Cuba. Plus Obama looked cool while killing and droning.
But what goes around comes around. I sense the pure evil involved in the current regime change wars, government, media etc
will pay a heavy price – whether in this life or the next.
The state controlled BBC has just done another puff piece on McCain saying what a splendid chap and great statesman and all round
good egg he was.
The MSM likes to slag off Vlad The Bad by droning on about how he was in the KGB. But Bush wasn't just IN the CIA, he was the
BOSS of the CIA, at a time when hundreds of thousands of Central American peasant farmers and Indians were being killed by CIA
trained and orchestrated death squads.
Mark: jayzus Mark, don't you just want to projectile vomit when you see all this absolute bullshit, just straight out revising
of history, just the lies, on and on . I was involved in a Central American solidarity group in the 1980s – early 90s here in
Aussie, found out then all about U.S style 'democracatic values' and 'human rights concerns' and death squads and various fascists
fully supported by the United States, and places like Guatemala and Nicaragua. Its all an illusion for 'polite society' and the
gullible to believe in. Sigh
I can't remember the exact figures but I think it was over 200,000 murdered in Guatemala out of a population of 4 million. It
was the same story in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Colombia. And of course the CIA satrap Noriega was hauled off in chains
when that country was invaded. But Uncle Sam is finally paying a price for his antics south of the border. Those societies were
wrecked and brutalised beyond repair. There is now an unbelievably high murder rate of women in Guatemala. Millions of those people
have sought some kind of refuge in the belly of the beast, causing an immigration crisis, with an illegal immigrant population
that may be as high as 30 million. Hence all the uproar over Trump's wall. The immigration crisis was a factor in Trump's election,
just as the tidal wave of migrants from the destroyed countries of the Middle East was a factor in Brexit. Cameron, Sarko and
Clinton thought it was a spiffing idea and quite a wizard wheeze to bomb Libya back to the Stone Age. So we now have a Mad Max
failed state complete with warlords and slave markets just across the Med. What goes around, comes around. You can't expect to
export violence and mayhem abroad and remain immune to it at home.
Mark: after Efrain Rios Montt seized power in a coup in Guatemala in 1982, US Ambassador Frederick Chapin declared that thanks
to the coup of Rios Montt "the Guatemalan Govt has come out of the darkness into the light". That sums it up in one sentence,
and you're probably aware of the mass killing and disappearances under his genocidal tyranny. Reagan kindly submitted that Rios
Montt was 'getting a bum rap on human rights, the same Reagan who declared the Contra's were 'The moral equal of our founding
fathers'. In El Salvador, the same mass slaughter, the same mass upheaval, and even murdering Archbishop Romero. You only need
to look at what happened in Central & South America to understand what the United States really represents.
That's entirely right. People understandably despise and revile people like Brady and Hindley, Sutcliffe, Dahmer, Bundy and the
like. But they killed a handful of people and were often very damaged individuals to begin with. And at least they did their own
dirty work. Subhuman scum sucking filth like Bush, Bush 2, Obama, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Blair, Straw and Campbell
are a thousand times worse. They kill millions without getting their hands dirty, and preen and posture as great statesmen and
public servants, expecting deference and state funerals and puff piece obituaries from nauseating, loathsome, lickspittle media
hacks like Tisdall.
Nailed it Kit. The attempt at revionism and rewriting history by these craven creatures, these sycophantic slimebag shills for
Imperialism and War and the Anglo Zionist Empire. They don't speak truth to power, they protect and grovel to the powerful. The
eulogising and fawning of Bush was stomach churning, as it was for the arch Imperialist McCain when he croaked. Thank God for
alternative news sites, and yeah Caitlin Johnston @ medium nailed it as well, as Fair Dinkum mentioned. Where's John Pilger when
you need him?
What no one seems to realize is that the VP often takes charge of the US National Security Council when POTUS is not able to attend
meetings, which are held weekly. Under Eisenhower it was Richard Nixon who often took charge of the meetings -- Tim Weiner's book
"Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" gives some details on this. Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking,
oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was
a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's.
I don't know but as a fairly apolitical individual, I never much bothered with the Kennedy Assasination. All that changed when
during the fiftieth anniversary, BBC Radio Four ran a program which included an interview with the Dallas police officer who was
handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald when he was shot by Jack Ruby. The consensus of that program was that the case was open shut and
Oswald did it. Around that time, several newspapers in the UK featured articles claiming that Oswald acted alone.
Whether or not anyone actively involved still lives, their descendants still do and the probable organising body too. There
still appears to be determination in some quarters to spread disinformation about the case. Given that as long ago as the late
seventies the House of Representatives Assassination Committee concluded that JFK's death was probably the consequence of a conspiracy,
determination amongst the mainstream media to lay Kennedy's death at the hands of Oswald alone suggests that there is still determination
that the truth never becomes public.
I'm sickened by the Guardian's and BBC's obedience to the US neocon project to seek, or create, and destroy "enemies" and whilst
ignoring all the disgusting atrocities that arise as a consequence.
The Guardian is not even worth the paper it's printed on. It's become The Guardian Of The Establishment rather than of the
Truth which it used to proclaim.
It is in danger of losing its budgie-cage-liner status. If budgies can talk they may refuse to evacuate on it. What kind of person
maintains ties to such a a poor excuse for cage toiletry. The moral crunch time for their journalists (actually their opinionists)
came and went a long time ago.
What a great piece. My parents knew them in New York and they came over once and left behind an embossed packet of White House
cigs. I asked my father (before he died) what he thought of them and all he ever said was he thought that Barbara was the intellect
in the family.
Bloody annoying, thanks Pater.
"The induction of DU weapons in 1991 in Iraq broke a 46-year taboo. This Trojan Horse of nuclear war continues to be used more
and more. DU remains radioactive longer than the age of the earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years). The long-term effects from
over a decade of DU exposures are devastating. The increased quantities of radioactive material used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5
times greater than Iraq, 1991. In Iraq, 2003, they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991, and will travel through a larger
area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000-mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected
by radiation poisoning
"DU remains radioactive longer than [ ] 4.5 billion years." It's worse than that. It loses half of its radioactivity in that time.
The good news is that that slow release means "D"U doesn't zap you much. The bad news is it's chemically toxic, like a heavy metal
(which it is).
Also no mention of the body of circumstantial evidence linking Bush to JFK's murder, though Bush repeatedly insisted that he couldn't
recall his whereabouts that day (I can precisely recall where I was, and I was 9 years old in 1963), in spite of the fact that
solid documentary evidence exists that puts him in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963.
The very first Google Search I did was this, (George H.W. Bush+November 22, 1963) and it yielded a page like the following link,
which began my research into the JFK Assassination.
Who is next? Paul
Wolfowitz now would be the most logical choice. Id the invasion of Venezuela decided already,
like Iraq war under Bush II.
That means that Rump can say goodbye to independents who votes for him because of his
anti-foreign wars noises during previous election campaign
Notable quotes:
"... Abrams, who had served in the Reagan State Department, faced multiple felony charges for lying to Congress and defying U.S. law in his role as a mastermind of the Iran-Contra debacle. Abrams' dishonesty almost destroyed Ronald Reagan's presidency and put Reagan in jeopardy of impeachment. Abrams was allowed to plead guilty to two reduced charges and later was pardoned by George H.W. Bush, who feared impeachment because of his own role in Iran-Contra. ..."
"... Abrams was even more consequential as nation-wrecker. He was one of the principal architects of the invasion of Iraq. He is an inveterate advocate of "regime change" against countries whose policies he doesn't like. He has a track record in attempting to overthrow foreign governments both by covert action and outright military invasion. ..."
"... At the beginning of the Trump administration, foreign policy establishment types lobbied clueless Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to accept the convicted criminal Abrams as deputy head of the department - the person running all day-to-day affairs at State. ..."
"... Abrams suddenly appeared deus ex machina at the side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said in a news conference that Abrams was appointed, "effective immediately" as special envoy to deal with resolution of the situation in Venezuela in a way that supposedly would advance U.S. interests. ..."
"... Abrams' special envoy post will be far more powerful than that of an ordinary ambassador or assistant secretary of state -- offices that require Senate confirmation. Should the Senate acquiesce in letting Abrams work without Senate confirmation? ..."
"... Abrams is a close friend and constant collaborator of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, both of whom are waging campaigns to impeach Trump or deny him re-election. There are no -- repeat, no -- policy differences between Abrams, Kristol, and Boot. ..."
"... If the appointment is supposed to be a sharp move to "hug your friends close and your enemies closer," then the test of its efficacy would be that Kristol, Boot, Jonah Goldberg, David French et. al., would halt their anti-Trump campaigns. One would think that if the Abrams appointment is one side of a shrewdly calculated transaction, then silencing Team Kristol would be a necessary condition. ..."
"... The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in some cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that. ..."
On Friday, following the dramatic arrest of a prominent Trump supporter on charges of lying
to Congress, President Trump gave one of the nation's most sensitive national security and
diplomatic posts to another controversial figure who already had been convicted of lying to
Congress.
Has the NeverTrump Republican echo chamber gone berserk over this irresponsible
appointment?
Have Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio taken to the Senate floor to speak out against the
president's defiance of honesty in government? Have they demanded hearings and a confirmation
vote?
Has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that Trump's action is so egregious it might call for
an article of impeachment?
Not at all. Turns out, the appointee is one of the president's worst enemies, a man
forcefully opposed to almost all of Trump's policies and campaign promises, a man who
repeatedly has said Trump is morally unfit for his office. He is Elliott Abrams, the
71-year-old éminence grise of the NeverTrump movement.
Abrams is the pre-eminent prophet and practitioner of hyper-interventionist approaches to
destabilize or overthrow governments - of foes and friends alike - that do not pass his
democracy-is-the-end-all-and-be-all litmus test. His closest friends and associates, from whom
his political positions are indistinguishable, include some of President Trump's most rabid
enemies, false-flag "conservatives" Bill Kristol and Max Boot.
Abrams, who had served in the Reagan State Department, faced multiple felony charges for
lying to Congress and defying U.S. law in his role as a mastermind of the Iran-Contra debacle.
Abrams' dishonesty almost destroyed Ronald Reagan's presidency and put Reagan in jeopardy of
impeachment. Abrams was allowed to plead guilty to two reduced charges and later was pardoned
by George H.W. Bush, who feared impeachment because of his own role in Iran-Contra.
After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly
elected President George W. Bush appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where
Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief. Abrams was even more consequential as nation-wrecker. He was one of the principal architects
of the invasion of Iraq. He is an inveterate advocate of "regime change" against countries
whose policies he doesn't like. He has a track record in attempting to overthrow foreign
governments both by covert action and outright military invasion.
At the beginning of the Trump administration, foreign policy establishment types lobbied
clueless Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to accept the convicted criminal Abrams as deputy
head of the department - the person running all day-to-day affairs at State. Trump, who would
have had to sign off on the nomination, rejected Abrams when he learned of Abrams' background.
The truth about Abrams, while not by any means a secret,
came to Trump's attention from Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Paul, who held a deciding vote in
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would block Abrams if he were nominated.
Abrams already knew then what Trump took nearly a year to discover, that Tillerson was
hopelessly unprepared to serve as the nation's chief diplomat and indeed was, as Trump
colorfully put it, "dumb as a rock." Nothing about Abrams, the NeverTrumper who believes Trump cannot govern effectively without
him, has changed since then.
Following his rejection by Trump, Abrams wrote a sour-grapes article for
Politico , disparaging the president, along with Vice President Pence and Abrams' erstwhile
patron Tillerson, for not having international human rights policies identical to Abrams' own
views.
Abrams has been outspoken against sensitive Trump international policies right up to the
moment of his surprise appointment. He is unapologetic about his role in masterminding the Iraq
war. He has opposed Trump concerning American troops in Syria and America's relationship with
Saudi Arabia. As recently as January 14, 2019, he published a withering
attack on Trump's Middle East policies and diplomacy.
As events in Venezuela last week reached a crisis with rival claimants to the nation's
presidency, Abrams suddenly appeared deus ex machina at the side of Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, who said in a news conference that Abrams was appointed, "effective immediately" as
special envoy to deal with resolution of the situation in Venezuela in a way that supposedly
would advance U.S. interests.
Immediately? An appointee to a sensitive post needs a background investigation and security
clearance. These investigations can take months. If he indeed has a valid clearance, that means
his appointment was decided long ago.
Abrams' special envoy post will be far more powerful than that of an ordinary ambassador or
assistant secretary of state -- offices that require Senate confirmation. Should the Senate
acquiesce in letting Abrams work without Senate confirmation?
What is Pompeo thinking? Has Pompeo read Abrams' anti-Trump articles? In particular, has he
read Abrams' January 14 anti-Trump article that mocks Pompeo with a hugely unflattering photo
of the secretary of state?
What is going on?
Abrams is a close friend and constant collaborator of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, both of
whom are waging campaigns to impeach Trump or deny him re-election. There are no -- repeat, no
-- policy differences between Abrams, Kristol, and Boot.
If the appointment is supposed to be a sharp move to "hug your friends close and your
enemies closer," then the test of its efficacy would be that Kristol, Boot, Jonah Goldberg,
David French et. al., would halt their anti-Trump campaigns. One would think that if the Abrams
appointment is one side of a shrewdly calculated transaction, then silencing Team Kristol would
be a necessary condition.
So far there are no signs of this.
What did Trump know about the new Abrams appointment, and when did he know it?
It's amazing seeing the holdout Trump supporters continually writhe in mental contortions
to support his every move..as I've said all along..TDS affects the sheep on both right and
left equally.
Brazen Heist II 4 minutes ago (Edited)
... The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in
some cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that.
uhland62, 5 minutes ago
This guy is just picking up a couple more paychecks. He may think he can whip up Trump for more wars, Trump may think he
can control this guy because 'I am President and you are not'. The main thing is that the military can make more wars and
destroy more countries.
The-Post, 15 minutes ago
Trump loves those Bush criminals.
readerandthinker
Venezuelan army defectors appeal to Trump for weapons
Caracas, Venezuela (CNN)Venezuelan army defectors are calling on the Trump administration to arm them, in what they call
their quest for "freedom."
Former soldiers Carlos Guillen Martinez and Josue Hidalgo Azuaje, who live outside the country, told CNN they want US
military assistance to equip others inside the beleaguered nation. They claim to be in contact with hundreds of willing
defectors and have called on enlisted Venezuelan soldiers to revolt against the Maduro regime, through television broadcasts.
"As Venezuelan soldiers, we are making a request to the US to support us, in logistical terms, with communication,
with weapons, so we can realize Venezuelan freedom," Guillen Martinez told CNN.
"... War with Russia will be the agenda just as the left wanted to begin with. The " pick sides" is the warring cry of the old Bush regime of " either you're with us or against us" theme. ..."
"... Radical capitalism on the left and conservative traditional capitalism on right.... Both fighting for the same select few who run the show generation after generation. ..."
"... He's not really attacked by anyone. Its a bipartisan play to distract the gullible from the sick and subhuman policy they enact while you are distracted with the wall or fantasizing bout his tiny mushroom. ..."
"... So Trump jerks a couple of gators from the swamp, but only to make room for the T-Rex. Amazing. And why the hell is Bolton still involved in our government? He penned an article during the bush admin explaining why the posse comitatus doesn't really mean what it really says. Scary sob ..."
"... Trump is Zahpod Beeblebrox. Anyone remember the Hitchhiker's Guide? The role of the galactic president was not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it. Zaphod Beeblebrox was remarkably good at his job. ..."
"... When he bombed Syria in the first weeks of his presidency, giving the MIC, a $100 million of bomb sales ( to a company he had shares in, raytheon) was enough for me that tRump is what he always has been, a bankrupt, loud mouth yankee puppet who the plutocrats chose to continue the usual US empire evil ****. ..."
"... I had my suspicions prior with his choice of vp, mad eyes pence, a protege and smoker of **** cheney. Then pompous pompeo, 150% arsehole bolton and now this official pos. Only a trumptard or patriotard would accept this ****. ..."
"... it's just too much to keep track of it all. My scorecard booklet was all used up about the 1st week in after all the neocons and bankster slime who galloped into the WH on Trump's coattails. ..."
"... After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly elected President George W. Bush appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief. ..."
Abrams is obviously a Bush plant from left over CIA Bushys.
Abrams lied to Congress twice about his role with the Contras. He pleaded guilty to both counts in 1991 but was pardoned
by George H.W. Bush just before the latter left office.
A decade later, while working as special Middle East adviser to President George Ws Bush, Abrams was an enthusiastic advocate
of the disastrous Iraq invasion.
Abrams was also in the Bush White House at the time of the abortive coup in 2002 against the late Venezuelan President
Hugo Chávez.
Abrams helped lead the U.S. effort to stage a coup to overturn the results of the 2006 Palestinian elections, complete
with murder and torture.
War with Russia will be the agenda just as the left wanted to begin with. The " pick sides" is the warring cry of the old
Bush regime of " either you're with us or against us" theme.
This is the precise crap people were hoping to avoid with Trump, but the left has put Trump administration in a vice by having
constant fires to put out and disyractions with FALE RUSSIAN COLLUSION
... It's a psychological ploy to wear down the President and search for legitimate excuse to gain public opinion to go against
Russia and they found it. Venezuela is a **** hole from socialism which AOL and dems are embracing now. Of course having sorry
liberal advisors like Kushner doesn't help... That is a huge mistake to have the opposition ( democrate Kushner and wife) in the
hen house with great pursasive power over an overwhelm Trump... Strategy working.
But politics as it is run mostly out of " The City of London" and old lynn Rothschild wanted puppet Hillary in ( Rothschild's
play dirty to get what they want and hold a full house of cards with the financial tools to " persuade people to their way of
thinking"... A battle us penny picker uppers must live with.... It's the only change we get.
Radical capitalism on the left and conservative traditional capitalism on right.... Both fighting for the same select few
who run the show generation after generation.
He's not really attacked by anyone. Its a bipartisan play to distract the gullible from the sick and subhuman policy they
enact while you are distracted with the wall or fantasizing bout his tiny mushroom.
So Trump jerks a couple of gators from the swamp, but only to make room for the T-Rex. Amazing. And why the hell is Bolton
still involved in our government? He penned an article during the bush admin explaining why the posse comitatus doesn't really
mean what it really says. Scary sob
Abrams was convicted of lying to congress meanwhile congress lies to us all day everyday and what happens to those bastards?
They vote themselves raises and sit on their *** all day taking bribes from their paymasters and writing laws and regulations
to control their chattel. Yes I hate politicians because they're ******* criminals and all of them and the useless bureaucrats
that infest that cesspool in D.C should be out of work permanently.
Trump is Zahpod Beeblebrox. Anyone remember the Hitchhiker's Guide? The role of the galactic president was not to wield
power, but to distract attention away from it. Zaphod Beeblebrox was remarkably good at his job.
When he bombed Syria in the first weeks of his presidency, giving the MIC, a $100 million of bomb sales ( to a company
he had shares in, raytheon) was enough for me that tRump is what he always has been, a bankrupt, loud mouth yankee puppet who
the plutocrats chose to continue the usual US empire evil ****.
I had my suspicions prior with his choice of vp, mad eyes pence, a protege and smoker of **** cheney. Then pompous pompeo,
150% arsehole bolton and now this official pos. Only a trumptard or patriotard would accept this ****.
You're excused...it's just too much to keep track of it all. My scorecard booklet was all used up about the 1st week in
after all the neocons and bankster slime who galloped into the WH on Trump's coattails.
Seriously though, it's interesting that ZH has said nothing about the big corruption scandal going on now in Brasil. The guy
who won on platform of anti-corruption has been exposed within a month of taking office, surprise...surprise, as part of one of
the worst. Talk is vp taking over with the backing of the military. "soft-hard" coup you could say.
I too, got very angry about the exact things you mention. However, I perspective is something that keeps me grounded. Remember
what was happening in 2016, and what the options were. Remember BLM, march's in like every city, and Cops getting ambushed every
few weeks?
Remember, "We came, We saw, he died", from Queen Hillary? Or how about Queen Hillary calling Putin a Thug, and saying we had
to stand up to him in Ukraine, and Syria?
dude, we all know she is part of the same ****. The ******** election is over, the plutocracy chose their puppet. Think of
it, sure Killary would have done the same, but she wouldn't have been able to get away with it and the schizoid msm would have
had a breakdown trying to sell the same ol, same ol us empire games. People don't like surprises. Repubelicans as aggressive warmongers
doesnt surprise. Sadly they think they cant do anything about it. But they can, and not by talking **** on ZH.
See Ralph Nader's, How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress for tips.
It's 10 dimensional to the fifth power chess right? Just kidding. It's a big club and you ain't in it. Trump is not going to
save you. Did you really think one guy defied the odds and overcame the voter fraud and beat Hillary? Puhleez. All by design.
You're watching a movie...
After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly elected President George W. Bush
appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief.
Didn't W run on a 'bring the troops home and world leave us alone' platform in 2000?
when i think about what Trump did so far I think about that mandatory Obama care tax that I had to pay if I* didn't get Obama
care Well it's gone and that was a big deal for me cause I've got four kids that would have to pay it and that would be six thousand
out of pocket every year that's for starters with out Trump running interference in the FL house and senate elections we'd have
Obama lite new and antique Bill still that makes a huge difference in things like taxes and EPA enforcement in this state I really
think he has made the general public more aware of the Mexican invasion cause I see less and less Latinos on the jobs sites around
here He has really caused the Dems to lose it Trump did that not any other politician he has exposed election fraud he has exposed
the deep state like never before
Yes I'm a Trump supporter a thoughtful one I consider the options and will go with this till it impacts me negatively on an
economic personal level not an emotional one brought on by pundits and MSM never Trump ilk
why don't you ask me if I think he is perfect I think his wife is pretty much ok however I hate that he is from NYC and acts
like it his friends are not much to be proud of and his social skills are lacking but I think he showers regularly and has good
hygiene and moral habits except for golf but that's just me He's a bossy kind of guy and I might not get along with him He doesn't
do things country folks do and wouldn't fit in around here his hair sucks and is a narcissistic affectation for sure but i like
his foreign policy so far how am i doing think I'm being killed slowly I liked Ike but he was weak and I liked Buchanan bur preferred
Goldwater and on and on they are politicians and deserve the loyalty they give and " that's all I have to say about that"
Trump is a psychopath and he loves to hire even bigger psychopaths. Your whole admin is a swamp of sociopaths, psychopaths
and other sick deranged people.
"... Those who really, really didn't want socialism, thought that it would be a great idea to fake it – so people won't miss it so much. Prime examples of this great idea – fake it, so hopefully you won't have to make it – are Nazi Germany and currently – the greatest democracy. ..."
Marks **** s Hitler, but Hitler was pretty good at *** ing Marks too. Listen to this logic: The party that Hitler belonged
to, was called National-Socialist, yet he hated communist and attacked Russia.
Communism and socialism are the same. There never was communism – that's what they were "aspiring" to become in some distant
utopian future. So Hitler attacking Russia because they were communist is like US attacking France because they are capitalists.
Total propaganda BS on the part of the Nazis – calling themselves "Socialists".
The whole last century has been spent on one major task by the west: Combat socialism. Mainly by wars, but propaganda also.
And yet, socialism refuses to die. And the idea will never die. I know, someone will say, where have you been in the last almost
30 years? Capitalism defeated socialism in the cold war. Not so fast. Capitalism may have scored a major victory but it may have
sustained a mortal self-inflicted wound of propaganda nature. In the last 100 years 3 major ways to fight socialism domestically
were discovered:
FDR approach – include little bit of socialism into capitalism, to prevent a lot of socialism (total takeover). Nazi
Germany approach – include none of socialism, but only use its name for propaganda and pretend that all is hunky-dory, and
that "socialism" is already here. US approach – include a little bit of fake socialism in order to prevent a lot of real
socialism from taking over. That's how multiculturalism came into being.
Again, I must say that the best approach was FDR's. If capitalism wants to survive – that's the way to go. Despite all the
numerous wars against socialist countries, US haven't been able to erase the idea of socialism like they were hoping for.
If you want proof of this, just look at the last US election. Along comes Bernie Sanders, just mentions the name socialism
few times – claiming himself to be one – socialist, and wins the primaries, only to be robbed by the Democratic mafia bosses who
couldn't stand the idea of "socialist" running for president – after all the US has done to destroy socialism.
By the way, I think that Bernie is a good guy, but he is probably as much socialist as Adolf used to be. It still demonstrates
the power of the socialist idea to attract people. Pretty clever propaganda ploy on Bernie's part, but there was no chance in
hell the "democrats" would let him run for president on that platform.
And he would have defeated Trump. Talking about exercise in futility – US trying to erase the idea of socialism. That's what
made them inflict the mortal wound of fake socialism on themselves and might in the end destroy them. FDR approach was the best
– little bit of socialism to prevent a lot of it.
How about " Nope ". Communism is an end ; Socialism is a means that Marx considered the most likely to
enable the end-point to be achieved. It's akin to saying that a mall (the end) and a car (the means) are "the same
thing", on the basis that a car is an efficient way to get to the mall.
To flesh it out: Communism is explicitly anarchic, and is mainly characterised by
material abundance and the fulfillment of (self-limited) wants;
no ownership of property (not by individuals or the state);
no class stratification (and hence no political organisations whatsoever);
work as a 'prime want' (not a disutility that must be compensated).
This all seems slightly silly when you write it down, so Marx recognised that there had to be a ' radical transformation
of consciousness ' whereby people didn't want what they couldn't have.
He reckoned that the best way was to entrust an enlightened clique (the ' vanguard of the proletariat ') to take control,
and to force society towards the 'end' by coercion – until such time as the end was in sight, whereupon the enlightened vanguard
would relinquish control and society would be on a glide path to utopia.
And doing that specifically requires that the 'vanguard' controls production and allocation decisions during the transition
– which he thought (wrongly) means that the means of production must be owned by the State.
Hence Socialism.
His end is correct so long as you add one adjective. A society free of artificial stratification is a desirable
end. His means were totally wrong because he was a fucking idiot (as well as being a parasitic charlatan). The State
would not relinquish control under any circumstances, and will actively undermine any mechanism that raises everyone (because
that would narrow the gap between the political class and the demos can't have that).
A society free of artificial stratification is where we will end up once technological progress gets past its next 'knee' ('
The Singularity ') it would be hastened if the parasites in the global political class are put to the sword.
I don't think you understood my argument here. You are correct. Socialism and Communism are not the same in philosophical sense.
My argument was that for all practical purposes Communism never existed – and probably never will. Only Socialism existed in one
form or another in few dozen countries.
Those who really, really didn't want socialism, thought that it would be a great idea to fake it – so people won't miss
it so much. Prime examples of this great idea – fake it, so hopefully you won't have to make it – are Nazi Germany and currently
– the greatest democracy.
Can the elite be afflicted by some mass disease. Is Neoconservatism a deadly infection ?
Theoretically Democracy depends on information freely available and responsibility of the citizenry to make decisions based on
that information. The political elites have made certain precious little of reliable, unclouded and relevant information ever gets
broadcast even while popularizing, promoting and rewarding every form of misrepresentation, ignorance and irresponsibility. In
other words they spearheaded a dangerous disease to stay in power. And eventually got infected themselves.
Notable quotes:
"... "But what if the elites get things wrong? What if the policies they promulgate produce grotesque inequality or lead to permanent war? Who then has the authority to disregard the guardians, if not the people themselves? How else will the elites come to recognize their folly and change course?" ..."
"... That is how they maintain control and manipulate government to facilitate their own interests to the detriment of the rest of society. Bretix and President Trump have upset their apple cart, which they felt certain was invulnerable and immune to challenge. ..."
"... The elites aren't interested in polls showing Americans want out of Syria and Afghanistan, are they? Can't have mere citizens having influencing decisions like that. ..."
"... An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr Bacevich are largely the products of the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those institutions have indoctrinated rather than educated. ..."
"... As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the primitiveness of their views and their inability to think - to say nothing of their fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and evil - begin to have real effect. ..."
"But what if the elites get things wrong? What if the policies they promulgate produce
grotesque inequality or lead to permanent war? Who then has the authority to disregard the
guardians, if not the people themselves? How else will the elites come to recognize their
folly and change course?"
What if, on election day, you only have a choice between 2 candidates. Both favoring all
the wrong choices, but one tends to talk up Christianity and family and the other talks up
diversity.
And both get their funding from the very wealthy and corporations. And any 3rd choices
would be "throwing your vote away". How would you ever get to vote for someone who might
change course?
Democracy has little to actually do with choice or power.
mlopez, January 18, 2019 at 6:22 pm
GB may not have been any utopia in 1914, but it was certainly geo-politically dominant. It's common people's social,
economic and cultural living standards most assuredly was vastly improved over Russian, or European peasants. There can be no
serious comparison with third world countries and regions.
As for the US, there can be absolutely no debate about its own dominance, or material standard of living after 1945 as
compared to any where else in the world. More importantly, even uneducated and very contemporary observers were capable of
recognizing how our elites had sold out their interests in favor of the furtherance of their own.
If we are on about democratic government, then it's been generations since either country and their peoples have had any
real democracy. Democracy depends on information freely available and responsibility of the citizenry to make decisions based
on that information. The political elites have made certain precious little of reliable, unclouded and relevant information
ever gets broadcast even while popularizing, promoting and rewarding every form of misrepresentation, ignorance and
irresponsibility.
That is how they maintain control and manipulate government to facilitate their own interests to the detriment of the
rest of society. Bretix and President Trump have upset their apple cart, which they felt certain was invulnerable and immune
to challenge.
Hello / Goodbye, January 19, 2019 at 11:40 am
The elites aren't interested in polls showing Americans want out of Syria and Afghanistan, are they? Can't have mere
citizens having influencing decisions like that.
Patzinak, January 19, 2019 at 5:07 pm
What ineffable flummadiddle!
Prominent Brexiteers include Boris Johnson (dual UK/US citizenship, educated in Brussels and at Eton and Oxford, of mixed
ancestry, including a link - by illegitimate descent - to the royal houses of Prussia and the UK); Jacob Rees-Mogg (son of a
baron, educated at Eton and Oxford, amassed a solid fortune via hedge fund management); Arron Banks (millionaire, bankroller
of UKIP, made to the Brexit campaign the largest ever political donation in UK politics).
So much for "the elite" being against Brexit!
But the main problem with Brexit is this. Having voted by a slim margin in favour of Brexit, the Great British Public
then, in the general election, denied a majority to the government that had undertaken to implement it, and elected a
Parliament of whom, by a rough estimate, two thirds oppose Brexit.
It ain't that "the elite" got "things wrong". It's that bloody Joe Public can't make his mind what to do - and go through
with it.
Rossbach, January 20, 2019 at 2:14 pm
"Whether the imagined utopia of a dominant Great Britain prior to 1914 or a dominant America after 1945 ever actually
existed is beside the point."
It wasn't to restore any defunct utopia that led people to vote for Brexit or Donald Trump; it was to check the descent of
the Anglosphere into the totalitarian dystopia of forced multi-cultural globalism that caused voters to reject the EU in
Britain and Hillary Clinton in the US. It is because they believed that only with the preservation of their national
independence was there any chance or hope for a restoration of individual liberty that our people voted as they did.
Ratings System, January 17, 2019 at 1:27 pm
It's why they won't enjoy their privileges much longer. That stale charade can't and won't last.
We don't have a meritocracy. We have a pseudo-meritocracy with an unduly large contingent of aliens, liars, cheats,
frauds, and incompetents. They give each other top marks, speak each other's PC language, and hire each other's kids. And
they don't understand why things are falling apart, and why they are increasingly hated by real Americans.
A very nasty decade or two is coming our way, but after we've swept out the filth there will be a good chance that
Americans will be Americans again.
Paul Reidinger, January 17, 2019 at 2:03 pm
An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr Bacevich are largely the products of
the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those
institutions have indoctrinated rather than educated.
As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the primitiveness of their views and
their inability to think - to say nothing of their fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and
evil - begin to have real effect. The new dark age is no longer imminent. It is here, and it is them. I see no way to
rectify the damage. When minds are ruined young, they remain ruined.
New emails published by the U.S. Department of State reveal the real motives behind the
international invasion of Libya.
The new emails of Hillary Clinton reveal that the real reason behind the invasion were
primarily the countries large gold and oil reserves, and the extension of French influence in
North Africa.
Fort Russ reports:
The U.S. State Department has published a series of emails that reveal the volume of gold
reserves of Gaddafi. According to the documents, the reserves are so great that they could
become the basis for creating a pan-African currency, which, in turn, could compete with the
dollar in the region.
Also, the reasons for intervention were identified as the major oil reserves of Libya and
the strengthening of French influence in North Africa. However, in 2011, Western leaders
welcomed the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime as a democratic step. "Long live Benghazi, long
live Libya, long live the friendship between France and Libya!", – said French President
Nicolas Sarkozy.
"You showed the world that you can overthrow the dictator and have chosen freedom!" –
said the Prime Minister of Great Britain David Cameron, speaking to the Libyan people."The
people of Libya got rid of a dictator. Now it has a chance," claimed the Vice-President of USA
Joe Biden.
In the past five years, the violence and chaos in Libya has not stopped. In the background
of this, "Islamic State" is gaining momentum in the country and has captured new territory. In
January 2016, dozens of people were killed as a result of terrorist.
Previously, "Islamic State" had claimed responsibility for the attack on a training camp in
Zliten. According to the correspondent of the newspaper The Jerusalem Post Ariel Ben Solomon,
from the outset it was obvious that intervention in Libya would lead to negative consequences
for the country.
"The email to Clinton is confirmed by the results of studies that began to appear after the
invasion of Libya, organized by France with U.S. support. Major oil reserves of the country
were the main reason for intervention. Dictators lead many African countries, but the West is
in no hurry to intervene in each of them. The Obama administration from the beginning was
guided by rather naive misconceptions on the actions that needed to be taken to resolve the
situation in Libya after the war," said RT political analyst Ariel Ben Solomon.
Source:
http://yournewswire.com/clinton-email...Ozzie Crosby2 years ago
America needs war to survive. The United States IS the infidel. It's not just propaganda.
pav_k20072 years ago
modern day robbers! K Lyall2 years ago
Imagine a NWO puppet like her in the White House for 4 more years!
10 11
View reply Hide replies 1979USHI2 years ago The
Western nations governments are totally out of order and need to be taken to a real world
court. Notta
Dr2 years ago
incredibly disgusting what we are learning about warmongering corporate globalist elites. there
is a strong move starting in the other direction....more conservative nationalist leaders are
rising up everywhere. these monsters ask need to be arrested, tried and severely
punished....held to the highest level of accountability.
Neocons are "enemies of the people" independent of their party affiliation. Nuremberg principles were written not for nothing.
Notable quotes:
"... he thought Ahmed Chalabi was "the most unfairly maligned man on the planet" long after the Iraqi exile's dissembling was apparent to everyone except the staff of Commentary magazine; and as Boot notes in his mea culpa, he totally failed to notice the dark side of the GOP. "It's amazing how little you can see when your eyes are closed," he squeaks. ..."
"... The problem here isn't really Boot. It's the eternal forgiveness that journalists and intellectuals bestow upon colleagues who should be cast out for errors of immense and tragic consequence. ..."
There is an unforgettable passage in Graham Greene's classic "The Quiet American" in which the
title character, a CIA agent named Alden Pyle, admits that Vietnam is much more complicated
than he'd imagined. "I had not realized how tribal politics was and how divorced it could be
from principles or conviction," Pyle says. Surveying the wreckage of the American war effort,
he adds, "Looking back with greater introspection and humility after the passage of more than
fifteen years, I can finally acknowledge the obvious: it was all a big mistake."
Greene's admirers will recognize that these lines do not actually come from his 1955 novel.
They are from Max Boot's new book, " The Corrosion of
Conservatism: Why I Left the Right ." Boot, a leading intellectual in the conservative
movement for the past two decades, is now apologizing for nearly everything he has done and
abided. He is denouncing not just Donald Trump, but the Republican Party as a whole. "Upon
closer examination," he writes in his 260-page atonement, "it's obvious that the whole history
of modern conservatism is permeated with racism, extremism, conspiracy-mongering, ignorance,
isolationism, and know-nothingism."
The temptation is to say, Bravo, here at last is a Republican willing to admit the emperor
has no clothes. That's the reaction of lots of journalists and
pundits who have flipped
through Boot's book. Jacob Heilbrunn wrote in the
Washington Monthly that Boot's "readiness to reexamine his old convictions is admirable."
Adam Serwer, writer at The Atlantic, tweeted , "You don't want to
punish people for getting the right answer." Boot is no longer a Republican (he quit the party
after Trump's election) but he is hardly an outcast in the political world -- he is a
Washington Post columnist, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a CNN
analyst. Such is the sweet life of a born-again intellectual.
It's easy to understand why a penitent like Boot appeals to liberals and other members of
the Trump resistance. He ratifies their sense of having been correct from the start, and his
confession is enunciated in perfect sound bites, with just the right dose of abasement. Boot is
an irresistible spectacle -- the sinner with tears running down his cheeks dropping to his
knees at the altar of all that is good, proclaiming that he has seen the light and wants to
join the army of righteousness. But here's the thing: Boot is only half-apologizing. And
because he's been wrong so many times and with so many ill consequences, he should be provided
with nothing more than a polite handshake as he's led out of the sanctuary of politics,
forever.
When I say wrong, I mean Guinness World Records wrong. In his first book, " Out of
Order ," Boot argued that the Supreme Court erred when it ruled in Brown v. Board of
Education that school segregation violated the Constitution ("I am not proud of 'Out of
Order,'" he now says); he was a key proponent of the invasion of Iraq ("Once we have deposed
Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the
one in Kabul," he proclaimed in 2001);
he thought John Bolton was treated unfairly when Democrats
opposed his 2005 nomination for ambassador to the United Nations ("He seems like a good choice
to help drain the U.N. cesspool of corrupt bureaucrats and self-serving tyrants");
he thought
Ahmed Chalabi was "the most unfairly
maligned man on the planet" long after the Iraqi exile's dissembling was apparent to everyone
except the staff of Commentary
magazine; and as Boot notes in his mea culpa, he totally failed to notice the dark side of the
GOP. "It's amazing how little you can see when your eyes are closed," he squeaks.
That's a lot of wrong. It's so much wrong that I can't imagine how or why anyone could look
at Boot and think, "Ah, here's a man we should listen to." I can pre-empt Boot's response to
this -- in his book, he complains that "doctrinaire leftists" will be satisfied with nothing
less than his "ritual suicide" for the war crimes he's committed. I've exchanged a few cordial
emails with Boot (we both graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, a few years
apart, and worked at its student newspaper, the Daily Californian ), and I can honestly say he seems a nice and
bright enough fellow to whom I wish no physical harm. But like Alden Pyle, he has helped create
so much havoc, he has been wrong so completely, that it would be the definition of insanity to
treat his ideas as fodder for anything other than a shredder. Here's a real line from "The
Quiet American," spoken about Pyle by the novel's weary narrator, that suits Boot perfectly: "I
never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused." Pyle's innocence, the
book explains, "is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no
harm."
The problem here isn't really Boot. It's the eternal forgiveness that journalists and
intellectuals bestow upon colleagues who should be cast out for errors of immense and tragic
consequence.
Boot is a perfect example, because he has been wrong so many times in such major
ways and is actually willing to admit it. But there are vast numbers of pundits , masters of
spin , and
allegedintellectuals who have been wrong
enough on enough big things (not just war, but climate change and more) to merit laughter
rather than praise. Yet there they are,
stroking their chins on our finest
op-ed pages and cable news channels. Mutual forgiveness is a necessity among pundits who are
stuffed with nonsense much of the time; without mercy on demand, they might all be out of jobs.
It's no surprise that Boot's book arrives with admiring blurbs from D.C. heavyweights James
Fallows, Jon Meacham, and David Corn, among others.
March 20, 2018, marks the 15th anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq. While the American footprint in Iraq has drastically
changed over 15 years, a significant number of the original cheerleaders for the invasion still hold prominent roles in the media
today:
John Bolton, Fox News contributor
Bolton was President George W. Bush's
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control when the Iraq War began.
Bolton backed an Iraq invasion as early as 1998, when he signed a letter from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC),
a neoconservative group led by William Kristol, urging then-President Bill Clinton to attack Saddam Hussein. As the State Department's
top arms-control official during President Bush's first term, Bolton played a role in pushing the allegation that Saddam Hussein
sought uranium in Africa.
"We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq." [BBC,
11/20/02
]
"I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct." [Talking Points Memo,
5/14/15 ]
Larry Kudlow, CNBC senior contributor
Kudlow was economics editor of
National Review and a co-host of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer when the Iraq War began.
"Could it be that a lack of decisive follow-through in the global war on terrorism is the single biggest problem facing the stock
market and the nation today? I believe it is. The shock therapy of decisive war will elevate the stock market by a couple-thousand
points." [ National Review ,
6/26/02 ]
"Every day we wait for the impending invasion of Iraq is a day Saddam Hussein grows stronger, a day our national security is threatened,
and a day our economic security is jeopardized." [ National Review ,
2/6/03 ]
Boot's bloodthirstiness is united with a peculiar naďveté about America; it must be said that in this respect he is not unlike
Lansdale. Could it really have been, as Boot wrote in 2017, that only Trump opened his eyes to the fact that it's a bit easier
to be a white guy in America, that "I benefitted from my skin color and my gender -- and those of a different gender or sexuality
or skin color have suffered because of it"? Good for Max if he's had a change of heart and seen the world through more empathetic
eyes; one only wishes he could've had those moments of reflection, which seem so modest and so reasonable, circa 2001. But that
might not have changed anything. He wrote as recently as 2013 that he feels "No Need to Repent for Support of the Iraq War." He
declares, "I feel no shame being part of the 75 percent of Americans who believed at the beginning that this was a war worth waging."
This move is not quite honest: Boot wants to submerge himself into the center of a crowd, one of the democratic mass, when in
fact he was at its vanguard, pushing for the Iraq War early and often.
"Once Afghanistan has been dealt with, America should turn its attention to Iraq." [ The Weekly Standard ,
10/15/01 ]
"In places like Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and very shortly Iraq, ordinary people clamor for American intervention, and welcome
U.S. troops as liberators." [Nimitz Memorial Lecture at University of California, Berkeley,
3/12/03 ]
"No need to repent for support of [the] Iraq war." [ Commentary ,
3/18/13 ]
"But how exactly does the Iraq War differ from previous wars? From World War I, when the Great Powers were said to have 'sleepwalked'
into a conflict that no one really wanted?" [ Commentary ,
7/6/16 ]
Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist
Cohen
was a Washington Post columnist when the Iraq War began.
"Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or
possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise." [ The Washington Post ,
2/6/03 ]
"Initially, I thought bringing down Saddam Hussein was a good cause. I was wrong -- not about the cause, but about its practicality."
[ The Washington Post ,
4/1/08 ]
Ari Fleischer, Fox News contributor
Flesicher served as President Bush's
press secretary as the Iraq War began.
"My point is, the likelihood is much more like Afghanistan, where the people who live right now under a brutal dictator will view
America as liberators, not conquerors." [ The New York Times ,
10/12/02 ]
"There's no question that if force is used, it will achieve the objective of preserving the peace far faster than the current
path that we're on." [White House press briefing, 2/14/03
]
"Given the chance to throw off a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein, people will rejoice." [White House press briefing,
3/21/03 ]
"I think that if you look at the Iraqi people, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly pleased with the fact the United States has
helped them to get rid of the Saddam Hussein regime. That was clear from their dancing in the streets, from the way they tore down
the statues. And I think that is the viewpoint of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people." [White House press briefing,
7/1/03 ]
Sean Hannity, Fox News host
Hannity was also a syndicated talk radio host
and a Fox News host when the Iraq War began.
"We're going to find all the weapons of mass destruction." [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes , 2/19/03, via Nexis]
"I was a real believer in the Iraq War. I still am to this day. I still feel that there were probably weapons of mass destruction.
I do believe they were likely moved to Syria in the long lead-up to the war." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show
,
9/7/16 ]
Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard editor-in-chief
Hayes was a senior writer at The
Weekly Standard when the Iraq War began.
"Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives
and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi
financial support for al Qaeda." [ The Weekly Standard ,
11/24/03 ]
Hayes' 2004 book was titled The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America .
[ Media Matters ,
6/30/04 ]
Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial director
Hiatt has been
editorial page director of The Washington Post since 1999.
As Media Matters has
documented , the Washington Post editorial page -- headed by Hiatt since 1999 -- repeatedly echoed the Bush administration's
claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. A February 6, 2003,
editorial began, "After Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it
is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."
The Post 's editorial page also
linked the need to invade Iraq to the 9/11 attacks:
During the past decade the United States vowed many times to disarm Saddam Hussein, who made no secret of his hatred and enmity
toward the United States; but when the Iraqi dictator resisted, the United States chose to abandon its vows rather than use the
force that would have been needed to enforce them. In every case, the calculation, stated or unstated, was the same: Pay tribute,
don't make trouble, and maybe nothing worse will happen.
In the ruins of Lower Manhattan in September 2001, most Americans saw evidence that this calculation was incorrect as well
as craven. The nation's enemies would not be deterred or mollified by a gentle response; they would be emboldened. President Bush
rightly concluded that the nation had to defend itself more vigilantly but also that no defense could succeed unless accompanied
by an offensive against the terrorists and the states that sheltered them.
Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard editor-at-large
Kristol was a co-founder of
Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank Kristol used to crusade for the Iraq War.
Saddam Hussein "will not disarm peacefully. And he must be disarmed. So war will come. The war itself will clarify who was right
and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about
Saddam's regime." [ The Weekly Standard ,
3/17/03 ]
Kristol bragged that the war would last just two months:
In 2015, Kristol
defended
the decision to invade Iraq:
Even with the absence of caches of weapons of mass destruction, and the mistakes we made in failing to send enough troops at
first and to provide security from the beginning for the Iraqi people, we were right to persevere through several difficult years.
We were able to bring the war to a reasonably successful conclusion in 2008.
Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor
Gigot has been the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal since 2001.
Under Gigot, the editorial page
frequently hyped the likelihood that Saddam Hussein was close to producing or obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Journal
forwarded alarmist claims about Iraq's nuclear capabilities on numerous occasions:
August 2, 2002: "Above all, a debate would let Mr. Bush demonstrate that he has by far the stronger case. Even the critics
concede that Saddam is a threat, after all, a tyrant who has gassed his own people, tried to kill a U.S. President and whose military
routinely fires at American pilots patrolling no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
said Monday that before the Gulf War Saddam was 'within a year or two' of having nuclear weapons. And at Wednesday's Senate hearings,
former Iraqi nuclear engineer Khidir Hamza said Saddam will have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs by 2005."
August 29, 2002: "There is always the chance that Congress could refuse the President. But this must be measured against the
strong case the Administration has, a case Vice President Dick Cheney pressed earlier this week in Nashville. Mr. Cheney flatly
declared that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Saddam, 'the risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.'"
September 25, 2002: "And then there is the redoubtable Mr. Blair, an ally who continues to risk dissent in his party and country
for a cause in which he believes. Yesterday Mr. Blair released a dossier of intelligence on Iraq. The 50-page report describes
how Saddam has tried to buy uranium from Africa for use in nuclear weapons, has 20 missiles that could reach British military
bases in Cyprus as well as Israel and NATO members Greece and Turkey, and stating that Iraq's chemical weapons are on standby
for use within 45 minutes. 'The policy of containment is not working. The WMD program is not shut down. It is up and running,'
Mr. Blair told Parliament."
September 9, 2002: "Democrats hardly need two more months now to deliberate over this evidence, most of which they already
know. They merely want to push any decision past Election Day so their votes won't put their Senate majority at risk. They can
then posture as statesmen for two months but only declare themselves after the day when voters would be able to hold them immediately
responsible. Let's hope Saddam's nuclear weapons program is operating on the same wait-until-the-election timetable."
A January 27, 2003, editorial was titled "If Saddam Survives."
Judith Miller, Fox News contributor
Miller was a New York Times reporter
when the Iraq War began.
Miller produced a series of now-debunked reports that the Bush administration used to buttress its claim that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction. As Franklin Foer wrote for New York magazine:
During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein's ambition
and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by [Ahmad] Chalabi and his allies --
almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate.
For the past year, the Times has done much to correct that coverage, publishing a series of stories calling Chalabi's
credibility into question. [ New York magazine, 6
/7/04 ]
In a 2004 interview, she told The New
York Review of Books: "My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My
job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
Former New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller
discussed
Miller's Iraq War reporting with Media Matters in 2011:
New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller says one of his biggest mistakes as editor was not addressing the paper's
misleading pre-Iraq War coverage sooner, including the reporting of former Times writer Judy Miller.
Keller tells Media Matters that he is "not at all" surprised that Miller ended up at the "conservative" Fox News Channel
after she left the Times under a cloud of controversy related to her Iraq reporting.
Keller, who announced Thursday that in September he will leave the post he has held since July 2003, said: "Judy was the author
of a lot of those stories, and I should have dealt with the stories and with her I think as the sort of first order of business
when I took the job rather than waiting until the following year."
Keller was referring to the unusual
editor's note the
Times published on May 26, 2004, in which it admitted many of its pre-war stories about weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq -- a number of which were reported by Miller -- misrepresented the situation before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"The whole Judy Miller WMD experience was ... one of the low points of the last eight years," Keller said.
Joe Scarborough, MSNBC host
Scarborough
was hired by MSNBC as the Iraq War began.
Joe Scarborough repeatedly cheered on the Iraq War and attacked people who criticized it.
"Congressman [Jack] Kingston [R-GA], give me a quick response. How could there be anyone left on the planet today that doesn't
believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?" [MSNBC, MSNBC Reports , 3/5/03, via Nexis]
Toppling Saddam Hussein "will mean the end of his weapons of mass destruction." [MSNBC, MSNBC Reports , 3/11/03, via
Nexis]
"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types
. I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe
the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war
.
"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief UN weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein?
Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between
its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.
"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step
forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions
were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their
mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing." [MSNBC 4/10/03 via
FAIR ]
Bret Stephens, New York Times columnist and MSNBC contributor
Stephens
was editor of The Jerusalem Post when the Iraq War began.
As The New Yorker
noted , in 2003 Stephens' Jerusalem Post "named one of the Iraq War's chief architects, Paul Wolfowitz, its 'man of
the year.'"
"Saddam may unveil, to an astonished world, the Arab world's first nuclear bomb." [ The Jerusalem Post ,
11/15/02 ]
Stephens criticized the Obama administration's case for military intervention in Syria by contrasting it with Bush's decision
to invade Iraq, which he claimed was made based on "highly detailed" intelligence revealing weapons of mass destruction. Stephens
claimed that the "testimony of U.N. inspectors like Hans Blix" supported the Bush administration's case for war, and accusations
that the Bush administration lied were "libel" and "cheap slander." In fact, Blix told CNN in 2004 that the Bush administration "chose
to ignore" his team's concerns about the lack of solid evidence in favor of war, and that prior to the invasion the evidence of WMDs
in Iraq was revealed to be "shaky." [ Media Matters ,
4/13/17 ]
David Frum, Atlantic senior editor
Frum was a speechwriter for President
Bush when the Iraq War began.
Frum is renowned for writing George W. Bush's
"Axis of Evil" speech. Alex Nichols
described
Frum's Iraq boosterism in 2017:
Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson, a fellow fanatical interventionist and veteran of the neoconservative underworld, tapped
Frum for the speechwriting team in 2000. His greatest accomplishment was the authorship of Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech,
now known for its most famous phrase, "axis of evil." The axis was a grouping of three countries -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea
-- that were implicit allies in a plot to destroy America. The supposed ties between the three mostly came down to their mutual
love for imaginary "weapons of mass destruction" and non-existent collaboration with al-Qaeda. As Trump threatens war crimes against
civilians in Iraq and Syria, sanctions Iran despite its compliance with our nuclear agreement and threatens "fire and fury" for
North Korea, Frum must be held accountable for cementing them as boogeymen in the public imagination.
Frum resigned his post in February 2002 in order to join the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank then
working in close association with the Bush administration. With them, he emerged as one of the most enthusiastic supporters of
the War on Terror. In 2004, Frum and former adviser to the Bush Department of Defense Richard Perle published a book titled An
End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Its text was as audacious as its title. "An End to Evil will define the conservative
point of view on foreign policy for a new generation -- and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond,"
a description of it reads. By this time, the Iraq War was in full swing, and Frum and Perle offered full-throated apologia. Under
the assumptions that the war would bring stable democracy to Iraq and that the imaginary WMDs would be located soon enough, they
called for similar action against North Korea and Iran.
Eli Lake, Bloomberg View columnist
Lake was a State Department
correspondent for United Press International (UPI) when the Iraq War began.
As
noted
by Adam Weinstein for Gawker, Lake
argued
for the legality of the Iraq War in a 2003
column for UPI:
"On the facts of the case, it is hard to argue that Iraq has given up its weapons of mass destruction. ... With this kind of
evidence, far from being an international outlaw, the United States would be a the (sic) defender of the entire institution of
international (sic) should it lead a war to disarm Iraq."
Eliot Cohen, Atlantic contributing editor
Cohen was a co-founder
of Project for the New American Century.
MSNBC's Zachary Roth described
Cohen's role in boosting the Iraq War in 2013:
[Cohen] was a key agitator for an Iraq invasion and for a maximalist response to the 9/11 attacks. In a November 2001 op-ed
in which he called the War on Terror "World War IV," Cohen argued that the US. should "target" Iraq because it had "helped al
Qaeda" and "developed weapons of destruction." Not long after, he touted a spurious connection between Muhammed Atta, the chief
9/11 hijacker, and Saddam's regime. In Congressional testimony in 2002, Cohen framed a stark choice for policymakers: Allow Saddam
"to acquire weapons of mass destruction or to take action to overthrow him." In 2007, Cohen became a top adviser to Condoleezza
Rice at the State Department.
Ann Coulter
Coulter was a prominent conservative author and
commentator when the Iraq War began.
Coulter, alongside Sean Hannity,
pushed lies about Army Ranger Pat Tillman's opposition to the Iraq War. Asawin Suebsaeng
wrote in 2017 for The Daily Beast about Coulter's Iraq War boosterism and how she has pivoted away from it under Trump:
"I think Iraq was a crucial part of the war on terrorism -- if you had to choose between Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd take Iraq
over Afghanistan," Coulter said on a Fox Business panel, debating anti-war libertarians, in late 2011. "PATRIOT Act, fantastic,
Gitmo, fantastic, waterboarding, not bad, though [even harsher] torture would've been better."
Coulter went on to tell a bewildered John Stossel and Matt Welch that "[Iraq] is a fantastic country for regime change," that
"torture works beautifully," and that position regarding potential blowback or unintended negative consequences to the war were
merely a "crazy ACLU argument."
Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh was also host of his own radio show when the Iraq War began.
On April 7, 2003, Rush Limbaugh said
, "We're discovering WMDs all over Iraq." On September 26, 2007, Limbaugh
called soldiers who advocated withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." Limbaugh has
subsequently tried to justify the Iraq War, even declaring that President Bush should be
added
to Mount Rushmore . In January 2018, Limbaugh
accused the "deep state" of faking weapons of mass destruction evidence in Iraq to damage Bush.
Nicole Wallace, MSNBC host
Wallace
was George W. Bush's communications director as the Iraq War began.
"[Obama's] legacy on foreign policy is going to be that he didn't start a war in Iraq. He wasn't the president, thank God, in
the years after 9/11." [MSNBC, 5/30/14 ]
"... As we have explained elsewhere, the cost of Empire is now nearing $1 trillion per year when you count foreign aid and security assistance, homeland security, the $200 billion Veterans budget and debt service on past wars. Add that to $2.5 trillion of entitlements that neither party will touch and what will soon by $1 trillion per year of interest expense and you have nothing less than a Fiscal Doomsday machine. ..."
"... That is, spending that will be pushing 25-30% of GDP and a revenue base that amounts to less than 17% of GDP. Literally, the nation's fiscal accounts are being drawn and quartered by the dual menace of the Welfare State and Warfare State. ..."
"... In fact, during the past 27 years Imperial Washington has lost all memory that peace was ever possible at the end of the cold war. Today it is as feckless, misguided and bloodthirsty as were Berlin, Paris, St. Petersburg, Vienna and London in August 1914. ..."
"... Needless to say, there is no peace on earth today for reasons mainly rooted in Imperial Washington – not Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, Tehran, Damascus, Mosul or Raqqah. The former has become a global menace owing to what didn't happen in 1991. ..."
"... So doing he should have demobilized the military-industrial complex by putting a moratorium on all new weapons development, procurement and export sales; dissolved NATO and dismantled the far-flung network of US military bases; slashed the US standing armed forces from 1.5 million to a few hundred thousand; and organized and led a world disarmament and peace campaign, as did his Republican predecessors during the 1920s. ..."
"... Unfortunately, George H.W. Bush was not a man of peace, vision or even mediocre intelligence. He was the malleable tool of the War Party, and it was he who single-handedly blew the peace when he plunged America into a petty argument between the impetuous dictator of Iraq and the greedy Emir of Kuwait that was none of our business. ..."
We've got NATO on our mind today because we learned this morning that the mere suggestion this obsolete relic of the Cold War
should be abandoned tends to trigger an absolutely virulent outburst of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the mainstream media.
So long as we were talking about the folly of Trump-O-Nomics and the Donald's rookie mistake in embracing an egregious stock market
bubble that is destined to crash and a failing, geriatric business cycle that at age 115 months has "recession ahead" written all
over its forehead, our host, Mika Brzezinski, was happy to nod approvingly.
But when we veered off into approval of the Donald's efforts to rein in the Empire and make peace with the Russkies, it was an
altogether different matter. We no more than launched the thought of it than Mika was sputtering in disbelief – as if we had committed
a grotesque sacrilege in public:
STOCKMAN: Beyond that – beyond that, trump tried to do the right thick with America first. He's been stymied at every turn
of the road. He was right. They wouldn't let him do it. He was right. NATO is obsolete. We should get rid of it. Everybody went
after him for he's trying to do the right thing in Korea and yet they keep coming after him on the basis of the status quo, which
has been wrong for last 60 years. So on the one hand, his economic policy is a failure. On the other hand, his effort to rein
in the empires I call it and get to something we can afford is being stymied. And then he's filled the swamp with $100 billion
more for the Pentagon that is doesn't need. That's the deep end of the swamp."
BRZEZINSKI: "David, David, hold on a second, hold on, hold on. You did a lot."
STOCKMAN: "Yes."
BRZEZINSKI: "I just want to like hone in on one – are you saying we should pull out of NATO?" [crosstalk]
STOCKMAN: "Sure. NATO is obsolete."
BRZEZINSKI: "What?"
STOCKMAN: "NATO is obsolete. It was only set up to stop the Soviet Union and 50,000 tanks on the Warsaw front. That ended 25
years ago. We don't need NATO. Europe can take care of itself. Russia's a pint-sized economy, 7 percent of size of U.S. economy.
NATO, US GDP combined is $36 trillion, Russia's $1.5 trillion. You think the Europeans can't handle it? Germany spends 1 percent
only of GDP on defense. If they really thought that the Russians were heading through the Brandenburg Gate, they would be providing
for their own defense. They're not pacifists.
So if you wonder why we insist that a fiscal calamity is barreling down the pike – just consider the implications of this exchange.
MSNBC is ground zero for the so-called progressive Left. Yet it has become so deranged by the Donald and convinced that he was elected
not because the electorate rejected its threadbare agenda, but because Putin and the Russkies threw the election to him, that it
has become a full-fledged champion of the War Party.
As we have explained elsewhere, the cost of Empire is now nearing $1 trillion per year when you count foreign aid and security
assistance, homeland security, the $200 billion Veterans budget and debt service on past wars. Add that to $2.5 trillion of entitlements
that neither party will touch and what will soon by $1 trillion per year of interest expense and you have nothing less than a Fiscal
Doomsday machine.
That is, spending that will be pushing 25-30% of GDP and a revenue base that amounts to less than 17% of GDP. Literally, the
nation's fiscal accounts are being drawn and quartered by the dual menace of the Welfare State and Warfare State.
Yet with respect to the latter, the last time we checked the old Soviet Union slithered off the pages of history 28 years ago.
Shortly thereafter the 50,000 Red Army tanks, which had been arrayed menacingly (and unbeknownst to the CIA, largely without spare
fuel) behind the Iron Curtain, were mostly melted down for scrap by the destitute statelets of the Warsaw Pact (Poland, Rumania,
Bulgaria, Albania etc.) and 14 ex-Soviet Republics (like Belarus, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, etc.)
What was left of the Soviet Empire was the rump state of Russia – shorn of much of its industrial base and with an aging population
of just 140 million compared to the 425 million souls who had been incarcerated in Stalin's dystopia.
So, yes, there was every reason to declare "mission accomplished" and disband NATO because the much exaggerated conventional military
threat of the Soviet Union had literally vanished from the face of the earth. At that point, NATO was, in fact, pointless.
So when President George Bush the Elder, who was no wimpy Yale pacifist, promised Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for his acquiescence
to the reunification of Germany that NATO would no move " a single inch to the east", he wasn't exactly selling the "free world"
(as they called it) down the drain.
In fact, as the above map unfolded, the 77-Years War that had incepted in August 1914 was finally over. If you want to count bodies,
150 million were killed by all the depredations which germinated in the Great War, its foolish aftermath at Versailles, and
the march of history into the second world war and cold war which followed inexorably thereupon.
To wit, upwards of 8% of the human race was wiped-out during that span. The toll encompassed the madness of trench
warfare during 1914-1918; the murderous regimes of Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism that rose from the ashes of the Great War and
Versailles; and then the carnage of WWII and all the lesser (unnecessary) wars and invasions of the Cold War including Korea and
Vietnam.
So finally the time had come for Washington to lead the world into a golden age of peace, disarmament and prosperous commerce
among the nations.
Yet there was a virulent threat to peace still lurking on the Potomac after the 77 Years War ended. The great general and president,
Dwight Eisenhower, had called it the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address.
But that memorable phrase had been abbreviated by his speechwriters, who deleted the word "congressional" in a gesture of comity
to the legislative branch. So restore Ike's deleted reference to the legislative pork barrels and Sunday afternoon warriors of Capitol
Hill and toss in the legions of beltway busybodies that constituted the civilian branches of the cold war armada (CIA, State, AID,
NED etc.) and the circle would have been complete.
It constituted the most awesome machine of warfare and imperial hegemony since the Roman legions bestrode most of the civilized
world.
In a word, the real threat to world peace circa 1991 was that Pax Americana would not go away quietly into the good
night.
In fact, during the past 27 years Imperial Washington has lost all memory that peace was ever possible at the end of the cold
war. Today it is as feckless, misguided and bloodthirsty as were Berlin, Paris, St. Petersburg, Vienna and London in August 1914.
Needless to say, there is no peace on earth today for reasons mainly rooted in Imperial Washington – not Moscow, Beijing,
Pyongyang, Tehran, Damascus, Mosul or Raqqah. The former has become a global menace owing to what didn't happen in 1991.
What needed to happen back in 1991 was for Bush the Elder to declare "mission accomplished" and slash the Pentagon budget from
$600 billion to $250 billion.
So doing he should have demobilized the military-industrial complex by putting a moratorium on all new weapons development,
procurement and export sales; dissolved NATO and dismantled the far-flung network of US military bases; slashed the US standing armed
forces from 1.5 million to a few hundred thousand; and organized and led a world disarmament and peace campaign, as did his Republican
predecessors during the 1920s.
Unfortunately, George H.W. Bush was not a man of peace, vision or even mediocre intelligence. He was the malleable tool of
the War Party, and it was he who single-handedly blew the peace when he plunged America into a petty argument between the impetuous
dictator of Iraq and the greedy Emir of Kuwait that was none of our business.
By contrast, even though liberal historians have reviled Warren G. Harding as some kind of dumbkopf politician, he well understood
that the Great War had been for naught, and that to insure it never happened again the nations of the world needed to rid themselves
of their huge navies and standing armies.
To that end, he achieved the largest global disarmament agreement ever made during the Washington Naval conference of 1921, which
halted the construction of new battleships for more than a decade.
And while he was at it, President Harding also pardoned Eugene Debs. He thereby gave witness to the truth that the intrepid socialist
candidate for president and vehement antiwar protester, who Wilson had thrown in prison for exercising his first amendment right
to speak against US entry into a pointless European war, had been right all along.
In short, Warren G. Harding knew the war was over, and the folly of Wilson's 1917 plunge into Europe's bloodbath should not be
repeated at all hazards.
The Unforgiveable Sins 0f George H.W. Bush
Not George H.W. Bush. The man should never be forgiven for enabling the likes of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Gates and
their neocon pack of jackals to come to power – even if he did denounce them in his bumbling old age.
Even more to the point, by opting not for peace but for war and oil in the Persian Gulf in 1991 he opened the gates to an unnecessary
confrontation with Islam. In turn, that nurtured the rise of jihadist terrorism that would not haunt the world today – save for forces
unleashed by George H.W. Bush's petulant quarrel with Saddam Hussein.
We will address more fully on another occasion the 45-year-old error that holds the Persian Gulf is an American Lake and that
energy security requires it be patrolled by the Fifth Fleet. As history proves, the real answer to high oil prices everywhere and
always is high oil prices and the wonders they work to rebalance the global energy market.
But first it is well to remember that there was no plausible threat anywhere on the planet to the safety and security of the citizens
of Springfield MA, Lincoln NE or Spokane WA when the cold war ended.
But rather than dismantling the NATO machinery, virtually the opposite happened. NATO has been expanded to 29 countries including
such powers as Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and now the statelet of Montenegro that has a military half the size of the
police force of Philadelphia.
In the context of this relentless and pointless NATO expansion to the very borders of the shrunken Russian state, Washington not
only sponsored and funded the overthrow of Ukraine's constitutionally elected government in February 2014. But once it had unleashed
a devastating civil war, it relentlessly blocked the obvious alternative to the bloodshed that has claimed 10,000 civilian and military
casualties.
That is, it's partition of its population among the Russian speaking provinces in the Donbas and Crimea and Ukrainians in the
west. After all, partition was accomplished peacefully in the artificial state of Czechoslovakia and at the insistence of NATO bombers
in the short-lived nation of Yugoslavia.
Had not the Donald been stopped cold by the hail of hysteria which emanated from the War Party and their dutiful stenographers
in the main stream media, the next step after his historic meeting with Putin in Helsinki would have been to take up where George
H.W. Bush faltered in 1991.
That is, on the dismantlement and interment of NATO and the reopening of Europe to peaceful commerce among all the nation's that
had been artificially separated by the now long departed Iron Curtain.
The fact is, Washington doesn't need its budget-busting $720 billion defense budget to defend Europe from Russia, nor should it
be endlessly haranguing those nations to waste more of their own money on defense than they already are.
That's because there is absolutely no reason to believe that Russia wants to attack Germany or any other country in Europe. Indeed,
the very idea is just plain madness.
As shown by the table below, the NATO-28 (excluding the US) are now actually spending $250 billion per year on defense
(2017). That's 4X Russia's entire military budget of $61 billion .
Likewise, the GDP of Russia is but $1.5 trillion compared to $18 trillion for the NATO-28. So is Cool
Hand Vlad so completely foolish and reckless as to think that he could invade and occupy territories that have an economy 13X bigger
than that of Russia?
Actually, it's far more ludicrous than that. The rump of Russia today is a giant hydrocarbon province attached to some wheat fields,
timber lands and mineral deposits – all dependent upon an aging work force afflicted with an undue fondness for Vodka etc.
What that means is that Russia must export its commodities big time or die. In fact, during 2017 Russian exports totaled $357
billion or 26% of its GDP. And 55% of that went to Europe!
Moreover, when you breakdown Russian exports it is plain to see that the industrial maw of Europe is the port of first call for
its vast tonnages of exported commodities. These included $173 billion of oil and gas and $60 billion of iron, steel, aluminum, precious
metals, forest products, fertilizers, grains and copper, among others.
Finally, the table on defense spending by country below speaks for itself as to the purported Russian threat. If the German government
really feared that Russian tanks would be soon rolling through the Brandenburg Gates, it would have more than 20 operational tanks,
and it would spend far more than $40.6 billion or 1.2% of GDP to defend itself.
And the same is even more true of the former Warsaw pact countries that are located cheek-by-jowl on Russia's border. Yet Romania
spends the tiny sum of $2.8 billion or 1.2% of GDP on its military.
Likewise, the figure for Hungary, which learned all about Soviet-style invasions in 1956, spends only $1.2 billion or barely 1.0%
of GDP. And besides that, its intrepid leader, Viktor Orban, doesn't even support NATO's ridiculous sanctions on Putin's cronies
and allies.
And as for the allegedly threatened Baltic states, their combined defense budgets are less than $1.5 billion, representing a minuscule
1.7% of combined GDP; and Bulgaria, fast upon the Russian Lake called the Black Sea, spends only $660 million or 1.4% of its GDP.
In short, European policy action on the defense spending front trumps all the hot air that wafts from NATO's spanking new Brussels
headquarters. Their governments and parliaments positively do not think they are threatened by the Russian Bear because they aren't.
What would help a lot, therefore, is for the Great Disrupter to forget about his unfortunate infatuation with the idea that bigger
is always better, and do what no other American politician in thrall to the Warfare State has been unable to do since 1991 when the
Soviet Union vanished.
That is, declare "mission accomplished" with respect to NATO and disband it forthwith.
You could call it a Mercy Killing. Indeed, a couple more NATO summits at which they are browbeat to waste ever more money on defense,
and the Europeans themselves may well start begging for exactly that.
Then again, could you imagine how loudly the progressive left would be screaming if the Donald even entertained the thought deep
beneath his bedraggled Orange Comb-Over?
and especially in the US, where any criticism of Israel is regularly treated as
'anti-semitism', just as it is here in the UK. I have never recognised the state of Israel,
even though my mother's family was exterminated almost in its entirety during WWII. And I
don't even know where or when my aunts, uncles, cousins et al vanished, even 70 yrs later.
Oft times I'm ashamed to be considered Jewish and see very little difference between Hitler's
Nazis and the so-called Jewish state that treats Palestinians as untermensch.
This write-up is an uncanny coincidence for me as I just watched the four part movie The
Lobby (UK) yesterday. As I watched the maneuvers of the israeli's lobby groups and their
wilful political accomplices, I kept smiling seeing how much they are putting into an
unwinnable war. They seem not to learn from history. Michelle Alexander would be vilified and
demonized but I think she will live in peace with herself. The Apartheid-Israel is indeed a
horrendous shame.
I falsely said earlier that every Congress-person is on the payroll but only 269 (62%) of
the 435 voting House delegates received pro-Israel money, an average of $23,220 each. . .
here
No, please no Max Boot anymore. This neocon clown should switch to painting houses as Tucker
Carlson suggested, not write "national security" commentary in Bezos blog (is this CIA blog or
Besos? ;-)
I am with tucker Carlson: painting Houses is probably the most quality job Max book can
perform with acceptable quality. The only danger is that he might steal some paint :-)
Why so many "national security" commentators are in reality national security parasites? Why
national security attracts bottomfeeders? This is an interesting question to
ponder.As Samuel Johnson observed in 1775 "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Nothing changes since that time
January 15,
2019PaulR113
Comments The Washington Post has been banging the 'Trump is a Russian agent' drum
incessantly, and was at it again this week, with an
article by that well-known bastion of common sense and accurate analysis, Max Boot,
entitled 'Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian agent'. Boot's article doesn't actually
provide any evidence concretely linking Trump with the Russian intelligence agencies, but
that's pretty much par for the course. Boot ends with the words:
Now that we've listed 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian assets, let's look at the
exculpatory evidence:
[This page intentionally left blank]
I can't think of anything that would exonerate Trump aside from the difficulty of grapsing
what once would have seemed unimaginable: that a president of the United States could
actually have been compromised by a hostile foreign power. If Trump isn't actually a Russian
agent, he is doing a pretty good imitation of one.
So what does a 'pretty good imitation' of a Russian agent look like in real life? To answer
that we have to find examples of the Trump adminstration's policies towards Russia, and
fortunately the international press has just provided us with a good example. The German paper
Bild am Sonntag
reported on Sunday that the American ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, sent letters
to companies participating in the North Stream 2 gas pipeline project in which he told them
that, 'We emphasize that companies involved in Russian energy exports are taking part in
something that could prompt a significant risk of sanctions.' A spokesman for Grenell
subsequently clarified the Ambassador's letter by saying that it was not a threat, just a
'clear message of US policy', though I have to say that the distinction is lost on me.
Grenell's letter didn't come out of the blue. The United States has long been doing all it can
to sabotage North Stream 2. And Trump himself is fully signed up to the policy. At a meeting
with the presidents of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia last year, the US president declared his
opposition to North Stream 2, declaring
:
Germany hooks up a pipeline into Russia, where Germany is going to be paying billions of
dollars for energy into Russia. And I'm saying, 'What's going on with that? How come Germany
is paying vast amounts of money to Russia when they hook up a pipeline?' That's not
right.
This is indeed a 'pretty good imitation' of a Russian agent. There's no doubt about it
– Trump is working for the Russians. Why else would he doing his damnedest to destroy one
of the Russian Federation's most valuable international trade projects? Does that make sense to
you? It doesn't to me. If Donald Trump is indeed a Russian agent, I have to conclude that he's
got to be the worst secret agent ever.
"... In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora ..."
"... The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, but they moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White House. They became adept at selling their mantra of "strong national defense" to whomever was buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his administration's "weakness." ..."
"... When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton's Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz , a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran. ..."
"... One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is "Republicans for the Rule of Law," founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together (DDT), a 501(c)4 lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not "stand[ing] up to [Vladimir] Putin" and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the 2016 election . ..."
"... Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causes in the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone. ..."
"... Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding the launch of the launch of a new webzine The Bulwark , which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting itself as the center of the "Never Trump Resistance" and it is being assumed that at least some of the Omidyar money is behind it . ..."
"... That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar's money while Pierre is quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of America. ..."
The Roman poet Ovid's masterful epic The Metamorphoses includes the memorable opening line
regarding the poem's central theme of transformation. He wrote In nova fert animus mutatas
dicere formas corpora , which has been translated as "Of shapes transformed to bodies
strange, I purpose to entreat "
Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were
around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has
defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York
in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and
developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the
Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a
vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they
were reportedly "mugged by reality" into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not
working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon
to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began
to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their
objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and
unconditional support for Israel.
The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, but they
moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill
Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the
Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White
House. They became adept at selling their mantra of "strong national defense" to whomever was
buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his
administration's "weakness."
The neoconservatives lined up behind Hillary Clinton in 2016, appalled by Donald Trump's
condemnation of their centerpiece war in Iraq and even more so by his pledge to end the wars in
Asia and nation-building projects while also improving relations with the Russians. They worked
actively against the Republican candidate both before he was nominated and elected and did
everything they could to stop him, including libeling him as a Russian agent.
When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but
chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well
as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all
odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as
National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton's Chief of Staff is
Fred
Fleitz , a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump
added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for
countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with
Iran.
Meanwhile, the neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started
out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign
policy viewpoint. Glenn Greenwald
reports that , based on polling of party supporters, the Democrats have gone full-Hillary
and are now by far more hawkish than the Republicans, unwilling to leave either Syria or
Afghanistan.
The neocon survival and rejuvenation is particularly astonishing in that they have been
wrong about virtually everything, most notably the catastrophic Iraq War. They have never been
held accountable for anything, though one should note that accountability is not a prominent
American trait, at least since Vietnam. What is important is that neocon views have been
perceived by the media and punditry as being part of the Establishment consensus, which
provides them with access to programming all across the political spectrum. That is why neocon
standard-bearers like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have been able to move effortlessly from Fox
News to MSNBC where they are fêted by the likes of Rachel Maddow. They applauded the Iraq
War when the Establishment was firmly behind it and are now trying to destroy Donald Trump's
presidency because America's elite is behind that effort.
Indeed, the largely successful swing by the neocons from right to left has in some ways
become more surreal, as an increasing number of progressive spokesmen and institutions have
lined up behind their perpetual warfare banner. The ease with which the transformation took
place reveals, interestingly, that the neocons have no real political constituency apart from
voters who feel threatened and respond by supporting perpetual war, but they do share many
common interests with the so-called liberal interventionists. Neocons see a global crisis for
the United States defined in terms of power while the liberals see the struggle as a moral
imperative, but the end result is the same: intervention by the United States. This fusion is
clearly visible in Washington, where the Clintons' Center for American Progress (CAP) is now
working on position
papers with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is "Republicans for the Rule of
Law," founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together (DDT), a 501(c)4
lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against
Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not "stand[ing] up
to [Vladimir] Putin" and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the
2016 election .
DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists
have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of
eBay who has provided
DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice ,
also a 501(c)4.
Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive
organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder
of liberal causes in the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg
and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.
Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding
the launch of
the launch of a new webzine The
Bulwark , which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the
recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting
itself as the center of the "Never Trump Resistance" and it is being assumed that at least
some of the Omidyar money is behind it
.
Iranian-born Omidyar's relationship with Kristol is clearly based on the hatred that the two
share regarding Donald Trump.
Omidyar has
stated that Trump is a "dangerous authoritarian demagogue endorsing Donald Trump
immediately disqualifies you from any position of public trust."
He has tweeted that Trump suffers from "failing mental capacity" and is both "corrupt and
incapacitated."
Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big
government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine
conservatives.
But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also
reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual
conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is
based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign
enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel. Kristol hates Trump because he
threatens the war agenda while Omidyar despises the president for traditional progressive
reasons.
That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no
character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar's money while Pierre is
quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of
America.
There was one man who completely delegitimized state of Israel and who, under political
pressure from Polish Government conducting political purge of Jews, Polish workers party
members, was fired from his job as director of hospital and pushed to leave country for
Israel and to denounce Polish Citizenship.
He, a Jew, in 1969 refused to immigrate to Israel because as he described it, Israel was
apartheid country run by Jewish Nazi collaborators and American Zionists.
This man was Marek Edelman, one of leaders of Warsaw Ghetto uprising in April 1943.
No need for further delegitimization of state of Israel.
iv> Two newly-elected Democrats in the House, Rhashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar also
represent a sea change with regards to open, vociferous criticism of Israel. Omar was just
appointed to the Foreign Affairs Committee--that should be interesting. Tlaib was appointed to
the powerful Oversight Committee. Let's see if she can help rid the White House of the Zionist
Manchurian Candidate.
Your pal, your buddy that you like to defend so much around here, Trump, appointed
Kenneth Marcus, a rabid BDS watchdog to the civil rights office of the Education Department as
a check and slayer of the growing BDS movement in Academia.
Maybe she's being tarred and feathered because she called the new high priest of Zionism,
Trump... Gee I wish I said it first!
Even the leader of the Women's March is getting painted with the Scarlett letters AS
(anti-Semite). Obviously, because, like Black Lives Matter, they are two powerful activist
movements sympathetic to Palestinian rights.
Okay, so if you bothered to peruse these articles you'll hopefully understand why I bring
up Zionism often in these threads as a force for evil on many fronts in this world.
The powerful wider Lobby didn't waste a minute in destroying Occupy Wall Street, and now
they're going after every movement that aligns itself with Palestinian rights and trying to
destroy the fledgling careers of two powerful pro-Palestinian female voices in Congress. A pox
on Zionism for the evil it does! ">link
Two newly-elected Democrats in the House, Rhashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar also represent a
sea change with regards to open, vociferous criticism of Israel. Omar was just appointed to
the Foreign Affairs Committee--that should be interesting. Tlaib was appointed to the
powerful Oversight Committee. Let's see if she can help rid the White House of the Zionist
Manchurian Candidate.
Your pal, your buddy that you like to defend so much around here, Trump, appointed
Kenneth Marcus, a rabid BDS watchdog to the civil rights office of the Education Department
as a check and slayer of the growing BDS movement in Academia.
Maybe she's being tarred and feathered because she called the new high priest of
Zionism, Trump... Gee I wish I said it first!
Even the leader of the Women's March is getting painted with the Scarlett letters AS
(anti-Semite). Obviously, because, like Black Lives Matter, they are two powerful activist
movements sympathetic to Palestinian rights.
Okay, so if you bothered to peruse these articles you'll hopefully understand why I
bring up Zionism often in these threads as a force for evil on many fronts in this
world.
The powerful wider Lobby didn't waste a minute in destroying Occupy Wall Street, and
now they're going after every movement that aligns itself with Palestinian rights and trying
to destroy the fledgling careers of two powerful pro-Palestinian female voices in Congress. A
pox on Zionism for the evil it does! ">link
So neoconservatives return to the Democratic Party in which they were hatched. When the party
became the second War Partty in Washington. nice...
Notable quotes:
"... Boot's dream was to become the next Buckley or George Will. At his bar mitzvah ceremony, he ignored the usual Torah theme to deliver an impassioned defense of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1983. According to Boot, his remarks "displayed my precocity, my attachment to Israel, a country I had not yet visited -- and my questionable judgment, since the invasion would turn out to be a fiasco that would embroil Israel in a Vietnam-like quagmire." ..."
"... his true aspiration was to become an editor for the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, which under the direction of the brilliantly talented polemicist Robert L. Bartley had become an ideological battering ram on behalf of supply-side economics and a hawkish foreign policy. ..."
"... Boot subordinated any reservations he may have felt in order to promote the Reaganite principles of free trade and a crusading foreign policy. ..."
"... The Corrosion of Conservatism ..."
"... A Choice Not an Echo ..."
"... In his view, "[t]he rise of Palin and now Trump indicates that the GOP really truly has become the stupid party. Its primary vibe has become one of indiscriminate, unthinking, all-consuming anger." Boot himself warned against the rise of a meretricious populism in a 1994 Wall Street Journal ..."
The NeverTrumpers may have failed to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president, but he
has been a godsend for their public reputations. Instead of remaining in the wilderness, the
neoconservatives who make up the bulk of the NeverTrump movement have fitfully begun to move
back toward, or at least flirt with, the Democratic Party, which is where the original neocon
journey began. Among some of their longtime detractors, it's creating a vertiginous sensation.
James Wolcott, for example, recently observed in Vanity Fair , "One of the chewier
ironies of the Trump interregnum is finding that I'm following former foes on Twitter and
elsewhere that I once mocked, reviled, and cast into outer darkness during the Bush presidency,
especially after the invasion of Iraq."
The Corrosion of Conservatism: Why I Left The Right by Max Boot
Now that the neocons have, in a manner of speaking, been born again, they are once more
crusading for regime change against an authoritarian foe, only this time on the home front.
Trump, not Saddam Hussein, is the main object of their ire, and they are earning quite a
hearing in mainstream liberal outlets. Eliot A. Cohen and David Frum regularly appear in the
Atlantic . Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss have decamped from the Wall Street
Journal to the New York Times . William Kristol and Jennifer Rubin are regulars on
MSNBC.
And then there is Max Boot, a columnist for the Washington Post and senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations. Unlike Kristol or Stephens, Boot's breach with the Republican
Party is complete. He does not believe that the party can be redeemed, and he isn't sure that
he should call himself a conservative anymore. The day after the 2016 election, after a
lifetime of backing the GOP, he re-registered as an independent. In August, he posted on
Twitter a screenshot of a fundraising pitch that read, "Hey, this is Newt Gingrich. President
Trump needs your help to elect more Republicans in 2018. Will you make a 4X matched donation
today?," with this accompanying text: "Hey, this is Max Boot. Hell no." His sallies have earned
him brickbats from the right; the pro-Trump website American Greatness has branded him a
"soulless, craven opportunist."
Boot's defection from conservative orthodoxy carries a particular sting because he was once
the most explicit exponent of American greatness. After 9/11, he endorsed American imperialism
in a Weekly Standard cover story. The benighted countries of the Middle East, he
announced, "cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by
self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets." His name became a synonym for neocon
warmonger, and he went on to advise the George W. Bush administration and presidential
aspirants such as Senator Marco Rubio.
In the past two years, however, Boot has not merely parted with the conservative stances
that he previously espoused, but has been actively assailing them, whether the issue is race,
gun control, or the Iraq War. Indeed, as a columnist for the Washington Post , Boot has
relentlessly attacked Trump and his enablers. "If there has been an outcry against Trump's
virulent racism from the right, I must have missed it," he wrote in August. "The only
conservatives who are willing to regularly call out Trump's bigotry are those of us who are
#NeverTrumpers -- and, as I constantly hear online, we aren't 'real' conservatives because we
do not worship at the orange altar."
Now, in The Corrosion of Conservatism , Boot charts his ideological odyssey. He
deftly recounts his early attraction to the conservative cause and his revulsion at its embrace
of Trump. For Boot, who immigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union as a child, the
2016 election felt like back to the future. As Trump sailed toward the Republican nomination,
Boot's Twitter account and email began to fill up with anti-Semitic, pro-Trump messages. He
became increasingly alienated from the conservatives who ended up trying to curry favor with
Trump, ranging from Rubio to Paul Ryan. He had naively expected them to repudiate Trump's
authoritarianism. When they didn't, he felt betrayed.
For Boot, it was personal. Joining the conservative movement had been part of coming to
America. It gave a young immigrant from Moscow a sense of identity and mission. In contrast to
Kristol, who has already begun plotting to stymie Trump in the 2020 primaries, or Frum, who has
sought to chart the ideological course of the GOP in books like Dead Right , Boot was
never a Republican operative. He isn't trying to rescue the GOP to restore the old order.
Instead, he is a historian who has always relished being an intellectual dissident. His basic
temperament hasn't changed at all, which is why he may be the ultimate neocon.
The value of Boot's book does not rest in any original political analysis. Instead, he
explains what it was like to immerse himself in what amounted to a conservative madrassa. In
describing his self-conversion from zealot to apostate, he emerges as the Candide of the
right.
Now it's the Republican Party, not the left, that is in his sights. He understands that he
missed the real danger to freedom that was right in front of his nose: a party that flirted
with white nationalism, cozied up to Russian autocracy, and toppled into obsessive conspiracy
mongering. And he is haunted by a question: "Did I somehow contribute to the rise of this dark
force in American life with my advocacy for conservatism?"
Unlike previous accounts of breaking with the right, such as Garry Wills's Confessions of
a Conservative , the value of Boot's book does not rest in any original political analysis.
Instead, he explains what it was like to immerse himself in what amounted to a conservative
madrassa. In describing his self-conversion from zealot to apostate, he emerges as the Candide
of the right, offering fascinating insights into the psychology of a true believer. His fervor
for explaining why the right is wrong brings to mind Arthur Koestler's remark in The God
That Failed : "When all is said, we ex-communists are the only people on your side who know
what it's all about."
B oot, who was born in 1969 in Moscow, had firsthand experience with communism and was
deeply shaped by the persecution of Soviet Jews. His parents divorced when he was two, but both
later immigrated to America. Boot's father, Alexander, was a dissident who distributed
samizdat and managed to get out in 1973. His mother emigrated with Max in 1976 and then
taught Russian in California.
Boot makes it clear that his enthusiasm for his father -- a self-described monarchist who
now lives in England and devotes his time to denouncing atheism and the welfare state -- is
quite constrained. But Alexander's gift of a National Review subscription to Max when he
was thirteen left a lasting imprint. The younger Boot absorbed the worldview of its writers,
ranging from the reactionary Austrian aristocrat Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn to William F.
Buckley Jr. himself. Boot also read up on the standard conservative texts: Whittaker Chambers's
Witness , F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom , and Russell Kirk's The
Conservative Mind . Ronald Reagan, who inveighed against the "evil empire" that Max and his
parents had fled, was Boot's contemporary hero. The liberals who preached détente with
the Soviet Union, or even accommodation, were the new appeasers.
Boot's dream was to become the next Buckley or George Will. At his bar mitzvah ceremony,
he ignored the usual Torah theme to deliver an impassioned defense of Israel's invasion of
Lebanon in 1983. According to Boot, his remarks "displayed my precocity, my attachment to
Israel, a country I had not yet visited -- and my questionable judgment, since the invasion
would turn out to be a fiasco that would embroil Israel in a Vietnam-like quagmire."
As an undergraduate at the University of California, Berkeley, Boot played the part of
adversary, battling against the campus left. Upon graduation, he went to work at the
Christian Science Monitor . But his true aspiration was to become an editor for the
Wall Street Journal op-ed page, which under the direction of the brilliantly talented
polemicist Robert L. Bartley had become an ideological battering ram on behalf of supply-side
economics and a hawkish foreign policy.
Boot says that in 1994 he received a call that Bartley wanted to meet with him. He reckoned
that Bartley would want to talk about his political philosophy. Instead, Bartley mentioned that
he had two positions open, one for an editorial writer on economic issues, another as an
assistant op-ed writer. Boot explained that he knew nothing about economics. This pleased
Bartley. "I later learned," Boot writes, "that he liked to take writers who did not know much
about the subject and train them in his way of thinking."
In the end, Boot took the latter position, and quickly plunged into the social whirl of the
cloistered New York conservative world. He attended dinners at the Manhattan Institute and went
to the monthly "Monday Meeting," where conservative activists promoted everything from the gold
standard to Central Park's horse-drawn carriages. He says he became a "made man" in 2007 when
he won the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism, which was established by
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and is bestowed annually on a writer who exhibits a "love of
country and its democratic institutions" and "bears witness to the evils of
totalitarianism."
B ut Boot had contrarian instincts from the outset at the Journal . He once invited
a Princeton professor named Paul Krugman to write an op-ed critical of supply-side economics,
which almost prompted Bartley to fire him. Needless to say, it never ran. "This was an early
indication," Boot writes, "that groupthink could be just as tenacious on the right as on the
left." Boot also confesses that he found it difficult to decipher the baroque conspiracy
theories that Bartley and his acolytes concocted about Bill and Hillary Clinton involving
Whitewater, the airport in Mena, Arkansas, and the death of Vince Foster. "I thought he was a
deeply flawed man," Boot says of Clinton, "but I appreciated the achievements of his
presidency." But Boot subordinated any reservations he may have felt in order to promote
the Reaganite principles of free trade and a crusading foreign policy.
One of the more unusual aspects of The Corrosion of Conservatism is Boot's
acknowledgment that Trump did not emerge from out of nowhere. "There is no doubt that there has
always been a dark underside to conservatism, and one that I chose for most of my life to
ignore," he writes. For all the political right's hosannas for Buckley, he established the
revanchist conservatism that views compromise, either at home or abroad, as tantamount to
treason. It's important to remember that Buckley began his career by supporting the iniquitous
Joseph McCarthy -- a sentiment he never repudiated -- and that he viewed Dwight Eisenhower as a
dangerous establishment Republican who refused to liberate eastern Europe militarily and failed
to roll back the New Deal. Nor was this all. Buckley also opposed the civil rights movement and
for decades supported the apartheid regime in South Africa. Even as they decried the Soviet
Union and China for human rights violations, Buckley and other conservatives were remorseless
apologists for one of the most odious regimes in the world.
After McCarthy's demise, the GOP remained addicted to conspiracy mongering. Boot usefully
reminds us that Phyllis Schlafly's 1964 best-selling tract A Choice Not an Echo
suggested that hidden kingmakers were preventing Republican presidential candidates from
winning. "It wasn't any accident," she claimed. "It was planned that way" by New York
financiers who supported "a continuation of the Roosevelt–Harry Dexter
White–Averell Harriman–Dean Acheson–Dean Rusk policy of aiding and abetting
Red Russia and her satellites." The failure to distinguish between White, who was a Soviet
agent, and Acheson, who was not, wasn't any accident, either. The message was that egghead
liberals, whatever they might say about battling communism, were, at bottom, traitors.
One
of the more unusual aspects of The Corrosion of Conservatism is Boot's acknowledgment that
Trump did not emerge from out of nowhere. "There is no doubt that there has always been a dark
underside to conservatism, and one that I chose for most of my life to ignore," he writes.
The populist style often played a key role in helping Republican candidates win elections.
But Boot distinguishes between a populist pose and actual populism. For him, the breaking point
began with Sarah Palin and ended with Trump. In his view, "[t]he rise of Palin and now
Trump indicates that the GOP really truly has become the stupid party. Its primary vibe has
become one of indiscriminate, unthinking, all-consuming anger." Boot himself warned against the
rise of a meretricious populism in a 1994 Wall Street Journal column in which he
maintained that the GOP should not " 'Rush' to embrace talk show democracy." He now
denounces Fox News and figures like Dinesh D'Souza and Ann Coulter for peddling conspiracy
theories on Trump's behalf.
Perhaps the most notable part of Boot's book is his willingness to face up to the fiasco
that was the Iraq War. He notes that for years he felt defensive about his support for it and
was too stubborn to cede any ground to his critics. "It is not nearly as easy to remake a
foreign land by force as I had naively imagined in 2003," he writes. And he recognizes that the
catastrophic policies he espoused helped create the terrain for Trump to rumble to victory. In
listening to Trump's national security advisor, John Bolton, Boot says that he recognizes "my
callow, earlier self. Bolton, a conservative firebrand since his days as a student at Yale
University in the early 1970s, is whom I used to be."
Boot thus differs from the many other NeverTrumpers who often fail to recognize that
belligerent policies have led to disaster at home as well as abroad. He issues a scorching
indictment of the GOP: "I am now convinced that the Republican Party must suffer repeated and
devastating defeats. It must pay a heavy price for its embrace of white nationalism and
know-nothingism. Only if the GOP as currently constituted is burned to the ground will there be
any chance to build a reasonable center-right political party out of the ashes." Indeed, he
concludes, "having escaped the corrosion of conservatism, I am a political Ronin, and will
swear allegiance to no master in the future. I will fight for my principles wherever they may
lead me."
There's a whiff of grandiosity in this declaration. Like Whittaker Chambers, who pioneered
the breaking-ranks genre in Witness , Boot takes an apocalyptic view of politics. But
his readiness to reexamine his old convictions is admirable. If it ends up prompting him to
sign up as a Democrat, then his neocon journey will have come full circle.
"... Max Boot saw the light when it was too late. As an advocate for America's reckless wars after 9/11, he bears moral responsibility for the degrading of conservatism into a hate-filled cult. ..."
"... Boot, and others like him, need to spend a few more years in purgatory for the mess that he put us in. ..."
I wanted to like this book and Max Boot but couldn't. I'm an 'old white
guy' who grew up in an Eisenhower Republican family but switched allegiance to the Democrats
during the civil rights battles in the 60s. I was hoping to read about someone who went through
a similar transformation but Max's journey falls short.
The book is part autobiographical: Max was born in Russia into a Jewish family in 1969. His
family was allowed to leave the USSR and immigrate to the US in 1976 after pressure was placed
on the Communist government by the United States. Max states that the Boots survived here in
part on payments from Social Security for which Max says "Thank you, America" but ignores that
this support was from a program that was developed by liberals and that has been regularly
attacked by conservative Republicans. His mother was employed by the University of California, a state university, and Max received
his undergraduate education at UC Berkeley. While he notes that it "cost next to nothing" at
the time, he doesn't point out that his tuition was low thanks to subsidies that were paid by
the taxes of the citizens of the State of California. The UC system is also a product of
progressive thinking and is partly responsible for the economic growth in California. It's paid
for itself many times over by developing a highly educated work force that supports the many
high paying, high skilled jobs in the state.
Max began his conversion to right wing politics at age 13 when he received a subscription to
the New Republic magazine. I suppose you can't expect much critical thinking from an
adolescent, but you would think that it would have taken less than 36 years to realize that
conservative Republican values and policies weren't conducive to helping people who have needs
similar to those of his family. Especially since Max seems certain that he is among the most
intelligent people to walk among us.
He states that he now sees that the messages of conservative Republicans were often "coded
racial appeals – those dog whistles" and that liberals have recognized this for decades.
He just didn't believe the liberals or bother to honestly evaluate their warnings. Max can't refrain from making the ad hominem attacks so prevalent among right wing pundits.
Most of these are directed at Donald Trump, whom he describes as a "liar, an ignoramus, and a
moral abomination". He also includes a chapter about the "Trump Toadies".
Max "loved the attention and notoriety" his conservative views generated in his youth. He
now recognizes that he has been a part of a movement that has been "morally and intellectually
bankrupt".
He also states that he no longer receives any pay from any conservative organization. Is
this the reason that he is looking for another group to hook up with? Or is he worried that
since he was not born in the United States his citizenship might be revoked and he might be
sent back to Russia if the anti-Semitic members of the right wing get their way?
So Max comes across as quite shallow even while showing off his extravagant vocabulary. While
he was quite willing to accept the offerings of a liberal society, he's been unwilling to
consider any responsibility to provide similar benefits to those who came after him.
The book is well written and is a quick read. Ultimately it's one man's awakening to the
awful realities of what conservative Republicanism has become. It doesn't really break any new
ground for those who have been following politics for any length of time.
In the epilogue Max lists his current beliefs and many of them are liberal. He states he is
pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-environment, pro-gun control, pro-immigration including offering a path
to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he is also in favor of free speech. He and I
might disagree on the details about how to reach some of these goals but in these areas we
would be pointing at similar directions.
But then Max attacks other progressive programs. For example, he states that single payer
medical insurance – Medicare for all – would cost too much and cause insurance
companies to go bankrupt or "find a new business model". Frankly if a company that makes its
money by increasing the cost of our health care has to "find a new business model", I believe
that would be a good thing for the health of our economy and of our people. As to the insurance
company employees, since claims would still have to be processed I suspect that the people
processing claims for the insurance companies would be able to make the switch to work for a
government agency processing claims easily, so they should be ok.
I hope that Max's rejection of conservative Republicanism is actually a genuine realization
that ALL people are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" including getting
affordable medical care. If that's the case, I would be happy to welcome him to join those of
us who vote for politicians who truly represent these values.
But I am not convinced by this book that he has truly escaped the "corrosion of
conservatism". Let's see if time will prove me wrong.
skeptic
Thank you for your review. Much appreciated...
I would add that it is important to understand that Max Boot is not an intellectual, he is essentially a well-paid MIC
lobbyist who pretends to be an intellectual. He does not have convictions per se, only the burning desire to belong to the
winning and/or better paid party.
The fact that he realized from which side the bread is buttered at early age just confirms what he always valued money
more then ideas.
The politics of the cold war created many political anomalies in the United States. One of
the biggest was the migration of the cold war hawks after 1968 from the Democratic Party to
the Republican Party. For many of them, it was less about a broad vision of politics than
narrow concerns over Vietnam and the Soviet Union. The alliance functioned up until the end
of the cold war and the establishment of republican control in the Senate and House. Then it
broke down completely during the Presidential Term of George W. Bush.
After a decade out of power and as a hanger-on in three failed presidential campaigns, Max
Boot has written this book which is sort of a combination of angry farewell letter and maoist
self-criticism covering his entire political career to 2016 or so.
The problems start at the beginning of the book. He defines "conservative" to mean to him
"incremental policy making based on empirical study". His conservative beliefs, in contrast
to what he considers "European" beliefs, rejects the nation-state and the idea of an American
identity. The only limit to the "social safety net" in his mind is when that safety net
begins to impact "individual initiative". He makes a special point of saying that what has
united the country since the beginning is not belief in a nation, but rather belief in ideas
or "self evident truths".
The problem with all that is that his ideas of conservatism are in fact liberalism.
Incremental government policy to incrementally perfect society is not a remotely conservative
concept. Further, when you conclude as he does that American Soil has no meaning and American
Blood shed has no value, you have to really wonder about how exactly he justifies his belief
in foreign wars. Are Americans who have served in the military just suckers? or slaves in
Pharaoh's army? Where is patriotism in his vision of what "conservative" means? Did people in
wars die for "self evident truths" rather than the flag?
He drifts further into liberal thought with his idea that there is more to the
constitution than what is in the constitution. Rather than just the text and intent, Boot
finds unwritten "norms" hidden within the constitution which he holds American Citizens
should respect equally with the constitution. This is not a new idea. Its the old idea of the
"living" constitution which only elite oracles can present to us its true hidden meaning.
Then, like many people, he claims that his ideas are those of Barry Goldwater in 1960. But
they are absolutely not. The ideas that Max Boot stands for are the ideas of Lyndon Johnson.
The ideas of using the power of government for social engineering. The idea of fighting
crusades for ideas overseas in places like Vietnam. A general rejection of any sort of
morality or patriotism in politics. Worst of all, the tendency to see the United States of
America as an intellectual crusade for justice in the world rather than as a country.
A large portion of the book is given over to complaints about Trump. But the problem is
that Max Boot's ideas and his idea of what a conservative is go far beyond just being for or
against Trump. In a very real sense, he represents the discredited politics of George W. Bush
who have no support among any party and only tend to have followers in places like the pages
of "The Atlantic". The question isn't really what happened to the republican party, but more
how someone with the outright liberal political worldview of someone like Max Boot ever
thought that those ideas are what conservative meant. He tries to attach himself to men of
the past like Eisenhower, Goldwater and Reagan. But he fails to realize that he would not fit
in with the politics of any of those man. Perhaps he would have best fit with the old
Rockefeller Republicans but to me even that is far from certain.
Max Boot has in the past been critical of Ronald Reagan's decision not to fight a war in
Lebanon in the 1980s associating it with American "weakness" that led to 9/11. He blamed
Eisenhower's decision not to support the British/French invasion of Egypt in 1956 as starting
a "pattern of weakness" in America's dealing with the middle east which was not corrected
until the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Its equally doubtful that Max Boot would have supported the
ideas of Barry Goldwater over those of Lyndon Johnson.
The bulk of the book him talking about his favorite topic: himself. He proves once again
that he isn't any sort of intellectual or man of ideas. He complains about trump. He
complains about various republicans who he clearly expected to follow him out of the
republican party but did not.
There are some incredible claims in the book such as claiming that the welfare state is
what ensures the success of free market. He just loves Black Lives Matter and suddenly after
a long career, race is suddenly something he cars about while the police are now the bad
guys. He also discovered after the election of Trump that sexism is a problem in America. He
can't really explain why he didn't care about these issues for decades before Trump and now
cares about deeply after Trump. I don't think he really cares about much of anything other
than boots on the ground in the middle east or preparing for war with China.
He ends the book with a conclusion titled "the vital center". The title is of course a
shout-out to old school liberal (and kennedy henchmen) Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.. In it, he
tells us that he is "socially liberal", He believes in fiscal responsibility but not if it
involves cutting the welfare state & along those lines supports "Simpson Bowles" which
called for fixing the deficit with higher taxes and a "public option" for health insurance.
He supports the welfare state because to him its the basis for the free market. He supports
gun control. He wants more immigration to deal with our "labor shortage". He sees China and
Russia as defense threats along with a list of other countries.
He concludes with a "moderate" (ironic of course) call for everyone to vote every single
republican out of office until Trump is out of office or removed as president. And while he
makes it (finally) clear at the end that he just loved Hillary Clinton and her brand of
politics, he could never become a democrat because of the threat of bernie sanders. His
vision is a party of what he calls "centerists" which would seemingly favor a policy of
expanding the welfare state while fighting wars overseas to save the world. But Max Boot's
politics don't represent the center of anything. Whatever the bad of Trump, Max Boot
represents something just as bad or worse.
Corrosion is a slow process but early in the 1960's the GOP sucked almost all of the racists
out of the Democratic Party right into the Republican Party just to elect Richard Nixon with
the GOP "Southern Strategy." Men like the followers of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms in the
rural south rushed to vote for the "Sanitary Republican Party."
Sanitary was old Jim Crow
code for "whites only." If any business identified itself with "sanitary" in its name, that
was a warning for "whites only."
Strom Thurmond had earlier literally executed the longest
filibuster in Congressional history to oppose a vote on a civil rights legislation promoted
by Democrats.
Then Ronald Reagan and the George Bush used Lee Atwater and Richard Quinn (a
South Carolina leader of the neo-Confederacy movement) to craft overt racist strategies,
narratives, and TV advertisements. The Southern Partisan was a publication aimed at
legitimating racism and opposition to civil rights for blacks. This block of GOP consultants
used the Southern Partisan publication to create a core database of neo-Confederacy racists
which was so reliably Republican that both John McCain and George W. Bush used Richard
Quinn's backing in their election efforts.
Around 1981 Clemson University founded the "Strom
Thurmond Institute" to co-opt this public university to historically immortalize the papers
and sentiments of Strom Thurmond in a revisionist manner.
Another product of Richard Quinn
was young Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who grew up working in his parent's business in
Central South Carolina, the "Sanitary Cafe," a bar, grill, and pool hall establishment.
Lindsey Graham was mentored into South Carolina politics by Richard Quinn who supplied Graham
with a heroic hard knocks narrative which never mentioned the neo-Confederacy roots of both
men. Now if you review the Congressional Record you see Lindsey Graham's voting record
follows a Republican Southern Strategy which Nixon, Reagan, George Bush, Strom Thurmond, and
Jesse Helms would have been proud of. These racist political narratives can be mapped to
every Republican strategist and their GOP candidate product. Max Boot ignores this historical
behavior infused into the Republican Party since before 1963.
Donald Trump is only different
in that he has Tweeted these sentiments ad nauseam and publicly voiced them expressly in his
political appearances and news conferences. If you are honest, the "N" word has been
"whispered" (Jim DeMint) as an "IN" word in secret congregations of Republicans for decades.
Lindsey Graham has created a consistent attempt at humor where he frequently quips "white
man" jokes while supporting voter suppression and gerrymandering by his party.
Max Boot is
correct that this racism has moved from the backrooms under the cover of Donald Trump, but,
to deny that this these sentiments have not been part of the Republican infrastructure for
decades is rude hypocrisy. As you read this book, to load this burden on Donald Trump alone
is to deny history and the public record. Donald Trump merely harnessed this latent DNA of
the Republican party while masterfully marketing himself as a new Republican unbound by swamp
politics (a political breed which does not exist in the Republican Party.) Look at Ben Sasse,
he writes as a centrist yet votes as a Trump man. Look at Lindsey Graham's descriptions of
Trump in 2016 and now listen to his praise of Trump today. Yet, Max Boot sees this as a
recent development in the Republican Party when it has been part of the GOP DNA which has
produced a racist voting record as each generation of Republicans is sworn in.
Max Boot saw the light when it was too late. As an advocate for America's reckless wars after
9/11, he bears moral responsibility for the degrading of conservatism into a hate-filled
cult.
A month after 9/11, he called for the invasion of Iraq. Did he not think that almost
two decades of continuous war fighting would not radicalize the American populace? He's
making amends by writing a book, for which he probably received a hefty advance and will make
money off of from royalties. Should donate the proceeds to charity.
Max Boot is another smug, arrogant, self righteous, Gramscian, ruling class communist, that's
trying convince the "Base" that he knows what's best for them; all while devowing the little
bit of wealth they might have left to live on. Why?
Because the "Base" are the slaves of the
"Superstructure" ruling class. Remember, as Stalin put it, "the middle class is the enemy" to
the socialist. America is on slow-drip to Totalitarianism. And Max Boot is just one more in
the camp on the transition.
"Hi, I'm a bonafide conservative and here are
the ways Trump has embarrassed The Cause as defined by Ronald Reagan. Since I refuse to kiss
Trump's ring, I still gotta eat so I'm going to grandly announce that I have left the
Republican Party in the form of this book and hope you will give me a check to cash. Thank
you."
I know that's a harsh assessment of a book that I agree with 98% of what's written, Mr.
Boot offers no insight. Not once did I think, "Ah, good point. I didn't think of that."
It's
simply a rehashing of Mr. Trump's ridiculous gaffs (hell, I could have done that, there are sooo many to choose from) and at the very end a very lame path out of this quagmire (spoiler
alert: we just need someone else as charismatic as Trump that's not [insert negative
adjectives here] because the Republicans have proven they will follow ANYBODY over a
cliff).
I finished this book (though skipped many chapters because it was simply rehashing Trump's
train wrecks) and said, "That's all you got? [sigh of resignation]"
I never searched this book on Amazon, however, I did write a tweet about Max Boot, so I guess
Twitter shares with Amazon. To the review, however -- this is written by a person who writes
that Trump has failed us by leaving troops in war, and just 6 months later, writes an article
that totally contradicts the earlier statement, stating that Trump can never do anything
right because he is pulling troops out of war. Which is it? I would not line a birdcage with
this garbage.
Trump is just a symptom; an easy scapegoat because he's a twit. Boot helped create and
perpetuate the monster that the GOP became. Boot, and others like him, need to spend a few
more years in purgatory for the mess that he put us in.
Unfortunately the author is venting his personal dislike of the current administration
without addressing the previous administrations attempt to divide the country by any means
possibly and subsequently putting the American people into a politically charged environment
that the author is trying to capitalize on.
"... As Stephen Wertheim argues in The New York Review of Books , the neoconservatives are ascendant in Trump's America, reasserting themselves within GOP and, more troublingly, renewing their ties to the Democratic Party. Together they constitute the "neo-neoconservatives" or "post-neoconservatives," as he's dubbed them. ..."
"... "For Bolton and company, Donald Trump turned out to be a deliverance," he observes. "Trump elevated 'globalism' from a marginal slur to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics." ..."
"... Ultimately, this embrace extends beyond pundits like Boot offering foreign policy advice to the party's leadership. Even purportedly liberal think tanks like the Center for American Progress are partnering with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. The question is why, decades removed from Sen. Henry Martin "Scoop" Jackson and the fall of the Berlin Wall, neoconservatives once again feel at home within the Democratic Party? Wertheim's conclusions are as credible as they are dispiriting. ..."
"... "What best explains centrist Democrats' rapprochement with neoconservatives isn't an anti-Trump strategy but rather a genuine affinity with their current political objectives and style," he writes. "Neocons have spent decades reducing politics to an all-encompassing crisis, a Manichean struggle between an imperiled liberal democracy and a pervasive totalitarian menace. Now certain liberals see things in much the same way. Lionizing the neocons indulges these Democrats' fantasy that respectable Republicans will rise up to sweep Trump and all he stands for onto the ash heap of history." ..."
In December, after a 23-year run that saw it perpetuate the Bush administration lie that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass
destruction and breathlessly champion the ensuing war in Iraq...
In December, after a 23-year run that saw it perpetuate the Bush administration lie that Saddam Hussein harbored
weapons of mass destruction and breathlessly champion the ensuing war in Iraq, The Weekly Standard
released its final
issue
. Two years removed from Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 election, one might be forgiven for concluding
the publication's demise sounded the final death knell of neoconservatism -- an ideology that has been soundly
defeated at the polls and appears to lack even a constituency, the ubiquity of
Bill Kristol
on cable news notwithstanding.
If only. As Stephen Wertheim argues in
The New York
Review of Books
, the neoconservatives are ascendant in Trump's America, reasserting themselves within GOP
and, more troublingly, renewing their ties to the Democratic Party. Together they constitute the "neo-neoconservatives"
or "post-neoconservatives," as he's dubbed them.
"Today, neoconservatives are riding high once more, in the White House, on Capitol Hill, in the most prominent
organs of opinion," Wertheim writes. "The Weekly Standard may have shuttered, but anti-Trump neocons enjoy increasing
influence in the center of the Republican and Democratic parties and in publications like The Atlantic and The
Washington Post."
In his essay, Wertheim traces the history of the movement from World War II through the Cold War and up to
9/11, which allowed Kristol and Commentary's Norman Podhoretz, among others, to forge an existential threat
in the form of "Islamofascism." Indeed, neoconservatism draws from the philosophical tradition of Leo Strauss,
who wrote in the
"The City and
Man"
that "the crisis of the West consists in the West's having become uncertain of its purpose." For the
Straussians and their intellectual descendants, military conflict offered that sense of purpose, whether the
enemy was Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Al-Qaeda.
Trump's presidency has proved a clarifying moment. "[He] has forced neoconservatives to decide, for the first
time, whether they are more against 'totalitarianism' or 'globalism,'" continues Wertheim. "If anti-totalitarians
take Trump to be perverting what they hold dear, anti-globalist neocons have found in Trump a kindred spirit
and vehicle for power. Yet, even as they are fracturing, neocons are flourishing. They have bypassed the political
wilderness and vaulted themselves to the vanguard on either side of the Trump divide."
Within Trump's cabinet, neoconservatism remains represented by national security adviser John Bolton, who
has served in every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan. Wertheim contends that while right-wing non-interventionism
is typically attributed to paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan, neoconservatives have also historically taken
aim at global institutions, if not globalism itself. Few have embodied this notion more than Bolton, who has
made a career of bashing both the United Nations and its Security Council. During the Obama administration,
Wertheim notes, he regularly sounded the alarm that "leftists like Obama were attempting to give away American
sovereignty, bit by bit, to international bodies."
"For Bolton and company, Donald Trump turned out to be a deliverance," he observes. "Trump elevated 'globalism'
from a marginal slur to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics."
Which brings us to neoconservatives' suddenly lofty perch outside of the Trump administration. For Republican
apostates like Jennifer Rubin, David Frum and Max Boot, Wertheim contends, the president has offered the "next
best thing" to a foreign dictator: "an enemy within." His personal degeneracy and unabashed corruption have
allowed them to "reclaim their preferred role as the moral truth-tellers in America."
"More surprising, perhaps, is that Democrats and outlets of the anti-Trump resistance have welcomed these
neocons into their fold," Wertheim observes. "Boot, Kristol, Rubin, and former advisers of George W. Bush and
Senator John McCain appear daily on MSNBC to excoriate Trump and Trumpism. David Frum, who coined the 'axis
of evil' as George W. Bush's speechwriter, earns resistance retweets by
warning
of 'this hour of liberal peril' in The Atlantic. In 2017, The New York Times hired Bret Stephens
from The Wall Street Journal in an
effort
to 'broaden the range of Times debate about consequential questions,' a curious rationale given that
Stephens represented just the kind of Never Trump pundit repudiated by GOP voters and did nothing to change
the op-ed page's lack of a single Trump-supporting columnist."
Ultimately, this embrace extends beyond pundits like Boot offering
foreign policy advice
to the party's leadership. Even purportedly liberal think tanks like the Center for
American Progress are
partnering
with the right-wing American Enterprise Institute. The question is why, decades removed from
Sen. Henry Martin "Scoop" Jackson and the fall of the Berlin Wall, neoconservatives once again feel at home
within the Democratic Party? Wertheim's conclusions are as credible as they are dispiriting.
"What best explains centrist Democrats' rapprochement with neoconservatives isn't an anti-Trump strategy
but rather a genuine affinity with their current political objectives and style," he writes. "Neocons have spent
decades reducing politics to an all-encompassing crisis, a Manichean struggle between an imperiled liberal democracy
and a pervasive totalitarian menace. Now certain liberals see things in much the same way. Lionizing the neocons
indulges these Democrats' fantasy that respectable Republicans will rise up to sweep Trump and all he stands
for onto the ash heap of history."
As usual, the pledge ultimately never changes, New jobs and No increase in taxes. Americans
love tag lines even though our infrastructure, poor education et al is the result of fear of
taxation. Both parties use the same tag line, we certainly get what we pay for.
Yep,
The party has circled its wagons.
They insist that the Evil Vlad stole the last election.
Therefore, no need to examine Obama's centrist/neoliberal policies and the socio-economic
conditions that fueled the rejection of Hillary.
We're doomed to repeat our errors.
The farcical DNC leadership echoes the days of Brezhnev's intransigent politburo.
I have previously written that all wars have been started by the Democrats with the single exception of the
Iraq
War under Dick Cheney
and the
Neocons
. Now after Trump has pulled out of Syria, the
Neocons
are
meeting with the Democrats to retake the White House and restore the effort to bring World War III to the Middle East.
This is by no means something I care to have to write about. But there is a very dark cloud rising and all the people
who hate Trump so much are clueless that he is actually trying to prevent these people from creating war. The hatred
they are spreading about Russia is a deliberate attempt to paint them as evil to gain support for a war.
One of the
leading
Neocons
is Bill Kristol. I have previously written that back in 1976, Bill Kristol worked for
Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan's United States Senate campaign. Later, in 1988, Kristol was the campaign manager for
black Republican Alan Keyes's unsuccessful Maryland Senatorial campaign against Paul Sarbanes. So Kristol was on both
sides of the aisle.
It was the
Neocon
Kristol wrote the
War Over Iraq
:
Saddam's Tyranny And
America's Mission
with his co-author Lawrence F. Kaplan, which was published on
February
1st, 2003,
one month and change
BEFORE
the invasion to support Cheney. Today, Kristol is
very much anti-Trump. He is a true
Neocon
and wants to see conservatives challenge Trump for the 2020
nomination. He argues that the conservatives/
Neocons
need to seize control to reestablish the economic,
national security and his brand of moral principles to take over the Republican Party. Kristol argues that Trump's
support among the rank and file will diminish over time and they are really too stupid to know what is best for the
country.
The
British Magazine, the
Economist
,
call Kristol and crew the
Never Trumpers. These
Never Trumpers, claim to be
Republicans but are really
Neocons
who have no problem watching your children die for their political
experiments. They are Trump's critics from within the Republican Party and are vocal to advocate war after Trump pulled
out of Syria. This group of critics is led by conservative pundits such as Max Boot, David Brooks, Bill Kristol, David Frum, and George Will. That may appear to be few in number, but they are only the tip of the iceberg.
If
you pick up the rug to look at the dirt hidden below, you will find also Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton. Both
are the most reliable warmongers. Thank God John McCain is dead, he would have invaded Canada if you could argue there
was one terrorist lurking somewhere enjoying the skying. Hillary, you might recall, repeatedly criticized Obama being
too soft on military options. Both have come out and condemned Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria using the
Terrorist Card as always.
Americans, in general, have been historically isolationists. The Europeans who fled to
America
were adamantly against both World War I and World War II. Roosevelt had to go to Boston and lied to the people there to
get support for sending arms to Britain. He swore no troops would
EVER
be sent to Europe. Most were
Irish there who were insulted by the idea that their boys would go back and defend the British after what they did to
Ireland. It has always been the politicians who have lied about each and every war to get involved from Johnson
admitting the Vietnamese never fired on Americans at Tokin Gulf to weapons of mass destruction.
The
Neocons
actually delude themselves thinking they can create democracies in the Middle East by
force and this will end all wars. It is kind of like Napoleon who also claimed he could end all wars by conquering
everything. This is the same nonsense behind the EU – eliminate the sovereignty of all member nations in Europe and then
one government in Brussels will end all wars.
Nevertheless, their policy to justify war is always the same – this will be the war to end all wars.
There is not a single newspaper in the US that supports the views of the US President.
Nobody defended him when he was
accused , brazenly, in-your-face, of being a Russian agent. Nobody supported him when he
called to bring the troops home from Syria. Nobody came to his aid when he mulled parting with
NATO. There are tens of millions of men and women who voted for him, but he has only his
Twitter account at his disposal.
The media
accuses Trump of paying too little attention to Israel's needs. Israel needs US troops in
Syria and in Germany, US jets in Spain and Qatar, US ships in Italy and the Gulf. Israel needs
the US to lead NATO to contain Russia. If Israel needs it, the US should provide,
says Daniel Shapiro, the ex-ambassador. Not a single American newspaper, not a single US
statesman cared to reply that President Trump had been elected by the American people to do
what is needed for them, not for Israel
"... As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a "traitor" and not on NSA for its violations. ..."
"... Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him. ..."
"... Binney blames the NSA's law-breaking on Dick "Darth" Cheney. He says NSA's violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government. ..."
Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National
Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and
spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program
revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying.
Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the
program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA
document to make his case. But what he found out was
"Congress would never hear me because then they'd lose
plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can
continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world.
Even the
members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court,
the federal judges, all of them. That's why they're so afraid. Everybody's afraid because all this data
that's about them, the central agencies -- the intelligence agencies -- they have it. And that's why Senator
Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn't attack the intelligence
community because they've got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That's because it's like J. Edgar Hoover on
super steroids. . . . it's leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world."
To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has "a
program now called 'see something, say something' about your fellow workers. That's what the Stasi did.
That's why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They're picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and
the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren't getting violent yet that we know of -- internally in the
US, outside is another story."
As Binney had no documents to give to the
media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the
documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused
blame on Snowden as a "traitor" and not on NSA for its violations.
Whistleblowers are protected by federal
law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken
no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.
Binney blames the NSA's law-breaking on
Dick "Darth" Cheney. He says NSA's violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to
have been cleared at the top of the government.
Binney describes the spy network,
explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal
spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm
Apparently, the National Security Agency
values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing
terrorist attacks.
Unfortunately for Americans, there are
many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to
enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to
enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in
their construction of the means to destroy liberty.
Now when neoliberalism as ideology is dead and neoliberalism as a social system will be soon
sent to the dustbin of history via end of cheap oil or by other means, the USA started in some
way to remind me the USSR. I would give the USA another 50 year of dominance. Then interesting
things mighjt happen.
Notable quotes:
"... He shows that although the USSR was paranoid about its own security, this 'paranoia' can be understood by looking at the immeasurable contribution of, and extremely high price paid by, the USSR in the fight against Fascism (the Red Army killed 90% of all Germans combatants in WW2). ..."
"... Having borne the brunt of the war, the USSR had neither the resources nor the will for another conflict. Indeed, diplomatic cables written around in the early forties showed how Soviet diplomats were actively, if not a little naively, looking forward to friendly relations with the West after the end of WW2. ..."
"... As Alexander points out, whilst America remained concerned that the USSR espoused a Marxian doctrine and was plotting to destroy Capitalism, the US was evangelical in spreading a free-market doctrine throughout the world. He also shows how the US missed a major opportunity to reassess its relations with the USSR after the death of Stalin. ..."
"... Once the cold war had ended, the military industrial complex needed a raison d'etre and new threats had to be found. ..."
"... 'The Cold War, all too clearly, was as unnecessary on the part of the West as it was potential fatal to mankind. It is also plain that its start was predominantly the fault of the Americans not the Soviets- though the latter remain, in most eyes, the villains of the piece.' ..."
"... Alexander summarises by suggesting that like all empires, America has over-expanded itself; imperial pride thwarts its recognition of this fact and the need to dismantle the hundreds of bases it has around the world. Like many empires on the wane, it will refuse to relinquish its prime position on the world stage. ..."
Journalist and Daily Mail columnist Andrew Alexander charts the course of US foreign policy
throughout the 20th century. His manuscript is packed with an incredible amount of factual
detail and footnotes. This, combined with a length of over 300 pages, gives the initial
impression that the book will be a demanding read, requiring the combined power of all one's
grey cells. This holds true with respect to some sections of the book, which contain such a
staggering amount of chronological detail that at times I felt as if I were not only reading
about laborious US-Soviet post war negotiations, but was actually an observer witnessing the
more protracted aspects of international diplomacy. To some extent, however, such a meticulous
attention to historical detail will always be part of any scrupulously researched piece of
historical non-fiction.
Nevertheless, large sections of the narrative are easy to follow and absorb. The book is not
as demanding as it first appears and the occasional bit of extra concentration required pays
off if you wish to comprehend the insightful and ground-breaking historical revelations
Alexander brings to light in each chapter.
Whilst the title suggests that the book only covers the development of American foreign
policy since 1945, the author goes further by explaining the background to events occurring
post 1945. Alexander sheds a light on the attitudes, of both the American government and the
public, which existed in the early 20th century. In the process, he also gives an insight into
the attitudes of the British, French and Soviet governments prior to 1939. He also describes
the American government's relationship with, and attitudes to, these nations.
Early chapters reveal America's 'isolationist' attitude during the interwar years. Despite
President FD Roosevelt's insistence that his nation adopt a more internationalist approach to
global politics by trying to convince Congress that America should join the League of Nations,
he was unable to gain necessary support from either Congress or the American public. Alexander
also sheds much light on Britain and France's attitudes towards the USSR in the thirties and
forties. Alexander shows that despite multiple warnings from Maxim Litvinov, the USSR's
representative to the League of Nations, that the increasing militarism of early 1930s Germany
be tackled head on, his warnings were subsequently ignored, not least by some members of the
British government who were only too happy to 'turn Hitler Eastwards' into a war with the
'Bolshies'. The reasons for America's decision to declare war on Germany only after the Pearl
Harbour attack are also described.
The book's later chapters reveal the mutual distrust between the US and Russia, post WW2,
that led to the initiation of the Cold War. Alexander puts paid to the oft cited myth of the
'Red Menace'. He shows that although the USSR was paranoid about its own security, this
'paranoia' can be understood by looking at the immeasurable contribution of, and extremely high
price paid by, the USSR in the fight against Fascism (the Red Army killed 90% of all Germans
combatants in WW2).
A recognition of this fact, alongside a history of two German invasions occurring within 27
years of each other, hostility from Japan, and the knowledge that some of their WW2 allies
initially hoped for its destruction by Germany, allows the reader to better understand the
reasons behind the Soviets' fear and mistrust of the West. Still, such fears, justified or not,
were dwarfed on the scale of improbability by the repetitive American claims of a 'Red'
invasion of Europe, based mostly on President Truman's prejudiced thinking in the absence of
any credible evidence.
Having borne the brunt of the war, the USSR had neither the resources nor the will for
another conflict. Indeed, diplomatic cables written around in the early forties showed how
Soviet diplomats were actively, if not a little naively, looking forward to friendly relations
with the West after the end of WW2. This is backed up by Alexander's insights into the
isolationist nature of Stalin's thinking -- the dictator was more than happy to control the
nations falling within his own post-Yalta agreed borders but was unwilling to support, and even
discouraged, Communist movements beyond the Iron curtain, as in Greece and Yugoslavia. As
Alexander points out, whilst America remained concerned that the USSR espoused a Marxian
doctrine and was plotting to destroy Capitalism, the US was evangelical in spreading a
free-market doctrine throughout the world. He also shows how the US missed a major opportunity
to reassess its relations with the USSR after the death of Stalin.
Alexander reveals a history of mutual suspicion between a succession of Soviet and US
leaders. At times, relations thawed, such as during the Carter Presidency, but again reached a
dangerous boiling point when Reagan was in power. Alexander shows how the growth of the
military-industrial came into being, a behemoth which President Eisenhower, former Allied
Commander in Chief during WW2 warned about in his final Presidential speech. During the cold
war it was to become customary for former military commanders to take up posts as lobbyists in
various arms companies. Alexander shows that many fortunes were made from promoting a fear of
the Soviets and pushing for greater military expenditure.
Once the cold war had ended, the military industrial complex needed a raison d'etre and
new threats had to be found.
The final chapters of the book summarise America's involvement in the Middle East and the
desire to balance securing oil with safeguarding Israel, a key part of US foreign policy since
1947. Alexander states in one of his final chapters:
'The Cold War, all too clearly, was as unnecessary on the part of the West as it was
potential fatal to mankind. It is also plain that its start was predominantly the fault of
the Americans not the Soviets- though the latter remain, in most eyes, the villains of the
piece.'
Almost as controversially, Alexander also suggest that although America has at times acted
like a bully, its actions have been that of a well-meaning bully, firmly believing since the
days of President Woodrow Wilson in its messianic duty to spread liberal democracy to nations
who would be all to glad to receive it.
In contrast to almost all other Western nations, America emerged from the Second World War
largely unscathed, its industry intact and operating at a greater capacity than prior to the
war. This allowed it to dominate world affairs for over half a century.
Nevertheless, as the book shows, its influence became too far reaching for its own good.
Alexander summarises by suggesting that like all empires, America has over-expanded itself;
imperial pride thwarts its recognition of this fact and the need to dismantle the hundreds of
bases it has around the world. Like many empires on the wane, it will refuse to relinquish its
prime position on the world stage.
If you believe (like Arthur Berman, James Howard Kunstler, Steve Angelo and Gail Tverberg)
that cheap energy is a thing of the past, Russia has much more leverage than the West. It has
the oil and natural gas and we don't. The U.S. imports about 40% of its energy needs. Europe
needs Russian natural gas to stay warm. Who is going to be better positioned in an energy
starved future? John Michael Greer believes that the two centers of civilization hundreds of
years from now will be centered in Western Russia and the Ohio River Valley.
Robert Snefjella says:
January 20, 2019 at 4:21 pm GMT 200 Words
@Erebus Going from memory, in Hellyer's book The Money Mafia, his impression was that
Bouey's decision was taken without real political understanding or guidance. Noteworthy was an
attempt in recent years to restore that Bank of Canada fund-emission function via the court
system. The attempt failed. The lawyer representing the group making the effort, Rocco Galati,
indicated that the media in Canada had received pressure not to cover the story. The government
of Canada at the time the court case was initiated was under Harper Conservative rule.
As to how astute Trudeau was, or how much practical influence he had when it came to
national financial matters, I don't know. There was a lot of economic flux at the time
involving the US dollar, oil, high inflation and gold. There was a big jump in Canadian
interest rates around 1974. In any case, the emission of funds directly for productive purpose,
without taxation and borrowing, is a beneficent unacknowledged elephant in the economic
policy-options room.
"... apparatus of coercion and violence by which the ruling class governs the society ..."
"... In essence, the state is ruling apparatus created from the human society. When such a group of people appears, one which is only concerned with ruling over others, and which for that purpose needs a coercion apparatus which can force people to obey by means of jails, special units, armed forces, etc, – that is the moment when the state appears ..."
"... After the uprising of the 17th of June The Secretary of the Writers' Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another? ..."
Think about it in this way: we know from ALL the past elections that the pro-Western segment
of the Russian population is somewhere around 1-3% (that is why they cannot make it into the
Duma). But let's generously give that hardcore, liberal, opposition 5%, for argument's sake. So
if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if 5% of Russians are hardcore pro-Western liberals,
then who are the remaining 48%?
Or in this way: if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if Putin's approval rating is
still somewhere in the 65% range, who are those Russians who like Putin but dislike the
Medvedev government?
There is an easy cop-out argument which I´ve often offered to explain away this
fact:
Levada Center is officially classified as a "foreign
agent" under Russian law. This makes sense: for one thing, Levada Center receives most of its financing from
abroad, including the US and even the Pentagon ! Furthermore, Levada is staffed by liberals
(in the Russian meaning of the word which really means "pro-US") whose biases are also
reflected in their work. However, while this is all true, Levada is still credible enough to be
cited even by Russian officials. Finally, the kind of results Levada publishes are often
generally similar to the finding of the official VTsIOM polling
institution, not down to the percentage point, but often reflecting similar trends (check out
the VTsIOM English language page here: https://wciom.com/ ). So the fact that Putin is much more popular than
Medvedev or that the majority of Russian people are unhappy with the government really is not
in doubt.
So regardless of the actual numbers, it is clear that the Russian government is only popular
with those whom it allows to make a lot of money (corporations and various millionaires and
billionaires) and that everybody else strongly dislikes it.
And yet, recently Putin was asked if he was happy with the government and his reply was "
on the whole, yes ".
This type of political yoga is hard to sustain in the long term: if Putin is the champion of
the interests of the common people, and if most common people feel that the government cares
more for millionaires and billionaires, then how can the President say that he is "on the whole
happy" with the government?
It is truly a crying shame that the basics of Marxism-Leninism is not taught in schools and
colleges any more (even some self-described "Communists" are clearly clueless about what Marx,
Lenin or even Hegel taught!). Not because the solutions advocated by Marx and his followers are
so universally effective, but because one can use the Marxist-Leninist conceptual toolkit to
better understand the world we live in and, one can do this without necessarily endorsing the
solutions offered by Marxism. For example, in the West at least, very few people are aware of
this very simple Marxist-Leninist definition of what a state, any state, really is. According
to Lenin, the state is simply an " apparatus of coercion and violence by which the ruling
class governs the society ". Specifically Lenin wrote:
In essence, the state is ruling apparatus created from the human society. When such a
group of people appears, one which is only concerned with ruling over others, and which for
that purpose needs a coercion apparatus which can force people to obey by means of jails,
special units, armed forces, etc, – that is the moment when the state appears
(Lenin, collective works, vol 39, page 69).
From a Marxist point of view, any state is always and by definition the dictatorship of the
ruling class, which is a good thing, at least according to the Marxists, when this ruling class
is the workers and people, and a very bad thing when the ruling class is the
plutocracy.
ORDER IT NOW
In the post-modern West, where political discourse has been reduced to a particularly
nauseating form of intellectual flatulence, the very notion of "class" and "class warfare" has
been fully replaced with vapid (pseudo-) identity politics which completely obfuscate all the
real issues and problems our world is dealing with. Thus, by removing the concepts and
categories needed to understand the nature of the struggle which is taking place
internationally, but also inside each of the countries currently living under the AngloZionist
yoke, the leaders of the Empire have deprived the people they rule over from the means to
understand why and how they are oppressed. All that nonsense about "gay" rights, gun control,
#meetoo, the many sex scandals, the struggle for racial identity (White or Black or any other),
abortion, drugs and all the rest of the crap we are fed on a daily basis by the AngloZionist
propaganda machine are primarily a distraction to keep the eyes of the general population from
the real issues. In a way, this zombification and re-direction to fake topics serves exactly
the same function as the red cape of the bullfighter: to keep the bull busy with trying to gore
a harmless red piece of cloth while completely missing the real cause of his suffering and
eventual death.
From that point of view, the Russian people are much better informed and have a much better
understanding of what is going on. For example, while in the West the people define "democracy"
as "people power" (or something similar), in Russia the joke is that "democracy is the power of
the democrats" which, in Russia, is a general codeword/euphemism for "pro-US wealthy liberal"
who want to turn Russia into some kind of "bigger Poland" or something equally uninspiring.
Various pro-Western "intellectuals" like to say that this is an old Russian pathology: to
say that the Czar (President) is very good, but his court (the Ministers) are bad and that this
makes absolutely no sense. These are the folks who go as far as denying the existence of a
struggle between what I call Eurasian Sovereignists (roughly Putin supporters) and Atlantic
Integrationists (roughly Medvedev and the "economic block" of this government).
The folks who deny this remind me of something Berthold Brecht once wrote after the 1953
uprising in Berlin in a short poem entitled "The Solution": (emphasis added)
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
This deep alienation from the Russian masses, this notion that the Russian people have, yet
again, failed to heed the "wise words" of the "progressive intelligentsia" and other (mainly
financial) "elites" has plagued the Russian ruling classes since Peter I and is still at the
very core of their worldview. Believe you me, the Russian "liberals" and the folks in the West
who deny that there is any 5th
column in Russia are psychologically and politically joined at the hip: neither one of them
can accept this. Furthermore, both the Russian "liberals" and the western believers in the
values of "democracy" and "free market capitalism" share exactly the same worldview: they want
the Russian people to become "Europeans" not in a geographical sense, of course (geographically
speaking most Russian live in the European part of Russia), but culturally! This is what the
Popes wanted, this is what the French Freemasons wanted, this is what the Nazis wanted, and
this is what the AngloZionists want. That dream to turn Russians into Europeans while totally
cleansing them from any "Russian-ness" is what united *all* the invaders of Russia over the
centuries.
But the "stubborn" Russian people just don't seem to "get it" and, for some totally
mysterious reason, they always resist all these "benevolent" western attempts at "civilizing"
them.
This is exactly what we see today: Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists try as hard as they
can to *sovereignize* Russia; in other words, they want to make Russia *truly* Russian again.
Sounds basic, but that is categorically unacceptable to the Russian plutocrats and to their
supporters in the West. Thus any kind of defense of the Russian-ness of Russia is immediately
and contemptuously dismissed as "national leftism", "nationalism" or, God forbid!,
"monarchism". And when the person trying to make the argument that Russia ought to be Russian
uses Marxist concepts or categories, these arguments are also dismissed out of hand as an
"outdated rhetoric of a system which has failed and discredited itself". What they fail to
realize is to say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due primarily/solely to the Marxist
or Communist ideology is just as stupid as blaming the current collapse of democracy in the US
on the writings of the Founding Fathers rather than on the SOB politicians who are destroying
this country day after day after day. Tell me: when the US finally bites the dust, will you
simply declare that "democracy is dead" and that the "collapse of the US proved that democracy
is not a viable regime"? So yes, the Soviet Union did indeed collapse, broken into 15 pieces by
its own ruling elite (the Nomenklatura ), but the ideas contained
in the Marxist-Leninist ideology have not only not been "defeated" – they have not even
been challenged (more on this issue here ).
But, thank God! most Russians are still not willing to be incorporated into the "European
cultural Borg
collective ", at least not in the cultural sense. And in spite of 300 years of oppression
by various pro-western regimes (with various degrees of russophobia, not all were equally bad),
the Russian people still want to remain Russian, not just by speaking a language, but by having
a ruler and a regime in power which they feel defends their interests and not the interests of
the ruling class. They want to live in their own civilizational realm, and not the kind of
post-Christian intellectual desert the West has become.
Many decades of rabid russophobia by the rulers of the AngloZionist Empire have convinced
the Russian people that they have no friends in the European or North American ruling elites
and that true freedom comes through liberation, not submission. That, and the appalling example
of the consequences of the "Euromaidan" in the Ukraine.
It is very important to keep a close eye on this trend: the appearance of slowly but surely
growing (truly) patriotic opposition (as opposed to the CIA-paid clowns in the Russian liberal
camp). As for the "official" opposition (LDPR, KPRF and the Just Russia), they might decide to
grow a few teeth, initially small, baby teeth only, but if this trend accelerates, they might
decide to look a tad more credible. Until now the rather lame and ridiculous LDPR & KPRF
parties are just a collective form of court jesters with no real opposition potential. Just
look at how the KPRF, thoroughly discredited by their crazy choice of the millionaire Grudinin
for candidate, jumped onto the pension reform PR-disaster to suddenly try to launch a
referendum. This would never have happened in the past.
The political landscape in Russia is becoming more complicated, which is both good and bad.
It is bad because Putin's personal political credit suffers, however modestly for now, from
his continuous
inability to purge the Kremlin from the 5th columnists , but it is also good because if
things get bad enough Putin will have no choice but to (finally!) get rid of at least the most
notorious 5th columnists. But fundamentally the Russian people need to decide. Do they really
want to live in a western-style capitalist society (with all the Russophobic politics and the
adoption of the terminally degenerate "culture" such a choice implies), or do they want a
"social society" (to use Putin's own words) – meaning a society in which social and
economic justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal
profits.
You could say that this is a battle of greed vs ethics.
The future of Russia, and much of the world, will depend on the outcome of this battle.
UPDATE : well, just as I was mentioning that the fact that Levada Center and VTsIOM mostly
agree, at least on trends, the
Russian media is now reporting that the latter now also is reporting a drop in the
popularity of Putin. And just to make things worse, the Russian authorities have deported an
(in-)famous anti-Nazi Ukrainian journalist, Elena Boiko, to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine in spite
of the fact that Boiko had requested political asylum in Russia. Now, Boiko is a very
controversial person for sure (and, personally, not *at all* my cup of tea), but the sole fact
that Russia would deport ANY anti-Nazi activist to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine is disgusting and
revolting. And, sure enough, the bovine-excreta is already hitting the proverbial fan as now
members of the Duma, journalists and various personalities are demanding explanations for this
absolutely stupid and deeply immoral act. Sadly, can only agree with Nikolai Starikov who
speaks of a "liberal revanche" following the "Russian Spring" of 2014. If this kind of nonsense
continues we will see a further deterioration of Putin's personal rating along with a gradual
degradation of the Russian political environment.
Not because the solutions advocated by Marx and his followers are so universally
effective, but because one can use the Marxist-Leninist conceptual toolkit to better
understand the world we live in and, one can do this without necessarily endorsing the
solutions offered by Marxism.
I don't see what issue the Russian people have with the current administration, the main
economic indicator that impacts most people directly is real wage growth, and it is not as if
wages have been stagnant, real wages grew by 7.4% in the first 11 months of 2018, no reason
to believe December data will be any different, if 7% real wage growth isn't enough for
people, then nothing will be. Real wage growth was slow in 2017 at 2.9% but it has
accelerated significantly since then.
Do they really want to live in a western-style capitalist society (with all the
russophobic politics and the adoption of the terminally degenerate "culture" such a choice
implies), or do they want a "social society" (to use Putin's own words) – meaning a
society in which social and economic justice and the good of the country are placed above
corporate and personal profits.
For the inhabitants of the EU member states mutatis mutandis :
Do they really want to live in a society ran by multinationals and globalists, (with all the
russophobic politics, and the destruction of European cultures, such a choice implies), or do
they want a "social-democratic society", meaning a society in which social and economic
justice and the good of the country are placed above profits and dictatorial rule ?
@Felix Keverich The foundation of the capitalism is based on exploitation at home and
abroad . The foundational base is the 3 rd world . Capitalism including those based on 17- 20
th century's colonization would have not succeeded the way it has . We intentionally forget
that the western capitalism is much more destructive than the soviet marxism . Soviet marxism
failed because it did not colonize the rest of the world and make them pay for its survival
the way Capitalism did.
No one talks of the vile corrupt despicable poor situation of Congo Niger Nigeria or Gabon
. They are capitalist friendly crony dictatorial countries whose existences without any media
reported daily grinding poverty and violences are possible due to the western support and
media silence . They are not socialist they are not capitalist . They are support countries .
They maintain support and enrich western capitalism . They ( king cronies dictator and
limited choice based elected leaders ) in turn get western protection support and help . The
media ( western ) don't refer to them , don't remind of them , and don't bother about the
plight of the citizen . Their disenfranchised citizen support the western capitalism like the
slaves propped up the culturally savvy educated well dressed well fed elites of Greece and
Rome.
When those illegal manipulated created support system are gone, west 's capitalism as we
know for 400 hundred years will be gone . Reason of the disconnect we see in the west is
because the system is failing at the margins at the borderlands, at the periphery of the
control ,whose victims are the middle class . The margin will move to the centers slowly and
the elites will start killing each other and fighting each other . Capitalism can't feed and
can't enrich and can't hold the promise as it used to before . Because the major victims of
the 400 yrs capitalism have become also successful capitalist themselves . It is like the 19
th European dynasties are challenging each other over the territories . It is like Pope being
threatened by new ideologies from the fringes . Pie is shrinking . Capitalism's success has
so far been left externalities un -addressed . Externalities are in the ruins of the 3rd
world .
@Felix Keverich I wonder if any other commenters are as dumb as I am. I didn't know that
Putin wasn't in charge of pretty much everything in Russia. Saker says that Medvedev, as
Prime Minister, actually runs domestic policy, while Putin, as President, runs foreign
policy. It seems that these two have been taking turns being either President or PM for a few
decades now.
With these two constantly at odds, it would be like our President and VP being of
different parties, except that our VP has no power (unless it's Dick Cheney). But I do think
that our President, elected to an office designed for the 18th Century, has far too much on
his plate for any one person. A country the size of the US should have both a President and
PM, but I'd like to see them run as a slate, not in opposition to each other.
Very interesting and important book. Andrew Alexander was a senior journalist for the Daily
Mail. He died in 2015.
"Well-written, an easy read and formidably-argued. I think it is an important subject, not
just as 20th-century history, but as commentary on the modern US mindset." Matthew Parris
Notable quotes:
"... However, this orthodox view is based on the premise that the Soviet threat at the end of the Second World War was a real one. But, as one of Britain's leading military commentators, Sir Michael Howard, observed during the last days of the Soviet Union: 'No serious historian any longer argues that Stalin ever had any intention of moving his forces outside the area he occupied in Eastern Europe.' ..."
"... In allotting blame for the start of the Cold War, Churchill certainly has to bear some share. But predominantly, as the evidence shows, it was the Americans who must shoulder the main responsibility. ..."
"... Washington, under the influence of John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State, ignored overtures from Moscow after the death of Stalin in 1953 ..."
"... On the US side, the reign of John Foster Dulles at the State Department (1953-1959) was to see a foreign policy designed to scare the Soviet Union into submission. The death of Stalin and gestures of detente by the new leadership opened up new prospects which were promptly rebuffed. The British and French governments tried to redress the balance but, as decidedly junior partners in the alliance were unable to do so. There was also an inclination in Washington to listen to military hotheads in formulating policy. ..."
American incomprehension of the outside world, combined with a determination to lead it, has
been the principal problem in international affairs since the end of the Second World War. The
stubbornly orthodox view remains that despite 'aberrations' ranging from Vietnam to Iraq, the
balance sheet remains in the USA's favour, given the triumph of the Cold War, the defeat of the
Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism. America thus deserves the West's gratitude for
leading it to victory after forty-five years of confrontation with an aggressive Russia. It
adds some logic to the view that it is essential for the Western alliance to hold firm behind
Washington as it faces the newer menace of Islamic terrorism.
However, this orthodox view is based on the premise that the Soviet threat at the end of
the Second World War was a real one. But, as one of Britain's leading military commentators,
Sir Michael Howard, observed during the last days of the Soviet Union: 'No serious historian
any longer argues that Stalin ever had any intention of moving his forces outside the area he
occupied in Eastern Europe.'
Yet many historians, perhaps not serious but widely read, still argue that the Soviet leader
had such aggressive ambitions. A proper military analysis of the situation in 1945 would have
shown that the prospect of Russian armies invading Western Europe was a fantasy, like Saddam
Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction ready for launch in forty-five minutes. Also like the
domino theory' reigning in Washington during the Vietnam conflict that if the North won, the
whole of South East Asia would go Communist.
The opening up of the Soviet archives underlines the fantasy of the old view of the Russian
'threat'. The USA's allies today maybe anxious to believe that such manifest follies as Vietnam
and Iraq were uncharacteristic of a nation dedicated to peace. But both demonstrate an
unmistakable continuity of a fiercely assertive foreign policy, flourishing under presidencies
or both parties, the unwinnabie war m Vietnam started under President Kennedy, was stepped up
by President Johnson and finally lost by President Nixon despite ferocious bombings of Laos and
Cambodia, plus raids on Hanoi itself, in an effort to force North Vietnam to negotiate.
The first Gulf War, launched by President George H. Bush to expel Saddam Hussein from
Kuwait, achieved its UN-legitimised end. But the subsequent programme of militarily- supported
sanctions produced appalling hardship and death for the ordinary people of Iraq, whom
Washington was claiming to rescue. As the death toll mounted, the sanctions were notoriously
dubbed 'worthwhile' during the Clinton regime. The second Gulf War launched by President George
W. Bush is only defended by those hemmed in by their former enthusiasm. Its cost since 2003 has
been prodigious for Iraq, supposedly being rescued from tyranny while the Middle East and the
world was simultaneously saved from Saddam's WMDs.
The prolonged and unwinnabie war in Afghanistan appeared to follow the decision by the
second Bush to extend the original punitive expedition launched after the 9/11 atrocity in New'
York. But it transpired that an attack on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was already being
planned in Washington to settle old scores with al Qaeda for previous terrorist assaults. The
subsequent 'war on terror' became a general campaign against Islamic militants, extending into
Pakistan and Yemen. In the case of Afghanistan it was accompanied by a high-minded claim that a
Western-style democratic state w7as being created which w'ould be a barrier to Jihadists. By
the time Bush left office, the conflict had lasted seven years - longer than the Second World
War - and the position was deteriorating. The succeeding Obama administration's policy on
Afghanistan, despite pledges of a swift removal of American forces, was to leave US policy
little changed. He agreed to send more troops in the hope that - reminiscent of Vietnam - they
might inflict sufficient damage on the insurgents to ease the early US withdrawal he called for
during his election campaign.
Correspondingly, Washington's almost unquestioning support for Israel in its collisions with
its Arab neighbours seemed to underline a US instinct for the solution of problems by force, or
the support of force by a surrogate. Washington was the vital provider of military, economic
and political aid. It bore a key responsibility for Israel's prolonged assault on insurgents in
the Lebanon in the late 1970s, in the brief repeat of this exercise in 2006 and similarly in
Gaza in 2008 - all expeditions which aroused widespread condemnation. US policy in Latin
America, regularly in assistance with notoriously brutal regimes, also demonstrated the
continuity of outlook in Washington, regardless of party.
Criticism of these unfortunate chapters in American foreign policy is now commonplace.
However, a readiness to recognise the folly of the Cold War and how the US began it is much
harder to find, despite the high quality of 'revisionist' histories by American historians in
particular. There are obviously other reasons for a reluctance to face this. It rebels against
sense to accept that the world came close to nuclear Armageddon on half a dozen occasions and
expended so much blood and treasure for forty' years against a threat that was never real. To
accept this raises serious doubt about the integrity and basic intelligence of a whole
succession of Western governments and the political institutions for which they make such high
claims. In mitigation of the European powers' readiness to follow' the American lead, two
points might be made. The hrst is, ironically, that the launch ot the Cold War by the USA did m
due course bring into existence the very danger which had been imagined. It made frantic
defence measures seem sensible. Threatened by President Truman, Russia responded by a vigorous
programme of rearmament and an even tighter clampdown on Eastern Europe. With the refusal of
the USA to respond to peace initiatives launched by the Soviet leadership on the death of
Stalin in 1953, the Kremlin fought back under the new and more assertive leadership of Nikita
Khrushchev. American and Western power in general was challenged wherever it could be found. It
became rational to talk of a Communist threat and of the danger of a Soviet Union with a
nuclear armoury. What was inaccurate was the assumption that a new military threat had come
into being when the wartime allies finally came face to face in Germany.
A second excuse may be pleaded for Western governments following American policy: the sheer
power of the dollar. What Washington decreed was little challenged by its European allies.
There were dangers in objecting to the foreign policy of the USA. It was like criticising the
bank manager wrhen loans were desperately needed. Accepting the American view helped by the
expenditure involved in US bases in Europe was the easiest route. The normal-give- and-take
between allies declined into a subservient attitude. Britain was trying to rebuild a shattered
economy with the assistance of an American loan. In 1948 it became further dependent on US aid
under the Marshall Plan for European reconstruction. Britain was particularly reliant on US
support for sterling, foolishly on a fixed exchange rate which was regularly in crisis.
Ironically the instability in sterling owred much to Britain's attempts to maintain its own
military' bases around the world, a policy warmly supported by the Americans. Inis economic
dependence had an inevitable ettect on British policy trom the start. Clement Attlee, newly
elected as Labour Prime Minister in 1945, was not by instinct a hardliner when it came to the
Soviet Union, though his ebullient Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was. His outlook was coloured
by his experience of Communist manoeuvrings as a trade union leader. There were strong doubts
about the American attitude in the mind of Anthony Eden, Foreign Secretary during Churchill's
wartime leadership and a veteran of dealings with the Kremlin. He regarded the Soviet position
after the end of the war as driven by natural motives of defence. Churchill himself with his
long history of hostility to everything Soviet shared none of his deputy's reservations. But
hardliners and doubters had one view in common. To defy US policy w7as financially perilous.
The Suez crisis was to demonstrate this dramatically a decade later.
Tire consequences of prolonged and unquestioning support for the USA have been disastrous.
It has led to friends of America being dragged into the front line of a 'war on terror' which
served as a recruiting sergeant for Jihadists from all parts of Islam. The world is a much more
dangerous place as a result of America's determination to save it.
A wider look at history show's that a strongly interventionist US foreign policy is nothing
new7 - though the current pow'er to intervene globally is. A century ago, an American
incomprehension of the outside w'orld was exemplified by President Woodrow' Wilson, so
determined to remake countries in the American image after the First World War. His mixture of
benevolence and ruthlessness may be summed up in a dispute with Mexico in 1913, w'hen he
announced 'I will teach the Latin-Americans to elect good men' followed by bombarding the town
of Vera Cruz. His gunboat diplomacy intensified such feelings of nationalism and
anti-Americanism that Germany hoped to make Mexico an ally in an attack on the USA in 1917 -
famously exposed in the Zimmermann telegram, decoded by London. In 1945, the USA dedicated
itself in Wilsonian language to bringing 'democracy and freedom' to the countries occupied by
the Soviets at the end of the Second World War. The goal was high-minded. But there was a
puzzling refusal to acknowledge the Soviet claim that two invasions by Germany in twenty-seven
years made the firm control of Eastern Europe essential to Russian security. Truman insisted on
seeing the Soviets as the determinedly expansionist enemy of the free world almost from the day
he assumed office. They were, he said, 'planning world conquest'.2
Tire United States over which he presided had emerged from the Second World War with a
military and economic supremacy unparalleled in history. Of the three powers which defeated the
Axis alliance, the USA was unique in ending the war wealthier than when it began. By contrast,
Britain's income was down by a third with much of its overseas assets sold to buy armaments
from the USA. In the case of Russia, which had been responsible for destroying the vast bulk of
Hitler's forces, the loss of income was immeasurable. Soviet statistics, always dubious, have
never provided a wholly reliable picture of national income. But the scale of the devastation,
involving at least twenty-two million and possibly7 twenty-seven million military7 and Chilian
deaths, speaks for itself.
There was in fact no evidence in 1945 that the Soviet Union had a sinister plan to conquer
the West. The threat perceived by Truman and others was imaginary7 - though no less powerful
for that - stoked up by y7ears of fearing the deadly spread of Communism. We can gain a genuine
insight into the Kremlin mood from opened Soviet archives. As the end of the war came in sight
in 1944, the analyses of Moscow's senior diplomats anticipated a period of post-war East-West
cooperation, if with reservations about possible future developments in American internal
political rivalries. Nor did the Kremlin intend, as some feared, to mount a Communist takeover
of Italy7 and France. Moscow wanted to see strong Communist parties in both countries able to
influence policies in a way which would be advantageous to Russia. But having Communist
governments in either country7 would have been contrary7 to the policy7 which Stalin always
maintained: keeping Moscow as the absolute centre of the Communist world and thus something he
alone could control. In any case, maintaining Communist governments in either country7 would
have demanded the presence of Soviet troops which would have embroiled Moscow in the war which
the Kremlin had every7 reason to avoid. Stalin's attitude to the so-called world proletarian
revolution is essential to understanding his personal and political motivation. He was, like
the despot throughout the ages, principally7 concerned with his own survival rather than with
ideological issues. He abandoned the grand global ambition of the world proletarian revolution
in 1924 when he proclaimed that, henceforth, the aim was to be 'socialism in one country7'. To
believe that he remained at all times a devout ideologue is to misread his character.
Milovan Djilas, at one time Vice President of Yugoslavia, observed in Conversations with
Stalins that it was not altogether true, as some Communists complained, that Stalin was wholly
against revolutions abroad. He was only7 in favour of those which he could control. He lost
control of Yugoslavia. He was later to lose it in China - insofar as he ever had it.4 Stalin's
attitude to Communist parties abroad was really very7 simple. They were not there to win
elections, only7 to act as his underlings, aiding Soviet foreign policy in all its shifts and
changes, sometimes assisting one party7 or country7, sometimes another. The overall aim was
simply to promote weakness among nations which might be rivals or opponents or otherwise
unhelpful to Russia. This was dramatically7 illustrated in the role allotted to the German
Communist Party7 in the early71930s. In combination with the left-wing Socialist Party7 it
could have been enough to stop Hitler's rise to power.
But a Communist Party with real power in a German government, ruling an infinitely more
advanced nation, was too much of a risk. The centre of gravity of Communism would shift away
from Moscow, thus threatening Stalin's power and personal status. The German Communists were
ordered not just to stay out of any coalition with the Socialists, but to attack them as
'social fascists'. George Kennan, who had been the State Department's leading Russian expert,
wrote in 1962 (abandoning his famous analysis of a dire Soviet threat in 1946), 'From the
bourgeois world as from his political entourage in the world of communism, Stalin only wanted
one thing: weakness. This was not at all identified with revolution.'5 In the case of China,
Stalin called on Mao to join with the Nationalists, not fight them. As the Communist forces
swept south and came within sight of victory, Stalin pleaded with Mao to negotiate, not fight.
The determination of the West to see every Soviet move as explicable in terms of the pursuit of
the world proletarian revolution provides one of history's great ironies: the West took
Communist doctrine more seriously than Stalin.
Truman claimed in his memoirs that it was at Potsdam that he finally concluded that the
Soviet Union aimed at world conquest. Yet nothing that was said or done there could conceivably
justify such a conclusion. The Russians were proving difficult and obstinate on certain issues
but not aggressive. It was the issue of the internationalisation of waterways - a Truman
obsession - which brought the President to his historically epic conclusion. The fate of the
world in Truman's mind seemed to turn on, of all things, the Danube delta. If Russia was in a
demanding mood at Potsdam, it was not surprising. The Red Army had borne the brunt of the war.
Of all the Germans killed, nearly nine out of ten perished on the Russia front. The Wehrmacht
had thrown nearly ten times as many divisions at the Red Army as it did against Britain and the
USA. And while Britain had been impoverished by the war, much of Russia had been laid waste.
The USA - without a single bomb dropped on its mainland - had enjoyed a remarkable
prosperity.
On the east European issue, it should have been evident enough at the time how Russia was
driven by a desire to seek security in depth after the two devastating German invasions in
twenty-seven years.6 Moscow wanted a buffer between Russia and Germany and control over these
territories. Stalin himself predicted to Djilas that the Germans would be back on their feet in
twelve to fifteen years.7 Though this seemed a daring prophecy at the time, given the wretched
condition of Germany in 1945, he was to be proved too cautious. The German Federal Republic was
not just back on its feet by the early 1950s, it was soon being asked to join NATO, precisely
the sort of development which the Kremlin feared. Given the German invasions, it would not have
mattered whether the government in Moscow had been Communist, Tsarist or Social Democrat. It
would still have insisted on firm control of these countries through which invasion had come;
and bound to regard with deep suspicion any attempts to prevent it. In any case, Moscow could
never forget that it was British and French policy in the interwar years to make Eastern Europe
a barrier against the Soviet Union, even to consider - crucially - allowing Hitler a free hand
against Russia. Colonel, later President, de Gaulle noted that even after the start of the
Second World War: Certain circles saw the enemy in Stalin rather than Hitler. They busied
themselves with finding means of striking Russia, either by aiding Finland or bombarding Baku
or landing at Istanbul, much more than in coming to grips with Hitler.8
Nor could the Soviets overlook the fact that, among its new satellites, Romania, Hungary and
Bulgaria had fought on the Axis side. Moreover, Poland could be blamed for the Russo-Polish war
in 1920 which followed the creation of the Soviet Union.
Only someone who had already made up his mind about Soviet intentions could have claimed
that the aim was 'world conquest'. The suspicions which seemed to lurk constantly in Russian
minds about the West were widely viewed as paranoid, given that the world was Only someone who
had already made up his mind about Soviet intentions could have claimed that the aim was 'world
conquest'. The suspicions which seemed to lurk constantly in Russian minds about the West were
widely viewed as paranoid, given that the world was hungry for peace and cooperation. But it
could be argued that the Kremlin had much to be paranoid about, given the history of the
interwar years. British and French policy seemed so ready to solve the problem of Hitler by
turning him eastwards. It is impossible to understand the Kremlin's fears without recounting
those extraordinary manoeuvres, culminating in serious proposals in Britain and France that the
two countries should be prepared to go to war against Russia - just after the war with Germany
had broken out - in defence of Finland, then under attack from the Red Army. The country held a
strategic key for Russia against Germany.
Tire wartime alliance of Britain, Russia and the USA certainly showed that East-West
cooperation was possible. Friendly gestures by President Roosevelt made an impression on both
the Kremlin and opinion at home. A friendly post-war settlement was seen as possible not just
in the West but also in the extensive analyses made in the Soviet Foreign ministry by its
senior diplomats. But that was while Roosevelt was alive. Once Truman took over on the
President's death in 1945, it quickly became apparent that old ferocious suspicions of
expanding Communism, dating back to the Bolshevik revolution, had made their return, this time
with the USA indisputably the most powerful nation on earth. This made conditions all too well
suited for a collision of mammoth proportions.
Yet it must be said that the great bulk of Americans, when peace broke out in 1945, were
full of good intentions - though intertwined with a belief that what was good for the USA must
be good for mankind, particularly where open markets and free trade were concerned. The new-
found strength of the USA provided a chance to mould the post-war world, to propagate
democracy, plus liberal capitalism, which, in American minds, would constitute a safeguard
against future wars. This faith in democracy conveniently overlooked, among other things, the
fact that Hitler had advanced to power in 1933 through a democratic vote.
The real problem at this point was not the generally benevolent intentions of the USA but
its naivety about the outside world's complexities, its varied cultures, its long-standing
nationalistic rivalries and in particular often strong feelings of insecurity. These were
feelings hard to comprehend in a nation which could not remember any invasion and which had not
suffered a single bullet or bomb fall on its mainland during the Second World War. However, it
was not just the USA which insisted on misreading the post-war conditions. Some of Europe's
statesmen with long histories of fearing the Communist virus also believed that the battered
Soviet Union was ready to fight the West. This should have been seen as absurd. It requires no
technical knowledge of military matters to appreciate the point.
Suppose, even ignoring the deterrent of the A-bomb, that the Red Army had attacked the West
soon after the end of the war. It would have encountered strong resistance from the British,
the Americans and hastily rearmed elements of the Wehrmacht. It would have been a hard fight
but let us suppose that the Russian forces reached the Channel ports. What then? Tire invasion
of Britain would have been virtually impossible. The Soviets had neither the air nor sea power
to make the crossing and huge numbers of troops would have been needed as occupying forces
throughout Europe. Meanwhile American troops, aircraft and war supplies would have been pouring
into Britain. However, let us suppose, again for the sake of argument, and against all
conceivable odds, that the Russians had succeeded in occupying Britain as well as all of
Western Europe. What then? The Soviet Union would have been left facing the Americans across
three thousand miles of ocean. It would be the ultimate unwinnable war, a military planners'
ultimate nightmare.
In short, the threat was a hallucination. The USA's Central Intelligence Agency carried out
a study in 1946 which concluded that the shattered Soviet Union would not even be in a position
to wage a war for fifteen years. Yet the fear of a Russian onslaught persisted. The sheer size
of the Red Army, only slowly being demobilised, was regularly advanced as evidence of malign
intentions. But the desire to retain large forces against the possibility of another German
revival plus the need - as Moscow saw it - to maintain a grip on Eastern Europe was
logical.
We have to wonder why the West was consumed by fears of Russia when the war ended. To a
considerable extent, it was inspired by a seductively simple belief that Stalin was another
Hitler. The USA and Britain were emerging from a war which it was generally accepted started
because Hitler had been appeased. The parallel with Stalin seemed irresistible. He was no less
of a dictator than Hitler and just as brutal, certainly more whimsical in his ruthlessness.
Moreover Marxist doctrine in its purer and original form proclaimed the inevitability of a
Communist world. Hitler had finally revealed the full scale of the Nazi menace when he seized
Czechoslovakia. Now Stalin, after the war, was refusing to give up control of Eastern Europe.
The parallel seemed easy enough. In fact this was another of those historical examples of
'over-learning' the apparent lessons of the day.
This simplistic view of 1945 took no account of the differences between the two episodes.
Hitler had no need of Czechoslovakia, except to continue his surge eastwards. Stalin saw
control of Poland as essential to Russian security against Germany. Tire occupation of that
country' and the imposition of a Communist government in Warsaw was a very' sore issue for
Britain which had gone to war ostensibly to save Poland. It was seen as a mark of failure and a
breach of honour that the country' should be left occupied by another dictator. The USA, for
its part, had been dragged into the war but was eager to convince itself that it was embarking
on a high-minded crusade to save democracy and all the values associated with it. Less high-
mindedly, as President Roosevelt reminded Stalin at the Yalta conference, there were some six
to seven million Polish-American voters in the USA to say nothing of others with links to the
occupied east European countries - the so-called hyphenate vote (capable, he was warned, of
turning a presidential election). Both Britain and the USA insisted on seeing Poland as the
acid test of Moscow's goodwill and peaceful intentions. Minds refused to meet. Where Truman
stood on Eastern Europe was never in much doubt. His Navy Day speech in October 1945, with its
declarations about firm American resistance to tyrannies and its assistance to those opposing
them, sent a plain enough message to Moscow. The fact that its belligerent tone had a limited
impact in the US at that moment must be attributed to the fact that the war had finally ended
only weeks before. Assertions about American righteousness were only to be expected.
There was also the history' of the Russian civil war which helped to stoke up the deep and
at times apparently neurotic suspicions of the Soviet Union tow'ards the West, an instinct
which was also very' Russian and existed well before the revolution. In the first three years
after the 1917 revolution the new Bolshevik government faced military' help provided by the
west European powers to its internal rivals in efforts to destroy the Soviet state. This wish
seemed to persist even after Stalin soft-pedalled the notion of the world proletarian
revolution.9 In the 1930s, the Russians had good reason to fear that at least part of British
and French policy tow'ards Hitler was inspired by a desire to turn him eastwards. Both Britain
and the USA, but more particularly Britain, had managed to convince themselves in the interwar
years that the Red Menace remained serious. Any protestations of peaceful intentions from
Moscow were seen as just a disguise for the underlying purposes of revolutionary
Marxism-Leninism. Besides and perhaps even more important, playing up the Communist threat was
proving a serious vote winner for the British Conservatives - as indeed it was to prove a vote
winner for American politicians from the late 1940s onwards.
As a consequence, the wartime alliance of Russia and the West was a brittle affair 011 both
sides. Any sign that Britain and the USA were reluctant to throw everything they had at
Germany' - there were unfulfilled promises of a Second Front in 1942 and then in 1943 - fuelled
Soviet suspicion. The Allies, Moscow claimed, were not seriously' drawing off German As a
consequence, the wartime alliance of Russia and the West was a brittle affair on both sides.
Any sign that Britain and the USA were reluctant to throw everything they had at Germany -
there were unfulfilled promises of a Second Front in 1942 and then in 1943 - fuelled Soviet
suspicion. The Allies, Moscow claimed, were not seriously drawing off German divisions but were
leaving Russia to do the hard fighting.
There was also the problem of Churchill's own attitude to Russia. In December 1918 he had
called unavailingly for an anti-Communist crusade, to include the defeated Germans, to march on
Moscow. It is true that he was one of the few7 Western politicians in the late 1930s calling
for an alliance with Russia to contain Hitler. But as early as 1943 his old hostility
resurfaced and he was saying that it might be wrong to disarm the Germans too far since they
might be needed against the Russians. He repeated it in 1944. The Kremlin knew7 of this.
Russian fears that the West might sign a separate peace with Germany - at times reciprocated in
the West by a fear that Russia might do the same - were regular. Churchill was also to write in
a memorandum in 1944 that if the issues of Poland and, oddly, Soviet reparations from Germany
were not settled, it would be hard to avoid a third world war. Churchill's argument over Poland
was at least an obvious one. But treating the reparations issue as a potential casus belli wras
eccentric. After victory in 1918, Lloyd George had promised to 'squeeze Germany until the pips
squeak'. The reparations forced on Berlin after the First World War then were a mistake which
Churchill in particular recognised. He argued that a weakened Germany7 would hinder the
economic recovery of Europe as well as leave a bitter legacy7. The Russian demands for
reparations from Germany after the Second World War, thought unreasonable by the USA and
Britain, were no more than an echo of Lloyrd George. Russia wanted revenge for the devastation
caused by the Germans.
Churchill has long been associated with the start of the Cold War because of his famous Iron
Curtain speech in 1946 at Fulton, Missouri. But his active role in the early7 y7ears of the
Cold War should not be exaggerated; he w7as only the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons.
In mid-1945 he was voted out of office and replaced by7 Clement Attlee, halfway Churchill has
long been associated with the start of the Cold War because of his famous Iron Curtain speech
in 1946 at Fulton, Missouri. But his active role in the early years of the Cold War should not
be exaggerated; he was only the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons. In mid-1945 he was
voted out of office and replaced by Clement Attlee, halfway through the vital Potsdam
conference. The new Prime Minister was far less inclined to see a great Soviet threat in the
making. Churchill's prestige, 011 the other hand, even out of office, was enormous and global.
He was one of history's truly great men. He had saved Britain, if not civilization, from Nazi
Germany. For many his Fulton speech - though the Labour government contemplated openly
disowning it - was proof to many that the West was now faced with a new version of Hitler.
In allotting blame for the start of the Cold War, Churchill certainly has to bear some
share. But predominantly, as the evidence shows, it was the Americans who must shoulder the
main responsibility. They were to blame too for the continuation of the struggle when
detente was on the cards. Washington, under the influence of John Foster Dulles as
Secretary of State, ignored overtures from Moscow after the death of Stalin in 1953 .
Churchill, back in power by then, was by contrast eager to follow up these offers but was
firmly warned off by Dulles. Russia played a role, but a small one, in stimulating the onset of
the Cold War. Soviet tactics in negotiations on matters large and small could be extremely
tiresome, at times suggesting little desire for serious cooperation. And the ruthlessness which
Stalin's forces displayed in the occupied and reoccupied territories as they swept westwards
was bound to outrage Western feelings. But it did not in itself presage any intentions to
occupy areas outside the sphere seen as essential to strategic defense.
Despots, though always repugnant, are not necessarily dangerous outside their own borders.
The fact that Stalin was evil did not necessarily mean that his foreign policy was evil. And in
the later stages of the Cold War, the USA itself was to back decidedly repressive and brutal
regimes. These were vital tactics for defence, ran the argument. The Kremlin would not have
argued with that general principle, though it was always ready during the Cold War to brutal
regimes. These were vital tactics for defence, ran the argument. The Kremlin would not have
argued with that general principle, though it was always ready during the Cold War to exploit
the embarrassment that backing dictators was to cause within the USA.
Tire level of mutual suspicion which came to exist within months of the end of the Second
World War was graphically illustrated by the two secret long telegrams of 1946 which travelled
between Moscow7 and Washington as each nation's ambassador warned his government to beware of
the other side's imperialist ambitions.
.... .... ...
The Americans also had their own ideas about inevitability: the eventual global triumph of
democracy and liberal capitalism. Like the Soviets, they too were convinced that time and
example was on their side. The immediate need was safety from another war and a world in which
American prosperity could continue. That meant a world where American business could flourish
on the international stage, untrammeled by the tariff wars and economic chauvinism which had
impoverished everyone in the interwar years. This point was recognized in the second telegram,
Novikov emphasizing American ambitions to open up markets throughout the world for the access
of trade and capital. The fact that the war had left the USA with military bases all round the
world which it showed no sign of vacating underlined the American desire in Novikov's analysis
to encircle the Soviet Union. 12
Of the two views, Novikov's was backed up by a greater proportion of facts rather than
surmise. The USA, he correctly said, was worried that the end of the war might bring a severe
recession to its factories and the repetition of the trade wars of the 1930s. Fears were indeed
being voiced in the administration that the impoverished post-war world might be unable to buy
American goods. The need for free trade in goods and capital throughout the world was to prove
a constant theme of the US government from the earliest stages of the Cold War. Whether the
Americans as a whole were quite as politically and economically ambitious in 1946 as Novikov
maintained is questionable. The need for action to advance American economic interests was not
questioned. An active global policy for political domination and involvement on the other hand
had little popular appeal at that time. But it was to grow over the next decades to the point
where the affairs of any nation came to be seen as the legitimate political (and moral)
interest of the USA. Seen from the standpoint of the 21st century, Novikov had the best of the
argument.
Both the Kennan documents, the Long Telegram and X Article, provided authority for views
which had been taking root in most parts of the administration. Yet Kennan himself was later to
say that he looked back on the Long Telegram 'with a sort of horrified amusement'. It might
have been written, he said in his memoirs, for the (fiercely conservative) Daughters of the
American Revolution. He was to go on in the 1950s to preach the virtues of detente with the
Soviets.
He also complained that his call for Russia to be 'contained' had been taken to mean
militarily. He had wanted, he said, to stress 'political containment'. It was not a very
convincing argument since it was hard to see, particularly for a man of his intellectual
background, how an idea or an ideology could be 'contained'. The reality was that he changed
his mind when he returned from Moscow to the State Department and saw at first hand the
belligerent attitudes which were coming to dominate US policy. Following the lines of the two
telegrams each side was to attribute aggressive motives to the other. This had inevitable
consequences. Every move by either side was seen as part of a plan to weaken the other -
politically, economically or strategically. The USA's diplomacy was not subtle. It was often
conducted in the glare of publicity which is habitual in American politics and was in many
instances driven by the urge to score points for electoral purposes. If it was not for the
Presidential elections, it was for the intervening Congressional elections. The so-called
hyphenate vote (Polish-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc.) was strongly anti-Soviet and could
swing a national result.
The Russians had no such electoral or publicity problems. But, suspicious by nature, they
were among the most tiresome of negotiators, sometimes seeming like the Red Army itself,
determined to wear down the other side by sheer stamina. Tire personality of the granite- faced
Molotov as Soviet Foreign Minister played a part in this process. There was also the problem
during the Cold War that no Soviet official, if he valued his position - or even his skin -
would dare to take an initiative on his own. The rigidity of the system meant that clearance at
the top was always necessary7 for any gesture which smacked of friendliness. Niet was always
the easiest answer.
Nikita Khrushchev, who rose to the Soviet leadership in the mid-1950s, was to describe
Molotov's character as showing on occasions 'unbelievable stubbornness, bordering on
stupidity'. 13 Yet various issues remaining from the war were in fact eventually resolved with
him through foreign ministers' conferences, such as the peace treaties with Germany's former
allies. But the process was wearisome and there were rarely any displays of goodwill or
friendship. The Russians, questions of defense apart, thought the USA remarkably insensitive
about the huge sacrifices in men, material and infrastructure they had suffered in destroying
the Wehrmacht.
The Americans found it genuinely hard to understand how Russian propaganda could ascribe
imperialist ambitions to them. Had not the USA been a champion of freedom and democracy and an
outspoken enemy of colonialism? The Russians, still mired in Marxism, could not understand how
the USA could attribute imperialism to the Soviet Union. Was not the point of Marxism-Leninism
that it liberated the proletariat? The two powers used the same word but refused to share its
meaning.
The Soviets in 1945 were also convinced that they brought liberation (of another kind) to
the territories they took. The governments of Poland, Hungary and Romania between the wars were
hardly model democracies. The new forms of government allowed in Hungary and Romania had, at
first, some elements of democracy; and Czechoslovakia returned to its fuller pre-war pattern.
But after 1948 all elements of democracy were removed. The full Communist pattern was imposed
which - the Soviets liked to believe - would also bring clear economic progress.
KENNAN MK II
The belief that Kennan Mk I was calling for military containment was readily accepted in
Washington. Indeed that seemed to be understood by him at that time. He observed the sharp rise
in the defence budget and the warlike pronouncements of the administration without immediately
seeking to correct the impression that containment had to be essentially military7. He should
not have been surprised either that the logic of his warning led to a high degree of
interference by the USA in the affairs of countries close to the Soviet bloc. If the Russians
had to be contained militarily, the effective frontiers against them had to be manned. He was
remarkably slow to correct this impression. His doubts about his own 'X' article became evident
when he pleaded later that it had only7 been written originally for the 'private edification'
of James Forrestal, the Defense Secretary7 (later to commit suicide after a bout of persecution
mania).
Tire fact that the article helped to stimulate policies of rearmament went down
particularly7 well with what President Eisenhower later dubbed 'the industrial-military
complex' in his departing address to the nation. Left so abruptly with redundant military plant
when the war ended, the defence industries were delighted at the prospect of new orders and the
military with rising budgets.
The policy of containment was taken up with enthusiasm by Clark Clifford, a White House
adviser to President Truman. In September 1946, he wrote a memorandum declaring that
coexistence was impossible and advocating a worldwide strategy7 based on the A-bomb to
'restrain the Soviet Union and to confine Soviet influence to its present area'.14 The language
was violent. The stage seemed to be set for a military confrontation with the Soviets, despite
the CIA study suggesting it would remain militarily ineffective for some years. An updated
version of the memorandum, with no dilution of its extreme views, was to become NSC-68
(National Security Council) in 1950.
Kennan's disillusionment about the effect of his earlier analyses started during his brief
tenure as Ambassador to Moscow from 1952-53. He wrote in his memoirs: A particularly violent
jolt was received one day when one of the service attaches showed me a message he had received
from Washington concerning a certain step of a military nature that the Pentagon proposed to
take for the purpose of strengthening our military posture in a region not far from the Soviet
frontier. I paled when I read it. It was at once apparent to me that had I been a Soviet leader
and had I learned that such a step was being taken I would have concluded that the Americans
were shaping their preparations towards a target of a war within six months. 15
In 1952 Kennan was to send another telegram to Washington attempting to undo the hardline
attitudes he had reinforced. He called for moderation in relations with the Soviet Union. He
described this later telegram at the time as: '... The strongest statement I ever made of my
views on this general subject of our responsibility for the deterioration of relations between
Russia and the West in the late 194OS.T6
He went on to write that the USA was determined to:
Teach itself and the NATO associates never to refer to the most menacing element of our
military potential otherwise than as the nuclear deterrent' - the unmistakable implication
being that the Russians, longing for inauguration of World War III, would at once attack if
not deterred by the agency of retribution. Year after year nothing would be omitted to move
American air bases and missile sites as close as possible to Soviet frontiers. Year after
year, American naval vessels would be sent on useless demonstration expeditions into the
Black Sea - thus, by implication, imputing to the Russians a degree of patience which our own
public and congressional opinion would be most unlikely to master had the shoe been on the
other foot.
Time after time, as in Pakistan and Okinawa, the maintenance and development of military or
air bases would be stubbornly pursued with no evidence of any effort to balance this against
the obvious political costs. Political interests would similarly be sacrificed or put in
jeopardy by the avid and greedy pursuit of military intelligence.!'' One hardliner who would
not repent was Dean Acheson, Secretary7 of State from 1949 to 1953. While Under Secretary
during the Truman period, he propounded his version of what was later called the domino theory,
which was so effective in entangling the USA in the Vietnam war. Acheson argued that a victory7
for Communism in Greece, Turkey or Iran or any of the other countries of the Near East or the
Mediterranean region would lead rapidly to the collapse of pro-Western governments throughout
Europe.
Tire seeds of the Cold War which had been sown in warlike warnings to Russia by Truman were
to grow thick and fast in the wake of the Long Telegram. Tire influential Senator Arthur
Vandenberg spoke in the Senate of the need to stop 'appeasement' of the Soviet Union. James
Byrnes, the Secretary of State, delivered a warning that no country had the right to station
troops in the territories of other sovereign nations 'without their consent'. That of course
sounded fine and even-handed. But the point was that other countries which agreed to American
bases were so much in need of US economic assistance that they could rarely resist Washington's
military planners.
Byrnes also criticized the Soviets for taking, or looting, Japanese industrial equipment in
Manchuria before any formal agreement had been reached on reparations. But such an agreement,
as the Russians knew, would be hard to achieve with the Americans. In any case it was easy for
the USA to take this high-minded attitude on reparations. It had emerged from the war with a
surplus of industrial plant.
It was also time, Washington decided, to deter suspected Russian ambitions in Turkey7 and -
as they supposed - in Greece, even though the aid for rebels there came from Yugoslavia against
Stalin's specific wishes. He told Djilas:
The uprising in Greece will have to fold up. Do you think that Great Britain and the USA -
the USA the most powerful nation in the world - will permit you to break the line of
communication in the Mediterranean? And we have no navy. The uprising in Greece must be stopped
as quickly as possible. 18 But Washington's view persisted that the menace in Greece was from
the Soviets. Truman agreed to a proposal from Forrestal that a task force including an aircraft
carrier should be earmarked for a display7 of American power in the eastern Mediterranean. 'The
Truman Doctrine' was being created.
THE CHARACTER OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY
Given the gap between the two powers as demonstrated by the two telegrams, it would have
needed the most skilful diplomacy to bring either side to an understanding of the other's
position. Sadly, the quality of diplomacy during the early years of the Cold War was lamentable
- and it was to get no better with the passage of time. On the US side, the reign of John
Foster Dulles at the State Department (1953-1959) was to see a foreign policy designed to scare
the Soviet Union into submission. The death of Stalin and gestures of detente by the new
leadership opened up new prospects which were promptly rebuffed. The British and French
governments tried to redress the balance but, as decidedly junior partners in the alliance were
unable to do so. There was also an inclination in Washington to listen to military hotheads in
formulating policy.
On the Soviet side, the interregnum of Georgiy Malenkov, Stalin's immediate successor, was
followed by the reign of Nikita Khrushchev whose volatile and emotional behaviour made East
-West negotiations difficult. His erratic behaviour was to upset not just Western leaders but
also his colleagues - and be a key factor in his ultimate downfall
Tire problems of American diplomacy arose from certain national psychological
characteristics which lent an aggressive edge to the country's foreign policy. The USA has
always been a fiercely competitive society in fields ranging from business to sport and many
other fields. It has long been characterized by the unmatched flow of 'how to succeed' books.
It is an important cause of the country's success as a leader in those and so many other
fields.
The MSM and its allies in the controlled alternative media, and the global private-interest
financial, investment and banking system, are a tag-team, indispensable to each other.
Control of money and control of information. The first narrowly concentrates wealth and thus
power and influence. The second through agenda-driven selection, lies, censorship, spin,
misdirection and so on – disinformation – controls people's sense of what is real
and possible, thus dis-empowering them.
The American military and CIA have provided most of the overt and covert 'muscle' for that
control system.
The combined effort of narrowly controlled and narrowly advantaging globe straddling
finance, media, and muscle has facilitated the development of a near global Empire. In common
with traditional Empires this new Empire had totalitarian ambitions: but since its reach was
global, this is really a first attempt at global totalitarian control.
Russia under Putin – leaving aside China – has developed enough strength to
attempt alternative modes of communication and finance and development, not as adjuncts or
subordinates to the Empire's efforts in those regards. And their military is antidote and
opposition to the totalitarian project.
The forgoing is pretty obvious stuff, but I think that the Saker's concluding paragraph
provides a limiting summary of how the issue can play out.
"But fundamentally the Russian people need to decide. Do they really want to live in a
western-style capitalist society (with all the russophobic politics and the adoption
of the terminally degenerate "culture" such a choice implies), or do they want a
"social society" (to use Putin's own words) – meaning a society in which social and
economic
justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits.
You could say that this is a battle of greed vs ethics."
This is a simplistic way of looking at the choices available. We are all caught up in
transitional culture processes, no matter where we live. The conjunction of the cornucopia of
new technology and unprecedented environmental and social challenges is everywhere at play,
leading who knows where?
What the Russian people have been given, and this is near singular on Earth, is a
protected and enhanced opportunity of developing a culture in which honest national discourse
is a predominant feature. This is in complete contrast to the predominant 'fake news' system
of discourse control that is in place in so many countries. And full and honest discourse
will create its own original cultural developments.
The Russian adoption of more honest discourse is already having global influence. An
example is Russia Today, which far from perfect and all that, still provides an enormous
advance over the extremely controlled western mass media, and a powerful foe to 'fake
news'.
Perhaps the most visible exemplar of rationale discourse has been Putin himself, with for
example his marathon annual Q and A with the Russian people, or his articulate well
considered sallies on many issues
And with that – if Russia can use unfettered reason writ large as a prime ingredient
of cultural and political development, as a basic developmental 'steering tool' – then
the simple dichotomy of "western-style capitalist society" vs "a society in which social and
economic justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits"
, as much as I'm sympathetic to the latter, seems to me to be a limiting way of expressing
the range of potential beneficent possibilities.
"... "Will The War Criminals Be Brought To Justice in 2019? Or Is Justice Dead and Buried"? ..."
"... I am not sure that immediately after WWII, Soviet Union and Stalin really had their eyes to conquer all of Europe. The Soviets were entirely exhausted after that catastrophic war and in good Russian tradition, were reactive, and taking a brake. ..."
"... European countries, not wanting to be a target of Soviet missiles, have forced the Americans to get into INF. But the Russians have been, and still are in the cross-hair of one or other Western power de jour. ..."
"... Someone defined the role of NATO: to keep the Americans in, Germans down, and Russians out. I truly believe that that assertion was wrong from the beginning and showed complete lack of historical knowledge about Russia and Russians. NATO was mainly set up to keep the Americans in and Germans out. Russians were never a real issue. For almost 30 years they are within their national borders (e.g. they pulled their troupes out of Romania in late 50s and kept their side of the bargain in any deal they made with the Americans). But Americans are still in and Germans are still down. ..."
"... Our political failure is that no figure other than Trump would challenge what has no discernible benefit for hundreds of millions of ordinary Americans, but holds them instead hostage to nuclear holocaust for the sake of foreign empire. Who benefits? Elites who are invested in empire instead of America's citizenry. ..."
"... Well, just yesterday Trump uttered something about "We will be with NATO 100%". So, if Trump in the past said anything negative about NATO, it's not because he shares the sentiments on NATO of Mr. Merry. It's because he was like a child asking a question about something he doesn't understand. Now "the adults" have explained it to the child and the child parrots what the adults told him. ..."
"... "There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years." Translation: "Take that, Mr. President! You're an idiot." ..."
The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President
Trump had questioned in governmental conversations -- on more than one occasion, apparently --
America's membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of
nostrum journalism. My Webster's New World Dictionary defines "nostrum" as "quack
medicine" entailing "exaggerated claims." Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of
quack diplomacy.
The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred
that NATO had "deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years." This is wrong, as can be
seen through just a spare amount of history.
True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70
years but over 40 years -- from 1949 to 1989. That's when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million
Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe's doorstep, positioned for an invasion
of Europe through the lowlands of Germany's Fulda Gap.
How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther
and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In
doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the
Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of
Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which
enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent
staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.
The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he
thought he could get away with it, was America's nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost,
NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the
cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests
anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at
various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.
But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for
its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.
But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops.
Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union
itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother
Russia. It was a time for celebration.
But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over
the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions -- including NATO, a
defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east.
Here's where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable
developments enhancing Western security -- the Soviet military retreat, the territorial
reversal, the Soviet demise -- the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own,
absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to
the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace
of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is
merely 200 miles from Western troops.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border,
others bordering lands that had been part of Russia's sphere of interest for centuries. This
constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback.
And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence -- particularly Ukraine
and Georgia -- that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President
Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.
So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has
maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West's
inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed
geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics -- George Kennan
before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former
diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation . But their voices have tended to get
drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every
turn.
You can't drown out Donald Trump because he's president of the United States. And so he has
to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That's what the Times story, by
Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just
how outlandish Trump's musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may
have been thinking: "There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires
more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and
Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years." Translation: "Take that,
Mr. President! You're an idiot."
Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the
Financial Times . "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history," said the
former secretary of state, "who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to
force it to give up its old pretenses." One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced
by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about
world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the
Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its
place.
Trump clearly doesn't buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete.
Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the
cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as "the strongest
military alliance in the history of the world," that he only said NATO was obsolete because he
didn't know much about it. But he was learning -- enough, it appears, to support as president
Montenegro's entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000
citizens, really a crucial element in Europe's desperate project to protect itself against
Putin's Russia?
We all know that Trump is a crude figure -- not just in his disgusting discourse but in his
fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor
attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving
NATO are a case in point -- an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge
the country in necessary new directions.
But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old
ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo
defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American
politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current
configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the
author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century.
We recently heard Trump get real mad at the Germans because their energy policy is
strengthening Russia, meanwhile, we're protecting them from Russia, so like what the hell,
Germany, make up your mind but you know that we're just venting, we're with you no matter what,
Germany, and NATO is sacrosanct, you know the status quo, and Trump is very often a status quo
kinda guy, which is why when the newly liberated Poles and Czechs and Hungarians and Baltics
insisted on NATO protection, there is no way Trump would have refused to expand the alliance,
no chance whatsoever that he would have listened to Kennan -- Kennan who?
Kennan was a smart man, but he didn't get everything right all the time, for example, be
didn't think the Germans were made for democracy, in fact he had serious doubts about American
democracy as well.
Personally, I supported the NATO expansion, and even in hindsight I'm not so sure it was the
wrong move. It's easy to talk loudly when you don't have to weigh deeply competing interests
and make the hard calls. Plenty of smart people were also convinced after '89 that a re-unified
Germany would spell grave misfortune, but a decision had to be made, and we'll never really
know where the road not taken would have led. Truly, are we so sure that leaving 100 million
Eastern Europeans as a buffer zone would have been the absolute and unambiguous best
choice?
But to reiterate, knowing his abiding love for their women, my bet on Trump gladly and
effusively welcoming them is a safe one.
I am not sure that immediately after WWII, Soviet Union and Stalin really had their eyes to
conquer all of Europe. The Soviets were entirely exhausted after that catastrophic war and in
good Russian tradition, were reactive, and taking a brake.
And then NATO came to life in 1949, and then the other shenanigans that the U.S. did that
convinced the Soviets that the time started ticking against them. So they managed to pull
together the Warsaw Pact in 1955. And then they always tried to catch up with having enough to
deter a nuclear attack from US.
European countries, not wanting to be a target of Soviet missiles, have forced the
Americans to get into INF. But the Russians have been, and still are in the cross-hair of one
or other Western power de jour.
Someone defined the role of NATO: to keep the Americans in, Germans down, and Russians
out. I truly believe that that assertion was wrong from the beginning and showed complete lack
of historical knowledge about Russia and Russians. NATO was mainly set up to keep the Americans
in and Germans out. Russians were never a real issue. For almost 30 years they are within their
national borders (e.g. they pulled their troupes out of Romania in late 50s and kept their side
of the bargain in any deal they made with the Americans). But Americans are still in and
Germans are still down.
Russians, for a long time looked up to and got inspiration from Europe and wanted to enjoy
it. Why to debase it with their boots?
An instructive book is Brendan Simms' "Europe -- The Struggle for Supremacy". Provides quite
a perspective
Well written Robert! We in the West don't even think much about extant structures like NATO,
but they have raised the tension needlessly with Russia, at a time we need to build friendship.
Trump should chat to Putin about bringing Russia into NATO -- that would set the cat among
the pigeons!
We will need all the Euro-Christian nations to unite and defend against Islamic invasion
soon, as 23% of world are Muslim, and they follow a global domination death cult in the Koran.
Even China may have to swing on board (not in NATO, but as allies like in WW2).
Of course, Russia would need to improve its democratic practices, and it would take time to
ease suspicions, but with fast falling fertility & birth rates in all Western nations, and
fast rising 3rd world births and forcible migration into the West, a united Europe & West
will be vital
Our political failure is that no figure other than Trump would challenge what has no
discernible benefit for hundreds of millions of ordinary Americans, but holds them instead
hostage to nuclear holocaust for the sake of foreign empire. Who benefits? Elites who are
invested in empire instead of America's citizenry.
Well, just yesterday Trump uttered something about "We will be with NATO 100%". So, if
Trump in the past said anything negative about NATO, it's not because he shares the sentiments
on NATO of Mr. Merry. It's because he was like a child asking a question about something he
doesn't understand. Now "the adults" have explained it to the child and the child parrots what
the adults told him.
This is a very good article about why we should now take a very critical look at the question
of NATO.
However, I do not see any evidence that the Soviet Union, so devastated by war, ever planned
an invasion of Western Europe and this article has not supplied any.
AP European History Class, Classwork, Date: 1/18/19
There are two things I have learned from reading this article:
First, there is Europe, which from geography we know is a continent called Europe, and then
there in Eastern Europe, which may or may not be a continent, but it seems it is somewhere in
the East. Also, Western Europe is mentioned, but its precise location is not given. Thinking
critically, I think it's in the West;
The second thing I learned is that Russia needs a permanent radius of 1200 miles centered on
Moscow, to feel safe and secure within its western borders;
Conclusions and critical thinking thoughts:
Russia is right to defend itself. It is surrounded by enemies of peace, so this need for
buffer areas is justified. In my opinion, that's because for centuries Russia suffered invasion
after invasion, so it's justified. Also, because Peter the Terrible built Leningrad, which
freezes in winter;
Also, thinking critically, if these buffer areas around Russia are populated, it would be
best to depopulate them, to further enhance the Russian need for security. Since security
threats to Russia come from hostile populations, peace would be enhanced by the removal of
these hostile populations. They could, for, example, be used to form farming communities in
unsettled parts of Antarctica, thus enhancing world's food supply.
Clearly, the US should not have excluded the Russian Federation from NATO but that is now
purely academic. That exclusion spawned Putin just as the harshness of the Versailles Treaty
spawned Hitler. However, having spawned the monster, the US has litle choice but to destroy him
and the only effect of abandoning NATO would be to encourage him to continue to grab other
ountries' territory until, one day, he will go too far and will have to be fought with military
force. The same argument Mr Merry is making was also made about Hitler in the 1930s:"Not our
problem. Anyway, he's only taking back what is rightfully his". It didn't work then and I don't
see why it would work now.
This is a an excellent essay by Robert Merry. Congrats.
Re: "There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than
the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that
has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years." Translation: "Take that, Mr.
President! You're an idiot."
That Russia wants NATO gone is true. But for economic, not military reasons. NATO is the
front that the U.S. Global Cop Gorilla uses to pressure Europe in all dimensions, military and
economic. Washington demonizes Russia, even equates Russia with the Soviet Union to maintain
the basis for its ham-fisted interference in every issue of importance to the Europeans.
Russia's objectives are economic, not territorial. It wants to set up a pan-Eurasian
economic architecture that includes Europe as a primary trading partner. The U.S. via NATO will
do anything and everything to subvert that benign economic activity, e.g., Nord Stream 2.
Because the Gorilla insists on absolutely controlling everything that it touches.
American Elites have lived parasitically large for decades under the existing model. America
as a "force for good" is their sole argument for sustaining the foreign policy pathologies
regardless of the record of wreckage and waste.
Unfortunately, with a War Machine that is worshiped, a compliant cronied-up corporate
culture, sycophantic MSM and seduced population, at this points it's wiser to bet on the
Elites. I.e. the Gorilla fronted by the NATO it controls, will be sticking its fat, greasy
thumb in European affairs for years to come. And the American taxpayer will again be forced to
pay the bills for Elite arrogance and stupidity.
'America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace', is
true. We live in extremely dangerous times and the signs are ominous. It's correct that Russia
had a huge buffer zone after it pushed west at the end of ww2, for which NATO was justifiable
to counter this. But now Russia sees itself encircled, threatened, with the choice of either
rebounding or imploding; no state chooses that latter.
The present crisis is worse than the Cold War because the Cold War was the peace. Today it is
becoming increasingly difficult to prevent the scenarios where Mutual Assured Destruction will
be resorted to. We will soon face the scenario where (unlike the Cuban missile crisis or Euro
missile crisis) one protagonist will not be able to step back from the brink, blindly stumbling
into a situation they cannot de-escalate. All that is left is Deterrence's fall-back position
-- annihilation.
The world has experienced periods of peace (or relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty
Years Peace between the two Peloponnesian Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after
the Congress of Vienna, to name a few. They all ended: followed by war. The Congress System
finally collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One. That conflict was followed by the
League of Nations. It did not stop World War Two. That was followed by the United Nations and
other post-war institutions. But all the indications are they will not prevent a third world
war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Wasn't post WW 2 perceived logic, you cannot allow the Germans to ever rearm, and the Russians
need be isolated. So give them half the spoils, to keep them happy, and occupy Germany. Well
here we are, spending billions to have a European military presence, while Putin looks on in
wonderment, at our Government and the Brits. We concentrate on impeachment , and the Brits
chose to ignore 51.9 percent of their population, wanting out of Germany controlled so called
EU, administered by Brussels puppets. If we got out of Nato , which is all about the US
military capabilities, would Russia invade western Europe? Bottom line is that wouldn't be
practical. Russia prefers to have eastern Europe willingly join Russia in a re-constructed
Soviet Union.
Henry Kissinger: "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to
time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses."
Robert Merry: "Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed,
while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the
status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary
American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its
current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it."
Thank you, Mr. Merry. You're a historian, I know -- and that gives you many advantages --
but why do you think so few among the Elite Classes understand that even a man whose favorite
meal is two Big Macs, two Fillet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted "may be one of those figures in
history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its
old pretenses" -- a man who "almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking
questions to which the world needs new answers"?
An opportunity to move beyond NATO was missed in 2001. Putin had been president for a year and
a half. Russia was even weaker than it is today. Pointing out that the Soviet Union was gone
and NATO had won the Cold War, Putin had a few suggestions: NATO could disband; Russia could
join NATO; or a new European defense league could be formed to include Russia. The response to
such feelers? Aggressive NATO expansion.
As laid out in detail in contemporary books, NATO did not ever have the conventional military
force to stop a conventional attack by the Soviets.
If NATO is seen as a military force that could stop the Soviets, that is just wrong. It
never was. It must not have been meant to be either, since the balance of forces was obvious
and nothing was done to change that.
Nuclear deterrent could have been done with a lot less conventional force, and was for
awhile.
So what was it really all about? Likely it was US dominance of military force on the
Continent, to such an extent that they could not imagine fighting each other. That provided
peace from the 400 years of European civil wars. We now take that for granted, or credit it to
"the Soviet threat" but it was far more complex than that.
As much as I am sympathetic to Trump's views of NATO, I would say this:
1) I wish Trump simply pulled out of EU with military. It seems like a lot of small changes
could be made without Trump throwing another temper tantrum.
2) I am fine with keeping the nations the same and not expanding in order to avoid Russia
being threatened.
3) The best part of NATA the last 30 years is peace within Europe. When was the last time
Spain, Italy, France, England, and Germany did not have a major war in over 70 years? And look
at Eastern Europe the last 18 years, in which it has been historically peaceful.
This read is actually composed of actual history and common sense.
President Eisenhower, as well as Kennedy and Johnson kept diplomacy and civility, in relations
with Russia.
Even with the Berlin so-called crises in the early 60's, the Bay of Pigs and so on, these
leaders were calm, using diplomacy.
Isn't that what diplomacy is for?
Now, we have very narrow minded and crude people advising Trump. To think, Bolton and Kushner
are the face of a great country as the USA to the world?
What a dangerous and insulting situation we have,because of these two, insulting to the
American people. Pompeo is also an extremist and so they bring America down to the level of a
bully and war loving nation. They sure as hell don't care about US troops and civilians in
other nations suffering, dying. And, the leaders of NATO have been talking nonsense.Russia
attacking W Europe? Why? That's bull.
NATO and the US state department are run by nuts.
There are problems within the capitalist systems also, do we throw out the whole capitalist
system? No, we fix the problematic parts. Likewise with NATO.
Given the aggression from Putin in invading Ukraine, and in interfering with the elections
of not just United States but also other European countries, NATO is needed more than ever to
deter Putin from increased aggression.
NATO however can be strategic and not provoke Putin by expanding NATO right next to Russia's
border. This author is as short sighted and foolish as Trump.
@ Mark VA Also, thinking critically, if these buffer areas around Russia are populated, it would be
best to depopulate them, to further enhance the Russian need for security. Since security
threats to Russia come from hostile populations, peace would be enhanced by the removal of
these hostile populations. They could, for, example, be used to form farming communities in
unsettled parts of Antarctica, thus enhancing world's food supply.
Hilarious. You've earned and "A" in Mr. Merry's geography class.
An interesting thesis, and well argued I think, except for the part about Trump's motives. It's
more likely that he favors easing off on the Russians because Putin has something on him;
specifically, that he's indebted to the Russian mob. I think the main thesis of this article is
likely valid, and questioning NATO is overdue. Trump is probably doing it for corrupt and
possibly treasonous reasons, so what does one make of the right thing being done for the wrong
reasons? Trump may be one of those figures who appears at a time of transition in thinking, and
provokes important thinking. That doesn't imply that the man himself has any kind of coherent
strategy or understanding of what he's doing. He's an opportunist, a con man, not a statesman
or strategist, but he still may break some things that need to be broken, even if for the wrong
reasons or no clear reason at all. None of what's happening fits into any kind of good-vs-evil
or wise leadership narrative.
A cogent debate on this topic would be useful, at least for academic purposes [if only the few
people in the current administration capable of such a carefully reasoned examination did not
keep getting forced out]. The Deplorables like the "gut feel" of it, but would never
countenance the shrinking of the military budget.
Please tell us how this squares with the carefully cultivated Trump image of being the 21st
Century Churchill rather than Chamberlain? I thought that he was the only leader of our time
who could see the true enemies and protect us?? Or does that only apply to the threat of
dark-skinned people?
What's really ironic is that, even if the author is absolutely correct, Trump will have done
more to strengthen US involvement in NATO than any recent president. Once Trump is relegated to
the ash-heap of history, suffering the scorn of millions, if not actually in prison, his ideas
will become toxic-no subsequent president will touch them.
If Trump had been a thoughtful, well-spoken leader, perhaps we could have withdrawn from
NATO. But he will be a laughingstock, generating endless jokes about hamberders, raking the
forest, his ties made in China, rather than made in America, and tunnels under walls.
Merry writes a clear case against NATO and its Drang nach Osten but one that has been patently
obvious for a long time now.
But then as he gets to the end he writes in what is a total non-sequitur:
"We all know that Trump is a crude figure -- not just in his disgusting discourse but in his
fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor
attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving
NATO are a case in point -- an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge
the country in necessary new directions."
Trump Derangement Syndrome strikes again! Note that Merry dislikes Trump for his style --
you can almost hear in it the snotty putdowns of Trump and Deplorables from the refined and
brutal hawk, Hillary, or the contempt of a Marie Antoinette for the rabble who would soon cart
her off to face the guillotine.
The upper professional classes cannot stomach the nouveau riche Trump -- and that is true
whether they are Right or Left. The original NYT dislike for Trump in the early days of his
candidacy came of its judgement that he was "vulgar" and "boorish." So Merry completes his
piece by unwittingly put himself in the same crowd he seeks to discredit at the beginning.
TDS is catnip for the Respectables.
With respect to NATO, that Cold War relic should have ceased operations some years after the
fall of the Soviet Union. Sadly the West had other ideas and now we're threatening Russia in
the 21st Century, ironically some of the cheerleaders against Moscow are the political
descendants of NATO opponents during its heyday.
For all the talk about "aggressive" NATO expansion, countries such as the Baltic states, who
experienced the delights of Russian domination first-hand, were eager to join, for reasons that
would seem obvious except to the author.
"I am not sure that immediately after WWII, Soviet Union and Stalin really had their eyes to
conquer all of Europe."
I think this is accurate. That press is probably an overstatement. Not only is it doubtful
they had that desire, it is doubtful that even then they could have accomplished that task.
Based on what we now know, by the the 1960's the Soviet Union and it's "empire" was in
trouble.
"There are problems within the capitalist systems also, do we throw out the whole capitalist
system?"
There are valid reasons to suspect that capitalism is gone or at least under tremendous
pressure by merchantil behavior.
-- -- -- -- --
For some reasons that make a little sense and plenty more that are incomprehensible to me --
this president chose not to embrace the mantle of transformational change. Sec. Kissinger's
observation is correct. But ultimately, this president has chosen to be that transformative
force those of us that voted for him so desired. Breaking the social communicative norms of
"political correct speech" is the least of the substantive behaviors I was hoping to see
occur.
I fully expected that he would press NATO for either a less substantial US presence or a
they pay a larger share of the expense.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Please tell us how this squares with the carefully cultivated Trump image of being the 21st
Century Churchill rather than Chamberlain? I thought that he was the only leader of our time
who could see the true enemies and protect us?? Or does that only apply to the threat of
dark-skinned people?"
Referring to this president as a Lord/PM Churchill or PM Chamberlain in light the conditions
in which the both operated makes no sense. As I understand it, PM Churchill's choices was to
stand in the face of extreme criticism. His choice made, there he stood. He believed in his
being he had a destiny and he seized it as a bull dog might sieze it's prey. He by sheer will
and force -- regardless of the odds. He actually served . . . in battle and it appears was as
brazen and certain as consistent to his character throughout.
PM Chamberlain actually embraced the popular will of the people when he chose a peaceful,
understanding that GB was neither in the mood or a condition to go to war.
Our current president, has neither stood consistently, has any deep certainty of his place
nor marshaled the will of the people to advance policy on any grand scale. The comparison's
made have been false comparisons about what this president could be or might have been, but
refuses to fully embrace save as facades of leadership, despite have been given a clear
mandate.
"Tucker Carlson: You're not allowed to question NATO" Tucker Carlson Tonight, Jan 15, 2019:
(3:20) "They consider asking difficult questions a criminal act. Just this morning, Preet
Bharara, the most famous former federal prosecutor in America, explained this on Twitter.
Quote: 'If true, Trump should immediately and publicly state his apparent wish to withdraw from
NATO so he can be promptly impeached, convicted, and removed from office'." Unquote. In other
words, talking about leaving NATO isn't simply unwise. It's an impeachable offense. Lots of
famous and powerful people in Washington think this. Watch:
"SOT: JAMES CLAPPER: Withdrawing from NATO -- even discussing withdrawing from NATO -- would
be disastrous for the security of the United States.
"REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA: I think that act would be so destructive to our country
(edit) it would be a ground for some profound effort by our part, whether it's impeachment or
the 25th Amendment. He can't do that to this country. And I don't believe that he can do it
without Senate ratification."
I understand that TAC's editors might not have wanted to run two fine NATO essays head-to-head
on the same day, but this is Pat Buchanan's regular Friday TAC column:
"At Age 70, Time to Rethink NATO" by Pat Buchanan, Jan 18, 2019
'Trump saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism.'
So we are working with a definition of Europe that does not include former Yugoslavia,
former Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, or the Baltic countries. Well,
Russia is geographically vulnerable, so it needs to ride roughshod over all its neighbors to
establish a defensive perimeter. So let us all understand what Russia feels it needs, and
dismiss what, say, Poland feels it needs. Then we can characterize the eagerness of former
satellites and Soviet 'republics' to join as 'NATO expansion'. And we can ignore Russian
manipulation of Abkhazia and of its exclaves in Moldova and Ukraine to violate the territorial
integrity of former 'Union Republics', and the threats of invasion and nuclear devastation
uttered against various neighbors.
NATO handled the applications of countries in the area with due reserve until recent years,
when needless loose talk about prospective membership of Ukraine and Georgia predictably caused
upset in the Kremlin. But considering occupation of parts of the supposed territories of both,
can you at least understand why a lot of Ukrainians and Georgians might want to join NATO? And
can you stop talking as though accession to NATO on the part of Visegrad and Baltic countries
was driven by some megalomaniacal obsession to expand on the part of NATO?
Like most Trump-leaning conservative opinion on NATO, this leaves out a key part of the
picture: the EU. Because Robert Merry, like most Trump-leaning conservatives dislikes both NATO
and the EU, and would like to see both dissolve.
But realistically, US leaving NATO and the EU breaking up or weakening together would leave
a massive vacuum of power which would lead to either Russian domination (likely in the short
run), or (more likely in the long run), a return to Anglo-Franco-German great power rivalry --
and we know the dangers of that.
There's a solution that avoid both the Scylla of an unending US trusteeship over European
security or a return to the pre-1914 idea of a remilitarized, competitive Europe.
That is preserving and extending European union, by making the EU a defense union as well as
a political and economic one. and then tying the US to that resulting European defense union,
as its ultimate guarantor of strategic depth.
'World still needs NATO' writes German defense minister in New York Times op-ed [And other info
on this Tax Funded Monster that reportedly Funds, Arms, and Trains Terrorists]
-- -- -- -
'World still needs NATO' writes German defense minister in New York Times op-ed
With NATO rattled amid pressure from Donald Trump, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen
made an appeal for the alliance in a New York Times op-ed. She described NATO as an "emotional
bond" between the US and Europe.
"For all the talk about "aggressive" NATO expansion, countries such as the Baltic states, who
experienced the delights of Russian domination first-hand, were eager to join, for reasons that
would seem obvious except to the author."
I'm pretty sure the author and everybody else here understands why the Baltic States wanted
to join NATO.
The question is why NATO should have been eager to want to admit the Baltic States.
Is a NATO supporter being questioned? See story links below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
German opposition to probe defense minister over spending scandal
Ursula von der Leyen is suspected of poor management and nepotism over her department's
allocation of contracts and its decision to hire a consultant as her deputy. A parliamentary
committee is set to investigate.
Mr. Merry must be aware that the advocates of NATO emphasize the fear that Eastern European
countries have of once again being dominated so cruelly by Russia and the moral obligation the
U.S. has to aid them in their self-defense. If he wishes to persuade us that the U.S. is the
post-1989 aggressor, doesn't he at least need to demonstrate that the Eastern European
countries' fears are baseless or nonexistent?
"If he wishes to persuade us that the U.S. is the post-1989 aggressor, doesn't he at least
need to demonstrate that the Eastern European countries' fears are baseless or
nonexistent?"
No. That's a sucker's game. The Israelis got us to play that game, and now we pay them to do
nothing while we fight their wars for them. I'm sure that the Eastern Europeans would love to
get in on some similar action. Let the stupid Americans do the paying and the heavy
lifting.
For an isolationist, it's much more convenient to act as if certain countries and their
historical experiences are nonexistent
On the other hand, to be fair to TAC, no one should be coerced into playing a global role if
one doesn't wish it. This is certainly honorable. And there is always a graceful way to either
exit the global stage, or officially confine one's interests to a small region (say, England
and France). But then there are consequences to accept: for example, China, with its One Belt
One Road Initiative, may inherit the world;
In the meantime, Eastern Europe is exploring its own collective security initiative, called
Intermarium:
Imagine if, during President George W. Bush's occupation of Iraq, someone had predicted that
in about a decade, Republican voters would oppose war more than Democrats. Few would have
believed it.
Yet according to new polling, it's happening. It might even be President Donald Trump's
greatest accomplishment to date.
The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald broke down this new data in a recent piece in which he
claims Democrats are "
becoming far more militaristic and pro-war than Republicans ." Greenwald says that while
the overwhelming majority of Washington elites opposed -- or, more accurately, had a
total meltdown over -- Trump's December announcement that he would
withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, polling data from
Morning Consult/ Politico shows that 49 percent of Americans support the decision
while 33 percent oppose it.
Pluralities or
majorities of Americans
being tired of war is not new
. This is: "[W]hat is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of
support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and
independents overwhelming favor their removal," Greenwald writes.
"The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support
withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it," he notes.
And then the kicker: "Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14
percent."
Seventy-six percent? Think about that number. More than three quarters of GOP voters
today want to support the troops by bringing them home. A position that was once denounced as "
unpatriotic
" is now apparently part of making America great again.
Greenwald also notes that the poll shows similar results among those who voted Democrat in
the midterm election, with 28 percent supporting withdrawal and 54 percent opposing it.
It takes two to tango. The defense contractors can jaw jaw and spread around loads of
cash but without someone in power having the same views war doesn't happen. You don't buy
politicians they willingly sell you their services at top dollar if the cause is right.
Too
many people with big ego's and tiny dicks proving their manhood by sending in the military to
kill and maiming or piling on sanctions to slowly starve any country that stands in the way of
the one indispensable nation on the planet.
Politicians and their sanctions are like the fabled
neutron bomb. Very little physical damage but huge death and suffering.
Iraq is a perfect
example. Sanctions killed far more than than bombs and bullets.
DEDA CVETKO 13 hours ago
Is The Violent Dismemberment Of Russia Official US Policy?
Even as an old timer, I am drawn to the arguments made by our "Dissident Right"(DR), who seek
to find a Third Way between destructive international capitalism and destructive
international socialism. That movement is Nationalism. Some might call it Fascism, though
that loaded term has become far too pejorative. It is not surprising that one of the heroes
of the US DR is Mr. Putin.
The people making the best oral arguments for this third way that I've listened to thus
far are Mike Enoch and Eric Striker. Do not dismiss them lightly. They are obviously highly
intelligent and their movement is growing. As young white males are increasingly marginalized
and oppressed by the dominant culture, they have nowhere else to go. Old-time GOP civic
nationalism is dead, killed by the Diversity Cult that they foolishly embraced. On their own,
after Trump, and given the snowballing demographic catastrophe, the GOP could never again win
another national election. At some point there will be an uprising, unless young
indoctrinated males have been become like frogs in slowly boiling water, who don't realize
they are being scalded alive until it is too late.
"... An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr Bacevich are largely the products of the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those institutions have indoctrinated rather than educated. ..."
"... As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the primitiveness of their views and their inability to think -- to say nothing of their fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and evil -- begin to have real effect. ..."
An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr
Bacevich are largely the products of the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at
least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those institutions have
indoctrinated rather than educated.
As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the
primitiveness of their views and their inability to think -- to say nothing of their
fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and evil -- begin to
have real effect. The new dark age is no longer imminent. It is here, and it is them. I
see no way to rectify the damage. When minds are ruined young, they remain ruined.
Russia's PL-19 Nudol, a system U.S. military
intelligence assesses will be focused primarily on anti-satellite missions, was successfully
tested twice in 2018. The weapon, which was fired from a mobile launcher, was last tested on
Dec. 23 and marked the seventh overall test of the system, according to one of the people who
spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The Russian anti-satellite weapon is expected to target communication and imagery satellites
in low Earth orbit, according to the other person, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.
For reference, the International Space Station and the Hubble Space Telescope travel in low
Earth orbit.
While anti-satellite missiles are by no means new, the latest revelation comes less than a
year after Putin touted his nation's growing military arsenal.
"I want to tell all those who have fueled the arms race over the last 15 years, sought to
win unilateral advantages over Russia, introduced unlawful sanctions aimed to contain our
country's development: You have failed to contain Russia," Putin said during a national address
in March.
A recently unclassified report from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, or
NASIC, explained how the U.S. advantage above the Earth's atmosphere is eroding to "an emergent
China and a resurgent Russia."
The NASIC report said there number of foreign intelligence and imaging satellites "has
tripled" to 300 in orbit in the last two decades. The U.S. itself has 353 of its own space
assets in orbit for those purposes. In response, military superpowers have poured funding into
researching and developing anti-satellite weapons.
Missiles are the most high-profile, physical manifestation of anti-satellite weapons. Frank
Slazer, the vice president of space systems at the Aerospace Industries Association, told CNBC
about how those missiles may be physically effective, but are likely not the "first line of
approach on this."
"You'd much rather jam the satellite, blind it [with a laser], or take over its control
systems with a cyberattack," Slazer said. "Kinetic impacts could cause problems for other
nations, besides the one you are attacking, and possibly for your own system's for many years
afterwards."
Both Slazer and the NASIC report pointed to the example of China's anti-satellite test in
2007. China fired an anti-satellite missile at one of its own, discarded weather satellites.
The test was successful, but the satellite shattered into thousands of pieces, which continue
to zip around in an orbital cloud of deadly debris.
"A huge percentage of the debris in low earth orbit is still attributable to that one test,"
Slazer said.
As far as the U.S. military's ability to defend against anti-satellite weapons, the assets
and capabilities in orbit "are the same as they have been for awhile," Tommy Sanford, director
of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, told CNBC.
Sanford contends that there has not been much in the way of progress when it comes to
defending U.S. space-based assets. Sanford gave the example of using networks of smaller and
cheaper satellites, like cubesats and nanosats, to offer "effective platforms to augment and
support missions carried out by the DoD's larger exquisite satellites."
"The idea behind a distributed architecture for space support is – instead of having
one exquisite target – you'd have a system which could presumably survive some loss of
its elements and still be able to provide function," Slazer said.
First, a quick précis of what is under discussion. The Obama stimulus package was
less than half as big as it needed to be, meaning unemployment was at 10 percent in November
2010, sending Democrats to a massive defeat in the midterms. Obama's foreclosure policy was a
monumental catastrophe which crushed the wealth of middle-class homeowners -- particularly
African-American ones -- to save the banks from their own fraudulent schemes. His corporate
crime policy amounted to a near-halt of prosecutions of top white-collar crime, again largely
to protect the banks.
Obama's health-care reform, while a step forward in some ways, was poorly designed and
failed to stop skyrocketing cost growth. His climate policy was timid and inexcusably slow --
while at the same time he enabled enormous growth of U.S. oil and gas drilling. He also made
excuses for torture and largely embraced the Bush security apparatus -- even extending it in
places, like dragnet surveillance and assassinating American citizens.
Obama apologists typically deal with these problems in one of three ways. One strategy is to
ignore them in favor of his positive record, which to be fair is pretty substantial. Jonathan
Chait points to the stimulus, some moderate corporate regulation (Dodd Frank), and modest tax
hikes on the rich as evidence he is basically just like FDR. Another strategy is slanted
arithmetic: Michael Grunwald says the stimulus was as big as the New Deal in inflation-adjusted
dollars, which is true but leaves out overall economic size, which is far more telling since
the point of that spending was to restore full employment at the time it was passed. The
Recovery Act spending was 5.7 percent of 2008 output, while the New Deal was 40 percent of 1929
output. A final strategy is just to point at Obama's popularity among Democrats (95 percent
approval) as speaking for itself, as former administration staffer Jon Favreau does here.
I would guess that of the three, this final strategy will be the one that actually prevents
any very searching debate over Obama's failures. Bringing that topic up online always creates
an instant snarling fight between critics and the vastly more numerous legions of die-hard
Obama partisans. For a candidate to do it would distract from their upcoming campaign and
likely polarize Democratic loyalists against whatever a critic was saying, regardless of
content. Even Bernie Sanders has become hesitant to obliquely criticize the Democratic Party as
such, because of the instant backlash from Obama fans.
However, that's not the end of the story. The very terrain of political and policy debate
among Democrats in 2019 is a tacit admission that the Obama presidency was a wrong turn to a
great degree. Instead of building on the clearly lousy ObamaCare exchange model, most
presidential candidates so far have endorsed Medicare-for-all, or at least the idea of
expanding Medicare and Medicaid. Elizabeth Warren wants to give workers 40 percent of corporate
board seats -- which is hugely more radical than anything Obama ever did or proposed. Kirsten
Gillibrand supports universal paid leave and postal banking, instead of Medicare and Social
Security cuts to reduce the deficit.
Cory Booker is talking about a quasi-social wealth fund for children, instead of tax cuts
for companies who hire domestically. Kamala Harris is proposing big income boosts for the
working and middle class. Even Joe Biden is considering free college.
The turn away from Obama-style policy can also be seen in what gets attention now. The new
hotness in tax policy is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 70 percent top marginal tax rate -- over 30
percentage points above its highest rate during the Obama years. Instead of a disastrous "all
of the above" energy policy, Democrats are debating how to slash domestic oil and gas
production with a Green New Deal.
Politically, most Democrats have quietly abandoned Obama's asinine notion that America is
crying out for a return to bipartisanship -- in favor of the clearly correct view that
defeating Republicans is what matters. Even the Democratic rank and file have ditched their
traditional attachment to compromise, apparently radicalized by the ongoing disaster of the
Trump presidency.
So while nobody is likely to want to hash out Obama's indefensible handouts to bankers or
drill-baby-drill energy policy over the next two years, the political debate will still proceed
as if everyone agrees they were a bad idea. Because they were.
You know there's a lot of rampant insanity sloshing around when every time there's a
debate about potential threats to the US, whether it starts with Russia, China, NK, or (?),
the Neocons rarely fail to include Iran.
I've been wondering what's fueling their obsession, given that Iran has never threatened
"Israel." The dominant factor which comes to mind is the Holocaust Conference held in Tehran
in 2006 to examine the numerous inconsistencies in the Official Narrative.
The conference was organised as a series lectures based on detailed research undertaken by
the speaker, or a spokesman for an organisation which had undertaken research into the
subject.
Much of the info consisted of statistical analysis of pre & post Holocaust population
factors which cast 'doubt' on the magnitude of various and varying claims made in the
Official Story.
At the end of the conference all of the 'papers' delivered during the conference were
published online and some of them were very well researched and very persuasive. In the
aftermath there were many objections from the 'usual suspects' which, instead of attempting
to refute the published findings, confined themselves to smearing the convenors and
participants. I found this response to be disappointing, lazy and stupid; and tantamount to
an endorsement, by default, of the findings.
It was NEVER the subject of public debate of any note or duration and was quickly 'forgotten'
by the MSM. However, despite the forgetfulness, Iran appears not to have been forgiven.
If a country ruled by a Muslim theocracy tolerates large numbers of Jews living in its
territory, that in itself contradicts Israel's claim to be the only country in the Middle
East that offers Jews the freedom, stability and security to worship as they wish. Israel
offered money to Iranian Jews to move but the Iranian Jewish community rebuffed the offer,
saying it considers itself Iranian first and Jewish second and its identity is not for
sale. https://www.haaretz.com/1.4952371
The fact that a Muslim theocratic state hosts a large Jewish community represents an
existential threat to Israel. Why does Israel need to exist for then, if other countries can
host Jewish communities so well that they don't feel they need to move?
I remember reading several years ago that Israel offered cash incentives to the French
Jewish community and that community also knocked back the offers. Since then France has had a
number of terrorist attacks - guess what those have done to the French Jewish community? https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/22/middleeast/france-israel-jews-immigration/index.html
Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel.
...
Posted by: Jen | Jan 18, 2019 11:36:14 PM | 48
Thanks for the timely reminder.
I forgot all about Iran's Jewish citizens but, now that you've jogged my memory, I do recall
looking it up in 2006 and discovering the fact you've reiterated.
It begs a lot of questions about Jewish Unity, doesn't it?
It also reminds me of a rant by Gilad Atzmon called Judea Declares War On Obama. I haven't
posted a link because it's easy to find on the www. Suffice to say that it's about the
prelude to the Holocaust and is ... unflattering...
I dont call 12-15K Jews in a large country an existential threat to Israel.
Zionism was unpopular among most Jews, orthodox and assimilated Jews alike, up until the
holocaust. Without Hitler there never would be an Israel today
"... The first, directed outward, finds its expression in the global War on Terror and in the Bush Doctrine that the United States
has the right to launch preemptive wars. This amounts to the United States seeing as illegitimate the attempt by any state to resist
its domination. ..."
"... The second dynamic, directed inward, involves the subjection of the mass of the populace to economic "rationalization", with
continual "downsizing" and "outsourcing" of jobs abroad and dismantling of what remains of the welfare state created by President Franklin
D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Neoliberalism is an integral component of inverted totalitarianism.
The state of insecurity in which this places the public serves the useful function of making people feel helpless, therefore making
it less likely they will become politically active and thus helping maintain the first dynamic. ..."
"... By using managerial methods and developing management of elections, the democracy of the United States has become sanitized
of political participation, therefore managed democracy is "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections that
they have learned to control". ..."
"... Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state because
of the opinion construction and manipulation carried out by means of technology, social science, contracts and corporate subsidies.
..."
According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks,
as summarized at Wikipedia,the United
States has two main totalizing dynamics:
The first, directed outward, finds its expression in the global War on Terror and in the Bush Doctrine that the United
States has the right to launch preemptive wars. This amounts to the United States seeing as illegitimate the attempt by any
state to resist its domination.
The second dynamic, directed inward, involves the subjection of the mass of the populace to economic "rationalization",
with continual "downsizing" and "outsourcing" of jobs abroad and dismantling of what remains of the welfare state created by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Neoliberalism is an integral component
of inverted totalitarianism. The state of insecurity in which this places the public serves the useful function of making people
feel helpless, therefore making it less likely they will become politically active and thus helping maintain the first dynamic.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism provides the ground work for my suspicions regarding faux populists Obama and Trump:
By using managerial methods and developing management of elections, the democracy of the United States has become sanitized
of political participation, therefore managed democracy is "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections
that they have learned to control".
Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state
because of the opinion construction and manipulation carried out by means of technology, social science, contracts and corporate
subsidies.
It's also untrue that he "shot himself in the foot", as the event, if anything,
strengthened his image for the election.
What strengthened his image was an insane hysterics by the UK and the West in general. The
Russians do tend to consolidate when perceive themselves under external threat.
the pettiness of going after apparent pipsqueaks
Neither Putin personally nor the Russian government in general have ever shown themselves
to be petty. On the contrary, one of the notable qualities of Putin's is that he believes, as
we Russians put it, "the crown would not fall off his head if he bows". Apparently, he feels
strong, so he is not afraid to be magnanimous and make concessions. This quality is much
appreciated by some but drives other people crazy.
None of that however proves Putin did it. It's just a possibility.
Theoretically, it's a possibility that the Martians did it. However, given the behavior of
the UK authorities, there is no reason to believe anything even remotely like the picture
described happened in reality. There is a scientific impossibility to identify the agent,
first, as fast as it was supposedly done, and, second, unless they had a sample and/or
detailed information in their possession. It's scientifically impossible to establish
provenance unless the UK had samples of both the agent used and a comparison sample. Multiple
comparison samples, I should say, since there are many such compounds. But if they did, the
whole premise "only Russia could have done it" goes out of the window.
Add here the inconsistency of the symptoms and the outcome with the "military grade" nerve
agent poisoning – and here you have a complete a story of a very clumsy false flag
operation.
Like a gullible person I at first accepted that there was indeed some event that involved the
Skripals. Now I wonder if the entire thing was a scripted hoax, that nothing had hit them,
that it's all fake. It wouldn't be surprising. We seem to be in an age of rule by sociopaths
whose only compass is that of power and riches. The populations of our countries are being
hustled along for the benefit of the few. This can't have a happy ending for the majority of
people. The much vaunted democracy of the west looks like just a fixed shell game.
"... We saw the exact same dynamic when Obama was the populist hero. As Obama betrayed his base and acted against what people had expected from him, Obamabots insisted that Obama was playing 11-dimensional chess and that their hero's intentions were pure. It was all bullshit. ..."
"... Trump brought on Nikki Haley, Bolton, and Pompeo. Trump nominated Gina Haspel, acolyte of his supposed nemesis Brennan, for CIA director. Trump approved termination of JCPOA. ..."
"... And Trump's duplicity extends beyond Russia and Syria. He pretended to make a peace deal with North Korea but refuses to complete it. He railed against TPP but included TPP provisions in the new North America free-trade agreement. He said he would prosecute Hillary but backed within days of being elected saying: "the Clintons have been through enough" (what have they been through?!?), he said he would "drain the swamp" but has added to it, he put Jared Kushner - a supporter of illegal settlement building - in charge of Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, etc. ..."
"... It was obvious from jumpstreet what Obama was all about! I never for once believed anything ..."
"... It is very unusual for a populist to win office in USA. I would say that today it is virtually impossible due to the money-based US electoral system. Once this fact is understood, it becomes clear that BOTH Trump and Obama are each faux populists ..."
"... The faux populist leader model is actually well suited for an inverted totalitarian government like USA. And I've previously described a number of elements that make up this model such as the need for partisans (Obamabots/Trumptards) that vehemently defend the popular hero as he betrays his base while bogus accusations from political opponents spark a knee-jerk reaction in the hero's base and prepare the ground for the next faux populist leader. ..."
"... In 2008, the Deep State needed to "turn the page" from Bushes militarism and Obama embodied that "change". In 2016, the Deep State needed a nationalist that could revive patriotism in order to meet the challenge from Russia and China. I don't think this was accidental. ..."
There are other signs a confrontation is coming soon. The U.S. has objected to Iran's
pending launch of two space satellites, saying these look like tests of missiles designed
to deliver nuclear warheads....
In short, forces are moving in this country and in Israel to bring about a U.S.
confrontation with Iran -- before our troops leave Syria [NYT says troop withdrawal is
estimated to take 4-6 months] .
But the real questions here are not about Bolton or Pompeo.
They are about Trump .
We saw the exact same dynamic when Obama was the populist hero. As Obama
betrayed his base and acted against what people had expected from him, Obamabots insisted
that Obama was playing 11-dimensional chess and that their hero's intentions were pure. It
was all bullshit.
Trump brought on Nikki Haley, Bolton, and Pompeo. Trump nominated Gina Haspel, acolyte
of his supposed nemesis Brennan, for CIA director. Trump approved termination of
JCPOA.
And Trump's administration claims to have defeated ISIS. They say that USA actions were
responsible for 99% of the anti-ISIS effort. Why make such a claim after Trump said in his
campaign: "Let Russia take care of ISIS"? My best guess: They want to portray
themselves as the 'good guy' to Western audiences and when they act against Syria in the
future, they will attempt to convince the Syrian people that the 'Assad must go'
Coalition was responsible for eliminating ISIS.
And Trump's duplicity extends beyond Russia and Syria. He pretended to make a peace
deal with North Korea but refuses to complete it. He railed against TPP but included TPP
provisions in the new North America free-trade agreement. He said he would prosecute Hillary
but backed within days of being elected saying: "the Clintons have been through enough" (what
have they been through?!?), he said he would "drain the swamp" but has added to it, he put
Jared Kushner - a supporter of illegal settlement building - in charge of Israeli-Palestinian
peace efforts, etc.
We saw the exact same dynamic when Obama was the populist hero. As Obama betrayed his base
and acted against what people had expected from him, Obamabots insisted that Obama was
playing 11-dimensional chess and that their hero's intentions were pure. It was all
bullshit.
It was obvious from jumpstreet what Obama was all about! I never for once believed
anything he said but I looked at what he did. A gangster from Chicago. In some
respects he was a black Carter, designed to act as an interregnum. It was Carter who
kickstarted the occupation of Afghanistan. It was Carter who bumped up the nuclear weapons
programme.
Trump is just a naked version of every prior US prez.
Trump is just a naked version of every prior US prez.
It is very unusual for a populist to win office in USA. I would say that today it is
virtually impossible due to the money-based US electoral system. Once this fact is
understood, it becomes clear that BOTH Trump and Obama are each faux populists.
The faux populist leader model is actually well suited for an inverted totalitarian
government like USA. And I've previously described a number of elements that make up this
model such as the need for partisans (Obamabots/Trumptards) that vehemently defend the
popular hero as he betrays his base while bogus accusations from political opponents spark a
knee-jerk reaction in the hero's base and prepare the ground for the next faux populist
leader.
"Untethered from any political responsibility whatsoever, he can be expected to capitalize fully on his new status as
political martyr and leader of a new "resistance" that will make today's look supine."
Trump campaigned as a populist, the principal time the term applies, and also as
president. Witness the current impasse over a border wall which is an appeal to the ordinary
people who elected Trump, and he often wears that silly MAGA cap which appeals to his
electorate.
populist: a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary
people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Trump on the campaign trail was a populist as you admit at your link: "Trump was the ONLY
populist on the Republican side (out of 19 contenders!)." That's how he got nominated and
then elected in a huge upset, appealing to ordinary people which the other candidates
couldn't do. Trump wasn't chosen by anybody, but he was (and is) ridiculed by many.
How Trump and Obama got elected is clear. But just because they ran as populists doesn't
mean that they have a populist agenda. I think I've been pretty clear that they have each
made decisions and taken actions that furthered the establishment over the people.
And running as a populist doesn't mean an automatic 'win'. For example, voters are going
to be skeptical about the motives of a billionaire running for office, question the ability
of a novice politician, and be distrustful of a man who has had 3 wives and 4
bankruptcies.
In 2008, the Deep State needed to "turn the page" from Bushes militarism and Obama
embodied that "change". In 2016, the Deep State needed a nationalist that could revive
patriotism in order to meet the challenge from Russia and China. I don't think this was
accidental.
@ karlof1 | Jan 15, 2019 8:29:05 PM | 30 Which are more salient--domestically: The attacks on Russia or those against
Trump?
Of course the attacks against Trump by the establishment are more important, designed to
bring him down. The American people have been conditioned by the press in American
Exceptionalism, so they expect that those people in the world who were not wise enough to be
born Americans ought to suffer for it especially if they are -- yuk -- Russian. So anything
the US government does against Russia is accepted as a given, no big deal, run-of-the-mill.
When is Trump's "delivering" for Israel (i.e. not Russia) going to be examined?
Let's examine it -- Trump is delivering a crushing defeat to Israel by backing out of Syria,
and thereby conceding the "Shia Crescent" to Iran, backed by Russia and Turkey.
Thanks b that sets out the nature of the great distraction and the transparent BS that it
represents. So now that USAians can see the nonsense could they please get on with the
substance of making change and making USA great again by taking to the streets. Its about
time for a large wage increase and dropping taxes that impact on low to medium wage people.
Given the special role played by France in the USA struggle for independence, its about
time the the Gillet Jaune manifested in the USA. The low and middle income people already
Occupy the nation so now they should demand reform. Those few old and new progressive leftish
congresscritters should don the yellow vest and meet their allies on the street corners for
discussions and talk of equity and wage and tax justice. Its Rules for Radicals time or its
going nowhere time. Will they choose? May I suggest the first Rule for Radicals could be the
wearing of a yellow vest by the Congressional and Senate supporters of wage and tax justice
at the next and all subsequent pressers and attendances.
If not I gather they have all guzzled the cool aid and are content with the noise emitted
from the great distractor.
I've made a substantial case for Trump's having been chosen to follow Obama. I look forward
to any comments you may have regarding that the argument that I've set forth.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2019 6:20:14 PM | 24
That was a joke, right?
Anyone so hampered by dotage that he forgets, several times a day, that he's already repeated
the substance of his 'newest' meme several times in the same thread, and a majority of
others, should probably consider getting a good night's sleep as an anti-dote.
"crushing defeat"? what utter provocative BS Don! Trump withdrawal leaves all the local
belligerents and malign Syria haters to do the job any way they wish. This fantasy that Trump
has abandoned Israel's regional domination is totally unsupported by fact and sounds to me
like a typical AIPAC alarmist trope.
Trump has being saying for some years now that others need to shoulder the burden.
Lets look at what the burden in Syria is shall we. Not only does USA give billions to
Israel to guarantee the colony but it also fights its wars for it in Syria. Then there are
all those charities raising money in the USA for the IDF. Then there is all the armaments
transfers by numerous clandestine channels to head choppers trying to destroy the Syrian
people's government and society. Many of those armaments transfers are paid with by USA black
dollars possibly to be accounted for in that $21 trillion fund that the USA Defense
Department has been wallowing in.
It is bleedingly obvious to me that Israel in not being crushingly defeated by anyone.
Syria nearly was!!!!!
When a self professed progressive country such as Israel is incapable of getting on with
the most religiously diverse border nation as Syria or Lebanon then there is a hoax somewhere
in the dialogue. The manifestation of a Shia crescent (a BS straw man)is because the
belligerent nations self defeated their allies: the Sunni murderers.
Mind you Don, I don't see any Shia crescent, I see a few nations bombed and shot to hell
desperately trying to establish normalcy of some sort BECAUSE of the manipulations of Saudi
and Israel governments and their pawns.
Looks like when it will all shake out, the net result will not be in the favor of the US-Israel-Saudi axis. That will be the new
"normalcy of some sort."
"Essentially, the Creditor Class and their allies--which have existed for several thousand years--constitute a real life Hydra
that must be slain, as was recognized by the Greeks who first told the whole story."
In doing research for a dinosaur novel I'm planning to write, I was pleased to learn that the feature of the hydra sprouting
multiple heads to replace each one severed wasn't part of the original myth, but was added later during the decadent stage of
Greek culture. That ancient perception tallies well with the cultural-economic decadence of this collapsing civilization.
BTW I got my copy of Spirit in the Gene and look forward to reading it.
@65 pyschohistorian.. that is a good personal story of yours from today.. it is an easy analogy and many people will understand
it.. one person at a time maybe...
More than one person at a time came out to hear Bernie Sanders deliver that message. There is no doubt they heard it vaguely
via the US media but that was enough, they came in their tens of thousands. Such was the response that the Sanders campaign had
to sometimes book bigger venues and truck in extra PA and video gear to broadcast to crowds outside.
The yankee establishment is just desperate to smash any chance of this growing a second time. Come on Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard
and all those newly elected put on the yellow vest. I dare you. Millions of Americans are willing. Ditto throughout the world
millions of people are waiting to mock the BS colour revolutions and have a real one.
Socialism and thoughts of socialist economic management spread like pheromones on the wind.
Its all like living on the film set of Alice In Wonderland while reading 1984 and Brave New World at the same time while overdosing
on chocolate. Just batshit surreal, and the presstitutes keep pushing the World to the edge of the abyss in their continuous Russia
and Putin bashing. And the vast majority in the West are completely oblivious to what is going on in the World, and completely
oblivious to what is coming. And it will not be pleasant.
@57 James
Did anyone notice an article copied from the Guardian by Information Clearing House entitled "Brought to Jesus - the evangelic
grip on the Trump administration"? "Pense and Pompeo both call evangelical theology a powerful motivating force". "Evangelics
now see the US locked into a holy war against the forces of evil who they see embodied by Iran". It is a never-ending struggle
until.... the rapture." It is a chilling read, especially when it comes to their belief in the role of Zion. Extremely dangerous
because entirely irrational.
I also want to see it [yellow vest] on the tower of london, somewhere in rome, fluttering in the Swiss alps, in china
near the sacred city, in Russia, in India........
apparently you missed the fact that an anti-establishment, anti-euro(thus threatening global bond markets) government was elected
here in Italy last summer, precluding the necessity for protests in the streets. for the moment you might say we're riding the
avant-garde.
@61 NemesisCalling "Saw that Blackwater founder did an interview explaining that they can also replace the role of US troops in
Syria."
They would fit the definition of a Mercenary in Article 47 of the Geneva Conventions.
As such they would not be afforded the protections of Geneva Convention III.
"Fine by me, as long as the US offers no protection or no-fly-zone for them."
I believe that Prince is advocating his own private mercenary airforce to provide support for his own mercenary army. Might
work as far as ground support goes, but not against SU-35 fighter jets.
So, yes, if Trump agrees to this proposal then it is inevitable that he will end up either providing a no-fly-zone for them
or be accused of leaving these brave, brave boys to be slaughtered.
I would assume that the Pentagon has told him that, but I make no assumption that he is paying that advice any attention.
"Open season on all guns for hire. In Afghanistan, too."
Well, yes, that's what International Humanitarian Law says.
So today we have US service men killed in Manbij and ISIS claim responsibility. It is reasonable to suspect that this is a false
flag (with actual deaths) in order to create political justification for US to stay in Syria. Many commentators here view ISIS
as being effectively a US proxy force.
In my view the only real evidence that the US would be leaving Syria would involve direct negotiations with the Syrian government.
In this case the US could leave saving face and securing some concessions that reflect their interests. The alternative is that
the US would leave with their tails between their legs being bombed out, very ignoble and looking like the withdrawal from Vietnam;
it is just not plausible that the US would leave in this way.
Yes. What better way to demonstrate that ISIS is not defeated and the US "job" in Syria is not done.
I suspect that Trump's rhetoric will not change. He will continue to insist that he is/will 'pull out' of Syria .... it's just
gonna take longer. Just how long will remain a mystery.
I see you have been accused of having a one sized fits all condom!😁
Your theory, unfairly, gets short shrift whereas ideas like "Trump is doing all the right things, but is frustrated at every
turn by the deep state" is just accepted unquestioningly.
However, the Syrian withdrawal could happen and this would not necessarily be incompatible with your theory; there may be tactical
reasons. Whatever, the idea that the US is just going to retreat and leave the Middle East alone is so far fetched that I am staggered
that people see this as a real possibility.
Personally, I think the US have a strategy for the world based on the model they created in Congo, South America, Libya and
Afganistan. All of these areas are hugely profitable for the Empire because "controlled" chaos allows cheap extraction of resources
and control of the world drug trade. This is what I believe the Empire has in mind for the Middle East, everywhere along OBOR
and, also, Europe (and, perhaps, the US itself?).
from Asia Times, quote:
On a mission from God: Pompeo messages evangelicals from the Middle East
The US secretary of state was communicating to an audience back home on his Middle East tour, the key Trump constituency of evangelical
Christians.
In Cairo: "This trip is especially meaningful for me as an evangelical Christian, coming so soon after the Coptic Church's Christmas
celebrations. This is an important time. We're all children of Abraham: Christians, Muslims, Jews. In my office, I keep a Bible
open on my desk to remind me of God and His Word, and The Truth." . .
here
Trump is being prosecuted by Robert Swan Mueller III, who entire career has been him covering up and fixing cases which involved
CIA criminality. Now William Barr is Trump's own choice for Attorney General. Barr spent the mid-1970s in the CIA. While there
he got his degree in law, suggesting his career path was being drawn by his employer. Unsurprisingly, GHW Bush moved him along
until he became Bush's AG.
Trump is either more demented than many have thought, he's in on the whole charade of his Presidency or he's in deep trouble
with the Deep State. The strings all lead back to Langley.
> Starting with Reagan, every President and/or VP has had, or rumored to have had, links to CIA: Bush Sr. had led the CIA;
Clinton allowed CIA flights into Arkansas; Obama's grandfather/mother. Questions have also been raised about Trump - the first
casino he purchase was rumored to have been involved in CIA money laundering (prior to Trump's purchase).
> Wolin, a respected Princeton University academic, described how the ruling establishment engages in "managed democracy"
to retain control. A key part of that management is the money-based electoral system which ensures that no real populist is
elected President.
If you enjoy the Kool-Aid then just pass over my comments.
Yes! Why nominate Barr for AG? Why nominate Gina Haspel for CIA? Why bring on Bolton? These choices make no sense for a President
that is supposedly at war with the Deep State.
Great list, b. Another. From the top of google (enter co name or part of post in goog for details.)
Afaik (please correct if), Trump tried to do biz in Russia but more or less failed or gave up or didn't get anywhere much,
nothing major transpired.
"There are 517 McDonald's restaurants in Russia, 73 of which were opened in 2014. The company's total revenue for 2014 in Russia
was 65.8 billion rubles.. the chain has been operating in Russia independently for 22 years."
"PepsiCo reported that in 2017, its Russian operations generated net revenue of $3.23 billion, which made up 5.1 percent of
the company's total net revenue."
Philip Morris has good sales in Russia. Cisco Systems (idk about this, look it up.) Abbot Labs (US) sells generic drugs in
Russia. Ford is still selling cars there.
The leading Chocolate co. in Russia is Mondelez (should be another topic .. )
Starbucks celebrated its 100 stores in Russia in 2015.
The CEOs of these cos. + their shareholders, employees, are in bed w. Russia and undermining US Democracy, interfering in people's
choices, the true shining light on the hill, or what? It is collusion! They meet and deal with Russians, all the time.
Note: Flynn revelation was likely just a tip of the iceberg. It was from his agency (DIA) that Judicial Watch got the memo (via
FOIA) that talked of how US allies wanted to establish a Caliphate.
These were important to understanding ISIS as a proxy force, not the grass-roots group of Jihadi hoodlums that the Obama Administration
wanted us to believe. Obama infamously called ISIS al Queda's "JV team" to explain why he was essentially ignoring it's rise.
Later, the story changed to "ISIS was created by Assad." LOL.
@68 uncle tungsten.. i wish you all the best trying to take back control of the gov't, or following thru on the yellow jacket
demonstrations... i am with you in spirit..
@70 montreal.. something is driving these folks... some whacky evangelical fantasy sounds about right... i can't believe how
easily duped people are with fundamental religion of all stripes...
@74 john.. you probably would have voted for frank zappa if he was running in the italian elections!
i've never embraced the argument that Trump is a president who is at war with the deep state. i've only said that this sort
of yammering is all conjecture and as such will never be sufficient grounds for proof...that it doesn't really matter anyway.
for all i know every incoming president is given a private screening of the zapruder film and the rest is left to his imagination.
i don't drink Kool-Aid, and if i passed over your comments i wouldn't know that they pretty much all say the same thing.
Fair enough! But what should be done about the many people that HAVE drunk the Kool-Aid and believe the Trump vs. Deep State
narrative?
I think some amount of repetition is unavoidable. Especially since the Trump vs. Deep State narrative is repeated ad nauseum
by MSM and even independent bloggers (that haven't thought it through).
@90 James.
As someone said, history doesn't always repeat itself but sometimes rhymes....... in India, in the early nineteenth century, the
British presence consisted largely of lowland Scots - evangelical Presbyterians. People like Dalhousie and Grant. They managed
to combine an iron conviction in their own Godly righteousness - and duty to improve the benighted heathen - with a sincere belief
that there was nothing wrong in robbing the natives blind whilst improving them. Their arrogance and greed led directly to the
disaster of the First Afghan War and subsequently the First Indian War of Independence (or Indian Mutiny depending on your point
of view). Maybe Presbyterian Evangelical certainty will be the American downfall as well. I do often hope so.
do you know the story
of when once president of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel, appointed Frank as Special Ambassador to the West on Trade, Culture
and Tourism , much to the chagrin of then U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker?
apparently Baker declared, 'You can do business with the United States or you can do business with Frank Zappa.'
@93 montreal.. i was unaware of the specifics on the history in india as you note.. thanks for sharing that.. i just assumed it
was the british empire mindset, without looking more closely at the details of it..
@94 john.. lol! cool pic - man from utopia... i do recall frank getting that appointment from vaclav havel, but this is the first
time i heard of james bakers response! james baker is long forgotten, but frank zappa is a cultural icon that will be remembered
for a long time!
Superbowl democracy : pick the red team or pick the blue, really doesn't matter which you do, none of the wrestling is really
true, just a snare of a circus we're forced to view, where puppets pose and pretend to duel, and the House will always win...
Indeed the Levant is returning to the centre of Middle East and world attention in a stronger position than in 2011. Syria
has advanced precision missiles that can hit any building in Israel. Assad also has an air defence system he would have never
dreamed of before 2011 -- thanks to Israel's continuous violation of its airspace, and its defiance of Russian authority. Hezbollah
has constructed bases for its long and medium range precision missiles in the mountains and has created a bond with Syria that
it could never have established -- if not for the war. Iran has established a strategic brotherhood with Syria, thanks to its
role in defeating the regime change plan. . .
here
Alastair Crooke
NATO's support for the growth of ISIS has created a bond between Syria and Iraq that no Muslim or Baathist link could ever
have created: Iraq has a "carte blanche" to bomb ISIS locations in Syria without the consent of the Syrian leadership, and
the Iraqi security forces can walk into Syria anytime they see fit to fight ISIS. The anti-Israel axis has never been stronger
than it is today. That is the result of 2011-2018 war imposed on Syria". . .
here
And then add to that the current hectic itinerary of pompous Pompeo to explain the defeat to eight Middle East countries
in eight days, highlighted by his feeble pleas to Qatar to join with Saudi Arabia against Iran. Solidity is crucial! Pompeo
says, to which Qatar which shares a huge gas field with Iran gave pompous the middle finger. Another factor is the Turkey-Qatar
alliance promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, anathema to the Saudi despots. This will all shake out, not to the favor of the
US-Israel-Saudi axis. That will be the new "normalcy of some sort."
First of all, if Trump is so bad with and Russia, why are you and others here always loving on him, singing his praises and
defending him like he's still a naive schoolboy in short pants that the big boys are picking on?
@21 Jackrabbit
Bolton's not steering Trump into war with Iran, Trump hired Bolton so he'd have someone to blame and take the heat when
he greenlights war with Iran and things go bad; which they will.
Trump was an Iran hawk from start. He's been railing against Iran since he got off the Trump Tower escalator and stepped
behind the AIPAC podium.
@43 uncle tungsten
Wow, I mean wow. That's a bull's eye zinger. DB was really off the mark.
Yeah, and Israel still has one of the most powerful arsenals in the world funded to the tune of $38 billion, the largest
aid package to Israel in U.S. history delivered by Trump. and Israel has hundreds of nukes, still occupies Palestine and the
Golan Heights, and still has the Empire's bases where it wants them, and now has the GCC in its corner all in, and Trump has
delivered on so many promises already: tearing up the Iran deal, defunding aid to Palestinians, closing the Palestinians D.C.
mission office, moving the U.S. Embassy and declaring Jerusalem capital of Israel, and sabotaging a Resolution at the U.N condemning
settlements when he wasn't even President yet. Poor Israel, so abandoned by Trump...NOT.
You ask the question: "How will we ever gain control of our country."
As psychohistorian intones, private financial casinos and their ilk need to become public utilities to fund public activities
and protect the resources on which they're based, while the political/philosophical change to create that paradigm metes our
justice and cleans The Swamp. To discover the veracity of our prescription, one need only read
Michael Hudson's works , although there're others we might also cite.
Essentially, the Creditor Class and their allies--which have existed for several thousand years--constitute a real life Hydra
that must be slain, as was recognized by the Greeks who first told the whole story.
Of course, the end is far easier than the road to get there. But as the polling link I provided upthread and others show,
the public is roused and of greater solidarity for the first time this century. Why do ya think the Deep State's trying so
hard to limit and falsify information I an overt manner!
@ Circe | Jan 16, 2019 12:10:26 AM | 51 Poor Israel, so abandoned by Trump...NOT.
I never said Israel was abandoned by Trump, so I was never "really off the mark," was I. If Trump is doing any abandoning anywhere,
it's in Syria, Israel's enemy, now stronger due to Obama's mistake, one of many. Trump is a late arrival.
Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself. US troops are still there. NY Times says the 'pull out' is expected to take
4-6 months.
How many times has US been rumored to be leaving Afghanistan?
US still has troops in Iraq! Years after Obama was forced (yes, forced) to remove the bulk of the forces in that country.
And what good is the 'pull out' if US keeps mercenaries/special forces in the country to fight with SDF? The plan seems
to be retain control of Syrian territory via proxies. There is NO TALK of a hand over to SAA.
Thanks karlof1 I will explore that Michael Hudson link it looks good from first scan.
Generally: I don't do graphics but I think a statue of liberty with a yellow vest would be a good theme for a behind the
scenes 'competition' submitted via email to b (if willing) then published here for a discussion and 'vote' would be a great
aid to mirth. I won't be in your revolution if I can't dance - sort of thing. Maybe its been done by now ?
I rarely harangue at US Exceptionalism like I did when I first began commenting here as it gets in the way of highlighting
other points, and with me it's a priori along with its kin Manifest Destiny. It should also be observed that all Imperialist
Nations share both to differing degrees and becomes part of Elite "Magic Mirror" persona--Mirror, mirror on the wall; who's
the fairest of them all..."--generating the deadliest of snobbishness. When I taught, I took pains to properly explain the
Outlaw US Empire's Mythos and show where it's present in everyday life--The Few; The Proud; The Marines. He's shooting the
ball. (You throw the damn thing; do baseball pitchers shoot their pitch!?)
The Canadian domestic situation differs from the USA's in numerous ways, but it faces the same forces trying to keep citizens
from gaining control over their destiny and that of their nation. And Canadians share much of the same negative American baggage.
Both nation's citizens would benefit by knowing the true nature of their past which would aid them greatly in their current
struggle.
@43 uncle tungsten is bang on... for some reason - maybe you need to read a tao te ching verse before i say this to you!
- you can't seriously believe trump has changed his fealty to israel? that is just not the reality as i see it.. the whole
of the usa establishment are completely subservient to israel.. take a look at trumps daughter and son in law.. what the fuck
is that?
trump is also totally down with war on iran.. why is that? was a little zionist birdie talking in his ear, or not? sure
looks like 24/7 fealty to israel is spite of whatever bullshit trump is tweeting about..
@56 karlof1... thanks.. i agree with you and see what you are saying... it seems though on one small level canucks are not
always thinking we are the fucking greatest.. that is the one difference i would point to.. so if that isn't exceptionalism
rearing it's ugly head, i don't know what to call it.. other then that - i agree with you and i suppose your point is that
the concept of exceptionalism is just another distraction..
@ karlof1 with the hat tip about gaining control of "our" country....thanks.
I am with uncle tungsten with wanting to put a yellow vest on the statue of liberty and especially the dance part because
I already do that twice a week. I also want to see it on the tower of london, somewhere in rome, fluttering in the Swiss alps,
in china near the sacred city, in Russia, in India........you get the picture.
We are entering that cleft of time where psychohistorian is suppose to wave its magic wand and greatly reduce the time before
"real change". Ok, so I did that. But that still means that others will need to play their roles as well for the change to
occur. We all need to continue the zombie awakening so that when the time comes for "we the people" to make a collective "sound",
it comes out as beautiful music that we can all dance to.
This is a good place to begin at Hudson's site as it explains a great many things about the recent past and present. I
would suggest this page next .
His opus, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire ought to be in every respectable library, for
which the videos here provide
a bit of context. If I add another link, this might be construed as spam, so I'll also highly suggest Life & Thought: An
Autobiography from last August. Enjoy!
Saw that Blackwater founder did an interview explaining that they can also replace the role of US troops in Syria.
Fine by me, as long as the US offers no protection or no-fly-zone for them.
Remember the episode where 100+ Russian contractors were strafed fighting alongside SAA by USAF? Open season on all guns
for hire. In Afghanistan, too.
YES!and some really good (short)5second? video to stream via whatever those social media platforms are. One on each of the
religious icons of whatever would be inviting.
"The fact that what amounts to palace intrigue -- the fracas between the White House, the two houses of Congress and a ghoulish
grand inquisitor named Mueller -- has taken center stage is uncannily reminiscent of various earlier political collapses, such
as the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire or of the fall and the consequent beheading of Louis XVI. The fact that Trump,
like the Ottoman worthies, stocks his harem with East European women, lends an eerie touch. That said, most people in the US
seem blind to the nature of their overlords in a way that the French, with their Gilets Jaunes movement (just as an example)
are definitely not."
By now everybody knows that Netanyahu asks and Trump delivers. The servility of US politicians and media to Israel is so obvious
that they world laughs at the "superpower USA, that is being rough shod" by a toy shit entity called Israel. THE GREATEST TREASON
OF ALL "Israel first"
@ james who quoted Orlov:
"
That said, most people in the US seem blind to the nature of their overlords in a way that the French, with their Gilets Jaunes
movement (just as an example) are definitely not."
"
This is part of the elite massaging of nationalism narratives. There is still too much "frontier" in America that blind
many to not feeling part of a government controlled community. I talked to a young guy today with 3 kids and living in a mobile
home on property in the sticks so he doesn't have problems with neighbors and government. I think I got my message across when
I pointed out that the roads he drives on to his house, the power and water he gets are forms of socialism and I just want
the tools of finance to be public-minded like that.
Actually, I think that in the end Russia has to thank the British for sending a great message
to her traitors and gangsters. Apart from the Skripal case, the UK seems up to confiscate the
wealth Russian expats in the UK looted back home. On the one hand, it's ~ $10bn worth that
will be definitely lost for Russia, on the other if the UK's treatment of Skripal and runaway
oligarchs won't heal Russian traitors and gangsters from their blissful enamourment with
England's climate, I don't know what will.
@Mike
P I can't find the comment because the comment archive is down -- I think it was
annamaria who reported that the British were holding assets of Russian oligarchs and that
Russia wanted the funds back. The speculation was that Teresa May would take possession of
the assets.
As these two articles state, most of the Russian billionaire oligarchs are Jewish
So at least (conspiracy theory) part of the Skripal scheme is for Teresa May to be an
angel and return their assets to the Jewish billionaires who stole Russian wealth fair and
square.
Despite ths supposed intense push by the US to harm the Iranian economy, parts of thst certaainly in place, without publicity
US policy has recently gone the other way, not so vigorously harming the Iranian economy. For starters we have that the US gave
"temporary" exemptions from the renewed US sanctions agaainst nations importing Iranian oil for 8 major such importers. The
upshot is not all that much of a reduction of such exports from Iran, an obviously crucial factor.
Then we have more recent subtle pro-Iranian decisons, most importantly Trump's annoucement of US removing troops from Syria. This
helps Iran, even if the removal is slowed down as seems likely. We also have SecState Pompeo pressuring the Saudis to end their
boycott against Qatar, which has retained both political and economic relations with Iran, not to mention having just whupped
Saudi Arabia in soccer 2-0.
So, we, or at least I, do not know what precisely is going on inside Iran, long a highly repressive regime, despite its facade
ofs pseudo-democracy. They have been continuing to adhere to the JCPOA nuclear deal, even as recent reports have them possibly
setting up increased uranium enrchment facilities and activities. While there havee been many demos against the government over
the troubled economy, it seems that these have slowed down, or at least reporting of them has.
The US does not determine all that happens in Iran, but it seems that currntly the US has an inconsiistent verging on incoherent
policy regarding Iran. But for Iran, this turn from full ostility, combined with a possible upturn in world oil prices, may
explain an unreported stabililization in Iran.
Karl Kolchak , January 19, 2019 6:30 pm
Probably because the "reports" of unrest were more MSM BS–or Iran managed to root out and arrest all of the CIA provocateurs
who were "meddling" in Iranian politics.
likbez, January 19, 2019 8:12 pm
Karl,
Probably because the "reports" of unrest were more MSM BS–or Iran managed to root out and arrest all of the CIA provocateurs
who were "meddling" in Iranian politics.
I think you are too optimistic. And you should probably talk about CIA-Mossad-MI6 provocateurs, not so much about CIA provocateurs.
Or, more correctly, foreign interests controlled disaffected strata of the population.
The meddling will continue, and money are flowing to destabilize the Iranian government and induce the "regime change" via
yet another color revolution. So it remains to be seen if mullahs are vigilant enough and not "fossilized" like the USSR leadership
was ( if we view the USSR as an example of yet another theocratic regime) to withstand this attack. BTW Soviet nomenklatura was
simply bought by the same alliance of CIA-Mossad-MI6 and the lure of getting the lion share of privatized resources of the country.
I am sure that any drop in the standard of living due to sanctions will be exploited to the fullest extent possible to generate
unrest and possibly the regime change.
Please note the success of recent neoliberal counter-revolutions in Argentina and Brazil against more progressive governments.
That means that chances for neoliberal counter-revolution in Iran are probably non-zero, even though neoliberal ideology was discredited
in 2008 and is sustained only pure power of neoliberal propaganda machine, which makes Third Reich propaganda look pretty amateurish
in comparison.
If we view neoliberalism as "Trotskyism for the rich" (financial elites of the world unite) it is clear that it has staying
power. And that means that the "Permanent Neoliberal Revolution" in best Trotskyite tradition will continue.
Also, if you have a country in which the population grows fast and the standard of living gradually deteriorates as was the case
in many Arab countries before the Arab spring, you can always find enough people to support a color revolution against the current
government. It is so easy to exploit the legitimate grievances of the population if you have money to pay for a cadre of "professional
revolutionaries" (students are very lucrative target here), and control at least a part of MSM.
The fact that installed after the color revolution puppets will be much worse, and that looting of natural resources will be
the natural result, will be realized by the strata of population which had driven the color to its success only later. In other
words, the promises of EU standard of living tomorrow, if you get rid of mullahs is a very successful social mousetrap like it was in Ukraine
before that.
Just look at the drop of that standard of living in Ukraine after the EuroMaydan color revolution (sponsored by Nuland and
friends)
Also, any theocratic regime has elements of instability within itself. At some point, people became tired of regimes driven
by religious dogma. As soon as the CIA-Mossad-Mi6 alliance can provoke some ethnic group on insurrection all bets are off.
I think the power of the neoliberal center (US+EU) to stage color revolutions so far remains largely intact.
ilsm, January 19, 2019 9:55 pm
There was a suicide bombing 6 Dec 18 near Chabahar, Iran, an Indian run (financed) port that will link into Afghanistan and
on up the east side of the Caspian, and an alternate route to One Band one road (OBOR). The US has relieved India of sanctions
regarding Chabahar, which competes with Gwadar in Pakistan for access to China's OBOR. In this regard to court India and to
snub OBOR the US would side with Iran..
There have been reports of Saudi support for Baluch separatists, the area being inhabited with a Baluch faction.
There had been a similar attack a couple of years ago also attributed to foreign meddling.
Baluchs live in the area overlapping Pakistan and East Iran. The area was ceded to the two countries by the Sultan of Oman,
who did not want to keep his holdings on the north side of the Arabian Sea.
In the eastern part of Iran the US including associates of McCain and Bolton have entertained MEK, which represents a tiny
minority within Iran. MEK would be a terror group on the lines of HTS but it does US bidding like HTS, so the US supports
Salafi terror groups despite the blithe about GWOT.
In terms of Iran crude oil there are numerous waivers to US sanctions.
The Iranian authorities are using the foreign aggression to good advantage. All the Ayatollahs need do is say: "look at what
the outsiders did to Libya".
"... is a retired civil servant living in London and consequently old enough to remember what life was like before political correctness. He runs the Living In A Madhouse and England Calling blogs. ..."
So what is really happening -- in the U.K. and the U.S.?
The Deep State is often portrayed as a conspiracy. In fact, it is better thought of as a
blind sociological event. There is no group of conscious conspirators, simply people being
groomed to have the same opinions or at least saying they do.
Link Bookmark What has happened in the UK (and the rest for the West to varying degrees) is
the
success of the long
march through the institutions . That is what ultimately has given the UK an elite (
politicians ,
mediafolk , teachers etc) who are overwhelmingly Politically Correct internationalists. And
it's those people who are at the forefront of the attempts to sabotage Brexit.
How did it come about? A German student leader of the 1960s Rudi Dutschke,
echoing the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci , put forward
the idea whereby societies could be subverted
from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain
positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be enough of such people to change the
policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones. That point was reached in
the UK at least 50 years ago and the Politically Correct stranglehold on our society is now
complete.
The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit and even
overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures, denigrate their own
societies, traduce the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the
pernicious Totalitarian creed of Cultural Marxism which has "anti-racism" (in reality
anti-white racism) at its heart. The last brick in the Politically Correct building is the
increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who refuses to toe the line -- increasingly
including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment.
That is why Western politics until recently has been so ideologically monotone. Brexit was a
revolt against that mentality.
Most MPs overtly or tacitly supported the idea of the referendum and its result by promising
it in election manifestos, in Parliament and through their passage by large majorities of the
legislation needed to both set up the referendum and make provision for its implementation.
But by doing so, MPs forfeited their right to do anything other honour the result of the
referendum. That applies just as much to Remainer MPs as Leaver MPs.
Sadly, the behaviour of the most committed Remainers with power and influence (including
many MPs and peers in the House of Lords) has shattered utterly the idea that the UK is a fully
functioning democracy. Rather, it is an elective oligarchy whereby the electorate are offered
an opportunity every few years to choose between competing parts of the elite -- an elite in
the UK whose general political ideas are largely held in common and go against the interests
and wishes of most of the electorate.
None of this should be a surprise. The sad truth: the central political question in all
Western societies is -- how far will the masses be able to control the naturally-abusive
tendencies of the elite?
Robert Henderson [ Email him ]is a retired civil servant living in
London and consequently old enough to remember what life was like before political correctness.
He runs the Living In A
Madhouse and England Calling
blogs.
I challenge anyone to name a modern war prosecuted by the US government and its allies that
did not involve at its root the direct fabrication of blatant lies on enormous levels, both
as a casus belli and also to manipulate public opinion in favor of hostilities.
The clandestine activity represented by these *provocations* isn't even good spycraft. The
Skripal case and the latest use of chlorine gas in Syria are risible, clumsy, amateur
attempts to wangle the empire into war that the callowest rube could see through. And yet,
it's working its magic on the media. The politicians, suborned by the war machine, give
unanimous bipartisan assent.
@Giuseppe
Saddam's WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., etc. And now a ridiculous false flag attack in Syria. Did
it take place at all? But the narrative is all. The press in the USA is more effectively
controlled and conformist than in Germany in the late 1930s and nobody goes around beating up
journalists or sending them to a KZ. The Syrian Gov't is winning the civil war, things are
going well but what Assad really needs is to have the crap bombed out of his military by
Uncle Sam. What transparent bullshit.
The press in the USA is more effectively controlled and conformist than in Germany in
the late 1930s
Who controlled the press there and then?
What can be said about the control and conformity of the Soviet, British and American
press of the time?
and nobody goes around beating up journalists or sending them to a KZ.
That's probably because the usual thugs don't need to do that any longer since they
control virtually everything.
A couple of anecdotes to illustrate my point.:
2 of the reasons we don't hear much about mobsters these days are that the press and
judiciary are owned by them and if you do get something published, you run the risk of
getting snuffed. They probably don't stop at mere blinding anymore.
Victor Riesel was an American newspaper journalist and columnist who specialized in
news related to labor unions. In 1956 a mobster threw sulfuric acid in his face on a
public street in Chicago causing his permanent blindness.
"Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the
Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to
the American people as any invading army could be." This indictment launched a
nine-part series of articles entitled "Treason of the Senate."
-David Graham Phillips, Cosmopolitan magazine, February 1906
In 1911 Phillips was shot multiple t imes by Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, a
Harvard-educated scion of a prominent Maryland family ,at Gramercy Park in New York
City.
Still, you authors need to start digging deeper. Trump and his Allies are putting on an
amazing show / act to distract their ( and Humanities going back generations) hidden
enemies.
The Bad Guys have for millennia weoponized information, convincing the public, reporters,
and journalists that the rabbit hole ends here, that they don't need to dig any deeper, to
just accept this slightly deeper layer of the onion. That warm and fuzzy feeling from
scratching just a little deeper into to information matrix, isn't enough anymore. You guys
have the intelligence, experience, and ability just do it please!
A great man once wrote that the "big lie" had a force of credulity among the broad masses, as
the latter were wont to engage in lying about minor quotidian matters of little or no
significance while the big lies were engaged in by the mainstream press, dominated by the
usual tribal suspects.
It was the case with blaming General Ludendorff for Germany's defeat, and it is the same
case today, 100 years after the fact.
The Mockingbird Media lies and equivocates about everything. Insofar as the deep state
spider's web of hegemony spreads all over the world and becomes more odious, the lies become
more copious and more predictable, and their acceptance relies upon the lever of public
credulity and kosher Newspeak.
What the unconditional and incorrigible Trumpetistas do not realize is that those of us- a
very large plurality of of Trump supporters- voted for him because he was not Hillary Clinton
and had pledged to keep us out of foreign wars. We will neither support, nor abet, foreign
wars for the sake of Israel, whether they are started by Trump or anyone else. Intervention
in Syria against the Assad regime is a no go. Trump cannot hope to compare himself to Assad,
since the latter has formed a real and effective alliance against the Christian hating head
choppers with Russia and Iran. Trump is totally clueless with respect to geopolitics. He is a
rank amateur.
It makes complete sense if one simply looks at the British Establishment's prior behavior of
intentionally starting world wars at the order of the Society of the Elect. It's all in the
CFR's archives. Their guilt in starting WW1 is emphatically admitted and documented in
roughly the first 200 pages of the following book. http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf
"In 2016 an official British government inquiry determined that Bush and Blair had indeed
together rushed to war. The Global Establishment has nevertheless rewarded Tony Blair for his
loyalty with Clintonesque generosity. He has enjoyed a number of well-paid sinecures and is
now worth in excess of $100 million."
-- The character of Blair and the Establishment is well established: Blair is a major war
criminal supported by the major war profiteers. His children and grandchildren are a progeny
of a horrible criminal.
What is truly amazing is the complacency of the Roman Catholic Church that still has not
excommunicated and anathematized the mass murderer. Blair should be haunted and hunted for
his crimes against humanity.
With age, Blair's face has become expressively evil. His wife Theresa Cara "Cherie" Blair
shows the same acute ugliness coming from her rotten soul of a war profiteer.
Keep in mind how long ago all this is:
Skripal was recruited around 1990 and arrested in 2004. Guess that the Russian attitude
towards Skripal took the chaos of the 90's as mitigating circumstances into account.
Skripal served his sentence of only 13 years till 2010 when he was pardoned and given the
option to leave. Russia did not revoke Skripal's citizenship. The UK issued Skripal a
passport too. On arrival in the UK Skripak was extensively debriefed by UK intelligence
services. Skripal has lived for 8 years in the UK now.
And now out of the blue this incident nicely dovetailing with May ratcheted up anti Russia
language only a few months before this false flag incident and the rapidly failing traction
of the Steele/Orbis/MI6 instigated Russia collusion story on the basis of that fake Trump
Dossier. By the way Orbis affiliated Steele and Miller have been among Skripal's
handlers.
Good article.
The Skipnal affair has been an utter disgrace from day one. May & Boris are a shame on
the UK fully reminesent of that utter dog, Blair.
The fact that the msm still babbles on about Russia & Skipnal is indicative of their
monumental contempt for the public & factual balanced reporting .well what's new, I guess
?
Paul Craig Roberts is correct when quoting The Saker:
"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an
infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified." -- The Saker
These ridiculous, suicidal gas attacks by Assad seem to coincide not only with battleground
victories against the head-choppers, but co-incidentally with Israel's murderous attacks on
unarmed Palestinians "throwing stones".
What nobody seems to have picked up is the emphasis – and red lines – on Gas;
gas, gas attacks. Why is gas so much worse than being dismembered, disembowelled, and
mutilated by high explosives? Certainly I would favour unconsciousness and death by gas
before being smashed to pieces by depleted uranium.
These relentlessly repeated claims are an exercise with the dual purpose of providing a
subliminal message about the greatest tragedy in human history, repeated ad nauseam. The
massive 'gassing' of European Jews some 65 years ago. Lest we forget.
Compared with the Litvinenko umbrella attack with its tip having been dipped in an Amazonian
Indians' style curare variant of Polonium the intelligence level of the MI6 & CIA seems
to have hit the ground with the twofold miracle of the dead being raised. Now the miracles
are posing a big problem for the demonizers of Russia & President Putin: how to spirit
these two living & talking people away, who have returned from the dead, where they were
supposed to be so safe and well for all truth-loving investigators. This whole story seems to
unfold like a Jesus Christ Superstar sequel with James Bond appetizers having been added. At
present the roles have been reversed: the Russians being the champions of free will and the
Western intelligence services being the Joker.
Until some kind of sanity returns to this planet and war mongering gangsters like the Bush
and Clinton Mobs, Blair, Obama and a host of Pentagon generals, along with their boot-licking
MSM are indicted, tried for crimes against humanity and war crimes, found guilty and
sentences carried out, there will be no peace on Earth, just an endless series of False
Flags, hysterical reactions by the ones who were behind the False Flags and more wars.
It does look rather like those Syrian chemical weapon attacks that happen whenever the rebels
are about to be defeated.
I am pretty sure that it was not ordered within the British government and that most of
the British government don't know where it came from, but are willing to believe it was
Russia.
While the CIA does have plenty of form on assassinations, the risk if they were found to
be assassinating in Britain seems quite high due to the close CIA links with the UK
intelligence sector. But CIA agents could have paid someone else to do it.
Mossad is the one group that can act freely in the UK, has a record of assassinating
scientists, engineers etc here, and unlike CIA, can take the risk of being caught. So it's a
possibility – OTOH Israel has shown a lot less anti-Russian hatred than the US Deep
State has.
Normally I'd assume it was indeed Russia – I thought there was plenty of evidence
the Polonium poisoning was Russia – and it still seems possible, but US or Mossad must
be at least equally likely in this case. It's just possible it could have been British
initiated but I doubt it.
I do think it's most likely the person who actually poisoned them was not an employee of
any agency.
Theresa May as more evil than Bill Clinton? That will sound odd to some, but I think it is
true. Hillary is the pure evil half of the Clinton marriage. Bill is simply charming and
filled with a desire to amass enough power to have a group adore him as he finds new panties
to explore.
May is English, and she has the very long line of Brit Empire secret service evil at her
disposal. And her move is a bold one. What it means is that she is signaling that at least if
she is PM, the UK could replace the US as Fearless Leader of the actual New World Order,
which is the WASP Empire with Israel and worldwide Jewry as Junior Partner #1 and Saudi
Arabia elevated to Junior Partner #2 in an insane attempt to make Israel secure forever.
The English have never been happy that the lowly Americans leaped them as A-#1 of the WASP
Empire, and being English they have no permanent alliances, no permanent allies, not even kin
(perhaps especially kin – which type and degree of ruthlessness impresses all
Semites).
This alliance was sealed by none other than the very epitome of WASP culture: Mr.
Archetypal WASP himself, Oliver Cromwell. The Anglo-Saxon alliance with Jews precisely to
wage wars against non-WASP white Christians was the logical (and inevitable if WASP culture
were to acquire large scale political power) .
By the Victorian era, virtually all Elite Brit WASPs were knowing philoSemites. The new
twist was that a growing number of them were becoming obsessed with Arabs and/or Islam.
decades before the Balfour Declaration, the Brit WASP Elites were wrangling among themselves
over how best to use the largest and wealthiest Empire in world history to express its
philoSemtism.
The solution recently agreed upon was to elevate the Saudis. The assumption is that as the
Saudis control the actual land of Mohammed, if they are elevated to suzerainty over not
merely all Arabs but the entire Islamic Middle East, then the entire Islamic world can be
controlled, including to allow Israel to exist in 'peace.'
And that means all that oil is under the indirect, but very firm, control of the WASP
Empire, or as The Saker calls it: the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
Of course, the Saudi royal family is the most amorally vicious power party in the Middle
East. They would slaughter half the Sunni Arabs in order to become unrivaled suzerain over
the entire Islamic world. Such monstrousness makes the House of Saud exactly the type partner
that those who control the WASP Empire want as partners.
The Russians are in the way of that beautiful plan of world domination. Russians have
common sense and, much worse, they express it, even publicly. Russians know that Sunni Islam
is a much worse threat to the world than is Shiite Islam. The Russians know that the Iranians
are much more honorable and moral than are the Saudis. The Russians know that as bad as the
Turks are, they are more honorable and trustworthy than the Saudis.
And the Russians also know that the Anglo-Zionist Empire would be tickled pink to make all
non-WASP Elite whites – all in the world – a permanent serf class, treated the
way Cromwell treated the Irish, the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians.
I challenge anyone to name a modern war prosecuted by the US government and its allies that
did not involve at its root the direct fabrication of blatant lies on enormous levels, both
as a casus belli and also to manipulate public opinion in favor of hostilities.
The clandestine activity represented by these *provocations* isn't even good spycraft. The
Skripal case and the latest use of chlorine gas in Syria are risible, clumsy, amateur
attempts to wangle the empire into war that the callowest rube could see through. And yet,
it's working its magic on the media. The politicians, suborned by the war machine, give
unanimous bipartisan assent.
@Giuseppe
Saddam's WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., etc. And now a ridiculous false flag attack in Syria. Did
it take place at all? But the narrative is all. The press in the USA is more effectively
controlled and conformist than in Germany in the late 1930s and nobody goes around beating up
journalists or sending them to a KZ. The Syrian Gov't is winning the civil war, things are
going well but what Assad really needs is to have the crap bombed out of his military by
Uncle Sam. What transparent bullshit.
@DESERT
FOX Agreed to all you said, but I would include the assassination of JFK and his brother,
and likely Martin Luther King Jr.
And each time they took out a great American, they used that assassination to push a
destructive narrative: With the killing of MLK they pinned the killing on a white southern
man, thus pushing their white hate narrative.
With 9/11 is was all about stoking hate of Muslims
These creatures lie as easily as breath, and they have all the money in the world to push
their lies.
@jacques
sheete The intent of my post was to show that the MSM here is conformist and doesn't like
to stray far from what the USG is claiming and what other journalists are writing. Rather
than explore the topics you raise, as worthy of exploration as they might be, I thought I'd
offer what newspapers around the USA were saying about Saddam's WMD after Powell's UNSC
speech; seems a bit more germane.
The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable.
The Wall Street Journal
Piling fact upon fact, photo upon photo Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
methodically demonstrated why Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remains dangerous to his own
people, Iraq's neighbors
The Los Angeles Times
On Wednesday, America's most reluctant warrior, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
presented succinct and damning evidence of Saddam's enormous threat to world peace.
Arizona Republic
Saddam Hussein's illicit arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, as well as the
equally illicit means that he possesses to deliver them, poses a tangible and urgent danger
to U.S. and world security. Millions of innocent lives are at risk.
Dallas Morning News
At some point, the world chooses to believe President George W. Bush and Secretary Powell
or the international community chooses to side with Saddam Hussein and those who broadcast
his lies to the world. Powell has painstakingly presented a strong case against Iraq.
Greenville News/South Carolina
Iraq is busted. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out the case clearly. No one
hearing Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council could doubt Iraq's
actions and intentions.
Jacksonville Times-Union/Florida
The threat is real and at our door. Sept. 11, 2001, stripped away the belief that the
United States can peacefully coexist with evil. Prove it, they said. Powell has.
Charleston Daily Mail/West Virginia
We are a country always loath to fight unless provoked. The reluctance of Americans to
initiate a war needlessly does the nation credit. But this is not a needless war, nor is it
unprovoked. Powell laid out the need, and explained the provocation, in step-by-step fashion
that cannot be refuted without resorting to fantasy.
Chicago Sun-Times
The Dispatch repeatedly has called on the Bush administration to make a compelling case
that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction and hiding these
efforts from U.N. inspectors. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell made that case
before the Security Council.
Columbus Dispatch
Powell has methodically proved Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. mandates. With each
passing day, Iraq's own choices move it closer to a war that full compliance would
prevent.
Indianapolis Star
Secretary of State Colin Powell's 90-minute presentation to the U.N. Security Council,
buttressed with surveillance photographs and recorded phone conversations, should remove all
doubt that Iraq's Saddam Hussein has developed and hides weapons of mass destruction, in
violation of U.N. resolutions.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council presented not just one 'smoking gun' but a
battery of them, more than sufficient to dispel any lingering doubt about the threat the
Iraqi dictator poses.
Denver Post
The United States has made a compelling case that Iraq has failed to rid itself of weapons
of mass destruction. This failure violates the U.N. Security Council resolution of late last
year which ordered Iraq to disarm. As a consequence and it is a grave one, the Security
Council must act now to disarm Iraq by force.
Salt Lake City Tribune
Powell has connected enough dots to tie Iraq to al-Qaeda and show that this alliance is a
threat to all of Europe as well as the United States.
Manchester Union Leader
In fact, the speech provided proof that Saddam continues to refuse to obey U.N.
resolutions. Any amount of time he has now to comply fully and openly with U.N. demands
should be measured in days or a few weeks – and no longer.
That's probably wrong. Distancing from Russia was the main theme for all post Soviet States.
And the fact that Ukraine had chosen Baltin model -- becoming the sattelite of EU is not
surprising, taking into account connections of Western Ukraine and Germany which goes to the time
when this territory was a part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The the fact that this distancing took such a toxic and self-destructing form and incldes the
loss of territory and population, can be attributed to the USA. Here I would agree with the
author.
Notable quotes:
"... The term, roughly translated as Revolution of Dignity, was cooked up at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, well in advance of Victoria Nuland's assumption of the throne as de facto "Queen of the Ukraine," lording over her subjects, playing the role of "donut dollie." ..."
"... The roots of the conflict in the Ukraine with thousands dead and the threat of, minimally, a wider regional conflict, are attributable to extremist elements in the United States -- those faces and voices seen and heard promoting the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the supporters of ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria -- and the cheerleaders of the continued genocide against the Palestinian people." ..."
"A Pew poll from April 2014 revealed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents
believed the referendum was free and fair, 93 percent had confidence in Putin, and
85 percent believed Kiev should recognize the results.
Another poll in June 2014, this one from Gallup , showed 94 percent of
ethnic Russians in Crimea thought the referendum reflected the views of the people and 68
percent of ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea agreed . The poll found that 74 percent
believed that joining Russia would make life better.
A GfK poll from February 2015, sponsored by a pro-Ukrainian group in Canada,
revealed 93 percent of Crimeans endorsed the referendum."
"Enough documents have been released -- citing coup-backed snipers killing dozens of
protesters, US embassy officials planning false flag attacks, extremists downing a passenger
airliner and NATO peddling falsified intelligence -- to make it very clear that the "coup" is
more of an invasion than anything else.
The term, roughly translated as Revolution of Dignity, was cooked up at the Jamestown
Foundation in Washington, well in advance of Victoria Nuland's assumption of the throne as de
facto "Queen of the Ukraine," lording over her subjects, playing the role of "donut
dollie."
The roots of the conflict in the Ukraine with thousands dead and the threat of,
minimally, a wider regional conflict, are attributable to extremist elements in the United
States -- those faces and voices seen and heard promoting the invasion of Afghanistan and
Iraq, the supporters of ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria -- and the cheerleaders of the continued
genocide against the Palestinian people."
"In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI,
specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
acts mentioned under (i)."
@annamaria
Bravo, indeed, Annamaria. Beautiful, perfect, resounding, harsh, unforgiving words for a pair
of worthless human vermin masquerading as civilised, intelligent professionals with a moral
compass.
He makes great points, and I'm encouraged that he's allowed to do so on to a big and
important audience.
I remember when his predecessor, Bill O'Rielly, claimed to have seen the evidence of
Saddam's WMD, and told his audience, on the run up to war, and I was appalled. As indeed, it
turned out he too was lying.
When the ZUSA was entrenched in the highly profitable war on Vietnam, there seemed to be no
way to end it. Protests in the streets and at the universities, and anger at the war and war
pig$ seemed to no avail.
But then a phenomena began. Fragging.
one wonders .
at seven minutes in, Carlson interviews a senator. The senator does his best to lie and
deceive, as only a ZUS senator can. But Tucker eviscerates him on screen.
now if this senator, and others like him, were themselves put into peril by these
serial, treasonous wars for Israel, would they still be so keen to have Americans die,
slaughtering innocent people- to bolster and benefit the main enemy of America; Israel?
I imagine the parent of a young American, who's life was sacrificed to augment the career of
Lindsey Graham. Or other Americans who're fed up with the endless wars for Israel, and are
willing to do something about the treasonous scum who're demanding and foisting all of these
Satanic wars.
Just as Tucker says, any general who advocates for these wars, should be required to
actually visit a battlefield, so too I wonder about the politicians, and how they eventually
have to go home, and live among their constituents. What if some of the worst of them, like
Graham for instance, were to actually suffer some consequence for all the evil he's done, and
continues to do?
Of course I'm not advocating anything illegal. Just ruminating on potential solutions to the
Eternal Wars for Israel – which are nothing more or less than a continuation of the first
two World Wars (for Israel) duh
END the FED!
(or watch your nation bankrupted and looted and made to die for Israel)
"... The British Establishment has done with the concepts of honor. The loudest lying voices against Russia belong either to the whoring "aristocrats," who found that war profiteering (by any means) pays well, or the opportunistic parvenu like Gavin Williamson representing the vulgarity and intellectual inadequacy of the Establishment. ..."
annamaria says: April 10,
2018 at 2:44 pm GMT 100 Words On the British Establishment:
The Skripal affair is better understood in the context of "sir" Savile' knighthood -- when the
influential pedophile had been raping and molesting kids for 40 years and none stood up to the
criminal. The BBC has dutifully refused to publish anything that would upset "sir" Savile. The
Scotland Yard looked the other way -- precisely as the Establishment ordered them to do.
Savile' specialty were orphans. He was the embodiment of British Establishment.
The British Establishment has done with the concepts of honor. The loudest lying voices
against Russia belong either to the whoring "aristocrats," who found that war profiteering (by
any means) pays well, or the opportunistic parvenu like Gavin Williamson representing the
vulgarity and intellectual inadequacy of the Establishment.
Actually, I think "Outlaw US Conglomerate" is a more accurate description of the beast.
Classical empires invested at least some the plunder from various colonies in the
infrastructure of the empire's ruling power.
But now we are dealing with a structure that transcends national boundaries, a matrix of
banks and multi-national corporations mostly based in the US (as well as London, Frankfurt
etc.) They have no loyalty to anyplace or anyone except their own shareholders. This
arrangement is given a patina of legitimacy by various supra-national organizations such as
the IMF, World Bank, World Court, etc. Add to this countless NGOs and "Think-Tanks." It is a
financial colonization scam, and requires the elimination of national borders -- in short,
globalization.
I like the term Outlaw "US Conglomerate" because it reflects the fact that the core of the
beast is corporate, not nationalist.
The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, also known as the Yinon Plan, is an Israeli
strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel
must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding
Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
The reach of a "Greater Israel", as described in the Yinon plan.
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war
on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt,
must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists
in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli
expansionist project.
"Greater Israel" consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge. This is why Iraq was
outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In
Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the
division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one Shiite and the other
Sunni.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military's Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both
published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside
from a divided Iraq, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The Yinon
Plan also calls for color revolutions (Arab Spring) North Africa and forecasts it as starting
from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
"Greater Israel" requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.
The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must
become an imperial regional power, and
must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all
existing Arab states.
Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently,
the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel's satellites and, ironically,
its source of moral legitimation This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first
time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units
has been a recurrent theme.
Viewed in this context, the war on Syria is part of the process of Israeli territorial
expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey and NATO is
directly supportive of the Al Qaeda terrorist mercenaries inside Syria.
The Zionist Project also requires the destabilization of Egypt, the creation of factional
divisions within Egypt as instrumented by the "Arab Spring" leading to the formation of a
sectarian based State dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Originally from: President Trump's Losing Strategy: Embracing Brazil and Confronting China
James Petras January 8, 2019
Introduction
The US embraces a regime doomed to failure and threatens the world's most dynamic economy. President Trump has lauded Brazil's
newly elected President Jair Bolsonaro and promises to promote close economic, political, social and cultural ties. In contrast the
Trump regime is committed to dismantling China's growth model, imposing harsh and pervasive sanctions, and promoting the division
and fragmentation of greater China.
Washington's choice of allies and enemies is based on a narrow conception of short-term advantage and strategic losses.
In this paper we will discuss the reasons why the US-Brazilian relation fits in with Washington's pursuit for global domination
and why Washington fears the dynamic growth and challenge of an independent and competitive China.
Brazil in Search of a Patron
Brazil's President, Jair Bolsonaro from day one, has announced a program to reverse nearly a century of state directed economic
growth. He has announced the privatization of the entire public sector, including the strategic finance, banking, minerals, infrastructure,
transport, energy and manufacturing activities. Moreover, the sellout has prioritized the centrality of foreign multi-national corporations.
Previous authoritarian civilian and military regimes protected nationalized firms as part of tripartite alliances which included
foreign, state and domestic private enterprises.
In contrast to previous elected civilian regimes which strived – not always successfully – to increase pensions, wages and living
standards and recognized labor legislation, President Bolsonaro has promised to fire thousands of public sector employees, reduce
pensions and increase retirement age while lowering salaries and wages in order to increase profits and lower costs to capitalists.
President Bolsonaro promises to reverse land reform, expel, arrest and assault peasant households in order to re-instate landlords
and encourage foreign investors in their place. The deforestation of the Amazon and its handover to cattle barons and land speculators
will include the seizure of millions of acres of indigenous land.
In foreign policy, the new Brazilian regime pledges to follow US policy on every strategic issue: Brazil supports Trump's economic
attacks on China, embraces Israel's land grabs in the Middle East, (including moving its capital to Jerusalem), back US plots to
boycott and policies to overthrow the governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. For the first time, Brazil has offered the Pentagon
military bases, and military forces in any and all forthcoming invasions or wars.
The US celebration of President Bolsonaro's gratuitous handovers of resources and wealth and surrender of sovereignty is celebrated
in the pages of the Financial Times, the Washington Post and the New York Times who predict a period of growth, investment and recovery
– if the regime has the 'courage' to impose its sellout.
As has occurred in numerous recent experiences with right wing neo-liberal regime changes in Argentina, Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador,
financial page journalists and experts have allowed their ideological dogma to blind them to the eventual pitfalls and crises.
The Bolsonaro regime's economic policies ignore the fact that they depend on agro-mineral exports to China and compete with US
exports Brazilian ago-business elites will resent the switch of trading partners.. They will oppose, defeat and undermine Bolsonaro's
anti-China campaign if he dares to persists.
Foreign investors will takeover public enterprises but are not likely to expand production given the sharp reduction of employment,
salaries and wages, as the consumer market declines.
Banks may make loans but demand high interest rates for high 'risks' especially as the government will face increased social opposition
from trade unions and social movements, and greater violence from the militarization of society.
Bolsonaro lacks a majority in Congress who depend on the electoral support of millions of public employees, wage and salaried
workers ,pensioners,and gender and racial minorities. Congressional alliance will be difficult without corruption and compromises
Bolsonaro's cabinet includes several key ministers who are under investigation for fraud and money laundering. His anti-corruption
rhetoric will evaporate in the face of judicial investigations and exposés.
Brazil is unlikely to provide any meaningful military forces for regional or international US military adventures. The military
agreements with the US will carry little weight in the face of deep domestic turmoil.
Bolsanaro's neo-liberal policies will deepen inequalities especially among the fifty million who have recently risen out of poverty.
The US embrace of Brazil will enrich Wall Street who will take the money and run, leaving the US facing the ire and rejection of
their failed ally.
The US Confronts China
Unlike Brazil, China is not prepared to submit to economic plunder and to surrender its sovereignty. China is following its own
long-term strategy which focuses on developing the most advanced sectors of the economy – including cutting edge electronics and
communication technology.
Chinese researchers already produce more patents and referred scientific articles than the US. They graduate more engineers, advanced
researchers and innovative scientists than the US based on high levels of state funding . China with an investment rate of over 44%
in 2017, far surpasses the US. China has advanced, from low to high value added exports including electrical cars at competitive
prices. For example, Chinese i-phones are outcompeting Apple in both price and quality.
China has opened its economy to US multi-national corporations in exchange for access to advanced technology, what Washington
dubs as 'forced' seizures.
China has promoted multi-lateral trade and investment agreement ,including over sixty countries, in large-scale long-term infrastructure
agreements throughout Asia and Africa.
Instead of following China's economic example Washington whines of unfair trade, technological theft, market restrictions and
state constraints on private investments.
China offers long-term opportunities for Washington to upgrade its economic and social performance – if Washington recognized
that Chinese competition is a positive incentive. Instead of large-scale public investments in upgrading and promoting the export
sector, Washington has turned to military threats, economic sanctions and tariffs which protect backward US industrial sectors. Instead
of negotiating for markets with an independent China, Washington embraces vassal regimes like Brazil's under newly elected President
Jair Bolsonaro who relies on US economic control and takeovers.
ORDER IT NOW
The US has an easy path to dominating Brazil for short-term gains – profits, markets and resources, but the Brazilian model is
not viable or sustainable. In contrast the US needs to negotiate, bargain and agree to reciprocal competitive agreements with China
..The end result of cooperating with China would allow the US to learn and grow in a sustainable fashion.
This article is asinine. By the book, Bolton takes orders from Trump... not the other way
around. Bolton is just being used as an excuse. Trump was never serious about getting the US
out of any wars. I confidently predict that US troops will still be in Syria this time next
year.
"Was he aware of Bolton's request for a menu of targets in Iran for potential U.S.
strikes? Did he authorize it? Has he authorized his national security adviser and secretary
of state to engage in these hostile actions and bellicose rhetoric aimed at Iran? "
Yes, Yes and Yes, that's why he's an orange fucktard.
Bolton's former deputy, Mira Ricardel, reportedly told a gathering the shelling into the
Green Zone was "an act of war" to which the U.S. must respond decisively.
This war mongering harpy fortunately was kicked to the curb by melania trump!
Send the House, Senate, FBI, CIA, IRS & all others state operatives to fight in Iran.
Include the TSA for gods sake. Include the Obamas, Clintons and Bush's. So they can verify
that their weapons are all delivered again and work properly. Bring our troops home to defend
are border. Include NYT, WaPo and most of our current media in the Iran light brigade, so
they can charge with the rest of the parasites. Many problems will be solved in very short
order.
He's a temporary useful idiot for Trump who will flush him at his convenience. He's handy
to have around to encourage the Hawks do a group masturbation.
Seriously, if Ertogen tells Bolton to go **** off, he has no sauce. He's been neutered.
Let him act all important and play in the sand box all he wants.
trust the plan. there are white hats in government who have your best interest in mind.
you don't need to do anything other than pretend like everything is fine, they'll take care
of the rest. go to work and continue accepting continually devalued worthless fiat in
exchange for time you spend away from your family and doing things you love. trust the plan,
it's all going to be alright
Mueller investigation is a continuation of JFK assassination by other means.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Now, as the 'Russian influence' narrative is dying down, the anti-Trump - anti-Russian campaign is moving to new grounds. ..."
"... Initiating a counter-intelligence investigation, for which there was no basis, gave the FBI, and later the Mueller investigation, unfettered access to NSA 'signals intelligence' that could then possibly be used to incriminate Trump or his associates. ..."
"... It was the Obama administration which had given the FBI access to this tool : ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Trump is no populist. A populist can't be elected by the money-based US political system. Trump's election was almost certainly arranged ..."
"... Then why did Trump nominate Gina Haspel as head of the CIA? She is the acolyte of Trump nemesis Brennan. Why does Trump choose people like Nikki Halley, Pompeo, Bolton? ..."
"... "I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people." ..."
"... the assassination of JFK opened the floodgates of blatant depravity perpetrated by those whose greed and lust for power will ultimately destroy us. ..."
"... There are trends: A growing US citizen realization that their political system prior to Trump was nearly completely corrupt; the Clintons are more broadly understood as the pathological criminals that they are; the Podesta emails with their sick connotations remain 'in the air' - See Ben Swann's work, for example. The Clinton Foundation is far more broadly understood as a massive criminal enterprise. ..."
"... "Pompeo met on October 24 [at Trump's request] with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community's official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year's theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was "leaked," not hacked, "by a person with physical access" to the DNC's computer system." ..."
"... In short the last two years have been about trying to defeat Trump but the attackers are looking more and more wounded, and Trump, well, he's hanging in there. General Kelly and others have described Trump's work ethic as exhausting. ..."
"... Trump has been put under intense investigation by Deep State hacks who are determined to see him impeached. And all they have come up with is that he is a compulsive pussy-grabber (no shit, hey?). ..."
"... Well, if he has then he has hidden them extraordinarily well, because Mueller with all his resources hasn't found any. Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons. ..."
"... "Simply put, the Russia NIA is not an "IC-coordinated" assessment -- the vehicle for such coordination, the NIC, was not directly involved in its production, and no NIO was assigned as the responsible official overseeing its production. Likewise, the Russia NIA cannot be said to be the product of careful coordination between the CIA, NSA and FBI -- while analysts from all three agencies were involved in its production, they were operating as part of a separate, secretive task force operating under the close supervision of the Director of the CIA, and not as an integral part of their home agency or department." ..."
"... Escalation towards war with Russia was a matter of public record in late pre-election 2016, thanks to Clinton News Network ... now ask yourselves where is that general in the press conference nowadays? ..."
"... For a thorough update on the Integrity Initiative and its offshoots, check out the latest from legal investigator Barbara Boyd. ..."
"... To defeat the "Deep State" in the U.S., it is essential to understand the role of British Intelligence. While it is essential to know the role of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Comey, DOJ/FBI operatives, et.al., it is even more important to understand the geopolitical assumptions behind Russiagate. And for that, one must turn to the British. ..."
"... The aim of the counterintelligence operation and of the Russiagate hoax was not to build a prosecution case against President Trump. It was to put the United States in constitutional limbo by creating a parallel and competing center of constitutional legitimacy. ..."
"... Very difficult to judge: what is the result of infighting in the US vs. any agreed-on never mind coherent foreign policy? That the question is even asked - all over the world now - spells stage one collapse. ..."
"... Trump's nationalist credentials are further belied by such things as: adding TPP provisions to the new North American trade agreement; attacking Syria based on false flags; arming Ukraine; pulling out of the INF treaty and engaging in an unnecessary and costly arms race; actively seeking to overthrow the governments of Iran and Venezuela; etc. ..."
"... My own theory about 2016 is that everybody miscalculated. Trump was (IMO) running as an ego-building publicity stunt. Hillary (and her Deep State sponsors) had actively helped Trump get the nomination with hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity which also enhanced the bottom lines of Big Media. His multiple flaws were airbrushed away. ..."
Despite the loss of major narratives, the war of the deep state against U.S. President Trump continues unabated. The main of tool
in this war are allegations of relations between Trump and anything Russia. The war runs along several parallel paths.
The narrative war in the media is most visible one. When any of the fake stories about Trump and Russia gets debunked and disposed,
new ones are created or others intensified.
In parallel to these propaganda efforts the deep state created an investigation that Trump has no way to escape from. Enabled
by one of the Obama administrations last acts the investigation is using signal intelligence to entrap and flip the people surrounding
Trump (see section three below). The big price will be Trump himself. Here we take a look at what transpired during the last weeks.
One major anti-Trump narrative was that 'Russian influence' helped to put him into office. This was based on the alleged nefarious
influence a Russian clickbait company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA) in St. Peterburg, had on the U.S. electorate. That explanation
never made sense. Little of the IRA activities had to do with the election. It used sockpuppets on Facebook and Twitter to attract
people to websites filled with puppy pictures or similar nonsense. The IRA would then sell advertisement and promotions on these
sites.
This
was obvious for anyone following the factual content of the news instead of the 'opinions' a whole bunch of anti-Trump 'experts'
and the media formed around them.
That the Mueller investigation finally indicted several of the IRA's officers over minor financial transactions was seen as a
confirmation of the political aspects of the IRA activities. But nearly all the reporting left out that Mueller
confirmed the commercial intent behind the IRA and its activities. There is nothing political in the accusations. Indeed point
95 of the Mueller
indictment
of the IRA says:
Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions
and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain
U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false
U.S. persona accounts , including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist.
Part of the false narrative of a political influence campaign was the claim that the $100,000 the IRA spent for advertisement
to promote its clickbait webpages through Facebook ads somehow moved people to vote for Trump. But 56% of the IRA ads ran after the
election, 25% of all its ads were never seen by anyone. How a few $10,000 for ads only few saw moved an election that was fought
with several billions spent by each candidate's campaign was left unexplained.
[T]he common understanding is that Russia's interference efforts included sophisticated targeting of specific voting groups on
Facebook, which could have made the difference in states that Trump narrowly won on his way to an electoral-vote victory.
That understanding about Russia's sophisticated targeting, though, is not supported by the evidence -- if it's not flat-out
wrong.
...
Most of the ads purchased by the Russians didn't specify a geographic target smaller than the United States on the whole, according
to a Post review of the ads released by the House Intelligence Committee. Those that did target specific states heavily targeted
those that weren't really considered targets of the 2016 election, such as Missouri and Maryland. And of those ads that did target
specific states, most happened well before or well after the final weeks of the campaign.
All the claims that some Russian sockpuppets influenced the 2016 elections were and are nonsense. The IRA sockpuppets never had
any political intent.
Likewise the allegations that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and Clinton crony Podesta's email are mere assertions for which
no hard evidence was ever provided. The only known fact is that the emails and papers were real, and that there content revealed
the shoddiness of Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and her campaign.
Now, as the 'Russian influence' narrative is dying down, the anti-Trump - anti-Russian campaign is moving to new grounds. Last week
the New York Times claimed that Paul Manafort, who for some time ran the Trump election campaign, gave public and internal
polling data to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska:
Manafort Accused
of Sharing Trump Polling Data With Russian Associate . A day after that sensational claim made a large splash throughout U.S.
media the New York Times recanted:
CORRECTION: PAUL MANAFORT asked KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK to pass TRUMP polling to the Ukrainian oligarchs SERHIY LYOVOCHKIN & RINAT
AKHMETOV, & not to OLEG DERIPASKA, as originally reported. We have corrected the story & I deleted a tweet repeating the error.
Duh. Manafort gave polling data to his Ukrainian fixer Konstantin Kilimnik with the request to pass it along to Ukrainian oligarchs
for who he had worked before joining the Trump campaign. Kilimnik had long
worked for the International Republican Institute office in Moscow. The IRI is a CIA offshot under Republican Party tutelage
that is used to influence politics abroad. Its long time head was the deceased hawkish Senator John McCain. While he worked with
Kilimnik in the Ukraine, Manafort concentrated on moving the Ukraine towards the European Union and away from Russia. His and Kilimnik
efforts were always opposed to Russian interests. But the NYT and others falsely
try to pass them off as the opposite
with the sole purpose of feeding the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign.
Another anti-Trump/anti-Russian propaganda effort is a new sensational NYT piece on obvious misbehavior in the upper rows
of the FBI :
In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the
president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests
, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.
The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions
constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for
Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.
The NYT lets it seem as if the decision to launch a counter-intelligence investigation related to Trump was as based
on some reasonable suspicion the FBI had. It was not. This was an act of revenge by the upper anti-Trump echelons in the FBI with
which they attempted to undermine Trump's presidency. Note what the claimed suspicion was based on:
Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference
in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign
trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention
platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.
Other factors fueled the F.B.I.'s concerns, according to the people familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former
British spy who worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016 containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials
tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him.
Trump made a joke during the election campaign asking Russia to release the 30,000 emails Hillary Clinton had deleted from her
illegal private email server. There is no requirement, as far as I know, for any candidate to criticize this or that country. How
can not following the non existing requirement to criticize Russia be suspicious? The Republican Party did not soften its convention
platform on Ukraine. It rejected an amendment that would have further sharpened it. Overall the Republican platform was
more hawkish than the Democratic one. The
Steele dossier was of course from A to Z
made up nonsense paid for
by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It is non sensible to claim that these were reasonable suspicions sufficient to open a counter-intelligence investigation. The
hasty FBI move to launch a counter-intelligence operation obviously had a different motive and aim.
Strzok and Page sent other text messages that raise the possibility they were discussing opening up a counterintelligence investigation
against Trump before Comey's firing.
"And we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting ," Strzok wrote to Page on the day of Comey's
ouster.
Andy is Andrew McCabe, who served as deputy FBI director.
Page gave some indication in her congressional testimony in July 2018 that the text message was a reference to an investigation
separate from the obstruction probe that has already been reported.
Normally the FBI needs to clear such counter-intelligence investigations with the Justice Department. In this case it
did not do so at all :
In the case of the investigation into Trump, the FBI's decision to open a file on the president so quickly after Comey's firing
in May 2017 was a source of concern for some officials at the Justice Department because the FBI acted without first consulting
leadership at the department . But those worries were allayed when, days later, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was appointed
to oversee the Russia probe ...
After Comey was fired, the FBI made a very hasty move, without reasonable suspicion and without informing the Justice Department,
to launch a counter-intelligence operation involving the sitting president and his administration. What was the real purpose of this
move?
Initiating a counter-intelligence investigation, for which there was no basis, gave the FBI, and later the Mueller investigation,
unfettered access to NSA 'signals intelligence' that could then possibly be used to incriminate Trump or his associates.
On his way out the door, we all were wallowing in our winter of discontent, Obama signed an executive order...
...
The order revised the rules around intelligence sharing among our intel community. Specifically, it made the firehose of raw intelligence
collected by the NSA directly accessible to the FBI and CIA. Instead of having to ask for intel and getting what they filtered
down the FBI and CIA could directly access the unfiltered "SigInt" or signals intelligence. Intercepted phone calls, emails, raw
intel from human sources. Everything our vast intelligence vacuum hoovers up, available directly... but only for counterintel
and foreign intel purposes .
The NSA can sit on virtually every communication into and out of the U.S. that takes place over networks. Obama made it possible
for the FBI to directly access everything they had on Trump, et al. Obama supercharged the FBI's ability to investigate Trump.
The Obama administration
enacted the changed executive order EO 12333 in early January 2017, shortly before Trump took over:
Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or
the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.'s analysts passed on only information
they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.
Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by
the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for "minimizing" privacy intrusions.
...
[T]he 12333 sharing procedures allow analysts, including those at the F.B.I., to search the raw data using an American's identifying
information only for the purpose of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigations , not for ordinary criminal cases.
And they may do so only if one of several other conditions are met, such as a finding that the American is an agent of a foreign
power.
However, under the rules, if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to
the Justice Department.
At that time Peter Lee, aka Chinahand,
already had the suspicion
that Obama was behind the FBI campaign against Trump.
With the changes in EO 12333 Obama gave the FBI the ability to launch a world wide snooping operation against the incoming Trump
administration under the guise of a 'counter-intelligence' operation. The hasty FBI move after Comey was fired activated this instrument.
The Mueller investigation has since used it extensively. 'Crimes' revealed through the snooping operation are turned over to the
Justice Department.
The NYT claim that the counter-intelligence investigation was initiated because of reasonable suspicion of Russian influence
over Trump is nonsense. It was initiated to get access to a set of tools that would allow unlimited access to communication of Trump
and anyone related to him. It was Obama who on his way out of the door gave the FBI these capabilities.
There are signs that the unlimited access the FBI and Mueller investigation have to signal intelligence is used to create prosecutions
via ' parallel construction ':
An active counterintel investigation means the Trump Administration's crimes were only as secure as the weakest link in their
weakest moment. We got hints of this early. Our intelligence folks picked up "signals intelligence" or SigInt from Russians talking
to Russians.
Those "signals" aren't the kind of evidence that finds its way into a courtroom. In fact, it's important that it doesn't. It would
burn sources and methods. It lays out the crimes and the players though... and then prosecutors find ways to make triable cases
other ways .
The public sees cases for specific charges carrying significant prison time without ever knowing that the NSA and prosecutors
knew so much more than they ever revealed. Now, apply those principles to the cases we've seen Mueller bring forward so far.
Mike Flynn: pleaded out to a minor charge, rolled over in full and then produced five rounds of documents. Likely: Flynn was
confronted with the intel they had on him and knew he was cooked. They knew the crimes. They heard and saw everything. There'd
be no escape.
By flipping and pleading out Flynn, all of that secret intel stays secret. Our intelligence efforts are protected. And Flynn
goes down. And he cooks a bunch of other gooses. He's savvy enough to know that once they have the intel, all that's left to do
is make the case.
...
The 'crime' that di Flynn in was misremembering a phone call he had with the Russian ambassador. Similar happened with Rick Gates,
Paul Manafort's righthand man and a member of Trump's transition team. Then it happened to Paul Manafort himself and to George Papadopoulos.
The Mueller investigation, thanks to the snooping Obama and the FBI enabled, knows the content of every phonecall, chat and email
any member of the Trump administration made and make to someone abroad (and likely also within the U.S.). It invites people as witnesses
and asks them about the content of a specific calls they made. If they misremember or lie - bang - Mueller has the transcript ready.
A crime has been created and an indictment for lying to the FBI will follow. This is what happened to Flynn and the others the Mueller
investigation entrapped and convicted.
Because of the counter-intelligence investigation the anti-Trump gang in the FBI hastened to initiate, the investigators got hands
on signal intelligence - phone calls, chats and emails - that allowed them to indict minor people for petty crimes and to flip them
to talk to the investigation.
The aim, in the end, was and is to build a prosecution case against President Trump for whatever minor and petty half-backed illegal
doing there may be.
To make such a prosecution and an indictment publicly palpable the media is assigned with launching story after story about nefarious
relations between Trump and anything Russia.
As we have seen above with the IRA story, the retracted NYT 's Manafort bang, and the NYT's false claims about
the motive of the FBI's counter-intelligence investigation, none of these stories hold up to diligent scrutiny. Today's Washington
Post adds another example of no-beef stories that insinuate mystic 'Russian influence' over Trump:
President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin
, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to
discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
The rest of the story largely refutes the claim made in its headline and very first sentence:
Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
...
Trump generally has allowed aides to listen to his phone conversations with Putin ..
...
In an email, Tillerson said that he " was present for the entirety of the two presidents' official bilateral meeting in Hamburg,"...
After Trump had a first White House meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in Washington, lots of leaks about the talk
appeared in the DC media. Trump was accused of giving information about an ISIS plot to the Russians that was allegedly secret.
It was not . Since then Trump clamped down on the number of participants, briefings and readouts for such talks. That is simply
a necessary and laudable behavior. Now the media try to construct that into 'Trump is concealing details' about talks with Russia
even when the U.S. Secretary of State and others are present in these.
Ever since Trump won the Republican primaries, the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration and the U.S. and British intelligence
services prepared to prevent a successful Trump presidency. The Steele dossier, created by 'former' British intelligence agents and
paid for by the Clinton campaign, was the basis for an FBI investigation that was seen
as
an insurance against a Trump win. Any possible Russia relations Trump might have came under scrutiny. This prevented him from
fulfilling his campaign promise of coming to better relations with Russia.
Shortly before Obama left the office he created the tool the FBI needed to put its investigation on steroids. When Trump fired
Comey for his handling of the Clinton email affair, the FBI put that tool into action. With unfettered access to signal intelligence
the Mueller investigation was able to entrap a number of Trump related people and to flip them to its side. It will use any information
they give up to find some angle under which Trump can be prosecuted and eventually impeached. Even if nothing comes off this investigations,
the media reports and slander all this created may well be enough to prevent an election of Trump for a second term.
I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign
the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people. Unfortunately I see no way
that Trump could escape from the hold it has gained over him. Exposing it as much as possible might well be his best defense.
It is information that is put out there that is never cross checked by the American people. They are too busy, too involved
with other things or too stupid to find out the true facts. It is hard to predict what will occur next year. I
feel it all depends who wins the primary on the Democrat side.
[Trump] ... was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign the media and the intelligence services have since
run against him undermines the will of the people.
There is a major flaw in reasoning here. Trump is no populist. A populist can't be elected by the money-based US political system.
Trump's election was almost certainly arranged:
The anti-Russia campaign began in earnest in 2014 (well before the 2016 election);
Trump's pre-election relationship to the Clinton's is highly suspect: they were likely to be much closer than we have
been led to believe;
An FBI informant worked for Trump for over 10 years - during the time that Mueller was FBI director;
Trump was the ONLY populist on the Republican side (out of 19 contenders!);
Sanders was a 'sheepdog'
and Hillary ran a terrible campaign in which she made obvious mistakes that a seasoned campaigner like herself would never
make;
British involvement in the election (Fusion GPS, Cambridge Analytica, a Brit 'spy' in the Sanders campaign, etc.) suggests
CIA-MI6 working together;
Trump Administration policies are consistent those of Clinton-Bush-Obama:
> Obamacare was not repealed "on day one" - it has been strengthened by not defending coverage for prior conditions;
> Trump put TPP provisions into his new North American trade deal;
> Trump continues ME meddling;
> Trump continues militarism and tax cutting;
> Etc.
The only major "difference" that I can think of are Trump's Wall and China tariffs. But these are consistent with the 'Deep
State' goals.
Surveys show that the "will of the people" is very different than the neoliberal, neoconservative policies that the establishment
fosters upon us.
MAGA is a POLICY CHOICE as much as it is a campaign slogan. It is designed to meet the challenge posed by Russia and China
and 'turn the page' on the deceit and duplicity of the Obama Administration just as Obama's "Change You Can Believe In" was designed
to turn the page on the the militarism of the Bush Administration. These BI-PARTISAN page-turnings ensure that there is no accountability
and provides each new Administration with a new sly story line that the public readily swallows. Each new Presidential charade
entertains and misdirects as the interests of the Empire are advanced with a refreshed box of tricks and dishonest narratives.
...war of the deep state against U.S. President Trump continues unabated.
Then why did Trump nominate Gina Haspel as head of the CIA? She is the acolyte of Trump nemesis Brennan. Why does Trump choose
people like Nikki Halley, Pompeo, Bolton?
The war of the Deep State is a psyop to crush dissent as the butt-hurt Deep State continues to pursue their dream of global
hegemony. Anyone that believes that Trump is no part of that psyop is delusional.
Wow, man. Thanks to you and all the regulars here who contribute to gathering relevant info from all kinds of sources. I hate
to repeat myself, but I feel that a little praise every 3 or 6 months is not too much spamming. This is what serious journalism
looks like.
Zachary Smith @2: ... I just don't buy into the "insurance" theory.
And I don't buy the theory that Hillary is hell bent on war. The Clinton's are very rational and calculating and no President has the freedom that your theory suggests. IMO what the Deep State has done under their man Trump is very similar to what the Deep State would have done if they had selected
Clinton instead. The fact is, a populist nationalist is what was deemed necessary to meet the challenge from Russia and China. And that is what
we got (surprise!).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Furthermore, focusing on personality and Party is just what they want
"Watch what they do, not what they say" has a corollary: pay attention to the polices, not the politicians.
"I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign
the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people."
This pretty well sums it up for me. Being old enough to remember FDR and the brief rise of the middle class in the 40's, 50's
and 60's (and having benefited from that attempt at leveling the playing field), I am more than saddened at the downward spiral
of our nation. Politics have obviously never been clean and fair, but the assassination of JFK opened the floodgates of blatant
depravity perpetrated by those whose greed and lust for power will ultimately destroy us.
Of course b you have nothing here to offer except your opinion. Your views regarding the relentlessness of the US criminal justice
system are on target, just ask the underclasses about that. Once in view, you are never let be and in the US everyone can be found
guilty of something.
Rather nice to see the pampered son of inherited tax-free wealth on the receiving end for once, in my opinion.
Trump is a crook. Russian collusion is his smokescreen. His crimes have already been demonstrated through what little we already
know and there is still much we don't know and probably never will know.
This essay reads something like a veiled mea culpa from you.
You were wrong about Trump from the get go. Why not just admit it and move along? Why remain steadfastly in thrall to any shred
of rightwing, authoritarianism of the elite masquerading as populism?
Whatever Trump gets from the criminal justice system, Congress or the voters appears to be well-deserved. He has brought this
on himself and really there is no one else to blame even as he never will accept responsibility. He is stupid at best, dishonest
at best, a useful idiot at best.
Trump saved his ass financially after a series of disastrous business bankruptcies by accepting what appears by all indications
to be laundered money from literally hundreds of anonymous shell companies investing in his condos since at least 2008.
He has run roughshod over the emoluments clause quite openly.
I do believe, knowing what we know now, he will probably avoid indictment and escape impeachment, maybe only through resignation/pardon
but more likely the old fashioned way: defeat at the polls in 2020.
In many ways Trump has done some good by reinvigorating the US left (such as it is) and bringing at least enough cohesion in
the ranks of a badly splintered populace mainly among white females and white college educated voters who now reject the GOP,
or at least the GOP of Trump.
Whether this will lead to badly needed fixes for the heinous wealth inequality (started with Reagan) is doubtful but at least
the conversation is now underway (started with Bernie) which is the first step.
Tax increases, social security stabilisation, re-funneling wasted MIC billions to domestic programs for the poor, etc.
It is a start. Will it become a solution or a revolution in time?
That is up to the people who are still under the yoke of neoliberalism and global capital flight.
re:
Mike Flynn: pleaded out to a minor charge, rolled over in full and then produced five rounds of documents. Likely: Flynn was confronted
with the intel they had on him and knew he was cooked. They knew the crimes. They heard and saw everything. There'd be no escape.
By flipping and pleading out Flynn, all of that secret intel stays secret. Our intelligence efforts are protected. And Flynn goes
down. And he cooks a bunch of other gooses. He's savvy enough to know that once they have the intel, all that's left to do is
make the case.//
So the situation is worse than I thought. The clear inference is that (1) Flynn (and others) really did commit some major crimes,
and then (2) got off easy by admitting to a memory lapse (3) while cooking a bunch of other gooses.
Flynn does the easy (2) and gets away with (1) and (3), both very serious. This is justice?
As you may recall, the woman threatened conflict on cyberattacks.
"As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack," the Democratic
presidential nominee said. "We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."
Regarding the Deep State and Trump, Syria is in the process of winning against the neocons. And Iran has not yet been attacked.
Hillary has a record, and for the most part hasn't even tried to run away from it.
thanks b... the topic is so very tiring.. i am sick of hearing about it.. if the usa fell off a cliff and never came back again
- i would be fine with that.. thank you regardless, for taking it apart and trying ti dispel the bullshite.. it is so thick, it
defies logic.. i agree with @1 jose garcia, and @4 radiator...
trump is a crook... so what? most of the business class in the west are at this point! politics and crookery go hand in hand...
i would be surprised if it was any different at this point in time.. how about the intel agencies? you want to sleep with them?
lol..
There's either something wrong with this assumption, or something we're not being told...
The Mueller investigation, thanks to the snooping Obama and the FBI enabled, knows the content of every phonecall, chat
and email any member of the Trump administration made and make to someone abroad (and likely also within the U.S.). It invites
people as witnesses and asks them about the content of a specific calls they made. If they misremember or lie - bang - Mueller
has the transcript ready. A crime has been created and an indiction for lying to the FBI will follow. This is what happened to
Flynn and the others the Mueller investigation entrapped and convicted.
Option 1. Something wrong?
If you're being cross-examined in a court or pseudo-legal forum about things you may or may not remember, you have the right to
decline to answer a question, or to preface any and every answer with the phrase "If I remember correctly blah blah blah..."
Option 2. Something we're not being told?
If the interrogators were able to ambush Flynn, then it's probably because they didn't acquaint him with all of his rights, or
he didn't have a lawyer with him.
Trump's not stupid. He won't blunder into a situation bereft of any semblance of legal Human Rights protections designed to
ambush him. And if he can't have a lawyer with him when the questions start, then he can probably refuse to attend without breaking
any law.
@donkeytale There has been close to three years of serious investigative intent to lay a glove on Trump (HRC's team, the FBI and
Mueller) and there is only the merest scratch of a womaniser (which with three marriages doesn't come as a surprise). What is
quite remarkable, despite all the investigative effort, is how clean Trump has managed to keep himself despite building a fortune
in one of the toughest cities in the world, building himself up through the eras of the five families, junk bonds and ponzi schemes
and soviet union mobsters, not to mention the corruption of the poltical classes and regulatory abuses and unionised labor.
For the world's he moves in, the only explanation that gives him enough protection is that for a long time Trump has been a
protected FBI asset for one of the field offices, possibly now senior service figures. And it's this deep relationship with well
connected parts of the FBI or other secret services that has given him the ability to steer past the various attempts by the deep
state. Why, for instance, do we have such a lot of leakage of the inner workings of the anti-Trump FBI? Some part of the deep
state has become disgusted at the spying (eg on congress), the blackmailing, the warmongering, and deep corruption of the anti-constitutionalists,
and Trump is their vengence. You just have to decide which side you are on...
I read that as Testing - perhaps a trial/demonstration as a professional troll for somebody or other. How else to interpret "only the merest scratch of a womaniser" or "how clean Trump has managed to keep himself". Maybe I'm
surprised not to also see praise for the clever Government Shutdown.
meanwhile..trump and his appointees attack legitimacy of Venezuela govt.
Trump is in bad odor at home while seeking to attack other govts.
' Washington has explicitly expressed its support for a potential coup against the elected Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro,
by offering its backing to the opposition and stating outright it was time for a "new government."
"The Maduro regime is illegitimate and the United States will continue ... to work diligently to restore a real democracy"
to Venezuela, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on his trip to the Middle East on Saturday, adding that Washington
would attempt to make the Latin American nations "come together to deliver that."' https://www.rt.com/news/448673-us-venezuela-time-new-government/
One thing the US deep state and their muller proxy would have on Trump, and most if not all of Trump's team, is collusion with
Israel (can this convert into charges of treason as threats). A weapon that is good for threats against and turning those around
Trump, and possibly used in as a last resort to remove Trump.
Adding to my post @ 18
Pat Lang has a post up "What is wrong with Trump?" "But, how does one explain his lack of action on the border? Does someone or
some thing in Russia, Israel, the UK, his former business associates, have something really juicy on Trump, something that he
fears to unleash through decisive action? pl"
Collusion with Israel is something neither side - team Trump and the deep state - would wish to bring into the open, but this
may be the only thing they have on Trump.
"On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike
Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.
On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported
on a recommendation in "October" that [NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers] Mike Rogers be removed from his
NSA position:
The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's
intelligence community have recommended to President
Obama that the director of the National Security
Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.
In a move apparently unprecedented for a military
officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled
to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump
Tower.
Occam's Razor. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
didn't want to participate in the spying scheme [on
Trump]
(Clapper, Brennan, Etc.), which was the baseline for
President Obama's post presidency efforts to undermine
Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into
[who knows what crimes]"
After the visit by Rogers, Trump vacated Trump Towers. There is considerable irony in the Mueller 'probe' and the continuing avalanche of MSM lies and evasions and spin etc pertaining
to Trump.
There are trends: A growing US citizen realization that their political system prior to Trump was nearly completely corrupt;
the Clintons are more broadly understood as the pathological criminals that they are; the Podesta emails with their sick connotations
remain 'in the air' - See Ben Swann's work, for example. The Clinton Foundation is far more broadly understood as a massive criminal
enterprise.
Serious criminality at the highest levels of the FBI is now far more obvious to far more people
MSM as evil propaganda is more widely understood.
It is understood widely that the DNC material to Wikileaks was not 'hacked' (Binney)
From the theintercept.com :
"Pompeo met on October 24 [at Trump's request] with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower
who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community's
official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year's theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former
officials argue that the DNC data was "leaked," not hacked, "by a person with physical access" to the DNC's computer system."
In short the last two years have been about trying to defeat Trump but the attackers are looking more and more wounded, and
Trump, well, he's hanging in there. General Kelly and others have described Trump's work ethic as exhausting.
The Internet Research Agency (IRA) paid $100,000 for Facebook ads and then charged its customers for the clickbait service (between
25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content). So even if the IRA didn't manage to make a profit, the net cost for them must have been much lower than $100,000. Does anyone
know how much revenue it made from that operation? Facebook must know but they've kept quiet about it. Same with Mueller.
Thank you, b. I am so glad I did not vote for Obama a second time around. A very rotten duopoly has taken over the US government,
all based on the premise that money is speech and money runs government, the people be damned. Hence the shutdown being orchestrated
by money, with Trump in the crosshairs.
I also very much adhere to your final paragraph's sentences. Let no one be in any doubt - what is underway is no less than
traitorous activity, a clear violation of the US Constitution, motivated by corrupt individuals whose meanness is beyond dispute.
How it can be redressed at this very late stage beggars the mind; I can only hope it be done as peacefully as possible.
If this is really true, then it's a clear sign of decline: Obama sacrificed a huge chunk of American freedom just for the sake
of personal political revenge. The USA is transitioning from a laissez faire to a highly burocratized, byzantine economy.
Shortly after the USSR's experiment with communism collapsed, I read an article which suggested that if the noise from that fall
was loud, even louder will be the noise when the second shoe (the American experiment with capitalism) falls.
And this is the crux of why I appreciate The Donald. His is the most honest face the US can present to the world at this point
in time. So look at it closely, and marvel at where we have come to.
I am so glad I did not vote for Obama a second time around.
LOL (first time I've ever written this!)
You made the same mistake I did in 2008. The deck was really stacked in that election, though I was too blind to see it at
the time. Smiling & smooth-talking black face issuing zillions of promises, and this was right after the Codpiece Commander. It
took me a whole year to realize I'd been suckered, and by 2012 understood the fix was STILL on. Obama had lost most all of his
glitter by then, so the Power Elites arranged his opposition to be a financial predator/Mormon bishop paired up with the most
awful Libertarian POS I've ever seen. Speaking the honest truth here, I'd prefer to have Sarah Palin as POTUS to Paul Ryan. What
a combo! That's why I offered anybody I met 10:1 odds on Obama winning. Hillary thought she had had seen a winning pattern from
all that, and arranged to have as her opponent a fellow named Donald Trump.
@15 Zachary Smith "How else to interpret 'only the merest scratch of a womaniser' or 'how clean Trump has managed to keep himself'."
Zachary Smith, I have been posting here for a number of years, and on this I have to agree with the newcomer Tess Ting
Trump has been put under intense investigation by Deep State hacks who are determined to see him impeached.
And all they have come up with is that he is a compulsive pussy-grabber (no shit, hey?).
To my mind Trump is a very offensive human being, but that isn't an impeachable character trait.
I had assumed that he would have skeletons in his cupboard that would be grounds for impeachment.
Well, if he has then he has hidden them extraordinarily well, because Mueller with all his resources hasn't found any.
Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons.
As I say, that is extraordinary.
But - apparently - also true.
Blooming Barricade , Jan 13, 2019 9:21:09 PM |
link
Astonishing how out in the open the military coup plotting against Venezuela is right now, it was consisted an outrage to overthrow
Allende and that was even before direct proof of US involvement, now the anti-war and left wing consciousness of the public and
the intellectual class has been so corroded that nobody care and many even see an attempted coup as a god thing. The ideological
counter revolution in full swing.
@ Yeah, Right who wrote:
"
Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons.
"
I would just bring your attention to the possibility that bringing Trump down brings them down as well. Your assertion that
Trump doesn't have any skeletons in the closet is laughable.
Also consider that most of what is known comes from compromised sources and much of the house of cards we live is built on
sketchy assumptions.
Cui Bono for Trump?
I am beginning to understand how Trump fits the elite plan and instead of your "grab them by the pussy" thought change it to
"they have him by the balls". They played his ego to get him to run the race and then, gee, he won.
I now see Trump as the last great hope of the elite to carve out as big a chunk as they can of the new world....and try and
hold onto it. The ongoing proxy conflicts will keep the musical chair game playing for a bit more but then something is going
to stop the music.
A shrink told me once that after fire came music. What comes after music?
How did I know that you would be first up after b's exhaustive story on the IC's corruption and utterly obvious attempt to
take Trump down to cry, "Fiction."
Here is a reply to all your points:
- yes, the Russia-bad narrative was picking up steam before Trump's election. The MSM and TPTB incorrectly surmised that there
would be enough anti-Russia fervor among the masses that pinning the accusation on Trump would stick. It did not. It is evidence
of THEIR stupidity.
- you must have never heard of keeping your enemies close. The Clintons are powerbrokers. Trump used them. Maybe he did like them
at one point, but clearly shat on his relationship with them and since the election they have truly been trashed and unable to
recover any good fortune or power. The Dems made a mistake will backing HRC. They weren't acting under Deep State orders once
again, Occam's Razor dictates that stupidity is the culprit here.
- How does FBI informant in campaign neccessarily implicate Trump in conspiracy and not confirm IC's weasely attempts to dig up
dirt?
- Look at prior Repub primaries? Notice anything? Populists don't float in the Yacht Club Party, do they? Trump was an anomoly
indicitive of the times (again, Occam's Razor).
- Again, it is absolutely absurd and suspicious that you can not admit that the Dems are a party of retards and that they consistently
step over quarters to pick up pennies.
- Your opinion that Trump's policies do not differ from the Dems needs qualifying. I don't agree that his domestic policies align
and verdict is still out on his FP. We know he is not a True-Believer, which is good.
- British involvement again suggests that the IC is compromised and globalized yielding national sovereignty to centralized planning.
Trump deserves that ire and proves that there is a contest afoot.
If Trump's corporate bankruptcies are so well-known, and picked over several times by different media sources (even Snopes
has covered them), surely any other behaviour or incident that might call Trump's character or ethics into question must have
been uncovered by Robert Mueller by now?
I can't imagine the scale of exploding heads among the media talking heads and the establishment of the two parties, IF, Trump
gets re-elected. DC would be in serious melt down. After 4 years of continuous assault the voters may actually repudiate the corporate
media and the DC elites in the 2020 elections.
In any case with the Democrat candidates starting to announce we are essentially into the next presidential campaign. I don't
think it is smart to under-estimate Trump's electoral chances.
"Normally the FBI needs to clear such counter-intelligence investigations with the Justice Department. In this case it did
not do so at all:"This sounds like the same "kangaroo court" MO Scott Ritter detailed a few years ago:
"Simply put, the Russia NIA is not an "IC-coordinated" assessment -- the vehicle for such coordination, the NIC, was not directly
involved in its production, and no NIO was assigned as the responsible official overseeing its production. Likewise, the Russia
NIA cannot be said to be the product of careful coordination between the CIA, NSA and FBI -- while analysts from all three agencies
were involved in its production, they were operating as part of a separate, secretive task force operating under the close supervision
of the Director of the CIA, and not as an integral part of their home agency or department."
Why does it have to be either-or?; it could have been for insurance AND warmongering narrative/dog whistling.
Escalation towards war with Russia was a matter of public record in late pre-election 2016, thanks to Clinton News Network
... now ask yourselves where is that general in the press conference nowadays?
NemesisCalling @31: Here is a reply to all your points
Well, you haven't replied to all my points, nor have you addressed the the thrust of my remarks. But I'll answer the issues
that you raised so my view is clear to everyone.
= - yes, the Russia-bad narrative was picking up steam before Trump's election. The MSM and TPTB incorrectly surmised that there
would be enough anti-Russia fervor among the masses that pinning the accusation on Trump would stick. It did not. It is evidence
of THEIR stupidity. Wrong. Firstly, I was referring to the anti-Russia imperative in official circles NOT to the propaganda effort. That imperative
intensified greatly after Russia blocked USA-proxy takeover of Syria (2013), and Crimea and Donbas (2014). In fact,
Kissinger
wrote a WSJ Op-Ed in Aug 2014 that issued a cryptic call for MAGA.
"picking up steam before Trump's election" needs some unpacking. The anti-Russia fervor among the masses has been
entirely concocted, and mostly AFTER 2014.
Nothing has stuck to Trump because there's no substance to the allegations.
= - you must have never heard of keeping your enemies close. The Clintons are powerbrokers. Trump used them. Maybe he did like
them at one point, but clearly shat on his relationship with them and since the election they have truly been trashed and unable
to recover any good fortune or power. The Dems made a mistake will backing HRC. They weren't acting under Deep State orders once
again, Occam's Razor dictates that stupidity is the culprit here. What does Occam's Razor have to say about the remarkable continuity of US foreign and domestic policy for the last 30 years?
Trump and the Clintons were known to be close. Even their daughter's were/are close.
Are you unaware of the CIA connections of Clinton, Bush, and Obama? Should we assume that Trump is free of any such connection?
= - How does FBI informant in campaign neccessarily implicate Trump in conspiracy and not confirm IC's weasely attempts to dig
up dirt? The FBI informant (Felix Sater) worked for Trump from about 2001 to 2013. This was essentially the same period in which Mueller
was FBI Director. Mueller and Comey are close and are connected to the Clinton's.
The informant wasn't investigating Trump or digging up dirt on him, he was informing on the Russian mob, and probably using
employment by Trump to get closer to the mob. FBI/counter intel might have also used info provided to turn some of the Russians
into US intel assets.
= - Look at prior Repub primaries? Notice anything? Populists don't float in the Yacht Club Party, do they? Trump was an anomoly
indicitive of the times (again, Occam's Razor). Have you heard of the Tea Party? Have you heard of Obama using the IRS against the Tea Party? Seems that a Republican populist
would get a lot of votes against the hated Hillary who championed Obama's "legacy".
- Again, it is absolutely absurd and suspicious that you can not admit that the Dems are a party of retards and that they
consistently step over quarters to pick up pennies. You can't admit that the Dem's have failed the left so consistently that it is unlikely to be due to their mental capacity
or an accident of circumstance.
= - Your opinion that Trump's policies do not differ from the Dems needs qualifying. I don't agree that his domestic policies
align and verdict is still out on his FP. We know he is not a True-Believer, which is good. I didn't say that they don't differ from the Dems, I said that Trump policies are consistent with policies of previous Administrations
and that Hillary likely would've ruled in much the same way.
= - British involvement again suggests that the IC is compromised and globalized yielding national sovereignty to centralized
planning. Trump deserves that ire and proves that there is a contest afoot The US IC is undoubtedly primary and universally acknowledged to be the lead in the US-Brit Intel relationship.
The only 'contest' I can discern is how best to fool the people.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
You seem to believe that a populist outsider can be elected President. And, you also believe that a US President can be both
all powerful (Obama) or constrained by Deep State whim (Trump).
You also seem to believe that Trump's rhetoric is gospel-truth and means what you think it does. Surprise! "Negotiation with
Russia" doesn't mean peace. Troop 'pull out' doesn't mean it'll happen any time soon (and possibly never). Anti-TPP doesn't mean
he won't implement TPP provisions in other trade agreements. Etc.
PS The establishment doesn't benefit DESPITE our populist President's, they benefit BECAUSE we are willing to believe that
our populist President's work for US.
Jr, it was a fruitless endeavor, to be sure, but I gave it a shot.
For the record, I never counted Trump as savior, although he could very well be if he continues on getting caught with his
dick in his hand as the empire around him crumbles. He's not a true believer, but he can at the very least be a useful idiot for
the real anti-imperialists in the world.
It is of note that Oleg Deripaska is not a stranger to the world of politics and politicians. Before his fortunes changed dramatically,
Oleg Deripaska was well-known for entertaining world politicians on his luxury yacht moored off Kassiopi in the northwest corner
of the Greek Island of Corfu.
The Rothschilds have an estate outside Kassiopi. Among the many high-powered friends and guests
of Deripaska was UK Tory politician, George Osborne, who visited him on his yacht at Kassiopi while still British Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Osborne and EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson, a powerful force in Tony Blair's government, were both guests at a
function held aboard the yacht in 2008. Baron Mandelson's position in the EU, at the time, led to accusations of a conflict of
interest.
Among other movers and shakers, John McCain was also a friend of Oleg Deripaska, but that friendship may have soured
after the virtual collapse of the Russian billionaire companies. McCain was more a fairweather friend than a stalwart ally through
thick and thin. The reason I mention these tidbits is because the corporate media fails to join all the pieces that show just
how corrupt Western politicians have become.
For a thorough update on the Integrity Initiative and its offshoots, check out the latest from legal investigator Barbara Boyd.
To defeat the "Deep State" in the U.S., it is essential to understand the role of British Intelligence. While it is essential
to know the role of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Comey, DOJ/FBI operatives, et.al., it is even more important to understand the geopolitical
assumptions behind Russiagate. And for that, one must turn to the British.
It would help to get a handle on the precise nature and format of these FBI "under oath" fishing expeditions if the FBI released
transcripts of a few of the recent hi-profile Q & A sessions. If suspects are being convicted for misdemeanors of dubious relevance
to the stated aim of the Mueller Crusade then transcripts would allow inconsistencies to be counted and evaluated. It would also
be interesting to discover whether the FBI uses a seductive approach to questioning, or a confrontational approach, given the
petty nature of the 'crimes' exposed to date.
The aim of the counterintelligence operation and of the
Russiagate hoax was not to build a prosecution
case against President Trump. It was to put the United States in constitutional limbo by creating a parallel and competing center
of constitutional legitimacy.
The Obama Administration would live on in the structure of this "investigation", without ever having
to relinquish power to Trump. The investigation would form the center of "The Resistance", with the ability to question the legitimacy
of the Trump Administration.
I didn't say that they don't differ from the Dems, I said that Trump policies are consistent with policies of previous Administrations
and that Hillary likely would've ruled in much the same way.
This is very true but only in the same sort of overgeneralised sense with you populate your latest CT. That is, sweep any of
the plainly ridiculous assumptions in your theory under the widest possible rug available to conspiratards.
At least you aint exactly drinking the Orange Kool-Aid like so many of the posters on this thread. That's a big positive in
my book. As for them, it's more a reflection of the love for rightwing authoritarianism than for Trump himself. What they really
wish for is a crafier, shrewder Amerikkkan version of Putin, but they accept Trump because his bumbling is the existential proof
of US decline in relative power, as if such proof was necessary.
And if you overlook all Trump's achievements (such as they are):
1. Obamacare/Medicaid expansion repeal and subsequent degradation of the enrollment and funding processes by executive degree
when appeal failed thanks only to McCain's "in yo office sucka" thumbs down vote.
2. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations (basically same thing)
3. SCOTUS and federal bench selections
The US system is meant to create a uniparty environment whereby opposing views are compromised into a "third way" legislative
process.
I grok this system is broken and completely controlled by the wealthiest (show me a political system anywhere that you prefer
that is not controlled by the wealthiest) but the funding mechanisms need changing before there will ever be significant change
to governing processes.
Trump through his ignorance, corruption and loose lips has tilted the playing field left. Hilliary through her elitism, arrogance,
corruption and lack of retail political skills gets a big assist in the same tilting.
Those who believe (if any truly do) that Trump represents anything more than the end of Reaganist conservatism are "wishin'
and hopin'" as Dusty Springfield would say.
I do applaud those who are willing to show in the comments that they suffer from the real "Trump Derangement Syndrome," such
as your good buddy James. They're all crooks, in his opinion.
So what is it Jim? Do you excuse Trump only or do you excuse them all? LMAO
Putin January 2017 - "You know, there is a category of people who leave without saying goodbye, out of respect for the situation
that has evolved, so as not to upset anything. And then there are people who keep saying goodbye but don't leave. I believe the
outgoing administration belongs to the second category.
What are we seeing in the United States? We are seeing the continuation of an acute internal political struggle despite the
fact that the presidential election is over and it ended in Mr Trump's convincing victory. Nevertheless, in my opinion, several
goals are being set in this struggle. Maybe there are more, but some of them are perfectly obvious."
The first is to undermine the legitimacy of the US president-elect. By the way, in this regard, I would like to point out that
whether deliberately or not, these people are causing enormous damage to US interests. Simply enormous. The impression is that,
after a practice run in Kiev, they are now ready to organise a Maidan in Washington to prevent Trump from taking office."
Posted by: pretzelattack , Jan 14, 2019 10:05:43 AM |
link
sure, no doubt trump has been involved in financial improprieties; this in no way means he colluded with Russia to fix the election,
or that russia on its own hacked the election, or any of the other false narratives the ic is trying to cram down our throats
with the connivance of the msm and (mostly, but there are some republicans pushing it, too) the "centrist" dems.
And the clintons have their own skeletons, but they seem to be judgement proof with the aid of comey et al.
The only real difference between Trump and the Clintons at end of the day is they are smart lawyers who obviously better understand
how to navigate the treacherous legal waters surrounding them.
They also know what the definition of "is, is" and how to carefully craft their words in public, while Trump is all loose cannon
all the time ahd his legal representation appears to follow his lead, IE Giuliani and Cohen.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 14, 2019 9:45:39 AM | 45:
We are seeing the continuation of an acute internal political struggle despite the fact that the presidential election is
over and it ended in Mr Trump's convincing victory.
Not really. What we are seeing is Deep State controlled media force-feeding the public a toxic concoction: the narrative of a
political struggle that centers on anti-Russia hysteria.
Maybe you missed Romney's Op-Ed in which he praised Trump's pro-establishment policies while attacking his Russia-friendly
'pull out' from Syria. That's the best example of the two-faced establishment bullsh*t.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Robert Snefjella , Jan 14, 2019 10:57:29 AM |
link
What is loosely called 'globalism', consisting of various trends and ideologies and practices: the EU and the aborted for now
'North American Union' and satellites, and cell phones able to instantly transmit images from the other side of the planet, and
so on, has also importantly aimed at and advocated for and implemented various means by which national sovereignty was eroded.
And this erosion meant a reduction of the ability of a country's people to wield an effective national politics, let alone
something vaguely democratic, or to implement policies which were at odds with the various globalist institutions and imperatives
and programs. So we've seen on numerous occasions, for example, the IMF impose its globalist economic 'recipe' on a nation's economic
policies.
And even the destruction of Libya in 2011 was primarily or importantly directed at preventing Libya from implementing a national
financial strategy intended to give African countries an alternative to the depredations of global financial 'business as usual'.
But over the last two years the movement to restore or renovate national sovereignty has made something of a comeback.
So for example, Macron as recently as roughly two years ago was being lauded as a great new leader of the globalist project,
and both he and Merkel have gone on record decrying the very concept of national sovereignty.
But now Macron and Merkel are largely reviled, especially Macron, by their people, and 'populist' enthusiasm strengthens. You
can see the same trend in virtually every European country.
And in the United States, the tens of millions of 'deplorables' backing Trump are doing so partly, perhaps mostly, because
he champions the restoration of national sovereignty and has questioned dominant globalist institutions.
Now for those who are committed to the view that Trump doesn't really mean it, that he isn't really an American nationalist,
and so on, well, fine, believe what you like. But in the end, Trump's base of support is nationalistic, and that is as I noted
above a very general trend that is quickly manifesting.
Re. the USA, when the handmaidens of power, aka politicians, the servant class in an oligarchic corporatist 'state,' are alarmingly
seen to fight to the death in public it is crystal clear that control (which may take the shape of relatively informal and obscure
networks ) is lost, .. > the 'fight' will only serve to weaken all parties.
Trump is loathed because he upset the apple cart and revealed weakness and fissures in the system. (+ possibly because he is
an upstart, from the wrong side of whatever, has bad hair, is dumb, a thief, more )
He ran as an anti-establishment maverick:
"Drain the Swamp!"
"Lock her up!"
"Build the Wall!"
- and was elected only for that reason. It was disconcertingly easy to do, which is also terrifying to the PTB. Plus, election/voter
fraud did not perform as expected - help !! The MSM promoted him with mega 24/24 coverage - help !!
As the no. 1 disruptive foe is merely an elderly scummy biz type, an intruder, some other entity like malignant agressive Russia
had to be associated with him. (Yes, is was Obama-Clinton who started the highjinks + the following Mueller investig.; see b at
top - also, bashing Russia gradually took wing as it recovered under Putin, the Ukraine plots did not work out, etc. *Crimea!*
the last straw! ..)
If Obama had announced that 2K USA personnel were to be withdrawn from Syria because the good folks want their wonderful husbands
and wives, great ppl, our folks, home soon, they have dutifully served, etc. the MSM and anyone who bothered to digest that news
would have clapped and sent off pixel sparkles and sweet tweets.
Very difficult to judge: what is the result of infighting in the US vs. any agreed-on never mind coherent foreign policy? That
the question is even asked - all over the world now - spells stage one collapse.
Now for those who are committed to the view that Trump doesn't really mean it, that he isn't really an American nationalist,
and so on, well, fine, believe what you like. But in the end, Trump's base of support is nationalistic ..."
Did Obama really mean it when he touted "Change You Can Believe In"? No. His rhetoric was meant to turn the page
from the Bush Administration excesses and convince the world that USA was not the threat that they perceived us to be. In fact,
he was given a Nobel Prize for essentially not being Bush. But it was all psyop. Obama refused to hold CIA accountable for rendition
and torture, refused to stop NSA pervasive spying, conducted covert wars and regime change ops, bragged of his drone targeting
skills, made Bush tax cuts permanent, bailed out bankers, etc.
Does Trump really mean his nationalism? Only to the extent that a nationalist was needed to meet the challenge from Russia
and China. People don't fight for globalist principals.
US is still a member of NATO, still involved in the Middle East, still has hundreds of bases around the world.
Trump's nationalist credentials are further belied by such things as: adding TPP provisions to the new North American trade
agreement; attacking Syria based on false flags; arming Ukraine; pulling out of the INF treaty and engaging in an unnecessary
and costly arms race; actively seeking to overthrow the governments of Iran and Venezuela; etc.
Is there a requirement for an open trial on these sort of things. I'm not sure about the US, but normally gag orders are all
that's required to keep something quiet. All the people around Trump could be taken down in this way with charges that would stick.
Apparently the only one they cannot take down in this way is the president (Another post up now at SST on the legalities of investigating
the president). As far as I know, the president can only be taken down by impeachment so I guess they wouldn't try to use collusion
with Israel for that unless they could keep what they were impeaching him for secret.
And in the United States, the tens of millions of 'deplorables' backing Trump are doing so partly, perhaps mostly, because
he champions the restoration of national sovereignty and has questioned dominant globalist institutions.
Yes, "Amerikkka First" represents nationalism for sure. Many, maybe most Amerikkkans have always been nationalistic and detest
globalist structures because they view them as limiting Amerikkka's rightful global sovereignty. This is a fine distinction
I believe gets lost in commentary such as yours. Trump isn't looking to retreat from Amerikkkan Exceptionalism at all, it his
raison d etre for the tariffs and increases in military spending.
The movement which elected Trump represents the nostalgic view of a lost Amerikkkan dominance over the globe, which of course
they blame on those hated Democratic and Republican establishment globalists, Bushes, Clintons and Obama.
You see all that and then assume that the Hillary-Trump contest was genuine?
Why not assume that the Deep State's candidate won in every election since Carter and work from there.
That first is a difficult one to answer, for I quite agree with you on the second part. Rigged elections from Carter on to
the present day matches my own thoughts as well. In 2000 "they" had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get their man in
office, but GWB did indeed move into the White House.
My own theory about 2016 is that everybody miscalculated. Trump was (IMO) running as an ego-building publicity stunt. Hillary
(and her Deep State sponsors) had actively helped Trump get the nomination with hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity
which also enhanced the bottom lines of Big Media. His multiple flaws were airbrushed away. Hillary ran a horrible campaign because
she is an arrogant and "entitled" woman. The incompetence of that campaign simply didn't uncover the extent to which she was hated
by so many people. (myself included, but I didn't vote for the torture-loving Trump, either)
The biggest mistake of all was not having any plan in place to use the touch-screen voting systems (think "Diebold") to
nail down her victory. Again an opinion, but I think that was judged to be a little too risky plus the fact it was obviously
totally unnecessary. Hillary didn't have a "loss" speech prepared, and Trump didn't have a "victory" one.
This is why I call Trump an "accidental" President. I'll admit the Deep State has reacted pretty well since 2016, but they're
still playing catchup. Israel - to name just one - remains in shell shock.
Further to American's general support for Trump's declared intention of reduction of troops in Syria and Afghanistan, the Daily
Caller on the 9th of January 2019 cited 56 % in support, 20 % not sure, and 27 % opposing. This is after MSM and general national
political outrage and 'deep concern' over Trump's decision.
Note that US involvement in Syria has been justified by the most lurid of lies and disinfo continually poured for years into
American's psyches. For Tulsi Gabbard to have a direct conversation with Assad (the designated 'butcher of Damascus', the 'horrid
monstrous dictator' accused over and over of attacking his own people, often with chemical weapons from barrel bombs, and especially
targeting children and hospitals: the man can have no soul, no heart! We must help the Syrians in their struggle against this
animal!) was an outrage!
So not only do most Americans want American troops out of Syria, it would seem that there is some growing immunity among the
people of the United States to their diet of diseased propaganda.
The populist hero must be portrayed as an "outsider" that takes on the establishment. Obama was positioned in much the same way.
Trump is no "outsider". He is very establishment. Even before running for President, he had access that ordinary people never
get.
Trump only won because of a bizarre technicality of the American electoral system.
You are directing our attention to what the establishment wants us to see. It ignores Hillary's spectacular failure: snubbing
of Sanders progressives; Cold shoulder to black voters; insult to white voters ("deplorables"); choosing not to campaign in crucial
states; the wierdness of Bill Clinton being discovered meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Bill Clinton is one of
the most recognizable people in America - why why why would be meeting with the Attorney General on an airport tarmac?), etc.
If the race were easy, Trump woundn't be a populist hero, would he? And Hillary's winning the popular vote is a nice consolation
prize to the Clinton's. Plus, it nicely sets up the fake Deep State vs. Trump conflict.
While Trump is a member of the elite establishment that practically owns the country he has always been a pariah for one main
reason. He does not honor the unspoken code of never exposing inside information about other elite members. He is a big mouth.
Given that, the establishment and their propaganda arm of the media have been out to get him even before he was elected. His presidency
has largely been an inside struggle. However, Trump is clever and crafty. During his tenure he has been give access to tremendous
amounts of information about his political enemies and he continues to bait, insult and fire them, pushing them deeper and deeper
into insanity.
He will fight fire with fire. If they attempt to impeach him he will tit for tat release information incriminating
his enemies. I view this as a positive direction for the US in the long run. ALL of these people need to be banished to "Elba".
Maybe they will fight to the death of both sides. One can dream.
"... By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, called the news "a reminder that when it comes to Iran, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are batshit insane ..."
"... Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), tweeted, "Make no mistake: Bolton is the greatest threat to the security of the United States!" Parsi, an expert on U.S.-Iranian relations and longtime critic of Bolton, called for his immediate ouster over the request detailed in Journal ..."
"... Bolton: Chickenhawk-in-Chief ..."
"... Great point. None of my fellow comrades who actually participated in firefights (not just drove trucks behind the lines) are eager to be led into battle by National Guard and bone-spur deferrals, much less student deferral draft dodgers. ..."
"... Why did Trump appoint Bolton? ..."
"... I think Bolton is a sop to Sheldon Aldelson. He may be playing a similar role to "The Mooch", I hope. ..."
"... Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that like a feudal fiefdom? ..."
"... Steven Cohen has an interesting editorial in RT, not about directly about Bolton but about the war parties' demand for ongoing M.E. conflict. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/448688-trump-withdrawal-syria-russia/ ..."
"... see what we could do ..."
"... Trump is interested in what is good for Trump. Why he thinks Bolton at his side is good for him is a mystery. Rather a hand grenade with the pin pulled in your pocket than Bolton. Much the same can be said of Pompeo. ..."
"... I agree with author Nicholas Taleb's view of the military interventionists, who include Bolton, that have repeatedly urged that we "intervene in foreign countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria -- whose governments did not meet their abstract standards of political acceptability." Besides the losses suffered by our troops and economy, as Taleb observed each of those interventions "made conditions significantly worse in the country being 'saved'. Yet the interventionists pay no price themselves for wrecking the lives of millions. Instead they keep appearing on CNN and PBS as 'experts' who should guide us in choosing what country to bomb next." Now, after imposing economic sanctions on Iran, they're evidently again seeking war. ..."
Posted on
January 14, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I am surprised
that Bolton has lasted this long. Bolton has two defining personal qualities that are not
conducive to long-term survival with Trump: having a huge ego and being way too obvious about
not caring about Trump's agenda (even with the difficulties of having it change all the time).
Bolton is out for himself in far too obvious a manner.
By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at
Common Dreams
Reminding the world that he is, as one critic put it, " a reckless advocate
of military force ," the Wall Street Journalrevealed
on Sunday that President Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton "asked the
Pentagon to provide the White House with military options to strike Iran last year, generating
concern at the Pentagon and State Department."
"It definitely rattled people," a former U.S. official said of the request, which Bolton
supposedly made after militants aligned with Iran
fired mortars into the diplomatic quarter of Baghdad, Iraq that contains the U.S. Embassy
in early September. "People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about
hitting Iran."
"The Pentagon complied with the National Security Council's request to develop options for
striking Iran," the Journal reported, citing unnamed officials. "But it isn't clear if
the proposals were provided to the White House, whether Mr. Trump knew of the request, or
whether serious plans for a U.S. strike against Iran took shape at that time."
Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, called the news "a reminder that when it comes to Iran, John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo are batshit insane."
Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), tweeted, "Make no
mistake: Bolton is the greatest threat to the security of the United States!" Parsi, an expert
on U.S.-Iranian relations and longtime critic of Bolton, called for his immediate ouster over
the request detailed in Journal 's report.
"This administration takes an expansive view of war authorities and is leaning into
confrontation with Iran at a time when there are numerous tripwires for conflict across the
region," NIAC president Jamal Abdi warned in a statement . "It is
imperative that this Congress investigate Bolton's request for war options and pass legislation
placing additional legal and political constraints on the administration's ability to start a
new war of choice with Iran that could haunt America and the region for generations."
In a series of moves that have elicited concern from members of Congress, political experts,
other world leaders, and peace activists, since May the Trump administration has
ditched the Iran nuclear deal -- formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA) -- and reimposed
economic sanctions .
NIAC, in November, urged the new Congress that convened at the beginning of the year to
challenge the administration's hawkish moves and restore U.S. standing on the world stage by
passing measures to block the sanctions re-imposed in August and November , and
reverse Trump's decision to breach the deal -- which European and Iranian diplomats have been
trying to salvage .
Iran continues to comply with the terms of JCPOA, according to the United Nations nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's
nuclear chief, told state television on Sunday
that "preliminary activities for designing modern 20 percent (enriched uranium) fuel have
begun." While Iran has maintained that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, the nation would
still have to withdraw from the deal if it resumed enrichment at the level.
As Iran signals that it is considering withdrawing from the JCPOA, the Journal
report has critics worried that Bolton and Pompeo have the administration on a war path -- with
Bolton, just last week, insisting without any evidence that Iranian leadership is committed to
pursuing nuclear weapons. Some have compared that claim to former Vice President Dick Cheney's
infamous lie in 2002, to bolster support for the U.S. invasion, that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.
As the Journal noted, "Alongside the requests in regards to Iran, the National
Security Council asked the Pentagon to provide the White House with options to respond with
strikes in Iraq and Syria as well."
So Bolton wants war with Iran? Pretty tall talk from a man who during the war in 'Nam
ducked into the Maryland Army National Guard because he had no desire to die in a Southeast
Asian rice paddy as he considered the war in Vietnam already lost. His words, not mine. The
Iranian military will not be the push over the Iraq army was. They are much better equipped
and motivated and have a healthy stock of missiles. They even have the Russian-made S-300
anti-aircraft missile system up and running.
Once you start a war, you never know where it will go. Suppose the Iranians consider –
probably correctly – that it is Israel's influences that led to the attack and so
launch a few missiles at them. What happens next? Will Hezbollah take action against them as
well. If the US attacks Iran, then there is no reason whatsoever for Iran not to attack the
various US contingents scattered around the Middle East in places like Syria. What if the
Russians send in their Aerospace Forces to help stop an attack. Will they be attacked as
well? Is the US prepared to lose a carrier?
And how will the war end? The country is mountainous like Afghanistan so cannot be occupied
unless the entire complete total of all US forces are shipped over there. This is just lunacy
squared and surely even Trump must realize that if the whole thing is another Bay of Pigs, it
will be his name all over it in the history books and so sinking his chances for a 2020
re-election. And if the justification for the whole thing is a coupla mortars on a car park,
how will he justify any American loses? At this point I am waiting for Bolton to finish each
one of his speeches and tweets with the phrase-
Great point. None of my fellow comrades who actually participated in firefights (not just
drove trucks behind the lines) are eager to be led into battle by National Guard and
bone-spur deferrals, much less student deferral draft dodgers.
Calling Bolton on Pompeo "batshit crazy" cries out for revisions in the APA Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual (DSM).
Why did Trump appoint Bolton? A saying of LBJ, I believe attributed to Sam Rayburn, might
illuminate. "It is better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent
pissing in."
Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to
guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that
like a feudal fiefdom?
Not to be a broken record but should we blame the Dems? Arguably Trump's "out there"
gestures to the right are because he has to keep the Repubs on his side given the constant
threat of impeachment from the other side. Extremes beget extremes. There's also the Adelson
factor.
Of course this theory may be incorrect and he and Bolton are ideological soul mates, but
Trump's ideology doesn't appear to go much beyond a constant diet of Fox News. He seems quite
capable of pragmatic gestures which are then denounced by a horrified press.
The point might be, sure the Dems as part of the duopoly created the context within which
Trump now acts as president. Nonetheless there is a direct linear responsibility for his
actions that rests with him.
Unless you consider him so impaired as not to be responsible for his actions ;-)
So will the buck stop with Obama/Hillary for destroying Libya, the half million dead in
Syria, the covert support for the Saudis in Yemen which started under Obama, the coup in
Honduras, the deterioration in US/Russia relations to the point where nuclear war has once
again started to become thinkable? By these standards Trump's wrecking ball is quite
tiny.
It's not like the Obama administration and the EU didn't strike a nuclear deal with Iran
to freeze nuclear capable production and allow for lifting of sanctions -- how could they
have gone further? How could its deal be worse then the saber rattling of Trump/Bolton? Not
saying this as a fan of the Obama administration in general.
Pied Piper Memo. It's up in Wikileaks. Clinton campaign laid out a strategy to help Trump along so he would be their opponent.
They bet that he was too far out there for the general public to vote him in as
president.
...Everyone
including Trump was shocked he won. He has made an only partly successful hostile takeover of
the Republican party. The fact that he got only at best the second string, and mainly the
fourth string, to work in his Administration, Trump's repudiation of international
institutions and his trade war with China are all evidence that he was chosen by anyone, much
the less a cabal you create out of thin air called "the oligarchy"
As Frank Herbert said in Dune, the most enduring principles in the universe are accident
and error. Trump did not want to win. This was a brand-enhancing stunt for him that got out
of control.
Something for our would be Croesus and his minions: If you go to war with Persia, you will
destroy a mighty empire OK, not so mighty, but an empire nevertheless.
The US has previously run multiple conventual war simulations and in all cases the US lost
against Iran, only when the US used its nuclear option did the US prevail. The implications of a nuclear strike and how the Russian Federation will react, to having
yet another one of its allies attacked is unknown?
Really -- who cares? Any claim of 'all' is difficult to support under the best of
circumstances and unwise. Besides, suppose we could 'prevail' in a war with Iran -- why
should or would we want to? Are you OK with a little war with Iran if a couple of
conventional war simulations suggest we could win?
1) I really hope jim webb gets the def sec job. That would be a strong signal.
2) if the TDS infected bi-partisan consensus wants to impeach. They can build on this. I
suspect they won't though.
3) Keep in mind Trump like some trash talk. Pompeo seems here to stay. Not sure about
Bolton. But, as we saw with N. Korea, sometimes the crazy gets dialed up to 11, right before
things get calmed down.
Because that worked so well in the Balkans and Iraq and Libya, etc, etc etc. The world is
not what you think it is. Let us compare Iran as a country with America's loyal ally Saudi
Arabia as an example. Would you believe that Iran has a Jewish population that feel safe
there and have no interest in moving to Israel? In Saudi Arabia, if you renounce Islam that
is a death sentence. Women have careers in Iran and drive cars. Woman have burkas in Saudi
Arabia and have very few freedoms. Iran has taken in refugees from the recent wars. Saudi
Arabia has taken virtually none from Syria. Iran wants to have their own country and work out
their own problems as they are a multicultural country. Saudi Arabia is a medieval monarchy
that has been exporting the most extremist view of Islam around the world using their oil
money. Ideologically, all those jihadists the past few decades can be traced to Wahhabi
teachings. Now tell me that if you had a choice, which country sounds more attractive to live
in?
Having been to Iran, it is an amazing place and they are the most welcoming of people. One
of the few places I have seen female taxi drivers, too. Women are very self-assured there
– they will blow past men to get to what they want to do. Lots of people don't like the
Islamic government (and they will note that to you), but as you mentioned, they are NOT
medieval.
The government praises science and technology in roadside ads up and down the
country. The ads, by the way, are almost always in Farsi and English, as English is the 2nd
language of the country. And I'd like to add that they love Americans. It didn't matter what
town I was in and we went to some small towns. I literally had people yelling "We love
America" and asking for my autograph. And no – I am not famous. They are the most
generous, gregarious people I have ever met in my life.
I have odd memories of my trip like being in a taxi going into Tehran listening to a
instrument only version of Madonna's La Isla Bonita (they really like Madonna). And going to
beautiful mosques which are filled with mirrors and coloured light so it's almost like a
disco (mirrors and water are ancient pre-Islamic symbols). And the gardens – in odd
places like underpasses that happen to have a bit of opening to light and rain. Where ever
they can stick a garden they will do it.
Iran is a hodgepodge of so many thoughts, peoples, and currents. One thing they are though
– is fiercely loyal to Iran. Not the government, but to their homeland, to their
people. There is no way we would win. Due to geography and due to the losses they would be
willing to sustain we would be destroyed. We would lose so badly that it would look like the
First Anglo-Afghan War where only one Brit got back after the entire army was destroyed. We
tussle with them on their own land at our peril.
Saudi Arabia is America's loyal ally! You mean the SA that financed, planned, and manned
the 9/11 attacks?
Because SA is a bigger shithole than Iran is no argument. What does need to be faced is that
SA has a lock on American politics through its financial control of Washington DC swamp
dwellers.
The Balkans is quiet now. Iraq became a mess when Paul Bremer snatched defeat from near total
victory.
Libya, Syria and Ukraine are the victims of malevolent US meddling (as was Vietnam). I am
hoping that President Trump can reverse course and create a foreign policy that puts the
interests of people first, particularly the interests of the people of the USA. Forlorn hope
perhaps.
I would not want to live in either of them.
Well said. All religious fundamentalists are dangerous because they believe they are the
"chosen ones" and therefore superior to "non-believers", whose lives are less important and
therefore expendable if and when they feel so inclined.
(1) Echoing other responses, I suggest we ask the "Iranian people" if they would like the
U.S. to help them into modernity. Given our track record in Iran and other ME nations, I'm
not sure they would welcome our assistance, particularly if it involved "a few explosions" or
so.
(2) It is "the people" that are always hurt first, and the most, in such interventions,
not the government.
I wasn't sure if this was a serious comment or one meant to provoke. It did provoke me to
make an earlier response. I thank the moderators for blocking it (sincerely – not being
sarcastic).
Bah, who cares about a little collateral damage. The Iranian people obviously don't know
what's good for them. We just need to bring back Wolfowitz to make sure they are on hand to
lay down palm fronds before the US forces as they enter Baghdad after we nuke it into rubble.
Speaking of sociopaths, I am sure Darth Vader would make himself available to advise from
Wyoming. Where the hell is Elliot Abrams when you need him. What's Rumsfeld doing these days?
How great would it be to get the old gang together again, under the maniacal leadership of
Bolton. Maybe Dubya would be willing to do the "mission accomplished" as the smoke clears
over the whole MENA region. What a great bunch of guys.
You're a regular humanitarian bomber. Reminds me of "Assad must go" and the fact 'we'
never bombed him but all the people, all around the nation of the ilk you pretend to want to
help by doing the same thing in Iran.
At best, you are speaking a bunch of hooey without thinking. Oh, and last I heard Iran has
not invaded another country for something like 400 years. Look in your mirror.
Are the Iranian people asking us to invade their country? In the U.S. there seems to be
this bizarre nonchalance about war, which used to be considered a terrible scourge. After the
recent disasters in Libya, Ukraine, and Iraq, "regime change" should be discredited. The U.S.
has caused nothing but misery in the third world. We should focus on our own human rights and
democracy problems. If we want to do something abroad I favor ending our support for Israeli
crimes against Palestinians.
Gotta keep the military industrial complex well fed.
George Orwell was right, sadly; constant state of military alert and occasionally shifting
loose alliances between three competing major military powers.
What a waste of human resources.
IMHO, Bolton serves two roles in the Trump Administration.
As a symbol for the hawkier folks in Congress and the media
As a foil to Trump in a good cop-bad cop, or bad cop-worse cop role, if you prefer
The first provides air cover and the second forestalls ground action. The air cover says
see what we could do , and the ground action blusters to draw attention by
the media thereby serving to defuse any escalationist tendencies pushed by neo-cons.
Bolton is a price of admission, and will not have much of a purpose as the effects of the
Iran sanctions become more evident and that regime becomes more pliable. The people on the
ground in Iran seem to want de-escalation and more normal lives, like so many around the
world and at home.
Trump is interested in what is good for Trump. Why he thinks Bolton at his side is good
for him is a mystery. Rather a hand grenade with the pin pulled in your pocket than Bolton.
Much the same can be said of Pompeo.
I have never understood the lust for war with Iran it looks entirely irrational to me. The
Iranian government may not be to your taste and pursue policies you dislike in the
extreme, but is this a reason to gin up a war. I could never support such a conflict and would
do whatever I could to thwart it.
This is not news and while concerning is not fundamental.
Bolton was hired precisely because of his uberhawk obsession with Iran. That is in fact
the central credential that he brought to the table and as such there should be zero surprise
in this. Indeed the only real shocker is that he asked for plans rather than pulling them out
of his own fevered mind as he usually does.
And as others have noted the Pentagon draws up plans like this all the time. This kind of
speculative planning is a big part of what the Pentagon does and somewhere no doubt is
someone who is paid to prepare for the "inevitable" war in Jamaca.
The question really is whether we will act upon these plans, or some others, and from what
I read of this article that is no more likely than it was a few months ago. Scary yes but no
scarier than it already was.
Well, what do they want us to think? Of course this is predictable–even
SOP–for Bolton. But someone in the Pentagon is offering some pushback, or wants to
suggest there is resistance. Or someone in the CIA. Some of these people prefer wars to
quagmires, especially after an exhausting 20 years. And climbing into bed with the Saudis and
Israelis to fight Iran may not appeal to everyone.
Some may even see that Iran is a much more promising place for consumer and capital
growth, and implementation of bourgeois democracy, than Saudi Arabia. But Mr. Bolton might
say that that's the point.
I think we may be closer to war with Iran than most of us care to think. Trump is under
siege from multiple investigations with no room to run, the Democrats now have the House and
will only intensify the pressure, Pompeo and Bolton–both Iran hawks–are now in
charge of our foreign policy, and a former Boeing executive (with stock options?) is in
charge of the Pentagon, Trump is also being pushed into war by Saudi Arabia and
Israel–his two closest buddies–and probably the two most malign influences on US
policy, and finally, our economy is beginning to look shakey, and the normal functions of
government are now in shutdown. Shock doctrine holds that now is the time to act.
I recall a piece by Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader posted by another commenter here that he
would likely do so BEFORE the Dems took control of the House. I thought there was a lot of huffing and puffing going on, except for the likelihood of
wagging the dog, a tried and true tactic of US presidents.
Was chatting to a someone who was a junior official in the GWB administration. He
suggested the first thing Bolton does when he joins an administration is request these plans.
If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to take advantage of any interesting events to bomb Iran.
Besides, he hasn't actually implemented them yet!
Amusingly its standard bureaucratic form to ensure you have plans on file. Otherwise when
asked to list the options, how would you make sure your plan for covert opps, or democracy
subsidizing/subverting payments appeared to be the most reasonable plan on the table?
Bolton is the same paleoconservative he ever was. And in that sense he is refreshing. One
gets tired of seeing Israelis and Saudis make proposals for spending American lives on
countless critically important projects.
There's also word that the US and Bolton have been giving quiet encouragement, with the
new President in Brazil, for a Venezuela intervention.
I think it's important, though, not to simply characterize these people as monsters but to
finger the system behind them. There was word before the election that Ms. Clinton has become
chummy with Bolton and some of the other neocons; we might be looking at much the same if she
had been elected.
Also, Kissinger bombed Cambodia and set off a genocide. Bolton is awful, but nothing
whatsoever will make me yearn for Mr. K. I have a friend who's still unhappy with me because
I turned down an invite to dine with him long ago, but I was just too frightened of what I
might say in his presence.
We can take it for granted that they are nuts–but nuttiness is like monstrousness,
not always so useful as explanation. They're also operating out of the logic of a
contradictory and decaying system. The neocons are the ideological successors of the
neoliberals (who liked to follow with the velvet fist rather than lead with it, but hardly
eschewed it). . . the culmination of much of the same logic. Egalite and fraternite trail far
behind these days.
I agree with author Nicholas Taleb's view of the military interventionists, who include
Bolton, that have repeatedly urged that we "intervene in foreign countries -- Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria -- whose governments did not meet their abstract standards of political
acceptability." Besides the losses suffered by our troops and economy, as Taleb observed each
of those interventions "made conditions significantly worse in the country being 'saved'. Yet
the interventionists pay no price themselves for wrecking the lives of millions. Instead they
keep appearing on CNN and PBS as 'experts' who should guide us in choosing what country to
bomb next." Now, after imposing economic sanctions on Iran, they're evidently again seeking
war.
The National Security Advisor is a senior official in the executive branch. Who placed
these people in charge of our nation's foreign policy and to act in our name?
There is no threat to the United States involved here. I don't recall being given the
opportunity to vote on them or the policies they represent and push. It's past time these
individuals be removed from positions of power and influence and for American soft power and
diplomacy to be restored to preeminence. I want this country to stand for peace, freedom,
equal opportunity and hope; not war, chaos, fear and death.
The US foreign policy generally doesn't depend on individual people. It is the Swamp which
drive neolib/neocon policy which is driven mostly by the Deep State which means the coalition of
MIC, Wall Street and intelligence agencies and their agents of influence within the
government.
The most important question is how he managed to get into administration?
bolton is a bully and such people have no friends.
Notable quotes:
"... The National Security Advisor has had a reputation of being an abrasive and obnoxious colleague for a long time, and his attempts to push his aggressive foreign policy agenda have made him even more enemies. ..."
"... If Bolton is "under attack" from within the administration, it is because he has behaved with the same recklessness and incompetence that characterize his preferred policies overseas. He should be attacked, and with any luck he will be defeated and driven from office. Unfortunately, we have been seeing the opposite happen over the last few weeks: more Bolton allies are joining the administration in important positions and at least one major rival has exited. ..."
"... the longer he remains National Security Advisor the worse it will be for U.S. interests. ..."
Henry Olsen is
very worried that other people in the administration might be out to get Bolton:
Whatever the motive, conservatives who favor more robust U.S. involvement abroad should
sit up and take notice. One of their strongest allies within the administration is under
attack. Whether Bolton's influence wanes or even whether he remains is crucially important
for anyone who worries that the president's impulses that deviate from past American foreign
policy will weaken American security.
There have been a number of unflattering reports about Bolton in the last few weeks, but for
the most part those stories are just proof that Bolton has no diplomatic skills and does a
terrible job of managing the administration's policy process. If Bolton had done a better job
of coordinating Syria policy, the administration's Syria policy wouldn't be the confused mess
that it is. If he hadn't made such a hash of things with the Turkish government, there would
have been no snub by Erdogan for anyone to report. There may be quite a bit of hostile leaking
against Bolton, but that is itself a testament to how many other people in the administration
loathe him.
The National Security Advisor has had a reputation of being an abrasive and obnoxious
colleague for a long time, and his attempts to push his aggressive foreign policy agenda have
made him even more enemies.
If Bolton is "under attack" from within the administration, it is because he has behaved
with the same recklessness and incompetence that characterize his preferred policies overseas.
He should be attacked, and with any luck he will be defeated and driven from office.
Unfortunately, we have been seeing the opposite happen over the last few weeks: more Bolton
allies are joining the administration in important positions and at least one major rival has
exited.
Bolton's influence in the administration is an important indication of what U.S. foreign
policy will look like in the months and years to come, and the longer he remains National
Security Advisor the worse it will be for U.S. interests.
The quote below is from Tucker book... Tucker Carlson for President ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... What was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the waves. ..."
"... Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet. ..."
"... They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers. ..."
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like
they're playing roulette and cackling like mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally
unaware that any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves majestic new titles and raising
their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the ship. It would be nice to know. What
was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath
the waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to know, and they don't want you to tell them.
Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences
that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
Like that scene in Orwell's 1984 where the Party switches official enemies right in
the middle of the Hate Week rally, the War on Terror was officially canceled and replaced by
the War on Populism. Or all right, it wasn't quite that abrupt. But seriously, go back and scan
the news. Note how the "Islamic terrorist threat" we had been conditioned to live in fear of on
a daily basis since 2001 seemed to just vanish into thin air. Suddenly, the "existential
threat" we were facing was "neo-nationalism," "illiberalism," or the pejorative designator du
jour, "populism."
In support of RRC, I looked up their agency expenses, and found they are less than $50
million. That's to pay for keeping up with almost a half million oil and gas wells, thousands
of operators, and multiple other duties, including taking care of a significant amount of
State income. There is a grand total of about 725 employees. Hats off!
"... I think Bolton is a sop to Sheldon Aldelson. He may be playing a similar role to "The Mooch", I hope. ..."
"... Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that like a feudal fiefdom? ..."
Why did Trump appoint Bolton? A saying of LBJ, I believe attributed to Sam Rayburn,
might illuminate. "It is better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent
pissing in."
Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to
guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that
like a feudal fiefdom?
Not to be a broken record but should we blame the Dems? Arguably Trump's "out there"
gestures to the right are because he has to keep the Repubs on his side given the constant
threat of impeachment from the other side. Extremes beget extremes. There's also the Adelson
factor.
Of course this theory may be incorrect and he and Bolton are ideological soul mates, but
Trump's ideology doesn't appear to go much beyond a constant diet of Fox News. He seems quite
capable of pragmatic gestures which are then denounced by a horrified press.
"As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party's Voters Are Becoming Far More
Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans" [Glenn Greenwald, T
he Intercept ].
'But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support
for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents
overwhelming favor their removal.
The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support
withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support
withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent."
Those of you who followed my midterms worksheets will recall that the liberal Democrat
establishment packed the ballot with MILOs (candidates with Military, Intelligence, and Law
enforcement backgrounds, or Other things, like being a DA), preparing the way for further
militarization of the Party, and ultimately for war.
Even elementary things are difficult for the US congress to understand. Being hell--bent of
building global neoliberal empire rules from Washington does not help and reuqres demonization of
Russia and its Leaders. Despite recent setbacks Washington policies represent a real danger for
the mankind...
Notable quotes:
"... Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at ..."
"... is the author of 12 books and more than 750 articles on international affairs. His latest book is ..."
...there is no evidence that Moscow harbors expansionist ambitions remotely comparable to
those of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Kremlin's actions suggest a much more
limited, perhaps even defensive, agenda. As professors Andrei Shleifer and Daniel Treisman
observed
in Foreign Affairs , "To many in the West, Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia seemed to
prove the Kremlin's land hunger." But such a conclusion reflects poor logic: "Kremlin leaders
bent on expansion would surely have ordered troops all the way to Tbilisi to depose [Georgia
President Mikheil] Saakashvili. At the least, Russian forces would have taken control of the
oil and gas pipelines that cross Georgia. Instead, the Russians left those pipelines alone and
quickly withdrew to the mountains."
Shleifer and Treisman raise a very important point. If Putin is a rogue leader with massive
expansionist objectives, why would he relinquish territory that Russian forces had occupied?
Indeed, with very little additional effort, Russia could have captured Tbilisi and the rest of
Georgia. Yet it did not attempt to do so. Hitler never willingly gave up any of his conquests,
and until the collapse of the Eastern European satellite empire in 1989-1991, the USSR
disgorged only one occupied area: the portion of Austria it controlled at the end of World War
II. Even that modest retreat took place only after laborious negotiations for a treaty
guaranteeing Austria's strict neutrality. If Putin truly harbors malignantly expansionist
ambitions comparable to those of Hitler and Stalin, declining to conquer and absorb all of
Georgia when that achievement was easily within reach showed curious restraint. His decision
merely to perpetuate and consolidate Moscow's treatment of Georgia's two secessionist regions,
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as Russian protectorates suggests much more limited ambitions.
Another aspect of Russia's behavior is decidedly inconsistent with a rogue expansionist
power: its military spending is modest and declining, not robust and surging. True, Putin has
sought to rebuild and modernize Russia's military, and he has achieved some success in
doing so. Russia's navy once again deploys modern vessels, and its air force is now flying
modern, even cutting-edge aircraft. Putin's regime has also focused on developing and deploying
long-range, precision-guided weapons, and is pursuing military research and development efforts
with respect to hypersonic aircraft and missiles.
Even those developments must be put into perspective, however. The restoration and
modernization follows a decade of military decline and decay during the 1990s under Boris
Yeltsin. Moscow's military budget is still a very modest $66.3 billion. Not only does the
gargantuan U.S. budget of $716 billion dwarf that amount, it is far less than China's $174.5
billion and only slightly more than the budgets of countries such as France and India
. Moreover, in contrast to the sizable annual increases in U.S. spending levels, Russia's
military spending is
declining, not rising . The 2017 budget was $69.2 billion, some $2.9 billion greater than
the current budget. That is an odd trend for a government that supposedly harbors vast
offensive ambitions.
The only undiminished source of Russian clout is Moscow's large nuclear arsenal. But as
various scholars have shown, while nuclear weapons may be the ultimate deterrent, they are not
very useful for power projection or
war fighting , except in the highly improbable event that a country's political leadership
is eager to risk national and personal suicide. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Putin
and his oligarch backers are suicidal. Quite the contrary, they seem wedded to accumulating
ever greater wealth and perks.
Too many Americans act as though we are still confronting the Soviet Union at the height of
its power and ambitions. It will be the ultimate tragic irony if, having avoided war with a
messianic, totalitarian global adversary, we now stumble into war because of an out-of-date
image of, and policy toward, a conventional, regional power. Yet unless U.S. leaders change
both their mindsets and their policies toward Russia, that outcome is a real danger.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at , is the author of 12 books and more than 750 articles on
international affairs. His latest book is Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus
Foreign Democratic Movements (2019).
So will the buck stop with Obama/Hillary for destroying Libya, the half million dead in
Syria, the covert support for the Saudis in Yemen which started under Obama, the coup in
Honduras, the deterioration in US/Russia relations to the point where nuclear war has once
again started to become thinkable? By these standards Trump's wrecking ball is quite
tiny.
"... Since the announcement (but no real follow through) to end our military involvement in Syria what passes for our statesmen - John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - have been ignored, mocked or both. ..."
"... When was the last time you heard of a major US political figure go overseas and be refused a meeting with a foreign head of state, publicly upbraided and sent home like an irrelevant flunkie? ..."
"... The insult couldn't be plainer. The lack of Bolton's self-awareness and understanding of the situation was embarrassing. And it left Erdogan the perfect opportunity to call out the Trump Administration's policies as beholden to a foreign power, Israel. ..."
Something has changed in U.S. politics. And it may finally signal something changing for the
better. Since the announcement (but no real follow through) to end our military involvement in
Syria what passes for our statesmen - John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - have
been ignored, mocked or both.
Bolton attempted to box Trump in on not leaving Syria while Israel chest-thumped about how
they will not yield an inch to Iran. Turkish President Erdogan publicly lambasted him with no
response from President Trump. Or anyone else for that matter.
When was the last time you heard of a major US political figure go overseas and be refused
a meeting with a foreign head of state, publicly upbraided and sent home like an irrelevant flunkie?
I can't think of one. Bolton came into the Middle East and made demands like he was the President which Bolton
knew were clearly red lines for Erdogan -- guaranteeing the safety of the Syrian Kurds. And he did this from Jerusalem.
The insult couldn't be plainer. The lack of Bolton's self-awareness and understanding of the
situation was embarrassing. And it left Erdogan the perfect opportunity to call out the Trump
Administration's policies as beholden to a foreign power, Israel.
No. In November 2018, the US rejected a symbolic UN resolution calling on Israel to end its
occupation of the Golan Heights. The resolution passed with 151 votes in favor, 14 abstentions and only two votes against
– the US and Israel itself They call it, "Occupied" for no reason. Gaza also an example but joos kept slicing it out ever since
installed there.
Well yes and I held a conference with resolutions in my backyard over some beers and it
resulted in calling out the occupation as the spoils of war. The Syrians will just have to
suck it up. Everyone else who pays attention to the bleating of ****** morons at the UN
should realize the backyard beer occupation resolution trumps all.
"The lack of Bolton's self-awareness and understanding of the situation was embarrassing.
And it left Erdogan the perfect opportunity to call out the Trump Administration's policies
as beholden to a foreign power, Israel. "
This fits into my theory regarding Trump as a good boss. He obviously could not avoid hiring Bolton, as Trump's balancing act goes on. Bolton is an old PNAC petty
potentate, and he obviously believes that triumphalist drivel from 2000. So, Bolton obviously thought he could deke around Trump and defy him and walked right into this act of political suicide. He'l be fired when the time is right. He's too connected to get beat up like Sessions. Trump will have to lever Bolton out using his own mustache and with the appropriate backing. That's going to easier now that Bolton danced a jig in Jerusalm.
In support of RRC, I looked up their agency expenses, and found they are less than $50
million. That's to pay for keeping up with almost a half million oil and gas wells, thousands
of operators, and multiple other duties, including taking care of a significant amount of
State income. There is a grand total of about 725 employees. Hats off!
"... Whether this was by design or a consequence of the paralysis imposed on it by a rebellious Deep State and political opposition is, frankly, as irrelevant as most of the words that come out of Pompeo's mouth on most days. ..."
The other thing he did however, is what got my attention. And I have
Moon of Alabama again to thank for this. Pompeo outlined Trump's vision for the future of
U.S. intervention in the Middle East.
And that intervention involves something Trump is good at and Pompeo isn't.
Words.
From Pompeo's speech (H/T MoA):
In Syria, the United States will use diplomacy and work with our partners to expel every
last Iranian boot, and work through the UN-led process to bring peace and stability to the
long-suffering Syrian people. There will be no U.S. reconstruction assistance for areas of
Syria held by Assad until Iran and its proxy forces withdraw and until we see irreversible
progress towards a political resolution.
-- MIKE POMPEO, SECRERTARY OF STATE
To be honest, the Trump administration actually engaging in something approximating
diplomacy would be a welcome start. Because, to this point, there has been precious little
diplomacy in the way the administration as comported itself.
Whether this was by design or a consequence of the paralysis imposed on it by a rebellious
Deep State and political opposition is, frankly, as irrelevant as most of the words that come
out of Pompeo's mouth on most days.
But, grudgingly, I'll concede this is a good sign. As always with Trump, the follow-through
is what's important. He should know that from his golf game.
Bolton ignores Trump on his decision to leave Syria. Then he goes to Israel to get his
orders from Netenyahu and issues threats from there. Trump should fire him for the
humiliation, but he can't. Bolton works for Trump's boss Bibi.
Zionism is a mental disease, just like Wahhabism. All I see are chimpanzees in fancy suits
shuffling around, mumbling about "values" while breaking them at will.
Bolton indeed has shown his true colors, and they lie with Israel.
Trump is still an idiot for keeping him around. This Neocunt needs to be humiliated more
as the Turks have done.
It looks like America can't reign in its ******** so the rest of the world has to.
This is a pretty good article. You won' see this kind of opinion in the MSM. Whether you
agree with all of it or not, at least you are exposed to a dissenting opinion.
MSM is captured by See Eye Aye retards. They have a severe handicap in being unable to
smell their swampy ********. Imperialists usually have this blindspot.
Never before have we been so entertained as with this Trump administration.
To see pompeous *** and Bolton make fools of themselves is priceless.
And then to think they think they have any relevance, priceless.
45North1
"There will be no U.S. reconstruction assistance for areas of Syria held by Assad until Iran and its proxy forces withdraw
and until we see irreversible progress towards a political resolution".
One could see this as a summary of modern undeclared wars - as an economic and political instrument.
Go in and bomb the **** out of the infrastructure of a country you can defeat. (Win MIC, lose taxpayer and impacted country)
Generate hardship in impacted country.
Extort the outcomes (Leadership orientation) your Foreign Policy desires. (Political win)
Offer loans to rebuild (Bankers win).
The Veterans get chewed up in this process... but many of their deaths are "off book" as their suicides happen after their
discharge (40 to 60% higher than the general population)
The US wants all nations worldwide colonized, their resources looted, their people exploited as serfs, including ordinary
Americans.
Sovereign independent governments everywhere are targeted for regime change – by coup d'etats or wars.
That's what imperialism is all about, a diabolical plot for unchallenged global dominance by whatever it takes for the US to
achieve its aims, Republicans and undemocratic Dems allied for the same geopolitical objectives.
Humanitarian intervention, responsibility to protect, and democracy building are code words by both right wings of America's
war party for wanting fascist tyranny replacing governance of, by, and for everyone equitably everywhere – legitimate
governments replaced by US-controlled puppet ones.
Post-9/11 alone, the US orchestrated coups in Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, Ukraine, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle
East.
stephen lendman.org
pparalegal
On the heels of stunning successes left by Obama's PNAC Hillary and horse-face the ketchup man. Unless you count dead
bodies, holes in the ground and arms suppliers.
The United States has no coherent foreign policy and administration officials' statements are no longer taken seriously.
It's quickly becoming a farce. Angry and bitter zionists spewing their hatred and threats all over the place while the
President seems more preoccupied tweeting insults at media clowns. It's embarrassing.
Something has changed in U.S. politics. And it may finally signal something changing for the
better. Since the announcement (but no real follow through) to end our military involvement in
Syria what passes for our statesmen - John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - have
been ignored, mocked or both.
Bolton attempted to box Trump in on not leaving Syria while Israel chest-thumped about how
they will not yield an inch to Iran. Turkish President Erdogan publicly lambasted him with no
response from President Trump.
Or anyone else for that matter.
When was the last time you heard of a major U.S. political figure go overseas and be refused
a meeting with a foreign head of state, publicly upbraided and sent home like an irrelevant
flunkie?
I can't think of one.
Bolton came into the Middle East and made demands like he was the President which Bolton
knew were clearly red lines for Erdogan -- guaranteeing the safety of the Syrian Kurds.
And he did this from Jerusalem.
The insult couldn't be plainer. The lack of Bolton's self-awareness and understanding of the
situation was embarrassing. And it left Erdogan the perfect opportunity to call out the Trump
Administration's policies as beholden to a foreign power, Israel.
Well yes and I held a conference with resolutions in my backyard over some beers and it
resulted in calling out the occupation as the spoils of war. The Syrians will just have to
suck it up. Everyone else who pays attention to the bleating of ****** morons at the UN
should realize the backyard beer occupation resolution trumps all.
" The lack of Bolton's self-awareness and understanding of the situation was embarrassing.
And it left Erdogan the perfect opportunity to call out the Trump Administration's policies
as beholden to a foreign power, Israel. "
This fits into my theory regarding Trump as a good boss. He obviously could not avoid
hiring Bolton, as Trump's balancing act goes on. Bolton is an old PNAC petty
potentate,
and he obviously believes that triumphalist drivel from 2000. So, Bolton obviously
thought he could deke around Trump and defy him and walked right into this act
of political suicide.
He'l be fired when the time is right. He's too connected to get beat up like Sessions.
Trump will have to lever Bolton out using his own mustache and with the appropriate
backing. That's going to easier now that Bolton danced a jig in Jerusalm.
The quote below is from Tucker book... Tucker Carlson for President ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... What was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the waves. ..."
"... Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet. ..."
"... They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers. ..."
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like
they're playing roulette and cackling like mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally
unaware that any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves majestic new titles and raising
their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the ship. It would be nice to know. What
was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath
the waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to know, and they don't want you to tell them.
Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences
that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
Like that scene in Orwell's 1984 where the Party switches official enemies right in
the middle of the Hate Week rally, the War on Terror was officially canceled and replaced by
the War on Populism. Or all right, it wasn't quite that abrupt. But seriously, go back and scan
the news. Note how the "Islamic terrorist threat" we had been conditioned to live in fear of on
a daily basis since 2001 seemed to just vanish into thin air. Suddenly, the "existential
threat" we were facing was "neo-nationalism," "illiberalism," or the pejorative designator du
jour, "populism."
All links are going to Brennan and CIA. Rosenstein was just a tool, necessary to appoint the Special Prosecutor. And launching
the prove was the meaning of "insurance" that Strock mentioned to his mistress. Both Strzok and McCabe have their liasons
(read bosses) at CIA, so in essence they were "CIA infiltration group" within the FBI. And it is also important to understand that Obama was just a CIA snowperson.
There is Stalin's NKVD chief Beria shadow over CIA and FBI now. He famously said "Show me the man and I'll find you the
crime."
Notable quotes:
"... The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross has made a brilliant observation, noting Peter Strzok - then the FBI's deputy chief of counterintelligence, admitted to his FBI lawyer mistress, Lisa Page, that there was no merit to the investigation. ..."
"... Interestingly, another series of Strzok-Page texts refers to "coordinating investigation" after Strzok apparently met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who both recommended Comey's firing, then authorized the special counsel probe ..."
"... As Ross notes in The Daily Caller , there were other text messages that between Strzok and Page which raise suspicion over whether the FBI was working on a "gotcha" against Trump. ..."
As FBI Ramped Up "Witch Hunt" When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion
Investigation A Joke
A Friday report in the New York Times revealing that the FBI supercharged its Trump-Russia
collusion investigation after President Trump fired FBI director James Comey appears to have
backfired - especially when one reviews internal FBI communications from the time period in
question.
The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross has made a brilliant observation, noting Peter Strzok - then
the FBI's deputy chief of counterintelligence, admitted to his FBI lawyer mistress, Lisa Page,
that there was no merit to the investigation.
Nine days after Comey was fired and the DOJ "sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was
knowingly working for Russia," Strzok texted Page on May 18, 2017: "You and I both know the
odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part
because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there. "
It is unclear from The Times report what information was used as a predicate to open the
investigation. The article suggests that the FBI had long considered the move and that
Comey's firing and Trump's subsequent comments marked a tipping point.
...
A source close to Strzok told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Jan. 26, 2018, shortly
after the text was released, that the message reflected Strzok's concern that the FBI would
not find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia . - Daily Caller
The Times' explanation for the FBI's rationale that Trump may have been a Russian asset
consists of Trump's call for Moscow to release Hillary Clinton's emails an election debate, and
allegations contained within the unverified Steele Dossier. The Times was also quick to note
that Trump may have "unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence," to temper the accusation
that he was an agent of a foreign power. In short, weak sauce.
It's no wonder Strzok was hesitant to join Mueller's team.
Interestingly, another series of Strzok-Page texts refers to "coordinating investigation"
after Strzok apparently met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who both recommended
Comey's firing, then authorized the special counsel probe.
As Ross notes in The Daily Caller , there were other text messages that between Strzok and
Page which raise suspicion over whether the FBI was working on a "gotcha" against Trump.
" And we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting ," Strzok
texted Page the day Comey was fired, referring to then-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe.
Meanwhile, Page - who served as McCabe's deputy, provided some additional color on the text
messages during her July 2018 congressional testimony, suggesting that the "case we've been
waiting on" text referred to an investigation separate of the obstruction probe we already knew
about.
"Well, other than obstruction, what could it have been?" one lawmaker asked Page in her
interview, details of which were published by The Epoch Times on Friday.
" I can't answer that, sir. I'm sorry ," she replied.
"If I was able to explain in more depth why the Director firing precipitated this text, I
would," she continued while declining to say if the text message referred to an obstruction
of justice investigation or something more. - Daily Caller
That said, Page admitted that Comey's firing prompted the text exchange.
"So the firing of Jim Comey was the precipitating event as opposed to the occupant of the
Director's office?" asked one lawmaker.
"Yes, that's correct," replied Page.
Meanwhile, The Times went to great lengths to imply that the FBI was justified in their
ratcheted-up collusion investigation - failing to mention who started the probe, who led it,
and more importantly - waiting until the 9th paragraph to mention the fact that it turned up
nothing .
"No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took
direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the
special counsel's office both declined to comment."
VideoEng_NC
"It is unclear from The Times report what information was used as a predicate to open the investigation."
Should be pretty simple with one question. "Was it Hillary who was the responsible party to open an investigation on Trump?".
About as direct as it gets & we already know the answer.
adampeart
TDS sufferers hate Trump so bad that they have become (at 70%) pro-warmonger. Pathetic. I guess that I shouldn't be
surprised. They were fine with Black Jesus starting wars, overthrowing governments and bombing brown people for 8 years.
Teeter
McCabe initiated the investigation. Nobody likes McCabe, so he is likely to be the one guy that gets thrown under the bus.
Of course what he knows may protect him to some extent... they won't want a trial.
Duc888
Sedition? Treason?
Yippie21
7 Days in May.... except for current version we use the DOJ and FBI! Interesting times.
Hillary lost the election when she could not walk. she lost a shoe, she was shown in the van,
and shoe was thrown after her. And that was arranged by Russians.
In my view, at the moment the deed is done. The president signed onto the report acknowledged
the he accepts the report has even gone as far to say, he blames Pres. Putin
Another backtrack, just muddies the waters, and mat be acceptable because no one wants to
accept the real consequences of a president who has repudiated the one state president he
most desired to make a deal with -- the jig is up.
Whether kabuki theater or real gamesmanship --
A threshold has been crossed and uncrossing it is going to be tricky and in my further
humiliation for the wh. The analysis here mattered before the president agreed with the
report. But when he did, this analysis, becomes moot. Having a chit chat about de-escalating
nuclear tensions is quaint in light of the president acknowledging that russia has in fact
undermined the US democratic process. This is a serious charge and no amount of changing the
subject, crying foul, or pretending it was all a big misunderstanding is going to change
that.
I think it would have been prudent for the president to hold fire in Helsinki and read the
report and then responded . He did make any of those choices. It matters not how exposed the
establishment in wanton eagerness to have their way, wh has embraced the matter. it is on
record and . . . oh well. I see merit in maintaining his original position of disbelief --
however, the president did a complete about face -- and there is no question of that or the
implications.
"... Obama sacrificed a huge chunk of American freedom just for the sake of personal political revenge. The USA is transitioning from a laissez faire to a highly burocratized, byzantine economy. ..."
"... Smiling & smooth-talking black face issuing zillions of promises, and this was right after the Codpiece Commander. It took me a whole year to realize I'd been suckered, and by 2012 understood the fix was STILL on. ..."
If this is really true, then it's a clear sign of decline: Obama sacrificed a huge chunk
of American freedom just for the sake of personal political revenge. The USA is transitioning
from a laissez faire to a highly burocratized, byzantine economy.
I am so glad I did not vote for Obama a second time around.
LOL (first time I've ever written this!)
You made the same mistake I did in 2008. The deck was really stacked in that election,
though I was too blind to see it at the time. Smiling & smooth-talking black face
issuing zillions of promises, and this was right after the Codpiece Commander. It took me a
whole year to realize I'd been suckered, and by 2012 understood the fix was STILL
on.
Obama had lost most all of his glitter by then, so the Power Elites arranged his
opposition to be a financial predator/Mormon bishop paired up with the most awful Libertarian
POS I've ever seen.
Speaking the honest truth here, I'd prefer to have Sarah Palin as POTUS to Paul Ryan. What
a combo! That's why I offered anybody I met 10:1 odds on Obama winning. Hillary thought she
had had seen a winning pattern from all that, and arranged to have as her opponent a
fellow named Donald Trump.
A perfectly good article, I'm sure, but why diffuse ourselves [and engender feelings of
fear and hopelessness as you express] when a strategic pressure point has presented?
Johnstone makes no mention of Bill Browder. Nor do the [100, so far] commenters.
BILL BROWDER is a key figure in the anti-Trump, anti-Russia hysteria. The notorious Trump
Tower meeting was about the Magnitsky Act, a fabrication by Browder to hide his financial
crimes. Browder "testified" in the Senate expressly to demonize Putin. Browder's contacts in
the IC, the Jewish Lobby, and the fawning media have enabled his propaganda assault this
week. He's appeared -- unchallenged, virtually unquestioned -- on countless talk shows. But
he's been running scared at the mention of interrogation by Russians. There are huge holes in
his story, made clear in his deposition in the Prevezon case. The truth will bring him down!
And perhaps his Deep State supporters, along with him.
Ask your Senators if they've heard/read Browder's 2015 deposition in the Prevezon
case. (See comment 161 under The Untouchable Mr. Browder? by Israel Shamir for
links.)
BTW, have you seen "THE MAGNITSKY ACT – BEHIND THE SCENES" that Phil Giraldi
posted today? Debunking anti-Russian criminal sociopaths like Bill Browder will go a long way
to improving relations. Not to mention easing pressure on the unfortunate Trump.
@RobinG
UWell, we here in Russia know all this (about Browder) for quite a time. What new did you
find? It's just one story in long list of those written and spoken for western idiots like
Scripals
, MH17, chemicals in Syria and WMD in Iraq, Russian meddling in f-n US elections and so on.
Eat it all dummies.
@Cagey
Beast Yup. Furthermore, CIA is organized crime and organized crime is CIA. CIA recruits
and runs agents in favored criminal syndicates in every illicit trade: drugs, child sexual
trafficking, arms, fraud, bustouts, extortion, money laundering. Their purpose is not to
interdict the trade but to control it.
CIA manages transnational organized crime to top up their budget for unauthorized
clandestine operations, like killing JFK.
CIA protects its criminal proteges with their chartered impunity. They call off law
enforcement with the magic words national security or 'sources and methods.' If the plan gets
exposed, CIA's criminal cutouts insulate the agency from exposure.
RFK knew how it works. RFK junior explained the reason for RFK's focus on organized-crime
until CIA whacked him. That's why his book was made to sink without a ripple.
Evenfurthermore, CIA is the government and the government is CIA. Decades ago Fletcher
Prouty showed that CIA's deepest-cover illegal moles are embedded in our own government.
Every agency with repressive capacity is infiltrated with focal points, who report to CIA
handlers without the other agency's knowledge.
Of course Israel is trying to infiltrate it -- they understand the levers of power.
Assange has got some mighty stinkers in his insurance file. All we can do is hope they're
enough to destabilize the CIA Reich that has ruled America since 1949.
"... CIA is boosting the volume of its anti-Russian vilification because more and more CIA assets are getting flushed out. Stephan Halper is an obvious spook. Page is the corniest traitor since Lee Harvey Oswald ..."
"... Strzok has clearly got a dotted-line report to his real boss in CIA ..."
"... Publius Tacitus is incorrect, though, in making a distinction between the Obama administration and the intelligence community. Obama is a third-generation CIA spook he's a CIA spokesmodel, not a head of state (see Andrew Krieg's Presidential Puppetry.) ..."
"... To add to the list of things that the Russians had on Hillary . IIRC, she was Sec of State at the time the US election-meddling-and-color-revolution brigade tried to rig the Russian elections against Putin. ..."
"... Putin does not seem to be the sort to let emotion be more important than policy, but I've always wondered that to the small extent the Russians did take a pop at Hillary's campaign, if it didn't bring a bit of a smile to Putin's face to know he was just giving back the hits he'd already taken from her. ..."
CIA is boosting the volume of its anti-Russian vilification because more and more CIA
assets are getting flushed out. Stephan Halper is an obvious spook. Page is the corniest
traitor since Lee Harvey Oswald .
Publius Tacitus is incorrect, though, in making a distinction between the Obama
administration and the intelligence community. Obama is a third-generation CIA spook he's a
CIA spokesmodel, not a head of state (see Andrew Krieg's Presidential Puppetry.)
Excerpt : "A Pew Research analysis on Monday found that more than a third of the
US' largest newspapers and more than a fifth of its largest digital outlets experienced
layoffs between January 2017 and April 2018."
To add to the list of things that the Russians had on Hillary . IIRC, she was Sec of
State at the time the US election-meddling-and-color-revolution brigade tried to rig the
Russian elections against Putin.
Putin does not seem to be the sort to let emotion be more important than policy, but
I've always wondered that to the small extent the Russians did take a pop at Hillary's
campaign, if it didn't bring a bit of a smile to Putin's face to know he was just giving back
the hits he'd already taken from her.
Hillary of course was incompetent in having America interfere in Russian elections. That
campaign never had a chance as Putin is a lot more popular in Russia than Hillary is in
America. So, she took a pot shot at a rival world leader knowing (or at least some smart
people did) that it would have no effect and that Putin would win that election anyways. And
of course Hillary the Arrrogant could never imagine that another player in the game would get
to take a turn, and that others might interfere in her election, and she knew she'd run and
she knew she'd rig the Dem party to get the nod, in the same way the NED and the Soros NGO's
tried to interfere in Russia.
I share your sentiments [in a slightly different vernacular]; of course they, the usurping
'rulers' are neither a class nor in any way 'elite,' but who/what ever they are [jews,
oligarchs, 'simply' psychopaths or 'true' spawn of Satan], they do seem to be 'in control.'
Proof of that is the coordinated criminal actions of 'the West.'
Find "CIA is the government and the government is CIA" above; it's the obvious place to
expect a ccc = covert criminal cabal to establish itself. Add to that the truly weird concept
of having spies a) out of all control and b) with apparently unlimited power. We 'shall know
them by their deeds' which is almost unrelievedly a 'bad look.' Odd is that the 1st mention
of any conspiracy that I heard of was that of 'jewish banksters ruling the world.' We since
know that such was pilloried by the CIA, but it seems to me to be a case of the tar-baby: The
more they [CIA, jews] howl/deny, the guiltier they prove themselves to be. rgds
I would say that what is affecting the western establishment elites at this juncture is not
mere dementia but the madness which arises from acts of pure, hellish evil. These people are
the Gadarine swine of the contemporary era; a good portion of them appear to be Satanic
perverts and pedophiles, if we are to judge from recent revelations. I am not being
hyperbolic when I write that Antichrist's reign has been postponed. They had imagined it
would be installed by November of 2016 and this is driving them to despair. They hate Trump
because his election blocked their lord and master's ascent and they hate Putin because he
represents the great restraining power.
@yurivkuHe's of course is a bone in DC's throat, but his level of intelligence and real power seem
to be extremely low.
Yes, he's a golden chandelier stuck in the belly of the Beast. I think he's quite smart,
in his own way, but can only do so much on his own. He also has some bad ideas and makes
enemies when it isn't necessary but he's still the only hope for change at the centre of the
American empire.
@skrik
Be that as it may, Romper Stomper took place 30 years after the Vietnam War began. The
reverberations of the war were felt in Australia long afterwards.
@peterAUS
That's an armchair rugby referee for you, encouraging a Civil War in a country he's probably
never set foot. What do you believe would change its policy towards Oz.
If you remember when Reagan broke the air-traffic control union strikes and 30,000 of them
immigrated to Oz in 1981, what would happen would be that many qualified Americans would come
to Australia and take Australian jobs.
That's how such unrest would affect you.
At any rate, the US would still have the same grip on popular culture (If not financial
markets) and Vegemite would not suddenly replace McDonald's everywhere.
Also, though the Asians seem to slowly taking over your economy anyhow, if the US military
was busy suppressing a civil war and Asian countries might get aggressive towards you
militarily.
@peterAUS
The Asians might get more aggressive if the US military suddenly found itself preoccupied
with a Civil War.
Asia is taking over your country economically anyhow but they might get a bit anti-social
if suddenly the US were to lose all capacity to maintain its presence in your hemisphere.
Aw, don't go all wussy -- you're acting like a wounded suitor. I suppose it was my
rejection of your
I'd need to trust you and then we'd have a long chat somewhere in open public place
Similr to which you you offered Backstay
Have a quiet chat somewhere in a park, for example. Just two of us. Two
Try this google ; that the sort
of place you had in mind? It's also reputedly a secret entrance to an ASIO bunker but I
suppose you know that; I call attempted entrapment.
"As a matter of fact, the composition of the governments is predetermined, and their
actions are controlled by great financial consortiums."
J. V. Stalin, Questions & Answers to American Trade Unionists: Stalin's Interview
With the First American Trade Union Delegation to Soviet Russia
Pravda September 15, 1927 ___________(h/t, J.S.)
think he's quite smart, in his own way, but can only do so much on his own
But I think he's stupid, ignorant, spineless (as well as most of POTUSes), the only
difference is -- he's not completely belongs to DC. Probably it's better than if Clinton was
on his place, but who knows, Trump can make any stupid thing
G'day, q.possibly and glad you responded. Yeah sure, Stalin is 'close;' it's why some
suggest oligarchs, but it demonstrably falls a bit short. My ccc = covert criminal cabal,
each word of the highest significance; let's examine each one:
[COED:] covert = not openly acknowledged or displayed -- this is 100% true, since
they operate from 'behind a curtain' of deliberate secrecy. Not declaring who they are is a
lie of omission, then see after cabal below. Before moving on, let's consult Cicero:
mendaci neque quum vera dicit, creditor
= A liar is not to be believed, even when speaking the truth. That's never a 'good look,'
and leads to the next:
criminal -- self-evident, then:
[COED:] cabal = a secret political clique or faction. Øarchaic a secret
intrigue .
ORIGIN
C16 (denoting the Kabbalah): from French cabale, from medieval Latin cabala (see
Kabbalah).
Finally [COED:] Kabbalah (also Kabbala, Cabbala, Cabala, or Qabalah = the ancient
Jewish tradition of mystical interpretation of the Bible .
I allow myself to propose an exactly apposite example of the latter: 'Xxx promised it to
us!' -- Where Xxx comes directly from some "mystical interpretation of the Bible." 'Nuff
said?
More? IF it were only "great financial consortiums" THEN one would need to explain the
criminality, since I'm pretty sure oligarchs *could* work legally. Then, the 'normal'
consortiums' business is to 'make money' [and cheating and/or theft may be sort of 'normal'],
but the ccc goes *far* past that into [mass-]murdering for spoil, quite/most often for oil
and/or *soil* . The latter is within Nuremberg class = supreme international criminality.
That may complete the loop and explain why covert in the 1st place.
I wrote above that I would 'revisit' lies; here's a partial quote:
But it remained for the yyy, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood,
Feel free to 'guess' at the yyy, then I assert QED rgds
Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces, presently engaged against Donbass?
Besides those in "volunteer battalions", which tend to be nationalistic with distinct Nazi
overtones, people in the regular Armed Forces are there for the money. There are very few
paying jobs in today's Ukraine, so men enlist and hope for the best.
the ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I
suspect.
That could've been the case in 2014. Today I very much doubt it. Even the Right Sector
people are fed up with the current power in Kiev, and even the dumbest nationalists are
beginning to realize what a deep hole the country is in. Normal people all over the
South-East are hoping and praying for the Russians to come. The problem is the Russians
aren't coming.
The moniker "journalist" should immediately by banished by replacement of "reporter", as in
report the facts and observations, not interpretations or personal opinions.
@Eagle
Eye " In your view what else was Hubbard brilliant about?"
Well for example his bizarre sounding concepts regarding the sources of mankind, and the
history of this insane planet, which are repeatedly ridiculed and labeled as absurd by the
PTB, who of course have their own turf to defend, and their own concepts which they do not
want to be brought into question.
@EugeneGur
Well can't say I disagree with the comment.
Or, better, can't provide any concrete evidence to the contrary, especially re the second
paragraph.
The thing is, nationalism is a peculiar feeling.
So, while this
Normal people all over the South-East are hoping and praying for the Russians to
come.
could be true, the rest of Ukraine could get into quite the opposite.
But, as you say
The problem is the Russians aren't coming.
so it's all academic.
Now, speaking of
people are fed up with the current power .
one could feel, probably, the same in Donbass.
Things aren't great there either.
In any case the conflict is there, frozen for the moment (not for the people along the
front line) and can erupt, again, when the US Deep State wants it.
@Michael
Kenny If one wants a clear example of the Russophobic or Putinophobic hysteria infecting
the West, one need go no further than this demented fellow. And to that he adds a conspiracy
theory about the gangsters ruling over it all.
@seeing-thru
You got it 100% Right my friend. That's the best reality-connected assessment of the Donald's
performance that I've read. I'm going to swipe it for reuse elsewhere. Thank you, and may the
force be with you.
@Jeff
Davis Glad you liked it. Yeah, go ahead use it any which way. BTW, my fear is that the
Donald may not be able to succeed because of the massive line-up of forces against him. The
whole lunatic asylum is out of their cages, snarling and clawing and planning all sorts of
stuff to bring him down. Let us wish him success.
So standing up for American citizens is considered a "mentally insane" thing?
You are utterly and completely out of your mind, virtually from another planet, another
reality. A textbook example of insanity. The fact that you don't recognize it, simply
confirms the fact.
The Deep state is not, repeat not , the American people.
Regarding the Intel community: There are the guys in the trenches. these are honorable
guys. Then there is the leadership. The current leadership is on notice to behave itself, on
account of the new "Sheriff" in town. The corrupt politicized leadership from the
Clinton/Bush/Obama regimes however, now out of power, are attempting to overthrow the
legitimately elected president of the United States. In so doing, they are pursuing
treason-lite.
Clapper, Brennan, and Hayden are already full-on war criminals: Iraq & torture. Now,
in their attempt to destroy the Trump presidency, they are adding betrayal of democracy and
betrayal of the Constitution of the United States to their criminal resume. These are evil
men who think it is their job to run the United States from behind a malleable (gutless?)
figurehead who does what they tell him to do.
As I said in my original post, it is fascinating to observe people like you, utterly
dominated -- brain-raped really -- by a neocon/neoliberal narrative that has reduced them to
robotic -- even willing -- slaves of the 1%. Good for you. Enjoy. The others, who prefer
self-mastery to self-enslavement, will benefit from your choice of enslavement.
That is what all of this boils down to; Trump treating Americans like s*hit in front of
the whole world, while praising Russia and Russians.
The IC war criminals/traitors should not be equated with or allowed to hide anonymous
behind the majority population of decent Americans. Which is what simpletons like you enable
and then fall for.
I fully understood all the concerns for what the Left is doing to people and to the
society.
Trump praises Israel and says that, "Securing Israel's safety is our most important
task" not a peep comes from the Trump-supporters?!
Some Trump supporters do object. Others however grasp the political reality of Jewish
political influence in the US. Politically incompetent simpletons like yourself think Trump
should commit political suicide by taking on the Jews.
The Jews/Israel will be dealt with -- or not -- later, when Trump has secured his
presidency. And then, the rebalancing of the US-Israeli relationship will not be grounded in
hostility to the Jews, but will be more along the lines of America First.
Never ever did I expect, that it would be the Trump-supporters surfacing as the fifth
column, giving the "finishing touch" to the destruction of American citizens.
The above is pure paranoid, "the sky is falling", TDS whackadoodle.
The Liberals seem to have woken up,
The country is in the throes of a cultural war between the bubble-wrapped snowflakes and
"real" people. Thankfully, the "real" people will win, precisely because they have the
advantage of being reality-connected. The snowflakes will benefit as well -- you will benefit
-- by the resulting opportunity to reconnect with reality.
Good luck, best wishes, Trump is rapidly changing the world for the better.
And let me add: The Soviet Union is a quarter century gone, and with it Soviet Communism.
Putin is the preeminent statesman of our times. Go to YouTube and listen to what he says. He
and Trump, aligned, are a force for good in the world. Peace with Russia is coming, and with
it a new era of peace and prosperity in the world.
Which leaves me to echo your closing comment:
Are you ever going to be able to comprehend this?
(Answer: Probably not for another six years, if ever.)
@peterAUS
Australia's problem is going to be an Asian economic overclass you Australians always obsess
about country's located halfway around the world first the UK now the US.
you're worried about blacks in the US in the ghetto's wealth inequality while Chinese
business elite reduce you to paupers IN Australia and eventually you go the way of the black
aborigines.
But you cannot see that because you're focused on US cultural colonization or things you
have seen in Hollywood films.
Point is that in the sixties you were still obsessed with the British Empire though you
are a bit of a lost colony now you are obsessed with the United States, another waning
Empire.
Pretty soon the Chinese will have you sleeping in your cars and you will still be focused
on the state of blacks in the US ghetto and inequality in America.
But see, the US won't be the problem in Australia. China will.
You compare yourself to the United States because it is a similar former British colony
and white settler nation but it is Asia that will stomp you.
She is most likely onto something important. My solution is that most people are
double-minded because it suits us to lazily allow our leaders to control us while we
(somewhat) hypocritically condemn them for faults and errors which profit us.
St Paul, Shakespeare and Montaigne all complained of their own double-mindedness.
I hope that a column of mine on this topic will appear soon in The U.R.
most people are double-minded because it suits us to lazily allow our leaders to control
us while we (somewhat) hypocritically condemn them for faults and errors which profit us
..
I guess you are onto something here.
It could go a bit deeper, though, as:
. most people are double-minded because it suits us to allow our betters to lead us
while we (somewhat) hypocritically condemn them for their and our faults and errors which
profit us.
But you cannot see that because you're focused on US cultural colonization or things you
have seen in Hollywood films You compare yourself to the United States because it is a
similar former British colony and white settler nation
If I may intercede, no, and that twice.
1. peterAUS, if my interpretation is correct, sees the world through 'military blinkers,'
is assumed not to notice China et al. except as one 'enemy' among many, and probably thinks
that ~100 F35s, xxx new warships, yyy new submarines and zzz new 'armoured cars,' costing the
Aus-taxpayer nose-bleeding squillions will 'save his/their bacon.' As such, peterAUS cannot
be addressed as any valid representative of 'the great Aus-unwashed.'
2. That great Aus-unwashed, hoovering up the trash err, sorry for the US-speak; hoovering
up the horrendous rubbish 'presented' to them via their '1984-style telescreens' err,
one-finger flat-screen distraction devices [when not actual television sets], is largely
unconscious of any 'real world.'
Since the CIA-sponsored coup of 1975, the country has been 'going to the dogs' at an
increasing rate. The sheople glory under their 'Lucky Country' delusion, not even knowing its
full import: Lucky not to be even partly aware. Yeah sure, the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs [=
publicly financed broadcasters] try to revive 'the yellow peril' scare, but that's just
standard 'Bernays haze' scare mongering, to keep the proles from thinking: Der, they [as
peterAUS] didn't think. rgds
PS The great Aus-unwashed, as any 'Western' citizen, has zero choice; so-called 'Western
democracy' allows for as good as zero 'citizen input.' The 'choice' of Trump should be put
down to an aberration -- some 'clever-clogs' manipulators -- *not* Russians -- pulled off a
coup. But as they used to say: "Better red than dead;" better Trump than HRC.
Do we have a democracy? Or even representative government? So what happened to our jobs
off-shored. Who approved that? Who approved 100 million legal immigrants in the last 50
years?
Why does anyone accept our stilted self-image, especially Diana?
On the point about the "world's greatest prison population" note that some one-third of
the federal prison population consists of illegal alien criminals and the large U.S. black
criminal underclass commits crimes at a higher rate than everyone else, so there are more
blacks in our prisons. Oh, the horror.
If other nations enjoyed large illegal immigrant populations and a large black criminal
underclass we would see similar inflated prison populations.
Spare us the silliness on this score as well as the "regular massacres of school children"
garbage. No doubt you'll enlighten us with your anti-gun views on American gun nuts at a
later time. I wait with bated breath.
Still, you almost got a lock on insightful commentary these days.
This is a very good blog, column, whatever, because it illuminates with the light of
reason the mass madness of the Washington crowd, and probably much of the American
population. See the New Yorker article in the current issue about the utility of caregivers
lying to and/or deceiving demented patients to keep them content. That is what is happening
now in the USA and your failure to understand my explanation for it, in my essay on
double-mindedness, which I sent you last summer, I mind very much. You could lead the way out
of the mess if you would re-read that essay and try to understand it.
I am a very ordinary guy and I understand it. Please try again. The world needs this.
who has spent time in Ukraine knows how deep hatred of Russia goes
I don't know where is Ukraine you spent your time and in what company, but this is
complete BS. The South-Eastern Ukraine hates the Western Ukrainian "banderovtsi" as much as
the Russians do if not more -- after all, the followers of Bandera operated mostly on the
Ukrainian soil. There are deranged individuals in every country, of course, and Ukraine has
been subjected lately to intense hate propaganda as well as repressions, but there is no
hatred of Russia. This is contradicted by both sociology and everyday behavior of Ukrainian,
which move to Russia in droves, spend time in Russia, support Russian sport teams, etc.
we are supposed to dismiss the actual wishes of Ukrainians, Estonians, Poles, Georgians
and other peoples who hate Russia (and love the US)
Nobody is asking about what the real Ukrainians, Estonians, Georgians or even Poles
actually think, least of all the US. There are almost as many Georgians living in Russia as
there are in Georgia, and they show no desire to move back. In 2008 during the conflict,
their biggest fear was that they'd be deported.
The Ukraine's Maidan was a violent coup, where a few thousand militants armed and trained
abroad overthrew a government elected by the entire country. Protests that immediately
started all over the country were suppressed with force -- the one in Donbass still is.
How could anyone with an access to Internet remain unaware of these facts is beyond
me.
@Peter
Akuleyev Why should anyone freaking care and put his ass in the line of fire because you
bunch of primitives hate Russia? Between having a nuclear cataclysm because you pathetic
dwarfs of nations are frustrated to have a neighbour you can't bully and Russia obliterating
you, I say let Russia obliterate you, thus we won't have to suffer the ear-hurting
dissonnance of your incessant whining any more. Though I doubt Russia would stomp on you.
When you see shit, you don't stomp on it, you don't want you don't want your shoes to stink,
you just walk around it.
@EugeneGur
That's an interesting point. Even if true, doesn't matter. One could wonder ..who are the
people populating Ukrainian Armed Forces?
Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces, presently engaged against Donbass? All of
them. Including those is logistics/maintenance depots far away from the (current) line of
separation?
The will to fight against "Russia" ranges from a deep hate to simply not wishing to go
against the (current) Ukrainian government. The former are in those "shock" battalions. The
later are manning the logistics train. And everything in between.
Now .if/when a real shooting starts, as soon as Russia, as expected (and desired) by the
most of readers here, starts delivering ordnance into operational depth of Donbass enemy, the
ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I suspect.
The president says he will bring the troops home from Syria and Afghanistan. Now, because of
their pathological hatred of Trump, mainstream Democrats are hysterical in their
opposition.
If anyone else were president, the "liberals" would be celebrating. After all, pulling
American soldiers out of a couple of failing, endless wars seems like a "win" for progressives.
Heck, if Obama did it there might be a ticker-tape parade down Broadway. And there should be.
The intervention in Syria is increasingly aimless, dangerous and lacks an end state.
Afghanistan is an unwinnable war – America's longest – and about to end in outright
military
defeat . Getting out now and salvaging so much national blood and treasure ought to be a
progressive dream. There's only one problem: Donald Trump. Specifically, that it was Trump who
gave the order
to begin the troop withdrawals.
Lost in the haze of their pathological hatred of President Trump, the majority of mainstream
liberal pundits and politicians can't, for the life of them, see the good sense in extracting
the troops from a couple Mideast quagmires. That or they can see the positives, but, in their
obsessive compulsion to smear the president, choose politics over country. It's probably a bit
of both. That's how tribally partisan American political discourse has become. And, how
reflexively hawkish and interventionist today's mainstream Democrats now are. Whither the
left-wing antiwar movement? Well, except for a few diehards out there, the movement seems to
have been buried long ago with
George McGovern .
Make no mistake, the Democrats have been tacking to the right on foreign policy and
burgeoning their tough-guy-interventionist credentials for decades now. Terrified of being
painted as soft or dovish on martial matters, just about all the "serious" baby-boomer Dems
proudly co-opted the militarist line and gladly accepted campaign cash from the corporate arms
dealers. Think about it, any Democrat with serious future presidential aspirations back in 2002
voted for the Iraq War – Hillary, Joe Biden, even former peace activist John Kerry! And,
in spite of the party base now moving to the left, all these big name hawks – along with
current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer – are still Democratic stalwarts. Heck, some
polls
list Biden as the party's 2020 presidential frontrunner.
More disturbing than the inconsistency of these political hacks is the vacuousness of the
supposedly liberal media. After Trump's announcement of troop withdrawals, just about every
MSNBC host slammed the president and suddenly sounded more hawkish than the clowns over at Fox
News. Take Rachel Maddow. Whatever you think of her politics, she is – undoubtedly
– a brilliant woman. Furthermore, unlike most pundits, she knows a little something about
foreign policy. Her 2012 book, Drift: The
Unmooring of American Military Power was a serious and well-researched critique of
executive power and the ongoing failure of the wars on terror. Drift was well reviewed by
regular readers and scholars alike.
Enter Donald Trump. Ever since the man won the 2016 election, Maddow's nightly show has been
dominated the hopeless dream of Russia-collusion and a desire for Trump's subsequent
impeachment. Admittedly, Maddow's anti-Trump rhetoric isn't completely unfounded – this
author, after all, has spent the better part of two years criticizing most of his policies
– but her zealousness has clouded her judgment, or worse. Indeed, that Maddow, and her
fellow "liberals" at MSNBC have now
criticized the troop withdrawals and even paraded a slew of
disgraced neoconservatives – like Bill Kristol – on their shows seems final proof
of their descent into opportunistic hawkishness.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this new "liberal" hawkishness is the pundits' regular
canonization of Jim Mattis and the other supposed "adults"
in the room . For mainstream, Trump-loathing, liberals the only saving grace for this
administration was its inclusion of a few trusted, "grown-up" generals in the cabinet. Yet it
is a dangerous day, indeed, when the supposedly progressive journalists deify only the military
men in the room. Besides, Mattis was no friend to the liberals. Their beloved President Obama
previously canned "mad-dog" for his excessive bellicosity towards Iran. Furthermore, Mattis
– so praised for both his judgment and ethics – chose an interesting issue for
which to finally fall-on-his-sword and resign. U.S. support for the Saudi-led starvation of
85,000 kids in Yemen: Mattis could deal with that. But a modest disengagement from even one
endless war in the Middle East: well, the former SECDEF just couldn't countenance that. Thus,
he seems a strange figure for a "progressive" network to deify.
Personally, I'd like to debate a few of the new "Cold Warriors" over at MSNBC or CNN and ask
a simple series of questions: what on the ground changed in Syria or Afghanistan that has
suddenly convinced you the US must stay put? And, what positivist steps should the military
take in those locales, in order to achieve what purpose exactly? Oh, by the way, I'd ask my
debate opponents to attempt their answers without uttering the word Trump. The safe money says
they couldn't do it – not by a long shot. Because, you see, these pundits live and die by
their hatred of all things Trump and the more times they utter his name the higher go the
ratings and the faster the cash piles up. It's a business model not any sort of display of
honest journalism.
There's a tragic irony here. By the looks of things, so long as Mr. Trump is president, it
seems that any real movement for less interventionism in the Greater Middle East may come from
a part of the political right – libertarians like Rand Paul along with the president's
die hard base, which is willing to follow him on any policy pronouncement. Paradoxically, these
folks may find some common cause with the far left likes of Bernie Sanders and the
Ocasio-Cortez crowd, but it seems unlikely that the mainstream left is prepared to lead a new
antiwar charge. What with Schumer/Pelosi still in charge, you can forget about it. Given the
once powerful left-led Vietnam-era protest movement, today's Dems seem deficient indeed on
foreign policy substance. Odds are they'll cede this territory, once again, to the GOP.
By taking a stronger interventionist, even militarist, stand than Trump on Syria and
Afghanistan, the Democrats are wading into dangerous waters. Maybe, as some say, this president
shoots from the hip and has no core policy process or beliefs. Perhaps. Then again, Trump did
crush fifteen Republican mainstays in 2015 and shock Hillary – and the world – in
2016. Indeed, he may know just what he's doing. While the Beltway,
congressional-military-industrial complex continues to support ever more fighting and dying
around the world, for the most part the American people do not . Trump, in fact, ran on a
generally anti -interventionist platform, calling the Iraq War "dumb" and not to be repeated.
The president's sometimes earthy – if coarse – commonsense resonated with a lot of
voters, and Hillary's hawkish establishment record (including her vote for that very same Iraq
War) didn't win her many new supporters.
Liberals have long believed, at least since McGovern's 1972 trouncing by Richard Nixon, that
they could out-hawk the Republican hawks and win over some conservatives. It rarely worked. In
fact, Dems have been playing right into bellicose Republican hands for decades. And, if they
run a baby-boomer-era hawk in 2020 – say Joe Biden – they'll be headed for another
shocking defeat. The combination of a (mostly, so far) strong economy and practical policy of
returning US troops from unpopular wars, could, once again, out weigh this president's other
liabilities.
Foreign policy won't, by itself, tip a national election. But make no mistake, if the clowns
at MSNBC and "liberal" hacks on Capitol Hill keep touting their newfound militarism, they're
likely to emerge from 2020 with not only smeared consciences, but four more years in the
opposition.
* * *
Danny Sjursen is a US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq
and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a
memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter at
@SkepticalVet .
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
A the politicians carry their recordsike a ball and chain. Trump had no legislative
baggage so in comparison he looked ok. There may be a chance that some plan to allow e
wrything to sink to near chaos is happening, with that risk of a slip up being total
collapse. It would appear total collapse is likely absent some very well thought out plan by
a lot of people who appear to be morons
In the US the neocons switch between parties like changing underwear. Now that the
republicans are soiled they'll wear democrats instead, lobby for more war until they're good
and soiled, and switch when republican populism is back on the rise (like during the Bush
years, and then Obama).
We all know it. If libtards didn't hate America, they wouldn't be trying so hard to change
it.
Remember the happy white culture middle class America of 1955? Libtards hate it with a
passion that can only be an obsession. The first thing libtards started whining about in the
1950's was the the poor 'oppressed' negroes weren't allowed to burp and fart at the same
lunch counter as the evil white man. We foolishly caved in to that first step of liberal
stupidity and look where we are today. Mall shootings in Chicongo and New Jersey.
Everytime the (((media))) shows you these violent examples, just remember how we got
here.
Compromising with liberals is nothing more than a highway to hell, paved with compromise
and liberal 'good intentions'.
Now we have Donald Trump who is willing to tell the liberal idiots to shove their fake
altruism and egalitarianism up their collective asses. This chance of a lifetime for our
children may never come again.
I voted for McGovern. I think that was the first time I voted. Now I can't stand either
political Parties. I saw the games the Republicans pulled with the Massachusetts Caucus and
Convention when I was an alternate delegate for Ron Paul. There is no trick dirty enough for
either Party to pull. They are without a moral compass.
Bring 'some' troops home is just a political maneuver not a policy change. How can you
tell?
Trump is an imperialist. That's why he fired Bannon.
And that's why Trump moved drones attacks operations from the military to the CIA.
There's no evidence that Trump is ending US intervention anywhere.
Now check this out when the President is Democrat.
52%
of Republicans disprove withdrawing troops: Americans widely support President Obama's
recent decision to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year, with 75%
approving. That includes the vast majority of Democrats and independents. Republicans,
however, are slightly more likely to disapprove than approve.
The Republican position went from 50% supporting withdrawal with Obama to 70% under Trump.
A change for sure, but not nearly as dramatic as the Democrats which have completely changed
their positions i.e. their position has nothing to do with principles what-so-ever.
@Escrava Isaura: " Trump is an imperialist. That's why he fired Bannon. "
Not so sure of the connection there.
But America is an imperial nation (both major parties have supported this for years) and
the problem now is that its imperialism is on an irreversible trajectory which will bring it
to an end. As one might expect, they are trying to keep it alive but that will only delay the
inevitable. What we don't know is whether it will end with a whimper or a big bang.
Hillary lost the election when she could not walk. she lost a shoe, she was shown in the van,
and shoe was thrown after her. And that was arranged by Russians.
"... This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations. ..."
"... They are CIA assets who do what they're told. ..."
"... There is an unrecognized plague in our society called antidepressants. More than ten per cent of the people in the industrialized world take drugs which interfere with self doubt. They don't ask themselves whether an idea in their minds is true, fair or kind. They only ask if they believe it. And since the chemical they ingest prevents them from assessing the idea from all sides they always believe that if they think something it must be true. ..."
"... Other symptoms of antidepressant use include high levels of free floating anxiety (because useful anxiety is suppressed) and restlessness. ..."
"... I am still asking myself what motivated a veteran politician like Hillary Clinton to violate a cardinal rule of politics by attacking not her opponent but his supporters with the "basket of deplorable" comment in the closing days of the 2016 campaign except chemically induced madness. ..."
"... If history has recorded that the Roman Empire collapsed due to lead poisoning from the water pipes a future time may also conclude the US Empire was destroyed due to antidepressants. ..."
"... The psychology of the mass of Americans with it's self-righteousness and self-centerdness is really amazing. Just in the last seventeen years the US has invaded or otherwise attacked numerous countries and has caused millions of people to die, become miserable refugees, become orphans and all other manner of evil. ..."
"... Not least of all has been it's creation and patronage of ISIS, one of the most heinous groups in history. Yet Americans have this massive blind spot to the war criminality of all this that their country has committed against the peace of the world. Instead they're being stampeded into some irrational Russia-phobia. It's the US that's been on the march everywhere, labeling those countries that resist it's aggression as being aggressors for being willing to defend themselves. It's all upside-down. ..."
"... "I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics." ..."
"... I'd really like to know who wrote that line for the Prez. (Since I think it unlikely that he wrote that, or any of his "prepared remarks".) Stephen Miller? Whoever. But it was a genius comment. ..."
"... "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" obviously the Gods want to destroy the so called western man ..."
Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how
false all that is. And, yet, here we are.
The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online
can't, for SOME reason, figure all that out.
Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever. Maybe it's time to start passing a bit
of blame to people in general. Not holding my breath.
I fully agree with this sentiment. The only reason the evil bastards who control our
society can get away with their treachery is because most of the American people are out to
lunch on the most important issues of our time. If the sheeple were to take responsibility to
inform themselves of what is happening today they would be able to see the lies they are
being constantly exposed to as just that -- lies. And then, they could put down the beer and
turn off the damn sports channel and get angry at what has happened to their country.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for ignorant people to remain
ignorant.
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European
elite which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or
corgis in the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation"
associations.
There is an unrecognized plague in our society called antidepressants. More than ten per
cent of the people in the industrialized world take drugs which interfere with self doubt.
They don't ask themselves whether an idea in their minds is true, fair or kind. They only ask
if they believe it. And since the chemical they ingest prevents them from assessing the idea
from all sides they always believe that if they think something it must be true.
This is the perfect environment for the virus of groupthink to spread.
And since our leaders, both on the left and the right, may be ahead of the curve on drug
usage the neocons and the politically correct may use antidepressants at greater levels than
10 per cent.
Other symptoms of antidepressant use include high levels of free floating anxiety
(because useful anxiety is suppressed) and restlessness.
I am still asking myself what motivated a veteran politician like Hillary Clinton to
violate a cardinal rule of politics by attacking not her opponent but his supporters with the
"basket of deplorable" comment in the closing days of the 2016 campaign except chemically
induced madness.
If history has recorded that the Roman Empire collapsed due to lead poisoning from the
water pipes a future time may also conclude the US Empire was destroyed due to
antidepressants.
@Gordon
Pratt I think you are mistaken trying to rationalize the behavior of the political class
and their puppet masters. I believe the real driver are not antidepressants, but an obscene
greed, which is so blinding that it made MIC profiteers forget that to enjoy the fruits of
their thievery they have to be alive.
The psychology of the mass of Americans with it's self-righteousness and self-centerdness
is really amazing. Just in the last seventeen years the US has invaded or otherwise attacked
numerous countries and has caused millions of people to die, become miserable refugees,
become orphans and all other manner of evil.
Not least of all has been it's creation and patronage of ISIS, one of the most heinous
groups in history. Yet Americans have this massive blind spot to the war criminality of all
this that their country has committed against the peace of the world. Instead they're being
stampeded into some irrational Russia-phobia. It's the US that's been on the march
everywhere, labeling those countries that resist it's aggression as being aggressors for
being willing to defend themselves. It's all upside-down.
"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in
pursuit of politics."
I'd really like to know who wrote that line for the Prez. (Since I think it unlikely
that he wrote that, or any of his "prepared remarks".) Stephen Miller? Whoever. But it was a
genius comment.
TDS is a convenient shorthand for this form of disconnect from reality. That said it is
absolutely fascinating to see and puzzle over this geopolitical tectonic event. The old
narrative is crumbling, with the result that people like Lauri are fighting desperately to
preserve their "sanity", dependent as it is on their tribal submission to the old order and
its old narrative (its timeworn lies).
"Science advances one funeral at a time."
Max Planck
By which he means that people persist in believing in those "truths" (their belief system)
they have held for a lifetime. Only when they die out will a new, revised belief system
replaced the old. The same in geopolitics as in science.
American dementia is not new. It is current but after the false flags of almost all of our
(US) wars going back as far as the Barbary Pirates, Americans have thrived on being the good
guys in an evil world. We are SO GOOD, and the world thinks we are perfect and want to be
part of US so much, that any other thought is treasonous.
The fact that getting along with Russia is necessary to NOT create armageddon, is
irrelevant to the typical citizen because no matter how wrong, we are blessed and perfect in
the eyes of the gawd we pretend to believe in.
"... Their fundamental problem is, Aspen Institute is CIA. Their first and only instinct is to use people like toilet paper. They don't want popular support. They want agents in complete control. ..."
@Cagey
Beast Aspen Institute does make attempts at outreach, but they invariably cock it up by
eliciting, recruiting, or suborning every single person they bring in. The shitheads even
tried to do it to me. You would think they'd have a dossier saying I hate those cobags.
Their fundamental problem is, Aspen Institute is CIA. Their first and only instinct is
to use people like toilet paper. They don't want popular support. They want agents in
complete control.
Yes, the Aspen Institute is the CIA and the CIA is the Aspen Institute. Or, to be more
precise, the CIA is the armed wing of Washington's permanently governing technocratic party,
in the same way the KGB was the armed wing of the Soviet Communist Party.
Poor Julian Assange is likely going to be in their hands not too long from now. The
citizen of one Five Eyes country will be arrested by another and then sent off to the
imperial metropole, to be kicked around like a political football. The rest of us
Anglosphericals are expected to cheer or remain silent. Either is acceptable.
there is nothing at all mindless or demented about them
Me: Oh yes there is; by *them* I don't mean "Zuckerberg, others" but the actual
rulers of 'the West,' then see this:
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of
thistles?
Consider also:
Aspen Institute is CIA
and [perhaps most critically] this:
may depend on support for Trump from Israel and the Pentagon!
Now, I term the actual rulers of 'the West' the ccc = covert criminal cabal. Of course
they are in hiding -- acting from 'behind the curtain,' as some have it -- it has to be that
*dishonest* way -- for them. Among their most notable 'fruits' are the JFK murder, USS
Liberty outrage, inside-job 9/11 psyop and the utterly wicked destruction of Libya/Gaddafi,
just 4 of many. The extended list is looong, and note that the 1st 3 in my list demonstrate
the ccc 'murdering their own' -- except that to the ccc, anybody not actually in the ccc
itself is not 'their own' but only exploitable/disposable objects. Of course the ccc causes
lies to be promulgated, hence the Lügenpresse . Neoliberalism/austerity must also
come from the ccc, causing misery wherever it's forced upon us, we the people. One of the
spivs in suits who 'sold' neoliberalism to the Aus people called it 'economic rationalism'
and jeered: 'What would you rather -- irrational economics?' Another ccc modus
operandi item is coercion as demonstrated by the downstream effects of Downer's "Get a
briefing!" -- which shows us that the CIA et al. is a 'command conduit' if not a command
originator. What I'm trying to illustrate here is that the ccc does not merely operate like a
mafia, it *is* a mafia, and one of the author's "may depend on" items suggests a name for
this mafia, namely: Khazar. That's our miserable world, deliberately made that way by that
mafia; if that's not 'mindless and demented' what is? rgds
@MK-DELTABURKE
The Aspen Institute is CIA, but the CIA is an organization created and controlled by the
globalist conspirators at the Council on Foreign Relations, mostly the Rockefellers and other
banksters.
In my opinion, no dementia. Too many careers and institutions are built on continuing
hostility towards Russia. First ECB President Duisenberg's ph d thesis had as title 'The
economic consequences of peace', something like that, his conclusion was that
demilitarization was possible economically, when controlled sensibly.
Did anyone read 'The Iron Mountain Report', I never quite knew what to make of it, but it
also is about if demilitarization is possible. Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American
Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990 describes how the USA weapons industry skillfully
prevents that spending on useless weapons diminishes. The history of the later Roman empire,
the army in control.
"... This link, I believe, points into a very interesting direction. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-23/imperial-naivete-american-public I don't think that "naivete" is a correct word there. ..."
"... the American public naively assumes that their Imperial Project is so god-like in its powers and prowess that no other great power should be able to meddle in our domestic affairs and elections. ..."
.a public lulled into a warm and fuzzy sense of moral superiority based on the notion
that we only go to war to save the good and punish the evil, and if we meddle in other
nations' domestic affairs and elections, we're only doing so for their own good.
If we weren't a kindly, generous Empire, we'd let them go down the drain without trying
to set them straight.
Key expression " moral superiority "
There is more:
. the American public naively assumes that their Imperial Project is so god-like in
its powers and prowess that no other great power should be able to meddle in our domestic
affairs and elections.
there are no limits on our execution of power because we're morally superior
That is the key. That is what, deep in their hearts, Americans believe. We .are .better
than .anybody .else. So, blaming "them", media, whatever no no that's a copout. Weak one. The
crux is simple, eternal, hard wired: "I am better than you". "I can be homeless punk here,
but, I am better than YOU." Feels good. That's all.
May be not yet, but talks
talks are under way and hiring of former CIA officials commenced :-). What is coming is
going to make COINTELPRO
look like the work of some amateur meme-freak.
But, seriously, all that actually happened back in the Summer of 2016 was the global
capitalist ruling classes recognized that they had a problem. The problem that they
recognized they had (and continue to have, and are now acutely aware of) is that no one is
enjoying global capitalism except the global capitalist ruling classes. The whole
smiley-happy, supranational, neo-feudal corporate empire concept is not going over very well
with the masses, or at least not with the unwashed masses. People started voting for
right-wing parties, and Brexit, and other "populist" measures (not because they had suddenly
transformed into Nazis, but because the Right was acknowledging and exploiting their anger
with the advance of global neoliberalism, while liberals and the Identity Politics Left were
slow jamming the TPP
with Obama and babbling about transgender bathrooms, and such).
The global capitalist ruling classes needed to put a stop to that (i.e, the "populist"
revolt, not the bathroom debate). So they suspended the Global War on Terror and launched the
War on Populism. It was originally only meant to last until Hillary Clinton's coronation, or
the second Brexit referendum, then switch back to the War on Terror, but well, weird things
happen, and here we are.
... ... ...
And then there's the battle for hearts and minds, which they've been furiously waging for
the last two years, and which is only going to intensify. If you think things are batshit
crazy now (which, clearly, they are), strap yourself in. What is coming is going to make
COINTELPRO
look like the work of some amateur meme-freak. The neoliberal corporate media, psy-ops like
Integrity Initiative , Internet-censoring apps like
NewsGuard , ShareBlue and other
David Brock
outfits , and
a legion
of mass hysteria generators will be relentlessly barraging our brains with absurdity,
disinformation, and just outright lies (as will their counterparts on the Right, of course,
in case you thought that they were any alternative). It's going to get extremely zany.
"Kamala Harris: John Kelly Got Mad That I Called Him at Home About the Travel Ban"
by Gideon Resnick...01.08.19... 5:16 AM ET
"In the early days of President's Trump first term, when he signed an executive order to ban travel to the United States from
seven Muslim-majority nations, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) decided to get more information about the chaos occurring at airports
across the country.
"So I called [then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary] John Kelly," Harris writes in her new book, The Truths We Hold:
An American Journey.
Senators talking to Cabinet members is not rare, especially when it involves a pressing legal and political matter. But Harris
hadn't called Kelly at his office. She had dialed him at home. And the soon-to-be chief of staff was not exactly pleased.
"There were a lot of ways Secretary Kelly could have shown responsiveness, a lot of information he could have provided," Harris
writes. "Indeed the American people had a right to this information, and, given my oversight role on the Senate Homeland Security
Committee, I intended to get it. Instead, he said gruffly, "Why are you calling me at home with this?" That was his chief concern.
By the time we got off the phone, it was clear that he didn't understand the depth of what was going on. He said he'd get back
to me, but he never did."...
May be not yet, but talks
talks are under way and hiring of former CIA officials commenced :-). What is coming is
going to make COINTELPRO
look like the work of some amateur meme-freak.
But, seriously, all that actually happened back in the Summer of 2016 was the global
capitalist ruling classes recognized that they had a problem. The problem that they
recognized they had (and continue to have, and are now acutely aware of) is that no one is
enjoying global capitalism except the global capitalist ruling classes. The whole
smiley-happy, supranational, neo-feudal corporate empire concept is not going over very well
with the masses, or at least not with the unwashed masses. People started voting for
right-wing parties, and Brexit, and other "populist" measures (not because they had suddenly
transformed into Nazis, but because the Right was acknowledging and exploiting their anger
with the advance of global neoliberalism, while liberals and the Identity Politics Left were
slow jamming the TPP
with Obama and babbling about transgender bathrooms, and such).
The global capitalist ruling classes needed to put a stop to that (i.e, the "populist"
revolt, not the bathroom debate). So they suspended the Global War on Terror and launched the
War on Populism. It was originally only meant to last until Hillary Clinton's coronation, or
the second Brexit referendum, then switch back to the War on Terror, but well, weird things
happen, and here we are.
... ... ...
And then there's the battle for hearts and minds, which they've been furiously waging for
the last two years, and which is only going to intensify. If you think things are batshit
crazy now (which, clearly, they are), strap yourself in. What is coming is going to make
COINTELPRO
look like the work of some amateur meme-freak. The neoliberal corporate media, psy-ops like
Integrity Initiative , Internet-censoring apps like
NewsGuard , ShareBlue and other
David Brock
outfits , and
a legion
of mass hysteria generators will be relentlessly barraging our brains with absurdity,
disinformation, and just outright lies (as will their counterparts on the Right, of course,
in case you thought that they were any alternative). It's going to get extremely zany.
Any unbiased observer would suspect that considerable part of US Congress consists of senile
gerantocrats...
Notable quotes:
"... You can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery you have to be alive. ..."
"... They tricked us the last time, I hope that the people have learned their lesson – not to trust them anymore. ..."
"... Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous financial resources and access to the entire legacy media ..."
"... Let's stop using the word "elites". That sounds too positive, as though they have some admirable traits acquired by hard work, as in "elite athletes". Instead, let's call them "oligarchs" so that we get the right nuances of wealth and power, and get the correct emotional connotations of our disgust with them. We should label them with labels that they will dislike: oligarchs, mob bosses, etc. ..."
"... This is not irrational. The screaming, the hysteria, this is the utterly rational, breathtakingly brutal reaction of a ruling elite that has the moral sense of a reptile. And it's working. All of Trump's campaign promises to stop wasting trillions on pointless winless foreign wars of choice, and instead spend that on our own country? Gone. And so much else besides. ..."
"... It's dangerous to underestimate an enemy. The useful idiot foot soldiers, screaming in mindless herd instinct, are one thing. The people behind them – the Koch brothers, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, others – there is nothing at all mindless or demented about them. ..."
Where to begin to analyze the madness of mainstream media in reaction to the Trump-Putin
meeting in Helsinki? By focusing on the individual, psychology has neglected the problem of
mass insanity, which has now overwhelmed the United States establishment, its mass media and
most of its copycat European subsidiaries. The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are
ready to leap off the cliff.
For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of
power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of
institutional power – by creation of a myth. Mainstream media is known for its herd
behavior, and in this case the editors, commentators, journalists have talked themselves into a
story that initially they themselves could hardly take seriously.
Donald Trump was elected by Russia ?
On the face of it, this is preposterous. Okay, the United States can manage to rig elections
in Honduras, or Serbia, or even Ukraine, but the United States is a bit too big and complex to
leave the choice of the Presidency to a barrage of electronic messages totally unread by most
voters. If this were so, Russia wouldn't need to try to "undermine our democracy". It would
mean that our democracy was already undermined, in tatters, dead. A standing corpse ready to be
knocked over by a tweet.
Even if, as is alleged without evidence, an army of Russian bots (even bigger than the
notorious Israeli army of bots) was besieging social media with its nefarious slanders against
poor innocent Hillary Clinton, this could determine an election only in a vacuum, with no other
influences in the field. But there was a lot of other stuff going on in the 2016 election, some
for Trump and some for Hillary, and Hillary herself scored a crucial own goal by denigrating
millions of Americans as "deplorables" because they didn't fit into her identity politics
constituencies.
The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of
evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so
much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi,
the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the
hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus,
perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things.
When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on
Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much
more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those
"revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working
against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious.
So at worst, "the Russians" are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning
the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal.
But that is enough, after two years of fakery, to send the establishment into a frenzy of
accusations of "treason" when Trump does what he said he would do while campaigning, try to
normalize relations with Russia.
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite
which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the
American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations. They
have based their careers on the illusion of sharing the world empire by following U.S. whims in
the Middle East and transforming the mission of their armed forces from defense into foreign
intervention units of NATO under U.S. command. Having not thought seriously about the
implications of this for over half a century, they panic at the suggestion of being left to
themselves.
The Western elite is now suffering from self-inflicted dementia.
Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small
repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even
brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the "findings" of
US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies "found" that Iraq was bursting
with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else?
But for the mainstream media, "the story" at the Helsinki summit, even the only
story, was Trump's reaction to the, er, trumped up charges of Russian interference in our
democracy. Were you or were you not elected thanks to Russian hackers? All they wanted was a
yes or no answer. Which could not possibly be yes. So they could write their reports in
advance.
Anyone who has frequented mainstream journalists, especially those who cover the "big
stories" on international affairs, is aware of their obligatory conformism, with few
exceptions. To get the job, one must have important "sources", meaning government spokesmen who
are willing to tell you what "the story" is, often without being identified. Once they know
what "the story" is, competition sets in: competition as to how to tell it. That leads to an
escalation of rhetoric, variations on the theme: "The President has betrayed our great country
to the Russian enemy. Treason!"
This demented chorus on "Russian hacking" prevented mainstream media from even doing their
job. Not even mentioning, much less analyzing, any of the real issues at the summit. To find
analysis, one must go on line, away from the official fake news to independent reporting. For
example, "the Moon of Alabama" site offers
an intelligent interpretation of the Trump strategy , which sounds infinitely more
plausible than "the story". In short, Trump is trying to woo Russia away from China, in a
reverse version of Kissinger's strategy forty years ago to woo China away from Russia, thus
avoiding a continental alliance against the United States. This may not work because the United
States has proven so untrustworthy that the cautious Russians are highly unlikely to abandon
their alliance with China for shadows. But it makes perfect sense as an explanation of Trump's
policy, unlike the caterwauling we've been hearing from Senators and talking heads on CNN.
Those people seem to have no idea of what diplomacy is about. They cannot conceive of
agreements that would be beneficial to both sides. No, it's got to be a zero sum game, winner
take all. If they win, we lose, and vice versa.
They also have no idea of the harm to both sides if they do not agree. They have no project,
no strategy. Just hate Trump.
He seems totally isolated, and every morning I look at the news to see if he has been
assassinated yet.
It is unimaginable for our Manichean moralists that Putin might also be under fire at home
for failing to chide the American president for U.S. violations of human rights in Guantanamo,
murderous drone strikes against defenseless citizens throughout the Middle East, the
destruction of Libya in violation of the UN mandate, interference in the elections of countless
countries by government-financed "non-governmental organizations" (the National Endowment of
Democracy), worldwide electronic spying, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the
world's greatest prison population and regular massacres of school children. But the diplomatic
Russians know how to be polite.
Still, if Trump actually makes a "deal", there may be losers – neither the U.S. nor
Russia but third parties. When two great powers reach agreement, it is often at somebody else's
expense. The West Europeans are afraid it will be them, but such fears are groundless. All
Putin wants is normal relations with the West, which is not much to ask.
Rather, candidate number one for paying the price are the Palestinians, or even Iran, in
marginal ways. At the press conference, asked about possible areas of cooperation between the
two nuclear powers, Trump suggested that the two could agree on helping Israel:
"We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would like to do certain things with respect to
Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like to
work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work
jointly."
In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the influence
of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising influence of
Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he does not have
much choice.
On another subject, Trump said that "our militaries" get along with the Russians "better
than our politicians". This is another daring bet, on military realism that could somehow
neutralize military industrial congressional complex lobbying for more and more weapons.
In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from
Israel and the Pentagon!
The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility –
and perhaps this one too.
"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open
new pathways toward peace and stability in our world" Trump declared "I would rather take a
political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
That is more than his political enemies can claim.
This is a frightening, accurate commentary on what we face as a result of an unaccountable
power structure resorting to any and all means to retain power which, if this structure
continues to exercise it, will lead to our extinction.
In the establishment, it's not dementia as such, it's just serving the highest bidder. You
can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery
you have to be alive. If only they die, it would be a great service to the humanity.
Unfortunately, the way things go, they might take us all with them.
This mass hysteria over a country hostile to both democracy and gay rights (it's hard to tell
which one is worse) has been seen in the west before.
It's very reminiscent of the lead-up to Iraq war in 2003. I mean what's next? Are they
gonna accuse Russia of having WMD's too?
They are pretty good at providing false evidence of WMD's, I wouldn't be surprised if they
stage another presentation of evidence of Russian WMD's at UN, complete with satellite images
of mobile trucks equipped with Uranium enrichment technology and all that.
That Nikki Halley can be quite persuasive, you know. I just hope that the world doesn't
buy that BS again. Russia having WMD's? That's preposterous. They tricked us the last time, I
hope that the people have learned their lesson – not to trust them anymore.
Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too
just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous
financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real
base of support. Remember how the Never Trumpers had no one more prominent and well-known
than Evan McMullan (!!) to run as their candidate? Note too the tiny number of views the
YouTube videos of the Aspen Institute get: https://www.youtube.com/user/AspenInstitute/videos
.
On its own, these things aren't conclusive proof but together they add up. The Aspen
Institute crowd is an almost entirely self-contained subculture. They seem to have no base of
support, beyond their stacks of money, job titles and the power that come with the various
offices they hold. That's probably why they can never stop calling their opponents
"populists" or why Bill Kristol keeps tweeting about encountering scrappy shoeshine boys who
shout "give Trump hell, Mr Kristol!" as he goes about his urban peregrinations.
Diana Johnstone is not alone. Others on the alt-Left are starting to wake up, too. This is
Joaquín Flores:
People are seeing through dishonesty, and the old language traps are used up and done
for. If reconquista is the goal, then we need to have an honest conversation about that. If
there's a Latino nation with self determination in the south-west US, or rights 'back' to
the south-west US, then let's speak of it in such terms. Because then we'd be looking at a
Euro-American nation also. Now of course there's issues of interpenetrated peoples, and
identities we carry in our minds in diverse urban centers. But the point here is that we
have to have an honest discourse, and stop hiding reconquista sentiments under the rubric
of 'human rights'. Because European-Americans don't have right of return to Europe, so the
left is promoting what will ultimately be a race war, full scale, if they don't chill the
fuck out and back off this disingenuous approach to policy-wonkism on immigration.
The paradigmatic question today is, how is wealth made, and where does wealth come from?
What is the balance of trade and debts, and how is that is no longer manageable? The US
empire and NATO is no longer manageable. Trump is unwinding NATO. That can't be a bad
thing.
@AnonFromTNLet's stop using the word "elites". That sounds too positive, as though they have some
admirable traits acquired by hard work, as in "elite athletes". Instead, let's call them
"oligarchs" so that we get the right nuances of wealth and power, and get the correct
emotional connotations of our disgust with them. We should label them with labels that they
will dislike: oligarchs, mob bosses, etc.
@Tulips
You are right, of course, the word "elites" has too many positive connotations. In fact, they
are oligarchs, mega-thieves, or something on those lines. Functionally, in our society they
are puppet masters of all the venal puppets (politicians, journos, etc.).
I hear you, and I sympathize, but this is not mass dementia.
The oligarchy that runs the United States was worried that Donald Trump might actually
(!!) take some consideration for the national interest of the people of the United States of
America. That will never do.
This is not irrational. The screaming, the hysteria, this is the utterly rational,
breathtakingly brutal reaction of a ruling elite that has the moral sense of a reptile. And
it's working. All of Trump's campaign promises to stop wasting trillions on pointless winless
foreign wars of choice, and instead spend that on our own country? Gone. And so much else
besides.
It's dangerous to underestimate an enemy. The useful idiot foot soldiers, screaming in
mindless herd instinct, are one thing. The people behind them – the Koch brothers, Jeff
Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, others – there is nothing at all mindless or demented about
them.
Having a title "Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment" and approaching this effort as
"mass insanity", "demented chorus" etc. is simply delusional.
They know exactly what they are doing and, it appears, they are doing it well.
The are able to create their own reality. What puzzles me a bit isn't "them" or their servants (media etc.).
It's people in general. They appear to be buying that manufactured reality with ease. In this
era of instant communications it's .sobering. This constant shitting on "them" and their servants is fine and dandy but feels as just a
feel good exercise.
Perhaps some effort could be spared in trying to analyze and explain common people approach
to all this. The buying, hook and sinker, that manufacture.
Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how false
all that is. And, yet, here we are.
The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online can't,
for SOME reason, figure all that out.
Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever.
Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general.
@Daniel
Rich The Russians are by nature cautious. They are a conglomerate of individuals, many of
whom remember times when they would be sent by communist tyrants to a gulag for Wrongthink.
Of course they're cautious.
How Hillary Clinton could even run for presidency after the murder of Moammer Gaddafi and
Libya destruction, in any decent civilisation and society.
That's planetary shame and the most important question, not DNC hack or anything else, which
just trace in wrong direction.
So, Trump should grow some balls and arrest not just her but Barack Obama as well on the
same charges, as war criminals as they are, and prove that he really deserves to be
trusted.
And sacrifice himself in the process if needed as that would do any honest true US president,
and he knew what to expect from such position from the start.
It's not TV reality show, as still it is.
All he cares about is his ego and popularity, and he is loosing both.
Israel lobby finally see that they put their money in the wrong bank.
I intend to believe more that West, namely USA and UK the most, keeps them more hostage in
uncertainty for decades than in some Jewish conspiracy. Also, I also believe that only Russia can guaranty Israel security and peace in the
region.
In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the
influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising
influence of Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he
does not have much choice.
Saudi Arabia spent 40 billion dollars helping Saddam's Iraq in its war against Iran, the
cost of US efforts in the Syria civil war have largely been met by the Saudis. The coming
attack on Iran will be as much to please the Saudis as to lock Israel into West Bank Arab
expulsion mode. The Israel Lobby will is not pushing Donald Trump, they are playing catch up
with him. Trump has already shown with the Jerusalem recognition that he is encouraging
Israel in unilateral courses of action.
@TG
No, I agree with the assessment in this article and its title: the establishment is
dangerously detached from reality right now. Our stagnant and locked-down political culture
in the West allowed the "elite" to develop a false sense of security and and certainty. They
thought they had things pretty much figured out a few years ago but now they're genuinely
panicked.
Looking to this circus from Russia, to those insane speaches, insulting caricatures in MSM, I
understand the huge amount of rotteness of Western society, mainly its high top part, but not
only. Even here in comments (not in this particularly article) the percentage of trolls and
brainwashed idiots exceeds all I could've imagined. So I stopped writing here – no
sense, I beleive that something can change only after the dramatic changes in US/West society
and that is possible only after a big war/revolution.
So, I'm afraid our future is vague
"... As it happens, neocons are in luck. Most Americans know little of the ideas that animated their country's founding. They're more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the classical-liberal philosophy of the Founders, and, hence, wish to see the aggrandizement of the coercive, colossal, Warfare State. That's just the way things are. ..."
"... If past is prologue, Ron Paul is probably right when he says the CIA is likely meddling in Iranian politics. ..."
"... Then US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, a woman as dumb and dangerous as Nikki Haley, was cool with the carnage. (One almost misses Henry Kissinger's realpolitik . At least the man was highly educated and deeply knowledgeable about history and world affairs. Second only to Jared Kushner, of course.) ..."
"... No one would deny the largely neoconservative nature of Trump's National Security Strategy . Tucked in there somewhere is the Trumpian theme of "sovereignty," but in watered-down words. The promised Wall has given way to "multilayered technology"; to the "deployment of additional personnel," and to the tried-and-tested (not!) "vetting of prospective immigrants, refugees, and other foreign visitors." ..."
"... These are mouthfuls Barack Obama and Genghis Bush would hardly oppose. ..."
"... "It's often said that the Trump administration is 'isolationist,'" wrote historian Andrew J. Bacevich, in the UK Spectator. Untrue. "In fact, we are now witnessing a dramatic escalation in the militarization of US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan. This has not been announced, but it is happening, and much of it without any debate in Congress or the media." ..."
"... To some, the normalizing of neoconservatism by a president who ran against it is a stroke of genius; of a piece with Bill Clinton's triangulation tactics. To others, it's a cynical sleight of hand. ..."
"... So Trump did morph into Hillary. Actually, it was something I was afraid of once I got the good news of Hillary losing, but expected, considering that I view presidents as empty suits, and the National Security State calling the shots. ..."
"... The Trump holdouts that maintain his turncoat buffoonery is actually 5d chess are the 2018 equivalent of the 2009 hopey changey Obots and can't accept their big daddy is a liar and a spineless turncoat. The system is broken and cannot be fixed from within. ..."
"... The signs were already there before the election, too many people were hoping that this time it will be different (it never is) and ignored them. He has jewish children and did say how he was anti Iran, he was always a neo cohen servative. ..."
"... I'm a little more sanguine about a Zionist President who approaches problems from a business and deal-making position than from one who comes a neocon political position (e.g., Hillary, every other GOP candidate except Rand Paul). The former are pragmatic and will avoid conflict, especially stupid conflict, at all costs. While the latter believe they are virtuous in going to war and/or attacking countries. Did you hear Hillary threaten to shoot down Russian planes in Syria during the campaign (WTF??!). ..."
It's fact: Neoconservatives are pleased with President Trump's foreign policy.
A couple of months back, Bloomberg's Eli Lake let it know he was in neoconservative
nirvana:
" for Venezuela, [Donald Trump] came very close to calling for regime change. 'The United
States has taken important steps to hold the regime accountable,' Trump said. 'We are prepared
to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose
authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.'"
"For a moment,"
swooned Lake , "I closed my eyes and thought I was listening to a Weekly Standard
editorial meeting."
Onward to Venezuela! Mr. Lake, a neoconservative, was loving every moment. In error, he and his kind confuse an
expansionist foreign policy with "American exceptionalism." It's not.
As it happens, neocons are in luck. Most Americans know little of the ideas that animated
their country's founding. They're more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the
classical-liberal philosophy of the Founders, and, hence, wish to see the aggrandizement of the
coercive, colossal, Warfare State. That's just the way things are.
So, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have enlisted the West in "a proxy Sunni-Shia
religious war," Riyadh's ultimate aim. Donald Trump has been perfectly willing to partake. After a campaign of "America First," the president sided with Sunni Islam while demonizing
Iran. Iranians have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks in the US between
1975-2015; Saudi Arabians
murdered 2369 !
Iranians recently reelected a reformer. Pray tell who elected the Gulf petrostate
sheiks?
Moderates danced in the streets of Tehran when President Hassan Rouhani was reelected.
Curiously, they're currently rioting.
If past is prologue, Ron Paul is probably right when he says the CIA is likely meddling in
Iranian politics. For the Left and the pseudo-Right, this is a look-away issue. As the
left-liberal establishment lectures daily, to question the Central Intelligence Agency -- its
spooks are also agitating against all vestiges of President Trump's original "America First"
plank -- is to "undermine American democracy."
Besides, "good" Americans know that only the Russians "meddle."
In Saudi Arabia, a new, more-dangerous regime is consolidating regional power. Almost
overnight has the kingdom shifted from rule by family dynasty (like that of the Clintons and
the Bushes), to a more authoritarian style of one-man
rule .
When it comes to the Saudi-Israeli-American-Axis-of-Angels, the Kushner-Trump Administration
-- is that another bloodline in-the-making? -- has not broken with America's ruling dynastic
families (the Clintons and the Bushes, aforementioned).
It's comforting to know Saudi Arabia plays a crucial role in the UN's human rights affairs.
In January of last year, the Kingdom executed 47 people in one day, including a rather benign
Shiite cleric. Fear not, they went quickly,
beheaded with a sword .
Then US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, a woman as dumb and dangerous as Nikki Haley,
was cool with the carnage. (One almost misses Henry Kissinger's realpolitik . At
least the man was highly educated and deeply knowledgeable about history and world
affairs. Second only to Jared Kushner, of course.)
Our bosom buddies, the Saudi's, are currently
barricading Yemeni ports. No aid gets through her hermetically sealed ports. Yemenis are
dying. Some Twitter followers twittered with joy at the sight of starving Yemeni babies, like
this
one . Oh well, Yemeni babies can be sinister.
No one would deny the largely neoconservative nature of
Trump's National Security Strategy . Tucked in there somewhere is the Trumpian theme of
"sovereignty," but in watered-down words. The promised Wall has given way to "multilayered
technology"; to the "deployment of additional personnel," and to the tried-and-tested (not!)
"vetting of prospective immigrants, refugees, and other foreign visitors."
These are mouthfuls Barack Obama and Genghis Bush would hardly oppose.
"It's often said that the Trump administration is 'isolationist,'" wrote
historian Andrew J. Bacevich, in the UK Spectator. Untrue. "In fact, we are now witnessing a
dramatic escalation in the militarization of US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and
Afghanistan. This has not been announced, but it is happening, and much of it without any
debate in Congress or the media."
Indeed, while outlining his "new" Afghanistan plan, POTUS had conceded that "the American
people are weary of war without victory." (Make that war, full-stop.) Depressingly, the
president went on to promise an increase in American presence in Afghanistan. By sending 4000
additional soldiers there, President Trump alleged he was fighting terrorism, yet not
undertaking nation building.
This is tantamount to talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
Teasing apart these two elements is near-impossible. Send "4,000 additional soldiers to add
to the 8,400 now deployed in Afghanistan," and you've done what Obama and Bush before you did
in that blighted and benighted region: muddle along; kill some civilians mixed in with some bad
guys; break bread with tribal leaders (who hate your guts); mediate and bribe.
Above all, spend billions not your own to perfect the credo of a global fighting
force that doesn't know Shiite from Shinola .
The upshot? It's quite acceptable, on the Left and the pseudo-Right, to casually quip about
troops in Niger and
Norway . "We have soldiers in Niger and Norway? Of course we do. We need them."
With neoconservatism normalized, there is no debate, disagreement or daylight between our
dangerously united political factions.
This is the gift President Trump has given mainstream neoconservatives -- who now
comfortably include neoliberals and all Conservatism Inc., with the exceptions of Pat Buchanan,
Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson.
How exactly did the president normalize neoconservatism: In 2016, liberals accused candidate
Trump of isolationism. Neoconservatives -- aka Conservatism Inc. -- did the same.
Having consistently complained of his isolationism , the Left and the phony Right
cannot but sanction President Trump's interventionism . The other option is to admit
that we of the callused
Old Right, who rejoiced at the prospects and promise of non-interventionism, were always
right.
Not going to happen.
To some, the normalizing of neoconservatism by a president who ran against it is a stroke of
genius; of a piece with Bill Clinton's triangulation tactics. To others, it's a cynical sleight
of hand.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but
you cannot fool all the people all the time.
But you can fool the whole country all the time in American bi-partisan system. Clinton,
Bush, Obama, Trump each were brought to power by fooling their electorate.
So Trump did morph into Hillary.
Actually, it was something I was afraid of once I got the good news of Hillary losing, but
expected, considering that I view presidents as empty suits, and the National Security State
calling the shots.
I'm waiting for another one of those "Trump's Truth in Action" moments when describes the
real political atmosphere in Washington.
Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: "When you give, they do
whatever the hell you want them to do." "You'd better believe it," Trump said. "If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of
the people on this stage I've given to, just so you understand, a lot of money."
I think its time to dump the label "neoconservative". The appropriate term is
"interventionists without a cause" (IWAC or IWC) or some other descriptor.
The real problem that Pres Trump has and I remain a Pres Trump supporter is two fold:
1. He seems to have forgotten he won the election.
2. He seems to have forgotten what he was elected to do.
And nearly everyone of these issues on foreign policy the answer rests in respecting
sovereignty – that of others and our own.
I didn't need to read,"Adios, America" to comprehend the deep state damage our careless
immigration policy has on the country. I don't need to reread, "Adios, America" to grasp that
our policies of intervening in the affairs of other states undermines our own ability to make
the same case at home.
If I weren't already trying to plow my way through several other books, documentaries and
relapsing to old school programming such as The Twilight Zone, Star Trek, and now the Dick
Van Dyke show, i would reread,
"Adios , America."
In Col. Bacevich's book,
Washington Rules, he posits a distressing scenario that the foreign policy web is so
tangled and entrenched, the executive branch is simply out his league. The expectation was
that Pres trump had the will to turn the matter. I hold out hope, but maybe not. There's
time.
@J.RossThe Trump holdouts that maintain his turncoat buffoonery is actually 5d chess are the 2018
equivalent of the 2009 hopey changey Obots and can't accept their big daddy is a liar and a
spineless turncoat. The system is broken and cannot be fixed from within.
The signs were already there before the election, too many people were hoping that this time
it will be different (it never is) and ignored them. He has jewish children and did say how
he was anti Iran, he was always a neo cohen servative.
I have a question for all the Trump supporters still in denial, what will it take to break
your delusions? He is not going to build a wall, mass immigration is up, the left wing are
mass censoring and essentially running everything now, his foreign policy is now endorsed by
the all the never Trumpers – so what is your limit, is there anything he must do to
lose your support?
Jews and the Jewish Media normalized Jewish NeoCons by guaranteeing that they always
have a voice and airtime in American culture and media. Never called out by the
WashingtonPost and NY Times for their previous blunders, they continue to shape American
foreign policy. And, of course, the end game here is Israel and the Israeli agenda at all
costs, you Jews are one issue folk. And You definitely do your part, with the subtle
subterfuge at work in the articles that you write.
No one should be surprised by Trump promoting Israeli interests über alles. For
decades he was so involved in Israel events in New York I debated whether he was actually
Jewish or not. Bannon said the embassy move to Jerusalem was at the behest of Adelson,
Trump's old casino buddy. In the campaign Trump got a lot of support from NY Jewish
billionaires (Icahn, Feinberg, Paulson, et al.). They know him and how he operates.
But being pro-Israel doesn't necessarily equate to neocon. The neocons are the dumb Jews
with serious inadequacy issues who could never make it in business and instead went into
politics and journalism. The latter are still staunchly opposed to Trump even after a lot of
pro-Israel moves. They might warm up to Trump's bellicosity towards a lot of Israel's enemies
(a long list with degrees of separation), but so far they've simply moved left.
I'm a little more sanguine about a Zionist President who approaches problems from a
business and deal-making position than from one who comes a neocon political position (e.g.,
Hillary, every other GOP candidate except Rand Paul). The former are pragmatic and will avoid
conflict, especially stupid conflict, at all costs. While the latter believe they are
virtuous in going to war and/or attacking countries. Did you hear Hillary threaten to shoot
down Russian planes in Syria during the campaign (WTF??!).
Lastly, I like to think Trump surrounded himself with neocons (McMaster, Haley, et al.) to
placate the GOP establishment because he knows he has to play the game.
People are inclined to believe that any activity -- in this instance, voting for the
red/blue puppets in Washington -- in which their participation is patronized must be
legitimate and effectual. Many duped in November 2016, even those who now feel betrayed by
that farce, were still around here a few weeks ago acting like a Senator Moore in Alabama
would be pivotal to reform, his defeat devastating.
That's how Ms. Mercer and her pundit ilk
(Buchanan, Napolitano, etc.) thrive -- supporting the Empire by never questioning its
legitimacy, just taking sides within the Establishment. And they'll be buying into the 2018
congressional contests, ad nauseum.
Of course, what is done to us, and to others in our name and with our money, never changes
to any meaningful degree. Americans might realize this if they thought critically about it,
so they don't. Instead, they lap up the BS and vote for who tells them the lie they like to
hear. When there are identity politics involved, the delusion seems even deeper. There are
self-styled "progressives" who used to advocate single-payer, nationalized health care who
are elated over the retention of so-called "Obamacare," the legislation for which was written
by and for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Me? I cope by boycotting national elections and mass media, participating in forums like
this, and hoping that when the tottering tower of debt and gore tips over, as few innocents
and as many guilty as practicable are among those crushed.
The Zionist neocons and Israel did 911 and got away with it and everyone in the U.S. gov
knows it and they tried to sink the USS LIBERTY and got away with it and so normal is an
Orwellian society where Zionists can kill Americans and destroy the Mideast and nobody does
jack shit about it.
The neocons are Satanists warmongers and will destroy America.
Neocons are about as evil as proudly proclaimed Leftists, and they are obviously more
duplicitous.
Either Neocons will be refuted and publicly rebuked and rejected, or Neocons will
eventually destroy the country. Their long term fruits are destruction of that which they
have used to destroy so many others.
@anonymous
Far from all Neocons are Jews. However, virtually all Neocons are militantly pro-Israel to
the point of making Israel's foreign policy desires central to their assessment of what
America needs in foreign policy.
And the source is Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy
necessarily produces pro-Jewish culture. WASP culture is inherently pro-Jewish, as much as it
is anti-Catholic and anti-French and and anti-Spanish and anti-Irish, etc.
And all that means that WASP is opposed to the nest interests of the vast majority of
white Christians while being pro-Jewish.
Jews did not cause any of that. Anglo-Saxon Puritan heretics did.
@neutral
Pres Trump is a situational leader. It's a rare style, for good reason. However, he is openly
situational. That was clear during the campaign season. however,
I thought his positions were sincere. I don't think that this was any kind of slight of
hand, "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat". His positions on Israel, same sex behavior,
marijuana, healthcare remain what they were going in. His foreign policy and immigration
positions have been buffered and he seems incapable of standing where he came in.
It was no secret he intended an assertive military. However, he seems easily convinced
that strong means aggressive, and that needlessly aggressive policy is a substitute for a
strong US -- that is a mistake. Syria cruise strike was the first sign that he was giving in
to the men whom he chose as advisers. As it it turns out winning the election has been easier
than governing. I assumed he had a much stronger backbone, than he has been willing to
exhibit in office.
@Jake
The Israeli/AIPAC bribery of American bible thumper preachers, especially in the
fundamentalist southern American states has more to do with it than the reformation.
The preachers get huge donations to pay for their churches and TV shows. They get free
trips to Israel for themselves and their families all the time.
On their Israel trips they pay more attention to the OT Jewish and holocaust sites than
the Christian ones
It's true that the reformation was a return to Judaism and a rejection of Christianity,
but that was 500 years ago.
What's important now is the vast amounts of money the Israeli government and the lobby
funnels into those fundamentalist churches.
If the southern fundamentalists only knew what Jews think of them. I really got an earful
of Jewish scorn and hate for southerners and fundamentalists during the recent Roy Moore
election.
Read Jewish publications if you want to learn what they think of southern
fundamentalists
@Twodees
Partain Trump appointed Haley because Sheldon Adelson told him to.
And contrary to the myth of trump funding his own campaign he did not the only money he put
in his campaign was a 1o million loan to it. Adelson was his biggest contributor just like
Saban was Hillary's.
Not coincidentally, however, neocon hopes may lie as well with the generous political
funding provided to Haley by Sheldon Adelson, the GOP's and Trump's single biggest donor.
Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political
organization, A Great Day, funds that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals
in primaries. (Only one was successfully defeated.) Adelson was the largest contributor to
her group,
which raised a total of $915,000.
This powerful Adelson-funded Israel lobby could soon rival AIPAC's https://www.haaretz.com › U.S.
News
Oct 31, 2017 – Sheldon Adelson(L), The 3rd annual IAC National Conference, in
September, 2016, and Nikki Haley. . will feature, for the first time ever, a prominent
speaker from the ranks of the U.S. government: U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, who is
a favorite among the right-leaning "pro-Israel" crowd.
The Jews have bought this government and trump and Haley are nothing but junk yard
dogs.
Not that there are good alternatives but anyone who stills supports trump is as crazy as he
is.
The title is ridiculous. Neo conservatives have been normal for decades.
The neocon movement was normalized in 2001 by the PATRIOT Act. The domestic side of the
neocon worldview -- or world-system -- was joined with the international or interventionist
side, just as anti-Palestinian actions by Israel were joined by way of repression of free
speech with the Charlottesville protest by conservatives of the desecration of monuments.
@renfro
I'm sure the evangelical preachers con their followers into donating money to Israel. I've
seen those late night ads begging for donations to feed ancient old holocaust survivors in
Israel.
But the Israelis pay for all those luxury trips to Israel And a lot of the money to start
those TV shows and for the big salaries come from Israel and AIPAC so does the money to set
up those big churches that just appear from nowhere
@Grandpa
Charlie I have always wondered why its okay to say WASP but not Jew in public.
One is more pc, the other is not allowed.
I have seen some articles about Jews replacing wasp, even from Jewish authors.
As for Neoconservatives. It depends how we define it.
I see it as a case of American imperialism fused with pro Israel sentiment. Large overlap,
but not always.
From what I know modern Neoconservativism started somewhere around the 70s,80s? Became
dominant around the Bush years. (during Reagan years they got rid of many Paleocons).
@Twodees
Partain Not only Nikki is a prank, she is also a godsend. Now the world get to see USG
naked without usual pretension.
Trumps is probably the most honest Potus with highest integrity & bravery in American
history(stupid aside). He means what he said without mind boggling hypocrite lies, he tried
fulfilling all his election promises, fighting bravely with his only little weapon tweeter
besiege by entire states organs, CIA/FBI, both parties, MSM, world allies,
He put US Embassy in Jerusalem that all other Potus promised but never keep, he tried to
revise immigration policy that people blocked, building prototype wall now, try befriend
Russia become a treason act, reneged nuclear agreement with Iran, make US military great(of
course need hyper tension like nuclear NK), scraped Obacare, TTP, Climate deal, try to grab
Killary, bring back jobs with tax heaven .
Mann, this is really a man of his word. Didn't these are what you people voted him for, to
drain the swamp? He gotta shock the entire MSM brainwashed nation up to see the deeply
corrupted USG, collapse it quickly for a new one to move in(by whoever after his prank). As
Trumps had asked:"what you got to lose to vote me?"
@Twodees
Partain Yes..ues i admit, don't shoot. Im just been sarcastic, USG is in such a laughing
stock to the world now, many americans probably are exasperated if not yet numb. I am not
judging he is good, DT is just less evil typical business man..imo
But frankly, i do see why people are voting DT now. He is at least more entertaining and
blunt to screw up WH deep states show. Per msm (fake news), he is honouring all his campaign
promises rt? So that make him above hypocrite liar Obama who speak on peace(Nobel prize), but
drenched in Libyan and Syrians blood.
US msm brainwashed people need lot of shock & awe to wake up to reality, then they
might have hope to drain the swamp in unity or just await to implode and suck down whole
world.
Believing that the current world system no longer sufficiently advances American
interests ever since Washington lost control of its institutional tools, and that the
eventual outcome of this increasingly multipolar state of affairs is that the US will in
turn lose its global empire, Trump has decided to become the Agent of Chaos in bringing
about its destruction.
I know with certainty that Hillary is a beast from depth of hell.
Meh, hyperbole.
Hillary is no different from most politicians. She's in it for the wealth and power. She
got herself a real smart, duplicitous, pussy-chasing beast of a husband, and made the most of
the opportunity.
People -- the American people -- should be able to see this rather-evident characteristic
of politicians. They should be adequately educated, at least to the extent of being able to
detect the base chicanery and corruption that radiates from political personalities.
But, they don't. They don't see the evil. The media deftly conceals it, because the beasts
of the media, like jackals, feed on the morsels of wealth that fall to the ground as the
politicians devour the carcass of well, hell, freedom and democracy is as useful a metaphor
as any.
In this context, I am reminded of British comedian Alexei Sayle. When asked what he does
when he watches a really talented satirist performing, Sayle replied: "I go back stage and
tell him he'll never make it."
Indeed, the attitude to my work over 20 years has been the best proof of its quality.
If the Comments threads about "ilana mercer," on the Unz Review, prove anything (other
than that anti-Semitism lives), it is that mediocre "men" (for the most) hate a woman who can
out-think them. As a defender of men, this saddens me, but it is, nevertheless, true.
Ron Unz, our wonderful editor, chose the image appended to the column. (The brilliant Mr.
Unz is one of the few intellectually honest individuals I know in this biz. He, columnist
Jack Kerwick, and a handful of others.)
In reply to kunckle-dragger's sniveling: I'll continue to refrain from interacting with
his ilk ("fanboys") on my column's thread. But this particular dreadful cur (with apologies
to dogs, which I love) further embarrasses himself when he offers up the non sequitur that
engaging him is the litmus test for being a "good writer."
I see it as a case of American imperialism fused with pro Israel sentiment. Large
overlap, but not always.
Agreed. American imperialism has a long long history (going back to at least the mid-19th
century). That's why the neocons were able to gain so much influence. They were appealing to
a pre-existing imperialist sentiment.
There is a large group of US politician non Jews
who also are pushing this policies. So these two groups together would be called
Neocons.
There is a large group in US population, that find this idea very appealing.
That's why Make America Great Again was such a popular slogan. It appeals to mindless
American jingoism and imperialism.
@dfordoom
Edward Dutton stated that it was a trade-off between intelligence on one side and instinct on
another – both are necessary for survival. For me, intelligence does not seem to
correlate directly to wisdom.
If so, that reinforces my view that Trump doesn't know anybody in the Swamp
You are exactly right.
Trump really knew no one to hire or appoint to anything except his NY cronies , mainly his
Jewish lawyers and Kushner contacts.
So he appointed anyone they and his biggest donors recommended to him.
His ego and insecurity demanded he surround himself with his NY cohorts and close family.
" It appeals to mindless American jingoism and imperialism" = "Make America great
again"
So you would prefer : "Make America powerless and insignificant again"
How about "Make America a normal nation that respects other nations' sovereignty, that
doesn't plant military bases on foreign soil, that doesn't bomb other people's countries,
doesn't try to impose its views and its culture on the rest of the world, doesn't undermine
the governments of other countries and doesn't threaten any country that dares to disagree
with it." Would that be too much to ask?
I would have thought that someone "Mensa" qualified since 1973 could understand that
greatness should not be equated with behaving like a thug or a schoolyard bully. America's
aggression does tend to look like the manifestation of a massive inferiority complex.
I commend Ms. Mercer for publishing this which will no doubt bring to light an ugly truth
about many of her own tribesmen since there many of her other views which I wholly or
partially disagree with
And as was said sometime before, the thought process of earlier elites (the banking,
Hollywood and the neo-con, neo-lib crowd which was almost exclusively Zio-Jewish and is
disproportionately still is) has creeped into the very being of what constitutes to be an
"elite" in the west these days. Unlimited warfare and welfare using fraudulent money,
disturbing the social and sexual fabric of a society! Satan would be quite proud of this scum
bunch
So the zionist cabal still calls the shots and the slavish goyim second tier elites now
willingly go along and in fact share the same mentality
Clinton Democrats (DemoRats) are so close to neocons that the current re-alliance is only natural and only partially caused by
Trump. Under Obama some of leading figures of his administration were undistinguishable from neocons (Samantha Power is a good
example here -- she was as crazy as Niki Haley, if not more). There is only one "war party in the USA which
continently consists of two wings: Repugs and DemoRats.
Notable quotes:
"... Both GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton , who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror jargon. ..."
"... That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's way" ..."
"... But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent. ..."
"... This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan ..."
"... While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining ..."
"... At the same time, Democratic policy elites in Washington are once again formally aligning with neoconservatives , even to the point of creating joint foreign policy advocacy groups (a reunion that predated Trump ). The leading Democratic Party think tank, the Center for American Progress, donated $200,000 to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and has multilevel alliances with warmongering institutions. ..."
"... By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet, MSNBC, is stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a "national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism"). ..."
"... All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation -- which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way. ..."
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the
anti-war wings of bothparties , but largely provoked
bipartisan outrage among in Washington's reflexively pro-war establishment.
Both
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary
Clinton, who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient
hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror
jargon.
But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from
Morning Consult/Politico shows that a large plurality of Americans support Trump's Syria
withdrawal announcement: 49 percent support to 33 percent opposition.
That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the
proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as
Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's
way" far more than they agree with the pro-war view that "the U.S. needs to keep troops in
places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to help support our allies fight terrorism and
maintain our foreign policy interests in the region."
But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support
for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents
overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in
2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump
voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.
A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28
percent support withdrawal while 54 percent oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support
for withdrawal among 2018 GOP voters: 74 percent to 18 percent.
Identical trends can be seen on the question of Trump's announced intention to withdraw half
of the U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, where Democrats are far more supportive of keeping
troops there than Republicans and independents.
This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in
Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data
consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all
troops from Afghanistan:
With Trump rather than Obama now advocating troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of this
has changed. The new polling data shows far more support for troop withdrawal among Republicans
and independents, while Democrats are now split or even opposed . Among 2016 Trump voters,
there is massive support for withdrawal: 81 percent to 11 percent; Clinton voters, however,
oppose the removal of troops from Afghanistan by a margin of 37 percent in favor and 47 percent
opposed.
This latest poll is far from aberrational. As the Huffington Post's Ariel Edwards-Levy
documented early this week , separate polling shows a similar reversal by Democrats on
questions of war and militarism in the Trump era.
While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should
continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to
withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining. "Those who voted for
Democrat Clinton now said by a 42-point margin that the U.S. had a responsibility to do
something about the fighting in Syria involving ISIS," Edwards-Levy wrote, "while Trump voters
said by a 16-point margin that the nation had no such responsibility." (Similar trends can be
seen among GOP voters, whose support for intervention in Syria has steadily declined as Trump
has moved away from his posture of the last two years --
escalating bombings in both Syria and Iraq and killing far more civilians , as he
repeatedly vowed to do during the campaign -- to his return to his other campaign pledge to
remove troops from the region.)
This is, of course, not the first time that Democratic voters have wildly shifted their
"beliefs" based on the party affiliation of the person occupying the Oval Office. The party's
base spent the Bush-Cheney years denouncing war on terror policies, such as assassinations,
drones, and Guantánamo as moral atrocities and war crimes, only to suddenly support those
policies once they
became hallmarks of the Obama presidency .
But what's happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance
has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats
using longstanding Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the far right: Trump is
insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he's willing to allow the Bad Countries to take
over by bringing home U.S. soldiers; his efforts to establish less hostile relations with
adversary countries is indicative of weakness or even treason.
By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet,
MSNBC, is
stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while
even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the
pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a
"national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism").
All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first
time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and
imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max
Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of
conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly
pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation --
which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way.
That is another surefire sign of degeneracy: when a regime can only produce incompetent,
often old, leaders who are completely out of touch with reality and who blame their own
failures on [everyone but themselves].
Another sign of degeneracy is that masses of people put their faith in such human garbage
and fantasize that the essentially effortless task of casting ballots every few years will
somehow, perhaps magically, improve their situations. Even more telling is the infantilism
demonstrated by the attitude that they're special and "da gweatist" and that the world should
cater to their every whim just like mommy and daddy did.
Unlike the Titanic, most collapsed regimes don't fully sink. They remain about half
under water, and half above, possibly with an orchestra still playing joyful music. And in
the most expensive top deck cabins, a pretty luxurious lifestyle can be maintained by the
elites.
A clever metaphor.
incompetent, often old, leaders who are completely out of touch with reality and who
blame their own failures on internal ("deplorables") and external ("the Russians")
factors.
Just so.
Dmitry Orlov's assessment rings dead true to me. The most terrifying factor is that a
doomed and demented US administration may resort to the use of its vast air and missile power
to save itself.
If I could pinpoint where the things went wrong for the
west – I would say it happened when they invented the idiocy of multiculturalism. It was
supposed to prevent socialist revolution and on the face of it, it seemed pretty clever, but
it's actually a moronic idea.
The thing that you are supposed to prevent should be the absolute worst case scenario,
replaced with more benign idea. With multiculturalism – its' actually the opposite.
The remedy is worse than the malady. Multiculturalism is going to destroy the western
civilization.
With that in mind and in the spirit of public service, I propose to replace the propaganda
slogan: Diversity is our strength (which doesn't make sense to anybody), with a more logical
and understandable propaganda slogan:
Diversity is our perversity. What Lies Behind the Malaise of the West?
Elite double income families have enjoyed great prosperity and influence and required many
desk jobs for their wives and daughters, preferably in government. They have been fine, had a
kid or two now and again and are very keen on their own self perceived virtue. Deep down they
know the two incomes they enjoy comes at the expense of working class men who might aspire to
better but are now rarely satisfied.
Further down the ladder poor men and women can rarely form bond and form stable families.
They have little money and their women would rather use Uncle Sam as a partner.
They are harassed by one do-gooding government department after another.
The same do-Gooders have no problem with poor communities being flooded with porn and
smut, nor do they seem overly concerned about rising house prices and rent. Wonder why?
There is a cancer in the entire west, and it is leading to great inequality.
MEN MUST STOP CHASING SEX AND THINK OF THEIR NEIGHBOR PARTICULARLY THEIR POOR
NEIGHBOR.
@Ace
"All if this combines to ensure that America is the go-to place for clowns everywhere.
Nothing will be able to correct this cavalcade of lunacy, chaos, depravity, and destruction
except economic catastrophe, coming soon to a neighborhood on top of you. Then to be followed
immediately by dictatorship and years of statist and racial excess until, with luck, we
reduscover what we have now uf we'd but lift a finger to protect it."
Congratulations, you are a doormat to the decline. So, what are you prepared to do about
this dire situation other than lament and complain?
"... If the dollar is no longer needed to conduct international trade, other nations no longer have hold large quantities of it in reserve. ..."
"... To the extent that the US has a culture, it is a commercial culture in which the goodness of a person is based on the goodly sums of money in their possession. ..."
"... I would venture to guess that most people in the US are too distracted, too stressed and too preoccupied with their own vices and obsessions to pay much attention to the political realm ..."
"... The fact that what amounts to palace intrigue -- the fracas between the White House, the two houses of Congress and a ghoulish grand inquisitor named Mueller -- has taken center stage is uncannily reminiscent of various earlier political collapses ..."
It is already safe to declare Trump's plan to Make America Great Again (MAGA) a failure.
Beneath the rosy statistics of US economic growth hides the hideous fact that it is the
result of a tax holiday granted to transnational corporations to entice them to repatriate
their profits. While this hasn't helped them (their stocks are currently cratering) it has
been a disaster for the US government as well as for the economic system as whole. Tax
receipts have shrunk. The budget deficit for 2018 exceeds $779 billion.
Meanwhile, the trade wars which Trump initiated have caused the trade deficit to
increase by 17% from the year before. Plans to repatriate industrial production from
low-cost countries remain vaporous because the three key elements which China had as it
industrialized (cheap energy, cheap labor and low cost of doing business) are altogether
missing. Government debt is already beyond reasonable and its expansion is still
accelerating, with just the interest payments set to exceed half a trillion a year within a
decade.
This trajectory does not bode well for the continued existence of the United States as a
going concern. Nobody, either in the United States or beyond, has the power to
significantly alter this trajectory. Trump's thrashing about may have moved things along
faster than they otherwise would have, at least in the sense of helping convince the entire
world that the US is selfish, feckless, ultimately self-destructive and generally
unreliable as a partner. In the end it won't matter who was president of the US -- it never
has. Among those the US president has succeeded in hurting most are his European allies.
His attacks on Russian energy exports to Europe, on European car manufacturers and on
Europe's trade with Iran have caused a fair amount of damage, both political and economic,
without compensating for it with any perceived or actual benefits.
Meanwhile, as the globalist world order, which much of Europe's population appears ready
to declare a failure, begins to unravel, the European Union is rapidly becoming
ungovernable, with established political parties unable to form coalitions with
ever-more-numerous populist upstarts. It is too early to say that the EU has already failed
altogether, but it already seems safe to predict that within a decade it will no longer
remain as a serious international factor.
Although the disastrous quality and the ruinous mistakes of Europe's own leadership
deserve a lot of the blame, some of it should rest with the erratic, destructive behavior
of their transoceanic Big Brother. The EU has already morphed into a strictly regional
affair, unable to project power or entertain any global geopolitical ambitions. Same goes
for Washington, which is going to either depart voluntarily (due to lack of funds) or get
chased out from much of the world.
The departure from Syria is inevitable whether Trump, under relentless pressure from his
bipartisan warmongers, backtracks on this commitment or not. Now that Syria has been armed
with Russia's up-to-date air defense weapons the US no longer maintains air superiority
there, and without air superiority the US military is unable to do anything. Afghanistan is
next; there, it seems outlandish to think that the Washingtonians will be able to achieve
any sort of reasonable accommodation with the Taliban.
Their departure will spell the end of Kabul as a center of corruption where foreigners
steal humanitarian aid and other resources. Somewhere along the way the remaining US troops
will also be pulled out of Iraq, where the parliament, angered by Trump's impromptu visit
to a US base, recently voted to expel them. And that will put paid to the entire US
adventure in the Middle East since 9/11: $4,704,439,588,308 has been squandered, to be
precise , or $14,444 for every man, woman and child in the US.
The biggest winners in all of this are, obviously, the people of the entire region,
because they will no longer be subjected to indiscriminate US harassment and bombardment,
followed by Russia, China and Iran, with Russia solidifying its position as the ultimate
arbiter of international security arrangements thanks to its unmatched military
capabilities and demonstrated knowhow for coercion to peace. Syria's fate will be decided
by Russia, Iran and Turkey, with the US not even invited to the talks. Afghanistan will
fall into the sphere of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. And the biggest losers will
be former US regional allies, first and foremost Israel, followed by Saudi Arabia.
My question for you is this: where would you place the US (or the Empire) on your 5 stages
of decline and do you believe that the US (or the Empire) can reverse that trend?
Here is Dmitry's reply:
Collapse, at each stage, is a historical process that takes time to run its course as the
system adapts to changing circumstances, compensates for its weaknesses and finds ways to
continue functioning at some level. But what changes rather suddenly is faith or, to put it
in more businesslike terms, sentiment. A large segment of the population or an entire
political class within a country or the entire world can function based on a certain set of
assumptions for much longer than the situation warrants but then over a very short period of
time switch to a different set of assumptions. All that sustains the status quo beyond that
point is institutional inertia. It imposes limits on how fast systems can change without
collapsing entirely. Beyond that point, people will tolerate the older practices only until
replacements for them can be found.
Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in "business as usual" is lost.
Internationally, the major change in sentiment in the world has to do with the role of the
US dollar (and, to a lesser extent, the Euro and the Yen -- the other two reserve currencies
of the three-legged globalist central banker stool). The world is transitioning to the use of
local currencies, currency swaps and commodities markets backed by gold. The catalyst for
this change of sentiment was provided by the US administration itself which sawed through its
own perch by its use of unilateral sanctions. By using its control over dollar-based
transactions to block international transactions it doesn't happen to like it forced other
countries to start looking for alternatives. Now a growing list of countries sees throwing
off the shackles of the US dollar as a strategic goal. Russia and China use the ruble and the
yuan for their expanding trade; Iran sells oil to India for rupees. Saudi Arabia has started
to accept the yuan for its oil.
This change has many knock-on effects. If the dollar is no longer needed to conduct
international trade, other nations no longer have hold large quantities of it in
reserve. Consequently, there is no longer a need to buy up large quantities of US
Treasury notes. Therefore, it becomes unnecessary to run large trade surpluses with the US,
essentially conducting trade at a loss. Further, the attractiveness of the US as an export
market drops and the cost of imports to the US rises, thereby driving up cost inflation. A
vicious spiral ensues in which the ability of the US government to borrow internationally to
finance the gaping chasm of its various deficits becomes impaired. Sovereign default of the
US government and national bankruptcy then follow.
The US may still look mighty, but its dire fiscal predicament coupled with its denial of
the inevitability of bankruptcy, makes it into something of a Blanche DuBois from the
Tennessee Williams play "A Streetcar Named Desire." She was "always dependent on the kindness
of strangers" but was tragically unable to tell the difference between kindness and desire.
In this case, the desire is for national advantage and security, and to minimize risk by
getting rid of an unreliable trading partner.
How quickly or slowly this comes to pass is difficult to guess at and impossible to
calculate. It is possible to think of the financial system in terms of a physical analogue,
with masses of funds traveling at some velocity having a certain inertia (p = mv) and with
forces acting on that mass to accelerate it along a different trajectory (F = ma). It is also
possible to think of it in terms of hordes of stampeding animals who can change course
abruptly when panicked. The recent abrupt moves in the financial markets, where trillions of
dollars of notional, purely speculative value have been wiped out within weeks, are more in
line with the latter model.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that "the market shall provide" is lost.
Within the US there is really no other alternative than the market. There are a few rustic
enclaves, mostly religious communities, that can feed themselves, but that's a rarity. For
everyone else there is no choice but to be a consumer. Consumers who are broke are called
"bums," but they are still consumers. To the extent that the US has a culture, it is a
commercial culture in which the goodness of a person is based on the goodly sums of money in
their possession. Such a culture can die by becoming irrelevant (when everyone is dead
broke) but by then most of the carriers of this culture are likely to be dead too.
Alternatively, it can be replaced by a more humane culture that isn't entirely based on the
cult of Mammon -- perhaps, dare I think, through a return to a pre-Protestant, pre-Catholic
Christian ethic that values people's souls above objects of value?
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will take care of you" is
lost.
All is very murky at the moment, but I would venture to guess that most people in the
US are too distracted, too stressed and too preoccupied with their own vices and obsessions
to pay much attention to the political realm . Of the ones they do pay attention, a fair
number of them seem clued in to the fact that the US is not a democracy at all but an
elites-only sandbox in which transnational corporate and oligarchic interests build and knock
down each others' sandcastles.
The extreme political polarization, where two virtually identical pro-capitalist, pro-war
parties pretend to wage battle by virtue-signaling may be a symptom of the extremely decrepit
state of the entire political arrangement: people are made to watch the billowing smoke and
to listen to the deafening noise in the hopes that they won't notice that the wheels are no
longer turning.
The fact that what amounts to palace intrigue -- the fracas between the White House,
the two houses of Congress and a ghoulish grand inquisitor named Mueller -- has taken center
stage is uncannily reminiscent of various earlier political collapses , such as the
disintegration of the Ottoman Empire or of the fall and the consequent beheading of Louis
XVI. The fact that Trump, like the Ottoman worthies, stocks his harem with East European
women, lends an eerie touch. That said, most people in the US seem blind to the nature of
their overlords in a way that the French, with their Gilettes Jaunes movement (just
as an example) are definitely not.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that "your people will take care of you" is lost.
I have been saying for some years now that within the US social collapse has largely run
its course, although whether people actually believe that is an entire matter entirely.
Defining "your people" is rather difficult. The symbols are still there -- the flag, the
Statue of Liberty and a predilection for iced drinks and heaping plates of greasy fried foods
-- but the melting pot seems to have suffered a meltdown and melted all the way to China. At
present half the households within the US speak a language other than English at home, and a
fair share of the rest speak dialects of English that are not mutually intelligible with the
standard North American English dialect of broadcast television and university lecturers.
Throughout its history as a British colony and as a nation the US has been dominated by
the Anglo ethnos. The designation "ethnos" is not an ethnic label. It is not strictly based
on genealogy, language, culture, habitat, form of government or any other single factor or
group of factors. These may all be important to one extent or another, but the viability of
an ethnos is based solely on its cohesion and the mutual inclusivity and common purpose of
its members. The Anglo ethnos reached its zenith in the wake of World War II, during which
many social groups were intermixed in the military and their more intelligent members.
Fantastic potential was unleashed when privilege -- the curse of the Anglo ethnos since
its inception -- was temporarily replaced with merit and the more talented demobilized men,
of whatever extraction, were given a chance at education and social advancement by the GI
Bill. Speaking a new sort of American English based on the Ohio dialect as a Lingua Franca,
these Yanks -- male, racist, sexist and chauvinistic and, at least in their own minds,
victorious -- were ready to remake the entire world in their own image.
They proceeded to flood the entire world with oil (US oil production was in full flush
then) and with machines that burned it. Such passionate acts of ethnogenesis are rare but not
unusual: the Romans who conquered the entire Mediterranean basin, the barbarians who then
sacked Rome, the Mongols who later conquered most of Eurasia and the Germans who for a very
brief moment possessed an outsized Lebensraum are other examples.
And now it is time to ask: what remains of this proud conquering Anglo ethnos today? We
hear shrill feminist cries about "toxic masculinity" and minorities of every stripe railing
against "whitesplaining" and in response we hear a few whimpers but mostly silence. Those
proud, conquering, virile Yanks who met and fraternized with the Red Army at the River Elbe
on April 25, 1945 -- where are they? Haven't they devolved into a sad little subethnos of
effeminate, porn-addicted overgrown boys who shave their pubic hair and need written
permission to have sex without fear of being charged with rape?
Will the Anglo ethnos persist as a relict, similar to how the English have managed to hold
onto their royals (who are technically no longer even aristocrats since they now practice
exogamy with commoners)? Or will it get wiped out in a wave of depression, mental illness and
opiate abuse, its glorious history of rapine, plunder and genocide erased and the statues of
its war heros/criminals knocked down? Only time will tell.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in "the goodness of humanity" is lost.
The term "culture" means many things to many people, but it is more productive to observe
cultures than to argue about them. Cultures are expressed through people's stereotypical
behaviors that are readily observable in public. These are not the negative stereotypes often
used to identify and reject outsiders but the positive stereotypes -- cultural standards of
behavior, really -- that serve as requirements for social adequacy and inclusion. We can
readily assess the viability of a culture by observing the stereotypical behaviors of its
members.
It is possible to quote statistics or to provide anecdotal evidence to assess the state
and the viability of a culture, but your own eyes and other senses can provide all the
evidence you need to make that determination for yourself and to decide how much faith to put
in "the goodness of humanity" that is evident in the people around you.
Dmity concluded his reply by summarizing his view like this:
Cultural and social collapse are very far along. Financial collapse is waiting for a
trigger. Commercial collapse will happen in stages some of which -- food deserts, for
instance -- have already happened in many places. Political collapse will only become visible
once the political class gives up. It's not as simple as saying which stage we are at. They
are all happening in parallel, to one extent or another.
My own (totally subjective) opinion is that the US has already reached stages 1 through 4,
and that there are signs that stage 5 has begun; mainly in big cities as US small towns and
rural areas (Trump's power base
Don't expect these two losers to fix anything, they will only make things worse
In the meantime, the US ruling elites are locked into an ugly internal struggle which only
further weakens the US. What is so telling is that the Democrats are still stuck with their
same clueless, incompetent and infinitely arrogant leadership, in spite of the fact that
everybody knows that the Democratic Party is in deep crisis and that new faces are desperately
needed. But no, they are still completely stuck in their old ways and the same gang of
gerontocrats continues to rule the party apparatus.
That is another surefire sign of degeneracy: when a regime can only produce incompetent,
often old, leaders who are completely out of touch with reality and who blame their own
failures on internal ("deplorables") and external ("the Russians") factors. Again, think of the
Soviet Union under Brezhnev, the Apartheid regime in South Africa under F. W. de Klerk, or the
Kerensky regime in 1917 Russia.
As for the Republicans, they are basically a subsidiary of the Israeli Likud Party. Just
take a look at the long list of losers the Likud produced at home, and you will get a sense of
what they can do in its US colony.
Eventually the US will rebound; I have no doubts about that at all. This is a big country
with millions of immensely talented people, immense natural resources and no credible threat to
it's territory. But that can only happen after a real regime change (as opposed to a change in
Presidential Administration) which, itself, is only going to happen after an "E2 catastrophe"
collapse.
The EU has already morphed into a strictly regional affair, unable to project power or
entertain any global geopolitical ambitions. Same goes for Washington, which is going to
either depart voluntarily (due to lack of funds) or get chased out from much of the
world.
Well, it's O.K. to have online therapy with that brief dopamine rush every now and then.
Does help, I guess.
But, looks like, in order to keep having the "fix" the blathering is becoming ludicrous.
Starting to feel desperate.
Like: " unable to project power or entertain any global geopolitical ambitions. Same goes
for Washington .".
What is absolutely remarkable to me in a very bad way is that this piece of trash received 681 reviews on Amazon, only 21
with one star and the balance above that for an overall rating of 4.8 out of 5.
Absolutely remarkable, again, but it is reflective of the brain dead sheeple currently doing any reading at all of books by
the rabid neo cons. I hesitate to guess what some extreme alarm sounding diatribe by Wolfowitz or the current "main man,"
max boot would register. Maybe Romney can lead us out of the wilderness (sarc)>
I know that this is Amazon and when it comes to the standards of what passes as accurate reporting and journalistic
standards,"wapo and bezos leads the pack into the sewer.
REPLY
AGREE/DISAGREE/ETC.
THIS COMMENTER
@El Dato
an American puppet inasmuch as he had Americans masterminding his political PR campaigns) start
giving ground that the situation becomes fluid.
Albright (and Nuland) had no idea what Russia as a normal nation state could be expected to put up with, because all they
had to go on was Yelstyn who was drunk most days. So the US was slowly but surely drawn into the power vacuum in the
territories the USSR withdrew from and Albright thought that was the way things were going to continue to be. The domestic
situation in America was also one where the elite had things their own way to an unsustainable extent. What Albright does
not like is the facts of life.
The whole discussion is so asinine.
Facism is not a form of government that can just be inserted or deleted.
It is a very specific reaction to the communist takeover of a nation.
At that point, other forms of government are no longer viable: totalitarianism of one kind of another becomes an absolute
necessity to rule.
We see western governments coming to this point-the moral law is lost, corruption reigns, and only pure force has currency.
So at this point you only have one of two choices, there simply are no alternatives:
communism or facism.
And it is quite clear that facism is a more reasonable and less murderous choice.
for as long as neo con history is a subject for study (she has plenty of competition for that recognition).
Most "history" taught in the US (and combined West) is one or another iteration (sometimes extreme, sometimes less so) of
US exceptionalism. Even American so called "realism" is built around exceptionalism. American military doctrines are
written primarily on exceptionalism basis. Results are easily observable.
"... To consider how the neoliberal order works in practice one only has to consider the Clintons, who justified brutal military interventions in the Balkans and in Libya based on what they claimed to be humanitarian principles. ..."
"... More recently, particularly since 9/11, neoconservatives have dominated U.S. foreign policy through their think tanks, access to the media and their ability to infiltrate both major political parties based on their essentially fraudulent appraisals of threats to national security. They have been so successful at selling their product that the bogus claims that Iran is a threat to the United States are generally accepted without question by both Democrats and Republicans, not to mention the White House. Russia, meanwhile, remains the target of bipartisan wrath, from the left over the results of the 2016 election and from the right due to fearmongering over alleged threats to Eastern Europe. ..."
"... Hotel California ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Pompeo has also cautioned Iran against the development of ballistic missiles in connection with a claimed space program, a warning that Tehran has rejected. Israel meanwhile, presumably acting with U.S. connivance, has introduced a new destabilizing element into the Middle East cauldron, using civilian airliners to mask the approach of its military jets to attack targets in Syria. The possibility of an airliner being shot down with great loss of life by "accident" has thereby gone up exponentially. ..."
"... Iran has responded to the threats by restating in early December its intention to exercise control over all ship traffic leaving the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz if its own oil exports are blocked by the United States. The U.S. responded immediately by sending the aircraft carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis to the Gulf, the first such deployment in the region in eight months. With all the pieces in place, the possibility that there will be some accident in the region, presumably involving Iranian Revolutionary Guards and U.S. naval units, will escalate just as the largely contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident famously accelerated American involvement in the Vietnam War. ..."
"... All of the above sounds somewhat depressingly familiar, but the real question is whether in 2019 Donald J. Trump will have both the vision and the necessary gumption to fulfill his campaign promises to change the face of American foreign policy by withdrawing from useless wars overseas and mending fences with countries that are actually important like Russia. ..."
Never before has any presidential administration been as all over the place in terms of
national security and foreign policy as is that of Donald J. Trump. Indeed, one might well
argue that there is no overriding policy at all in terms of a rational doctrine arrived at
through risk versus gain analysis of developing international situations. Instead, there has
been a pattern of emotional reactions fueled by media disinformation supplemented by "gut
feelings" about a series of ultimately bilateral relationships that frequently have little or
nothing to do with American national interests.
This is not to suggest that the "gut feelings" are always wrong. Established wisdom in
Washington has long reflected the view that the United States must exercise leadership in
establishing and maintaining the neoliberal consensus that gained currency after the
devastation of the Second World War. Elections, free trade and a free media were to be the
benchmarks of the New World Order but they also came packaged with U.S. hegemony to confront
those who resisted the development. And it turned out that those "benefits" were frequently
difficult to achieve as elections sometimes produced bad results while trade agreements and an
uncontrolled media often worked against broader U.S. objectives. All too often the United
States found itself going to war against nations that it disapproves of for reasons unrelated
to any actual interests, routinely claiming inaccurately that dissident regimes were both
"threatening" and disruptive of the universal values that Washington claimed to be
promoting.
To consider how the neoliberal order works in practice one only has to consider the
Clintons, who justified brutal military interventions in the Balkans and in Libya based on what
they claimed to be humanitarian principles. Or Obama, who demanded regime change in Damascus
and was prepared to launch a large-scale attack on Syria before he realized that there was no
public support for such a move and backed down.
More recently, particularly since 9/11, neoconservatives have dominated U.S. foreign policy
through their think tanks, access to the media and their ability to infiltrate both major
political parties based on their essentially fraudulent appraisals of threats to national
security. They have been so successful at selling their product that the bogus claims that Iran
is a threat to the United States are generally accepted without question by both Democrats and
Republicans, not to mention the White House. Russia, meanwhile, remains the target of
bipartisan wrath, from the left over the results of the 2016 election and from the right due to
fearmongering over alleged threats to Eastern Europe.
But hope springs eternal, even in 2019. There have recently been some encouraging signs that
change is in the air. Donald Trump has declared that he will be pulling all American soldiers
out of Syria and half of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan, though the timetable appears to have
slipped somewhat and might slow even more as the Establishment pushes back. That Trump may have
chosen to break with the interventionist model with Syria, if he succeeds in doing so, is
certainly commendable, but one wit has observed that the departure will be somewhat like the
line in the Eagles' song Hotel California , "you can check out any time you want, but
you can never leave."
There are other indications that something is afoot. On January 3 rd , Trump
offhandedly commented that Iran could do what it wishes in Syria, a comment that generated
shock waves through the neoconnish Washington Post 's
coverage of the remarks. To be sure, other Administration officials have continued to send
different signals, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisting that the U.S. will stay in
Syria as long as Iran remains there.
Pompeo has also cautioned Iran against the development of ballistic missiles in connection
with a claimed space program, a warning that Tehran has rejected. Israel meanwhile, presumably
acting with U.S. connivance, has introduced a new destabilizing element into the Middle East
cauldron,
using civilian airliners to mask the approach of its military jets to attack targets in
Syria. The possibility of an airliner being shot down with great loss of life by "accident" has
thereby gone up exponentially.
To be sure, there are
some who believe that the Trump anti-interventionist turn is essentially fraudulent. They
cite the unrelenting hostility coming out of the White House regarding Iran, which is vilified
on a nearly daily basis for its alleged threats not only to the Middle East region but also to
Western Europe and the United States. That the Administration's fulminations have little basis
in reality is beside the point as it would seem that Trump, Pompeo, John Bolton and the now
departed Nikki Haley all believe that the case for disarming Iran and bringing about regime
change has been made effectively. Indeed, warfare directed against the Iranian economy has
already begun by virtue of a punitive series of targeted sanctions with much more to come when
a complete ban on oil exports kicks in in May.
Iran has responded to the threats by restating in early December its intention to exercise
control over all ship traffic leaving the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz if its own oil
exports are blocked by the United States. The U.S.
responded immediately by sending the aircraft carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis to the Gulf,
the first such deployment in the region in eight months. With all the pieces in place, the
possibility that there will be some accident in the region, presumably involving Iranian
Revolutionary Guards and U.S. naval units, will escalate just as the largely contrived Gulf of
Tonkin incident famously accelerated American involvement in the Vietnam War.
Much of what happens in the Middle East will ultimately depend on the extent to which
America's feckless allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, succeed in selling their version of what is
going on in the region. Trump, uncharacteristically, seems to be standing firm, telling
a journalist that concerns about the Syria pullout are misplaced because "We give Israel
$4.5 billion a year. And we give them, frankly, a lot more money than that, if you look at the
books -- a lot more money than that. And they've been doing a very good job for themselves."
Likewise, the much more important relationship, with Russia, will depend on the ability to
ignore congressional hostility towards the Kremlin as well as the media bias that continues to
promote Russiagate as a national security threat.
There is also North Korea, which has now indicated clearly that it is willing to talk to the
U.S. but will revert to its nuclear development program unless sanctions are removed. And
anyone for Latin America? Bolton
has dubbed Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela as a "troika of tyranny," though fortunately
suggestions that Venezuela might be invaded by the U.S. to restore order appear to have
faded.
If one reads the neocon press one cannot help but notice that China is the anointed over the
horizon threat, but it is also a major trading partner and the drive to somehow renegotiate the
terms whereby the two nations are linked economically will be complicated. Care must be taken
lest what now appears to be an aggravated sense of great power competition becomes something
more dangerous. The detention of Weng Manzhou in Canada one month ago together with the
implication that the United States can and will enforce U.S. imposed sanctions globally could
easily develop into a major problem with China as well as with others, including some NATO
allies. The arrest has already disappeared from the media but several Canadians have been
detained by Beijing and the U.S. government has warned American
businessmen about traveling to China at the present time.
All of the above sounds somewhat depressingly familiar, but the real question is whether in
2019 Donald J. Trump will have both the vision and the necessary gumption to fulfill his
campaign promises to change the face of American foreign policy by withdrawing from useless
wars overseas and mending fences with countries that are actually important like Russia. There
is admittedly a long way to go and it is very much a work in progress, but Trump actually has
the ability to overrule the hawks in his administration and change the entire conversation
about America's place in the world.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
Oh for Gawds sake.
The reason the public cant figure out what the hell is up with Trump and his first pulling
out of Syria forthwith and then back pedaling.
Is because no one will tell them about Bolton/Adelson and Bolton being in Israel yesterday
telling Netanyahu the US will stay in Syria and wont tell them about the Kushner Jewish cabal
deal with Saudi prince MBS.
And wont tell them about the neo General toddies who use war like a carpenter uses a hammer
just cause that's all they know until they retire and get cushy jobs with the weapons
industry.
Trump has run out of excuses for his many policy contradictions, even his supporters
aren't buying them any more. A few are hanging in for the Wall, which they wont get
either.
Trump is being taken down by the Dems and their liberal Jewish media and at the same time
being taken down by his own installed Zionist Jews and their errand boy Bolton who every time
Trump makes an announcement rushes out to contradict him.
Trump has one chance. There is no black mailable material on Trump that hasn't already
come out since the NY AG is already looking into money laundering in Trumps businesses.
So Trump needs to blow every thing up .Fire Bolton, fire his son on law, fire all the zios
and neos -- totally clean house and shock the shit out of everyone by bringing in some
familiar names like realist Chas Freeman for the ME, Webb for Defense, etc that will have the
zios, neos, deep state, the establishment and both parties pissing in their special interest
bought and paid for pants.
The Myth of the Russian Crime Boss, Semion Mogilevich, He's Israeli by Larry Johnson
(excerpts)
'One of the cornerstones of the meme that Donald Trump is beholden to the
Russians–i.e. a Putin puppet–is his alleged ties to Semion Mogilevich, who is
described in Wikipedia and other publications as the Godfather of all Russian mobsters. Only
one tiny problem with the Mogilevich description–it is devoid of any actual evidence
and ignores the simple facts that he was born in Ukraine and is a citizen of Israel. Not a
Russian.
One of the best recent examples of building the Mogilevich myth is Craig Unger's 2017 article
in the New Republic, Trump's Russian Laundromat. Unger wrote:
In 1984, a Russian émigré named David Bogatin went shopping for apartments in
New York City. . . . he was fixated on the glitziest apartment building on Fifth Avenue, a
gaudy, 58-story edifice with gold-plated fixtures and a pink-marble atrium: Trump Tower. . .
.
The Russian plunked down $6 million to buy not one or two, but five luxury condos. The big
check apparently caught the attention of the owner. According to Wayne Barrett, who
investigated the deal for the Village Voice, Trump personally attended the closing, along
with Bogatin. . . .
In 1987, just three years after he attended the closing with Trump, Bogatin pleaded guilty to
taking part in a massive gasoline-bootlegging scheme with Russian mobsters. After he fled the
country, the government seized his five condos at Trump Tower, saying that he had purchased
them to "launder money, to shelter and hide assets." A Senate investigation into organized
crime later revealed that Bogatin was a leading figure in the Russian mob in New York. His
family ties, in fact, led straight to the top: His brother ran a $150 million stock scam with
none other than Semion Mogilevich, whom the FBI considers the "boss of bosses" of the Russian
mafia. At the time, Mogilevich -- feared even by his fellow gangsters as "the most powerful
mobster in the world" -- was expanding his multibillion-dollar international criminal
syndicate into America.
I have spent the last twenty years of my life working on money laundering cases and carrying
out international financial investigations. I had never heard of Semion Mogilevich. Unger's
claim piqued my interest. So I started digging.
I do not know if Semion is a genuine mobster. He certainly is portrayed that way in this very
flawed FBI report. And that report has become ground truth for a host of writers who
mindlessly repeat the fantastical claims and allegations without insisting on corroboration.
Going back to my discussion about the busted gangster summit in Prague in May of 1995, I keep
wondering if Mogilevich is actually an FBI asset or working for one of our friends, such as
Israel. For a guy who is supposedly engaged in a broad swath of illegal activities that
encompasses the gamut of bad behavior, Semion has enjoyed a relatively peaceful life. If he
actually had such a record I would expect him to face a mountain of extradition requests. But
that is not the case.
The final issue of relevance concerns Semion's ethnicity and citizenship status. He is not a
Russian. Never has been. He is Ukrainian and a citizen of Israel. So why are media types so
eager to claim Semion as proof that Donald Trump is under the thumb of the Russian mob? It
does not compute."
Remember Helsinki? And then that creepy presser back home in Exceptionalia days later where,
with Mr. Bolton dropping moustache dandruff down the President's collar, the talk of peace
was walked back, and the lights literally went out?
So I'm afraid that the real answer to Dr. Giraldi's well put, real question is that in
2019 Donald J. Trump will lack both the vision and the necessary gumption to fulfill his
campaign promises to change the face of American foreign policy by withdrawing from useless
wars overseas and mending fences with countries that are actually important like Russia.
I hope I'm wrong, but this is nothing new and was foreseen by another of this website's
best columnists:
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war
abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his
election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016 ("Orlando Shooting Means Trump
For President")
"the real question is whether in 2019 Donald J. Trump will have both the vision and the
necessary gumption to fulfill his campaign promises "
Gumption? He has ordered things, and his orders are disregarded. Tweeting his disregarded
orders is gumption. Any thoughts on what more than gumption is needed?
https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/2996129/russen-wij-leveren-goedkoper-gas-dan-vs
USA ambassador in the Netherlands and the Russian ambassador in a row about which country is
going to sell us gas.
The Russian gas is cheaper.
Less dangerous too, maybe, liquid gas tankers are great objects for terrorist attacks.
As long as countries compete with each other about gas sales war does not seem imminent to
me.
one wit has observed that the departure will be somewhat like the line in the Eagles'
song Hotel California, "you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave."
If Giraldi is thinking Trump is going to show some kind of intelligence, or moral sense, or
simply backbone against his numerous enemies – then he is indulging in a fruitless and
foolish daydream. Get real. Remember who you are dealing with.
Why Bolton hasn't been fired yet is a mystery. It's as if his real job is Presedential Minder
and his appointment to that position was made by an unknown party. It'll be interesting to
see what happens when Trump does try to fire him. It might even reveal who has the real power
in this country.
@Mike G
Actually AIPAC, Adelson, Kushner, and other assorted khazarian mafia slime are his boss.
Chumps promises made are only kept if they're in line with AIPAC and HELL Aviv
Trump is just another puppet for the moneyed powers of America and the western world. He is
there to give the restless "deplorable's" the impression they have someone who is finally
speaking for them and actually cares for them. The minute Trump steps to far off the
reservation he is hauled back in. If he manages to get out of lasso range, other more deadly
and final measures will be instituted.
If you have any doubt's about what I say, you can ask Sen. Paul Wellstone. Oh wait, no you
can't, He's dead.
"Donald Trump has declared that he will be pulling all American soldiers out of Syria and
half of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan, though the timetable appears to have slipped somewhat
and might slow even more as the Establishment pushes back."
Didn't he also declare that he wants better relations with Russia? Yet he sees determined
to take the world back to the darkest, most dangerous days of the cold war. So I guess we
can't put any faith in the things he "declares."
"That Trump may have chosen to break with the interventionist model with Syria, if he
succeeds in doing so, is certainly commendable, but one wit has observed that the departure
will be somewhat like the line in the Eagles' song Hotel California, "you can check out any
time you want, but you can never leave."
According to his pre-election rhetoric (e.g. tweets from 2013), he broke with the
"interventionist model" a long time ago; so why did he expand the illegal, immoral and
unconstitutional U.S. military footprint in Syria in the first place? Of course he can leave
Syria whenever he "wants" to.
"There are other indications that something is afoot. On January 3rd, Trump offhandedly
commented that Iran could do what it wishes in Syria, a comment that generated shock waves
through the neoconnish Washington Post's coverage of the remarks."
The problem is, as we see, nothing that he says or does can be taken at face value. Among
other things, he's an ignorant, arrogant, stupid, shallow, incurious, feckless, malignantly
narcissistic, completely morally bankrupt pathological liar – whose strings are
apparently being pulled by a coterie of jewish-supremacist madmen. This is why I variously
refer to him as "teflon-don-the-con-man", "orange clown", "perfidious presidential poseur";
etc.
"To be sure, there are some who believe that the Trump anti-interventionist turn is
essentially fraudulent."
Why wouldn't they when it's clear that his whole presidential campaign was obviously a
fraud?
"All of the above sounds somewhat depressingly familiar, but the real question is whether
in 2019 Donald J. Trump will have both the vision and the necessary gumption to fulfill his
campaign promises to change the face of American foreign policy by withdrawing from useless
wars overseas and mending fences with countries that are actually important like Russia."
Orange clown having "vision and necessary gumption"? Seriously? He's an unrepentant
mass-murdering psychopath who "hears voices" and takes action. He's "Son of Sam" or the
Zodiac killer in a suit and tie. He's leading us to planetary extinction, IMO.
The Zionist have neutered Trump. He'll keep floundering claiming he gonna do something but
its clear Sheldon Adelson's boy Bolton is running the country and bringing in more zio jews
to plan war, hot or cold, for Iran
Trump is finished.
John Bolton, national security advisor, is tapping Richard Goldberg of the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies (FDD) for a key post.
FDD President Mark Dubowitz confirmed the hire on Twitter late Monday: "Couldn't think
of anyone better than my @FDD colleague @rich_goldberg to join NSC to maximize the maximum
pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran." The White House has not yet publicly
commented.
The story was first reported in Jewish Insider . Goldberg has locked his previously-public
Twitter page, following the course taken by other NSC hires, such as Fred Fleitz (who has
since departed) and Anthony Ruggiero, formerly of FDD, who swiftly locked their Twitter pages
upon ascension to the White House.
What the U.S. has is a Zionist foreign policy driven by Zionist dual citizens who have as
their number one agenda the goals of the Zionist satanic NWO! Zionists control every facet of
the U.S. government and the so called congress might just as well be called the lower house
of the Knesset as it grovels to kiss the hand that smites them continually in some type of
Stockholm syndrome!
On 911 the Zionist controlled deep state and Israel destroyed the WTC and murdered some
3000 Americans and they got away with it and every American who has the ability to think for
themselves knows that Israel and the deep state did 911! The Zionists not only got away with
it but forced America into 17 years and counting of war and war crimes in the Mideast in
support of the Zionist satanic goal of their NWO and in the process murdered untold millions
of innocent civilians , men and women and children all for their Zionist masters who rule
America!
America is under the control of the Satanist Zionists who have turned America into a
nation that invades and bombs the hell out of countries and commits war crimes of the worst
king and all this under the command of Zionist controlled U.S. government!
I do not know this government that is in control of America it is a foreign to me as if it
came from Mars, and Trump is just another puppet in a long line of puppets going back to JFK
, who was the last patriot POTUS and was shot in full view of America by the same ones who
rule America today!
Zionists are going to destroy America , just as a parasite destroys its host!
As long as Bolton and Pompeo are still in his cabinet, Trump has zero chance of pulling out
of Syria. He needs to grow a pair and fire both of those clowns. He's gone this far, firing
Haley, Kelly and Mattis, now he needs to finish the job so he can finally run the
non-interventionist foreign policy that he promised his voters on the campaign trail.
Rod Rosenstein also needs to be fired, and Pence needs to be iced.
The first step to showing us he's serious is to replace John Bolton with Tulsi
Gabbard.
Zionists control every facet of the U.S. government and every POTUS since JFK who they could
not control so they shot him in front of America to show the people who was really in charge!
911 was done by the zionists and the zionist controlled deep state and every thinking
American knows that the zionists did 911 and used this false flag to push America into
illegal uncontitutional wars in the mideast for 17 years and counting all for the zionist
goal of a zionist satanic NWO!
Trump is just another zionist puppet in a long line of zionist puppets and congress is the
lower house of the knesset and the zionists are going to destroy America just as a parasite
destroys its host.
My idea is that quite a few of the commenters here do not understand that no dictator
anywhere ever had absolute power.
Not Stalin, not Atatürk, not Hitler.
This is not to suggest Trump is a dictator, but to make clear that a USA president does not
have absolute power.
Not even FDR had absolute power, as the diaries of Harold L Ickes make abundantly clear.
In my opinion Kennedy underestimated the forces against him.
Trump, again in my opinion, does not want suicide, not politically, not bodyly.
As long as he can handle fool Bolton, when he was at the UN staff had great difficulty not to
laugh about his stupidities, why send the man away, escalate the conflict, and maybe has to
accept a far more dangerous opponent ?
FDR's Bolton in my opinion was Henry L Stimson.
FDR fooled him with regard to the negotiations with Japan.
The saying is 'keep your enemies close', this was what all three dictators mentioned above
did.
Trump won the elections, but he still has to annihilate Deep State.
Sorry Ron, but the guy's been gelded; he'll not merely stand by, he'll be an active
participant in the 180 and he asked for it as he prances around bully-and-exhibition-queen
fashion spouting off like an adolescent.
It seems that Trump is trying, that at least is a small good. The next thing he is needing
to do is to dismiss Walrus Bolton, perhaps decapitation would be a richly deserved fate?
If you were to be offered the job, would you take it? Most of readers here who are sane
would love to see you have a stronger influence, but I am supposing it is never to be.
Trump may be POTUS but he is just one man but he is continually beating on the door and
moving the Overton window. Who was the last President – as President – who made
these statements about getting out of these various 'wars' we are in. Generals and congress
critters are now having to produce proof, arguments and RESULTS on why we should stay. I have
seen very little of that before Trump. He certainly has a growing population behind this
direction.
Obviously not much has moved in this direction, but I feel confident he will continue to
batter this door and eventually it will fall. The sooner the better.
@jacques
sheete "Sorry Ron, but the guy's been gelded; he'll not merely stand by, he'll be an
active participant in the 180 and he asked for it as he prances around
bully-and-exhibition-queen fashion spouting off like an adolescent.
@chris
Regarding my use of the hit Eagles song "Hotel California" lyrics, as metaphor for ZUS war
policy in Syria, Brother Chris noted & wrote, "PS BTW: awesome, Chuck for getting
honorable mention in Phil's column via your Hotel California comment! ," and Brother Jacques
Sheete also encouraged, said, "Go, Chuck!"
First off, I thank Phil Giraldi for using the noun "wit" to describe me, instead of the
alternative "nitwit," which doubtless several U.R. commenters would have preferred.
One talent where Donald Trump is either equal to, or > 1930's FDR
on-the-campaign-stump, is his being expert at the Zio art of "baiting" voters with vows to
avoid war, & then executing a "switch."
There is nothing that exhausts serious American voters confidence more than ambitious
politicians' campaign 'bait & switch" tactics.
Tonight, it appears President Trump shall address the "Homeland" from Oval Office.
Doubtless, he'll try to reestablish communication with his adoring voter base, silence
Democrats, and in the name of a decades-long (Soros?) engineered & foreseeable "National
Security Emergency," determine to build his border wall at all taxpayer cost, including
permanency of a ltd. government "shut down."
What American TV viewers shall not learn about is the president's virulent pro-Greater
Israel foreign policy, and Trump's silent construction of an impenetrable WALL, consisting of
freak war building block-personages, namely, Steve Mnuchin, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo as a
united cornerstone.
(Note: Absent in our Zio Corporate Media's vast conspiracy spin-machine is a voice which
demands, "Tear down the F.P. wall!"
Regrettably, above, 'Merkins can not tear down that peace-prohibitive wall.
Thanks Phil Giraldi, Chris, and Jacques. Er , Welcome to Hotel California Discomfort Inns,
D.C./Tel Aviv!
@jilles
dykstra Trump is under Zionist control and the Zionist bankers who hold the paper on all
of his properties and so even if he wanted to, can not and will not go against the Zionist
control of the U.S. government.
America's feckless allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, succeed in selling their version of what
is going on in the region.]
This is very laughable and only the propagandists make it.
Only the propagandists are making fake news to confuse the ignorant and illiterate
people.
Trump is a war monger with different style, like criminal Obama had different style from mass
murderers like Clinton family and the Zionist criminals in the different American regimes,
especially since 911 staged as false flag operation by USG and Zionist Neocons to implement
the plan they had against the Muslims and the region for hegemony and 'greater Israel'.
All evidence since 9/11 and before that proves that these wars are designed and carried
out by the criminal and terrorist USG, its 'intellectuals', CIA, FBI and the rest of
criminals in the American regime.
The 'nationalist' propagandists do not refer to 9/11 as FALSE FLAG OPERATION to protect the
handas of the criminal and terrorists in American regimes to fool the public
Now, it is obvious, more than ever, that Donald Trump, a traitor and Jewish Mafia member,
is trying the rest of the VICIOUS PLAN for 'American first' or racist 'American
exceptionalism' with the help of US colony Saudi Arabia and one of the main master mind of
the geopolitical assault plan, the Zionist Jews.
People are not dumb, and no propagandist can fool them.
Saudi Arabia and its terrorists army is US proxy army which Saudi Arabia follishly is
fuding because USG terrorist state WANTS ITS COLONY TO DO THAT. Saudi Arabia cannot exist if
does not OBEY THE ODER. The terrorist American regime is using the wealth of the Saudis
(muslims) to kill and rob muslims. The dumb MBS must know that after they fund destruction of
other states, then it would be their turn, is mbs that stupid? Then let them go down the
tube. The west is milking Saudi Arabia for its geopolitical interest, staging false flag
operation, to bring its dumb population on board. Is This so difficult to understand? USG has
killed millions, millions, millions of people around the world. Every day is a new 'enemy',
in Asia, Afria, even Europe. They construct enemy with the help of the criminal and fake
media.
Now, people of the region know more than ever than NO one can trust US and their
propagandists.
People of the region cannot trust the lies coming from the mouth of a Jewish Mafia member.
They are not going to be fooled like American ignorant people who have been molded to be
one.
The people of the region know that 'troop out of Syria' is NOTHING BUT A LIE. Because they
see the activities of the criminal American and their mass murderer 'soldiers' and 'advisors'
all around them.
The criminal US and jewish neocons' plan in Syria did not go according to plan. The mass
murderer Obama DID EVERYTHING to implement accordingly, but were not successful due to
sacrifices of Syrian people and army, Hizbullah and Iran. Russia a pro Zionist entity entered
later in 2015 to fill 'a void' for its own interest and jewish mafia interest that Putin,
like trump, is a member of.
Now, the jewish mafia stooge at the WH is changing the plan, but has NOT ABANDONED it. Now,
the plan is to focus on Iraq as a base to weaken Iran more than ever.
To do that Trump is playing with Iraqi government, is trying to weaken its government to
make it MORE dependent on Washington to follow orders with the help of TRAITOR KURDS and
Turkey.
All evidence show that Trump has smuggled the terrorist MEK members, where have no
influence in Iran, into Iraq to BE USED, ALONG WITH TRAITOR KURDS, for terrorist plot against
Iranian people to put pressure on Iranian government.
But Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Ali al-Hakim said:
"These sanctions, the siege, or what is called the embargo," imposed by the US is
"unilateral, not international," and Iraq is "not obliged [to follow] them."
So, the plan is going to be continued by Trump, the war monger, but the propagandists tell
you that IT IS THE 'DEEP STATE' DOES NOT ALLOW PEACE LOVING IDIOT TO DO ITS WORK.
They are lying to you. Trump is as criminal as the former American regimes.
the bogus claims that Iran is a threat to the United States are generally accepted
without question by both Democrats and Republicans, not to mention the White House.
accepted as bogus, but the fraud is nevertheless enforced across the zio-fiefdom.
Russia, meanwhile, remains the target of bipartisan wrath, from the left over the
results of the 2016 election and from the right due to fearmongering over alleged threats
to Eastern Europe.
Not to split hairs, but the fake news of 'Russian collusion' in the election, is and
always has been a laughable farce. Just as any threats to Eastern Europe by Putin's Russia is
a preposterous absurdity.
The real reasons for the hostility towards Russia is Russia's unwillingness to go along
with ((the unilateral power's)) agenda.
Putin was OK with the globalists until he confronted the Fiend in Syria.
So all their hysterical lies notwithstanding, our media and politicians are all hostile to
Russia for Putin's intransigence in Syria. Not for 'hacking our democracy' or arresting Pussy
Riot, or menacing Latvia or Poland. These are just more media turds for forced public
consumption.
@mike k To
be fair, not many men below the Second Person of the Trinity could succeed against the array
of forces facing Trump. The best intelligence he could show is to survive, and the most I
would hope for is for him to bring the whole mess crashing down on his way out.
"the real question is whether in 2019 Donald J. Trump will have both the vision and the
necessary gumption to fulfill his campaign promises to change the face of American foreign
policy by withdrawing from useless wars overseas and mending fences with countries that are
actually important like Russia."
I would put it differently and, I daresay, with more precision:
"If pigs had wings, AND if they were slender enough to enable the take-off, AND their
flatulence did not create an outsize Coandă effect in flight, AND if and only if they
had a strong desire to fly, then they might fly just as likely as Trump might do what Mr.
Giraldi hopes he would."
One characteristic of a ZUS president is to capitalize on both the engineered successes
and failures of their predecessors.
Hence, tonight, 'Merkins will hear President Trump speak accurately about how illegal
immigration constitutes a present "National Emergency" threat; a western crisis which was
promoted & established by cohort billionaire international Jew "Open Borders" engineers,
& who Trump might chastise later on, but not by name.
Now, it is obvious, more than ever, that Donald Trump, a traitor and Jewish Mafia
member, is trying the rest of the VICIOUS PLAN for 'American first' or racist 'American
exceptionalism' with the help of US colony Saudi Arabia and one of the main master mind of
the geopolitical assault plan, the Zionist Jews.
People are not dumb, and no propagandist can fool them
.
Alas not obvious to me.
If you're fooling me, I do not know, what I do know is that a lot of assertions is not
proof.
@ChuckOrloski
Trump, who I voted for , has been a disappointment and I have given up all hope for him, and
with his being surrounded by Zionists, it is going to take a grass roots awakening of the
American people to the Zionist control of the government and that I think will not happen.
Soros , when 14 years old in Budapest Hungary lived with the Nazi commander who was
charged with rounding up jews and Soros went out with the Nazis and pointed out where the
jews lived and thus helped betray and send these jews to the death camps, this is true, and
anyone can check this out, and not a peep out of the Zionists, they betrayed their own!
@Rurik
Knowingly, Rurik said: "Putin was OK with the globalists until he confronted the Fiend in
Syria."
Above, I totally agree, Brother Rurik.
Have not done a search/study, but I would wager Russian representatives stood tall &
mighty at past globalist assemblies, for example, Davos.
Fyi, I still think Putin and Xi are to some extent acceptable to Globalist control
designs, but the ZUS & western European Zionist zealots insist that an Israeli personage
must sit at the right-hand of the coming (globalist) Mes$iah.
One rather purposely forgotten thing, Rurik? At Davos, January 2017, populist-President
Trump's business pal, Anthony Scaramucci, delivered a curious address.
"Mooch" assured the Davos assembly that Donald Trump is "the globalists last good chance
for success."
Why? Well , if Putin's and the very powerful Xi's rule happens to weaken to international
Jewry's applied internal & external financial pressure, the poor world must (regrettably)
suck-it-up and, in reverse, & sing together the old song lyric, "Jesus will not be just
right with me."
Thanks, Brother Rurik! And no doubt, P.G. reads the comments to his articles, & he may
deploy them
@renfro Very
blackmailable sadly.
Mueller has not even started,contrary to popular opinion.
Not sure what Trump won't do when his kids and biz are under threat of RICO charges and
confiscation.
Mueller will flip Alexander Slater the conduit for billions of Russian(Jewish)mafia money
laundered thru' the Trump organization.Cohen already flipped on Slater.
Mueller is involved in parallel construction of what the deep state organs already gave
him.
He isn't looking for a crime,he already knows exactly what they are,he is looking for
corroboration.
Trumpy's foreign policy is more step-in-the-bucket than bait and switch.
Trump proposes some thing in regards to foreign policy and the globalizer Deep State
ghouls in the WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire throw Trumpy some 97 mph chin
music and Trumpy steps in the bucket out of fear of getting beaned in the coconut.
The Israel Firist globalizer goons in the GOP such as John Bolton and Lindsey Graham and
Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton do the bidding of the government of Israel and they do the bidding
of wealthy Jew billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson. Jared Kushner, the money-grubbing Jewish
real estate shyster, is also telling Trump to put the interests of Israel ahead of the
interests of the United States.
Trump is doing good work on China, but he is not going far enough. The treasonous rat
whores in the WASP/JEW ruling class of the United States sold out the sovereignty and
security of the United States by allowing China to use cheap labor to crush American
manufacturing. Greedy shyster rats such as Robert Rubin wanted to fully expand
financialization and globalization and mass immigration to concentrate wealth and power in
the United States.
Greedy dirtbags in academia fully supported the flooding of Chinese students into the
United States. This has allowed Chinese intelligence assets and other Chinese elements to
infiltrate themselves into areas of operation that should have been disallowed to them.
Trump should immediately put into place a 95 percent prohibitive tariff on all goods or
services coming from China. Trump should begin mass deportations of as many Chinese
interlopers as possible, and he should ban the entrance of any other Chinese people from
entering the United States.
China and the WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire are enemies of the American
people.
George HW Bush and George W Bush did everything in their power to flood the United States
with Chinese interlopers and Chinese manufactured products and goods. China boy George HW
Bush is now rotting in Hell for pushing mass immigration and for colluding with the Communist
Chinese against the best interests of the American people.
The disgusting, treasonous rats in the WASP/JEW ruling class have sold out the American
people for cash and Trumpy is just now getting the American people to think in terms of US
national interests when it comes to US foreign policy instead of some vague, nebulous "global
economy" or some other abstraction.
In short, that German and Scottish and Irish guy named Patrick Joseph Buchanan has been
right about US foreign policy and the WASP/JEW ruling class has been treasonously wrong.
'One of the cornerstones of the meme that Donald Trump is beholden to the
Russians–i.e. a Putin puppet–is his alleged ties to Semion Mogilevich, who is
described in Wikipedia and other publications as the Godfather of all Russian mobsters.
Only one tiny problem with the Mogilevich description–it is devoid of any actual
evidence and ignores the simple facts that he was born in Ukraine and is a citizen of
Israel. Not a Russian.
@Wally
Streeter John Bolton is a treasonous baby boomer globalizer rat who puts the interests of
Israel ahead of the interests of the United States. That is treason.
John Bolton was a big backer of the Iraq War debacle.
John Bolton pushes nation-wrecking mass immigration and multicultural mayhem.
President Trump should fire John Bolton immediately.
Trump: Jamal Al-Badawi, Leader In USS Cole Attack, Killed: "Our GREAT MILITARY has
delivered justice for the heroes lost and wounded in the cowardly attack on the USS Cole,"
Trump tweeted Sunday.
Mr. President, now let us ask our GREAT MILITARY to deliver justice for the heroes lost
and wounded in the cowardly attack on the USS Liberty.
Unless the Islamic Republic of Iran is resisting ZUS demands, & has covert nuclear
weapon & delivery systems, I am afraid that the post-WW2 (carved up) Germany landscape
will become its terrible fate.
Thanks a lot for delivering such solid Gold(berg) information, renfro.
Americans are immersed in an existencial war for their values and beliefs. For starters
start thinking what to do with poisonous Hollywood.
Hollywood is one cesspit; another is the public library that you, Mr & Mrs Taxpayer
support.
I'm acquainted with three major public library systems. Their shelves groan with fiction
by authors such as those C Span featured last year in its series on (best selling) fiction
writes. Among those interviewed:
David Ignatius
Brad Thor
Brad Meltzer
David Baldacci
Jodi Piccoult
Geraldine Brooks
Rabbi Manis Friedman's declaration triggered this rant:
Early in Meltzer's The Book of Lies , his main character asserts:
"If there was one constant in history it was that victors torched property, salted the
earth, destroyed all the old idols. No sense warehousing the past when you could obliterate
it entirely."
In, The Increment , David Ignatius praises: "The young Iranian scientist did the
right thing: he betrayed his country and sold out to CIA."
Jodi Piccoult's "The Storyteller" is so full of holocaust propaganda she might as well be
ghost writing for Simon Wiesenthal.
Baldacci is a hack sell-out. His writing -- as most of the others -- is two steps removed
from Stratemeyer Syndicate / Hardy Boys – Nancy Drew. But be sure to mention Nazis in a
bad light and Jews/Israel in a favorable light, and you're golden.
Meltzer is forthright enough to discuss his close relationship with CIA, Secret Service,
and other US agencies that most of us do not have access to. What are the chances US
government is subsidizing these authors to produce fiction to shape the minds of the
American people?
There are non-profit organizations that work with publishing houses to send these
books by the truckload to military service members in MENA and elsewhere.
Public libraries spend tens- if not hundreds of thousands of dollars acquiring these
books, in print, large print, and CD. Writers in this grouping construct their stories to
make them readily adaptable to Hollywood movies.
The networking is extraordinary: C Span, "sponsored as a public service by your cable
companies," provides a platform for these writers to promote their work.
Cable companies are owned by interests that also own newspapers as well as the publishing
houses that market these books.
Hollywood is incestuously related to all of the above.
The American people are screwed every which way: their tax dollars are used to fund public
libraries that peddle propaganda; they pay for cable services that propagandize them; they
pay to see movies that degrade and propagandize them.
While their tormentors collect fat paychecks and laugh at them.
The fever pitch of Trump decent is off the charts.
Trump saying. he was going to pull out the troops from Syria – is a cultural and
diplomatic earthquake. The possibility of that happening, has shaken the Jews to the
core.
Look at Drudge today – things are going crazy – the Jew media is fighting him
on virtually everything that is going on in America. They are attacking him on every
pronouncement. It is 24/7 get Trump.
Hmm -- just who owns and controls the US MSM – JEWS.
Sorry folks – it is all Jew intimidation – they are saying to Trump "screw
with Israel's security, and we Jews will kill your presidency."
@Ahoy Crazy
religious people are not just among jews
Dutch politician vd Staay is under fire here because of his ideas about homosexuality, the
Nashville declaration.
Why anyone bothers about such nonsense is beyond my comprehension
Probably the Torah forbids homosexuality in order to get maximum population growth
Ideas resembling what I read here, because the Chinese population grows the USA must welcome
migrants
Idiots
@Art
"ISTANBUL -- President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey denounced the White House national
security adviser John R. Bolton for comments he made ahead of his arrival in the Turkish
capital and refused to meet him on Tuesday, making any agreement between the two NATO
partners over a United States withdrawal from Syria increasingly difficult.
Mr. Erdogan said Mr. Bolton had made a "grave mistake" when he said that Turkey must agree
to protect Syria's Kurds in the event of an American withdrawal.
"It is not possible for us to swallow the message Bolton gave from Israel," Mr. Erdogan
said in a speech to political party members in Parliament. Turkey was only opposed to Kurdish
militant groups and not ordinary Kurds, he insisted."
-- -- -- Erdogan Cancels Meeting With Bolton, As U.S. Seeks To Reassure Allies On Syria
NPR January 8, 2019
"Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has apparently snubbed U.S. national security
adviser John Bolton, canceling a planned meeting to discuss the withdrawal of U.S. troops
from Syria as well as the fate of a U.S.-allied Kurdish militia fighting ISIS in Syria.
Bolton's meeting with Erdogan was canceled moments before it was to begin, reflecting
Turkish anger at Bolton's insistence that those Kurdish forces be protected after more than
2,000 American troops exit northeastern Syria."
@Art And
then orange clown said: "Oh yeah? Screw with my "presidency" and I'll investigate the Sandy
Hook elementary school "shooting," 9/11 and the attack on the USS Liberty."
@Ilyana_Rozumova
I agree.
Hell, Trump wasn't even supposed to get this far per 'the polls' and the pre-election media
onslaught, but here we are.
Strict immigration control is something way too may Americans want, even Hispanics &
blacks are figuring it out, (1.3 of Hispanics actually voted for Trump in 2016), They see
their wages taking a hit because of the cheap, illegal labor who pay no taxes, but access
free stuff like they do.
And who will the ne0-Communists run against him? Airhead Ocasio-Cortez, Hillary? LOL
Trump would slaughter them.
The neo-Communists only chance is to get Trump out before the 2020 election
with the fake Mueller thing, and that's not going to happen. Too many have seen through that
scam, and Mueller has nothing or we would have seen it.
Trump will do whatever the REAL bosses, the FED, those corrupt Wall Street casinos and Israel
tells him to do. He's nothing more than a carny barker, a fool that keeps the gullible marks
occupied so they won't bitch about never-ending war; endless monetary support for Israel and
our nation's infrastructure turning into 3rd world status while the MIC gets a bigger share
each year.
Trump went bankrupt four different times, yet he's still a multi-billionaire? The ones who
backed him thru that are now calling in their chits.
As No One Watched, Trump Pardoned 5 Megabanks For Corruption Charges -- Who He Owes
Millions January 2018
While Americans celebrated the holidays, President Trump followed in the footsteps of
his predecessors by acting in the interest of Wall Street and using the distraction to do
something that was not in the best interest of the American people. He pardoned five
megabanks for rampant fraud and corruption, which is especially notable because of the
amount of money he owes them.
Trump has been using Deutsche Bank since the 1990s, and Financial Times has reported
that he now owes the bank at least $130 million in outstanding loans secured in properties
in Miami, Chicago, and Washington. However, a source told the Times that the actual number
is likely much larger at $300 million.
Reports claimed that Deutsche was the only bank willing to lend Trump money after his
companies faced multiple bankruptcies. The relationship has continued over the years, and
an analysis from the Wall Street Journal claimed that Trump has received at least $2.5
billion in loans from Deutsche Bank over the last 20 years.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/trump-pardoned-megabanks-owes-millions-rampant-fraud-corruption/
Steal a couple hundred from a liquor store and you'll do ten years. Steal trillions and
you'll get a pass, some money from Congress and the green light to steal again.
@SolontoCroesusI'm acquainted with three major public library systems. Their shelves groan with fiction
by authors such as those C Span featured last year in its series on (best selling) fiction
writes.
S2C – Great comment – Thanks!
I love C-Span's weekend Book TV. It is the best programing on the tube.
They do all non-fiction except for this last year with the 3 hour long fiction writers.
Most of them I turned off.
@anonymousMr. Erdogan said Mr. Bolton had made a "grave mistake" when he said that Turkey must agree
to protect Syria's Kurds in the event of an American withdrawal.
Bolton and Pompeo are living in the last century when America was respected.
The aftermath of 9/11 has destroyed our credibility. The world correctly views the US
government as being controlled by the Jews.
Clearly, fighting terrorist wars for the Jews, has diminished our moral standing and place
in the world. Our military is weakened and dissipated – we are falling behind in new
tech – we are losing out in the cyber conflicts. America is getting dangerously behind
in a thousand ways.
Bolton and Pompeo are bad guys working for the Jews – and the world knows it. Those
two think, that all they have to do is say "Iran" and everyone will fall in place – it
is not happening! (The world has no respect for our killing the Iran nuke deal.)
@SolontoCroesus
Let's not forget the fake Diary of Anne Frank and the ridiculous & easily debunked
Destruction of European Jewry</i,. by Zionist Raul Hilberg*, to name just a few of the
witchcraft equivalent books on the "holocaust" that plaque our libraries.
" it is questionable whether one should accept improbable figures supplied by a not
overly friendly source."
– American Jewish Year Book, , 1972, Vol. 73, p. 536
* Raul Hilberg quotes no less than 20 times as a source in his standard work about the
"Holocaust" ,Filip Mueller, who described how he ate cake in an alleged cyanide-saturated gas
chamber. : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10426
Oh, I really would like to share this author´s New Year optimism with respect to the
"US withdrawing from useless wars" , but, as far as I read over there, it seems quite certain
the while possibly withdrawing ( in case this is going to happen anytime, or just they decide
to remain so as to waste other´s victory ) from what has become useless wars in the
Middle East and Central Asia, if not because of the presence of formidable opponents there,
the US seems to not loose a minute to engage in others which could result much more usefull,
mainly, if we remember Trump´s reproach on "we should had grabbed the oil" , and
so, we have that
preparations to disrupt countries in the Caribbean Sea ,
or intends to grabb portions of Africa even if necessary by usual method of kicking the
door are next in the eternal list of unending agressions by the US and its "allies" .
Thus, it is crystal clear to me that what we will have with Trump and the masters who put
them in charge in the first place and move the strips behind him, is more of the same
elevated to the nth potence .
I wonder what more is needed to have you all in the streets doing the only thing you can
do to obligue them to do what you gratutiously affirm Trump is going to do ( whenever that is
going to happen )
The information about what your country has always done, continue doing to date, and is all
the way planning to do, is all out there for everybody to find and assess.
That you deny acknowledgment of this can only be for two reasons, willing blindness and
deafness, so that your way of life does not change a bit, or willing collaboration with the
so called "deep state"/"the borg" through taking part in disinformation operations, being the
latter the highly likely case of, former or current, intelligence
operatives/journalists/analysts .
May be, you, with your "fake stories", "fake news", "fake success", "fake victories"
..will manage to make the lives of increasingly more people increasingly miserable, but, that
all that, sooner or later, will pay unto you, and, consequently, you will end rotten in hell
believe me, that is a fact .
@Wally Wally
said: 'Too many have seen through that ("fake Mueller thing") scam, and Mueller has nothing,
or we would have seen it."
Hey Wally!
Speaking respectfully, "we" see what Zionist's want us to see, and they have no problem
with 'Merkins' presumed capability to see through "fake" special prosecutor stuff.
I liken ZUS citizens' bizarre & engineered political situation to that which Simon
& Garfunkel described in peppy song, "A man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the
rest."
The Zio Corporate Media, including the often gripping DrudgeReport, feasts upon what
appears to be a (combined) left & right flogging of what appears to be the wounded
political carcass of President Trump.
But tonight, when the contentious & divisive border-wall address is completed, Oval
Office lights out, and Trump tucks-in, the ruling darkness never sleeps.
Fyi, Wally, earlier and while in-between Scranton school bus runs, I indulged "Head- Start
Program, 101; No Dumb Goyim Left Behind," by reading Andrew Bacevich's mind expanding &
new U.R. article, below, subtitle, "Abizaid of Arabia."
Try Bacevich? For nothing "is" as to what Zio spinners appear to tell what it is "is."
This just in!: The Wall Will Not Stop Illegal Immigration !
Even if built according "to plan" [an impossibility, of course, given the nature of
governments], the border wall would not prevent illegal immigrants, except maybe in the very
short term, until people found various ways around its presence.
A border wall would be just another government scam, a worthless boondoggle that would
only benefit the contractors and the politicians, just like every other government program
throughout history.
Why? Because so-called government "solutions" cannot work.
All one has to do to reach this conclusion is to look at the world around us with a cold,
unbiased eye, and observe the massive failure of other government "solutions" to date such
as:
1] the war on drugs.
2] government- run healthcare
3] government- run education
4] government environmental regulation
5] the government war on poverty via welfare programs
6] government racial integration policies
The list of failures is endless , and at the present time- ever expanding into new areas
supposedly 'begging" for government "solutions" that will not work either, because , tah dah!
: government "solutions " cannot ever work, [for reasons I will not get into here], although
admittedly, in the very short term they might appear to work. but it never takes long for
"the rot to set in"
And then orange clown said: "Oh yeah? Screw with my "presidency" and I'll investigate
the Sandy Hook elementary school "shooting," 9/11 and the attack on the USS Liberty."
And then I woke up.
Is Trump going to wake up and smell the Jews destroying him?
Will he call out the editors and CEO's of the media by name?
WOW! What outstanding, let me say, poetic (prophet-like) following paragraph, which
addresses the doomed soul of real evildoers: "May be, you, with your "fake stories", "fake
news", "fake success", "fake victories" ..will manage to make the lives of increasingly more
people increasingly miserable, but, that all that, sooner or later, will pay unto you, and,
consequently, you will end rotten in hell believe me, that is a fact ."
Go, go, (Lady?) Fatima! Fyi, the sick U.S. Zio Corporate Media-directors and ZUS "Long
War" practitioners cannot bear the reality of your warning. Thanks very much!
P.S.: During 1960's, Bob Dylan sang the pulsating "Masters of War" which for me, &
decades later, rings to your tune.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving
as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage
war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home.
and, overall, simply continue with the plan.
Change of demographics, as one element of it, will, probably, accelerate.
One reason I keep pointing out the Zios now in government is that they can use their
positions to create fake reports on Israel's enemies leading the US into even more actions
against our own interest.
I don't think Americans are paying attention to how dangerous this is. Too much of the talk
about Jewish crimes and deceptions is ancient history and no one is going to punish or end
Jewish manipulations over ancient history. ((They)) are only going to be stopped by exposing
what they are doing TODAY.
John Doe doesn't give a shit about whatever Jews did 100, 1000 years ago. Joe Doe might
give a shit about what the Jews are doing if they knew that they have taken over the US and
are sending all US blood and tax payer treasure to wars for Israel TODAY.
@RobinG
RobinG -- most pertinent information I came across is that a British writer, William
Nicholson, was working on a screenplay for a movie version of Red Notice.
I've never heard of the book. From a New York Times review, it appears there's a great
deal of insider financial/ Wall Street information, which is not Baldacci's strength -- James
Grippando specializes in that arena. The NYTimes review mentions Browder's "grating
self-regard." Would a ghost writer allow something like that to remain unedited? (Why did an
editor allow it to remain unedited?)
@renfro The
office of Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence was created
by uber Jew Stuart Levey, now legal counsel at HSBC.
When he left the post a few years ago, his former law partner, David Cohen, took his
place.
Jews-who-hate-Iran created and have occupied the position at Treasury since they created
it, specific ally for the purpose of bankrupting Iran.
You're right, renfro: people SHOULD know these things and SHOULD be outraged.
Thanks for putting it out there.
--
btw: Richie Goldberg has made a career of hating Iran. He was a student at a Chicago area
Solomon Schechter school, whose website carried a front-page banner proclaiming their mission
to "instill in students an undying devotion to Israel."
While still in his 30s, Goldberg became assistant to Illinois governor Bruce Rauner. He
leveraged that position to make Illinois the first state to pass legislation divesting state
pension funds from Iran-linked corporations.
Rich Goldberg is a proud defender of Israel and the United States, and that's not
hyperbole; as Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislative Affairs for Illinois Governor Bruce
Rauner and former Deputy COS to Senator Mark Kirk, Goldberg has helped advanced a number of
initiatives to protect and benefit Israel and serves as an intelligence officer in the U.S.
Navy Reserve.
In 2008, Goldberg spearheaded the deployment of X-Band missile defense radar to Israel
and later played an integral role in the passage of economic sanctions against the Central
Bank of Iran. This spring he helped Illinois become the first state to pass binding
legislation countering the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.
Goldberg is a board member of AJC Chicago and a regional governor of the Alpha Epsilon
Pi Fraternity, for which he serves as the representative on Iran to the Conference of
Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. http://www.juf.org/YLD/WYLD.ASPX (2015)
--
btw again: the Jodi Picoult book mentioned above focuses on the work of one Leo Stein, who
occupies a US government office that searches out and prosecutes "Nazi war criminals," --
this novel revolves around a 93 year old "former SS" member that the main character
ultimately kills. Jews use US institutions & tax $ to carry out their psychopathology
@SolontoCroesus
"Grating self-regard" is the lesser fault with Red Notice . it's a tissue of lies.
Anyway, ghost writers don't need their own depth of research, like biographers. They just
take their subject's story and spin it well. His job was puffing up Browder as a hero.
@renfro
renfro said: "I don't think Americans are paying attention to how dangerous this is."
Hey renfro!
Pitifully, Jews count on millions of curiously alert American people who are trained &
predisposed to "pay attention" to that which the TV tells them, and count on all to believe
it, and obediently follow Judas Goat-herd authority.
At present, am a lot like you.
Average "John Does" today would let Jews slide if he/she learned that the stilted
Holocaust education served as the state of Israel's launch pad, a reason to be criminal.
Now there's fascinating excitement about America getting a real 9/11 terror attack
investigation, the one then FBI Director Robert Mueller missed. Am saddened to say that the
Al Qaeda-perp "whopper" fantasy is more entertaining, and legions of dumb goyim
(Bible-thumping) believers would persist to agree with Netanyahu's incredible assessment,
"9/11 was good for Israel."
So, renfro, the great proposition is, & as you put it: "Joe Doe might give a shit
about what the Jews are doing if they knew that they have taken over the US and are sending
all US blood and tax payer treasure to wars for Israel TODAY."
Big problem for me is the Protocols of Zion world takeover-plan, and how Jews will never
let a bad (stinky) "taxpayer" finding fester out of control, for example, the facts you
wrote, directly above.
As a pessimistic-optimist, here's how I see things: Contemporary Americans must dismount
couches, reconcile to wear "do-rags" with bird feathers, fashion Anti-Zio War Paint instead
of belly tattoos, and regain their stolen "Homeland."
Really hope/pray I'm nuts, renfro, but no Western Wall visit and yarmulke for me. Thank
you!
@renfro In
2001 a woman intern was found dead in then congressman Joes office with a gash on her head,
and not one thing was done about this, who benefits?
I'd say they are getting out of Syria. If for no other reason than they lost and have nothing
to do there, which is increasingly obvious despite the media held curtain of lies. I'm
convinced Trump genuinely does want to withdraw US troops from some theatres but he is facing
tremendous pushback from the bloated MIC and all it's little minions. Probably learning as he
goes the real reasons for some of them, such as the minerals and opium in Afghanistan. I
can't see them letting go of those goodies easily though replacing the troops with
contractors is a likely option.
@ChuckOrloski
People's capacity to ignore an uncomfortable reality is unlimited. I once had a shocking
example of it when I and my 2 kids were witness to a massive triangle UFO, which moved
silently, very low and slowly near a major road in the city I live in. My daughter hid under
the dashboard and wouldn't even look. Even so that is how nearly everyone else from numerous
cars reacted and even a bus which stopped and I tried to get a dozen people on-board to look
at this thing. My gesticulating and waving to the cars passing to look to their right was
absolutely ignored by ten or more cars which passed. They saw me alright but they would NOT
turn their heads! I could see some of them staring ahead grimly and obviously refusing under
any circumstances to look. They seemed angry at me for trying to make them look even. They
all either laughed at me as they passed or gave me a nasty look. This is NOT how people treat
others in Perth, Western Australia usually, indeed several would normally have stopped to see
if we were OK.
The people on the bus giggled and made fun of me, yet would not no matter how much I
implored them simply look out that window and acknowledge a freaking massive aircraft carrier
sized black aircraft no more than a couple of hundred meters off the ground. It was dusk but
still somewhat light and it had three lights on it also. Eventually ONE guy did stop and look
but it was a long way away by then. He could see the odd light configuration and noticed even
at that distance it was not making the sound a jet would but that was it. I was astounded not
by the UFO so much as by the weird reaction of most people who should have seen it yet
something in them was so powerful it could make them anticipate something before they even
saw it and avoid seeing it even physically since to do so would obviously have shattered
their world view too much I guess.
That is why the truth of 9/11, Kennedy's slaying, the Holocaust [TM] and virtually all the
wars which is so easy to access, will never become common currency so long as their
acknowledgement will have a major impact on people's paradigms. The media of course do their
part in feeding into this cognitive dissonance for their sheeple but in the end it is what
the sheeple want as well. They don't want to be informed they want to be validated and
amused.
More truths that people will not acknowledge, even if they were shown widely to them via
their usual information swill bucket. ETs as my example directly demonstrates, MH-17, the USS
Liberty. The nuclear 'Energy' lie. (Nuclear "Power stations" are really just part of the
nuclear weapons process) The medical swindle around most "incurable diseases". The true
history of almost any nation, they're almost all based on great founding myths which would
not stand the light of examination but nobody wants to know except those for whom knowing
might bring some benefit. An excuse to reclaim something supposedly lost and which loss
itself is more often then not another invented myth. I despair of the human race becoming
enlightened or exalting the virtues inherent in mankind. It will only happen on an individual
basis, there's no 100th monkey situation that is another myth anyway.
They saw me alright but they would NOT turn their heads! I could see some of them
staring ahead grimly and obviously refusing under any circumstances to look. They seemed
angry at me for trying to make them look even. They all either laughed at me as they passed
or gave me a nasty look.
. something in them was so powerful it could make them anticipate something before they
even saw it and avoid seeing it even physically since to do so would obviously have
shattered their world view too much I guess.
.will never become common currency so long as their acknowledgement will have a major
impact on people's paradigms.
and, the most important:
.in the end it is what the sheeple want as well. They don't want to be informed they
want to be validated and amused.
Actually, the only important when dealing with average person.
I've had plenty related experiences. Nothing such extraordinary; just the usual stuff
about power, politics, social issues, even health. Always willful, derogatory, even hostile
reaction to simple common sense.
And, TPTBs do know that. That's why they are where they are.
They know the truth and act upon it. Realists.
And idealists, no matter what type, stick to their delusions. "If we could just inform and
educate people" and similar bullshit.
Feels good, though.
@ChuckOrloski
Chuck:
Speaking of CODOH, coming soon from 'Holocaust Handbooks' Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, An Introduction and Update to
Jean-Claude Pressac's Magnum Opus , By Germar Rudolf http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=42
Oh my oh dear – surprise surprise' – Senator Marco Rubio pays back Jew sugar
daddies with first bill of the 2019 Senate – killing free speech for BDS movement
against Israel.
Heavens to Betsy – can you believe it – go figure' – the darling of
American conservatism FOX JEWS defends the bill.
p.s. To her credit, the Jewess Senator Diane Feinstein opposes the bill.
"On Friday, a State Department official said "(w)e have no timeline for our military
forces to withdraw from" the country. Delay may turn out to be not at all.
On Sunday, a senior Iraqi parliamentarian said
"(t)he Americans have built a military base in Erbil (in) the Iraqi Kurdistan region to
use against Iraq's neighboring countries, in particular Iran and Syria."
Iraqi media said the Pentagon has 14 military bases in the country – along with a
reported 18 in Syria. The US is highly unlikely to abandon them, especially ones considered
most strategically important.
An earlier report indicated the Pentagon intends establishing a permanent base along the
Iraqi border with Syria. Turkey reportedly established one or more military bases in
northwestern Aleppo.
On Saturday, a senior Trump regime official said US forces may remain indefinitely at the
(illegally established) al-Tanf base in southeastern Syria near the Iraqi and Jordanian
borders "
-- -- -- -- -- –
There has been a major change in US propaganda. In its earlier versions , US has always
downplayed whats it's interest are, what it is trying to achieve, how it is trying to achieve
– whether the case was in Soviet or Iraq or Vietnam or Libya few years ago. Now the
neocons declare what they plan how they plan and whats the objectives are . With that
differences between former and current, one can see also so called victory before and the
absolute defeat now.
@Rabbitnexus
I was going to say that you had better make sure of your St Paul before taking the decisive
trip on your donkey But then I see he is there ready to go in the shape of PeterAus. So now
you needn't wait: get yourself crucified after alerting all the media, mainstream and
alternative. Pruning the gospels for some semblance of consistency you will, I'm afraid, just
have to trust Your Father will look after.
My gesticulating and waving to the cars passing to look to their right was absolutely
ignored by ten or more cars which passed. They saw me alright but they would NOT turn their
heads!
While I've never seen such a thing as a UFO, I've had similar responses from people when
I've tried to warn them of potentially dangerous situations while driving on the freeway such
as unlatched hoods on their cars to wobbling wheels on their trailers, to unsecured loads
that were bouncing around.
Now as to the assertion that history is useless or foolish, I do agree with the idea that
for most people a knowledge of history is wasted on them, but there are a significant few, I
think, who see the light after understanding that what's being detailed today is largely the
fruit of past efforts. I also am a proponent of exposing past crimes so that people are not
surprised when they see how the methods are very similar to those being used at the present
and will likely be used in the future. A further benefit is that people will begin to
understand what is not effective and that it's imperative to look for ways to undermine the
parasite classes.
Another reason why knowledge of history is important is that it helps immunize people
against being lied to by the purveyors of fake news and fake history. Such knowledge really
seems to help in assessing the verity, or lack thereof, of those who make excuses for bad
behavior or try to downplay the seriousness of unacceptable and irresponsible behavior.
I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who
reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is
filled with falsehoods & errors.
It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely
deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to
falsehood.
p.s. To her credit, the Jewess Senator Diane Feinstein opposes the bill.
Mere theater, I suspect.
Can there be any doubt that the Senator, Diane Feinstein, merely pretends to
oppose the bill?
Most of what the clowns say is meant to be laughed at, not believed, and almost all are
clowns. Furthermore history shows that in that respect nothing's changed over the
millennia.
Trumpy's foreign policy is more step-in-the-bucket than bait and switch.
My take is that it's the good cop, bad cop routine. It's just another version of The
Shrub's promises of implementing compassionate conservatism and a humble foreign policy or
O-bomb-a's hope and change
Trump says something that the ever hopeful Trumpettes want to hear, then does exactly as
his bosses desire. This allows The Trumpster to appear like the good guy while maintaining
hope and simultaneously enabling his supporters to claim that da devil would't let him do it.
The Boltons of the world no doubt enjoy their roles as devils.
And I agree that The Cackling Hyena would have been exponentially worse, but that's small
consolation and no denying that the masses are being played, again.
@jacques
sheete This would explain Trump's heartening announcement of U.S. withdrawal from Syria,
immediately followed by Pompeo and Bolton hustling and bustling amongst our valued Mid East
allies, issuing consolations and moderations. Witness Bolton's recent twitterings of the U.S.
now "coordinating" its withdrawal from Syria with Israel, downstream of Trump's original
immediate withdrawal, then 4-month withdrawal.
Our Zio Media never tells us that John Bolton is a Neoconservative and is establishing
presidential foreign policy geared to Israeli requirements and in fact against NATO ally,
Turkey.
Israel likes the Kurds due to only an obsession to divide & conquer neighboring
Islamic countries. As a ZUS-approved "good" terror state, the Kurds want territory spanning
Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
A very shitty & transparent deception, please refer to article, below, Jacques?
(Zigh)
@DESERT FOX
Agree with all except the worship of JFK. Kenned was the one that started the UN one world
government ball rolling with Public Law 87-297. Truth be known every president, including
Washington has been part of the plan to make America the "New Atlantis", with one possible
exception, Andrew Jackson. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/do.htm
@RVBlake
RVBlake wrote: "Witness Bolton's recent twitterings of the U.S. now "coordinating" its
withdrawal from Syria with Israel, downstream of Trump's original immediate withdrawal,"
Hey Blake!
Re above; a question.
Why doesn't our Zio Media report on how Bolton managed to overturn Trump's 2016
presidential election, and how he easily managed to tweak & assume the role as US
Commander in Chief of the armed forces?
@ChuckOrloski
The MSM is part of the narrative, the septic tank melange of Pentagon, neocons, liberal
interventionists No way they're turning on one of their own. They most likely sneer at his
past political associations, i. e. Bush/Cheney, but they publicly endorse him as less evil
than Trump.
About my major point, re; the Kurds, their leaders know they have ZUS and Israeli miliary
support, and such stuff can end up causing a major war, and US troops who remain in Syria are
most regrettably in danger of becoming ritualistic & unnecessary "sacrificial lambs."
Appears evident that Commander in Chief Trump is fighting to secure the US southern border
(with Mexico), and his NSA Director Bolton has the job of securing Israeli expansion into
Lebanon and Syria.
Agree with all except the worship of JFK. Kenned was the one that started the UN one
world government ball rolling with Public Law 87-297. Truth be known every president,
including Washington has been part of the plan to make America the "New Atlantis", with one
possible exception, Andrew Jackson
Getting your information from gun owner rights nut case sites is not a good idea.
Public Law 87-297 had nothing to do with the 2nd ammendment. It was a reaction to the arms
race with Russia , nuclear fears and the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Basically a brain fart of
the times but one that led to the eventual reduction of nuclear weapons in Russia.
Further, it was Eisenhower that was the biggest champion of the UN and international law
after WWII.
Further you need to read Washington's Farewell Address if you think he was a 'globalist'
-- he was the exact opposite.
Washington's Farewell Address 1796 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
@ChuckOrloski
Comrade ChuckOrloski, you are really very kind, and generous, to consider that anything I
could write with my scarce command of English language could be anytime qualified as
"poetic", but I am glad if, in any way, it served you, or any other person, as inspiration
or, at least, to be moved a bit from the wide conformism in front of what we are witnessing
and are being directed to.
I thank you for the reference to Dylan´s song ( which I am not worthy of being
compared to..), which I did not know so far, since not so heard at my country, and even at my
times, which became a bit more cynic, despaired and self-destructive than yours ( when the
anti-war movement was at its full heights of plenitude and strenght .Although they managed to
fully disintegrate it be it through generalized introduction of drugs amongst the youth and
hopeful ..or directly cutting the tongues of the troubadours ..), but, still, we had our
bards too .
In this vein, you remind me of the fact that perhaps the lack of inspiration of these
times lays in part, apart from in the general alienation by electronic devices, in the lack
of bards .To kill the bards has always been one of their priorities as ancient leyends tell
us .
But we will prevail .and will return to the streets . again .
Great work as always, Phil -- with the exceptions that you should have devoted due attention
to (i) the nefarious, always-lurking Zionist presence/influence of Sheldon Adelson on Trump
and our body politic and (ii) the neocon/Zionist/Israel-first (near) unanimity of our
legislative branch in affairs of the Middle East and beyond that makes a mockery of any use
of the term "US national [security] interests." Other areas: the MIC, the MSM,
Ziothinktankdom, the Palestinians' fading hopes of justice and liberation .
(I can't find time and energy to review the comments; I'm sure there are some great
ones.)
@Wally Being
that our jewish-supremacist masters apparently wanted the perfidious orange clown over
clinton, I have to assume that the orange clown is even more evil than clinton.
@Fatima
Manoubia Fatima Manoubia wisely noted: "To kill the bards has always been one of their
priorities as ancient legends tell us,"
Greetings from Scranton, Pa, Fatima!
Am in complete agreement with your insight above.
US social engineers have accomplished insidious modification of the great art of poetry.
Shall brand the hostile takeover as Zionist Infirmity in Art.
You are too kind to me, and no doubt, U.R. commenters, for example RobinG, shall second my
motion. Nonetheless, thanks & I dig your enthusiasm for noble non-conformism!
Loved Bowie's performance of "Life on Mars." Will share it with dear friends.
And, maybe you will like Peter Gabriel, linked below, and his performing a classical
version of David Bowie's great "Heroes," live in Verona.
P.S.: A bit disappointed, am not expecting the great Peter Gabriel to produce other
tribute-songs in memory of real national heroes, as he did the stirring one for Stephen Biko,
martyr. And Jewish Bob Dylan, has-been radical? He's doing Tony Bennett covers.
To be fair, not many men below the Second Person of the Trinity could succeed against
the array of forces facing Trump.
To be even more fair, in order to succeed against the evil forces, orange clown would at
least have to try to oppose them which means he would first have to stop being their willing
agent.
IMO Senate anti-BDS bill is an Israeli effort to kill free speech in the US
"Pro-Israel lawmakers in Washington, undeterred by the partial shutdown of the United States
government, are pursuing their agenda full speed with the introduction of the first piece of
legislation before the 116th Senate -- a bill that aims to stifle the free-speech rights of
American critics of apartheid Israel.
The Republican-controlled Senate's first bill (S.1) would enact penalties on entities that
engage in boycotts of Israel -- one of many measures in the United States intended to push back
on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
BDS seeks to place economic pressure on companies and institutions that support Israeli ones
operating in illegally occupied areas in Palestine, in order to pressure the Israeli government
into compliance with international law and to cease its practices of apartheid, ethnic
cleansing, and the ongoing encroachment of Israeli settlements." Alexander Rubenstein
------------
Even as this travesty of law is driven forward in the senate, US senators Cruz and Cotton
are in Israel supporting Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights and official American
recognition of the annexation. These Syrian lands were seized in war by Israel in 1967 and
occupied ever since.
IMO this bill, if it became law, would be struck down by the courts as
unconstitutional.
Servants of a foreign power and enemies of the Constitution. Disgraceful. The Republic has
been utterly corrupted and these traitors should all be in jail.
Seems this Senate bill goes far beyond trying to muzzle our free speech. It attempts to
force us to buy Israeli products and invest in Israeli companies and institutions. There's
going to be some serious civil disobedience if this piece of crap passes.
Good to see the new Congress has got its priorities straight with 'Strengthening
Israel's America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019'. The anti-BDS
bit is an abomination. As it is not yet illegal to petition your senator, and with our host's
permission, I'd urge everyone to make use of the ACLU's pro-forma message of objection to the
bill. Just fill in the form online:
Unfortunately this is probably not unconstitutional. It won't be illegal to call for a
boycott of Israel, it will just be illegal to boycott Israel. An analogy: it's not illegal to
say "don't hire black people," but it is illegal to not hire black people.
Also, I bet South Africa wishes they had a better lobby.
How do Cruz and Cotton get around the UN resolutions that recognize the Golan as Syrian
territory? And if they are successful what would that do to US relations with Jordan, the
Saudis, and the Gulf States?
I suspect Cruz and Cotton are just playing to that part of their evangelical base like
Jeffress and others that seem obsessed with apocalyptic literature.
Recognizing Taiwan involved similar problems but we finessed it - I think Israel's friends
in Congress can come up with something similar for "de facto but not official recognition" of
Golan as Israeli territory. The Izzies will be happy - they like to take things inch by
inch.
As for Jordan, KSA, and the Gulfies - they have had to swallow more bitter medicine in the
past, and they will again in the future. They have nowhere to go.
"I don't care about Europe," declared US President Donald Trump this week during his White
House cabinet's first meeting of the new year.
The American president probably revealed more about the true nature of US-European relations
than he intended.
Trump was speaking
in the context of American military involvement with Europe, as well as trade and other issues.
He was reiterating the tedious mantra that the US is allegedly being "taken advantage of" by
European allies by not spending more on their military budgets.
It was the usual rambling, barely articulate fallacy from Trump who portrays the inherent
military profligacy of American corporate capitalism not as a destructive vice, but as a
supposed virtuous cause of "protection" for allies and the rest of the world. In short,
delusional American exceptionalism.
But it was Trump's bluntly stated contempt for European allies that was notable. In a quip
to a question about his reported unpopularity in Europe, the president said he didn't care what
Europeans think. A few seconds later, in a betrayal of his arrant egotistical state of mind,
Trump turned around and claimed that he would be popular if he stood in an election in
Europe!
Ironically, though, perhaps we should be grateful to Trump for his brash outspokenness. By
dissing Europe with such contemptuous disregard, he lays bare the true face of Washington's
relations with the old continent.
Past American presidents have been adept at presenting the transatlantic connection as a
putative "strategic partnership" – as most clearly manifested by the US-led NATO military
alliance. Trump's former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who resigned in protest over policies,
was of this conventional transatlantic mould. Mattis repeatedly talked up the importance of
maintaining strong bonds with allies.
However, decades of transatlantic rhetoric has often served to conceal the real relationship
between Washington and Europe. The reality is the Europeans are not partners. They are
vassals.
Successive European governments and the European Union have continually permitted their
countries to serve as bases for American military forces, including in the past, nuclear
weapons pointed at Russia. Those missiles may return to European soil, if the US walks away
from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty as it threatens to do under Trump.
The subordinate European governments have also dutifully facilitated American militarism by
affording a multilateral pseudo legal cover for Washington's imperialist wars. For example,
European nations sent troops to augment US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq thereby giving criminal
genocidal ventures a veneer of legitimacy.
Ironically, in his remarks to his cabinet this week Trump scoffed at European nations for
sending "only 100 troops" to Afghanistan and Iraq. He also mentioned Syria, illustrating how
rampantly arrogant US criminality is.
So, Trump is berating Europeans for not devoting more of their economic resources to match
the American pathological addiction to militarism; for not paying more for US military
occupation of European countries; and for not sending more troops to join in American overseas
criminal aggressions.
Previous American presidents would be a little more circumspect in disguising Washington's
tyrannical relationship with Europe. But Trump is too self-centered and boorishly transactional
in his view. The whole self-indulgent pretense of American chivalry and protection is shredded,
albeit unwittingly.
Trump told Europe this week he does not care a jot about the continent and supposed US
allies. With such contempt, European nations need to wake up to the reality of charting their
own independence from Washington, and in particular pursuing a genuine continental partnership
with Russia.
Washington's arrogance is perhaps most starkly expressed by the Trump administration
threatening European states with sanctions if they continue building the Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline from Russia. Russia is a natural strategic partner for Europe, especially in terms of
economical supply of gas and oil fuel.
The issue of energy supply and demand epitomizes so much else about the relation between
Europe and Russia, and the US. The latter is something of an imposter and is foisting its
selfish interests on others, whether in energy trade or in military affairs. We have also seen
this with regard to Trump tearing up the Iran nuclear deal and punishing Europe for upholding
that international treaty.
Trump could not have stated the reality of American disregard for European interests any
more brazenly. He doesn't give a fig.
At the end of last year, the European Union voted to renew economic sanctions on Russia for
another six months. Those sanctions are based largely on anti-Russian ideological claims made
by Washington and its NATO partners over a host of spurious issues, including conflict in
Ukraine and the preposterous fantasy of Russia interfering in elections. Again, the vassal
position of Europe is revealed by the fact that it is European economies, not the American
economy, that have incurred self-defeating damage from the sanctions on Russia.
European governments need to adopt something of Trump's "America First" policy and begin
putting the interests of their people first. Europe must repudiate Washington's antagonism and
militarism towards Russia. Many of the incumbent European governments seem incapable of finding
the necessary political will to be independent from Washington. That is partly why there is
such a phenomenal rise in popular discontent with the European Union and establishment
politicians. The powers-that-be are unresponsive and unrepresentative of popular interests and
needs, creating further backlash to the establishment institutions.
Europe needs to stop being a lackey of Washington. After Trump's blatant contempt this week,
Europe has no excuse or justification to continue debasing itself as an American vassal.
Agreed that the House of Saud and the salafist jihadis are to blame for so much that has
happened in the ME since long before 9/11. And that the Long War is always projected as
"defense" against the nefarious "terrorists" who are objects of the GWOT. But, dude, all the
terrorists in the world still don't have anything that amounts to a real army, navy, and
– how ridiculous can it be? – an air force. The Long War has never really
amounted to anything more than a cover story and a smoke screen.
That's because, as we have been informed of late, the real enemy is Russia. And China. And
everything else that counts in the Long Great Game of four-dimensional chess must necessarily
conform to the strategy that ultimately is about "containment" of those two competitors for
global power. This is not just my own opinion. It has come down from on-high, in statements
conveyed by the highest ranks of military authority. News flash: The "enemy" is no longer the
"terrorists" – if it ever was. The plan's best advocate may have been Paul Wolfowitz,
whose "doctrine" was "no peer competitors" – forever. That's the Long War for ya.
To retain a respectable status, Mr. Bacevich skipped over the hard evidence that Prince
Bandar directly funded the 9-11 terrorists (aka patsies) while all were in the USA, per the
FBI:
From my blog:
Jul 17, 2016 – The 28 Pages
After years of controversy, the House Intelligence Committee declassified part of their
December 2002 report on the 9-11 attacks, which shows direct Saudi involvement in supporting
the 9-11 attackers. This major story has been ignored by most of our corporate media. White
House press secretary Josh Earnest said: "This information does not change the assessment of
the US government that there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi
individuals funded al-Qaida." The BBC reported the story, but assures us it proves no high
level links to the Saudi government.
The House Committee report states that Saudi Ambassador to the USA and a close friend of
the Bush family, Prince Bandar, and his wife sent the 9-11 attackers thousands of dollars on
several occasions; but I guess the BBC does not consider him high-level, or their reporters
didn't bother to read the 28 pages. BBC readers will not know these facts because the BBC
report failed to provide a link to the 28 pages.
Bacevich should rewrite: After 9/11, the Israeli envoy made the most of those connections,
deflecting attention away from the role The Israelis had played in the events of that day
while fingering Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the true font of Islamist terrorism.
The hard evidence to substantiate the role played by Israel is overwhelming.
Unless you are saying that Prince Bandar may have been deliberatey involved in setting up
the events of 9/11 you are just waffling to get attention. And if you are saying that you are
spouting obvious BS.
" .General, can you describe this Long War of ours? What is its nature? What is it all
about?
Are we winning? How can we tell?
How much longer should Americans expect it to last?
What are we up against? ."
" ..What would be the criteria for removing our remaining troops from the Iraqi, Syrian,
and more general Middle Eastern conflicts? Or, for that matter, from Afghanistan, where we
have been trapped for more than 17 long years of still open-ended occupation?
If the answer to that question is that only when each of these countries is a healthy
pro-American democracy, and Islamist terrorism has ceased to be an "enduring" threat to the
West, then the answer, as the old Bob Mankoff joke has it, is "How about never -- is never
good for you?" ":
Recall that was a Saudi. So, too, were 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11,
2001.
Gimme a break.
When I saw Bacevich's name, I wasted no time reading. However, with that one statement,
his credibility just dropped to zero. Just another unthinking garbage peddler, (I'm in a
gnerous mood this AM), it seems.
To retain a respectable status, Mr. Bacevich skipped over the hard evidence that Prince
Bandar directly funded the 9-11 terrorists (aka patsies) while all were in the US.
While I have no hard evidence to either confirm or deny any of that, I commend you for the
likely accurate use of the term,"patsies." I highly suspect that they were little more than
actors in a false flag drama and think it would be more accurate to label them "alleged
terrorists." No?
That is what Mr Meyer is saying. Bandar was deliberately involved in setting up the events
of 911. Unless you are a follower of the absurd belief that 'Saudi Arabia did 911', then the
most rational explanation is that he was doing it on behalf of the deep state US/Israeli
plotters. The Saudis were effectively the handlers for the fake hijackers. Bandar blundered
somewhat by not having enough cutouts to make US govt claims that he was innocent totally
believable.
With MBS in charge, is Saudi Arabia part of the solution or part of the problem?
This is exactly the wrong question to ask. It's a testament to how thoroughly a Regime
Change mindset has disastrously taken hold that even seeming critics like you are captured by
it.
The Real Enemy . . . militant Salafism
Your use "enemy," let alone "The Real Enemy" is depressingly telling. Particularly for
pissant jihadis who we've variously funded and armed over the years.
Saudi Arabia is in the midst of a generational shift in its ruling factions.
How did our Regime Change Libya work out? Or Obama/Hillary's Morsi/MB gambit in Egypt?
The American foreign policy establishment is highly selective in who it deems beyond the
pale (e.g. assassin in chief; perpetrator of atrocities).
What does President Trump's recent nomination of retired Army General John Abizaid to
become the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia signify? That the President is focused on
stabilizing the Middle East and our position in it. It means that the Saudis must reverse
their military and strategic openings to Russia/China.
Prince Bandar's wife did send several thousand dollars to the terrorists who arrived in
Los Angeles airport, went directly to nearby Culver City and met s contact st the big Culver
City mosque and then to San Diego where they stayed a while.
The Saudi's claimed that the money sent to the terrorists was just the standard diplomat's
duty to help their nationals in foreign countries Most countries aren't that generous to
their traveling nationals. But most countries don't have the money that Saudi does.
Her sending the money was widely reported at the time.
Harold L Ickes at the end of 1944 made Saudi Arabia a USA colony.
Saudi Arabia somehow resembles Israel, without USA support it cannot exist.
But there is, still is, a big difference, the Saudi kings are just USA puppets, jews still
have enormous influence in the USA.
The other difference, Saudi Arabia has oil, Israel is just a nuisance.
"... Editor's Introduction: This article is about events that took place in 2012, but anyone who follows the news closely knows that nothing has changed. This is a remarkable account by someone who had an inside look at deliberate falsifications by what was once one of the most respected names in journalism. ..."
"... The program has disappeared from YouTube; it appears to be available only this much less trafficked site . But when it was broadcast, it made national headlines in Poland. The country's biggest television channel took the extraordinary step of broadcasting it just days later, dubbed in Polish. ..."
"... Many Poles were outraged at what they recognized as a vicious smear. It is worth noting that within a week or so, every single person ..."
"... Even Jacek Purski, director of Never Again , an organization dedicated to monitoring racism in Poland, says the program was one-sided . When a "watchdog" group calls a television program "one-sided," you can be sure it was outrageous. ..."
"... The Polish government demanded a clarification from the BBC, and even the foreign minister complained. Newspapers throughout Europe expressed skepticism, and reader comments left online were overwhelmingly outraged. The BBC took the very unusual step of publicly responding to criticism ..."
"... Then the BBC got a huge break from Barack Obama, of all people. During a ceremony at the White House honoring someone who had survived Auschwitz, Mr. Obama referred to it as a "Polish death camp" rather than a Nazi death camp in occupied Poland. Angry demands for an apology from the US government pushed "Stadiums of Hate" off the front page. After that, the relentless media cycle quickly relegated the whole affair to yesterday's news. ..."
"... the BBC seems to have taken pains to get copies off the internet. ..."
"... Panorama ..."
"... Mr. Krak does not expect to get any more work from the BBC. ..."
"... The Grauniad is in the same business. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/dec/09/raheem-sterling-newspapers-fuelling-racism-alleged-abuse-chelsea ..."
Editor's Introduction: This article is about events that took place in 2012, but
anyone who follows the news closely knows that nothing has changed. This is a remarkable
account by someone who had an inside look at deliberate falsifications by what was once one
of the most respected names in journalism.
In May of 2012, the BBC Panorama program broadcast a documentary about "racism" in
the host countries of the 2012 European soccer championship: Poland and Ukraine. Those two
countries were about to stage the second biggest event in the sport after the World Cup, and
legions of journalists had arrived to cover it. The purpose of the BBC program -- aired
strategically one week before the opening match -- was to argue that neither country was
qualified to host the tournament because of their "hateful" soccer cultures. The message:
All-white countries are hotbeds of violent racism, and non-white fans and players would be in
danger.
I know a lot about the Panorama program because I helped produce it. I saw what is
arguably the world's most famous and trusted media organization fabricate a false,
sensationalist story. Through outright distortion -- and by using only those pieces that fit
its predetermined views -- the BBC "documented" the vicious attitudes of people who live in
countries that are not sufficiently "diverse." The program had a scripted conclusion before a
single camera was turned on.
Panorama is
the BBC's flagship investigative program. It is the longest-running such production in the
world, having been on the air since 1953. The closest thing to it on American television is
probably 60 Minutes . Panorama enjoys a reputation for hard-hitting and
serious investigative journalism.
About three months before the tournament began, a BBC journalist got in touch with me
through mutual media contacts and asked me to help with the part to be filmed in Poland. He
said the program would be about aspects of the football culture -- hooliganism, trouble at
stadiums, etc. -- that could cause problems for players and fans alike. This topic is something
of a hobby of mine, and I have followed it carefully during my time in Poland. The BBC wanted
me to be a "fixer" -- the person on the ground who arranges things in advance for the
production team. That meant setting up interviews, scouting filming locations, getting press
passes and access to events, arranging transport, and a hundred other odds and ends. I was also
expected to contribute ideas based on my knowledge.
I suspected right from the start that they wanted things that make for good television
rather than a true investigation -- conflict, tension, etc. -- but I was somewhat reassured
because this was the BBC. Despite my reservations, I never thought they would make the
television equivalent of sensationalist trashy tabloid headlines.
The producer and a cameraman made their first trip to Poland in March 2012. They had asked
me to arrange an interview with Aviram Baruchian, an Israeli who played with Polonia Warsaw.
They said the interview was supposed to be about "his experience as a football player in
Poland," but the fact that they asked for him by name suggested they assumed he would have
horror stories about being mistreated by fans because he is Jewish.
The press officer for Polonia was very accommodating, something I found again and again when
dealing with officials from football clubs. People automatically trusted the BBC and went to
extraordinary lengths to give them what they wanted.
I met the production crew for the first time the day after the interview. When I asked how
it went, they joked about how useless it was. I was confused by their dismissive attitude and
felt a bit responsible, but they told me not to worry. I learned later from the Polonia media
spokesman that Mr. Baruchian had nothing but appreciative things to say about the fans and his
experience in Warsaw -- which is exactly why he isn't in the final program.
There is a curious "Jewish" angle to Polish football that is easily misunderstood. Fans
chant nasty things about Jews, but, strange as it may seem, it's not accurate to call it
serious anti-Semitism.
Many of the older clubs originally had or are thought to have had Jewish financial backing.
This is almost certainly true of the team in Lodz -- called Widzew Łódź --
since that city had a large Jewish population before the Second World War. These origins have
become a source of cheap name calling for people who seize on any excuse to trade insults. When
fans chant "death to the Jews," it sounds shocking -- and it certainly is brutish -- but this
is mainly a way of attacking the other team rather than Jews.
There has been a similar situation with the London football club Tottenham Hotspur, which
has had Jewish owners. Fans of rival clubs started chanting about the "Jewish" team. Tottenham
supporters eventually embraced this and some even call themselves the " Yid Army ." The fans of one Polish
club, Cracovia, were in the same position and did the same thing, now proudly calling
themselves the "Jewish Sons of Bitches." When I told the BBC about that, they weren't
interested.
Needless to say, there is a lot of anti-Jewish chanting in the final Panorama
program, but it is presented without explanation. It falsely makes the fans look as though they
want to send Jews to the ovens.
The Star of David is now used so much in soccer graffiti that a Polish teacher I met told me
that the children in his class associate it with the sport. He also had a friend from Israel,
so this seemed like gold for the BBC: a poignant combination of children, the star of David,
racism, and a chance to talk to another Israeli and get what they missed from Aviram
Baruchian.
I set up the interview, but it was another disaster. Both the teacher and his Israeli friend
said that, yes, while there certainly are boorish people, just as there are in every country,
most Poles are very nice etc. Again and again, the Israeli put a positive spin on things, even
when asked melodramatic questions about the Second World War. It was another "useless"
interview that didn't make the final cut. I remember that when we got back to the van everyone
burst out laughing about what a complete waste of time it had been.
The first actual match we went to film was Legia Warsaw vs. Polonia Warsaw. This contest had
an excellent chance of including all the things that make for great television, and it was
before I understood what the real focus of the program was, so I was sure the BBC crew would
not be disappointed. For about five hours, they filmed an army of police in full riot gear,
flares and firecrackers being thrown around the stands and onto the field, an enormous banner
unfurled by the home Legia fans declaring that Warsaw belonged to them, and a reply spelled out
by the small but brave contingent of visiting Polonia supporters, who held up cards to form one
big reply: "FUCK LEGIA." There was a hooligan with a bullhorn on an elevated platform and
countless examples of a well-known hand gesture delivered straight into the camera. A section
of the stadium was burned black by a flare that set fire to a banner.
The entire contingent of Polonia fans was still in that blackened section after the match,
surrounded by hundreds of security guards who would escort them out of the stadium perhaps an
hour or two later. This was to minimize the chance of contact with Legia hooligans who might be
waiting for them. It was easy to capture the violent atmosphere of the game, and I was
confident the production team was happy. As we made our way back to the van, I asked the
assistant producer if he was pleased. He made a face that said "not really," and then out of
nowhere asked, "Did you hear any racist or anti-Semitic chants?" He was visibly disappointed
when I said I hadn't.
Boring
The lead producer said he was more or less satisfied with the "visuals" but was disappointed
with the "substance." He asked again about something I had been unable to do: get one of the
more committed hooligan types to go on camera. This time he explicitly said he wanted someone
involved in "right-wing politics" as well as hooliganism.
I said it wasn't easy to get inside a violent crime syndicate. The higher-ups in any
hooligan organization are wanted by the police, and anyone further down is too scared to speak
to the media for fear of the "leaders." Believe me, anyone who goes on camera and says he's a
hooligan is either a wannabe or gets a very personal lesson in media relations from his former
friends. I did the best I could, striking up awkward and even dangerous conversations on dark
streets, and I visited dodgy clubs in four different cities, but I never delivered. The closest
I got was a conversation with the head of one club's "supporters organization," who demanded a
"fee" for "security." To its credit, the BBC refused to pay.
Time to get serious
The team went back to London, and I continued to look into leads. I began to realize that
what they wanted was bananas thrown at black players, Nazi salutes from the stands, and maybe
some brutal beatings to add color.
In a phone conversation with the assistant producer at the end of March, I detected a note
of urgency and in April, I got an e-mail message from him that said, "Our Executive Producer,
Karen Wightman [who was in charge of the entire Panorama series], wants us to film
black players and their experience of racism in Poland as a priority."
The BBC had dropped all pretense about what they were after -- at least with me -- though
they kept up the charade of a neutral investigation with others.
The crew decided to come see a match in the city of Łódź between ŁKS
Łódź and Widzew Łódź. Like the previous game in Warsaw, this
was a derby, that is to say, a contest between two clubs in the same city. Derbies typically
have the most intense atmosphere, and thus an elevated chance of the kind of incident the BBC
was looking for.
Widzew had two Nigerian players, Princewill Okachi and Ugo Ukah, and the BBC wanted
first-hand accounts of mistreatment. Mr. Ukah was of particular interest because he had played
for Queens Park Rangers in London and could compare his treatment in diverse, tolerant,
multicultural England with that of all-white, wicked Poland. Also, there would be two black men
on the visiting team in a contest famous for its wild fans. Everything was lined up perfectly
to provide the missing "substance."
I asked the BBC specifically what they wanted me to tell the press officer of Widzew and
they told me to say we were interested in Poland's preparation for the Euro 2012 tournament.
Someone else on the production team, who had also been in contact with Widzew by e-mail, sent
me this note:
They don't know at this stage we want to specifically talk about racism in Polish football
and their [the black players'] own personal experiences of abuse, so be prepared to schmuz
[sic] and impress.
"At this stage" was after the club had agreed to make the players available -- on Easter
Sunday, no less, to fit our tight schedule. We were supposed to "schmuz and impress" rather
than be forthright about the reason for the interview. I remember wondering how often the BBC
gets access and interviews under false pretenses. To my shame, I was helping set the trap.
Łódź was the BBC's last chance to find anti-black "racism." The broadcast
date for the final program was already booked and Panorama was fully committed to a
headline-grabbing account of the dark, racist side of what was soon to be Europe's biggest
sporting stage. But they had no racism.
It was in Łódź that the host, Chris Rogers , finally parachuted
into his own program. He was the one who had sold the BBC on the idea months earlier, and the
entire Panorama episode is presented as "his" investigation. Mr. Rogers made something
of a name for himself in 2007 with an undercover investigation of Romania's orphanages, and he
has been dining out on it ever since.
He flew in to interview the two Nigerian players and to do PTC's (pieces to camera) the
following day at the match to add to footage shot in Warsaw without him. He came across as a
typical media type who was good at fake sincerity and spent a little too much time on his
hair.
We went to the Widzew Łódź office to interview Mr. Okachi and Mr. Ukah. Mr.
Rogers started with softball questions, such as how long the players had been in Poland, where
else they had played professionally, etc. He turned things up a notch by asking about the
reception they had received in Poland. Both players gave positive answers. Time and again
Rogers dangled the carrot and time and again no one reached for it. Suddenly Rogers put on his
best journalist Serious Face, turned to Mr. Ukah, and said "Why has Polish football been
hijacked by racism?"
There was nothing in the interview up to that point to justify that question. It was so
unexpected that Mr. Ukah was taken aback for a moment before he was finally able to give a
suitably noncommittal answer. The next few minutes consisted of both Mr. Ukah and Mr. Okachi
repeatedly stating that though they had heard of things happening to other people, they had
never heard or seen anything that could be interpreted as racist abuse in Poland.
This went on for a few more minutes until both players had run out of nice ways to say "no"
to the same question. Mr. Rogers had no choice but to wrap it up.
"For the hundredth time: No."
The players left quickly to enjoy what was left of Easter. I distinctly remember Mr. Rogers
and the producer agreeing that they had "material to work with."
If you watch the final
version of the program , you will see how they "worked" with it. They made it sound as
though the players were talking about horrible things that happened to them . I was in
the room the whole time, paying careful attention, and those bits were taken from rambling
answers they gave about things they had heard happened to others . I was amazed at how
editing and voice-overs transformed the interview into something I couldn't recognize. Needless
to say, those were the only parts of the interview that were used.
I heard it. Trust me. Let's go.
The next day was the match. After filming the police using water cannons on fans, we went
inside the stadium. We set up a camera behind one of the goals and a microphone at midfield in
front the home fans. Mr. Rogers instructed me to be on the lookout for "anything good," and by
then I knew what he meant. He also told me to keep an eye on the Nigerian players and look for
any nastiness from the crowd. He constantly disappeared to sneak cigarettes and text his
friends in England. He wasn't even there for the kickoff. When he finally reappeared he asked
if I had seen or heard anything useful. When I said I hadn't, he disappeared again.
About 30 minutes in to the first half, we were still waiting for "something good," and Mr.
Rogers was visibly anxious. He paced back and forth, checking his phone more than he watched
the crowd or the match. Once, just to break the silence between us as we stood on the sidelines
or maybe to vent his frustration, he actually said out loud "Come on! Sing some Jewish
songs!"
At halftime, the five of us who were there got together to trade notes and suggestions, and
we decided to switch places to maybe improve our "luck." I was with the producer and one
cameraman; the other cameraman was high above the crowd on the opposite stand. Chris Rogers was
. . . somewhere.
The second half kicked off and we went back to work. There was plenty of thuggishness in the
stands -- you see a lot of it in the final version -- but still not what they wanted. There was
a palpable feeling of frustration and hopelessness as another 30 or so minutes passed.
That's when Chris Rogers walked up and said he had heard monkey sounds coming from the
crowd. No one knew quite what to say, but this certainly wasn't greeted with the kind of relief
and interest you would have expected. For a moment it seemed as though we were just waiting for
someone to say "Um . . . really?" but we just waited for Mr. Rogers to tell us exactly what
happened. All he said was that the microphone at midfield had probably picked it up, and he
told the producer to get ready to do a PTC about it. Thirty second later he was in Serious Face
mode, intoning that he had just heard monkey sounds directed at a black player. I kept waiting
for him to tell our cameramen what part of the stands the sounds came from so they could zoom
in on it. Surely he wanted to watch those fans in the hopes that they would do it again, this
time on camera?
No. Chris Rogers made no effort to get visual material for what was to be a key moment in a
television program. And it wasn't as if we were in a massive stadium with 60,000 people, where
it would be hard to pinpoint where sounds came from. The photo below is of the stadium, and the
picture captures about 80 percent of the length of the stand from which the monkey sounds
allegedly came. The banner says "This is how we have fun in Łódź." Not one of
the BBC crew said, "OK, Chris, where should we look?"
The recording from the microphone is in the final version of the program, and I challenge
anyone to detect what Chris Rogers claims to have heard. You might be at a loss to describe
exactly what the noise is, but "monkey sounds" is way, way down on the list of
possibilities.
In the broadcast version, this part of the recording is played over a shot they had taken
earlier in the match of Ugo Ukah attacking the ball. However, the audio is from a microphone
planted at the edge of the field. When they went back and "found" those sounds, they had no
idea what was going on in the match at that moment. But in the program, the sounds start the
moment Mr. Ukah is on the ball. The BBC took the audio from one moment and played it over a
video from another moment. I would expect that from the North Korean press, not the BBC.
When we packed up to leave, we had to walk through the part of the stadium where the
post-match press conference was to be held. It hadn't started, but print and video journalists
were waiting. The BBC producer saw this, and asked Mr. Rogers if we should stop and ask about
what he had heard at the match. What more perfect, made-for-television scene could there be? He
could have walked into the after-match press conference and announced dramatically, "I'm Chris
Rogers from the BBC and I want to know how it's possible that a black player was racially
abused in a country that will be hosting the European Championships." That would be the
dramatic moment they were looking for. But no, Mr. Rogers said we needn't waste the time. He
wanted to go back to the hotel for dinner. He did not speak with Ugo Ukah after the match or
the following day while we were still in Lodz.
Mr. Ukah never said anything about hearing monkey noises. No player from either team ever
did. Nor did any of the many journalists from the Polish media, nor did a German television
crew that was there.
I cannot say what Chris Rogers did or did not hear. However, I do know that in a stadium of
around 5,000 people the only person who claims to have heard monkey sounds was the one person
who flew to Poland for three days with the sole purpose of finding "racism."
The final version of the program stretches the truth in other ways. For example, Mr. Rogers
says he has spent months on location studying local football culture, whereas he spent just a
few days in the country. There is also a scene in which a British "anti-racist" named Nick
Lowles is shown scanning the crowd with binoculars, looking for "hate." The voiceover says that
"he has flown out to see what British fans can expect in Poland," and he obligingly gives an
interview. The program makes it look as though the camera crew just stumbled onto him in the
stands. In fact, the BBC flew him in just for that scene.
The team certainly didn't mind spending money. I was with the producer when he got a message
from London telling him that they were well over budget. He said they had spent around
£150,000 pounds (about $230,000). They stayed in expensive hotels and never thought about
costs. I was amazed by how much they spent in restaurants and hotel bars. Remember: This is the
BBC, to which mandatory payments of £150 pounds a year must be made if you own a
television set in Britain. It is a criminal offense not to pay.
The results
Just days before the broadcast, the BBC showed some of the footage to Sol Campbell, son of
Jamaican immigrants and former captain of the English national football team. They happily
filmed him claiming -- predictably -- to be shocked. He said it was enough to convince him not
to go to the tournament and to warn other non-whites not to go.
This was brilliant publicity for Panorama . Polish and Ukrainian media picked up
Mr. Campbell's comments, which pushed "racism" to the forefront of any British discussion of
the tournament. The program cast a pall over the tournament before the first match was even
played, and put a small army of journalists on alert, scanning the stands for "hate."
I watched the show when it first aired at the end of May. I had been dreading it, but my
dread turned to shock when I heard what the episode was called: "Stadiums of Hate ."
They had come up with a suitably provocative title for their contrived, deliberately misleading
fairy tale about a football culture permeated with vile racism.
The program has disappeared from YouTube; it appears to be available only this
much less trafficked site . But when it was broadcast, it made national headlines in
Poland. The country's biggest television channel took the extraordinary step of broadcasting it
just days later, dubbed in Polish.
Many Poles were outraged at what they recognized as a vicious smear. It is worth noting that
within a week or so, every single person who appeared on camera in the Polish part of
the program claimed publicly to have been misrepresented. This includes Jonathan Ornstein, the
director of the Jewish Community Center of Krakow. I was present for the interview with him,
and he gave thoughtful answers to all of Chris Rogers' questions, always emphasizing that ugly
graffiti and idiots making trouble at stadiums do not represent larger Polish attitudes. In the
program, however, he seems to be leading the charge against horrible, hateful, anti-Semitic
Poland. Mr. Ornstein told me personally how disgusted he was by how his interview was cut apart
and stitched back together.
Even Jacek Purski, director of Never Again , an organization dedicated to monitoring
racism in Poland, says the program was
one-sided . When a "watchdog" group calls a television program "one-sided," you can be sure
it was outrageous.
The Polish government demanded a clarification from the BBC, and even the foreign minister
complained.
Newspapers throughout Europe expressed skepticism, and
reader comments left online were overwhelmingly outraged. The BBC took the very unusual
step of publicly responding
to criticism .
Then the BBC got a huge break from Barack Obama, of all people. During a ceremony at the
White House honoring someone who had survived Auschwitz, Mr. Obama referred to it as a "Polish
death camp" rather than a Nazi death camp in occupied Poland. Angry demands for an apology from
the US government pushed "Stadiums of Hate" off the front page. After that, the relentless
media cycle quickly relegated the whole affair to yesterday's news.
Today, criticism of the "Stadiums of Hate" episode takes up more space on the Wikipedia page forPanorama than any other episode
in its history. As the doubts and questions mounted, the BBC seems to have taken pains to get
copies off the internet. There are any number of other full
episodes of
Panorama
on YouTube , but not this one.
I was the least important man on the production crew and had no editorial influence, but I
still felt responsible the episode that millions of people ultimately watched. At the height of
the furor I got in touch with the Polish and foreign press. Their reaction was always the same:
intense initial interest that quickly faded after a better understanding of what was involved.
The explanation I heard over and over was that attacking a program that attacked racism looks
like you're defending racism.
One editor of a major UK newspaper told me it was hard to attack Panorama without a
smoking gun. When I asked for an example, he said one would be someone who admitted he was paid
by the BBC to pretend to be a "racist" hooligan. The man seemed jaded and not at all surprised
by what I told him; he also said he simply could not risk coming across as defending
"racism."
As time goes by, doubts about the program's credibility fade. All anyone will remember is
that the great Chris Rogers exposed horrible racists in Poland and Ukraine. You will have to
dig pretty deep to get the real story. That is the power of the biggest name in news.
Mr. Krak does not expect to get any more work from the BBC.
The documentary was called Stadiums of Hate. I think the quote below, by itself, is enough
to rename it a Documentary of Hate.
Ornstein:
As an American-born Jew living happily and safely in Poland and working diligently to
build Jewish life in that country, I am furious at the way the BBC has exploited me as a
source. The organization used me and others to manipulate the serious subject of
anti-Semitism for its own sensationalist agenda; in doing so, the BBC has insulted all Polish
people and done a disservice to the growing, thriving Jewish community of Poland.
I have reason to believe the BBC similarly misrepresented the black African football
players it used as sources in the same programme.
Moreover, the BBC knowingly cheated its own audience – the British people – by
concocting a false horror story about Poland. In doing so, the BBC has spread fear,
ignorance, prejudice and hatred.
I would urge the BBC to become more aware of its own negative stereotyping of Poles,
before it goes pointing the finger of judgment.
Only causing physical harm to someone that you hate could be termed a hate crime. Hating
someone or something and saying so is not a crime. Hate is a natural emotion and reaction to
something that is unacceptable. Islam and what it teaches is unacceptable, therefore I hate
Islam and I hate the followers of Islam that commit hate-crimes.
The same dishonesty taints nearly everything the BBC puts out. Even drama is hijacked to
carry the globalist message. Whatever is devoid of politics is mindless pap about baking or
dance, etc., to keep the proletariat in a state of goodthink docility.
The author errs when he says
mandatory payments of £150 pounds a year must be made if you own a television set
in Britain
You need only buy a TV 'licence' if you watch TV as it is broadcast , on any
equipment belonging to you. Licences are issued to households; a 'household' may also
comprise a student's room or a communal area such as is found in retirement homes. The BBC,
through agents, maintains a spotty database of every address in the UK. Any unlicensed
address is targeted with letters threatening criminal prosecution. It is legal to own a set
if you just use it for watching DVDs or videos from the net.
There are plenty of ways to thwart the BBC's bagmen, the simplest, healthiest and most
time-efficient being to stop watching television of any description. I did this in 2005.
Since then I have withheld from them the inflation-adjusted equivalent of about £2,000,
plus interest, been blessed with many hours of more interesting, lucrative and enjoyable
pursuits, and saved myself innumerable episodes of anger and disgust. Moreover I have no idea
who any of these 'celebrities' are who grace the tabloids, and have been spared the
pontifications of the assorted arseholes and big-heads whose cretinous and toxic opinions the
BBC daily spews on the British public and, indeed, on the hapless citizens of the rest of the
globe via a propaganda outlet called the BBC World Service.
I commend going TV-free to all. It does wonders for the capacity to think clearly, not to
mention the blood-pressure.
BBC's neutrality ended when the BBC exposed Tony B-liar's lies about Saddam's 45 minutes
WMD's.
The director was fired, replaced by a jew.
As to Polish antisemitism, it existed, still existed around 1967 when Polish jews were
given the opportunity to leave.
And of course, since Israel tries to make Poland responsible for a part of the holocaust, the
gas chamber camps were on Polish territory, Poland responds, they have no desire whatsoever
to be the next victim of the holocaust industry.
As to the why of Polish anti-Semitism, suppose it was in Poland more or less the same as in
Lithuania in the thirties, Jews controlling the economy.
Of course also Polish Catholicism may have played a role.
Jews responsible for the death of the son of god.
Descriptions of Polish antisemitism one finds in
Jan T. Gross, 'Neighbours, The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland,
1941', 2003, London Bogdan Musial, ´Sowjetische Partisanen 1941 – 1944, Mythos und Wirklichkeit',
Paderborn 2009
The book describes antisemitism among all E European resistance fighters.
Jews were not or hardly allowed among these resistance fighters.
The novel
André Schwartz-Bart, 'Le Dernier des Justes', 1959, 1980 Paris seems to have been to
some extent autobiographical, with as country of origin Poland.
Described is on the one hand how jews resisted assimilation, wanted to remain jews, even, or
especially, in clothing, on the other hand how non jews did not accept jews, even trying to
prevent they visited the synagogue, or jewish children being insulted in schools.
As nearly always, one wonders why the antagonism., no explanation.
The program had a scripted conclusion before a single camera was turned on.
This seems self-evident and yet it's rarely or never said. Cameras and word processors
don't operate autonomously. Somebody begins with a story, a narrative, they wish to convey.
They then point their camera at things they choose, or cherrypick, to illustrate their
narrative. Afterwards, they carefully edit, or censor, what they've recorded making sure that
only that most sympathetic to their narrative is shown. It is ALL propaganda. And it is
ubiquitous.
It is up to the viewer or reader to filter the information presented, to sift through it
for specks of unbiased Truth that may have somehow survived their unlikely journey past the
narrative writer, his editors, their advertisers and lawyers, to the end product. Thus we see
a "News Report" about "a fight that broke out among a group of youths" where the amateur
video shows us a pack of feral young negroes, without provocation, attacks a lone white and
after knocking him unconscious rifles through his pockets removing his phone and wallet
before running off in jubilation.
And yet, despite this being shown to us time and again, incessantly, most people still
trust their "News" sources!
And, as Ron Unz has so often shown us on this very site, History is nothing more than
yesterday's "News."
The open question, really, is whether or not it is even possible to obtain information
assembled and presented by an organization that does not fit the paradigm described above.
And, considering the amount of time and cognition required for one to even attempt to find
Truth in media, what are the chances that an average viewer or reader (bear in mind
illiteracy rates) of average intelligence (bear in mind the left side of the bell curve) can
obtain anything resembling a sense of Reality on which he may inform his opinions and
beliefs? How often do we hear older people say things like, "I remember when you used to be
able to get straight News from Walter Cronkite.." oblivious to the Truth above?
The BBC twists the truth!? Having also worked in the UK tv industry, the only proper
response is "do bears etc?" But thank you, Mr Krak, for having recorded your experiences.
The truth is that the Cultural Marxism movement was about the take over of all
institutions of white european culture and turning them against white europeans.
Professional sports was subverted almost a century ago. The racist anti-German propaganda
of WWI and WWII was already strongly "semitic". The ascendence of Hollywood really marks the
heeb takeover of American entertainment industry and the beach head for the conquest of the
entire culture.
So as we enter 2019, I cannot think of one aspect of western European culture that is not
heavily influenced by heebs, under their control or outright under their ownership. Even the
alt-right "nazi's" are really just a bunch of jew cut-outs like Breitbard, Savage and
Shapiro. Then there are all the crypto jews like Alex Jones or even Jordan Peterson. Many
white Europeans are talmudists without having even a drop of jewish blood.
The BBC has been a Tavistock propaganda organ since its inception. After the Armistice and
Versailles in 1919, the masonic-zionist propaganda war against the planet never stopped.
Every new technology was first weaponized for use in mind control before release to the
general population. Even the internet itself was also conceived at Darpa as a mind control
tool and is closely linked to the trans-humanist and cultural marxist agenda.
So if you want to successfully attack the BBC, you also have to attack MI5, MI6, CIA, NSA,
MIC, the entire 5 eyes spy network, the Queen of England, the Catholic Church, the US deep
state, Israel, and ultimately their jewish god who in reality is Satan.
So to me it seems that obsessing about football hooligans is rather pointless, any
movement to try to deal with any of the symptoms of our take over will quickly be subsumed.
Like the occupy movement. Or the alt-right. Or the yellow-vests.
To kill this snake you will have to cut off its head.
"... The fact that obviously deranged fanatic hack has students is a testimony to a sewer level of the US "elite-producing" machine and a pathetic sight contemporary US "elite" represents. ..."
"... "political science" is not a science but pseudo-academic field for losers who do not want to study real history or take courses which actually develop intellect and provide fundamental knowledge. ..."
Early on in her book, Albright says: My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remember best were charismatic
Marked in bold is the most terrifying thing about Albright's book and I am not even going to read her pseudo-intellectual excrement.
The fact that obviously deranged fanatic hack has students is a testimony to a sewer level of the US "elite-producing" machine
and a pathetic sight contemporary US "elite" represents.
This is apart from the fact that "political science" is not a science
but pseudo-academic field for losers who do not want to study real history or take courses which actually develop intellect and
provide fundamental knowledge.
Elements of fascism doctrine are noe constituent part of any Western national security state. In a sense fascism as a
derivative of corporatism (control of the state by finance and large industrialists and in turn enforcing policies beneficial for
this group) won in the form of "inverted totalitarism". So dominance of intelligence agencies was preserved and amplified, but
the political mobilization of masses are discouraged under neoliberalism. Go shopping was famous Bush II recommendation to US
citizens after the 9/11. Use of fascism in propaganda purposes more often then not constitute project.
Notable quotes:
"... "fascism" as a catch-all derogatory term for just about any exercise of authority people don't like. ..."
"... Opponents of American imperialism will observe that Albright's list of quasi-Fascist states corresponds quite closely with those who have opposed U.S. foreign policies in recent decades. There is barely a word about America's authoritarian allies Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. ..."
"... In a dictatorship, the elimination of political and ideological pluralism means that the country can enjoy political stability. This, by the way, is crucial in multiethnic countries such as Yugoslavia or Iraq, for which the fall of the dictatorship and democratization led to atrocious ethno-religious civil war. ..."
"... It goes without saying that fascist and authoritarian countries in general pose a greater threat to U.S. hegemony than do democratic ones who value above all money-making, individual choice, and the pretense of equality, rather than the well-being and power of the community as a whole ..."
"... Wouldn't you consider a woman unbelievably comfortable with using sanctions to snuff a half-million Iraqi children to achieve US policy objectives to be the poster-child of a facist regime? ..."
It is always gratifying when one's intuition is confirmed. I had the impression, picking up Madeleine Albright's book Fascism:
A Warning , that I would be treated to an exercise of "Fascism is bad. And everything I don't like is Fascism!" The former secretary
of State, a Jewish liberal originally hailing from Czechoslovakia, did not disappoint.
The book is essentially a set of portraits of various movements and leaders Albright considers to be "Fascist" ( contra
convention, she capitalizes even when not referring to Mussolini's National Fascist Party) and/or vaguely fascistic.
Albright warns early on that people use "fascism" as a catch-all derogatory term for just about any exercise of authority people
don't like. She proposes a somewhat reasonable definition of fascism and then goes on to do exactly what she warned against, covering
not only Mussolini and Hitler, but also Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, and communist Czechoslovakia in her Fascist(ish) portraits.
To be fair, these vignettes are often quite informative. The chapters on Hugo Chávez, Recep Erdoğan, and the Kims of North Korea
in particular showcase a diplomat's sensitivity and nuance, making an effort to understand the motivations and appeal of these men
(and the movements and/or systems they represent), as well as their considerable failings.
However, to lump all of these under the broad heading "quasi-fascist" only makes sense in terms of branding. Since World War II,
people have been taught to consider authoritarianism, fascism, "Nazism," nationalism, racism, and eugenics as the supreme evils.
In fact, these things are quite different (there were democratic countries systematically practicing eugenics and racism, while Fascist
Italy if anything was quite slow to adopt such policies). These things are not really distinguished in people's minds however but
form a kind of hideous potpourri of sadistic bullying
[1] Albright
even quotes Orwell claiming that fascism is nothing more than "bullying." and senseless suffering, basically a Hieronymus Bosch
painting come to life, embodying their deepest fears as human beings. Emotionally it is very powerful and it is understandable that
Albright would want to misleadingly brand all her opponents as (quasi-)Fascists.
Opponents of American imperialism will observe that Albright's list of quasi-Fascist states corresponds quite closely with
those who have opposed U.S. foreign policies in recent decades. There is barely a word about America's authoritarian allies Saudi
Arabia and the Gulf States.
Strikingly, the word "Netanyahu" does not appear in the book's Index at all. The existence of a democratic ethno-nationalist
state goes against her whole narrative. For what it's worth, I suspect most people in European nationalist parties and in the Alt-Right
would be happy to preserve democracy if they could have their own Netanyahus, with the establishment of Western ethnostates dedicated
to their own people, with the explicit goal of preserving or restoring ethnic European demographic supermajorities.
This selectivity will encourage the impression that the State Department's talk of "human rights" has less to do with upholding
universal moral principles than with demonizing the United States' geopolitical opponents du jour . The American Establishment
does not bully China as much as Russia, despite being obviously more authoritarian. I suspect this is because China is already too
big to bully, while Russia can still be pushed around and serve as a useful bogeyman (always useful to the Military-Industrial Complex,
the National Security State, and for all the Establishmentarians who need a scapegoat for the rise of populism). On that note, I
suspect most diplomatic conflicts today have less to do with "realist" international power dynamics than with the utility of foreign
enemies for governments domestically.
Personally I prefer a republican government under the rule of law. But it would be dishonest to deny that authoritarian governments
present certain advantages. In times of crisis, all governments tend to revert to authoritarianism to get the job done (e.g.: Lincoln,
De Gaulle . . .). In the future, I'll write something on the merits and demerits of liberty and authority, and on the liberal claims
of being "non-authoritarian."
In semi-democratic Venezuela or authoritarian Cuba? In democratic India or authoritarian China? In Atatürk's secular dictatorship
or Erdoğan's Islamist democracy? In authoritarian Yugoslavia or democratic Bosnia? In democratic Jamaica or authoritarian Singapore?
Try to be honest (with yourself).
I will not quibble about the book's one-sided point of view, sometimes questionable assertions, and various hypocrisies typical
of U.S. foreign policy (on which see the
book review already up by
Morris V. de Camp on Counter-Currents ). I'd rather take the subject head-on: the merits and demerits of fascism, which I think
are an interesting subject.
The biggest and really inexcusable intellectual weakness of Albright's book is in lazily equating or associating the various illiberal
democratic regimes (meaning nothing more than democratic regimes liberals don't agree with) with fascist ones. It fails to recognize
that democracy causes populism . If you have democracy – with real freedom of speech and not a dictatorship of the money-men
and of the mainstream media which the postwar American generations were used to – you will get Trumps and Bolsonaros and Corbyns
and Erdoğans. This kind of mess is a feature, not a bug, of real democracy.
The governments of illiberal democracies, it seems to me, also behave more badly because they have to worry about getting
reelected. Unlike dictatorships, these governments are insecure, if they lose one election, they risk losing everything. As a result,
they seem to me to be more erratic and have more of a taste for (often damaging) spectacle and demagogic measures than does the average
dictatorship. (Again: compare the peace and orderliness of Cuba with the violence and chaos of Venezuela.)
Fascism entails a one-party state under the authority of a charismatic dictator, typically with a commitment to national independence
and power. The fascist claims that the right people, in practice the men willing to go out there and risk their lives to beat up
communists, ought to be in charge. The biggest risk, as in all personal dictatorships, is that the country's development is put at
the mercy of the wisdom and the stability of the leader. There have been plenty of competent dictators: Franco, Chiang Kai-shek,
Lee Kuan Yew, etc. Hitler's personal contempt for the Slavs, more than anything else, caused his downfall – if he'd toned that back,
and just that might have been enough – I'd probably be typing in German today.
In a dictatorship, the elimination of political and ideological pluralism means that the country can enjoy political stability.
This, by the way, is crucial in multiethnic countries such as Yugoslavia or Iraq, for which the fall of the dictatorship and
democratization led to atrocious ethno-religious civil war. As
Lee Kuan Yew , my favorite antidote to the political childishness
that prevails in the West today, said concerning his multiracial state of Singapore: "We had to lock up people, without trial, whether
they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, or religious extremists. If you don't do that the country would be in
ruins today!" Few things have been as murderous as the promotion of "democracy" in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, a policy which, not coincidentally,
has destroyed several geopolitical opponents of Israel.
The government can furthermore take decisive actions where necessary. Fascism rose in Italy because veterans and others could
see that the parliamentary democracy was unable to stop communist-inspired chaos and was generally ineffectual. The Germans voted
for Hitler so as to free Germany from the chaos of Western financial capitalism and to overturn the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles.
Does anyone think the divided, social-democratic Weimar Republic could have overturned Versailles as quickly as the Third Reich did?
The lack of elections means political leaders have no need to pander to the 51% every couple of years. The rulers can adopt far-sighted
and sustainable policies without worrying about electoral change or unpopularity (the European Union follows this line anti-democratic
line of argument concerning macroeconomics, a field in which it is attempting to eliminate the influence of elected politicians altogether,
so as to ensure only "responsible" budgetary and monetary decisions are taken). The government can furthermore promote a uniform
set of values, in the case of fascism, this tends to be things like
national power, independence, and individual self-sacrifice for the community – but in principle these can be anything, such
as equality, eugenics, or ecology.
Fascism does not necessarily mean racism, eugenics, anti-Semitism, or perpetual warfare. Italian Fascism really should set the
bar in this area. As Albright admits, if Mussolini had chosen to join the winning side in World War II, fascism would not be a swear
word today. Mussolini only sided with Hitler because of the Anglo-French's opposition to his invasion of Ethiopia, which he thought
quite hypocritical, given that Britain and France already had vast colonial empires of their own.
Fascism is often quite inclusive: involving the masses, educating them, giving them access to culture, economic welfare, tourism,
and healthcare. In general, these systems try to be meritocratic (like any honest bureaucracy really), letting all apply and, if
found competent and appropriate, hired and promoted through the ranks. In short, a degree of socialism, but without slaughtering
your upper-classes, starving your Kulaks, or waging war against your own population.
Saddam Hussein's long-time foreign minister and deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, was a non-Arab Christian. It is also also notorious
that the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria were/are more tolerant of ethnic and religious minorities than have been the various
Islamist rebel groups – specializing in enslaving Yazidis and destroying priceless Greco-Roman architecture.
Fascism, in short, is a nation making an effort , according to whatever goals have been set (e.g. having more babies, training
a powerful army, reducing dependence on foreign imports . . .). Democracy is the pursuit of comfiness. An eco-fascism probably could
have prevented climate change.
It goes without saying that fascist and authoritarian countries in general pose a greater threat to U.S. hegemony than do
democratic ones who value above all money-making, individual choice, and the pretense of equality, rather than the well-being and
power of the community as a whole.
Personally, I think ancient republican theory is distinctly superior to the modern (I can barely read Locke and Rousseau). I am
an Aristotelian: I favor whatever promotes the collective flourishing of the community and of the species. e.g.: I support an individual
right if and only if it promotes the common good. Wrap your head around that.
I can't say how a Fascist Italy would have evolved had it won besides the other Allies or remained neutral in World War II. Let
us suppose a middling route: Italy would have maintained its colonial empire for far longer, it would have probably maintained a
much higher birth rate, it would have worked much harder to maintain economic independence (and had some means, via the empire, to
do so, especially in terms of oil), and would generally be a far more independent and powerful country than has been the supine and
corrupt Italian Republic, good for nothing except getting milked for usurious interests rates by international financiers, a glorified
museum and holiday resort. By way of comparison, look at how peaceful, healthy, and independent Cuba is compared to the average Latin
American country – even managing to send 25,000 soldiers to Angola in the 1970s to fight Apartheid. Now imagine that, but a Fascist
postwar Italy of 75 million.
More generally, you still have your basic human capital (a nation of inbred idiots will remain a nation of inbred idiots unless
you have an effective eugenics program). After colonial independence, most of the Third World was actually governed by kind-of-fascist
nationalist and socialist dictatorships, who had the merit of trying to ensure some level of stability and wealth-sharing. Of course
they tended to also be corrupt and incompetent, but regime type doesn't seem to matter much in that respect.
Ever since the French Revolution, liberals and democrats have sought to impose their ideological preferences on the entire world.
Unless you adopt their ever-changing and quite arbitrary list of rights, you are "evil" as far as they are concerned. As Edmund Burke
already saw back then, the imposition of such norms on other, vastly different societies is a recipe for chaos. Many millions of
people have died in the demoliberals' quest to impose their ideology on the whole world and I have no doubt that many more millions
will die in the future.
White liberals lack empathy for "fascists" and "racists" of their own race, although they are quite capable of considering the
merits and demerits of such positions when these concern other nations or science fiction settings.
Given fascism's importance in the history of the twentieth century, people owe it to themselves to look at what the fascists themselves
had to say about their values: Mussolini's
Doctrine of Fascism (co-authored
with philosopher Giovanni Gentile) is a concise and serious declaration of political principles.
Taking the long view, the democratization of Europe coincided almost perfectly with the Continent's collapse into irrelevance.
In 1914, Europeans and people of European descent – the people who had for all intents and purposes created modern civilization –
dominated virtually the entire globe and made up a third of the world's population. Less than 150 years after the triumph of democracy,
these same people will have not only lost their global empires but are set to even lose control of their own nations, by becoming
minorities in North America, Australasia, and even their historic, millennia-old homelands in Western Europe. They will have dwindled
to less than 5% of the world population and may well become under siege, like the Christians of Lebanon or the Serbs of Kosovo. Surely
we deserve a Cosmic Darwin Award for this.
To nationalists, postwar "democracy" was the regime which persecutes nationalists and systematically ignores the will of the people
on the critical issue of immigration. It appears no more than a sham to them. Albright acknowledges that Americans before agreed
more because a narrower media class carefully curated what Americans were allowed to see and read and think. To address this, she
wants to "put a saddle on the bucking bronco we call the Internet." So much for democracy and free speech.
Liberal-democracy means majority rule . . . except when liberals strongly disagree with the majority (then, they believe, the
action should be unconstitutional and/or the media-political class have a solemn duty to shut down the issue). In reality, all regimes,
including "democratic" ones, have official or unofficial Platonic Guardians enforcing certain values and ideas. The question is not
whether something is "democratic" but whether the values and ideas promoted by the Guardians are true.
Early on in her book, Albright says:
My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remember best were charismatic. Through one method or another, each established
an emotional link to the crowd and, like the central figure of a cult, brought deep and often ugly feelings to the surface. This
is how the tentacles of Fascism spread inside a democracy.
I believe that is the fundamental issue: Albright fears an organized mass of people with a strong emotional connection with a
charismatic leader, one who could actually shake up the system. This reminds me of that Jewish journalist who was offended because
French President François Mitterrand
seemed to care more about the millions of Frenchmen who died in World War I than the millions of his fellow Jews who died in the
Shoah : "[Mitterrand] became again, in these movements, that Gaulish chieftain that I did not like very much."
No sir, they don't like European chieftains leading impassioned followers. That could lead to a pogrom . . . or worse. Certainly,
the current absurdly skewed and unjust situation in the
Ivy Leagues (see the graphs in particular)
, the
Democratic Party , and much of the elite and audiovisual
media would probably be shut down. We can ask whether Albright's fears reflect universal morality – as she claims – or simply
a natural desire to defend one's ethnic interests and privileges.
Albright's alarmism about every tepid manifestation of Western civic nationalism and her casual ignoring of Jewish ethnonationalism
– funded at American taxpayers' expense and driving much of the murderous insanity of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, including
under her tenure as secretary of State – is a hypocrisy sadly typical of many American liberal Jews. Influential Jewish groups like
the ADL in America and
the CRIF in France have promoted immigration and multiculturalism in the West all the while demanding support for Israel as a
Jewish ethnostate. Growing awareness of this hypocrisy is contributing to the rise of anti-Jewish sentiment across the West today.
Many liberals and/or Jews simply cannot comprehend that this is happening. But it is.
The sooner we can discuss all issues and acknowledge untruths and injustices on all sides, the sooner we will be able to find
equitable and peaceful solutions to these problems. At least, that is my hope.
Notes
[1]
Albright even quotes Orwell claiming that fascism is nothing more than "bullying."
[2]
I know Singapore allows some minor parties to exist notionally, but power is dominated by the People's Action Party.
Albright's relationship to fascism was broadly advertised for about 10 years. From 1999 until Obama's first midterm a photo of
Albright and Hosni Mubarak in a warm embrace circulated on the internet. It's caption unironically feature "celebrating freedom
to the Balkans" circa post Serbian bombing campaign. Freedom along the Nile never came up on the, apparently, defunct website.
Just before the "Arab Spring" the photo disappeared from the internet. Here's what a google search turns up:
Showing results for madeleine albright Hosni mubarak image "celebrating freedom to the Balkans"
Search instead for madelin albright Hosni mubarak image "celebrating freedom to the Balkans"
No results containing all your search terms were found.
The Alarmist says: January 5, 2019 at 9:37 pm GMT
Wouldn't you consider a woman unbelievably comfortable with using sanctions to snuff a half-million Iraqi children to
achieve US policy objectives to be the poster-child of a facist regime?
Obama strategy in Syria was replica of Clinton strategy in Yugoslavia during the Balkan Wars. Divide everybody up by ethnicity
or religion (Croats are Catholics, Serbians are Orthodox not to mention the various Muslims and Albanians lurking about), arm
them, create false flags to set them at each other's throats. Enjoy the results.
Obama like Clinton before him was a real wolve in sheep's clothing
Notable quotes:
"... Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving US imperialism a pleasing face. ..."
"... Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump. ..."
But the notion that it is part of a complex and tightly scripted conspiracy in which he
plays his public part and the deep state play theirs, pretending to be at odds with each
other, is bizarre.
I would've agreed with you before Obama. I followed the criticisms of Obama from true
progressives closely. It was clear within 2 or 3 years that Obama was betraying his 'base'.
His lofty rhetoric didn't match his actions. His Nobel Peace Prize can only be viewed
today as a ruse. He talked of peace and fairness but worked behind the scenes to further the
establishment.
Fast forward to the 2016 election where Sanders was a sheepdog and Hillary ran a terrible
campaign. It's difficult to look back and not be at least somewhat suspicious of the 2016
election. A populist nationalist was what the Deep State NEEDED to face the threat from
Russia and China to their NWO project. And that is what they got. After recognizing the
threat in 2013-14 (when Russia countered the Empire in Syria and Ukraine).
Similar excuses are made for both Obama and Trump. We are told that they were FORCED to
succumb to Deep State scheming and political power. But a much more logical view is that
these "populists" know exactly what they are doing: they know what their 'job' is to serve
the establishment and act as the leader of the Deep State's political arm. In return they get
financial gain, social standing, and life long protection. Sweet.
Obama 'turned the page' on the Bush Administration's warmongering. He promised a more
peaceful USA. But he conducted covert wars and bragged of his drone targeting.
Trump 'turned the page' on Obama's deceitfulness. He promised to put 'America First' but
within months attacked Syria with missiles "for the babies". Evidence that his first attack
was prompted by a false flag didn't deter him from attacking AGAIN - also based on a false
flag. Trump is still helping the Saudis in Yemen. And he's not doing what's necessary to get
peace in Korea.
Obama promised 'transparency' ("Sunlight is the best disinfectant") but 'no drama' Obama
protected CIA torturers, NSA spies, and bankers. Trump promised to "drain the swamp" but has
welcomed oligarchs and neocons into his Administration.
How much sly BS do we have to see before people connect the dots? A real populist will
NEVER be elected in USA unless there is a revolution; USA political elites are fully
committed to a neoliberal economics that make society neofeudal, and a neoconservative-driven
foreign policy that demands full spectrum dominance that brooks no opposition to its NWO
goals.
Anyone who believes otherwise has drunk the Kool-Aid, an addictive, saccharine concoction,
provided without charge and in abundance.
Glenn Brown | Jan 5, 2019 10:27:14 PM |
39@ 10 17
Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he
was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope
inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving
US imperialism a pleasing face.
Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too
blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major
sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump.
Yes, their public rejection of Trump is partly motivated by the need to be able to claim that Trump is an aberration from
all previous US Presidents, as opposed to Trump and his policies being just a particularly explicit continuation of the same
underlying trends.
But I see no reason to doubt that the US elites really wish they had someone as President who was better at supplying the
right propaganda and less obviously an incompetent fool. So I don't understand why you think the US oligarchy and deep state
would have thought they needed someone like Trump, or would have greatly preferred him to Hillary Clinton.
"... Neoliberal media has always embraced boundary transgression, always embraced invasiveness, always embraced adventurism, always embraced war. ..."
"... Fox is a racist bully. MSNBC is poison, & CNN is a joke. If nothing else, Trump is right about one thing. The American media is the enemy of the people. ..."
"... That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly right-wing Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-pat riotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a reckless use of the "traitor" accusation to smear one's enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and foreign policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing. ..."
"... Years ago, whilst this reactionary putsch was still in it's infancy, my mom would listen to the "news" on the local CBS affiliate, and many times I heard her gasp and say, referring to the "reporters" jabbering, "My God, they're a bunch of dopes!" The dopes are ascendant; stupid, scared, violent-minded, and very well-paid. ..."
"... We, The People, Are Fed Up With Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs! ..."
"... Democratic Party leadership has basically always been neoconservative supporters of the national security state, but there has been some resistance within the rank and file. ..."
"... But the democrats will help republicans squeeze the peons with excessive education costs, unaffordable health care premiums and copays, expensive housing,.... ..."
"... We've known for a long time that NBC & MSNBC "have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies." ..."
"... The US military presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with national security (i.e protecting American citizens from military attack by foreign nations, or even with disrupting the activities and funding of terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda, groups we financed and armed as part of the overthrow Assad strategy). ..."
"... It has everything to do with controlling the region's oil flow and propping up regimes like Saudi Arabia who agree to invest the majority of their oil money in Wall Street banks. This is called petrodollar recycling, a strategy devised in the 1970s. Here is a foundational document discussing the plan, from 1974: https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974LONDON16506_b.html ..."
"... Real News vs "fake news" is almost impossible to find and dissect. Even looking for real reporting beyond echoing is hard to find. The real problems are ignored or misstated to the extent real solutions are impossible. Not just security and endless wars but every aspect of civil existence, education, healthcare, you name it. We exist in an echo-chamber where real knowledge and understanding have been all but banished. ..."
"... Gotta hand it to the neocons, soon after the Vietnam debacle (I served 3 tours there), and Watergate, they quickly licked their wounds and devised a new playbook that, over time, would become a 'Project for the New American Century'. First things first, get rid of the draft. Go professional, and then only a very minuscule percentage of Americans have skin in the game, meaning their own sons and daughters at risk, while the rest of America can focus on the more important things, like watching the Housewives of New Jersey, New York, Beverly Hills, etc. etc., or sports, or the newest fashions, or the current fad diets, or the newest Trump tweet, bla bla bla. ..."
"... Next, and this is genius because it incorporates that great American pastime, greed, spread all of that endless supply of taxpayer money around to each and every State, County, and municipality in the form of jobs tied to the military industrial complex. ..."
"... And finally, silence and denigrate any meaningful opposition. As Kierkegaard stated, "Once you label me you negate me." Hence the long, ongoing labeling of opposition with terms like traitor, anti-American, unpatriotic, (insert name or country here) sympathizer. The sad part of all of this, too many Americans are gullible enough to swallow this crap, hook, line and sinker, as long as they get their daily ration of manna. ..."
"... What's the central reason MSNBC is so pro-war? Because the shareholders in its parent corporation, Comcas, have a deep vested interest in militarism, arms sales, and the capture of natural resources around the word ..."
"... Maddow long ago described herself as a "national security liberal." ..."
"... Still, that a network insider has blown the whistle on how all this works, and how MSNBC and NBC have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies, while not surprising, is nonetheless momentous given how detailed and emphatic he is in his condemnations. ..."
"... . . if they mean by the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right. ..."
"... This essay is critical for every American to read. No exaggeration. NBC/MSNBC has become the proverbial spear tip in the march toward nuclear war with Russia. ..."
"... Perhaps, but I would suggest that Iran has become the most desired target for a war, and due in no small part to the aggressive advocacy for such a war by Israel and Saudi Arabia, and their subservient boot-licking, ass kissing American politicians. ..."
"... Project Mockingbird was publicly revealed years ago, but pretty much totally ignored by the audiences who lap contentedly from the MSM koolaid bowl. ..."
"... It's ironic that these politicians who have gorged themselves on literally millions of dollars in campaign funding from Big Pharma, Defense Contractors, Energy, Big Banking, and even insider stock trading now feel compelled to warn us of graft and corruption they all fostered. These politicians get elected as nobodies, sell their votes, retire as millionaires, then have the nerve to tell us how corrupted our government has become as they check out to become Lobbyist' ..."
"... I am so glad to see this man speak out. For the longest time, war and the military budget has been a third rail in politics ..."
"... State Department has become another branch of the MIC, not a diplomatic corps. And I am not saying this is all because of Trump. Probably started when we "won" the Cold War. ..."
Veteran NBC/MSNBC Journalist Blasts the Network for Being Captive to the National Security State and Reflexively Pro-War to Stop
Trump
A VETERAN national security journalist with NBC News and MSNBC blasted the networks in
a Monday
email for becoming captive and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping President
Donald Trump, and now the prime propaganda instrument of the War Machine's promotion of militarism and imperialism.
As a result of NBC/MSNBC's all-consuming militarism, he said, "the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat
but indeed has gained dangerous strength" and "is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism."
The NBC/MSNBC reporter, William Arkin, is a longtime prominent war and military reporter, perhaps best known for his
groundbreaking,
three-part Washington Post series in 2010, co-reported with two-time Pulitzer winner Dana Priest, on how sprawling, unaccountable,
and omnipotent the national security state has become in the post-9/11 era. When that three-part investigative series, titled "Top
Secret America," was published, I hailed it as one of the most
important pieces of reporting of the war on terror, because while "we chirp endlessly about the Congress, the White House, the
Supreme Court, the Democrats and Republicans, this is the Real U.S. Government: functioning in total darkness, beyond elections and
parties, so secret, vast and powerful that it evades the control or knowledge of any one person or even any organization."
Arkin has worked with NBC and MSNBC over the years and continuously since 2016. But yesterday, he announced that he was leaving
the network in a long, emphatic email denouncing the networks for their superficial and reactionary coverage of national security,
for becoming fixated on trivial Trump outbursts of the day to chase profit and ratings, and -- most incriminating of all -- for becoming
the central propaganda arm of the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI in the name of #Resistance, thus inculcating an entire new generation
of liberals, paying attention to politics for the first time in the Trump era, to "lionize" those agencies and their policies of
imperialism and militarism.
That MSNBC and NBC have become Security State Central has been obvious for quite some time. The network
consists of little more than former CIA, NSA, and Pentagon officials as news "analysts"; ex-Bush-Cheney national security and
communications officials as hosts and commentators; and the most extremists pro-war neocons constantly bashing Trump (and critics
of Democrats generally) from the right, using the Cheney-Rove playbook on which they built their careers to accuse Democratic Party
critics and enemies of being insufficiently patriotic,
traitors for America's official enemies , and abandoning America's hegemonic role in the world.
Some of the most beloved and frequently featured MSNBC commentators are the most bloodthirsty pro-war militarists from the war
on terror: David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, Ralph Peters, and Bill Kristol (who was just giddily and affectionately celebrated with a
playful nickname bestowed on him: "Lil Bill"). In early 2018,
NBC hired former
CIA chief John Brennan to serve as a "senior national security and intelligence analyst," where
the rendition and torture advocate joined -- as
Politico's Jack Shafer noted -- a long litany of former security state officials at the network, including "Chuck Rosenberg,
former acting DEA administrator, chief of staff for FBI Director James B. Comey, and counselor to former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller
III; Frank Figliuzzi, former chief of FBI counterintelligence; Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser under Bush."
As Shafer noted, filling your news and analyst slots with former security state officials as MSNBC and NBC have done is tantamount
to becoming state TV, since "their first loyalty -- and this is no slam -- is to the agency from which they hail." As he put it:
"Imagine a TV network covering the auto industry through the eyes of dozens of paid former auto executives and you begin to appreciate
the current peculiarities."
All of this led Arkin to publish a remarkable denunciation of NBC and MSNBC in the form of an email he sent to various outlets,
including The Intercept. Its key passages are scathing and unflinching in their depiction of those networks as pro-war propaganda
outlets that exist to do little more than amplify and serve the security state agencies most devoted to opposing Trump, including
their mindless opposition to Trump's attempts (with whatever motives) to roll back some of the excesses of imperialism, aggression,
and U.S. involvement in endless war, as well as to sacrifice all journalistic standards and skepticism about generals and the U.S
war machine if doing so advances their monomaniacal mission of denouncing Trump. As Arkin wrote (emphasis added):
My expertise, though seeming to be all the more central to the challenges and dangers we face, also seems to be less valued
at the moment. And I find myself completely out of synch with the network, being neither a day-to-day reporter nor interested
in the Trump circus.
To me there is also a larger problem: though they produce nothing that resembles actual safety and security, the national security
leaders and generals we have are allowed to do their thing unmolested . Despite being at "war," no great wartime leaders or visionaries
are emerging. There is not a soul in Washington who can say that they have won or stopped any conflict. And though there might
be the beloved perfumed princes in the form of the Petraeus' and Wes Clarks', or the so-called warrior monks like Mattis and McMaster,
we've had more than a generation of national security leaders who sadly and fraudulently have done little of consequence. And
yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as "analysts". We do so ignoring the empirical
truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today than it was 18 years ago. Indeed
the world becomes ever more polarized and dangerous.
Windrem again convinced me to return to NBC to join the new investigative unit in the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign.
I thought that the mission was to break through the machine of perpetual war acceptance and conventional wisdom to challenge Hillary
Clinton's hawkishness. It was also an interesting moment at NBC because everyone was looking over their shoulder at Vice and other
upstarts creeping up on the mainstream. But then Trump got elected and Investigations got sucked into the tweeting vortex, increasingly
lost in a directionless adrenaline rush, the national security and political version of leading the broadcast with every snow
storm. And I would assert that in many ways NBC just began emulating the national security state itself – busy and profitable.
No wars won but the ball is kept in play.
I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous
strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. I'd also argue, ever so gingerly, that NBC has
become somewhat lost in its own verve, proxies of boring moderation and conventional wisdom, defender of the government against
Trump, cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering, in love with procedure and protocol over all else (including results).
I accept that there's a lot to report here, but I'm more worried about how much we are missing. Hence my desire to take a step
back and think why so little changes with regard to America's wars.
In our day-to-day whirlwind and hostage status as prisoners of Donald Trump, I think – like everyone else does – that we miss
so much. People who don't understand the medium, or the pressures, loudly opine that it's corporate control or even worse, that
it's partisan. Sometimes I quip in response to friends on the outside (and to government sources) that if they mean by the word
partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right.
For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump's various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations
with Russia, to denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his
attacks on the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I'm alarmed at
how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really?
We shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we
should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the
Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?
That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly right-wing
Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-patriotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a
reckless use of the "traitor" accusation to smear one's enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and
foreign policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing. These toxins will endure far beyond Trump, particularly given
the
now full-scale unity between the Democratic establishment and neocons .
photosymbiosis1 hour ago
Just remembered something about Arkin. This book: Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the
9/11 World January 25, 2005 by William M. Arkin
https://books.google.com/books/about/Code_Names.html?id=KXLfAAAAMAAJ
In particular there was this one exercise called Vigilant Guardian, run by NORAD, simulating terrorist attacks by hijackers which,
curiously enough, happened to be in operation on the very day the Saudi hijackers were actually conducting such attacks:
NORAD's next Vigilant Guardian exercise, in 2001, will actually be several days underway on 9/11 (see (6:30 a.m.) September
11, 2001). It will include a number of scenarios based around plane hijackings, with the fictitious hijackers targeting New
York in at least one of those scenarios (see September 6, 2001, September 9, 2001, September 10, 2001, and (9:40 a.m.) September
11, 2001). [9/11 COMMISSION, 2004; VANITY FAIR, 8/1/2006]
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=vigilant_guardian
However, what's interesting from Arkin's book, as I recall, is that this operation name was then reused in Afghanistan (a very
rare practice, apparently, to reuse an operation name, but perhaps if you wanted to hide the original program, etc...), in 2003
or so - here's a NYT article about Vigilant Guardian in Afghanistan:
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/magazine/where-the-enemy-is-everywhere-and-nowhere.html
It's just one of many stories that makes one wonder exactly how much pre-warning the Bush Administration had about the 9/11 attacks,
and whether there was a deliberate decision to allow the hijackers to seize control of the planes without any interference. It
did save the Bush presidency, it did open the door to the Iraq invasion, and the Saudi intelligence services were involved with
helping the hijackers. All very suspicious, really. Point being, Arkin's book is one of the few sources that lay out all those
covert/overt program names, and is a real treasure for anyone interested in the history of that era.
bobhope1: 2 hours ago
This has been clearly obvious for several years. Goebbels would be proud.
Dysnomia 3 hours ago
If there were some kind of political realignment (similar to the realignment that took place in the 60s and 70s where racist
white Democrats became racist white Republicans) where neoconservatives and warmongers become Democrats, and the Republican Party
becomes the party of, surely not peace, but at least moderation in foreign military intervention, that might not be too bad, or
at least not too much worse than the earlier post-9/11 status quo.
But I'm afraid this shift in discourse heralds something worse than that. So-called "liberal" media's embrace of neoconservatism
and imperialism is likely to have the effect of narrowing the Overton window on issues of war and peace, making genuine anti-war
positions even more unthinkable and beyond the pale. There will increasingly be no place for public anti-war discourse.
The single greatest threat to human freedom in the world today is the U.S. national security state. Inculcating public reverence
for the state is perhaps the most dangerous thing that a media organization could do.
open_hearted_jade 2 hours ago
Neoliberal media has always embraced boundary transgression, always embraced invasiveness, always embraced adventurism,
always embraced war.
Fox is a racist bully. MSNBC is poison, & CNN is a joke. If nothing else, Trump is right about one thing. The American
media is the enemy of the people.
Lawrence_Hill 4 hours ago ( Edited )
Do we remember way back in the 80's/Reagan admin war involvement in the El Salvador civil war when NBC anchor Tom Brokaw openly
questioned the US's support for death squad leader D' Auboissan's terror regime on the air? Shocking! A Walter Cronkite-Vietnam
War moment Brokaw supposed, maybe?
I remember that in all the hullabaloo that followed one of our ruling class commented that Brokaw was being $5 million a year
not to say such subversive things. Lesson learned, Brokaw nor any other gainfully employed MSM tool has made the same mistake
again, and now Brokaw has emeritus status in the NBC "News" hierarchy.
That comment opened my eyes for the first time to the reality of American MSM...
Michael_Wilk 4 hours ago
That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly
right-wing Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-pat riotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a reckless
use of the "traitor" accusation to smear one's enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and foreign
policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing.
I have to take issue with your use of the word 'formerly' in describing Cold War values. They are still very much right-wing.
They never stopped being right-wing, nor did the current and former government and security state apparatchiks polluting the airwaves
with their lies.
TimN 5 hours ago
The neo-con and neo-lib argument against this unfortunate reveal of things present, and things to come: "But Trump! Trump!"
I didn't think I'd see things unravel so quickly, but Goddamn. Years ago, whilst this reactionary putsch was still in it's
infancy, my mom would listen to the "news" on the local CBS affiliate, and many times I heard her gasp and say, referring to the
"reporters" jabbering, "My God, they're a bunch of dopes!" The dopes are ascendant; stupid, scared, violent-minded, and very well-paid.
haugeneder 6 hours ago
Great piece. America is on the precipice and there are few who care -- very few. Time for an great economic depression -- not
recession -- to shift the ground or open it to swallow us whole.
Tlaloc 7 hours ago
Interesting that we might be seeing a shift on both parties, the republicans finally embracing their libertarian side (long
being a part of the republican party) and the neocons trying to find a new home on the democratic party. I wonder where the progressive
side of the DNC will go, they might be the ones pushed out of any national party :(
Art 6 hours ago
[...] the progressive side of the DNC [...] might be the ones pushed out of any national party
Fuck that! They're headed for permanent electoral failure on every occasion they put forward neocons on any ballot.
We, The People, Are Fed Up With Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs!
Dysnomia 3 hours ago
Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that we'll see a shift only on the Democratic side. Democratic Party leadership
has basically always been neoconservative supporters of the national security state, but there has been some resistance within
the rank and file. The narrowing of the Overton window we're seeing will make such resistance increasingly beyond the pale.
But I don't think the Republican Party, in terms of leadership or rank and file, will become more "libertarian" (in the American
sense of that word) or less pro-war. I think there's likely to be greater consensus among the political class in favor of U.S.
imperialism generally, and Trump, to the extent he occasionally makes moves in the opposite direction, is a convenient foil to
bring that about.
johnanderson 7 hours ago ( Edited )
There is no "means test" for the empire military spending supports energy supplies supports international banking supports
global corporatism but the democrats will help republicans squeeze the peons with excessive education costs, unaffordable health
care premiums and copays, expensive housing, and social security cutbacks because they are playing the same elite economic game
against the majority true the democratic leadership has a better stance on abortion and a generally more rainbow-flavored social
agenda. Because they want this stuff for their own social class however economic policy will be at our expense ... just watch
Pelosi and Company
open_hearted_jade 2 hours ago
But the democrats will help republicans squeeze the peons with excessive education costs, unaffordable health care premiums
and copays, expensive housing,....
Those costs rise for one reason...
Mona 7 hours ago
...And here's Joe Biden: ""Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code, what was the first thing we have to go after, Social
Security and Medicare. Now we need to do something about Social Security and Medicare. It's the only way to find room to pay for
it." Biden is after means testing and other "adjustments" slashing SS, as endorsed by his pal. Paul Ryan. (This is called Republican
Lite.)
Thanks for publishing this story, Glenn, and putting your perspective on it. We've known for a long time that NBC & MSNBC
"have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies." Before
Comcast purchased them, General Electric owned these networks for many years. The public's interests are the last thing on their
minds when they do "news reporting."
Have you watched when MSNBC's "prime time" talk shows are doing live sports-like camera angles, moves, and shots in their studio,
trying to make it look all-the-more sensational on your TV screen? I mean, they're doing these intricate camera shots, rapid switching
between cameras, zooming, panning, trying to make it look like a high-production-value shoot, and it looks like they've hired
some live sports producers and technical directors to make this pathetic illusion on the air. All this shit for talking heads.
Rotf-lmao.
What's next? Slow-motion HDTV instant replays of Rachel Maddow, utilizing zoomed-in camera shots of her mouth, when she's spraying
spittle into her guests' faces? That's what happens when she launches into her infamous hissy fits.
The round table MSNBC uses in their cheap studio is only 4 feet in diameter. In other words, they're shooting these live action
shots of people talking around an itty-bitty little table, and they're doing all this intricate camera work with approximately
8 cameras to make it look 'sensational', action-packed, and thrilling. Instead, it's extremely ugly, stupid, idiotic, disgusting,
and ridiculous. It's not sensational. It's a disgusting cocktail of vomit, puss, and diarrhea.
I need reliable sources of news and weather so I can live my life sustainably with dignity while I maintain my values. My pride
and dignity are invaluable to me. All these a-holes are doing for me is raising my blood pressure and pissing me off. That's why
I read The Intercept. I'd like to have the option to just sit back and watch TI's reporting on a news channel someday SOON, if
possible.
Again, what's our msm network news alternatives, besides Fox news, and why are they so pathetic? CBS news: Les Moonves in particular
has cheered the Trump phenomenon, telling investors in 2016 that the Trump campaign "may not be good for America, but it's damn
good for CBS." -- https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/cbs-fcc-trump/
-- Moonves got fired and lost his pension -- The longtime chairman-CEO was forced out Sept. 9, 2018 amid a cascade of sexual assault
and misconduct allegations. "The CBS board of directors has denied former chairman-CEO Leslie Moonves any of the $120 million
severance he was due under his employment contract after conducting a five-month internal probe of his conduct and the corporate
culture at CBS Corp." --
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-ent-les-moonves-denied-severance-20181217-story.html ABC news: Who owns
ABC? Walt Disney bought ABC 22 years ago. Exactly, we're in Disneyland.
photosymbiosis 8 hours ago ( Edited )
Some basic facts:
The US military presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with national security (i.e protecting American citizens
from military attack by foreign nations, or even with disrupting the activities and funding of terrorist groups like ISIS or Al
Qaeda, groups we financed and armed as part of the overthrow Assad strategy).
It has everything to do with controlling the region's oil flow and propping up regimes like Saudi Arabia who agree to invest
the majority of their oil money in Wall Street banks. This is called petrodollar recycling, a strategy devised in the 1970s. Here
is a foundational document discussing the plan, from 1974:
https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974LONDON16506_b.html
"CENTRAL THESIS, BASED ON BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO EARLY PROSPECT OF BREAKING OIL CARTEL, IS THAT WE SHOULD SEEK EARLY DIALOGUE
WITH PRODUCERS TO WORK OUT ARRANGEMENTS WITH ALL OR SOME OF THEM TO (A) INDEX PRICE OF OIL AND (B) BRING THEM INTO RECYCLING MECHANISM
IN ORDER TO SHARE THE RISK. SECOND PAPER LARGELY DUPLICATES FIRST, THOUGH IT DOES ADD SOME STRESS ON LONGER RANGE PROBLEM OF MASSIVE
SURPLUS OF OPEC COUNTRIES, ESTIMATED AT $400 BILLION BY 1980, FOR WHICH NO SOLUTION IS PROPOSED OTHER THAN NEW INTERNATIONAL RECYCLING
AGENCY PROPOSED IN BOTH PAPERS."
One key point is that the proponents of this scheme in the United States, be they Democrats or Republicans, have zero interest
in replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar and battery storage. That would sour the whole deal; nobody would buy Saudi oil.
Of course the Russkies, the stated enemy, don't want to see Europe go 100% renewable either, any more than the Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump
Administrations did. The Russia-US conflict is mostly over who gets to sell gas to Europe, and neither dealer wants the addict
to kick the habit, right?
This is a very consistent policy, year-to-year.
Now, why can't the corporate media honestly discuss this? Because they are the corporate establishment's propaganda monkeys,
little more, regardless of whether they work at MSNBC or at FOX.
Oh, and this is why #Resist Trump is so nonsensical, when those supporting that them want to install a Joe Biden or Kamela
Harris, who would continue right on with this status quo, i.e. blocking the development of renewable energy and continuing the
idiotic military entanglements in the Middle East.
Fred_Cowan 8 hours ago
Real News vs "fake news" is almost impossible to find and dissect. Even looking for real reporting beyond echoing is hard
to find. The real problems are ignored or misstated to the extent real solutions are impossible. Not just security and endless
wars but every aspect of civil existence, education, healthcare, you name it. We exist in an echo-chamber where real knowledge
and understanding have been all but banished.
Mona 8 hours ago
@Tom Collins & Art
"Yeah one wonders if [Snowden's] cover would have been blown so decisively had he done it anonymously through Wikileaks"
No need to wonder! Snowden made clear -- explicitly stated-- he wanted Greenwald and Poitras, and not Wikileaks. He deeply
desired journalists to exercise judgment over what should be released to the public and did not want a data dump.
Further, he insisted on outing himself , and did so several days after the first document was published. At his behest,
Poitras videotaped a 20-minute video of him taking responsibility, which was then posted at The Guardian. He did this, among other
reasons, to spare his co-workers from suspicion and investigation.
Mona 1 hour ago
Citizen 4 won the Oscar for best documentary in 2013 or '14. It's all Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras, and other real players.
DC_Reade 8 hours ago
If the only way someone can manage to frame any of these issues is as "Fox vs. MSNBC" or "Trump Corruption vs. Washington Establishment
Defenders of Democracy", they've assented to a two-valued action-reaction Pavlovian conditioned response loop.
No way should that be confused with a process of independent thought.
Unsurprisingly, I don't read one mention in the above post to any of the specifics of the content in Glenn Greenwald's remarks,
or to any of the observations made by Arkin in his email resignation.
You're too busy fitting everyone with Team Jerseys tailored to your preconceived ideas.
Mona 6 hours ago
"This article does not inform."
Oh, it does lots of informing, you just don't like what it informs us of, to wit, the first paragraph:
A VETERAN national security journalist with NBC News and MSNBC blasted the networks in a Monday email for becoming captive
and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping President Donald Trump, and now
the prime propaganda instrument of the War Machine's promotion of militarism and imperialism . As a result of NBC/MSNBC's all-consuming
militarism, he said, "the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength"
and "is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism."
Any substantive response, Milton?
MiltonWiltmellow 6 hours ago ( Edited )
Any substantive response, Milton?
As always, Mr. Greenwald's description is hyperbolic and bordering on unhinged. As DC_Reade suggested, I read Arkin's
email. You should too. It seemed more like a Montaigne Essaiy or a reflective note for posterity than a thundering repudiation
of MSNBC.
Mr. Greenwald turns it into a typical Greenwald crie du guerre™ against the evil Deep State (a term which he appears to have
mercifully discarded. Too Foxy I suppose.) Here's his problem. Crying "wolf" only works for awhile. Eventually it becomes part
of the information flood drowning everyone. Any bit of flotsam is as good as another.
Tom_Collins 5 hours ago
What's your point again? Do you even know?
DC_Reade 4 hours ago ( Edited )
Excerpts from Arkin's email:
"Seeking refuge in its political horse race roots, NBC (and others) meanwhile report the story of war as one of Rumsfeld vs.
the Generals, as Wolfowitz vs. Shinseki, as the CIA vs. Cheney, as the bad torturers vs. the more refined, about numbers of troops
and number of deaths, and even then Obama vs. the Congress, poor Obama who couldn't close Guantanamo or reduce nuclear weapons
or stand up to Putin because it was just so difficult. We have contributed to turning the world of national security into this
sort of political story. I find it disheartening that we do not report the failures of the generals and national security leaders.
I find it shocking that we essentially condone continued American bumbling in the Middle East and now Africa through our ho-hum
reporting..."
"...I argued endlessly with MSNBC about all things national security for years, doing the daily blah, blah, blah in Secaucus,
but also poking at the conventional wisdom of everyone from Matthews to Hockenberry. And yet I feel like I've failed to convey
this larger truth about the hopelessness of our way of doing things, especially disheartened to watch NBC and much of the rest
of the news media somehow become a defender of Washington and the system..."
"...For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump's various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations
with Russia, to denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his
attacks on the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I'm alarmed at
how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really?
We shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we
should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the
Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?..."
Yes, William Arkin does go on to be gracious and complimentary of some of his (former) colleagues at NBC. Arkin mantains his
professional composure. His critique of the focus and practices of NBC/MSNBC News is tempered and reasoned. But the critique is
scathing, nonetheless.
Tom_Collins 4 hours ago ( Edited )
You are missing Milton's point altogether. Like "Craig Summers", MW expects that his word alone is enough to dismiss the editorial/investigative/analytical
work put in by Greenwald, Arkin or anyone else on the topics considered most important by the U.S. State Department.
When MW or CS weigh in on these things to dismiss or diminish these stories/opinions/facts with the wave of a hand or incorrect
reading (and absolutely nothing of substance), we are supposed to defer to them respectfully and re-consider the respect we have
developed for the professionalism, dedication and personal/career risks taken on by the people who bring us these stories that
are inconvenient to the establishment government and media actors.
Mona 3 hours ago
"As DC_Reade suggested, I read Arkin's email. "
Cool, Milton, and what are your substantive comments on this part:
My expertise, though seeming to be all the more central to the challenges and dangers we face, also seems to be less valued
at the moment. And I find myself completely out of synch with the network, being neither a day-to-day reporter nor interested
in the Trump circus. To me there is also a larger problem: though they produce nothing that resembles actual safety and security,
the national security leaders and generals we have are allowed to do their thing unmolested. Despite being at "war," no great
wartime leaders or visionaries are emerging. There is not a soul in Washington who can say that they have won or stopped any
conflict. And though there might be the beloved perfumed princes in the form of the Petraeus' and Wes Clarks', or the so-called
warrior monks like Mattis and McMaster, we've had more than a generation of national security leaders who sadly and fraudulently
have done little of consequence. And yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as "analysts".
We do so ignoring the empirical truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today
than it was 18 years ago. Indeed the world becomes ever more polarized and dangerous. Windrem again convinced me to return
to NBC to join the new investigative unit in the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign. I thought that the mission was
to break through the machine of perpetual war acceptance and conventional wisdom to challenge Hillary Clinton's hawkishness.
It was also an interesting moment at NBC because everyone was looking over their shoulder at Vice and other upstarts creeping
up on the mainstream. But then Trump got elected and Investigations got sucked into the tweeting vortex, increasingly lost
in a directionless adrenaline rush, the national security and political version of leading the broadcast with every snow storm.
And I would assert that in many ways NBC just began emulating the national security state itself – busy and profitable. No
wars won but the ball is kept in play. I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed
a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. I'd
also argue, ever so gingerly, that NBC has become somewhat lost in its own verve, proxies of boring moderation and conventional
wisdom, defender of the government against Trump, cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering, in love with procedure
and protocol over all else (including results). I accept that there's a lot to report here, but I'm more worried about how
much we are missing. Hence my desire to take a step back and think why so little changes with regard to America's wars. In
our day-to-day whirlwind and hostage status as prisoners of Donald Trump, I think – like everyone else does – that we miss
so much. People who don't understand the medium, or the pressures, loudly opine that it's corporate control or even worse,
that it's partisan. Sometimes I quip in response to friends on the outside (and to government sources) that if they mean by
the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right. For me I realized
how out of step I was when I looked at Trump's various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations with Russia, to
denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his attacks on
the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I'm alarmed at how quick
NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really? We
shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we
should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for
the Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?
OftenWrongSeldomInDoubt 9 hours ago
This is SO validating to read! Surely no other ruler in history with a cute butt and polite voice ordered killings in 56 countries
in one year. I want someone to discuss this without accusing me of being pro-Rump. I guess, the Rachel Maddows of the world cannot
criticize Hillary/Obama for expanding every awful thing for which the good people of the world hated Bush.
There are two giant problems in the world today-
1. the scale of people who lost their homes and countries because of the good guy's wars and
2. climate change which the good guy's 27,600 odd bombs of 2016 might or might not have exacerbated. After all, each bomb costs
upward of $10,000,000. Who is measuring the greenhouse gases released by them?
The media needs to be equally adversarial to 'liberal' governments as they are to 'conservative' ones, so that majority parties
cannot take credit for granting me bathroom and bedroom permissions that are surely my personal domain! The media must shed light
on whether it is bad to tell 'aliens' not to cross a border or it is bad to win a Nobel Peace prize before raining bombs on brown
people in other countries, never separating children from families, when blowing up ten civilians for every 'target' we extra-judicially
decided to label as militant.
So thank you for this article!!
bluecurl3 9 hours ago
Gotta hand it to the neocons, soon after the Vietnam debacle (I served 3 tours there), and Watergate, they quickly licked
their wounds and devised a new playbook that, over time, would become a 'Project for the New American Century'. First things first,
get rid of the draft. Go professional, and then only a very minuscule percentage of Americans have skin in the game, meaning their
own sons and daughters at risk, while the rest of America can focus on the more important things, like watching the Housewives
of New Jersey, New York, Beverly Hills, etc. etc., or sports, or the newest fashions, or the current fad diets, or the newest
Trump tweet, bla bla bla.
Next, and this is genius because it incorporates that great American pastime, greed, spread all of that endless supply
of taxpayer money around to each and every State, County, and municipality in the form of jobs tied to the military industrial
complex. Now, lots of Americans have skin in the game, as long as the lobbyists, politicians, government and the military
can provide a pipeline of endless wars and conflicts. Of course, in order to provide and maintain the patina of morality and righteousness,
a subservient and corporate controlled media is vital.
And finally, silence and denigrate any meaningful opposition. As Kierkegaard stated, "Once you label me you negate me."
Hence the long, ongoing labeling of opposition with terms like traitor, anti-American, unpatriotic, (insert name or country here)
sympathizer. The sad part of all of this, too many Americans are gullible enough to swallow this crap, hook, line and sinker,
as long as they get their daily ration of manna.
Xavi 8 hours ago
Orwellian times.
firstpersoninfinite 9 hours ago
No, it's not rocket science. Otherwise you couldn't have proven Greenwald's point with your own views about "supporting" the
security state so easily. You missed the entire point of the article, which is that the neocons and the neoliberals support the
same cast of nefarious personalities that got us into the Middle East, over and over again. Why is NBC/MSNBC normalizing right-wing
radicalism? Because they've joined hands with neocons and neoliberals to support the military/industrial complex. Your argument
is akin to someone claiming that their Communion wafer is more holy than anyone else's because it has the Pope's imprint on it.
firstpersoninfinite 8 hours ago
Neocons, like Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol's father, were leftists in the 1930's. It's not a difficult term to come to terms
with, historically. I don't wonder why anyone questions what Trump is doing. I never said such a thing.
What Trump has done during his first two years in office has not been questioned by the mainstream press at all. Only the imbecile
tweets and the gaffes are of any interest to the citizens of such a redoubtable empire as our own. A friend of mine who fights
anti-wolf and anti-bear laws in Montana, laws sent down by the Trump administration, says that these are the same laws they fought
during 8 years of Obama. The mainstream of both parties are the two sides of the same coin. So I agree with the "role reversal."
Dysnomia 2 hours ago
I think the problem is not that supporting the "deep state" is becoming a convenient excuse to oppose Trump, but that opposing
Trump is becoming a convenient excuse to support the deep state.
DC_Reade 10 hours ago
Bravo, William Arkin. I only wish that you could have found some way for you to resign on the air in the middle of a broadcast.
(I've been wishing such a scenario for decades. Preferably featuring one or more news anchors.)
Incredible that the USA has spent trillions of dollars in a game of whack-a-mole that's been extended over the entire globe
with no time limitations, occasionally interspersed with declarations of surprise that the nation faces more emergent terror threats
than ever. We spend more money on the military and warfare than we spent during the Cold War. And all that was required to trigger
this spiral into perpetual militarism was a single special operation carried out 17 years ago by a small team of not-particularly-elite
commandos who hijacked four airliners, thereby obtaining the one-time ability to repurpose three of them into cruise missiles.
By now, it should be no surprise that other large nations have taken notice of the American assumption of entitlement to police
the world and begun their own rearmament campaigns. Also worth noting that the focus on the Terror Threat has served as the rationale
for massive investment in a level of surveillance technology that's unknown in human history. As for the norms and values that
international law was supposedly intended to provide for governments everywhere, all of that went out the window in 2003, with
the unprovoked invasion of Iraq by the Benevolent Hegemon Hyperpower. American scolding of other nations for their armed territorial
incursions and imperial designs has rung awfully hollow, ever since.
The emphasis on massive military escalation to deal with terrorism outbreaks is reminiscent of the War on Drugs- which, it
should be noted, also remains largely in effect, notwithstanding occasional feints toward de-escalation. And we all know what
the War on Drugs did in terms of empowering the criminal elite that it was supposed to eliminate.
What's that all about? The leaders of this country- and for that matter, the supposed leaders of the rest of the world- aren't
leading. To me, almost all of them look like they're running from something: they're running from fossil fuels addiction and its
toxic blowback, looming climate catastrophe, natural resource depletion, maldistribution of wealth and neglect of the commons.
photosymbiosis 11 hours ago
What's the central reason MSNBC is so pro-war? Because the shareholders in its parent corporation, Comcas, have a deep
vested interest in militarism, arms sales, and the capture of natural resources around the word:
Comcast, a large cable operator, completed its purchase of a majority stake in NBCUniversal from General Electric in January
2011. The cable giant bought the rest of NBCUniversal in February 2013. NBCUniversal is the parent company of MSNBC, as well
as NBC, Bravo, USA and other channels.
State Street Corporation 13,394,660,471 Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 6,210,096,924
Capital World Investors 5,098,130,465
Blackrock Inc. 5,084,573,828
Bank of America Corporation 2,826,426,091
ExxonMobil major holders, $US:
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 26,661,034,588
Blackrock Inc. 21,669,998,686
State Street Corporation 16,964,902,104
Northern Trust Corporation 4,566,789,988
Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation 4,420,622,076
It pretty obvious once you look at the value of an outfit like Blackrock's investments in media, arms, and oil - they don't
want any stories told on MSNBC that would threaten the profit margins of Exxon, Lockheed or Comcast.
The only real solution is government enforcement of anti-trust legisation which would require the likes of Comcast, TimeWarner(CNN)
and NewsCorp(FOX) to divest their media holdings, creating dozens of independently owned outfits not beholden to some corporate
master who won't let them discuss important topics like, say NAFTA....
Benito_Mussolini 10 hours ago
The only real solution is government enforcement of anti-trust legislation
Hopefully, MSNBC will be smart enough to provide a friendly platform for ex-government officials. It means a great deal to
government officials to know their influence, public visibility (and associated appearance fees) will continue into their retirement.
I don't watch MSNBC, so I don't know if they have implemented this strategy, but the pictures in the article seem encouraging.
johnnyred 11 hours ago
War is touted exclusively by those who've never experienced it. Get rid of the generals, put in some infantry casualties, those
who've lost a limb or two.
Then we can have some informed comment.
Somewherearoundtikrit 11 hours ago
Meanwhile, over at The Guardian, "In these critical times..." their "editorial independence" is in sincere need of your donation.
They're just 80K away from their million dollar goal! Pardon me while I retch. Julian Assange is still being robbed of his freedom.
In these critical times indeed. Thank you Glenn.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
The Guardian can get its funding from the organizations for whom they carry water. Not a damn cent from me. After they caved
in on the Snowden files, I was done with them for good.
Yeah one wonders if his cover would have been blown so decisively had he done it anonymously through Wikileaks, but I think
they were onto him anyway. Ultimately the information got out, and media orgs like The Guardian were exposed for their fealty
to the national security state(s).
Cryptome wouldn't have censored the releases, as WikiLeaks has. Still WikiLeaks continues to be one of the world's premier
journalistic outlets.
MyInnocuousUsernameWasBanned 9 hours ago
Was anyone else surprised by how long it took them to get to a million? I've seen Kickstarters for video games that got to
a million faster. The slow pace of the fundraising seemed like a rebuke. I was hoping they'd never hit a million.
And I say all of that as someone who has recurring donations set up for about a dozen podcasts and blogs. The nonprofit/fundraiser
model is the way to go, but I also think that publicly owned media outlets, or privately owned but public-interest-minded news
organizations, while editorially independent, can't be totally contemptuous of their reader/donors.
I would never donate to the Guardian for a million reasons, but to pick just one: they have played the lead role in smearing
Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters as dangerous radicals and anti-Semites.
And I would never donate to The Intercept, for instance, because of the crucial role it has played in promoting Russiagate
and amplifying voices like Mattathias Schwartz's. (I'll never stop reminding people that Schwartz non-jokingly advocated here
for what would essentially be a coup -- Obama "putting a hold on the transfer of power" -- after the most recent presidential
election. The Intercept published that. Amazing.) And the face of the Intercept, arguably, is no longer Greenwald but Mehdi Hasan,
who publishes rank propaganda smearing peace activists as "Bashar al-Assad Apologists" who revere human rights abusers as "heroes."
(Again: the Intercept published that. Amazing.)
My favorite line from that Arkin email is the one about the tension between worship of "officialdom" and respect for "public
yearnings." To political elites and reporters (including the experts at the Intercept who spent a week running PR for Nancy Pelosi's
speaker bid, and who constantly write off the 2016 election as a consequence either of sinister foreign interference or of the
squalid bigotry, stupidity and ugliness of non-coastal Americans), officialdom always wins, and "public yearnings" are just the
bleatings of deplorables.
If Glenn's excellent reporting was removed from this site, The Intercept would be as deserving of Arkin's critique as NBC and
the Guardian are.
tigertiger 8 hours ago
They didn't hit their million, which they wanted before the end of the year, but they're still begging. Not for lack of trying,
that 'give us money!' pop up has to be about the loudest, most intrusive of it's kind I've ever seen.
And yes, TI is only marginally less repulsive (thanks to Glenn, Lee Fang, and Jon Schwartz). It amazes me that an outlet owned
by a bajillionaire constantly begs for money. I guess they think it makes them more 'populist' or something- 'look, the peons
are sacrificing their pennies to help us!'.
TravisTea 11 hours ago
As an American author (and journalist) once wrote:
"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and
keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them
from grabbing slices of his . And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for the
'universal brotherhood of man' -- with his mouth."
-- Mark Twain, Man's Place in the Animal World (1896)
P.S. As always, thank you very much, Mr. Greenwald (and thank you, Mr. Arkin).
Carlaly 11 hours ago
Just vindicates what you have been saying all along. Although I expect the denialists will dismiss Arkin as some anti-American,
anti-troop stooge of Putin.
Mona 11 hours ago
"The cable network's key anchor, Rachel Maddow, once wrote a book on the evils of endless wars without congressional authorization,
but now routinely depicts anyone who wants to end those illegal wars as reckless weaklings and traitors."
She's just coming home. Liberals have long been dominated by hawks (after all, Vietnam was a Democrats' war, albeit Nixon/Kissinger
took the war crimes up to 11.)
Maddow long ago described herself as a "national security liberal."
Which leads to yet another element of Ms. Maddow's portfolio: the daughter of an Air Force captain who served stateside during
the Vietnam War, she is an admitted defense-policy wonk. "I'm a national security liberal, which I tell people because it's
meant to sound absurd," she said. "I'm all about counterterrorism. I'm all about the G.I. Bill."
Madcow would like nothing more than to see open war with Russia.
brer_rabbit 11 hours ago ( Edited )
maddcow . . my laugh of the day.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
It's a common refrain in far-right reaches of the Internet. I almost felt bad for saying it, but that's what she's become on
the topic of Russia.
brer_rabbit 11 hours ago
Yes, whenever is see her, or Anderson Cooper, or any of these guys for that matter (which is rare . . usually for a few minutes
to catch a glimpse of the latest environmental disaster, mass shooting, or whatever) my first thought always goes to question
the kind of upbringing that could have produced such vapid people, who enthusiastically shame themselves on a daily basis for
money. What must they think of their audience?
open_hearted_jade 11 hours ago
Maddow is less respected by an awakening public -- therefore she must be a conservative right winger. Didn't you learn anything
after 1945?
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
You've made made totally missing the point into a trolling form of art. Bravo.
endlesswar 11 hours ago
Attacking an extreme right wing president from the right, while lauding unrepentant war criminals like Bush and McCain. Just
about sums up what it means to be a liberal in this day and age.
PatrickShaw 6 hours ago
MSNBC and their national security contributors do not speak for liberals. They never invite liberal voices on who are anti-war/pro
diplomacy.
xochtl 12 hours ago
Still, that a network insider has blown the whistle on how all this works, and how MSNBC and NBC have become ground zero
for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies, while not surprising, is nonetheless
momentous given how detailed and emphatic he is in his condemnations.
perfect summary
brer_rabbit 12 hours ago ( Edited )
. . if they mean by the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they
are right.
bingo
clawhammerjake 13 hours ago
War is a business decision.
Steeeve 13 hours ago ( Edited )
I've been consistently surprised that anyone is still watching these things. Personally, I've already divested from special-interest
funded media outlets and the DNC for that matter. It's always interesting when I run across someone parrotting their viewpoints
though.
TheManj 13 hours ago ( Edited )
The greatest scam of the millennium, after cruptocurrency, was the use of Trump Derangement Syndrome to pervert "progressives"
into acolytes of the security establishment.
pedinska2 13 hours ago
Actually, TDS wasn't used in the original perversion so much as it was used as the cement to keep it firmly in place.
I lay blame for much of the greatest scam of the millenium on Obama with his drone policies, expansion of our involvement
in the ME, retention of the same Smartest Guys in the Room who tanked our economy and wholesale conversion of liberals into acceptance
of further erosion of our Constitutional rights with his warm embrace of the same criminals running the security state when torture
became de rigueur. He was just so darn pretty and eloquent they had no choice but to believe all the lies dripping from those
sexy lips. And have you seen Michelle's arms???!? /s
Benito_Mussolini 13 hours ago
To herd people, it's more effective to use both the carrot (Obama) and the stick (TDS). The fact that progressives needed to
be herded is a testament to their numbers and success.
Erelis 13 hours ago
This essay is critical for every American to read. No exaggeration. NBC/MSNBC has become the proverbial spear tip in the
march toward nuclear war with Russia. Every day, step by step, brick by brick, they are laying the foundation for the justification
of war--in fact, for needing and demanding war, almost any war, but more particularly with Russia. Let's remember that when Bush
ordered the invasion of Iraq, 72% of Americans supported it to according to Gallup. That didn't happen overnight with some big
propaganda event.
bluecurl3 4 hours ago
Perhaps, but I would suggest that Iran has become the most desired target for a war, and due in no small part to the aggressive
advocacy for such a war by Israel and Saudi Arabia, and their subservient boot-licking, ass kissing American politicians.
I'm all for pulling our troops out of Syria, but mark my word, Bibi and his zionist war-hawks will seize the opportunity to bomb
the hell out of Syria, and use it as a pretext to launch attacks against Iran.
Mike5000 13 hours ago
Maddow is not really pro-war or anti-war. She is just pro whatever Clinton and Pelosi happen to be pushing this week. It's
a shame. She's a good presenter but hopelessly biased.
PresumptuousInsect 13 hours ago
I think she is more enthralled to the people who are paying her.
Erelis 13 hours ago
Maddows rhetoric and reporting is pro-war regardless of her motivations. She uses the language of aggression and conspiracy
and accusation in describing the Russians and other Americans such as Jill Stein. She without exception imputes malevolent motives
on "the enemy" which is Russia leading to a truly a bizarre clip telling Americans in somber and concerned tones that Russia and
N. Korea share a border. The conspiracy has been exposed.
Bill_Owen 10 hours ago
What is it, exactly, about Hillary Clinton that enthralls Rachel Maddow so much that she now pretty much spends her days building
a case (in-the-sky) for war on Russia? Seems pathological somehow.
MyInnocuousUsernameWasBanned 9 hours ago
Look at how her ratings and salary have been affected by her transformation. She's gone from "cable news anchor" to "superstar."
The Russiagate scam has also given dozens of mediocrities like Seth Abramson a chance to be noticed and to feel important. Even
the writers on the Intercept's "intelligence" beat have been doing some sort of Tom Clancy cosplay for the last two years. It's
profitable and fun to be one of these people, as long as you don't have a nagging sense of shame.
William 13 hours ago
Indeed, none of this is new. I read Norman Solomon's and Martin Lee's UNRELIABLE SOURCES: A GUIDE TO DETECTING BIAS IN NEWS
MEDIA back when I was in college in the late 80s and they cite General Electric's ownership of NBC (before there was an "MSNBC")
uncritically:
General Electric's Influence on NBC GE is by no means a hands off owner of NBC. Lee and Solomon in their book Unreliable Sources
have detailed how GE insisted on the removal of references to itself in an NBC programme on substandard products. They also point
out that NBC journalists have not been particularly keen to expose GE's environmental record and that TV commercials by a group
called INFACT, urging a boycott of GE products, were banned by NBC as well as other television stations. NBC did however briefly
report GE's indictment for cheating the Department of Defense which was reported more extensively in other media outlets. (Lee
and Solomon 1990, pp. 77-81) Former NBC News Chief, Lawrence Grossman, claims that the head of GE, Jack Welch made it clear to
him that he worked for GE and told him not to use terms such as 'Black Monday' to describe the stock market crash in 1987 because
it depressed share prices such as GE's (Cited in Naureckas 1995). Todd Putnam, editor of National Boycott News, tells of how he
was approached by the NBC's Today Show to do an interview about consumer boycotts. Their biggest boycott at the time was against
General Electric and its nuclear defense contracts but the show wouldn't let him talk about that and was reluctant to have him
mention boycotts against any large corporation preferring him to talk about "a boycott that was 'small,' 'local' and 'sexy'."
(1991) Mark Gunther writing in American Journalism Review claims that references to General Electric's use of the bolts in an
NBC Today Show on defective bolts in planes, bridges and nuclear plants, were edited out and only mentioned in a follow-up segment
after criticism of the omission (1995, p. 40). In 1990 NBC Nightly News ran 14 minutes of coverage over three days of a breast
cancer detection machine produced by GE, without mentioning that it was made by NBC's owners. The other two major television networks
didn't bother to cover it at all. (FAIR 1991) Helen Caldicott who had been featured on the Today Show previously found that when
she wrote her book If You Love This Planet, which used GE as a case study of an environmentally damaging company, her scheduled
appearance was mysteriously cancelled (Anon. 1992). In 1987, one year after GE took over NBC, NBC broadcast a special documentary
promoting nuclear power using France as a model. The promotion for the programme proclaimed that "French townspeople welcome each
new reactor with open arms". The documentary won a Westinghouse sponsored prize for science journalism. (Westinghouse Electric
Company also builds nuclear power stations.) Shortly after the documentary was screened, when there were a couple of accidents
at French power stations and there was significant opposition to nuclear power amongst the French population (polls showed about
one third opposed it), NBC did not report the story although some US newspapers did. (Lee and Solomon 1990, p. 78) Karl Grossman
documents in Extra! (1993) how the programme What Happened? broadcast on NBC in 1993 gave a one sided account of the Three Mile
Island nuclear accident and its aftermath. It showed local resident Debbie Baker saying that she was not as afraid of the nuclear
plant as she used to be. However, according to Grossman, Baker, whose son was born with Down's syndrome 9 months after the accident
and who has received $1.1 million in a settlement arising from the accident, was shocked at how the programme had been edited
to imply her acceptance of the plant. She said she was still extremely uncomfortable with the plant and that what she had said
was she felt safer since her groups set up a network of radiation monitors around the plant. Neither Baker's settlement nor the
200 or so others "made to families who have suffered injury, birth defects and death because of the 1979 accident" were mentioned.
Instead a nuclear power industry expert was featured who said the plant's back-up safety systems worked successfully. When EXTRA!
pointed out that no scientists critical of nuclear power appeared in the program, Jaffe [executive producer of the show] responded,
'That is correct. Maybe there is some misunderstanding. That show is not a journalistic show but an entertainment show to look
into and to find out the reason and cause of various accidents and incidents.' (Grossman 1993, p. 6) NBC has not been alone in
putting a positive spin on the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. On the tenth anniversary of the accident, the New York Times
ran an anniversary article opposite the editorial page headlined "Three Mile Island: The Good News" which argued that the accident
had been good for the nuclear power industry prompting better management and emergency planning. The paper did not report the
fact that 2000 residents living near the plant had filed claims for cancer and other health problems they blamed on the accident,
nor the 280 personal-injury settlements paid out to such claimants, nor the unusual clusters of leukemia, birth defects and hypothyroidism
around the plant. (Lee and Solomon 1990, p. 210) This was not the first time Times reporting had fitted with General Electric's
views. In 1986 the Times reported on the use of humans as subjects in tritium absorption experiments. Tritium is routinely handled
by nuclear power plant workers. An early edition of the paper said: "The tritium study was financed by the Atomic Energy Commission
and conducted by the General Electric Company at Richland, which abuts the Hanford [nuclear weapons] reservation." In the late
edition the sentence ended after Commission and no longer named General Electric. (Tenenbaum 1990)
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
Sure, but the question then becomes: Why didn't the corporate networks and newspapers with whom NBC competed point these things
out?
Art 11 hours ago
That's what my father always said about media - that it was self-correcting. But he was wrong. They're all influenced by the
same thing, namely the ultra-rich and their money.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
But wouldn't another network stand to gain more clout from the ultra-rich, corporations, and their money from NBC's losing
viewers/ratings due to exposure for their corrupt unwillingness to report negatively on their parent corporation's actions?
Art 11 hours ago
They share a huge fraction of investors, that's the problem.
Midwest 14 hours ago
Nothing has changed except that there is an outsider independent president. NBC was just as bad 20 years ago.
TheManj 13 hours ago
Project Mockingbird was publicly revealed years ago, but pretty much totally ignored by the audiences who lap contentedly
from the MSM koolaid bowl.
Phil 14 hours ago
William Arkin is right on point with his email to MSNBC, especially when he says:
"And yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as "analysts". We do so ignoring
the empirical truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today than it was 18
years ago. "
In that same vein I have problems with MSNBC et al also covering the farewell speeches of outgoing Senators and Representatives
which are full of warnings as to how the current system is "broken" [Paul Ryan, ClaireMcCaskill, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Flake, among
many] and not calling them out.
It's ironic that these politicians who have gorged themselves on literally millions of dollars in campaign funding from
Big Pharma, Defense Contractors, Energy, Big Banking, and even insider stock trading now feel compelled to warn us of graft and
corruption they all fostered. These politicians get elected as nobodies, sell their votes, retire as millionaires, then have the
nerve to tell us how corrupted our government has become as they check out to become Lobbyist's.
Orrin Hatch was a Senator for 42 years but last week he woke up one morning to find the Senate needs fixing? Paul Ryan was
Speaker of the House and fiercely defended Trump but now as he leaves he's suddenly discovers that things aren't right in Washington?
And what about all those who are still in office now – where are their warnings and concern? The answer is it's difficult to talk
while you're in office stuffing your mouths at the trough.
Sadly, MSNBC and the media carry these farewell speeches with no comment except that they are all great public servants and
their viewers soak it all up because to do otherwise would be unpatriotic. And the march of the lemmings to the voting booths
continues.
PresumptuousInsect 14 hours ago
I am so glad to see this man speak out. For the longest time, war and the military budget has been a third rail in politics,
and "support the troops!"--however hypocritical that slogan might be--has been a rallying cry as well as an accusation of treason/unAmericanism/communism,
etc., for those who have had doubts. But finally we are starting to see signs of dissatisfaction with the status quo among the
political class, and even antiwar bullet points listed on some platforms. There are even calls for diplomacy, a word that seemed
to have been deleted from all U.S. dictionaries. I hope that Arkin's outcry serves to move this agitation forward.
shenebraskan 14 hours ago
Dunno if you noticed (I did because I watch State Department briefings), but when Brett McGurk resigned as Syria envoy, in
a similar huff to McMaster, he bemoaned the loss of his colleagues at State and Pentagon. State Department has become another
branch of the MIC, not a diplomatic corps. And I am not saying this is all because of Trump. Probably started when we "won" the
Cold War.
"Return of the Neocons" [Stephen Wertheim, New York Review of
Books ]. "In Washington, D.C., liberal foreign policy hands have reacted to Trump's
presidency less by reaching out to ordinary citizens than by crossing K Street to make common
cause with their neighborhood neocons. Among otherefforts ,
the Center for American Progress (CAP), the leading Clintonian policy shop, is now issuing
joint reports
with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the leading neocon incubator, which this year
sent John Bolton to be National Security Adviser. CAP donated $200,000 to AEI in
2017. " • Neera Tanden even now making sure that Wertheim never eats brunch in this town
again .
There is no political left in US. There are only 2 right wing parties and it's only a matter
of degrees. Policies define a party, not what they call themselves. You can call yourself
whatever you want. It's not like it's against the Geneva convention or something.
Examples of mismatch between the official name and reality are: North Korea calling itself
DPRK – where D stands for democracy and yet they have never had elections, not that it
matters, the whole thing about "democracy" is a sham anyway. Also East Germany used to call
themselves DDR – which of course stands for Deutsche Demokratische Republikische (I
couldn't ressist making fun of the German language). Anyway, they called
themselves"Democratic" with no elections ever taking place there.
Same thing with the Democratic party in US. Calling yourself Democratic doesn't make you a
left wing automatically. After all, the Nazis used to call themselves "Socialists", which
would imply leftist orientation, yet they were as far right as you can get.
In order for a party to qualify as left wing, they have to look after the interests of the
working class. US has no such party, they probably never did. So, both Democrats and
Republicans are right wing, but not as far right as the Nazis used to be. Yet, the Nazis were
way smarter because they saw foreigners as the main threat to their country. Both domestic
born and foreign born foreigners.
The 2 right wing US parties see their native born population as their main threat. Their
"instincts" tell them that even after decades long propaganda, they haven't succeeded in
completely lobotomizing the native born citizens, and that there is still some
"revolutionary" potential left in them, who might one day reach for their pockets.
That's where the degeneracy of the elites comes into clear focus. Seeing the working class
as a potential threat to them and their pockets. When it's actually the opposite. The
degenerate elites are a threat to the working class (and frankly to themselves, but they are
too degenerate to see that). They are threat because they off-shored millions of jobs of the
working class, and if that wasn't enough, they imported millions of third world individuals
to fill in jobs that are not even there anymore.
Who is a threat to whom? Multiculturalism is not a left wing policy. It's a fascist
policy. The only difference is that the intended victims are domestic, rather than foreign.
It's inward oriented fascism. The only hope for US is that under Trump, the republicans are
starting to flip-flop between seeing the Americans and foreigners as a threat. Where the
other right wing party – the "Democrats" are firm in their belief that the Americans
are the threat.
I guess it's just a matter of perspective – who is Nazi to whom. The democrats think
that the deplorables are potential Nazis towards the foreigners, while actually it's them
– the Democrats that are currently Nazis towards the "deplorables".
(Previous comments from me that Pentagon officers
are not *necessarily* militarists not withstanding...)
Military Deletes New Year's Eve Tweet Saying It's
'Ready to Drop Something' https://nyti.ms/2RvcZwi
NYT - Matt Stevens and Thomas Gibbons-Neff - Dec. 31, 2018
The unified command responsible for the United States' nuclear strike capabilities drew
attention on Monday when it tweeted a message and video that threatened the possibility of
dropping a bomb.
In the tweet, which was posted as Americans prepared to celebrate New Year's Eve and was
deleted about three hours later, the United States Strategic Command said the nation was
"ready to drop something." A video that was part of the tweet showed a B-2 stealth bomber
soaring across the sky before releasing two GPS-guided bombs that exploded into a giant ball
of fire after hitting the ground below.
In the video, which was viewed more than 120,000 times, pulsing music beats in the
background as the words "STEALTH," "READY" and "LETHAL" flash across the screen in white
block letters.
"#TimesSquare tradition rings in the #NewYear by dropping the big ball...if ever needed,
we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger," the tweet said, adding the hashtags:
"#Deterrence #Assurance #CombatReadyForce #PeaceIsOurProfession." ...
A spokeswoman for the Strategic Command said the post "was part of our Year in Review
series meant to feature our command priorities: strategic deterrence, decisive response and
combat-ready force."
"It was a repost from earlier in the year, dropping a pair of conventional Massive
Ordnance Penetrators at a test range in the United States," she said in a statement that did
not elaborate.
About 30 minutes after the statement was issued, Stratcom apologized on Twitter, saying
that its "previous NYE tweet was in poor taste & does not reflect our values."
"We are dedicated to the security of America & allies," the new tweet added. ...
Obama was concocted in the darkest recesses of the elite. He was a deep-state test tube
presidential candidate.
BIC, Kissinger Associates, an occulted provenance, two comprehensively CIA connected
maternal grandparents, a June 8, 2008 meeting with HRC at a Bilderberg conference at the
Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, VA, while his press plane was ordered flown out of town
with all aboard except Barack Obama.
A ring on his wedding finger inscribed in Arabic. Tarmac reading material: "The Post
American World."
He was molded to do his level best to demolish the U.S., to deindustrialize it, strip mine
it, extinguish the middle class, serve it garnished to the People's Republic of China.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
Don't forget the fact that he refused to even investigate, much less prosecute both war
criminals and financial criminals. That effectively made those people and policies de-facto
above-the-law. As Glenn has written before, including in his book, we are now a nation of
men, not a nation of laws, and Obama is as much to blame for that as Bush, Cheney, their
lawyers and the Congress.
dkwilson 8 hours ago
I've always wondered why everyone forgets(?), or maybe no one knows... or maybe it's
convenient to omit the fact that Obama's first meaningful move as president was to attempt to
extract soldiers from the morass that is Syria. He sent Biden to the Pentagon to talk with
the corporate warlords there to take the overall temperature and find out how he could
achieve the pullout. But suddenly, that bell cow CIA media member, Bob Woodward, leaped off
the toilet on his yacht and "exposed" Obama's wants with a withering how could he, pro-war
attack (and some slick, "is Obama really a Muslim and, therefore, "anti Semite"
rhetoric).
It was as if someone took Obama into the WH's cinema room and showed him the untouched
version of the JFK assassination from every angle from which it was filmed. From that moment
forward, Barack Obama was never the same... in fact, he quickly became the Pentagon's "main
boy" water carrier. (It also seemed, Joe, I might be a Jesuit but I'm Jewish as hell, Biden
may have played a YUGE part in the play.)
But hey, why allow that little incident to get in the way of a tread worn, wholly
uniformed but somehow still effective anti-Obama narrative?
"... Very interesting. It is understandable that Trump does not read briefings, if all he is fed is a variety of permanent war options at odds with his strategic goals. ..."
"... Trump had lunch with Lindsay Graham who has allegedly said that Trump is "reconsidering ". The Neocons haven't given up.. ..."
Gareth Porter, in an article published in the American Conservative, definitively shows that
Trump's Dec. 19 announcement of the US withdrawal from Syria was, in fact, the end of a fight
of at least a year, between Trump on the one side and his national security team, lead by
Mattis and Dunford on the other. Published accounts of the policy process over the past year
"show that senior national security officials and self-interested institutions have been
playing a complicated political game for months aimed at keeping Trump from wavering on our
indefinite presence on the ground in Syria ," Porter writes. "The entire episode thus
represents a new variant of a familiar pattern dating back to Vietnam in which national
security advisors put pressure on reluctant presidents to go along with existing or proposed
military deployments in a war zone . The difference here is that Trump, by publicly choosing a
different policy, has blown up their transparent schemes and offered the country a new course,
one that does not involve a permanent war state."
Porter cites an April 2018 Associated Press account of an NSC meeting at which Trump's
impatience with his national security team boiled over. At that meeting, Trump ordered them
unequivocally to accept a fundamentally different Syria deployment policy. Instead, they framed
the options as a binary choice -- either an immediate pullout or an indefinite presence in
order to ensure the complete and permanent defeat of Islamic State. Mattis and Dunford, Porter
continues, were consciously exploiting Trump's own defensiveness about a timeline–he had
attacked Obama during the 2016 campaign for imposing a timeline in Afghanistan–"to press
ahead with their own strategy unless and until Trump publicly called them on it."
"The Syria withdrawal affair is a dramatic illustration of the fundamental quandary of the
Trump presidency in regard to ending the state of permanent war that previous administrations
created. Although a solid majority of Americans want to rein in U.S. military deployments in
the Middle East and Africa, Trump's national security team is committed to doing the opposite,
" Porter concludes. "Trump is now well aware that it is virtually impossible to carry out the
foreign policy that he wants without advisors who are committed to the same objective. That
means that he must find people who have remained outside the system during the permanent war
years while being highly critical of its whole ideology and culture. If he can fill key
positions with truly dissident figures, the last two years of this term in office could
decisively clip the wings of the bureaucrats and generals who have created the permanent war
state we find ourselves in today."
Trump has called the bluff of the permanent warfare crowd and now has his decision, but the
possibility of sabotage by that crowd's assets inside the Pentagon cannot yet be discounted.
This is indicated by an exclusive Reuters report claiming that planners at the Pentagon are
proposing that the YPG be allowed to keep the heavy weapons that the US has supplied it with,
though Reuters' sources stress that the planning is still at an early stage and nothing's been
decided yet. And yet, there must be a reason why this is being reported now. It obviously would
throw a monkey wrench in the arrangements that Trump is trying to make with Erdogan to keep
eastern Syria stable in the wake of the US withdrawal. It would also represent a back down from
US promises made earlier to the Turks to retrieve the weapons and Erdogan would throw a fit.
Certainly, the idea that the U.S. military can retrieve all of the weapons that it handed over
is a dubious one, at best , and there are legitimate questions about whether or not Turkish
troops could really operate in the Middle Euphrates valley near the Iraqi border, hundreds of
kilometers from the Turkish border.
But the key to the proposal is this: The recommendation "is a rejection of Trump's policy to
withdraw from Syria," a person familiar with the discussions told Reuters. So, really, it is an
attempt at sabotage.
Very interesting. It is understandable that Trump does not read briefings, if all he is fed
is a variety of permanent war options at odds with his strategic goals. The Syrian war that
matters is clearly now being fought within the USG and Trump has won the latest battle. As
Porter says, this war will only be won if Trump can successfully replace key Borg positions
with people of his own.
If the pullout can be completed without being sabotaged, Russia ought
to be able to seamlessly step in guarantor of peace - and the SAG and Iraq between then can
finish IS. The permanent war crowd with then just have to vent their frustrations elsewhere.
A good outcome for all.
He was IMO suckered into taking a lot of these people because he didn't know anyone in
government. His problem will be to find people not already working for the other side.
"that the YPG be allowed to keep the heavy weapons that the US has supplied it with"
I would love to find out what those "heavy weapons" were exactly. I have been putting up
comments all over the place saying that as far as I have been able to find out the US has not
supplied anything with a barrel bigger than an 80mm mortar or a vehicle heavier than a MRAP.
Up to now no-one has contradicted me. The reason the US did this was precisely this
situation, not to upset the Turks if gear was left behind.
Am I wrong? Is this equipment now regarded as "heavy weapons"?
I have looked as to where I might post my comment on this important site; this article seems
to be the best fit for my comment on another site about the retirement of Gen Kelly and a
link to an interview with Gen Kelly (I hope Col Lang will be lenient in allowing a secondary
posting of my comment from another site):
On the subject of trump this AM, zerohedge has a summary of an interview with Gen Kelly
which occurred just prior to his departure-to say that it was "bone crushing hard" probably
is a long way from describing the difficulty of that Chief of Staff job in a chaotic white
house working for a chaotic individual.
I have just a ton of respect for Gen Kelly-even in this totally mucked up country with all
of its unending flustercucks, there are individuals still willing to step up and try,
emphasis on try, to restore some sanity to the situations. God speed, Gen Kelly!!
Two factors not mentioned are the SAA and support from Russia. Turkey may be somewhat off the
hook for a deep thrust if Syrian forces move in and convince the YPG to stand down, by force
or otherwise. As Col. Lang points out, starving the YPG of ammunition is a practical
approach. If the PMU links up with Syrian forces to secure the eastern border areas, the
Kurdish interests should be balanced out. My point being that the so-called vacuum left for
Iran to fill is an overplayed shadow puppet.
... there is no hope for the humanity. The greed of the working class knows no boundaries.
After all that the elites have done in the past 40-50 years to demonstrate their humanity
– basically bringing a big chunk of the third world and resettling them in the west,
the greedy underclass still demands proof from the elites that they are humanists.
Unfortunately the way they envision that the elites should prove their humanity is by
opening their wallets and sharing their wealth with the poor in order to satisfy their ever
increasing demands for better life by the undeserving poor.
Someone has to put a stop to it. Because if the poor underclasses succeed in draining the
wealth from the innocent elites – the whole society will collapse. Why? Because there
is no way that anyone can have respect for poor elites – which is where all this
business with the yellow wests in France is going.
If the elites become poor – how can they maintain that magic aura of "we are better
than you" that they project on the poor and which allows to govern them? No one can have a
respect for poor elites. That's why I think it's time to step up the tried and trusted method
– thankfully invented by US – that when somebody doubts the generosity of the
elites – just import few hundred thousand fresh new faces from the 3rd world – to
prove how much the elites care and that we are all equal – not with them, but among
ourselves, which is where it really counts.
... there is no hope for the humanity. The greed of the working class knows no boundaries.
After all that the elites have done in the past 40-50 years to demonstrate their humanity
– basically bringing a big chunk of the third world and resettling them in the west,
the greedy underclass still demands proof from the elites that they are humanists.
Unfortunately the way they envision that the elites should prove their humanity is by
opening their wallets and sharing their wealth with the poor in order to satisfy their ever
increasing demands for better life by the undeserving poor.
Someone has to put a stop to it. Because if the poor underclasses succeed in draining the
wealth from the innocent elites – the whole society will collapse. Why? Because there
is no way that anyone can have respect for poor elites – which is where all this
business with the yellow wests in France is going.
If the elites become poor – how can they maintain that magic aura of "we are better
than you" that they project on the poor and which allows to govern them? No one can have a
respect for poor elites. That's why I think it's time to step up the tried and trusted method
– thankfully invented by US – that when somebody doubts the generosity of the
elites – just import few hundred thousand fresh new faces from the 3rd world – to
prove how much the elites care and that we are all equal – not with them, but among
ourselves, which is where it really counts.
First, in just three EU member states referenda were held in 2005 on what was called
European constitution. All three two thirds negative, with, especially compared with
elections now, a high % of voting. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Lisbon was signed unanimously,
a treaty in essence the same as the rejected 'consitution'.
According to Farrage it was said in EP 'they do not know what they're doing'.
And so the disappearance of the nation states continued, elections in the member states,
hogwash, what still is called government is no more than errand boys of Brussels.
Second capitalism. It is a great pity that this word now is used to hide what the problem
is, the disappearance of the nation state. Capitalism is as old as the world, as is global
trading. Thousands of years BCE traders from what is now Indonesia sailed yearly to E Africa
for trade, on regulated markets, regulated informally, even without any verbal communication.
What is called capitalism now, the evil capitalism, has as only cause that nation states gave
their sovereignty away.
As to the ideological basis of the EU, mainly the fairy tale of the evil Germans, two
world wars and the holocaust.
I must admit that until say fifteen years ago I also believed these fairy tales.
One does not expect to be lied to consistently by nearly anyone and anything.
If spreading these fairy tales was lying, can even be discussed.
I'm inclined to see just concious lying as lying.
Anyhow, these fairy tales prevented common sense to understand that culturally there is no
such thing as Europe.
Culturally, thus also not economically and socially.
The Brussels love of mass immigration, forcing member states to accept in fact any migrant,
is caused, I fear, by the realisation that the European Reich can only exist if the 28 or so
different cultures have been destroyed, even the probablity of civil war seems acceptable to
Brussels, I fear.
US "resistance" is as fake as it can be. It consists mainly of Clinton wing of DemoRats (in
pocket of Wall Street) and neoliberal presstitutes in MSM.
Macron is seen as a former Rothschild banker who had the idea that he could 'modernise'
France in the neoliberal Brussels way. According to the latest poll 61% of the French reject
Macron's policies.
In less than two months, the yellow vests (" gilets jaunes " ) movement in
France has reshaped the political landscape in Europe. For a seventh straight week,
demonstrations continued across the country even after concessions from a cowed President
Emmanuel Macron while inspiring a wave of similar gatherings in neighboring states like Belgium
and the Netherlands. Just as el uture EU designer was fortunate enough to have friends in high
places. Schuman's clemency was granted by none other than General Charles de Gaulle himself,
the leader of the resistance during the war and future French President. Instantly, Schuman's
turncoat reputation was rehabilitated and his wartime activity whitewashed. Even though he had
knowingly voted full authority to Pétain, the retention of his post in the Vichy
government was veneered to have occurred somehow without his knowledge or consent.
... ... ...
Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared
in Counterpunch, Global Research, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, and more. Max
may be reached at [email protected]
Thierry Meyssan is reporting that Macron is more of a stooge for Henry Kravis (of the KKR
corporate raider firm) than for the Rothschilds. He also alleges that Kravis has been funding
ISIS/Daesh.
Rothschild made a comment the other day about the Italian government debt problem. French
banks have heavy exposure. France has troops in Syria; has the French army been leveraged
into a mercenary force for wealthy Zionists?
The article by Angela Nagle which is linked to is, however, absolutely excellent and I
thoroughly recommend reading it as a very powerful argument against unfettered
immigration.
Very perceptive to place "Resistance" between quotes. Resistance is non-existent in the
US. True resistance requires an educated working class; instead the US has a amassed one of
the most stupefied and brainwashed workers on the planet.
The Yellow Jackets movement isn't lost in the US, nor among those who support DJT. In
fact, until the Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement, both grass roots organized,
recognize they have a common enemy in the status quo, they will continue to conquered by
it.
The merge of fiscal and social responsibility is something the NWO wants to avoid at all
costs while they implement their global currency and totalitarian rule. Globalists want to
replace God with the state.
France and the US, like most nations, are controlled by the parasitical zionist central
bankers and their deep state apparatchiks. They continue to squeeze the native populations
into poverty and servitude, while destroying their culture with open borders, facilitating
3rd world immigration. The zionist controlled MSM won't cover the Yellow Vest movement in
hopes to keep awareness low. Many would like to see it gain a foothold in the US.
Unfortunately, Americans have been subject to fluoridation of their water supply, unlike
France, and thus are docile. The pharmaceuticals and vaccines have rendered them zombies.
"... Some years ago, I noticed the American media and politicians were sort of going soft (actually mushy) in the brain department, but I was told not to be so judgemental. As the months went by, I saw more and more people saying "they have gone nuts". So, it turns out I am not alone after all. ..."
"... That madness comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of your own opinion but groupthink, and manipulating the language to suit your ambitions (the Orwellism of the US media has been repeatedly pointed at). Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes, you go nuts. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies. All the more when they makes money out of it, which would be the case of all those think tanks and media. ..."
"... War or the threat of war is needed to distract attention from rapidly devolving societal bonds and immense economic inequality. ..."
Some years ago, I noticed the American media and politicians were sort of going soft
(actually mushy) in the brain department, but I was told not to be so judgemental. As the
months went by, I saw more and more people saying "they have gone nuts". So, it turns out I
am not alone after all.
That madness comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of your
own opinion but groupthink, and manipulating the language to suit your ambitions (the
Orwellism of the US media has been repeatedly pointed at). Simply put, you don't know anymore
what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes, you go nuts. The manipulators ends up
caught in their lies. All the more when they makes money out of it, which would be the case
of all those think tanks and media.
One could argue that they are not going mad, that they know full well they are lying, but
I beg to differ: they don't see anymore how ridiculous or how dumb or smart their arguments
are. That would be congruent with a real loss of touch with reality.
One wonders what
they see when they look at themselves in a mirror, a garden variety propagandist or a
fearless anti-Putin crusader?
It is partially tied direct to the economy of the warmongers as trillions of dollars of
new cold war slop is laying on the ground awaiting the MICC hogs. American hegemony is
primarily about stealing the natural resources of helpless countries. Now in control of all
the weak ones, it is time to move to the really big prize: The massive resources of Russia.
They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his
drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin, stopped the
looting .........connect the dots.
Watching the USA these days is like watching a loved one with progressive dementia. I've reached the stage where I think the
sooner it's over the better for everyone.
"... At risk of being censored and/or convicted of Thought Crime - it is *remarkable* how very highly disproportionate the number of Jewish Zionists is who are in the media and in Congress and in ThinkTankistan and shouting about Russian meddling, 'aggression,' and the like. ..."
"... I don't think Bill Kristol and David Frum and Jeff Goldberg are either honest nor primarily concerned with American national security, nor the lives of MENA civilians. I think they care only about using American blood and treasure to facilitate Israeli lebensraum, however bloody and expensive. ..."
"... Trump survives only if he dances for the Deep State *and* Likud. ..."
At risk of being censored and/or convicted of Thought Crime - it is *remarkable* how very
highly disproportionate the number of Jewish Zionists is who are in the media and in Congress
and in ThinkTankistan and shouting about Russian meddling, 'aggression,' and the like.
It's too bad it is forbidden to examine this phenomena as one part of the matrix of power
and lies leading the US into conflict with Russia, no?
I don't think Bill Kristol and David Frum and Jeff Goldberg are either honest nor
primarily concerned with American national security, nor the lives of MENA civilians. I think
they care only about using American blood and treasure to facilitate Israeli lebensraum,
however bloody and expensive.
Trump survives only if he dances for the Deep State *and* Likud.
"... Senate Resolution on December 19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline ..."
"... Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. ..."
Senator Ron Johnson (R- Wis) and Richard Durban (D-Ill) and 39 of their colleagues introduced a Senate Resolution on December
19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline" as shown
here :
Here is a list of co-sponsors of the resolution:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), ranking member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation; and Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ben Cardin
(D-Md.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), James Risch (R-Idaho),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.),
Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.),
Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Roger Wicker
(R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
Here is the resolution (currently unnumbered) in its entirety:
Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
... ... ...
Whereas the United States has important national interests in the Black Sea region, including the security
of three NATO littoral states, the promotion of European energy market diversification by ensuring unfettered European access
to energy exporters in the Caucuses and central Asia, and combatting use of the region by smugglers as a conduit for trafficking
in persons, narcotics, and arms;
Whereas the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a proposed underwater natural gas pipeline project that would provide
an additional 55,000,000,000 cubic meters of pipeline capacity from the Russian Federation to the Federal Republic of Germany
through the Baltic Sea;
Whereas the Russian Federation's state-owned oil and gas company, Gazprom, is the sole shareholder of the Nord
Stream 2 project;
Whereas, in 2017, there was spare capacity of approximately 55,000,000,000 cubic meters in the Ukrainian gas
transit system;
Whereas Gazprom cut off natural gas exports to Europe via Ukraine in 2006, and again in 2009, over supply and
pricing disputes with Ukraine's state-owned oil and gas company, Naftogaz;
Whereas transit of Russian natural gas to Europe via Ukraine declined precipitously after the completion of
Nord Stream 1 in 2011, falling from 80 percent to between 40 and 50 percent of Russia's total exports to Europe;
Whereas, in 2017, Russian gas accounted for 37 percent of Europe's natural gas imports, an increase of
5 percent over 2016;
Whereas, on December 12, 2018, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning both the
Russian Federation's aggression in the Kerch Strait and the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline; and
Whereas, on December 11, 2018, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution calling upon
the European
Union to reject the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and urging the President to use all available means to promote energy policies in
Europe that reduce European reliance on Russian energy exports:
... ... ...
(9) applauds and concurs with the European 2 Parliament's December 12, 2018, resolution condemning Russian aggression in the
Kerch Strait and
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, calling for the pipeline's cancellation due to its threat to European energy security, and calling
on the Russian Federation to
7 guarantee freedom of navigation in the Kerch Strait;
and
(10) urges the President to continue working with Congress and our allies to ensure the appropriate policies to deter the Russian
Federation from further aggression.
Fortunately, these two neocons can make all the proclamations they want but without President Trump's support it's all just
words; neocon virtue signalling. And of course President Trump won't support what they're doing because he campaigned on and governs
as an anti-war president.
Ron Johnson is a Bushie neocon who actively supported the neocon ˇJebe! (Please Clap) Bush while Durbin is a Hillary Clinton
neocon who actively supported that drunken, corrupt, warmongering shrew.
Thank all that's holy that we have a genuine anti-war POTUS in office and not either of those two neocons, both of whom were
utterly in the pockets of defense contractors.
Thanks for your research on relevant naval law. The Ukrainian vessel is reported to have violated the ongoing protocol by failing
to take on a Russian pilot as it transited the strait and an important bridge could potentially have been attacked by those vessels.
This was a provocation by Ukraine that seems to have its desired effect on the U.S. Senate. For essential background on the Ukrainian
civil war, I recommend reading Stephen F. Cohen's article in the Nation in 2014, titled "Kiev's atrocities and the Silence of
the Hawks." https://www.thenation.com/article/kievs-atrocities-and-silence-hawks/
So read the headline in The Washington Post , Aug. 18, 2011.
The story quoted President Barack Obama directly:
"The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is
standing in their way... the time has come for President Assad to step aside."
France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's David Cameron signed on to the Obama ultimatum: Assad
must go!
Seven years and 500,000 dead Syrians later, it is Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron who are gone.
Assad still rules in Damascus, and the 2,000 Americans in Syria are coming home. Soon, says
President Donald Trump.
But we cannot "leave now," insists Sen. Lindsey Graham, or "the Kurds are going to get
slaughtered."
Question: Who plunged us into a Syrian civil war, and so managed the intervention that were
we to go home after seven years our enemies will be victorious and our allies will "get
slaughtered"?
Seventeen years ago, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban for granting sanctuary
to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad is today negotiating for peace talks with that same Taliban.
Yet, according to former CIA director Mike Morell, writing in The Washington Post today, the
"remnants of al-Qaeda work closely" with today's Taliban.
It would appear that 17 years of fighting in Afghanistan has left us with these alternatives
:
Stay there, and fight a forever war to keep the Taliban out of Kabul,
or withdraw and let the Taliban overrun the place.
Who got us into this debacle?
After Trump flew into Iraq over Christmas but failed to meet with its president, the Iraqi
Parliament, calling this a "U.S. disregard for other nations' sovereignty" and a national
insult, began debating whether to expel the 5,000 U.S. troops still in their country.
George W. Bush launched Operation Iraq Freedom to strip Saddam Hussein of WMD he did not
have and to convert Iraq into a democracy and Western bastion in the Arab and Islamic
world.
Fifteen years later, Iraqis are debating our expulsion.
Muqtada al-Sadr, the cleric with American blood on his hands from the fighting of a decade
ago, is leading the charge to have us booted out. He heads the party with the largest number of
members in the parliament.
Consider Yemen. For three years, the U.S. has supported with planes, precision-guided
munitions, air-to-air refueling and targeting information, a Saudi war on Houthi rebels that
degenerated into one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the 21st century.
Belatedly, Congress is moving to cut off U.S. support for this war. Crown Prince Mohammed
bin Salman, its architect, has been condemned by Congress for complicity in the murder of
journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the consulate in Istanbul. And the U.S. is seeking a truce in the
fighting.
Who got us into this war? And what have years of killing Yemenis, in which we have been
collaborators, done to make Americans safer?
Consider Libya. In 2011, the U.S. attacked the forces of dictator Moammar Gadhafi and helped
to effect his ouster, which led to his murder.
Told of news reports of Gadhafi's death, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joked, "We came,
we saw, he died."
The Libyan conflict has since produced tens of thousands of dead. The output of Libya's
crucial oil industry has collapsed to a fraction of what it was. In 2016, Obama said that not
preparing for a post-Gadhafi Libya was probably the "worst mistake" of his presidency.
The price of all these interventions for the United States?
Some 7,000 dead, 40,000 wounded and trillions of dollars.
For the Arab and Muslim world, the cost has been far greater. Hundreds of thousands of dead
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, civilian and soldier alike, pogroms against
Christians, massacres, and millions uprooted and driven from their homes.
How has all this invading, bombing and killing made the Middle East a better place or
Americans more secure? One May 2018 poll of young people in the Middle East and North Africa
found that more of them felt that Russia was a closer partner than was the United States of
America.
The fruits of American intervention?
We are told ISIS is not dead but alive in the hearts of tens of thousands of Muslims, that
if we leave Syria and Afghanistan, our enemies will take over and our friends will be
massacred, and that if we stop helping Saudis and Emiratis kill Houthis in Yemen, Iran will
notch a victory.
In his decision to leave Syria and withdraw half of the 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, Trump
enraged our foreign policy elites , though millions of Americans cannot get out of there soon
enough.
In Monday's editorial celebrating major figures of foreign policy in the past half-century,
The New York Times wrote,
"As these leaders pass from the scene, it will be left to a new generation to find a way
forward from the wreckage Mr. Trump has already created."
Probably not. It is just the the USA imperial interest and Israeli interests highly correlate in this region.
Notable quotes:
"... Those who get their daily dose of lies from the NYTimes will believe what's written, as they believed Judith Miller's lies that helped get us into the Iraq war for the sake of Israel. ..."
"... And other lies by other liars for Mideast wars cooked up by loyal-to-Israel neocons. No Israel, no war. It's as simple as that. ..."
Mr. Giraldi ends on a hopeful note, that readers of Bret Stephen's article will conclude not that Trump is bad for Israel, but
that Israel is bad for America. Alas, wishful thinking.
Those who get their daily dose of lies from the NYTimes will believe what's written, as they believed Judith Miller's lies
that helped get us into the Iraq war for the sake of Israel.
And other lies by other liars for Mideast wars cooked up by loyal-to-Israel neocons. No Israel, no war. It's as simple
as that.
IOW time is running out for the neo-cons, and they're only going to get Iran destroyed
and hold onto power in the US through an outright Bolshevik style coup against the public
(some kind of fabricated National Emergency).
Well, we already had one "fabricated national emergency" -- the 9/11 false flag. Do you
think there'll be yet another? I mean something big, not like the Skripal thing.
As usual Philip Giraldi out writes the NYT hacks. Stephens and his cohorts at the Times are
constantly kvetching about Israel then they scream anti-Semitism if it's pointed out. It's
exhausting. I'm exhausted with neocons.
Trotskyism : the political, economic, and social principles advocated by Trotsky
especially the theory and practice of communism developed by or associated with Trotsky and
usually including adherence to the concept of worldwide revolution as opposed to socialism
in one country.
Pro-Zionist liberals such as those at the New York Times have the dilemma of how to
oppose President Trump, who pursues pro-Zionist policies. A solution seems to be to argue
that Trump is not really that pro-Zionist.
Inspired by the Scofield Bible, it is, regrettably, a fundamental belief of millions of
voters that Israel is good for America.
In John Hagee's words , '50 million evangelical bible-believing Christians unite with
five million American Jews standing together on behalf of Israel.'
The linked article concludes: 'Not least among the many victims of the Scofield Bible are
5 million Palestinian refugees whose right to return is fervently opposed by America's
Zionized Christians. Thanks to their indoctrination by Scofield's unholy book, they believe
that Palestine belongs not to the Palestinians -- many of whom are fellow Christians -- but
exclusively to "God's chosen people".'
I'm pleased to say I was not for moving the embassy and as for the Iran deal it was
better than the alternative, with the potential for further talks down the road. Stephens
didn't approve but both aspects of US foreign policy were good for the US. So why would we
expect him to?
Where the clash is going to come is the Democratic party is not going to put up with this
rubbish anymore. Yes there will be some holdovers (Schumer, Cardin et al.) but blanket
support is not going to play with the next congress. They will lose donor support as well as
media acceptance –from the Times– but Christian Zionism isn't a factor for Dem's
and constituents see that a brutal Israeli government that is focusing on attaching itself to
kindred spirit states led by strongman types, doesn't deserve support.
when we here about israel as the problem it is really not israel the country but israel the
people. they are spread out over many countries but all still believe in their cult of israel
i have read many times how the majority of them are not even ancestors of israel but are
instead converts form centuries ago there are lawsutis in the US against the government aid
to israel which vilotlates US law on providing aid to an undeclares nuke power,,,and against
aipac for not registering FARA,,,they have gone nowhere In my opinion, their whole power
comes from media control when the media goes on and on about bogus Russian influence and says
nothing of israel influence you know you have a problem
The World will never be free and peaceful until we can liberate AMERICAN & European
politcal, economic, military, intelligentsia, educational & cultural DECISION MAKING
CENTERS from destructive & inhuman ZIONIST lobby. As Stephen Walt & John Mearsheimr
wrote in their unique & worldwide known "US FOREIGN POLICY AND ISRAEL LOBBY" not only
these lobbying organizations are anti US interests but they are as well against the long term
interests of ISRAEL itself.
Briefly we should free mind of American people before all to have a ideal and productive
world.
Social Media has opened the door and continues to pave the path for the world to see the
truth of the Apartheid State of Israel and the struggle of the Palestinian People. Most
Americans are struggling themselves, so many won't make the effort to learn what's happening
to foreigners living half a world away. It's perfectly understandable. On the other hand,
there are others of us–and the number is growing exponentially–who feel a human
bond with the suffering and humiliation Palestinian People experience daily from an Apartheid
"ally" who we–through our American taxes–support. Our representatives in congress
are heavily influenced to vote for measures to support Netanyahu's Apartheid Regime. Use your
power of the pen to reach out to your local representative in congress to stop now. And keep
it up my Brothers and Sisters. Social Media is the Way!
Social Media has opened the door and continues to pave the path for the world to see the
truth of the Apartheid State of Israel and the struggle of the Palestinian People. Most
Americans are struggling themselves, so many won't make the effort to learn what's happening
to foreigners living half a world away. It's perfectly understandable. On the other hand,
there are others of us–and the number is growing exponentially–who feel a human
bond with the suffering and humiliation Palestinian People experience daily from an Apartheid
"ally" who we–through our American taxes–support. Our representatives in congress
are heavily influenced to vote for measures to support Netanyahu's Apartheid Regime. Use your
power of the pen to reach out to your local representative in congress to stop now. And keep
it up my Brothers and Sisters. Social Media is the Way!
This is what I said on Pat Buchanan's page about a comment, very apropos to this article,
also from the NY Times "That comment from the NY Times exposes how aligned the globalist
leftist elite is with the NEOCON globalist elite. There's 'no daylight' between characters
like 'Linda' Graham and 'Up Chuck' Schumer when it comes to globalist hegemony. Thank God for
Donald and keep America First!" The comment that Pat made his point on was this: 'In
Monday's editorial celebrating major figures of foreign policy in the past half-century, The
New York Times wrote', "As these leaders pass from the scene, it will be left to a new
generation to find a way forward from the wreckage Mr. Trump has already
created." This is what Pat attacked in his column.
Correct me if I'm wrong but America still has NO formal alliance treaty with the Jewish
State, no?
And finally 'Bret Stephens'; How clever they are with their names.
@Hamed
Ghashghavi The problem 'Hamed from Tehran' is that the Main Stream Media and the
political class in the USA is almost completely owned by the rich 'Zionist Lobby'.
For example: aid to Egypt is necessary because of Israel. It is how we pay off the
dictatorship for not pressing the Palestinian issue. So add another 1.5 billion.
Aid to Palestinians: another $500 million.
Tax deductible funds going towards settlement expansion: several hundreds of million if
not billion.
Aid to Jordan. Aid to Lebanon.
Add it all up and it probably is $20 billion each and every year.
I predict proactive Jewish Lobby Stink-Think Tanks have engineered plans to dramatically
influence Democrat Congress & presidential candidate elections, and which are underway
now.
Elections come and go but the Zio stump-song remains the same.
First, and as you should well understand Mark, particular campaigns for US Senate cost
$millions simply to get a candidate's mere "name" in front of ever longing & frustrated
American voters.
Of course, such efforts are enhanced by manifold "special interests" and billionaire
campaign contributions.
Regrettably, U.S. election campaign "donor support" (uh, speech?) trumps the will of the
paltry amount of Americans who indulge voting, and our Zionist Corporate Media obliges the
biggest beneficiary winner$, and can finagle ideologically blind & typically
GOP-Christian Zionist's to bloc vote for, i.e., brand-name & repackaged Zio Democrats,
Pocahontas, Bloomberg, Biden, Bob Casey, etcetera.
In short, Mark, the "brutal Israeli government" expertly followed Protocols of Zion by
neutering U.S. Congressional & Presidential democratic elections, and the Zionist
Corporate Media entertainingly promotes the THEATER.
National rejection of the great "rubbish" work of, for one little example, NYT's Bret
Stephens, is a giant step toward how America could become gallant/noble again, and afterward
repent & focus upon strivation to "greatness."
The proximate reason why Iran is a problem in this region is because Israel cannot resolve
the Palestinian issue. Iran is basically a gigantic wag the dog. Without this external ginned
up threat, Israel is simply stuck in a Palestinian mire.
A war with Iran would also serve as a pretext and cover for Israel to expel its remaining
Palestinians.
This is why they amp up the Iran threat. This is why they want to draw the United States
into a war with Iran. Fundamentally because they refuse to take responsibility for the
Palestinian issue that they created.
"I still say that US and Russia should come to Israels help in hour of need.
But Israel also should stop behaving like rotten spoiled child."
Russia can provide the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast" (already exists), and the U$A can
provide the means to move them there. Of course the FORMER Israel will have to pay for
everything.
I support Great Britain and France, that does not mean I approve of colonial behavior or
trouncing British or French identity. I can certainly support the existence of Is areal and
chagrin their attacks and encroachments onto Palestine uninvited and without compensation
or shooting protectors for the matter.
I tend to agree with you on this. No matter what one thinks of the morality of the events
of 1948, most of today's Israeli Jews were born on the land and have a right to live there.
They're no more responsible for the sins of their grandfathers than a modern German, except
to the extent that they help perpetuate continued injustice.
With that said, what frightens me is the extent to which some of them have been emboldened
by a combination of unchecked ethnocentrism and a sense of immunity from scrutiny and
criticism. Particularly in the realm of ethnic bioweapons. Most of the leading DNA analysis
companies seem to be Jewish-owned. It seems to be an area of emphasis with them. It was
reported 20 years ago that Israel has an anti-Arab virus. Who else might be a target?
Israeli participation in spyware and their access to raw NSA data is also concerning. How
do we know that the data isn't be used to intimidate Americans from speaking out, or to
siphon money from ordinary investors by insider trading?
@polistra Israel
is hardly a normal country. It is an Apartheid Colony. That's why it needs American support
and will need it for the foreseeable future. It uses its co-religionists in the US to
maintain an iron grip on US mideast policy, making sure that it is at the heart of it and
that almost no dissenting voices can ever be elected in the US or get any mainstream media
access. If that sounds like a normal country to you, I have a bridge for sale.
but as far your critisisms of Israel policy and 'undemocratic' and 'illiberal' stances
and actions.
well guess what
You're missing the thrust of Giraldi's position. Israel can do whatever it likes as long
as it doesn't entangle the US in their fight. But, as you well know, Israel is not interested
in fighting this fight alone. It has dragged others into it, including the US. As long as the
American taxpayer is forced to pay an annual tribute of ~$4B, they have every right to
condemn Israeli policies that clearly don't align with their values. So, get used to it.
Israel is no friend of America , never was , never has been and never will be, and just a few
examples, JFK was shot and killed in full view of Americans for his executive order 11110
which would have restored America to constitutional money bypassing the FED, who benefits?
The USS Liberty was attacked by Israel killing 34 and wounding 174 in an attempt to blame
the attack on Egypt and bring the U.S. into the war against Egypt and of course Israel lied
about the attack and got away with it!
... ... ...
Israel is Bad for America, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review
You have to hand it to the Israelis for conquering like Romans.
As for the US in Syria, it has always had the potential for handing us a "Charge of the
Light Brigade" moment where, like in the Crimean War, we manage to keep the Russians and the
Iranians checked in the region for a few years, but at a cost where even the dulled senses of
the US voter can't escape the toll taken to achieve this fleeting "strategic objective."
@bucky Aware,
Bucky said: "This is why they amp up the Iran threat. This is why they want to draw the
United States into a war with Iran."
Appreciate your posting of the wise sentences, above, bucky. Thanks.
Israel will never allow their territory expansion/M.E. hegemon goals to get interrupted by
mere U.S. elections.
The will and desires of American voters are easily manageable, manipulated, & another
major & fear-provoking "Homeland" False Flag attack, and voila, it's Fire & Fury upon
Syria and Iran.
Well, Israel itself isn't bad for us. Israel is a normal country defending its own
interests fiercely. Every country SHOULD defend its own interests fiercely
But it is HOW they defend those interests that is problematic. Hungary has insisted
that they will never tolerate a large number of migrants in their country. Hungary will be
for Hungarians. They do not wage wars, they do not commit ethnic cleansing in other people's
lands. They have merely closed their borders and that is a peaceful way in which they
fiercely protect their interests. The same goes for Japan. Despite a stagnating economy
caused by plummeting birth rates, the Japanese insist on a strict no immigrant policy. That
is a peaceful way of fiercely protecting their interests.
Israel on the other hand is anything but peaceful. They engage in ethnic cleansing and
drag the US (and whoever else they can con) into their conflicts. If we are looking for a
foreign example to emulate, there's no question about it – we should emulate Japan and
not Israel. Japan is a civilized nation where the people genuinely love their country. Israel
is a thuggish and fascist state that justly deserves all the opprobrium they shamelessly
whine about.
The level of alienation of Palestians probably reached that stage at which reconciliation is impossible.
Notable quotes:
"... This is why they amp up the Iran threat. This is why they want to draw the United States into a war with Iran. Fundamentally because they refuse to take responsibility for the Palestinian issue that they created. ..."
The proximate reason why Iran is a problem in this region is because Israel cannot resolve
the Palestinian issue. Iran is basically a gigantic wag the dog. Without this external ginned
up threat, Israel is simply stuck in a Palestinian mire.
A war with Iran would also serve as a pretext and cover for Israel to expel its remaining
Palestinians.
This is why they amp up the Iran threat. This is why they want to draw the United
States into a war with Iran. Fundamentally because they refuse to take responsibility for the
Palestinian issue that they created.
For example: aid to Egypt is necessary because of Israel. It is how we pay off the
dictatorship for not pressing the Palestinian issue. So add another 1.5 billion.
Aid to Palestinians: another $500 million.
Tax deductible funds going towards settlement expansion: several hundreds of million if
not billion.
Aid to Jordan. Aid to Lebanon.
Add it all up and it probably is $20 billion each and every year.
@bucky It's more
that that, specifically to Izruel . If you include 'Non Governmental Agencies', the
'Charaties' and hedge funds funneling unknown amounts of ZOG bucks to the land of Zion plus
other underhanded methods of getting money to their Zionist bretheren, it's in the tens of
billions .
Other than
brain-dead Christian fundamentalist, it come's as no surprise that Jews who wrote the Old and
New Testament, granted themselves special permission to violate virtually every moral law and
restriction known to mankind, including the right to steal land and resources belonging to
others. While, at the same time, giving themselves the right to condemn anyone daring to
point-out their lying and deceptive ways.
Realist, January 1, 2019 at 7:44 pm GMT
@bucky
Add it all up and it probably is $20 billion each and every year.
Middle East involvement costs trillions of dollars.
In these times, the real political debate is centered around the issues of migration and
national identity. It's what Brexit was all about. It's the reason the one thing all Trump
supporters really want him to do, is to build the wall. It would be an international symbol
of our longing for and right to nationhood a billion dollar monument to nationalism and a
trigger for nationalist revival.
This is why the forces of globalism will throw everything at stopping it's construction.
If Trump leaves office and that wall is not built, his presidency will have been for
naught.
"... They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Donald Trump is Bad for Israel ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
American journalism has become in its mainstream exponents a compendium of half-truths and
out-and-out lies. The public, though poorly informed on most issues as a result, has generally
figured out that it is being hoodwinked and trust in the Fourth Estate has plummeted over the
past twenty years. The skepticism about what is being reported has enabled President Donald
Trump and other politicians to evade serious questions about policy by claiming that what is
being reported is little more than "fake news."
No news is more fake than the reporting in the U.S. media that relates to the state of
Israel. Former Illinois congressman Paul Findley in his
seminal bookThey Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's
Lobby observed that nearly all the foreign press correspondents working out of Israel are
Jewish while most of the editors that they report to at news desks are also Jews, guaranteeing
that the articles that eventually surface in the newspapers will be carefully constructed to
minimize any criticism of the Jewish state. The same goes for television news, particularly on
cable news stations like CNN.
A particularly galling aspect of the sanitization of news reports regarding Israel is the
underlying assumption that Israelis share American values and interests, to include freedom and
democracy. This leads to the perception that Israelis are just like Americans with Israel's
enemies being America's enemies. Given that, it is natural to believe that the United States
and Israel are permanent allies and friends and that it is in the U.S. interest to do whatever
is necessary to support Israel, including providing billions of dollars in aid to a country
that is already wealthy as well as unlimited political cover in international bodies like the
United Nations.
That bogus but nevertheless seemingly eternal bond is essentially the point from which a
December 26 th op-ed in The New York Times departs. The piece is by one of
the Times' resident opinion writers Bret Stephens and is entitled
Donald Trump is Bad for Israel .
Stephens gets to the point rather quickly, claiming that "The president has abruptly
undermined Israel's security following a phone call with an Islamist strongman in Turkey. So
much for the idea, common on the right, that this is the most pro-Israel administration ever. I
write this as someone who supported Trump moving
the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and who praised his decision to
withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal as courageous
and correct . I also would have opposed the president's decision to remove U.S. forces from
Syria under nearly any circumstances. Contrary to the invidious myth that
neoconservatives always put Israel first, the reasons for staying in Syria have everything to
do with core U.S. interests. Among them: Keeping ISIS beaten, keeping faith with the Kurds,
maintaining leverage in Syria and preventing Russia and Iran from consolidating their grip on
the Levant."
The beauty of Stephens overwrought prose is that the careful reader might realize from the
git-go that the argument being promoted makes no sense. Bret has a big heart for the Kurds but
the Palestinians are invisible in his piece while his knowledge of other developments in the
Middle East is superficial. First of all, the phone call with Turkey's President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan had nothing to do with "undermining Israel's security." It concerned the northern
border of Syria, which Turkey shares, and arrangements for working with the Kurds, which is a
vital interest for both Ankara and Washington. And it might be added that from a U.S. national
security point of view Turkey is an essential partner for the United States in the region while
Israel is not, no matter what it pretends to be.
Stephens then goes on to demonstrate what he claims to be a libel, that for him and other
neocons Israel always comes first, an odd assertion given the fact that he spends 80% of his
article discussing what is or isn't good for Israel. He supports the U.S. Embassy move to
Jerusalem, the end of the nuclear agreement with Iran, both of which were applauded in Israel
but which are extremely damaging to American interests. He attacks the planned withdrawal from
Syria because it is a "core interest" for the U.S., which is complete nonsense.
Contrary to Stephens' no evidence assertion, Russia and Iran have neither the resources nor
the desire to "consolidate[e] their grip on the Levant" while it is the United States has no
right and no real interest to "maintain leverage" on Syria by invading and occupying the
country. But, of course, invading and occupying are practices that Israel is good at, so
Stephens' brain fart on the issue can perhaps be attributed to confusion over whose bad
policies he was defending. Stephens also demonstrate confusion over his insistence that the
U.S. must "resist foreign aggressors the Russians and Iranians in Syria in this decade,"
suggesting that he is unaware that both nations are providing assistance at the request of the
legitimate government in Damascus. It is the U.S. and Israel that are the aggressors in
Syria.
Stephens then looks at the situation from the "Israeli standpoint," which is presumably is
easy for him to do as that is how he looks at everything given the fact that he is far more
concerned about Israel's interests than those of the United States. Indeed, all of his opinions
are based on the assumption that U.S. policy should be supportive of a rightwing Israeli
government, that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has recently been indicted for
corruption and has called for an early election to subvert the process.
Bret finally comes to the point, writing that "What Israel most needs from the U.S. today is
what it needed at its birth in 1948: an America committed to defending the
liberal-international order against totalitarian enemies, as opposed to one that conducts a
purely transactional foreign policy based on the needs of the moment or the whims of a
president."
Stephens then expands on what it means to be liberal-international: "It means we should
oppose militant religious fundamentalism, whether it is Wahhabis in Riyadh or Khomeinists in
Tehran or Muslim Brothers in Cairo and Ankara. It means we should advocate human rights, civil
liberties, and democratic institutions, in that order."
Bret also throws America's two most recent presidents under the bus in his jeremiad, saying
"During the eight years of the Obama presidency, I thought U.S. policy toward Israel --
the
hectoring , the incompetent
diplomatic interventions , the moral
equivocations , the
Iran deal , the backstabbing at the
U.N. -- couldn't get worse. As with so much else, Donald Trump succeeds in making his
predecessors look good." He then asks "Is any of this good for Israel?" and he answers
"no."
Bret Stephens in his complaining reveals himself to be undeniably all about Israel, but
consider what he is actually saying. He claims to be against "militant religious
fundamentalism," but isn't that what Israeli Zionism is all about, with more than a dash of
racism and fanaticism thrown in for good measure? One Israeli Chief Rabbi has called black
people "monkeys" while another
has declared that gentiles cannot live in Israel. Right-wing religious fundamentalist
parties currently are in power with Netanyahu and are policy making for the Israeli Government:
Shas, Jewish Home, and United Torah Judaism. None of them could be regarded as a moderating
influence on their thuggish serial financial lawbreaker Prime Minister.
And isn't Israel's record on human rights and civil liberties among the worst in the world?
Here is the Human Rights Watch's assessment of Israel :
"Israel maintains entrenched discriminatory systems that treat Palestinians unequally. Its
50-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza involves systematic rights abuses, including
collective punishment, routine use of excessive lethal force, and prolonged administrative
detention without charge or trial for hundreds. It builds and supports illegal settlements in
the occupied West Bank, expropriating Palestinian land and imposing burdens on Palestinians
but not on settlers, restricting their access to basic services and making it nearly
impossible for them to build in much of the West Bank without risking demolition. Israel's
decade-long closure of Gaza, supported by Egypt, severely restricts the movement of people
and goods, with devastating humanitarian impact."
Israel, if one is considering the entire population under its rule, is among the most
undemocratic states that chooses to call itself democratic. Much of the population living in
lands that Israel claims cannot vote, they have no freedom of movement in their homeland, and
they have no right of return to homes that they were forced to abandon. Israeli army snipers
blithely shoot unarmed demonstrators while Netanyahu's government kills, beats and imprisons
children. And the Jewish state does not even operate very democratically even inside Israel
itself, with special rights for Jewish citizens and areas and whole towns where Muslims or
Christians are not allowed to buy property or reside.
It is time for American Jews like Bret Stephens to come to the realization that not
everything that is good for Israel is good for the U.S. The strategic interests of the two
countries, if they were openly discussed in either the media or in congress, would be seen to
be often in direct conflict. Somehow in Stephens' twisted mind the 1948 theft of Palestinian
lands and the imposition of an apartheid system to control the people is in some way
representative of a liberal world order.
If one were to suggest that Stephens should move to Israel since his primary loyalty clearly
lies there, there would be accusations of anti-Semitism, but in a sense, it is far better to
have him stick around blathering from the pulpit of The New York Times . When he
writes so ineptly about how Donald Trump Is Bad for Israel the real message that comes through
loud and clear is how bad Israel is for America.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected].
When historians examine the first few decades of the so-called post-Cold War era, they are
likely to marvel at the clumsy and provocative policies that the United States and its NATO
allies pursued toward Russia. Perceptive historians will conclude that a multitude of
insensitive actions by those governments poisoned relations with Moscow, and by the latter
years of the Obama administration, led to the onset of a new cold war. During the Trump
administration, matters grew even worse, and that cold war threatened to turn hot.
Since the history of our era is still being written, we have an opportunity to avoid such a
cataclysmic outcome. However, the behavior of America's political, policy, and media elites in
response to the latest parochial quarrel between Russia and Ukraine regarding the Kerch
Strait suggests that they learned nothing from their previous blunders. Worse, they seem
determined to intensify an already counterproductive, hardline policy toward Moscow.
U.S. leaders managed to get relations with Russia wrong just a few years after the
dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. One of the few officials to capture the
nature of the West's bungling and how it fomented tensions was Robert Gates, who served as
secretary of defense during the final years of George W. Bush's administration and the first
years of Barack Obama's. In his surprisingly
candid memoirs , Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War , Gates recalls his report to
Bush following the 2007 Munich Security Council, at which Russian President Vladimir Putin
vented about Western security transgressions, including the planned deployment of a missile
defense system in Central Europe.
"When I reported to the president my take on the Munich conference, I shared my belief that
from 1993 onward, the West, and particularly the United States, had badly underestimated the
magnitude of the Russian humiliation in losing the Cold War . . . ." Yet even that blunt
assessment given to Bush did not fully capture Gates's views on the issue. "What I didn't tell
the president was that I believed the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after
[George H. W.] Bush left office in 1993. Getting Gorbachev to acquiesce to a unified Germany as
a member of NATO had been a huge accomplishment. But moving so quickly after the collapse of
the Soviet Union to incorporate so many of its formerly subjugated states into NATO was a
mistake."
Specific U.S. actions were ill-considered as well, in Gates's view. "U.S. agreements with
the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a
needless provocation."
His list of foolish or arrogant Western actions went on. Citing NATO's military
interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo during Bill Clinton's administration, Gates noted that "the
Russians had long historical ties with Serbia, which we largely ignored." And in an implicit
rebuke to his current boss, Gates asserted that "trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO
was truly overreaching." That move was a case of "recklessly ignoring what the Russians
considered their own vital national interests." Indeed, events regarding Ukraine after Gates
completed his memoirs illustrated that U.S. arrogance and meddling knew few bounds. U.S.
officials openly sided with
demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian government, and then reacted with
shock and anger when Russia retaliated by seizing and annexing Crimea.
Gates's overall assessment of Western, especially U.S., policy toward Russia during the
post-Cold War era was unsparingly harsh -- and devastatingly accurate: "When Russia was weak in
the 1990s and beyond, we did not take Russian interests seriously. We did a poor job of seeing
the world from their point of view and managing the relationship for the long term."
Unfortunately, Gates was one of the rare anomalies in the American foreign policy community
regarding policy toward Russia.
His criticism, trenchant as it is, still understates the folly of the policies that the
United States and its NATO allies have pursued toward Moscow. The treatment that three
successive U.S. administrations meted out to a newly capitalist, democratic Russia was
appalling myopic. Even before Vladimir Putin came to power -- and long before Russia descended
into being an illiberal democracy and then an outright authoritarian state -- the Western
powers treated the country as a de facto enemy. The NATO nations engaged in a series of
provocations even though Moscow had engaged in no aggressive conduct that even arguably
justified such actions.
The determination to confront Russia has only grown over the years, as the current tensions
involving the Kerch Strait illustrate. When Russian security forces fired on three Ukrainian
naval vessels that attempted to force a transit of the Kerch Strait (a narrow waterway between
Russia's Taman Peninsula and Russian-annexed Crimea that connects the Black Sea and Sea of
Azov), the United States and its NATO allies reacted furiously. U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Nikki Haley branded Russia's conduct "
outlaw actions ."
An array of U.S. lawmakers and pundits advocate
highly provocative steps in response. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) the incoming chairman of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, urged an increase in U.S. arms sales to Ukraine, asserting,
"If Putin starts seeing Russian soldier fatalities, that changes his equation."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) threatened new sanctions on
Russia and called for a coordinated response between the United States and its European allies.
"If Putin continues his Black Sea bullying," Inhofe stated, "the United States and Europe must
consider imposing additional sanctions on Russia, inserting a greater U.S. and NATO presence in
the Black Sea region and increasing military assistance for Ukraine."
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) echoed those views. Menendez called for tougher sanctions,
additional NATO exercises on the Black Sea and more U.S. security aid to Ukraine, "including
lethal maritime equipment and weapons." Some hawks even seem receptive to Ukrainian President
Petro Poroshenko's call on NATO to station warships in the
Sea of Azov, even though such a step would likely lead to a shooting war between the West and
Russia.
Far too many Western (especially American) analyses explicitly or implicitly act as though
the United States and its NATO allies worked assiduously to establish cordial relations with
Russia but were compelled to adopt hardline policies solely because of Russia's perversely
aggressive conduct. That is a distorted, self-serving portrayal on the part of NATO partisans.
It falsely portrays the West as purely a reactive player -- that NATO initiatives were never
insensitive, provocative, or aggressive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the
opposite is closer to the mark; Russia's actions, both in terms of timing and virulence, tended
to be responses to aggressive Western initiatives. Unfortunately, avid NATO supporters seem
determined to double down, insisting that the Trump administration adopt even more
uncompromising policies.
Contending that Moscow is to blame for the deterioration of East-West relations because of
its military actions in Georgia and Ukraine, as U.S. opinion leaders tend to do, is especially
inaccurate. The problems began much earlier than the events in 2008 and 2014. The West
humiliated a defeated adversary that showed every sign of wanting to become part of a broader
Western community. Expanding NATO and trampling on Russian interests in the Balkans were
momentous early measures that torpedoed friendly relations.
Such policy myopia was reminiscent of how the victorious Allies inflicted harsh treatment on
a defeated, newly democratic Weimar Germany after World War I. The NATO powers are treating
Russia as an enemy, and there is now a serious danger that the country is turning into one.
That development would be an especially tragic case of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at , is the author of 12 books and more than 750 articles on international
affairs. His latest book is Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic
Movements (forthcoming, February 2019).
The reason "we did a poor job of seeing the world from their point of view and managing
the relationship for the long term" is because we are arrogant and prone to meddling. It's
called American Exceptionalism, also known as American Imperialism. The future looks grim,
and, in my view, the current Cold War with Russia feels a lot more dangerous than the
original one because our leaders have upped the belligerence by orders of magnitude. At least
in the original Cold War the objective was merely containment of Communism. Our current
leaders want nothing short of global domination.
Another very insightful piece by Ted Galen Carpenter, and one that illustrates the
importance of seeing the other's point of view. Victors always see a settlement as final --
problem solved: the vanquished view it as temporary, to be reversed at the soonest opportunity.
What is being witnessed now is perhaps 'the tragic case of a self-fulfilling prophecy', but
perhaps also the pattern of history. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I have a family full of people who believe in American Exceptionalism. In their view,
nothing the US or allies do can be wrong because the US is exceptional.
More than 20 years ago I started telling them the US and NATO are provoking Russia by
extending NATO into former Soviet states. This was revealed almost exactly one year ago:
During the past two decades, US politicians running for federal office were more concerned
about family Values, cutting taxes or expanding the social safety net. No one appeared to run
on a platform of expanding NATO or being concerned about Ukraine or a new cold war. I suspect
that the average voter has no clue as to who Victoria Nuland is and the role she played in
overthrowing the pro-Russian band of corrupt politicians in Ukraine in favor of a more pro-NATO
band of corrupt Neo-Nazi politicians.
How many American mothers want their sons in the military to be sent off to war to fight
over Sevastopol?
A great article. Basically, Ted Galen Carpenter points to the *irrationality* of the
American foreign policy establishment towards the world's only other strategically (as opposed
to defensively) nuclear-armed nation. Is irrational animus against such a country dangerous?
Very.
"Global domination" isn't twaddle, Brian. The 2018 National Defense Strategy lists as one of
our objectives "Maintaining
favorable regional balances of power in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and the
Western Hemisphere."
Africa isn't on this particular list, but we have troops stationed in Niger, Somalia,
Djibouti, and Cameroon. We are seeking to establish a base in Ghana.
I think "global domination" is a fair description of our actual goal.
Average life expectancy in Russia declined as neoliberal and capitalist exploitation abetted
by Yeltsin gave rise to organized oligarchy.
Today, average life expectancy in the US is declining.
The US really needs a Gorbachev. Doesn't look like it will get one before all the
manufactured "Russia!" hysteria carries us to the end of the Moment of Unipolar Disorder.
I am in full agreement with this article. I am not alone. In 1998 George Kennan made his
final public pronouncement on US foreign policy in the NYT. He cautioned that American and
Western eagerness to expand NATO would trigger a new Cold War and was folly. Mikhail Gorbachev
has no love for Putin who put an end to Gorbie's desires to lead a social democratic party in
Russia. However, he has echoed Kennan in condemning an aggressive NATO and finding the West up
to their eyeballs in the Ukraine debacle. Let's not forget that Under Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland was in Kiev throughout the Maidan Square uprising -- baking cookies for
militants and condemning Euros for considering new elections in the Ukraine instead of a coup.
To finish seasoning the brother, CIA Chief James Brennan visited Kiev in April 2014 -- an
amazing action really. CIA chiefs do not usually show up in the middle of an international
trouble spot -- but obviously Obama didn't mind the message. We don't have to like Putin to
realize that the Russian public feels genuinely aggrieved by Western policies since the Cold
War ended, especially after the close US involvement with the Yeltsin debacle.
In Cold War it was not modern Russia that was defeated, but rather Soviet Union and the
whole idea of Communism. Russian Federation is not the USSR, it is a capitalist state (OK one
can say "wild" or "croney" capitalist- it does not really matter, "capitalist" is the key word
here). The only thing all last Soviet/Russian leaders desired, including Gorbachev, Eltsin and
early Putin- was to become junior partners of the West in general and US in particular. It was
very clear from all they did and said at that time. Basically what was needed from the West is
to do smth like second Potsdam and co-opt Russia in the new world order. That was a golden
opportunity moment because at that moment Russian leadership and population in general would
sign under such policy.
How US managed to get in the situation where we are now is an interesting question for future
historians (providing that in the future there will be historians and not radioactive
dust).
Buf may be a clue here is the position of military-industrial complex? How else they can get
their unaccounted trillions? Russia is the ideal enemy. US can not live without a real enemy
for God knows what reason. There is some existential problem may be.
But one thing should be taken into account. Russia has a long tradition of defeating would-be
global hegemons. It would be a major folly if US joins that list.
The idea of territorial conquest and control as a means of growing prosperity for a
civilization is obsolete. Exploration and colonization of space, the pursuit of fusion power,
addressing our living arrangements, and so on, should be where we are striving to excel, not
poking a nuclear armed bear with a stick.
However, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The unimaginative in our
nation's government, who can't see their own brokenness, should go into retirement and let
people with a vision that promotes peace and stability and real progress have a turn at the
wheel for a change.
Putin will be dead in two decades, maybe less, and Russia will start backsliding and
probably break apart even further. China, in its zeal to maintain control, will remain what it
always had been, an intelligent people hamstrung by a rigid mandarin overclass. Neither of
these so-called powers are worth spending any more time on.
Let America and the West build a permanent presence on the Moon and Mars. What then of
Crimea?
@Michael Kenney: if you are so convinced that military force is needed to stop Putin, stop
preaching idiocies and go to Ukraine and sign up with the many neo-Nazi paramilitaries there
and get to fighting. They take foreign volunteers.
The more one pays attention, the more one realizes that "1984" was not fiction we have
always been (we NEED to be) at war with Eurasia.
After all, the aim of modern war is not to win we have not had a Victory that matters since
1945. The aim of modern war is $$ and career advancement for the connected few. War posture
against a credible enemy is essential.
Thank you for that comment, Observer. You are a Russian, no? That's what your English
suggests to me. I hope you keep commenting here -- we Americans need a little perspective.
Quote 1) U.S. officials openly sided with demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine's elected,
pro-Russian government,
Worse still, they sided with, if not directly empowered the very worst, openly fascist
elements of Ukrainian society who directly spearheaded the overthrow. mere months before new
elections. In essence, a repeat of the m.o. of the 1953 Iranian coup. Atlantic Council
ideologues can fabricate a progressive liberal agenda for Maidan ad nauseum and to
ever-diminishing effect. It was Nuland's 'dark colors' that did the heavy lifting, and very
likely by direct collusion and design. Woe be to our machinations.
Quote 2)and then reacted with shock and anger when Russia retaliated by seizing and annexing
Crimea.
Russia did not 'seize' Crimea. Crimeans in the vast majority willingly seceded from Ukraine
and joined Russia, as they had already attempted at various times for decades and as a de facto
'autonomous republic' had every right to do. Certainly at least as much right as Slovenia did
in its unilateral secession, sans referendum and sans a state coup instigating it.
Other than the de rigueur western soundbites, much in this article is directly on point.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
December 10, 2019 © Photo: Wikipedia Donald John Trump has turned back the clock in the Western Hemisphere to an era that saw coups and political unrest as the order of the day. Trump and his administration of far-right anti-socialists and pro-fascists have already overthrown the democratically-elected government of President Evo Morales of Bolivia. Trump has announced a policy of turning up the heat on President Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela by ratcheting up the economic blockade of Cuba, a Venezuelan ally.
Print this article
December 9, 2019 | Editor's Сhoice US and UK Military-Intelligence Apparatus Campaigns to Destroy Jeremy Corbyn Days before Britain's historic election, the UK's military-intelligence apparatus is turning to the corporate media and US government-funded NATO cut-outs to smear Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn with evidence-free Russiagate allegations.
Also from EDITOR'S CHOICE EDITOR'S CHOICE
The Saudi/US Partnership: Evil Begets Evil
To the top
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
Sputnik Screenshot Screenshot of a Facebook post by Serhii Filimonov showing "Gonor" members in Hong Kong
Sputnik Screenshot Serhii Filimonov post showing Ukrainian far-right figures posing in front of Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Sputnik Screenshot Poster for an "academy of street protest" featuring lectures by several Ukrainian far-right figures
Sputnik Screenshot Facebook post by "Free Hong Kong Center" defending "Gonor" members' visit to Hong Kong
Your
comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
Subscribe
<img src="https://foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/themes/foreign-policy-2017/assets/src/images/logos/FP.svg" alt="Foreign Policy Magazine" >
![[X]](https://foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/themes/foreign-policy-2017/assets/src/images/icons/close-black.svg){kind=icon}
euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
© AFP 2018 / Timothy A. CLARY Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard Speaks the Truth on Syria, Gets Smeared by the Mainstream Media
© AP Photo / Marco Garcia 'Assad's
Mouthpiece in Washington': Controversial Dem. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Announces 2020
Run
© REUTERS / Omar Sanadiki US Lawmakers
Call for Syria Strategy Where Assad Leaving Post, Russian Military Pulls Out
©
AP Photo/ J. Scott Applewhite
House Democrats Will Expand Russiagate in 2019 to Push Trump Toward War
